Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll add to that that both UofC/Booth and Northwestern/Kellogg offer excellent part-time MBAs, with admissions that are geared toward experienced professionals. Doing a grad degree part-time is a lot of work, but I know people from both programs who have done will with those degrees. Also, if money is the main drive, experienced software architects earn as much or more than a lot of technology managers. A technical software architect level person in the financial trading industry could fairly easily earn in the $250k range, and potentially a lot more if they have a strong math background. To earn that much as a manager in most tech departments you have to be the CTO.
While I fully agree that a skilled hands on software professional absolutely can earn more than a technology manager, it is not true that it is at all easy to make a quarter of million dollars. There is not only a tremendous amount of competitive pressure upon the hands-on professionals to find a role that will allow their talents to shine, there are still extreme demands from technology managers, executives, and business side decision makers to send development work to outside shops, including offshore options.
Beyond these pressures there is also a tremendously challenging environment for firms with large technology investments to justify the kind of environment that is required to have salaries in that range. I have seen all sides of firms in sectors as diverse as global finance, proprietary trading / hedge funds, consumer orient web services, traditional consumer packaged goods, governmental / academic organizations, and retail. None of them of eager to have so much capital devoted to salaries. The expectation is increasingly that large permanent staff is a liability. The more work can be commodified and parsed out to contractors the more flexible the core firm can be. Even firms that profess a belief that their technology investment gives them a competitive edge do not behave in a way that is consistent with such proclamations. I have personally seen even firms that loudly state their intention to be transformative in their industry through the application of technology end up shelving ambitious plans to offer their platforms as services when they realize the level of investment that such an offering requires.
All these things are, however, not going to change the mind of an ambitious 28 yr old. I would strongly encourage them to instead really invest some time in finding their true aptitudes before committing to a path of either more technical career options or a more business / management oriented path. Visit About Aptitudes | Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation for more details.
Finally I would caution that even for those folks that do earn MBAs from NU / UofC or knock out a truly stellar MS from UIUC extremely well regarded CS department, the odds of a quarter million in salary are so remote as to be laughable. There are surely more folks with just a heckuva of a lot of drive and some outstanding connections that get to that level than any sure path of education. The thing too is that even among the many physicians, attorneys, high level executives and business owners that have incomes that place them well into the asymptotically right corner of earners Political Calculations: What Is Your U.S. Income Percentile Ranking? can I honestly say that good fortune and focus on things other than "just the money" is what got them there...
While I fully agree that a skilled hands on software professional absolutely can earn more than a technology manager, it is not true that it is at all easy to make a quarter of million dollars. There is not only a tremendous amount of competitive pressure upon the hands-on professionals to find a role that will allow their talents to shine, there are still extreme demands from technology managers, executives, and business side decision makers to send development work to outside shops, including offshore options.
...
I may have been a little flippant in quoting a quarter million, and I may have glossed over the part where I said, "software architect level," which is quite senior and very experienced. Just to get to that level is actually pretty rare. But if you do make it to a solid software architect level, and if your goal is money, there are then clear paths on how to get $250k/year. It will require a lot of stress and some luck and potentially long hours, but it is possible.
The threat to software developers from offshore teams is greatest the more junior you are. As you get more senior, it's less of a threat for your specific role and the more senior you get, the more likely you are to be directing the work of offshore teams vs. being replaced by them.
In my mind the one big advantage compensation-wise for management over labor in tech, even over senior labor, is how much equity or options management qualifies for. Often a senior manager will receive more equity or options than even a senior architect. Not always true, but it's a pattern I've seen a lot. Depending on the company, that can make a big difference.
I may have been a little flippant in quoting a quarter million, and I may have glossed over the part where I said, "software architect level," which is quite senior and very experienced. Just to get to that level is actually pretty rare. But if you do make it to a solid software architect level, and if your goal is money, there are then clear paths on how to get $250k/year. It will require a lot of stress and some luck and potentially long hours, but it is possible.
The threat to software developers from offshore teams is greatest the more junior you are. As you get more senior, it's less of a threat for your specific role and the more senior you get, the more likely you are to be directing the work of offshore teams vs. being replaced by them.
In my mind the one big advantage compensation-wise for management over labor in tech, even over senior labor, is how much equity or options management qualifies for. Often a senior manager will receive more equity or options than even a senior architect. Not always true, but it's a pattern I've seen a lot. Depending on the company, that can make a big difference.
I think you hit on exactly what I was getting at -- there are so many roadblocks for even very talented hand-on software professionals AND competent technical side management that "easy" is a weird way to characterize the path.
I also completely agree that there are some pretty well understood trade-offs that make the decision to gravitate away from a hands-on role a smart move at a certain point in one's career if you truly have a desire to be in the running for executive level compensation and responsibilities. And make no mistake, even the most financial successful firms are NOT going to have loads of either "software architect level" or even "technology executives" loafing around the foosball table collecting a quarter of mil annually. It is a very high salary that carries a HUGE load of responsibility, some of which will be obvious from the standpoint of the firm's financial health, and thus tied to equity / options, while other things are more "operational" and maybe do not merit such a stake...
It is not just semantics that the paths are NOT clear either, I have literally seen very well run companies IMPLODE as their highest level management made the wrong choices about how to respond to competition. Sadly, some of the people that saw "the train headed toward us on the same track" were literally forced out BEFORE they could get to a level in the organization that might have prevented the "train wreck" and the doofuses responsible for the meltdown got "golden parachutes" for sticking around to soothe the egos of the idiots that made the wrong decisions.
Therein lies another dilemma -- if you do have the technical chops to say something like: "doing A will result in a high likelihood of success while failing to do it, or only doing some part of it, will result in a high likelihood of failure" such frankness may essentially end your employment at a firm that absolutely does not want any part of A, whereas being a fun guy on golf outings, having the same great uncle as the current CEO, having good connections to a firm that your boss might like to work for down the road and all kinds of other factors that have ZERO to do with technical competence are also sadly part of the day-to-day reality of why some bozo gets a higher position than the people that really can do the work...
Last edited by chet everett; 10-20-2015 at 04:54 PM..
Does anyone here know anyone with that degree? Were they successful with it?
I know several people that have MIS degrees from DePaul and other schools. The value of the degree is hard to assess in isolation -- folks that worked their way in traditional banks, conglomerated corporations, and governmental type organizations are hard to compare to younger people that work in more dynamic organizations. That said, the committment to do the coursework and devote one's own time / resources toward graduate level education shows quite a bit more ambition than merely moping around bars chillin' or doing some kind of online program. That ambition tends to carry over into taking on projects that result in recognition / promotions or at least the motivation to find another organization that will play better based on such things.
I have not met anybody that makes coffee drinks for a living, tends bar, or waits tables that earned an MIS degree. I have met some folks that have titles like Director Information Techonology, SVP for Corporate Information Systems and even CIO that have MIS degrees. The salary for those positions can vary dramatically, from something under $100k at small firms to in excess of $200k at firms where those responsibilities mean the difference between making money and filing for bankruptcy...
I know several people that have MIS degrees from DePaul and other schools. The value of the degree is hard to assess in isolation -- folks that worked their way in traditional banks, conglomerated corporations, and governmental type organizations are hard to compare to younger people that work in more dynamic organizations. That said, the committment to do the coursework and devote one's own time / resources toward graduate level education shows quite a bit more ambition than merely moping around bars chillin' or doing some kind of online program. That ambition tends to carry over into taking on projects that result in recognition / promotions or at least the motivation to find another organization that will play better based on such things.
I have not met anybody that makes coffee drinks for a living, tends bar, or waits tables that earned an MIS degree. I have met some folks that have titles like Director Information Techonology, SVP for Corporate Information Systems and even CIO that have MIS degrees. The salary for those positions can vary dramatically, from something under $100k at small firms to in excess of $200k at firms where those responsibilities mean the difference between making money and filing for bankruptcy...
Yea, I see what you are saying. With a few years of IT experience, a MIS degree can only help right?
Yea, I see what you are saying. With a few years of IT experience, a MIS degree can only help right?
It will take time, money and effort to get the degree. Will it hurt if you put time, money and effort into something that has a limited upside compared to putting time, money and effort into something else like a different degree or just into a job that rewards hard work? There is significant opportunity cost for any graduate degree, so one has to weigh the relative value of something even if the diploma itself wouldn't directly harm you.
A totally valid point and one that really is hard to assess...
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
It will take time, money and effort to get the degree. Will it hurt if you put time, money and effort into something that has a limited upside compared to putting time, money and effort into something else like a different degree or just into a job that rewards hard work? There is significant opportunity cost for any graduate degree, so one has to weigh the relative value of something even if the diploma itself wouldn't directly harm you.
There absolutely are "opportunity costs" associated with an MIS degree as well as MSCS or MBA and the various paths that do not involve any such academic acknowledgement but can be recognized by industry sources. Folks that want to prove there mastery of the intricacies of Java can tackle What Is The Java Certification Path?
Of course, for folks with a very solid record of work accomplishments, and the kind of communication skills to convey this through either internal channels or potential new employers, certification is not a must. Folks in this situation grok the whole certification game to be a racket to enrich the certification organization. The downside is that firms that rely on automated screenings often do not get a chance to do the in-person validation that typically follows the winnowing of fakers that have maybe a one year's experience five times over vs the person with a solid record of growing their skills...
Honestly, if he can't get into a top ten MBA program and doesn't want to do a comp sci masters, his best route to get to $120k is just hard, smart work. You don't need to be in consulting to earn $120k per year.
I think looking outside the T10 would be more helpful. I'd say if the nephew is still interested in an MBA and gets around a 700 on his GMAT, I don't see much of a problem with attending an MBA programs that expands to 11-16 or even top 25 depending on the sector one wants to gain employment. Banking outside T15? Okay, that's questionable. IT managing outside T15? I bet it's more doable.
Some of the schools I'm currently looking that are outside of T10 for an MBA:
USA Ranking #11-16
Michigan MBA (Ross)
Duke MBA (Fuqua)
Yale MBA (SOM)
Cornell MBA (Johnson)
# 20-25
CMU MBA (Tepper)
Georgetown MBA (McDonough)
Notre Dame MBA (Mendoza)
People do choose to matriculate to these programs. I know some people who turned down Harvard MBA for Yale SOM. Of course I'll be submitting my applications to places like Harvard and maybe Wharton which are crapshoots for even the top candidates, but the worst that can happen is getting the ding.
My sister was a consultant for Accenture - she didn't have a tech background, she was a biology major. I've met many consultants from her team and most of them have no tech background except for a couple guys who were really hardcore technical and I surmised doing all the heavy lifting.
This is what I figure is Accenture's business model - they hire these smart, jovial, non-tech grads as the "face" of the team. These consultants usually graduated from prestigious schools like Columbia, Harvard, Cal, etc; but have degrees in majors that are hard but don't pay well (like biology, physics). They train them to have just enough technical skill to be useful and can throw technical jargons in front of clients, all the while paying them below market salary of a real techie. They like to hire them straight out of college so they can be brainwashed before they know any better.
Behind the scene, lies some very technical folks who are doing most of the heaving lifting, they are the "engine", the real stars of the team.
I've noticed a similar hiring pattern as well: students at top/elite university/college major in something like history, English, classics, Italian Renaissance or art history and gets hired at top consulting/banking firm. I always thought that is was a very clever thing to do - to market the company as hiring these people from these schools, majoring in something esoteric, and say "We're brilliant!" all the while there's worker bees behind them doing the heavy lifting. I don't necessarily disagree with this practice, but it does make one less impressed once the details are put into light.
One man told me that he hired an MBA holder, from an elite program, to help with his business and at the end of the MBA's talk of what to which the man said to the MBAer, "You've never managed a lemonade stand, have you?" Heck, my brother who does consulting for a Big Four flat out said that many of the MBA holders don't know what they're truly doing -- they're just filled with arrogance and hot air. There are other stories from immediate family members who have been in contact with MBA holders from top programs and not having a good experience with them. The funny part, the best experience with an MBA holder was with a graduate from a regional program barely even known within the Midwest. Go figure.
Last edited by TheSunshineKid; 10-25-2015 at 03:55 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are mostly on the same page...
