Chicago Booth part-time MBA

K

ksc1940

New member
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Is there anyone on here who is currently doing the part-time MBA at Chicago Booth and specifically, have used on-campus recruiting?
 
@KSC - you must be new to the forum.
Around AF, part-time programs (even at Chicago) are considered to be slightly better than a University of Phoenix MBA. Whether this resembles any kind of reality, I don’t know. But that is the consensus that you will find around here.
And to answer your question–I have never attended, nor will I ever attend the University of Chicago.
 
I don’t believe partimers at Booth can use on campus recruiting. I think at events, they even have to wear bands denoting their part time status.
Maybe that is no longer accurate, but it used to be so.
 
Palantir wrote:I don’t believe partimers at Booth can use on campus recruiting. I think at events, they even have to wear bands denoting their part time status.
Maybe that is no longer accurate, but it used to be so.
Click to expand...
Can’t they just rip the bands off?
(It would make more sense for those with the privelege to wear the bands.)
 
Booth is notorious for direct segmentation of their part-timers and treating them as second class citizens
 
itera wrote:
Booth is notorious for direct segmentation of their part-timers and treating them as second class citizens
Click to expand...
Its always good to bite off one of the hands that feed you. Though I understand the differences in entry requirements, I fail to understand the problem with someone working and trying to supplement that work with an advanced degree at the same time. Obviously, this scenario is in demand, and thus the PT option.
I guess all the CFA charterholders that were working while they got the charter should be second class, oh wait…its not viewed that way. For the CFA program it is viewed as a positive to be able to manage a job and the exam process. For a MBA, I don’t see what is second class about thriving on the job, running to class, networking and trying to keep a family/social life as well. If the classes are identical between the two programs, then it reverts back to the acceptance process. If it just about getting accepted, then the brightest minds should just get a certificate for getting accepted into a school, form a social club and go back to thriving in the business world. Why is it good for the economy to have a loss of productivity resulting from losing these great minds to two years of schoolwork that they may not even need? This isn’t a criticism of the full-time folks, its actually a compliment and something I would like to understand. If the classroom experience is the exact same for both FT and PT, there isn’t an incremental buildup of intellectual capital by attending a FT vs. PT program and thus why wouldn’t someone choose the PT option and avoid the opportunity costs?
If there is a big gap between the two distinctions, such that the classes are harder, etc., why not call the PT MBA something else altogether (strip out the MBA acronym) and avoid the potential for discrimination? Of course if a school does that, not as many people will pursue the PT option. Thus, the school is left with trying to distinguish the two in substance but not in form.
 
giuls21 wrote:
itera wrote:
Booth is notorious for direct segmentation of their part-timers and treating them as second class citizens
Click to expand...
Its always good to bite off one of the hands that feed you. Though I understand the differences in entry requirements, I fail to understand the problem with someone working and trying to supplement that work with an advanced degree at the same time. Obviously, this scenario is in demand, and thus the PT option.
I guess all the CFA charterholders that were working while they got the charter should be second class, oh wait…its not viewed that way. For the CFA program it is viewed as a positive to be able to manage a job and the exam process. For a MBA, I don’t see what is second class about thriving on the job, running to class, networking and trying to keep a family/social life as well. If the classes are identical between the two programs, then it reverts back to the acceptance process. If it just about getting accepted, then the brightest minds should just get a certificate for getting accepted into a school, form a social club and go back to thriving in the business world. Why is it good for the economy to have a loss of productivity resulting from losing these great minds to two years of schoolwork that they may not even need? This isn’t a criticism of the full-time folks, its actually a compliment and something I would like to understand. If the classroom experience is the exact same for both FT and PT, there isn’t an incremental buildup of intellectual capital by attending a FT vs. PT program and thus why wouldn’t someone choose the PT option and avoid the opportunity costs?
If there is a big gap between the two distinctions, such that the classes are harder, etc., why not call the PT MBA something else altogether (strip out the MBA acronym) and avoid the potential for discrimination? Of course if a school does that, not as many people will pursue the PT option. Thus, the school is left with trying to distinguish the two in substance but not in form.
Click to expand...
So much anger in this post…
 
Ramos4rm wrote:
giuls21 wrote:
itera wrote:
Booth is notorious for direct segmentation of their part-timers and treating them as second class citizens
Click to expand...
Its always good to bite off one of the hands that feed you. Though I understand the differences in entry requirements, I fail to understand the problem with someone working and trying to supplement that work with an advanced degree at the same time. Obviously, this scenario is in demand, and thus the PT option.
I guess all the CFA charterholders that were working while they got the charter should be second class, oh wait…its not viewed that way. For the CFA program it is viewed as a positive to be able to manage a job and the exam process. For a MBA, I don’t see what is second class about thriving on the job, running to class, networking and trying to keep a family/social life as well. If the classes are identical between the two programs, then it reverts back to the acceptance process. If it just about getting accepted, then the brightest minds should just get a certificate for getting accepted into a school, form a social club and go back to thriving in the business world. Why is it good for the economy to have a loss of productivity resulting from losing these great minds to two years of schoolwork that they may not even need? This isn’t a criticism of the full-time folks, its actually a compliment and something I would like to understand. If the classroom experience is the exact same for both FT and PT, there isn’t an incremental buildup of intellectual capital by attending a FT vs. PT program and thus why wouldn’t someone choose the PT option and avoid the opportunity costs?
If there is a big gap between the two distinctions, such that the classes are harder, etc., why not call the PT MBA something else altogether (strip out the MBA acronym) and avoid the potential for discrimination? Of course if a school does that, not as many people will pursue the PT option. Thus, the school is left with trying to distinguish the two in substance but not in form.
Click to expand...
So much anger in this post…
Click to expand...
Actually, quite the opposite. I am neither a FT or PT MBA candidate. Admittedly, I would probably not be a candidate for FT Booth given the entrance requirements. I am moreso against elitism in general and would rather there be a more clear divide between FT and PT MBA programs if the consensus view is that one program is superior to the other.
 
Therein lies the perils of internet forums when intention, tone, etc. can all be misinterpreted. I have no reason to be upset, because the issue doesn’t impact me personally one way or the other. This topic gets decent play on these forums, so I felt like I would weigh in. I would be upset with myself if something like this made me mad, but if I’m mad because a few posters say so, so be it.
Primarily, I would rather a spade be called a spade and as a side point I am interested in what the economic impact would be if the best minds were recognized as such, were pooled together into intellectual clubs, but still continued to work, rather than being pooled together into a full-time business school to exit the workforce for two years. I think the people that get into the top business schools deserve to be recognized for their accomplishments, but I am wondering if they need the two years of schooling. If they need the two years of schooling and the PT program is exactly the same, maybe the current bias against PT students needs to be challenged.
 
Part-timers have access to OCR once they’ve taken 12 classes and get a waiver from their firms if they’re being sponsored. They do NOT have access to OCR for internships, just full-time jobs.
Palantir wrote:
I don’t believe partimers at Booth can use on campus recruiting. I think at events, they even have to wear bands denoting their part time status.
Maybe that is no longer accurate, but it used to be so.
Click to expand...
 
Greenman72 wrote:
@KSC - you must be new to the forum.
Around AF, part-time programs (even at Chicago) are considered to be slightly better than a University of Phoenix MBA. Whether this resembles any kind of reality, I don’t know. But that is the consensus that you will find around here.
And to answer your question–I have never attended, nor will I ever attend the University of Chicago.
Click to expand...
Yeah, AF seems ridiculous in this regard. I agree that full-time is more difficult to get into and that the MEDIAN full-time student is of higher caliber than the median part-timer. But I know quite a few people in both programs (i live in chicago) and the top students in the part-time program are pretty impressive. We’re talking about people working at firms such as goldman, citadel, morningstar, northern trust, william blair, various top trading firms, etc. Although I prefer a full-time program, I’m working on a startup with an equity stake, and if I did a full-time program, I would lose out on that deal, so economically it doesn’t make sense to do FT.
 
^ The talk about GS, Citadel, and “various top trading firms” reminds me of a hilarious post I saw on Leveraged Sellout several years ago. Does anyone here remember the site? There was a poll that asked which would you rather be, and your options were:
(A) An M&A MD at Jefferies
(B) A PWM VP at Bear
(C) A trade settlement analyst at Lehman
(D) An HR intern at Goldman
(E) A janitor at Citadel
 
numi wrote:
^ The talk about GS, Citadel, and “various top trading firms” reminds me of a hilarious post I saw on Leveraged Sellout several years ago. Does anyone here remember the site? There was a poll that asked which would you rather be, and your options were:
(A) An M&A MD at Jefferies
(B) A PWM VP at Bear
(C) A trade settlement analyst at Lehman
(D) An HR intern at Goldman
(E) A janitor at Citadel
Click to expand...
LOL! I remember this post from leveraged sellout extremely well. Man, that site embodied the finance boom of pre-2008 so well. It was brilliant. And the author was not even in finance!
 
Maybe Numi can best explain the PT vs FT distinction, but I can try to explain what I’ve picked up from the conversations I’ve had and seen. I think the main strength to FT is the internship and the longer time spent with classmates bonding.
People go to a MBA program mostly to get new opportunities. It’s very difficult to transition from one level of job to another with only more education (ask the people who have passed CFA level 3 and want an ER job). The internship becomes your most relevant talking point/experience to acheive that new position (along with the new education). I think a lot of people here would say that they feel qualified to perform certain jobs or enough to learn them, but haven’t gotten the opportunity. Here it is.
The second most important thing is your network. When you’re taking full time classes you’re spending a lot of time with people you’ve admitted are of a very high caliber for two years. Even folks you don’t particularly appreciate the first time you meet will eventually become friends after two years (in a small enough group [most likely]). These people are not showing up to class stressed from a long day waiting to go home. They’re not showing up at cocktail parties where you’re meeting them for the first time [a coworker was at NYU PT and said they don’t let PT and FT to same events too]. The overall experience is different because meeting people is a part of your job, not something you do after work.
So though the education may the same, you’re given less opportunity and less chance to really make strong connections. The people you’re meeting FT are also being given the opportunities, so in years to come as they climb the ladder you’re connected.
Writing this made me question: Do you think the majority of people who are asked to do informal interviews are from PT or FT programs? Do you think the majority of people who do the asking are from PT or FT?
 
I don’t have much to add to what lxwarr30 says. I think he really hits the nail on the head. One thing I might also add is that there is a perception of quality gap between full-time and part-time students, and in many cases, I would say this is true. That isn’t to say that I haven’t met brilliant people that went to part-time MBA programs instead of full-time, but the incentives and motivations are totally different as others have noted, not to mention that the entry requirements are much more lax for part-time programs. You don’t have to look too deep into the admissions statistics to figure this out.
Recruiters also understand this, as it is very rare for part-time students to beat out full-timers for full-time recruiting (that said, many part-time students aren’t looking to change careers anyway, so there is some selection bias here).
 
numi wrote:
I don’t have much to add to what lxwarr30 says. I think he really hits the nail on the head. One thing I might also add is that there is a perception of quality gap between full-time and part-time students, and in many cases, I would say this is true. That isn’t to say that I haven’t met brilliant people that went to part-time MBA programs instead of full-time, but the incentives and motivations are totally different as others have noted, not to mention that the entry requirements are much more lax for part-time programs. You don’t have to look too deep into the admissions statistics to figure this out.
Recruiters also understand this, as it is very rare for part-time students to beat out full-timers for full-time recruiting (that said, many part-time students aren’t looking to change careers anyway, so there is some selection bias here).
Click to expand...
I agree this is the case generally speaking. There is no doubt that the part-time program is less selective, and recruiters obviously know this. In my case though, my GMAT, undergrad pedigree, and work experience stack up just fine with the full-time programs, but I have a very legitimate reason for doing a part-time as opposed to the full-time. From talking to people, getting the initial job coming out is more challenging, but the sample size of those who actively used OCR is also rather small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top