willget800 wrote:
Pehilu,
MY 2 cents.
I really hope your analysis on GMAT is not true... I am really waiting for someone under 700 to get into Chicago/Wharton or any other top 10 school.. Hopefully that will change your opinion on GMAT..
I have spoken with NUMEROUS Alumni.. Each and every person told me.. anything in the 80% range, and you are fine.. GMAT is just the measure of whether you can perform academically well at the required school. Nothing else.
If you have a high GMAT, but cant present yourself well in the interview, or sound arrogant, in yuour essays or interview... You will be dinged.
"The school is looking for candidates that can be employed at the end of the degree.." - This is the exact quote a student from Cornell told me. He also mentioned "Show them why you really want the school"
I guess this debate of GMAT is never going to end from your end..
There is no doubt that many people will get into Chicago and Wharton with sub-700 scores. There is also no doubt that poor work experience, interviews and essays will also earn you a ding.
But none of that means that a lower score is equal to or better than a higher score. It's just not true. People with higher scores are in fact admitted at a higher rate than people with lower scores. In all cases, applicants (for the top schools) must have top work experience, grades, essays, extracurriculars, interviews and all the rest.
I have no argument with the idea that top schools greatly value things other than high GMAT scores. I agree with that wholeheartedly. But I disagree completely with the contention that, after some point, a higher GMAT is not more valuable. Any school that wants to place a lot of its graduates at top banks and consulting firms knows better.
The GMAT is a way to measure whether an applicant can perform academically, but it is also a way to measure one applicant against another. Can someone give any logical, reasonable answer as to why
if all other things are equal, a top school (that admits top 1% type people) would choose to admit someone in the top 10% when someone in the top 1% is available? There's simply no logical explanation why a school would do this - which in essence is why different scores are inherently not equal.
Look, I'm not trying to promote a policy for schools to follow. I'm merely interpreting available data. Do you have any convincing data that suggests otherwise? I'd be happy to consider it. It's not that one score is good, while another is bad; and it's certainly not that any particular score will get you into any particular school. But GMAT is one of the few things that applicants have influence over when nearing the application process and all the data I have seen proves that a higher score will help you more than a lower score because for each individual applicant all other factors will in fact be equal.