<p>Well, I am very interested in getting into a respectable MBA school, preferably one in California. I don't have a strong undergraduate education (studied at my local state university, 3.3GPA) but I am now attending university of san francisco in the MA economics program. So far I am doing well and I was just wondering will receiving a MA with a high GPA improve my chances enough to get into a respectable MBA program such as Haas or Anderson? How much value do adcoms place on a masters degree?</p>
<p>(I understand there are many variables to take into consideration for MBA admissions besides academics, but for this post's purpose lets assume I have a profile of the average accepted applicant ie. work exp, GMAT)</p>
<p>The MA wont get you in a Haas or Anderson without significant, good work experience. I diagree that a 3.3 is in range for those schools. It is possible they may average in your MA grades too, so do as well as you can.</p>
<p>hmom5, you don't need a 4.0 to get into these MBA programs. Granted, it's probably the more difficult majors like engineering that bring the GPA averages down but it's not uber-competitive like the top-ranked PhD programs. The quality of work experience definitely weighs more.</p>
<p>it appears work experience is the key to getting into B-school, so I should just view as getting my masters as a way of landing a good job to improve my profile. Is a year of full-time work experience (at time of application) enough? How many years would you recommend?</p>
<p>Something I found interesting about UCLA Anderson is that their program doesn't require any work experience. They state that they do tend to accept students straight from undergrad. In my case, would you apply to immediately after graduating or would you choose to work??</p>
<p>johu01, it's always best to have at least 2-3 years of work experience to strengthen your application. Some MBA schools do accept undergraduates straight out of college but they tend to be very exceptional. They represent less than 10% of a entering MBA class.</p>
<p>Tenisghs, at elite colleges today a 3.3 is not a good GPA. I have a pile of resumes on my desk add none has lower than a 3.5, and those go in the circular file unless something else is extraordinary. I'd say a 3.5 is median at any ivy.</p>
<p>Johu, 3-5 years is typical. What B schools (and later the employers) want is to see how you grow in an organization. We hire those who in 3-5 years took on increasing responsibility for people and budgets or contributed significantly strategically.</p>
<p>I don't hire at Anderson and their program may look for different things, but employers with elite jobs want experience unless you bring something unusual.</p>
<p>Great jobs are going to be hard to come by for a few years, so time in them may go up.</p>
<p>hmom5, I have my facts. I use University of Michigan (and sometimes Northwestern) because I am most familiar with these schools. This is a link to Michigan Ross class profile for 2010: [url=<a href="http://www.bus.umich.edu/Admissions/Mba/Profile.htm%5DClass">http://www.bus.umich.edu/Admissions/Mba/Profile.htm]Class</a> Profile - Stephen M. Ross School of Business<a href="Kellogg%20and%20Chicago%20Booth%20do%20not%20list%20average%20GPA%20on%20their%20websites">/url</a> The average Ross 2010 incoming GPA is a 3.3 (this is an average, meaning there are students who got in with below and above a 3.3 GPA) Michigan isn't an Ivy, but most people consider its business school is elite. Since Michigan Ross is generally ranked higher than UCLA Anderson, I'm assuming the OP's UG GPA of a 3.3 would not hurt him overall if he has good work experience and high GMAT scores.</p>
<p>I know little about Michigan/Ross, have never personally recruited there, but I know 3.3 is low at all ivies. That might be changing at Harvard as they are presently addressing their grade inflation issue--80% were graduating with honors--and Princeton as well. But it would be hard to believe 3.3's at Ross have much of a chance at top B schools (or top jobs) without extraordinary work achievements.</p>
<p>I'll ask DS to give me Dartmouth's link to median grade by class. It's hard to find a class where the median is not above B+, and A- is the most common median grade in every department. DS thought he would impress with a 4.0 before he took a look himself.</p>
<p>Cornell: 3.3 (for both 2009 and 2010)
Columbia: 3.0–3.8 Range of Middle 80% (avg not given)
Yale: 3.5 (2010)
Dartmouth: 3.46 (2009)
Harvard: 3.66 (2010)
Wharton 3.5 (2010)</p>
<p>Harvard's GPA may be a bit inflated due to number of applicants..this is likely to only get worse next year.</p>
<p>3.3 from Michigan is sufficient to get into any university. You would preferably want to supplement it with an above avg GMAT (which IMO means 750+ at top 3), but work experience is still the most important admission factor (by far).</p>
<p>Thanks VectorWega for reiterating the facts of my post. You are also correct that MBA admissions might be more competitive (average UG GPA of admitted applicants may actually increase) in 2009 and maybe 2010 because of the economic crisis.</p>
<p>Going back to the OPs original question (MA improve chance of getting into MBA?), the answer used to be yes, but there are two things working against this nowadays--</p>
<p>(1) in today's economy, due to overcrowding and a shortage of spaces, the public schools (UCs and Cal States) are being encouraged not to admit people who already have degrees, so those with bachelors degrees are being prevented from getting new bachelors degrees, and those with masters degrees are being prevented from getting new masters degrees. In fact, the UCs and Cal State deans have already said this will be their policy for next year; and</p>
<p>(2) the schools used to play this game (admitting people into MBA programs who already had masters degrees in an effort to boost their prestige), but they soon discovered that the dropout rate from such people is over twice as high as from those without the degrees. As a result, they started to rethink this policy back in the 1980s and 1990s when they realized that they couldn't continue to run the programs with people (many of whom weren't that serious about finishing the program). This was particularly true for admissions of such people into the part-time programs (where one worked full-time and attended evenings for three-years to get the two-year MBA degree). </p>
<p>In my own case, it also frustrated the hell out of those of us without previous masters degrees who did get in--first because such people quite often would consider themselves "superior" to the others in the programs and expect us to do their work for them while they handled their "important" work duties (many of these were masters in engineering who were already in top jobs), and secondly because we knew these "prima-donnas" being admitted prevented other serious applicants (who were similar to those of us without masters degrees) from being admitted. Many of us "non-masters-degree" admits made our feelings on this subject quite clear with the UCLA Anderson school administration --both on how we didn't intend to do others' work for them--and on how the administration had a disfunctional admission policy.</p>
<p>Yikes Calcruzer. I'm not sure if this happens to other schools outside California, but you live in a very competitive and uncooperative environment. </p>
<p>It's one of the reasons why I'm not even going back to get my Master's degree now. I know the competition won't decline until 2010 (when the economy should rebound). I want to increase my chances of getting into my top choice.</p>
<p>I'm shocked that those GPA's are getting into top programs, certainly was not the case in my day. Speaks to the ultimate importance of work experience today. Yet I'm curious as to where the work experience is coming from as I know ibanks and consulting firms rarely hire anyone with below high 3's.</p>
<p>i'm starting to wonder if the schools are just starting to focus more on drive, ambition, and creativeness and that's what's pulling the gpa down. Some of the best creatives in the business world couldn't organize a desk or take a test without getting sidetracked.</p>
<p>I am currently a student at one of the business schools listed in VectorWega's post. The low median GPAs (at least at my school) is representative not of a decline in addmissions standards, but is instead a reflection of the increasing numbers of engineers and scientists entering MBA programs. If you examine addmissions statistics from the last 10 years or so, you'll see that as the average GPA for admitted students has fallen approximately 0.2-0.3 points, average GMAT scores have increased by 30-40 points. Over the same period, the fraction of students at top MBA programs with undergraduate degrees in the technical fields has risen from about under 15% to about 25%.</p>
<p>I think few people realize just how much lower average GPA's are in engineering and physical science programs when compared to liberal arts and similar majors. Having worked in my schools addmissions office I've had a chance to play with some of the data. Some interesting tidbits:</p>
<p>The average UG GPA at Berkeley Engineering was 2.7. The average GPA for Berkeley UG as a whole was 3.3.</p>
<p>The average UG GPA at Georgia Tech was 2.8.</p>
<p>The average UG GPA at Carnegie Mellon CIT was 2.9.</p>
<p>The average UG GPA at Cornell Engineering was 2.9. The average UG GPA for Cornell UG as a whole is 3.33.</p>
<p>The average GPA at MIT was 3.1 out of 5.0.</p>
<p>If you compare the populations of students with technical degrees to those with non-technical degrees with the same GMAT scores, you find that the GPA gap for technical majors vs. non-technical majors is around 0.5-0.6 points. Its actually been a big dilema for admissions to figure out how to admit more student with technical degrees (who are in demand with the majority of employers), while at the same time maintaining the schools standing in the rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The average GPA at MIT was 3.1 out of 5.0.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you meant a 4.1 out of 5. A 3.1 out of 5 would basically be a "C" average (hence, a 2.1 at a school that has the regular 4-point scale). MIT grading is hard, but it's not that hard.</p>
Tenisghs, at elite colleges today a 3.3 is not a good GPA. I have a pile of resumes on my desk add none has lower than a 3.5, and those go in the circular file unless something else is extraordinary. I'd say a 3.5 is median at any ivy.</p>
<p>Johu, 3-5 years is typical. What B schools (and later the employers) want is to see how you grow in an organization. We hire those who in 3-5 years took on increasing responsibility for people and budgets or contributed significantly strategically.</p>
<p>I don't hire at Anderson and their program may look for different things, but employers with elite jobs want experience unless you bring something unusual.</p>
<p>Great jobs are going to be hard to come by for a few years, so time in them may go up.
[/quote]
Oh noeeeeeeeesssss...I'm dooooooooomed.</p>
<p>I don't have anywhere close to a 3.5 shucks...</p>
<p>Maybe I'll never get into a top 10 MBA school...sigh...</p>