Rejected in 2009 - Last Thoughts

[doctoraldude]

the 'signaling' effect of school choices is no doubt an important consideration, more so through applying to schools with strength in your super-specialty ... but a wider choice may actually signal a greater commitment to your research agenda (rather than the prestige of the school) ... so maybe the right application range is more of a grey area (somewhere in between casting-the-net-far-and-wide and applying-to-only-top-10)

[moomber123]

Originally Posted by doriangray2009

(4) The GMAT is not that important. The GMAT gives adcoms their only "objective" measure of your intelligence. For this reason it has a degree of usefulness. In the elite programs however, I have been led to believe that the GMAT is a non-factor after the initial cutoff of applicants. If you make 700 or better, stop worrying about it. If you make better than 650, you are still probably fine. Your academic record - grades + courses taken - is far more important than the single GMAT score. Want to impress them with your quantitative ability? Get an A in calculus, or some other tougher math course. Increasing your GMAT-Quant score by a few points does not pay dividends.

(5) Continuing that last note, quantitative skills are absolutely essential in every business discipline. Even in the worlds of consumer psychology, organizational behavior, & strategic management, math is crucial. Your record must show - beyond the simple GMAT - that math is no obstacle for you. More mathematical research streams - marketing modeling, financial economics, operations management - obviously require a love of these skills, but this point is not really intended for applicants in those subjects.

I agree with (4.) completely. GMAT score tends to be a myth among Asian students (I am guessing there is a large number of them using this forum based on the profiles posted here), but seriously, it is a complete myth. Top department routinely takes a 730 over 780 for a better overall fit, for example, so don't kill yourself over it. I would say the cutoff point is around 700 (650 is a bit low for top 10, but not impossible), so once you have it above that, stop freaking out.

I would not fully agree with (5.). It depends on what you mean by "math" skills. If you mean basic algebra, statistics, and some basic understanding of calculus, ok, fine, of course a doctoral students need to know all that. But if you mean to suggest that even for consumer behavior major, you need to master linear algebra, or real analysis, then I'd say you have been fooled by those who like to make top departments sound like rocket science departments. We are talking about business research, not designing the next generation of space shuttle. Those math tools don't help you much in this area. You need to be able to do good, solid statstics, yes, but I don't think that's eninggering math level.

Moreover, your point 5. seems to suggest that quantitative method is the ONLY method in business research. That is not true. It might be the dominant paradigm, but there are people who've managed a highly successful career doing purely qualitative research (based on interview, content analysis, historical archival research, etc), it would be hard to imagine those professors (who themselves might not know those math that well) care about that kind of skills in admission decision. But of course, qualitative type of research is not mainstream here. It's almost uniquely European type of research, but many here in US incresaingly think it's "sexy."

I am not trying to de-emphasize the importance of basic math skills, or advanced math skills for those who would like to pursue a quantitative or highly empricial/staticiscal type of research career. I am merely stressing that there are other options that do not require such emphasis, albiet not the mainstream here and now. I personally know of one MIT strategy graduate whose disseration has no number other than page/section number. She placed very well and should get tenure soon. So it's not IMPOSSIBLE.

[rajankpant]

I recently sent my brief introduction to all PHD offering uni in financial economics based on usagrad ranking. Most, if not all are of view that my GRE Quant is bit lower (730) to enroll me. I am sure they use GRE as a initail screening critera then move to others...
So what matters is GRE, then math, research and statement of purpose...

[moomber123]

Originally Posted by rajankpant

I recently sent my brief introduction to all PHD offering uni in financial economics based on usagrad ranking. Most, if not all are of view that my GRE Quant is bit lower (730) to enroll me. I am sure they use GRE as a initail screening critera then move to others...
So what matters is GRE, then math, research and statement of purpose...

First of all, let me point out that just because they suggest your GRE Quant is a bit lower to enroll you, it does not mean they use GRE Quant as the initial screening criteria. GRE score and GPA are the easiest objective criteria to do a quick assessment, which was clearly what you asked them to do. In our department, when we used to respond to such requests (we no longer), each request did not get more than 10 seconds of consideration for the person in charge. It simply takes the numbers provided, and match it with our impression of what the average profile of admitted students is. And average number means just that, some will have higher, and some will have lower. It is not a hard cut off, at least not in most departments. Obviously, lower score diminishes your chance, but my key contention is that GRE/GMAT score has limited contribution to your odds above a certain level. Departments would not offer admissions to someone who obviously doesn't "fit" just because of a 10 point GRE advantage.

It is my impression that Asian students are very used to the idea of a strict ranking based on numbers, due to their conventional practice. That impression seems to suggest that schools would always favor a 740.1 over a 740. The truth is that in US, standardized test scores are treated not at that level of granularity. Some departments use a 30 point intervals, some even use 50 points. And most importantly, if standardized tests are THAT important, admissions committee can then be replaced by computer program just to do the ranking. That clearly isn't the case. Plus, evidence is abundant that students with lower score are admitted over students with much higher score routinely, for better research fit, for better demonstrated academic maturity, etc.

With that said, I also need to point out that this thread was started to discuss the admissions criteria for business PhD. Finanical economics, whether hosted in business school in the finance department, or in economics departments outside of business schools, is much much more demanding in the math requirement. You are simply comparing orange to apple. I would imagine even in the finance department, above a certain score, it is the research match and other "subjective" criteria that matter the most. But I would also imagine that their "cut-off" score for math is much much higher. My impression from my colleagues is they routinely end up with students with near perfect score. In that sense, then indeed, your Quant score is a bit lower than the average profile. But again, that is finance, not business (in the sense that business usually means management, strategy, OB, OT, marketing, etc). It is in that context of business PhD I offered my suggestions.

[chimerical]

So what matters is GRE, then math, research and SoP...

Are you ranking those in terms of importance? If so, I think you've got it backwards. A low score can certainly keep you out, but the GRE is not going to get you in. There are just too many applicants with perfect scores and not enough spots.

I think research and a great statement of purpose, on the other hand, can tip you over the edge into the admitted pool. Like moomber said, test scores are an easy way to give very quick feedback on your chances. I went to an admissions fair recently, and whenever I asked about the importance of the GMAT/GRE, the admissions rep would ask for my quant score and then say I was in the range of admitted candidates but that the score was not ideal. If I mentioned my research experience and work in applied economics, however, it was like the quant score was forgotten. So if you score on the lower end of the 'acceptable' spectrum, put it in the context of your application as a whole and see whether you've got anything that makes up for it.

[Whoa?]

(not to mention I'm in Mensa, so there really shouldn't be any question regarding intelligence)

Doah Ha Ha Ha Ha!

[possible_phd]

Yup, silly to suggest that doing well on an IQ test should shed light on one's IQ. But, like I said -- haters gonna hate.

[rajankpant]

First of all let me thank for this. You obviously pinpointed that it is common for Asian to think of that. But it is also real that I miss the top uni (US) solely because of low GRE (Q: 730 and V: 440, A: 5.0).I have in fact excellent undergraduate score (in Economics) from top Indian university. However, as you suggest I will be taking both GRE and GMAT this year.This will also enable me to apply to business program (my focus is on marketing).

Originally Posted by moomber123

First of all, let me point out that just because they suggest your GRE Quant is a bit lower to enroll you, it does not mean they use GRE Quant as the initial screening criteria. GRE score and GPA are the easiest objective criteria to do a quick assessment, which was clearly what you asked them to do. In our department, when we used to respond to such requests (we no longer), each request did not get more than 10 seconds of consideration for the person in charge. It simply takes the numbers provided, and match it with our impression of what the average profile of admitted students is. And average number means just that, some will have higher, and some will have lower. It is not a hard cut off, at least not in most departments. Obviously, lower score diminishes your chance, but my key contention is that GRE/GMAT score has limited contribution to your odds above a certain level. Departments would not offer admissions to someone who obviously doesn't "fit" just because of a 10 point GRE advantage.

It is my impression that Asian students are very used to the idea of a strict ranking based on numbers, due to their conventional practice. That impression seems to suggest that schools would always favor a 740.1 over a 740. The truth is that in US, standardized test scores are treated not at that level of granularity. Some departments use a 30 point intervals, some even use 50 points. And most importantly, if standardized tests are THAT important, admissions committee can then be replaced by computer program just to do the ranking. That clearly isn't the case. Plus, evidence is abundant that students with lower score are admitted over students with much higher score routinely, for better research fit, for better demonstrated academic maturity, etc.

With that said, I also need to point out that this thread was started to discuss the admissions criteria for business PhD. Finanical economics, whether hosted in business school in the finance department, or in economics departments outside of business schools, is much much more demanding in the math requirement. You are simply comparing orange to apple. I would imagine even in the finance department, above a certain score, it is the research match and other "subjective" criteria that matter the most. But I would also imagine that their "cut-off" score for math is much much higher. My impression from my colleagues is they routinely end up with students with near perfect score. In that sense, then indeed, your Quant score is a bit lower than the average profile. But again, that is finance, not business (in the sense that business usually means management, strategy, OB, OT, marketing, etc). It is in that context of business PhD I offered my suggestions.