My excuses for only now seeing a CNN article on the Top MBA Employers, published in May 2009.
What is interesting is that tech. companies like Google and Apple are in the top 5, alongside the predictable consultants such as McKinsey and BCG. Microsoft is at a still-respectable 12, but then there's a huge gap before getting to IBM (31), Cisco (42), Yahoo! (67), Ebay (69) and HP (70) and Nokia (85).
The tech. companies surely have a more secure future than many of the others in the list. BMW, for example - a car manufacturer - is at 22. Even the CIA fairs better than some, at 47.
So why is this? Is it based on salary? I doubt Google pay the best...
Is it based on prestige? Having to read endless reports and models by McKinsey and BCG for an MBA may give them an unfair advantage (if the post office began producing endless research, case-studies and 'nineteen Ns' models for logistics supply-chain management, maybe they'd be top of the list).
I admit to being surprised that MBA graduates aren't targetting tech. companies more, but perhaps the biggest problem is that they tend not to be taught much (in my experience) about new technology. They'll study ERP systems from the 80s, or how to project manage a new implementation, but they're not too hot on keeping up with the latest trends.
Is this the fault of the business schools who teach what is known (the trouble with new technology is no one can be 100% certain what will work and what won't) or with the students - who tend to be younger than the faculty - not engaging with their peers outside the MBA and seeing the potential of Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, bio-tech and so on?
Some schools concentrate on entrepeneurship, but that doesn't help the majority who want a good job with good prospects and a good salary. It would be interesting to see a study of the tech. firms who have recruited MBA graduates, and an attempt to measure (against a control firm) whether or not the fledgling company has benefitted from their educated intake.
