Question:
Which programs would I be competitive for?

The good:
GMAT 710, Engineering GPA 3.47, multiple foreign languages, 2 yrs international volunteer work (pre-degree), 3 yrs engineering post-degree experience

The not-so-good:
3.47 GPA, GMAT 97% verbal but only 61% quantitative, only 3 yrs engineering, little to no managerial experience

I've ranked some schools in tiers, A: reach B: should probably get in C: definitely should get in. Ranking within a tier is in no particular order.

A-Cambrige
A-Oxford
A-Cranfield

B-Imperial
B-Cass

C-Manchester
C-Edinburgh

Discussion:
I'm a 30 year old US citizen, if that affects anything. I got rejected from Lancaster before my GMAT scores posted for "not having enough managerial experience." I can rewrite my CV to help that some though. Looking to apply for this September (2013). I don't want to overwork my referees, so I'd like to narrow down which schools I apply to. Given my qualifications, which are the best schools i could realistically get into?

Thanks in advance for your input!

-Mike

What do you want from your MBA? These are quite different programmes, from 9 to 18 months, with and without internships...

Take a look http://www.find-mba.com/board/33571 and compare how well these schools meet your needs.

I am surprised that a school such as Lancaster (a decent, but not great school), can reject a candidate with a 710 on the GMAT(and that too in the initial stage of application).

I have 3+ years of managerial experience (overall 6 years) but a GMAT in the low 600's. When I approached Cranfield and Warwick, they bluntly told me not to apply even without reviewing my CV (because I have a low GMAT score). On the other hand Manchester, Cass and Melbourne reviewed my resume at asked me to apply.

It seems that various schools have different criteria of initial shortlisting of candidates! Even thought Manchester, Cranfield and Warwick are close to each other in FT ranking, their initial student shortlisting criteria is different.

I have an admit from Manchester.

Why should be surprising? Admissions managers have to balance the diversity in their classes, optimise the factors that the rankings look for, and shoo-in candidates who fit that school's key employers.

The candidate above doesn't have managerial experience, so not every school will trade that off against the GMAT because they might not have much to share in class and their soft skills might be weak.

Warwick advertises a 650 minimum GMAT now, and I guess that's because it needs students to be able to hit the ground running on quant work.

Yes. Warwick has a minimum cut-off of 650 from his year.

And Cranfield asked me to apply after getting a minimum 680 on GMAT.

No such conditions from Manchester, Melbourne and CASS when I applied.

MBA graduates of Cranfield and Warwick have higher salaries than alumni of those other schools: perhaps selectivity is one reason why?

I hadn't taken the GMAT when I was rejected by Lancaster. I emailed them for feedback and then mentioned my lack of mgmnt experience.

I am surprised that a school such as Lancaster (a decent, but not great school), can reject a candidate with a 710 on the GMAT(and that too in the initial stage of application).

I'm looking for general financial/management training, with entrepreneurship skills as a secondary goal.

My endgame is the US Foreign Service, but I'd like to work in the private sector for a few years beforehand. Pretty open as to what specific job function I'd be performing in the private sector, which makes it a little harder to narrow down which school would be best.

I did the LinkedIn search you described in your other thread and found that all of the schools I listed are represented in the various fields I was interested in. This told me that the schools I have selected are good for what I'm interested, now I'd like to know which of these I'm actually competitive for. Oh, and I've tentatively added Henley and Warwick to the list after seeing them repeatedly in my LinkedIn searches.

So, given my strengths and weaknesses, which of the listed schools (plus Henley and Warwick) do you think I would be realistically competitive for?

THANKS!

What do you want from your MBA? These are quite different programmes, from 9 to 18 months, with and without internships...

Take a look http://www.find-mba.com/board/33571 and compare how well these schools meet your needs.

Given your limited management experience, I think the Manchester programme is a good fit for you. I'd also look at HEC and ESADE (I'm not sure why you are looking at the UK only). If you prefer a short programme, then compare their alumni base in the US, not only as business schools but also as universities.

I think it really comes down to your application. The GMAT score is good, but the work experience isn't, so if you really sparkle as a great fit I don't think your "B" schools are impossible. Henley and Manchester are really aimed at people like you, and I'd look at those and ESADE closely.

I am currently finishing up my second semester with Warwick. I understand why they have raised the GMAT score - their quant class called "Modeling and Analysis for Managers" (MAM) is pretty tough and broad. I am writing exams in 3 weeks time. No matter what anyone says Warwick is no cake walk - expect to be challenged but expect to learn a huge amount. I am very happy with my decision - and the school will keep climbing because the improvements continue all the time.