Category Archives: MBA Admissions

The Three Types of MBA Admissions Dings, And Their Fixes

Happy new admissions cycle! Some you out there will have the question: “I-was-dinged-last-year, what-did-I do-wrong?” So this seems as good a place as any to start the discussion this year, in the spirit of helping those dinged last year apply better, and those who are applying for the first time understand the category of potential pitfalls.

There are three types of ding:

  1. You were dinged because there is something or things in your background that make you just not good enough or right enough for the program, in comparison with the average standard of admitted applicants. This could be because of lack of high-quality or brand-company work experience, a low GMAT or GPA, being too young or old for the cohort profile, and so on. In this category, your ding is caused by something or things that you are, or are not. You fail to meet minimum qualification standards.
  2. You are good enough and fit well — you are a competitive, qualified applicant — but applied badly in that you made a clear mistake or raised a red flag in your application. Your ding was caused by something specific you said or did not say.
  3. You are good enough and fit well — you are a competitive, qualified applicant — and you didn’t make any obvious application mistakes, but applied badly in that your admissions value was not clear, or you didn’t stand out. This is the category of applicant that Adcom refers to when it says “we had many qualified applicants and we couldn’t take them all.” Your ding was caused by other qualified competitors applying better than you did in a system where there are more applicants than places.

What are the fixes? Let me take them one by one.

In the first situation, the problem is choice of school, or career timing of application or both. Bear in mind that everyone has weaknesses — I’ve never seen an applicant without weaknesses (though they don’t always know it.) But here we are talking about aggregate weakness in an applicant such that, no matter how they apply, they are going to be dinged because they don’t meet the standard of generally accepted applicant. The dinged candidate “doesn’t have the goods” so, logically, the only way to solve the problem is to get the goods, or lower one’s school aspirations, or both. Getting the goods is realistic only if age is on your side and you can take a few years to drive up your MBA admissions value via new career experiences, greater responsibility, new leadership roles, promotions or awards, new extra-mural participation, and so on.

The second situation is the easiest of the three to deal with. Here the solution has to do with recognizing in advance what creates or exacerbates problems in an application, so-called “red flags,” and staying well clear of these. These problems are, in theory at least, easily fixable once recognized (assuming none of them point to deeper category 1 problems.)

The third type of ding is all about competitive admissions. Here the applicant didn’t do anything wrong, just didn’t do as well as others in the application process. The solution has to do with applying all the hard and soft value-enhancement and value-communications techniques that make an application ‘pop’ from the pile. This is not easy, and varies on a case-by-case basis. But there are general principles that apply in optimizing any application.

I’ve written extensively, on this site and in my book, on the profile principles and communication strategies that can be applied, including creating the foundation of a solid yet differentiated application platform and driving up candidate value and uniqueness through use of memorable proof examples and stories.

 

Best Leaders Have Normal IQs: Implication For GMAT

I’ve written over the years on why a too-high GMAT or GRE hurts MBA applicants, see Myth of 800, and Don’t overcook,  among many times I’ve addressed this. Short story: in general brainiacs don’t make particularly good practical managers, or leaders, or team players. That perception hurts admissions prospects.

So I was interested to see the World Economic Forum (WEF) recently posting: “Being too intelligent might make you a less effective leader,” based on research out of the University of Lausanne, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

Here’s the gist of the WEF piece: “Having a very high IQ is not necessarily such a good thing when it comes to leadership – the brightest people are actually less effective leaders, according to new research…

“Intelligence showed a positive linear relationship with leadership effectiveness up to a certain point. But the association flattened out and then started to reverse at an IQ of about 120.

“When the leaders’ IQ scores rose to 128 or above, the association with less effective leadership methods was clear and statistically significant.

“And these leaders demonstrated less transformational and instrumental leadership than leaders with a lower IQ…

“The highly intelligent leaders were not using harmful leadership styles, such as adopting a laissez-faire approach. But they did struggle to adopt the best leadership practices.

“One of the reasons may be that very clever people sometimes fail to communicate clearly enough or explain complex tasks. They may also struggle to see what others find challenging. And if a manager comes across as too intellectual, it may make the leader appear aloof or unapproachable.”

Right or wrong, Einsteins of the world have to manage the unspoken MBA adcom question that arises: is this person not a better professor or scientist, etc?

Were you to have a super-high 750+ GMAT (or GRE) you would need to talk a lot about practical everyday achievements with normal people, in the real world.

If you don’t have this monkey on your back, then really don’t set out to acquire it! Worry about your standard test score until you have a balanced Q/V 700 or so (for top 15 schools), then focus on other parts of your application which are just as important, and which you are probably neglecting due to GMAT prep.

Experience Is Still The New Black In MBA Admissions

More from the files: B-schools with luxury of choice of whom to accept into their MBA classrooms have always valued diversity in the matriculating class. This trend continues strongly as Adcoms show clear intent to accommodate “experience” diversity applicants, including those with part or all of their work experience in non-traditional backgrounds such as social sciences, creative industries, non-profits, real estate, hospitality, urban planning, fashion, and so on.

Male applicants wholly enclosed by cookie-cutter engineering or finance backgrounds are still getting in, but not nearly as easily as before, despite having good GMAT and GPA numbers, good recommendations, and generally having apparently made the “right” career moves. Reading the MBA admissions boards, there are many, many stories that tell of apparently perfect candidates with perfect GMATs getting dinged all over.

Why is this happening? First, schools have always seen and offered valued in diversity in the matriculating pool–which broadens the classroom perspective, fosters real-world peer-to-peer learning enrichment, and which brings MBAs face-to-face with other points of view and thus sharpens their listening and thinking skills. But now, as the business school industry itself gets more competitive, schools need to raise their game on diversity too.

Another force behind diversity in MBA admissions is the slow-burning image problem of business schools and the MBA degree itself. Rightly or wrongly it appears to outsiders that a lot of MBAs from top schools are involved in decision-making that is less than fully ethical. Adcoms are looking for MBAs who will be brand champions of better ethics, and they are not so convinced anymore they will find them in among standard finance, accounting, or consulting-based applicants.

Finally, the perceived value of innovation in industry is at an all-time-high. To build big new businesses, from Bitcoin to Beyond, you have to not just think big. You have to think different. With this in mind, it’s not surprising that Adcom will rate an architect or  journalist or even a racing driver as valuable in the class, in terms of challenging mindsets and staid practices.

The best response? If you are relatively rich in diversity, make sure Adcom “gets it” – what it is and why it offers interest and value to the school. If you are not, that is if you are a standard finance or consulting or IT jock – you have a harder job. But not impossible. The quest is to find an angle (everyone has at least one) in your personal or professional experience that offers a distinctive point of view among the MBA cohort.

When I first wrote this story, I mentioned at the time I had a standard finance-banking background client. For a while I despaired, but in profiling I discovered he had spent six months in a rotation in Perth, working on deals and risk-mitigation in the booming (Australia-China) mining resources sector. This was enough to make him interesting, and combined with the rest of his solid profile, got him the admissions offers he was looking for.

See also this post.