resource

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.

My scores are up: Test date: 9/21 Verbal: 730-800 --> 165 (96%) Quant: 750-800 --> 166 (94%) AWA: 5.5 (96%)

Anyone else in the second score group habitually refreshing the GRE page every 10 minutes?

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...

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.

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.

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+-.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Some more data: Quant: 760 old -> 160 new -- (84%) Verbal: 540 old -> 156 new -- (73%)

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.

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.

But that's when we test our theories empirically! Not moot at all.

Science would be pretty boring if we all agreed on a single theory, don't you think?

Congrats on great scores, hmmatz. I suggested this in a different thread, but I don't necessarily think that a 730-800 will end up on the lower end of the range. My theory is that there is a roughly normal distribution of expected scores with mean=lower_bound+50 & sd~=15. With the standard deviation absorbing variation due to the weighting process (which has yet to occur). Thus, a 750-800 is more accurately a 750-850, but the top half of the distribution is right-truncated at the mean. This means that a 740-800 = 790+-, a 730-800 = 780+-, ... 690-790 = 740+-, etc. If this is true, that means there is a pretty good shot (>68%, if we assume a normal distribution), you will fall within 20 points above/below the midpoint of your range (or 20 points above/below the lower bound of your range plus 50, if you're bounded by 800).

I didn't use Kaplan, so I cannot attest to that book. I preferred Barron's over Princeton Review. The PR book helps develop some "tricks" to increase probability of guessing the right answer. This might be helpful if you are really struggling, but will not develop the actual skills needed to earn a high score. The Barron's book has a decent overview of the math concepts that will be tested and I think the sample questions are more accurate that PR's. One benefit of PR's book is that you get access to 4 online practice tests that simulate the length and feel of the real exam. I'd also recommend the ETS book. It doesn't have much in terms of practice questions, but the questions are closest to the real exam.

OP is indeed correct ("original poster"). The 700-800 range is not a recent development -- it's been consistent with powerprep scores, ETS practice book scoring approximations, and actual reported scores. I don't think it represents a lack of confidence in the point spread. I think the ranges allow for ETS to say with >99% certainty that your score will fall within your range -- this shouldn't change for narrow ranges since, if my hypothesis holds any water, a 750-800 is more accurately a 750-850 with the top half of the distribution truncated. I would interpret a 700-800 at the midpoint of the range. I think it's equally as likely you got an 800 as you did a 700 (which are both very small probabilities). That said, a 700-800 gives a better signal for the mid 700's than a 670-770 would. Try to imagine a normal distribution between 700 & 800 with a mean 750 and a standard deviation of 15. That should be your expectation. For more generalizability, imagine a normal distribution with (mean=lower bound of range + 50, sd=15). And yes, the small group of folks who are avid posters on these online forums are definitely a self-selecting group. I don't, however, think people embellish their scores to impress anonymous internet folk. At least, I'd hope not.

I would check with the DGS at your prospective schools -- generally, I think folks put the most weight on your most recent score. Rarely do they mix and match your highest scores.

Powerprep II: 750-800 Verbal 750-800 Quant Revised GRE: 730-800 Verbal 750-800 Quant Overall, my real verbal section was (significantly) harder than Powerprep II, and I felt that the real Quant was on par (and perhaps even easier) than Powerprep II.

Heh. I heard it from a secondary source on another forum (which, like this one, tends to have fairly knowledgable and honest posters). It could be completely unfounded -- which is why I am curious.

I've heard rumors of a 780-800 quantitative score floating around the internet. Can anyone attest to its validity? I'm curious what signals it sends to those of us who previously thought 750-800Q was the highest score range possible. P.S. I apologize for this anxiety and nervousness this thread may create.

Economics is pretty brutal in terms of quantitative GRE scores. It is thought that admissions committees sort applications based on GRE scores, and then pore through them from top to bottom. A 750 puts you on the bottom (and top programs typically get 500+ applications). In my situation in particular, I scored a 760Q on the old GRE and my new 750-800Q is unsettling only because of the possibility (albeit, a small one) that I didn't exceed my previous score.

I benefited from the calculator. Especially with things like comparing fractions and square roots. If I didn't know the "appropriate" way to find an answer, I used the calculator as a brute force approximation and did pretty well with it. The key is to know when and when not to use it. It can help speed up your computations, but if you use it for everything, it can also slow you down. At the minimum, you should continue to set everything up on your scratch paper -- it's easy to hit the wrong number and forget what you were calculating.