Most numbers obsessed b-school
Anyone want to take a crack at ranking top b-schools in order of how much they care about the GMAT?
Trending Content
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
April 30, 2024
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
Race adjusted for not URM (i.e. for white guys, Asians, Europeans, Indians, etc.)
Wharton Stanford MIT Chicago HBS Dartmouth Haas Kellogg Stern Michigan UCLA Columbia that's as far as i care to go...
Columbia is the most gmat obsessed followed by wharton. HBS actually care much less about the gmat than college gpa.
The previous two posters' information is incorrect. Based on US News' 2011 Rankings:
Stanford at 728 Harvard at 724 Yale at 722 Wharton at 718 MIT at 718
Haas at 718 Tuck at 716 Booth at 715 Stern at 715 Kellogg at 715
Columbia at 712 UCLA at 710 Ross at 704 Darden at 699 Fuqua at 697
And the only schools that have average GPAs above 3.5 are Stanford (3.69), Harvard (3.67), MIT (3.57), Kellogg (3.52), Booth (3.52), Yale (3.52), UCLA (3.53) and Haas (3.63). I have the US News premium subscription and can check on other info, at request.
Incredible how Yale SOM has risen so quickly. I remember just a few years ago it wasn't even considered decent.
what are the schools ranked by acceptance rates?
Stanford at 6.8% Harvard at 11.2% Haas at 11.6% MIT at 13.0% Stern at 13.2%
Columbia at 15.3% Wharton at 16.8% Yale at 17.3% Kellogg at 19.9% Tuck at 20.3%
USC at 22.0% Booth at 22.3% Duke at 23.7% Cornell at 23.4% McCombs at 24.0%
Ross at 25.4% Darden at 26.3% Tepper at 27.5% Olin at 28.6% UCLA at 29.0%
Carlson at 30.3% Emory at 33.3% UNC at 36.1% Kelley at 41.7% Georgetown at 42.5%
I only ranked the schools in the top 25 (on the first page of the US News rankings). Surprised to see USC at #11 and Booth outside the top 10...
Yeah, i wish we had info on the variance of scores. When I think "numbers obsessed" I think which school has some "threshold" GMAT score below which they won't admit. I suspect places like HBS, Kellogg and Columbia really don't have a threshold, whereas I imagine that MIT or Wharton probably do (again, this is for non-URM).
Interesting how high Yale is - to me that reeks of GMAT obsession.
where do i fit with a 2.6 and 670? haha
You're one of the few outliers on this forum- I'm confident you'll have leveraged results, monty.
University of Phoenix, Shaq got his MBA there and Lil Wayne has a Master's from there! #eliteschool
Broaden your horizons. Great schools outside the US
http://www.economist.com/whichmba/full-time-mba-ranking
Top MBAs that Focus More on Numbers Than Work Experience and School Name? (Originally Posted: 01/31/2010)
So basically, coming from a non-target, solid work experience is going to be hard to come by. I was reading a blog where a Harvard admissions guy said that even if I manage to work at an investment bank, which isn't easy to do, I'll be classified as an average joe and will have a tough time getting into HSW. Assuming that I get into a decent accounting firm (the Big 4 hire at my school, but it might be hard to get in since they don't take a lot of people so I'm not counting on it) and I work on getting good numbers, which schools would be more likely to give me a good shot simply because of numbers and are more forgiving about not being a "blue chip" or "vagabond" applicant? I'm aiming for a 3.65-3.7+ for GPA and a 760+ on the GMAT just to give you an idea.
Secondly, I'm starting to get interested in high profile management consulting, and would really like to get hired by MBB or elite boutiques like Monitor, Marakon, Parthenon, Sapient, etc. So, given my goal, what path do you recommend I go down, given that I'll probably have to start off in accounting and getting my CPA to get there? Are there any MBAs that are well recruited by consulting firms that are more numbers-oriented?
[quote=TheMasao]Broaden your horizons. Great schools outside the US
http://www.economist.com/whichmba/full-time-mba-ranking[/quote]
That's the worst MBA ranking I've ever seen.
9 York University - Schulich School of Business Canada
15 Pennsylvania, University of - Wharton School United States
Are you fucking kidding me? They have Schulich ranked above Wharton.
[quote=TheMasao]Broaden your horizons. Great schools outside the US
http://www.economist.com/whichmba/full-time-mba-ranking[/quote]
Any ranking that has UVA above HBS, Wharton at #15, and Tuck #1 is clearly flawed.
Honestly, just finish school strong and secure a job. All this talk about grad school is a waste of time at this point since you need 3-5 years work experience. In that time period a lot will change. You might actually like accounting! You could also always move to a less known consulting firm to get some experience and see if you really like it.
As far as schools go, most top schools look at your total package. You could have a 4.0 GPA and a 770 GMAT, but if you are boring as toast you won't get into every school. Try and differentiate yourself. If anything, top 10 Bschools are looking for the total package. There are plenty of resume books online for you to look at so you can have an idea of what candidates look like, etc.
Finally, you really need to realize that no one knows of gives a crap if you are a non target or target. The second you leave this message board people will think you are crazy if you mention the whole target crap to them. Target also only applies to to Business School. If not going to an Ivy is such an issue for you why not just apply for a liberal arts masters degree or something so you can tell people you went to xyz school. Once you get into a work environment people are going to judge you based on your work, not your diploma.
My friend went to HBS. He did not go to a target undergrad. He worked at Amtrak after college in a strategic planning position.
You are getting WAY too caught up in this message board. You don't need to work at GS, MS or MBB in order to get into a top business school. My friend went to Stanford GSB and only had internship experience (not MBB or IB). The backgrounds of top MBA students are very diverse.
I'm basing it off of this article:
http://www.bschooladmissionsformula.com/what-kinds-of-people-get-into-h…
In that article, it keeps emphasizing top schools for "vagabond" or "blue chip" applicants. Yeah, its possible to get in, but not likely, which is why I'm exploring other options.
Secondly, I know they look for the "whole" applicant, but are there some that put slightly more emphasis on pure numbers rather than softs? There's no denying that some M7s are more soft heavy while others are more numbers heavy, and I'm trying to figure out which ones like which.
Finally, would getting international experience and working abroad maybe differentiate me a bit, as opposed to normal state schoolers who just work at their local big 4/other corporate offices, or the HYPSM people that all want to work at GS in NYC?
Get a hold of a resume book from H/S/W for every kid that went to Yale or Pton, worked at Bain or GS, you will find a kid who went to some top 100 undergrad in the mid-west who managed to put together a well-rounded package of work experience, ECs, leadership roles and a cogent story as to why b-school.
Dont get too caught up in planning ahead, just do the best you can right now in all aspects of your life and you will position yourself well for the future. Good luck.
Not to disparage Alex, but you're just reading 1-man's opinion. It is hardly an official comment from H/S/W and there are numerous examples of people that break the mold. Whatever you do, don't pursue a certain path because that's what you think adcomms want you to do. Follow the path you want to follow, do the best job you can, and then when you're ready to apply, pick the schools you are interested in / qualified for and submit the application.
I'm starting to think that ibankingreject may be a troll
Nah, I'm just another stressed out Indian kid who thinks that money is the only key to happiness. You're right though, I probably should take a break from posting on here and focus on other things, but visitng this site everyday has become a habit and it's hard to kick it. But I promise to not start anymore threads here for 2 months.
i think you guys arent right in just looking at this based upon what the accepted gmats are. from my experiences and from waht ive read, columbia, MIT, harvard, chicago and id guess wharton/stanford and from what ive read yale are very number focused betweenBOTH gpa and gmat-- where as tuck, duke, and northwestern are less likely to ding you on an outlier gmat/GPA. this may be more gpa focused than gmat but id like to give the flipside of the coin
Goes without saying that it's always better to have higher numbers. But from talking to various students and alums, if both your gpa and gmat are in the 80% range of that school's entering class profile, your numbers by themselves won't keep you out. Of course, if say one section of your gmat is noticeably lower than the other, it never hurts to re-take it. Or if your gpa was very low, you should consider taking a few courses like calculus, stat, or accounting, and get A's in those. Basically you just have to prove to adcom that you're smart and motivated enough to handle the work. After that, they care about the "meat" of your application: work experience, leadership, extras, essays, recs.
Just lost my reply to this.
It is a red herring to look at published stats, as they don't tell the full story.
Instead, the obsession over academic stats should be viewed in the context of the USNews ranking formula. Schools know that rightly or wrongly, the USNews ranking is highly influential. There are four key chunks to their raw USNews score: Peer Reputation Survey (25%), Recruiter Reputation Survey (15%), and then the GMAT/GPA combo, which combine for roughly 25%, with the GMAT being twice as important as the GPA.
Which is the only area that the Admissions Office can directly influence?
Yup, the GMAT/GPA, and of the two, the GMAT is twice as important. "Improving" a school's standing and the quality of the experience is generally a long-term, investment-intensive effort; re-engineering the admissions process can be done in one year with a fraction of the effort, and reap immediate results. The school doesn't even need to 'improve' (itself a subjective evaluation) for its ranking to rise.
Pretty much by nature, it is the lower-ranked schools that are more concerned with climbing the rankings. The schools most known for this are generally outside the Top 5 and are usually in the 7-15 range: Columbia, Yale, Stern, and Haas. Columbia pioneered the triple "attract applicants, focus on the GMAT, drive down the percentage of admitted students" formula that saw it shoot up the rankings in the 90s, from a low of 14th in the 80s to 3rd at the height of the dot-com bubble, I believe. It worked well, even if now it's losing steam. Others have copied it with similar success. Haas, considered by most to round out the top 10, has been sitting at 7th for several years now. Yale, which for many years was considered Cornell-level, has joined Stern in scratching the Top 10. These schools don't perform as well on the other rankings scales because they aren't as impacted (if at all) by these sort of stats.
Wharton has been mentioned here: it is the anomaly in the Top 5, because it explicitly states that the GMAT is extremely important and it offers some raw, hard numbers to show what it means. That said, Wharton could easily bring in a class with an average of 750, and if it doesn't, it's because it isn't as GMAT-whorish as people claim. Stanford is sometimes described as a GMAT whore because it consistently has the highest means and medians, but Bolton alleges it's a function of their applicant pool being broadly accomplished and already having an average GMAT above 700. HBS and Kellogg have, to a lesser extent, made similar noises.
I don't mean to say anything offensive, as plenty of what I've said can be drawn from public information and putting the pieces together. Some schools are just more known for focusing on academic stats for reasons extrinsic to candidate competence. The reasons aren't hard to figure out.
Anyone else think the GMAT is an absurd criterium for assessing an individual's ability to manage?
I won't say law schools have the totally right idea, but they're closer than b-school. I would argue the formula should be something like 40% experience, 25% GMAT, 25% GPA 10% interview. Yes, I'm aware you can't quantify experience or an interview.
Actually, no.
Most of the content on the GMAT is useless, I will agree with that, the math in particular. Learning data sufficiency sucks, since it is useless and isn't found anywhere in the real world. The GMAT also demands you learn tons of idioms and rules for grammar, and math you will never read.
The point is, the material on the test is something you are likely to have marginally encountered, thus making it fair since everyone has been exposed in some way to the rules of English or Math. However, it tests mainly absurd shit or asks it in such a convulted way as to make it difficult.
In my opinion, this makes a fair scoring mechanism. Everyone is familiar with the material, but not familiar enough where raw intelligence will provide a signficiant advantage. The only way to be successful on the GMAT, no matter how smart you are, is to sit down and read a book and at least figure out the stupid shit they want you to know. I've never heard of anyone sitting down to take the test without studying before and scoring a 700+. The test requires some degree of planning, and at least learning the material.
This means that test takers need to set a goal (a certain score range), build a plan of action (some sort of study plan), and actually execute on it. In other words, the test really tests your ability to make a plan and manage your time to learn the bulshit you need to in order to be successful.
Alright, fine, this is a bulshit answer.
For the record, nothing about the b-school admissions game is fair. The adcoms admit that they are building a class, and for that they just need to take certain people from a diverse set of backgrounds in order to keep class discussions alive and to get lucrative jobs so they can donate back to the school. It comes down to selling the school well on your background and convincing them that you will have something to add to the conversation and will be successful afterward.
Read the HBS Guru predictions on Poets and Quants. Sandy really knows what he is talking about, and knows the typical patterns that schools use to build a class.
http://poetsandquants.com/2011/06/23/handicapping-your-shot-at-a-top-sc…
Actually, no.
Most of the content on the GMAT is useless, I will agree with that, the math in particular. Learning data sufficiency sucks, since it is useless and isn't found anywhere in the real world. The GMAT also demands you learn tons of idioms and rules for grammar, and math you will never read.
The point is, the material on the test is something you are likely to have marginally encountered, thus making it fair since everyone has been exposed in some way to the rules of English or Math. However, it tests mainly absurd shit or asks it in such a convulted way as to make it difficult.
In my opinion, this makes a fair scoring mechanism. Everyone is familiar with the material, but not familiar enough where raw intelligence will provide a signficiant advantage. The only way to be successful on the GMAT, no matter how smart you are, is to sit down and read a book and at least figure out the stupid shit they want you to know. I've never heard of anyone sitting down to take the test without studying before and scoring a 700+. The test requires some degree of planning, and at least learning the material.
This means that test takers need to set a goal (a certain score range), build a plan of action (some sort of study plan), and actually execute on it. In other words, the test really tests your ability to make a plan and manage your time to learn the bulshit you need to in order to be successful.
Alright, fine, this is a bulshit answer.
For the record, nothing about the b-school admissions game is fair. The adcoms admit that they are building a class, and for that they just need to take certain people from a diverse set of backgrounds in order to keep class discussions alive and to get lucrative jobs so they can donate back to the school. It comes down to selling the school well on your background and convincing them that you will have something to add to the conversation and will be successful afterward.
Read the HBS Guru predictions on Poets and Quants. Sandy really knows what he is talking about, and knows the typical patterns that schools use to build a class.
http://poetsandquants.com/2011/06/23/handicapping-your-shot-at-a-top-sc…]
So you're saying the material is arbitrary, but the act of learning the material shows planning and dedication? Sounds pretty absurd to me. If a candidate hasn't demonstrated those skills apart from their GMAT score, the rest of their profile is going to suck ass. Really, there's a huge overlap, and a LOT of people end up wasting a lot of time studying for this thing--I would argue especially the people who tend to be more organized end up wasting the most time studying.
Obscenity, going to volunteer in a remote part of rural honduras, where there is no running water or electricity, is not exactly a vacation in st.bart's.
However, I can't see how anyone can possibly justify it as making you a more effective employee for your fund, and that's what b-schools should be aiming for - the best employees.
Libor, Id disagree with you, raw intelligence is rly rly rly fkin helpful on the GMAT. itll help you pick up all the rules 2000% faster.
Obscenity, let's cut the self-righteous crap. Most ivy grads who do community service work don't do it because they are consumed by an undying desire to help the oppressed. Let's put it this way. I know multiple rhodes and marshall scholars who did amazing non-profit work when they were in college. You know what they're doing now? Yup, you guessed it; they're working at top hedge funds, pe firms, etc.
I agree with you that b-schools should be selecting those who will make the best employees at their respective firms and industries. I personally believe that adcom's way of determining that is flawed in many respects. However, as the saying goes, "don't hate the player; hate the game." So to achieve my goals I have to play the game. I don't have much of a choice here.
Obscenity, that's fair. I guess I misconstrued the first part of your post.
Yeah, as I said before, I think b-school admissions is a lot of bullshit. I'm not saying that it should become a formula like law school, but in my opinion adcom officers don't really have a clue on what type of people will most take advantge of the MBA and do well in the future. Adcom is constantly reacting to what they perceive to be the latest trend in hiring and overall developments in business. Along with that you have politically correct bullshit that permeates the admissions process.
yes everyone support my uncles non profit kthx lol
We're pretty off-topic.
Some historical context here:
Stanford's average GMAT has always been the highest. 10-15 years ago, it was the only school in the 700s when others like Wharton, Kellogg, Sloan, etc. were still in the mid-600s (and when HBS didn't even accept GMATs at all). Their GMAT scores historically were a factor higher than everyone else's (until recently). They would always play coy and say they never cared that much about GMAT, but they do. A lot. And to this day when a lot of schools have caught up in terms of GMAT scores, Stanford still has the highest averages. Stanford cares a lot about GMAT, moreso than HBS or Wharton. With Stanford, you do have to take what the adcom says with a HUGE grain of salt (the adcoms have a habit of talking out of both sides of their mouth moreso than HBS or Wharton).
Wharton cares more about the GMAT than the GPA. They've always had a more international bent (the % of non-Americans was historically the highest by a big factor, and only in the last 5 years or so have other schools really caught up in terms of % of internationals). That's why Wharton cared more about GMAT -- simply because at most schools, adcoms will look more closely at GMATs for folks who didn't do their undergrad at a US university. But this also translates into how Wharton looks at GMATs vs GPAs.
HBS is the opposite - they care much more about the GPA than the GMAT. Always have - they were the last holdout until about 10 years ago when they finally decided to accept the GMAT.
Again this is a subtle thing -- all three schools (and all top 16 schools really) care a LOT about GMATs and GPAs. It's just a matter of degree.
In short, if you are looking at a top 16 school, you realistically need at least a 700 on the GMAT for it not to be a concern, and a 3.4+ GPA, especially if you're a traditional candidate (banker/consultant/engineer/corporate). Once you have hit these threshholds, it comes down to everything else.
Alex once again hit it out of the park. HBS cares A LOT about college gpa; their average is hovering at around 3.7 and will only get higher with the 2+2 crowd. I know of quite a few who have gotten into HBS with gmat scores of around 680-690 but very few with below a 3.5 gpa. If you're a traditional finance/consulting applicant, anything below a 3.5 is pretty much a death knell at HBS unless you've done something truly exceptional.
Wharton is surprisingly a bit lax on gpa. I know quite a few who have managed to get in with sub-3.3 gpa. But for them, given the more quantitative nature of their program, a gmat quant score of below 80 percentile is a severe handicap.
As Alex said, Stanford is much more obsessed with numbers and blue-chip work experience than their reputation lets on.
What if you are an engineer with a sub 3.0 gpa and 700+ GMAT from a decent engineering school (Waterloo/UofT)?
If it's 750+ you could still have a shot at wharton. But HBS and Stanford are definitely out.
I am not too hung up on names, not that I can afford to be given my GPA. Obviously the more prestigious a school the better. I just want to go to a school where I would have a good shot at MBB consulting. I would be very happy to get into Kellogg or Ross too given my goals. I have a 710.
This is not a negligible time, but also a lot less than some of the more serious came in, I put the final score of 760 applicants.
Ab non et aut tenetur asperiores voluptatem. Cum ut non veritatis rerum. Neque dolorum voluptas error aut perspiciatis sed rerum.
Nemo consequatur consequatur repellendus provident. Eaque non quo excepturi iure. Reiciendis nam rerum ut veritatis molestiae dolorem est sapiente. Et enim ut cum sit.
Nihil aut voluptatibus culpa iure. Molestias voluptatem nulla aut sunt omnis. Fuga iure ut veniam temporibus sapiente.
Et est in modi ut vitae sequi dolore. Dicta aliquam nesciunt in enim nisi ipsa est. Ipsum recusandae facilis et ratione voluptatibus.
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...
Quis expedita et incidunt et minima. Repellendus aut consequatur ullam dicta itaque esse optio molestiae. Temporibus corporis consequatur omnis placeat qui facilis quia. Cumque sapiente sint et qui aut tenetur nesciunt.
Laboriosam eius et corporis dolorem. Velit omnis aliquid alias non culpa blanditiis officiis. Tempore qui commodi expedita iste. Accusamus magnam ut delectus iusto omnis. Pariatur soluta quos architecto sapiente ut eius consequatur ipsam.
Nobis voluptatem est error in architecto vitae cupiditate. Repellat eius qui non architecto.
Quod accusantium nisi voluptatibus aperiam. Voluptate quis aut minima et.