I hope it's not taboo to ask for an *updated* profile eval, but I could really use some professional advice from the Beat the GMAT community experts. Basically, my dilemma is as follows:
My stats are as follows:
Age: 26
Undergrad GPA: 3.1 (BA in Economics from UC Irvine)
Alternative transcript: Over a dozen courses taken after my undergrad with a GPA >3.5. Classes include Accounting and Real Estate classes primarily through UCI and UCLA Extension
GMAT (most recent attempt): 640 (Q47, V31, IR 5, AWA pending)
GMAT (1st attempt): 550 (Q35, V31, IR 6, AWA 5.5)
Extra-curriculars: Very limited. Only thing I can think of is my involvement with a local tennis meetup group. I am one of 3 individuals as part of the leadership team, the group is one of the most active tennis groups in the county with over 500+ members. Although, I have been less active in recent months due to an injury.
Work experience: 4 years in mortgage banking at a medium-sized credit union. More specifically, 2 years as a mortgage processor, and 2 years as a mortgage underwriter. I think it's very rare for someone with as little experience as me to get promoted to an underwriter so quickly, to be in a position where I am the last line of defense for detecting fraud, ensuring compliance with federal regulations, secondary market compliance, assessing appropriate risk in issuing loan approvals, etc. Big reason for my quick promotion is because I was consistently the top processor, beating out others with 5-10+ more years of experience even though I had only 1-2 years.
I have also had a lot of opportunities to do training and mentoring for others (largely out of necessity to keep the department running, as we have had large turnover in management). In other words, I have been doing a lot more than the traditional underwriter role calls for, and I have had my hands in pretty much every step of the loan process, training/mentoring, and doing the following roles: loan officer, loan processor, underwriter, auditor, etc..
I'd like to start an MBA program ASAP. UCI offers a Spring accelerated program that begins in March 2015. However, the prestige of UCI Merage is not as great as that of a UCLA Anderson MBA.
Given the fact that I plan on staying local, would a more recognized degree like UCLA be that much more beneficial to me as opposed to a regional degree such as UCI? And, should I jeopardize my chances of making it on time for UCI's Spring start MBA by going all-out for UCLA first? Or should I play it safe and just go for UCI?
I guess the million dollar question is - what would be my chances for UCLA FEMBA given my stats. If I stand a good chance, I may consider going all-out for UCLA. If it's questionable, I may have to stick with the safer option: UCI's Spring start.
- *My employer offers tuition reimbursement, but likely only for UCLA and UCI. So, USC is out of the picture (unless I want to spend the time and energy applying for USC, fighting an uphill battle to have it reimbursed, with a good possibility of being declined.)
*I plan on staying local to the Southern California area for at least the next 5-7 years.
My stats are as follows:
Age: 26
Undergrad GPA: 3.1 (BA in Economics from UC Irvine)
Alternative transcript: Over a dozen courses taken after my undergrad with a GPA >3.5. Classes include Accounting and Real Estate classes primarily through UCI and UCLA Extension
GMAT (most recent attempt): 640 (Q47, V31, IR 5, AWA pending)
GMAT (1st attempt): 550 (Q35, V31, IR 6, AWA 5.5)
Extra-curriculars: Very limited. Only thing I can think of is my involvement with a local tennis meetup group. I am one of 3 individuals as part of the leadership team, the group is one of the most active tennis groups in the county with over 500+ members. Although, I have been less active in recent months due to an injury.
Work experience: 4 years in mortgage banking at a medium-sized credit union. More specifically, 2 years as a mortgage processor, and 2 years as a mortgage underwriter. I think it's very rare for someone with as little experience as me to get promoted to an underwriter so quickly, to be in a position where I am the last line of defense for detecting fraud, ensuring compliance with federal regulations, secondary market compliance, assessing appropriate risk in issuing loan approvals, etc. Big reason for my quick promotion is because I was consistently the top processor, beating out others with 5-10+ more years of experience even though I had only 1-2 years.
I have also had a lot of opportunities to do training and mentoring for others (largely out of necessity to keep the department running, as we have had large turnover in management). In other words, I have been doing a lot more than the traditional underwriter role calls for, and I have had my hands in pretty much every step of the loan process, training/mentoring, and doing the following roles: loan officer, loan processor, underwriter, auditor, etc..
I'd like to start an MBA program ASAP. UCI offers a Spring accelerated program that begins in March 2015. However, the prestige of UCI Merage is not as great as that of a UCLA Anderson MBA.
Given the fact that I plan on staying local, would a more recognized degree like UCLA be that much more beneficial to me as opposed to a regional degree such as UCI? And, should I jeopardize my chances of making it on time for UCI's Spring start MBA by going all-out for UCLA first? Or should I play it safe and just go for UCI?
I guess the million dollar question is - what would be my chances for UCLA FEMBA given my stats. If I stand a good chance, I may consider going all-out for UCLA. If it's questionable, I may have to stick with the safer option: UCI's Spring start.
