Wow, you really picked a bone of contention on this one. Well, according to my sources, your calculations do seem to be
glaringly flawed.
According to the school's adcom manager, David Simpson, there is a HUGE discrepency in the stats that you cite.
I read archived
Accepted.com transcripts which contain responses to a multitude of questions from current students and adcoms during the 2005 application season. Here are the transcripts of that chat:
https://accepted.com/chat/transcripts/20 ... 6_lbs.aspxAs you can see,
(1) When I say MUST visit the school, I mean every student who participated in this chat (and several others) really stressed the importance of visiting the campus at some point in time during the application process. Gaining admissions without a visit seemed to be an exception rather than the rule.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the case for most top programs?
(2) LBS received approximately
1800 applications for their full time program last year (varies depending on the transcript, but I have read 2100 in another transcript) and interviewed roughly half, admitted slightly less than a quarter, and
yielded about one sixth of the overall applicants (~310)---> This figure can be confirmed on the school's website.
1800~2000, not 1467;
310, not 315. These numbers come directly from the adcom, current MBA students, and the school's homepage, not b-week, so go figure on who is correct?
1800~2000/310 is where I got that 15% figure from. I do stand corrected, it is the
yield, not the acceptance rate.
Furthermore, from what I gathered, most LBS students are proficienct in
two foreign languages other than English. Seems like a competitive program.
Wow some people here have no math skills. How in the world can you say my calculations are flawed? Let me ask you a question, do you actually know how to calculate acceptance rates?
All I did was plug in the numbers from the BW site. I tried this calculation with other schools using the BW data and the results are in line with published data.
Here's the thing: judging from your posts I have strong reasons to believe you actually have no idea what yield rates are.
Your own data even supports this.
Okay so let's say LBS total applicant number in 2006 is 1800. Fine, that seems reasonable. We'll also use the 310 as the desired class size.
You seem to believe that the acceptance rate is calculated by taking 310 and dividing by 1800, which is roughly 17%. Of course, this is completely ridiculous because that automatically assumes that the yield will be 100%. Right....
LBS yield is in fact closer to 50%. So the real acceptance rate would be:
(310/0.5)/1800, which is rougly 34%. Either way you cut it, whether using the BW data or the numbers straight out of the adcoms mouth, the admit rate is closer to 40% as I stated in my original post and NOT 15% as you seem to insist, despite your own data contradicting you.