Opinions on GRE - retake?

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
that redhead

that redhead

Full Member
Verified Member
10+ Year Member
Veterinarian
Verified Expert
Contest Winner!
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
12,023
Reaction score
13,987
Members do not see this ad.
So I took the GRE this morning for the second time. The last time I took it I went in 100% cold and scored a 1090 after misreading a good chunk of the verbal section 👎 Anyway, took it this morning and scored a 1200 (590V 610Q). I consider this to be a decent score and is just a little lower than the scores I was getting on my practice tests.

The problem is my weak GPA (2.96). I was aiming for a higher GRE score to help balance out my GPA, and 1200 just doesn't seem like its enough to overcome that. I gave myself enough time to re-take if I want to, but I'm just not sure. Thoughts?

Thanks in advance 🙂
 
Hmm tricky situation. I agree that 1200 is a great score and there is no need to retake it. However, since you want this to overcome your low GPA i think this score is kind of low, specifically in the quantitative section. The quantitative section is by far the easiest to improve your score. How did you practice for it? I'd really recommend buying a book and seriously doing EVERY quant problem in it, mark the ones that were hard and the go back and review them again. If you know how to do every math problem you should easily be able to raise your score 100pts. If you can boost your quant score so that it is competitive with other science majors (700 or higher) and then keep your verbal the same at 590, i think that will overcome your low GPA. and like i said before, it is definitely possible. If your situation were reversed (low verbal high quant) it wouldnt be as possible because it is a fact that it is harder to raise your verbal score
 
BlacKAT33 said:
Hmm tricky situation. I agree that 1200 is a great score and there is no need to retake it. However, since you want this to overcome your low GPA i think this score is kind of low, specifically in the quantitative section. The quantitative section is by far the easiest to improve your score. How did you practice for it? I'd really recommend buying a book and seriously doing EVERY quant problem in it, mark the ones that were hard and the go back and review them again. If you know how to do every math problem you should easily be able to raise your score 100pts. If you can boost your quant score so that it is competitive with other science majors (700 or higher) and then keep your verbal the same at 590, i think that will overcome your low GPA. and like i said before, it is definitely possible. If your situation were reversed (low verbal high quant) it wouldnt be as possible because it is a fact that it is harder to raise your verbal score
Click to expand...

To practice, I used the book put out by ETS and did all of their practice tests (six?). My scores significantly improved and my highest practice test was a 1300 (with a 660 on the quant.) I think it's interesting that each time my quant scores have been higher than my verbal scores, since I'm definitely not a math person and have always been better on verbal (SAT I scored a 720 or something). Maybe the best solution is to buy a book specifically for the math problems and see if that can help boost my quant score. Ideally, I'd like to be able to get over 600 on the verbal at least, but I agree that raising the quantitative score is probably the easiest thing to address.

Thanks for the feedback 🙂
 
I would recommend the Kaplan math book. i know many people have opinions on which books are best. But i had a barrons book and i found about 4 mistakes in one section. i couldnt believe it. and I'm not sure everyone would have been able to catch it, not saying that im a genius, but my strong point is in math so mistakes stick out to me. If you can do all the problems in the kaplan math, WITHIN a reasonable time limit (1.5 min for the hardest word problems and 30 seconds for the "which column is bigger") i'm SURE, i mean like 100% confident your quant will go up even more. If you know how to do EVERY quant discussed in the book, you WILL get asked the same questions on the real thing. Just make sure you know how to do them fast enough. It takes a lot of boring practice, especially on basic skills like multiplying big numbers. But it can be done!
 
I agree with the re-take idea.
Also the Kaplan math book did wonders for me...I raised my score 220 points after figuring it out. If only I could have found a book that helped my verbal score as much.
But it sounds like you are on the right track,
GOOD LUCK
 
Just to reiterate, definitely retake the GRE with some more practice (I'm also enjoying a Kaplan book with online practice tests). My GPA is on the low side of the averages accepted like yours. I met with an admissions counselor last week to go over my application from last year. She definitely recommended having a more above-average score to make up for a lower-than-desired GPA. She basically told me that had I gotten 130 points higher on my GRE, I would have been on the interview list:lame:. Oh well, now I know what I need to do!

Good luck to you!
 
Raising your quantitative score is great, but make sure you don't focus so much on it that your verbal score suffers. This happened for me in the SAT. I focused too much on raising my math score and did so by 60 points. However, my verbal dropped by 10 points. Not a lot, and not a problem for me because for the SAT, you can use the verbal from one test and the quantitative from another to get the highest combined score. As far as I know, you CAN NOT do this for the GRE. Also, you may want to check into your prospective school's policies on the GRE scores. I have no idea, you would have to research but some may have limits on the number of times you can take it in a certain amount of time. And I think I remember seeing somewhere that one school took the most recent score, no matter if the score was higher or not. Just some things to consider. Good luck and I hope you do great if you decide to retake. 😀:luck:
 
I am nervous. I just scheduled my test for next Saturday and I am worried about getting a good score. I got a 1070 (460 verbal 610 Quant) last time I took it.

Also, considering your low GPA,I also think you should retake it. But just so you know I think a 1200 is an awesome score! Good job!
 
Nice job on the 1200. Many schools' mean GRE scores of incoming classes are below this. I would feel good about this. Try for more since you've shown the ability to improve, but only if you have the time for even more preparation, without that I wouldn't leave the chance to actually go down.

I am also taking the GRE this Sat., first timer and a non-trad, so I may easily be twice as nervous. Also trying the ETS paper practice tests, didn't finish within allotted test time on 1st one, did this before any real preparation(cold turkey) and did awful. I definitely don't recommend this if you wish to retain any shred of confidence in your abilities. Took the 2nd paper test and got a 1380 after some preparation from various sources: Kaplan GRE box words, Barron's with CAT CD, lots of online free stuff. Took 1/2 of the 2nd practice test tonite Section 1&2, did alot worse on verbal and better on quant. Go figure. Kaplan online practice questions seem extra challenging.
 
I'm going to disagree and say that your score isn't really very competitive, because the distributions (and thus the percentiles) for verbal and quant are so differently skewed. It doesn't make sense to go by adding the scores together. That's a really good and competitive verbal score (over 80th percentile most likely), but not a competitive quant score (probably more like 50th percentile or below...in other words average for the entire applicant pool); or at least not one that would help to compensate for your GPA. I know it seems odd to say the quant score (which is higher) is the weaker of the two, but it's just how it works due to the difficulty of the sections in general.

Now keep in mind that it's no death sentence and I am not saying "oh you'll never get in with that!" I'm just saying that the quant score will definitely not be doing you any favors.
 
Should have the percentiles on your score report too (when you get that in like...a month. Takes so freaking long).

Anyhow ny is correct. That's a freaking awesome verbal score but not so much with quantitative. I think a 690 put me in the 60th percentile. I was shocked at how low it put me.
Edit: Ok found my GRE thing. This is from the one I didn't use (my 2nd try), but the two were close enough (1190 vs 1200). My verbal was a 500 (62%) and my quant was a 690 (69%). Analytical was a 4.5 (I suck at writing, evidently. My first go had a 3.5.), which was 63%.
Edit2: Ok, found my first GRE thing as well lol. 540 (71%), 660 (63%), 3.5 (20% - lol).

Also, I had a 1200 too but I also had a bit better GPA (3.4) and it took me a while to get in. There's probably other factors (interviews, for one) that you may not run into trouble with but the GRE is really there to kind of compensate for a lower GPA. They're kind of inversely related. Have a high GPA? You don't need a real stellar GRE (though it does have to be a tick above the 'I possess the necessary neural faculties to breathe' line). Have a low GPA? Then you need a stellar GRE.
 
I too agree with nyanko. Your verbal sounds competitive, but a lot of schools will admit that they tend to focus a little more on the Quant score of an applicant. On that note, it could depend on the schools you are applying to. The VMSAR book sometimes lists the average GRE scores for last year's admitted students for individual schools. That can give a good idea of what to shoot for at least. Goodluck!👍
 
HopefulAg said:
Should have the percentiles on your score report too (when you get that in like...a month. Takes so freaking long).

Anyhow ny is correct. That's a freaking awesome verbal score but not so much with quantitative. I think a 690 put me in the 60th percentile. I was shocked at how low it put me.
Edit: Ok found my GRE thing. This is from the one I didn't use (my 2nd try), but the two were close enough (1190 vs 1200). My verbal was a 500 (62%) and my quant was a 690 (69%). Analytical was a 4.5 (I suck at writing, evidently. My first go had a 3.5.), which was 63%.
Edit2: Ok, found my first GRE thing as well lol. 540 (71%), 660 (63%), 3.5 (20% - lol).

Also, I had a 1200 too but I also had a bit better GPA (3.4) and it took me a while to get in. There's probably other factors (interviews, for one) that you may not run into trouble with but the GRE is really there to kind of compensate for a lower GPA. They're kind of inversely related. Have a high GPA? You don't need a real stellar GRE (though it does have to be a tick above the 'I possess the necessary neural faculties to breathe' line). Have a low GPA? Then you need a stellar GRE.
Click to expand...

I appreciate all of the information! 🙂 I guess my biggest question mark is what exactly qualifies as a "stellar GRE", you know? I'm sure there isn't an exact number but I feel as though 1200 just isn't quite enough.
 
nyanko said:
I'm going to disagree and say that your score isn't really very competitive, because the distributions (and thus the percentiles) for verbal and quant are so differently skewed. It doesn't make sense to go by adding the scores together. That's a really good and competitive verbal score (over 80th percentile most likely), but not a competitive quant score (probably more like 50th percentile or below...in other words average for the entire applicant pool); or at least not one that would help to compensate for your GPA. I know it seems odd to say the quant score (which is higher) is the weaker of the two, but it's just how it works due to the difficulty of the sections in general.

Now keep in mind that it's no death sentence and I am not saying "oh you'll never get in with that!" I'm just saying that the quant score will definitely not be doing you any favors.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely regarding the percentiles. I didn't realize my verbal score was so good, but that's a plus to take away from it. I think I'll get some new materials to focus on the quant section and just brush up on the verbal stuff (stupid, never-used vocab words..😡)
 
I appreciate all of the information! 🙂 I guess my biggest question mark is what exactly qualifies as a "stellar GRE", you know? I'm sure there isn't an exact number but I feel as though 1200 just isn't quite enough.
Click to expand...

Well, personally I'd consider something around a 1400 as stellar.

Don't ask me how to achieve such a score though, as I obviously don't know. 😛
 
I am actually a pre-med student who took the GRE because I thought about PA school or vet school first... I scored a 1290 (580V, 710Q, 4W), when I compared my GRE scores to the incoming ranges at mid-level vet and PA schools my GRE was on the high end of all the applicants (now if only I can do so well on the MCAT), however, I too have a "lowish" gpa, and the GRE did not compensate for my low GPA (right around a 3.0)... yes, I did apply, so... I don't know if its any help, but I would look into some post bacc work and try to get a current GPA that's higher. Many schools look at your last 60 or so credit hours more than the first 60 or so, so I would try to take some courses to bolster that recent course work... Best of luck, and I agree, try retaking the GRE and try for a higher quant score...
 
that redhead said:
I appreciate all of the information! 🙂 I guess my biggest question mark is what exactly qualifies as a "stellar GRE", you know? I'm sure there isn't an exact number but I feel as though 1200 just isn't quite enough.
Click to expand...

Well again, it doesn't make sense to add the scores together and judge it based on that. A 1400 could be 800 verbal and 600 quant, which would still be a crappy quant percentile. Most schools seem to consider >70th percentile across the board to be worthy of notice as a standout GRE score. So I mean, that would probably be about 700 quant and 540-ish on the verbal?

edit: also consider that some of the schools will take the highest from each section across multiple exams when considering your GRE score. So even if you take it again and do better on the quant but worse on the verbal, it will boost you for the schools that do that. I got a >90th percentile verbal score the first time I took it but was unenthused about my 60th percentile quant score, so I retook it and my verbal went down (to the same as yours!) but I did much, much better on the quant so it was definitely worth it.
 
I think I've heard (from Davis) that scoring above the 75th percentile in both sections means you're on the right track, and anything above that makes you increasingly competitive.

I agree that a 1400 is a good goal for someone with a low GPA. My GPA was strong, and I got above a 1400, and some adcoms' eyes nearly popped out when they saw my score. CSU even said in my file review I had one of the best GREs they had seen . . . So yeah, I'd say 1400 will impress them and possibly make up for a lower-end GPA.
 
the rule of thumb that I am familiar with is the 80th percentile. As others have mentioned, it is not the numerical score that matters as much as your percentile ranking. That said, aim for the mid-high 700's in quant and that should hopefully counteract a low gpa. Your verbal score is mostly irrelevant provided that you do decently. The curve on the quant section is typically harsh since anyone who is applying for a grad program in the sciences/mathematics (phd's etc) has to take it and they generally score close to perfect.
 
Hah - the percentiles just quoted have crept up from 70 to 75 to 80.

I agree that percentile is important, and trying to balance the two scores will make you seem more well-rounded.
 
Yeah, my quant score got mentioned in my Davis interview too (and CSU file review), which I thought was weird because the percentile was technically a bit lower than my verbal percentile (94th vs 89th), but I guess the upper 700's score looks more impressive than mid 600's. :laugh:
 
moosenanny said:
Hah - the percentiles just quoted have crept up from 70 to 75 to 80.

I agree that percentile is important, and trying to balance the two scores will make you seem more well-rounded.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll have to wait for my score report to see my actual percentiles, but I was pleased (initially) that my scores were close, since to me that showed some well-roundedness. I'm not the one admitting me to vet school, though 🙄 I think my plan is to get myself some math prep (specifically) and aim high.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the percentiles are associated with tests taken over the last several years and not the individual test you took. Therefore, they don't change from test to test or even year to year, i.e. Quant=740 and Verbal=590 will be 80th percentile for 2009 until the foreseeable future (until ETS updates their percentile stuff, which they seem to do every couple years).

Here's the table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Record_Examination#Scaled_score_percentiles
 
ATX00 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the percentiles are associated with tests taken over the last several years and not the individual test you took. Therefore, they don't change from test to test or even year to year, i.e. Quant=740 and Verbal=590 will be 80th percentile for 2009 until the foreseeable future (until ETS updates their percentile stuff, which they seem to do every couple years).

Here's the table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Record_Examination#Scaled_score_percentiles
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. Thank you 🙂
 
that redhead said:
I guess I'll have to wait for my score report to see my actual percentiles, but I was pleased (initially) that my scores were close, since to me that showed some well-roundedness. I'm not the one admitting me to vet school, though 🙄 I think my plan is to get myself some math prep (specifically) and aim high.
Click to expand...

Yes, your raw scores are balanced. I guess what I meant was that the percentiles are more closely balanced, as opposed to the raw scores. It is nearly impossible to balance the raw scores if you want a more competitive quantitative since the verbal is so tricky. Does this clarify?
 
Actually, no the percentiles are scaled for each test. You can get an idea on the overall, but the percentiles for your test are what matter. When they calculate them they take into consideration things like everyone got one question wrong, bad question maybe, so it changes the percentiles... things like that... or that test may have been easier or harder than other tests... That is why they are standardized... So, there is a list on ETS's website, and that is generally about what it will be, but they specifically state that your official scaled score will come in your report
 
SBB2016 said:
Actually, no the percentiles are scaled for each test. You can get an idea on the overall, but the percentiles for your test are what matter. When they calculate them they take into consideration things like everyone got one question wrong, bad question maybe, so it changes the percentiles... things like that... or that test may have been easier or harder than other tests... That is why they are standardized... So, there is a list on ETS's website, and that is generally about what it will be, but they specifically state that your official scaled score will come in your report
Click to expand...

I feel like this may be right. So the scales are probably really similar but vary by +/- 5% . But they still consider a lot of people because the exam is the same for 1 month and in that month i bet THOUSANDS of students take it over the US so there is still a good sample size
 
SBB2016 said:
Actually, no the percentiles are scaled for each test. You can get an idea on the overall, but the percentiles for your test are what matter.
Click to expand...

They're not scaled for each test. If this were the case, my percentiles on my score reports would not have changed from three years ago until now (my abysmal AW score of 4.0 went from 32nd percentile to 41st percentile on a test I took 3 years prior).

The adaptive testing means that everyone's tests are different, so they can't really do it that way. The exam CAN'T be the same for everyone. The reason they change is because they are cumulatively adjusting the distributions as they get more data.
 
nyanko said:
They're not scaled for each test. If this were the case, my percentiles on my score reports would not have changed from three years ago until now (my abysmal AW score of 4.0 went from 32nd percentile to 41st percentile on a test I took 3 years prior).

The adaptive testing means that everyone's tests are different, so they can't really do it that way. The exam CAN'T be the same for everyone. The reason they change is because they are cumulatively adjusting the distributions as they get more data.
Click to expand...

I'm confused, you said your percentile score changed from 3 years ago even though you got a 4.0 both times? doesn't that mean the scale changed for each test?
 
BlacKAT33 said:
I'm confused, you said your percentile score changed from 3 years ago even though you got a 4.0 both times? doesn't that mean the scale changed for each test?
Click to expand...

It changed for both tests. Both were 32nd percentile when I ordered my score reports to apply in 2007. When I got my reports last year for the same two test dates (8/2006 and 9/2007), both were 41st percentile. The other scores changed percentiles too, but it was more slight than the jump in the AW. They all match up perfectly with the scale that is in the guide.

This guide says that the percentiles are calculated based on all examinees between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008.

The information about that table says that it is what it used in interpreting scores.

edit: And you still didn't tell me how exactly you would calculate per-test percentiles for an adaptive test that asks questions based on the level of your performance - by definition if two people could have the exact same test, they would get the exact same score!!!!
 
nyanko said:
It changed for both tests. Both were 32nd percentile when I ordered my score reports to apply in 2007. When I got my reports last year for the same two test dates (8/2006 and 9/2007), both were 41st percentile. The other scores changed percentiles too, but it was more slight than the jump in the AW. They all match up perfectly with the scale that is in the guide.

This guide says that the percentiles are calculated based on all examinees between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008.

The information about that table says that it is what it used in interpreting scores.

edit: And you still didn't tell me how exactly you would calculate per-test percentiles for an adaptive test that asks questions based on the level of your performance - by definition if two people could have the exact same test, they would get the exact same score!!!!
Click to expand...

Yea, i was reading that document right now lol maybe i just interpreted it differently.

When i read this on pg 9 "Percentile ranks shown on score report are based on the performance of the current reference group for each test regardless of when the scores were earned. The percentile rank for any score may vary over the years depending on the scores of the group with which the score is compared. Thus, when two or more applicants are being compared, the comparison should be made on the basis of their respective scores, if percentile ranks are considered, they should all be based on the percentile rank tables in the most recent edition of the guide."

I thought this meant, for each test the percentiles are different. But for comparing applicants that take them in different years they are compared in the Guide which has scores from all tests over many years. But now i see what you are saying, whether or not your percentile is different on the test you took vs. comparing over the years...they always update the percentage by using the "over the yrs" stats. So that is why your percentile changed over 3 yrs with the same score? I think i see now

well anyway, im glad i dont have to take the GRE again lol
 
When they say the percentile rank for any score will vary based over the years depending on the scores with which it's compared, they mean that the group with which the score is compared is being dynamically updated, though the score remains the same.

So when I took the exam in 2006 and 2007, they were comparing the scores with all the existing scores up until the most recent update of that table at the time and reporting those percentiles. They updated the table in 2008, which changed the percentiles of the existing scores. None of those are on a per-test basis, it's just that they all change whenever they update the distribution.

Apparently they started to get harder on the Analytical Writing around the time I took my exams or shortly thereafter. :laugh:

I might have to take this test again someday if I decide to do a Ph.D. after my DVM (my scores will be well over 5 years old by then). boo, hiss...
 
nyanko said:
by definition if two people could have the exact same test, they would get the exact same score!!!!
Click to expand...
Unless one of them got the last question right, and the other got it wrong. 😉
 
I know we already kind of passed the book suggestion section way back at the top of the thread, but I just wanted to throw in my 2c. I used the Kaplan Advanced math to study for the quant, and while it drove me absolutely nuts at first (Just like BlacKat with Barrons, I found about 10 mistakes in the first 20 questions or so) it really is a good book (and the mistakes seem to stop as the book goes on). The mistakes are generally not a big problem, only a few of them were basic math mistakes, the others were typos, which were annoying, but written correctly in the back, so you could flip to the answer section to fill in the info that was missing. So I think all the companies probably have mistakes in the books, but the Kaplan book does have some good suggestions and tricks, and a good summary of the math stuff you have to know. I didn't take the test before I had the book, but I did manage an 800 after. I really think doing all the difficult problems helped me out a bunch, since you get used to the tricks needed for them once you get past the intro stuff. So if you want to improve your quant, I would suggest it, it could help a lot. I wish studying for the verbal worked in the same way as the quant. I could use a little help there
 
CuriousRACC said:
I know we already kind of passed the book suggestion section way back at the top of the thread, but I just wanted to throw in my 2c. I used the Kaplan Advanced math to study for the quant, and while it drove me absolutely nuts at first (Just like BlacKat with Barrons, I found about 10 mistakes in the first 20 questions or so) it really is a good book (and the mistakes seem to stop as the book goes on). The mistakes are generally not a big problem, only a few of them were basic math mistakes, the others were typos, which were annoying, but written correctly in the back, so you could flip to the answer section to fill in the info that was missing. So I think all the companies probably have mistakes in the books, but the Kaplan book does have some good suggestions and tricks, and a good summary of the math stuff you have to know. I didn't take the test before I had the book, but I did manage an 800 after. I really think doing all the difficult problems helped me out a bunch, since you get used to the tricks needed for them once you get past the intro stuff. So if you want to improve your quant, I would suggest it, it could help a lot. I wish studying for the verbal worked in the same way as the quant. I could use a little help there
Click to expand...

I just remembered one of the "tricks" that is actually very different depending on if you use Kaplan or Princeton Review strategies. On the questions where the answers are in numerical order ( ex. A=10, B=13, C=16, D=20, E=33)

Princeton review tells you to start in the middle (with plug and chug) so you'd start with C=16. if it was too high or too low you'd move out either direction. As much as you think this is the best way to do it, it could take you up to 3 times to plug and chug.

Kaplan tells you to start with either B=13 or D=20, that way, the maximum times you'd have to plug and chug is two times because you know if you did B and it was too high the answer is A. If you do B and the answer is too low then you do D and you automatically know if the answer is C or E.

I took princeton for SAT and kaplan for GRE, i was really surprised there can actually be differences in the tricks taught to me! but this one is a huge time saver and it isn't that obvious since the natural instinct is to start in the middle.
 
BlacKAT33 said:
I just remembered one of the "tricks" that is actually very different depending on if you use Kaplan or Princeton Review strategies. On the questions where the answers are in numerical order ( ex. A=10, B=13, C=16, D=20, E=33)

Princeton review tells you to start in the middle (with plug and chug) so you'd start with C=16. if it was too high or too low you'd move out either direction. As much as you think this is the best way to do it, it could take you up to 3 times to plug and chug.

Kaplan tells you to start with either B=13 or D=20, that way, the maximum times you'd have to plug and chug is two times because you know if you did B and it was too high the answer is A. If you do B and the answer is too low then you do D and you automatically know if the answer is C or E.

I took princeton for SAT and kaplan for GRE, i was really surprised there can actually be differences in the tricks taught to me! but this one is a huge time saver and it isn't that obvious since the natural instinct is to start in the middle.
Click to expand...

Actually you should never have to plug 3 times with Princeton review. 1st guess is c giving you higher or lower. 2nd guess let's you determine which of other 2 it is. There is still an advantage to Barron's method 1 out of 5 times though (when the answer is A or E and you chose the 1 next to it).

Still, this also assumes you can always be assured that if your answer is not correct that you can presume it is the other choice. That is often not the case which complicates the analysis.

Still, trying both is worth it to see which one works. Not everybody has the same thought processes.
 
StartingoverVet said:
Still, trying both is worth it to see which one works. Not everybody has the same thought processes.
Click to expand...

And some of us don't need to plug and chug. 😉

edit: And thanks for the compliment, by the way, SOV. I have been rejected from stuff so many times though that I just always assume I'm going to be the worst of the candidates by default. It's good because it motivates me. 😉
 
StartingoverVet said:
Actually you should never have to plug 3 times with Princeton review. 1st guess is c giving you higher or lower. 2nd guess let's you determine which of other 2 it is. There is still an advantage to Barron's method 1 out of 5 times though (when the answer is A or E and you chose the 1 next to it).

Still, this also assumes you can always be assured that if your answer is not correct that you can presume it is the other choice. That is often not the case which complicates the analysis.

Still, trying both is worth it to see which one works. Not everybody has the same thought processes.
Click to expand...

hmm that makes sense. Ok maybe i need my kaplan book for the info hahaha but it was something with the stats and doing these methods. One is better, for some reason lol unfortunately i gave my books to TT so i cant look it up, but i know there was some advantage to doing it this way (of course, that is IF you choose to plug and chug)
 
I think it was that with Kaplan you have a better chance of getting it correct in one try? With a guess of B or D, you have a 2/5 chance of getting the answer straight off the bat if you guess right or if the answer is A or E. If you choose c, it's only 1/5. So, since you can usually make a good guess if it's high or low, the Kaplan method works out a lot of the time. I think that was the reasoning, though I do remember the book saying it was good because you only need to guess twice, which is true if you guess C also, so I'm pretty sure you aren't remembering wrong BlacKAT, don't have the book to check though. Meh, whatever book you get, it's just important to learn all those tricky little things the test-makers want to mess you up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
GRE Optional
Replies
1
Views
2K
supershorty
supershorty
hazysea
Advice on Experience!
Replies
24
Views
2K
Angelo84
A
Mr.Smile12
RVC on Probation (please confirm)
Replies
8
Views
2K
starryradiowaves
starryradiowaves
K
Retake vs New
Replies
4
Views
1K
Kowalskip
K
Mr.Smile12
[DVM360 Opinion] Comparison and competition in veterinary medicine
Replies
4
Views
842
pp9
pp9
Top