What GMAT score is truly needed to get into a Ph.D. program?

[Nerdy Suit]

I know the answer is that it depends on which program you apply to. However, I'm asking the question because it seems that different threads that I've read online (though not all) seem to exaggerate how high you truly need to score.

 

For example, Stanford, which is arguably one of the best, if not, the best Ph.D. program in the country, has an "average" GMAT of 720 for admitted Ph.D. students. This means there are several who scored below 720. In fact, Stanford goes as far as to post the range of admitted Ph.D. students on their website (650 - 770).

 

Admissions Process FAQs: CMC: Stanford GSB

 

The "median" for management at Berkeley is 710. I picked management since that is what I will be specializing in. I wonder why they chose the median instead of the average? Probably because the average is lower? Anyways, since the median is 710, there are obviously many more accepted students that score below 710.

 

Student Statistics - Management of Organizations, PhD Program - Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley

 

My final example is UCLA (I'm picking west coast schools since I'm hoping to stay on the west coast), which has an "average" GMAT of 715.

 

FAQ | UCLA Anderson School of Management

 

My point is not that you can score a 650 on the GMAT and expect to get into Stanford or one of the top schools in the country. However, the GMAT is just one part of the application process and it seems that many people have been accepted into top programs that "only" scored in the high 600's.

 

So many people seem so overly concerned about the GMAT. While the GMAT is an important part of the application, it seems that as long as you score 680 or higher, you are competitive pretty much anywhere. In other words, it doesn't seem that the GMAT is a deal-breaker nor actually gets you into the school.

 

Am I totally off-base? What does everyone else think?

[phdhope]

I pretty much agree with everything except the point of saying that a high 600 score would be good for pretty any school in the country. Knowing quite a few of the applicants who get into phd programs, I would say that in the very top programs you would have to do a great deal to compensate for your gmat.

 

However, this not does detract from your main point, that the gmat is not the only factor of consideration and a gmat under 700 does not preclude you from good phd programs. I will warn however, that if your gmat is lower than the average, other parts of your application should be above average. The more away from the average, the more spectacular the rest of your application needs to be. This is the same for gpa, prestige of school, work experience, and all other factors of consideration. Depending on the school, they will weight qualities differently and also get applicants will different abilties.

 

So in short, I agree with the gist of the post. Just not the line that 680 would work for anywhere. Whoever got admitted with a 650 at Stanford probably has a highly unusual application where they are much more qualified.

[gregc1213]

I'd agree with the general sentiments here and probably add that the GMAT is one point of the application that is maybe more objective than others. GPA and quality school are inherently linked and hard to compare (i.e. what is a 3.9 at a small state school equal to at a top 5 school). Quality of work experience can be hard to compare. I have yet to see an applicant that thinks they wrote a poor SOP. I think that phd applicants, including myself to some degree, are inherently paranoid about how they measure up. The GMAT is the one part of the application where comparision is easy. I scored very well and honestly, there are times when I worry about if my quant score is high enough since some people score 51's in quant before I realize that is insane. So yeah, I think it gets more glamourized because of that aspect but I concur that it is not a rational sentiment. Reading people who post that they got a 720 and want to retake is a prime example of an individual who needs the perspective that it is only a small piece of the bigger puzzle that is your application.

 

I would say that, at least in my area of accounting, from reading surveys from programs, many of the top ones state they look for 700 and above. My guess is this can vary within program areas. Average GMAT scores that get published normally lack the context to conclude much of value from them (i.e. no range or deviation information). While Stanford sounds like they publish a range, the 650 score may be one person who was extraordinary (i.e. a CEO of a company wanting to pursue a doctorate) and for all we know, the next highest score accepted was a 700. Berkeley could have a 700+ policy and the median could be the result of 4 700's, a 710, and 4 750's so in that case, a 680 would disqualify you. So, I do think a lot of applicants sleep better at night knowing they are above the average instead of diving into those types of scenarios and trying to read further into the average/median/range information.

[cosmokramer]

I think bottom line, if you want to "sleep easy" and not worry about the GMAT, get a 750+ for a top 5/10 school and 700+ for a top 25.

[possible_phd]

I would say most GMAT threads on the board tends to come to the same conclusion -- GMAT is important, but it is not everything. Of course a ~680 is surmountable, but do you think you're good enough to be the one to overcome it when plenty of other amazing candidates have perfect scores and grades and recs? What's so special about you? (General "you," not you you) It's possible, but unless you're convinced that you cannot improve your score and are thus trying to comfort yourself, I would try to avoid falling prey to this line of thinking. And average scores can be misleading, because the "requirement" can vary from program to program. For example, it's probably safe to say that the average GMAT in OB or marketing is lower than the average GMAT in finance. It's best to just up your score and eliminate the threat to your application entirely, if possible. Otherwise, roll the dice! Ya never know.

[phdhope]

Agreed. There is a little bit of unpredictability in admissions. Sometimes it can be ascribed to chance. Sometime it can be linked to politics. It is not always the case that the most qualified or most fit students get admitted to the phd program. (Sad but true) The best we can do is our best and then roll the dice. (Though of course the better the application, the better our chance). I wonder why a politics or unpredictability of admissions post hasn't started on the forum.

[ProcessZ]

GMAT isn't everything. Ivy undergrad will trump higher GMAT score.

[possible_phd]

Ivy undergrad will trump higher GMAT score.

 

Be careful with absolutes.

[minirex]

I'm curious how these lower (below 700) GMAT scores square with the use of cut-offs. Are the schools that have a history of admitting applicants with

[possible_phd]

An initial screening isn't the end of the application season. It isn't unheard of for committees to take a look at previously-rejected applications at the request of a respected recommender. I know for a fact that this happened to me at one school when I was applying, though I wasn't screened out at the GMAT stage.

[minirex]

Thanks, possible.

[HarvardFella]

Looks like most of people are discussing GMAT. When looking at the top 10 programs websites, I remember some programs prefer GRE. What will be more difficult, getting 720 in GMAT or getting 720 average in GRE. I have tried before GRE. Got 2200 total, but only 620/800 in verbal. Verbal seems to kill me from GRE. Its more than 5 years old now, so no use anyways. So again, what would be better? GRE or GMAT to compete? I am leaning towards GMAT.

[possible_phd]

The "average" on GRE is relatively meaningless. For most top PhD programs, it seems the bottom-line "acceptable" quant score is around 760, with 780+ really being the suggested minimum for most programs. In other words, a 780 quant on GRE is generally talked about on these boards in the same way as a 720 overall GMAT. The verbal section tends to be less important, so if you got an 800 Q and a 620 V, you might not be in as bad a shape as you might fear.

[HarvardFella]

Thanks possible PHD. 800 in quant is not an issue for me. I will then attempt GRE again rather than GMAT. GRE seems to be more popular and I have taken it before.

[phdhope]

The board generally advises people in accounting to take the GMAT and finance take the GRE. As a general rule I would stick with the GMAT only becuase there are very few schools that will not accept it but there are a large number of schools that will not accept the gre. (It is accepted at a lot of schools, but many do not.) Now sometimes because of background people recommend the other test but what you really need to see what the programs you are going to apply to want.

[ProcessZ]

My non-scientific theory is that an Ivy undergrad will compensate for +50 GMAT points.

[haread]

Be sure to follow the link to read about upcoming changes in the GMAT.

 

The State News

 

Haread

[canadian phd]

Some of the averages and ranges for good Canadian PhD programs (marketing) are:

(All AACSB accredited)

 

Queen's: 660 (average)

UBC: 680-720

Alberta: 680-720

Rotman: 700 (average)

Calgary: 680-710

Manitoba: 650 (average)

 

You don't necessarily even need to break 700, but it certainly helps.

[smalishah84]

Agreed. There is a little bit of unpredictability in admissions. Sometimes it can be ascribed to chance. Sometime it can be linked to politics. It is not always the case that the most qualified or most fit students get admitted to the phd program. (Sad but true) The best we can do is our best and then roll the dice. (Though of course the better the application, the better our chance). I wonder why a politics or unpredictability of admissions post hasn't started on the forum.

 

I quite agree with you and that has been the feedback from a lot of my friends that in many many cases not the best candidates get admitted to the PhD program.

[bonbon]

The "median" for management at Berkeley is 710. I picked management since that is what I will be specializing in. I wonder why they chose the median instead of the average? Probably because the average is lower? Anyways, since the median is 710, there are obviously many more accepted students that score below 710.

 

Student Statistics - Management of Organizations, PhD Program - Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley

 

 

I have one comment about this statement. When they choose median instead of mean, it doesn't necessarily mean that mean

 

Also, you don't know if they are talking about just average of every year, or average throughout all classes. Over time, of course there are exceptions, and standard might be going up? Who knows?

 

I do agree of course, that GMAT is just 1 piece of the puzzle. But just a warning against using statistics alone :).

[bonbon]

Agreed. There is a little bit of unpredictability in admissions. Sometimes it can be ascribed to chance. Sometime it can be linked to politics. It is not always the case that the most qualified or most fit students get admitted to the phd program. (Sad but true) The best we can do is our best and then roll the dice. (Though of course the better the application, the better our chance). I wonder why a politics or unpredictability of admissions post hasn't started on the forum.

 

Well... even if you are the 'victim' of politics in admissions, how would you know? No matter how brilliant you are, it's fair to say, chances are that there are people just as good or better out there, who knows? And each school takes so few people, so when there are multiple that are good, the rest has to be luck and you can't do anything about it.

[m3th0d]

I have one comment about this statement. When they choose median instead of mean, it doesn't necessarily mean that mean

 

Also, you don't know if they are talking about just average of every year, or average throughout all classes. Over time, of course there are exceptions, and standard might be going up? Who knows?

 

I do agree of course, that GMAT is just 1 piece of the puzzle. But just a warning against using statistics alone :).

 

I agree with Nerdy Suit. Any school that posts median, when the common usage is mean, is hiding a lower mean. Berkeley, which is a notorious GPA whore, probably has some serious splitters with 3.9+ GPAs and 650 GMATs.

[santacanyon]

it is obvious that the median presents a bit more info than the mean.

[phdhope]

To bonbon: While I have never been in the role of victim or beneficiary, I could give a long list of examples of where goofy factors influenced admissions.

 

However, going on to the current median vs mean debate, I don't know if either one is particularly helpful. I mean at the end of the day the gmat is just one factor in admission. And both the median and the mean could be drastically influenced when only 1-5 scores are considered.

[gregc1213]

Yeah - I'd agree that GMAT is just a piece of admissions, albeit a very visible piece bacaue of comparisions. The mean vs. median debate doesn't intrigue me too much because at the end of the day, they are just descriptive statistics and without the context of other statistics like standard deviation, they leave a lot to be speculated - which is just that - speculation. Know the school/faculty and know the type of research that interests you and make your case on that. Every school might as well just put average GMAT score= high and call it a day.