midnight

Yeah, the test itself is overpriced but not necessarily prohibitively exorbitant. However, $25 per extra score report is criminal.

Do the schools you're applying to give much credence to the AW? Columbia doesn't even mention AW scores on its admissions site. And speaking of Columbia, they tell you exactly what to focus on/what kind of numbers they're looking for: APPLYING TO THE SEQUENTIAL M.A./M.PHIL./Ph.D. PROGRAM The department typically receives around 700 applications per year for about 16 places in our sequential program. All admitted students are fully funded (with tuition, fees, and a living stipend, $23,750 for students entering in the fall of 2012). Funding is for 6 years for students who do the full program, or 5 years for students who have received an M.A. in literature elsewhere and who enter directly into the M.Phil. program. International students and U.S. citizens receive the same funding. As we admit fewer than 5% of applicants, all aspects of the application need to be strong. We have no fixed cut-off on grades, but given our numbers, applicants are unlikely to be admitted unless they have an undergraduate GPA of 3.7 or higher (in the U.S. system based on a 4.0 scale), or its equivalent. Our admissions committee is well aware that different countries' grading systems vary widely from the U.S. system, so this remark about grade point averages applies only to students who have done their undergraduate work in the U.S. Similarly, we have no fixed minimum GRE score, but successful applicants trained in the U.S. will almost always have a GRE verbal score in the 95th percentile or better. International applicants must have a minimum TOEFL score of 600 on the paper test, or 100 on the internet test. Our department does not require the GRE Subject Test in English literature. More important than test scores are the other aspects of the application: the personal statement, writing sample, overall undergraduate record (and prior graduate record, if any), and letters of recommendation. In both the personal statement and the writing sample, our committee looks for a sense of a personal voice and direction, an awareness of relevant scholarly debate, and a good match between the applicant's interests and our faculty resources. -- If the other schools you're applying to have similar requirements to Columbia, it sounds like you should be focusing on your SOP, polishing your writing sample, and seeking out any potential opportunities that you can instead of spending time on a GRE retake or even the GRE subject test.

While there are less competitive programs, there's not really such a thing as an SLP safety school due to the sheer number of applicants and the limited slots available. It's also hard to gauge what some schools are looking for--some seem to emphasize GPA/GRE, others seem to want significant SLP-related practical or research experience, still others seem to value uniqueness and diversity. I'm an out-of-field applicant with minimal experience, so I made sure to play to my strengths by writing a stellar SOP and making my CV as impressive and relevant as possible. Where did you apply, lrowe? Oh, and good luck to you. This is a stressful process, and I commiserate 100%!

I often see the arguments you've made, but I think that I mostly disagree. STEM applicants should be required to have strong verbal, writing, and reading comprehension skills. Reports and research conclusions require clarity and in-depth, precise descriptions, not solely with figure- or chart-based data, but with words as well. I also think it's fair to expect humanities majors to possess logic and reasoning skills, which the GRE tests in some capacity. Further, the GRE quant currently includes a sizeable portion of chart/graph- and stats-based questions, which are germane for those in the social sciences, essential for those in STEM, yet still decipherable by those in the humanities. The more I mull this over, the more I think it makes sense that many top programs often consider both quant and verbal for all applicants. And I definitely don't mean to sound like a champion for the ETS/GRE. I don't think the GRE is a perfect or even very good test, and it caused me undue stress and cost me a lot of cash. I resented taking it. I just think there may be some method to the madness, and that the current GRE may be the best they can do given the vast diversity of applicant fields as long as the schools maintain that standardized testing is necessary.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think the universities should be held just as accountable--if not more so--for requiring and perpetuating specious standardized tests. If it's any consolation, many schools seem to use the GRE as merely one indicator of performance and ability; it's not always the end-all, be-all for competitive programs. I think that we as applicants make a bigger deal about its importance than is usually necessary or warranted. The GRE is an expensive annoyance, a moneymaking scheme, and a whole cottage industry (one that I fell prey to by signing up for a Kaplan class and buying all sorts of prep books), but it's not a wholly unreasonable test, and it does its job well enough. It's ultimately up to the schools whether they believe the GRE to be a valid measure of a student's worth or potential. Even the AW--and as an English major, I loathe the AW and what it stands for in many ways--does serve a purpose, i.e., if an AW score is very low (say, lower than 3.0), it raises a red flag about the student's most basic writing ability, and that could be a real concern. And this may be an unpopular opinion, but I think that humanities majors should be able to attain a high score on the verbal, just as I think STEM majors should be able to attain a high score on the quant. It's a studyable test, and with the recent revamping, the questions it asks are more intuitive and sensible IMO.

I applied to Boulder, too! I wonder if the program is going to have the incredibly huge amount of applicants again this year. I want to get in and I have a strong app, but I refuse to get my hopes up. Oh, and I emailed Boulder back in November when some of my app materials were listed as "initiated" instead of "completed," and I was told that it should be OK as long as I had submitted everything.

Oh, interesting. I took the old and the new version of the GRE. I thought the verbal was easier as well (IMO analogies required more brain power and vocab knowledge than anything on the current test), but I found the quant to be about the same level of difficulty or even a bit easier. My quant score improved significantly upon retake, but I simply may have been better prepared for my second time taking the test. I do think the new GRE format is much friendlier and more intuitive than the adaptive-by-question previously used, especially when it comes to quant.

While you can write an addendum explaining--not excusing--how your math grades have negatively affected your overall GPA, it's not really necessary since the schools will have your transcripts and your low GRE quant confirms your issues with math. I say make sure your major GPA is prominently listed on your CV alongside your overall. I think ALL applicants should highlight their strengths (in your case, you're already doing that with your SOP, writing samples, and AW score) and avoid dwelling on weaknesses. And I forgot to mention this above, but I personally loved the Barron's book called Six Practice Tests. It was even closer to the GRE questions I actually received in both quant and verbal than the ETS book.

I don't think so. The questions aren't harder per se, just more varied. I'm not a STEM person, but I can't imagine having too much trouble with the GRE quant if I were--but that's only conjecture on my part!

Check here if you haven't already: https://grediagnostic.ets.org/GREDWeb/gred/signIn.jsp And then study according to what that reveals as your weaknesses. Also if you have the time, visit a bookstore and leaf through Princeton Review's Cracking the GRE for tips/tricks/strategies and do a few practice tests from the ETS book. Good luck! ETA: Check all of the schools' websites that you're interested in and seek out other data regarding past years' accepted applicants. With a bare minimum GPA and a lower GRE score, admissions will be harder for you, but it's still worth a shot applying to a reach school or two unless a school explicitly states otherwise (which they sometimes do!); however, I urge you to apply to schools that are less competitive and more realistic, though there are no guarantees whatsoever.

IMO the best (and cheapest) books for GRE review, overview, and practice are The Princeton Review's Cracking the GRE, Barron's Six Practice Tests, and the ETS GRE book. Go to the ETS GRE website and click around. It describes the test well and pretty much tells you everything you need to know. Also I agree that probability and stats appear quite a lot in the quant section. I remember at least five such questions when I took the GRE, which I appreciated since they're more straightforward than some of the other quant material. Everyone has given good advice here, and you have plenty of time plus some to prepare yourself for the test.

As much as it pains me to say it, I've been pleased with ETS as well (aside from the expense of the GRE itself and extra score reports). I think ScoreSelect, the post-test diagnostic report, and the entire overhaul of the GRE are all for the better.

I took the GRE for the first time in July 2011, and my online GRE account's score report reflects the current percentiles for that test (like MammaD in another thread, my quant is now lower than what was initially reported for me). I'm pretty sure that only the new percentiles are on my official GRE report since I requested it in November 2012 after I took the test for a second time. It all seems rather iffy and arbitrary to me.

Those scores are in the 7th and 53rd percentiles. I think that UPenn and Austin are unrealistic; Northeastern may be a bit more flexible about the GRE.

MammaD, I don't think it's worth stressing too much over it, and I certainly don't think you should retake unless you're somehow certain that you can significantly improve your quant score--and then there's still the risk that your verbal and AW will go down upon retake. I think you are close enough to 70%. Please remember that grad school admissions are usually holistic, and I truly don't think that a school would flat-out reject you because of your quant percentile if the rest of your application is strong.

I'm waiting on one rec, too. It took the prof several weeks and a follow-up email just to get back in touch with me, then a promise that the rec would be in shortly after the end of the semester. Now my first deadline is looming, but there's no rec submitted, and the prof hasn't responded to another email. I can't just throw my hands up and say forget it, though! I'm going to attempt to call on Friday if he hasn't submitted it by then. Sometimes people excuse professors' absentmindedness and unprofessional behavior when it comes to this sort of thing, but I have to say it's an incredibly frustrating and ridiculous process. This sort of thing can have a hugely negative effect on someone's future, and professors should be held accountable for this sort of thing--the problem is, they're not.

Practice. Tons of practice. Buy the ETS GRE book and take Powerprep tests, do all the tests in Barron's Six Practice Tests, and read Princeton Review's Cracking the GRE for tips and tricks. You may want to invest in Manhattan's test materials, too; apparently they have some of the best math prep, but I don't have personal experience with it. Also are you aware of the GRE free diagnostic service? It shows you the kind of questions you missed, how long you took per question, and other valuable information to know before going into a retake: https://grediagnostic.ets.org/GREDWeb/gred/signIn.jsp ETA: I see you already used the ETS and Barron's materials. That's what I get for skimming!

Not that MPH programs don't take GRE scores into consideration, but it seems like many focus on experience and professional interests quite a bit. I think if you're passionate and can convey your experience and goals in your SOP, you should apply to any programs that truly interest you.

Re: scores: If you choose that option, yes, schools will only see your current score.

Another issue to consider is that you'll be taking the revised GRE, so even though you've taken the GRE four times, you haven't taken the current version at all. The verbal is very different now (albeit easier IMO), and the AW no longer lets you pick your topic and gives you less time for the issue essay. Personally I think the new GRE is more intuitive than the old, so it may be worth a shot. I love that the new GRE lets you skip around and come back to hard questions. The new GRE also has the Score Select option and a diagnostic rundown of questions you missed that's available once you receive your official scores, both of which are helpful. I took the old version in July 2011 and the new in November 2012; my verbal and quant scores went up--quant significantly--after some directed studying and practice. If you have the time, energy, and money, go for it.

hdoug913: I think you're a very competitive candidate, but you may want to explain your lower overall GPA in your SOP in a clear, concise way. While the more competitive schools I've researched have GPA minima of 3.0, the average accepted applicant GPA seems to be 3.5 or higher. You'll definitely want to play up your experience. That is a great asset. Your LORs will make your app strong, too. And of course prepare for the GRE. A solid GRE score will help offset your GPA as well. Good luck!

From my understanding, employers don't really care where your degree is from--that's not to say that some programs aren't better than others depending on your preferences, but most accredited SLP programs will equip you for the profession as much as school can. Also, the surge in SLP applicants over the last few years has made most SLP programs competitive to hyper-competitive, even if the schools don't have overall name recognition. Honestly? Apply where you feel comfortable living and potentially working. Many strong applicants ultimately choose based on location or tuition expenses. There are good programs all over the country, and the biggest factor seems to be getting in somewhere, not necessarily where you earn your degree. ETA: Just to give you an idea, some of the more competitive programs appear to be UWashington, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Boulder, MGH in Boston, and Boston U to name a few. California public schools are hard to get into due to the number of applicants. Chapel Hill is nearly impossible to get into.

It truly seems to depend on the school. Apparently many schools don't care about AW at all. However, some schools do take AW scores into consideration for admissions and funding purposes. I think your GRE is fantastic aside from the AW score. Focus on making your SOP and CV very strong to show that the AW is a fluke. FWIW I majored in English and scored 5.0 on the AW my first GRE attempt but only 4.0 on my second. It's frustrating to be sure!

Daisy, I'm applying to UVA and Boulder as well--I'm trying not to stress so much since my app is as strong as it can be, but there are SO MANY applicants, especially for Boulder. Good luck to everyone!

That is very useful. I feel competitive, but given the sheer number of applicants, who knows? Thanks for replying!