<p>If you got an analyst job at either Goldman Sachs or Lehman brothers...
How long would you think you need before you get into the top MBAs, such
as HBS or Stanford?</p>
<p>I'd say 2yrs rather than 4.</p>
<p>What do all think?</p>
<p>I know someone who worked 6 years before he went to Stanford and he worked for a top tier company...</p>
<p>Funny you should mention those two companies. I started off at Lehman Brothers when I graduated from College and then switched to Goldman Sachs. I'd say that these days, one would hav e to work at least 3 years to have any real shot at a top MBA programs, even if one is working for the likes of Goldman Sachs or Bain.</p>
<p>A lot of people who work at Mckinsey, BCG, Bain, GS, Citigroup, etc all apply to the top business schools. They all have great grades, GMAT and work experience. A lot of them getting into HBS, Wharton, Stanford but a lot don't. </p>
<p>Why? Because business schools can't fill their entire class of ex-consultants and bankers. They want diversity, so in terms of applicant pool, if business school is what you are looking for then being in banking or consulting doesn't give you an edge.</p>
<p>If your an analyst at Goldman and you know of at least 25 other analysts at Goldman that all are applying to Harvard, Wharton, Stanford and MIT for their MBAs you will all have the same track record.</p>
<p>Great undergraduate grades, high GMAT score and banking experience, which is not easy to get.</p>
<p>Business schools DO NOT accept everyone from the same peer group (in this case investment banking analysts)</p>
<p>Business Schools DO NOT want everyone to think of a sheet of paper as if it were a financial statement or think of everything in terms of a potential deal being made.</p>
<p>That is why they let in painters, Peace Corps volunteers and other people to make SURE that they have DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.</p>
<p>Yes, of course business schools don't accept everyone from the same peer group... but the easiest way to get into a TOP MBA program is still the standard path. Top undergraduate with great grades, high test scores, experience at a buldge bracket firm. </p>
<p>It's somewhat similar to undergraduate admissions. Everyone who went to an elite high school with 1600/2400 SAT who is president of 2 clubs and captain of varsity won't get into an Ivy, but it's a heck of a lot easier for them than the average person</p>
<p>I would argue against being the generic student who applies to top programs. </p>
<p>A good third of your B-school class at top schools will be Ibank/consulting. However, being in the same applicant pool you need to really stand out more and explain your reasons for going to B-school besides it's the next career step since McKinsey business analyst have no where to go after 3 years.</p>
<p>In general, those who get into top programs from non business settings are generally have lower GPA and GMAT than what would be expected from Ibankers and consulting backgrounds.</p>
<p>I too would argue against being the generic student who applies to top programs. While bankers usually have high gpas, GMAT scores and solid work experience, there are simply too many of them applying to top B-schools.</p>
<p>Now if you had a high gpa, GMAT score and managed to show great leadership and potential in a different industry, I think you would be in better shape for being admitted to top MBA programs.</p>
<p>Those from non-business backgrounds have lower gpas and GMAT scores because their industry, unlike investment banking, doesn't require high gpas, grueling interviews and 80-100 hour work weeks.</p>
<p>At the same time they bring their Peace Corps or military experience, which adds enormously to the discussions and idea sharing.</p>
<p>I agree with NextMikeSays and Dunkaroo. Yes, IBank and MC candidates seem to make up a relatively large section of every top MBA class. However, the competition for those MBA spots can be daunting. One would literally be applying with thousands of fellow MC and IB candidates, most of which have excellent breeding (rich and well-connected parents), examplary undergraduate educations (high GPAs from elite institutions) and high GMAT scores. And candidate from a company like GE or Honeywell sharing those three caracteristics would stand a much better chance of getting into a top MBA programs.</p>
<p>Something tells me "good breeding" is not a checkbox on an admission officer's form. Maybe I'm crazy.</p>
<p>don't most GS analyst positions last 2 years...this is wat i've heard and read? if so.. what are most of them doing after the two years?</p>
<p>"Something tells me "good breeding" is not a checkbox on an admission officer's form. Maybe I'm crazy."</p>
<p>"Good breeding" usually shows in the way of a building named after a close relative or family friendships with high ranking school officials.</p>
<p>"don't most GS analyst positions last 2 years...this is wat i've heard and read? if so.. what are most of them doing after the two years?"</p>
<p>Good analyst can get promoted directly to associates. Others opt for a top bus. school hoping to make it back into the industry. Others opt. for other related-industries: PE, VC, etc. Others simply leave the industry altogether.</p>
<p>Denzera, I think the very wealthy and connected are at an advantage when it comes to MBA admissions. It obviously isn't the most important factor, but it matters.</p>
<p>I don't believe it is directly related in MBA admissions but in general, the wealthy send their kids to elite undergraduate schools where they have higher odds of getting into top MBA programs. It is not a must, but if you look at top schools, a majority of their students came from other top schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Denzera, I think the very wealthy and connected are at an advantage when it comes to MBA admissions. It obviously isn't the most important factor, but it matters.
[/quote]
and numbers-wise, how many of those do you suppose are applying to business schools in any given year? My point is, it might be a big plus for a handful of students each year, but for the vast majority of the class they are filling, and the vast majority of applicants, it is an irrelevant factor. Not being rich and famous won't keep you out.</p>
<p>Now, going to a top undergrad program does seem to be a major determinitive factor. although it's only slightly related, i've seen the actual undergrad breakdowns for columbia law school (Which they don't release publicly because of inevitable accusations of elitism/bias). From my recollections, top-10 schools make up maybe 45% of the class and top-25 schools make up maybe 70% all told. The sheer number of students who attended harvard, penn, princeton, etc in a class size of ~400 kids was pretty staggering. Although I haven't seen statistics on the business schools, I've certainly heard from multiple people that the same is, roughly speaking, true there as well. In that case, the students who don't attend a top school face an additional burden of proof, an uphill battle.</p>
<p>Going to a top school does factor into elite graduate school admissions. This is also particularly true for medical schools and law schools as well. I had a friend when interviewing at random medical schools like Nebraska and said there were plenty of Ivy league grads interviewing as well. It seems that by going to a better school aka pedigree, the bar seems to be set a little lower in academic achievement compared to a student who went to a non top state school. </p>
<p>This is also true for law school as well. A good friend of mine goes to UCLA which is a top 15 law school and considering it's public you would think that admitting CA residents would be somewhat of a priority. From what I hear, only 1 or 2 people in his entire law school class went to a CSU. There were far more ivy grads and top UC students in his class that it seemed to make up a substantial chunk of the student population.</p>
<p>NextMikeSays,</p>
<p>I think undergraduate schools are incredibly important, not exactly because of the name .. but the opportunities that a graduate of that college has. When you have all bulge bracket banks, VC, HFs, AM, all over at your school recruiting, certainly that work experience is going to be better than an undergraduate place that merely has accounting firms and small finance companies. Comparing this on average, which student will then have better advantages if the graduate school is looking at work at Goldman Sachs or at Boston Financial Services? </p>
<p>Students at top colleges just are smarter. Frankly, they're going to score higher on their MCATs/LSATs that the other students. Attending top schools not only gives you the name, but the average student there is more likely to be ambitious and to be the ones striving to work during school, first year internships, constant networking, practicing for interviews and studying. So while I don't feel that students are rejected based on schools, its because of the schools environment that they later become rejected upon.</p>
<p>students at top colleges are not smarter. There is no way to conclude that, but you can say they are harder working.</p>
<p>When it comes to MBA and Law programs, quality of undergraduate institution seems to matter a great deal. Anywhere from 60% to 80% of the students at the top 10 MBA programs or top 15 Law Schools attended a top 15 LAC, a top 15 private research university or a top 8 state university. Generally speaking, another 10% or so attended top international universities. According to my contact at Wharton, 415 out of Wharton's 800 newly enrolled students in 2005 came from just 30 of the nation's top universities. </p>
<p>UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTION : # ENROLLED INTO WHARTON MBA PROGRAM
University of Pennsylvania : 49
Harvard University : 31
Princeton University : 28
Stanford University : 26
Cornell University : 24
Duke University : 20
University of California-Berkeley : 15
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor : 15
University of Virginia : 15
Yale University : 14
Columbia University : 13
Brown University : 13
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 13
Dartmouth College : 12
Northwestern University : 12
UCLA: 12
University of Chicago : 11
Johns Hopkins University : 10
Williams College : 9
Georgetown University : 8
New York University : 8
University Southern California : 8
Amherst College : 7
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign : 7
Wellesley College : 7
Haverford College : 6
Swarthmore College : 6
Wesleyan University : 6
Carleton College : 5
Haverford College : 5
TOTAL: 415</p>
<p>Some international schools were also very represented:
Indian Institute of Technology : 8
McGill University : 7
University of Cambridge (UK) : 7
University of Oxford (UK) : 7
University of Tokyo : 7</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you have all bulge bracket banks, VC, HFs, AM, all over at your school recruiting, certainly that work experience is going to be better than an undergraduate place that merely has accounting firms and small finance companies.
[/quote]
I want to know what school you went to that has Venture Capital firms, Hedge Funds, and I-don't-even-know-what-AM-stands-for recruiting "all over at your school". Were those partner-track positions at the VC? Investment positions at the HFs, or just IT?</p>
<p>I think 5 hedge funds and one VC firm posted jobs during my senior year at columbia, and the VC was a large nyc firm in need of exactly two analysts for a 2-year stint. if harvard or stanford is crawling with them, then i'm jealous, but part of me doubts it - it's just a really small industry.</p>