TheMercySeat

of course not! that's looking for a lawsuit. Programs don't openly advertise cut scores, but that doesn't mean they don't employ them-- programs just don't advertise the use of cut scores out of fear of legal repercussions. I work in psychometrics and have received explicit training on this issue. Alternately, UCLA advertises averages that are largely in the 90th percentile/subscale.... So they don't advertise cut scores, but clearly nobody with a combined 300, or even a 310, has a snowball's chance in hell at UCLA a psych. 310 + combined MIGHT get psych PhD applicants into a bottom tier program if they have years of research experience. The implications of scoring 300 are much different from my discipline than they are from yours.

Lots of people are looking into my soul right now. "Wtf?! Entry level, BA psych... Needs to know R, stata, c++, python, and how to operate a fMRI?!" Personally, my game plan is to negotiate-- aggressively-- for permission to take advanced stat and CS classes, and to learn as many stat programs (in coursework or otherwise) as possible. Those skills aren't worthless outside of the ivory towers

300?! 300 isn't baseline for PhD psych admissions, and certainly not UCLA psych Also encouraged: reading the links on underprediction

STOP LOOKING INTO MY SOUL!!!! Was looking at this the other day: http://www.workpermit.com/australia/point_calculator.htm

With a PhD.... it's easier to apply for citizenship in other countries. Other countries might not treat their professors like cheap labor. Alternatively, I encourage you to explore some alt-ac gigs-- you can always be an adjunct while being a FT research scientist of awesomeness

I may be projecting, but TX's concerns might be more along the lines of this: http://adjunctaction.org/blog/2014/11/15/adjunct-action-report-investigates-faculty-working-conditions-advocates-for-federal-labor-protections-and-accountability-from-employers/or this http://www.npr.org/2014/02/03/268427156/part-time-professors-demand-higher-pay-will-colleges-listen Being an adult with a 'normal' life is hard if your job won't even give you healthcare benefits, and one cannot really raise a family (at least on the east coast) off of 30k/year :/ :/

Here's a little anecdote: my cover story is "I want to be a professor! But I understand that those positions are not as plentiful, so I am also willing to consider working in an applied setting, as well." One professor argued the point with me, even though the eradication of TT professorships is well documented in Nature and other reputable sources. It was quite the Old Economy Steve moment (http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/old-economy-steve-is-a-new-meme-that-will-enrage-all-millenn#.pqDD2gLpp)

I think that's the thing... most PhD programs want to train future professors, and not research scientists/applied researchers :/

This. This also hits the nail on the head.The only thing I'd change is to add a blip about how awesome alt-AC jobs are

Moreover, I always feel terrible when I talk to current PhD students who tell me that they plan to become a professor! I went straight for my BA into my MA and, upon graduating with my MA, I realized that my degrees really don't mean a whole lot in the workforce... nor does my 3.93 GPA, or being invited by the dean to speak at graduation, having pubs/presentations/etc. I actually hit a breaking point the other day, in which I said to my sister something to the effect of "I wish I knew from the start that I'd end up in the same place I'm at now if I decided to half ass everything in life, instead."

It's like you looked into my soul!!!! I have been having these thoughts deep down inside, but I feel like I cannot voice them without being accused of being a heretic I didn't know the person, but my colleague did. In terms of grooming/where to go from here, I am seriously thinking of two paths: (1) Take calc I-III at a community college (prereqs) and then apply for something like this: http://www1.villanova.edu/content/dam/villanova/artsci/gradstudies/AppliedStatisticsGraduateInformationSheet.pdf (2) Go into Officer Candidate School so that I can apply for fed jobs and jobs like this: http://careers.boozallen.com/job/Aberdeen-Defense-Research-Analyst-Job-MD-21001/234096700/

Right?! "Is this your gap year??" "...I am an adult with a career..." I keep trying to convince myself that this is worth it :/ :/ In particular, I want an alt-AC job, so I am particularly excited about the prospects of a program with a research internship component. It's hard when I work with people who went to top 10 psych departments, and they are either (1) still trying to get a prof job, (2) have members of their cohort who are gainfully unemployed, or (3) had people in their PhD cohort commit suicide because of all of their pressure. More than anything, I really, really regret that I have not been grooming myself for a MS in data science or something more useful...

I also went to a LAC and they had one language requirement... Not three! moreover, most institutions I've been affliated with have auditing options so that GPAs don't get slammed. Somebody in my position (1) hasn't taken GRE-relevant math in over a decade, and (2) does stat on a daily basis on my job. I'm talking... Data modeling, anchoring vignettes, and the like, not just calculating mean, median and mode. So yeah, I had to relearn a lot for the GRE Q, and I know I'm in good company when my quant psychologist colleague who went to UCLA told me that he spent 3 months FT studying for the GRE. It can be challenging when GRE Q bears no relevance on the math you've done in the past decade. Also consider (for both you and geo) evidence of under prediction (http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED424810.pdf old article- more current article- http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-09150-001/). Under prediction undermines test validity-- you can read about it more on your own (underprediction, test validity, differential prediction, test bias) on your own because I certainly don't have the time/energy to go into a psychometrics discussion. One final point: saying "I'm a female and I got a near perfect GRE" is like pointing to Obama and saying "see?! Racism doesn't exist! PROOF." One outlier above the normal distribution (at the aggregate level and when subgrouped by gender) does not discredit the normal distribution (see 'sample size insensitivity')

I stand corrected-- Chinese, Spanish and Latin were apparently part of your degree requirements! Baffling. Not even MIT, arguably one of the best program in the country, requires physics BS students to learn those three languages in their curriculum (http://web.mit.edu/physics//OldFiles/current/undergrad/undergrad_program.pdf). At least I assume you are implying that you were required to take those classes, otherwise you are making a moot point, since I am solely interested in the context of the GRE as a requirement to get into graduate school. I am not sure what your argument on Jews has to do with anything.Historically women were locked out of many elite universities and PhD programs, too. The gap of "only a few points" is kind of a big deal. Men average at 152 Q, while women average at 147 Q. That's the difference between the 28th percentile, vs. the 48th percentile. Know anybody who scored within the 28th percentile that got into a graduate program... ever? Only a few points is kinda a big deal... The GRE does indeed cause problems, hence why physics professors from R1 institutions are advocating for diminished reliance on the GRE in admissions practices (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7504-303a)

Speaking of, I just looked at profiles of PhD students I didn't meet and realized that the majority of them got a terminal MA in a different program at the same institution prior to being accepted into the program I applied to for their PhDs. Now I have no idea whether I should apply to get a terminal MA at this institution, too, seeing as that seems to be the ticket into their PhD program... Which kinda sucks because I already have a MA (fully funded) from a different university

Valid point on the former comment. Moreover, nearly all of the current PhD candidates I met on interview day went to the same institution for UG, so there is a strong precedent for it at this institution. I'm the sucker who fell for it and took two days off of work for interview day

To reframe my concern, interview candidates (I.e., people who were hand picked by the department as finalists) were from the same institution. Kinda defeats the purpose of interviewing external candidates when you have 4 slots and half of the 15 interviewees were from the same institution, eh?

On opposed to the external applicants who are not exceptional? Thanks, all! On second thought, literally all of the current PhDs I met at an interview day did their UG at the same institution. It would have been silly to think I would stand a chance :x

Much to my surprise, I saw this quite a bit at interview weekend in one specific university. Thoughts? I thought there was a really bad stigma against this. When I see it, what does it say about the program? Is it safe to assume 'checkmate' if you're a total stranger competing against the prof's favorite?

I just joined the club with post-interview rejections. Via email... How can I tactfully ask why? I'm a little shocked because I thought it was a stronger fit. It's so awkward to initiate conversation on without sounding desperate or entitled.

My mistake-- I didn't realize that coursework in Chinese, Latin, and Spanish were mandatory requirements for admission into your program-- atleast I assume that is what you're implying, seeing how you're trying to connect your language coursework to graduate admissions as I am connecting the GRE into PhD admission requirements. In my discipline, coursework is essential-- students typically learn data analysis techniques, theory, and methodology that directly connect to program evaluation, intervention, etc. some programs even offer coursework in grant writing, which I personally think is a good idea because the stakes are a bit too high for trial and error. On tracking student success... I politely dissent. As an educational researcher, institutional researchers seem as rare as an oasis in the desert, and largely overworked. While institutions take an interest in student success, they typically lack the resources for large scale tracking. Moreover, most PhD programs (at least in my discipline) lack the cohort sizes necessary to draw meaningful conclusions on the basis, let's say, one student with lower GREs dropping out. They can increase sample size with longitudinal tracking across cohorts, but then that neglects to control for cohort effects/contextual factors. Further, when I look at admissions statistics, GRE scores have been consistently increasing over the past decade. Based on the belief that the GRE predicts success, and the fact that universities have been selecting students with higher GRE scores, would it be safe to assume that all older cohorts (as in, people that were admitted 5 or 10 years ago) with lower GREs universally fail out? Of course not!

You didn't express it in the context of gender, though. I think it is safe to assume that economic disparities cannot account for the gender gap. Moreover, income typically increases with age, so socioeconomic status probably does not explain why GRE Q decreases with age. In fact, this latter reason was why I suggested the reasonable possibility that PhD candidates have stronger GRE scores than their professors. It's ironic that you mentioned physics-- APS has taken issue with the gender gap (http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199607/gender.cfm), as did Nature (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7504-303a). Specifically in the context of the physics GRE, Miller and Stassun (2014) state "According to data from Educational Testing Service (ETS), based in Princeton, New Jersey, the company that administers the GRE, women score 80 points lower on average in the physical sciences than do men, and African Americans score 200 points below white people. In simple terms, the GRE is a better indicator of sex and skin colour than of ability and ultimate success." You would probably 'whine' more about your struggles with Latin, Spanish, and Chinese if they dictated your future, and if your (presumed) lower marks got you tossed from your PhD program and locked out of all PhD-level careers.

I'm curious about how you explain gender and racial gaps on the GRE: http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot.pdf Do you imply at the aggregate level that women and minorities are weaker students? Moreover, given the declines in GRE Q by age, is it safe to infer that you would argue that students are always 'stronger'/more capable/more successful/pick your poison than their professors?

Agreed on the last comment-- ETS is very explicit in advising again the use of cut-scores and advocates for holistic evaluation. Historically women used to dominate males on SAT V, and now males dominate females on the SAT and the GRE V. I'm surprised to hear that ETS and The College Board (allegedly) cannot figure out how to build assessments that favor females once again. At any rate, I wish AdComms would just bluntly acknowledge the obvious inferences that they make from the GRE. They can publish all they want on stereotype threat, test bias, differential prediction, and so on, but it really doesn't mean a damn if they systematically block women and minorities from higher education and access to elite institutions through admissions assessments. One final point: I get paired with a lot of ESL PhD psych candidates who struggle with basic writing, speaking, and spelling in English because they struggle with scientific communication. Many of them are going to or went to Ivy League institutions... How the hell does that work? do American schools waive GRE V scores for English language learners? They're damn bright people, and it gives me opportunities to make significant contributions to manuscripts... But it's still odd when I know how the GRE locks native English speakers out of programs.