resource

My scores are up:

Test date: 9/21

Verbal:
730-800 --> 165 (96%)

Quant:
750-800 --> 166 (94%)

AWA:
5.5 (96%)

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.

Habitually is an understatement. Although its faster to load this thread than check so I've resigned myself to just refreshing this thread. I figure people will post here within 5 minutes of them going up.

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

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.

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...

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...

OH MY GOD! YOUR VERBAL SCORE WAS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN YOUR LOWEST PROJECTED! THERE IS STILL HOPE! I THINK I CAN STOP PANICKING......A LITTLE.....

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).

One could argue that the problem with the Verbal on the old test is that it differentiated among top scorers excessively. On the old scale, the top 1% were spread across 8 scale points. Again, the top 1% were spread across 13% of the full range of scores. There may not be a meaningful difference between 99.2 percentile and 99.9 percentile; at that point, we're just splitting hairs. Top 1 percentile is high and the variability of verbal ability (as measured by the GRE) is minimal at that threshold.

Two of the main effects of the new scale are to reduce the over-differentiation of top scorers in Verbal and correct the under-differentiation among top scorers in Quant. Ideally, scores should be normally distributed about the median of possible scores (i.e., about 500 in the old and about 150 in the Revised GRE). Either tail should contain as few test takers as possible, with a larger cluster mid-range. Under the old scheme, however, Verbal scores were in a skewed right and Quant scores in a skewed left distribution.

To conclude, 770 and 800 are basically the same score (i.e., there is no significant difference with respect to performance on the GRE Verbal). They always have been but were perceived as different because of flaws in the old scale.

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.

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).

I've been doing some speculating and thinking on what the revised GRE score ranges actually mean. I am going to propose a simple hypothesis I've been rolling around in my head, and I'm curious to see what flaws/improvements others can see. After all, we need something to occupy our minds until November.

Given what we know, the revised GRE has been spitting out 100 point ranges for those not bounded by 800 (i.e. 580-680) and smaller ranges for those bounded by 800 (i.e. 720-800). We also know that the highest possible score at this point is 750-800. Based on the information provided by ETS concerning the score ranges, the scoring practices on PowerPrep II, and the scoring table in ETS' book, I am going to make the assumption that these scores are raw scores based on the scoring rubric of the old GRE prior to weighting for difficulty of questions. This implies that the score is computed rather simplistically (i.e. # wrong on the quantitative section equals some single-valued score for that section). Then, ETS runs their algorithms to weight each question for the exam by the percentages of people who get certain questions right/wrong. This obviously cannot be performed consistently until enough people have taken the exam -- hence, making us wait until November for scores and dropping the price to encourage more people to take the exam. This leads me to believe that they haven't weighted the unofficial score ranges yet, whatsoever.

Further, I am going to suggest that the score ranges are centered on the single-value of the raw, unweighted score. The ranges, then, should be interpreted at the midpoint with 50 points on either side to account for the difficulty of the exam. Thus, a 650-750 on a difficult test might reflect a true score greater than 700. Conversely, a 500-600 on an easy test might reflect a true score less than 550. Additionally, the 750-800 range is more realistically 750-850, thus the lower half of the 100 point range reflects the possibility that an 800 was achieved on a relatively easier test and would be subject to deflation. I think this theory accounts for the improved precision as the range moves towards 800.

I guess the real benefit of this, if it holds any water, is that we can assign some subjective belief about how difficult our individual exam was (relative to PowerPrep as a baseline), to determine where our actual score will fall within the range we were given.

A note of caution: I am hesitant to speculate on how this will map to percentiles. The entire argument above is based on the assumption that the score ranges (out of 800) can be estimated by the raw score (number of questions right/wrong) obtained. Thus, the percentiles are determined largely independent of the raw score -- which has historically been the case. And then, depending on how ETS wants to shape the distribution of new scaled scores (out of 170), they'll assign these scores according to the percentiles they want to represent.

Thoughts? Comments?

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'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.

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.

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.

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

I've been doing some speculating and thinking on what the revised GRE score ranges actually mean. I am going to propose a simple hypothesis I've been rolling around in my head, and I'm curious to see what flaws/improvements others can see. After all, we need something to occupy our minds until November.

Given what we know, the revised GRE has been spitting out 100 point ranges for those not bounded by 800 (i.e. 580-680) and smaller ranges for those bounded by 800 (i.e. 720-800). We also know that the highest possible score at this point is 750-800. Based on the information provided by ETS concerning the score ranges, the scoring practices on PowerPrep II, and the scoring table in ETS' book, I am going to make the assumption that these scores are raw scores based on the scoring rubric of the old GRE prior to weighting for difficulty of questions. This implies that the score is computed rather simplistically (i.e. # wrong on the quantitative section equals some single-valued score for that section). Then, ETS runs their algorithms to weight each question for the exam by the percentages of people who get certain questions right/wrong. This obviously cannot be performed consistently until enough people have taken the exam -- hence, making us wait until November for scores and dropping the price to encourage more people to take the exam. This leads me to believe that they haven't weighted the unofficial score ranges yet, whatsoever.

Further, I am going to suggest that the score ranges are centered on the single-value of the raw, unweighted score. The ranges, then, should be interpreted at the midpoint with 50 points on either side to account for the difficulty of the exam. Thus, a 650-750 on a difficult test might reflect a true score greater than 700. Conversely, a 500-600 on an easy test might reflect a true score less than 550. Additionally, the 750-800 range is more realistically 750-850, thus the lower half of the 100 point range reflects the possibility that an 800 was achieved on a relatively easier test and would be subject to deflation. I think this theory accounts for the improved precision as the range moves towards 800.

I guess the real benefit of this, if it holds any water, is that we can assign some subjective belief about how difficult our individual exam was (relative to PowerPrep as a baseline), to determine where our actual score will fall within the range we were given.

A note of caution: I am hesitant to speculate on how this will map to percentiles. The entire argument above is based on the assumption that the score ranges (out of 800) can be estimated by the raw score (number of questions right/wrong) obtained. Thus, the percentiles are determined largely independent of the raw score -- which has historically been the case. And then, depending on how ETS wants to shape the distribution of new scaled scores (out of 170), they'll assign these scores according to the percentiles they want to represent.

Thoughts? Comments?

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.