Brand Name of Company v. Job in MBA admissions?
Hello all,
I was just wondering when MBA programs evaluate your pre-MBA work experience is it the brand name of the company they look at or is it the nature of the job/job title? For example, lets say we have two applicants (equal in other stas): an IB Analyst from a MM or Boutique (i.e: Cowan) and a Financial Analyst from Boeing, does the IB analyst applicant get better prospects for the sake of being an investment banker since its the more prestigious and tougher industry? Or does it all depend on the name as well?
I would appreciated any feedback and insight!
The answer to this questions is really "it depends", but in reality, both name brand and job title are very important. Looking at your example I'd say both have a decent shot, because MBA programs like to round out classes with a variety of skills and experiences, and they also like to print lists of companies from where they draw many of their candidates, sort of a "look at how much talent wants to come here!" and "our candidates are ready to kill it at your company, too!" proclamation. But no school wants all IB candidates or corpfin candidates.
I would say if you get into a namebrand company and have a decent job title, you won't be at a major disadvantage compared to the IB folks. You likely wouldn't be compared against them anyway. You'd be measured against folks in your own pool. As I meet more and more MBA candidates (and we always ask each other about previous work experience), the most consistent pre-MBA careers that pop up are (not in order): IB, Consulting, Accounting/Big4, Engineering, CorpFin, Military, and IT. Probably others but these are almost a given.
I agree that you are compared more so against those in your industry as opposed to across industries (unless you happen to be a URM or woman). The schools only want to take so many bankers so this is where brand name matters. Most people from what I have seen have similar titles with the same years of work experience within the same industry so I think that the schools will distinguish you based on the brand name of your work place. That said, they are not going to take every GS/MS/JPM kid, they want some from outside that arena to round out the class - the issue will be if you are a BMO/Blair/HL kid, you are going against every other bank that isn't top tier BB.
The IB analyst is probably at a disadvantage since there as so many IB applicants and why would a top school admit some one from cowan when they can admit analysts from BB?
This is the simplest way to understand impact of your background, business schools want well-rounded classes with diversity of professional backgrounds. When you apply, you are not competing with every applicant, you are competing with applications who have professional backgrounds similar to yours (citizenship, gender and geographic location also comes into play). If the group most similar to yours is large in the applicant pool, you are at a disadvantage. If it is small, you have an edge.
If you are an American white male IB analyst from NY, you are at a big disadvantage compared to a African female entrepreneur from Uganda. That's why the Indian and Chinese pool is so competitive; there's too many of them in the applicant pool.
Nice picture btw.
Yeah typically you are "competing" against those in the same line of work you are in I believe (IB v. IB, CF v. CF, etc.) when it comes to admission.
On a random note: Great choice of pic btw, gotta love PC!
From my experience I'll say that brand is truly very important, as is the brand of your undergraduate university. Without one or the other (a top UG or a top employer), you'd need to really stand out in some interesting ways or be a URM to get into a top school (H/S/W). You do see a good amount of people at other m7's with less prestige on their resume but just solid backgrounds (MM IBD -> MM PE for example).
You are wrong. The school brand is important but the employer brand, not so much. It matters within your own pool e.g. IB Analyst at Goldman > IB Analyst at Jefferies. But what matters even more is which pool you compete in. If you do something off the beaten path, your competition will be much smaller. Typically, big brands are in very competitive segments that have tons of kids applying to b-schools e.g. finance, consulting, CPGs etc. Keep in mind, schools want to build diverse classes and not fill them up with consultants and bankers.
As far as H/S (and to some extent W) go, these schools are a stretch for everyone except the most exceptional candidates. Unless you are a UAE prince (or Chelsea Clinton) or Jack Dorsey, no one can say with a high level of confidence that you are highly likely to get in. Just because you went to GS or McKinsey doesn't mean you are going to H/S.
@"techie674" have to disagree with you that it's not important. I do agree that it's primarily important within your own pool, but everything is within your pool... your test scores, your grades, everything... Everyone is looked at against others with their background, so not having strong brands etc. is going to hurt...
Without that qualifier of "brand is important within your pool", that sends the wrong msg. Someone from a no brand company in a unique background is more competitive than an IB Analyst at Barclays or a brand manager from P&G.
I agree with International Pymp. Although everything has an importance to it relative to your "pool", employer brand is not something that is unimportant in admissions.
@"techie674" okay I give you that perhaps, but in the context of banking/pe/re/hf/consulting brand is critical in the admissions process. I agree if you're a sports agent, or a niche lobbyist or some shit, then you can get away without a known company on your res
Agreed. Within your pool, esp. in finance/consulting/mainstream jobs, brand matters. If a school is picking a consultant, all else equal, a McKinsey kid >> someone from a no name shop. At top schools, there are plenty of people with very distinct backgrounds such as acting, pro-sports, boxing, entrepreneurship, non-profit etc. Those people typically have it a whole lot easier because there are far fewer polo players applying to b-school than consultants and bankers.
Does a BB's brand name help with admissions? (Originally Posted: 04/28/2012)
Or does it only help if you're doing IB/S&T?
If your BB has some MBA grads, could they help you get in? Is the process similar to getting into a job itself? If you know people there that graduated from that MBA program, its easier? Or is MBA admission strictly stats/essay/interviews/etc
Connections with alumni can make an impact. Not as much as getting a job itself, uness the alumni is really, really important.
Yes it does but to a small degree, if the BB is a prestigious one, and if the BB recruits on campus.
Bank biases (Originally Posted: 04/28/2010)
I was having a rather interesting discussion about banks and business schools (I couldn't decide which forum to post on) and we were debating the notion that certain banks would appear better than others for candidacy. Is it true that major MBA programs in the states (Harvard, Wharton, etc...) would be biased to accepting say a GS/MS/CS analyst over one who has had fantastic experience but maybe not at a "top tier" firm that comes across in the application package?
Thanks for the input, I really appreciate it.
weird you're lumping CS in with the other two and excluding JPM? but in any case, some of the bschool admit guys are likely to be better qualified to answer this question, but i think what it boils down to is two things: 1) experiences at the top firms (and in well known groups at these firms, ie a time ago UBS LA would have been on this list i imagine) are quantifiable and a tangible commodity. bschools don't have to dig deep into your app to listen to you spin/explain your experience, it's immediately a known quantity. 2) pre-screening. getting an offer at one of the "top" (whatever they may be) firms is generally pretty tough and so the bschools are assuming that the firms have done some of their legwork for them. same arg can be made for why you see a lot of double harvard kids at hbs. anyway, like i said, others may have more input.
...FYI - my top-tier was based on the latest (Q1) leagure tables - however arbitrary those are.
Explicabo distinctio atque modi aut. Repellendus unde sint quasi aut quia minima. Quia molestiae aut sapiente nemo eligendi temporibus eos dolor.
Sit rem cumque voluptatem soluta rem. Error recusandae numquam repellendus soluta ut neque sed. Quam aut saepe unde neque aut cum totam quo. Culpa reprehenderit aliquam corrupti perspiciatis.
Tempore optio officia nobis libero. Beatae quod cum laborum veniam tempore soluta.
Eos blanditiis et et laboriosam illo. Totam explicabo non esse consectetur at. Praesentium esse possimus ea recusandae optio fugit facere. Adipisci qui quod consequatur velit sunt. Ipsa voluptatibus veritatis magnam omnis tenetur repudiandae autem odit.
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...