Testing the GMATPrep scoring algorithm for Quant section

This topic has expert replies

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:05 am
tutorphd wrote: You are comparing bananas to apples here. When the test is very hard like GMAT, getting a few questions wrong will lead to a smaller decrease in percentiles because very few people get those questions right.
no, you've got it backward.

the gmat population is much, much more competitive and well-prepared, because the only people taking the gmat are those who are actually motivated to attend a graduate b-school program. by contrast, the sat is taken by some huge fraction of the US high-school population -- basically, everybody who is entertaining any thoughts of attending a four-year college.
as a result, the SAT percentiles are much more forgiving.
SAT is way lower difficulty than GMAT so comparing them to prove a paper test is more prone to errors than adaptive test is not very sound.
the SAT was your example, not mine.
The problem I see in the adaptive test is the fact it is less adaptive in the middle and the end of the test, while a paper test is continuously scanning the full range in every sub-topic.
to scan "the full range in every subtopic", you would need hundreds and hundreds of problems.
instead, a paper test generally has one or two problems in each subtopic. as for which topics get to be the "hard" problems, well, that's just sort of random -- and that's the problem with paper tests that progress in difficulty.
for instance, let's say you're stronger in geometry, but you have the bad luck to take a paper test on which the hardest problems aren't geometry. then bad news bears.
on an adaptive test, by contrast, you'll get tough geometry questions right along with tough questions in the other topics.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:11 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:7 members

by tutorphd » Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:16 am
Getting a full score on SAT is way more common than a full score on GMAT, which means that it is way easier to solve all the problems in SAT than GMAT. That is why, not solving a single problem on SAT may drop your percentile more because there are more people that have solved it.

The GMAT population may be more competitive, but so is the actual test. Every tutor knows that it becomes exponentially harder to move to higher quant scores if the test taker score is already high.

I personally, divide the GMAT problems in 4 levels, and I need 4 problems to test a particular sub-topic. Of course that won't test every possible combinations of concepts, but the adaptive GMAT scoring doesn't do that either - low and average scorers may not see even a single problem in probability or combinatorics because the test 'likelihoodly' assumes they don't know them. This implicit assumption is a complete BS, because I know as a tutor, I can teach basic combinatorics problems even before starting algebra.
Skype / Chicago quant tutor in GMAT / GRE
https://gmat.tutorchicago.org/