Is ManhattanGMAT a deceptive business?

[Guest]

I think pretty soon - it could be happening already - people are going to start to find out that an expensive prep course such as ManhattanGMAT does not help to increase their clients GMAT scores. Sure it can help people become more well-versed in topics such as geometry and sentence correction, but in terms of actually increasing a test taker's GMAT score, I think that may be a big myth. There are several articles published that question the effectiveness of expensive prep courses such as Kaplan. The bottom line is this: If we did not get what we paid for -- over $1,000 bill -- we should be refunded of our money.

This needs to be looked into, and some regulation needs to be implemented to make sure that the claims prep courses such as ManhattanGMAT make are truthful and not deceptive.

[JK]

Bro - where would you be without Kaplan or MGMAT? Probably still on question 1 of the quant section. MGMAT and all the other courses are a PREP course. You have to put in the work. Its just like a coach and being on a team. If you don't practice and learn from your mistakes and get help from the coach, you won't improve...at least not as quickly.

But if I was MGMAT, I would refund your money just so I didn't have to hear you complain!

Word

[vgh101]

We covered critical reasoning in my last Manhattan GMAT (henceforward "MGMAT") class, so let me apply what I've learned to your argument.

You start with a conclusion: "...an expensive prep course such as ManhattanGMAT does not help to increase their clients GMAT scores." You support this with the premise that "several articles [have been] published that question the effectiveness of expensive prep courses such as Kaplan."

OK, let's weaken your first conclusion.

In those articles you mentioned (since you seem to be basing your conclusion only on them), did they discuss (1) How much time the students spent studying for the test? (2) How often the students consulted with instructors when they ran into difficulties? (3) How effectively they utilized all materials and techniques provided to them? (4) Whether they took practice tests--and whether they analyzed the results properly? Just TAKING the course doesn't mean you're USING the course. Unless you can provide some more detailed data showing that a significant number of students properly used the techniques taught to them and still got no improvement, I call shenanigans.

Your next conclusion is: "If we did not get what we paid for -- over $1,000 bill -- we should be refunded of our money."

Let's weaken this conclusion by finding the assumption.

Your assumption is that what MGMAT sells is better scores. That may be the misguided idea that some people have when signing up for a prep course, but in my experience as a MGMAT student I've never seen them support that view or guarantee higher scores on the GMAT. MGMAT sells STRATEGIES which in THEIR OPINION (they never claim it to be proven fact) improves scores--but they do not sell the actual improvement! That of course is up to STUDENTS and their engagement with the material. So long as MGMAT delivered on effectively explaining their strategies to you, they gave you what they promised. So, no refund applicable. (And with a staff of people who all scored in the 99th percentile on the test, can you really tell me they have NO good ideas on how to take it?)

And your final conclusion is:

"Some regulation needs to be implemented to make sure that the claims prep courses such as ManhattanGMAT make are truthful and not deceptive."

I find yet another assumption here: A truthful presentation of test results will ensure that a potential student will know whether or not a test prep course actually works.

Well let's say in year one of your plan, MGMAT follows the new regulations and reports that 50% of their students did not improve their scores. Kaplan, however, only had 10% who didn't improve. Kaplan must be better, right? Well, what if it turns out that the average MGMAT student's score was 650 and the average Kaplan student's score was 600? Sure, more Kaplan students improved...but to a lower score. OK, so now you say we'll include the average score reports as well, and say that the test prep course that has the greatest number of students with improved scores and the highest average score is the best one. Except you find out that the course that has that honor is also the most expensive, meaning that students from disadvantaged backgrounds and poorly performing public schools probably couldn't afford to enroll in the class and give more diverse results (i.e. the students in that course probably were going to do well anyway). Do you see how this just goes on and on? You want to make an iron-clad connection between a school's performance and that of its students...and having had some experience in public education, I can assure you that you're opening a can of worms here.

Everything's a risk my friend! Buyer beware. Distrustful of test prep programs? Don't take them. Simple.

P.S. To MGMAT instructors reading this...how did I do as a critical reasoner? Feedback appreciated. Clearly, I'm a fan.

[NTeitelbaum]

Nicely done, vgh101. You found a lot of assumptions in the argument.

All but a tiny fraction of our students report that they would recommend our course to others (and even their specific instructor). We see students getting great results through the combined effort of our team and students putting in the work at home and in class. No pain, no gain! We choose the best instructors and keep our curriculum cutting edge -- so I'm glad we've won you over, VGH! - Noah

[GMAT Eater]

You are rigt that MGMAT cannot improve your GMAT score. ONLY YOU can improve it.

Some people expect an automatic improvement of their scores after an enrollment in a GMAT course. It is as if they expect an osmosis of knowledge transferring from the instructors to their brain.

You need to put in the hours and work like hell or you will not improve your GMAT score. It is that simple.

MGMAT can only give you the knowledge and proper methdology to improve your scores. But only you can utilize them to improve your GMAT score.

So if you haven't improved your score, think why you haven't. It is probably because you invested less than 50 hours to your GMAT studies. You need to put in at least 150 hours of studies before you start to point fingers at the instruction or the methodology.

[StaceyKoprince]

Interesting discussion. (And nice use of your techniques, vgh, in your argument :)

In general, if it really were the case that nobody improved, test prep companies would go out of business. That doesn't mean that every single person improves, of course - we can't just go to the opposite extreme either. Most people get what they want out of test prep (which is usually a better score). Some people don't. That's pretty much true for any product or service in the world (for the ones that stay in business of course) - most people are satisfied and some people aren't.

Our students' average score on the official GMAT is around a 690 (90th percentile). Most students don't take an official GMAT before taking our course, so we can't do a strict before-and-after comparison. We could base the "before" part of the comparison on our own practice tests, but then we open ourselves up to a debate about whether our tests adequately represent the real test, etc. So, instead, let's just use common sense. If someone is already scoring at the 90th percentile, how likely is that person to take a prep course compared to someone scoring at the 70th percentile, or the 50th percentile?

That's not to say that I don't have students in my classes who start out at a high level already - I certainly do. But, qualitatively, based on how I hear them reply in class and so forth, most of my students are starting out in the mid-500s to low-600s. And that makes sense logically, because people who are already at a high level are more likely to try on their own first and come to test prep only if they don't get what they wanted on their own.

And, yes, the single biggest factor in a score improvement is the individual student. It's important to study and study in the right way (that is, high quality, not just high quantity) or it will be difficult to maximize your score. That's true for the GMAT and anything else out there that you care to learn.

[steph]

I think pretty soon - it could be happening already - people are going to start to find out that an expensive prep course such as ManhattanGMAT does not help to increase their clients GMAT scores. Sure it can help people become more well-versed in topics such as geometry and sentence correction, but in terms of actually increasing a test taker's GMAT score, I think that may be a big myth. There are several articles published that question the effectiveness of expensive prep courses such as Kaplan. The bottom line is this: If we did not get what we paid for -- over $1,000 bill -- we should be refunded of our money.

This needs to be looked into, and some regulation needs to be implemented to make sure that the claims prep courses such as ManhattanGMAT make are truthful and not deceptive.

that's silly re: your argument about refund. if you take mgmat course and work hard (and do everything they tell you to do), you will definitely improve your score. mgmat or any other test prep course should not be responsible for students who do not put in their time (and use the resources).

so far, i am v happy with mgmat. i am taking my real gmat in few days. i will let you know if mgmat's teaching methods really worked, but so far, i improved tremendously. i definitely think my 1200$ is well spent!

[StaceyKoprince]

Thanks for your input, Steph. Wow, our students are just coming out of the woodwork to support us! That makes me really happy - we must be doing something right in general.

I do also want to add: to the original poster, if you have had a bad experience with our program or materials, please contact us (studentservices@manhattangmat.com or 800.576.GMAT). We would very much like the opportunity to work with you to resolve any problems.

[MichaelO788]

Applying critical reasoning components to your logic,
1 - Out of scope. Time spent by students outside MGMAT in raising their score is not a direct function of MGMAT.
2 - Again out of scope. The number of times a student consults with an instructor is dependent on the student not the MGMAT course raising their score. It is likely same student will consult with instructor if with another company or studying on their own. FYI MGMAT instructors reply that they can not solve questions you ask of them and should seek the answers on public forums. (or so has been the response of my instructor at least)
3 - Ambiguous - What do you define as effective? If instructor A teaches to use a method in a particular situation and the student uses it and still gets it wrong, has the student, effectively used this method, therefore is the MGMAT class effective in its right?
4 - Out of scope.

Refund
MGMAT is a business and I think that needs to be clear first, they are not interested in 'helping' students out in the benevolent sense of the term, however they are interested in delivering company methods and strategies. The class in my opinion is meant to prime you to private tutoring, where I think the real value lies.

We covered critical reasoning in my last Manhattan GMAT (henceforward "MGMAT") class, so let me apply what I've learned to your argument.

You start with a conclusion: "...an expensive prep course such as ManhattanGMAT does not help to increase their clients GMAT scores." You support this with the premise that "several articles [have been] published that question the effectiveness of expensive prep courses such as Kaplan."

OK, let's weaken your first conclusion.

In those articles you mentioned (since you seem to be basing your conclusion only on them), did they discuss (1) How much time the students spent studying for the test? (2) How often the students consulted with instructors when they ran into difficulties? (3) How effectively they utilized all materials and techniques provided to them? (4) Whether they took practice tests--and whether they analyzed the results properly? Just TAKING the course doesn't mean you're USING the course. Unless you can provide some more detailed data showing that a significant number of students properly used the techniques taught to them and still got no improvement, I call shenanigans.

Your next conclusion is: "If we did not get what we paid for -- over $1,000 bill -- we should be refunded of our money."

Let's weaken this conclusion by finding the assumption.

Your assumption is that what MGMAT sells is better scores. That may be the misguided idea that some people have when signing up for a prep course, but in my experience as a MGMAT student I've never seen them support that view or guarantee higher scores on the GMAT. MGMAT sells STRATEGIES which in THEIR OPINION (they never claim it to be proven fact) improves scores--but they do not sell the actual improvement! That of course is up to STUDENTS and their engagement with the material. So long as MGMAT delivered on effectively explaining their strategies to you, they gave you what they promised. So, no refund applicable. (And with a staff of people who all scored in the 99th percentile on the test, can you really tell me they have NO good ideas on how to take it?)

And your final conclusion is:

"Some regulation needs to be implemented to make sure that the claims prep courses such as ManhattanGMAT make are truthful and not deceptive."

I find yet another assumption here: A truthful presentation of test results will ensure that a potential student will know whether or not a test prep course actually works.

Well let's say in year one of your plan, MGMAT follows the new regulations and reports that 50% of their students did not improve their scores. Kaplan, however, only had 10% who didn't improve. Kaplan must be better, right? Well, what if it turns out that the average MGMAT student's score was 650 and the average Kaplan student's score was 600? Sure, more Kaplan students improved...but to a lower score. OK, so now you say we'll include the average score reports as well, and say that the test prep course that has the greatest number of students with improved scores and the highest average score is the best one. Except you find out that the course that has that honor is also the most expensive, meaning that students from disadvantaged backgrounds and poorly performing public schools probably couldn't afford to enroll in the class and give more diverse results (i.e. the students in that course probably were going to do well anyway). Do you see how this just goes on and on? You want to make an iron-clad connection between a school's performance and that of its students...and having had some experience in public education, I can assure you that you're opening a can of worms here.

Everything's a risk my friend! Buyer beware. Distrustful of test prep programs? Don't take them. Simple.

P.S. To MGMAT instructors reading this...how did I do as a critical reasoner? Feedback appreciated. Clearly, I'm a fan.

[StaceyKoprince]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, Michael—I'd forgotten about this thread!

I do have to respond to one thing. I am actually interested in helping my students; if I weren't, I couldn't begin to do this job and do it well. It's a demanding career. I am also interested in my company continuing to make money so that I can keep working / having a job, of course—I won't deny that. (And not just any job—I love this particular job.)

Now, I'm just an individual working for the company of course—I'm not "the company" myself. And, yes, if we ceased being profitable, our parent company would be...seriously not happy with us. Part of loving this particular job (with this particular company), though, is that I know my individual coworkers feel the same way that I do. I would not want to work for a company that does not put the students first.

And this attitude does actually "trickle up" to the business side. I have participated in multiple business conversations within the company during which we have made decisions that benefited the students first, actually over the interests of the company. (Random example: We sometimes have people put down a deposit for a course and then just not contact us for months and months. Or they pay for a full course and then ask to postpone the class. Have they forgotten? Are they just not ready yet? We decided that, if a certain amount of time passes without the student contacting us, we wanted to remind them—with the possible consequence that they'd decided not to take a course after all and wanted to be refunded instead. Would it be more profitable to say nothing—just shrug our shoulders and keep the money? Of course. But that's not in the best interests of the student. Besides, we actually do want to earn the money that we make. We take pride in the work that we do.)

The beauty of all of this is that, by focusing on students first, we actually help the business itself continue to function / succeed. Word of mouth is the single biggest motivator when someone's deciding how to study for one of these exams. If we do right by our students, then they're going to say so (and vice versa, by the way). Witness some of the earlier comments upthread—we didn't recruit students to reply to this chain. (I also want to point out: We didn't delete this thread. If we, the company, feel confident that we're doing the right thing, then we should also be comfortable having these kinds of conversations.)

I'm kind of surprised, actually, that other companies in other industries don't seem to get this: Take care of your customers and they'll keep coming back / keep supporting you. (Witness the craziness of the airline industry at the moment!)