McGill M.B.A. program goes private

Tuition will jump next year by 1,663 per cent—from $1,500 to $29,500


McGill M.B.A. program goes private“You need to spend money to make money.”

It’s an old business adage that McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management is taking to heart. Next year, tuition for its two-year M.B.A. program will increase to $29,500 per year. That’s a massive hike—as much as 1,663 per cent—from the current rates of just over $1,500 for Quebec residents and $4,675 for out of province students (international students already pay upward of $20,000 per year). The increase means the school will become entirely self-funded, making it one of the last M.B.A. programs in the country to do so.

The tuition bump has been in the works for several years, and was introduced in part to enhance McGill’s international reputation. Desautels ranked third among Canadian business schools in a recent Forbes survey, behind York University’s Schulich School of Business and UBC’s Sauder School of Business, both of which are self-funded. (Université de Montréal’s HEC, which offers a highly regarded one-year M.B.A. program, remains publicly funded.) Higher tuition fees will mean the school can afford to hire world-class teachers.

A McGill M.B.A. “costs” the school $22,000 a year in professor salaries and other fees, says Desautels spokesperson Ron Duerksen, an amount hardly covered by the current tuition model. The remainder is subsidized by the school. “Right now, you have a situation where the arts faculty is subsidizing the M.B.A. program when M.B.A. graduates make double what an arts graduate makes.”

It might seem odd for students to welcome a tuition hike, but those at Desautels are satisfied with the decision. “A definite majority is in favour of the change,” said Allison Aab, president of the Desautels M.B.A. Student Association. “Most students realize that the current model is unsustainable.” Still, Aab is happy to be among the last students to pay the cut rate. “We squeaked by.”


McGill M.B.A. program goes private

  1. the education system throws money down the drain even faster than the health system…

  2. Indeed, the students perception of the fee hike would be a great deal different had they been required to actually pay it.

  3. Just another way of excluding the middle class and ensuring the elite students get preferred treatment. That way you don't pollute the ruling class with outsiders.

    • My question is, how much does an MBA student get paid in the business world in comparison to an Arts Student. Medical degrees are costly, but Drs. are well remunerated after. In my province Dentists are even better paid and, AFAIK, they can easily obtain a bank loan during their studies. I do somewhat agree with you, however, Guru.

      • MDs are well paid from public fundings, and little cost to start up, while dentists have to come up with tuition loan, equipment expenses, liability, all from their own pocket, because it is private, and not funded at all, it takes years to repay everything and make a decent living, despite the dental fee charged to patients…and if no patient, no pay….Life is not easy behind the scene…Just my two cents worth…

        • I assume you are a Dentist. You maybe totally correct. In our province children under 10 are covered for dental care. I wonder how long it takes a Dentist to pay of his/her tuition, set up a practice, etc. My own dentist bought her practice from a previous one, whose tuition was paid by the military. He ended up going back into the military. I went to a Dental School about 30 years ago and just last year. Found out my husband's plan would cost me less than what the Dental School were going to charge me and 1/4 of the time. BTW, 30 yrs ago several of the students' tuition were (was?) paid by the military. From what I've been told, banks will readily loan Dental students money.

    • Sorry, I disagree. Although I completely in favor of funding people's undergrads there is no reason why taxpayers should fund master and PhD degrees, especially in medicine, law and business given that graduates make, on average, much more money than the average Canadian, not to mention that for master degrees and above people can work after undergrad and save to continue their education.

      I add, in the case of med school, given the shortage of doctors in many parts of the country IF a student receives funding to go to med school (through subsidized tuition) they should be expected to work in Canada for a minimum of certain amount of years (say 3 years) before they leave to go somewhere else. I don;t know if this is done already

  4. Wasn't it a bunch of 30 grand a year MBA greed heads who got us into our current economic mess? I expect no different from the current crop of elitist nincompoops. Cheers.

  5. Considering they aren't even AACSB accredited this really seems like a marketing scheme to bloat the perceived value of Mcgill's MBA. Why should Quebec students pay for their self-serving price hike.

    • Thank you for your adequate commentary. In future times, we must be considering how will be played out differently yet similarly to our present day sitiuations. If you will go to this link, we shall discuss further. Until we meet for futher discussions, laughing in time.

  6. I have conluded from our discusses and from the Swiss formula that:

    A is both the maximum tariff which is agreed to apply anywhere and a common coefficient to determine tariff reductions in each country;
    Told is the existing tariff rate for a particular country; and
    Tnew is the implied future tariff rate for that country.[1]
    So for example, a value A of 25% might be negotiated. If a very high tariff country has a rate Told of 6000% then its Tnew rate would be about 24.9%, almost the maximum of 25%. Somewhere with an existing tariff Told of 64% would move to a Tnew rate of about 18%, rather lower than the maximum; one with a rate Told of 12% would move to a Tnew rate of about 8.1%, subatantially lower than the maximum. A very low tariff country with a rate Told of 2.3% would move to a Tnew rate of about 2.1%.

  7. You make a good point Adolf T. however I believe that:
    Substituting f(x) = xn gives

    One can then express (x + h)n by applying the binomial theorem to obtain

    The i = n term of the sum can then be written independently of the sum to yield

    Canceling the xn terms one generates

    An h can be factored out from each term in the sum to give

    From thence we can cancel the h in the denominator to obtain

    To evaluate this limit we observe that n − i − 1 > 0 for all i < n − 1 and equal to zero for i = n − 1. Thus only the h0 term will survive with i = n − 1 yielding

  8. Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

  9. Excuse me Mr. Beaver, is my name not your! Please, help me find my Mr. The King fridge magnet collection.
    Chen qui

  10. Additionally, 17,321 of their family members were admitted into a study published in the August 2008 issue that more use of it is made downstream

  11. I think most people discussing the access issue are missing the point. When we are talking about post-graduate education, we must ask what "public good" to the state, enjoyed by all taxpayers, is produced by funding their education. Lawyers and MBA's don't cause positive spillovers the same way research scientists do. Moreover, being well remunerated for being lawyers and executives, the private returns of getting an MBA or law degree are sufficient to draw enough people in without subsidization. Indeed, subsidizing programs that produce no positive spillovers weakens us by sending more of the best and brightest to study how to rip people off and trade securities in imaginary goods, instead of becoming scientists. This is why we invented viagra before a cure for cancer, folks.

    • I really don't think that your stereotyping will can be constructive in any manner. There are many other positive reasons to study an MBA than the ones you listed and there are no monetary guarantees in taking an MBA. If we start arguing that degrees should only be subsidized for "public good" then we might as well not subsidize 95% of studies. By the way evil can just as well come out from science as from an MBA. I don't think its fair to confound a handful of psychotic people with a general school program.

      • I'd have to agree with hoser (mostly). Why would/should government money subsidize something that's NOT a public good? It can be argued that the arts are a public good, so perhaps that's why we subsidize them. It can also be argued that having educated businesspeople are a public good. Subsidies create incentives that are not market-based. If we subsidize the arts, more people are drawn into the arts despite the lower salaries. If we subsidize MBAs, people are drawn into business. I personally think we better have a very good reason for redirecting people's natural (unsubsidized) career inclinations. It's probably true that potential engineers are being drawn into the business world because of higher salaries.
        As for MBA's being evil, that's idiotic. The duopoly of evil is shared by MBAs/Lawyers.

Sign in to comment.