So I wanted to throw this out there. I was reading an article about GMAT cheating.
So basically if you are caught cheating on the GMAT you will never be able to take it again and they will tell every business school you are a cheater. Basically if you don't take the GMAT you can never get into B School.
Anyone other than me think this is total bullshit? How about a couple competitors? (Yes, I know the GRE fits this). I would really like to see a move away from the GMAT. I personally think it is a racket and complete bullshit. If they are going to require people to take the test then it should be free and paid for by universities. The amount of money these people make on a test that doesn't test intelligence is astounding.
Yes I know it is a hygienic measure and helps adcoms, but it is also arbitrary past a certain score. Lets get real though. Harvard could tell GMAC to shove it and they would still be the top university. Between the 2 times I have taken the exam and all the study materials I must have spent close to 1K. Total waste of money. Didn't measure anything I learned in high school and did not measure or reflect my performance in grad school. Biggest scam in higher education I have ever seen.
I agree. What's even more ridiculous is that it's a privatized company. I guess theoretically, someone could come up with a new exam to compete. I suppose that was the ACT answer to the SAT.
Glad other people feel this way.
More and more b-schools are starting to accept GRE scores. My buddy tutors the GRE for Kaplan and he said that the format for the GRE is going to be changed next year to closely resemble that of the GMAT. I'm not sure how the verbal portion of the GRE is going to change but I know that the GRE will start having data sufficiency questions.
These standardized tests are a racket. I believe they are suppose to be not-for-profit enterprises but it's obvious that ETS is trying to steal market share by modifying the GRE format.
See, I understand the B Schools Dilemma. Top programs get inundated with applications and need something to weed people out. I feel as if this has gone haywire though. I mean people are getting 700's and questioning themselves. Up to a certain point the GMAT/GRE has no more predictability for the degree. When it comes to schools, are grades really important. Let me qualify this. For graduate school, at Wharton for example, if you have banking experience and want to get into PE, isn't it more about networking, how you sell yourself, internships, etc. Yes, of course, you need a descent GPA, but this isn't UG. You have work experience to prove yourself, you don't need a 4.0.
As far as students go, B Schools really want to admit people who will achieve and make the school look better. Hopefully they will give money also (this is a business after all). In my opinion the most successful people tend to have great social skills vs pure intelligence. The GMAT/GRE isn't even an intelligence test, just a tricky test that is supposed to measure reason.
Get real. The test is a huge ass money making scheme. Honestly, I have never cheated on the GMAT, frankly I don't care nor do I respect the test enough to try and do it. A lot of people do or try to though. Not for some nefarious reason, but out of desperation. If you don't score at a certain very high level your shot at going to a top school diminished. How horrible is that. Even if you have a 4.0 from UG and did amazing things you really do need a top GMAT. These top schools almost cannot allow too many exceptions because it will lower their overall average thereby making the school look "easier" to get into. The GMAC is even trying to bully these schools into only accepting GMAT's.
This shit makes me sick. I kind of rail against standardized testing.
If you cheat,fuck you. It fucks over the rest of us. It's not a hard test either. I would wager most of the people on this forum could take it today and get 700+. I barely studied, did poorly on math (75th%), and still got a 720.
Yeah I while the punishment may be extreme, it has to be to provide an appropriate level of disincentive. Otherwise, all of China would have 780's and totally dilute the pool.
As for the GRE, I thought about taking it as I am more verbally inclined but I'm glad I didn't because it sounds like although schools are accepting it, not many students are going that route and those who do aren't having much success. To wit,
"At the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, for instance, where less than two percent of applicants submitted GRE scores, only two or three were admitted, according to Sara Neher, director of admissions at Darden."
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/blogs/mba_admissions/archives/2010…
Totally agree. GMAT is a bullshit test that doesn't measure intelligence or ability in any way. I didn't score nearly as high as I wanted (thought I could have scored at least 30-40 pts higher), but still performed better in school than the majority of my classmates...and I also landed a BB job.
I definitely noticed that the folks with the highest GMAT scores were often the ones who were more socially retarded and were also still looking for jobs at graduation.
while it is true that it isn't the best way to measure intelligence or whatnot, it does measure one's ability to study. sure, for some people it requires a bigger money/time investment, but that's exactly what it's supposed to do. haven't any of you learned an intermediate micro-econ class? introductory signalling. they want to (lift and) separate. either you have the ability to learn the stuff, notwithstanding your educational background, or to have the money/commitment to get the required extra prep (that last part so they know that you can pay the tuition, coz you won't be getting any scholarships :P ) i say the gmat is fine. the b-schools can't accept everyone, can they? they need some method of discrimination. this is by far the most efficient and most profitable. think logically, not morally...
The GMAT is a rough estimate of learned intelligence. If it was a true IQ test then you wouldn't really be able to study for it. If you get caught cheating on the exam then you're an idiot and should be banned from ever taking the test again.
It will be a long time before there is a true competitor to the GMAT. I've never read into the history behind SAT vs. ACT but, from what I know, the ACT is only accepted at a number of schools whereas the SAT is universal currency.
You will be happy to know that these companies that administer tests hide behind non-profit status
http://www.collegeboard.com/about/index.html
Is anyone supposed to believe this shit or do they print the paper from old growth Amazonian trees?
Utter bullshit. Makes me sick.
My impetus for making this posting is I see so many threads with people freaking out about their GMAT and it is so sad. Especially for an MBA which everyone says over and over again is a 2 year break and networking event. Yes, not saying it is easy, but it is not overly quantitative. Anyone with a finance or engineering background has taken enough math to pass anything an MBA will throw out at you. Considering the test asks questions in a way unlike anything you are asked in UG or Highschool and it tests basic subjects it seems to me to be specifically created in a way which requires tutoring or at least an investment in study materials.
GMAT is absolutely all about putting in a lot of time and money. That being said, some very bright people, very creative people might not be able to score about a 650. Does a 650 mean someone cannot do MBA math? Absolutely not. This is an MBA, do you accept someone who has started a business, been in IB, worked in PE, etc with a 650 or do you go for the corporate finance guy with a 740? See what I mean. At the UG level SAT's are what matters in conjunction with high school grades. At the graduate level applicants have much more to "flavor" the application. Problem is, when the GMAT becomes the de factor measure of a persons intelligence then you are discounting the whole package. This is horrible since past a point GMAT doesn't matter.
If this test is going to be the holy grail it ought to be free with readily available study materials. Charging 250 plus study materials and tutoring is nothing more than a shake down. You have no choice other than paying the 250 and sucking it up.
Yes, I do know that the GMAT is only one piece of the puzzle, but lets face it. You are not getting into Harvard with a 640-660 (without RARE exception).
What are you talking about?
Not everybody takes prep courses and/or uses tutors. $250 isn't cheap, but as some other posters mentioned, while this test doesn't test intelligence, it is a fair predictor of how well you can study, retain and apply subject matter. If you don't do well on the GMAT, it doesn't say that you're not smart. It doesn't say that you won't be successful. But just like the SAT, it's an additional data point for schools to use when assessing a candidate. I'm in school now, and while the average GMAT score is high, we also have a pretty wide range (550-790). More importantly, there are many other data points used, both qualitative AND quantitative. Undergrad GPA, undergrad school, work experience, previous employers, essays and recommendations. Some schools may take a more formulaic approach and have a very clear idea what type of student they want, but I don't think it's as simple as you make it out to be. Rather, I'd say that there are tens of thousands of qualified applicants applying to business school every year, and if schools have the choice between Adam (Ivy UG, GPA 3.5, BB IB->PE, 720) and Gary (2nd tier UG, GPA 3.8, BB IB->PE, 650) . . . they may choose Adam, but to say that it's only about GMAT is silly. The data that I just presented is just a fraction of the info that is evaluated in a candidate.
By the way, what are you talking about with HBS rarely accepting folks with 640-660? Four of my friends in HBS right now all have 670 or lower. While that's only a fraction of the entire class, I'm curious what you mean by rarely and where you're getting your information from.
I strongly agree w/ most of what AnthonyD has said.
The problem is that it's a game-killer for Gary, whereas it's not really a game-saver for Adam. Put differently, the downsides of a bad score are much more drastic than the upsides of a good score. If you've been successful in everything prior to the GMAT, all of that success gets thrown out the window to an Adcom if you bomb the GMAT. If you're somewhat successful in everything prior to GMAT and you ace the exam, it's not going to get you into a top school; there are still questions left for Adcoms to debate.
IMO, GMAT should be optional. Solves the problem of a low score destroying successful profiles, while at the same time might begin to add significant value for those w/ very high scores. Though it will never happen because like Anthony said, GMAC is a business. And they're not in the business of having students loophole the exorbitant costs of their silly test.
I say rarely after looking at admission stats and GMAT ranges. Yah, you can get into a program with a sub par GMAT, but a lot of time these lower GMATs are reserved for special circumstances. Yes the GMAT is a data point, but an incredibly important one. Problem is it is not optional. If a kid with no work experience can score an 800 and not get into B school someone should be able to get in without the GMAT at all. The GMAC punished adcoms for suggesting/allowing/ not using the GMAT. That is the problem.
The GMAC basically has a gun to your head. You HAVE to take it to even be considered for grad school. Since the test is created in a way that you don't see in school you can either roll the dice and see if you are rain man or "invest" in their materials. GMAC has a multi million dollar business going because people are forced to take that damn thing. Why not a handful of alternatives? Why not an option to omit it? Might cause GMAC to lower prices/ make more materials available online for free, make a better test.
My other problem is the way they attack sites where people "brain dump". I have the OG green and orange and the questions are pretty similar. GMAC has official tutors who take the test a couple times a year, but the second someone else tries to provide the service for cheaper they freak out. It is like the power company suing someone selling candles the second a homeowner decides to turn the power off.
Either you agree that the GMAT is just one element of an admissions package and if so then it will take as long reviewing your file without a GMAT as it would with one. Otherwise, you must believe that the GMAT is the ultimate arbitrator and that you either hit XYZ level or you are done. In that case it is a horrible tool for deciding who gets in.
Essays, references, they are all a pain. Thing is, they are free. The GMAT is not free. I can decide to have my essays professionally edited, my resume professionally redone, my interview coached, etc. I can also choose not to do anything and do it myself. I, on the other hand, HAVE to take the GMAT.
GMAT is an indicator on how well one does on the GMAT. Nothing else. B School is not overly hard and the math is pretty simplistic. Most schools grade based on class participation and presentation, two skills not present in the GMAT.
Horrible tool? That's a bit strong, no? Also, the fact that you have to pay for the GMAT is not a good reason to get rid of the test. You also have to pay to apply to schools. Should people then make the decision on where to apply to school based on the cost of application?
Also, you haven't put forth a suggestion for a replacement of the GMAT. The reason for the test is that its a standardized way to assess candidates. Because a 3.5 at Harvard isn't the same as 3.5 at NYU . . . just as it's difficult to assess a 3.2 at Harvard against a 4.0 at Baruch. Also, three years in IB at JPM are not the same as five years of Investment Research at CIC (as an American).
The GMAT is an attempt to create a standard assessment tool for b-school applicants. Omitting it would be to the detriment of everybody.
P.S. You can do well on the GMAT without using tutors, etc. Not everybody uses test prep company resources.
Possible replacements to the GMAC:
1) Not taking it and being able to go off the strength of your application, good or bad 2) GRE 3) 3rd party test which could come about if GMAC wasn't in so much control 4) GMAT, but now it has competition and lowers its price, becomes more flexible, etc
Yes, you have to pay an application fee, but $25/$50 is essentially a co pay; just enough so randomly applying is not desirable, but not enough to dissuade someone. It is also waived many times by simply asking.
http://www.accepted.com/mba/gmatadmissions.aspx
"The GMAT is the most important part of your application."
Definitely true much of the time. ;-).
If your GMAT is more than thirty points below your target school's average GMAT, it could place you at a disadvantage and force the rest of your application to work overtime. You would have to present something most compelling to overcome that kind of a GMAT deficit at a competitive top school. Indeed, if you come from a common applicant background or a group that tends to do well on the GMAT, a below average score could keep you out -- even if the rest of your application is competitive.
Sometimes at a lower ranked school - a school scrambling to move up in the MBA rankings - an above-average GMAT score can boost your chances. Assuming that you have no glaring weaknesses in the rest of your profile, a high GMAT can mean acceptance and perhaps a fellowship.
Finally, the GMAT is critical when you are applying with a below average GPA. In that case, you need a few post-college A's and a high GMAT to show that you have the intellectual ability and self-discipline for a demanding MBA program. (For more information on applying with low stats, please see "MBA Admissions: Low GMAT or GPA.")
----- If you have a really low GPA you should have the option to just go off your WE or take the GMAT/GRE/XYZ. That is fine. I disagree with not having the option.
----- Lower ranked schools are under pressure to increase their programs average GMAT score to increase their perceived selectivity. Otherwise quality candidates at near top schools are going to be excluded out of fear that it could lower the school or halt its progress.
------ GMAT to make up for a low GPA? How about a little thing called work experience? What is considered a low GPA? Obviously a sub 3.0 with D's in critical math and writing classes is a warning sign, but is a 3.4 with B's in these classes an issue? A MBA with a marketing major isn't going to be math heavy at all and rigorous? My ass. If you look at top schools and look at the people applying, even omitting their GMAT scores, you are going to see a common pattern of hard work and achievement. GMAT isn't going to show shit.
"The GMAT has nothing to do with your ability to succeed in business and isn't/shouldn't be that important to business schools."
A high GMAT score has not correlated to professional success as far as I know, but has correlated closely to success in the first year of business school. And that's one of the reasons MBA admissions folks care about your score.
In addition, that three-digit number enables the schools to compare you to other applicants using a relatively objective, across-the-board criterion. Unlike grades or work experience or even more subjective intangibles, the GMAT is something that all top business school applicants must take.
Finally, US News uses the GMAT as a factor in its highly influential rankings. Schools want to do well in the rankings, and students with high scores make them look good. As much as rankings influence applicants, rankings also influence admissions' behavior.
Combine its predictive value for business school - not business - success with its objective qualities and influence on the rankings, and the GMAT becomes an important element in the MBA admissions equation.
----- I will agree that a super low GMAT score COULD be an issue. I would like to see the predictive ability and at what point does it begin to become insignificant? The real issue I see here is the US News point. Schools want to do well in the ranking. If US News, etc stopped using program average GMAT in their rankings you would see a huge decline in their importance.
"The GMAT can keep you out of b-school, but it can't get you in."
Usually 100% correct. A low GMAT can certainly keep you out of business school. Can a high score get you in? Only to a school that wants to use your GMAT to make itself look good. These schools are usually outside the top ten.
A high GMAT relative to the school's average could help you get in because your test score will contribute to a higher average score for the school and perhaps a slightly higher ranking when US News hits the newsstand.
----- Man, aint that fucked up. Low GMAT can fuck you, but can't save you conversely. Nothing like a kick in the sack, thanks GMAC
Yes, you can score well without paying for shit and just paying $250 and rocking and rolling. With this much riding on the test I tend to believe most people opt for the materials. The questions are devised in an unfamiliar way. I don't know about you, but they didn't have data sufficiency in my math classes in college or growing up.
All I am saying is this test is over valued in relation to what it does. If anything I think the test is even less predictive now considering prepping for it is almost a science and a multi million dollar prep business has grown up.
I'm working from the bottom up.
Ok, so I guess you're not speaking from experience given that your profile shows that you've got an MSF and that your "estimations" of application costs are way understated. Most applications range in cost from $175-200. Given that most folks (that I know) apply to around four schools, that brings your school expenses to about $800. An extra $250 sucks, but its still just a fraction of your investment for b-school.
Also, I'm not clear on your quotes above. Did you copy that from somewhere and then offer up your commentary?
Option 1 is not a replacement Option 2 is not a viable option with what the GRE currently tests. GRE verbal is heavily slanted toward vocabulary and word comprehension, while GMAT verbal is about interpretation and analysis. GRE math doesn't even compare to GMAT math. While you may not like data sufficiency or problem solving, business school does require a fair amount of analysis . . . not just class participation and presentation as you've mentioned. At least that's the case at my school.
3) Nice thought. Probably would take a few years for adoption given the established GMAT standard. But maybe ETS could administer it.
4) GMAC + ETS . . . maybe. But if you look at how ETS and ACT have competed over the past few decades, its taken a while for ACT to be adopted and many schools still have difficulty translating ACT scores and still use the SAT as the official scoring rubric.
Aut fugit perspiciatis sequi perferendis. Deserunt nesciunt consequatur itaque est dolores suscipit. Facilis est saepe sed eaque est. Sed enim quia facilis quo facilis. Ab vel voluptas deserunt molestiae velit. Est beatae quasi aut quod porro quidem.
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...