Reforming the selection process of B-Schools

When we select for a corporation, we anchor the selection on a set of criteria, which are predictors of some one succeeding in a role or for a culture fit. I do not know when was the last time such an exercise was carried out for the selection to B-Schools .

Let us start by assuming that the B-Schools have the mandate to produce business leaders or entrepreneurs. All we have to do is then translate these into valid, reliable and verifiable selection criteria.

I believe the B-School selection today is flawed. It is designed to eliminate and cherry pick for the artificially created capacity scarcity. It is a shame that we do not allow the top 30 B-Schools to build capacity in tune with the demand. It is a flawed argument that if capacity were to be increased in these schools, quality will suffer. This goes against the basic tenet of management which is taught in these very schools. Most global institutions have distinguished themselves both on scale and quality. Imagine if business organizations were to argue similarly. There will be no business of global scale and gold standard quality.

The result of this artificial choking of MBA capacity is a faulty selection methodology, which seeks to eliminate and not select. The current CAT or its equivalent tests have three sections quant, English and data interpretation. The presumption here is to succeed in business these three are the key differentiators. In order to test whether this admission test is reliable and valid, we need to check the following:

-If the batch, which got a certain percentile score, were to be re-administered the same test a year later, with candidates who were placed lower, what will be the result?

-If we administer this test, to consistently high performing managers in the top 100 corporates in India, what will be the result?

-If we administer this test to 500 CEOs/entrepreneurs, what will be the result?

-What do we think will be the result if we administer the test to the faculty at these B-Schools?

The last three will test the validity and the first two the reliability. What are these tests - Intelligence test, aptitude test, knowledge test or skill proficiency test? The truth is that the mind bending quant or the bizarre comprehension passages or the grammar correction, featuring in these tests is never again called for, either when studying the MBA or while working.

Any MBA class has 90 per cent to 95 per cent engineers and barely 15 per cent to 20 per cent women. It would appear from this that the non-engineers and women lack the intelligence, aptitude, knowledge and skill proficiency to be business leaders. Why will high quality math, physics, chemistry, economics, commerce, accounts, political science, history, psychology, sociology undergrads, not make good business leaders? The main part of the selection, the written test is designed to select engineers and exclude others. Very little plurality, very little difference in orientation to problems, very little understanding of engaging people with different outlook and the result is a cloned classroom and stultified learning. The same limitations move on into the work place.

We need to conclude that the written test is merely an eliminator, without the designers and the users knowing why they are eliminating. The validity that someone with a percentile score higher by, say, 10 percentile, will turn out to be a better business leader is grossly faulty. The weight of analytical ability or quant for success in business leadership/management is being grossly exaggerated - certainly not the mind bending one. In the world of today, the English test is a waste, with this construct. Good quant guys with poor social skills hardly ever get beyond low-level analytical jobs. Great English comprehension and grammar does even little for managerial success. That brings us to the weight the selection gives and the method it uses to verify conceptual and social ability, which is the key differentiator for business leadership and entrepreneurial success.

Let us get to the charade called group discussion. What do you look for in it? How do you design it? Does the topic/case prop demand the behavior or social skills you want to verify? Are the assessors trained to observe and identify these? My experience tells me that the validity and reliability of this selection tool, as it is used for B-School selection is abysmal. Not because the tool is faulty but because it is used with such casualness and crass amateurism. Why would this be non-standard between any two B-Schools, if this is a predictor of personality characteristics key for success as a business leader or entrepreneur? There is no evidence of the B-Schools ever asking the business organization on what these characteristics should be.

The least said about the personal interview the better. None of the B-Schools have a standard template on what unique attributes does one verify or validate in the personal interview. The absence of an interview plan or an assigned role makes the interviewers free-wheeling. This process like the GD also suffers from lack of transparency.

I have highlighted the level of arbitrariness and chance that exist in a B-School selection. Since the surrogate objective is elimination by default, there hardly is any criteria by which the selection happens. Even in the institutes, which have criteria, they are never made transparent, for the fear of being challenged. Hence the prospective student, and an aspiring business leader, takes a blind shot and hopes that the roulette will choose him/her. My charge is not that those who get selected are unworthy or it is their fault. My charge is that we have never paused and challenged the status quo.

Can we have a governance structure which discloses, what the selection criteria are and why do we believe that the selection methodology and tools used are the appropriate ones?

The exclusion orientation due to artificial capacity constraints in quality schools does immense disservice to both the business and the aspiring business leaders. Surely an economy, which is destined to grow double-digit for the next 20 years, deserves business schools of excellence and scale, which have a plural and diverse student mix, than a class full of men and engineers.

(K. Ramkumar is executive director on the board of ICICI Bank and is responsible for Human Resources, Customer Service & Operations)