GRE score was terrible.

[Roll Right]

Why are you guys still on about this??

[kdilks]

Agreed. This is what I have been trying to say for the longest time. The GRE tests your will to study for a very teachable exam as well as your inherent intellectual ability. There are no excuses for getting a below average score on any section if you are serious about applying to a competitive program. I have applied to technical programs, but very wisely decided against brushing off preparation for the Verbal section. I made note cards, memorized word lists, and practiced sample tests. I ended up scoring above the 96th percentile and couldn't have been more relieved. While I have no idea what kind of influence a high verbal score has on admissions into a technical program, a high score certainly shows the AdCom that I am serious about my education and am willing to devote the time and energy to make all components of my application as competitive as possible. Although there's the possibility it won't help me at all, a high verbal score certainly won't keep me out of any school. On the other hand, if I blew off the verbal section and ended up with a bad score, it indeed could have a negative effect on my application (especially as a Domestic student). You just never know.

It seems like you're just trying to justify the excessive amounts of time you spent studying, and encouraging detrimental behavior. An important part of graduate school is learning how to prioritize your time, and focus on the things that matter. Instead of not knowing what kind of influence verbal scores have on admissions in your field and wasting time that could be spent on better things, figure out what's expected of you and only study enough so that you're confident you'll score comfortably above that level.

[Medievalmaniac]

Seadub,

What do you say in the case of someone in the humanities who went to a top-tier school as an undergrad, earned a 3.65 GPA in one mid level master's program, earned a 4.0 degree in a second, mid-level Master's program, has had 2 papers accepted to panels at international level conferences in his or her field, has published scholarly articles already, has developed/ written syllabi for and taught honors high school and lower college level classes already, and although s/he studied for six months and took a refresher course in Math, STILL only achieved an overall score of slightly less than 1100 because of a 23rd percentile score in Math on the GRE, although the GRE verbal is in the 90th and the writing was a perfect 6?

Does the GRE clearly indicate that this applicant is incapable of hacking it in academia? Or that s/he should not be awarded funding because of that low quantitative score?

I think the GRE is not as objective as we'd like it to be...which is why many programs don't really consider the scores. An equal number do consider the scores and several of these even require the further subject tests on top of that. In which case, the applicant has to decide what tests to take, how often to take them and what constitutes a good score, and needs to scale school choices accordingly.

It's just a measurement tool (an expensive and time-consuming and resources-requiring one), one among many. But I do agree with other people that the statement of purpose and writing samples may count more than you think they do in comparison to the GRE. Or maybe in certain subjects over others, anyway.

[JerryLandis]

Medieval, just because you have completed a bachelors degree, finished two MA's with 4.0s, and published extensively in your field does not mean you are qualified for graduate school. Please get over yourself. If you can't get a 1400 on a standardized test, you're clearly inadequate.

[Medievalmaniac]

Medieval, just because you have completed a bachelors degree, finished two MA's with 4.0s, and published extensively in your field does not mean you are qualified for graduate school. Please get over yourself. If you can't get a 1400 on a standardized test, you're clearly inadequate.

Yeah, I know, JL....you're right, the fact that I've already succeeded at the graduate level doesn't mean I can actually succeed at the graduate level (and BTW, remember, I only got a 3.65 in the first program, the 4.0 in the second).....I just figured what the hell, I can always just apply to a couple of programs and see. My Q score clearly precludes me from a life studying French and English - any idiot who's taken the GRE and done really well in Q can see that - but there's always that long shot, right? ;op

On second thought, I should probably just get over myself. Either I'm not qualified and a fluke, or I'm not qualified and they let me in anyway....what the hell, let's just say it, my GREs suck, I'm not qualified.

That's OK....I still get paid to read books and talk about them. Glad somebody made a mistake with me!

Edited February 18, 2010 by Medievalmaniac

[captiv8ed]

Medieval, just because you have completed a bachelors degree, finished two MA's with 4.0s, and published extensively in your field does not mean you are qualified for graduate school. Please get over yourself. If you can't get a 1400 on a standardized test, you're clearly inadequate.

That's right. MM needs to let that dream die and move back home and work on shoe tying and other basic life skills. sheesh

[Medievalmaniac]

That's right. MM needs to let that dream die and move back home and work on shoe tying and other basic life skills. sheesh

Captiv8ed....how did you KNOW???

You have spooky supernatural powers...or, you're spying on me......! lol

I can almost tie my own shoe, though. You wait. In six more months, I bet I'll have it down!

Math, on the other hand....highly unlikely.

On the other hand, I can be flippant all I like...you have an acceptance, and I currently don't. It's possible I won't, when all is said and done, and if that is the case it likely will be because of that Q score. Which will suck, but I won't die from it (I think).

Edited February 18, 2010 by Medievalmaniac

[captiv8ed]

Captiv8ed....how did you KNOW???

You have spooky supernatural powers...or, you're spying on me......! lol

I can almost tie my own shoe, though. You wait. In six more months, I bet I'll have it down!

Math, on the other hand....highly unlikely.

On the other hand, I can be flippant all I like...you have an acceptance, and I currently don't. It's possible I won't, when all is said and done, and if that is the case it likely will be because of that Q score. Which will suck, but I won't die from it (I think).

Yep it could be because of your Q score. OR it could be because you are in one of the most competitive fields out there and it often takes years of application rounds to get accepted somewhere. But that leaves you lots of time to get that shoe tying down! Maybe you will even have shirt buttoning tackled. LOL!!

[Medievalmaniac]

Lol..wow.

Did you finally admit that if you get rejected it will be because of your Q score? After all that effort you put into trying to be funny?

Not so much as I intimated through my flippancy that I find my particular situation to be hilarious...

Despite my dedication to my field and my clearly demonstrated ability and aptitude for what I want to do for the next forty years or so, I could be held out of a doctoral program because of a test that measures how well I do in a subject I never had any aptitude for or luck with despite EVERY effort to improve. My mind does NOT work Mathematically - never has. No amount of training is going to change that.

I am, however, an expert researcher, an excellent writer and a pretty good linguist, all in all - a fact clearly and repeatedly demonstrated in my credentials. Which should be enough to get me into a program in which those are the required skills.

Meanwhile, folks like Amy Bishop get full rides to Harvard because of their awesome GRE scores. Then, when they don't get tenure because they suck at teaching (something I am actually really good at, since I've been doing it for the past decade and have received glowing evaluations from both students and administrators) they just shoot the other scientists.

And people wonder why hoi polloi think academia is a total mess....but, I digress.

In the end, the GRE is going to count somehow, whether a lot or a little is anyone's guess. And we don't have a choice, we have to play the game. So, I'm playing the game to the best of my ability, but there's a reason some of us are not applying to Math or bioengineering programs.

And I wasn't trying to be funny.... my situation is funny all by itself, so in terms of humor (however black), I don't have to do anything but write it down.

[Genomic Repairman]

Lol..wow.

Did you finally admit that if you get rejected it will be because of your Q score? After all that effort you put into trying to be funny?

Sure, it seems a bit silly that someone of your caliber may be rejected because of your performance in a graduate entrance exam. But life is unfair in many ways. This is one of those ways.

Let's face it. AdComs look at the GRE both as a measurement of how committed you are to studying for an exam as well as how academically capable you are. Your excuse is that you took a refresher course in math? So what? Does that qualify you to do horribly in the Q section? I don't get it.

Uh I've sat on admin committee for a while and we pretty much consider the GRE just a test. Not a measure of commitment or intestinal fortitude. Predications of academic capability on a standardize test are not always certain nor does anyone except those who choose to wax nostalgic over their own score. Actually for a lot of us the GRE is the last time that we will be taking a standardized test, as graduate school and life for that matter is anything but standardized. I know folks with crap GRE scores that are more intelligent, verbose, and greater successes than their counterparts who had more elevated scores While the GRE is a metric to see knowledge, it is just that, a metric and one of many that an admissions committee uses to make their decision. We tend to judge folks more off on interest, experience, positive attitude, and how well they will be a fit with the department and its culture (you know passing on pricks who ramble on about how GRE score correlates with success).

[Medievalmaniac]

Seadub,

Apologies for upsetting you.But please keep in mind that you are putting words into my mouth and I did NOT say she only got into Harvard because of her GRE scores. I did say she got funded because of them, and according to you that is the case in many instances.

However, unlike some, I can certainly acknowledge when I am pushing the line and when I may be out of line, and I can certainly apologize that the fact that someone did what she did with the credentials she had makes me nervous about people who harp about the importance of GRE scores above all other considerations.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Medievalmaniac

[JerryLandis]

Seadub, your necessity to lash out at people for no reason is quite disturbing. Calling MM a "disgusting" person was inappropriate, offensive, and unsolicited. I don't think he intended to offend you with his comment, but if he did you could have responded more calmly. Considering how easily you feel compelled to hurl outrageous insults at people on this board, I wouldn't be surprised if you had some kind of serious anger management problem, which could lead to dangerous outbursts in real life. I'm not kidding about this or trying to be petty, but I really think you should consider seeking help with a psychologist or support group.

[yoshimoshi]

Inappropriate? Unsolicited? Are you kidding me?

Did you read MedievalManiac's previous comments? Did you read about how MM used a tragic situation to show why he/she is better qualified to go to grad school than someone with deep mental issues? This isn't about offending me personally. This is about using a community's pain to gloat about one's research and writing ability. That is just sick beyond words.

Really seadub, why don't you want to bury the hatchet?

[JerryLandis]

You continuously post inappropriate and intentionally hurtful comments here. Perhaps this is simply a manifestation of your application-related stress, but if you continue to behave this way in a social capacity you will find yourself alienated very quickly. I am not familiar with the news story you and MM were discussing, but it appears that you are simply using the apparently inappropriate nature of his comment to advance your own argument and prove him wrong. If you were indeed personally offended by what he said, the appropriate way to deal with the situation is to simply say that he crossed a line and that you were offended, not to call him "disgusting." Your attitude is extremely juvenile and unprofessional, and if you do not attempt to remedy that problem of yours, then I cannot see how you will ever be successful in any professional capacity. Making rash and unnecessary insults may hurt their recipients a little bit, but doing so will hurt you much more in the long run.

[Medievalmaniac]

Inappropriate? Unsolicited? Are you kidding me?

Did you read MedievalManiac's previous comments? Did you read about how MM used a tragic situation to show why he/she is better qualified to go to grad school than someone with deep mental issues? This isn't about offending me personally. This is about using a community's pain to gloat about one's research and writing ability. That is just sick beyond words.

Where did that even come from?

I never said I was more qualified than Mrs. Bishop was to go to graduate school. I was using this example as proof that the GRE doesn't always indicate fitness for graduate study. It's a particularly tragic situation, and a horrible one, but I'm certainly not exploiting it for personal reasons. It was merely intended to point out that the GREs do not always "clearly indicate one's fitness for graduate work and academia" - which is your argument. She may be brilliant, but what she did indicates that she in no way shape or form was cut out for the rigors of academia - which extend beyond your raw intellectual ability to encompass collegiality, compassion, empathy, and the ability to withstand a lot of strife and stress without resorting to violence or becoming psychotic. In which case, obviously, the GRE did not do a very good job of ferreting her out.

It's presumptuous of you to think I don't know anything about what goes into obtaining tenure, also. What makes you an expert in that subject? I have obtained tenure at two teaching positions so far...so clearly, I know something about how to keep my job.

Finally, I apologized to you for upsetting you, and I hereby apologize again. But if you want to keep slinging incredibly offensive personal attacks at me (i.e. calling me "disgusting" and so forth), that's fine. There's a report button for posts like that. Alternately, feel free to PM me and call me whatever you like - I have a thick skin. I do think perhaps others don't want or need to be subjected to your nastiness above and beyond what you have already hurled forth in this public forum.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Medievalmaniac

[Genomic Repairman]

Snow someone people just have an inability to let things go in life, whether it be someone cutting them off in traffic or arguments about GRE scores on a message board. It could be application-related stress like Jerry pointed out, or maybe its their character to grasp at straws and argue. Either way its pretty sad.

[coyabean]

As a refugee law school admissions board member I feel safe saying that seadub might want to reconsider his/her field. You would fit in with the law school culture extremely well, and I do not mean that facetiously at all. You should look into it.

[waytooold]

My God. I have said this over and over and over again, how influential the GRE is depends on the school and progam you are applying to. I have no delusions about what the GRE is and isn't. My school of thought is that if you are serious about applying, WHY in the world would you not try to do your absolute best to get a great score? The GRE is so incredibly teachable. If you put in the time to figure out the test, there should be NO surprises come test day.

I hear so many humanities applicants who complain that math isn't in their field. You don't know how to add? Multiply? Subtract? I mean, there is nothing on the Q section that a 7th grader hasn't seen before. It doesn't matter if you aren't studying a technical subject. Even if you are studying Renaissance Art, it doesn't mean that you can't put in the effort to refresh on basic mathematical concepts and get at least an average score. Again, the GRE is not always about how "smart" you are, but about how much effort you put into it.

Consider that several Stanford Engineering programs have an average Verbal score of over 90th percentile. Also consider the number of international applicants from Asia, who probably don't have a high grasp of English, that are admitted. The fact that so many engineers, both domestic and international, achieved an average verbal score of over 90th percentile tells me that they put in the effort to study and that Stanford seemed to care enough to accept a pool of applicants who did well on a subject irrelevant to the program itself. Whether this is causal vs correlation is to be debated.

.

PS You misused the word "verbose." It does not have a positive connotation.

I'm not sure what compels me to enter these toxic waters, but the statement above is maddeningly skewed. First of all, the 90th percentile in verbal requires a far, far, far lower raw score overall than the analytical...why? Because the greater proportion of those taking the GRE are people working in the sciences and math....thus to perform very well in that population on the analytical requires a VERY high raw score (let's for arguments sake say you need a 9/10), while a comparatively low score (lets say 6/10) puts you in the 90th verbally. As far as those of us you imply don't put in the effort...like me, who scored in the 99th percentile verbally but poorly in the quantitative? I put in plenty of effort, and my algebra skills are decent, but I do not know geometry and have not used anything but simple arithmetic in over 20 years. The first time I took it I got 300, and doubled my score in the 6 weeks I prepped. Had I gotten the raw score on my verbal that I did on my math, it would put me in the 80th percentile, but because SO MANY PEOPLE SKILLED AT MATH take the GRE, it put me in more like the 60th. Think about this. And by the way, my 800 on the verbal? Effortless. I could say something snotty about people simply needing to read a little literature or a newspaper, or that if they had done their vocab in grade school they'd do fine, but I realize that we have different strengths. So stop with the "it is so easy" stuff, and reocgnize the population that being measured.

[kdilks]

So thanks for being one of the few people on this board who "get it" and realize that doing well on the GRE is simply a function of how much time you put into it.

People on admissions committees also recognize that GRE scores don't necessarily measure anything useful (it's not just a measure of time put into it, because it depends on how much you already knew), and by and large discount it. For another anecdote, one of my professors that's orginally from Eastern Europe said that when he took the verbal GRE, he would only recognize about half of the possible answers for any given question. He still got into Princeton.

I don't know how you can tell me that I don't know what admissions committees are looking for when I asked professors that have been on admissions committees at multiple schools in my field. You're making the admissions process out to be some indecipherable mystery, when it really doesn't have to be.

I'm a little concerned that you were considering entering technical fields, and are unable to recognize that there is a lot of room between 96th percentile and "sub-par".

[Genomic Repairman]

Believe me, you don't have to be concerned about me. I simply strive to do my best in whatever I do. I realize that for some people, doing "just average" is cause for celebration. I try to set the bar a little higher for myself.

Pulling out a step ladder for whenever you decide to come off that high horse of yours.

[kdilks]

Ok. We are going in circles now. It needs to stop.

Kdilks, I'm not saying that the GRE is perfect. I am saying that it is teachable and doing well on the GRE has as much to do with having the motivation to study for it in the first place as being innately intelligent. Many factors go into admissions. I understand that fact.

As for your professor, many AdComs give passes on the V section to those international students for whom English is not their first language. I would bet that your professor aced the Q section.

You are in a math program? You should know full well how important doing well on the Q section is for technical fields. Many PhD Econ programs, for example, won't give your application the time of day if you score below 790. Even if you apply to a second or third tier Econ program, the average Q score is still above a 780. I don't see how you can suggest to me that AdCom's "discount" the importance of the GRE is these cases. Having a high Q score might not get you in, but having a low score will certainly keep you out.

Believe me, you don't have to be concerned about me. I simply strive to do my best in whatever I do. I realize that for some people, doing "just average" is cause for celebration. I try to set the bar a little higher for myself.

I was never at any point referring to the quantitative section, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

But I agree, it is the same principle as the verbal section, that "having a high score doesn't help, but a low score can hurt". It's just that if you're in a technical area the threshold for what "well enough" is on the quantitative section should understandably be higher, and since the test covers such easy material that percentile range ends up corresponding to scores in something like the 780-800 range.

[kdilks]

I bring it up because it is amusing how many people in here try to rebuke my argument, including you, but end up reinforcing it instead.

I used the Q section as an example because I am more familiar with how important it can be in admissions to technical programs. You can apply the same logic to the V section for humanities/English based programs that expect a score >700. While getting a >700 won't guarantee you admissions, deviating below that score will most likely disqualify you from top programs.

You agree with me. I agree with you. No need to argue.

I think it's amusing that you've been consistently trying to steer the argument away from my initial point of contention, which is that there's no reason for people entering technical fields to waste time studying to get exceedingly high scores on the verbal section like you did. The sub-text to "high scores don't help, but low scores can hurt" is that "average scores don't hurt", and that's the point you seem to be missing.