Analysis of an Issue
“The GMAT is an exam that tests quantitative, verbal and writing skills.”
Explain the extent to which you agree or disagree with this opinion. Use examples and counterexamples from your experiences and learning as appropriate.
While there is no denying that the GMAT test is one that plays a deciding role in the B-school admissions process, there is also little doubt that it is a shabby, pathetic excuse for an exam that just about manages to tests complex computational skills like addition of decimal numbers and multiplication tables of 2 to 10.
The GMAT fails to understand why the concept of beautiful numbers exists. So it blatantly disregards the concept by designing a test with 37 math questions and 41 verbal questions. Clearly, the numbers of questions have been pulled out of the ass of some dimwitted sadist. One third of these questions are experimental questions although niether 37 nor 41 is divisible by 3. Experimental questions may be unsolvable but too bad if you end up spending twenty five minutes figuring out whether the square root of 217548639 is a prime number. Also, it is perplexing that an organisation that makes gazillion bajillion dollars from zillions of test-takers world-wide can’t pay a bunch of broke zombies 10 dollars an hour to test their experimental questions, and must instead test them on actual test-takers! As if taking a four hour exam wasn’t painful enough already. I guess one ought to thank one’s stars that there are 2, not 3.53 essays.
Furthermore, the GMAT doesn’t test real math. It tests strange GMAT math. Concepts like trigonometry or real statisics will never seen on the GMAT. Instead we have data sufficiency. Which basically tests how well you can memorize the number line. All data sufficiency questions are based on the one most inconsequential and insuffrable maths concept EVER i.e. the number line. The number line may be useful to eight-year-olds because that is the age that one marvels at -9 being smaller than -2..like whoa!! But noone needs to remember whether “x > y >z” for some sets and “x> z ^4 > y ^2” for others. The GMAT also exhibits a strange fondness for testing stupid feces such as “John does the job in two hours, Jill in three, together they do it in I don’t give a crap how long” and “10% of men and 20% women are employed so the percentage of people who care is zero”.
The verbal section tests the test-taker on three areas- sentence correction, critical reasoning and reading comprehension. Nothing out of the ordinary is being tested here, but it is noteworthy that the people at GMAT have some formidable taste in selecting passages for reading comprehension. As you might already know, several large libraries have sections known as “Archives” that contain several works of painful documentation and studies that are niether of consequence nor of any retrospective reference value. These works may be named “Government Expenditure on Road Repairs 1859-1867” and may be stored away in the never-ending rows of the New York library’s archives located beneath Central Park. The exam picks up some very engaging reading material from such works and asks the test-taker to make poignant inferences from the same. It is an opportunity for the test-taker to learn about varied topics like road repair costs in the 1860s to flogging rituals practiced by Wakkawakka tribesmen to changes in mating habits of groundhogs in times of economic recession. But the test-taker must not under any circumstances lead himself to believe that this reading will help him make hearty dinner-time conversations or “get lucky” as it were.
That being said, the author does not wish to critique the verbal section with as much vehemance as she has the rest (although she just did). One may be tempted to infer that she does not want to critique the one thing she is likely to fare decently in.
To summarize, the GMAT is an aggrevating exam that makes use of aggrevating methods to test the test-taker on aggrevating topics that he/she will learn from aggevating books that were written by guys named Bob with a G.P.A of 2.1. The real confusion is whether you should feel good or bad about your performance. If you do well, it proves nothing. And if you don’t, well .. it means you didn’t do well on a test that was designed by imbeciles, which means that either a) you’re a bigger imbecile or b) you’re too smart to have your intelligence benchmarked by this mindless tripe of a test. Frankly I’d go with (b) and you should too.