![\"gmac\"](\"\/\/manhattanprep.com\/gmat\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/18\/2013\/07\/gmaclarger.jpg\")
Last week, GMAC updated its percentiles for GMAT scores. The organization does this once a year to smooth out any differences in the testing pool.<\/p>\nLast week, GMAC updated its percentiles for GMAT scores. The organization does this once a year to smooth out any differences in the testing pool.<\/p>\n
What do I mean by \u201cdifferences?\u201d The demographics of the people taking the exam change over time. In particular, over the last ten years or so, GMAC has seen a huge increase in the number of non-United-States-based students taking the test. A majority of these students speak English as a second (or third!) language; a majority also have a better grounding in quantitative skills than the average U.S.-educated student. These differences lead to changes in the data over time.<\/p>\n
GMAT results are reported using various \u201cscaled scores.\u201d We receive a 2-digit score for quant, a separate 2-digit score for verbal, a Q+V-combined 3-digit score, and two more separate scores for the essay and IR sections.<\/p>\n
Think of these scaled scores as \u201cskill levels.\u201d They reflect a specific, measurable level of ability. Here\u2019s the interesting thing: the skills needed to reach a certain level do not<\/span> change over time. A quant score of 45 today reflects the same<\/i> skill level as a quant score of 45 earned ten or even twenty years ago.<\/p>\n What does change over time is the percentile ranking associated with that score. A percentile ranking reflects how much better you did than a certain percentage of the test-taking population. For example, if you score in the 75th<\/sup> percentile, then you scored better than 75% of the people taking the test\u2014not just that day, or that week, but for the past couple of years (or whatever timeframe is designated for that test).<\/p>\n Imagine that you give a math test to a bunch of 10-year-olds. The scoring algorithm is very simple: if you get a question right, you get one point. You then gather all of the scores and figure out percentile rankings for that group. Let\u2019s say that a certain score (let\u2019s call it 5) represents the 50th<\/sup> percentile. A student who scores 5 earned a better score than 50% of her peers.<\/p>\n Then you take that exact test and give it to a bunch of 14-year-olds. They\u2019re a lot better at math. The same score of 5 might represent only the 25th<\/sup> percentile for this new group, because more of these students have better math skills and can answer more questions correctly. A score of 5 still means the same thing (in this case, 5 questions right), but the pool of testers has changed and so the percentile rankings change too.<\/p>\n This is essentially what happens with the GMAT over time as well. If more people who are good at math start taking the test, then that score of 45 (which represents a certain, fixed level of skill) will drop in the percentile rankings because more people will be capable of performing at that level or higher.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve seen especially big demographic changes on the GMAT over the last 5 to 10 years. In 2006, a quant score of 45 was rated the 78th<\/sup> percentile. Someone scoring at that level had better quant skills than 78% of the people taking the exam around that time.<\/p>\n Today, that same<\/i> skill level of 45 rates the 66th<\/sup> percentile. This does not<\/i> mean that someone scoring a 45 today is worse at math than someone with the same score in 2006; rather, the two students are equally good. Instead, a greater percentage of the population taking the test today<\/i> has stronger math skills.<\/p>\n You might be thinking: oh, great. So that means I have to do even better at math. Actually, the opposite is (sort of) true. Keep reading.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In this year\u2019s update, most of the quant percentiles associated with specific scaled scores have gone down, often by 2 or 3 percentile points since the last update in July of 2012. This reflects the growing proportion of test takers with stronger math skills than in the past.<\/p>\n The verbal percentiles have mostly stayed the same or actually gone up by 1 percentile point. This again makes sense: a greater number of non-native English speakers are taking the exam. The essay score percentiles also went up a little bit for this same reason.<\/p>\n One of the most interesting data points is really just psychological. The top quant score of 51 is now the 97th<\/sup> percentile and the next possible score, 50, is the 89th<\/sup> percentile. In other words, the only way to score in the 90th<\/sup>+ percentile on quant now is to earn the top score of 51.<\/p>\n Did I just cause your heart to start racing? There\u2019s no margin for error! You have to get a perfect score on the quant!<\/p>\n No, I promise, you don\u2019t. : ) The business schools are well aware of these changes and they are actually adjusting accordingly. In 2006, the skills associated with a quant score of 45 were strong enough for any business school. The same is true today, even though that same score reflects a lower percentile ranking. You can still do the work and the schools do know this.<\/p>\n Everyone seems to \u201cknow\u201d that the top schools want to see 80th<\/sup> percentiles in both quant and verbal. I\u2019ve heard this many times myself. I looked for a primary source (a business school admissions director who said this on record) but couldn\u2019t find anything. So I started asking questions. I called up Jeremy Shinewald, founder of the admissions consulting company MBA Mission<\/a>, who told me:<\/p>\n \u201cOur feeling is that the 80\/80 threshold is becoming less and less important, as the percentiles spread. The percentiles might move gradually over time, but the raw scores maintain their meaning year after year. Because a specific raw score represents a level of ability that has been \u201cstudied\u201d by the schools, the schools can back-test data, look at a candidate\u2019s scores, and predict how he\/she will do in their program.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jeremy also spoke recently with an admissions director from a top-10 business school (who wanted to remain anonymous). This director said:<\/p>\n \u201cWe tell candidates that if they can get to the 60th<\/sup> percentile or above, that will serve them well.\u00a0 We have taken people whose percentiles are lower, but ideally you\u2019d want to be at or above 60th<\/sup> percentile.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There are no typos\u2014the quote is from a top-ten director and this person quoted sixtieth<\/i> percentile as the threshold in each section.<\/p>\n MBA Mission also spoke with Amanda Carlson, Assistant Dean of Admissions at Columbia Business School. When asked about the 80\/80 \u201crule,\u201d Ms. Carlson said:<\/p>\n \u201cThat is not accurate and not the way we do things. People do not<\/i> have to have this 80\/80 type of a breakdown to be admitted. I can\u2019t be emphatic about that enough.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is quite common, actually. The top schools each admit a few hundred students every year. Worldwide, something like 20,000 testers earn scores in the 700s each year. The math isn\u2019t hard: lots of people with great scores will be rejected.<\/p>\n Your GMAT score is only one part of your entire application, and other parts are even more important than your score. We obsess over GMAT scores because it is one of the few things that we still have some control over; much of the rest of our application package reflects things that are already over and done. As a result, we our GMAT scores begin to take on outsize importance in our minds.<\/p>\nThis Year\u2019s Trends<\/h3>\n
What about the 80\/80?<\/h3>\n
\u00a0But I know someone who scored 710 and didn\u2019t get accepted!<\/h3>\n