Revisiting the Notion of a Certified MBA

• One of my current students ran across an article from 2008 in USA Today Online and asked my thoughts on the CMBA (a Certified MBA Exam). I thought I’d elaborate on my response to him.
  
  There have been several attempts by outside organizations starting about a decade ago to create a certification exam to prove learning post-MBA. With so many variations on the MBA now in existence, we were bound to question whether an MBA from one school is comparable to an MBA from another. While students may be willing to shell out several hundred dollars for a test to demonstrate that they learned a lot, I am not sure employers are demanding it.
  
  Here are challenges to the concept of a CMBA:
  
  1) Variation in MBA Core, Concentrations/Focus: I think of MBA “core”—the business fundamentals that the CMBA tests—as the alphabet for a new language. The rest of that educational experience or language--not the alphabet--is what differentiates great MBA programs and learning outcomes for graduates. That is, the salaries and successes of MBAs reflect a lot more than MBA core knowledge. Some schools only teach core with 32 credits of study, while others like ours are 60 credits, well beyond these core skill-building blocks. General business boasts about 30 distinct fields MBAs might pursue with an MBA, and students choose schools based on which schools specialize in those areas relative to career aspirations. Concentrations of study are inherently problematic for any standardized exam to cover, and the CMBA does not even attempt to cover them.
  
  2) Timing: If core happens early in an MBA curriculum, when is the CMBA test in demand or best to take? When most MBAs are done with core, employers are not looking to hire them yet, except perhaps at the internship stage or immediately upon graduation.
  
  3) GMAT Purpose: The CMBA concept is very different than the baseline aptitudes measured pre-MBA by the GMAT. The GMAT determines likelihood of mastering coursework in core MBA topics, and GMAT-using schools like ours know how score range correlates to performance at our schools. Employers sometimes incorrectly use GMAT scores in their hiring decisions as a sort of IQ indicator, although that is not the intent of the GMAT. What the GMAT does for GMAT-using schools is ensure the intellectual capital of the incoming class—so the faculty at that school can move at the speed and depth they expect—and grades in these core classes are predicted well by GMAT scores.
  
  4) No Silver Bullet: There are competent MBAs and incompetent ones. The degree is only as good as a school’s recruiting and academic process, and an MBA employee is only a reflection of that, vetted by a thorough hiring process. If a CMBA gives some assurance in a hiring decision, then bring it on. But, it will take several years to know if it measured outcomes successfully.
  
  5) Employer Behavior: A standardized exam can’t cover all of the variations in skills required for a specific hiring opportunity in the way that good, old-fashioned interviewing and business discussions can. For the approximately 30 different MBA fields of possibility, employers hire for specific experience sets including unique combinations of academic and work experience. So what employer is interested in this test and for what level employee?
  
  o At the MBA entry level, perhaps a CMBA could demonstrate, “You are smart. You learned a lot in core.” I don’t think it provides more insight than the combination of GPA and admission standards set by a school where an employer has a hiring and retention track record to predict future success. Maybe it will help at entry level when employers lack a track record at a particular school.
  
  o At experienced levels—including MBA alumni and EMBA candidates—differentiated knowledge and experience is that much more pronounced; core knowledge (that is tested by a CMBA) is a given. Employers aren’t hiring just for core skills but for proven performance outcomes at work. The MBA for these candidates is a means to that end: performance (aided by an MBA) is what gets them hired or promoted to the top ranks, as is most often the case with EMBA students.
  
  o Employers already know which schools turn out solid performers and recognize different learning outcomes from different places. I disagree with the notion that top-tier schools are threatened by certification. Many great schools, with solid GMAT, GPA, experience and interview requirements, are the insurance policy for employers who recruit their graduates. These schools won’t have to worry. It will be interesting to see if employers perceive that an additional test provides any new insight.
  
  o But the CMBA may spell trouble for exactly the population it is advertised to help: the individual student paying out of pocket for the test to prove to a would-be employer that their degree from a lesser known school is as good as a premium brand. For certain schools’ graduates, a solid certification outcome may be the best way to give credibility to their degree. The opposite is also possible. It could certainly put some diploma mills out of business and might prove the point: buyer beware.
  
  Employers—speaking from my experience in corporate recruiting-- will always hire from institutions where they trust both the admission standards and the faculty/academic rigor. History of hires and their performance specifically on the job, in addition to retention rates, are paramount. Another test doesn’t change that history or its predictive power.
  
  Here is the article referenced. http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-08-26-cmba_x.htm