Revised GRE did anyone see something like this?

[grimmiae]

I need some help here...

I have been using kaplan and princeton to review, and then I decided to look at what ETS decided to throw out for the quatitative review- trying to wrangle a PC to take the power prep still, I have a mac

feeling alright about it until I read pages 35-39 of the ETS Math review PDF.

Can anyone tell me if they saw coordinate graphs that were as complicated as this?

go to http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/quantitative_reasoning

scroll down to where it says

"The content in these areas includes high school mathematics and statistics at a level that is generally no higher than a second course in algebra; it does not include trigonometry, calculus or other higher-level mathematics. The Math Review (PDF) provides detailed information about the content of the Quantitative Reasoning measure."

Then browse through pages 35-39, I when I was attempting to read them, I was like "oh my god, this is way too complex I is this really something that would be on the test?"

coordinate equations of circles? uhh what? Not a math major, and this is really challenging (multiple parabolas? REALLY?). You will restore me of my sanity if you can give me an impression of what kind of coordinate questions you may have seen on the revised gre, wasn't expecting this to say the least.

Thanks to anyone who answers this.

[ktel]

I haven't taken the revised GRE, but you should be able to pick up equations for parabolas and circles. It definitely is high school math so you must've learned if before. I don't doubt that you've forgotten all of it, but you don't need to be a math major to learn it

[grimmiae]

bleh....I will trust you on that. ETS confuses me when I read it for some reason, perhaps I will check my other books to see if they explain it in a way that I understand it better. Thanks.

[orst11]

When I took the test there were questions about functions. I can remember just one asking what point wasn't included when graphing a given function. Overall, not really that difficult because it was multiple choice.

As far as other graphs and other tables included in the test, there were a few usually with two or three questions on each given table or graph. Honestly, a lot of stuff they mention might be on the test or even on the powerprep I didn't see, whereas there was a few questions not on the powerprep that I did see. It really is almost a guessing game because there are only a limited amount of questions they do ask.

Ultimately, I think that you do need to understand functions and graphing but not necessarily in its entirety for the test.

[Fell4Ever]

Hey. I had only one question on a function, if my memory serves well, and it was more difficult then I thought it would be haha, but I just did that one last. I did get a few coordinate ones, but every question is really not as hard as you think it will be. Basically you're given a little over a minute for each question, so if the question is taking you more than a minute - STOP - and try to see if there is an easy way to solve it. The math was not super complex in my opinion and I did not remember most equations or anything. I did have to guess some times, but that's part of the game. Just take a deep breath on every scary problem and you'll be fine.

[grimmiae]

Yeah, for once the kaplan math review book came in handy, and I think I got the gist of it. I have roughly three weeks before the test, and I think I will be okay. Just panicking here....but if I review everyday for a good two hours, hopefully the GRE will fear me- or something silly like that...really hoping I get an experimental verbal section rather than an experimental quantitative section. Because that could induce sweaty palms and shallow breathing.

[autumn_leaf]

holy crap. i had nothing that looked like that. i don't think i even used the distance formula on mine.

quant: 660-760

so maybe if you get almost all of them right on the first test you'll get stuff like this on the 2nd section. i assume if you get those questions right you'd be in the 700-800 range.

[autumn_leaf]

It won't even give questions this hard if you get a few wrong, because it adjusts difficulty to previous answers.

i agree with most parts. just wanted to clarify on this statement. the revised test states that it adjusts questions section by section instead of by each individual question.

i would still encourage a person to review the material, i think studying for the math portion will have greater benefit than studying the verbal section. the only math class i've taken in college was calc in freshmen year, and then i studied and tutored psyche of stats. so it's been 3-4 years since i've dealt with these types of questions.

[ktel]

Even engineers may not have done this type of math in years. I tutored grade 10 math last year and it was amazing how much I had forgotten. Fortunately it only takes a little bit of review to learn it again

[ThePoorHangedFool]

A related question, coming from the least mathematically-inclined applicant out there: Were there copious amounts of problems involving adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing fractions on anyone's test who has taken the revised GRE? I took the former GRE last October, knowing that such questions would comprise some portion of the quantitative questions (knowing such in panicky fear, as well, since it's been "that part" of math courses from elementary school onward that I simply cannot wrap my mind around, no matter how much studying of how many different types I try). At least on the exam I had, fractions pervaded the entire thing, making up probably 40-45% of the problems in the combined quantitative segments. I managed to score something like a 560, after doing the best guesswork of my entire life; however, I clearly don't expect that to happen again and am trying actually "learning" as much of the potential math on the new GRE as I can.

But those fractions are going to be the death of me regardless of my personal efforts to conquer them, so any input on how frequently they have so far appeared on the revised GRE is welcomed.

[ktel]

I doubt they would have a ton of questions like that because you get a calculator now. That would make it super easy.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

If I tried to explain what I don't understand about using basic arithmetic to solve problems involving fractions, I'd only be digging myself deeper. Does an answer simply of "but my degree is in English" suffice?

I know what a fraction is. I don't see the usefulness in knowing how to divide one fraction by another. I would certainly hope that the revised GRE doesn't bother including questions on this topic given the ease with which the provided calculator would make answering them.

Which is essentially my whole point--when would anyone that needed to divide fractions in the first place not be able to do so digitally with little or no trouble? How does a lesson on "basic" math, that I'm starting to wonder whether or not I even had in elementary school at all, prove my ability to succeed in a graduate-level program for English literature?

[ktel]

Am I allowed to disregard reading and writing because I'm an engineer? Being a humanities major does not excuse not knowing basic math. Besides, dividing fractions is easy. Just flip the fraction you're dividing by over and multiply the tops and multiply the bottoms.

(1/10) / (3/20) = (1/10) * (20/3) = (1*20) / (3*10) = (20/30)

Magical.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Engineers necessarily write and read some type of relevant literature during various parts of the work in which they specialize. That being said on top of one "truth" against which I honestly deny anyone's ability to argue: any level or dimension of success (financial, social, psychological, often familial, and every related concept, etc.) in a world such as that of today DEMANDS the ability to read, a skill followed closely by how bluntly the world insists upon the ability to write, if only in order to edge past those who can read but cannot write.

You should watch The Reader, or better yet read the novel upon which the film is based. (I would love to discuss its premise, actually, with anyone who's familiar with it, as I find it ceaselessly fascinating to ponder and hear others' opinions on its controversial plot basis...)

Thus my point is that no, you're not allowed to disregard reading and writing because you're an engineer. The Verbal and AW sections on the GRE aren't easier for English-inclined test takers, by the way; like the content tested on in the Quant section, the Verbal questions test rules of English grammar that we learned during the same years as we learned how to divide fractions. The AW components simply ask testers to provide reasons why an argument presented as logical is actually baseless and to defend an opinion that you don't necessarily even have to hold (think any employee of any company delivering a presentation on an idea that he or she despises but has to sell to the clients or customers).

Sorry to get all long-winded, but I wasn't asking for snarky comments about how bad my math skills are. And basic math, in my opinion, is math that I use during my everyday life (basic arithmetic, in other words, but not typically with fractions). The bizarre questions that dealt with multiplying and dividing square roots which I encountered last year on the GRE also don't fall into that "basic math" category, I'd argue.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing fractions still get to college graduates?? Tell me, what is it that you don't get about them? I've known people to not fully get it, but usually it's cause they don't really understand what a fraction is in the first place.

Perhaps dividing fractions is as foreign a concept to me as not splitting infinitives is to you. And what kind of moron doesn't "really understand what a fraction is"? Wouldn't that imply some grander, fundamental lack of basic understanding, maybe even bordering on a mild level of sheer mental deficiency?

On a totally related note, I was somewhat appalled to meet a girl this summer who is now starting her senior year at MIT. A civil engineering major (with, though entirely irrelevant, a tendency to detail each one of the scholarships she's currently being given so that she can graduate without debt from MIT without paying a dime aside from her travel fees), she happily used the non-word "funnest" during our first conversation and didn't bat an eye.

I'm completely wrong, ktel. If MIT accepts engineering majors that somehow STILL use nonexistent words in their everyday speech without even realizing their errors, you're golden no matter what you score on the GRE's Verbal and AW sections.

Split infinitives are harmless next to "funnest."

[ThePoorHangedFool]

I don't get your joke; are you saying that the word "loquacious" isn't one found in "basic" vocabulary? I never used that particular word, so I'm unclear about what you're referring to by bringing it up.

If you're simply calling me loquacious, then just say so. I already know this about myself.

And shall we just call it a draw? With the statements now both made about your never having heard of certain words and my never having had certain math lessons, we both have areas in which we could improve, if only to score higher on the damned GRE.

[grimmiae]

Wow. I like the lengthy responses to this. Math and writing for different disciplines matter in different ways. There are idiots in great programs, and there are geniuses in lower rung schools that could have easily been top students in ivy league schools, BUT, not everything is based on actual achievement. A big portion of education is unfortunately about where you are from, who your parents are, how financially stable you are, and who you know. We like to believe that we get everything based on merit, but in my opinion (a plethora of evidence also supports this), this is not the case.

I think my biggest frustration in all of this is that I feel like the most valuable thing I have learned from studying for GRE is that it only measures how well you can take the GRE. (Yes, this is only my opinion). Sure, there is a lot of evidence to suggest the opposite, but really I do not feel as if learning a bunch of esoteric words will help me secure grants for research, or whether or not I know geometry will allow me to write a kick ass dissertation someday. (Least for my goals)

Some days this whole grad school thing feels so arbitrary, you feel me?

*sigh*

Edited August 14, 2011 by grimmiae

[ktel]

Perhaps dividing fractions is as foreign a concept to me as not splitting infinitives is to you. And what kind of moron doesn't "really understand what a fraction is"? Wouldn't that imply some grander, fundamental lack of basic understanding, maybe even bordering on a mild level of sheer mental deficiency?

On a totally related note, I was somewhat appalled to meet a girl this summer who is now starting her senior year at MIT. A civil engineering major (with, though entirely irrelevant, a tendency to detail each one of the scholarships she's currently being given so that she can graduate without debt from MIT without paying a dime aside from her travel fees), she happily used the non-word "funnest" during our first conversation and didn't bat an eye.

I'm completely wrong, ktel. If MIT accepts engineering majors that somehow STILL use nonexistent words in their everyday speech without even realizing their errors, you're golden no matter what you score on the GRE's Verbal and AW sections.

Split infinitives are harmless next to "funnest."

Language is constantly evolving, and there are many words used today that were non-existent in the past.

I find the fact that you were appalled by her using "funnest" in a casual conversation with you to be arrogant and condescending. She obviously was not expecting to be judged so harshly. I am sure any formal writing or presentations that she does would be excellent, despite her 'appalling' use of a single word in a single conversation you had with her. Perhaps you are jealous of her funding or her situation. Your post certainly seems as if that is the case.

Personally I find it "appalling" when people break out a calculator to count money or do other daily math tasks. Just because math is not the focus of your studies doesn't mean you shouldn't have a certain level of knowledge in the subject. Especially when you have learned it in the past.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

I think my biggest frustration in all of this is that I feel like the most valuable thing I have learned from studying for GRE is that it only measures how well you can take the GRE.

I'm right there with you; do you also recall thinking the exact same thing after taking the SAT and ACT? I, for one, most definitely do.

And my initial question was simply asking for input on the revised GRE's Quant section. When I took the former version last year, I faced math problems that looked vaguely familiar, maybe, if not more often completely new to me. My skills in grammar, vocabulary, and related areas (hence a degree in English) are juxtaposed with my abysmal mathematical abilities. I have no problem with graphs, finding the slopes of lines, using quadratic equations, all of that good stuff that I never use except during ~2 hours spent on Quant problems when taking the GRE...an event that takes place once a year, at the most. However, fractions, square roots, and dividing/multiplying anything concerning those concepts just never latched onto any coil of my brain. I haven't suffered too badly in life because of it so far (aside from during those same ~2 hours mentioned above).

Shakespeare himself invented thousands.

Indeed; he invented 1626 words, and is cited as the first source for evidence of a particular sense of 8181 other words (that is to say, for creating secondary meanings of words already invented--these occasionally became more popular than the words' original meaning and sometimes is still the primary way we use certain ones today).

It's harmless to use words that aren't "real" unless the audience is an English Nazi.

Most would disagree with you; what is the point of having words at all if none of them mean anything or should be considered "accurate"? Additionally, how is it harmless to use nonexistent words but harmful to say any of the phrases you listed in your post? It's the same exact concept, as by incorrectly structuring sentences with poor subject-verb agreement and other similar flaws, one abandons the use of or need for grammar entirely.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Language is constantly evolving, and there are many words used today that were non-existent in the past.

I find the fact that you were appalled by her using "funnest" in a casual conversation with you to be arrogant and condescending. She obviously was not expecting to be judged so harshly. I am sure any formal writing or presentations that she does would be excellent, despite her 'appalling' use of a single word in a single conversation you had with her. Perhaps you are jealous of her funding or her situation. Your post certainly seems as if that is the case.

I am not an idiot. I realize that new words are entered into the dictionary practically on a daily basis. "Funnest" isn't one of them, however, and apparently I'm the only one who holds this particular opinion, but to me, I find poor speech to be a major turn-off when talking to anyone. Clearly, many, MANY rules of grammar are now considered less die-hard necessary to follow during informal conversation. I realize this. But is an avoidance of words that we're taught quite early on are, though sometimes for inexplicable reasons, simply incorrect, really that much to ask of somebody?

You do realize, I hope, that you're currently asking me to argue that if people should be allowed to use any word they please when speaking, they should also be able to make up new names for the basic numbers if they feel like it. Why should "five" mean 5? Why can't "blam" mean 5? And I don't use a calculator for every math problem I have to do during everyday life. Though I'm not sure why it would be so offensive if I did....

[runonsentence]

I am not an idiot. I realize that new words are entered into the dictionary practically on a daily basis. "Funnest" isn't one of them, however, and apparently I'm the only one who holds this particular opinion, but to me, I find poor speech to be a major turn-off when talking to anyone. Clearly, many, MANY rules of grammar are now considered less die-hard necessary to follow during informal conversation. I realize this. But is an avoidance of words that we're taught quite early on are, though sometimes for inexplicable reasons, simply incorrect, really that much to ask of somebody?

You do realize, I hope, that you're currently asking me to argue that if people should be allowed to use any word they please when speaking, they should also be able to make up new names for the basic numbers if they feel like it. Why should "five" mean 5? Why can't "blam" mean 5? And I don't use a calculator for every math problem I have to do during everyday life. Though I'm not sure why it would be so offensive if I did....

I mean this in the kindest way possible, so don't think I'm ragging on you: but I'd check this kind of attitude before entering graduate school, partly because your posts, I have to agree, are reading in a rather elitist way. And particularly because I know you want to go into English, and I think you might find that in many circles (perhaps not in the most conservative ones), you're going to find a rejection of prescriptive grammar. The NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) released a position statement on students' right to their own languages back in the 70s: http://www.ncte.org/...CC/NewSRTOL.pdf

I'm going to take this opportunity to jump onto a critical soapbox: Languages are picked up through osmosis by those around us, and speakers from differing social, economic, and cultural groups in the U.S. all tend to learn different ways of speaking. The problem with the idea of a hegemonic "standard" American English is that (a) it doesn't exist and ( it marginalizes other vernaculars and dialects (a particularly robust example being Black English; see also Smitherin's Talkin and Testifyin). These "other" vernaculars and dialects are usually those of periphery groups, and they're usually only seen as wrong because they don't conform to the myth of the One, True Grammar.

Think of it this way: if you heard everyone around you using "funnest" in conversation all your life (I know I hear plenty of people use it), you'd come to see it as an accepted part of speech. Further, say those around you understand what you mean when you use it, and you intuit a set of "rules" for using it (it denotes something is "the most fun"): you even realize that there are occasions when you can use it (chatting with friends) and occasions when it seems to be looked down upon (writing a paper). Why is this more "wrong" than operating within the rules of "correct" grammar? Deployed within the correct kinds of rhetorical situations, it isn't wrong at all. Just different.

Edited August 14, 2011 by runonsentence

[sollee]

feeling alright about it until I read pages 35-39 of the ETS Math review PDF.

Can anyone tell me if they saw coordinate graphs that were as complicated as this?

go to http://www.ets.org/g...ative_reasoning

coordinate equations of circles? uhh what?

Yeah, I had one question regarding circle coordinates on the Revised GRE.

And for the question I saw further down, I had virtually no fraction questions - frustrating for me, as they are the type I find exceptionally easy (I tutor 6th grade math) - but a lot of algebra, several graphs to interpret (not too challenging), and a good deal of functions. All in all I thought the math was fairly difficult, but my score range (final score to come in Nov.) was 700-800 (while I know that's nothing for a lot of you, I was expecting to do significantly worse) so who knows. Maybe I was just overthinking it all.

Edited August 14, 2011 by sollee

[ktel]

You do realize, I hope, that you're currently asking me to argue that if people should be allowed to use any word they please when speaking, they should also be able to make up new names for the basic numbers if they feel like it. Why should "five" mean 5? Why can't "blam" mean 5? And I don't use a calculator for every math problem I have to do during everyday life. Though I'm not sure why it would be so offensive if I did....

That is quite obviously not what I'm asking you to argue. The word she used, while non-existent, was understandable. It is not equivalent to speaking gibberish, as you imply.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Ok, I can see that I'm just digging myself deeper with each attempt I make at trying to explain my views on all of this. I apologize for sounding elitist to you all; however, I'm saddened by the fact that my mere disinterest in advocating the use of various words which simply don't have reasons to be used has become a view considered "elitist." Because of the correct forms of many such words, which are equally easy both to say and to understand, the brain requiring no extra or deep thought to process them when holding a conversation, I'm just confused as to why there is a logical reason to say "funnest" instead of "most fun." They even have the same number of syllables!

"Fun" has been a word since at least 1699; there are no instances anywhere of its superlatives written using a suffix instead of a preceding quantifier. Someone, please explain to me what the motivation is behind disrupting over 300 years of usage that hasn't yet met significant reason to undergo any changes.

I suppose this will also sound like an elitist post. I don't intend to sound arrogant or elitist, but for the love of all things literary, why can't anyone see the value in upholding centuries of nuances developed within the English language that, as I said, haven't yet been deemed insufficient or able to be improved by the incorporation of any traditionally-incorrect form?

Think of it this way: if you heard everyone around you using "funnest" in conversation all your life (I know I hear plenty of people use it), you'd come to see it as an accepted part of speech. Further, say those around you understand what you mean when you use it, and you intuit a set of "rules" for using it (it denotes something is "the most fun"): you even realize that there are occasions when you can use it (chatting with friends) and occasions when it seems to be looked down upon (writing a paper). Why is this more "wrong" than operating within the rules of "correct" grammar? Deployed within the correct kinds of rhetorical situations, it isn't wrong at all. Just different

.

Your post, along with the rest of those written in opposition with the opinions expressed in mine, suggests that it is apparently elitist of someone (me) to choose to use only words found in the dictionary (even, specifically, the OED, which recently added OMG and LOL to its listings and includes every possible word that has ever been written down anywhere, even words now archaic or obscure or even considered incorrect by today's standards). I obviously don't use impeccable grammar during my own everyday conversational speech; but, once again, I simply can't see the point in allowing words like "funnest" to enter one's spoken vocabulary when one has no intention of using it in written work. Such an intention is motivated, obviously, by one's acknowledgment of the word's incorrectness and its likelihood to be frowned upon if read certainly by anyone serving on an adcom. There are colloquial ways of speaking that defy perfect grammar, in addition to national and regional dialects that use certain words, etc., in ways that, while technically incorrect, have often become a part of that country or area's unique way of speaking a specific language and are so domestically accepted and understood that they practically are existing words and phrases in the eyes (ears?) of the according populations, essentially "correct" as far as that substantial region or country is concerned.*

Runonsentence and everyone else, consider my point with only the OED in mind--forget about grammatical rules or traditional grammar usage temporarily. In regards to "funnest," specifically, the OED doesn't include it as a word. The OED is arguably one of the most authoritative dictionaries available (in my opinion the most authoritative, but that likely means no one else will agree with this at the rate I'm going). It is certainly the most comprehensive, and as I mentioned previously it works to add words as sketchy as LOL when they become unignorably frequent in the world's use of the English language (a quite obviously continuously-developing entity itself; rather a "language-in-progress," one might say).

Now, with the OED as the current single point of reference from which to work, someone needs to explain to me how any of what all of you are defending makes sense given the very existence of a dictionary. All of what you've each addressed comes down to an implied view of the dictionary itself as a useless tool. I am using "dictionary" specifically as a collection of the legitimate words that currently exist in the English language and which is always expanding to encompass new developments that occur. I REALLY don't want to get responses that say I'm absurd for claiming everyone here doesn't see a point in the dictionary because without one, "where would people find the meanings of words?"

Just don't call me an elitist for asking you to think about the OED, or whatever your preferred dictionary, as the English language's only accepted compilation of existing words. Because the majority of you seem to agree that there is no problem with using nonexistent (as far as dictionaries are concerned) words as long as they're avoided in written work, the majority of you thus seem to posit that the words featured in dictionaries are mere "suggestions" for how to speak English properly or correctly. That makes them pretty useless in terms of their authoritative ability to determine what words don't qualify as "existing" in the current list of English words. Making their ability, therefore, to determine the meaning of these questionable suggestions of words likewise pretty useless.

Go ahead and accuse of me of hyperbolic hypothesizing. I just admitted to doing that, but feel that I really want to make someone understand where I'm coming from at LEAST in regards to "funnest" versus "most fun."

*Consider, for instance, the southeastern population's tendency to use the verb "to fix" as a word preceding an additional verb, and which indicates one's intention to undertake the verb following it "soon," though depending on where in the region it's said and who is saying it, the literal nature of "soon" varies. (Ex:) "I'm fixin' to go to the store once I get some gas,"; "I'm going to make the spaghetti, but I'm fixin' to put the dishes in the dishwasher first."

Edited August 15, 2011 by ThePoorHangedFool

[kaykaykay]

My preferred dictionary is the urban dictionary. There are already 3 definitions there for the word "funnest" there, written probably by native English speakers.

btw I always make up words in my own language to make everyone laugh.I sometimes do that in writing too to make my prose more interesting. I do not dare to do this in English bc. I am afraid that people would think that my English is not good enough, but sometimes I want to do it very badly. Playing with words is an amazing intellectual activity, fun for the creator and the listener. Language is an evolution: the things that people like and use will survive.

As for the math it is ok if you think that you have other strengths than math and fractions, but you can revise the math and forget about it afterwards.

Edited August 15, 2011 by kalapocska