LBS anyone?

I just looked at your revised post again and I just realized that your logic now is even more flawed. Your 70% yield is NOT based off the BW 2001 data, it is simply a happy coincidence of the numbers and assumptions you use. But then again, why would you even want to use 2001 data, when you have more recent data, such as 2002 and 2003? I also find it weird that you would say something like this "But that is contingent on a ~25% acceptance rate". It's obvious from this statement and your calculations that you had some preconceived notion of what the admit rate SHOULD be for a high calibur school like LBS, and then just cherry-pick numbers that fit your idea (in this case using the 2001 yield, when there is more recent data) . This is very poor scientific thinking. To be honest, I was surprised when I calculated LBS admit rate to be as high as 40%, but I checked my numbers again and I can't see any glaring errors. The numbers are what they are, and I'm not going to adjust my calculations just because I think LBS should have a certain admit rate suitable for a school of its status.

Also we seem to differ in how we use BW. I trust their numbers, but not their rankings. in fact, I think BW international rankings are a joke. Do you know what BW chose as the number one international school? It's Queens. This is so funny I am almost dying of laughter. You want to know why? Well, check out the BW own data for Queens here:
https://www.businessweek.com/bschools/05 ... queens.htm
Note this table in the url
Selectivity/Yield - Historical Chart
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001
Selectivity 90% 47% 45% 33% 49%
Yield 38% 35% 54% 80% 73%
Note the precipitaous drop in yield, and the 90% admit rate in 2005. This is a sure sign that the Queens MBA brandname is heading down the gutter. Yet, it's ranked number one international by BW. Go figure. Like I've already stated have less faith in rankings and other nonsense and use your own judgement.