6:30 Milers
The first in a series of occasional commentaries by GMAC CEO Dave Wilson on topical issues in management education.
Although it’s been weeks since the Olympic torch moved on from Beijing, for me, the impact continues to resonate.
In the final heats or sets, which is most of what dominated the televised coverage, we were all watching athletes who had earned their way into that final event by defeating other athletes; athletes all, but only the exceptional ones are in the medalist heat. The medalist heats are populated with peers who have proven their mettle in the rigor of earlier races.
Many years ago, I entered a 10K run in Houston to support the Houston Symphony Orchestra. As I approached the starting line, there were signs indicating where one should line up depending upon the pace per mile you expected to run. I got into my place at marker for those who would run a 6:30 pace and waited for the starting gun. As this was a small race, there were no invited world class runners, just ordinary weekend runners and joggers. I was amazed at the number of runners who were planning to set a pace faster than 6:30.
Those of you who have run in these kinds of events know the end of this story. The overwhelming majority of these alleged 6:30 pace runners were not close to that pace. They apparently suffered from an undiagnosed (in fact, never even known) condition called “numeric inversia” where a “6” looks like a “9.” 9:30 was about the pace they set.
It took more than half a mile to clear myself of these slower runners. There were no early heats to eliminate these runners or place them in a different race. Nor was there any requirement for an objective measure of ability that granted them a space with the runners who were setting a 6:30 pace.
But it also did not matter much. The purpose in our run that day was to support the Houston Symphony Orchestra, not to win any medals.
Imagine that you have decided to invest US$50,000. You are going to get an MBA. As you walk in the classroom, you have tested your abilities and concluded, metaphorically speaking, that a 6:30 pace is your level of ability; a flat course plays to your strengths and temperatures in the 70s are where you perform best. You chose the program that meets all of these criteria. You show up at the starting line. The gun cracks and off the pack goes.
But your classmates are not 6:30 runners. They are 9:30 runners. And this time it does matter. They are your peers and they will be in your case groups. They are going to be with you for a year or more as you study. They will also be in the cohort that the career services office has to place. And you have written your check for $50,000.
How does this happen? You did your due diligence on the program. The curriculum looked great. Tuition and fees were competitive. The faculty roster was impressive. How did you get this huge cadre of classmates who are not your peers?
The answer is “the same way -- the 9:30 runners lined up with the 6:30 milers.” There was no objective measure of ability that stratified the pack.
Anytime an MBA program tells a student that “you do not need the GMAT to matriculate,” those students will be running with the 9:30 milers. And this time it will be a very costly policy for the student, and the school.
Great MBA programs want students who have worked hard, trained hard, and competed. They want students who are willing to subject themselves to the rigors of the GMAT. The cohorts at these programs are indeed peers. Classmates give to each other as much as they learn from each other.
Don’t get caught in the pack where the 9:30 milers are clogging the channels for you and your 6:30 pace.