I've often heard of Kaplan's reputation as having the hardest CATs and problems in their books. But after buying the Kaplan GMAT 800 (the 2007-08 edition, don't know if that makes a difference) book and going through everything and taking some of their CATs, I don't think they're anywhere near as hard as the Manhattan GMAT CATs. This is strictly talking about Quant.
For those who have used both prep company's materials, what's the consensus of the quant difficulty between these two companies' material? Are they both supposed to be harder than the real GMAT?
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
How is Kaplan 800 and CATs compared to Manhattan CATs?
This topic has expert replies
-
jsackmann
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: NYC
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:3 members
I haven't noticed any patterns. I met someone the other day who took several MGMAT tests at got 680s each time, then scored 100 points lower on the real thing. I know folks who have recently done the same on Kaplan tests.
On the flip side, some people score low on the practice tests.
While they aren't bad as resources, I don't think the practice tests are reliable enough to use as score indicators. I wrote at length about this the other day:
https://www.gmathacks.com/resources/how- ... tests.html
--
https://www.gmathacks.com
On the flip side, some people score low on the practice tests.
While they aren't bad as resources, I don't think the practice tests are reliable enough to use as score indicators. I wrote at length about this the other day:
https://www.gmathacks.com/resources/how- ... tests.html
--
https://www.gmathacks.com
