Company
GMAT PREP COMPANY

Economist GMAT Tutor

4.6 stars
(4.6/5) - 174 reviews
Joined: Sep 2014
Purchased Course: Aug 2014
Verified Real Student Review

Excellent

5 stars
September 15, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: Yes
GMAT ScoresBefore: N/A   After: N/A
Excellent preparation. I don't like the videos because sometimes I think they are toos low and I get bored, sometimes too quick and I need to hear it again; here I can really go as fast or slow as I need, even just stop practicing if something else needs addressing, and it doesn't go on without me.

Plus the methods and explanations are great. I would like to have such an assistant for everything I want to learn !!

I did not pass the real GMAT yet but I firmly believe this preparation will improve my score.

Joined: Sep 2014
Purchased Course: Jul 2014
College: Rutgers University
Major: Biology
Industry: Medical/Health Care Devices
Country: United States
Verified Real Student Review

GMAT Economist

5 stars
September 13, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: Yes
GMAT ScoresBefore: N/A   After: 710
The course was great and every practice exam was very accurate. The adaptive technology was very realistic and the material was presented in a great manner.

Joined: Aug 2014
Purchased Course: Aug 2014
College: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas
Major: Economics
Industry: Consulting
Country: Peru
Verified Real Student Review

I increased 80 points because of this course

5 stars
August 22, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: Yes
GMAT ScoresBefore: N/A   After: 720
I took one of the exams from the GMAT Prep Software before I started the program and scored 640 (I don't remember my quant score but I got a 32V and 6/8 in IR). After 9 CAT exams and 2 months training with the The Economist GMAT app I achieved 720 on my actual GMAT (49Q, 38V, 8/8 IR, 5.0/6 AWA). The app helped a lot with my Verbal skills, I even got a 42V on my CAT exams but had fever on the day of the exam and could barely finish it on the test day. I would also recommend the program for your essay (AWA) training. Whenever you submit an essay you'll a really harsh review as feedback but don't feel let down because I got a 3.0-3.5, 4.0-4.5 and even 2.5-3.0 and on my test I got 5.0. The essay reviews may not be realistic on the way they evaluate you but the way they teach how to write the AWA is pretty easy and intuitive. I did not use the app for my IR training, I didn't train for that but the Math training is pretty straight-forward and it's even more difficult than what you'll actually find on your test. Don't over-train yourself with other programs. I definitely recommend you this program. I took because I had not much choices living in Peru (South America for those who don't know it) and helped me a lot!

Joined: Aug 2014
Purchased Course: Jul 2014
Country: India
Verified Real Student Review

The Economist GMAT Review

4 stars
August 19, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Teacher: Issac
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: No
GMAT ScoresBefore: N/A   After: N/A
The course is adaptive and that is what makes it amazing. The progress chart doesn\'t only depend on the time you spend in the course but also depends on your output. Number of Rights and Wrongs per session. Their is simplistic and fine. The verbal, tricks and techniques are absolutely brilliant. The sentence correction part is the best. I have completes over 50% of the course within 1 month and in 45 Hours. I gave my first free test on 17th July and scored a 560 with 44in Quant and 25 in Verbal. After finishing 48% of the course I gave another simulation test and I scored 700 with 49 in Quant and 38 in Verbal. The course is interactive. I can easily recommend this to anyone who is willing to write the GMAT seriously. The cost is worth it and more importantly its equal to the cost of other coaching institutes around.

Joined: Nov 2011
Purchased Course: May 2014
Verified Real Student Review

Solid program.

5 stars
August 12, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Teacher: Issac, Ilana, Aaron
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: Yes
GMAT ScoresBefore: 650   After: 680
The course was very good. I enjoyed working on it. The “Ask a tutor” application was great and I used to ask questions all the time. All my questions were answered within 24 hrs. The content of the program closely reflected the GMAT. The tips and tricks they teach is indispensable.

The schedule a session with a teacher is a great feature. If you are lagging in a particular area, this is a very good feature to use. I had good sessions here. The application really drills down on the areas which you are not good at and repeatedly makes sure you get a concept right.

Joined: Jun 2014
Purchased Course: Mar 2014
College: Bilkent University
Major: Electrical Engineering
Industry: Real Estate Finance
Country: Turkey
Verified Real Student Review

Great place to learn how to beat the GMAT

5 stars
June 23, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: Yes
GMAT ScoresBefore: 580   After: 670
I have entered the GMAT before i studied just for one month and got 580. Because I have an engineering background i can easily handle the quantitative part however, as l am not native english speaker person my verbal score is to low. Thats why I decided to get a professional help from the bests in the market. Then I chose Economist GMAT tutor and I am very lucky and happy to find them and study with their style. for just one and a half month I increase my score to total 670. Economist also help to improve my quantitative skills as well as verbal.

I feel lucky to reach them. and I believe if I have more time for studying, such as 3-4 months, I will easily reach 700+

the teaching system and the topics are extreamly GREAT. I have never seen something like that. I do not need any more tudor sessions, or lessons on-site. I handle all my work with myself online.

THANKs Economist GMAT Tudor.

Joined: Jun 2014
Purchased Course: Jun 2014
Country: India
Verified Real Student Review

Good Course

3 stars
June 23, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Teacher: Isaac
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: No
GMAT ScoresBefore: N/A   After: N/A
The quality of the curriculum is pretty good and the best part is that it adapts to your speed and accuracy. The mobile apps are very good too.

Joined: Jun 2014
Purchased Course: May 2014
Verified Real Student Review

Economist GMAT Prep - A good option

4 stars
June 13, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Teacher: NA
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: Yes
GMAT ScoresBefore: N/A   After: N/A
This course is in my opinion the best \"on the go\" GMAT reference and it has a very user friendly approach and understandable text. Sample questions appear to have the requisite level of difficulty and the explanations are generally clear. Not everyything is perfect. For the quantitative section, the program appears to rely too much on plugging in / POE techniques, at the expense of explaining algebraic / equation based approaches. However, the explanations remain sound for those of us that would refer to use a more traditional mathematical approach. Also, the verbal section seems tedious in some areas and it can be difficult to do one or two reading comprehension questions in isolation. The Ipad program seems to work well, but the effectiveness of the program without an internet connection is a bit unpredictable. It seems like the program can store some data for offline use, but sometimes this fails. Some increased transparency on this would be helpful. Also, everyone once in a while the text of a question can be \"glitchy\" (word missing!); this is very annoying and I have had this happen three times. This distracts a lot from the experience. The program also purports to work on iphone but it seems like the text would be WAY too small to make this practical. Also, there is no way to increase the text size in the Ipad program, which can be tedious for a longer study session. I would not recommend this as a standalone program but this program is fantastic for a fresh look at the key skills and techniques required for a respectable score. For my prep, I have been using some Manhattan GMAT books and took a live Kaplan course, but the Economist GMAT really has helped a lot in bringing everything together. Another thing I really like is that the program is recursive -- it loops back to past concepts periodically to confirm you still remember. That is great for those of us that work fulltime and therefore need to split the studying up into chunks.

Joined: May 2014
Purchased Course: Jan 2014
College: Georgia Institute of Technology
Major: International Business
Verified Real Student Review

A fantastic course for a GMAT re-taker

5 stars
May 10, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Recommended forVerbal: Yes   Math: Yes
GMAT ScoresBefore: 690   After: 750
When I started the Economist program, it was 2-3 months after I had taken my first GMAT. For that first test, I studied my way through the Manhattan book series at my own pace and did some of the OG practice problems. I felt like I didn’t achieve my full potential that time around, since my GMAC practice tests were in the 730 ballpark, but my actual test came out a 690.
I started the Economist prep trial software in January out of curiosity, at that point, not entirely intent on re-taking the test at any given time. However, I was drawn into the platform of the program, which combines adaptive teaching (to what extent, I’m not sure) with progress tracking and score prediction. The fact that the program offered a score increase guarantee of 50 points (with conditions, of course) in a certain period of time (in this case, 3 months) felt like the right kind of commitment I needed – finite time-wise with a very specific goal. After the one-week trial period, in which I appeared to have completed around 10% of the program, I decided to go all the way.
I purchased the program in February and got started with a practice exam (my program included 3 of them). I scored 710 on that exam, meaning, I could base my score improvement on that first score (assuming I met the other conditions, one of which is to complete 90% of the course) – 760 guaranteed? Awesome.
Over the next two months, I spent 5-7 hours per week going through the lessons and practice problems. At times it was annoying to have to click through topics I already knew, but the interspersion of practice problems with new topics is a great feature of the program and constantly keeps you practicing and refreshing your knowledge of previously taught topics.
I felt like the verbal section was particularly strong in the program. It teaches really solid rules for sentence correction (I think this made the biggest difference for me) and guidelines for reading comprehension that helped me save a lot of time. When feeding me verbal practice questions, it seemed to give me mostly SC problems, which I suppose mimics the composition of the real test, but it would have been nice, after I had answered 20 consecutive SC questions correctly (no exaggeration) that it would have given me some critical reasoning or reading comprehension questions. Anyhow, I breezed my way through the bulk of the verbal section in the first two months, spending 1/2 to 2/3 of the time that I spent on quant. I noticed my verbal score on the practice tests (I did official and Manhattan practice tests on the side) making marked improvements, from 38-40 to 42-44. At the end of two months, I had finished all of the lessons in the verbal section (between 70-75% completion, as the program tracks it), leaving only practice problems.
Throughout the program, I had mixed feelings about the way quant is taught. As a detail-oriented person, I was a little annoyed that they were teaching ballparking as a fundamental skill. However, this approach is actually very helpful in brushing off seemingly insurmountable problems without over-dedicating. I learned some new approaches to solving quant problems (both problem solving and data sufficiency) that I think were especially helpful. There were not any remarkable ways of re-learning the fundamental math behind the problems, but the repetitive drilling of practice questions helped a lot to get formulas memorized. While this program may not be as strong as others in teaching test-takers to correctly answer the super-difficult quant questions, I thought it did a good job overall in preparing me for the quant section as a whole, considering all the questions, strategy and timing. At the end of the first two months, I had only finished around half of the quant part of the program, despite having spent significantly more time on it.
Throughout the first two months, I used 3 of the 4 tutoring sessions included in the program. The session basically consists of a 45-minute Skype conversation with a tutor to review an area of your choice. I chose the areas that had been weak in practice tests. While we were not able to cover many questions in that time, as compared with the GMAT practice problems, I found it helpful to discuss in detail the elements of the problems and to learn new strategies for dealing with questions. I don’t consider the tutoring sessions to be a crucial part of the program, but it’s definitely a nice bonus to have.
At the start of my third and final month of the program, I took some time to assess what I needed to do to get where I wanted to go. I had a goal of 760 (within the program, anyway) and needed to complete approximately 40% of the quant and 15% of the verbal in order to meet the 90% threshold for The Economist’s score guarantee. I did notice that progress beyond a certain point (somewhere in the 60-70% range) becomes significantly more difficult to achieve. At some points, I would work diligently for an hour, only to get less than one percent progress. I think this has to do with concept mastery, which makes sense. If I hadn’t mastered the concepts, I should only be able to progress so far. Anyway, it is important to note that progress within this program is not linearly correlated with time spent. I spent 35-40 hours on practice sessions (not including practice tests, of which I took about 8 during the same time period) in the third month, and did not come close to the 90% milestone. However, my practice test results were promising – I had scored in the 740-750 range on the last two Economist tests and a 760 on one official (practice) test. I figured I’d go ahead with my early-May GMAT (my prep program ended in April) and see how it goes, with no score guarantee.
I submitted one practice AWA for review and comment (I still don’t think I’ve received any feedback on it, three weeks later). The program supposedly includes 3 AWA reviews, but I didn’t make use of it to any significant degree. I wrote a few AWAs as part of the practice tests I did leading up to the real test, so felt sufficiently prepared.
I did not come across any integrated reasoning sections as part of the GMAT practice prep. I think there is a short section at the end of the quant lessons (which I did not reach). Anyhow, I didn’t worry too much about it, as I had aced IR on my first GMAT.
So, I went in to take my test on May 3, with a reasonable level of confidence. I had meditated the night before and went for a short run a couple hours before test time. I may not have finished the prep program, but I had a solid foundation and was in the right state of mind. I managed to breeze through the essay (and even have time to review – not normal for me). I felt good about my performance on IR, and although I didn’t finish, I wanted to stay focused on the “important” parts. Quant went as smoothly as it could have. For the more conventional problems, I could quickly pull out the needed weapon (their use fresh in my memory from all the drills and practice tests), strike the problem down, and proceed to the next; for the more exotic quant beasts, I was able to gauge within a reasonable amount of time whether I was worthy of the foe or should take a cheap shot and flee (and live to see another day). I think this this ability to assess quant problems before getting knee-deep in them was what I gained most from the program. For the verbal section, it was more like the last few miles of a marathon than a series of battles. In my first GMAT, I faced mental exhaustion in the verbal section, unable to focus after spending so much energy previously. This time, not so – I managed to pace myself through to the end, finishing in the last 10 seconds. With the solid verbal practice that I gained from The Economist’s program, the challenge was just to stay calm and focused.
Half dreading and half elated about what my result could be, I took the maximum amount of time during the survey questions. The result came up, and it was a 750 (49Q 44V). Phew. I’ll take it.
While I didn’t achieve the 760 that I wasn’t guaranteed by The Economist, I am in every way satisfied with my results (minus the drop in IR score, small matter) and I found it a great way to achieve real results in a set amount of time. It is also far more flexible and cost effective than receiving tutoring from a human. That isn’t to say that personal tutoring isn’t valuable, but for the cost of the program, the amount of information and practice I got is phenomenal.

Joined: Mar 2013
Purchased Course: Oct 2013
College: Odessa national academy of Telecommunications
Major: Engineering
Industry: Trading/Import/Export
Country: Ukraine
Verified Real Student Review

Great if you have limited time for studies

4 stars
April 30, 2014
Company: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Course: Economist GMAT Tutor 174 reviews
Recommended forVerbal: No   Math: Yes
GMAT ScoresBefore: N/A   After: 650
My profile: non-native, didn't do any math in a long time.
It took me 2.5 months to complete 92% of the course. So there is a lot of material and a good question bank especially for math. Math questions were very alike original stuff with theory covering everything from the bottom. Adaptive system on quant was great, I think I started with less than 40 in the quant and now I hit 50 on average.
Verbal didn't felt that good for me. There is a good pack of theory, especially for SC. I didn't actually finish verbal part and didn't get my hands on harder questions but original thing felt way harder. Questions definitely hammer basics into you but it probably wasn't enough for my level.

Economist GMAT Tutor Courses

The Latest Economist GMAT Tutor Forum Posts

The Latest Economist GMAT Tutor Articles