In reply to Lightweight:
Hi Lightweight,
Some observations/advice from both sides of the fence (the employer and the person with the qualification):
Firstly, where. MBAs have become more widespread and this has degraded their impact. There are many poor schools around and so it is now *much* more important where you did it. I don't agreed that only US schools are worthwhile. Insead is probably best bet in Europe (and near font!), but London and Manchester are also serious courses.
Secondly, format. Doing these things part-time is a mountain of work and (IMHO) less fulfilling/effective. However, the cost of going full-time is both the direct course cost but also the opportunity cost of 1-3 years out of the earnings stream. Therefore you need to be really sure it is the right career choice and not just a "I don't know what to do next so I'll do an MBA". Full-time on a 1-2 year course is optimal in my view.
Thirdly, timing. You're 29 - which I think will give you a really solid base of experience to draw on and put in context what you're being taught. Brace yourself for newly graduated folk spouting irritating bullshit though.
Fourthly, motivation. It's a *very* good sign that your original post was thinking in terms of skills to be developed not just letters to be acquired. If you're sure that marketing is for you then do a DipM. If you want financial skills then ACCA or CIMA. A good MBA course will give you sound business and finacial skills with some appreciation of core disciplines - HR, marketing/sales, Law, capital structuring, etc. Most courses have options that allow you to change the emphasis of your course. A good course will also teach you some fantastic skills in dealing with a large workload efficiently. Finally, an MBA or DipM will not "transform" you and get you into a brand new discipline if you have no prior experience - no one will appoint (say) an HR manager as marketing manager purely on the strength of a qualification.
From an employer point of view, too often I see MBA graduates that
- have no/little prior experience
- expect a huge step change in salary and unrealistically accelerated career progression
- think it makes them "better" than folk who have reached the same poiint through other paths
- believe that they can go from a level 6 in widget polishing to a level 19 in finance purely because they have a qualification but with no relevant experience
Sometimes I see people who have
- solid experience in a discipline
- the MBA used to build depth and scope to their skills
- use their breadth to bring insights and seek the in-work experience of others
- recognise that progression is performance, not letters, based
Let me know if you've more specific questions. We have folk here who went to many of the major schools.
John