The Bloomberg Businessweek 2023-2024 MBA Ranking
Maria |
September 22, 2023

In this episode of Business Casual, our hosts critically assess the Bloomberg Business Week MBA Ranking, expressing profound reservations about its credibility and methodology. They highlight the ranking’s complexity, which obscures the results derivation process, and call attention to potential bias in responses, particularly from alumni inclined to portray their alma mater favorably.

Additionally, they mention the ranking’s lack of transparency and reliability, cautioning MBA applicants against relying solely on it for decision-making. Instead, they advise listeners to approach it with skepticism and explore alternative resources when evaluating business schools.

The hosts suggest that the Bloomberg Business Week MBA Ranking may serve more as entertainment than a credible source for prospective MBA students, as it falls short of being a dependable reference.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.450] – John

Well, hello, everyone. We have another ranking. Yes. It’s the Bloomberg Business Week MBA Ranking just came out. I’m John Byrne with Poets and Quants. You are listening to Business Casual, our weekly podcast with my two partners who are ranking haters, rightfully so, and Caroline Diarte Edwards. We’ve been in our little pre session here discussing this ranking and scratching our heads a little bit, trying to even understand it. Even if you have the willingness to read through the dense methodology, it’s still somewhat mystifying and hard to not only comprehend, frankly. But it’s weird that Business Week feels the need to make it so complicated and not to be very transparent. And we’ll get into that in a ways. But let me just tell you what the results are first. So Stanford is number one, and that’s perfectly no big surprise. This is the fifth year in a row that Stanford is number one. Number two, Chicago booth number three, Dartmouth. Tuck, tied for number three, UVA Darden number five, Columbia. Are you wondering where Harvard and Wharton are yet? Well, Harvard is 6th, Kellogg is 7th. Wharton is number eight in this ranking, Michigan Ross, nine, and MIT Sloan, ten, tied with Berkeley also at ten.

[00:01:42.050] – John

That kind of tells you a lot. I mean, no one would think that Harvard should be languishing in 6th place below the likes of Chicago, Booth, Dartmouth, and Virginia and Columbia for that matter. And no one would imagine that Wharton would be in 8th place. But then again, what rankings often do is they challenge us to rethink what we think in general about reputation that has been built over the years and is really a snapshot of a given school. Now, how credible it is, that’s a whole other issue. How flawed is this ranking and how intellectually dishonest is it? Well, we’ll get into that too. What’s your basic thinking about this, Maria?

[00:02:31.170] – Maria

I think when you go to their methodology page, I think it’s intentionally meant to give you a bit of a headache. It is a suspiciously opaque methodology. So, for example, a large portion of the ranking is based upon qualitative surveys that are asked of recent graduates and also alumni. Now, first of all, the alumni, it’s not a broad sampling of alumni across decades. It’s only alumni who graduated five, six, and seven years ago, which is kind of an odd. I can understand maybe 510 15 or 510 25. But five, six, and seven years ago is an odd timing, especially because one of the or some of the things they ask about are things like networking and entrepreneurship. And in many cases, for example, for entrepreneurship, people who do start businesses don’t start it until maybe they’re 10, 15, 20 years out of business school. So it’s a bit strange that they ask that. But anyway, in the subjective ranking, it will be things like I agree or disagree. I strongly agree or I strongly disagree with certain statements like this school taught me how to build my professional network. But then it’s like, okay, if you completely agree, it gets seven points all the way down to one point if you completely disagree.

[00:03:46.700] – Maria

And then after that, they say, well, there are five points awarded to the top ranked factor. Wait, sorry. So it’s on a scale of one to seven, but then different point levels are awarded based on where they I mean, it’s just like you’re going in circles, and it’s super, super suspicious. And as I said during our little pre conversation, there are parts of this that remind me a lot of the movie The Big Short where there were just, like, these mortgage backed CDO securities, and they were just so complicated that nobody understood them, so people just shrugged and were like, well, I guess it’s a good idea. And also in that movie, as I mentioned, the late, great Anthony Bourdain had a cameo where he basically points out that a fish stew at a restaurant is where chefs will put the grossest parts of the fish that they can’t otherwise sell into the stew and sell it as a new thing. And it kind of feels like this is kind of like the fish stew of methodologies and opacity.

[00:04:41.930] – John

Yeah. And fish often stink.

[00:04:47.050] – Maria

Yes, they do. God, yes, they do.

[00:04:49.200] – John

I know. You’re holding your nose. I am, too. Even just compensation. Okay. In their compensation metric, there are six different measures. One of them includes something called compensation related questions to either students or alumni. We have no idea. We have no idea what the questions are. We have no idea how they were scored. It says percentage of class with a job. We have no idea if that means is that the percentage of the class with a job at graduation or three months later? There’s no explanation. There’s median salary after graduation. That’s fine. Then there’s median alumni salary. But they are surveying three different alumni classes. I mean, it’s just all over the place. It really then, you know, they do break the results out by different regions of the world Asia, Pacific, Canada, and Europe. And I want to bring in Caroline here because their number one school in Europe is Bocconi in Italy, and they have Bocconi above INSEAD, London Business School, IMD, Cambridge, Oxford, and other really, institutions that have MBA programs that tend to rank on other lists way above Bocconi. Caroline, what do you make of that?

[00:06:16.100] – Caroline

Yes, it’s a very bizarre result, and I’m glad that Maria said that. She was scratching her head trying to read through the methodology, because I was just looking through it this morning, I thought, my God, my caffeine has really not kicked in. I have no idea what’s going on here. It’s bizarre. And in the real world, I don’t see many candidates choosing Bocconi over schools like INSEAD or London Business School. They have said that Bocconi rates more highly than INSEAD, for example, on networking and compensation. And, I mean, that’s just not the case, right? So I do not know what is going on behind the scenes or how they’re cooking this up, but it’s just not credible, right? So I don’t think that candidates should really spend much time on this. And I think it’s a shame because one of the valuable parts of these ranking publications is that often they collect a lot of data. They do surveys, they publish data that might not otherwise be easy for candidates to find or might not otherwise be publicly available on school websites and so on. So they can be useful for candidates to dig. You know, I think it’s very important for candidates to understand a methodology behind a ranking and delve into the data, because what Bloomberg Business Week may decide is really important and how a school should be ranked may not be how an individual candidate may want to rank their individual choice of schools.

[00:07:52.720] – Caroline

And so being able to dig into the methodology and being able to dig into the data can be very useful and by making it so opaque, right? So a very bizarre methodology that is not clearly explained and then not actually publishing the data behind it, to me, it’s just futile as far as the candidate is concerned. Right. It adds zero value to candidates who are doing research and trying to figure out which are the best schools and which schools might actually be the best fit for them given their so, you know, I think it’s a bit of a waste of time, waste of money by Bloomberg Business Week.

[00:08:34.710] – John

And, you know, the more you dig, the more discomforting the results are and give you one really good example. One of the major metrics that they attempt to measure one area is learning. Now, they have a really nice definition for learning. You can look it up. But here’s what’s amazing. Harvard in learning is number 26, just above Holt at number 27, the number one school with learning, William and Mary. Number two university of Georgia. Number three, University of Maryland. Number four, Georgia Tech. Now, I have nothing against these schools, but I will just tell you that it’s very hard for me to believe that the learning isn’t better at a place like Berkeley Haas or Stanford or Harvard or Kellogg. And yet the learning index tells you that, no, William and Mary is the best place. If you want a great learning experience in an MBA, it just doesn’t compute. There are other things that don’t quite know. The number one school for networking is University of Florida. Now, I have nothing against Florida. They have a great MBA program. It’s really their flexible options for you. But you can’t tell me that the school or the MBA program that has the best networking in America, it’s going to be Florida.

[00:10:08.250] – John

It’s not going to be Dartmouth Tuck, where people live together for two years. It’s a residential, unique residential MBA experience at Dartmouth, a higher percentage of Tuck MBA alums contribute back to the school every year than any other school in the world, meaning business school. And in fact, the participation rate at Tuck rivals the participation rate at almost every school in the world. That’s how loyal the alumni are and how networked that school’s alumni are. So Florida, Georgia Tech, and Michigan are number one, number two, number three in just the more you tear into this, the more you’re going to say, hey, how can this possibly be? And one explanation for it is that it is, as Maria pointed out, highly dependent on surveys and the views of alums, whether they be recently graduated or a few years out. And truth be told, if you’re an alum from a school and you get one of these surveys and you know that based on your answer or answers plural, your school is going to receive a certain rank, I think you have every justification in the world to be very positive and very favorable as opposed to very true.

[00:11:34.880] – John

And so what happens is if you are in fact from a school that doesn’t have the networks, the reputation, the resources of a Harvard or a Wharton or a Stanford or a Kellogg or what have you, or INSEAD or London Business School, you actually may feel, you know, my school did fine and I’m going to reward at the top scores. And after all, I don’t know what an education at Harvard or Stanford would have been like, or in Seattle or London Business School. So you fill out those surveys with certain kind of expectations that may favor a school. Now, there are some cases, of course, at the bottom of these rankings where schools don’t do so well. And the other problem with all of this is how closely clustered together the scores are on any of these dimensions, because they’re so closely clustered together that it’s not statistically meaningful to say that one school is five, one school is seven, one school is ten or twelve or 16. And that’s another big problem with this ranking and most rankings. Maria, any other insights?

[00:12:48.130] – Maria

Yeah, I mean, to that last point that you were making, like, the total points given to Stanford were 86.8 versus the total points given to Harvard 85.2, it’s a 1.8% difference. So not super statistically relevant. But I think one of the things that should make people the most suspicious right, regarding this learning rank, for example, Virginia Darden is a case based primarily a case based pedagogy, and as is Harvard Business School. So if both schools are heavily focused on using the case methodology, whether you like the case methodology or don’t like it, that’s a debate for another day. But why is it that Virginia ranks fourth for learning and Harvard Business School ranks 26th? If they both have obviously they don’t have identical curricula, but they use the same stuff. So if that doesn’t immediately kind of raise some alarm bells and some little red flags in your mind regarding the soundness of this methodology, I find it hard to believe that two schools with nearly identical pedagogies would have such a vast difference in their learning rank. So right off the bat, that’s one of the biggest grains of salt I will lodge at this ranking.

[00:14:01.240] – John

Yeah, actually that’s a really good thing to point out because obviously I’m just going to say this in case study schools, they attract master teachers who have to orchestrate a very fast moving, dynamic discussion involving lots of different people, making lots of different points, some relevant, some not. And it takes an incredible skill to do that. And you would think that the teachers at Darden and Harvard would be much closer together and it wouldn’t be that great a difference at all. And here’s how Business Week defines learning. We explore the quality, depth and range of instruction, focusing on the curriculum relative to real world business situations that would seem to favor every case study school emphasis on innovation, problem solving and strategic thinking, mentoring and support from instructors, class size and collaboration. I don’t think anyone would disagree with the definition, but what they’re actually asking and what the answers are, we have no idea because there’s no transparency here. And that just goes from one thing to the next. I mean, networking also measures the so called effectiveness of the Career Services office. Now, sorry, but I don’t know what that has to do with networking and the school’s brand power.

[00:15:23.000] – John

According to recruiters, what does that have to do with networking? So it’s almost like even within these definitions, they’re shoehorning in all kinds of different things that aren’t entirely related to learning, networking, entrepreneurship, or compensation. Wow. Caroline, would you rely on such a list?

[00:15:50.030] – Caroline

No, definitely not. And I think it’s a very good point you made about the survey and the fact that people just don’t have a point of comparison, right? No one goes to INSEAD and Bocconi to do their MBA, so no one can compare those two schools. The survey just, I think from that perspective doesn’t work. And even with recruiters, right, a lot of recruiters will not have recruited at all of the schools, right? They may have recruited at a few of the schools. They may have experience of hiring candidates from a handful, but they won’t have necessarily a really broad perspective across all of the schools in that market or in the region. So I think that a survey is too subjective and it’s incredibly frustrating for the schools, right, because they put a huge amount of effort into working with rankings publishers. It’s a lot of work. I remember having to do this when I was in INSEAD you know. It takes a huge amount of time and effort to provide the data that rankings publishers need and make sure that we’ve done everything properly. I’m giving them everything they need. There can be quite a bit of preparation that goes on behind the scenes to pull everything together, and then this is what they come up with, right?

[00:17:18.880] – Caroline

Why bother? You mentioned earlier that, for example, Rotman has decided not to are people at these schools are busy people. They have other things that they could be doing beyond working with these publishers and spending a great deal of time on it, and then this is what gets thrown back at them. So I wouldn’t be surprised if other schools decide in the future not to collaborate with this particular ranking. And actually, as your article from Jain at Yale commented, actually, you can’t replicate those results with the data that they have given. And actually, it looks like they are massaging things behind the scenes to make the ranking less bizarre than it would otherwise have been. So that’s very strange, right? I think they’re sort of cooking it up behind the scenes to make the methodology or make the ranking look halfway reasonable. But actually, if they followed through on their methodology as they state it, it would give an even more bizarre and result that lacks even more credibility.

[00:18:35.190] – John

Here’s the other thing. They say they surveyed 713 employers. They never tell you how many people actually responded to the survey. Same is true of the surveys. They went to students or alumni. They give you no response rate, so you have no idea what’s the strength of the response rate and therefore the sample. And on 713 employers, I hate to say this, but the truth is, if you were to look at the mainstream companies that literally make up the MBA market, they’re probably less than 100. Let’s face it. If I want to really get particular and I would say how many companies in the world recruit 20 or more MBAs a year? I can tell you that it’s fewer than 50. All right, so how do they have 713 to even survey? I’ll tell you how. Because they go to each school, they ask them to provide a list of all the recruiters who visited the school, and then they survey all of them. And they do that every school. So in other words, the McKinsey partners that go to Harvard get a survey. The McKinsey partners that go to Stanford get a survey. The McKinsey partners that go to INSEAD get a survey.

[00:19:53.720] – John

Probably none of them fill it out, because that’s the nature of McKinsey. And if they did, guess why the McKinsey partner goes to Harvard? Because they’re a Harvard Alum. And guess why the INSEAD McKinsey partner goes to INSEAD? Because they’re from INSEAD. So now you have the built in bias of these employers who actually do fill out the survey, because inevitably, among the better recruiting organizations of MBAs, they always send the alma mater, the people back to the alma mater. And there’s no mention of this in the past. Business Week actually admitted that among the recruiting sample, those who in fact went back to their old schools, put in inflated values on the value of those schools, and they had to actually discount it. Now, we don’t know what’s going on because there’s no mention of this at all. But these are some of the problems that exist in this survey. And Caroline was mentioning a critique that we’ve published from Anjani Jain who is the deputy dean at Yale School of Management. For the last three years, he’s been criticizing this particular ranking and its methodology, not only because he can’t replicate it, but because he’s discovered that there’s a step in statistical analysis that’s required to get a solid result and they’re not using that step.

[00:21:31.140] – John

It’s to normalize the data, essentially, and I’m not going to get into the technical definition of what it is to normalize this data. But nonetheless, he says, and you could read this on her site, that if in fact, they applied the weights to the data that they do provide here, and the data corresponded to the weights that they tend to advertise in this ranking, that Wharton, instead of being number eight, would actually be ranked 20th. And his conclusion is that obviously business week doesn’t want to come out with a ranking where Wharton is ranked 20th in the US. So they’re putting their hands into the methodology, into the black box and moving things around so that it’s not as embarrassing as it actually would be. That’s his conclusion. So it’s kind of wacky. Now, I will say this. They clearly devote a lot of time and a lot of resources to this. There’s a lot of interesting data buried in the ranking and the profiles in Business Week. The entertainment value of it is, I’d say it’s pretty good. It might be a cheap reality TV show, but sometimes that can be a guilty pleasure for people.

[00:22:54.310] – John

But in terms of a serious undertaking created and nurtured by people who really want to help people make an important decision in their lives, I would say this fails very notably. Maria, I’m assuming you would never recommend this ranking to your clients.

[00:23:18.110] – Maria

I would not because in the past when we have also, I mean, we don’t really like any of the rankings except for of course, the Poets and Quants ranking. But when we have always tried to find the silver lining of rankings, we say, well, at least they provide a consolidated starting point for research. They provide some good data, things like the average GMAT scores or sort of at least a place for people to start to collect information. But since this information is not scientifically sound like as you pointed out, there’s nothing stopping someone from just saying, I’m just going to put all sevens strongly agree with everything about my school because I want to give my school this artificial bump up. I mean, that’s really not defensible so because they don’t provide really any actual data. It doesn’t even really help from that perspective, from a data collection perspective. So I think that this is probably one of the least useful ones. Sorry, guys, but sorry, Bloomberg Business Week, but I don’t really see the point of spending time on this.

[00:24:24.140] – John

Yeah, it’s a shame because clearly they’re devoting a lot of effort to this to survey all those folks, crunch all these numbers to create an overly complicated methodology that no one can understand, and that gives Maria a headache. Clearly they could have done a much better job.

[00:24:47.530] – Maria

I was just going to say or provide everyone who reads it with a free bottle of headache medicine and a free cup of coffee, like a free espresso and a free aspirate. Maybe that’s the solution. They can partner with companies to provide that with Johnson.

[00:25:04.420] – John

Johnson, exactly. Tylenol here.

[00:25:07.560] – Maria

Yeah, exactly.

[00:25:11.010] – John

Caroline, last words on this.

[00:25:14.050] – Caroline

Well, another thing that struck me about. It is you look at the Asia Ranking and INSEAD is nowhere to be seen there. Right. If you want to do an MBA in Asia, then INSEAD is actually a fantastic option.

[00:25:30.010] – John

MBAs that are admitted to INSEAD, have a choice of starting the program or completing it in Singapore or France.

[00:25:38.860] – Caroline

Yeah. And you get an incredible network in Asia if you go to INSEAD, so.  Really, you know, too many anomalies in this ranking for it to be a useful reference point, I think.

[00:25:50.220] – John

All right, if you want to read our story on this, it’s Harvard and Wharton Slump and New 2023 Business Week MBA ranking. And if you want to read Anjani Jain’s critique of the ranking, it’s called Flawed Again: Bloomberg Business Week’s New MBA Ranking. Check it out. Meantime, remember, it’s just entertainment. It’s just fun. It’s just like a cheap reality TV show. A guilty pleasure. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. Thanks for listening.

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
The Bloomberg Businessweek 2023-2024 MBA Ranking
Maria |
September 22, 2023

[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!