<p>How important to b-schools is the name/prestige of your current employer?</p>
<p>Almost never a primary consideration as far as admission goes. Employment history is often considered along with career progression (more important factor) and post MBA employability.</p>
<p>It means little.</p>
<p>really? even to top MBA programs?</p>
<p>I figured that, most else being equal, HBS/Wharton would take the McKinsey analyst consultant over the IBM consultant 10 times out of 10.</p>
<p>I agree with Denzera that ceteris paribus, they will probably take the McKinsey analyst over the IBM guy.</p>
<p>But I think the benefit of an employer brand name is minor. What really happens is that the McKinsey guy probably has better opportunities to demonstrate his abilities, compared to somebody at a mediocre company. Let's face it. Most companies out there are mediocre companies that simply don't offer very good opportunities to its employees, especially its younger ones (i.e. the ones who are most likely to be considering an MBA). Working for one of those companies, you don't get a lot of opportunities to work on important projects, you don't get a lot of power/responsibility, in short, you don't get much. It doesn't matter how good you are, you still aren't going to get many opportunities at these mediocre companies. That is why it's rare to find people from these companies at the top MBA programs.</p>
<p>what about working at GOOGLE in either business development or sales? </p>
<p>great lifestyle, pretty fun job, smart co-workers, excellent benefits, prestigious name... but low salary and unclear career progression. </p>
<p>would you take google over a high-powered, traditional MBA-route job? </p>
<p>(of course, maybe once someone starts working at google, they'd be so content w/ life and work that the MBA isnt a goal anymore, but let's not assume this case)</p>
<p>Well, as far as sales goes in any company, while the "salary" might be low, the total compensation can be sky-high. It all depends on how much you can sell: the top sales guys are usually among the highest compensated employees at any company. For example, I worked in one small company where 1 sales guy made more than the CEO (in one particular blowout year). That's because his compensation was based on commission, so the more he sold, the more he made. He landed several monster accounts that year, hence greatly boosting his numbers. </p>
<p>Now, to be clear, plenty of sales guys don't do well, and if you're not doing well in sales, not only will you not make much money, but you will probably lose your job in short order. Sales guys always have to worry about hitting their quotas, and if you're consistently missing them, you're going to get canned. It's not like other corporate jobs in which it is actually quite difficult to determine who is competent and who isn't, and as a result, few people actually get fired (they might get laid off, but rarely actually fired). Sales guys get fired all the time. </p>
<p>But anyway, the point is, I don't think you should use sales as a comparison. A top sales guy in almost any tech company will probably make as much as an Ibanking analyst while working far fewer hours, and certainly will make far more than a consulting analyst. {Of course, a terrible sales rep will make far less}.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would you take google over a high-powered, traditional MBA-route job?
[/quote]
From the admission standpoint, the answer is usually yes, ceteris paribus.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From the admission standpoint, the answer is usually yes, ceteris paribus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>can you explain why? </p>
<p>and just to clarify, i'm meaning google over bain, booz allen, etc. or a management fast-track program at at fortune 50</p>
<p>sorry i've just been so brainwashed by this website's and my own peers' hype on ibanking and consulting that it's surprising to see someone choose google over those</p>
<p>B-schools tend to place diversity pretty high on the list. Otherwise, case discussion will be so uninteresting if everyone just practises the McKinsey Way. From own experience, insider's perspective often significantly enrich case discussion and there is certainly no shortage of cases on Google these days. </p>
<p>The morale of the story is most, if not all, b-schools are looking for smart people with interesting background to contribute. Acceptance into highly selective employers assure the "smart" part but not the "interesting" portion.</p>
<p>So, a Google engineer who doesn't show any upward career progression or significant leadership experience will more likely end up on the no-admit pile.</p>
<p>I was gonna say: if the option is a prestigious employer vs. Google, I think I must be misunderstanding the question. Turned out I was.</p>
<p>right. and if you're working at google and showing 'business' inclinations, advancing and winning friends and influencing people, I imagine HBS and Wharton will bear you no ill will. They probably get 100 applications from McKinsey kids every year, but maybe 3 from Google. 50 of those McKinsey'ers may get in, but all of the Googlers may as well.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I sent you an email regarding sales and how the career is perceived when applying to MBA schools. Please let me know if you have received it (your private box is full). Thanks!</p>
<p>What about working for a successful entrepeneur (small self owned business) instead of a big name corporation? As an example, maybe a rare book dealer, world known. Or is the preference towards corporate experience?</p>
<p>B-schools admit people from a variety of backgrounds, including small business owners and entreprenuers (both successful and failed ones). Having that said, an application should still subscribe to the following equation: background + career goal(s) + MBA = likely successful outcome</p>
<p>E.g. a rare book dealer with a bachelor degree in English from tier-3 college wanted to transition into private equity is going to need a LOT of convincing arguments.</p>