|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
23 Sep 2005, 09:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hjort:
You have mentioned to one of the fellow GMAT club members in another post regarding the diversity of his choices among schools. When you meant diversity, do you mean only pick out schools among ultra elites and elites? Or did you also mean choosing from frontier elites, near frontier elites? What about ones that are not even ranked or mentioned? Should people even think about those or would there be no point? Usually how many schools does one choose?
You have mentioned to one of the fellow GMAT club members in another post regarding the diversity of his choices among schools. When you meant diversity, do you mean only pick out schools among ultra elites and elites? Or did you also mean choosing from frontier elites, near frontier elites? What about ones that are not even ranked or mentioned? Should people even think about those or would there be no point? Usually how many schools does one choose?
23 Sep 2005, 12:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Portfolio selection, not surprisingly, depends on the risk and returns characteristics sought by the candidate.
Perhaps the easiest example is the prototypical "hard core" candidate. Let's suppose she has 3.5 or so from a major university, a GMAT in the low 700s, about 4 years at a major MC/IB/or MNC with good progression, strong references, etc. In her case we might structure a portfolio with a few ultra elite MBA programs, a few elites, and perhaps a trans elite.
Now suppose a candidate has a similar profile to the student supra but is seeking some form of scholarship or merit aid. In this case, we would "tilt" the cluster allocation to reach schools that are more likely to give merit aid.
Now consider a prototypical young applicant- strong academic factors, strong but somewhat nontraditional references, but little conventional work experience. This is a more difficult problem to optimize since many of the schools that are most receptive to younger applicants are at opposite ends of the clustering spectrum. Some young applicants choose the high risk/high return route- apply only to the top clusters, if the are not admitted they simply apply again in the future. Other young applicants use the "balanced" approach- apply throughout the cluster spectrum with the intent of the school in the highest cluster that accepts them.
Does this help?
Hjort
Perhaps the easiest example is the prototypical "hard core" candidate. Let's suppose she has 3.5 or so from a major university, a GMAT in the low 700s, about 4 years at a major MC/IB/or MNC with good progression, strong references, etc. In her case we might structure a portfolio with a few ultra elite MBA programs, a few elites, and perhaps a trans elite.
Now suppose a candidate has a similar profile to the student supra but is seeking some form of scholarship or merit aid. In this case, we would "tilt" the cluster allocation to reach schools that are more likely to give merit aid.
Now consider a prototypical young applicant- strong academic factors, strong but somewhat nontraditional references, but little conventional work experience. This is a more difficult problem to optimize since many of the schools that are most receptive to younger applicants are at opposite ends of the clustering spectrum. Some young applicants choose the high risk/high return route- apply only to the top clusters, if the are not admitted they simply apply again in the future. Other young applicants use the "balanced" approach- apply throughout the cluster spectrum with the intent of the school in the highest cluster that accepts them.
Does this help?
Hjort
23 Sep 2005, 13:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Yes, this does help a bit. As you probably know from my previous postings, I am the "younger applicant" type that you have mentioned in the last option. Getting a GMAT score in the 700s in quite difficult and not everyone can do it. I am trying to think in terms that "IF" I dont get into the 700s, should I lower the standards in my portfolio then? This is also a combination with how competitive it is to get into a top tier school, etc. Also, what type of high return do you mean by? For instance, I have been told by many schools (whether the top tier schools or lower tier schools), younger students shouldn't expect to have a high salary once they grad because of the lack of experience. So would it matter on the ranking of the schools if that's the case because either way, a younger student would have to work their way up just like many of the older and more experience students.
I am trying to evaluate my profile again. I chose 3 top tier schools: Stanford, UCLA, and Columbia and also 2 lower tier schools and 1 local school. Because of all the stress with the GMAT, I am currently doubting myself on whether it's even worth it to apply to the 3 top schools that I picked out. Do you think I should eliminate any or those that I would have the lowest chance of getting in?
I am trying to evaluate my profile again. I chose 3 top tier schools: Stanford, UCLA, and Columbia and also 2 lower tier schools and 1 local school. Because of all the stress with the GMAT, I am currently doubting myself on whether it's even worth it to apply to the 3 top schools that I picked out. Do you think I should eliminate any or those that I would have the lowest chance of getting in?
