givemebananas wrote:
JKNASH wrote:
Thank you for your reply. There must be something I didn't do well in the application package. However, it's a shame declined applicants will never have a chance to figure out where the problem is. Good luck with your application too.
Of course always seek improvements, but don't ASSUME something was wrong. Assuming homogeneous stats (i.e. GMAT/GPA/Work/non-URM), the human element in the admissions process begins to play a greater factor. Candidates sparkle differently depending on the reader's biases.
Now, it's becoming more of the case that candidates with great stats should choose a "spray and pray" approach as in PHD admissions, whereas before -- let's say 5 years ago -- you could've walked into ANY program with your profile on stats alone.
I second that. Also, do not forget, everyone applying to these top programs is pretty good when focusing on numbers only; what makes a difference now is those essays, your experience and leadership roles both professionally, but especially in the community. Anyone with enough time, can have perfect scores, and schools are aware of that. I your life is focused on scoring high, while not caring about real issues of real life, well, these top programs will not show any interest in you.
As they often say, they are looking for game changers, not just people who can solve equations and make a lot of money for themselves