The 2024 Bloomberg Businessweek MBA Ranking
Maria |
September 26, 2024

In the latest episode of Business Casual, the hosts discuss the 2024 Bloomberg Businessweek MBA rankings. Stanford tops for the sixth consecutive year, with Harvard and Wharton unexpectedly trailing schools like Chicago Booth and Northwestern Kellogg. Columbia significantly drops to seventeenth. The hosts critique the ranking’s methodology, emphasizing compensation while noting its subjective basis heavily reliant on alumni and student surveys. Caroline highlights inconsistencies in the rankings, particularly the varying emphasis on diversity between U.S. and international schools. 

The discussion reflects on the rankings’ lack of transparency and the potential biases in data collection, urging prospective students to consider more than just rankings when selecting an MBA program.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:04.370] – John

Well, another ranking is out, and we’ve got all the details. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. You are listening to our weekly podcast, Business Casual, with my co-host, Caroline Diarte Edwards and Maria Wich-Vila. And this past week, it was the Bloomberg Business Week MBA ranking. This is the 2024 version. Top of the news for the six time in a row, Stanford Graduate School of Businesses is number one. And interestingly enough, yet again, Harvard Business School and Wharton both lag, which is not necessarily surprising by this ranking because last year, both Harvard and Wharton lagged as well. In fact, Harvard and Wharton are below Chicago Booth, which is number two, Northwestern Kellogg, which is number 3, Dartmouth Tuck, which is number 4, and UVA Virginia Darden, which is the highest rated public university business goal on the list. All of them finished higher than Harvard and Wharton. Rounding out the top 10, Michigan Ross at number 8, Carnegie Mellon at number 9. That’s a big jump. And MIT Sloan at number 10. If you’re wondering where Columbia is, Columbia had a fairly significant fall in this ranking. We’ll tell you exactly where they were.

[00:01:31.900] – John

They were, of course, in the top 10, as you would expect Columbia to be in the top 10. This year, they are all the way down to 17. They actually fell 12 positions year over year from a rank of five in 2023 in this particular ranking. That’s a bit of a shock among quite a few shocks in this ranking, and we’ll get into the details of that. As you know or may not know, Bloomberg Business Week uses certainly five primary metrics to measure the quality of an MBA education. The first is no surprise, it’s compensation, and that’s given the most weight. Then there’s a category called learning, which is second. Networking is another one, entrepreneurship. Then finally, diversity, which is given the least amount of weight at 6.6%. That’s compared to the highest one, compensation, which is 37.7%. Each of these metrics contain a number of other measures that make them up. Most of the ranking is based on surveys of alumni and students and employers. Maria, what do you make of your school coming in at sixth?

[00:02:52.740] – Maria

It’s fine. You could make a ranking where it’s the number one school in the world. You could make a ranking where it’s the worst school. I think that it all depends on what the methodology is and not only what the different weights are, but also what goes into those weights. So yes, compensation in this ranking is 38%, but the other roughly two-thirds is, quote-unquote, learning and networking and entrepreneurship, completely based on surveys given to alums, students, and in some cases, I believe, prospective employers or corporate recruiters. It’s not really clear. It’s like they were asked on a scale of agree or disagree or on certain comments about, Oh, you could either completely agree or completely disagree and anything in the middle. So they I’d allocate points depending on how much you answered or to disagree with the statements. It all seems very subjective. Compensation, while a flawed metric in that there are ways that you could play around with it, the rankings that will say things like, oh, what’s the % increase in compensation? Well, great. You just let in people from lower paying fields at first, and then, hey, lo and behold, you’ve got this huge percentage jump.

[00:04:13.130] – Maria

For this one, though, it’s just obfuscated. It’s like, well, we just ask them a bunch of questions, and then they can either completely agree or not agree or something in the middle. And then based on that, we gave seven points. And they talk all about it. For one of them, they even talk about, we use a logarithm of the whatever. I’m like, okay, but what were the questions?

[00:04:34.320] – John

Right. Yeah. They can reveal the questions.

[00:04:37.340] – Maria

There seems to be more ink spilled describing the mathematics of the methodology than there is very simple inquiries or question marks that I have. Like, okay, we asked people, what was the learning experience like? Okay, great. Cool. I love that. It’s business school after all. You should judge it on how much learning you did. But what were the questions? And I don’t know. It’s a little bit strange. I think as we have talked about before, one of the challenges with the rankings that ask for subjective questions from alums of the program and current students is that you really only get to attend one business school ever. So it’s not as though you can say, Well, I attended these four different business schools, and for me, the one that had the best learning experience was this one. So as long as you are happy with the learning experience, that doesn’t necessarily… It sounds like it’s It’s testing more satisfaction and warm, fuzzy feelings, perhaps, than it is anything that is a bit more concrete. I don’t know. It’s a little bit strange. It makes it easy to not be able to poke holes in it when you don’t really share what your methodology is on a granular level.

[00:05:53.080] – John

Yeah, that’s true. I will say, I created this ranking back in 1988, and when I was in charge of it, we provided all the questions that we asked out into the public. Not only did we provide the questions, we showed you the score of every single school that we surveyed on every single question. So the transparency was complete. And that just doesn’t happen anymore, sadly, because it is important to know how these questions are worded and what exactly is being asked of alumni and students and even employers to make sense of it. And then it’s important to understand the ingredients in each of these vague metrics like learning or networking or entrepreneurship or diversity for that matter. The other part of this ranking, which I should point out, is unlike the Financial Times, which does a true global ranking of all the schools that participate in that ranking, ranks them all together, Business Week has separate rankings for the United States, which is what we detailed in the beginning of the podcast. Then it has a ranking for 19 European schools, for six Canadian schools, and for a number of schools in Asia-Pacific. In Europe, the number one school for their full-time MBA program was IMD in Switzerland, which unseated Bocconi in Milan, which was at the top of last year’s list.

[00:07:30.880] – John

Caroline, your alma mater, INSEAD, ended up number five behind IESA in Barcelona, Bocconi in third, London Business School in fourth. Do you think INSEAD is really fifth in Europe?

[00:07:47.130] – Caroline

I don’t think so. I don’t think candidates will judge it that way either. I’ve never had a candidate who has, for example, been admitted to INSEAD and a school like Bocconi and then chosen Bocconi over INSEAD. I think at the end of the day, candidates make their own choices and they take these rankings with a pinch of salt. If the ranking doesn’t make sense, then it undermines the credibility of the ranking. If it looks like a strange list, then you know that there’s something going on behind the scenes that doesn’t quite make sense. As we’ve said, there is no transparency in the data here. And survey data is, of course, very subjective. It depends a lot on people’s expectations. It’s possible that students who go to a school like Harvard or go to INSEAD have higher expectations than students who go to some other schools. So they may, therefore, not rate things in the same way as another population. There’s definitely a lot of bias, I think, in the results. Then there’s some weird things. Diversity is included for the US schools, but it’s not included for the international schools. But actually, diversity is critical to the experience of the international schools.

[00:09:09.640] – Caroline

That’s something that’s really part of the DNA of a lot of these schools and is a huge part of their value proposition. Just because diversity may have a different definition outside of the US, and it doesn’t in the US, doesn’t mean that you should strip it out entirely. To me, that’s a very US-centric perspective, and they don’t really understand what these schools are about and why people attend international business schools. I think it’s not a very credible ranking in my view.

[00:09:44.720] – John

Yeah, and even the way they define diversity in the US is wanting, for example, it’s largely based on gender and race. But you can argue that, obviously, international candidates who come to US school add tremendous value to the educational experience. That is a core component of diversity at the European and Asian schools, for that matter, that doesn’t get a US school any credit at all in this diversity measure, which seems awfully strange. Neither does the diversity in the backgrounds, the work backgrounds, and the undergraduate backgrounds of students, which is another aspect of how diversity can be and should be defined. Another element in a lot of schools are beginning to report this is the percentage of students who are first-gen college graduates in MBA programs. This is a stat that’s increasingly being reported by the top schools because it is a measure of diversity. In some cases, it may even be a better measure than giving a statistic for minorities, in part because it doesn’t run a foul of the Supreme Court affirmative action decision on admissions. In the past year. And yet it tells you a lot about the disadvantages those students probably had in not growing up around a dinner table with educated parents who had very different kinds of discussions and very different aspirations in their life.

[00:11:18.930] – John

So it’s a very odd measure of diversity. And sure enough, all you got to know is while the number one school in diversity, according to the business week, is George Washington University, which has a full-time MBA intake of 65 students only. That seems weird, but the number two school is Howard University, where there’s not a single white in the class, and it’s largely Black, and that’s hardly diverse, even by the so-called standards that Bloomberg Business Week is supposed to be applying based on race and gender. But there are a lot of weird things. When you look into this ranking and you start parsing the data very closely, particularly in the different categories, you see some very odd and strange results. I’ll give you an example. Even on compensation, right? Business Week now thinks that a Chicago Booth MBA makes more than a Stanford MBA. We know that’s not true, okay? But it depends on how you measure compensation, given Maria’s point. Some Some places measure it by starting pay alone. Some people add sign on bonuses, and they adjust for the percentage of graduates who get them. Some folks add anticipated first year extra compensation.

[00:12:45.460] – John

Some don’t. Some people may add, even though this is a much more difficult thing to add, stock options, restricted stock, and other kinds of stock grants that you’ll be surprised how many MBAs, particularly from the very top schools, No surprise, Stanford MBAs, many of whom go to work for tech companies or early-stage companies or startups, are more likely to get a piece of the action in terms of equity than a Chicago Booth MBA. But Business Week is saying Chicago Booth MBAs make the most money. They’re saying, NYU grads get our ninth in pay. You’re in New York, you get paid a lot of money while you come out of school because the cost of living New York is very high. Incidentally, MBAs from Columbia and MIT, Sloan, according to Business Week on this compensation metric, they don’t even crack the top 10. Harvard MBAs, they’re 12. Who would believe that a Harvard MBA graduates with competition that would put them 12 in the pay sweep stakes of MBA compensation? It just doesn’t happen. There’s some really oddities. Then you even look at their entrepreneurship measurement. Mississippi ranks better in entrepreneurship than Columbia Business School. Brigham Young ranked second, with Wharton at 27th, and Michigan-Ruston at 23rd, which really seems peculiar.

[00:14:18.650] – John

The number one school for learning, guess which one it is? It’s William and Mary Mason School of Business. Now, I’m sure I know the learning there is fantastic, but is it really a school that ranks 32nd overall? Is it really number one in learning? I don’t know. But that’s an odd ball result. So up and down the ranking, you’ll see some crazy things. Nonetheless, I don’t think that the editors of business week are deliberately trying to put out misinformation. They may be mindless and and and misinformed about how to really measure the quality of a MBA experience. But it’s an interesting list, I have to say. You find any other oddities in this list, Maria?

[00:15:16.940] – Maria

To your earlier point about the rankings for entrepreneurship, it makes more sense when we dig into the methodology and again see that the entrepreneurship score a school gets is based upon students and alumni answering questions such as, was entrepreneurship central to my training in the school? What did the school take entrepreneurship as seriously as other career paths? What was the quality of the entrepreneurial training that was offered at the school? So again, that’s one of those things, where I mean, first of all, how do you know if you didn’t actually go to that school or if you perhaps didn’t participate? If someone goes into something like banking, they’re like, oh, yeah, it looked like the entrepreneurship people were having a pretty good time. So So it’s just, again, I think it’s odd to have so much of it based upon a feelings or a subjective feel. Did you feel that your school was a place where women could participate? Okay, I guess you could use that. But look, I mean, one of the benefits of these rankings, when the rankings do have these weird results, is that it does help, I think, some otherwise overlooked schools have a chance to shine.

[00:16:27.870] – Maria

And I also think it because they are so fickle and it is so easy to poke holes in not just this one, but in any of the methodologies of any of these rankings. Hopefully, it helps candidates to business school realize that the rankings are not, in fact, the be all and end all. If a school can jump seven places up or down or four places up or down from year to year, don’t make the ranking such a guiding North Star in your choice. Really use it as a place to start your research. But then after really focus on what are the academic offerings that they have that are specific to your goals, what’s the culture like, and other more relevant elements like that.

[00:17:10.350] – John

Yeah, absolutely. Caroline, any other observations about this ranking?

[00:17:15.380] – Caroline

Well, yeah. When you look, for example, at the HBS ranking, learning rank, they’re languishing below the top 10, right? I mean, who would actually really think that HBS is below the top 10 in the US for the learning experience?

[00:17:31.400] – John

Absolutely not.

[00:17:32.580] – Caroline

Then it’s great to have entrepreneurship in the ranking, but does it really carry that much weight over and above other areas, other academic areas that you have at business school? I mean, entrepreneurship is relevant for some students, but not everyone is going to business school to become an entrepreneur, right? So for a whole bunch of students, right? Entrepreneur may have just been irrelevant or it, or it may have just been something that they thought was fun and they took a few classes, but it’s not really going to be core to their career. I don’t know why they decided that entrepreneurship is an academic area that carry so much more weight over everything else that you learn in business school.

[00:18:17.280] – John

That’s a really good point, because in general, only 5% of MBA graduates actually started business right out of school.

[00:18:25.070] – Maria

In fact, in Poets and Quants this week, there was an article about the highest-funded MBA startups, and I believe an INSEAD alum, INSEAD alum has raised the most amount of money in the past year or so, for a billion dollars raised, if I remember correctly. So it’s interesting to… Okay, well, You can ask someone in a survey, do you think your school did a good job in entrepreneurship? And they can say, yes, seven out of seven. They are so good at it. But when we look at the data such as, okay, which schools are graduating the alumni that go out and actually start companies that actually raise money that actually become unicorns, I’m not sure that the results of a subjective survey match what the data would actually imply.

[00:19:10.410] – John

Yeah, that’s very true. And here’s the other thing about all that. Of course, the money thing is an important thing. I mean, a lot of these businesses are launched on the fly with not a whole lot of capital. But is entrepreneurship more important than finance? Is it more important than leadership? Is it more important than Is it more important than any function in which MBAs get the majority of their jobs? No. I saw it a minority piece. Now, the business schools will argue that we’re not teaching students to be entrepreneurs, we’re teaching them an entrepreneurial mindset that they can apply at whatever job they get, which is probably business week justification for including it. But nonetheless, I agree with Caroline that it’s an odd ball metric to include, and you’re measuring it based on the opinions of people. Now, here’s the other problem with the ranking. Everyone who fills these surveys out knows that it’s being used to rank their MBA and their school. They are completely inclined to be cheerleaders as opposed to realistic assessors of their education. Now, you could argue that the cheerleaders are spread throughout the survey and they cancel each other out from one school to another.

[00:20:40.430] – John

To some extent, that’s true. But what it does mean is that the school on these scores are highly clustered, so clustered and so close to each other that the actual statistics are meaningless because we talk about a margin of error of every day now because of all the election polling going on. Let me tell you, the margin of error in the survey responses is so high as to make them all pretty much meaningless because when you have an 8.8 versus an 8.9 or even go an extra decimal point, that’s meaningless, really, right? And yet that’s what’s going on with these questions because of all the cheerleading that alumni and students do in filling out a survey that knows that they know will be reflective of their school and their degree on their CV. So you got that internal bias in this rank that’s really problematic. Same is true when you survey employers. The way that business week surveys employers is they go to each school and they ask for a list of the recruiters who came on campus. Now, anyone who really recruits MBAs in any sophisticated fashion, what they do is they send the alumni of the school to recruit.

[00:22:06.120] – John

So business week has an immediate bias because if I graduated from Harvard and I now work at McKinsey and I go back to Harvard to recruit only Harvard MBAs. I have no track record of assessing the MBAs at Chicago Booth, Kellogg, Stanford, Berkeley, or whatever other school McKinsey recruits from. But I have every tendency to say, Oh, I love Harvard because after all, I got my MBA from Harvard, so I’m going to score Harvard well. That’s another problem, even with the employer survey. This just gets to the point of how hard it is to really get your arms around the quality of the MBA experience in a good school, because in most cases, you really don’t get a sense of what are people really learning and what is this education all about from one to another. Then what you can measure may often be less important than what you can’t measure. That’s always a problem with these rankings. The one good thing is there are a lot of them. You can put them all together, you can look at them, and you can make your own observations. I know very few people are going to read the methodology and apply the logic to the reading of the ranking based on the approach a magazine or an organization takes when it ranks these programs.

[00:23:33.440] – John

I also think that in any one year, there are anomalies that always occur, and it’s better to look at rankings over many years. If you look at the 23 years in which business week has ranked MBA program is back from 1988 to the present, the school that has received the most number one ranks is Stanford, which is six, Kellogg with five, Wharton with four, Chicago with four, Harvard with three, here are some of the real anomalies, Duke with one. Then if you look at, okay, what schools have been in the top three of the business week ranking over all that time? The number one school, Harvard, 15. The number two school, Chicago Booth. Number three, Kellogg with 13. Top three rankings, Wharton with 12. Stanford with six, which is interesting. So there you have it. Any closing words, Maria?

[00:24:34.480] – Maria

I wish that I could make my own ranking. You’d rank on yield, right? You’d rank on yield. If I had to, if you said there’s only one metric and one metric alone you can choose, I would do that, even though that’s one that can also be manipulated. But I would like to do one where it’s either like, okay, you’re a prospective student, you can only choose one They force rank. Okay, so between this school, X school, X and school, Y, which would you choose? Between school Y and school Z, which one would you choose? Between school Z and school B, which would you choose? And then do it that way, because I think what Caroline said earlier about she’s worked with candidates to European business schools, and she doesn’t think she’s ever had someone get into both Bocconi and INSEAD to choose Bocconi. It’s the same thing with Harvard. I love that these rankings give the spotlight to other programs, but also in I work, usually, Harvard and Stanford are the two number one schools that people most want to go to. And even if they get into one of these other programs, it’s not clear that they would necessarily take it unless there was a massive scholarship dollar involved in that.

[00:25:44.090] – Maria

The other way that I would change rankings is I would say, you can vote for any school except for the one you went to. So which school do you think as an alumnus, now that you’re five years out and you’ve been interacting in the world with people from other schools, which school do you think has the the most prepared students? It might be a difficult thing to measure, but it’s certainly not any less logical than saying, well, you’re not in entrepreneurship, but do you think your school that you went to six years ago has a good entrepreneurship program? Okay, fine. You can’t name your own school. You’ve been out in the business world now for a number of years. Surely you’ve interacted with other people professionally. Do you have a sense of what those other schools are like? That might be a good way to do it. I know one of that, I think, is it maybe US news for for one of the ones where they ask the actual either faculty or administrators, I think you’re not allowed to vote for your own school. There’s one of them on the academic side, I believe.

[00:26:40.430] – Maria

And so that would be an interesting, maybe not from a quote unquote ranking, but just to get some interesting data.

[00:26:47.510] – John

Yeah, at that point.

[00:26:48.660] – Maria

Some subjective data that might be a fun one to do.

[00:26:51.650] – John

Yeah. And the Financial Times used to ask that question. I don’t think they ask it anymore about other MBAs, who would you hire?

[00:26:59.450] – Maria

Yeah. Oh, See, there’s a good one. I like that.

[00:27:02.030] – John

Yeah, exactly. Caroline, your final thoughts?

[00:27:04.750] – Caroline

Yeah, John, I think you should make this a project for P and Q and publish Maria’s ranking.

[00:27:13.860] – John

Yield, though, is really a good data point because if you’re accepted to five or six schools and you go to one, that does say something. Now, I know scholarship money gets in the way, but that’s okay. We know that the yield at a Harvard is on the order 89, 91%, which is probably right neck and neck with Stanford. But then there’s a big drop off after that. The yield does tell you a lot. It’s where people really want to go. Let’s face it, most people are applying to five or six schools, at least. That’s really good information to have. I also think endowment is a really good number because it just tells you what resources available to deliver a high quality education, not only by being able to recruit and retain the best faculty, but your ability to fund the best students buy them off the market, and your ability to fund different programs, the infrastructure of the school. I know a lot of people would probably be angry about including endowment in a ranking, but if you did it by student, that could be a very valuable metric point to address the quality of a program.

[00:28:37.890] – John

And then obviously, outcomes are super important in a professional school. And it is true that most of the rankings do try to measure one way or another career outcomes, but they generally put too much weight on compensation and less weight on actual getting a job. Then there’s no weight at all placed on getting the job you want, which is a whole other issue that tends to be on explore. It’s one of the questions we ask in our undergraduate surveys for our undergraduate ranking. Not only did you get a job, but did you get actually the job you wanted in the industry that you wanted to work in or even the company that you wanted to work in? You get to that fine level of detail and you get really very good information for prospective students to examine. Anyway, take it with a grain of salt. But the Bloomberg Business Week ranking is one of the major ones, along with the Financial Times and US News. It gets a fairly wide exposure. I can tell you that I recently wrote about a commentary on this, which is this. As much as business schools moan about these rankings, they’re very responsible for our obsession with them because as soon as they do well, you can believe it.

[00:30:02.200] – John

You go on their website, you go on their social media feeds, and it’s all over there. Every school is trumpeting an increase in ranking or a better ranking, with the exception of maybe three or four. But everyone is thumping their chest. What they are doing is telling people that these rankings matter when in many cases they don’t. If you want to read more about the Business Week ranking, check our stories out. We have the 2024 Bloomberg Business Week MBA ranking, Stanford makes it six in a row. Then we have the 10 biggest surprises in the ranking. You’ll find it on the website. Meantime, Caroline and Maria, thank you once again. For all of you out there, thanks for listening.

The 2024 Bloomberg Businessweek MBA Ranking
Maria |
September 26, 2024

[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!