Darth.Vegan

Considering Berkeley had an average quant score of 157, I doubt they cut off at 160. I agree that verbal should be above 600 for the top 10. Outside of that maybe a little less given Austin 's averages.

So I got app fee waivers for 10 of my 15 apps. Most of the time schools either wanted financial aid data or a copy of a GRE fee reduction certificate. Some schools said that tax returns would be acceptable for applicants that have been out of school for a while.

I have excellent written communication skills, at least according to every faculty member I have had the pleasure of taking a course with. However, I never write anything in 30 minutes and got a bit flustered by my question on the AW section. I ended up with a AW score of 4. I am definitely capable of better as I got a voucher for the ETS score it now! program and was able to get an AW score of 5 in the "replicate test conditions" mode. I chalk up my slightly lower score to test anxiety and a question that threw me off. I literally ran out of time on my first essay. That said, I've been told that 4 is more than adequate and considering most programs hardly consider it, I shouldn't have any problems.

Well that's disappointing. This might be a good thing as she seems as if she wasn't all that enthusiastic after all. While there is some work associated with filling out the forms for all the applications, they can indeed use the same letter and simply change the name of school and program to which you are applying.

I am applying to 15 PhD programs and TFA. I will make a decision if/when I get offers. I would suggest doing the same.

Hmmm, so you didn't actually give us a score, I think we need a score to really determine this. If it is below 150 you might have a problem. Interestingly enough, I am in a similar boat, scoring above 90th percentile (163) in verbal but an abysmal 43rd percentile in quant (150). Converted to the old scale it comes out to V:650 Q:630. I had a friend with a scary low quant score (below 25th percentile) last year that got rejected from a lot of places, but it's hard to say if that was why, his verbal was decent (around 75th to 80th I believe). So here's the good news, I was worried about my quant score too, but recently people including my own faculty have made me feel much better about it. Berkeley is the #1 soc program in the country and their published average quant score is 157. I take that to mean that while it won't be impossible for me to break into the top 10 with an otherwise stellar application, chances are I could have a bit of trouble. The reality is though, most soc majors don't score that high on quant. UT-Austin (a strong qual program but hey!) only has an average quant score of 647 (151 on the new scale) and their verbal average is around 584. That means that my application should indeed pass any cut offs they may have and in the case of verbal I am well above the average. Do you have anything else in your record that can mitigate the low quant score? I got an A+ in stats last year and I am hoping that will help mitigate mine a bit. Anyway, we really need to know the score to make a determination, but it seems like at least outside of the top 10, anything around 150 is going to pretty close to the average. Obviously some stronger quant programs will have higher scores, but you did say you are applying for cultural soc. If you're worried about not passing a cutoff, breath, you're probably just fine!

I honestly would not spend a lot of time on this. You can demonstrate background study by using language that fits with your field. I have one paragraph for my entire background and my SOP is still too long. I just don't see how you can talk about everything you need to plus coursework and get in under 1200 words. Some people even shoot for 600-`1000 word SOP's.

Keep in mind, your quant score does not matter as much more than likely. My quant score is relatively low, but in sociology quant scores tend to be lower as I am sure they are even more so in spanish. What is important however is your V score. You will want a combined score of at least 1200, but more likely 1300+. It also helps if you have a mediocre (say 150) quant score but can mitigate it with a very high verbal score.

ok. That is V:490 (53rd percentile) and Q: 500 (20th percentile) on the old scale. Most minimums are around 1000 and at top schools I doubt they have ever admitted anyone under 1150. You really need to bring up both of those scores. At the very least I would think that you need Q:150 and V: 158-161

Well, my school doesn't publish class percentiles but having considered law school for a brief moment, I am in the top 3% of all students that submit transcripts to LSAC from my school (A top 100 public flagship public university in Hawaii, can you guess which one yet? haha). That point aside, my partner went to a top 10 liberal arts college and graduated with a 3.7 GPA. I assure you that the work she did there was not any better than the work top students in my department are doing. I also participated in the ASA honors program this past year with students from top soc programs like Berkeley and Wisconsin, and the research was on basically the same level with everyone else accepted to the program. My only point is that there are excellent students at schools up and down the prestige hierarchy as well as terrible ones. It would seem that at least in my discipline, that is acknowledged, as you see students at top 30 schools with BA's and MA's from middle of the road schools. In the top 10 however, you may have a really good point. It is rare if not damn right impossible to find students at top 10 soc programs that didn't go to very prestigious schools as undergrads. It may be that schools outside of the top 10 are willing to take students from "lesser" schools that have higher stats in the hope of increasing their standing in the rankings. But all in all, while institutional prestige probably has some weight in the admissions process, from what I can tell it is hardly a major factor.

I actually have trouble paying attention while driving. My attention will drift off to other things (buildings, people, billboard's etc) and I have to constantly remind myself to pay attention. My academics have yet to suffer because I don't procrastinate. I will literally write a 25 page paper 1-2 pages at a time. I should go see someone about this myself, I'm just not sure who to go see. I have health insurance with Kaiser, I wonder if I can just go to my regular doctor? Anyway, don't do what I have done, go see someone about it as soon as you can. I know my quant score suffered as a result of my attention span.

Your doctor will not laugh at you. I would suggest making an appt. to talk to someone.

Give it 2-3 days.

Right. Because IRB approval has done so much to help these animals: http://www.peta.org/...on-cruelty.aspx My position is that vivisection is absolutely abhorrent. I don't see the ethical justification in taking otherwise healthy animals and either infecting them with diseases or putting them through any myriad of crazy experiments under the guise of "research." I say that vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry because it is, you can literally order lab animals out of a catalog like they are microscopes or pens. I asked the question because I am curious if any supporters of animal research, draw an ethical line or if all research is essentially justified. If it is not okay to conduct this research on humans, why is it ok to do so on other primates who may be very similar to humans? If you don't think that research on primates is ethically acceptable, than I wonder where a person draws that line? With cats or dogs or rats? At what point of intelligence, sentience, and capability to suffer does vivisection become ethical or unethical?

I wonder do you draw the line anywhere? I am guessing that you wouldn't do this research on humans? Would you do this research on chimps? What about dogs? Rats?

Again, you're comparing apple's and oranges here. Top liberal arts colleges, say your Haverford's and Swarthmore's are in a very different class than a commuter school with low research activity. You also seem to be intentionally ignoring the fact that aside from Princeton, the "elite" privates are known for having some of the worst grad inflation. I don't think a student in the top 5% of their class from a large public university with multiple presentations and 1-2 years of research experience is going to be at a disadvantage applying to grad school. In fact, I am counting on this myself and the feedback I have gotten from top programs has been very positive thus far. That said, I really only have experience in my discipline, things could be very different for other disciplines but I know plenty of people that have had no problem making the jump from lower ranked schools if they have well defined research interests and quality experience.

Oh boy, interesting propaganda here. Vivisection is a multi-billion dollar industry and frankly is intrinsically bad. If you have no empathy for the suffering of sentient beings than maybe it's fine.

630 verbal is above 85th percentile, great job! I had trouble with quant too. Good thing most soc programs don't value quant scores all that much. Schools in the top 10 average 157 on quant and schools in the top 20 average 151, but you see much higher verbal scores!

With diagnosed ADHD you should be able to get a disability accommodation that will give you more time.

I would think that your biggest problem would be your relatively low quant score. I imagine that top engineering programs expect quant scores above 90th percentile, but I could be mistaken. I wouldn't worry about the verbal score though.

Well in my discipline this just isn't the case, at least not according to the countless faculty members i've spoken to at top 30 institutions. Also again, a "local commuter school" is not really what we're talking about here is it? Take for example, University of Oklahoma, a very large public flagship state institution but ranked something along the lines of 130-150. No one would be at a disadvantage going to a school like that if they did really well as opposed to going to an "ivy league school." Now, that is a bit different than say Cal State Fullerton, but the biggest difference is R1 vs non R1. If someone goes to a lower ranked R1 school and does well, it will not hurt their chances of admission to top programs.

History is considered humanities, and even in poli sci, good quant scores are generally lower than in non-social science disciplines. Keep in mind, you are competing in GRE percentiles with physics students.

I really don't see why you would be worried about it. Your verbal score is 89th percentile and your quant score does not matter for history programs. While it would be helpful to have a somewhat higher verbal score, you should be above any department cut offs. This is a rough estimation, but your score translates to approximately a 1280. People have gotten in with lower scores I assure you. Also, I don't know about history, but in my discipline teaching is not something to be emphasized, the focus should really be on research.

I don't know specifically about math, but the general consensus is that prestige of undergraduate institution matters very little in graduate admissions. Where it makes the biggest difference is in the opportunities available to students, larger and more prestigious institutions often have better opportunities for research etc.

Wow. I really hope you don't end up doing this.