Should i take the GMAT a 3rd time?

[680forever]

I took the GMAT for the first time 8 months ago, December 2007, and scored 680 (Q47, V36). I had only prepared about 50 hours, starting 5 weeks before, on the first test. I went over OG and used the Veritas tests (i didn't even know GMAT Prep existed and I also never sat through a full practice test before taking the official test)

I just finished taking the GMAT yesterday and scored a 680 again (Q49, V34). This time I studied significantly more. I knew my biggest weakness last time was SC; I had employed the 'what sounds right' method. So this time around I actually learned the grammar first and then started studying for the test.

Here are my practice test scores:

CAT 6 Completed 8/20/2008 12:11 AM EST 730 (Q49, V40)
CAT 5 Completed 8/18/2008 11:57 PM EST 730 (Q46, V44)
CAT 4 Completed 8/16/2008 8:41 PM EST 720 (Q44, V45)
CAT 3 Completed 8/16/2008 3:03 PM EST 690 (Q45, V38)
CAT 2 Completed 8/13/2008 4:45 PM EST 660 (Q43, V37)
CAT 1 Completed 8/12/2008 1:11 PM EST 640 (Q42, V36)

GMAT Prep Score 1: 710 (Q49, V38)
GMAT Prep Score 2: 760 (Q49, V42)

As you can see my verbal score was improving (although scores in the MGMAT 4-6 are skewed because the proportion of 700-800 questions decreases significantly compared to tests 1-3 - which i think can be a bit deceptive)

Now I know my grammar was better this time around then last (you're forums are the best). In my GMAT Prep verbal sections I would get at most 2-3 SC wrong.

When I took the actual test, mental fatigue was a factor. I did the first 20 Verbal questions in 35 minutes (which was a bit under pace, but I strongly believe the first half of the test weighs more than the second half - theoretically it has to) and I thought I did them pretty well - the questions were getting harder. In the second half, my brain started to slow down significantly and I was forced to guess the last 3 and rush the two before that. Furthermore, the questions were not getting easier so it was a compounding problem: difficult problems and mental fatigue. In the end, i scored worse than i did the first time with about 100 hours more preparation, especially in Verbal.

Question is, should i take the test a third time? Ultimately, I wanted to score a 38-40 in verbal which would've brought my total score up significantly. But, I feel that the scoring in Verbal is extremely sensitive, so there's no guarantee that I will score better the next time I take it (I could score 38-40 on a good day or if I get a bit lucky). I actually believe that less preparation helped me. In the verbal the first time, the 'what sounds right' strategy, made me spend less time on the SC questions and furthermore made me spend less mental power on each SC question. This gave me more energy and more time on the other questions, and overall a better score. If i had gotten the same score in Verbal the second time, I would've probably scored 700.

[RonPurewal]

relevant question number one: where are you going to apply?
if you're planning to apply to the big daddy schools - hbs, stanford, stern, and their ilk - then you should almost certainly take the test a third time, especially in light of your practice test scores, which were consistently greater than 680 by a significant margin. yes, the pool of 700-800 questions begins to thin out after a while (we're working on making 700-800 questions a bit thicker on the ground), but you're trouncing your goal score by fifty points on the regular. this tells you something about your potential, vis-à-vis the scores you've earned thus far.

(...I strongly believe the first half of the test weighs more than the second half - theoretically it has to)

wrong.
according to the vast preponderance of the evidence to which we've privy, the first half of the test is neither more nor less important than the second half.
this evidence includes firsthand quotes from the head honchos of gmac itself.

i'm curious as to why you would say "...theoretically it has to", because, well, it doesn't have to.
they could easily write a legitimate algorithm in which the first half of the test doesn't count at all, and which bases your score entirely on the second half. fortunately, they don't do such a thing, although there is no theoretical reason why they couldn't.

In the second half, my brain started to slow down significantly and I was forced to guess the last 3 and rush the two before that. Furthermore, the questions were not getting easier so it was a compounding problem: difficult problems and mental fatigue.

repeat after me:
THE REASON WHY YOU WERE FORCED TO GUESS IS PRECISELY BECAUSE YOU ACCORDED TOO MUCH IMPORTANCE TO THE FIRST HALF OF THE TEST.
the mental fatigue may be a factor, but it is almost certainly not the predominant factor.
rather, you ran out of time because you misappropriated the time, spending too much time on the early questions.
DO NOT SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THE EARLY QUESTIONS THAN YOU WOULD ON ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
DO NOT.
just don't.
if you do, you will be in the hole for the remainder of the entire section.
in the hole is not a good place to be.

Question is, should i take the test a third time?

i say yes, unless you plan to apply only to schools in the second tier or below.

(I could score 38-40 on a good day or if I get a bit lucky). I actually believe that less preparation helped me.

yes and no.
when you had less preparation, you were more aware of your time constraints, and you acted accordingly.
the problem with your extensive preparation - a problem that is confirmed by your failure to implicate poor time management in the end-of-test disaster mentioned above - is that you prepared by studying content, content, and more content, paying little if any attention to time management.

you CANNOT separate time management from the study of content. when you're studying sentence correction, you MUST practice not only recognizing the errors/splits, but recognizing them WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME - which is quite a different ballgame. you must be able to spot signals and giveaways IMMEDIATELY, rather than after taking a leisurely read through the answer choices.

just as all plays in a football team's playbook are run differently during a 2-minute drill, all SC problems become quite different - and require different and more urgent strategy - when a strict time criterion is attached.
if you aren't studying them with this time criterion in mind at all times, you are not preparing properly for the exam.

In the verbal the first time, the 'what sounds right' strategy, made me spend less time on the SC questions and furthermore made me spend less mental power on each SC question. This gave me more energy and more time on the other questions, and overall a better score. If i had gotten the same score in Verbal the second time, I would've probably scored 700.

then you know what to do:
sign up for a 3rd administration.
study the verbal intensely, especially the sc, but DO SO UNDER A STRICT TIME CRITERION.
don't follow your ear; study the grammar, as you've been doing.
set your stopwatch to 0:45-1:00 for all shorter sc problems, and 1:20-1:30 for all longer ones. DO NOT TAKE ANY TIME OVER AND ABOVE THESE LIMITS; simply stop and guess once the time has expired.

you did one of two things right in each of your previous administrations: in the first administration you managed time well, and in the second administration you did better on the content.
if you can put those two together, you WILL (not "could") go north of 700.

go.