Differences between R1 and R2

Question

Hi Everyone,

I know this has been asked before, and I've read many books that "analyze" the difference between the rounds. But most of the books were a bit older and written a few years ago. Has anything changed since?

From Montauk and MBA Game Plan books, they talk about:

R1: More spaces available, you are more "unique" at this point (instead of the 2000th Indian IT that the adcom reads), but you go up against the "over-achievers"

R2: Where most people apply, might have fewer spaces, harder to stand out.

but from reading these forums, it looks like for the 2007 admits, R1 seems to be the way to go. Many of the R2 people didn't get in or got waitlisted. 

I know the golden rule is to submit when the application is fully ready, and it's better to submit a better application in a later round than a mediocre one in the first round. But what about the ultra-elite schools?

I'm asking this because I'm thinking of adding Chicago and Kellogg to my application cycle, but I don't think I can do a good job for them in R1 due to Stanford/Berkeley/UCLA being R1 for me, and also Chicago and Kellogg R1 dates are EXTREMELY early (mid-October instead of late October). Would it be pointless to apply to them R2 since the competition will be fierce and I'll just have a miniscule chance?

Any advice? Thanks!

rhyme · Answer

Since my wife is likely going to be in R2 at Kellogg/GSB, I would suggest you just don't apply and increase her odds. 

Just kidding. 

Honestly I dont think theres a way to "time" the market - R1 means people who have been preparing at length, R2 means more applicants - its a crapshoot either way. 

Last year, I was the only fulltime admit to the GSB in R1 (i think there was one part time admit) - and yet, in R2 we had like 6 or 7... doesn't really mean R2 was better odds... just the way it played out.

riverripper · Answer

I think that going by pure numbers doesn't really mean anything. Some people may have rushed out applications to make the R1, put more focus on other schools, or just plain not made the cut. Even with the profiles people post on here you can't judge someone based on a GPA, a GMAT score, and a small resume. Essays and recommendations have to be a huge part and if you have weak essays or bad recommendations then your chances no matter your stats or impressive sounding resume are going to be bad. Personally, I would take amazing essays and killer recommendations over getting a 770 on the GMAT anyday.

Most schools talk about R1 and R2 being pretty much equal. Its not till R3 and beyond that your chances really do fall. Thats because they have put out so many acceptances and there are only a fraction of the slots available and those are going to go to the strongest candidates. You are better served to put more time into your application than rush it out to meet the deadline for an earlier round.

rhyme · Answer

river - thats what I was trying to say... -- odds dont change from R1 to R2 in any PREDICTABLE way.

riverripper · Answer

I got you...just trying to expand for anyone else. Plus we know you are the essay king so that probably helped.

pelihu · Answer

Yeah, not predictable at all. I think that a lot depends on actual application volume compared with anticipated application volume. If they don't match, then schools could have more or less seats to fill than they planned for.

If the school has any kind of early decision or uses rolling admissions, I would say earlier should be better. Columbia is the most obvious example in both cases. Some schools, UCLA stands out most in my memory, have a regular applicatin deadline but release decisions on a rolling basis, so earlier might be better for these places as well. For example, I believe UCLA, Darden and others review applications as they come complete, so even though the application deadline is fixed for each round, it behooves you to have all materials (recs, transcripts, etc.) complete as early as possible as your decision could get rendered earlier in the round, potentially when more seats are available.

Then there is pretty well-discussed speculation that the sharks - the applicants from feeder jobs/schools who have been prepping their applications for years - tend to apply in R1, making the field more competitive regardless of the percentages. This makes sense to me, though there's no way to prove it of course.

riverripper · Answer

I always was under the impression that schools try and have a diverse class and with that they take people with different backgrounds. Now if you are in an industry like IB or MC and a majority of people from that go get MBAs then you are going against them so the cream of the crop of those may apply R1 since they have known for the last few years this is what they were going to do. Now if you work in a field where its not typical to go get an MBA people who randomly decide to go get them will probably be more spread out.

I would tend to think that though most schools publish their overall acceptance rates they don't break down chances against particular groups. A school isn't going to want a class of 95% of IB who want to go into PE or HF. Even if those are the most qualified candidates. A lot of schools seem to have about a 35/35/30% split between Business backgrounds, Engineering backgrounds, and then everything else (+/- 5% on each). But if people with business backgrounds make up 50% of the applicants then thats a tougher hill to climb. If you work at a bank in NYC your competition is a lot tougher than someone who worked for a major company in their leadership programs. Thats because there are going to be 10x times the applicants with your profile, much like people always talk about how difficult it is for Indians in IT...both are proportionally very large applicant groups in the grand scheme of the MBA application process. Also from talking to people from that field I know who have gone or are going for MBAs, IB seem to be the people who take the GMAT prep classes, have private tutors, use consultants, and visit every school they apply to no matter the cost...all in order to create the uber candidate.

An ideal candidate is a black female doctor who played on the women's world cup soccer team and also does charity work with aids orphans in Sudan. Or someone without a college degree who happens to get the president his coffee every morning. Either one gets you into harvard pretty easy.

lepium · Answer

What I've heard, learnt or made up (for Ultra Elites only): 

Stanford & MIT: apply in R1.
Columbia: apply ED.
the others: R1 and R2 are more or less the same.

L.

kryzak · Answer

thanks for the great discussion guys!

I think I'll stick to my original plans.

Stanford R1 - Just because Stanford is super tough and I need every advantage I can get (and not as many IB feeder companies send people to this one, as they're more GM and away from the other coast =P)

Berkeley R1 - Again, to increase my chances. Even if I get waitlisted (which I heard the waitlisters have a 50% chance of getting in), I will probably be one of the first to be re-considered when R2 apps go in and they can compare me with that class)

UCLA R1 - the whole rolling decisions thing. And I heard they can give out decisions as early as mid-December (from Admissions 411.com). That's a nice "Xmas Gift" to have from a good school!

Chicago and/or Kellogg - R2. Because it doesn't really matter and I simply do not have the time to do 5 apps in R1 all by mid-October (let alone the expressions my recommenders will have when I tell them that I'm applying to 5 schools!) I'll save it for the holiday season to work on Chicago and Kellogg essays. Maybe I'll put an animated Xmas tree in my Chicago powerpoints (don't go and copy that idea now!

)

I think those will be the 4 or 5 I apply to unless a huge revelation occurs. I will be talking to an NYU grad, but from what I heard, she had a hard time getting placements on the West coast, which is where I want to end up eventually. So that may be out.

) I think those will be the 4 or 5 I apply to unless a huge revelation occurs. I will be talking to an NYU grad, but from what I heard, she had a hard time getting placements on the West coast, which is where I want to end up eventually. So that may be out.

GMATcram · Answer

R1 and R2 admit chance much depends on your application. So, don't jump in R1 just because you think your odd is better. Nevertheless, if you already had a full year preparation, R1 is a better choice regarding to your consideration of matriculation and scholarship if you're lucky enough. But R3 definitely hurts.

abhishek.sardana · Answer

I think R1 and R2 admit the same number of applicants (around 40% each) and the remaining 20% go in R3

kryzak · Answer

I guess the only difference is in R1 if you're an Indian IT or Caucasian/Asian consulting person, the adcom won't get sick of reading that demography yet, thus your essays do not need to stand out *as much* as in R2, when they would have seen thousands by then.

MBAbot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club MBAbot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Differences between R1 and R2

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards