LinkedIn’s First MBA Ranking_ How Credible
Maria |
November 20, 2023

In the latest episode of Business Casual, the hosts delve into the new LinkedIn MBA ranking system, an innovative approach compared to traditional rankings by Financial Times, US News, and Bloomberg BusinessWeek. They discuss LinkedIn’s unique methodology, expressing skepticism about the necessity of another MBA ranking while simultaneously acknowledging the uniqueness of LinkedIn’s data-driven approach and appreciating the ranking’s reflection of real-world outcomes. The conversation also touches on the US-centric nature of the ranking, advocating for a more global perspective.

The episode emphasizes the importance of considering personal preferences and priorities when choosing an MBA program, suggesting that looking beyond rankings is essential to finding the right fit.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.370] – John

Well, hello everyone. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. I’m here with my co hosts for Business Casual, our weekly podcast, Caroline Diarte Edwards and Maria Wich Vila. Maria, of course, is the founder of Applicant Lab and Caroline is the former managing director of admissions at INSEAD and the co founder are Fortuna Admissions. And I imagine both of them are very busy right now because we are getting down to the final weeks before those round two deadlines when most people file their applications. But we’re here with you this week, as we are just about almost every week. And I think the big news this past week is there is a new MBA ranking. Now, we know there are plenty of MBA rankings out there. Most of them are silly and flawed and even intellectually dishonest, even incompetent. This one is kind of really interesting, though, which is why we want to bring it to your attention and talk a little bit about it. You know that the economist and Forbes have walked away from their MBA rankings, so they no longer rank MBA programs. So really what’s left in terms of credibility is financial times, us news, and Bloomberg Business Week.

 

[00:01:21.680] – John

Sure, there are other ones. They’re not nearly as authoritative or credible. The one we’re going to talk about today is actually from LinkedIn, and here’s what’s unique about it. LinkedIn didn’t go to business schools and ask the schools to provide self reported data. They didn’t survey students or alumni. What they did is they dug into their own database, and let’s face it, every MBA worth his or her salt is going to be on LinkedIn. And they’ve looked at those MBAs by school and have figured out things like who is getting promotions in the recent cohorts? How quickly have they reached director or VP level leadership roles? How closely connected are they with each other from the same program? As well as what are the average connections alumni have with individuals in director level positions or above to show that they’re well networked? What’s the growth rate in their networking on LinkedIn’s platform? And also it measures leadership potential, attracts a percentage of alumni with post MBA entrepreneurship or C suite experience. There are five pillars. They also measure gender diversity, primarily between male and female, and I’m assuming they award more points when a school is closer to gender parity as measured by recent graduate cohorts.

 

[00:02:49.660] – John

They looked at the data over a number of years, not just one year, so you have a sense that it’s a little bit more reliable and tracks better. The data that they looked at was from 2018 to 2022. And there are some surprises on the actual ranking list, but it’s also pretty much what you would expect. Harvard, one. Stanford, two. Wharton is four. MIT is five. A surprise. Kellogg is six, well above Chicago at nine. Chicago typically is above Kellogg. UC Berkeley, seven. Yale, eight. Another surprise here is strong showing by Dartmouth Tuck, which in some ways doesn’t surprise me, because if you’re measuring things like network and how many graduates are connected to each mean, we’ve long reported that the best alumni MBA network in the world is at Tuck. There are a lot of reasons for this. The primary reason is if you’re holed up in Hanover, New Hampshire, for two years and you’re living on campus, and it is a residential campus, and the dorms for the MBAs are spectacular, you really get to know each other, and the school is small enough so that the intimacy of those relationships and the strength and depth of those relationships are really strong.

 

[00:04:09.140] – John

And then Tuck, people, they do really well. They’ve always done well in the compensation game. I’m assuming now, based on this LinkedIn data, that they’re doing very well in terms of progressing in the organizations that hire them. There are some other surprises on the list. You can see the list on our website. We called it LinkedIn’s debut MBA ranking. Shrewd concept, botched execution. We’ll get into the botched execution, but first I want to ask Caroline and Maria what they think of this thing. Caroline?

 

[00:04:40.880] – Caroline

Well, I’m not sure the world needs another MBA ranking, quite frankly, but I’m sure they’ve cottoned on to the fact, as you said, that other MBA rankings have disappeared. And this type of article and this type of exercise for a publisher always attracts a lot of traffic, right? So it’s great for attracting eyeballs and traffic, and that’s what they’re looking to do here. So we’re helping them with this effort. Hooray.

 

[00:05:08.990] – John

That’s true.

 

[00:05:10.610] – Caroline

But it is interesting, as you say, that they have this proprietary data, which is very different from other MBA rankings that we’ve looked at. It’s hopefully a reliable data source, because with other rankings, we sometimes wonder about the quality of the data that’s behind it. So one would assume that most people are fairly honest on their LinkedIn profiles and so that they are capturing real data about what people are doing post MBA. So that does make it interesting. As you note in your article, there are very small differences between the schools, especially at the top of the list. And that does, I think, make it a some what artificial exercise, because there’s so little to choose right between these top schools. So sort of putting them in an order and saying that this is number one and this is number five is somewhat, in my view, arbitrary exercise and doesn’t actually tell you very much. And with rankings, I think what is often the most interesting thing is the data behind it, because a ranking suggests that there is a one size fits all right, which is not true. As we have also discussed in the past.

 

[00:06:34.210] – Caroline

There is not one list that applies to everybody. It’s about finding the right fit. And the value that rankings can add is often that they provide data that you can dig into and then look at those elements that are really critical to you as a candidate. And what counts most for you may not be maybe very different from what counts for somebody else. And so being able to dig into that data is often very helpful. And as you said, unfortunately, we’re not able to do that here, so we don’t know what the underlying data could tell us. So I think that’s a bit of a missed opportunity.

 

[00:07:10.490] – John

Yeah, really true. So there are a number of things. Methodology is pretty vague. They don’t tell you how much of the five different aspects of this methodology counts for. There are no weights, so you don’t know how much they’re weighting. Networking versus your ability to gain promotions at the job, or gender parity. There’s also no underlying index numbers behind the numerical ranks. And I mentioned that because of the point that Caroline made, that there may be no difference between a one and five statistically. And unless you can see the underlying index numbers, you can’t really tell how close one school is to another and how relevant a numerical rank is. In general, there’s always clustering of the data behind these rankings, which suggest that a ranking of, let’s say, eight versus twelve is meaningless, because statistically, there’s no difference between schools. When you look at those numbers, which are hidden from view, Maria, you must like this ranking because your alma mater is number one.

 

[00:08:16.980] – Maria

Yes, that’s the only reason I ever like anything. If it validates the choices that I have made with my life, here wego, it must be flawless. No, you know what? I agree that the last thing the world needs is another ranking. But there’s a couple of things that I think are kind of refreshingly interesting about this ranking. I mean, first of all, I can’t really blame them for not delving too much into the methodology, because if they had, we would have eviscerated them no matter what they would have said. But one of the things I like about this is that because they were not collecting the data from the schools themselves, they made it probably impossible. I mean, they might not have even told the schools that they were even planning on doing this, right? So in terms of that vicious manipulation that we sometimes think about where, if it’s a self reported situation where the alumni are being pulled and they all suspiciously say that they had the number one experience or something along those lines, the methodology here might be flawed, but at least it would be therefore equally flawed across all of the programs.

 

[00:09:23.310] – Maria

And there wouldn’t be a situation where a school could say, okay, alumni, let’s rally the troops, and everyone’s got to submit this survey and say really great things. So I like that about it. I mean, at least it may be flawed, but I would hope that it’s equally flawed across everything. The other thing I like about these results, aside from the fact that Harvard Business School is number one, is that it provides some justification for the intuition that I have had over the years of certain programs really punching above their weight class in terms of career outcomes. Tuck, I think, is one of those schools that because of the fact that everyone who goes there bleeds green and they all so look out for each other, there is really value to that in the real world after you graduate. I like seeing UCLA being given some of the credit. I feel that their career services office, as I have said many times before, is one of those sort of criminally underrated career services offices in the MBA ecosystem. Babson. I love seeing Babson perform so well. That’s another program that I frequently will tell people to consider. And I tell people, literally, don’t look at the rankings, just look at what classes they offer. And if those classes speak to you, then I think you should go there. So there’s a lot to like about this ranking, and I think the lack of data is frustrating.

 

[00:10:48.520] – Maria

On the one hand, like, oh, well, there’s no average GMAT or GRE score. But on the other hand, it is interesting because one could argue that maybe GMAT, GRE scores, GPAs, those sorts of standard, quantifiable measures, maybe they don’t count for as much in the real world post graduation career path as they count when you are a student. And so I also think that that’s another. It’s kind of an interesting angle in some ways. The lack of data, one might even say it frees them from being biased by some of these measures, like the test scores that might otherwise tilt someone one direction or another. Although I do agree that there’s a lot. I mean, there’s a lot of, if someone is a VP level, at some companies you might be there for 50 years and not be a VP level, and at other companies you might be a VP your second day on the job. So there’s certainly a lot of room for criticism. And how are we going to really know if they measured things in a reasonable way if they don’t tell us how they measured them? But I certainly think it’s an interesting conversation starter and I think it’s interesting that they have so much data and they don’t have an agenda other than generating clicks. So I think it’s interesting.

 

[00:12:05.910] – John

Yeah, no, definitely. Right. And to your point, what it does reveal are schools that are punching above their also, you know, you mentioned UCLA and we’ve had the conversation that, wait a minute, how can USC rank higher than UCLA in US News news and in Bloomberg Business Week? Because we really doubt that result. And here we have UCLA being ranked 13th, us news is 19, Bloomberg Business week 22. Meanwhile, USC collapses down to 19, six places lower, even though its us news ranking is higher at 15, four places higher than UCLA. And its Bloomberg Business Week rank is 17, which is five places higher than UCLA. I give this ranking a lot of extra credibility because it’s confirming kind of what our experience in this business has told us about those two schools in particular. And then you see the schools like, oh, well, Mitch and Tuck, I think that’s a really good one. And Berkeley lately has been ranking out of the top ten here. It ranks solidly seven. Yale is probably more or less where it kind of should be, although Bloomberg Business Week ranks at 15th in the most recent survey. Chicago Booth doesn’t fare nearly as well.

 

[00:13:42.170] – John

It’s 9th here, which I find really interesting because this is a school that has used a lot of scholarship money to buy GMAT scores, and there are a few of those like that. UVA Darden ranks a bit higher here as well. And then there’s some really nice surprises on the list, including Rochester Simon, I’ve always had a good feeling about that school. They rank 24, Washington University is 25. That compares to a us news rank of 37 and Bloomberg Business Week rank of 39. And that is a really great school that often gets overlooked. UC Irvine did really well in this ranking. So did Notre Dame. And as you pointed out, Babson, especially. Babson is ranked 68th in US News news here it’s ranked 29th on the basis of its alumni success. Boston University also did extremely well. They’re number 30 and they’re 51 in both the US News and Bloomberg Business Week rankings. Johns Hopkins, which isn’t even ranked by Bloomberg Business Week or us news, turns up at 31. So you’re seeing schools here that you may not even see or are not near the top. Rutgers, here’s a good one. From New Jersey, the ranked 35th.

 

[00:15:04.950] – John

That’s ten places higher than their us news rank. Colorado, 36, ranked well above its us news rank of 60. So I think what I love about this ranking is, yes, it makes sense that a Harvard and Stanford and Wharton, MIT are four of the top five schools. But you can look through this list of 50 schools and find some real under the radar gems that tend not to get the love that they really deserve based on the success of their alumni basis as measured by LinkedIn. Now, another problem with this ranking that we did not mention, and I know Caroline is going to have something to say about this, is that it’s entirely us centric. Now, LinkedIn is global. They have a global database. They have data for all these schools. But I guess they want to do this down and dirty and just get it. Caroline, you know, if they included INSEAD and London Business School, I just say Paris, IESC and Barcelona, IE Cambridge, and judge, certainly these schools would have been in the game here. But they.

 

[00:16:13.270] – Caroline

Yes. Yeah, it’s always frustrating that often journalists in the US have such a myopic view of the world.

 

[00:16:21.820] – John

Totally agree.

 

[00:16:22.960] – Caroline

But they do say in the article on their website that it is a ranking of US schools. So they’re not claiming that it’s anything more than that. Perhaps they will come out with a ranking of international schools separately. I think it’s kind of a shame to separate them because often candidates are comparing schools globally rather than just thinking about us completely separately from international options. But I think it would be great if they had integrated those international schools. But perhaps they will do an international ranking separately. I have to say, I think I agree with Maria that probably they didn’t reveal their methodology because they were afraid that they would get savaged by John Byrne on Poets and Quants.

 

[00:17:10.650] – John

Or an academic who can’t replicate the results, as is the case.

 

[00:17:17.610] – Caroline

The less they say, the better.

 

[00:17:24.250] – John

I think, you know, when you talk to a lot of deans about rankings, one of the things you come away with. Well, a couple of things. One point is they believe that outputs are more important than inputs. And they believe that because ultimately, when you go to a business school and get an MBA degree, what are you really going for? You’re really going for what the career outcomes are so to the extent that you can better measure career outcomes, and I mean well above just a starting salary and signing bonus and placement rate, but a more long term measure and a return on investment as a result of what is happening when you graduate, the deans themselves think that holds much more value. I think they’re also tired of playing the game, of using over scholarship money to get high GMATs so that they satisfy us news’s ranking, to be honest. And with standardized scores becoming less important, with more test optional programs and more programs waiving them, and more programs accepting a variety of tests, and now the change in the GMAT and GRE, and in the GMAT case, of course, is changing the entire scoring.

 

[00:18:38.960] – John

And the way we think about what a 700 is or isn’t, it’s making that ever more complicated. So the other thing about the inputs that a lot of deans complain about is it rewards elitism and exclusivity, and therefore diminishes inclusivity, affordability and accessibility. And certainly there are high quality programs that are affordable and accessible. I just wish that LinkedIn extended this ranking in two ways, making it global, but also including a larger number of schools, because I bet you beyond the top 50 that they name in the US alone, if they were to go 50 more, you’d see a lot more really hidden gems in here that would raise eyebrows and basically make more people apply to these other schools, which would be a really good thing. The other thing about this ranking is you can’t manipulate it. I think Maria made that point. If you’re a graduate or alumni, you get a survey. Obviously, you know the survey is meant to rank your school. So you’re going to be less discerning about your education or your opinion about the school, and less honest, to be honest. And then if you’re a school and the questions that are asked by the ranking organization are open to some level of interpretation, you’re going to respond in the way that’s most favorable to your school.

 

[00:20:11.270] – John

Here, there’s none of that manipulation going on because strictly, it’s LinkedIn’s database. LinkedIn has no reason to favor one school over another. And LinkedIn profiles are pretty much, I would consider airtight. Now, whether there’ll be airtight after this, that’s a whole other issue, right? Because now maybe every tiny little promotion you get might be recorded on LinkedIn. If you know that LinkedIn is going to actually count that in a ranking of your alma mater, and maybe in the past, if you didn’t have a significant promotion, you wouldn’t have included it in your LinkedIn profile. But who knows? It is worth looking at, and always with a very big grain of salt. Now, I wonder where INSEAD would be on this. I think INSEAD’s grads have a pretty good track record in the marketplace, right, Caroline?

 

[00:21:07.500] – Caroline

Yes, I think so. I think they would be up there with that, hopefully in that top ten. And I think that what matters to schools, well, of course, people always care about what number one or number two or number three or where you are in a ranking. But I think what should matter more is the sort of cluster of schools that you’re part of your peer schools, rather than necessarily the specific number that you’re placed at. But I think that INSEAD is a peer school with those top schools. Something that I think will be interesting to see if they repeat this again, is I suspect it might be a less volatile ranking than some of the other rankings.

 

[00:21:46.970] – John

Yes.

 

[00:21:49.570] – Caroline

Because of the point you make about they’re not relying on these surveys and data coming in from different sources. It’s all one data source, and that data is probably less subject to manipulation and doesn’t necessarily change a huge amount year to year. So it will be interesting to see if that makes for a less volatile ranking, because we’ve seen in the past with some of the other rankings, some very strange movements, wacky movements, up and down, year by year, which can’t actually represent huge changes fundamentally at the schools.

 

[00:22:23.950] – John

Yeah, that’s a really good point. And stability is important. I mean, the more volatility in the ranking, the less valid it is. It just lacks credibility when you see schools move up and down by double digits in a single year when there’s been no real change in the program or in the graduate outcomes. And yet that happens routinely in almost all of these other rankings. Now, Maria, I forget if it was you or Caroline who made an important point earlier on in our conversation about this ranking, which was that by and know, one of the big problems with rankings is if you want to determine fit of a program for you, there are things that are going to be important to you that are not important to other people. And rather than have some mindless journalist create some fictional account of what he or she thinks is important for you, it would be much better if you were able to do it yourself. And the focus on the metrics that matter to you now, it just so happens that there is a do it yourself rankings calculator. It’s at the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business.

 

[00:23:35.080] – John

They launched this years ago, and I recently had a conversation with them about what users of their rankings calculator actually measure most. So, Maria, what do you think the three top things that users of this kind of database put in it to basically create their own ranking for themselves. What do you think the top three are?

 

[00:24:06.270] – Maria

I think if you were to ask them what their ranking would be, they would say things like culture and ethics. But if you were to actually look at their behavior online, I think they would just enter in salary as probably the first.

 

[00:24:18.610] – John

Bingo. Yes, you are right. Average salary is weighted more than any other metric by users of this calculator. Job placement, surprise, surprise, is ranked second. Return on investment ranked third. Then it gets a little more interesting. Networking, fourth. Low, average, debt fifth. Salary increase, 6th, which is tracked by the FT, the learning experience, finally. 7th. Selectivity, 8th. Average GMAT, 9th. Guess what the lowest one is. Academic research. In fact, the people who used a rankings calculator at the foster school put research in as like a 2.7% weight. That’s compared with average salary at 17.1 or placement at 15 or the ROI at 14%. Networking, a little over 10%. But it is kind of interesting and kind of distressing, frankly, that salary placement roi I get. But salary replacement being number one and number two by quite a bit, and these other ones like learning experience, which I would think to be really almost the most important thing, frankly, is as low as it is. But what does that tell us about the applicant pool, Maria?

 

[00:25:52.350] – Maria

That they’re human and that they’re doing this as much as we wish that they had these lofty, noble goals, at the end of the day, they’re doing it, know, improve their careers and make more money. And it makes a lot of sense to me that Foster would have this tool because that’s, again, another program that consistently punches above its weight class. It is located in Seattle alongside some of the most desirable post MBA employers. And so you really can get a leg up if you happen to be going to school in the same city where some of these very attractive companies are based. And so I think that they probably do better than one might think in some of those metrics. So good for them for pointing that out to people in a way that sort of lets the applicant discover it on their own and be like, wait a minute, maybe apply to foster. I think that’s very clever marketing on their part.

 

[00:26:51.270] – John

Yeah, because when you go in and you use the calculator, I think there are 50 plus schools in there. But obviously, whenever the results should come up for any given school or a group of schools, the Washington foster numbers come up beside it so you can compare and contrast them. So that’s, I guess, the reason for why they’re doing it, to show their school in obviously a favorable light. The numbers there are pretty good. All of this tells me that Tom Cruise playing Jerry Maguire was right. Show me the money.

 

[00:27:29.070] – Caroline

John. To be fair to candidates, I think it may also reflect the high cost of MBA programs.

 

[00:27:35.170] – John

Thank you. That’s necessary perspective and context. You’re right. You want to have a high salary because after all, you’ve got to pay down the debt that you borrow to enter a very expensive, highly selective MBA program. And that’s why we want those signing bonuses to stay high, because that really helps graduates get rid of a lot of that debt right off the top. And the debt numbers out of this are really interesting. It’s hard to get good, accurate numbers on debt, but one of the things that University of Washington did was they went to the Department of Education and they actually got the numbers on debt that are reported by the business schools. And we’re doing a story on this. It’ll come out on Monday and it’s kind of fascinating. They’re very different from what you often get based on survey calculations or even from the schools when they dare tell us news what they think the average debt is. Some cases it was really shocking. I’m not going to go into the detail here, maybe that’s a topic for another time, but particularly when we reveal all the data. But it’s really remarkable. And because this is data reported to the government, you have to assume that it’s pretty correct.

 

[00:28:58.840] – John

Well, there you have it, a new ranking from LinkedIn. We think it does have some merit because of what it measures and because of the proprietary data it’s leveraging out of the world’s biggest and most complete professional network. But at the same time, boy, we really wish they were transparent and honest about exactly what they did and how they did it, shared more of the data with us so that individuals could parse it and it could be used more smartly for people to make informed decisions. But hey, you can’t have everything, right? This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. Thanks for listening to business casual. We’ll see you next week.

 

The Economist Dis on MBAs: Is the Degree Still Worth It?
LinkedIn’s First MBA Ranking_ How Credible
Maria |
November 20, 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 โ€˜23 and the class of โ€˜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? Iโ€™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 โ€œscaled myselfโ€ by creating ApplicantLab. ApplicantLab provides the SAME advice as high-end consultants at a much more affordable price. Read ourย rave reviews on GMATClub, and check out our free trial (no credit card required) today!