Least Selective Ultra Elite?

Business Week and Hjort's list only clusters US based schools. Most experts, including yourself, would agree that perenially LBS is ranked as an ultra elite school worldwide. Most LBS grads are given virtually the same career opportunities as most grads from the other four ultra elite, barring H/S/W (which arguably belong to an entirely different classification.)

I think that's about right. In an international setting, LBS is similar to the "other" ultra-elites. In the US, LBS seems to be more on par with elites. Small difference in either case, and it's probably a matter of perception that can differ depending on location, line of work and perhaps even company or department.

Hi,
That seems a very clever way of re-examing the OP's question to find an effective answer. If one is considering a "reach" and LBS provides all the intangible benefits (plus a likely advantage in international exposure) it would seem a great risk/reward choice for an application based primarily on the statistical possibility of success. However it seems safe to guess that, even given a lower selectivity, an admit would be a long chance if you are not already a strong candidate for that U/Elite cluster. I think a interesting test would be to compare the profile of the admitted class of a US school with that of LBS.

Columbia:
Full-time MBA students - 1242
International: 42
Middle 80% range GMAT score From: 660 to: 760 (no median published)
Mean months of postgraduate work experience: 60
Number of applications (admitted and denied) to the newest class of full-time MBA entrants: 5372
Percent of all applicants accepted to the class of newest full-time entrants: 17
Percent of the admitted applicants to the class of newest full-time entrants who enrolled: 79



LBS
Full-time MBA students: 635
International: 88%
Median GMAT score: 680
Middle 80% range GMAT score, From: 620 to: 740
Mean months of postgraduate work experience: 68
Number of applications (admitted and denied) to the newest class of full-time MBA entrants: 1807
Yield and selectivity not published

MIT
Full-time MBA students: 752
International: 30%
Median GMAT score: 710
Middle 80% range GMAT score From: 640 to: 760
Mean months of postgraduate work experience: 57
Number of applications (admitted and denied) to the newest class of full-time MBA entrants: 2944
Percent of all applicants accepted to the class of newest full-time entrants: 20
Percent of the admitted applicants to the class of newest full-time entrants who enrolled: 62

Obviously the # of apps v. the number of seats seems in your favor at LBS, but what does that actually mean for your application's chances. LBS' admitted class has greater work ex than either and the disparity in GMAT range can, at least in part, be explained by the vastly higher international population (many must be ESL, a clear GMAT handicap). While this does not provide sufficient evidence to draw far reaching conclusions, it also doesn't suggest that the applicant pool is less talented at LBS. What the numbers give no indication of is what is the quality of the population of applicants outside of the group admitted. Perhaps LBS, in addition to being smaller in gross #'s, just gets fewer unrealistic applications.

Hey! I'm no expert! I apologize if I conveyed that idea.

I agree that outside the US, the 3 top European schools are actually considered within the same cluster as Ultra-Elites. Here's a link that necromonger shared some time ago, that backs up this classification.

https://www.mbagcf.com/

On the other hand, IN the US, I'd say that top European schools would probably be on a par with Elites, rather than with Ultra-Elites.

L.

I would certainly agree that LBS is in the top cluster of European schools (I even came up with the clever name Top Cluster Europe for this group of schools, but, alas, it has never quite caught on like Ultra Elite and Near Elite). Whether LBS is in the top cluster of schools worldwide is a question I have never really looked at very closely, in part because it is hard to really say how a school will be perceived throughout the entire world (this is hard enough to do with in a reasonably serious manner for just one country or continent).

I'm not sure that LBS is quite as high as some regard it (and that is from a London perspective). Highly regarded, it is probably in Elite in Hjort's ranking - like many, making the area between Elite and Ultra quite blurred.

This has turned out to be quite an interesting response. Thanks for the input. Please provide feedbackon the following plan:

GMAT Target: 730
GPA Undergrad From **** State School: 3.7
Major: Accountancy
W/E at time of planned Application: 3 years
W/E: Tax at Big 4 Accounting Firm
Grad School: Masters in Bus. Tax from USC

Proposed Differentiating Characteristics:

1) I'm currently writing a book (content is a secret) related to bus. field.
2) Starting a not-for profit org.

Target Schools:

1) Stanford
2) Columbia
3) Harvard
4) NYU
5) Wharton

Please provide feed back on whether or not this proposed profile is appropriate for the schools listed, or add any schools I missed that would be inclined to like me.

I think you have a realistic shot at most of those schools provided:

1. You have a compelling reason for needing an MBA -- crystal clear career goals. Ideally something that will leverage the significant experience you have in tax/accounting

2. Your differentiating factors are well packaged.

By the second item, I mean that your non-profit organization should be up and running at least a year before you submit applications. You don't want to look like you started a non-profit just in time for applications. And the book you're working on should be at some "stage" beyond just "working on it." For instance if you have completed the book and submitted it to some publishing company, then you could get away with saying something like, "I'm in discussions with XYZ Publishing Inc. around a book I wrote on corporate ethics."

The thing w/ ultra-elites like Harvard and Stanford is that they really care about these sorts of differentiating things, and they handle applications where people have very solid, tangible evidence of their extra-curriculars (people with Olympic medals, articles published in the Wall Street Journal) so if you have vague things that you're "working on" then they won't take you seriously.

I think overall you're in good position because all of your key stats are good or great (gpa, gmat, brand name work experience) so there's nothing there that will keep you out. With good essays and really pushing those extra-curriculars the sky is the limit.

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback! I'm actually writing the book currently and plan on completeling it in early 2008. As to its success, I have no clue how it will do.

THe non-for profit is also in the works and hope to get that up and running within the next several months. I don't know what else more to do to appeal to the adcoms at these schools, but hope its enough.

My career goals will depend on the school i think. For harvard and stanford I think it will be to lead a start-up company or something like that (since they value leadership so much) and as for the rest, a career in banking (trying to get the tax perspective on deals before applying to bschool)

You sound like a great candidate, and I agree with johnny on his general assessment. the only thing I would throw in -- this process has so much volatility in it. If you would only go those UE schools, then that's one thing. But if you know you REALLY want to go, you might throw in a school from the elite group.

justincase49, I do not want to sound like an @$$hole but with the profile like this:
730 GMAT
3.9 GPA from top Russian university
7 years w.e. in Supply Chain Management incl. 1 y. Intl. experience
I was not able to get in either of the four schools I applied to this year: Chicago, Wharton, Kellogg, Tuck. OK, technically I am still on the WL @ Wharton, but the chances of getting off it are almost non-existent.
As for the essays... well, Rhyme read them and said they were good.

My point is, an excellent profile is not enough by far to secure a place in a UE.

Aaudetat and Hel both make a good point about the volatility of the process. Sometimes, for no apparent reason, great candidates don't get into their target schools. In Helg's case, maybe his/her target schools had already admitted candidates with very similar demographic profiles.

Like I said, your ket stats all look really good, but it's the more subjective areas where a lot of the volatility is introducted. For instance interviews are a tough area to know how "good" you are. I think 90% of people think of themselves as "great interviews." We all think, "My friends think I'm great, everybody else must love me too," but in reality it's hard to know how you come across to interviewers.

So because of the volatility involved in the process, I would agree that it's worth including a couple safety schools (unless you're set on only going to an ultra-elite).

It's "his target schools". If it were "her target schools" the results might have been different

helg !!!!

You're making me paranoid !

I have far less merit profile and yet hoping to get into W/H/S

Impossible is nothing!

So if Wharton doesn't come through for you, are you applying again this coming year?

Sure