The New GRE Exam
Maria |
June 7, 2023

In this podcast episode of Business Casual, our hosts discuss the recent updates to the GRE and GMAT exams and explore the considerations for prospective business school applicants. They delve into the disparities between average GMAT and GRE scores at various schools, speculating that the GRE’s ability to attract a more diverse pool of candidates contributes to the lower average percentiles. They also raise questions about the validity of the exams in light of the race to shorten test duration and eliminate sections, emphasizing the importance of monitoring the correlation between test scores and academic performance. 

Overall, this episode provides valuable insights for individuals navigating the dynamic landscape of standardized testing in business school admissions and aids in making informed decisions regarding which test to take.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.050] – John

Hello, everyone. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. You are listening to Business Casual, our weekly podcast with my co hosts Maria Wich Vila and Caroline Diarte Edwards yes, indeed, there will be a new GRE. Last week we predicted it, and lo and behold, it is out. You can register for it today and take it as early as September 22, which means that it beats the newly revamped GMAT, which you can’t register for until August 29 and won’t be able to take until sometime in the fourth quarter. We don’t really know when. The really big news is that the GRE was almost cut in half in terms of time to 1 hour and 58 minutes. That’s 17 minutes shorter for those counting against the new GMAT exam. Of course, the reason why this is happening is because more and more programs have become test optional and more programs are more generously granting waivers and standardized testing overall is on the decline, particularly the SAT for undergraduate programs and the act as well. And add to that the declining application numbers, and you have a situation where both testing organizations for graduate management education are believing that the test itself has become a friction point, a hurdle that some would be applicants don’t want to jump over to go to a business school.

[00:01:53.370] – John

I’m going to ask both Maria and Caroline, how do you even decide which of these newly revamped tests to take? Caroline, you have some overall guideposts.

[00:02:05.350] – Caroline

Well, I think if you haven’t started preparing for either test, then I would suggest reviewing both tests and ideally take a practice test in both and see where you do best. Some people have a natural inclination to one test and do better with one test than the other, and therefore that would be the best test to focus on. I know that some people just focus on the GMAT because they think that that is perhaps the preferred test for schools, but that’s not really the case. I think schools genuinely are pretty agnostic about which test you take. And so I think it’s really worth considering up front which trying both out and seeing which suits you, because you really could cut down your prep time. If you feel that one test suits you better, perhaps you better prepared. You’ve got less material that is sort of fresh and unknown for you in one test than another. I was talking to a candidate yesterday who is preparing for business school, and she’d taken the GRE a few years back, so she asked, which test should I take? Well, of course take the GRE, right? You’ve done it before.

[00:03:16.370] – Caroline

So it’s going to be much easier totally to refresh and take the GRE again than to start all over with a brand new test and get up to speed on the GMAT. So really I would encourage people to take whichever test is best for them. Don’t do what my daughter has done with her standardized test, which is start preparing for one test SAT, sit that, and then decide, oh, well, I’m not crazy about that. So now I’ll try the act, prepare for that, and then sit there and sort of go back and forth between two and sit both tests multiple times. Yeah, that’s not the best strategy, right.

[00:04:00.350] – John

To take a couple of practice tests, see which one you feel a little bit better about, and then go and study for that and sit for the exam and see what happens. Now, Maria, you’ve done some interesting research on class profiles for schools that have announced the median or the average GMAP versus the GRE scores of admitted actually enrolled candidates. What did you discover there?

[00:04:26.120] – Maria

Yeah, I’ve discovered that there’s a lot more forgiveness when it comes to the GRE. In other words, if all else is equal, and if somebody is not a super strong test taker, that’s not where they really shine. I do advise that people take the GRE because I think that there is, for a number of reasons, intuitively. I always sort of felt that when I worked with people who submitted GRE scores that were perhaps less than glowing, or certainly not at the stratospherically High levels as the GMAT solid scores. Right. We’re not saying test optional doesn’t mean brain optional. Right. As I say, ad nauseam. So you still need a strong score, but you don’t need the nosebleed high stratospherically High score for the GRE to get into a competitive program that otherwise might need more of a stronger GMAT score. And the data that I looked at, when I looked at the schools, as you mentioned, they do publish. Okay. Of the students who enrolled, what were their average GMAT scores? What were their average GRE scores? And when you try to back into what percentile that score is, for example, the average GMAT score at Stanford Business School for the students who submitted GMAT scores was in the 97th percentile.

[00:05:43.060] – Maria

Right. So that means you were in the top 3% of test takers. But for the students who submitted GRE scores, that average GRE score was in the top 1580 5th percentile. So you were in the top 15% of test takers. Now, obviously, being in the top 15% of test takers for the GRE is still really hard, but it’s not quite as hard as being in the top 3% for sure takers. So I think there are a number of reasons why this is the case. I think a lot of it has to do with rankings. I think it has to do with the GMAT having been the de facto standardized test for business school. And so that’s the score that we all intuitively have learned to assess over the decades that we’ve been in this field. The GRE is more of the dark horse newcomer, and so I don’t think we’ve developed quite the same intuition. I even have perhaps a somewhat weird idea around. The GMAT score moves up in increments of ten versus the GRE moves up in increments of one. So if you say a 750 versus a 720, that feels like a really big difference versus a 163 versus a 162, even though from a performance level those might be the same thing.

[00:06:46.640] – Maria

They’re like, oh, the average at Harvard is a 163 and you got a 162, you’re fine, versus if we were to translate that into GMAT terms, there might be a 20 or 30 point gap versus a one point gap. And so I think there’s like a psychological it’s like whenever retail stores price their things at 999 a month INSEAD of $10 a month, there’s just something psychological about having that $0.01 difference. Literally. The scoring scale is one of the other reasons why I think that the GRE, sorry, has more forgiveness associated with it. So in all else being equal, if you can get a really strong GMAT score, I do think that because it is the score that the press and the ecosystem tends to fixate on, I do think that schools are more willing to purchase. Not purchase, but to give an incentive to students who have strong GMAT scores to give them incentives via scholarship money. I do think that if you can get a really strong GMAT score and if getting a merit based scholarship matters to you, then I would advise taking the GMAT because I do think that you’re more likely to get a scholarship.

[00:07:56.580] – Maria

However, if acceptance, interesting, is your goal, which I think is the primary goal for most people, all else being equal, I would advise taking the GRE instead. And also, can we just give a big sort of shout out and pat on the back to the people at ETS. I mean they have been first of all, the fact that the GRE has taken so much market share over in such a pretty short amount of time the past several years. And so the GMAT announced, well, here’s our sort of GRE slayer. Ha. Tough luck GRE. Take that ETS. And now ETS is like a month later, they’re like, oh yeah, well guess what? Boom. Ours is shorter, ours is faster, ours is available sooner. I got to hand it to ETS. They have innovated and they have been resourceful and they have been scrappy. And I don’t love standardized tests in general, but I admire them for how they are sticking it to they are really putting the pedal to the metal and competing and it’s kind of cool to see.

[00:08:57.630] – John

Yeah, that’s really true. And over the years of this competition, they more likely than GMAT have introduced different innovations that make the test friendlier to take and then GMAT has had to follow in the, in their footsteps. But it’s been GRE that’s been really fueling the innovation in the test taking. In the graduate management education space. Some of the differences in scores are fairly dramatic in your examination, Maria. Like Michigan Ross, the average GMAT is in the six percentile, meaning you have to be in the top 6% to hit that average. For the GRE, it’s 24 24th percentile. That’s a big difference. And there’s a big difference at Duke where you need to be in the top 10% of the scores for the GMAP, but in the 29th percentile for the GRE. And I looked at this years ago, and it was true then, there is definitely a differential here. And one wonder is what’s really behind it? Is it possible because this was one of the calling cards of the GRE, let’s face it, that you would get more diversified candidates. So if more women who score lower on the GMAT than men, even though they have better grades, undergraduate and graduate level, than men, are taking the GRE and more underrepresented minorities are taking the GRE, that could be part of the reason why there’s as big a differential in these numbers as there seems to be.

[00:10:45.330] – John

What do you make of that, Maria?

[00:10:47.870] – Maria

Regarding diversity, I would also say that it, I think, leads to more undergraduate academic major diversity. So, for example, someone may have studied engineering and they may have taken the GRE their senior year of college, or they may have studied sociology and taken because the GRE is the standard general graduate school test. I think a lot of people from literally, probably every major, every academic discipline is more likely to have taken the GRE at some point. And therefore, when they then look to apply to business school, if they already have that existing score in their pocket from a few years ago, maybe they wanted to do a PhD in anthropology, or they wanted to go to mechanical engineering, grad school or whatever it was. There’s a chance that they already had that GRE in the pocket versus having to start over fresh with a brand new test. So I think the diversity element is also there from that perspective as well.

[00:11:40.130] – John

Right? Yes. Now, another interesting thing here, and I’m going to ask Caroline this because you are former admissions director, I wonder if this race between GMAT and GRE to shorten the test and eliminate questions and sections has been done in a way that could affect the actual validity of the test themselves. In other words, there are a lot of critics of standardized tests that say, sure, there’s a correlation between a test score and how well a student will perform in an academic program, in particular the core. But that correlation isn’t as strong as you would think it should be according to the critics. And then when you shorten these tests and you’re involved in a competitive race to shorten them, I wonder if an admissions director would naturally wonder if the correlation between an academic performance and a test score has been lessened. What do you think?

[00:12:42.820] – Caroline

Well, I’m sure that the test administrators have prepared data to reassure the schools on this because that’s going to be a key concern from the admissions officers. So I’m sure that they have been, or I would hope, but I would expect that they have been communicating with the schools to reassure them that that correlation remains. And for sure the schools will be tracking it very carefully. Right. So they will be monitoring those new test scores and they will be monitoring academic outcomes and seeing if there is any change and see if there’s any shift over time. What else can they do? But I’m not sure that it’s essential to have a three or four hour test. I think it’s an interesting experiment to try. 2 hours is probably I think it probably is sufficient. But the schools will be measuring the data very carefully and monitoring it carefully. Just one thing on the debate about GRE versus GMAT, you’re absolutely right that one of the key reasons the schools began accepting the GRE was to diversify the pool. But that also I think that is also a reason why those averages are a bit lower because with the GMAT you’re more likely to have the management consultants and the investment bankers and so on who have taken the GMAT and you’re more likely to have those nontraditional candidates that Maria was describing taking the GRE.

[00:14:26.730] – Caroline

And therefore those nontraditional candidates may have lower scores on average. And we know that nontraditional candidates often don’t have quite as stellar test scores as those more traditional feeder profiles and also don’t necessarily need to be as academically talented as sort of superstar status because there’s so many of the investment bankers and management consultants and so on applying to business school, that they have to prove themselves often to an even higher level than somebody who has a less common profile. And I think that is also a reason why we see that difference between the average GMAT and the average GRE people entering school, that there is a difference in the profile of those of those candidates. And therefore I think for some candidates it could be a bit risky to say for that you can get away with a lower GRE than you could with the GMAT because it depends which bucket they’re in.

[00:15:32.170] – Maria

Right?

[00:15:32.410] – Caroline

If they’re in that very competitive bucket of management consultants, of finance, of engineers, then the schools will be expecting them to most likely score highly on those standardized tests regardless of whether it’s the G match or the GRE. Now, maybe that there is a bit more of margin room for maneuver on the GRE, but I’m not sure that it’s as big as those numbers suggest because I think that you’re looking at two different pools when you compare the GMAT pool to the GRE pool.

[00:16:08.590] – John

True. Yeah, good point. The process of streamlining the test required that the folks that do these things had to make some choices. And one of the choices made by GMAT was to eliminate the writing section of the test in the newly revamped GRE. GRE cut the writing portion of the test in half, but still requires one essay which takes 30 minutes, or you’re allowed 30 minutes to complete. Why that’s interesting to me is because I think there’s overall concern in admissions today about the use of chat, GPT Four and other upgrades to be deployed in writing essay questions or your initial draft. So if there is a concern there and admissions officials are saying they may discount to some degree the importance of an essay and increase the importance on interviews and other aspects of your application, having a written example under pressure in a test environment would seem to have a lot of value. So there’s one data point that kind of, I think, favors the GRE revamp for admission directors. On the other hand, one of the things that GMet did, which I thought was brilliant, was to add a whole new section called Data Insights.

[00:17:41.730] – John

And this section of the test kind of addresses the increased emphasis that schools are placing on data analytics and harnessing the overwhelming amounts of data that companies are collecting for smart decision making. So they have that addition. Maria, what do you make of those two changes and how they may even affect which test you take?

[00:18:04.040] – Maria

It’s interesting, right? Because as Caroline was pointing out, it becomes almost a self fulfilling or self selecting prophecy, where the really competitive candidates, like the bankers and the consultants, they tend to take the GMAT. They tend to do really well at it. It’s interesting to me that those are people, especially the engineers, were the ones, actually that she mentioned that I remember. And I think stereotypically engineers don’t like writing. And so that actually might be a reason to take the GMAT. If you are someone who is very good at selecting a multiple choice verbal answer and identifying a sentence, I think they’re actually getting rid of sentence correction. But whatever it is that they’re reading comprehension or whatever those standardized verbal things are, if you’re good at that, but your writing skills are pretty terrible, then maybe you should take the GMAT. It was an interesting I don’t know about if gamble is quite the right word, but gamble is the word that’s coming to my mind for the GMAT to completely eliminate all writing, because I do think it’s interesting because you can’t I’m not saying that it’s easy to game a standardized test, but there are definitely patterns, right?

[00:19:13.710] – Maria

You can definitely learn the tricks and the tips for the test. And if you see this kind of a passage, then you know that this is probably the sort of question you’re going to get, whereas the writing obviously can be more open ended in terms of expressing who you are and expressing how you think. And so that’s an interesting I wonder if the GMAT did that on purpose to try to win back a certain section of the test takers for whom written and verbal expression is not their strong suit. But, yeah, it does beg the question if I’m not going to be able to access a writing sample. I mean, I don’t think admissions directors have the time necessarily to access the writing samples. Caroline, I would love to hear if that intuition, is it’s true? Yeah.

[00:19:59.410] – Caroline

And they don’t pay much. Honestly, they have not paid much attention to those essays. So I am not surprised in that context. If GMAP was looking to cut the time, that that would be the first thing to eliminate, because to admissions directors, until now, that has been the least important part of the test. But that was until now, until the age of AI, right? So maybe now they’ve just eliminated it and now it actually becomes valuable, which would be rather unfortunate.

[00:20:31.450] – John

In fact, I should just go over very quickly. How do they squeeze out so much time? Because the GRE currently takes 3 hours and 45 minutes, and the new one is going to take 1 hour and 58 minutes. It’s pretty dramatic. Okay, so we mentioned before that they’re going to cut the essay section to one. So that used to take 60 minutes for two essays. Now it will take 30 minutes for one. In quantitative reasoning, they used to ask, or currently ask 40 questions and give you an hour to do those 40 questions. Now they’re bringing it down to 27 questions and giving you 47 minutes. And then for verbal reasoning, they used to give you 40 questions and provide 70 minutes to answer them. Now it is down to 27 minutes. Sorry, 27 questions. And let me see here 40 BUP BUP bum. 41 minutes. Here’s another thing that I didn’t realize, that GRE used to throw in test questions that they weren’t scoring to see how people would respond to new questions. And the amount of time that they did, that varied. But in the new test, they’re not going to do that anymore.

[00:21:55.510] – John

So they’re not going to use test takers as guinea pigs for their new questions. And that actually squeezes out a little bit more time that wasn’t even accounted for in the 3 hours and 45 minutes it currently takes to take the GRE. One other little interesting little tidbit here is because of all these changes, you actually have a little more time per question on the GMAT than you now have with the GRE. It’s not a whole lot, but for someone who may be struggling with a particular question or two, that could in fact matter because the shorter amount of time may mean that there’s a little bit more pressure on you. So, for example, the GMAT allows test takers a little over two minutes to answer a question. In the Quant section, the new GRE allows 1.7 minutes. So that’s another difference. If you were to take a test today to get into business school. Maria, which one would it be? GRE or the GMAP?

[00:23:03.370] – Maria

I personally would take the GMAP, but that’s only because that’s because test taking is something that I am good at. I do not have other academic strengths. I will be the first to admit that I have several other academic weaknesses, but thankfully, test taking isn’t one of them. And because I actually had a lower than average GPA when I was applying, I knew that I had to do well on the standardized test. So because I am a strong test taker at those little games and those little tricks that I mentioned before, I would personally take the GMAT. But I think for many people, I would advise them to, as Caroline said, the best thing to, because they both have verbal sections, they both have quant sections, but they’re not exactly the same verbal, they’re not exactly the same quant. And it’s not until you take a practice test, as Caroline suggested, that you’re going to really get a sense of it. I think the GRE, for example, might have things like it will test more your knowledge of somewhat obscure vocabulary versus I don’t think the GMAT in my recollection has a vocabulary. They don’t call it vocabulary, but it’ll be like analogies.

[00:24:06.170] – Maria

For example, this word is to that word as some other word is to some other word. And usually, sometimes in the harder questions, those might be words where you’re like, oh, gosh, I have to remember my Latin roots from 10th grade, 10th grade literature class. If you’re someone who is very good at that sort of a thing, then you might do better on the verbal section. Versus if you’re more of a logic and rules driven person, then maybe some of the more grammatically focused questions on the GMAT. So anyway, point is, I think just take the practice test and see which one you feel more comfortable with. And if test taking isn’t your thing, all else being equal, I would say take the GRE. There does seem to be a smidge more leniency with it. And so that would be my advice.

[00:24:49.670] – John

And Carolyn, if you had to do it over again, would you do the GMAT or the GRE?

[00:24:56.510] – Caroline

Well, it’s a good question. I think that GRE has really stolen GMAT’s thunder here. And as Maria said, I think that ETS has done a great job. And GMAT are probably crying into their coffee over the announcement for GRE because, hey, GMAT has not announced exactly when you can register for this new test right when it’s going to be launched. I think there’s a lot of uncertainty about the new GMAT right now, so that would concern me as a candidate. So I think that actually more people are going to shift to the GRE right now because it’s much clearer what the transition is. I think that GRE has managed this much better. They’ve been much clearer about what is happening and when it’s happening. It’s very vague as regards to GMAT. Otherwise, I actually, in a very nerdy way, quite enjoyed GMAT prep in a very sad, pathetic, kind of nerdy way. So I didn’t mind doing the GMAT. But frankly, I think that GMAT has really kind of failed here in comparison to the GRE. And I think that we will see, potentially. Maria talked about that shift in market share towards GRE. I wouldn’t be surprised if this change now with these two new shorter tests.

[00:26:25.280] – Caroline

And seemingly right now, it looks like it’s being better managed by GRE than GMAT. So that could mean another bump in market share for GRE, right?

[00:26:36.370] – John

And the GMAT cost 275 to take the GRE 220. Although when you’re spending so much money on an MBA, that difference is inconsequential, for sure. But for some people, it could be consequential, particularly if you’re going to take the test a number of times as many applicants do. All right, there you have it. The new GRE is coming out. You can actually sit for it on September 22. You can register for it right now. The GMAT is coming out in the fourth quarter. We don’t know exactly when you can, in fact, register beginning August 29. But that’s a long way off. And I think you’re right, Caroline. I think a lot of people are going to just register now for the GRE when they can. And after all, if the test is shorter, it would require less prep time. I mean, that’s a natural consequence of a shorter test. And both GRE and GMAT are making that part of their marketing pitch to would be applicants. Well, good luck whatever test you take. And when I asked Caroline and Maria what test they would take, I would go for a test optional program because I’m miserable at standardized test.

[00:27:54.210] – John

But there you have it. All right, you’ve been listening to Business Casual, our weekly podcast at Poets and Quants. Thanks for listening.

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
The New GRE Exam
Maria |
June 7, 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!