I have been lurking on the BusinessWeek Boards for almost a year and people still fight over a 680 and a 700 and a 750. I am tired of the same old debate - day in and day out. We should put this topic to rest and concentrate on other parts of the application which are more important than GMAT. So, here is a compilation of quotes from Members of Admission Committees:
"Not necessarily. I don't really know the average amount of times an applicant [for the Class of 2002] took the GMAT. The GMAT is valid, consistent, and reliable. You can take the GMAT as many times as you want, and your score will cluster within a certain range. We know that for a fact. An exception would be a 100 point difference, and that is only possible if [the applicant] took a coaching course.
But for the person who took the test today and then again next month without doing any review classes or any preparation, the score will probably [vary by] plus or minus 50 [points]. What I'm saying here is that we're not concerned -- no matter how many times a person takes the test -- because we can predict how the applicant will perform.
The other reason why I'm not alarmed is that there's a point where getting 50 more points doesn't really put you at an advantage. If you score 700, what does [scoring a] 750 do? If you're a really excellent applicant, and if you scored 650 on the GMAT, what do an additional 50 points do? Having 100 points more on a GMAT really doesn't make a big difference because there's a point where you disregard the score and you look for other things."
-
Rod Garcia, MIT Sloan
"We want to ensure that a student can handle the academic rigor of the program, which is where the GMAT and one's undergraduate performance come into play. The GMAT is only one aspect of the application. However, you need to be competitive because two-thirds of our applicants are very capable in handling the rigor, and as part of making selections, you're better served if you're more competitive. That said, the GMAT is not a predictor of future career success, which is why we look so strongly at the other aspects of the application, such as an applicant's track record of success and their full-time work experience. I would address a low GMAT in an optional essay. "
-
Kris Nebel, Michigan.
"We want to maximize a person's ability to flourish at Stanford, so academic rigor is important to us. The academictranscript tends to be more important [than the GMAT] because it's a record of the applicant's performance over time. Butwe look at academic aptitude in context.
Let's look at my own case. I was a psychology major and worked in consulting for two years before applying to Stanford. Ihad a strong academic record but hadn't had a lot of quantitative courses in college or experience afterward. So a strong quantitative score on the GMAT would, today, give Derrick the admissions director comfort about Derrick the applicant. I want someone who won't just survive but who will thrive here.
There's much too much focus on the GMAT. It's a threshold. Once we're comfortable that you can handle the workload, there'sno benefit to having a score that's 50 points higher."
-
Derrick Bolton, Stanford.
"Q: How heavily does Harvard weigh each of the following: undergraduate record, GMAT, and work experience?
A: We do not have a weighting system in our evaluation process. Our goal is to assess the candidate's strengths on our three main criteria. Every applicant is unique, and each of those data points is taken into consideration in evaluating the application in conjunction with the many other data points presented in our applications.
Q: How about this scenario: An applicant has a not-so-hot GMAT score, great work experience, and a 3.7 undergraduate GPA. Any chance?
A: Looking at just those attributes would be an oversimplification of our process. We take into consideration all aspects of a candidate's personal and professional background. We don't have a threshold for the GMAT or for GPA. There is no requirement with regard to years of work experience. "
-
Brit Dewey, Harvard
"Q: The GMAT. Which section receives the most weight -- the quantitative, verbal, or analytical writing assessment (AWA)?
A: We have to be assured that candidates will be able to handle analytical coursework. One proxy for that is the quantitative section of the GMAT. But we also look at courses the applicant has taken, type of work performed, and the recommender's statements about the person's ability. All of those come into play.
The bigger issue may be competing for a place vs. another person. Probably 70% of the people who apply to graduate school can do the work. But the process has become so competitive that it is sometimes difficult to earn a place above someone who has done better in several areas, including the quantitative one.
Q: Say an applicant took the GMAT three times, and never broke 600. What are this person's chances?
A: If the test score is problematic, we look to proxies such as undergraduate coursework. The initial intellectual hurdle is to demonstrate that you can handle the work. The next hurdle is the comparison with the applicant pool.
Many candidates ask if they should keep taking the test. If you prepared well and gave your best, I would advise focusing on an area of the application over which the candidate has more control -- for example, the essays. "
-
Michelle Rogers, Kellogg.
"We're going to be looking at your GMAT and your undergraduate record, as well as any other academics, to determine whether you would be successful here academically. If you're struggling academically, you won't get involved in our community. Once we have a comfort level with your academic potential, as understood by your GMAT and academic record, it would no longer become a differentiating factor of your application. Getting a GMAT close to the average of the school you're applying to will be important. Getting a GMAT considerably in excess of the average would not guarantee admission. "
-
Alex Brown, Wharton.
