VMcJ

Maybe it will be like a Trump-week -- a YUUUUGE week, but it fails to deliver a win.

Maybe it will be like a Trump-week -- a YUUUUGE week, but it fails to deliver a win.

Maybe it will be like a Trump-week -- a YUUUUGE week, but it fails to deliver a win.

Maybe it will be like a Trump-week -- a YUUUUGE week, but it fails to deliver a win.

Maybe it will be like a Trump-week -- a YUUUUGE week, but it fails to deliver a win.

Thanks! I'm really happy to have my first admission.

LOL.
I will wait to kill the cat, because there are other 7 cats for me and I hope maybe two of them get out of their boxes alive. If I were to be crying over seven little dead kitties, then I could face the need to kill the eighth out of mercy.

But this is not the case. Neither me nor Yasir received any rejections, or admissions, or waitlist. Anything. And then we keep asking ourselves what we make of it. And if admission decisions are not made at the same point in time, we would like to know what are the criteria for this.
Ultimately, I prefer to deal with that as a Schrödinger box that I will not bother to open in order to avoid killing the cat.

But this is not the case. Neither me nor Yasir received any rejections, or admissions, or waitlist. Anything. And then we keep asking ourselves what we make of it. And if admission decisions are not made at the same point in time, we would like to know what are the criteria for this.
Ultimately, I prefer to deal with that as a Schrödinger box that I will not bother to open in order to avoid killing the cat.

If you ask me, I really do not like this approach of sending admission decisions so separately, because I do not know what are the criteria for that. People who know later are waitlisted? So send a waitlist report. People who know later sent their applications later? So say that in your FAQ page, so I can prepare accordingly. I think decisions should be emailed to everybody at once, unless there is a practical reason for that being made differently. In this case I cannot see any.

If you ask me, I really do not like this approach of sending admission decisions so separately, because I do not know what are the criteria for that. People who know later are waitlisted? So send a waitlist report. People who know later sent their applications later? So say that in your FAQ page, so I can prepare accordingly. I think decisions should be emailed to everybody at once, unless there is a practical reason for that being made differently. In this case I cannot see any.

Hey, people. No need to get angry at ourselves.
I do think it is possible people that are unable to get a 160+ score in quantitative even with training to succeed, especially if there are other indicators of mathematical ability whatsoever (e.g. a quantitative WS). But it is more likely that those people might fail quant sequences than people with the highest scores.

In the past I studied significantly more than that and had a lot of trouble reaching 320, let alone 330. I mean, 330 is approximately 165/165, that means you are hitting the top 90 percentile in both categories (which means that for every 100 takers, you did as well or better than 90 of them in both math and verbal)...to say 'it's not that hard' is completely false. 
Honestly, on this board I see more of the other phenomena...people way overstate the importance of the GRE for Ph.D. applications. The simple fact is this:
YES, committees use GRE as an important cut-off measure. YES, you could potentially get axed against similar candidates because of a relatively poor GRE score. HOWEVER, the GRE has extremely diminishing returns for your acceptance...once you reach the later stages of the review process, the more important factors that give the reviewers more information such as writing samples, LOR, SOP, and research experience matter significantly more for if you get in or not.
You do not need stellar GRE scores to get into top programs (even top 5 programs). Don't believe me? Go through the results section...people get into places like Yale and Princeton with scores throughout the 150-160 range in math. And this isn't some random thing either, there are dozens people who get in with these scores (even as low as 148-153) every cycle.
------
Bottom line is get as good of a score as possible. Preferably 160/160+, but it you don't that doesn't mean you are doomed, especially if you have an otherwise very strong application. 

I was going to make 12-15 applications. Currency devaluation reduced it to just eight. I do not think this is that much of a gamble (at least one might accept me, I hope), but you can imagine right now how I am feeling. Longest February ever - yes, I know it already is in the 75 percentile for "longest Februaries"!

Fair enough. Good luck! 

I really think that once we advance high enough as a civilization, LORs will be a thing of past. Like polio.

Ok, there was one (not going to try to find it) that said, after an acceptance, something like,
 
"I saw a moose today and took it as a good omen. It was."
 
And then someone afterwards who was rejected, something like:
 
"Did not see a moose."
 
LOL.

I understand this sentiment, but I also like to hear about other applicants who have made mistakes...I think it provides a welcome counterpoint to a lot of the ridiculously competitive profiles that are listed on this site.