Hjort wrote:
I suppose we've wandered off the topic but this is still an interesting conversation. While there are some differences in the form of our statements, I think that there is considerable common ground.
1) It is certainly possible for people from all nationalities to succeed in the US but there is probably more of a bias toward people from the US (of all cultures) when it comes to "soft" fields like marketing and HR. I am in complete agreement that people should be encouraged to enter non-traditional fields.
2) I think virtually everyone agrees that first hand experience in extremely important. However, MBA programs have long accepted students with varying levels of first hand experience and the emphasis on several years of experience was a trend of the last few decades that appears to be past its zenith, especially at many US schools in the top clusters. As I've stated many times before, I believe that chronological diversity is a useful attribute for MBA programs. Others, of course, are welcome to disagree.
Hjort
1) I agree with you. Every country favors providing opportunities to its citizens first. America is no different and rightly so. That being said, if you are smart enough to get into a top 10 business school or good at networking with people, no career is off limits. Admittedly, networking is a "soft" skill -- but can it be acquired.
2) Maintaining a diverse class is the goal of every B-school admissions committee. I agree that chronological diversity is as important as any other type of diversity. With business schools producing diverse MBA graduates, how long will it take corporate America to also hire a diverse mix of employees? I hope the coming years will prove that the world is indeed flat and that opportunity is equally distributed.