A Former HBS AdComm Director’s Perspective—Can You Change A “Ding” Into An “Accept”? The 4 Pillars That Matter

Every year, business schools send out interview invitations, and later, final decisions. The fortunate minority celebrate, while the vast majority face disappointment, frustration, and confusion. MBA admissions decisions can feel like a black box, and if you were “dinged” in this process, it can be difficult to decipher why. Regardless of the school (Harvard Business School, the Stanford Graduate School of Business, UPenn Wharton, Northwestern Kellogg, MIT Sloan, Chicago Booth, Columbia Business School, or any other), the questions that denied applicants ask themselves are similar: 

• Why was I rejected from school X? Was it one overarching reason or many smaller ones? 
• Are these things fixable? Could I reapply to the same school with a better chance of success, and if so, when?
• Did I aim too high? Do I need to expand my target list?

There is no doubt that admissions decisions are more art than science, and the answer to these questions are far from simple. Having said that, it is possible to review an application and gain some clarity around the key factors that led to being denied admission. Here, I draw on my 13 years of direct HBS MBA Admissions Board experience reading over 10,000 applications and interviewing more than 1,000 applicants from all over the world to identify the four pillars of rejection: Performance, Perspective, Personality, and Packaging. 

I will break down each of these pillars with respect to the questions the admissions committee is trying to answer in evaluating your candidacy. I will include insider lingo in “quotes” throughout this document to identify the specific shorthand that an admissions committee, or “Adcomm”, uses in their written evaluations of each applicant. My hope is that you will walk away from this article feeling like you got a behind the scenes glimpse into some of the factors that may have led to your unfavorable outcome.

Performance: Simply put, do you have the academic chops to not only perform, but also succeed, in the classroom? This is one of the first things Adcomm will assess, as their success is directly tied to making sure enrolled students do not fail. 

• “Academic flag”. A lower-than-average standardized test score or GPA alone is not an issue, as 50% of the admitted class fall below the average by definition. However, if your scores are significantly below the average or even if your scores are solid but the admissions committee has questions about the next two work-related points, then this becomes an issue. They will also pay careful attention to your transcript and the courses you took. A “soft transcript”, evidenced by shying away from quantitative courses and/or taking a lot of intro level or “gut courses” can also be a flag. 
• “Questionable job rigor” or just “rigor?”. This is about what you do for work. Even with above average grades and scores, the admissions committee may wonder about your general business exposure and ability to be successful. If your work experience is narrowly focused within one functional area, or if you work for an “untested” or unknown company, then this could be a concern. Similarly, if the way you describe your role comes across as “green” or unsophisticated, the admissions committee may view you as risky. They will glean this information throughout your application, including your resume, short answers, essays, and recommendations. 
• “Average performance in cohort” or “trajectory?”. This is not about what you do for work but rather how well you do it. You do not have to be the top bucket at work to be admitted; in fact, what makes a successful MBA student is not exactly the same as what makes a top-ranked business professional. However, not thriving professionally can be a sign of bigger issues. For example, Adcomm may have concerns about the quality of your work product or the amount of ownership you are given. This is often revealed in subtle ways in your application such as a lower comp compared to peers in the same position and tenure. It can also sometimes be seen by the type of work you do, e.g., having a lot of internal or non-revenue generating assignments. Similarly, a solid but not strong recommendation or a recommendation that focuses on less important contributions could likewise be a flag.  

Perspective: Unlike Performance, this is not about your ability to be individually successful, but rather, how your unique perspective will contribute to your classmates’ experiences. Adcomm needs to know that you are there to fully engage with the holistic learning environment.

• “Bizability?” This is a term the admissions committee uses to describe your engagement and curiosity across a wide range of business issues. It should not be confused with whether you are a generalist or specialist, as they are seeking to admit both the foundational consultants who have worked across a variety of industries as well as the manufacturing experts who have worked the factory floor. It is more about whether you can see the big picture and are excited about business outside of your particular domain. Your overall “bizability” will be evaluated throughout your application, from the voice in your essays to the specific activities you partake in. 
• “Scattered path” or “unconvincing goals”. In order to fully invest in an experience, you need to have some sense for what you want to get out of it. Business school is not an escape nor is it a place to simply broaden your network. You need to demonstrate that your professional path to date makes sense given your skills and passions and connect the dots to your future plans to show depth and self-reflection. Failure to do so in a clear, concise, and compelling way may leave the admissions committee skeptical of your motivations and engagement. 
• “Light L” or “expected/participatory XCs”. This is shorthand for “L” leadership and “XC” extracurricular involvement, and it is used extensively when evaluating your application. Do you pick your head up and venture outside of your comfort zone or do you primarily engage in “safe” or “check the box activities” in your extra time, both within and outside of work? Do not misconstrue this with having a passion that results in you joining organizations with a common thread, for example, engaging exclusively with education-focused nonprofits because of your long-term interest in this sector. It is more about a suspicion that your leadership engagement is superficial, random, or “narrow”. For example, if you work in finance and have only participated in university investment clubs and raised money for organizations where the focus of your work was primarily numerical versus people-driven, then the admissions committee may wonder about your desire to roll up your sleeves and see things from a different perspective.

Personality: This is all about who you are as a human being – as a leader, teammate, and in one-on-one relationships – and the impact you have had on the communities you join. The admissions committee wants to know how your personal qualities are going to enhance the MBA community, and they seek to understand your personality broadly in order to do this.

• “STO?” This is shorthand for “success through others”. Adcomm uses this term when they see you being successful and having an impact, but they do not necessarily see you enabling other people’s success through your actions and involvement. In short, they may be concerned that you are more of an “individual contributor” than someone who works by coaching others to also succeed. There is nothing wrong with this, and some professions reward this type of focus. But business is all about collaboration and connectedness, so if your essays and short answers are overly “me-focused”, they will question your “broader L potential?”. 
• “Not my favorite” or “Likeable?”. This may sound harsh but Adcomm does not mince words, and they need to know how you will show up as a community member. Here, they are evaluating your EQ based on subtleties picked up throughout your application. It could be something in your voice, for example, coming across a bit “hard charging” or “close-minded” in your views; relatedly, they may question if you are “exclusive” in how you spend your time or who you spend your time with. I have also seen issues with applicants who mean well but try too hard to stand out versus their peers and inadvertently come across as “overly competitive”. Another way these character concerns show up is something your recommender may have said that comes across as a personality flaw versus a normal development area. I always remind recommenders that a letter of recommendation for MBA programs is not a performance review but a genuine positive endorsement of your candidacy. The admissions committee has plenty of applicants to choose from and they are unwilling to take any chances here, no matter how amazing you may be in every other way. 

Packaging: Even if your application was “takeable plus” across all these areas and there were no fundamental flaws, you may get dinged because you were “squeezed out” of a competitive pool. “Reads like many others” and “not a standout” are two ways Adcomm may describe this type of application. In this case, your job as a reapplicant may be more about better positioning and marketing yourself than fixing anything fundamental. Some common pitfalls here include the following: you did not focus in on what uniquely defines you, you did not adequately connect your path to date to your career goals, you lacked tangible evidence and the specific impact of your achievements, your leadership voice was under-developed. Remember, a single admissions committee member will spend anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes reading your application, and the onus is on you to make their job as easy as possible.

A few final notes. These four pillars are not mutually exclusive, and the reason behind why you were denied admission may include a combination of factors. I also did not directly address the interview, but the same pillars apply. Adcomm may be focused on questions they have from your written application, or a new concern may surface during the interview. It is also important to know that approximately 10% of admitted students every year are reapplicants who were previously denied admission to that school. So, there are many reasons to remain hopeful and optimistic about second chances!

If you were “dinged” from HBS and want to know why and how to approach your reapplication strategy, you can work with Brooke directly through Gatehouse Admissions’ Harvard Business School (HBS) Postmortem Ding Analysis and Reapplicant Strategy with a Former HBS Admissions Director. Note that capacity is limited, given high interest and time involved. 

© Copyright 2026 Poets & Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets & Quants, please submit your request HERE.