<p>I’ve been teaching in a b school for 20 years, extensively involved in recruitment and admissions along the way (both at Ivy and a State). Lots of misinformation here. </p>
<p>Using data from who is IN an MBA tells you very very little about what it takes since no one sees who applies. Major in anything you like and don’t bother to try to gear your work experience to a particular facet. Just like with med school, the vast majority of med school students are life science majors…that is NOT at all what gets you in.</p>
<p>MBA programs love diversity- both in terms of ed background and work experience. Set yourself apart.</p>
<p>Thank you Sakky, your figures answer the OP’s question. Over 35% of HBS students attended public universities for their undergraduate studies. Schools like Cal, Michigan and UVa place as many students into HBS as most of the Ivies, Chicago, Duke, Northwestern etc…</p>
<p>Below is the list of schools that Sakky kindly research for us arranged in descending order. Enjoy!</p>
<p>Harvard University - more than 100
Stanford University - 99
University of Pennsylvania - 87
Princeton University - 80
Yale University - 59
Cornell University - 45
Duke University - 45
Virginia - 45
UCBerkeley - 44
Michigan (Ann Arbor) - 41
Brown University - 38
Columbia University - 35
Northwestern University - 33
Dartmouth College - 32
Georgetown University - 31
Georgia Institute of Technology - 22
University of Texas-Austin - 18
Wellesley College - 17
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill - 14
University of Chicago - 13
Washington University-St Louis - 13
Emory University - 12
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign - 12
University of Southern California - 12
University of Washington - 12
Vanderbilt University - 12
University of California-Los Angeles - 10
University of Maryland-College Park - 10
University of Wisconsin-Madison - 10
Johns Hopkins University - 9
Williams College - 9
Amherst College - 8
Rutgers University - 7
Swarthmore College - 6
University of Florida - 6
University of Georgia - 6
Pomona College - 5
Texas A&M University-College Station - 5
University of Oklahoma - 5
Claremont McKenna College - 4
North Carolina State University - 4
Oberlin College - 4
University of California-Irvine - 4
The Ohio State University - 3
University of California-San Diego - 3
Virginia Institute of Technology - 3</p>
<p>Categorizing a little, since OP’s original post implied a question about whether top B-school admission was possible from UM or UW, which was well answer, I’ve taken it another step:</p>
<p>Admission to Harvard Business School from the following categories of Universities found in USNWR Top 75 national Universities and Top 10 LACs:</p>
<p>These data still beg the fundamental question – if identical twins split after high school and one attended a school in category 1 above, and the other a school in category 3 or 4 above, majored in something similar and put forth the same effort, and this was repeated many times, would the first group fare better in intitial job placement and then admission to B-school than the second?</p>
<p>sakky, regarding your % of B-school students having come from jobs in consulting, I-banking, etc, your answer was more broad than the scope of the original question.</p>
<p>The original statement was confined to the most prestigious Consulting firms (McKinsey, Bain), and the most prestigious I-banks. My contention was that I estimated this number to be no more than 25%.</p>
<p>I do see that your broader categories of consulting and banking do exceed 50%… however it would be good to know the answer the the more narrow question as well.</p>
<p>Thanks for your input… nothing better than actual data :)</p>
<p>found a couple of mistakes, but cannot delete so I’m reposting:</p>
<p>Thanks for those numbers Sakky.</p>
<p>Categorizing a little, since OP’s original post implied a question about whether top B-school admission was possible from UM or UW, which was well answer, I’ve taken it another step:</p>
<p>Admission to Harvard Business School from the following categories of Universities found in USNWR Top 75 national Universities and Top 10 LACs:</p>
<ol>
<li>From Private National Universities Ranked 21-76 – unknown</li>
<li>All other US Universities & all outside-US Universities – Unknown</li>
</ol>
<p>These data still beg the fundamental question – if identical twins split and one attended a school in category 1 above, and the other a school in category 3 or 4 above, majored in something similar and put forth the same effort, and this were repeated many times, would the first group fare better in intitial job placement and then admission to B-school than the second?</p>
<p>To put this another way, how many of Harvard’s B-school students come from highly selective undergraduate colleges? If we say that means 1-20 in the National Universities ranks, and 1-11 in the Liberal Arts Colleges ranks, the answer appears to be (only) 40%.</p>
<p>First column: % who attended this College/University and later attended HBS.
Second column: # of 1st and 2nd years students at HBS from this College/University
Third column: Undergraduate population at this College/University (4 classes)</p>
<p>3.73% 125 6700 Harvard University - 125+
3.20% 80 5000 Princeton University - 80
3.05% 99 6500 Stanford University - 99
2.15% 59 5500 Yale University - 59
1.78% 87 9750 University of Pennsylvania - 87
1.54% 32 4150 Dartmouth College - 32
1.45% 17 2350 Wellesley College - 17
1.38% 45 6500 Duke University - 45
1.25% 38 6100 Brown University - 38
1.23% 35 5700 Columbia University - 35
1.20% 45 7500 Cornell University - 45 (CAS + Engineering only)
0.94% 8 1700 Amherst College - 8
0.90% 9 2000 Williams College - 9
0.87% 31 7100 Georgetown University - 31
0.80% 6 1500 Swarthmore - 6
0.78% 33 8500 Northwestern University - 33
0.67% 4 1200 Claremont McKenna College - 4
0.65% 5 1530 Pomona College - 5
0.59% 45 15200 Virginia - 45
0.51% 13 5050 University of Chicago - 13
0.46% 12 5200 Emory University - 12
0.38% 9 4750 Johns Hopkins University - 9
0.37% 13 7000 Washington University in St Louis - 13
0.36% 12 6650 Vanderbilt University - 12
0.35% 44 25000 UC Berkeley - 44
0.34% 22 13000 Georgia Institute of Technology - 22
0.32% 41 26000 Michigan (Ann Arbor) - 41
0.29% 4 2800 Oberlin college - 4
0.16% 14 18000 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill - 14
0.14% 12 16600 University of Southern California - 12
0.10% 18 37400 University of Texas-Austin - 18
0.08% 12 29500 University of Washington - 12
0.08% 10 26000 University of California-Los Angeles - 10
0.08% 12 31500 University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign - 12
0.08% 10 26500 University of Maryland-College Park - 10
0.06% 10 31000 University of Wisconsin-Madison - 10</p>
<p>The standouts on the high side, relative to my expecation, are Wellesley, Georgetown and Georgia Tech. On the low side are Chicago, WashU, Emory and USC.</p>
<p>That number could only be determined for sure if I was to examine each and every datapoint (or find a way to properly randomize and then run an inference test) which I don’t particularly feel like doing. {Too much work for me.} </p>
<p>But I suspect your 25% figure is almost certainly far too low, at least for HBS (although it may hold for the other B-schools). I’ll put it to you this way. Just the VC/PE category alone represents 15% of the incoming students, and while there are obviously different gradations of VC/PE firms, even a mediocre one is generally understood to be more desirable than even the best consulting or banking firm, and many (probably most) VC/PE firms heavily weigh, and sometimes formally require, prior experience at the top consulting/banking firms. Given that, I doubt it would be particularly difficult in the least to find at the very least another 10% who had experience at the top consultancies, banks, or hedge/alternative funds. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a fundamentally unknowable question, for nobody would ever (ethically) run the experiment you’ve proposed. However, at least at the more rarefied types of careers, the answer is that the twins would almost certainly not experience the same outcome, for career outcomes, especially at the highest levels, often times have less to do with internal ability than with simple opportunity. You can be the most capable and qualified person in the world for a particular job, but if you’re not at a school where that particular employer can find you, then you’re not going to get the job. </p>
<p>As a case in point, I can think of several PE firms and hedge funds that recruit undergrads only out of Harvard and nowhere else. Even the word ‘recruit’ may be too strong of a term: the true way to garner employment at those firms is to network, as no formal hiring procedure is implemented, and your networking persistence is deemed to be a test of your desire. For example, I know one guy at Harvard who got an interview (and was then hired) for a hedge fund only because one of close friends happened to be the brother of a director at the fund, and therefore was able to open the door to an interview. Had he attended a category 4 school, he wouldn’t have had that networking opportunity no matter how talented he may be. Heck, he probably wouldn’t know that the fund even existed, as most hedge funds tend to be highly secretive. </p>
<p>The same could be said for the top consulting firms or Ibanking. Let’s face it, if you’re going to Michigan State University (the #71 ranked school according to USNews) - even if you’re a star - you’re probably not going to obtain a job at McKinsey, as McKinsey simply doesn’t recruit there. Nor do many of the other top consulting firms or banks. </p>
<p>Hiring is akin to dating and depends crucially on simple opportunity. The perfect woman may be out there for you, and you may be the perfect man for her, but none of that matters if you’re never able to meet each other in the first place. This is incidentally why you see so many beautiful and amazing women with unremarkable men (and vice versa) because that’s who they were able to meet. In some sense, it’s not ‘fair’ that students at top schools are able to enjoy opportunities for recruitment match-making with top employers that students at other schools do not. But that’s why it’s important to attend those top schools.</p>
<p>Dunnin, why only CAS and Engineering for Cornell? Don’t you think students from the schools of ILR, Hotel Management, Human Ecology and Agriculture would pursue MBAs? I agree with your approach in that given the makeup of a university, one cannot expect as large a percentage of students to apply to Business school as a university with a different makeup. Schools like Dartmouth, Duke, Georgetown and Georgia Tech are far more likely to attract students who intend on getting MBAs than universities like Cal, Chicago, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Northwestern or most public universities. As such, a per capita will not be very telling.</p>
<p>I think the per capita is a pretty meaningless statistic. What’s relevant for prospective undergrads is the percentage of a school’s applicants to elite MBA programs who are accepted. We have neither the numerator nor the denominator for that figure. A total of 17 Wellesley grads attending HBS sounds impressive relative to the size of the school, but if 1/3 of the student body applied and only 17 were accepted, it may not be such a strong performance after all.</p>
<p>Also keep in mind that while HBS may be the gold standard for MBA programs, not every top candidate seeking an MBA wants to go to Harvard. Some get into other elite MBA programs without even applying to Harvard. Some apply to Harvard and are accepted but elect to go elsewhere. It’s only natural that HBS would attract a higher percentage of applicants from Harvard than from any other school. It’s also natural that nearby schools without MBA programs of their their own (e.g., Princeton, Wellesley, Brown, Amherst, Williams) would have higher percentages of their students applying to HBS, and consequently higher percentages of their student bodies attending even if the success rate of their applicants is no higher than that of a more distant school, and/or one with its own elite MBA program. I don’t mean to dismiss the impressive numbers of Harvard MBA candidates these Northeastern schools are producing, but the raw numbers don’t tell the whole story. Far from it.</p>
<p>bclintonk wrote: “Also keep in mind that while HBS may be the gold standard for MBA programs”</p>
<p>Actually, I think that is no longer the case. Simply averaging the B-school rankngs of Businessweek, USNWR, and Financial Times of London, Wharton is #1.</p>
<p>It is also future sector dependant. Finance… Wharton, Chicago, Stanford. Tech entrepreneurism and VC … Stanford by a country mile. Career outside the US? Harvard hands down.</p>
<p>I agree by the way with your point about % accepted being more relevant than raw numbers. What I do find interesting is that almost 4% of each graduating class at Harvard undergrad eventually ends up at Harvard Business School… for some reason I had no idea the number was that high (though this was precisely the route of my next door neighbor).</p>
<p>"What’s relevant for prospective undergrads is the percentage of a school’s applicants to elite MBA programs who are accepted. "</p>
<p>Even that won’t do it, what you want is percentage of applicants with similar qualifications who were accepted. Some schools have a smaller standard deviation of student capabilities, as well as goals; both these aspects affect the % figure, not just one of them.</p>
<p>Nobody should expect that the mere name of your school will get you in to the elite strata of the next levels if you are not personally qualified. And there are universities where not every individual is personally qualified for same, though others at the same university are. </p>
<p>Both student goals and student capabilities are relevant in understanding why the ability of diverse schools to promote the future objectives of their most accomplished strata of graduates is unlikely to be perfectly reflected by measures looking across their entire population.</p>
<p>The deviation of student capabilities, coming in anyway, can be observed, however imperfectly, by some combination of admissions % and SAT ranges. It would be no shock if per capita results after graduation were lower at schools with lower SAT medians and wide ranges coming in than at schools with higher medians and lower ranges, even if student body goals were identical. This does not necessarily mean that a high capability student at the school with the wider range did not have his/her needs or objectives met by their school. A lower percentage is a nearly inevitable reflection of the diversity of the student population there, which probably completely obfuscates any contribution of the school itself towards the student’s future goals.</p>
<p>One can, however, observe whether a large absolute number of its graduates achieve these objectives, since this indicates whether this outcome is common or uncommon from there. If you are good enough, and want it.</p>
<p>Such data is fundamentally unobtainable and therefore a copout. What you’re asking for is matched data by individual undergrad program, which nobody (who is not on the adcom) is ever going to have, and even if they did have it, they wouldn’t publish it here. One of the least useful comments of any empirical data review process is to demand data that nobody will ever have, and you know that nobody will ever have. You have to work with the data that is actually reasonably available, and you can place bounds upon the uncertainty that imperfect data imply. </p>
<p>Besides, even if somebody were to (magically) obtain such data, I could argue that even that would be insufficient, for it wouldn’t include those who never even applied at all, but who would have wanted to go. For example, let’s face it, if you ended up with a poor college GPA and were relegated to working the cash register at the mall (as I know some college graduates have done), you’re not going to apply to HBS or any other top B-school. On the other hand, maybe you would have done well had you gone to a different college, and hence obtained a cracker-jack job, and hence would have applied. Of course nobody will ever know that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, what else are you going to do? You have to work with the data you actually have. If you have access to better data, then by all means, publish it here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I’m quite certain that far more students at Chicago GSB would rather be going to HBS, but didn’t get in, than HBS students who would rather be going to Chicago, but didn’t get in. The same is probably true (to a lesser extent) at Wharton.</p>
<p>As you can see in comparing my aggregated rank order with the FT “Ranking of Rankings”, the result can vary significantly depending upon which rankings one chooses to include. My three have Wharton a strong #1. The three I chose were more for convenience than anything. Remove Businessweek from my aggregation, and Stanford becomes co-#1 with Wharton. Remove USNWR, Stanford becomes #4 instead of #1… Remove FT and Chicago becomes co-#1. You see how arbitrary it can become?</p>
<p>This should at least underscore the point that there is no longer a “Gold Standard” in business schools. It is likely shared by Wharton, Harvard, Stanford and Chicago.</p>
<p>Whatever, one thinks of FT, it is the most widely followed internationally. In the European and Asian airports and train stations you always see people reading the FT and sometimes never see a Business Week or Wall Street Journal and almost never a US News.</p>
<p>Also, the most important domestic publication is the Wall Street Journal. It is on every CFO and CEO’s desk.</p>