Lox26

So I took the test earlier this week: Barron's (No scaled scores) Test 1 Quant: (30/40, 0 omitted) Verbal: (31/40, 0 omitted) Test 2 Quant (28/40, 1 omitted) Verbal (37/40, 0 omitted) Manhattan: (1440) Quant: 740 (28/40, 9 omitted) 80th percentile Verbal: 700 (30/40, 0 omitted) 97th percentile Kaplan: (1410-1560) Quant: 750-800 (32/40, 4 omitted) 82nd-94th percentile Verbal: 660-760 (32/40, 0 omitted) 94th-99th percentile Princeton Review: (313) Quant: 158 (30/40, 3 omitted)........should be 31/40 (wrong equation listed in Quantitative Comparison question) Verbal: 155 (27/40, 0 omitted)........should be 30/40 (a bug in the test), not sure what score out of 170 that corresponds to PowerPrep (Paper): (1410-1560) Quant: 750-800 (38/50, 4 omitted) 82nd-94th percentile Verbal: 660-760 (39/50, 0 omitted) 94th-99th percentile PowerPrep II: (1420-1570) Quant: 750-800 (32/40, 1 omitted) 82nd-94th percentile Verbal: 670-770 (31/40, 0 omitted) 95th-99th percentile Official Revised GRE: (1430-1580) Quant: 750-800 (0 omitted) 82nd-99th percentile Verbal: 680-780 (0 omitted) 96th-99th percentile Overall, my scores have been pretty consistent. It appears that an accuracy of only 75-80% is sufficient for the highest score range in Quant, while a similar accuracy for Verbal corresponds to the top 5% of test takers. No idea how the spread at the top will look in the new scale. If Daisy's estimates are correct, those of us in the 750-800 range will score somewhere between a 155 and 170. That seems like a huge difference psychologically. I wouldn't be surprised if Karajan's hypothesis--that math scores may be on the lower end of the range and verbal on the higher end--is correct for many of us. ETS has specifically said that the new scale should allow for more meaningful comparison among top-scorers, in Quant especially. Therefore, I am afraid that a good score in the old scale (750-800) may not necessarily translate into a good score in the new scale. Best of luck!

Thanks for the words of encouragement, George. It's just hard not to get discouraged when my scores are "not that bad." I'm hoping I can pull them up in time.

Hi clarita, ETS has figured out neither the exact conversion between old and new scores, nor the percentile distribution for new scores. Right now, ETS is just guessing at how the population of test-takers will perform on the new GRE. Basically, we are their guinea pigs. For verbal, you are now within the top 25% to top 7% of test-takers, and for math, you are in the top 40% to top 11% of test-takers. This is quite a spread, but it gives you an idea of your overall performance. Historically, verbal scores have been lower than quant scores (660V is 94th percentile, whereas 800Q is 94th percentile), so there isn't the same parity as with the SAT, for example. Your verbal score is solid, and your quant score is probably strong for artsy programs (not my field, so I could be mistaken). Worst case, you are looking at the equivalent of a 1200, which should be above any arbitrary admissions cutoffs.

I just took the Princeton test and am convinced I did awfully. I missed 13 Verbal questions and 7 math questions. I know that 1 math question definitely contained an error (See post #24 of this thread). Also, for two quantitative comparison questions, the images wouldn't load (both were in non-experimental sections). Best case scenario, that would put me at 1 omit, 33/40 correct. Oddly enough, at this point I may be more concerned about the verbal, which has historically been my strength. I have no idea whether the scoring algorithm syncs with ETS's, but right now I am panicking because I am aiming for 165 in each section (whatever that looks like) and my test is in two weeks. Compared to my performance on other practice tests (post #34), my scores have gone down. If we can compare across test prep companies, a 155V is (hopefully) a tad below 95th percentile. A 158Q is below 80th percentile. This, of course, assumes that the quant still has a higher concentration of high-scorers than verbal. Hopefully, the new format will create more separation at the top and the percentiles will be closer to Daisy's estimate. Finally, what is everyone's opinion of the Princeton Review test? Does anyone find it harder/easier than or comparable to other material out there? I read that the free tests from Princeton and Kaplan were much harder than the real thing for the Old GRE. I found Princeton's test to be harder than Kaplan's or Manhattan's for the Revised GRE. Princeton Review: (313) Quant: 158 (30/40, 3 omitted) Verbal: 155 (27/40, 0 omitted) So I found some more errors. Two sentences that I selected for the "Find the sentence that..." questions were marked as wrong even though they were correct. A third question's explanation supports the sentence I chose but says that the answer is actually another sentence ( something along the lines of "Find the sentence that introduces a term that needs to be defined later"). The sentence the answer key says is correct is actually the sentence with the definition, not the term. I think it may be a bug with the system. Did anyone else have problems with these "Select" questions?

I second emmm's advice. If your undergraduate record is a good indication of your test-taking abilities, you should be able to get at least 600 on each section. How did you study for those 6 months? What were your main weaknesses? The new verbal section is (for me and maybe you, too) much more intuitive. This may leave more time to study quant. If you are unable to diagnose your strengths/weaknesses or to improve on your own, maybe you need a course or tutor. Live online courses are available from the major companies (Princeton Review, Kaplan, etc.) and tend to be more affordable than traditional, brick-and-mortar courses. Of course you have a chance of being admitted to those programs. But, there are probably many applicants with similar credentials and killer GRE scores. You don't want to put yourself at a disadvantage by not re-taking and achieving the stellar scores I'm sure you're capable of.

Hi psychismylife, Have you considered applied/development econ programs? Cornell, for example, has a great program: http://dyson.cornell.edu/grad/ . If you're more interested in policy, Harvard's Kennedy School offers a Ph.D. in social policy: http://www.hks.harva...rric/curric.htm . With your strong quantitative background, you should be a competitive applicant. Maybe you can reach out to these schools or research other interdisciplinary programs with faculty interested in development/poverty/inequality studies. Hope this helps! I see that you already have an an MSc. in Economics for Development. Perhaps you can try to find out whether Ph.D. programs at different schools would take a different approach than the one you were exposed to in your masters. Also, if you feel that you can bring something different to the table, that may make for a compelling statement of purpose (SOP) to development econ or policy programs. If you can think of an example of one question you've studied that you think could be more effectively addressed, maybe you can elaborate on why/how you would approach the issue differently and with more insight. Last, if you are set on social psych, make sure you can refine your research interests in you SOP. Studying the nature of irrational decisions in order to better understand geopolitical issues sounds cool, if nebulous. How would you actually do that from a social psych perspective? How would econ inform your research? Why is a psych program a better fit than an econ one? These are the questions you must anticipate and pre-emptively address to indicate that you have thought long and hard about your applications.

What about taking longer than 5 years to graduate? Would an addendum be advisable, necessary in this case? I would rather not divulge any personal details.

What is the university? If it is a school like Harvard, University of Illinois-UC, Stanford, Penn, Northwestern, Cornell, etc., my guess is that those programs are competitive and well-respected enough to assuage any concerns. If it is a lower-tier, regional school, perhaps the K-Ph.D track will hurt you. Also, if you are still in undergrad, try to secure a summer internship at another program in which you are interested. This may be a good way to indicate that you are not opposed to variety and a decent chance at securing a LOR from a different PI with a different methodology. I just scrolled up and saw your school. If you are already working under a wicked prof with interesting research, why not secure a spot? That does not mean that you cannot also apply to schools of a similar caliber and fit. I am not familiar with social psych programs. Is UNC a top social psych school? Good luck with whatever you decide!

Manhattan: (1440) Quant: 740 (28/40, 9 omitted) 80th percentile Verbal: 700 (30/40, 0 omitted) 97th percentile Kaplan: (1410-1560) Quant: 750-800 (32/40, 4 omitted) 82nd-94th percentile Verbal: 660-760 (32/40, 0 omitted) 94th-99th percentile According to these two tests, the true score is closer to the lower to middle of the range. Of course, these are two tests from only 2 companies that may or may not have exams that accurately approximate the difficulty of the new format. I will post my scores from Princeton and PowerPrep when I take those exams.

Hi PoorHangedFool, I never took the old GRE. I'm also not a math person these days (I used to be a mathlete--o, how things change!), but I've found that the calculator is a nice aid. On many of the problems, however, it can be unnecessary and more time-consuming than working with the "easy" numbers that comprise most questions. For example, it is sometimes easier to work with fractions and cancel than to multiply a bunch of decimals. I also think the material is mostly the same as on the previous exam. Even the new numeric entry questions are just typical GRE questions without the answer choices. If you work with a prep book from a good company, such as Barron's or Princeton Review, I think you might find some math concepts just flood back to you. Others may require more detailed review, but the books should offer a solid review of those concepts. Good luck!

O, my mistake. I thought you were in a masters program that required the GRE. Good luck in your program.

ktel, that's just it. I have been studying consistently for a month (reviewing topics and then doing problems, working through each solution to make sure I "get it"), and I am still not able to finish. I find this concerning. I know more practice is the key, but my improvement has fallen off exponentially. I'm just trying to figure out whether there are more targeted methods I can use. Perhaps a month is not that long a time for a test like this? Perhaps that has more to do with my personal strengths and limitations? I'm just not sure what is "normal" and am doing my best to navigate. During your study regimen, how did you practice? Did you just go through practice books? Re-do problems you would get wrong until they were burned into your brain? Weekly discussion sessions with a study group combined with self-study? Thank you for your input!

Back again. So I took a practice section adaptive test (SAT?) yesterday, and I found myself running out of time on the Quant sections. I had to omit 3 questions on my first math section and 6 on my second. The good news is that I had high accuracy (~90%) on the problems I answered. What methods have you guys used to get faster? I usually find the "trick" to the problem, but I'm just not fast enough. Although I definitely don't want to rush at the expense of getting more questions right, I want to be able to comfortably answer all the questions in a given section. Thank you all for your help so far!

You're assuming that an English major would avoid math classes in college or be bad at them. Some people are proficient at reading, writing, and math. Some of these people major in fields that emphasize only two of the three. An English major who is bad at math would not apply to a quant-heavy program. An English major who took math classes for personal enrichment (these people exist) and could see herself/himself doing an advanced degree might. Econ, poli sci, and sociology need not be similar. That would largely depend on the coursework taken. And I could see an English major smoothly transitioning to poli sci, even in a more quantitative-research-heavy program. In every program, there are intro prereqs that students may or may not have been exposed to. That's why these courses are part of the core curriculum and why new MA/Ph.D. students begin the program with coursework and don't just dive into their niche research. Ultimately, you appear to reject the notion that people outside of the hard or social sciences can excel in these fields. On what evidence are you basing that claim?

Daisy Fields has posted a helpful analysis:

I think we all agree that the GRE, as all tests, fails as a comprehensive assessment of the full range of an applicant's abilities. The score should still matter to adcoms/POIs, however. Different undergraduate programs vary with respect to rigor of the coursework. Perhaps no one should be given an automatic boost for attending a prestigious undergrad or have his/her abilities questioned for attending a lesser-known school. There are duds and standouts at both types of college. The GRE is (so far) the fairest way to determine desirable qualities, such as analytical aptitude, logical reasoning, and motivation (across a range of colleges, majors, research experiences, etc.). Moreover, standardized tests are extremely learnable. There is a wealth of free information on how to master the GRE. A qualified, industrious person is more likely to actively seek that information out and more likely to achieve better-than-average scores. If anything, I would view the scores as indicative of the level of preparation one puts into a task, no matter how "meaningless" the hoop to entry (e.g., into a solid grad program). That does not mean that I think a 1600/340 applicant is necessarily stronger than a 1300/320 applicant. Still, the ability to deduce the concept tested on a math problem or identify the logical structure of a dry passage seem like baseline skills required for graduate study. The two are really just opposite sides of the same coin: both require identifying patterns and synthesizing information to answer a smaller intellectual question. I would also caution against field-specific tests (AGREs) becoming the new standard. The current system allows for cross-disciplinary enrollment. By that I mean that non-biology majors, for example, may apply to biology grad programs. Perhaps the applicant majored in English and took a bio seminar in his/her senior year. Perhaps that was the catalyst to switch gears and pursue biology. That person may have strong analytical skills (Humanities majors read lots of dense texts and boil those texts down to their essence in order to construct a novel, cogent argument on a regular basis), glowing letters of recommendation, research, and publications in English/lit journals. What that person may lack is the depth of knowledge assumed of a bio major who has taken 70+ credits in the subject. Thus, the new system of AGREs may bias the application process against individuals who did not major in their chosen field of study (assuming adcoms would use this score as a screening criterion). This is problematic because an applicant who has yet to demonstrate proficiency in biology (e.g, honors coursework, high AGRE score) does not necessarily lack the capacity to learn and excel in the field. Ultimately, the system would re-construct the unfair assessment to which some posters have alluded. There is no perfect test, but a standard is needed; the GRE serves this purpose.

Hi Jilly, I am taking the GRE next month because of the incentive (50% off registration). I suppose that is "for practice," as I was not planning to take the exam for some time. That said, once I decided to test in September, I began studying to attain the highest score possible. If by practice you mean thoroughly prepping to see you fare before you'll need to take it (i.e., right before application deadlines), I think that is a good thing. Best of luck!

Ah, my apologies, Daisy.

The sample score report indicates that 156 is roughly 89th percentile for Verbal and that 157 is about 63rd percentile for Quant. Did you just average the two to calculate your percentiles? Correct me if I'm wrong: don't the math/verbal scores have two different distributions? Therefore, might it not be more meaningful to calculate the percentiles by section? Thank you for posting this supplement.

Thanks for the advice, KitKat. Did you buy the book with the DVD? I decided against Cracking because reviewers noted several mistakes in the book, but I may reconsider. If you have the DVD, have you found the taped tutorials helpful? O, and congrats on the big improvement!

So I've been studying for about a month now. I am still getting about 10 quant questions wrong per practice test. I am not able to get above 75% accuracy consistently. Has anyone overcome a similar hurdle? My test isn't for another 5 weeks, but I'm seriously panicking. Any tips for how to tackle Graph/Data questions, specifically? Thanks!

Thanks for the words of encouragement, Safferz!

@rabolisk: Thanks for the tip. I'm trying to ignore their "rules." It's just too much text, and I can usually reason through a problem. I'm just very hit or miss when it comes to the trick the problem is based on. I need to get better at thinking like a test-maker, I suppose. @Safferz and PsycheYe: Is the book still helpful if you remember the "meat-and-potatoes" high school math (minus the nuance)? I find that I can usually follow the solutions of the problems I get wrong. I know it's relatively affordable, but I would prefer not to buy a fourth prep book. I'm only part-way through my first two, and I haven't touched the third. Maybe I just need more practice? I don't know. My accuracy right now varies between 60% and 75%. Do you think I'll be ready by late September? I am shooting for at least 90th percentile. Thanks!

Hello All, I've recently started studying for the new GRE, and the math is definitely kicking my behind. The general consensus is that Quantitative Reasoning is by far the easiest section. This does not seem to hold true for me, however. Does anyone have any tips on how to master this section? I'm currently working through Barron's and don't seem to have trouble with any question type in particular. I would appreciate any advice!