Come April- Its time to prepare for GMAT

‘April is the cruelest month’, said 20th C poet par excellence, TS Elliot in his acclaimed poem ‘ The Waste Land’. I am sure some of you in the corporate world would agree with Elliot. What with appraisals ending there without apt raises! This in at least some cases would be unjustified, you could not meet the targets since the team was weak, funds and resources were limited, the target was unrealistic, the list can be made endless, if we wish to.
Don’t you, at least some of you find the ‘un-raise’( can we coin a new word?) unjustified? Or that you got a raise in pay and perks, but the moving up the ladder seem elusive?
Why don’t you think, one of the ways is to upgrade your education?

A business course for instance- MBA, PGPX, PGPMAX, MDP – eMBA, they come in all shapes and sizes.
Consider April as the new year( any ways it is, in biz jargon).. plan to apply for an MBA or executive program from prestigious colleges- IIMs, ISB Hyderabad, US, UK, Singapore.. start preparing for the GMAT, take the GMAT 3-4 months from now..be in a program this year itself

Is this unrealistic target? Nay… then let’s GMAT…



Bookmark this on Delicious

Using official guide for GMAT reading comprehension preparation part 1

Does GMAT reading comprehension scare you?
You have the official guide, but you have no clue on how to maximise the learning!

Watch this video to find out how you can use the official guide to polish your GMAT RC prep



Bookmark this on Delicious

10 must NOT DOs for GMAT reading comprehension

10 must NOT DOs for GMAT RC

1.Reading only for the topic
Read for the author’s opinions running parallel to the topic as well

2.Concentrating on the specific details
Higher weightage questions demand overall intent, flow and tone of the passage.

3.Choosing a stated idea for inference question
The answer to an inference question is never explicitly stated in the passage; it is implied

4.Taking the notes too far
One way to keep track of a long passage is by making thought flow chart; use symbols arrows to show relationships

5.Losing track of ‘who says what’
The passage may present multiple perspectives- of the author’s, someone else’s ( being quoted)..

6.Overlooking the question stem.
Some question stems are simple, yet others roundabout. ensure that you are clear what the question asks.

7.Undermining the need to build vocabulary
One third of the RC questions demand word knowledge…. Skepticism, laudatory, archaic, condescending…these all appear

8.Over reading
Skip, examples, specific details, long parenthetical statements….

9.‘ NOT SEEing crucial words- Only, except, not in the question stem

10. First reading- a slow ‘thorough’ reading
The first reading can be a faster skimming, for the main points of discussion.
More information email us at enquiry@semanticslearning.com
or visit www.gmatsuperia.com












Bookmark this on Delicious

using GMAT official guide to study GMAT sentence correction

Is GMAT sentence correction an engima?

No its not..
If you have the official guide. You can improve your performance by 80%.
Watch this video to find out how...

Bookmark this on Delicious

10 must NOT DOs for GMAT math - Data sufficiency

10 must NOT DOs for GMAT math
the directions to Data sufficiency qns ( some tips below may require you to revisit these directions)This problem consists of a question and two statements, labeled (1) and (2), in which certain data are given. You have to decide whether the data given in the statements are sufficient for answering the question. Using the data given in the statements plus your knowledge of mathematics and everyday facts (such as the number of days in July or the meaning of counterclockwise), you must indicate whether:

A statement (1) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked;
B statement (2) ALONE is sufficient, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient to answer the question asked;
C BOTH statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are sufficient to answer the question asked, but NEITHER statement ALONE is sufficient;
D EACH statement ALONE is sufficient to answer the question asked;
E statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient to answer the question asked, and additional data specific to the problem are needed.


Now here are some simple not dos
1.Assume that a given number is positive only. The numbers given can be zero, negative fractions or decimals.
i.e. sample
Main statement- is the modulus of X less than 3?
Sub statement 1- X(X+3) <0 Sub statement 2- X(X-3)>0
X can be zero, negative, fraction or decimal.

2. Assume that in a ‘Is...( refer main st in point 1 above ) question type, no is an invalid answer. ‘yes,’ can be a valid answer; no can be a valid answer. ‘sometimes yes and sometimes no’ are invalid.

3. Ignore minimum factors required( that can be gauged from the main st) to answer the qn, if either of the sub statements do not have the min factors, automatically the ans cannot be A or B.
Main st: Is X grater than Y?
Sub st 1. X is greater than Z
Sub st 2. Y is lower than Z
Here as per directions, the ans cannot be A or B.

4. Conclude based on the outcome, while substituting a number to arrive at the answer. Check the outcome while substituting varied numbers i.e. zero,+ve integer,-ve integer,+ve fraction and –ve fraction

5. Hurriedly Mark either A (or B) as the answer option when statement 1(or 2) yields an answer. Study statement 2(or 1)also . If this also leads to answer mark D, else mark A(or B)

6. Spent time deriving absolute values when approximation is sufficient in arriving at a decision.


7. Arriving at numerical values when the question requires only counting the occurrences.


8. Attempt a complex combinatronics problem by attempting to pick/select many objects at a time. pick/select one object at a time. This doesn’t change the final outcome.

9. Follow faulty logic.
i.e. A sample sum
Main statement- is the modulus of X less than 3?
Sub statement 1- X(X+3) <0 Sub statement 2- X(X-3)>0

Correct logic
Determine the range of numbers which satisfy the sub statements
Check whether these numbers satisfy the main statement.


Wrong logic
Determine the range of numbers which satisfy the main statement
Check whether these numbers satisfy the sub statements.

10. Ignoring additional information required to solve the problem
Sample problem
Main statement- A and B takes x and y days respectively to complete a work. How many days will A and B together take to complete it?
Sub statement 1 x=5
Sub statement 2 B alone takes twice as many days as A alone to complete the work

additional information on the efficiency of each person’s work per day is a factor needed. If A works at 50% efficiency, A will take 10 days to complete the work.

Bookmark this on Delicious

"interactive on the new GMAT 2012" Feb 18th 2012

Bookmark this on Delicious

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

GMAT permutation combination learning video

Bookmark this on Delicious

MS or MBA profile assessment workshop -register now

Bookmark this on Delicious

What is GMAT 100% preparation-Workshop- Dec 25th

Bookmark this on Delicious

"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

Bookmark this on Delicious

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.

Bookmark this on Delicious

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.

Bookmark this on Delicious

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

Bookmark this on Delicious

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

www.gmatsuperia.com