Fortune’s First MBA Ranking
Maria |
July 20, 2021

There have been a number of MBA rankings available on the internet for years, but today’s focus will be on Fortune’s “Best MBA Programs”  — a fresh new MBA ranking from a publication that has never fully covered graduate management education in its whole history.

Listen in and find out why the team finds this new MBA ‘US-centric ranking’ annoying and what makes it different from the rest.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.210] – John

Hello, everyone. It’s John Byrne with Poets Quants. Welcome to Business Casual, our weekly podcast featuring my cohost, Caroline Diarte Edwards and Maria Wich Villa. And Maria is, of course, the founder of ApplicantLab and Caroline is the co founder of Fortuna Admissions and the former director of admissions at INSEAD. Well, guess what, folks? We have a new MBA ranking. And I don’t mean one that’s been updated, that has been previously published, but I mean one that is brand new and has never been out before. And it comes from an old, venerable media brand in the United States called Fortune. Now, if you younger people have never heard of Fortune, that’s understandable because magazines aren’t what they used to be, and even their websites aren’t quite magnets for younger people. But Fortune has been a consequential media brand in the business space, along with Business Week and Forbes in the United States. Those were the big three business magazines of yesterday. And so it is somewhat consequential. And I know that Maria has been eagerly looking forward to this new ranking. Right, Maria?

[00:01:20.510] – Maria

Hallelujah. I wake up every morning and I think, will today be the day? Finally, that a new night appears. It’s like Christmas in July. We need more of in the world.

[00:01:35.610] – Caroline

Not a hint of sarcasm there.

[00:01:37.540] – Maria

No, not at all.

[00:01:41.590] – John

And I know that Caroline is equally joyous about this occasion.

[00:01:45.230] – Caroline

Yeah, I’ve long had a love affair with MBA rankings, as you know, from dating back to my days of compiling the data for the rankings publishers when I was back at it.

[00:01:55.910] – John

Yet, of course, that would have been part of your job back then.

[00:01:59.560] – Caroline

Yes, it was.

[00:02:00.440] – Maria

It was a threading.

[00:02:01.480] – Caroline

Part of my role.

[00:02:04.750] – John

Imagine the number of eyes that went on that submission to the Financial Times.

[00:02:08.910] – Caroline

Yeah, it was quite painful.

[00:02:11.950] – John

So here’s the Fortune ranking. It’s the first time they’ve done this. Fortune has never really had much coverage of graduate management education at all throughout its entire history, which is kind of surprising, but they see this as a potential area of clicks and eyeballs. And so this is actually their second MBA ranking. The first was an online MBA ranking that came out earlier this year. It was a fiasco you can read about at Poets and Quants. And now there’s this. And wouldn’t you know, the top three schools in order are Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton. Now, I am so surprised. Now, Where’s London Business School, Where’s all the other great schools in Europe and Asia and Canada, for that matter, nowhere to be found because this is an entirely US centric ranking. So altogether, Fortune ranks 69 different MBA programs. And what’s really notable is what the omissions are. There’s no Michigan Ross, there’s no UCLA. There’s no USC Marshall School, there’s no Emory Goizueta. In addition to the absence, of course, of all the European and Asian players and Canadian players that have become very important to the whole industry, how come in part, we believe Michigan, UCLA, UFC, and Emery weren’t included because they declined to participate.

[00:03:40.450] – John

So that’s interesting in and of itself. And we’ll get to that a little bit later. But I wonder if we can just generally get some reaction from our two experts here about the value of this ranking, if any, to MBA applicants. Maria, want to take it first?

[00:03:58.870] – Maria

Sure. Look, this ranking feels pretty safe. In fact, it almost makes you wonder if they almost finagle their methodology to reverse engineer a list that makes a lot of sense as opposed to picking a methodology upfront and then saying, okay, come hell or high water. This is a methodology. I think the emphasis on salaries, I mean, it’s 65%, if I’m not mistaken, of the waiting is simply based on salaries. And I understand that. Look, people go to the MBA program to enhance their professional careers, and that often means making more money. But I think that saying that of the value of an MBA is only based on the number, the amount of money you’re making when you graduate. I don’t know. I get that it’s important, but I don’t really love it. And I think it might sort of. What about wonderful schools out there that are sending that are making tremendous progress in creating impactful leaders in the field of social enterprise and nonprofit? Right. Those schools are going to be penalized simply for being more mission driven. So I think that was one of the first things that jumped out at me about this ranking.

[00:05:11.530] – John

Yeah, really true. And of course, by only looking at base salary and then the employment rate three months after graduation, which is 65% of the ranking, as Maria just indicated, you’re getting no idea of what are the admission standards and the quality of students are admitting. What about the actual academic and cocurricular experience that people are getting in the program? What about even what employers think should be the demand for these graduates and what their track records might be in their firms? That tell you something about the education and the quality of the students that are entering? What about the faculty? Are the faculty up to snuff? It doesn’t matter to Fortune because there is no factor of that. The rest of the ranking that you just pointed out is a so called brand survey based on business professionals and hiring managers that accounts for 25% of the ranking. These are not people who actually go out and recruit and hire and even work with MBAs. They’re just what they are, whoever they could find at top companies who are willing to respond to the survey. And if, in fact, they do have an MBA from a top school, that’s not figured in this ranking.

[00:06:31.450] – John

So in other words, if I go to let me pick a school out of the blue, if I go to Berkeley, which would be a bad choice, and I’ll tell you why. But if I go to Berkeley and I say the number one school is Berkeley and I don’t name any others, there’s no adjustment or discount for the fact that I’m an alum of the school, and then the remaining 10% is even worse. It’s reflected in the number of each school’s alumni who are C suite executives at Fortune 1000 companies. So that’s reflective of what happened 30, 40 years ago, not what’s going on today. And worse than that, it’s an idea of the economy. That’s old school doesn’t capture any of the dynamic part of the economy with some of the larger employers of MBAs, including McKinsey Bain, BCG, which are obviously not Fortune 1000 companies because they’re not public companies and it doesn’t include startups or early stage companies are really some of the more exciting places that NBA get to work in today, including social enterprise, healthcare, and other fields. So that’s a real kind of crazy methodology. Caroline, what’s your take on all this?

[00:07:40.750] – Caroline

Yeah, I think it’s very reductive. Right. As you said, there are a lot of reasons that people choose to go to business school, and there are a lot of elements of value that students and alumni get out of the experience. And you can’t say that most of that can be summed up as your salary. That also assumes that the main reason people going to business school is to earn a bigger salary afterwards, which is for many people, not the case. Right. They’re looking for more things than just the largest sum that they could possibly command. So I think it’s incredibly reductive. And as you mentioned earlier, the lack of international schools really makes my eyes roll. It’s such a myopic view of the world and the US has to move beyond this.

[00:08:29.540] 

Right.

[00:08:29.790] – Caroline

And this has been an issue in the US for, well, I guess forever. But there’s a very reductive view of the world, and most people assume that the world ends at the borders of the US. And I thought that we were getting beyond that. Obviously, the US news ranking still only focuses on the US schools, but a lot of the other rankings have encompassed the whole gamut of international programs as well as US programs. So it’s very disappointing that a new ranking that could sort of make a claim for having a different positioning in the US market has such a sort of old fashioned approach of the world is just what we see around us in our immediate geography, and we can’t look beyond their own borders.

[00:09:26.010] – John

Yeah, that’s really true. And particularly when you’re starting from scratch today, that’s insane that you would actually have such a myopic view of the business world because let’s face it, they took out a blank sheet of paper and they could have done anything that they wanted to do and they could have done a true global ranking the way the Economist does or the way the Financial Times does. Or at least they could have done a separate international ranking the way Bloomberg Business Week and Forbes do. But instead they decided, though, no, we’re just going to do US schools and we’re going to do it on the most simplistic measure possible, starting salary and placement, basically, and two surveys that are really meaningless and inconsequential and don’t reflect on the quality of any of these programs whatsoever. It’s kind of annoying, to be honest. It’s almost like they’re lazy and they didn’t want to do the hard work of adding value to our community, our field, which really troubles me, to be honest. And that’s with the caveat. Let’s face it, all of these rankings are on some level distortions of the marketplace. Maybe altogether over time, they get you to some sort of greater truth.

[00:10:45.290] – John

But anyone list in any one year from any one outlet isn’t going to tell you with any kind of great confidence what the best schools are. Nonetheless, these rankings have become an obsessive feature of the search for the right business school by applicants. They are widely consulted, they are widely consumed, and a would be applicant who doesn’t know a lot about the market could take this list and assume that these really are their choices and this is their decision set, their consideration set for an MBA. And if they were to do that, they’d be making a huge mistake. Here’s a quick stat that’s kind of fascinating. 40% of the top 100 US schools, never mind international 40%. Four out of every ten US schools that are in the top 100 in US news are missing from this ranking. 40%. And as I mentioned before, it includes some great schools with world class MBA experiences, like Michigan, like Washington University in St. Louis, like USC in La in UCLA and Emery in Atlanta, and many others, not to mention Ncata, London Business School, Paris IESC in Spain, and many other great schools, Cambridge and Oxford and others.

[00:12:09.300] – John

It’s a distorted view of what the market is. Yes, the top of the ranking does look incredibly familiar. And Maria is right. It’s as if they basically looked at what the top schools in US News survey were and basically duplicated them with some few exceptions. But it’s kind of wacky Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Chicago, Booth, Northwestern, Kellogg. That’s number five. Then you have Columbia, NYU Stern, MIT Sloan, Yale, and Dartmouth Tuck. They make up the top ten familiar cast of characters, and pretty much more or less you may disagree with where one school is over another, at least among the US programs. But by and large, it’s what you see and what you get in US news. One surprise, MIT Sloan is coming in below NYU Stern, which is really kind of shocking, to be honest, but pretty much yeah, but that’s just the top ten. And this is supposed to be an overview of all MBAs. Should an applicant just totally ignore something like this and just move on. I’m thinking that’s what you would recommend. Caroline.

[00:13:15.090] – Caroline

Well, I don’t think it brings much new information. Right. So as you said, I don’t think that there’s much to be learned from it. So why not have a look at it? If you’re looking through all the rankings, I don’t think candidates should base their decisions on any single ranking. So why not look through this as part of your scan of all of the rankings? But it’s not terribly informative. So as you said, it’s a shame that they didn’t sort of set out to add a bit more value to candidates in sort of helping them navigate the choices, which are increasingly complex. It is a global marketplace. Today candidates in the US as well as elsewhere are looking at international schools. International candidates are looking at coming to study in the US. So it is a global marketplace, and that makes it much more complex for everybody to navigate completely missed that. And so the decisions and the choices are more difficult for candidates, I think, to figure out what is the best option for them, which may not be as obvious today as it might have been ten or 20 years ago. And I don’t think this adds anything to the process and assist them with that decision making.

[00:14:34.100] – John

Yeah. And to your point about the fact that it doesn’t any add any value, even if you look at the base statistics. Okay. Starting salaries and employment three months after graduation. These are year old numbers. In six to eight weeks, the schools will be reporting their latest numbers. Fortune couldn’t even bother to wait and get the newest data from the schools. Instead, it went back for data that’s almost a year old to crank out this ranking. The other issue is for publicly available data. Any applicant can just go and construct their own ranking. They don’t need Fortune to do some cockamamie thing that has little to no revolence and only misinforms people. So it’s kind of really annoying to me that Fortunate at least didn’t even wait to gather latest statistics and then to deliver them. Maybe before anyone else in a ranking, maybe. At least then there’s some new information that they’re throwing into the marketplace. But in this case, there’s nothing at all. Maria, did you rely on rankings when you went to Harvard?

[00:15:38.990] – Maria

No, I really didn’t. I looked around in my industry who had an MBA and where they had gone. I mean, it sounds pretty simplistic, but at the time in entertainment, MBAs were not everywhere the way they are today. And so a couple of programs sort of filtered up to the top from that. And I also had geographic requirements. I wanted to be on the East Coast because my family was there at the time. And also I based it on people that I had met who had either graduated from certain programs or who I knew from undergrad or from other contexts who I heard through the grapevine had gone to certain programs. And that definitely impacted my view, perhaps rightfully or wrongfully. But it definitely if somebody I don’t like, someone who is really cruel or mean in College, and I heard through the grapefront like, oh, they’re going to that program. It certainly did not put that program at the top of my list. So I went through my industry and then also location and then finally like, all right, who do I know who’s gone there?

[00:16:41.820] – John

Yeah. And that makes sense. And Caroline, I’m sure that was the same calculus that brought you to INSEAD.

[00:16:48.830] – Caroline

Yeah. I had a number of colleagues who I was working with and consulting who had been to INSEAD. So I was inspired by their stories of the amazing experience that they had had. I had studied language as a University and really wanted to sort of launch myself internationally and get out of the UK. So I sort of had instant appeal to me as that wonderful platform for international recruiting. So I think pretty much as soon as I started to learn about it, it really resonated with me. And I felt that that was the right place for me to go pretty quickly after that, I didn’t actually look very seriously at other schools.

[00:17:35.750] – John

Yeah. And that totally makes sense. It may seem a dubious exercise, to be Frank, to nitpick the ranking even beyond what we’ve already said, but I just can’t help myself.

[00:17:52.830] – Maria

You’re the founder of the rankings, right?

[00:17:55.000] – John

Yeah. And that’s a dubious thinking. Yes, I do lay claim of creating the first of the regularly published MBA rankings for Business Week in 1988. That was before US News and before Financial Times in The Economist, in Forbes, all of which are in the game still today. But let’s just even look at some of this stuff, because to me, it also shows the error of measuring the quality of an MBA program merely by base salary, by and large, is what’s going on here. Berkeley, Haas great program, always in the top ten of MBA programs in the United States and usually in the top ten when you take out the European region schools in The Economist and the Financial Times. Why are they number 13 in this ranking when in US News are number seven, you might ask. Okay, well, wait a minute. How can that even be possible? Because certainly the graduates of Berkeley do exceedingly well in the job market. They’re meeting salaries of about $140,000 a year. Actually, that’s the exact number certainly compares well with their peer school. So how can they not be in the top ten? Well, if you want to know why, here’s why.

[00:19:23.440] – John

Because the number one industry that recruits at Berkeley is, not surprisingly, technology. Nearly a third of the school’s graduates go into tech firms. Now here’s what we know about what tech firms pay in base salary. They pay lower than consulting or finance and sometimes considerably lower. Now those jobs may be more valuable to MBAs because in many cases you get to do more things. You may be less likely to be a cog in a big wheel. They may not involve 60 to 80 hours of work a week, and travel is constantly as a consulting job might. But the fact that a third, the largest single chunk of people who graduate from Berkeley with an MBA going to technology actually hurt the school. Now that’s ridiculous. Those are choices made by the students, many of whom actually go to Berkeley because they want to enter what is perceived to be one of the most dynamic industries in the world economy today, in one of the most dynamic parts of the world economy, the Bay Area. And yet here is the school being penalized for that. So it’s things like that that really annoy me and just don’t make any sense, don’t you think?

[00:20:41.390] – Maria

Yeah. Also taking into account the fact that I think a lot of the tech firms give pretty significant equity packages so that base salary might not match what you would get in banking, but you might get 5100 thousand dollars worth of stock that will vest over time. And if the company stock goes up, then the value of what you were granted will go up too. So it is a little bit simplistic to only look at base salary. Like one of my classmates dropped out of business school to start Yelp, and I’m pretty sure his salary when he was starting Yelp was probably zero or not that high. And today he’s doing pretty well. So it’s sort of a simplistic metric to use, I think.

[00:21:22.220] – John

Yeah. I mean, not even sign on bonuses were used where to some extent that’s a little more differentiating in terms of what employers think about MBAs at different schools because obviously the better schools are going to have graduates who are more likely to get sign on bonuses than schools that are not as in great demand by employers. Another piece of the puzzle is other guaranteed compensation when you have people going into finance in particular and increasingly in private equity, venture capital and hedge funds. We talked about this in fact last week. There is something called carry that can frankly match your base salary or exceed it in any given year. All of these elements of compensation are completely not covered by the ranking at all. It’s only base salary. Even on that level, it tells you very little. And then of course, if you have a large international contingent and they go back to their home countries and their home countries tend to be, let’s say India and China, the compensation levels of people who go there are significantly lower. You work for McKinsey in India and you make a fraction of what you would make in North America or Europe.

[00:22:36.440] – John

And that’s just a reality of those marketplaces that’s totally unaccounted for by just taking a single number base salary, whether median or average, as Fortune does, and saying this is the worth of your MBA. Here’s another interesting thing. I mentioned earlier that 40% of the top 100 MBA programs in US news are missing from this ranking. Now, you know, if 65% of the ranking was based on publicly available data, meaning things that you could just go to the website and within a minute or two, find out what percentage of the class is employed three months after graduation, what did the class make and median and average salary. You can find that by going to any website within a minute. And if you couldn’t get it on the website because maybe they only reported a median instead of an average or an average instead of a median, a single email to the PR person at the school would have given you that information. Did Fortune do that? Absolutely not. As a result, if a school just didn’t want to cooperate and complete the questionnaire, they were not included in the ranking, even though all his Fortune had to do was take a minute to go to a school’s website and get that information to still put them in the ranking.

[00:24:01.250] – John

It’s just laziness. It’s the worst possible way that any journalistic organization in particular should be cranking out a list like this. Well, here’s my advice for everyone. Ignore this list entirely. Go to others. And when you go to another list, go to multiple lists. Don’t just look at any one list if you’re going to go and look at a ranking. I mean, the two most prevalent rankings are US News and World Report for US schools and the Financial Times for a global picture of what’s happening. And I think those two rankings have the most credibility and the most authority, even though both of them have significant flaws as well. So that’s my advice. What’s your advice, Caroline?

[00:24:47.350] – Caroline

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think take them all with a pinch of salt and spend some time understanding the methodology. Because the methodology is basically trying to replicate the decision making process of what is the right school. Right. And that is very individual to every candidate. In fact, the things that they are measuring and the things that they are giving a lot of weight in the ranking may or may not be important criteria for you. So I would certainly encourage dig into what’s underneath all of this, because far too often the rankings have just taken at face value.

[00:25:24.810] – John

So true. Maria, last words.

[00:25:27.610] – Maria

I think the only ranking people should look at is the Poets and Quants ranking.

[00:25:33.670] – John

Thank you.

[00:25:34.400] – Maria

Find that ranking at Poets and Quants.com. Again, that’s Poets and Quants.

[00:25:41.870] – John

And seriously, let me put it in. I’ll tell you why. Because in one single glance, you can find out where every school ranks on all the five most influential rankings, which would be US News Financial Times, The Economist, Forbes and Business week. So you go there and you see the latest ranking of all of the five most influential organizations that actually do this and do it somewhat credibly, even though each of those are flawed and then you see the mashup of these five rankings and it’s not a simple average. What we literally do is look at the methodology. And because I do have the dubious distinction of having been in these black boxes, looking at these numbers, I can tell you that some rankings have greater credibility than others based on their consistency over the years or what they’re measuring. What they’re not measuring. So we account for that and come up with our overall composite ranking. And Maria, you are right. That’s where you want to look at a ranking.

[00:26:42.850] 

Absolutely.

[00:26:46.310] – John

All right. Hey, for all of you out there, thanks for joining us. Once again, it’s been fun. We love beating up on rankings, Incidentally. And we know that they are overused by most people who are on their journey to a business school. I know for sure that Caroline and Maria have counseled applicants who have been deciding which acceptance to accept and enroll which program to enroll after they’ve been accepted to multiple programs. And I guarantee you that discussion of rankings has sometimes come into that conversation, am I right for sure. Reluctantly Caroline and painfully as well. So, hey, thank you for listening. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants.

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
Fortune’s First MBA Ranking
Maria |
July 20, 2021

[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!