Talk:Graduate Management Admission Test/Archives/2014

Statement of fact lacks a reference and seems to be incorrect at that

"...many people believe that the GMAT score is less important than the applicant's work experience and GPA."

Unless someone provides a source to back this up ("many people"), I'm rather inclined to slightly modify this sentence to accord with the conventional wisdom as demonstrated by both the views of B-school candidates and students, as well as that of B-school prep. services and webpages, as can be seen by a quick trawl through Google. Namely, while an applicant's work experience is of great import, their undergraduate GPA is, while definitely a determining factor, one of the least important criteria utilized in the admissions process. For one thing, most B-school candidates have been out of school for several years, so things like work experience, the GMAT, and the interview are seen as better factors in determining the candidate's viability for both the B-school regime and professional achievement after graduation. I'll wait for a week or so to see if anyone disagrees or posts a source. If not, then I'm going to make the change.

Comment doesn't make much sense and needs a reference

"while most schools require scores superior to 550-600."

To suggest that "most schools" (which needs to be defined) need a score over 600 is to suggest that the 84%(600 being one standard deviation greater than average) of the test takers could not get into "most schools". This seems to be false, although I have no statistics to back up my point, although even if I did they would be meaningless as "most schools" is a poor term. Since 250,000 people take the test a year, it is hard to believe that 210,000 would pay $250 and then not attend business school.

Need history of the GMAT

There is a rich history of discontent with the GMAT from business schools. I believe Harvard may have eliminated the use of the GMAT for a period of time in the 1980s. Such a historical discussion would be helpful for people researching standardized tests in general. Admittedly, probably 99% of the people reading this page are looking for help with test preparation and business school applications.

I suggest adding a link to the history of a GMAT Exam at http://www.gmatix.com/history_of_gmat.htm

The site provides examples of each type of GMAT question ever administered and the impetus for change to the test. I am a collaborator on the gmatix site. Michaelbirdsall (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you find some other way to promote your site, which doesn't meet our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources are cited in the article. Additionally, this article was writen with GMAC's cooperation and was edited by GMAC's legal team. (The email correspondence is available for anyone interested.) I suggest that 'OhNoitsJamie' is not familiar enough with the GMAT and the parties involved to make an educated decision and is perhaps being overly cautious as a result of this lack of familiarity. 78.147.224.218 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no sources cited on that link. I see a well written and interesting essay about the history of the GMAT there. Unfortunately, I see no way to verify that it's official, reliable, or authoritative. If this were an authorized reprint of a book chapter or journal article, an external link here would work. But the article on that link, as it is now, reveals no author and no sources.

Even if sources were given, the link may still not be appropriate. The purpose of external links is to provide access to information relevant to the subject of a Wikipedia article, where such information isn't appropriate to include in the article. An example would be a link to an interview about a movie star; it provides additional relevant information but the interview wouldn't be included in the article. In this case, the history of GMAT should be part of this Wikipedia article, appropriately referenced to sources that meet Wikipedia's verifability and reliability policies. Once the history of GMAT is in the Wikipedia article, there's no need to have a link to some other page with a history of GMAT. This Wikipedia article would then contain its own version of GMAT's history, likely referencing the same sources that the external link uses but doesn't reveal. Expanding Wikipedia content is always preferable to external linking.

Your claim of reliability would be bolstered if GMAC itself hosted that page on its own site, or referred to your site somewhere, but I don't see it. =Axlq 15:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Axlq - thanks for your feedback! I was thinking of adding it directly to Wikipedia as well, the problem is that I have been given permission to reprint some of the material, the old GMAT questions, by GMAC on my sight. I have not been given permission to reprint any of GMAC's material on Wikipedia.

I think it may be beneficial to consider the following in some detail.

1 - Does the link meet wikipedia's guidelines for external links? Of course my feeling is yes. Under the External Link policy the following is described is under the heading 'what to link':

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues."

This link does contain copyrighted material. I have been given permission to reprint it, but not on wikipedia.

2 - If the link is an appropriate External Link, is it verifiable? Again yes. For example, on the page titled '1954 GMAT' at the bottom of the page, I clearly state: "These questions were published in 1984 in Appendix A of the Graduate Management Admission Test: Technical Report on Test Development and Score Interpretation for GMAT Users by William B. Schrader for the Graduate Management Admission Council." Further, throughout the article I cite sources in the text (e.g. ' ' October 2006 report, 'Use of the GMAT Analytical Writing Assessment: Past and Present', Karen Owens appears in the text). Although I do not use the same style of citation that wikipedia uses, the style used in the article is verifiable.

3 - Okay so maybe it is an appropriate external link, and maybe it is verifiable, but is it reliable? The major concern in this area, I am assuming, is that it is self published. Under the wikipedia policies for reliability, self published material is not prohibited, but caution should be exercised. Some questions to asks oneself are,

[is] the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article; - Obviously the material is relevant.

it is not unduly self-serving; - It is not self serving: the page was designed to be minimal, to be appropriate for wikipedia.

it does not involve claims about third parties; - There are no claims made.

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; - It is generally on topic. Perhaps the reference to LTCM is a bit much, but it is still all factual and, more importantly, undisputed.

there is no reason to doubt its authenticity; - Yes. But these are reasonably explained. This account on wikipeida has primarily been used in reference to this link. This has mostly to do with my ignorance of the COI policy, prior to OhNoitsJamie pointing it out. Frankly, I don't feel I know enough about other topics to contribute.

the article is not based primarily on such sources; - The article is based largely on primary and secondary sources.

I think these questions will

Advertisement Sites

Why GMAT advertisement sites are listed on this page. In my opinion only official site should be under External Link or any other site which describes GMAT - not the prep course sites.

I've removed anything but the official site. I included a link to a wikipedia category. --GunnarRene 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with above (no sites that force sales of prep course and want you to buy stuff) I think it would be beneficial if anyone knows of sites that don't force products or services but offer indepth information about the GMAT, many people coming here are looking for just that and if it is not displayed anywhere for them, they leave. Just my thoughts, what do you guys think?

The only official source is the Graduate Management Admission Council, and there's already a link to it at the end of the article. Their site in turn links to mba.com which has a lot of information that anyone would need. =Axlq 03:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope it is ok, I just added a link to mba.com as that is where people are more likely to want to go instead of gmac.com since that is for b-school administrators.

Agreed - there should not be links or references from test preparation companies. Deleteasaur (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I know that these comments are from 2006 and that these editors are now retired, but I'll go ahead and state the obvious for the new user, Deleteasaur, although he's already been informed of much of this already. GMAC is not the only person or company that is part of the GMAT universe. Many people and companies have done exhaustive research and commentary on the GMAT. Further, Wikipedia gives more weight to secondary and tertiary sources than to primary sources. As such, it is perfectly OK to source information from expert secondary and tertiary sources.--TDJankins (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Using test prep companies as sources about themselves is really a primary source. As per wikipedia policy this needs to be avoided. If there is exhaustive research (as you claim) please cite that research. Beyond that, favoring some test prep companies over others by giving some test prep companies representation on the GMAT page should rather be avoided as this is a form of advertising (whether this is your intention or not). Secondary and tertiary sources are welcome but please avoid favoring specific test prep companies . The best policy would probably be to avoid citing test prep companies at all. I agree that GMAC should not have all the say on this page but there are other sources cited here besides GMAC. Also - as this is a GMAT informational page it is only natural that most of the facts (test format, test statistics...) would come from GMAC. As this page should really go too much beyond those facts, it would make sense for GMAC to have a good number of citations. I'd love to hear other people's opinion on this. Beyond that, the facts on this page are shoddy and there are many facts missing altogether. These are the things that should be focused on, not test prep companies opinion's on the effectiveness of test prep.Deleteasaur (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a few quick changes

I corrected a little bit of the test format section, mainly to fix the misconception that earlier questions count more than later ones. EVERYONE thinks that but they're wrong, and I wouldn't want anyone to get hurt because of bad advice. I also added in updated information on the current median score. I don't have attribution for it, sadly, but I'm correct.

®

Why is the ® symbol everywhere? I don't think it's proper style to include that on Wikipedia. CoolGuy 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think someone just wanted to make a change and/or thought it was better to have it in there. Unless someone objects in the next couple of days, it should probably be removed. If nothing else, the pages on the sister tests (GRE, LSAT, etc.) don't include this symbol. - 7 August 2006

Incorrect Fact: Essay Scoring Technology Noted is not Correct

This sentence is not correct. [Intellimetric] is used as of 2006.

The first reader is a proprietary computer program called E-rater, which analyses creative writing and syntax. The second and third readers are humans, who generally look at the overall impact rather than spelling and grammar.

Source link An Evaluation of Intellimetric™ Essay Scoring System Using Responses to GMAT® AWA Prompts

Intellimetric Vantage Learning's technology is used for scoring the GMAT exam as of January 2006.

maguireb 10:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I added back in a website that I found helpful when I was here, it shows a breakdown of gmat scores and scores for some b-schools. 71.107.251.124 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted it. External links don't belong in the middle of articles, and a page showing percentile relationships to GMAT scores isn't really relevant to entrance requirements. =Axlq 04:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh... alright, could I add the main page (http://www.gettingtogradschool.com/MBA-Business_School/index.htm) to the External Links? I have found it to be a great source for me while taking the GMAT! I will wait to see what you say before adding it... thanks

You didn't wait, you just added it. I can't help but observe that the only contributions you and a similar IP address have made to Wikipedia concern this link, implying that you're trying to use Wikipedia to drive traffic to your own web site.

I've just looked the site over. It's not bad, mostly helpful, but clearly set up to sell test preparation material. Why should it be singled out in this or any other article, versus a number of other GMAT or LSAT help sites? For Wikipedia to retain a neutral point of view, it would have to link to all other sites to be fair, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a space for links.

Oh, a word of advice: not requiring registration on a discussion forum will eventually result in messages full of linkspam for porn sites. It's just a matter of time.... =Axlq 15:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...I was going to wait but was not sure if you would check this page without a change to the main page. Can the link stay? The test prep sale items on the main page (right margin) will be removed, not forcing any sales while allowing maximum information. The site is worked on 10 hours a week, continuously improving. The page can be altered based on your suggestions required to be a link. 71.107.251.124 17:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Link removal

I have removed that link again. While the site can be informative, there is no special reason for which we should link to it instead of other websites covering the same subject. The fact that the owner has been kind and asked for permission doesn't change the external link guidelines, which say (links to normally be avoided, number 2):

• Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

The site is self-published, so it can't be considered accurate or reliable. And it contains ads. And it provides the email addresses of tutors (who probably pay to have their names included). And it sells products. And more products. And so on. That link has no place in Wikipedia. Mushroom (Talk) 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad an administrator finally noticed the issue and made a decision. Thanks. Although I was leaning toward keeping it (after having removed it several times myself), I'll leave it removed. =Axlq 03:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is GettingToGradSchool, I stay updated on all this link submitting and removal and keep noticing the link removed and added... Just wanted to make it clear I am not adding it. I respect the decision you make and do NOT add it back. I think I have aquired a fan club who is trying to keep the link, pretty funny! Just wanted to clear that up, I hope the link can stay...but like I said, will respect the system and will not add it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.22.244 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 October 2006

Well, somebody just added it back, and I reverted it. Oh, and sign your talk page edits with four tildes ~~~~ =Axlq 05:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dry/Wet Erase

One part of the article says that the test taker is given a dry erase pen and board, while at the bottom it says wet erase. Does anyonw know which it is? --Wikidan81 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All I can find are unofficial sites that indicate wet erase. The official site says nothing. I would say, these unsourced statements should be removed. Either way, the factoid doesn't appear add anything of real value to the article. =Axlq 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In Nov. 2006, at one facility a dry erase "board" was used. Rather it was a board containing 8-10 sheets of flimsy dry erase film. The student was not provided with anything to erase the sheets with, but they only used a couple of the sheets. They were able to erase the marker with a sleeve from a shirt. For people that may feel the need to use all the sheets, I'm sure they'd provide you with tissues or something to clean the dry erase sheets. Vivaldi (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am nearly positive that it is not a dry erase board/marker. This is the marker that is used on the GMAT: http://www.amazon.com/Lumocolor-Watersoluble-Marker-Medium-Black/dp/B000KJML9E It is not a dry erase marker. You are not provided with tissues to clean the board. You are allowed additional "boards". A test-taker can raise his/her hand and request a new board at which time the proctor will collect the old one and replace it with an old one. You can also request new markers if they malfunction. Same procedure. Deleteasaur (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

answers to some FAQs .. How is this to be incorporated into the article ?

Q- Do I need to give GMAT in the first place in order to get in Harward Business school ? A-Yes

Overall length of the test

In the overview, this information should be included. Something like: "This test usually takes around __ hours to complete."

70.185.117.10 (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of the GMAT being valid

Articles states this:

"Scores are valid for five years (at most institutions) from the date the test taker sits for the exam until the date of matriculation (not until the date of application). The Stanford University Graduate School of Business website offers a "test results calculator" [1] useful for determining the expiration date of test scores."

Well, at all schools that I've visited, the scores must be valid on the day of application or something similar, and never on the day of matriculation, including at Stanford GSB, where the calculator points to the deadline for each round.

This should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.223.186 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting up early

When I did the test in the UK, more years ago than I care to say, a noteable thing about it was that you had to get up really early to start it. In Britain an exam would start at say 10am, or at least no earlier than 9am. Yet I recall have to turn up at 7.30am (or maybe earlier - cannot remember)! If this is still true, it would be worth mentioning. 80.0.108.213 (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Added Link

I added a link to Beat the GMAT Forum because it was a really helpful site for me when I was preparing for the GMAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.32.252 (talk • contribs) 2008-05-02

I have deleted your link. Community/forum sites aren't allowed as external links per Wikipedia's external linking guidelines. =Axlq 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the reason for removing the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.70.124 (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Test Prep Sites

This article provides the information that Kaplan and Princeton Review offer test prep services. However, as there are other companies that provide gmat prep, I think the listing in this article either needs to be extended (to include other companies, such as Veritas Prep, or ManhattanGMAT), or removed completely (and the burden of finding such sites being placed on readers). But as it stands, it provides a form of selective advertising, and should be addressed. JDbruin (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

lists of schools

a detailed list of all schools which allow gmat score for admission should be listed at the site. ---rakesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.179.151 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A list of all 1800 institutions would not be maintainable or usable. Kuru ^talk 14:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Some changes for relevance

I deleted the following under the "test" section:

It does not measure specific knowledge of business, job skills, or subjective qualities such as motivation, creativity, and interpersonal skills. If a test taker's first language is not English, he or she may still perform well on the exam; however, the GMAT exam may not accurately reflect the abilities of someone whose first language is not English. Business Schools with a high proportion of non-native English speaking students tend to have a lower than the average GMAT score.

I do not believe it is sensible to list all the things an exam does not test. If it is wise to do so, I suggest the list of untested items is far too small.

The inclusion of the word may makes the statements about non-native English speakers almost nonsensical. If the test may not be an accurate indicator of a non-native English speakers ability, why is it variable from one non-native English speaker to another?

International Business Schools require very competitive GMAT scores (consider INSEAD with an average GMAT of 702). In other words please provide evidence that schools with a high proportion of non-native English speakers tend to have lower GMAT scores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbirdsall (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Change for fact.

The two breaks are 10 minutes in length not 5 minutes. The link provided has a table at the bottom of the page, which clearly describes the time alloted for each section.

The GMAT breaks are 8 minutes. Deleteasaur (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the link to Stanford's test result calculator, as it is only applicable to the deadlines for Stanford's MBA program. Additionally, if someone has taken the GMAT and is considering going to Stanford they should be able to determine if five years has elapsed since they have taken the exam.

Under sentence correction I changed the word expression to usage, as usage is the correct term. This may seem trivial, however, someone interested in the exam will have far more luck finding a book on English Usage than on English expression.

I changed 'Written English' to 'written English'. English is a proper noun. Written is not. Standard written English is not a proper noun, as there is no body that determines the standards of the English language, thus I have changed all similar expressions to standard written English.

I deleted the following sentence: It tests the ability to recognize correct and effective expression. As this is repetitive, the first sentence of the paragraph already states this quite clearly. 83.15.28.106 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reworked the sentence correction section completely. The repetition in the article was disturbing. In addition references to "choice A" are outdated as there is no answer choice A on the gmat (there are five answer choices but they are not labeled on the actual exam. I added references to the 11th Edition of the Official Guide so that these changes are easily verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbirdsall (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed order of sections

It was Verbal, Quantitative and then AWA. I changed it to the correct order of the test - AWA, Q. and then V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.90.201 (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Maximum Score of 60 or 51?

Even though the official sources and even the explanation on the score report states that quant and verbal scores go from 0 to 60, I believe this to be incorrect.

The official percentage rankings (also on the score report) for both quant and verbal only go from 6 to 51. I've never seen anyone report a score higher than 51 on one of the many GMAT-related discussion forums. It's entirely possible to answer all quant questions correctly, so probability dictates someone would have reported it. I've done a 100%-correct quant section in the official GMATprep software (which lets you inspect your answers after test-taking), resulting in a score of 51.

I'd like to add some info on this to the article. Any thoughts? --TheMightyPirate (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The max score on either section of the GMAT is a 51. Deleteasaur (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Needs Clarity

Who publishes the GMAT?

The Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) www.gmac.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2014

Incorrect Statement and Non-credible Source

For this statement:

The GMAT does not measure business knowledge or skill. Nor does it measure intelligence. The GMAT is simply a test of how well one takes the GMAT.[6]

The source is a Princeton Review Book from 2009, Princeton Review is not necessarily a reliable source for Exam information, and given that the book is from 2009; the source does not include the recent modifications to the exam.

The GMAC website explains what the GMAT Exam measures on this page: http://www.gmac.com/gmat/learn-about-the-gmat-exam.aspx

"The GMAT measures analytical writing and problem solving abilities, and addresses data sufficiency, logic and critical reasoning—all essential skills in business and management."

I have edited this on the page 2-3 times, perhaps incorrectly, but it has been changed back repeatedly. The information that is up currently is out of date and incorrect (given that GMAT Exam is proved through validity studies to measure problem solving abilities and later performance in business school). Can someone tell me why this has been changed back, and what I need to do to show the correct information on this page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2014

GMAC and The Princeton Review are each entitled to their opinions. GMAC's opinion is already expressed on this page, but this page is not exclusively for GMAC's opinions. Nothing stated in GMAC's opinion disproves or even directly counters The Princeton Review's opinion. Further, The Princeton Review is a very renowned expert on the test and as such is a very reliable source.--TDJankins (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an old book from Princeton Review, their current website: http://www.princetonreview.com/business/gmat-information.aspx defines the GMAT Exam: "The GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test) is a computer–adaptive test (CAT) required by most business schools." and explains what the GMAT tests: "The GMAT is comprised of four sections: an Analytical Writing Assessment section, an Integrated Reasoning section, a Quantitative Section and a Verbal Section." If you are going to site the Princeton Review as a credible source for information on the GMAT Exam (which I would still argue that it is not as credible as the GMAC website) at least use their most current definition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014

I agree that citing the Princeton review about what the GMAT measures is inappropriate. This should not be a page of opinions. Or at the very least if there is an opinion it should be presented as such. Furthermore, citing the Princeton review's opinion about the GMAT is like citing McDonalds' opinion on food. In general a test preparation company shouldn't be sited on a GMAT information page. This section strikes me as a bunch of unsubstantiated fluff that should be removed. I would like to hear other people's ideas on this. Deleteasaur (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Deletasaur. A page is not to exclusively have opinions from the product owning company itself. This page has even earned the "This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources" tag because it is so out of whack. So yes, we need opinions from other experts on the test such as The Princeton Review.--TDJankins (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Calling the PR an "expert" or "credible" secondary source is a massive stretch. This page should focus on the facts about the GMAT exam. It is even struggling to get those straight. If I didn't have to waste time deleting advertising for test prep companies I would have more time to help get those facts straight so that this page could help more people get credible information about the GMAT. Please help me do that. Deleteasaur (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. A similar argument is in progress on the SAT Talk page, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SAT#How_crucial_is_test_prep_to_this_article.3F_What_do_reliable_sources_say.3F . While referencing test preparation is important as it relates directly to the test, listing specific score increase claims from various non-notable companies is inappropriate for the text, and would, at best, be useful only as citations. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read what this conversation is about?--TDJankins (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thanks for asking! Transmissionelement (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I have changed the sentence to come from the Graduate Management Admission Council website, a more credible source on the GMAT Exam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia 65.220.37.9. It's fine to include the sentence that you added from GMAC, but it's not fine to remove information from credible secondary sources that this page so desperately needs. It is Wikipedia's policy that primary sources are not as credible as secondary sources. I will add Princeton Review's sentence back in per the NPOV policy and the primary sources tag.--TDJankins (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the Princeton Review's claim based on? Is there any published research? Are there any statistics? Or is this just an empty claim made to sell more text books? Repeatedly putting back advertising for test prep companies. Something stinks here. Deleteasaur (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to insert the opinion from Princeton Review, please at least use their most recent definition cited above. The source you are using is outdated. I would still argue that using a Princeton Review book is not as accurate as the GMAC website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course you would, you're GMAC!--TDJankins (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Can this sentence be removed now? Or is this still an open discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - this should be removed. This is an unverifiable claim. Deleteasaur (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's actually a prima facie statement (true on its face). The GMAT does not measure business knowledge, business skill, or intelligence. And the GMAT is indeed a test on the GMAT. The burden of proof is thus shifted to those that would like to evidence otherwise, but no such evidence exists.--TDJankins (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an asinine claim. 30 seconds of google scholar searching turns up: "Thus, like the SAT (Frey & Detterman, 2004), the GMAT can be characterized as a traditional measure of intelligence, or a test of general cognitive ability (g)" (Hedlund, J., Wilt, J. M., Nebel, K. L., Ashford, S. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Assessing practical intelligence in business school admissions: A supplement to the graduate management admissions test. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2), 101-127.) GMAT obviously is a measure of intelligence (i.e., general mental ability), it's just not a very reliable one. Whatever the case, since some well published researchers maintain that GMAT is a measure of intelligence (whether or not it was intended to be one), the statement under question needs to be modified. --Zebrapersonfrank (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Registration and Preparation section needs advertising removed and should perhaps be divided into separate sections

"Test preparation courses can be very costly, but very effective."

This is advertising for test prep and should be removed. Again - this needs a real citation or it has to go. And please do not use test preparation companies as the citation. That is clearly a conflict. Deleteasaur (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"test preparation companies have gone on record stating noteworthy GMAT results, including average or guaranteed score increases over 90 points."

Again this is more advertising for test prep companies. This page shouldn't be used as a platform for advertising. Beyond the advertising, the claims are just that, claims. One of the companies here, Optimus prep has only been around since October of 2013 (I checked the DNS record). Less than a year in business and their test prep results are being used as a wikipedia citation? Even if these additions had a factual basis and have been made in good faith they just don't belong on the GMAT page because they promote specific test prep companies.

Another thing to consider: Why is the Registration section lumped together with Test Preparation? I do not see the link. Deleteasaur (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, your stance is that all of these people are lying and that whoever put this sentence on the page (myself) is being paid by each of them? That sentence and the references that support it are there for the exact reason stated, "as evidence of test preparation course effectiveness." You've sufficiently showcased your bias on this talk page. I think the best thing you can do at this point is just move on.--TDJankins (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see your point. Regardless of whether you have an interest in supporting any of these companies what you keep posting is essentially advertising. Beyond that, a test prep company claiming a certain score improvement does not constitute a fact. Even if these were facts, the effectiveness of test prep doesn't belong on the GMAT page. And here's a question for you: what makes Optimus Prep, Sean Berry, and Testmasters special that they should be referenced as opposed to the gazillion other companies claiming certain score improvements? Deleteasaur (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, please remove the test preparation citations. It is a clear conflict of interest to use information from test preparation companies to support the effectiveness of their service. Deleteasaur (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs a Better Source/Is this relevant?

"According to a survey conducted by Kaplan Test Prep, the GMAT is still the number one choice for MBA aspirants despite the increasing acceptability of GRE scores.

I'm not sure that this information is important but if it is going to be on the page the citation shouldn't be to an intermediary blog. At the very least go to the primary source. Here is the link to ETS with the information that you are citing: http://www.ets.org/gre/news/more_mba_applicants. Still this seems like an advertisement for the GRE. Any thoughts on this? Deleteasaur (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that this blog has made it back into the article. A link to a commercial blog in order to click through to a survey is not only cumbersome but an obvious advertisement for the blog. Either link directly to the survey or take this whole sentence out. It doesn't seem relevant to the article. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on this. Deleteasaur (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding New Score Preview/Cancellation Policy

You can now preview your score before canceling your GMAT exam. I think that this is worth including on this page. I wrote a paragraph detailing the procedure based on the GMAC site. Please comment/edit/improve:)

A GMAT test taker can cancel his/her un-official GMAT score. After the verbal section is complete the test taker will see the un-official score report and have 2 minutes to decide whether to keep or cancel the score. If the score is cancelled any future score report will still note that the test taker sat for the GMAT on a certain date. The score will be noted as a "C" and will remain on the score report for 5 years. A cancelled score can be retrieved within 60 days for a fee of $100. After 60 days a cancelled score is not retrievable. Deleteasaur (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I added this to the "Scoring" section as it already had some information (outdated) on the cancellation policy. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts. Deleteasaur (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Too much detail makes the article seem promotional

This article has far too much detail for an encyclopedia. It's more like a combination brochure + self-published "white paper." I tagged it with "advertisement." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. This article should be a fact based description of the GMAT. Right now there seems to be far too much opinion. Deleteasaur (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the test owning company (GMAC) has had a firm grip over the page for quite some time. Neutrality has been an issue with this page as anything that does not come directly from GMAC often gets removed.--TDJankins (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that GMAC has a firm grip over anything considering all of the opinion and just plain incorrect information on this page. In fact it would be great if GMAC would help get the the facts correct on this page. Right now this page is not helpful and misleading. Deleteasaur (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I have to politely disagree with you. The majority of this page (such as the History and Format sections, which make up the vast majority of the content) is factually based, and most of that comes from GMAC. In that sense, this page cannot be called "not helpful and misleading" (and I suspect you didn't really mean that--you just meant the Preparation portion, right?). The ongoing point of contention is the Registration and Preparation section, which I agree should be split into two parts. However, this does not mean that Preparation should be eliminated--it's a basic part of any standardized test (and appears on other standardized test pages as well), and there is a place here, in my opinion, for claims about effectiveness because it is a fact that score increase claims have been made by test preparers in relation to the GMAT. I just think, as I've argued elsewhere, that those claims should come from notable companies, not just any website, or at the least they should not be specific score increase claims because that bleeds into advertising. Transmissionelement (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there - thanks for the addition here. Yes, agreed - there is fact on this page. It's not all bad. But there is a bunch of opinion weaved into just about every section of the article. An example of that is right in the beginning: "The GMAT does not measure business knowledge or skill. Nor does it measure intelligence. The GMAT is simply a test of how well one takes the GMAT." It's tough to believe that this sentence remains considering how many people have spoken out against it. There is a bunch of other stuff (although less obvious) that really needs to be taken out of the page. My opinion: this page needs to be much shorter. In terms of test prep I'm not really convinced that it's necessary on a GMAT page. And certainly as it stands I don't think that the test prep section is really providing helpful information. This is particularly useless "Other available test preparation resources include university text books, GMAT preparation books, sample tests, and free web resources." I don't understand how this is helpful. First off - what university textbooks are used for GMAT Studying? What are these magical sample tests? What are these free web sources? I'm not saying that there should be a list of these things because again, this will get into the advertising territory as you choose one source over another but as it stands this just looks like a bunch of fluff that only exists so that there can be some references to some test prep companies in the previous sentence. I mean really, what is someone to do with the information provided in that sentence? Also, citing score increases from specific prep companies seems like advertising. Unless you're going to have a chart with every test prep company and all of their claims, favoring one over another seems inappropriate for a wikipedia page. Also, if we were to cite an independent research paper which has done a study on the results of test prep companies that starts getting closer to appropriate. Citing Test prep companies reporting their own unaudited results just isn't appropriate. My vote would be deleting the test preparation section because I just don't see a good way of incorporating it into the article. But, if it is going to stay my vote would be to take out all advertisement from test prep companies. Happy to discuss a better way to arrange the page.Deleteasaur (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for having articles that are reliable and supported, so I think that if you see something that you believe is opinion, then change it or put a opinion or citation needed tag on it so someone else can attempt to prove that it is verifiable. The latter is probably preferable at this point because the article has become a bit contentious, and I think there is a range of opinions on what should or shouldn't be included. In that same vein, I don't necessarily agree that the article is too long :) While there may be some issues here and there, a good portion of this article is about describing the test content. And just because including Test Preparation may be difficult, I'm not in agreement that it means it should be dropped. While I do agree with you that specific score increase claims should not be listed out (because that is too close to promotion), TDJankins makes a good point in saying that the existence of such claims is fact, and I agree with him that stating that is the case is a reasonable inclusion in the article. I think it can easily be noted that such claims exist without listing the details of each. Last, your point about test prep options points more to a deficiency in the current wording than to a real problem that is unsolvable. You make the case that the claims are so vague as to be useless, but if that is the case then in a sense you are saying they should be listed out (because there are a multitude of GMAT prep books or free web resources). These options (and others) definitely exist, so to me the solution is to phrase it in a clearer fashion, not to just delete the section. Anyway, I'm not trying to be disagreeable; just trying to share my opinion. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Too much work:) I've tried to delete opinion and promotion but it just gets put back. Although a worthwhile suggestion, a citation reference doesn't really help because the opinions in question have citations. The citations just happen to be from test prep companies.The main question that I have for you and everyone who helps maintain this page is: why is it relevant to report the claims of test prep companies? Yes, it is a fact that these companies make such claims but that doesn't make the claims themselves facts. I'm referring to this: "TDJankins makes a good point in saying that the existence of such claims is fact, and I agree with him that stating that is the case is a reasonable inclusion in the article." Why is the existence of a claim sufficient for putting the that claim in the wiki? That would seem to open up the article to almost anything. Let's imagine that some company were to claim a 100% success rate for students. Yes, it is a fact that this company claimed this success rate but does that claim belong here?? Happy to work together to improve things. On that note - I've got a suggestion for a new section or an addition relating to the new score cancellation policy. Please edit! Deleteasaur (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I've argued is that it is reasonable to discuss broad test preparation options and to report that test prep companies have cited such claims. This is clearly related to a standardized test such as the GMAT because preparing for such a test is a fact of life (and GMAC itself specifically discusses test preparation, and even sells study aids). My objection has been the citing of specific claims by specific companies (none of which were notable the last I checked) in part because it smacks of advertising and because once we reference the claims of three non-notable companies, why aren't we reporting the claims of every company? I've said that such claims should either be broadly referenced, as in "test prep companies claim" or that the claims of notable companies only should be included. However, I prefer to avoid editing wars and as such ceased removing or changing those claims once a another user reverted them. I personally do not support removing the Preparation portion of this article, but would support removing or changing company-specific claims. However, I'd suggest that be addressed as a new Talk section since this one has become bogged down by multiple other issues. Transmissionelement (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As GMAC's Rep, I can say that we have not removed third party references. Our larger issue is that there is information that is incorrect on this page. This sentence in particular:

The GMAT does not measure business knowledge or skill. Nor does it measure intelligence. The GMAT is simply a test of how well one takes the GMAT.[6]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014

I agree that the above sentence is inappropriate (along with a lot of other stuff on this page). Is there any way that GMAC can coordinate here and work to get this page on track? I'd be happy to help but I've noticed that it is extremely difficult to get advertisements and just plain incorrect information off of this page. Deleteasaur (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Comes from a source that is nearly 4 years old, Princeton Review has an updated definition of what the GMAT measures on their website: http://www.princetonreview.com/business/gmat-information.aspx. Including information from other sources is important to the validity of this Wikipedia Article, but please make them relevant, recent and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I will work to clean up the page. I had been working on it, but my requests to change had been deleted by the user TDJankins. Thank you for clearing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.37.9 (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying GMAT Sentence Correction and Adding a Source

"Sentence Correction questions ask the test taker to determine if there is a mistake with a given sentence and if so, to determine the best way in which the sentence should be written."

I think we can make this clearer. Here is a suggestion: "Sentence Correction questions present five options for the construction of a sentence from which the test taker must select the most effective construction which expresses the intent of the sentence clearly and concisely following the requirements of standard written English" Deleteasaur (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)