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 only used Manhattan stuff for about two weeks before taking the test. I got a 159, and I estimate I would have gotten only about 154 to 156 had I not used Manhattan. Manhattan's test questions are a little harder than the real GRE; Powerprep's are (ironically) a little easier than the real thing. Anyway, the key is being able to stay on your toes and identify what's being asked for, and where the trap is. That will take practice. Good luck.

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) 161 (Manhattan) 158 (Manhattan) 156 (Manhattan) 164 (Manhattan) 161 (Powerprep) 164 (Manhattan) 163 (Powerprep) Actual score: 159 For what it's worth, I thought the Manhattan quant questions were about 20% harder than the real GRE quant questions, while the Powerprep questions were about 10% to 20% easier than the real thing. Manhattan seems to like to throw a lot of difficult questions at you, but give you more credit for getting them right. I based a lot of my study on the explanation Manhattan provided with their tests, and I think it was very, very well worth the $30 I spent. The Powerprep verbal questions seemed about equivalent in difficulty and in nature to the first real GRE section, and to the experimental section. The more difficult verbal section on the real GRE, which I earned by doing so well on the first one, was more similar to the Manhattan practice test. The Manhattan test focused less on context and more on obscure vocabulary. If you're aiming for anything but the very highest few verbal percentiles, I'd suggest you base your approach more on the Powerprep practice tests than on Manhattan. I actually felt less nervous while taking the quant sections than I had during the practice tests, probably because the questions were easier. But I had to pee like a racehorse during about the last hour of the test. I swear, about two seconds after I hit the button to skip the ten-minute break and continue, my bladder suddenly went from feeling nothing to feeling like a Thanksgiving Day float balloon. Moral of the story: even if you peed before the test and haven't drank all day, use the break to pee again.

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'm tempted to suggest that the vocabulary on the Manhattan practice test may still have been a shade tougher. Overall, it seems that Manhattan throws a lot of difficult stuff at you and then gives you more points for it. I particularly noticed that they rated several of their diagram/graph questions as maximum difficulty when they seemed, to me, much easier than some of the other stuff.

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 questions felt about 10 to 20% easier than the real GRE questions.)

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 where I'd start.

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 one). And, those who have taken the GRE multiple times, have your actual scores fluctuated this much? Back in high school, my ACT scores varied from 28 to 31, and SAT from 1300 to 1390 (on the old scale). Maybe there's something intrinsic to my approach to tests that produces a lot of variation?

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 could cite? Do you have impressive, more recent, accomplishments to emphasize? It's possible that they will care less about what you did as an 18-year-old if you performed at a consistently high level as an upperclassman. If I was on that committee, I'd be more interested in seeing lots of proof that you were a good student now than hearing why you weren't as successful earlier. Just throwing ideas out there.

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.

Working through Manhattan practice tests. Have noticed a few times that reasonable rounding (and by reasonable I mean endorsed by Manhattan's explanation) creates numbers different enough from the answer options that, during the test, I second-guessed my calculations. Example: actual answer 6.8% (supported by full calculations); answer produced by Manhattan's suggested rounding technique: 3.1%. Manhattan's explanation says that, because 3.1% is much closer to 6.8% than the other options (0.7% and 31.3% were the next-closest), I should assume that 6.8% is correct. However, 6.8% is not only twice the answer produced by estimation; it's also not even the closest answer! On another problem, I rounded the following: (.304 + .012) x 1,027 --> .31 x 1,000 --> 310, and (.452+.055) x 851 --> .45 x 850 --> 430. (I'm aware that this was slightly imprecise, but just slightly.) This produced the answer 39% (it was difference between the numbers divided by the smaller one). The answer choices included 33% and 45%, and this literally splits them right down the middle. It appears that, to be confident in my answers, I must quit rounding (or be extremely conservative in my rounding). My question: are the actual GRE questions also structured in such a way that similar rounding produces similarly ambiguous answers?

Those of you that had the above concepts - particularly parabolas (!!) - did you score high? Do you think the computer-adaptive test program threw a hard question at you because you were doing so well.

Adstatus' description is accurate. "Midtown" is generally accepted to mean 11th to about 31st or 41st, probably Peoria to Yale or Sheridan. It's really farther north and west than the "middle" of town, but Tulsa's main growth has been to the south and east for decades. The houses in that area are lovely. Brookside (Peoria from about 41st to 31st) is a very fun place. Beware of neighborhoods south of there though. 61st and Peoria is one of the highest crime areas in town. It's worse than it initially looks. There are lots of apartments from 61st to 91st, around Peoria and Riverside. I'd avoid them. Cherry Street area (15th from Peoria to Lewis or so) is similar to Brookside. Best coffee shop in town (IMO) is The Coffee House on Cherry Street. Good drinks (and food) and great atmosphere. As it's near TU, there are lots of TU students around. The Blue Dome District area (generally the northeastern area of the downtown loop) is indeed the best night spot. If you're studying at OU Tulsa, I'd personally recommend living a few miles south. I've lived in the area of 81st and Yale, and it's great. Less than four miles from the campus, relatively low traffic, low crime, lots of trees, etc. Btw, Tulsa's overall crime rate is not good compared to a lot of east and west cost areas. For instance, plug in Tulsa vs. Los Angeles in on a website that compares crime rates and you'll see that Tulsa's crime is way higher than LA's - especially violent crime. However, Tulsa is quite economically and sociologically segregated, and most of the crime occurs: (1) north of Admiral, (2) around 31st and Garnett, and (3) around 61st and Peoria. I would also pick my spots carefully in the area around TU, as that general area is sort of borderline between fairly nice midtown and near-ghetto. The construction is annoying, and the quality of the roads is inconsistent (Sheridan from 41st north is like a back road in West Virginia, only with pavement rather than dirt) but it's as easy a city to navigate as you'll find.