The GRE sucks big time really

[iamgenius]

I don't know how to start this thread, but I have to get this out of my heart, and sorry for the title but I'm pissed.

 

I decided to take the GRE test because some of the grad schools I'm considering require it. I'm an engineering major so many of the schools don't care too much about the AW and verbal scores. They are mainly cocerned with Quan score. That's good for me because I'm not a native speaker, and I can just skip long hours of preperation for the the two sections which will naturaly be harder for me. So, my main concern is the Quantitative section which is fine because I'm a math lover. I always got an A during school years and also in all calculas courses I took during college. There was no time, and I registered for the earliest test I found which was only about 8 days ahead. I began to familirize myself with the test and did a review on math. I took the test and got 153 in the Quan part even though I left out about 6 questions because of time. It was little less than what was required(155), and I didn't feel bad because I only spent a week preparing and skipping 6 questions isn't little. I didn't like the test design and I don't see how it can measure your competance in math. I really thought it was stupid.

 

 

Anyways, I had to skip a semester and I planned on taking the test again with more studying this time thinking that with more preperation and time control I'll definetaly get the score I need. And so it happened. I kept on studying for about 3 weeks before taking the exam again and here is how it all went:

 

I didn't really learn a new thing or gain a new rule because I just remember them all mostly. It is all high school or less math. The rules are too easy for me to understand and use. Using ETS powerprep tool or whatever it is called, I got 18 out of 20 in both Quan sections in the untimed test. However, in the timed one I got 156 in the Quan section and I had to leave out 5 questions because time ran out. This was the night before the test! I went to take the test the next day and didn't do very well in the first quan section(felt like I missed quarter of the questions), but I felt like I answered all the 20 questions in the next quan part correctly. I felt like my score will be 159( I only left out one question). To my surprise, my unofficial quan score came out to be 153 again !!!

 

I was so pissed and I felt like I wasted my time and money on this stupid test. And here is why I think so:

 

1- The rules and concepts you are tested on are just too easy and too basic, but the questions are NOT. The questions are more like puzzles than actuall questions that tells the whether you understood the rule or not. In many cases, the only way to really know the answer is to do substitution or plug in all available answers. It is a very tedious process and serves no pupose and can only exist in a pure mathmatical setting.

 

2- There is NO time. Yes, time is just not enough. Long computations are often required to know the answer, and you merely have one and a half minute for each question. If you do commit a human error, then that's it for you. If you do the computation again, you will get the answer right, but you will steal from the time allocated for the rest of the questions and you will be running out of time. And human errors are very likely to happen with that very useless stupid unpractical on screen calculator. I frankly don't see the reason why an actuall scientific calculator is allowed!!! They just want you to lose more time.

 

3- Some questions are so tricky that you have to consider the very unexpected to solve them correctly.

 

4- The data analysis problems are a killer. They need more time. I mean, you will need some time to comprehend the tables present in front of you, and in spite of that, they don't have a problem asking you how much more did company A sales precentage increase from 2010 to 2012 compared to company B sales percentage increase from 2009 to 2013.

 

1/n^2            or            1/(n+2)^-2                     and n < 0        How can you know which one is larger in one minute? It is obvious that it is a double case and the answer is that it can't be determined from the info given, BUT you need time to reach this conclusion.

 

The GRE quan score doesn't tell how much you understand math concepts....It just tells how well you did in that particular test day or how much focused you were during the test or maybe how fast you are with numbers. Luck does play a role also!

 

Me, I didn't have problems solving integration and differentiation problems, so how can I have a problem with simple algebra and arithmetic? It it way the test is designed. And yes, I think it is designed to make you think that you are stupid. I'm not really concerned about it, but if we take the verbal section for example, I just don't see why some words that are very rarely used (and maybe are not present in some dictionaries ) are common in there.

 

I seriously don't see how this test can gauge your readiness for a grad school.

 

I'm sorry if I'm bashing, but that's how I really feel. Now, I don't know if I should waste more time and money on this test and try it one more time or just forget all about it and look for good universities that don't require it. Sometimes I think that studying for some CompTia or Cisco certificates will be much more worth it than learning how to solve two simultaneous equation in 2 seconds.

 

I just don't know, but I feel better now because I got this out of my chest.

 

And sorry for the language, I did this quickly.

Edited June 23, 2013 by iamgenius

[Arcanen]

The GRE is awful.There's no doubt about that, it is the nature of standardised tests. I could write pages about how bad the GRE is and how it shouldn't be used in admissions.

 

Your issue, though, is that you haven't prepared in the correct manner. The GRE is extremely trainable. The time factor is an issue to begin with, but for anyone who self-describes as a "math lover", it shouldn't be too difficult to become quick enough to finish with time to spare. There are two parts to this.

 

The first is that you should be practicing from the test prep books, not just in doing the questions provided, but also in going over the theory. The "rules and concepts are too basic and easy" you say, but this shows that you don't really "get" the GRE. You have fallen into a trap. The extremely basic nature of the concepts tested, and your own math loving background mean that you've likely told yourself "I don't need to learn these concepts again, I already know how to do these questions". HOWEVER, the reason you take so long is partly because you're using your own methods. There are methods in the Kaplan/Princeton/Manhattan etc books that you should be learning and using during the tests. Now, these methods often aren't intuitive and have applicability to only a small range of problems (which is why you've never used them before, and will likely never use them again after the GRE)... the small range of problems the appear on the GRE. Useless though they may be for mathematics and problem solving in general, they sure as hell are faster when it comes to (and only to!) the GRE. Learn these methods, and the speed at which you complete questions on the GRE will increase dramatically.

 

The second is that you're shooting yourself in the foot by practicing without the timer. You complain about how much better you do when you take untimed tests. DOESN'T MATTER. The GRE is timed, and so your practice should be timed. Always (once you're past the stage of learning the techniques mentioned above and are just doing the questions for practice). Buy the Kaplan book that gives you access to thousands of practice questions that can be auto formatted into hundreds of timed tests, do the cheap online Barron GRE practice that automatically generates timed question sets in your weakest and slowest areas. Whatever. But always practice with the timer. I mean, you've clearly realised that the GRE tests the ability to stay calm under pressure and do work at at as fast a pace as possible (a pace I'd suggest that isn't actually conducive to quality work in either graduate school or industry), rather than concepts. Yet you continue to practice concepts rather than practicing your speed.

 

I'd also be extremely wary about the 155 quant score "requirement". 155 is an exceptionally low score for any decent program in a STEM field. If it's just a minimum required, you'll likely need to do much better (165+) to have a decent chance of admission. The 155 might just mean that it's the lowest score of someone they've admitted, likely because that person was exceptional in some other way. They also probably just use it as a level to bin applications below that line without reading them. Sure as hell doesn't mean that a 155 is likely to be admitted.

 

If 155 is actually the level expected in the programs you're looking at, I would suggest you stay far far away from those programs.

[iamgenius]

The GRE is awful.There's no doubt about that, it is the nature of standardised tests. I could write pages about how bad the GRE is and how it shouldn't be used in admissions.

 

Your issue, though, is that you haven't prepared in the correct manner. The GRE is extremely trainable. The time factor is an issue to begin with, but for anyone who self-describes as a "math lover", it shouldn't be too difficult to become quick enough to finish with time to spare. There are two parts to this.

 

The first is that you should be practicing from the test prep books, not just in doing the questions provided, but also in going over the theory. The "rules and concepts are too basic and easy" you say, but this shows that you don't really "get" the GRE. You have fallen into a trap. The extremely basic nature of the concepts tested, and your own math loving background mean that you've likely told yourself "I don't need to learn these concepts again, I already know how to do these questions". HOWEVER, the reason you take so long is partly because you're using your own methods. There are methods in the Kaplan/Princeton/Manhattan etc books that you should be learning and using during the tests. Now, these methods often aren't intuitive and have applicability to only a small range of problems (which is why you've never used them before, and will likely never use them again after the GRE)... the small range of problems the appear on the GRE. Useless though they may be for mathematics and problem solving in general, they sure as hell are faster when it comes to (and only to!) the GRE. Learn these methods, and the speed at which you complete questions on the GRE will increase dramatically.

 

The second is that you're shooting yourself in the foot by practicing without the timer. You complain about how much better you do when you take untimed tests. DOESN'T MATTER. The GRE is timed, and so your practice should be timed. Always (once you're past the stage of learning the techniques mentioned above and are just doing the questions for practice). Buy the Kaplan book that gives you access to thousands of practice questions that can be auto formatted into hundreds of timed tests, do the cheap online Barron GRE practice that automatically generates timed question sets in your weakest and slowest areas. Whatever. But always practice with the timer. I mean, you've clearly realised that the GRE tests the ability to stay calm under pressure and do work at at as fast a pace as possible (a pace I'd suggest that isn't actually conducive to quality work in either graduate school or industry), rather than concepts. Yet you continue to practice concepts rather than practicing your speed.

 

I'd also be extremely wary about the 155 quant score "requirement". 155 is an exceptionally low score for any decent program in a STEM field. If it's just a minimum required, you'll likely need to do much better (165+) to have a decent chance of admission. The 155 might just mean that it's the lowest score of someone they've admitted, likely because that person was exceptional in some other way. They also probably just use it as a level to bin applications below that line without reading them. Sure as hell doesn't mean that a 155 is likely to be admitted.

 

If 155 is actually the level expected in the programs you're looking at, I would suggest you stay far far away from those programs.

Thanks for your input. I can see most of the points you mentioned. It even makes it more stupid to learn special ways of doing problems much quicker just for the test. That's why I'm hesitant to take it again. It is worthless. In how many years does the score expire?

 

So, what's the typical score required for a master of science in electrical engineering for example? I thought 155 is good.

[DerpTastic]

I agree with Arcanen, you should be looking for a score that is 165+ if you're in any STEM field. I personally think you can probably get away with anything above 160 (or about above 80%) and still be okay. 

 

The problem is that a good GRE quant score probably doesn't help an application all that much (as everyone in a STEM field is expected to score well), but a low quant score can send a red flag to schools you are applying to.

 

Even though it doesn't really benefit you to study for it, since the math is basic, I would review some tricks to use to go faster, and maybe find some resources that give examples of trick problems to look out for?

 

Edit:

I also agree about the GRE being awful! I took my first quant practice test and found them easy, but some were things I haven't seen in ages or if you didn't pay close enough attention to the exact wording you could easily get the wrong answer. Terribly annoying.

Edited June 24, 2013 by DerpTastic

[Arcanen]

Scores last for 5 years.

 

Though I certainly agree that the test is stupid, it unfortunately isn't worthless because it's part of the admissions process. The GRE isn't close to the most important part of your application (though it's importance varies by school and program), but it does come into play. In most situations, the GRE is mainly used as a filter to cull candidates down to a more manageable number. I (strongly) suspect a 155 would get you thrown in the bin in most (if not all) respectable EE masters programs. Schools say there are no minimums, because other factors are more important and can overide bad GRE scores, but the vast (vast) majority of successful applicants will have scores considerably higher than 155.

 

A 155 is the 64th percentile (i.e. a 155 is better than only 64% of people, including all the people taking the GRE to get into history programs, art programs, english programs, anything else with literally no math etc). Most good programs will expect successful applicants to have quant scores of the 90th percentile or higher. So you should be aiming for around 164 or above. This shouldn't dissuade you too much though, since the GRE is so trainable.

 

You're hesitant to take it again, but you don't really have much of a choice. A 153 will in all likelihood eliminate any chance of admission. A high score doesn't guarantee admission (people with 170 quant are rejected from top programs all the time), but a low score will all but guarantee rejection.Just pick up some GRE books and get cracking. I've heard Manhattan and Magoosh are good, though I personally used Kaplan, Princeton Review and the online Barron quiz system. Don't worry too much, you'll improve heaps if you study properly.

 

P.S. Don't forget to use ScoreSelect and only send your good scores when you get them. You do NOT want to be sending a bunch of scores in the 150 range, despite assurances that they'll take the best score or whatever.

[wildviolet]

The math by itself isn't hard, but the way the test is structured and timed makes it difficult. I kept practicing... and practicing... on test day, my strategy was to do all the questions I could do, skip the ones that I didn't get right away, go back later, and then during the last minute, I just guessed on all the remaining questions (maybe about four or so). I did pretty well for being in the social sciences (although I was a science undergrad major).

 

I agree that GRE scores won't help you--but they can hurt you if they are low and not help you with fellowships and scholarships. The GRE won't measure your intelligence or knowledge as much as the effort you put into learning the test, and I would say grad school is mostly about perseverance and endurance more than brute intelligence. So much goes into being a successful academic--good critical thinking skills, writing skills, speaking skills, people/social skills. In my (limited) experience thus far in grad school, lacking sufficient capability in any one of these seems to hurt your chances of obtaining a good academic position, if that's what you're looking for. If you just want to work (i.e., be a lab technician or research assistant), then you don't necessarily need the people skills, just the technical skills.

[iamgenius]

The GRE won't measure your intelligence or knowledge as much as the effort you put into learning the test

 

I like this sentense. It is something I wanted to say in my OP, and I couldn't have said it in a better way. I find it hard to motivate myself for something that doesn't have a real value. But, like somebody said, its value comes from the fact that you need it if you want to continue your studies. It is unfortunate that this is the truth. I guess if good schools that doesn't require GRE can be found, then it is safe to say that GRE is worthless in some sense.

 

Is it like most/all grad schools require it? OR many respected programs can be found without the need for it?

[Arezoo]

I was like this last year applying. I couldn't convince myself to study for it. I ended up not applying anywhere cause i believe i can be at the best university that i can possibly be, so i just tried to change my viewpoint towards the exam and everything changed. I'm really enjoying studying for it now, and i can say that as a non-native speaker of English,I've augmented my repertoire of words and skills which allows me to do better after starting my studies there. This is all i can tell you after delaying the whole application process for a year. 

[Arcanen]

I guess if good schools that doesn't require GRE can be found, then it is safe to say that GRE is worthless in some sense.

 

There really aren't many at all, in the US at least. If you want to get in to a good school in the US you will need the GRE (because you're going to apply to more than one, and the vast majority of them will require it; if one doesn't, all the others will).

[TakeruK]

As others said, I think you really prepared for the test the wrong way, and also approached the test the wrong way. I think standardised testing is not a good way of measuring intelligence at all -- instead, it measures how well you are able to take a test like the GRE. As many others have said similar things, I'll only mention a few things that I didn't see above:

 

The GRE Q is NOT a test of how well you know any type of math that is useful to a STEM field. Like you said, it's basically only high school math. Many people taking the test are not in STEM fields, so this is the only math they have learned. This is why I am confused that you think your schools will only care about the GRE Q scores. In fact, I would say that STEM schools don't care at all about GRE Q scores (unless they are really low) because the actual math you need to use in STEM research is not GRE Q math. It is solving differential equations, integration -- i.e calculus!

 

Just like the GRE V doesn't actually assess your command of the English language, the GRE Q doesn't really assess your knowledge of mathematics. Instead, I would argue that both the GRE Q and GRE V actually assess your ability to problem solve. That is, given a set of tools (for the Q, some basic mathematical knowledge and equations; for the V, your knowledge of grammar, sentence structure, and how to form an argument, etc.), the test is asking, can the applicant figure out this complex problem? 

 

In addition, I think the time limit actually hurts those who know more math because we will tend to overthink and overanalyse. For the problems like the example you gave, the strategy is to quickly identify the edge cases and consider them -- you don't need to do a full analysis. To do well in the test, you have to figure out what the tools that ETS expects you to use, and learn to use them -- you don't have to follow the guidebooks, which has some rules that are meant to teach someone without STEM backgrounds. If you don't like those rules, you can teach yourself strategies at solving GRE questions by practicing old questions with a time limit. Then, you can develop your own little book of rules and tools.

 

I think you also did not realise how the adaptive computer testing on the GRE works. Did you know that the questions change in difficulty based on how well you are doing? So, the first section of questions is very important -- it narrows down the range of scores you can achieve from all possible scores to a smaller (unknown size) range. If you did really well in the first part, then the second set of questions will be much tougher. If you didn't do as well, then the second set will be much easier. That is, your actual score is a combination of the number of questions you got right AND the difficulty of the questions assigned by the adaptive test algorithm. So, missing 1/4 of the questions in the first part and doing well in the second part does not mean you will do well overall. 

 

Trying to get the maximum score is not a good way to spend your energy/effort in getting into grad school but you do want to meet whatever published/unpublished cutoffs exists (that is, as wildviolet said, great scores won't help but bad scores will definitely hurt). So, you should definitely take the test again with all of the above tips in mind. Most STEM students score much higher than 64th percentile. Under the old scoring system, and the maximum score was 800, which was something like 94th percentile -- this means about 6% of the test takers get the maximum score on the GRE Q! I think the new system is better at distinguishing between the highest levels though. Also, unless you are sure that only the GRE Q scores matter, I would make sure you do well on the GRE V too. I personally would find it really strange that a STEM grad school would only care about the GRE Q.

Edited June 24, 2013 by TakeruK

[Arcanen]

 I personally would find it really strange that a STEM grad school would only care about the GRE Q

 

It's the norm. If you look at published average scores in top STEM programs, verbal scores are significantly lower. If one can get into top 10 programs with 60-70th percentile verbal scores, adcoms clearly don't care that much. This is partly because so many intended STEM majors are international students who may have English as a second language. Such students are at a considerable disadvantage despite their potentially high abilities. In such circumstances, programs DO care about someones command of English, but the TOEFL is viewed as a better alternative than the GRE which distinguishes between students by vocab testing obscure words that no one actually uses.

 

I think the new system is better at distinguishing between the highest levels though

 

Better, but still awful. The difference between 165 and 170 is a good nights sleep, a cold, the questions one happens to get on the day etc. The trainability of the GRE as well as the simplicity of the questions means that a major (if not the major) problem of the GRE is that it can't distinguish between sufficiently strong candidates. But this is why it's used in the initial stages to cut-out the dreggs, rather than to choose the successful applicants from those who remain, and I guess we should be thankful for that.

 

you don't have to follow the guidebooks, which has some rules that are meant to teach someone without STEM backgrounds. If you don't like those rules, you can teach yourself strategies at solving GRE questions by practicing old questions with a time limit. Then, you can develop your own little book of rules and tools.

 

Hmm, I'm not sure. It's too easy to tell yourself "I'm a STEM major, I don't need to learn these rules", when those rules are in fact considerably quicker than the methods one would use normally (though considerably less applicable in terms of problem scope) or would come up with oneself to do questions quickly. One issue is that the rules may not seem quicker at first, until one gains familiarity with applying them by rote. It certainly is possible that some methods you already use will be quicker for you, but I'd suggest a bit of caution when trying to figure out exactly what these things are.

[MadtownJacket]

I think you also did not realise how the adaptive computer testing on the GRE works. Did you know that the questions change in difficulty based on how well you are doing? So, the first section of questions is very important -- it narrows down the range of scores you can achieve from all possible scores to a smaller (unknown size) range. If you did really well in the first part, then the second set of questions will be much tougher. If you didn't do as well, then the second set will be much easier. That is, your actual score is a combination of the number of questions you got right AND the difficulty of the questions assigned by the adaptive test algorithm. So, missing 1/4 of the questions in the first part and doing well in the second part does not mean you will do well overall.

 

Wow, I wasn't aware of this.  Thanks for the heads up!  I'll be taking the GRE this Saturday, so hopefully it goes well.

[Arcanen]

Wow, I wasn't aware of this.  Thanks for the heads up!  I'll be taking the GRE this Saturday, so hopefully it goes well.

 

>_<

 

If you do not know this, you should not be sitting the GRE so soon.

[wildviolet]

I second TakeruK's suggestions. Put every ounce of effort you have into the first V and Q sections. I knew I had done fairly well on the first sections because both the second sections of V and Q seemed much harder.

 

As for whether respectable schools require GRE scores... generally, yes. My MS university was a local state university that was geared towards providing schoolteachers with routes to get a Master's degree. So they did not require GRE scores but they did require an interview with several faculty to ensure that we knew what we were getting ourselves into (thesis-only option) and that the program would be a good match for our needs and interests. I would not apply to any doctoral-granting institution that did not require the GRE--it would seem weird to me. Of course, the GRE is only one piece of your application, but I'd wager that it's a fairly important piece in terms of fellowships/scholarships. More importantly, the fact that you took the time to study for it shows that you're willing to do what's necessary to be successful in grad school, including studying for a test that doesn't really measure your math skills.

[iamgenius]

I appreciate all the responses. I actually do know about the adaptive computer testing. I read about it in the guide books. But, I didn't really realize that it is super important to answer the first questions correctly, although it was explicitly stated. One would think answering them all correctly will make the rest of the section super difficult, which is disadvantageous, right or no?

 

 

Anyways, I guess I'll take it again and give it one more try. Which one is better? Continuously studying and preparing for it till the test day(Everyday) OR studying from time to time(few days each month for 6 months for example) and then do the test once you feel that you have done enough practice? Don't get surprised about this question, it depends on how much my job will allow me to study and I have a family with kids.And yes, i'm only talking about the Q part here. In fact, if i'm planning to also increase my V and AW score, then that will take much longer because I'm not a native speaker and the nature of the GRE questions require a knowledge that has been accumulated over a long period of time(Years). AW and V scores can't be easily improved in a matter of few months, specially if you are a not a native speaker.

[Scarf in the wind]

Hello, what was your percentage rank on Quant with a score of 153?

 

Thank you.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Scarf in the wind

[TakeruK]

I appreciate all the responses. I actually do know about the adaptive computer testing. I read about it in the guide books. But, I didn't really realize that it is super important to answer the first questions correctly, although it was explicitly stated. One would think answering them all correctly will make the rest of the section super difficult, which is disadvantageous, right or no?

 

No, you should answer as many right as possible because doing poorly on the first part can limit your maximum score, basically. They don't publish the equations used to compute the scores but it's probably far better to get e.g. 80% of the hard questions right than 100% of the easy questions right. In either case, overthinking here is bad -- as with any test, always try to get as many correct as possible. I only brought up the adaptive testing component because it is faulty logic to think that getting e.g. 75% of the questions right in part 1 and 95% of the questions in part 2 is equal to 95% correct in part 1 and 75% correct in part 2. 

 

Anyways, I guess I'll take it again and give it one more try. Which one is better? Continuously studying and preparing for it till the test day(Everyday) OR studying from time to time(few days each month for 6 months for example) and then do the test once you feel that you have done enough practice? Don't get surprised about this question, it depends on how much my job will allow me to study and I have a family with kids.And yes, i'm only talking about the Q part here. In fact, if i'm planning to also increase my V and AW score, then that will take much longer because I'm not a native speaker and the nature of the GRE questions require a knowledge that has been accumulated over a long period of time(Years). AW and V scores can't be easily improved in a matter of few months, specially if you are a not a native speaker.

 

It probably depends a lot on each person. I found it most effective when I study for about 1 hr per day for 2-3 days per week. I did this for 2 months prior to the test. In the last 2 weeks, I increased the number of study sessions to maybe 4 or 5 per week. For each study session, I also tried to spend time both reviewing material and doing practice timed tests. In the beginning, I did more review than practice tests, but by the last week, I was pretty much only doing practice tests. I wrote my GRE when I was in a Masters program, so my schedule was quite flexible, but I still had a lot of other work so I didn't want to spend more than a few hours a week on this. I also had a family (but no kids) so most of my weekends and evenings are busy with other things.

[Scarf in the wind]

Also, to others posting, can you give me some advice? I have the Manhattan GRE series of books, and a subscription to Magoosh's GRE prep material (also, I recommend Magoosh's product to the original poster). What is the best way to learn from two different sources? I feel all test prep materials have questions designed to put over their own product, not necessarily what one may find on test day. But that's my take. Also, I feel a bit lost with the two products. Manhattan's question I do not find too difficult, but I tend to notice that I answer questions incorrectly due to mindless mistakes. However with Magoosh, though I still commit mindless errors, I feel the questions are much harder and require their own approach to answer correctly, despite Magoosh praising Manhattan's GRE prep books (the Text Completion/Sentence Equivalence excluded). I had planned to take the test on July 31st, but feel I may need more time, and I have difficulty choosing what to study everyday since I have two materials available to me. How do I pick from a Manhattan book or Magoosh o a given day?

 

Okay, that's all. Thanks for reading.

 

p.s., I want a score of 160 in both Quant and Verbal, but I don't foresee that happening. To be blunt, I only require a score that meets or surpasses the 50% percentile ranking for entrance into a particular Master's program (the sole reason I am retaking the test after 3 years), and I have enough research experience and know I'll have good-great letters of recommendations from people I've worked with to allow me entrance into the school, but I still want to do well and I feel no matter how much I learn, there's always something more to learn, and this knowledge has kept me from applying to a test date.

 

Okay, now I'm done.

[Scarf in the wind]

No, you should answer as many right as possible because doing poorly on the first part can limit your maximum score, basically. They don't publish the equations used to compute the scores but it's probably far better to get e.g. 80% of the hard questions right than 100% of the easy questions right. In either case, overthinking here is bad -- as with any test, always try to get as many correct as possible. I only brought up the adaptive testing component because it is faulty logic to think that getting e.g. 75% of the questions right in part 1 and 95% of the questions in part 2 is equal to 95% correct in part 1 and 75% correct in part 2. 

 

 

It probably depends a lot on each person. I found it most effective when I study for about 1 hr per day for 2-3 days per week. I did this for 2 months prior to the test. In the last 2 weeks, I increased the number of study sessions to maybe 4 or 5 per week. For each study session, I also tried to spend time both reviewing material and doing practice timed tests. In the beginning, I did more review than practice tests, but by the last week, I was pretty much only doing practice tests. I wrote my GRE when I was in a Masters program, so my schedule was quite flexible, but I still had a lot of other work so I didn't want to spend more than a few hours a week on this. I also had a family (but no kids) so most of my weekends and evenings are busy with other things.

 

What's your advice for someone who has no life and an immense amount of time?

 

It took me a day to get through Magoosh's videos on Interger Properties yesterday. I apologize for my grumbling peevishness when I should get down to doing practice questions.