Relative Importance - Quantitative vs Verbal

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:54 pm

Relative Importance - Quantitative vs Verbal

by uetz » Sat Nov 14, 2009 5:59 pm
Hello everybody,
I am currently preparing for my GMAT.
So far, I've taken three practice tests with an average of 650 (Quant avg 42.7; Verbal avg. 37.3). When creating my study plan I found a website (GMATpill; doesn't seem to be really reliable, though) that states that the verbal part has a higher relative importance than the quant part because on average people perform better in the quant part. According to this site, you should spend more time improving your verbal score because e.g. q40 v45 results in a higher score than q45 v40.

What do you guys think? Is this statement true? Assuming the speed at which I improve in both sections is the same (e.g. 10 points improvement per X hours preparation), should I really spend the majority of my time preparing for the verbal part?

Thanks a lot for your insights. :)
Source: — GMAT Strategy |

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:45 am
Actually, this statement is not far from the truth, but it needs a few clarifications.
Yes, indeed, it's better to get a 45 in verbal than in quant. Your score will definitely be higher. However, getting a 45 in quant does not mean you got the same wrong as getting a 45 in verbal. To my knowledge, a 45 in verbal means you missed 6 questions tops, while you can still get a 50 in quant if you miss around 8.

Fact is, it's not the scores themselves that matter so much as the percentile rankings. You see, a 45 in verbal is 98th percentile - which is pretty awesome. A 45 in quant is much less, only 75th percentile.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:54 pm

by uetz » Sun Nov 15, 2009 11:45 am
Hey Dana,
thanks a lot for your answer. :)