Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The new GMAT tests decision making
The GRE changed in 2011 with an overhaul in content and structure, making the test more reasoning based. Close on its heels comes the GMAT (admission test to majority of global MBA programs) change with the addition of a new section, aptly called ‘integrated reasoning’.
This new section replaces one of the essays and comprises 12 questions to be answered by analysing, synthesising, integrating and evaluating given data. The data to be integrated appear as maps, spreadsheets, codes, numbers, charts, texts, audios and graphs. Both multiple choice and highlighting statements or dragging data points constitute the questions.
The new section thus tests the candidates ability to examine and manage complex, multiple format data and draw conclusions from them. The integrated reasoning section will thus generate a measure of a candidate’s decision making skills.
The new GMAT from June 2012
Duration Raw score Final score
Argument essay (1 topic)
1 prompt
30 min
Grade 0-6
Quant ability
37 qns
75 min
0-60 raw score
Verbal ability
41 qns
75 min
0-60 raw score
Integrated reasoning*
12 qns
30 min
To be announced in April 2012
*new addition
What doesn’t change?
The content, format and scoring of the verbal and quantitative sections remain unchanged; the argument essay also remains the same. The issue is replaced by the new section.
GMAT , in the present version itself is projected as a test that examines a range of skills that are prerequisites to participate in and benefit from a rigorous MBA curriculum. It already has a strong emphasis on reasoning. With the addition of the new integrated reasoning section, the test advances to another level of competence.
Test of decision making skills
The integrated reasoning section gives students an opportunity to demonstrate decision making skills- analysing, synthesising and evaluating data in different forms- numbers, flow charts and words to draw logical conclusions. In today's data-intense business space, effective decisions are taken by drawing intelligence and insights from various sources and information of various forms.
The introduction of such competency assessment in the business school intake stage presents a reasoned prognosis of one’s candidature to the world of competitive global business.
How to prepare
The verbal and quantitative sections are not changing in content patterns and scoring, thus test aspirants can continue to prepare for these as before. One has to familiarise oneself with the new section by practising on such problem sets as well as by reading graphs, maps and accompanying texts in business publications.
Since a good number of business schools take GRE score, instead of a GMAT score, applicants can research on colleges and find out which test to take. Some students may be more comfortable with the GRE test.
Test aspirants starting preparation post-March 2012 may have to take the new GMAT administered form June 2012. Good preparation will be the key to success.
Article contributed by
Dr.M.P.Vijayakumari
She can be contacted by email -vijaya@semanticslearning.com
Bookmark this on Delicious
This new section replaces one of the essays and comprises 12 questions to be answered by analysing, synthesising, integrating and evaluating given data. The data to be integrated appear as maps, spreadsheets, codes, numbers, charts, texts, audios and graphs. Both multiple choice and highlighting statements or dragging data points constitute the questions.
The new section thus tests the candidates ability to examine and manage complex, multiple format data and draw conclusions from them. The integrated reasoning section will thus generate a measure of a candidate’s decision making skills.
The new GMAT from June 2012
Duration Raw score Final score
Argument essay (1 topic)
1 prompt
30 min
Grade 0-6
Quant ability
37 qns
75 min
0-60 raw score
Verbal ability
41 qns
75 min
0-60 raw score
Integrated reasoning*
12 qns
30 min
To be announced in April 2012
*new addition
What doesn’t change?
The content, format and scoring of the verbal and quantitative sections remain unchanged; the argument essay also remains the same. The issue is replaced by the new section.
GMAT , in the present version itself is projected as a test that examines a range of skills that are prerequisites to participate in and benefit from a rigorous MBA curriculum. It already has a strong emphasis on reasoning. With the addition of the new integrated reasoning section, the test advances to another level of competence.
Test of decision making skills
The integrated reasoning section gives students an opportunity to demonstrate decision making skills- analysing, synthesising and evaluating data in different forms- numbers, flow charts and words to draw logical conclusions. In today's data-intense business space, effective decisions are taken by drawing intelligence and insights from various sources and information of various forms.
The introduction of such competency assessment in the business school intake stage presents a reasoned prognosis of one’s candidature to the world of competitive global business.
How to prepare
The verbal and quantitative sections are not changing in content patterns and scoring, thus test aspirants can continue to prepare for these as before. One has to familiarise oneself with the new section by practising on such problem sets as well as by reading graphs, maps and accompanying texts in business publications.
Since a good number of business schools take GRE score, instead of a GMAT score, applicants can research on colleges and find out which test to take. Some students may be more comfortable with the GRE test.
Test aspirants starting preparation post-March 2012 may have to take the new GMAT administered form June 2012. Good preparation will be the key to success.
Article contributed by
Dr.M.P.Vijayakumari
She can be contacted by email -vijaya@semanticslearning.com
Bookmark this on DeliciousTuesday, January 10, 2012
Monday, December 19, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
"100 points more" GMAT workshop Dec 11– registration form
Who should attend:
if you are a
Repeater- You want to improve your score by atleast 100 points
First timer- You want to know what it takes to cross the 700 barrier in the GMAT
then do attend this workshop
Topics covered:
1. Strategies to boost your score in problem solving,data sufficiency,sentence correction and critical
reasoning sections.
2. 5 must do before taking the exam
3. 5 pitfalls which must be avoided at all costs during the exam
in addition
each of you will get a customized study plan in accordance to the number of days left before you take the exam
Do inform your friends who would be interested in the program.
Fill in the form and book your seat immediately
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Which business schools have produced the most entrepreneurs?
I got this information through a certain website though i could share it with you all...
Which business schools have produced the most entrepreneurs?
A recently published LinkedIn study examined the backgrounds of members who identify themselves as startup founders and came up with the leading schools for entrepreneurs.
The results dramatically differ from the two most-cited yet deeply flawed rankings of leading entrepreneurial programs by Princeton Review and U.S. News & World Report. By sifting through its more than 120 million member profiles, LinkedIn has produced the ideal “put up or shut up” analysis. It’s the kind of data that calls out schools that have made entrepreneurship a marketing or promotional vehicle vs. those that have produced actual startup entrepreneurs.
LinkedIn membership data shows these five schools produced the most startup founders:
• Stanford,
• Harvard,
• MIT Sloan,
• Berkeley’s Haas School, and
• Dartmouth College’s Tuck School.
The next five are Wharton, Columbia, Babson, Virginia Darden, and the Johnson School at Cornell University.
Why the results are surprising
Babson, which has long been number one in both rankings, does no better than eighth place. Tuck, which fails to make the U.S. News list of 27 schools or the Princeton Review list of 25 schools, is firmly in the top five.
Columbia Business School, which doesn’t make the Princeton Review list and comes in at 19th on U.S. News, has the seventh largestnumber of startup founders in LinkedIn’s database. Chicago Booth, which is ranked second by Princeton Review, doesn’t make the LinkedIn list at all. Neither does Michigan, Brigham Young, or the University of Arizona, all schools in Princeton Review’s top five.
A side-by-side comparison (below) of the LinkedIn list with the two other rankings tells the story well. Seven of LinkedIn’s top ten schools don’t even warrant a mention in the Princeton Review ranking. LinkedIn’s number one school, Stanford, ranks a mere eighth on the Princeton Review list. Two of LinkedIn’s top ten schools don’t make the U.S. News list even though it rates 27 schools.
LinkedIn Rank & School U.S. News Rank Princeton Review
1. Stanford 2 8
2. Harvard Business School 4 NR
3. MIT Sloan 3 NR
4. California-Berkeley (Haas) 6 NR
5. Dartmouth (Tuck) NR NR
6. Pennsylvania (Wharton) 5 NR
7. Columbia Business School 19 NR
8. Babson 1 1
9. Virginia (Darden) 14 7
10. Cornell (Johnson) NR NR
Source: LinkedIn study, U.S. News, and Princeton Review
Of course, not every entrepreneur may have a LinkedIn profile and even those that do may not fall within the parameters of the professional network site’s methodology. LinkedIn counted members who identified themselves as founders or co-founders of U.S. companies created after 2000, with a LinkedIn company profile, and that currently has between two and 200 employees. LinkedIn excluded small law, consulting and real estate firms, as well as LLCs. Using these guidelines, LinkedIn came up with a pool of more than 13,000 entrepreneurs for its survey.
The LinkedIn ranking is not based on raw numbers, but rather on “how ‘over-represented’ those schools are among entrepreneurs,” according to Monica Rogati, a senior data scientist at LinkedIn who did the analysis. “This levels the playing field for small schools, as you have noticed but it makes it less surprising, which is why I wanted to mention it.”
This compares with U.S. News, which simply asks b-school deans and MBA directors, to rank schools on the basis of their entrepreneurship programs—even though they have no direct knowledge of those programs. Princeton Review, meantime, may as well pull its results out of a hat. Its methodology is so unclear and unspecific that it is hard to say exactly how the ranking is put together. It supposedly attempts to measure “academics and requirements,” “students and faculty,” and “outside the classroom.” (Our critique of the ranking was published last year.)
That’s why the new LinkedIn list has more gravitas–because it is based on real results—not what a few deans think about programs for which they no knowledge or some voodoo methodology by an organization that refuses to properly disclose how it comes up with a ranking.
Which business schools have produced the most entrepreneurs?
A recently published LinkedIn study examined the backgrounds of members who identify themselves as startup founders and came up with the leading schools for entrepreneurs.
The results dramatically differ from the two most-cited yet deeply flawed rankings of leading entrepreneurial programs by Princeton Review and U.S. News & World Report. By sifting through its more than 120 million member profiles, LinkedIn has produced the ideal “put up or shut up” analysis. It’s the kind of data that calls out schools that have made entrepreneurship a marketing or promotional vehicle vs. those that have produced actual startup entrepreneurs.
LinkedIn membership data shows these five schools produced the most startup founders:
• Stanford,
• Harvard,
• MIT Sloan,
• Berkeley’s Haas School, and
• Dartmouth College’s Tuck School.
The next five are Wharton, Columbia, Babson, Virginia Darden, and the Johnson School at Cornell University.
Why the results are surprising
Babson, which has long been number one in both rankings, does no better than eighth place. Tuck, which fails to make the U.S. News list of 27 schools or the Princeton Review list of 25 schools, is firmly in the top five.
Columbia Business School, which doesn’t make the Princeton Review list and comes in at 19th on U.S. News, has the seventh largestnumber of startup founders in LinkedIn’s database. Chicago Booth, which is ranked second by Princeton Review, doesn’t make the LinkedIn list at all. Neither does Michigan, Brigham Young, or the University of Arizona, all schools in Princeton Review’s top five.
A side-by-side comparison (below) of the LinkedIn list with the two other rankings tells the story well. Seven of LinkedIn’s top ten schools don’t even warrant a mention in the Princeton Review ranking. LinkedIn’s number one school, Stanford, ranks a mere eighth on the Princeton Review list. Two of LinkedIn’s top ten schools don’t make the U.S. News list even though it rates 27 schools.
LinkedIn Rank & School U.S. News Rank Princeton Review
1. Stanford 2 8
2. Harvard Business School 4 NR
3. MIT Sloan 3 NR
4. California-Berkeley (Haas) 6 NR
5. Dartmouth (Tuck) NR NR
6. Pennsylvania (Wharton) 5 NR
7. Columbia Business School 19 NR
8. Babson 1 1
9. Virginia (Darden) 14 7
10. Cornell (Johnson) NR NR
Source: LinkedIn study, U.S. News, and Princeton Review
Of course, not every entrepreneur may have a LinkedIn profile and even those that do may not fall within the parameters of the professional network site’s methodology. LinkedIn counted members who identified themselves as founders or co-founders of U.S. companies created after 2000, with a LinkedIn company profile, and that currently has between two and 200 employees. LinkedIn excluded small law, consulting and real estate firms, as well as LLCs. Using these guidelines, LinkedIn came up with a pool of more than 13,000 entrepreneurs for its survey.
The LinkedIn ranking is not based on raw numbers, but rather on “how ‘over-represented’ those schools are among entrepreneurs,” according to Monica Rogati, a senior data scientist at LinkedIn who did the analysis. “This levels the playing field for small schools, as you have noticed but it makes it less surprising, which is why I wanted to mention it.”
This compares with U.S. News, which simply asks b-school deans and MBA directors, to rank schools on the basis of their entrepreneurship programs—even though they have no direct knowledge of those programs. Princeton Review, meantime, may as well pull its results out of a hat. Its methodology is so unclear and unspecific that it is hard to say exactly how the ranking is put together. It supposedly attempts to measure “academics and requirements,” “students and faculty,” and “outside the classroom.” (Our critique of the ranking was published last year.)
That’s why the new LinkedIn list has more gravitas–because it is based on real results—not what a few deans think about programs for which they no knowledge or some voodoo methodology by an organization that refuses to properly disclose how it comes up with a ranking.
Which business schools have produced the most entrepreneurs?
I got this information through a certain website though i could share it with you all...
Which business schools have produced the most entrepreneurs?
A recently published LinkedIn study examined the backgrounds of members who identify themselves as startup founders and came up with the leading schools for entrepreneurs.
The results dramatically differ from the two most-cited yet deeply flawed rankings of leading entrepreneurial programs by Princeton Review and U.S. News & World Report. By sifting through its more than 120 million member profiles, LinkedIn has produced the ideal “put up or shut up” analysis. It’s the kind of data that calls out schools that have made entrepreneurship a marketing or promotional vehicle vs. those that have produced actual startup entrepreneurs.
LinkedIn membership data shows these five schools produced the most startup founders:
• Stanford,
• Harvard,
• MIT Sloan,
• Berkeley’s Haas School, and
• Dartmouth College’s Tuck School.
The next five are Wharton, Columbia, Babson, Virginia Darden, and the Johnson School at Cornell University.
Why the results are surprising
Babson, which has long been number one in both rankings, does no better than eighth place. Tuck, which fails to make the U.S. News list of 27 schools or the Princeton Review list of 25 schools, is firmly in the top five.
Columbia Business School, which doesn’t make the Princeton Review list and comes in at 19th on U.S. News, has the seventh largestnumber of startup founders in LinkedIn’s database. Chicago Booth, which is ranked second by Princeton Review, doesn’t make the LinkedIn list at all. Neither does Michigan, Brigham Young, or the University of Arizona, all schools in Princeton Review’s top five.
A side-by-side comparison (below) of the LinkedIn list with the two other rankings tells the story well. Seven of LinkedIn’s top ten schools don’t even warrant a mention in the Princeton Review ranking. LinkedIn’s number one school, Stanford, ranks a mere eighth on the Princeton Review list. Two of LinkedIn’s top ten schools don’t make the U.S. News list even though it rates 27 schools.
LinkedIn Rank & School U.S. News Rank Princeton Review
1. Stanford 2 8
2. Harvard Business School 4 NR
3. MIT Sloan 3 NR
4. California-Berkeley (Haas) 6 NR
5. Dartmouth (Tuck) NR NR
6. Pennsylvania (Wharton) 5 NR
7. Columbia Business School 19 NR
8. Babson 1 1
9. Virginia (Darden) 14 7
10. Cornell (Johnson) NR NR
Source: LinkedIn study, U.S. News, and Princeton Review
Of course, not every entrepreneur may have a LinkedIn profile and even those that do may not fall within the parameters of the professional network site’s methodology. LinkedIn counted members who identified themselves as founders or co-founders of U.S. companies created after 2000, with a LinkedIn company profile, and that currently has between two and 200 employees. LinkedIn excluded small law, consulting and real estate firms, as well as LLCs. Using these guidelines, LinkedIn came up with a pool of more than 13,000 entrepreneurs for its survey.
The LinkedIn ranking is not based on raw numbers, but rather on “how ‘over-represented’ those schools are among entrepreneurs,” according to Monica Rogati, a senior data scientist at LinkedIn who did the analysis. “This levels the playing field for small schools, as you have noticed but it makes it less surprising, which is why I wanted to mention it.”
This compares with U.S. News, which simply asks b-school deans and MBA directors, to rank schools on the basis of their entrepreneurship programs—even though they have no direct knowledge of those programs. Princeton Review, meantime, may as well pull its results out of a hat. Its methodology is so unclear and unspecific that it is hard to say exactly how the ranking is put together. It supposedly attempts to measure “academics and requirements,” “students and faculty,” and “outside the classroom.” (Our critique of the ranking was published last year.)
That’s why the new LinkedIn list has more gravitas–because it is based on real results—not what a few deans think about programs for which they no knowledge or some voodoo methodology by an organization that refuses to properly disclose how it comes up with a ranking.
Which business schools have produced the most entrepreneurs?
A recently published LinkedIn study examined the backgrounds of members who identify themselves as startup founders and came up with the leading schools for entrepreneurs.
The results dramatically differ from the two most-cited yet deeply flawed rankings of leading entrepreneurial programs by Princeton Review and U.S. News & World Report. By sifting through its more than 120 million member profiles, LinkedIn has produced the ideal “put up or shut up” analysis. It’s the kind of data that calls out schools that have made entrepreneurship a marketing or promotional vehicle vs. those that have produced actual startup entrepreneurs.
LinkedIn membership data shows these five schools produced the most startup founders:
• Stanford,
• Harvard,
• MIT Sloan,
• Berkeley’s Haas School, and
• Dartmouth College’s Tuck School.
The next five are Wharton, Columbia, Babson, Virginia Darden, and the Johnson School at Cornell University.
Why the results are surprising
Babson, which has long been number one in both rankings, does no better than eighth place. Tuck, which fails to make the U.S. News list of 27 schools or the Princeton Review list of 25 schools, is firmly in the top five.
Columbia Business School, which doesn’t make the Princeton Review list and comes in at 19th on U.S. News, has the seventh largestnumber of startup founders in LinkedIn’s database. Chicago Booth, which is ranked second by Princeton Review, doesn’t make the LinkedIn list at all. Neither does Michigan, Brigham Young, or the University of Arizona, all schools in Princeton Review’s top five.
A side-by-side comparison (below) of the LinkedIn list with the two other rankings tells the story well. Seven of LinkedIn’s top ten schools don’t even warrant a mention in the Princeton Review ranking. LinkedIn’s number one school, Stanford, ranks a mere eighth on the Princeton Review list. Two of LinkedIn’s top ten schools don’t make the U.S. News list even though it rates 27 schools.
LinkedIn Rank & School U.S. News Rank Princeton Review
1. Stanford 2 8
2. Harvard Business School 4 NR
3. MIT Sloan 3 NR
4. California-Berkeley (Haas) 6 NR
5. Dartmouth (Tuck) NR NR
6. Pennsylvania (Wharton) 5 NR
7. Columbia Business School 19 NR
8. Babson 1 1
9. Virginia (Darden) 14 7
10. Cornell (Johnson) NR NR
Source: LinkedIn study, U.S. News, and Princeton Review
Of course, not every entrepreneur may have a LinkedIn profile and even those that do may not fall within the parameters of the professional network site’s methodology. LinkedIn counted members who identified themselves as founders or co-founders of U.S. companies created after 2000, with a LinkedIn company profile, and that currently has between two and 200 employees. LinkedIn excluded small law, consulting and real estate firms, as well as LLCs. Using these guidelines, LinkedIn came up with a pool of more than 13,000 entrepreneurs for its survey.
The LinkedIn ranking is not based on raw numbers, but rather on “how ‘over-represented’ those schools are among entrepreneurs,” according to Monica Rogati, a senior data scientist at LinkedIn who did the analysis. “This levels the playing field for small schools, as you have noticed but it makes it less surprising, which is why I wanted to mention it.”
This compares with U.S. News, which simply asks b-school deans and MBA directors, to rank schools on the basis of their entrepreneurship programs—even though they have no direct knowledge of those programs. Princeton Review, meantime, may as well pull its results out of a hat. Its methodology is so unclear and unspecific that it is hard to say exactly how the ranking is put together. It supposedly attempts to measure “academics and requirements,” “students and faculty,” and “outside the classroom.” (Our critique of the ranking was published last year.)
That’s why the new LinkedIn list has more gravitas–because it is based on real results—not what a few deans think about programs for which they no knowledge or some voodoo methodology by an organization that refuses to properly disclose how it comes up with a ranking.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Great Lakes institute of management makes great strides.
A GLIM-mer of hope for the B-school -starved Chennai, Great Lake’s meteoric rise in business education, with an international feel, is a blessing to the city. Other than institutes such as LIBA and IFMR , Chennai does not have many B schools of repute. Now Great Lakes is filling that gap. And duly. With a bouquet of courses to suit both freshers and executive with work experience, and with one other campus in Gurgaon, a corporate hub, Great Lakes is fast becoming one of the sought after destinations for top MBA aspirants.
Ensconced on ECR, closer to the IT hub, and in the manufacturing capital of South India,Great Lakes’ industry interaction is one of its trump cards. Besides, it offers industry- relevant management courses for working professionals, the PGWPM; PGWPM-energy, prepares professionals for the largest sector- energy.
New 2yr PGDM
Great Lakes is introducing 2-year PGDM( equivalent to MBA) program beginning academic session July 2012, according to a press release. The program is open to candidates with 0- 2 yrs of experience, the seats available being 120. Now freshers too can have the Great Lakes advantage. A unique feature of the program is the tie up with colleges abroad for student and faculty exchange, and semester- abroad component, defining further, its motto – global mindsets, Indian roots. PGDM specializations will comprise- operations, finance, strategy, IT and System and , International Business.
The reputed 1 year PGPM program already offered by the institute, has an intake of 300 students per year. To seek admission to PGPM (1year), PGDM (2yr) programs applicant can take CAT/XAT/GMAT exams. Cut-offs and other details can be obtained from the institute website.
Contributed by
Dr. Vijayakumari
GMAT trainer @ GMAT superia-semantics
Ensconced on ECR, closer to the IT hub, and in the manufacturing capital of South India,Great Lakes’ industry interaction is one of its trump cards. Besides, it offers industry- relevant management courses for working professionals, the PGWPM; PGWPM-energy, prepares professionals for the largest sector- energy.
New 2yr PGDM
Great Lakes is introducing 2-year PGDM( equivalent to MBA) program beginning academic session July 2012, according to a press release. The program is open to candidates with 0- 2 yrs of experience, the seats available being 120. Now freshers too can have the Great Lakes advantage. A unique feature of the program is the tie up with colleges abroad for student and faculty exchange, and semester- abroad component, defining further, its motto – global mindsets, Indian roots. PGDM specializations will comprise- operations, finance, strategy, IT and System and , International Business.
The reputed 1 year PGPM program already offered by the institute, has an intake of 300 students per year. To seek admission to PGPM (1year), PGDM (2yr) programs applicant can take CAT/XAT/GMAT exams. Cut-offs and other details can be obtained from the institute website.
Contributed by
Dr. Vijayakumari
GMAT trainer @ GMAT superia-semantics
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
GMAT fast-track for the test season
A GMAT program designed for the busy you
Workshop-based higher order interactives
-Exhaustive SC concepts
-inductive -deductive logic for CR
-inferential reading
-Higher order problem solving
-Data sufficiency
Program director- Dr Vijayakumari-Chief GMAT trainer
Watch a preview
Duration:30 hrs from Nov 15th to Dec 15th
Call 044-42068494 or 9884123808 to book your seat
Workshop-based higher order interactives
-Exhaustive SC concepts
-inductive -deductive logic for CR
-inferential reading
-Higher order problem solving
-Data sufficiency
Program director- Dr Vijayakumari-Chief GMAT trainer
Watch a preview
Duration:30 hrs from Nov 15th to Dec 15th
Call 044-42068494 or 9884123808 to book your seat
www.gmatsuperia.com
Saturday, October 22, 2011
GMAT CR tips
GMAT CR tip
be aware of the most common ways in which reasoning can go wrong. this will help spot them in CR arguments as well as
guard against these errors in your essay writing.
some of those ways are
- confusing cause and effect
- using unpresentative statistics
- employing faulty analogy
- drawing hasty generalisation
more of these you may get at our website- www.semanticslearning.com
be aware of the most common ways in which reasoning can go wrong. this will help spot them in CR arguments as well as
guard against these errors in your essay writing.
some of those ways are
- confusing cause and effect
- using unpresentative statistics
- employing faulty analogy
- drawing hasty generalisation
more of these you may get at our website- www.semanticslearning.com
GMAT sentence correction tips
GMAT sentence correction tip
check each sentence for semantics( meaning conveyed) and syntax( the grammatical structure and conformity).
syntax is altered to convey the meaning aptly, not the other way around.
in addition to these two, terseness is important- being economical with words
caution: if being terse, ie reducing words, lead to ambiguity, length is welcome.
here are two eg.
eg. 1.
ambiguous: Piaget noted that in children a repertoire of skills is acquired during preschool period and need further
strengthening through organized learning experienced at school.
what needs strengthening is ambiguous, so we need to repeat some words
Piaget noted that in children a repertoire of skills is acquired during preschool period and these skills need further
strengthening through organized learning experienced at school.
eg 2- a wordy sentence
The houses were mostly well built in construction, but the interior furnishing within the house left much
to be desired.
economical
the houses were mostly well- built, but the interiors left much to be desired.
check each sentence for semantics( meaning conveyed) and syntax( the grammatical structure and conformity).
syntax is altered to convey the meaning aptly, not the other way around.
in addition to these two, terseness is important- being economical with words
caution: if being terse, ie reducing words, lead to ambiguity, length is welcome.
here are two eg.
eg. 1.
ambiguous: Piaget noted that in children a repertoire of skills is acquired during preschool period and need further
strengthening through organized learning experienced at school.
what needs strengthening is ambiguous, so we need to repeat some words
Piaget noted that in children a repertoire of skills is acquired during preschool period and these skills need further
strengthening through organized learning experienced at school.
eg 2- a wordy sentence
The houses were mostly well built in construction, but the interior furnishing within the house left much
to be desired.
economical
the houses were mostly well- built, but the interiors left much to be desired.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Road map to worlds top universities
Topics covered
1.Deadlines of top colleges
2.Study options abroad- countrywise breakup
3.MBA options for fresher's
4.How to finance your studies abroad?
5.Indian banks scenario
6.Admission process for MS
7.Approx costing info to do MS abroad
8.Finance certificates
9.Funding options
10.Scholarship options for indian students
11.Contact our resource personal
For more info email to enquiry@semanticslearning.com
Watch the presentation
1.Deadlines of top colleges
2.Study options abroad- countrywise breakup
3.MBA options for fresher's
4.How to finance your studies abroad?
5.Indian banks scenario
6.Admission process for MS
7.Approx costing info to do MS abroad
8.Finance certificates
9.Funding options
10.Scholarship options for indian students
11.Contact our resource personal
For more info email to enquiry@semanticslearning.com
Watch the presentation
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
US and European grad schools- Admission services workshop
semantics invites you to
“Roadmap to the world’s best Universities & colleges- Admission services workshop”
Date: Oct 15th Time: 5:00pm
Venue: Semantics,#34 Jumbulingam St, Nungambakkam,Chennai -34, off Valuvarkottam high road, opp
canara bank, Nungambakkam. Ph: 044-42068494
To register: sms name and email id to 9884123808 or 044-42068494
Workshop includes:
Special session on:
•Navigating complicated admission procedures of the Top 100 universities of the world
•Guidance on SOP’s, Recommendation letters
•Scholarships
•Visa counselling and more
Special offers on admission services packages
Profile of the speaker
DR. DEBJANI BANERJEE:
Admission counselor for various organisations including Career Plan and IMS. Has excellent track record of placements in the most reputed institutions in US, UK and Singapore. A PhD in English, Dr. Banerjee brings rich experience in teaching and administration at US universities and colleges in UK in order to help her students plan their careers. She uses her skills as a published writer to help her students present their profile and their strengths. She has taught in various international classrooms and in e-learning environments and this varied experience underpins her work as a global education expert.
Dr.Debjani heads the Admission Assistance Cell (AAC) at Semantics.
Bookmark this on DeliciousSaturday, October 1, 2011
5 most crucial points while solving. Permutation combinations
ARRANGMENT
N terms can be arranged in N! factorial ways, if each position can be occupied by one term.
N terms can be arranged in N^M where. Each position can be occupied by 1 term or 2 terms or …… N terms. M stands for the number of positions to be filled.
COMBINATION
M terms can be selected from P terms in PCm ways.
In certain situations it is required to first choose the terms and then arrange the terms. i.e. PERMUTATION.
Permutation = combination x arrangement.
4. When N objects are distributed among P positions such that each position can get any number of objects (zero, one, two ……N) then the number of ways of arranging the items is N+P-1Cp-1
5. When N objects are distributed among P positions such that each position can get atleast one objet (one, two ……N) then the number of ways of arranging the items is N-1Cp+1
5 crucial points while solving a probability based problem.
1. Calculate the numerator {Nos. of foverable terms} and the denominator {Total number of terms} separately using the concepts of arrangement, permutation and combination.
2. TAKE IT PERSONAL : Always imagine you are arranging / selecting the items. The action of taking the object and placing it in the relevant position is the key.
3. When two or more items are picked it is easier to compute the probability of picking one element at a time than computing the probability of picking many items at a time.
4. When A and B are selected relate the respective probabilities with multiplicataion. When either A or B is selected relate the respective probabilities with addition.
5. When the multiple outcomes are possible the probability of atleast one of them happening is computed by calculating the reverse probability = 1 – probability of event not happening.
Bookmark this on Delicious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)