International Students Reach Records In U.S. MBA programs
Maria |
February 1, 2024

In the latest episode of Business Casual, hosts John, Maria, and Caroline delve into the notable surge of international students in the U.S. MBA programs. They examine how, since 2020, prestigious schools like Columbia Business School, Yale, and Duke Fuqua have seen a remarkable increase in international student enrollment, in some cases nearly doubling.

The conversation explores the reasons behind this trend, suggesting it might be due to a decline in domestic applications, now supplemented by high-quality international candidates. The hosts also discuss the enriching effect of this diversity in the classroom, offering varied perspectives that could greatly benefit U.S. students.

Additionally, they touch upon the challenges this trend poses for career management offices in these schools and its broader impact on MBA education. The episode intriguingly contrasts this trend with the dynamics of European business schools, sparking thoughts on its impact on their global appeal. Tune in for an insightful look at the evolving landscape of MBA education and its implications for students and educators worldwide.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.370] – John

Hello, everyone. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. You’re listening to Business Casual, our weekly podcast with my co hosts Maria Wich-Vila and Caroline Diarte Edwards. We’re going to talk about international students and US MBA programs. We just ran a fairly detailed agree on the percentage of international students in the latest cohorts that entered in the fall of last year at all the big and important MBA programs in the US. And one undeniable trend is that schools are recruiting and enrolling far more international students in US programs than ever before. In some cases, the numbers have almost doubled since 2020. I’ll give you a few examples. At Columbia Business School, well, it’s not a doubling, but it was 44% in 2020, pretty high because of its location in New York City, 47% now. Yale is up 25% from 40% in 2020% to 50% now. And that number in all these international numbers, in fact, it should be noted, typically include even permanent residents of the US with foreign passports or dual citizens. But that’s always been the case. So it’s not going to really interfere with the trend. Duke Fuqua. 38% in 2020, now it’s 47%.

[00:01:38.910] – John

UVA Darden it was 24%. Pretty low back in 2020, it’s now 41%. Michigan Ross similar trend there, 23% in 2020, 43% now. NYU stern almost double. Actually, it’s more than double. It was 23% in 2020. Now it’s 48%. Caroline, what’s going on?

[00:02:08.730] – Caroline

These numbers are quite startling. I’m very surprised at how high the percentages got at some of the. So. Well, as you know, I’m a great advocate of international diversity. So I think that in many cases, it’s a very positive thing for the classroom experience for everyone. Right. Because you have a lot more diversity of perspectives and cross cultural experience that people can bring to the classroom and that can really enhance the learning experience for everybody. However, I suspect that it’s not necessarily been a strategic move of most of these schools to increase the international cohort. I would suspect that in many cases, that they are filling their seats with those international students because of a decline in domestic applications and they’re getting such great quality applications from overseas that they can fill up. In many cases, pretty much half of the classroom with outstanding international admits that they’ve become much less reliant on the domestic poor.

[00:03:23.160] – John

Yeah, really true. And in some cases, it’s tripled from 2020. Like at UNC. Keenan Flagler, great MBA program. It went from 11.5% to 34% at Vanderbilt. The Owen school, it went from 10.3% to 29%. So that’s a tripling. At UT Austin McComb school, it went from 10%, which is awfully low back in 2020%, to 26%. Now, Maria, what do you suppose this does in a classroom?

[00:03:55.570] – Maria

I mean, I think the positive side is that, as Caroline mentioned, she’s completely spot on. To the extent that globalization or international business is still a. I know that there are attempts to try to rein it in, but I do think that that Pandora’s box has already been open. And I do think that globalization is going to be part of business for decades to come. So to the extent that that’s going to be a big part of everyone’s careers going forward, it’s great to have more international students in your classroom because they are going to give perspectives, and also both in the classroom, but also beyond the classroom after you graduate, they may become very valuable contacts for you to have if you are trying to expand your business into other countries or things of that nature. So I do think, in terms of the classroom, I do think that it may lead to a more engaging and far ranging discussions in the classroom. So I think it might be a great thing for the US students because I think the US is sort of famous for being insular overall. And so I think for the US students attending these programs, I do think that it might actually be a terrific thing for them.

[00:05:07.080] – John

I wonder if the higher percentages of international students in MBA classes in the US erodes to some extent some of the advantage of going to a European business school, where admittedly the percentage of students who come from outside a native country is often 90% plus. They’re not, as not nearly were there with these us schools. But does it erode the argument that, hey, if you want a more global education, you should not go to a us school?

[00:05:42.210] – Caroline

Caroline yeah, I think you’re right. To a certain extent. I think that this must be having an impact on the international programs in Europe, as a lot of these students would otherwise have likely gone to INSEAD or London Business School or one of the many other great programs in Europe that, as you say, are very internationally diverse. Having said that, I would suspect that it’s still quite a different experience, because if you’re on a campus where no individual nationality represents more than about 10% of the student population, then there is no dominant culture. And so it really is an incredible melting pot. Whereas even though the percentages have increased a great deal on the programs that we’ve discussed, you’ve still got a majority in many cases, of American students. And also, as you said, many of the international students will also be us passport holders and may have spent many years, if not most or all of their life, in the US as well. So may not bring as much international experience as you would think. And then, of course, it’s not just about the people on campus, it’s also about the entire curriculum. And if you look at the curriculum at INSEAD or London Business School or Oxford or Cambridge, they are using international cases.

[00:07:11.590] – Caroline

The faculty are very international. The whole methodology and the pedagogy is designed to train people to think more internationally and globally and to learn much more about working across countries and borders. And so it’s really sort of part of the DNA of how the program is designed in every aspect. Right. And then also that is reflected in recruitment. So if you go to one of the international programs in Europe, then you will get access to recruitment opportunities around the world. So the top firms will be coming to recruit not just for the UK or not just for France, but they’ll be recruiting for many different offices around the world, whereas the recruitment opportunities at these US schools will be very much us based. Of course, that may be what some of the students are seeking. They may be coming to the US schools because they would like to stay in the. And that’s great if that’s what they want to do. But it’s still, I think, quite a different proposition to doing an international MBA in Europe.

[00:08:18.150] – John

Yeah. To the extent that students in MBA programs bring their own work experience into the program, and much of the learning is from your classmates, your peers, as opposed to the professor, a more diverse class would then obviously bring more global perspectives, differences of opinion, but also differences of how business is done in different countries, both in the way capitalism is practiced as well as culturally, which has to add whole new dimension to the experience. Now, Wharton, where international students make up only 31% of the class. And I should say that in recent years, typically the schools aimed for about a third international students in the US. So these numbers are way ahead of that historical norm. But at Wharton, they’ve still kept it down to 31%. But what’s interesting is that the number of countries represented by that portion of the international group is 70, quite a few countries. At MIT, Sloan, it’s 60 countries. At Stanford, it’s 55. Chicago Booth, 54. Duke Fuqua, 51. Yale, 46 countries, which is exactly the same as NYU, Stern. And we have a chart that shows this. I think while we kind of believe that most of these students tend to come from India, where we know that that is the most sort of oversubscribed part of the applicant pool for elite MBA schools.

[00:10:03.570] – John

The number of countries that different people are coming from makes it pretty amazing. I mean, 70 different countries in the class at Wharton is kind of remarkable, don’t you think so, Maria?

[00:10:17.030] – Maria

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, they are certainly casting a wide net and really bringing in a wide variety of voices. So even though at 31%, it’s a lower percentage of the class, at least within that 31%, I would assume that there’s at least one or two students from a wide variety of countries that might not typically be in an MBA classroom. So that’s pretty cool for Wharton to be doing that and to be extending admissions to people from so many different backgrounds.

[00:10:48.330] – John

And I’m going to think that having a onesie or twosie kind of approach from countries is better than a whole bunch of people. Because what happens is, if there are a lot of people from your home country, you tend to gravitate toward them and not integrate. So you’re segregated in some sense from the overall class. This is very true of schools that recruited and enrolled a lot of Chinese students who were much more reluctant, in part because of the difficulty of speaking English as a second language. They just didn’t integrate as well. And so I think the fewer numbers from the larger numbers of countries is probably a better mix for classroom discussion than too many from one or two countries where they’ll find each other and kind of stay with each other and not mix all that much. Now, Caroline, you had the experience of INSEAD, which is totally different than a us school, where I think people integrate a lot more effectively at an INSEAD than they would at probably a Harvard. Do you think?

[00:11:56.070] – Caroline

Yes, because there is no dominant culture, so you would have a very small group of people to hang out with if you only wanted to hang out with your own nationality. And also, people are going to a school like INSEAD because they want to get exposure to people from all over the world, and they have an international orientation, and that’s something that the school is screening for in the admissions process. They’re looking to attract students who have the ability to immerse themselves in a very different environment and embrace that opportunity. And most students already have a track record of doing that. That’s something that they’re specifically looking for.

[00:12:36.450] – John

That’s a really good and important point. I totally agree with. I think that people who apply and enroll, particularly in a European business school, are really seeking that global diversity, and the people who apply to a us school are not really purposely seeking that diversity, but instead they’re looking at brand, they’re looking at wanting a job in the United States if they’re an international student. But that global diversity isn’t as important a factor to them as it would be in a European business school.

[00:13:11.050] – Caroline

Yeah. Yes, I agree. They’re coming because they want to come to the US and want to come to one of the US schools rather than immersing themselves in a very international environment. And it’s interesting, looking at your table of stats there, of, as you were saying, the percentage of international students on the program and then the countries represented. And I think you’ve kind of got two different groups there in the US. So you’ve got the group of schools that have a very high number of countries represented, but then they also have. They’re on the lower end of the scale of the percentage of international students in the classroom. Right? So schools like Stanford and Wharton, and then you have another group of schools that have a much higher percentage of international students in the classroom, but then conversely, a lower number of countries represented. And so their international student body is much less diverse than the international student body, as you were saying, at a school like Wharton. And if you go to a school like London Business School or INSEAD, then you get the best of both of those numbers, right? Because you will get the very high number of international students.

[00:14:20.400] – Caroline

So pretty much everyone is international and you’ll get a very high number of countries represented. So typically at INSEAD, sort of 80 or different, 90 different nationalities each year. So it is quite a different strategy, I think, from the schools in terms of how they are admitting international students and what they’re looking for from their international students.

[00:14:42.570] – John

Yeah. Now, Maria, I would think that the increase in international students at us schools puts greater pressure on career management offices because unlike the European schools, they’re not really used to having to help place and having to support that many people from different countries where there are obviously visa restrictions. To the extent that many of these programs are now STEM designated, in part, that has also attracted more international applicants and students. But I’m thinking this puts a lot more pressure on a career management office than had existed before, when international students generally made up only a third of the class. You agree?

[00:15:26.280] – Maria

I do. But I do think at the STEM designation, the fact that you can get now that work visa for three years has been a tremendous help, because now, as an employer, if I want to hire some talent to come and join my company, who may not have official work authorization, if they went to one of these now very rapidly expanding STEM programs, I know that I can keep them for at least three years. So I do think that it helps quite a bit. I pulled up NYU Stern. We were talking about how their percentage has gone up from, I think, 23% international to 48% international within sort of a three year period. And yet when I look at their most recent employment data, it looks like their international students fared equally as well in terms of salary levels as the US citizen permanent resident graduate. So admittedly, there may be people in here who maybe did not get a job, and so maybe they’re not in this average. But you don’t see a dramatic. It’s effectively a negligible difference in terms of the average salaries because I do think that a lot of them are staying in the US and they’re getting paid that us salary, which I think also helps.

[00:16:41.290] – Maria

It becomes sort of like this virtuous cycle where the schools need more international students to fill their seats, but it also makes the schools more easily able to pitch the idea of like, look, you’re going to go $200,000 into debt or $100,000 into debt or whatever to come and get this degree in the US, but look at what your compensation is going to be. So I think it becomes, because of that opt, that three year STEM designated working rights or the ability to continue to work here. I think that it’s sort of a win win for a lot of different parties involved.

[00:17:18.650] – John

True. I think it is a win win. And I think there’s also something that’s ironic about it. And let me explain what I mean by that. Globalization in the US business school was a big thing 15, 20 years ago when most us business schools realized that they were behind and they were laggards at teaching what globalization meant, what strategies companies, multinational companies were employing to be global, what it was like to work from people from dramatically different cultures. That was something that happened 15 years ago. In fact, you can make the argument that globalization has now taken a backseat to digital transformation, data analytics, sustainability, DEI, other things that are now hot because globalization isn’t very hot anymore, in part because the pandemic showed us how reliant the world became on global supply chains, which resulted in a lot of disruption. And globalization helped to basically propagate a virus that affected the entire world. And globalization has given rise in one country after another to nationalist politicians who are trying to limit immigration and basically prevent their populations from getting any more diverse than they already are. So if anything, globalization has not only jumped the shark.

[00:19:03.150] – John

It’s taken a few steps back, and yet here we are in these us schools seeing far greater percentages of international students than we’ve ever seen in history. And I think I want to come back to the reason for it. And the reason was cited early on by Caroline, which is there’s a shortage of domestic applicants. Domestic applicants. The US MBA programs has been declining for at least a decade, if not more. There are a lot of different reasons for that, but it is a major concern for the business schools. A number of admission directors have told me that in this current cycle, they’re seeing more domestic applicants, but not dramatically. Meantime, there’s been a massive increase in international applicants that have more than made up for the decline in domestic candidates. So there’s all of that, and it’s kind of fascinating just to point it out. Caroline, you agree with me, or as a resident globalist, maybe you’d completely disagree.

[00:20:06.450] – Caroline

Well, I think it’s wonderful that the schools are becoming more international. And I agree that there are a lot of forces that have disrupted globalization over the past two years. But I think that business schools have a role to play to keep that flag flying. Right. We do not want to become a fragmented world where everyone just focuses on their own backyard and incapable of forging partnerships across borders and oceans and with people on the other side of the world. So I think business schools have a very important role to play in maintaining that and cultivating a cadre of leaders who have the ability to operate internationally. I think that will continue to remain relevant, even though I agree that there have been several forces that have been disrupting that and making it less appealing in the eyes of some over the past few years.

[00:21:08.630] – John

And I should note that in a recent podcast, we were talking about the benefits of actually leaving your home country for your career and how enriching those experiences were. Each of us agreed they were among the most memorable experiences in our lives. To actually work in a culture and in a country that was essentially foreign to us. Maria, I know you loved your days in Hong Kong, and they’re really vivid and important memories and probably played a very important role in terms of who you are today.

[00:21:44.110] – Maria

Yes. But I do want to say, just to push back on this, kind of like the global. I know that globalization is not in vogue anymore as much as it was 15, 20 years ago, and I know that it’s currently a very easy political target. Right?

[00:22:00.810] – John

Yes.

[00:22:02.150] – Maria

Let’s bring manufacturing back to the US. And I know Biden’s been doing a lot of policies to bring manufacturing back to the US. And I know that Trump has talked about a, I think, a 10% universal tariff on goods, which I think might be devastating for the economy. But anyway, the point is you can get a lot of voter support if you sort of bang the nationalist drum and USA, USA, or whatever your own country is like, we have to support our own workers. But that having been said, I still think that globalization, and maybe I’m just naive, and I don’t want to admit that globalization is dead, but I can’t help but think that globalization is still going to be very important, because let’s say you’re an American company and you move your manufacturing from, say, China or Vietnam back to the US, you still need to sell your products globally. Any major corporation, regardless, know, the dynamics may shift in terms of where in the world something is produced, but in order to become a truly large corporation, you’re going to have to sell all over the world. Or if not, you’re going to be limiting or curtailing your potential as a company.

[00:23:14.830] – Maria

Look, the political winds are shifting and against globalization, but I don’t think that it’s dead. In a very pragmatic sense. I think in a very pragmatic sense, you’re still going to need that international knowledge.

[00:23:29.030] – John

Yeah, and the genie is out of the bottle, and you can’t put the genie back. You know, to the extent that we now view China in a more adversarial way, I think companies would be smart, and some are already doing this to move manufacturing into places like Vietnam, be a good place, friendly countries. In other words, in case there is a major disruption with China. And of course, every western country is trying to limit immigration. I mean, the United Kingdom in January imposed a new restriction on graduate students. They can no longer bring their families with them to study in the UK at a school. And under review in the UK right now, is their work visa policy for internationals. How that plays out, we don’t know. Hopefully it doesn’t play out at all, because I think we all agree that there are tremendous benefits from the diversity that different people bring. And after all, that is right in the pocket of what the United States is all about. I mean, we are the melting pot, have been the melting pot since the very beginning, and it’s enriched our country in ways that would not have been possible if not for the fact that we opened our doors the best and brightest all over the world, and, frankly, stole the best and brightest all over the world for decades.

[00:24:57.320] – John

If you want to talk about American exceptionalism, it’s due to immigrants coming here who were skilled, who wanted to work hard, who were ambitious, who wanted the better lives for themselves and achieved it here. And thank God they did. And if you closed that door, you shut it down. I think it would have drastic consequences on the American economy, without question. So there you have it. Hey, have a look at the story. It’s kind of fascinating to see just the percentages of international students and where they’re coming from. And the story, how many different countries. You can look at the story. It’s called the US MBA programs with the most international students. Hey, thanks for listening. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants.

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
International Students Reach Records In U.S. MBA programs
Maria |
February 1, 2024

[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!