Reason for Differences in Average GMAT for M7

No one here can give you the right answer.

I think Alex from MBAApply could probably give a good reason.

My guess is that it's as simple as some schools valuing GMAT more (Stanford, Chicago), others valuing GPA more (Kellogg, HBS).

Whether one school truly cares more than other schools is pure conjecture (and conjecture that I have made in the past as well, which may or may not be wrong).

Put it this way. An adcom at say Stanford isn't purposely comparing their admissions criteria vs say HBS (i.e. "we shall care more about GMATs than HBS").

From a pure statistical standpoint, the one thing you'll find is that the middle 80% distribution range is pretty consistent across virtually all top 16 schools now -- it's roughly 670 - 760 (+/- 10 points but I doubt such differences are due to institutional bias and more likely due to statistical "noise").

As for the mean -- the differences are more than likely NOT statistically significant (if you guys remember your stats, oh God I can't believe I do haha). In other words, the differences in the mean averages from one top 16 school to the next is far more likely due to statistical noise, and not due to some institutional bias for higher GMAT scores.

Another way to put it is this. We all know that for the top b-schools, your GMAT really isn't what differentiates you because the range of GMAT scores across the applicant pool from one top school to the next won't differ (as a population) -- there are sufficiently enough applicants to these top schools with strong scores that your GMAT alone doesn't do anything -- UNLESS it's outside the middle 80% (i.e. below high 600s).

Moreover, there is no such thing as "all things being equal" in the admissions process. It may be an interesting theoretical or philosophical discussion, but in REALITY it doesn't exist -- because no two people are alike no matter how you try to make them seem "alike" in every aspect except the GMAT.

So to end my convoluted post here, in plain English, just get the best score you can -- so long as it's high 600s you're in play, and ideally 700+ to be safe where they won't raise an eyebrow. Whether it's 740, 700, 760, etc. isn't really going to separate "Joe Smith Banker" from "Joe Chung Banker" from "Joe Weisberg Banker".

Alex Chu

So basically, the purpose of GMAT is really to help raise a flag (a negative one that is) if the score is below say the 670-660 mark. Other than that the GMAT seems as though it is just a check in the box. A great score can't get you in but a poor one can keep you out. The difference for the top schools again comes in the work experience, recommendations, and essays.

However I have heard that during the admissions process certain candidate profiles (bankers, consultants, government etc.) are evaluated amongst their peers in that profile. So if you fit the banker profile, will the admissions people tend to put in place a higher GMAT score threshold since people have similar experience, recommendations etc?

Correct - a low score can keep you out, but a high score won't get you in.

As for people with certain profiles - it's pure conjecture. Keep in mind that adcoms don't have some "chart" they refer to with incoming GMAT averages by demographic/occupational group or threshholds.

To be blunt, admissions is done 100% by feel.

I've said this before in another thread somewhere. Put 10 banker/PE types in a room with near identical resumes and get them to talk about themselves. So long as their GMATs are okay, what distinguishes each one of them isn't the differences in their GMAT. It's whether they can get the adcom to see them each as individuals. Five of the ten will probably blend into one another regardless of GMAT score, and the other five will be five separate individuals.

Alex Chu

WSO is on to it, I think. Stanford gmat > HBS gmat is due to smaller class size. I believe for the most part that stanford and hbs have similar quality student bodies, EXCEPT that probably the bottom 10-20% of the HBS class would not be competitive for admission at Stanford (generally speaking). There's only so many spots. So the weak (relatively speaking) get weeded out a bit. And like the example WSO gave, even for the very strong, Stanford has the luxury of picking the 760 ivy->IB->PE guy over the 720 ivy->IB->PE guy as they fill out and balance their class.

Alex, I'm a fan of yours and normally agree with most of what you say. But on serveral items here, I have to disagree.

First, the difference in GMAT among schools, particularly with Stanford, IS statistically significant. How else do you explain that Stanford consistently has the highest average GMAT score year after year? And if we took the time to research it, I'm sure we would find that HBS and Wharton are consistently in the top 2 or 3, year after year. Granted the difference isn't huge, but it exists.

Second, regarding the 'weaker students' - of course the GMAT is highly correlated with overall strength of the applicant. There's no need to even argue this one. If you think differently, you're fighting the entire bschool admissions establishment. (now, will some schools overweight the GMAT factor in evaluating/admitting applicants to boost their stats? - I definitely believe so. And I think this helps explain some of the clustering in the top ten. A little keeping up with the Jone's by the lower-ranked schools.)

Third, regarding class size - yes, it's not about sample size, it's the fact that Stanford is tied for the most desirable bschool program in the world and has by far the lowest acceptance rate, so only the extremely highly qualified are able to make the cut. That includes excellent work experience, excellent xc's, excellent letters, excellent GPA AND excellent GMAT. Pound for pound, Stanford has the strongest student body of any bschool, with HBS a close second. There's just not much room for the weaker students to sneak in and dilute the pool.

Fourth, there is absolutely a difference between a 770 and a 700. That is a fact. Is it a make or break difference? No. Will a 770 get you in? Of course not. Will a 700 applicant get in over a 770 applicant?--of course, happens all the time. As you know, it's a wholistic evaluation in which the GMAT is only one of many components. But a 770 has a 'wow factor' that a 700 does not and will get you points. Yes, even at the top schools. And there is also a practical difference - you've got to be damn smart to score 99+ percentile. Only so-so-smart to get a 700.

Further, intuitively it doesn't make sense that the schools no longer care about the GMAT at some cut off point (which you claim is around 700, approx. the average at the top schools). Why would it have meaning at a lower score but not at a higher score? Because the student is 'smart enough to do the work'? I don't think HBS/Stanford/Wharton are looking for students that are 'good enough'. They're looking for the exceptional. The best. Now is there dimishing margin return on a high GMAT score? - Absolutely. But the marginal benefit is certainly not zero.

what if you did so so on the quant, say 80-85 th percentile, but aced every math/heavy quantitative class in school, i.e. calc II, multivariate, linear algebra, stat, econometrics etc? should negate a mediocre math gmat score, no?

Look, Alex is largely right, leaving out that HBS and Stanford are the two that break away from the pack. It's really very simple.

1. The data shows that as a whole, the distribution is very similar across all top 16 schools. This is actually true for GPA as well. Pretty much all schools have an average between 700 and 720 - sure, some are 720, like Booth, and some are probably closer to 700, like Cornell. Wharton, Columbia, Kellogg, Stern, etc - all in the range. HBS creeps up only slightly at 724 (I think), and Stanford tends to edge out the pack at 730. Same with GPAs; for most schools it's somewhere between 3.45 and 3.55 in terms of the average, while at HBS and Stanford it's more like a 3.65 to 3.7.

2. It's all conjecture and decisions are largely emotional - and this is a very important point in Alex's messages: everyone brings their own biases. Look at this board. You have some people who genuinely think that there's a huge difference between a 760 and a 720, others who think a 700 is all that's needed, others who see value in a 680, etc. Admissions officers are no different. Alex most certainly has multiples the experience of ibledexcel when it comes to MBA applicants, and yet ibledexcel maintains his own views, independent of Alex's. And that's fine - it's not like Alex can tell ibledexcel what to believe or what to place value on. What do you think happens with admissions committee members? Just because their boss says "I really think anything below a 710/3.5 has to be extraordinary in order to remain in consideration" doesn't mean every employee will automatically agree like a blind minion - not to mention the actual 2nd year student readers etc. Everyone brings their own biases.