Behind The Scenes: How A Business School’s Admission Committee Decides

AN UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATE GETS A REVIEW BY THE CAREER CENTER OFFICIALS

Another applicant, currently unemployed, quickly raises eyebrows in the room. He had worked for a well-known tech firm and then a series of smaller companies. His stats are pretty good: a 3.2 GPA and a 710 GMAT. Cohn points out, however, that he hasn’t been working since 2014 and the candidate said he realized that his values did not align with his employer.

“He does have a substantial amount of experience before the gap,” ventures Dana Dubovik, director of MBA admissions.

Maychak asks to see the applicant’s answers to the school’s video questions. To the question, Why Questrom?,” the candidate delivers a rambling replay. “Here’s my concern,” says Matychak. “He still couldn’t come up with a strong, coherent answer.”

Dubovik agrees. “He did a poor job with the video, but he did a much better job in our interview.”

The group watches his answer to another video question: “What would your supervisor say about you?”

The applicant does a much better job with this one. “He would say that I went out of my way to new things with new technologies.”

Ultimately, though, Dubovik suggests deferring a decision. “I am concerned with the gap,” she says. “We need some input from the career center.”

‘HE WAS REALLY EMBARRASSED TO ADMIT A YEAR GAP ON HIS RESUME’

For another applicant, a military candidate who had been deployed overseas, there is a similar issue, this time a one-year gap in work experience.

“He was really embarrassed to admit a year gap on his resume,” says Maya Howe, an assistant director of admissions who did his interview. “He was waiting to start his officer training and waited tables. I said, ‘You should own that. It’s not a bad thing at all.’ He presented with more polish than many candidates who come from an enlisted background.”

Kyle MacDonald, an associate director of admissions who also oversees applicants to the school’s specialty master’s programs, agreed. “He has great military recommendations,” adds MacDonald. “His presence and his goals were strong.” He was accepted, without reservation.

QUICK DECISIONS AS STATS ARE READ OFF AND PROFILES REVIEWED

Most of the decisions in the room are handled quickly, often in less than five minutes. Surprisingly, there is little discussion of GMAT scores, though a few of the applicants have taken the test as many as six times. One candidate started with a 430 GMAT, gained a 490 on the second try, and finally ended up with a 620 (she was waitlisted). Yet another also started with a 430, went to 550, then 600, and finally 610 (he was deferred for a consult with the career center).

Instead, all the key elements of an applicant’s file were presented in a way that seemingly gave each metric equal consideration and weight. The discussions of each candidate were always civil and respectful, even when some obvious disagreements emerged among the committee members. It’s not uncommon for a committee member to say that he or she “loved” the interaction they had with an applicant or that a candidate is “a good fit with our culture.”

That’s not to say that the committee is sometimes surprised at what they see. When the undergraduate transcript of an international candidate from Asia revealed several “D” grades, Siegel observes, “These grades are awful.” In assessing the interview of another candidate in consulting, Cohn concludes “he presented a little bit scattered. He would answer but got sidetracked and it was a little bit distracting.” On yet another profile read by Howe: “Her grades and academic performance are all over the place.”