Let's say that you have two candidates with nearly identical backgrounds/profiles except for two things, UG GPA and GMAT score. Who has a better shot at getting into a top 3 B school - a 3.2/780 or a 3.9/700?
| +40 | Wharton Huntsman Program vs Yale vs Dartmouth | 40 | 1d | |
| +32 | Umich Ross vs Rice vs Notre Dame Mendoza | 17 | 1d | |
| St Andrews vs LSE vs Middlebury | 19 | 1h | ||
| +26 | Target School Kids Stop Complaining | 6 | 1d | |
| +25 | Oxbridge or Top 15 US School. | 7 | 1d | |
| +23 | Imperial College Finance Masters' | 5 | 1d | |
| +20 | LSE BSc Economics vs Cambridge BA Economics | 7 | 1d | |
| +18 | UK/EU MSc's in Finance | 7 | 1d | |
| +14 | Succeeding at Penn CAS? | 3 | 2h | |
| +14 | Engineering vs Business degree? | 7 | 18h |
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.
First, it depends on the undergraduate they went to.
Lets assume non-target. Then it would be far more likely that a student with a 3.9 gpa and a 700 GMAT would get into most top B-schools. Simply because admissions officers know school's curriculum aren't terribly different, especially since they're all likely finance majors. They also like to be able to claim they admitted students from lower ranked institutions just to raise the likelihood of students from those schools applying next year. The 3.2 student would look like a slacker for not doing well at an easier school, especially since they're smart enough to get a 780.
Lets assume target. Then it would be a tie IMO since both parties have something really solid about their applications. The 3.2 student can easily make the case they just had a bad semester, or fall back on the fact that the curriculum at targets is in fact harder, and students have much higher class loads. The 3.9 student would get the benefit of having such a stellar GPA at a target, and that would make them equally likely to get in, but if you put a gun to my head on which would do better given the fact they both went to targets, I'd have to still give it to 3.9 student.
Troll spotted.
Basically where you attend our undergraduate is of little importance. What matters is how you did there. That's it. If you have a great volunteer experience, solid grades, maybe some other achievements, good work experience and that GMAT.
I see dozens of people on LinkedIn who went to these schools with complete non target degrees.
You couldn't be more wrong. While what you do at your UG is extremely important, where is just as important. Sure tons of non-targets, including myself, have made it to IB/other well reputable jobs, they almost certainly weren't the first choice of most recruiters.
This is another example of the classic question: GMAT vs. GPA. Some people say that GPA is more important because it represents the work ethic and intelligence of someone for four consecutive years. GMAT is just one test that you take one time and people can be bad test-takers.
Other people say that GMAT is more important because it assesses your intelligence and abilities at the current moment as undergrad GPA is a measure of your intelligence from several years ago and you have matured since then. People also say that B schools don't know the difficulty of your school and the grade inflation/deflation that occurs at each school.
Like others have said, there are other factors at play like the undergrad you attended.
From what I know it depends on the school. Some schools put the most value on the GMAT, while others GPA. I think HSW are more GPA focused, while one can get into places like Stern and Cornell riding the high GMAT (id say like 740-760+) alone.
W is the biggest GMAT whore there is. H/S can take more candidates with lower GMATs as their 90%+ yields allow them to better control their average/median GMAT
This. Heard through a classmate of a kid at a firm where they basically have to just tell the higher-ups what school they want to go to and they get in. Apparently, the kid's GMAT was slightly under where W wanted it on the Quant side and he didn't get in.
Assuming your GPA isn't in the shit hole, 740-760 would get you money at Stern or Cornell. Unless you're a white male.
"Unless you're a white male."
Looks like I'm out of luck there dude, that ship sailed over two decades ago.
Honestly it probably depends on the school and the year; you'd better believe that they view GPA and GMAT as a portfolio in addition to individual circumstances. Taking one person with a GMAT of 780 allows you to take somebody with a 680, or ~3 people with a 715, and maintain an overall average GMAT of 730. Similar with GPA. So it will partially depend on where the school is strong or weak from that perspective for the class year.
Velit quisquam neque cum magnam excepturi est et. Ratione enim et eaque. Qui voluptatem alias qui ut sed animi vel. Minima officia rerum dolore omnis et molestias. Ad non blanditiis et voluptatem labore distinctio. Sunt vel dolorem corrupti asperiores repudiandae.
Sit nisi aut fuga. Aut nesciunt voluptatem mollitia omnis et. Rerum ipsum molestiae sit sed corrupti temporibus in quas. Aut animi ut soluta vero quia. Officia enim nobis reiciendis aut non aut repellendus. Ex minima deserunt vitae possimus mollitia aperiam in. Aut dolores voluptate nobis.
Omnis mollitia dolorum fugiat animi quidem est tenetur. Earum architecto sint non dolorem repellat possimus quibusdam et. Magni sint corporis et nobis. Voluptas adipisci quidem corporis et.
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...