For myself and others in my social circle (mid 30's Americans), we'll often comment on something in each others' Instagram Stories and have a casual chat. Usually these are quick conversations, and longer ones are on some other pure messaging platform.
Typically spend that is tied to an anticipated incremental revenue is easier to approve ("this $20k investment will be worth it if we only get one $50k booking out of it"). That's also why salesperson variable comp tied to sales is easier to approve at higher figures- if a salesperson is driving multiple $M worth of sales, it's easy to justify a salary in the high 6 figures.
It's useful for customer-facing roles. From a sales context, it means that you can have a dynamic signature that includes a) up to date logos and branding and b) a dynamic list of upcoming marketing events like webinars, trade shows, recent blog articles, etc. put automatically in email signatures.
We don't use one (just have folks copy over the new signature to Outlook every couple weeks), but it means we have a highly manual process that is prone to error for non-technical users. It's definitely worth some money to get right.
My definition of a "useful" email signature varies highly from anyone who thinks that a list of upcoming events belongs in them. What a waste of bytes.
Look, people spend money on it because people DO look at these things. I don't think a big splashy banner in my signature looks good, but if I get even a handful of extra people attending my webinar then it DOES pay for itself.
This isn't some sort of idealistic view of the "way the world should be", it's just people doing stuff to optimize for their marketing & sales funnel, whether or not it annoys you or is a "waste of bytes"
Look, a lot of people insist advertising "doesn't work on them", but the whole hundreds of billions of $ industry works because it DOES have a reliable ROI.
I'm just explaining the world how it is, not necessarily how it should be.
Overhead bin space is the big reason- give the somewhat (last 5 years-ish) changes to charging for the 1st checked bag, many who would have otherwise checked a bag are bringing on as carry-ons.
Many flights I've been on in past several years have had a real shortage of bin space, meaning getting on board early to make sure you're not the odd man out IS important (waiting for baggage carousel can take an extra 45 minutes)
> waiting for baggage carousel can take an extra 45 minutes
A few years ago, Houston airport authorities dealt with complaints that it took too long for travelers to get their bags after their flights. When the airport was built, the bag pickup locations were very close to the arriving gates, over time the airport got busier and people ended up waiting longer.
The fix was to move the pickup locations further from the arrival gates. This didn't change the length of time that it took to pull the bags from the plane and send them to the pickup location, but passengers noticed that their bags always showed up within minutes of getting to the pickup area. They essentially eliminated the waiting time by converting it into walking time.
Regardless of the perceived/ actual waiting time, however, it's MUCH better not to have to wait for a bag at all- going straight to curb or car rental and skipping that step is the only way to fly.
It wasn't that recent. I was flabbergasted by an advertisement in an airport in 2013, which was trying to entice people into a membership with "Free checked bag? Don't worry. You'll get used to it." Advertising as extravagant exactly what used to be standard with the ticket.
I can buy a checked bag for myself. What I can't do is change that back to being the social norm so that everybody can get on and off the plane in a reasonable amount of time.
This is something I wrote for a previous post on Hackernews re MBAs:
I went to one of the top-tier (top 3) MBA programs in the US. The way I've described that value of the top MBA programs is in 3 (roughly equally-weighted) categories:
1) The Education: Getting to discuss business concepts with a group of smart, successful folks for 6-9 hours a day is very helpful. Most of the content, I could get from books/ online articles at a fraction of the price, but spending the time in a focused way is actually helpful.
2) The Network: In terms of network, this isn't some vague amorphous thing at Stanford GSB, HBS, or Penn- it's knowing several hundred other folks who are going to be very successful in their careers. This can be useful in sales, fundraising, finding a next job, etc. and DOES have a tangible dollar value.
3) The Rubber Stamp: Having your resume say "Stanford GSB" or "Harvard Business School" does have value to future employers or customers- it de-risks you as you've been validated by a famous institution, and helps THEM to associate with these famous brands.
For the top 3 programs, even though they're VERY expensive (approx $250k in tuition + living expenses, plus at least another $250k in foregone income for most incoming students, for $500k in actual cost+opportunity cost), they're almost certainly worth it.
For middle-/ lower-tier MBA programs, 2) and 3) above aren't NEARLY as valuable, or perhaps don't even exist- is your "network" from Local State School MBA actually valuable? For these, the only real value is the actual education, and most students would be better served with an online program or just actually picking up some books/ case studies/ reading online articles. There are a few exceptions to the this- for instance, often schools that aren't in the top 3 nationwide can punch above their weight in regional networks. For instance, if you want to live and work in LA (or work in the entertainment industry) I've heard that it can be really useful to go to UCLA or USC for an MBA.
Fellow top MBA grad here. Strongly agree with the points above, and I'd add:
4) The Recruiting Pipeline: There is a tranche of very desirable jobs out there that are, de facto, restricted to graduates of the top-N (3 or 7 or whatever) MBA programs. Specifically, associate-level roles at consulting firms, i-banks, and management rotational programs at F500 CPG/industrials/FANG. Especially if you're a career changer (I was a military officer pre-MBA), the 2 years of opportunity-cost are often worth the opportunity set provided by the recruiting platform.
With that said, it's important to note that there's no secret MBA knowledge you'll get at any of these programs, nor will you be coated with magical MBA dust that makes life a cakewalk once you graduate.
Right- the current state of affairs serves the top-tier MBA programs, their graduates, and management consulting/ banking/ PE firms very well for the time being.
Top-tier MBA progams' whole pitch is about how getting in to these elite institutions confers massive benefits to the rest of your career- they certainly have no incentive to change any of this. The employing firms get a veneer of shiny "elite" frosting over their staffs (and they're mostly selling the abilities of their staffs)- the current systems serves them very well too. Being egalitarian would have some feel-good optics (maybe), but isn't in the interest of any of these entities.
These old-school institutions aren't where you go if you want something that reflects Silicon Valley-esque "meritocracy", where credentials don't matter and only impact does. That's why this ethos is a big deal, and different than what came before (though it has its own set of issues).
Although the concept of meritocracy has existed for centuries, the term itself was coined in 1958 by the sociologist Michael Dunlop Young in his satirical essay The Rise of the Meritocracy.
In any case, I'm not defending the MBA industrial complex, but it is an attractive, valuable, and stable system they've set up. I definitely got value from it, but fair it is not.
Silicon Valley/ VC-land has a seemingly more egalitarian system on the surface, but if you dig even an inch deep there's a lot of ugly stuff there too.
Not Mcmoose; but I would say definitely yes. Top 3 is too high a cutoff in my opinion; I would expand the above sentiments to "top 20"; which would include Ross - especially if you are considering regional appeal and are an industry switcher.
I was at a company previously that had a liquidity event, and many of my colleagues (not me unfortunately) had very meaningful stock awards.
A lot of people discussed what they should do openly, and recognized the potential for the stock to go up later on- many defaulted to selling half of their holdings as soon as they could to put some cash in their pocket, and holding on to half for potential gains. Not super sophisticated, but it seemed like it made good sense to me.
I don't have a clear stance on whether O365 is "better" than G-Suite, either, but the lock-in is real.
For non-technical business users, having a deep expertise in Excel (and knowing all the hotkeys) is really tough to pivot from. Powerpoint is also pretty similar- once you're an expert, you don't want to relearn on a different application (whether or not it's better on a few criteria)
I was there at the end of June- it's pretty spectacular. We arrived on a Friday morning at 7am to beat the heat, and we were the only tourists on site at all.
Extremely surreal to go down in to the middle of an engineering marvel that large, and I couldn't believe that I was alone inside of it.
That's awesome! I went to Cairo in 2016 and only got to see the Bent Pyramid at a distance from the Step Pyramid site, since I didn't have much time there. Even from afar it's an amazing sight.
I went to one of the top-tier (top 3) MBA programs in the US.
The way I've described that value of the top MBA programs is in 3 (roughly equally-weighted) categories:
1) The Education: Getting to discuss business concepts with a group of smart, successful folks for 6-9 hours a day is very helpful. Most of the content, I could get from books/ online articles at a fraction of the price, but spending the time in a focused way is actually helpful.
2) The Network: In terms of network, this isn't some vague amorphous thing at Stanford GSB, HBS, or Penn- it's knowing several hundred other folks who are going to be very successful in their careers. This can be useful in sales, fundraising, finding a next job, etc. and DOES have a tangible dollar value.
3) The Rubber Stamp: Having your resume say "Stanford GSB" or "Harvard Business School" does have value to future employers or customers- it de-risks you as you've been validated by a famous institution, and helps THEM to associate with these famous brands.
For the top 3 programs, even though they're VERY expensive (approx $250k in tuition + living expenses, plus at least another $250k in foregone income for most incoming students, for $500k in actual cost+opportunity cost), they're almost certainly worth it.
For middle-/ lower-tier MBA programs, 2) and 3) above aren't NEARLY as valuable, or perhaps don't even exist- is your "network" from Podunk State School MBA actually valuable? For these, the only real value is the actual education, and most students would be better served with an online program or just actually picking up some books/ case studies/ reading online articles.
There are a few exceptions to the above- for instance, often schools that aren't in the top 3 nationwide can punch above their weight in regional networks.
For instance, if you want to live and work in LA (or work in the entertainment industry) I've heard that it can be really useful to go to UCLA or USC for an MBA.
Honestly even for Podunk State U I think you can experience the same if you plan on staying in your region in a local industry. I'm guessing an MBA from the University of X is just fine if you have a management job to go back to and want to stay in X the rest of your life. As long as there isn't some highly competitive field attracting people from all over the country you're trying to break into, applying the constraint "must stay in state X", a degree from UX might be the best place to go get your MBA
Still maybe not worth the tuition+lost income, but could be worth it
In the US, does the rubber stamp effect have much impact beyond the first hire?
In banking in the UK, I literally have no idea what education my colleagues have, and after a few years of experience, I feel the university is pretty much irrelevant, other than certain specific majors, if for instance they are quantitative or computer science. But I feel that an MBA would play no role in a promotion.
> In banking in the UK, I literally have no idea what education my colleagues have, and after a few years of experience, I feel the university is pretty much irrelevant, other than certain specific majors, if for instance they are quantitative or computer science.
Yes the UK banking sector is famous for being made up from people of a very wide range of backgrounds...
Oxbridge is a portmanteau of Oxford and Cambridge. In the UK it's a term often used to refer to the universities - which are routinely ranked as the top two universities globally.
The whole pitch at the elite institutions is that they don't WANT to pitch it as some sort of dollars-and-cents ROI. They want to advertise the prestige, the education, etc.
There's a whole cottage industry of MBA review sites, books, admissions prep materials, etc. that make that pitch for them, and investment banks/ consulting firms that use these MBA programs as "finishing schools" of sorts do as well.
That would be very gauche, and would net them negative PR from the overall public due to laying bare the “it’s not what you know, it’s who know” mantra for no reason. The people looking to attend these schools already know the implied value.
You can probably establish a floor value but getting a good average/median is going to be difficult because the top end is basically unlimited dollars for yourself.
Taking a guess, a degree from a school listed should easily get a $100k salary in any big city at minimum unless you've tanked your reputation very publicly (like paying for your acceptance with bribes).
Most people who go to ivy league aren't really concerned about their safety nets though.
The big question you should ask yourself ( which did it to me) if you are driven enough to spent those dollars and time on mba, aren't you already driven enough to "make it at work" wherever you are? ( Or switch to a more prestiges firm) and yes, I di make it work. No mba. On my way creating a new division in a pretty big firm.
You are not only losing time at the mba. You are losing time learning business and creating relationships. If you selected the right firm you make inside and outside contacts already working there,while working your way up. Without taking a credit!
It could be a $6.5M answer. A rich family saw a lot of value in spending that much to send their child to Stanford. Not sure if it was for a MBA though.
yes, even though i had wanted an mba largely for #1 on your list, #2 & #3 are undeniably where the intrinsic value of an (on-campus) mba program lies. if you don’t go to a well-regarded program (i’d estimate top 20), you won’t get that intrinsic value and are probably over-paying.
it makes sense for the less regarded programs to reduce costs and reduce tuition to serve those who primarily want #1 because they can’t compete on #2 and #3 (which i would describe as prestige rather than a rubber stamp).
That's probably overly dismissive. Obviously state schools are super valuable for undergrad- I went to one. I just wouldn't pay a ton of money for an MBA from one of them.
People often underrate the state schools. I went to one as well for accounting. When I graduated I got a job at a big 4 accounting firm and was working with people who went to USC for their undergrad. We were making the same amount of money. Only difference was I graduated debt free (worked through school) and they had massive loans.
IMO, only go to the prestigious schools if you are studying a profession that has earning potential. Don't bother with any liberal arts type major.
Yeah, they're often referred to as "crust punks" or "crusties" (and I think that's the name they use for themselves). Plenty of articles about them- absolutely homeless by choice, and migrate up/ down the East Coast (often by hopping freight rail) seasonally https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/07/27/summer-brings-wave-o...
Yeah- I have a ton of sympathy for folks driven in to homelessness by economic hardship, or mental illness, or even addiction, but the crust punks are INCREDIBLY frustrating for a number of reasons (the one you mention being a big one)
Why is it such a simple dichotomy? Most people have to make large efforts to maintain a legal shelter and it's as easy as a medical emergency to slip from the tenuous position of not being homeless.
Are you saying the person with the medical emergency who becomes homeless was always homeless? Otherwise perhaps I didn’t understand your reply.
Regardless you’re right it’s not a simple dichotomy. Similar to how if you’re living in a new Airstream, chances are you aren’t the same sort of homeless as someone in a runned down camper with little cash flow or savings.
