Optimal number of applications per round

I went for six in round two and nothing in round one or three. I was able to handle it, but only barely with my work and travel schedule. If I were to do it again, I would have done four each in rounds one and two rather than six in round two. One of the biggest challenges was managing my recommenders and trying to not overload them. Most of this will come down to the individual, their schedule, and how much they feel they can get done. I have no doubt some will be able to handle eight in one round, while others will only be able to handle four...

This link on application number survey might be useful
https://www.admissionsconsultants.com/mb ... ations.asp


Personally I think it should be not more than 3. The main problem of large number of applications is overdiversifying.

IMHO, the only bottle neck is your recommendors. Quality, respectful, 'big name' people will be hard to secure for 10+ applications

Agree

It will depend somewhat on the essays for the individual schools--if there's a lot of overlap between them you'll save some time not having to come up with a set of original essays for each school.

I was planning on applying to Wharton R2 last year until I really sat down and tried to work on their essays and realized I would have to come up with 3 or 4 of them completely from scratch. As it turned out HBS and Kellogg's essays weren't a whole lot different than several of the R1 essays I had submitted for Stanford/Haas/UCLA, so I was able to adapt several of those essays to fit my H/K applications.

Agreed on the part about recommenders being the most likely chokepoint--I was lucky enough to find two former bosses who agreed to write rec's for all 5 of my applications, but it was still a bit of a hassle keeping them on track with due dates even though I gave them several months' notice on them.

The first few schools will help you develop a pool of material to select from for the rest of the applications. Your essay writing will take less time as you go along. However, as mentioned, recommendations will be the sticking point. I am writing recs for someone this fall, and due to work demands and the effort they take I would prefer no more than 4 first round and then a couple maybe 3 second round. Applying to ,more than 6 schools during one year is excessive IMO, and I would strongly suggest not doing that. More than 4 in a round is asking for trouble with recommendations, either they will be late or will half ass the last few.

I did 5 in R1 last year and it was tough even with an early start. My essays and stuff were done in time but like a previous post mentioned, having my recommenders do 5 schools in a timely fashion was the challenge. They waited until the deadlines of each school to submit which made me really nervous.

Do most schools require recommenders to answer the same general questions? Does each letter have to be tailored to each school? If my recommenders addressed my strengths, development areas, leadership, etc. in a very detailed letter shouldn't it suffice for all the schools? All that would be left to do is to fill in the behaviors/assessment grid for each school.

Please advise.

I know most of the schools I'm applying to don't use 'letters' per se. They use an online form that is e-mailed to the receommenders. The recommenders fill out each field (usually the answer to a question--most schools will list the questions somewhere on their website or application if you want to see them), then submit the recommendation.

I'm sure this isn't 100% the case across the board though.

Each school will be a little bit different, though (like with essays) there will be enough overlap that some answers and narratives can be recycled.

Here's the action plan. It's entirely dependent on my assessment of how competitive I am (which may or may not be correct) and on bschool preferences (a product of many factors).

1. Divide target schools into 3 tiers - A) Tier A: Harvard, Wharton. B) Tier B: Kellogg, Columbia, NYU, Booth or Tuck. C) Tier C: Ross, Fuqua.

2. Round 1: Apply to Tier B (4 schools).

3. Round 2:
- if 1 or more accepts in Round 1: apply to Tier A
- if 4 rejections in Round 1: apply to Tier C

On paper, this approach should help me assess my competitiveness and manage the work load. Some of the schools might change but I'll keep the tier separation.

Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

I like the approach in general because it means you'll have some app experience by the time you get around to your Tier 1 applications. But the problem I see is that R1 announcements and R2 deadlines probably won't allow for that timeline. Last year two of my three R1 announcements came two days after the R2 application deadline, so I wasn't able to wait around and see how R1 turned out before deciding what to submit for R2. Seeing how you need a solid month (give or take) to put together a good application, you'd have to commit to some R2 apps long before you hear back from your R1 apps.

It's also hard to judge where you'll get in based on where you were rejected. There are people who have been rejected from Booth but accepted to Stanford. This isn't a science that says that if you get rejected from a school you will also be rejected from schools ranked higher. If you want to apply to your Tier A schools then do so regardless of whether or not you get into any Tier B schools. Those A applications might be more cohesive and your candidacy might fit better there than at the schools to which you were not offered admission.

I was going off of incorrect information. NYU will not notify R1 candidates until 15-Feb. However, other than that, the notification timeline of Kellogg (19 Dec), Booth (15 Dec) and Columbia (8-12wks after 6 Oct, so by 6 Jan with some luck) should work, unless I am missing something. I think I'll replace NYU with HBS for R1. I agree that I will have to put in some work into the potential R2 applications in advance.

That's a true statement, cheetarah1980, but I have to work with the best I have. From a purely statistical standpoint, being rejected by Booth probably doesn't correlate much with one's chances at Stanford. However, being rejected by Booth, Kellogg, Columbia GBS and Stern (or other 4 top15 schools) probably yields a much stronger correlation. Statistics don't always predict the correct outcome, but application feedback is the only reality check we get the benefit of.

I would also 2nd the approach detailed above.

I'm planning on applying to 4 or 5 schools Round 1. While I won't have many answers by mid-december, I should have some idea of at least who is interviewing me. If I get very few interviews/acceptances by mid-december, then I know to shift my time over the last 2-3 weeks of the year to group C schools instead of group A schools. It's not an exact science, but I think it's the best approach assuming your attributes suit a number of schools.

Im applying to 5 in round 1. I think it depends on how fast and good of a writer you are and how solid of a network you have to proof your work. I've elicited help from friends who are wharton, hbs, lbs, berkeley and columbia alums as well as news and magazine editors to triple proof and edit my essays. I've divided them up into first draft bsecond draft and final draft reviewers so they don't feel overwhelmed with my requests. Hope this helps. I think" fresh eyes" are crucial.

Posted from my mobile device