bpolley00, not sure how much response you're going to get. Your tone is a little offputting. The people around here don't make the rules; we're not the ones deciding how it works.

The fact is that admission to a top bschool is incredibly competitive. One metric that an adcom can evaluate is how someone did in college. They have imperfect information; they need to use something to make their admissions decisions. From the schools' perspective, if someone did poorly incollege then that often indicates that they just didn't work too hard - which often indicates that they don't value academics. Why should they admit someone like that to their graduate program?

But the GPA is just one factor of many, and everything is weighed out in the application process. What the consultants on this thread have reported are the trends and averages. There are always exceptions, and you're invited to be one.

EssaySnark

Essaysnark,

Thanks for the response. I am not trying to be off-putting; however, it is frustrating when people say that could be the single reason why he was rejected. I mean, for all you know he could have had serious family issues at the time or some sort of traumatic life event or, in my case, I studied in college but I didn't agree with what was being taught so I don't think it is logical to sit around and pound theories in your head you fundamentally disagree with, especially when those theories are overlapping from class to class. So instead, I focused on how my profession was universally judged and worked on that instead. Maybe I got ahead of myself, but I just disagree with the notion that you can take someone's gpa, which is a cumulative number of 4 years of courses, some of which you may not even want to take and some of which may have been scaled in a fashion that took away the incentive to want to excel (I touched on that in my previous post), and use that to decipher that one candidate is a better candidate than another.

-BP

Fair enough, BP - we get where you're coming from. And that's why we stated in our original reply up above:

essaysnark wrote:Unfortunately we think you got some bum advice on the GPA; that can be a showstopper issue if it's not handled well.

Emphasis added. We did not say categorically that it WAS the problem. And we implied with our statement that it can be overcome if it's handled well. But stats are not on your side if your college academics are weak.

Please consider the situation here: Someone comes onto an Internet forum and asks for help. They've been trying for two years. We get 5 datapoints: where they applied, GMAT, GPA, years of work experience, and that they submitted in Rd 3 (or maybe Rd 2, unclear). What we know from just that data is, a) they applied to seriously competitive schools, and b) one of those datapoints is way below the average. The schools the OP tried for have an average student GPA of 3.5 or higher.

We actually don't like the whole "here's my profile what are my chances" thing that happens on these forums for exactly this reason. There's always more to a person's profile than can be gotten from just a few basic stats. In fact, we think it often does a real disservice to people. Here's a rant we wrote about it awhile back: https://essaysnark.com/2012/07/what-is-the-adcon/

But people want information, and so we try to help out when we can.

Yet averages are averages. The OP was told by multiple people "not to worry about" the GPA, and that advice is just completely misguided. The schools on this list are going to have a hard time overlooking it, for the reasons we stated in our reply to you yesterday. Yes, it CAN BE overcome, but it is a very big blemish. The schools want overachievers; the GPA is just one input that can demonstrate that (or not). Just like some other consultants said on this thread, in our years of doing this, a low GPA is one hurdle that can be very tricky to overcome. It can be overcome, yes, but this OP was not getting good advice, and so we assume that was a factor in their results.

Remember, bschool is SCHOOL. The adcoms are looking for people who ENJOY LEARNING. A low GPA sends the wrong signal. If the OP just ignored this weakness in their presentation to the schools, it's unlikely that the adcoms were given anything to go on that would have encouraged them to say yes. The GPA isn't a screening - none of the schools have a minimum or a cut-off - they all will read the entire app. But we're guessing that it wasn't managed appropriately to give the OP a real chance.

And again, the OP's target list is some seriously competitive schools. Lots of incredibly well-qualified candidates are turned away from all of them every year.

Getting in to a school like Harvard - or Haas, which has an almost-as-low acceptance rate - requires a lot of strategy. The profile needs to be strong - and any weaknesses need to be mitigated. A low GPA isn't automatically a dealkiller but the OP's GPA was really low. The essays need to be solid - that was also likely an issue for the OP - we only say that because we already have evidence that they were getting bad advice, and if the essays were done well then we wouldn't be having this conversation. And people should apply in Round 1 if possible, Round 2 at the latest. Hardly anyone gets in through Round 3. There were lots of missteps that we can deduce from the bare-minimum info provided.

The bottom line, BP? To try to respond to your concerns specifically? College is about playing the game. You're working in the system to get ahead. If your low GPA is because you're a complete rebel, then that could mean that you're also an interesting person who's bucked the system and done cool things in other ways, and that will surely come out in your app. But you're applying to bschool... which is another system. The best chances of getting in are to play by the rules. Which means, recognize the weaknesses, and deal with them appropriately in the app.

The people around here don't make up the rules, we just report on 'em, and try to help people navigate the system and come out a winner. It's kinda the whole philosophy on which EssaySnark was born - to offset the imperfect information/lack of transparency thing https://essaysnark.com/about/the-essaysnark-philosophy/

Anyway. Hope this works out for you. You're clearly passionate, which can take you far.

And to the OP, if you're still around: Please keep trying! There's always a spot in a good bschool awaiting the person who doesn't give up, we see it all the time.

EssaySnark

Essaysnark,

THANK YOU. SERIOUSLY, THANK YOU. That genuine response should be an indication of the quality of the advice you are offering your clients and that response was really well thought out.

I mean the big thing with me is this: you have virtually 40+ years of Berkshire Hathaway's history to compare to what is being taught in your typical school. It costs virtually NOTHING to print out an annual report or multiple annual reports and read through them. While Berkshire Hathaway's history is by no means the only way to invest it is certainly something to consider; which, academia has called a 6 sigma event. However, it isn't as if the portfolio managers there are making arbitrary decisions. So, if you listen to what is being taught consistently and tried to apply the information and found out some theories were contradicting reality or what other large portfolio managers were saying, then why would you sit around and memorize it?!?!? MY whole goal as an undergraduate from a state school was to create a historical record in which I tried to beat the S&P500 as that is how money managers are evaluated and how Harvard graduates or graduates from any school would be evaluated. It is a universal benchmark. As a person in the business what do you really want? A guy who beat the S&P500 with a real strategy that can be explained or a guy who got a 4.0 and didn't really apply the information or critically think about what was being taught. I am not belittling a 4.0, that is awesome and congratulations to the hard working individuals who strived for that. However, you should also have an objective perspective on what is being taught. IT is the same attitude you should have when you are reading an annual report or doing a general business deal. It isn't as if what is in the CEO's best interest is the same as what is in YOUR best interest.


"Remember, bschool is SCHOOL. The adcoms are looking for people who ENJOY LEARNING. A low GPA sends the wrong signal. If the OP just ignored this weakness in their presentation to the schools, it's unlikely that the adcoms were given anything to go on that would have encouraged them to say yes. The GPA isn't a screening - none of the schools have a minimum or a cut-off - they all will read the entire app. But we're guessing that it wasn't managed appropriately to give the OP a real chance. "

See this is what I am saying, this is presumptuous. Like I have said in previous posts, I enjoy learning, but I am not going to memorize things I know aren't true. We can have an in depth conversation on Finance if you want but no one knows what I am even talking about, HR and ADcomms who have no prior education in the field especially. Again, different people are interested in different things so I am not knocking Adcomms.
But, If what someone is telling you is obviously false would you say oh ok well the next thing that person is going to tell me is FOR SURE TRUE! Probably not. You are probably going to think twice about what that individual is trying to tell you.

The bottom line, BP? To try to respond to your concerns specifically? College is about playing the game. You're working in the system to get ahead. If your low GPA is because you're a complete rebel, then that could mean that you're also an interesting person who's bucked the system and done cool things in other ways, and that will surely come out in your app. But you're applying to bschool... which is another system. The best chances of getting in are to play by the rules. Which means, recognize the weaknesses, and deal with them appropriately in the app.

See my goal isn't to work a system. My goal is to be genuinely good at what I want to do and to actually ENJOY doing it. Isn't that the point? I am not here for the money, which is simply printed by a few people in the middle of the country and I am not trying to simply impress you with a SICKKKKKKKKKK resume. I wanted to find something, like I said I enjoy and genuinely wanted to do and I want to go to a school that will help me become MARGINALLY better at it then what I could do otherwise by myself.


Anyways, I kind of was rambling but thanks again for actually addressing me directly and not dodging the question. It really is appreciated and that is great advice for the op to follow: don't give up.

-BP

I guess the fact that he applied in Round 3, to the world's most selective coupled with low GPA derailed him. Two most important factors: ultra competitive schools and applying in R3. As the applicant has already mentioned, he was busy and his essay could not have been properly executed. But admist experts what do I know

Dude! take this from someone's who's got in most of the schools that you've applied. Keep it real. You know getting in these schools was tough. I feel for your disappointment but overcoming a GPA of 2.8 basically means your extra-curricular activities have to pull the extra weight.

I'd suggest either apply to schools that you have realistic chance or revisit your profile next year with meaningful progress to offset the low GPA.

neoneo.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if it's fair or valid, it just matters that it's statistically true. When schools receive as many applications as they do, they have the luxury of taking top applicants with high GMAT and GPA. GPA is probably a good predictor of success because it implies undergraduate work ethic. With GPAs as inflated as they are, it's a hard stat to explain away when many many many of your peers managed to get a 3.5 or higher. That said, your major, the pedigree of your university, your GPA, your essays, your recommendations, etc. etc. all come into play and make up the whole package. But to use a phrase I hear a lot around these parts: the admissions committee will blink once, don't ask them to blink twice. Sadly, with a low GPA, you've used up your blinking quota.

So as you'll see, top schools have very high averages and 90% of accepted applicants have above 3.0 at basically every top school: see Poets and Quants article.

Machichi,

I guess this is just a difference in attitude or perhaps experiences. If I were to have studied Math or Engineering, I would completely understand that mentality. There is a definitive answer always and there isn't an incentive for people to be disingenuous. However, I didn't I studied Finance and Economics. In business I would recommend being very skeptical to every single word that you are told, as other people's best interests aren't in your own self-interest. Treasury bonds are risk free? Really? Now, if I realize while studying that the sh** that is being taught doesn't make sense and quite frankly doesn't work in real life and there is 40+ years of Berkshire Hathaway history to study and book recommendations from Warren Buffett, I am not going to waste my time memorizing things to appease academia and I could careless how other people feel about my GPA because school's shouldn't teach theories they know aren't true in the first place. Not to mention the fact that courses get scaled all the time and from a teacher to teacher basis the same class can be a completely different class. Anyways, I am much more interested in the application and actually proving that I am good at what I want to do than merely memorizing books full of theories that I know are a waste of time. I guess I will find out how it works out for me in the application process after I take the GMAT once more.

Go ahead and see for yourself. Do this and let me know how your financial returns are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory

Good luck.

Also, with the blink comment: that is obviously on a situation to situation basis, otherwise Harvard blinked 3 times for George Bush.

Finally, it does matter if it is fair or valid; otherwise, it ruins your credibility. If you let in some kid who has a 550 GMAT, which again there is nothing wrong with that some people can't score higher than that. However, I would say there is a huge accountability issue unless that kid has some ridiculously awesome story. But even then how can you say that he/ she even deserves to be there? Isn't the point of the GMAT to prove intellectually that everyone can handle the rigorous course work? Well, if you let someone in with a 550 then either you really don't care about his ability to perform in a top school or the GMAT isn't really that important. Kind of like I don't expect to be looked at by Stanford with a 650, currently.

These are just my thoughts.



-BP

So it's clear: I am a bleeding heart liberal arts student who majored in philosophy/literature. I practically graduated with a major in Ambiguity, so I'm very sympathetic to your comments that there isn't a "definitive" answer. However, I'm skeptical of two points:

1) Math and Engineering are not completely definitive as you get deeper into them. There's definitely more emphasis on theories and conceptualization at the higher levels.

2) There are definitely WRONG answers even if there isn't necessarily a right one. The idea that a liberal arts degree is very flim flam and fancy free and anything goes definitely rankles. Clarity of expression, economy of language, and sophistication of ideas are the bread and butter of any course (or should be), and hopefully they are the basis for grades. Maybe I just went to a school that didn't care if I memorized anything. I had open book exams because it didn't matter what the facts said, it mattered how well I applied them.

bpolley00 wrote:Finally, it does matter if it is fair or valid; otherwise, it ruins your credibility.

You make a really good point here. It absolutely would ruin their credibility, and I'm glad you mentioned that. I guess I just disagree with your premise that GPA isn't meaningful. Knowing someone's major, their class rank, the selectivity of the school, etc. gives you a pretty good set of data points to determine what their GPA means.

bpolley00 wrote:Also, with the blink comment: that is obviously on a situation to situation basis, otherwise Harvard blinked 3 times for George Bush.

Back with Bush applied there were probably two applicants for every one spot. The (lack of) competitiveness and the "old-boys-club-iness" definitely made a world of difference.

In any event - good luck with your GMAT retake. Are you applying this year?

Machichi,

haha, I took a Philosophy class and I thought it was very interesting. See that is what is fun about business school right? A whole bunch of people from different parts of the country with different experiences all trying to improve themselves and improve the way they think about the world around them. At least, that is one of the reasons why I want to go.

Anyways I'll address what you said!
1) Ok fair enough, I agree. I meant Calculus or basic Engineering. I don't think anyone here is going to get into an argument that 2+3=5. I guess I should have been more specific.

2) See my experience is that they would teach a lot of complex math that basically had little utility to the real world and was border line pseudoscience. While I think it is important to be good at math, I am not going to pound financial theories that aren't true into my head. It isn't in my best interest. Also, some of it was just plain disingenuous. I mean, like I have said in previous posts, I could sit here and we could type up 4 years of Econ and discuss where exactly it is that I disagreed. However- instead of taking that approach the way money managers are commonly evaluated is beating the S&P500. So instead, I focused on actually getting a track record of success as if you are a hiring manager for a hedge fund or a holding company what are you looking for? A 4.0 student who couldn't necessarily read between the lines or a guy with a track record of doing well actually managing money? So, I focused on getting a track record that was comparable to how a typical money manager was evaluated - a standard that is basically universal, that cuts through the fact that my school wasn't ranked #1 in the world. With that being said, there is always some luck to it and, in general, I still have a lot of room to improve! I just need a lot of time to continue to work on it;thus, graduate school.

Think about GPA though. There are 2000+ public schools, let alone a lot of private schools, and across those schools there are a plethora of different teachers. Even if you compared my grades to someone else who graduated from my college who took the exact same courses with different professors I would say that would be a fallacious approach.I know for a fact there were classes my friends took which were extraordinarily easier than the classes I took, with the exact same name. However, I also took courses where the bottom of the class would just get scaled upwards; thus, taking the incentive away to excel. I mean if you want to keep it completely honest I am fine with that. However, I just think taking GPA seriously would be making a whole bunch of assumptions. That is why I tried to perform to how my profession was evaluated rather than focusing on my GPA.

See I think the old-boy-club-iness is kind of a weak way about going about it. I mean either your profile is what they are looking for and you earned it or you probably shouldn't be there. It isn't as if everyone doesn't know who you are and know if whether or not you got in was because you knew somebody. Especially in this day and age. I am completely ok if Stanford says hey, your GMAT score isn't at our average and your GPA is below our average. Get your GMAT score up and continue to work on your extracurricular activities and try again next year. That is something I can do something about. But simply saying NOPE YOUR GPA IS TOO LOW YOUR STUPID YOU CAN'T COME is a pretty pathetic response if you ask me. Some of the most successful historical figures had low gpa's, Everyone should have the opportunity to be evaluated, to be given general advice and to be able to come back stronger than before if they do not meet the requirements.

That brings me back to my application about what matters most to me and why. If you don't know yet, I'll let you ponder it for awhile.

I won't be applying for awhile, I don't have the leadership experience in my opinion to be qualified for a top school. I am just trying to get done with the GMAT and get it above the 700 mark. Preferably in the 720-740 range which I am scoring right at currently. But test day is all that matters, so we shall see.

Like I said, these are just my thoughts and my opinions and I hope that you can see where I am coming from and have enjoyed our conversation. When are you applying and to what schools? Best of luck to you as well sir.

-BP

Ignore the last part of my last comment. Congratulations on Yale, that is an awesome choice. Also, I enjoyed reading through your blog, there is some great advice in there.

-BP

bpolley00 wrote:Ignore the last part of my last comment. Congratulations on Yale, that is an awesome choice. Also, I enjoyed reading through your blog, there is some great advice in there.

-BP

Ha - no need to ignore anything. I don't expect everyone to be reading my silly old blog. Thanks for the congrats. I'm psyched to begin!

As far as the other stuff on GPA, we'll have to agree to disagree. I agree with all your points about variability and unreliability, but on average GPAs are super inflated. My basic premise is that a difference between a 3.4 and a 3.6 is negligible, but a difference between a 2.7 and a 3.6 is very large. Take in to consideration that over 4-5 years you take 30-40 courses; your experience is likely to include extremes in both directions and averages. That's all I'm saying.

Good luck on your next GMAT and keep chugging along to build up your application now. You're certainly starting early!