The Authenticity Test: When Your Dream Career Story Might Be Sabotaging Your MBA Application

The "Too Ambitious" Trap

Here's what Sarah told me: "I'm worried because everyone applying to MIT probably has some entrepreneurial spirit and wants to do something. I don't want to be in the same bucket of 'I also want to start a company' when half the applicants are saying the same thing."

She had a point. But that wasn't actually her biggest problem.

The real issue? When I asked her what she'd been doing to prepare for entrepreneurship, the answer was revealing: She'd applied to VC fellowships and hedge fund equity research positions, not startup accelerators or incubators.

Her actions told a completely different story than Version 1 would have told.

What Happens in the Interview Room

This is what I explained to Sarah: If you write the bold entrepreneurial narrative and land an interview, they're going to pressure test your story.

The interviewer will ask: "Why do you want to start this company? Why are you the right person to tackle this problem?"

If you can't articulate clear answers: if you stumble through vague responses about "being passionate" or "seeing an opportunity" without demonstrating you understand the space, that's a problem.

They're thinking: "Does this person actually understand what it takes? Is this goal realistic given their background? Have they thought through why this makes sense?"

The interview isn't about catching you in a lie. They're testing whether your goal makes sense, whether you can articulate why you're pursuing it, and what initial steps you'd take. They won't dig into your full go-to-market plan or ask you to defend unit economics for 10 minutes – it’s not the time or place for that. But they will probe whether you've thought seriously about the "why" and the "how do I get started."

That disconnect between what you claim you want and your ability to explain why it makes sense? It signals a lack of strategic thinking.

The Authenticity Test Framework

Before you finalize any narrative in your MBA application, run it through these three questions:

1. Can I articulate a feasible path to this goal?

• If you claim you want to start a company: Can you explain the problem, your solution approach, and why you're positioned to tackle it?
• If you claim you want to pivot to finance: Can you explain why this transition makes sense given your background and what specific value you'd bring?
• The goal isn't to have everything figured out – it's to show you've thought strategically about your path.

2. Can I clearly explain why this goal makes sense for me?

• Not just "I'm passionate about X"
• But: Why this problem? Why am I positioned to work on it? What are the initial steps I'd take?
• You don't need a full business plan, but you need clear thinking on the "why" and "how I'd get started"
• If you'd struggle to articulate this, you need to think deeper.

3. Do my recent actions suggest I'm serious about understanding this space?

• This is the coherence question.
• Sarah had applied to investor roles, not entrepreneurial programs.
• Those actions aligned with Version 2 (investor-operator), not Version 1 (bold entrepreneur).
• It's less about "proving" your commitment and more about showing you're intellectually engaged with the path you're describing.

Why Biotech Is Different (And What That Teaches Everyone)

Here's where Sarah taught me something.

She pushed back on the conventional startup wisdom: "I think for biotech specifically, you should start as an investor, then become an entrepreneur. It doesn't make as much sense to do it the other way around."

She was right. And here's why it matters.

In traditional tech, the playbook is: Build something → Exit (either through failure, acquisition, or IPO) → Join a VC firm based on your operating experience.

This works because software companies can generate returns within 3-5 years. With AI tools, sometimes even faster. The feedback loops are quick. You can test, iterate, pivot, and know relatively quickly if something's working.

The VCs at top firms aren't simply people who "failed fast". Many are exited founders with varying degrees of success. Some had acquisitions, some had modest exits, some built successful products that validated their understanding of the space. The key is they proved they understand product development, go-to-market strategy, and operational management. That operating experience – whether it ended in a billion-dollar exit or a more modest outcome – gives them credibility as investors.

In biotech, the entire game is different:

• Companies often don't generate returns for 10-20 years
• You're dealing with regulatory pathways (FDA approval takes years)
• Clinical trials are expensive and time-consuming
• You need deep technical expertise (PhD, MD, or significant lab experience)
• You can't "fail fast" - each attempt requires massive capital and time investment

Sarah's insight: "You can't just start something in biotech unless you have the background. It's more technical. And the time horizons are so long. For biotech, I think it's actually smarter to start as an investor, understand what works and what doesn't work over many years, build relationships, then go start something."

This is frontier tech / tough tech logic. When you're operating in industries with decade-long time horizons, the "fail fast" playbook breaks down. The smarter path might be learning from the investor side first.

The Investor-First Path in Action

We recently interviewed Chris Ghadban (WG ‘23) on our podcast, How Did You Get In?. A few years after graduating, Chris is in a life science investing role at Venture Collective. His path is instructive:

Before business school, Chris worked at AstraZeneca in their "Emerging Innovations Unit" – which he describes as "almost like an early stage venture firm within a pharma company." They were evaluating technologies "5 years, 10 years, even 20 years down the line" – earlier than when traditional venture even looks.

During his MBA, he worked as a principal at Alix Ventures (a life science VC fund). After graduation, he joined them full-time before moving to his current role leading pre-seed to seed investments in biotech.

Notice the progression: Pharma operator → VC during school → Full-time investor → Now leading investments.

Chris didn't start a biotech company first. He built credibility and pattern recognition on the capital side, learning what works across dozens of companies and technologies. If he later starts a biotech comapny (after years of investing), he'll have seen every mistake, every pivot, every regulatory challenge across his entire portfolio.

That's the advantage of the investor-first path in long-cycle industries.

The lesson for everyone: Don't force-fit your story into what you think schools want to hear. If your industry has different dynamics, lean into that difference. It shows sophistication and strategic thinking, not a lack of ambition.

What Sarah Decided

After our conversation, Sarah went with Version 2: The investor-operator narrative.

Not because it was safer. Not because it was less ambitious.

But because it was true.

She's currently working on an allergy initiative at Moderna post-restructuring. She's applied to Flagship Fellowship (investor-focused). She's targeting biotech equity research roles.

Every single action points toward: "I want to understand this industry from the capital side, build relationships, see what works and what doesn't, and then make my move."

That's a mature, strategic narrative. And it's one she can defend for hours if needed.

The entrepreneurship angle? It's still there but positioned as the logical next step after building investor expertise, not the immediate post-MBA goal.

Your Application Playbook

Here's how to apply The Authenticity Test to your own application:

Step 1: Write down your "dream" narrative

The most impressive, ambitious version of your story. Don't hold back.

Step 2: List your recent actions (last 6-12 months)

• Jobs you've applied to
• Courses you've taken
• Networks you've joined
• Projects you've started
• People you've connected with

Step 3: Look for coherence gaps

Do your actions suggest you're thinking seriously about this path? Or do they point in a completely different direction?

Step 4: Choose the narrative that you can defend most thoughtfully

Not necessarily the one that matches your actions perfectly, but the one where you can articulate clear strategic thinking. Your narrative should feel intellectually honest, even if it's aspirational.

Step 5: Fill the gaps (if there's time)

If you're applying next year, you have time to build evidence for your preferred narrative. Start taking the actions that support the story you want to tell.

The Paradox of Ambition

Here's what's counterintuitive about all this:

Being ambitious but strategic will often beat being extremely ambitious but half-baked.

Admissions committees aren't evaluating your goals in a vaccuum – they're evaluating your judgment, your self-awareness, and your ability to think critically about your own path.

Someone who says "I want to become an investor-operator and here's my 18-month plan with specific firms I'm targeting" often comes across as more prepared than someone who says "I want to start a company that will change healthcare" with nothing but passion and a vague sense of the problem space.

The former shows strategic thinking. The latter might just show you watched too many TED talks.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t be ambitious. Many successful applicants write about starting companies, even if they've never founded anything. But they can articulate:

• Why this specific problem matters
• What their unique advantage is
• What they need to learn at business school to execute
• What the realistic next steps are

That's the difference between aspirational and unfeasible.

The Reapplicant Advantage

One final note: Sarah is a reapplicant. Last year at this time, she was stressed, rushing applications, still figuring out her test prep.

This year? She's confident. Strategic. Clear on her narrative.

She told me: "I'm happy I pushed it back. I'm definitely much more prepared. I'm feeling confident about each of my applications."

Sometimes the best decision is to wait until your actions catch up to your ambitions.

Bottom Line

You’re never going to have the 100% solution for MBA applications. Schools know people's goals evolve. Around 1,000 students matriculate at HBS each year, and while 300+ end up in consulting at McKinsey, Bain, or BCG, they certainly didn't all write about consulting in their applications.

But there's a difference between aspirational storytelling and unfeasible storytelling.

The question isn't: "Will you definitely do this thing you wrote about?"

The question is: "Does this goal make sense given your background? Can you articulate why this path is logical for you? Have you thought through what it would actually take?"

If you can't back up your narrative with thoughtful reasoning—in your resume, your recommendations, your interview responses – then you're signaling poor judgment, not ambition.

Write the story that reflects genuine strategic thinking. Not the story you think sounds most impressive.

The gap between those two things? That's where applications die.

Want help crafting an authentic narrative that aligns with your actual experience and goals? Book a free consultation today. We work with ambitious professionals applying to M7 programs, and we help them tell stories they can actually defend.