<p>So I've gotten mixed feedback from different people on this topic.</p>
<p>Assuming we are talking about undergrad here. </p>
<p>How does a mediocre GPA from a very good program compare with an awesome GPA from an average program when it comes to MBA admissions preference?</p>
<p>Take this example:
Kid X goes to NYU and is enrolled in Stern for Finance. Slacks off a bit and ends up with a GPA of 2.8
Kid Y goes to Penn State and is in the Smeal college of business for Finance. Easily pulls off a 3.8</p>
<p>In this situation (and many others like it), who is more likely to, say, get accepted into a prestigious MBA program (such as Duke, Harvard, Columbia, UPenn, etc)?</p>
<p>I think its a close call.</p>
<p>LOL. Graduate schools usually account for the mean MCAT/LSAT/GMAT score of students applying from the institution you attend and reweigh your GPA accordingly.</p>
<p>Take this example.
A student that goes to a school where the mean MCAT score is a 36 and pulls a GPA of 3.7 is FAR more impressive than kid that went to a school where the mean MCAT score was a 29 and pulled a 4.0.</p>
<p>so basically what your saying is a less-than-perfect GPA in a rigorous program IS better than a 4.0 elsewhere.</p>
<p>hmm interesting. does anyone know where to find a list of the mean GMAT (since im a Finance major) scores?</p>
<p>what about</p>
<p>“good school + good GPA” :)</p>
<p>It doesn’t necessarily work like this. A lot of really great schools have high average GPAs while other really great schools have low average GPAs. Just going to a good school doesn’t mean that you will have a low GPA, just as going to a less impressive school won’t mean that you will get a higher GPA.</p>