[How to pick who should write your LORs]

On 2/6/2019 at 9:19 AM, theofan said:

Hi Bob, I had a somewhat similiar situation as yours. I studied, then worked for a long time, then studied, then applied to a PhD program. So I wanted my LORs to reflect my varied work and study experiences. What I ended up doing was submit four letters instead of the standard three. I found out it was permitted and went ahead and asked four people: two profesors who had taught me several courses in the last four years, one very well-known professor who taught me several courses six years ago, and one professor who was my supervisor over six years ago. It seems it went fine and helped my application. I think it's good to include a work supervisor because it shows you have a variety of skills and abilities. Work experience is where your leadership and organizational abilities often shine. And it's a good idea to choose people who have known you over a longer period of time and worked with you extensively, whenever possible. Their testimony about your skills and character has more weight, I believe. 

Thanks.... ?

[How to pick who should write your LORs]

So I'm a web developer looking into graduate programs with the goal of ending up in a more technically engaging role (eg data scientist). Most will be online programs in computer science.

I had two solid LORs in college, which for me was over 5 years ago. With them I was able to get into my top choice summer research program, and I led them to believe I would also apply to grad school eventually. I believe that I could respectable letters from my current supervisor and from my previous supervisor (who just left the company). I also recently took a course at a local school and did very well, so it could be a source for a letter though the course was not a STEM course. 

I'm not sure how to decide between them. On the one hand I think these programs will generally prefer academic letters, but will they feel the same way about professors who taught me one course 6 or 7 years ago? Would a letter from a recent academic source be considered useful, even if they are not in the same field as the intended program? And where do letters from supervisors fit into this equation?

One thing that's influenced my perspective was UC Berkeley's online data science masters application (Not sure if I will end up applying there). They ask if one of the letters is from your current direct supervisor, and if not, to explain why. This led me to believe that programs like this, geared primarily towards working professionals with several years of experience who will study part-time, may actually not care as much as traditional programs about letters from college professors.

Any advice or suggestions welcome...

[Practice GRE scores vs. real GRE scores]

On 11/24/2017 at 3:57 AM, BrometheusBob said:

Love the concept for this thread. I think I'll edit in other practice tests as I go along. Don't know how many more there will be since I'm aiming to get the test over with soon. Took the test several years ago during college just before the format change (and ended up not going to grad school before it expired).

Actual GRE (2011) - 800Q / 640V / 4.0W

(Oct 22)  Manhattan 1 - 161Q  / 160V
(Nov 5)   Powerprep 1 - 167Q  / 165V
(Nov 24) Powerprep 2 - 169Q / 166V

I just took the GRE today. I'd estimate I studied about 50 hours across a few months (not continuously). Here are some other practice test scores I got:

Official GRE Guide 1 - 170Q 164V        (three weeks prior to test)
PowerPrep Plus 1 - 169Q 163V 3.5W (two weeks prior to test)

MyGRE Tutor 1: 170Q 156-159V
MyGRE Tutor 2: 160-163Q 153-156V
Magoosh 1: 159Q 164V (Cue the heart attack I had seeing that)
Magoosh 2: 163Q
Magoosh 3: 164Q
(The above are from between 1-2 months ago before I gave up on non-official materials)

Average Official/Powerprep 168.75Q 164.5V 
Average Non-ETS                   163Q       159.4V

Actual: 170Q 166V (Writing to come)

So I have to say I was somewhat disappointed with the non-ETS content, particularly Magoosh's math questions. It was helpful in some ways for sure, but so much of it just felt overly pedantic and it caused me unnecessary panic. Too many questions where the trick is to realize that you can't assume that lines that are drawn perfectly parallel are actually parallel or that angles that look like right angles are right angles etc. And it's true that those could show up on an actual test, but often they do not.

Personally, I recommend just buying the official ETS set (gre guide, verbal, quantitative). I also liked the Powerprep Plus test I purchased, but it is expensive for what it is. All the material on the test is pretty much in those official sources if you study it cover to cover. And the practice tests and sections in those materials are more representative of the actual test than either Magoosh, MyGRE Tutor, or the 5lb Manhattan prep book. Just my opinion.

[Practice GRE scores vs. real GRE scores]

Anyone use the Powerprep tests you have to pay for? I wanted to know if those were just the same as the free ones or what.

[Should I retake GRE in CS?]

Are you applying to a technical PhD? If so I imagine your score is plenty strong and maybe not worth the effort required to score any higher. 

[Practice GRE scores vs. real GRE scores]

Love the concept for this thread. I think I'll edit in other practice tests as I go along. Don't know how many more there will be since I'm aiming to get the test over with soon. Took the test several years ago during college just before the format change (and ended up not going to grad school before it expired).

Actual GRE (2011) - 800Q / 640V / 4.0W

(Oct 22)  Manhattan 1 - 161Q  / 160V
(Nov 5)   Powerprep 1 - 167Q  / 165V
(Nov 24) Powerprep 2 - 169Q / 166V

So far maybe 5-10 hours of prep time outside those practice exams.

Of those, the Manhattan prep test felt inordinately difficult, so I'm glad I found this thread to see how people did on it compared to powerprep and actual exams etc.

I am skeptical about repeating those PP verbal performances on an actual test, but also I don't care about that section too much. Anything 160+ on the Verbal will probably be quite strong for the programs I have in mind. It would be nice to get a 4.5 or 5 on the W, but getting a 4 again would be fine. Mostly I'm focused on practicing math till I feel confident that I'd get 170 or just below. Seems silly maybe to be worried most about that section given my history on that section, but I feel it's the most important for the programs I have in mind and also the room for error on that section is very small (I got only 2 Q questions wrong on PP1 and 1 Q question wrong on PP2).