One of the oft talked about parameters that a candidate and bschool rankings talk about is the Acceptance Rate. While words such as rate can at times spark thoughts of complex mathematical geniuses guiding your faith, this is a pretty simple metric.
Simply put, this is the number of offers rolled out by a school by the total number of applications received. So in a way, this is a pretty direct way of assessing how selective/discerning a school is and an indirect way of getting a probability of your selection if you were to apply there – indirect because this is a consequential metric.
My bad here for using a bit of a jargon. Consequential metric is something that is not an input parameter but more an output one.
Let me use an example. The build quality of say your mobile phone is the output parameter. A lot of input parameters such as the raw material quality, technology used, manpower skill etc go into determining this.
Likewise, a ton of parameters determine whether a school will look at your candidature favorably. But even so, it is a pretty good metric when you are starting off your research and school selection journey.
Mind you, this is different than yield – another metric that is talked about but less commonly so. Yield is the number of candidates who accept an offer of admission by the total offers rolled out. This number is sort of a way to assess a given school’s relative attractiveness. Perhaps the topic of discussion for a later post.
Given the attention around Acceptance Rates for the top MBA programs, we decided to do some historical analysis of this number for top US schools. We’ve used the selectivity data published by Poets & Quants as the base over which we carry out our analysis.
The intention here is two-fold: get a sense of the acceptance rates and also see if there is a positive/negative trend here. You may be able to extrapolate this into the near future to know where the business school acceptance rates may be heading.
Since we are talking of quite a lot of data, for the purpose of representation, we have divided it into 3 buckets as will be clear in the subsequent sections.
When we looked at the data at the next level, this was partly driven by the larger number of applications in 2013. This is also likely to be true for most years since the number of offers don’t tend to change year over year.
If a school has to increase the number of offers, they can do so only after doing the required infrastructure upgrades. It is also worthwhile noting that while Tuck seems to be opening a bit more, Duke seems to be going the other way round and the two are closing the gap.
The top 2, Harvard and Stanford, clearly lead the pack in being super selective again driven by the fact that those two received the highest number of applications across all the top 50 schools out there! Moving on.
On closer look, you can even surmise that looking at rankings alone can be pretty misleading. Schools such as UCLA/Yale/NYU are equally selective when it comes to taking candidates. This should mean that your decision to go to a school should be based on a far more exhaustive research than on rankings alone.
More about the fallacies of this approach here: How not to select business schools.
The general trend for last year seems to be of being more selective in several schools, again driven largely by the increasing number of applications.
What seems to be the gain for top schools in 2013, also appears to be a bit of loss for this set. Many in this actually saw a spike in acceptance rates driven by lower number of applicants here. Ideally, these numbers should not vary from year to year. If they do, there is likely to be some cause of concern.
The number of applications to Foster in 2014 for instance doubled compared to those in 2013 and 2012. These numbers can thus never be taken at their face value alone unfortunately making it tougher to base your decision on these alone.
The notable drop in Purdue’s acceptance rate is actually driven by reduction in the number of offers rolled out since 2012. Though we do not have concrete data, but it appears that 2012 was a bit of an aberration where Purdue accepted more students than it usually does rather than other years being a change of trend.
Illinois and GA Tech have benefited from the increasing number of applications year over year.
As a broad trend, it would be safe to say that while 2013 was a bit of an exception, in general the acceptance rate is going down for many schools driven in many cases by an increase in the number of applications.
This is an evidence to show that the sheen of an MBA degree remains lustrous whatever the naysayers assert. If it seems to intimidating for you to look at all the data and try to assess your probability of getting into a school, don’t worry, we have done the hard work for you (check MBA MAP).
Given the amount of investment an international MBA entails, even if it seems intimidating, there is definite merit in using data such to drive your decision making, and know how the MBA selectivity rates in 2017 or 2018 might look.
Update in 2018:
Here we have listed some of the latest measures of acceptance rates in the B-Schools mentioned above, as per Poets & Quants. We have covered the schools with largest variations.
The ones that went down in 2017 were – Chicago Booth to about 21%, Columbia to 16.5%, MIT Sloan’s to less than 12%, Michigan Ross’ to 25%, Yale’s to less than 17.5%, and Virginia Darden down at 24.5%.
The ones that went up in 2017 were – UCLA’s went up to 22%, UNC’s Kenan Flagler to 37%, Emory’s Goizueta to 41%, Indiana’s Kelley to 35%, Georgetown’s McDonough to 48%, Washington’s Olin to 40%, Vanderbilt’s Owen to 43%, Notre Dame’s Mendoza to 42%, Wisconsin to over 30%, Penn State’s Smeal to over 20%, Texas A&M to nearly 34%, Georgia Tech to over 31%, and Purdue’s Krannert to over 37%.
References: 1, 2, 3