Last visit was: 24 Apr 2026, 18:34 It is currently 24 Apr 2026, 18:34
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
avatar
Cubsfan87
avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Last visit: 07 Jul 2016
Posts: 99
Own Kudos:
17
 [2]
Given Kudos: 16
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 99
Kudos: 17
 [2]
Importance of GMAT 17 May 2014, 14:54
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey, I saw this comment in the Kellogg thread, but didn't see much conversation on it. What do you guys think the data shows? Does a high GMAT mean your chances are this much better?

mgg234
Had some free time, so I put together the acceptance rate by GMAT of GMATClub members:

Assumptions: Matriculating or Admitted status = Accepted, everything else = Not accepted
Range: 600-770 GMAT, not blank, all other data excluded
Axis: I'm using openoffice, and I generally use excel, so this isn't as pretty as I'd like. But left hand side is % accepted, not total number of accepted.




Conclusions:
1) 700 seems to be a major psychological thresholds for adcoms. Only 3/49 (6%) of people with below 700 got in. Unless you're a URM or have an amazing score, 700 seems to be the minimum score where its worth applying.
2) 700-730 seems to be treated around the same. 740-760 range there seems to be "GMAT bump" where your chance of getting in almost doubles.

Random Thoughts:
1) I think the 770 drop is just noise, I'd ignore it.
2) Remember the sample size for each GMAT range is going to be low, especially at the upper and lower ranges, look at the trend, not specific scores.
3) 14% of people with Blank GMAT got in. I think there's a bias in which people with lower GMAT scores don't input it on this site, perhaps for social reasons.
4) Not in the data above, but something I found really interesting is that out of the 44 people from India who inputted input their country on this site, ZERO got in. Obviously some indians got in, but acceptance rate still must be extremely low.
5) 20% of Americans got in, 20% of blank countries, and 21% of Non-Indian internationals got in.
Show more
User avatar
mgg234
User avatar
Joined: 20 May 2013
Last visit: 07 Jul 2025
Posts: 603
Own Kudos:
318
 [2]
Given Kudos: 55
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: CBS '16 (D) Anderson '16 (A$) Duke '16 (A) Kellogg '16 (M) Booth '16 (WD)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: CBS '16 (D) Anderson '16 (A$) Duke '16 (A) Kellogg '16 (M) Booth '16 (WD)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V44
Posts: 603
Kudos: 318
 [2]
Importance of GMAT 18 May 2014, 09:17
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Cubsfan,

I'm hoping for GMATClub to do a more indepth analysis on its own data in the upcoming months (I don't have the bandwidth to do it myself). Businessweek, for quite a few schools, does gmat versus acceptence rates (unfortunately, a lot of the top 10 schools are missing).

But in general, GMAT matters a lot, although it does vary by school. Among the top 15, Cornell and Duke are the two that DON'T show a high correlation between GMAT and acceptance. UCLA, Yale and Stern on the otherhand shows an extremely high correlation between GMAT and GPA. Wharton and Booth show a high correlation between GMAT and acceptance too, but those have a bit of selection bias in who applies going on.

Heres 2 examples: go to more information, and entrance exams -

Duke:
https://www.businessweek.com/bschools/ra ... fuqua.html

UCLA:
https://www.businessweek.com/bschools/ra ... /ucla.html

You can see the big difference between the two. At UCLA, the acceptance rate effectively doubles from ~700 to ~750. Personally, I think the difference is even bigger than this for two reasons: A lot of the low GMAT acceptances are URM's. A lot of the high GMAT rejections are indian applications (which have a MUCH lower acceptance rate, and MUCH higher average GMAT at top schools). I'm hoping for a better analysis to come out, but if you're a white/asian American male, I think it's going to come out your chance of acceptance effectively triples from low 700's to mid 700's at many top schools.

You always need great work experience, and usually good undergrad performance, to get into a top school. But, if you're a competitive applicant bringing your score from 700/710 to 740/750 can DRASTICALLY increase your chance of acceptance. When I see consultants/people on forums say that once you break 700, you shouldn't take the GMAT again, they are completely missing whats happening in admissions. Admissions at most of these schools aren't nearly as "holistic" as they are made out to be. They are chasing rankings, and GMAT is important to rankings.

I really wish I had known which schools over and under weighted GMAT when applying. I wouldn't have applied to Duke if I had known - Duke ended up giving me a smaller scholarship than Kellogg, even though Kellogg is ranked better by quite a few spots. In general, schools with a below average GMAT for their rank under weight GMAT, and schools that have above average GMAT for their rank over weight GMAT. I made this mistake of thinking schools with lower GMAT's are "easier" to get into (relative to their rank), when it really just means they care less than other schools about GMAT.

P.S. Some schools actually break applications up, as their first step, by GMAT score, and put 730/740+ in separate piles (and below 700's in a separate pile).