Some tidbits on mine, 770 48Q/50V, thoughts on new section

I'll try to add things that aren't usually discussed.

I had been doing much better on Q in the GMAT Prep. Come test day, I was shaking with nerves at the beginning of the math section. See, I had been very worried about Q, because I knew there were questions that could eat up a ton of time if I got dragged into a fight with any of them. Part of this feeling came from doing MGMAT challenge questions almost exclusively up until go-time.

You have to realize that the MGMAT challenge questions are 9/10 at least twice as hard as anything you'll see on the real thing.. Especially if you start at 2002 and work forward a few years. While they are great for learning the material (IMO the best), they are horribly calibrated and sometimes unclear. Don't let them convince you they are at all representative

So when I found myself up against a conceptual geometry problem for the second or third question, I automatically assumed it was much harder than it really was, and I wasted a good 4 mins on an analytical approach that got me nowhere. About 2 questions later, it hit me that the solution was a really simple visualization exercise, and I was badly shaken. It took a long string of definite "rights" to assuage my confidence, but the damage had evidently been done.

Well there's that, and there's this: test was at 8 am, and I had not been getting up that early. Further, I had a weird constipated urgency to poop the whole time. I tried to force it after the AWA but couldn't execute in 8 mins.

Verbal

Did not study. I did well on RC and Arguments because I had studied for the LSAT about 5 years ago. SC - I just went with my gut. I can't imagine having to learn the myriad rules to get through it, and I really feel for the ESL people "giving" the test.

Some "out of the box" advice for this section:

Study the LSAT; the args and RC are much harder. For these, in particular, get the "bad" books. I like Princeton Review's Cracking the LSAT (IIRC) and Kaplans LSAT 180 and GMAT 800 books. I know the Kaplan books are roundly panned for being poorly written (not talking about Q, for which they beyond useless), but that is exactly why I like them. PR's Cracking is the same way; you're never sure if you believe the book, and no answer is clearly right. PERFECT! The actual GMAT/LSAT will seem clear as day.

Another strategy for RC is to get in the habit of reading dry essays that you don't care about. You can get this stuff from Newsweek or TIME, but better yet, find a forum full of uneducated a-holes talking about politics and current events. The RC passages are very poorly written, and never really get to the point, not unlike nearly everything on the internet written by amateurs (congratulations on reading this incoherent screed, btw, hope it helps).

SC is tough. On one hand, you can memorize a ton of rules, but that will psych you out and takes a ton of time. On the other, you can read a lot. If you have time, just read read read read read different authors, preferably classics. Still, I recognize that my reading habits over my lifetime had a lot to do with making this part easy, which not everyone can emulate this late in the game.

Final note on args - get used to being really picky about logic in real-life. Find assumptions in everything people say, and force yourself to pay critical attention when you just don't care. Political attack ads, in particular, are a great place to start - they are rife with dumb assumptions.

Experimental

OMFG this was difficult. It's like the worlds most annoying interactive newsmag with a constant bombardment of picky yet idiotic questions. Again, TIME to the rescue... I am very glad I squeaked in before this thing was officially implemented.