Hi there,

Well, I think the first step is to make sure we're on the same page about what the purpose of an EMBA and MBA are.

An MBA is designed for those with 3 - 6 or so years of experience who are earlier in their careers. They're willing to invest in two years to either accelerate their career or, more often, shift tracks and try new things. These are also the most competitive to get into and these programs do discriminate based on age. There is a reason for that - these programs make the most sense early on in a career.

An EMBA is designed for, you guessed it, mostly executives or those with quite a few years under their belts. These folks tend to be in their mid to late 30s. Their purpose is they're settled into their career (they like where they are) but they want acceleration. They need an EMBA to bump them up to the next level.

They're also almost impossible to compare because they're meant for two very different groups of people. If you're in the bucket where you would fit into the traditional MBA pool, you won't be admitted to an EMBA and vice versa.

From a perception standpoint, yes, a traditional MBA is more valuable but brand plays in. An EMBA from Booth is still more valuable than an MBA from, say, Thunderbird.

Because these programs aren't meant for the same groups of people, they're hard to compare. I hope that helps though and let me know if you have any other questions!

Bhavik

That's a great question. So you'd either be a candidate at a lower ranked full time MBA program (think sub-20) or a part time MBA. You're not quite at the point where you'd fit into the EMBA pool which is why Part Time or 1 year MBA programs exist!

Bhavik

To be honest, I don't know enough about your background to really help out here. If you want to share a bit more, I can provide a little more guidance!

Bhavik

I am responding to your other post on our subthread.

Bhavik