Last week we kicked off our Class of 2010 travel season with something new for us: an evening information session in Washington DC with three panelists: Toby Stock, Dean of Admissions at Harvard Law School, Alexandra Martinez, Director of Admissions at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government and me. Usually we either do stand-alone HBS events or participate with other business schools on panels at various events. The catalyst for the all-Harvard session was the announcement of two new joint programs, the MBA/MPP and the MBA/MPA-ID.
We wanted to see if we could all get the acronyms right (after saying them over and over again!) and also to explain the different elements of the programs, including shared curriculum, timing, funding and summer internships. We had a full house of about 150 and the question-and-answer session was still going strong after an hour and a half. In addition to the new programs between HBS and KSG, we also talked about the existing programs, the JD/MBA and the JD/MPP.
You can find details about all the joint programs we offer —including the MD/MBA —on our website. We're experiencing an increase of interest in joint programs in general —both from prospective candidates and also among the leaders of the different Harvard graduate schools. Why? In a global economy, the opportunities for synergy across traditional boundaries are growing. Leaders of tomorrow will need to be "multi-lingual" —they will need to speak both the traditional language of business but also add the context of the public and not-for-profit sectors. Many aspiring entrepreneurs are attracted to being able to speak from deep knowledge of the law and how it impacts operating and strategic decisions. As the challenges of healthcare and issues of public health increase, the need for physician/leaders is expected to grow.
What I noted about our Washington panel was that each Harvard school articulated the same critical quality in a successful candidate: leadership. Sometimes it feels like MBA programs have appropriated leadership as "ours" and it was a good jolt for me to realize that this just isn't the case. Both Toby and Alexandra were compelling in how leadership is essential for success in their programs too. This gave me the opportunity to refine or play with the word "leadership" a bit further.
Any of you who have heard me speak know that I worry that "leadership" can be misunderstood. Sometimes the very word conjures up a powerful figure who charges over the hill yelling "follow me!!" - someone both larger-than-life and louder-than-life! This panel gave me another opportunity to talk about leadership styles being another measure of diversity in the HBS classroom.
We are serious about finding out how individuals lead and what happens when leaders listen to each other. Imagine a case with a protagonist grappling with a challenging management team or board of directors. What if he finds him/herself suddenly in the top position at a firm with a culture that rewards a leadership approach very different from his/her natural style? We want to bring together entrepreneurial leaders, those that gravitate to positional authority in complex organizations, thought leaders and hands-on leaders who thrive with small teams. Some of the most dramatic moments in a case discussion come when a student proposes a course of action that he/she finds eminently logical and obvious —and someone else in the room finds it completely wild —even preposterous! This kind of diversity of perspectives is what makes a case method discussion so exciting and unpredictable.
Before I close, let me try to answer a couple of the questions that have been submitted. I need to remind everyone that "here are my stats, what are my chances?" type of questions are not what I have in mind! That's not the way we look at applications and I could surely do more harm than good were I to try to reduce our process to "stats". I hope you all understand that this is not a way of saying that everyone should apply to HBS —a strong academic record really matters as does a track record of leadership. I just can't speculate on how a person's stats translate into a complete application.
Here are two questions I've received recently through the Talk2Dee function:
"What are the most important criteria in assessing international applications?"
We're looking for the same qualities in both international and domestic candidates. We think we have a good grasp of international educational systems and the opportunity sets for university graduates across a spectrum of countries. We understand the different nuances in both the concept of "leadership" and the role that extra-curricular activities play in university and community life. We don't know everything (!!) so it's up to you to present clear and complete responses to our application questions.
"What is the difference between applying in round one and round two?"
Not much. We'll make roughly the same number of admissions offers in each round. While we have a smaller number of applications in round one, I will generalize and say that they historically tend to be a very organized and eager group who want to know where they stand as soon as possible. Round two offers the opportunity to polish the application again over the winter holiday break. Sometimes candidates will wait until round two in order to report on a recent promotion —that's understandable. Our advice is to submit your application when you have had a chance to devote serious and sustained effort to making it the best case for admission.
That's all for now. Maybe next time I'll talk about the case method video that's up on the website...anyone have any questions or comments about it?
Dee