DebbieChats wrote:
Hi
I have a quick question about the accuracy, score and percentile.
My assumption currently is that in order to get a 700+ there are a few factors
1. Q 45+ V 38+ -
I have achieved the above in the practice tests from Kaplan and Veritas but with a variable score - i.e the score can range anywhere from 650+.
In the actual GMAT Prep practice test a Q 42 is however giving a much less percentile than other practice exams.
The reason for this discrepancy is the following. The percentiles for each quant score on the actual GMAT have been decreasing, and the updated percentiles are used by GMAT Prep. Meanwhile, test prep companies do not necessarily update the percentiles displayed by their tests. So, the test prep company tests may use higher percentiles that applied in past years.
Quote:
a) Should I be concerned about the percentile or schools accept the score? And if so what is a good score for Quants for the top tier and 2nd tier schools.
I am not an admissions expert, but I'll do my best to answer this question as this post has been up for a few days without a response.
Quant scores on the GMAT are so high on average now that the percentiles are rather low for even rather high scores. As a result, from what I understand, schools are looking at scores more than at percentiles, and basically the same scores that were sufficient when percentiles were higher are sufficient today.
Specifically, for top tier schools, scores of Q47 and above are optimal, scores of Q45 and above may be sufficient, and scores between 40 and 45 may do in some cases.
For second tier schools, I would say that the same numbers apply, with a little more flexibility to the downside.
Quote:
b) For Verbal the variation in percentile is even greater in practice tests like Kaplan and Veritas than the actual GMAT prep exam. What should I look as a score and as a percentile and when the score flashes.
V36 is 80th percentile. So, V36+ seems to be a reasonable verbal score. Upper 30's would be a little more solid, and 40+ would be ideal for a top tier school.
Since schools are a little more focused on your quant score than your verbal score, one way to determine what verbal score you need is to set a quant score goal and then set a verbal score goal that gets you to your total score goal. For instance, if your total score goal were 720, and your quant score goal were Q46, then to get to your total score goal, you would have to hit your quant score goal and score at least 42 in verbal.
Quote:
2. Next comes accuracy of actually answering questions correctly.
From Kaplan and Veritas, which is what I have been basing my abilities on till date an assumption of 50 questions answered correctly in total in both the Verbal and Quants section would take me upwards of 630-650. This could be broken into various accuracies in the different section depending on what mental set up I was going in - to crack the maths or crack the verbal - given it is a practice.
In the GMAT prep test that I have given so far - looks like the stress on verbal accuracy to score ratio is too high. In the sense from the score, if I make certain calculations it looks like getting only 20 correct in Quants would suffice - and I would have to aim extremely high - as high as 31-32 accurate in Verbal. If I am in the 27 correct zone in verbal and 25-27 correct zone in Quants - I am almost thinking - that though that puts me in a 54 question correct accuracy - I still might be lingering in the 600 zone - max upper 600 zone?
Am I correct in my assumptions here? That all focus for a higher score in GMAT is based on Verbal abilities mostly in the recent format?
It has been the case for some time that missing a few questions in verbal tends to result in a lower section score than does missing the same number in quant. So, yes, in order to score above 700 on the GMAT, you have to have a high hit rate in verbal.
Quote:
3. I have heard this from quite a few test takers that luck on the day of the GMAT plays a big factor in crossing the 700 barrier i.e they might never have crossed the 650 + in practice tests but do get 700+ in the actual test - my experience looks the opposite though. I guess the luck is a combination of getting known questions, how focused and tuned I am myself. However, from posts, it looks like some of the questions are actually not scored at all. That is also supposedly not based on the known assumptions of first 10-15 question accuracy is extremely important. Given many people in this forum have been a part of GMAT for a long time - any light shed on this would be great.
While, clearly, a test-taker's score can be affected by whether the questions that the test-taker sees are suited to that test-taker's particular strengths, from what I have seen, random chance generally does not play much of a part in GMAT scoring. In fact, the test seems to be remarkably good at identifying the level of sophistication of the thinking that a test-taker brings to bear when answering the questions. From what I have seen, people who go in hoping to "get lucky" and score higher than they have on their practice tests generally don't.
In fact, because of the trickiness of the test, people often score lower on the real thing than they have on practice tests, often because they had picked up on some patterns that they could use to answer practice test questions, which patterns did not work on the questions that they saw on the actual GMAT. To score high on the actual GMAT, you have to rely on logic and execution. Pattern matching types of approaches won't suffice.
So, the bottom line is that, to gain acceptance at a school, you have to get an appropriate score on the GMAT, and to hit a GMAT score goal, you have to learn the necessary concepts and develop the necessary skills.
For some insights into how to score 700+ on the GMAT, you could read the following post.
How to Score a 700+ on the GMAT — A Mini Guide for Success
close
06 Feb 2019, 23:00
