We don’t  often  tout Stanford’s own admissions blog as a source of good Why Stanford info (for Essay B) , but a recent post there can give a savvy applicant some great food for thought: one goes to Stanford to learn EQ (emotional intelligence, altho YOU should NOT use that term), or touchy-feely leadership (dont use that term either), a valuable concept whose importance relates to sensing what others need, sensing what is going on in the room, finding the correct (empathetic, innovative) approaches to dealing w. different people in different ways. As post below details, here is how Stanford education resources and philosophy handle those issues: ____________________

Changing the world…through high EQ leadership

Dean Bob Joss, speaking in Hong Kong last month, explained that senior managers of major organizations are the key to solving global problems including poverty, pollution, and infectious disease.

All these problems are so huge that they need to be addressed by large groups of people under the guidance of extraordinary and inspiring leaders.

Said Joss: “The selection [of employees], the development of team work, the giving of feedback, the growth of people are the hardest things to achieve because all people are different; it’s not a technical problem to be solved. It takes a lot of emotional intelligence, and that’s a hard thing for people to develop. It’s much easier to develop technical and cognitive skills.”

To boil it down to elevator pitch length: emotional intelligence (sometimes called EQ) combined with leadership skills will drive global innovation. The conundrum is that teaching leadership EQ is tough. Doing it well is the business school equivalent of scaling Everest.

Back when I was a student, the mainstay of our EQ training was Interpersonal Dynamics, the infamous but incredible course lovingly known as Touchy Feely. The teaching of leadership at the GSB has evolved since my day and now, in addition to the ever-popular Touchy Feely course, encompasses a multi-modal strategy that includes role-playing, interactive lectures, small group discussions, and coaching. Then there’s the executive challenge, the event that brings together first year MBA students and notable alumni for a real-world exercise in managing the pricklier issues that confront CEOs every day.

Last night, I was watching the Leadership in Focus video vignettes that the Center for Leadership Development and Research (CLDR) has created to facilitate leadership training. The vignettes portray managers discussing topics such as implementing change, making good decisions, and building teams. Not all the managers chose the optimal alternatives or achieved success.

These video cases are not explicitly about leadership EQ, but EQ inevitably creeps in. As I watched these videos, I realized that I was reacting more to the interpersonal vibes emanating from the managers than to the content. Some of the managers were able to step outside their own perspectives and understand the issues, personal and professional, that others were facing. Others were unable to make that transition to the point of seeming downright callous. I found myself disagreeing with their choices and thinking: “glad that’s not my boss.” Their lack or inability to connect with and inspire their subordinates led to rifts that could not be easily mended.

Here at the Stanford GSB, our innovative leadership training challenges students to question their assumptions, to step outside the boxes they have constructed for themselves, to reach out to others, and to embrace a broader understanding of the world around them, both literally and figuratively. The two-year MBA program enables students to begin a process of self-examination and transformation that will allow them to become the kind of innovative, principled, and insightful leaders who will change the world. Part of our mission at Stanford.

For more information on the CLDR, see http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cldr/

–JoAnne Goldman

Sandy–Based on your past experience, what is the likelihood of getting off the waitlist at Stanford?  I just found out I was waitlisted.  In your opinion, is there anything I can do to increase my likelihood of turning the waitlist spot into an admit? 

# admits each round

round 1 - 219

round 2 - 235

round 3 - 38 (including 19 from the earlier round waitlists)

Sooooooooooooo, take your pick.  IN other years, Round 3 numbers and WL numbers were less, I believe, in some years,  R3 was like 2-4, not sure about WL.

So, you can mix all that up anyway you want, but to me it reads as follows: IN normal years, chances of getting off WL is ~8-12 percent, in ‘other’ years, chances are way less. No,  I dont know if they put as many kids on WL in R2 (e.g. 75, or more even) but someone can check that fr. last year’s Stanford R2 thread, and please post back.

As to what you can do: find someone whom Bolton would love hearing from and have that person write/ call him, saying you are best things since sliced bread, b.c. 1 2 3 4 –it’s that easy.  

STANFORD :

Realistically, how am I going to talk about what matters most to me in my life by weaving in a project I led at work?  The same holds for the career vision story. 

Your instincts are right, the S. application is to some degree anti-professional, and as we have noted, S b school is actually the UN-Business school, well, as part of its stage outfit, in reality once you get past the smoke and mirrors of admissions, and get to faculty and kids, there is plenty of business going on.

But the smoke and mirrors of admissions is what we care about: You is right, they do not care about a  bs work  accmplshment like “leading a team of 14 fellow nerds from different parts of the nerd univerise on a really tight deadline for the Xp6Y-T box [described in 60 words of faux simplicity] I was able to reduce bug reports by 18 percent, and etc. etc. . . .” which is the kind of baloney a lot of other schools get, and apparently encourage. It is possible to talk about how the larger impacts of your work matter to you [impact on society, do-gooder impacts, jobs, employment, great products, etc] and also to carry over themes from what matters most to you, e.g. discovering your own values, connecting w. others, personal growth, etc. into work related incidents with peers etc. Also, some folks are capable of writing a pwerful essay about their passion for techology and e.g. lowering the digital divide, into a great essay which has a lot of great wort stuff naturally. In the career vision essay, it is possible to refer to work events as part of background for career vision, but I would go light here, they want to see, in that question, how good an inventory you can create about what you need in terms of technical and professional development + how you link that up to Stanford assets.

(more…)

I’m thinking about writing the HBS essays first and then morphing them into Stanford essays.  Will HBS essays highlighting leadership, consistent excellence, and reflectiveness help me any at Stanford or will the two sets of essays need to be completely different?  What kind of tweaks do I need for Stanford?

but that essay will prob. only suck in two HBS essays, and you will need more ligaments, etc. etc. The essays dont need to be completly diff in terms of content, but they turnout pretty diff. Some kids say they “just” pasted H answers in to S, but that is often sloppy talking or bragging or outright BS, it aint no e-z process.

Check back….post coming soon!