Calling Fall 2010 Chicago Booth Applicants

feel free to add me to your role call

680 gmat / 3.4 gpa / business major / 4 years work exp in corporate banking at matriculation

applied all "rd 1":
-chicago (interviewed already, waiting for decision - dec 16th)
-ut (interviewed yesterday, 4-6 week wait)
-emory (mandatory interview completed, and they just received all my info - I forgot to send official trans, otherwise I would have a decision in the next week -, 4-6 week wait)
-nyu - waiting for interview
-darden - waiting for interview

the wait is horrible : (

I'm extremely keen on Chicago Booth.

A question for those of you applying, based on your results:

Which factors/values are most and least important for Chicago?

GMAT? Brand names on resume? Work experience? Worldliness? GPA? Professionalism?

My single greatest weakness is my UG record (which is inexcusably weak); I want to know if it eliminates me from contention, or if it's still absolutely worth the effort to go for it.

i remember adcom saying academic record is pretty important given the rigorous nature of the program. i'm sure if you're an all-star it won't matter though.

Thanks tuck20xx. How come Tuck isn't on your list of schools? (nice list by the way)

How are things with Chicago? What's your background?

just trying to kill time waiting for the result on 12/15. i don't think i've updated that listing. i applied to kellogg, haas, and booth R1. my background is in public accounting, my profile should be on page 2 of the profiles page. i'll probably apply to tuck R2 depending on results. best of luck.

Which is funny considering how it really ISNT that hard.

How weak is your UG? Is it mitigated by a good GMAT?

I am applying in R2 (January 6 deadline). Please add me to the roll call. Thank you!

rhyme, do you feel that Booth is still difficult compared to other schools, and business schools are generally not that hard, or is the relative difficulty of Booth overblown?

Wow you are just on a roll applying. I've had to update you on several threads already.

Have you guys read the latest Post in Rose Report? (I am sure many would've )

https://forums.chicagobooth.edu/rosereport?entry=34

The most curious line for me in the post was this,"After wrapping up over 900 interviews in Chicago and around the world last week"...

1. Is this number of 900 only corresponds to the 1st round interviews done for Fulltime MBA?

2. I remember reading somewhere that once we get an interview invite, there is a 50% chance of getting selected.
So does this imply around 450 applicants will either get an admit or WLd?

3. Any idea as what is the average number of WL candidates in 1st round over the last years?

And honestly, this number of 900 definitely freaks me out a bit, as the chance might be way less than 50%

I'm an R2 applicant, already on the roll call page.

I have an operations heavy background in both my previous employment and my present(family business).

My short-term goal is to be a management consultant. Does the Adcom look for a clear connect between a candidate's work-ex and his future goal? Can I mention that my primary interest lies in Strategic management consulting? How specific does one have to be when it comes to mentioning consulting as a career goal? Isn't it too broad and dynamic a line of work for one to be too sure?

I also do not have a clearly defined long-term goal except that I want to find my niche during my post-mba employment and do the best possible work in the identified field. Would this lack of a clear long-term vision dent a huge blow to my chances?

I was a little worried about that too . . .

I guess it does kinda make sense though. Say they plan to have 250 R1 people attend the program, they'd have to accept around 400 to account for loss of accepted candidates to other schools, which would give each of us that interviewed a 44% chance of being accepted.

This is so damn nerve racking. I'm not feeling too confident . . .

Btw, you can add me to the roll call. I'm R1 and was interviewed.

I'm in for round 2!

Good question. A bit of both.

Sometimes, I do think its more difficult than some other peer schools -- I've talked at length with people in academic services at Booth and was surprised to hear that every year there are number of people who end up on academic probation during their first quarter (which I believe requires below a C average, perhaps a current student can comment, I forget). I talk to my friends at Kellogg and they laugh at the thought of anyone at Kellogg getting less than a C. As they put it "Professors like to give what we call a gentleman's B".

Edit: Actually I looked it up, its a C+ ... ...."is placed on quarter probation if his or her grade point average (GPA)
for the quarter is less than C+ (2.33) and placed on cumulative probation if his or her cumulative GPA
is less than C+ (2.33). "

Moreover, unlike Kellogg and many peer schools, Chicago has a forced curve (I believe 3.33) -- which means that professors must maintain a 3.33 average for a given class per quarter. They are required to maintain that average across all sections of a course. That means that if a professor is teaching introductory economics to three 60-person courses in a given quarter, the average across all three courses must be a 3.33 - meaning that, in reality, you aren't competing against just 60 people, but 179 other people.

Edit: Indeed its a 3.33: "The Chicago Booth grading policy states that a faculty member may not exceed a maximum grade point average of 3.33 for each course taught in a quarter."

Adding fuel to the fire, apparently, Chicago has a pretty strict policy around academic probation that goes something like this - if you end up on probation and dont' get your GPA above a C+ by the end of the first year, you are given two choices: 1) Take a year off and come back or 2) Continue, but if you still dont get your GPA over a C+ by graduation, you don't graduate. Ever. I was shocked to hear that people actually end up with (2) -- and don't make it. On the one hand I can appreciate how hard it is to dig yourself out of a low GPA (having done it myself), On the other hand, I really can't fathom how you could get less than a C+ average overall. Perhaps in one class, perhaps in two, but in several? I mean honestly, you'd have to go out of your way to screw up.

So, is it harder than peer schools? Maybe.... but I do think its overblown as well. Frankly, the 'hardest' math I ever had to do was a little calculus, and even then, it was optional. (Literally, the professor put on the final, "If you can't do the derivative, assume it yields 8x+3 and solve based on that"). Beyond that, it was statistics and algebra. Most of my classes allowed the use of a 12c, so even if you dont know WHY you are hitting buttons X and Y you can still get the right answer.

That seems plausible. Assuming 4500 applicants, split roughly 1500, 2000 and 1000 among the rounds - assuming that the 50% to 60% interview rate is about right, I'd expect to see about 900 interviews out of R1, perhaps 1000 out of R2, and 500 out of R3 (which is probably an overstatement).

Planning for a class of 550 and a yield of, lets say, 60% would require about 900 offers, assuming its split proportionally across R1 and R2, 400ish would come from R1, 500 ish from R2, and a handful from R3.

Back of the envelope math to be sure.

rhyme,
I thought booth has a very high Yield rate at around 75%+. Is that wrong?