I've heard the same from a number of MPrep students. Here's my take on it.
- MPrep Quant probably is somewhat harder for most students than the official Quant. I certainly hear 'the Quant on the real thing was easier' more often than any other comment about the test.
- That probably
isn't due to our scoring algorithm. Larry Rudner, the former Chief Psychometrician (what an amazing job title!) at the GMAC, recently made the following statement about the MPrep CAT algorithm:
Quote:
I conducted an extensive examination of student data for all of the
Manhattan Prep test questions and I was very impressed. I can attest to the fact that very high percentages of Quant and Verbal items have excellent psychometric properties. I can further attest that
Manhattan Prep’s GMAT practice exams do an excellent job of predicting a student’s score on the actual GMAT examination.
Manhattan Prep’s GMAT practice exams can help you accurately gauge when you’re ready to achieve your goal score on the real test.
So, even though we don't know a whole lot about the GMAC algorithm (they play their cards close to the chest, after all), we've created a simulation of it that's accurate enough that Dr. Rudner thinks it's 'excellent'.
- Instead, I suspect that it's due to a difference in the topic balance on Quant. Our CATs may slightly overrepresent certain content areas that weaker Quant students tend to find unusually difficult, not because the math is any harder, but because they require more out-of-the-box thinking and creativity. I have my own theories on what those areas might be, but I don't know enough about the official test to feel comfortable speculating here.
- The difference is fairly small, based on reports from my own students. And, it's in the 'right direction' - if you can handle a slightly tougher CAT, then you can handle the real thing. If the MPrep CATs make you extra diligent about your Quant timing, then that's a good thing!