Retake 700 GMAT for top 10 business school - Bachelors in Econ from a top 20 UG
I just took the GMAT and got a 700 (43Q, 42V). I am wondering whether it would be a good idea to retake the test and boost the low quantitative score or if I should focus on other aspects on my application to get into a top 10 school.
- Bachelors in Econ from a top 20 UG
- 3.7 overall, 3.85 major GPA
- 3 years of work experience at top 15 investment bank (possible full sponsorship for business school)
I realize HSW is probably a reach but I wanted to see if I had a good chance at the 5-10 range with that gmat score. Thanks for any help or advice.
First instinct is yes, but that obviously depends.
Generally, I would say that you need to boost the Quant a few points to give yourself the best shot for a 5-10 school. 43 is a pretty low percentile (~60th?). That's a tough one for them to overlook, especially when most bankers/finance guys are going to be much higher than that. An Econ degree with good grades definitely will give you some leeway with the quant score, but it also makes me think that you have to be able to do better than a 43.
Now, if you studied your ass off and did so properly, and all your practice tests were right around 43, then I'm not sure if it's worth it. Maybe one more retake to see if you have a good day, but not beyond that. I just tend to think that again, based on your degree, grades, and work experience, you should be able to score higher. Assumig you're applying this fall, you definitely have time to get another 4-5 weeks of studying in and still make R1 apps with ease.
Last caveat is that you have a chance with a 700 at 5-10 ranked schools, it's just that you'd be in much better shape if you add 3 points to your quant and have a 720.
All right, pump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers in this racket.
43 Q is out of the range. That's like 61% right? Until recently, it used to be that you had to get over 80% on both to be a contender. But quant percentiles have skewed up, so my guess is that that 47 is probably the lowest target quant number, which these days is about 75%
You don't have to worry too much about the verbal. Which to me looks like you came in at over 90%, so you have plenty of margin there.
Yes. 700 is well below the average at top schools, and even worse, you are dragged down by the quant score, which is the more important metric. With IB experience and High undergrad GPA, I'm sure you'll get in somewhere ranked around 10...But if you get a higher GMAT, you'll almost definitely be able to get into a MBA business schools ">M7 school...so why not put in the work? Getting a high econ GPA, I'm assuming your capable of math, no reason for you to only get the 61%.
An important thing people forget is, you are competiting against people like you, not the application pool as a whole. The schools want X number of White/asian Males (assuming you are one) and Y number of investment bankers. On average, investment bankers have very high GMAT's, so having a below average GMAT is even worse for you, than if you were, lets say working at a NGO.
I go to a top 5 school and there are definitely people with a 700. I'd work on nailing down the rest of of your application rather than trying to get only a couple more questions right to add only 10-40 points. That said, if you have just a bunch of extra time on your hands it couldn't hurt. I just personally ally think people on this website put to much emphasis on the gmat score.
But are the sub 700 people white and asian guys who come from banking? I'm admit to a top 5 school, and I did a few analyses based of businessweek and gmatclub data a few months ago, and GMAT turned out to be ridiculously predictive (except for Duke).
Actually yes they are. Two examples, which happen to be two of my good friends at the school: one was a former banker out in SF (at a boutique) and got a 690 and is a white male. The other was a financial analyst (not IB) on the east coast and he had a 700, also a white male. Obviously a higher score is better, but schools really want well rounded applicants.
Congrats on getting in btw
And not just a 700 (which is not the important number here), but a 43 quant. A 700 that was a 47-37 would probably be much more palatable (I have no idea if that score equates to 700, but you get my point). The 43Q could be an instant knockout, especially given OPs background.
And yes, like OpsDude, I am assuming OP is a White/Asian male.
School don't give a toss about quant or verbal, they care about overall score so that the average looks strong vs. other schools. 730 average for HBS vs 600 for WhateverBS. If you don't bring in the pool down too much (which a 700 is fine with), they will be interested in the rest of your application.
I've spent a lot of time in the recent past researching MBA programs and admissions, and this is just plain wrong based on all that I've seen - and as someone below mentioned, a 700 is no longer the "safe" score it used to be. Now, a 700 seems to be viewed as not negative but not positive either, and test takers need a higher score to give a positive impression GMAT-wise.
@"alan1024" H/S are reaches for everyone. But almost all top 10 schools will be full blown reaches with a 700 for someone from a very overrepresented group (white, male, finance). Except perhaps NYU which may be between a reach and a target. Unless there is something else on your application really setting you apart, I would strongly suggest retaking and aim to shoot above the average 720+. It can definitely be done as people usually improve on their second attempt. Are there people with 700 or below at Stanford? Sure. But guess how many? Not all that many and those individuals are probably superstars on multiple other dimensions.
Thanks, all of this is helpful and makes sense. I was hoping my high grades in quantitative classes and work experience might offset the low score, but I get that it also might work against me (and it shows that I should have done better).
Even though I consider myself relatively strong at math, for whatever reason I found it very difficult to get above the 45/46 range. I'm sure that that's nothing that more prep couldn't change, but do any of you have any general or specific advice as to how I should change my approach if I do decide to retake?
I found the Manhattan GMAT Advanced Quant guide to be very useful to get over the hump.
@Disjoint Strongly disagree, as would most everyone that's involved in the Admissions game. Is your overall score, generally, more important than your breakdown? Yes. However, a 43 is going to be a big red flag for AdComs at top schools. It's 56th percentile of all test takers - that's a major issue for admissions people that all think their schools are quanitiatively rigorous.
Let's also realize that a 700 is no longer a solid score for a white male in finance at top 10 schools. This year, every top 10 school will have an average GMAT of 720+. You can assume that the finance portion of the class will likely be even higher than that. A 700 is now pulling the average down slightly overall and significantly for that bucket.
The bottom line is that while schools definitely look at the entire application, and won't throw you out immediately with a 700, you are starting your application at a relatively significant disadvantage with that score (the 700 and the 56th percentile Q).
@Alan1024 First of all, even getting a 45/46 would be a big improvement. It would give you 10-20 more points overall, and make your quant score much more passable. There are a lot of posts on here and GMATClub for how to improve you quant, but I found simply hammering my weaknesses over and over to be incredibly valuable. My last few weeks of studying were only going through problems I'd seen before that I'd gotten wrong. That got me froma ~45 to a 48 in the end.
While I do agree with the sentiment that you should probably re-take it if you want to aim for places in the top 5-10, I don't think we should be going overboard. There is no way every school will have an average of over 720. Even in the Top 5 you'll probably see at least 1 school below 720. Honestly, the GMAT is one of the few things which is in your control in this process (you can't really change your undergrad grades or your job short term). I would advise taking a Manhattan gmat course and really focusing on the Quant. A 700 isn't a "bad" score, but top schools aren't aiming to let in "not bad".. So unless you're sure something else in your profile will pull the average of your application up.....I advise you re-take it.
OP, re-take if possible.
Fair enough. I'll rephrase and say over 715, with two of the schools below the 720 mark being Sloan and Booth, which would both be quite difficult for a 700 and below white male in finance to get into. See link below, where the top 10 avg. GMAT schools (for last year) have an average GMAT of 718.5. Either way, I feel like my point still stands, which is that a 700 now pulls down all those schools' average GMAT score, and significantly for some. A 700 certainly doesn't automatically disqualify you, but it's definitely not doing you any favors either, especially given OP's profile.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/the-short-list-gr…
I definitely agree though with your second point, which is that a 700 isn't bad, but top schools don't look for "not bad". Even if the rest of your profile is awesome, you still have a chance to control this variable. Why not at least give it a shot to pull it up. Worst case is you apply the 700. I very much wish I could have "retaken my GPA" (whatever that means), but was stuck with it.
Your list is a year old: Booth is already over 720. Sloan and Kellogg are the only two that have a chance of being below 720, but I wouldn't be shocked if they hit it - Sloan has been moving upwards in the rankings and is populated by engineers (high scorers), and Kellogg reduced the size of its FT class by 50 people and is trying to recover from this years ranking drop (Since Wharton successfully executed it's higher GMAT -> higher rank strategy, I'm sure others will follow)
Here's most recent list: http://poetsandquants.com/2014/03/11/average-GMAT-scores-at-top-50-u-s-…
Harvard - 727 Stanford - 732 Wharton - 725 Booth - 723 Sloan - 713
Kellogg - 713
Stern - 721
Even better. Thanks for digging that up - my quick Google search didn't find anything else, but I didn't look all that hard.
I know at Tuck Accepted Students Weekend they also said they were in the 720s this year (I think 722?), so that's another one.
@"BGP2587" Oh my. That's impressive. Did they say how that's changed from last year?
Last year Tuck class avg. was at 718. I guess 722 might still drop when some of the kids at the higher end go to H/S/W.
OP, 700 really is quite low. If you were at 720, you are at average and not at a big advantage. Then it is up to other components. If you want your GMAT to be a big plus, it has to shoot above the average (720). Things have changed.
The didn't say much else about it, or I didn't pay much attention. I feel like that's a pretty natural increase though. Most of these schools seem to be going up by about 2-5 points per year.
I echo the above posts that you'll want to retake it. You don't want to be below average is ANY stat. In today's world, a 700 is meaningfully below average. You don't want to give adcom any reason to select the other guy over you. At Booth even a 760 is nothing special -- there are swarms of kids with 750+.
That Booth comment has to be hyperbole. If their average is 723ish and they have "swarms with 750+s" that would imply either some SUPER low scorers are getting in, or they have a healthy amount of low 700s bringing their talents to Chicago...I'm leaning towards the latter....that being said, OP should re-take to remove any lingering doubts in the Adcom's mind.
As a veterans admission rep from Wharton had said to me when reconsidering taking the GMAT, if you retake GMAT with a 700 or above, it's a huge red flag to B schools BC it's obvious you don't know what B schools value, well rounded app.
How long ago was that?
Oct 2013
I believe you, that it was said, but it sure doesn't sound right to me.
No issues with a retake unless it is over 4 times, and then they worry about reversion to mean.
And besides, the issue was never about the overall score, but the 43Q, which is low.
I'm assuming very long ago, since Wharton made a concentrated (and successful) effort last year to prevent a ratings slide by increasing its average GMAT. Hell, look at its Middle 80% GMAT Range 690-760....700 almost puts you at the bottom 10%, and those that get in from that range aren't going to be white males in finance
Would a 700+ GMAT distinguish you from other candidates? (Originally Posted: 05/23/2007)
I'm curious as to how much a 700+ or 750+ GMAT score can distinguish you from other candidates when applying for FT positions? Also, can it compensate for a GPA of around 3.4? How much does it really add to a resume? Thanks in advance.
You go to a nontarget average school, average gpa, and have a major that's not that relevant.
The GMAT score would signal to me that you're astute, but it doesn't mean much at all. Your best bet is to get relevant internships and certifications in finance.
USC isn't an "average" school; in Southern California, USC is a pretty solid name on your resume. Aside from BB offices in LA, there are quite a few small PE firms clustered around Newport Beach and Irvine. The USC alumni network also rivals many Ivy leagues (again, primarily in Southern California).
I would say that a GMAT above 750 would be an asset to your resume, but one around 700 isn't that impressive. In my opinion the 700 wouldn't help with getting an interview, but a 750 might (coupled with other ECs, some demonstrated interest in finance). Of course if you have a finance internship, it's a whole new ballgame.
I actually agree with Sternfox on this one. USC is a nontarget average school. It's not even particularly strong in CA - UCLA, Stanford, and UCB are all non-ivys that are better places to be. Comparing USC to the rest of the state schools, well... sure, it's better, but what good is that.
Yes, there are quite a few BB offices in LA, most of which (at least the top offices) don't even really look at usc. Same goes for the pe firms.
A good GMAT score is good (obviously), but it doesn't 'make up' for a low gpa. If you have a low gpa and a high GMAT, they are both separately taken into consideration. Someone with no GMAT score but a high gpa will probably still be better off.
Taking the GMAT as a ticket to get an analyst position isn't even logical....
Well coming from California, the perception there is that USC is still an old-boys club; USC alums still have a lot of clout and will go the extra mile to help out fellow USCers. The school itself isn't academically special but the network combined with the number of USC alums in high positions of business in Socal make it a better name on your resume than most other academically-comparable schools.
Agreed that UCLA, Berkeley and Stanford are all better, that clearly isn't disputable. However in my experience (in terms of prestige in California and overall view) USC is viewed as equal to UCLA, and a step below Berkeley/Stanford.
There are quite a few BB that recruits at USC every year. Granted, marshall is not H/Y/P but it does place fairly decent. I'd consider it semi-target.
Instead of a 700, how do recruiters look at a 510 GMAT and a 1060 SAT.
I've heard those two make a killer ibanker in places like Billings, Montana and Fargo, ND.
Any insight??
While USC is obviously not HYPS, I would definitely argue that it is a semi-target. We do get our fair share of traffic from BBs. But thank you for the replies.
The only problem is that neither UBS LA nor CS LA recruit from USC. GS LA does though.
Yesterday, I had a meeting with an associate from UBS LA who said they take about 100 resumes from USC, bring around 10 in for an interview, and accept 1 or 2 per year for summer analyst positions.
I know people at UBS la and they barely look at usc. 1 per year is not average, that's a good year for usc. As another poster said, ubs la and CS la basically do not recruit at usc for a reason. GS LA? You might as well go to Bear Stearns.
Sure USC sends a few people to bbs, but what school doesn't send a 'few' people to each bb. Comparing usc to shit schools, no shit it's better, but when you compare to normal targets that send LOTS of people to each bb, including but not only hypsw, then usc isn't even close to the top.
If someone has a high gpa (3.8-3.9), as well as good ECs and internships (but not BB) how much value would a 750+ gmat score add?
Also, would this be different for management consulting? I heard that M/B/B factor in standardized test scores a lot because it is an indicator of a candidate's raw intellectual capability.
the time spent pursuing (and probably failing, maybe once or more) to get that score would be better put into studying something more useful like the CFA.
If you got 1500 or more on your SAT's, that's proof enough.
CFA certification is becoming so diluted and is essentially worthless on the sell-side. I'll take a top GMAT score that will help get me into top MBA over a CFA certification that will get me a sweet job at a sleepy long-only buy-side firm every day of this week.
USC certainly isn't HYPW, but it won't hold you back if you really are a strong candidate. I just graduated from Marshall ('07), and am joining a national MM bank in San Francisco. My Marshall GPA was only 3.3 when I landed my interviews. I know a dozen other students who landed FT offers from BB's in SF, NYC, and even Hong Kong (they had GPA's of 3.6+). GS, MS, ML, and BofA all took atleast a few Marshall grads, and many more were taken by MM firms. I also know a number of Marshall grads who landed in hedge funds in LA or SF.
FarFromOver, if you've got a strong GPA in Marshall(3.5+) and an internship or two (finance related), you shouldn't have a problem landing interviews. Once you land an interview, it's all up to you.
I suggest taking the most rigorous finance/accounting schedule possible - it will help during interviews. I suggest Marshall's "Financial Analysis & Valuation" concentration.
There are people at GS, ms, etc. that don't even have a college degree - you want to tell me that because there are a FEW hires that that's an average path to take too?
Quality of a school isn't measured by looking at the exceptions but at the average. What is the average student's chance of going bb from usc? (good bb)
Mr. White, I don't think anyone has claimed USC is a serious target for the BB's, because it isn't. However, that isn't to say that the top Marshall students aren't in the running for BB offers. As i mentioned before, this years class has a number of grads heading to BBs, both for banking and S&T, in a number of different cities.
Regardless, "quality of a school" is not determined by the number of its grads sent to BB banks. I can assure you that the average USC student is not nearly as interested in IB as are students at comparable schools on the east coast. Interestingly, real estate development jobs are coveted by more USC students than IB jobs.
I can assure you that the average USC student that WANTS to get into IB has LESS of a chance than hypsw, ucla, ucb, michigan, washu, and essentially every other non-shitty school.
The question at hand is whether THIS particular poster has a chance to get into IB, not whether top usc students can make it. On average, they won't be able to make it.
Like I said before, there are a lot of bbs that hire dumbass kids. I'm talking about top groups. How many take from usc? Not many.
On a side note, I'd say that the 'relevant' quality of your school on your resume is measured by how much that name will help you get to the job you want. Granted sure usc students on average may not be as willing to go into ib, but for those that do want to go into it, they have less of a chance. Therefore, it's not good.
While we are on the topic of California schools (with exception to UCLA, UCB, Stanford), how do mid-level UC's (think UCI, UCSD) compare with USC? USC is ranked higher by US News, which I am aware does not hold a whole lot of weight--but would it be as hard to get into BB coming from USC compared to the above mentioned UC'S? As someone mentioned in a post above, I know there are quite a few hedge funds/PE's in the SD/Irvine area. I just want to get a general idea, thanks.
Look at the stats - everyone and his brother is getting the CFA these days. CFA Institute needs to make the tests harder.
Anyone employed in investment banking (this is an investment banking board) does not need a CFA. You make a valid point that an applicant with CFA 1 already completed mitigates any concern of the applicant's financial knowledge (at least for analyst-level monkey work). If you feel you are on the fringe for i-banking interviews, please take sternfox's advice and take CFA level 1 as a senior - there is no doubt that it is a compelling bullet point on your resume. Please know it is a helluva lot of info to take a test on, though, and it's not very fun waiting for you scores to come back. If you are a strong candidate with relevant experience, don't waste your time.
Please note that I didn't call the buy-side sleepy. I called long-only buy-side (mutual fund) gigs sleepy (as well as ER). A CFA is essential for ER and long-only, but who on this board really aspires to that end? You'd be surprised how few successful macro hedge fund managers have their CFA, and most post-IB hedge fund analyst positions won't require a CFA, for obvious reasons. The letters "CFA" are window dressing to convey to investors that your analysts are "qualified". This is bullshit - 3 tests don't qualify you to invest money.
With all due respect, do you intend to pass Levels 2 and 3 any time soon? Coming from a strong finance program like Stern, I'm sure you had minimal difficulty passing Level 1, but the amount of bullshit superfluous material you will have to regurgitate to pass Levels 2 and 3 will change your tune. If you are already in the industry (investment banking, presumably) you have sought, I would hope that you have other goals in mind (namely the phone numbers of strippers at Scores and other models/bottles play-toys).
I forgot to make my point. You may pursue a CFA at any juncture in your career. A strong b-school application (good GMAT score), that can get you into HBS will reap much greater benefits in the long run, and the time window that a top MBA should be pursued is more narrow.
my comments about the CFA for career progression is directed towards the OP, who has a degree in Business Admin. I personally think that he should pursue the CFA over the GMAT because he has no finance education. I also don't think he had much of a shot at banking positions right now.
For most people, passing one level of the CFA takes between 400 to 150 hours of studying. Quite a commitment.
For your MBA HBS dreams, the CFA is a prop, but GMAT is more important.
The fact that the CFA isn't a banking core exam is well known. But the growing number of charterholders worldwide has placed it next to the CPA in the US, and it's a way to market yourself.
Fair enough. Agreed on both counts.
Personally, I like watching Ivy League English majors go glassy eyed when the instructor tries to explain EBITDA and the derivation of FCF. It gives me a boner when I realize they paid $140K for that useless shit degree (Ivy League network notwithstanding).
I'm sitting for the level 3 in 9 days. It's been very hard to find time to study it with work this year. I mainly use off-time during the day to go through the material. I'm taking it mainly to market myself for a top MBA to demonstrate that I'm continuing my education.
The CFA has been popular with incoming hedge-fund analysts, but not old top dogs because the designation didn't really gain speed until the 80's. By then, the big shots already had real job results on their resume's and taking puny certifications was nada to them.
Good luck. That is quite an accomplishment, especially if you can succeed with less than optimal study conditions. Watch your penmanship.
Yeah, true. I find the whole ivy-league (any major ya what) I-banking connection thing to be a whole basket of bull shiat.
Interviewing people with no real skills for "behaviorial characteristics" and "fit" is a waste of recruiting and simply invites more second-rate ivy league english/history/philosophy/music analysts. Granted they are bright people, but seriously.......this is too much.
thanks, hey there's always June 2008.....
This one's extra nasty. Case and Essay questions included...I've never had the time to take a practice exam for a true 6 hour block practice...
If I manage to clear this one, I'm probably going to clear the FRM/CAIA/CPA as well and when that's over, clear the GMAT and apply to MBA.
And after that crap is over, I'd like to never take a major certification test ever again (there's probably no good ones left..)
What's your plans for MBA?
June 2008 was an amazing time to go into finance.
for banking nobody cares, bankers arent exactly clever.
buyside a good GMAT will make a difference, altough its more like 740+ where ppl start caring (again not hard and fast rules but nobody would be impressed by 700)
Honest GMAT Retake Thread (Originally Posted: 04/05/2011)
Hi Fellas,
I haven't posted since my senior year, but I have followed along with interest in the interim. I have an honest-to-god GMAT retake question. What would you do with the following score:
720
V-99% Q-70%
I have no problem spending the time and money to retake, just a question if it is really worth it.
I appreciate your input, if anyone else made a similar decision I would love to hear about.
700 is way too low
Nice score.
But from what I've read on this forum and the GMAT/MBA forums, most top tier MBA programs (if that thats your future goal) look for an 80%/80% split in Verbal and Quant. I would focus on the Quant section and retake it to hit that 80%
I have a 720, V-99% Q- 59% but I haven't retaken it. If this round of apps doesn't go well (I'm applying to masters programs right now) I'll most likely retake it. I always mention that I got an 800Q on the GRE on my apps however.
If you feel confident you can raise your GMAT to a 750/760, it's probably worth it.
Agree with idragmazda. Although, i think it's also dependent on school. For example, I know Wharton has definitely put emphasis on the 80/80 percentile breakdown in the past versus HBS, which is a bit more forgiving as far as the GMAT is concerned.
It also depends if you're from a math/quant background. The quant section on the GMAT is getting more and more skewed as far as percentiles go. I think in order to be 90%+, you have to get a 48 (?).
Depends where you want to go and your other app stuff. Since you are on this forum, I'll assume you want to go to a top-10 or so school. Although it's true that they look for an 80/80 or so split, that is becoming less true as more asians (high quant, low verbal) take the test. If you other application areas are relatively solid, I wouldn't waste the 250 bucks.
Retake GMAT? (Originally Posted: 02/03/2014)
Hi everybody,
I just took my GMAT for the first time and received a 730 (Q46 - 73 Perc., V45 - 99 Perc.). I know, it is generally considered a good score, however I have the feeling that I could have done better. I only prepared for around 2-3 weeks (~6 hours each day) and my scores for both practice tests that I took the two days before the test were significantly higher (750-760). I'm especially worried about the relatively low Quant score.
So here's my question: Do you think it is worth to prepare a bit more and then retake the test or would a score of 750-760 not really increase my chances to get admitted to BSchool?
Some background infos: Im from Europe and when I apply to Bschool will have ~3 years of experience in a tier 2 Strat consultancy (think Booz, RB, OW). I have a Master's degree in Management from one of the highest ranked universities in Europe. My target universities would be H & S and as second choice MIT or INSEAD. The MBA would be fully sponsored by my current employer.
Thanks for your advice in advance!
I wouldn't waste your time. Great score, any tips for us? Especially since you killed verbal.
A key takeaway for me is that good time management is extremely important. I think that's where I lost quite a few points in the quantitative part. I spent too much time on the first questions because I really wanted to make sure that my answers were right, but then ran out of time for the last questions.
I think the difference between at 730 and a 750 is negligible. It's like the 96 percentile vs the 98 percentile.
I would almost never tell someone to retake a 730, but curious as to what your Quant experience is like. Undergrad course work? Calc grades? Odds are it won't make much difference, but I do think a 46Q, along with lackluster undergrad quant grades/experience, could potentially be a (small) red flag for H/S/W.
I would also ask yourself a few other things. How much more work would it take you to improve to the 750+ range? What's your profile like? As in, would you be able to better spend the time you'd spend studying over the next month getting going on extras, since you need some work there? Or are you already strong all the way around, and won't have muhch to do on your profile over the next 1-2 months? Generally, what's your appetite for retaking (there was no chance in hell I was retaking with a 730 - I found the studying process too stressful).
I think we've unfortunately reached the point where a 730 is not a 100% definite keeper. It will probably be average at H/S/W this year, and barely above average at the rest of M7/Tuck/Haas.
You're fine. The question is - marginal benefit vs marginal cost. The marginal benefit at HBS and INSEAD is just about 0. The marginal benefit at MIT and Stanford is on the higher end. You're the one who has to judge marginal cost.
Think you made a mistake only prepping 2-3 weeks. I went through something similar, ended up spending more time practicing and increased my score by 50 points. Now I'm sitting here way more comfortable than I did before. If you can put in another 3-4 weeks of practice to get it to 760+, I think that's time well spent to get the nagging feeling out of your head.
Sub-700 GMAT, how much does it hurt during MBA finance recruiting? (Originally Posted: 02/09/2014)
I will be attending NYU Stern this fall and I'm going to be recruiting for finance jobs (BB IB, buyside research, etc) I won't be listing my GMAT on my resume during recruiting. Will a sub-700 score get me filtered out during on-campus recruiting and are you asked for it during every interview? I had a high quant score btw but lower verbal dragged me down.
As a resume coach at the Stanford Business School, I can tell you that most students are discouraged by the Career Management Center from putting their gmat score on the resume. So you are fine in keeping it off the resume -- you won't stand out. If you are asked, you have to tell the truth, but why not wait until it happens? You just want to get in front of them first and impress them, and then worry about the rest. If you are getting picked regularly for scarce interview slots, you should be fine.
Why are students discouraged from putting their GMAT on their resume? If you have a strong GMAT wouldn't this be a data point you want to show off?
no employer cares if your GMAT was 760 or 680, provided you're at a top school. What will separate you from the rest is YOUR experience and not your grades.
Sorry, but this is untrue even if you're at HBS. A low GMAT can hurt you with certain companies (MBB comes to mind).
Banks don't seem to care that much about GMAT under 700.
I find it funny how a test comprised of basic math and geometry, used entirely to get into B school to differentiate countless great applicants, is something people want to put on their resume.
Everyone should be resentful that they had to pay $250 for the test, countless money for books and prep sessions and god knows how many hours for something that neither advances your intelligence or proves much of anything.
If it doesn't "prove much of anything", why are these employers and elite b-schools asking for it then?
GMAT 700 w/High Verbal vs. 700 Balanced (Originally Posted: 03/01/2014)
So, here is my story, but I imagine many people have had similar issues:
I scored a 700 on my first try at the GMAT, w/40 (50%) on quant and 46 (99%) on verbal (with 8/8 on IR and 6/6 on AWA). I wasn't happy with the quant score, and felt pretty unprepared during the test, so I decided to do some work and retake.
I then scored a 700 on my second try w/46 (68%) on quant and 40 (90%) on verbal (no joke)..also somehow scored a 3/8 on the IR(?). So now I'm trying to decide which to send to B-Schools.
My inclination is that they like a balanced score, but the verbal 46 is a 99% which seems impressive, and the 3/8 in IR can't look good.
Thoughts? Which would make an application more impressive? (in full disclosure, I have graduate degree in econ and background in transactions and consulting w/7+ years experience, so I almost question how much the GMAT is even worth for me)
The quant score is infinitely more important that the verbal score. For the top programs, a 50% on the quant pretty much immediately disqualifies you. In fact, the 68% may immediately disqualify you from many top schools as well. I would recommend that you supply the balanced score.
He's going to be supplying both scores when he submits the scores though... Schools see all scores
The difference between a 46 to a 40 Verbal is only 2 or 3 missed questions. You can probably go out and get above a 40 if you are capable of a 46. Good news, quant is the easiest and fastest area to improve in. If you haven't done so already, go out and get the MGMAT books and go thru the quant section.
If you have to supply one, definitely supply the one with the higher Quant. However, I agree with @wannabeaballer - you should take it again. Get a 46Q/46V and you have a pretty bad ass score, especially since your graduate degree in econ to make up for the slightly lower quant score.
Personally, I think the old 80% rule for quant is going out the window, because in the next couple of years, the scoring will be so messed up that a 50 won't even be 80th percentile. Get a 720+ with a respectable quant to go along with your quantitative background and you should be fine. I would definitely retake though.
Go with the balanced score. Although if you do have time, you might want to retake. I actually say that because the IR score is so strange. They don't have enough data to make good decisions on IR scores, so they aren't looking at it "officially" but think "Blink" -- the impression is there that something is off. If you can avoid raising any red flags, all the better. The balanced score as in 46q/40v is not the end of the world and, in conjunction with an application they love anyway, wouldn't disqualify you. However a 40 quant isn't competitive
Agree with everyone else. Go with the balanced score. Quant is extremely important as a lot of schools use it as barometer on whether you can handle the core courses such as stat, accounting, finance, etc.
What schools typically have stricter quant requirements? The usual 2 I hear are Wharton and Sloan, any others? I'm in the same boat of good overall score but only 45q at the moment. There are a lot of factors to consider, but all else equal what schools is one significantly less competitive at without an 80% quant?
I agree with using the more balanced score. GMAT indicates how well you will handle course load. With 40 or 46 you illustrate that verbal comprehension will not be a problem.
I don't think the low IR will be problem but with the lowish quant too you should probably address it in optional essays and explain how acing graduate level econometrics is more indicate of your analytical aptitude than GMAT.
But no matter what your profile - GMAT is worth a lot. I agree with others above that you should consider rewriting depending on what school you target.
700 on GMAT but 68 percentile in quants. should I retake? (Originally Posted: 11/24/2014)
Applying to MSF programs in ut austin, nova, vandy , Claremont and mms in duke for the coming year. I dont want to send in my apps to late but I could potentially retake in dec 30
I have passed CFA lvl 1 and 2 so that could indicate that I am proficient at finance specific quant skills, but I want you guys' opinions.
91 percentile on verbal saved me, but I thought math was a lot easier than my mocks, dunno how I messed up.
Difficult one. 700 is a good score obviously. I think you will be fine but if you want to be 100% sure and don't mind too much I'd retake.
Thanks, yeah I'm in a pickle. I could try again of course, but either ways I'm going to have to spend the majority of my time preparing my essays and such
UG GPA and major?
Kelley school of business, Finance and econ consulting, 3.0
Kelley school of business, Finance and econ consulting, 3.0
Est voluptas et error itaque. Sit a est magni.
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...
Voluptate cum nulla maxime iure atque deleniti. Repellat sit rerum dolor qui et illo officia. Quod quasi iusto nesciunt voluptatem et enim.
Qui nesciunt est enim iure voluptatibus enim. Accusantium consequatur aspernatur ipsam. Tempora eveniet facilis dolore qui tempora excepturi exercitationem aliquam. Incidunt minima hic ipsa aut sed voluptatem et. At corporis placeat explicabo optio quia ipsum. Sunt quia fugit maxime non est. Aut vero assumenda aut. Dolor sit ipsa eos illo magnam quidem et adipisci.
Quidem nobis amet voluptatibus dolore est aperiam. Recusandae eligendi veritatis maiores quod aut consequatur. Nostrum est odio qui asperiores qui a eligendi. Sunt illo quae voluptatem porro iusto. Et veritatis magni et maiores fugiat.
Nihil laboriosam ipsa a beatae nam laborum distinctio. A quia reprehenderit odio. Commodi vel laborum quidem tenetur aut et aut quis. Est voluptate quia qui.
Vel et minima qui minus quia. Magnam temporibus qui autem pariatur eius officiis eligendi. Vel aperiam explicabo saepe omnis. Quae distinctio vel distinctio et sit voluptatem. Reiciendis sed dolorem enim sapiente aut. Qui cumque et odit illo odio autem sint. Veritatis quia recusandae expedita voluptatibus ea consequatur pariatur. Consequatur porro voluptates cum voluptates.
Dolor minima eveniet delectus ut ut. Perspiciatis et perferendis placeat doloribus saepe asperiores facere dolore. Alias consequuntur ipsa qui aut culpa ut earum.
Id et nihil est exercitationem. Nostrum saepe perspiciatis aut dolorem ipsa totam omnis. Maiores nemo quia suscipit possimus animi eos.
Atque quo hic ut porro amet fuga. Officia ut eligendi iusto quas.
Est sunt voluptatem suscipit rerum. Voluptatem hic explicabo nesciunt eveniet.
Aut reiciendis perferendis perferendis consequatur placeat optio. Aut optio optio et molestiae et. Praesentium quia dolorem pariatur sunt.