For what it's worth, I grew up in Berkely so I 'd say you hit the nail on the head: the city is extremely liberal, however Cal itself really doesn't lean left to a greater extent than any other high quality institution in its peer group.
When you really break it down, business schools in general are more conservative in nature than other elements of academia. Fundamentally they're talking about people and organizations...sounds a lot like the military right?
I think the interview is weighted more heavily for military applicants than others because it does ultimately come down to employability. "Can we place this guy?" Whereas our peers in the private sector have already proven that they can coexist in organizations that aren't 90% guys and focused on expediting the removal of nefarious actors from this earth, the burden of proof is on us to show that we can do what they've already done.
And while I haven't gone through the application process myself, I've reached out to a handful of consultants for those free one hour diagnostics and they all generally say what Emont and others ahve already said: "B-schools will overlook some of a military applicant's quantifiable shortcomings (i.e. GMAT and/or GPA) because you have leadership experience that your peer group doeesn't. Not to mention, you haven't been using a lot of math or sentence correction in your current job. They can't really quantify your leadership experience, but it's one of those intangible things that they value. Realistically, they know that they aren't going to take a non-leader and in two years turn them into a leader. They have all these glossy pamphlets that use the right buzz words, but at the end of the day they are just branding you with their school's name. You have to have that 'leaderish' dimension/disposition to begin with. They can teach spreadsheets and accounting. They can't take a 26 year-old spreadsheet jockey from JPMorgan that doesn't like to be out front and responsible/accountable and change him a lot. They spend a lot of time trying to identify the bankers and consultants that already have the leadership gene. That's less a problem with the military crowd." Because I've never really worked outside of the military environment I didn't realize how I really differed from other people, but just in taking my GMAT class you can tell there's a difference because of what we've been asked to do for the last 4-5 years. I'm not an Infantry or fighter pilot type. I do intel, which probably requires a less aggressive leadership style, but even within my little class of 10 people I'm the one that's most able/willing to speak in an authoritative tone and explicitly outline my thoughts. I don't think we're better than our private sector peers, but I think we're different and this is one aspect that's different. Most of us have been in charge of something beyond ourselves. I don't know how much that exists in the private sector.
With respect to HBS, couple of these consultant guys I've spoken with have also helped me understand the seemingly significant disparity in military representation at HBS vs. Stanford. The one guy really said it's mostly about cultures. HBS is taking a sort of "throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks approach. 940 people per class. They're less concerned with whether each individual succeeds. It's just a numbers game to them. If 20 people in each class go on to do great things that's enough to keep the money flowing, the acclaim, and put some personal testimonials in the glossy pages of the admissions stuff. HBS requires you to be the alpha-male and as a result, it's considered less female friendly. A woman, on average, is going to feel less welcome. She would have to be very assertive in the face of all the men to get the same value out of it. And HBS is mindful of it's military applicant pool. They have several goals for how they want to put the class together. They might not admit it, but they're trying to hit a sweet spot of somewhere between 35-50. Now contrast that with Stanford. Stanford's criteria for putting together a class consists of one thing: make it the best class possible. They sincerely believe that every student should be successful and they define 'best' as creating an environment in which every student will succeed. They want some military folks, but it won't break their heart if they don't have a lot. They might set the low bar at 8. But they might be willing to go up to 25 if they like 25 military folks that much. In other words, the minimum they're trying to meet is much lower, but the max number they're willing to take into their smaller population is such that if they maxed it out that number would comprise a greater percentage of their overall class than the max 50 at HBS. And because Stanford wants everyone to be successful, it means they want a more inclusive, softer approach. That's why it's considered a woman friendly school. Military guys might have to dial down the intensity a bit when they apply to Stanford. They need to emphasize different things."
I thought that was a rather interesting take on things. He seemed to know his stuff. If anyone can confirm/deny or otherwise add to the body of evidence I'd love to hear it.
Good luck to those waiting on HBS.