Thursday, February 21, 2008

Correspondence: Pre-study material arrived from Queen's

Today I received a package from Queen's. It wasn't exactly a surprise since I had been sent a notice by FedEx that it was enroute. Contained within were the much anticipated pre-study materials.

Items included:
  1. Memo outlining payment of fees and a copy of my registration that has my student number. (This was the only document with my student number)
  2. Memo from the registar concerning my student ID card. I am required to complete the form and mail it back with a "passport" style photo in the pre-paid envelope included.
  3. Sessional dates showing all the start and finish dates of the upcoming classes I will be taking as well as the very few days I will have off.
  4. Estimate of living expenses for the next year.
  5. Memo from the Career Manager outlining several assignments to be completed through the "web portal". Appears to be self administered personality testing, brain dominance testing, and career direction assignments. This will probably play a big part in the selection of teams we are being place in as well as assisting the Career Centre to get a better understanding of where the students may want to try to find employment. It also requires students to create an on-line resume through the "web portal".
  6. Perp material for the Finance and Accouting class including a very thick workbook.
  7. Prep material from one of the professors comprised mainly of "selected" readings. Basically, from what I can tell at a glance, just copies of articles or other material they want us to read.
  8. Off-campus housing website info and info concerning University residenses and accomodations. (See comment on this by a current student. They are recommending this residence http://www.science44co-op.com/ and say the meal plan is great!)
  9. Info on food service plan, which is manditory for residence.
  10. Guide to some Kingston activities.
  11. Guide on relocating to Kingston and a map showing approximate walking times for the area immediately surrounding the University to assist with selecting potential accomodations.
The introductory letter was signed off by the Associate Director who is looking forward to welcoming the incoming MBA students at 9 AM on Monday May 5th with a continental breakfast in the atrium of Goodes Hall!

10 comments:

Bresslau said...

About point 8, I recommend http://www.science44co-op.com/. Prices are reasonable, the meal plan is a gift from the gods and you get to meet lots of people outside the MBA. Did I tell you about the cute co-oppers there? And the parties. BTW, don't let the .04 tradition die when you get here.
Cheers,
Fernando

Andes Tang said...

I got accepted to Queen's MBA as well and will be attending the full time MBA program (*maybe we might even end up in the same group). See you in May! - Andes Tang

Anonymous said...

Don't you find it somewhat disconcerting that Queen's is the only school that uses the measure - 'Employed 6 months after graduation' Every other school uses 3 months as the indicator.. 6 months unemployed would be terrible.

Appleseed said...

I think you are mistaken in your information on "6 months after graduation". A lot of other schools use 6 months and some use 3 months. Please provide more solid examples. If you want e-mail me at appleseed@live.ca. I welcome the feedback and if the information is usful and objective I will post it so others can benefit from it.

Also, I figure placement statistics form ANY school are pretty bogus. Any offer of employment that is reasonable is consider a "placement". Career centers encourage all students to keep all options open. Therefore it is very likely you will get at least one offer within the specified timeframe. At that point you are "placed" and off the list.

The other consideration you neglect to address is a 12 month intensive programs versus 20 plus month "2 year" programs. From my research the 2nd year in a "2 year" program isn't as intense as the first year allowing students more opportunity to look for employment. Also, the internship often places many students without needing further assistance from the school.

I believe the point Queen's is trying to emphasis is that even though you may be too busy to truely job hunt while in the program, because it is a 12 month intensive program, you are still likely to return to the work force and begin getting a return on your investment quicker than if you entered a traditional "2 year" program.

Anonymous said...

Please look at the link on your page 'Queen's MBA 2007 Placement Stats' Page 7. Please show me another school that uses the 6-month metric, because to date - I haven't seen one yet.

I realize that 'placement' per se just means getting ANY job offer - but isn't that a little scary that Queen's has to skew the stats so it looks 90%+ even to get that first offer.

I can understand the issue with less time available for job hunting, but please examine the stats for other prominent 1 year programs ie (INSEAD, Ivey) They seem to be doing exceptionally well within 3 months. I've also read the diatribe about placing the student with the RIGHT job but don't you think that Career building should be built into the curriculum allowing students to prep for interviews etc.?

Sorry, Im not trying to be a jerk, it's just that I am seriously considering Queen's but their placements seem a little concerning.

Bresslau said...

I am at Queen's at the moment, as an exchange student. Their program ends in may and most of the people already have a job secured. Some of them have set all up so that they will only start working in a month, 2 or even 6.
People are not worried about getting a job. They are anxious about the Finance exam on Friday.
In my opinion, these kinds of stats are irrelevant. Look at the course content, the teachers, the University, the people working in the support office, the type of candidates they get, the reputation (not only rankings), the country and city where the school is.
Then it will be your turn to take this all, make the best of it and find the job that you want.
Good luck,
Fernando
http://bresslau.com/blog

Appleseed said...

Thank you again for you comments. Don't worry, I'm not taking offence. You are absolutely correct to question every aspect of an investment that represents as much time, money, and effort as an MBA requires.

I have taken the time to check out the schools you mention and I have a few comments on them. Ivey's placement's stats were until "Sept 30, 2007", which puts them at 5 months after graduation if they are like everyone else with their class completed at the end of April. (http://www.ivey.ca/recruiting/PDFs/MBA%20Placement%20report%202007.pdf see page 3 of 13) Could just be that Queen’s decided 6 months was a nice round number and that 5 months or 3 months seemed odd. Perhaps they will change it this year to better reflect what other schools are doing.

I checked out INSEAD and they are 3 months for a 1 year program, but they appear to be pushing students towards employment for the last 3/5 of the program. After completing just 4 months of the program you are interviewing for positions. Also, they are situated in the middle of Europe so they may have a larger pool of employers. However, there is a good chance you will end up living and working in Europe. Not good, not bad, just something to be aware of.

All these career placement stats seem odd. Some schools have “total compensation” and others keep “signing bonus” separate. They are all trying to paint the best picture possible. Looking at these stats can drive a person insane.

I would pay more attention to who comes to the school to recruit and see if you would be interested in working for them. Even if you don’t get in right out of school and work somewhere else for a while to gain some experience, you are more likely to get to your “dream” employer if you went to the right school. There are some organizations I have looked at that pretty much only have people with MBAs from one school. Again, not good, not bad, just something to be aware of.

I agree with you that Career building and employment seeking should be built into the program, but at what cost? My number one priority for returning to school is knowledge and skills to open doors. The actual door opening is priority number two. I want to find employment for after graduation, but not at the cost of sacrificing the quality of my education. I am investing too much to allow that to happen. Besides, I've done so much job hunting that I have plenty of confidence in my skills to pound the pavement and drum-up a stellar opportunity. I'm pretty skeptical about "career centers" at schools in general. I'm sure the time and effort put in for MBA students by career centers makes them a cut above the rest. However, I firmly believe it has more to do with the student. It really depends on what you bring to the table: work experience, grades, yourself, etc.

In the end I would pick half a dozen really good programs and get to know the programs better. Finding the program that fits YOU best matters more than if you receive an offer may not even take. All the really good schools will have 90% plus placement stats. That is all fine and dandy, but you will get more out of your investment if you make sure the program will play to your strengths. In the end any “good” program will attract companies from a broad spectrum. I don’t think you can really “lose” if you start with all “winners”. In this way you can mitigate a lot of the uncertainty. You “win” with Ivey, Queen’s, INSEAD, Rotman, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Kellogg, Wharton, etc.? All good schools and all attract good employment opportunities and good placement stats. The hard part is which program will fit YOU best.

Anonymous said...

"You “win” with Ivey, Queen’s, INSEAD, Rotman, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Kellogg, Wharton, etc.? All good schools and all attract good employment opportunities and good placement stats."

-Sorry but these schools are not all in the same league. There are HUGE differences, and I don't want to criticize any one school, so let's just say that McKinsey hires 75 people a year at one of them, and 2 a year at another. Goldman Sachs hires 15 a year from one of them, and 0 from another. If you graduate from one of them, you can almost instantly start your own high tech company and raise $10 million in VC funding. Some of these schools have international reputations, and others don't. One of these will command a salary premium in Timbuktu, but most of them will be nice to have, but not enough to warrant a salary premium in ANY country.

Appleseed said...

I won't disagree with you that they are in "different leagues". They are, but not necessarily from an educational standpoint. They differ more in "reputations" that they build on alumni, who they let in and where they expect their graduates to go.

From your statement you are trying to equate working for a particular firm or organization as being a "good" thing. Obviously you think that working at Goldman Sachs and McKinsey is better than working else where, but I would question your logic on that one.

Sticking to the schools though, arguably you would get a good business education at all of them. In fact there is a pretty good arguement that you might get a slightly poorer education at some of the most "prestigious" ones since they have the most to lose. They are more motivated to do almost anything to ensure their grads are "the best" to preserve their reputations...perhaps even inflating grades or pulling strings to ensure their "name" continues to occupy key positions/industries. I'm not saying they do, but there is a strong motive for them to do so.

As far as who is hiring from where that has more to do with the candidates that get accepted to the program and less to do with the program. If you only let it top of the line Chartered Accountants then you will attract a certain group of employers than if you only let in people who have excelled in Information Technology. Do that for enough years and recruiters will use you as more of a "pre-screening" tool since they know who they are going to find.

So, if you want to work for Goldman Sachs in New York of course you will try for the school where they recruit, but what if you don't? Most of the "prestigious" schools I suspect you would put in a "league" of their own only really hold enough weight in US to ensure you get that top job. What about other countries? What if you absolutely do not want to work and live in the US? Guess it would a pretty dumb move to go to a top "league" US school steeped in US business knowledge then, eh? If you pay the premium on tuition these schools ask, you are pretty much doomed to work in the US to make it payout.

Finally, I'm guessing your story of some VC handing $10 million to a grad has a hell of a lot more to it than just the name of a school. No "good" VC would do that.

Appleseed said...

Just to further address the placement statistic comments earlier. I came across this article on the Queen's website that speaks specifically to reading business school placement stats.

http://business.queensu.ca/student_career_services/docs/Placement_Sats_04-06.pdf