shepardn7

Well, brace yourself: I received a 690V! And I understood right then that the lack of a "7" would instantaneously "demote" my score, even though it's only one question or so difference. It's just psychology. So frustrating to know I was only, like, one question away. So now you can even better understand my frustration with the test. Not only am I excluded from the 99th club, but also the 700 club (yikes, not THAT club, if you know anything about American televangelism...quite happy to be excluded from that club) as well. But you scored 720V, and you are in the same *percentile* as I (despite getting several more questions right, which is actually quite difficult if you consider test conditions), even though I don't get the shiny "7," and even though my practice tests said I would score above 700. The annoying thing: at my last question, I still had three minutes left! But I couldn't go back, as I could on a paper test, and retry any tricky questions I had previously rushed due to anxieties about time (mainly, I was worried about reading comp passages cropping up near the end). I'm pretty much over it, too, and decided not to retest because I know a 690V shouldn't keep me out of the running for good programs in my particular field, and also because the thought of giving ETS any more of my money made me sick to my stomach. Another $160 dollars? Yeah, right. Anyway, I realize how this blathering might look to a humanities student who scored under 600V ("woe is me, I didn't break 700, boohoo"), and all I want to say is that you're smart and ETS is terrible and no one will really care about your score if your writing sample and SOP are great. This is just me being insecure, because I really did want a 700+, and Powerprep lied.

Well, I feel similarly angry and frustrated about the entire ETS corporation, and the GRE test in particular. Honestly, I find the verbal section even more worthless than the AWA section, because of its arbitrariness (how, for example, taking a different test can mean a very different score) and the particular skill set required to excel in it. I knew every single word on the test, performed 40 points better on Powerprep, and yet I still got analogies and antonyms wrong, likely because I wasn't thinking "like them" instinctually, at least not at the "higher" levels. The timer ticking down freaked me out and caused me to rush through questions could have considered further, and possibly gotten correct. I didn't do poorly; I scored in the 97th percentile in the verbal and 94th in the writing (but I wrote "stock" essays on purpose, knowing the system beforehand! I'm in creative writing, but I wrote the most boring essays of my life). But that I feel terrible about my 97th not being 99th (like your amazing score!) speaks volumes about this test, and how it causes so much unnecessary anxiety while simultaneously being a relatively worthless indicator of potential. I've never felt so inadequate about my performance on something (with the exception of the SAT, maybe, and that one paper in college that I messed up), and yet I do not even consider the test valid. Why should I care this much about my perfectly "acceptable" 97th percentile score when every neuron firing in my brain finds gaping flaws in the test's ability to assess my (or anyone's) intellectual readiness for graduate school in the humanities? And yet, here I am, feeling sad I didn't get a 750V. Sigh. All I know: if I were on an admissions committee for the humanities, I would not count the test at all, because I find it inaccurate at best, and unethical at worst. /End rant!

Obviously, we can't diagnose you, but it's interesting that you do not get a "high" from the drug. I wonder why you don't. Is it possible you've had ADD for longer than you think? Sometimes learning disorders go unchecked and undiagnosed. But you also have to consider that all this might be your already-diagnosed clinical depression exacerbated by your waning interest in your demanding program (especially because you frame it as an issue of "getting out of bed and getting dressed," which is a problem of motivation and not attention). From the way you describe it, honestly, it doesn't sound like ADD. If I were as bored as you sound, I would also have trouble motivating myself and concentrating on the work. But I don't know you and am not qualified to make that call. Is there anyone you can see in your area who might be more receptive to your concerns? Someone who "believes" in adult ADD or ADHD and can agree to give you a test of some kind, just in case? I don't really know how any of this works, but I do think there must be someone out there with at least a neutral opinion on adult ADD who might take you seriously and help you figure out what's wrong, even if it's not ADD after all. Regardless, your current psychiatrist doesn't sound incredibly helpful and, at least judging from this exchange, she might not be the best fit for you (you sound unmotivated and depressed, not tired, and taking a bunch of caffeine pills isn't going to fix that.). But again, I don't know this person, your history with her, or how she has handled your therapy thus far. All I have to judge is the exchange you provide, and it doesn't sound like a very positive or constructive one, but that doesn't mean your overall relationship with her has not been positive or constructive.

I might be able to give a few brief comments if you PM it to me.

Is it a book review? FWIW, I know someone in a History Ph.D (not the program you're discussing), and he has to write 500-word book reviews for most of his courses. I think he usually has to write three or four 500-word reviews for each course. He found it difficult to write only 500 at first, but now he cranks them out with his eyes closed. So it sounds as if they might be testing your ability to do such assignments because they'll be required of you in your courses? Also, I don't know how long published reviews of historical books usually are, but that might be the standard length in the field?

Honestly, I think this is a blessing in disguise. I do not think you want them to see your 520Q, which has a very low percentile rank (that I'm in, by the way, but I'm in the arts so it's quite different). It's better if it seems you received 630Q right from the start.

Thank you for that! Looks like it's the same as MLA.

Thanks. I'm not a member so I can't access the page, unfortunately. A handout via Google search says MLA rules = provide a "full line" of ellipses, so I wonder if Chicago is the same.

I converted my paper to Chicago because I wanted to use endnotes. I've never used Chicago before (only MLA), but it seems more suited to endnotes. I was quoting so much that it looked messy with all the parentheticals (on top of the parentheticals I already had, anyway). One rather annoying thing I just realized is that I probably need to go back to all the excerpted poems and find the line numbers? I forgot you need to cite the lines, too. Also, can someone tell me what I'm supposed to do when I want to block quote a poem but eliminate some irrelevant lines? Where do you position the ellipses? Is it like this: This is a line of a poem. The poem is not very poetic. It's only a little sarcastic. . . . I am very tired of revising my paper. But you get the point, yes? To indicate the omission, do you center the ellipses or left-align them? Or is neither way correct?

Forget the AWA. Seriously, it won't matter, especially since you've scored in the 99th percentile in the verbal section. If you got a 4, I will say this right now: it does not matter. I say this so you won't come back here (like so many others with high verbal scores) having a heart attack over it. You done good, kid.

Yes, but you can't stop the timer. So you should really only take that 10 minute break between the essays and the first multiple choice section.

Can you retake? I'm sure the professor was only talking about the quant score, not the verbal one (which actually might be approaching 80th percentile). I'm sure you could approach 80th for the math with some rigorous studying and practicing. But I do think a prestigious fellowship would (should!) be more important than your GRE score!

I studied for about two-and-a-half or three months, but I felt that much of the stuff I had studied 9-12 weeks prior generally didn't stick with me. The previously unfamiliar literary terms, for whatever reason, stayed with me forever. I had never heard of a zeugma, but the second I read an example of one, it was entrenched in my mind. But many of the novel character names, and which Canterbury character told which story beyond the big ones (like Wife of Bath, Nun's Priest), and the real people to whom the characters of "Absalom and Achitophel" corresponded ... all that was, like, pretty much gone by test time and I had to re-review. Granted, it was somewhat easier to remember what I'd already encountered, but I did feel that I would have gotten the same score had I begun studying only a month in advance. Oh man, just thinking about all the worthless trivia I knew. So frustrating.

I used a quote to open mine, too. But, like augustquail's, it is also highly relevant and I talk about it for the rest of the opening paragraph. You can PM it to me if you want.

Wow, this thread old, but have to comment... However, I can't see myself fitting in with a cohort that consists of a bunch of third-generation top-tier college kids, trust-fund offshoots, and the kind of kids that the author of this article describes. I went to a "lower level" Ivy -- I'll leave it at that to protect my anonymity), and I was a first-generation (though white) female student from a lower-middle-class family. My experience of the community was not as you describe above. Many of my friends took out loans (I did, too), and some were working part-time to help pay expenses, and some were theater geeks, and some (of course) were more business-oriented. My boyfriend, though not a first-gen (though his parents went to low-tier state schools), came from one of the poorest towns our state. One of my pre-med roommates from a middle-class family worked hard as a waitress during the school year. I don't think I had a single friend with a trust fund, though they certainly existed, as did third-gen students and students from rich families. But I also had friends from upper-middle-class families, and they were great, so-called "real" (see below), down-to-earth people. I even had a friend with a connection to the school via a parent, and this friend is the one of the most down-to-earth people I know. It's not as if these schools are cesspools of classism. It exists, as it does at all private schools, but it's not as oppressive as you would think. Keep in mind these are research universities with multiple colleges, not small liberal arts colleges, which means there are lots of students, and all of them doing different things with their lives. It's very easy to avoid the "good old boys (and girls)" and make friends from all walks of life. It's also easy to avoid frat-life or its equivalent, simply because the schools are so large. but that the kind of people the Ivy League accepts are mostly those who have been best conditioned to favor correct answers over interesting ones. While many people I know did have good test scores and grades, I was accepted to an Ivy with a sub-1200 SAT combo, a C+ in a math course, and an excellent admissions essay. I'm also in the extremely practical and uncreative field of creative writing. Basically: I could not be further from the type of person you expect me to be, having gone to the school I did. I think you are right about prep high schools, but, while elite, those aren't colleges -- it's very different. I would say that my Ivy League education only further inspired and encouraged my creative endeavors, not stifled them. make friends with REAL people, Oh yes, you can only be a REAL person if you go to a non-prestigious state school. Just as only REAL Americans live on minimum wage in the midwest and are sure to read their Bibles before bed, while all the fake Americans live in NYC and Los Angeles with the gays and the atheists. I think you can make your point without implying that people who attended "elite" schools are somehow not "real" or worth your friendship. You don't strike me as the kind of person who would buy that social-conservative rhetoric, so why speak it yourself? the box of an ivy Not even close to a "box." How could you possibly make such a judgment about years of educational experience you declined? Have you forgotten that you did not, in fact, attend the school, and that you could have easily have had an equally (or even more) positive experience there? That you might have evolved artistically there, too? I had more intellectual and creative freedom and engagement than I could dream of in school, and my professors were more encouraging than ever when I came to them with creative endeavors. I really had a wonderful, warm, and stimulating educational experience at my "fancy" school. I don't doubt, however, that I could have had a similar experience and grown in similar ways if I had attended my non-prestigious state school, simply because I can't accurately speak for experiences I never had. The point: I agree with glasses's commentary. I think we can speak to the value of attending a non-elite school (there are many) without acting as if an education from an elite school is somehow deficient ("the box of an Ivy," brb, laughing forever), or that the students at such schools are not worth knowing for X or Y reason. JFC.

They will not care. Not even a little bit. They will care only a very little bit about your verbal score, which is obviously astronomical. The program at Yale wants to graduate rockstar scholars, not good test-takers; no Lit professor would fall in love with your writing sample and ideas but take issue with your AW score. If you get rejected from those programs, it is because your writing sample and statement didn't make the cut, or because there is no one to advise you despite their (your) amazingness. So focus on those, and on fit. Think about it this way: knowing the nature and conditions of the test, and then knowing the skills being a lit scholar requires, would you care?

They don't send the sample essays to the university. I'm pretty sure of this, though you can call and ask to put your mind at ease.

I don't understand what people mean when they say you need to go to a "Top 20" school to get a job in History or any humanities field. Are they strictly talking about US News rankings from 2005? What if you go fully-funded to a place ranked, like, 45 by USN but have a rockstar who will "push" for you? Are you screwed because you didn't get your grad degree from an Ivy or equivalent? I'm confused, but curious about how it works for History in particular.

There is no way to really survive on $18K in NYC unless you suffer various inconveniences, like maybe living with several roommates in a very tiny apartment and/or living relatively far away from school. NYC MFA programs are the same way; they have good reputations and good faculty, but many students receive poor stipends or none at all; they bank on their rep and the allure of the city instead.

I could be wrong, but I do think mentioning "scholars" might be more neutral than "theorists." It's just subtler. If you're doing work on an author whose horse has technically been beaten, it might actually be necessary to mention scholars just to ground your place in the discourse. Like, if you're a Joyce scholar, mentioning a particular scholar(s)' respected book(s) that has influenced your own research on Joyce is different than dropping big-tent names like Derrida or Kristeva. While people don't generally have immediate aversions to certain Joyce scholars (though I'm sure those people exist in small numbers?), there are some people who might have an immediate averse reaction to a certain "theorist" like Derrida and/or a certain "-ism." However, if you are truly and zealously wedded to a theorist and or theoretical "school," you might want to mention it anyway? Because you also have to think about "fit" and how advisors will receive your work once you're there. I think maybe you just want to be careful about dropping names, and that the subtler approaches described below (like, talking about your methodology with precision and verve, implying your theoretical bent without jumping out and screaming it) are best.

That's what I thought, though when I was searching the board, someone said ETS told him they'd send Oct 2005 scores until July 2011. So that's why I'm asking if people have received scores from past dates along with their new scores on the report.

I took the test sometime in the autumn of 2005, and retook it earlier this month because I wanted to improve my scores and wasn't sure if the scores would expire. I received my scores in the mail today, and the earlier date is not listed. Does this mean they won't be sending those scores at all? I'd prefer they don't, anyway. Just checking to see if all previous reportable dates were included on the score report received 10-15 days post-testing. Thanks.

I'm in the same boat as you, except I barely studied (just went over some formulae and did a practice section), and got a 510 instead of a 530. I'm fine with it, really, because I know it doesn't matter to the school to which I'm applying (plus, my verbal is good enough to break the 1200 barrier). Are you in the humanities? Your math score is probably good enough if you are. If you need to retake for your field or to meet a certain minimum for admission, my only advice (which is probably unhelpful) is to remember that it's not testing just formulae and general knowledge but mathematical "logic." There's some reasoning involved, just as in the verbal problems, and some tricks. To finish all the problems in time, you often need to take the appropriate shortcuts and/or apply several concepts in succession, as well as spot their attempts at subterfuge. Clearly, I didn't master this, but you can train yourself if you're motivated. Rather than spending so much time with the prep books, it might be better to get your hands on everything ETS-branded and do all the problems therein (Powerprep, but also any paper tests online or in books), so you can still practice the concepts, but also get a better feel for the kind of thinking ETS expects of you? Always do practice sections under test conditions, too, so you can see how you need to pace yourself. And no matter how much you're worried about time, always check your work. I know I tend to make stupid mistakes (like add wrong because I'm rushing), and as the PR book says, you don't get points for doing the work correctly; one misstep is a lost point.

Tina, that guy is incredibly unprofessional and should lose his job. You should also be allowed to retake, but since you can't before due dates (April is a long time away), I understand why you'd want to let it go and be done with the test. Still, you might want to say something out of principle, even if you don't want to retake. You paid well over one hundred dollars to take this test; some guy shouldn't be taking it from you, being loose with the time, etc. My proctor was a nice, young, somewhat nerdy guy who was professional and gave us a 20 min warning (though we also had a big clock in the front of the room). But here is why I think you should complain: if you had taken an extra five or so minutes on the test after time was called, your test would likely be thrown out, right? Because the time is supposed to be the time, and is the most challenging part of the test; even an extra sixty seconds can get you two extra points. Well, in my room, a woman had her test book open and was presumably working eight minutes after time was called, and the nice-guy proctor got (rightfully) mad and told her he had to report her. I don't know what she was thinking. I mean, he announced it loudly and we were all talking loudly as he was collecting books. By eight minutes post-call, she should have known by all the bustle, but I don't know if it was purposeful because wouldn't she have hid it when he came close enough to see? Totally weird. If you lost even five minutes on this test due to proctor negligence, your proctor should get in trouble, just as that woman will. It should go both ways. But I think I hate ETS more than most, and think they don't respect their customers at all, so.

"I actually threw my hands up when I saw the editor question. How absurd. The theorists also threw me off a little bit because of how closely some of the passages were related." Yes, they were mean and gave us two related theorists (theorist X and and then theorist who's an X-ian). I'm pretty sure I chose the correct one in that case (having not read the works), but it forced me to read the passage rather than look for the word clue. I think I got 3 out of 4 in that section. There was one theory question I didn't know (one of the "Who wrote this?" questions) and left blank; I should have put my guess after eliminating the other 4 answers, but again played it safe because I guess that's my style (hoping it pays off in few wrong answers). I think I got most of the grammatical and literary terms questions correct. If I didn't, I'm screwed, but those came easiest to me. I think I'm just frustrated because I honestly recognized very few passages that I had ever read in school at all -- in any school, from HS to undergrad to grad. I think there might have been one or two out of all of them. And so it seems wrong of ETS to act as if this test is meant to test how well undergrad prepared you for grad school. Some of those I didn't recognize were obvious to me (certain poets) based on style, and others based on content. But there were definitely some that threw me for a loop, and that was frustrating. I made a couple bold guesses for those. I keep vacillating about how low my score can go. I already think I've got about five wrong in my head. I don't know how anyone waits to find out by mail; I want to know now. Let's just get it over with and rip the band-aid.