以后在中国发展应该去INSEAD, LBS还是M7?

Liangdoudoud · 发表于 2013-4-12 15:44:22

看来我是很不符合这些条件啊，呵呵，
我比较喜欢睡觉。。。不大喜欢熬夜的说。。。
我已经开始锻炼身体了，呵呵，至少顶住明年前6个月。。

juliewang417 · 发表于 2013-4-12 16:50:09

同楼上，喜欢睡觉，而且不喜欢早起。如果让我去上类似哈佛那种学校每天5点多点就要起床一帮人讨论CASE, 不如直接杀了我算了。。。

据说IMD和INSEAD的学生经常一起比拼谁睡的更少，同为一年制MBA，没什么春假秋假之类的假期，同为一年要搞定工作参加活动玩转PARTY还要休掉北美85%的课程，INSEAD比IMD还多一条就是没二外的还要搞定二外的BASIC水平。。。

其实MBA已经不同于大学学习，每个人追求的东西都不一样，时间有限就要PRIORITIZE, 有人喜欢学习就刻苦学习争取上DEAN'S LIST, 有人拿着SPONSOR没有找工作的压力就拼命PARTY认识更多童鞋，有人对欧洲的风光向往已久又是富二代读完了要回家族企业就到处旅游，有人为了找工作就疯狂逃课搞NETWORKING （比如我认识的STERN的一个姐姐当年就牺牲学习牺牲PARTY牺牲纽约丰富的文化生活每周都去花街NETWORKING，ass kissing, 只为了那一份无数人争抢的大投行的夏天实习OFFER), 总之每个人要的东西不一样，选择也不一样，只要N年后回想起来不为当初的选择后悔便好。。。

TO P神，从阿里粑粑的回帖时间来看，他确实不在美国，哈哈。。。

ccafic · 发表于 2013-4-12 17:06:29

上次Jean-Louis Beffa 去 INSEAD了，商学院能提供见到extraordinary people的机会.

这篇文章是08年前写的，很有预见性。
May 23, 2008
Jean-Louis Beffa and Xavier Ragot: The fall of a financial model

Jean-Louis Beffa and Xavier Ragot: The fall of a financial model: Published: February 21 2008 17:26 | Last updated: February 21 2008 17:2:

Recent changes in the world economy and financial markets mark the end of the present standard model of financial capitalism, built up over the last decade or so. In this model, financial stability is mainly based on the self-regulation of the financial sector, which alone assesses the risks produced by its financial innovations.

Moreover, the link between finance and the real economy hinges on an adequate return on investment for shareholders, who punish poor management by making share prices fall, leaving the company open to takeover. The only role assigned to governments is to guarantee free circulation of capital between companies and between countries. As alternative economic models collapsed over the past two decades, public opinion came to accept this model of financial capitalism. Today, governments and labour unions accept profit as the most relevant criterion for assessing a company’s efficiency. This model is experiencing three crises, all of which refer to changes in the relationship between governments and markets.

The first concerns the significant, yet silent, return of governments to the economic playing field. Three of the five richest nations by total gross domestic product have become de facto neo-mercantilist, setting their sights on trade surpluses. China is keeping its currency artificially low in order to increase its trade surplus and lower its costs of production vis-a-vis competitor countries. Japan is pursuing government-oriented policies to bolster its position in high-technology markets. Finally, and to a lesser degree, Germany has been carrying out reforms to restore industrial competitiveness. In addition, countries that have access to natural resources, notably oil and gas, have revenues that serve as both an instrument and aim of their international policy. Trade surpluses have resulted, demonstrating the capacity of governments to acquire massive amounts of foreign assets through sovereign wealth funds. The problems that arise are not economic, but political. Governments may use technology transfer or control of strategic national assets as a means to increase bargaining power in international affairs.

The second change involves company ownership. Three transformations should be noted. The first relates to the emergence of active shareholders, who build up significant stakes with the aim of exerting strong influence on management. The second relates to activist shareholders and their demand for short-term returns, resulting in decisions that are not in the company’s long-term interests. The third involves leveraged buy-outs, closely linking the interests of managers and shareholders and taking advantage of easy credit.

These shifts in the distribution of power raise questions: what is the relationship between shareholder meetings and boards? To what extent should companies be allowed to protect themselves from hostile bids or creeping takeovers? In what form and how frequently should accounting information be provided to shareholders?

Company ownership has not yet found a new balance, as shown in Europe by the absence of agreement on the takeover directive and on one share/one vote rather than multiple voting rights. Regulators’ desire to increase supervision of creeping takeovers is telling. The trends are risky: a shareholder can pursue speculative or self-interested aims to the detriment of other shareholders and against the company’s best interest by breaking up the business or by avoiding taking risk.

The third crisis is the one rocking financial markets. Unlike the internet bubble, this is not a crisis based on irrational behaviour but one of sophistication and disintermediation. The new risks produced by financial innovation were left to a sector that alone was considered able to understand its instruments. The crisis demonstrates the costs to the real economy and lack of an efficient self-regulating system.

All these risks call for a new relationship between the workings of financial markets and regulatory actions of governments. Democratic governments will have to deal for a long time with less democratic economies that use financial market mechanisms for political ends. Each sovereign investor must clarify its intentions and define its code of conduct. Governments must also define with greater precision the sectors they consider strategic.

The changes in company ownership also call for greater transparency in order to prevent actions that offend business ethics, such as creeping takeovers and speculative strategies that undermine companies’ long-term interests. The board’s role of defining solutions that satisfy shareholders’ divergent interests will have to be strengthened. It should allow for corporate governance that encourages long-term strategies while satisfying shareholder interests. Finally, regulators should supervise the whole of financial markets to assess systemic risk, eliminate off-balance-sheet ambiguities and bring within the scope of supervision actors that have eluded market authorities.

How governments deal with these crises will depend on their national interests. These issues will be difficult to deal with in Europe where country responses will diverge. One can expect to see the co-existence of various models, varying by level of government intervention in financial markets. There is a great distance, however, between co-existence and compatibility.

nevermindband · 发表于 2013-4-12 23:26:07

星星点灯2010 发表于 2013-4-9 11:13
为什么大力宣传自己的学校，有些时候是上了贼船下不来了，还要打肿脸告诉别人自己混得还不错。总不能说自己 ...

为什么大力宣传自己的学校，有些时候是上了贼船下不来了（但有些時候不是），还要打肿脸告诉别人自己混得还不错。（也有些時候真的混的不錯）总不能说自己上当受骗了吧。（有好處和其他人分享一下沒差哦）

其实，很多时候想象总是比现实美好很多。（但有些時候現實比想像來得更美滿）

nevermindband · 发表于 2013-4-12 23:31:12

梁朝伟发表于 2013-4-9 16:07
其实大力鼓吹自己学校的校友，都是在经历着自我怀疑，渴望被肯定的心态，即使是一些虚拟的不真实的肯定和赞 ...

這點我可絕對認同。雖說沒有統計過，但直覺上很少見HBS 的走出來和WHARTON 比較比較，大篇文章數據說明H／B／W 是同一水平的。

以下這篇引文是挺有意思的：

*** Quote ***

Here's a quick guide:

If someone describes their school as the top ranked school, they go to HBS or Stanford
If someone says they go to a "Top 3" school, they go to Wharton
If someone says they go to a "Top 5" school, its either Chicago, Kellogg, or MIT Sloan
If someone says they're in the "M7", they go to Columbia
If someone says "Top 10", they mean Tuck, Ross, Haas, or <insert whatever school you insist belongs in the top ten, thus proving my point>

*** Unquote ***

http://forums.businessweek.com/discussions/BW_Business_Schools/Getting_into_Business_Schools/What_is_M7/bw-bschools/73431.1?redirCnt=1&nav=messages

ccafic · 发表于 2013-4-12 23:33:02

"（但有些時候現實比想像來得更美滿）"

LS很高的境界称赞

ccafic · 发表于 2013-4-13 03:48:10

水一下
America’s European moment
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21569024-troubling-similarities-between-fiscal-mismanagement-washington-and-mess?fsrc=nlw|hig|1-3-2013|4518517|112176849|EU

alibaba2011 · 发表于 2013-4-13 09:24:19

juliewang417 发表于 2013-4-12 16:50
同楼上，喜欢睡觉，而且不喜欢早起。如果让我去上类似哈佛那种学校每天5点多点就要起床一帮人讨论CASE, 不 ...

我在西海岸实习，一般美国太平洋时区晚上11点上线

真tmd奇怪了，直接查ip啊，土鳖，还有夏威夷你查查几点

美国跟中国（专制）法国（土鳖小）这种国家一样，整个国家就一个统一时区？

juliewang417 · 发表于 2013-4-13 23:56:19

nevermindband 发表于 2013-4-12 23:31
這點我可絕對認同。雖說沒有統計過，但直覺上很少見HBS 的走出來和WHARTON 比較比較，大篇文章數據說明H ...

不能同意这位IMD前辈的观点. 为什么鼓吹自己的学校的人就一定是在经历着自我怀疑,渴望被肯定的心态? 至少我自己不是, 跨过了30的坎儿, 经历了那么多事儿, 自信不知道比年轻时长了多少, 早就不像25岁时一样需要别人吹着捧着才能每天过的乐悠悠的了, 自信来源于对自我更深刻的认识, 更清楚自己的优势和弱点更清楚自己想要的东西更知道自己会比较FIT哪一种环境从而更能做出清醒的选择应该去哪些适合自己的business school就读。

贴出那些自己学校的信息一方面是为了帮助正在申请这所学校的童鞋，另一方面是作为学校的学生在帮学校做一些MARKETING。大家都知道美国人最厉害的就是他们的MKT，全世界闻名，不仅体现在公司之间的竞争中，而且体现在BUSNIESS SCHOOL的宣传方面，而欧洲的学校一如欧洲人推崇的“低调而优雅”的生活方式，即便是像INSEAD这样在全世界宣传还算不错的欧洲学校在中国的宣传也起步很晚规模也一点不大而且也不知道给自己弄个好记点的中文名字。。。这年头商业的发展日新月异，越来越多的人特别是年纪较大的人不愿意去花2年的时间给自己弄一个文凭，在他们申请欧洲的很多一年制的商学院的过程中给他们提供更多的信息就变成了“自我怀疑渴望被肯定”了？而且一个学校的BRANDING本来就是要靠自己的学生去传承，当然更多的应该是在CAREER中实现更多achievement来替学校传承branding，就像一代一代杰出的遍布在160个国家的INSEAD校友一样。

另外你引得那段quote满搞笑的，哥大的人看了要气死了，人家拥有花街上最powerful的校友群体，居然变成了m7中的垫底的了，呵呵。。。没错HBS出来的人不会去和沃顿的比，但是美国人沃顿出来的又有多少是去和HBS比的，那些美国的年纪偏大的牛人人家不一定就愿意去读HBS那种地方，和一堆比自己小好多阅历比自己少好多的小孩一起搞而且搞得还不是一般的累，人家说不定就愿意去沃顿那种整体年龄较高而且气氛也比较RELAX的地方去好好享受2年的商学院的时光，反正HBS能提供的就业机会沃顿都能提供。。。你要问人家是哪里出来的，人家是K家的就说是K的，才不会说什么TOP 5或者TOP7，是DUKE的就说DUKE的才不会说什么TOP14，TOP 16。

中国人受RANKING的毒害较深本来也就是我们从小的教育方式所致，上大学要上最顶级的，考试要考前X名，甚至进了商学院还视那些不去找投行的实习的童鞋为LOSER。。。有时挺羡慕老外的，从小的思维方式就和我们不一样，也难怪他们能搞出这个世界上那么多有创造力的东西。。。

wanghongliang · 发表于 2013-4-14 00:48:22

好吧，那就再多说一嘴。既然觉得表达方式没错，为什么一个宣传自己学校的帖子最后变成了一场骂站？

alibaba开始就没在这个帖子里说过你一句话，而你大段大段的码字的帖子里，不止一处提到“阿里粑粑”这样,那样的字眼，最后不喷你才怪，早就点过一嘴“对人最大的鄙视莫过于直接忽略他”，说句不好听的，四处招惹人家，人家不骂你才是怪事。

然后还参杂着各种的这个鄙视，那个鄙视，这个垃圾，那个垃圾，这就是所谓的“宣传”学校帖子？

仅举一个例子，当你谈到你的沃顿同事的时候，是不是可以类似于这样的说：其实沃顿里的学生情况跟其他顶级学校的学生情况差不多，并不是每个所谓顶级学校里出来的人都会很强很强，比如我们公司里一个沃顿毕业的MBA，已经让我们公司的高层，HR列为招聘失败的一个典型，但这并不能否定沃顿是一所好的学校，最终从顶级MBA毕业后能怎么样，还是看自己本身的素质和能力，顶级商学院并不是一个魔法学院，所以，选择适合自己的学校才是最好的，只有学生会给学校丢脸，而学校不会给学生抹黑。

最后演变成一场骂战了之后，自己显得这个无所谓，那个无所谓，但是不是可以用一种方式，安安静静的宣传，然后去掉各种铃铛碎的言语，去平静的表达你的“dream”，“top”学校呢。

说到成熟，鄙人认为应该是：做事有度，减少个人感情色彩，讲究合适的做事方式才是正道。

前面也说了，宣传自己学校没错，个中滋味自己领悟，多说无益。

貌似我又没HOLD住。

以后在中国发展应该去INSEAD, LBS还是M7?

本帖子中包含更多资源

所属分类: 商学院申请

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()