What Would You Die For?

Today is Memorial Day, and once again President Obama has fumbled the duties of his office. In some ways this should not surprise anyone; a man who fails to understand that the President of the United States - as the elected leader of a democratic republic - must never bow to anyone because this would symbolically subordinate the people he represents to a foreign power, would not grasp the significance of honoring our fallen heroes. But in some ways it is truly baffling how President Obama misses such obvious truths. The man rose to power precisely because he understands the power of symbols and gestures, words and timing. But perhaps he fails to grasp the importance of Memorial Day. Perhaps President Obama thinks that the uniforms, parades, and imagery are superficial and it doesn’t matter whether he, as President, is even there in person. Strange as that may sound, it could be that many people do not understand sacrifice, honor, and valor. After all, we do not often think of death, and few among us would be willing to lay our lives down for any reason if we had a choice.

Life has a certain calculus to it. We make choices all the time, based on a simple evaluation of whether the cost is justified by what we get in return. So, we go to school because we receive education, we work hard at our jobs because we hope for good wages and rewards. We build for the future, but always the decision is based on something like ‘do without this now, get something better later’. Enlightened self-interest, perhaps. But the soldier does not operate by such rules. He risks his safety and life for purposes which seldom benefit him directly at all, and often our veterans give up not only comforts and conveniences to do a hard, risky job, but many take permanent injury for a nation who too often thinks they are not due anything more than a small decoration and a few medical benefits. Many of the veterans from the Revolutionary, Civil, World, Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars suffered significant financial losses and permanent disabilities for their service. And that does not touch the cost of the dead.

I have some passing acquaintance with death. Not just the death of family and friends, I mean the personal consideration of my own demise. In 2006, a less-than-fully-informed oncologist told my wife that I probably would not live another year. I was fortunate to find much better medical care and advice, but at the time it also reminded me that there were responsibilities to meet, just in case I could not be there for my family as long as I would like. It’s sobering to have to look at your life in sum, and consider whether you have really done anything which mattered, or made a difference in someone’s life. The soldier never has to seriously worry on that count, but the consideration of death is far more imminent and real for him than for the civilian. The Fort Hood shootings remind us that simply being in uniform can make you a target for a monster, and those who serve on active duty in the Middle East cannot take anything for granted. It is a difficult burden to carry every day, yet far too few Americans consider that everyone in the military is a volunteer, and combat forces are built from men who choose to risk their lives because they believe in the cause and their team. The soldier thinks on a different level from the civilian, and his ideals are sharper in focus and far more substantial because he understands the cost he may have to pay for them. Whether Marine, Army, Navy, Air Force or Coast Guard, the American soldier lives a life of idealism far more authentic than anything most people can imagine. For the American soldier, Memorial Day is not about the uniform or the flag, but his buddies and the meaning they all believe and live by. For the American citizen, Memorial Day should be about recognizing a price paid by our soldiers that most of us have never seriously had to consider facing in our own lives. The burden, not only of fighting wars declared by politicians but protecting American citizens and interests the world over, and establishing the footholds of real freedom in places that have never known it before, and would never know it but for the bravery and valor of men from common community but rare caliber, is carried in daily service by more than a million men in arms, most of whom will never receive even a fair portion of the honor and reward they deserve, and some of whom will be maimed or die at an age far too young for the fortitude of their hearts and the injustice of their loss haunts at anyone who considers the cost paid by such men against the callous disregard by Congressmen, Senators, and self-serving cowards who think it meet for brave men to take up the challenge they would never themselves be willing to face. It is vital for us, the American people, to remember our veterans and what they have done for us, and on Memorial Day face the cost they pay, in blood, sweat, and tears, on our behalf.


Semper Fidelis!

Semper Paratus!

This We’ll Defend!

Non Sibi Sed Patriae!

Above All!

Thank you, Veterans! We the people owe you more than our treasury can pay, more than our media ever thinks about, and more than these occasional parades and passing tributes, but this nation is made by you and your ancestors and your progeny, and we thank you for your valor, sacrifice, and honor. May America always find such men, and may God grant us never forget you or your work!

Considering Kagan

Every so often, I make my fellow Conservatives angry at me. Sometimes because I lack tact in how I put things, and sometimes because I see things differently. The fact is, from where I sit, most conservatives think as individuals while liberals are more prone to group-think. One good example of this is the 2005 controversy over the nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court,
by President George W. Bush. Like Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Miers’ resume and credentials as a potential SCOTUS Justice seemed thin and dubious for someone whose decisions could direct the nation’s course more than any elected official, but where Democrats and Liberals have so far been supportive of Kagan simply because Obama nominated her, Republicans and Conservatives harshly criticized Miers’ credentials and forced her withdrawal before even one minute of confirmation hearings. At the time, this behavior by radicals was offensive to me, and I still believe it contributed to a split in the party which led, among other things, to the Republican-led Congress abandoning the President and the public rejecting the GOP as the rightful leader of the government. Not because people rejected Conservative principles, but because true Conservatives do not launch character assassinations and sabotage their own party for personal gain, as happened in the Miers’ nomination controversy. This does not mean that Harriet Miers was qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court, but she deserved her nomination to be considered and addressed on her merits, not according to whether she knelt at the altar of political correctness, even on the Right. I warned at the time that the behavior of Conservatives was in contrast to their own stated standards, and even after Mier’s withdrawal and Alito became the new nominee, it became clear that hard-liners intended desired to continue punishing the less-than-pure. Even as they handed the Left a weapon that cost them Congress a year later, and the White House in the next Presidential election.

So, what does an old ugly incident from 2005 have to do with Elena Kagan’s nomination? The same forces and bigotries are in play, but this time the Conservatives need to be careful in their evaluation of Kagan’s qualifications, because an objective, reasoned examination could be very helpful, not only in countering President Obama but also in demonstrating a much-needed maturity in Congress, but the same old pettiness and sniping that has defined the party in the past five years would send a signal to America that electing Republicans and Conservatives would not be a solution to the mistakes and blunders of Democrats and Liberals since 2006. The chances of Democrats and the Left remaining in control of Congress rise strongly if Republicans and Conservatives play into the caricatures the media has already cast for them. As bloggers, we have a responsibility for careful consideration of our own tactics and methods:

It is not right to mock Solicitor Kagan on the basis of her appearance.

It is not right nor is it valid to bring up allegations of personal sexual orientation or possible behavior outside mainstream expectations (for crying out loud, has everyone forgotten how the Left cast Justice Thomas during his confirmation hearings?)

It is not right nor helpful to begin examination of Solicitor General Kagan as an enemy from the beginning.

While I agree that there is reason to be suspicious of Kagan simply because of Obama’s class of friends and colleagues, the only course any Conservative should consider is to maintain objectivity and to seek and discuss Kagan’s actual paper trail, statements in public and her responses to key issues that would come up in her potential role as a Justice. Kagan’s writings as editor of “The Princetonian” would be useful and valid, as would her articles at the “Harvard Law Review”. It would be helpful to know her opinions, in detail, of Abner Mikva, for whom she was a law clerk, and of Thurgood Marshall, for whom she also served as a law clerk. Since Kagan was on the faculty at the University of Chicago Law School , it is likely that this is where she first met Barack Obama, although we need more evidence on that point. It may also be helpful to learn Kagan’s reactions to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s decision not to hold hearings on her nomination by President Clinton in 1999 to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and any documents that committee may have reviewed. In short, while Kagan has never served as a judge, there are documents which could establish reasonable estimates of Kagan’s judicial foundation and judgment. She should be judged on those documents, her answers to the confirmation committee in context of her experience and constitutional comprehension, but never on any subjective or petty tactic. There is even more at stake than may be apparent to Conservatives.

Should You Pursue an MBA?

This article is part of a series discussing the selection of a school for earning an MBA degree online. Having discussed the value of online degrees and the importance of the AACSB as the chief accrediting body, I would like to step back at this point and discuss the reasons why you may want to earn an MBA – and why you may not want to chose that route.

The Master of Business Administration is a specialized degree, prized by most business professionals for its practical value. That is, there’s nothing wrong with a college degree, but some degrees are considered a requirement for certain fields. Engineers need engineering degrees, for example, and so it came about that corporations and business people came to value degrees in business. The MBA is generally recognized as the professional standard for managerial education, regardless of what concentration is chosen. As a result, many students earn an MBA in hopes of rising to high management positions with successful companies. The prominence of the school is also considered by many companies when hiring a student with little direct work experience.

So far, so good. But why would you need an MBA? Don’t companies promote employees to management without MBAs, and isn’t industry experience and your work record more important? Well, yes and no. Large companies pretty much always have a formal procedure for hiring and promotions, and for some positions an advanced degree is expected. Also, an MBA is almost never regarded as a liability, especially when combined with solid experience. The only times that an MBA would be viewed negatively, would be in cases where the experience is incompatible with the degree, or where the school issuing the degree is viewed in a negative light. Generally, therefore, earning an MBA is going to help your career, although it is no guarantee of success in and of itself.

On the other hand, however, many people who pursue the MBA do not have a specific career strategy in place. That is, they hope that getting an MBA will help them, although they do not know what they will do with the degree. This is a mistake on multiple levels. Not only is it a bad idea to assume that the degree will make your career happen for you, rather than earning your rewards through your work and initiative, it’s also impossible to make the degree work to your advantage if you don’t have a plan for it. Medical students are expected to select specialties and focus of study, and the same for law students. Business students, therefore, should also understand that they also need to earn a degree which suits their professional interests and skills. In the first place, MBA candidates need to focus on concentrations in Operations Management, Entrepreneurship, Accounting, Supply Chain, Real Estate, Finance, Marketing, Banking, Healthcare, Human Resources, Law, Medicine, Information Technology, Engineering, Hospitality, or Manufacturing. The schools which offer MBAs in the chosen concentrations, and the curriculum needed for that choice, are quite varied and careful choices must be made. As a general rule of thumb, if you do not know what concentration you would choose, you are not ready to apply to a graduate-level business school. Just going after an MBA is a waste of time and money without a solid plan.

There are essentially three kinds of MBA students. There are students who have just finished a Bachelor’s degree and who plan to earn an MBA prior to the start of their formal business career; there are people in the workforce who are returning to school to earn an MBA in order to pursue higher-order business positions; and there are successful professionals who continue to work and are pursuing an MBA with the sponsorship of their employer, as grooming for high-level executive positions (the Executive MBA in the true sense, not just as advertised). The value of the MBA, and the things the student should expect, are different for each type. The no-experience student will be relying heavily on the degree to open doors to interviews, and so the school name and GPA will be far more important than otherwise would be the case. Even so, the lack of experience will be a problem, so the student would be well-advised to consider courses which will have direct business applications, especially if the student has a target company in mind. For the student returning to school after years in the workforce, the MBA is more likely to be acquired as a tool meant to advance their career in the same industry, possibly the same company where they are working already. The most important aspect of the MBA for these students is whether they can demonstrate the expanded horizon which will open opportunities for them further up the company organization. That, and of course the documentation of their proficiency in their field at the graduate level. Where the young student seeks the degree in place of experience, the veteran employee seeks a degree which complements their experience. And third, the Executive MBA candidate is seeking the least versatile degree, but one which may open doors unavailable to anyone else or in any other way. There are a number of companies which expect a certain level of educational certification for their C-suite officers, and to that end they will sponsor candidates for the EMBA program at major universities.

The no-experience student will be tempted to enter a full-time program at the most prestigious traditional school where he or she is accepted. This leads to student loan debt of course and can be dangerous if the concentration and curriculum are not carefully planned in advance, but since so much rides on the school’s name for these students, many are willing to take that risk in hopes of getting considered for prominent positions once they graduate. Students may also pursue an MBA at an economically-advantageous school, in the calculation that a good job with little or no debt is smarter than gambling that they can claim a high-paying job right out of graduating from a prestigious but expensive school. Also, it should be noted that very few schools teach skills or material which is significantly different from other quality programs, so unless you have some reason to believe you will be put on the fast track at a Fortune 500 company right after graduation, you should consider the threshold for your career goals. Will it take a Harvard Business School or Stanford MBA to get you where you would like to go, or could you do it with an MBA from the Bauer School of Business at the University of Houston, or maybe you go middle-road, a solid regional school like Rice University or Texas.

For professionals with experience, you should know that your resume both helps and limits you. It helps, because you will be able to show real results in your history rather than just potential, and the MBA – if carefully designed – can extend your professional range and depth. It hurts, because every job in your history shows a career decision, and the aggregate message of your work history not only underscores your direction and growth, but by definition closes off the roads you did not take. Keep that in mind when you choose your path to the MBA, or in deciding whether the MBA will do for you what you want. The same caveat applies to EMBA candidates; if you leave your company after they sponsor you for an Executive MBA, it can make you look risky to future employers at key positions. And if you fail to do well in your studies, that embarrassment could also stain your career path. The point is not to add to the stress of the decision, but make sure you invest the time and consideration needed to make a solid cost-benefit analysis, because a lot of people find out later that a different course might have been better for them. The MBA can be a useful career enhancer, but it’s not a magic wand; there are graduates from even the best schools who can’t get work, or who find themselves far from the position they expected to land. And just about half the CEOs in America don’t have an MBA.

So before you go after an MBA, ask yourself these questions, and dig deep to find the answers that are right for you:

1. Do I need an MBA to get where I want to be?

2. How will an MBA get me to that place or position?

3. Will the school make a difference in the kind of job I am offered, really?

4. How much debt and stress and I willing to take on in the pursuit of my MBA?

5. Who have I talked to, in my chosen field, who can speak from experience about what an MBA can and cannot do for me?

Good luck.

Determining the Best Online MBA Schools, 2010 part 4

Back in January, I restarted my discussion of Online MBA schools. The next article addressed what, in my opinion, sets the Online MBA apart from other avenues to the degree. The next article after that discussed the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business, or AACSB for short, and the criteria for my rankings, summarized as follows:

So, I have established that my MBA candidate schools must offer a mainly-online (no more than six hours of face-to-face coursework required) curriculum, at a business school accredited by the AACSB. Tuition cost for out-of-state residents (including fees and service charges), availability of specialized concentrations and dual degrees (such as MBA-JD or MBA-MD programs), average GMAT score and Student/Faculty ratio are all major factors in consideration. Ranking of the full-time program by major periodicals is a minor factor, as is the availability. The 2008-9 profile for each school published on the AACSB website is used for initial consideration. Web information provided directly by the school’s site builds the rest of the report for a school.

There are 580 credentialed AACBS Schools of Business offering an MBA. I mention this for two reasons. One, the AACSB is not only the best-recognized international accrediting body for business schools, but with 580 member schools it offers broad access and opportunity, as well. And second, going through 580 schools’ information to compare their programs is exhaustive, even when one is seeking only to compare online programs. The reason for this, is that the MBA degree represents an evolution in education; most people do not consider that the standard Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees have been around for many generations, while the MBA degree dates back only two or three generations, even less when schools outside the United States are considered. The value of the MBA degree has been growing over time, so that more and more schools offer the degree, and schools have to consider how to reach the students they want, meaning that the number of accredited online MBA schools is also growing. As a result, a proper review of online MBA programs from AACBS-accredited schools means going through the roster of AACSB member schools to find out who is offering the MBA online. The following is an alphabetical list of the 580 AACSB-accredited schools offering MBAs, and therefore the starting list for consideration:


Aalto University (Finland) (formerly Helsinki School of Economics)
Abilene Christian University (TX)
Adelphi U (NY)
Adolfo Ibanez U (Chile)
Alfred U (NY)
American University (DC)
American U in Cairo (Egypt)
American U of Beirut (Leb)
Appalachian St U (NC)
Arizona St U (AZ)
Arkansas St U (AR)
Arkansas Tech U (AR)
Ashridge (UK)
Asian Institute of Management (Phil)
Aston U (UK)
Auburn U (AL)
Auburn U - Montgomery (AL)
Audencia Nantes School of Management (France)
Augusta St U (GA)
Australian Graduate School of Management (Aus)
Babson C (MA)
Ball St U (IN)
Barry U (FL)
Baruch C - City U of New York (NY)
Baylor U ( TX)
Bellarmine U (KY)
Belmont U (TN)
BEM Bordeaux Management School (France)
Bentley U (MA)
Berry College (GA)
Bilkent U (Turkey)
Binghamton U St U New York (NY)
Birmingham - Southern C (AL)
Bloomsburg U (PA)
Boise St U (ID)
Boston C (MA)
Boston U (MA)
Bowling Green St U (OH)
Bradley U (ILL)
Brandeis U (MA)
Brigham Young U (UT)
Brock U (Can)
Bryant U (RI)
Butler U (IN)
California Polytechnic St U - San Luis Obispo (CA)
California St Polytechnic U - Pomona (CA)
California St U - Bakersfield (CA)
California St U - Chico (CA)
California St U - East Bay (CA)
California St U - Fresno (CA)
California St U - Fullerton (CA)
California St U - Long Beach (CA)
California St U - Los Angeles (CA)
California St U - Northridge (CA)
California St U - Sacramento (CA)
California St U - San Bernadino (CA)
California St U - Stanislaus (CA)
Canisius C (NY)
Carnegie Mellon U (PA)
Case Western Reserve U (OH)
Central Michigan U (MI)
Chapman University (CA)
China Europe International Business School (China)
The Chinese U Hong Kong (China)
Christopher Newport U (VA)
The Citadel (SC)
City U Hong Kong (China)
Claremont Graduate U (CA)
Clarion U of Pennsylvania (PA)
Clark Atlanta U (GA)
Clark U (MA)
Clarkson U (NY)
Clayton St U (GA)
Clemson U (SC)
Cleveland St U (OH)
Coastal Carolina U (SC)
C Charleston (SC)
C New Jersey (NJ)
C William and Mary (VA)
Colorado St U (CO)
Colorado St U - Pueblo (CO)
Columbia U (NY)
Columbus St U (GA)
Concordia U (Can)
Cornell U (NY)
Cranfield U (UK)
Creighton U (NE)
Dalhousie U (Nova S)
Dalton St C (GA)
Dartmouth C (NH)
Delaware St U (DE)
DePaul U (IL)
Drake U (IO)
Drexel U (PA)
U C Dublin (Ire)
Duke U (NC)
Duquesne U (PA)
Durham University (UK)
E Carolina U (NC)
E Tennessee St U (TN)
E Illinois U (IL)
Eastern Kentucky U (KY)
Eastern Michigan U (MI)
E Washington U (WA)
EDHEC Business School, Lille and Nice (France)
Elon U (NC)
EM LYON (France)
Emory U (GA)
Emporia St U (KS)
Erasmus U Rotterdam (Nether)
ESADE (Spain)
ESCEM School of Business and Management (France)
ESCP Europe (France)
ESSEC Business School Paris-Singapore (France)
Fairfield U (CT)
Fairleigh Dickinson U (NJ)
Fayetteville St U (NC)
Florida Atlantic U (FL)
Florida Gulf Coast U (FL)
Florida International U (FL)
Florida St U (FL)
Fordham U (NY)
Fort Lewis C (CO)
Francis Marion U (SC)
Frostburg St U (MD)
Fu Jen Catholic University (Taipei)
Fundacao Getulio Vargas (Brazil)
George Mason U (VA)
G Washington U (DC)
Georgetown U (DC)
Georgia C & St U (GA)
Georgia Institute of Technology (GA)
Georgia Southern U (GA)
Georgia Southwestern St U (GA)
Georgia St U (GA)
Gonzaga U (WA)
Grambling St U (LA)
Grand Valley St U (MI)
Grenoble Ecole de Management (France)
Griffith U (Aus)
Groupe ESC Clermont (France)
Harvard U (MA)
HEC Montreal (Can)
HEC School of Management (France)
Henderson St U (AR)
HHL - Leipzig Graduate School of Management (Ger)
Hofstra U (NY)
The Hong Kong Olytechnic U (China)
The Hong Kong U Science and Technology (China)
Howard U (DC)
Idaho St U (ID)
Illinois Institute of Technology (IL)
Illinois St U (IL)
IMD, International Institute for Management (Switz)
INCAE (Costa R)
Indiana St U (IN)
Indiana U Kokomo (IN)
Indiana U Northwest (IN)
Indiana U of Pennsylvania (PA)
Indiana U - South Bend (IN)
Indiana U Southeast (IN)
Indiana U - Bloomington/Indianapolis
Indiana U - Purdue U Fort Wayne (IN)
INSEAD - France and Singapore (France)
Instituto de Empresa (IE) Business School (Spain)
Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administracion (IESA) (Venz)
Instituto Panamericano de Alta Direccion de Emprese (IPADE) (Mex)
Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (Mex)
Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey - Campus Monterrey
Iona C (NY)
Iowa St U (IO)
IQS - Instituo Quimic de Sarria (Spain)
Ithaca C (NY)
Jackson St U (MS)
Jacksonville St U (AL)
Jacksonville U (FL)
James Madison U (VA)
Johann Wolfgang Goethe - U Frankfurt am Main (Ger)
John Carroll U (OH)
Kansas St U (KS)
Keio U (Japan)
Kennesaw St U (GA)
Kent St U (OH)
King Fahd U of Petroleum and Minerals (Saud)
King's C (PA)
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) (S Kor)
Korea U (S Korea)
Kuwait U (Kuwait)
La Salle U (PA)
Lamar U (TX)
Lancaster U (UK)
Lander U (SC)
Le Moyne C (NY)
Lehigh U (PA)
London Business School (UK)
Long Island U - CW Post Campus (NY)
Longwood U (VA)
Lousiana St U - Shreveport (LA)
Louisiana St U (LA)
Louisiana Tech U (LA)
Loyola Marymount U (CA)
Loyola U Chicago (IL)
Loyola U Maryland (MD)
Loyola U New Orleans (LA)
Maastricht U (Neth)
Manhattan C (NY)
Marist C (NY)
Marquette U (WI)
Marshall U (WV)
Massachusetts Institute Technology (MA)
Massey U (N Zea)
McMaster U (Can)
McNeese St U (LA)
Memorial U of Newfoundland (Can)
Mercer U - Macon and Atlanta Campuses (GA)
Meredith C (NC)
Miami U (OH)
Michigan St U (MI)
Michigan Technological U (MI)
Middle Tennessee St U (TN)
Millsaps C (MS)
Minnesota St U - Moorhead (MN)
Minnesota St U - Makato (MN)
Mississippi St U (MS)
Missouri St U (MO)
Monmouth U (NJ)
Montana St U (MT)
Montclair St U (NJ)
Monterey Institute of International Studies (CA)
Morehead St U (KY)
Morehouse C (GA)
Morgan St U (MD)
Murray St U (KY)
Nagoya U Commerce and Business (Japan)
Nanyang Technological U (Singa)
National Chengchi U (Taipei)
National Chiao Tung U (Taipei)
National Sun Yat-sen U (Taipei)
National U Singapore (Sing)
Naval Postgraduate School (CA)
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJ)
New Mexico St U (NM)
New York U (NY)
Niagara U (NY)
Nicholls St U (LA))
Norfolk St U (VA)
N Carolina A&T St U (NC)
N Carolina Central U (NC)
N Carolina St U (NC)
N Dakota St U (ND)
N Georgia C & St U (GA)
Northeastern U (MA)
N Arizona U (AZ)
Northern Illinois U (ILL)
N Kentucky U (KY)
N Michigan U (MI)
Northwestern St U Louisiana (LA)
Northwestern U (IL)
Oakland U (MI)
Ohio Northern U (OH)
Ohio St U (OH)
Ohio U (OH)
Oklahoma St U (OK)
Old Dominion U (VA)
The Open U (UK)
Oregon St U (OR)
Ouachita Baptist U (AR)
Pace U (NY)
Pacific Lutheran U (WA)
Pennsylvania St U - Erie, Behrend C (PA)
Pennsylvania St U - Harrisburg (PA)
Pennsylvania St U Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies (PA)
Pennsylvania St U (PA)
Pepperdine U (CA)
Pittsburg St U (KS)
Pontifica U Catolica de Chile (Chile)
Portland St U (OR)
Prairie View A&M U (TX)
Purdue U (IN)
Qatar U (Qatar)
Queen's U (Canada)
Queen's U of Charlotte (NC)
Queensland U of Technology (Aus)
Quinnipiac U (CT)
Radford U (VA)
Rensselaer Polytechnic U (NY)
Rice U (TX)
Rider U (NJ)
Robert Morris U (PA)
Rochester Institute of Techbology (NY)
Rockhurst U (MO)
Roger Williams U (RI)
Rollins C (FL)
Rowan U (NJ)
Rutgers - St U New Jersey - Camden (NJ)
Rutgers - St U New Jersey - Newark/New Brunswick (NJ)
Sacred Heart U (CT)
Saginaw Valley St U (MI)
Saint Joseph's U (PA)
Saint Louis U (MO)
Saint Mary's U (Can)
Salisbury U (MD)
Sam Houston St U (TX)
Samford U (AL)
San Diego St U (CA)
San Francisco St U (CA)
San Jose St U (CA)
Santa Clara U (CA)
Sasin Graduate institute of Business Administration of Chulalongkorn U (Thai)
Savannah St U (GA)
Seattle Pacific U (WA)
Seattle U (WA)
Sejong U (S Korea)
Seoul National U (S Korea)
Seton Hall U (NJ)
Shenandoah U (VA)
Shippensburg U (PA)
Siena C (NY)
Simmons C (MA)
Simon Fraser U (Can)
Sogang U (S Korea)
Sonoma St U (CA)
S Carolina St U (SC)
Southeast Missouri St U (MO)
Southeastern Louisiana U (LA)
Southeastern Oklahoma St U (OK)
Southern Arkansas U (AR)
S Illinois U - Carbondale (IL)
S Illinois U - Edwardsville (IL)
Southern Methodist U (TX)
Southern U and A&M C (LA)
Southern Utah U (UT)
St. Bonaventure U (NY)
St. Cloud St U (MN)
St. John Fisher C (NY)
St. John's U (NY)
St. Mary's U (TX)
Stanford U (CA)
St U New York C at Brockport (NY)
St U New York C at Geneseo (NY)
St U New York C - Oswego (NY)
St U New York C - Plattsburgh (NY)
St U New York Institute of Technology - Utica/Rome (NY)
Stephen F Austin U (TX)
Stetson U (FL)
Suffolk U (MA)
SungKyunKwan U (S Korea)
Susquehanna U (PA)
Syracuse U (NY)
Tel Aviv U (Israel)
Temple U (PA)
Tennessee St U (TN)
Tennessee Technological U (TN)
Texas A&M International U (TX)
Texas A&M U (TX)
Texas A&M U - Commerce (TX)
Texas A&M U - Corpus Christi (TX)
Texas Christian U (TX)
Texas Southern U (TX)
Texas St U - San Marcos (TX)
Texas Tech U (TX)
Thuderbird School of Global Management (AZ)
Tilburg U (Neth)
Toulouse Business School (France)
Towson U (MD)
Trinity U (TX)
Truman St U (MO)
Tsinghua U (China)
Tulane U (LA)
Tuskegee U (AL)
Union Graduate C (NY)
United Arab Emirates U (UAE)
U Austral IAE Business School (Argen)
U Catolica Portugesa (Port)
U Nova de Lisboa (Port)
U Mannheim (Ger)
U Laval (Can)
U Antwerpen (Belgium)
U Albany St U New York (NY)
U Buffalo St U New York (NY)
U Akron (OH)
U Alabama (AL)
U Alabama - Birmingham (AL)
U Alabama - Huntsville (AL)
U Alaska - Anchorage (AK)
U Alaska - Fairbanks (AK)
U Alberta (Can)
U Arizona (AZ)
U Arkansas - Little Rock (AR)
U Arkansas (AR)
U Auckland (N Zea)
U Baltimore (MD)
U British Columbia (Can)
U Calgary (Can)
U California - Berkeley (CA)
U California - Davis (CA)
U California - Irvine (CA)
U California - Los Angeles (CA)
U California - Riverside (CA)
U Central Arkansas (AR)
U Central Florida (FL)
U Central Missouri (MO)
U Chicago (IL)
U Cincinnati (OH)
U Colorado - Boulder (CO)
U Colorado - Colorado Springs (CO)
U Colorado - Denver (CO)
U Connecticut (CT)
U Dayton (OH)
U Delaware (DE)
U Denver (CO)
U Detroit Mercy (MI)
U Dubai (UAE)
U Evansville (IN)
U Florida (FL)
U Georgia (GA)
U Glasgow (UK)
U Hartford (CT)
U Hawaii - Hio (HI)
U Hawaii - Manoa (HI)
U Houston (TX)
U Houston - Clear Lake (TX)
U Houston - Downtown (TX)
U Houston - Victoria (TX)
U Idaho (ID)
U Illinois - Chicago (ILL)
U Illinois - Springfield (IL)
U Illinois - Urbana-Champaign (IL)
U Iowa (IO)
U Kansas (KS)
U Kentucky (KY)
U Louisiana - Lafayette (LA)
U Louisiana - Monroe (LA)
U Louisville (KY)
U Maine (ME)
U Manchester (UK)
U Manitoba (Can)
U Maryland (MD)
U Massachusetts - Amherst (MA)
U Massachusetts - Boston (MA)
U Massachusetts - Dartmouth (MA)
U Massachusetts - Lowell (MA)
U Memphis (TN)
U Miami (FL)
U Michigan (MI)
U Michigan - Dearborn (MI)
U Michigan - Flint (MI)
U Minnesota - Duluth (MN)
U Minnesota (MN)
U Mississippi (MS)
U Missouri (MO)
U Missouri - Kansas City (MO)
U Missouri - St Louis (MO)
U Montana (MT)
U Montevallo (AL)
U Nebraska - Kearney (NE)
U Nebraska - Omaha (NE)
U Nebraska - Lincoln (NE)
U Nevada - Las Vegas (NV)
U Nevada - Reno (NV)
U New Hampshire (NH)
U New Mexico (NM)
U New Orleans (LA)
U N Carolina - Asheville (NC)
U N Carolina - Chapel Hill (NC)
U N Carolina - Charlotte (NC)
U N Carolina - Greensboro (NC)
U N Carolina - Wilmington (NC)
U N Dakota (ND)
U N Florida (FL)
U North Texas (TX)
U N Colorado (CO)
U N Iowa (IO)
U Notre Dame (IN)
U Oklahoma (OK)
U Oregon (OR)
U Otego (New Zea)
U Ottawa (Can)
U Pennsylvania (PA)
U Pittsburgh (PA)
U Portland (OR)
U Queensland (Aus)
U Reading (UK)
U Rhode island (RI)
U Richmond (VA)
U Rochester (NY)
U San Diego (CA)
U San Francisco (CA)
U Scranton (PA)
U S Alabama (AL)
U S Carolina (SC)
U S Carolina - Aiken (SC)
U S Carolina Upstate (SC)
U S Dakota (SD)
U S Florida (FL)
U S Florida - St. Petersburg (FL)
U S California (CA)
U Southern Indiana (IN)
U Southern Maine (ME)
U Southern Mississippi (MS)
U St Gallen (Switz)
U Strathclyde (UK)
U Surrey (UK)
U Sydney (Aus)
U Tampa (FL)
U Technology, Sydney (Aus)
U Tennessee - Chattanooga (TN)
U Tennessee - Knoxville (TN)
U Tennessee - Martin (TN)
U Texas - Arlington (TX)
U Texas - Austin (TX)
U Texas - Dallas (TX)
U Texas - El Paso (TX)
U Texas - San Antonio (TX)
U Texas - Tyler
U Texas - Permian Basin (TX)
U Texas - Pan American (TX)
U Pacific (CA)
U Toledo (OH)
U Toronto (Can)
U Tulsa (OK)
U Utah (UT)
U Vermont (VT)
U Virginia - Darden (VA)
U Virginia - McIntire (VA)
U Waikato (N Zea)
U Warwick (UK)
U Washington (WA)
U W Florida (FL)
U W Georgia (GA)
U Wisconsin - Oshkosh (WI)
U Wisconsin - Eau Claire (WI)
U Wisconsin - La Crosse (WI)
U Wisconsin - Madison (WI)
U Wisconsin - Milwaukee (WI)
U Wisconsin - Parkside (WI)
U Wisconsin - River Falls (WI)
U Wisconsin - Whitewater (WI)
U Wyoming (WY)
U.S. Air Force Academy (CO)
U.S. Coast Guard Academy (CT)
Utah St U (UT)
Utah Valley U (UT)
Valdosta St U (GA)
Valparaiso U (IN)
Vanderbilt U (TN)
Villanove U (PA)
Virginia Commonwealth U (VA)
Virginia Military Institute (VA)
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and St U (VA)
Virginia St U (VA)
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School (Belgium)
Wake Forest U (NC)
Washburn U (KS)
Washington and Lee U (VA)
Washington St U (WA)
Washington U - St Louis (MO)
Wayne St U (MI)
Weber St U (UT)
W Chester U (PA)
W Virginia U (WV)
W Carolina U (NC)
W Illinois U (IL)
W Kentucky U (KY)
W Michigan U (MI)
W New England C (MA)
W Washington U (WA)
Wichita St U (KS)
Widener U (PA)
Wilfrid Laurier U (Can)
Williamette U (OR)
William Paterson U (NJ)
Winston-Salem St U (NC)
Winthrop U (SC)
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (MA)
Wright St U (OH)
Xavier U (OH)
Yale U (CT)
Yonsei U (S Kor)
Youngstown St U (OH)


Big list, huh? Starting the process means visiting each school’s website to review their programs and online options, because to be blunt, you may be sorry if you don’t know what you want, or if you find out later that you could have had an easier time or better results than you did.

Next: A recap of how to decide whether an MBA is right for you.

Get Real, Mr. Steele

I’m coming up on a birthday, and let’s just say I’m approaching full Geezerhood. Certainly I am well into my ‘curmudgeon’ years. My point is that as much as I’d like to buy into the belief that the Donk Party is about to implode and give the Congress back to rational adults, I have too much experience with Republicans at the Give-Orders-Don’t-Learn level to expect them to suddenly live up to their promises and hype. The GOP, after all, is the party which figured John McCain was our best candidate for President in 2008, which couldn’t decide whether President Bush should be supported or deserted during his terms in office, which had the stones to impeach President Clinton for clear felonies committed while in office, but not to actually convict him, that figured Bob Dole was as good as they needed to do in 1996 ... you get the idea. The only reason I can stand the Republican Party at all, is because the Democrats are much worse.

So, I get this letter today from Michael Steele. A form letter, of course, no one high up in politics pays any attention to me, and he wants money of course … subtle man, he only asked for money … let me count it up here … NINE times in the letter. What strikes me as odd, being an accountant, is that the man never actually says why he should get money from me. Oh sure, he has a lot to say about Obama and the Democrats, but that’s not telling me why giving the RNC money is a good idea. I look back at the past and what the GOP has done with money which I and other Conservatives have paid in, and well sir, I can’t say as I am impressed with the RNC’s track record. Accountable, they are not. Trustworthy, not so much. That is, I figure it makes more sense for me to decide on a candidate I like, send him or her my donation, and Mr. Steele can go on TV shows and earn his money instead of playing political evangelist – all hype and no solid answers – to con me into sending him money just because he plays up the fear of Donkeystein.

The letter bugs me, as well. I opened it because it is headlined, in big bold letters that were visible through a clear section of the envelope, 2010 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT SURVEY. OK, I think to myself, I have ideas and concerns for my district, let’s see what they’re asking. Turns out the title is dishonest – there’s sixteen questions in there, not counting #17 which – again – asks for money as if we can return sanity to D.C. by simply spending enough money. Somehow that scheme is familiar, but it didn’t sound like a good game plan the first several times I heard it, either. Anyway, not one of those 16 questions had anything to do with my specific Congressional District, and yes Mr. Steele that makes you a liar. I don’t like liars and you can’t pretend this letter reflects well on your or the RNC.

What else bugs me, is the content of those sixteen questions. I won’t copy them all here, since just reading them hurts my brain cells to think that anyone could think they are serious in asking them, but here’s a few to give you an idea of what they asked:

2. Should Republicans fight congressional Democrats’ efforts to grant full unconditional amnesty to illegal immigrants?
4. Do you believe that the federal government should maintain a permanent ownership stake in large auto companies?
15. Do you believe that this nation’s Founding Fathers intended for the federal government to micro-manage state and local functions such as healthcare, child care, and unemployment assistance?

The whole thing was like that, questions I could not believe that the RNC did not know its position on, or which they seriously intended to tabulate as a feedback source on their issue targeting. The questionnaire was clearly intended to play on emotion rather than reason, and that’s something despicable to me. The RNC clearly has no interest in the key issues I care about, and I notice there was no place for me to write down my concerns or thoughts. It was all about them, getting money and pushing buttons, not about them working for the people they claim to represent.

If Mr. Steele and the RNC really want to win this November, they had better stop playing these tired old games and grow up. The TEA parties are not anti-Democrat, they’re anti-arrogance. People are not so much fed up with one political party, as they are with being liked to and ignored. A real Congress works for the people, so they’d better stop acting like they own us. We are strong Republicans and Conservatives. We are not, however, fools or morons.

The Twenty-Year Manager

When I was earning my MBA, I heard a lot of students talk about books they had read which taught quick rules of business and management. One of the most popular is The One Minute Manager, by Kenneth Blanchard (PhD) and Spencer Johnson (MD). It often seems as though everyone knows this book, yet it's pretty obvious that most managers are, hmm, less than outstanding. I also noticed a certain, well, arrogance among young people that they will become masters of their industry simply because they get a nice shiny degree from Important University. While I agree that education is important, and so is certification, for some things you really need the voice of experience. You can get that in two options - you can learn it by trial and error, or you can find someone who's been there and is willing to share their knowledge and experience. That can happen in four ways; you can pay for a class where someone with experience teaches what they know, which is one reason the really expensive schools charge so much; you can hope that your company will assign you a mentor; you can ask around and try to find experienced business professionals on your own; or you can listen to the veterans in your company and field. You might be surprised to find how many people with long experience are willing to share what they know - their motive is surprisingly generous and kind, actually. Most companies, speaking bluntly, either don't train their managers to be managers (somehow, companies never seem to grasp that promoting a person who has education or does a job well, does not necessarily mean that they can manage a team or show leadership just because they're promoted), or that training is less than what you need. A lot of veterans, on the other hand, can you tell you about your most important customers and clients, how to avoid the political hot potatoes that show up sooner or later, and - very important - what you do well and what you do not do well, and how to deal with the different personalities, skill sets, and personal goals of your team.

There are a lot of 'one minute managers' out there, who have learned maxims and clever insights that made them feel ready to do their job. But the really good managers, in my experience, listened to the 'twenty year managers' available to them, even when those "managers" were their subordinates.

Reason and Politics

I have been reading a very badly-done book written by a very lazy author. The book is titled “The Successor”, and the author is Stephen Frey. I found the book at the library when trying to find new books for my daughter and myself, and seeing that the library had several books by the author, I decided to give him a try, because if he was good there would be a lot of material to enjoy. However, Stephen Frey is to good writing what Al Gore is to personal integrity – he claims the honor but does nothing to deserve it. The characters are shallow and predictable, stereotypes abound, and while the plot moves along, the reader is neither enriched ethically nor challenged intellectually in reading this sludge. If Big Macs can be said to be bad for your physique, then this author is a threat to brain cells and rational analysis.

Leaving aside the horrid fiction of Mr. Frey though, I pondered the way this man thinks. He happens to be not only a liberal but also a managing director of a private equity firm in Florida. In this regard, Frey seems to be of the common liberal aristocratic mold – like the Kennedys, he expects the common people to be unable to govern themselves, and therefore the election of a liberal is by the grace of some unnamed ethical force – perhaps the Shiny Pony Unicorn, since Frey’s characters never mention God except when swearing – while the election of a conservative is (in his mind) a swindling of the sheep by the appointment of a crook by his cronies. As if that tired old libel were not enough, Frey is clearly unable to recognize an accurate image of the professional American soldier, the notion that ordinary working-class Americans have worthwhile values and noble ideals they live by, or even to respect the notion that people who earn their money are perhaps better judges of what should be done with their taxes than men who have never worked for a living, like Congressmen, Equity firm directors and novelists who spew out a book with less than a third of the effort needed to develop the characters, plot, and theme.

I could go on disparaging Mr. Frey for a long time without insulting him half so badly as he deserves, but the man would probably enjoy the attention, fail to understand the issue, and in any case the larger question take precedence. That question for here, is how to make sure that we, as conservatives, do not commit the same offenses as Mr. Frey. That is, it is tempting to caricature liberals according to the worst behavior of their leading slimeballs, but in all honesty, they can’t all be as corrupt as Harry Reid, as stupid as Nancy Pelosi, or as brazenly self-serving as President Obama. Some liberals are honest, sincere in their desire to help as many people, to address suffering and seek justice. Sure, they’re going about it the wrong way, in much the same way that a lot of good, honest Germans somehow failed to see Adolf Hitler and the Nazis for what they were (kneejerk spittle attacks from the Leftists reading this in 3, 2 …), but they do mean well. What else is odd, is that many of them are reasonably smart, like Mr. Frey. Foolish and astoundingly short-sighted, though, as if they only use their intelligence every so often, like some people I knew in school. In a way, that’s a kind of hint from Life. People get romantically involved with individuals they know will be bad for them, throw away opportunity and every good thing for some stupid thrill of the moment, and yeah, they vote for people that – down deep – they know will turn out to be frauds and liars. And sorry folks, there’s no shortage of that kind of foolishness on either side of the aisle. Sure, the Republicans found Reagan, or more likely God took pity on America and sent him – then got angry at us and punished us with Obama – but the GOP also gave us Bob Dole and John McCain. And sorry, I know this will get me some flak from our side, but no, Sarah Palin is not Presidential timber. She’s a fine person and stands for some great values, but … no. The thing is, millions of Republicans supported candidates they knew would lose, and in any case were not what the country needed. That does not make it rational for someone to vote for Senator Chicago-Way, but we need to understand that politics is not often about what is right and reasonable.

Of course, most drunks sober up, most kids eventually grow up, and once you think seriously about the future you can’t have a conscience and a three-digit IQ and not be a conservative. But the real world has alcoholics, career criminals, and Democrats, and even an Equity Fund director is not immune to the complete collapse of his moral framework. So, the next time some troll plasters the blog with some screed that even Hillary Clinton would consider going too far, just remember that for some folks, that’s the only universe they know.

Thoughts Passed on to Me

1. Nothing stinks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.
2. I totally take back all those times I didn't want to nap when I was younger.
3. There is great need for a sarcasm font.
4. How the heck are you supposed to fold a fitted sheet?
5. Even when opportunity knocks, you still have to get off your rear and open the door.
6. Map Quest really needs to start their directions on #5. I'm pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.
7. Obituaries would be a lot more interesting if they told you how the person died.
8. I can't remember the last time I wasn't at least kind of tired.
9. Bad decisions make good stories.
10. You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.
11. Can we all just agree to ignore whatever comes after BluRay? I don't want to have to restart my collection...again.
12. I'm always slightly terrified when I exit out of Word and it asks me if I want to save any changes to my ten-page research paper that I am pretty sure I did not make any changes to.
13. "Do not machine wash or tumble dry" means I will never wash this - ever.
14. I hate when I just miss a call by the last ring (Hello? Hello? Drat it!), but when I immediately call back, it rings nine times and goes to voice mail. What did you do after I didn't answer? Drop the phone and run away?
15. I hate leaving my house confident and looking good and then not seeing anyone of importance the entire day. What a waste.
16. I keep some people's phone numbers in my phone just so I know not to answer when they call.
17. I think the freezer deserves a light as well.
18. I disagree with Kay Jewelers. I would bet on any given Friday or Saturday night more kisses begin with Miller Lite than Kay.
19. Sometimes, I'll watch a movie that I watched when I was younger and suddenly realize I had no idea what the heck was going on when I first saw it.
20. I would rather try to carry 10 plastic grocery bags in each hand than take 2 trips to bring my groceries in.
21. I have a hard time deciphering the fine line between boredom and hunger.
22. How many times is it appropriate to say "What?" before you just nod and smile because you still didn't hear or understand a word they said?
23. I love the sense of camaraderie when an entire line of cars team up to prevent an A-hole from cutting in at the front. Stay strong, brothers and sisters!
24. Shirts get dirty. Underwear gets dirty. Pants? Pants never get dirty, and you can wear them forever.
25. Is it just me or do high school kids get dumber & dumber every year?
26. There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far.
27. As a driver I hate pedestrians, and as a pedestrian I hate drivers, but no matter what the mode of transportation, I always hate cyclists.
28. Even under ideal conditions people have trouble locating their car keys in a pocket, finding their cell phone, and Pinning the Tail on the Donkey - but I'd bet my last nickel everyone can find and push the snooze button from 3 feet away, in about 1.7 seconds, eyes closed, first time, every time!

President Puffery

I’m not a fan of Domino’s Pizza, but they have a commercial running which I do like. They have a guy standing in front of a courthouse, and they mention a suit they claim to have brought against Papa John’s Pizza. To hear the Domino’s people, when confronted with claims they made on television, their attorneys said their advertisements were “puffery”. The Domino’s people went on to explain that the word means ” a statement classified as an opinion, not fact, that no reasonable person would take literally.” Yeah, that brought up visions of President Pony-in-the-Pile.

Let’s take NASA, for example. Seems that the President who never saw an expansion of government he did not like, made an exception when it comes to protecting America’s investment in space exploration and technological innovation. Of course, he made a few statements that bugged the heck out of real pioneers and heroes in the space program, so Waffles backed up and allowed as how he was just “refocusing” NASA’s mission. Hinted at an extra shuttle mission to keep some Kennedy jobs and plugged some things into other projects just so he could say he cared, but made sure that the Johnson Space Center got the shaft. That and everything else in Texas.

Eventually, it even dawned on President I-Love-Me that being so obviously anti-Texas was not the wisest course, since so much of NASA depends on the JSC staff and facilities. So, President I-Won-Dammit promised that man would go to Mars in his lifetime. Apparently, Obama means someone from China or Russia, because his budget has no provision at all for a lunar flight, let alone a Mars mission. But President Oprah has never been one to depend on facts when speechifying a vision. Why, simply getting elected solved Global Warming, Nuclear Weapons and World Hunger, or why else did Obama get a Nobel Peace Prize? The fact that he not only has no plans whatsoever that could even remotely be said to lead to a Mars Mission, along with the chainsaw act on NASA’s budget and staffing, make it quite plain that President OneTermPlease is simply blowing his bilge in public again.

The lesson to take from the Mars Mission Lie, er, puffery, is that no promise made by Obama should ever be taken seriously. Public debate on all bills? Tax cuts for everyone making less than a quarter-mill? Spending that Trillion on genuine needs for the nation? Actually listening to anyone but His Inflatulence? Please. This is a guy who makes Joe Isuzu look like Abe Lincoln for integrity.

I can’t say I’m inclined to buy a pizza from Domino’s, but at least they pegged the Con Artist in Chief. However inadvertently.

The Whiskey Boys

After the end of the American Revolution, a set of problem worried the new government. High on that list was the question of how to pay back the war debt. In order to show itself a truly functional government, the United States had to resolve a large debt owed to all manner of creditors, including foreign powers, businesses, bond buyers and war veterans, who in the main had been paid only in scrip. The chosen plan to address the United States’ international financial credibility, was the Bank of the United States, the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, who enjoyed the blessing of President George Washington, whose favor all but guaranteed its support in Congress.

The bank, however, depended on a special security, bonds sold to bring in capital for the government, yet the government needed capital to pay for those bonds as well. Hamilton’s answer, blessed by President Washington and the Congress, was an excise tax on whiskey. To the mind of Congress, this was a perfect solution, as whiskey was considered not only a luxury, but sinful because of the behavior of many men who drank it. Note also that the Congress chose to target whiskey, not wine or any other spirit likely to be imported from a country where the United States wanted to build a commercial relationship. The tax was assigned to whiskey, specifically whiskey distilled in the western territories.

To the pioneers in western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky, the tax was not only onerous, but an outrage built upon another outrage. Many veterans of the Revolution found that they had lost land and property during the war, and so were ‘paid’ with promissory notes, which the Congress dithered about repaying for more than a decade in some cases. Many of these men ended up selling their notes to speculators for land in the western territories, finding out only later that the land was often neither arable nor valuable, and in some cases the new settler discovered that he had not in fact really bought the land at all. Even where the settlers were able to live on the land they bought, they were offered far less than the notes were worth. For these settlers, it was an outrage that having been fleeced by speculators once, they were to be taxed in a manner aimed directly at them, and them alone.

Cash was scarce in the new territories, so barter and various mediums of exchange came into use. While some settlers were successful farmers, because no highways had been built, there was no way to ship produce to the East, and the Spanish who controlled the Mississippi River barred the settlers from shipping goods on it. After some time, the settlers discovered that whiskey was a valuable commodity. Unused grain and fruit would spoil and become worthless very soon, but whiskey could be stored, and in fact gained value as it aged. The whiskey tax, therefore, targeted the principal means of the settlers’ commerce.

Worse, the tax had to be paid in hard currency, and worse still, the tax was not based on cash sales or even proportion of inventory, but on the tax collectors’ estimates of whiskey production. A tax collector could assign literally any dollar amount on a whiskey producer, and many did so because their enforcement rights allowed them to seize property and land. Given that many of the settlers had fought in the war against unfair taxation, this was unconscionable on its face. Protests rose up in short order in many places, including the South where landowners saw the Tax as a prelude to government takeover of anyone in its way. Armed rebellion began in 1794 near Pittsburgh, but no one was killed – the rebels made it a point to voice their anger but stop short of lethal force.

President Washington, under the authority of the Militia Law passed in 1792, called up a military force larger than the entire Continental Army used in the Revolutionary War, and set it under the command of Virginia Governor Harry “Light Horse” Lee, whose grandson, Robert E. Lee, would surpass him. Lee considered the post unsuitable and handed control over to his civilian advisor appointed by President Washington – Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton drove his army into and all about Western Pennsylvania, but the rebel forces refused to give him a target and melted away into the mountains and hills. What’s more, the local citizens were hostile to the government forces – the army was commonly asked why they were unwilling to protect the settlers from attacks by Indians, but were so quick to hunt down veterans of the Revolution, patriots who merely opposed an unfair and discriminatory tax that any free man would find abhorrent – so the army eventually drew up charges – on dubious evidence – against twenty men, two were convicted (but not in Western Pennsylvania), and seeing the futility of the move, President Washington pardoned those two and called the matter closed.

The tax remained fiercely unpopular, helped bolster the fortunes of the young Democratic-Republican Party and Thomas Jefferson, and was repealed in 1803.

Since History is not a popular course these days, either with students or the mostly PC school districts, the lessons of the Whiskey Rebellion are not commonly discussed, much less considered in the light to today’s conditions and events. But men who deem themselves better than the common man, who imagine that their solution will be painless for all just because it benefits them personally, would do well to consider the one notable blunder in Washington’s terms as President, which consequences altered not only political history but the character of American finance – it should be remembered that the Bank of the United States failed, not once but twice – and the lessons of how anyone, when pushed far enough, will push back.

Regicide vox Populi

Today is the day Christians observe the death of Christ, Good Friday. According to Scripture and Christian theology, on this day Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, culminated His mission on Earth as the Messiah and King of Kings, by dying on the cross on false charges of insurrection against Rome, after several sham trials, beatings, and a whipping that tore open His back. The day was shameful for Humanity in virtually every respect, and it is no surprise that memory of the event makes people angry. Jews resent the parts in Scripture where the people and the Levites in Jerusalem rejected Christ and demanded His death though they knew Him innocent and righteous, non-believers resent the account of His courage and resurrection, and even some Christians shrink from the fact that every one of Christ’s disciples and followers fell short of their duty when He was taken – Judas betrayed Christ, all the disciples fled, and the chief among them, Peter, denied even knowing Jesus. And the women, though they held little power, followed close enough to watch the crucifixion and were there when the angels announced His resurrection, also fled at His capture and did nothing to hinder either the Romans or the Levites or the men who plotted against Christ. I say this not in condemnation of any of these groups, but to observe the frank fact that all Humanity was guilty of Christ’s murder, and if you or I were there at the time we would have done no different than these we judge villains in the matter. Grace from God is not for some but for all, and part of the reason for that is that God loves us all, and we all are in desperate need of His Grace.

But Good Friday is not about Grace – it’s about Consequences. Maundy Thursday represents the choice men make to sin, and Sunday the Grace of God which results in forgiveness and rebirth. But Friday is the Day of Judgment, which applies here as allegory in addition to true history. We live in an age where it is popular to imagine that we may do as we please, to enjoy ourselves and imagine that nothing is damaged as a result of our choice. We fail at goodness and so dispute even the existence of holiness, turning our eyes from examples in front of us every day so we can pretend that doing as we will is the highest moral plane, even as teach children to be better and demand it from government, authority, and our neighbors.

This is nothing new, though. The old empires were built on greed and lust for power just as modern men do the same, and Plato once wrote of a kind of man who lived in a cave, being lied to through shadows and darkness, yet when he escaped the cave and faced the true light, he deemed it false because it was alien to what he knew, and he embraced the shadows, even knowing they were false, because it was too much to embrace the truth when it was a truth too strong and bold for him to accept.

The Troll President

There’s this person who visits blogs. A lot. Way more than just a regular reader. He pretty much lives there, and comments on everything. So far, fine. Bloggers love people who read their stuff all the time. But this guy, well, he lives in the wrong side of reality. You got some folks with low self-esteem, some with a bit too much self-image, then you have this guy. A guy who imagines that his opinion is so good, that no one else has a right to do anything but agree. In the old days, a guy like that would try to get his own radio show, and in modern days most such blowhards write blogs or work for outfits like MSNBC or CBS. But some folks are just too stupid and lazy to write their own articles. Instead, guys like this show up in someone else’s blog, and instead of making cogent and reasoned observations, or at least presenting rational opinion and defending it with something like logic, this guy basically screams insults and flings poo. The generic name for this kind of person is “troll”, but you know who I mean. A troll is a person who basically cannot conduct himself in any way but the most vulgar and disrespectful manner.

That kind of person, I once believed, could never rise to the office of President of the United States. History, however, has proven otherwise. We’ve had jerks in the Oval Office before, self-possessed morons who cared more for their image than the nation’s welfare. We’ve even had a few whose mental balance was, at times, quite possibly in question. Yet for all of that, until now every President has believed that what he said and did was in the best interests of the people of the United States, and that the way in which he conducted himself in public, especially in public debate, was to be exemplary. That has changed with Barack Obama. President Obama cares nothing for anyone but himself, and even the welfare of the United States of America is a distant second to getting his way. There is no one he will not attack, malign, defame, bully or extort to get what he wants. The target selection ranges every so often, from blaming former officials to his own underlings, to his role models, to the Congress, to business leaders, bankers, doctors, accountants … pretty much a cross-section of America whenever he thinks a cheap shot will advance his plans. And like all trolls, President Obama is impervious to logic, recognition of the failure of his plans and the irrational character of his rhetoric and vulgar flavor of his behavior. The difference between a blog and the White House, of course, is that you can read a different blog or tune out the troll on the blog; we have to put up with the White House Troll until 2012.

Time for a Little Madness

Sometimes you have to focus on priorities. And for American males, that means it’s Bracket Time. We all know who should win the NCAA Tournament, but the play’s the thing, and the play starts tomorrow, with apologies to Arkansas-Pine Bluff and Winthrop who already had their play-in game. To keep it simple, I propose those interested in the discussion just name their Sweet Sixteen, Final Four, and National Champion. To get it started, here are mine:

Sweet Sixteen
Midwest Regional
Kansas
Maryland
Ohio State
Georgetown

East Regional
Kentucky
Wisconsin
West Virginia
New Mexico

West Regional
Syracuse
Butler
Kansas State
Xavier

South Regional
Duke
Utah State
Villanova
Baylor


Final Four
Kansas
Kentucky
Syracuse
Baylor

National Champion
Kansas

The Comfort Zone

Some years back when I was much younger and more naïve, a friend talked me into joining Amway as a distributor. The premise seemed simple and attractive; Amway offers a range of cleaning and household products that – so they claim – are superior in quality and comparable or cheaper in price. In addition, Amway’s system of compensation – as they described it – allowed the opportunity for distributors to build a network which would lead to income based on other people’s work – a Ponzi scheme, as it turned out, although Amway laid things out carefully to avoid prosecution for fraud – everyone knew what the company was doing, but could not prove it. Since discovering the lies and hypocrisy of Amway and cutting my losses, I have encountered a number of other people who believed the company’s promises and quit when they found out the promise was false, but never yet anyone who made a successful career with the company. The relevance to today’s post, is that Amway pushed its distributors to ‘get out of their comfort zone’, to take risks without carefully considering the full costs against desired benefits. In that light, it should hardly be surprising that so many people who joined Amway suffered losses they never expected, and who found the company lacking in integrity and ethics.

Most of us have heard of the ‘comfort zone’. We are told that we get into habits and certain ways of doing things, and that we get used to the routine and resist change, even when it can be good for us or even necessary. People telling us to ‘get out of our comfort zone’ include doctors, bosses, and teachers, but we also run into this from people trying to get us to do things for their benefit more than for our own. A key sign of what sort of motive a person has for pushing you to ‘get out of your comfort zone’, would be whether they are willing to let you think through the argument, and consider in detail what risks and benefits you are facing if you accept or decline the offer or proposition. Anyone pushing you to accept their demands without proper consideration may reasonably be considered a con man more than someone with your interests as a priority. For example, when I was first diagnosed with abdominal cancer in 2006, my initial oncologist wanted to schedule radical surgery, and became very upset when I wanted to get a second opinion. His conduct verged on unprofessional then, as he hid my medical records in a childish attempt to keep me from sending them to the other oncologist. I had a rare condition he wanted to treat for his own intellectual interest, and he could not have cared less about me as a person facing a serious condition. Like others, he pressed for me to agree to major surgery simply because he felt I should have it, and in his argument he argued that my reluctance was more from my ‘comfort zone’ than to reasonable concern to make sure it was the best course of action. In the end, I had to threaten his office with HIPAA to get the records released, but my experience with my oncologist at M.D. Anderson was night and day better, as MDA found a non-invasive way to treat my condition. In truth, staying in my ‘comfort zone’ became impossible once I was diagnosed, but demanding my rights and pursuing all of my options were not at all to do with a ‘comfort zone’, but responsible deliberation of the situation.

The ‘comfort zone’, of course, also shows up a lot in politics. We have seen this with the Global Warming hoax, best demonstrated by the demand from activists that there is no time to verify their claims of cataclysmic climate change, but draconian measures must be immediately undertaken without debate, let alone proof. The con men doubled down with the laughable lie that the science is proven and the debate settled. The hoax has begun to fall apart in recent weeks, but the scheme progressed alarmingly far with little public scrutiny of the hoaxers’ motives and claims. The same propaganda tool was used to pass massive spending programs through Congress, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent on pet projects on the pretense that immediate action was needed to avoid a rise in the unemployment rate – which continued to rise after the legislation anyway, largely because the spending in the bill had nothing in truth to do with protecting or creating jobs in major industries or to help small companies, which make up most jobs. It was, the public is beginning to realize, a lie to cover a money grab for their buddies. More than the Tea Party protests, more than preference for a political party, the public outrage over being lied to is what is fueling the move to throw out incumbents.

That’s not to say that no one should worry about the need to get out of their comfort zone. Those politicians who think they can support Obama’s Chicago Con bills in March and still enjoy re-election this November are in for a nasty shock, as are the party leaders, Republican as well as Democrat, who still ignore the need for reform and attention to their grass roots and the ideals that made them relevant to Americans before the present era. Earmarks and special interest favors are the comfort zones of politics that the public is demanding be ended. The future of American politics depends on the leaders who first recognize and acknowledge that the people are America, and not deep-pocket special interest groups.

Wealth Theory

One characteristic which separates Republicans and Democrats in most people’s minds, is their attitude towards wealth. Democrats often believe that Republicans are biased in favor of the wealthy and against ‘the poor’, who are commonly imagined as minorities, women, and the elderly, and that Democrats stand for fair outcomes, so made by actions taken to punish greed. Republicans often believe that Democrats are biased in favor of special interest groups and against ‘working Americans’, who are commonly imagined as America in total, and that Republicans stand for equal opportunity, so made by elimination of subjective barriers and penalties used to punish business success. Democrats and Republicans both claim to speak for Main Street, although Democrats claim Republicans are buddies of Wall Street, Republicans claim Democrats are buddies of Broadway, and far too many members of both parties act like they live on Bourbon Street. This article is written to set out my understanding of how wealth is created and developed, and to begin a discussion on perspectives of the same concern.

There is a sense in the modern culture that money is a bad thing, and that rich people are bad people. Democrats promote this sense in politics by accusing business leaders and major companies of “greed” whenever the business community is opposed to a policy or bill supported by Democrats. Opposition by Democrats to financial success, however, does not appear to extend to criticism of celebrities and actors, to lawyers or doctors, or to special-interest groups which support liberal causes. This hypocrisy is salient to the matter, since it demonstrates that Democrats are inconsistent in their application of their theory, designating non-productive wealth as acceptable while maligning wealth from production of useful goods and services demanded by the public. America will not be in crisis if Michael Moore’s film fails, but as we have seen, it does fall into crisis when major auto manufacturers cannot produce profits. It should also be noted that it is inherently illogical for politicians, who receive money while producing no useful product, to sit in judgment of people and companies which do produce useful goods. That way lies madness and the myth of Man-created Global Warming.

The liberal lie about wealth depends on the zero-sum fiction of wealth. The idea is that there is only so much of any good thing, and it’s human nature to want as much of it as you can get. That’s greed, as they think of it. Everyone is entitled to their “fair share”, which is almost never how it works out in practice, making the real world “unfair” by their rules. The idea that everyone should have a share of something, even if they did nothing to create or build it, sounds a lot closer to greed than those people who work hard to make a thing themselves. And anyone who’s ever done farming understands that production is not a zero-sum equation. Come to that, farming is counter-intuitive in some ways. The idea that you take edible seed and bury it makes no sense until you understand how germination works. That’s why Agriculture is the ‘First Wave’ of technology mentioned by the Tofflers.

And Industry, by the way, is the Second Wave, and it’s no zero-sum matter either. Not everyone can make all the goods he or she wants and needs, nor equally well. Industry provides a means for a community, country or planet to raise its living standards and quality of life without increasing its cost of resources to the same degree. Capitalism works for many reasons, not least of which include the fact that major capitalist nations have healthier, happier citizens. One of the most basic laws of business is that to succeed, a business must have relatively low prices, superior features and convenience, or superior quality and customer satisfaction, or some two of the three if it wants to lead in its industry. Only a monopoly, like the Post Office or Congress, is immune to these economic laws, and even there, over a period of time degradation is inevitable. Anyone who tells you different is running for office with a jackass for a logo.

There are a few basic rules of how one creates wealth. One may receive it, as in inheritance; one seizes it, as in conquest or eminent domain or nationalization; or one may actually build wealth. Wealth is not simply manipulating numbers a la Bernie Madoff to create the illusion of wealth creation, nor is it the parasitical behavior of people living off other people’s work, like people who make money off things like ‘residuals’ and other gambling-based activities. Wealth creation only occurs when the net wealth of all stakeholders in an enterprise grows. This is why farms, savings and loans, factories, and corporate labs are good investments, while law firms, casinos, and eco-thug restrictions are generally liabilities for a culture. The farmer’s tools, land, and work combine to create food which is worth more than he puts into it. A savings and loan – properly run – protects savings and provides capital for worthwhile ventures, which grow to far beyond their initial investment and outlay. Factories produce products which improve the quality of life for their customers, employees, and communities, especially if they are run by people who live in those same communities, which creates a desire for good corporate citizenship. Corporate laboratories seek answers to pressing medical needs and provide improved options for people living with disease, impaired ability, pain, or other maladies. On the other hand, law firms not only consume assets while producing no goods or valuable services, they also leave impacts which damage communities as a whole. This is not to say that the law is not necessary, but it is abused by lawyers far more than communities are abused by businesses. Casinos also consume resources without creating any physical goods or valuable services; the net effect on a community with a casino is inevitably negative. And politics-based restrictions on corporate operations damages the effectiveness of those businesses, costs jobs, and consumes assets and resources with no production of goods or useful services. The point is that government, even when absolutely necessary, is by definition destructive, wasteful, and a liability to be minimized whenever possible.

All wealth creation involves risk. There is always the risk of failure, such as the farmer whose crops suffer from bad weather or insect blight, or the factory which must stay abreast of consumer demand and the cost-effectiveness of its methods. All successful corporations begin as small businesses, so protection of small business interests is not only quaint, it’s Economics’ version of Pediatric Medicine. As for public corporations, they exist under specific laws and requirements. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that what Enron did, for example, was already against the law, even before the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. While there are crooks in business, there are crooks everywhere, as Congress and most city councils have proved well beyond dispute. There are far more good businessmen than bad, something Congress can hardly claim for itself. That’s not to say that business should operate without reasonable rules and laws, but there’s something very wrong with a Congress that knows so little about Economics and Business, with its own pallid record in Ethics, setting business leaders in general out as the enemy of the nation. And the results of the Auto Bailout in the year just past stand as a painful reminder of just how poorly Congress understands the effects of its actions. The Bank, Auto, and who-knows-what-else-is-to-be-bailed-out industries have not improved in financial stability or health, despite all the money poured into them. Because risk is not mitigated by government meddling, anymore than blaming Wall Street for blundering disasters in the White House is an effective means of improving job creation.

Risk is disliked, of course. But because you cannot escape it completely, risk tolerance is a factor in all economic activity. And as a natural function, the only way to persuade someone to accept higher risk, is to offer commensurate rewards for success under those conditions. Also, refusing to reward risk tolerance will inevitably damage performance, as the consistent results of Socialism demonstrate. As an example, consider at-will employment. A man has some money, and an idea. An idea he thinks will produce profits. So he hires employees to help him make the product or provide the service that is his idea. That’s how most people these days make a living – working for a company that hired them to do a job. They could have started their own company, worked by and for themselves, but they did not like the risk, so they agreed to an arrangement where they could be assured of a certain income by doing a certain thing under certain conditions. If things didn’t work out, the boss could fire you or you could quit. Simple, direct, and functional. Companies with good bosses, a good plan, and good employees grew strong. Companies without those things died out. Here in the bailout age, a lot of people would not believe that most of the original automobile companies eventually went under – Stanley, Packard, Deusenberg, Haynes, Studebaker, and Duryea were all major automakers at one time or another but which died out, even though some were successful for some years. The Studebaker was a popular company well into the 1950s, for example. And in addition to government intervention to protect selected industries and companies, there was also the drive to create protected classes of employees. Unions, for example, originally created to protect employee rights to safe working conditions and equal opportunity to advancement and compensation, were soon corrupted to become means to manipulate workstaff and extort money from businesses; the Mafia’s gruesome history alone confirms that unfortunate development. Governments, from local councils to the Congress, have also interfered with business through initiatives meant to accomplish job growth or to advance selected outcomes, but inevitably such programs have cost well in excess of their benefits. The most obvious example would be Medicare, which controlled medical costs for a selected demographic of Americans but only to a degree and only for a finite time span, while the attendant costs have rocketed far beyond all projections. Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection may not prove true with regard to biological cross-species evolution, but it is a truth of economics that cost and benefit can not be artificially manipulated to serve a political aim. While it is true that behavior can be influenced by rewarding desired behavior and punishing undesired behavior, this practice breaks down as the scale of subjects, cost, and time increase. The best examples are black market economies and attempts to legislate moral preferences.

For this reason among others, every nation depends essentially on small business first and foremost. This is because small businesses are most sensitive to new opportunities and dangers, and because small businesses exist for pure business reasons, paying in taxes and compliance for government and special interest interference but operating for valid business purpose. The effect of new policies upon small business is therefore a significant barometer for the economic wisdom of those actions, and should be carefully considered in historical context. An action which was ill-considered in 1934 is not a wise choice in 2010 simply because time has passed.

This brings us to present politics. The plain lesson of History is that policies based on the subjective values of the minority of the population, such as Carbon taxes, ex post facto taxes on executive bonuses, and arbitrary manipulation of mortgage and credit rates, may work for a limited time but in the long term prove ineffective, inefficient, and do more damage to the economy than any good. Any action taken will inevitably affect and influence the behavior of the whole economy, and focusing only on one part is going to lead to unpleasant surprises. Government actions will inexorably damage economic performance, with the exception of actions which reduce government restrictions. This is not to say that government regulation is not needed, but to observe that even the most necessary statutes mean accepting poorer performance for greater stability or control. Consequently, it never even possible for Obama’s “Stimulus” to work as intended, anymore than a perpetual motion engine can function in real life, and for the same reason; economic performance comes from the actions of wealth-producing entities, which are individuals and businesses, never the government. The government is parasitic in economic nature, and therefore any government action which controls and redirects wealth will reduce the total amount in that process; it was therefore impossible ab initio for a plan to spend huge amounts of public money to result in anything but diminished economic performance. Cross-reference East Germany, 1945-1995 and compare to West Germany for the same time period.

This essay says nothing that was not already generally known. The emotional reactions from some folks may, however, serve as a sort of economic literacy test.

Racism and Individualism

Racism is essentially judging a person negatively mostly on the basis of Race. A key component of Racism is that the individual is ignored, and his unique identity devalued. The lesson of History is that great deeds are done by individuals, great discoveries are made by individuals, and that even when a nation or team, accomplishes a triumph, there is always a leader or teacher at the forefront. On the other hand, evil often hides behind the mob, as happened with the Ku Klux Klan in its foul legacy, the Nazis (original and neo-), and countless cults, gangs, sects, and hate groups. Racism takes malignant energy and focuses it against targeted individuals with the intent to tear down and destroy, while individualism calls upon a person's identity and will to grow and achieve on his or her own merit, working alongside others but without detracting from their own identities. An example of such individualism can be found in the Gospel accounts of the disciple Peter, or the Apostle Paul. In each case, the men worked to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ, denying the self while exhibiting their individual identity and growing as individuals at the very same time. The same effect occurs in Science, where individuals build upon the work of predecessors and follow common procedures, yet accomplish unique results and individual discoveries. Einstein built on Newton, and Hawking built on Einstein, yet all three accomplished individual triumphs.

Racism is inherent weakness in a person, while Individualism makes a person stronger. The difference can be shown through the difference of arrogance and self-confidence. The arrogant person asserts superiority by his person alone, that simple existence qualifies him to demand primacy, while self-confidence is rooted not in contention but knowledge of your own limits and growth, the balance between weakness and strength, risk and opportunity, and your ability to advance solutions and consensus. The arrogant man demands others do as he wills, the individual offers solutions and options, and is open to alternatives. So with Racism; the racist demands that his race be dominant in any situation, and is opposed to any debate or discussion, while the individualist accepts, even welcomes, alternative perspectives and options. The inevitable result of these paradigms is that Racism stagnates and atrophies any demographic where it is prevalent, while individualism advances community goals and common ideals.

Racists succeed only in isolated situations, and only when they can intimidate individuals into silence and acquiescence. Consequently, racists are likely to choose fascist methods, force and threats as well as suppression of and attacks upon perceived enemies and opponents. Individualists are aware that they cannot achieve their goals through force or intimidation, and so from the start must gain support through consensus-building and alliances on moral strength of their argument. It is a reasonable measure of a person's character, therefore, to note the method of their presentation and attitude to different and opposing opinions.

How to Choose an Online MBA School, 2010 edition

In my prior articles, I noted that online MBAs have grown rapidly in credibility and value in the past decade, while at the same time the student must chose carefully which path to take to earning an MBA. A Masters of Business Administration is the capstone for many business professionals; there are few reasons to seek a Doctorate, and while there are a number of licenses one may pursue, such as the CPA license for accountants, which enhance the MBA degree, the MBA is a fundamental identity statement for a professional, and so the school where the degree is earned should be a very careful decision. There is no guarantee that earning an MBA from a certain school will guarantee you a job at all, let alone the position you desire in the company you wish to join. But it is true that a good choice of schools can improve your professional profile, and in combination with well-presented experience and career accomplishments can make your resume compelling to the decision-makers who review your application.

In earlier articles I mentioned the sort of student who would, I think, thrive in the different environments of the varying MBA programs. So far as online programs go, there are essentially three types of ‘online’ programs:

[] Minimal online participation - a growing number of schools offer at least some courses online. This makes the curriculum a bit more convenient, but it’s not a true online degree, since the barriers of time and travel would still apply. As a rule, for my purposes a school is not an online school in terms of earning an MBA unless no more than six hours of coursework must be completed on site or at specific sites. In the same way, satellite locations do not count as online schools.

[] Periodic Campus Residence Requirement – a number of programs offer online degrees, but include a requirement of three-to-six weeks of residence a year on campus. This is usually tied to a project or special event, ostensibly in support of the program but too often used to promote the university as a future fundraising beneficiary. I do not consider such programs to be a true online MBA, since the time and logistics required make the program untenable for many students who seek an online MBA.

[] Pure online curriculum – this used to be very rare, but is gaining popularity, due to the fact that so many experienced managers returning to school for their MBA can only commit to an online regimen. The ability to supervise work and examinations (especially with the use of proctors at satellite sites and virtual proctors online) and the ability to use online tools to improve the quality of discussions, group projects and virtual teams all have direct real-world applications value for businesses, and so the online student can offer an advantage to employers as a result of his curriculum. This makes online study an asset rather than a liability.

My review of online MBA schools, therefore, will be limited to discussion of schools which allow the majority of work to be performed online, and are accredited by the AACSB, the Association for the Advancement of Collegiate Schools of Business. Before I go on about the rest of my criteria, let me explain why the AACSB is so important.

The AACSB was founded in 1916, so it’s one of the oldest accrediting groups for business schools in existence, and it’s also the largest, a worldwide organization with 579 accredited member schools (46 for undergraduate only programs, 51 for graduate only programs, 482 for both undergraduate and graduate programs).

The original founding schools include Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard, New York U, Northwestern, Ohio State, Tulane, Cal-Berkeley, the University of Chicago, Purdue, Illinois Nebraska, Penn, Pittsburgh, the University of Texas, Wisconsin-Madison, and Yale University.

Essentially, every significant school of business has been accredited by the AACSB. Also, the accreditation process is ongoing, so that accredited schools are required to show continual improvement, and includes both self-evaluation and peer review. Most AACSB schools also have regional accreditation and according to the affiliation of the school. The AACSB accreditation therefore is the single most consistent designation that establishes the school meets reasonable expectations of academic quality and ethical standards. The AACSB, in turn, is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Specific standards used by the AACSB for accreditation may be found at its website.


So, I have established that my MBA candidate schools must offer a mainly-online (no more than six hours of face-to-face coursework required) curriculum, at a business school accredited by the AACSB. Tuition cost for out-of-state residents (including fees and service charges), availability of specialized concentrations and dual degrees (such as MBA-JD or MBA-MD programs), average GMAT score and Student/Faculty ratio are all major factors in consideration. Ranking of the full-time program by major periodicals is a minor factor, as is the availability. The 2008-9 profile for each school published on the AACSB website is used for initial consideration. Web information provided directly by the school’s site builds the rest of the report for a school.

This is the foundation for my continuing rankings of Online MBA programs. Further detail as to qualities considered and their weighting will be discussed when I release the results. But I also want to emphasize the chief value of online programs, that in today’s knowledge-based professional world, there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all, nor is any one program the best for everyone seeking an MBA. To my mind, there are generally five categories of people seeking MBAs, though again I caution everyone to think long and hard about their personal needs and goals before considering how they want to build their future. Generally though, there are students who proceed to Graduate school directly from their Bachelors’ degree; there are people seeking to add the MBA to another professional appellation, such as a J.D. or an Engineering degree, because they want to add business value to a vocational specialty; there are people who have work experience but who want to move into Management; there are Managers who have business experience and want a degree that quantifies their ability and skills; and there are managers or business students who intend to become Chief officers at the top private and public firms, and who believe that the most prestigious school is necessary to achieve that end (a fiction, when history is considered, but a popular myth all the same).

A traditional face-to-face full-time program at a prestigious business school ranked by major periodicals is the closest thing to a sure winner, since the programs will teach all of the expected skills, the name recognition at the school will give good opportunities at major firms and may well provide an advantage for six-figure positions. However, such programs often are prohibitively expensive, are resistant to changing business realities (as an example, most prominent business schools downplayed the importance of Risk Management until after the financial crisis of 2008 became apparent), and while rich in theoretical knowledge, are often siloed apart from grassroots business experience. Also, the cost-effectiveness of such programs for anyone not able to find a position paying more than $200,000 a year is, at best, dubious. It is my recommendation to anyone considering a Masters in Business Administration to get the best degree they can afford, but not to be fooled into believing that a big price tag means a better education or opportunity. In the first group, students just finishing a Bachelors’ degree, the school you went to, the amount of debt you carry and can afford to take on, your GMAT scores and GPA all combine to indicate the level you should consider. Generally, young students can best handle the regimented structure of the on-campus cohort, but the debt load should be carefully considered and I would strongly recommend discussions with companies you would like to work for, to find out what sort of degree they want to see.

For students seeking to combine an MBA with another professional license or degree, keep in mind whether your program can offer everything you need, and again what pedigree will impress your desired employer – law firms and medical associations, for example, may well care most about your ‘primary’ degree and only concern themselves with an MBA to the degree that you have one and do well in earning it. People who are thinking about moving in Management, should be particularly sensitive to what the degree will do for them. That is, only certain kinds of people ever get the chance to become CEOs of major corporations, whether private or public. Generally, these are the people who found such companies and build it, or who join the company as a ‘fast-track’ hire, whose degree may impress but more often they had a connection, a mentor or more often a high-ranking patron who opened the door for them that most people never see. That’s not to say you can’t do well without that opportunity, but there is no ‘magic wand’ associated with the top name schools. Your work defines your opportunity, in most cases, and therefore the school becomes less important as your experience grows and you demonstrate a true work history. I have seen many solid executives build their career through hard work and an MBA from a ‘little’ school, but never one who went to a top school but did not also do the work to earn the promotions. Therefore, careful consideration of the school’s cost, its name recognition, its growth in the past decade and its suitability to your personal career goals are all vital factors to include in your decision.