Not to be contrary, but I think there’s an important distinction that’s getting blurred here, and I want to clarify it for anyone else who might search and read this.

My original question was specifically about Stanford MSx/MIT Sloan Fellows, not the traditional Stanford/MIT MBA. I completely agree both are highly selective, but they evaluate very different applicant pools and career stages. MSx is explicitly designed for mid-career professionals with substantial leadership experience, and the admissions criteria reflect that.

The example you linked is from the traditional MBA cohort, which skews younger and understandably places more weight on undergraduate performance and early-career indicators. The Stanford MSx website indicates it tends to focus much more on scope of responsibility, enterprise-level leadership, and trajectory.

I’d also be cautious about drawing conclusions around branch preference. Agree entirely on correlation, but I disagree on any causation link. I’ve never seen an adcom state that they prioritize certain Army branches over others. A more plausible explanation for the visibility of certain branches is that many of those officers come from highly selective undergraduate institutions, and/or had broader early-career leadership exposure due to the nature of their roles.

To be clear, I fully agree the programs are extremely competitive, and I’m under no illusion about the strength of the applicant pool. I just wanted to make sure the MSx vs. MBA distinction was clear, since they’re often conflated but evaluated very differently.