SaMoCU wrote:
It's not saying "I want to become a VP of such and such company" will get you through the door. My essays never had that. Rather, they explained my trajectory, why it made sense and why it was reasonable.
My trajectory:
Worked at a bulge in S&T, realized that I wanted to learn more about a company quantitatively and qualitatively and I wanted to help create solutions to complex problems. So I moved to consulting.
In consulting, I worked on a great number of M&A and HR related issues and worked with large companies across a broad range of industries. Consulting doesn't really add significant value besides acting as a third party advisory. So, I wanted to be in a position where I could have more skin in the game and - like consulting - develop a broad set of skills. So a start-up was the next best move.
And, in light of the healthcare reform, thought healthcare was going through a number of problems, and considering my consulting background, it was a perfect fit. So, moved to a healthcare start-up.
At the healthcare start-up, developed a passion for healthcare because it's such a unique industry and am shocked to see how inefficient it is. At the same time, we closed with Goldman becoming a portfolio company. Wanting to remain in healthcare, and wanting to be in a position where my investments can help start-ups like my employer grow structurally and financially to add value, I want to move to healthcare PE, which is why CBS is a good fit. With PE, an MBA is necessary so that's why it made sense for me.
That was very long-winded. I hope that helps.
Great post!
I'm still concerned about people who were deferred rather than rejected or accepted in Early Decision. I assumed that people were deferred because Early Decision faced record number of applicants, but with the recent string of admits (congrats to them!), I'm curious and wary on the rationale behind the deferrals. Thoughts anyone?