DrFaustus666

I'm starting this thread as a chance to help others learn from my mistake(s), and I hope others will be generous with their lessons learned as well.

I JUST thought to look at my transcripts, and realized that two of the classes in which I did the most work in my area of study do not reflect that on the transcript!! They just say "ENGL _____, Literature and Culture" and ENGL ____, British Literature. I didn't even think to talk about the work I did in these classes in my SOP, I focused on my thesis, my conference activity, and what I want to do for my dissertation -so, while I'm sure my professor's letter of recommendation discusses it to some degree, essentially I applied for medieval literature with only one course actually labeled as such on my transcript. My SOP focused very heavily on what I wanted to do in a doctoral program, while (now I see very clearly) only nominally, superficially, expressing why I was qualified to do it. WOW. No WONDER some of the programs I applied to didn't even consider me as a serious applicant!!

So - from my experience, check what your transcript says about the classes you took/the titles they are filed under, and make sure you discuss in detail for about a paragraph the pertinent coursework you did - texts read, etc. etc.

And boy, do I feel dumb!! But at least now I can see where to go in my next round of apps!!

Anyone else got some good, specific pointers?

I just had a professor who sits on admissions committees look over my SOP.

My introduction was talking about how I liked to go to museums as a child and was fascinated by the ancient world. He said that starting out like this is a huge mistake. Obviously if you are applying to study archaeology at the graduate level, it's pretty much assumed that you're fascinated by the ancient world and probably enjoy museums. But so do lots of people. What makes you unique. Attempt to illustrate your passion for the field without really telling some kind of silly story about your childhood. This is also an approach that many people take, and if you really want a strong SOP you'll find a better, more mature, and more creative way to say it.

The next point is, whether or not to talk about the negatives on your application. I wrote mine this year mentioning them extremely briefly and moving on. My thought behind this was to simply focus heavily on all the points that make me a competitive applicant. However, some graduate programs explicitly say that your SOP is the place on your application to mention your negatives and why the committee should overlook them. Obviously, this should not be the focus of your SOP. What the committees are looking for here is growth and improvement above all. Do not make excuses for poor grades, weak GRE scores, or a spotty work record. Do, however, point out how you have grown, how the committee can see improvement, and then highlight the things that make you a fabulous candidate.

The last thing I will mention is also very important, particularly for PhDs. Make sure that you know who you are applying to study under, and what your project is. Demonstrate that you would fit into the department like a glove and that you read Dr. Octopus' latest article on the newest theory, etc. etc. etc. Also, have a concise project in mind. Remember, you're not married to this idea, but you need to show the committee that you can ask the right kind of questions concerning your proposed research and that the project is something that the faculty could help you on based off of their interests and previous work. Do not make this project a carbon-copy of something they have previously accomplished, but a project that complements the research they have already performed. It is also highly advisable, since your job as a PhD student is essentially to perform lots of independent research, to demonstrate that you are capable of performing independent research. Although you want to show that you are a good fit for the program, you do not want to appear as though your adviser will have to hold your hand for the next five years.

Hope that helps! I'm no expert, but these are simply my thoughts on the process.

I agree, do some practice problems in the morning, just a handful or so. I forget where I read this, but someone made the point that you don't want the first GRE problems you do that day to actually count.

There's no question you've got a great record.

Can you get Senator Feinstein to write you a Letter of Recommendation? That would be a big help.

I believe your GRE scores are a bit problematic, particularly the Q score.

I've read on this forum and other places that for the Ivies (even in their lesser-known humanities departments, to say nothing of the world-famous Kennedy School of Government), a 720-750 is "expected" in Quant, as is a 700 in Verbal. That's just gossip though. I have not looked at their website or applied there myself.

John

Hi KitKat,

Once again I must agree with newms ... consider this ... even I, a liberal arts guy who hasn't taken a math course since 1971 (no lie! look at my age in my profile) also squeaked a 670 once, and 690 another time .... if I can do that, then a serious scientist ought to be able to do better.

Sorry to put it in what may appear to be harsh terms, but it's a very very competitive world you're trying to break into

Good luck!
John

Mine was an identified verbal section. I skipped it, but I did glance at the first question. It was a sentence completion question, with ticky boxes instead of buttons. The directions said to pick TWO words that could fit in the blank. Tricky...

Best of luck John. Your verbal scores are fantastic. I'm not too sure how much emphasis your program places on quant scores so I don't know how it will affect your chances. 690 isn't far away from 700 though, all the best with your applications.

From my understanding, only taking one section of the test and exiting the other 2 is rather frowned upon. Part of taking a "comprehensive" standardized test is how can you manage each part in the allotted time, and all of those parts together as a whole time. Someone who is taking the AW and knowing afterwards they still have the verbal and quant sections to push through will be dealing with stress differently than someone who is just taking the AW then exiting the other 2 sections. Their two scores can quite possibly not be fair to compare. It makes sense to me, but your best bet would be to ask each school in which you are interested in applying to about their procedure when assessing your GRE scores and if you can do this. Since you know ETS allows it, you need to find out if the schools that interest you allow it. All of the best!

"pretty much wasted my life eh?"

Boy, you're a right ray of sunshine, aren't you? as the Brits say.

Well ... you've hit a nerve and now I'm going to do my best to prove you wrong.

I'm currently enrolled in an MA in Germanic Studies at a probably Top-30 University, (4.0 average) already have another MA from that same university (3.8 avg), and the Chairman of the German Department has already told me they'd be pleased to accept me for a PhD in my current field (Germanic Studies).

But I'm setting my sights higher yet. I want to go to a very prestigious school, in a related but multidisciplinary field. And you MIGHT be right, it MIGHT be futile, but, dammit, I'm going to let THEM reject me, not give up because YOU say I should.

By the way, if you'd like to meet somebody even more pessimistic than yourself, there are other posters on this forum with whom I could arrange an introduction if you like.

So, damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead.

Ah, but you said it a lot better than I did! Basically natsteel, your scores won't keep you out, but will they get you in? Honestly, if I were in your situation and I knew I could get better scores (and as DrFaustus666 said, the verbal should probably concern you more) I would do the test over. I don't want to ask myself "what if?" next February/March when admissions decisions are sent out.

Point taken. To be more elaborate;

1) I bombed my GPA during sophomore year. But in my junior year when I took many of major related courses, I kept the average GPA above 3.7 and hoping to do the same this semester and hopefully that will look good.
2) I am interested in genetic/metabolic engineering, but trying to broaden my horizon(looking closely at biosensors/microfluidics area). I feel very limited in experience/exposure to a lot of things. Are people generally very knowledgeable/experienced in the specific subfield they apply to? or can a newbie pick things up along the way and do they have chance at getting accepted?

I'm right in the middle of the forest, so I can't see it wholly. I may be missing/forgetful about the most obvious things, so any general comments would be appreciate too.
Thanks a lot guys/have a goooood long weekend.

Hi - The information you provided really only provides a very generic outline of who you are and what you do. Certainly people with similar stats as you have gotten into top five programs, so based only on what you provided, yes, you have a shot at a top program. The truth is, the devil is in the details. All the little things from the grades in your most relevant courses to your statement of purpose, and of course the quality and strength of the LORs will make the difference. If those are all great and you fit well with the programs then you've got a shot.

I don't know if it will help... First of all you must be well prepared, of course, and you must be able to assess the level of your knowledge well. Do not underestimate yourelf.
When I was nervous, but I knew that I was prepared, I just told myself a simple thing: "I will do it because I can". It is so simple that it seems useless, but actually it is all you need to know.
Visualize your past "moments of glory", something you are really proud of, and think that it was you who made it all happen. If you did that, it means you can do a lot more! You can do it not because of random luck, but because YOU CAN DO IT.

To be more strategic about it, every question has a particular way of being solved that must be drawn from a discrete set of fields (ie, algebraic equations, geometry, etc). So the key is to look at the question and first understand what bit of knowledge the question is testing. When you approach it from the perspective of the test itself, you can get a grasp of what equation, set of rules, or skill is required. Once you get that sorted, you know what you have to do and it's just a matter of executing.

Also, remember that the first half of the section is much more important than the second half. Thus, budget your time but stack it toward the front end: don't be afraid to spend 3 minutes on each of the first few questions, but by midway through the test it should get shorter and shorter.

I did much worse than the OP and got into Columbia University. LOL a good GRE score is nothing without excellent LORs, a high GPA, and substantive work experience. A banger personal statement couldn't hurt either. Do your best and to heck with all the rest.

I decided I was going to take it mid-June and scheduled it for 3 weeks later. When I started studying, I was getting around 1300. After spending about 3-4 hours per day studying after work, I ended up with a 1570. So if you're willing to work at it pretty consistently and thoroughly, a few weeks is enough time.

Hi Slee,

Others have said this, and I'd like to add myself to the roster of those who've said it already:

You have an amazingly good attitude and optimistic approach ... and I think you'll end up getting into a good program somehow, by hook or by crook ... just because you're so dedicated, so humble (in a good way!), and so determined.

Again, all the best of luck to you --- you deserve it !
John

This exemplifies the entire GRE process. On the one hand you need to know a TON of words--but in the end it's not just knowing one definition, but having a well-rounded understanding of the complexities and nuances of word meaning. I had a lot of success using paper flash cards. Now I actually wrote my own iphone app for flash card studying. Though that was spurred mostly by the need to learn foreign languages I also would have used it if it were available at the time to study for my GREs. But the key, no matter your method for learning and memorizing vocab, is just to read a lot and write down the words that you don't know. And then do it some more. Really GRE studying less than 6 months before the exam is the equivalent of cramming--the real studying happens at the beginning of freshman year of undergrad.

Also, many "top univeristies" will have great MPP and MBA and will offer dual degree in 3 years. For example from Harvard and Columbia to USC and Georgetown ... If you have the time and the money getting these 2 great degrees is great. Also, many schools offer dual degree with other school. For example, you can get a dual degree from Harvard and MIT in 3 years ... so you get to go to both schools !

Hi Scyrus,

It's true that probably half of the people you're competing against (top CS grads going for PhD's, that is) did score 800. But that means that the other half didn't.

And your 4.0 average, coupled with your 680 in verbal, which I think has got to be in the top 1% of Computer Science majors, are compelling.

I wouldn't worry about it too much; i.e., I don't think I'd retake the GRE for $150 for 30 extra points ---- but if you share in your SOP some new ideas on neural networks or a really new and different sort algorithm you invented yourself---and that runs 50% faster than any other known algorithm --- anything like that, and the AdComm will blow off your 770 as an aberration---maybe you accidentally hit the key for "square root of 2" when it should have been "square root of 2 / 1" ... and of course, then couldn't go back.

The moral of this lengthy homily....I think you're in a very good position. If by some chance (which I doubt), you are rejected by all of your top choice schools, you can always try the GRE again.

My two cents,
John

Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist or any sort of expert on the brain, just a dude on the internet. I'm in my 30's, haven't taken the GRE yet (taking it in August) and so while I may not resolve your ambiguities on this matter, Doctor F, perhaps I can be of some help...even if I fall short of performing "demonstrations magical."

Your first question: what does the quantitative test measure? It measures executive functioning mostly -- mainly working memory. Working memory is the ability to hold multiple things in mind while doing a task and still being able to sequence/manipulate information you're holding in your short term mental storage bin before it gets lost forever. Psychologists have found that working memory is very closely linked to fluid intelligence (which is the ability to draw out distinctions between items on the fly, usually inductively -- essentially pattern recognition ability). So, yes, quant does tap both of these -- especially executive functioning because solving any multistep problems invariably involves working memory. To a lesser extent, quant measures processing speed -- the ability to do a bit of mental math without using pen and paper. This helps also. Quant also very much measures crystallized intelligence -- area of a circle (easy) the formula for permutations (less easy) and the steps to solve a problem, which come about more by practice than any magical noetic prowess. Unlike the verbal section though the quant section does not correlate well with standard intelligence tests -- fluid or crystallized, and is largely content driven (high school math review test)...still, it's tricky. ETS seems to want to design it as an IQ test...."ha, ha, got you. X can also be negative...Answer is D. Sorry, dumb ass!"But the trick element is something the academic tests like SAT and GRE have invented...and this is not a measurement of fluid intellingece or executive functions but just seems to be an amorphous gauge of how "sharp" the test taker is or what a sucker they are. Altogether risible stuff, imo.

But, that's just a critique of the test. Back to your goal. Yeah, working memory and fluid intelligence peak in the 20's -- which is why a smartass twentysomething can wake up hung over and go to the testing ctr and knock out 1400 or 1500...this gets harder for the 30+ somethings to do. Quant scores on the GRE have been shown to go down with age while verbal tends to stay constant -- the reason for this might be executive functions and, to a lesser extent, fluid intelligence. But it may also be because high level language is used more than quantitative skills for educated people who have been out of college for a while. I don't know enough to say what the exact reason is...but, I would advise you to get to work on improving your working memory. This is absolutely possible to do now. It's not a panacea or any sort of replacement for knowledge...but sharpening your working memory will help your focus to work through any problems, writing an argument, whatever. High levels of working memory will lead to better performance in pretty much everything that involves high level mental focus. The task to practice is called Dual N Back, which has been shown to increase both working memory and fluid intelligence in college students (which is unprecedented). There are many free installments you can play. Here are a few (I won't favor one over the other but will let you choose. Advise you to do research on these before you pick what I offer or any versions you can find on your own -- there are more).

Here: http://www.soakyourhead.com/

Here: http://cognitivefun.net/

Here: http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

The other thing I would recommend is taking creatine...which is scientifically proven to boost mental performance (although it's typically associated with physical performance).

http://rspb.royalsoc.../1529/2147.long

You know the rest. Eat a good diet, sleep, protein, yada yada....what I suggest are two things you might not know. The caveat is that even though these two brain boosting methods have been documented in respected scientific journals (one of which was double blind placebo), they are not considered mainstream interventions yet...only on the vanguard...so, take it as thou whilst.

And yes, from the arcane knowledge I've derived on the matter, there is indeed great hope for you to land in the upper 700's for quant -- 800 is within your ken! But, as you know Faustus, none of what I suggest is a magical substitute for the sweat of study itself. For that, you have resources far greater than what I can offer (exeunt stage left).

Actually, it depends on the aspect of intelligence. There are two well established types of intelligence -- fluid and crystallized. The verbal section of the GRE is lagely a measurement of crystallized intelligence (except for analogies that also require fluid intelligence). Crystallized intelligence can be thought of as the knowledge and skills that have been accrued throughout a life time whereas fluid intelligence is how well one solves novel problems independent of learned info. A test of the latter would be Raven's progressive matrices. The two, taken together, are largely what makes up a person's functioning intelligence. Fluid intelligence typically declines with age and crystallized intelligence can grow conintually (contingent on one's education). Vocabulary testing is known to be good test of crystallized intelligence (though it's not a good measure of fluid intelligence). So, the guides omit this information mainly because they don't want to get into it and confuse people. ETS and the test companies know what the deal is regarding this and are likely clear about what it is they want to test....ETS, though while publicly claiming the GRE is not an IQ test, also informs test takers on their website that their score will not likely move much from one test to the next (tacitly indicating one's IQ is what it is and so performance is not going to improve substantially. They even warn test takers their scores might go down).

This is hardly the case across the board, obviously. ETS is making assumptions based on the normal/vanilla applicant. Mainly because they're testing crystallized intelligence this allows a non math person to improve their quant score 300 points and a word-cramming non native speaker can do the same on the verbal side. ETS makes the assumption that intellectual limitations have been hit by all equally in preparing for the test (but obvously there is huge variation in how long people prepare for it -- some don't prepare at all while others take a year to prepare). ETS also assumes that, given the test taking population being what it is (college en route to grad school), fluid intelligence has already largely been invested in the areas tested (verbal and quant) so that they believe the GRE will also indirectly test previous fluid as well as crystallized ability. This is probably why ETS maintains test scores should remain static or reliable (because fluid intelligence is traditionally thought to be static or fixed) from one test to the next. While I'm sure they are armed with the numbers in order to support this as true, it's not true for the high achieving, the underachieving, the non native speaker, and sundry other anomolous test takers out there (anomolies, at least, in ETS's world).

In your case, though, your move to an 800 V over those years is a reflection of intelligence investment theory, which is normal and even expected for a highly intelligent, curious, and educated person...though 800 is an obviously extremely rare/high score to be reached.

Hi,

Why am I not surprised people do poorly on the Kaplan Paper Test? Because Kaplan purposely makes it more difficult so that they can brag that their classes help improve their students' GRE scores by 100s of points when comparing your score on the initial paper test to the final paper test you take at the end of the course (which will be easier). It is bad business ethics, but I guess people don't care since they continue to happily spend $1200+ for these classes...

My suggestion? Use the free PowerPrep testing software off the GRE website as a solid gauge to see where you are at. It has a few full length tests and is the exact software that you will use when you actually take the test.

I know -- I heard the same. But life does not always cooperate. I asked because I had the wonderful experience of getting to the last question on my GRE Q section this past weekend and realizing I did not have enough time to finish it. First reaction WAS to freeze, before my brain came back to life and tried to get my hand to click ANYTHING. Not quick enough, however, so last question went unanswered -- final score on Q = 770. So, I guess the penalty wasn't horrible.

I've spent the last year (among other things) "playing around" with the official ETS POWERPREP program.

I've run the two tests supplied so many times, literally over 100 times for each test, that I have all the right answers memorized. I.e., I can get an 800 on both exams every time if I want to. (This applies to POWERPREP ONLY, not the REAL GRE!!!!!! .... ( My real scores in Feb 2010, using questions that I did not know before taking the test were 760 V 690 Q).

Point of this is: that preparatory work enabled me to come to some very interesting discoveries:
(1) If I DELIBERATELY answer the first three questions WRONG, the highest possible score, on both verbal and quantitative, is about 600 to 660.

(2) If I DELIBERATELY answer all questions correctly up to but not including the last two questions, for both verbal and quantitative, I can STILL get an 800. Yup, you read it right. You can get the last two questions WRONG, and still score an 800 on POWERPREP ... IF you answered every single preceding question correctly.

(3) If I DELIBERATELY answer the FIRST question wrong, and all other questions correctly, my score is 780.

The computer adaptive test DEFINITELY adapts and it's absolutely critical that you answer the first five to ten questions correctly if you want to score significantly over median, i.e., over 650 in quantitative and over 600 in verbal.


Good Luck,
John