Marie, You have what I would think is the least enviable job at Stanford Business School. You have to reject the vast majority of people who want to get their MBA degree at Stanford. In fact, just 7% of the 6,336 applicants made it last year. Do you get much flak for those decisions?

No we [admissions committee] don't get a lot of flak. But there are a lot of disappointed people. People that work in any selective admission capacity where you're admitting only a small amount of people have to deal with some fallout. It's painful because you see that there are so many qualified applicants, but you can only accept a certain amount. By definition people are disappointed, but there's little I can do but say that it's a numbers game. The most painful part of the job is counseling a rejected candidate and having to tell them that nothing was wrong with their application, but that the competition was so high and the spots so few, that they were just passed over . It doesn't make sense, and I can understand the frustration.

How many apps did you receive this year? And how many were accepted?

Right now -- we don't count people who don't complete their application in its entirety -- a rough ball park is 6,600 apps. We usually accept 450 to get our class of 360. Our yield is usually around a high of 70% to 80%.

Now I understand that Stanford does not interview applicants as an indicator of strengths and weaknesses (0% in 1996)? Why is that?

It's true that we don't do interviews anymore. And it is a philosophical issue that's not in agreement with our value system. It comes down to a matter of resources. Other schools do it well, they marshall the forces of their alumni sources. We'd rather place our resources into our Outreach -- Stanford's recruitment program. The interview serves two purposes: One is evaluative and the other is to talk about your school ... to get the interviewee excited about the school. We decided another, more efficient way of achieving this is to make more presentations at a greater number of sites around the world. In lieu of interviews, we conduct Outreach, which is a forum for interested candidates to learn about the school, ask questions, and tell us a little bit about themselves.

We don't have the staff and the money to do interviews because we're a small school. We just don't have the resources and we're very careful with using our alumni. We use them to be speakers at our info sessions where they can speak with a wide range of prospective applicants on a group basis. Their time is used more effectively and efficiently. We receive over 40,000 requests for apps and we have about 26,000 alumni ... I would love the opportunity to sit down with a candidate on a one-to-one basis to learn more about his or her background, interests, and aspirations. It's another venue by which one can talk about one's talents and skills -- but due to our lack of resources we just cannot accomodate each applicant on an individualized basis. So we're missing a part of it .

How often do you do Outreach?

Our Outreach sessions happen primarily in the fall. We did 47 in the fall of last year. More specifically, we hold our sessions usually between September and November ... primarily in October, because that's when people are thinking about applying to schools.

How many total Outreach sites are there?

They are worldwide. Last year we did 47 different programs in 29 different cities. So we sent out close to 15,000 invitations to prospective applicants. All of the invitations were sent to folks who wrote in for an information booklet and were entered into our "inquiry database."

Are there any new locations where Outreach sessions will be available?

We're adding a couple of new cities in Europe and South America, and adding a few cities in Asia. We try to enter into areas that are both stable and experimental cities. A lot is decided based on our inquiry database. We want to accommodate the largest number of people as possible. So we ask ourselves, 'where's the interest coming from?' and that's how we decide which cities to expand into.

We're seeing the biggest increase of interest in the international arena. We're seeing huge numbers from South America. We decided to do recruiting there because economies were stabilizing -- particularly in Brazil and Argentina. I am going to Shanghai this fall because there's been a lot of interest there as well. We're doing our best trying to respond to the interest.

We stick to the major financial centers within the U.S. We usually go to New York, Chicago, LA, and always Washington D.C. because it's the major center for non-profits and public sector governmental agencies. We also go to Boston, Minneapolis, and Atlanta.

I'd like to return to the actual admissions process. So with the interview out of the picture, it sounds like a lot of emphasis is then put on one's quant background. How stringent is Stanford's quant hurdle? I know, for example, that more than 75% of Stanford's admitted candidates in the class of 1998 had overall GMAT scores above 650. Are you seeing comparable numbers for the Class of 1999?

That stat is actually for our applicant pool. This year's numbers are comparable. In fact the average GMAT for applications and enrollment has been going up. Last year's average GMAT for enrolled students was 711.

Do you think that's healthy?

I don't think its unhealthy. I mean, there is some merit in the GMAT. It's a good indicator of merit. I'm not saying that an applicant's GMAT score determines whether he/she is going to be a successful manager, or a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but it's a useful indicator of academic ability. As the admissions director, I want to accept students into Stanford who care about learning. I want to accept students who help make Stanford an interesting place to learn and grow.

How many times is it "safe" to take the GMAT without losing credibility at your school?

It's the applicant's choice. They're choosing to use their time and money in their own way. Far be it from me to say whether it's good or bad. If someone gets a 720 and then takes it again, then I wonder what the motivation is. Maybe it's to satisfy a personal hunger or goal. But we're looking at a person's file from about 10,000 feet up, so it's the score that matters, not the amount of times an applicant takes it. There are always times where you're just having an off day. You have to allow for things like that to happen.

GPA must also factor in pretty heavily in your decision-making.

We don't factor in GPA because students from non-U.S. institutions don't have them and some U.S. colleges don't tabulate them either. GPA is looked at, but not as an average. We care about overall academic achievement as measured by grades and academic honors. We're looking at an applicant's transcript for trends. Some people may have had a slow start in undergrad, but once they became comfortable and found their niche, they soared. The first year of college can be a real transition for some, but many often improve over time. So we understand that the first year is a transition year, and can negatively affect an overall GPA. So we're not looking at the final, cumulative GPA, but the overall trend. We take into account one's entire background: the coursework level, diversity of extracurriculars, work experience ... The question we ask is: 'Do they have a widespread variety of interests?'

With that said, then an applicant with say, a GPA of 2.8 or lower isn't rejected immediately?

With selective admissions, all of us are looking at the total package. There are some that are admitted that have a 4.0 GPA, 780 GMAT, 5 yrs of work experience, while there are others with a 2.0 GPA, 780 GMAT, and 3 yrs experience that are also admitted. A 2.0 demonstrates several things: that the applicant is lazy, that he's not smart, that he possibly had to work 30 hours a week to help his family out, or maybe a medical crisis played havoc on his academic performance ... I don't know the answer. So, I'm looking for evidence that the person can soar, and have that extra spark or demonstrate the effort necessary to excel. That's why some applicants with low GPAs, like a 2.0, are sometimes accepted.

I make it a point to tell people not to pull themselves out of the running because of a low GPA. At the same time, I worry when candidates also don't have realistic expectations. I don't think candidates understand what it means to have a 7% admissions rate, and apply exclusively to Stanford Business. Always apply to a range of schools because when you're dealing with selective admissions you might be turned away just because of the amount of people we can accept, not because of a personal flaw or shortcoming. We tend to go for applicants that have a wide range of experiences and are diverse. It's not just the numbers that get you in, like a 780 GMAT, 4.0, with 4 years work expereience. Chances are that I'll favor a person with good numbers, but with more strengths in more areas.

I also think there's a misconception that accepted applicants are perfectly well-rounded. That's just not true. There are some outliers, like the 2.0 GPA student that had a 780 GMAT and has done many different things with himself that shows us that he is a candidate that can excel at Stanford.

Do you prefer applicants with undergraduate business backgrounds?

No. In fact, they do not make up the majority of the class. The bottom line is that we want people who are qualified. We see more people who have a liberal arts background than a business background. That's another common misconception; people think you need a strict business background, with managerial experience. But we have students who are teachers, priests, and people from the public sector who don't know debit from credit.

So the more subjective indicator of scholarship and character is the essay. How many essays is an applicant required to complete?

Two. There are also specific program essays that people can write that aren't required, like for the Global Managers program. There is a separate essay required for dual-degree candidates for engineering/business as well.

What mistakes do people commonly make in essays?

We commonly see four major mistakes that applicants make on the essays. The first mistake is that they don't answer the question. And as silly and simple as that sounds ... what happens is that in general, business school apps ask similar questions. Given the fact that applicants are applying to many schools, they usually take advantage of their word processing machines. What happens is that there's a tendency to write a common answer for a one-size-fits-all motif. However, there are enough distinguishing nuances in applications that don't accept a generic essay. So it's [the generic essay] just going to be one degree to left or right, and it's really not worth the risk. And above all, if you're doing a generic essay, make sure you edit it!

Our second essay, for example, is the standard business question presented in three parts: One, describe your career background. Two explain how an MBA enhances your career development. And three, how will Stanford particularly fit into your plans? This is where the generic question problem surfaces. A common mistake is leaving the generic answer for the third part. I've seen applications that leave another school in the blank, like Wharton. You know, 'I think Wharton is the perfect place for me because ... .' No one is denied admission if we see a Wharton or a Harvard where Stanford should be, but it shows sloppiness.

The second mistake is that people write what they think we want to hear instead of focusing on what they want to do and communicating it to us. We do group information sessions where prospective applicants meet with alumni and sometimes they form a picture of what the admissions committee wants to hear. Sometimes I think people want us to hear that they want to become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies or that they want to start a company in 5 years, or want to get into community service because it is important developing linkages and building bridges. But many times, these statements just don't fit an applicant's background. We want applicants to show why they're worthy and to talk about themselves, not about somebody they aren't.

The third error is that people try too hard to market and sell themselves to us. Don't market yourself to me. I want you to think long and hard about who you are -- what impassions you? what is important to you? -- and communicate those things on paper in an honest and coherent way. I understand where this "marketing yourself" idea comes from because there are reems of books in stores that "teach" prospective applicants how. But many times, they miss the point. I think these books are useful for giving applicants ideas and confidence but they overlook the most important step: self-evaluation. This should be the first step you make before positioning yourself for an admissions at a school. Of course, we care about puctuation and grammar, but you can be a beautiful writer, and if you don't reflect thoughfulness, its an empty essay.

The fourth and final mistake ... candidates will always ask me in a group session 'how do I make myself seem unique?' Unique is a relative term. Its a futile exercise to try and think 'how I am unique?' You don't need a hook or angle. There a lot of people who have not done "glamourous" or "sexy" things. There are a lot of people who are "normal" who have a good perspective on life and would be a good person to be in class with. We are partly at fault for projecting this "glamour" image, because we pick all of the sexy and exotic people to represent Stanford in our catalog. Yes, some people's hooks and angles -- whether it be their special talents or unique achievements -- do get in, but those people are far and few between.We want to know what the potential is for x applicant to make an impact after leaving Stanford.

Is there a significant advantage in applying in the first round versus second?

We have three application rounds for this year. The first first in November 5th, and if we receive an application by this date ... and it's complete, we'll mail a decision by January 14. The second deadline is January 7th, and the deadline for responses going out is March 25. The third is on March 18th, and the last set of letters is mailed on May 27.

In general it's best to apply by the first two rounds. We don't discriminate between the first and second round. But the yield off the first two rounds partially determines how many spaces are available for the third round. Last year, for example, we had an extraordinary yield, so there weren't a lot of spaces left for third-round applicants.

But one should always keep in mind that it's better to apply early if, and only if, one can send in a well-put-together, solid application where we get a well-rounded, and informed idea of who you are. It's much better to put forth a good application for a later date than a shoddy one to meet an earlier deadline.

I understand from Jim Baron (Associate Dean), that Stanford tries to reach about 90% of its applicants by phone, and then follows up with a letter. Is this true? Does this apply only to those applicants who are accepted, or to the entire applicant pool?

Yes it is, but only to the admitted students.

What does the phone conversation consist of?

I call and say you've been admitted to the MBA program and a letter will be in the mail. It's a heads up. It used to be a unique, but other schools are adopting the practice. It's a really nice way to develop rapport. The downside is that I'm not succesfful in reaching everybody by phone, so some people think they haven't gotten in, and that puts them in an awkward position.

How many students are taken (accepted) from Stanford's waiting list?

It varies from year to year. The average would probably be between 80 to 100, but the number varies. Some years it's a lot, like in 1991 when we accepted 80%, and other years, we've only admitted 10 or 20. If I see that other schools' apps are up, then I will hedge my bets and probably extend the list to include more people. It's not scientific, but more algorhythmic.

What's the latest date you will take someone off of the waiting list?

Ideally we give a month. But there have been times where we admit people two weeks before classes start. We're always grateful if students can bear with it. We try to avoid this because, obviously, it's not fair. We try to get things wrapped up by mid-August. In fact, we just went to the wait list last week (7/14).

How long do you give candidates to decide whether they want to accept your offer of admission?

Again, that is one of the advantages of applying in the first round, because you hear in January and have until April to make your decision. You don't have as much time in the second round: You don't hear until March and have until April to reply. Those accepted in the third round have about 4-6 weeks.

A lot is dependent on the financial aid offer, which doesn't come out until February, and that plays a big part in peoples' decision to come here.

Now how about the less fortunate folks: Will rejected applicants get feedback as to why they were denied admission?

We no longer offer feedback. Not any more. We used to give feedback regularly after every round because we really felt it was important. But it got to a point where it was becoming a drain on our resources, and we just couldn't keep up with demand. As our application pool got larger, and the size of school remained the same, the amount of people we were rejecting became many more.

In fact, a five-year breakdown of the number of apps received by Stanford shows a tremendous rise. In 1993, Stanford took in 3,300 applications. In '94, it was up to 4,561. In '95 it skyrocketed to 6,088. Some 6,336 were reported in 1996. And this year, you said you've received roughly 6,600. That's pretty impressive.

We, however, have become exasperated because qualified people would call to ask why they didn't get in, and what they could do to improve their application, and we'd have to tell them that there was really no shortcoming. There was nothing I could tell them to make their application better. Relative to others, however, the other just stood out more. It got to the point where sessions became more frustrating that helpful. Our application pool has doubled in the last five years. We're getting a lot more qualified people in our overall pool who apply. That's a wonderful situtation, but it's also a problem.

What do you suggest for those who reapply?

The most constructive advice I can offer is to think about the subjective part of the application. Rewrite or rethink the essays so that they best represent who you are. Also, maybe think about three new recommenders to write letters on their behalf and provide specific insights into the applicant's character.

Who are Stanford's toughest competitors? In other words, with which schools do you most often compete with for students?

If you look at the people who are admitted to Stanford and choose not to come, our biggest overlap is Harvard Business School. It's interesting, because the schools are different in terms of size and scope ... and coasts. That's where we lose the most students to, definitely.

I'd like to finish up our conversation with an offbeat inquiry, if I may. You've seen an unbelievable number of applications during your tenure as Stanford's admissions director, so I'm sure you've become accustomed to the ridiculous. What's the funniest or strangest attempt at ingratiation you've ever received from an applicant?

Well, first off, I hope this is not going to create a copycat trend because we really try to cut down on the gimmicks. But, one applicant, several years back, sent the entire admissions committee -- about 12 people -- lunch. It was Chinese. But like I said, we're really trying to minimize the process and stay away from gimmicks.

Well Marie, thanks very much for sharing some admissions tips with me. Stanford has a very competitive admissions process with an extremely low acceptance rate, so I know your job is a tough one.