Great stuff here!

@Galbra1th

17 күн бұрын

Thanks Ethan!!

@thegmatstrategy

16 күн бұрын

Super happy to hear you enjoyed! Thanks for saying so.

Thanks brother

Awesome video as always, Cameron! :)

@Galbra1th

17 күн бұрын

Thank you!

Great going

Very helpful!

@Galbra1th

17 күн бұрын

Thank you Preston!!

@thegmatstrategy

16 күн бұрын

Happy to hear!

Im sorry but 6 hours a point as an all encompassing rule is just bs. Going from 550 --> 551 is not even comparable to 650 --> 651

@Galbra1th

16 күн бұрын

I hear you but I think Isaac’s typical clients are not scoring in the 550 range. He is most likely used to helping elite test takers become even more elite, hence where the 6 hours per point may come in.

@thegmatstrategy

16 күн бұрын

Thanks for weighing in and for the feedback! If you have more, please don't hesitate to add it. When we calculate the data, we include people across the entire score range. So, you're 100% right that on average, people going from 550 to 555 are going to struggle less than those going from 650 to 655. But, there are a small number of people who struggle a *ton* going from 550 to 555. They have an outsized impact on the average. Also, we include people who are trying to go from 705 to 755 (or similar) using only free resources. Sometimes this happens super fast. But, as you might imagine, most of the time it's tough! For better or for worse, when we talk publicly about this stuff, it makes sense to include the whole score range. Breaking it down by score band has proven to be way too confusing for most people, and therefore unhelpful. When we present publicly, we try to package information in the most helpful way. But, we'll definitely consider better ways of presenting this info that might be more granular. Again, if you have suggestions, we're very open to them. I might be misinterpreting what you wrote above (huge apologies if so), but just to try to be as clear as possible, 6 hours a point is not something we consider a rule. It's just an average with a massive range of variance. Some people study for 10 hours and get a 100 point gain. That's unusual, but is also included in the data set we presented. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify all this. Sounds like overall, Isaac could have done a better job of clarifying how we got this data. I'll let him know and I'm sure he'll appreciate it!