Hello everyone,
I have got admission to the HULT IBS 1 year MBA course at San Francisco and also to the USC Marshall IBEAR 1 year MBA at Los Angeles. The HULT MBA is open to people of all ages and experience levels while the USC Marshall IBEAR MBA requires a minimum of 6 years of work experience (which I have).
I am quite conflicted between the two courses because of the following reasons:
1. Both schools are ranked almost similarly in the FT and ET rankings. However, it is USC Marshall that is consistently ranked high in other rankings of Forbes, BW, US News and WSJ etc. whereas HULT does not figure in any of the above rankings.
2. The USC Marshall ranking is actually based on their flagship course - The 2 year MBA and I don't know if the 1 year MBA would carry the same prestige levels among prospective employers for jobs in the future. (Although I've got admission to the 2 year course as well, but don't wish to pursue it because of many reasons - I'm just preferring a 1 year MBA)
3. The HULT course curriculum is modern and has some courses which I believe would not be present in some top-tier MBA colleges too, which makes the course quite knowledgeable. They make good use of technology and latest teaching techniques whereas USC, being an established brand, sticks to its roots of teaching methodologies etc.
4. HULT gives a 1 year MBA degree whereas USC Marshall lists its degree as the 1 year International MBA. I don't know the relevance of each (since both are mostly international 1 year courses) but I would definitely like some insight as to how much would each degree be weighted as..? Would there be a marginal or a significant amount of difference between these degrees and the regular 2 year courses at various MBA colleges across US (as mostly viewed by employers)..??
5. HULT is located in San Franscisco whereas USC Marshall is in Los Angeles (both of which are quite good places to stay and make a career at) but what should be more preferable with regards to my choice of a future career in the technology industry..?
6. HULT, as a brand name, is quite new and again, USC is quite well known around the world. To what extent would that matter in the case that I have to come back to India (under certain circumstances) and take up a job here..? What would you think would be my options here..??
I'm sorry to tell you but I also just gave up on the XLRI - GMP program because I feel that this is the right time to get an internationally recognized MBA that would secure my future. But at the same time, I don't somehow feel that investing money and time - 2 years is really worth it.
Would really appreciate if any of you have insights on any/all of the queries above..! Thanks.
I have got admission to the HULT IBS 1 year MBA course at San Francisco and also to the USC Marshall IBEAR 1 year MBA at Los Angeles. The HULT MBA is open to people of all ages and experience levels while the USC Marshall IBEAR MBA requires a minimum of 6 years of work experience (which I have).
I am quite conflicted between the two courses because of the following reasons:
1. Both schools are ranked almost similarly in the FT and ET rankings. However, it is USC Marshall that is consistently ranked high in other rankings of Forbes, BW, US News and WSJ etc. whereas HULT does not figure in any of the above rankings.
2. The USC Marshall ranking is actually based on their flagship course - The 2 year MBA and I don't know if the 1 year MBA would carry the same prestige levels among prospective employers for jobs in the future. (Although I've got admission to the 2 year course as well, but don't wish to pursue it because of many reasons - I'm just preferring a 1 year MBA)
3. The HULT course curriculum is modern and has some courses which I believe would not be present in some top-tier MBA colleges too, which makes the course quite knowledgeable. They make good use of technology and latest teaching techniques whereas USC, being an established brand, sticks to its roots of teaching methodologies etc.
4. HULT gives a 1 year MBA degree whereas USC Marshall lists its degree as the 1 year International MBA. I don't know the relevance of each (since both are mostly international 1 year courses) but I would definitely like some insight as to how much would each degree be weighted as..? Would there be a marginal or a significant amount of difference between these degrees and the regular 2 year courses at various MBA colleges across US (as mostly viewed by employers)..??
5. HULT is located in San Franscisco whereas USC Marshall is in Los Angeles (both of which are quite good places to stay and make a career at) but what should be more preferable with regards to my choice of a future career in the technology industry..?
6. HULT, as a brand name, is quite new and again, USC is quite well known around the world. To what extent would that matter in the case that I have to come back to India (under certain circumstances) and take up a job here..? What would you think would be my options here..??
I'm sorry to tell you but I also just gave up on the XLRI - GMP program because I feel that this is the right time to get an internationally recognized MBA that would secure my future. But at the same time, I don't somehow feel that investing money and time - 2 years is really worth it.
Would really appreciate if any of you have insights on any/all of the queries above..! Thanks.
