GMAT Strategy

Have people found that the MGMAT scores from their practice exams were representative (or close to) what they got on the actual test?

I've been scoring an average of ~730 on the MGMAT CATs and improving steadily and got a 710 and 720 on GMATPrep several months back (I'm retaking the GMAT). I plan to retake the GMATPrep but I know my score may be skewed since I may have seen some of the questions before.

I was working with a PR tutor, though, and he mentioned that something seemed off about the scoring mechanism - several times I would get a 700-800 level problem wrong on the test, and it would drop me down to a 300-500 level problem next. He said that was slightly off from what would happen on the real test.

So I was just wondering if I'm filling myself with false hope about how well I'm doing based on taking the MGMATs. I'd appreciate any of y'all's insight!

Let me start off my admitting that I personally like the MGMAT tests. I took them all (even more than once) and does help. Here is the difficult part - I am not sure how much these test or for that matter any of the practice tests mimic the real thing. I was in consistently in the 650-680 range of the practice tests, but in was disappointed with my performance at the test yesterday. I scored below 600 and will try it again. My advice, use the material with discretion, realize that the score just show a pattern and that reality comes with surprises, both pleasant and otherwise. I have heard however that most of these tests are approx. +/-30 points away from the real scores. Good luck!

I found the MHAT CATs to be more difficult than the real test. I never got more than 730 and usually 680-690 on Manhattan. That being said, I got 760 on GMAT Prep and that's what I ended up getting on the real exam.

My opinion is that the quant on MHAT is overly difficult. It's good in the sense that it allows you to train at altitude. I think the MHAT verbal is pretty good but some of the CR questions are bit different in terms of style versus the real GMAT.

Just my 2 cents...

I agree that the quant is difficult - it's much harder than in my PR practice tests, but I thought perhaps PR quant is overly simplified. I'm hoping to score above 700 on this test. I took it a few months ago and even though I was averaging high 600s/low 700s, I got a 620 and I was really disappointed. TryHarder, I think sometimes it just happens (for me, I was really sick that week, I live in a dorm and there was a party outside my room the night before that didn't end until 4am so I didn't sleep well, and I took the test at 8am) and I'm hopeful we'll both do better next time!

Canada_sms, what do you mean that the CR is a different format?

myohmy wrote:I agree that the quant is difficult - it's much harder than in my PR practice tests, but I thought perhaps PR quant is overly simplified. I'm hoping to score above 700 on this test. I took it a few months ago and even though I was averaging high 600s/low 700s, I got a 620 and I was really disappointed. TryHarder, I think sometimes it just happens (for me, I was really sick that week, I live in a dorm and there was a party outside my room the night before that didn't end until 4am so I didn't sleep well, and I took the test at 8am) and I'm hopeful we'll both do better next time!

Canada_sms, what do you mean that the CR is a different format?

The MHAT CR isn't in a different format. I just personally feel like the questions are not similar in composition to real GMAT questions. I think the questions are designed more to prove that MHAT CR strategies work rather than reflect true questions. For example, on several occasions I thought the answers to certain CR questions were debatable.

Maybe it's just me...

Haha probably not, but I always overthink and think things are debatable so I figured it was just me.

I definitely agree that oftentimes (moreso than on my PR CATs), the CR seems to have two or three "possible" answers and they focus way more on you picking the *best* answer.

Yea exactly. I felt like the answers to CR questions on the real GMAT were way more clear cut.

Took my first MGMAT test today.

It was the free sample exam and I have all of next week to do my hell week one week prep for the GMAT and then do the real thing on Saturday. I decided I'm gonna do two or three of these MGMAT CATs a day.

Man I hope this free sample exam is purposely made difficult so the test taker can feel disappointed after the result and then buy MGMAT materials. Let's just say that I scored well over a 100 points lower than what I actually got on the GMAT as well as any GMATprep.

As a matter of fact, even though I have been studying GMAT for probably close to 2 months now in total and I consider myself pretty GMAT saavy, I scored lower in this MGMAT sample CAT then when I first took the GMAT before I studied anything.

The quant on the MGMAT is hard and the GMATCLUB didn't prepare me for the MGMAT math. GMATCLUB has very similar style Q problems after a while and the test writers pretty much begin asking the same principles over again just reworded a little differently. At least MGMAT is now giving me a fresher perspective to problems I should focus on that I previously have not.

The V I felt was pretty good for the sentence completion. I thought the RC passages are a little bit too technical and dense for the real GMAT.

Two or three CATs a day? Holy crap, I thought I was dedicated.

Maybe it was just one bad test? Sometimes things just feel off, you answer questions wrong in just the right spots that it totally kills your score... maybe it was just one of those things?

I did score lower on the free on (670) than all the ones afterward (all 700+) but I figured that was because it had been so long since I'd taken a CAT that I was just rusty. I'm sure the second one you take, your score will improve a lot.