okProteus

I'd second Bamafan. The GRE math's difficulty isn't so much in the math concepts, but in the unpredictability of the question's presentation. You have to be ready to translate what you read into the concepts quickly, and it really is very tricky. Manhattan was really helpful for me. Their books helped me get my technique down, and the practice tests (6 for $30) were invaluable because they helped me get used to the complexity and unpredictability of the questions' presentation. The tests also come with helpful problem explanations, and detailed statistical breakdown of your performance. I

Regarding the Verbal section, I had a similar experience. I got a 168 on my one Powerprep verbal test, and a 164 on my one Manhattan verbal test. Got a 170 today on the real GRE. However, I may have done a little better on the Manhattan pretest if I had reviewed a few of the harder questions before submitting. I corrected three or four on my second real GRE verbal section when I went back to review before submitting. When taking the practice tests, I just went through and answered everything and submitted without review. My quant practice test scores were as follows: 155 (Manhattan) 16

Incidentally, my real GRE Verbal score was significantly better than my practice test questions. I took one Powerprep and one Manhattan practice test, getting 168 and 164, respectively. Got a 170 today. The Powerprep questions were similar in difficulty, and in their reliance on context over knowledge of arcane vocabulary, to the first verbal section and to the experimental verbal section. The more difficult verbal section that that I was given after my first section was more similar to the Manhattan test. It was more difficult, and relied less on context and more on vocabulary. Though I

You're right. I anticipated that I would not get 164 on the real test. I was hoping for 160 to 162, but realistically expecting 158-160. However, those mid-150's scores were scaring me. The odd thing is that the Manhattan test questions definitely seemed harder. I'd say they were about 20% harder than those I encountered on the real GRE. Of course, I've got no idea what percent of the questions I got right today, but it felt as if I was getting about 70 to 75% right, while I only got 65% to 70% right on the two highest Manhattan practice tests. (For what it's worth, the Powerprep questi

164 - 90th percentile - 12/7/12 Powerprep: 161 - 12/6/12 163 - 12/7/12 Actual GRE: 159 - 12/8/12

Consider this: If your retake is too late to submit to some schools, it may still have value. If, by chance, some schools do weed you out due to the low Verbal score (and I have no idea if they will), you may prefer to take a year out of school and re-apply next year. In that case, you'll want a new GRE score then anyway. So, if it's feasible, why not? I'm by no means an expert on this; the above is merely my speculation. Good luck!

I would agree that the graph/chart problems may be a good place to focus. IMO, these are the easiest to solve if you're familiar with them, but may be difficult if you struggle with math and are unfamiliar with their form.

The above advice sounds good to me. If you don't know much of anything at this point, you may be able to pluck a substantial amount of the lowest lying fruit by selectively focusing on what you can handle and working until you get it down. You could either focus on a few question types & concepts and try to learn them well, or try to pack in a lot of general concepts that you could use across the board. To decide whether you won't to focus on learning a few things well or several things sort of, take one or a few practice tests. Manhattan offers a free computer-adaptive one online; that's

I'm using Manhattan's online computer-adaptive practice tests. I'm doing on the quantitative only; my verbal score is satisfactory already. I've taken five of the six practice tests so far, and my scores have been all over the map. In order, they are: 155 - 64th percentile - 11/23/12 161 - 83th percentile - 11/24/12 158 - 74th percentile - 11/25/12 156 - 68th percentile - 11/27/12 164 - 90th percentile - 12/2/12 Have others using Manhattan's tests experienced that degree of fluctuation? There doesn't even seem to be a strong trend (a very general upward trend, but not a reliable o

By all means, no offense intended. I see where you were coming from. I can see that you were aiming for discretion. I could be wrong, but I think it could ruffle feathers. Why take that chance if it's avoidable? (Again, I personally am no expert with this stuff. You're welcome to as many grains of salt as you want.) If you feel you need to explain your aversion to research, perhaps state it more gently? What if the person/people who made you feel that way were on the admissions board? How would you address them? Are there alternate explanations for your early poor performance that you

I'm no expert in what these people want, but that sounds a little angsty to me. Please don't take that the wrong way; I see where you're coming from. But you might want to play it a little safer with an admissions committee by avoiding making personal associations between research and family dysfunction.

Excellent point.

Btw, anyone with further questions about Tulsa is welcome to message me. If I'm an active user at the time and see your message, I'm happy to answer anything I'm capable of answering. I also recommend City Data's forums. They tend to be fairly useful.

Thank you for your detailed suggestions. I can see that my rounding was a bit sloppy in the second example. It's still hard to understand why, in the first example, the Manhattan-endorsed approach was so ambiguous. Very limited rounding obviously eliminates that danger. Maybe that's the safest route.

Ah, so it only adjusts difficulty between sections, not within them? Didn't know that. In that case, did anyone experience these concepts (parabolas, permutations/combinations, etc.) on their first quant section, or only on either the second one (or the one you suspected to be experimental, if there were three)? Essentially I'm trying to figure out if someone like me, with a ceiling of maybe 162, is likely to experience these things, or if they are something only the elite quant test-takers are likely to encounter.