There is a correlation between MBA's and Wall Street jobs. Otherwise, this article offers nothing but a bitter, cynical tone. I received my MBA, where I learned a great deal about operations, strategy, marketing, finance and more. We were taught theory, and worked in teams to study the results of actual business practices. We also significantly cover ethics, and among others I took a class on how business objectives can be aligned with socially responsibility. If anything, what I learned in business school has taught me to be critical of what has happened on Wall Street. My degree also emphasized the use of evidence and common sense, which has been lacking in all aspects of the financial industry (and perhaps journalism, too). My MBA has also undoubtedly helped my career in media strategy. So, I offer up my personal experience as evidence that MBA's can be and are useful. I suggest that those looking to critique business school (like anything) look to the actual use of evidence and not just snarky rants.

all that time and energy spent on "case studies" real and imagined--couldn't a better and higher use be found? www.DMHolmesLaw.com

Here is someone who is claiming to have the inside scoop on MBA's and what the students think and learn. Yet, he doesn't even have an MBA (he doesn't show that he has that many credentials in general, only some experience as a management consultant) and therefore no experience to point to in order to validate what he's talking about (it's like Al Gore trying to be a scientific expert on environmental issues, lol)! How can he know what goes on in the MBA programs if he's never been there? And overall, he doesn't appear to have any valid sources for the allegations he makes (he comes off as someone who is just whining and complaining about the economy). Yeah, business schools teach students about business, but from my experience, it doesn't mean it teaches them to be unethical. It's quite the opposite. They have a big emphasis on ethics and reputation, not just on making a profit… they highlight and go over ethical misconduct cases all the time! Anyway, I think there are some major flaws in this article and the author's subjective interpretations of the business environment. The issue of whether or not the demand for MBA graduates is decreasing is a separate analysis in itself and needs the data to back up that statement (although it seems obvious that the demand for MBA graduates would be going down during a recession… it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out). The other thing I thought was funny is that he was basically saying that it was MBA (or highly business educated) graduates who were the cause of mismanagement of the financial sector that was most impacted by the financial crises. I believe that to be a completely invalid statement. Again, he is making these allegations and has absolutely no data to back them up except for his feelings (I guess that's because he hasn't had enough business schooling to learn how to properly present analyses, :)). Anyway, it looks like he has been angry at the current financial crises and he is looking for something or someone to blame for it, and somehow came up with the idea that the source of all evil is business schooling, since he is not included in that group. But… this is just my take on it. I don't know the guy at all. But if he wants to get across a point and declare it to be valid, he should probably back up is analysis...

A dead-on article, and the tone of some of the replies just tells you how sharply you hit a nerve. The utter vacuity of MBA curricula has been known on campuses for a long time. Check here for the reputation, among Ph.D. students at least: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=914 Finally, our first and only president with an MBA was ... George W. Bush. Honestly, this should settle the debate right there.

Hate to break it to you, but the guy insuring CDS's at AIG is NOT an MBA. Neither is the risk mgmt guy at Bear, or the derivatives guy at Goldman, or the trader at Morgan Stanley, or the research guy at all those quant shops that blew up in Aug-07. Finance MBA's simply do not know enough math for these positions, which are instead held by PhD's, econ masters, financial engineering guys, former physicists, etc. Finance MBA's usually do 1) inv banking (M&A or the corporate side, not the structuring side), 2) fundamental (not quant) investment research, or 3) corp finance for a MSFT or Gap or some big firm. So you've got the wrong guys here.

Oh man, this is rich. I love these articles, proclaiming an MBA degree is not worthless, something that has always been true and now is REALLY true. That statement is not only the argument itself, but is also somehow the substance of the logic of the argument too. The only logic I can see is that a lot of people in finance/banking have MBA's--since the banking industry has failed recently, that proves that the MBA is a worthless degree. This is without question one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. It is simple causation vs. correlation, and the claims are unsupported, begging a very simple question: ON WHAT RESEARCH/CRITERIA/FACTS ARE YOU BASING YOUR CONCLUSIONS? Just think about the logic here. Most everyone in finance/banking has bachelors degrees in business as well. Are these bachelors degrees also worthless? In addition, just how exactly is an MBA degree "flawed." How does it harm someone to learn the concepts of bond valuation, net present value, cost accounting, etc. Some of these statements are just so far off that they eliminate any sense of credibility that the rest of the article had. There are just so many irresponsible claims made here about business school, it is impossible to not point them out: "The truth is that the relevance of the technical training allegedly offered by the MBA was always overblown." I beg to differ. The technical training is actually very applicable to the real world in finance. The valuation and finance principles you learn are very relevant. Stuff like the discounted cash flow method, comparables analysis and other valuation concepts are all extremely valuable skills and are the exact methods used in the investment banking fields. The accounting classes are also very integral to a career in finance. I mean, this is so obvious it is amazing that I have to point it out. How in the hell can you make the argument that managerial accounting is not relevant or useful? How does it hurt to learn this? How is it better not learning this? "Most of the first year goes into heavy partying, and the second year is really a marathon job fair." This is so incorrect it is ridiculous. Who the hell told you that? That is absolutely incorrect. Granted, people do go out some in business school, but as far as deeming it "partying," that is absolutely not the case. Most business school students are past their partying days and got that out of their system in college. Funny, a good number of my classmates are married, many with kids. These people are not what you would call party animals. In addition, this statement itself is all wrong--most of the first year is consumed with the job search process. Most students receive offers for full-time employment when they graduate from their summer internships, so there is absolutely no job search needed for many second years. If there were a time to "party," I guess this would be it. "It was the market fundamentalism that dominates business school thinking that assured us that markets are self-regulating...The only semblance of a theory behind modern business education is that it purportedly produces 'experts' in shareholder-value maximization who are capable of forming an ideal, self-regulating market." Okay, first of all, I am not even sure what the hell this even means. I have never heard the terminology "self-regulating markets" in my life, and I most certainly have never been taught how "an ideal, self-regulated market." That is one of the most retarded things I have ever heard in my life. Please, someone tell me, how does one go about "forming" a market? Funny, you can tell the author is trying to sound like he knows what he is talking about, using these stupid big words he probably just looked up on thesaurus.com (a pretty cool site he uses a lot--he has it bookmarked!). Where do you get this info? I bet you typed in "finance" or "investment banking" into Wikipedia and all of the sudden you think you can summarize the entire line of reasoning that provides the basis for the myriad of subjects provided in business school (finance, accounting, marketing, statistics, etc.). And let me make one thing clear. No matter how much you may despise the millionaires on Wall Street, this financial crisis will not mark "the end" of the MBA. In 2-3 years, recruiting will be right back to where it was before. No matter how much you may not like it, Harvard MBAs will always be smarter than you, will always work harder than you, and will always make more money than you. Why? There are many reasons, but let's just take investment banking. There will always be value in raising capital and advising firms on mergers and acquisitions (the two primary functions of investment banking) because it requires high levels of intelligence, skill and determination. Now before everyone goes and gets their panties in a wad, let's consider a little real world example. When you're the CEO of Gillette and Proctor and Gamble comes to you with an $80 billion dollar offer, which requires a decision in 3 days, WHO WOULD YOU CALL? You can bet your ass you will be picking up the phone offering millions to some Goldman Sachs bankers to advise you on this transaction. For an $80 billion offer, you will gladly pay tens of millions in fact. Why? Because you don't have the slightest clue if your company is worth $40 billion or $120 billion. But an investment banker does. And guess what? Who is going to perform the valuation on Gillette, working 20-hour days 3 days straight to make sure this gets done? You guessed it. Most likely a banker with an MBA. If you think for a second that any CEO in this situation would ever call up a firm with employees educated in the "humanities" field, then you are a big dumb idiot, and you would get fired in a second.

Matthew Stewart is entitled to his opinion, even a wrong one such as this sorry article. His emotional diatribe is just another chapter in what has become the no. 1 sport in America today--bashing Wall Street and anything remotely tied to it. Is Matthew that desperate for readership or attention? By pandering to an enraged populace, Stewart is guilty of the same unscrupulous act of playing to an audience and going with the flow similar to those MBA-laden Wall Street fund managers who compromised their morals and education to ride the wave and do what was popular at the time, which led to the undoing of our financial system.

It is fascinating to me how the uneducated mind tends to jump to generalizations and false associations so easily. If an MBA professional misbehaves and commits a fraudulent act, is that the fault of the program itself, or the individual? What about police or legal authorities who abuse their powers? Should we eliminate law or crime prevention as a discipline then? Absurd. To add to his embarrassment, Stewart has the gall to question the value of higher training (M.D.) for medical doctors. Is Matthew a snob, then, who is simply too good for higher education or any intense technical training? It is certainly the attitude he writes with in this article which smacks of high school journalism at best. If this is any indication of his upcoming book, then it wouldn't be worth much, either.

As an MBA graduate, I defer to the judgment of greater minds like Peter Drucker who wisely noted that, in a world filled with organizations, good management has become a keeper of civilization. Naysayers like Matthew Stewart aside, I take it as a high calling to serve society's ends as an effective manager of resources and people. It is where the true value of an MBA education lies.

James B.

it is pretty shocking that those "mba" people choose to ignore the high correlation between failed corporation with the number of mba educated employees they have. wait, were they learning about correlation at schools?

sure, not all ceo from failed corporations (or going to be soon, i.e: finance, consulting, the like) have mba's. but if you closely look at the middle layer of any mid-size to (especially) big company, you will see bunch of mba's educated personnel feed "valuable" strategies/recommendations/action plans/whatever you want to name these craps to the highers up.

think of a fat person analogy. when fat people walk (basic human-being activity), parts of his body what work the hardest are from leg-down, to support the body. think this as the people who do the actual leg-work (i.e: real jobs, not just some made-up "heavenly-created" recommendations)

then come the ass and big fat stomach. think of these are those mba's.

so, what kind of craps these fat-storage parts of the body supply to the head (especially brainless head)? only more instructions to keep fattening the belly ...

still don't see my point? let me try below:
engineers --> balance of short-term and long-term performance and maintenance.
most engineering fields have code of conduct.

doctors ? see engineers.

mba? greedy is good ... crush the competition ... think ONLY profits/revenues/market share...
code of conduct? the more $$$ gained, the better you are ...regardless how you got them.

to think these low-lives still have the guts to argue? priceless...

You mean to tell me that MBA are largely useless? Or that people with MBAs tend to not know anything? Really? You don't say?

Actually, this is something that computer scientists and engineers have known for years, if not decades. I guess everyone else is just finding out. Ok, but seriously...

Judging by the people I know, I would say that by farthest, **on average** MBAers are by far the dumbest. Sometimes it makes me wonder how did they even get accepted into college. I took a few business classes and I haven't learned a thing. You basically get graded based on being able to memorize vocabulary words, while the tests attempt to trick you, and my professor would teach to the test. Really, if you think about it, getting an MBA is on par on getting a drivers licenses, and the classes are like driving school--- your instructor knows what all the questions are.

If you wish to improve your skills in the business world, I would look elsewhere--- say financing, accounting, marketing, even economics. Even (pop) psychology would teach you a good chunk of what you would learn while pursuing an MBA.

I don't get why so many people choose to pursue an MBA. Is it because they all think they're going to be rich. Or because they can't make it in other fields and/or are too lazy to even try. Some combination of the above. But wait, the worst part is--- they don't even know they don't know anything. And thats the worse kind of ignorance.

Look, I am not trying to say that MBAs are **completely** useless. Sure, if you already have a real degree or other real world skill-- getting that piece of paper (you know, to "better yourself") on top of your degree might come in handy, giving you a small edge. However, an MBA by itself is pretty useless.

I hope the author Matthew Stewart utilizes more compelling arguements in his recommendations to his clients. If not, I would be very concerned and hopefully would seek another "consultant."

1. "...from top business schools" - how are you defining "top business schools?"
- Does your argument only represent facts? Does it only represent data pertaining to 10 or 20 business schools?

2. "The truth is that the relevance of the technical training allegedly offered by the MBA was always overblown"
- This grabbed my attention, but I failed to see any compelling argument.

3. "ethics and integrity and social responsibility aren't just optional extras for good business management—unless by 'management,' you mean 'looting.' Managers don't need to be trained; they need to be educated—in the sense of 'civilized.' Unfortunately, a business degree isn't just irrelevant to that purpose; it's positively detrimental."
- You didn't provide any supporting evidence/data. I'm really questioning your credibility at this point. I encourage good journalists to pursue credible arguments on the topics of ethics, integrity, and social responsiblility; however, you failed to provide any credible evidence/argument. I'm a major supporter of ethical behavior, integrity, and social responsibility, yet you haven't made any credible arguments.

4. "After all, as many of my business school friends have pointed out, most of the first year goes into heavy partying, and the second year is really a marathon job fair."
- What schools did "business school friends" attend? What specific programs? Are you globalizing in your conclusions?
- "Heavy partying?" Are you certain this is correct?
- "...the second year is really a marathon job fair." Are your facts correct? Are they actually facts? Should you be writing this article?

5. "The only semblance of a theory behind modern business education is that it purportedly produces 'experts' in shareholder-value maximization who are capable of forming an ideal, self-regulating market."
- I suggest further research and a more compelling argument.

6. "The reality is that business school is now chiefly a community of intention. It brings together people who share certain career aspirations—for the most part, to make big bucks—and occupies their time teaching them a few technical things that they don't need to know, along with a code of conduct that says, in essence, whatever is legal is ethical; and if it makes money, it's a positive duty.
- Just how much research have you performed prior to writing thi s argument/article? Please elaborate with actual data.

7. "It's now clear that we would have all been much better off if, instead of cloistering these people on fancy campuses with world-class golf courses, we'd have sent them off to do two years of national service."
- It's not clear to me.
- How many of these purported "fancy" campuses have "world-class golf courses?" What are you insinuating - that all MBA candidates golf? Are you now attacking golf? That's fine, but substantiate any arguements that you choose to pose.

8. "Maybe they and their students could even learn to report on it, the way that journalists used to do."
- Where are you going with this statement? It comes across as an attack by an insecure individual, but your statement appears to lack substance.

NOTE TO SLATE: If Matthew should continue to write (and I suggest other pursuits based on this article and a couple of others that I found via a Google search), I highly recommend that he focus on writing more compelling arguments. Stay away from anectodal evidence - you make yourself appear to lack knowledge and credibility in this article. Stick to facts and to compelling arguements if you have any desire to earn a repuation as a credible author.

ABOUT THIS AUTHOR:
Peter Rovick is a 40-year-old MBA candidate at Babson College. He is a member of the Babson Graduate Judicial Board and fully supports daily attempts by all people to strive for higher levels of ethical, moral, and legal behavior.
He believes in honesty, objectivity, leadership-by-example, integrity, and other positive behaviors - and strives to lead by his example on a daily basis.

Feel free to search my name and accomplishments via a search engine like Google prior to posting any replies.

He did not graduate from Oxford - there are many jokes about Oxford graduates and consulting. Perhaps Matthew Stewart should spend his time writing about these topics - but please provide more compelling arguments if you must publish anything else. If not, please do not publish anything else.

I had one take on the original article after I read it, then an entirely different one after reading all the comments. Almost all of the comments were well-written, thoughtful, enlightening, and written by intelligent people. I learned quite a bit from reading most of them. (I don't have an MBA; I'm a scientific type.)

There were at least two comments, however, that should have been bounced back to their authors by whoever monitors these things. I think most of you know which ones they are. Instead of sticking to reason, facts, and civil discourse, they resorted to crude name calling and SHOUTING. If you're stuck in the sandbox, please keep your nasty words to yourself.

"In fact, if the relevance of an M.D. to the performance of doctors were even half as unsubstantiated, we'd probably be fantasizing about tossing a few physicians in jail, too."

Newsflash: the relevance of an M.D. to the performance of doctors IS frequently unsubstantiated, and we should be doing more than just fantasizing about tossing a few physicians in jail.

The fact is - many advanced degrees are more hot air than they are advanced learning, and doctors, lawyers, and MBA's top the list.

sent to Nassim Taleb. He'd jump for joy. PS He's not attacking education in and of itself. Michigan, please do not go to that accountant.