According to their website, they AVERAGE a 3.75 GPA and 715 GMAT!
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x843.xml#8
When I first saw those stats, I thought that I was looking at Wharton's business page. Why the hell are their averages so high, especially since there are a lot better schools that are less competitive to get into? Even CMU Tepper and Duke had lower averages than that, and those are clearly superior institutions.
| +44 | UC Berkeley (Haas) vs Cornell Dyson vs Columbia vs Dartmouth | 19 | 2d | |
| +33 | MSF Rankings 2024 | 25 | 18h | |
| +27 | Should I take on 100k in loans to go to Emory? | 31 | 1d | |
| +23 | Got admission to ESCP MiM - now what? | 14 | 3d | |
| +21 | Clash of the MSFs, Georgetown vs Nova | 9 | 2d | |
| +21 | UK business schools (below top 5) | 9 | 17h | |
| +19 | UCL Vs Warwick Vs Umass Amherst Vs UW Madison Vs UofT for undergrad | 18 | 5h | |
| +18 | Oxbridge or Top 15 US School. | 6 | 7h | |
| +18 | HEC Mim vs Bocconi Mfin (URGENT) | 7 | 1d | |
| +18 | SHOULD I DO THIS MINOR? | 15 | 21h |
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.
thats for the PhD program not the MBA
ur a fool reject
Ah shit, that is the PHD, but this is the MBA, and these numbers still seem DAMN high:
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x27471.xml
3.6 + 712 for mean gpa/GMAT seems really high for a school given its ranking.
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x27471.xml
here is the link for the MBA class profile
GPA= 3.6 GMAT= 712
these averages are quite high, on par with the top 10 schools. i think the reason for this is 1) UCLA is a good program, 2) big influx of laid off finance guys applying to MBA programs nationwide
also, UCLA is a better MBA program than both CMU Tepper and Duke Fuqua
Yes, it does seem like UCLA is a more selective program than CMU and Duke. They're all great schools; unfortunately, it gets more difficult to fly recruiters out to LA than to Pittsburgh from NYC.
UCLA Anderson grad here.
In my mind, there are two hypothesis. One is UCLA Anderson looks at your GPA and GMAT more closely than other top institutions. Second is UCLA Anderson can attract AND register better MBA candidates than its ranking may suggest.
I would like to think it is the latter. UCLA Anderson does attract lot of applicants simply because it is a top MBA program in Los Angeles. Who doesn't want year around sunshine and almost no rain for 8 months of the year at a campus right next to Bel Air?
For the same reason, UCLA Anderson has better faculty than its ranking suggests as well. It would not be an exaggeration to claim that UCLA Anderson has top 3-5 faculty in the country. Every single of my Professors were a well-known and respected figure in their field. Many were considered THE leading intellectual in the field. I can honestly say most of my Professors were geniuses.
In my opinion, there are traditionally higher ranked programs that simply aren't as attractive places to get an MBA education which would include Wharton, Dartmouth, Duke, Cornell, and even Chicago.
As far as quality of the education, I can definitely say UCLA Anderson will give you top-notch education. Every lecture of every class I have taken were carefully crafted and prepared by the Professors. You would not get a half-assed lecture as you may have received in your undergrad. The Professors make every minute of their lecture count. Indeed, UCLA Anderson takes the quality of its lectures with utmost seriousness and student feedback on the Professors carry great deal of weight. UCLA Anderson has been the best learning experience of my life.
I would recommend MBA to almost anyone and I would certainly recommend UCLA Anderson as a world-class MBA program. If I could do it again, I would go to UCLA Anderson.
Good luck with your MBA application.
UCLA is ranked top 15 isn't it? either way, it's a well regarded program
Its well regarded, but I don't think its as good as Duke at the very least, and I'd also think that Michigan and maybe Virginia are higher regarded since they have undergrad business and people would be slightly more familiar with those programs.
I'm not trying to hate on UCLA, but just trying to figure out how it demands numbers I'd expect HSWK to demand when its clearly not in that tier.
UCLA Anderson is better than Duke
i' think UCLA ranks above Duke Fuqua, and is better for investment banking recruiting. I'd say it goes in this order:
Virginia UCLA Michigan Duke
OK, I guess I'll admit defeat here. Clearly I was wrong as UCLA is much better than I thought it was since everyone is saying so.
Let's change the topic then.
A lot of people say that unless you go to the following schools, its very difficult to get into i-banking from an MBA:
Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Kellogg, Booth, Sloan, Columbia, Tuck, Stern, and Haas.
Let's say that you go to the "second-third tier" programs that are still solid like UVA, UCLA, Duke, Michigan, UNC, USC, Texas, etc. Can you still get into banking at some point? All of those schools except probably UCLA/USC/UNC have some undergrad presence in investment banks, so can you use the undergrads and their recruiting events to break in? Also, are people saying this in terms of starting as an associate, because couldn't you always apply as an analyst with your MBA?
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I already know that getting into HSW-type of programs will probably not happen since its going to be difficult to get the work experience and GMAT necessary for those programs, but do I still have a shot if I go to one of the schools I mentioned?
edit:nvm
all the schools you mentioned will get you an IB gig if you want one and apply yourself. just keep in mind that it may be with a regional shop/BB office rather than a NY BB.
michigan- chicago BB and MMs and some NY BBs, but more of a consulting school UVA/UNC/Duke- lots of mid-atlantic, charlotte-based MM's. UVA places well into NYC, too. UCLA- LA BBs and to a lesser extent SF USC- not as good for banking as the others Texas- Houston energy banking
Yes, 2nd tier MBA programs still feed into BBs. Hell, IU's MBA program gets recruited by every NYC BB, and of course the Chicago offices too.
UCLA's #s are probably so high b/c a lot of people want to end up working in Cali for the rest of their lives (especially after busting ass for x amount of years post-undergrad). UCLA would be the #3 MBA school in Cali, so this makes admissions more competitive. It's a geography thing.
It's actually a top-3 school west of Chicago, so for the financiers on the west coast, it's a top choice if you want to be in SoCal or can't get into Stanford/Berkeley. Plus, it's the best business school in Southern California, and if you can't get into HSW, I'd rather spend two years in SoCal than two years anywhere else.
jimbrowngoU hit on what I think is the key reason for Anderson's high GPA/GMAT stats. As one of the top schools on the west coast, it attracts applicants that are focused on staying on the west coast. These applicants have only a small handful of strong MBA programs to apply to and likely apply to all of them. I would guess that if you eliminate the geography bias, Anderson would lose a lot of students to the 2nd tier schools on the east coast.
That may be true. Plus, those stats also may be skewed upward since I believe it listed the average for "admitted" students which could include people who applied to Haas and Stanford GSB and applied to Anderson as a backup. Since the people that get into GSB and Haas will have high GPAs + GMATs, it may have driven the averages upward, especially since there may have been a very elite group with unusually high GPAs + GMATs skewing the stats. I wonder if stats are lower for matriculating students.
Also, does IU = Indiana U Kelly? Are you sure it feeds into BBs? That doesn't even sound like a brand name school, and I'm wondering why BBs in NYC would recruit from there when they have 2 schools in the same city that are more prestigious.
Indiana U has an investment banking program (for undergrads) that essentially trains its students to be bankers. I believe the program has a near flawless placement rate into IB, albeit not always at BBs (for those of you who only care about BBs).
IU used to place well into Bear Stearns and does pretty well with undergrad IB placement. I'm not so sure about the MBA program though.
I've actually met some IU MBA's at BB final rounds, although it was usually 1 or 2 while other schools sent significantly more representation. Apparently they place decently, didnt ask about particulars.
Because its the admitted, not enrolled
sarah you are so hot for knowing that after ibankingreject posted the same thing on here less than an hour ago.
Indiana is a bit of an outlier given that it is not even a top 50 undergrad, but their program pretty much coaches kids on how to be good at interviewing. They've been at it for a while so the alumni base is wide enough to be self sustaining. Their placement is pretty good.
My understanding is just like for undergrad, Berkeley / LA get a disproportionately high number of well qualified applicants because people like staying in California and you have a large amount of California applicants. I personally know a number of people that were admitted into "higher ranked" schools than Berkeley / LA but still chose Berkeley / LA because its in CA.
Also, isn't it easier to find jobs in region than out of region? So for example - Stern / Anderson are about equal - but people that attend Stern will be at a disadvantage if they want to work west coast compared to their Anderson counterpart? - is that a correct statement?
It's a fairly accurate statement. However it varies from bank to bank. Some recruit for all locations, others for their "local" offices. That said, even in situations where a bank is only looking at Anderson/Haas for West Coast, you can still get a NYC interview provided you have done the right kind of networking. I'd imagine the reverse would hold true for Stern. Even then, you are competing in a general pool.
Also, if you are up front that you want to go to the other coast with those who are hiring at all locations, you have a much better chance at standing out. Internal competition isnt as great if your segment yourself.
Et voluptas rerum autem qui sunt officiis ut. Voluptatem natus amet voluptates iure voluptas nam nihil. Delectus eligendi neque ipsam enim.
Ut et mollitia similique consectetur sit cupiditate impedit. Quis occaecati corporis et omnis eos iure.
Aperiam consequatur quia repellendus dolores maxime. Atque aspernatur ab et enim est aperiam aliquid. Id ipsum rem tempora.
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...
Quis odio sunt ab facere. Natus doloribus numquam blanditiis quam magni sed. Iusto est quae sit distinctio delectus tempora.
Officia illo qui eaque atque. Ipsa et et facere numquam similique. Quam voluptatem facilis molestias. Quam id ad et sed rerum voluptatem atque debitis.
Maxime voluptas nisi occaecati saepe et doloribus magni. Quod eius alias eaque vero aut ea delectus. Ut ut dicta perspiciatis ut. Distinctio amet rerum natus error enim adipisci rerum et. Facere quas sit sint voluptatem. Debitis doloremque alias soluta voluptates. Enim ea optio molestias esse explicabo et.
Eum voluptatem excepturi est provident. Sit ex aperiam dolores doloribus eum.