|
以下是引用jelt2359在2009/10/23 1:53:00的发言：
To this day, I remain perplexed that people think schools actually
worry about whether applicants can get jobs after graduation. Just
because this is what you worry about, doesn't necessarily mean this is
what schools worry about.
Schools understand that things
change a lot in your two years in business school- your career goals
change, the world economy changes, your skillset changes. Ultimately,
business schools look not for a candidate who is going to be successful
in his job hunt in 2 years (if you're not sure about this, go talk to
100 business school alums, and find out how many changed jobs within 3
years of graduation. Then you'll know why schools don't really care
about what you'll do immediately after business schools). Rather,
business schools look for candidates whom they think will be successful
10, 20 years later- at Wharton, this includes alums like Donald Trump,
alums that people immediately recognise. This is what they look for:
rather than, 'will that rural-teacher from Congo get a job after 2
years?' they think about, 'will this rural-teacher from Congo go back
to Congo, use his contacts there, start a big African company that then
goes on to become a world-leader?'
You've also missed Sandy's
point. Business schools like candidates from top companies like
McKinsey not because they'll do better in the job market, but because
these companies are also thinking the same thing. McKinsey is also
looking at all their potential candidates, then thinking, 'which of
these are going to be most successful, start up their own famous
companies, then want consulting services from us?', or, 'which of these
are going to become famous, and write in their biography, that they had
gone to McKinsey?' It's all about brand-building- business schools do
it, and top companies do it as well. If business schools and top
companies know what they're doing, it's not a surprise that they end up
with a similar pool of people.
You have a point in saying people can change a lot. And maybe i was a bit too extreme.
But that doesn't change the fact that McK looks way better on a job resume than some sweatshop factory in Africa. Recruiting firms don't care about diversity. They want someone who's competent.
What I am trying to say is that, in time of crisis, B-schools' criteria for picking applicants are reshuffled and diversity becomes lower on their priority list. Essentially their selection process becomes more aligned with recruiting firms. Otherwise why only last year's HBS admits were almost homogeneously from McK? If your argument were to hold true, this should be the case for every year.
I believe diversity, like many other things, is inversely correlated to economic cycles. In a recession, people play safe and stay put, investors scale back their risk appetite. And B-schools become more particular about competence rather than diversity. This is only natural. We can't blame them for playing safe when we as individuals are doing exactly the same thing.
[此贴子已经被作者于2009/10/23 20:41:03编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2009-10-20 21:58:00
发表于 2009-10-23 01:51:00
