omensetter

I wasn't sure where to post this (boringly specific) question, but: for those applying to Harvard (English), is it still the case that a hard copy transcript needs to be sent to the GSAS, in addition to uploading a pdf to the online application? The English program website says yes, but all I can find on the GSAS website is this: Transcripts The Graduate School requires that you submit your application online, and that your recommenders submit letters of recommendation online. Upload your statement of purpose, transcripts, and additional academic information in the Writing Sample and Additional Academic Materials section of the application. If nobody knows the answer, I might just have to spend hours crafting a Harvard-worthy email to someone in the admissions office...

I took (if I remember correctly; I sat the exam almost a year ago) three practice tests, and I scored a good 50 points less on all of them than I did in the actual test. A lot of people, though, seem to have the absolute opposite experience; the stress of test day, which can never be properly replicated at home or in a library, really can have a big impact. I finished all the practice tests I took with some time to spare; in the actual test, I had about 20 questions unanswered when I ran out of time. I found that the test I took was somewhat different from the practice tests in both format and content. The formatting stuff is (again) difficult to remember, but I think there was just generally a bit more stuff to read, and some styles of question I'd not seen before. It's very possible that because of nerves it just felt different, but I'm pretty sure that while the questions still asked you to do the exact same things as in the practice tests, there were some differences in formatting that slowed me down. I came out of the test feeling not that I'd done badly, but that I'd done less well than in the practice tests. I got lucky, however, in terms of content: the test I sat had lots of theory stuff on it, which is kind of my thing, so I ended up getting a decent score. I guess I'd just say that while the test has obviously evolved since the practice tests were written, everybody who sits it is using pretty much the same practice material, so any changes are probably not hugely advantageous or disadvantageous to anyone. I'd mostly emphasise the importance of timing: I think this is probably the main thing you can control when it comes to any standardised test, especially such a purposefully gruelling one as this, so even if the practice tests are slightly different, their use value lies in allowing you to practice answering stuff quickly. I found the dearth of any written experiences except awful ones pretty worrying when I was preparing, so thought it might be helpful to share an experience that, while certainly not fist-pumpingly awesome, was kind of okay in the end.

Hey Bunny. I scored a 170 on the verbal and did a reasonable amount of study to get there. I did maybe an hour a day of study (for all the sections) in the month leading up to the test, though there were many days where I didn't do any at all. This was over the summer, though, so I'm not sure I'd dedicate as much time to it if I were taking it closer to app season. While I know I'm speaking from a position of privilege here, I totally agree with everything everyone else has said re the GRE's importance. I know a few people who got into top programs (like Top Ten) without great scores; there's plenty of anecdotal evidence on these boards that it happens all the time. However, I'm happy to talk to you about how I studied over PM if you want (though I'm no expert!). I have no idea where my 'starting point' was, as I didn't take a practice test until I'd started studying, but when I first looked at sample questions on the GRE website I got basically all of them wrong. It was super frustrating, and demoralising, but it definitely motivated me. I don't know if it's relevant, but I'm an international; we don't really have standardised testing in my country so the GRE was my first experience of it. I probably wouldn't have put as much effort into it if the whole enterprise hadn't been so completely foreign to my experiences in education up until that point. Anyway, all this is really to say: the GRE is stupid and hard and grad programs probably don't care about it all that much if you're outstanding in all other areas, but as someone who happened to do well on (part of) it I am happy to share my experience with you!

I took the paper-based test, as it's the only version offered in my city (I'm also international). Schools certainly accept it; I'm looking at my score report right now and there's nothing on it that even indicates which type of test I took. There's a few differences in timing between the PBT and CBT (as I remember, you get a bit longer for each section on the PBT, but you also have more questions to answer so it probably evens out with the CBT) - there's lots of information about this on the GRE website, in the official guide, and in the booklet they send you when you register. When practicing, I actually found I did better on the PBTs than the CBTs, maybe because I'm used to having a paper exam booklet to be able to flip through. One thing to consider though, is that on the PBT you'll be writing your AW essays by hand, but as long as you're a pretty fast and decent handwriter, and don't rely heaps on being able to go back and edit your work, you'll be fine. Overall, I really wouldn't worry about which test you're taking, especially if you don't have a a lot of choice in the matter.

I'll be submitting a chapter of my MA thesis. It's around 30 pages at the moment but I'm planning to edit it down to around 20. I'm not yet sure whether this will best be achieved by cutting out whole sections completely (and thus possibly having to rework the thread of my argument to maintain coherence) or editing individual paragraphs and cutting down on examples and things (which might result in something not in-depth enough, or that tries to cover too much ground with not enough space). A combination of both will be most effective, maybe. It's a very theory-heavy piece (though focused on a novel) so perhaps also removing some of the more "introductory" theoretical content might work. But then who knows who'll be on the adcomm.. How's everyone else planning to approach editing?