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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I really enjoyed using this course. It was interactive, and I learned techniques for tackling some of the tough questions I know I missed when I took the GMAT the first time. It does take a lot of time to complete the course, but I think it is worth it.

I'm likely somewhat unique in that I went through most of the Economist Gmat Tutor syllabus twice - once when it was MasterGMAT and once again recently.

The Web Application
I really like the web application. It is intuitive. The UI is clean. However, I would recommend they change the review section. I found it a pain to navigate.

Quant
The quant content is very robust. If you learn best by practicing a lot and by doing a lot of questions then Economist GMAT would be a very good bet. They present you with many (thousands) questions of varying difficulty. The methods they teach are for the most part very solid. My Quant skills improved a great deal because of this course.

Verbal
On my second time around I didn't use as much as the verbal section as the first time. While very thorough I found their SC methods a bit weak. This may be because the practice SC questions are unlike official GMAT questions. When I came to apply the SC methods to OG GMAT questions they just didn't click for me.
The RC and CR content is good and the practice questions I found comparable to the GMAT.

Relative to some other courses the course is quite expensive. I think it is worth the money but the rolling monthly $90 fee when you have finished the three months is excessive. This is especially the case when your customers are all likely busy people who may not be able to complete their prep in the initial three months. it feels a bit like a money grab. This is my only gripe and this comes from a returning customer.

Economist GMAT Tutor is great! Unlike live courses (online or in-person) you can go at your own pace. You don't have to wait for instructors to respond to other students' question or fast forward a video session to get to material you actually want / need to learn.

Feedback is also given in real-time. As soon as you answer a question you see if you were right. If you got it wrong there is an explanation and a chance to learn from your mistake. No more flipping back and forth to the back of a prep book.

The progress tracker is a nice motivational tool. I find myself looking to hit certain completion benchmarks and that has kept me working hard. The score forecaster gives a 90-100 point range which seems too broad to be helpful but it's nice to see that you're score is improving.

The ask-a-tutor function hasn't been very helpful. Often the responses aren't helpful and at times seem condescending.

I would recommend the course overall. Don't bother with the more expensive versions unless you really think a few extra tests is worthwhile. I recommend you take the three tests that come with the complete version and take practice exams that you can get for free from Kaplan or GMAC. You can also buy the practice exams from Manhattan Prep.

The online Economist GMAT Tutor course was great!. The materials are very clear and the number of different exercises is very good. I resolved a total of 93% of the course so believe me when I say they have tons of materials! My scores for those of you who like to keep track - 710, 6/6 AWA and 7/8 IR. And my sim average (including GMAT PREP) 730.

The course is very friendly and easy to grasp, it makes complex concepts and GMAC tricks easy to understand and remember. The one on one Tutor lessons are very useful and they're exam debriefing tool and essay reviews are pretty good.

I'm a full time worker and getting home to study at my time and pace (+during weekends) was what I needed. The Economist course fell right into my needs and helped me get ready for my GMAT. At the end of the day I studied an average of 2 hours on weekdays and 4 hours on weekends, and got to the results I wanted.

I fully recommend this to any and everyone

As an Economist reader I was drawn by the credibility of the name and the ability to do a free trial. I had a lot of friends offering books of various sorts, but I really didn't know where to start and having a brand I could trust was how I got started.

I was not disappointed. The course was extremely thorough, giving me complete confidence that every matter would be covered and that recent changes and added sections in the exam would be addressed.

The course is built to allow you to meet an objective - a high GMAT score. Everything in it is thoroughly researched and presented to teach you how the exam might trick you, common mistakes and common fool-proof answer checks. My exam methodology I took during my School days was clearly not the right one to take into this test, and the Economist Tutor was instrumental in changing it into a more effective GMAT-focussed method.

I also submitted essays for the AWA section for marking on three occasions and my score went up each time as I practiced and responded to feedback. Again, had I approached this section without some crucial bits of advice from the Economist GMAT tutor I would have been in a far different situation.

Unfortunately I did not leave myself enough time to complete the whole course, and I think that perhaps my score reflects this. As a means to an ends though, it has got me exactly where I want to be, to my Business School of 1st preference and I really don't think I would be here without it!

Very satisfied.

I chose the Economist GMAT Tutor course initially because of the iPad app. Given that I travel a lot and usually have the iPad close to hand I thought this decision would maximize my study time while limiting my excuses. What I didn't expect was that I would find the course very enjoyable. The content is interesting and there are constant exercises and sample questions to test your knowledge including random revision questions from previously covered areas of the course. Many exercises are performed in a time controlled environment to prepare you for the test. In addition to the app there are online support, revision materials and mock examinations available online. I would recommend this course however I did find the price of the course expensive, that being said it was still comparable to the cost of other online GMAT courses.

The Economist GMAT prep is the best tool I have come across when preparing for the GMAT. If I had known, I would not have wasted my time buying other text books and spent hours doing useless self study sessions. The Economist course is entirely online, and you can take it from a computer or mobile phone. It helps you study what the software sees is best for you (you can turn off the auto pilot and choose for yourself also). The language is clear, concise and carries a light humor. I highly recommend this course. It gets the job done as painlessly as possible. I only took about 70% of the course, but that was enough for the to get the score I wanted.

I have completed 85% of the GMAT tutor course. The quant section was great and helped me to reach 49, 81 percentile and I have completed 90% of quant the section.
However, the verbal section was not greet enough for non-native speaker. I completed about 80 % of that section and scored 24, 34 percentile only.
My total score was 610 and the GMAT Tutor forecast was 600-650. My last exam was 2 years before this. I have not done any thing for GMAT during this 2 years other than 12 weeks using GMAT Tutor before the exam.
I recommend the course for its quant section only not for the verbal section.

The Economist GMAT Tutor is an adaptive course of study, covering the quantitative portions of the GMAT.

The program largely consist of answering example questions using a slider entry that allows you to choose your level of confidence with the answer while choosing the answer that you believe to be correct. This same interface is used for presenting new information as well.

The presentation seems to be in a set order, with skills building on each other. However, the actual practice questions provided are highly adaptive, with too many incorrect answers triggering outright reeducation on the topic. Providing consistently correct answers will result in faster progression through the course as well as more challenging questions.

Set to the defaults, the course will switch every 10-15 minutes between math and verbal practice. But you do not have the option to target particular material for review.
I found the system to be somewhat frustrating, particularly for math, which is my weak point. There are times when a more thorough review would be appreciated, particularly when answering a question wrong. While an explanation is provided, it is not always thorough.

The ability to submit questions involves a near 24 hr delay, and so is not particularly useful.

The practice test are superb, and worth the cost of the program itself. The feedback is detailed, and the essay is scored by a human.

Overall, I could not recommend this GMAT course. The adaptive format and accessibility are nice and this is about where the positives stop for me.

After completing more than 75% of the course over 100+ hours of studying, I took the real test and was quite disappointed with my score to say the least. While I felt prepared and was scoring in the 600's on the OG tests, I do not hold this program solely accountable.

Some of my frustrations include the inability to select specific lessons, the "tutor" sessions, the score forecast, and the IR preparation. First, as many people have said before, it is not possible to select a certain problem area you are struggling with for review. There isn't even a search feature to go through the small summary tidbits the program does have. Searching for topics is annoying. I gave up and just came to the forums for supplemental info. Another program feature that I found useless was the score forecaster. After completing 75% of the program and completing all 3 simulation tests, my score forecast had a range of 90 points. 90 points on the GMAT is huge and provides no value. Third, the program never introduced me to the IR content. I feel its ridiculous after 75% of the course this was not discussed.

One of the major disappointments for me was the one-on-on tutoring sessions. 3 of my 4 sessions were USELESS. And I mean completely useless. I spent the 50 minutes watching the tutors solve problems. After asking questions the tutors responded with minutes of "ummmmmm, uhhhhh, hmmmmmm". When an answer was given and I continued to ask questions, sometimes they were answered, other times they weren't. On a specific topic I asked a few follow questions on the tutor said, "I have explained it perfectly. I don't know why you don't understand and I can't do it any other way". Thank you for being helpful and hard working!! The last straw for me was when one of the tutors answered my question by telling me to look in the online forums for the answers. This is unacceptable and a joke. I hope that I just had bad experiences.

These are just some of my negative feelings about the course. Some people have found it helpful and the ability to use the course anywhere is a plus. However, I would recommend using a different course as I am.

Pros:
- Really focuses on the way that you should approach the test questions rather than what the answers should be.
- Feels like it is tailored to your personnel needs.
-Ability to choose the length of lessons based on the time you have.
-

Cons-
- I found that the IPAD app version was a little bit harder to use than the full computer version.
-You can't choose the exact topic you want to study at the time. You can choose to have options but if what you want to go over is not offered there is not way of getting to it. I understand the reasoning behind this, but it can cause difficulties for the user if their scheduled date to take the test is fast approaching and they have yet to reach certain topics they know will be on the test.


OVERALL, I think this is a great program. However, my main warning would be that it is important to make sure you have enough time to get through the full program before you take the test. I spent about 1 months studying for 2 to 3 hours per day on average and was unable to make it through all the material. Therefore when I took the test I was not satisfied with my score. However, I don't really blame the economist GMAT tutor for that. I plan to re-take after completing the course and will update my review then to reflect my final conclusions.

I'm a working student, Always been fashinated in getting an MBA sooner or later.
Being able to dedicate no more than 6-7 hours/week due to my workload, it was difficult to me to keep up with my studies and I've decided to force me using a prep course.

I've looked around for a while but I've then found the killer application in the The Economist Tutor.

It's a self adaptive course, which means the type of questions and the difficulty level vary depending on your Learning curve: it's impressive how the software keep on presenting you the same types of problem until you crack it! It's like having a teacher in front of you..you can't escape!

Moreover, the good of the program is exactly when you fai in a problem: books explain the correct answer (and sometimes take the explaination as an occasion to confuse the student even more), The Economist GMAT Tutor goes straight to the point, both showing you the way to and going through the wrong answers too, guessing what drove you to choose them.

You feel naked in front of the software, exactly the same as you would be in front of a teacher and whenever you require an additional support Beyond the problem explaination, the "ask a tutor" function will let you get in touch with a teacher ready to remove any doubt with a very very detailed explaination sent by email within the next 24 hours from your request. Impressive!

All in all, I believe it's a must have for any GMAT student because it's really well done if you need a preparation from scratch. On the other side, given the architecture of the software, I wouldn't suggest it to those who are already quite advanced in GMAT and need to focus their preparation on few topics only: in these cased I think one to one lessons with a real teacher is the best method to optimize your time and Learning curve.

Overall completion of the program is estimated in 100 hours more ore less.

I truly don't know what I would have done without the Economist GMAT Tutor. I tried many different methods to master the GMAT but nothing broke down the concepts quite like this program. The Economist GMAT Tutor managed to make even the most complex problems seem manageable. When taking the GMAT, I felt prepared and was not put off by anything that I saw on test day.

Thank you, Economist GMAT Tutor.