milestones13

I'm guessing that the way the GRE is structured is the reason your scores are not high enough for this particular program...(GRE=sort of an SAT but not meant to be an SAT structure). If the GRE were structured like the GMAT, where verbal and math got coupled into one scaled score, then you'd definitely fall well within the top 10%. But I guess what this program may have done is average the two scores so that arithmetic mean (in GRE parlance) of your two scores in V and Q falls below the 90%ile threshold. Let's say you scored 640 Verbal (91st percentile) and 780 math (89%Ile), then, according to their method (which I'm making assumptions on), you probably would have made the cut, despite a 1420 combined which is less than your 1450. How this program is evaluating scores is not consistent with the way in which the GRE is structured (where ESL students have to learn foreign words and non math people have to dust off old math text books). It is also very possible that they expected top 10% score in both V and Q -- and that would mean 790 quant. I'm going to bet that your subject test and analytical writing scores were not given any weight at all...which is pretty typical for scholarship programs that only really care about Q and V. Their method for evaluating your scores was not good, but then, not good for everyone equally. In any event, your scores are great and for university wide fellowships, I believe the combined scaled scores (not the averaged percentile score) is what's taken into account.

Interesting thread. I'm applying next year so it's fascinating to read people's perspectives. One thing: Can we quantify what is meant by "too good to admit" based on GPA/GRE or prestige of undergrad institution or, is it, as some have maintained, a subjective matter of SOP's/LOR writing samples that determine applicant quality? From what I can tell, the subjective plays a big role and numbers far less than, say, law school...but still they are far from irrelevant. My guess is there is a reasonably high correlation between the numbers and the level of the qualitative aspects of an application. At the top of the applicant pool we might something like this: 3.9 from Ivy, 99%ile verbal, LOR's from professors who state emphatically "one of the most gifted students to come through our program in years..." Other subjective aspects of application likely corroborates such sublimity...but in just as many cases it's not as clearcut (or, at least, there will be reason for disagreement). Here we have a fictional conversation at mid-ranked ranked institution over an on-paper scholastic superstar: Committee member #1: "I just don't see justifying an admit here. X's writing sample really drags and statement is very unfocused." CM#2: "Not a strong writing sample, I agree. Too much reliance on secondary sources. The prose is clunky." CM#3 "I find the application extremely strong overall, and sample to be quite promising. I really think X will blossom here." CM#1: "I respectfully disagree. I'd much rather give an offer to Y who we reviewed yesterday, who will most likely consider our offer with greater interest than X." CM#3: "I don't see the point in throwing away a brilliant application like X's in favor of an applicant like Y." CM#2" "I think X is a definite pass. Let Harvard knock themselves out with X." (Chuckles around the room, except from a miffed CM #3 who wants his/her promising scholastic superstar.) In other words, you might have committee members view "super star" applicants as completely over-rated based on subjective criteria, mainly SOP/WS. This confounds the "too good to admit" notion because certain members of the committee (not dazzled by the numbers) are essentially saying "no there, there." I'm sure there are huge disagreements on this issue with some cm accusing others (politely, I assume) of being blinded by numbers while other cm's see others as being too driven by subjective criteria like SOP/WS. Now for a fictional conversation at an Ivy over applicant X: 620 verbal, 3.2 GPA at unranked institution. Strong rec's but not glowing. CM#1: "X's sample is exceptional. I think we need to consider this applicant further. CM#2: "Agree with you. Wonderful sample. Plus, very focused and a convincing statement. What a find!" CM#3: "Some nice writing, but I just don't think X has the level of intellectual horsepower to flourish here based on what I see." CM#1: "Oh...well." CM#2: "I think X addressed those concerns in the statement very convincingly." CM#3 (Shakes head and sighs) "X can address it all day long but...I really do not see a fit here at Ivyland U for X. Neither X's grades nor X's GRE scores indicate the requisite level of --" CM#2: (Growing a bit testy): "The fit is evident -- in the writing sample!" CM#1: (Moderating tone): "I understand your concerns CM#3. I'm putting X aside to discuss later. Let's move on to applicant Y..."