The story background is like this: a while ago someone hacked into Harvard's IT infrastructure and for some time any MBA applicant was able to check his/her admission to the program status. After the story having made the headlines Harvard took drastic atitude and actually denied admission on the integrity claims to the applicants who used the glitch. I'd say that's a bit of an overreaction, the school probably just wanted to give an example even though it's exageratted and unfair.

Anyways, the sequel is that Seth makes a great point of questioning if people actually should/need take an MBA anyways - the on-the-job experience combined with 30-40 reading book list should make a rather relevant substitute. Of course this stirred some heated debates -- one of the best answers is this one.

The consultant answer (classic MBA response actually :)) is "it depends" - my take is that the experience is at least as valuable as the theoretical knowledge you get from the books. This experience may take different forms - interaction with others, proffesors, resources, networking, different perspectives, or other things you may not be able to anticipate. The doubt will of course arise when questioning the other side of the equation, or weighing in the opportunity costs - what do you gain during the time for choosing to do whatever else instead taking the MBA?