Is not taking the GMAT worth $300,000 to you?
Many students want an MBA because of learning, improved personal skills, close cohort connections, employer links and alumni community. They can produce dramatic improvements in the salaries and career opportunities for students. However, many students are daunted by the GMAT test, especially those whose English-language skills lead then into lower GMAT scores. Many students try to get around that by aiming for MBA programs that do not require the GMAT. Sadly, outcomes are generally much worse for MBAs which no not require the GMAT than for those that do.
For example, according to the Financial Times ranking the UK programmes which don't make the GMAT compulsory have graduates earning USD $95k or less after three years. Those who do are earning $104k or more. That difference will widen year after year for most alumni.
MBAs with GMATs do better because the GMAT is the best predictor of success in MBA programmes. That means that employers value MBA programmes with the GMAT more highly, especially those hiring for traditional MBA roles. Both the students, and the opportunities, are generally better.
The GMAT is not impossible. I'm a theology and philosophy undergrad with no special talent for numbers. I studied 40 hours for my GMAT and got into London Business School.
And just because a school requires the GMAT does not mean that every admitted candidate needs to scored highly.
Is that effort, or twice, three times -- even ten times it -- worth $300,000k to you? If not, then it will be a good investment for you to take the GMAT if you want to take an MBA in order to accelerate your career.
PS Many candidates don't realise that most candidates spend 100 or fewer hours preparing for the GMAT, and many study for 50 or fewer (as I did).
[Edited by Duncan on May 05, 2020]