Biggest Killer of Your App? A Low GMAT Score..
No matter what admission officials or consultants say, this is unfortunately one of the unshakeable truths of the B-school admissions game. In an ideal world, a gmat score would just be another data point, perhaps equal to any other in your application, from recommendation letters to how you craft your essays. But last year’s survey by Kaplan Test Prep of B-school admissions officers showed that a low GMAT or GRE score is the single biggest reason why business schools ding MBA applicants.
The survey found that 58% of some 265 responding admissions officers said that a weak score on the Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) or the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) is the biggest application killer (see survey results in table above). That was up ten percentage points over Kaplan’s 2010 survey which showed that 48% identified the exams’ score as the biggest killer.
A low undergraduate GPA placed second at 24%, below last year’s 33% citation, while the lack of relevant work experience followed at just 12%.
More info: http://poetsandquants.com/2012/03/27/gpas-gmats-w…
That's what they may say, but from personal experience, talking with former students who were on the Admission committees, and reading forums like GMAT club, it seems like plenty of 700+ GMAT, 3.5+ from top schools aren't getting into the top tier schools. Essays and the fluffy stuff are used to distinguish one Goldman I-Banker from another...they're not all getting in everywhere.
Note they surveyed 265 admissions officers...how many of them are at schools WSO users would consider?
I think it's pretty understandable. Someone that really cares about getting into a top school and is reasonably intelligent can obtain a good GMAT score with some effort over a relatively short period of time compared to how long it takes to get and obtain a good GPA (~4 years). What does it say about someone who can't muster up a good score?
yes but its saying one of the biggest net reasons o the whole applicant pool are based on thos factors.. it says that they surveyed 22 of the top 30...
This is basic logic.
GMAT, and to a lesser extent GPA (except at HBS where it's the other way around), are NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS.
Hence, they are application-killers, rather than "what gets you in".
This is exactly right. Past a certain level (around the averages for the schools, obviously), you are helped if you have uber stats, and hurt if you have weak stats, but they don't get you in or keep you out in isolation unless your stats are really bad. If you're in a competitive demographic like white males in finance, you need to be solid all around with no weaknesses, because your competition won't have any weaknesses. If you're a non-traditional like the guy / girl who worked at a social media start up or built huts in Africa for 10 minutes, you're competing against the other non-traditionals from a range of pre-carved out spots for people like you. The number of spots isn't going to be rigid per se, but they'll take a 600 GMAT 3.0 GPA at HBS if that's the best applicant they get for social media (they have a specific sub-program for that apparently). It's ALL about what bucket you are in and how you stack up against the other people in that bucket relative to the rough allocation of spots at the school.
This makes sense to me and is pretty consistent with the notion you hear that "Your GMAT/GPA can't get you into a school but it can get you dinged." Ad comms receive thousands of applications and they have to have a quick, relatively cheap, way to cut the pool down to a managable size. The GMAT/GPA, while not a perfect indicator, are probably the best way to judge that quickly and easily. Obviously, like any thing that is a proxy for intelligence/ability, some people on either side will be incorrectly judged (real life dolts who kill the GMAT and really smart people who don't do well) but such is life.
Definitely makes sense from a macro, total application pool perspective, I just thought of "You" as the WSO crowd, which is obviously way smarter and higher achieving than the rest of the rabble applying.
haha . that could be argued ;)
THANKS, this is very useful info
However, ^ this makes me laughI'm not here to change the system, I just want to know how to use it to my advantage.
Ravenous is spot on. How competitive you are within your specific bucket is what matters.
I'm asking a relatively focused demographic here, I get that, but I'm just curious what the parameters here are...
re: bucketing of applications
does this more or less mean those in MO positions basically can't compete with FO within finance?
well damn...
I think it's possible but you have to have a pretty convincing pitch. If you volunteered at a soup kitchen for a month and suddenly got religion about helping people, that's not going to fool anyone. If you've been pursuing something with a respectable amount of diligence and have tangible accomplishments over a 3-5 year period (or whatever looks substantial), then you might have a shot if your pitch is convincing -- "Yeah, I built huts in Africa for a year and realized that you can't really get anything done without financing, so I got interested in a career in finance and I've done both over the last 5 years, so now you should take me as a non-traditional candidate because I want to use my MBA to built even more huts in Africa after I graduate." So now you're "hut guy who has a finance background" instead of "finance guy." Or whatever, you get the point.
This is a really good treatment of the way they look at it. Me personally, the visual I think of is someone building a kick-ass aquarium. You want all sorts of different fish and animals in the tank, not just a bunch of the same. Also, I can't stress enough how high the "high-horse" is the ad-coms ride. I got a great book back when I was applying (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Business-Schools-Admissions-Secrets/dp/14022…) that gives you work sheets to fill out and really create your personal brand, and honestly I think it helped me quite a bit. Like others have said, the scores get you past the first cut, your "Story" gets you in...just like any interview.
Also I wanted to say that putting a face to your application by visiting the school and meeting students and having a lot of meaningful things to write about after my official visit was probably why I got in, because my GPA was shit.
I think you can probably compete coming out of MO, but you need to have a pitch -- again, don't be the common place finance guy who is simply worse because he lacks front office experience. I'm not an expert on b-school (never sat on an ad com) but I've talked to a lot of people out of m7 and a lot of this stuff is pretty common sense. They get 7,000 applications or whatever the number is. The first cut is on stats. After that, it's probably broken out by subject area -- "let's look at all the finance people" -- then they make another cut. The last cut is probably interview / fit / subjectives -- "okay, this guy has good experience, but he seems like a douche, let's go with someone else" (or in the case of HBS, "let's take him because he's a douche"). They just are not going to evaluate 7,000 applications in full detail -- whatever they say about that, it's wrong. There isn't that much time or interest, they just want to make cuts and get down to the wheat. So be the best or be different in a compelling, just like any other competitive advantage scenario.
looks up programs with hut building in Africa
Sounds good, thanks Booth.
How much do they care about GMAT score breakdown? There's the overall score, where I'm sure top schools are looking for 690-700+, but do they look at quant / verbal scores individually?
Some programs (Wharton and MIT for example) want to see really high quants. Having too low of a quant can definitely be an application killer. Also, they look at your undergrad/work experience. So if you're a banker with a total score of 720 but a Q42 then there's something seriously wrong. However, somebody applying from a PR firm with a 720 total but Q42 could get away with the low quant. Same applies to your undergrad. If you're an engineer with a Q45 you're toast for most top schools.
Fuck. I thought 750+ with Q49 would easily check that box. Who exactly gets in to these schools...
Booth or Bust, love the username.
I agree, stats standardize and your story differentiates from there. Stats will get your foot in the door. Now, whether you can pry it open is another story all together.
Keep in mind that it's Kaplan doing the survey.
** this footnote bought to you by Matt Levine***
*** I call this one "it was late and I was tired" :)
How good/bad does it look if you have a low GPA (GMAT (and possibly CFA)? Especially if GMAT was taken within the last year and your undergrad GPA is 5 years old. It seems shitty that your GPA stays with you for so long even if you were a completely different (ie: lazy) person at the time.
How much does a good GMAT compensate for other things? If I totally geek out for six months and get a near perfect score, can I leverage that as a bargaining chip for, say, a weak GPA? The thinking being "hey, I'm smart and hardworking but sucked at life for a few years"
Is this GRE Score good for B Schools:
Previous Version Q:800 V:610
Thanks!
Thanks a lot for your answer Q 94% V 86%
Btw a lot of people are telling me to do the GMAT because BSchools won't give the same attention to the GRE
Also, you can read more about this Wharton madness: http://poetsandquants.com/2011/11/15/wharton-email-spooks-applicants/ They also specifically talk about applicants with Q49 who got an email. (and no, my friend is not the Nikki girl they're talking about)
I see. However, studying Engineering, won't they give less attention to this difference? But I get your point
Thanks again
Great! Thanks a lot! Good night
EngBanker, that quant thing was ridiculous and was one of Wharton's screwups. However, Wharton said that they based their recommendation on the candidate's profile, including not only GMAT scores, but also transcripts, coursework, etc. So it's possible that these people with good quant scores got the email because something in their background (like a B in stats) was a cause for concern. And it's entirely possible that they just screwed up sending mass email to people who weren't meant to receive it. The assumption that Wharton didn't like the 49 or below score is far fetched as we don't know if that was the cause at all. If that were true, it would mean that more than 50-60% or even more of the incoming class was deemed quant-deficient by the adcom, which seems hilarious. Knowing the quant "rigor" at these programs, I would say that even with a score below 45 you could do pretty well.
80/80 rule for top schools. You want to be above the 80th percentile for each sub score.
If you were to get 80th in both that would probably equal 700s plus. Statically speaking, it is more common for someone to do well in one subject and not the other, thus a combined 80/80 split and up yields good overall scores. There are tons of people out there that can get a 700+ score with a 95+ verbal and a Quant in the 60-70 range. Ideally, you don't want to be one of those, you want a good balance.
It depends what you mean. 80th percentile overall is not good enough, as that would equate to an overall score in the low to mid 600s. I think people say 80/80 split to mean that if one of your sections is very high, the other can be lower, but still needs to be above the 80th percentile.
Also, 80th percentile verbal and 80th percentile math together are higher than 80th percentile overall.
A survey by Kaplan... a company who sells GMAT classes and study material?
So how bad does one look for retaking the test even if your score goes from 650 to 750?
700 is the magic number, assuming reasonable section breakdowns that are not tilted one way (high verbal low quant or other way around).
You are probably right. But I am just quoting what I heard from adcoms. I went to a Tuck info session and the adcom said "a good GMAT score won't get you in, but a bad one will keep you out". When a candidate asked what's a "bad" GMAT score, she said "anything below a 700". A collective groan emerged from the class. Take it FWIW. I have a 710. I am not planning to write it anymore. I am so done with the goddman GMAT.
The adcoms lie. The fact is that the aggregate numbers are around 700 - 730 for the top schools. But that includes all the "one off" candidates that bring unique experiences to the table. The average for pure finance people will be higher than the overall average for most if not all of the top schools. Same thing with consulting most likely. So if you're under, say, 730 GMAT from a finance background, you are one of the weaker tadpoles. You really should be aiming for 750 if you fit within the demographics of this site, not 700.
In other words, a "good" or "bad" score is only good or bad relative to the people you are directly comparable to. Hate to beat a dead horse here, but finance people are basically commodities to b-schools -- they're going to take brand and high stats, or something very unique, and they're not going to lose a lot of sleep over whether Joe Smith is a better banker than Fred Jones if they look pretty much the same on paper.
lol
I feel like this question has been asked again and again and again by candidates, with the hope that some of these adcoms will say something like "anything above 650 checks the box, but even if it's below that, it's not a problem as long as it's above 500", which never happens.
I personally think anything above 700 is good, atleast for schools outside M7+Tuck. If you check out GMATclub threads for M7+ Tuck schools, there are quite a few candidates who had sub-700 GMAT who got in. It's oh-so confusing.
For me the reality was that I got invited to interview by Ross with a 710 GMAT. And I am an Indian electrical engineer, which is as competitive as it gets.
Nihil ut molestiae reiciendis aut doloremque distinctio quis. Nam omnis dolore dolor laboriosam. Facilis aliquam pariatur fugit et blanditiis recusandae nisi. Aut dolorem nisi sed fuga sequi dicta. Sunt quae in quae vel qui sunt est nulla.
Beatae iure voluptas quia autem. Porro quasi beatae ad reprehenderit repellendus nesciunt doloremque. Sint maxime quo dignissimos voluptatum. Earum magni ut rerum officia sint veritatis.
Placeat perspiciatis est voluptate cumque placeat non. Possimus mollitia repudiandae praesentium exercitationem.
Qui ut iure deleniti delectus eligendi quos. Eum porro aspernatur velit illum deserunt ex qui. Velit laborum sit dolores cumque impedit vero. Qui suscipit facere vero modi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ut eius eos ut sint ad. Sed est enim est neque. Est aut ut non est.
Et molestiae vel earum laborum. Sed sit architecto rem excepturi expedita. Odit nobis rerum tempora repellat.
Illo quisquam hic et quas quod. Nisi sunt itaque ut autem ullam dolore earum. Qui nemo sit rerum aliquid praesentium saepe est dolorem. Iusto mollitia itaque assumenda.
Magni est numquam est laboriosam. Quis doloribus a mollitia ab. Rerum totam rerum velit velit explicabo consequuntur enim.