Is that amazing? That seems like a fairly common background. I’m not trying to down play his experience, but I expected to hear something like, “Noble Prize winning astronaught” after your description.
I’m pretty sure he could get an interview with NASA if he sent his resume there.
farley013 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > akanska Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I don’t think I’ll be able to consistently > study > > until I have a deadline. Considering booking a > > date to help me with that… > > > > Numi, have you considered going abroad? My top > > choice is Insead; its quite a stretch, but I’m > > gonna try anyhow. The idea of spending a while > in > > Singapore is extremely appealing, as well as > the > > single year module. > > > Hope you signed a pre-nup. Why? He’d be going with me, there is no way I would have it otherwise. I don’t get how couple live apart… its just not a sacrifice I’m willing to make. I am lucky though since my better half’s profession almost makes moving and job hopping beneficial. My goal is to get a stable enough position with a salary/benefits that are decent enough to support my husband while he goes into the house-husband role w/ some freelance work here and there (he’s an art director).
tobias Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Good points by all. I appreciate the comments and > although you haven’t changed my mind, I can > understand why some highly paid individuals might > choose B-school. Just curious, what are your reasons for not wanting to attend business school? Is it purely just a cost-benefit analysis on your end?
Some anecdotal evidence from last night: I’m out getting drinks with a number of high ranking fortune 500 execs and they start talking about their Treasurer and how he really knows his stuff. The guy is 50+ and well established. He’s clearly smart, he had an extensive history in M&A before moving to Treasury to “take it easy”. So what do they say about him: “This guy went to Wharton. He’s very sharp…yada yada yada.” The point I’m trying to make is that they mentioned Wharton FIRST as a mark of distinguishment. I’ve seen/heard this with my own eyes countless times and it proves a point: Even at the highest levels, the MBA is still important and serves as a lifetime brand. Even if you’re making money hand over fist it still serves as a differentiator.
don’t know if this will add much value to the discussion, but… i think that an MBA can be a great thing to do for the right person. that being said, it’s hard to generalize if it’s right for all people. can it open doors? sure. can it enhance your earning power? sure. for me, i don’t think an MBA is worth for the simple reason that there are too many other things that i’m interested in. i think it would be a terrible waste to take the time to go back to school for that when it basically covers the CFA curriculum plus marketing/management. obviously the main considerations are networking opps and access to opportunities that might not otherwise be available. there are just too many other things i’m interested in - economics, philosophy, history, etc. - that i couldn’t justify going for an mba instead of furthering my education in those areas. for some people it’s a great move, but for others it might not be an optimal use of time and money, imo time being the more precious commodity.
numi Wrote: > Just curious, what are your reasons for not > wanting to attend business school? Is it purely > just a cost-benefit analysis on your end? Cost-benefit is certainly the main consideration. Also, I am a little older than you. Certainly not too old for business school but it makes a difference. I also can’t imagine a better work situation than the one I am in now. There is no VP level for me to aspire to in my current role - the next level would be running the show. So I just don’t think it is necessary for me. I certainly understand why others feel differently, and the info in this thread has been particularly useful in seeing the other side of the story.
One of the most common inquiries I get is “what are my chances at Harvard/Stanford/Wharton? What kind of people do they look for?” The mythical “HBS, Stanford and Wharton” trifecta represents the epitome of what many applicants view as the Promised Land, or the quest for the holy grail (or maybe their own version of the 72 virgins in heaven). These schools look for the same things as any other school - strong academics, quality work experience, strong interpersonal skills, and “depth” (i.e. no androids or worker drones). The difference is, these schools can afford to be more picky simply because they have a stronger pool of applicants to choose from. There are essentially three kinds of people (regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.) at the Sweet Sixteen schools (see my prior post for what I mean by Sweet Sixteen): (1) Blue Chips - these are folks with pedigree. They went to top undergrads and worked at highly sought after jobs (by those at the top undergrads). There’s nothing particularly special about them as people, but they have a strong blue chip background. They are the Princeton undergrad to McKinsey kids, the Westpoint grad who serves in Iraq, Wharton undergrad to Goldman kids, and so forth. They didn’t just work in IB, but they work at Goldman or Morgan Stanley. They didn’t just work at no-name private equity fund, but they worked at Carlyle or TPG. They didn’t just work in consulting, but at McKinsey/Bain/BCG. They are smart and accomplished kids who did as well as they could taking a traditional and well-trodden path. (2) Vagabonds - these are folks who went to the same colleges as the Blue Chips (i.e. top undergrads), but rather than work at Goldman or Bain, they decided to take the road less traveled. They did the Peace Corps, worked as a theater producer, played on the PGA tour, became a clergyman (of whatever religion), worked in nonprofit, etc. Or they may have spent a year at Morgan Stanley, hated it, and decided to work as a personal aide to a Senator or Congressman. (3) Average Joes – they went to okay colleges, worked in decent jobs (IT, accounting, some random corporate job, 2nd tier consulting, etc.). Or they went to top undergrads, but ended up in decent but unremarkable jobs (i.e. a lot of the IIT folks who are applying, or the Harvard undergrad who works at a Big-4). Or they are they went to okay undergrads, and worked at no-name hedgefunds. Or they went to a state school and ended up in IB or MC. And so forth. The difference with HBS, Stanford and Wharton is that you’ll see far more Blue Chips and Vagabonds (and by extension, less Average Joes) than you’ll see at other schools, and particularly at HBS and Stanford. That’s partly self-selection (a good chunk of the Blue Chips and Vagabonds apply only to these schools), but also the fact that they are more sought after by all b-schools. Schools outside of these three will still get their share of Blue Chips and Vagabonds, but not to the same degree. And by extension, there are quite a few Average Joes at these three schools but not to the same degree as other schools. One other thing: age range matters too. A Blue Chip who is more than 5 years out of undergrad sees his/her chances at these three schools diminish. Most of the Blue Chips you’ll find at these schools are roughly 24 - 27 years old (but you can get away with being a little older at Wharton, and it’s not really an issue outside of H/S/W). With Average Joes, there is also a limited window where you have a fighting chance – around 2 - 5 years experience (and outside of H/S/W it’s less an issue). It’s only with the Vagabonds and US military personnel where age is less an issue (and if you look at the older folks in these classes, most are Vagabonds and US military officers (and if you’re thinking that being in the Korean, Taiwanese, Singaporean, Israeli military for the 1 - 2 year stint as part of your mandatory service is seen in the same light - it’s not; they dynamics are simply not the same as choosing the military as your career path in a volunteer army). While schools like to talk about getting “all kinds of people from all age ranges”, the reality is at HBS, Stanford or Wharton, the window of opportunity is a bit narrower, and if you’re an outlier (especially on the older side), you better have something special and unique to bring to the table. Of course a lot of people don’t fit neatly into one of these three buckets, but it’s a good rough way to determine how an adcom will see your profile. One way to look at it is that at H/S/W, if you are a Blue Chip or Vagabond, you are competitive so long as you submit a strong application. However, if you are an Average Joe, you need to be very lucky as well in addition to submitting a strong application (because of your Average Joe background, it becomes a far more subjective and random process). Also, one thing to keep in mind is that for most of the Blue Chips and Vagabonds, going to HBS or Wharton or Stanford isn’t the best thing that’s happened to them - they have a long enough list of pedigree and/or accomplishments in their lives already that it’s not that big a deal for them whether they have the HBS name or not. They don’t dream about having a prestigious degree, because many of them already have one (their undergrad), or have done some pretty interesting things in their lives that it trumps whatever brand name they have on their resume. That’s why you’ll see that the biggest proponents of “brand” and what it does for your career on this board (and to some extent in real life) are people who didn’t go to these schools (i.e. they don’t get it) - brand doesn’t come before achievement and talent; achievement and talent comes first, and “brand/pedigree” is a nice dessert that may or may not result. Adcoms tend to admit people who don’t need the “brand” on the resume - they would’ve been successful without it. It’s like health insurance where they provide insurance only to the superhealthy, or banks lending only to those who don’t need the money. The real acid test for applicants is this: if getting into HBS or Stanford would be the best thing that’s ever happened to you professionally or personally, your chances are probably pretty slim (because you don’t have enough to bring to the table, which is why HBS/Stanford/Wharton would be the best thing that’s happened to you).
pacmandefense Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One of the most common inquiries I get is “what > are my chances at Harvard/Stanford/Wharton? What > kind of people do they look for?” The mythical > “HBS, Stanford and Wharton” trifecta represents > the epitome of what many applicants view as the > Promised Land, or the quest for the holy grail (or > maybe their own version of the 72 virgins in > heaven). > > These schools look for the same things as any > other school - strong academics, quality work > experience, strong interpersonal skills, and > “depth” (i.e. no androids or worker drones). The > difference is, these schools can afford to be more > picky simply because they have a stronger pool of > applicants to choose from. > > There are essentially three kinds of people > (regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, > religion, etc.) at the Sweet Sixteen schools (see > my prior post for what I mean by Sweet Sixteen): > > (1) Blue Chips - these are folks with pedigree. > They went to top undergrads and worked at highly > sought after jobs (by those at the top > undergrads). There’s nothing particularly special > about them as people, but they have a strong blue > chip background. They are the Princeton undergrad > to McKinsey kids, the Westpoint grad who serves in > Iraq, Wharton undergrad to Goldman kids, and so > forth. They didn’t just work in IB, but they work > at Goldman or Morgan Stanley. They didn’t just > work at no-name private equity fund, but they > worked at Carlyle or TPG. They didn’t just work in > consulting, but at McKinsey/Bain/BCG. They are > smart and accomplished kids who did as well as > they could taking a traditional and well-trodden > path. > > (2) Vagabonds - these are folks who went to the > same colleges as the Blue Chips (i.e. top > undergrads), but rather than work at Goldman or > Bain, they decided to take the road less traveled. > They did the Peace Corps, worked as a theater > producer, played on the PGA tour, became a > clergyman (of whatever religion), worked in > nonprofit, etc. Or they may have spent a year at > Morgan Stanley, hated it, and decided to work as a > personal aide to a Senator or Congressman. > > (3) Average Joes – they went to okay colleges, > worked in decent jobs (IT, accounting, some random > corporate job, 2nd tier consulting, etc.). Or they > went to top undergrads, but ended up in decent but > unremarkable jobs (i.e. a lot of the IIT folks who > are applying, or the Harvard undergrad who works > at a Big-4). Or they are they went to okay > undergrads, and worked at no-name hedgefunds. Or > they went to a state school and ended up in IB or > MC. And so forth. > > The difference with HBS, Stanford and Wharton is > that you’ll see far more Blue Chips and Vagabonds > (and by extension, less Average Joes) than you’ll > see at other schools, and particularly at HBS and > Stanford. That’s partly self-selection (a good > chunk of the Blue Chips and Vagabonds apply only > to these schools), but also the fact that they are > more sought after by all b-schools. Schools > outside of these three will still get their share > of Blue Chips and Vagabonds, but not to the same > degree. And by extension, there are quite a few > Average Joes at these three schools but not to the > same degree as other schools. > > One other thing: age range matters too. A Blue > Chip who is more than 5 years out of undergrad > sees his/her chances at these three schools > diminish. Most of the Blue Chips you’ll find at > these schools are roughly 24 - 27 years old (but > you can get away with being a little older at > Wharton, and it’s not really an issue outside of > H/S/W). With Average Joes, there is also a limited > window where you have a fighting chance – around > 2 - 5 years experience (and outside of H/S/W it’s > less an issue). It’s only with the Vagabonds and > US military personnel where age is less an issue > (and if you look at the older folks in these > classes, most are Vagabonds and US military > officers (and if you’re thinking that being in the > Korean, Taiwanese, Singaporean, Israeli military > for the 1 - 2 year stint as part of your mandatory > service is seen in the same light - it’s not; they > dynamics are simply not the same as choosing the > military as your career path in a volunteer army). > While schools like to talk about getting “all > kinds of people from all age ranges”, the reality > is at HBS, Stanford or Wharton, the window of > opportunity is a bit narrower, and if you’re an > outlier (especially on the older side), you better > have something special and unique to bring to the > table. > > Of course a lot of people don’t fit neatly into > one of these three buckets, but it’s a good rough > way to determine how an adcom will see your > profile. > > One way to look at it is that at H/S/W, if you are > a Blue Chip or Vagabond, you are competitive so > long as you submit a strong application. However, > if you are an Average Joe, you need to be very > lucky as well in addition to submitting a strong > application (because of your Average Joe > background, it becomes a far more subjective and > random process). > > Also, one thing to keep in mind is that for most > of the Blue Chips and Vagabonds, going to HBS or > Wharton or Stanford isn’t the best thing that’s > happened to them - they have a long enough list of > pedigree and/or accomplishments in their lives > already that it’s not that big a deal for them > whether they have the HBS name or not. They don’t > dream about having a prestigious degree, because > many of them already have one (their undergrad), > or have done some pretty interesting things in > their lives that it trumps whatever brand name > they have on their resume. That’s why you’ll see > that the biggest proponents of “brand” and what it > does for your career on this board (and to some > extent in real life) are people who didn’t go to > these schools (i.e. they don’t get it) - brand > doesn’t come before achievement and talent; > achievement and talent comes first, and > “brand/pedigree” is a nice dessert that may or may > not result. > > Adcoms tend to admit people who don’t need the > “brand” on the resume - they would’ve been > successful without it. It’s like health insurance > where they provide insurance only to the > superhealthy, or banks lending only to those who > don’t need the money. > > The real acid test for applicants is this: if > getting into HBS or Stanford would be the best > thing that’s ever happened to you professionally > or personally, your chances are probably pretty > slim (because you don’t have enough to bring to > the table, which is why HBS/Stanford/Wharton would > be the best thing that’s happened to you). http://mbaapply.blogspot.com/
Thanks Pacman! Awsome name btw. I’m signed up for the GMAT on Sept 8th. I excited for it. As of right now studying harder daily for that then I did for the CFA Exam. Once that is over, it is time to get back on the horse for Level 1 in December. Unfortunatly lady luck threw me on the other side of the fence and I failed by a handful of points.
Or you can be dankeshane, go to a no-name school, graduate with a history degree, earn peanuts, and then call everyone from Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton b-school a bunch of idiots.
farley013 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or you can be dankeshane, go to a no-name school, > graduate with a history degree, earn peanuts, and > then call everyone from Harvard, Stanford, and > Wharton b-school a bunch of idiots. Hey farley013, I have nothing against you and often enjoy your snide remarks 
but your comment is off here. Wesleyan is a great school, and its very hard to get into. In the right circles, it will be equally as recognizable as the trifecta, I has some of the highest acceptance rate to graduate programs of all undergrad schools. I think its currently is the #11 liberal arts college in the United States currently tied with my alma mater, Claremont McKenna College. I agree Danteshek is often a D-Bag in his posts…
farley013 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or you can be dankeshane, go to a no-name school, > graduate with a history degree, earn peanuts, and > then call everyone from Harvard, Stanford, and > Wharton b-school a bunch of idiots. I don’t think people from Harvard are idiots. My parents were married there as undergraduates.
In my opinon, where someone went to high school or prep school is at least as indicative of personal quality than where someone when to college, if not more so. >In the right circles, it will be equally as recognizable as the trifecta It’s not surprising he didn’t recognize it…
Danteshek Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my opinon, where someone went to high school or > prep school is at least as indicative of personal > quality than where someone when to college, if not > more so. Had to ruin it?? I stood up for you and you go back to skimming the dbag line. Where you go to prep school is a decision made by you parents, not you. It says little of YOU, your ambitions, work ethic, intelligence, etc. Would you seriously think of the stereotypical spoon-fed prep school brat who in fact proved to be just that and barely managed to make it into a mid-tier school better than a recent immigrant who worked their butt of in a public school and managed to get into a solid state school followed by a prestigious Ivy fro grad school??
“http://mbaapply.blogspot.com/” pacman, i was about to call you on lifting that from alex! good thing i kept reading. for anyone interested, the guy who runs this blog has a lot of very good stuff at the businessweek mba forum. read the ask alex thread. pretty much skip anything said by someone other than him.
You didn’t really stand up for me. You called me a D-bag yourself. I have all the respect in the world for recent immigrants, especially those who are able to overcome and succeed. What I am saying about prep schools doesn’t really change that. There are plenty of recent immigrants at prep schools (for instance, my family sponsored an ethiopian immigrant who lived in our house 20 years ago while he went to St. Albans. He ended up at Dartmouth). There are also plenty of recent immigrants who claw their way to success without those advantages. I am equally impressed with them. I have observed that certain prep schools outdo even the most prestigious colleges in terms of consistently producing quality graduates. Even Harvard has a huge % of morons (legacy, athletes, whatever). This is much less so at some of the top prep schools. About your comment that they are brats: many of these prep schools are incredibly difficult to get into and far more challenging academically than most universities. A lot of the kids may be rich, or even spoiled, but they are still outperformers and far more intelligent and capable than your average joe at a top ranked university. They are also more likely to succeed, due to their personal quality and education, network, and the mere fact that it is expected.
“A lot of the kids may be rich, or even spoiled, but they are still outperformers and far more intelligent and capable than your average joe at a top ranked university.” I couldn’t disagree more! Must be nice to have mommy and daddy buy your way through life.
I did not, I said your posts often veer there. There is a big difference bt saying that “certain prep schools outdo even the most prestigious colleges in terms of consistently producing quality graduates” and saying that they are of better “personal quality.” Maybe I misunderstood, but I take the latter term to mean innate ability/ ambition- something that i do not think is in any way correlated to one’s prep/ high school, unless of course you are of the sort that is already at that maturity level at 12/13 yrs old when those preparations typically begin. You list of the exceptions, and I agree they exist, but I still think that accomplishments made when one is in independent control of their lives says far more about their character then their secondary school of choice. I’m not referring to only immigrants here, what about ppl from blue collar backgrounds who escape their families past? Maybe like a Tim Russert for example. And I did not say that all prep school kids were spoiled brats, I just noted that some DO fit the stereotype. There were plenty Exeter/Andover kids at CMC that were smart but lazy and nowhere near as admirable as public school kids from underprivileged areas who worked hard and never complained. >They are also more likely to succeed, due to their personal quality and education, network, and the mere fact that it is expected. Agreed, but that doesn’t make them commendable or make me respect them any more…
Danteshek, every post wherein you express your extreme (and unfounded, in my opinion) disdain for the top academic institutions and the people who graduated from them only makes them look better than their competitors, not worse…