The MBA Thread

I wonder is it better to do MBA/JD at my current law school (Dalhousie .... Canada ahem...) or get my JD, work for a while, make some $, and try to get into Harvard/Wharton?

Originally Posted by ashpool

Click to expand...

I wonder is it better to do MBA/JD at my current law school (Dalhousie .... Canada ahem...) or get my JD, work for a while, make some $, and try to get into Harvard/Wharton?

What do you think the MBA will add to the JD, outside of being an avenue for a career change/shift into in-house counsel? I think that's what you need to ask yourself.

I would love to know the Quant vs Poet Gmat scores. I`ve been given to understand that the reason for the 700 + averages at tier 1 schools is due to the huge number of people from quant backgrounds applying and getting in.


The scores of the people from non-traditional backgrounds would be interesting.

Originally Posted by L.R.

Click to expand...

I would love to know the Quant vs Poet Gmat scores. I`ve been given to understand that the reason for the 700 + averages at tier 1 schools is due to the huge number of people from quant backgrounds applying and getting in.


The scores of the people from non-traditional backgrounds would be interesting.

Quant is given a lot more weight in the admissions process, if not necessarily in the calculation of total score. A traditional "poet" score (extremely high verbal, middling to low quant) will almost never put someone in contention for a top 10 school, even if the cume is over 700. It's considered too imbalanced a score. On the other hand, an illiterate quant (700+, high quant, low verbal) has a pretty good shot at a top school.

My score was higher on verbal than on quant, but the spread was not dramatic because I am a genius. For your health!

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

Quant is given a lot more weight in the admissions process, if not necessarily in the calculation of total score. A traditional "poet" score (extremely high verbal, middling to low quant) will almost never put someone in contention for a top 10 school, even if the cume is over 700. It's considered too imbalanced a score. On the other hand, an illiterate quant (700+, high quant, low verbal) has a pretty good shot at a top school.

This is interesting--I've never thought about GMAT like this.

I made 700+ w/ high verbal low quant and had a surprisingly difficult time getting into my school (which isn't even a top MBA program).

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

Quant is given a lot more weight in the admissions process, if not necessarily in the calculation of total score. A traditional "poet" score (extremely high verbal, middling to low quant) will almost never put someone in contention for a top 10 school, even if the cume is over 700. It's considered too imbalanced a score. On the other hand, an illiterate quant (700+, high quant, low verbal) has a pretty good shot at a top school.

My score was higher on verbal than on quant, but the spread was not dramatic because I am a genius. For your health!

This is because MBA programs love to play up their technical difficulty - when, in reality, you barely use math even in a finance focused MBA. When I say math, I mean calc and above. And the GMAT doesn't really test math ability, it tests logic ability and the ability to spot false answers and whatnot. I don't think it covered anything above 9th grade Algebra II.

In reality, MBA programs would probably be better off putting a heavier emphasis on verbal scores - nothing worse than graduating a bunch of desk-chained quants that have no interpersonal skills or ability to write memos/emails. Yet, this is the majority of grads at many schools. Maybe that's fine for IB and research analyst roles but for general management and marketing (and other "soft" roles that fill up the majority of positions for most MBAs) higher quant isn't probably the best thing.

Originally Posted by BC2012

Click to expand...

the GMAT doesn't really test math ability, it tests logic ability and the ability to spot false answers and whatnot. I don't think it covered anything above 9th grade Algebra II.

In reality, MBA programs would probably be better off putting a heavier emphasis on verbal scores - nothing worse than graduating a bunch of desk-chained quants that have no interpersonal skills or ability to write memos/emails.

+100

Isn't a higher verbal score a better indication of higher IQ?

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

Quant is given a lot more weight in the admissions process, if not necessarily in the calculation of total score. A traditional "poet" score (extremely high verbal, middling to low quant) will almost never put someone in contention for a top 10 school, even if the cume is over 700. It's considered too imbalanced a score. On the other hand, an illiterate quant (700+, high quant, low verbal) has a pretty good shot at a top school.

My score was higher on verbal than on quant, but the spread was not dramatic because I am a genius. For your health!

Disagree. They don't care as long as you are above 70th percentile on both. And the math is easy anyway, it doesn't measure your quant ability

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

Quant is given a lot more weight in the admissions process, if not necessarily in the calculation of total score. A traditional "poet" score (extremely high verbal, middling to low quant) will almost never put someone in contention for a top 10 school, even if the cume is over 700. It's considered too imbalanced a score. On the other hand, an illiterate quant (700+, high quant, low verbal) has a pretty good shot at a top school.

My score was higher on verbal than on quant, but the spread was not dramatic because I am a genius. For your health!

Disagree. A stereotypical Asian/Indian who has for his entire life seen academics as some kind of math contest will get your illiterate quant score, high 700's, and will have virtually no shot at a top school. These guys represent a huge proportion of applicants these days. If you've met the 80% quant threshold, I think a huge verbal (50+) makes you stand out a bit.

Still, I think the importance of the GMAT is overstated. But what the **** do I know.

Originally Posted by BC2012

Click to expand...

This is because MBA programs love to play up their technical difficulty - when, in reality, you barely use math even in a finance focused MBA. When I say math, I mean calc and above.
I did a shitload of multivariate calc and high-level statistics in my bschool classes. Not sure what University of Phoenix was like for you, however. Agree with your points that verbal should be counted for a lot more than it is. Alas, that is not the case, and all trends I've seen are pointing to even less of an emphasis placed on rhetorical ability or verbal competency, let alone fluency, let alone potency. A real shame, too.

Originally Posted by pebblegrain

Click to expand...

Disagree. They don't care as long as you are above 70th percentile on both. And the math is easy anyway, it doesn't measure your quant ability

Nothing you just said addressed the point of mine with which you "disagree."

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

Click to expand...

Disagree. A stereotypical Asian/Indian who has for his entire life seen academics as some kind of math contest will get your illiterate quant score, high 700's, and will have virtually no shot at a top school. These guys represent a huge proportion of applicants these days. If you've met the 80% quant threshold, I think a huge verbal (50+) makes you stand out a bit. Still, I think the importance of the GMAT is overstated. But what the **** do I know.
My point, which keeps getting missed evidently, is that quant is weighed much more heavily by admissions folks than verbal is. That is a fact. Furthermore, my point was that the far preferable (as far as admissions chances are concerned) type of wild split is the wild split in favor of quant, rather than the wild split in favor of verbal. While it's true that there are a ton of high-quant/low-verbal Asians and Indians out there, the fact of the matter is that quite a few of them end up in top schools. On the other hand, maybe 1 out of every 1000 "poet" scoring people ends up at a top school. Obviously it's better to have a balanced score with a high cume. That is beside the point I was addressing.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

I did a shitload of multivariate calc and high-level statistics in my bschool classes. Not sure what University of Phoenix was like for you, however.

What classes did you do multivariate calc in? And specifically in which applications of finance? I've taken stats and econometrics but I guarantee I won't be taking beyond econometrics.

Please, since you came back with such a ****** attitude about it, please feel free to tell us exactly how you used multivariate calculus and in what detail.

Originally Posted by BC2012

Click to expand...

What classes did you do multivariate calc in? And specifically in which applications of finance? I've taken stats and econometrics but I guarantee I won't be taking beyond econometrics. Please, since you came back with such a ****** attitude about it, please feel free to tell us exactly how you used multivariate calculus and in what detail.
First of all, calm down. The UoP thing was supposed to have been a lighthearted jab, which I soon edited to add a requisite, softening smiley to. Evidently you were already in mid-screed when that editing took place, however. To answer your question, Black-Scholes is a pretty well known and fairly basic partial differential model. If you haven't gotten there yet, you're speaking out of turn. There are plenty more where that came from. I don't mean to be rude, but challenging me on this **** when it's clear that you are speaking out of your ass is not doing you favors.