PaulLanzillotti wrote:
A 700 on the GMAT allows you to clear that hurdle and be considered fairly as a competitive candidate. Much is made of the "IT Male" GMAT situation, but it is important to understand the dynamic here. It's not that the bar is higher or that the test becomes fluid in some way, but rather that the overall demographic produces relatively high test scores. This is also true of a domestic white male applying to U.S. schools. A lot of white American males and Indian males apply to business school and many have high GMAT scores. It doesn't mean you need a 770 to compete from this background, it just means that you aren't going to catch a lot of breaks either. Being part of a robust applicant demo means that you have to stand out in other ways. So there is some truth that notion, but not in the way that many people seem to think.
Now, as for your schools, I would recommend that you pick schools that are more focused on consulting. Many programs can give you the proper framework in this area, but it's a poor signaling device to outline career goals that include a career change AND long-term entrepreneurship (both tend to push against pragmatism) by focusing on short-term goals that aren't really the strength of the school. INSEAD is a strong consulting program, but LBS and Booth are known for finance. I would recommend Sloan, Haas, Kellogg, Duke, or Ross over those two programs.
Finally, be sure to tap deep into what makes you tick when composing your applications. Make sure to find something that fits a core b-school theme that also fits who you are at your core. Whenever you come from a populated demo, it's not about squeezing extra points out of the GMAT (well, not *only* about that) but rather differentiating yourself in the essays.
Hope this helps. Thanks for reaching out.
Respectfully,
Paul Lanzillotti
Thank you Paul for your reply,
Much appreciated...!
I have heard from a lot of people that one should avoid mentioning the ventures, which he/she started in undergrad days while writing essays, as Ad coms see these ventures as failed/unsuccessful ventures.
Is that correct?
Regards,
Nitish