Nick, thanks for considering Knewton, and thanks to everyone else for chiming in. I'm Chris Rosenbaum, Director of Test Prep at Knewton.
The Knewton Money-Back Guarantee sets 50 points as just the beginning of the conversation in terms of score gains. Any company can claim XX-pt average score increase and show a few sky-high testimonials, but that says nothing about what you as a potential student can count on for yourself. The value of an across-the-board guarantee like ours is that it's something that all Knewton students can hang their hat on.
The cynical view is that requirements (aka 'fine print') exist to trap students from getting their money back. But the main reason we want students to meet those requirements is NOT to qualify for the guarantee, but rather to do the work that can lead to test success. I appreciate
MGMAT linking to our T&C's, there's nothing to hide: go to class, do the homework, take the CATs. You have to practice to improve, and you have to practice to hit the requirements, so it's all in line.
It's all well and good for prep companies without guarantees to try to poke holes in them. But according to the
MGMAT article cited above, logic would follow that
MGMAT should at least have a guarantee for students who have taken the real GMAT. And they should evidently have even larger guarantees for students at the middle of the normal curve. And evidently requirements don't help to push students to go to class and practice (aren't those good things?). But they have none of that, because Money-Back Guarantees are expensive if you're not great (even more so for a bricks-and-mortar company). It's a simple ledger calculation: other prep companies cannot afford meaningful guarantees. Otherwise, they would have had them by now.