Elite resume is the deciding factor in applications
I keep hearing it said that GMAT is the most important element of the bschool application. But when you plot acceptance v. GMAT, you find that top 10 schools always reject the majority of applicants with any gmat score. A school might reject 85% of their 710s, which is understandable, but they also reject 65% of their 760s, which is more surprising. If schools are rejecting the majority of their top GMATs in favor of lower scorers, then something else is deciding the fate of our applications.
With the average applicant putting in months of effort, almost all will apply with airtight narratives, outstanding essays, and polished interview responses, I really don't believe those 760s are getting dinged because they all wrote stupid stores (e.g. "I've only ever worked in general management consulting but think I'm a good fit for Clean Energy").
The only element that could set these applicants apart then is work experience. And with so many applicants in every field, it has to be how elite their work experience is: MBB v. Deloitte/Accenture; TFA/TFI v. anything else in education. No adcom would ever hint that an elite resume was more important than your GMAT, essays, GPA, recommendations and interviews combined, but I can't find any other explanation. Why do all the people with outstanding numbers get rejected?
Because lets say you have a b-school class. You don't want 80% to be IBD/Consulting/etc. You want a degree of diversity; diversity & prestige are the factors which b-schools are judged.
Therefore you accept the best fit in certain categories. Maybe you have an unofficial quota of 20 investment bankers. That will isolate a lot and lead to most elite getting in. Do you "have" to be from elite firms, no. But it shows more "potential" because you're already at XY and only have a small step to Z.
You're right, but GMAT is the only thing you can change when you're applying. Likewise, at Kellogg, all the MBB sponsored students and top PE people, for the most part, have low 700 GMATS...Why? Because if they had mid 700's, they would've gotten into Harvard/Stanford. Higher GMAT always helps you.
Lot of unfounded assumptions. I think that you understate acceptance rate of 760+ scorers unless you are, perhaps, talking about H/S (still think you are understating). gmat scores play into rankings, so it is always going to have an impact BC it will ultimately factor into the school's ROI/student, which is underlying a lot of these decisions in an implicit way. The more that a metric impacts this, the more valuable it is, e.g., a student from an elite background is more likely to have the contacts/abilities to bring prestige and wealth to their alma mater.
It also sounds as though you are assuming some kind of a negative relationship between pedigree and stats. I would posit, rather, that these schools are just really, really competitive, and that stats and pedigree both play a strong factor. If you ask me, I would say that GMAT/GPA are the primary factors that determine the strength of an application for 99% of applicants (excluding the lucky remaining 1%).
Also, not many schools can afford to reject 85% of their 710s given yield, etc. You must be talking about H/S/maybe-W.
When you plot pretty much any school in the top 10 based on the GMATclub data, about 85% of 710s get rejected, and about 65% of the 730-780 crowd. That seems fairly consistent across the board.
The GMAT Club population does not constitute a random sample. That could be covariant with other factors such as % of international students, etc. It's possible that they display a higher rejection rate on avg than US applicants (as I am assuming you are) given the same gmat score.
I think it'd be fair also to question how strongly correlated gmat score is to the overall strength of an applicant's profile. Call it callow if you like, but it does seem to be factual that Adcoms look for "leadership". I do think that people who score lower are more likely to be these "go-getter" types, generally very optimistic about the industry as a whole and overly confident in their own abilities... but now I am making assumptions. My point, in short, is that I don't think that your conclusion follows logically from your premises. Too many unstated and unfounded assumptions.
Schools view academia as the highest calling and noblest of pursuits. Therefore, safely assume that your GPA and test scores, the only criteria to measure your success in academia, will be weighed higher than work experience. They are typically the most liberal of audiences, if you have any doubts, watch a professor defend "Psychology" as a valuable pursuit for a career in business to have a higher leg up against business students. Basically, your essay can turn even the most mundane and useless of job experiences into a life changing event that appeals to their ideals. The focus on GMAT isn't unfounded but you can't change your work experience or past grades, so that and your essay are the only pieces left under your control. Know your audience.
Does what you do on the job matter as much as the employer? For example, if you had significant C-level exposure at let's say HP vs. none at Google? Or would they not care and put you into a blue chip or non-blue chip pile?
They say experience matters more, but it seems like they value company name more than responsibility, based on admissions data.
I think this might be because people at different calibre companies in the same roles (e.g. management consulting, MBB vs. a lower tier firm) usually have similar responsibilities (based on what I know). I'd argue, using @TwoThrones example and what I've read/heard from admissions, consultants etc., that the guy who materially made a difference and went above and beyond his regular responsibilities (especially in a way that demonstrates leadership) would get in to a top bschool over the guy at Google who just did his regular job (and assuming job function is equivalent to HP guy).
This all boils down to who is reading your application. Higher stats = higher admit rate is tautological excluding yield concerns at lower-ranked school, but the rest of the applications falls into the "holistic" gray area
I have a conspiracy theory that the most important determinant of bschool admissions is total compensation at the time you apply (relative to your 'bucket'). When they have two consultants and one is making $75k and the other is making $150k, they will tend to lean toward the person who makes more, because it sends a signal about their leadership potential, work ethic, reputation among peers, and perhaps most importantly to adcoms; their long-term earnings potential. I can't tell you how many ppl in my class were making $120-$160k before school out of relatively unheard of firms. I knew this because we would always bitch about how we're going to take a pay cut after graduation (at least in the stub year). Yes they admit the BB bankers and MBB types in droves, but they also take lots of boutiquey ppl who made good money before school. It's just a good signaling mechanism... certainly much better than a gmat score or GPA from ancient history, or some crappy essay about how you want to cure ebola.
I don't think any school would deny that they heavily weigh work experience in admission decisions.
Not sure what this thread is about tbh. I think you've uncovered a public and well known fact.
Haha my thoughts exactly.
MBAs look for candidate that will leave the school and make a name of it (and hopefully give back with their earnings). When you are thinking "How will I get into a top MBA?" think about how you can position yourself as someone who will have a successful career with or WITHOUT that MBA... They want people who take initiative, leadership, and business savvy. The GMAT is like a hurdle, more so that they know you can pass the classes, not so much an indicator of future career success.
Repellendus quod ut sed voluptas suscipit. Soluta non maxime est modi enim qui labore.
Et vel reprehenderit aut ea mollitia. Quasi harum quod delectus.
Dolor exercitationem ut eaque deserunt assumenda molestias. Tenetur nulla non commodi consectetur. Aliquam qui nisi eos autem. Eaque ut amet neque voluptates minus. Dignissimos ab est et ad consequatur. Sunt qui non sequi molestiae consequatur aut qui. Ad qui vero repellat.
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...
Illum facilis sequi odit odit qui. Dignissimos perspiciatis ut ad repellendus quia aut. Magni sit vel quo ut ut commodi modi maxime.