Scoring 710, Seeking 760+

[TiffanyB59]

Hello,

I took a Manhattan Prep course and have been studying for several months, somewhat casually. I want to take the official test at the end of September, so I've recently started studying much more seriously.

My initial practice tests were in the 600s, but I've recently scored 710-720 on several practice tests. My most recent test was 44 Quant, 44 Verbal.

I'm confident I can continue increasing in the Verbal section; Quant is a different story.

I achieved my initial score increases mostly by focusing on weaker quant content areas (FDP, ratios, data sufficiency all across the board) and by SIGNIFICANTLY improving my timing strategy. Now, I want to make the jump from low- to high-700s and it feels like this may require a different study strategy.

In analyzing my practice tests (using many of Stacey Koprince's previous blog posts!), I've determined the following are areas for improvement:
- Decide FASTER to skip problems if they're in my weakest areas (e.g., rate/work and proportions).
- Improve at 700-800 level problems. I do consistently well up to/including 600-700 difficulty problems of almost all types. However, in the 700-800 range, I feel like the logic seems different in some way. My thinking (and scratchwork) is much less structured and shows that I find these problems difficult to follow. I find myself re-reading the problems several times, then sometimes still not feeling confident in the right strategy. When I practice and review problems (using a Review Log!) I try to focus on organizing my work at this level. However, this seems to go RIGHT out the window when I see a problem I don't understand on a practice test. Mostly because I'm often not sure WHAT to organize and I don't have TIME to decide.
- I also know I need to improve selection of my solution strategy. At the 600-700 level, I go into "solve mode" too quickly, but these problems are easier so I typically can get away with this. When I get to 700-800 level problems, my use of back-solving, smart numbers, and other "non-algebra" strategies seems to decrease. My most common instinct is to Test Cases, which can sometimes be time consuming, particularly if I'm disorganized .This lack of solution strategy FREQUENTLY burns me at the 700+ difficulty level. I consider this DURING practice tests, but it's really difficult to turn good intentions before the test into action DURING the test.

I've read that I should avoid tackling TOO MANY practice problems, but I fall into this trap easily. After I review a problem, I feel like I understand and can recall my approach days and even weeks later. This tempts me to continue trying problem after problem in an effort to "see a little of everything."
However, I don't seem to be able to translate the "takeaway" to NEW problems I see on practice exams.

I've started tackling some of the Challenge Archive problems in my online account. Unlike the 600-700 level which were hit-or-miss when I first started learning, the vast majority of these are a miss, even when I don't use attempt them under timed conditions.

Should I focus on doing more advanced problems - repeating missing/inefficient questions - until I feel more confident?
Should I do smaller timed sets to build endurance and a better sense of advanced timing?
Should I focus on improving my SPEED at the 600-700 level so that I have more time to solve 700+ level problems?

Or... are there other actions I haven't considered that may work better?

Thank you!

[StaceyKoprince]

This is an excellent analysis of the overall situation. In particular:

However, in the 700-800 range, I feel like the logic seems different in some way. My thinking (and scratchwork) is much less structured and shows that I find these problems difficult to follow. I find myself re-reading the problems several times, then sometimes still not feeling confident in the right strategy. When I practice and review problems (using a Review Log!) I try to focus on organizing my work at this level. However, this seems to go RIGHT out the window when I see a problem I don't understand on a practice test.

It is different, in a way—but it's also the same, in a way. The test is built such that you can "logic" your way through a large percentage of it. If your textbook math skills are strong, you don't need to do this on lower-level questions, but the higher you go, the harder / trappier the textbook math gets, and that's where you need the test-taking strategies. (I would never be able to score what I do on the quant section if I didn't use these strategies—math is not my stronger area.)

So stronger math students sometimes find this paradox: They do fine up to a certain point and then, wham, hit a wall because they're trying to "textbook" their way through a non-textbook test.

And all of that is exactly what you describe in your next paragraph:

At the 600-700 level, I go into "solve mode" too quickly, but these problems are easier so I typically can get away with this. When I get to 700-800 level problems, my use of back-solving, smart numbers, and other "non-algebra" strategies seems to decrease.

Yes! So two things are happening. First, you did well in math in school, right? So the math gets hard and you think, hey, I can do real math...but then that burns you because this isn't really a math test. And, second, you're often getting away with not using the strategies at lower levels (because your textbook math is strong)—and that means that you aren't actually practicing that stuff often enough and in enough different scenarios to know how to adapt and use it well on harder problems.

It's like anything: You've got to build your skill through time and practice. I wouldn't start an algebra neophyte with quadratic equations—that's much harder than starting with linear equations and working your way up. So you actually need to go back to the 6-7 levels (and maybe even 5-6) and look for the easiest, quickest, dirtiest, non-math ways to get yourself to the correct answer letter.

And you know where that comes from? The two steps you're glossing over right now: Understand and Plan. Invest in really understanding and planning at that level and you'll start to see how these problems are constructed and how you can use that knowledge to basically think your way through. And then you'll see why I said, at the beginning, that the logic is different in a way but also the same in a way. I'm going to use that linear + quadratic analogy again. It's different in the sense that the 7-8 levels are harder because they add in some extra twist / level of knowledge required, but it's the same in that they're still building on the same underlying concept or concepts.

Which brings us to this:

However, I don't seem to be able to translate the "takeaway" to NEW problems I see on practice exams.

If you can get to the point that you are able to see the progression from a 6-7 level to a 7-8 level—how they take a problem and tweak the structure of it to kick up the level, as well as how you can still think your way through that thing just like you did before, except you'll have a couple of extra twists to deal with—then you have a shot at hitting stratosphere-level scores (760+) on this test.

First, we're going to try to build that skill "backwards." Think about problems you've done in the past week. Were there any that made you think, "Oh, yeah, this kind of reminds me of that other one..." First, actively think about this / try to make these connections all the time. And whenever you think this, look up that other problem and compare the two side by side.

How are they the same? How can you use those similarities to jumpstart your solution process on these two AND how can you use those similarities to recognize how they might toss something similar at you in future? Whatever you come up with, toss that on flash card in the form "When I see X, I'll think/do Y."

How are they different? What impact do those differences have on how you work through the problem? What are the clues that tell you, eg, when it has variation ABC, I'll do algebra, but when it's like XYZ, I'd rather use smart numbers? How can you use the differences to help plan how you would think through something similar / adjacent to these in future? Ditto, record these takeaways in the When I see / I'll think or do form.

Should I do smaller timed sets to build endurance and a better sense of advanced timing?

How big are your timed sets now?

Should I focus on improving my SPEED at the 600-700 level so that I have more time to solve 700+ level problems?

Yes, this is something you have to do as you move up. Basically, currently 5-6 = easy, 6-7 = medium, and 7-8 = hard (roughly). As you move up, you're trying to make it more like 6-7 = easy, 700-750 = medium, 750+ = hard. So those 6-7 mediums that you can do right now have to turn into easy-for-you problems on the continuum, and that means that you do have to spend some time figuring out how to make these easier for you to do.

Here's the good news: If you do what I described above, you'll kill two birds with one stone. You'll be learning how to do the 6-7s easier / faster, and that's the same knowledge that will help you start to unlock more of the 700-750s.

Two last notes. First, the Challenge problems are mostly 800+ level questions. I wouldn't do them at all—they're just not necessary.

Second, can I ask why your goal is 760+? No schools require that kind of score, but there are a couple of other good reasons I can think of—you want a particular scholarship that takes GMAT score into account, you want to work for a top-5 firm in management consulting or investment banking, or you want to teach for us.

For any of those, it's not a problem to have a lower-than-760-ish score on your record, so another thing you might consider is taking the real test somewhat soon just as a dry run. Just get the experience and see what it's like—it's pretty nervewracking in there. The second time is...not easy, but easier, because you know what to expect. And when you're going for such a high score, every last little bit helps.

[CelinaC773]

Hi Stacey,

Thank you so much for the thorough response! I've taught and tutored for years, most recently for Kaplan, and you're right in thinking that I'm seeking to qualify for Manhattan Prep.

As your suggestions indicate, I've not (yet) sufficiently altered my core approaches to the extent required to reach my goal. I definitely see that Challenge Archive problems pose greater than needed difficulty. I thought this could provide a positive stretch goal; I'm now reconsidering.

I did well at math in school (as you guessed) and I'm particularly good at traditional algebra. Unfortunately... that means that I have a hammer and every problem looks like a nail.

My current timed sets have been 5-20 problems at a time. Before work and during lunch I work on smaller time sets (5-10), then work on larger ones in the evening. I aim for < or = 2 minutes/problem, then thoroughly review my approaches after completing the set.

I have been completing a practice test approximately every 2-3 weeks. I currently have an "official practice test" scheduled through Kaplan for August 30. This will be held in a Prometric testing center and will provide a score, although it won't be officially recorded. Much as you're thinking, I believe this will be a good experience to help me see how I'll perform in the real testing environment.

I also think it makes a LOT of sense to go back and re-assess my work at lower levels to build core skills and strategies. At 500-600 levels, I typically can solve problems in a minute or less. At that level, I need to use better strategies and think about how to solve problems DIFFERENTLY than my first impulse. In other words, I need to stop skipping the Understand and Plan stages!

I'm going to take your advice and return to lower level problems. In the mix, I'll also attempt more advanced difficulty problems and try to identify strategies and skills that cross difficulty levels.

I really appreciate your thoughtful reply and analysis!

Best Wishes,
Tiffany

[StaceyKoprince]

It all makes sense now! (teaching for us)

First, on the Challenge Problem stuff: I can't get most of them right (and certainly not in 2 minutes). My highest score on the GMAT is 780. If you really need more challenging quant stuff, I'd go to our Advanced Quant guide next (if you haven't already done it).

Size of problem sets: Are you having significant timing issues with longer sets—letting yourself get sucked in and then having to rush at the end (and that then results in a score drop)? If so, keep (sometimes) doing larger sets. But if that isn't a big concern, I'd rather have you do shorter sets and iterate more. I would do mostly 4- or 8-problem sets (if you're using our Yellow Pad technique to track your timing during the test), with the occasional 12-problem set tossed in.

Later, if you want more adaptive practice, you can try GMAT Focus—this is an official product from the test makers, a 24-question quant section that is fully adaptive, just like the real thing. For those at a higher scoring level, I think it's actually an even better experience than the official practice test. The official practice test question pool is somewhat shallow at the higher end, but GMAT Focus has a number of *very* well-crafted problems—at all levels and specifically on the higher end.

Good luck! Check back in as you go!

[TiffanyB59]

Thank you for your help, Stacey.

I took the GMAT this Saturday and scored a 760!!

I appreciate your advice along the way; it was very helpful to guide my final weeks of studying.

My application will be for the Los Angeles area, where I believe you're located some of the year. Hopefully, if hired, we can have a gathering of some of the local teachers!

Best Wishes,
Tiffany

[StaceyKoprince]

Woohoo! Congratulations!! I'm really happy for you!!

If you've got any thoughts on specific things that helped you to make the jump, I'm sure your fellow students here would love to hear your perspective.

Good luck in the audition process. It's not easy. I haven't helped out on the hiring side in many years but some things don't change. They're looking for you to bring that same level of curiosity and analysis to your students—how can you help them to figure out for themselves what you just figured out for yourself? You obviously tailor that to the student's current level and goal score, but in the same way that it wouldn't have been helpful for me to tell you, "Oh, when you see this kind of problem, do this, and when you see that kind of problem, do that," it's not helpful for someone whose goal is a 700 or a 650 or a 600. Your job as an (excellent) instructor is really to figure out how to help them learn to think for themselves.

And they're looking for you to show that you're still a willing and eager learner yourself—not so much on the content side (the 760 shows you're good there!) as on the craft-of-teaching side. Your progression through the audition process doesn't have to be perfect but it does have to show growth / development along the way.

Good luck!!