Darden Round 3 admit

You didn't say specifically which comments you are talking about, but if your reference is to my earlier post where I said that I believe that my prep time will be 1/2 to 1/3 compared with the average engineer in a case study environment, here are my reasons:

1) I read and write really really fast. In fact, I would be willing to lay very long odds that nobody will read and write faster than I do at business school. I was able to knock out 12+ full length paragraphs from each AWA section (got 6.0 both times). This isn't because I type fast, it's because I read and organize information really really quickly. This is a skill I have always had (99.9%+ in SAT, ACT, Achievement, LSAT and now GMAT), that was further honed as an English major (the study of language) and law school. In college, my roommates will testify that I would regularly assimilate an entire quarter's worth of work in a single evening before drafting a term paper. I studied for less than 5 hours for any class, in any quarter in college - sure my grades weren't great but I worked 35-45 hours a week, and spent 20+ hours a week as a founder of my fraternity.

I not only read really fast, but I understand when I read. In fact, I would bet good hard cash that I can assimilate more information in one quick read of a case than the majority of people can do with multiple re-reads. I know this from personal experience, and demonstrated it in a very challenging and competitive law school environment, where elite language skills were in abundance. I'm quite certain that no b-school will offer a comparable level student competence in verbal skills (quant skills will be much higher, of course).

2) I have substantial experience with the case study method. The Socratic Method is used by most law schools for most of the core classes. I have lots of experience with this. I know that I am money in a cold-call situation. I know that given a challenging question in an unpredictable environment, I'm able to organize and express ideas very clearly with zero preparation. I demonstrated these skills not only in law school, but by getting through 4 rounds of interviews with McKinsey (in '01) with absolutely no experience or practice with the case study interview style that they used. I also know my weaknesses - I sometimes talk too fast in this environment, but I'm constantly aware of my weaknesses and can contain them.

3) Your post infers that soft-skills are exclusive of quantitative skills. I cannot argue as to which is more difficult to pick up. I can say that I believe I have elite level quantitative skills as well. After taking no math class of any kind for 10+ years, and not working in a quantitative environment, I was able to get 50 on the Q section of the GMAT after just a month or so of preparation. Before becoming an English major, I was the top math and physics student at my high school (public, about 4000 students), and represented my school in many many state-wide math and physics competitions. I was admitted to MIT out of high school. I can handle math. Given a few additional weeks of prep time, there is no doubt (in my own mind) that I will be an elite "quant-jock" at business school. In fact, people that knew me in high school would be shocked that I didn't go into CS or physics or something like that.

Consider this hypothetical. Suppose candidates for some project were tested on their ability to, I don't know, come up with an advanced algorithm and write 50 pages of code for some computing project. Candidates include people that have degrees in CS and have been working in the field for 5-10 years; others that have been working in related fields, and those that have been working in totally unrelated fields. If the situation is competitive, then I will bet that the best projects will emerge from those have the most experience and education in the field.

Now consider the cast-study method. It involves reading cases, assimilating information (the written word), and then discussing. Given a field of diverse people, those most likely to succeed are the ones that have spend 10 years studying and analyzing the written word. As one of my professors at Michigan said, English Lit is great preparation for law school because at the core, both are the study of language. The case-study method is also the study of language, and I believe I would be among the best prepared to handle it. Had I gone into engineering or physics, I would still read much faster than most anyone out there; pile on top of that 10+ education and experience honing language, analysis and communication skills. You can understand why I believe I am well positioned for this type of studying.

So, my comment had little to do with "poets", especially those that are not prepared to handle the quantitative aspects of business school. It was simply an analysis and comment on my own abilities as I perceive them. I'm quite sure that I can handle the case study method better than most people, but especially those that have not spent the thousands and thousands of hours reading, analyzing cases, formulating ideas and conveying them orally. There is a reason why sometimes lawyers are called "mouthpieces" - and I'm confident my past experiences will give me a tremendous edge with regards to the cast-study method - especially given the disparity in education and experience with the method. I would be shocked if I had to spend more than 1/2 the time of most other students in preparation.