cosmopolitan
I can't seem to find any advice about the strategy how the schools I plan applying to should be distributed between R1 and R2.
Initial idea: Reach schools in R1, and competitive schools in R2.
This way, if I were to be accepted at any of my reach schools, I could use the time afterwards to get ready for the move and b school rather than spending another 2 - 3 months on applications.
However, I started thinking "what if I do it the other way around?", i.e., competitive schools in R1 and reach schools in R2.
This way, should I already get accepted during R1 I would have some safety that I won't end up dinged everywhere and could therefore be more "aggressive" with my R2 applications, reducing the possibility of overthinking everything.
How are you approaching this topic?
If you've already been admitted, what's best worked for you?
I applied to my safety/match school (UCLA) in Round 1, I got in with scholarship...I DEFINITELY recommend this strategy, as even though I lost the $1500 down payment:
1) It signaled to me where I stood....if I got rejected there, or got in without scholarship, it would've changed a school I applied to in R2 (I probably would've done Ross instead of Booth).
2) Gave me confidence going into my R2 interviews.
3) Learned from my mistakes and built on my knowledge base on the R2 apps.
4) Most importantly, gave me SANITY for Three months. Business school apps are ridiculously stressful, way more stressful than I expected. It was nice to know in Mid-December that I was going to to business school. I do not envy at all the people who didn't know if they were going to business school until the end of March.
That said, if I had gotten in Kellogg R1, my life would've been easier... But if I had ended up in UCLA or Duke, my life would've been much, much more stressful during the winter. I don't think you need to apply to your weakest 3 schools in R1, but put at-least one of your weaker choices there, I def wouldn't do the hardest three.