GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 17 Aug 2018, 12:38

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?

  new topic post reply Update application status  
Author Message
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2018
Posts: 3
Re: Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2018, 09:05
Thanks BrazilianPhD

Appreciate your honest answer!!

Its been 10 years since i finished school, spent 9 years in Corporate, 1 year sabbatical & about 8 months as an entrepreneur. A very unorthodox profile, but nonetheless i would want to give my best for the PhD applications. I am planning for PhD in Marketing (Consumer Behavior)

- Can you please suggest any reading material that one should go through as a prep for PhD applications? for e.g. as you mentioned the schools asked about research, how to do research?, latest softwares used in research? current trends in research? should i also be aware in detail about the latest research being done, in my area of specialization?


- Should i be going through research articles & is it wise to mention in the SOP, in detail my intentions about the research i am interested in?

- Do you recommend that one should get in touch with Professors & try to start a communication with him or her? provided they respond from their busy schedules.


Also how do you rate a PhD from Canada (Rotman, Schulich, HEC, Sauder) from the point of view of future prospects of getting hired by a university in Canada.



billionaire you may please chip in, your inputs are appreciated as well.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Posts: 3
Re: Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2018, 09:53
MrTodd wrote:
Hi guys!!

Count me in to, older candidate, been out of school for about 10 years now, preparing for GMAT.

Does anyone know how critical is research experience in PhD applications? Since i have none, does that jeopardise my application?



Hi:

Actually IIM FPM do not expect you to be a researcher but they expect you to show interest in research or rather you should be interested in research.
so you have to back up with a curiosity story .

There are so many applications which they have admitted on the basis of interest because they will teach us research .

Hope this help (after discussion with students from IIM FPM )
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2016
Posts: 69
Location: Brazil
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Re: Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2018, 10:26
Hi, MrTodd.

I really wonder if there is such a thing as an "orthodox" profile since I've seen very different people doing a PhD. I don't think that's a big deal by itself.

I'm not a Consumer Behavior guy, I'm more into Quantitative Marketing and Marketing Strategy. And there are some big differences. So, I'll try to help, but see if you can find a CB student.

I believe that the most important reading for you is the Journal of Consumer Research. This should give you a good feeling about the type of research you are expected to do.

In CB, probably you will deal with lots of experiments. So, if you can have a good idea about how research in consumer behavior uses experiments, it should be helpful. Again, the Journal of Consumer Research should point in the right direction.

You should have at least a general idea about the research that has been done that is related to your research interests, according to your statement of purpose. In my case, for example, my interests are mostly related to the Marketing-Finance interface, and then I knew about concepts like brand equity and customer lifetime value.

There is a variety of software for research, I don't know which one is common in CB, and in the end it will depend also on the software that your advisor prefers. For a PhD application, I think it's ok if you show some knowledge in any of them, just to show that you are able to code or use a statistical software. Some common brands we hear in business are SPSS, R, SAS, Python, Stata, and Matlab. If you're just starting, R is used by lots of researchers and it is free. I had some experience with SPSS and studied a little about Matlab before applying.

CB usually do not use very complex statistics, I guess being able to talk about something like ANOVA or a common linear regression is more than enough. Do not waste too much time on this.

You are expected to explain your research interests in the SOP. What are your interests, why you are interested in that kind of thing, how do you expect the school to be able to support you in your interests, the professors that seem to be a good match for your interests, things like that. There is no agreement about the level of detail, there are different opinions about it. If you are too specific, it is going to be hard to find a school or a professor to match that interest. If you are too vague, it will look like you don't know what you want to do. Bear in mind that schools expect you to change your interests during the PhD, but they want someone who at least has a good idea about what is going on.

I've also seen different opinions about getting in touch with professors before applying. I think most students didn't do that, but I know at least a few did. If you get in contact, you must be sure that you're doing in a way that will leave a good and lasting good impression about you (not easy to do). Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time and not helping your application.

Rating PhD programs is one of the biggest challenges every applicant must face. UT Dallas is the ranking people usually mention in discussions about PhD programs, top 20 are usually dream schools, top 50-top 100 still very good ones. UT Dallas ranking for marketing journals places Rotman as 18th, so it would be great in any place in the world, among the best of the best, for example. However, rankings are also very flawed, especially because it depends on your research interests. Sometimes, a top 10 school is an awful choice because it fits badly with your research interests. On the other hand, sometimes a very famous professor is at a school you didn't expect.

Check also the placements of the schools you mentioned. See where former PhD students are working now. This should give you some clues about job prospects. Maybe the Who Went Where report from the American Marketing association can help you with that too.
_________________

http://myphdtales.blogspot.com.br/

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2018
Posts: 3
Re: Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2018, 08:20
Thanks BrazilianPhD

Appreciate your providing such detailed information!! It puts the Phd admission process in good perspective.

Another query i have, Does a high GMAT & a high post grad GPA compensate for a low undergrad GPA? In other words, does the undergrad GPA have any weightage if one also has a post grad degree in business with a high GPA?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2016
Posts: 69
Location: Brazil
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Re: Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2018, 15:50
MrTodd wrote:
Thanks BrazilianPhD

Appreciate your providing such detailed information!! It puts the Phd admission process in good perspective.

Another query i have, Does a high GMAT & a high post grad GPA compensate for a low undergrad GPA? In other words, does the undergrad GPA have any weightage if one also has a post grad degree in business with a high GPA?



Before I start, please bear in mind that I'm just a PhD student, I'm not involved in the evaluation of applications at my school. What I write is based on my own experience during applications, things I talked about with other applicants, PhD students and professors, and includes a lot of personal opinions.

Yeah, I think that "compensate" is not a good word, and the undergrad GPA is still relevant despite a high postgrad GPA and high GMAT. Having 2 strengths do not make 1 weakness go away, it is still worse than someone with 3 strengths.

But it's good to remember that very few applicants have the "perfect" profile, checking all the marks that schools love to see in an applicant. If the undergrad GPA is your only weakness, for example, I don't think that will prevent you from getting accepted by very good schools if you do your job right.

Now, back to the GPA. If schools had just the GPA, maybe a GMAT would compensate. One of the main problems with GPA is that it's hard to compare GPAs of different applicants, from different schools, from different countries. Maybe the GPA of an applicant is high because the school does a lot of grade inflation, for example. And one of the main advantages of the GMAT is that it allows schools to compare different applications since it is a standardized score.

However, what many applicants seem to forget is that the schools do not have only the GPA. They have the GPA + the transcripts. And that combination allows schools to evaluate an application in a way that is harder, or impossible, with the postgrad GPA and the GMAT.

Think about the two simplified cases below.

Applicant X has two courses on the transcript:
- Psychology, with a grade of A
- Brazilian Law, with a grade of C

Applicant Y has two courses on the transcript:
- Psychology, with a grade of C
- Brazilian Law, with a grade of A

Both applicants would have the same GPA, right? But applicant X seems to be excellent in Psychology, and applicant Y seems to be excellent in Brazilian Law. A Consumer Behavior PhD program would prefer applicant X, because Psychology is important for this type of PhD, while Brazilian Law is probably useless for them. The GMAT does not allow for this kind of analysis. Even with a high GMAT, applicant Y still looks weak in Psychology.

My GPA is bad (or at least it looks very bad when converted to the US GPA system). But I tried to show them that some of my best grades were in quantitative and marketing courses, since I was applying to quantitative marketing.

Schools can try to do that kind of analysis with the postgrad GPA and transcripts. But the variety of courses is much higher for undergrad than for postgrad.

Another advantage of undergrad transcripts is that it allows schools to evaluate what happens over time, in a period of several years (just like a PhD). They can see if the applicant is a student who started strong, but whose performance declined over time, for example. That's not a good sign, since a PhD usually require someone who does not lose motivation easily, and can keep going at a high level of performance for a long time.

So, the undergrad GPA + transcripts present detailed information, about a variety of courses, over a long period, in a way that the postgrad GPA and the GMAT cannot match.

I also believe that applicants often do not understand the purpose of the GMAT. They think of it as just a test of Math and Verbal skills.

As a test of Math, the GMAT would be really bad for PhD applications, since the Math required during a Business PhD is quite different from the Math required for the GMAT. You can ace the GMAT Quant without any knowledge about matrices and derivatives, but during the PhD these are some of the most important knowledge you must have, for example. So, the GMAT does not test if you have the Math knowledge that you need, but your undergrad transcript may show schools if you are good at Math (including matrices and derivatives) or not.

There are some aspects of the GMAT that are overlooked, people don't think about it that much, but I believe it is important. The GMAT is a weird test, it's no wonder that lots of intelligent people struggle with it.

First, it focuses on only 2 things: Quant and Verbal. Why? I think one of the reasons is that it's really hard to find people who are good at both. So, in order to get a great GMAT score, you must not only get a high score in what you are good, but also be able to get at least an acceptable score in what you are not good. A great GMAT score shows that the applicant has no weakness in either Quant and Verbal, or that they are able to overcome that weakness. And that's important for a PhD. We hear a lot of professors complaining about students who are great at calculating everything that is needed, because they are great at Math, but then get stuck when writing and presenting a paper. The weight of each part can change, for applications in Finance the Quant score is much more important, and in Quantitative Marketing the quant score is still the most important, but the verbal score can also be very relevant. But for any field, both Quant and Verbal skills are relevant.

Second, the test has been developed in a way that is new for most applicants. The GMAT often looks very different from the other tests applicants have taken before. Data Sufficiency questions seemed crazy to me, I had never seen questions like that. I also had never taken a test where identifying the questions to skip can be a vital skill, as I usually just tried to answer all questions without skipping any. So, the GMAT forces most applicant to face a new, challenging problem. It tests how you deal with something new, something you are not used to. And that's also valuable for PhD.

When I see a great GMAT score, I think of two main possibilities. One, the applicant is a genius, who was able to quickly adjust and so was able to get a great score on the first try. Two, the applicant worked hard, studied a lot, tried to understand how the GMAT works, tested different strategies to see what was the best one, motivated themselves to go over and over the same stuff, and ultimately was able to get a great score because they kept trying hard without giving up. Any of those two is great for a PhD: being a genius who quickly adjusts, and being a hard worker who doesn't give up.

So, for me the roles of the GMAT and the undergrad GPA are very different from each other, in a way that one does not compensate the other.

The postgrad GPA is less clear to me. I have both an Executive MBA and a Master of Science degree, and I think the way they helped me the most was not related to GPA and transcripts. It was the experience using statistical software, the opportunity to get stronger letters of recommendation, and to have a paper+conference presentation to show as research experience relevant to the field I was applying to.
_________________

http://myphdtales.blogspot.com.br/

Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 21 Mar 2018
Posts: 164
Concentration: Finance
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2018, 05:10
BrazilianPhD wrote:
The last actual average score they informed us for PhD acceptance at Bauer is 706, for Fall 2017. Don't trust that information about an average GMAT around 680 at Bauer, that's old news. So, please be careful, if you are a PhD student you also know that the information that is publicly available is often not the best. Skepticism is healthy for PhD.

Also, even if Finance is generally the most competitive, it is not true that it is BY FAR the most competitive specialization at ANY business school. This looks like of the common GMAT traps. This is too strong a statement, as different schools have different characteristics.

I don't have much data to really compare the different departments here at Bauer. But the reputation of the Department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship is stronger than the Department of Finance's. For research about sales I really think Bauer is one of the top in the world because of Mike Ahearne, for example. And Finance accepts much more students than Marketing (twice). With much more students, the range and the deviation of GMAT scores in Finance are probably much larger than in Marketing. If you are applying to Quant Marketing, for example, there is usually only 1 spot available a year, don't expect it to be any easy. Since they will only get 1 new student, you have to be the best they can have, and that is usually someone very, very good. I don't think the difference here between the average GMAT score of Finance and Marketing is that significant.



Hi BrazilianPhD

I don't doubt that last actual average score they informed you for PhD acceptance at Bauer is 706.

Why would they inform you about that as being current PhD student ? :)

You are not involved in admission process.

Just asking.

I am not going to explain how 706 would not be that much different than 680, instead of that, why they would not update new info ?

Are they lazy ?

I will tell you why.

Even if their last average score across all disciplines may be 706 this year, next year it can be again 680.

It changes from year to year as application pool can also change, sometimes dramatically, still they have averages for like 5 year or 10 year and ball park what to expect and at the same time they provide that info to others as pretty much accurate guidance.

No need to explain to you, how when I contact admission representative, some professor lets say chair of department and professor who is designed as contact for that particular PhD program, I may get slightly different info and data in terms of average scores, usual application pool, competitiveness etc.

You have been there, i suppose you would know that.

No need to inform you how when you contact them, they will provide you with their desired score, while their actual average score may be less, meaning they did accept and they will accept students with lower scores.

They just want to portrait picture of them being more elite.

Purpose of my post, was to encourage people to apply not discourage them and when I post something, that is always backed with data and based on facts.


Also majority of people who asked about PhD previously, were targeting European schools, where we have different settings in terms of competitiveness, while you were little scaring them with demands for most competitive schools in the world (top US).


Skepticism is healthy for anything, especially anything related to intellect, however facts are facts.

Lets check them.


Marketing department accepts 2-3 students per year from application pool of 50+.

Ok.

2.5/50=5% admission rate


The median GMAT score of our current Ph.D. students is 680.

"This puts our department in the top 40 of marketing departments in the U.S"

https://www.bauer.uh.edu/doctoral/marketing/faqs/


Now, Department of Finance usually receives approximately 75 applications for 3-4 slots.

3.5/75=4.6%

The average GMAT score for Bauer was 698, with range from 640 to 760.


In 2010, the Department of Finance ranked 18th in the nation, according to an ASU finance research ranking.
The department also ranked 22nd in the nation in 2010, according to a UT Dallas finance research ranking.


https://www.bauer.uh.edu/doctoral/finance/faq.php

https://www.bauer.uh.edu/departments/finance/


You see, in general it was easier to get in Marketing than Finance at Bauer, and Finance is more competitive, we can even debate which department is stronger in corresponding field, although that alone doesn't have anything to do with cross competitiveness.

I thought that is obvious. :-)


It is funny that based on research, Finance department at Bauer seems to be also above Marketing department in their respective fields rankings, however I don't have problem to be the other way around, that still would not affect my claim at all. :-)


Now, I know what you are going to say, you were (probably) the only one accepted that year at Marketing.

Here is the news for you, although in general Finance departments over US have only two slots for PhD, rarely up to 4, even schools who put info that they are looking for like 4, often do not accept anybody that year, since they were not satisfied with candidates, so they can go from 0-4 or from 0-2.

I have seen that to be true multiple times.

That depends on their budget, plans, maintaining professor to student ratio etc. but can ultimately come to strength of application pool.

Sure we have also departments that do not accept new cohort every year, only on even or add years.


Speaking of strength of applicants, for PhD in Finance people compete with people who have extremely strong quantitative background and completed bachelor, master, sometimes even already PhD degrees in mathematics, physics, statistics, engineering and I doubt many of them will apply to Marketing, its just not their thing.

Having bachelor/master degree in Economics or Finance often is not enough for PhD in Finance (especially for top schools), strong quantitative background is a must.


Here are some admission statistics, by specialization, that reflects general rule/trend that happens to be too strong statement for you, although is simply a fact :-) :

Marketing Applicants=137 Enrollees=3

Finance Applicants=283 Enrollees=5

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/programs-admis ... statistics


"Areas like Economics and Finance receive two to three times the number of applications that areas like Accounting or Information Systems receive"

https://www.cmu.edu/tepper/programs/phd ... /faqs.html


Marketing 5/130=3.8%

Finance and Economics 6/343=1.7%

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/programs/ ... statistics


Feel free to dig on and research on your own if you think you will find some other truth in data. :-)


Regarding Bauer, I have spoken with Professor Kris Jacobs, Finance Program Coordinator, Crystal R. Lugo admissions coordinator for graduate and professional programs, Lilia Canas College Academic Affairs manager etc. although they have presented all relevant/pertinent info on school website, which is not always the case.


Hello MrTodd

Not having research experience does not jeopardize your chances and application, but then again it depends where you want to apply.

For most competitive, like top 10 US, that will be minus, however not definitively no.

You need to realize, that you compete with other PhD applicants, so compared to them everything can change.

Keep things in perspective.


In terms of rankings, Rotman is the best in Canada, then comes Sauder and not there is not much difference between Schulich and HEC, except like obvious language environment/location :)

Then again you may have later different preference, in terms of professors, research, climate, location, language, feedback, how much they want you and million other things.


Hello CAMANISHPARMAR

You are welcome.

Post here (PhD in Business forum) once you are ready, once you have GMAT score and all necessary info regarding application and I will reply.

If you decide to apply to PhD in Finance, then above applies/can be useful to you.
Attachments

columbia phd statistics.png
columbia phd statistics.png [ 38.74 KiB | Viewed 117 times ]


_________________

Your kudos are much appreciated

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2016
Posts: 69
Location: Brazil
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2018, 10:24
I don't know why they informed us about the GMAT score, but they did. And if you need some proof of that, send me your e-mail in private that I can send you.

If you think that 706 is not that much different from 680, then why are you that worried about what I'm saying? Because if that's a fact, then to me it seems like what I'm saying is not different from what you are saying. If they are about the same, your 680 would scare people off the same way my 706 would. If that's enough to scare people off, then they will go insane if they get accepted, when the stakes are much higher.

It seems you are just biased in your judgement. You discard an actual and more up to date information I provided, because the information that you have fits better in your arguments. You are free to think what you want.

And yeah, I think I have been very clear about the fact that I'm talking about top schools (about top 100) in the US, because that's where I have experience. If as a moderator you are saying I have also to talk about European schools, something I know little about, then I'd better leave this forum. I'm one of the very, very few still willing to come here to help people. And I had never heard about that requirement before.

Did I lie at any point? I really don't think so. Did I scare someone off because I'm telling the truth? Maybe. But if I'm afraid of telling the truth, then I'd better leave he PhD. For me, having more and better information about the competitiveness of PhD applications helped me to develop a stronger application, instead of scaring me off.

I agree that competition for Finance PhD is usually stronger, as I stated, and my background is actually in Finance. I just don't agree with that statement you made that makes it look like it is BY FAR more competitive in ANY school compared to ANY FIELD. It just seems to me you are not willing to accept that there may be exceptions.

So, yeah, you are basing your opinion of facts and numbers that you have. But you are choosing the facts and numbers that support your view, ignoring or diminishing the importance of those that are against it.

You don't talk about situations like Tippie, where in 2015 the average GRE of enrolled students in Finance PhD was 152V 163Q, which certainly is not BY FAR superior to Marketing PhD (160V 170Q) or Accounting (760 GMAT). So, to me it seems just like a self-selection bias in your analysis.

You talk about the superior strength in Finance regarding Quant subjects, but seems to disregard the Verbal side, for example. Yeah, for Finance the Quant side is more important, but in other fields it is not the same weight. You just see the side that puts Finance in good light, and again ignores that parts that don't. You talk like all that matters is Quant, so automatically people with a background in Psychology, for example, would be inferior. Just because they are weaker on the Quant side, it does not mean that people with a background in Psychology for example is less important, less competitive, less competent.

Usually Marketing PhD students also have at least a Master's degree. I have an Executive MBA and a MSc. in Finance, for example. We also have at Bauer a student who already had a PhD, so thaat kind of thing happens not only in Finance. Just because his PhD is not in Math or something like that you think he is worse? That looks really, really biased to me.

Applicants to Finance PhD are usually better at the things that are related to Finance, applicants to Marketing PhD are usually better at the things that are related to Marketing, and the same reasoning goes for the other fields. If you use the standards of Finance to judge applicants for all fields, of course Finance will look stronger. Marketing would also look stronger if, instead of focusing on the importance of the quant background I focused on the importance of a background in psychology, and if I talked about verbal skills instead of quant skills. But then we are just omitting relevant variables, and again biasing the analysis. Things like budget restriction, and schools not filling all spots they have available is not an exclusivity of Finance too, I don't see why it matters here,
_________________

http://myphdtales.blogspot.com.br/

Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 21 Mar 2018
Posts: 164
Concentration: Finance
Premium Member CAT Tests
Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2018, 12:57
BrazilianPhD wrote:
I don't know why they informed us about the GMAT score, but they did. And if you need some proof of that, send me your e-mail in private that I can send you.

If you think that 706 is not that much different from 680, then why are you that worried about what I'm saying? Because if that's a fact, then to me it seems like what I'm saying is not different from what you are saying. If they are about the same, your 680 would scare people off the same way my 706 would. If that's enough to scare people off, then they will go insane if they get accepted, when the stakes are much higher.

It seems you are just biased in your judgement. You discard an actual and more up to date information I provided, because the information that you have fits better in your arguments. You are free to think what you want.

And yeah, I think I have been very clear about the fact that I'm talking about top schools (about top 100) in the US, because that's where I have experience. If as a moderator you are saying I have also to talk about European schools, something I know little about, then I'd better leave this forum. I'm one of the very, very few still willing to come here to help people. And I had never heard about that requirement before.

Did I lie at any point? I really don't think so. Did I scare someone off because I'm telling the truth? Maybe. But if I'm afraid of telling the truth, then I'd better leave he PhD. For me, having more and better information about the competitiveness of PhD applications helped me to develop a stronger application, instead of scaring me off.

I agree that competition for Finance PhD is usually stronger, as I stated, and my background is actually in Finance. I just don't agree with that statement you made that makes it look like it is BY FAR more competitive in ANY school compared to ANY FIELD. It just seems to me you are not willing to accept that there may be exceptions.

So, yeah, you are basing your opinion of facts and numbers that you have. But you are choosing the facts and numbers that support your view, ignoring or diminishing the importance of those that are against it.

You don't talk about situations like Tippie, where in 2015 the average GRE of enrolled students in Finance PhD was 152V 163Q, which certainly is not BY FAR superior to Marketing PhD (160V 170Q) or Accounting (760 GMAT). So, to me it seems just like a self-selection bias in your analysis.

You talk about the superior strength in Finance regarding Quant subjects, but seems to disregard the Verbal side, for example. Yeah, for Finance the Quant side is more important, but in other fields it is not the same weight. You just see the side that puts Finance in good light, and again ignores that parts that don't. You talk like all that matters is Quant, so automatically people with a background in Psychology, for example, would be inferior. Just because they are weaker on the Quant side, it does not mean that people with a background in Psychology for example is less important, less competitive, less competent.

Usually Marketing PhD students also have at least a Master's degree. I have an Executive MBA and a MSc. in Finance, for example. We also have at Bauer a student who already had a PhD, so thaat kind of thing happens not only in Finance. Just because his PhD is not in Math or something like that you think he is worse? That looks really, really biased to me.

Applicants to Finance PhD are usually better at the things that are related to Finance, applicants to Marketing PhD are usually better at the things that are related to Marketing, and the same reasoning goes for the other fields. If you use the standards of Finance to judge applicants for all fields, of course Finance will look stronger. Marketing would also look stronger if, instead of focusing on the importance of the quant background I focused on the importance of a background in psychology, and if I talked about verbal skills instead of quant skills. But then we are just omitting relevant variables, and again biasing the analysis. Things like budget restriction, and schools not filling all spots they have available is not an exclusivity of Finance too, I don't see why it matters here,


Hello BrazilianPhD

First I said I don't doubt 706 as average score.

When I mention scarring it was referred to your previous post where you were parading with average score of 730 for top schools and your thought that 700 is way below average and that 710-720 was not really impressive etc. so some people got wrong idea, since that was not applicable to them (especially the ones interested in European schools, or top 50 US).

Bauer is top 50 or top 100 and you can get in with 700. Period. That was point, for other applicants to see.

Of course you are not obliged to know about European schools requirements, nobody said/requested that, or Asian, or Canadian, I do, we had people involved in this discussion from Budapest (Hungary), Germany etc. who although have some US schools as target, also have (believe me) European/Canadian schools perspective for PhD, so I was juxtaposing for them, and all others who will read this.

Tippie :)

I enjoy this.

Look you found one of outliers in Iowa.

And for 2015 year only.

Why don't you provide whole picture, even with Iowa ?

Finance:

Our admitted students average around 700 on the GMAT.

https://tippie.uiowa.edu/future-graduat ... m-overview


Your favorite Marketing department:

Admits typically have GMAT scores that average 650+.

https://tippie.uiowa.edu/future-graduat ... m-overview



Iowa Fall 2015 statistics:

Marketing

Applications: 35
Admitted: 3 (8.6%)

Enrolled: 1
Average GMAT, applied: 673

Finance

Applications: 84
Admitted: 4 (4.7%)

Enrolled: 2
Average GMAT, applied: 704

https://tippie.uiowa.edu/future-graduat ... statistics

So who is now playing with the facts/data ? :)

Who is ignoring reality ?

In both cases, what you presented only is outlier, only one enrolled student, in Accounting and Marketing, while in fact average for Marketing was 673.

Same as in your (personal) case, one student does not make the average :-)

So even in far Iowa in one admission year only (2015) facts don't work good to support your claim.


Just to make something clear, I would never consider any fields/disciplines to be inferior per se, compared to others.

In fact, you mention psychology that is vastly important in Finance, as Finance having both quantitative and psychological/behavioral side, since all participants on market are social/psychological beings who act irrational at least as much as in rational manner, all the time.

I am interested in behavioral finance as possible research path.

Last Nobel prize in Economics winner, Richard Thaler comes from that field, behavioral economics/finance.

Daniel Kahneman is probably most popular among many others, Nobel prize winners who are behavioral economists.


I was only talking about competitiveness aka how hard is to get in, based on most important facts like average GMAT score and ratios as number of applicants vs. available spots.

I certainly was not talking about importance of research in any field, which would be value measure.


If we agree that, what I presented is true in 90% of cases I am fine with that. I think you are inclined to admit that.


I don't know why you are so sensitive, we are on same mission here, to help others in PhD pursuits and I actually like you and consider your inputs, insights, PhD experience stories, to be valuable for other members and appreciate them.

I just corrected some info, where I saw that others could get wrong impression and supported what I already know with facts and data.

I certainly do not plan to exercise my rights as moderator in fashion you mentioned, your posts and opinions are most welcomed.


If you have any other questions for me, I would be happy to answer. :cool:
_________________

Your kudos are much appreciated

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2016
Posts: 69
Location: Brazil
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2018, 13:55
Yeah, I think this is the main discussion we have here: "If we agree that, what I presented is true in 90% of cases I am fine with that. I think you are inclined to admit that." If you say that it is true in most cases, I totally agree, and that's what I have been trying to explain. But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that "for PhD in Finance which is by far most competitive specialization at any business school". If it's ANY school, then it's not 90% or most schools, it's 100%. And that's wrong. And if it is BY FAR, then there is really a major gap between Finance and all other fields. People in Finance should be vastly superior to people in other fields, and I don't think that's true either. I can accept the idea that the Finance PhD students at Bauer are more competitive than me, for example. But BY FAR??? I don't think you can convince me of that, and I'm not the strongest student in our department.

About scaring applicants for European schools, I clearly explained that "my opinions and guesses (like the average) are based on programs that would be considered top 70 in the US". Do I really need to explain it better than that? I'm talking about AVERAGE, not range, and top US schools.

Yeah, I found an outlier. But the thing is: THERE ARE outliers. And these outliers can sometimes be great opportunities. As one of my professors said, one big mistake people do in research is excluding outliers from the analysis, since those outliers can be of extreme interest. And yeah, the very definition of an outlier is that it not a common thing, so it's no surprise to find it 1 year, for example. A lot of applicants start with a list of schools like Harvard, Sloan, Staanford, without thinking about great opportunities that may be hidden. I was surprised to see one of the best professors for my research interests in a school that is pretty low ranked and probably less competitive, for example.

Yeah, I know that psychology is important to Finance, I also studied Thaler, Kahneman etc, both in my Master's in Finance and now doing a PhD. But you didn't mention it. You only talked about competitiveness in Quant. Or do you think that Finance PhD students are more competitive not only in Quant, but also in Psychology? If you take Psychology into consideration, then you will see strengths in Marketing applicants that would show they are also very competitive, something that you can't see if you just talk about Quant background.

I this is true "I certainly was not talking about importance of research in any field, which would be value measure." Then all that your reasoning about applicants having bachelor's, master's, and even PhDs makes no difference. Because in Marketing for example it is the same. The difference is that often those degrees are not in Quant-related fields. So, again, I don't see that "BY FAR" difference that you wrote.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive because of the PhD. But I think you will be the same way when you are doing a PhD, and you see people trying to support an hypothesis by choosing to ignore the variables and the cases that go against the hypothesis (even if they are outliers), to then reach very bold conclusions. If you tell someone during your PhD that something is "BY FAR" different from each other, you'd better be able to show a really significant difference. And if you tell someone during a PhD that something is true for "ANY" case, you'd better be prepared to really show that it's really ANY case, and not 90% of the cases. 90% of the cases is less than the percentage related to 2 standard deviations from the mean in a normal distribution, so it would be barely enough to reach some mild conclusions, certainly not enough for your wild conclusions. Even if you use 99% with 3 standard deviations, you still cannot say ANY case.

And maybe I'm exagerating when talking about self-selection bias, omitted variable bias, confidence interval, and things like that. But this is a Business PhD forum, and if you plan to do a PhD in Business, you'd better start thinking and talking like this, especially for the Quant guys. This is something you may be required to do if you are asked to review a paper or to present a research proposal (things that some school do to evaluate an application). I have seen people get crushed because that kind of thing during the PhD.
_________________

http://myphdtales.blogspot.com.br/

Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD? &nbs [#permalink] 08 Aug 2018, 13:55

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Anybody preparing for GMAT to get admission in PhD?

  new topic post reply Update application status  

Moderators: carcass, billionaire



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.