Questbridge: a Search for Scale

For the exclusive use of A. Harlam

CASE: SI-83 DATE: 01/19/11

QUESTBRIDGE: A SEARCH FOR SCALE

The benefit of applying to QuestBridge is obvious. QuestBridge gives low-income students like me a fair shot. It evens the playing field and removes the pressure of debt and financial woes from families who are just trying to make ends meet. QuestBridge is like an IV, providing the essential resources for students over a course of four years. – QuestBridge student, class of 2009

“The future of our democracy and economy rests upon ways of finding opportunity and mobility that are not happening in our unequal world. QuestBridge is at the crossroads of doing just that.” – Anthony Marx, president of Amherst College

“QuestBridge is one of the most innovative programs for upward mobility that can be scaled.” – Bill Bradley, former U.S. senator and presidential candidate, QuestBridge board member

It was January, 2010, the start of the new decade, and QuestBridge founder and president Michael McCullough considered his organization’s future. What had begun in 1994 as an intensive summer program for 15 high school kids was now the national leader in making college a reality for bright, motivated low-income students. In 2009 alone, QuestBridge had placed 1,500 high school seniors – with full, four-year scholarships – at 30 top colleges. In return, the organization received recruiting fees from the schools of $1.8 million; enough to cover more than 80 percent of its operating expenses and to put the organization on a path to self-sufficiency.

Yet despite this success, QuestBridge’s leaders were compelled to do more. The fact remained that higher education at the country’s best colleges was still the preserve of well-off families. Only a tiny percentage of students attending top colleges came from the lowest economic quartile, even though thousands of students from low-income families scored competitively on the SAT each year and many elite colleges wanted to draw from these ranks and provide financial resources to make attendance possible. McCullough estimated that QuestBridge was Georgia Levenson Keohane revised this case under the supervision of Professor William Meehan III as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation.

Copyright © 2011 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, e-mail the Case Writing Office at: [email protected] or write: Case Writing Office, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 518 Memorial Way, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5015. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means –– electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or Dootherwise –– withoutNot the permission of theCopy Stanford Graduate School of Business.or Every effortPost has been made to respect copyright and to contact copyright holders as appropriate. If you are a copyright holder and have concerns about any material appearing in this case study, please contact the Case Writing Office at [email protected].

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Alan Harlam Brown University until November 2015. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. [email protected] or 617.783.7860 For the exclusive use of A. Harlam QuestBridge: A Search For Scale SI-83 p. 2

reaching only a small fraction of eligible students – high achieving, low-income “strivers”1 – who were not even applying to four-year colleges, let alone to top flight schools. Furthermore, QuestBridge’s leaders recognized that, in addition to expanding recruiting efforts to bring more strivers into the system, they needed to improve programs and services for students already in the Quest network. If the organization’s mission was to improve the future of low-income students – and to create a world of decision-makers drawn from every economic segment – should it not focus, too, on students’ success in college and on their post-college lives: graduate school, internships, and full-time employment opportunities? McCullough contemplated these two paths to growth: scaling both the breadth of the organization to reach more eligible strivers and the depth of QuestBridge’s expertise to meet the long-term needs of its current students. Were these two growth objectives achievable in operational and financial terms? And just how exactly would Quest expand its impact?

QUEST’S HISTORY: AN OVERVIEW

Founded in 1994 by Michael and Ana McCullough, Quest was in its earliest incarnation an intensive educational and college preparation program for talented, low-income high school students. Between 1994 and 2005 Quest operated five-week summer residential programs— known as QuestLeadership—on Stanford University’s campus for bright, at-risk students between their junior and senior years of high school. The summer sessions accepted around 20 students who attended free of charge, lived together in a Stanford dormitory, and received leadership training, college preparation, and professional advice. By the end of the summer, students learned to strive toward self-confidence, emotional maturity, altruism, and personal growth. (A more detailed description of the QuestLeadership model and history is in Exhibits 1- 3).

During this first decade, QuestLeadership participants achieved an extraordinary 100 percent acceptance rate to college. Three-quarters of the students attended either Stanford or Harvard, and many became Rhodes Scholars, Fulbright Scholars, Soros Fellows, Yale Law and Harvard Medical School students, and leaders within their communities.

As word of the program’s successes spread, so, too, did enthusiasm among potential Quest participants. By 2003, Quest received more than 2,000 applications to its summer program, of which it could accept only 20. McCullough hoped the organization could help many more of these applicants by connecting them to schools that sought to recruit low-income high school students. For Quest, this seemed a more natural and efficient path to expansion than trying to grow the intensive summer program at Stanford or at a second college campus (an endeavor Quest had undertaken with mixed results in 2000-2002). Furthermore, matching students to colleges might allow Quest to monetize its expertise in recruiting talented youth. By charging colleges a fee for a student match service, Quest might move closer to financial self-sufficiency.

In 2004, Quest piloted its College Match program, which proved an enormous success: by 2006 Quest had matched 80 students to top colleges, each with full, four-year scholarship. For this service Quest earned in return $639,000, covering more than 40 percent of its operating

1 Quest defined “strivers” as those who had achieved early academic success, including high test scores, in spite of Dothe financial and culturalNot obstacles they faced.Copy or Post

expenses. In 2008, Quest placed 1,000 high school seniors at 26 partner colleges and earned over one million dollars in the process. By 2009, the list of college partners had grown to 31, and Quest’s college fees had reached $1.8 million. The match program, now called QuestBridge, replaced QuestLeadership as the centerpiece program of the organization and had achieved more than 50 percent year-on-year growth. The question was, could Quest go further still?

THE PROBLEM: SHORTCOMINGS OF THE AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

McCullough believed that QuestBridge had no choice but continued growth, but the growth had to be focused on the students’ life success in college and beyond, rather than just on admissions. Back in 1994, Michael and Ana had committed to help low-income students succeed in admissions and beyond, noting a sore lack of any systematic educational and professional guidance for this demographic. Despite the organization’s advances, the inequities of the U.S. higher education system, which had motivated Quest’s founding in the first place, still persisted.

The Student Perspective: Misperception and Remediation

In operating QuestLeadership, the McCulloughs learned that many high-achieving, low-income students rarely applied to top colleges like Stanford and Harvard, and if they did, they often applied either to the highest-ranked colleges (based on ratings like the one from U.S. News and World Report), or to lower-priced local colleges, where financial aid was scarce. These students often missed a large range of competitive colleges in-between, schools with strong financial aid and support for students, including small and mid-sized liberal arts colleges with the financial capacity to offer substantial aid.

The national data bore out the McCulloughs’ experience at Quest. Only 3 percent of students attending America’s top 146 colleges came from the lowest economic quartile, and only 10 percent from the lower half of the economic distribution. In real terms, this meant that a college freshman was 25 times more likely to have a roommate who was upper class than working class.2 The paucity of low-income, high achieving students in competitive colleges masked their numbers: each year more than 30,000 students whose family incomes were below $41,000 scored higher than 1300 on the combined math and verbal SAT. The problem of underrepresentation existed because over half the low-income students who scored well on standardized tests did not even apply to four-year colleges, let alone to a top-tier university or a well-endowed liberal arts college. Of those who did apply, barely half enrolled.3

The McCulloughs believed that this disconnect between talent, eligibility, and school resources illustrated a fundamental lack of information about how the top-end university application and financial aid systems worked. From the beginning, they also understood that the solution to the problem was about cultural remediation and about educating teens and their parents in some of the basic lessons that upper-middle class families took for granted. Often the parents of low- income students themselves lacked higher degrees or were educated outside of the United States and consequently were poorly informed about the opportunities available to their children when it came to choosing schools or financing their education. Many students simply – and

2 Questbridge Business Plan, October 2009. Do3 For reference, 91%Not of top scoring students Copy from high-income families apply orto college, and 83%Post enroll.

inaccurately – assumed they could not afford to attend private colleges and did not apply. (Exhibit 4 provides more information about Quest’s own data and experience with students and their perceptions about college).

The College Perspective

On the institutional side of the equation, colleges faced a number of obstacles in recruiting low- income students. While the most competitive colleges and universities strove to develop the brightest and most diverse student bodies they could, accomplishing this goal was often difficult. Finding students who were eligible but not applying was a formidable challenge and one not well suited to their traditional recruiting mechanisms. The process was time consuming and expensive. According to Jeffrey Brenzel, the dean of admissions at Yale University, highly selective colleges faced a “needle in a haystack” problem in locating low income, high achieving students, particularly when “the students don’t see themselves as candidates.” According to Brenzel, targeted outreach was both difficult and costly for any one school.

The Quest team believed these structural barriers represented more than an injustice; they perpetuated enormous inefficiencies in the labor force. The thousands of strivers who were not attending top-ranked colleges or accessing their potential connections to the wider professional world amounted to generations of squandered talent.4

QUESTBRIDGE: A NEW PATH TO GROWTH

It was this massive inefficiency that led McCullough to consider a market solution. A match program, modeled on the national medical school residency placement system, could address both sides of this college recruitment dilemma. Furthermore, McCullough believed that changing conditions in the educational landscape might support Quest’s new approach. McCullough believed three developments in particular were favorable to the match system.

First, during Quest’s short lifetime, the price of entry-level computers and Internet access had declined rapidly. This made a streamlined electronic, online application accessible to all students in America. McCullough anticipated that these technological advances would help bridge the digital and higher education divides for talented low-income students.

Second, institutional and larger cultural notions of diversity were changing. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (including Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger), academic research, and changing public opinion were leading to a new focus on income-based educational and life obstacles rather than concerns with just gender, race, or ethnicity. Efforts to achieve this “new diversity” now included affirmative action and proactive policies by universities and employers to recruit talented low-income candidates —an expertise honed at Quest since 1994.

Finally, a decade-long bullish stock market had led to significant growth in the endowments of the nation’s leading colleges and universities, allowing for generous financial assistance for high

4 The research on the economic inefficiency of this problem is vast, and ranges from peer effects (the influence of lower achieving peers on the performance of students who could have attended more selective schools) to lower Doearning potential Notassociated with degrees fromCopy less competitive schools. or Post

achieving low-income students. This aid, combined with a new focus on recruiting low-income talent, created favorable conditions for Quest and the students it served.

THE QUESTBRIDGE BUSINESS MODEL

Partnering with Colleges

From August to December 2003, Michael McCullough pitched the College Match to various colleges, emphasizing Quest’s ability to locate talented, at-risk youth motivated to learn and to lead. Furthermore, McCullough demonstrated that Quest found these students at costs significantly lower than those incurred by college admissions offices and obtained more detailed information about them through its own comprehensive application process. According to Brenzel at Yale, McCullough was offering a solution to the needle-in-a-haystack problem by aggregating student information on the one hand, and the colleges’ combined marketing power on the other. “Michael is the mechanism for schools to collaborate,” Brenzel said. The match, he said, was “cost-effective” as an outreach program for the schools and an efficient “one-stop- shop” for students.

Small liberal arts colleges also saw the value of Quest’s offering. Although many had large endowments with the financial capacity to offer substantial financial aid, these schools faced a twofold challenge: the difficulty of locating underserved students and competition from the Ivy League for the students who were applying. McCullough underscored these challenges in conversations with liberal arts colleges, and he soon convinced Rice, Amherst, Grinnell, Trinity, Wheaton, and Williams to try the College Match.

McCullough also persuaded the schools to commit to full, four-year aid packages. This kind of upfront pledge significantly increased the chances that a low-income student unfamiliar with the school would attend. In addition, full scholarships could give smaller schools an advantage over Ivy League universities or others that did not promise four years of funding.

Anthony Marx, president of Amherst College and a leading voice in higher education on issues of equal access and opportunity, was an early champion of Quest. “The underrepresentation of low-income students is a denial of the American dream,” he said. Without “mobility based on talent” or “the experience of economic diversity,” the United States was failing to “produce the leadership we need.” Marx’s passion on the issue made Amherst a leader in the new diversity; under Marx, Amherst nearly doubled its percentage of low-income students from 10 percent of the school’s population to close to 20 percent.5 QuestBridge was central to Amherst’s recruiting efforts and helped inspire a number of additional outreach, mentoring, and alumni support programs at the school to promote the success of low-income students.

High-profile educators like Brenzel and Marx helped evangelize the QuestBridge message beyond their own schools. On its admissions road shows and Website, Yale heavily promoted QuestBridge to attract students and, in Brenzel’s words, introduce them to a host of “other great

5 This figure includes both American students who were eligible for Pell grants and low-income international Dostudents. It is a significantlyNot higher percentage Copy than at most of Amherst’s peeror schools. Post

schools.” Marx, too spoke regularly about QuestBridge as a partner in its own effort to model a new vision for American higher education.

Building and Refining the Applicant Pool

While McCullough talked up QuestBridge to schools, the staff back at Quest recruited students in a way similar to the approach used for QuestLeadership (See Exhibit 1). They sent e-mail newsletters to students who had applied to QuestLeadership in 2002 and targeted students in other educational programs including Young Black Scholars and Ventures Scholars Program. The outreach efforts referred students to the revamped QuestBridge Website for information on the College Match, an application, and a phone number to call with questions. Once QuestBridge staff had applicants on the phone, they were quick to encourage students to participate. Since these were students who had already applied to QuestLeadership, they only needed to submit current financial data, recent test scores and grades, and teacher recommendations. Their QuestLeadership applications would be accepted at all partner colleges.

By early March 2004, 600 students had expressed interest in the College Match. Quest staff reviewed their QuestLeadership applications, essays, and supplementary information and then selected 100 as match finalists—those with the most demonstrated academic excellence, financial need, and motivation to succeed. Next, staff placed finalists’ applications on CD- ROMs and sent the data to colleges for review. Students then submitted rankings of Quest’s College Match partners, and colleges submitted rankings of the students they hoped to recruit. QuestBridge staff was available to assist students with their ranking decisions, often spending hours on the phone with finalists and their parents discussing whether certain schools were a good fit, assuaging financial aid concerns, and answering questions. Quest aimed to complete recruitment efforts by April 1, the day most schools required a final admissions decision.

The Matching Process

For the mechanics of the match, Quest employed an algorithm similar to that of the National Resident Matching Program6, placing finalists at the college highest on their rank list that also ranked them. Prior to the match, each candidate and institution was given a final opportunity to opt out; once matched to a college, students would be obligated to attend.

In this first cycle, the relatively small number of colleges (each with an average request of two students) allowed staff to match manually, placing every student’s preferred ranking side-by-side with colleges’ rankings and then linking top choices. By late March, 13 finalists were matched to six colleges. Each school accepted an average of two students.

QUEST’S NEW FOCUS: MATCH AS CENTERPIECE

With minimal financial resources and manpower, Quest had conducted a successful match cycle and earned $52,000 in revenue for the service. With this momentum, Quest conducted a second recruitment cycle from August to December 2004, shortly after the end of QuestLeadership’s summer session in July. This time, QuestBridge set the deadline for its application in November,

Do6 See The National Not Residency Matching ProgramCopy at: http://www.nrmp.org/ or Post

prior to the regular college admissions deadlines, to give students admissions alternatives if they were not matched to any college. In the fall of 2004, applications to QuestBridge jumped to 2,000—using the same recruitment methods—and Bowdoin College joined as a partner school. By December 1, 33 students were matched to seven schools, and approximately 150 more enrolled in regular admission.

In these first two match cycles, McCullough had negotiated separate fees for each school, often forgoing higher revenues for greater school participation. The point was to secure the school partners and demonstrate the viability of the model. Nevertheless, by the end of the pilot, Quest had earned $290,000 for its matching services, demonstrating the benefits of a market-based approach for both low-income students and colleges eager to recruit them. Early adopters like Amherst were recruiting up to 11% of their entire Freshman classes through QuestBridge in early admission (the “Match”) and Quest’s regular admission pathways. Furthermore, by monetizing the benefits of the match, McCullough had identified a clear path for expansion and national impact that he had long sought for Quest. Accordingly, QuestLeadership would be phased out, and QuestBridge, the matching program, would become both the organization’s centerpiece and its primary engine of growth.

A More Professionalized Quest

This new focus and growth strategy also required a more professionalized management structure. Ana McCullough transferred her managerial efforts from QuestLeadership to QuestBridge, and as president, Michael McCullough continued to recruit colleges and strengthen QuestBridge’s applicant pool. In 2005, QuestBridge hired as its CEO Tim Brady, an electrical engineer with degrees from Stanford and Harvard who had recently retired from Yahoo!, where he had been the company’s third employee. Brady brought numerous assets to QuestBridge. Drawing on his extensive Internet and business experience, he turned the organization’s Website into a robust platform for students, parents, and educators. Brady also hired a number of new and full-time employees, many from the private sector, to manage student recruitment and retention and alumni services. He also further honed the fee-for-service model, charging colleges $25,000 each for guaranteed access to QuestBridge’s applicant pool and an additional $3,500 matriculation fee per early admissions Match student, and $500 for those who entered in regular admissions.7 Partner colleges could also opt for a flat fee in $10,000 increments which roughly matched their anticipated usage. Many partners migrated from one payment mechanism to the other once their enrollment pattern was established. No contracts were used in this process between the colleges and QuestBridge. The entire QuestBridge recruiting process and revenue model was built and operated on verbal agreements and goodwill with the partner colleges.

QuestBridge’s new executive team also recognized the value of a strong and proactive board of directors. During this period, QuestBridge recruited David Mills, an investor and senior lecturer

7 These fees were consistent with the Higher Education Act: colleges would be refunded these fees for students who did not complete the first year of college. For those partners in a graded fee system, payment was not for enrollment, but rather completion of the first year of college. However, QuestBridge had both pre-selected and prepared a highly talented pool of applicants who were well fortified against the pressures to drop out during their freshman year. The QuestBridge dropout rate proved insignificant, and as of 2010 QuestBridge’s college Docompletion rates matchedNot the norm at every Copy partner school. or Post

at Stanford Law School. Among his other work in social activism and civil rights, Mills chaired the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and believed that Quest represented “the other side of the same work” of equality of access and opportunity. “The future of equality lies in education,” he said, and QuestBridge, as the one of the few organizations working closely with the admissions offices of highly selective colleges, was making important strides in that direction. Mills was also a skilled recruiter, and he helped bring former senator and presidential candidate Bill Bradley onto the QuestBridge board.

By the end of 2005, trustees also included Robert Sternfels, a partner at McKinsey & Company, and Frank Brucato, the associate dean of finance and chief financial officer of Stanford Law School. As QuestBridge president, Michael McCullough retained a board seat, and Ana McCullough, now a consultant with McKinsey & Company, remained involved with Quest as an active board member, becoming chair in 2005.

The Market Works

As QuestBridge continued to build its student pipeline and pool of college partners, it was increasingly clear that the market-based match provided a solution to scale and financial sustainability. As the set of its college partners grew more diverse in size and geography, the number of applications increased, setting into motion a virtuous growth cycle. By 2006, Quest matched 102 students (selected from 1,000 finalists) to 15 partner schools in the early decision process. An additional 530 who were not matched, but who were educated in financial aid and now comfortable applying to elite schools in the regular admissions cycle, would be admitted later in the year, also with full financial aid packages (Total enrollment 632). For this service, QuestBridge now earned just over $600,000. In 2008, QuestBridge matched 260 students to 26 partner schools, placed 1,000 students by year end, and had earned $1.5 million in the process. (Total enrollment 1,260). By 2009, Quest placed 1,500 students combined in early admissions and regular admissions at its partners, earning $1.8 million to cover more than 80 percent of its operating expenses. In 2010, it placed 310 students in early placement, and the program was anticipating an additional 1,500 students in regular admissions, bringing the total placement to over 1,800 at 30 partner colleges. With 1,800 student placements in its partner colleges, Quest passed the dual milestones of making the core QuestBridge program cashflow positive and self- sustaining, and also placing over 50% of talented low-income students at its partner colleges.

This market model and its benefits of scale were beginning to draw attention beyond the worlds of higher education and philanthropy. “If I were a VC,” remarked Amherst President Anthony Marx, “I would invest in Michael and QuestBridge.” Marx was prescient. Reid Hoffman, the legendary Silicon Valley entrepreneur and venture capitalist and founder of LinkedIn and a number of other similar enterprises, maintained that QuestBridge’s scalability helped set it apart from other nonprofit organizations. As a venture capitalist, Hoffman said, “I try to build, design, and improve human ecosystems” by bringing together “entrepreneurs, technology, and finance.” His believed his work with QuestBridge fell squarely in the universe of ventures he invested in, including Facebook and Kiva. Hoffman served as chairman of QuestBridge’s West Coast board of advisors, which included a number of other venture capital investors. On the East Coast, QuestBridge was garnering similar acclaim. Josh Cohen, a managing partner of City Light DoCapital, a firm Not that invested in companiesCopy designed to solve socialor problems, Post joined the effort.

He examined the QuestBridge economic model closely and believed that it had the potential to be 100 percent self-sustaining and to truly reach low-income, high achieving kids at scale.

For Bill Bradley, the QuestBridge trustee who also chaired its East Coast advisory board, QuestBridge was all about creating opportunities. “Upward mobility should characterize America,” he insisted, and higher education – not as broadly accessible as it should be – was the critical step. Moved by Michael and Ana’s deeply personal commitment to this cause, Bradley had joined the Quest team because he was convinced the program could significantly influence who in the United States went to college. Like the VCs and corporate partners he helped enlist in QuestBridge’s work, Bradley contended “the nature of the operation – doing good, making money, and then reinvesting that money to expand penetration into the pool of highly talented, low-income kids” set it apart in a field of well-meaning organizations.

QUESTBRIDGE’S FUTURE PATHS TO GROWTH

Having proven a self-sustaining business model, QuestBridge’s leadership again turned to the not-so-modest questions of growth. Given how many talented, low-income students were still forgoing college, was it possible to place more kids into more schools? And was that enough? Could Quest also do a better job of serving the students already in its network by supporting their future professional and personal success?

Revised Mission and Vision

With these objectives in mind, Quest refined its mission and vision.

Vision8 QuestBridge envisions a world where America's leadership encompasses thoughtful and broad-minded decision makers drawn from every economic segment of society. QuestBridge will revolutionize the way leading colleges and universities recruit talented low-income students, and the way these students approach their once-in-a-lifetime educations and futures.

Mission QuestBridge aims to create a singular place where exceptionally talented low-income students can discover and navigate educational and life opportunities. QuestBridge recruits, develops, and supports motivated low-income students – beginning in high school through college to their first job – to be successful at America’s best colleges, graduate schools, and companies.

Option 1: Scaling the Match & Regular Admissions Process

While the match system worked, increasing the number of strivers in the United States who actually made it to and through college was not an easy endeavor. On the one hand, this meant expanding the portfolio of college partners who would provide more resources to more low- income students. QuestBridge had targeted top colleges with endowments large enough to

Do8 Mission and VisionNot from QuestBridge BusinessCopy Plan, October 2009. or Post

provide full financial aid for selected finalists.9 In the recession, most of these endowments had taken significant hits: by 2009, endowments were down, on average, 25 percent10. Remarkably, QuestBridge’s partners remained committed to accepting and fully funding the program’s low- income students in 2009, and QuestBridge posted gains in matched students and revenues that year. However, in 2010 financial uncertainties lingered as endowments remained well below their 2007 highs. Despite their best intentions, schools were experiencing tremendous budgetary pressures. For many, a long-term commitment to financial assistance required politically challenging trade-offs.

More than the economic woes of colleges or the size of the school partner pool, however, QuestBridge’s leaders believed that the real impediment to growth was, as before, the challenge of recruiting highly talented, low-income students: finding them and getting them to apply.

Junior Year Focus

QuestBridge determined that increasing the pipeline of applicants meant starting its work earlier, turning to students in their junior year of high school to begin education and preparation for the college application process. In 2005, QuestBridge began a College Prep Scholarship program focused on high school juniors. This initiative had grown to include 10 full scholarships to summer programs at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Notre Dame, personalized admissions counseling (mentoring, help with applications, etc.) for 50 students, funding for college visits, and, in some cases, free laptops. In addition, in 2009 and 2010, QuestBridge offered scholarships to 800 of 4,400 applicants to attend one-day College Preparatory Conferences (one at Stanford, one at Yale) for high-school juniors and their families, which included instruction in online applications, essay writing, SAT prep, and talks from admissions officers from QuestBridge’s college partners.

These junior-year interventions drew on Quest’s longstanding expertise in guiding low-income talent. These programs were, in essence, a version of the original QuestLeadership at scale. Education reformer and hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson, who was also a member of Questbridge’s East Coast advisory board, maintained that “catching kids in the junior year,” perhaps even earlier, was critical to grow the Quest model. Michael McCullough believed that material incentives – whether it was a laptop or a visit to a school with a parent – were vital for encouraging students to apply in their senior year, since thousands in QuestBridge’s target demographic were not even getting this far. For many, the notion of college seemed abstract and impossible, while a laptop or a trip was very tangible. McCullough referred to this use of incentives as “bait and add”; once in the system, QuestBridge could convince a student to begin the college application process.

9 Assuming a 4.5 percent endowment payout, each $45,000 of educational expenses provided to a student required $1 million in endowment assets. In 2008, Quest estimated there were approximately 40 private colleges with endowments of over $1 billion, the universe of most of their 26 current and any future school partners . Do10 “The Recession Not Hits College Campuses,” Copy U.S. News and World Report, Januaryor 27, 2009. Post

The Scholarship Model

Many of these new junior-year initiatives employed a scholarship design. According to McCullough, the reason was simple: the existing private scholarship industry was not serving low-income students well. Approximately $1.5 billion in private scholarships was awarded each year to high school seniors, yet these awards were typically offset by reduced financial aid from colleges, whose own financial aid calculations took these private scholarships into consideration when determining economic hardship and need. Furthermore, scholarships given in the senior year represented a kind of winner-takes-all scenario: applying seniors received money from either private donors or the schools themselves.

McCullough also believed that, similar to the recruiting and placement fees paid by colleges, scholarship management offered a potential revenue stream for QuestBridge. According to this logic, private donors would recognize the shortcomings of the existing senior-year scholarship market and begin to award scholarships instead to QuestBridge juniors, along with a management fee to Quest.11 McCullough believed this was particularly true if Quest could offer customized or ‘boutique’ donor possibilities, for example, for a particular ethnic or interest group. One of Quest’s longtime supporters had done just that: donated scholarship funds for economically disadvantaged Jewish students. In 2010, this award generated $180,000 in additional revenue for Quest, and its success had attracted a second donor with similar interests. QuestBridge was also approached about the possibility of using customized scholarships to recruit students from New York City, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the South. At year end, McCullough was negotiating the terms of these new awards.

Quest’s early successes with the junior year scholarships offered an important and cost-effective recruitment paradigm. For example, a junior year scholarship aimed at Native American students had led to a massive increase in the number of students applying from this demographic. In 2008, 34 Native Americans had applied; in 2009 that number was 540. This 15-fold expansion had cost Quest less than $25,000 in prize incentives.

McCullough was enormously enthusiastic about the promise of this new approach. “Linking the scholarship application to the college application may be the key that unlocks this talented low- income pool to stop underapplying” he said. Accordingly, in 2010, expansion of the junior year scholarship incentive programs became a primary focus of Quest’s new initiatives. McCullough hoped to create hundreds of boutique and personalized scholarships for clients with specialized interests including ethnicity, geographic location, heritage, religion, professional calling, hobbies, or other niches of the $1.5 billion scholarship market. In 2010, QuestBridge’s own College Prep Scholarship for juniors generated 4,400 applicants with just $150,000 in prizes. Since Quest was the only nonprofit organization that could use the same college essay questions for both junior year scholarship awards and the senior year college application itself, the potential to attract college applicants with this novel mechanism was very real.

11 For reference on the potential of the scholarship management market, Scholarship Program Administrators (SPA), one of the country’s leading for-profit scholarship management companies, charged between 9 percent and -18 percent of dollars administered, while Scholarship America, a nonprofit manager, had fees between 7 percent and - Do26 percent. Not Copy or Post

Option 2: Increasing Programs and Services for Current QuestBridge students

By 2010 QuestBridge had laid claim to one of the most valuable pools of talented low-income young people in the country. When students joined QuestBridge, the organization told them, they were not so much completing an application as opening an account. This account, in theory, could remain open and available for opportunities beyond the match. Quest’s leaders were eager to build upon this asset – and take advantage of their network of alumni, whom they now called QuestScholars.

The Alumni Network

The first step in this process was to simply connect QuestScholars to each other. One important way to achieve this was through the Quest Leadership Conference, an initiative that would aim to serve as a college training session in August for incoming QuestBridge college freshmen. The Leadership Conference was to be a scaled version of the original QuestLeadership program run on the Stanford campus. It would host academic workshops, include inspirational guest speakers, teach leadership and public service, build self-confidence in students, and generate additional recognition for QuestBridge. Quest also worked to create additional leadership development opportunities for students already in college, and alumni network activities including social gatherings and career counseling to engage alumni as mentors and ensure that the QuestScholar community remained vibrant and intact.

Liz Kwo, a Quest alumna who went to Stanford for college and Harvard for medical and business school, emphasized the importance of these ties between Quest students. “Quest was a life-changing event,” she said, “the most important thing that has ever happened to me. It changed my perception of who I could be, the potential I had.” Much of this, she explained, had to do with role models; of seeing other students from low-income backgrounds get into school, navigate and thrive once there, choose majors and careers, and demonstrate what was possible. “I was so excited for them, and they became guideposts for me,” Kwo said, in particular of her realization that she, too, could become a doctor. Kwo believed that strengthening the ways that Quest students supported each other could only enhance the success of each student and the program as a whole.

Professional Opportunities, Life Education, National Leadership Workshop, & Giving Back

QuestBridge’s leaders anticipated that the value proposition they offered to colleges – a pre- screened low-income talent pool at a small fraction of the institution’s own recruiting cost – could serve other organizations well, including graduate schools and employers. Starting in 2010, Quest estimated that it would have at least 200 students entering professional school each year. For starters, Quest might be able to help these alumni bargain as a group to obtain lower interest rates on graduate school loans. But was that enough? McCullough also contemplated whether the market for graduate and professional school recruitment was similar to that of colleges: could Quest help match applicants to professional schools in exchange for scholarships and, potentially, a placement fee? Do Not Copy or Post

Frank Brucato, the CFO and associate dean of Stanford Law School, believed the QuestBridge model was viable at the graduate level. Brucato’s introduction to Quest came in its earliest years, when Michael and Ana invited him to stay in the Stanford dorm along with the QuestLeadership students. Brucato witnessed firsthand Quest’s transformative power on the lives of low-income students — how the program “made such a huge difference in their lives” — and soon joined the board. There, he advocated for expanding educational opportunities beyond college. In 2010, Brucato helped design a Quest-like pilot summer program at Stanford to encourage high-achieving, low-income students to apply to law school. Brucato believed that, ultimately, professional schools would be willing to pay for recruiting services.

The same rationale, QuestBridge’s leaders believed, held for employment opportunities. McCullough held discussions with McKinsey & Company, the Wall Street Journal, JPMorgan, and a number of large law firms about the possibility of placing students from the QuestScholar pool into internships at these companies. McCullough imagined that Quest could charge fees for placing interns or longer-term employees in the same way that headhunters collected recruitment and placement fees. Quest had already placed two interns: one with the Wall Street Journal and one with McKinsey, although it had not collected fees for the service. Tough economic times suggested that firms in the near future might be reluctant to take on any new hires, much less pay a fee for the placement. It was possible that Quest required a specialized employee with experience in pitching hires to large corporate employers to build this part of the business. As a growth model and revenue generating proposition, this, too was a work in progress. QuestBridge’s partner colleges expressed significant enthusiasm for the Quest’s life educationa dn internship intitiatives as they targeted all the talented low-income students on the partner college campuses, rather than just the students that QuestBridge intiailly helped place in early and regular decision processes. Since by 2010 QuestBridge placed roughly half such students at their partner colleges, effectively, this doubled QuestBridge’s potential impact in the college years.

At the core of the Quest mission was increasing the number of thoughtful leaders in America. Having succeeded in creating a robust recruiting model, McCullough began to turn his attention towards the college years, and bridging the cultural gap that remained. New additions to the advisory board, such as Reid Hoffman and others, began to brainstorm about how to teach leadership principles and life skills at scale, in an effort designed to teach QuestBridge students to become the “entrepreneurs of their own lives.”

QuestBridge was also concerned with inculcating in its students the importance of giving back, but with a focus on service in mid-life rather than just after graduation from college. The reasoning, McCullough explained, was that if Quest merely helped redistribute wealth and income earning to low-income students, much of the organization’s societal potential impact would be lost. Indeed, service could come later. “Even Mahatma Gandhi didn’t go to India until he was 42,” he noted, “and Abraham Lincoln failed at business several times before becoming president.” The McCulloughs long embraced the notion that QuestBridge was a partnership with the students rather than a handout; in exchange for Quest’s help and support, the students obligated themselves to repay to society once they had sufficient momentum in their own lives, often in mid career. Identifying students who would likely give back remained one of the Doexciting challenges Not for the organization Copy to take to scale. or Post

QuestBridge’s leaders were also eager to return the organization to its roots by re-launching a summer leadership training program, albeit with a new model. Instead of 20-40 high school juniors for six weeks, QuestBridge would now train 500 (plus) of its top applicants for a week prior to entering college. Senator Bradley, Reid Hoffman, and the organization’s other national leaders quickly signed on to this effort, which they intended to pay for out of new revenues rather than relying on grants (Quest turned away a $1 million grant from the Goldman Sachs to initiate the new Leadership Week and pushed the launch date back to 2012).

McCullough believed that assembling a critical mass of students in one place for a week of training in the “entrepreneur of your own life” curriculum would allow these ideas to be seeded in a meaningful way at Quest’s partner colleges. One important goal of this new curriculum was to make it relevant to all students, regardless of income level. This approach would reduce the stigma of being low-income and would helped QuestBridge students, in McCullough’s words, “develop a forward looking focus.” The week long contact and relationship building would also allow Quest to select the most competitive students for its growing internship programs and foster a future volunteer workforce for new initiatives.

In 2010 QuestBridge’s leaders understood the organization as a vehicle through which students could attain academic and professional success. The process began in high school, progressed through college, and ended when students obtained their first job (Exhibit 8). QuestBridge would serve as a ladder, providing a service at each step to help students move on to the next phase of their lives. With each service, QuestBridge would match students from its applicant pool to a diverse set of partners—scholarships, colleges, internships, and companies, in a process similar to that of the College Match, and generate self-sustaining revenues in the process. At the dawn of the new decade, these growth questions could be tested in practice: was it possible to recruit and place new strivers into top colleges while also creating more professional opportunities for QuestScholars? Was this operationally viable? And could Quest find the revenue – earned or raised – to support these ambitions?

Do Not Copy or Post

Exhibit 112 Quest’s Early History: “High-touch” Intervention, Expertise in Serving Low-income 16-22- year-olds

QuestLeadership was first launched in 1994 as the Stanford Youth Environmental Science Program13 (See Exhibit 3). Running the summer program consisted of recruiting students and providing them with professional, personal, and academic mentorship. In an ongoing commitment to the students, the founders and staff—an average of two full-time and eight part- time interns and over 20 counselors during the summer—advised students individually throughout their college years.

Staff located the talented group of students through multiple means. The primary methods were College Board PSAT and SAT database searches, references from community organizations, and word of mouth referrals from teachers, school administrators, and other sources. Quest purchased access to student names, e-mails, and mailing addresses. It used the information to contact students about QuestLeadership and referred them to its Website for details and an application. Each year, Quest aimed to substantially increase the size of its applicant pool by expanding recruitment efforts. In 1995, Quest received 380 applications for the 20 spots in the summer program. By 2005, the applicant pool had reached over 2,200.

Students completed a 20-page application which included several short-answer prompts, full- length essays, and questions about parental education, family living situation, and household income. It was more thorough than most college applications. Quest staff reviewed applications extensively and interviewed approximately 18 percent of the applicant pool in person. Students ultimately selected to participate were named Quest Scholars.

Quest’s leaders looked for individuals who demonstrated more than just need; QuestScholars needed integrity, drive, and raw grit. They wanted high school students who were inherently achievement-driven and altruistic, would adapt well to the communality of the program, and would take full advantage of the educational opportunities the program offered them. Gaining acceptance to QuestLeadership was more challenging than admission to most colleges.

Although Quest’s relationship with the students began during QuestLeadership’s five-week summer session, it continued for about five years. In an effort to maintain ongoing support of the students, staff continued to mentor and advise them through the college years with class selection, scholarship applications, professional networking, and career development. During that time, Quest became well acquainted with each student’s history, strengths, and weaknesses, and could offer personalized guidance accordingly. On average, the organization supported over 60 students annually.

12 This exhibit has been adapted from the original case. 13 The summer residential program underwent two name changes. The first was from SYESP (Stanford Youth Environmental Science Program) to Quest Scholars Program in 2000. The second was from Quest Scholars Program to QuestLeadership in 2004. After the creation of QuestBridge, the name Quest Scholars Program came to embody Dothe entire organization, Not housing both QuestBridge Copy and QuestLeadership. or Post

In its early years, Quest benefited from, and relied heavily on, hiring alumni for key staff positions. After the summer, over three-quarters of QuestLeadership participants—or alumni— worked for Quest during college. Some who lived locally or attended Stanford took off years from school to work for Quest, often advising younger Quest Scholars. Many also enjoyed the mentorship and friendship of Quest’s founders.

Do Not Copy or Post

Exhibit 2 Quest Founders Michael and Ana McCullough: A Labor of Love

The son of a construction worker and a teacher, Michael McCullough graduated from Stanford University and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1989, and went on to complete a degree at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and a medical degree from the University of California, San Francisco. As an undergraduate, he was the first to teach neuroanatomy at the medical school, and he co-founded the Stanford Medical Youth Science Program (SMYSP).14 Raised in rural Oregon, McCullough faced financial obstacles in college and dropped out of school every other academic quarter to work to pay for his education in cash: as a stand-up comic, teaching on the Stanford campus, founding, operating and institutionalizing SMYSP, and other odd jobs. Born with hydrocephalus, McCullough spent the first 16 years of his life with severe speech difficulties and debilitating headaches, which improved after brain surgery later in childhood. He was always impressed by Quest students who had turned early obstacles into future success.

Ana McCullough graduated from Stanford in 1995, three years after entering her class. Like Michael, she took time off school to finance her education. When she graduated from Stanford with a bachelor’s degree in human biology, she won the Dinkelspiel Award for her service to Stanford and neighboring communities. She met Michael during her freshman year; he was in his last and fifth year as an undergraduate. Impassioned by the idea of helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the two founded Quest in 1994 and ran the program first from their apartment in Palo Alto and later out of a small office in Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. Years later, they opened a formal office in Palo Alto.

After completing her undergraduate degree, Ana attended and graduated from Stanford Law School while continuing to build Quest. Michael worked as co-director of Quest and as an emergency room attending physician while Ana devoted herself to the nonprofit full-time. They married in June 2002. In August 2000, San Jose Mercury News columnist Leigh Weimers wrote, “I may have just met a couple of saints. They’d deny it, of course.”15 Ana later explained, “I’m just inspired by my students. It’s really a privilege to be around them, especially at this important juncture in their lives.”16

Michael remained president of Quest, although shared oversight of daily operations of the organization with a number of other staff members. In 2010, Ana McCullough was a senior executive at an education company and chaired the QuestBridge board of directors.

14 SMYSP was a precursor to SYESP that focused on educating disadvantaged high school students about medicine and applying to medical school. In 2005, SMYSP continued to operate under new leadership. 15 Leigh Weimers, “Doctor, Lawyer Help Kids and Teach us all a Lesson,” San Jose Mercury News, August 20, 2000. 16 Carole Rafferty, “A Summer at Stanford: At-Risk Youths Excel,” San Jose Mercury News, Peninsula Edition, DoJuly 26, 1998. QuoteNot by Ana Rowena McCullough.Copy or Post

Exhibit 3 The Quest Scholars Program – Name Changes and Organizational Structure

Ana and Michael McCullough originally founded the Quest Scholars Program (Quest) under the name Stanford Youth Environmental Science Program (SYESP) in 1994, with an environmental and outreach focus. Its primary offering was a summer enrichment program for bright, at-risk high school juniors and seniors, but Ana and Michael also mentored students as they progressed through college. Expansion of the program to Harvard in 2000 led the founders to change the location-based name of SYESP to a more universal one, Quest Scholars Program. The academic focus also broadened as Quest added donors and lecturers from a variety of backgrounds.

Quest experienced another name change in 2004 after the creation of QuestBridge. To minimize confusion between Quest the organization and Quest the summer program, the founders continued to call the organization Quest, but now called the summer program QuestLeadership.

In 2005, the name Quest Scholars Program referred to the larger infrastructure—with 501(c)3 nonprofit status – which housed two programs: QuestLeadership and QuestBridge.

Do Not Copy or Post

Exhibit 4 Why Academically Talented Low-income Students Need Help: Quest’s Own Experience

In 2005, students in the lowest socioeconomic quartile who scored in the highest quartile on achievement tests were as likely to go to college as students in the highest economic quartile who scored in the lowest quartile. Lawrence E. Gladieux, author of the article “Low-income Students and the Affordability of Higher Education,” rephrased these findings: “The least bright rich kids have as much chance of going to college as the smartest poor kids.”17 The reason was clear: these talented low-income students faced more barriers to higher education than their more affluent peers.

Quest’s own experience showed that even when smart, low-income students did plan to enroll in college, they often did not think they could attend very competitive schools. A survey of over 570 high school sophomores and juniors who applied to the QuestLeadership summer program in 2005 showed that these students did not think they could afford a top college education.

Of these high-scoring, low-income students, 37 percent thought that it would be “easy” or “likely” that they would be admitted to one of the most selective four-year colleges; yet only 2 percent thought they could afford it. As described earlier, these students suffered from a lack of understanding of financial aid. They did not know that, for truly low-income students, attending some of the most highly-endowed colleges could be far less expensive than going to state schools. These wealthier colleges were able to cover all expenses they determined a family could not afford. State colleges often did not have these resources, leaving students with unmet need, expenses beyond what a family could pay or the college could cover.

In addition, many of these disadvantaged students and their parents did not even know which colleges they should be aiming for. This was vividly demonstrated by an experience with one of the QuestBridge students from Virginia who was matched with a full, four-year scholarship to one of the top 10 liberal arts colleges in the country. Her father was strongly opposed to her enrolling and accepting the scholarship because his daughter hoped to be a doctor one day, and “the only doctors I know went to Harvard or someplace in Virginia.” After receiving more information on the benefits of attending this school, he changed his mind.

This experience was not unusual. One QuestBridge finalist wrote, “Because I have been in the United States for only two years, my knowledge about colleges was limited in some way that I have thought University of California (UC) schools and some Ivy League Schools were the only good colleges. But, after the research on those partner colleges lately, I found out that they were some of the most demanding and challenging schools. Now those colleges, in fact, attract my interest more than most UC schools do.” QuestBridge documented hundreds of similar testimonies from students.

17 Lawrence E. Gladieux, “Low Income Students and the Affordability of Higher Education” in Richard E. Kahlenberg, Editor, America’s Untapped Resource: Low Income Students in Higher Education (Century DoFoundation, 2004). Not Copy or Post

Exhibit 4 (continued) Why Academically Talented Low-income Students Need Help: Quest’s Own Experience

Other low-income students did not even realize they could be competitive applicants to top colleges. One student who was a College Match awardee commented, “QuestBridge helped me a lot by bringing up my confidence and self-esteem. I always wanted to go to a good college, but I was afraid that I would not get accepted anywhere and have to go to a community college. Being accepted to QuestBridge was a dream come true and made me realize that a college actually wanted me.”

These talented low-income students suffered from a significant lack of information, which many higher-income students typically took for granted. Higher income students tended to have parents with bachelor’s or higher degrees who were able to help their children understand the college application and financial aid processes. These parents could also edit their children’s college applications or hire someone to give expert advice. QuestBridge students had no such resources. Some had parents who did not speak English. Parents with limited education and funds had a difficult time assisting their children as much as they would have liked to.

QuestBridge also discovered that high school counselors were of limited help. In 2004, the average high school student-to-counselor ratio was 407 to 1.18 These over-burdened counselors were often unable to provide the necessary time, information, and encouragement that college- aspiring low-income students needed in order to navigate higher education. In fact, in a survey of 577 QuestLeadership applicants, 60 percent said their schools did not provide good information about applying to college, and another 17 percent were not sure. QuestBridge presented their students with an alternative, providing services and information that underserved students needed to meet their educational potential.

18 David Hawkins, The State of College Admissions: 2003-2004, Alexandria: National Association for College DoAdmissions Counseling Not (NACAC), 2004. Copy or Post

Exhibit 5 QuestBridge’s Board of Directors19

The Honorable Bill Bradley Bill Bradley has been a national leader for more than thirty years and is well known for his hard work, intelligence, candor and vision. His experiences are diverse--from winning an Olympic gold medal in basketball in the 1964 Olympic Games in Tokyo, to representing New Jersey in the United States Senate from 1979 to 1997, to running for President in 2000. Bill Bradley was a three-time All-American basketball player at Princeton University and graduated with honors in 1965 with a degree in American History. He was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned a graduate degree after studying politics, philosophy, and economics. Bradley went on to be a star professional basketball player for the New York Knicks from 1967 to 1977. During that time the Knicks won two National Basketball Association championships (1970 and 1973). Bill Bradley was elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame in 1982. Bradley is managing director of Allen & Company, Incorporated, serves as chief outside adviser to McKinsey & Company’s non-profit division and is Honorary Executive Chairman of the Save Ellis Island fundraising initiative. From 1997 to 1999, he was a senior advisor and vice chairman of the International Council of J.P. Morgan & Company Incorporated. During that time he also served as an essayist for CBS Evening News, and as a visiting professor at Stanford University, Notre Dame University, and the University of Maryland. Bradley has authored five books including Time Present, Time Past, about his life as a Senator and his travels throughout the country, Values of the Game, his book of basketball inspired essays that went on to be a New York Times best seller, and his newest book, The Journey From Here.

Tim Brady Tim spent eight years at Yahoo! Inc. during which time he held several positions, the last of which was as the company's Chief Product Officer. As Yahoo!'s third employee, Tim played a key role in successfully managing all marketing, operation and business development to launch Yahoo! commercially, and to help make Yahoo! into one of the most recognized brands and successful businesses on the Internet. Prior to Yahoo!, Tim spent three years with Motorola in Tokyo. He holds an M.B.A. from Harvard University and a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University.

Frank Brucato Frank is the Associate Dean of Finance and the Chief Financial Officer at the Stanford Law School. Frank graduated from San Jose State University and worked as an accountant before joining Stanford in 1983. He served as Assistant Financial Manager, Financial Services Manager, and Active Associate Dean for Stanford Law School, before beginning work in his two current positions. Frank brings extensive financial and administrative experience to the Quest Scholars Program, and has played a crucial role in the Program's development since its inception in 1993.

Do19 QuestBridge’s NotBoard of Directors, as describedCopy on organization’s website or Post

Exhibit 5: QuestBridge’s Board of Directors (continued)

Isabel Cesanto, Quest Scholar 1996 Isabel is a Quest Scholar from the class of 1996, and is currently a student at UCLA School of Law. She received her B.A. in political science with an emphasis in international relations from Stanford University in 2002. Isabel has been involved with Quest on many different levels. Since her participation as a student, she has served as a summer counselor, associate director, the organization's first full-time employee, and is now the first alum to be elected to the Board of Directors. Isabel is an associate editor for the UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs and was recently named managing editor of the Chicano/Latino Law Review. She is the fundraising director for the Seventh Annual National Latina/o Law Student Conference to be held at UCLA in October 2003, volunteers as legal counsel for the worker’s justice division of the Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation, and mentors aspiring law students of disadvantaged backgrounds.

Donald Kennedy Donald Kennedy is an American scientist, public administrator and academic. He received an A.B. and a Ph.D. in Biology from Harvard University before moving to Stanford University for much of his professional career. Kennedy worked as Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration for 26 months during the Carter Administration. He then served as vice-president and provost of Stanford. In 1980, Kennedy was then named Stanford's eighth president and remained in the position until 1992. Since 2000, he has been editor-in-chief of Science, the prestigious weekly published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Trained as a biologist, Kennedy has become an expert in environmental problems related to major land-use changes, economically driven alterations in agricultural practice, global climate change and the development of regulatory practices.

David Hunter David Hunter joined the Quest Board after a lengthy career in medicine as a Senior Partner and Regional Director in California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (CEP). David worked with QuestBridge Co-Founder, Dr. Michael McCullough, while overseeing one of the largest partnerships of emergency physicians in the country. He is no stranger to QuestBridge, as his daughter, Allison Marie, worked with Co-Founder Ana Rowena McCullough as a summer intern at QuestBridge in 2003. David graduated from the University of Minnesota Medical School, did post-graduate medical training in the Stanford University Hospital system, and holds a JD from Harvard Law School.

Ana Rowena Mallari McCullough, Founder, Chairman, Quest Scholars Program Ana Rowena serves as Co-Founder and President of the Quest Scholars Program. While an undergraduate at Stanford, she co-founded the Program with Michael McCullough. For this, she received the Dinkelspiel Award for outstanding contributions to education at Stanford. Ana Rowena worked for five years as a consulting scientist to the Environmental Defense Fund, a national non-profit environmental organization, and served as a research associate for Stanford President Emeritus Donald Kennedy. She holds a J.D. degree from Stanford Law School where she focused on environmental law. Ana joined McKinsey & Company in 2005 through 2006 and Dothen co-founded Not Shmoop.com. Copy or Post

Exhibit 5: QuestBridge’s Board of Directors (continued)

Michael McCullough, M.D., M.Sc., Founder, Quest Scholars Program Michael serves as Co-Founder of the Quest Scholars Program and Founder of QuestBridge. Following his successful co-founding, direction and institutionalization of the Stanford Medical Youth Science Program from 1987-1989, Michael co-founded Quest with Ana Rowena Mallari McCullough. Michael obtained a BA in Human Biology from Stanford and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. After attending medical school at the University of California San Francisco, Michael trained in emergency medicine at the Stanford University Hospital. In his early years, Michael became the first undergraduate to teach at the Stanford Medical School. Michael attended Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, and served created several regional and overseas health projects and clinics, including serving as the emergency medicine physician for the Dalai Lama while on tour in California. Michael was elected an Ashoka Fellow in 2004 and is the founder of BeAGoodDoctor.Org, the Courage Project, and KaeMe, which is remaking the orphan care system in Ghana. In 2009 Michael was elected a Kaufman Fellow, and he currently serves as a partner at Headwaters Capital Partners and is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine at UCSF.

David Mills David is a Senior Lecturer and the former Director of Clinical Education at the Stanford Law School. His principal course subjects include corporate tax, tax policy colloquium, and White Collar Crime. He holds a B. A. from Rutgers University and graduated magna cum laude from Rutgers-Newark Law School. He was a partner at Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher, and Boylan before starting his own practice, and has been a lecturer at both Rutgers-Newark and Santa Clara Law Schools. David founded Mills & Lynn Enterprises and is a managing partner of Harbourton Enterprises. He has served as Chairman of both the ABA Committee on Partnership Taxation and the New Jersey Bar Association Section of Taxation. David sits on the board of several other non-profits such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, as well as a few profit-making ventures.

Robert Sternfels Bob Sternfels is a Partner at McKinsey's West Coast office based in San Francisco. He co-leads their North America Manufacturing Practice which has over 60 dedicated specialists that focus on helping clients design and execute broad-based operational transformations. Bob has worked with clients around the world (North American, Europe, Africa and Asia) covering sectors ranging from basic materials, medical devices, high tech, financial institutions, and consumer goods. His experiences range from operations strategy to execution of that strategy. Bob has authored documents on most aspects of productivity improvement, including manufacturing strategy, breakthroughs, capital productivity, change management, overhead reductions, and integrated turnarounds. Bob spent six years in South Africa helping to build McKinsey's practice in Africa. In San Francisco, Bob leads the West Coast Operations Group. Bob has a BA with honors from Stanford University and a MA in politics, philosophy, and economics from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar.

Do Not Copy or Post

Exhibit 6 QuestBridge Financials 2003-2009

Revenue from QuestBridge National College Match 2003-2008 (Unaudited) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Students No. of App. Completes 1100 2020 3350 3715 4889 No. of Finalists 513 909 1594 1792 2470 No. of Partners 10 12 15 20 26 Matches 34 46 102 202 260 Total Admitted Students 100 283 637 797 1000 1500

Revenue Revenue from Match $40,000 $184,000 $254,000 $510,500 $947,000 Post-Match Revenue $50,000 $44,000 Subscription Revenue $150,000 $165,000 $300,000 $400,000 $520,000 Total Revenue $190,000 $349,000 $604,000 $910,500 $1,511,000 $1,501,000

QuestBridge Statement of Activities 2003-2009 (Unaudited) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenue and Support Contributions/Donations $833,000 $513,000 $774,000 $314,000 $766,200 $1,051,447 $438,704 QuestBridge Revenue $0 $290,000 $326,000 $604,000 $910,500 $1,511,000 $1,501,000 Other Income $45,000 $37,000 $42,500 $16,868 $42,234 Total Revenue and Support $878,000 $840,000 $1,100,000 $918,000 $1,719,200 $2,579,315 $1,981,938

Expenses Program Services $604,000 $528,328 $988,382 $1,420,000 $1,161,000 $1,425,467 $1,850,079 Management and General $57,000 $47,226 $195,699 $127,909 $98,364 $128,734 $128,123 Fundraising $104,000 $54,891 $78,122 $42,000 $101,500 $117,606 $160,718 Total Expenses $1,360,864 $1,671,807 $2,138,920

Do Not Copy or Post

Exhibit 7 2010 QuestBridge College Partners

Amherst College Brown University Bowdoin College California Institute of Technology Chicago, University of Columbia University Dartmouth Emory University Haverford College Massachusetts Institute of Technology Northwestern University Notre Dame, University of Oberlin College Oxford University Parsons The New School for Design Pennsylvania, University of Pomona College Princeton University Rice University Scripps College Stanford University Swarthmore College Trinity College University of Southern California University of Virginia Vassar College Washington & Lee University Wellesley College Wesleyan University Williams College Yale University

Do Not Copy or Post

Exhibit 8 The QuestBridge Portfolio of Opportunity

Source: QuestBridge Business Plan October 2009

Do Not Copy or Post

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Alan Harlam Brown University until November 2015. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. [email protected] or 617.783.7860