Talk:Master of Business Administration

Rankings

As one of the schools in question, I have to tell you that when we are ranked by BusinessWeek, Forbes, WSJ, etc. there is ALWAYS a written release from the publisher in question that allows us to use the ranking & their name on our web site, marketing materials, etc. Fair use doesn't even enter in to it. I thought that might help to clarify the argument that you're having here. I can also tell you that most of the financial publications that rank business schools only publish a portion of the list publicly. If you want to see the whole list, they charge you for that. I hope that this helps with your argument.

QueenB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.81.135 (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. The argument above is 5 months old, and has been resolved. It should probably be archived and this talk page cleared. =Axlq 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just archived that argument; it was supposed to have gone into the archive (which says it's through October) but seemed to have been missed. -Amatulic 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First MBA?

Which Unversity first started MBA and in which year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.1.144 (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first MBAs in Europe the data wasn't completely accurate, I added more detail with IESE and Cranfield. --ExoFrame 10:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis needed

May I suggest a more detailed synopsis in the first paragraph? Material from the "Breadth" section would be perfect. Or maybe move the whole "Program Content" section to the top, as this makes a better overview than the "Background" section. (I won't move any sections without a consensus.) -- JEBrown87544 23:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As one of the 2 or 3 regular contributors to this article, I think that's a great idea. I have always been bothered by the unsubstantial and uninspiring lead section, but wasn't sure what to do with it. Why not be bold and make the change, and see how it goes? -Amatulic 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, after a month of nothing happening, I wrote up a better lead section. I hope others can improve upon it. My main concern are the sentences that contain comma-delimited items; we should avoid these growing into unwieldy lists, especially in the lead section. =Axlq 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The MBA degree outside the U.S.

This whole section still needs work. This section should be about the MBA degree, not about specific schools in other countries. I've deleted some content here as promotional fluff, and I'm tempted to delete more. The part on the UK, Germany, Ukraine, and South Africa are fine; those paragraphs focus on country-specific aspects the MBA degree, not individual schools. Ghana, India, Pakistan, etc. need to be fixed or deleted. =Axlq 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

MBA definition

What is MBA? No such definition here. It attracts ... cannot be regarded as a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.101.179 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead sentence says an MBA is a master's degree in business administration. I don't know how much clearer it could be. If you have an idea for improvement, be bold and make the change. =Axlq (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm

I've tagged the "External links" section as a linkfarm. I think all the links should be removed per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINKS. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As one of the regular maintainers of this article, I disagree. The links that are currently there are well organized, stable, and have survived the scrutiny of several regulars over the past year or so. With one or two exceptions, the links are all official sources, which are appropriate.

That said, I have been bothered with the redundant linking of accreditation agencies when we also have a "See also" section linking to articles about some of those agencies. I think those links are least enhancing to the article. The links on ranking resources, however, do greatly enhance the article, display results from official sources, and comply with WP:EL in that they link to expanded information that is inappropriate for inclusion in the article.

I have removed the linkfarm tag. If someone wants to remove the accreditation agencies links (even though they are official sources relevant to the article), I won't complain. -Amatulic (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the agencies. I'm glad we agree on that.

I'm not sure how well reviewed the rest is, given that there's been no discussion. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You got me in a panic then… I thought you deleted the "Accreditations Agencies". Now that would not be a good thing. --Studio1st (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronz: the accreditation agencies are notable, but not illuminating to this particular article. Believe me, the ranking resources links have been examined by the regular contributors here. Anytime an inappropriate link appears, it gets reverted almost immediately. The links you see are those that survived scrutiny.

Studio1st: He did delete the external links to the accreditation agencies, but not the "See also" wikilinks to accreditation agencies. I think the article is better this way too. =Axlq (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those changes, as they have their own wikilinks. Studio1st (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of promotional text about schools

An anonymous editor persists in adding biased language and promotional text about Asian schools in the "Rest of Asia" section. I correct it, but the anonymous editor reverts it without explanation.

This article is about the MBA degree. This is not an article about specific schools or what they offer.

That section, in particular, is about special characteristics, accreditation, regulations, or alternatives to the MBA degree in other countries, not what schools in other countries do. =Axlq 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CHEA recognition

It is relevant to include the fact of CHEA recognition for the ACBSP. It is relevant and the relationship is mentioned for the regional accrediting bodies. Recognition separates the ACBSP from the IACBE. Proposed change is...

"Other U.S. accreditation agencies include the (CHEA recognized) Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) which typically accredits smaller, private American schools, and the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE)." --Caernarvon (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just now I made a change similar to what you suggested. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation agencies

Editors from various anonymous IP addresses have been inserting the word "US" in front of the sentence describing the major accreditation agencies for MBA programs. This small insertion completely changes the meaning of the sentence, falsely implying that "these are just the major agencies in the US." It's irrelevant. These agencies happen to accredit the majority of the world's MBA programs. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They are US based agencies and I am correctly pointing out that they are mostly concerned with accrediting US programmes. Other than the AACSB they other two have no presence at all outside the USA. it's very relevant. 142.245.59.3 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if someone - anyone - could provide some relevant references. All I see right now are a few people tossing around opinions and allegations without any supporting evidence one way or other. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The MBA originated in the US. Most of the MBA programs are in the US. The accreditation agencies that accredit most of the world's programs are in the US. Two of the three listed are international agencies: AACSB and IACBE. They are concerned with accrediting any program that claims to offer an MBA degree. One can verify who accredits what by going to a site like http://officialmbaguide.org, which has data for most of the world's programs, and performing searches by accreditation agency.

But that isn't even necessary. I have no problem mentioning they are US-based agencies, but that's not what the anonymous editor is implying in the edit. Calling them "the three major US accreditation agencies" falsely implies that (a) they are major only in the US, and (b) they have no international reach, and both implications are violations of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS. I have attempted to revise accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

EQUIS accredits more programmes. See the relevant wikipedia pages. End of discussion I think. 142.245.193.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

EQUIS accredits institutions, not programs. The section of the article discusses both, but the piece that you keep changing refers to accreditation agencies for MBA programs. Perhaps that section should be re-written to clarify the function of the different agencies to avoid confusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have revised the paragraph to clarify the points raised by all parties above, although I feel that it's a bit watered down now. The 3 US agencies accredit more business schools than any other outside the US, which would make them the "major" ones. Whatever, it's should be good enough now. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

History of the MBA in Europe

"More recently, the European School of Management and Technology (ESMT) became the only international MBA school in Germany." And what about GISMA-Uni Hannover, GBS-Uni Frankfurt, MBS-Uni Mannheim, etc.? I do not feel this statement should be included here. Wahlheiner (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If the statement is false, remove it. People often come to this article to promote their school. That may be how the statement got into the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, change made. Removed: More recently, the European School of Management and Technology (ESMT) became the only international MBA school in Germany. --Wahlheiner (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the MBA worth anything

The Times of London had an article today March entitled "Goodbye to glib gurus and their gobbledegook" http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5860232.ece

Surely it wouold be right to have some criticism of the whole concept of MBAs in this article. Anyone can ruin a good company, but MBAs seem to specialise in screwing things up. perhaps this should be referenced--Wickifrank (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of articles critical of the MBA degree, but little or no information beyond editorial pieces like the one mentioned above, that criticize proven business theories based on the performance of MBAs with little work experience. I think a criticism section may be appropriate, if good sources can be found. =Axlq 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, what this article fails to really point out because it is beyond the relevant scope is that education is no replacement for common sense. Education provides a framework for how to think; if one chooses to set their building foundation in a swamp, they should be ready to sink. --Caernarvon (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the MBA

The contributions of Users Wickifrank and Axlq in the preceding Section (‘Is the MBA worth anything?’) point to the need for reconsideration of a Criticism section in this article by expert editors, particularly in view of its possible relevance to the snowballing debate over the current global economic disarray. To this layman, there seems to be no dearth of material from the past 15 years. The latest reminder is Henry Mintzberg’s America's monumental failure of management, Globe and Mail, Toronto, March 16, 2009. Other recent candidates noted: Daniel Gross, Ray Soifer, Stephen Crittenden (ABC Radio, Australia).

Archive 1 (Section 3, Criticism of MBA Education) also suggested the following items: Sumantra Ghoshal, Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practicesand Henry Mintzberg, Managers Not MBAs

Space will also be needed for consideration of the counterclaims of (and a more appropriate title for) the topic “Economics bashing” (Nicolai Fossi et al).

If the topic is to be considered by Wikipedia, should not its place be squarely within this article rather than in a separate Criticism of the MBA article, as seems to be the preference in some other controversial cases? Ombudswiki (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, that only happens with articles that have grown too long, or where a Criticism or Controversy section is lengthy enough to warrant an article in its own right. Neither is true in this case. Its place should be squarely within this article, as you suggest. =Axlq 16:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert makes a strong case against MBA [1] Dream Focus 11:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

deleted the link to Mutation Mink Breeders Association

There is no reason to list every single thing that has the same initials as the article's subject, and this certainly isn't a likely search term. Was this someone's idea of a joke[2]? Dream Focus 11:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I monitor this article, and I missed that. I agree it's an unlikely search term, but I don't think it was a joke. If the title "MBA" points to an article instead of a disambiguation page that lists all topics that have the abbreviation "MBA", then it's appropriate to put a disambiguation link at the top of the main article. In any case, you did well to delete it. =Axlq 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Difference between MBA and PGDM in India

In India MBA degree can be offered by universities but autonomous business schools like IIMS offers PGDM. This creation is made by AICTE. Both MBA and PGDM curricula are same, MBA degrees in India are based upon theoretical aspect whereas PGDM is much more industry oriented. Both are accepted by industry. Students who want to pursue Phd. have to go for MBA rather than PGDM.--122.173.176.243 (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the explanation of this that you added to the article includes full sentences taken from this interview. Although a few words were changed to make it third person instead of first, it's still a copyright violation and can't be included. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where did find this link but honestly speaking i wrote in my own way because its a fact that the information that has been provided is correct about MBA and PGDM program in India. It seem like u would find information from other website and claim it as CP. Anyway don't remove it if you can write in your way go ahead but don't removed because it is imp part and people would get to know what is the difference between MBA and PGDM courses in India. and how AICTE gives accredit to both of this programmes. The information is vital about MBA and PGDM course in India.--122.163.77.6 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What you added was clearly a copyright violation - far too many phrases you wrote are similar or identical to what is shown in the link, and even written in the same order. Changing a few words here and there doesn't remove the violation. Please review the WP:COPYVIO policy. Copyright violations can get you blocked from Wikipedia. =Axlq 15:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

MBA Rankings

Hello, my addition to the rankings section was deleted with the comment "Amatulic (talk | contribs) m (38,154 bytes) (Revert external link - not a good ranking resource; uses extremely small sample size, resulting in a rather useless ranking.)" The sample size is actually clearly stated right at the top of the article, and it is the most comprehensive available anywhere: "These rankings were calculated by comparing publicly posted tuition and distance education fees at 90 regionally accredited and regional candidate universities in the U.S. that offer 250 master's degrees through distance education in the career area of business administration." Here is the link that was removed, for reference: http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/best-buy-lists/best-buy-mba-regional

This ranking is comprehensive, although only for online/distance MBA degrees. I would propose a new section covering Online MBAs and their rankings if it does not fit into the general MBA rankings section. Immaletufinish (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of online MBA programs. A ranking of 90 of them isn't comprehensive. The ranking suffers from selection bias.

I felt it was borderline source, and I wouldn't object if others felt it should be added back.

I deleted it after looking at your contribution history, where it became crystal-clear to me that your purpose on Wikipedia is to promote this web site.

After that I noticed your disclosure of a conflict of interest on your userpage (and I appreciate the honesty).

If someone else adds a link to your site, that's one thing. But you will run into problems if you add the link yourself.

You're also adding your site as a citation in other articles. Because you have a conflict of interest, you may want to propose your site on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. In cases of a conflict of interest, the community, not you, should determine whether your site is to be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've been struggling with the current MBA program rankings section as its written. My major critique is that it's unorganized; the first paragraph lists a handful of current rankings, the second paragraph is a mix of general ranking methodology and history, and the third again repeats a mix of methodology and un-chronological history. I also see a lot of unqualified/editorialized statements not in-line with Wikipedia guidelines.

In the next week, I will work to fix this issues. In following encyclopedia-style guidelines, I plan to describe the history of MBA rankings in the first paragraph, a synopsis of rankings as they are currently, and a paragraph on methodology. Much of this will be a reorganization of the current material. Some new material (mainly from other Wiki pages) will be added too. The current critique of MBA rankings I think is good and will stay as is at the end of the section.

Because I'm new to wikipedia, I'd like to invite others to offer input on this idea; and as it goes without saying, to offer input once my revisions are up. Cheers! Nfusso (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The unqualified / editorialized statements, I believe originate from one of the references cited; it's just that the cite is given once and not for every sentence. Other than that, I support your proposal as long as existing sources are not removed. Be WP:BOLD and go ahead. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I've completed revisions and reorganization of the section. I think it's much easier to read and more informative, and includes a few more citations from good sources too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfusso (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

(Moved from the article proper. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

There is no evidence here discussing whether the MBA has lost popularity among students or if overall enrollment in the program has been impacted any more or less than any other graduate program. Furthermore, it's a stretch to try and make this causal link when the MBA was virtually non-existent in 1929 yet people still tried to build wealth back then by buying and selling "on margin" which isn’t a practice taught in the MBA program anyway. Human nature is to blame for the financial crisis, plain and simple. 1929 was not much different than what we saw in 2007... and unfortunately what we will see again someday MBA or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.70.178 (talk • contribs)

This sketchy section is as logical as blaming the Computer Science and/or Computer Programing degree(s) for the dotcom bust of 2000. What about the savings and loan crisis, which degree shall we blame that one on? The financial tools and instruments investment used to manipulate the system in the current crisis are not taught in the MBA program.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.70.178 (talk • contribs)

I think that criticism of the MBA degrees and the respect and compensation that are accorded them will simply continue to receive greater scrutiny rather than less. Inventors such as Thomas Alva Edison, George Eastman, or Chester Carlson really do create and maintain jobs, sometimes after decades of personal risk and struggle, whereas a CEO who heads a corporation at any later point is just "minding the store" -- they're just a shopkeeper by comparison. No corporation has ever really outlasted the strength of its original ideas, and while I may stand more or less alone in that opinion, I believe that a view very similar to mine will emerge as gaining rather than losing strength, both in terms of quality and quantity.

A 200 to 400 wage/salary multiplier makes sense when you create a business basically out of thin air, but it does not when you add very little by comparison, and at a much smaller personal cost. How much time and money does the most prestigious MBA require, in comparison to the risk and effort of a light bulb, dry film emulsion, or electrolithography? Note that many of these inventors also went on to manage the businesses they had created, often without the benefit of any formal training. --TheLastWordSword (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Professional Degree

Should the definition at the top indicate whether the MBA is a professional degree? It appears to be more of a practical degree than a theoretical degree. Siriuskase (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There are many opinions on this subject. However, primarily, a "Professional" degree is generally one that leads into a specific career/profession, i.e. medicine, engineering, law etc.. Consequently, a MBA is essentially an academic degree with a practical emphasis in business administration. Audit Guy (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a professional degree. I've since added that info in October 2014.--TDJankins (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Terminal degree?

Can those who are edit-warring over whether this is a terminal degree please discuss your positions and evidence? Continuing to edit war will likely lead to blocks or protection of the article. Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support saying that the MBA is considered a terminal degree. It is not expected that top people practicing in the field of Business Administration will need to pursue additional study to achieve that rank, for example CEOs. Even the alternative mentioned in the Fortune article linked below, the law degree, is generally a JD, also generally considered a terminal degree. JDs and PhDs are up to 30% of the total of 'other' advanced degrees held by CEOs. Doctorates in Business, whether professional doctorates or PhDs, are not a commonly pursued or held credential as compared to the MBA degree's popularity among business leaders. I couldn't find similar support for small business owners though. Maybe there's a competing point of view there for the higher level degrees outside of the S&P 500?

"About 40% of S&P 500 CEOs have an MBA, in any given year. It is, by far, the degree with the most representation among such executives. Between 25% and 30% of S&P 500 CEOs have another type of advanced degree, like a PhD or law degree." Dec 18, 2014 The MBA degree and the astronomical rise in CEO pay - Fortune 173.175.71.110 (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC) HDL

The problem here is that you're engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS; i.e. synthesizing a conclusion from sources that isn't actually stated by the sources. If reliable sources don't say it, then we can't say it either. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me try that again. The logic to conclude that MBA meets the already linked definition of a terminal degree: My original comment is linked to an article with support that an MBA meets the definition of a terminal degree that was linked to in this article. The definition of a Terminal degree, "In many cases such as law and medicine, the first professional degree is also the terminal degree, usually because no further advanced degree is required for practice in that field, even though more advanced academic degrees may exist." i.e. CEOs are top people practicing in the field of business. Most CEOs of largest public companies have MBAs, therefore for business the MBA can be considered a terminal degree within the top business profession. Another paper showing CEO education breakdowns can be found here at the bottom of page 6 if you just want a separate source article for the CEO stats. 173.175.71.110 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)HDL

Let me try again. We don't draw conclusions in Wikipedia articles. We report what the sources say, not what we think they mean.

It bears repeating: We don't draw conclusions in Wikipedia articles.

If you cannot find a reliable source that says the MBA degree is a terminal degree, then we cannot say it in the article. It doesn't matter if a source says a law degree or a medical degree is a terminal degree, or that the first professional degree is a terminal degree. The MBA degree needs to be identified as a terminal degree. Please review Wikipedia:No original research and in particular WP:SYNTHESIS. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubled up on the citations, so we now have (1) Peterson's (probably the oldest and most respected education company) and (2) the "Complete Book of Graduate Programs in the Arts and Sciences." If that's not sufficient, perhaps nothing short of God himself intervening could straighten out our confused friend. If the IP editor removes it again, I'll get the article page protected.--TDJankins (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Failed verification

Assuming good faith, rather than rollback Mmedpod's recent edits to list the Indian School of Business as "one of the world's most selective schools", am adding a failed verification tag.

Can't find a source but perhaps someone more familiar with the subject can - I don't know whether this is true or not.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2023 (2)

change "to criticisms of the MBA's role in society" Riddhi Siddhi Education (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)