Prioritizing Time Towards Quant

[ShaunL437]

I took my first CAT about four weeks ago (nine weeks out from my actual GMAT exam date) and scored a 550 (Q32, V34); I took my second CAT about two weeks ago (seven weeks out from my actual GMAT exam date) and scored a 610 (Q35, V38). I'm in the military and over the next four weeks leading up to my GMAT exam date a lot of my time will be dedicated to our annual training event. I've currently made it halfway through Lesson 6, but I was wondering if I should just skim through the verbal sections of the Lessons I have left so that I can prioritize more of my time towards quant. I'd really appreciate any feedback you have on how I can best utilize the last four weeks of preparation that I have so that I can hit my 700 mark.

Thanks,
Shaun

[StaceyKoprince]

I understand the impulse, but if you want to hit the 700 mark, then you would be wise to keep pushing verbal, not just quant. If you keep V at 38, then you will have to take quant all the way up to 48 (out of 51) to hit 700. ie, you'd have to make quant, your weakness, basically better than verbal, your strength. And you'd have to get 100% of the lift to 700 from quant (again, your weakness) alone. So, no, that's not a great bet to make.

You will likely need to spend more of your study time on quant, yes, but don't demote verbal all the way down to "skim" mode. Aim to get verbal up to about 42, which is a *very* high verbal score. You can't just skim to get there! But if you can get V up to 42, then Q needs to go to about 43 / 44, which is a more reasonable goal increase from Q35.

Next, do you absolutely have to take the test in 4 weeks? Do you have a hard deadline that absolutely cannot change for some immoveable reason? If not, then consider giving yourself more time. A 90-point increase in 4 weeks is a lot even with a normal schedule. What do you think?

Thank you for your service.

[ShaunL437]

Stacey,

Great point and thanks a lot for the thoughtful reply. I originally set the exam date for 29 July because I wasn't sure where I'd be during the month of August; however, I'm now planning on taking it again around the beginning of September before closing out my application by 5 October. I'd really like to keep making progress so that a 700 is feasible by the first test, but if that doesn't happen I'm confident I can do what I need to do during August in order to hit that mark in September. Does that sound more reasonable?

Thanks,
Shaun

[StaceyKoprince]

Yes, that sounds like a good plan. And I also think it's a good idea to take the test twice in general. It's nerve-wracking being in that room, so if you already know what to expect, then the second time is a little easier.

And maybe you will get the score your first time and you won't need the second one!

[ShaunL437]

Stacey,

That would definitely be nice and thanks again for the response. I'm sure I'll have some more questions for you as I refine my study plan leading up to this first test and possibly again for the second one.

Shaun

[StaceyKoprince]

Good luck! Let me know how it goes!

[ShaunL437]

Stacey,

I ended up not quite hitting my mark, but I'm planning on taking it again in mid-September and I feel good about it. I've now taken four MGMAT CATs and I've prioritized my buckets accordingly. This past week I've been trying to solidify an effective game-plan for improving over the next five(ish) weeks so that I can get my score up. Since I've covered all of the Strategy Guides and videos I'm looking to place more emphasis on problem sets (around 10 questions each of various difficulty and material) with an even stronger emphasis on review (going back to the guides and/or videos depending on which questions continue to challenge me the most). I would like to then take a practice test every 7-10 days to reassess where I'm at so that I can tailor my problem sets to my weaker areas, while still including variety. What are your thoughts on that approach to reviewing for the next few weeks? Any advice on being most efficient and effective would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Shaun

[StaceyKoprince]

I like it. A few tweaks:

(1) If you use (or want to use) our "yellow pad" section timing benchmarks discussed in the Prepare to Face the GMAT 2 strategy Interact lesson from session 6, then do your problem sets in multiples of 4 for quant and 8 for verbal. (Watch or re-watch that lesson if you're not sure why.)

(2) Are you studying full-time now? If not, I wouldn't do a CAT every 7 days for 4-5 weeks, simply because of this: if you aren't getting at least 10 days to 2 weeks' worth of stuff to analyze / study / practice out of one CAT, then you're not analyzing deeply enough. I'd plan more like 3 CATs over that timeframe, with some GMAT Focus thrown in for quant if you feel like you need more adaptive decision-making practice for quant. (see www.mba.com for more on the GMAT Focus product)

One caveat: if you think that a big part of the issue is how you're making decisions (including time management) under full testing conditions, then maybe you do need to take more than 3 CATs.

(3) Aside: However many you take, do make sure that all CATs are under 100% full conditions, including essay and IR, length of breaks, etc. And take them at the same time of day you plan to take the real test.

Other than that, I like your plan!

[ShaunL437]

Stacey,

Thanks a lot for the response. After my first official test I realized that I had been (almost) memorizing practice problems leading up to that day, which inevitably didn't bode well because I obviously had trained myself on a specific problem that I would never see again. Right now my biggest focus when I review problem sets is trying to take away a general piece of information that I can apply to a similar problem so that I'm more adaptive in the future. I've read and re-read the articles on "the second level of learning" and "how to analyze a practice PS question", but if you had any more advice and/or recommendations on this topic I would really appreciate it.

(1) I have been using the "yellow pad" technique during the practice tests so I get what you're saying about the number of questions I should use for problem sets. I'll start applying that same logic to my problem sets.

(2) I'm allocating about an hour each weekday and then typically 4-6 hours each day of the weekend. I don't think I would attribute my recent test score to time management so I may go with only three more practice tests.

(3) Great point and I've been making sure that I adhere to what you're saying each time.

Thanks,
Shaun

[StaceyKoprince]

I think the biggest thing is really thinking: what do I want to take away from this problem using the "When I see / I'll think or do" framework?

The "when I see" bit should be from the problem, but it should be high-level enough that that kind of thing could appear in other problems. It shouldn't be the entire question stem, ever.

And then you might also elaborate: how else could they ask something similar? eg, if the key to the current problem is to recognize this:
When I see: x + y > 0
Then I'll think: at least x or y must be positive (maybe both)

And then I might think...hmm, if they said x + y < 0...what would that mean? They can't both be positive, so one must be negative, okay so it's the same info but reversed, so I'll add to my flash card:
When I see:
x + y > 0
x + y < 0
Then I'll think:
at least x or y must be + (maybe both); can't both be -
at least x or y must be - (maybe both); can't both be +

Now, the next time you see something similar, you'll know what the significance of that information is, regardless of what kind of question it shows up in.

[ShaunL437]

Stacey,

So I've taken the actual GMAT twice now and scored a 580 on 29 July and 600 (Q37, V35 - similar to scores with the 580) on 25 September, and I'm really not sure why I keep struggling with the quant. When I'm taking the exam I can tell I'm not really getting it due to my inability to actually solve a lot of the problems, however, I felt more confident during the MGMAT practice tests (I typically scored between 610 and 640). I spent the majority of the time between the two tests doing mixed problem sets I created (generally in sets of 4 or 8) and I tried to prioritize algebra and FDPs in each set with a few random problems incorporated. My thought is that I didn't spend enough focused time on specific material (a few days on rates/work for example) and therefore didn't really learn as much as I could have from the mixed problem sets. I feel like I could have developed a greater level of mastery on certain topics had I applied the focused method I just described. I'd really value any insight or input you have so that I can get my score up to the mid-600s.

Thanks,
Shaun

[StaceyKoprince]

I'm sorry this test is driving you crazy. (Although you did pick up 20 points. Take every point you can get—nice work!)

How much did you push the "When I see..." "I'll think / do..." stuff?

What you're describing is known as "blocked" study or practice. It's the way most people feel comfortable studying and it's the way a lot of schools set things up: do a lot of the same thing over and over till you feel you've got it and then move on to the next thing on the list.

That can work for low-level skills (like times tables). But blocking has, unfortunately, been shown to be less effective than interleaving (doing mixed study and practice), particularly for higher-level math. If you're interested:
http://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/blog/ ... hat-means/

This is particularly true for a test like the GMAT, which:
(1) Mixes everything up together, so you have to figure out what to do with each new problem and you have to keep jumping back and forth among topics, and
(2) Doesn't give you virtual replicas of problems but with different numbers—lots of math teachers do this, but the GMAT is really testing your ability to think your way through (somewhat) new situations.

Oh, and as you'll see if you read that article I linked above, most students will tell you that they learned more / felt better when using blocked study. But tests shows that they have actually learned more when using interleaving.

So, where does that leave us? Back at my first question: how far did you push the Know the Code part of your studies? That's how you really put in place the final step for higher-level GMAT questions.

Also, I will say: it's okay to do a bit of a deep dive in the moment when you realize, ugh, this topic sucks. Feel free to take an hour right there to go read more about rates / work and do some. But doing exclusively rates / work for a few days is likely to result in the "I feel good but didn't actually learn how to distinguish between these on the real test" feeling that blocked practice is often associated with.

Thoughts?

[ShaunL437]

Stacey,

Great feedback, thank you. I probably need to hone in on the "when I see... I'll think/do" method more in the future. I definitely understand the value of interleaving and I've been focused on using that as my method so that I mitigate predictability, I just wonder if my fundamentals are still lacking due to my consistent scoring in the high 30th/low 40th percentiles for quant, while generally scoring in the mid-80th percentile for verbal. This may not be an easy question to answer, but if my plan is to start back up with studying on Monday (after a week off since the last test) would you recommend using wiley.com to generate random problem sets and then going back to the books and videos to reinforce problems I'm getting wrong or should I spend more time going through the foundations book and strategy guides?

Thanks,
Shaun

[StaceyKoprince]

Good question. Think of it this way: you need to diagnose your weaknesses. You do that by trying some things, analyzing deeply, and then following that trail of breadcrumbs, if you will.

If you think that foudational skills might be part of the issue, then start by trying problems from the end of any chapter in FoM (our Foundations of Math guide). Look for what I call "wrong, slow, or feels funny"—you just didn't feel comfortable doing that math. Then, go into the chapter to learn whatever you think you need to learn based on your diagnosis. Then, go back to the end of chapter problems to drill those skills more. (And there are more online drills in your student center for various topics; check it out.)

You can do the same thing with the main strategy guides. And you do the same thing with OG or any other official problems: when you want to try a set, do so (random, mixed, timed, etc), but then really dive in. Doing the problems is really just to diagnose what you need to make better. You might end up coming up with 2 hours of work out of a single problem because you realize that you need to jump into FoM for X and Y and then you need to look through the Smart Numbers chapter in Algebra, and then you need to drill some skills and you need to make yourself some Know the Code flash cards and you might even google that problem to see what other people have noticed or tried to do or whatever. And then you might want to test yourself out on some OG problems in that same area. And then you're going to dive into analysis all over again.

Each problem you do isn't so that you know how to do that particular problem. You won't see that problem on the test. Each problem is so that you learn how to get better at whatever skills you need in order to be able to handle that *type* of problem on the test.

Does that make sense?