Quantitative: 650 (600, +8.3%, 61st percentile)
Verbal: 680 (620, +9.7%, 93rd percentile)
Total: 1,350 (1,220, +10.7%, )
That's a significant increase from mid-to-late July when I took my first practice test. Onward and upward. I'm significantly better on the Verbal--which according to ETS represents a harder test--getting an 800 (perfect score) on the Quantitative represents only the 94th percentile.
ETS also posts the average scores by degree program. CS applicants have a ways to go in their Verbal--300--390 represents the most populous range (24%), with the majority falling between 300--600 (75%). Only 3.2% (!) fall into the 700--790 range--not unexpected. In Quantitative, it's a different story--85% fall into the 600--800 range, with 700--790 representing the most populous range (46.1%).
I'm studying every day while on the light rail to and from work.
Notes:
- I'm not finishing all my quantitative questions. Both times finished only 27/30 questions, so I have some work ahead of me getting through the questions more efficiently. At the same time, I don't want to rush and get them wrong, so it represents an exercise in patience.
- Finishing with plenty of time to spare in the Verbal section.
- I scored a 32/38 both times on the Verbal sections, which suggests I'm plateauing there for the time being. I scored a perfect score on the 27 I did finish on the second Quantitative section.
- I felt really insecure about the second passage--and I ended up getting only one wrong.
- Verbal section one: 1) didn't understand the word "diffidence" (reserve, timidity, lack of confidence); 2) didn't understand the specific definition of "die" (tool used to form an object); 3) didn't understand definitions of "fawn" (court favor in a cringing or flattering manner) and "imperiousness" (arrogance, or a commanding presence); 4) guessed incorrectly at inference from the passage; 5) Applied definition of "tractability" to problems (e.g., math) rather than a quality of a person (easily changed or molded); 6) didn't understand definition of "noisome" (bad-smelling).
- Quantitative section one: 1) removed large integers and plugged in small ones--turns out this doesn't work for all integers; 2) in haste calculated 3*3*3 as 9 instead of 27. Doh; 3) isosceles triangle--I incorrectly assumed if x was across from a 45-degree angle, then the side across from a 90-degree angle would be 2x. Nope--it's a^2 + b^2 = c^2; 4) In haste, didn't consider the case where p = 1; 5) In haste, I forgot to update my scratch-paper notes to divide both sides by three, throwing off the result; 5) multiplied x by the inside of (x^2)^3 before expanding (x^2)^3, which resulted in (x^3)^3. Doh; 6) Ran out of time and guessed incorrectly.
- Verbal section two: 1) didn't understand the definition of "ardor"; 2) close--the second part of the answer disqualified it as the correct one--thoroughness would have prevented this mistake; 3) close--answer ended up too limited--thoroughness would have prevented this mistake; 4) close--answer ended up going too far--and duplicated a claim of another answer, which represented a warning sign; 5) didn't understand the definition of "hapless" (unlucky, unable to achieve success because of bad luck)--confused it with "helpless"; 6) didn't understand the definition of "sedulous" (applying oneself faithfully to a task)--guessed incorrectly.
- Quantitative section two: No wrong answers.
- Lack of word familiarity--my biggest problem area with Verbal. This taps into my long-term knowledge of words, so not so easily corrected except through additional word-familiarity practice.
- Haste--especially in Quantitative where I'm running out of time.
- Lack of understanding relationships among analogy questions--reading the answers helps me understand the thinking of the people who create the questions.
- Failing to complete quantitative sections
- Quantitative deficiencies in some areas (exponentiation, calculation of triangle sides)
No comments:
Post a Comment