All GMAT Scores Over 7XX Are Treated The Same...

hey togafoot,
i didnt mean to belittle anyone who scored below 700 at all and I think that if you managed a 610 after all that you were going through and that too after only 3 weeks of light studying then that tells me that you are well capable to hit 750+ with a little concentrated preparation. I think your case just proves my point that you can have all the brains in the world but if you dont put in the work then it will be difficult to get that 750 generally. Notice that I have used the word "generally" everywhere I can because I think there are always exceptions to the rule!!!

The truth is schools routinely belittle those with GMAT <650.

i agree with you 700wildo. I`ve no doubt i can get over 700. I`m juist extremely rusty in my geometry and quadratic equations. For verbal, its a question of getting used to the style of GMAT questions and getting rid of my bad `slang` habits. I don`t intend to re-take it, don`t have the time, (new baby on the way).

Anyhow the discussion is about the value of 700+ GMAT scores. Personally, there is 2-fold questions to ask -

1) what influence does it have with admissions?
2) What influence does it have with employers.

However, GMAT can`t be used by itself. Its still relative to the quality of life experience and the quality of work experience. All other things being equal, the higher GMAT is obviously favourable, but that is rarely the case.

Would you hire someone with extensive leadership experience and a 710 GMAT or someone with limited leadership experience but with 790? IMO, the GMAT is less relevant.

Likewise, would you hire a quant-jockey for a finance job involving lots of analysis? (High GMAT Q)
Would you hire the same person for a finance line management job as opposed to someone with proven soft skills and reasonable quant skills?

i agree toga that in terms of hiring decisions the gmat should and probably does play a lesser role than the life experiences and the work experiences of the candidate

GMAC says that GMAT should not even be used for hiring purposes

I am not sure how much the GMAT measures the ability to do well in most standard MBA courses. People that make it into the MBA program already have a pretty good idea of how to study and learn..or I am hoping that they would. The GMAT is not an intelligence test-the concepts on it are concepts that should have been learned throughout high school and undergraduate. Nothing mind blowing. Sheer hard work and dedication have pushed many people up over a 700..people that have had scores in the low 500's after studying it and taking it the first time. The only way it could be an accurate predictor of innate ability/intelligence is if it was a test you could not prepare for and tested concepts which really couldn't be learned in a textbook because otherwise someone that put 1000 hours of prep into a test (GMAT) in could be "smarter" than someone that just walked in with little pep and scored 30 points below the person that studied more. In actuality that person should be more intelligent since he was able to solve problems on the fly i.e. quicker. Intelligence tests always require a time limit and no prior knowledge/exposure to the material being tested..the GMAT fails according to those standards.

I agree it is not a test of one's IQ.

I think any test measures your intellectual ability to some extent, but there is always a bias towards a pre-defined area of knowledge. However, it is fair to say that people who do well on GMAT have a certain level of ability/skill in that area of knowledge. It does not mean, however, that these people are smarter -- they are just better prepared/more skilled to operate within the conceptual context of the exam. This also allows to predict how they will operate within a similar conceptual context (such as the first year of academic study at B-schools) in the future. That is what most tests are for, after all.

Doctors who do well at school, and graduate with honors are usually highly sought after by clinics and patients alike. Lawyers who pass the bar exam are able to practice law. B-school applicants who get a high enough GMAT score are able to keep up with the academic load at b-school.

The fact that with preparation many people have gone from mediocre to superb GMAT just proves that it is a test of skills.

I think that GMAT results after an average preparation is VERY MUCH RELATED with IQ.
I just see my case: IQ 98%, GMAT 99%, and I think I have studied a little above the average of GMAT takers.
[quote="xerox"]I agree it is not a test of one's IQ.

quote]

I ended up on this thread from the knowledge vault and am surprised that none of the posts so far has taken the SEM into consideration. lot of interesting thoughts

https://www.gmac.com/gmac/thegmat/gmatba ... scores.htm

The current standard error of measurement for the GMAT Total score is 29, which means the reported GMAT Total score is within 29 points above or below a score reflecting true performance—a repeat test taker with Total scores within 29 points of each other knows he or she has performed consistently.

The notion that Indian IT Male demographic has to pierce the 99th percentile falls apart if the ad coms do take the SEM into consideration because the two applicants who scored a 740 and 760 on the first attempt probably *could* get 760 and 740 respectively. How do you differentiate them other than for the 97th and 99th percentile? Is it the applicant's confidence level that goes up or Do the ad coms really think that an applicant with a 740 and 770 in two takes has improved significantly?

My post is not to belittle any one who has achieved the higher scores (I am a big fan of Ron P on MGMAT, he is an 800 guy ) but there are statistics out there on the test that clearly say that a test taker who has scored with in 29 points has performed consistently.

i have to disagree i think there is a large difference