milestones13

On their website ASU English lists 580 V as an average score for those admitted to their PhD program, so I wouldn't worry about getting cut based on your verbal score for that one anyway. However, if you think you can move your percentile from 82nd to 90th or higher, then I'd retake. Remember though that 580 V sounds lower than it really is when compared to percentile (82nd).

Here are Princeton Univ.'s GRE statistics from 2006. Verbal - School of Engineering admits - 595 Humanities department admits - 678 Quantitative - School of Engineering admits - 785 Humanities department admits - 673 I doubt the overall score is at all important for admission to these programs, but these numbers do indicate that those aiming for top Engineering programs hit in the high 700's on the quant and that those in the Humanities try to land in the mid 600's on the verbal section (for any hyper competitive program in these fields). This subject has been debated ad nauseum on this forum, but I think these are good thresholds to aim for without further undue obsession over the GRE as a standalone measure -- especially "verbal" for humanities and "quant" for engineering as the primarily meaningful targets.

The numbers are solid and the Fulbright is impressive. That said, you are applying to a small number of insanely competitive programs (more competitive than top ranked English lit programs), with 2-4% acceptance rates. The truth? Anyone's chances for getting into any of the above are very low, which is true no matter what numbers are posted by people or what even the Almighty thinks of their writing. Continue to revise your writing sample, SoP, your plan B. Maybe you might want to apply to a program that accepts 5-10% of applicants? In other words, have one or two "crazy competitive" as opposed to all "insanely competitive" ones.

4 AWA is too low, imo, to sit on if you are applying to humanities programs. You want to get that up to at least 4.5, preferably 5. The AWA is an absolute joke, as others have mentioned, because the graders spend so little time on the essay and pretty much rely on Big Blue's algorithmically challenged cousin to do the grading for them. But the problem is you can't assume that adcoms are aware that the AWA is a joke. In fact, they may be under the impression that the people at ETS grade the essays with a critical perspective. To get a good score requires following a template. I think the Princeton Review is the best for this (though I am not an advocate of them generally). "The issue is a divisive one...on the one hand....yet, on the other....in the final analysis, it appears that." (Stated with your own transitions), I think what they want is wishy-washy yet clear exposition. Use the million dollar words sparingly. The best that anyone can hope for by following along a rigid structure is a 5, because the idea that your essays are insightful or are in some way is interesting to the reader is a subjective matter outside your control (that which garners a 5.5. or a 6). If you hit the structure, you can get at least get a 5. I believe (counterintuitively) that if Danielle Steele took the GRE, she would score a 5.5 or 6. I say this because she thinks formula and works with flashing red light transitional cliches that ETS loves. I am actually not joking. A vexing question: Why do poorly written novels sell so well and well written novels tend to fare so badly on the market place? I have often asked myself and I think the reason is that hacks are mainly concerned about structure and not prose. So when you consider the AWA, it's best to think like a hack. Structure first, structure second, decent levels of clarity, third. It's a sucker bet to think you're being graded by "professors" who care about your writing. To some degree they care about the content of what you write, but only if you put the dog sh*& in the cookie cutter for them to scoop out. Bear in mind, it's very hard to write well when you have such shackles around you. This is why good writing does not come out of the formula novels, even when Pulizer prize winners take on a psuedonym to make a buck. There's Elmore Leonard, but he's a dialogue maestro with very, very unique talent and he plays with formula in ways that very few writers know how to do (only a handful of good writers can pull this off). If you are afraid of being corrupted by delivering boilerplate essays, don't be. It is (and I know many will disagree with this) something of a good thing temporarily to get off one's praised as God to the writing world ego which a fair number of us have been puffed up by. Remember: You're on Grub street when you write the AWA and so it is best to heed the words of Samuel Johnson to this end. "wherever you meet with a passage that strikes you as particularly fine, strike it out." However, I would not at all advise this for your writing sample which will require your best writing (as long as you don't, as they say, gild the lily).

Here are some thoughts. Your combined score is very good, your verbal and awa scores are perfect, and your average quant score won't hurt you in any non math related field. However, for sociology, they may want to see a score in the mid 600's at competitive programs. My suggestion is, if you want to go to programs where the quant score matters somewhat (non humanities programs), then prep hard for the quant (only) and retake the exam to get your quant score up. Chances are good that your verbal will drop a bit, but keep in mind there is no difference between a 730 v and an 800 v or any score between -- all are at the 99%ile. You can extrapolate percentiles in the 99%ile for ego gratification purposes, but doing so is irrelevant to how the scores are viewed by committees. Even if you drop to a 700 or 97%ile, that won't hurt you -- especially if you move your quant score up 100 points. To drive this point home, bear in mind that a 700 V is roughly the average at the most competitive/top ranked English PhD programs where the verbal section is usually the only part of the GRE that is considered. The GRE is not that important...there is no ranking that goes on at the highest levels (say, among those in the top 5 percent), given the holistic nature of the evaluation process. Ordinarily, I would not advise anyone to retake the exam, but when one has a low score in area that is important to the program, it's a good idea to prep for that portion and retake. If you were gunning for an English Phd, or a related field I would say hold on to your scores.....but if the school can give you information that they want xxx score on a portion of the exam, you should aim to hover around that range...even if you end up hit a bit below it ('bit' being defined as around 30 to 50 points). As is, your combined scores qualify you for many fellowships at most places, I would think...though these awards are also usually tied to your undergrad gpa. Most important, though, is try to find out from the programs you're interested in what quant scores they are looking for you to be competitive. It is true programs like to dance around this topic with far flung verbiage - "holistic" is a favorite word to describe the application process, which is why I used it (reminds me of a doughnut) ;-) but try to dig in and get what they want. In the Humanities (with the exception of philosophy and religious studies), it is true that qualitative aspects matter *far more* than GRE/GPA...but with other programs app parameters tend to be more straightforward and more cut and dried...hopefully your age wasn't an issue but there's nothing you can do about it if it was. Whatever the case and whatever you decide, I hope you have a better round when you apply next time.

I have never heard of legacy having an impact on graduate school admissions. Perhaps there might be some of this going on for MBA or Law programs, but this is, as I understand it, largely an undergraduate phenomenon. I have heard that Yale refers to these progeny of the uber rich (not necessarily legacies) as "development cases." lol. Though unspectacular academically, Bush would amazingly not be an example of this. $ developmentals have low SAT's and grades (not C's ala Bush) and ordinarily nothing of an extracurricular background to support their admission to a prestigious college or even a remotely competitive one... It is true, however, that they may "interview well" due to a cheerful disposition bestowed upon them by palmy parents. How well they interview ultimately depends on the number of 0's on the check. Where did you hear that money and connections and/or legacy plays a role in graduate school admissions?

I am not so sure that a good Awa is really all that important, but it's nice to have as a sort of check mark to an outstanding writing sample. That said, the awa by itself is somewhat meaningless and even a very bad awa is fine if you have great recommendations touting your scholastic and writing ability. Recs are by far (exponentially) better check marks to your sop and sample than an awa score...I failed to mention that in the last post. As for your score, you did well, you are over 90%ile verbal so you have reached a high, critical bar -- you should feel good about that. It's up to you whether you would want to sacrifice time and bear down and retake and improve the verbal score. No one knows if 650 is used as a cut off, there's only rumors bandied about that this is the case at some places. Even then, your stuff will likely be read and not chucked. My thinking is that if you would really have to improve a lot (50-100) points for your retake to be meaningful improvement to your app -- and even then it's not going to compensate for anything. The only real way to impress the committee as a standout applicant is to show a focus on in your sop and have a great sample. I would retake not just to hit the 650 mark, but if you want to really invest in the GRE, go for the upper 90th percentiles....that's up to you to decide. Either way, your writing is going to have to shine and the extra points on the verbal section likely won't add much in making you more competitive...though it might at some places (top 10's) and not others.

The strong financial earning years for successful (but not super successful actors) is really short lived compared to other highly successful people in other fields. The tendency is to think of anyone with a recognizable name in showbusiness as having more money than Croesus, but there are a few things to consider: One, large gaps in employment and two, the money swiped off the top of their earnings. Actors do splashy things to keep themselves in the spotlight but they're often not getting paid much for that. They also sometimes do pet projects that make them little money or a cool cameo for a movie or tv that sets the web ablaze for little money. The other things is, the hand in their wallet -- agents, money managers, personal managers, lawyers, pr people, taxes. The reality is that they only bring in 30-40% of what they gross. I am not saying anyone should cry for actors who make 5 million a year, but understand that translates into 2 million after they're pillaged by business people. Compare a 35 year old actor to a 35 year old junior partner at a law firm and it is not hard to see which one is on the way up and one is on the way down, even if at this point they are basically making the same amount after taxes. At 50, most actors are pretty much done, guest-spotting and reality-showing or even soaping back to their roots when they were first trying to break in. Whereas the junior, now senior partner at a law firm, has increased their earning power and can maintain this level of earnings for at least another 15 maybe 20 years, year in year out. No fame and no glamour and public adulation attached -- but then, no years of not getting a pilot picked up and doing lame straight-to-video movies, either. The life of the aging actor is not only fiscally depressing for all those involved (unless you're an outlier, Jack Nicholson say), it's also often empty as well. Projects that are offered really begin to suck any prior pride or vanity from earlier in their career -- this downward swing and attendant unraveling becomes tabloid fodder for the masses. But they can eke out a million here and there, especially if XY fading celeb is willing to parody oneself based on what the masses remember about the one or two hits they may have had. Such a being has morphed into walking, repackaged garbage. Money managers treat actors like children and for good reason -- actors get used to a style of life they will, in all great probability, not be able to sustain as they move into middle age. Obviously, it is worse for actresses: the vast majority of female screen thesps need to get out of Hollywood by the time they reach 30. Generally, it seems actresses are much savvier than are male actors about the ticking bomb that is their acting career -- perhaps because this ticking coincides with their time-to-start-a-family biological time clock that men lack. Worth noting too: Franco is not a major star (no way an island buying Nicholoas Cage) and it seems he simply is following a career path that is natural to him, the sort of thing that Ethan Hawke might have done 10 years ago (sans Uma and the kids). While there is most likely an ego-trip component to Franco's decision to go to Yale (adding prestige to rank fame), it doesn't seem to be borne out of complete frivolousness but of internal motivation to work on a project, just like anyone else might have. I think if he wanted to prestige of the Yale name alone, why not go to Yale drama school (tied into some other program at Yale, so as to inject interdisciplinary flair) for some histrionic copulation?

Do look at what you got wrong. ETS gives you the chance to do a diagnostic. It was helpful for me, because what I assumed I bombed I did well on -- reading comprehension, only 2 wrong out of 8. I ended up missing several antonyms and analogies which surprised me because on the paper based ETS 10th edition book, I missed few antonyms at all. The words I got wrong on the real deal were of the what the hell variety -- not abstruse but just deceptive. Looking at the amount of time I spent on the tough ones, it looks like what happened is I overthought them, spent too much time. Nerves (and perfectionism, which is not my natural style at all, I am an anti-perfectionist type) got the better of me. On paper based practice tests, I'd start at the end with the antonyms first, knock them out, and then start at the beginning with sentence completions...which would give me enough time for the reading comprehension passages. I realized that strategy would not work on test day for the CAT but I knew that I would see the antonyms early on. But what I did not do is take the same confidence from the paper tests to the all important test day. I tried to be perfect on the first 10 and in so got bogged down. I was too obsessed with the potential "tricks" on the antonyms and analogies I ended up changing right answers to wrong ones. I went from freewheeling and confident on practice tests to tentative and cautious with the onset of lights, camera, action. However, I am not unique in this regard but rather fall into the great big category of most test takers. It is weird, though, that my weakness on all the practice tests was reading comprehension and yet on test day, antonyms were the items I got wrong. Over hundreds and hundreds of practice antonyms, I'd miss roughly the amount of questions I got wrong on 30 question test day. Whereas I was expecting to get maybe 4 or 5 of the reading comp questions wrong. My score is good enough to keep, thanks to the reading comp section, amazingly, so I am not crying...but I learned that being overly cautious in strong areas may not be an optimal strategy Yet, conversely, I think in one's weak area being cautious seems to pay off. That worked for me on the reading comprehension...I really took my time to the point where I almost ran out of time...I really thought through the questions and those ridiculously long questions stems...changed wrong answers to correct ones. During practice tests, I learned to apply my two different styles to the different sections but on test day I became too cautious where I should have trusted my instincts and yet, donning the wary "no that's not right" hat helped me on the reading comp section. Anyway, this is just one case....ymmv. I'd say be confident on areas of strength and wary on areas that you have worked up to speed. I do know that my vocab is such that I didn't need to hyper-scrutinize things the way that I did on test day.

The writing sample and sop are obviously extremely important, but the AWA should corroborate, not work against them. In analytical writing heavy fields, especially social sciences and humanities, expectations on this section are fairly high (5) or higher. It strikes me that the issue writing section measure verbal fluency more than anything...how quickly can one generate ideas? Parodoxically, then, this section can be difficult for those who are methodical whereas the nature of the argument analysis might be more amenable to a more meticulous cognitive style. ETS claims averaging the issue and the argument task leads to a more reliable score, but I find it unfortunate that they do this because both tasks, I speculate, are not strongly correlated...though there is no data to say one way or the other. I think the OP has a difficult decision to make given the perfect verbal and the very high overall score. If this were my situation, I would not take the exam but would address the issue somewhere in the application. I'd not make any assumptions that the AWA is irrelevant or assume that the adcom will brush it off. With a low AWA and a great writing sample, the adcom might very well think twice. Writing samples and sop's are clearly end products of substantial revision and the AWA is a rough and ready first draft under time pressure, so they're obviously different. However, the AWA is all X's effort and no one else's -- so that's why a department might take it seriously as a piece of the admissions puzzle (in the humanities or social sciences). I am not saying that a strong AWA will help an application in any way if the writing sample is mediocre -- it is only helpful to corroborate a strong sample and sop. It says the equivalent of: "I can knock out raw stuff live and I can also produce slick work in a studio with bells and whistles and remixes (under the auspices of a producer)." Next, the question of how to address the issue of the low AWA in the statement or in the app needs careful consideration and I would ask your recommenders on how to handle it. Retaking the exam does not make sense to me given your otherwise stellar peformance, nor does ignoring what might possibly be a considered aspect of your application. Anyway, that's just my hundred dollars.

My understanding is that if you apply to a program that offers the same funding package to everyone, then your quant score won't matter (given your field) either to the department or the graduate division. If there are "differential" university-wide funding packages given, usually at state schools, then you'll most likely be passed over for someone with higher combined scores. For admission purposes, your verbal score will get your application reviewed thoroughly by the adcom -- but most likely it will be other parts of your application that determine whether or not you are admitted.

If it were up to me, I would set the verbal at 90th because of the preparation factor might not tell me much about the level of ability of the person in question. Levels of giftedness are not going to be reflected purely by a verbal score...so it is hard to know if a score is result of intellectual giftedness or rigorous preparation or what is usually the case a combination of both. I would want to know the difference but the GRE is not going to inform anyone of that. Understand that ETS claims reliability for their test and that scores are, like an IQ, immutable gauges of *ability:....but obviously this is not the case with the GRE. I find it abnoxious that ETS disavows both the importance of the preparation factor and what is essentially a quasi achievatelligence test of their own making. This currently leaves the test nowhere and ultimately undefined. As for level of verbal ability though, some people do actually have higher verbal intelligence than what they can display on the GRE and, conversely, some people have verbal ability actually lower than what they have been able to pull off by sheer rote cramming. I would not want to use it as an arbiter of talent at a high level (only a low level) and, from what I can tell. and as has been discussed here, several English programs in particular are aware of the limitations of the GRE...mainly, it does not give a very good indication of intelligence or IQ nor does it act well as an achievement test for math or english proficiency. The test is just confused on what tries to measure, which is likely why ETS wants to rehaul it...into who knows what. However I would use it only as a pretty low level filter where it does have actual value...use it to skim the mass of 300 and 400 and 500 verbal scores but be far more careful in approaching the top 10 percent people and thus rely wholly on the writing aspects at that level. 650 is 93 percentile so it seems we are close to being in agreement but I would be just a bit more lenient on a test that is so preparation friendly and amenable to boosting, which is not supposed to be part of ones *ability* as defined by the test constructors at ETS. If programs are actually paying serious attention to the psychometric properties of the GRE, then they have been brainwashed by ETS into thinking the test is something it is not. Anyway, this is a wonderful topic for the analytical writiing section, too bad it does not exist...I am sure my rant would get a whopping 1.5.

Below 600 V (90th percentile) is clearly not low in general for all fields but it is lowish side for competitive programs in English and as a result can hurt an application at certain top 50 programs. UC Davis and Santa Barbara for instance, say they usually accept those who in practice have verbals above 600. (on their websites both programs disregard the quantitative section). For the writing section, below a 5 looks pretty bad though 4 is in fact average. A 5 is considered strong by ETs and so it is not a low score by any means...but this section like the verbal section should be tilted toward high side for those who aim to scribble, scribble, and are engaged in arguments...that said, a 5 probably will not hurt anyone anywhere. Getting higher than a 5 can help though if it corroborates exceptional writing found in the writing sample and sop and LORs that claim what a great writer x is. The awa is useful, then, not as a standalone measure but probably a useful check to the sop/lor/sample.... I would say the only reason to retake the GRE for english phd is to try get a verbal to 600 or higher, AWA up to at least a 5, a combined score to a 1000 or higher and a subject test up to 80th percentile. Other than that, the striving is probably misplaced...(for english programs, not true for other programs. If one is applying for Philosophy, best to get get your scores over 1400 and a 5.5, totally different). Note too that multple attempts that do not improve might look even worse than the score...say someone trying to get to 600 verbal scores a 570 to 590 on three or four attempts. This person appears obsessed with trying to get to a certain level which could actually be more damaging than not breaking the mark itself. The same could be said for the person trying to break 700...still, if a person is coming from the 600s to over 700 on multiple attempts, they are already past cutoffs based on their first score. Whereas the high 500s person is inadvertantly putting undue emphasis on what might be a relative weakness comparable to other areas of their app thereby drawing attention to that which needs to be given exception. I think retakes are a good idea for some people...but there has to be good sense that significant improvement can occur the 2nd or at most 3rd time taking...imo there should be no 4th time... Some on this forums say a 650 (currently 93%ile) is necessary for cutoff for the top programs, which seems extremely high for a cutoff, but some programs do get tons of apps and so might have to do this..but in the end, no one knows exactly...I seriously doubt though there is any program that pays special attention to scores in any linear way once a certain level is reached....a score might qualify someone to play the game but not necessarily render a higher seeding (to use a tennis tournament analogy) once that threshold has been reached, which is why 800 verbal rejects are not uncommon and low 600 scorers have great rounds.

Here is one suggestion for your upcoming test if you have fears of flubbing the verbal section (scoring below 600), do well on the analytical writing assessment. The AWA is cosidered to be sort of a joke by most who have taken the GRE, and rightfully so perhaps, but a high score here might lead the adcom to looking more closely at your writing sample where they might not otherwise. A 5.5 or a 6 on the writing does not indicate you are a talented writer or any great critical thinker but it does mean you can put together an essay and take apart an argument on the spot (according the graders at ets which is of course not the best assessment group). As for the quant, just stay out of the bottom decile...The 700 verbal obsession for humanities people i have seen on the internet is ridiculous. There is no static magical scaled score number you need to attain with nice smooth sounding 0s at the end of it..the avg. gre verbal of programs vary from year to year. Top 10 programs will likely have high 600s one year and low 700s the next as average/median for their class which shows that they are not obsessed with scores but strong applications __ writing samples and evidence of strong focus. I am not sure if programs have cutoffs but I imagine it is hardly 97%ile but rather closer to 90th or 85th...in any event, you can hedge a potentially weak verbal score with strong performance on the writing section....write a lot on the essay part. That is my tip for stressing out about the test, which you can actually apply to the test itself... Do your best on the verbal but don:t stress it too much. I did well on the initial questions and was rewarded with getting reamed with insanely long reading comprehension passages one after another, 8 questions stacked on top of each other like prisoners in a Tijuana jail. What saved me was getting the first 8 questions right...in my case anyway, the real deal made powerprep look like a joke and most other people have the same experience. If you can answer the first questions correct, even the first 5, that will lead you to a high score (and right into the eye of the time sucking reading comprehension monsters). Anyway, good luck...do your best but best not to stress out or hype yourself about the test too much either if you fall below your desired score or if you hit it whether premath of aftermath, in fantasy or reality. Other aspects of the app matter much much more as others have said.

"My adviser has told me that I have a strong application and that GRE scores will never make or break an application (he also told me that the number one factor in admissions tends to be departmental politics." Above a certain threshold (in the land of restricted range), your adviser is correct, scores really don't matter...but to say that an 800-1100 combined score won't break an application is another thing altogether. It may or may not, but definitely might hurt an application somewhere in the review process....however, this is not something you need to worry about. Your adviser was tailoring his comments...not to the median bound hoi polloi but rather to that high achieving 'omg I didn't score 1500 should I retake or slit my wrist'? type of student...I'm not saying the latter is you in any way, but your adviser (at elite u) most likely deals with perfectionism fairly frequently...but just to let you know, there are environments where students believe they have "basically aced" the GRE with an 1100 combined and their advisors (note change in spelling, we've swung over to the US now), have to inform the student they might not make cutoffs at the schools they're interested in -- "Whattaya mean cutoffs? I aced that baby." Exhibit A, exhibit B, different worlds. Ideally your V and your Q would be switched, but a 650 is a strong enough v and I'd be willing to bet that not even a 720 v would help you any more than a 650 would -- especially considering your perfect academic performance. If the 650 eats away at you, you can retake for that reason alone if you want, but understand the reason for doing so is mainly personal -- to show to yourself that you can score xxxx. The desire for that is fine, but best not to be conflated with what's expected of you by adcoms who are evaluating you independent of any self-referenced yen for a higher score. This sounds like easy common sense, but it's actually quite a challenge to keep the two (what they want to see versus your own sense of what you can achieve) separate.

Both definitions of quotidian I'm familiar with but the second meaning I picked up far more recently than the first. Remembering words used by writers in interesting ways can help...for the 2ndary use of quotidian I remember Gore Vidal, in an essay on John Updike, referred to him as a "quotidian novelist" this, a slight on Updike's supposed lack of interest in political issues. Before this I was not aware of quotidian meaning commonplace. When I first read it, I thought, does this mean that he''s saying he's a novelist who writes every day? It didn't make sense. Then, I looked it up in the dictionary and all was clarified. There is a clear link between the meanings, but it helps a lot if you can distinguish the dictionary definitions with a certain degree of precision rather than play word detective while under time pressure. This is very tough to do though, given the plethora -- or shall I say plenitude? -- of words in the ETS database.

That really is just rough luck to get such a difficult antonym (plangent) on your 2nd problem. I am familiar with the word meaning plaintive or sad, but not the meaning of "loud, reverberating sound." Both definitions are somewhat obscure -- especially for the *&$#ing 2nd question of the GRE! There is no doubt you would have scored in the 720-740 range if that were question number 10 instead of number 2. So, catty of the CAT to throw that at you when you should be dealing with voluble or mollify or something. You can check what other problems you got wrong by way of the diagnostic service (for free) as I'm sure you've already done...680 is still an excellent score, though, no matter what program you're applying to...so there's no need to despair...still I feel confident you would score over 700 on a retake (if the verbal score was exceptionally meaningful for you to want to retake). I would take the word lists very seriously. Because antonyms and analogies come first, I think it's good idea to really be strong on the vocabulary because the shift in score is so huge early on. You're shut out of a 700 plus score if you miss any in the first 5 -- unless one can dust themselves off and ace the rest of the test (or get one or two wrong). For example, you scored a 680, but to do that, you probably had to really kick arse on the rest of the test. I have played around with the power prep and missed the first question on purpose, and then only got 2 wrong after that. My score was a 710. 3 wrong is usually 770-780 if these are RC's missed later in the test. So, huge swings in score are very much predicated on one missed antonym, analogy or sentence completion early on. This is obviously true for the quant as well...but you can get more wrong on the quant (5 is about the max on the quant) to get a perfect 800. Anyway, a plaintive tale...I hope I won't see such odd ducks when I take the test next week.

I'm not sure why ETS is deciding to get rid of analogies and antonyms because doing so seems to undermines the GRE's ability to discriminate verbal ability at the high end. Analogies and antonyms have stayed with the GRE verbal for eons because this has been shown to be the case study after study, despite opinions and criticism to the contrary -- to wit, that the test itself does not measure what graduate students are supposed to be doing in graduate school. Well, the whole idea behind the GRE verbal is to provide a verbal intelligence test for the schools to look at in conjunction with all the other info that they have that point more closely to a scholarship potential...While the GRE is billed neither as an achievement test nor an intelligence test, it exists a sort of strange crossbreed between the two....antiquated, at that. ETS has now decided (if they follow through this time), to cut ties with intelligence testing (analogies/antonyms) and make it a test that mirrors more in the way of scholar-activity. There are good things to be gained from this, but the downside is that high ability applicants will not be as neatly demarcated as before...(even then, there is room to argue that the demarcation currently is unfair -- as with ESL students having to knock back rococo English word lists like tequila shots. This stuff is supposed to be (in theory)....slowly...accumulated over one's educational life. Here is an ETS study from 1985 that backs up the high ability difference (link and abstract provided) ...straight from the horses mouth, back in the days when the horse had a mouth ;-) http://www.ets.org/M...-85-29-Lord.pdf Abstract The main purpose of this study is to compare the contribution to measurement accuracy of the verbal score of each of the four verbal item types included in the GRE General Test. Comparisons are based on item response theory, a methodology that allows the researcher to look at the accuracy of individual points on the score scale. This methodology is based on the assumption that the four verbal item types measure the same verbal ability. Since the results of the study do indicate that the reading comprehension item type measures something slightly different frc what is measured by sentence completion, analogy, or antonym item types, only tentative conclusions may be drawn. The antonym item type contributes the most accuracy of the four item types for scores above about 550. Analogy items contribute to the measurement accuracy of verbal ability throughout the score range. This is especially true when item types are matched on verbal difficulty. These results suggest that the analogy and antonym item types are useful for maintaining accuracy of the verbal score scale at the upper levels. Eliminating these items might have a serious impact on the validity of the GRE verbal score in the upper regions of the scale. Studies of the validity of item types at the upper score range using external criteria would be necessary to understand the exact contribution of the item types to the validity of the test.

Not at all, thanks for the kind words. One thing to add is I realize you need a higher quant score, but as I said both sides of the GRE are connected with test specifc strategies that have very little to do with what I've mentioned in terms of working memory or intelligence. This is especially true for the quantitative section, which likes to reward short cut smarts that are more or less specific to standardized tests. I suppose it might have some carry-over into real life in terms of being wary of making unwarranted assumptions, which does have some general applicability. That said, figuring out how test makers think is a fairly limited skill and it's sort like being a cab driver knowing how to go from A to B in the quickest way possible. Smart. But smart-specific to being a cabbie. What I'm suggesting with working memory training I think will be of far greater use to you (or anyone) when the GRE is over. As for the GRE, working memory will help you when you miss the short cuts and have to do the leg work...which is how many people, who are very good at math, but are not good at standardized tests, can miss out on all the shortcuts and still score 800 on the quant without much of a problem. But for a non math person, or someone who short-circuits when doing for multistep stuff, it's not easy at all to do and it's easy to run out of time. Ideally, you want to learn the tricks as much as possible. I'll break silence on impartiality on the installations I've suggested and say that I use this the third option of the dual n backs I listed: anecdotally, I train with that program regularly and I have found an enormous gain from it in pretty much all areas of intellectual functioning. Good luck, and if you have any questions let me know. Bear in mind it is a not a simple game but a dual task that is very challenging to get a hold of at first so you have to be patient with it because you're tracking two things -- auditory and visual data -- at once. But there is a substantial payoff by working out on it -- especially for those of us past our 20's -- that I will tell you.

Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist or any sort of expert on the brain, just a dude on the internet. I'm in my 30's, haven't taken the GRE yet (taking it in August) and so while I may not resolve your ambiguities on this matter, Doctor F, perhaps I can be of some help...even if I fall short of performing "demonstrations magical." Your first question: what does the quantitative test measure? It measures executive functioning mostly -- mainly working memory. Working memory is the ability to hold multiple things in mind while doing a task and still being able to sequence/manipulate information you're holding in your short term mental storage bin before it gets lost forever. Psychologists have found that working memory is very closely linked to fluid intelligence (which is the ability to draw out distinctions between items on the fly, usually inductively -- essentially pattern recognition ability). So, yes, quant does tap both of these -- especially executive functioning because solving any multistep problems invariably involves working memory. To a lesser extent, quant measures processing speed -- the ability to do a bit of mental math without using pen and paper. This helps also. Quant also very much measures crystallized intelligence -- area of a circle (easy) the formula for permutations (less easy) and the steps to solve a problem, which come about more by practice than any magical noetic prowess. Unlike the verbal section though the quant section does not correlate well with standard intelligence tests -- fluid or crystallized, and is largely content driven (high school math review test)...still, it's tricky. ETS seems to want to design it as an IQ test...."ha, ha, got you. X can also be negative...Answer is D. Sorry, dumb ass!"But the trick element is something the academic tests like SAT and GRE have invented...and this is not a measurement of fluid intellingece or executive functions but just seems to be an amorphous gauge of how "sharp" the test taker is or what a sucker they are. Altogether risible stuff, imo. But, that's just a critique of the test. Back to your goal. Yeah, working memory and fluid intelligence peak in the 20's -- which is why a smartass twentysomething can wake up hung over and go to the testing ctr and knock out 1400 or 1500...this gets harder for the 30+ somethings to do. Quant scores on the GRE have been shown to go down with age while verbal tends to stay constant -- the reason for this might be executive functions and, to a lesser extent, fluid intelligence. But it may also be because high level language is used more than quantitative skills for educated people who have been out of college for a while. I don't know enough to say what the exact reason is...but, I would advise you to get to work on improving your working memory. This is absolutely possible to do now. It's not a panacea or any sort of replacement for knowledge...but sharpening your working memory will help your focus to work through any problems, writing an argument, whatever. High levels of working memory will lead to better performance in pretty much everything that involves high level mental focus. The task to practice is called Dual N Back, which has been shown to increase both working memory and fluid intelligence in college students (which is unprecedented). There are many free installments you can play. Here are a few (I won't favor one over the other but will let you choose. Advise you to do research on these before you pick what I offer or any versions you can find on your own -- there are more). Here: http://www.soakyourhead.com/ Here: http://cognitivefun.net/ Here: http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/ The other thing I would recommend is taking creatine...which is scientifically proven to boost mental performance (although it's typically associated with physical performance). http://rspb.royalsoc.../1529/2147.long You know the rest. Eat a good diet, sleep, protein, yada yada....what I suggest are two things you might not know. The caveat is that even though these two brain boosting methods have been documented in respected scientific journals (one of which was double blind placebo), they are not considered mainstream interventions yet...only on the vanguard...so, take it as thou whilst. And yes, from the arcane knowledge I've derived on the matter, there is indeed great hope for you to land in the upper 700's for quant -- 800 is within your ken! But, as you know Faustus, none of what I suggest is a magical substitute for the sweat of study itself. For that, you have resources far greater than what I can offer (exeunt stage left).

Actually, it depends on the aspect of intelligence. There are two well established types of intelligence -- fluid and crystallized. The verbal section of the GRE is lagely a measurement of crystallized intelligence (except for analogies that also require fluid intelligence). Crystallized intelligence can be thought of as the knowledge and skills that have been accrued throughout a life time whereas fluid intelligence is how well one solves novel problems independent of learned info. A test of the latter would be Raven's progressive matrices. The two, taken together, are largely what makes up a person's functioning intelligence. Fluid intelligence typically declines with age and crystallized intelligence can grow conintually (contingent on one's education). Vocabulary testing is known to be good test of crystallized intelligence (though it's not a good measure of fluid intelligence). So, the guides omit this information mainly because they don't want to get into it and confuse people. ETS and the test companies know what the deal is regarding this and are likely clear about what it is they want to test....ETS, though while publicly claiming the GRE is not an IQ test, also informs test takers on their website that their score will not likely move much from one test to the next (tacitly indicating one's IQ is what it is and so performance is not going to improve substantially. They even warn test takers their scores might go down). This is hardly the case across the board, obviously. ETS is making assumptions based on the normal/vanilla applicant. Mainly because they're testing crystallized intelligence this allows a non math person to improve their quant score 300 points and a word-cramming non native speaker can do the same on the verbal side. ETS makes the assumption that intellectual limitations have been hit by all equally in preparing for the test (but obvously there is huge variation in how long people prepare for it -- some don't prepare at all while others take a year to prepare). ETS also assumes that, given the test taking population being what it is (college en route to grad school), fluid intelligence has already largely been invested in the areas tested (verbal and quant) so that they believe the GRE will also indirectly test previous fluid as well as crystallized ability. This is probably why ETS maintains test scores should remain static or reliable (because fluid intelligence is traditionally thought to be static or fixed) from one test to the next. While I'm sure they are armed with the numbers in order to support this as true, it's not true for the high achieving, the underachieving, the non native speaker, and sundry other anomolous test takers out there (anomolies, at least, in ETS's world). In your case, though, your move to an 800 V over those years is a reflection of intelligence investment theory, which is normal and even expected for a highly intelligent, curious, and educated person...though 800 is an obviously extremely rare/high score to be reached.

If you're focusing on just math, then 2 months should be more enough for studying just that section, especially with the huge amount of time you plan to devote to the exam in that 2 month period. This is true even if you throw in some verbal study as well. If you're rusty on math I think it's best to do a 1-2 week review from a guide that emphasizes what you may have forgotten or perhaps never learned (with some advanced content review as well). Then I think go on to a guide like Barron's or Kaplan or Nova if you want to go for 700+. I've just switched now primarily to Nova "Math Bible" and it seems the most comprehensive of all the books and best to prepare for the "what the hell?" type questions. What guide you choose really depends on your ambition. If you want to get close to an 800, go for Barron's or Nova (or both), closer to a 700, Kaplan; closer to a 600, Princeton Review. There are people who score 800 by studying Princeton Review, but my guess is all they needed were tricks and that they had a very stong background in math (at some point in their lives). So, Barrons and Nova are my picks...but Barron's has nothing on higher level concepts; nothing on mean, median, mode, frequency distributions, permutations, (which are apparently now becoming more common on the GRE even for those who are not reaching the hardest questions). Kaplan has good tricks, but if you don't know how to solve the problem the traditional way, then they're not much help if you freeze up on remembering how to apply their plug and chug stuff or if strategies do not seem to work under time pressure. In other words, even though there's no getting around knowing the math, ideally you want to have those strategies available -- but only to save time, not because of cluelessness.

For content review, have a look at "Total GRE Math" by Jeff Sackman. I found this guide better to be than all other math workbooks on the market. You can take a look at it here: http://www.totalgremath.com/ It's very good for content review a lot of "drill" problems and transitions into actual GRE problems....but doesn't offer much strategy, which is good because it doesn't distract from learning what you need to know to solve problems. After this guide, you want to work on Kaplan strategies as a back up (especially important for the quantitative comparisons). Kaplan seems to have the best strategies on the market but they assume a lot of prior knowledge on both quant and verbal. I plan on taking the GRE in August and so can't say yet that this guide has helped me on the actual test or not...but, I feel a lot more confident in content review having gone through it once. But knowing the math content is only a necessary but insufficient condition for doing well -- you also need test taking strategies, so you'll need either Kaplan or Barrons for that (or both). Also, go through the ETS math review problems (which is free on their website) as well as the powerprep software (also free) where you can take free practice test problems. If you do all this, you should be fine. In the last two weeks before the exam, focus solely on taking mock tests. Good luck on whatever prep material you decide on. I'd strongly advise against shelling out money to take a prep course but that's my opinion... clearly, others disagr$$.

"I took Kaplan's Practice GRE today and got a very low combined score of 950 (V: 430 Q: 520) I'm very surprised by this score because I got a significantly high score on my SATs. I thought maybe Kaplan puts much harder questions on their practice tests so you pay for their tutoring courses. But whatever! I want to attend Georgetown's School of Foreign Service (security studies). I will also be applying to GWU, American and FSU. What are my chances? My GPA is a 3.3, I have interned at the police station for 4 years, the mayor's office for 3 years and I'm currently an intern at the secret service. I have great letters of recommendation and I think can pull off a pretty good SOP. Has anyone else taken one of these pracice tests and done better on their actual GRE test? Thank you all in advance" The Kaplan Diagnostic test (I'm assuming you're referring to the one on their site, which is not an actual computer adaptive test) is much harder than the real test as well as the Powerprep tests (which reflect the real test very closely). I would not worry so much about your score on the Kaplan test, but it is in your best interest to review the solutions so you can learn from them. My opinion about Kaplan is that the techniques they teach are very useful for saving time, especially on the math section, but it's best to be solid on the basics without relying on the tricks before you learn them. This requires a lot of memorization and integrating that memorization into problem solving by practice. Generally, though, I find Kaplan's items very difficult in a way that's useful since they set a lot of traps and require you to be at your sharpest. But, none of this helps if you've forgotten what voluble means or if you can't figure out the area of a sector. If vocabulary is weak, work on memorizing the words out of Barrons (any edition) -- this is prerequisite for raising your verbal score. Math needs drilling, especially if you've been out of math land for a while. My opinion is that you study the GRE quantitative section as if you were studying for the GMAT (which is said to be harder math than what's on the GRE). Also, the GRE Verbal is said to be quite a bit harder than the SAT verbal, so don't put too much stock in your SAT verbal score as a benchmark. You are going to need to learn new words of greater difficulty for the GRE. Because the test is computer adaptive, breadth and depth of vocabulary will make or break you. The antonyms analogies and sentence completions come first -- and if you get them all correct and even bomb the reading comprehension, you can still come out with a score in 90+ percentile; on the other hand, if your strength is reading comp but you've bombed the other parts of the test, then you are more or less toast. (Note bene: The structure of the GRE is said to be changing in 2011 and will be less vocabulary intensive). The rest of your stuff looks good but then, as you know, your SOP will probably prove most pivotal. Good luck.

"once you get out of the top-20, you start getting a lot more students who, as those on here have noted, have complex autobiographies. some simply can't move outside the county/region (meaning they'll probably end up at a CC). some never intended to get a job with their ph.d. some will move out of country and never be heard from again. some are well into their 40's when they entered grad school." So, you're saying that those with complex biographies ("mature students") are more likely to be discriminated against not only in the application process for Ph.D but also in searching for a job? If so, then, maybe this isn't discrimination per se but perhaps easily rationalized as "preference" for a certain age range...lol. "the folks in my program who fit the model of the average top-20 grad (under 34 when they get the ph.d., published, willing to do a national search, etc.) tend to get pretty good jobs. those who don't have fewer options" Horror upon horror: you're saying the top 20's tend to discriminate on age more than unranked schools who are less concerned about maintaining a high placement rate? It may seem that way and you're probably hitting on some realities in your analysis, but these realities have to be evaluated more closely...I'll offer my analysis, which is by no means complete, and hopefully others more knowledgable can add to it. I imagine that mature candidates who are close to publlishing level are just as a appealing (probably more appealing) than those younger candidates who are promising but still far off from publishing level. I imagine this is true no matter what the school's US News ranking may be (Yale or Some State U). However, given two candiates whose writing samples show a similar level of development, clearly it would make sense to invest in the 25 year old over the 45 year old. However, if the 45 year old shows evidence (in their sop/writing sample) that they're already producing great work, then it is easier to throw the 25 year old back in the water. I'm not arguing that schools have a special place in their heart for "mature students" but they all want to glorify their programs, and what better way to do that than admit someone who is polished over an applicant who needs to be nurtured? Another thing to consider is this: A lot of universities, and this is probably even more true for the big name ivy league institutions, get a lot of application from people going through a mid life change, who now "want to go to graduate school at..." These applicants have a B.A.. from 20 years ago, maybe in English, maybe in Biochemistry, but they've always loved English. Let's say they've got great test scores and undergrad GPA's...but they don't have a writing sample, so they have to come up with one or rewrite a term paper on Wordsworth from eons ago. They get recs from professors who reply to their requests with a "Yes, of course I remember you fondly." The recs that get written by these profs are indeed fondly boilerplate -- the letter devised from template that sits in a folder titled "recommendation letter from students who I don't recall." So, this is a student with great GRE scores, great GPA's, maybe decent writing sample and very impersonal recs (whether from celebrity profs on unknown profs, doesn't matter). This candidate will struggle to get into a top 20. What they'll likely end up doing is cry age discrimination -- but really what killed their application is dreamy SOP's ("When I first read Tennyson at age 5, I knew that..."), or LOR's from profs who have lost excitement about them even if that student showed exceptional promise several decades ago. Here I'm making a case for older applilcants with strong numbers, but then there are the mid lifers applying even without strong numbers in addition to all the problems associated with being out of academia for a long time while trying to get back in. It helps a lot to have some fairly recent rigorous work that can be shown in the sample' it's uphill unless this person has some professor guiding them...that is, it's harder for someone out of academia to put together a polished academic writing sample than it is for a younger applicant who is closer to the process of grinding out revisions. It may be programs outside the top 20 will be more likely to absorb those candidates with strong numbers who have unfocused SOP'S and undeveloped samples...and the one's with poor numbers may not get in anywhere. The main advantage younger applicants have is that they are fresh in the minds of their professors, and ergo they get strong 'alive' LOR's. But then, if an older applicant has been active, has an MA or did other relevant course work, has a strong sample and specific idea about why they want to get a Doctorate in Engllish, then they're on equal footing with someone in their twenties and maybe even with a slight advantage, given accrual of wisdom and life experience. But the older applicant needs to show off their focus which might not happen if this older candidate mistakenly thinks that GPA/GRE's are what will make or break them -- a logical, but wrong assumption. So, this is to say: I don't think top programs are akin to soap operas obsessed with casting for youth. Obviously, this was not what you meant to say, but wanted to look closer at some of the realities behind the numbers...this is a bit off topic, but relevant to the young and old applicants here (soul age, and number of earthly incarnations notwithstanding ;-).