livehard
Are you arguing that there is no advantage for business executives to be above a certain threshold in their ability to deal with numbers and written word? I'd love to hear an explanation of why this would possibly be the case. Adcoms aren't just looking for candidates who can successfully complete the program, they are looking for the best and brightest.
There is no arguing that a superior SKILL quantitative or otherwise is desirable. What is argued is the accuracy with which a test measures the difference. GMAC admits to a deviation of +/-38 points (if i am not mistaken). And that is why the rest of the application becomes important. Transcripts re-enforce that you are very good / average with numbers / language in conjunction with the GMAT score. I will have to disagree a little with the sipirit in which you say "Adcoms are looking for the best and brightest". I say i disagree a little because, the concept of best and brightest is not determined by numbers alone. The vision that people demonstrate, the kind of learning they show from past experiences, maturity, larger purpose in life and other soft skills matter a lot which i think most would agree. So while they are looking for best and brightest, it does not "necessarily" mean higher GMAT and higher grades.
livehard
Here is where I believe you are seriously mistaken. The Adcoms don't need to actually choose candidates with lower GMAT scores to get others with low scores to apply. They merely need to
say that GMAT scores above a certain threshold don't matter. Applicants, because they are so desperate to believe, are more than willing to lap up the BS.
If you are implying that adcoms are willingly misleading applicants, i would say its not entirely true. Because if it were a complete lie, the numbers wouldnt just add up. But again, i am fairly new to all this, so its possible that they misrepresent or reword stuff to create ambiguity.
livehard
It is in the Adcoms best interest rankings-wise to:
1) choose candidates who will be the most successful post-mba,
Agreed 100%. Correlation of GMAT to post-mba success is hard to establish though. In fact it is hard to quantify success as it is because people have varied goals. How do you quantify the success of someone who wanted to do some non-profit work and how do you compare that with the success of a banker. Tough.
livehard
2) choose candidates with the highest average GMAT score, and
Do not agree. There is no dearth of people with high scores being rejected for people with lesser scores. The other parts of application probably were the overriding factors. I am fairly confident that someone who scored a 750+ would put up a decent application. The fact that he was rejected for someone with lesser score but a little extra "something else" re-enforces that the difference in GMAT is less important compared to what is in essays / work experience etc
livehard
3) convince as many applicants to apply as possible to apply in order to lower the acceptance rate.
While more applicants would surely lower the acceptance rate, it would also give them more to choose from making the resulting class better. So. it would not be fair to "assume" that adcoms encourage more people to apply based on a single point agenda of lowering the acceptance rate.
livehard
The best way to achieve all three criteria is to take the top candidates, using GMAT scores as a valuable data point, and at the same time tell future applicants that their low GMAT scores are not an obstacle to entrance. Given this contradicting agenda, it makes sense to look at the raw data. As the top schools' average GMAT scores are going up significantly faster than the average GMAT scores of all test takers, it seems clear that some precedence is being given to candidates with higher GMAT scores.
I agree with the fact that GMAT is a valuable data point. Although i do not necessarily think that it contradicts adcom encouraging lower GMAT candidates from applying. Why would they do that ? for the application money ? If their lies raise the app volume by 5% , a school like harvard (assuming 10k applications) would earn $125,000 a year. I doubt that is their motive. If they wanted to create an aura of exclusivity, it would be much easier to say that anyone with less than 700 need not apply. That would make them stand out and out of reach of majority, giving them the aura of superiority / excellence etc etc. I think they encourage people because they genuinely find good candidates from that group. After all GMAT is just a test. You could have had a bad day or spent too much time on one question or missed a few at the end and not scored that extra 20-30 points. or you could just be a bad test taker. I would agree though that scoring high never hurts your chances and probably that is why schools do not look at how many times you took the test. If there was more significance to the test scores, they would only look at the last attempt or look unfavorably upon people who took the test 5 times to score 750+ which is not the case.