[心得] Why Brilliant Candidates Fail?

看板MBA (企業管理碩士)作者lodawei (David Rutledge)時間8年前 (2017/01/07 00:58)推噓1(1推 0噓 1→)

留言2則, 1人參與討論串1/1

Jane is a young Taiwanese professional seeking admission to an Ivy League MBA program. She’s more than qualified – with impeccable undergraduate college performance, impressive work experience after college and glowing recommendations. Her GPA, GMAT & TOEFL scores are well above the threshold for any Ivy League MBA program. What’s more, in her admissions essays, she’s going to dazzle the admissions committee with her brilliance and mastery of business English – through clever turns of phrase and impressive vocabulary. Everywhere Jane might have used the word“get”she will substitute “obtain.” Where she would have written“use”“utilize”“take advantage of” or “exploit”she will change the word to“leverage”– because that’s the cool business-insider lingo.She will liberally sprinkle words and phrases like “facilitate,” “proactively”“pivotal”“business acumen”“skill sets”“deliverables” “incentivise”“key points” and “core competencies”throughout her essays. Where previously she “helped” she will now “actively participate in the facilitation of…”She’ll make long, complex sentences to demonstrate her elegant mastery of English and employ passive verb constructions wherever possible because that sounds more “professional.” Where she would have said, “I closed the deal,” she will now say:“The successful consummation of the deal resulted from my leadership and initiative to proactively leverage my skill sets and core competencies toward the ultimate goal of achieving consensus and facilitating a mutually favorable agreement.” That will be Jane’s undoing. By the end of the first paragraph, the admissions officer reading Jane’s essays will be mildly annoyed at the unnecessary complexity of her writing but will maintain patience, knowing English is not Jane’s first language. By the second paragraph, the admissions officer will have realized that Jane’s convoluted writing (and thinking) is an intentional attempt to show off, rather than an accident of writing in a second language. By the third paragraph, the admissions officer will have formed a solid impression that Jane is too immature for any leadership role and will set Jane’s entire admissions package in the rejection pile – relieved at not having to read her pompous and unintelligible writing any further. Where Jane thought she was demonstrating “Outside-the-Box” thinking, she was, in fact, demonstrating inside-the-box conformity. Where she thought she was demonstrating leadership, she was actually demonstrating followership. Rather than using her own words and expressing her own unique “voice” in her writing, she imitated the language patterns of others. Rather than employ her creativity or her whole vocabulary, Jane restricted her thinking and vocabulary to a tightly conforming pattern of buzzwords and “business-speak” that sounded (to the admissions committee) indistinguishable from hundreds of other candidates who will also receive rejection notices. -- EditEnglish.Asia Communicating Excellence Globally David Rutledge (洛大衛) 15 year of English Editing Consultancy lodawei@icloud.com http://www.elcc.com.tw/ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 61.230.115.184 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/MBA/M.1483721890.A.C86.html ※ 編輯: lodawei (61.230.115.184), 01/07/2017 01:05:05 ※ 編輯: lodawei (61.230.115.184), 01/07/2017 01:16:35