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)
02 Jun 2017, 01:02
close
