Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Please note that these clusters contain only schools located within the United States. This should not be construed as an assertion that all schools located outside of the United States are "inferior" schools. However, it is difficult to obtain information that is directly comparable on some international programs. I welcome constructive comments on this issue.
Last edited by Hjort on 27 Jan 2005, 19:43, edited 2 times in total.
you can conjure up a list all you want of top business schools but unless the student puts in the effort to make the most out of his/her experience at school, then these rankings don't mean anything. At the end of the day, it's all about the perosn. The brightest and the most active student at ASU Carey WILL have a brighter future than somebody at HBS who spends two years thinking that they will be secure because they got accepted. I work with plenty of MBAs who went to Wharton, Stanford, HBS, and they are just incapable in the workplace. On the flipside, I also work with tier 2 mba grads who excel so much more.
it's not about what the school can do for you. It's really about what YOU do while you're there
I urge people not do think of these lists as, "if I don't get into these top schools, then I'm worthless" that's not the case. You can make any school capable depending on how much effort you put in.
We are in agreement that the qualities that a given student brings with her when she enters school and over the course of her academic career are a key factor in the return (in a broad sense) she receives from her investment.
However, I also believe that schools can be viewed in a crude sense as massive input-output functions. Given a particular level of input (in terms of personal qualities such as intelligence, ambition, drive, charisma) an ultra elite school tends to provide a higher level of output than that same input invested in a school that ranks much lower in terms of reputation. Note that this is intended as a positive assertion with regard to the effect of reputation on outcome, not a normative one.
i can't believe that one can even question whether columbia is part of the ultra elite... they are clearly one of the best universities in the world, located in new york city, and a major finance recruiter.
a lot of the bashing in this thread comes from berkeley and tuck grads... chill out guys!
Ha ha ha, you should spend some time on BW forums, with all those lovely people overthere Then you would have seen what bashing is... And it seems they especialy hate Columbia and Yale SOM.
Now seriously, Columbia is a great school, part of an excellent university. I don't see the reason that anybody glorifies his/her school by desputing all others. Haas, Tuck, Cornell, Yale SOM... Exellent schools, regardless the fact whether they are in some M7, A8, Top 10, Top 5... I just don't care.
While I can see some point in rankings, I realy don't understand b-school clusterings. Certainly, there are some criteria which distinguish Kellogg from Tuck, that's the reason why there is couple of positions in rankings between those two schools. But saying that Tuck and Kellogg are in different leagues is somehow immature and more like "BW style" posting.
What is my point? Well, there are greater differences between the schools within the same cluster than between the schools belonging to different clusters. For example, majority of the the members of this forum will agree that Stanford is >>> MIT, and they are in the same, ultra elite group. On the other hand, what is the difference between, say, MIT and Haas? MIT > Haas? Or MIT = Haas? Probably there is plenty valid arguments that could justufy one or another, but it is obvious that there is no such a large gap between MIT and Haas like between Stanford GSB and MIT. Certain applicant, lucky enough to get accepted both to Haas and MIT, would have to carefully determine pros and cons of each school and than make the choice based, most probably, on "fit" criteria and personal reasons.
Hi everyone, I know these discussions about ranking schools can get pretty heated but I wanted to share how one of the MBB firms categorizes the top US MBA programs into "elite" versus "highly selective" for the purpose of resume scoring. It's interesting to see the perspective from a major recruiter.
As for my source, I just left one of the MBB firms and I was very involved in recruiting (resume scoring and on-campus interviewing)
"Elite" Booth/U. of Chicago Columbia U. HBS/Harvard U. Fuqua/Duke U. Kellogg/Northwestern U. Sloan/Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Stanford U. Wharton/U. of Pennsylvania
"Highly selective" Anderson/U. of California, LA Darden/U. of Virginia Goizueta U. Haas/U. of California, Berkeley Johnson/Cornell U. Kenan-Flagler/U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Marshall/U. of Southern California McCombs/U. of Texas, Austin Olin/Washington U. in St. Louis Ross/U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor Stern/New York U. Tepper/Carnegie Mellon U. Tuck/Dartmouth College Yale U.
I do not know if this post is in the right thread but I guess we are all here at gmatclub concerned with this subject. The average gmat of guys who pass at wharton for R1 fall 05 was 725 (source : a great friend of mine, 1st year student)
Even I remember thinking that 716 seems odd for a median but I did not dig deeper, after seeing both your posts I went to Wharton's page and checked and they state Average is 716. Maybe BW made an error?
Class Overview Total Applicants: 5,622
Total Admitted Applicants: 1,219
Total Enrolled: 825
Minority Students of U.S. Origin: 27%
U.S. Citizens: 58%
U.S. Permanent Residents: 6%
International Students: 36%
Full-Time Work Experience: 99%
Average Age: 28
Average GMAT: 716 GMAT Range (middle 80%): 670-760 Average GPA: 3.5
GPA Range (middle 80%): 3.1-3.8
Countries Represented 60
The GMAT range for elite schools is normaly 670-750. Are there any exceptions to it? I have read somewhere that atleast 2,200 people scored above 750 last year. Where do those guy end up?
I have another question, one of my friend has 710 GMAT, 3.5 years full time strong work experience and a great story for interviewers (this guy comes from a minority group in Pakistan and struggled his way up). But his final GPA is only 2.5 because he was busy doing some part time work and could'nt concentrate on his studies. Also he has a fabulous academic career besides his final year poor GPA. And he is also relying on some funding or scholarship money for his MBA as he can't afford to pay his tution. What are his chances?
Part of the explanation to your GMAT range question probably lies in the following:
1) Prospective Ph.D. students also take the GMAT; the median/average at top schools is higher for Ph.D. applicants than MBA applicants. (Personal experience: 760 didn't get me everywhere I wanted and I sent an application to only 1 of the top 7 schools.)
2) Schools typically disclose 20-80 ranges, so in the case of 670-750, 20% of admitted applicants may have scored higher than 750, which is 240 people in the case of Wharton alone (based on 1200 admitted applicants). This should add up to a lot. (Of course, many of those 240 also got admitted at H/S/Kellogg/...)