The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs: 2008-2009

You can find an alternative version of the post below that includes the Aspen Institute's Top 20 Ranked Programs on the AIGAC blog.

A review of The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs: 2008-2009.

As I have indicated in earlier posts (1 2 3), the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education's (CBE) www.caseplace.org is a great source for MBA case studies focused on issues related to social responsibility. CBE's other site www.beyondgreypinstripes.org actually ranks MBA programs through its "Beyond Grey Pinstripes" rankings. The most recent was for 2007-2008.

Before going onto a review of The Aspen Institute Guide, I think it is helpful to consider the source of data that the guide was based on. While I will not reprint the entire "Global 100," I would mention that the schools that rank well on this list include both unsurprising perennial "Top 20" schools and some schools that get little if any attention from Businessweek, US News & World Report, EIU, FT, Wall Street, or Forbes. Seeing alternatives is always valuable because it makes one look at something from a new perspective. Getting a new perspective on ranking is always a good idea from my perspective(as anyone who has followed my various methods for ranking programs can tell). For that reason alone, for anyone looking for an MBA program with strong social responsibility content, "The Global 100" is worthy of serious consideration.

The same is true of The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs: 2008-2009. The book brings life to the data found at www.beyondgreypinstripes.org. For those who are trying figure out where to apply and are interested in socially responsible investing, non-profit management, environmental issues, social entrepreneurship, socially responsible management practices, sustainability, and development, The Aspen Institute Guide provides an efficient way to learn which programs focus on these issues. It highlights socially responsibility related core and elective courses, institutes and centers, annual events, other events, student clubs and programs, and, where applicable, faculty pioneers. Actually, when I advise my clients about what they need to highlight to show why they want to attend a particular program, it is often these categories that I suggest they focus on. While The Aspen Institute Guide could not possibly include every potentially relevant aspect of the program, it does quite a good job of providing a solid introduction.

That said, as this is the first edition, I do hope they make some improvement to it in future editions. The summaries are very good, but the analysis of each program is rather limited. While the ranking analysis is available on www.beyondgreypinstripes.org, I think the authors needed to make the book stand on its own. Unfortunately at an analytical level it does not.

I was surprised to see that the book did not even include "The Global 100" rankings. I think this is rather unfortunate. Readers will have to refer to the ranking list because they will not find "The Global 100" in The Aspen Institute Guide.

But that is not my chief criticism. Rather, I found "The Bottom Line," The Aspen Institute Guide's attempt at analysis to be useless. Instead of providing some sort of a real analytical narrative about the program, the only analysis is a set of comments that simply represent data:
"We applied a statistical analysis to determine the relative strength of each along a few select criteria...We then make qualitative remarks using the flowing terms to reflect precise statistical scores:

• Truly Extraordinary-given to schools that scored more than one standard deviation above average
• Excellent- given to schools that scored between average and one standard deviation above average
• Good-given to schools that scored between one standard deviation below average and average" (P. 12)
  

The result is that the comments are so standardized as to be almost useless. Compare "Global 100" #1 Stanford GSB and #10 IE:

Stanford: "Compared to other business schools in our survey, Stanford University offers a truly extraordinary number of courses featuring relevant content, and does a truly extraordinary job in those courses explicitly addressing how mainstream business improves the world. Stanford University requires 23 core course featuring relevant content." (p. 144)

IE: "Compared to other business schools in our survey, IE Business School offers a truly extraordinary number of courses featuring relevant content, and does a truly extraordinary job in those courses explicitly addressing how mainstream business improves the world. IE Business School requires 40 core course featuring relevant content." (p. 144)

It would be better to have the data behind such comments than to have this qualitative version of it. The creators (writers does not seem appropriate, perhaps editors and/or statisticians) of the guide should be willing to provide the numbers. After all, any would-be applicant who can't handle a few numbers is going to have a difficult time getting a decent GMAT score, not to mention surviving business school. While it would be easier to see the numbers, including ranking data, what I would really wanted is an analytical section that reflected real expertise and not mere statistical conclusions. The Guide's authors hope that prospective students, the business education community, and recruiters will use it(p. 10). If so, it had better provide all three intended audiences with some guidance to and not just a summary of programs.

Another area of future improvement would be to identify socially responsible companies that recruit at each school. This is no easy task, but to include such data would be very helpful to applicants as well as make recruiters more interested in The Aspen Institute Guide.

I should point out that there is also some inconsistency between "The Global 100" and The Aspen Institute Guide. The most extreme example from my perspective was that HBS, while not part of "The Global 100," received "Bottom Line" comments that are in no significant way different from Stanford GSB or IE:

"Compared to other business schools in our survey, Harvard University offers a truly extraordinary number of courses featuring relevant content, and does a truly extraordinary job in those courses explicitly addressing how mainstream business improves the world. Harvard University requires 9 core course featuring relevant content." (p. 79)

This alone suggests that CBE needs to a better job of linking its guide to its rankings. If CBE is to be the authority on socially responsible business programs, it needs to create a consistent set of publications so that applicants, schools, recruiters, and even admissions consultants like myself will be looking at CBE 's "Global 100" the same way we do when looking at Businessweek's or other more generally recognized rankings of MBA programs.

On a more positive note, I want to mention that The Aspen Institute Guide includes very useful appendices on MBA concentrations, joint MBA degrees, and a geographical breakdown of the location of the programs. This information will prove useful to all applicants as part of their school selection process.

Again, the summary is great and I would recommend the guide to those who are interested in exploring their options for a socially responsible MBA education, but it is only a first step. In addition to it, you must certainly look at CBE's two great websites (mentioned above) as well as The 2007 Net Impact Student Guide to Graduate Business Programs. I hope that future editions of The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs will include introductory essays, perhaps by some of the faculty pioneers, as well as a greater analysis of how each MBA program creates a socially responsible business education, and also some qualitative-based comparisons between programs. Given the ever-expanding number of MBA applicants who have a social responsibility agenda, I am confident that The Aspen Institute Guide will become a standard resource for many future applicants.

Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学 ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA ランキング

All Six "Top 20" MBA Rankings Tables

Below you can find all six of the "Top 20" rankings tables that I have previously presented (links to the posts are below). The only difference is that the versions below have been slightly edited. The numbers have not changed. In addition, I have reprinted my ranking of schools by post-MBA salary. I hope this will make it easy for my clients and readers to utilize this information. I suggest reading the posts for some specific suggestions for how to use these tables as part of an application strategy. In addition, if you are interested in learning more about social and/or environmental responsibility, I suggest reading my review of The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs: 2008-2009.

A Comparison Of Rankings For Top 20 MBA Programs Worldwide:

The 54 "Top 20" MBA Programs Averaged Ranking:

A. Calculation:


B. Averaged Rank:

Ranking "TOP 20" MBA Programs by Acceptance Rate:

"Top 20" MBA Programs Ranked by Applications & Yield

A. Number of Applications:

B. Yield:

"Real" Global MBA Rankings for 2008:

"THE 98": All 98 schools ranked by FT in average post-MBA salary order.

1. Stanford University GSB, US, $175,766
2. Columbia Business School, US, $169,730
3. University of Pennsylvania: Wharton, US, $166,032
4. Harvard Business School, US, $163,493
5. Indian School of Business, India, $155,938
6. University of Chicago GSB, US, $155,484
7. MIT: Sloan, US, $155,316
8. CEIBS, China, $154,144
9. Dartmouth College: Tuck, US, $152,580
10. UCLA: Anderson, US, $148,615
11. INSEAD, France/Singapore, $147,763
12. IMD, Switzerland, $147,172
13. London Business School, UK, $145,918
14. New York University: Stern, US, $141,554
15. University of Oxford: Saïd, UK, $141,170
16. Yale School of Management, US, $140,576
17. Northwestern University: Kellogg, US, $136,674
18. University of Cambridge: Judge, UK, $133,480
19. UC Berkeley: Haas, US, $131,688
20. Cranfield School of Management, UK, $129,785
21. University of Virginia: Darden, US, $129,389
22. Cornell University: Johnson, US, $126,829
23. University of Michigan: Ross, US, $125,839
24. Emory University: Goizueta, US, $ 123,569
25. Duke University: Fuqua, US, $ 122,811
26. Australian Graduate School of Management, Australia, $122,349
27. Georgetown University: McDonough, US, $120,346
28. Imperial College London: Tanaka, UK, $120,207
29. IE Business School, Spain, $120,190
30. IESE Business School, Spain, $119,890
31. HEC Paris France, $118,562
32. University of North Carolina: Kenan-Flagler, US, $115,519
33. University of Southern California: Marshall, US, $114,582
34. University of Rochester: Simon, US, $113,983
35. University of Bath School of Management, UK, $113,727
36. University of Strathclyde Business School, UK, $113,071
37. Manchester Business School, UK, $112,625
38. Warwick Business School, UK, $112,586
39. Carnegie Mellon: Tepper, US, $112,536
40. City University: Cass, $111,615
41. University of California: Davis, U.S.A., $109,189
42. University of Texas at Austin: McCombs, U.S.A., $108,268
43. ESADE Business School, Spain, $108,166
44. Edinburgh University Management School UK, $107,956
45. Vanderbilt University: Owen U.S.A., $107,328
46. Rice University: Jones U.S.A. 2008, $107,180
47. Melbourne Business School Australia, $106,978
48. Babson College: Olin US, $106,849
49. University of Maryland: Smith US, $106,636
50. University of Western Ontario: Ivey Canada, $106,073
51. University of Notre Dame: Mendoza U.S.A., $105,783
52.Boston College: Carroll U.S.A. 2007, $105,659
53.Boston University School of Management US, $105,586
54. University of Washington Business School US, $105,554
55. Indiana University: Kelley US, $105,547
56. Lancaster University Management School UK, $104,609
57. RSM Erasmus University Netherlands, $104,211
58. Leeds University Business School UK, $104,165
59. Pennsylvania State University: Smeal US, $103,764
60. George Washington University US, $102,852
61. Michigan State University: Broad US, $102,202
62. University College Dublin: Smurfit Ireland, $101,730
63. Washington University: Olin US, $100,808
64. Nottingham University Business School UK, $100,277
65. University of California at Irvine: Merage US, $100,030
66. Bradford School of Management/TiasNimbas Business School UK/Netherlands/Germany, $99,202
67. Thunderbird School of Global Management US, $99,099
68. University of Toronto: Rotman Canada, $98,940
69. Purdue University: Krannert US, $98,554
70. Arizona State University: Carey US, $98,060
71. Hong Kong UST Business School China, $97,235
72. University of Wisconsin-Madison US, $96,866
73. SDA Bocconi Italy, $96,824
74. Vlerick Leuven Gent, Belgium, $95,754
75. College of William and Mary: Mason, US, $96,717
76. Brigham Young University: Marriott, US, $96,702
77. University of South Carolina: Moore, US, $95,417
78. Tulane University: Freeman, US, $95,384
79. Case Western Reserve: Weatherhead, US, $95,283
80. University of Arizona: Eller, US, $95,225
81. University of Georgia: Terry, US, $94,930
82. University of Pittsburgh: Katz, US, $94,641
83. University of Minnesota: Carlson, US, $94,246
84. University of Florida, US, $93,077
85. Ohio State University: Fisher, US, $92,788
86. Texas A & M University: Mays, US, $91,656
87. McGill University: Desautels, Canada, $91,551
88. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, ACEM, China, $91,346
89. EM Lyon, France, $90,532
90. Nanyang Business School Singapore, $89,836
91. Nyenrode Business Universiteit Netherlands, $89,223
92. University of Iowa: Tippie, US, $88,972
93. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, US, $87,318
94. EADA Spain, $85,811
95. York University: Schulich, Canada, $84,388
96. University of British Columbia: Sauder, Canada, $81,997
97. Temple University: Fox, US, $75,458
98. University of Alberta, Canada, $74,250

Comments? Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.

-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学 ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA ランキング 合格者率

"Top 20" MBA Programs Ranked by Applications & Yield

After ranking by post-MBA salary, comparing "Top 20" rankings, ranking by averaged "Top 20" rank, and ranking by acceptance rate, I thought it would be useful to rank "TOP 20" MBA by number of applications and by yield. Click here for all of my rankings tables together in one post.

Ranking by the number of applications is a crude, but clear, measure of the relative popularity of a program. While I would never suggest making application decisions based simply on what other applicants do, as I will explain below, it is quite helpful to look at the number of applications when reviewing other core admissions data (number admitted and yield).

Yield, the number of accepted applicants who actually enroll, is the single best measurement of relative program popularity among admits. As I discuss below, yield measures the behavior of admits.

Taking the 39 "Top 20" programs that provide data on their acceptance rates (see my earlier post on acceptance rates for the "Top 20 programs that did not provide such data), I put the tables below together. Click to enlarge them.

Ranking by number of applications:

Ranking by yield:


Data:
"Number Admitted," "First Year Enrollment" &"Acceptance Rate" data: For US, US News & World Report (2007) & for non-US & Kellogg, Businessweek (2006). Since Businessweek only lists percentages of admitted and enrolled, I have calculated the number of admitted and enrolled. For sources for the rest of the data, see "Difficulty Rank", "Averaged Rank" , and "Post-MBA Salary Rank." The following programs were ranked:
Brigham Young: Marriot, Carnegie Mellon: Tepper, Columbia Business School, Cornell University: Johnson, Cranfield S. of Management, Dartmouth College: Tuck, Duke University: Fuqua, ESADE Business School, Harvard Business School, HEC Montreal, HEC Paris, IE Business School, IESE Business School, IMD, Indiana University: Kelley, McGill, Michigan State: Broad, MIT: Sloan, New York University: Stern, Northwestern U.: Kellogg, Queen's School of Business, RSM Erasmus University, SDA Bocconi Italy, Stanford University GSB, Thunderbird, U. of Chicago GSB, U. of Iowa: Tippie, U. of Michigan: Ross, U. of Pennsylvania: Wharton, U. of Toronto: Rotman, U. of TX at Austin: McCombs, U. of Virginia: Darden, UBC: Sauder, UC Berkeley: Haas, UCLA: Anderson, UNC: Kenan-Flagler, USC: Marshall, Yale School of Management, and York University: Schulich.

How can applicants use these rankings?

As I have suggested elsewhere in this series of posts, when looking at any ranking, I think it is critical to look at actual market conditions. Just as average post-MBA salary reveals the market value of the degree, the number of applications reveal each business school's ability to attract customers (applicants are customers- they are buying the right to be considered for admission) and the yield measures the rate at which a select group of customers (admits) offered the right to exercise their option for admission choose to do so. If you are going to be an intelligent investor in this market, you need to understand the market not for some abstract reason, but because doing so will enable you to determine where is best for you to apply and to go.

Yield should be evaluated in comparison to acceptance rate. Some highly ranked schools, Haas and Yale being two of the best examples, that are difficult to get into have relatively low yield rates. Obviously those admitted to Haas and Yale had other options that they chose to exercise, but more significantly it means that Haas and Yale admissions want to get who they perceive as the best students even if it means having a relatively unimpressive yield. This indicates that while the admission offices at these two schools might care about yield to some extent, they are not willing to sacrifice the quality of their potential student body in order to improve their yield. Similarly if you find a program with a high acceptance rate and a high yield, you can assume that its admits had no better options and that the admissions office was not that selective.

I think it is possible to use the yield, number of applications, and acceptance rates to a get sense of how a particular school is being used as part of a large number of applicant's application strategy. Example: UNC Kenan-Flagler, which has a decidedly low yield (42%), receives a relatively large number of applications (1714), and is relatively easy to enter (39.2%), is a school both this data (and my own experience) tell me is being used as a "back-up school" by a significant number of applicants. Indeed, regardless of the number applications received, schools with low yields and high rates of admission should most certainly be used for the purpose of reducing the risk of total application failure.
When selecting a group of schools to apply to, use the yield and acceptance rates to put together a school application strategy that takes the level of risk into account. For more about school selection strategy, click here.

Comments? Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.

-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学 ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA ランキング 合格者率

Ranking "TOP 20" MBA Programs by Acceptance Rate

Click here for all of my rankings tables together in one post.

For the 3rd in my series of MBA rankings, I asked myself the following: HOW DIFFICULT IS IT TO GET ADMITTED TO THE 54 "TOP 20" MBA PROGRAMS WORLDWIDE?

After ranking programs by starting salary ("The 98") and ranking them by average of their Top 20 ranking, I wanted to look at actual acceptance rates. For 39 of the 54 "Top 20" programs I was able to obtain their rates of acceptance rates from US News and World Report(US programs except Northwestern, which I took from Businessweek) and Businessweek (non-US programs). For the other 15, I looked elsewhere, but came up with nothing (If I missed admissions data somewhere, please let me know.)

Here is what I put together (The pretty JPEG version is below):

RANK ------------------------ BUSINESS SCHOOL
1. Acceptance Rate: 7.90% Stanford University GSB
2. Acceptance Rate:13.70% UC Berkeley: Haas
3. Acceptance Rate:13.80% Harvard Business School
4. Acceptance Rate:14.70% Yale School of Management
5. Acceptance Rate:16.30% Columbia Business School
6. Acceptance Rate:17.10% New York University: Stern
7. Acceptance Rate:17.30% U. of Pennsylvania: Wharton
8. Acceptance Rate:19.20% Dartmouth College: Tuck
9. Acceptance Rate:19.70% MIT: Sloan
10. Acceptance Rate: 20% HEC Paris, France
11. Acceptance Rate: 20.40% U. of Michigan: Ross
12. Acceptance Rate: 23.30% U. of Chicago GSB
13. Acceptance Rate: 23.40% UCLA: Anderson
14. Acceptance Rate: 24% IESE Business School
14. Acceptance Rate: 24% Northwestern U.: Kellogg
16. Acceptance Rate: 26% IE Business School
17. Acceptance Rate: 26.70% Cornell University: Johnson
18. Acceptance Rate: 28% IMD
19. Acceptance Rate: 28.90% U. of Virginia: Darden
20. Acceptance Rate: 29.00% York University: Schulich
21. Acceptance Rate: 29% USC: Marshall
22. Acceptance Rate: 29.60% Michigan State: Broad
23. Acceptance Rate: 29.80% Carnegie Mellon: Tepper, US
24. Acceptance Rate: 31.50% Duke University: Fuqua
25. Acceptance Rate: 33% McGill
26. Acceptance Rate: 34% U. of TX at Austin: McCombs
27. Acceptance Rate: 34.40% Indiana University: Kelley
28. Acceptance Rate: 37% SDA Bocconi Italy
29. Acceptance Rate: 39.20% UNC: Kenan-Flagler
30. Acceptance Rate: 42% U. of Toronto: Rotman
31. Acceptance Rate: 48% ESADE Business School
32. Acceptance Rate: 49.80% U. of Iowa: Tippie
33. Acceptance Rate: 53% Brigham Young: Marriot
34. Acceptance Rate: 54% UBC: Sauder
35. Acceptance Rate: 56% Cranfield S. of Management
36. Acceptance Rate: 59% RSM Erasmus University
37. Acceptance Rate: 62% HEC Montreal, Canada
38. Acceptance Rate: 65% Queen's School of Business
39. Acceptance Rate: 72.30% Thunderbird

I could not obtain acceptance rates for AGSM, Ashridge, CEIBS, City University: Cass, EGADE, ESSEC, Henley Business School, Hong Kong UST Bus. School, Indian School of Business, INSEAD, IPADE, Lancaster U, Mngt. School, London Business School, Manchester Business School, U. of Cambridge: Judge, U. of Oxford : Said, and U. of Western Ontario: Ivey. If any of these programs actually provide such data, I would be happy to correct this ranking.

Since I wanted to compare difficulty of admission to averaged top twenty ranking and post-MBA salary, I prepared the following table(Click to enlarge it):
So what does my ranking by difficulty reveal? I think it helps to see the real variation that exists between the difficulty for admission at "Top 20" programs. I have read of fear mongers who would suggest the rate of admission for top programs is around 10%, but with the exception of Stanford GSB, this is not the case. Even Berkeley Haas (A tuition bargain for those paying in-state tuition in California) and HBS (with 88% yield, see my post on Columbia Early Decision regarding this.) have rates of admission over 13%. The reality is that many of the programs that consistently rank "Top 20" have something in the 15% to 25% rate of acceptance. Some programs are not particularly difficult to enter with rates approaching or exceeding 50%.

Keep in mind that difficulty of admission cannot simply be measured by acceptance rate. After all those who apply to a program are self-selecting and the programs can impact who even applies. Stated GPA, TOEFL, IELTS, GMAT, and work experience minimums or age maximums/maximums can significantly reduce the number of applications a school receives: Why apply if you have been told that you will not be considered? Similarly, if a program has no specific minimums and appears open to all applicants, it would be logical to assume that it will receive many applications.

Also keep in mind for the programs where I could not get data, you can't make the assumption that they are easy to enter. That would most certainly be wrong with schools like INSEAD and LBS. I am not sure why these schools are transparent about their rates of admission. I can't imagine that their reputations would be damaged by releasing this information. One would hope that they would want applicants to be able to make fully informed decisions. Certainly, knowing how difficult a school is to enter is one key way to measure that.

Finally, I think it is valuable to use acceptance rate data to determine the level of risk of rejection one is willing to take when applying to B-school. See my "School Application Selection Strategy Based on Salary Approach." That approach is based on using acceptance rate data in combination with post-MBA salary ranking to come up with an optimal set of schools to apply to. Using the table above, I have made it easy to compare acceptance, post-MBA, and averaged "Top 20" ranking for the purpose of school application selection. For those who review my other posts on school selection, it should become clear that I do not consider such a purely quantitative approach to be sufficient, but I do think it is important to incorporate a real consideration of the numbers (rates of admission, yield, post-MBA salary, ROI) when determining where to apply to and where to go.

Comments? Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.

-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学 ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA ランキング 合格者率

Columbia Business School Early Decision

The post has been updated and expanded since I first posted it on September 7, 2007. Also see my essay analysis for September 2009 Term Admission.

In what follows, I provide: my answer to the question of who should apply for Columbia Business School's Early Decision, one reason why I think Columbia has an application option, and some related remarks on application strategy.

SHOULD YOU APPLY FOR COLUMBIA EARLY DECISION?
Every year many applicants to Columbia Business School have to deeply consider whether to apply to the Early Decision or the regular application round. Among top MBA programs Columbia's Early Decision (ED) is unique. While Tuck has Early Action,I have not seen applicants face the same issues of school selection and application with Tuck that I will discuss below in regards to Columbia. First keep the official statement from Columbia regarding Early Decision in mind:

"The Early Decision option is ideal for candidates who have completed their research about MBA programs and have decided that Columbia is the school they want to attend. Early Decision applications are reviewed before Regular Decision applications." Early Decision candidates must sign the following Statement of Commitment: As an Early Decision candidate to Columbia Business School, I understand that if I am admitted I will submit my non-refundable $6000 deposit to secure my place in the September entering class. I am committed to attending Columbia Business School, and will withdraw all applications and decline all offers from other schools upon admission to Columbia Business School.

Early Decision Applicants will find the Statement of Commitment in the Honor System section of the online application.

Early Decision candidates who are offered admission have up to three weeks to arrange their non-refundable $6,000 deposit which must be submitted to reserve a space in the class. Applicants who are not yet ready for this level of commitment are encouraged to apply for Regular Decision."

This statement is quite clear and is taken very seriously by Columbia. Consider Linda Meehan's (assistant dean and executive director for MBA admissions and financial aid at CBS) remarks made in Businessweek's August 19, 2007 chat:

"Early decision is geared toward those applicants who know that Columbia Business School is the right fit for them. They have researched many programs and have determined that the offerings, opportunities, and education available at Columbia will best fit their needs. We ask our ED applicants to know that they will attend Columbia should they be admitted and withdraw applications from any other schools to which they have applied and turn down offers they may have received."

"When one applies ED to Columbia, you sign an honor pledge. As part of this agreement, you state that you will withdraw your applications from any other school to which you may have applied, as well as submit the deposit. That being said, you are bound ethically by your initial decision to apply for the ED period. Should you not be confident that this is the perfect fit for you, please apply during the regular-decision period. Everyone should be able to live with the decisions and commitments they make."

Her language is quite strong. Given that MBA programs take ethics seriously, I think it would be very bad idea to treat ED as some sort of $6000 insurance policy. ED is great for those are ready to apply and know Columbia is their first choice. However, if Columbia is not your first choice, but simply a great option, apply in the regular round.

EARLY DECISION INCREASES COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL'S YIELD
I think one primary reason that Columbia takes Early Decision so seriously is that ED Increases Columbia's yield (percentage of admitted who attend). Below are the yield rates for Columbia plus the schools I think someone is most likely to chose over Columbia. This data is based on US News and World Report for Fall 2007 Admissions in Yield Order:

HBS Yield: 88% Admitted: 1021 Attend: 901
Stanford GSB Yield: 80% Admitted: 455 Attend: 362
CBS Yield: 77% Admitted: 919 Attend: 711
Wharton Yield: 69% Admitted: 1153 Attend: 799
Univ. of Chicago GSB Yield: 60% Admitted: 932 Attend: 555

Yield is a fundamental measure of program popularity. After all if a program has a higher yield it means that applicants who are often admitted to multiple schools are choosing to attend it over another school.

I think it is useful to compare Columbia's yield rate to those programs with which it is in the most competition for admits. I think that, regardless of any rankings considerations, Columbia is most in competition with HBS and Stanford, where, at least in my experience, it usually loses. Next comes Wharton, where Columbia is more likely to lose, and Chicago, where Columbia often wins. My assumptions were made well before I ever looked at yield numbers, but are, with the seeming exception of Wharton, consistent with them.

Now Columbia's yield is certainly high. That said, ED helps to keep it that way and hence given the unique nature of that round, comparing the rates of CBS to other programs is somewhat problematic because by comparison the other schools are at a disadvantage. Which is to say, if Columbia did not use the mandatory $6000 deposit and ethical stranglehold approach it takes to those who are accepted for Early Decision, its yield would easily fall. How far, I am not sure, but enough for it to matter. Given that Columbia is at least popularly perceived as losing to Wharton when it comes to school selection, I think we can assume there would be a statistically meaningful impact This is, of course, pure speculation on my part. While it might be the case that CBS Adcom simply takes the applicant's binding commitment seriously, I think it would be safe to assume that they do so based on the institutional interest of the Business School, not merely ethical considerations.

APPLICATION STRATEGY ASSUMING COLUMBIA BUSINESS SCHOOL IS YOUR FIRST CHOICE
If Columbia Business School is your first choice and you can get your application ready by the due date of October 8, 2008, I do suggest applying to Early Decision. Given the deadline, you might try to get in other first round applications as well, but I would focus on making your Colombia application as strong as possible and consider applying to more schools in the second round. While I suppose there are many who will finish Colombia by October 8th and try to get in another top program such as HBS by the October 15 deadline, do not do that if it means submitting a weak application for either school.

Try to apply as early to ED as possible, but only if your application is as strong as you can make it. Since decisions are made within ten weeks of sending a complete application, I would recommend that you apply for ED relatively soon after they start taking applications on August 13th because this will give you sufficient time to consider whether you need to apply in the second round. Also, if Tuck is your second choice, it will give you plenty of time to apply to its Early Action round (due on October 15th).

Applying in mid-August means that you should have Columbia's decision by or before the end of October. One advantage to waiting until 2nd Round for at least some of your other applications is that if you don't get invited to a Columbia interview and/or are dinged after an interview, you have a pretty good indicator that you need to do a better job with your other applications (See here for a relevant post on that topic).

Finally, the above application strategy is not for everyone. In my experience, each applicant's needs very. When I am actually advising an individual client on application strategy I can factor in their specific situation to come up with an optimal tailored strategy.

Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.

-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学 ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング コロンビア MBA