Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
GMATT73, you really need to read what other people are saying before you post. I have repeated numerous times in my posts that the stats I am citing are from 2005. Yet, you keep insisting my stats are "wrong" because you keep citing 2006 data. Well, duh, or course there's going to be a discrepancy if the years are different. What I find even more annoying about your post is that you don't even seem to have read carefully the source that you posted. If you did, you would realize that my data is correct.
For example (this is from your chat)
DavidSimpsonLBS (Sep 12, 2006 10:50:02 AM)
Linda, application volume was high last year. We had 1800 apps, up from 1400. However, we interviewed roughly the same number - 900.
You see David Simpson himself confirms that the app volume in 2005 was in the 1400s. There is NO discrepancy in the BW data as you seem to insist here:
(4) Same here, which is exactly why I went beyond B-week to gather further information. This is not the first discrepency I have discovered on their site. It's a good initial source, sure, but I wouldn't put all my faith in only their reviews and stats.
Ok so essentially we differ on yield, you think it's closer to 70% I think its 50%.
BTW you might to recheck your math again, using your calculations you do NOT get 15%. (um 0.5*0.5 does not equal 0.15)
WTF, you just drastically altered your post while I was typing my response. Good to see that you can catch your math errors before I point them out. Actually, there a lot of elite programs last year that had admit rates closer to or even above 40%. Darden, Duke, and Cornell are a few that come to mind. Don't have any preconceived notions that just because some program is considered elite it can't have a admit rate above X. Also, I don't judge the quality of a program by its admit rate. Like I said I am very impressed by LBS and would consider myself lucky to get in.
Good luck on your apps.
One possible equation that works is the 70% yield stated in 2001.
1800 applicants *.5 [interviewed (stated in the transcripts)] = 900 ---> 900* .5 (offered admissions) = 450 ---> 450 *~.7 (yield) = approximately ~310 students.
But that is contingent on a ~25% acceptance rate, a rate that seems to be in line with the historical figures Dukes cited as well. If this were the case, LBS stands as a competitve program, rather than a back-up school for most of us. Financial Times Ranking it #4 worldwide and BW putting it in the top 5 outside the US also lends testament to this data.
I just looked at your revised post again and I just realized that your logic now is even more flawed. Your 70% yield is NOT based off the BW 2001 data, it is simply a happy coincidence of the numbers and assumptions you use. But then again, why would you even want to use 2001 data, when you have more recent data, such as 2002 and 2003? I also find it weird that you would say something like this "But that is contingent on a ~25% acceptance rate". It's obvious from this statement and your calculations that you had some preconceived notion of what the admit rate SHOULD be for a high calibur school like LBS, and then just cherry-pick numbers that fit your idea (in this case using the 2001 yield, when there is more recent data) . This is very poor scientific thinking. To be honest, I was surprised when I calculated LBS admit rate to be as high as 40%, but I checked my numbers again and I can't see any glaring errors. The numbers are what they are, and I'm not going to adjust my calculations just because I think LBS should have a certain admit rate suitable for a school of its status.
Also we seem to differ in how we use BW. I trust their numbers, but not their rankings. in fact, I think BW international rankings are a joke. Do you know what BW chose as the number one international school? It's Queens. This is so funny I am almost dying of laughter. You want to know why? Well, check out the BW own data for Queens here:
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/05 ... queens.htm Note this table in the url
Selectivity/Yield - Historical Chart
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
Selectivity 90% 47% 45% 33% 49%
Yield 38% 35% 54% 80% 73%
Note the precipitaous drop in yield, and the 90% admit rate in 2005. This is a sure sign that the Queens MBA brandname is heading down the gutter. Yet, it's ranked number one international by BW. Go figure. Like I've already stated have less faith in rankings and other nonsense and use your own judgement.
Why did you decide to trust BW's data at all? As mentioned before, you can reference 5 different b-school ratings and guides and find 5 different values for the same datapoint. If you look at BW's data for awhile you'll notice a bunch of stuff that just looks rediculous. The most obvious example is Insead's GMAT range (middle 80%). According to BW its 620-800. I call BS on that. Insead is a good school but I really doubt that 10% (90 students) of their class had a perfect GMAT. Something else I noticed within 5 minutes of browsing: Columbia's yield is around 90% (better than HBS and Stanford) - maybe in their dreams.
The language requirement is not upon entry to the school but upon exit. You should have gained a level 2 competency (out of 5) in any language other than english. That doesn't really seem so bad, and you are able to take classes at the school or learn on your own.
Final decisions are in: Berkeley: Denied with interview Tepper: Waitlisted with interview Rotman: Admitted with scholarship (withdrawn) Random French School: Admitted to MSc in Management with scholarship (...