vivienpig> Most people have been able to find jobs/internships- although not everyone in the industry, location and function that they were looking into before they got to Wharton. After all, you can see as well as I do that there are only so many PE/VC/IB/consulting jobs to go around these days. The ones who have been most successful, as you can imagine considering that we are competing not only with other MBA candidates but also many experienced industry hands who may have been laid off, are the ones who have the most compelling resumes. The ex-banker will be more successful at looking for a banking internship than the person who used to do operations. But that's to be expected in any job market, really, since what matters most is the skills you bring to the table, not what school you graduated from.
One interesting thing to note about internships: with many companies facing hiring freezes for full-time positions having just laid off many people, I've found that if you're willing to compromise on compensation there is actually a lot of demand for interns now, especially in places of the world that are still growing (eg. Asia) but still have their HR bound by a corporate mandate that prohibits new hires.
More broadly, this current market will not last forever. If you were to matriculate this year, you would be looking at a full-time position in the summer of 2011- and two years is a long time for an economy to turnaround. So I really wouldn't worry about this too much.
pega09> 1) Each alumni has really only seen the batch before him, his own batch, and the batch after. So considering that Wharton is a school with a history stretching back to 1881, I'm not sure it's at all accurate to say that there are only 28-32 Chinese students each year.
2) In addition, I've stressed multiple times on this board that what's most important is frequently not your nationality or race. It would have been interesting to see what they thought about how many bankers there are; how many consultants there are; how many people with 0-2 years of work experience there are; how many people who speak >2 languages there are, and so on. Unfortunately people tend always (inaccurately) to see things in terms of nationality and race. (By the way, what constitutes a "Chinese applicant"? Anyone who speaks Chinese? Or someone who grew up in China? Do people who have studied abroad or work abroad count?). The same thing goes for the Korean contingent. Do Korean-Americans count? Such statistics are generalising, over-simplistic, and simply inaccurate.
3) Even if you really wanted to say the admissions office sees 'diversity' in terms of cultural/national background (which again is simply wrong), I think you're missing a key part of the equation here: the part that factors in how many Chinese applicants there are VS the Korean applicant pool. If every year say 300 Koreans applied vs 150 Chinese (purely hypothetical, but not entirely unlikely given how many more Koreans than Chinese go to top US colleges for their undergraduate education), then in fact the Korean contingent has a 10% success rate and the Chinese applicants have a 20% success rate. Then suddenly that number (30 each for Chinese and Koreans) seems a lot fairer.
BTW, you can blame Wharton for my over-analytical reply
Thanks!Further, would the Admissions mark off the sub-groups inside any particular industry? Say: in their eyes, is consultant from a MC company the same with an in-house consultant of a leading company in a certain industry? Are they put in the same pool for evaluation?
Besides, is that ture that international MBA not allowed to work in Financial companies in U.S? then what about their Asian offices? Heard the bad news from an another recent post. sad.
pega09> no, admissions don't actually 'mark off' applicants. Rather, after doing this year in year out for so many years, they know what quality of applicant they will take, regardless of industry. If it just so happens that all the top performing in-house consultants apply, then they will get in over the non-top performing consultants from a management consultancy. (Note, 'top performing' doesn't just mean professionally- I mean this holistically).
As for financial companies, I wouldn't know since I'm not applying for finance. I don't know what you mean by "international MBA" though, international students in the US MBA programmes? Students from international programmes? Either way, the only likely issue is visa requirements, and whether the companies are willing to sponsor your H1B application. For what it's worth, none of my international friends who have wanted to work in the US have faced this issue. By the same stroke, since it's a visa issue, a Chinese student say looking to work in the Chinese office of a financial company probably won't have any problem.
It says that H1B limits are set, not that H1B visas will not be granted. I suspect this will mean that lower value jobs for which there is more labour supply will be shifted towards US workers, so that companies can use their H1B limits on higher value jobs for which there are not enough US workers to go around. Also, since this is a visa issue, there won't be any change in anyone's ability to seek jobs outside the US. Indeed even within the US, such limits are only for firms that have taken bailout funds. Many hedge funds, PE/VC firms, etc have not received bailout funds and hence won't be subject to these.
I've read about some people worrying that with the new TARP stimulus rules, they wouldn't be able to find jobs in the US. First of all, as others have mentioned, this is only for companies that have received bailout funds. That means that people looking to go into most industries wouldn't be affected (and yes, there are other industries besides banking!).
Second, Wharton's official view is that these limits should not apply to internships. Since the law is newly passed, everyone is still unsure about how such rules will be implemented, and how long they will last for. So say you enter business school this year, get an internship next year (again, possible if the rules don't apply to internships) and by 2011, there's a huge chance that many of these companies would already have paid off the bailout funds. Letter from Wharton's dean here:
"Via appropriate channels, we are communicating our view that the hiring of international students through the long-standing Optional Practical Training (OPT) provision of the F-1 visa should remain unaffected by the Sanders-Grassley Amendment. We believe this exclusion to be both consistent with the basic intent of the new statute and a wise course of action for federal agencies drafting specific regulatory language defining the scope and application of the Amendment. If the Amendment should prohibit or impose stiff restrictions on the hiring of international students, it would deprive U.S. financial institutions of much-needed talent, put them at a disadvantage relative to their foreign counterparts, and create the unintended and tremendously adverse consequence of making higher education in the U.S. considerably less attractive to international students.It remains both a strategic and a moral imperative for us at Wharton to help you explore career prospects across the globe, wherever you may find the opportunity. When this opportunity constricts anywhere in the world, it is neither in our institutional nor national interest."
Finally, these rules are limits. The most qualified students are likely still going to get to work at banks- the rules do not stipulate a ban.
So I wouldn't worry too much- two years is a long time for these rules to get sorted out, and for even banks to pay off their funds. They too understand that they need to compete for the best international talent!
Another useful post I found about how Wharton evaluates candidates, especially with regards to their seniority level:
"Promotions in themselves are not really a major direct impact on admission decisions (some firms hand 'promotions' round like confetti, in other firms they reflect many years of service, making it difficult to compare between candidates that may be equally talented) . Rather the increased scope and complexities of operations that typically accompanies promotions provides increased learning and growth opportunities over time. Given you probably aren't going to learn that much in the few weeks between now and final decisions are released, it isn't really going to matter, and thus not worth annoying the reader with additional materials.
And a promotion is NOT going to change adcom's perceptions of your quant preparation."
Hi Jason, you may have already answered this question before but I failed to find the answer here
Can you tell me more about the Early Career Club? Is it typically for students with less than 3 years experience and how will it help them in their career or social life?
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
楼主
发表于 2009-3-6 12:54:00
