kryzak wrote:
ryguy904 wrote:
I have a friend that interviewed with their adcom a few weeks back. He says it was pretty sad. He's applying to other Top 10/Top 20 and said the experience didn't come close to the other interviews he has had with H/W/Kellogg/Duke. In fact, he said that he was so turned off, he was not going to submit his app (As he explains it to me, they have a similar Part I/Part II approach as Kellogg and interviewed before his app was in).
My friend also said the recruting in finance was pretty weak. Considering the mad amounts of HF's in DC, that's no bueno.
Anyway, for what it's worth.
Could you expand on the specific reasons why it was bad? Especially when criticizing a school, good solid examples would make it more valid instead of a general statement.
Sure thing Kry,
A couple more specific examples:
From what my friend told me, G-Town brags about it's great international program, Yet they don't offer any coursework in international business lingo. If you want to go to Spain to do a deal, what good is speaking Spanish if you don't know how to say "merger" or "private equity" or "capital"? He was telling me he had a class like this in his undergrad business education. I don't recall the specifics, but my friend also said the international experience opps didn't compare to Kellogg, Stern, etc.
Additionally, he didn't think adcom was necessarily a good assessor of talent. For instance, his interviewer didn't know what the CFA was. I realize an alum in marketing probably doesn't know what it is, but c'mon, adcom? How can they find the best pool of candidates, if they don't understand qualifications? If they can't pick the best pool of talent, they won't rise any higher in the rankings.