nadasurf

First off, congratulations on a very impressive background. Agree with everyone here - you will have options and probably be able to get into most of your top choices. I would spend this time refining research interests and developing a good SOP/case for your top choices so you make the most informed choice for yourself. Good luck!

There are a lot of options out there to get the math background and Stanford's program is just one example so do your homework and figure out what you think will work best for your situation. That said, we may have to agree to disagree on Stanford because based on my experience, the post above is a little misleading and overy pessimistic. Maybe I'm an exception to everything but just thought I'd share my experience. I had no formal math background and I wasn't blown away by the difficulty, I got letter grades which were accepted as calculus prereqs by my university's math department, and my program cared a lot more that I got the knowledge base for more advanced courses than what type of transcript I had. I chose Stanford's courses because it was the cheapest option and I wanted to work through it all in a compressed timeframe so it worked for me. Maybe something else will work better for you though. I got through differential and integral in 2 months (quit my job in March and worked about 30 hours a week to get through the courses so pretty intensive but if you have more time, you can spread that out) for about $600 and took the more advanced math courses I needed on campus through my program in the summer before officially starting. Anyway, I think rsaylors has a great point to think about - if you are deadset on a top 25 program or nothing at all, then you have a good amount of work to do but if you are open to programs outside of that range, then you could probably focus on improving your GMAT and apply this year with a decent shot. It's your life so you have to do the soul-searching there but I agree you can make a great living, have a great experience and do rewarding research going to a lot of programs, not just the top 25.

I would say you don't really have a good shot at strong programs (top 25) this year. Your only shot would be if you retake the GMAT and score 760+. Outside of that, I think it would be unwise of you to spend your money and efforts applying this year - having a CPA is good but your experience as a staff auditor isn't too valuable, your math background is very weak, you don't have the most attractive academic background and barring the 760 GMAT, your test scores aren't impressive. In other words, your math background is a problem and more of a problem because nothing in your profile is impressive enough to compensate for that deficiency. I would advise you to do the following: spend the next couple of months cramming for the GMAT and try to blow it out of the water by the end of the year so you are set on that. Work through busy season and then in March when things start to calm down, you can enroll for math classes online or at community college. I took some through Stanford's EPGY program since my math background was pretty bad going in but there are other options for that. They were online so you can go at your own pace and the benchmark they use is 3 months to complete with 10-12 hours a week. So if you start in March, you can pass differential, integral, and sequences by the time you apply in December with minimal inconvenience. Then you can continue on with a linear algebra course if you feel like it in the following Spring. I think if you get your GMAT up above 720, complete the calculus series with A's, get some experience as an audit senior under your belt, you'll have a decent chance next year but honestly I think it's too much to overcome this year for stronger programs to find you attractive. Good luck

I know different people think differently about these - I personally did this and had some good things come of it but I understand the other perspective. I think there are benefits to going outside of helping your application. As said above, it is a great early networking opportunity. If you're into the research, it is genuinely exciting to see some bigger names in your field present and it also gives you a better idea of how academics interact with each other which can be an invaluable lesson when you interview. From an application standpoint, I agree that it doesn't do much for you to just put this down on your application. I've always thought the key to the applications process is to convey you're interest in the field in a way that isn't just saying "I'm interested" and that makes you stand out. That said, maybe you go and see some presenters so when you interview, you can talk about that with other faculty who were at that presentation. Maybe you sit and have lunch with some faculty at a program you are interested in and they remember your name. Maybe you meet some students there and they mention you to faculty. Good things can happen so my advice would be don't explicitly try to market yourself with it but just be excited about the research and friendly/professional with people. IF one of your recommedors is presenting, it may help you since they might introduce you to some people and maybe can put that aspect in your LOR to show your commitment and interest. I can see that being a good thing at the margin but wouldn't drive my decision overall. At the end of the day, it's a cost-benefit thing and only you know the costs for you. If you have the free time and extra money, then it doesnt hurt at all to go. If you are busy with a job and strapped for cash, probably not worth it to go.

Some thoughts on your profile: - Just to clarify, when you say your undergrad degree was in business, was that accounting or just general business? Was there a concentration in accounting with that? - Can you clarify your LOR situation? When you say weak and lukewarm letters, is it that you don't think the recommendors will hold much weight (as in they are faculty at a small school and won't be well-known) or are you implying that they will not have many good things to say about you? If it is the former where the recommendors aren't impressive but are saying great things about you, I don't think you have much to worry about there. If it is the latter where your recommendors don't have good things to say about you, then you have an issue I think. My impression of LOR evaluation has always been it can only help you not hurt you - specifically, if you can get someone whose opinion will be valued a lot by schools then it helps you out a lot but generally everyone will handpick letter writers who have glowing things to say about them so at worst, you are in the large pool of people who have glowing letters from small-school faculty or work managers and the letters do little at the margin. Now if over 5 years of school and 1.5 years of work, you don't have 3 people you can handpick to write a page or 2 of strong praise for you, then I think anyone will question why that is. - Also on your LOR's, I don't think the mix you have helps you - you have the stats Master's degree and quant background so I think you will already be seen as strong in that area compared to other applicants. Having 2 of your three recommendors from the stats discipline doesn't add much on top of that. I think what you need to do through your letters and SOP is talk up your interest in accounting and specifically financial/capital markets if you can since that is your stated field of interest. If you can add another accounting professor or maybe even a finance professor or a manager you worked with in the Big-4 firm who can say how interested you were in the general field of accounting and markets, I think it would do a lot more for you because right now, nothing in your profile conveys a strong commitment and interest in that field. - I think one thing you can do is spend a lot of time crafting your narrative for your SOP and interviews. I think it's a natural instinct for people evaluating you (yes adcom's are just people too and all people naturally like to craft stories for others) to look at your profile and craft a big-picture narrative for you so you have to sort of take charge of what that narrative is and make it a convincing argument for you. I'll tell you the questions I have looking at your profile (I don't want answers to these but just saying here are some questions I have trying to put your story together): My first question would be how did you end up in a Big 4 tax department if you just had a general business degree? Did you develop an interest in tax through your accounting courses? Then I would ask why did you leave Big 4 so quickly? Did you not like tax? Did you not like the culture? Did you just want to go back to school? If that's the case, why get a statistics degree and not an acounting/business/finance degree? Why go to a lower state school and not a more prominent university with your background? Were you planning for a phd path the whole time? Why all of a sudden the interest in capital markets/financial accounting? So I think you need to put a lot of those pieces together and craft a strong narrative. - Right now, here is the story I have crafted for you (disclaimer that I'm not saying these things are true but you are going to be judged by adcom's who will do this same thing and right now with the pieces you disclosed here, here is what I would come up with for you): you are a smart individual that applies themselves. You got a business degree and then graduated into a rough economy 4 years ago so you took one of the best-paying jobs available in Big-4 tax. You took advantage of the incentives there and got your CPA. But since you weren't particularly interested in tax, you grew tired of the long hours and culture there. So you have resources at your disposal and decided you liked math courses so you would go back to school. Now you graduate with a statistics degree need to find something to with that so you figure out a phd in accounting is a good-paying gig that would value that degree. So you do some research and figure out financial archival is the dominant field and you're set. The problem with that narrative is it paints as you as opportunistic and if your LOR's don't have great things to say about you, it backs that story by suggesting you didn't make many friends along the way in your short career. It also paints you as someone who isn't overly committed to accounting which is a bit of an issue because you are on the younger end of the applicant pool. Anyway, my point is I don't think you need to do anything to add to your profile because you have quite a bit of accomplishments but you need to put those pieces together in a clear narrative that paints you in a positive light. Anyway, hope I didn't offend you in any way there - just trying to help you see the story adcom's might piece together for you so good luck!!

Well, if you believe you want to focus on empirical methods within the management discipline, I would mention that in my SOP. Presumably, you will be applying to programs that have faculty in that area who are taking on students so expressing your excitement for their area of research is a good thing and shows you really want to go to that program for specific reasons as opposed to people who have more generic reasons for applying to a certain school. It's definitely okay to mention specific articles but I think it works best if you can intertwine them into your background. For instance, mentioning why you really became interested in the balanced scorecard approach and then citing a specific paper from a faculty member at that school that made you think about it in a different manner is a good thing. I would be careful not to just name-drop articles to show you read them though and I would also be careful to convey that you have your own insights to bring to the table. Everyone likes their ego stroked but they also want to see that you have something to add to the discussion. I don't know that I can add too much on your last 2 questions. I'm more familiar with behavioral management accounting work but my guess is that empirical management work may have some data availability issues so it isn't a huge field. I think the demand for all accounting areas is pretty good but anecodtally, I would guess the demand is less than that for audit, tax or reporting.

I think that's a really good thing - from personal experience, I got caught up in program ranking and I didn't think geographic preference mattered all that much to me. But I found out it meant more to me than I originally thought when I moved and I found myself in a pretty unhappy place because of that. But that's something I had to learn about myself so good to think about it ex ante and be honest with yourself like you are doing. Anyway, I think there are a lot of opportunites out there so it's not a take what you can get mindset but any given city or state may only have 1 or 2 really good programs. Some areas like Boston may have more in a close vicinity but some states may only have one or two big colleges overall. Even if you isolate a larger area like the PAC-NW, you might only have about 5 or so of the top-50 programs there. Now there are a lot of other programs and opportunities but your stats indicate that you could have a really high ceiling. So say that one school doesn't like you or isn't hiring a tax person that year, then you will likely find yourself in a position where you have to choose between a top 25 school in a different part of the country or a lower-tier program where you want to live. And with that lower-tier program comes less pay and more teaching burdens/less time to do research. And your phd program obviously wants you to take the top-25 school because that makes them look like a better program. Because of all that, academia is not a great choice if you have strong geographic preferences - especially in accounting where jobs in industry tend to be plentiful in most areas. I think it's doable to maintain geographic preferences but you will give up a lot in terms of opportunities, especially when your stats indicate you have a pretty high ceiling I think. Academia is based a lot on prestige (where did you get your phd, where was your first placement, etc.) so giving up that prestige for geography can impact what your career ceiling is. The caveat is that generally if you are really good, people will take notice no matter what your background so it isn't a death sentence by any means, just a big hurdle.

I think Taxphd is spot-on here - given your stats and field of interest, you will be very competitive anywhere you apply. Your quant GMAT score with only a limited math background and the fact that you have done reasonably well in the quant courses you did take will ease most concerns about your quant abilities. I think it won't hurt you in the applications process but since you have to take the standard phd curriculum even in tax (econ, metrics, etc.), your limited background is lacking as far as preparation for those. I think it would be good for you to say in your SOP that you have a plan to refresh your calculus skills (since it was 4+ years ago I assume) and get some linear algebra/probability background. Even if it's just picking up some books or taking online courses, it shows that you recognize this may not be your strongest area and since you recognize how important it is to your success in those econ courses, you are committed to addressing that. I would worry about your geographic preference for L.A. since you say you want to stay there "if possible" which implies to me you might be willing to leave for a school if you had to. So this is not so much from the perspective as it will hurt you in applications but moreso from the perspective that if you really like it in L.A., committing to a phd program somewhere else for 5 years and then facing a job market which might not offer you an option in L.A might not be the best thing for you. My thought is that applying for phd programs is really exciting but once that newness wears off, it is really just a job at the end of the day with ups and downs and if you left somewhere you love and you're not happy with your life where you are studying, then it creates a bad personal mental state. Now some people will say it is totally different and the most fulfilling thing they have ever done and totally worth any sacrifice of geography and some people may not have any geographic preferences at all. A lot of that is personal preference in life and you have to decide yours. It sounds like you don't currently have a grad degree so maybe taking a year and getting a Master's related to your field then moving back to L.A. after that might be an alternative. I don't know you or your situation. Obviously, you will be limited if you stick to only L.A. area schools both for your degree and post-degree employment. But before you say "sure I don't mind moving to go to a better program", imagine if you will feel the same way in a year or two. Just my personal thoughts. Anyway good luck!!

So, is there a marginal benefit to getting a little higher GMAT? Sure, it's always better to have a higher score and if you could achieve that by just going and taking the test in 4 hours, then definitely do it. But the points people made already are absolutely correct in my mind - going from 730 to say 750 (which by the way, is not a guarantee as you acknowledge) will likely have little impact on your admissions chances because you will clear the initial hurdle and you have a lot that will make you stand out in good ways without needing the best score in the applicant pool. So if you would have to dedicate say a minimum of 4 weeks to prep for the test and face the possibility that it was wasted time because you didn't score higher, you have to ask what else could you do with that time? Since your answer is work on existing research projects relevant to the field then yeah this should be a no-brainer. It is easy to say that as an outsider but I know there is always some aspect of people that is terrified of the idea that they could be compared against someone with a higher score and there is also a somewhat unrealistic level of optimism that thinks if I take it again, I can control the outcome and surely get in the top 1%. But in reality, that is more a concern for you than any school you apply to. It is a very small piece at the margin you'd be at with your score. No one will say gee this person has a masters in stats and 3 great research papers going but this other guy with no quant background and no research experience scored 20 points higher on the GMAT so let's let him in. You have such a greater opportunity when you interview because faculty will say to you "tell me about your research" and if you have some good stuff to say there, it will help you out more than achieving an 800 on the GMAT. Plus since you have existing research, you have a great opporunity to write SOP's that say I would love to work with this faculty because I did research in this area and I loved the prior work they did. Anyway, good luck!

I think that this is probably the norm - there really are a lot of great people and programs out there. Plus most students only have extensive knowledge of their program and maybe 1 or 2 others they interviewed with but just anecdotal vague knowledge of other programs. So I anticipate most people would say my program is great and this other one seemed really good but I'm not too sure about where they stack up with other programs. Might I suggest that you will likely get better responses if you ask the opposite question: what programs are known for maybe neglecting or mistreating their PhD students? Those reputations tend to be quite far-reaching and most programs I think only show up on someone's radar in this area if they have a reputation like that and need to be avoided.

I guess there are some different contexts to your question so you may want to clarify your intentions a bit for better inputs. If you are going to be in the city or around the city a target school is located for some other purpose and want to just take some free time to take a campus tour to get a feel for how you might like living there, that's not a bad idea. Outside of that though, it doesn't make much sense until the school has reciprocated your interest. Schools that like you will generally ask you to fly out for a visit/interview so there is an efficient way to visit only the schools that will be willing to admit you. Otherwise, you might be flying out to visit 10+ schools on your own dime which may not even have any interest in you so that is not so efficient. Now if you think this is a way to introduce yourself to faculty, I think that is just a terrible idea. No company really wants you to write them and say "hey here's my resume and by the way I'm going to be in the neighborhood so why don't I come meet with you guys next week". Go through the normal application process and try to find organic, less aggressive ways to network with faculty you might be interested in working with at a target school. Go to a conference where they are presenting and try to network with them that way.

I agree with the above poster - I wouldn't worry too much about the technical details since the expectation is you will learn them in the program in a lot more detail than you ever cared to (which is why you need to worry about knowing the calc/linear algebra stuff really well). I think I would find a list of the seminal papers in your area of interest and read those in conjunction with the econometrics lectures. At the end of the day, the methods are just a means to an end and while it's important to know the technical details of the methods, it's a lot better to know the methods in the context of your discipline. What proxies do they use for various constructs? How do they construct some of their DV's? What are the common control variables? That is the end you need to get to more than just knowing the technical details of why those work that way (which your metrics class will teach you in extensive detail). I understand the drive and desire to understand the technical details of papers and I think it's a worthwhile pursuit but just don't go overboard with trying to learn the technical details - your program will really cover a lot of that. So I would focus on what they tend to use in papers and a limited understanding of why they do that - the detailed explanation of why they do those things will come in the program. "Is it worth your time" is very much a subjective question - it definitely has some benefit but I don't know the personal cost. Where I think it helps you as much as if not more than actually learning the methods is the signal you send to people evaluating your application. Being an applicant interested in archival with a limited history of econometrics and applied regression could hold you back. So I think it's important that you can list tangible things you've done to address that profile weakness. It shows ambition and commitment especially if you are doing it with limited free time. Anyway, Good luck! Sounds like you're taking a lot of the right steps.

Well it seems like you have a good head on your shoulders and perspective with regard to this. Overall I think Steve hit the nail on the head - you meet the basic requirements and nothing is a huge liability (if you get the math courses going) but look, I imagine making admissions decisions is really tough at that second level so there may be a lot of applicants that also meet the basic requirements. Adcoms have to dwindle those numbers down somehow so they will be looking for anything that could be construed as a red flag or anything that makes someone stand out above everyone else. I don't know that anything in your profile above will make you stand out and there are some things that are potential red flags if someone was looking to identify red flags. So your challenge is to do tangible things to dismiss those flags and make yourself stand out in a positive way (so taking math courses is a good way to address the quant coursework flag, using the SOP to craft your narrative in a positive light is a way to address that flag, etc.) If you're passionate about research and academia, you'll figure out ways to show it and stand out - I think going to the AAA annual meeting is a good idea to get a feel for how academics interact with each other, see some research presentations, etc. It's also a good way to try and strategically network. Some will tell you it's overkill and there may be more efficient ways to network but if you are interested in accounting research, it's a good place to be and shows you really are committed. But I think tangible things like that can make you stand out - seeing someone who says in their SOP "I went to the AAA annual meeting on my own dime and really enjoyed talking ideas and seeing research presentations" is better than seeing someone who says "I am really passionate about research". Anyway, you probably get the idea but the more potential red flags you can contain and the more positive flags you can potentially add, the better chances you have. Specifically to your points: 1.) I think you definitely need to address your story in your SOP so that you don't give someone an opportunity to construct their own narrative as humans naturally tend to. You have to be the defense attorney arguing your case in the SOP. I think you can get a lot of milage in the SOP - these things aren't being read by computers but by humans and even with PhD's, adcom's are nturally drawn to captivating narratives and sincerity in writing. I assume something got you interested in going back to school for accounting so reflect on that and romanticize that idea in your SOP. 2.) Really hard to tell: it's much easier to make distinctions when yu get into the interviews but then again, at that level you are also looking for little red flags in schools at the margin. I'll give you one example based on 2 schools you listed that I had experiences with: Cornell and UT. Cornell has a very small program that is noted for behavioral work. They will tell you they expect students to be very independent and you won't have many other students to comisserate with you. You won't get exposed to a huge variety of methods but you will be at a place where behavioral work is considered a higher priority. Plus you'll be living in Ithaca NY in a small college town. UT has a much bigger program where there will be a lot of support/guidance from other students. They have a huge faculty so you will get exposure to a greater variety of methods (albeit ones that may not interest you very much). Austin is a huge city and it is a large public university with a big sports culture. At a distance, they both have great researchers and are amazing programs but at the margin, your next 5 years would be very different at each of those schools. But reading research/evaluating faculty is a great starting point - cast a wide net and then start to dwindle that down to a final list based on whatever you think would make you happy. And when you interview, you will get a lot better feel for the culture at a school so you can evaluate furthur. 3.) Those databases, etc. are a good starting point but some of that data can be misleading or outdated. Really this is an issue for behavioral interests or analytical interests (not everyone does those whereas everyone does archival). You have some good choices on there (Cornell, UT, UIUC) but be careful with schools that may have some behavioral pulications but don't really take behavioral students. You can always write the graduate advisor and just say you were interested in applying but you have behavioral interests and wanted to see if they were currently taking any behavioral students (if you do this, don't write an elaborate email introducing yourself, etc., be very concise, professioanl and gracious for their time). But I was interested in CU-Boulder and they have some behaivoral publications but I wrote them to see if they had any place for a behavioral student and they said no. This was in 2010 and I talked to one of their faculty a few months back - answer was still no. So yeah just be careful with that - not everyone with some behavioral faculty is actively taking behaivoral students. I was a little harsh on the job - I just wouldn't spend a lot of time on it in my SOP thinking it is a big asset. I would mention it (they take people with no expereince so defintiely a plus at the margin and not a liability). But if it came down to you and a person with no experience but a 770 GMAT and math degree, I on't think an adcom would say "yeah but this person has really great experience to offset that score differential and math background". A person who was an audit senior manager at PWC might be able to offset it with experience though depending on what the school looks for in applicants. Anyway, good luck - some other schools that might be good to look at are Massachusetts, Emory, Georgia,South Carolina, Drexel, Florida State. Some may not be applicable and maybe others can suggest some good thoughts.

I'm a student at one of the schools on your list. Some thoughts (some of them may seem harsh so don't take it personally, just my perceptions of the admissions process based on my experiences so hopefully they help you out since it can be a somewhat cruel process. Others may and will disagree though): 1.) I wouldn't just be at peace with being rejected by most of the schools, I would fully anticipate it. I honestly don't think you have too much variance in "prestige". By "prestige, I assume the proxy is those schools all tend to place in/or around the top 25 lists on an annual basis. A school like Umass has great behavioral researchers who are really friendly and enthusiastic but doesn't seem to place in the top 25. Funny thing about "prestige" is I don't know if a top-25 program is marginally that much better than the #50 program but being in the top-25 will ensure there are a lot more applicants to compete with. Right now, I think you only have programs that are getting a ton of applicants so I honestly wouldn't feel like you have a 95% confidence level at getting into at least one of those if that's what you hope to achieve. I would look at a lot of schools that may not be the usual suspects and that have researchers whose work you like and are a place you think you would be happy. "Safety School" is a rather inappropriate term to me. Those schools can just as easily reject you but they likely get less applicants so your odds are better. Plus, this is your life - yes locate some schools where your odds might be better but first and foremost, ignore the presitge and just ask yourself if you think you would be happy there. Put together a list of schools where you would be ecstatic to study at any of them. Don't have the mindset that I should add some schools because I just need to get in somewhere. Not a great way to make choices in life - I'll take a job because I just need a job, I marry this person because I should get married - those tend not to work out so well in the long-term. 2.) So I think looking at your profile, you have a somewhat odd narrative and people looking at your profile will string a narrative together from those pieces like I am doing. I look at your profile and say here's someone who got a 4.0 GPA in accounting from a top-25 school but then went into industry when you surely could have gotten a Big-4 position. Then you have that GPA and a 710 GMAT but went to an average graduate program for accounting. But now you say you see no future in accounting and want to do research but you didn't take many quant courses along the way. So, all of that together paints a narrative of someone who seems to lack some level of ambition and direction at this point in their lives. 3.) Overall it will hurt you but only at certain schools. Some schools do emphasize that writing is a huge part of the profession and look for higher verbal scores. Some schools don't adopt this position and will just care that you are over a certain percentile floor which I think you would be. It's hard to decipher which schools are which though. As far as raw scores, the discrepancy between verbal/quant percentiles is because a lot of non-english speakers take the GMAT, ace the math but do poorly on verbal - schools understand that. 4.) Definitely mention them - very relevant because you don't have any math background at the moment. However your GMAT quant score shows you have the natural ability so no one will doubt that. They will question your commitment to attaining the basic competency level needed for the program and your ability to persevere through courses. From personal experience, I think it's best to acknowledge this is a weakness in your profile but you understand how important those skills are to success in the coursework so you are committed to taking these courses and reaching that basic competency level. Also, try to have identified the details of how you will you get the courses so that makes you look even more serious - rather than just saying I plan to take calculus courses, it is world's better to say I am registered for these courses at xx and have a detailed plan for completion. You just need the skillset so it doesn't matter that you take them at MIT or online learning. 5.) Don't include programs outside of an interest if you state "this is my interest". It will make you look like you don't understand the intricacies of academia and who is doing what methodological research. That said, you have a couple of schools on there that probably wouldn't look at a behavioral student. Iowa and Colorado fit that bill I believe. As an aside, I wouldn't spend too much time focused on your job experience. Working entry-level for 2 years in private accounting isn't going to wow anyone. There will be applicants you're facing with CPA's and 6-8 years working in Big-4 public accounting. That level of experience will be an asset. Yours will just be considered nice that you mainatained a good job and had some experience with accounting. Doesn't help you too much but all else equal is better than not having any experience.

Agreed with all of the previous. I think those 5 courses/areas are must-haves for survival in some form (if not classes on campus, at least online courses or serious self-study tactics). Beyond those, anything else is just overkill to me and your time is better spent elsewhere. Good luck!

I don't think it helps much but I really don't think it does any harm either - it at least shows commitment to a goal and ability. I mean you're going to have to explain your career path change to marketing anyway I assume. Just be honest about it and if you have good reasons for the switch and pursuing this goal, that won't matter.

All else equal, of course it is better to take some courses in math than not to. And from a cost/benefit perspective, it is almost your only option to gain math background since you probably don't want to quit work to take full-time courses. At the margin, I think it's contextual - a school that likes you will probably like your initiative and care more that you are gaining the background. A school that doesn't like you will probably view it as a bush-league attempt to gain math. Also I think it is contextual based on the rest of your application - if you have a 50Q on the GMAT and just never had the formal math background, schools will not doubt your ability and just want you to get the background but if you have a 40Q and show A's in independent study courses, schools may still have concerns about your ability to succeed at a higher formal level - just perceptions again there. But math is a means to an end so ultimately it matters that you learn what you need to regardless of where you learned it. So if you can convince schools that you are an ambitious intelligent go-getter, you can influence their perceptions and that's where your SOP/interviews are key. I never touched Calc until 9 months before starting and took independent study courses through Stanford and ended up at a pretty great program so definitely not a deal-breaker. I quit my job in January to focus full-time on that though which was a luxury I had that you may not. Good luck!

Good advice so far - I don't think you have any glaring weaknesses (you will need to explain the freshman GPA but shouldn't be an issue considering your more recent success) but I also don't think you have much that is going to jump off the page - solid GPA, solid work experience, solid academic background. That said, I think you will end up grouped with a lot of similar applicants so your SOP is really important - try to do things that will make you stand out at the margin - take a short course in SAS, show you know the research, start reading up on the theory (psych if you interested in behavioral). Good luck!

Just my opinion but I would avoid doing it in the SOP unless you are just briefly mentioning someone who is a "legend" in the field that likely also influenced the researcher you are interested in. Business academia seems pretty collegial but there are also egos and even though it may seem harmless to you, you never know how that may be perceived. You want them to like you first and foremost so I would avoid saying anything that you question how it could be taken. If you interview at the school, they'll likely ask you where else you applied and be able to infer the other researchers you are interested in from that. In the SOP, I would focus on just saying what aspects of the field really interest you and why you like the researchers at that particular school.

You'd be absolutely crazy to consider retaking it.

Nope. Common wisdom is that schools don't worry too much unless you are below a 4. 4.5 isn't terrible and I would assume you did decently well on Verbal so shouldnt be an issue unless your SOP's are poorly written. Then it may be perceived as a pattern.

Check out this site - it is a little older but still a decent way to gauge programs. If they state a preference for work experience, do not strongly prefer a graduate degree, and the average GMAT is in the 680 range, they are likely a good program to look at. Off the top of my head for behavioral, I would look at Alabama, Drexel, Umass as good mid-tier programs but a lot more are out there - probably most state schools outside the top-tier of state schools (UT, UW, UNC, USC, UIUC, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan) would be cosidered middle to lower tier. Accounting PhD Program J-N

Yeah sorry I used "rankings" kind of vaguely there. There are a lot of different rankings out there and there is some debate over what rankings are actually capturing (for instance maybe some key faculty left but the school is ranked high based on historical reputation or maybe the rankings are based on gross articles published in top journals and the rankings really capture an element of size of the department or maybe you base it on placements but say some recent graduates turned down better offers - you're not privy to that information). That said, just pay attention to that aspect but I use rankings a lot more loosely. At the end of the day, some programs will open more doors than others but the reality is that it is a lot more gray than a discrete rankings system. Look at the rankings, look at what the program specializes in, look at the faculty and sort of create your own tiers of schools based on your interests. For instance, Cornell may show up as top-10 but they are much more famous for experimental work so it may not be a good fit for you. For instance, you might have in financial archival: Tier 1 (4-5 schools) - Say Stanford, Chicago, NYU, Michigan, UW, Wharton Tier 2 (4-5 schools) - Still great programs but maybe sightly less prestige - Say TexasA&M, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio State, USC Tier 3 (1-2 schools) - Say Wisconsin or an Arizona Btw, not entirely sure if these are tiered correctly but just filling in some names as examples. I guess the point is you want to maximize your chances at one of the top schools and you improve your odds by applying to more of them but they are really hard to get accepted to. You could just apply to all of the top tier schools but you would leave yourself vulnerable to not getting in anywhere. So you want to balance between maximizing your odds at top schools while still hedging your bets and applying to schools maybe tiered somewhat lower where you have a better probability of acceptance. But make sure you actually want to got to those schools (i.e. dont apply just because you think it is safe - you will have to write an SOP on why you want to go there and it will show if you aren't that interested in their program). Oh and SAS is just a statistical software program (SPSS, R, SAS, etc.). When you do research, you'll need to analyze data and run models. Just think of these as more complex excel programs where you can run more statistical tests and do more with the data. To whatever degree you can get experience working with these (taking s hort course through your school, getting a book on SAS programming an spending some time each week working with it in your school lab, etc.), it is a huge plus because they will be very important in research.

1.) All else equal, work experience is a plus but in general, the higher ranked schools won't care too much and you have a lot of good things in your profile that will set you apart from a lot of applicants. That said, it is probably not a bad idea to subscribe to WSJ or Forbes just to stay up to date on current issues in practice. Anecdotally though, some schools do prefer work experience (UT is an example that does) so just be on the lookout if they indicate something like that on their website (i.e. if they say something like "successful applicants generally have 2+ years work experience" vs. an indifferent stance like "work experience is not required") 2.) The nature of accounting phd programs are that they don't expect you to have accomplished much in research prior to the program. Just knowing your way around SAS and going through data-gathering exercises are more than a lot of applicants will have. If you get experience writing a paper of your own as you mentioned, that would be a pretty big boost to your profile so I would aim for that goal. 3.) People will offer different advice on # of schools, etc. I think somewhere between 8 and 10 is optimal if you do them right (meaning you did your research on programs, picked the right matches, and wrote stellar specific SOP's for each). I think if you go beyond 10, you start to risk sacrificing quality in your applications for quantity but that will depend on how early you start applications and how much free time you have. In your case, I might do something like 6 top 10 schools, 3 10-20 range schools and 1 20-25 range schools depending on the number of schools that appeal to you in each range. But I agree that I would be surprised if at least one school in the top-20 didn't contact you. Good luck.

Agree with the above - I think you would be competitive anywhere and based on your numbers, you are probably as close as there is to being a lock at a top-25 program. That said, I don't think anywhere would be a reach. In financial archival, there is less of a worry about fit since pretty much every school will offer that opportunity so it is more about you reading the literature and figuring out which faculty you might have an interest in working with. As far as "safety", like I said, I think you would definitiely get into at least one top-25 program so I wouldn't look much below that line. I'll offer the classic caveats: 1) when applying to top programs like Stanford, Chicago, etc, nothing is guaranteed even for the best profile and 2) there is no true safety school. Schools tend to know where they rank and so when someone seems grossly overqualified for their program, they know they are probably seen as safety and focus on more realistic applicants. I agree that people can be somewhat brutal in evaluating profiles on here but in my opinion, you seem to be in a great position. Just spend some time getting into the literature and best of luck!!