How much should you study?

Test Preparation
1

<p>I'm just beginning to study for the GRE General, and I'm wondering how crucial studying is to performing well on this sort of exam. I mainly question this as, eons ago (aka in 2009 or so), I scored very highly on the SAT with little purposeful preparation. The format of the GRE seems very similar, but I worry a little as after 4 years of college I'm surely less acquainted with standardized exams than I was when taking the SAT as a student in a US public high school.</p>

<p>I attended a STEM school, majoring in a social science, so I feel that I have both quant and CR skills. From looking around the forum, it seems that many people study to brush up on one of these two sides of the equation. In my case, is much studying recommended?</p>

2

<p>My short answer to your question: If you’re a top scorer, in general, I’m betting that you can get away with very little study, but I still recommend that you review the basic format of the test and know the general timing required and pacing allotted.</p>

<p>Your experience sounds similar to my son’s experience. Very little purposeful prep for the SAT, but still scored very highly. He DID take a handful of SAT practice tests a few weeks prior to the real exam – from two different big-name study guides, and he DID review the general layout of the exam. I think he also used the study guides to review the few things that he missed. But still, very little real prep and still really great scores.</p>

<p>Well, all these years later, he intended to do the same thing to prepare for the GRE – take a handful of practice tests and use the study guide to bone up on what he missed. BUT, he told me after the test that he never got around to taking the practice tests! He DID review the general format of the test, and he DID go online and try a few questions in each section. But, he “confessed” after his scores came out that he just couldn’t bring himself to sit through any of the practice exams in their entirety! Haha! Senioritis being what it is and all.</p>

<p>Anyway, he did extremely well again. Super high scores.</p>

<p>Like you, he also has both Quant and Verbal skills. He’s a STEM major in a STEM school.</p>

<p>My guess is that the GRE, like the SAT, is reflective of a lifetime of learning and IQ. One can bone up and improve one’s score by a smallish range of points, but in general, one’s scores will ultimately fall within a certain, kind of pre-destined range, one way or the other. That’s just my guess. (Though I’ve also read that over time from supposed “experts.”)</p>

<p>I used to coach a competitive spelling team. A few years into the coaching, I realized that spelling is apparently one of those things that you have, or you don’t. The tippy top spellers who came into my group were amazing before I ever coached them … and they were amazing afterwards. The bad spellers remained bad to average. I could coach the average or above average spellers to a higher level … but they still never achieved the status of “amazing” nor put themselves in the category of potential first place winner. I found that interesting.</p>

<p>The same concept may apply to these standardized tests. Perhaps, you’re either a tippy top scorer, or you’re not. The above average GRE and SAT test-takers can become more “above average” through study, but it’s likely that they won’t approach a perfect score no matter how much effort they pour into it. And really low scorers probably won’t achieve a score much better than average no matter how much study they put into it beforehand.</p>

<p>I’m not saying I think studying for these things is worthless. I think studying helps the vast majority of people. And lots of times, improving by that smallish range can mean the difference between admittance or scholarships, and not. But it seems to me that one can only improve so much over their natural, “unstudied” score no matter what they do. It seems to me that these standardized test scores are reflective of a lifetime of learning and inborn IQ that can’t be made up over a short period of time, for the most part.</p>

<p>Good luck to you!
:smiley: </p>

3

<p>Oops! I just realized that the OP wrote this in June! I have no idea how I got to a page that old! Sorry about that. :"> </p>

4

<p>@SimpleLife, the Original Poster is not the only one helped by a reply. Do they even give the GRE (non-computer) between mid-June and October? Thank you.</p>

5

<p>Hi, ItsJustSchool. I don’t know a whole lot about the paper-delivered test, but I know it’s not widely available.</p>

<p>According to the GRE website, “The paper-delivered GRE revised General Test is not offered in areas of the world where computer-delivered testing is available.” And this is from the same webpage of that site: “Testing is available up to three times per year for the paper-delivered GRE revised General Test.” I think you are right – the paper-delivered General test is apparently only available in October, November, and February of 2014/15.</p>

<p>My kids are located in areas where only the computer-delivered test is given. There are supposedly year-round dates available to them (depending upon seat availability), according to the GRE website, but my kids didn’t look into taking the GRE at any time other than September.</p>

6

<p>The paper-based test is actually available more often, and not only in areas of the world where the computer-based test isn’t offered. There was a testing date in Portland on September 28, for example. I don’t know why it is shrouded in so much secrecy and contradiction on the ETS website, to be honest. They also make it very difficult to sign up for…</p>

<p>To answer the OP’s question, poke around on the ETS website, look at the test format, mechanics and questions, and take one of the official practice tests. Based on your score, you can decide for yourself if you need/want to improve your performance further, and how time-consuming that would be. Don’t trust practice tests from anyone other than ETS as for some reason they’re all either terrible/completely unrelated to the real thing or deliberately designed to low-ball your score so that you’ll panic and buy a bunch of overpriced study guides. The official ones are the best diagnostic tool.</p>

<p>Personally, I prepared for several hours every other week for three-four months and got 170 V / 164 Q. I wish I had studied more seriously for the quant section, as opposed to answering endless practice questions without reviewing the concepts behind them, but on the whole I was never that worried about my performance since the GRE is relatively unimportant in my field (and the quant section is actually wholly irrelevant), so it’s whatever.</p>

7

<p>Interesting. As I said, my own kids never looked into the paper-based test. We’ve always heard that the paper-based revised General test is not readily available, and their schools offer only the computer-based tests. Solely out of curiosity and to learn more about it, are you certain that the September test date in Portland for the paper-based was for the General test? Or was it for the Subject tests? There were September test dates all around the world for the GRE Subject tests.</p>

8

<p>I’m also curious, Ghostt, if you don’t mind, how much did your scores improve from the time you began practicing for the General GRE test? In other words, what kinds of scores did you get the first 3 or 4 times you took the practice tests?</p>

9

<p>Hm, now that you mention it, I think you may be right and it might have been the subject test. I did not look at the chart carefully enough the first time around, but on second glance it seems to be referring to subject test dates:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_pbt_center_lists.pdf”>http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_pbt_center_lists.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As for my score, I actually took only one real practice test. My preparation was super disorganized. I took a 20-question verbal diagnostic offered for free by a company other than ETS early on, and got a predicted score in the high 150s, which worried me since I scored very well on the SAT CR section with practically no preparation. I sullenly torrented a big question bank by the same company and started slowly going through the questions, which took up most of my preparation time. (I contemplated giving them actual money for access to their full-length practice tests, but decided against it on principle.) I continued to make regular mistakes, though a second diagnostic test later on showed I had ‘improved’ my verbal score to the low 160s.</p>

<p>At this point I finally decided to try PowerPrep, which is the free (and incredibly buggy) practice software offered by ETS, and realized I was on track to score 168 V / 164 Q, so I stopped worrying. Then on test day I actually got 170 on the verbal section, though I ran into time trouble on the quantitative section and wasn’t able to improve on my predicted score there.</p>

<p>Point is, the various Kaplan/Magoosh/Manhattan/etc. study guides don’t replicate the questions on the real test. In most cases they’re harder, though I think I’ve read Kaplan is easier. Still, practicing with harder questions may be beneficial, especially in math, where practice materials and the real test essentially test the same knowledge. The real problem is that most of these companies make verbal questions that, regardless of their level of difficulty, don’t function like the questions on the GRE. They emphasize decontextualized memorization of arcane words, sometimes expect you to make inferences and other times punish you for it, have dumb questions about authorial tone that never come up on the real test, use reading passages that are nothing like the ones on the GRE, etc.</p>

<p>The GRE is obscenely expensive, doesn’t measure anything, and can be studied for, but one thing I can say about it is that its V questions are well-written and make sense. It always tests your vocabulary in context, and all the information you need to answer the reading comprehension questions is contained within the questions themselves. There’s always logic to them. For some reason, only ETS itself seems capable of producing practice materials that mimic these qualities.</p>

<p>ANYWAY. Yes. Sorry about the long digression. My first diagnostic test, which I think was quite unreliable, told me I’d get scores in the high 150s on both sections. In around 20 hours of studying, I was able to make some minimal progress using that company’s materials. Then I took a PowerPrep practice test, which was nothing like the materials I’d been using, and got 168 / 164. After that, I used ETS’s site to familiarize myself with the format and do some last-minute prep for the analytical writing section. On the real test I got 170 V / 164 Q. That was it. I think I would have scored something like 165 V / 158 Q without preparation.</p>

<p>Sorry again for the tl;dr.</p>

10

<p>Aha. All of your answers jive with my own experience.</p>

<p>The paper tests in the US (well, in areas where the computer-based tests are given) are only for GRE Subject tests. The General GRE tests are offered year-round, supposedly, but are computer-based only in many geographical areas. If computer-based tests are offered in your geographical area, you will not be able to register for a paper-based test in that same area. I’m pretty sure. </p>

<p>And your test score experience also jives with my own realm of experience. If you are a high scorer on standardized tests, and if you do well on the ETS practice tests or samples the first few times around, you will likely do well on the real thing. </p>

<p>Your scores on the ETS samples were relatively close to your actual scores, Ghostt. Same with my kids. My son who most recently took the exam only messed around briefly with ETS’s PowerPrep and discovered that he was on track to score around 167 to 170 on each. He scored 338 on the real thing with very little practice. 170V and 168Q. </p>

<p>I’ve witnessed this with several kids. There is some room for improvement with practice, no doubt. But high scorers tend to be high scorers, and average to above scorers tend to be average to above. And so on.</p>

<p>Not to say that practicing is worthless. It’s super helpful to be aware of timing issues and the general layout of the test. And it can’t hurt to practice. But for people who tend to be really high scorers on standardized exams, it seems to me that it’s not really necessary to spend a ton of time preparing. You’ve done your preparing by being fully engaged in your school work and by being blessed with a high IQ in the first place, it seems to me. </p>