Undergrad path for MBA admissions

Graduate School Business School - MBA
141

<p>Monydad, let me put it to you this way. You will notice that at many of the top-flight engineering undergrad programs, of which Cornell and Michigan are included, but a great portion of the top-performing engineering graduates do not end up doing engineering, as a job or in engineering graduate school. Where do they end up going? Investment banking. Management consulting. I think even Alexandre would have to back me up here - he graduated from Michigan with an engineering degree, and he ended up at Lehman Brothers. Not only that, but a great chunk, and in many cases, the majority, of a given engineering class would choose either an investment bank or a consulting company as their first-choice of employer and would happily go work for them, but they didn't get hired. I believe even Alexandre would concede that this is the case at high-prestige engineering schools. Two of the highest profile employers at any topflight engineering school (i.e. MIT, Stanford, etc.) are Goldman Sachs and McKinsey. </p>

<p>I don't know about you, monydad, but I am not aware of any direct relationship between engineering and I-banking and/or management consulting. It's not entirely obvious to me what the direct relationship is between engineering and McKinsey is. It's not entirely obvious to me what the direct relationship between engineering and Goldman Sachs is. Yet I know for a fact that both Mckinsey and Goldman Sachs are two of the biggest employers of recently graduated engineers out of MIT. Yep - not just Sloanies out of MIT, but engineers out of MIT also. </p>

<p>What is really going on is that many if not most engineering students at the top-flight engineering schools are afflicted with something that I would call 'career-ism', just like students at all high-profile schools are afflicted with careerism. Basically, these students want to go work for whatever employer they believe is going to give them the best opportunity for them to advance their career, and many students, including engineers, see investment banking firms and/or management consulting companies as the fast track. As one MIT electrical engineering student who is going to work at Mckinsey put it to me "I can probably get to the top faster if I have the name 'McKinsey' on my resume than I ever could if I worked as just another grunt engineer'. </p>

<p>Hence that puts one of your contentions in serious question. You say that all these engineers would not want to want to consider going to law school because they want to be engineers and would not be happy with the lawyer lifestyle. Yet if that's true, then why is it that hordes of engineering students from top engineering programs like MIT are lining up to get interviews at banks and consulting companies? I thought you said that they went into engineering to become engineers. So when McKinsey comes to MIT to interview engineering students, and hordes of them line up for the interview, are you saying that those MIT engineering students are dumb? Or confused? When McKinsey comes to Stanford to interview and lots of the engineering students there also line up for an interview, are they being dumb too? </p>

<p>Again, it's a matter of careerism. Just like lots of top-flight engineering students would seriously entertain the notion of working for I-banking or consulting in order to advance their career, it is also true that many of them would also entertain the notion of going to a top-flight law school, again, in order to advance their career. Note - I didn't say any law school. I said a top-flight law school. These engineering students would consider it even if they never intended to work as a lawyer. The fact is, a significant portion of students from the top law schools don't ever work as lawyers for a very long time, and quite a few never work as lawyers. Pop quiz - who is the biggest recruiter at Harvard Law? Some bigshot Boston or New York law firm? Nope - once again, it's McKinsey. Goldman Sachs and other I-banks are also one of the biggest employers of graduating students from the top law schools, and I'm not talking about law-related banking jobs. I'm talking about straight-up I-banking associate jobs. Many highly careerist-oriented people simply see an elite law school as basically an "alternative MBA" - one which, unlike a true MBA, you can get with no work experience. </p>

<p>[Note, I am not recommending that people see elite law schools this way. Nevertheless, it is an undeniable fact that a significant fraction of graduates of top-flight law schools end up never working as lawyers, but rather as management consultants and bankers. It is also an undeniable fact that a portion of the entering class at a given top-flight law school is coming in with the specific secret purpose of getting into consulting, banking or some other field, but not law.]</p>

<p>The reality about engineering is that a lot of engineers, dare I say the majority, don't really have any burning love for engineering. They're in it for the money and for the career. Let's face it. If engineering were to pay exactly the same salary and provided the same career path as psychology majors, far far fewer students would be studying engineering. In fact, I would argue that most of them would get out of engineering. A fraction of engineering students really are in it because they like it. But we both know that a huge chunk of them are there because engineering pays well and provides a strong career path. And by the same token, when some other option can provide them with more money and/or a possibly better career path, a lot of engineers will happily switch. </p>

<p>The point is then, that I believe that it is entirely fair that engineering students at top engineering schools (of which Cornell is one) should be lumped together with other students when talking about the desirability of getting into a top law school. If engineering students at places like MIT and Stanford can express such interest in taking such non-engineering jobs like consulting and banking, then it is most likely also true that they are also interested in getting into a top law school. If McKinsey or Goldman Sachs were to offer a position to every single MIT engineering senior, I think we all know that a lot of them, perhaps even a majority of them, would take it. Not all of them would take it, I agree. But we both know a lot of them would. By the same token, if every single MIT engineering senior were to be offered admission to Yale Law, you know and I know that a lot of them would take it. The same thing is true of Cornell engineers. At the end of the day, it all boils down to the same thing - many if not most of these people are interested in whatever it takes to advance their career, whether that's working at McKinsey or going to Yale Law, or whatever.</p>

<p>If you disagree, then you basically have 2 choices. You either have to explain why is it that consulting and banking are so popular amongst so many engineers at the top engineering schools, and how that somehow relates to their supposed 'love' of engineering. You then have to explain how the popularity of banking and consulting is somehow different from a top law school (again, not just any law school, but a top one). I see it as all being different manifestations of the same thing. Like it or not, for most engineers, it's really about careerism, what will pay them better, and what will give them a better career path.</p>

142

<p>Sakky, I majored in Economics (not Engineering), and I was not in the top of my class. I graduated out of the top 20% of my class (my GPA was 3.4). Most top Engineers I knew at Michigan went on to work for large manufacturing companies (like IBM, Cisco, Ford, Dow etc...) or for Investment Banks...or to graduate school (primarily Engineering). Very few, if any, were interested in Law.</p>

143

<p>Allright fine, Alexandre, I got your specific biographic facts mixed up. I thought you were an engineer. But that's beside the point. You said it yourself, a lot of top engineers from Michigan went to work in I-banking. Why is that? What does I-banking have to do with engineering? I am also sure you will agree that a lot of engineers at Michigan would have liked to have gotten into I-banking and interviewed with them, but they didn't get an I-banking offer, so now they're working in engineering jobs (or are in engineering graduate school). I am also sure that other engineers would have loved to have an I-banking job, but they never bothered to apply, either because their grades were too low, or because they felt they had no chance in surviving through the interview. But if an I-banking offer had magically appeared, many of them would have giddily accepted.</p>

<p>The point is that we all have to ask ourselves that if all these engineering students really are studying engineering because they love engineering, then why is it that so many of them can get lured away by banks? Banking has little if anything to do with engineering. And the next question is, if all these engineers are interested in banking, then why is it so hard to believe that lots of engineers might also be interested in a top-flight law school? What I see is a lot of engineers who are not necessarily interested in engineering, but rather are interested in doing what it takes to advance their career as quickly as possible. If banking is that path, then so be it. If going to an elite law school is that path, then, again, so be it.</p>

144

<p>I agree that many Engineering students study Engineering because it is a marketable degree, and many would not mind and end up working in a different field upon graduation. But Law is not a common interest among the Engineers I have met. I have known over 50 Engineers (from my high school) who attended top undergraduate programs such as Cal, CalTech, Cornell, MIT, Michigan and Stanford and not one of them went into Law. Several went into the Financial field and several others went into MC, but none into Law.</p>

145

<p>I have actually met quite a few engineers who want/have gone to law school. I worked in a lab over the summer at Case Western, and if I remember correctly, all 5 of the people who worked in the same lab wanted to go to law school (and they all held engineering degrees).</p>

146

<p>UC Benz, that is a freak occurance. I am sure it happens, but the numbers do not lie. Last year, fewer than 50 MIT grads went to Law school (out of 1,000) went to Law school. Most of them were Economics and Political Science majors. Michigan Engineers almost never go to Law school. I know of a couple over the course of my four years in Michigan...and they wanted to go into Intellectual Property Law because they wanted to start their own practice...combining Engineering with Law.</p>

147

<p>Many of my engineering school classmates pursued different fields after college. Many others changed fields afterwards. I myself got an MBA and pursued a career in finance. Many, if not most, of my classmates that I still keep in touch with remain happily engaged in some capacity related to engineering.</p>

<p>I don't know any of these people who attended law school. In fact, in my entire business career I personally only know two people who got engineering degrees and then went to law school. One of them became a patent lawyer. There are obviously people who do this, but I believe that on a percentage basis the numbers are relatively small.</p>

<p>The reasons, I believe, are the same as I articulated before. People who would pursue engineering training are frequently not the same "types" as people who are interested in law. The distributions of interests of people in these two professions are pretty different on the whole, IMO. As I already described.</p>

<p>Most people with engineering training are more drawn towards MBAs because there are many opportunities in the business world to utilize their quantitative skills. In my personal experience these quantitative skills are highly valued at investment banks, because they are needed and many of the traditional liberal arts job candidates do not so obviously possess these skills to the same extent. There are also opportunities to join the ranks of management in technology-oriented companies, where an understanding of the technology is important for a management job.</p>

<p>I don't know much about consulting. The only engineers I know who went into consulting did so in an area that directly utilized their engineering training. I would imagine quantitative skills are highly valued in many areas of consulting as well.</p>

<p>Law has far fewer obvious opportunities to utilize exceptional quantitative skills. Maybe tax law to a trivial extent. It also has few opportunities to directly utilize one's engineering training. Patent law is about it. The bulk of law practice is centered around reading and writing. These areas are not the passion of many individuals who pursue engineering training. As I said before. And as is probably fairly obvious to almost everyone, I have to believe.</p>

<p>I think you're deliberately being obtuse to press your unsupportable position.
Please review my post #140 in this thread and then decide whether you really want to pursue this argument. The point, once again, is that you are lumping together a number (I believe it's 7, actually) of different colleges, with separate admissions, different standards and different goals, and representing them all as a unified whole. They are not. That is my point. By so doing you are providing misleading information to a candidate who in fact will apply to a particular one of these colleges, not all seven. They are all different and should be treated separately to make any statement that is intended to be relevant.</p>

<p>This is true whether or not any engineers attend any law school. It doesn't matter. The different colleges are different. They should not be lumped together. That is the point.</p>

<p>Should I take my post #140 and then try to defend that by saying that most liberal arts majors really want to go on to engineering graduate school, but they can't handle it, so therefore this position is valid? No I shouldn't. It is ridiculous on its face.</p>

148

<p>Yeah, I certainly wasn't implying that it was the norm for engineering students. I am just saying that engineering students DO indeed decide to attend law school sometimes. </p>

<p>I know several engineers like the rest of you do, and very little of them actually want to stay on the engineering-side only. The advancement opportunities and salary increases become stagnant after a few years so many of them feel the need to switch to the business-side in order to strengthen their career prospects. And as far as investment banking is concerned, there is not really any major that can prepare you for it (besides maybe finance), so it's not like some engineers may just suddenly decide to switch to IB after they earn their engineering degree. Many like the challenge of engineering, and they pursue that interest while they can because they realize it really doesn't matter what degree you have when it comes to investment banking (same some of the liberal arts ones).</p>

149

<p>I've known maybe a dozen engineers who were also attorneys; only one of them was not a patent attorney. There are only 23,248 active attorneys admitted to practice before the PTO; many of them are engineers, but certainly not all them. I recall the number of attorneys in the US passing the one million mark several years ago. In view of these numbers, I'd be surprised if even 2% of US lawyers were also engineers.</p>

150

<p>Look, monydad, again, the point is this. I am arguing that, just like Alexandre said, many if not most engineers at the top engineering schools are studying engineering not so much because they really like engineering, but because they are basically out to get a marketable degree and a career path. The supposed 'love' of engineering is not the driving force of many, if not most, of these engineers. Simply put - a lot of them are in it for the money, and possibly for the prestige. </p>

<p>Hence, if we can all agree that engineers are in it for reasons that don't really have to do with engineering per se, then I am saying that it is clearly possible and indeed highly probably that many of these engineers would indeed seriously consider attending a top-flight law school, just like many of these engineers can and do consider careers in banking or consulting that are at best tangentially related to engineering. The point is, many of these guys are basically guns for hire, available to whoever is the highest bidder. Right now, engineering provides a relatively prestigious and relatively high paying career path, and that's why a lot of these students are studying it. If it turned out tomorrow that Underwater Basketweaving became extremely prestigious and extremely high paying, then a lot of those students would go do that. </p>

<p>And these are precisely the students I'm talking about that would seriously entertain the idea of going to a top flight law school, not because they necessarily like the law, but, again, because doing so would be prestigious and high-paying. The fact is, prestige and money tends to attract people. Engineering attracts quite a lot of students because of the prestige and money, and these are precisely the sort of student who would also be attracted to the prestige and money of a top-flight law school. </p>

<p>Hence, if can all agree that a lot of engineering students studied engineering for the prestige and the money, then why is it so hard to believe that those same students would also be attracted to the prestige and money of a top-flight law school? That doesn't mean that it attracts them enough to make them want to go out and apply and go through the whole application rigamarole. But that's not the same as saying that they're not interested at all. A lot of these same 'mercenary' engineers end up going to consulting or banking. If consulting and banking were somehow barred to them, it is precisely these very students who would probably then turn to a top law school. </p>

<p>These students don't really care what they do, as long as it pays well and is prestigious. They're careerists. A lot of them chose engineering not because they like it, but because it helps them build their career. By the same token, they often times end up in consulting and banking because, again, they want to build their career. Law school would also be something they would seriously consider, but don't have to take all the way to the point of actually applying, because these students often times end up in consulting or banking. If consulting and banking weren't options, they would seriously consider going to Yale Law. If it's between consulting and Yale Law, these careerists might choose consulting. If it's between a regular engineering job and Yale Law, they would probably choose Yale Law. It's just that it never gets to that point because consulting snaps them up first. But that doesn't mean that they weren't interested in Yale Law. At very least, they were more interested in it than they were in an engineering job. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that I seriously question the contention that engineers or other such students are studying what they are studying because they have no interest in a top law school, and therefore should not be 'included' in the number of students who would be interested in such a thing. I am not convinced of that in the least. Engineering is full of careerists, and these careerists are precisely those students who are 'vulnerable' to the lure of a top law school. Hence, I think it is entirely fair to lump engineers and other preprofessional students into the 'eligible and interested' pool of top law school candidates. Careerism is a big driving force in determining people's interests.</p>

151

<p>"The bottom line is that I seriously question the contention that engineers or other such students are studying what they are studying because they have no interest in a top law school, and therefore should not be 'included' in the number of students who would be interested in such a thing. "</p>

<p>Fine then "include" them in a comparison vs. other colleges of engineering. They do not attend the same college as the students in Cornell's college of arts & sciences. They are different colleges. They have separate admissions. Their students have different entering class rank & SAT scores. They have different academic goals. They are different colleges.</p>

<p>Cornell's College of Agriculture is the best school of its type in the country I believe. It's a pretty big school too. I bet really few of these guys go to law school. I guess you think it's because they can't get in to Yale Law school, and that's why they decided to study agriculture. But who cares?</p>

<p>A prospective applicant to Cornell's Arts & Sciences school need not burden himself with whether students from Cornell's Agriculture school can or cannot get into good law schools. He is not applying to the Agriculture school; it is a different college. He only should care about what his chances look like from the Arts & Sciences college, and those are the stats he should be looking at. Can you really not see this?</p>

<p>I hope that if you're lumping everything together, you're going to lump in Columbia's School of General Studies and Engineering school, and whatever else they have there, when you look at Columbia's stats. And make sure you get Penn's nursing school in there when you do Penn. And then you'll have something completely meaningless for multiple schools, not just one.</p>

152

<p>First of all, what does the fact that they are different colleges have to do with anything? We are talking about people who might have interest in going to a top law school or not. Again, not just any law school, but a top one. Hence, you have to include everybody who falls into that category, and for that, I would include just about everybody - including the agriculture students, engineering students, nursing students and so forth. It doesn't matter that they have different SAT scores and different admissions procedures, what matters is whether they would consider attending a top-flight law school. </p>

<p>I will extend your analogy. You talk about Cornell Agriculture students. Let me put it to you bluntly. If Yale Law, this year, offered automatic admission to every single graduating senior in the Cornell Agricultural School, are you seriously trying to tell us that none of them would take it? I think they would. Can you really not see this? I think you have no choice but to concede that many of them would in fact take it. </p>

<p>Hence, the point is, you cannot simply 'exclude' a bunch of students simply because they are in this-or-that specialized school when you're talking about people who have interest in top law schools. I hope you are not trying to insinuate that just because somebody is not studying a liberal arts major, that they means they would automatically turn down admission to a top-flight law school.</p>

153

<p>Sakky, if I were offered an acceptance into Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, Michigan, NYU, Stanford or Yale Law, I would not even consider them. Many people I know would not consider them either. The study of law requires some degree of passion for the subject...something neither I, nor most people I know, have.</p>

154

<p>I would imagine that the percentage of students in the College of Agriculture who would accept this offer would be pretty small. Now if you said med school you'd get a much higher percentage. And actually a pretty large number of aggies do go to med school. And vet school. and pursue PhDs in various areas of the biological sciences. A lot of these guys are quite bright. Not many future lawyers though.</p>

<p>Also very small % at other of the specialized colleges: Architecture and Engineering. Maybe none at all from the Architecture school. That's what I would expect.</p>

<p>Alexandre's stats for MIT law applicants comes to mind here. This student body is clearly bright enough to produce numerous admissions to top law schools, but by the posted numbers few of them apparently take this path. Because this student body as a whole is not interested in being lawyers.</p>

<p>The percentage would be far larger if you made the same offer to students in the Cornell College of Arts & Sciences. Why the difference? Different interests of the student body. People who are interested in being lawyers typically do not attend architecture school, or whatever. </p>

<p>I've stated my case here sufficiently, in my opinion. People can read the posts and make their own judgements on them, but I won't repeat myself further.</p>

155

<p>Alexandre, the proper analogy is to, again, consider all the engineering students. We have already agreed that quite a few students who are in engineering are doing it not really because they have passion for engineering, but because they want a marketable degree. Simply put - they're studying engineering for the money. Whether they're right or wrong for doing that, we both know that that's what a lot of them are doing. I submit my thought exercise again - if engineering students made the same amount of money upon graduation as liberal arts students, I think we all know that a lot fewer students would be studying engineering. You talk about passion - but again, even at Michigan, how many engineering students really were studying it because they were passionate about engineering vs. how many were there just because they wanted to get a marketable degree? Be honest. </p>

<p>I would also argue that while law school ain't no walk in the park, engineering is probably at least as difficult, if not more so. Go ask ariesathena, who is in law school now and has an undergrad chemE degree, which one she thinks is harder. </p>

<p>So the point is, if plenty of people are willing to study engineering not for the passion of the subject, but just for the money, and if engineering is at least as difficult as law school, then why is it so difficult that a lot of people, especially engineering students, would also consider going to law school just for the money. Particularly, when you consider the fact that lawyers tend to make substantially more money than engineers do, I think it makes perfect sense. </p>

<p>Sure, you might say that it's wrong for people to get into law just for the money, but it was just as wrong for people to study engineering just for the money, and yet plenty of people do precisely that. I would also argue that plenty of people also get into consulting and I-banking not because they really like it, but also just for the money. Again, at your I-banking interviews, how many people tried to interview because they were truly interested in I-banking, vs. how many people tried to interview just because they heard that I-banking pays well and is prestigious? Sure, these people usually get out of the business after a couple of years. But that's not the point. The point is that whenever something is prestigious and high-paying, it tends to attract people who are interested in prestige and high pay. A lot of people are attracted to engineering majors just because they are prestigious and high paying. A lot of people are attracted to consulting and banking just because they are prestigious and high paying. By the same token, a lot of people would be interested in high-profile law schools because it is prestigious and high-paying. Right or wrong, this is the reality. </p>

<p>And as far as the MIT situation is concerned, again, I would argue that plenty of MIT'ers are indeed interested in law school but just don't apply because their grades are too low. Those rare MIT students with top grades are probably not interested because they will have stellar careers as top-flight engineers and scientists. But how about those MIT students who are just barely passing? The guys with straight C's at MIT? These guys know that they probably don't have a great job or admission to a great graduate school waiting for them because of their low grades. I would argue that these low-ranked MIT students, out of all the MIT students, are precisely the ones who would be most interested in a top-flight law school . After all, it's probably better than whatever else they have waiting for them after graduation. Yet it is also precisely these students who aren't going to apply to top law schools, because they know they can't get in. Seriously, if you have straight C's, even from MIT, are you really going to apply to Yale Law? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't take it if it was offered.</p>

156

<p>To accurately predict the number of acceptances you would have to take into account A LOT of factors. You cannot simply say whether they would or wouldn't choose to attend law school; that's way too much of a generalization either way.</p>

157

<p>Yep, and that's exactly my point - that you cannot simply dismiss non-liberal arts students from the pool of students who are interested in elite law schools. It is far too glib to say "Oh, these students are studying engineering, so that means that these students would never be interested in an elite law school." </p>

<p>What is far far more accurate to say is that plenty of people will go to whatever they think will give them the best job they can get at the time. It is nice and idealistic to think that people are just going to pursue whatever fits their interests the best, but the reality is that people are also motivated by career advancement. Rightly or wrongly, attending an elite law school is seen as something that will provide you with strong career advancement. One might say that people should only pursue a law degree only if they have a passion for law and not for the money, for otherwise they will be miserable, but the fact is, a lot of people in the world are stuck in dead-end jobs that they not only hate, but also pay peanuts. It's better to have a decent-paying job that you hate than to have a low-paying job that you hate. </p>

<p>And the simple fact of the matter is that plenty of college graduates, even from top-flight programs, end up with weak or no jobs. I know one Berkeley graduate in EECS who spent 3 years basically unemployed and/or doing odd jobs, including briefly working for a moving company and working on-and-off as a real-estate agent. I know another Berkeley graduate whose best job she could get after graduation was as a secretary, and another one who now works as a clerk at the Gap. None of these people have any passion for the law, but if Stanford Law ot Boalt were to offer them guaranteed admission, I wouldn't be surprised if all 3 took it. None of them ever envisioned themselves as lawyers, but hey, it's better than what they're doing now. </p>

<p>It should be said that none of these 3 did particularly well at Berkeley. Indeed, all of them barely scraped by to graduation. Hence, I have been trying to point out that just because you don't apply to an elite law school doesn't mean that you wouldn't want to go. In fact, ironically, it is precisely those students who tend not to apply that are the ones who are most likely to want to go. Those students who did great at Berkeley, Michigan, or anywhere else tend to have nice jobs and /or admissions to nice grad-schools waiting for them. But what about those who didn't do well? What do they have waiting for them? From what I've seen, not much. Alexandre has said that he would never have considered an elite law school upon graduation. Yet the fact is, he had a 3.4 GPA coming out of Michigan and he had offers from several I-banks. I would argue that if he had a 2.1 coming out of Michigan, and had no offers from any decent companies at all, I think that he probably would have taken admission to Yale Law. When you're doing well, you have the luxury of turning down opportunities. When you're doing poorly, you take whatever you can get. Yet the fact is, it is precisely those people who are doing poorly who don't get the opportunities, but want them the most. Hence, I am pointing out paradox that it is precisely those students who would want to go to Yale Law the most are the ones who are the least likely to apply. If you have straight C's, you're not going to apply to Yale Law.</p>

158

<p>I saw at some point in this [long] thread, there was debate regarding choosing between economics and business. </p>

<p>What are your opinions on a hybrid degree, namely Business Economics (which is a degree at UCLA).</p>

159

<p>So let's say that I want to get into a top 5 MBA program. And let's say I do a 2-year stint at somewhere like JPM. If my GPA/EC's were good enough to get me into, say JPM, but not good enough to get into GS/MS, then how do I differetiate myeslf from the pack when applying for bschool. My reasons are probably similar as everyone else in my analyst class: I need it for advancement up the corporate ladder, I might want to go into PE or MC. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that I don't quite understand why a school like HBS doesn't just take former GS analysts exclusively...</p>

<p>I hope this post made some sense, if not, I'll be happy to try to clarify my points. Thanks!</p>

160

<p>How can one's grades be "good enough to get me into, say JPM, but not good enough to get into GS/MS". Those three banks have equally tough requirements and training programs. </p>

<p>Anyway, you seem to be bound by too many opinions and cliches. You need to take a few steps back and look at the big picture. Not all great candidates are analysts at IBs. Some of them are working in major manufacturing firms, others are working in the pharma industry etc...</p>