If I recall correctly, it's been a while since the Glom addressed the value of a joint JD/MBA.

As this is a subject I find myself repeatedly discussing with my students, I recently took it upon myself to get to the bottom of this question.

I reviewed whatever literature I could find, and spoke to a number of colleagues and practicioners.

Here's what I concluded:

Pros
1.        The acquisition of practical knowledge and skills that can be helpful throughout an attorney’s career (wherever that career may ultimately take him  or her)

2.       A lasting, life-long credential

a.       That said, it’s my fairly strong opinion that over time, credentials fade in importance – and are replaced largely by individual accomplishment (or lack thereof)

b.      As for whether this credential will assist a newly-minted lawyer in obtaining a job, it appears to be of some value to “middle-of-the-pack” graduates who need to distinguish themselves; this credential seems unnecessary for top-performing students

3.       May open additional career opportunities

4.       The simple pleasure of additional education / additional intellectual stimulation

 
Cons
1.       Time (ordinarily an additional year of schooling)

2.       Expense

3.       With regard to recruiting / hiring:

a.       May be read by some law firms as a sign that the graduate is not necessarily committed to a career in law

b.      For law firm hiring, grades and class rank remain of paramount importance; if one’s efforts to obtain the joint degree came at the sacrifice of one’s grades, it would most likely be an unwise decision

I'd love to hear what others think about this.

Education | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e2015436894e0b970c

Links to weblogs that reference Joint JD/MBA: