Hi Bella,

Hult is a really strange school: it's a for-profit school and has amazing, world class-marketing. You really need to speak to some alumni. It has a tiny alumni base and little brand recognition outside of candidates who have seen its adverts.

However, Hult is ranked by the FT and clearly they are getting good outcomes for students. St John's looks a bit boring; Hult like it over-promises.

How are you getting on with other schools? Is there any chance you can improve your GMAT? Remember, schools will understand that women from non-quant backgrounds might get lower quant scores on the GMAT but still outperform men in the MBA. Don't be scared to reach for some stretch schools, especially the ones that have a lower percentage of women. Look at the FT global top 100 ranking, and then add the available field for women students - In the US, global top 100 schools in less attractive locations like Iowa, Wake Forest, Purdue, Texas A&M and Notre Dame get less than one-quarter women. Internationally, top schools like AGSM, IMD, Manchester, EM Lyon, IESE, Oxford and Cranfield also will be especially interested in women. IESE and Notre Dame, like St John's, are Catholic universities. Maybe look through the alumni profiles on the FT site and see which of the schools has the most alumni in the roles and industries that interest you.

Hi Duncan,

Thanks for your response :) I appreciate your advice.

I am a non-traditional student as I am a female coming from a nonprofit background...I definitely didn't score high on the GMAT and that was due to test anxiety. I was scoring around 600 on the practice tests and I didn't even reach 500 on the actual test. I was really upset....but anyway I have seven years experience and a high gpa....so I thought I might have a chance, but I wasn't admitted into my top programs....St. John's and HULT were really my backup schools so I'm not sure what to do now. I would like to be really excited about either (or both) but I feel lke I'm focusing on different areas - St. John's is AACSB accredited and FAFSA approved (although they didn't offer me any scholarship money) and has university resources and an established alumni network ...but doesn't have a day program....if I went there in the fall I would commute and keep working and then transfer to the Rome campus in the spring (which is still the night program). I like that I can study abroad....if I go to HULT, I can choose one of the five campuses and transfer throughout the year.....they are not AACSB accredited or FAFSA accredited and I'm not sure about the rankings and that they are new BUT I can go for one year during the day (although I don't know if this is too intense?) Also at HULT the average student is around my age, which is 30. They also offered me a partial scholarship. I think St. John's lets in students that have little or no work experience, which concerns me too. I am really not sure where to go, but I need to make a decision next month. I haven't heard back from IE yet, although that would be ideal...I haven't applied to DePaul although it could be a good fit - Catholic University, FAFSA approved and AACSB accredited too.

I looked into the schools you mentioned, but I think I would have to retake the GMAT. This was the case with my original list of top 50 schools (before I took the test) all of which told me to NOT apply since my score was too low. Talk about a crusher! I wasn't sure what to do after that but I made sure I had backups, which seem to be my forerunners now! lol

I also thought about going to St. John's in the fall and then trying to transfer in the spring, but I'm having a hard time finding good programs that accept students in the spring....and even the ones that accept students in the fall seem to be very strict.

Any other suggestions? I really appreciate any help, thank you.

There's a huge difference between the schools you can get into and it all hinges on the GMAT. If you were were certain that you could not improve it, then it would be wrong to retake it. However, it sounds like you can do better. There are plenty of great schools with January starts in Europe: The Lisbon-MIT MBA, and HEC for example. But with your low GMAT I don't see why they would offer you a place, since the GMAT is a good predictor of overall performance in the program.

Don't worry about the one-year programs. They are well designed and, yes, intense but quite survivable.

Okay well that is definitely encouraging. I hope to talk to alumni from HULT this week to help with my decision.

I don't know if I necessarily agree that the GMAT is an overall predictor of success. Students I know (including my cousin, who just graduated from Columbia) have told me that the GMAT is really not all that important and that content in bschool is totallyl different (although quantitative, doesn't focus on regurgitating obscure forumulas from HS!)

I think I COULD retake the test although I'm not sure if I want to put myself through that again. I also took the IE admissions test recently too, which was MUCH less nerve wracking (paper and pencil test, not computer adaptive - can go back and forth) . Perhaps the GRE would be a better fit, IDK. I know I can score higher, I had a 3.7 GPA in HS and an above average SAT score...I really think that anxiety got the best of me.

Re the one year format - do you think that it is too much all at once? Will I learn enough about each topic? Also, internships are not required at HULT, which concerns me too. Decisions, decisions.

As an MBA admissions interviewer, I can confirm that there is a strong correlation between GMAT scores and grades in the MBA. There's a lot of research into this point. The *content* at business school is quite different, but the *methods* - of understanding verbal and numerical data - are central. If you have a low verbal score, you will struggle to deal with the nuanced writing of case studies or participate at a high level in the classroom. If you are weak with numbers, you will not be able to understand and lead people on financial or operational problems.

This is the point that I don't think a lot of people get. Yes, it sucks to prepare for the GMAT and jump through all the hoops that the test requires. But, if you plan on attending business school - which requires critical thinking, understanding of nuance, and yes, jumping through more hoops, then the GMAT should just be looked at as the first step in this process.

If you don't want to take the GMAT, you're probably not ready for an MBA program.

I should say, differences in GMAT matter more in full-time than in executive programmes. There's a interesting study on gender and the GMAT, I think from the University of Kentucky, which stresses the usefulness of the GMAT as well.

I'd imagine that this is because applicants to executive programs have spent more time developing their careers, and have the real-world and analytic skills necessary to render the test moot.

The gender-GMAT study sounds interesting, I'll have to check that out.

The jist of the study was that women underperform men on the GMAT, but outperform them in GPA on the course. However, the correlations was still strong for both genders, it's just tht the gradients were different.

Ralph - I took a Princeton Review course twice....I studied for over 100 hours the first time around...and then took the test two years later and studied 90 hours, with a tutor. I definitely put the time in. I just had really bad test anxiety...I can't explain it. I never had a problem like that ever in undergrad and did well. I am ready for the MBA program - I have spent years researching schools, talking to admissions officers, attending MBA fairs, joining websites, etc. I just feel that I can't put myself through the drudgery of that test again, not to mention the cost of taking it for the third time :/

Duncan - on the diagnostic test for the GMAT I scored a 41 on the verbal section so I know that I don't have a weakness in that area. I scored a 31 on the quant section at my highest point too...def not a strong area, but decent and I believe I am able to improve greatly given the opportunity. I don't think someone's capacity for success should be judged based on one nerve wracking test....standardized tests don't always tell the whole story.