milestones13

On their website ASU English lists 580 V as an average score for those admitted to their PhD program, so I wouldn't worry about getting cut based on your verbal score for that one anyway. However, if you think you can move your percentile from 82nd to 90th or higher, then I'd retake. Remember though that 580 V sounds lower than it really is when compared to percentile (82nd).

Here are Princeton Univ.'s GRE statistics from 2006. Verbal - School of Engineering admits - 595 Humanities department admits - 678 Quantitative - School of Engineering admits - 785 Humanities department admits - 673 I doubt the overall score is at all important for admission to these programs, but these numbers do indicate that those aiming for top Engineering programs hit in the high 700's on the quant and that those in the Humanities try to land in the mid 600's on the verbal section (for any hyper competitive program in these fields). This subject has been debated ad nauseum on this forum, but I think these are good thresholds to aim for without further undue obsession over the GRE as a standalone measure -- especially "verbal" for humanities and "quant" for engineering as the primarily meaningful targets.

The numbers are solid and the Fulbright is impressive. That said, you are applying to a small number of insanely competitive programs (more competitive than top ranked English lit programs), with 2-4% acceptance rates. The truth? Anyone's chances for getting into any of the above are very low, which is true no matter what numbers are posted by people or what even the Almighty thinks of their writing. Continue to revise your writing sample, SoP, your plan B. Maybe you might want to apply to a program that accepts 5-10% of applicants? In other words, have one or two "crazy competitive" as opposed to all "insanely competitive" ones.

4 AWA is too low, imo, to sit on if you are applying to humanities programs. You want to get that up to at least 4.5, preferably 5. The AWA is an absolute joke, as others have mentioned, because the graders spend so little time on the essay and pretty much rely on Big Blue's algorithmically challenged cousin to do the grading for them. But the problem is you can't assume that adcoms are aware that the AWA is a joke. In fact, they may be under the impression that the people at ETS grade the essays with a critical perspective. To get a good score requires following a template. I think the Princeton Review is the best for this (though I am not an advocate of them generally). "The issue is a divisive one...on the one hand....yet, on the other....in the final analysis, it appears that." (Stated with your own transitions), I think what they want is wishy-washy yet clear exposition. Use the million dollar words sparingly. The best that anyone can hope for by following along a rigid structure is a 5, because the idea that your essays are insightful or are in some way is interesting to the reader is a subjective matter outside your control (that which garners a 5.5. or a 6). If you hit the structure, you can get at least get a 5. I believe (counterintuitively) that if Danielle Steele took the GRE, she would score a 5.5 or 6. I say this because she thinks formula and works with flashing red light transitional cliches that ETS loves. I am actually not joking. A vexing question: Why do poorly written novels sell so well and well written novels tend to fare so badly on the market place? I have often asked myself and I think the reason is that hacks are mainly concerned about structure and not prose. So when you consider the AWA, it's best to think like a hack. Structure first, structure second, decent levels of clarity, third. It's a sucker bet to think you're being graded by "professors" who care about your writing. To some degree they care about the content of what you write, but only if you put the dog sh*& in the cookie cutter for them to scoop out. Bear in mind, it's very hard to write well when you have such shackles around you. This is why good writing does not come out of the formula novels, even when Pulizer prize winners take on a psuedonym to make a buck. There's Elmore Leonard, but he's a dialogue maestro with very, very unique talent and he plays with formula in ways that very few writers know how to do (only a handful of good writers can pull this off). If you are afraid of being corrupted by delivering boilerplate essays, don't be. It is (and I know many will disagree with this) something of a good thing temporarily to get off one's praised as God to the writing world ego which a fair number of us have been puffed up by. Remember: You're on Grub street when you write the AWA and so it is best to heed the words of Samuel Johnson to this end. "wherever you meet with a passage that strikes you as particularly fine, strike it out." However, I would not at all advise this for your writing sample which will require your best writing (as long as you don't, as they say, gild the lily).

Here are some thoughts. Your combined score is very good, your verbal and awa scores are perfect, and your average quant score won't hurt you in any non math related field. However, for sociology, they may want to see a score in the mid 600's at competitive programs. My suggestion is, if you want to go to programs where the quant score matters somewhat (non humanities programs), then prep hard for the quant (only) and retake the exam to get your quant score up. Chances are good that your verbal will drop a bit, but keep in mind there is no difference between a 730 v and an 800 v or any score between -- all are at the 99%ile. You can extrapolate percentiles in the 99%ile for ego gratification purposes, but doing so is irrelevant to how the scores are viewed by committees. Even if you drop to a 700 or 97%ile, that won't hurt you -- especially if you move your quant score up 100 points. To drive this point home, bear in mind that a 700 V is roughly the average at the most competitive/top ranked English PhD programs where the verbal section is usually the only part of the GRE that is considered. The GRE is not that important...there is no ranking that goes on at the highest levels (say, among those in the top 5 percent), given the holistic nature of the evaluation process. Ordinarily, I would not advise anyone to retake the exam, but when one has a low score in area that is important to the program, it's a good idea to prep for that portion and retake. If you were gunning for an English Phd, or a related field I would say hold on to your scores.....but if the school can give you information that they want xxx score on a portion of the exam, you should aim to hover around that range...even if you end up hit a bit below it ('bit' being defined as around 30 to 50 points). As is, your combined scores qualify you for many fellowships at most places, I would think...though these awards are also usually tied to your undergrad gpa. Most important, though, is try to find out from the programs you're interested in what quant scores they are looking for you to be competitive. It is true programs like to dance around this topic with far flung verbiage - "holistic" is a favorite word to describe the application process, which is why I used it (reminds me of a doughnut) ;-) but try to dig in and get what they want. In the Humanities (with the exception of philosophy and religious studies), it is true that qualitative aspects matter *far more* than GRE/GPA...but with other programs app parameters tend to be more straightforward and more cut and dried...hopefully your age wasn't an issue but there's nothing you can do about it if it was. Whatever the case and whatever you decide, I hope you have a better round when you apply next time.

I have never heard of legacy having an impact on graduate school admissions. Perhaps there might be some of this going on for MBA or Law programs, but this is, as I understand it, largely an undergraduate phenomenon. I have heard that Yale refers to these progeny of the uber rich (not necessarily legacies) as "development cases." lol. Though unspectacular academically, Bush would amazingly not be an example of this. $ developmentals have low SAT's and grades (not C's ala Bush) and ordinarily nothing of an extracurricular background to support their admission to a prestigious college or even a remotely competitive one... It is true, however, that they may "interview well" due to a cheerful disposition bestowed upon them by palmy parents. How well they interview ultimately depends on the number of 0's on the check. Where did you hear that money and connections and/or legacy plays a role in graduate school admissions?

I am not so sure that a good Awa is really all that important, but it's nice to have as a sort of check mark to an outstanding writing sample. That said, the awa by itself is somewhat meaningless and even a very bad awa is fine if you have great recommendations touting your scholastic and writing ability. Recs are by far (exponentially) better check marks to your sop and sample than an awa score...I failed to mention that in the last post. As for your score, you did well, you are over 90%ile verbal so you have reached a high, critical bar -- you should feel good about that. It's up to you whether you would want to sacrifice time and bear down and retake and improve the verbal score. No one knows if 650 is used as a cut off, there's only rumors bandied about that this is the case at some places. Even then, your stuff will likely be read and not chucked. My thinking is that if you would really have to improve a lot (50-100) points for your retake to be meaningful improvement to your app -- and even then it's not going to compensate for anything. The only real way to impress the committee as a standout applicant is to show a focus on in your sop and have a great sample. I would retake not just to hit the 650 mark, but if you want to really invest in the GRE, go for the upper 90th percentiles....that's up to you to decide. Either way, your writing is going to have to shine and the extra points on the verbal section likely won't add much in making you more competitive...though it might at some places (top 10's) and not others.

The strong financial earning years for successful (but not super successful actors) is really short lived compared to other highly successful people in other fields. The tendency is to think of anyone with a recognizable name in showbusiness as having more money than Croesus, but there are a few things to consider: One, large gaps in employment and two, the money swiped off the top of their earnings. Actors do splashy things to keep themselves in the spotlight but they're often not getting paid much for that. They also sometimes do pet projects that make them little money or a cool cameo for a movie or tv that sets the web ablaze for little money. The other things is, the hand in their wallet -- agents, money managers, personal managers, lawyers, pr people, taxes. The reality is that they only bring in 30-40% of what they gross. I am not saying anyone should cry for actors who make 5 million a year, but understand that translates into 2 million after they're pillaged by business people. Compare a 35 year old actor to a 35 year old junior partner at a law firm and it is not hard to see which one is on the way up and one is on the way down, even if at this point they are basically making the same amount after taxes. At 50, most actors are pretty much done, guest-spotting and reality-showing or even soaping back to their roots when they were first trying to break in. Whereas the junior, now senior partner at a law firm, has increased their earning power and can maintain this level of earnings for at least another 15 maybe 20 years, year in year out. No fame and no glamour and public adulation attached -- but then, no years of not getting a pilot picked up and doing lame straight-to-video movies, either. The life of the aging actor is not only fiscally depressing for all those involved (unless you're an outlier, Jack Nicholson say), it's also often empty as well. Projects that are offered really begin to suck any prior pride or vanity from earlier in their career -- this downward swing and attendant unraveling becomes tabloid fodder for the masses. But they can eke out a million here and there, especially if XY fading celeb is willing to parody oneself based on what the masses remember about the one or two hits they may have had. Such a being has morphed into walking, repackaged garbage. Money managers treat actors like children and for good reason -- actors get used to a style of life they will, in all great probability, not be able to sustain as they move into middle age. Obviously, it is worse for actresses: the vast majority of female screen thesps need to get out of Hollywood by the time they reach 30. Generally, it seems actresses are much savvier than are male actors about the ticking bomb that is their acting career -- perhaps because this ticking coincides with their time-to-start-a-family biological time clock that men lack. Worth noting too: Franco is not a major star (no way an island buying Nicholoas Cage) and it seems he simply is following a career path that is natural to him, the sort of thing that Ethan Hawke might have done 10 years ago (sans Uma and the kids). While there is most likely an ego-trip component to Franco's decision to go to Yale (adding prestige to rank fame), it doesn't seem to be borne out of complete frivolousness but of internal motivation to work on a project, just like anyone else might have. I think if he wanted to prestige of the Yale name alone, why not go to Yale drama school (tied into some other program at Yale, so as to inject interdisciplinary flair) for some histrionic copulation?

Do look at what you got wrong. ETS gives you the chance to do a diagnostic. It was helpful for me, because what I assumed I bombed I did well on -- reading comprehension, only 2 wrong out of 8. I ended up missing several antonyms and analogies which surprised me because on the paper based ETS 10th edition book, I missed few antonyms at all. The words I got wrong on the real deal were of the what the hell variety -- not abstruse but just deceptive. Looking at the amount of time I spent on the tough ones, it looks like what happened is I overthought them, spent too much time. Nerves (and perfectionism, which is not my natural style at all, I am an anti-perfectionist type) got the better of me. On paper based practice tests, I'd start at the end with the antonyms first, knock them out, and then start at the beginning with sentence completions...which would give me enough time for the reading comprehension passages. I realized that strategy would not work on test day for the CAT but I knew that I would see the antonyms early on. But what I did not do is take the same confidence from the paper tests to the all important test day. I tried to be perfect on the first 10 and in so got bogged down. I was too obsessed with the potential "tricks" on the antonyms and analogies I ended up changing right answers to wrong ones. I went from freewheeling and confident on practice tests to tentative and cautious with the onset of lights, camera, action. However, I am not unique in this regard but rather fall into the great big category of most test takers. It is weird, though, that my weakness on all the practice tests was reading comprehension and yet on test day, antonyms were the items I got wrong. Over hundreds and hundreds of practice antonyms, I'd miss roughly the amount of questions I got wrong on 30 question test day. Whereas I was expecting to get maybe 4 or 5 of the reading comp questions wrong. My score is good enough to keep, thanks to the reading comp section, amazingly, so I am not crying...but I learned that being overly cautious in strong areas may not be an optimal strategy Yet, conversely, I think in one's weak area being cautious seems to pay off. That worked for me on the reading comprehension...I really took my time to the point where I almost ran out of time...I really thought through the questions and those ridiculously long questions stems...changed wrong answers to correct ones. During practice tests, I learned to apply my two different styles to the different sections but on test day I became too cautious where I should have trusted my instincts and yet, donning the wary "no that's not right" hat helped me on the reading comp section. Anyway, this is just one case....ymmv. I'd say be confident on areas of strength and wary on areas that you have worked up to speed. I do know that my vocab is such that I didn't need to hyper-scrutinize things the way that I did on test day.

The writing sample and sop are obviously extremely important, but the AWA should corroborate, not work against them. In analytical writing heavy fields, especially social sciences and humanities, expectations on this section are fairly high (5) or higher. It strikes me that the issue writing section measure verbal fluency more than anything...how quickly can one generate ideas? Parodoxically, then, this section can be difficult for those who are methodical whereas the nature of the argument analysis might be more amenable to a more meticulous cognitive style. ETS claims averaging the issue and the argument task leads to a more reliable score, but I find it unfortunate that they do this because both tasks, I speculate, are not strongly correlated...though there is no data to say one way or the other. I think the OP has a difficult decision to make given the perfect verbal and the very high overall score. If this were my situation, I would not take the exam but would address the issue somewhere in the application. I'd not make any assumptions that the AWA is irrelevant or assume that the adcom will brush it off. With a low AWA and a great writing sample, the adcom might very well think twice. Writing samples and sop's are clearly end products of substantial revision and the AWA is a rough and ready first draft under time pressure, so they're obviously different. However, the AWA is all X's effort and no one else's -- so that's why a department might take it seriously as a piece of the admissions puzzle (in the humanities or social sciences). I am not saying that a strong AWA will help an application in any way if the writing sample is mediocre -- it is only helpful to corroborate a strong sample and sop. It says the equivalent of: "I can knock out raw stuff live and I can also produce slick work in a studio with bells and whistles and remixes (under the auspices of a producer)." Next, the question of how to address the issue of the low AWA in the statement or in the app needs careful consideration and I would ask your recommenders on how to handle it. Retaking the exam does not make sense to me given your otherwise stellar peformance, nor does ignoring what might possibly be a considered aspect of your application. Anyway, that's just my hundred dollars.

My understanding is that if you apply to a program that offers the same funding package to everyone, then your quant score won't matter (given your field) either to the department or the graduate division. If there are "differential" university-wide funding packages given, usually at state schools, then you'll most likely be passed over for someone with higher combined scores. For admission purposes, your verbal score will get your application reviewed thoroughly by the adcom -- but most likely it will be other parts of your application that determine whether or not you are admitted.

If it were up to me, I would set the verbal at 90th because of the preparation factor might not tell me much about the level of ability of the person in question. Levels of giftedness are not going to be reflected purely by a verbal score...so it is hard to know if a score is result of intellectual giftedness or rigorous preparation or what is usually the case a combination of both. I would want to know the difference but the GRE is not going to inform anyone of that. Understand that ETS claims reliability for their test and that scores are, like an IQ, immutable gauges of *ability:....but obviously this is not the case with the GRE. I find it abnoxious that ETS disavows both the importance of the preparation factor and what is essentially a quasi achievatelligence test of their own making. This currently leaves the test nowhere and ultimately undefined. As for level of verbal ability though, some people do actually have higher verbal intelligence than what they can display on the GRE and, conversely, some people have verbal ability actually lower than what they have been able to pull off by sheer rote cramming. I would not want to use it as an arbiter of talent at a high level (only a low level) and, from what I can tell. and as has been discussed here, several English programs in particular are aware of the limitations of the GRE...mainly, it does not give a very good indication of intelligence or IQ nor does it act well as an achievement test for math or english proficiency. The test is just confused on what tries to measure, which is likely why ETS wants to rehaul it...into who knows what. However I would use it only as a pretty low level filter where it does have actual value...use it to skim the mass of 300 and 400 and 500 verbal scores but be far more careful in approaching the top 10 percent people and thus rely wholly on the writing aspects at that level. 650 is 93 percentile so it seems we are close to being in agreement but I would be just a bit more lenient on a test that is so preparation friendly and amenable to boosting, which is not supposed to be part of ones *ability* as defined by the test constructors at ETS. If programs are actually paying serious attention to the psychometric properties of the GRE, then they have been brainwashed by ETS into thinking the test is something it is not. Anyway, this is a wonderful topic for the analytical writiing section, too bad it does not exist...I am sure my rant would get a whopping 1.5.

Below 600 V (90th percentile) is clearly not low in general for all fields but it is lowish side for competitive programs in English and as a result can hurt an application at certain top 50 programs. UC Davis and Santa Barbara for instance, say they usually accept those who in practice have verbals above 600. (on their websites both programs disregard the quantitative section). For the writing section, below a 5 looks pretty bad though 4 is in fact average. A 5 is considered strong by ETs and so it is not a low score by any means...but this section like the verbal section should be tilted toward high side for those who aim to scribble, scribble, and are engaged in arguments...that said, a 5 probably will not hurt anyone anywhere. Getting higher than a 5 can help though if it corroborates exceptional writing found in the writing sample and sop and LORs that claim what a great writer x is. The awa is useful, then, not as a standalone measure but probably a useful check to the sop/lor/sample.... I would say the only reason to retake the GRE for english phd is to try get a verbal to 600 or higher, AWA up to at least a 5, a combined score to a 1000 or higher and a subject test up to 80th percentile. Other than that, the striving is probably misplaced...(for english programs, not true for other programs. If one is applying for Philosophy, best to get get your scores over 1400 and a 5.5, totally different). Note too that multple attempts that do not improve might look even worse than the score...say someone trying to get to 600 verbal scores a 570 to 590 on three or four attempts. This person appears obsessed with trying to get to a certain level which could actually be more damaging than not breaking the mark itself. The same could be said for the person trying to break 700...still, if a person is coming from the 600s to over 700 on multiple attempts, they are already past cutoffs based on their first score. Whereas the high 500s person is inadvertantly putting undue emphasis on what might be a relative weakness comparable to other areas of their app thereby drawing attention to that which needs to be given exception. I think retakes are a good idea for some people...but there has to be good sense that significant improvement can occur the 2nd or at most 3rd time taking...imo there should be no 4th time... Some on this forums say a 650 (currently 93%ile) is necessary for cutoff for the top programs, which seems extremely high for a cutoff, but some programs do get tons of apps and so might have to do this..but in the end, no one knows exactly...I seriously doubt though there is any program that pays special attention to scores in any linear way once a certain level is reached....a score might qualify someone to play the game but not necessarily render a higher seeding (to use a tennis tournament analogy) once that threshold has been reached, which is why 800 verbal rejects are not uncommon and low 600 scorers have great rounds.

Here is one suggestion for your upcoming test if you have fears of flubbing the verbal section (scoring below 600), do well on the analytical writing assessment. The AWA is cosidered to be sort of a joke by most who have taken the GRE, and rightfully so perhaps, but a high score here might lead the adcom to looking more closely at your writing sample where they might not otherwise. A 5.5 or a 6 on the writing does not indicate you are a talented writer or any great critical thinker but it does mean you can put together an essay and take apart an argument on the spot (according the graders at ets which is of course not the best assessment group). As for the quant, just stay out of the bottom decile...The 700 verbal obsession for humanities people i have seen on the internet is ridiculous. There is no static magical scaled score number you need to attain with nice smooth sounding 0s at the end of it..the avg. gre verbal of programs vary from year to year. Top 10 programs will likely have high 600s one year and low 700s the next as average/median for their class which shows that they are not obsessed with scores but strong applications __ writing samples and evidence of strong focus. I am not sure if programs have cutoffs but I imagine it is hardly 97%ile but rather closer to 90th or 85th...in any event, you can hedge a potentially weak verbal score with strong performance on the writing section....write a lot on the essay part. That is my tip for stressing out about the test, which you can actually apply to the test itself... Do your best on the verbal but don:t stress it too much. I did well on the initial questions and was rewarded with getting reamed with insanely long reading comprehension passages one after another, 8 questions stacked on top of each other like prisoners in a Tijuana jail. What saved me was getting the first 8 questions right...in my case anyway, the real deal made powerprep look like a joke and most other people have the same experience. If you can answer the first questions correct, even the first 5, that will lead you to a high score (and right into the eye of the time sucking reading comprehension monsters). Anyway, good luck...do your best but best not to stress out or hype yourself about the test too much either if you fall below your desired score or if you hit it whether premath of aftermath, in fantasy or reality. Other aspects of the app matter much much more as others have said.

"My adviser has told me that I have a strong application and that GRE scores will never make or break an application (he also told me that the number one factor in admissions tends to be departmental politics." Above a certain threshold (in the land of restricted range), your adviser is correct, scores really don't matter...but to say that an 800-1100 combined score won't break an application is another thing altogether. It may or may not, but definitely might hurt an application somewhere in the review process....however, this is not something you need to worry about. Your adviser was tailoring his comments...not to the median bound hoi polloi but rather to that high achieving 'omg I didn't score 1500 should I retake or slit my wrist'? type of student...I'm not saying the latter is you in any way, but your adviser (at elite u) most likely deals with perfectionism fairly frequently...but just to let you know, there are environments where students believe they have "basically aced" the GRE with an 1100 combined and their advisors (note change in spelling, we've swung over to the US now), have to inform the student they might not make cutoffs at the schools they're interested in -- "Whattaya mean cutoffs? I aced that baby." Exhibit A, exhibit B, different worlds. Ideally your V and your Q would be switched, but a 650 is a strong enough v and I'd be willing to bet that not even a 720 v would help you any more than a 650 would -- especially considering your perfect academic performance. If the 650 eats away at you, you can retake for that reason alone if you want, but understand the reason for doing so is mainly personal -- to show to yourself that you can score xxxx. The desire for that is fine, but best not to be conflated with what's expected of you by adcoms who are evaluating you independent of any self-referenced yen for a higher score. This sounds like easy common sense, but it's actually quite a challenge to keep the two (what they want to see versus your own sense of what you can achieve) separate.