| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
Non-MBA recruits |
| Date Posted: |
01/31/2006 |
| In Reply To: |
Here are trends on where the Stanfords' "the best and the brightest" are heading to after their MBAs in 1997 and 2005.
1997 2005
M.Consulting [22%] [20%]
Financial [25%] [25%]
-IB 14% 5%
-Hedge Funds -- 6%
-VC 6% 2%
-IM 5% 4%
Technology [19%] [19%]
Entreprenuers [6%] [8%]
As you can plainly see, the trend has been the same for the best and the brightest for the last 8 years for all the categories you mentioned as to where the best and the brightest are going now.
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cmc/reports/report05.pdf
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cmc/reports/report97.html#Industry97
--
GSB's Recruiting Excellence Award Winners
2004
The Boston Consulting Group
Eli Lily and Company
PepsiCo
2005
The Clorox Co.
McKinsey & Co.
Ventana Medical Systems
It look like atleast BCG and McK are winning the votes/hearts from GSB's students during the recruiting process.
Side question, did you go to Wharton undergrad and now work for F500 pharma co.? |
| Message: |
I'm sure your data for the Stanford GSB are correct.
I am referring to the "average" of all new recruits at McK, which includes a lot of "non-traditional" hiring, especially APDs or students from other backgrounds than business.
Again, the informal survey suggests that these "non traditional" recruits consider that "the best and the brightest" of their respective classes do not go to management consulting.
Please take into account that the survey includes recruits from other geographies than North America (that represents no more than 35% of The Firm, these days).
Question to ponder : are these "non-traditional recruits" becoming the mainstream source of recruiting, since total amount of recruits necessary can no longer be satisfied by just GSB "bets and brightest"?
NO, I did not not go to Wharton (but I was accepted at the MBA programme) and, NO, I never worked at a pharma company.
|
|
