reyesaa,This is a belated word of thanks. I really appreciate all the info you provided.

Anyway, I found a job posting by a small local consulting company last week, so I though I might as well send an application, mainly to have an interview dry run. Aba, ni hindi man lang ako in-invite for an interview! What makes it really bad is the salary package they're offering is 25% less than what I'm getting now!

Siyet, maybe I should just abandon these thoughts of getting into management consulting.

[ June 05, 2003: Message edited by: Blueper ]

My 2-cents worth: If MC is really what you would like to be doing, then go for it even if the pay is less. That could be your foot in the door for a medium and long term career in larger firms, internal strategic planning, or general management.

Best of luck.

[ June 07, 2003: Message edited by: reyesaa ]

Thanks, but that was the intention in the first place - I sent my cv to that bloody company knowing that at best I'll only get 80% of what I'm getting now. A friend today comforted me by saying that perhaps they saw through the resume that I'm earning significantly more now, that's why they didn't even bother. Yeah, right.

Of course, the fact that I secretly planned to use them as a try out is totally beside the point.

Anyway, if you have a few more cents on how to actually get an audience with these high and mighties, I'm all ears (or eyes).

it's always a good idea to leave remuneration out of your cv. if they ask during the interview, that's when you divulge the information. but even then, keep remuneration an open issue for further discussion. sure, you might be getting 80% of current salary. but what's the upside over time? these are things you find out during the interview. plus, ika nga, there are some things money can't buy: vacation days, training abroad, country club membership, etc.

[ June 11, 2003: Message edited by: hornsby ]

Oi, don't get me wrong, I don't plaster my remuneration naman all over my resume. My friend's point is that based on the resume, it's possible for people to infer the package you're currently in. Tapos some firms daw - especially relatively small ones like the one I applied to - don't even bother calling you in for an interview if they think they'll just be wasting their time on you because of the perceived misalignment in remuneration.

I'll send you a PM lest we deviate too much from the topic (if only the admins can fix the new thread function).

Where to get an audience:

(1) School. Most MBA programs have consulting clubs and alumni directories where you can touch base with fellow schoolmates in the industry.

(2) Your current industry. Some solutions companies like IBM, Accenture and Ariba have strategy consulting practices. You can use this as a stepping stone towards bigger firms like McKinsey ar Bain. If you have any friends or former officemates working in such companies (even if not in strategy), you can ask them how to get an inside track.

(3) Clients. Your client contacts may be doing strategy work with other firms. If you have a good relationship w/ their people, and if they're happy w/ the service you gave them, try asking them who they know directly or through somebody else in the company.

(4) The public directories. Browse the web for contacts, headhunters, industry events, etc. Also, keep your eyes and ears open for even the slightest opportunity to gain an audience (ex. social/civic projects, church activities, bowling tournaments, your local Ateneo Alumni Association, etc.).

As meritocratic as it would like to present itself to be, the management consulting industry depends as much on personal relationships as it does on competence. Any way you can use to build and cultivate these relationships will be helpful.

Hi reyesaa! I sent you another pm, if you don't mind.

Sorry for the off-topic, the email function isn't working.

Thanks for the info, and I sent you a PM. For some reason, I can't access the PM's sent to me. Moderators, please help!.

My apologies also to cell, or something to that effect who PM'd me some weeks back. I kept searching the threads, but I couldn't find a post with your nick, so I wasn't really able to reply. Anyway, in case you, cell, are reading this, the answer to your PM'd question is, no.

So, is it just me, or are you guys having the same problems (PM's, posting new topics)?

[ June 11, 2003: Message edited by: Blueper ]

For more details re. careers in management consulting, check out this website:

Top Consultant

It has online discussion forums about the MC industry and you might just be able to rub elbows w/ firm insiders.

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: reyesaa ]

My brother recently took the GMAT and got a score of 720. He wants to take it a second time to see if he can bump up his score. He wants to apply to the top business schools in the USA and is unsure if his score is enough. He wants to get at least 770.

He eventually wants to get a PhD however he wants to make sure he gets admitted to a top tier school and therefore doesn't mind going through the MBA program first. He thinks it's a less risky strategy if he were to apply to an MBA program first as opposed to applying to the PhD program immediately.

Do you think his strategy is correct? Do you think he has what it takes to get into a top tier business school based on his profile below?

Here's his brief profile:

- Graduated BS Mgt Eng cum laude
- Worked for 3 1/2 years in an investment bank as a financial analyst (assigned in China for about a year; he is now in Manila with the same IB)
- GMAT 720 (strong quantitative; not so strong in qualitative)
- Strong in research (interested in valuation theories in general but hasn't narrowed down his interest)
- A bit of the nerdy type


What's your opinion? Should he get an MBA first or should he apply directly to the PhD program?

Thanks.

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: BerdengEbak ]

If your bro. got a 720 in the GMAT, then I'm not sure how much more a 770 will do for him. And w/ his i-bank credentials and international exposure, his career background should be solid. The rest is really presentation and strategy. Do his essays and recommendations show that he stands out, or are they just essay versions of his resume? How focused is he when he sound like when he talks about his long term career plans? Because of intense competition, admission committees are getting more and more anal - they judge applicants not only based on their accomplishments but also in the way they present/talk about themselves.

With regards to getting a Phd directly or taking an MBA first, I'll assume that your bro. is already aware about the big differences between an MBA and a Phd program. That being said, it makes sense to go straight for the program that meets his career objectives, espescially if he thinks that the MBA is just a stepping stone to a Phd. However, there are those who pursue dual MBA-Phd degrees precisely because they want to experience studying under both very different learning environments.

BerdengEbak, to add to what reyesaa wrote above, is it safe to assume that your brother knows that many Ph.D. programs actually demand more from applicants with MBAs in the sense that one has to show real seriousness and interest in high-level academic research? By "academic research," I'm not talking about the kind of valuation stuff that Ibanks require and MBAs are trained to do: That's not interesting for academics. I'm talking about formulating a theory like the CAPM or Black-Scholes in the first place, not running their applications in Excel.

What does your brother want to do after he gets his MBA or a Ph.D. anyway?

Thanks for your replies.

Long term, my brother is interested in a career either in management consultancy and/or in the academe as a professor/researcher.

Although he is strong in terms of quantitative skills, he is not as confident with his communication skills (i.e., written/oral). He is better in written than in oral presentations. He is more of the shy, introspective type and does not come across as confident.

As a matter of fact, his GMAT score was heavily influenced by his performance (top 5%) in the quantitative part of the test although his qualitative (verbal, etc.) score was closer to average.

In terms of research interests, he is looking for something that has to do with both valuation theories and "high technology" companies. He hasn't really decided at this point what the specific topic is although he knows the general area he's interested in. It's still too early according to him.

His main concern is getting into a PhD program in a top tier school. He said that the the admission rate is significantly lower if one applies directly to the PhD program, as compared to getting admitted to an MBA. He does not want to ruin his chances of getting into a top tier business school by using the wrong strategy. It might be safer if he goes through an MBA first, followed by a PhD. I guess he is concerned that if he applied directly to the PhD program in, say, Wharton, it is more likely for him to get turned down and that will be the end of it. Taking an MBA first, to followed by a PhD, may be a safer route. Sorry for repeating myself.

Anyway, thanks for the replies and comments. I'll pass them on.

[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: BerdengEbak ]

Thanks for clarifying these points. My two cents worth:

1. Management consultancy? Go for an MBA.
2. Academia as a professor/researcher? He'll need to get a Ph.D. for this.

I am wondering how your brother came up with admission rate differentials. So he was able to get a sample of people who did not have an MBA and people who had an MBA and who then applied for a Ph.D.? In the same or a different school? How did he account for other possible differences in the application profile (GMAT or GRE scores, work experience prior to graduate school, research interests stated, etc.)? Did he account for all of these and more in computing the likelihood of acceptance into a Ph.D. program, with or without an MBA?

I raise these questions because your brother will have a zero chance of getting accepted into a Ph.D. program if he states that he wants to go into management consultancy right in his application. Why would a top-tier school provide a four year fellowship that covers tuition and provides a stipend to someone who does not want to become a serious academic in the first place? Obviously academics also want to nurture their own, so keep in mind that there may in fact be a "penalty for MBAs" who apply to Ph.D. programs, in the sense that they have to come up with solid reasons for why they want to do a Ph.D., given that they've pursued an MBA in some professional track in the first place ("Are you sure you want to work in academia or are you just going to use our funds for a Ph.D. and work somewhere else anyway?").

If your brother is really serious about applying for Ph.D. programs in top-tier business schools he should also know that he should take the GRE. Some departments accept the GMAT but most prefer the GRE.
He should also define his research interests much more clearly, since Ph.D. admissions committees want to make sure he is matched up with faculty who can adequately mentor him. If, for example, he really wants to study high-tech company valuation issues (I am not so sure this is interesting for finance academics in the first place), is he sure that the best scholar in the field is in Wharton or Chicago, schools traditionally known for their strength in finance? Is he sure that he shouldn't be looking at Stanford?

I hope that raising these questions helps your brother somehow. Best of luck!

My brother said that he checked out the admission stats in the MBA and PhD programs of certain schools and came up with the conclusion that it is much tougher to get admitted to the PhD programs. (His wild guess is roughly 10x more difficult, generally speaking.) He does not have the information on the admission stats for those who applied to the PhD program after having obtained their MBA degree in the same school, although he knows of a few people who took their MBA prior to their PhD and this seems to be a safer route. He is also aware that some schools have a bias for their own alumni (i.e., admitting their own MBAs to their PhD program), while others (eg, he mentioned Stanford specifically) seem to prefer some "cross-fertilization" (i.e., students from other schools). These are just his observations and he may be wrong.

Regarding his research topic for a PhD, he is aware of the fact that he needs to come up with something original, something that will add to the body of knowledge, but he is obviously not at that stage yet.

Anyway, thanks again for the input and comments.

I will let him know that this thread exists. Hopefully, he will check it out soon.

Carry on with your interesting discussions.

[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: BerdengEbak ]

Any feedback on Kaplan?