Welcome to F1GMAT’s #askAtulJose series. I am Atul Jose. Today’s question is about the MBA Admissions Waitlisted communication strategy. The question is:
Q) How many times and how often should I communicate to manage the waitlist in MBA admissions?
I read an account of a waitlisted candidate in a popular blog sharing the angst of communicating with the MBA admissions team, over 7 times in a span of one month and how that process felt authentic since the person completely believed in his fit for the class. He also shared that a positive dynamics was built with the admissions team. In addition to sharing his motivation, he improved the GMAT score to cross the school’s average score by 10 points, shared about a promotion that he received after the decision, and even managed to get an Alumnus to write an additional recommendation letter strongly endorsing his candidacy. Despite taking all the right steps, he was rejected.
Ok. If you ask any consultant, these are the four data points that you have to share once you are waitlisted – an improved GMAT score, News about your Promotion, any additional endorsements, and certifications proving that your below-average score in certain subjects was just an outlier event in your undergraduate degree.
Now, let me start off with some bad news. Most of the waitlisted candidates will be rejected in Round 1 and Round 2, with the chance of rejection higher for Round 1 waitlisted candidates. This is because apart from a few applicants who genuinely have important career milestones that encourage them to apply for Round 3, most of them are just trying out if a particular application strategy will work for Round 3 and then use that data to apply for Round 1.
There are also applicants who are desperate to get out of the current job function either because of age (that is, crossing 30) or because of burnout, or because the employer’s business is undergoing some serious financial setbacks. So the Round 3 application pool is less likely to be competitive, and the admissions team knows that. The acceptance rate of Round 3 applicants would also be low.
Since schools have to release Round 1 waitlisted applicants before or on Round 2 decision dates, a large number of applicants who would have been considered if the process persisted till Round 3 decision dates are often rejected from the waitlist. This is also because of a flaw in how humans make decisions. We tend to value recent data over data that was available over a few months or years ago. So comparing a candidate with a strong profile who has been waitlisted in Round 1 and a similar candidate waitlisted in Round 2, the admissions team is likely to consider the Round 2 candidate and reject the waitlisted candidate from Round 1 because of the recency of the application.
Now, if it sounds, too confusing, read about recall bias in decision-making. Think about the timing when politicians release negative news about their opposition. It is often closer to the election date. We have an extremely low attention span, and for the admissions team handling thousands of applications, the frequency and gap in communication are as crucial as I would say the content of the communication.
For the rejected applicant – 7 times communicating over a period of a month is an overkill, but if I was a Round 1 waitlisted applicant whose chances are low, what is there to lose? If you don’t update the admissions team before the decision, you will certainly be rejected.
A strategy I would have recommended to the candidate was to at least keep a crucial part of the communication, that is, sharing about a promotion or an endorsement from an influential alumnus for the last 2 weeks of communication. That is, 2 weeks before the decision date – share about the promotion and 1 week before the decision date, share an additional endorsement.
There are cases where the applicant is rejected much earlier, but I have seen that the earliest is 2 weeks from the decision dates. If you want to ensure that at least the Quant weaknesses are managed, dedicate 2-3 weeks from the waitlisted date for improving your GMAT and taking a certification in one of your weaker undergraduate courses. Only share one communication thanking the admissions team for keeping the profile under consideration – ideally before 24 hours from the waitlisted date.
The 2nd update should be about your GMAT score – ideally 2 weeks from the waitlisted date. Can you improve the score in 2 weeks? It again depends on your work schedule and the help you get.
The 3rd update should be about the fit with the culture. It could be demonstrated through sharing one genuine common characteristic that you found with the school’s culture and your personality. It should not be a cosmetic observation. You have to meet the school’s current students and alumni – at least 3-4. Engage in meaningful conversations and infer the common characteristics between the school’s culture and your traits.
The 4th update should be about a certification – ideally 3 weeks to 4 weeks after the waitlisted date, clearly citing your weakness and demonstrating through a certification score that you have a firm grasp over the fundamentals. This should be a quant-specific course like Statistics or Finance, or Accounting.
Most admissions teams would respond with a cookie-cutter formal response. That is not a good sign. It means that you haven’t touched a chord with the team. Some overcompensate and share a genuine response. But don’t count on it as a conclusion that you would be accepted.
The 5th update should be a week from the decision date, and it should read like a recommendation letter from an Alumnus who had worked with you and traversed a similar career path as yours. This will give the admissions team the confidence to consider your candidacy.
If you need help with managing the waitlist communication strategy, subscribe to F1GMAT’s Waitlist Communication Service
