Profile evaluation please - for top 6 US mba school

you have good chances at NYU, berkeley

columbia and kellogg...you wouldn't know if you didn't apply...but they will be harder

I think you have good stats.

You would need to provide a bit more information (i.e. career goals, reason for mba, why an mba now etc.), however, for anyone to give you an accurate evaluation.

i'm curious as to why alex thought he was middle of the road. it seems like he has a stellar gpa of 3.9 (yes it is out of 4.33 but I assume that's the A+ and many schools give out A+s), a very solid GMAT (assuming he gets it), and solid work experience

Too many of you put way too much emphasis on stats (GMAT/GPA) as an indicator of an applicant's caliber.

You need a decent GMAT/GPA just to be in the hunt or to "play the game". But whether your numbers are stellar or merely serviceable isn't really what makes you a strong candidate or not. They're not looking for math geniuses or study geeks - so long as your numbers are reasonable, it comes down to everything else. Yes, and this applies even to those Asians (East Asian or South Asian descent) who mistakenly think that they are somehow held to a higher academic standard than other applicants.

Because you need to go beyond the GMAT/GPA. It's like basketball -- whether you can run the 50-yard dash in 4 seconds or 8 seconds isn't really the point - it's whether you can run *reasonably* fast; and it comes down to everything else (athleticism, basketball IQ, shooting, dribbling, experience/commitment to teamwork, leadership, coachability, etc).

And yes, the original poster has solid work experience - but "solid experience" is hardly a shoe-in for schools like Kellogg, Chicago, Columbia, etc. On the surface, the shorthand characterization of this candidate from an adcom's perspective is "Big-4 accountant of Asian descent who is strong academically." There's nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing that stands out beyond "solid" either. Also, I hope I don't get in trouble for saying this, but compared to other companies that recruit on campus out of undergrad -- getting a Big 4 position isn't particularly selective -- so that by virtue of working in an organization or industry that isn't as selective as say consulting or banking doesn't really tell the adcom anything about the individual's caliber. In other words, you may be an exceptionally talented person with great potential, but the adcom can't tell that based on the fact that you work at a Big 4 alone.

So you need something else in your arsenal. If this person performed at a very high level outside of class or outside of work in something - athletics, arts, politics, activism, nonprofits, etc. (i.e. nationally ranked athlete, a semi-professional musician, winning notable service awards for community activism, getting media coverage for his activism, etc.) then that is a signal that this person has the potential to continue performing at an exceptional level in another endeavor (like business). If that is the case, then yes, schools like Kellogg/Columbia/Chicago/Tuck/Sloan will be competitive (not reaches).

^ Thanks for the clarification. Very informative post.

No worries! Glad you found it helpful.