Hey guys so I just landed an Analyst role with a top 4/5 RE PE group. My undergrad GPA ~3.3 and I'm pretty sure I'll get some solid letters of recommendation. What do I have to score on my GMAT to get into a top 5-10? Also, what are some good extra curriculars I can do for the next 2/3 years until I apply, or anything else I could do to improve my chances. Thanks in advance.
| +43 | Wharton Huntsman Program vs Yale vs Dartmouth | 47 | 9m | |
| +33 | Umich Ross vs Rice vs Notre Dame Mendoza | 17 | 2d | |
| St Andrews vs LSE vs Middlebury | 19 | 15h | ||
| +26 | LSE BSc Economics vs Cambridge BA Economics | 8 | 9h | |
| +26 | Target School Kids Stop Complaining | 6 | 2d | |
| +23 | Imperial College Finance Masters' | 5 | 2d | |
| +20 | Washu a target school now. | 39 | 10h | |
| +18 | UK/EU MSc's in Finance | 7 | 1d | |
| +17 | Succeeding at Penn CAS? | 4 | 7h | |
| +16 | LSE MSc Finance vs Oxford MFE? | 2 | 11h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
The GMAT is a hurdle you have to jump over. A good GPA/GMAT alone will NOT get you into a good business school, but a bad GPA/GMAT can keep you out of one. To offset your GPA, try to get above a 730 so admissions isn't worried about your academic capacity.
Honestly with a 3.3 gpa you ain't getting into a top 10 school. Grad school is all about numbers, how do you think they boost their rankings. You may be able to get into 10-20 ranked schools with an astronomical GMAT, solid recs, work experience, essays etc.
I'm not quite as pessimistic on your situation as YWE. But quite frankly he is probably right. Think about how many people in the world have astronomical GPAs and GMAT scores. MBAs are global now, you are competing against the whole world with a 3.3 GPA. That is not good. A 710-730, with great work accomplishments and ECs could get you into a top 15. Then you should stretch for a couple top 10s that you fit in well with.
I had a GPA lower than yours and basically got laughed at by the top 10s I applied to. I feel incredibly lucky to have gotten in to a top 15 - 20 (depending on which rankings you use).
I disagree. With a 3.3 from a good school you can still get into a top business school with good work experience and high GMAT. 3.3 and you'll never get into law school, but MBA's are still open. Maybe not H/S/W, but other places seem possible... especially if he's at a top REPE firm right out of UG
After awhile, you will understand that the people who say you have no chance at XYZ school because of your "bad" 3.3 GPA are completely wrong. Nobody can tell anything about your chances with generic GPA and GMAT numbers, but, of course, higher is always better. To answer your quesitons: You always want to get above a 700 on the GMAT as a check in the box.
You want to do extracurriculars that speak to you and to what you value most, not something that you think some admissions committee member will look at approvingly. Admissions folks are adept at seeing through fakers in an application. Some popular ECs are Big Brother/Big Sister programs, after school tutoring programs, etc. Pick an EC that you enjoy and that fits with your "story". Good luck.
^^^He would have a better chance at a top 10 if he were a "world saver" or had a disadvantaged upbringing with his 3.3 gpa. But he is going to be an analyst. Think about how many analysts are out there with better than a 3.3. It's going to be very tough for him because of the bucket he is competing with. He also didn't mention what his UG school was, so that might count for him or against him.
I agree with everything else you wrote though. You absolutely have to crack 700 and, coincidentally, I did big bro big sis and after school calc tutoring and I definitely think that won me big points.
i cannot even comprehend the amount of bad advice that is given on this forum. ive been biting my tongue for some time now, but the quality of users is horrid. almost everyone in here is some fucking idiot college student who are suffocating with pretentiousness. op, dont listen to these morons. bschool admissions are one of the most unpredictable things youll ever go through. there are many people that get into top10s with 3.3s and gpas in the surrounding range. you need a 700+ for sure and good ec's like everyone said. but to think you cant make it into a top10 with a 3.3 is absolutely ludicrous. in addition, most of the top10 programs have enormous class sizes, and guess what...not all of them are 3.6+!!! if you want real advice, i suggest you look at gmatclub.com.
This
I don't think we gave him bad advice. I think we set realistic expectations for him. He definitely has a chance at a top 10 but he should also apply to top 20 schools. Top 10s are a stretch. People get into their stretch schools sometimes. I think he should also apply to top 15s and top 20s so that he makes sure he gets in somewhere. GMAT club will tell him the same thing and an admissions consultant will tell him the same thing.
Also you sort of contradicted yourself by saying that the 700 gmat is a must but the 3.3 is OK. They are both hurdles and all the schools care about their statistics. Sad but true.
Not at all. GPAs vary wildly across universities (MIT vs. Boise State, for example) but the GMAT is a standardized test, where everyone is theoretically on a level playing field. Thus, GPAs can be explained away to an extent based on major, courseload, ECs, athletics, work experience, difficulty of university, etc. But the GMAT is the GMAT, no matter how or when you take it, and to be considered for top schools in most cases, you need to pass a minimum threshold.
lol @ Boise State
Point taken. Nice post.
My 3.3 GPA was from UCLA undergrad. and my grades gradually got better every semester I was in college. To reiterate, I'm working full-time at a tier 1 RE PE group.
To reiterate, no-one cares that you're working full-time at a tier 1 RE PE group, and the fact that you're bringing it up makes your insecurity about your GPA quite clear.
Here's an article for you to read: http://poetsandquants.com/2010/12/17/pe-vs-pc-at-harvard-business-schoo…
To reiterate, no-one cares that you're working full-time at a tier 1 RE PE group, and the fact that you're bringing it up makes your insecurity about your GPA quite clear.
Here's an article for you to read: http://poetsandquants.com/2010/12/17/pe-vs-pc-at-harvard-business-schoo…]
lol, you're an idiot who's probably still in HS.
No one cares he's at a top tier firm? Actually..... that's probably the single most important factor for getting into business school - the quality of your work experience. Starting out as a buyside analyst in PE and you think that doesn't matter? Newb.
i agree, you need to apply broadly 1-20. but to think you wont get into a top10 because of a 3.3 is wrong.
I definitely agree that the board is full of idiots who occasionally give poor advice. For example, if you go to any of the M7 websites you will find that a 3.3 GPA is within the 80% range and 700+ (evenly balanced Q/V above 80% each) are more than sufficient to check the box on these two factors.
Redninja, the fact that he works at a tier 1 RE PE group is a highly relevant data point and has nothing to do with insecurity. Work experience and leadership roles are important factors in admissions.
Get involved in something like New York Cares, coach a youth sport, donate some time at a local charity etc. but make sure your participation lasts longer than 6 months to show that it is something that you are truly involved in.
Best of luck. You should be able to crack a top 10 if you crush the GMAT and craft convincing essays.
I honestly don't think the GPA is a concern. Obviously the higher the better, but you can definitely get into an M7 with a 3.3. Nail the GMAT with a 700+, build an extremely strong relationship with the senior guys at your PE shop for great recs, get yourself involved and commit yourself to 1-2 organizations where you can take a leading role, master the essays and put together a brilliant story and you should be okay. I would definitely get 4 years of work experience in, and not try to make the jump after 2-3 years.
Goodluck.
blasted
Don't know how much it's changed from the class of '09 and '10, but 80% of students admitted to Wharton during that period had GPAs in the 3.1 to 3.8 range...average GPA was 3.5. Pretty sure stats are similar at other top b-schools
A 3.3 definitely won't keep you out of a top school. Search this board and you'll find plenty of people who have overcome GPAs far lower than a 3.3 and gotten into top 10 programs by crafting well rounded apps. I agree that a 700+ on the GMAT is a must for anyone in finance looking to break the top 10 though. As far as ECs go, just get involved with something like Big Brother or Habitat for Humanity and make sure you stick with it.
Check out this link - it's brief and provides some good insight into how adcoms will consider GPA.
http://gmatclub.com/blog/2011/03/mba-admissions-tip-approaching-the-qua…
GMAT is what gets you looked at, essays (what you've done- not where you've done it, why an mba, why here, why now) are what get you in. GPA/EC's...in that order of importance are the last 15%.
Unless your gpa is under a 3 or really high in a hard science or some such, it aint making or breaking you.
I apologize guys, what I said was snarky and in reaction to a common misconception people have. I'll flesh out what I should have written.
Based on everything I know about my fellow students at HBS, and also students I know at Stanford GSB (it's a small world) and a few other top schools, where you worked (ie: top 5 RE PE) isn't as important as you may think. Rather, it's what you accomplished - what unique value you added - in whatever your place of work might have been that's the key to whether you get into a good b-school program. Each school has certain criteria they look for. At HBS those are a Habit of Leadership, Capacity for Intellectual Growth (GPA/GMAT) and Global Citizenship. At other schools the criteria are different, but each school is loyal to its criteria.
The heart of my argument is that the admissions teams at good schools are not made up of pre-MBA students who are brand obsessed - admissions is a disciplined system that looks for evidence of these personality traits in your applications. When I say "nobody cares that you worked in a tier 1 RE PE" I'm quite serious - it's not that you're working there that matters, it's what you were able to accomplish there. Were you a cog? Could anybody with two years of banking be doing the exact same work as you? Or is there something that you're adding that makes you stand head and shoulders above other candidates?
The counter-argument to this is "Look at HBS/GSB, it's full of people from MBB and everyone I know from the top PE firms who applied got in." The reason is that these firms are full of HBS and GSB alumni, and alumni know how to game the system. It's hard for someone with non-traditional work experience to compete with someone who is surrounded with HBS/GSB alumni writing targeted letters, coaching them and making sure their apps say exactly what our schools want to hear. But it's not impossible, and I've met MANY people from non-traditional backgrounds at both schools and know many people from "elite" firms who can't get in. Why would HBS choose to let someone from Circuit City in and reject someone from Carlyle if the only thing they care about is brand name?
I don't really care when people from elite firms (like the OP) feel entitled to get into a top MBA program just because they work at a "Tier 1 RE PE". You can tell the OP is hiding behind it by the way he posts. What I do care about is when people from non-traditional work experience (general management, non-profits, engineering) think they don't have a shot just because they didn't work at Goldman Sachs. Your perspective, that the brand name on your resume is the critical factor, is (once again, in MY opinion) misguided and this attitude is what prevents non-traditional people from applying in much greater numbers.
Really insightful post, thanks.
Okay, well, in the context of this post that makes a lot more sense. I still think there is likely some weight towards the tier of the firm you worked for, but I do 'feel you' on the fact that it's not necessarily a dealbreaker if you DIDN'T work at Goldman/McKinsey etc.... Anyways... personally I'm very happy to hear what you're saying since I'll be applying to schools next year and everything about my profile is pretty solid EXCEPT for the fact that I do not work at an internationally known firm (and I doubt they'll have time to do any research and figure out our firm is legit)... perhaps it won't hurt me as badly as I've been thinking.
My impression was that another thing that affects the high representation of top firms at HBS/GSB had a lot to do with the fact that these places (top PE firms/MBB) tends to attract the smartest people with the best records of undergraduate achievement, both inside and outside the classroom. So - and please correct me if I'm wrong - it's not so much that a 4.0 class president from Harvard who went to GS/KKR has an advantage over, say, the school president of Dartmouth who also has a 4.0 but went to work somewhere off the traditional finance path, it's that the kind of people with high GPAs from top schools who are also heavily involved in things outside of the classroom tend to gravitate to finance/consulting in general, for any number of reasons.
Natus veritatis fugit itaque perferendis. Placeat quam qui voluptatem non. Labore nam expedita rerum blanditiis vel.
Fugit et molestiae repellat qui. Rerum debitis doloremque cupiditate dolores sunt. Possimus laboriosam consequatur amet enim. Assumenda quas vero in. Error blanditiis velit eligendi. Excepturi non itaque ipsa aut non est est distinctio.
Laboriosam recusandae ullam eos nam quaerat et autem. Voluptatibus molestiae labore velit rerum et. Dolor natus repudiandae vel repellat omnis excepturi ipsa.
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...
Sunt quia dolorem blanditiis ea. Ducimus numquam et ea. Quia illo vitae sequi accusantium ratione. Et in iste doloremque blanditiis ipsam mollitia. Minus non possimus corrupti.
Tempore dolores quia et dolorem quis ea quidem reiciendis. Aspernatur voluptatem dolores mollitia odit quo est nihil. Pariatur modi aut animi et tempore sed. Iusto molestiae accusamus sint explicabo.
Quis et doloribus et veritatis eos provident dolorum. Quis perferendis minima sed quis. Dolores maiores officia blanditiis id commodi et saepe. Explicabo voluptatem quaerat voluptates a ab.