just curious as to how MBA admissions comittees look at previous work experience on your application. do certain types of finance jobs carry a preference over others at top programs?
for example, would being analyst/associate at an IB or in ER be looked upon more favorably than say someone in sales/trading/brokerage? or would someone who works on the institutional side of an investment mgr or advisory firm be better off than someone on the retail side?
there’s plenty of talk of how much work experience you need to be taken seriously by top programs, but curious as to how much weight is applied to the preceived “quality” (for lack of a better word) of post undergrad work experience by admissions.
He’s right, based on my research of top 20 US programs. I have read several interviews and watched interviews of adcoms where they used words like Consultant, I-Banker, Techie/Entreprenuer, Marketer , Army/Veteran etc. So it seems like it they group candidates.
For example,
Indian, male, and being engineer is one of the worst combos to have because your odds of getting in are heavily against you. On the other hand, black, female with a high gpa/gmat would find it very easy to get in provided she has a good story to tell to adcoms.
To OP, I have not read anything where they said they use sub-types of finance but the “prestige/reputation” of your organization matters a lot. Imo, IB is perceived as the toughest to get in as opposed to equity research so they might have some advantage over you.