Granps

Not being in accounting, I want to echo what YaSvoboden said. I think that the stress, and difficulty, between programs is not massive. I have seen grad students in top tier programs shell out mediocre dissertations and students in non-renowned programs write amazing dissertations. But in my experience, given the type A people that tend to go to business school doctoral programs, much of the pressure is gained passively by looking at your peers and (usually falsly) assessing how awesome they are compared to you. The better the program, the more apriori accomplished (as a very broad generalization) these peers will be. This, however, is also a motivator. As YaS said, go to the best program that you can.

Hi tsot, Your numbers are good. By that I mean that you are not likely to be desk-rejected by any school you apply to (i.e., you will pass the automatic bar for having your profile read by someone in admin). Before I continue, just know that very broadly, the lower the program tier, the more congruent your profile and the "classic" profile for a department you will be. That is, top programs are sometimes more difficult to predict. At least in my experience. That being said, business is not a core discipline, but more of a mish-mash of others. OB is oft sociology and psychology, Micro OB is sometimes also behavioral econ. Strategy will often be econ/psych, Marketing is psych (in my school), Business economics is, well, econ. Your profile is very mathy. It is not impossible to switch to a psych-oriented program, but you will need to do some heavy-lifting in your SOP to show (as in show, don't tell) how your life experience have led you to pursue psych interests. Programs, especially top programs, and uber-especially in this COVID climate in which budgets are smaller, are very risk-averse. That means that they want as many signals that an applicant can (a) properly handle the coursework and load (you have got that checked), (b) that you plan on staying in the academia (many programs will reject you if you do not plan this), © that you know what you are getting into. Lest talk a bit about ©. The best way to show this is by having (a) previous research experience in the field, (b) a publication in said field, © education in the field, (d) LOR writers in the field. Since you do not seem to have any of those, you may be in a bit of a problem. A fairly simple solution is to get a master's degree in something related (e.g., not Business Analytics) - and do as much RA work as you can take on yourself --> this will get you research experience (note - do a thesis), LOR, and a track record = reduce risk, and give you the ability to gogogo when you get to the program. I am an OB macro student. The difference between us the the micro folks is massive. Most of the macro peeps have no sociology experience, but a very large proportion of the micro peeps have been lab managers, RAs for professors in good programs, and/or have pubs. I don't mean to be harsh, just give you the best advice I can. Another thing to do (keeping in mind that research experience is very important) is to apply to Strategy or Marketing programs. Your mathematical prowess will be more appreciated there than in Micro OB (generally psych people are lousy with math, and they use experiments to control away all of the things that make for complicated statistical models for the rest of us - only half joking ;)) since they will do coursework with econ peeps. But both will give you access to psych faculty and types of work. Look at current PhD students in programs you are interested in and look at their backgrounds. If someone is semi-similar to you - reach out and ask the hard questions - it truly helps.

Wonderful news!!

I am not sure anyone can be sure. But here's mine. I got 163V 168Q 4.5W and am studying in one of those T10 OB programs. Some schools have a higher historical mean (e.g., Wharton), but in my program there are people with lower. I believe it should be enough to not get desk rejected if its above 90th percentile. Regarding grades, it should not be an issue if improved (I dropped out of college with a GPA in the 2's before going back). Make sure you have awesome LORs and with your experience you should be good. T10 are always a crapshoot (e.g., I have someone in the program with 2 LORs from industry). Good luck!

Hi agilist, Regarding your first question, don't. It seems high enough to get you where you want to go. I have the same scores as you do and I had interviews with two of the schools you listed (I'm also OB). GRE is a foot-in-the-door kind of a thing - If it's high enough to pass the desk-reject phase, that's enough. Regarding your second question, if you have two very solid academic LORs and the choice is between a professor that just knows you as a student (not an RA) and a boss who has very good things to say about you - I'd go with the boss (unless the professor has warm things to say and is very known). If I look at my cohort, there are some who have industry experience (mean ~3 years, maybe less). If you can connect the dots (in your statement) between research and your experience in a cohesive narrative that takes the reader through the path to your research interests, you should be fine. If the RA you have done however was not very substantial, I would recommend considering taking a 1 year RAship. Good luck!

Yup. There is a saying in the Talmud that goes 'Heve zanav la'arayot, ve'al yehi rosh la'shualim', which literally means that it's better to be a tail to lions, than a head to foxes. You get my drift.

Generally, there are two crucial elements to an application that matter besides grades (and test scores - both serve as a foot in the door, not more) and previous experience - LORs and SOP. As Xanthus and BrazilianPhD said, working with a well known professor is great. I do not necessarily agree that a well-known professor will give you better experience or knowledge than a not-so-well-known one. Nor will he necessarily give you a better LOR. He just can potentially give you a better one. So if you have two really good LORs, go with the famous professor. If you don't, go with whoever seems like a good person, with whom you connect and one who will give you substantive things to do (e.g., not just literary reviews). It has been my experience that a strong SOP weaves your current research interests through your previous experience. So even if the project you will be working on is not your (current, as Xanthus said) main interest, it should be a tool for you to explain how it shaped it. It can be in a wide theoretical way, in a specific anecdotal way or in a methodological way. No matter what - you should be able to use it to enhance your main statement - what you want to do, why you want to do it, and what tools have you acquired to enable this.

I will be spending about 60% of my stipend on housing. It will be a rough year. But when I will be there, understand where everything is and how to be efficient with traveling - and especially after the initial two years of coursework - I will move further away from the campus.

For competitiveness - think of improving the Quant score in the GRE. It is hard to know in advance whether your statement is really good or not. If a professor that went to a similar tier program as you aim at read it and thinks it's rockin', than it's likely good enough. I would focus on research fit to the faculty and name specific faculty you want to work with and briefly state why (although this should be self evident from the rest of the statement). If you did research for a professor, make sure she/he is an LOR writer. I might be odd if not. The better the program the more research-focused it wants your own profile/LORs/Statement to be (generally speaking). Hope this helps.

I am also newly admitted, and to Macro OB, so take this with a grain of salt. Stata is important. I taught SPSS and while it is limited in many ways, many a research in psychology can be done with it without problems. R is a favorite of mine, but when taken with other software packages in mind, its strengths lie in the data carpentry stage (as well as its uncanny statistical prowess which is truly beyond my reach). All this is good and fine, but the best thing to do is: (1) look at the methods courses and see which statistical packages they use - that's your no.1 priority, and (2) talk candidly to your potential advisor(s) and ask them outright what they use in their research.

Very nice! Celebrate a little :)

Yes. I have heard from around 10% of my programs. This will likely rise to 80% by late-February though.

I can only speak from my very limited experience with what I was told by a professor in a top-tier program about faculty advisors. In order to get accepted they need to find a faculty member (there it's the younger faculty members) to agree to mentor you. This has to do with availability, sure, but a lot to do with research fit as well. Not all programs do this, not all use just young faculty members. Stating specific faculty you want to work with doesn't necessarily prevent other faculty members from working with you, and if done in an integrative way, you can show that you did your research, and that you can think in complex ways of connections between various scholarships, which is a good sign.

Nice Management and bzholle! Celebrate some! :)

Probably around twice as many as the offers they will be extending (not twice as many as the matriculated class). So, depending on the program, this could be between 5 to 10 percent of the applicant pool.