GMAT!
Today I took the GMAT, the Graduate Management Admissions Test. That's right, Kim is going to business school. If you'd told me this 10 years ago, I would have laughed heartily at your mistaken impression of what would interest me. But things are rather different now. I'm not just applying to any business school, I'm applying to the Bainbridge Graduate Institute and the Presidio School of Management, both of which offer an MBA in Sustainable Business.
These programs are very new, having only started up a few years ago. It is not like going to a big name business school like Harvard, the University of Chicago, or Berkeley. But at those places, students learn very little about sustainable business; it is an "extra" topic that still is not treated very seriously. These new programs are attempting to integrate "green" principles with the traditional business school curriculum, with the long-term idea of changing business from the inside out.
Some will scoff. Economic concerns are opposed to environmental concerns, aren't they? We are always told that we must choose (by some politicians and business leaders). And it's easy enough to imagine how to make business more expensive in light of environmental considerations: just take an existing process and add environmental design on top of it. But suppose instead that you redesign your process or product or business plan from the ground up so that it incorporates environmental factors throughout the whole thing. In many cases, this turns out to be less expensive than the original version. Sounds like it would improve the bottom line, eh? Some businesses are starting (slowly) to realize this.
People trained at Bainbridge and Presidio will be in a position to help bring these changes about. It won't be a quick process, but it's worthwhile work (when performed in an appropriate frame of mind). I am excited to apply the skills and intelligence I have to this effort.
It is often said that if you get an MBA at a school that isn't a "big name," it will not be worth much. But none of the top schools are teaching this material in a rigorous way yet. And besides, I'm not going there for the degree (I have a Ph.D. already!), I'm going for the people I'll be exposed to. I want to work with others who share these sentiments for the positive effect it could have in stimulating my own creativity and bringing about personal growth. It is well known that who you hang out with has a big effect on your mood and beliefs, including the belief of what is possible and what is worthwhile. Choose your associates carefully; they can have a large beneficial (or harmful) effect.
So, back to the GMAT. This is an interesting test. There are three sections: Analytical Writing, Quantitative, and Verbal. The writing part consists of two 30-minute essays, one where you write your views on an issue (the position you take doesn't matter, but you have to argue it well), and one where you assess the quality of someone else's argument (your opinion is not relevant).
The math part contains two types of questions, which are mixed together. One is Quantitative Reasoning (could be arithmetic, algebra, simple geometry), and the other is Data Sufficiency (where you evaluate whether you have enough information to answer a question). The Data Sufficiency ones are really tricky, actually. I was very glad that I had practiced with those, and still felt the least confident on them in general.
The verbal part has three types of questions, all mixed together: Sentence Correction, Analytical Reasoning (drawing inferences or strengthening/weakening arguments in short written passages), and Reading Comprehension. Of these, I liked the Sentence Correction best because rules of grammar are fairly intuitive to me, while the others tended to require more judgment. Some of the sentences they had us correct were really awful sentences anyway, I have to say! Even the grammatically correct versions were sometimes more of a mouthful than I would write.
The GMAT is a "CAT" -- computer adaptive test. That means the test questions are different for every person. You start out with a medium-level question, and if you get it right, the computer gives you a harder one, while if you get it wrong, the computer gives you an easier one. Throughout the test, the computer is trying to find the level where you get about half the questions right. Everyone will do the same number of questions in the same amount of time, but some people will have harder ones than others.
So getting asked hard questions is good. If you get a hard one right, it counts more for your score than getting an easy one right. And getting a hard one wrong doesn't hurt you very much; you just get an easier one next time, so the penalty comes because you can't get as many points for getting that easy one right.
I think it's pretty fascinating. They have enough statistical data on these questions, apparently, to be able to judge which questions should be called "easy" or "hard" (hmm, sounds like a Data Sufficiency question to me!).
The CAT has the advantage of basically eliminating cheating. It won't help at all to look on someone else's screen because they are taking a different test. The major challenge with the CAT is that you must proceeed linearly through the questions. There is no way to skip a hard one or come back later to change an answer if you get a flash of insight. You must answer each question before the next one will be presented to you, and you can't go back.
A couple of strategic points: It's worth spending time on the first few questions to ensure that you get them right. This will catapult you into the harder questions faster, which is where you want to be. Also, there is no point in having time left on the clock at the end. You can't use it for checking answers. And yet, you don't want to get so time-crunched that you don't get to questions at the end. Leaving questions unanswered is a greater penalty than getting a wrong answer. So it's a good idea to do some practice tests ahead of time so you know whether your tendency is to be crunched for time on math, but have plenty of time on verbal, or vice versa, or whatever. Then you can budget your time more effectively on the real test.
The other cool thing about the CAT is that you get your score immediately on the math and verbal parts. (Why not? The computer was keeping track all along). These are technically "unofficial," and must be combined later with your score on the writing section (which is graded partly by computer, then checked by humans). But for what it's worth, here's what I got:
Quantitative: 44 (90th percentile)
Verbal: 49 (97th percentile)
Total: 760 (99th percentile)
Not bad. :-)
[By the way, that's not the new math. The verbal and quant sections are given a "scaled score" from 0 to 60, which is converted by some formula to a total score ranging from 200 to 800.]
It's mentally tiring. You start out by writing for an hour, then get a 10-minute break. Then you do 75 minutes of math, then another 10-minute break. And then 75 minutes of verbal. Whew!
Actually, I think the fact that you have to switch around and do different mental tasks in different sections is really good. It's exactly what you need to do as a manager, where all kinds of stuff gets thrown at you and you have to respond.
In fact, I caught myself thinking that if all managers were adept at the sorts of things the GMAT tests, business might run pretty well. Of course, half the people who take the test score below the 50th percentile (but presumably not all of them become managers). And the other, more hidden, assumption in that logic is that people who don't score well wouldn't be good managers. I'm actually less certain of that. Standardized tests tend to be only mediocre at predicting actual performance in the long term, although they may be better at predicting success in school. But I know too many exceptions-- people who do poorly on tests but are incredibly bright, effective, and successful in their careers-- to place serious stock in tests like the GMAT.
But most schools treat the GMAT as part of a whole. Other factors include a personal statement, an interview, and letters of recommendation, all of which allow a much broader view of the candidate. So overall, I don't think this test is widely misused.
The whole experience has been pretty interesting, actually.
These programs are very new, having only started up a few years ago. It is not like going to a big name business school like Harvard, the University of Chicago, or Berkeley. But at those places, students learn very little about sustainable business; it is an "extra" topic that still is not treated very seriously. These new programs are attempting to integrate "green" principles with the traditional business school curriculum, with the long-term idea of changing business from the inside out.
Some will scoff. Economic concerns are opposed to environmental concerns, aren't they? We are always told that we must choose (by some politicians and business leaders). And it's easy enough to imagine how to make business more expensive in light of environmental considerations: just take an existing process and add environmental design on top of it. But suppose instead that you redesign your process or product or business plan from the ground up so that it incorporates environmental factors throughout the whole thing. In many cases, this turns out to be less expensive than the original version. Sounds like it would improve the bottom line, eh? Some businesses are starting (slowly) to realize this.
People trained at Bainbridge and Presidio will be in a position to help bring these changes about. It won't be a quick process, but it's worthwhile work (when performed in an appropriate frame of mind). I am excited to apply the skills and intelligence I have to this effort.
It is often said that if you get an MBA at a school that isn't a "big name," it will not be worth much. But none of the top schools are teaching this material in a rigorous way yet. And besides, I'm not going there for the degree (I have a Ph.D. already!), I'm going for the people I'll be exposed to. I want to work with others who share these sentiments for the positive effect it could have in stimulating my own creativity and bringing about personal growth. It is well known that who you hang out with has a big effect on your mood and beliefs, including the belief of what is possible and what is worthwhile. Choose your associates carefully; they can have a large beneficial (or harmful) effect.
So, back to the GMAT. This is an interesting test. There are three sections: Analytical Writing, Quantitative, and Verbal. The writing part consists of two 30-minute essays, one where you write your views on an issue (the position you take doesn't matter, but you have to argue it well), and one where you assess the quality of someone else's argument (your opinion is not relevant).
The math part contains two types of questions, which are mixed together. One is Quantitative Reasoning (could be arithmetic, algebra, simple geometry), and the other is Data Sufficiency (where you evaluate whether you have enough information to answer a question). The Data Sufficiency ones are really tricky, actually. I was very glad that I had practiced with those, and still felt the least confident on them in general.
The verbal part has three types of questions, all mixed together: Sentence Correction, Analytical Reasoning (drawing inferences or strengthening/weakening arguments in short written passages), and Reading Comprehension. Of these, I liked the Sentence Correction best because rules of grammar are fairly intuitive to me, while the others tended to require more judgment. Some of the sentences they had us correct were really awful sentences anyway, I have to say! Even the grammatically correct versions were sometimes more of a mouthful than I would write.
The GMAT is a "CAT" -- computer adaptive test. That means the test questions are different for every person. You start out with a medium-level question, and if you get it right, the computer gives you a harder one, while if you get it wrong, the computer gives you an easier one. Throughout the test, the computer is trying to find the level where you get about half the questions right. Everyone will do the same number of questions in the same amount of time, but some people will have harder ones than others.
So getting asked hard questions is good. If you get a hard one right, it counts more for your score than getting an easy one right. And getting a hard one wrong doesn't hurt you very much; you just get an easier one next time, so the penalty comes because you can't get as many points for getting that easy one right.
I think it's pretty fascinating. They have enough statistical data on these questions, apparently, to be able to judge which questions should be called "easy" or "hard" (hmm, sounds like a Data Sufficiency question to me!).
The CAT has the advantage of basically eliminating cheating. It won't help at all to look on someone else's screen because they are taking a different test. The major challenge with the CAT is that you must proceeed linearly through the questions. There is no way to skip a hard one or come back later to change an answer if you get a flash of insight. You must answer each question before the next one will be presented to you, and you can't go back.
A couple of strategic points: It's worth spending time on the first few questions to ensure that you get them right. This will catapult you into the harder questions faster, which is where you want to be. Also, there is no point in having time left on the clock at the end. You can't use it for checking answers. And yet, you don't want to get so time-crunched that you don't get to questions at the end. Leaving questions unanswered is a greater penalty than getting a wrong answer. So it's a good idea to do some practice tests ahead of time so you know whether your tendency is to be crunched for time on math, but have plenty of time on verbal, or vice versa, or whatever. Then you can budget your time more effectively on the real test.
The other cool thing about the CAT is that you get your score immediately on the math and verbal parts. (Why not? The computer was keeping track all along). These are technically "unofficial," and must be combined later with your score on the writing section (which is graded partly by computer, then checked by humans). But for what it's worth, here's what I got:
Quantitative: 44 (90th percentile)
Verbal: 49 (97th percentile)
Total: 760 (99th percentile)
Not bad. :-)
[By the way, that's not the new math. The verbal and quant sections are given a "scaled score" from 0 to 60, which is converted by some formula to a total score ranging from 200 to 800.]
It's mentally tiring. You start out by writing for an hour, then get a 10-minute break. Then you do 75 minutes of math, then another 10-minute break. And then 75 minutes of verbal. Whew!
Actually, I think the fact that you have to switch around and do different mental tasks in different sections is really good. It's exactly what you need to do as a manager, where all kinds of stuff gets thrown at you and you have to respond.
In fact, I caught myself thinking that if all managers were adept at the sorts of things the GMAT tests, business might run pretty well. Of course, half the people who take the test score below the 50th percentile (but presumably not all of them become managers). And the other, more hidden, assumption in that logic is that people who don't score well wouldn't be good managers. I'm actually less certain of that. Standardized tests tend to be only mediocre at predicting actual performance in the long term, although they may be better at predicting success in school. But I know too many exceptions-- people who do poorly on tests but are incredibly bright, effective, and successful in their careers-- to place serious stock in tests like the GMAT.
But most schools treat the GMAT as part of a whole. Other factors include a personal statement, an interview, and letters of recommendation, all of which allow a much broader view of the candidate. So overall, I don't think this test is widely misused.
The whole experience has been pretty interesting, actually.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home