JerryLandis

Double spacing just looks to me like someone is trying to make a short, crappy essay look long - brings back memories of middle school homework assignments. I never use double spacing unless I'm printing something out to edit it and plan on writing a lot of notes in pen - I always use 1.5 spacing. I'm sure 1.5 spacing is fine for writing samples, but I wouldn't fiddle with the font size or margins. Generally I think that's a pretty obvious red flag that says "my essay is way too long and I'm trying to prevent you from noticing." It's like when people think double-spacing their bibliographies will make them seem more impressive - I'm sure the people reading them are entirely aware of what you're trying to do! Also, keep in mind that the people reading these will be reading a lot of writing samples and application materials, and you want your sample to be easy enough to read. Someone spending hours reading boring writing samples is not going to enjoy looking through a long essay written in a tiny font, and your ideas may not come across as clearly in that scrunched format.

I'm having the same problem shortening my writing sample, but I've told myself that if I absolutely can't get it short enough, I'm just going to submit something else instead.

I think the point of the article wasn't that the Ivy League makes people incapable of intellectual thought or independence, but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones. Obviously the Ivies are trying to diversify, as he mentioned, admitting a certain number of artists, musicians, and otherwise kooky people every year, but apparently the majority of admits are those who aced the SAT and AP tests, and spent all of high school building their college resumes. I don't know how much I agree since I don't attend an Ivy, but I did go to a private prep school, so what he talks about sounds very familiar to me. I remember being required to take certain classes not because they were essential to graduate from high school, but because the top colleges supposedly (according to my college counselor) wouldn't consider me if I didn't have them on my transcript. Instead of allowing me to take two languages, lots of history classes, and art, which still would have enabled me to take the minimum number of science/math classes to graduate, I was repeatedly urged to take 4 years of history, 4 years of math, 4 years of science, 4 years of English, and 4 years of one foreign language (plus 2 years of "College Counseling" as a minor class). Art? You'll never get in anywhere decent! I was also pressured into joining the crew team, model UN, running for meaningless student government positions, and basically all the extra-curricular activities recommended for kids who have no interests or passions of their own, but need something to put into the "extra-curriculars" box in the application. I ended up applying to a random foreign university no one from my school had ever attended, and not even submitting applications to the Ivies and generally competitive colleges recommended by my college counselor, and I purposefully failed out of the math class she made me take so that I could take something else. Everyone else in that math class (also fellow members of the crew team, model UN, squash team, etc.) ended up going to elite colleges. Most of them were very smart and friendly, but sometimes I do wonder if the prep school experience beat some of their creativity out of them, as it sort of did for me. Fortunately I had some wonderful and inspirational teachers who offset that whole crazy competitive experience, but I definitely understand what the author of the article is talking about. When you're so focused on scoring perfectly on everything (which these days is necessary to compete in admissions no matter where you're applying), it's very difficult to actually think about the implications or underlying meaning of what it is you're "learning."

But please, still, I'd like that one Ivy I applied to to admit me... Can't be the same way for PhDs, right?

I want an interview! My outfit would blow everyone else out of the water...

Things like interviews always throw me off a bit, because I usually dress quite formally so I'm concerned that dressing as I normally do or a little bit nicer may make me appear nervous and overdressed. I can still remember back in the day when I interviewed for my prep school, and the other girl being interviewed that day, a 14 year old, was wearing a khaki pantsuit with hot pink lining. It was a cheap one that made ruffly sounds when she moved nervously. I was embarrassed for her.

I think wearing a suit can be okay but is still a little excessive, i.e. I think I'd personally err on the safe side and go slightly more casual. How often do you see professors wearing suits? Mine never do. If you do wear a suit, I guess just don't wear a really slick one (pinstripes come to mind as being somewhat snooty) and maybe wear a neutral-colored one if you have one? I find that people tend to look much friendlier and more intellectual when they are wearing brown instead of black. In a similar vein to what someone mentioned already, black has much more corporate connotations, at least to me.

I wouldn't wear jeans. Jeans can't be dressed up or down enough to squeeze through awkward dress situations. If you are afraid of looking too formal, wear pants of another material like corduroy, or denim that isn't blue. You won't appear too formal in that, because those are the kinds of materials that people often wear to casual events.

Sorry if these style musings have gone too far, but I am still working on coursework for the semester and need an outlet of procrastination!

I want an interview! My outfit would blow everyone else out of the water...

Things like interviews always throw me off a bit, because I usually dress quite formally so I'm concerned that dressing as I normally do or a little bit nicer may make me appear nervous and overdressed. I can still remember back in the day when I interviewed for my prep school, and the other girl being interviewed that day, a 14 year old, was wearing a khaki pantsuit with hot pink lining. It was a cheap one that made ruffly sounds when she moved nervously. I was embarrassed for her.

I think wearing a suit can be okay but is still a little excessive, i.e. I think I'd personally err on the safe side and go slightly more casual. How often do you see professors wearing suits? Mine never do. If you do wear a suit, I guess just don't wear a really slick one (pinstripes come to mind as being somewhat snooty) and maybe wear a neutral-colored one if you have one? I find that people tend to look much friendlier and more intellectual when they are wearing brown instead of black. In a similar vein to what someone mentioned already, black has much more corporate connotations, at least to me.

I wouldn't wear jeans. Jeans can't be dressed up or down enough to squeeze through awkward dress situations. If you are afraid of looking too formal, wear pants of another material like corduroy, or denim that isn't blue. You won't appear too formal in that, because those are the kinds of materials that people often wear to casual events.

Sorry if these style musings have gone too far, but I am still working on coursework for the semester and need an outlet of procrastination!

I think the point of the article wasn't that the Ivy League makes people incapable of intellectual thought or independence, but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones. Obviously the Ivies are trying to diversify, as he mentioned, admitting a certain number of artists, musicians, and otherwise kooky people every year, but apparently the majority of admits are those who aced the SAT and AP tests, and spent all of high school building their college resumes. I don't know how much I agree since I don't attend an Ivy, but I did go to a private prep school, so what he talks about sounds very familiar to me. I remember being required to take certain classes not because they were essential to graduate from high school, but because the top colleges supposedly (according to my college counselor) wouldn't consider me if I didn't have them on my transcript. Instead of allowing me to take two languages, lots of history classes, and art, which still would have enabled me to take the minimum number of science/math classes to graduate, I was repeatedly urged to take 4 years of history, 4 years of math, 4 years of science, 4 years of English, and 4 years of one foreign language (plus 2 years of "College Counseling" as a minor class). Art? You'll never get in anywhere decent! I was also pressured into joining the crew team, model UN, running for meaningless student government positions, and basically all the extra-curricular activities recommended for kids who have no interests or passions of their own, but need something to put into the "extra-curriculars" box in the application. I ended up applying to a random foreign university no one from my school had ever attended, and not even submitting applications to the Ivies and generally competitive colleges recommended by my college counselor, and I purposefully failed out of the math class she made me take so that I could take something else. Everyone else in that math class (also fellow members of the crew team, model UN, squash team, etc.) ended up going to elite colleges. Most of them were very smart and friendly, but sometimes I do wonder if the prep school experience beat some of their creativity out of them, as it sort of did for me. Fortunately I had some wonderful and inspirational teachers who offset that whole crazy competitive experience, but I definitely understand what the author of the article is talking about. When you're so focused on scoring perfectly on everything (which these days is necessary to compete in admissions no matter where you're applying), it's very difficult to actually think about the implications or underlying meaning of what it is you're "learning."

But please, still, I'd like that one Ivy I applied to to admit me... Can't be the same way for PhDs, right?

I don't really think that what you said was insensitive. Last year my boyfriend moved in with me for a semester. I had never agreed to this, but he had nowhere else to go so I had to give him space at mine. He had also moved a long distance to be with me, so he was looking for jobs - anything that paid. Despite this apparent desperation he didn't start applying for any jobs until after he had been living with me for over a month. All he did was play video games all day, while I did my full load of coursework, cooked all our meals, did all the dishes, absolutely all the housework (I should also mention that I had a roommate at the time, who never cooked or did any housework either, so I basically had 2 dependents, and I paid for ALL of the food). When he finally did get around to applying for jobs, he was picky and would only apply to certain places. He finally did find part-time work, at the end of the semester.

The whole situation was extremely difficult for me, because I would have been very stressed from coursework anyways, even had none of these problems occurred. On the one hand, I understood that he was going through something very difficult, because the economy is making it almost impossible to find a job, and because he had moved to my small university town just to be with me (he had graduated from this university a year earlier). I know that anyone having trouble finding a job, or deciding what to do with their life, is going to end up being very depressed and probably quite inactive as a result. He was very unfortunate to graduate at a time of economic collapse. While I understood this, I also thought that it was unfair for me to have to deal with all the consequences of his problems on my own. I paid for everything - food, rent, bills, and as I said before I would come home from a day of classes, serve him dinner while he played his video games (!) and then cleaned everything up before retiring to my room to do homework. On top of that, he wanted me to look for jobs with him, when I nagged at him about seeking employment instead of sitting at home doing nothing all day. We were both miserable. I was a stressed-out, sobbing mess all semester long, and he suffered a huge loss of self-confidence. It was a serious drain on our relationship because we both really started to resent each other.

The next school year, he expected that he would be able to live with me and my roommate again. He promised to be better about helping out around the house and all that, but I knew that this would not be the case. I had to tell him that he could not move back in. It was very difficult for me, especially since I really did like having him around when I wasn't taking care of him, and genuinely did want to live with him. He was very hurt by me telling him all this, BUT I can say that everything is fine now. We don't live together this year, but we see each other all the time and he is doing very well for himself. Hardly spends any time playing video games!

My conclusion from this is that what was needed was NOT for me to nag at him all the time about how he was being lazy and how living with him made me depressed, etc. (which I knew was a bad thing to do all along, but ranting becomes necessary sometimes for the sake of personal sanity!). The solution was to explain exactly what the problem was and force him to take care of it himself. When faced with a more drastic and immediate situation, he realized the gravity of his situation and took care of the problem. Months of living comfortably with me had given him the opportunity to ignore his problems and do nothing to solve them. Now, I know that this approach would not work exactly the same way for you because you are married and clearly have a higher level of commitment, and also because you said that your husband actually is actively looking for work. However, I think the overall point of how to approach the problem is probably pretty universal. Nagging and venting stress at him (no matter how justified it may seem) will only make the problem worse because it will make him feel worthless, and less capable of improving his situation.

As for funding, do you not have some kind of a written contract with your department guaranteeing certain funding and procedures? It seems very suspicious of them to change the agreement after you have already started your course.

I don't really think that what you said was insensitive. Last year my boyfriend moved in with me for a semester. I had never agreed to this, but he had nowhere else to go so I had to give him space at mine. He had also moved a long distance to be with me, so he was looking for jobs - anything that paid. Despite this apparent desperation he didn't start applying for any jobs until after he had been living with me for over a month. All he did was play video games all day, while I did my full load of coursework, cooked all our meals, did all the dishes, absolutely all the housework (I should also mention that I had a roommate at the time, who never cooked or did any housework either, so I basically had 2 dependents, and I paid for ALL of the food). When he finally did get around to applying for jobs, he was picky and would only apply to certain places. He finally did find part-time work, at the end of the semester.

The whole situation was extremely difficult for me, because I would have been very stressed from coursework anyways, even had none of these problems occurred. On the one hand, I understood that he was going through something very difficult, because the economy is making it almost impossible to find a job, and because he had moved to my small university town just to be with me (he had graduated from this university a year earlier). I know that anyone having trouble finding a job, or deciding what to do with their life, is going to end up being very depressed and probably quite inactive as a result. He was very unfortunate to graduate at a time of economic collapse. While I understood this, I also thought that it was unfair for me to have to deal with all the consequences of his problems on my own. I paid for everything - food, rent, bills, and as I said before I would come home from a day of classes, serve him dinner while he played his video games (!) and then cleaned everything up before retiring to my room to do homework. On top of that, he wanted me to look for jobs with him, when I nagged at him about seeking employment instead of sitting at home doing nothing all day. We were both miserable. I was a stressed-out, sobbing mess all semester long, and he suffered a huge loss of self-confidence. It was a serious drain on our relationship because we both really started to resent each other.

The next school year, he expected that he would be able to live with me and my roommate again. He promised to be better about helping out around the house and all that, but I knew that this would not be the case. I had to tell him that he could not move back in. It was very difficult for me, especially since I really did like having him around when I wasn't taking care of him, and genuinely did want to live with him. He was very hurt by me telling him all this, BUT I can say that everything is fine now. We don't live together this year, but we see each other all the time and he is doing very well for himself. Hardly spends any time playing video games!

My conclusion from this is that what was needed was NOT for me to nag at him all the time about how he was being lazy and how living with him made me depressed, etc. (which I knew was a bad thing to do all along, but ranting becomes necessary sometimes for the sake of personal sanity!). The solution was to explain exactly what the problem was and force him to take care of it himself. When faced with a more drastic and immediate situation, he realized the gravity of his situation and took care of the problem. Months of living comfortably with me had given him the opportunity to ignore his problems and do nothing to solve them. Now, I know that this approach would not work exactly the same way for you because you are married and clearly have a higher level of commitment, and also because you said that your husband actually is actively looking for work. However, I think the overall point of how to approach the problem is probably pretty universal. Nagging and venting stress at him (no matter how justified it may seem) will only make the problem worse because it will make him feel worthless, and less capable of improving his situation.

As for funding, do you not have some kind of a written contract with your department guaranteeing certain funding and procedures? It seems very suspicious of them to change the agreement after you have already started your course.

I once petitioned an essay grade that was given to me by a graduate student. He was very friendly in person, and was a very good teacher, but the comments he wrote on my essay were extremely insulting and actually made me cry when I read over them. I had worked for weeks on the essay and, while I recognize that hard work does not guarantee high grades, I would have appreciated if he had acknowledged my hard work in writing his comments (instead of simply writing "you failed to do x, y, and z") in the evaluation form. There was no constructive criticism offered. It was clear from some of his comments (for example, he refused to believe that I had read a non-English text, based solely on the assumption that undergrads must only speak English) that he believed undergraduates to be a bunch of idiots, and that he was God's gift to academia or something.

Anyhow, the essay was regraded, and I received a somewhat higher grade. More importantly, the person who regraded it explained clearly why certain points were deducted. After that awkward experience, the graduate student and I still had the rest of the semester to go, and it was pretty uncomfortable. For example, he never responded to my email to him saying I intended to have the essay re-graded, and never mentioned the incident to me in person. I understand that he probably felt annoyed about me undermining him, but I don't think he handled the situation very professionally. I would have appreciated it if he had offered to speak to me about it in person, and maybe have a look over the essay with me. I suppose that is what I suggest you try doing with your student. Mind you, I have no teaching experience myself (dumbass undergrad here), and I'm not trying to compare you with my jerk of a tutor. But, if you have a little chat with the person, or at least behave in a friendly manner towards him for the rest of the semester, you'll be more likely to win his respect and also to "win" in the unspoken rivalry.

That said, aside from this one particular individual, the best teachers I have had as an undergraduate have been graduate students. I find that they tend to be terrifying, in that they expect work to be done and do not take excuses. Keep in mind that someone who has had to deal with a not-so-understanding TA may automatically assume that you operate with the same cutthroat policy of hating all undergraduates.

They should sell tickets for this.

To the OP: sure, a 4.0 isn't a good score. Although it's not horrible. I think it's very common for good writers to receive surprisingly low scores, because their creative and individualized writing style may not fit into the rubric of "good analytical writing" that the essay markers are looking for when they spend 45 seconds glancing at your essays. A lot of admissions folks seem to understand this. That doesn't mean the score can't hurt you, but I doubt it will hurt you anywhere near as much as a weak writing sample would. That said, I don't know what your scholarship applications entail. I've heard through the grapevine that GRE scores matter more where funding is concerned, presumably because it's not individual departments handling those matters, so they want more homogenized data. Are you applying to some kind of fellowship program unaffiliated with your specific university, or are you applying for something specific to the university? Either way, I'd suggest re-posting your question somewhere where it can be seen by people who have applied for the same scholarship or who attend that university. You may not get much useful feedback here since I think the GRE/GMAT section is more for people still preparing to take the test. Or people seeking to be entertained by seadub's wisdom.

If it makes you feel any better, I failed the state writing test when I was in 4th grade, which according to state law meant that I could not go on to junior high the next year. Luckily I moved so I didn't have to retake it (although my teachers did appeal to have the test re-graded - don't remember what became of that). I don't remember what I wrote, but I do remember being in the advanced reading/writing group, and having my essays read aloud to the class as examples of good writing. So I have never let that state standardized test get me down! When it came to the GRE, I sat there and wrote the dumbest, simplest essay I could, making sure to use the cookie cutter structure they wanted, and I got a 5.5. Honestly, I think it was the most idiotic thing I've written in the past 10 years. I'm glad I got a good score since it's practical for application matters, but personally the score means nothing to me and I consider my graded essays to reflect my writing skills and faults much more accurately.

I know that sympathy and good vibes weren't what you were seeking in posting your question, but I figured you might need some encouragement after being insulted by the above poster.

It really is annoying when people expect history students to know everything that ever happened in human history. I do medieval history, a period which falls roughly between the years 500 and 1500, however everyone seems to think, mistakenly, that the medieval period was from around 1300-1700. And then they treat me like an idiot for now knowing some small detail of Napoleon's military career despite that not even being part of medieval history at all. I don't know what they think happened between 500 and 1300, I guess just those ever mysterious and exaggerated Dark Ages, which is actually the period I study. When I say that I do medieval history, specifically within the 600s/700s, people say, 'That's not medieval history.' Apparently all that ever happened in the middle ages was the Renaissance (load of bullshit anyway) and the 100 Years War, neither of which I know much about. But even after I clarify my specific interests, people are keen to make me look like an idiot and show off their History Channel knowledge by giving me a lecture about something to do with Agincourt or Da Vinci.

Normally it's fine and I'm not bothered. I know from my own middle and high school experience that people are systematically taught lies about the middle ages in order to instill in young people the illusion that history travels along some progressive and positive path all leading to the awesomeness of the USA being founded. So I don't blame people for believing this. But what does annoy me is when people act all condescendingly about it and try to catch me off guard with some random piece of trivia. I bet those are the same people who blurt out 'Excuse me, YOU'RE WRONG' to teachers and professors in the middle of a lecture. Guess I'll be dealing with these types for the rest of my days!

Other than that a lot of people ask me if I drink mead or am into jousting. I do like mead but that's about as far as it goes. And I don't play World of Warcraft.

The person who fell asleep did not blame it on ETS, just said that she had a bad experience because she fell asleep. Some other people blamed ETS for what happened to them (i.e. not accepting their valid forms of ID and making them pay double to take the test), but this thread is about discussing bad personal experiences, not necessarily about bad policies of ETS in particular.

The point made by the person who said it's a shame that GRE scores overshadow years of real performance and accomplishments made a valid point, in this context. Someone who performs excellently throughout his or her life may get unlucky and fall seriously ill not be able to sleep the night before their test. I personally went in not having slept the night before, because I was with my friends who had swine flu and they were up coughing all night. One of my friends almost fainted during her exam due to her illness. There was no option to reschedule, unless we wanted to pay for the test again (and book extra hostel nights and train tickets). So we took the test, and did alright but certainly not great. I'm sure all of our scores would have been a bit higher had we taken the test under normal circumstances. I can't afford to retake the GRE, so now there is the potential that my performance on that one test may determine my future, even though I've performed excellently on all my other academic requirements. So it is a valid concern. I did not say that it's specifically ETS's fault that I had a crappy experience, simply that the experience was crappy. However, they should give serious thought to revising their policies so that people who follow correct procedure and bring the appropriate documentation are not screwed when they show up for their tests.

I think this needs to be rewritten, but I think it will be very good if you keep reworking it. You are a good writer, and have some interesting tidbits thrown in, but you need to make sure they remain only tidbits and fleeting references. Your sentence about being a mailman is good because it is one brief sentence. Try to limit your anecdotal comments, and to make those you keep brief. I personally took a similar approach to you in my first draft - my initial SOP was very conversational, and showed a lot of my personality. I have since removed the most entertaining parts of my SOP, after holding on to them as long as I could justify, and have edited down the unrelated comments that had me going off on unnecessary tangents. There are still sarcastic and anecdotal comments in it, but they each take up no more than a sentence and are integrated into more relevant points.

Another thing is that you list all the possibilities that come with a career in your field, but you don't say exactly what it is you want to do. The people reading this will know exactly what kind of jobs people with the degree they offer will pursue, but what they don't know, and what they want to know, is what you are planning for yourself.

Also, your mention of your time in the army is kind of awkward, as you bring it up vaguely in the first sentence and leave it there. Maybe you should mention how your army skills would be applicable? As for teaching, you should be careful with your wording about the excessive work. You kind of make it sound like you enjoyed being a student because it was less work than being a teacher. I know that's not what you mean, but you should still try to rephrase that part to avoid sounding work shy.

Overall, I think it's good that you're injecting some personality into your essay. I don't know anything about the field, but I imagine that the average structural engineering SOP is a lot more bland and formulaic than the average humanities SOP, and for that reason the people reading your statement may be a bit more receptive to a less rigid, more conversational essay. You should take it as a real compliment that I actually read the whole thing - with most sample SOPs I've read, I quit somewhere in the first paragraph because they're too pretentious and not very sincere. So while I say you should definitely rewrite this a few times (we can all benefit from doing that), you're off to a good start.

Testarossa, I don't know anything about your field, but I just thought I'd suggest that you take anything seadub says with a gigantic grain of salt. He is not here to give helpful advice, but to yell at people and ingratiate himself. I haven't seen any posts by you before, so, assuming that you are new, I thought I'd give you a heads up.

When I encounter smug people like seadub in real life, I never make direct comments about their attitudes but sometimes I'll make subtle snide comments if I get too impatient. Arrogant people who attempt to make others look stupid do so as a means of getting attention, so I figure that denying them that attention is the best way to proceed when possible. However, things get a bit different on the internet (or when I get a few drinks in me). I don't have to deal with the consequences of my actions (except when, for example, seadub stalks me on Google and broadcasts personal information like where I live to everyone reading this board) when making anonymous posts. I don't have to deal with the awkwardness of having to see someone I argued with on a regular basis, and of everyone around me witnessing it. I get to express all the frustration that comes from dealing with smug people in real life, as well as that is generated by this application process, by being slightly bitchy towards seadub. Thankfully he is a truly worthy vessel for me to fill with this bitchiness, otherwise I would feel pretty guilty. Perhaps seadub is a complete gentleman in real life, just as I consider myself to be much nicer in real life than I am being at this moment in time. However, I think it's safer to assume he's not. Just because he has been accepted at institutions he has applied to does not convince me that he is particularly intelligent, not least mature. If anything, it highlights the sorry state of the admissions process in its dependence on statistics. Obviously we are in different fields, but I can safely say that in the arts, admissions committees do indeed have much more important and decisive information than GRE scores with which to judge candidates. These are writing samples, letters of recommendation, and statements of purpose. To discourage people from applying to competitive programs simply because their statistics are not ideal is disgraceful. GRE scores can be an obstacle for some applicants, and we should all certainly be warned about this. However, that does not necessitate telling people that they are hopeless idiots who will never be accepted anywhere. It's not simply your "harsh delivery," seadub, it's the underlying message of condescension and discouragement.

When I encounter smug people like seadub in real life, I never make direct comments about their attitudes but sometimes I'll make subtle snide comments if I get too impatient. Arrogant people who attempt to make others look stupid do so as a means of getting attention, so I figure that denying them that attention is the best way to proceed when possible. However, things get a bit different on the internet (or when I get a few drinks in me). I don't have to deal with the consequences of my actions (except when, for example, seadub stalks me on Google and broadcasts personal information like where I live to everyone reading this board) when making anonymous posts. I don't have to deal with the awkwardness of having to see someone I argued with on a regular basis, and of everyone around me witnessing it. I get to express all the frustration that comes from dealing with smug people in real life, as well as that is generated by this application process, by being slightly bitchy towards seadub. Thankfully he is a truly worthy vessel for me to fill with this bitchiness, otherwise I would feel pretty guilty. Perhaps seadub is a complete gentleman in real life, just as I consider myself to be much nicer in real life than I am being at this moment in time. However, I think it's safer to assume he's not. Just because he has been accepted at institutions he has applied to does not convince me that he is particularly intelligent, not least mature. If anything, it highlights the sorry state of the admissions process in its dependence on statistics. Obviously we are in different fields, but I can safely say that in the arts, admissions committees do indeed have much more important and decisive information than GRE scores with which to judge candidates. These are writing samples, letters of recommendation, and statements of purpose. To discourage people from applying to competitive programs simply because their statistics are not ideal is disgraceful. GRE scores can be an obstacle for some applicants, and we should all certainly be warned about this. However, that does not necessitate telling people that they are hopeless idiots who will never be accepted anywhere. It's not simply your "harsh delivery," seadub, it's the underlying message of condescension and discouragement.

Admissions offices should check their phone messages regularly, and respond to phone and email messages if they have a policy of never answering the phone. (It bothers me that whilst applicants must be consistently professional in their communications with departments, there seem to be no standards for how applicants are to be treated - remaining polite while desperately trying to get the answer to a simple question from a department is very awkward and difficult!)

Applicants who are not accepted should be notified of their rejections.

Universities and programs with minimum GPA or GRE requirements/cutoffs should state these clearly on their websites so as to prevent those with no chance of acceptance from wasting time and money applying.

Testarossa, I don't know anything about your field, but I just thought I'd suggest that you take anything seadub says with a gigantic grain of salt. He is not here to give helpful advice, but to yell at people and ingratiate himself. I haven't seen any posts by you before, so, assuming that you are new, I thought I'd give you a heads up.

Why are you talking to this person about applications if they don't know anything about you except for GRE scores? I'd suggest speaking to someone who knows you a bit better and who has a better idea where you'd fit in. Generally speaking, when I've spoken to professors I didn't know well, or didn't know at all, about applying to grad school, they have spoken to me like I'm some complete idiot who will never get in anywhere. The only reason I talked to these people was that someone introduced me to them at a department event and mentioned that I was working on applications. I think that professors are just used to talking down to people, and to dealing with students with unrealistic expectations about their academic futures. Whether or not you an I are those kinds of students, professors who don't know us well will naturally assume that we are, and that we need to lower our expectations for our own sakes. I don't know if it's just me, but generally whenever I meet professors they always assume that I'm a complete idiot until I hand in my first piece of work.

I think you're missing a letter in there somewhere.

I think the importance of learning math for most people (beyond your essential, very basic stuff you get in middle school) is that it's good mental exercise and helps people learn how to think logically. I always hated math but I understand why I was made to take it beyond the practical level. I'll never make practical use of any of the math I learned beyond 9th grade. I think that making Calculus compulsory for all high school students is ridiculous - setting higher (and unnecessary) standards for kids won't help them meet the lower standards they already struggle with.

For the GRE, refreshing your algebra skills can really help. But you don't really need a math class to do that - if you learned it when you were 14 or 15, and you understood it then, you should be able to refresh your memory about most of it and re-learn the formulas and rules by using a GRE book. If, as the above poster said, calculus is necessary for your degree, I'd put much more weight on taking care of that than I would taking GRE-specific classes. Much of the math on the GRE is about "logical thinking," NOT working out equations. I'm the kind of person who feels the need to plug all the numbers in a solve the problem (after years of having to do that in school!), not guess at the answer based on estimations and tricks, so I found the quantitative section a bit difficult to get used to. If you use a book (I used Barrons, but if I remember correctly it didn't cover slopes so you may want to use a different one) and diligently go through the whole chapter, and do all the practice problems, you should be able to refresh your understanding of algebra. It probably won't take too much time either if you spread it out over a couple weeks.

I think you're missing a letter in there somewhere.

I think that by "real jobs" he/she meant stuff like waiting tables, working in retail, stuff where you have do deal with customers who assume you're somehow beneath them. In my experience, you don't get paid too well in those jobs either. And you sure as hell don't work 80 hours a week! Whatever, who cares, it's all work.

Testarossa, I don't know anything about your field, but I just thought I'd suggest that you take anything seadub says with a gigantic grain of salt. He is not here to give helpful advice, but to yell at people and ingratiate himself. I haven't seen any posts by you before, so, assuming that you are new, I thought I'd give you a heads up.

I think you're missing a letter in there somewhere.

Testarossa, I don't know anything about your field, but I just thought I'd suggest that you take anything seadub says with a gigantic grain of salt. He is not here to give helpful advice, but to yell at people and ingratiate himself. I haven't seen any posts by you before, so, assuming that you are new, I thought I'd give you a heads up.