You guys trashed my profile but i got into Yale SOM

We really need to get these HS off the site

td12:

Good for you. Ignore the haters. Half of them are high schoolers jacking off in their parents basement

Almost spilled my coffee after reading this!

if i start seeing threads with acceptance letters attached to them i s2g..

let him be happy and talk his shit, he proved everyone wrong, dont be so cynical

I am Indian and this is 100% fact

Very much agree. Humility goes a LONG way in business. 

Lol, you can probably identify the OP based on what he's said so far if the Resume ever lands on your desk.

MBA admission rates are higher than undergrad admissions rates because barriers to entry are higher for MBA admissions. On average, each MBA application requires much more work than a college application--and this is largely due to the common app, which makes it easier for college applicants to apply to a wide range of schools (in other words, marginal cost is much lower). I know that in undergrad, I applied to Harvard and Yale because it was super easy to and didn't require much additional effort, despite me not being a very competitive applicant. On the flip side, MBA applications have to be filled out separately, recommendations have to be filled out separately, schools have very different essays, etc. This generally forces applicants to be more selective with the schools they apply to as they can't just apply to a wide range like they did with college, especially since most applicants work full-time jobs.

That, however, doesn't mean MBA admissions is a joke. In fact, it means the overall quality of the applicant pool at top business schools may be higher because the pool is self-selecting--in general, only people who think they are competitive applicants to a particular school will apply. So, yes, while MBA admissions rates are higher than their undergrad counterparts, that does not mean it's "easier" because that fails to take into account the quality of the applicant pools. Moreover, you conflate selectivity with quality of admitted students. Beyond a certain point, there is diminishing returns to lower acceptance rates. Do you really think there would be a difference in quality of students between a school with a 3% acceptance rate (say, Stanford undergrad) vs. a school with an 6% acceptance rate (say, Stanford GSB)? As schools themselves admit, there are many more super qualified applicants than spots at the top schools, so ultimately it comes down to crafting a diverse class, and many top applicants will inevitably get the short end of the stick. So, my point being, lower acceptance rate doesn't necessarily mean that a school is "harder" to get into, and it also doesn't necessarily mean that students at a school with a lower acceptance rate are "better" than those at a school with a higher acceptance rate. To continue with my Stanford example, I don't think anyone in their right mind would say "Stanford GSB is twice as easy to get into than Stanford undergrad" nor would they say "Stanford undegrad students are twice as good as Stanford GSB students."

The broader point not withstanding, you're making a rookie mistake if you compare b-school acceptance rates to college acceptance rates.  High school graduates vs employed college grads.  Common app vs personalized apps.  A conscious decision vs society expects it of you.  Etc etc.  Not apples to apples. 

deleted