ultraultra

I've already explained in detail why I think all these premises are flawed (that the GRE indicates who is weak, that the GRE indicates quantitative potential, that everyone can achieve 160+, that everyone has 90 hours to spare). Rather than talking in circles, I am going to bow out at this point.

In other words, you are saying the ad comms should take the GRE seriously...

I know you meant well but I find this response fairly frustrating, and on the basis of it I'm not sure that you've actually read the thread. No one has said that applicants should eschew studying for the GRE. No one has recommended students "act according to how we wish the process operated." Everyone (including me) has emphasized that applicants should still try to get the highest score possible (whatever that may be given an individuals amount of free time and test-taking ability). Everyone has also agreed that ad comms take the GRE seriously, though there are disagreements about the cutoffs and the centrality of the GRE (to which the only answer is really, it varies). The main subject that people are debating is whether or not the GRE has merit as an indicator of academic potential, and thus whether or not it is right that committees take it so seriously. Of course this thread has no bearing on what committees will actually do... even so, why shouldn't we be allowed to have a discussion about this? If you don't think its fruitful, you're free to bow out, but I'm not sure why you're policing peoples' abilities to discuss a topic that is 1) interesting and 2) of great personal importance to many of us. Since when are we not allowed to discuss whether certain material realities are just or unjust?

PoliticalOrder was referring to the fact that they are currently attending a top program and have already completed a graduate quant sequence. For the record, I am an MA student in the middle of a PhD quant sequence. So far I'm acing it, and doing better than a lot of the more advanced students. I also have a heavily quantitative RAship which I excel at. This is all despite the fact that I got sub-160 on the GRE Q section. --- The sticking points for me of all you have said are as follows: 1) For reasons outlined above, I do not think that taking 90 hours to study for the GRE is possible for everyone, and in fact I think the GRE presents a massive undue accessibility barrier for many people (especially on the basis of class). 2) I do not think that achieving 160+ on the GRE is possible for everyone. Not only because not everyone can study for 90 hours, and not because people aren't capable of understanding the concepts, but because the GRE isn't about conceputal understanding, its about memory recall under time pressure, which is not a skill everyone has nor one that you need to succeed in political science. Consider this: Kaplan and other top GRE prep companies do not focus on giving students a deep conceptual understanding of the math. They help students understand the math on a shallow level, but the majority of the courses/materials are about ways to shave seconds off your time through tricks like doubling and halving to multiply AND tricks for memorizing formulas (especially geometric). The companies know that success on the GRE is not about mathematical aptitude - it's about taking a timed test efficiently. That's what the GRE tests. Not to mention all the studies that show that all standardized tests test is the ability to complete standardized tests AND that things like knowing the interface ahead of time can increase your scores. Has nothing to do with innate intelligence or mathematical aptitude. 3) Because of the skills it requires (as outlined above) I do not think that success on the GRE is any indicator of one's ability to succeed with quantitative methods. To succeed at quantitative methods you need a conceptual and instrumental understanding of certain branches of mathematics, which you then apply to the study of political phenomena. Most of the topics on the GRE are irrelevant to statistics, and (as above) acing the GRE is really about memory and timing, rather than conceptual understanding or mathematical aptitude. I really fail to see why you think a GRE Q score reflects one's ability to do quantitative political science. If I'm working on a quantitative project, I don't need to memorize anything, nor do I need to complete questions in 2-2.5 minutes a piece... I can take my time, use online resources to ensure I fully understand the model and its application, and receive/respond to feedback from mentors and peers. That's how social science is done... not in a room with 15 other test takers, staring in silence at a screen while a timer ticks away, and where I'm not allowed to take off my sweater without putting my hand up to request an attendant. 4) I understand that you think GRE scores are an indicator of work ethic (and by extension likelihood of success) but for all the reasons above, as well as (and especially) my comment earlier about accessibility, I think that's fallacious and misplaced. Again, this is all a separate conversation from the practical reality which is that, yes the GRE is a requirement, and yes people should try to maximize their score to avoid being under mandatory cut-offs at programs they hope to attend. But overall I agree with @TakeruK (and @PoliticalOrder) about the ineptitude of the GRE as an indicator of scholarly potential, and would really encourage you to read the link they shared about how GRE scores have been shown within the Astronomy field to correlate with race and gender, but have little to no bearing on actual academic success.

Not sure of the exact timeline but I similarly heard from my POI, then got my official letter the next day (or maybe that evening?) and then a few days later my status changed. Wasn't me (I didn't apply to UBC) but I know from friends there that they made decisions on Friday so it could be a real (likely informal) acceptance.

I don't know your situation, but... taking a month off work and school to study for an exam is not a feasible for option for a lot of people, particularly people who have to work to support themselves and/or who need to maintain certain grades or activities for financial aid. Not everyone has access to external sources of funding such as grants and loans (and parents), and many people (including myself) hold research assistant jobs just as much to support themselves financially as to build their portfolio. Not to mention the expensive cost of prep courses/materials, and the massive expense of the exam itself (which, as an international student, you are not able to waive), which is of course followed by the expense of the applications themselves (again, not waive-able). Not everyone is in a financial position to drop everything and study, nor is everyone in a financial position to gamble on applying with sub-perfect scores. Everyone knows that academia is generally inaccessible to most groups. My problem with the GRE is that it makes top programs (and, to some degree, eventual success) that much more inaccessible, all the while measuring things of only tangential importance to graduate success. I don't disagree with your general point, that beating the threshold is something people just need to do. But I personally think the GRE causes more problems than it solves.

Nearly everyone could get a perfect or near-perfect score if there was unlimited time to complete the exam. The reason it is so hard to get a great score (especially on the math) is because you have to recall concepts - some of which are useful for quantitative methods (probability, algebra), some of which are basically useless (geometry, strange operators) - and apply them in an extremely limited period of time. This also applies for recalling random vocabulary that is never used in your field. Succeeding on the GRE is far more about coping under time pressure than it is about "critical thinking." And while there's time pressure in academia, most notably during comprehensive exams, no one is ever going to hold a gun to your head and demand you address every paper reviewer's comments in 2 minutes or less. I understand that the schools are looking for any way to cut through the noise. But, coming from Canada, I personally view the intense emphasis on GRE scores as extremely unhealthy. At the beginning of this cycle, two of my other friends were set to apply for PhDs as well. Both of them - who are extremely intelligent, driven, creative women who will someday make excellent scholars - decided not to apply this cycle because they had too much anxiety and panic about the GRE, which came to represent to them their worth as a scholar and their potential for a successful future, because our professors emphasized its salience in the process. I almost followed suit. The idea that one test -- which itself presents major accessibility issues (from both a disability and a class perspective) -- has the potential to overshadow other salient aspects of your file (such as your letters of reference, writing sample, and research experience), is absurd to me. But maybe all of this is because in Canada we don't have the same grade inflation or subsequent standardized test culture, so all of these problems are newer to us than those who took the SAT.

It's from the Communication department, I think because I chose pol comm as my subfield and/or selected an option to be considered there as well.

I got this e-mail from UPenn recently that made my heart leap and then fall: "Every admitted candidate to the Annenberg School for Communication is invited to attend our Prospective Student's Day March 18 as a guest of the school. [...] We hope to be in touch mid to late February with admissions decisions, but wanted you to save the date for now if you can so if you are admitted you do not have last minute notice Thank you for your time."

I wonder if the Berkeley tech staff noticed an abnormal surge in political science applicant logins last night

Most times I've talked to faculty about GRE, they've asked my percentiles rather than my score. They seemed to think that matters more. Websites of schools seem to be a nearly even split between mentioning them both, perhaps with slightly more giving scores to beat.

European ones

Congrats @PizzaCat93!!! I had a feeling you would get in

I mean I think it was/is a good wakeup call about the state of the job market and how disgruntled a lot of ABDs and junior faculty are, it's important to understand the gravity of those things before pursuing a PhD. But there's also just a lot of misinformation on there, not to mention sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia, and more.

I'm not going to tell you because it's horrible and there's no turning back

Woah.. based on the latest results search post, I'd guess that at least one PSR person is descending upon grad cafe with guns'a'blazin

(for other mac users: https://selfcontrolapp.com/)

The last 24 hours of this thread is testimony to how sometimes more info is much more stress-inducing than it is helpful. I made myself sick the other week worrying about one committee's decision and since then have been blocking this website and PSR for 16-24 hour intervals in an attempt to stay sane. Highly recommended!

I really don't think you should worry yet. As I said above, I had just happened to e-mail my POI and they then told me. We've also been talking about my application there for almost a year, including fairly regularly since September, since they really wanted me to apply. So all that being said, unless you have a close relationship with a POI (who would have felt compelled to give you the news), I think you should just try to relax and be patient. Most faculty probably know by now, but that doesn't necessarily mean they feel compelled to e-mail you. If you're a good fit there with a decent profile, you'll probably be accepted.

Oops another one was just posted

in past years it seems like Berkeley admits get e-mails from the DGS and only rejects get e-mails to check the website first? so I feel like the acceptance must be either a troll or a fluke

I had one interview so far which, granted, felt more like a recruitment thing than an interrogation but they asked me about: familiarity with the department approach (good time to whip out things you know that make the department unique), why I wanted to go there / why I felt like I "fit", who I wanted to work with, my research experience and current projects, my general academic goals, my proposed project / what I wanted to learn (I emphasized methods). In advance I made sure to review my POIs websites and recent work, and also had a look through the course offerings, and also talked to my advisors about what they knew about the school. Maybe this wouldn't work for every school but I also emphasized how there were so many people working in my subfield that no only are there perfect people to supervise my current interests, but also people there working on basically anything I could conceivably imagine myself becoming interested in. Good luck!

Don't feel comfortable naming them, sorry. They aren't on the admissions committee though (they had just been asking about my application a lot), so I don't think they'd help anyway. Seems like it's probably too late anyway though? Haven't been e-mailed by the department itself yet! As I said, my POI thinks applicants will hear back next week. Good luck!

Claiming an NU admit here! I'm the one who had e-mailed their POI about something else and gotten the news. I'm not sure whether or not they would have e-mailed me anyway, or if it was just a very well-timed e-mail on my part. Pretty excited as I'd be very thrilled to work with my POI (and they've also been hiring in my subfield this year) and generally feeling pretty optimistic about my other apps based on the two enthusiastic yes decisions so far :). Even though other admits have been popping up on the results page, they seem to all be at the initiative of peoples' POIs, so if you're waiting to hear from NU I wouldn't worry yet. They just may not be as e-mail trigger happy as mine.

I'd be very surprised if it was intentionally that systematic... my understanding from talking to faculty at my current and previous institution is that the ad comms have rough ideas of when they should be finished and generally try to finish as quickly as possible. Besides that its sort of idiosyncratic/a crapshoot, the only sticking point being that lower ranked schools have an incentive to give out offers early (so that applicants keep them in mind and/or are persuaded early) whereas highly ranked schools know they'll get a full cohort no matter what so there's less of a rush (e.g. Harvard releasing their results in mid-March the past few years)