You’ve pulled the employment reports and see that Sloan, Booth, and Tuck all place into tech. The numbers look comparable. What those reports don’t show is how differently each program reads your background and what that means for how you need to position it.

Admissions committees at these three schools are asking different primary questions when they evaluate an engineering or PM profile. The framing that answers one school’s question can actively underperform at another. Most tech candidates don’t realize this until they’re already deep in the application process.

On Thursday, February 26 at 10:00 AM ET, we’re breaking down exactly how Sloan, Booth, and Tuck evaluate a tech background:

• What adcoms are skeptical about in engineering and PM profiles and what counters it: Most tech candidates present experience in output terms. We’ll cover what each committee is actually reading for, and what it takes to read as a leadership candidate rather than a strong executor.
• How evaluators distinguish technical execution from leadership capability: This is the distinction that determines whether your background reads as an asset or a question mark. It looks different at each of these three schools.
• How the same profile needs to be positioned differently at Sloan, Booth, and Tuck: Three programs, three evaluation frameworks. We’ll walk through the specific lens each committee applies and how to address each school’s actual priorities, not just demonstrate competence.

Bring your questions about how your profile reads, what it signals to each program, or where your positioning needs work.

This is a live YouTube session with Q&A. Register to attend or get the replay.

Ready to work together on your applications? Schedule a consultation.

Want written feedback on your profile first? Request a profile evaluation.