Surprising MBA Study

My guess as to why Mckinsey saw such a negative shock is simply that people are coming around to the fact that, while it is part of MBB and some even see it as being in its own tier, it is still way overrated.

Case in point: I'm going to work for one of the Bs and when I tell people they usually have never heard of it. Then I'll say "Have you heard of Mckinsey?" They almost always have and I just say it's like them. Obviously anyone who knows the real deal sees no reason why Mckinsey should be a more ubiquitous name.

ringtailedlemur:

Any idea why McKinsey's reputation got dinged in the past year?

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2010/01/07/2010-01-07_exmckinsey__co_d…

maybe?

columbaspexit:

While I sometimes think that McKinsey is over-hyped (I work for a firm that begins with "B"), I don't think that's why their reputation has slipped amongst graduating MBAs. If you look at the sample, the study focuses on students who are going through the recruiting process. Changes in sentiment are therefore heavily influenced by firms' recruiting practices, not just their general perception of being a good place to work.

Firms that let a lot of people go (Monitor), pushed start dates back or don't give as much coddling to applicants (McKinsey) get hurt. Meanwhile, Booz is helped by being divorced from Booz Allen and the fact that nobody has beenpushed back.

I think this is partly true, but then from what I hear, Booz treated their staff terribly during the recession also. Could it be that in the absence of BAH, we see a new, MBBB type market segmentation? There was virtually no differential in perception b/t Booz and the others. Very surprising that if any firm, Monitor didn't move closest to those three, IMO.