Do we really need 5+ years of work experience for top MBA?
Based on MBA class profile stats for top bschools, the average number of years of work experience was over 5 for almost all bschools except Harvard (4.7 years) and Stanford (4.6). Wharton, Booth, Kellogg, Sloan, Columbia, Ross, Anderson, and even LBS had an average of 5 years while others like Tuck, Haas, Fuqua, and Stern, averaged at around 5.2-5.5.
Does this mean that folks on the traditional 2+2 IB/Consulting -> PE path are disadvantaged by coming in with merely 4 years of work experience when it comes to MBA candidacy?
How does this fare for folks not on the average overachiever's MBB/ EB/BB IB -> MF/UMM PE path - does it make sense for these folks to apply after 5 years to improve their chances (maybe after becoming Sr.Assoc?)
Is the data skewed towards the majority of the MBA candidates that are on a non-traditional path (including military & international folks who did 3-year degrees) and are using an MBA to switch their career path?
Another issue with this is how does this fare for people who took GMAT/GRE immediately after graduation (undergrad) as their scores will expire (in 5 years) when they will apply for an MBA?
bump
4 at matriculation is the sweet spot. The average is brought up by candidates with 7-8+ years who apply late. Particularly common in the military. I had 4 and my work exp is way less prestigious than IB > PE.
The least you see for MBA business schools">M7 admits now adays is 3 at matriculation.
As long as your GMAT score is not expired, adcomms look at it like any other score.
Repudiandae excepturi architecto culpa id. Expedita id sunt et rem. Tempore consequatur dolor quam.
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...