Princeton Course vs. Kaplan Course

I totally disagree, at least for PR (I have no real experience with Kaplan and have always preferred PR). I am targeting 700+ and am not at all worried that they can't help me get there. I've used their books before, and the strategies worked well for me -- and I had a 3.83 GPA in college, so I'm no dummy who can only score in the 500-600 range. They have a stat on their site that shows that 13% of students who take their course score 700+ on the GMAT, vs. 7% of all test takers. That's not too shabby. And they do group classes by ability and initial diagnostic score, so if you're capable of hitting 700 (a class can't totally do that for you, you know), you won't be sitting with someone who can only score 600.

What matters most, though, are your own ability and dedication, and how much you practice. I can't imagine that Veritas' or Manhattan's strategies are so superior to PR that if I bust my butt (which I'd do anyway) I can't do just as well with PR as the others. Any of them will help, but it's up to you to make it happen on test day.

Sorry for being verbose but I haven't had my coffee yet!

Thank you for your feedback. Have you taken Veritas or Manhattan? Why did you think Kaplan was a waste of time. I have both the Kaplan and Princeton books. I have completed the Kaplan book and only done the math portion of the PR book. I do believe Princeton makes things seem easier, but I feel that it may be too easy in comparison to the real gmat.