Need to go from 720 to 760

[krk.mohan]

Hello,

I got dinged last year and the feedback from one of the schools was that my GMAT was low. I scored 720 (V50, Q38). I have been advised that anything in above 740 would be competitive in my applicant pool. I have take the 6 MGMATs last year and my scored varied from 690 to 760.

Any suggestions how to go from 720 to my target of 760?

Thanks!

- Mohan

[StaceyKoprince]

I admit that I'm very surprised a school would tell you that. 740 is 20 points off of your 720, and the standard deviation of this test is almost 30 points. An admissions person who thinks that there is a statistically significant difference between a 720 and a 740 is an admissions person who doesn't understand how this test works. I find that especially surprising given that we're obviously talking about a top school (or the scores wouldn't be so high!).

If I were you, I might also try talking to an admissions consultant and possibly figure out how to push the school for a bit more feedback. I would bet that there's more to it than simply a 20-point difference in the score.

Anyway, I just wrote an article recently about the difference between a 700 score and a 760 score. Here's the link:

http://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/04/ ... -760-score

Go read that and chew on it for a while. Come back to ask questions or discuss the ideas further. Use the "How to Analyze a Practice Problem" article (linked in the above article) to analyze problems. Then you can post a problem with your analysis here and ask for experts' comments in order to learn better HOW to do what the 760 article describes!

[tomslawsky]

Stacey, why would this surprise you. To the OP: I can I assume you're both white and male? If so, there is your answer. If so, a 740 sounds right, especially since your quant wasn't spectacular.

[StaceyKoprince]

It surprises me because there is no substantial difference between scoring a 740 and a 720. There are much better ways to decide whether to admit somebody.

[krk.mohan]

Hi Stacey,

Thanks a lot for your reply. Just to put things into perspective I come from a very competitive applicant pool and the school I mentioned is a top ranked B-School from India and guess that's the reason why a 720 is different from 740, however bizzare it may sound. I have infact probed the school twice and this was mentioned as a primary reason both times. I have read through your posts on improving beyond 700+ scores and would surely put those ideas into work.

Thank you!

[tomslawsky]

Stacey- while, in theory, you're right, being white or even worse, Asian AND male applicant to a top 20 school, the fact is that a 720 is fairly lackluster. For an unrepresented minority female, a 670 is MORE than sufficient. Without exerting a stricter standard on the higher scoring sub groups, it is mathematically impossible for a top school to maintain an overall GMAT average of 700+. That's just the way it is. Affirmative action has consequences in BOTH directions. But, I suspect that you already know this, but must tow the PC line as a board moderator? This isn't just my opinion, it's how the system works.

[tomslawsky]

Hi Stacey,

Thanks a lot for your reply. Just to put things into perspective I come from a very competitive applicant pool and the school I mentioned is a top ranked B-School from India and guess that's the reason why a 720 is different from 740, however bizzare it may sound. I have infact probed the school twice and this was mentioned as a primary reason both times. I have read through your posts on improving beyond 700+ scores and would surely put those ideas into work.

Thank you!

Proof....

[StaceyKoprince]

Yes, of course there's a distinction between the way things do work and the way things should work. :)

The student is discussing very high scores, so we're obviously talking about a top school. I assumed we were talking about a top US school; bad assumption on my part (guess I need to work on my CR skills).

I've spoken with or heard from enough admissions folks at the top US schools to know that they do know there's no statistical difference between a 720 and a 740. I've also spoken with enough admissions folks in general (and not just for b-school) to know that a test score is a very easy reason to give for rejecting a candidate, when the truth is that the candidate wouldn't have had much more of a chance even with the higher score.

I have, in fact, had students who retook the test and got the asked-for higher score, applied again, and got rejected again. (Again, talking US schools here.) For me, the moral of that story is: if they really want you (for reasons that don't have to do with GMAT scores), they aren't going to reject you for a 720 instead of a 740. And if they don't see anything elsewhere on the app to make them really want you, then an extra 20 points isn't going to make a huge difference.

But I don't know much about how things work in India. From what I've read on the forums, it seems that Indian b-schools may have a procedure that is closer to that of law schools in the US. They want a particular number first (in law schools, it's a combo of GPA and LSAT). If you don't hit that number, sorry. I wish that weren't the case; I don't like that US law schools do that and it bugs me to think that some b-schools are doing that, too. Standardized tests, including the GMAT, just are not valid enough indicators to be used in that way! (Mostly, they just tell you how good you are at taking that test...)

And, tom, yes, we do have to toe the line on some stuff, but mostly we can say what we really think. :)

[tomslawsky]

Anecdote time-
Once upon a time, there was a bright white, non URM who with great academics and a pretty solid career background. We'll call him "tom-es" Tom-es studied his butt off and took the GMAT, scored a 720, which was 97th %tile at the time (paper test). He then applied to a top 20-ish school. After getting rejected, and asking for feedback, Tom-es was told by a very candid admissions officer that in my ahem/tom-es' demographic, a 740 was the standard. He was also told that no one will ever admit this officially, but it is an affirmative action thing, and is no different at any of the top 25 programs.

I'm sorry, Stacey, but you're wrong on this one (just my humble and often wrong opinion :). Yes, this is just my opinion, but to think that there isn't a real affect from affirmative action that discriminates against certain segments of the population is to not see what is really happening. For every person a school admits with a GMAT under the median score, they MUST be forced to admit someone at the EXACT magnitude OVER the median to maintain the target median. If the median is a 710 and someone is admitted with a 660, then someone else must be admitted with a 740. A 710 just won't cut it. The mathematical proof is in the fact that the median GMAT is higher than the average. This tells me that a school (Duke, for example) must admit more people with a higher score to compensate for AA.
http://mba.gmatcat.com/fuqua.html

The "myth" of a 700 being the magical threshold just doesn't coalesce with the fact that some people are admitted with significantly lower scores. Do you think it is pure chance that even though, say, an MIT type MBA program avers that a 700 to a 750 doesn't matter, yet their average in the past 10 years has never dipped below a 700. Same for other top schools. Imagine the precieved drop in quality (thus brand equity) if Stanford wasn't conscious of their average GMAT and it slipped to a 690 next year? These schools are sensitive to brand equity and the brands of their competition, don't think for a minute that their average or median GMAT doesn't count. The 700 "myth" is more of an aggregate truth doesn't apply to individual applicants. On the other side of the equation, I can't see a 760 not enhancing ANY application over a 700. Enhancing enough to clear the admissions hurdle is a different subject, but enhancing nontheless, I can't accept that it wouldn't make a difference. In order to score a 760, one needs to be extremely bright, extremely devoted or a combination of both. Bluntly, a dumb person will never score a 760, no matter how much effort they put in. the same way I will never be in the NFL, even if I dedicated the last 25 of my 38 years trying to get there.

For you Asians out there reading this, you will be held to an even higher standard, per the GMAT than the URM-males as a top 25 MBA applicant.

Right or wrong, that's just how it works.

[StaceyKoprince]

Yes, I agree that there's a difference between a 700 and a 760 - there is, in fact, a mathematically significant difference between those two scores, and it's appropriate for schools to act accordingly.

And, yes, the schools are (of course!) actively managing their median score number so that they can maintain their rankings. No question.

Okay, this is what I really think; I was trying to be "polite" about it before and not state it so directly. A school that rejects someone with a 720 (and says that the score is why the person is getting rejected, and the person would really need a 740) is a school that is not much more likely to admit that person if s/he comes back with a 740.**

The very top schools have SO many applicants that the issue is rarely: I'm the same as that guy but I have a 720 and he has a 740, so they're going to accept him and not me. Or: if only I'd had the 740, and everything else was the same on my app, they would have said yes.

The issue is more like: they have 100 people with 740s from whom they can choose for one slot. The 720s aren't even in the picture at this point, UNLESS there's something great about the app somewhere. And the one 740 they eventually pick will have something great - or at least well above average - in the app somewhere else. That person will also fit some demographics (race, gender, work industry, geographic location, schooling, etc) that the school wants relative to the rest of the admitted students in order to have a "well-rounded" student body. (Define "well-rounded" as you wish.)

If I take the test again and do get that 740, unless I also have something great or well above average elsewhere in my app, I probably haven't changed my odds of getting in all that much. The thing that would have a better chance of changing my odds is something GREAT elsewhere on my application (work experience, etc), something that really makes me stand out from the crowd and gets the school to say, "Look at this! We really want this guy in our class!"

And note that I'm really talking about the very top schools here - the ones with sky-high GMAT medians and 10x applicants for every spot. There are so many qualified people for each slot that it's something of a crap shoot whether any one person gets in.

** ETA: And I'm a person who works for a GMAT prep company. If there's anyone who would be expected to tell you, "Yes, you should spend more money to improve your GMAT score!" it should be someone like me, right? But I really don't think that moving a GMAT score from 720 to 740 (and nothing else!) will result in much of a change in terms of your odds of getting in.

[tomslawsky]

Stacey,
We're saying 90% the same stuff. We both just come to a different conclusion. Using your argument, your "740 subset" of the applicant pool would be a "700 subset" were it not for Affirmative action. It is what it is. And, ya, I know that were I warren buffet the second, I would have been admitted, but the truth is that 99+5 of the applicants who ARE admitted aren't either. If you're not a female/URM, a 700 rather than a 730 GMAT score CAN (I suspect often does) get you dinged.

This is a dead horse by now, I guess as it is the wrong venue for this debate. Not that I wouldn't love to go have a beer with you and continue, cause I would love to. But, somehow I don't see that happenin' ;)

[StaceyKoprince]

:) debating is definitely mighty fun, yes.

[vijayallenraj123]

:) debating is definitely mighty fun, yes.

I guess the student here is talking about ISB (Indian School of Business). If I am right they are ranked 12th by FT.com, and most of the applicants to that school score around 750 (Most of them Indians and Software Engineers). Probably that is one reason why they said that 720 is a low score. But I am surprised that they would look at just the score when their mid 80% range is something between 680 - 740 or something like that. I myself am an aspirant to this one, but if its gonna be so tough, I rather try outside.

[StaceyKoprince]

I think it's good to have multiple options when you're applying. Generally speaking, it's good to have a couple of "mid-range" (for you) schools, and then (if you want) a "reach" school and a "safety" school.

The "reach" school is because - hey, you never know! The "safety" school is for people who definitely want to go to b-school no matter what. If you'd rather not go at all if you don't get into certain schools, then you don't have to worry about a safety school.