Is 740 the new 700?

About five years ago, the conventional wisdom was, "just break 700, and you'll be fine with the top b-schools." The median gmat however has increased a lot since then. Virtually all the top 10 programs are now in the 720-730 range. HBS and Stanford will probably hit 740 in a few years. Given this new reality, for a traditional applicant (non-urm, finance/consulting), is 740+ the score range they need to be competitive at the M7? For someone who got say a 700, is a re-take necessary?

 

Is this a consequence of more STEM majors going to top b-schools?

"'In summary, people are morons and who cares. Make a shit ton of money. I've never seen a Ferrari paid for by what people think.' - ANT" -rufiolove
 

I think that 700 isn't "impressive" anymore. It is a good score and many get in with that score.

The problem is, if you don't get in, you will always wonder whether that was because of your GMAT... There are certain things you can control in the app process, and the GMAT is one of them.

 

Recognizing that everyone knows the following, it bears repeating: it's not all about the GMAT. A 700 and a 740 communicate the same thing, that is, you're smart. A better indicator of GMAT scores at these schools is the 80% range. Sure, they love score toppers who help the average, but they turn away as many 740 GMATs as they accept every year. I know this because I worked on the adcom of a top 5 school. Work experience, leadership, recos, academic background including not only GPA but where you got your degree all figure in of couse as does your post MBA vision and how compellingly it resonates with the adcoms. The interview is key as well. Getting an interview increases your odds, with roughly 50% of admitted students being offered admission. Ultimately, you can end up wasting time trying to turn a 700 into a 730, the difference of which is marginal. Better to spend time focusing on the application. Certainly if it's relatively easy to get the higher score, it can not hurt, but that's a very personal decision. All the best...

Bryant Michaels Veritas Prep Consulting
 
bryantmichaels:
Recognizing that everyone knows the following, it bears repeating: it's not all about the GMAT. A 700 and a 740 communicate the same thing, that is, you're smart. A better indicator of GMAT scores at these schools is the 80% range. Sure, they love score toppers who help the average, but they turn away as many 740 GMATs as they accept every year. I know this because I worked on the adcom of a top 5 school. Work experience, leadership, recos, academic background including not only GPA but where you got your degree all figure in of couse as does your post MBA vision and how compellingly it resonates with the adcoms. The interview is key as well. Getting an interview increases your odds, with roughly 50% of admitted students being offered admission. Ultimately, you can end up wasting time trying to turn a 700 into a 730, the difference of which is marginal. Better to spend time focusing on the application. Certainly if it's relatively easy to get the higher score, it can not hurt, but that's a very personal decision. All the best...

Bryant, as an admissions consultant, it is your duty to tell people that they should focus hard on their essays and not "waste" time in trying to improve their gmat score up to 730+. No one is saying that the other factors are not critically important pieces of the application. And certainly I am not arguing that a super high gmat score is somehow the golden key that unlocks the doors to a top b-school.

I do however respectfully disagree with some of the underlying premises of your post. First, I think it is VERY important to recognize that an applicant is competing against those in his demographic group, whether that is gender, race, geography, or industry. This is why I made sure to emphasize that my question holds for "traditional" applicants. If you're a white or asian male in finance, you're competing against a lot of qualified people with awesome stats for a limited number of spots. It may be the case that a 700 guy gets in over the guy with a 770 due to other parts of his application that were stellar. But within that group, a 700 is certainly below the median and could pose as a liability. At the top schools, a 700 is already 20-30 points below the overall class median; among the finance set, i imagine it's even lower than that.

Second, I agree that getting an intervew is key. But a low gmat score can certainly prevent one from receiving an invite in the first place. I have several friends who sit on student adcom at M7 schools, and they all said that those who score in the 730+ range are put in a separate file from the others. They did not divulge any more details than that, but I imagine that schools do this for a reason. Simply put, the 80% range threshold is way too broad to use as a measuring stick to gauge one's chances. At wharton the 80% gpa/gmat range is like 3.2-3.8 and 670-770. Does anyone believe that a white or asian male in finance with a 3.2 and 670 gmat is a viable candidate for wharton?

Third, the key question is whether the extra time to raise one's gmat is worth it. I thnk the answer can vary wildly depending on the candidate, his background, and what the rest of the profile looks like, as well as the time frame. I think for certain people, trying to get from 700 to 750, can be very well worth it if they get a higher score. I do not believe for a second that adcom will be completely indifferent to someone whose score went up by 40+ points or so.

I think your post is well-intentioned but filled with bromides that consultants usually say. The typical modus operandi is to tell clients that they should not spend too much time improving their gmat score but instead focus on the other factors. And of course, pay them $2500/application to ensure that their apps "reveal the best parts of them."

 
Best Response

Brady your quesiton was is a 700 good enough. My answer in shorter form is, yes it can be depending on the balance of the application. I agree with many of the posts above that the b-schools know that an extra 20 or 30 points on the GMAT is a negligible indicator of aptitude, but schools do indeed set aside high GMAT applicants in case they need them to balance out the incoming average if they take some with lower scores because they offer something "else." I stick by my post 100% , but sorry you think my advice is banal. Sounds like what you want to hear is for someone in this spot should go take it again, so that may be the safer route. Never hurts to get a better score. Maybe if I were a GMAT instructor rather than an admissions consultant that would be my "standard answer" ;)

Bryant Michaels Veritas Prep Consulting
 
Brady4MVP:
Does anyone believe that a white or asian male in finance with a 3.2 and 670 gmat is a viable candidate for wharton?

I bet a black female with military background could get into Harvard with those stats. Then the admission consultant would trumpet how they helped someone with those stats get in Harvard and they would omit to mention that for the vast majority of applicants, this would be impossible to achieve with those stats.

 

700 gets you in the door. after that its all about having the full package. if you don't have the full package, i would work on that before taking the gmat again. if you're all set with managing experience, community leadership, extra curriculars, recommendations, et. al., then go ahead and try to up your gmat stat. if not, your time might be better spent rounding out other areas of your applicant profile.

-- sm
 

Take my comment for what it is (one dude's opinion) but among my coworkers (white/asian, consulting) I see a significant number of people retaking if they score ~720 or below. This could, of course, be motivated by an unfavorable Q/V split, but I think as a traditional candidate higher is always better.

I am also biased - 720 first time around (senior year of college) and 770 once I actually started the app process and got scared by the competition.

 

I personally think this GMAT range is being skewed by people paying a lot of money for training classes and the influx of people with engineering backgrounds (especially international students).

The difference between a 700 and 750 is money and time, nothing else. An MBA isn't a quant degree and the GMAT doesn't test quant skills. I am still a firm believer that if you score a 700 on your app you have checked the box.Start focusing on other things.

Business schools care about GMAT only in regards to their ranking since the GMAT is a measuring stick. The stuff that really moves the needle is work experience, rec letter and EC's. An unimpressive person with a 750 isn't going to beat out someone with great work experience, leadership experience and EC's with a 690 (for example).

If anything, people should just start studying for the GRE since it isn't a big factor in rankings and I would bet that adcoms will be more forgiving of a low GRE than a low GMAT.

 
TNA:
I personally think this GMAT range is being skewed by people paying a lot of money for training classes and the influx of people with engineering backgrounds (especially international students).

The difference between a 700 and 750 is money and time, nothing else. An MBA isn't a quant degree and the GMAT doesn't test quant skills. I am still a firm believer that if you score a 700 on your app you have checked the box.Start focusing on other things.

Business schools care about GMAT only in regards to their ranking since the GMAT is a measuring stick. The stuff that really moves the needle is work experience, rec letter and EC's. An unimpressive person with a 750 isn't going to beat out someone with great work experience, leadership experience and EC's with a 690 (for example).

If anything, people should just start studying for the GRE since it isn't a big factor in rankings and I would bet that adcoms will be more forgiving of a low GRE than a low GMAT.

With all due respect, I think that your experience is with applicants to Villanova in MSF program. A white male or Asian male with 700 GMAT would be in deep shit when applying to the Top 10 MBA programs.

 
TraderJoe1976:
TNA:
I personally think this GMAT range is being skewed by people paying a lot of money for training classes and the influx of people with engineering backgrounds (especially international students).

The difference between a 700 and 750 is money and time, nothing else. An MBA isn't a quant degree and the GMAT doesn't test quant skills. I am still a firm believer that if you score a 700 on your app you have checked the box.Start focusing on other things.

Business schools care about GMAT only in regards to their ranking since the GMAT is a measuring stick. The stuff that really moves the needle is work experience, rec letter and EC's. An unimpressive person with a 750 isn't going to beat out someone with great work experience, leadership experience and EC's with a 690 (for example).

If anything, people should just start studying for the GRE since it isn't a big factor in rankings and I would bet that adcoms will be more forgiving of a low GRE than a low GMAT.

With all due respect, I think that your experience is with applicants to Villanova in MSF program. A white male or Asian male with 700 GMAT would be in deep shit when applying to the Top 10 MBA programs.

A white male with a 700 and strong work experience with a good GPA and EC's would do just fine in top MBA programs. My experience with Villanova has nothing to do with this conversation.

The problem is more schools are moving away from finance guys and people in finance (especially on this site) focus almost entirely on the GMAT. Do something different, create something, do something outside of the box. Regardless of your GMAT and work experience, if you work in finance you will get into some schools and dinged from others, simply on the basis of schools wanting to mix up the amount of business students accepted.

The GMAT makes of breaks you when you don't distinguish yourself. If you want to be cookie cutter than maybe you need those extra 50 points. To be honest, I would ding someone who continually took the GMAT to get a 750 when they already had a 700 because they could have easily used that time and effort to do something unique, help someone, etc.

 
TraderJoe1976:
TNA:
I personally think this GMAT range is being skewed by people paying a lot of money for training classes and the influx of people with engineering backgrounds (especially international students).

The difference between a 700 and 750 is money and time, nothing else. An MBA isn't a quant degree and the GMAT doesn't test quant skills. I am still a firm believer that if you score a 700 on your app you have checked the box.Start focusing on other things.

Business schools care about GMAT only in regards to their ranking since the GMAT is a measuring stick. The stuff that really moves the needle is work experience, rec letter and EC's. An unimpressive person with a 750 isn't going to beat out someone with great work experience, leadership experience and EC's with a 690 (for example).

If anything, people should just start studying for the GRE since it isn't a big factor in rankings and I would bet that adcoms will be more forgiving of a low GRE than a low GMAT.

With all due respect, I think that your experience is with applicants to Villanova in MSF program. A white male or Asian male with 700 GMAT would be in deep shit when applying to the Top 10 MBA programs.

nope. and i had a 2.7 ugrad gpa :D

 

As someone entering b-school this fall (from IB/PE), I've spent quite a bit of time over the past 12 months thinking about the admissions process at top programs.

I think the difference between a 740 and a 700 GMAT is tremendous. 5 full percentile points on a test given to 250K people a year.

A 700 certainly "checks the box", but I think when you start approaching 740+, you're adding a little of a "differentiating/wow" factor. And, in the end, you're trying to have as many "wow" factors on your application as possible. Also, I completely agree that you have to compete against applicant's with a similar profile and that a 700 in finance is kinda the bare minimum (all things equal).

And, for schools outside of Harvard/Stanford, a 740 GMAT is going to give you a much higher chance of being awarded a scholarship. I'm sure you'd choose Harvard or somewhere else with $$, but just something to think about.

 

Another factor to consider is what you're trying to achieve with business school. Let's say for example, you're investing in the MBA degree in order to break into a top consulting firm / top bank. In this case the 700 might get you into a given school, but might hurt you in the recruiting process. Then you might find yourself faced with the investment of business school without the payoff of the career you would like.

 
scleraxis:
700 is sufficient to get an interview at M/B/B - after which it is primarily about nailing the case interview. Is it different in banking?

From what my friends tell me, the career services at b-schools tell students to NOT put their gmat score on their resumes unless it's 750+. So I'm guessing that if you don't put the score on your resume, the recruiters will assume you got sub-750. From my understanding, banks care a lot more about the gmat, especially the quant score, than MBB, which makes sense. But I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't count me on it.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that Brady could get into a top B school. The issue is when you pick one certain school and only want that. Harvard rejects people Wharton accepts and visa versa. Adcoms change the desired mix of their class every couple of years. It really is a crap shoot when it comes to admissions once you check the boxes.

If we all agree that GMAT is not predictive past a certain score (well below 700) and we agree that adcoms really only care about GMAT because it is a school ranking metric, than maybe people should just start focusing on the GRE. All the top schools take it, it doesn't play into the rankings and it gives the GMAC some competition.

I mean the entire GMAT industry is because the majority of applicants aren't distinguishable. When everyone is essentially the same you need an arbitrary way to disqualify applicants. Either become distinguishable or fight the GMAT battle.

Personally, I'd rather save the consultancy fee, the endless GMAT prep and mind numbing time studying high school subjects asked in weird ways and do something meaningful instead. Be part of a start up, start a charity, mentor kids, go spend 6 months in a country teaching farming to help increase yields, etc. Make a difference and use that to differentiate yourself instead of killing yourself to go from a 700 to a 730.

 
TNA:
I don't think there is any doubt that Brady could get into a top B school. The issue is when you pick one certain school and only want that. Harvard rejects people Wharton accepts and visa versa. Adcoms change the desired mix of their class every couple of years. It really is a crap shoot when it comes to admissions once you check the boxes.

If we all agree that GMAT is not predictive past a certain score (well below 700) and we agree that adcoms really only care about GMAT because it is a school ranking metric, than maybe people should just start focusing on the GRE. All the top schools take it, it doesn't play into the rankings and it gives the GMAC some competition.

I mean the entire GMAT industry is because the majority of applicants aren't distinguishable. When everyone is essentially the same you need an arbitrary way to disqualify applicants. Either become distinguishable or fight the GMAT battle.

Personally, I'd rather save the consultancy fee, the endless GMAT prep and mind numbing time studying high school subjects asked in weird ways and do something meaningful instead. Be part of a start up, start a charity, mentor kids, go spend 6 months in a country teaching farming to help increase yields, etc. Make a difference and use that to differentiate yourself instead of killing yourself to go from a 700 to a 730.

I agree with most of what you said, but still, it's bullshit that this game has to be played constantly.
 
Thurnis Haley:
TNA:
I don't think there is any doubt that Brady could get into a top B school. The issue is when you pick one certain school and only want that. Harvard rejects people Wharton accepts and visa versa. Adcoms change the desired mix of their class every couple of years. It really is a crap shoot when it comes to admissions once you check the boxes.

If we all agree that GMAT is not predictive past a certain score (well below 700) and we agree that adcoms really only care about GMAT because it is a school ranking metric, than maybe people should just start focusing on the GRE. All the top schools take it, it doesn't play into the rankings and it gives the GMAC some competition.

I mean the entire GMAT industry is because the majority of applicants aren't distinguishable. When everyone is essentially the same you need an arbitrary way to disqualify applicants. Either become distinguishable or fight the GMAT battle.

Personally, I'd rather save the consultancy fee, the endless GMAT prep and mind numbing time studying high school subjects asked in weird ways and do something meaningful instead. Be part of a start up, start a charity, mentor kids, go spend 6 months in a country teaching farming to help increase yields, etc. Make a difference and use that to differentiate yourself instead of killing yourself to go from a 700 to a 730.

I agree with most of what you said, but still, it's bullshit that this game has to be played constantly.

I have no problem with b-schools accepting a diverse array of people from various backgrounds. But it's gotten to a point now where the process has become a parody. Certain groups are held to a much higher standard while others are able to get in fairly easily. My best friend just finished his first year at a M7, and he commented on how a lot of his classmates have no idea what they're doing, and he marvles at how they managed to get in. I've heard similar sentiments as well from other M7 students.

At the end of the day, MBA admissions is about checking the right boxes and coming up with "interesting" stories to tell them, to get their panties wet.

 

Oh I agree with you also. Then again, in the grand scheme of life, which is utter bullshit itself, the GMAT is just one small pile of shit on the ever growing mountain.

If you want to be part of the matrix without taking a ton of risk I think a top MBA is a great investment. People will automatically think you are smarter (even when you are not), you will get paid more and find getting higher paid jobs easier. If you need to drop a lot of money on classes in order to get that top score, go for it.

With that in mind, there are plenty of top business schools that you can get into without a 750. An MBA from UTA, UVA, Cornell, Duke, CMU, NYU, etc will set you up just nicely. Yeah, maybe Harvard needs a 760 or something dumb, but you can still be a 1%'er with a T7-15 MBA and nice investing habits.

Think of it like a life hack. Get a job making $100K a year, have no debt, live in a 2nd tier city and just bank cash and buy stocks with nice yields. Go buy condo's and rent them out, taking advantage of bullshit interest deductions and preferential treatment of RE gains.

End of the day money talks and bullshit walks. Plenty of dudes with T5 MBA's grinding it out on the hampster wheel. After 10 years of that crap the luster of that diploma and the 6 figures of debt it gives you starts to fade.

 

Yeah I agree, but it just adds to the bullshit nature of it all. Honestly, I'd just focus on getting another degree from a top school. Go in the side door. If you have a business undergrad degree and have worked in finance you really don't need an MBA. Go do the CFA and get a degree in public policy or healthcare. Go into healthcare PE or something.

Business school isn't hard, it is simply about the name brand. If that can be gotten while studying something interesting that will increase your knowledge, do it.

Always a back door in life. No sense trying to go in the front door when the side window is wide open. Also, once you are on campus you can start getting buddy buddy with adcoms, professors, etc. Just shmooze your way in.

 
TNA:
Yeah I agree, but it just adds to the bullshit nature of it all. Honestly, I'd just focus on getting another degree from a top school. Go in the side door. If you have a business undergrad degree and have worked in finance you really don't need an MBA. Go do the CFA and get a degree in public policy or healthcare. Go into healthcare PE or something.

Business school isn't hard, it is simply about the name brand. If that can be gotten while studying something interesting that will increase your knowledge, do it.

Always a back door in life. No sense trying to go in the front door when the side window is wide open. Also, once you are on campus you can start getting buddy buddy with adcoms, professors, etc. Just shmooze your way in.

 
<span class=keyword_link><a href=/company/trilantic-north-america>TNA</a></span>:
Yeah I agree, but it just adds to the bullshit nature of it all. Honestly, I'd just focus on getting another degree from a top school. Go in the side door. If you have a business undergrad degree and have worked in finance you really don't need an MBA. Go do the CFA and get a degree in public policy or healthcare. Go into healthcare PE or something.

Business school isn't hard, it is simply about the name brand. If that can be gotten while studying something interesting that will increase your knowledge, do it.

Always a back door in life. No sense trying to go in the front door when the side window is wide open. Also, once you are on campus you can start getting buddy buddy with adcoms, professors, etc. Just shmooze your way in.

Of course b-school isn't hard. Most of the classes are a joke. But at top schools you get access to recruiting from the firms that I want to work at. I can't get that access right now, so that alone is worth the price tage. And then there are a lot of other intangibles as well.

 
TNA:
Yeah I agree, but it just adds to the bullshit nature of it all. Honestly, I'd just focus on getting another degree from a top school. Go in the side door. If you have a business undergrad degree and have worked in finance you really don't need an MBA. Go do the CFA and get a degree in public policy or healthcare. Go into healthcare PE or something.

Business school isn't hard, it is simply about the name brand. If that can be gotten while studying something interesting that will increase your knowledge, do it.

Always a back door in life. No sense trying to go in the front door when the side window is wide open. Also, once you are on campus you can start getting buddy buddy with adcoms, professors, etc. Just shmooze your way in.

Telling someone to complete the CFA programme instead of doing an MBA is like telling someone to go to med school instead of taking a first aid class... Well, maybe not entirely, but you get the picture. The CFA is a 3 year commitment if you pass every exam on the first try (most don't). An MBA is a two year vacation / networking session.
 

Molestiae facilis eaque ipsum ut nostrum voluptatem velit provident. Repudiandae laboriosam et id velit. Aliquam maiores corrupti enim fugiat nobis dolores et. Expedita officiis ipsum laudantium saepe.

Et reprehenderit sunt ad in. Voluptatem similique enim saepe veritatis. Iste aut magnam fuga blanditiis facere sed atque. Illo omnis soluta voluptas iure qui rem. Voluptatum ipsa distinctio et provident. Natus cumque molestiae magnam ad ipsam corporis.

Aut aut sint ab magni ducimus optio impedit. Ex est quisquam eligendi autem magnam. Nemo iure unde delectus rerum qui.

Quos magnam et voluptate in rerum in non. Vitae non accusamus corporis omnis harum sed exercitationem.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”