Lets get started:Start with this document.Total Applicants 4449 (provided in the document)Total Enrolled 652 (provided in the document)Enrollment rate 14.7% (calculated 652 / 4449 --- not an accept rate, but an enrollment rate)Now lets look at the GMAT table in that PDF.Of applicants who scored 640 or less, 9% enrolled, and they made up 20% of the applicants. Of those who scored, 650 to 690, 25% enrolled, of the total applicants they made up 28%. For 700-740, 49% enrolled, 41% of total apps had this score. Same kind of stuff for 750-800.Based on the total applicants # (4449), and the total applicants %'s we can back into the number of applicants per score group.< 640: 890 applicants650-690: 1246 applicants700-740: 1824 applicants750-800: 489 applicantsThen, if there are 652 enrolled, and those who got a 640 make up 9%, then we'd expect 59 students from the < 640 group enrolled. Knowing kellogs YIELD (NOT selectivity) hovers around 57%, that means that we would expect for those under 640, that 103 offers were made, and 59 attended.Do the same for the others:640: 103 accepts650-690: 286 accepts700-740: 560 accepts750-800: 183 acceptsTotal accepts ~ 1132So now we know this...Out of the 890 applicants who applied with less than 640, 103 got accepted. Hence, if you fall into this bucket, your odds of acceptance are 11%.Do this for the other numbers:640: 103/890 = 12%650-690: 286/1246 = 23%700-740: 560/1824 = 31%750-800: 183/489 = 37%Voila! Anticipated accept odds by gmat level.If anything, its more dramatic -- as one might well argue that yield is higher for the lower scores.Sadly, this breaks down in 2010 -- the distribution of applications is completely shifted and heavily skewed to the higher ends, making it appear HARDER to get in with a higher GMAT score. What that implies is that there is a real yield thing at play here and that the above figures are probably overstating the odds at 640 and understating the odds at 750. Exactly what they are, who knows.If you do the same thing with the 06 figures, you begin to see the shift that has occured in the last several years. Holding yield constant, the 2006 data ( http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/adm ... res_06.pdf ) yields:<640: 16%650-690: 33%700-750: 29%750+: 32%If we instead assume a yield distribution as follows:<640: 70%650-700: 60%700-750: 50%750-800: 40%(Which on a weighted average basis yields a similar yield around 55%)We get:<640: 13%650-690: 31%700-750: 33%750+: 46%Things then smell OK again.