-
mshecket
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Ypsilanti, Michigan
- GMAT Score:780
[This post is really only relevant for true test geeks.]
I'm a tutor. Here's my score history:
2006: 770 - 50Q, 47V
2009: 780 - 50Q, 48V
2012: 780 - 50Q, 48V (and 7 on IR - bah)
Now, I'd be quick to attribute my failure to advance beyond 780 to my own shortcomings and lack of disciplined practice, but there are seemingly no legitimate reports of scores of 800 in the last 8-10 years. (Here's one guy I found with two 51Q/51V/800s but his second 800 was in 2003: https://www.perfectgmat.com/pdf/gmat-score.pdf) There are even multiple reports of 51Q/51V on this site resulting in 790 (https://www.beatthegmat.com/from-710-in- ... 69188.html and https://www.beatthegmat.com/can-t-beat-t ... 87091.html). There are no reports on this site of section scores higher than 51Q or 51V.
So here's my hypothesis: as an artifact of adaptive testing or of changing scoring scales over time, it is possible to get every question right on the test and still fall short of 800.
Hubris comes in here: I really cannot conceive of how I could have missed any of the verbal questions, and I didn't guess on any of the math questions. I could be very wrong and merely arrogant. But then again, what if I didn't miss any of the verbal questions, yet because I randomly was assigned questions from the pool that were rated just a little less difficult than the hardest available, it was impossible for me to break through the 48V barrier?
Another piece of evidence is that I haven't seen anyone who has been able to manipulate the GMATPrep software into producing an 800 score.
I speculate that the testmakers know this but don't go out of their way to publicize it. If true, that's not unfair, because as explained elsewhere, everything from 740 on up is more or less equivalent for b-school admissions purposes (AKA the purpose for which the test is designed).
I'm not trying to frame this as some sort of conspiracy theory. The GMAT is really an excellent test that serves its purpose very well. But maybe those of us who hunt 800s for sport need to dial down our expectations.
Opinions? Disproof? Proof?
I'm a tutor. Here's my score history:
2006: 770 - 50Q, 47V
2009: 780 - 50Q, 48V
2012: 780 - 50Q, 48V (and 7 on IR - bah)
Now, I'd be quick to attribute my failure to advance beyond 780 to my own shortcomings and lack of disciplined practice, but there are seemingly no legitimate reports of scores of 800 in the last 8-10 years. (Here's one guy I found with two 51Q/51V/800s but his second 800 was in 2003: https://www.perfectgmat.com/pdf/gmat-score.pdf) There are even multiple reports of 51Q/51V on this site resulting in 790 (https://www.beatthegmat.com/from-710-in- ... 69188.html and https://www.beatthegmat.com/can-t-beat-t ... 87091.html). There are no reports on this site of section scores higher than 51Q or 51V.
So here's my hypothesis: as an artifact of adaptive testing or of changing scoring scales over time, it is possible to get every question right on the test and still fall short of 800.
Hubris comes in here: I really cannot conceive of how I could have missed any of the verbal questions, and I didn't guess on any of the math questions. I could be very wrong and merely arrogant. But then again, what if I didn't miss any of the verbal questions, yet because I randomly was assigned questions from the pool that were rated just a little less difficult than the hardest available, it was impossible for me to break through the 48V barrier?
Another piece of evidence is that I haven't seen anyone who has been able to manipulate the GMATPrep software into producing an 800 score.
I speculate that the testmakers know this but don't go out of their way to publicize it. If true, that's not unfair, because as explained elsewhere, everything from 740 on up is more or less equivalent for b-school admissions purposes (AKA the purpose for which the test is designed).
I'm not trying to frame this as some sort of conspiracy theory. The GMAT is really an excellent test that serves its purpose very well. But maybe those of us who hunt 800s for sport need to dial down our expectations.
Opinions? Disproof? Proof?
