• Clarify your primary objective and why an MBA is necessary at this stage.
• Assess readiness for programme intensity, academic demands, and peer contribution.
• Identify constraints shaping admissions credibility: time, geography, financial capacity.
• Ensure your experience level aligns with the typical cohort profile for your target format.

• Show you understand the programme’s learning model, expectations, and what “fit” means in practice.
• Reference how your background aligns with the cohort in experience, seniority, and industry exposure.
• Be specific about delivery realities (part-time, online, in-person requirements) and your constraints.
• Demonstrate you understand the curriculum’s structure, applied projects, and leadership development.
• Engage with faculty positioning and teaching approach (academic depth, industry-informed teaching).

• Build a consistent narrative across CV, recommendations, and essays.
• Choose referees who can evidence impact, progression, and how you operate with others.
• Address gaps directly (academics, career transitions, volatility) with credible context and ownership.
• Prioritise clarity over jargon; your evaluator should understand your role and impact quickly.

• Prepare five to seven specific impact stories (leadership, conflict, influence, learning, failure).
• Ask questions that show you understand the cohort, learning model, and expectations.
• Sanity-check post-MBA plans for realism: timing, market, and the path from day one to outcomes.
• Compare offers holistically: fit, opportunity cost, support, and network relevance.

• Specific motivation tied to timing and programme structure.
• Reflection on decisions and learning, not just outcomes.
• Ambition that stretches you but remains executable.
• A clear through-line from past experience to post-MBA direction.

• Generic “why MBA” claims without proof of timing or trade-offs.
• Over-claiming leadership without clear scope, context, and evidence.
• Over-reliance on brand rather than fit with the learning model and cohort.
• Career goals that are too broad, too fashionable, or disconnected from your track record.

• Remove programme names — if the essay still works, it is not specific enough.
• Ask a trusted reader to summarise your story in one sentence; if they can’t, tighten.
• Check every claim has evidence: scope, numbers, stakeholders, or a concrete example.
• Ensure your “why now” is explicit and defensible.

• Clarity of goals and self-awareness.
• Leadership behaviour and decision-making.
• Ability to contribute to peer-led learning.
• Fit with the programme’s expectations and participation style.

• Prepare a compact story set: five to seven examples you can adapt to different questions.
• Practise aloud, then simplify — aim for clarity and judgement, not performance.
• Be ready to explain trade-offs (why this format, why this timing, what you are giving up).
• Close with thoughtful questions that reflect understanding of the cohort and learning model.

• Over-scripted answers that sound rehearsed or generic.
• Ambition without an executable path, skill logic, or realistic timeline.
• Deflecting accountability for failures or difficult outcomes.
• Misalignment between goals and the programme’s structure or market positioning.

Committees often take a holistic view, weighing leadership potential, narrative clarity, and evidence of impact. Strong applications demonstrate self-awareness, progression, and a credible post-MBA direction.

• Over-indexing on credentials while under-explaining judgement, influence, and how you lead.
• Goals that rely on narrow recruiting pathways without evidence you understand the process.
• Assuming brand alone will substitute for fit with programme culture and classroom style.

You will be stronger when you show meaningful engagement with the specific programme context (structure, learning model, class profile, and what you will contribute), rather than treating options as interchangeable.

• Generic rationale that does not explain why this programme and why this timing.
• Under-preparing for pace in accelerated formats and the intensity of compressed timelines.
• Over-claiming international intent without evidence you have operated across contexts.

Your application is strongest when your direction follows logically from your track record and learning agenda. Committees often look for leadership maturity, adaptability, and a clear sense of what you want to build next.

• Broad goals without a credible plan, skill logic, or a realistic first step post-MBA.
• Claiming “regional” ambitions without evidence you understand the market context.
• Not demonstrating how you will contribute in a high-participation, peer-learning environment.

Applications are often assessed for leadership judgement, scope of responsibility, and your ability to reflect on complex organisational or strategic challenges with maturity. Clarity of direction matters more than broad claims.

• Over-relying on seniority titles without demonstrating influence, judgement, and decision quality.
• Overly aspirational pivots that do not connect to prior experience or credible exposure.
• Under-explaining context: scale, constraints, stakeholders, and what you actually owned.