All B-Schools ask for current salary on the application. I wonder, what do the top schools prefer? I have heard two different schools of thought on this:
-Top schools prefer a high salary, because a well compensated applicant signals to the schools that he/she is valued by the company. Similarly, a poorly compensated applicant may signal that he is applying solely for a salary bump.
-Top schools prefer a low salary, because that way, when the applicant makes $100k/yr+ after graduating, the school can say that they added the huge difference to the pre- and post-salaries. Additionally, schools are incentivized to accept candidates with low salaries because a large difference in pre and post MBA salaries could potentially mean a rise in MBA rankings for that school.
Technically, b-schools say that it's just for "data compilation" and that it does not affect admission decisions. I don't quite buy it. If a finance guy is "only" making $100K including bonus, and he's competing against finance badasses who are banking $500K/year, who do you think adcom at the elite schools is more likely to accept? Not saying that compensation is a critical criteria, but in finance at least it does signal mobility and ability.
FWIW, i know for a fact that there are a handful of people at hbs/stanford 1st year class this year who were making seven-figures including bonus.
Damn Brady, you just won't quit.
Do you think a B-School will pick some boiler-plate IB Analyst over some Navy SEAL because his salary was higher? I call BS.
Re-read what I wrote. I was making a comparison between people in finance, not across different industries. The standards vary by demographic and industry, and for finance, one's compensation is a reasonably good measure of how well you are doing. I think this is especially an issue if someone works for a no-name fund. If that person made "only" $100K including bonus, adcom will think, "geez, we've never heard of this place, so we're going to assume it's not a top place to work at, and based on his low compensation it looks like his career just hasn't anywhere."
Actually Brady/Devolution is right in extremis. i.e. If you've been at a fund 3 years, still make ~$100K all in, have nothing special in terms of stats/extracurriculars, you are probably a ding. But, neck and neck, someone with $220K all in vs $300K all in ... probably won't have a disadvantage, because when you're 3-4 years in how much of your comp is under your control? ( DE Shaw might pay more than KKR. Want to bet who has the advantage at HBS?)
The one thing that he is definitely spewing bullshit about is the 5-6 people in finance who made 7 figs a year (4 years in) and then went to HBS/Stanford. Sandy Kreisberg has repeated time and time that at levels north of $400-500K, adcom seriously wonders why you're applying. And let's use our brains a little bit- someone making > $1M will probably not apply to HBS.
Of course, I'm just an applicant and Brady is a multiple time reject. Lets wait for someone with knowledge.. Betsy/Alex to chime in.
i dont think devolution is brady. lastcall is.
I'd bet a large amount of money that this is brady's new avatar.
no1 in their right mind would quit 7 figures for b school xD
Eh, I would certainly consider it (if I made that sort of money), especially if there was a good chance I'd go back to making bookoo bucks following graduation. A socially acceptable "vacation" to either HBS or GSB could be pretty interesting. I almost think it'd be easier to go to business school as a 7-figure guy than as a $500k/year guy.
The issue here is, though, that they would know that you're only getting your ticket punched so it would be a waste of a seat. Besides, even someone who makes $1MM/yr would think twice before dropping a quarter-mill on something he/she didn't need.
People are overreacting to what i wrote. I know a "handful" of people in such a position (3-4). One of the guys is someone i played a lot of poker with (he was a big online pro during college back when that was huge), and he ended up getting a gig at a major hedge fund and rose up to PM. He's now at hbs/stanford and actually interned at a MBB consulting. In his case he was burned out and wanted to go outside of just finance and learn more about business. It may seem implausible to a lot of people, but we are not all monolithic. At that level you already have money and are looking for other challenges/experiences.
I don't think so. I still think that you're Brady, and that you're taking half a story from somewhere (The Poker pro with the 790 GMAT at GSB) and adding some other nonsense into it to make HBS/Stanford look like it's the White House Cabinet or something.
I agree - I think salary sends a strong signal for comparing applicants within the same job function/tier. For example, they will likely make a mental note if one 3rd year consultant is making significantly more than the rest. Really, this helps them filter out all the b.s. they have to read in recommendation letters. Because let's face it, everyone comes with strong recs (we're able to self-select these). But the all-in comp is the true data-point about how much the company values the candidate. I had a great bonus the year I applied (esp. relative to the norm in my industry), which I'm certain allowed me to "punch above my weight" when I applied to schools.
Fuga laborum et nulla at sed vero. Laboriosam provident aut quasi alias eum nostrum. Aut sunt saepe qui hic. Mollitia ullam consequatur veniam qui unde quidem.
Numquam sed et sequi ullam laboriosam provident assumenda. Quis animi cupiditate illum quidem eos. Nesciunt alias ad assumenda rem ipsam est. Accusantium eum corrupti sapiente incidunt magnam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...