How does working at a small firm influence MBA admissions?

"Branding" is probably the most important factor for M7 admissions if you're coming from finance or consulting. If you don't have a big name firm on your resume, you most likely won't get in since you're competing against those who do have big names on their resumes. Now, admission consultants will say that you will be judged by your actual accomplishments at work rather than where you worked. Although that may technically be true, adcom doesn't know what goes on at those smaller firms, and they have no way of figuring out how selective it was to get that job in the first place and the context of your actual work experience. Thus, the burden of proof becomes a lot higher for you to prove to adcom that you deserve to get in.

Story telling and quality recommendations can make up the difference though. Anything you've achieved that indicates top-tier performance should probably be slipped into your essays somewhere. For example you can put in something like (Selected for XXX position out of a pool of YYY applicants). I did that on my resume where I modified a bullet point from "assigned to X advisory team" to "selected ahead of XX personnel for assignment to a special advisory team). It's a slight word fudge but it's technically accurate: I was put on the team because as a relatively new guy, I was more current on the technical skills required for the job than anyone else in my unit.

Another factor that can work at your favor (depending on each individual school's preferences) can be that people at small firms tend to get more responsibilities then members of teams at large firms. If you know what the typical responsibilities are you can write your resume so as to highlight any responsibilities you have that are above and beyond what analysts typically do.

Overall BB is probably a safer bet but if you're currently at a small firm(My guess is you are based on the tone of your writing) then don't let it discourage you, although you may want to get some storytelling help from admissions consultants or any friends you may have who were admitted to an M7 program.

The last one in particular just saved my bacon as I am now sitting on some R3 offers from top 20 schools whereas prior to that I was dinged by schools ranging from M7 to Top 30. There was exactly one change: I completely revamped my essays and resume incorporating feedback from people who are currently enrolled in M7 schools. Here's how important the improved storytelling was: judging from posts on P&Q and GMATclub I managed to beat out some people who had gmat scores that were 50 points higher than me AND GPA's that were about .5 higher than mine.

Unfortunately, I cannot give any advice, but I do know a guy who spent a four years split between two small boutiques and ended up at Wharton. What got him in was telling a story about his industry knowledge and where he wanted to end up post-MBA. Good luck!

It can make a great story for why you need a (Harvard, Wharton, Columbia) MBA: you need the skills, brand, and network to work at a blue chip firm post-MBA. You bring valuable work experience, and it shows you are looking introspectively at what you need to do to get to goal X.

In short, crush your current job, get promoted, be likeable, and remember: the application is more than any one part.

The guy's got a point. People from BB firms have it a bit easier because they're well known brands, so ADCOMS have some idea about what they were doing and their competitiveness based on the name alone. If you're from either a lesser known firm or a poorly understood industry(like nonprofits) then you need to write your essays and resume in a manner that enlightens them.

Also look at some of the other discussions. I can't testify personally but there are other posters saying that coming from a high-finance background can actually work against you at some schools, most notably HBS.

Sorry to capture this topic, but I always wondered on what grounds people consider themselves 'top performers' in their firm. A lot of elite professions (IB, consulting, law, et cetera) are very hierarchical in terms of promotions, so it will be difficult to distinguish yourself based on promotions. Is 'top performer' purely based on recommendations, and the roles you put on your resume? Or do AdComs actually request annual performance reviews?

there's not a spot for it....I think you just need to have a leg to stand on if you make the claim that you're a top performer and there's any numbers of ways to back that claim up. In my case I got the adcom to attach a performance review from a supervisor who, for a reason i don't want to discuss publicly to protect their identity, is in a situation where I can not contact to request a recommendation.

I work for a boutique consulting firm, albeit one that has been around for a number of years. Most of our consultants come from ivies like Dartmouth, Brown, and Cornell, and top NESCSC schools. Although our firm is not well known, every year we send people to the likes of Wharton, Tuck, Booth, and Kellogg. A few people go higher (HBS) and lower (Stern, Yale, etc.). In my opinion, the brand name is less important (once we're no longer talking about the best-known places) than ad coms' familiarity with and acceptance of prior applicants from your firm.

What about firms that are well-known but have somewhat of a 'bad reputation' within their industry, such as UBS (for IBD), EY for consulting, $random non/semi-selective F500, et cetera. Without wanting to start a flame war on the companies that I mentioned (purely for illustration purposes), I am sure you get the point ...

Is this actually worse than a no-name company, as adcoms are at least 'unfamiliar' with its selectivity.

My coworker got into a top 3 and we were a four man shop.

Does the same apply when working at small hf's and pe firms?

Its actually much easier to get into top schools with smaller companies. You get to stretch the truth as much as possible. Take on management roles that people at larger firms do not have. True, the recommendations from your recommenders should have some clout, but if you manage to get into a say a tiny firm with extremely important people their recommendations for you will be much better than 99.99 percent of the ones from say BB. If you work at a small enough place, you'll likely develop personal relationships with your peers and superiors so they would literally be able to fabricate or support anything you say.

• assume management roles early on
• more promotions
• larger salaries than people in big companies and larger increases
• better recommendations
• ability to stretch truth extremely far
  • larger salaries The amount of fudging you can do if you're smart about it is honestly nearly unlimited.

Make the most of your situation. Lastly, you compete with your cohort/ industry field. So everything you put on paper should convey to the adcom that your boutique is an elite boutique. Again, if there are people before you who went to selective schools, that helps as well.