HopOnMyCrates

Someone developed a site that worked off of data from GradCafe that listed average GRE scores for different institutions/programs/years. Unfortunately I never bookmarked it, however somebody else may have a link. Suffice to say, many of those who were offered admission at PGR top 30 programs regularly scored correspondingly higher (165+). That being said, due to the high level of competition in admissions several people with such scores were also denied admission. Speaking personally, my scores were 159Q 162V 4.5W iirc and I was lucky enough to land in such a program (waitlisted at one other, fwiw), so you're likely on the right track, if not fine where you're at. Are your scores from an official test, or one of the practice ones? Additionally, if you have the funds, I don't think it would hurt to take the test twice (if you haven't already), especially if you've targeted weak spots and improved upon them in practice. I took the SAT twice in high school and did something like 180 points better the second go around, but with the GRE I only improved by about 3 points (1Q, 2V). YMMV
I was able to speak with a chair who said that his program specifically (other institutions may vary) used it as a preliminary quasi cut-off for how critically they'd look at applications: higher scores got put into a "make sure to give these people a good read" pile, while average-to-lower scores were left together. Part of the rationale was to identify top applicants early on in order to give them offers earlier than other schools, hoping that they bite. Every application, he assured me, certainly got read with some care. I might add, when I attended one institution's prospective students' event the professors with whom I spoke who also happened to be on the committee immediately remembered my WS or my LORs when I introduced myself. These things give you personality that the GRE simply can't convey, which is why the GRE holds a significantly lower (though still necessary) importance in the application. As Hector remarked above, so long as your scores are not alarmingly low there is no reason for a program to reject you if the rest of your application is competitively strong.

I’m gonna just try to run a bit against the grain, if only because you mentioned BC and Continental programs.
The short version is this: I know for a fact that some members of continental program acceptance committees DO use the verbal GRE score in deciding whether your application goes to a single professor to read, or to every professor.
A high score doesn’t guarantee entry, but it can drastically increase your chances when you are being reviewed by several professors rather than one.
I have been specifically told by faculty who work in these committees that top verbal scores are absolutely important. Regardless of how indicative they actually are. The recommendation I received was to try to get a 167 or higher (depending on the year).
 

Someone developed a site that worked off of data from GradCafe that listed average GRE scores for different institutions/programs/years. Unfortunately I never bookmarked it, however somebody else may have a link. Suffice to say, many of those who were offered admission at PGR top 30 programs regularly scored correspondingly higher (165+). That being said, due to the high level of competition in admissions several people with such scores were also denied admission. Speaking personally, my scores were 159Q 162V 4.5W iirc and I was lucky enough to land in such a program (waitlisted at one other, fwiw), so you're likely on the right track, if not fine where you're at. Are your scores from an official test, or one of the practice ones? Additionally, if you have the funds, I don't think it would hurt to take the test twice (if you haven't already), especially if you've targeted weak spots and improved upon them in practice. I took the SAT twice in high school and did something like 180 points better the second go around, but with the GRE I only improved by about 3 points (1Q, 2V). YMMV
I was able to speak with a chair who said that his program specifically (other institutions may vary) used it as a preliminary quasi cut-off for how critically they'd look at applications: higher scores got put into a "make sure to give these people a good read" pile, while average-to-lower scores were left together. Part of the rationale was to identify top applicants early on in order to give them offers earlier than other schools, hoping that they bite. Every application, he assured me, certainly got read with some care. I might add, when I attended one institution's prospective students' event the professors with whom I spoke who also happened to be on the committee immediately remembered my WS or my LORs when I introduced myself. These things give you personality that the GRE simply can't convey, which is why the GRE holds a significantly lower (though still necessary) importance in the application. As Hector remarked above, so long as your scores are not alarmingly low there is no reason for a program to reject you if the rest of your application is competitively strong.

Someone developed a site that worked off of data from GradCafe that listed average GRE scores for different institutions/programs/years. Unfortunately I never bookmarked it, however somebody else may have a link. Suffice to say, many of those who were offered admission at PGR top 30 programs regularly scored correspondingly higher (165+). That being said, due to the high level of competition in admissions several people with such scores were also denied admission. Speaking personally, my scores were 159Q 162V 4.5W iirc and I was lucky enough to land in such a program (waitlisted at one other, fwiw), so you're likely on the right track, if not fine where you're at. Are your scores from an official test, or one of the practice ones? Additionally, if you have the funds, I don't think it would hurt to take the test twice (if you haven't already), especially if you've targeted weak spots and improved upon them in practice. I took the SAT twice in high school and did something like 180 points better the second go around, but with the GRE I only improved by about 3 points (1Q, 2V). YMMV
I was able to speak with a chair who said that his program specifically (other institutions may vary) used it as a preliminary quasi cut-off for how critically they'd look at applications: higher scores got put into a "make sure to give these people a good read" pile, while average-to-lower scores were left together. Part of the rationale was to identify top applicants early on in order to give them offers earlier than other schools, hoping that they bite. Every application, he assured me, certainly got read with some care. I might add, when I attended one institution's prospective students' event the professors with whom I spoke who also happened to be on the committee immediately remembered my WS or my LORs when I introduced myself. These things give you personality that the GRE simply can't convey, which is why the GRE holds a significantly lower (though still necessary) importance in the application. As Hector remarked above, so long as your scores are not alarmingly low there is no reason for a program to reject you if the rest of your application is competitively strong.

Honestly, I think that the most important thing you can do is start professionalizing yourself, especially if you're starting a PhD. Everything else will come during the course of the PhD itself.
So, for example, start familiarizing yourself with the best journals in your subfield, and with the top generalist journals, and what kind of work gets published in which journal. Start developing a sense of how fast the turnaround is in various journals (the Cullison/APA list is helpful for that). Create an account on PhilPapers, and sign up for conference and publication alerts. Start looking at the CVs of grad students, postdocs, and assistant professors at a wide range of departments. In particular, look for people working in your inteded AOSes. Get a sense of what they're doing, and how it seems to have worked out for them. Figure out what the important conferences and associations are in your subfields. Start following the gossip on the main philosophy blogs. Start reading through the Job Market Boot Camp on the Philosophers' Cocoon. Start paying attention to what goes on in the forum over at the Chronicle of Higher Education.
That sort of thing.

Accepting a PhD spot at CUNY. I'm a big city boy now, mama!

Accepting a PhD spot at CUNY. I'm a big city boy now, mama!

Accepting a PhD spot at CUNY. I'm a big city boy now, mama!

Accepting a PhD spot at CUNY. I'm a big city boy now, mama!

Accepting a PhD spot at CUNY. I'm a big city boy now, mama!

I've decided to go to Pitt. The only problem is that Pitt rejected me.