Oops. GMAT Now Has A Separate Writing Test
Maria |
July 15, 2024

In this episode of Business Casual, the hosts tackle how a significant change in the GMAT — the recent removal of a writing section — is occurring at just about the worst time possible, thanks to the rise of AI writing tools like ChatGPT, is prompting schools like Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan to potentially require a separate writing assessment. GMAC, under criticism, seems to be scrambling to introduce an additional writing test—not yet available for registration, but presumably a simple resurrection of the previous “A.W.A.” (Analytical Writing Assessment) —reacting to feedback from some MBA programs that the current GMAT doesn’t meet their needs.

Caroline points out the poor timing of the change, coinciding with the rise of AI, complicating the admissions process. Maria sympathizes with GMAC’s predicament, noting the increased complexity for test-takers who must now potentially pay extra for the new writing component, advocating for it to be included free with the GMAT (and perhaps added back to the GMAT in the future). The discussion highlights the evolving landscape of business school testing and the unexpected consequences of technology on how business school admissions officers assess an applicant’s written communication skills.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.440] – John

Well, hello, everyone. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. Welcome to Business Casual with my co host, Caroline Diarte Edwards, who is a co founder of Fortuna Admissions, and Maria Wich-Vila, who’s the founder of Applicant Lab. Guess what, folks, there’s a big oops out there for all you test takers who have to deal with the GMAT. That is the new, shorter GMAT, which is the only GMAT that’s available. It turns out that some schools would, in fact, prefer to see a writing requirement on the test. After all, with the advent of ChatGPT, admissions officials want to see if you can write. And GMAT, in their great wisdom, actually reduced the test by nearly an hour, but eliminated the writing assessment GRE, and their shorter test retained a writing assessment sample, even though they shortened it. And, you know, when these tests came out, we made note of the fact that GRE may have made the better decision in retaining that writing element, and it turns out that is true. The big discovery is Harvard business school is requiring this additional 30 minutes writing assessment of people who submit a GMAT score. And this came out of the blue.

[00:01:34.770] – John

You can’t even register. Can you believe this? You can’t even register yet to take this writing assessment from the GMAT. Caroline, what do you make of this?

[00:01:45.220] – Caroline

Well, it does look like GMAC is now scrambling to address the issue of the lack of the writing assessment. And we discussed before that they really took that out at the wrong time. Right. Because in the past, I don’t think schools took much notice of the writing portion of the tests. We certainly didn’t when I was at INSEAD. And it was, you know, pretty much disregarded in the evaluation of the GMAT in the past. So I can understand why they were thinking, well, this isn’t a really useful part of the test. The schools aren’t using it very much. So we can take that out, and then we’ll have a shorter test, and everyone will like the test so much more. The problem is that they did it at precisely the wrong time. Right. So they did that just as AI was penetrating the market. And now schools actually do want people to have to take a writing test like that because they want to see if people can effectively express themselves in a spontaneous context where they don’t have tools to help them, like aih. So they really took it out at the wrong time.

[00:02:51.470] – Caroline

And the fact that schools are already saying that you’re going to have to take this test, but the test is not yet available suggests that it’s been a mad scramble for them to get this off the ground. And probably it’s a result of the schools providing feedback to GMAT that their new test wasn’t going to be sufficient for their needs. So we’ve seen, as you said, so HBS is saying that anyone who applies to the school with GMAT focus will have to take the writing test if they get invited to interview. So you don’t have to take it when you submit your application, but you will have to take it by the time before you will get admitted. If you get to interview stage, then they’re not going to admit you until you’ve taken that test. And then MIT has also announced that they will be asking people to take the writing assessment as well. Although MIT says that they may require. So it’s not obligatory, but they may require candidates to take that test. And again, it will be at interview stage.

[00:03:56.310] – John

Well, Maria, this suggests that people should just avoid the GMAT and just go with the GRE. I mean, really, right?

[00:04:03.780] – Maria

Oh, I feel so bad for the people at GMAC. I really, I really do, because I could see you can completely understand the logic. Right. As Caroline said, the, you know, the analytical writing assessment was the thing that people were like, don’t worry about it. No one pays attention to it anyway. And so they probably thought they were making their test more popular for candidates in their. In their sadly ever losing battle in market share against the GRE. And unfortunately, in the advent of AI, now the schools actually want to see timed writing assessments done in a controlled environment. And so, yeah, I just feel, feel I’ve already been recommending the GRE over the new GMAT for completely other reasons. And so now this is just one more. Just one more reason. I mean, the only small mercy here, I suppose, is that at least it’s something that you do after you do the rest of the test. So what little cognitive friction or mental energy you would have spent doing the writing part of the test before, at least now you do it later. So presumably you could be fresher instead of having to, you know, do this marathon use of your brain, having your brain do all kinds of different things within a two or three hour period.

[00:05:23.370] – Maria

So I guess that’s the one small mercy. I do think it’s interesting that on the, at least the preliminary site about this writing assessment, it does appear that GMAC would be charging something. I think it was like $30. That, to me, feels like a bit of. A bit of a misstep. I think they should offer it for free for anyone who took the GMAT focus edition, because it seems like the GMAT focus edition is a little too focused. And that’s not the candidate’s fault. That was something that GMAT should have either rapidly reintroduced the writing assessment back to the test, but since it sort of seems like they’re doing this at the behest of the schools, it feels like why should the candidate now have to pay an extra $30 for something that should have been included in the first place? So perhaps, hopefully, they will at least get rid of that fee.

[00:06:08.660] – John

So you pay the $275 to take the focus edition, and then you gotta pay another $30 to take the writing assessment. So now the test is over $300, essentially, for what had been a test that was, I think it was at 250, and it’s a shorter test, but not by a whole lot. Wow. The other interesting thing here is that GMAC did not develop this test in a vacuum. It came out of a lot of consultation with business schools. So it’s sort of surprising that Harvard, and possibly MIT, may now require it. It suggests to me that Harvard wasn’t consulted, that other schools were, and they found that essentially they didn’t really use the analytical writing assessment to begin with, so they just scrapped it. And it’s unfortunate that they scrapped it at a time when everyone is using ChatGPT, particularly people who would apply to a business school. And the scoring on this is, how does the scoring work?

[00:07:18.420] – Caroline

So it’s a scale from zero to six, I think, which is the same as the old Awa. And I think perhaps what happened, John, is probably GMAT did consult with the schools, but I imagine it was pre AI when they were going through that consultation process. I think that probably they were working on GMAT focus for quite a long time. It’s not something that they could have cooked up overnight, and they don’t introduce these changes very quickly. So I imagine it was probably a multi year process, and perhaps they did the consultation at a time when no one was thinking about AI. So it may be that it was just a long process and they didn’t continue to involve the schools throughout. And they sort of relied on feedback that they got from the schools perhaps three years ago when AI wasn’t on people’s radar screen.

[00:08:14.250] – John

So I’m thinking, okay, if you’re taking a TOEFL, because English is a second language, you may as well take the writing assessment, because, you know this is going to be an issue, particularly for people who are taking and submitting a TOEFL. Right, Maria?

[00:08:29.010] – Maria

Yeah. And I believe that that is something that does satisfy the writing requirement for HBS, if I’m not mistaken. So it’s not like this is the only way to do it. My understanding is that there are other ways to demonstrate that writing fluency. And so I believe that there may be. If you do a writing assessment with another, like an english language test, for example. If the language of your undergraduate education was not English, for example, you might have to take something like the TOEFL. So I believe that that could serve as a suitable substitute.

[00:09:02.220] – John

Now, do we know if the writing assessment can be done at home, or do you have to go to a testing center?

[00:09:07.790] – Maria

I would assume you can do it at home.

[00:09:09.470] – Caroline

Yeah, I believe that it says that there’s an online option.

[00:09:12.550] – John

Okay.

[00:09:13.560] – Caroline

And I would imagine what they will do in future is when people register for the GMAT focus, you’ll have the option to register at the same time for the writing test. And it would be wise if they just included on the registration page information about which schools are going to, you know, may ask candidates for the writing test so that people just get it done at the same time. Some candidates may prefer to just take both tests at once rather than taking the GMAT focus. And then a month or two later, signing up for the next test might be better to just get it all out the way at the same time.

[00:09:50.010] – John

Wow. Now, Maria, when you say you’ve been recommending to your clients that they take the GRE instead of the GMAT, but for other reasons, what are your other reasons? I’m curious.

[00:10:01.810] – Maria

I just think the GMAT focus, I’ve heard from friends who are test prep folks that the GMAT focus is a shorter test but a harder test. So they’ve packed more difficult types of things into that test. I also feel like the grading scale is not a well enough known entity yet. And I’ve often found, anecdotally over the years, that there’s been a lot more, not freedom, but there’s been more leeway if someone applies with a GRE score. Because I think for decades, you know, everyone, everyone could immediately tell you off the top of their heads, like, oh, yeah, the average GMATs at these top schools is 730. But if you were to say to them, what’s the average GRE score? They might not know. I mean, now that the GRE is taking more and more market share, it is becoming, you know, you’re starting to learn, like, oh, the averages at HBS are 163, but even then, that intuition is still not quite there. And so I think that, you know, and even when you would go, let’s say in the past to the us news and world report rankings. They would put right there on the page, here’s the name of the school, here’s its ranking, and here’s the average.

[00:11:05.340] – Maria

GMAT was one of the main things, and then they would kind of bury the GRE score. So for all of those reasons, I felt that the GRE, unless, you know, you’re just gonna rock the GMAT, because it’s just, you love standardized tests. I recommended that if anyone is sort of feeling a little insecure about their test taking skills, I would always recommend the GRE instead, in general. And then the fact that my friends who are test prep providers, they’re like, this is great for us as test prep providers, but it’s not so great for folks who are test averse.

[00:11:39.020] – John

Caroline, are you going to have a similar recommendation to your clients?

[00:11:42.920] – Caroline

Well, it’s very interesting. I mean, a lot of my clients that have already taken the test are already some way down the road with their test prep by the time I start working with them or I speak with them. I think if you’ve already sort of started down the path of the GMAT, then you might lose time to then switch tests. But for clients where they’re really struggling with the GMAT and they’ve taken the test, and they’re clearly not where they need to be, given the scores that they’re targeting, then I do encourage them to try a practice GRE and just see if they do better. But I think if you’re at the start of the process, it can be great to take both tests. Right? Take a practice test for both and then see how you do and if you’re better suited to one than the other. But, yeah, it does seem like the GMAT focus. There’s just a lot of unknown factors at the moment. Given that there’s not much of a track record, fewer test prep materials, and then, you know, it’ll take us a year or two to see whether the percentiles are shifting as a result.

[00:12:48.440] – Caroline

If the test is harder, then. Then perhaps the percentiles that you need to get into the top scores will shift a bit. The schools will have to adjust, but we don’t know whether that’s going to be the case. And it could be risky for candidates to apply with lower scores when you match them across to the old GMAT.

[00:13:12.830] – John

Right. So it seems like this could even be a bigger surprise for applicants to HBS, then the change to the new three short essay questions, which Suzy Welch has that are ridiculously vague, nebulous, and what was the word she used? You’ll have to look it up in the article.

[00:13:39.950] – Caroline

I did enjoy listening to her rant, and I think she’s right that, well, she commented that it sounded like it was something that had been cooked up by a committee and perhaps too many cooks in the broth with those questions. Too many cooks in, you know, spoiling the broth with, with those questions. So.

[00:13:58.600] – John

Which we kind of thought of too, when we reviewed the questions, didn’t we? We suggested the same. I mean, it’s almost inevitable that a bunch of people got into a room and, you know, this one compromise after another. Everyone thinks they have a better idea, and what comes out is a really lousy idea.

[00:14:21.980] – Maria

I appreciated that she said that she wasn’t sure exactly where she would start as an applicant if she had to answer these questions. And I felt the same way. Like, at least with the open ended one, you could say, well, here’s what I want you to focus on about me instead of this very prescribed, like, well, I don’t know. And so then it just invites a lack of genuine authenticity. Because if now I have to pretend that my greatest accomplishment was actually the result of me being curious, as opposed to me having to just be like, hey, here’s something cool that I did, but now I have to twist it into this curiosity paradigm. It’s just annoying.

[00:14:55.410] – John

And Caroline, you mentioned that a number of your colleagues who are helping people apply to Harvard in round one are equally perplexed about, okay, what’s the right approach and what do you really say and how do you make an impact with these questions? Right.

[00:15:12.840] – Caroline

Yes, I think they are missing the old question, which just gave much more scope for creativity and to tell a personal story. These questions are quite narrow. They’re also multi part questions. So you’re trying to hit all of the different components of the question. And the word counts are extremely short. So it is a challenging exercise for sure, and I suspect will give rise to some responses that are just a less interesting read than the HBS essay in previous years.

[00:15:48.350] – John

So what’s the bigger surprise? The fact that they changed their essay and went to three short ones, or the fact that, lo and behold, in the fine print of the application, and I mean the fine print, you now have to do a writing assessment if you have the privilege of being invited to interview?

[00:16:06.190] – Caroline

Well, I think the essays are going to affect more candidates, right? That affects everybody, whereas the writing assessment, it will affect a subset of candidates. So I think that’s going to be a bigger headache for the majority.

[00:16:20.350] – John

Yeah. And I do think, however, that maybe some people are going to hedge their bets. Right. Because if MIT is now saying, you may, we may require it, who knows how many other schools, once the. The news gets out. And we’ll get the news out, of course, today. But this is a new requirement. We’ll follow suit. Maria, you think other schools might follow suit after this?

[00:16:45.290] – Maria

Yes, I do. And I don’t blame them. Right. If we want to make sure that we’re hearing someone’s authentic communication skills, then why wouldn’t you require this as well? But I guess the silver lining is now when people don’t get invited to the HBS interview, we can console them with, hey, the good news is you’d.

[00:17:07.120] – John

Have to spend $30 more for a half hour.

[00:17:10.110] – Maria

Yeah, let’s. Let’s try to put a positive spit on what is otherwise very disappointing news.

[00:17:16.250] – John

Yeah. I mean, you. You got to know that within six months to a year, the writing assessment will reoccur on the focus edition of the GMAT. It has to. Because GMAT is now no longer cleanly competitive with the GRE, they put themselves in a non competitive situation here, again, which is sad, I agree, you know, because I think there are a lot of people who still believe the GMAT is a better test because it is business school specific. And the scoring, because it’s business school specific is more uniform for that applicant pool, where you have people, you know, applying to master’s degrees in philosophy, geography, political science and whatnot with the GRE. So the scores across the applicant pool are somewhat altered, and that means the percentile scores are altered so you don’t get a full, complete read, as you would with a GMAT score if you’re an admissions official. So this is just like, wow, how could this even happen? It’s just, like, stunning to me. Really. You would think that. And, you know, the fact that Harvard’s not requiring it unless you’re interviewed, here’s what it tells me. Of course Harvard would have required it.

[00:18:41.060] – John

The only reason they’re not requiring it is because GMAC can’t get its act together to have people actually take it and register for the test in time to submit your score by round one deadline date, which is only around the corner in early September. I mean, you got to know that’s why Harvard, trying to be somewhat nice to GMAC, has probably just done this this way to allow GMAC the time to actually be able to put up the form to allow people to register for the darn test, which is even all the more aggravating. Wow.

[00:19:20.330] – Caroline

It’s also a surprise for candidates, right? I mean, it’s kind of late in the day in the season to bring on people that you’ll probably have another test to take, because most people, many people applying for the round one deadlines have already taken their tests, right. And they thought they were done and dusted, but then they have been.

[00:19:38.500] – John

Exactly.

[00:19:39.940] – Caroline

It pops up.

[00:19:41.440] – John

Okay, so here’s the thing. Harvard waits nearly a month later than it normally does to post its deadlines. Then Harvard waits another three weeks to tell you what questions they’re going to ask. And now Harvard is saying, okay, well, if you do get an interview invite, now you’re going to go back and you’re going to do another test and you’re going to pay for it. Nice. Now, you got to also think that if Harvard is serious about looking at this score among those who’ve been interviewed, that it’s going to have to invite more people than it traditionally does to be interviewed. Right. Because obviously they’re going to. In other words, they’re going to cancel out the portion of the applicant pool that has been interviewed because of this writing assessment. So therefore, they’re going to have to invite more people to get the same odds as they would have normally. Wouldn’t that be logical, a logical conclusion?

[00:20:40.930] – Caroline

Well, it could be. It depends how many people they think they’ll be weeding out as a result of the tests on the business writing assessment. I would imagine that most people who they invite to interview are probably strong enough that they can get a decent score in that exercise. So I would be surprised if many people get dinged post interview purely on the basis of that exercise.

[00:21:05.820] – John

That brings me to whole other question. Why even bother to require it? Right?

[00:21:10.660] – Caroline

Right. Yeah, I think that it’s, you know, they’re looking to cross check people’s skills and, yeah, they may need to leave some room for weeding some people out, but they have a pretty, pretty comfortable pool to draw from, I think. So I don’t think it’ll be too difficult.

[00:21:33.090] – John

Now, Maria, with your Harvard MBA, you know, the Harvard business School mindset, is there anything else that we haven’t covered as to why this would have occurred?

[00:21:43.900] – Maria

No, I think it’s just a matter of. Because of ChatGPT, it’s even less. There’s always been editors that might craft your essay and massage some of your voice out of it. But now the ChatGPT phenomenon just brings it to a completely new level. And so to the extent that trying to ascertain someone’s genuine, authentic communication strengths in a timed and controlled environment, it just becomes more important than it was before. And so I think that it ultimately comes down to just authenticity. And how strong of a communicator are you when you can’t necessarily rely on a tool? Or where you don’t have three whole months to work on some short essays right, where you have under time pressure. So that’s what I think it ultimately comes down to, is authenticity. But I agree with Caroline. I would be very surprised if, like a lot of people, if this suddenly unearths a ton of people who, you know, their essays were flawless, and then they can’t put two sentences together in the time writing assessment, that would be really shocking because, you know, the schools also have, you know, your transcripts, your undergraduate transcripts and what have you, so.

[00:22:56.310] – Maria

But it might weed out a few people so much. So much the better. But, yeah, what a mess.

[00:23:05.170] – John

Yeah. So here’s how they describe it. This is GMAT. Within a 30 minutes timeframe, you will be tasked with analyzing a brief argument rather than sharing your personal perspective. The objective is to critique the argument’s reasoning and evidence objectively and cohesively. A well structured, persuasive response will demonstrate to schools that you have the logical reasoning and communication skills necessary to succeed in the classroom and beyond. The results would be sent to you within three to five days. They’re claiming the prep time for this is two to 6 hours for the assessment. You can send your result to as many schools as you want at no additional charge. Big deal. They’re charging you $30 for a test that once was included in the GMAT. They’re saying it’s being going to be delivered online and available year round to take it home at any time, which almost suggests that they aren’t going to give this test in a test center. So there you have it. If you want to look this up and you can’t register for it, which is also frustrating because GMAC hasn’t put the registration page on its site. It’s called the GMAC business writing assessment.

[00:24:28.460] – John

All right, well, I mean, I guess if you’re invited to an interview at Harvard, maybe, you know, you don’t. You might not like it, but you’re not going to mind it because you’re going to be so happy getting that invite that you’ll say, yeah, $30 more, another 30 minutes, what the heck? You know, if it’s just one more hurdle I have to overcome and jump before I can get to Harvard. Hmm. You know, I think I can deal. What do you think? Right?

[00:25:02.450] – Maria

I would hope so.

[00:25:03.390] – John

Yeah, I would hope so, too. All right. There you have it. We think more schools are going to, going to ask for this. We think it probably will be included in the new focus edition soon. Incidentally, you know, GMAT intends to eliminate that brain branding on the test, which is what they told people at the GMAC annual conference in New Orleans. Don’t know when they’re going to do that. Probably when they add back the writing assessment. And, or you may want to follow Maria’s advice, take the GRE and avoid all this. And until GMAT cleans it up. Anyway, thanks for listening. Good luck to you. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants.

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
Oops. GMAT Now Has A Separate Writing Test
Maria |
July 15, 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!