Minnesotan

No wonder the rest of us can't find jobs.

As much as I believe in keeping the program assistants on my side, I also understand that they have no say in the application process. I would be wary of any declarations secretaries make, even if they are "in the know." Nonetheless, I made a big deal of GRE scores only in their defense against the ravening hordes of naysayers. =) They are obviously only a part of the whole, and it appears all of the other parts of your application are nice and shiny. So, yeah, it's going to depend on the department, and on the specific people who evaluate you. And, although a 590v is atrocious for someone in the humanities, it is only ten points under the "cutoff" number other people have listed their programs as having, so maybe you lucked out. Or maybe that program didn't have fifty gajillion applicants for one spot - who knows. Again, I think the GRE is important, but it is only one piece of a larger puzzle. And, like I've told others, most people have a single hole in their app; as long as you're not applying to a top 5 program, you can easily highlight your successes to make up for your single failure.

Sorry for the tangent, but I love your "status bar," polisci! We should all have one like that.

I would mildly disagree with what's posted above, as it seems, after lurking at livejournal and moderating these forums for a couple of seasons, that every type of person needs a little reassurance during this process. You see the usual "Do I have a shot?" posts from people who have absolutely no shot, to people who might have a shot if their LoRs and SoPs are in good order, to the people who should have used said school as a safety. And in many cases, being overqualified seems to get you dumped as quickly as being underqualified. Long story short, lots of people have a single gaping hole in their applications. You likely won't get into a top 5 program like that, but as you move down into the top 20 or top 50 programs, there is a lot more room for professors to argue for who they like based on fit, interests, non-standard experience, etc. Bad numbers aren't always the kiss of death, but when a department is reviewing 600 apps for 10 spots, you can bet they're going to be chucking some without reviewing the writing sample. =)

Cookies from the old setup seem to have been rendered invalid by the upgrade. It may have been a very rare thing, limited to my version of Firefox, but we might want to advise people to clear their cookies before logging back in. It took me a second to figure out why I just logged in three times, but still couldn't see any new posts for the last two days!

I love ya both, but can we have the old color scheme back? This grey kills my eyes!

Let's try to steer this conversation away from the personal, please, Ms. Kaplan.

Is it possible to remain drop-dead drunk for n entire week?

To advocate on behalf of the devil, obscure vocab is a good test of reasoning skills for people in the humanities. Obviously those with Latin, Greek, and German backgrounds will have an easier time of it, but that's not really a departure from traditional humanistic skills. The ability to glean meaning from words -- especially nuances of meaning, alternate meanings, connotation, or obscure words -- is a valuable tool for the humanities phd.

I'm not sure personal insanity is finite - I seem to get curiouser and curiouser as my time in academia adds up.

I don't think anyone claimed it was the be all end all of the application process - only a good indicator of how people achieve on a level playing field.

I don't think they're weighed that heavily in the actual decisions - I think they're used as convenient, objective cutoff points (like undergrad gpa) when a program has 600 applicants for 10 spots. Once they whittle it down to 50-100 finalists, the complete package is more important than any numbers you've provided. Sure, they'll still consider gpa and gre, but they will probably give more weight to statements and references at that point.

Short answer: not really. Longer answer: they might look at it in cases where the proposed topic of study is statistics-heavy, but it's not traditionally something that is given much weight. Just like the writing score - nobody really cares, since you sent in a writing sample that should demonstrate in far greater detail your aptitude for historical analysis. Either way, I think you'll be cut a lot more slack for a mediocre Q than for a mediocre V. I wonder, however, since some fellowships are given out based on GRE scores, if the Q is sometimes used as a tiebreaker, when two people have similar V scores.

While I understand your sentiment, I would counter that if you want to get into grad school, the best way to do it would seem clear: do the best job you can on all aspects of your application. This means studying for the GRE, even if it is not in the spirit of why we use standardized testing. This, the unkindest cut of all! Ermm... I think you're right Crusty - we're arguing uselessly. I agree with the distinction you made between professionalizing bachelors and bachelors who are motivated to continue studies; there is often a difference in terms of desire. But, in the end, however we frame the numbers, it's the intent of the argument that counts. I was merely trying to say that a potential humanities grad should score very high on the verbal, and that most of the top universities do take notice if someone has less than a 650v. Yes, the "cutoff" limit gets lower as we work our way down from the ivies/public ivies to the less prestigious programs. However, a strong verbal score should be important, no matter what school you're applying to (in the humanities, I mean - scientists don't need to be able to string two sentences together). =)

I think it's just like being in a big undergrad seminar - if the professor recognizes you, and maybe even remembers your name, you'll do better. I would suggest taking those classes and impressing the prof. That'll go a long way toward getting you in!

Precisely! For jobs where non-linear thinking is a nuisance (i.e. the government) more than a desired commodity, the verbal holds little meaning. For fields where one might have to use abstract problem solving skills and linguistic creativity (say, History, English, or Philosophy) the verbal might actually be a useful benchmark. The tide of GRE naysayers never ends. Sure, I did well, and I have a vested interest in defending the relevance of my score, but I also believed - even before I took the test - that the test was administered as fairly as possible to all test-takers, and that it had value. I also realized that it's a straightforward test that anyone can study for successfully. If you didn't study properly, or hard enough, then maybe that's another indication of your suitability to grad studies.

But the flaw in your reasoning is this: 100% of PhD applicants (at reputable, accredited programs) are college graduates. The criterion for inclusion in our little group here is a bachelor's or master's degree, not a pulse. PhD candidates should be the cream of the college crop, not just anyone who can't figure out what else to do with their lives. And even if you have a strong desire and a clear vision of your career goals, that doesn't mean you have the tools to succeed. Think of it like this: you want to be a professional hockey player. Your skating speed and power is excellent. You're a strong, physical player. You can shoot from the hashmarks, inside the crease, or back at the blue line with a high level of relative success. Unfortunately, your stick-handling is at the 55th percentile. Should a team still pick you if you skate (sorry - pun) through life being just above average? Not putting in the effort to study for a standardized test? Whining instead of proving people wrong? If you've lived the majority of your life in an English-speaking country, you should have had an easy enough time learning the few words you didn't know from the word lists. If English is not your native language, then you should be taking the TOEFL, or equivalent test. Honestly, we've all (Americans, anyway) been taking these same achievement tests since second grade, using the same word-relationship exercises/analogies. Even if you didn't grow up taking these tests, you would have had to completely forsake all preparation for the examination to have not understood what you were getting yourself into! Is the GRE perfect? Probably not. Is it fair and easy to study for? Yes. Why blame the test when you don't prepare enough (for you, using your own successful study habits and test-taking strategies)? p.s. I don't mean to be argumentative. It's just that the constant GRE whining really annoys me. People blame the test when they fail in any pursuit, when most often it's their own fault.

If you want to go into a field like English or History, yes. If you can't break into the 90th percentile as a potential humanities PhD, you really have no business applying to grad school. You definitely shouldn't have received a bachelor's degree in English! Less than 1% of Americans earn PhDs. Shouldn't these people at least be in the top ten percent in all of their academic pursuits?

You can always tell the science nerds. =)

LJ = Live Journal They have a Who Got In? and a Grad Apps forum. At the Who Got In? forum, there's usually a name attached to the acceptance claims, so you know if some troll is yanking your chain. Otherwise, it's much like this place, only harder to navigate (and the mods aren't as smart, charming, and ruggedly good looking).

I have a couple of Canadian apps in for multi/interdisciplinary programs. They're both backup situations, though. I'd like to be back in America for a little while - especially the midwest, where people are a little calmer. =)

I have seen some programs, normally in the top 20 humanities ballpark, that explicitly state a GRE cutoff on their application FAQ. They are usually ridiculously low, though, like 600-650v for English or history programs.

It seems ridiculously early for English programs, especially since Harvard acceptances came in fairly late last year.

At least the adcoms aren't the ones extorting $75/application from me. I blame the Ivory Tower - the cost of whitewash is high, indeed!

I sometimes forget that feminism perpetuates humorlessness. Luckily there are always plenty of feminists around to correct me. =) Anyway, it's a good thing I don't have cable. I might just take your advice and watch VH1, which would further distract me (much like these forums) from finishing my MA. **Edit: Either I can't spell, or my C-key is sticking.