Linda, I understand that Columbia has significantly tightened up its admissions standards during Dean Meyer Feldberg's tenure over the last eight years. For example, in 1996, the school accepted only 14% of its applicants, down from 25% two years earlier and 47% in 1992. Applications are skyrocketing -- rising this year to roughly 6,050. Can you comment on this?

I think this year's applications total was somewhere in there; it was definitely over 6,000. The "tightening of the screws" would not be my choice of words to describe our change in admissions statistics. I think what has happended that is so significant is that the apps have increased, but along with the increase has been a general, overall improvement in quality of applications. When you see that, that allows you to be a little bit more selective. You can pick and choose more carefully than say when you have 2,500 applications -- when the quality and quanitity is not as high.

We're still looking for the same things in a candidate. And that is: motivation, solid work experience, leadership ... those things haven't changed here. We're still looking for interesting, diverse applicants. What we're seeing is that more and more of our applicants come with stronger credentials so that we're getting more than we got before, and then some. Along with the stronger credentials comes a stronger GPA and GMAT -- and that allows us to be more selective. But the foundation has stayed the same. What you're seeing in this stronger pool are all of the same traditional things plus stronger credentials.

What are the numbers for 1997? In terms of acceptance rate, yield, spots available, and applications?

We projected an acceptance rate of 12% for 1997, but I'm going to guess more on 13%. And our yield will be better than it was last year. Last year we were at 68% and I'd be comfortable saying we'll have a yield of 68 - 69% or maybe better. Our target is between 480 - 485 spots -- that's not for the entire year, just for September [Columbia has three starting dates for classes: September, January, and May]. The number of apps received for September enrollment was 5,257. We received 100 apps for May, and about 700 for January.

Along with the rise in overall applications has also been a rise in international interest and apps. Where are you seeing the most interest and what can you attribute this to?

I think that there are a couple things that I would point out. Columbia has what we feel to be the strongest international business education out there. It has, throughout the year, attracted a very large international application pool. At the same time, many, if not all the schools, are seeing and have seen a large growth in international student applications.

Most of our growth is occurring primarily in Asia. We have historically been extremely strong in Asia. The university is incredibly well known and that is a consistent area of growth. One of the pleasing things to us is that we are also seeing growth in Europe and South America. These two areas have been targets for us, and obviously, we're always pleased when we've accomplished those goals.

In terms of countries with the largest number of apps ... this year, the largest group represented among international applications was China, followed by India, and then Korea. Those three areas have been trading places with other Asian countries since 1993, but I think one of the significant things that we looked at this year, is that Brazil has been moving up throughout the years. In 1995 we received 46 apps from Brazil, and this year there are 113. Again, what I would point out is that the difference between CBS and other schools is that it's not just the numbers but also the quality, and that has been the factor that we are most happy about.

One of the factors that makes Columbia a stand-out is its high proportion of female student class-makeup -- holding stable at about 35%. Does the school have a quota that it tries to meet? Is Columbia trying to raise the bar by attracting female applicants?

This year we believe that that is going to be improved. Last year we had 35% and this year it will definitely be at least 36%, but probably 37%. And we believe that that will again put us in the number one spot among the top 25 [of highest female class makeup]. Getting more women into the MBA pipeline is an agenda item that I think the 10 top schools have literally tried to figure out together over the past couple of years. Columbia specifically, has had recruiting events targeting women over the last six years. I think the reason we're doing so well is because of the communty that exists here -- and I would tie all the minorities into this. We've got a very, very strong women's community and I think women out there know that. And this is a good place to come if you're a woman and want a good MBA program. Our alumni are incredibly active in helping speak with and advise our women students.

CWIB [Columbia Women in Business] is the largest club at Columbia which I think is significant as well as interesting. And there are a few males that are also members of that club. CWIB sponsors several events throughout the year -- one that is co-sponsored with the Admissions Office. They also invite some of our alums to do brown bag lunches. For instance, Shelly Lazarus, CEO of Oglivy & Mather worldwide, came to participate. She's probably one of the most prominent or most recognizable alums in the program. She and many alumni come to our events on a regular basis to help with networking, offer advice, deliver speeches, and generally be involved to let women, and students at-large know about what's out there. I feel that our alumni are very accessible in a way that you don't find at a lot of other schools.

Getting back to something that you had mentioned briefly ... Columbia is one of the few top business schools to give students the opportunity to begin their studies in May, September, or January. Is there any difference in evaluation?

The September entry is certainly the more traditional one and we share that with everybody [other schools]. There are people who come in September and do the program in 16 months, but this entry point is not designed that way. It is the more traditional path, where students take four full semesters of coursework and take an internship over the summer. In this program, more and more students are looking for the internship.

The January entry is really designed for students going back into the same field that they have come from or for those who are going into the family business and don't need internship or are entrepreneurs. Now we have a very fine entrepreneur program that is very active since most of our alums start their own business at some point in their careers. January was also designed for people who want to be entrepreneurs. These are people who don't need an internship or don't want one, but rather want to get back into the workplace as quickly as possible. That's why we created the January date. Also there are a number of companies that offer sponsorships for their people and they want them to get an MBA quickly. The January class is significantly smaller -- about 180-185 people. Now, we do have people who come in January who decide to do internships. Students can do internships and come in January as well, although the program was not really designed that way.

May is the smallest group. The entire May class is represented by about 65 people: Half are full-time MBAs (people who start during summer term and go through the full, two-year program or go 16 months) and the other half are summer MBAs [who are company-sponsored students. The Summer MBA is more a part of the school's executive MBA program. These students take a full load of summer classes as well as one course per semester over three years].

Are there any different considerations you have in mind when reviewing an application for the January accelerated program?

No, we mainly look for an applicant's appropriateness in the program as it was designed. There are some who can do the MBA program without an internship and succeed in what they choose to do. That's primarily what this program is for.

Do you propose to applicants that they may be better suited for the January enrollment?

No, the applicant applies to us and they designate, by the deadlines, that they are applying for September, January, or May. How they designate themselves is how we look at them.

We would suggest such a move during an information forum by asking 'did you consider January?,' and then there is a conversation. Sometimes candidates realize that's the best course of action, but others may feel that enrolling in the traditional September class maybe more advantageous. We would suggest that as an educational piece. We don't operate like Harvard, for example, where prospective students apply for September, HBS decides first whether to accept the applicant and then decides where to put him or her -- in the September of January cohort. Columbia doesn't operate this way. Rather, an applicant is placed in a program [September, January, or May] based on his or her needs and wants.

If we are reading an app and, say, the class if filled and it's a great applicant, then we would ask a student if they have considered January. But it's not generally practiced.

The admissions office sponsors information sessions for applicants led by an admissions officer and a current MBA student. Does this happen on campus only? Or does CBS have information sessions worldwide?

We hold several different things, and we use terminology that confuses even ourselves.

We have information sessions that we run while school is in session (on Mondays at 10 a.m. and Thursdays at 1 p.m.) and those are conducted by an officer from the admissions staff and current students here on campus. Along with that, we hold -- during the course of the recruiting year -- somewhere between 4 to 6 forums. They are held in the evening, and are currently listed on our website (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/business). These evening info sessions are targeted for areas of interest by applicants. For instance, the first one we will have will be for our January class. What will happen is that applicants will find out everything they want to know about the January class, and more. They'll have a chance to meet with faculty and administrators from around the school (re: Student Affairs, Financial Aid, Students Activities, Career Services, etc.) and are given the opportunity to ask any and all questions.

What we do in the domestic cities that we recruite in -- and the travel schedule is already set and up on our Web site -- is work in conjunction with the GMAC forums, and hold info sessions in reception areas. Each of these domestic info sessions will include an officer from the admissions staff as well as alumni that are based in those locations. Having alumni present really gives the student an opportunity to find out what a Columbia degree has done or is doing for graduates. It also gives alumni the chance to meet and greet new people.

Internationally and domestically, we travel to companies that are known to recruit heavily at Columbia. We do info sessions for interested employees there. Internationally, I will be attending some GMAC forums. I will probably be going to several locations including Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, London, Frankfurt, Paris, and possibly Berlin. In Asia, I will be in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, and possibly Singapore. And while we're there, we will attempt to hold alumni and prospective student receptions. The international info sessions' dates and places will be announced -- as they're set up -- on our Web site in about three or four weeks (by around Sept. 1, 1997).

Okay, let's get our hands dirty with the actual enrollment process. As a school known for its strength in finance, does Columbia place a lot of importance on a candidate's quant background -- such as the GMAT or GPA?

We are without a doubt a quant program, and we don't deny that. That's what type of a program it is. Quant scores are important to us. We want to make sure that the student can get through our program. The best way we have of evaluating that is through the GMAT, specifically its quantitative piece. For example not everybody took calculus in college, and it is no longer a prerequisite for admission [the prerequisite was discontinued last year]. So if you don't have the mathematical background -- let's say you're working in a non-profit company outside of the quant area -- how do can we assess it? Well, the answer is: we use the GMAT.

Is there a GMAT score that is too low?

There isn't. We publish a mid-80% spread of GMAT scores. When applicants ask me: 'If I have x score will I be eliminated?,' I answer 'no.' But if 80% fall between 610-720 and you have a 460, your likelihood of acceptance is slim. That isn't to say that a person with a 400 score will not be admitted but the likelihood is lower. I mean there are some people who have incredible backgrounds -- with so many years of work experience, who have climbed Mt. Kilamanjaro, and traveled extensively to do business in different economies -- that they can overcome a low GMAT score.

GPA has a wider spread of 3.1 - 4.0. Someone who has been out of school for four to five years and didn't put together a particular noteworthy GPA, but did well on work experience and did well on GMAT can overcome this shortcoming. Many people have also taken classes along the way to prove that they can do the work.

The difficulty when you look at the numbers is that there are always exceptions to everything. You look at people with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences, so not everybody looks the same. But the application pool and competitiveness have increased. Standards have changed quite significantly. More scrutiny is called for to differentiate between both a greater number of applicants and a higher quality of them. I've been here for four or five years, and over that time I've seen the application pool change quite drastically. The students that we're admitting now are obviously different than five years ago. Admittance really depends on the pool and how you stack up to it.

There seems to be some confusion surrounding the importance and scheduling of an interview at Columbia. As I understand it, anyone can schedule an alumni interview during the fall, but afterwards, interviews are scheduled by invitation of the admissions committee on a selective basis. Is this true?

No. What was and what is are two different things.

For the past four or five years interviews were not scheduled by applicants. Instead, they were scheduled by our office after an application had been received. Prior to that [1991 and earlier], candidates used to walk in and schedule an interview with admissions staff. Anybody and everybody (ideally) could call the admissions office and set-up an interview.

This past year, we went to an alumni process (which will change this year). After an application had been received by our office, we would generate by computer, the opportunity for applicants to interview with an alumni. This was not a screening process, but based more on whether we could match an alum with an applicant. We tried to interview as many as possible. However, since our application growth has increased at a pace of about 134% since 1991, we could not continue to do this any longer. There was just no way. It's physically impossible. Last year roughly 75% to 80% of the class was interviewed. Our alumni interviews were at about 1,300 to 1,400, as our applications continued to grow. It just became overwhelming.

So, starting this year, we will continue our alumni interviewing, but it will be by invitiation only and it will happen after the application has arrived. Some interviews will be with the admissions committee, while others will be conducted by alumni and students who are members of our Hermes Society [a student admissions branch of the school].

There is no difference in weight if you are interviewed by an alum, student, or admissions officer -- but candidates never want to believe that. It's true though, I swear! What we find is that our current students and alumni are great at ascertaining whether a candidate will represent Columbia well. And that matters a great deal to us. I have the applications to assess, but they get the person and must make poignant evaluations.

What do you hope to hear about during an interview?

I think the first thing that they're [interviewers] looking for is how people present themselves. They're going to be looking at them the very same way a recruiter would. They're looking at the applicant's overall presentation, his or her ability to articulate. And they're looking for a focus in terms of goals, both long-term and short-term.

For us in admissions, the focus is important. We're looking at somebody who's going to spend just two years or 16 months in our program. That's very different than four years of college. If you have no focus, it's going to be very difficult for you to take advantage of the resources within the short period of time. We also want to know whether your goals are realistic. Does what they [candidates] want to do make sense? And sometimes people are not as articulate in writing as in the interview, so it really gives applicants an opportunity to fill in some blanks.

For international students specifically, the interviewer is looking for the ability to speak English. It's imperative to be able to understand professors and coursework, but also to be able to participate with students in class.

How many essays must an applicant write?

There are four essays and a fifth that is optional.

What do you look for in an essay?

First and foremost we ask ourselves, 'does the applicant answer the question?' If they answer somebody else's [a cut and paste job from an essay to another school application] then they will probably not be accepted. We're also looking for his or her ability to communicate with the written word.

So, how would you rank admissions factors -- highest to lowest -- as far as level of importance: GMAT, GPA, recommendations, essay, interview, work experience?

Work experience is first -- and part of that would be the recommendations as a subset. Then I would put GMAT and GPA, lumped together, because you're competing against a pool of applicants. After you've assessed that an applicant can fit in, you need to see how they stack up against their collegues. Then comes the personal interview because personal characteristics set you apart as well.

However, ranking these numerically makes me feel uneasy because uniqueness and background may offset how we weigh quant scores. Rather than putting them in order I would put work experience and recommendations as the most important factors because if they're not there, then nothing else matters. We deny people with 800 GMATs and we deny lots of people who have 700 GMATS. That also holds true for people who have 4.0 GPAs.

Someone with phenomenal work experience and accompanying recommendations puts themselves in a strong position for review.

What's the turnaround time for a response. Is it 8 weeks for response from the time the interview paperwork is sent in? Or is it from the time after Jan. 15?

Yes. No ... let me elaborate. Once an app is here and completed -- including at that point, the interview -- they should have received their response within eight weeks. The completed application includes the interview. And I'd say that's the biggest thing that 90% of the applicants misunderstand. For those candidates who did not receive word back in a timely fashion, that's because their apps were rarely completed [they did not include the interview]. We also did fall behind this year due to a major computer breakdown. And again, the increased volume of apps over the last five years has also slowed us down. We hope this will not happen next year.

This year [for the class of 2000] applicants are being asked to mail in completed applications, including their self-reported GMAT score if they are applying to the January, early decision deadline. We will accept apps if the candidate at least includes the scheduled date of their GMAT test because we recognize that this is going to be quite a transitional year.

Do you wait list a high percentage of applicants? How many, roughly?

Let me try and explain. We're rolling admissions, so we never really know how many will be wait-listed. It seems that every year there's a different pattern, and what we've seen is that apps are coming in earlier and earlier. The volume, rather than being flat, has increased also. We thought the number of apps were going to drop off after the deadline, but it didn't. So it becomes very hard to predict how many will be wait-listed while doing rolling admissions.

We're trying to utilize the wait list. For students who fall in the largest percentage of apps [the September class], we start wait-listing them from the get go. They're great candidates, but because we can't see the whole school at one time, we're forced to wait list them. And with the ever-increasing apps, it becomes more difficult.

What are the chances of being admitted off the waiting list?

They're quite good. From the very beginning they're good because many of candidates are on there not because they're not viable candidates or that they're not competitive, but because we can't see the whole pool. There are some people who are carried over because they choose to be. And we ask them, 'are you willing to stay on to the bitter end?' And that's part of the reason that the wait list has gotten so big.

Few will be held [accepted into the program] who are wait listed closer to the deadline. It's really a matter of how many people decide not to show up on the first day of class. Historically there have been a few people that don't show, but that's a small minority.

Columbia mentions supporting references and other documentation in its wait list letter. What's the best course of action for an applicant to take?

We're looking for -- and they'll be told -- that there are things that we may not see in their application that caused us to question whether they were qualified. For example, often we're looking for a candidate's short term goals, while they'll be focused more on the long term. So, we ask them to submit as small essay to clarify their short term vs. long term. Other times, intangibles occur. For example, sometimes only one recommendation may have arrived, and we'll ask for another.

But we also want to know: 'do they want to be here.' Someone who doesn't respond to our recommendations is obviously not that interested. When I put the committee together to look at wait listed people, those who respond to our recommendations are those who will be the first to come to mind and be re-evaluated.

Do you encourage rejected applicants to re-apply?

We do encourage some applicants to reapply. Some are rejected and receive a letter that is fairly specific. Those people can make their own choices as to whether they want to reapply, while some are asked to get in touch with our office, and those people get counseling.

We try and give as much feedback as we can. But we logistically just cannot get back to everyone. We've worked very hard at trying to have our deny letters give an idea of the reasons why. Rejected applicants may request feedback in writing. We then will try to reach them with another letter or with verbal feedback.

Do you find yourself in the position of allaying applicants' fears about Harlem and the surrounding area frequently?

Not any more. It used to be a major question about six years ago. Columbia is not in Harlem. We provide maps, and encourage people to come onto our campus. We have a beautiful campus and we encourage people to visit if they have doubts. We don't put out a lot of hype and PR. Columbia is located in a safe neighborhood. And the efforts of the undergrad school, in terms of promoting safety, have been outstanding. I think our campus' safety is only an issue that is put forth by competing schools.

Fill in the blank: You should come to Columbia if you're most interested in what?

Columbia is best known for finance, international business, and general management. We have an incredible entrepreneurship and media marketing program as well. We don't have everything across the board, but what we do have is solid and good.

Fill in the blank: you should stay away from Columbia if you're most interested in what?

I certainly suggest that applicants do their homework. I don't think Columbia or any other school is a perfect fit for everybody. I tell them [prospective applicants] to go to the Web site and look at the curriculum and look at courses and teachers. I would tell them to talk to students and see who, where, and what alumni do, and look at our placement. Can you beat it anywhere? I don't think so. I really put it back on to them to do to their homework.

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

Harvard and Wharton.

Columbia is set to break ground shortly for a new Business School/Law School building that it expects to open in 1998. How is this coming? Do you expect this to have a noticeable effect on applications?

We've already broken ground, and there's even more than a hole there now. There's a platform now in place, so we're building. I believe that the new building will definitely have a big impact. When students are asked what they most want to see change at CBS, the answer is usually the building. My question back to them is: 'does it impact your education and experience?' And students say 'no.' But will it make it nicer with more room? And the answer will unanimously be 'yes.'

Linda, I want to thank you for your time and for your insights. It will be interesting to see what type of reception the new building receives, and indeed whether Columbia's applications will continue to soar.