ultraultra

I agree with most of this. In the application stage, we have to act based on how schools actually use GRE scores, not how we want them to be used. 
But that is not the same as writing things like "330 is not hard to achieve" etc. because it also gives applicants the wrong impression that if they don't have a 330, then they might as well not apply.
Finally, I don't think we need to wait until we are actually on these committees to move to de-emphasize GRE scores. As I shared in my link above, there is already a current movement to do so in Astronomy. The link was a letter from the American Astronomical Society (AAS) President and the link shows a draft letter---in January 2016, the AAS Council met and approved this resolution and they will be preparing materials for people to present at their own departments to convince them of this change.
So, yes, at the stage where change actually happens, it has to come from someone with a lot of power and respect. These are all tenured faculty members on the AAS Council. However, this letter and actual commitment to change is the result of several years of work by a lot of people, including junior scientists like grad students and postdocs. There has been a quieter campaign in the last year where some researchers (the Nature article from 2014 cited in the letter) have been going around to various schools and presenting the data showing the lack of correlation. These researchers got talk invites because people at these schools (students, postdocs, and faculty members) wanted to hear from the researchers and asked their department to invite them. And this is necessary because a change like this cannot just come as an "order" from the AAS (the AAS doesn't really have any legal power). We see this letter today because it's a result of a ton of influential universities already buying into the concept. And these universities bought into the concept thanks to work by a lot of people at all stages of their career. 

So, yeah, there's not much you can do while you are still applying, but you also don't have to wait until you are on an admissions committee to help start changing things! 

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.

I will keep this quote, and we will talk about it in two years at APSA (if we are both surviving the program at that time). We will both laugh at this quote. Good luck on your applications.

What, first you claim I am giving out misleading information then provide data that actually supports my position in an arrogant fashion and you expect me not to call you out? 
Secondly, a test that is designed to trick you purposely, is timed heavily, and relies on math that doesn't necessarily have any applicability to probability or statistics is a good indicator of your ability to succeed in a quant methods sequence? Anyone with high school level math and a good work ethic can succeed in political science graduate quant sequences. 

With someone so arrogant about who and who shouldn't apply to top 10 programs you seem to lack some pretty significant reasoning abilities.
You basically proved my point...out of the people who got admitted to Yale last cycle 4/7 had quant scores in the 150-160 range (I counted the 161 because it's virtually the same thing)...what exactly are you arguing against here? Because that data definitely supports the statement "people get into places like Yale and Princeton with scores throughout the 150-160 range in math."
Secondly, you are conflating things here. 1) the GRE quant score does not represent one's ability to succeed in a quantitative methods sequence, nor 2) ability to succeed at a top 10 program. The evidence (or lack thereof) does not support either of these arguments. Try again.
 
 

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 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.

I disagree with your definition of what is "easy". 90 hours of study is not that affordable to many many students. This is 90 hours on top of the regular courseload in a bachelor's degree---why should this be a necessary step in order to go to graduate school? Studies have shown (see this and references therein) that there are no correlations between GRE performance and other measures of graduate school success (whether it's grades, post-PhD placement, papers, etc.). Instead, there is strong correlation with gender and race. This is why I think we should "demonize" the GRE because by doing so and by putting pressure on our departments to do so, it is the way we can remove the GRE from the admissions process. 
I do agree with you that we do not want to be misleading though. Under-emphasizing the GRE could do more harm than good right now because you're right, many departments still use GRE scores as cutoffs despite ETS recommendations on their guide to interpreting their scores. So, we should make it clear the importance of the GRE. However, this doesn't mean we should refrain from demonizing it. And I definitely think we should not perpetuate the false statement that if you can't do well on the GRE, you can't do well in grad school. (or that there is something wrong with you if you can't achieve 330)

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.

Getting good GRE scores in my opinion has nothing to do with intelligence, critical thinking or your preparedness for graduate school. It's a pure function of how well you're able to study for standardized tests (which in fact is pretty much the opposite of critical thinking, a quality essential for grad school). I used the free prep materials and bought one more book, and then just buckled down and studied. That often times means simply knowing answers by heart, or at least knowing formulas etc that you haven't used since high school and will never need again by heart. I'm a non-native and got 166+167+5.5 in my GRE (granted, not the first attempt - the first time I underestimated how much studying you actually have to do simply to meet the time requirements).

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

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 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

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

Just got an acceptance email with funding offer from Northwestern Graduate Coordinator. 

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

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

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.

Funny as soon as you mention most hear by email a result comes up stating notified by email.
 

Yeah, can some claim the Berkeley acceptance for legitimacy? Don't play with my emotions like this.

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.

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.