Businessweek’s New 2022 MBA Ranking
Maria |
September 22, 2022

If you’re a regular listener of Business Casual, you’ll know that John, Maria and Caroline aren’t the biggest fans of the various MBA rankings and are often of the opinion that they’re simply “a story” that publishers like to shuffle every year to keep things interesting. As they’ve done with other rankings this year, in this episode, the team digs deeper into the methodology (or lack thereof) behind the new “Best Business Schools” ranking from Bloomberg Businessweek

 

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.330] – John

Well, hello, everyone. Welcome to Business Casual our Poets and Quants weekly podcast. Today we’re going to talk about the new ranking from Bloomberg Businessweek. That ranks MBA program full time in the US. Europe and elsewhere in the world. Today’s podcast is sponsored by the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois. Are you thinking about earning your MBA with the fully online IMBA from the University of Illinois East college of business. You can earn your degree on your schedule without ever leaving your home. You’ll learn from Gies College of Business top faculty and built a global network of experienced peers at a cost of just $23,000. It’s no wonder the IMBA comes with a 96% student satisfaction rate. Apply by October 6 to start classes in January. Learn more at onlinembaillinois.edu. Okay, another ranking, another wacky result on some level. At the top of the ranking, it may look pretty solid. Stanford is in first place again. This is the fourth consecutive time in the Bloomberg business ranking, Gregson, that Stanford took top honors. Chicago, Booth and Harvard are tied for second. Northwestern is fourth. Dartmouth five. MIT six. Wharton still lagging.

[00:01:33.410] – John

Last year, you recall, Wharton had its lowest Businessweek ranking every 9th place. This time it’s 7th. Columbia, 8th. UVA Darden, nine. Yale, ten. If you look at the European results, it’s kind of interesting. IMD is number one. INSEAD number two, IESC in Barcelona, Spain. Three, London Business School for Baconi in Italy, number five. What do you make of these rankings? Caroline, we’ll start with you. Given the fact that I just rolled off the European yes.

[00:02:09.280] – Caroline

Well, I do think that they like to make a story, right? So they have to shuffle things around a little bit every year. Otherwise what would be the point of publishing it and how would they make a story out of it? So I’m a little bit skeptical to know about the rankings. I think there can be value in them. But it’s really important for students and candidates to delve into the data and understand the methodology and because, as we’ve discussed before, the methodologies do vary dramatically and it all depends on what criteria are important to you -as an individual, right, and whether those are reflected in the ranking or not. And that may not be the case. And there may be certain criteria that give some schools a natural advantage over others. So one example of that, as you’ve highlighted before in the FT ranking, is the weighting of international students in the international element of the program. And that obviously gives an advantage to schools like INSEAD, which have that very much as part of the school DNA. And in this particular ranking, IMD has an advantage amongst the international schools because salary is given such great weight in the ranking.

[00:03:30.510] – Caroline

And given that IMD students are typically a bit older than the average of other MBA amongst MBA programs and therefore more experienced and probably earning more money when they go into the program and therefore looking to earn more money when they graduate, that gives the school an advantage. So not saying that’s necessarily wrong, but it just means that it’s important to understand what’s going on and what’s driving these dynamics. And for individuals who are looking at this as a guide to where they should apply, they really need to delve into that data and understand what is going on.

[00:04:08.530] – John

Yes, we should point out how does Businessweek actually rank these programs? And Caroline referred to the element of compensation that clearly is the single most heavily weighted factor in these rankings. The other factors that Businessweek contends considers is learning, although we’re going to get into the vague explanation that they have in the methodology for what exactly constitutes learning, which I know is a pet peeve of Maria’s, and she dug through the methodology and found very little explanation for what learning is or how it’s ranked. Here networking, entrepreneurship, and diversity. In each of these, there are some weird, quirky results that definitely make you incredibly skeptical about the entire ranking. Now, here’s one in the learning index. For example, Hulk Business School places higher than Chicago, Booth, MIT, Sloan, Columbia, Duke, Berkeley, Michigan, NYU, Stern, or UCLA. Now, I don’t know how that is even remotely possible, and that’s no dissonance, but there’s just no way that anyone, any faculty member, any dean, any real student, any alum, any employer would say that MBAs at Hulk learn better or learn more than the MBAs at places like Wharton, MIT, Sloan, Columbia, Chicago, Booth, Duke, Berkeley, Michigan and others.

[00:05:44.100] – John

There’s just no way. I mean, it’s insane to even think that that’s possible. The other issue here is diversity. How do you measure diversity? Well, the number one ranked school for diversity by Businessweek is Howard University, which probably has the least diverse MBA program. Now, if you were ranking on the basis of just simply underrepresented minority, sure, Howard should be number one because the entire student body is black. But that is not made for a diverse MBA classroom. Just because you have one race represented in a classroom and none other, that’s the opposite of diversity. And there are all kinds of problems with each of these metrics in the way Businessweek mindlessly goes about trying to calculate them. Now, Maria, I mentioned that you dug through the methodology and you’re as mystified as I am about what the heck are they measuring?

[00:06:37.910] – Maria

I mean, I dug through the methodology and so far as they provide a whopping, what, three sentences to explain their methodology. So not exactly standing up to rigorous third party scrutiny. The learning one for me is just a lot of their metrics are a little bit silly, but at least compensation, you say, okay, well, compensation is something that we can measure. It’s something that is at least factual on some late basis. And diversity, I agree with you. I think that they should rename diversity to something that is more along the lines of promoting opportunities, providing opportunities for otherwise underrepresented groups. Because in that case, I would agree. Howard is probably the best school in the country for that, hands down. But if you define diversity in terms of having a wide spectrum of people, then it just depends how you choose to define that term. But the Learning Index, I mean, basically it’s based on a survey. So they’re surveying, for example, recent graduates. One of the things that kind of bugs me there are lots of things that bug me, so buckle up. One of the things that bugs me is that 25% of their waiting comes from people who have just graduated in the class of 2022.

[00:07:53.540] – Maria

Right now, it is September of 2022. So even if they just collected this data a week or two ago, these are graduates who have only been out of school for about three months. And I’m sure that they needed more time than that to collect the data. But let’s just give them the benefit of the doubt. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say the graduates were three months after graduation when they took the survey. How can a student who just graduated provide a lot of perspective on how much they learned, how valuable that learning was, how valuable the network is? A lot of these things, other than compensation, it can be very difficult to ask someone. If you would have asked me three months after I graduated, well, what was the learning like? I probably would have had a very different answer than I do today. So that’s a little bit strange. But yes, for the Learning Index, and this is the one that’s a lot of fun to play with. You can either go to the Poets and Quants story about this, or you can go to the Businessweek website, but you start filtering the US. Schools by the learning score, and look, these are great.

[00:08:54.520] – Maria

Again, we’re not trying to diss anyone. I mean, the number one school is William and Mary. College of William and Mary Emory. Georgia. Texas. Dallas. Jindal. So these are all wonderful schools, but how do you judge if you’re self reporting? Yes, I think I had a wonderful learning experience at my business school. I know as a graduate of that business school that my school looks better if I say amazing things about it.

[00:09:20.300] – John

Totally.

[00:09:20.970] – Maria

Therefore, I have a very vague I mean, there’s not even an assemblance of objectivity here, right. The motivations for somebody to say yes, even if they hated it, or even if they didn’t learn squat, they have a motivation as graduates of the program to make their own program look as good as possible. And so who knows how this is being judged, because there is no universal test at the end of business school. Unlike other graduate types of programs, where there might be licensing exams or bar exams or medical board exams. There is no similar exam for MBA. So there really is no way to quantitatively say, well, this school teaches more than other schools, or the graduates of this school are more academically prepared than others. And as much as I dislike the reliance of other school sorry, excuse me, other rankings, emphasis on GMAT scores and GRE scores, at least that’s something that is a standardized academic measure. So at least you can sort of try to guess or try to glean some sort of indirect information about the quality of the students at that school, but simply saying, well, we asked for something called the learning index, and we pretty much just looked around.

[00:10:39.200] – Maria

What are the classes that they offer and what’s the breadth of those classes? So anyway, I will stop talking about the learning index one, but it’s like, hey, if I know that, I’m going to help myself by saying that my school had perfect teachers and I learned so much and it was the best learning experience ever. I’m going to do that even if it’s not true.

[00:10:59.240] – John

That’s true. And let me put even another little sort of underline on this. If you come from a school that isn’t generally top ranked or highly selective. You are probably going to be more inclined to be generous to the school and how you score it knowing that those scores will be used in the ranking than if you come from a Harvard of Stanford or Wharton. Where you have the self confidence to know that your degree is highly desired by a lot of employers. Is recognized for its quality and its standards. And there’s no question about the value of that degree. So that self confidence that you bring to filling those questions out on the survey is going to be reflected in a ranking because you’re less likely to be a total cheerleader for a brand that isn’t Harvard, Stanford, Warden, INSEAD business school, but rather whole. And that’s a real problem. And there’s no way of this ranking is based on survey data from students, alumni, some from employers. And don’t get me started on their employer survey because it’s ridiculous. It’s insane. They basically survey or try to survey everyone who comes to a campus to recruit students.

[00:12:17.510] – John

So if McKinsey goes 20 different campuses, McKinsey gets 20 surveys. And the people who are going to recruit students at Harvard are Harvard alums, okay, and the people who go to recruit students at Dartmouth for McKinsey are Dartmouth Grads, which is the dumbest way to survey employers about their true attitudes about how one program compares to another. But that’s the way business suite does it. There are so many flaws in the methodology and so many mindless decisions by journalists who lack good judgment and lack any knowledge about graduate management education that this thing is a total, complete farce. Now, last year, we covered a pretty controversial dispute. A deputy dean who was in charge of the full time MBA program at Yale School of Management, reverse engineered the Businessweek ranking. He threw all the data that they published into a spreadsheet, did regression analysis and all other kinds of things that I am not qualified to talk about because I’ve never taken the course in statistics. And he discovered that the weights that Businessweek says that it applies to each of these five measures that they rank from compensation of diversity to entrepreneurship and networking and learning were not properly applied because if they were, the rankings would have been substantially different.

[00:13:48.980] – John

And he found that last year 23 of the top 25 schools, at least according to Businessweek, would have had differences in the ranking. Well, guess what? He pulled out his spreadsheet and his analysis again and he applied it to this newest ranking. And he also sees not only similar and significant flaws in the weighting of these different measures. But just as importantly, he says that the methodology was basically constructed to off you skate the errors that Businessweek is making. And one conclusion is that even though Wharton clearly is undervalued at a rank of seven this year by Businessweek, if in fact Businessweek applied the weights that they contend that they applied, wharton would be down to like 19 or 20. Obviously that would be an incredible embarrassment for Bloomberg Businessweek. And so the suggestion here is that the editors put their hands into this black box that they’ve constructed and have manipulated the numbers to some degree so that the results wouldn’t be as embarrassing as they already are. So you can read his analysis on Poets and Quants. It’s on the website along with our own analysis of the data.

[00:15:18.390] – John

Caroline, is there any good at all that comes from this?

[00:15:22.590] – Caroline

On the positive side, I guess these rankings and all of these articles also generate visibility for business education and business schools and MBA programs. So perhaps it does help to attract some attention and provide some useful information to new generation of potential MBA candidates. But I think it’s really a shame that there isn’t more rigor behind this. It is disappointing. And last year when Professor You mentioned had raised his concerns with the analysis behind the ranking, they very satisfactory response at all, right? They just sort of and it looks like they’ll be interesting to see any response this year. But I guess they’re digging in their heels if they have just come up with if they haven’t corrected the errors from last year.

[00:16:26.310] – John

I think he’s getting the silent tree, more or less.

[00:16:30.150] – Caroline

It’s shameful, right? You would hope that the publication that is behind this similar concerns with The Economist and how could an organization and The Economist turn out the rubbish that they turned out here by at least they’ve seen fit to put an end to that. But perhaps Businessweek will go the same way.

[00:16:57.450] – John

I suspect that Businessweek is very vulnerable given these attacks on the credibility we’ve seen the Economists decide, nope, no more for us. We’re out of it. Forbes has not come out with the ranking for three years now, and as far as I know, I don’t see any new ranking that’s forthcoming. The Businessweek ranking now is the second year in a row it’s been severely attacked, and the year before that, you recall, many of the schools withdrew and Business, we had to actually take the hiatus for a year during the Pandemic. That leaves us. News and Financial Times and both. Obviously there are flaws in both of those methodologies, but I think those rankings are generally regarded to be among the more credible MBA rankings out there. The FT given its global nature, and US. News given the rigor of its methodology, based on many base data points that are provided by the schools. Although, as we have discovered there, there’s nothing that prevents the school from cheating, as Temple University did, and led to a prison sentence for its dean. So there is that problem with US. News which does not conduct audits.

[00:18:12.970] – John

The FT does. I wonder, Maria, if you were to construct a new MBA ranking, what would you measure and what do you think could be important and would lead to an authoritative, credible ranking?

[00:18:29.850] – Maria

Well, for starters, I would definitely not ask people to rate themselves. Hey, we’re all above average, right? Like we all began, all the children are above average at our school. First of all, I would get rid of any of that sort of self promotion aspect to it. I think at the end of the day, and I think I’ve mused upon this a little bit before, I think you do forced choice. It’s sort of a survey type of thing where you tell people like, okay, it’s not along a spectrum. Like, here are two options. In between the two, which would you choose? Between Harvard and Stanford, which would you choose? Between Stanford and Wharton, which would you choose? Between Wharton and Yale, which would you choose? Honestly, I know it’s like, perhaps overly simplistic, but ask the students, where would they want to go? Ask the recruiters. If you can only recruit one person from a business school, what school would that be? And also, in that case, I would actually wait the recruiters based upon their eliteness, upon their selectivity. So perhaps there is a program out there that’s like, well, I don’t want to go to Stanford because I know those kids are all going to turn me down, so I’m not going to put Stanford.

[00:19:41.350] – Maria

Even though secretly they wish they could hire Stanford people, they wouldn’t put them because they’re jealous. So I would really just do it as simple as it sounds. Just sort of say and even to faculty, right? If you’re maybe faculty members. I actually have a friend who’s on a faculty at UCLA, Anderson, who was recently considering moving to another school. And there are a lot of decisions that come up to play, come into play when you’re trying to decide what other school to go to, including things like, do I want to live in the city of the other program. So maybe the question to ask faculty and staff members is not where would you most like to teach, but let’s say something like your best friend or the academic that you most admire in your field. Where do you think they should go teaching? If you could say where they should be placed, where would you most put them? Would you put them at some of these others? Would you put them at Halt? Or do you think they would instead go to Wharton? I just think that that’s kind of the because there is no quantifiable way to rate an MBA program, at least no easy way to do so at the very least, then, let’s lean into that subjectivity. But also you can’t vote for yourself.

[00:20:51.370] – John

You know, I like that idea. I like that idea a lot. I think those are really smart, thoughtful ways to ask questions that get a really good answers. I wonder if another way is I’m going to throw this out and then, Caroline, we’re going to come to you, but we’re giving you a little more time to think about this. I wonder if you could say that, look, most people enter MBA programs because they have a vision for what they want to do and even a company or an industry in which they want to work. So if you said. Okay. MBA surveys show that the 50 most popular employers of MBAs are XYZ. And then you did LinkedIn searches on the MBAs who work in those companies in a specific time period for. Let’s say. The last three years. And then you weighed those results by the size of the class of each business school and how many graduates they actually put into the market. Would that be a viable ranking? Because basically what you’re saying there is, look, if you want to go to McKinsey, here are the programs that would most likely get you there.

[00:22:09.290] – John

If you believe that some of the most desirable jobs are at McKinsey, Bane, BCG, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon and then a select group of private equity firms. Hedge firms, and BC firms. Which may not commonly appear in the top 50 list of organizations that most MBAs want to work for. Would you really be getting that than the schools that most successfully place their students and the jobs that they really want? And is that really what a ranking should show? Because there’s no way to measure in any faithful, accurate, credible way the actual academic experience, which I wish there were, because you can’t trust surveys that go to students or Alums because of the cheerleading factor. And admission statistics are, while somewhat helpful, they don’t really tell you about the quality of education you’re receiving and compensation. Well, obviously the graduates from Harvard Stanford are going to get the most money and they’re going to go into the fields that provide the most money. That doesn’t tell you much about the whole system, but the jobs that you land and the jobs that you want in these highly selective firms that are choosing these people.

[00:23:31.370] – John

Isn’t that basically a great way to measure the marketplace to actually put the feet to the fire of the business schools or is that a cockamamie thing as well?

[00:23:44.160] – Caroline

Caroline well, I do think that the recruitment data is very useful and I think that candidates should definitely pay a lot of attention to that. And I’m always telling candidates to please spend plenty of time combing through those recruitment reports because there is a wealth of information there and it’s very useful and it’s very important to understand if students at the school that you’re thinking about applying to actually getting jobs and making the kind of career change that you’re looking to make. So I do think that some of those indicators that you mentioned could be useful. I think salary can be a useful indicator as well. Of course, it depends what people want to do, right? So with your methodology you could be penalizing schools where they have more people going into, I don’t know, startups. Right. Starting your own company, entrepreneurship. Right. So maybe a school like GSB wouldn’t come out so well in your ranking. Yes, it doesn’t make it any less desirable for certain people or some of the international programs where they may be feeding candidates into more diverse portfolio of companies and some of the top US schools because candidates are going all around the world.

[00:25:09.190] – Caroline

So there is no perfect methodology. But I do think that you’re onto something that the recruitment data and placement statistics and the stories behind that are very important because recruiters, they are buying into these programs, right? It’s not just about some survey or random impressions of one school versus the next. They’re actually hiring people and investing a huge amount of money in recruiting people from some schools and paying them large amounts of money. So they are going to be doing that for a reason and they think that those students are very capable young professionals and can add a lot of value to their organization. So I do think that the choices that recruiters make are very interesting and say a lot about the value of schools.

[00:26:10.610] – John

Yeah, that’s true. You’re right. I mean, you said this before and it bears repeating that one way to really target schools is to look at the employment reports and see if they’re placing students in the companies or industries that you really want to work in. Because if that’s happening, it’s not only the fact that they’re placing them, the fact that they also have alumni who can help you in those industries and companies get in the door and advise you as to how to basically swing the odds in your favor of an employment offer. So that can be very valuable to you. So there you have it. If you want to read up on the latest Businessweek ranking from the Poets and Quants, check it out. We show, of course, the winners and the losers will tell you what is total BS and what isn’t. And we’ll give you the analysis, the latest analysis by the deputy dean who runs the MBA firm at Yale SOM, which is really enlightening and helps to put the whole thing into the proper perspective and makes you think this is more entertainment than it is information. But nonetheless, we’re all junkies for who’s up and who’s down, and we can discount and disregard the actual outcomes, but nonetheless, they’re still somewhat fascinating to read.

[00:27:36.710] – John

Anyway, there you have it. So I want to thank our sponsor, the Gies College of Business. Are you thinking about earning your MBA? With the fully online IMBA from the University of Illinois Gies College of Business, you can earn a degree on your schedule without ever leaving your home. You’ll learn from these top faculty and build a global network of experienced peers at a cost of just $23,000. That’s right, 23k no wonder the IMBA comes with a 96% student satisfaction rate. Apply by October 6 to start classes in January. Learn more at onlinemba.Illinois.edu. I want to thank my co host Maria and Caroline for the insights. If you’ve listened to our other updates on the different rankings, you’ll know that their views are very consistent. We all don’t like them, but we all kind of love to talk about them. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. You’ve been listening to Business Casual.

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
Businessweek’s New 2022 MBA Ranking
Maria |
September 22, 2022

[00:00:00] John Byrne: Well hello everyone, this is John Byrne with Poets and Quants, welcome to Business Casual, our weekly podcast with my co-hosts Maria Wich-Vila and Caroline Diarte Edwards. Today we have a special guest, Heidi Hillis from Fortuna Admissions. She is based in Australia, is a senior expert coach for Fortuna, and has three degrees, all from Stanford, a BA in English literature, that’s my degree, an MA in Russian studies, and an MBA from the Graduate School of Business. And we have Heidi here to discuss some really fascinating research. Here’s what Fortuna did. They dug into the last Two class profiles of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

That’s the class of ‘23 and the class of ‘24. They looked up all these folks on LinkedIn to identify a little bit more about their backgrounds, including their former employers and their places of undergraduate education to come up with an incredible analysis. Heidi, welcome.

[00:00:46] Heidi Hillis: Thank you. I’m glad to be here.

[00:00:48] John Byrne: Heidi, what is, what are the big takeaways from your deep dive discovery?

[00:00:54] Heidi Hillis: It’s hard to know even where to start. I think there’s a quite a few interesting kind of trends that we’ve seen that have taken place over the years. We were mentioning before the call that traditionally there hadn’t been, 10 years ago, if you’d looked, you wouldn’t have seen so many tech companies represented, but now there’s a big presence of tech companies who are feeding a lot of these MBA programs in Stanford in particular.

I think that the thing that was really interesting was, looking, not just at where the companies that were feeding the students, the applicants to Stanford. When they were working there, when they were applying, but actually the paths that they took prior to their current job.

So how many people were working, if you look at McKinsey, for example, or Bain and BCG, those are obviously companies that feed a lot of applicants to the program, but we found 20%, which seemed to be normal of, the class came from consulting, but if you actually look into the numbers in their background, You would see that actually 37 percent of these two classes had worked at McKinsey sometime prior, or actually in consulting, so it was, it’s The kind of the patterns that are behind, what you would normally see in terms of what Stanford tells us.

So you get a sense of the paths that people have taken. And so that’s something that was really interesting to see.

[00:02:16] John Byrne: Absolutely. And of course, this is this analysis goes so far beyond what any applicant would learn by simply looking at the class profile that the school up because, this level of detail is never available to people.

[00:02:33] Heidi Hillis: No, and yeah, for example, you could see that, Stanford will say that they have around, each year around 50 percent of applicants are international, which is a great statistic and gives you lots of hope if you are an international student. But when you dig into the numbers, you actually understand that.

75 percent of the people who get into Stanford actually went to a U. S. University. So even if you’re international, it does have does seem to have kind of an advantage of having been educated in the U. S. That seems to be something that they look for. However, I think. The concentration of universities in the U.

S. that are feeding to Stanford is something also that, if you’re looking at it, you might find a little bit dis, disconcerting. There’s a few programs that are really, obviously the top. Programs as you would expect places like Harvard, Stanford, Yale, the Ivies but if you look at the international universities very diverse from all over the world, really lots of people from different places, which is also really interesting.

[00:03:38] John Byrne: Yeah I tell you, one of the things that struck me in the data is how consistent it is. 10 years ago, we did the same exercise at Stanford and a bunch of other. Schools from Harvard and Dartmouth and Columbia and talk and a few others and back 10 years ago, we found that 25. 2 percent of the class of 2013 were from Ivy League colleges.

And the Ivy League 8 schools, not including Stanford. And if you included Stanford, it would have been 32. 6%. So now, let’s move forward to your data. And in 23, 30. 7 percent went to Ivy League schools, even above the 25. 2. And in 24, 27. 9 percent went to Ivy League schools. So it looks like Stanford has gotten even a little bit more elitist than it was.

Yeah,

[00:04:41] Heidi Hillis: It’s, it is it’s what the data says, right? Obviously, this is a sample. We have 80 percent of the two classes. So we don’t know where those other people went. And that might skew the data a little bit in another direction. But it is, if you look at there’s 15 schools, that include the Ivy’s and then you have UC Berkeley and obviously Stanford that really are contributing, 49 percent of the class of 23, 47. 3 percent of the class of 24. So that is a pretty heavy concentration and But, if you actually look into the data, you see a lot of people also, each of these is actually an individual story.

You see a lot of people who come from other schools as well. So it’s not like you have to give up hope if you come from a different school. I see a lot of individual stories that, from the whole range of U. S. schools that really are feeding into Stanford. So I think what the data doesn’t also tell you, unfortunately, is how many of these Of people from these backgrounds are actually applying.

So

[00:05:39] John Byrne: good point.

[00:05:40] Heidi Hillis: It’s it’s hard to know. And sometimes I think people this is. A path that a lot of people who go to these schools plan to take from the very beginning. So I would see, it would be interesting to know that I don’t know that we will ever find that out. But, um, that’s something to keep in mind as well.

[00:05:56] John Byrne: Yeah. And that’s a fair point. Because how reflective are these results of the applicant pool reflective of an elitist attitude probably a combination of if I had to guess, but, it is what it is, and these institutions obviously are great filters, so you come from McKinsey, Bain, BCG, and you go to Harvard or Stanford or Penn, and you pass through a fine filter, and it makes you less of a admissions risk than if you went to, frankly, the University of Kentucky and worked for a company that no one knows of.

That’s just the reality of elite MBA admissions, right?

[00:06:40] Heidi Hillis: Yeah. And so you will see that the people who are not going, you’ll see a lot of the people who you would, the profiles that you would expect, the Harvard undergrad that then goes to Goldman that then was working at a PE firm.

That’s a really typical profile that you’ll see. But you’ll also see some really, unique and interesting ones, which I think, Okay. Helps you understand that if you don’t have that path, you also have a real chance at these schools, and maybe even more of a chance, again, not knowing, how many of those Goldman P.

E. Harvard grads are applying. So I’m thinking of the guy that I saw who he went to UPenn undergrad, studied engineering, started out a kind of pretty typical path working in private equity, but then made a big pivot to work for go to Poland where he was working in a real estate investment firm and the head coach of the Polish lacrosse team.

So you have really interesting profiles like that, that you can see that. aren’t necessarily taking that typical path. And sometimes that really does help you stand out.

[00:07:42] John Byrne: True. Maria, what surprised you most about the data?

[00:07:48] Maria Wich-Vila: Wow. I think we already covered, the, one of the biggest ones was the number, the percentage of people who would had some sort of either their undergraduate or graduate education within the United States.

Intuitively, I had felt that was true. And sometimes when I try to, give some honest, tough love to applicants from certain countries, and they’ll say, oh, but Maria, I think you’re being a little too pessimistic. After all, X percent of the applicants at these schools are international, and Y percent are from a certain geography internationally.

I’ll say yes, but that doesn’t mean that they’re all Solely from that area. A lot of them are, do have significant international educational experiences. I think another, speaking of the international piece the percentage of people who had significant international work experience as well was something else that really jumped out at me.

Because it would signal to me that Stanford really does value this global perspective both within probably its domestic applicants and also its international applicants. So I thought that was also a really interesting piece of data that jumped out at me.

[00:08:52] John Byrne: Now remind me what percentage was that?

[00:08:56] Heidi Hillis: People who are international

[00:08:58] John Byrne: who have had international work experience.

[00:09:01] Heidi Hillis: I think it was 30%.

[00:09:02] Caroline Diarte Edwards: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it’s pretty

[00:09:04] John Byrne: impressive.

[00:09:04] Caroline Diarte Edwards: 30%, which I was thrilled to see. As well as coming from in Seattle and Europe. Obviously the international schools put a heavy emphasis on international experience and I hadn’t fully appreciated that. A school like Stanford would also.

really value that to the same extent. And it’s great to see that candidates are making the effort to get outside of the U. S. and get international experience because I think you gain so much from that exposure. And you bring more to the classroom if you’ve got that experience. I know that both Maria and Heidi.

I’ve worked outside of the home countries as well. Pre MBA and I think that you just have so much more to contribute to the whole experience. And it was great to see that 30%.

[00:09:50] John Byrne: What else struck you, Caroline?

[00:09:53] Caroline Diarte Edwards: We talked about the concentration of academic institutions, and I was also surprised about the concentration in employers.

So while there is a very long list of employers where the students have worked pre MBA when you dig into the career paths that they’ve taken there is some interesting concentration. Heidi had noted that the reports that There are 26 companies that account for nearly one third of the class in terms of where they were working right before Stanford.

But when you look at their whole career history, those same 26 companies represent over 60 percent of the class. So that is, yeah, that’s quite extraordinary that so many of the class have experience of working at quite a short list of companies.

[00:10:46] Heidi Hillis: I think that’s reflective of, if you really think about it, you have a lot of these companies.

You’re talking about the Goldmans and the Morgan Stanley and McKinsey that have really large programs that recruit out of undergrad that are really training grounds for. A lot of people that then on to do, work in industry or go on to work for in finance in particular, a lot of people starting out at some of these bulge bracket banks and then going into.

Private equity or smaller firms. So the diversity within finance in terms of where they were working prior to MBA is quite large compared to consulting because there just aren’t as many consulting firms, but a lot of people in financing, a lot of different firms, but they, a lot of them really do start out in these training programs, these analyst programs that are so big and popular.

[00:11:34] John Byrne: Yeah, true. And looking back, I did this exercise as well. The feeder companies to Stanford 10 years ago in the class of 2023, 22. 8 percent from McKinsey, Bain, BCG, and your data, 22. 5 percent work there. Incredible consistency over a 10 year period. When you look at the top six employers 10 years ago, they were McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, and JP.

Morgan Chase. They accounted alone for 34 percent of all the students in the class of 20, 2013 at Stanford. In your data for 23 and 24 they account for 29. 8%, just a few percentage points less. So remarkable consistency. And I think you’re right, Heidi, this is a function of the fact that these firms bring in a lot of people who are analysts and actually expect them after 3 to 5 years to go to a top MBA school.

So there’s a good number of them in the applicant pool to choose from and let’s face it, they’re terrific candidates.

[00:12:46] Heidi Hillis: Yeah. I think another pool of really terrific candidates that you see, and I don’t know what the 2013 data was saying, but is the US military, which is really, I think, again, something that I felt having worked with lots of military candidates myself, understand that, Yeah, intuitively, I would have expected, but to see it in the data is actually really interesting.

You just see Stanford in particular, I think, is really looking for leadership potential, and it’s so hard to show that as an analyst, as a consultant, but as in the military, these people have such incredible leadership experience that it really helps them to stand out.

[00:13:23] John Byrne: Yeah. And let’s tell people what the data shows.

How many out of us military academies,

[00:13:28] Heidi Hillis: In all in total, we had, 20 over the two years. So that’s in the two classes that we found. So that’s, a pretty large number. And they come from all the different academies, right? So you’ll find them from different, not academies, in the army, navy and the marines.

So you’ll see that. And you also see quite a few, in the data we’ll, we see a lot from the Israeli military as well, but that’s actually a little bit difficult to because every Israeli does go into the military. So it’s they have that in their background. Any Israeli candidate would have Israeli military background as well, but again, that’s.

Place that people can really highlight their leadership. So you had eight people from who had been, who were Israeli and obviously had military experience where they were able to demonstrate significant impact and leadership prior to MBA.

[00:14:18] John Byrne: Yeah. In fact, 10 years ago, roughly 2%. of the class went to either West Point or the U.

S. Naval Academy. Good number of people actually from the military. Maria, any other observations?

[00:14:34] Maria Wich-Vila: Yeah, I was also surprised at the fact that within those top employers And when we look at the tech companies, it was Google and Facebook and Meta with a pretty large showing. Google was actually the fourth largest employer after the MBBs and, but then, I was expecting there to be an equal distribution amongst those famous large cap technology companies.

So I, I would have expected even representation amongst Google, Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, et cetera. And yet. Apple and Amazon only had one or two people each versus Google at 25. So I thought that was really fascinating and it makes me wonder if perhaps it’s a function of maybe Google and Meta might give their younger talent more opportunities to lead impactful projects, perhaps.

I’m just guessing here, but maybe Apple and Amazon perhaps are more hierarchical. And maybe don’t give their younger talent so many opportunities, but I was really surprised by that. I would have expected a much more even distribution amongst the those famous those famous tech companies.

[00:15:40] John Byrne: Yeah. You’re right. And I crunched the numbers on the percentages and Google took three and a half percent of the two classes and that’s better than Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase. Facebook had 2. 7 percent and Microsoft at 1. 5, and I was shocked at Amazon because, Amazon is widely known as the largest single recruiter of MBAs in the past five years.

At one point, they were recruiting a thousand MBAs a year, but in, in one sense, maybe Amazon quite doesn’t really have the prestige. For Stanford MBAs who might rather work elsewhere, I think that might be is, you look at the employment reports at a lot of the other schools and Amazon is number one at a number of schools and very low percentage of people from Amazon going to Stanford.

We don’t know, of course, how many. Leaving Stanford and going back to Amazon, but it can’t be that many.

[00:16:41] Heidi Hillis: I wonder if there’s something about just a proximity effect here. You have the plate, like the meta and Google just being so close to Stanford, maybe it just, attracts more people applying because they.

They’re almost on campus and maybe, just being Amazon all over the world and different places could be not attracting as many. I don’t know.

[00:17:03] John Byrne: Yeah, true. The other thing, the analysis shows, and this is what you also gather from the more public class profile is really the remarkable diversity of talent that a school like Stanford can attract year after year.

It is, it blows you away, really. The quality and the diversity of people despite the concentration of undergraduate degree holders or company employers, it’s it’s really mind boggling, isn’t it?

[00:17:33] Heidi Hillis: Yeah, they come from everywhere and really interesting paths and even the people I think that, have those kind of typical paths, you see a lot of diversity within them as well.

So I think, even if you’re coming from a Goldman or a McKinsey having lived in another country or gone to done a fellowship abroad or running a non profit on the side. These things are actually what helped them to stand out. But you do see some really interesting, I think, profiles, too, of people who’ve just done, you get a sense of what it would be like to be in the Stanford classroom.

People from really unique and different backgrounds. People who come from all different countries and lawyers, doctors people who have run, nonprofits in developing countries people running large programs for places like Heineken or Amazon too. But, it’s a real diversity of backgrounds.

[00:18:27] John Byrne: Now, Heidi, I wonder if one is an applicant. Is this discouraging to read and here’s why if I’m not from Harvard, Stanford, Penn, Columbia, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, and if I didn’t work for McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Goldman, Google am I at a disadvantage and should I even try? Some people look at the data and come away with that conclusion.

[00:18:52] Heidi Hillis: I think it’s a reality check for a lot of people. I think it’s just, it’s really, it just helps people understand, what it, the difficulty of this, why it’s so competitive, but I think that there is, again, behind the kind of the percentages, you do look at these individual profiles and I would get, I would actually take a lot of hope from it if I were looking, as an applicant, because especially if you are.

Maybe a little bit more of a big fish or small fish in a bigger pond or big fish in a smaller pond you go to Rice or you go to Purdue or, and you do really well, those are the people who, they’re definitely looking for that diversity of background as well as the international.

I think that’s really neat. think that, instead of looking at the data and saying, why not, why I shouldn’t even apply, it’s why not me look at these other profiles of people who have taken really unique paths that that do get in. So I think it is actually a Kind of a mix of both, it is a reality check for a lot of people, but it’s actually, there is so much diversity in the data as well.

I think also one thing that we haven’t really covered is about is just the prevalence of social impact in, that’s really taken hold of the class. I don’t, again, going back to your 2013 analysis, I’m not sure how easy it was to tell that, but a lot of you can see reflected in the both the types of organizations people are working for, but also their titles and the kinds of work that they’re doing that that there’s a huge 40 percent of the class of the two classes had some kind of social impact in their background.

Whether that’s, running their own nonprofit on the side or volunteering or. Running trans transformational kind of programs within companies that are, either in finance or consulting or in industry. That’s a big trend. I think that people can take heart from as well.

So if you’re working if you feel like you’re in an organization where you’re not getting the leadership that you. can use to highlight your potential for Stanford, that’s definitely a place you can go is working for in volunteer capacity for a non profit or on the board of a of some kind of foundation.

Those are the kinds of places that you can highlight your potential

[00:21:00] John Byrne: true. And I know we have a overrepresented part of every applicant pool at an elite business school are software engineers from India. And I wonder in your analysis, how many of them did you find from like the IITs?

[00:21:18] Heidi Hillis: That’s a good question. The IITs, it was again, it was one of these you have about 50 percent of classes internet, so 25 percent of the class. was educated outside of the US. The IITs are going to be up there. Let’s see from India, 2. 1 percent of the class came from India. So probably, I don’t know offhand exactly how many of those were IITs, but

[00:21:43] John Byrne: I’ve had a lot of them.

[00:21:45] Heidi Hillis: Yeah, probably a lot of them. Although I think, that’s the other thing is that people who come, to work with me from India, they feel like if they haven’t gone to IIT, then that’s going to be a disadvantage. But I think, you’ll find that there are, there’s representation of other universities as well.

Definitely.

[00:22:00] Caroline Diarte Edwards: Yeah, I was just looking at the list of undergrad institutions. And for example, you’ve got Osmania University from Hyderabad. So it is not, it’s not all IIT. Okay.

[00:22:12] John Byrne: Yeah, exactly. And Caroline, 1 of the things about the institutions that are really represented here and that I don’t really see unless I missed it.

I didn’t see a Cambridge or an Oxford. Two of the best five universities in the world. And I wonder if that’s just a function of fewer people in the applicant pool or what? What do you think that could be about?

[00:22:36] Caroline Diarte Edwards: I had a look through the uk Institutions and you have got cambridge in there.

I think I also noticed. Bristol university there are a few different universities. So i’m aston university, which is not it’s not on a par with Oxford or Cambridge. So I think that speaks to the point that Heidi made that you don’t have to have been to an elite school to get into Stanford.

Aston is a good solid university, nothing wrong with Aston, but it’s not it’s not one of the top UK universities. So there’s definitely some interesting variety in the educational backgrounds of the students going to Stanford. And

[00:23:16] John Byrne: then, yeah, it is if you’re a big fish in a small pond, like Afton, you’ll you could still stand out in the pool.

[00:23:26] Heidi Hillis: Absolutely. There’s a lot of really interesting background, you have look hard on blue and you have Miami University and some really smaller universities abroad. I think. Again, it’s really, if you look at that, it does give you hope because it’s really what you do afterwards and if you, obviously, if you come from one of these schools, you probably want to be in the top, 5 percent of the graduating class, you want to show that you have the GPA that can support an academic background that they feel comfortable that you’ll be able to compete academically, but, and maybe that’s what you’re Offset by the, the GMA or the scores, you don’t know, we don’t have those on here.

But, um, the path post university really becomes much more important in those cases. What you’ve done since then where you’ve, how you’ve risen from starting at a entry level position to, running a division or heading a country group or something like that.

[00:24:21] John Byrne: And as far as Cordon Bleu goes, every good business program needs a Cordon Bleu, for God’s sake, right?

You want to eat well at those NBA parties, don’t you?

[00:24:32] Heidi Hillis: Absolutely.

[00:24:35] John Byrne: Maria, I’m sure that was true at Harvard.

[00:24:38] Maria Wich-Vila: I wasn’t the one doing the cooking but I certainly, I was certainly a member of the wine and cuisine society where I happily participated in the eating and consuming a part of that.

But to, to the point that we were just recently talking about. regarding being a big fish in a small pond. Not only have I seen it personally with applicants that I’ve worked with who did not attend these elite universities, but even many years ago, I attended a, an admissions conference where Kirsten Moss, who was the former head of admissions at Stanford, she actually told stories about how they’ve accepted people who even attended community college.

But within the context of that community college, they had really moved mountains. And she said that one of the things that they look for is, Within the context and the opportunities that you’ve been given, how much impact have you had? So maybe you don’t have an opportunity to go to Yale or MIT or IIT for your undergraduate, but whatever opportunity you have been given, have you grabbed that opportunity and really made the most of it and really driven change?

So she specifically called out, I believe, I believe there were two students that year at the GSB who had both started their educations, their higher educations at community college. Anything is possible. It really is about finding the people who, wherever they go, they jump in and make an impact.

[00:25:55] Heidi Hillis: Yeah, I think that to that point, I think it can almost be a more difficult if you’ve gone to Harvard and then worked at one of these, gone on one of these paths because we know that there’s, that’s an overrepresented pool in the applicant pool to stand out among those to have had that, that pedigree sometimes can be a disadvantage, right?

If you haven’t done as much as you should have with that, or if you started at that high level to show that level of progress over the course of your career is actually a little bit more difficult. Okay. And coming from a community college and rising to, a country level manager in some places is actually puts you at a significant advantage, I would say.

[00:26:31] Maria Wich-Vila: Because it’s hard for those people, it’s hard for those people to stand out, but also I think some of them go on autopilot, right? I think some people are on this kind of achievement, elite achievement treadmill, where they’re not even really thinking about what do I want to do with my life?

They’re always reaching for whatever that next, what’s the best college to go to? It’s Harvard Princeton. Yeah. Okay. Now that I’m here, what’s the best employer to work for? It’s McKinsey, Bain, BCG and without actually perhaps stopping to think about what is my passion? What impact do I want to make in the world?

And so I feel sometimes those autopilot candidates, I feel a little bit bad for them because they’re doing everything quote unquote and yet sometimes when you speak with them, that passion just isn’t there. And I do think that may ultimately harm them in the very, very elite business school.

Admissions because business schools want people who are passionate because at the end of the day, in order to do hard things, you’re going to need passion at some point to get you through those low periods. And so I think that’s something business schools look for. And I do think that sometimes these.

These kind of autopilot candidates might sometimes be at a disadvantage.

[00:27:29] Heidi Hillis: Yeah, I think that, to that point look in the data, when you look at it, you see so many people who’ve gone to McKinsey, Bain, Weasley, or Goldman, but then there’s a, you see a lot of success for people who’ve actually pivoted.

So those pivots that are post The second or third job really do show you that, if you’re if you get a candidate who’s coming from, still at McKinsey, okay, that’s fine. They have to be the top 5 percent of McKinsey, like they have to be going to get so many McKinsey applicants that the only the, you can look at the data in a couple ways.

One is, oh, my God, they took 12 people from McKinsey and the others. Oh, my God, they only took 12 people from McKinsey, right? That’s So if you want to be one of those 12, you have to be the top 12 in the world, right? Whereas if you’ve gone to McKinsey and then done an externship at a health care startup and then moved on to be a product manager at for health at Google, that kind of a path is definitely showing a little bit more, maybe risk taking, maybe ability to follow your passions.

So I think that. When I see candidates who come to me, for example, and they’re like, not thinking about applying now, but maybe in a year or two, I say, look for an externship, maybe think about pivoting out of one of these places and looking for some operational experience.

And because you see in the data that works.

[00:28:42] Maria Wich-Vila: And they’re doing themselves a service not only in terms of enhancing their admissions chances, but even just in terms of determining, what do I want to do with my career? If I do eventually want to go into industry, what functional role do I want to have?

What industry do I want to work in? So it’s, it actually benefits them in the long term to do that as well, even if they don’t go to business school. I think those secondments and externships and second job, post consulting jobs are extremely valuable. Totally agree with you.

[00:29:06] Caroline Diarte Edwards: And I’m sure they also bring more to the classroom as well.

I would think that’s also why Stanford is selecting some of those candidates, because not only have they worked at McKinsey, but they’ve also led a non profit in Africa or worked in private equity or whatever it is. So they have much more breadth that they can bring to the classroom. And I think that It’s seen as a very valuable contribution

[00:29:29] John Byrne: in Heidi.

Did you see that? The majority of the candidates to examined actually did work in more than one place, right?

[00:29:37] Heidi Hillis: Yes, most of them did. There were very few that, you see working at one place. And I would say that those are people that would have really risen through the ranks.

Someone who’s worked at Walmart and become, started in, I don’t know, in one state, but then to become a regional manager and things like that really are going to onto a global role. The people who have stayed at one place really have shown significant career progression within that.

And then the other people I think you do see a lot of movement. The big. The most typical would be from investment banking to private equity and then you do find in finance, there’s a little bit less kind of movement into other industries. You see a lot of people staying within finance, but within finance.

Yeah. Yeah. The other industries, especially consulting or other, tech, people are really moving into other places and it’s becoming, it is a little bit difficult. We have these categories that we’ve talked about, for example, healthcare, but it’s hard to categorize some of these companies.

Are they healthcare? Are they tech? There’s a lot of overlap. And so everything’s a little bit of tech in something nowadays. So whether it’s finance and fintech or education and ed tech or health care and health tech, these are all merging and combining. It’s hard to categorize them.

[00:30:53] John Byrne: So looking at the data here I wonder if you’ve seen your old classmates in the sense that these new people are very much like the people you went to school with at Stanford. I

[00:31:05] Heidi Hillis: put this out and it’s really interesting to a lot of my classmates downloaded the report and read it. And a lot of them came back and said, oh, boy, I would never get in now.

It’s these people are super impressive. I think that you see a lot of. It’s just become more and more competitive. And I think that with more information and more people every year applying, it is becoming really difficult. I think that you do see a lot of, I am encouraged by the diversity part of it that you see still Stanford.

I feel like they do take risks on some really interesting profiles and candidates that maybe some other schools are less likely to do. And so that’s what does give me. A lot of hope when I get some kind of really nontraditional candidate who wants to, their dream school is Stanford. I feel like, I say all the time, there’s a 6 percent chance.

You’re going to get in, but there’s 100 percent chance. You won’t get in if you don’t apply. So you’ve got to, you got to give it a go. And that’s, the attitude that we take to it.

[00:32:04] John Byrne: Indeed. So for all of you out there read Heidi’s article on our site, it’s called who gets in and why exclusive research.

Into Stanford GSB and I’ll tell you one conclusion I have about this is that, man, if you really want to get into Stanford, you need a Sherpa, and and Heidi would be a great Sherpa for you because the, just the profiles of these folks, where they’ve been, what they’ve done, what they’ve accomplished in their early lives is so remarkable that To compete against, in this pool for a spot in the class you need every possible advantage you can get.

And and having an expert guide you through this trip probably would be a really big advantage. So Heidi, thank you for sharing your insights with us and the research, the very cool research.

[00:33:01] Heidi Hillis: Thank you

[00:33:03] John Byrne: and for all of you out there. Good luck. And if you want to go to Stanford, you got to check out this report.

Okay. It will inspire you to up your game, even if you are from Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, or wherever McKinsey, Bain, BCG, Goldman, Google, you want to look at this report and you want to really think about. What it will really take to get in. I think it will inspire you, motivate you to really put your best foot forward.

Thanks for listening. This is John Byrne with Poets& Quants.

Maria

New around here? I’m an HBS graduate and a proud member (and former Board Member) of AIGAC. I considered opening a high-end boutique admissions consulting firm, but I wanted to make high-quality admissions advice accessible to all, so I “scaled myself” by creating ApplicantLab. ApplicantLab provides the SAME advice as high-end consultants at a much more affordable price. Read our rave reviews on GMATClub, and check out our free trial (no credit card required) today!