I recently found this forum and it has been rather helpful. I wish that I had found it when I was actually studying for the GMAT.
I graduated from a top Canadian undergrad business school in 2008 with a BBA in finance (3.4 GPA). Due to the economic climate at the time and my lack of solid corporate work experience, I went unemployed for over a year after graduation. During this period, I thought that I would take the GMAT while my mind was still fresh.
In January of 2009, I bit the bullet and took the GMAT after a disappointing experience with the Kaplan course
I was aiming for a 700 but none of my practice CAT's broke the barrier and I was scoring in the high 600's.
On test day I scored a 690 (88%) (48Q 38V), AWA 5.0/6.0
Although short of my ideal score of 700, I was quite proud of myself, especially since Q and V were almost perfectly balanced.
Fast Forward to the present: I am 23. I have about 1 yr of full time work experience in Financial Reporting for a large American financial institution and now as a Financial Bond Underwriter for a large International Insurance Company.
I am now considering applying to a Top 20 US school within the next couple of years (Anderson, Haas, Tuck, Stern, Booth).
I have noticed that other applicants on the forum have posted that they scored a 700 (90%)
on the GMAT, with EXACTLY
the same Quantitative and Verbal scores that I received, 48Q and 38V
. Is there a reason for this? Did they score fractionally better than me? Did they recalibrate the scoring system at some point? What is the difference between my score and their score?
Will a school actually favor someone who scored a 700 with a 48Q 38V over me who scored a 690 with 48Q and 38V?
Thank you for the clarity.