|
总算考完了!很少看到在职有小孩的分享,而且我这4周从CD学到了不少东西,特此回报大家.尤其是在职有小孩的,不要有顾虑,去尝试,一定会成功!
我的情况是已有理工博士好几年,在职有小孩所以只能每晚9-11PM复习.以下是我的浅见
1. 准备工作不要太长,3-4周is more than enough. For professionals with children, we can not afford months to prepare for GMAT, it will just stress us out.
2. Focus on math and SC: 我只在这两项有进步
3.SC: 我做了OG,但最重要是仔细弄懂每道题: I improved from 8 errors to 4 errors in SC
4. Math: just improve by doing practice exams,重点在PACE和细心.
5. Pace很重要: 我是每隔10题看一次时间,最后考试都是刚好做完.
6.磨考:我一共做了PREP4次,GWD3套
7. 最后一天请一天假在家,主要是进入MOOD
最后一点提醒:最后考试选学校不要象我急着按NEXT,我只选了一个学校就按了NEXT,结果回不去了,只好另外花钱送分.大家注意!!! 附:今天收到了GMAT作文成绩6分,有些惊喜但也似意料之中. 因为考G的四个礼拜我从CD得到不少帮助和鼓励,所以下面把我的一点浅见奉上以作回报. 我准备GMAT AWA时间大约共4-6小时(分布在四周内).我先看了一篇牛文” 作文5分的底线是什么”,觉得很有帮助.因为巳找不到link, 特copy在本文最后. 我的感想: - 字数最好500以上
- 分5-6段:开头, 3点3段 (参见AWA版我的sample), 结尾.
- 我认为没必要背模板,一则有抄袭嫌疑,二则我认为GMAT评分与模板的用词等毫无关系: 根据GMAT, The Analytical Writing Assessment is used to
provide an independent ranking of your ability to think critically and to communicate clearly when writing in English,所以我认为最重要的是你的观点,而非所谓强转折词,或其它华丽的词藻,句型. - 最好的模板也许是mba.com上的两篇例文,我看了2-3遍
- 最重要的是观点:所以我会先用4-5分钟思考3-4个要点,写下来,然后每个要点用一段解释.我个人认为这最作文6分关键: 你的要点是否合理,令人信服?
GMAT是考思维能力,这点我们中国人应该有优势. - 例子: 我没特别在意用什么例子,如果有例子刚好支持我的要点就用.实考时两篇共用了一个例子.
- 最后我用3-4分钟检查.
- 七宗罪: 我看了,觉得有道理,但对我似乎没什么用上,因为想要点我还是基本上自己思考.
下面附上一篇陋文,主要是表明要点分段写作的方法.这是我用mba.com的题目顾意写的相反现点.大家可以看到我用词句等其实很一般.所以我能得6分,相信大家一定也可以. "People often complain that products are not made to last. They feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. What they fail to see, however, is that such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand." Which do you find more compelling, the complaint about products that do not last or the response to it? Explain your position, using relevant reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading. The issue about the advantages and disadvantages for products to wear is a complex one. Different people hold different views due to their different angles. Many people feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes both natural and human resources. On the other hand, it can be noted that such manufacturing practices keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand. In this discussion, I shall present arguments that favor the later statement and refute the first statement. First of all, products do need to wear out in order for newer, more innovative products to replace them. This is how the economy and technology progress. For example, in the computer industry, new technology is developed and older technology is replaced every two years. This is called the two-year cycle in the industry and this cycle has a tremendous effect to drive the research and development of computer industry to reach one peak after another. People may complain that their computers easily break and soon after two or three years they have to buy new computers. However they do also realize that the new computers they purchase are much more powerful, innovative, yet at roughly the same price as their old computers two years ago. This is a perfect example showing how the cyclic replacement of older products can help stimulate demand and as a result, stimulate research and development of more innovative products and eventually keep the costs down.
In addition, manufacturing products that would wear out in some period is not a waste of human resources. In fact, in computer industry, a lot of innovative ideas are generated during the manufacturing process and these new ideas enable us to make newer and better products. Products that wear do not necessarily have poor quality. I believe that the most important factor to consider is if the new product is innovative enough to satisfy people’s needs. As long as innovation is generated and people’s needs are satisfied, no human resources are wasted. The group of people who feel that making products that wear out fairly quickly wastes human resources assume without justification that manufacturing products that wear out is not innovative and productive, which is just not true. Finally, I believe that manufacturing products that would wear out is not a waste of natural resources. Today, a lot of the older products can be recycled and reused. And recycle industry in turn creates millions of jobs that help propel the advancements of economy. Admittedly, products that wear out extremely easily and quickly are not good for either the consumer or the economy. However, there exists an optimal point how quickly a product should wear out in order to stimulate economy and lower costs. Therefore, based on the reasons mentioned above, I believe that manufacturing practices that make products that reasonably wear out can indeed help keep costs down for the consumer and stimulate demand, and they do not necessarily waste human and natural resources. 祝大家排除万难,迎接胜利!!!
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-3-10 9:57:00编辑过] |