49+ quant score a MUST for M7?
I know that wharton and sloan are very rigid when it comes to the 80% threshold for both sections. Kind of bullshit since quant has much fewer raw score intervals that will put you above 80% than verbal. Now a 48 quant score is 78%, and you have to score 49 to get 83%. A 49+ quant will be tough for me and am wondering if this alone would be a dealbreaker at the top schools.
It could or could not be a dealbreaker. However, in the Quant section, the test is more permissible for you to get a 50 as you don't need to get all the questions right. Getting a question wrong in verbal, however, will penalize your raw score much more dramatically. Both sections are quite hard. I feel like you're overemphasizing how difficult quant is compared to verbal.
nah i think the 48 is still the quasi gold standard
verbal sucks more than quant. sentence correction=death of me. no speaky english :(
So i guess getting a 44 on the quant section is too far a reach for M7s, despite getting 95% on verbal and a 700+ total score?
If you're a white/asian male in finance/consulting i don't see how you can get into MBA business schools ">M7 with a 44 quant unless everything else on your application is top-notch. This is especially true for finance focused programs like wharton/sloan/booth/columbia, but even at "softer" schools, they really want to see 80%+ from both sections. Adcom believes that the GMAT is a good indicator of how well a student will do in b-school. Also from talking to a wharton friend who was on student adcom, he said the median GMAT for "traditional" applicants is now around 760-770. He's the guy who told me in no uncertain terms that I HAVE to get 750+ in order to have a shot at the big boys.
Thanks. Yes I'm white. So even a 4.0 gpa in finance at a top business undergrad / BB IBD experience wouldn't be enough to cover it for somewhere like kellogg (not really too interested in "financy"-type school)? Just want to make sure, as I'm still a bit on the edge about retaking.
I've been looking for information on this for a little while as well. I have a 47Q and that went from 77% to 73% in the past year, so with a 710 overall and a current 93% Verbal / 73% Quant split I've debated retaking.
However, while I do see the importance b schools place on the GMAT in admission, I have a hard time believing their main reason for wanting to see 80%+ on both sections is because the GMAT is a good indicator of future performance in b school. Has the MBA curriculum really increased in quantitative difficulty and decreased in the level of reading comprehension and verbal skills required to succeed? I doubt it. In aggregate, the applicant pool has simply gotten stronger Quant scores and lower Verbal scores from the percentage increase in foreign test takers.
Given all the above, however, the GMAT is still a screening mechanism used by b schools and if they do want an 80%+ on both sections, then that's either a game we are willing to play or a risk we are willing to take.
nah but it may make them want to see strong quant proficiency elsewhere -- undergrad, alt transcript, etc :) its far from a death sentence
Achieving a 48 in the Quant section definitely requires some effort, but is well within the range of the academically 'average' students; just becomes more of a function of work*effort.
Just to add some perspective (and please take this with a grain of salt) I applied out of undergrad to top MBA business schools ">M7 schools and got in with a Q:43/V:45 split. And no I'm not a URM, I'm typical white/asian male in finance.
That said I think shorttheworld nailed it when he said that adcoms will want to see quantitative proficiency elsewhere. For me my saving grace may have been that I studied math & econ at a top target (HYPSM) and my gpa was decent enough albeit not stellar (3.6/4.0). I even remember speaking to the adcom member when they called and mentioning how I was hesitant about even applying because of the GMAT and their words exactly were, "You studied math at ____, I don't think anyone ever doubted that you were quant enough."
In general if you think you can improve then why not go for it and take the test again. If you think that you have a strong profile regardless then don't take the test. Simply give it your all, apply, and let it play out. My $0.02.
Yup, I think your last paragraph sums it up pretty nicely. Congrats on the admission btw!
This makes me sad.
I know that feel, man.
My 740 looks good on the surface (my mommy was very proud of me), but it really sucks knowing that it doesn't count because of my rough split (42Q / 49V). Test #2 on September 5th, ugh. I think the only thing I've got going for me is that I'm not a traditional applicant like all of you nerds.
I say this time and time again. Never be discouraged by one aspect of an application, especially to top programs. Schools are serious when they say there is no cut-off. I know this for a fact as a former admissions officer. If you tell a unique enough story, it will offset an average GMAT. If you can show that you did well in college even with a low/average SAT score, you will be golden. MBA admissions is all about telling your unique story. Numbers are important especially for rankings, but you will see that once you are accepted, many of your peers will have lower stats than you if they chose to be honest.
No, this is nonsense.
Having a low percentile is just an excuse to ding someone who otherwise was fine, but just not as "liked" as other candidates.
This "80/80 rule" was coined up nearly 10 years ago, when the average score at the top 10 was around a 670 and the percentage of Chinese and Indian engineering applicants was, as a whole, much lower than today, and you were dealing with a primarily American applicant pool.
Check out the data released by GMAC. A score in the mid-40s is actually mid to high 80s in the percentile range AMONGST AMERICAN TEST-TAKERS, but it's in the 60s/70s now in the overall pool. When the admissions committees realized that they needed a certain minimum level of quant prowess, they figured that 80th percentile (in what was, again, a primarily American applicant pool) was about right.
If a school cites a quant score of 44 as a reason for dinging an applicant, especially when they have a solid GPA in finance and coursework that involves calculus and stats, then it's just an excuse for not liking the applicant enough. It's not like the curricula has changed significantly over the years (read: the courses aren't much harder now than 10 years ago), and they were admitting people with lower gmat scores back then. It's just competitiveness.
Don't sweat. Kill the rest of the application. High GMATs (with high subscores) can give bland applicants a bit of a push, or at least make it harder for the admissions committees to ignore your application. But trust me, every year the top 10 business schools consistently interview, admit or waitlist throngs of applicants - of every stripe - with quant scores like the OP's.
I think it depends on the opportunity cost also of taking the exam again... is it too much of a distraction to bump your Q score by 4-5 points? If it takes away from your applications / networking maybe don't do it. But if it won't kill you take it and don't leave any chips on the table?
Itaque dignissimos voluptates nulla tenetur. Ea dolorem suscipit rem dolor.
Aut consequatur quod consequatur omnis. Et voluptas odio eaque vel cupiditate eos. Dolores dolores cupiditate est inventore at corporis error aut. Fugit veniam necessitatibus nisi sint.
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...