hwang327 wrote:Dinged by Wharton (R1; No interview), Booth (R1; Interviewed), CBS (Rolling; No interview)

Stats
- 3.65 GPA in Undergrad Finance (Western University, Canada)
- 760 GMAT
- 2 years experience in sell-side investment/equity research
- 2 current years of experience at a hedge fund doing investment analysis
- Chartered Financial Analyst
- Extracurriculars in University... fairly sparse post-graduation.
- Solely looking to get into investment management (basically continue on the same career track in the states)


Now, before you default to my Extracurricular as the sole reason for my rejection. Let me just say that I know others who have gone to CBS without Extracurriculars, not that I didn't have any extracurriculars since I started working... I was just a little less involved than I had been when I was in school.

I figured that I would at least be able to get an interview at CBS... but that turned out to be some wishful thinking on my part...

The application is more than just your resume. Don't discount the importance of the essays. Schools want to see applicants who are passionate and have vision, and who will be an asset to their class. If your essay sounded perfunctory, or gave off the impression of "I want to keep doing exactly what I've been doing, and business school is just a box I want to check off on the way," they're not going to be very excited about your candidacy.

Schools want to see that you have ambitious but realistic goals, and that *their* school in particular is the bridge you need to get from where you are to where you want to be.

I would take Donna up on the offer of a ding analysis, and reach out to other admissions consultants who offer free consultations (there are several on this forum) to ask whether your essays might have been underwhelming.

Your numbers are great, so we are looking for other factors that might have caused these dings. Some of that information is not available here, so I am just going to make some educated guesses, and see if any of it resonates for you:

First, essays: Columbia and Wharton both have research-heavy essays; Booth not so much. But my guess just from the information you presented here, and forgive me if I guess wrong, is that you didn't show evidence of deep knowledge of the schools. That could have come up in your Booth interview, if you stumbled on Why Booth questions, and if you wrote generic or similar essays for Columbia and Wharton. Wharton's essays in particular are subtly research-focused, but you wouldn't necessarily have realized that. Columbia's first essay was also especially tough this year. So if your essays for Wharton and Columbia were similar, that's your problem right there. Again, I have no way of knowing this, it's just something for you to self-assess.

Second, leadership: Leadership is the #1 driver of b-school admissions, but you don't mention it here. Extracurriculars are valuable as a place for you to practice team leadership if you don't have that opportunity in the workplace, and undergraduate leadership is also an excellent marker of future success. Ignore the people you know who got in despite lacking extracurriculars; that's the equivalent of running a race while looking over your shoulder. Instead, treat your application holistically and identify all the areas where it could be better. Then, fix those things. If the weakness wasyin your leadership profile and/or essays, the good news is that this is entirely in your hands: unlike a poor undergraduate GPA, you can fix these weaknesses and reapply!

This is an area where an experienced MBA consultant can add real value: many companies, including Stacy Blackman, offer in-depth ding analyses, and we can help you come up with a game plan for your reapplication in the fall. (https://www.stacyblackman.com/hourly/) On a personal level, helping reapplicants succeed is one of the parts of this job that I enjoy the most.

Good luck!
Margaret Strother