The Latest MBA Acceptance Rates
Maria |
May 31, 2023

In this episode of Business Casual our hosts delve into the average acceptance rate for the top ten programs. This has recently reached a new high, indicating a shift in the competitive landscape. However, an intriguing twist arises as the number of students enrolling shows a decline. The yield, measuring the percentage of accepted students who ultimately choose to enroll, has thus noticeably dropped. Business schools are adapting by enrolling smaller class sizes, which is reshaping the dynamics of the MBA landscape.

In this episode, our hosts dig into these stats, highlighting notable examples such as Chicago Booth, where acceptance rates have experienced a significant increase. They aim to provide you with a comprehensive understanding of the ever-changing world of MBA acceptance rates and its implications for both applicants and business schools.

Get ready for insights that will reshape your perspective on the journey to your MBA!

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.130] – John

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. Caroline, of course, is the former admissions head at INSEAD and the co-founder of Fortuna Admissions. And Maria is the founder of Applicant Lab and our resident Harvard MBA. We’re going to talk about acceptance rates. We just ran a story on acceptance rates in last year would be, of course, because we don’t know what the numbers are going to be for this coming year because no one has applied yet, really. And these are us. MBA. Programs that we really looked at. And one of the really interesting things is that the better school saw fairly significant drops in their acceptance rates. Just to give you a quick snapshot of what happened is last year for the top ten US MBA. Programs, the overall average acceptance rate was 22.2%. That’s up from 18.4 the year before, and it’s way up from 14.5 back in 20, 16, 17 years ago. More people are being accepted, and yet yield, that is, the number of people who actually accept an offer and enroll in a school is down.

[00:01:38.510] – John

It’s down to 54% in 2022. Last year. The year before that, it was nearly 58%. And going back a few years back in 2018, for example, it was 65%. So one result of this is that schools have enrolled smaller classes. Many of the best schools, in fact, entered cohorts that were 50 to 40 students less than the year before. And in terms of schools and their actual application acceptance rates, well, Chicago Booth, for example, is an interesting one. The acceptance rate there grew to 30.1% from 22.6. That’s an increase of a third. That was the biggest jump in the admin rate for any top ten school. So, Maria, what do you make of these numbers?

[00:02:33.490] – Maria

It’s funny, I almost want to stop saying things like, well, last year sure was an anomaly because every year for the past three years has just been a more anomalous anomaly than the anomaly before. What I think might have happened last year, just off the top of my head, why were the acceptance rates so much higher? Well, it’s because the number of applicants was lower. And I think that it’s because last year, 2022, the world was, quote unquote, reopening again. A lot of businesses were going back to you have to start coming back into the office. We’re going to start gearing up again to sort of pre pandemic working styles and workloads. And I think a lot of employers, realizing that a lot of talent was not into going back to work, they started sweetening the deal by offering retention bonuses or salary increases. Right. Because the war for talent at some point last year was really a top of mind thing for a lot of companies. And so I think a younger person considering business school might say, well, gee, I was going to go to business school to get an X percent increase in my salary or to get that promotion to that higher level of management.

[00:03:51.390] – Maria

But my employer just offered that to me anyway, if I stick around. So why would I forego a year or two of salary? And why would I do the tuition? I think a lot of people were getting, if not post MBA equivalent job opportunities. They were certainly getting much sweeter job opportunities than what they had had before. And so I think in that environment, looking at the MBA versus staying in your normal job, I think that the MBA lost its luster. And so that’s why I suspect the numbers were down.

[00:04:21.480] – John

Yes. Caroline, your take.

[00:04:23.780] – Caroline

Yes, I agree. So I think that it was a combination of factors. So post Pandemic, as Maria said, a more favorable job market, which means that it’s a less attractive environment for people to quit their job and go back to graduate education. So we know that the MBA market is countercyclical and people are more inclined to head to business school when the job market is not so great, because that could be a good time. If you’ve been laid off or you’re not getting a promotion that you were hoping for, you’re not getting the next job offer that you were hoping for, that could be a great time to go back to business school. And conversely, if you are getting those opportunities, then you may be less inclined to quit and invest in your education at that particular time. So I think it was a combination of the strength of the job market, which has since weakened, of course, but also we did see a deluge of applications during the Pandemic, and so I think it was a hangover after that. The MBA market is cyclical.

[00:05:27.750] – Maria

Right?

[00:05:28.350] – Caroline

I saw that at NCI. Looking at the application volume over the decades, there are cycles that correlate with the economic cycle. The Pandemic was an unprecedented shock, which created just turned on a tap of applications which we’d never seen before. And so some of those people might have applied a year or two later. Has the pandemic not happened?

[00:05:54.560] – Maria

Right.

[00:05:54.850] – Caroline

So effectively, you pulled forward some candidates to a certain point in time, and they applied during that period, whereas they might have applied a year or two later had the pandemic not happened. And so they weren’t applying last year. Right. They were applying the year before because of those particular circumstances. The pipeline had diminished because of that effect. But I do think that the pipeline is now increasing. So I think that these numbers will turn around a bit for this year when we see the next round of statistics from the schools.

[00:06:32.890] – John

Yeah, and I think these numbers confirm what we had been saying all along during last season’s admission cycle, that now is the time to apply because fewer people are actually applying to business school. And I think it needs to be pointed out that, let’s face it, it’s still not easy to get into a great school. So, sure, at Stanford, the Admin rate went from 6.2 to 8.6. Big deal. There’s an awful lot of people who are getting rejection slips with an 8.6 acceptance rate. And at Harvard, 12.6 the year before, and now it’s 14.4. So over 85% of the people who applied the Harvard Business School last year got rejected. And the same is true at MIT, where the admit rate was 14.8%, almost equal to Harvard, and it had been 12.1% the year earlier. So, yes, these rates are up in some places. They’re up a lot more, like a Chicago booth, which I mentioned before, was 23 and has over 30, or a Kellogg, which was 26 and now is over 31. But by and large, it’s still hard to get into these schools. You still need really good application with a good profile to surmount the odds because you are in a very competitive place.

[00:08:03.050] – John

One of the weird things about the data that we’ve discovered is that many of, like, the second tier schools actually became more selective. And I’m not sure why that would be so, but if you look at a number of schools, including Rochester Simon, their acceptance rate actually went down, which I would not have expected. Indiana Kelly, their acceptance rate went down. So Emory went from 53% to 37%, washington Olin in St. Louis from 34 to 26. So it’s not all down. And you wonder how come the second tier schools, many of them actually had lower acceptance rate. I know that, of course, class size has shrunk, so that had played a role in this. But Maria, can you guess as to why this would be the case?

[00:09:06.510] – Maria

I mean, if I had to guess, I would say maybe what happened is that perhaps people who were applying really were committed to the process, and maybe they decided that they were going to try to spread the risk around instead of only applying to one or two programs. Maybe they said, well, I’m going to also throw in applications to an Emory or Washington Olin in order to just be sure that I’m spreading my risk. And so perhaps those schools saw some increases in applicants along with what you mentioned before. I do know that some schools were talking about and in fact implemented smaller class sizes in anticipation of lower applicant numbers. So it could also be some combination of those two things. But it’ll be fascinating. I’m not sure, maybe you, John, someone on your team, one of your intrepid detectives on your staff, can start digging around and really trying to get to the bottom of this, because it really was when Caroline mentioned that, it was quite an observation. And I was like, wow, that’s surprising.

[00:10:09.400] – John

You look at Rutgers, 44% the year before and down to 26%. Now that’s a real head scrub. Now, I wonder if in fact, in 21, because of what happened in 2020, with COVID and many international students unable to start the program because of visa restrictions or travel restrictions, schools just really bumped up their acceptance rates in 2021 and then brought them back to a more normal state in 2022. At least the second tier schools. That could be one possibility, but wow, that is just a weird, weird state of affairs. Caroline, do you have any explanation for it?

[00:10:56.260] – Caroline

Yeah, I think we’d need to look at the longer term trend. Right. As you say, John, we’re looking at acceptance rates for 2021 versus 2022, and so we don’t have that pre pandemic data to compare it to. And it may be possibly that they were harder hit by the Pandemic than the very top schools. And so now that they’ve recovered, their acceptance rates have gone back possibly to the level that they were pre pandemic. So I think we need to dig into that pre pandemic data. But I’m glad that you asked, Maria, before you ask me.

[00:11:38.110] – Maria

You’re welcome, Caroline, anytime.

[00:11:43.970] – John

Let’s attribute it to smaller class size and let’s attribute it to an overcorrection on the Pandemic affected admission cycles in 2021. I think that can only be the possible explanation. But then why would the top ten in the best schools in a ranking at least have the opposite effect? And that is just weird. Just totally weird. That’s just amazing. So what do we expect in this coming year? Because many of our listeners are busy preparing their applications for round one, which will come soon enough in September, or they’re about to begin once they take a little break for their summer. What do you think is going to happen, Caroline?

[00:12:33.640] – Caroline

I think we’ll see an increase in applications in the coming season due to particularly layoffs in various industries, particularly finance and tech. So we’ve seen an increase in inquiries this year compared to last year. So I think that’s indicative of a turnaround in the market that started to happen around the very end of last year. So I think it’s very much linked to the job market and firms that employ young professionals who are very ambitious and potentially very good candidates for business school, who have hit tougher times and therefore have been laying people off or not able to offer them the opportunities that those young professionals would otherwise hope for. And therefore, now is a great time for them to apply to business school.

[00:13:24.500] – Maria

Maria, I almost don’t want to make a prediction because every time I predict something, I’m like, well, we’ve been talking we’ve been talking about a recession now, right? Remember it was like, oh, there’s going to be a recession in 2022, and then it didn’t really happen, but then it sort of started happening, but it happened too late to really impact applications. So I don’t know, I think that it’ll go up again, as Caroline said, because I do think that we are starting to see substantial layoff. I think the ones in the smaller regional banks that are struggling in the wake of Silicon Valley bank collapse, and perhaps some of those banks might be shedding employees who might not be easily able to find other work. In particular, I know a lot of tech people have also been laid off, but there do tend to be maybe not first choice type jobs, but tech. Tech employees, I think, do often tend to find work a little bit more easily perhaps than someone perhaps working at a smaller regional bank. I also think not to segue the conversation, but I also wonder if the release of the newer GMAT, the GMAT Lite, might help.

[00:14:29.030] – Maria

And I think, John, you might have to key this up for you, but I think you mentioned that GRE is also responding with perhaps a shorter version of the test. I wonder if less onerous testing options that are being announced right now might start enticing people into the application process. Because as we know, oftentimes the thing that tends to dissuade people the most is the thought of either taking the test or spending the dozens or hundreds of hours it takes to prepare for the test.

[00:14:59.070] – John

Yeah, that’s really interesting. So the GRE is really going to be cut down dramatically, just as the GMAT was. But the GRE test will now take less than 2 hours to complete, which is roughly half the time of the current test. GRE is removing the analyze an argument task in the analytical writing section. It’s reducing the number of questions in the quant and verbal reasoning sections, and it’s removing the unscored section of the test. Among other things, they’re going to promise to give test takers their official scores in just eight to ten days. Previously it was ten to 15. In other words, they’re really trying to reduce the friction of taking the test and applying to a business school. And that also should have, to some degree, some effect on people applying because the general belief is that standardized tests does hold people back because it takes longer for them to have to prep to get a good score. And as we know, for years the scores have been going up in the class profiles. So even though you have some schools that are test optional or some schools granting waivers, still most of the highly ranked, highly selected schools still require standardized test.

[00:16:24.410] – John

The fact that it’s going to be easier to take it and incidentally, presumably easier to study for it since it’s not as long, could actually open the doors to a lot more potential applicants. Caroline, you think that’s true too?

[00:16:39.380] – Caroline

Well, I’m sure that’s what the test administrators are hoping for in terms of turning around the test volumes. And I’m sure that’s the hope of the schools as well, that it will make it easier for people to tackle the test and therefore lower that barrier to entry to applying.

[00:16:58.860] – John

Yeah, interesting.

[00:16:59.930] – Caroline

Yeah, it seems probable, right? So it looks like it would be less intimidating as a test. So hopefully that would encourage more people to apply.

[00:17:12.330] – John

And the GRE, the shorter GRE will be available to actually take and sit down on September 22. So I believe that actually beats GMAT to market because I think the shorter GMAT test is while you can register for it by then, it might take until the fourth quarter to actually come about. Wow, interesting stuff. I, too expect applications to go up, but not by a lot. I think that the layoffs will put more people in the market for graduate degrees. And while some of them can bounce back quickly from a tech layoff, I think the layoffs have now gone through the entire economy. So you’re seeing more people who are in that perfect window of age, 25 to 28, who may have lost their job. Or the other thing that happens when you see layoffs is people who are in the workforce and doing okay start to think about, well, look, this company has very little loyalty to people that it hires, and next time it could well be me, so I’m going to go out and get some protection through a graduate degree. And we know from the research that people who have higher level degrees tend to be laid off a lot less than those who don’t.

[00:18:45.410] – John

So even if you’re not laid off, there’s also an impact psychologically on those who keep their jobs and then become more willing to go and quit and get a graduate degree almost as insurance for their future careers. So I think we’ll see an increase. I don’t think it’s going to be really dramatic because we don’t have, at least until now, thank goodness, a full fledged recession, which is what really typically drives a significant increase in applications. But it will probably become slightly more competitive next year as we enter this new admission season in September. Well, there you have it. If you want the nitty gritty detail on those acceptance rates as well as yield, which I find fascinating. I didn’t mention this, but this is worth mentioning. A year earlier, Stanford for the first time, had a better yield rate, significantly better than Harvard. Harvard bounced back and had a yield rate this past year that was better than Stanford’s, actually, significantly better. And yield is something that admissions directors really look at closely. Am I right, Caroline?

[00:20:02.260] – Caroline

Absolutely. Schools work very hard to increase their yield, and they monitor it very carefully because, of course, fluctuations in the yields make it very difficult to craft the class. Because if you have wild variations in your yield, how do you know how many students to admit to your class? And of course, if you’re admitting people, you really want them to attend your school and not go to your competitor school, and you want to admit the best people have the best students from your pool coming to your program and not deciding to go elsewhere. So schools have greatly increased their efforts to woo their admitted candidates and make sure that they attend their program and that they don’t go somewhere else. Yes. So they do monitor that yield. That is a critical KPI for the admissions office.

[00:20:52.050] – John

And at Harvard last year, the yield was 85.5%, which meant that only 15% of the people who actually were accepted decided not to go. In some cases, that’s for personal reasons. Something crops up, you get an immediate increase in responsibility or a new assignment that you really want to fulfill. Decide at the last moment, no, I’m not going to go. Or maybe there’s an illness or something. Or maybe the most plausible reason, of course, is you were accepted by another school that you preferred over the one that accepted you. And at Stanford, incidentally, it was 80.3. So 85.5 at Harvard, 80.3 at Stanford. Yale, interestingly enough, is 38.8, which just shows you a lot of people who are applying to Yale are also applying the Harvard, Stanford, MIT and other schools. And when they get in, they seem to prefer those schools for whatever reason. Fascinating numbers, though. Tells you a lot about where schools are, who’s in demand, who’s not. And I love these numbers and eat them up because I’m in the weeds. I’m a little bit of a nerd about all this stuff, frankly. So, Caroline and Maria, thank you so much for your analysis.

[00:22:15.710] – John

And for all of you out there, good luck applying. While these rates may go up a little bit next year, we don’t think they’re going to go up a whole lot, so that probably bodes somewhat well for many of you. Good luck.

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
The Latest MBA Acceptance Rates
Maria |
May 31, 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!