Quant/Verbal breakdown at top schools

[PrashantS209]

It looks like schools, except HBS, do not disclose GMAT score breakdown by section in their class profile.

I was wondering if you had some insight based on your years of experience in this field on what could be median/mean/mid-80% score by sections at other such schools as Stanford, Yale, Wharton, and MIT? Could the score breakdown be similar to Harvard’s or are they hiding this information because it is embarrassingly low in one section?

In other words, what would be the ‘balanced’ score breakdown for these schools? For example, if someone is scoring high in quant, what should be the minimum they should target in verbal to still be competitive at these schools?

[StaceyKoprince]

As a general rule, most schools do look at the individual scores because they do want to make sure that you didn't have a huge skew. For example, a Q37 V50 will get you to 700. V50 is an amazing verbal score; Q37 is significantly weaker.

Most of the top schools (ie, the ones that have 700+ as the published average or median) are looking for at least a 45+ on Q and a 36+ on V. Note, though, that a Q45 V36 combo would not actually get you to 700—it's only about a 660. So you have to score better on at least one of the two sections in order to still get into that 700+ range. If you score below Q45, they may be concerned about your ability to handle the quantitative work in their program. Ditto for the verbal score.

The expectations can also change a bit based upon your educational background, though they don't talk about this as much. They're likely expecting most people who did their university studies in English (and are hitting 700+ scores) to score higher than 36 on Verbal. For those who did their studies in a language other than English, though, V36 is good.

Another example: A score of Q45 is around the average for someone who was educated in North America but is below average for someone educated in China* or India, so if they see a Q45 score come in from someone educated in China, it may be the case that they look for other factors to ensure that that person's quant abilities are strong enough for the program. (And ditto for the did-university-studies-in-English folks I mentioned above—they might look at the essays more carefully if that person is scoring on the lower end of the range for V.)

*I don't know whether this is still accurate, but I saw a stat maybe 5 years ago that the average Q score for test-takers who take the test in China was something like 48 or 49. The average score! Color me impressed.

So to your final question: If someone's scoring, say, Q50, then you could hit 700 with about a V35...but I'd be aiming for V37-38 (which still gives some buffer room to hit V36 even if the person falls a little short).

If you're trying to hit 730+ and doing well on Q, then you'll be fine on V (if you have Q51, then you have to hit at least V38 to get 730). The person who would have to be careful in this case is someone who is doing better on V. You could score V50 and then you only need Q41 to hit 730—but that Q41 is likely not going to be good enough for the kinds of schools that are looking for a 730 score.

[PrashantS209]

Thanks a lot, Stacey. That was super helpful!

It is intriguing to know this: "if they see a Q45 score come in from someone educated in China, it may be the case that they look for other factors to ensure that that person's quant abilities are strong enough for the program."

I have been hearing the narrative that schools look for higher scores for candidates from China and India because doing this they can still keep their average scores high while accepting candidates with lower scores from other pools. But what you are saying is different. Are you implying that, in general, if two people, A from China and B from Canada, score the same in quant, then the admission committee would think B has better quant abilities? Perhaps because admission committees have stereotypical thinking that people in China prep longer and harder? I think that is a crazy assumption to make based on person’s nationality/ethnicity!

[StaceyKoprince]

Ah—I'm sorry, that's not what I meant to imply, but I can see that the way I wrote made it seem like I was saying that. I was too loose with my language—sorry about that.

In terms of the "pure ability" that the score signifies, a Q48 indicates a higher GMAT quant ability than a Q45 no matter who you are or where you were educated.

A school is going to compare you and your scores to other people who share a similar demographic, though. They do this across multiple categories—the industry in which you work, the geographic area from which you're coming, etc. They're not going to have a class that is 100% management consultants or 100% from the US or 100% from China—they want diversity in the class across a number of categories.

So a top school is looking for you to be above average within your comparable groups. Someone educated in the US and scoring ~46-47* on the quant section is above average for that geographic category. Someone educated in China and scoring ~46-47 on the quant section is below average for that geographic category.

*Note: I don't know the exact values any longer. I saw a graph at a conference a few years ago and the numbers may have changed since then.

And I should add: GMAT scores are only one factor, of course. They are also looking at your work experience (and the leadership and other values that it indicates), your GPA, your recommendations, your interview, etc. So you don't have to be above average for your demographics / comparable groups on every single metric.