[#permalink]
18 Mar 2007, 10:45
Regarding the LSAT, your ability to do well will depend a lot on how fast you read. The LSAT has 2 CR sections and 1 RC section, plus a logic games section. The CR and RC on the LSAT are generally harder than those on the GMAT, but more importantly, they take much more time to get through. I can tell you from personal experience that I finished the GMAT verbal section with about 20 minutes to spare, got a perfect score (more or less) in the section, and felt I had plenty of time to work slowly through the entire section. On the LSAT, I had work as fast as I could, and generally finished each section with just a minute or two to spare. I recall reading (years ago) a stat that 95% of LSAT test-takers must guess during the exam because they don't have the time to read each question fully. I believe the exam is set up in this way because law school calls for a lot of reading, comprehension and analysis and those that read write faster have a distinct advantage both in law school and on the job.
The logic games section of the LSAT is generally considered to be the toughest. For me, it was always the most time intensive. I could finish the other sections with 1-2 minutes to spare generally (I'm a very fast reader), but I always found myself going 1-2 minutes over on the games section. I think most people would probably need to spend a good amount of time to prepare specifically for this section. For reference, I had basically the same percentile score on the GMAT and LSAT.
Regarding whether to take the GMAT again, that's a tough one. Obviously everyone feels differently about studying for and taking the exam. I actually didn't mind it too much. For people targeting MC, IB and many of the structured management training programs, you will likely have to disclose your GMAT score during the course of the application process - you may even get grilled on it during your interviews (probably only with MC & IB). The question isn't whether higher is better - higher is in fact better. The question is whether you need a higher score to accomplish what you'd like.
If you have a great background in finance with experience at name-brand firms and lot's of responsibility and promotions, you can probably get through the first few rounds of IB recruiting without a great GMAT score. If, on the other hand, you are a career switcher without a lot of applicable experience, then your GMAT score will be a huge part of your application.
Another thing to consider is the name-brand of your school (we can go by cluster here). If you're at an ultra-elite, then you can probably move ahead in the interview process for most industries regardless of your score. At the most competitive firms (GS, McK, etc.) they will obviously want strength in all areas. If you're at an elite, then a higher GMAT will likely help you secure and move ahead with more interviews. If you are at anything lower, then your GMAT score might be the most important part of your application, especially of the firm you want to work for doesn't visit your campus.
A top firm might select a handful of people to meet with, or might just pick out one or two resumes from among a pile that are submitted. A high GMAT score might be the only thing that can save your application from the circular file at this point.
Finally, (this is obvious), but you should only plan on retaking the GMAT if you are willing to put for the effort to get the score that you want. I think in most situations, a 750+ will be a big plus on most resumes, but only go for it if you're ready to work and have the ability to get it.
So, the decision should come down to 1) where you would like to work), 2) how strong your prior work experience is, 3) the brand-quality of your school, 4) your current GMAT and your chances of improvement.