bherronp wrote:
I have a 760, so you would think that I would believe that the higher score the better. I don't. I think once you have a "good" score that the difference of 20-30 points become negligible. Of course, I think that boundary has now risen to 710/720 as the median of most schools has now risen closer to 710 than 700.
Once over that median score boundary, I think it becomes a factor of your background and writing ability. Yes, we can say all things being equal, the person with the higher GMAT will get in, but honestly all things are not equal. Once you get over the threshold, it becomes about you, and not your score.
I think this threshold is not the same for all applicants. A competitive demographic results in a higher bar for similar applicants. Also, I think that the score matters equally for older applicants. Experience does count (and should) but how do you assess the ability to do well in courses for someone who has been out of school for say, 7-10 years? Lastly, how do you compare the academic performance of applicants coming from a myriad of schools, in India and elsewhere? In these cases, a score provides a better measure of the applicant's abilities.
IMHO, if you have the drive and more importantly, the time to retake the test, to achieve a better score, go for it. However, don't prioritize it over other tasks like researching/visiting schools, writing essays etc.