cunninlynguist

Reassuring, and aligns with my main priorities now (writing the best SOP possible and identifying appropriate faculty). My score is a 1240, and like you said, most fellowships I've come across have a 1200+ requirement. Additionally, the admissions coordinator at UMich - my #1 choice - told me that most applicants for the program don't have traditional research experience, so I'd bet that raises the importance of the SOP, LORs, and fit. Thanks for the insight.

This can apply to virtually any program or field, so if you have any experience, please feel free to share it. My question is a basic one: Are the posted averages/medians for admitted students provided by departments generally accurate? For my programs of choice, both of my quantitative factors (GPA/GRE) fit into what is recommended for admission based on previous classes of incoming students. However, based on a cursory glance at the Survey (and many topics), it seems like there are high numbers literally everywhere. Is that a function of GradCafe and its membership, or is something to actually be concerned about? The sample size for my field on the Survey isn't large, however (and for many fields - still a useful and interesting tool, though). Obviously there are other important elements of the application, but I can't pretend that some of the numbers posted here don't scare me! Any general input would be appreciated.

You'll probably find this post helpful: A 1230 isn't worth worrying about - how did you do on the Verbal section? If you scored in a percentile similar to mine (85%), that's strong. I can't imagine Speech Pathology programs give much, if any, consideration to the Quantitative score. Your GPA is excellent, particularly given your choice of completing two majors. Vanderbilt's GRE expectations seem high for your field (1000+ looks to be the standard, but apparently not for Vandy), but you're very close to their 2009 average anyway. Honestly, your application looks like a very strong one.

It's not my field, but a cursory glance at CMU's program website offers average scores for admitted students (http://www.tepper.cmu.edu/master-in-computational-finance/admissions/faq/index.aspx#average): 581 Verbal / 792 Quantitative Keep in mind, that is the average, not the minimum recommendation or anything like that. There's always going to be a range of scores, although they do state that the "MSCF program is highly quantitative." It's only one aspect of your application - if you can prove to the admissions committee that your quantitative scores aren't indicative of your ability, it may not be a big deal. I'd wager your GPA and relevant undergraduate major may help you in that regard; however, CMU does state the average student also has 2.6 years of professional experience. Check the other program websites and see if they provide average scores. If not, you can always send them an e-mail.

As long as your score passes the threshold for minimum requirements, you should be fine. I'm glad you recognize the value of your GPA and relevant experience - those won't be erased by a less-than-spectacular GRE. I would, however, advise you to prepare a bit more for the verbal section; it's significantly more difficult, and in your field I'd wager it's more pertinent than the quantitative section. The only scenario I can envision you being passed over in favor of another candidate, due solely to GRE scores, is if you're both extraordinarily similar and it's literally the only element of the application that differs. Otherwise, just continue to prepare as well as you can. It's just a test - once you're done with it, you can concentrate on more important components of your application.

Firstly, congrats on showing the dedication to return to school, and doing such exemplary work! I can't really offer much on actual experience, seeing as I just graduated and will start applying this fall. However, it seems like you'll be able to make a very strong case for admission at your programs of choice. Undergraduate reputation, from what I've read and heard, isn't a big deal - particularly if you can demonstrate that you're well suited for graduate work. If you were graduating with a 3.0 in a fluff major, it might be an issue, but that's clearly not the case. Your presentations and likely publication will be valuable. Given the strength of the other components of your application (I'm just assuming; history isn't my field, so I'm not cognizant of the average applicant), your GRE score shouldn't be a major point of emphasis. Ideally, you'll do well enough to exceed any minimum requirement. Some programs don't give it much thought beyond the initial screening process. And, for example, a 550 on the verbal section would place you in the 75th percentile (whereas a 550 on the quantitative portion, more irrelevant for a history student, would be the 36th percentile). The only thing I can't comment on is regarding the language skills. It sounds like you're well aware of what you need to do, though, so I trust you can make the necessary strides, or, demonstrate to admissions committees that you'll do everything in your power to get up to speed so that it won't hinder your ability as a graduate student.

Well, technically you did much better on the verbal portion (35th percentile) relative to the quantitative (15th percentile). The numeric scores themselves are a bit misleading. It seems like you'd be able to do well on a re-take, now it's just a matter of assessing which test format suits your skills better. Maybe it'd be advisable to buckle down and get it over with before the new format kicks in. You already know what to expect, you'll study significantly more (and you said you still have the book), and (hopefully) you'll be feeling well. I can sort of relate - for some reason, I scheduled my exam literally during the middle of finals week. Not the smartest decision, lol.

If you don't mind, what exactly were your scores the first time? Every program and school has different standards for minimum and median GRE scores - you may think you did poorly, but it might not detract from your application as much as you think. (You've probably already looked into this, but just in case). That being said, the new GRE might be the better choice. The format itself isn't going to be dramatically different - just a few notable modifications that you can easily prepare for. If you're weak with geometry and antonyms/analogies, I would absolutely recommend you take the new GRE; the extra study time wouldn't hurt, either! If you're gravitating towards the old format, make the decision immediately. You'd still have an adequate amount of time.

I would brush up a little on the Quant, just to be safe, but I'd definitely put more time into the Verbal. You're already around the 75th percentile for Verbal, right? If you can get it close to 600, you'd be in good shape, and your percentile would jump a good 10 points or so. I imagine, for Sociology programs, that Verbal would be viewed as more important than Quant, too.

Your other admissions factors sound good, but you may encounter some issues with the GRE score. Firstly, if you're applying for a PhD program, their score expectations are generally higher than Master's programs; you may need a minimum score (1200 is one I've seen frequently, but that's not all-encompassing) to qualify for the best aid, fellowships, and the like; and lastly, a strong GRE score may really boost your application while a decent one might not warrant any reaction from the admissions committees. I assume you've already narrowed down some of your top choices - what do those programs say about how much emphasis they place on the GRE? For mine, it seems quite important and weighed similarly to GPA. Sociology may be different - 1180 isn't a bad score by any means, but it'd be worthwhile to know exactly where you'd stand relative to other competitive applicants. Regarding the potential stigma of taking it again: I really don't think taking it twice is a big deal. I've seen reputable programs explicitly recommend taking it again to achieve the best score possible. You didn't bomb the first test and you would simply illustrate that you wanted to make the GRE component of your application as strong as possible - that's not a bad message to convey. If you had done horribly the first time around, it might raise a red flag. And just as an unsolicited personal addendum: I scored 1240/5.0, which is literally right on the money of posted averages for admitted students in my field, at the best programs. I was pleased, but I want it to stand out. I'll be re-taking it in August or September (the new test should actually play to my strengths more, and the discount doesn't hurt!). Actually, now that I think of it, you may not be able to make a huge leap in scores if you take it only a month or so from now (and you might be a little burnt out). My overall advice is to find as much absolute info as you can from your top programs and go from there. Good luck with your decision, either way!

I only used Barron's the first time around and was pleased with its breadth and quality. The math is lacking a tiny bit, but overall it was an excellent resource (the vocab list alone is worth it!). Now that I'll be taking the new GRE, I just ordered both the Barron's and Princeton Review books. That should be more than enough - and ideally if either one is inadequate in a particular area, the other will compensate.

Good thinking. I was actually polishing up my resume a bit last night and have already established whom I'd like to provide LORs (they've all said yes - wanted to get their approvals well in advance), so conceptualizing and at least starting the personal statements sounds like a great idea. Thanks for your input, I appreciate it!

Thanks for the reply. I've asked other people and they've generally posed the same opportunity cost question as you; the answer is that, for this summer, I've got essentially nothing lined up. Just finished a research internship and will absolutely find something substantive for the fall - but for the next few months post-graduation, I don't really have much on my plate. It's not that re-taking the GRE is necessary, given my previous scores, but I know if I devote a proper amount of non-semester time to studying, the results will be worth it and likely affect admissions and/or funding.

No score likely means no score, literally. I really wouldn't advise it - given that many programs don't pick and choose from each test you've taken, they generally accept results as a whole. It's not worth $160 to amend an AW score that isn't disastrous to begin with, IMO. Your verbal score is excellent and the AW portion isn't nearly as important to admissions. Write a solid SOP and if applicable, provide a good writing sample, and that should eliminate any potential concerns about an underwhelming AW score (and besides, the recent mean is 3.8; your score isn't irreparably bad by any measure). You'll be fine - I wouldn't worry about it.

First of all, well done on the Verbal section and your GPA looks quite solid. What are your exact scores, and percentiles, for the Math and Writing sections? (Not like the Writing portion is that important, just curious; and it could help your case if you did very well on it). The only thing I would be concerned about is that you're applying to PhD programs, which generally have higher and more stringent requirements regarding minimum test scores. Unless you'd be able to convince them to consider you in lieu of a score that's lower than their requirement due to other strong admissions factors, I think you may have to re-take it (and that depends on your exact score and percentile - it could seem bad to you, but not completely bad in an absolute sense).

Didn't want to bump, but could really use some insight here.

Hi all, I graduated today with my B.A. in Political Science (3.41 GPA overall; 3.55 the last 2 years). My original plan was law school (for environmental law), but I decided to go with my instinct and pursue an approach more grounded in policy and actual field impact. I took the GRE this past December (during finals week!) after I scrambled to switch my brain from LSAT mode to GRE mode; I also thought I would be applying to schools for Fall 2011 but decided that a little more practical experience will bolster my application (I took the GRE with the assumption that I'd scramble to get my applications out). My scores: 590V (85%) / 650Q (60%) / 5.0AWA (85%) I'm interested in the following programs: Yale FES MEM UMich SNRE Environmental Policy (or Justice) UCSB Bren School MESM Along with a few others - the typical collection of reputable Environmental Policy programs (Duke, Indiana, etc.). I'm just wondering if it would be worthwhile to give the GRE another shot - I'd be able to dedicate summer months to studying rather than during the semester, I just took a Quantitative Reasoning course this past semester to brush up on math (and Yale recommends 2 math courses, so I needed another), and while all of the programs state a 1200 is needed for serious consideration (and Yale's posted average is a 1240/5.0, which is what I have), I'm just not totally sure if I should keep it as it stands. Any input would be greatly appreciated, thanks!