Hello again smart guy - you ask another excellent question.

A significant part of the difference is the curriculum, which I just described to you. Using this content-based material, we are able to provide students with a content-based preparation program, one that really focuses on knowing the material first. Working with this strong core, you can master GMAT questions and of course, ultimately, the test with far greater success.

Short cuts and test prep tricks will only get you so far, and the GMAT, especially at the 700+ level, will demand more of you. You absolutely cannot get a competitive score if you don't actually understand HOW to solve a probability question for example.

Related to this concept is the teaching quality difference. Test prep teachers typically have scored well (to varying degrees - we require a 99th percent just to get an interview and hire less than 10% of the applicants we review - with that score), and they can teach GMAT questions out of a book. However, Manhattan GMAT teachers really have to be able to teach the content, which requires very well developed teaching skill.

Does that make sense?