News: 0179281696

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

MBAs Cost More and Are Less Profitable as ROI Falls (bloomberg.com)

(Tuesday September 16, 2025 @11:21AM (msmash) from the reality-check dept.)


Getting an MBA in the US has gotten a [1]little more expensive and a little less profitable , according to a Bloomberg analysis of salary and tuition data. From the report:

> This year's update of Bloomberg's Business School ROI Calculator, based on surveys of more than 9,500 students and alumni, projects a typical return on investment of 12.3% a year for the decade after graduation. That's down from 13.3% last year. The S&P 500 index, by comparison, returned 14.6% over the decade ending Aug. 31.

>

> The main reason for the decline: This year's respondents reported 6.2% better pre-MBA salaries than last year's, while projected postdegree earnings increased only 1.7%. In other words, the MBA pay edge -- the compensation boost graduates get for the degree -- shrank. In the broader US workforce, the average high-skilled worker's earnings rose 4.7% in the year ended July 31, Federal Reserve data show.

>

> Other factors didn't help: The increase in pre-MBA salaries meant students were forgoing more income during their studies. Tuition and other expenses increased 2.4%, some of that financed with bigger loans at higher rates. In all, the typical total investment to get an MBA in the US rose 6.8%, to almost $300,000.



[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-16/mbas-cost-more-and-are-less-profitable-as-roi-falls



because its cheaper to get anAI (Score:2)

by Growlley ( 6732614 )

to say slash costs this financial year no matter how and devil take the years bottom line,

Average values? (Score:3)

by Retired Chemist ( 5039029 )

I am not sure that these numbers are of any significance. The value of an MBA varies tremendously depending on the institution that you got it at. One from a big-name school is far more valuable than one from a local college, although there is no evidence that those who get the degrees from the big-name schools learn anything that gives more real value.

[Astrology is] 100 percent hokum, Ted. As a matter of fact, the first edition
of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, written in 1771 -- 1771! -- said that this
belief system is a subject long ago ridiculed and reviled. We're dealing with
beliefs that go back to the ancient Babylonians. There's nothing there....
It sounds a lot like science, it sounds like astronomy. It's got technical
terms. It's got jargon. It confuses the public....The astrologer is quite
glib, confuses the public, uses terms which come from science, come from
metaphysics, come from a host of fields, but they really mean nothing. The
fact is that astrological beliefs go back at least 2,500 years. Now that
should be a sufficiently long time for astrologers to prove their case. They
have not proved their case....It's just simply gibberish. The fact is, there's
no theory for it, there are no observational data for it. It's been tested
and tested over the centuries. Nobody's ever found any validity to it at
all. It is not even close to a science. A science has to be repeatable, it
has to have a logical foundation, and it has to be potentially vulnerable --
you test it. And in that astrology is really quite something else.
-- Astronomer Richard Berendzen, President, American University, on ABC
News "Nightline," May 3, 1988