natofone

I've heard the same thing as cpaige.

I am applying to programs in comparative politics. My BA is from a no-name state school (ten years ago), but my MA is recent and in a related field from a top 10. Mediocre GPA on both accounts (around 3.5 - but, lots of econ and stats). My combined GRE is slightly over 1500. I have two writing samples: a purely theoretical one for mostly qualitative schools and a largely empirical (using regression) one for mostly quantitative schools. I think that my statement is pretty solid at this point and I'm happy with my selection of target schools. I'm re-applying from last year. In addition to the lackluster GPA, I didn't have a clear enough focus, had a fairly weak statement, and didn't pick schools with the best faculty match. I was also working 70+ hour weeks while applying, so I honestly didn't put in enough time. I have rectified these areas and feel very good about my chances this year. Good luck!

I wouldn't think that an MA in political science would be particularly useful given your interest in risk management. You want to develop a strong quantitative skill set, and MPP or MBA programs are better in this regard. I would think that a three year MBA/MPP degree would be the best fit, given your interests and desire to work in risk management. I would suggest the MBA program at Chicago because it is very analytical and has less of the fluffy "go get em tiger" stuff that you find in non-analytical MBA programs. Also, they have Marv Zonis (http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/bio.aspx?person_id=12826030080), who ran a risk management firm. He is emeritus, but he actively teaches and will oversee graduate theses (like mine).

I wouldn't waste the application. The committee will recognize that you aren't a good fit.

Will a student get into Chicago's political science department if their statement states that they'll be doing rational choice and working mostly with Harris school faculty? That was more my question. Because unless students can apply to Harris by proxy of the political science program, it doesn't make much sense for the above student to apply to Chicago, no?

Bovingdon at Indiana: http://www.indiana.edu/~ceus/faculty/bovingdon.shtml Slater at Chicago: http://political-science.uchicago.edu/faculty/slater.shtml

Why not just apply to the harris school then? I don't believe that the poli sci department offers rational choice methods courses either, no?

Why Chicago? In addition to Roch/Mich/NYU, I'd also say GSB (stanford) and CalTech.

Yes, retake it. You can take it at the end of November and still get your scores to the schools in time.

http://political-science.uchicago.edu/grad-adm-faqs.shtml "The average GRE scores for those admitted last year were 638 Verbal, 698 Quantitative, and 4.85 Analytic. " You should be fine, which surprises me because I did my MA at Chicago and a senior faculty member said that my 730Q was "a little low."

I think that they use them as a recruitment tool to get you to sign up for the real thing.

If you don't know the formulas you'll get it wrong or spend 5 minutes trying to figure out some sloppy workaround.

I also memorized how to do all of the word problems (substance combination, money combination, distance - all variations), coordinate (slope, distance, midpoint), and probability (probability, multiple times in a row, once in n attempts, combination, permutation, permutation with selection). The geometry also has a great deal to memorize (area, surface area, perimeter, angle measurement and leg lengths for triangles). Most of these problems can be worked out on their own, but you risk a mistake and it sure helps for speed. I've become much faster after taking this approach. I spent 15 minutes of the math section on the one problem that I hadn't memorized a solution to and couldn't figure out on my own. I still finished everything else with a few minutes to spare.

I second the flashcards suggestion. Worked out well for me (but i did miss one thing from my cards - the exact perpendicular of a slope).

I think that you are in good shape if you hit that GRE.

The paper test is infinitely easier (which is frustrating since it drags down the percentiles for the computer test), but I don't believe that you can take it if you live in a country that offers the computer adaptive test...so you're out of luck. Take it again. You'll do better this time.

Yes, you should still apply to PhD programs. Just be realistic about the schools that you apply to and you'll get in. The various program websites should give you an idea of average GPA/GRE to tell you how competitive you'll be at each school. Don't lose hope. Your verbal score will certainly go up and then you'll definitely be competitive at mid-level schools. Use the powerprep (available from ETS's website) as your test because that is an actual GRE.

I think that you should take it again; it literally can't hurt. You likely tested well below your ability for whatever reason. The verbal section is really, really random.

I don't think there is much similarity in terms of SAT and GRE scores. I got a 1450 combined gre, but my sat (in 1993) was something like 1100. The verbal is essentially a glorified vocabulary test and the vocabulary is much harder on the GRE than it was on the SAT because you've presumably had 4 years of undergraduate education. A 440V is honestly pretty low. I don't know about psychology, but if you're targeting any competitive programs then you need to get it up. Most competitive schools have minimum cutoffs where they toss the application if you haven't met it. Take it again. Even with no additional preparation, you'll do better from being more familiar with the format and pacing. Almost everyone goes up by taking it a second time. To prepare: learn more words/roots, take practice tests to get the pace down/get used to the format (I suggest the powerprep software), and learn the tricks (like focus more on getting the first 5-8 answers correct).

Is political science any better? Acceptance rates are around 5% for the top programs.

The math is definitely more important than the verbal almost everywhere. I talked with a few profs at my MA institution (good theory/qualitative place - weak quant) and they all said that when they are on adcoms, the math is really what they're looking at when it comes to the GRE. You met the minimum cutoff and your verbal score isn't low enough to raise any flags.

I wouldn't worry about it. The math is the most important part and you did great on it.

Antonyms is just vocab - either you have it or you don't (or you make flashcards and practice). The analogies are slightly more tricky, but the guide book shave standard patterns that most of them fit into. For example: ______ is a tool used to ______ ______ is a spurious form of _______

My MA program (top 10-ish, social sciences) said that they use the writing section in determining financial aid (they ran regressions and found a close correlation between high writing score and success in the program), so it isn't true that the section is completely ignored. I would retake it. Why not? Do you fear that your other scores will go down? There is a bit of variation with the verbal (but honestly, a 720 is still 98th percentile, so you have a way to go before you hurt yourself), but not as much with the math.

The very high quant score will help you out and I think that Penelope is correct when she says that you just need to hit a decent, but not amazing, verbal score. Looking at the stats for people that got in last year (there is a thread on this topic where people posted there profiles - search for it), they all seem to have very high quantitative scores on the GRE. Shoot for something in the mid 600s and I bet that you'll be fine. The 500s is a bit low, especially if you're shooting for theory or qualitative methods - or a very high-ranked program. The absolute best way to achieve a higher verbal score is to work on vocabulary. Just memorize all of those words. Learn the roots and you'll raise your score considerably. You need to take it soon though, in order for the score to get to the department in time.