Is it better to work for a big multi-national company than to work for a small business in order to get accepted to a top-10 MBA program?
Examples:
Take the IT industry: a Project Manager at IBM vs. a Project Manager building websites at a small local marketing firm.
or Consulting: Analyst/Associate at Bain vs. Business Development Analyst at small local boutique consulting firm.
I know that adcoms care most about the impact you had at your job and the reason why you need an MBA, but because it is so much harder to get a job at the big corporations, do the top schools prefer applicants who have experienced these opportunities?
Big companies usually have a very prestigious reputation (Bain, Deloitte, IBM, Google, Microsoft, Disney) and many advantages over small businesses: better training programs, better mentorship, possibly greater exposure to more business roles, more responsibilities, greater pay...
A company would rather hire somebody with experience from a big firm over a small one, so is it the same with schools? Are top schools truly able to put the above assumptions aside? I have heard admission consultants say a person who worked at Raytheon would not get into Harvard over someone who worked in a similar capacity at Apple, with all other application criteria similar.
I am very interested on this subject, trying hard to be strategic in finding a job myself before I apply to schools next year. Real data, such as pre-MBA applicant's resumes, would be very helpful in my assessment.
Examples:
Take the IT industry: a Project Manager at IBM vs. a Project Manager building websites at a small local marketing firm.
or Consulting: Analyst/Associate at Bain vs. Business Development Analyst at small local boutique consulting firm.
I know that adcoms care most about the impact you had at your job and the reason why you need an MBA, but because it is so much harder to get a job at the big corporations, do the top schools prefer applicants who have experienced these opportunities?
Big companies usually have a very prestigious reputation (Bain, Deloitte, IBM, Google, Microsoft, Disney) and many advantages over small businesses: better training programs, better mentorship, possibly greater exposure to more business roles, more responsibilities, greater pay...
A company would rather hire somebody with experience from a big firm over a small one, so is it the same with schools? Are top schools truly able to put the above assumptions aside? I have heard admission consultants say a person who worked at Raytheon would not get into Harvard over someone who worked in a similar capacity at Apple, with all other application criteria similar.
I am very interested on this subject, trying hard to be strategic in finding a job myself before I apply to schools next year. Real data, such as pre-MBA applicant's resumes, would be very helpful in my assessment.
