GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
Hi,
Regarding the Quantitative and Verbal scaled scores, I've noticed glaring inconsistencies within GMAC's own publications.
Many of GMAC's materials -- and some official posts here (by Rebecca, username "OfficialGMAT") -- claim a scale of 0-60 for each section. However, it's fairly clear that the actual scale is not 0-60.
Consider:
* Page 830 of the GMAC Official Guide (13th Edition) shows a scale of 6-51 for each of the two sections.
* In this official blog post, GMAC's Larry Rudner states a range of 11-51 for each section.
https://www.gmac.com/why-gmac/gmac-news/ ... cores.aspx
* My own official GMAT score is Q51 V51 800.
* In several years of working with the GMAT and its students, I have never encountered a score of 52+ on either section.
* Getting every single question correct in the GMATPrep software yields a score of Q51 V51 800 (not "Q60 V60").
So, at this point, it seems plain that the top of the scale is not 60 but 51. I still have two questions, though, which are no doubt of interest to almost everyone here.
1/
Why so much internal inconsistency about such a straightforward issue?
I could understand if a certain amount of inconsistency were to surround a more complicated issue, such as the adaptive algorithm.
On the other hand, this striking variation among official, on-the-record statements -- about something as simple as the max and min of the scoring scale -- does tarnish the credibility of an otherwise excellently crafted test.
2/
Could you please tell us, once and for all -- what are the actual max and min values of the Q and V scales?
Thank you for your time.
Ron
Regarding the Quantitative and Verbal scaled scores, I've noticed glaring inconsistencies within GMAC's own publications.
Many of GMAC's materials -- and some official posts here (by Rebecca, username "OfficialGMAT") -- claim a scale of 0-60 for each section. However, it's fairly clear that the actual scale is not 0-60.
Consider:
* Page 830 of the GMAC Official Guide (13th Edition) shows a scale of 6-51 for each of the two sections.
* In this official blog post, GMAC's Larry Rudner states a range of 11-51 for each section.
https://www.gmac.com/why-gmac/gmac-news/ ... cores.aspx
* My own official GMAT score is Q51 V51 800.
* In several years of working with the GMAT and its students, I have never encountered a score of 52+ on either section.
* Getting every single question correct in the GMATPrep software yields a score of Q51 V51 800 (not "Q60 V60").
So, at this point, it seems plain that the top of the scale is not 60 but 51. I still have two questions, though, which are no doubt of interest to almost everyone here.
1/
Why so much internal inconsistency about such a straightforward issue?
I could understand if a certain amount of inconsistency were to surround a more complicated issue, such as the adaptive algorithm.
On the other hand, this striking variation among official, on-the-record statements -- about something as simple as the max and min of the scoring scale -- does tarnish the credibility of an otherwise excellently crafted test.
2/
Could you please tell us, once and for all -- what are the actual max and min values of the Q and V scales?
Thank you for your time.
Ron
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron












