I see H/S median is 730 and average is 73X. I know that includes people from other industry backgrounds that may not be as quantitative and so is likely higher for your typical PE Associate (or so I estimate).
What, then, is an acceptable score for someone in UMM/MF? What should one’s minimum acceptable score be? Q/V targets?
Depends in M/F.
Generally 750 is tablestakes. 770+ may be a slight +. But no one is getting into H/S based on GMAT, particularly not a PE candidate.
“750 is tablestakes”... idk about that one.
I’d argue 730+ checks the box.
Well - remember, if you are a PE candidate, they are NOT comparing you with the nuclear sub engineer, the mid-career Doctor, the guy running Amazon's warehouse operations in the Midwest, or the guy building a microfinance non-profit in India.
They are going to compare you only within the PE candidate bucket and within that, they're going to consider M/F. Based on resume books I've seen, UMM/MF (M) candidates all have pretty high GMATs... (think about the average UMM/MF, GS/MS/EB, HYPSW person applying to H/S...)
My one other pet theory is this - you'll see that H/S sometimes have lower median / average GMAT scores than Wharton for example. The reason this happens - I think - is because H/S likes to take "fliers" - truly extraordinary individuals from really crazy backgrounds that simply do not have a good GMAT (PE guy with superb stats with super high GMAT. So again, that may also explain why the PE admits tend to have high GMATs.
You want a 740+ (i.e. above median wherever you're applying). The marginal value of the anything above that is essentially zero.
Thanks. What makes you say the second sentence?
I'd say there's two things: 1) schools care about their numbers and the number that's most often reported is median GMAT. From the school's perspective, it doesn't matter if an applicant has a 750 or an 800--both will help their reported numbers the same; 2) the difference between a person scoring a 770 and a 740 is more often luck than sheer intelligence. Moreover, there's diminishing returns to test scores above a certain level and there's no reason to think someone with an insanely high GMAT score is meaningfully "better" than someone with a lower (by HBS's standards, to be clear) score.
To add onto OP’s question, is the GRE actually acceptable these days for PE candidates or would that not go over well at H/S/W? Currently at a MF and not good at standardized tests, particularly for quant/math, so hoping to find the easiest path around that part of the application...
I used to think the GRE was the way for schools to take candidates they wanted to take (e.g., development, diversity) but would hurt their statistics. However, I've been increasingly hearing from people who work for admissions at H/S/W that the GRE is fully acceptable. JD/MBA students, for example, are taking the GRE so they don't need to do both the LSAT and GMAT. It's definitely becoming more widely accepted, particularly as the GMAT becomes easier (fewer questions per section, sections in any order you want)
For those considering a JD/MBA, is there any marginal benefit to taking the LSAT + GMAT instead of just the GRE? Wondering the answer to this specifically ignoring the opportunity cost associated with the extra time it requires to study for both.
Consequatur aperiam molestiae cum distinctio. Non omnis sed facilis itaque dolores. Eos et delectus rerum ea a vero incidunt dolorem.
Dolor qui et sint aspernatur. Sunt mollitia velit laudantium nulla quia vitae nobis. Nisi repellat harum a ex fugit nobis voluptas.
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...