Very interesting: http://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/12/ ... superstars

What do you think? True or not in your experience?

Well this is the whole "chicken or the egg" type of question. She's looking at a class of people at a top business school and saying that at the end of school the GMAT doesn't always correlate with who were the best leaders.

There are a few HUGE flaws with this argument. First of all, the GMAT is not meant to tell anyone who the "leaders" are. It has been proven that the GMAT has a strong correlation with first year business school success. It has never been tested to see if there is any other correlation, and it is not meant to be a benchmark to pick out leaders. Also, she is using the word "correlate" incorrectly. In order to find true statistical correlation, you have to have a representative population, a good sample size, etc... to look at graduates from a top business school and say there is NO correlation with no statistical evidence is just crazy talk.

Also, the GMAT is just one factor in an application. So if a school has an average GMAT of 700, then people with over a 700 can be a little less competative in their application, while people below 700 will have to bring something else special. Sooo, many of these people that get into top buisness schools with low GMAT's are probably ALREADY top leaders and have something special. So of course these low GMATers would be top leaders, b/c they were before they even got into school. How did they get into a top Bschool with a low GMAT? To look at a top schools population is not a represenative sample of bschool applicants, leaders, and GMAT takers. Imagine that person that gets into harvard with a 550... he must have been an amazing leader! To then at the end of his studies compare his leadership to someone who came in with a 770 is just crazy. HE WAS ALREADY A TOP LEADER.

This might be one of the silliest articles I have ever read, and really has no basis for any interesting arguments. It surprises me that someone in a top position could even right something like this.

This is truly admissions consulatant banter, trying to convince applicants that "they can do anything" and "go anywhere" so apply to 40 schools so we can have your $. It is competative out there, and the GMAT is a key factor in an application. It isn't everything, and of course there are exceptions to the rules, but in general, all things equal, someone with a higher GMAT will have a better shot at getting into that school.
_________________

New to the GMAT Club? <START HERE>

My GMAT and BSchool Tips:

• 10 Tips to Improve Your Score & App With NO Extra Studying
• BEST MBA Application Tips from Elite Alumni and Students
• Comprehensive Re-Applicant Guide
• Waitlist Management Guide
• Best Ways to Pick a Recommender
• What Do All of GMATclub's 700 Clubbers Have in Common?
• Friend and Family Support on Your GMAT Journey

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

I like this post because it is a great example of how ANYONE can flip statistics to look good in their favor. I read a book once called "How to Lie With Statistics" and it really shows how these types of articles really make no valid points.

What I'm trying to say is that her population that she's looking at is not representative. If these low GMATers she's looking at got into Ross with a low GMAT they were probably already successful in other areas (leadership, overall success potential, strong GPA). GMAT is just one rating of success, but why is she even correlating it to anything else other than 1st year Bschool success? This is not what it's meant for... This is what GMAC says the GMAT can be used for:

So in admissions the GMAT is just one aspect that is looked it. Of course people with low GMATs will often be the most successful, because the school saw that they were successful in other areas of there application. Of course this test doesn't correlate to leadership, success in school, and other areas. It's not what it was meant for, and its not one GMAC wants it to be meant for. This article is just a way to show that the GMAT isn't everything, but we already knew that.

Generally a high GMAT score is going to help an Adcom decide if this person will be successful, but if other areas of your application trump this, of course you'll get in!
_________________

New to the GMAT Club? <START HERE>

My GMAT and BSchool Tips:

• 10 Tips to Improve Your Score & App With NO Extra Studying
• BEST MBA Application Tips from Elite Alumni and Students
• Comprehensive Re-Applicant Guide
• Waitlist Management Guide
• Best Ways to Pick a Recommender
• What Do All of GMATclub's 700 Clubbers Have in Common?
• Friend and Family Support on Your GMAT Journey

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

Perhaps that's why she's pointing it out, because so many people take the GMAT as more than it was meant to be, including schools themselves sometimes. Not even to mention rankings which expand the value of higher GMAT scores.


I think the problem is a lot of people don't know that, especially when recruiters sometimes ask for people's GMAT scores. The only reason to do that is because they think it will effect how well you do in the jobs they have to offer.

Maybe it just doesn't matter to people so much after they're admitted so discussing scores isn't interesting. But if you get the feeling it's because people are self-conscious about it, I find that odd.