SueMadre

Good rule of thumb: committees don't know, completely, what they're looking for until they see it. Of course, do all the usual stuff (work history, who you admire in your field, etc.) but it's up to you to figure out how to stand out. Don't gamble on it, but catch their eyes. What makes you special? Why should they want you, specifically?

What's weird is nobody ever thinks to do the most obvious thing: look up the professors in the program and discuss how you appreciate their work. Since these are the people who select you for their program, why wouldn't you see what they've done and comment upon it? You can use a paragraph to do this, somewhere near the middle/end of the statement, and it will show that 1) you actually care about what you're doing since you've done some research and 2) you actually admire the professors who you will spend years working with. Personally, I write a new essay for every school I apply to. A form essay looks weak, and committees can often tell when they're reading a form essay since all of the placement of the specific names is a liittle too convenient. Laziness gets you nowhere. When I was applying for my master's, I did all of this stuff I'm telling you: I got accepted to 80% of the schools to which I applied, and got full rides at all of them (no tuition + stipend/monies). My advice to anyone is to take the time to really do your research on that school and to discuss why you like their faculty, specifically. If all this sounds like too much work, then maybe reconsider applying to grad schools. Oh: don't talk about how you're "passionate" or how you "love a challenge." This stuff sounds like what a high-schooler would say. SHOW that you're passionate by telling them about the work you've done in your field. I could tell you I'm the greatest personal statement writer in history, but telling you doesn't mean anything. See? People can see excitement, even on a page. Show them that you're excited...but don't say "I'm excited" (obviously). And don't you exclamation points. SHOW through your work and your eagerness to learn. (Don't say "I'm eager" either.)

Well, let me explain further. There are certain things that the GRE can obviously not account for. For example, what if you're a person (like me) who has problems with double negatives (like in the example above). Now, ETS may think that "normal" people don't have that big a problem with these types of questions, so they're only weighted a certain amount. However, since I'm just the type of person who has problems with that question format, the test immediately becomes harder for me. Here's another thing: in ALL of the practice tests I took, there were two verbal sections and three quant sections. In the GRE I actually took, there were three verbal sections and two quant. So, by the time I hit that third verbal section my brain was pretty well cooked. I wasn't prepared for that much verbal, and I fear I performed poorly as a result. How could ETS "normalize" for this? All of the questions are selected randomly, though they're changed based upon your previous answers. For example, if you do well in the first verbal section, then your questions in the second verbal section will be harder. However, what's hard for one person might not be hard for another. And, for that matter, what does "normalized" really mean? Does that mean that if you perform poorly on the first verbal section, it will give you easier questions in the second verbal section so that you can get a better score? Or is it giving you easier questions and handicapping you, like the easier questions are worth less? So instead of being able to get a 160, since you got the easier questions you can only get a 155? Nomsayin? It's a vague term based upon theoretical gradiations that don't actually exist in human beings. That's how one test can be harder than another. They're not all the same: one question to one person might be easier than the same question to a different person. There are many reasons for this.

Well, first of all, 157 is what--75th percentile or something? That's not too bad. However, if the programs you're applying to have said they place a lot of emphasis on GRE scores, then you might consider taking the test again and just doing the verbal sections (skipping everything else). Second, there's a chance that you just got a tough test/the test environment was stressful. I've said this before and I'll say it again--not all GREs are created equal. Some are, literally, harder. You could've just gotten a hard one. Either that, or the test environment sort of stressed you out (which is common, since they purposely make that environment as claustrophobic and constrictive as possible). Third, the wording of those questions are meant to be deceptive. They will throw at least a few trick questions in there, just to try to screw you up. For example, there's a reading comp question that is something like: "All of the following statements would weaken the narrator's argument EXCEPT" and you have to choose the correct one. The wording of these types of questions is, to be honest, ridiculous. Who would ever ask a question like this? And the responses will be so terribly jargony and vague that your brain gets all skittery and jumpy. You'd think you're looking for an answer to a double negative; the answer will be something that actually strengthens the argument. But it's not. It's something that, by some small wording idiosyncracy, is unrelated to the passage somehow. Here's one trick, if you're dead set on taking the test again: do the reading comp first. These questions take the most time and use the most brain power, so skip to them immediately. That way you won't be stressed about using up too much time on them, and your brain will be fresher. When I started doing this method, my scores immediately jumped 5-7 points.

In case anyone was following this: I wrote to one of the top tier schools, and their response was essentially: "The GREs don't matter to us at all. We, as a selection committee, literally do not see the GRE scores. So get good recommendations, have a good creative and critical sample, and make sure your statement of purpose is on point. The only time the GRE might matter is when applications are being ranked or when we're deciding who to put up for a fellowship." Bottom line seems to be that it probably won't matter, but it COULD matter in terms of funding. Which is a huge bummer, actually. I have confidence in my ability to put together a good application beyond my GRE scores. This means that if my application is just generally better, then I'll get the funding, but if it's a close call then I might lose to someone who got 5 more questions correct than I did. Or, to simplify, 5 questions could be the difference between my getting 30k or getting nothing. I have no idea what I should do. My gut is telling me that if a program wants to take me, they'll figure out a way to get me. Most CW PhD programs only take a couple people, so that should mean that they really want the people they accept. Which means that funding should follow. Who the f#*k knows! My new question: what would you do? Looking around, I see that my scores are middling but not terrible. The 158v and 5aw are all that will count. I might not do better if I take it again, though this other dude made some good points--I'd be a bit more comfortable this time and might have better luck... Also: is it okay to retake the test, but just skip the writing and quantitative sections? I couldn't care less about either of those. Would it look weird if I sent two tests, and one of them was only verbal (assuming I did better)?

These aren't awful, they're just below average. You're right to be nervous, but don't freak out. You need to get in touch with your schools and ask how much they care about the GREs. I think most schools will be pretty forthcoming. Seeing as you're in comparative lit, they're going to be most interested in your Verbal and Analytical. I'd venture to say that they won't care at all about the Quantitative score, but they'll probably put some real emphasis on the other two scores. Contact them and find out. If you've already paid and can afford it, go ahead and take them again and then decide whether or not you want to send the new scores after the exam. The scores take 4 to 6 weeks to deliver, which means you *should* be okay.

Nah--my guess is you got one of the easier tests. I've posted before about this--first time I took the GREs (the old format) I got a 720v/650q, and I studied halfheartedly for 2 weeks in my spare time. I took like one practice test. But then I got to the testing center and the test I got was way easier than the sample questions/practice test. Not all GREs are the same. They are random combinations of questions, assigned using an algorithm created as you input your answers. It's entirely possible you just lucked into a good series of questions that you knew all the answers to/were easier to answer than some of the others. That said, it sounds like you actually studied pretty hard. I didn't study as hard as you (but did worse anyway). Even so, the test I took was way harder than any of the practice tests I'd done prior. In fact, one of the analytical essay questions was so ridiculous, I can't believe I did as well as I did on the essay sections (it essentially asked "Can people be good at two fields of study?" I was so blown away by the vagueness of the question, compared to the practice questions I'd seen, that I laughed out loud in the testing center and everyone turned to look at me). I guess my questions to you would be: what were your essay questions like? What about the reading comprehension on the verbal section? My reading comp questions were generally preposterous--stuff about vague cognitive theories using jargony terminology. Was that how yours was? Or did you have more of the "Einstein was a patent clerk" type questions, where the answers are pretty straightforward? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, since you studied some. The reading comp can be either easy to follow or complete gibberish.

Yeah, they're usually sort of a combo. Except I think the selection committees are comprised of the creative writing faculty rather than the lit faculty. At the University of Houston, for example, the people reviewing applications are all writers. Maybe I'm just trying to justify not taking the test again. But really--it seems ludicrous to me that this whole thing boils down to 4 or 5 answers to badly worded questions. I can't take the test again for another few weeks anyway, since I only took it a week or so ago. This is a bit of a concern--the application deadlines begin in early to mid December, which means there's a possibility that my new scores wouldn't be reported until after the application process closes. ETS says that it takes 4 to 6 weeks for scores to reach the universities, and the earliest I could take the test would be like the second week of November... This is all very disheartening. I can't particularly afford to blow another 185 bucks on taking the test again. But I don't want to apply, only to find out later that these scores are what ruined my chances. Does ANYONE have any verifiable info? As in: "my friend got a 155 verbal but still got into University of Chicago" or "I got a 156 but it didn't seem to matter at all, since I got accepted pretty much everywhere." All of these admissions pages say "there's no minimum score for entry," but that seems like a ruse, meant to keep suckers like me applying and paying application fees.

So I recently took my GREs to apply to PhD programs in Creative Writing. The last time I took the GRE was in 2007, and I did pretty well (720/650/4), got a bunch offers from schools and went on to get my master's. But this new format is ridiculous. I probably should've studied more, but I ended up with 158/150/5. After looking around, these are pretty mediocre scores. I know the math doesn't matter (from looking at department websites and online blogs), but my verbal should've been a bit higher. It's such a stupid test now--they're not actually testing anything you know, just your ability to study for their test. From what I've read, if I'd have answered 3 or 4 more questions correctly I'd have nothing to worry about... Anyway, a verbal score of 158 puts me in the 78th percentile (according to the ETS report). An AW score of 5 puts me in the 90th percentile. These sound okay to me, but I'm not sure if CrW committees will think the same. Should I retake this thing? I don't have much time to decide at this point, and I'm doubtful that I can actually do much better. Or if I do perform better, it would be pure luck. On practice tests, for example, my scores ranged from 155 to 168 on verbal, which is such a wide spread that it makes studying seem fruitless. Any advice/wisdom? Do Creative Writing PhDs actually care about GRE scores? I've read a bunch of things that say the GREs don't really matter to Creative Writing committees, and it's usually the grad school itself that wants something on record (I guess to show that you're not a complete dunce). Anyone have a similar experience/have any advice?