• Sharebar

http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/mba/admissions/classp...

Columbia applications down from 6669 to 5409 - about 19% .

Selectivity, assuming they accepted 1060 students (as they did last year) to give them the target size of 750 students, jumps a massive 4 percentage points in one year to 20%!

Gmat avg, 80% range and Gpa all remained the same however.

edit: Hi Businessweek!!

Tag: 

Comments (42)

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    A year ago I would have made a snarky comment about Columbia with my state school background, but said comments would make me an asshole now that I am in grad school and have to be more respectful.

    First off, how did HBS, Chicago Booth, and Sloan applications look? There is a bubble in education right now, and top tier MBA apps may have gone down.

    One of the big drivers of insecurity on the personal level is trying to copy/be somebody else. When I was in junior high and high school, my parents would always compare me against this other kid in my grade. They wanted me to be like him, and it drove me crazy.

    Columbia needs to stop trying to copy Harvard. Chicago and MIT to some extent did that decades ago when the East Coast schools switched to a more postmodern ethos and Chicago stuck to a more conservative philosophy.

    What if Columbia's philosophy became the notion that your life's worth is defined by how much you make other peoples' lives better. Columbia can become the NGO MBA school and attract a bunch of people who will turn down Harvard for CBS, not unlike the ~50 who turn down HBS for Booth.

    Princeton and Yale don't try to copy Harvard. Stanford, MIT, Chicago, and Wharton don't either. That's why they're destination schools for various disciplines. Columbia's attempts to copy other schools rather than stand in its own right unfairly undermines the confidence of their students and breeds insecurity.

    If you know somebody that knows somebody on the Columbia board, consider giving them an idea:

    "Columbia: Men and Women for others."

    When life is about other people and THEIR struggles, it's tough to have an inferiority complex. Especially if you have an M7 MBA or top ten undergrad degree. Columbia students are too smart (many being smarter than me) to be saddled with worries that their school might not be as good as Harvard or Stanford or Wharton. Their school should be their school, and it stands for something that no better school stands for.

    I at least feel that way about Illinois. Illinois stands for business and engineering competence among the middle-class, and I would not willingly trade that degree for one that had MIT or Harvard on it.

    Let's have Columbia be the Ivy that stands for philanthropy. Five years after it loses its copy-Harvard-and-Yale-and-other-schools strategy, it will be mentioned in the same sentence as those schools.

    Columbians should be proud of the fact that they went to Columbia, which stands for Philanthropy (or something else). Harvard doesn't stand for that, and Columbians would like to keep their degrees, thank you very much, not trade them for another school's. People that brilliant shouldn't be reduced to that level of insecurity.

  • BlackHat's picture

    19% more people are missing out on the best 2 years of their lives

    I hate victims who respect their executioners

  • John_McClane's picture

    Harvard went from 9134 to 8963, decrease of 2%

    Wharton went from 6442 to 6408, decrease of 0.5%

    Stern went from 5222 to 3907, decrease of 25%

    Not sure about other schools, but this may be a NYC phenomenon.

    (I thought the Yale MBA stood for philanthropy?)

  • DCFwacc's picture

    Are people just thinking H/S/W or bust these days? Or Chicago > NYC? No stats out yet for Booth or Kellogg. Curious where these ~1,200 applicants went.

    As a CBS '15 applicant, not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing...

  • ladubs111's picture

    Wonder if it was more to do with the downturn on Wall Street. Potential students saying fuck ibd and wallstreet i'll go to to So and So B-school and get a job at F500 or Bain/Mckiney, etc.

    On that note wonder if Stanford applicants went up.

  • dazedmonk's picture

    "So and So B-school" and get a job at F500 or Bain/McKiney?

    Since when did so - and - so bschools place into Bain/McKinsey (try to spell it right)? I'm so confused by these banker types that think top consulting firms are a fall back option for people who couldn't do banking. You do realize they are at least as competitive, right?

  • Brady4MVP's picture

    Interesting that MBA apps were down this past year, even though the economy is still fairly weak.

    My guess is that booth/kellogg are taking a lot of cross-admits away from columbia. Booth especially has been on the rise and is very close behind Wharton. Columbia's main problems are that its building is very old and outdated, but more importantly, it lacks the sense of community that pervades other b-schools.

  • In reply to Brady4MVP
    Guest1655's picture

    Brady4MVP wrote:
    Interesting that MBA apps were down this past year, even though the economy is still fairly weak.

    My guess is that booth/kellogg are taking a lot of cross-admits away from columbia. Booth especially has been on the rise and is very close behind Wharton. Columbia's main problems are that its building is very old and outdated, but more importantly, it lacks the sense of community that pervades other b-schools.


    What b-school would you say has the best sense of community?

  • In reply to Guest1655
    Brady4MVP's picture

    Guest1655 wrote:
    Brady4MVP wrote:
    Interesting that MBA apps were down this past year, even though the economy is still fairly weak.

    My guess is that booth/kellogg are taking a lot of cross-admits away from columbia. Booth especially has been on the rise and is very close behind Wharton. Columbia's main problems are that its building is very old and outdated, but more importantly, it lacks the sense of community that pervades other b-schools.


    What b-school would you say has the best sense of community?

    Among the top 10 programs, probably Tuck, followed by kellogg and hbs. Tuck has the highest alumni giving rate out of any b-school; its small size and remote location foster a very strong sense of community.

    With columbia and stern, a lot of the students lived in NYC before school and thus have their own social circle coming in. I've heard this complaint from multiple columbia and stern students. Although they still had fun, there definitely is not a sense that everyone is in this together or the sense of camraderie.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    DagwoodDeluxe's picture

    IlliniProgrammer wrote:

    What if Columbia's philosophy became the notion that your life's worth is defined by how much you make other peoples' lives better. Columbia can become the NGO MBA school and attract a bunch of people who will turn down Harvard for CBS, not unlike the ~50 who turn down HBS for Booth.

    IP, where do you get the stat that ~50 people turn down HBS for Booth? This seems too high to me. Per HBS' wesbite (http://www.hbs.edu/about/statistics/mba.html), their yield for class of 2013 was either 81% or 89% (they report 89% but if I do the math, it calcs to 81%... not sure what the delta is). Anyway, this implies that between 110-215 people reject HBS each year.

    I believe ~100 people get into both HBS and GSB each year, based on friends' experience, the Facebook group for cross-admits (how pretentious!), etc. My understanding is that ~70% of this group chooses GSB. Let's haircut that to ~50% just to be conservative. That leaves us with ~60-165 other people who reject HBS.

    Especially if the right number is on the lower end of that range, it seems highly unlikely that 50 of them are going to Booth. Some will go to Wharton or other schools. Some will get promoted at work and not go at all.

    Not a big deal but just curious where you got this number. My (unfounded) guess is that the number is more like 5-10 people. Maybe 20.

  • In reply to Brady4MVP
    Guest1655's picture

    Brady4MVP wrote:
    Guest1655 wrote:
    Brady4MVP wrote:
    Interesting that MBA apps were down this past year, even though the economy is still fairly weak.

    My guess is that booth/kellogg are taking a lot of cross-admits away from columbia. Booth especially has been on the rise and is very close behind Wharton. Columbia's main problems are that its building is very old and outdated, but more importantly, it lacks the sense of community that pervades other b-schools.


    What b-school would you say has the best sense of community?

    Among the top 10 programs, probably Tuck, followed by kellogg and hbs. Tuck has the highest alumni giving rate out of any b-school; its small size and remote location foster a very strong sense of community.

    With columbia and stern, a lot of the students lived in NYC before school and thus have their own social circle coming in. I've heard this complaint from multiple columbia and stern students. Although they still had fun, there definitely is not a sense that everyone is in this together or the sense of camraderie.

    yeah but I've never heard of anyone dropping the D-bomb

  • In reply to DagwoodDeluxe
    Brady4MVP's picture

    DagwoodDeluxe wrote:
    IlliniProgrammer wrote:

    What if Columbia's philosophy became the notion that your life's worth is defined by how much you make other peoples' lives better. Columbia can become the NGO MBA school and attract a bunch of people who will turn down Harvard for CBS, not unlike the ~50 who turn down HBS for Booth.

    IP, where do you get the stat that ~50 people turn down HBS for Booth? This seems too high to me. Per HBS' wesbite (http://www.hbs.edu/about/statistics/mba.html), their yield for class of 2013 was either 81% or 89% (they report 89% but if I do the math, it calcs to 81%... not sure what the delta is). Anyway, this implies that between 110-215 people reject HBS each year.

    I believe ~100 people get into both HBS and GSB each year, based on friends' experience, the Facebook group for cross-admits (how pretentious!), etc. My understanding is that ~70% of this group chooses GSB. Let's haircut that to ~50% just to be conservative. That leaves us with ~60-165 other people who reject HBS.

    Especially if the right number is on the lower end of that range, it seems highly unlikely that 50 of them are going to Booth. Some will go to Wharton or other schools. Some will get promoted at work and not go at all.

    Not a big deal but just curious where you got this number. My (unfounded) guess is that the number is more like 5-10 people. Maybe 20.

    HBS' yield is around 89-90% on any given year. And most of the people who turn it down opt for stanford instead. A friend who was on student adcom at wharton said that in wharton's class, no more than 10-15 people turned down HBS. The number for booth is most likely in the single digits. I have no idea where IP got that stat from.

  • Boothorbust's picture

    There is no way ~50 people turn down HBS for Booth every year. I'd love if that were true, but it's not even remotely possible. That would be approaching 10% of the incoming Booth class and almost 5% of HBS admits - just no way IP. I'd be surprised if it is more than 10 students in any given year.

  • DCFwacc's picture

    It looks to me like the 5409 accounts for both August and January, according to the class profile page. J-term apps are open for the current cycle. Are you sure they're still open for last year's cycle as well? Even if they were, that'd only account for very few apps.

    MBA Student Profile — Class Entering 2012 (January and August)

    Applications Received 5409
    Class Size 741, divided into 11 clusters
    January Entry Class Size 196, divided into 3 clusters
    August Entry Class Size 545, divided into 8 clusters

    http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/mba/admissions/classp...

  • alma2404's picture

    These stats don't take the J-Term into account. J-Termers start in January of 2013 and are part of the Class of 2014. Their applications are due in October, and a solid chunk of them don't apply until close to the deadline. They account for 1/4 of the class, and a similar fraction of the applicants. Therefore, CBS will have a comparable number of applicants this year as they did last year - likely more...

  • In reply to alma2404
    Boothorbust's picture

    alma2404 wrote:
    These stats don't take the J-Term into account. J-Termers start in January of 2013 and are part of the Class of 2014. Their applications are due in October, and a solid chunk of them don't apply until close to the deadline. They account for 1/4 of the class, and a similar fraction of the applicants. Therefore, CBS will have a comparable number of applicants this year as they did last year - likely more...

    The stats include J-terms entering in January 2012 (i.e., those already in school). The stats are for 2012 entry, so yes, the include both classes. Read the title. It's in bold. Hard to miss.

  • In reply to IlliniProgrammer
    UFOinsider's picture

    IlliniProgrammer wrote:
    There is a bubble in education right now, and top tier MBA apps may have gone down.

    Please clarify, I think I missed something here. It's late and I'm tired, but still....care to expand on this? The reason I ask is because I forsaw less people hiding in grad school as the economy stabilized, thus bringing the competition level down....that is where I see the opportunity.

    Get busy living

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    IlliniProgrammer's picture

    UFOinsider wrote:
    IlliniProgrammer wrote:
    There is a bubble in education right now, and top tier MBA apps may have gone down.

    Please clarify, I think I missed something here. It's late and I'm tired, but still....care to expand on this? The reason I ask is because I forsaw less people hiding in grad school as the economy stabilized, thus bringing the competition level down....that is where I see the opportunity.

    We're moving towards a system where fewer humans- perhaps no humans- are required to provide services to the economy. So why is everybody going to the University of Phoenix to get degrees in Art History?

    In the post-service economy, everything is getting automated- and that automation is moving up the value chain- and even eating into jobs that used to require college degrees. Business decisions are increasingly driven by computers and where you used to have 100 traders or 100 accountants, you now have one or two.

    This was great news back during the industrial revolution- it became cheap and easy and less labor intensive to manufacture large amounts of goods and we had the spare resources to supply industry with enough raw materials to keep everyone employed. We transitioned to the service economy, and everyone eventually enjoyed much better lifestyles.

    We're entering a new transition that requires even less labor for a given resource input. And that's great news- if we have the resources. But we don't. Between 1890 and 1900, energy consumption in the US doubled. Save the 1930s, it roughly doubled every decade after that until 1970. There is no way the world is going to get from 80 mmbpd of oil production to 160 mmbpd in ten years let alone ten decades. We *might* get there in 30 years on nuclear, which I have been a huge supporter of- even in the wake of Fukushima (albeit with a few qualifications), but the politics don't support that.

    So the result is that the economy needs less labor because it has the same resources and automation means the same person can do more work. Some of the evidence is borne out in the US's dramatic increases in productivity both before, during, and after the recession.

    Why does all this matter to college students? You go to college to enter the service economy, but the service economy requires fewer jobs.

    We need to move to the innovation economy. But that won't happen until we have cheap energy and resources. And that won't happen until we have another 300 nuclear reactors. And that won't happen until we can (1) guarantee that the new designs are on the order of 2-3 times safer than current US designs and (2) the public accepts that we need nuclear and it's safe. (Or fusion, or wind, or whatever energy technology can honest-to-god double the US's supply of energy, which wind probably can't.)

    The good news is that when we do get more resources and energy, $200K/year will be the new middle-class. The bad news is that, in the interim, when the economy doesn't need people anymore, those people don't have jobs. That includes college grads who study a discipline that allows them to be replaced by a computer.

  • In reply to monkey_scribe
    UFOinsider's picture

    monkey_scribe wrote:
    So. Just quit now? Don't go to b-school? Is that the takeaway?

    That's what I'm hoping a lot of people think. The more people that take themselves out of the equation, the less competition there is for us. The economy is inching out of a trough, and I want to be there when it roares back.

    The general economy is definitely changing and always does, but I am not a Malthusian. A key opportunity is making things more efficient, it's a key innovation. A perfect example is cars: they become more efficient over time and especially since energy prices go up. Both energy consumption and production efficiency are nowhere near what they could easily be, it's a matter of the will to push in that direction.

    Housing is another inefficient market: there's more than enough resources to build a house for everyone, albeit not a McMansion. Housing also demonstrates the irreplaceable nature of some jobs. A lot of people though real estate agents would vanish with the rise of the Internet. A lot of jobs did but a lot of different opportunities opened up, and the basic business of being a broker remains unchanged.

    To an extent, IP is correct that a lot of jobs are gone forever, but a lot of new opportunity opens up. Look at medicine: in areas where disease plummets, other services boom...cosmetic, vanity, reconstructive, and other optional proceedures become common. Also look at medical bookkeeping: less people are needed to maintain records, but new opportunity exists in building the new systems. Someone has to build, maintain, and upgrade the machines.

    Also, the economy was overheated to begin with. After 911, the Bush administration juiced the system to keep confidence up. This was a good short term move, but they and everyone else believed that a burst would last forever. Figuratively speaking, you can only drink so much coffee before you just need sleep. People have always managed to build fortunes and always will, but positioning the entire for a get rich quick type of mentality is disastrous. The long term greedy, or more simply put "common sense capitalism" that has served this country since well before its official founding is reasserting itself. There will be other growth periods, but now is a good time for people to think rather carefully about where they want to spend their work hours. As for what degree programs, I just avoid making blanket statements because it's just not my area of expertise. I will say this though: I do agree that it's a good idea for people to look at formal, pay to play education as a means to an income, and become more conservative in that area.

    As for energy, it's a matter of will. Alternative and nuclear energy need much more development before they make a larger dent. In the meantime, fossil fuel is the core infrastructure no matter how anyone feels about it. There is also a huge untapped market in making existing energy consumption more efficient.

    The theoretical aspect if interesting but this post is getting long.....

    Get busy living

  • IlliniProgrammer's picture

    Quote:
    As for energy, it's a matter of will. Alternative and nuclear energy need much more development before they make a larger dent. In the meantime, fossil fuel is the core infrastructure no matter how anyone feels about it. There is also a huge untapped market in making existing energy consumption more efficient.

    The problem is that we're running out of fossil fuels, though. One of the clearest signs of a plateau in the oil market is oil is at $100/barrel and production hasn't gone up very much. And I give the shale gas 15 years until we start to worry about running out of it. More importantly, do we really want to live on a planet that consumes ~400 quadrillion btus of fossil fuels every year? Global warming may be a hoax, it may not, but do we really want to find out? How lucky are we feeling? (Many conservatives feel uncharacteristically lucky on global warming.)

    Some evidence suggests that this year's droughts were predicted by models on global warming. If that's the case, expect food prices to skyrocket further. At some point, the question will be whether you'll be able to get grain through millions of hungry Pennsylvanians to New York City. The grain distribution system could break down and that would present a terrible threat to capitalism in the US. If peoples' kids are hungry, they really don't care about property rights, and you quickly spiral into anarchy and feudalism. I don't make this prediction lightly, but I think it is within the 1-5% range of possibility that there will be a lot of starving BSD traders and bankers in NYC.

    So my suggestion is to take Jim Rogers' advice. If you go back to school, there have probably been worse grad school ideas than studying agricultural science at the University of Iowa.

  • In reply to UFOinsider
    Brady4MVP's picture

    UFOinsider wrote:
    monkey_scribe wrote:
    So. Just quit now? Don't go to b-school? Is that the takeaway?

    That's what I'm hoping a lot of people think. The more people that take themselves out of the equation, the less competition there is for us. The economy is inching out of a trough, and I want to be there when it roares back.

    The general economy is definitely changing and always does, but I am not a Malthusian. A key opportunity is making things more efficient, it's a key innovation. A perfect example is cars: they become more efficient over time and especially since energy prices go up. Both energy consumption and production efficiency are nowhere near what they could easily be, it's a matter of the will to push in that direction.

    Housing is another inefficient market: there's more than enough resources to build a house for everyone, albeit not a McMansion. Housing also demonstrates the irreplaceable nature of some jobs. A lot of people though real estate agents would vanish with the rise of the Internet. A lot of jobs did but a lot of different opportunities opened up, and the basic business of being a broker remains unchanged.

    To an extent, IP is correct that a lot of jobs are gone forever, but a lot of new opportunity opens up. Look at medicine: in areas where disease plummets, other services boom...cosmetic, vanity, reconstructive, and other optional proceedures become common. Also look at medical bookkeeping: less people are needed to maintain records, but new opportunity exists in building the new systems. Someone has to build, maintain, and upgrade the machines.

    Also, the economy was overheated to begin with. After 911, the Bush administration juiced the system to keep confidence up. This was a good short term move, but they and everyone else believed that a burst would last forever. Figuratively speaking, you can only drink so much coffee before you just need sleep. People have always managed to build fortunes and always will, but positioning the entire for a get rich quick type of mentality is disastrous. The long term greedy, or more simply put "common sense capitalism" that has served this country since well before its official founding is reasserting itself. There will be other growth periods, but now is a good time for people to think rather carefully about where they want to spend their work hours. As for what degree programs, I just avoid making blanket statements because it's just not my area of expertise. I will say this though: I do agree that it's a good idea for people to look at formal, pay to play education as a means to an income, and become more conservative in that area.

    As for energy, it's a matter of will. Alternative and nuclear energy need much more development before they make a larger dent. In the meantime, fossil fuel is the core infrastructure no matter how anyone feels about it. There is also a huge untapped market in making existing energy consumption more efficient.

    The theoretical aspect if interesting but this post is getting long.....

    This is an excellent and very well-thought out post.

    I wonder where the next area of growth will be though in terms of jobs and productivity? Manufacturing is virtually automated or outsourced, and I think finance will continue to shrink since it was an inflated bubble to begin with. Trading in most asset classes has been taken over by algorithms. I guess the most obvious candidates are health care (baby boomers retiring) and alternative energy. The latter could take a long time before we see any material benefits.

    I agree with you that the U.S. economy should get better in the next few years, but as of now I think it will be a slow growth rather than anything explosive we witnessed like the mid-late 80's or late 90's, which I believe were historical anomalies. Hopefully I'm wrong since it's in every American's interests to see our economy roaring back.