I’ve Advised Indian School Of Business Applicants For 18 Years. Here’s What Has Really Changed

The Indian School of Business has evolved dramatically since 2008. But some of the most revealing changes are not in its rankings, alumni numbers or salaries. They are in the relationship between what applicants expect from an MBA and the opportunities the school can actually provide.

In 2008, when I began advising applicants to the Indian School of Business, the school was just seven years old. It was already attracting serious talent and building a reputation, but the proposition was still relatively new: an internationally oriented, one-year management program in India that could help experienced professionals accelerate or change their careers. For many candidates, choosing ISB over an established American or European business school involved a degree of faith in what the institution might become.

Eighteen years later, that uncertainty has changed considerably. ISB is ranked 12th globally in the Financial Times MBA Ranking 2026, up 15 places from the previous year. Its alumni community now includes more than 21,800 graduates across its management and doctoral programs, including more than 1,000 CXO-level executives and more than 1,200 entrepreneurs. The school’s 2026 PGP graduating class received 1,117 job offers across 808 graduates, with average annual compensation of ₹37.29 lakh. In institutional terms, the ISB of 2026 is substantially different from the school applicants were considering when I started.

Yet some of the most interesting developments are not what one might expect. In 2008, ISB reported 111 international job offers. In 2026, it reported 30, even though its graduating cohort had almost doubled in size. During the global financial crisis, the number of companies recruiting from ISB increased sharply while the total number of offers fell. And despite the school’s much stronger reputation and more sophisticated career ecosystem, I still encounter a fundamental problem in MBA planning: candidates who know exactly which school they want to attend but have not adequately investigated which career opportunities they can realistically pursue afterward.

The central lesson I have drawn from these 18 years is that a business school’s capabilities and an individual applicant’s opportunities are two different things. The former can be measured through rankings, recruiters, alumni and placement reports. The latter depends on the applicant’s professional starting point, the kind of transition they are attempting, the labor market they will enter and how intelligently they use the school.

Understanding that distinction has become more important as ISB has matured.

WHAT THE 2008-09 FINANCIAL CRISIS REVEALED ABOUT PLACEMENTS

One of the most instructive episodes in ISB’s history occurred almost as soon as I began working with applicants. The Class of 2008 graduated into what appeared to be a very strong recruiting environment. Contemporary placement reports showed 657 job offers from approximately 230 companies for a cohort of around 421 students. Average domestic compensation was ₹19 lakh, and international offers had increased to 111 from 55 the previous year. Consulting, finance and other globally oriented industries were creating substantial opportunities for graduates. It was an exciting period for an ambitious young business school.

Then came the financial crisis. In 2009, something remarkable happened: the number of recruiting companies rose from roughly 230 to 326, an increase of approximately 42%, but the number of offers fell from 657 to 401, a decline of nearly 39%. Average domestic compensation dropped from ₹19 lakh to ₹15.05 lakh. Contemporary reporting described an unusually difficult placement season, with ISB extending the recruitment process and introducing a one-offer policy to broaden access to opportunities. The school’s institutional relationships had not suddenly disappeared. What had changed was the willingness and capacity of employers to hire.

There is a lesson in those figures that I think remains highly relevant. Business-school applicants tend to interpret a growing recruiter list as a sign of expanding career opportunity. But the number of companies willing to engage with a school and the number of jobs they are prepared to offer can move in entirely different directions. Ten new companies recruiting for one position each may contribute less to a graduating class’s prospects than a single established employer offering 40 positions. A company may continue to visit campus while sharply reducing hiring. A prominent employer might recruit for a narrow set of specialized roles that only a small proportion of students can realistically pursue.

That is why I encourage applicants to look beyond the number of recruiters and the presence of prestigious names in placement reports. What matters is the actual distribution of opportunities across functions, industries, experience levels and career backgrounds. The global financial crisis made this distinction unusually visible, but the principle applies in ordinary recruiting years as well. Strong institutional relationships can help a school navigate a difficult market. They cannot make the business cycle irrelevant.

The events of 2008 and 2009 also changed the way I think applicants should approach career planning. A candidate who has built their entire MBA decision around entering one narrow professional niche may be taking considerably more risk than they realize. Someone who understands several related career possibilities can respond more intelligently when hiring conditions change. That is not an argument for lowering aspirations. It is an argument for distinguishing a long-term ambition from a single, inflexible post-MBA recruiting plan.

ISB HAS BECOME MORE GLOBAL, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN MORE OVERSEAS OFFERS

Perhaps the most surprising historical comparison concerns international employment. ISB reported 111 international job offers for its Class of 2008. For the Class of 2026, it reported 30, an increase from 26 the previous year. Over that period, the school developed a far larger alumni community, moved into the upper reaches of global MBA rankings and established much deeper institutional credibility.

At first glance, the figures appear contradictory. How can a business school become so much more internationally recognized while reporting fewer international offers? The answer is that institutional internationalization and international campus recruitment are not the same thing.

The 2008 and 2026 figures also come from different reporting periods and labor markets, and reporting definitions may not be completely identical. They should not be treated as a precise measure of the probability of overseas employment. Nor do campus offers capture every international career move that graduates make, particularly later in their careers.

Nevertheless, the comparison exposes an assumption that applicants frequently make without examining it. A higher global ranking, more international alumni and a stronger international reputation do not necessarily translate into more overseas jobs available directly through campus recruitment. International hiring depends on employer requirements, immigration rules, the location of business operations, compensation structures and the demand for a candidate’s specific skills. A company with offices in London, Dubai and Singapore may have entirely different recruiting requirements in each market.

For a candidate whose primary objective is to work outside India, these details can be decisive. An applicant interested in international consulting should distinguish between joining an international consulting firm in India and being recruited directly into that firm’s overseas office. Both can be excellent outcomes, but they are not equivalent. Similarly, joining a multinational technology company in India may eventually create opportunities for international mobility without constituting an overseas placement at graduation.

The most useful question is therefore not whether a school has a global network. It is how graduates with backgrounds comparable to the applicant’s have actually moved into the geography and role the applicant wants. The answer might favor ISB, a European MBA, an American program or a completely different route. But the decision should be based on the relevant pathway, not on the assumption that global prestige automatically creates global mobility.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADMISSIBLE CANDIDATE AND A RECRUITABLE CANDIDATE

Over the years, I have come to distinguish between two questions that are often treated as one. Is this candidate competitive for admission to ISB? And if admitted, how competitive will this person be for the career they want?

The answers are not always the same.

Consider a professional who has spent five years in a reputable technology company and wants to move into investment management. The candidate may have excellent academic credentials, a strong GMAT or GRE score, significant leadership experience and a compelling record of professional achievement. These qualities may make the person a serious business-school applicant. But they do not automatically establish that investment firms will view the candidate as suitable for the roles they hope to pursue. Relevant transaction experience, financial analysis, domain expertise and the specific recruiting preferences of employers may still matter considerably.

This distinction applies to less dramatic transitions as well. A software engineer aiming for product management may have a plausible career goal, but product management itself comprises several different labor markets. Enterprise software, consumer technology, industrial products and financial technology companies may evaluate candidates very differently. A technology consultant moving into strategy consulting faces a different recruiting challenge from an operations manager trying to enter private equity. The fact that both candidates want to change careers tells us little about how realistic those changes are.

I find it useful to examine career transitions across three dimensions: industry, function and geography. A candidate changing one may be making a relatively manageable move. Someone simultaneously trying to enter an unfamiliar industry, perform a new function and work in a new country faces a much more demanding transition. These are not mechanically additive risks, and individual experience can make some combinations unusually feasible. But the framework forces applicants to identify where the real obstacles lie.

The problem is that admissions essays often make very difficult transitions sound deceptively straightforward. A candidate writes that they want to use the MBA to move from technology into investment banking, then into private equity and eventually establish an investment firm. Each step sounds attractive, and the overall story can appear coherent. Yet coherence is not the same as feasibility. Which employers recruit people with the applicant’s background? What capabilities would be missing after the MBA? Is the first proposed role actually available through campus recruiting? If not, what intermediate step would make the eventual goal more realistic?

An experienced admissions adviser should be interested in those questions before beginning to polish the candidate’s essays. A strong application narrative ought to emerge from a well-researched career decision, not conceal the absence of one.

A 1-YEAR MBA MAKES PREPARATION A MUCH BIGGER PART OF THE INVESTMENT

ISB’s one-year PGP has always offered an important advantage: experienced professionals can return to the workforce more quickly than they would after a traditional two-year American MBA. For candidates with reasonably clear career objectives, that can make the program particularly attractive. But the compressed structure also makes it more important to have completed much of the basic career exploration before arrival.

This is something applicants often underestimate. In a two-year program, the summer internship serves several functions. It provides professional experience in a new field, gives employers an opportunity to assess the student and creates a chance to discover that a proposed career may not be suitable. A student who changes direction after an internship still has another academic year to explore alternatives. In a one-year program, that additional recruiting runway is much more limited. Academic commitments, networking, professional development and career decisions all compete for time.

For that reason, I would distinguish between someone who is ready to use business school to execute a career transition and someone who is hoping business school will help them discover which transition to attempt. Both may benefit from management education, but they are not necessarily equally well suited to the same format at the same career stage.

The distinction becomes particularly important when applicants rely on broad descriptions of careers. Someone who says they want to enter consulting should already have investigated the differences between strategy, implementation, technology and transformation roles. Someone interested in entrepreneurship should have done more than identify an attractive industry. A candidate aiming for product management should understand which employers recruit MBA graduates without extensive previous product experience.

A well-prepared student may arrive knowing which alumni to learn from, which employers to investigate and which capabilities require the greatest attention. Another may spend a substantial part of the program discovering that the career they described in their application is not the one they actually want. There is nothing inherently wrong with reconsidering a career plan, but the financial and professional consequences of doing so can be very different in a compressed program.

The great advantage of a one-year MBA is speed. The corresponding responsibility is to make more of the important decisions before that year begins.

THE PLACEMENT REPORT HAS BECOME STRONGER, BUT APPLICANTS NEED TO READ IT MORE INTELLIGENTLY

ISB’s 2026 outcomes demonstrate how far its recruiting ecosystem has developed. The school reported 1,117 offers for 808 graduates, average annual compensation of ₹37.29 lakh and an approximately 156% increase in average compensation compared with the cohort’s pre-ISB average. It also reported that 67% of students moved into a different industry and 69% changed function. Consulting, technology, and banking and financial services remained major sources of recruitment.

These are impressive aggregate results. They are also easy to misunderstand.

The industry-change and function-change figures are separate measures. They do not tell us how many students changed both, how ambitious those transitions were or which previous backgrounds led to particular outcomes. Nor is a move from one consulting specialization to another necessarily comparable to a transition from engineering into investment banking. An employer name can also conceal considerable variation. A multinational bank may hire into corporate banking, technology, risk, research or investment banking. A global consulting firm may offer roles in strategy, technology implementation, operations or transformation. The organization’s name is the same, but the professional opportunity can be radically different.

I would encourage applicants to approach a placement report almost like an analyst evaluating a portfolio. Start with the aggregate results, then examine what sits underneath them. Which employers recruit for the target function? What kinds of previous experience do they value? Are their roles genuinely career-changing for someone with the applicant’s background? Is the desired transition regularly observed, occasionally observed or simply theoretically possible?

There is another important distinction. A school’s average compensation figure describes the cohort, not an individual candidate’s expected outcome. The reported increase in average compensation is not proof that the degree itself caused an equivalent increase in every graduate’s earnings. Students enter with different salaries and leave for different industries, functions and locations. A candidate already earning a substantial salary may have a different economic threshold from someone whose current compensation is much lower.

None of this diminishes ISB’s achievements. It means that the more impressive a school’s outcomes become, the more carefully an applicant should distinguish what the institution has demonstrated from what the applicant can reasonably expect to achieve. The best career decisions are made using both kinds of information.

THE ALUMNI NETWORK HAS CHANGED IN A WAY THAT NUMBERS ALONE CANNOT EXPLAIN

In 2008, ISB’s alumni were still relatively early in their careers. They could provide useful guidance, introductions and recruiting insights, but there was an obvious limitation: the institution had not existed long enough for several generations of graduates to move into the most senior levels of business leadership.

Today, that is no longer the case. ISB’s wider alumni community includes more than 21,800 graduates, more than 1,000 CXO-level executives and more than 1,200 entrepreneurs. Its network was ranked sixth globally in the Financial Times MBA Ranking 2026. The important change is not simply that there are more people to contact. It is that the network now includes people who have spent decades building companies, managing transformations, navigating industry cycles, investing, hiring and leading large organizations.

That creates very different kinds of professional value. A recent graduate may be particularly helpful in explaining how to prepare for interviews with a particular employer. Someone who graduated a decade earlier may understand how careers in that industry develop over time. A senior executive may help a younger alumnus recognize strategic opportunities that are invisible from a junior role. An entrepreneur may offer practical insight into an industry or business model that is difficult to obtain from conventional career research.

Applicants often speak about alumni networks as though a large network is automatically a valuable network for everyone. But its usefulness depends on the kind of assistance sought and the relationship the candidate is capable of building. Information, recruiting access and long-term professional relationships are distinct benefits. A senior executive’s willingness to speak with an applicant does not imply that the executive can provide a job. A large alumni directory is not the same as a group of people who will invest time in helping someone they barely know.

What has changed at ISB is the range and seniority of the professional experience available through the community. What has not changed is the need to engage with that community intelligently. The strongest applicants do not simply name impressive alumni. They have thought about whose experience is relevant, what they want to learn and how they themselves might contribute.

There is another aspect of alumni maturity that I find especially interesting. As a network becomes more established, its value can shift from helping graduates obtain their first post-MBA job to supporting decisions many years later. Someone may benefit from an alumni relationship when changing industries, hiring a senior executive, entering a new market or raising capital for a business. These opportunities are difficult to quantify in a conventional placement report, but they may represent a substantial part of the long-term value of a business-school community.

ISB’S EVOLUTION IS ALSO CHANGING WHO SHOULD APPLY, AND WHEN

Another significant development is ISB’s expansion beyond a single educational format. Its 20-month Post Graduate Programme in Management for Young Leaders welcomed its first cohort in 2025 and its second in 2026. The program serves candidates at an earlier career stage than the flagship one-year PGP and includes opportunities such as summer internships that fit the needs of younger professionals.

This reflects an important distinction that applicants sometimes overlook. A candidate with limited professional experience may need time to develop foundational management capabilities, explore industries and gain structured exposure to employers. Someone with five years of experience may already possess much of that understanding and be looking for a shorter, intensive opportunity to accelerate their career.

Eligibility for a program is not the same as readiness to extract maximum value from it. A candidate can satisfy the minimum work-experience requirement for the PGP and still benefit from waiting another year or two. Equally, a younger applicant may be better served by a longer educational experience that provides time for exploration.

ISB has also announced substantial scholarship commitments during its silver-jubilee year, alongside initiatives aimed at research, academic development and a broader institutional role. These developments matter because they indicate a school moving beyond its original identity as a single highly regarded program for experienced professionals.

For applicants, the question is becoming more specific. It is no longer simply whether ISB is the right institution. It is which program, at which career stage, for which professional objective.

WHAT I WOULD TELL AN ISB APPLICANT TODAY

If I were advising someone considering ISB today, I would begin with questions that have little to do with essays or interview technique. What is the most attractive career opportunity available to this person without an MBA? What additional opportunities would ISB make realistically accessible? Which employers recruit for the proposed role, and what do they require? How much of the desired transition depends on changing industry, function or geography? And what would the candidate do if the preferred outcome did not materialize?

Only after examining those questions would I spend substantial time on the application narrative. A good candidate should be able to explain not merely what they have achieved, but how they made important decisions, what they learned when things went wrong and why their next career step follows logically from their experience. ISB’s current admissions framework explicitly emphasizes analytical thinking, leadership potential and commitment to growth. Those qualities are more convincingly demonstrated through substantive reflection than through polished descriptions of professional success.

The rise of generative AI makes this particularly important. It is easier than ever to produce an elegant essay about leadership, resilience, or career ambition. It is not nearly as easy to demonstrate a genuine understanding of one’s experiences when the conversation moves beyond the prepared narrative. For that reason, I would encourage applicants to spend less time perfecting phrases and more time examining the assumptions behind their choices.

Looking back to 2008, ISB’s development has been remarkable. It has become a more established institution, built a considerably deeper alumni network, expanded its educational portfolio and demonstrated substantial career outcomes. The school has delivered on much of the promise that its earliest applicants had to take on faith.

But there is a final paradox in that success. The stronger the institution becomes, the easier it can be for applicants to assume that its reputation will solve their individual career problems. In reality, a great business school cannot make every professional transition equally feasible, eliminate labor-market uncertainty or compensate for an insufficiently researched career plan.

Eighteen years ago, an important question was whether ISB would become the institution applicants hoped it would be. Today, the more interesting question is whether applicants have thought carefully enough about who they hope to become after attending it.

---

Rishabh Gupta is the founder of GyanOne Universal and has advised applicants to the Indian School of Business since 2008.

DON’T MISS ISB’S QUARTER-CENTURY BET: LEADERSHIP OVER LEGACY