see responses inline please.
Rastis wrote:I've been using Veritas Prep materials since July. In that time, I have taken both their classroom course and also their online course. Like any prep course, I would try to complete the sections that were covered in class that particular day and take practice tests once a week.
taking a practice test once a week
while you are taking a prep course is, basically, a waste of practice tests.
remember that a practice test is a tool for
assessment and/or
diagnosis, NOT for
improvement. while you are still aiming for improvement -- which is definitely the case if you are in the middle of a prep course -- there's no reason to take more than 1-2 practice tests per month. when you take a practice test, it should provide plenty of diagnostic information to last for at least a couple of weeks of studying.
While working the verbal Veritas books were "simple" (for lack of a better word), the quant certainly was not.
i haven't really seen much of those books.
i've seen them exactly once, in a bookstore. i remember flipping through them and getting the impression that at least 75% of the space on the interior pages (!!) was blank, but i haven't really seen the content.
After becoming increasingly frustrated with my inability to work the problems in the quant books and reading success stories on BTG
like any other forum in the entire world of the internet, this one is going to be an extremely biased sample. clearly, "success stories" are going to be overrepresented. you shouldn't let this affect your thought process, much less the overall mental state in which you are preparing.
, I began doing quant problems out of the OG as well as the Quant Review. I would try to do at least 40 problems a day (wouldn't happen everyday but at least 3 times a week) and complete an error log sheet.
that's an insanely huge number of problems. if you're doing that many problems in a day, you probably aren't getting very much out of them.
remember that, on the quant section, your goal is to
find as many ways as possible to solve the problems. this means that you may spend lots and lots of time reviewing a single problem, if there are many ways in which to solve it.
for instance, consider #206 in the problem solving section of OG 12th. this problem can be solved in at least four ways:
- you can set up algebraic equations
- you can use relative rates (car a travels at a speed of 8 mph relative to car b)
- you can plug in the answer choices and see how far each car has traveled after that interval of time
- you can make a list that shows, line by line, how far each car has traveled at regular intervals (say, every half-hour, because the answer choices are separated by half-hours), and then just continue making the list until car a is 8 miles ahead of car b.
there are probably more than these four ways, too, but you get the point. if you just solve this problem in one way and then blow past it, you are deriving only a small fraction of the cumulative benefit that you could gain from the problem.
Data sufficiency was, sorry to say, a disaster from the get go.
if this is true, it has nothing to do with math: the math on DS problems is, on average, simpler than that on PS problems. therefore, if actual mathematical weakness were the only issue, you would actually be doing better on DS than on PS.
if data sufficiency has consistently been "a disaster" (your words), then that means you haven't yet mastered the fundamentals of the ds format. meaning, in all probability,
* you probably aren't sufficiently focused on the exact issue in each question. (for instance, if a DS problem asks for the tens digit of a number and you try to find the entire number, you are basically guaranteed to get that problem wrong -- even if you make no actual mistakes in your math.)
* you may not have fully absorbed what "sufficient" and "not sufficient" mean in general. this is actually a surprisingly common problem, even among those who have been studying for months, but that doesn't make it any less of a problem.
test yourself:
write ten of YOUR OWN data sufficiency problems. they don't have to be complicated problems; in fact, they can (and should, for this drill) be extremely simple. write them like this:
- write five of your own DS questions in a YES/NO format, one with each of the answer choices (a), (b), (c), (d), (e).
- write five of your own DS questions in a "FIND THE VALUE" format, one with each of the answer choices (a), (b), (c), (d), (e).
if you can't create such (simple) problems smoothly and speedily, then you don't yet have a sufficient understanding of how DS works. if that's the case, you should go back to the basics and really hammer them before you do anything else with DS again -- because it's nothing but guessing if you don't thoroughly understand the format.
As for verbal, I decided to purchase the Verbal Review from GMAC and have begun doing the same 40 question routine.
such high quantity inevitably begets low quality.
if you are reviewing thoroughly, you should not be able to get through anywhere close to 40 problems in a day's worth of studying. try following some of the suggestions outlined in this post:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/retaking-gma ... tml#464164
With respect to CR and RC, I have a hard time being able to read "critically" and staying focused on what I'm reading (ADD). For instance, when I read a premise on CR that's difficult to understand my mind immediately begins to wonder because I'm automatically freaking out about how likely or unlikely I am to get the question right.
i hear this particular complaint a lot. most students are quick to dismiss this as a problem of "distraction" (very possibly because that sort of thing places the onus on an entity that is not themselves), but, in the vast majority of cases, it's actually a question of priorities.
here's a thought experiment:
imagine that you are being shot at (literally), over and over again, for a period of several minutes. you have to dodge the bullets so that you don't die.
in this situation, would you (a) be thinking all sorts of distracted thoughts about "omg how likely am i to dodge the next bullet? what was the difficulty level of the last bullet? where is my girlfriend right now?", or (b) be thinking about absolutely nothing except how to dodge the next bullet?
i suspect that your answer is (b). if that's the case, then this is purely a matter of priorities: in the shooting example, you actually
realize, deep in your heart of hearts, that the only thing that's important is to think about the immediate, exigent situation, and you simply haven't made the same decision/realization about the gmat.
if you are one of the distinctive few who could honestly answer (a) to this question, then in your case it really is an issue of distraction/attention and you should thus go about addressing it in very different ways (some of which are prescription-only).
As of a couple weeks ago, I decided to start from the beginning with their materials and work on mastering math basics and concepts and working my way up. Sadly though, it doesn't seem to be paying off. I admittedly have a huge weakness with ratios and number properties (key to DS) and also anything involving weighted average and combinations. I can hold my own with algebra and geometry - to an extent, of course. I've been working with on-line instructors for assistance with math problems daily as well.
how often do you use backup methods?
PS:
backsolving from answer choices
plugging in your own numbers
estimating answers
DS:
testing cases
identifying trap answers
if you don't know what i'm talking about here, then (1) this is a golden opportunity -- these are approaches that succeed on half, or even more, of
all the math problems, if you can wield them skillfully -- and (2) you should check out the lecture dated february 4, 2010, at this link:
https://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm
I try to spend at least 2 1/2 hrs a day doing problems
how many days per week completely OFF? as in doing completely nothing.
if the answer to this question is not at least 1, and preferably at least 2, your brain is in a bad way, and you should take some time off.
with the goal of not freaking out when I see a math problem and saying "ok, no way do i know how to start this". And with that in mind, it's very hard for me to accept or understand that the GMAT isn't a math test but a "reasoning" test - a test of how you "think". I honestly wish I could grasp that concept or realization but I can't.
well, the quantitative section is based on
some common base of math ... because it has to be based on, well,
something.
that's why they make the math basis of the test as modest as possible, though -- so that reasoning, not pure math knowledge, does the lion's share of the work.
the math on this test only goes up to high-school algebra 1 and geometry, with a few minor topics that might be part of algebra 2 at some schools. that doesn't mean the math can't be challenging, of course -- many people need to go back and refresh these areas pretty badly -- but, once you get that base knowledge down, it's more a test of cleverness and mental flexibility than a math test.
