helpslip wrote:
This is a nice example of how an evolved understanding of the application process can be leveraged. Essentially this is analogous to qualifying a prospect. Perhaps this is a facet of the process where investing in the services of skilled (and scrupulous) consultant could return good value. (or, ask Hjort)
I don't want to wander to far off topic but... do you think that your background (lit and law) makes you an apt fit for the pedagogical method at Darden and therefore enhanced your candidacy?
I think it was definitely a factor. I believe that just as some schools (Chicago & Columbia perhaps) are known to be very concerned about whether their students can hang with the program from a quantitative skills perspective, Darden takes a close look at whether their students will be good contributors in classroom discussions.
I absolutely noted a positive reaction from my interviewer when I mentioned that I thought I was well equipped to handle the work load and would have lots to contribute because the Socratic method used during th 3 years I spent at law school were closely related to the case-study method. Of course, she was interested not just in communications skills, but also with experiences I could share and my background was a good fit.
Darden's interview style is a really good test to see if people will be comfortable contributing in class. The interview is completely blind - they don't even look at a resume or any other background information. This allows for a completely free flowing discussion. They really try to get to know people on a personal level - as well as they can given the scope of the admissions process. As it worked out, I think valued by language skills, and I came away with a very positive feeling about the school. Honestly, this was really the place where I had a sense of fit.
This contrasted sharply with several other interviews I had where the interviewers worked off a script, probably asked the exact same questions to every single applicant and spent their efforts taking notes rather than paying attention to the conversation. In those instances, the interviews were stale at best, and I would bet money that the interviewers can't distinguish one candidate from the next by the end of the day, except for any notes that he might have scribbled down. That might be a good thing for people that can't distinguish themselves in their interviews, but it really prevents good interviewers from shining.
Anyhow, I believe that similar candidates will have more luck at different schools based on their relative strengths. Figuring out what the different schools value and what they are willing to overlook will allow applicants to focus their efforts where they have the greatest chance for success.