The Future Of The MBA + Our Dean Of The Year
Maria |
October 10, 2023

In this episode of Business Casual, the hosts discuss significant changes in MBA programs, focusing on the closures of one-year accelerated programs at Notre Dame and Cornell University. They explore the reasons behind these closures, suggesting that schools are struggling to attract candidates to different MBA formats amid a shift towards specialized master’s programs. The conversation also addresses the challenges of managing resources for both one-year and two-year MBA programs within the same institution.

The discussion then turns to the achievements of Anne Harrison, the Dean of UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, who has been named Dean of the Year. Her leadership has led to significant advancements in entrepreneurship, sustainability, and diversity at Haas. The hosts highlight the impact of women in academic leadership roles and speculate on future trends in leadership at top business schools.

 

If you’re curious about the potential future direction of MBA programs and its evolving landscape, this episode is for you.

Episode Transcript

[00:00:07.210] – John

Well, hello, everyone. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants. Welcome to Business Casual, our weekly podcast with my co host Caroline Diarte Edwards. Maria Wich-Vila, we want to talk about the future of the MBA. This past week, Notre Dame announced that it was going to shut down its one year accelerated program. Them that follows Cornell University decision to also shut down its one year program. And over the years, we’ve seen quite a few schools shutter their two year residential MBAs, including Penn State, which will shut down its two year program next year. We’ve had University of Iowa, Wake Forest University, Thunderbird, Virginia Tech, Simmons College all given it up, along with the University of Illinois, which went totally. You know, a lot of people may inevitably ask, well, is the MBA less desirable today or not? And why is Notre Dame, and why is Cornell, two very good, strong universities with great business school, shutting down their one year programs? Now, Caroline, you have a view on this because, of course, in Europe, most of the MBA programs are only one year, and that’s widely accepted and seemingly preferred.

[00:01:23.350] – Caroline

Yeah, that’s right. It seems somewhat counterintuitive that they’re closing their one year rather than the two year programs. As you mentioned in your article, John, there was a GMAT survey that showed know there’s been an increase in interest for one year rather than two year MBAs. And now, according to GMAC, more prospective candidates say that they’re interested in one year rather than two year programs. So they seem to be going in the wrong direction, at least at first glance. So I think maybe what’s happening here is that it’s difficult to have two different formats in the same school. I think that you have to pick your camp, right. You have to decide which model you’re going to focus on and focus on making that one successful. And having two quite different formats can be confusing for the market. So I could understand that they may struggle to attract candidates if they’re known for one format rather than the other. And I would imagine that there are additional costs involved with running two very different formats. And so I would imagine that that has become more difficult as time has gone on, and so that they have decided that they have to focus, and probably the two year programs have been their flagship programs for many years and continue to have perhaps greater success than the one year programs that were launched more recently.

[00:02:44.310] – Caroline

So I think that may be what’s happening. And I think also, as you know, this is part of a broader trend where schools are a little bit further down the pecking order in the rankings and in perceptions of quality of business schools are struggling, frankly. And my husband was at his Stanford reunion recently and the dean was talking about how he believes that there will be. Ultimately, you’ll be left with a handful of top business schools which have flagship two year MBA programs that will continue to be very successful as they are today and will continue to attract outstanding candidates, as they have done for many years and as we see them continue to do. And then you’ll have a few other options. Right. So as you said, the international MBA program is typically one year format. And that they are well known for that, that’s become part of their brand and that attracts offered a different cohort of often very international candidates who may have had less savings power than candidates coming into the top two year programs in the US. And therefore, the efficiency and the cost savings of doing one year rather than two year are very attractive to that group.

[00:04:04.030] – Caroline

And then you’ll have a somewhat fragmented market with candidates going into more and more candidates going into online programs. Right. You have often commented, John, on the growth of those one year programs and increasingly schools that are well known for having a really strong brand offering online programs like the Wharton executive MBA. And then we have seen the growth of other masters programs. So masters in data analytics, masters in management, masters in finance that have sprung up over the last few years and have absorbed and potentially have cannibalized some of the MBA programs. So I think that may be the direction that we are moving in and that perhaps these closures are part of that trend.

[00:04:56.680] – John

Yeah, that’s very true. Maria, you have a take on this?

[00:05:00.850] – Maria

Yeah, it’s fascinating to see that this is the direction that they’re going in. I wonder if part of the issue has been one of expectation. You know, Caroline alluded to the fact that if you’re trying to juggle a two year program and a one year program at the same time, you’re probably diverting your resources and spreading them kind of thin. I wonder if the one year program, if people entered the one year program that was spun out of an existing two year program and they were expecting sort of the same exact kind, maybe clearly a more condensed version, but still the same quality of education and same quality of career outcomes. And I wonder if recruiters were expecting the same quality of candidates. And I’m wondering if there’s something that we don’t know about people graduating from this one year program and perhaps not being satisfied with what they were expecting, not getting what they were expecting from it, either from an academic perspective or from a career opportunity perspective. There’s something odd going on because for many people a one year format would make a lot of sense and it’s popularity, enduring popularity in places like Europe attest to that.

[00:06:08.460] – Maria

So something confusing is happening here. But I do think that there is probably a cannibalization effect. As Caroline noted with people, the general management degree certainly has a lot of value, but there’s also a lot of value in becoming a specialist in something like data analytics or operations and supply chain or what have you. So I do wonder if those more specialized masters are just sort of taking over what you used to have to get an MBA for. Why do that when you can sort of specialize and eliminate the stuff that isn’t as relevant for your interests?

[00:06:46.690] – John

True. What’s kind of interesting is that these closures at Cornell and at Notre Dame are occurring at a time when the latest survey of prospective students by GMAC has found, for the first time ever, incidentally, that more students would prefer a one year MBA to a two year. They surveyed over 2700 people in 131 countries. 22% of those prospective students said they would prefer a one year accelerated program. 20% expressed a preference for the traditional two year program in the US. But I’m thinking in that survey that while the one year finally overtook the two year, it is such a global survey that I would bet that a lot of the people who are responding have their eye on Europe or other one year programs and not generally the few one year programs in the US. Because after all, Kellogg still has a one year. Duke has a one year. Emory has a one year. USC Southern Methodist has a one year. And then there’s the interesting phenomenon that Cornell, even though it got rid of its, or is getting rid of its accelerated one year MBA, it did launch the Cornell Tech MBA, which is a one year program, but it’s specifically designed to give an MBA to people who are interested in a career in tech.

[00:08:14.400] – John

And then you have NYU Stern, which has successfully launched two one year MBAs, but both are industry specific as well. So instead of a specialized degree in technology management or fashion and luxury field, they’re doing an MBA with a fashion and luxury slant and an MBA with a tech slant. And that seems to work. And my supposition there is that if you join an NYU stern program in tech and fashion or luxury, or you join the Cornell Tech MBA program, you have already decided what your industry is going to be. So immediately there’s more direction to your desire to have a graduate management education. And you don’t have to experiment. You don’t have to have that internship to help make you make a transition from one discipline or industry to another, which is generally the two year residential MBA is ideal for career switchers. So I think that gives the specialized MBA degree a little bit more cachet because it would be easier to place those students in the tech field or fashion and luxury field, given the fact that the whole program is around those industries and has experience or learning and projects with companies and advisory boards of executives from those companies.

[00:09:37.150] – John

So that everything is kind of working in one direction to get you that job. So even if you’re not someone in technology but want to do tech, you can do the one year tech MBA at Cornell or NYU Stern and make the transition because it’s so specialized. So there’s that. The other thing, I think there’s also outside the top 30 or so schools that are ranked for two year MBA programs. What you find is that the MBA programs, the other schools, even though they may be ranked from like 30 to 100, which puts them in a very specialized high group of schools, those programs tend to be very small. The cohorts are intimate and in many cases they are not profitable. The schools are hanging on to those MBA programs and fighting to recruit people and enroll people because they want that us news ranking. In many cases, the MBA ranking from US news is often considered to be the de facto ranking for a business school. So if you get a ranked MBA program, you can basically go in the market and claim, okay, you can get your specialty masters in supply chain management from a business school ranked in the top 50 in us news because the MBA ranking looms large over all the other programs that the school has.

[00:10:59.650] – John

Because the MBA is the only really, truly universally ranked graduate management program. Sure, there are some specialty rankings, but they’re few and far between. So people tend to rely on the MBA ranking and see it as an overall ranking for a business school. So you have a lot of schools that are hanging on to unprofitable small programs to get that ranking every year and to be able to broadcast it into the marketplace. And then you’re right. I mean, there is this expectation. So in Europe, the expectation is for a one year MBA, and it’s very popular, and that’s the preferred format for that degree. In the US, it is not the preferred format. And mainly I think it’s because of the whole career switching phenomena where most people who go into a two year MBA program want to switch careers and that summer internship is a crucial experience to help them do that. Do we think that other schools are going to follow suit. So in other words, a few one year MBA programs in the US, do you think they’re going to last? Do you think that maybe in some markets there may be an opportunity for schools to, let’s say if you have a non profitable two year, why don’t you just try a one year?

[00:12:20.180] – John

Right. Carolyn, what do you think?

[00:12:23.150] – Caroline

Well, I think possibly what has just happened with these closures shows that it’s not as easy to run a successful one year program. It’s not just a case of making a little bit faster and off you go. Right. I mean, INSEAD pioneered the one year format that started, what, 70 years ago now. Right.

[00:12:45.670] – Maria

And.

[00:12:48.630] – Caroline

The school’s dna is based around that particular format, and everything is geared towards making that effective, and it has a lot of implications. Right. So you talked about how two years gives you more time to make a career change and so on. Well, actually at INSEAD, a lot of the students are making very dramatic career changes, but the school has an incredible careers team that will start working with the students actually even before they turn up on campus. Right. So the whole job search is really crafted around that timescale. And I would imagine that it can be difficult for the career counselors at a two year program to adjust to that very different cycle. Right. For a one year program, it is just a very different way of working. And I could imagine sort of being pulled in two different directions is quite difficult. So I think that maybe schools didn’t anticipate how difficult it is and how complex it is to run a successful one year program. And the schools that have been doing this in Europe, in many cases, have been doing this and refining this for many years. And I think it’s also a case that it’s just schools, some of the schools, quite frankly, are struggling.

[00:14:09.350] – Caroline

Right. And so having their resources spread across multiple different formats doesn’t make sense anymore. So it will be interesting to see how things progress. But I think what you said about in the US, perhaps the right formula for one year programs is to focus on a specific industry that may make a lot of sense. Right. And rather than having a generalist MBA in a one year format, which is more complex than it may initially appear.

[00:14:42.090] – John

Yeah, definitely true. Maria, any final thoughts on this topic?

[00:14:47.130] – Maria

I mean, it’s just so fascinating because I feel like there are some top business schools that are. Yale is launching a brand new master’s in asset management, which is a one year program with a very specific industry focused.

[00:14:58.570] – John

Yeah. Chicago Booth is finally offering a MIM program that’s right.

[00:15:03.860] – Maria

And so it’s so interesting to see all of these different. Some schools are launching one year programs, maybe not one year MBAs, but one year specialized programs, and yet one year MBAs at other schools are being shuttered. I’d be curious to see what happens with the established one year MBAs at places like Kellogg and Emory, for example. I would hope, and I would think that those would still maintain, because I would think that the institution itself, I know at Kellogg the one year program is very well integrated, and I know they have a lot of administrative support. So I would assume that that program is probably going to be, hopefully will still be maintained for a long time, because I think it’s an excellent opportunity for the right mean, who knows, who knows what’s going to happen? If you would have said, ok, Maria, Notre Dame is going to announce that they’re shutting down one of their two MBA programs, either the two year or the one year, I would have perhaps thought it’s the two year program. And so it’s just such an interesting times that we live in.

[00:16:03.440] – John

Yeah, definitely true. The other thing that’s happened is we kind of early on named our dean of the year. We did this in conjunction with the Thinkers 50 virtual event that occurred. And the dean of the year is Anne Harrison of UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. Anne had been a faculty member at Wharton before taking over the job as the host dean about four years ago. And we named her the dean of the year in part because of all the progress that she’s made in a very short time, and particularly over a time when most schools were pretty disrupted because of COVID And it must be said that the University of California is one of the more notoriously slow moving bureaucracies of all universities. And yet, under leadership, in four years, she’s brought in record amounts of fundraising, almost 230,000,000, including the largest single gift, a $30 million gift that Haas has ever received. She’s boosted the size of the faculty by 30% to nearly 100, and tenure and tenure track professors, which is highly unusual because it’s really hard to hire people given the bureaucracy there. And she’s focused primarily on entrepreneurship, sustainability, and diversity and inclusion.

[00:17:31.890] – John

Some 70% of the newly hired faculty are women, which is a big change because she’s been able to basically increase the number of female faculty at the school from 20% to 30%. She’s put a heavy emphasis on sustainability. She’s launched an online option in the part time MBA program. She’s converting the two year undergraduate program into four years, which is really the market preference in the US, so people can have the opportunity to do more internships instead of just one between the junior and senior year. And then she successfully partnered with a lot of other departments and colleges at Berkeley for everything from the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology to the School of Law and Engineering and Journalism to the College of Natural Resources. She’s launched a new joint MBA program in climate solutions. She’s broken ground on a new entrepreneurship hub for the entire university. All this in four years, which is kind of remarkable. So have a look at that. I don’t know if you two have looked at that or are familiar with what Anne Harrison has done, but she’s been a dynamite dean. And the other thing I should point out know she’s still one of the very few women who’ve been able to attain the deanship at a top business school.

[00:19:00.850] – John

Why aren’t there more women in these jobs?

[00:19:03.610] – Maria

Maria, way to throw the easy, I love these softball easy questions that you throw every week is a delight. Really? No, just kidding. I don’t know. Why aren’t there more women? And why aren’t women running the world in general? I think that the path to being a dean of a business school has always had a very prescribed route, just like the path of being a business school faculty has always had a very prescribed route in the past.

[00:19:30.790] – Caroline

Right?

[00:19:31.030] – Maria

You have to have an MBA to become a professor. You have to be a professor. And many times it’s not just enough to be a professor, you then need additional education in administration. There are actually, and I think the dean at Darden may have undertaken this. There’s like a PhD in how to be an administrator at a university. So you need additional training on top of that, usually to be considered qualified for that role. And I think that since, because these are roles that traditionally you need, like maybe, let’s say a 20 year lead time of experience, there’s going to be a lag in terms of the number of women. But fortunately, I think that this dean at Haas, she was a professor for some years. But it looks to me like perhaps Haas was willing to take a bit of a chance on her or perhaps a lot of business schools, I think, are increasingly, both with faculty and with administrators, starting to take a fresher look at identifying talent and putting that talent where it can make a difference. And maybe even if that means sort of getting rid of some of the older norms and requirements that used to be set in.

[00:20:41.290] – John

Mean. And INSEAD, for example, has never had a female dean, why do you think that’s so.

[00:20:47.570] – Caroline

No, I was just thinking about that as the school has just brought in a new dean, Francisco Velozo, who I met at the weekend at my INSEAD reunion, which was great. Yeah. So he seems wonderful. He made a speech to the alumni and I asked around to sort of get a hot take on people’s first impressions, and it was very positive. So he’s only been there for six weeks. So they kind of threw him to the fire by putting him up in front of thousand alumni to make his speech about his vision for INSEAD in the direction he wants to take the school.

[00:21:28.350] – John

Right. Because he’s been dean of two other business schools, the Lisbon School of Business and Economics, as well as Imperial College and business school in London. So he’s got a lot of interesting experience.

[00:21:42.990] – Caroline

He is. And I’m sure that that’s why they’ve brought him in. And I think especially, I think that probably he got it because of his experience in digital and online and the success that he had with launching those programs at Imperial. And INSEAD is looking to continue its digital transformation. And so they’re looking to him to lead that. So, yes, it’s a shame that the school has not yet had a female leader, but perhaps after Francisco that will be, I’m sure they looked for female candidates. Hopefully next time they will line something up. But from my experience, when I was working at INSEAD, faculty was very male dominated, administration was very female dominated, and the deans are always picked from the faculty. And so that has shifted a bit in the past few years. But there is a long way to go to bring through more female candidates. But as we see from the women who are in those dean roles, right. They are pretty damn fantastic. So we need more of them.

[00:22:51.670] – John

And Harvard and Stanford have yet to have a female dean. Of course, Wharton’s current dean is the first woman to lead that school, I predict. And if you want to make a bet, I’ll make a bet with you. Harvard’s next dean will be a woman. What do you think, Maria?

[00:23:12.190] – Maria

I certainly hope so.

[00:23:13.860] – John

I certainly hope so. It’s been a long, and Harvard actually has a number of women on the faculty who would make great deans.

[00:23:26.530] – Maria

Absolutely. Yes, for sure.

[00:23:28.690] – Caroline

Given recent events, perhaps sooner rather than later.

[00:23:32.790] – John

I think that that’s very true as well. Caroline. All right. Boy, hey. We had a really expansive conversation today that started with the decline of the one year MBA program at Notre Dame and Cornell and why and what it meant for the MBA market and the MBA of the future. Then our female dean of the year, Berkeley Haas. And now some speculation about who will the next dean be at Harvard, among other places. So stay tuned. You will find out here first with commentary. Thanks for listening. This is John Byrne with Poets and Quants.

The Future Of The MBA + Our Dean Of The Year
Maria |
October 10, 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!