Odds of HSW from MF PE?
Hi all, I'm a second-year banking analyst headed to a MF PE shop next year and am considering going to b school after my 2-year stint. Can anyone share data and/or anecdotes on the acceptance rate for South Asian/East Asian straight male MF PE associates for Harvard/Stanford (and Wharton)? I'd appreciate anecdotes/data like "last cycle 6 of the 10 KKR PE associates applied to b-school, 2 got into Harvard, Stanford, and Wharton; 2 got into Harvard and Wharton; 1 got into Wharton, 1 rejected from all 3"
I know this is a big ask and the data listed above might not be available but would appreciate whatever you guys could share.
Just apply and try your best to get in lol
Ignore title, am a senior associate at a MF (not KKR though). Based on what I've heard/seen from co-workers, you need to have at least 800 SB's to be competitive for any of the 3. So, I suggest you start drafting "MF PE is Paradise" posts immediately. Thanks
HBS alum here. I graduated a while back, so I don't have the latest stats of the most recent class, but my class had plenty of ex-Blackstone/Carlyle/KKR/Apollo/etc. With a gig at a MF PE, you are already well in the running for a spot at HBS (assuming strong GPA and GMAT score) - it simply comes down to crafting the right narrative (your story/essay, extracurriculars, etc.) and execution (e.g. interview)
I'm sorry but I'm really curious if I'm the only one who notices what an HBS answer this is:
1. Gets the fraction wrong. OP trying to figure out what % of MF PE gets in to HSW, not what % of those schools are MF PE.
2. Tells OP something he already knows (that MF PE background is common at these schools)
3. Sounds nice and professional while doing it. Beautifully crafted non-answer.
No hate at all, I have a ton of respect for HBS and could never get in myself. But I just thought it's funny how classic that was.
4. First thing they tell you is that they went to HBS.
I don’t think you’re going to get a satisfying or helpful answer because the process is very random with a lot of variability year to year. There are years when, say, TPG has a 100% acceptance rate and years when it’s 25%. It all depends on your individual application, how many people are applying from your class, what the applicant pool in general looks like, and whatever the schools are prioritizing in their class. The only answer is that your odds are as good as anyone else’s coming from MF PE.
P.S. - I would be dubious of firms with “pipelines” to specific business schools. Yes, there are certain firms that seem to outperform in MBA applications vs. peers but it’s very hard to say what the causal factor is.
it's an incredibly sad indictment of western society when perfectly good candidates need to labour the point that they are "straight"
Most comments in this thread demonstrate a misunderstanding of how the soft aspects of a candidate's profile influence the admissions decision.
When people talk about 'pipeline' funds, it's because of one of two possible factors.
First, the founder(s) (or current leader(s)) of the fund are alumni of the school and are involved in a leadership position or donate meaningfully to the school. You can instantly grasp how favorably an adcom is going to read an application coming with a recommendation from someone on its advisory council.
Second, the fund hires consistently and in volume from the school. Schools care immensely about their employment report: headcount (total hired) and compensation figures. A firm that hires multiple people from each graduating class is a firm that will also place multiple applicants into each new class. This applies beyond finance. Big corporates have this same quid pro quo. This is where the entire 'sponsored MBA' term came from. Historically it wasn't as much about the financial element as it was the 'you get to go here because we can make it happen' aspect.
You will laugh at how cynical this is, but it's the simple fact.
It also should help you understand the other side of the coin to the department each school titles something like 'corporate relations'.
The thing to couch all this in is that the b-school admissions process has flattened dramatically in the past two decades. B-school used to be the red-headed stepchild of graduate school. If you go talk to alumni from the 70s and 80s, they're very open about the fact that the application was basically writing an essay on the weekend, that school was a huge joke, and all the kids they meet today at events are so much more impressive on paper and career serious than they were. The GMAT wasn't a real exam at that point. If you've seen the movie Catch Me If You Can, think of that era. Clipboards and pencils type of shit. Admissions rates were 50% because everyone serious wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer.
So the phenomena I'm describing above were in no way out of place in that environment. And while application volume has skyrocketed and admissions rates plummeted, those same phenomena still exist. They simply apply to a much lower percentage of the overall applicant pool than before.
In terms of your application, you should understand that adcoms 'bucket' applicants. This means you're not competing against the strategy associate from Doctors Without Borders or the MBB consultant who then moved to political organizing. You're competing against everyone else coming from finance. This is why there are fewer successful candidates from corporate or commercial banking, because those resumes (and test scores and undergraduate schools and so on) sparkle less than the Goldman Sachs to Carlyle kid from an Ivy with a 3.85.
Here's an excerpt from a comment I made a year ago:
Finance applicants rarely communicate anything about their candidacy other than the very thing they're already overweight on: the I'm great at the work I do shit. When they do go past that, it tends to be about how they're awesome relative to other people: the I marshal other people around shit. If you can find a way to prove that you are involved in any way with shit that actually matters in the world (engaged citizenship), you're going to be golden.
In short, worry less about the statistics and more about rounding yourself out into the person that the school would be glad to have.
Kind of disagree with a lot of other posts - certain funds absolutely have a pipeline more than others.
I’m at a UMM with a big HBS pipeline. The firm cares about this and supports applicants, is active at career fairs to stay on good terms with top MBAs, and so on. No one can answer how much of it is the selection bias (fund encourages you to go to HBS basically) vs intangibles (fund relationship helps) but either way there is a higher hit rate from my fund to HBS vs other comparable funds.