GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 11:41

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019

  new topic post reply Update application status  
Author Message
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2017, 01:02
Guys,
Anyone got any email or call for R4?
I did KIRA Interview two days back and I believe that I should wait until the decision date by June 9th.
Anyone else waiting too?
Thanks,
YT
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 5
Location: India
Schools: Ross '20 (D)
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V38
GPA: 3.5
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2017, 07:54
YTaie wrote:
Guys,
Anyone got any email or call for R4?
I did KIRA Interview two days back and I believe that I should wait until the decision date by June 9th.
Anyone else waiting too?
Thanks,
YT


Hey! I'm yet to give my interview. I'll be giving it in a day or two. Has anyone who has given a KIRA interview gotten an invite to the full time MBA program? I don't want to lose my hopes yet. Also I would be really grateful if you could tell me the questions you were asked during your interview, YTaie. :)
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2017, 07:19
Hosai, 2 behavioral questions and one written question. Full interview will take approximately 10 minuets, so don't worry, just be confident and take your chances.
One thing, I can tell that the ones who got KIRA invitation, will eventually get either Evening MBA or a Master program. That is what I could conclude from the replies over here.. I hope that am mistaken!

Guys, anyone for R4 beside myself and Hosai?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 May 2017
Posts: 1
GPA: 3.8
Reviews Badge
My W.P. Carey Review  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2017, 09:56
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 5
Location: India
Schools: Ross '20 (D)
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V38
GPA: 3.5
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2017, 12:43
YTaie wrote:
Hosai, 2 behavioral questions and one written question. Full interview will take approximately 10 minuets, so don't worry, just be confident and take your chances.
One thing, I can tell that the ones who got KIRA invitation, will eventually get either Evening MBA or a Master program. That is what I could conclude from the replies over here.. I hope that am mistaken!

Guys, anyone for R4 beside myself and Hosai?



Thanks! Can you state the exact questions, that would give me a better idea of what to expect.
I really hope that you are too. And hey, we haven't heard from all the students that got a reply after the KIRA interview, so you never know :) Let's keep our fingers crossed till then. And do you know when they will be getting back to us? Is there a particular date post which we can expect the call/mail?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 5
Location: India
Schools: Ross '20 (D)
GMAT 1: 680 Q45 V38
GPA: 3.5
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jun 2017, 23:49
Hey Guys, these were the questions I got (as a part of round 4 Video interview on the KIRA platform- I'm an international applicant) :
1. Tell me something about yourself that wasn't covered in the essay questions and you would like the admission committee to know.
2. What do you think is the most important attribute a person must possess to work in a team?
3. Written question : What are the steps you have taken to ensure that you are prepared for an MBA?

Really REALLY hope to hear back from them with positive news.
Current Student
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 465
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V44
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jun 2017, 06:33
Spicyy wrote:
Guys, anyone considering the Part time MBA offer, which they have distributed like sale items?

Also, just wanted to say it out loud that looking at the adcom and class composition of FT, I suspect a female applicant has at least 15-20% extra probability of getting selected in comparison with a male candidate with similar credentials.
I think its really unfair bias towards men but sadly it is a modern-day accepted form of feminism.



First less women apply to business school than men, so obviously it will be easier for women to get accepted. Second, and what makes your comment really rude, is that you are assuming that this "easier acceptance" is because you are competing against women for a spot and that somehow a woman got "your" slot just because they were female.

However, just like every other aspect of the application you compete with applicants that are similar to you in background. You are not competing against women. You are competing against men from the same field as you. So, yes women have a better probability of getting in, but its because there are fewer women to compete against, not because they "took your spot". You should stop making excuses and come up with a way to better your profile because I hate to tell you but a woman didn't "steal" your spot..you just didn't beat out YOUR competition, which is other males from your industry. :roll:
Current Student
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Oct 2015
Posts: 46
Location: Spain
Concentration: Operations, Nonprofit
GPA: 2.8
WE: Consulting (Transportation)
Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2017, 04:39
HBSorBust91 wrote:
Spicyy wrote:
Guys, anyone considering the Part time MBA offer, which they have distributed like sale items?

Also, just wanted to say it out loud that looking at the adcom and class composition of FT, I suspect a female applicant has at least 15-20% extra probability of getting selected in comparison with a male candidate with similar credentials.
I think its really unfair bias towards men but sadly it is a modern-day accepted form of feminism.



First less women apply to business school than men, so obviously it will be easier for women to get accepted. Second, and what makes your comment really rude, is that you are assuming that this "easier acceptance" is because you are competing against women for a spot and that somehow a woman got "your" slot just because they were female.

However, just like every other aspect of the application you compete with applicants that are similar to you in background. You are not competing against women. You are competing against men from the same field as you. So, yes women have a better probability of getting in, but its because there are fewer women to compete against, not because they "took your spot". You should stop making excuses and come up with a way to better your profile because I hate to tell you but a woman didn't "steal" your spot..you just didn't beat out YOUR competition, which is other males from your industry. :roll:


Women are currently for what I calculated some 40% of the class, I have to say for what I saw so far everyone of them clearly deserves to be there. Also many people who would seem qualified had to be left out, guys and girls, because there are some 110 seats and not 500. Although I generally agree that there is a feminist social bias in many places, you should know precisely the number of men and women who applied, the number that was accepted, which qualities is THIS very school looking for and who had those qualities. In this school they make a lot of emphasis in social good, rather than more sharky ivy league attitudes you may find out there. This is a generalization and like any is inherently unfair, but this sharky attitude tends to be more a manly thing for what I observed and social science tells us, while possibly women do have more of a social spirit, on average. It would make sense that in a school with more focus in the social and seeking those skills a slightly greater % of women were accepted compared to other programs. Still, I don´t think you have the information to make such statement, so unless you prove me wrong I think there´s not so much to this point

Having said that, HBSorBust91 has the kind of feminist attitude you are talking about. In a world where your intellectual acumen is what it counts, on average in all schools, if, say, 40% of the applicants are women, the accepted percentage in average in a business school should be around 40%. And there is no separate competitio for men and woman, that you made up. Besides all this, it is intellectual diversity what I care about when I go to class, not what you have between your legs. And then you go and contradict yourself: "Of course it is easier! But hey! Saying it is easier is so sexist! How could you??!" Sorry but I think none of the posts make a lot of sense, one coming from a man and one from a woman, you can not say I am biased :)
Current Student
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 465
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V44
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2017, 07:17
miguelmgaspar wrote:
HBSorBust91 wrote:
Spicyy wrote:
Guys, anyone considering the Part time MBA offer, which they have distributed like sale items?

Also, just wanted to say it out loud that looking at the adcom and class composition of FT, I suspect a female applicant has at least 15-20% extra probability of getting selected in comparison with a male candidate with similar credentials.
I think its really unfair bias towards men but sadly it is a modern-day accepted form of feminism.



First less women apply to business school than men, so obviously it will be easier for women to get accepted. Second, and what makes your comment really rude, is that you are assuming that this "easier acceptance" is because you are competing against women for a spot and that somehow a woman got "your" slot just because they were female.

However, just like every other aspect of the application you compete with applicants that are similar to you in background. You are not competing against women. You are competing against men from the same field as you. So, yes women have a better probability of getting in, but its because there are fewer women to compete against, not because they "took your spot". You should stop making excuses and come up with a way to better your profile because I hate to tell you but a woman didn't "steal" your spot..you just didn't beat out YOUR competition, which is other males from your industry. :roll:


Women are currently for what I calculated some 40% of the class, I have to say for what I saw so far everyone of them clearly deserves to be there. Also many people who would seem qualified had to be left out, guys and girls, because there are some 110 seats and not 500. Although I generally agree that there is a feminist social bias in many places, you should know precisely the number of men and women who applied, the number that was accepted, which qualities is THIS very school looking for and who had those qualities. In this school they make a lot of emphasis in social good, rather than more sharky ivy league attitudes you may find out there. This is a generalization and like any is inherently unfair, but this sharky attitude tends to be more a manly thing for what I observed and social science tells us, while possibly women do have more of a social spirit, on average. It would make sense that in a school with more focus in the social and seeking those skills a slightly greater % of women were accepted compared to other programs. Still, I don´t think you have the information to make such statement, so unless you prove me wrong I think there´s not so much to this point

Having said that, HBSorBust91 has the kind of feminist attitude you are talking about. In a world where your intellectual acumen is what it counts, on average in all schools, if, say, 40% of the applicants are women, the accepted percentage in average in a business school should be around 40%. And there is no separate competitio for men and woman, that you made up. Besides all this, it is intellectual diversity what I care about when I go to class, not what you have between your legs. And then you go and contradict yourself: "Of course it is easier! But hey! Saying it is easier is so sexist! How could you??!" Sorry but I think none of the posts make a lot of sense, one coming from a man and one from a woman, you can not say I am biased :)



1. If intellectual acumen is all that counted then they would only look at your raw stats.

2. My point wasn't that they separate based JUST on gender. Once you have passed their basic checks on whether you fit their brand, and whether you can handle the school academically they absolutely start sorting people into groups based on experiences so that they can create a class that isn't just a good fit for the school brand but also is diverse. So if you get past the brand and academic checks but you work in consulting then yes you are going to have a tougher time differentiating because there is a statistical probability that someone out there is very similar to you but has better stats. Diversity comes in many forms. Industry, gender, nationality, etc. If you are female, from an underrepresented industry, and a underrepresented country you are not being compared to a male consultant from the US or an Indian IT guy. You just aren't. There may only be one other candidate like you...so yeah your ability to get admitted versus those two other candidates is easier.

3. You entirely missed my point from the above which is that the original poster is assuming that he didn't get in because a woman "took his spot" which as outlined in point 2 is not what happens on admissions committees, so no I did not contradict myself at all. I said it was easier for women but not for the reason the original poster thinks. "His spot" was filled by a candidate that was likely similar to him in background but had better stats not by a woman simply because she was a woman.

4. If you care about intellectual diversity then you should care about the gender diversity of your classmates. Career and life experience is fundamentally different for women than it is for men. You cannot have intellectual diversity without also discussing gender.

5. We also aren't discussing the biggest factor in this discussion which is that it is fundamentally more difficult for a woman to achieve as much as a male in the workplace and study after study shows this to be true. They have to work harder for promotions, for decent feedback to improve performance, to get the difficult projects, and to just have a seat at the table. So even if, EVEN IF a male and female candidate had the EXACT same profile and they were being compared to each other (which I don't think they are) the woman had to work harder to achieve that result, maybe in your opinion that doesn't matter but I still think its an important part of the discussion.
Current Student
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Oct 2015
Posts: 46
Location: Spain
Concentration: Operations, Nonprofit
GPA: 2.8
WE: Consulting (Transportation)
Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2017, 08:49
HBSorBust91 wrote:
1. If intellectual acumen is all that counted then they would only look at your raw stats.

2. My point wasn't that they separate based JUST on gender. Once you have passed their basic checks on whether you fit their brand, and whether you can handle the school academically they absolutely start sorting people into groups based on experiences so that they can create a class that isn't just a good fit for the school brand but also is diverse. So if you get past the brand and academic checks but you work in consulting then yes you are going to have a tougher time differentiating because there is a statistical probability that someone out there is very similar to you but has better stats. Diversity comes in many forms. Industry, gender, nationality, etc. If you are female, from an underrepresented industry, and a underrepresented country you are not being compared to a male consultant from the US or an Indian IT guy. You just aren't. There may only be one other candidate like you...so yeah your ability to get admitted versus those two other candidates is easier.

3. You entirely missed my point from the above which is that the original poster is assuming that he didn't get in because a woman "took his spot" which as outlined in point 2 is not what happens on admissions committees, so no I did not contradict myself at all. I said it was easier for women but not for the reason the original poster thinks. "His spot" was filled by a candidate that was likely similar to him in background but had better stats not by a woman simply because she was a woman.

4. If you care about intellectual diversity then you should care about the gender diversity of your classmates. Career and life experience is fundamentally different for women than it is for men. You cannot have intellectual diversity without also discussing gender.

5. We also aren't discussing the biggest factor in this discussion which is that it is fundamentally more difficult for a woman to achieve as much as a male in the workplace and study after study shows this to be true. They have to work harder for promotions, for decent feedback to improve performance, to get the difficult projects, and to just have a seat at the table. So even if, EVEN IF a male and female candidate had the EXACT same profile and they were being compared to each other (which I don't think they are) the woman had to work harder to achieve that result, maybe in your opinion that doesn't matter but I still think its an important part of the discussion.


1. Which school you come from, where you worked doing what... not just stats

2. Mostly true. It can also be the case that your original profile is not interesting for them and you are cut off in the first filter. Or that they have a strong preference for a profile. In some places coming from a place like Bain or McKinsey increases your chances, although unoriginal. But yeah I see where you are going. I kind of feel that being from western Europe, probably I had a little less competition

3. In a way, there is some likelyhood that that happened, as in 1000 applicants, with 700 men and 300 women, if instead of 70 men and 30 women you want 40 woman and 60 men in the class, there are 10 women who are "taking the place" that belonged to 10 men in equal chance of an individual getting in. What I dont like about this is to label it "equal opportunity", because it is not. This said, he can´t really say who took his spot. And most likely was a better fit for the program.

4. It is just a factor of a good bunch. If I have a class with 10 90% fit consulting guys, an 80% fit consulting girl, and a 80% fit sailor who commanded people in a ship, and I have 3 spots, I may well get the 2 consulting guys and the sailor. I guess it is very subjective but I my experience in the companies I have been is that the male female factor does not add a new dimension

5. My aunt is around 60, she always "worked like a man" and "earned like a man" in a conservative sector like insurance, in a conservative country like Spain. She has more money than she can spend. But she took, 28 years ago, only 2 days of maternity leave. She had a maid she trusted, who has 95% of the time raised her daughter, she just go home to kiss her in the bed, if at all. This life choice is just as valid as not being so ambitious. One pays in money, the other pays in emotions, and it is perfectly ok to act according to your priorities.

Have you had these colleagues at work that do nothing to walk the extra mile but when salaries are reviewed they feel entitled to a raise? I feel a bit the same with this issue, there are some women who want the best of the family and the corporate world, while there are more men (or women like my aunt) that are ok just with the corporate side. And that is a good part of why they get further in business. There is some social factor to it, but also there are biological facts, like we dont get pregnant, kids did not had us a pair of months feeling so so at work, and when they were born, we, in general, didnt feel the same connection as the mother, if only because they didnt gestate as part of our own body. Women worry more about the kids, you can check any study as well. And those are facts, like the fact that from the 7th month you are not allowed to fly (= business trips). So maybe if you want no kids or 1 you are ok. If you want 3 and in the lapse of 4 or 5 years you take 3 breaks of 3 months, plus maybe some loose months you are not feeling 100% for pregnancy, plus 3 periods of 2 months you can not travel (and others you should not), etc etc, and you do that at a key point of your career (the early management years maybe?) you will understand that in many companies they wont consider some women 100% commited at that very point of your life. I think the main point is family, not any perceived lack of qualities. Later in life, you may have this other family aspects that you start to care of more, and women are, again, on average, more sensitive to this. Which is a virtue in my opinion because that makes you more generous, but that is another topic. I live in an exclusive area in Spain and I know many women who are executive. Really, they have exactly the same status as men, but for that, like men, you have to work 9 to 8, go to dinners with customers, long trips abroad, etc etc. Even as a guy, I am not sure about wanting that.

Still, you live in a world where probably the most powerful person on earth is a woman (Merkel), the CEO of Yahoo, in some days most likely the prime minister of UK, an american runner up for presidency, the majors of Madrid and Barcelona and the vicepresident of Spain, etc I dont really think you can say there is no professional progress for women who really want it (and that includes leaving your company it you feel the top management is backwards)
Current Student
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 465
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V44
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2017, 09:30
miguelmgaspar wrote:
HBSorBust91 wrote:
1. If intellectual acumen is all that counted then they would only look at your raw stats.

2. My point wasn't that they separate based JUST on gender. Once you have passed their basic checks on whether you fit their brand, and whether you can handle the school academically they absolutely start sorting people into groups based on experiences so that they can create a class that isn't just a good fit for the school brand but also is diverse. So if you get past the brand and academic checks but you work in consulting then yes you are going to have a tougher time differentiating because there is a statistical probability that someone out there is very similar to you but has better stats. Diversity comes in many forms. Industry, gender, nationality, etc. If you are female, from an underrepresented industry, and a underrepresented country you are not being compared to a male consultant from the US or an Indian IT guy. You just aren't. There may only be one other candidate like you...so yeah your ability to get admitted versus those two other candidates is easier.

3. You entirely missed my point from the above which is that the original poster is assuming that he didn't get in because a woman "took his spot" which as outlined in point 2 is not what happens on admissions committees, so no I did not contradict myself at all. I said it was easier for women but not for the reason the original poster thinks. "His spot" was filled by a candidate that was likely similar to him in background but had better stats not by a woman simply because she was a woman.

4. If you care about intellectual diversity then you should care about the gender diversity of your classmates. Career and life experience is fundamentally different for women than it is for men. You cannot have intellectual diversity without also discussing gender.

5. We also aren't discussing the biggest factor in this discussion which is that it is fundamentally more difficult for a woman to achieve as much as a male in the workplace and study after study shows this to be true. They have to work harder for promotions, for decent feedback to improve performance, to get the difficult projects, and to just have a seat at the table. So even if, EVEN IF a male and female candidate had the EXACT same profile and they were being compared to each other (which I don't think they are) the woman had to work harder to achieve that result, maybe in your opinion that doesn't matter but I still think its an important part of the discussion.


1. Which school you come from, where you worked doing what... not just stats

2. Mostly true. It can also be the case that your original profile is not interesting for them and you are cut off in the first filter. Or that they have a strong preference for a profile. In some places coming from a place like Bain or McKinsey increases your chances, although unoriginal. But yeah I see where you are going. I kind of feel that being from western Europe, probably I had a little less competition

3. In a way, there is some likelyhood that that happened, as in 1000 applicants, with 700 men and 300 women, if instead of 70 men and 30 women you want 40 woman and 60 men in the class, there are 10 women who are "taking the place" that belonged to 10 men in equal chance of an individual getting in. What I dont like about this is to label it "equal opportunity", because it is not. This said, he can´t really say who took his spot. And most likely was a better fit for the program.

4. It is just a factor of a good bunch. If I have a class with 10 90% fit consulting guys, an 80% fit consulting girl, and a 80% fit sailor who commanded people in a ship, and I have 3 spots, I may well get the 2 consulting guys and the sailor. I guess it is very subjective but I my experience in the companies I have been is that the male female factor does not add a new dimension

5. My aunt is around 60, she always "worked like a man" and "earned like a man" in a conservative sector like insurance, in a conservative country like Spain. She has more money than she can spend. But she took, 28 years ago, only 2 days of maternity leave. She had a maid she trusted, who has 95% of the time raised her daughter, she just go home to kiss her in the bed, if at all. This life choice is just as valid as not being so ambitious. One pays in money, the other pays in emotions, and it is perfectly ok to act according to your priorities.

Have you had these colleagues at work that do nothing to walk the extra mile but when salaries are reviewed they feel entitled to a raise? I feel a bit the same with this issue, there are some women who want the best of the family and the corporate world, while there are more men (or women like my aunt) that are ok just with the corporate side. And that is a good part of why they get further in business. There is some social factor to it, but also there are biological facts, like we dont get pregnant, kids did not had us a pair of months feeling so so at work, and when they were born, we, in general, didnt feel the same connection as the mother, if only because they didnt gestate as part of our own body. Women worry more about the kids, you can check any study as well. And those are facts, like the fact that from the 7th month you are not allowed to fly (= business trips). So maybe if you want no kids or 1 you are ok. If you want 3 and in the lapse of 4 or 5 years you take 3 breaks of 3 months, plus maybe some loose months you are not feeling 100% for pregnancy, plus 3 periods of 2 months you can not travel (and others you should not), etc etc, and you do that at a key point of your career (the early management years maybe?) you will understand that in many companies they wont consider some women 100% commited at that very point of your life. I think the main point is family, not any perceived lack of qualities. Later in life, you may have this other family aspects that you start to care of more, and women are, again, on average, more sensitive to this. Which is a virtue in my opinion because that makes you more generous, but that is another topic. I live in an exclusive area in Spain and I know many women who are executive. Really, they have exactly the same status as men, but for that, like men, you have to work 9 to 8, go to dinners with customers, long trips abroad, etc etc. Even as a guy, I am not sure about wanting that.

Still, you live in a world where probably the most powerful person on earth is a woman (Merkel), the CEO of Yahoo, in some days most likely the prime minister of UK, an american runner up for presidency, the majors of Madrid and Barcelona and the vicepresident of Spain, etc I dont really think you can say there is no professional progress for women who really want it (and that includes leaving your company it you feel the top management is backwards)



I am not saying that there is no professional progress. I am saying women have to work harder to get to the same place as a man.

I am well aware of what choices I will need to make in my career to be successful I don't need you to explain them. My entire point in #5 is that it is harder for women to get the same career status as men because they HAVE TO MAKE these choices that you just described. Most of the choices/sacrifices you listed above will have to be made exclusively by women because society does not put the same pressure on men. Did you know that even today women provide 75% of the childcare in most households because of social constructs that women should provide childcare? So they do more at home and then on top of that have to do more at work to get to the same position as a male.

This is just one of many issues women face in getting ahead in the workplace. Did you know that promotions are based not just on performance but on how "personable" you are? This makes sense because the higher up you are in a company the more you represent them to the public. But when it comes to women, the more responsibility they have or perceived power they have the less well liked they are? Check out the HBS case on Heidi vs Howard.

In a recent study on women in the workplace it was found that women do not get constructive feedback from their managers in order to improve performance. Another study found that women are more likely asked to do office "housework" like take notes or make coffee and they are not given the difficult projects. And all of this is regardless of whether she is planning on having a child or not. Heck, I once had a man make cat fight noises in a meeting at me when I disagreed with his assessment of the data we were reviewing. If anything your response has just demonstrated my point that yes, women work harder than men to get to the same place in their careers and yes, you do need gender diversity in your classes because you don't know what women have to go through to get the same respect in the workplace.
Current Student
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Nov 2015
Posts: 465
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V44
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2017, 09:38
miguelmgaspar wrote:
HBSorBust91 wrote:
1. If intellectual acumen is all that counted then they would only look at your raw stats.

2. My point wasn't that they separate based JUST on gender. Once you have passed their basic checks on whether you fit their brand, and whether you can handle the school academically they absolutely start sorting people into groups based on experiences so that they can create a class that isn't just a good fit for the school brand but also is diverse. So if you get past the brand and academic checks but you work in consulting then yes you are going to have a tougher time differentiating because there is a statistical probability that someone out there is very similar to you but has better stats. Diversity comes in many forms. Industry, gender, nationality, etc. If you are female, from an underrepresented industry, and a underrepresented country you are not being compared to a male consultant from the US or an Indian IT guy. You just aren't. There may only be one other candidate like you...so yeah your ability to get admitted versus those two other candidates is easier.

3. You entirely missed my point from the above which is that the original poster is assuming that he didn't get in because a woman "took his spot" which as outlined in point 2 is not what happens on admissions committees, so no I did not contradict myself at all. I said it was easier for women but not for the reason the original poster thinks. "His spot" was filled by a candidate that was likely similar to him in background but had better stats not by a woman simply because she was a woman.

4. If you care about intellectual diversity then you should care about the gender diversity of your classmates. Career and life experience is fundamentally different for women than it is for men. You cannot have intellectual diversity without also discussing gender.

5. We also aren't discussing the biggest factor in this discussion which is that it is fundamentally more difficult for a woman to achieve as much as a male in the workplace and study after study shows this to be true. They have to work harder for promotions, for decent feedback to improve performance, to get the difficult projects, and to just have a seat at the table. So even if, EVEN IF a male and female candidate had the EXACT same profile and they were being compared to each other (which I don't think they are) the woman had to work harder to achieve that result, maybe in your opinion that doesn't matter but I still think its an important part of the discussion.


1. Which school you come from, where you worked doing what... not just stats

2. Mostly true. It can also be the case that your original profile is not interesting for them and you are cut off in the first filter. Or that they have a strong preference for a profile. In some places coming from a place like Bain or McKinsey increases your chances, although unoriginal. But yeah I see where you are going. I kind of feel that being from western Europe, probably I had a little less competition

3. In a way, there is some likelyhood that that happened, as in 1000 applicants, with 700 men and 300 women, if instead of 70 men and 30 women you want 40 woman and 60 men in the class, there are 10 women who are "taking the place" that belonged to 10 men in equal chance of an individual getting in. What I dont like about this is to label it "equal opportunity", because it is not. This said, he can´t really say who took his spot. And most likely was a better fit for the program.

4. It is just a factor of a good bunch. If I have a class with 10 90% fit consulting guys, an 80% fit consulting girl, and a 80% fit sailor who commanded people in a ship, and I have 3 spots, I may well get the 2 consulting guys and the sailor. I guess it is very subjective but I my experience in the companies I have been is that the male female factor does not add a new dimension

5. My aunt is around 60, she always "worked like a man" and "earned like a man" in a conservative sector like insurance, in a conservative country like Spain. She has more money than she can spend. But she took, 28 years ago, only 2 days of maternity leave. She had a maid she trusted, who has 95% of the time raised her daughter, she just go home to kiss her in the bed, if at all. This life choice is just as valid as not being so ambitious. One pays in money, the other pays in emotions, and it is perfectly ok to act according to your priorities.

Have you had these colleagues at work that do nothing to walk the extra mile but when salaries are reviewed they feel entitled to a raise? I feel a bit the same with this issue, there are some women who want the best of the family and the corporate world, while there are more men (or women like my aunt) that are ok just with the corporate side. And that is a good part of why they get further in business. There is some social factor to it, but also there are biological facts, like we dont get pregnant, kids did not had us a pair of months feeling so so at work, and when they were born, we, in general, didnt feel the same connection as the mother, if only because they didnt gestate as part of our own body. Women worry more about the kids, you can check any study as well. And those are facts, like the fact that from the 7th month you are not allowed to fly (= business trips). So maybe if you want no kids or 1 you are ok. If you want 3 and in the lapse of 4 or 5 years you take 3 breaks of 3 months, plus maybe some loose months you are not feeling 100% for pregnancy, plus 3 periods of 2 months you can not travel (and others you should not), etc etc, and you do that at a key point of your career (the early management years maybe?) you will understand that in many companies they wont consider some women 100% commited at that very point of your life. I think the main point is family, not any perceived lack of qualities. Later in life, you may have this other family aspects that you start to care of more, and women are, again, on average, more sensitive to this. Which is a virtue in my opinion because that makes you more generous, but that is another topic. I live in an exclusive area in Spain and I know many women who are executive. Really, they have exactly the same status as men, but for that, like men, you have to work 9 to 8, go to dinners with customers, long trips abroad, etc etc. Even as a guy, I am not sure about wanting that.

Still, you live in a world where probably the most powerful person on earth is a woman (Merkel), the CEO of Yahoo, in some days most likely the prime minister of UK, an american runner up for presidency, the majors of Madrid and Barcelona and the vicepresident of Spain, etc I dont really think you can say there is no professional progress for women who really want it (and that includes leaving your company it you feel the top management is backwards)



3. In a way, there is some likelyhood that that happened, as in 1000 applicants, with 700 men and 300 women, if instead of 70 men and 30 women you want 40 woman and 60 men in the class, there are 10 women who are "taking the place" that belonged to 10 men in equal chance of an individual getting in. What I dont like about this is to label it "equal opportunity", because it is not. This said, he can´t really say who took his spot. And most likely was a better fit for the program

^^^ Just pointing out that this is pretty much what I said...just different ratios...they come up with what they want their gender diversity to look like before they fill the class therefore if they are targeting 40 women and 60 men the women will be competing for those 40 spots and the men will be competing for the 60 spots women against other women and men against other men...so that circles back to point #2 where it is easier for women but you can't point the finger and say "oh that woman took my spot" its more like "I wasn't in the top 60 of my gender for those 60 spots the adcom wants to fill with men"
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2017, 08:10
Hello Guys,

It is DECISION DATE! June 9th! for the last round, R4.

Has anyone got a phone-call or an email from ASU, yet?

Keep us updated please, and good luck for everyone!
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2017, 08:11
All the best for all applicants!

The end of 2017 intake journey!
Current Student
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Posts: 18
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 650 Q45 V34
GMAT 2: 660 Q43 V37
GPA: 2.9
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2017, 16:11
Denied for 2017....but admitted for 2018 ! :) Anyone else ?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Jun 2017, 16:45
CanadianNic

Congrats for the admission to 2018! but isn't it too early! :p

I received a straight NO by email, not even a phone call! LOL
The problem is that they don't mention any weak point that we should work on for better chance in the future, only an enthusiastic random advice to apply again in the near future term! which I consider really ambiguous and confusing!

I wonder what happened with Hosai !
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Mar 2017
Posts: 31
Re: Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2017, 23:37
I hope all the 2017 applicant will achieve what they are looking!
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 1
Reviews Badge
My W.P. Carey Review  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2017, 14:34
GMAT Club Bot
My W.P. Carey Review   [#permalink] 23 Jun 2017, 14:34

Go to page   Previous    1  ...  5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   [ 318 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Calling W.P.Carey(Arizona State) Applicants:(2017 Intake)Class of 2019

  new topic post reply Update application status  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne