a281983 wrote:
domotron wrote:
a281983 wrote:
This post is for future Indian Applicants who come in search of some data points to decide to apply or not...who may have to shell out 250$ = 16000/rs plus 1 month of hard work to apply to booth(or any college).....i had 710 gmat, 7.5 years of experience and a great career progression in IT --Trainee Engineer -- Software Engineer - Senior Software Engineer -- Project Lead -- Associate Manager -- Product Manager in 7 years(though i changed 5 companies, which in many ways enriched my experience) ...made a good presentation and devoted good time to application..... Got a DING without INTERVIEW...
My 2 cents ...for US top 10, get at least GMAT 750 if you are not from IIT...and if you don't have it and don't want to compromise with US top 10+, stop wasting your time and pursue MBA from Singapore(NUS/NTU)/IIM A/B or spend quality time on your job and ideas.....Good luck! ...(I observed that invites , at least in this forum, went to 750+ candidates from various backgrounds, IT being least favored -- or lets say I am still to find a Indian IT guy with less than 750 score who is not working in US and still got a invite!)
I don't come from an over represented group. BUT I cannot agree with your sentiments. I'm not saying Indian IT guys don't have a tougher time getting in because they do. Visit a class and you will see that probably <10% of the class are Indian. Compare that against the number who apply, it's very tough. But to say unless you are a graduate of IIT with a super GPA, 750+ GMAT is not true.
People think that GMAT+GPA+Great Work ex = sure fire admit. I honestly believe the admissions teams of various schools when they say the process is holistic. Yes you need the requisite numbers to play but only to be competitive. Once you are in the competitive pot, everything else comes into play. I know in quite a lot of countries, the education system is geared towards numbers and who is the best (India being one of them) but there is a reason why people with GPAs < 3.3 get in. Unfortunately just because you are #1 or top 10% or won a bunch of medals, that's not enough. I am not saying that a 780 GMAT does not stand out. Of course it does, but I don't see any school with an average GMAT of 760. In fact, I would guess that the Indian applicants probably don't average that either.
Similarly with work experience, it is not enough to have achieved a bunch of promotions and won awards at work. This does not by itself stand out. There are people who have never been promoted once or won a single award, yet get admitted. Why? They convinced the admissions team that they were exceptional even without those things. If everyone gets an award, that's no longer special. If you get promoted lots but on the same track as everyone else, you are not so special. The key is the context.
Just a final thing, I know the ding hurt. But you can only get in if you apply. Yes $250 is a ton of money when converted back into INR but if you don't apply, you will never get in. Better to have tried and failed than to have never tried at all.
Food for thought -- Everyone is special in his/her own way. Don't you think people who are eventually getting in are maybe more convincing(or good at exaggerating facts/ creative/ had extra time and spend months researching adcoms and schools rather than learning anything -- if these are required just to show your interest in school, then an investment of 1 month and 250$ are good enough!) and less talented than other rejected candidates. "Convince the adcom" and "be special" are totally generic terms and still keep you in dark. If some school has say 5 parameters, they should publish those parameters, the way they score these parameters, cutoffs and total cutoff precisely. Make the system transparent!
And yes add 250$*6(for 5 schools and GMAT) - that money is annual savings for decent engineers in India. The whole process of "convincing" for say 5 schools takes 3-4 months. If you take the same money and same time, one can probably launch 2 startups here in Bangalore and pitch for VC funding in competitions rather than throwing darts in the dark. HBS was correct with just one essay, the thing is they took so many years to realize this. If I had it my way, I would have a open business case challenge rather than writing poetic verses on self appraisal.
Point remains - 750+ GMAT for Indian IT guys for US top 10. That's the first step. Convincing and essay writing, equally important, come next.
This is a never-ending argument, but I'll play devil's advocate for a minute. Why? Because Friday nights during application season are for endless trolling of forums, rather than doing anything fun.
The original poster said that Indian guys need 750+ GMAT scores to have a shot at the Top 10 US schools, if they're not from IIT (the best Indian engineering schools, to those who don't know what that is). True statement? While I'm not sure the bar is set quite
that high, I'm inclined to say that the broader point is fair. This is one of the most competitive demographics out there, so it stands to reason that every admissions metric will be inflated simply due to competition.
Does that mean that someone who doesn't have these stats stands no chance? No, because if there's one thing schools love even more than stats, its uniqueness and/or impact. If you can bring something different to the table, you have a shot, perhaps even a better one that the conventional dudes with the stats. But the reality is that the majority of applicants have done pretty conventional things, so they have no choice but to swim with the sharks.
Given these stats, should Indian applicants try to be realistic in assessing their chances and deciding where they should apply? Yes. Should they be wise in spending $250 per application? Sure, but that's an entirely personal decision. In context, $250 is peanuts compared to the $150-200K they'll have to pony up for the degree. I agree with Domotron on this one - nobody is downplaying the monetary commitment required to apply, but if you don't buy the ticket, you won't win the lottery.
Finally, I have to take exception with the original poster's subsequent comments about the people who do beat these odds. Yes, these people may be skilled at positioning/marketing themselves (and there's nothing wrong with that... marketing is a life skill, like any other), but that's NOT the whole story. The biggest reason this demographic is so competitive is because there are a lot of really smart, accomplished people applying to the top schools. Going to a top undergrad program, working for a top company, doing well there, getting a stellar GMAT score, writing convincing essays... all of these are indicators. And at the end of the day, this is all the Adcom has to go by - it's not like they know you - so it makes little sense for a rational Adcom member to disregard them in favour of some other amorphous, equally debatable measure of an applicant's worth. Are there better metrics they could use, like the one you suggested? Maybe. I don't know what they would be, but sure. For now, this is how the game is played.
That's just my opinion, and it comes from someone who's in pretty much the same boat as you are. A little perspective goes a long way... keep your chin up and keep trying, something will work out eventually.
06 Nov 2013, 11:49
close
