GMAT

[YmoBeThere]

It reveals that the full-timer had enough family money or other income source to be able to go to school without working. Suggests they are well off financially. Doesn't suggest anything negative about the part-time student who had to work full time because he wasn't as well off.





"Differentiated?" Wow. What the heck is that? MBA-speak? Sounds like elitism to me.

Sure, experience can make a difference. And if you choose to hire someone with a business background who went to MBA skool while working full time, over someone without the business background who went to skool full time, I'd agree that you can set aside your seeming elite-preference. But you already said, in your opinion, that the latter applicant goes all in while the part-time student does not. I'm pretty sure, therefore, that you allow your skew to control and are more likely to choose the full-timer over the part-timer.

Your logic and approach do not compute to eliminate your claim that you believe the full-time student to be the better job applicant.

I'm retired now, but for the better part of 38 years, I hired lawyers and law clerks. I worked with colleagues who did the same. I think most of us concluded that although there are elite law schools and non-elite law schools, good lawyers are where you find them. They come from elite schools, state schools, third tier schools and part-time programs, even night schools. And, of course, bad/mediocre lawyers come from the same places. Usually the best applicants distinguish themselves in some fashion--often academically, but sometimes by their employment background. And, we generally recognized that someone who went part-time to law school while holding a full-time job had a credit in their favor.

Like you, we didn't always hire that person. But we tried to avoid your approach and instead deal solely with the merits. We knew that anyone who wanted to be a lawyer was "all in" if they had the sheepskin and the bar ticket, no matter what program they had taken to obtain the degree. (None of which means they invariably turned out to be good hires. We were mostly right, but did get a few clinkers; you always do.)

I agree that hiring is an art. But I'm not persuaded by your claim that you don't play favorites based on your perception that full-time students are superior applicants. I'm also betting that you tend to hire from the high-rep MBA schools, rather than the medium level ones. What do you do when you get an applicant with a class ranking of 1 or 2 who comes from, say, San Jose State, Arizona or St. Mary's (Calif.)? Do you just toss their application in the round file? Or do you say, "Hmm. No 1? How does that person compare to my applicant from Haas who stands No. 25 in the class?" Do you give them a fair comparative analysis? Instead of Haas, what if it were Fuqua?

Can you honestly say that your practice follows the principles of a meritocracy?

A few thoughts...just like undergrad, schools offer scholarships(I was the beneficiary of some at both undergrad and b-school) for Master's programs. They also let you go into debt to pay for B-school such that you can borrow the entire amount plus living expenses. So, I will maintain that it is a different decision.

I see more of the medium level and lower b-schools. P&C Insurance tends not to capture the imagination of students at the top programs. So, 1 or 2 in their class at the school's you listed is a "great find".

As much as I would like to believe it, life doesn't always go by the merits of the individual. Particularly when things are not objective such as your 100 meter time.(Agreed, absurd example.)

[Reisen]

It reveals that the full-timer had enough family money or other income source to be able to go to school without working. Suggests they are well off financially. Doesn't suggest anything negative about the part-time student who had to work full time because he wasn't as well off.





"Differentiated?" Wow. What the heck is that? MBA-speak? Sounds like elitism to me.

Sure, experience can make a difference. And if you choose to hire someone with a business background who went to MBA skool while working full time, over someone without the business background who went to skool full time, I'd agree that you can set aside your seeming elite-preference. But you already said, in your opinion, that the latter applicant goes all in while the part-time student does not. I'm pretty sure, therefore, that you allow your skew to control and are more likely to choose the full-timer over the part-timer.

Your logic and approach do not compute to eliminate your claim that you believe the full-time student to be the better job applicant.

I'm retired now, but for the better part of 38 years, I hired lawyers and law clerks. I worked with colleagues who did the same. I think most of us concluded that although there are elite law schools and non-elite law schools, good lawyers are where you find them. They come from elite schools, state schools, third tier schools and part-time programs, even night schools. And, of course, bad/mediocre lawyers come from the same places. Usually the best applicants distinguish themselves in some fashion--often academically, but sometimes by their employment background. And, we generally recognized that someone who went part-time to law school while holding a full-time job had a credit in their favor.

Like you, we didn't always hire that person. But we tried to avoid your approach and instead deal solely with the merits. We knew that anyone who wanted to be a lawyer was "all in" if they had the sheepskin and the bar ticket, no matter what program they had taken to obtain the degree. (None of which means they invariably turned out to be good hires. We were mostly right, but did get a few clinkers; you always do.)

I agree that hiring is an art. But I'm not persuaded by your claim that you don't play favorites based on your perception that full-time students are superior applicants. I'm also betting that you tend to hire from the high-rep MBA schools, rather than the medium level ones. What do you do when you get an applicant with a class ranking of 1 or 2 who comes from, say, San Jose State, Arizona or St. Mary's (Calif.)? Do you just toss their application in the round file? Or do you say, "Hmm. No 1? How does that person compare to my applicant from Haas who stands No. 25 in the class?" Do you give them a fair comparative analysis? Instead of Haas, what if it were Fuqua?

Can you honestly say that your practice follows the principles of a meritocracy?

jim, I hate to say it here, but you come off as sounding disconnected with modern hiring practices, certainly from MBA programs. A couple of points.

Your first section is way off base. Many students are sponsored by companies (or Governments) to go full-time, and are headed back there after graduation. As was previously mentioned, scholarships play a huge part (I, too, got significant scholarships). Lastly, a huge number of students finance their education through loans. This idea that full time students and part time students are differentiated by ability to pay is not something I've ever heard before.

Truth be told, they seem to be differentiated by:

- Ability to get into the full time program. Evening programs usually have relaxed admission standards.

- Not wanting to forgo the lost income of full time.

- An employer that will only sponsor part time.

- Being unwilling to quit their current company because they're not sure they'll find something better.

A ton has been written about the different kinds of MBA programs (we haven't even gotten into executive programs), and the general consensus is that full time programs are valued the highest amongst corporate recruiters. One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of MBA hiring at top companies is through internship programs, which are effectively 10 week interviews. Evening program students that can't intern are at a huge disadvantage to full time students that can.

The other thing to keep in mind is that evening programs involve inherent sacrifices in the curriculum, teachers, and student experience. It is, in reality, a scaled back experience. Some of the best profs have little desire to teach until 10pm at night (note, I said "some". A lot do it.). The curriculum doesn't allow for a lot of the experiential learning pieces that full time students are exposed to (international travel, case competitions, retreats). Lastly, I think everyone understands that it is super taxing to work a 9-5, then head to class for another 3 hours. That's not even getting into all the outside-the-classroom work (team assignments and meetings) that's required. An MBA can be the equivalent of a full time job, and going at night can be like trying to hold down two full time jobs.

In terms of the second section, the reality is that, unlike law school, no one looks at class rank in MBA programs. It doesn't matter, period. GPA does, to a degree, but if you're hiring someone to be a quant wonk, you don't really care how he did in marketing or OB, and vice versa. Many recruiters don't even see or ask for students grades or class rank. There are a dozen other things you look for (employment background, undergrad school, degree, and GPA, case interview skills, behavioral interview skills, knowledge of your industry/firm, behavior at recruiting events, etc. etc.).

You can find all of those things at lesser schools (let's say W&M, Arizona State, Notre Dame, etc.). Indeed, I was the one lamenting the structural problem of getting big companies to recruit at non-top tier schools. Realistically, the simple problem is probably recruiting budget. Companies send recruiters and employees to schools multiple times each year, and recruiting at more schools takes budget and time. The same person with the same background and skills might wind up at either Duke or Arizona State, but it's easier to find him at Duke, because there will be a hundred other people with impressive resumes, and Arizona State might only have a dozen. Part of what you're paying for is access to these companies, but it's not realistic to expect Google or Apple to recruit at 150 schools each.

This is where the diversity conferences come in. The National Society of Hispanic MBAs, National Society of Black MBAs, Women in Business, etc. all hold huge career fairs each fall, and the organizations and attending companies are open and welcoming to all (regardless of ethnicity, gender, etc.). These are great opportunities for any MBA (from Harvard to University of Portland) to get exposure to companies, and I haven't seen that companies are particularly snobbish about schools in these kinds of settings.

[Billy Dat]

- I'd pick up one of the GMAC "Official" books. These books contain nothing but retired GMAT questions. After spending a good bit of time working problems from all the test prep companies, I'd argue that there is a slight benefit to spending time working questions from actual old tests. The questions in the test prep company materials are good but edge goes to the real stuff.

I think this was the most important thing that I did. The questions in these books were so similar to the actual test questions - once you got used to their 5-10 question styles, you always recognized them and were ready for them.

Also, aside from taking full practice exams, which I fully endorse, you should also do time drills based on the lengths of each section. So, if a typical math section has 30 questions and you are given 90 minutes (not real numbers), then pull 30 questions out of the book and only give yourself 90 minutes to complete them.

Also, and this is obvious, when you correct your practice problems, make sure to study why you got them wrong. Odds are, you are getting the same kinds of questions wrong over and over.

Good luck.

[Jim3k]

By YmoBeThere

A few thoughts...just like undergrad, schools offer scholarships(I was the beneficiary of some at both undergrad and b-school) for Master's programs. They also let you go into debt to pay for B-school such that you can borrow the entire amount plus living expenses. So, I will maintain that it is a different decision

.

By Reisen

jim, I hate to say it here, but you come off as sounding disconnected with modern hiring practices, certainly from MBA programs. A couple of points.

Your first section is way off base. Many students are sponsored by companies (or Governments) to go full-time, and are headed back there after graduation. As was previously mentioned, scholarships play a huge part (I, too, got significant scholarships). Lastly, a huge number of students finance their education through loans. This idea that full time students and part time students are differentiated by ability to pay is not something I've ever heard before.

Truth be told, they seem to be differentiated by:

- Ability to get into the full time program. Evening programs usually have relaxed admission standards.

- Not wanting to forgo the lost income of full time.

- An employer that will only sponsor part time.

- Being unwilling to quit their current company because they're not sure they'll find something better.

OK, Guys. I don’t want to run this into the ground or even be a last worder. But both of you seem to think I don’t understand the B-skool recruiting game. Let me assure you that I do, having a daughter, a 2009 graduate of Haas, who attended on the 3-year plan and who went into debt to do it. She had gotten her undergraduate degree in 1997 from the UC system.

At the time she attended Haas, she had long held a full time job in the marketing department of a large well-known bank. That job provided a fairly decent salary, but came with a glass ceiling. She thought, based on the bank’s announced policies that it would provide some major assistance if she were admitted to an MBA program so long as she remained employed there. The assistance would not be available if she quit to go full time to school.

She was admitted to the 3-year program, allowing her to both keep her job and to spread the costs over three years instead of two. Even so, she needed a student loan to both maintain her condo and cover the tuition. The bank only covered fees for one class each of her first three terms. Nothing after that. (Nor would they give her a last term leave of absence to allow her to speed up the degree.) Their manual was not reliable. And, as she approached graduation, her bosses became fearful of her skills and less cooperative, even trying to reassign her in a way so as to defeat the last term and slow her graduation.

Once she graduated, she went through the beauty contests you have described. She now has a much better job, has a recent promotion to boot, and the bank is in her rear view mirror.

But, I must say that she was as “all in” as anyone. And her debt proves it. As does her insistence on covering the degree herself without family assistance. And she fits all the things you have described (except the scholarship assistance).

How you can “differentiate” her from the full timers makes no sense. I don’t know if she could have gotten into the full-time program. She never applied. But she didn’t want to lose her income and she wanted to prove she could accomplish the degree on her own while holding the full-time job.

I believe her experience belies your reliance on full-time students as better candidates than the part-time students holding full-time jobs.

But don’t think I’m off-base or disconnected. In fact, I think that any system which shuts out people like her is dysfunctional. It was certainly true that the recruiters preferred the full-time students. Her current job came in a second wave, as did the offers to several of her classmates. Moreover, the higher offers generally went to the full time students. She's making up for it now.

And, separately, as a lawyer, I would regard the current system as not-objective and therefore subject, in the right fact pattern, to a discrimination claim, though I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how any claim would play out. Once you operate subjectively, you’re at risk for everything from race, sex, cronies, age, or general unfairness.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the discussion.