为什么HBS那么青睐Mck 的人？

blackstar309

等待某些consulting人士的回应啊。贴子有意思了。

yocksiong

回66楼：Don't get personal here, ok? Plus I am tired of this sort of "weak/strong"discussion.

Let's
try to be more constructive and figure out what makes Mck babies have a
big win this time while they completely lost to us three years ago.
Even during these three years, we have worked much harder for people
who write paychecks to us instead of spending incredible amount of time
in office and dicussing essays. A lot of banking ppl are deeply
frustrated by the factor that the guys from Mck are taking up an
unreasonable number of headcount in HBS(If they choose to drop the
offers in the end, oh? Great! If it's a third-tier school, who
cares!). Therefore we need to find a solution here!   

Nothing personal. I'm not at McK. I think I've given my perspectives to your question already. Also, in life things don't always have an answer. You didn't get into HBS, so what? You can still be successful and hire those HBS grads to work for you. What's wrong with that? It's not that you made a wrong decision by taking banking over McK, nor that they made a wrong decision going to HBS now but still work under you three years later.

I have many friends at McK. Some analysts are not so qualified but the smart ones are really smart. They also work hard, on things maybe more interesting than creating shareholder value (or more likely destorying). I don't think they discuss essays all day and I think they are more interesting people than you, though making less bucks. Also I think a lot of them are smart enough not to be obsessed with these meaningless questions. Of course maybe it's internet and you are showing the true self, which I don't often see on my friends.

uguyu

以下是引用superbaby01在2009-1-23 16:59:00的发言：

Hi uguyu,

Any insight into the "calculation" you could share with us? Thanks!

I think "syer" et al have made this quite clear. The school always tends to collect candidates that "fit". When the admission office gauge the applicants, they not only weigh individually, but collectively as well to get a statistical view.

It's somewhat akin to a portfolio and the school ensures that the value of the whole portfolio is positive, namely decent future job placement rate. It is nonetheless also important to pay attention to the traditional benign cooperative relationship between HBS and Mck. That's perhaps why per your account HBS admits conspicuously more applicants in Mck, providing current tumultuous global financial crisis.

superbaby01

Thanks uguyu. I think you made a few good points here. They are helpful

felix_zheng

这帖子越来越有意思了。

pagui

以下是引用pega09在2009-1-23 11:13:00的发言：

原来我也以为咨询公司业务同样会受金融风暴打击,但事实上,看到哪个帖子说的:咨询公司业务量反而火暴,就是因为那些受影响的银行和industry要做结构性调整或裁员,需要咨询公司的方案. 就裁员而言吧,把谁裁了都不好,但若假咨询公司之手,谁都没话说.

这倒是一个误区！你原来的感觉反而是对的。普通的小衰退，咨询公司可能生意会更多，但是大一点的衰退就不一样了，尤其是这次，MCK的咨询价格有多高大家都知道，除非必要，很多公司都缩减了这方面的一大支出！反而经济情况好时，很多公司钱太多，反而会花钱请MCK等帮他们做战略转型，产品转型，并购等等方案，所以咨询类公司跟经济周期其实还是一致的！

其实今年MCK的生意肯定影响很大的，很多人都没项目干了，只是未必很快就裁员！

langzhihun

脑子有问题，如果你自己本身足够强大，你是什么公司的人都不重要，关键是通过ＥＳＳＡＹ来说明工作背后的你那个人．在这里讨论什么公司有什么意义呢．

[此贴子已经被作者于2009-1-23 23:07:50编辑过]

stq

以下是引用superbaby01在2009-1-23 16:55:00的发言：

回66楼：Don't get personal here, ok? Plus I am tired of this sort of "weak/strong"discussion.

Let's try to be more constructive and figure out what makes Mck babies have a big win this time while they completely lost to us three years ago. Even during these three years, we have worked much harder for people who write paychecks to us instead of spending incredible amount of time in office and dicussing essays. A lot of banking ppl are deeply frustrated by the factor that the guys from Mck are taking up an unreasonable number of headcount in HBS(If they choose to drop the offers in the end, oh? Great! If it's a third-tier school, who cares!). Therefore we need to find a solution here!    

我觉得Syer已经分析的很透彻了。。中国投行经验确实不错，你也可以说当初进投行要比进Mck难。但问题是现在金融危机，华尔街大量裁员，大量非常优秀的投行人才回头读MBA.  中国投行经验和那些人比起来就差了这么点。。。学校不可能招太多金融背景的学生，相比之下，中国金融背景的学生就吃亏点。咨询业现在也不好过，但起码北美的咨询业没有像金融业这样大规模裁员。。所以中国咨询背景的学生就占了便宜。。

superbaby01

To stq: Makes sense to me.

To langzhihun: Don't understand your logic. Anyway, I have to ignore your argument here...

djcong

没有看完帖子，看到楼主言语之外流露出的不满与优越感有些好笑。

我想今年录了这么多顾问公司的主要可能和经济危机有关。投行申的人太多了。另外，在中国投行难进些，但是美国并不是这样。麦肯希和高声的地位就商学院来看是一样的。学校不会因为你是高盛的，就优待你高过麦肯希的。硬件大家没有差别，麦肯希的被录取了而投行的没有，说明你的申请没有别人下的功夫够，就这样。

可别因为自己进了难进的公司就觉得高人一等，也别因为自己从难进的公司出来的却没有被录取而感到不公平。说道难进，高盛在大陆直接招的第一届的人，你可以说简直是全大陆几十万毕业生之二，从比例看这是几分之一？可是人家也被哈佛锯掉了，但是并没有影响毕业后去到理想的公司。

看到很多人对学校都有点误解，it's just like a friend of mine, who joined a bulge bracket in 2002 and was the only people who went school in China in his class, applied to bschool a couple of years ago but was not accepted by his dream school. at that time, his competition from China was zero, but still, why? he only spent one week on his essays. and he was so tied up with his work and barely had any extra-curricular activities on his resume. Now he progressed in his career without an mba. I didn't see him impacted in even minor way.

i am not judging you. i could understand your feeling. i used to act in a similar way. i didn't apply to some fantastic schools simply because those schools accept people whose background made me wondering what's the heck....and then when i look back, i found myself too childish - one, if i use that pedigree standard to screen schools, there will be none; two, when you graduate from bschool, you will find nobody at work would care about your school. if you are strong, even if you go to manhattan business school, you can still find good jobs and rise up the career ladder....non-name school graduate Ken Lewis just fired mit plus hbs kid John Thain, hehe...

sorry for the english. my chinese keyboard was just suddenly stuck.