The international graduate Bocconi test mixes 50 questions across three areas and allows 75 minutes in total. Verbal reasoning accounts for 24 questions, data insight for 16 and quantitative reasoning for 10. Questions are mixed by topic and difficulty rather than delivered as three separate blocks.
The decision behind the test
Verbal reasoning includes passage comprehension, data-and-statement logic and critical reasoning. Data insight includes numerical critical reasoning from tables, graphs or passages and data sufficiency, where the task is to decide which statements are sufficient. Quantitative reasoning uses basic mathematics and analytical thinking. The mixed order requires rapid recognition of the task type.
Current official position
Bocconi awards +1 for a correct answer, zero for an omission and applies either -0.25 or -0.33 for a wrong answer. The official page does not support one universal guessing formula because the penalty can vary. A score below 15, after penalties, excludes the application from selection. The test page urges applicants to develop a personal timing strategy around strengths and weaknesses.
Our recommended next steps
Train recognition before speed: label each question type, then apply its method. For reading, locate the precise evidence. For data statements, separate facts from inference. For data sufficiency, evaluate each statement alone before combining them. For quantitative problems, estimate before calculating. In mixed sets, practise deciding when to move on and whether uncertainty justifies an answer under the displayed penalty.
Mistakes we recommend avoiding
Blind guessing can reduce the score, but always skipping uncertain items may also waste solvable opportunities. Base the decision on the actual options and penalty shown. Another common error is spending the average 90 seconds rigidly on every question; Bocconi explicitly notes that time needs differ by task.
What happens after the test?
Use the score report's section breakdown, correct, incorrect and unanswered counts to assess a later attempt. International graduate applicants may take up to three attempts in the academic year, but not on the same or consecutive days. The chosen valid result still needs to be referenced in the application by the deadline.
Derive pacing rules from your own response data
For each practice set, record the task family, seconds used, answer decision and displayed penalty. Separate questions solved with evidence from those answered after partial elimination or without a basis. After several sets, the pattern shows where an extra half-minute improves accuracy and where persistence only adds a deduction. This produces a personal stopping rule without pretending that every item has the same cost.
Test the rule in a continuous 75-minute mixed simulation. Mark the points at which you changed from solving to omitting and whether later questions remained reachable. Review costly correct answers as carefully as wrong ones, because an inefficient success can still damage the total. Before the real session, reduce the plan to two or three memorable actions: recognise the family, monitor progress and use the actual penalty when deciding whether to answer.
Recognise the task before solving it
The mixed order makes classification a scoring skill. At the start of an item, decide whether you are extracting evidence, testing an argument, interpreting data, judging sufficiency or solving a quantitative relationship. The classification should take seconds, yet it prevents a common waste: applying a full calculation to a sufficiency question or searching a passage for evidence when the issue is logical assumption.
Verbal reasoning has several faces. Passage comprehension demands close reading of what is stated and supported. Critical reasoning asks how premises and conclusions relate. Data-and-statement tasks may combine language with structured information. For all of them, outside knowledge is usually a distraction. Mark the exact phrase, claim or inference that controls the answer.
Data insight combines numerical critical reasoning and data sufficiency. For charts and tables, read the title, axes, units and denominators before touching the options. Estimate first; a rough range can expose an implausible calculation. In sufficiency problems, ask whether the information determines a unique outcome. Examine each statement independently, then together if required, without solving beyond what the decision needs.
Quantitative reasoning uses basic mathematics and analytical thought. Reliable algebra, ratios, percentages and geometric relationships matter more than ornamental advanced techniques. Translate the wording into variables or a diagram, check constraints, and use the options strategically when they offer an efficient verification route.
Pacing a mixed paper
Fifty questions in 75 minutes produce a 90-second mean. A mean does not justify a rigid 90-second alarm on every item. Some verbal judgments take half that time; some data displays need an initial reading investment that helps with the answer. Build personal limits from timed practice. The vital rule is to notice when progress has stopped.
Use checkpoints based on questions completed and time remaining, but leave room for variation in item difficulty. A checkpoint is an early warning, not a reason to submit hurried responses. If you fall behind, shorten the time given to unresolved items and protect questions that are likely to be solvable. Practise moving on cleanly so that frustration does not travel into the next task.
Because the sequence mixes topics, use a mental reset: name the new task family, identify the evidence source and choose the first operation. This small routine reduces residue from the previous question. In full simulations, record transition errors separately from subject errors; they often disappear with deliberate recognition practice.
Make negative marking a measured choice
The scoring system gives +1 for a correct response, zero for an omission and a deduction of either 0.25 or 0.33 for a wrong answer. Since the penalty can vary, no single slogan about guessing covers every item. Read what is shown, assess whether alternatives can be eliminated and compare the remaining probability with the cost.
During preparation, label attempted answers by confidence band before checking them. Over several sets, calculate how each band performs. You may discover that “uncertain” answers based on elimination are often worthwhile, while answers made with no evidence produce avoidable deductions. Personal data is more useful than a blanket rule copied from a forum.
Do not let penalty awareness cause paralysis. An item that is nearly solved deserves a short finishing effort. An item whose wording remains unclear after rereading may be a candidate to leave. The goal is neither maximum attempts nor minimum mistakes in isolation; it is the strongest total under the published system.
Use simulations to refine the operating plan
A full run should reproduce 50 mixed questions and an uninterrupted 75-minute window as closely as legitimate materials allow. Before starting, write the intended checkpoints and stopping rule. Afterwards, compare the plan with what happened. Count questions that exceeded the limit, unsupported guesses, omissions that were later easy, and errors caused by switching task type.
Review in the order of impact. First examine long wrong answers, because they consume time and lose points. Then inspect long correct answers, which may conceal inefficient methods. Finally, review quick errors and omissions. Rework each without a timer and write one change that would be visible in a future attempt.
The official sample and simulation establish scope. Third-party questions can provide volume, but they do not prove that their distribution, interface or difficulty matches the secure assessment. Avoid memorising a commercial score conversion that Bocconi has not published.
What happens next after the test?
The report normally becomes available in the webtesting account after about 48 hours. It provides the total, area scores and counts of correct, incorrect and unanswered items. Use those counts to test the hypotheses from your practice log. If data insight is weak, distinguish between chart interpretation and sufficiency decisions before planning another attempt. If omissions cluster late, pacing may matter more than content.
International graduate candidates may take up to three attempts in the academic year, but not on the same or the following day. A later attempt needs enough time for repair and for the new report to reach the application before the relevant round closes. The published 15-point floor determines consideration; it does not guarantee selection.
For the score you choose, enter the ten-character reference in the application and complete the remaining admissions evidence. The final decision also depends on GPA, dossier, motivation, programme ranking and capacity. Once the reference is safely submitted, shift effort from test mechanics to the application and, if admitted, to the specific enrolment steps in the offer.
Relevant preparation
Preparation for Bocconi Master Programs
No specific offer is currently linked for this process. The overview shows all preparation options that are currently available.
Bocconi application guide
Read the application guide without presenting preparation for a different Bocconi test as a matching product.
Open application guideBocconi uses different admission-test formats. Before purchasing, check on the product page whether the material matches the test required for your chosen programme.
Zulassungscoach is an independent provider and is not affiliated with the institution or test provider named here.
