To MBA or not?

I've had this debate with myself over and over again: should I do an MBA or not? I feel I've reached a stage in my career where I need a fresh start if you like. That in order to move up and about, I need to make it through one of those top schools that charge the amounts they do entirely because of their name; because if you're accepted into say, Chicago or Stanford, then by definition you're a successful person and it sends out the strongest possible signal to all those top employers who come to hire. Plus, with sign-on bonuses that run into several thousands of dollars or pounds, top salaries, and commendable bonuses, the odds are better than even that you'll pay off your student loan within 2-3 years.

The issue I feel with me is that I'm aging ! Ok, not like a tree or a plant or a dog, but I'm 27 (to be 28 in a few months' time). Even if I did sort out the finances, etc. etc., should I really be spending 2 years or so at business school now? I'd be 29 and entering B-school in autumn '10. That means I'll be nearly 31 by the time I graduate in 2012. To start working as an Associate at 31 !!? That's not somewhere I want to be...I think. At 31, people start VP-ing or at least AVP-ing right?

But then, if I don't do an MBA, where will I get to...and when? I'm reasonably happy in my current job, but I don't see myself being promoted. Not because of my lack of ability, but because of the structure of the organisation. Let's just say it's not going to happen (without going into the whys or hows on this blog!!). And the more time I spend working here, with this knowledge that other than perhaps annual raises in salary, some bonus money, may be more responsibility, without really going anywhere, I am going to get stuck here. Jaded.

But the decision to do an MBA is a very very hard one. But easier than actually doing an MBA !! First, it's the finances. Both now, and financing the future, and not working for 2 years. In other words, I do an MBA, get saddled with debt, and find that career-wise I haven't struck gold with an employer of choice (whoever that maybe).

I don't know the answer yet. I haven't been able to convince myself either way.

For now, the debate rages on. I just feel though that I need to resolve it soon. Time. It doesn't wait.

Just another day...(WARNING - contains a near-rant on matters pertaining to finance!!)

Was a relatively good day today...until the last minute when there was a 'minor' tiff with someone at work who decided something was my fault, even though it blatantly wasn't ! Guess it doesn't help that I am the junior-most member of my team - it gives people an excuse to pile the crap on me because they know they can't pile on someone else.

It's times like these I really hope my brain would keep a video of so that when I sit for a future interview, and am asked one of those inane questions that ask you for evidence of people skills, or for how you handled a difficult situation, I can rattle off without blinking an eye. Maybe I should start keeping a log of these moments in a spreadsheet - seriously !!

Anyway, on to something else completely different......

When I was walking to work this morning, actually, just as soon as I started crossing London Bridge , a completely random thought popped into my head (ok, maybe not so random, because it might have had something to do with the whole 'city' feel I get when I walk across the bridge!!) - does / can financial trading activity (i.e. trading of stocks, bonds, commodities, etc.) carried out by investment banks, hedge funds and so on, increase (or worse, decrease!) the stock of wealth in a nation?

I am sure academics / smarter people have considered this question and may even have an answer ! But I am not sure whether or not it does - in financial trading (be it speculative or non-speculative), do the gains of party A to a trade imply equal losses for party B? Intuitively, I would say yes, which would imply that the economy is no better or worse off. However, as is evidenced by the current recession and near financial collapse, speculative trading can indeed decrease the wealth of a nation if the loss-making party to a trade is so systemically involved in an economy's flow of credit and lending that it's collapse would effectivley destroy those companies (auto-makers, retailers, etc.) who rely on that flow of credit.