Jump to content

resource

Members
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Program
    economics

resource's Achievements

Caffeinated

Caffeinated (3/10)

16

Reputation

  1. Hey Starbuck, I had the same idea when I looked at the score diagnostic this morning. Quant: 166 -- 2 questions wrong (both at level 4) Verbal: 165 -- 6 questions wrong (3 at level 5, 2 at level 4, 1 at level 3) Note: levels in parentheses indicate question difficulty on a scale of 1-5.
  2. My scores are up: Test date: 9/21 Verbal: 730-800 --> 165 (96%) Quant: 750-800 --> 166 (94%) AWA: 5.5 (96%)
  3. Anyone else in the second score group habitually refreshing the GRE page every 10 minutes?
  4. The The OP started this thread last night (depending on your time zone). This means that the scores were probably posted a few hours earlier than the beginning of this thread. My guess is that we might get the second round of scores on Thursday evening (one week prior to the expected date). Based on the unexpected nature of this whole thing, I am going to be extremely neurotic until those scores come out...
  5. Yeah, now that I look closely at the concordance tables, it appears that many projected score ranges ended up at/below the lower bound. My apologies. I suppose it's possible the percentiles are still adjusting, but your scores aren't available because you are in the second score group (originally intended to receive scores on Nov 10th). All the score posted so far have been from August and early September. EDIT: For what it's worth, the quantitative sections seem to all be within the range of the projected scores. The verbal scores, which were originally thought to be artificially inflated, seem like they are generally at or below the lower bound.
  6. That's not true. The information so far indicates that there is a lot of heterogeneity within the range and that indeed you can receive a percentile score below the equivalent of the lowest score in your range.
  7. My guess for all ranges has been the lower bound + 50 give or take a few points for adjusting for difficulty. So, expect a 790+-.
  8. For most ranges, I don't think the new conversion helps us. For the folks with quantitative scores in the 750-800 range, my guess is that these scores will be at, or above, the 166 mark. Pure speculation, but my hunch was that a 750-800 was really a 750-850 prior to adjusting for difficulty (or E[750-800]=800+-50) -- now that an "800" is no longer perfect, I think the right truncation will allow for scores between 167-170.
  9. Yep. You are absolutely right. That 1% of people who will have earned a 170 will definitely mar your score. I mean, there is a huge difference between the 98%ile and the 99%ile, anyway.
  10. I am doing some back of the envelope calculations and, based on the notion that ETS was trying to design a normal distribution, it looks like they did just that. So based on the scores reported so far, I can ball park the median at 50%. If we assume scores are normally distributed, this will also be the mean. Since we all know the standard bell curve, we can take an educated guess at the standard deviation and narrow it down to approximately 9 points. For quantitative scores, with mean=150 & sd=9, the top 2% should have a score of 150+8*2 = 168. We know in actuality that 166 (800) translates to the 94th pctle, so this guess seems pretty accurate. For verbal (and here's where it gets fun), the new scores translate almost exactly in percentile terms to the quant scores. Again, assuming mean=150 & sd=9, we get the top 2% at 168 -- where a 168 (or 720) is exactly the 98%ile . In terms of lower ranges, one sd above the mean would be predicted at the 84%ile -- we have a data point: 159==590==84%ile. Thus, it seems that the ETS did design the new score based on a normal distribution centered at the midpoint of the score ((170-130)/2)=150 with a standard deviation of 9 points (not a linear conversion).
  11. On the ETS score report screen: PERCENTILE RANK (% BELOW) The percentile ranks in this report indicate the percentage of examinees who scored below your score. Note that these percentile ranks may be different from those that applied when the scores were originally reported to you if the scores were earned prior to July 2011. This reflects annual updating of these data to permit admissions officers to compare scores, whenever earned, with those for a recent reference group.
  12. Some more data: Quant: 760 old -> 160 new -- (84%) Verbal: 540 old -> 156 new -- (73%)
  13. If the rest of your profile is as good as you say, then you should be alright. Explain your GRE score in your statement of purpose. I think your verbal score will alleviate the quant to some degree and if you have taken any quantitative courses, those should be a better predictor of your aptitude in that area. It seems like you have a broad range of desired programs, so I wouldn't be too worried. Again, I'm not familiar with poli sci programs, you probably have a better idea of what is reasonable.
  14. I'm going to try to be a little more blunt that other posters here, but keep in mind, I come from an economics background where anything below a 770 on the quant warrants retaking. Based on the little I know of political science programs, they tend to be fairly quantitatively focused and would like to see high scores on both sections but particularly on the quant. I think any advice that aggregates both your quant and verbal scores is misguided as admissions committees aren't going to sum up the scores, they're going to look at percentiles and a 600 is below the 50th percentile on the old scale. That said, this quote: seems to imply that you didn't prepare for the GRE whatsoever. If you had done a practice test, you would have realized that the quantitative portion of the GRE is nothing but stuff you learned in high school. Also, the Powerprep software predicts, fairly accurately, what your actual score will be. That said, a Ph.D. is a big investment and if you are serious about doing doctoral work in political science the fit/prestige of your intended program is very important and, in the long run, outweighs the $160 and 3.5 hour trip to the testing site. I think you have a shot with your current scores if the rest of your application is stellar. The adcoms realize that applicants are people and have some blunders along the way. The GRE is just one of those hoops we have to jump through. In the end, the score won't matter much, but if you're serious about a Ph.D. and certain you can do better, buy a few practice books and retake it. Even if you delay your Ph.D. work for a year, going to a program that fits you is the most important.
  15. But that's when we test our theories empirically! Not moot at all.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use