What will GMAC do with Scoretop's customers?

I guess because I don't deal in the realm of the criminal, I had never heard of Scoretop back in the days when it was selling real GMAT questions. Based on GMAC's FAQ, I am sure they are figuring out what their legal options are vis-a-vis the Scoretop customer base. According to Businessweek, only one customer's scores have been canceled, but he bragged about using the service publicly, so probably has no legal defense. My guess is that GMAC will decide that the potential litigation involving one or more class action suits by plaintiffs who claim that they were the victims of Scoretop and not engaged in cheating on the GMAT is enough for GMAC to decide it is not worth do mass score cancellation. Combine this defense with potential privacy issues and it is has the makings for some serious litigation that GMAC will probably want to avoid. But if I am wrong, assume you will be hearing a lot more about Scoretop.

I really do like what GMAC has done with the Scoretop website. This is my favorite part:

"If you are caught disclosing, accessing, or using "real" GMAT^® questions:

• Your GMAT^® scores will be cancelled.
• You will not be allowed to take the GMAT^® exam again.
• Business schools will be notified.
• You may be subject to a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution.

You are responsible for making sure your preparation materials don’t violate our intellectual property rights. In other words:

• Do not purchase, request, or share materials that claim to be “real” GMAT^® questions in any form.
• Do not download GMATPrep^® software from anywhere but www.mba.com, where authorized GMATPrep^® software is available for free.
• Do not request or distribute pirated software or books such as the GMAT^® Paper Tests, GMAT Focus^TM or the Official GMAT^® Guide."

Whether GMAC takes action or not against the Scoretop customers, I think it is good that they delay making any decision as long as possible because those who did cheat, regardless of what is said by some of them, knew they were getting something they should not have. I hope they are sweating. Maybe the experience of worrying about being caught will be sufficient to scare them straight so that they don't become future perpetrators of the next Enron scandal.

And for those who are thinking about gaming the system, my advice is to study, get the best GMAT score you can, apply intelligently, and go knowing you did not cheat.

What do you think? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

ビジネススクール　留学　必須試験　GMAT

Secrets of the MBA admission process revealed at last!

Secrets of the MBA admission process revealed at last!

Actually not. I have to admit I am always suspicious of anyone who writes or says that they have MBA or graduate admission secrets. Such secrets always seem to have the same level of seriousness as much of the spam email I receive. The use of the word "secrets" strikes me as the worst sort of marketing designed to attract the badly informed and the desperate.

I suppose the holders of such secrets might know something, but is it really a secret? Often the information provided will be focused on getting you an insiders perspective on the admissions process. Yet such perspectives are easy to learn about through contact with admissions officers, reading guides like Montauk's How To Get Into the Top MBA Programs, and in any event are not too hard to imagine. Just because someone is not aware of something does not make it a secret, it simply makes learning that thing new information.

I suppose some might consider it a secret that admissions committees are subject to pressure from administrative entities within a university, but that is just a failure to treat universities as organizations. A holistic admissions process is one when every factor is taken into consideration. That does not just mean you as an individual applicant are judged only in terms of who you are, but you are also judged in relationship to the whole applicant pool, and to the institutional interests of the school. It certainly is not a secret that admissions committees judge applicants based on multiple factors and I have yet to meet a single applicant to a "Top 20" MBA program who did not think they were in competition to get admitted. The same is true of those applying for Ph.D.s and any degree program that is competitive to enter.

Perhaps the secrets are about techniques for admission? Well I have yet to see such a technique. I provide lots of advice, but I have never thought that any of it was a secret. If I said it was, my mentor who helped me get into graduate school would, no doubt, laugh in my face. I would hope that my fellow admission consultants would also refrain talking of secrets, but there is always someone who will claim a special gimmick.

I am a great believer in creating an effective admissions strategy and utilizing specific tactics to do so, but I would never say that such strategies or tactics are secrets, rather they are methods. Some are writing methods, others relate to interviews, while still others relate to goal setting. I consider myself to be a methodological pluralist: The are many ways to peel an onion. My recent series of posts on ranking reflect that pluralism as does the way I analyze essay questions. If you review my Harvard Law School LL.M. and/or Harvard Business School MBA essay analysis for Fall 2009 admission as well as the schools I covered for Fall 2008, you will see that I have a variety ways to I analyze questions for the purpose of assisting applicants. These methods of analysis, while not secrets, are based on my clients' results.

In July, I will be analyzing the essay questions for Stanford GSB, Kellogg, Columbia (My J-Term analysis is up already, but the questions may change for September 2009), and some other programs. Look for a series of posts on recommendations, hopefully some more interviews with students, and perhaps a surprise or two.
Stay cool.

Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

留学 カウンセリング コンサルティング

The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs: 2008-2009

You can find an alternative version of the post below that includes the Aspen Institute's Top 20 Ranked Programs on the AIGAC blog.

A review of The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs: 2008-2009.

As I have indicated in earlier posts (1 2 3), the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education's (CBE) www.caseplace.org is a great source for MBA case studies focused on issues related to social responsibility. CBE's other site www.beyondgreypinstripes.org actually ranks MBA programs through its "Beyond Grey Pinstripes" rankings. The most recent was for 2007-2008.

Before going onto a review of The Aspen Institute Guide, I think it is helpful to consider the source of data that the guide was based on. While I will not reprint the entire "Global 100," I would mention that the schools that rank well on this list include both unsurprising perennial "Top 20" schools and some schools that get little if any attention from Businessweek, US News & World Report, EIU, FT, Wall Street, or Forbes. Seeing alternatives is always valuable because it makes one look at something from a new perspective. Getting a new perspective on ranking is always a good idea from my perspective(as anyone who has followed my various methods for ranking programs can tell). For that reason alone, for anyone looking for an MBA program with strong social responsibility content, "The Global 100" is worthy of serious consideration.

The same is true of The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs: 2008-2009. The book brings life to the data found at www.beyondgreypinstripes.org. For those who are trying figure out where to apply and are interested in socially responsible investing, non-profit management, environmental issues, social entrepreneurship, socially responsible management practices, sustainability, and development, The Aspen Institute Guide provides an efficient way to learn which programs focus on these issues. It highlights socially responsibility related core and elective courses, institutes and centers, annual events, other events, student clubs and programs, and, where applicable, faculty pioneers. Actually, when I advise my clients about what they need to highlight to show why they want to attend a particular program, it is often these categories that I suggest they focus on. While The Aspen Institute Guide could not possibly include every potentially relevant aspect of the program, it does quite a good job of providing a solid introduction.

That said, as this is the first edition, I do hope they make some improvement to it in future editions. The summaries are very good, but the analysis of each program is rather limited. While the ranking analysis is available on www.beyondgreypinstripes.org, I think the authors needed to make the book stand on its own. Unfortunately at an analytical level it does not.

I was surprised to see that the book did not even include "The Global 100" rankings. I think this is rather unfortunate. Readers will have to refer to the ranking list because they will not find "The Global 100" in The Aspen Institute Guide.

But that is not my chief criticism. Rather, I found "The Bottom Line," The Aspen Institute Guide's attempt at analysis to be useless. Instead of providing some sort of a real analytical narrative about the program, the only analysis is a set of comments that simply represent data:
"We applied a statistical analysis to determine the relative strength of each along a few select criteria...We then make qualitative remarks using the flowing terms to reflect precise statistical scores:

• Truly Extraordinary-given to schools that scored more than one standard deviation above average
• Excellent- given to schools that scored between average and one standard deviation above average
• Good-given to schools that scored between one standard deviation below average and average" (P. 12)
  

The result is that the comments are so standardized as to be almost useless. Compare "Global 100" #1 Stanford GSB and #10 IE:

Stanford: "Compared to other business schools in our survey, Stanford University offers a truly extraordinary number of courses featuring relevant content, and does a truly extraordinary job in those courses explicitly addressing how mainstream business improves the world. Stanford University requires 23 core course featuring relevant content." (p. 144)

IE: "Compared to other business schools in our survey, IE Business School offers a truly extraordinary number of courses featuring relevant content, and does a truly extraordinary job in those courses explicitly addressing how mainstream business improves the world. IE Business School requires 40 core course featuring relevant content." (p. 144)

It would be better to have the data behind such comments than to have this qualitative version of it. The creators (writers does not seem appropriate, perhaps editors and/or statisticians) of the guide should be willing to provide the numbers. After all, any would-be applicant who can't handle a few numbers is going to have a difficult time getting a decent GMAT score, not to mention surviving business school. While it would be easier to see the numbers, including ranking data, what I would really wanted is an analytical section that reflected real expertise and not mere statistical conclusions. The Guide's authors hope that prospective students, the business education community, and recruiters will use it(p. 10). If so, it had better provide all three intended audiences with some guidance to and not just a summary of programs.

Another area of future improvement would be to identify socially responsible companies that recruit at each school. This is no easy task, but to include such data would be very helpful to applicants as well as make recruiters more interested in The Aspen Institute Guide.

I should point out that there is also some inconsistency between "The Global 100" and The Aspen Institute Guide. The most extreme example from my perspective was that HBS, while not part of "The Global 100," received "Bottom Line" comments that are in no significant way different from Stanford GSB or IE:

"Compared to other business schools in our survey, Harvard University offers a truly extraordinary number of courses featuring relevant content, and does a truly extraordinary job in those courses explicitly addressing how mainstream business improves the world. Harvard University requires 9 core course featuring relevant content." (p. 79)

This alone suggests that CBE needs to a better job of linking its guide to its rankings. If CBE is to be the authority on socially responsible business programs, it needs to create a consistent set of publications so that applicants, schools, recruiters, and even admissions consultants like myself will be looking at CBE 's "Global 100" the same way we do when looking at Businessweek's or other more generally recognized rankings of MBA programs.

On a more positive note, I want to mention that The Aspen Institute Guide includes very useful appendices on MBA concentrations, joint MBA degrees, and a geographical breakdown of the location of the programs. This information will prove useful to all applicants as part of their school selection process.

Again, the summary is great and I would recommend the guide to those who are interested in exploring their options for a socially responsible MBA education, but it is only a first step. In addition to it, you must certainly look at CBE's two great websites (mentioned above) as well as The 2007 Net Impact Student Guide to Graduate Business Programs. I hope that future editions of The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs will include introductory essays, perhaps by some of the faculty pioneers, as well as a greater analysis of how each MBA program creates a socially responsible business education, and also some qualitative-based comparisons between programs. Given the ever-expanding number of MBA applicants who have a social responsibility agenda, I am confident that The Aspen Institute Guide will become a standard resource for many future applicants.

Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.
-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学 ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA ランキング

All Six "Top 20" MBA Rankings Tables

Below you can find all six of the "Top 20" rankings tables that I have previously presented (links to the posts are below). The only difference is that the versions below have been slightly edited. The numbers have not changed. In addition, I have reprinted my ranking of schools by post-MBA salary. I hope this will make it easy for my clients and readers to utilize this information. I suggest reading the posts for some specific suggestions for how to use these tables as part of an application strategy. In addition, if you are interested in learning more about social and/or environmental responsibility, I suggest reading my review of The Aspen Institute Guide to Socially Responsible MBA Programs: 2008-2009.

A Comparison Of Rankings For Top 20 MBA Programs Worldwide:

The 54 "Top 20" MBA Programs Averaged Ranking:

A. Calculation:


B. Averaged Rank:

Ranking "TOP 20" MBA Programs by Acceptance Rate:

"Top 20" MBA Programs Ranked by Applications & Yield

A. Number of Applications:

B. Yield:

"Real" Global MBA Rankings for 2008:

"THE 98": All 98 schools ranked by FT in average post-MBA salary order.

1. Stanford University GSB, US, $175,766
2. Columbia Business School, US, $169,730
3. University of Pennsylvania: Wharton, US, $166,032
4. Harvard Business School, US, $163,493
5. Indian School of Business, India, $155,938
6. University of Chicago GSB, US, $155,484
7. MIT: Sloan, US, $155,316
8. CEIBS, China, $154,144
9. Dartmouth College: Tuck, US, $152,580
10. UCLA: Anderson, US, $148,615
11. INSEAD, France/Singapore, $147,763
12. IMD, Switzerland, $147,172
13. London Business School, UK, $145,918
14. New York University: Stern, US, $141,554
15. University of Oxford: Saïd, UK, $141,170
16. Yale School of Management, US, $140,576
17. Northwestern University: Kellogg, US, $136,674
18. University of Cambridge: Judge, UK, $133,480
19. UC Berkeley: Haas, US, $131,688
20. Cranfield School of Management, UK, $129,785
21. University of Virginia: Darden, US, $129,389
22. Cornell University: Johnson, US, $126,829
23. University of Michigan: Ross, US, $125,839
24. Emory University: Goizueta, US, $ 123,569
25. Duke University: Fuqua, US, $ 122,811
26. Australian Graduate School of Management, Australia, $122,349
27. Georgetown University: McDonough, US, $120,346
28. Imperial College London: Tanaka, UK, $120,207
29. IE Business School, Spain, $120,190
30. IESE Business School, Spain, $119,890
31. HEC Paris France, $118,562
32. University of North Carolina: Kenan-Flagler, US, $115,519
33. University of Southern California: Marshall, US, $114,582
34. University of Rochester: Simon, US, $113,983
35. University of Bath School of Management, UK, $113,727
36. University of Strathclyde Business School, UK, $113,071
37. Manchester Business School, UK, $112,625
38. Warwick Business School, UK, $112,586
39. Carnegie Mellon: Tepper, US, $112,536
40. City University: Cass, $111,615
41. University of California: Davis, U.S.A., $109,189
42. University of Texas at Austin: McCombs, U.S.A., $108,268
43. ESADE Business School, Spain, $108,166
44. Edinburgh University Management School UK, $107,956
45. Vanderbilt University: Owen U.S.A., $107,328
46. Rice University: Jones U.S.A. 2008, $107,180
47. Melbourne Business School Australia, $106,978
48. Babson College: Olin US, $106,849
49. University of Maryland: Smith US, $106,636
50. University of Western Ontario: Ivey Canada, $106,073
51. University of Notre Dame: Mendoza U.S.A., $105,783
52.Boston College: Carroll U.S.A. 2007, $105,659
53.Boston University School of Management US, $105,586
54. University of Washington Business School US, $105,554
55. Indiana University: Kelley US, $105,547
56. Lancaster University Management School UK, $104,609
57. RSM Erasmus University Netherlands, $104,211
58. Leeds University Business School UK, $104,165
59. Pennsylvania State University: Smeal US, $103,764
60. George Washington University US, $102,852
61. Michigan State University: Broad US, $102,202
62. University College Dublin: Smurfit Ireland, $101,730
63. Washington University: Olin US, $100,808
64. Nottingham University Business School UK, $100,277
65. University of California at Irvine: Merage US, $100,030
66. Bradford School of Management/TiasNimbas Business School UK/Netherlands/Germany, $99,202
67. Thunderbird School of Global Management US, $99,099
68. University of Toronto: Rotman Canada, $98,940
69. Purdue University: Krannert US, $98,554
70. Arizona State University: Carey US, $98,060
71. Hong Kong UST Business School China, $97,235
72. University of Wisconsin-Madison US, $96,866
73. SDA Bocconi Italy, $96,824
74. Vlerick Leuven Gent, Belgium, $95,754
75. College of William and Mary: Mason, US, $96,717
76. Brigham Young University: Marriott, US, $96,702
77. University of South Carolina: Moore, US, $95,417
78. Tulane University: Freeman, US, $95,384
79. Case Western Reserve: Weatherhead, US, $95,283
80. University of Arizona: Eller, US, $95,225
81. University of Georgia: Terry, US, $94,930
82. University of Pittsburgh: Katz, US, $94,641
83. University of Minnesota: Carlson, US, $94,246
84. University of Florida, US, $93,077
85. Ohio State University: Fisher, US, $92,788
86. Texas A & M University: Mays, US, $91,656
87. McGill University: Desautels, Canada, $91,551
88. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, ACEM, China, $91,346
89. EM Lyon, France, $90,532
90. Nanyang Business School Singapore, $89,836
91. Nyenrode Business Universiteit Netherlands, $89,223
92. University of Iowa: Tippie, US, $88,972
93. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, US, $87,318
94. EADA Spain, $85,811
95. York University: Schulich, Canada, $84,388
96. University of British Columbia: Sauder, Canada, $81,997
97. Temple University: Fox, US, $75,458
98. University of Alberta, Canada, $74,250

Comments? Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.

-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学 ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA ランキング 合格者率

"Top 20" MBA Programs Ranked by Applications & Yield

After ranking by post-MBA salary, comparing "Top 20" rankings, ranking by averaged "Top 20" rank, and ranking by acceptance rate, I thought it would be useful to rank "TOP 20" MBA by number of applications and by yield. Click here for all of my rankings tables together in one post.

Ranking by the number of applications is a crude, but clear, measure of the relative popularity of a program. While I would never suggest making application decisions based simply on what other applicants do, as I will explain below, it is quite helpful to look at the number of applications when reviewing other core admissions data (number admitted and yield).

Yield, the number of accepted applicants who actually enroll, is the single best measurement of relative program popularity among admits. As I discuss below, yield measures the behavior of admits.

Taking the 39 "Top 20" programs that provide data on their acceptance rates (see my earlier post on acceptance rates for the "Top 20 programs that did not provide such data), I put the tables below together. Click to enlarge them.

Ranking by number of applications:

Ranking by yield:


Data:
"Number Admitted," "First Year Enrollment" &"Acceptance Rate" data: For US, US News & World Report (2007) & for non-US & Kellogg, Businessweek (2006). Since Businessweek only lists percentages of admitted and enrolled, I have calculated the number of admitted and enrolled. For sources for the rest of the data, see "Difficulty Rank", "Averaged Rank" , and "Post-MBA Salary Rank." The following programs were ranked:
Brigham Young: Marriot, Carnegie Mellon: Tepper, Columbia Business School, Cornell University: Johnson, Cranfield S. of Management, Dartmouth College: Tuck, Duke University: Fuqua, ESADE Business School, Harvard Business School, HEC Montreal, HEC Paris, IE Business School, IESE Business School, IMD, Indiana University: Kelley, McGill, Michigan State: Broad, MIT: Sloan, New York University: Stern, Northwestern U.: Kellogg, Queen's School of Business, RSM Erasmus University, SDA Bocconi Italy, Stanford University GSB, Thunderbird, U. of Chicago GSB, U. of Iowa: Tippie, U. of Michigan: Ross, U. of Pennsylvania: Wharton, U. of Toronto: Rotman, U. of TX at Austin: McCombs, U. of Virginia: Darden, UBC: Sauder, UC Berkeley: Haas, UCLA: Anderson, UNC: Kenan-Flagler, USC: Marshall, Yale School of Management, and York University: Schulich.

How can applicants use these rankings?

As I have suggested elsewhere in this series of posts, when looking at any ranking, I think it is critical to look at actual market conditions. Just as average post-MBA salary reveals the market value of the degree, the number of applications reveal each business school's ability to attract customers (applicants are customers- they are buying the right to be considered for admission) and the yield measures the rate at which a select group of customers (admits) offered the right to exercise their option for admission choose to do so. If you are going to be an intelligent investor in this market, you need to understand the market not for some abstract reason, but because doing so will enable you to determine where is best for you to apply and to go.

Yield should be evaluated in comparison to acceptance rate. Some highly ranked schools, Haas and Yale being two of the best examples, that are difficult to get into have relatively low yield rates. Obviously those admitted to Haas and Yale had other options that they chose to exercise, but more significantly it means that Haas and Yale admissions want to get who they perceive as the best students even if it means having a relatively unimpressive yield. This indicates that while the admission offices at these two schools might care about yield to some extent, they are not willing to sacrifice the quality of their potential student body in order to improve their yield. Similarly if you find a program with a high acceptance rate and a high yield, you can assume that its admits had no better options and that the admissions office was not that selective.

I think it is possible to use the yield, number of applications, and acceptance rates to a get sense of how a particular school is being used as part of a large number of applicant's application strategy. Example: UNC Kenan-Flagler, which has a decidedly low yield (42%), receives a relatively large number of applications (1714), and is relatively easy to enter (39.2%), is a school both this data (and my own experience) tell me is being used as a "back-up school" by a significant number of applicants. Indeed, regardless of the number applications received, schools with low yields and high rates of admission should most certainly be used for the purpose of reducing the risk of total application failure.
When selecting a group of schools to apply to, use the yield and acceptance rates to put together a school application strategy that takes the level of risk into account. For more about school selection strategy, click here.

Comments? Questions? Write comments or contact me directly at adammarkus@gmail.com. Please see my FAQ regarding the types of questions I will respond to.

-Adam Markus
アダム マーカス

MBA留学 ビジネススクール カウンセリング コンサルティング MBA ランキング 合格者率