pelihu wrote:
GMATT73 wrote:
Thanks for your objective feedback guys. Clearly there are many variables to gaining admissions other than just a high GMAT score (not that a high GMAT doesn't hurt).
Hjort, as for your second question, if possible I would like to PM you that essay.
GMAT is not the only thing, but the difference between the two candidates is only 50 points, both centered around an average score somewhere in the middle. The other elements of these hypothetical candidates are not equal and differentiate them more than their GMAT scores.
I admire the way you elaborate on touchy issues Pelihu. However, I beg to differ with you here. Candidate A has the
exact skills necessary to succeed in that rigorous first year core curriculum. His hard math/IT competency would contribute much more to his cohort projects in understanding complicated Decision Science, Stats, and Spreadsheet Accounting analyses and dicussions. He would also inevitably build on his soft skills throughout the program to better comport himself during presentations in year two. In short, candidate A would hit the ground running and comfortably jog through the second year. His high GMAT also lifts the mean for XYZ, thereby possibly nudging the school up one or two notches on the tier two rankings. From the adcoms perspective, I would stick with the IT guru.
Candidate B, on the other hand, would be crawling in year one. Whereas he would be expected to interact well amongst his diverse classmates through his international background, he wouldn't be able to add much value to the math intensive DS and Accounting classes in the first couple semesters. The language guru would surely add a dynamic element, but his subpar math abilities, exacerbated by occasional transpositional errors in financial accounting would cost valuable points on important group case study projects.
Regardless of his group management experience and articulate presentation skills, all he could bring to year one would be an element of motivation. Candidate A might learn to walk and even jog by the end of that second semester, but wouldn't be sprinting until he could tap into the electives offered at XYZ that tailor to his strengths.
From the adcoms perspective, I'd take the runner-jogger over the crawler-sprinter because XYZ has improved its standing in recent years primarily due to the competiveness of its student body, which seems to be best reflected in its higher mean GMAT scores.
Incidentally, XYZ moved up from tier three to tier two five years ago, and is now about to break into the top 30 primarily because of its competitive numbers. So it does appear to be emphasizing the GMAT. Stellar essays just aren't reflected in Business Week rankings...