Question about Quant sections

[objectivityofcontradiction]

So I've heard a few different things about how to approach the math sections. I'm wondering first of all if the majority of the problems can be completed on the calculator, w/o using scratch paper? This is what I've been told. This ties into my next question: a few friends of mine who have taken the test informed me that what's key about the Math section (this probably goes for verbal too) is to not spend too much time on any one problem.

I'm terrible at math.. and in reviewing for the test have only been confusing myself more, though I am trying to fight through it and prepare myself the best I can. Just wondering if there are any "real" strategies out their for dealing with the quantitative section for those of us who are just flat out bad at math. I'm applying to Philosophy Masters programs in the fall of 2013 and am just hoping to bang my writing and verbal scores straight out of the park to complement what I'm sure will be a below avg math score.

[puddle]

The first time I took the math section (in an at-home practice test), I got less than 500. When I took the test for real 6 weeks later, I got 790 on the quant section. The first step is to tell yourself that it can be done. You also should know that being "bad at math" or even (as was the case with me) "good at math" is not a predictor of your performance on this test. I could run multivariate regressions, do mathematic proofs, had taken some college level calculus and statistics classes... but I could not multiply 8 by 7 without really thinking about it. Trust me, being "bad at math" is not a hindrance to your performance on this section. On the other hand, doing well on the GRE quant may signal to graduate schools that you have superior problem solving abilities (and in the case of Philosophy, that you are prepared to do some logic at the graduate level... though I am assuming that this is not your focus).

Essentially what the GRE requires is that you use simple skills and logical reasoning to decide how to solve "trick questions". This means that the tests the same level of "skill" as an 8th grade mathematics exam but requires a much higher level of problem solving ability (i.e. which of the basic techniques do I need to use in order to answer this question).

With that in mind, I suggest that you become very familiar with the basic building blocks first as this will help you solve problems more quickly. By this I mean memorizing the rules for manipulating exponents, working with fractions, geometry patterns, and even basic multiplication and division.

Once you have memorized the basic rules, you should do a whole bunch of problems to practice your basic skills and, more importantly, to get a better sense for how the wording of particular questions indicates the type of skill you will need to use to solve the problem.

After you have memorized for speed and practiced for familiarity, it is absolutely vital that you trust in your preparation on test-day. Do NOT tell yourself that you are bad at math. Frankly, it is immaterial. Instead, tell yourself that you are more than prepared for the GRE Quant section.

So, my "real" strategy for performing well on this section is:

MEMORIZE - for speed

PRACTICE - for familiarity

and BE CONFIDENT - for sanity

[objectivityofcontradiction]

Thanks a lot.

I've always been ok at the sort of math that I've run into in my prep so far, but it's been five plus years since I've done any math whatsoever and even in high school, though I was always able to complete the problems on the exams, I was an extremely slow test taker when it came to math. It's interesting what you say about the test testing a very specific and advanced type of problem solving ability because of course I've recognize this and am able to apply it to the verbal sections very well, but as soon as its numbers and symbols, my brain turns off and I can't quite seem to logic-my-way through the math sections because the type of problem solving, though I suppose in theory it is very similar between the V and Q sections, is miles apart in my mind.

[puddle]

Thanks a lot.

I've always been ok at the sort of math that I've run into in my prep so far, but it's been five plus years since I've done any math whatsoever and even in high school, though I was always able to complete the problems on the exams, I was an extremely slow test taker when it came to math. It's interesting what you say about the test testing a very specific and advanced type of problem solving ability because of course I've recognize this and am able to apply it to the verbal sections very well, but as soon as its numbers and symbols, my brain turns off and I can't quite seem to logic-my-way through the math sections because the type of problem solving, though I suppose in theory it is very similar between the V and Q sections, is miles apart in my mind.

This is why I suggest that you memorize the building blocks for these questions first (i.e. try doing the exercises in the ETS practice book -- if you have not purchased this yet, it is a good buy). Trust me, the more familiar you are with basic steps, the more likely you are to be able to solve the problems systematically.

[coonskee]

A man is stopped by a tourist on the streets of NYC. "Excuse me sir, how do you get to Carnegie Hall?"

The man responds, "Practice, practice, practice."

But seriously: I agree with the above - the quant section isn't hard math, it's just teaching yourself another way of looking at problems. If you have trouble with it (i.e. you're too slow answering questions, meaning you're not seeing the easy ways to solve the problems), spend time doing practice problems. Do them all the time. In my case, I kept my practice book next to me on my bench. 2min incubation time in a protocol? Practice question. Lunch break? Practice questions. etc.

And from what I recall, I avoided using a calculator unless there was math I thought I couldn't do in my head without making a possible mistake. I think that you shouls use as much scratch paper as possible as it'll stop you form making silly mistakes - not a lot of writing, but get the bare bones of the problem on the paper. That's just my opinion though.

Edited March 6, 2012 by coonskee