Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Get the inside scoop on what makes Emory’s Goizueta Business School great and how you can present a strong MBA application. Explore the difference between our One-Year MBA and Two-Year MBA programs, talk to our admissions team, and meet students.
May 1310:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
Applying to business school this year? Don’t miss Personal MBA Coach’s Top MBA Application Tips guide
May 1505:00 PM PDT
-06:00 PM PDT
Inquire for a free profile evaluation and guarantee statement for possible admits and scholarships!
06 Jun 2007, 10:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
Out of the top 7 or so Ultra Elites, which is the least selective? Understanding that least selective may mean the difference between 12% and 14% which is still super selective.
06 Jun 2007, 10:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
It's difficult to say based on acceptance statistics because there is a "self-selection" that takes place at some schools. For instance, a lot of people think of MIT as a boring, quant-based program, so people who do end up applying might actually be people who are looking for a rigorous program to challenge them, i.e. stronger candidates. This is just conjecture though.
Based off of admittance numbers, I think Chicago may have the highest percentage of accepted applicants, although similar to MIT, I would guess there is a self-selection process that causes stronger candidates to apply there in the first place.
Harvard and Stanford appear very selective from their stats, but again if you think about the people who apply to these schools, you have plenty of strong candidates as you would at Chicago and MIT, but then you also have weaker candidates like me who say, "What the hel, let's swing for the fences and throw an application in to Harvard and see what happens!" So people like me are probably inflating the perceived selectivity of some ultra-elites (and I mean "inflating" in the sense that "rational players" wouldn't just "swing for the fences," they'd pick a realistic reach school).
Harvard and Kellogg are also thought of as more "fun" schools to attend. So this probably attracts more candidates (weak and strong) across the board.
So let's say you're a candidate whose "strength" or "quality" is "X," you're probably going to be going up against a PROPORTIONATELY higher number of candidates that are greater than X if you apply to MIT or Chicago, than if you apply to Harvard or Kellogg.
At the end of the day, if you're set on going to an ultra-elite, I'd say your best chances are Columbia or Chicago if you have a strong quant background and Kellogg if your profile is stronger based on interesting life/work experiences.
Based off of admittance numbers, I think Chicago may have the highest percentage of accepted applicants, although similar to MIT, I would guess there is a self-selection process that causes stronger candidates to apply there in the first place.
Harvard and Stanford appear very selective from their stats, but again if you think about the people who apply to these schools, you have plenty of strong candidates as you would at Chicago and MIT, but then you also have weaker candidates like me who say, "What the hel, let's swing for the fences and throw an application in to Harvard and see what happens!" So people like me are probably inflating the perceived selectivity of some ultra-elites (and I mean "inflating" in the sense that "rational players" wouldn't just "swing for the fences," they'd pick a realistic reach school).
Harvard and Kellogg are also thought of as more "fun" schools to attend. So this probably attracts more candidates (weak and strong) across the board.
So let's say you're a candidate whose "strength" or "quality" is "X," you're probably going to be going up against a PROPORTIONATELY higher number of candidates that are greater than X if you apply to MIT or Chicago, than if you apply to Harvard or Kellogg.
At the end of the day, if you're set on going to an ultra-elite, I'd say your best chances are Columbia or Chicago if you have a strong quant background and Kellogg if your profile is stronger based on interesting life/work experiences.
06 Jun 2007, 11:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
I have to jump in and dispel a bit about the Chicago myth. I know people like to say that Chicago is the least selective, but based on everything I've been hearing from the adcoms, that isn't the case - or, at the very least, it certainly wasn't the case this year. Based on the few numbers they've disclosed over conversation, its clear that Chicago's admit percentage is right in line with Kellogg and other similar schools (but not as low as Harvard or Stanford). I don't feel comfortable being more specific than that, but just be forewarned -- Chicago is not the "easy" one to get into.
Similarly, forget the quant thing. So many of the kids I've met are not quant jocks - a few are sure - but the MAJORITY (not the minority) are not. I know of only two people who are planning on analytical finance as a concentration.Kellogg has always had a market perception of being the "easier" school while Chicago has had the perception of "raw intelligence" -- but even that, I think is overplayed. All my friends at Kellogg tell me its impossible not to get a B, and while my friends at Chicago tell me C's are possible, they also say its quite manageable. So I think there might be a bit of truth there, but I dont think its this massively different program as you might otherwise believe.
Suffice to say, I wouldn't oversimplify and try to find the "easiest" ultra-elite to get into..... I think you'll set yourself up for failure if you do.
Similarly, forget the quant thing. So many of the kids I've met are not quant jocks - a few are sure - but the MAJORITY (not the minority) are not. I know of only two people who are planning on analytical finance as a concentration.Kellogg has always had a market perception of being the "easier" school while Chicago has had the perception of "raw intelligence" -- but even that, I think is overplayed. All my friends at Kellogg tell me its impossible not to get a B, and while my friends at Chicago tell me C's are possible, they also say its quite manageable. So I think there might be a bit of truth there, but I dont think its this massively different program as you might otherwise believe.
Suffice to say, I wouldn't oversimplify and try to find the "easiest" ultra-elite to get into..... I think you'll set yourself up for failure if you do.
