Difficulty level of the 8 MGMT study guide questions?

[tomslawsky]

Can you shed some light on the APPROXIMATE difficulty on the 15 problems after each chapter of the MGMT study guides, either on a 200-800, a 0-51 or a percentile scale? For example, do the problems TYPICALLY start out at say a 25 for the first quant question, 45 for question 12 and ~49-51 for questions 14 and 15? Other than getting progressively harder, do you strive for a scoring trend. Of course, when I ask for an approximate difficulty level, I am asking for MGMT's internal scale, not the GMAC's as I am aware they don't publish question difficulty level. Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Can you shed some light on the APPROXIMATE difficulty on the 15 problems after each chapter of the MGMT study guides, either on a 200-800, a 0-51 or a percentile scale? For example, do the problems TYPICALLY start out at say a 25 for the first quant question, 45 for question 12 and ~49-51 for questions 14 and 15? Other than getting progressively harder, do you strive for a scoring trend. Of course, when I ask for an approximate difficulty level, I am asking for MGMT's internal scale, not the GMAC's as I am aware they don't publish question difficulty level. Thank you.

hmm

well, it's going to depend on which chapter of which guide. some of the chapters start with extremely basic stuff (basic enough to correspond to negative numbers on a 0-51 scale), while others start at a level that's already reasonably advanced.

the hardest problems in each chapter - especially in word translations - are, almost invariably, substantially harder than anything you're going to see on the official test.

--

nevertheless, you should be extremely wary of trying to construe the IN-ACTION problems in terms of "difficulty", since, for the most part, those problems are DRILLS.

they don't have the structure or form that is common to real gmat problems. in other words, the in-action problems (especially the earlier ones) are routine reinforcement of skills; they are not "tricky" or "creative" enough to be GMAT problems.
when an In-Action problem is hard, it's usually because the math is intricate, complicated, or just really long.
when a GMAT problem is hard, it's usually because there is some clever twist, or unexpected connection, or surprising result.

[robertefleck]

Ron,

Thanks - I had a similar question, but specifically in regards to the "Advanced" chapters in the Numbers Properties book. I did my first advanced chapter last night and it kicked my butt pretty good. I understand your point about construing In Action Problems in terms of GMAT scores, but I was wondering if that also applied to the Advanced problems.

Perhaps a better way to think about it is in terms of content. Should I have mastery of the content in the Advanced section to score a 700? a 650? How should I understand this section as I study?

I am not one who typically gets axiety over test taking, but this section had me worried (and the average GMAT for the school I'm aiming for is "only" 630!). By the way, if it is helpful, I received a Q35 and Q38 in my first two practice tests (MGMAT; no AWA) - after one and two weeks of studying.

Thanks in advance!

[robertefleck]

My apologies - I violated the first rule of forum membership: I didn't use the search function. Stacy has a reply that is almost precisely on point: post39771.html?hilit=advanced#p39771

Ron, if there is anything you would add to my specific query I would still appreciate your insight, of course. A suggestion for MGMAT would be to make this point clear in the book. If it is in there and I overlooked it, I apologize and please disregard.

Thanks for your help; I enjoy sifting through here even though I'm usually quiet.

[StaceyKoprince]

And I'm the one who happens to be in here today answering questions. :)

You didn't mention your goal score but did mention that the average for the school you want to attend is 630, so I'll assume you want to beat the average but you don't necessarily want to hit 700+. (Which is smart, by the way. Do what you need to do in order to be competitive, and then spend your valuable time doing other things. :)

So, let's assume you're going for 650-680. You don't need to learn all of the Advanced chapter material. For the areas that are of greater strength to you, you can go ahead and try the Advanced material and see what works for you there. For the areas that are greater weaknesses, don't worry about the Advanced material.

Good luck!

[tomslawsky]

I'm not totally in agreement here. I think that a lot of the "advanced" material belongs in the "basic chapters and in some cases, the basic material should be redacted. For example- anyone who is presumably going to someday have an MBA worth it's weight in salt should have the intellectual capacity of to understand basic combination/permutations; yet these formulas are found in the "advanced" chapters of the Word Translations. The more primitive slot methods should be introduced for appropriate questions and the combination/permutation formulas introduced as "basic", as these formulas make some of the basic questions much less intensive and still easy to understand. Also, I feel that the "Advanced" inequalities in the VIC's are concepts that are fair game in questions hitting the mid 30's in quant. I do feel that the "minor problem sets" should be shifted to "advanced".

Just my 2 cents!

[StaceyKoprince]

Thanks for your input, tom.

I should mention that part of what determines where something should be placed is its frequency on the test. When you have something that is fairly challenging for most, such as a lot of the comb / perm material, and that material is also only infrequently tested on the exam, then that material often warrants an "advanced" rating. The ones who can afford to spend time on material that is tested fairly infrequently are the ones who've already mastered the more-frequently-tested material.

[robertefleck]

Thanks Stacey. I am experiencing what you're talking about. I will have time to focus on the "advanced" sections eventually, but I think it will be helpful to have a "foundational" understanding of the other sections first. For the quant deficient types like myself the setup of the MGMAT books are fantastic as is. Tom, I think one reason they set up the books for the majority of people to do well on the GMAT, as opposed to preparing them for business school. Obviously, similar proficiencies are tested in both - just in a little bit different manner.

Stacey, you are right in that my goal is not neccessarily 700. I, of course, wouldn't be mad at a 750. Due to the inability to uproot and lack of quality institutions near me, I am considering distance learning programs such as Kelley Direct (average 630)and IE Business School (average 680). I just found IE and it is becoming more appealing to me daily. If I can gear up my quant score, I think I will have a GMAT worthy of acceptance as I do not think my verbal will hinder me (37 both times without study).

By the way, I just found that you can review the questions and answers to your MGMAT practice tests. This is great! I had only viewed the Excel spreadsheet previously. For anyone that might have been doing the same, you must click "view" in the problems/solution list row. It seems you can only view it online and not as a print out. This is so helpful to see!

[StaceyKoprince]

Oh, yes - definitely review the individual problems. That's really important! And, actually, if you run the assessment reports, you can click on anything that's red text - there are a bunch of places there where you can also click to see all of the problems that fell into one specific category.

[tomslawsky]

"You didn't mention your goal score but did mention that the average for the school you want to attend is 630, so I'll assume you want to beat the average but you don't necessarily want to hit 700+. (Which is smart, by the way. Do what you need to do in order to be competitive, and then spend your valuable time doing other things. :)"

I'm not sure that this is in general, the best advice overall, at least for someone thinking past business school. Scoring high on the GMAT can increase one's "brand equity" and in some cases, for highly coveted jobs, can at mitigate the effect of not going to a higher ranked school.

On my last interview, the hiring manager had an MBA and the fact that I was able to put "GMAT- 720 (97th percentile)" on my resume caught his attention and made a great impression on him.

I know that were I interviewing an applicant I wouldn't question a lack of score on the resume, but I would also be impressed by a high score, too.

[StaceyKoprince]

It's true that a high score on your resume might impress a hiring manager who knows what that means.

Whether to spend extra time and money to go for an extra high GMAT score in the hopes that a hiring manager years later might be impressed though... well, that's a tough call. I'd say that it really depends where you think you might end up interviewing. If you think you're going to go for banking or management consulting, then yes - it's highly likely that the interviewers know what those scores mean and will be impressed by an extra-high score. Other industries aren't going to know or care as much.

You also have to think about how else you might spend that time. Would it be better for me to use my time to try to get a 720 rather than a 670, or would it be better for me to use my time to try to get promoted, or get some special commendation at work, or take on a special project, or take a leadership position in a volunteer capacity for some non-profit or project, or...?

And, of course, there's no "usually people should decide this" kind of answer. It's entirely based on an individual's circumstances.

[tomslawsky]

Cerberus paribus- give me an Valdosta State MBA with a 730 over a Harvard MBA with a 670, every day of the week. The higher score is a strong (not absolute) indication of a smarter candidate.

[StaceyKoprince]

As a high scorer on this test, I'd love to agree whole-heartedly. ;)

Yes, I agree that a significantly higher score (100+ points, in my opinion) does allow you to make some inferences about the person relative to another.

Honestly, though, I'm not sure my inference would include the word "smarter," not by itself, anyway. I would have said that once. But I've met so many people at different scoring levels and with different kinds of intelligence that I started asking myself the question, "Smarter at what, exactly?" Those at the highest scoring levels are smarter at taking the test, yes, absolutely. Smarter at finding and learning patterns very quickly, yes. Smarter at learning how the test-writers think and what they expect and reacting accordingly, yes. Basically, they are very smart at learning. If I need someone for a job that requires those kinds of skills, high standardized test scores are a good requirement.

I know 99th percentile testers who would be a disaster to work with in an office. :) Two of the many (well, multiple) 800-scorers I've known in my 15-year career were (a) fantastically gifted standardized test-takers and teachers, and (b) so far from being good businesspeople, for many reasons, that it was laughable at times. I've also met many 99th percentile testers who are great at taking the test but aren't, for example, very good at teaching others how to do so. Different skill set.

Anyway. Have to get back to my day. Thanks for the diversion. :)

[tomslawsky]

Stacey, Stacey, Stacey you're conflating "skill" with "intelligence" , which are 2 completely unrelated things.

Intelligence:

"Smarter at finding and learning patterns very quickly, yes. Smarter at learning how the test-writers think and what they expect and reacting accordingly, yes. Basically, they are very smart at learning. If I need someone for a job that requires those kinds of skills, high standardized test scores are a good requirement."


Skill related:

"I've also met many 99th percentile testers who are great at taking the test but aren't, for example, very good at teaching others how to do so. Different skill set."

You can be a good teacher (skillful at communication) and not overly bright. You can be very smart and not be skilled at speaking in front of people.

Skill is not the same as brainpower. Some jobs are better suited for intelligence (theoretical physicist) and others are better suited for skilled people (teacher, car salesman). For an extreme example, by a large clip, NFL coaches are MUCH smarter than their employees, but the employees are MUCH more skilled at playing the game. Try reversing the roles and see what you get!

I stand by my stance that GMAT score (GRE, LSAT, GRE, MCAT, MAT, etc) is a solid indication of a person's intelligence level, albeit not absolute (or the only indicator). This is assuming that assuming the test taker has taken time and effort to prepare. You can't test skill with the GMAT, just as you can't judge brains by testing bench press strength.

And only a rare combination of us have been gifted with brains, skills AND great looks; we're an extremely rare breed ... ahem, ahem ;)

[StaceyKoprince]

lol :)

But what about other kinds of intelligence? There isn't only the one kind (that also happens to correlate to strong standardized-test skills).

And even within the "learns fast / pattern recognition" kind of intelligence - ability can vary depending upon topic / subject. For instance, I'm trying to learn another language right now and, while I am still a faster-than-average learner there, I'm not in any way as capable as I am with standardized tests.

Anyway, I'm not disputing your stance that a standardized test score is one (general) indicator of someone's intelligence level - not at all. I was taking issue with your comment about hiring someone with a higher GMAT score. That's a mix of skill and intelligence and a bunch of other things - so it really depends upon what that job is. :)