<p>Hi everyone,
I've heard that the LSE is highly regarded by US graduate schools. So I just got into the straight econ course there, and if I got, say, a 1st from the LSE, will I be a competitive applicant compared to, say, an Oxbridge grad with the same grades? I'm just curious, because the straight econ course is suppossed to be really quantitative and the US graduate schools seem to like that. I mean how are my chances to get into say, HBS, Wharton, Stern, Tuck, Sloan, ect.?</p>
<p>I think you may want to reference the numerous other posts here regarding what it takes to get into a top MBA program. In a nutshell, your grades and your course load are only minor factors. Far and away, the most important admissions factors are your work experience and your leadership potential. </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way. I know geniuses who have got straight A's in getting their PhD's from MIT, and won awards for their research papers, and then applied to a number of top MBA programs, including MIT's own at Sloan, and got rejected from them. The problem? No work experience, and no demonstrated leadership potential. Being a successful doctoral student does not count as work experience and does not really demonstrate leadership ability.</p>
<p>I wouldn't say that work experience and leadership potential are the MOST important things. In talking to Linda Baldwin, Director of Admissions at UCLA, she stated that the first thing she looks as if you can handle the riger of b-school and that has to do with your academics. The foundation they are looking for is economics, finance, accounting, and stats, classes of that nature.</p>
<p>In general, grades may not get you IN to b-school but they most definitely will keep you out if not fairly close to the school's average GPA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't say that work experience and leadership potential are the MOST important things. In talking to Linda Baldwin, Director of Admissions at UCLA, she stated that the first thing she looks as if you can handle the riger of b-school and that has to do with your academics. The foundation they are looking for is economics, finance, accounting, and stats, classes of that nature.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I meant that they are the most important things in terms of getting you in, not about things that will keep you out. After all, plenty of things can keep you out. Simply not having a college degree at all will keep you out. Having a felony criminal record will keep you out. So I suppose one could say that just graduating from college and not having been convicted of a crime are "really" the MOST important things. But I think it's safe to say that most people who are seriously considering a top MBA program won't have these problems. Similarly, I doubt that most applicants to these programs are going to have academic records that would elicit serious concern. Nobody is talking about an applicant who has straight C's in basketweaving. </p>
<p>I would also strongly disagree with your notion that classes of economics, finance, accounting, and stats, or classes of that nature are really a foundation for all business schools. Perhaps that is true of UCLA, but I highly doubt it, and if it is, that seems to be a peculiarity to UCLA. I know plenty of people who have gone to elite B-schools like Harvard or MIT without having taken ANY of those courses. That's simply because one of the biggest (and at MIT, the biggest) single cohort of students are former engineers, and most engineers have never taken any formal courses in economics, finance, acccounting, or stats. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In general, grades may not get you IN to b-school but they most definitely will keep you out if not fairly close to the school's average GPA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This I disagree with also. Grade variation among the admitted class tends to vary widely. Sure, if you have less than a 2.5 GPA, that would certainly raise concerns. Nobody is talking about that. However, you don't really need to be that 'close' to the school's average GPA either. The school's average GPA is just that - the average. Some students will be coming with 4.0's. But that also means that other students will be coming in with GPA's substantially below the average. Mathematically speaking, that is how you get the averages to work out. </p>
<p>I</p>
<p>Thx for your replies guys. Let my reprashe the question: Let's assume that two students have the same credentials, but one of them graduated from the LSE and the other from Oxbridge. Are they still equally strong, or is the Oxbridge person regarded as better?</p>
<p>Both are great schools to graduate from. As long as you go to a school with a strong academic image and reputation, you should be fine.</p>
<p>"I would also strongly disagree with your notion that classes of economics, finance, accounting, and stats, or classes of that nature are really a foundation for all business schools. Perhaps that is true of UCLA, but I highly doubt it, and if it is, that seems to be a peculiarity to UCLA. I know plenty of people who have gone to elite B-schools like Harvard or MIT without having taken ANY of those courses. That's simply because one of the biggest (and at MIT, the biggest) single cohort of students are former engineers, and most engineers have never taken any formal courses in economics, finance, acccounting, or stats."</p>
<p>Even engineers need to take SAFE classes (Stats, Accounting, Finance, Economics). At Marshall, if you haven't taken those courses, they make it mandatory you take a crash course in these classes to bring you up to speed with your class mates. Being an engineer doesn't make you better than arts or history student admitted. If you haven't taken these classes, you will have to take them. The only advantage you have is you might finish the SAFE classes faster and with better scores than others. </p>
<p>Go to UCLA, Columbia, Dartmouth, Wharton, Kellogg. That's what their directors look for when evaluating applications. All would tell you that you need those fundamentals to be a successful student at their schools. How do I know? Check out the MBADA tour that goes around some time and talk to the Wesley Hawks and Eric Abrams (MBA Admissions associate directors). You'll understand their perspective a little bit more.</p>
<p>Just last week, when we had a case study on admissions applications at Anderson, our Riordan class evaluated applications with the assistant admissions director and the first thing that we looked at was academics. What was the trend? What classes did he/she take? What major was he/she and how was that reflected in the transcript?</p>
<p>Grades...definitely very important. Don't overlook them or cast them aside as insignificant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Go to UCLA, Columbia, Dartmouth, Wharton, Kellogg. That's what their directors look for when evaluating applications. All would tell you that you need those fundamentals to be a successful student at their schools. How do I know? Check out the MBADA tour that goes around some time and talk to the Wesley Hawks and Eric Abrams (MBA Admissions associate directors). You'll understand their perspective a little bit more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See, there it is again. I happen to know the curriculas at Columbia, Kellogg and Wharton fairly well. {Admittedly, I know UCLA and Dartmouth less well}. And again, I know plenty of people at Columbia, Kellogg, and Wharton who have NEVER taken a single formal course in statistics, accounting, economics, or finance before in their whole lives. What's their excuse? Simple. They were all former engineers, and most engineering students never take any of these courses. </p>
<p>Nobody is saying that the engineers are 'better' than the other students. What I am disputing is the notion that these courses are the 'foundation' for getting in are courses in SAFE (as you have alleged in post #3). How is that possible when these schools admit plenty of students who have never taken any of these courses before? Clearly that must mean that they can't really serve as a foundation for determining who gets admitted. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Grades...definitely very important. Don't overlook them or cast them aside as insignificant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that grades don't have importance. The issue is the DEGREE of importance they carry. Like I said, there are plenty of people with stellar grades in difficult courses who don't get in. What's their problem? Almost always it's a lack of strong work experience or leadership potential.</p>
<p>Wharton, for example, requires that its students have taken at least a college level calculus or statistics course before beginning classes. There is also a math placement test given to all incoming students during pre-term (a few mandatory weeks before first year classes begin). In addition, during the pre-term, short, intense classes on accounting, finance, etc. are given for all incoming students.</p>
<p>Thx guys, I think I get the image now. Btw, are there many British ppl working at American ibanks?</p>
<p>"See, there it is again. I happen to know the curriculas at Columbia, Kellogg and Wharton fairly well. {Admittedly, I know UCLA and Dartmouth less well}. And again, I know plenty of people at Columbia, Kellogg, and Wharton who have NEVER taken a single formal course in statistics, accounting, economics, or finance before in their whole lives. What's their excuse? Simple. They were all former engineers, and most engineering students never take any of these courses. "</p>
<p>we'll back up Sally's statement with some proof from Wharton's website:</p>
<p>Pre-Term
The required, month-long Pre-Term session ensures that everyone in a diverse incoming class begins from a common knowledge base. Pre-Term, which begins in early August, helps you and your class build a shared academic foundation, make friends, readjust to student life, and explore Philadelphia and the Wharton/Penn campus. </p>
<p>Pre-Term Courses
Pre-Term includes introductory and review courses in financial accounting, microeconomics, statistics, and financial analysis. Preparatory courses cover material not included in Fall coursework that students are expected to understand. In addition, Pre-Term includes classes on business history and languages, as well as short seminars in communication skills, computing technology, trading simulations, and career management.</p>
<p>Math Requirement
All entering MBA students must demonstrate proficiency in mathematics through an exam administered before the start of the program. Students whose self-administered assessment tests (taken before arriving for Pre-Term) indicate that they need a math refresher may register for optional, on-campus math review courses. Those who have never had a college-level calculus or statistics course are encouraged to take one before arriving on campus. Both courses provide an excellent foundation for the core curriculum.</p>
<p>Sonic, it appears as though everyone does this pre-term, so having finance or accounting in undergrad is not important. Furthermore, statistics isn't necessary, high level math is necessary, and I'm sure that engineers have taken calculus before.</p>
<p>Everyone applying to a top MBA program (those that have a chance) will have good grades and non-blow off classes. Work experience and demonstrated leadership ability is the deciding factor. Who do you think would get in, a 4.0 finance major from a top 20 school that travelled for a few years and volunteered, or a 3.2 engineer from a top 20 school that went on to get a management position in a tech company, within the first 5 years?</p>
<p>Right, but it's very likely that you're gonna be up against 4.0 finance majors who managed to get management positions in tech companies, so I guess grades do still matter. They prob have enough applicants who have great stats and work experience and leadership qualities, so lacking in one section might still be risky?</p>
<p>"Students whose self-administered assessment tests (taken before arriving for Pre-Term) indicate that they need a math refresher may register for optional, on-campus math review courses. Those who have never had a college-level calculus or statistics course are encouraged to take one before arriving on campus. Both courses provide an excellent foundation for the core curriculum."</p>
<p>I think you need to reread the information posted above. Wharton clearly states that students who have never taken a college level calculus or stats class should take one because it builds a foundation for classes. Who says statistics is unnecessary and all you need is high school math? These are top Business schools and you'd be far behind coming in with just high school math courses. There is a reason why you went through undergraduate education and if you didn't take math in college, you will be at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Debating this grades topic is a moot point. Sounds like we can all just agree to disagree.</p>
<p>All of the classmates who I was friendly with at my MBA program had at least taken college-level calculus (that is, at least one course beyond AP credits) and statistics before starting the program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you need to reread the information posted above. Wharton clearly states that students who have never taken a college level calculus or stats class should take one because it builds a foundation for classes. Who says statistics is unnecessary and all you need is high school math? These are top Business schools and you'd be far behind coming in with just high school math courses. There is a reason why you went through undergraduate education and if you didn't take math in college, you will be at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Debating this grades topic is a moot point. Sounds like we can all just agree to disagree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am simply stating that your initial statements were too strong. Your own posts demonstrate this to be true - Wharton does not * require * that you have taken former courses in SAFE in order to get admitted. In fact, that is precisely what preterm is for - it is for those people who have never taken those courses, or those who had but forgotten it. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. If those SAFE courses really serve as the 'foundation' for even getting admitted in the first place, then why even have preterm at all? After all, if those courses were really used as foundation criteria for getting admitted, then everybody admitted would be strong in those courses, which would mean that you wouldn't need preterm in the first place. Why have a preterm period to teach skills that people already know? It is precisely because some people that you admitted * don't * know that material that makes preterm useful. Similarly, consider the math testing requirement to determine whether you ought to take additional math coursework before you start study. Why have this, if everybody you admitted is strong in math anyway? Again, it is precisely because some people you admitted are * not * strong in math which necessitates this testing. </p>
<p>Furthermore, consider what happens if you don't do well in that math test. Nowhere does it * require * that you take additional math courses if your skills prove lacking. It simply says that you are encouraged to do so, and Wharton offers optional math refreshers. But nothing is * required *. You can choose not to do any of it. Note, I'm not saying that that's a good idea. But you could do that. Nobody is forcing you to do it. </p>
<p>Look, Sonic One, nobody is disputing that SAFE knowledge is useful to have before you start your MBA curricula. We all agree on that. The issue is, whether that knowledge is necessary to * get admitted in the first place *. The fact that Wharton (and HBS, and MIT, and most other top MBA programs) run a preterm series of courses indicates that some people they admitted probably don't have much SAFE knowledge, and that therefore means that those courses cannot really serve as a 'foundation' for getting admitted. There is a difference between what you need to get admitted and what you need to do well once you're there. Again, if everybody had SAFE knowledge, then preterm would not be necessary.</p>
<p>sakky, let me ask you a question.</p>
<p>If you are an MBA Admissions director at one of these schools and you have the choice between admitting someone who needs to take all of these courses as pre-term courses or admitting someone who took all these courses during their undergraduate studies and got good grades in them, who are you more likely to choose?</p>
<p>I think the answer is very clear--the person who already took the courses is the preference. </p>
<p>I graduated from UCLA's MBA program, and I'm guessing that at least 99% of the people in the program already had taken all of these courses during their undergraduate studies. While I don't know what grades were achieved, based upon the work done once in the Anderson school, I'm guessing it was predominantly As. </p>
<p>Personally, I was a undergraduate Accounting/Finance major who had switched from being an undergraduate Math major--so you know that I had a heavy background in these courses (and great grades in these areas). I'm convinced that's what got me accepted in the first place, since my grades otherwise were only okay. (3.9 in math, statistics, accounting, finance; but 3.0 in the other classes, and a 750 GMAT score).</p>
<p>I think this is the point being made by Sonic One--it may not be a requirement that these be taken to apply to (qualify for) most MBA programs, but it is a requirement to have taken these to actually get accepted.</p>
<p>P.S. Note that Wharton says you have to take tests to show that you know the subject, not that you have to take classes. This tells me that few people need to take the tests. The actually short pre-term classes are probably just refresher classes to make sure everyone's up-to-speed and won't fall behind from day one.</p>
<p>The pre-term courses at Wharton are not designed to teach math and statistics wholesale to students who have never taken those courses before. Rather, pre-term is designed as an academic refresher for the student body, most of whom have been out of school for quite a number of years. Wharton makes students take a math placement test at the beginning of pre-term, and I feel badly for the students who must take what is the equivalent of remedial MBA courses in math or stats before jumping into the thick of things. Wharton does indeed require that all of its students have taken college level math or stats before beginning classes. Now, a student may be admitted without having taken those classes, but their admission will be contingent upon them taking and passing those classes before starting at Wharton. Any student taking those classes, for example, as evening classes during the spring before beginning classes at Wharton, has to achieve mastery of the subject sufficient to get past the math placement test during pre-term.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are an MBA Admissions director at one of these schools and you have the choice between admitting someone who needs to take all of these courses as pre-term courses or admitting someone who took all these courses during their undergraduate studies and got good grades in them, who are you more likely to choose?</p>
<p>I think the answer is very clear--the person who already took the courses is the preference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And let me ask you something. Given somebody who has taken all those courses, but has mediocre work experience, vs. somebody who has stellar work experience but hasn't taken all those courses, which one would you accept? In fact, I don't even have to ask this question because the B-schools have answered this question already. They strongly tend to choose the latter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I graduated from UCLA's MBA program, and I'm guessing that at least 99% of the people in the program already had taken all of these courses during their undergraduate studies. While I don't know what grades were achieved, based upon the work done once in the Anderson school, I'm guessing it was predominantly As.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is almost certainly wrong, and demonstrably so. </p>
<p>Look at the class profile of the incoming MBA class of 2009 at UCLA Anderson. You will notice that 39% of them were former undergrad engineering majors. And the fact is, very very few engineers have ever taken courses in statistics, accounting, finance, and economics (especially the last 3). It's just not a requirement in almost all engineering curriculums. Granted, they might have taken some of them (with statistics being the most likely). However, I rarely if ever encounter an engineering student who will take a class on accounting. Honestly, why would he? It has nothing to do with his major. </p>
<p>Nor is engineering the only example. Again, according to the profile, 10% of the incoming class majored in math or CS as an undergrad. How many math/CS people do you know that have even taken classes on accounting? 9% majored in biological/physical sciences. Again, how many of these people took accounting classes, or for that matter, finance or economics classes? 5% majored in the humanities. Again, how many humanities students have ever taken a course on accounting? </p>
<p>In fact, actually, of the undergrad majors listed, I would say that the number of entering students in UCLA MBA class of 2009 who have taken all of SAFE is almost certainly in the minority. Of the undergrad majors listed, I would say that only people who majored in economics (9%), business (15%), and maybe non-economics social science (8%) have a decent chance to have taken all of the classes that comprise SAFE. That's a total of only 31% of the class. And even of that 31%, I am quite sure that plenty of them did not. For example, not all economics majors take classes on accounting. Certainly not all poli-sci, sociology, or psychology majors take classes on accounting (or finance, or economics for that matter). Either way you cut it, it seems to me that only a minority of students at UCLA would reasonably have taken all of SAFE. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x15633.xml%5B/url%5D">http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x15633.xml</a></p>
<p>But if you don't believe me, fair enough. Do the math yourself. </p>
<p>
[quote]
think this is the point being made by Sonic One--it may not be a requirement that these be taken to apply to (qualify for) most MBA programs, but it is a requirement to have taken these to actually get accepted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And that's exactly what I challenging, speifically because I know plenty of people who have gotten top MBA's who had never taken all these classes before, and in certain cases, not any of them. Again, let's use the example of the engineers. The vast majority of engineers have never taken an accounting undergrad course, and plenty of them have also never taken courses on finance, economics, or even statistics (as not all engineering programs require a formal statistics course). And that's just the engineers I'm talking about. MBA programs admit people from plenty of other majors who have also never taken all of the SAFE courses.</p>
<p>Hence, if it is really true that you have to have taken all of the courses that comprise SAFE to get accepted, apparently, somebody forgot to tell that to all of the people who have been admitted to top MBA programs that had not completed all of those courses. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The pre-term courses at Wharton are not designed to teach math and statistics wholesale to students who have never taken those courses before. Rather, pre-term is designed as an academic refresher for the student body, most of whom have been out of school for quite a number of years. Wharton makes students take a math placement test at the beginning of pre-term, and I feel badly for the students who must take what is the equivalent of remedial MBA courses in math or stats before jumping into the thick of things.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, now we're talking about a different thing. Nobody dispute that college math is often times required. Obviously all engineers have studied college-level math. The question is whether * statistics specifically * is required, and more importantly, whether accounting, finance, and economics, is also required to just get admitted or to matriculate. Trust me, there are PLENTY of MBA students at both Harvard and MIT, in fact, probably most of them, that have never taken accounting before. In fact one of the most coveted people to have on your core team is somebody who has actually studied accounting before because that person is then inevitably tagged with all of the accounting team homeworks. Some teams get screwed because they don't have anybody on their team with an accounting background or knowledge. That demonstrates that most MBA students have no accounting background whatsoever, because if everybody did, then having that 'accounting guy' on your team would not be so coveted, because everybody would 'supposedly' know accounting. </p>
<p>But I would leave an open question to the group. If these SAFE courses were really so required, then why do these MBA programs admit so many former engineers, when the fact is, only a tiny fraction of engineers have even completed all of SAFE? What's up with that? Again, most engineers have never studied accounting. Nor have most of them studied finance or economics, or even statistics (I have 2 engineering bachelor's degrees, and I know that statistics was not a part of either of them). So how can these schools be admitting so many "unprepared" engineers? Are they being stupid?</p>