Stanford’s New MBA Admissions Chief + MBA Acceptance Rates
Maria |
April 23, 2024

In the latest episode of Business Casual, the hosts dive into the recent appointment of Erin Nixon as the new head of admissions at Stanford Graduate School of Business. They discuss Nixon’s unique background, which combines her experience as a wine bar entrepreneur in Barcelona with strategic roles at BCG and LinkedIn. This eclectic mix might signal a new openness to non-traditional candidates at Stanford.

The hosts explore how Nixon’s diverse experiences and her status as a Stanford alum could influence the admissions strategy at one of the world’s most selective MBA programs. They speculate on the potential changes and innovations she might bring, emphasizing her deep understanding of the global business landscape. Tune in for an engaging discussion on how leadership changes can impact MBA admissions and what future students might expect under Nixon’s guidance.

 

 

 

 

 

Episode Transcript

John (00:04)

Well, hello, everyone. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. Welcome to Business Casual, our weekly podcast with my co-host, Maria Wich Vila and Caroline Diarte Edwards. Big news at Stanford Graduate School of Business. They finally named, and this is after many months, and a big international search. They finally named a successor to Kirsten Moss, who stepped down from her job as the head of admissions at Stanford back at the end of 2022. So here we are, nearly a year and a half later, and Stanford has a new person. Sort of unusual because this new person, her name is Erin Nixon, had actually founded and ran a popular wine bar and restaurant in Barcelona. Now, you might not think that that would be the ideal background for the chief of the most highly selective MBA program in the world at Stanford. But Nixon also brings a compelling mix of work experience to the job. She did Stints at the Boston Consulting Group and at LinkedIn. She’s also worked as an advisor to startups, and she will begin her new duties on July 1. Obviously, she is an alum. She earned both her undergraduate degree in economics and an MBA at Stanford in 2010.

John (01:41)

She’s returning to campus for a role that she clearly wants. Now, Caroline, having been in this role at INSEAD, what do you make of her background? I’m trying to think, will she be even more embracing of non-traditional candidates, giving her own detour out of the more typical MBA jobs and basically fulfilling a lifetime dream to open up a wine bar and become a wine entrepreneur.

Caroline (02:14)

Yeah, absolutely. I think she’s got a really interesting mix of experience. So she has, as you said, she’s been an entrepreneur. Launching a wine bar sounds like great fun. I’m sure she’s got some wonderful stories to tell about that. She’s also been a consultant, which is a great training ground. She would have got a fantastic breadth of experience during her time at BCG, and she’s got some interesting experience from LinkedIn as well, which I think would have appealed to the school. I also like the fact that she has worked internationally as well. So she’s worked in London, she’s worked in Amsterdam, of course, in Spain with her wine bar. I like that international diversity as well, and I think that’s a great addition to her profile, given the global appeal of Stanford GSP. So I think that she’s got a really interesting background. And it’s obviously taken them a long time to find her, right?

John (03:12)

It’s like two years, right?

Caroline (03:14)

I think, roughly, since Kirsten Moss left or announced her departure. And I know they spread a very wide net. I can hardly move in Silicon Valley without bumping into someone who they asked if they’d be interested. But they had signaled that they wanted an alum. And so she’s got a fantastic Stanford pedigree with her undergraduate degree as well as the business school degree. So they’ve got that. And it’s difficult for them to recruit a Stanford alum, right? Because they are victims of their own success. Their alumni are command often quite extraordinary salaries here in Silicon Valley. So quite difficult for an educational institution to compete with that and to attract someone. So I think she looks great. I’m excited to see how things go. I hope she doesn’t make any dramatic changes or do anything too quickly because I think she’s joining this summer. So I doubt it would have much of an impact on this coming season in terms of any big policy changes or changes to the application. But it will be interesting to see how this plays out in 2025. I would imagine after she’s got her fee under the table and got to grips with things then she might look to make some changes.

Caroline (04:32)

So I’m looking forward to seeing how things evolve.

John (04:35)

And I should note that she didn’t just create any old wine bar, the wine bar that she created in Barcelona in the El Born neighborhood. This was in 2018 and ran it until 2022. Within six months of opening, her wine bar was named Best Restaurant in Barcelona by Conde Nass Traveler, Time Out, and a Barcelona newspaper. So who knows? Maybe she’ll be serving a wine at the Stanford Admit events forthcoming. I mean, certainly, the wine country isn’t all that far from Silicon Valley, and she could get some pretty darn good wine to serve to Admit to close them for Stanford. Maria, what are you making of this?

Maria (05:24)

Yes, because the big thing that Stanford has a problem with is getting people to accept their offers. Time to get that yield rate up to 99%. Yes. No, look, I think it’s wonderful. I think it’s interesting the talk of whether or not she’s qualified. I’m like, I don’t know if she’s qualified, but I want to be friends with her.

John (05:44)

Yes, she sounds like a really interesting person.

Maria (05:47)

I know, Erin, if you’re ever in LA, I’ll look you up. No, but seriously, I think the wine… The feeling that I get is that she was very hard driving and hard charging. BCG before business school, sponsored to go back to business school, buy BCG, then return to BCG. This one little line jumped out at me on her LinkedIn profile. She said that she overhauled BCG’s recruiting efforts at Stanford. That, to me, says a lot because, first of all, I think it must It’s very difficult for any of the consulting firms to get people to join from Stanford who were not already being sponsored. This idea of putting on her recruiter’s hat and also putting on the hat of, I’m a Stanford student looking to find my post-graduation job, having that perspective of both being a student looking for a job and a recruiter looking to hire people from the school. I think both of those lenses are really valuable. Then at LinkedIn, it looks like she may have been working with the aspect that is trying to get recruiters, for example, perhaps, to purchase the LinkedIn premium. All these companies have such an opaque name sometimes for their different divisions.

Maria (06:59)

But to the extent that LinkedIn is the world’s largest job recruiting platform, I would assume that even by osmosis spending so many years there that she would really start to also get a sense of, Okay, what are people looking for? What makes for good careers? What makes for people who are successful in the workplace? Even just tangentially by even looking at trends at LinkedIn. I think that that’s really interesting. I also like that she… I would guess she left LinkedIn in 2017, which would have been I think Microsoft acquired LinkedIn in 2016. It was a pretty big acquisition. I have no idea if she made a nice little bit of money on her stock at that point. But it would certainly fit this narrative of, Okay, I’ve worked so hard. I’ve been super hard charging, and now I’m ready to do something completely different and move to Barcelona and open a wine bar. It’s almost like she’s had three different careers in one career. She’s already had the hard-driving consulting and then the tech, fast-growing tech thing, but just so happens to be in the job-searching space, which, again, that’s what I think it makes it different from, say, if she would have worked at a Netflix or an Uber.

Maria (08:18)

To the extent that business school is a people business and they’re in the business of trying to identify future leaders, any exposure to what are corporations looking for in future leaders or what do people who graduate business school and then go out into the world and become leaders? What do those people look like? I think that that’s a really interesting background, almost like an informal PhD in human resources in a sense.

John (08:42)

True. I mean, you don’t really have to be in admissions at another school or even at Stanford to do this position. It’s largely a management and an ambassador position for the school. Of course, she’s not joining as admissions chief of any school. She’s joining a school that has far more applicants than it knows what to do with. I mean, truth is, Stanford has long had the lowest acceptance rate of all the prestigious MBA programs in the world. She’s joining at a time when last year, the acceptance rate at Stanford was 8.4%, even though that’s a third higher than the 6.2% two years earlier, that’s still pretty low because you got to know that people who apply to these elite schools, they are pretty much a self-selecting group. I don’t know what you would find, Maria and Caroline, because I think the general rule of thumb is that anywhere between 60 to 80% of the applicants are actually fully qualified to attend a school that they apply to and probably would do just fine getting through the curriculum and getting a great job. But obviously, very few of them actually are picked. So, Stanford has pretty much held its own, more or less, during a significant application slump.

John (10:24)

We just took a look at acceptance rates yield, which for those who I don’t know, yield is the percentage of applicants who actually enroll at a school after being accepted by a school, and application volume in a story that looked at not only last year, but the last five year trend And the story is one that we’ve talked about a lot on our podcast over the last couple of years, which is a story of generally declining apps and diminished interest in full-time residential MBA programs. And what you see in the data is pretty surprising. Like, Dartmouth Tuck last year accepted over 40% of its applicants. Back in 2021, that was 29%. Columbia Business School, over 22% of applicants accepted, which is still incredibly selective. But two years before, 16%. Yale was up to a third from 24 two years ago. It’s pretty much like that in a lot of other places. Uva Darden, 39%, up 10 points from two years ago. Nyu Stern, 31%, up from 19 two years ago. Chicago Booth up to 33%, and it was 22% two years ago. Now, I will put this into some context because I’ve been in the market quite a bit in the last couple of weeks, and I can tell you that a lot of these schools are telling me that applications have made a real snap back.

John (12:07)

Darden is up 25% through their second round. Yale School of Management is up about 20, 21%. There are other schools that are up around 10, double digit increases. This is data that’s a little bit a year old, but of course, it does take a while for schools to report this information. The numbers that I’m giving you are basically straight from interviews that I’ve done with admission directors. What do you make of the decline in apps here reflected in these higher acceptance rates? Maria?

Maria (12:48)

Well, it’s interesting. It almost goes back to, we were just speaking about the new head of admissions at Stanford. It almost goes back to, I think the schools have a marketing issue on some level that they perhaps have not needed in the past. The alternatives to getting the MBA, whether that’s staying at your job and accepting a higher promotion or pursuing a different type of master’s program. I do think that the MBA, the traditional value proposition of the standard two-year MBA is hurting. I do think that making that ROI calculation, I think students are being much more savvy or much more methodical about thinking through, Am I willing to take out this $200,000 loan? How am I going to pay that back? The costs are so expensive. I do think that on some level, the business schools themselves need to start practicing what they preach in terms of their own marketing and strategic positioning and convincing applicants that this really is a worthwhile suit, a worthwhile use of their time and their money. It just did tie together with our previous topic of conversation. I was like, Wow, if you can launch Barcelona’s most popular wine bar in six months, what can you do then to start?

Maria (14:04)

In addition to serving wine and admin weekend, what else can you do to start to show people like, Look, this degree really is worth it, and you should totally apply because if you get it, it’s going to be great.

John (14:15)

Yeah, exactly. Caroline, your thoughts?

Caroline (14:19)

Yeah. Well, it’s also coming down off a pandemic high, right? So there was a spike of applications triggered by the pandemic. So the numbers that you’re looking at where over the last four years, the acceptance rates were lowest in 2021. So that was triggered by people throwing their head into the ring when everything went crazy during the pandemic and people had time to work on applications. They were getting laid off and so on. So there was a huge surge then, and we knew that that was going to be a short-lived effect, right? And I think also at that time, time, some of those additional applications were from candidates who were not of the same quality as the… These top schools have a steady flow of really good candidates. And when there’s a surge in applications, especially as we saw during the pandemic, the average quality goes down a bit because some of those additional applications are from people who are applying, not because it’s a well-thought-out plan that they’ve had in mind that they’ve been working towards for several years, but suddenly, their circumstances have changed, and they wake up one morning and think, Well, perhaps I should try something else.

Caroline (15:33)

I could apply to Harvard or Stanford or Wharton or wherever. And so it’s more of a spontaneous decision, and they are not necessarily the best-prepared candidates. So when you get that surge, the average quality goes down a bit. So I think that we’re coming down off that pandemic peak.

John (15:53)

Yeah, a really good point.

Caroline (15:56)

For the top schools, they have this very loyal pipeline of really strong candidates. So I don’t think that they worry too much about these fluctuations, although it can be harder for schools that are further down the pecking order.

John (16:14)

Yeah, I mean, the second-tier schools in particular, or those, frankly, outside the top 20 are finding they’re really fighting for their candidates, to be honest, because they’re surprised at the scholarship offers that that some of these applicants are getting from schools. It’s a real fight, particularly down after the top 20 or so full-time MBA programs. Now, Caroline, I wonder, when you were Head of Admissions at INSEAD, if you were to say what percentage of the applicant pool would you really think would be fully qualified to attend and do well in the MBA program versus the % that you were actually accepting, would it be like 60 to 80%? Could probably just go in, do very well, and have great careers, or is it less than that?

Caroline (17:07)

Yeah, it’s around that. At any of these schools, you could throw in a student from that 60-80% range. You could throw them into the classroom and no one would notice, right? No one would think, What is this person doing here? They would fit right in.

John (17:26)

Yeah, because people look at those class profiles, and a lot of opt out when they’re far off the profile. Sure, you get some people are throwing Hilmary passes, and that’s the 20% who probably don’t really have a chance. But most people look at those stats, they do their research, And they’re really good candidates, right?

Caroline (17:49)

Yeah, they are. And that’s one reason why in some ways I don’t envy Erin her job, because it’s horrible to have to turn away so many great people, right? I mean, that was definitely a downside of my job at INSEAD is saying no to people who you knew would be great students and you knew would be very successful. And it’s much worse. That’s 10 times, well, not 10 times worse, but many times worse for her, given the the eye-watering exceptions rate. What is it? 8% right now. So they have to turn away some quite extraordinary young people. And that’s It’s not fun, right? That’s not a fun part of the job. So yes, it’s great to be able to play a role in crafting the class, but it’s also painful to have to say no to people who you know are fantastic and very, very deserving. So she’s got her work cut out for her.

John (18:49)

Now, we also published in this application and acceptance rate story, the yield numbers. And I’ll bring this up because US news, of course, just recently came out with the newest ranking. But as you have heard from us before, I know Maria believes this in particular, that yield rates are more telling than almost any other stat in terms of the quality of the school, because basically, you’re really getting the wisdom of an informed crowd here in the decisions that they make of whether or not to attend the school if they’re admitted. On yield, Harvard is back up to number one. It had lost that position to Stanford in 2020 and 2021. And in fact, in 2021, it lost a position by over 10 points. 83% of the applicants accepted to Harvard in 2021 actually enrolled. At Stanford, it was 94% in that year. Now it’s a bit closer, but Harvard is ahead. 87% of people who are accepted actually went and enrolled. At Stanford, it’s 83%. Those are extraordinarily high numbers in relationship to everybody else. I mean, Duke is at 53%, which is pretty darn good. Columbia is at 56%. Wharton is over 50% as well.

John (20:25)

It’s actually 57%. But some great schools, you’d be surprised at how many people get turned down, rather how many are turning down the school. I think it’s primarily the function of, Yeah, we got into Harvard, Stanford, or Wharton, or another program that we really preferred, and we’re going to go there. Yale, which I think A lot of elite candidates might consider to be something of a safe school if they’re applying in the neighborhood of Harvard, Stanford, Wharton. Only 33.5% of the applicants who are accepted actually enrolled. Dartmouth, Tuck, 37% actually enrolled. Maria, I know you’ve said before, and I mentioned that you like yield numbers because it tells you a lot about the wisdom of that informed crowd that is applying to these schools. After all, these numbers show which programs are most in demand by very highly qualified candidates, right?

Maria (21:27)

Yeah. I mean, to the extent that one even try to rank business schools, which seems like a folly in itself. If you had to choose one metric, it’s an impossible task. But if one had to choose one metric, for me, that metric would be yield, right? Because Because that is where the rubber hits the road. That is where you have to pull out your proverbial checkbook and pay that tuition deposit or move across the country and move into a dorm room, some other country or some other state. So Who actually shows up when you give them the offer? I think that that is a really… Any one of these metrics can be gamed, which is one of the things I dislike about using metrics in general. But I do think if you ask people, if you say to people like, Okay, well, Harvard is now, whatever, sixth in the US news world report. Isn’t that terrible? I don’t know. I don’t have people contacting me and saying things like, Oh, I got into the school that was ranked second or third or fourth in the US news. But, Oh, Thank goodness, I didn’t get into Harvard, my safety school.

Maria (22:33)

It’s such a weird… You can say that this school is first or sixth or eighth or twelfth, but at the end of the day, if someone gets into Harvard, they’re probably going to go. If they get into Stanford, they’re probably going to I don’t know. It doesn’t really have anything to do. You can slice and dice all these other metrics and have them say whatever you want them to say. But I just think, I don’t know. If I had to choose one metric, I stand by that. If In an imperfect world, that’s my one that I stand by.

John (23:03)

Okay, let’s see if I can shake your confidence.

Maria (23:05)

Uh-oh. I’m sure you can.

John (23:08)

Because whenever you’re dealing with numbers, you’re going to find anomalies, right? You always find some quirky results. If you look at yield, would you believe that Alabama’s full-time MBA program has a higher yield than Stanford? Or would you believe that right behind Stanford is Brigham Young University? There are some quirky- Well, but when I think about…

Maria (23:34)

So Brigham Young probably appeals to people who are of the Norman faith, I would assume. That’s true. And so in terms of self-selection, I’m not surprised they have a very high yield because I’m sure that they attract a very specific type of candidate. The same thing with Alabama, presumably that is a school that draws regionally from people who are either currently living in Alabama or want to set up their roots and build their careers within Alabama. If I’m currently living in a certain geography and I want to stay in that geography and build my career in that geography, of course, I would go to the business school that is nearby. I think it would be, yes. I would caveat and asterisk my yield comment considerably. But in terms of the top schools that draw international candidates from all over the world, I still stick with yield.

John (24:25)

Caroline, yield is an important number to an admissions official, right? Because After all, it does suggest, well, who you can land. I mean, it’s almost like if your yield number is really low, you got to be asking yourself as an admissions official, I can’t close these candidates. How come? Maybe I don’t have enough scholarship money. Maybe on our admit events, we’re not doing a good enough job. Sure, you can’t. It’s hard to beat a Harvard or a Stanford, but very few people are getting to accept to Harvard and Stanford in the elite applicant pool, right?

Caroline (25:04)

Yeah, it is very important because you want to make sure that the best people that you’ve admitted are coming to your school. And if your yield is low, then that means that you’re probably losing a bunch of those great candidates. So it makes my eyes water seeing some of these numbers. I was very fortunate. In Seattle, we had very high yield, so typically around 75 % during my years there. That’s excellent. And the idea of having 20 to 30 % yield, you have to be admitting so many more people than you know are going to come to the program. And it must be very difficult to know. Of course, they have the historic numbers and they can predict and forecast and so on based on their experience. But it must be quite demoralizing to be admitting so many people who you know are not going to attend. I think they have quite a tricky job because, of course, you’re trying to craft a class with a certain diversity. And how do you do that if two-thirds of the people that you’re admitting are not coming? What if all of your management consultants drop out or all of your Asian candidates?

Caroline (26:19)

You could end up with quite a skewed diversity because it all depends on who comes and who doesn’t come. And if such a big block of candidates are dropping out, then you have much less control over the mix of people that end up in your classroom. I think managing, crafting the class must be much trickier when you have such low yield.

John (26:40)

Yeah, very true.

Maria (26:42)

I will say that the emphasis on yield, the unintended side effect of that is that I think it leads to waitlist shenanigans, where if I know that, Oh, my gosh, this yield number is going to be scrutinized, then I’m going to put everyone on the waitlist and just reach out to them one by one and say, Okay, hey, if I let you in, will you sign the deposit? Will you come? I’m not going to name schools, but I do think there are some schools out there who are very aggressive with the waitlist and put a lot of people on that waitlist and then quietly come around to them and say, Hey, can we set up a call to answer any questions you might have about being on the waitlist? Then it just so happens that on that informational call, they’ll say something like, If you were to get off the waitlist, what are they accepting What insist do you have in hand? I do think that’s the one downside of the… Again, I said any metric can be manipulated, and that is the one downside of looking at yield. But I do think that it does.

Maria (27:43)

To Caroline’s point, if you’re trying to craft a class and you’re not entirely sure who’s going to show up and who isn’t, just put them all on the waitlist. Then if all of your consultants drop out or all of your candidates from a certain geography drop out, great. Just go to that waitlist and you can manually try to craft it after the fact. But yeah, I don’t end any of these folks in their jobs.

John (28:03)

Indeed. They’re absolutely so, Erin, good luck to you. You were in the cat bird seat there with the lowest acceptance rate on Earth for an MBA program. One of the revealing pieces of the analysis of acceptance rates that we do is we look at the top 10, and we look at the top 10 over a number of years. It It’s revealing because if you look at 2016, so that’s well before the pandemic, the acceptance rate for a top 10 school, this is the total average for top 10, was 14.5%. Last year, it was 27.8%. In 2016, 55,000 people submitted applications to the top 10. That wasn’t even a record. The record in this period was 58,000, which was year 2021 due to the pandemic. But it’s now down to 39,500. Enrollment numbers are down in the top 10 as well. Back in 2016, it was 5,100. There was a peak also during the pandemic era of 5,500, but now we’re down to 4,411 in the top 10. You definitely see that whether you look at it from a pre pandemic level on a top 10 basis, or certainly from the pandemic when there were peaks, there’s been a fairly significant decline, which means for all of you out there, hey, again, it’s another good time to be applying to a fantastic MBA program.

John (29:49)

While this application volume has declined, I’ll tell you what has not declined, the compensation that newly minted MBAs which is at record levels, both in sign on bonus and both in starting salary. It’s still a great degree. It’s a no-brainer degree. It’s a fantastic opportunity for young people who are smart and ambitious and want a meaningful and fulfilled career. Maria, Caroline, and I are just total ambassadors and boosters for the great MBA programs We’ve said it before, we’ll say it again, go for it, go for it, go for it. It’s really worth it. Anyway, check it out, Acceptance, Rates, and Yield at the top 100 US MBA programs, and check out our profile on Erin Nixon, the new admissions chief at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. She will be getting her new job on July 1 as she moves from Barcelona to Silicon Valley. We wish her great luck, and hopefully, you know what I think we’re going to do? We’re going to try to have her on a future podcast so we can get some tips on which wine we should be serving at dinner or while we’re completing our MBA application. Hey, thanks for listening.

John (31:17)

This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants.

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
Stanford’s New MBA Admissions Chief + MBA Acceptance Rates
Maria |
April 23, 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!