New Kellogg Website and Class Profile

Interesting terp - is that 4 yrs at time of application or time of matriculation?

It is possible they misstated it and it is middle 80% range but as it written now it seems cut and dry.

3 years at time of matriculation.

That's what I'm wondering.

wow 26-31?! that's interesting. I wonder if they're planning on jumping on the younger-applicant trend this year or if they'll try and keep the age range around 25-31...

UPDATE: Just called. It's the 80% range. It's a typo on the new website.

What basis did you use (other than your average is 58% yield) for these numbers? I think the % yield for < 650 should be much higher. I know if I applied to Kellogg with a 620 and they let me in, I'm certain to take it. What is the chance another school equivalent to the level of Kellogg also let that person in and the person would choose the other school over Kellogg?

Also, we're using Yield average from 2004 when it was 57%. Will this have stayed relatively the same? This is the only variable that we really don't know. The breakdown of yield.

If you take Enrolled as a percentage of Applicants, you get the following:
Enrolled...calculated at posted % of 650.
<650 = 39
650 - 690 = 143
700 - 740 = 325
750-800 = 143

Applicants
<650 = 683
650 - 690 = 1381
700 - 740 = 2541
750-800 = 884

Enrolled as % of Applicants
<650 = 5.7%
650 - 690 = 10.4%
700 - 740 = 12.8%
750-800 = 16.2%

If it's a 57% yield, that means that 650 = 57% of those accepted or 1140 were accepted.

As a % of those accepted:
<650 = 3.4%
650 - 690 = 12.5%
700 - 740 = 28.5%
750-800 = 12.5%

I just took the number enrolled for each section and figured out how many would have been accepted if the yield were equal (57%) for all. I realize this is not at all accurate, but it helps give an indication as to what might be more accurate numbers.

# if Enrolled is 57% of Accepted
<650 = 68
650 - 690 = 251
700 - 740 = 570
750-800 = 251

The thing that strikes me is 68 that scored < 650. If Kellogg actually accepted 68 that scored < 650, I think they would have at least 60 enrolled. Really, it has to be a reach for those people and they know it, but they got in. I think a more realistic Yield for this group is 90%.

I think the 650 - 690 range is going to be high as well, but certainly not as high. I could see 1/3 of those being accepted to another school they really wanted to attend, or the other school that wasn't as high as Kellogg accepted them with more $$ so they opted for the less expensive after scholarships. Still others will just say "Screw scholarship, I'm going to Kellogg and will pay it back in just a few years anyway!" Yield of 85%?

700 - 740 - this group is probably going to be rather flexible because they will likley have 2 or 3 schools in the top 15 to choose from (unless they applied to just the top 6 or 7 schools only!) so i think the yield for this one would be somewhere down around 50%.

750+ is probably going to have the most flexible applicants in the entire pool for obvious reason.
50?

This totals 1148 people accepted and 650 enrolled. This would be a yield of 57%.

So what would be the acceptance rate across each section then?
Acceptance rates based on estimated yields above
<650 = 6.3%
650 - 690 = 12.2%
700 - 740 = 25.6%
750-800 = 32.4%

If you do the following:
GMAT average per section:
<650 = 625
650 - 690 = 675
700 - 740 = 725
750-800 = 765

Now multiply the average * # in each section, total all and divide by 650 = 716.8 GMAT average.

HMMMMM......

What do you all think of the numbers I chose?

This is actually not correct. When schools give number ranges, they are talking about the middle 80%; meaning 10% above and 10% below (with 80% within the range). So for a 660-760 range, we're talking 10% below 660 and 10% above 760, with 80% falling in the middle.

I didn't look closely at the number Jallenmorris chose, but I do agree that yields for varying GMAT scores would not be closely concentrated around the overall average yield. I do recall arguing in a post from long ago that yields from low and ultra-low GMAT scores will be extremely high. A very simplified version of the argument is that people with very high scores are far more likely to be admitted to several places (yes, yes, I know that GMAT is only one factor, etc.). So naturally, since these people can attend but one school, they will have to reject others - resulting in substantially lower overall yields. On the flip side, people with low or ultra-low GMAT scores are very unlikely to gain admission to more than one highly selective school - and in fact people with low scores might only apply to one highly selective school, as a long shot or something. So, those lucky ones that gain admission are highly likely to accept. I'd argue that for a school like Kellogg, yields for people admitted with sub-650 GMAT scores must be well above 90% because it's just hard to imagine that more than 10% of these folks will get into multiple highly selective schools (and all choose the other school, or 20% with 1/2 choosing Kellogg). While yields for people with 750+ GMAT scores should be in the 20-40% range, just a guess based on the idea that these folks will on average get into 2 or 3 top schools - some will get into just one or none (no yield question there) and some will get into 5 or more.

Like I said in the other post, people who get accepted with sub 650 scores are not "long shots", they are highly unique, outstanding applicants, or are from a underrepresented minority, and would probably be highly sought after by many of the top schools.

Just a note...I really believe the age range must be based off the middle 80%. I know a few people who are 25 going and a few who are definitely older than 31. I would bet a lot of schools have similar age ranges in the middle. The vast majority of people going this fall that I have met I would say are probably in the 26-29 age frame...with 27-28 being the sweetspot. Which puts you in the 5-6 years work experience.

5000+ applications for the 2Y and MMM is impressive though. With decent yield (60+%) they are looking at an admit rate in the 17-18% range for the two year MBA.

I agree with you both.

pelihu - I agree. I think the yield for those < 650 GMAT scores are going to be way up there. It's such a subjective thing though that I think each school might pick different sub-650 applicants to admit. This is hardly an objective process (How nice would it be if it were objective?). So those that have tons of EC and other things that Kellogg really likes might only apply to Kellogg as their reach school, so then if admitted, you're right - they're going to say yes to their reach school. Most people don't put in 2 or 3 reach schools. Most of them probably only apply to 2 reach school because that's gambling $500 in app fees on what most people call long shots.

terp26 - these people will certainly have to be outstanding applicants or Kellogg is not going to be interested. On the other hand, I'm not sure that I think a great number of the same applicants are going to be sought after by more than one UE school. This group is also going to self-select. They may choose 1 reach school or even 2 reach schools. They're going to pick the school(s) they think they have the best shot at and really want to attend if accepted. That self-selection supports the theory that these accepted applicants will have few, if any, other UE or E schools to choose between.

Good point, with my math we'd be talking about 120% of students.
I had it confused with 20-80 range...we're talking 10-90 range here.

Here's a question that I always seem to be asking these days:

How many of the candidates that fall into the pool of 750-800 GMAT are lopsided? As in, what % of these candidates have a GPA that falls between 2.5-3.3?

I also wonder about the same % figure for candidates that fall into the 700-750 range.

I would figure that many candidates with low GPAs would be inclined to max out their GMAT score to the 750+ level, whereas an applicant with a 3.4-4.0 GPA may not care?

Is it better to have a 710 and a 3.5 GPA (right at the median), or is it better to have a 770 GMAT and a 3.25 GPA? Are both of these applicants somewhat equal (looking at stats only of course). Of course, GPA is an indicator far in the past and measured over an extended period of time, whereas GMAT is a figure that is very recent but measured over a short period of time.

I see what you're saying. We all know a less than stellar GPA (like my 3.05) is a weakness. We do the best we can on the GMAT hoping that the adcoms will say "Yeah, weak GPA, but that was X years ago and s/he got a 760 on the GMAT.

I think there would be a few on the fringes, but most of the people that get awesome GMAT scores are going to have decent GPAs too. Over-achievers are generally over-achievers their entire life. Few become OA's by choice.

Kellogg didn't publish average GPA this year. I wonder if it was embarassingly high?

Did they do so last year? I don't recall it being on the class profile. US News always gets that info somehow, though.