cherubie

Donny, if you don't mind me asking, why did you applied to I/O, rather than cognitive (where you mentioned most people with your experience would apply)? Did you applied to both programs, or only I/O?

Does anyone have any other input? There are tons of info out there for clinical psych, and comparatively sparse for I/O. Donny, thanks for your replies, but on one hand, you mentioned that it's the GRE and grades that matter, but on the other hand you also said that you're the "exception". My GRE score is decent and my grades are as well (the overall average is okay, but that was mostly due to my pre-med classes in the first 2 years). Plus, I'm happy at my job right now (full time RA in a psych, non I/O lab) so it's not feasible for me to quit or try to find another one or to go volunteer. Oh well...

Thank you for that reply. I actually have been wanting to go the clinical psych route for some time, and recently developed an interest in I/O. But of course, I am still in the process of finding out more about it. If you don't mind, what is considered "good" stats? Do the other students in your cohort also not have any I/O research, or are you kind of the exception? Finally (sorry for all the questions!), do schools expect the student to narrow down the subfield of I/O when they apply? Thank you again.

I've been trying to see if I can dig up any information on this, but haven't been very successful. If this specific topic has been addressed, please redirect me. Now to my question: What kind of research is "research experience" for I/O Psychology referring to? I'm new to this field (as you can tell), and have plenty of research experience, but I definitely do not work for a corporation, neither have I ever been in HR. As for my own research experience, they include: behavioral psychology, lab-bench cancer and neuroscience research, and most significantly, my current job, which is in a cognitive neuroscience lab with research in relation to emotions and physiology. Now NONE of these are related to I/O research. Everywhere I've read, I see that research experience is one of the most important criteria, but most either says "psych research" or just "research". So is the type of research I have now what they're referring to, are they talking about ANY psychology-related research, or IO research specifically? If anything, the main "relevant" experience related to IO is that I have been recruiting, training, and overseeing undergraduate (and any other new, below phD level people) in the lab. Thanks everyone!

I think this is the case too. I've always "heard" of data entry but never had to do one (again, even as a high school student working in an oncology lab) until I got to my current lab. The difference is that my current lab is a social science lab, whereas the other ones were more microbio labs. I'm not sure about engineering labs though. Overall, data entry is literally entering data, usually numbers, into the computer. To me, it's not really research at all...it's just free labor. But apparently, I'm the only one who thinks so. However, coming from a hard science background, my opinion is not the same as those coming from a social science/psychology background. They think that data entry is kind of the right of passage for these students. In order to get your foot in the door, you NEED to accept the fact that you're going to be doing mundane non-research tasks before you can given something else. When there are no undergrads around, I or the grad students would need to do the data entry, but we are not expected to do it.

Sadly, we don't really get our own "projects" per se. We basically leech of mountain of collected data, do a bunch of data mining and see who can come up with what.

Since the last GA left, I kind of took over the role of "managing" the undergrads, and is still actively very involved with them now. In the past, I loved interacting with them (rather than sitting at a computer looking at numbers) and just developing a friendly, but professional, relationship with them in general. I never really had problems, since many of them were hard-working and tended to catch onto things pretty fast. Well, students come and go, so we took on a new batch of students since then. For some reason, I'm usually dissatisfied about their work ethics now with the new ones. They either lie about their hours, half-a*s their work, or simply are just....not very intelligent and don't get things. Usually, the grad students (not to mention the researchers) don't give a hoots about undergrads. They're seen as free work forces to do the grunt work of the lab. Anything that is time consuming, tedious, and boring and really has nothing to do with research gets pushed to them. We put them through this application and interview process as if they're getting an important job, but then the lab sees them more as robots. It's THEIR job to shine through. So I guess that's where I come in. I'm not used to that. I went to a huge research university, and was NEVER treated in any way less than a part of a lab. I was always assigned ACTUAL projects and honestly have never done any database entry or grunt work until I got here. Granted, this is a human subjects lab vs. a microbio lab but still. So I try my best to incorporate them into things that will actually be worthwhile, and try to teach them skills so they can take away something from this experience being in the lab. But lately, it's been bothering me since I feel like I'm going above and beyond my job to help THEM and they're kind of taking it for granted. I'm not asking them to kiss the ground I walk on, or even be my friend, but at least TRY to get what I'm saying, TRY to remember what I teach. There's one kid who doesn't take notes when I teach him something, and doesn't seem to remember what I say either. I'm at the brink of just stop teaching him anything and relegating him to just database entry. But then I feel bad, because I feel like they're volunteering THEIR time for FREE, they should be treated better. Okay, now after my rant. How are undergrads treated at other labs? Nobody else seems to have any qualms with treating them this way, only I do it seems. Is it worth it for me to try to help them?

Yea...that pretty much sums it all up. I got one of the first 10 questions, then like 2 or 3 more randomly littered questions throughout the whole Quant section (one question I spent 7 minutes on and got it wrong lol) and still racked up an 800Q. So no, you don't need to get the first 20 correct, and if you get 1 of them wrong, it's not doomsday for the GRE. As far as easy/hard questions, my diagnostic shows those were all over the place. I jumped from a level 4 (or 5, whatever's the highest) to a level 2 then continue with a couple 2-3 then to 5 again. It probably varies on the person. But in GENERAL, I feel that if you start seeing statistics questions [not just probability, I mean stats 101 stuff], you're doing pretty well.

Absolutely agree with this. Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you want to look at it), this is in the ideal situation. In most normal situations, people dedicate at least 2 months time to study for the test, and possibly thousands of dollars in test prep. companies. GENERALLY, scoring high on the verbal means you're well-read and have a broad vocabulary, but in some extreme cases, it simply means you sat there for hours memorizing thousands of words. I have honestly read about 3 novels in the past 5 years (and I didn't even finish 2 of them ), and my vocabulary is mediocre at best. I memorized 3000+ words and took the test and scored in the (insert high number) percentile for verbal. On the other hand, someone who loves to read may score the same thing without ever actually having to memorize anything. Is this fair, and does it REALLY measure how "well-read" you are? Barely. But that's the flaw of this exam, that everyone knows what's on it, how to study for it. The only difference is whether someone is WILLING to study. To me, if anything, the GRE measures how hard you're willing to work. I truly believe that if you're willing to work hard enough, anyone can ace the GRE. Although this is in no way measuring intelligence, but it does separate the overachiever from the normal students. If I were an adcom, I'd much rather take a hard-working moderately intelligent student than a lazy, nonchalant genius.

Isn't this also based on how your undergraduate institution does it? With the exception of law and medical school, I haven't heard of other graduate schools "uncovering" retakes. On my transcript, I retook organic chemistry, the first one is marked with an R and only the second grade shows.

Hey, if you're getting interviews, I bet you're doing better than a lot of people who scored higher than you (GRE wise). Don't worry about it, seems like you're mid application cycle so even if you worry, it's not going to change or help anything. It may hurt you more since it may distract you from showing the positive aspects of your application. For the "all over the board" comment, I'm not an adcom, but as long as you have a cohesive explanation, I'm sure it's fine. I'm applying next cycle, and I'm looking at cognitive science, neuroscience, as well as psych departments. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Seriously, was it necessary to write a whole paragraph recalling your high school writing skills and how that's not reflected in the "subjectively graded portion" of your gre? Apparently, your AP English Composition teacher's subjective opinion of you differs from those of the people (and computer) who graded your AWA portion. I'm not sure if you've worked with grad students before, but your attitude is going to get crushed in grad school.

I've been with this particular lab for exactly a year. Recently, I just finished my GRE and is currently in the process of researching schools for the next cycle, etc. I was promised (or told, rather) back in January that I would be "promoted" to a full time position soon. At first, they said it was 5 weeks, then now they say they don't know since HR has a new system . Basically, I was given a very vague answer, and was told I'd get an "hourly raise" instead. Obviously, I'm not happy with this because I still have AT LEAST another year until I actually matriculate, and during this time, I still need to pay the bills, buy food, things that require money. Now my main question is: If you were me, would you stick it out or would you look for an actual full time position? As it stands, I have no benefits. I have no health insurance. [Edit: I'm not under my husband's health benefits from his job.] For the past year, my husband has been paying the rent and have been very patient with my financial situation, but I didn't go to college just to mooch off my husband. I'm debating whether I should apply for another job, of course, one related to my future career goal (I'm not going to quit the lab and be a waitress for the next 2 years). But I worry that it won't look good for me to only be at a lab for a year, then quit, and join another. I've always thought that it's better to have a long term commitment to a few things than to dabble in many things for a short time. HOWEVER, with that said, I do need to actually LIVE until I matriculate. I don't live with my parents, and although my husband won't kick me out, I'm turning 24, I really don't want to depend on someone to pay the rent for me. Oh yea, and to add to my frustration, I'm pretty much doing 3 people's work for 1 person's pay. I take care of almost every little detail around the lab as an RA. For example, I worked 6 hours, didn't take a break, didn't even have time to eat today on top of having the flu. While other full-time paid graduate assistants sit around doing their classwork and then occasionally coming to me for tiny insignificant questions. They're driving me crazy (I even wrote a post on here about it) and my only redemption is telling myself I'm going to get paid full time. But now that that's out the window, it seems, I really don't think I should be working so hard. Plus, I feel like my PI is playing around with me. It's not that she CAN'T hire me, she seems more like she doesn't want to, since it costs a lot more money for full time than hourly (since hourly's have no benefits). What would you do?

One is a first year, another is a 2nd year. My biggest problem is not that they don't know what's going on (it's understandable, thus I've been extremely patient with them). My problem is that they don't know the stuff, don't care to learn, don't care to ADMIT they don't know, and tries to act like they know everything. Everyone has to start SOMEWHERE, the stuff we do at the lab is pretty obscure and very hard to understand, so that's fine. But again, i have to make appointments with them JUST to show them something? Then I have to go and REMIND them that it's time, and on top of that, they don't listen and don't remember ANYTHING I tell them. The last straw for me was (again), when I spent an hour explaining a very very basic concept, only to have him tell me "I'm gonna need you to write that down for me". I literally wanted to punch him in the face. I made it VERY clear that if there are questions, stop and ask. I even said "you may want to take notes". Seriously, if a professor explains something, do you raise your hand and go "I didn't get ANY of that, and I didn't take any notes, will you type it up for me?" THEN AFTER I typed down like 3 lines of what I did, he went, "you definitely did more than that". #$#@# WHAT THE....?!!! Anyways, I've decided I'm going to go on and do my own thing. Again, I'd rather take on too many responsibilities than to not have any. I don't want to leave this lab and tell grad school committees that all I did was followed directions. At least at this point, I can confidently say that i was in charge of training undergrads, AND grad students on top of other things I did. I already told my immediate supervisor (not the PI) that I did my job in training the students, I'm done with them. As far as how much they remember or how competent they feel, I don't know, but I've showed them everything. It's up to them to do the stuff now. I'm not going to come to them and tell them "hey I have something to show you, do you have some time?" anymore, rather I'd just tell them you have to do so and so. If they ask how or when, I'd just say that we already went over that, and if you have questions, ask the supervisor. I'm talking about 30 year olds here, not 5th graders. There's no way I need to constantly re-explain the same concept to some snotty grad student (sorry, not all grad students are this way of course).

I definitely agree with everyone, and thanks for telling your own experience of grad students. Nyhn: You're right, I don't really expect grad students to order me around. I guess I'm used to it from undergrad and other labs where I was working directly under a grad student, essentially, he/she was my immediate boss. LKJ: Yeap, these are graduate RA's. When I say "coursework" I mean reading chapters assigned by their professors (not the PI), then summarizing them, or whatever. Basically, work that has to do with classes, not related to the lab. I do understand that a grad student is expected to stay in the lab AND get their classwork done. But again, it's not a matter of whether or not they're busy, it's a matter of am I doing THEIR job for them (while they're getting paid full time haha). To my understanding, students are allowed to do their own classwork in lab, as long as they get their sh*t done first, my PI didn't hire them to do homework. riceandbeans: It sounds like what happened to you is exactly what has been happening to me. In the beginning, I wanted to learn more and more, so as more responsibilities got piled up, I took them on with zeal. However, I was also told that that was a "temporary" situation while one of the grad student was transitioning from being part time to being a full time GA. Also, I do write up SOPs like you mentioned. I use them all the time for myself because everything requires SO MANY details, getting one of them wrong gets you the stare of death from people. I send these same SOPs to the grad students. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of them? I come from an undergrad institution where hard work is taken for granted. No one slacked off, I worked my butt off, no partying or anything, for the last 4 years, and so did all my peers. I'm also used to the notion of well...motivation. Everyone in my undergrad was extremely motivated and was a go-getter, we didn't need people to tell us to do stuff in order to do it. Anyways, I digress. Back to the students. Again, I think I'm expecting a wee bit too much out of them. I thought that someone who wants to dedicate the next 7 years of their life learning this stuff, then the rest of their life working on it, would AT LEAST read protocols people send them. When I go to show them something that BUILDS on top of something I had showed them THEN write up a SOP and sent it to them, it's painfully obvious that they didn't read it. I would start my sentence with "As you might remember...." and I glance over and their faces are , except it has some aspects of horror and "what is this stuff" written on their forehead. It's THAT frustrating. Also, the reason why I seem so knowledgeable is because I work extremely closely with one of the researchers who actually runs the experiment. I re-wrote the protocol for/with her, thus I pretty much know the experiment inside and out. I also like to watch things, so I learned a lot from there. The students, they probably never read the experimental protocol since they don't know which part comes first or last. It's pretty sad. I would love to talk to my PI, but she's so detached from the minutia of every day running of the lab, I'm not sure if she'll care. I get this sense that around the lab, as long as things get done, it doesn't matter who does it. Plus, I don't think it'll change anything since this is part of MY responsibility anyway. The researcher is even hesitant to ask the grad students to do something because they always do it wrong (or half ass it), so they always come to me, fully knowing the students aren't doing squat.

Sorry I didn't make it clear. I <b>started out</b> volunteering, but got paid several months later, albeit on an hourly basis right now (going on full time, but need the paperworks/HR process to get done). The lab I'm at is pretty unique, I think (based on your reply). I've only worked at microbio labs before, which are VERY different than the one I'm at, so honestly, I have no idea what is the norm. But anyways, the lab I'm at has one "head PI" who doesn't actually do any experimenting, she mostly does grant writing, IRB stuff, write papers, and "bigger picture" stuff. Then under her are several researchers who are assistant professors, they are not PI's, but they are well-established researchers (not post-docs). Then we have a post-doc, who is very knowledgeable since they started at the lab when the lab first got going. Then there are 2 grad students, then there's me (a staff RA), then unpaid undergrads. <br><br>The thing that I think is unique about this lab is that we don't have... individual projects running. There is a HUGE experiment, with a grant of $1M+, collaborations with other teams, and the "experiment" itself spans 5 years, and is obnoxiously theoretical and complicated. So no one really has "their own" experiment, it seems like there's ONE experiment, then everyone kind of taking the data collected and then picking out pieces to write papers on. It almost seems to me like the lab is more about writing papers than actual experiments sometimes. Thus, the grad students don't have their OWN experiment, they can do data analysis on a PART of an experiment, but the current one we're running is 2 years in the making. So when I said I explain experiments to them, I mean this one huge experiment we're running. I try to explain basic things, like how the experiment is set up, what coding is for what, etc. <br><br>What you described sounds much more like the typical labs I've been in. Thus this is where my frustration comes in. I don't consider myself to be unintelligent, but I would expect grad students to be telling ME what to do, or at least teaching ME something, not the reverse. It gets to the point where the grad students comes to me to ask simple subject scheduling questions, and wants my "confirmation/opinion". Yes, it's a boost of confidence, but it also makes me think I'm working with monkeys. <br><br>Additionally, the students don't seem ONE BIT interested in the experiment themself. When we interview undergrads, they literally take up 40 minutes, talking about nonsense. They go on about themselves, how they got into grad school, and about THEIR life. I've had numerous interviewees or students telling me that they got nothing out of talking to the grad students. At this point, I'm not even going to even try to initiate training them anymore. <br><br>I'm sticking with this lab though even if you said it's not a good one, since I'm applying this coming cycle, and I really don't want to start over at another one. Plus, I will certainly make it clear either in my interview or my statement that I'm pretty much the RA AND the coordinator around here. Just the simple fact that I'm able to multitask and work on 4 things at once is something I definitely took away from this lab. The only downside is again, I get so caught up in doing everything that i don't have time for paper writing or I don't have a "project" to work on. <div><br></div><div>I do understand and agree that grad students have more on their hand than someone who works 8 hours a day and have no other obligations. BUT classwork is NOT part of the lab. If they were doing their job at lab and did their classwork at home or in their free time, no problem. But it seems like that's ALL they do at lab, and everything else is for me. When I used to study for the GRE, I didn't do that at lab and then complain to say I'm "behind" in my studying.&nbsp;</div>

Sorry for the LONGG post, feel free to skip around haha. Okay, so this question has been bothering me for the last year or so. I'm currently a post-bachelors research assistant at a relatively big psychology lab. When I first started, there was only 1 grad student, and no RA (I don't think we had the money to afford both). The grad student did pretty much everything, from setting up for experiments, to recruiting subjects, to reading papers and attending conferences. The only problem is that he did everything half-assed, and created more of a headache for the lab than actually getting work done. That's when I came in, started volunteering there and got "trained" to do typical RA things (I think, this is my first human subjects lab, so I don't know). So, at first what I did is set up for experiments, recruit subjects, conduct interviews, data entry, post-data collection analysis/cleaning. THEN eventually, when the grad student left the lab, I also took over what I thought were his roles- managing undergrad students, training new people, being in charge of mini-projects (not experiments) here and there, literature search, and trying to kind of do some data analysis for a paper (which went nowhere since results were not interesting). I thought that many of my responsibilities are also shared by grad students, ESPECIALLY managing the undergrads. But as of now (a year after), I feel like I'm doing everything and anything. I'm completely fine with this, since it's good for the rec letter and I'm gaining a lot from it. However, I'm not the type of person who will do other people's work without reward. If it's MY job, I'll be glad to do it, but if it's some other person's, no way am I that nice. The grad students in the lab always act like they're so "busy" and walk around as if they're so important, but in reality, they don't know anything about the experiment we're running. They don't know anything about the students, or what to do with them. When I'm not there, the students basically sit there and do their homework. I have to explain to the grad students MULTIPLE TIMES about background info on the experiment, and what is going on. Now, these are Ph.D. track and Psy.D. track students. It seems like all they do is try to write papers (I'm not sure how since they don't even know what the experiment consists of) and doing their own coursework in the lab. Sorry for the long post, but is this normal? I'm getting peeved about this because I was told that they SHOULD get involved with the experiments as much as they can, since they're ultimately going to need to write papers on it. I have to make appointments with them in order to show them how to do something (one of the grad student joined us half a year ago, another has been there before me), and when I do, they seem so disinterested and bored. They think that everything I'm showing them is tedious (which it can be, but it needs to get done) and don't seem to care. One even had the audacity to tell me that "time is precious" and he doesn't want to sit down and learn something again for 2 hours and he's "already behind on things". [This is AFTER me taking out an hour to explain something to him that should've taken only 10 minutes. While I was explaining things, he just stared at the computer screen, and then at the end said that I needed to explain it again cus he didn't get any of it....I didn't realize that training someone required spoon feeding him, and taking notes for him also. He acted as if it was my pleasure to sit there with him or something.] I can't imagine what he's behind on except coursework (not part of the lab) since he doesn't even do much with the lab itself (other than paper and conference I think). While on my end, I'm literally running around all day at work, getting things done. I would love to write papers too, but I have no time because everything else takes up all day. Now if you're thinking that I don't have as much training as them in order to write papers, I'd disagree. This is my 3rd lab, and I have a BA, just as the first year Ph.D. student does. The only difference between me and him is that I haven't applied yet to grad school. So, what is your experience, does this sound like I'm doing 3 people's work, or are grad students basically there to look smart and write papers? I want to bring this up to the PI but don't want to seem petty.

Yeap, I definitely agree with cami. Of course, when you have (hypothetically) 5 spots, and 100 applicants pretty much identical, it's a crapshot. My fiance's brother was part of a hiring committee for a very prestigious finance firm (sorry, I didn't study business so I don't even know what the department is called), and he literally threw papers up in the air and the one that landed next to him was the one who got a second look. I don't think grad schools are the same, of course (or at least I hope not!). I honestly didn't mean to say that perfect record means you're bad. Of course not. I meant that a perfect record often makes me take a second look at the student's OTHER aspects. Obviously, I'm not going to reject an applicant simply because he/she has a 4.0, but it doesn't guarantee a shoe-in either. Additionally, I meant MOST perfect students (not all) can't seem to function without instructions (literally, they sit there and wait for someone to come over even for the slightest issue). This does not mean that if you're straight-A that it automatically makes you so. Of course, someone who is able to make A's AND have internships AND volunteer AND isn't some kind of anti-social psycho is a very very strong applicant. Lastly, the whole politics thing definitely makes sense. I've seen it even in my lab. It's unfair, but meeh what can you do. When we're professors, we'd have to go through the same thing lol.

I'm a troll? For not sympathizing with you, and giving you a pat in the back? If you can't take criticism, then you really shouldn't post on an internet forum where anyone can respond. Yes, I get the point about your "5000 level" math class. I thought you were talking about a GRE prep program. (What you want to hear/read:) You'll most likely get a 800 on the Quant since you're taking such high level math. (What some MAY tell you:) The quant only tests high-school level math, and developing a "skill" to solve problems in 30 seconds, so your "5000 level math class" won't mean much.

I'm currently working at a lab where we get applications almost every week. I spent the last 3 hours just wading through applications, replying, and trying to weed out the ones we don't want. Although I'm no where near qualified to predict your chances, or what graduate schools are looking for, I think I can give some personal insight. A lot of people tend to worry that 4.0 GPA and 1600 (or near that) GRE isn't enough. We don't know what the adcoms are looking for, and feel like we need to cure cancer or discover some lost tribe in order to even be considered. Well, after bulging my eyes out in the last year looking at undergraduate applicants applying to this lab, I can honestly say that numbers are not everything. In fact, they don't indicate too much. When I first started looking at applicants, if they had a 3.6+ GPA and seemed to have reasonable writing skills, I would jump up and down and ask them for an interview. Flash forward a year, now if an applicant has a near perfect GPA and perfect writing skills, I'm actually more leery of him/her. It's ironic, yes, but that's what experience has taught me. Again, looking at undergraduate lab applicants is definitely not the same as working in a grad school committee, but I would imagine some of the basics are the same. 1. Almost all of the "near perfect record" students that we took ended up being mindless robots. They are here to try to get to medical school, with no real passion for the experiments, and only do exactly what they are told. I often spend MORE time explaining something to them than if I were to go ahead and do it myself. Sure, they get straight A's, but they don't "think outside the box". If I tell them do A, then B, then C, they balk once they see some pattern that's not similar. As for me, when I first started, I was given half-assed instructions ONCE. They teach something to me once (often leaving out essential things that I later get burned for) and it's on my own. With some of these students, I spend hours teaching them the same thing over and over again. I'm sure grad school don't want these straight A bobble heads. 2. Although high GPA doesn't guarantee you're awesome, a low GPA almost certainly means you're out. We've made 2 exceptions with low GPA's (less than 2.5 overall, less than 3.0 in major). One exception was because she had work experience very similar to the skills we look for here in the lab. Another exception is because he presented him application so well I didn't have the heart to reject him (without talking to him first). But still, with a low GPA, we (myself and my PI who is also on a grad committee) question why can't they at least get a B in something they want to spend their life doing? 3. Your writing matters- A LOT, even more than GPA sometimes. I've seen applicants who sounded as if it was OUR pleasure to have him in the lab. I've also seen applicants who don't capitalize their I's, or write as if they're in 3rd grade. I would imagine the same thing for graduate/undergrad school. If you're a 4.0 student, but your personal statement/essays look like they went through a translation service, it's not going to get you in. 4. Your enthusiasm and uniqueness matters. After looking through 5 emails all saying the same exact thing, (now multiply that by 20 for grad school), having an applicant who sounds genuine and enthusiastic can make all the difference. Thus, cliche as it is, being yourself is actually very important. 5. Finally, the way you present yourself is very important- thus the interview. We took a student mostly because of her GPA and her work hours, but one of our lab members noted that she didn't even know the basics of what she's studying. How can you be a 3rd year XYZ major without even know XYZ 101. She was titled "the power applicant" before her interview. Needless to say, I don't expect much from her. SOOOO sorry for the long post, this is MY opinion on why GPA and GRE and numbers don't always get you in. Many of these things I learned from my PI also, and I know he shares a similar point of view. As students (I'm a hopeful applicant myself), if we have high GPA or GRE, we complain about why they can't seem to guarantee admission. Maybe try to take a step back and put ourselves in the admission people's shoes. I mean I'm bitter because I spent days training one student only to have her leave us after 2 semesters (when she said she'd stay for at least 4). Imagine how a graduate school would feel after training you for years, only to realize you're nothing without your transcript or GRE report. They invest time and money on students, they HAVE to look beyond what's on paper.

Hah, telling yourself "I'm going to get a 1600" and then sit on your ass all day sure won't make it come true, now would it? What I meant was having those phrases was a motivation. I didn't reach my goal just by repeating those phrases while I ignored my classes. When I woke up at 2 a.m. to study, those words kept me going. No one is going to be able to tell you a "method," you just have to make your own. What kind of exam are you taking with 4 questions in one hour?! Which program is this? If my experience is typical, you should be able to solve the problems on the actual exam in no more than 2 minutes. The questions on the exam isn't any more about precision than knowing your times table and knowing how to add. You need to be able to recognize basic math concepts in a matter of seconds if you want to do well. I don't know what program it is that you're referring to, but if it's 4 questions in an hour, it may seem like you're heading in the wrong direction. As far as shortcuts, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean math shortcuts, or shortcuts to problems? In any case, my advice for you is to stop complaining and do something about it. Your tone sounds like "wahh I don't know how to get past my anxiety, someone tell me how." Well unfortunately, no one can.

You have so many good things going for you and you're worrying over one exam?! Seriously, if you look at various GRE forums/posts, MOST people don't have a 4.0 and posters. There are people who have below average GPA, little research, and can only hope the GRE can salvage their application just a little bit. For you, the rest of your application seems practically "perfect" (on paper at least). It's perfectly normal to be anxious, but I think that you're focusing on the negative aspect way too much. You haven't even TAKEN the GRE yet. Additionally, if you're THIS stressed over the GRE, you should reconsider whether you can handle the stress of grad school. I kind of felt the same way as you before, the rest of my application is so good I wanted to keep it that way- as if there's no room for failure. But you just need to calm the hell down! You need to actually sit down, identify what it is that you're bad at, then attack it from there. EVERYONE told me to just take the exam, and just take practice exams to "see where I stand". But I told them no, I refused to take practice tests if I feel like I'm still "learning". For several months, they thought I was gonna give up- even people who had never even SEEN the GRE was telling me to take a practice exam. Well screw them, I studied my butt off and took a total of 3 practice exams and went in and nailed it. The moral of that story is that if you're still learning (say, vocabs or angles or probability laws) then your current score is not your true score. Just simply taking practice exams isn't going to do much if you don't have the basics memorized. As for verbal, I spent maybe a total of 3 hours of practice exams on that part. I spent several months on math. I came out just fine. Verbal is seriously a vocabulary test. If you're doing that badly, you're either a non-native speaker, don't know how to read, or simply don't know vocabs. I'm going to assume it's the later. For quant, if you're getting questions consistently wrong, go back and make sure you know how to do that problem- even if it means memorizing the answer. This may sound stupid, since you obviously won't see the same problems on the exam, but knowing how to answer that TYPE of question is what matters. When you go back to check your answers, ask yourself, "what concept can I take away from this?". Lastly, the more you hype up the exam, the worse you will do. So you're lowering your own chances by being so anxious. I didn't do this for the GRE, but one thing that helped me get the anxiety of finals of my undergrad was print out my goal, and phrases and pin them all over the room. I literally wrote (in huge font), "I'm studying because I want to reach my goal of graduating with honors" or "2 more exams then I'm done". They were everywhere in my room, and they got me through the 3 hell week of finals. If you find yourself feeling anxious, just stop, watch tv. Print out inspirational words, read them until you're convinced. Unless you get very lucky, you won't do very well with your current state of mind. It really depends on how badly you want to get to your goal. Right now, the biggest impediment is yourself. If you're as motivated as you sound in your post, you'll find a way to get past your anxiety.

Wow...you're kidding, right?

GRE aside, from what I've heard (and read and seen), master's GPA is usually, if not always, higher than undergraduate GPA. One of the grad students in my lab even goes so far to say that straight A's in a Master's program is normal, B's are rarely given. So, not to freak you out even more, but your summa cum laude, though impressive, may be more common than you think (again, in graduate school). Also, if you weren't sure about your GRE, why did you only apply to what seems to be the top 4 schools? I'm not in your field, so I'm only judging by the name of the institution. Good luck.

What exactly does a 3.71/5 convert to on a 4.0 scale?