What are other international students doing to fund their 70K-a-year MBA educations?

I have a half ride from Haas and they offer a 20K per year institutional loan, but that still leaves me woefully short of making the numbers. The new loan program for international students attending top 40 MBA programs and not requiring a cosigner was talked about in February of this year, but i haven't heard anything about it since.

I havent put much time into googling for scholarships for international students or students with my ethnic background but the pickings seem slim.

I'd really love to hear what everyone else is thinking

It's tragic - I got a call from my dream school, UCLA Anderson, but I don't think I would be able to make it there. I haven't received any scholarship and there are no loan options available for internationals.

I can't tell you how depressed I feel right now. I have a good offer ($60k) from Vanderbilt Owen, so I am probably headed there. But nothing compares to Anderson for my goals (media and entertainment), and it feels damn bad to get an admit and still not be able to go.

There aren't any updates on the GMAC loan, as far as I know.. When I asked the UCLA FinAid office, they said "we are working with GMAC to see if we will sign the deal with them. I don't have any details right now. Please check back later"..

Such is life, Attraxion.

I've been admitted by Michigan, and received a letter 2 weeks ago telling me they were about to conclude a new loan program for int'l students.

But nothing else since then. I sent them an email few days ago and they told me there are no news ....

I hope things work out for you. Still, don't lose perspective of why you applied to Vanderbilt in the first place. Something drew you there too.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat and have to go to worse school because of scholarship. Maybe we should just try to call GMAC?

Hi,
I am thinking of quitting my job and doing some volunteer work in the summer before starting B-School this Fall. I am basically looking for a volunteer work which can provide me small stipend to cover my basic expenses (or at least accommodation). My preferred location will be in South/Central America where I can learn some Spanish language and culture also.

Is anyone else also planning on similar ventures? If you have such previous experiences, could you give me some ideas as to how to look for such opportunities?
Cheers!
-Miton

That is exactly what I plan to do...except I dont expect a stipend (usually not given...hence "Volunteer"). My priest has a whole bunch of Catholic Churches down in SA where they need help...even a day or so. I plan on hitting that up.

Hello, good idea! :)

I planned to do this too. Here's a good organization that arranges volunteer missions: http://www.crossculturalsolutions.org/

The only problem is they can be a lil costly (around $3k) :(. I've always wanted to volunteer in South America, but i'm afraid i cant do this now, since i will be going back to school and need to save as much as possible...

I'm not aware of volunteer missions that pay a stipend either, since we are volunteering.

I am looking for another low cost option to do for at least a month before school. It will likely have to be in the United States though.

Yes, low cost options are fine. I have a link which also shows free accommodation but you need to pay the rest...its for South America.

I would love to work in Brazil. Unfortunately, I do not speak Spanish. Only my looks may let me pass for a Brazilian, if that helps..hehe.

So, without language proficiency, there is absolutely no chance? I am even willing to take language classes. But I do not want to pay for for accommodation at least....need to save up for MBA you know.

Furthermore, what people speak in Brazil is brazilian Portuguese not Spanish ;)

Well, even Spanish would be a backup, for our language here is Portuguese! =) Language proficiency would be nice, it broadens the array of available positions. I will shoot some e-mails and get back to you if I can find something interesting.

This is great! Thanks, i'm interested! :)

Unfortunately, i do not speak Spanish :( I just invested in Rosetta Stone though, so i am brushing up. I know basics... Como se llama, Como Estas, bien, y usted? etc... Do i need to be fluent? Will brushing up over a month suffice?

Thanks a lot! :)

miton,

i need someone to help with some chores around my apartment. simple stuff, mostly cleaning, vacuuming, tidying up. do you clean high windows?

i speak a little spanish, if you want to practicar conmigo.

let me know. Thanks

I've recently been waitlisted for the weekend part-time program at Chicago Booth. Do any current or past students know what the acceptance rate from the waitlist is?

I've also been accepted to Cornell's Accelerated MBA program starting in May. Their deposit is due in 2 weeks. Will they notify waitlist students before this? My #1 choice is Booth, so I don't mind making the deposit for Cornell if they will notify me within the next month.

Anyone have any experience or insight into this?

Thanks in advance

1. How were you notified of the wait-list?

2. How soon after submitting the application were you notified?

3. Care to share your stats?

1. Status update of my online application (app system sent me an e-mail saying my application status has changed)

2. 4 weeks after submitting application..I did an on-campus interview in Chicago 1 week after submitting my application.

3. Not sure what to say, 27 year old working in Washington DC with a large IT Consulting company. I have a bachelors and masters degree in Computer Science.

Thanks for the information. I don't think they notify waitlisted candidates until the deadline which in this case wud be May 1.

what was ur decision timeframe for kellogg?

What's your GMAT score and total experience? IT consultants fall into the most competitive pool, I think.

mba20091

were you planning on commuting from DC to Chicago for the Booth PT program?

This summer I have the honor of working with one of my favorite organizations, Kiva.org. After reading Banker to the Poor a few years ago, I was sold on the idea that we can effectively alleviate poverty through empowering (and enabling) entrepreneurs. As microfinance institutions began sprouting around the world, Kiva used technology to enhance the impact and allow anyone, anywhere to loan to a budding entrepreneur (read: Kiva is not the bank, it's merely the lender-borrower match maker).

I made my first loan in 2007 to Sophath Mao, a flower seller, in Cambodia. I like flowers, so I was happy to be an investor in her venture. Sixteen loans later, not one of the entrepreneurs has defaulted. In fact, there has been a total of $65 million invested with an overall 2% default rate.

This week, Kiva announced a sort of social experiment. Kiva is partnering with new microfinance partners in the US. Borrowers will be Americans who don't have bank accounts and "micro-enterprises" that often rely on high-interest loans or payday advances. Because of vastly different cost-of-living rates in the US, American entrepreneurs will be able to borrow as much as $10,000 (versus just $1,200 in the developing world).

There's a bit of uncertainly on how lenders will respond. Is part of Kiva's success thus far the difference in purchasing power between developed and developing countries? Or will Americans flock to the idea of lending to neighbords in their communtity? Personally, I'm stoked about the opportunity to invest in an entrepreneur whose business I could visit down the street. But I think many Americans may be drawn to the novelty, the exoticism, of connecting with someone in Uganda.

Rick Wagoner is out as CEO of General Motors, Bernie Madoff is staring at the equivalent of consecutive life terms, and the American tax code may be in the process of a major remodel. And somehow, as a result, millions of Americans can sit in their own homes and point fingers from the glow of a widescreen plasma television. Just as we learn on that television, give the networks 30 minutes (or, in the case of a primetime drama, 60) and the crisis will be solved with clear delineation between good and evil.

Good and evil, however, are much harder to ascertain in this financial crisis than would ordinarily suit the mass media or the attention deficits of its consumers. Sure, Bernie Madoff is a fairly clear villain in this case, but even his prosecution seems to be a grandstand to appease the American public's bloodlust for one, true culprit; the man faces an unprecedented 150 years for a financial crime, while at the same time the public's attention is distracted from the fact that some of the most-respected financial institutions in world history—Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns—lost billions of dollars of investor money, as well. Greed in the form of Ponzi schemes makes for a delicious script, but the fact remains that the worldwide financial collapse has nothing to do with Madoff, but rather with the inability of top firms to do what they do best—assess risk and value and invest accordingly.

Perhaps even more culpable in its inability to assess risk is the behemoth insurance conglomerate AIG, an insurance company for which its primary core competency and mission statement should have been to assess and hedge risk. That its employees may well receive bonuses paid with taxpayer money is lamentable, but the furor over the bonus payments and potential tax code implications only obscures the much more crucial issue: Should a company ever be allowed to become so large that its failure impacts the global economy so greatly, and, if so, how can government and the global community regulate such a firm proactively so that the firm doesn't get to this very point—one at which it is so essential to the world economy that it can command a blank check from taxpayers with few repercussions?

The global collapse created by the financial markets and AIG is one of two external factors that led to the demise of Rick Wagoner's tenure at the helm of General Motors. The spike in oil prices that peaked for 2-3 years as a precursor to the crisis was the other. At one point, GM couldn't sell its fleet of profitable SUVs and trucks because of a sudden shift in market dynamics; soon thereafter, it became another victim of the worldwide credit crunch, which left consumers without the means (or desire) to make large purchases. The double-whammy ("perfect storm" is a little too widely used these days) doomed GM, along with the rest of the industry, to years of deep recession, but without either factor it is likely that Wagoner's tenure would have been remembered fondly. Under his control, GM made monumental progress with the United Auto Workers, shifting much of its competitive burden in the form of legacy healthcare and pension liability to the union itself, and streamlined its branding and design, reasserting Cadillac as an aspirational luxury brand, moving Chevrolet to the forefront of innovation with the Volt concept, and seizing back industry awards from decades of foreign control with compact winners like the Chevy Malibu. (He also brought in Bob Lutz for a very successful tenure as the company's product czar that led to many of the aforementioned achievements, something for which Wagoner gets too little credit. -- Ed.)

Wagoner's dismissal, at the hands of the White House, is another effect of the public's thirst for easy-to-recognize scapegoats in this complicated situation. In fairness, his resignation may be a blessing in disguise for Wagoner, who can live out his days with his millions of dollars and without the responsibility of leading tens of thousands of GM employees through this trying time. But the act of scapegoating Wagoner, or anyone in his position, is shortsighted—it took a vicious cycle of events to tear down the economic system, and the once-proud automaker, and to simply package the subtleties of the situation in to a series of easily-consumed villains is akin to packaging a mess of bad loans in to a somewhat-digestible security. It arrogantly and conveniently hides a host of individual factors and presents them as one user-friendly solution, and a solution that ignores what could be learned from what lies underneath.

The lesson to be learned from this crisis will prove essential for the future of the global economy, as the advances in technology and global trade have created and will continue to hone an intricate and worldwide system of codependent businesses, consumers, and governments. Domestically, governments will need to consider the costs and benefits of varying degrees of free trade and domestic protection (in the case of Wagoner and GM, the very fact that the government protected low fuel costs may have directly contributed to his inability to react to the quick change in product lineup that needed to accompany the surge in costs, while foreign manufacturers whose research and development teams worked in high-fuel-costs areas had a built-in advantage). Individually, consumers will need to assess risk of their own, with the knowledge that the institutional and governmental experts in charge of valuing securities can be much farther off than advertised. And globally, the economic community will need to consider ways to regulate and/or live with the conglomerates like AIG that may inevitably become too large and important to ever risk their failure to the free market.

These questions and others must be considered and analyzed—in business school classrooms, congressional meetings, and in the public discourse. To ignore them in favor of the quick assignment of blame dooms the future to repeat the failures of the economy over again.

For more news and analysis of the world of business and management education, follow Veritas Prep on Twitter (http://twitter.com/veritasprep).