I like this post because it is a great example of how ANYONE can flip statistics to look good in their favor. I read a book once called "How to Lie With Statistics" and it really shows how these types of articles really make no valid points.
What I'm trying to say is that her population that she's looking at is not representative. If these low GMATers she's looking at got into Ross with a low GMAT they were probably already successful in other areas (leadership, overall success potential, strong GPA). GMAT is just one rating of success, but why is she even correlating it to anything else other than 1st year Bschool success? This is not what it's meant for... This is what GMAC says the GMAT can be used for:
Quote:
• The GMAT® exam is a reliable and valid measure of verbal and quantitative skills found to be important in the graduate business study. In repeated research studies, GMAT scores have been found to be an accurate predictor of academic success in the first year of an MBA or other graduate management program.
So in admissions the GMAT is just one aspect that is looked it. Of course people with low GMATs will often be the most successful, because the school saw that they were successful in other areas of there application. Of course this test doesn't correlate to leadership, success in school, and other areas. It's not what it was meant for, and its not one GMAC wants it to be meant for. This article is just a way to show that the GMAT isn't everything, but we already knew that.
Generally a high GMAT score is going to help an Adcom decide if this person will be successful, but if other areas of your application trump this, of course you'll get in!