fresinha12 wrote:
so from what i see, if you are a female, below the age of 25 and have an avg gmat score, you are more likely to get into an Ultra-Elite than a White Caucasian male over the age of 29 with a very high gmat score...and no wonder our economy is totally F--ed up..cause all these 25 years old who have no clue on how to run companies..get to hbs and become my boss..
Yes, females seems to have advantage. But I wouldn't say that the admission systems is biased against males. Schools try to keep their m to f ratio somewhere between 3:1 and 2:1. So far, m to f ratio among applicants was in general higher than 3:1. But situation is slowly changing. In some schools females already don't have an advantage (see my post about Kellogg). And I can see the situation when the increased desire of females to apply will in fact put them in a less favourable position. I see Balki1867 has already commented on that.
As for H&S trend to prefer younger applicants - I guess this is what market demands. "Take them young, shape them as you need, use them as you want". This 2+2 program seems to be completely within this philosophy. Don't want to start a discussion here, but such a policy makes me wonder sometimes. I know, Harvard is all about leadership, but it seems they mainly aim at nurturing people who will most likely be at the top positions within the existed system, and not real innovators. This is just IMHO, of course.
Virflo wrote:
I'm just a bit depressed to find out I'll be as good as dead within less than a year....
Don't worry Virflo! I'm already dead and still posting here, as you see!
Also, European schools still tend to value mature applicants. Average age in Oxford is 29, in Cambridge 30 (I believe), in Cranfield even higher. IMD is also oldie-friendly. INSEAD seems to admit a decent number of 28+ as well. LBS trends younger, though.