<p>
[quote]
I think that list of resumes is pretty questionable,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, it seems pretty legit to me. I looked at it, there's nothing in there that I find particularly surprising.</p>
<p>"I think that list of resumes is pretty questionable, otherwise I really need to reconsider about applying NYU and UChicago. but how come there are so many people from Northwestern got into Wharton?"</p>
<p>Why would you reconsider applying to Chicago and Stern? And why wouldn't so many people from Northwestern get into Wharton?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that list of resumes is pretty questionable, otherwise I really need to reconsider about applying NYU and UChicago. but how come there are so many people from Northwestern got into Wharton?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The list is legit, you can google people from the resumes and find them online.</p>
<p>Anyway, Wharton is just one business school as of many, for business as long as you're in like the top 7 you're in great shape. There could be many reasons for NYU kids not going to Wharton, maybe they really enjoy NY and so they decided to go to Columbia or NYU for their MBAs, and so on.</p>
<p>for UChicago, I think its locational matter, for Northwestern, great school and greater than I thought(limited knowledge lol), and for NYU, since also east coast thought might be more candidates</p>
<p>sakky, maybe Stanford changed their policy because when I was applying for an MBA they definitely didn't do interviews. I just say that because when I was applying the acceptance rate at Stanford was almost half of what it was for Harvard, Wharton, Tuck, Kellogg and would say that while I know many people accepted at these latter four schools that I know very few who were accepted to Stanford and that their GMAT avg was ~ 25 points higher than any other school. Perhaps, this isn't the case anymore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, maybe Stanford changed their policy because when I was applying for an MBA they definitely didn't do interviews.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe the incoming class of 2002 (hence graduating in 2004) was the first year where they started interviewing. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I just say that because when I was applying the acceptance rate at Stanford was almost half of what it was for Harvard, Wharton, Tuck, Kellogg
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but admit rates don't tell the whole story. You can, theoretically, have a 100% admit rate yet nonetheless be still extremely difficult to get into if only the people who can actually get in do actually apply. Of course this never happens in reality, but the point is, admit rates only tell you part of the story. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I know many people accepted at these latter four schools that I know very few who were accepted to Stanford and that their GMAT avg was ~ 25 points higher than any other school. Perhaps, this isn't the case anymore.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's right - not anymore. Things have changed. According to the latest USNews information, the average GMAT scores are as follows:</p>
<p>Stanford 712
Wharton 714
HBS 707
Columbia 706
Haas - 702
Duke - 701
Chicago - 701
MIT - 700
Northwestern - 700
UCLA - 700</p>
<p>I do remember that in the past Stanford did indeed have a conspicuously higher average GMAT than other schools did. But not anymore - it's not even the highest anymore. </p>
<p>I also remember how Stanford used to have a conspicuously higher average GPA than all other schools. That's also not true anymore. HBS now has the highest average GPA of 3.64, compared to 3.56 at Stanford.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's right - not anymore. Things have changed. According to the latest USNews information, the average GMAT scores are as follows:</p>
<p>Stanford 712
Wharton 714
HBS 707
Columbia 706
Haas - 702
Duke - 701
Chicago - 701
MIT - 700
Northwestern - 700
UCLA - 700
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm really skeptical when it comes to those reported GMAT averages.</p>
<p>I mean three schools right at "700"... it's almost as if the actual average were, say, 695 or 680 or even 670 - they'd find a creative way to bump it up - who wants to be the b-school sitting right below that 700 threshold? I bet you some of those schools do some generous "rounding" when it comes to disclosing avg. GMAT scores.</p>
<p>Uh... yeah. If that was the case, I'm sure the various schools would be sly enough to realize that reporting an even 700 looks trumped up -- it would be much more likely that they would round up to say 701 or 702 to avoid any suspicion.<br>
Let's be realistic here.</p>
<p>OK...I emptied out my PM inbox...so if you want those resumes PM me or email me at <a href="mailto:dumboe8899@yahoo.com">dumboe8899@yahoo.com</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Uh... yeah. If that was the case, I'm sure the various schools would be sly enough to realize that reporting an even 700 looks trumped up -- it would be much more likely that they would round up to say 701 or 702 to avoid any suspicion. Let's be realistic here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey Einstein, check out the b-schools with "701 or 702" averages right above them.</p>
<p>What's your point, chief?</p>
<p>You're saying that they rounded/fudged (albeit, correctly) their numbers as well?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What's your point, chief?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My "point" was well stated in my earlier post. The "point" of my last post was simply to point out to you that there were indeed schools that indicated averages of "701" and "702" (your post made it seem as if this was some kind of impossibility).</p>
<p>Furthermore, to your remark (albeit, correctly) - that is exactly what I'm talking about - how do YOU KNOW? How does anyone know for sure? You don't. That's my main point. I mean isn't it convenient that the top b-schools all happen to just edge at or above 700? Is POSSIBLE, just possible that one of those schools near the bottom actually had an average a couple points shy (or more) of 700, but fudeged their data to get over the hump? Is it in the realm of possibilities? In another dimension somewhere perhaps? Man, it's just a thought.</p>
<p>Look at this list for a second:</p>
<p>Haas - 702
Duke - 701
Chicago - 701
MIT - 700
Northwestern - 700
UCLA - 700</p>
<p>MIT and UCLA have the same GMAT averages - perhaps... but it's a little hard to believe.</p>
<p>GMAT and GPA isn't the primary indicator of professional success. That is why all of the top 15 MBA programs have GMATand GPA averages in the same range (3.4-3.5 and 690-710).</p>
<p>
[quote]
GMAT and GPA isn't the primary indicator of professional success. That is why all of the top 15 MBA programs have GMATand GPA averages in the same range (3.4-3.5 and 690-710)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely agree with you.</p>
<p>Which also kind of ties into my point that I wouldn't be surprised if some of that reported data is a bit fudged.</p>
<p>Do the MBA schools look at the overall GPA, or will they dissect the GPA into courses, point and say "this applicant received a C in ____, that is very bad."?</p>
<p>They will look closely at your coursework. So yes, you will want to do well in your quant-focused courses such as calculus, microeconomics, statistics, etc.</p>
<p>Maybe that makes you believe Tuck a little more since they reported an avg GMAT score of 699.</p>
<p>Firax, MBA programs do both. They look at the over GPA first (generally speaking, a cumulative GPA of 3.0+ is expected and a 3.3+ recommended at most top MBA programs) and then, they look at the individual courses and grades. Obviously, getting a C in Calculus or Economics won't help.</p>
<p>So, from what I can see here, is it nearly impossible to get into a top MBA program without several years of work experience under your belt? With enough internships, etc., is it reasonably possible to get into one of the top 5 business schools straight out of undergrad? Is it reasonable to get a MS after undergrad and then get an MBA?</p>
<p>Not "reasonably" possible, but it does happen. Typically, every MBA program has a handful of students who got in straight out of college. By handful, I literaly mean 5 or 6 out of 500+ students. Typically, those are exceptional cases of undergrads who accomplished a great deal; possibly invented and marketed a major product or launched a very successful business as a college student or maybe participated in a major expedition etc... Your typical 4.0 student with an 800 GMAT score won't usually cut it.</p>
<p>Not all is lost though. There are some business schools (none ranked among the top 50 mind you) that do not require work experience. But if you really want to have a serious shot at a top 30 MBA program, full time, post college graduation work experience is pretty much required. We aren't talking about too much experience mind you. 3 (in the case of Investment Bankers and Management Consultants) to 5 years (in the case of manufacturing and marketing jobs) is all one needs, but in those 3-5 years, one must demonstrate potential.</p>