Does the prestige of the undergraduate business school matter for MBA admissions?

<p>
[quote]
Which is pretty funny. How do consultants consult in an industry with which they have no experience?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because they're consulting about * management * topics. The truth is, jmanagement skills are highly transferrable across industries. That's why you can have managers move across industries successfully. As a historical example, when IBM was in crisis in the early 90's, they brought in Lou Gerstner, a man who had precisely zero experience in the technology industry, having previously served as CEO of RJR Nabisco, and before that, President of American Express, and before that, a long time consultant at McKinsey. Gerstner is widely credited with saving IBM from bankruptcy. Gerstner's lack of experience with the tech industry was not a problem, in fact, it was probably a good thing, as it meant that he had a fresh outsider's perspective. That was clearly a lot better than former IBM CEO's John Opel and John Akers who had decades of experience at IBM and basically ran the company into the ground.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have witnessed firsthand that, at the very least, consulting firms pretty much just want to see consulting experience on the resumes of the MBA people they are looking to hire.

[/quote]

I second Denzera's point. That is why many first year MBA students without prior IBC experience try to secure one of the highly prized summer internship slots at IBC firms. I have seen known quite a few who did that and successfully transitioned into IBC post MBA. Quite frankly, that is one of the most popular reasons people pursue an top MBA. </p>

<p>As for the preceived advantage of IBC experience in b-school admission, I think the consensus here is debatable at best.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because they're consulting about management topics. The truth is, jmanagement skills are highly transferrable across industries.

[/quote]
And then they start hiring undergraduates...</p>

<p>There hiring mechanism seems quite obtuse. They want people with management skills...so they hire undergraduates. They want people with management skills...but won't hire people without consulting experience.</p>

<p>It seems like their actions don't match their goals.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And then they start hiring undergraduates...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because these undergrads are never the lead consultants. The lead consultant is always a guy with extensive experience (usually in cconsulting). </p>

<p>
[quote]
There hiring mechanism seems quite obtuse. They want people with management skills...so they hire undergraduates. They want people with management skills...but won't hire people without consulting experience.</p>

<p>It seems like their actions don't match their goals.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The hiring practice is no more obtuse than engineering firms hiring undergrads who have no actual engineering experience. Honestly, is that really any different? One might say that engineering students at least have engineering classes, but come on, you and I both know that that's not real experience. And that's no different from undergrads getting trained up with management classes, as all consulting firms provide to new hirees, just like almost all new engineering undergrad hires at engineering companies get training. </p>

<p>Look, you gotta start somewhere. All undergrads have no work experience in anything. That's what training is for. However, you can't train for talent, and you can't train for a work ethic. You either have these things, or you don't.</p>

<p>But if you still don't look it, hey, I didn't make the rules. Nobody asked me. I'm just telling you what the rules are. If you don't like it, take it up to the companies that actually hire these consultancies for millions of dollars in fees. After all, ultimately it's up to the end-customer to decide. Apparently, these end-customers seem to think that these consulting firms provide value.</p>