Question regarding ETS Practice Test Score

[CQE]

I just took the practice test offered in ETS' "Official Guide to the GRE Revised General Test".

On page 351 of the book, a score conversion table is shown. My raw score for Verbal was 34/50 and 32/50 for QR. According to the table, that is a verbal scaled range of 580-680 (158-165 range on new scale) and a QR scaled range of 700-800 (155-166 on new scale).

So, when converting this range from the old scoring system to the new scoring system, what value should I take from such a large range?

For instance, should I split the difference and say I got a 630 on verbal and a 750 on QR? Or should I say 600 and 720? 580 and 700? With a 100 point range, I'm not sure which score I should look at when trying to convert to the 130-170 scale.

Thanks in advance.

- BF

[IOPsych3927]

I did not take the paper ETS practice test, but I did take the PowerPrep (version 1.0) test and got a similarly large range (V: 680-780, Q: 730-800).

The way you choose to interpret your range is a matter of personal preference, but I like to play it safe and estimate my new score on the lowest values in both of those ranges (so in your case, I would estimate my verbal as a 158 and my quantitative as a 155). I know it's not very generous, but I find that mentally "lowballing" my own scores makes me work harder. But if you find that discouraging, I would say the best method is to split the difference and calculate your score squarely in the middle of both ranges.

Good luck!

[chaetzli]

These tests are not always very accurate - especially since they only indicate a range. I'd recommend that you take the free practice test offered by Princeton Review: http://www.princetonreview.com/grad/free-gre-practice-test.aspx

You will receive a precise score on the new scale (and in my case it was very accurate -> 1point difference to the actual test)

[CQE]

Thanks, swiss.

Does the PowerPrep II software provide you with a precise score? Or just a range?

I was about to take it here in a few, but I'll opt to take PRs over it if it does NOT give a precise score.

I'm going to take both anyway, so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. However, I take my test this coming Monday...meaning I'd like a precise measure of where I'm at right now.

[CQE]

Not sure what the problem is, but PRs practice content isn't working for me.

I'm trying to open up the practice test, but it's simply not responding when I click on the link. I thought PR might've pulled an ETS and chose not to make their software compatible with Macs.

However, I tried using my girlfriend's laptop since it has Windows and it's still not working when I click on the practice test link.

I've already registered and enrolled for the free PT. The online material even launches the javascript window, but when I try to click "Revised GRE Test 6" I simply get no response.

[alf10087]

Maybe it has the Java Applets blocked.

I didn't try on that one, but on the tests you make when you buy PR's book, that's usually the problem I had. When solved, it started working.

Try it with another browser of something.

Btw I have a Mac (actually in my computer it worked with Safari and Chrome).

[TED1213]

Does the PowerPrep II software provide you with a precise score? Or just a range?

PowerPrep II software provides you with a precise score after the practice test. I took the second practice test a couple of days before my actual test and found my scores to be very similar.

[1Q84]

Note that Manhattan Prep also offers a free practice test on their website. Check it out. Their results aren't quite as detailed as I would like, either, but they break things down pretty well by section.

[pemdas]

These tests are not always very accurate - especially since they only indicate a range. I'd recommend that you take the free practice test offered by Princeton Review: http://www.princeton...ctice-test.aspx

You will receive a precise score on the new scale (and in my case it was very accurate -> 1point difference to the actual test)

Maryana

don't take PR online test. It's not to say bad, it's just muddy. I have come to this conclusion after testing myself with PR online MST. Nothing to be made use of this test. My actual GRE score was above 160 for math and the verbal score was higher that that I received in PR. I tested in June. I will retake my exam.

It's not that PR is harder or they score you lower than actual exam. I have throughly analyzed PR's MST questions (I am in a good shape now as my retake is in two days) and found three questions in Math not formulated precisely for their answer to match what the questions were asking. Also I had very strange sequence of sections in MST 1. Started off with verbal and ended with two quants

verbal-quant-verbal-quant-quant

the experimental quant section contained only two topic questions - numer theory and algebra. Three of the questions were totally moron-like and for one question I saw not image on screen (QC entry) but file names - some tb.abracadabra.image file 1 and 2

don't take PR to waste your time.

Edited August 7, 2012 by pemdas

[CQE]

Thanks for the help guys.

I scored a 157 in QR and 154 in verbal on the Kaplan practice test I just finished taking. I feel pretty terrible about it, to say the least. I know those scores are relatively good for me since I'm applying to Master's of Education programs, but I really want 160+ in both sections so that I'm well above the average scores of all the top GSOEs.

Yesterday's practice test I would've been around 158-160 in verbal and 155-156 in QR.

With only about 5.5 or so days left to study, it looks as though my chance to crack 160 in both categories is getting smaller by the second.

Edited August 7, 2012 by BlazerFalcon

[CQE]

I didn't get a good night's rest last night - maybe only about 3 hours?

Needless to say, I'm pretty exhausted right about now. At the same time, my score today was pretty similar to yesterday's score, so I shouldn't act as if being tired was a huge blow to my score.

With 5 days left, I really need to hit vocabulary hard, as that's my biggest weakness with respect to verbal. I'm thinking of reviewing about 200 words a day over the next 5 days. I know I'm not going to remember 1,000 words by cramming, but if I can remember even half of them I'm sure it'll help.

As far as math goes, I think the best thing for me to do is to just focus on one thing at a time as opposed to doing a practice set of 20 problems and reviewing my answers afterwards. For instance, say I work on exponents/roots only until I become extremely proficient at them, then move on to probability or word problems until I become equally skilled at those as well.

Math, like many things, is all about repetition, so I think the reason I'm not making the kind of improvements I want is because I'm doing one geometry problem here, one statistics problem there, and so on and so forth. So while I am getting in a little work with each type of problem every day, I'm not really becoming great at any one thing; therefore, I'm just mediocre at about everything math related (with the exception of data analysis; I pretty much get all of those correct).

What do you all think about that strategy?

200 words a day for the next 5 days, as well as focusing on 2 categories of math per day (exponents/roots one day, geometry/probability the next, etc.) so that I can become more proficient in each area by solely focusing on it and it only until finally becoming comfortable with that particular type of problem.

Edited August 7, 2012 by BlazerFalcon

[alf10087]

My advice would be to take it easy for now. 5 days is not too much time to make huge improvements.

Just try to review some of the questions you seem to be constantly failing and learn some words, but don't cram your mind as it will totally disrupt your ability to excel at the real test.

I haven't made the test yet (September 14th is my date, and I'm studying obsessively to say the least) but from what I've read in this forum the practice tests may lower your score in order to lower your expectations.

Don't let yourself be conditioned by practice tests.

[CQE]

It seems as though my math has regressed significantly, which makes absolutely ZERO sense.

At the beginning of last week, I finished all of the tests in Kaplan's 2011 book/CD and was scoring 32+ out of 40 consistently. On the final practice test, I scored 35/40, which is around a 159-160.

Today I went 28/40.

That's after watching Magoosh vids out the ass and doing 350+ problems.

I have to do something, though. Sitting on my hands for the next 5 days will not improve matters.

[alf10087]

5 wrong and 159-160? Where did you get that?

I had 34/40Q on PR's online test and gave me a score of 164.

[CQE]

5 wrong and 159-160? Where did you get that?

I had 34/40Q on PR's online test and gave me a score of 164.

Well, since Kaplan doesn't provide a scoring chart along with their book, I calculated the percent of 35/40 (87.5%). So, I was able to come across a scoring chart for the old GRE in which your raw score out of 50 tells you what you got (I converted 35/40 into the equivalent out of 50 questions, which is 42-43 correct - which, according to ETS' scoring chart, is a 750-800). From there, I looked at a conversion chart from the old GRE to the new GRE, and thus how I found 159-160. I assumed my score was closer to 750 when looking up my conversion to the new scoring system, as I've found that the "new" score tends to be more on par with the bottom-end of the range given on the "old" scoring system.

Edited August 8, 2012 by BlazerFalcon

[alf10087]

Check this out:

http://www.princetonreview.com/uploadedImages/Sitemap/Home_Page/Graduate_Hub/GRE_Conc_Table/concordance_table.jpg

[CQE]

Check this out:

http://www.princeton...dance_table.jpg

Not sure how PR gave you a 164 for a 34/40, then. If you convert my 35/40 to 43-44/50, then that translates to a 155-156 using the chart you just gave me. Therefore, your 34/40 would be around the same area as mine (using the chart you provided).

Hopefully a 34-35 does net me a 164, though, LOL.

[CQE]

The other way of looking at it is by doing what I originally did by converting 35/40 to 43-44/50, taking note of what that translates to on the old scale (750-800 range), and then seeing where 750-760 puts me at on the chart you linked me to.

That, too, puts me at around 160.

Edited August 8, 2012 by BlazerFalcon

[CQE]

Here's another scoring chart I just found, with respect to QR, that is more on par with your 34/40 being a 164.

http://aegedu.com/blog/gre-quantitative-scores-%E2%80%94-converting-raw-score-scaled-score-percentile-rank/

[CQE]

Anyone else (in addition to swisschocolate) have any evidence that their Princeton Review score was on par with the real thing?

If so, the scoring chart I linked in my last post would appear to be one of the more precise scoring charts available.

[alf10087]

It seems that you're right. Although, there are many diverging ways to calculate the scores that seem to be getting different results.

Maybe what PR does is this: If the score goes from 130 to 170, that means the range is 40. So they basically add the score you get from 40 questions to 130 (in my case: 34/40 + 130 = 34 +164 = 164).

In your case, with 5 wrong questions it would be 165 with this measurement. I think it makes sense even though it is pretty basic, but I'm not sure if it's what ETS actually does.

[alf10087]

Check this out:

On my first test on PR I got a 154 (I totally ignored the score because I was stuck on a question for 10 minutes and totally ignored the last 5 which I got wrong). But the important part is this:

I missed 14 questions out of 40. With the method I mentioned in the last post, that should be a 156 (which coincides with that aegedu link you posted), but PR gave me a lower score.

I'm all confused now.

Edited August 8, 2012 by alf10087

[CQE]

I absolutely HAVE to think that the aegedu link is closest to accurate of all that I've looked at thus far.

To me, it does not logically make sense for a 35/40 to only result in a 159-160. The drop off, or curve, is too much, in my opinion.

I mean, these are difficult questions and to only miss 5 is pretty solid considering these questions are more logic-based and "tricky" than actually being "hard" with respect to the actual MATH behind the problems.

Even if you know every rule there is to know, math wise, it is likely you're going to get tripped up 3, 4, or 5 times due to the trickiness of the questions. Therefore, I would HAVE to think that a 34 or 35 out of 40 is closer to a 164 than 159.

Edited August 8, 2012 by BlazerFalcon

[CQE]

.

Edited August 8, 2012 by BlazerFalcon

[alf10087]

I absolutely HAVE to think that the aegedu link is closest to accurate of all that I've looked at thus far.

To me, it does not logically make sense for a 35/40 to only result in a 159-160. The drop off, or curve, is too much, in my opinion.

I mean, these are difficult questions and to only miss 5 is pretty solid considering these questions are more logic-based and "tricky" than actually being "hard" with respect to the actual MATH behind the problems.

Even if you know every rule there is to know, math wise, it is likely you're going to get tripped up 3, 4, or 5 times due to the trickiness of the questions. Therefore, I would HAVE to think that a 34 or 35 out of 40 is closer to a 164 than 159.

My personal ratio is this: 3-4 questions (out of 40) I really have trouble with and I get wrong, and maybe 1-2 where I make a stupid mistake even though I managed to solve it (I answer something different or divide 2/2 and put 2, you know, the basic math mistakes). That usually gives me a range between 4-6 questions wrong.

The 1-2 of stupid mistakes is a matter of being more careful, and the 2-3 harder ones are just a matter of practicing a lot and learn how to solve them. Chances are, that if you learn how to solve them on every practice test, you will be able to nail them on the actual test if they come up. For example, in those PR tests, I always missed factorial questions (Permutations and Combinations) but right now I'm confident I won't miss any of those, so the ratio diminishes; the same on those "how much time will it take A and B combined to do C" which I used to miss, and thanks to Kaplan now I know how to handle them easily.