How long should I study based on my prep score?

[Willows]

Let me be clear: I have done absolutely zero prep. I decided to just waltz into a prep test to assess the situation, particularly regarding quantitative for me. My verbal score was 157, quantitative was 147 (ouch).

Based on this, obviously I need to step up my game in regards to quant. I haven't taken a math course in years (sans social statistics), so I sort of expected this. I was honestly expecting a bit higher on the verbal, but I did take the test in the middle of the night on a whim.

In short, do you think 1-2 months is adequate time to study to boost these abysmal scores? Quite frankly, I never see myself with a ridiculously high quant score. I think I can possibly hit 160 with a fair amount of diligence. Clearly, I'm in the social sciences, so hitting quant out of the ballpark isn't my goal. I would really like to hit 160, though. Also, I'd like to get my verbal up about 5-6 points.

[CQE]

Here's what I said a few days ago about studying for QR:

I studied about 5 weeks for the GRE. It was sort of spur of the moment that I decided to take it, so I hadn't done a lot of research on it beforehand (as far as best books, good study strategies, etc.).

I'm a pretty calculated person, but because I wasn't able to do my due diligence this time around, I kind of went into the GRE head first. Because of this, I ended up going with a similar strategy that I used for the ACT. That particular strategy consisted of doing countless practice tests from the "best" (as deemed by both myself and the consensus on collegeconfidential) resources available and reviewing BOTH right/wrong answers following each timed practice test.

However, I don't think you can do that with the GRE, at least not initially.

The GRE has too many types of tricks to get you with no matter what problem type we're talking about. With QR, I recommend using a site like Magoosh or some other resource to learn the fundamentals of each and every type of math problem. From there, do countless problems on different problem types (like exponents, for example) until you have "mastered" it to the point that you're getting at least 8 or 9 out of every 10 of that specific problem-type right. Then, move on to the next one. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

After you have become proficient at each of these problem types, I would then advise that you begin taking full-length, timed QR practice sets and reviewing both right and wrong answers after doing so to reinforce what you already know and to learn from your mistakes.

If you go into it like I did and think you just need to take countless PTs, you will get nowhere and see only minimal improvement because you're not doing enough of any one type of problem to become proficient in it. You may take 4 practice sets, but you might only do 7 or 8 exponential problems. That's not enough to be "great" at any one area. Such a strategy will only make you "mediocre" at any one area because you're not doing enough practice with respect to that type of problem.

As far as Verbal goes, that's something that has to be improved over the long term to see a drastic score increase. You could probably study a few thousand words over, say, an 8-week period and do well on the vocabulary parts of the sets. But, if reading comprehension is what you have issues with, then you are unlikely to make significant strides in a short time period. That kind of thing takes a lot of time to improve upon, in my opinion.

In sum, I definitely recommend Magoosh. Spend a day or two by focusing entirely on one "type" of QR problem. Magoosh has lesson videos that help establish a foundation in all areas of QR, and they also have video explanations for each of the 493 QR problems they provide to you.

Therefore, watch all of the videos on, say, "exponents" (or "roots", or "coordinate geometry", etc.) first. From there, go to the practice page and check only the "exponents" box so you can work on only exponential problems.

After you've done all of those and watched/reviewed your answers by way of the video or text explanations, go on to the next problem "type", whether it be roots, arithmetic, geometry, etc.

Once you've established a strong base in all areas of QR, I then suggest taking time-practice tests and thorougly reviewing your answers (both right/wrong) afterwards. You may then fine you still are weak in a particular area or two, so try and isolate that weakness and focus on it through repetition. Do another 20, 30, or even 50 problems of that type by using another resource.

If you use this method, please let me know how much you improve either by PM or posting in this thread.

[amlobo]

If you are not working or in school, I think one month is adequate time to prep. If you have a full-time job or are a full-time student, two months should be OK. I work full-time, and I studied for the GRE for two months before taking it. I was able to raise both scores about 6 points. However, I started out pretty high in math because it was something that just stuck in my brain for some reason... so I would think someone with more room for improvement could bring his score up more. I think Quant is an area where you have the best chance of improving because it requires concrete knowledge moreso than Verbal.

The previous poster is correct in that you need to learn the math before you can really take practice tests effectively. After my first practice test, I knew there were a few areas that I really needed to learn and some that I didn't need to spend time on. So, I taught myself those topics and did a lot of practice problems, then started taking more practice tests. Reading the explanations of the answers was really the best thing for me because it taught me how to do the problems better than the generic lessons.

I am a social sciences person too, and I would think you need at least "above average" on the quant to be a candidate for top PhD programs (that would be something above 150). If you get your verbal into the 160s, a mid 150s or higher on quant will be sufficient for most programs.

[amlobo]

I wanted to score high on the GRE because I've been out of undergrad for over 6 years and had a 3.4 GPA (though from a top 20 school). So, I felt like I needed to compensate to be able to apply to top PhD programs. My goal was above 90th percentile for each section, and I was able to get there by the time I took the real thing.

If you get in the 160s on Verbal, I don't think a Quant in the 150s will hurt you. The 160s in Verbal will work to your advantage. I think a Quant in the 150s is neutral in your situation. I feel like Quant doesn't hurt you so much in social sciences, but if you score highly, it can definitely help. The unknown state school should not be held against you. Of course, adcomms take an institution's reputation for grade inflation into account, but going to an "unknown" school will not prevent you from getting into a "known" grad school. It also makes a difference whether you are applying to Master's or PhD programs since Master's are less selective. Many schools will post their average GRE scores online, so maybe check out the programs you're interested in. I felt like I needed to put my GRE far above the averages to balance out the GPA being far below, ha. We'll see if that works...

[Shostakovich]

One thing to remember is that the scaled scores are a bit misleading. A 160Q might not seem "super high" but it actually equates to a 760 on the old scale, and a lot of Sciences/Engineering majors applying to decent programs in that field fall in that range so it could be a "super high" score in social sciences or humanities, for example. also a lot of practice tests dont do a great job of giving out accurate scores, from what I've seen the PowerPrep software by ETS and Kaplan's 5 online exams that come with purchasing the book have been closest to what I scored on the real thing.

Also how long to study and how much you will improve varies greatly. I personally studied for about 2 months and ended up with about the same score that i was getting on like all of my practice tests as of like 1 week of studying for the exam and until i actually took the exam. but yeah i guess just make sure the practice scores are fairly accurate then work from there, from what i heard magoosh will help with the basics of just about every topic covered on the GRE and ETS/Kaplan do the best job of putting out material the most similar to the actual thing. Good luck!

[amlobo]

One thing to remember is that the scaled scores are a bit misleading. A 160Q might not seem "super high" but it actually equates to a 760 on the old scale, and a lot of Sciences/Engineering majors applying to decent programs in that field fall in that range so it could be a "super high" score in social sciences or humanities, for example.

^This. I got the same "score" on verbal and quant, but here's the weird thing: my verbal percentile was 3% higher than my quant... and on the old scale, I would have maxed out the quant, but gotten in the high 600s on verbal. Looking at my scores, they are the same number, but obviously they mean very different things.

The ETS website has some charts that are really helpful, if you haven't looked at them yet. One has the percentiles for the scaled scores on each portion of the test (http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table1a.pdf), and another actually has them broken down by intended field of study (http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf). You can see how other people applying for Sociology programs have done. For quant, the Sociology average is a 148. So, your score really isn't as "ouch" as you might think

[Willows]

Thank you all for replying! I'm definitely feeling a bit better about things. Magoosh is still kicking my ass in quant, but I do feel like I'm improving. It raises my expected score a tiny bit higher in quant every day.

The ETS website has some charts that are really helpful, if you haven't looked at them yet. One has the percentiles for the scaled scores on each portion of the test (http://www.ets.org/s...ide_table1a.pdf), and another actually has them broken down by intended field of study (http://www.ets.org/s...uide_table4.pdf). You can see how other people applying for Sociology programs have done. For quant, the Sociology average is a 148. So, your score really isn't as "ouch" as you might think

True! I just read a post from a year or so ago about some Vanderbilt professor being really haughty regarding the quant score. I realize I'll continue using social stats through my research, but I really don't think my geometry skills (or lack thereof), which I haven't used in what - 8 years?, should be the reason I'm held back from some of my top choices.