Six Tricks MBA Admissions Consultants Use To Make the Sale And Get Your Money
Maria |
January 2, 2022

TL;DR: MBA Admissions Consultants know that you’re in an emotionally-fragile (or ego-driven) place, and sadly, many (not all! but many!) of them EXPLOIT that to make money.

Expensive admissions consultants — in particular, the ones from the larger firms — often have shady sales techniques to convince you to spend a ton of money on them. The most common technique is to either flatter the candidate with unrealistic promises (and then use future sessions to bring expectations down), or to tear the candidate down and make them feel so worthless that by the end of the call, the candidate is practically begging for the privilege of paying several thousand dollars for this guidance. There are other techniques I mention below, but these two are the one’s you’re most likely to encounter!


The saying “you get what you pay for” certainly applies in many cases.

However, it does NOT necessarily apply to hiring an admissions consultant. This is vitally important to know, in case you look at their high fees and are left wondering: “Is a traditional admissions consultant worth it?”

Each year, I hear from happy ApplicantLab users who share that they had also shelled out thousands of dollars to work with an admissions consultant — either during the same year, or during a previous, unsuccessful year (and that the Lab was just as good, if not better, than the consultant)!

I have a standard reply to those emails, and it starts with: “I’m sorry to hear this; I wish I could say that this is a rare experience, but in fact many people regret paying the high prices that many consultants charge.”

I think a big reason for these negative experiences is that some admissions consultants often have a “sales playbook” – schemes that, similar to car salesmen, will tell you just about anything if it will convince you to hire them.

After years of collecting horror stories from my own clients, below are the emotionally-exploitative techniques they use to get you to pay up.

Tricks Admissions Consultants Play To Make The Sale:

The “puffing you up” technique

Everyone, when they first start applying to schools, dreams of getting an acceptance letter from Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, etc.

The honest truth is that most (80%, 90% or more) will not get accepted.

The even MORE honest truth is that many of them never had a shot in the first place.

However, this does not stop some admissions consultants from using obvious flattery to puff up you ego and thus close the sale.

They might tell you during the “consultation call” that you DEFINITELY have a chance of getting in to a top school! They might even use words like “interesting” or “compelling” to describe you.

You’re so excited after this call! Here is a consultant that “believes in you” and “gets” you! Sure, other people have expressed some doubts (though others rarely want to risk getting on our bad sides, so acquaintances usually keep their negative predictions to themselves), but THIS person CLEARLY sees how remarkable you are!

And, maybe you are remarkable! If you truly are that remarkable, you probably don’t need an admissions consultant since your profile will get you in on its own.

What is far, far more likely is that they are trying to close the sale with you.

Then, after your deposit is paid…they will start to steer you in another direction:

Hey, I know that you’re excited about EliteSchool, and when we first spoke, based on the teeny amount of information I had about you, I thought you had a good shot. But now that I’ve gotten to know you a bit better, how about if we move EliteSchool to your list of ‘REACH’ schools, and add in some ‘BETTER FITS’?”

*Note that in this case, a “better fit” probably = “a school they think you have a strong chance of getting accepted to, and thus you won’t damage any of those “success metrics” they love to manipulate / publish.

They are counting on the fact that you’re going to spend several hours with them on the phone / e-mail over the next few weeks / months, and in that time, they can win your trust and start to talk you down a bit. 

They might also use phrases like “…this year is turning out to be way more competitive than usual” or “…a lot more people with your background are applying than what I predicted” or “…I just heard that EliteSchool has started putting a lot more emphasis on [something you don’t have], so while in the PAST you probably would have gotten in, it might not happen this year.

All of these sorts of phrases above help them convince you that, when they implied that you were TOTALLY a strong candidate for that elite school at first (before you paid them)… well, things are “different” this year, so it’s NOT that they were fake during the consultation… it’s that the world has changed! And you can’t blame them for that, right?

**I should also note that sometimes, the flattery folks have even less of a conscience. They will help someone apply to a school that they know is never going to happen.. and then, when the person doesn’t get in? They ghost them. Stop replying to emails. Will have an “assistant” reply to tell you that they are sorry that you are disappointed but that ConsultantName is not currently available and please refer to the terms & conditions about no refunds and how researching suitable schools is your responsibility. These folks just “take the money and run” and don’t feel bad about it for a second!

The “dragging you down” technique

Other firms have the exact opposite sale technique. They will try to convince you during the “consultation” call that your profile is very weak, or at best, marginal…

…and so the ONLY hope you possibly have would be if you are lucky enough to get to hire them (you see, they are quickly filling up and might not have availability if you wait!). Then, MAYBE, you have a shot of getting in, but you’ll need their golden, magical guidance to get even close.

I can’t decide which technique I hate most: this one (since it preys on an applicant’s insecurities) or the puffing-up one (since it preys on an applicant’s ego).

This sales pitch works better on more mature, self-aware candidates – people who are likely to have started doing their research and realize how tough this process can be. Also, anecdotally, I suspect that this technique is more often used with female clients, preying on the whole “impostor syndrome” thing. UGH.

Anyway, like that emotionally-abusive ex who tried to convince you that you couldn’t possibly live without them, these consultants will find and exaggerate flaws in your profile. They will make mountains out of molehills to scare you and convince you that THEY are the life-line you need.

Examples:

  • My favorite example was a candidate who was flat-out told that he would MAYBE get into a top 15 – 20 school, IF they were lucky and IF they paid this firm a LOT of money.
    • This person used ApplicantLab and ended up getting the Reliance Fellowship (a merit-based full ride) to Stanford GSB!
  • People who work in fields like the arts / media being told that their background is too non-traditional and thus they are in big trouble re: admissions.
    • The truth is, someone who has held a leadership role in an arts / media organization probably has amazing lessons to share with classmates!
  • A more recent example, a consultant from another firm told one of my clients to “not even bother” talking about their family business, since “any family business making less than $200 million / year in revenue will not be impressive enough to mention for the adcom at any M7 school”
    • LOL. Tell that to the many clients I’ve worked with from family businesses waaaay smaller than $200M/year who went to top schools. If this were true, then there would be virtually no one in any program from family businesses! And yet, several top schools have entire classes and conferences devoted to family businesses!

I said above that I’m not sure which one I hate more – while the flattery angle makes my stomach churn, at the end of the day, it’s someone’s inflated ego that makes them sign up. THIS technique, on the other hand, feasts on fear. It succeeds by destabilizing, sowing doubt, and deflating people. So I think this one is worse.

The “manipulated success rate” technique

The firms that publish too-good-to-be-true “success” metrics primarily do this in two ways:

  1. They convince the client that some “safe” schools are in fact “target” schools
    • That way, when the person applies and gets in, and the bold headline of “9X% of our clients get into at least one target school!” can be published
  2. In order for #1 to work, candidates need to be open to applying to some safer schools. If someone seems unwilling / inflexible, they simply won’t work with you!

For example, a firm might say “Look, we’d be happy to help you with your application to EliteSchool, but we’ll only do so if you also apply to SaferSchool as well”. I actually had a former client who was flat-out told that a firm would not bother to work with him for applications to top fifteen schools, but they’d be happy to help with schools ranked 16 – 30!

At this point, firms are saving time by having an “intake” or “interest” form prior to setting up the “consultation call.” This is to make sure that they are not going to waste their time on the sales call.

If the person’s “intake” form shows a blah college, blah employers, and blah impact within those employers… BUT the person writes that the ONLY school they are considering is Stanford? Guess what! That person will probably NOT EVEN GET a “consultation call” appointment!

To be fair, it’s not just admissions consultants that do this – even in the under-rated movie Doctor Strange, he has a confrontational conversation with a guy who had wanted to be his patient… but whose case seemed so impossible that Dr. Strange didn’t even bother (boo! I can’t find a link to the clip, but if you’ve seen the movie you know what I mean!)

The “exploding offer during a so-called ‘consultation call’” technique

This one is quick and easy to explain: “Usually, we charge $4,800 for a one-school package, BUT I JUST got permission from my manager for a LIMITED TIME special that IF you sign up with us RIGHT NOW, I can give you a discount of $X! But I don’t know how much longer my manager will let me do this, so you’d better sign up now!”

Girl, please.

While it’s unrealistic to expect that an admissions consultant would care for you the way a family member would… it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that they want what is best (or at least, “OK”) for you.

I bet if you reached out a week later, saying that you had your bank account / credit card in hand, but would only sign up if that limited-time offer were still good… I’m pretty sure that they’d (perhaps after checking with a “manager” of course) still accept it. And if they wouldn’t, then you don’t want to work with such pushy people anyway.

(The “expiring discount” technique is a close cousin of the “we are filling up fast / our top consultants are almost all booked!” technique.)

The “bait and switch” consultation sales technique

First of all, many firms’  “FREE 30 / 15 minute consultation!” is a sales call in disguise.

The person will walk a fine line between throwing out some crumbs of information…just enough to try to hook you. But they will usually be pretty vague, or “of course I’d need to know a lot more about you – that’s what our 2 hour ‘discovery introduction call’ is for!”

But you already knew this, right?

What many people don’t know, however, is that the super-smart, friendly, and caring person you did your consultation with is often NOT the same person who will be your consultant.

I know this because a few years ago, a large consulting firm offered to buy ApplicantLab and they showed me “behind the curtain” of their operations and explained that many other firms work the same way.

ONE consultant (or sometimes not even a full consultant, just a well-trained salesperson) will do the intro call and make you fall in love with them. Starry-eyed, you pay the deposit. Then… you’re introduced to “Someone Else”, who’s the person who will be actually working with you.

This technique has different forms:

  • The deeply-experienced consultant does the sales call, then pawns you off to a far less experienced person.
  • A not-very-experienced consultant (but professional salesperson) does the call – their initial questions get to the heart of “which buttons are the best ones to push?”, and then they’ll push those buttons to get you to sign up.
  • A firm will say that you will “probably” get to work with the same person who did your call… but then, wouldn’t you know it, soon after you pay your deposit: darn! That consultant you liked *just* got fully booked! Too bad! However, we have this other person on our team…

The “exaggerated aura of expertise” technique

This is another technique that makes me want to vomit.

A consultant’s webpage will say something that sure SOUNDS good, like: “Former staff member, EliteSchool admissions!” or even just “Former staff, EliteSchool”.

What they don’t tell you is that they were simply a support-staff member (e.g. working in operations, or in “recruitment” [sales]), OR they were simply a 2nd-year student doing routine admissions interviews (but with limited impact on the admissions decisions themselves) or they were simply a career center volunteer, helping out the first-year students, etc.

They will often not point out that frequently, admissions offices will hire the spouses of foreign students, simply because they need a job, not because they have massive expertise / talent. Or sometimes (of course not always), the students who work in admissions right after graduation do so because they were unable to get another job (shhhh!)

Or a consultant will try to confer expertise via logos of publications they have been “featured” in – of course, not all of them will tell you that they are often paying for – er, “sponsoring” — those articles.

**For the record, I pay nothing to be a co-host of the Poets and Quants podcast! This is because John is SUPER nice!

One that makes me especially sick is when consulting firms make it seem that they are being “endorsed” by a certain organization, when really, all they did was make a large donation or pay a sponsorship fee.  

Why the larger MBA admissions consulting firms tend to be more guilty of this than the smaller firms / solo practitioners

Of course, not all firms do things like this! I have found, in particular, that the larger MBA admissions consulting firms tend to rely upon more “strong arm” / emotional tactics like this.

I think that this is because some of the larger firms will staff up each year with a small army of MBA Admissions Consultants — many of which are simply recent graduates of MBA programs, but who are not necessarily admissions experts!!! — and so they are trying to get the maximum number of clients possible. Because: they know that they can keep expanding their work force as needed. And since each new client = roughly 50% (!!!) of the revenue going directly to the firm, the motivation to sign up a lot of clients is pretty intense!

Smaller MBA admissions consulting firms — e.g., the boutique firms, or expert solo practioners — do NOT usually use these sales techniques. Why? Because they each have a natural limit on the number of clients they can serve each year.

Therefore, it’s in their best interest to fill their available spaces thoughtfully. And because of THAT, the “free 30 minute consultation” is more likely to be a genuine exploration of whether or not you’d be a good fit for each other — that is, are your personalities a match? Can they support you in what you want to do? (Note that many of these elite solo practitioners will often refer potential clients to each other, if they feel that someone else in their network might be better able to help!)

Of course — the boutique firms / solo practioners do NOT have a “Sales Team” trying to close deals, so any free consultations that you do with them takes time out of their day. So please, if you’re going to request a conversation with a smaller / solo firm, PLEASE only reach out if you are serious about potentially hiring them. Please check their pricing in advance and make sure that you’re comfortable potentially paying it, should they be a good match for you, because they don’t have the revenues of the big firms, they don’t have a “sales team”, etc. and so being respectful of their time is, at a minimum, a great way to get some good karma! 🙂

Have YOU encountered any of the sales techniques I mention above? Are there any that I missed? You won’t find any of them with ApplicantLab — I don’t turn anyone away (which is honestly sometimes a bad thing, when someone with unrealistic / immature expectations signs up), but I also don’t filter people out based on whether or not I think they have the $$$ to pay me, or whether or not I think they’ll add to my “success stories” list! But the good news is: no sales pitch!

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
Six Tricks MBA Admissions Consultants Use To Make the Sale And Get Your Money
Maria |
January 2, 2022

[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!