Interesting feedback from Wharton info session

Interesting!! Thanks for posting that.

I'm not saying that GMAT doesn't have an impact as to whether or not you're accepted.

What I'm saying is that once you pass 700 (or so), the GMAT becomes less and less important and the other factors (interview, GPA, work experience) become much more important.

If you were an adcom and you interviewed a 700 and found out they were very social and outgoing, then you interviewed a 780 and found out they were "average", who would you accept?

RF

I wonder about the same thing and I am leaning towards not mentioning them.

This is an interesting point and a serious issue. I wonder how they will really deal with it. What if you don't send her a short note explaining that things have changed?

Haha, and I don't believe the 720 vs 760 thing. I think there is a difference, albeit small. If nothing else they have to make sure that their average is very high year after year.

I don't believe the 720 vs 760 thing either. 720 is 95%, 760 is 99%.

If they didn't care about that percentile difference, then why do they ask recommenders to rate you in the top 50%, top 25%, top 10%, top 5%, top 2%, and top 1% on their recommendation forms?

Yeah, but since most schools have averages that are close to 720, admitting a handful of people with 720 over people with 760s will have a minimal impact on their overall GMAT averages.

The fact that 50% of the people admitted to Wharton had GMAT scores less than 720 (I think that's Wharton's average now) speaks to how important the GMAT score is relative to other factors.

Thanks to Sterny for posting this info.

RF

So, half of all Wharton admits scored between 200-720, and the other half had scores from 720-800? If anything, that more shows how important a high score is.

I don't remember what the exact GMAT range was last year, but approximately 50% scored between 650-720 and 50% scored between 720-780.

Once you get above ~700 your GMAT score plays a very small roll in whether you get in or not.

RF

Ask those 8 people who got 800s a few years back and got rejected by Stanford.

RF

Last I heard, they were mixed up in an issue about Scoretop or something.

Well, the people I'm thinking of applied back in 2003 or so. Was Scoretop even around?

Anyways, my point was, your GMAT will get you so far. A score higher than 700-720 will put you in contention at any school. After that, it's your essays, your academic/work experience and ECs that will decide whether you get in or not.

The more and more I read about various people's dings/admits, the more I think who you are as a person determines whether or not you get in. Unfortunately, your essays are the main way the adcoms will determine "who you are", along with interviews (if you're lucky).

Like people have said in the past, a great GMAT score is what keeps you from being rejected initially, but it's not what gets you in.

RF

Refurb, I completely agree. Your score gets your application a look at, but what you bring to the table can't be represented in a number.

The GMAT score is just one thing of four areas they look at. Check Stanford and Harvard's range for last year you'll see people in mid 500 range getting in. My perception is this, school's have an idea of who they want so if they like what they see (essays, above good GPA, job, great accomplishments (both in the work place and outside the work place), nothing is going to change that even a mid 500 score, they look at your progress and your achieements as well as your future potential plus your goals. There are so many successful people in the world today who are not geniuses. Look at Richard Branson he didn't finish secondary school but look at him. Schools are clearly aware of this.

I know people who have been admitted into Harvard and Stanford with high 500s and I've known people with great scores 760+ but still got dinged. At the end of the day being able to answer a couple of questions off a computer screen doesn't determine whether you'll be successful or not, it's what's on your resume and in your essays that tells the of your potential. In my opinion if you have a strong profile (for example an heir to a throne, rescued victims in a bomb blast, saved orphans, chaired charities, led multi million dollar pursuits lived in different countries and scored a mid to high 500) compared to an average kid ( with a 780 GMAT with not much of an exciting profile) to me the former has a better chance. Yes they do want high scores but if you hav a low score that doesn't mean you're out of the running. As I said before if a school likes you whether it's Stanford, HBS, Wharton, with a low score they still like you the worst they'll do is to demand you take some classes before school starts.

yea but they also don't want people failing out of their program. If you get high 500's , you must show academic aptitude elsewhere. You are applying to a graduate academic program. So you could have saved orphans in Kenya but you still need to be able to handle the course load.

agreed.

and that's where a good GPA comes in. If you have a solid GPA and are able to show the schools that you were say for example working whilst in college at the same time heavily involved in extra curricular activities and still managed to get a good grade then that shows that you will be able to cope with a rigorous program. A strong GPA plus a solid profile can open doors, it is difficult especially at the top schools with so many over qualified students but certainly not impossible.

As per my post above if a school likes you at he end of the day, they'll make an effort to accomodate you.

LOL Well... although this is interesting, I think this is taking the statistics of that class a bit too literally.

If it were me, I would take the outgoing and social person over the 'average' person. A part of being in the world of business is having social and personable characteristics. Nobody wants a bookworm, the more social and comfortable in your skin, the better in my opinion.

But I have never been on an admissions committee so what do I know

I'm not an adcom member either, but the more I read, the more I get the sense that adcoms are looking for that "certain" person.

That "certain" person doesn't have a strength in any particular area, but is strong in all areas. In other words, they'd rather take someone with a "good" GMAT score (700+) who is also has a good GPA, work experience, social skills, etc, than someone who has a really strong GMAT, but has unimpressive work experience or social skills.

The "well-rounded" individual really is what they are looking for. You don't have to be spectacular, but you have to be strong in every area.

Of course, a well rounded person with a 760 will beat a well-round person with a 700. But well-rounded people aren't that common, so they are often willing to overlook a "good" GMAT or GPA to get that well-rounded individual.

Also, I think the interview carries a lot more weight than most people think. The problem is, interpersonal relationships are completely subjective. If you're interviewer likes you, it's a big plus. If you're interviewer doesn't like you, not matter what you GMAT, GPA or work experience is, you're not getting in.

RF