| Topic Name: |
McKinsey in decline? |
| Message Name: |
Not sure I get your point |
| Date Posted: |
01/31/2006 |
| In Reply To: |
I was HBS Class of 2003. Fully 10% of my incoming class was former McKinsey BA's. Based on that, I don't think it is too worrisome for McK to hire 10% of the class. Typically, the number of people who join as "greenfields" is around 30 people, plus or minus. That's 3% of the class. If our recruiting processes work well, those folks will be from the "best and brightest."
A comment on "best and brightest." How do you define that? How should we? How does Goldman? How does GE? At a top school, > 80% the people have something special about them. They are all best and brightest in some sense. The guy who would be perfect for a hedge fund might suck at consulting. |
| Message: |
Your first argument sounds a bit "circular". Sure, 10% of the class at HBS are McK business analysts (and probably as many from Goldman et alii). Does this mean they automatically qualify for "best and brightest"?
Now, if recruiting 10% of a class is good because they were all BAs before, why do these bother to spend 2 years at HBS rather tha all go DTA (directge to associate) and be EMs after the 2 years it takes to get an MBA and be rehired as an associate?
How to define "best and brightest"? I think academia has its definition, and I would stick to it at the "graduation-to-recruiting-point". What happens later in life is another story, but it has nothing to do with my contention of McK not recruiting "the best and the brightest" at this "graduation-to-recruiting" point.
One final question: have you been to ILW yet?
|
|
