-
zuleron
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:50 pm
- Location: Philly, USA
- Thanked: 76 times
- Followed by:4 members
- GMAT Score:750
I have read a few posts about how you should spend more time on the first 10 questions and if you don’t you run the risk of getting “locked-in” to a low score. I think the consensus among instructors is that there is no such thing as being locked in. However, the question remains: how is it that many well prepared people have reported being frustrated (while they were doing the exam) by the easiness of the questions they were seeing and by their inability to consistently see the tougher questions, and though they did not flunk the GMAT, they are inevitably disappointed with their performance?
Could it be, then, that the initial estimate is not “locked-in”, but rather it acts like a center of gravity to which you are drawn for the remaining 27 questions? So if your initial estimate is 600 then clearly it is difficult to get to 750 but should you get to level 750 questions, it is very difficult to STAY at 750 because the algorithm wants to draw you down to 600. And if your initial estimate is 750 then it is easier to get back to 750 should you drop to 600.
For example, if I get 6 out of the first 10 wrong and so at Q11 the computer estimates me as a 550. Then I get the next 5 correct and it raises me to 650 at Q16. But then I get the Q16 and Q17 wrong, is it not reasonable that the computer would ‘think’ that I really am a 550 guy and my hot streak from Q 11 – 16 might have been a little lucky so we’ll discount a few points and so for Q 18 we’ll give him a 570 level instead of a 600 level? So if your initial estimate is low you cannot afford to make mistakes coz they are costlier.
Conversely, if I get the first 10 correct, then presumably I’m scoring at the 800 level. But then I get the next 5 wrong which drops me to, say, the 670 level. But then I get the next 2 correct, so at Q 18 is it not reasonable that the algorithm will think he really is an 800 guy and his flubs between Q11 and Q16 were an aberration and so for Q18 we’ll give him a 770 level question instead of a 730 level question. So if your initial estimate is high, you can afford to make some mistakes coz they are less costly.
In other words, throughout the exam, algorithm wants to pull you to your initial estimate. So should you stray far from your initial estimate it will only take a couple of correct or incorrect answers in a row to bring you back to your initial estimate. So if your initial estimate is low, it takes only two or so incorrect responses in a row to bring you back down even if you have managed to raise your level very high. And that if your initial estimate is very high and you go through a rough patch, then a few correct in a row will shoot you right back to your high initial estimate. So the GMAT algorithm is really a species of weighted average with a bias towards the initial estimate.
Is this not a reasonable reading of how the algorithm works? And if this is true, then it should also be true that establishing a high initial estimate is an important test-taking strategy, thus you should spend more time on the 1st 10 questions?
Thoughts?
Could it be, then, that the initial estimate is not “locked-in”, but rather it acts like a center of gravity to which you are drawn for the remaining 27 questions? So if your initial estimate is 600 then clearly it is difficult to get to 750 but should you get to level 750 questions, it is very difficult to STAY at 750 because the algorithm wants to draw you down to 600. And if your initial estimate is 750 then it is easier to get back to 750 should you drop to 600.
For example, if I get 6 out of the first 10 wrong and so at Q11 the computer estimates me as a 550. Then I get the next 5 correct and it raises me to 650 at Q16. But then I get the Q16 and Q17 wrong, is it not reasonable that the computer would ‘think’ that I really am a 550 guy and my hot streak from Q 11 – 16 might have been a little lucky so we’ll discount a few points and so for Q 18 we’ll give him a 570 level instead of a 600 level? So if your initial estimate is low you cannot afford to make mistakes coz they are costlier.
Conversely, if I get the first 10 correct, then presumably I’m scoring at the 800 level. But then I get the next 5 wrong which drops me to, say, the 670 level. But then I get the next 2 correct, so at Q 18 is it not reasonable that the algorithm will think he really is an 800 guy and his flubs between Q11 and Q16 were an aberration and so for Q18 we’ll give him a 770 level question instead of a 730 level question. So if your initial estimate is high, you can afford to make some mistakes coz they are less costly.
In other words, throughout the exam, algorithm wants to pull you to your initial estimate. So should you stray far from your initial estimate it will only take a couple of correct or incorrect answers in a row to bring you back to your initial estimate. So if your initial estimate is low, it takes only two or so incorrect responses in a row to bring you back down even if you have managed to raise your level very high. And that if your initial estimate is very high and you go through a rough patch, then a few correct in a row will shoot you right back to your high initial estimate. So the GMAT algorithm is really a species of weighted average with a bias towards the initial estimate.
Is this not a reasonable reading of how the algorithm works? And if this is true, then it should also be true that establishing a high initial estimate is an important test-taking strategy, thus you should spend more time on the 1st 10 questions?
Thoughts?
)
