1st round vs 2nd round

Thanks guys!

What would count as an over-represented demographic?

In my case I am a 29 yr old caucasian male from Canada.

Hi Hhh,

This is not very rare for the UK schools - but not too common either (the most overrepresented group seems to be Indian/Male/IT or Engineering/Gmat around 700-720). If time is an issue, then perhaps you could apply to LBS in R1, as Bsd-lover advises, and to Oxford/Cambridge later (unless they are your dream schools, in which case do apply there as early as you can).

Btw, which schools are you targeting?

I am thinking of concentrating on Oxford/Cambridge.
I will apply to LBS as well, but I think that my chance of getting in there would be slim at best.
Any advice on the applications?

Well, the admission process is full of unexpected surprises, both pleasant and not. So, perhaps, your chances at LBS are better than you think.

Also note that this year, it was not easier (and I'd say, even harder) to get into Cambridge than into LBS. It depends on the specifics of your profile, though.

For Oxbridge, the application details have not been posted, and will be available late in the summer at best. However, Oxford essay questions have remained unchanged during several last years - so you might want to start to work on them now. Essay No 2 is everyone's favourite

Good luck! If you have some specific Oxbridge-related questions, let me know, I will be glad to help.

well not bad.. being an Indian/male/ 700 Gmat score but not IT background.. i really appreciate greenoaks knowledge of overrepresented demographics...

i should have met you before i started preparing for my MBA... prob i could have got more inputs that would have been relevant at that point in time...

what say greenoak?

Sorry to keep bugging you guys with questions.

I was just wondering if current salary plays a part in the admission decision.

I have been fortunate enough to have a job with quite high total compensation and was wondering if this would be a drawback as it would likely lead to a lower salary increase upon graduation (which the schools seem keen to promote).

The plus would be income would be similar upon graduation with a slight increase.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

Hey guys,

I just wondering how much more of an advantage do you give yourself if you score say in the 98th-99th percentile on the GMAT as opposed to a 700-720 applicant for a UK MBA? Also I noticed that Oxford's MBA has a much lower GMAT avg than its Masters in Financial Economics, any thoughts?

Thanks

Hi NorthQuebec,

To answer your first question – re-taking from 710-720 makes sense only if you’re from very common demographic and don’t know how to distinguish your profile otherwise. But overall, there’s not much difference, at least, for Oxbridge schools (if you hope for a merit-based scholarship, though, 750+ may help). Don't know how much scoring in 98-99 percentile matters for LBS.

Regarding MFE and MBA GMAT averages - MFE programme is way smaller and also is targeted at younger applicants, so the weight the adcom puts on the academic potential – GMAT, GPA – becomes much stronger, which leads to higher GMAT average. Also, Oxford has higher formal requirements for GMAT score for the MFE programme:
They give slightly lower verbal figure - 70th-80th - at their Facebook page.

Hope this helped!

Thanks for the information. In relation to what you said about how the MFE program is directed at younger applicants ... I am guessing admissions will be most likely concerned with GMAT and GPA then? As opposed to say W/E?

Yes, I think it's true: having good academic stats becomes top priority. WE is not even necessary: only about one-third of the class have some WE, according to the info on the SBS site. No surprise - mean age of the admits is 23. And I saw some profiles on the Intranet as well - the majority of MFE admits indeed seem to be very young.

Thanks all for starting this thread. I have the same question because I am mostly targeting UK/EU schools.

Greenoak - just want ot ask - when you say round 1 candidates are normally better prepared - do they generally have higher GMAT? And better profile, etc.?

I was shooting for round 1 too but started a little later in prep than most others in this forum, it seems - had a lot of decisions to make about work, etc. before I came to this conclusion. I work 60hr+ week minimum and have been studying GMAT for past 4month (with this past 3 weeks off work - studying more intensively) but only 650-60 average on the GMATprep (fresh-no repeats) I'm taking the real thing in 4 days and just thinking if I get under 680-700 should I wait and try to retake the GMAT and shoot for round 2 for schools like LBS/Oxbridge/Insead? My initial thought is I would apply if I hit 680 and retake if below that as I won't be able to take more time off work to study for a while and it would only be an hour a day week day & weeknds and would mean min 1-2 months to edge score up. I think I have what it takes - was always good at math/english through school but math is rusty (hence quant suffers more than verbal - latest break down was Q42, V39) since it's been 10yrs out of high school! I know that it's slightly below average but I was hoping to make a difference with strong app.

Demographics: Thai (&British:dual-national), Female, W/E 6years, worked in London (4yrs), New York City(1yr) and Bangkok. Graphic design undergrad. Designer-turned marketer (past 4 years in marketing). GPA ~ 3.5 (or upper second class UK) 2 big international well-known firms out of 4 companies worked.

Sorry for the long post. Would appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks!

Hi Salisaa,

It is not a strict law that first round applicants are stronger, just a pattern – and, besides, it’s true not for all schools. Some people start to prepare their apps really early, and they indeed tend to be better prepared: not because their profiles are much stronger, but because they put a lot of effort in the school research and their apps - the fact that they started to prepare way in advance speaks for itself. They also tend to apply to their ‘dream schools’ first. R2 brings larger wave of the applicants: some are those who postponed their R1 apps because of various reasons (say, GMAT weren’t good enough), some are those rejected from their ‘dream schools’, some just didn’t finalise their plans in time etc. If we compare just raw stats (GMAT, GPA etc), I don’t think that those in R1 would be better.

I’d say you have an interesting profile – you will probably have very realistic chances at both Cambridge and Oxford even with 650-680 GMAT, because these schools seem to like not very typical applicants. For INSEAD and LBS, 680+ may become more necessary. IMD is the most selective of them all, and to be successful there, you might need not only 680+ GMAT, but also a really quality work experience (in terms of responsibility, leadership, skills etc.) I can’t give a more detailed answer without knowing the specifics of your career path and post-MBA goals – sorry for that.

Wish you best of luck with your GMAT – and feel free to PM me if you have some more questions!

greenoak thank you for being so informative thus far. Sorry to continue to batter you with questions, I was just exploring the oxbridge websites and it seems Cambridge was much more straight to the point.

For example for their Mphil Finance program they stated that if you have one or more years of work experience "you are unlikely to be successful". I know both the MFE, the Master of Fin, the Mphils from both schools must be extremely competitive to gain admission for, but it seems like Cambridge really tells it up front (almost to the point where it seems like they are saying, if you don't meet these standards, don't even bother trying), while Oxford seems more benevolent. But is that Oxford just not showing its true colors?!

Hi NorthQuebec,

More questions is not a problem

The explanation to the fact you mentioned is certainly not that Oxford is less straight to the point - but rather that Cambridge has two master programmes for finance: MPhil in Finance, for fresh graduates with no experience, and Masters in Finance, for more experienced people (and for the latter course, WE of 2+ is indeed a norm; check the class profile). You might want to explore the JBS site and research the further differences between these two programmes. At Oxford, MFE course can admit both experienced and non-experienced students.

Thanks so much for the info Greenoak. A little more encouraging that good schools will still look at you even between 650-680. I'll keep my focus on the upcoming GMAT now and see how it goes. Fingers crossed! Thanks for the well wishes. Will probably have some more questions for you post that. Thanks again! Much appreciated

Yeah I understand the difference between a Mphil vs. a master of finance, Oxford seemed much nicer than Cambridge

Do you know how competitive (acceptance %) is for the MFE program at Oxford?

I like this way of thinking!

Regarding acceptance percentage for MFE - according to the info given by SBS adcom, appr. 50% of the candidates are invited to the interview, and of those, 30%-40% get offers. It corresponds to the acceptance percentage of 15%-20%; so, as you can see, MFE programme at Oxford is more selective than their MBA: this year, acceptance % for the MBA was somewhere around 25%-30% (maybe even higher) - again, this estimation is based on the info from the adcom.