[gerpsh]

Let's take a specific example. For grad school, I went to a university with a generally well regarded MBA program, which drew on-campus recruiting from MBB. The recruiting process for MBA students was short recruiter interview -> case interviews. Non-MBA students interested in positions at MBB had it a bit different: in between the recruiter interview and the case interviews was an extremely difficult written exam designed to test the candidate's "reasoning" ability. A couple of my (pretty smart) classmates tried to prepare for these exams and eventually took them, failing miserably. They both reported that it was the hardest test they ever took. Both ended up at second-tier consulting firms.

Let's get more general and rigorous. Kellogg Business School professor Lauren Rivera studies the effects of educational credentials on employment opportunity. Her research confirms that educational pedigree is the single most important factor for gaining employment in elite positions in finance, consulting, and law, with the implication that your education is an indication of your social class, and your comfort in the upper echelons of society. [Link to her work] (http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/directory/rivera...)

I would say it's bit ignorant to say that a Harvard MBA has no effect on employability or opportunity.

[DelaneyM]

Comparing MBAs' & undergrads' experiences is specious, at best. And if you're comparing other graduate students against MBAs, the recruiting process for MBB is exactly the same. (source: I did my time at McKinsey, the 'M' in MBB.)

Regarding Prof. Rivera's study, I'm curious whether it attempts to separate causation & correlation. At HBS, the number of ex-MBB consultants in the program is roughly equal to the number who leave into MBB - many swap out and in, but the figures are in the same range. Does she account for that?

Also, any analysis which groups JDs & MBAs together is 100% flawed. Those two may have similar prestige, but wildly different career progressions.

[gerpsh]

> Comparing MBAs' & undergrads' experiences is specious, at best. And if you're comparing other graduate students against MBAs, the recruiting process for MBB is exactly the same. (source: I did my time at McKinsey, the 'M' in MBB.)

I'm talking about other graduate students, and (at least in this example) the recruiting process is NOT the same. It didn't matter if you were getting a master's in basket weaving or a PhD in physics, you were required to take the test, again at least at this particular university. MBAs were spared the test and went straight to the normal interview process. Also, had you not done an elite MBA, what do you think your path to McKinsey would have consisted of?

> Regarding Prof. Rivera's study, I'm curious whether it attempts to separate causation & correlation. At HBS, the number of ex-MBB consultants in the program is roughly equal to the number who leave into MBB - many swap out and in, but the figures are in the same range. Does she account for that?

Prof. Rivera's research consists of multiple related studies whose findings confirm that, regardless of skills and relevant experience, the most important factor in hiring for elite firms in business and law are educational pedigree, creating a discrepancy in opportunity for those that get an elite education and those that don't. She accomplishes this through ethnographic research on the recruitment practices of the firms.

> Also, any analysis which groups JDs & MBAs together is 100% flawed. Those two may have similar prestige, but wildly different career progressions.

I disagree in this context. The point of her research is that careers which tend to lead to powerful positions in society are practically closed off to those that don't have elite educations. If you want get into high finance or MBB consulting or BigLaw, it behooves you to attend an elite university, and while you're there, do as the Romans do. Prof. Rivera's research is _really_ interesting, you should check it out.