goodbyeboy wrote:
PTK wrote:
tgtivyleague wrote:
@ PTK
Look at it this way. Even if they take 45% females this year, that still leaves 55% of the slots open for men. It is not the ladies' or the school's problem that the no. of men who apply to B-Schools are way more than the ladies!
But yes, I agree that most top schools may end up having a 35%-40% range wrt their female applicant pool this year, keeping in line with their intention of increasing the gender equality in their respective schools.
Cya
This is an assumption I used to arrive to a possible explanation/reason of why Booth dinged dinged today so many people ( I assumed guys).
65% of slots for men last year or 55% slots this year, makes a signigicant difference when it comes to assumed comparison of % admition rates separately for men and women. (way to many assumption I am making today after the Booth's ding).
I think we are missing a critical piece of the puzzle here. We really cannot just look at people's GMAT scores and GPAs and say that this person should have gotten in or this other person should not have. I also don't think this is about gender either. I do not believe a school would admit someone on the sole basis of gender if that applicant was not qualified for the program.
B-school applications are a holistic process. Essays matter A LOT. They want people who are different and who can round out the class. So, if you're in finance or consulting, for example, you're competing with the thousands of other people who are also in those industries. In the end, it's going to be about how you stand out, what it is that makes your application "sparkle" (to quote Kurt Ahlm), and what kind of contribution you can make to the class.
Sorry to disagree with you, but you CANNOT possibly say that gender or race doesn't play a role when it comes to decisions, and I am not saying this to disrespect female applicants or minority applicants. Some undergrad schools, especially in the west coast where they have overwhelmingly many Asian applicants, flat out say that they limit their pool and look more fondly to other minority students. It makes sense for the school, but for applicants who happen to come from those "common" background - it surely works as disadvantages. I am 100% sure this is the case for business schools as well.
Also, the problem with those terms, such as "holistic process" or "sparkle" are extremely vague terms that don't really mean anything. How much time do you think is spent on adcom's side to take a "holistic" approach to find "sparkles" on each applicant? I am 100% positive that it's merely a fraction of how much time and work applicants spend on their application, not including the time they spend on nervously waiting for their decisions for weeks, sometimes for months since the summer. Yes they get thousands of applications and have a little time - but I really wish that people and school would stop giving out such vague terms. It really doesn't mean much to applicants, whether they're accepted or rejected.
I don't think we are missing any puzzles here. We all know about the weight of GMAT score, GPA etc. GMAT community is a lot smarter than that. Some got dinged not because they don't have "sparkles", aren't unique, or their essays were bad, it's because Booth also "failed" to find the "sparkles". It's alway a two way street. Some schools find them, and some don't. We move on. The end.
Of course gender and race play a role, but I don't think it's in the way that you assume. Schools don't say we have 500 seats and 200 of them have to go to women, 50 have to go Black Americans, 60 have to go to Hispanic Americans, and only 100 can go to Indian males. That would be one ugly Venn Diagram if that's how they work.
I know that people don't want to believe this but while admissions committee do look at the overall applicant pool when building the class most schools do not "bucket" people. How can they? Do they bucket you by ethnicity? professional background? career goal? region where you live? There's just too many categories. I am a Black female, but that doesn't mean they can compare me to another black female who has different goals, undergrad institutation, and professional background.
No, a school won't take every 750+ GMAT and 3.7+ GPA it sees. It's easy to focus on GPA and GMAT and say, "I should or should not get an interview." However, that's such a small piece of the picture. Contrary to what you're saying schools really do take the time to review each application holistically. Some apps, while very well put together show that the student isn't a good fit with the school. Sometimes red flags are raised by the recommendations. And please remember, just because an essay is well written doesn't mean that it's compelling. Also, adcoms can sniff a whole lot out of not just what you say, but how you say it.
Honestly, I don't really think it's about "sparkle" or "uniqueness." An application can be boring as all get out with a run of the mill 700 GMAT and 3.3 GPA and still stand out if the story makes sense and the fit is there. Sometimes these conversations really get to me because people start to insinuate that people are getting in because they are a woman or a minority and that's NOT the case. While race and gender do play a role in how adcoms try to build the class it's not the sole determining factor and it doesn't mean that un(der) qualified people are gaining admission over qualified candidates. At the end of the day the whole purpose of going to b-school is to get a job (a good paying one at that). With average salaries at 100K+ at the top schools and over 90% of graduates employed within 3 months of graduation it's obvious that even if a 670 GMAT was admitted over a 770 it's not diminishing the quality of the class.
10 Nov 2011, 07:11
congratulations on your interview btw - good luck. It's great to have your supervisors as your mentors. 
close
