<p>Disagree. GMAT is as important as the SAT as it applies to college admissions. A GMAT too far below a school’s median is hard to overcome.</p>
<p>^Below a certain point that is true only because I think B-schools actually care less about college grades than colleges do about hs grades. However, I think there is little distinction made at any of these top MBA schools between, say a 680 vs 720 GMAT in comparison to the different made for UG for SATs of 1360 vs 1440.</p>
<p>slipper, in the context of your work experience (and related references), your 4 year academic record, i’d say that a single GMAT score pales in comparison to those other factors – if it were THAT important, why did HBS feel they didn’t even need to look at GMATs until the late 90s?</p>
<p>having said that, i would agree that in certain instances-- i.e. if you are a borderline case and / or are deciding between a number of similar candidates with similar stats, it can be a helpful metric. But let’s be frank, for the elite b-schools, most of the top candidates are already going to have high enough GMAT scores to begin with (i.e. there is going to be a very high correlation by those high achievers with top grades and experience and higher GMAT scores) –> so really, for the top candidates, what incremental value does that score provide? For the marginal candidates, I would even argue that (at least for b-school and the business world in general) that digging beyond a test score, looking at references and work experience is far more useful. I’m not saying that it’s totally useless, but it certainly is not the most important metric, not even close. If it were, why do a number of business schools not even require it?</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at the level of importance for each criteria from the other way around – i.e. every single business school will require you to send in a transcript and detail your work experience and submit references. But not every one will require a GMAT in fact THE best b-school in the world, HBS, didn’t even look at GMATs until the late 90s. A very reasonable conclusion would be that GMAT scores are a poor indicator (in and of itself) as to how that candidate will perform not only in b-school but later in his/her career – I happen to fully agree. </p>
<p>Simply put, for business school in particular, your work experience / track record / ability to show the adcoms that you have the chops to make your mark in the business world far, far supersedes a standardized test.</p>
<p>I agree GMAT is only one metric and most b schools don’t place that much importance on it once a certain number in their range is achieved. Other wise all the b schools will be filled with people from China, India whose GMAT scores in excess of 750 are a dime a dozen.</p>
<p>For most top schools such as Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Kellogg, Haas, Columbia and the like, GMAT constitutes about 25% to 30% of their admissions’ criteria. It’s not everything, but it’s important.</p>
<ul>
<li>Berkeley - 714</li>
<li>Chicago: 713</li>
<li>Tuck: 712</li>
<li>Kellogg: 711</li>
<li>MIT: 708</li>
<li>INSEAD: 700</li>
<li>Columbia: (no mean disclosed – range 660-760)</li>
<li>Duke: 696</li>
<li>Cornell: 694</li>
<li>UVA: 693 </li>
</ul>
<p><a href=“http://mba.haas.berkeley.edu/community_02.html[/url]”>http://mba.haas.berkeley.edu/community_02.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where are you getting that from? I’ve never heard anything quantified like that; especially such a precise, narrow range like that.</p>
<p>^ I’m applying to some top business schools. have contacted to some of them asking about the admissions. That’s what I’ve understood based on their responses. I could be wrong, but they made it very clear that GMAT is a vital part of the admission’s criteria – it’s weighed equally important as GPA, previous work experience and recommendations.</p>
<p>I always thought it was:</p>
<ol>
<li>Wharton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Sloan</li>
</ol>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>That’s a very reasonable Top 4.</p>
<p>I cannot make a strong argument for MIT-Sloan being a better business school than Northwestern-Kellogg, Chicago, Berkeley-Haas, Dartmouth-Tuck and Columbia.</p>
<p>I think you could make an argument for any of those being the #4 school. Well, maybe not Berkeley.</p>
<p>Definitely not Berkeley.</p>
<p>MIT, Columbia, Chicago, Tuck, Kellogg > Haas … making Cal #9 at best.</p>
<p>interesting, most people seem to choose Kellogg as the #4 school, but at least for me it seems that it doesn’t have an area which it really stands out in…it’s sort of a jack of all trades. now, given that people usually have a preferred field before going to bschool, let’s analyze the specific cases and see what we get. excluding HSW, what would be the clear choice for:</p>
<p>general management
tech management
entrepreneurship
finance - ibanking & trading
finance - PE and VC
consulting</p>
<p>as for my personal views, i tend to agree with the_prestige and gellino.</p>
<p>for a #4 school, i would probably choose MIT, Columbia, or Tuck</p>
<p>The fact is, the Chicago matriculant probably didn’t get in anywhere else. What argument can you make for Chicago over the other schools? From what I’ve seen, the people there are typically a bit rougher around the edges, and it has an inflated ranking mostly due to outstanding faculty.</p>
<p>Similarly, what is really that great about Kellogg? It doesn’t have the name of MIT/Columbia outside the US business world, and its career placements are not as good. Tuck has a higher placement rate in PE/VC than Kellogg. The only thing I would really consider it for is general management, but those seeking general management positions after bschool are typically of lower quality than the finance/consulting/entrepreneurship types.</p>
<p>One can argue that Kellogg/Chicago place more emphasis on the numbers, and less on the “habit of leadership” that gets you into the top places. When you concentrate on the work experience and leadership abilities of applicants as the main focus of admission, and leave GMAT and GPA as mostly a correlated given, you really get the best people. This is what I was hoping to expose in this thread, which is what some in the industry recognize and undergrads and newcomers in the workforce usually don’t. If I were to choose a couple metrics to compare schools, they would have to be admission rate and career placement, which do not really coincide with the US News rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kellogg has been known for quite some time as the #1 school for Marketing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny you should use that phrase because I have many times used that exact term in descibing the student body at UChicago.</p>
<p>but what percentage of top-quality applicants want to go into marketing? a quick survey of the percentage of HBS grads going into that area gives a clear answer. </p>
<p>i pretty much see that phrase describing the chicago student body everywhere so it has stayed with me…and personal interaction with chicago students confirms it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree, others may not, but you asked what Kellogg is known for. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree with you on UChicago but always thought Kellogg had a more soft curriculum.</p>
<p>According to a Columbia B-school prof I happen to be friends with, Wharton is number one for finance. This prof is also a Stanford GSB alum, so it’s not like he’s biased in favor of Wharton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice diversion from the fact that you were completely pwned.</p>