This will be my last post for 2008. I just simply wanted to thank my readers for visiting. I am rather busy assisting my clients. I anticipate more blog posts after the 15th of January.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Cheers,
Adam
December 30, 2008
December 22, 2008
On consistency between your application and recommendations
I am frequently asked questions from MBA, LL.M., MPA, and other graduate school applicants about how much consistency there should between their application (essays, resume, and application form content) and their recommendations. This is a complex and annoying issue for many applicants, especially if they themselves and/or their recommenders come from countries where such recommendations are not a part of the academic and/or business culture.
Since the application and recommendations are not the product of the same person, total consistency would be amazing, unnatural, and highly suspicious. The applicant and the recommenders each have their own perspective. Of course, if you have a recommender who has worked with you on a single or on very few projects, chances are great that the stories they tell in their recommendations will have a significant overlap with the stories you tell in your essays and/or accomplishments in your resume or application form. On the other hand, if the recommender is someone you worked with for a long time on a variety of projects, the differences in the subjects of the stories that are covered is likely to be much greater. Of course, if you have a particularly important project or activity that you want to make certain that your recommender covers, let them know that. Hopefully you have selected someone who will cooperate with you.
I would hope that what you say about yourself in your application is reflected sufficiently in the recommendations that admissions is not left with the feeling that are reading about two different people. For instance, direct contradictions between your application and your recommender about your role in work or of your strengths would look odd. That is why it is important to make sure that you give your resume to your recommender and are certain that they perceive you in a manner similar to the way you perceive yourself. They don't need to tell the same stories you do in essays, but they had better be writing about the same person.
Hopefully you are selecting a recommender whose perspective on you will not be a complete contradiction. There are some situations where this occurs. For instance, female applicants sponsored by their companies might find it necessary to select a male recommender who just happens to be a sexist. In such instances, the applicant might have a guy, usually older, who wants to write about "how charming she is" and completely ignores her real talents. Sometimes, I advise such applicants to simply explain to their recommenders that such statements will not be viewed positively by an admissions committee that includes and is often directed by women. Other times, if the recommender is " a busy man" I suggest my client simply request that such unhelpful comments be eliminated. That usually solves the issue.
If, after selecting a recommender, you find that the person's version of reality is simply too far away from your own and they seem uncooperative, you might find it necessary to get a new recommender. I have advised a small number of clients to "fire" their recommender because it seemed like no other course of action was possible, but this is obviously not an ideal result.
For more about recommendations, please see Steve Green's previous post. Next year, I intend to cover recommendations in much great depth.
Questions? Write comments, but do not send me emails asking me to advise you on your application strategy unless you are interested in my consulting services. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to. Before emailing me questions about your chances for admission or personal profile, please see my recent post on "Why I don't analyze profiles without consulting with the applicant." If you are interested in my graduate admission consulting services, please click here.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA留学
Since the application and recommendations are not the product of the same person, total consistency would be amazing, unnatural, and highly suspicious. The applicant and the recommenders each have their own perspective. Of course, if you have a recommender who has worked with you on a single or on very few projects, chances are great that the stories they tell in their recommendations will have a significant overlap with the stories you tell in your essays and/or accomplishments in your resume or application form. On the other hand, if the recommender is someone you worked with for a long time on a variety of projects, the differences in the subjects of the stories that are covered is likely to be much greater. Of course, if you have a particularly important project or activity that you want to make certain that your recommender covers, let them know that. Hopefully you have selected someone who will cooperate with you.
I would hope that what you say about yourself in your application is reflected sufficiently in the recommendations that admissions is not left with the feeling that are reading about two different people. For instance, direct contradictions between your application and your recommender about your role in work or of your strengths would look odd. That is why it is important to make sure that you give your resume to your recommender and are certain that they perceive you in a manner similar to the way you perceive yourself. They don't need to tell the same stories you do in essays, but they had better be writing about the same person.
Hopefully you are selecting a recommender whose perspective on you will not be a complete contradiction. There are some situations where this occurs. For instance, female applicants sponsored by their companies might find it necessary to select a male recommender who just happens to be a sexist. In such instances, the applicant might have a guy, usually older, who wants to write about "how charming she is" and completely ignores her real talents. Sometimes, I advise such applicants to simply explain to their recommenders that such statements will not be viewed positively by an admissions committee that includes and is often directed by women. Other times, if the recommender is " a busy man" I suggest my client simply request that such unhelpful comments be eliminated. That usually solves the issue.
If, after selecting a recommender, you find that the person's version of reality is simply too far away from your own and they seem uncooperative, you might find it necessary to get a new recommender. I have advised a small number of clients to "fire" their recommender because it seemed like no other course of action was possible, but this is obviously not an ideal result.
For more about recommendations, please see Steve Green's previous post. Next year, I intend to cover recommendations in much great depth.
Questions? Write comments, but do not send me emails asking me to advise you on your application strategy unless you are interested in my consulting services. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to. Before emailing me questions about your chances for admission or personal profile, please see my recent post on "Why I don't analyze profiles without consulting with the applicant." If you are interested in my graduate admission consulting services, please click here.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA留学
December 13, 2008
Should I be simple or complex?
One thing that frequently arises when I work with my clients on MBA essays is the extent to which they should provide a simple or a complex portrait of themselves. My general strategy is to always say that I am greedy and therefore I want to learn as much about them as possible. Admissions committees, to a greater or lesser extent based on the questions that they ask, are trying to learn about you as a person. Tell them those best stories about you that will show you in all of your remarkable complexity. That said, the realities of page and word limits and the need to have a clear focus require some simplification.
While some schools like Columbia give very little space for the articulation of personality stories, even they are trying to find out about who you are and not merely what you have done. Your resume is a record of what you have done, the essays reveal who you are. Of course, recommendations will provide other people's perspectives on that, but until an interview takes place, the only way an admissions committee can learn about how you think about yourself, your own story, and your future is to read your essays.
Now telling stories about yourself is not an invitation to engage in mere self-indulgent confessions because good taste, discretion, and the necessity to market yourself effectively require that you exercise great judgment about what you write. That is especially why hastily written essays are so often bad. Such rushed content may have energy, but the assumption of "first thought, best thought" is often not only wrong, it is often fatal.
An effective approach to essay writing requires an initial brainstorming phase followed by reflection, revision, and some real serious consideration of overall strategy. Essays are read as a set and as part of a whole application, so it is best to see them as part of that holistic process.
I notice some applicants who think they need to continually repeat the same content from essay to essay within a single essay set. My assumption is if admissions read a story once, reading it again or reading one that is just like it in structure and theme is not likely to have much impact. Use each essay to tell focused stories that reveal a different aspect of who you are, how you think, and/or who you want to become.
Unless you are trying to create the impression that are there is little to you, presenting different aspects of who you are is important. People are complex, contradictory, imperfect and if you want to come across as a person you need to tap into that complexity. Being real, something I have heard admissions officers from such schools as Berkeley, Duke Fuqua, Stanford, Tuck, Chicago, and MIT say, is a core aspect of writing effective essays. Being real means presenting presenting different aspects of who you are.
You most certainly have to sell yourself, but do it authentically, and give admissions sufficient stories to connect to you as a person so that they decide that they want you as part of their community. These stories about your leadership, teamwork, communication skills, innovation, creativity, future vision, and accomplishments need to be in sufficient detail to have an impact on the reader. Merely sprinkling bits of detail will not be sufficient. You will need to choose between stories and can't possibly include everything.
You certainly have to think about your audience and ask what can you tell them that will most likely appeal to them? Don't do this at the expense of eliminating core positive aspects of who you are, but think strategically about what to focus on. For instance, at MIT, as I have suggested in my analysis of their behavioral questions, the ability to think and act differently depending on the kind of situation you encounter is certainly a net positive. In general, the ability to write differently and provide analysis of situations in different ways is an important way to communicate intelligence. This is something of value when applying to any school, but certainly even more so with essay questions like MIT's (or Stanford Essay C) that are specifically designed to gauge your emotional and analytical intelligence.
So back to original question: Simple or complex? Well, some of both actually. The art is all in the combination of the two and one of the core things that separates great essays from the rest.
Questions? Write comments, but do not send me emails asking me to advise you on your application strategy unless you are interested in my consulting services. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to. Before emailing me questions about your chances for admission or personal profile, please see my recent post on "Why I don't analyze profiles without consulting with the applicant." If you are interested in my graduate admission consulting services, please click here.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA留学
While some schools like Columbia give very little space for the articulation of personality stories, even they are trying to find out about who you are and not merely what you have done. Your resume is a record of what you have done, the essays reveal who you are. Of course, recommendations will provide other people's perspectives on that, but until an interview takes place, the only way an admissions committee can learn about how you think about yourself, your own story, and your future is to read your essays.
Now telling stories about yourself is not an invitation to engage in mere self-indulgent confessions because good taste, discretion, and the necessity to market yourself effectively require that you exercise great judgment about what you write. That is especially why hastily written essays are so often bad. Such rushed content may have energy, but the assumption of "first thought, best thought" is often not only wrong, it is often fatal.
An effective approach to essay writing requires an initial brainstorming phase followed by reflection, revision, and some real serious consideration of overall strategy. Essays are read as a set and as part of a whole application, so it is best to see them as part of that holistic process.
I notice some applicants who think they need to continually repeat the same content from essay to essay within a single essay set. My assumption is if admissions read a story once, reading it again or reading one that is just like it in structure and theme is not likely to have much impact. Use each essay to tell focused stories that reveal a different aspect of who you are, how you think, and/or who you want to become.
Unless you are trying to create the impression that are there is little to you, presenting different aspects of who you are is important. People are complex, contradictory, imperfect and if you want to come across as a person you need to tap into that complexity. Being real, something I have heard admissions officers from such schools as Berkeley, Duke Fuqua, Stanford, Tuck, Chicago, and MIT say, is a core aspect of writing effective essays. Being real means presenting presenting different aspects of who you are.
You most certainly have to sell yourself, but do it authentically, and give admissions sufficient stories to connect to you as a person so that they decide that they want you as part of their community. These stories about your leadership, teamwork, communication skills, innovation, creativity, future vision, and accomplishments need to be in sufficient detail to have an impact on the reader. Merely sprinkling bits of detail will not be sufficient. You will need to choose between stories and can't possibly include everything.
You certainly have to think about your audience and ask what can you tell them that will most likely appeal to them? Don't do this at the expense of eliminating core positive aspects of who you are, but think strategically about what to focus on. For instance, at MIT, as I have suggested in my analysis of their behavioral questions, the ability to think and act differently depending on the kind of situation you encounter is certainly a net positive. In general, the ability to write differently and provide analysis of situations in different ways is an important way to communicate intelligence. This is something of value when applying to any school, but certainly even more so with essay questions like MIT's (or Stanford Essay C) that are specifically designed to gauge your emotional and analytical intelligence.
So back to original question: Simple or complex? Well, some of both actually. The art is all in the combination of the two and one of the core things that separates great essays from the rest.
Questions? Write comments, but do not send me emails asking me to advise you on your application strategy unless you are interested in my consulting services. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to. Before emailing me questions about your chances for admission or personal profile, please see my recent post on "Why I don't analyze profiles without consulting with the applicant." If you are interested in my graduate admission consulting services, please click here.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA留学
December 12, 2008
Submit a weak 2nd round MBA application or apply in 3rd round with a stronger application?
This question always comes up, so I want to provide my official answer: If your MBA application is truly weak for 2nd round and you can get it better by 3rd round, apply in the 3rd round.
Now, of course, this is a trick answer.
"Weak" is a relative term. "Weak" for HBS or Stanford might be perfectly fine for a lower ranked school. "Weak" is always in comparison to (1) other applicants, (2) the relative difficulty of admission, and (3) your potential for putting together a better application later. One person's "weak" is another person's "strong." If you are not sure if your application is weak, get the opinion of an admissions consultant or someone else who you think will provide you with a unbiased and well-informed opinion. Also, be honest with yourself and ask yourself how much of a difference it will make. If you can substantially improve your essays or your test scores, it might very well make sense to wait.
You might very well determine that your applications to your safety schools are not weak, but are weak for your preferred schools. In that case, apply to your safeties in 2nd round and to the others in 3rd round.
At this point, you might be thinking: "Adam is insane. This year is harder than ever before in the history of mankind. No one will get in 3rd round. Why I am reading his blog?" Actually, I am perfectly sane. The reason that there is a 3rd round is because there are spots to be filled. It is not easy, but applicants do get in. It is certainly not ideal, but that does not make it impossible. Especially for those applicants who have strong backgrounds, but for whatever reason, have not gotten it together in time for 2nd round, 3rd round is really an option. Even this year. We will know that 3rd round is no longer an option when schools eliminate it. Till then, it is an option.
Questions? Write comments, but do not send me emails asking me to advised you on your application strategy unless you are interested in my consulting services. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to. Before emailing me questions about your chances for admission or personal profile, please see my recent post on "Why I don't analyze profiles without consulting with the applicant." If you are interested in my graduate admission consulting services, please click here.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA留学
Now, of course, this is a trick answer.
"Weak" is a relative term. "Weak" for HBS or Stanford might be perfectly fine for a lower ranked school. "Weak" is always in comparison to (1) other applicants, (2) the relative difficulty of admission, and (3) your potential for putting together a better application later. One person's "weak" is another person's "strong." If you are not sure if your application is weak, get the opinion of an admissions consultant or someone else who you think will provide you with a unbiased and well-informed opinion. Also, be honest with yourself and ask yourself how much of a difference it will make. If you can substantially improve your essays or your test scores, it might very well make sense to wait.
You might very well determine that your applications to your safety schools are not weak, but are weak for your preferred schools. In that case, apply to your safeties in 2nd round and to the others in 3rd round.
At this point, you might be thinking: "Adam is insane. This year is harder than ever before in the history of mankind. No one will get in 3rd round. Why I am reading his blog?" Actually, I am perfectly sane. The reason that there is a 3rd round is because there are spots to be filled. It is not easy, but applicants do get in. It is certainly not ideal, but that does not make it impossible. Especially for those applicants who have strong backgrounds, but for whatever reason, have not gotten it together in time for 2nd round, 3rd round is really an option. Even this year. We will know that 3rd round is no longer an option when schools eliminate it. Till then, it is an option.
Questions? Write comments, but do not send me emails asking me to advised you on your application strategy unless you are interested in my consulting services. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to. Before emailing me questions about your chances for admission or personal profile, please see my recent post on "Why I don't analyze profiles without consulting with the applicant." If you are interested in my graduate admission consulting services, please click here.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA留学
December 11, 2008
Don't Be A Student Leader At Michigan State University
UPDATE: MSU dropped their charges!
I ask my readers to indulge me in going off-topic and being slightly political. I wanted to bring my readers attention to the fact that Michigan State University, the home of the Broad School MBA program, is no friend of student leadership according to FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). My remarks follow the press release below:
-------
I ask my readers to indulge me in going off-topic and being slightly political. I wanted to bring my readers attention to the fact that Michigan State University, the home of the Broad School MBA program, is no friend of student leadership according to FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). My remarks follow the press release below:
-------
BREAKING NEWS: Student Government Leader at Michigan State University Found Guilty of ‘Spamming’ after Criticizing Administrative Decision
December 10, 2008
FIRE Press Release
EAST LANSING, Mich., December 10, 2008—A Michigan State University student government leader has been found guilty of "spamming" and misuse of university resources after she criticized the administration's plan to change the school calendar. MSU junior Kara Spencer had carefully selected and e-mailed 391 of the school's faculty members, encouraging them to express their views about the changes. Spencer, who plans to appeal her unconstitutional punishment, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.
"It is outrageous that MSU's Student-Faculty Judiciary would find against a student who did nothing more than write members of her community who might be concerned about a major administrative decision," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "MSU must immediately reverse this unjust punishment and revise its policy."
In late August, MSU's administration revealed to members of the Faculty Council the administration's plans to shorten the school's Academic Calendar and Fall Welcome (freshman orientation) schedules, and asked that comments about the proposed changes be submitted by September 30. Given the highly controversial nature of the changes, members of the University Committee on Student Affairs (UCSA) met and exchanged e-mails in mid-September to construct a formal response. UCSA consists of several student government members (including Spencer), several faculty members, and several MSU administrators.
On September 14, Spencer notified UCSA that she would send a personal version of the formal response to faculty members. She noted that she had "compiled a database of all faculty on campus" for this purpose. None of the faculty members or administrators involved in the discussion gave any indication that MSU would choose to repress the e-mail or charge Spencer with any breaches of policy. One of the committee members even encouraged her to proceed. On or about September 15, Spencer carefully selected 391 faculty members—roughly 8 percent of MSU's faculty—and e-mailed them her version of UCSA's letter.
Spencer's e-mail argued that the proposed calendar changes "will greatly affect both faculty and students alike," and called for "an inclusive dialogue among members of the University community" prior to adoption.
On September 16, MSU Network Administrator Randall J. Hall summoned Spencer to a mandatory "investigation." The next day, Hall alleged that Spencer had violated as many as five MSU policies by sending what he called unauthorized "spam." After Spencer requested a hearing before the Student-Faculty Judiciary, FIRE wrote MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon, calling on her to end the unconstitutional investigation. MSU chose to proceed with the hearing, however, and Simon falsely claimed that the policy was acceptable because it was "content neutral."
MSU proceeded with its shameful hearing on December 2, and the Judiciary notified Spencer this afternoon that she had been found guilty of violating MSU's Network Acceptable Use Policy and of engaging in an "unauthorized" use of the MSU network. Today, Spencer was punished with a formal "Warning" placed in her student file.
MSU's "spam" policy prohibits the sending of an unsolicited e-mail to more than about 20-30 recipients over two days without prior permission.
"MSU's decision defies the First Amendment, fairness, and common sense," Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program, said. "MSU is effectively preventing the campus community from sending e-mails criticizing the administration to more than an extremely small fraction of the MSU community. The university should be ashamed, and the president should immediately overturn this illiberal finding."
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our nation's campuses. FIRE's efforts to preserve liberty at Michigan State University and elsewhere can be seen by visiting www.thefire.org.
CONTACT:
Adam Kissel, Director, Individual Rights Defense Program, FIRE: 215-717-3473; adam@thefire.org
Lou Anna K. Simon, President, Michigan State University: 517-355-6560; presmail@msu.edu
-------------
I think the idea that a student leader would find herself in such a predicament indicates that MSU has a real problem not only with free speech, but with student leadership and, by extension, lacks a commitment to leadership education. Clearly a university that punishes a student for showing initiative is not the ideal place to learn how to be a 21st century business leader.
By the way if you want to find out about which US schools take free speech seriously and which don't, visit the FIRE website and subscribe to their mailing list.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
ビジネススクール ミシガン MBA留学
Adam Kissel, Director, Individual Rights Defense Program, FIRE: 215-717-3473; adam@thefire.org
Lou Anna K. Simon, President, Michigan State University: 517-355-6560; presmail@msu.edu
-------------
I think the idea that a student leader would find herself in such a predicament indicates that MSU has a real problem not only with free speech, but with student leadership and, by extension, lacks a commitment to leadership education. Clearly a university that punishes a student for showing initiative is not the ideal place to learn how to be a 21st century business leader.
By the way if you want to find out about which US schools take free speech seriously and which don't, visit the FIRE website and subscribe to their mailing list.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス
ビジネススクール ミシガン MBA留学
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
