Any ideas on what GRE/GPA cut-off scores are?

[dubitocogito]

Why is it fair that someone should get good scores just because they can prove that practice makes perfect?

Um...What? Why is it fair that someone is rewarded for hard work? Yeah, I don't know. What a cruel cosmos. Next thing you know, people will study for exams and revise papers before submission. These crazy kids and their "planning ahead"-always looking for the easy way out.

[crustaceangirl]

However, a strong verbal score should be important, no matter what school you're applying to (in the humanities, I mean - scientists don't need to be able to string two sentences together). =)

Ooh, burn! I'll have you know that I'm a scientist and my verbal score outpaced my quantitative by a good margin. (According to you, I scored well enough to be a humanities PhD. Heh.) We write papers too! ;-)

Yes, I think we fundamentally agree on this and are just quibbling over statistical issues.

LaraAnn, I can sympathize with how you feel about the numbers game. It's true that a few data points do not give you a clear concept of who the candidate is, and I agree that committees should look at the hard work we put into our essays, writing samples, CVs, etc. I think that as long as your scores/GPA are decent (and yours sound like they are), someone will at least read your SOP, letters of recommendation, and so on. If you do really abysmally on the GRE or have a sub-3.0 GPA, some schools might send your app straight to the circular file, but I don't think you'll have that problem.

[farty14]

I'm glad my question sparked such rancorous debate. But, to return to my question--Is the Quant score important for History admissions?--I guess the answer is, sort of. It probably depends on the program. Average GRE scores in this category are fairly low across the board, leading me to believe that someone with a 580Q would probably not be at a disadvantage.

On a separate note, regardless of what the Haaahvard study found, I'd say those findings are pretty meaningless. If the GRE's correlation with success is minimal, then the fact that math may correlate better with success seems largely irrelevant. This is especially true considering the fact that the test has three parts. If math were the be-all-end-all, then the test should contain only a Q section, no verbal or writing. For people in History (not me), I would think that the V and W sections are much more important than math. Terms like "problem-solving" are euphemisms that substitute for"solving math problems"--i.e., it is a circular claim. In other words, when the study claims that the Q section better illustrates problem-solving abilities, it is really claiming that it illustrates better ability to solve math problems. Indeed, even if the claim that the Q better predicts success on average, I find this to be completely disingenuous. Indeed, my (anecdotal) experience with many brilliant History professors and students is that their math skills are low but their research ability (i.e., their ability to research history and draw (novel) conclusions from their research) is exceptional. My personal opinion is that too much emphasis is placed on the Q section.

[nailbitingnmiserable]

I think the arguing over GRE scores and their importance or accuracy is never going to end. I tend to perform well on standardized tests, but I know plenty of smart, hard working, driven individuals who do not. A close friend of mine, whose GPA trumps mine, and who worked her tail off in college, is one of these people. Should she have her application tossed aside just because she doesn't perform well on standardized tests?

The other issue is that of prep courses. Students with the time and money are able to invest big bucks into "practicing" for the GRE. These classes teach you how to perform well on the exam, and the knowledge they cram into you is generally lost within days of completing the test. These classes do work, but they are only available to an elite group of students.

[dubitocogito]

I think I fluxed through these on a weekly basis before deciding to study for a year. I think I'm on Bargaining for the whole application - just let me get into one school...

Five Stages of GRE Grief

Denial:

Why would the GRE matter? It's not like the schools ask for it. Ok, well, maybe they do. But that's just a formality.

That Harvard (admissions) study (on admissions) is meaningless. What the hell do they know? Stupid elitists and their lampooning and their make-out parties.

If they cut by GRE during the first round, then why ask for 300 15-page writing samples? I'm sure the committee is going to read all 4500 pages. Together. Aloud. On a Sunday.

Well, certainly the admissions committee will spend more time on my nursing home work with the Spirit Singers than on a stupid four hour test. I mean, they ask for a resume, too, duh!

Anger:

Why me? Why a test? I'm a student! I don't understand!

It's not fair that people who study do well! That's just straight bullshit, son. Studying isn't ballin'. Studying isn't keepin it real. Real scholars do real things, beeyotch.

Bargaining:

How much does the verbal/quantitative/awa really matter? I mean, they didn't expect us to try on that section, did they?

You know, Einstein failed math - and I'm sure the committee will take that into account as they review my application. They'll probably think I'm just like him!

Maybe if I attach a Chicken Soup for the Soul-style explanation of my scores...Yeah, they'll never be able to resist my story about my great-grandmother's ex-life partner's death. That makes me seem unique - and stronger!

My mother's best friend told me that "these things have a way of working out" and that "it's all part of God's plan for me." Who am I to argue? Her latest marriage is going really well!

Depression:

I put in an application to Barnes and Noble today. My section of specialization is Star Wars Cross-Sections and my section of competence is Relationships. I'm trying to make myself as broad as possible.

Acceptance:

?

[nailbitingnmiserable]

Anger:

Why me? Why a test? I'm a student! I don't understand!

It's not fair that people who study do well! That's just straight bullshit, son. Studying isn't ballin'. Studying isn't keepin it real. Real scholars do real things, beeyotch.

In stating my opinion, I didn't meant to imply that you shouldn't study for the GRE. Of course you should study. I was only stating that Prep courses and financial situation create an unfair bias. It is the kind of test you can get better at just by learning how to take the test. The writing section makes sense, though I prefer the old logic section, the quantitative is straightforward--and somewhat pointless for people in social sciences or humanities fields--but it is tough if you've been out of school for a while. The verbal section is just awful. I have an excellent vocabulary, and there were tons of words on there that not only didn't I know, but there was no way to reason out the answer. The test purposefully provides trick answers, that would make sense if you attempt to reason it out using the root or part of sentence/speech tactics. This is just silly in my opinion. Under these situations you are just testing the ability to memorize vocab lists, and not to reason or to understand the dynamics of language and word usage. I recognized this early on and memorized the word lists like a good little girl--hence my decent score on the verbal section--but I still think it is stupid.

Speaking as someone who studied hard and did well on the GREs, I feel they measure very little about a student's ability to thrive in a doctoral program and should not be weighed heavily in admissions decisions.

[Minnesotan]

But, to return to my question--Is the Quant score important for History admissions?

Short answer: not really.

Longer answer: they might look at it in cases where the proposed topic of study is statistics-heavy, but it's not traditionally something that is given much weight. Just like the writing score - nobody really cares, since you sent in a writing sample that should demonstrate in far greater detail your aptitude for historical analysis. Either way, I think you'll be cut a lot more slack for a mediocre Q than for a mediocre V.

I wonder, however, since some fellowships are given out based on GRE scores, if the Q is sometimes used as a tiebreaker, when two people have similar V scores.

[flyingwalrus]

...the quantitative is straightforward--and somewhat pointless for people in social sciences or humanities fields...

Actually, the quantitative section is by far the most important portion of the test for much of the social science, most prominently econ (math is disguise) and political science (stats).

[nailbitingnmiserable]

This is true, I apologize. I was thinking more along the lines of my own field, anthropology, where generally the quant. sections doesn't count for much.

[Minnesotan]

Speaking as someone who studied hard and did well on the GREs, I feel they measure very little about a student's ability to thrive in a doctoral program and should not be weighed heavily in admissions decisions.

I don't think they're weighed that heavily in the actual decisions - I think they're used as convenient, objective cutoff points (like undergrad gpa) when a program has 600 applicants for 10 spots. Once they whittle it down to 50-100 finalists, the complete package is more important than any numbers you've provided. Sure, they'll still consider gpa and gre, but they will probably give more weight to statements and references at that point.

[canuck]

Speaking as someone who studied hard and did well on the GREs, I feel they measure very little about a student's ability to thrive in a doctoral program and should not be weighed heavily in admissions decisions.

Isn't studying hard to do well what you intend to do in a doctoral program then?

[ahug030]

Um...What? Why is it fair that someone is rewarded for hard work? Yeah, I don't know. What a cruel cosmos. Next thing you know, people will study for exams and revise papers before submission. These crazy kids and their "planning ahead"-always looking for the easy way out.

Isn't studying hard to do well what you intend to do in a doctoral program then?

I think this line of thinking is plain backwards. Studying hard gives someone a good GPA, why should the GRE score provide another measure of this? Is that the point of the GRE in the first place? To me a standardized test score should not reflect the amount of 'study' (read memorization) that someone has done, by definition. Good research isn't robot-style regurgitation, it's making connections between ideas, and then using writing skill to communicate new results to others.

[anonuser109]

Any idea how this fits into the "weeding out"?

[LaraAnn85]

Any idea how the AWA fits into this "weeding out"?

I've heard it doesn't matter, at least for the hard sciences. It's funny, I didn't do extremely well on the verbal section or the AWA on the GRE, though in my research lab class with all the honors students last quarter and got the highest grade on my final research paper. The A+ must have been a fluke.... :wink:

[canuck]

I think the point of a standarized test is to provide an equal measure (or standard) upon which to gauge everyone. Applicants are coming from very different schools. The value of an A is not uniform even if from two classes in the same department. To accomplish this the tasks are made trivial enough (Quant) or ridiculous enough (Verbal) that each applicant wouldn't have a 'signficant' advantage over the next. You then have to work a bit to overcome a minor disadvantage such as not having done much 10th grade mathematics in a while.

However claiming that the fact that you have to work a bit somehow invalidates the GRE as a way to cull utterly substandard applicants is absurd. Good researchers are made up of 3/4 work ethic, 1/4 insight.

[dubitocogito]

I think this line of thinking is plain backwards. Studying hard gives someone a good GPA, why should the GRE score provide another measure of this? Is that the point of the GRE in the first place? To me a standardized test score should not reflect the amount of 'study' (read memorization) that someone has done, by definition. Good research isn't robot-style regurgitation, it's making connections between ideas, and then using writing skill to communicate new results to others.

The GRE is a standardized test. Standardized means that it is administered and graded uniformly for all test takers.

Obviously, not all institutions are created equally and not all institutions grade equally. Thus, the standardized test.

Standardized does not mean that it is, or should be, a freestyle. Standardized is not synonymous with aptitude. It is also important to recognize that the GRE is not, and does not claim to be, an aptitude test.

As we all know, ETS provides review products and practice tests for preparation. If you choose not to study for the test, which may include memorization (I certainly did not know a priori the definition of avuncular), do not blame the test.

Also, if there is redundancy in the system, doesn't that tell you something? Maybe something you shouldn't quickly dismiss. Like Canuck wrote earlier, maybe studying might actually be important for getting a doctorate.

[ahug030]

Also, if there is redundancy in the system, doesn't that tell you something? Maybe something you shouldn't quickly dismiss. Like Canuck wrote earlier, maybe studying might actually be important for getting a doctorate.

...claiming that the fact that you have to work a bit somehow invalidates the GRE as a way to cull utterly substandard applicants is absurd. Good researchers are made up of 3/4 work ethic, 1/4 insight.

Granted, but here's hoping that the admissions committees see the GRE results as a fallible indicator rather than attribute 'holy grail' status as some seem to (particularly international students, presumably as they feel the need to validate their degrees?). For the record my cynicism is not because I got bad scores... :roll:

[Minnesotan]

I don't think anyone claimed it was the be all end all of the application process - only a good indicator of how people achieve on a level playing field.

[JordanJames]

No offense to anyone, but I think that if there were no standardized test involved in the whole graduate admission process, the same people who are complaining about the test would be complaining that the whole graduate admission process is too subjective. The test can and should be improved, but it still is one of the best ways for schools to evaluate students. In fact, I would argue that it's more important than undergraduate GPA (it should be noted that my undergraduate GPA is terrible). In my opinion, the GRE, LORs and SOP should be the most important factors in determining a person's potential as a grad student. But what do I know.

[ahug030]

Not sure where you're coming from, but as an engineer, I personally would be more comfortable with a peer that can solve complex, relevant problems than one that can show he is competent in high-school level math. I imagine this would apply for humanities students as well, if you consider a slightly different context (i.e. knowledge of specific topic X over knowledge of obscure word Y). To say that the GPA should be less important than GRE scores... I'm sorry but are you kidding? 4 years study towards the GPA versus, say, 2 months study (in the most extreme cases) for the GRE - please!

[JordanJames]

Not sure where you're coming from, but as an engineer, I personally would be more comfortable with a peer that can solve complex, relevant problems than one that can show he is competent in high-school level math. I imagine this would apply for humanities students as well, if you consider a slightly different context (i.e. knowledge of specific topic X over knowledge of obscure word Y). To say that the GPA should be less important than GRE scores... I'm sorry but are you kidding? 4 years study towards the GPA versus, say, 2 months study (in the most extreme cases) for the GRE - please!

I think the GRE needs to be revamped, and in the case of engineers, yes the GRE is pretty much useless (since virtually everybody scores a 750+ on the quant anyways). But the high schol level math tested on the GRE is more a test of intellectual agility and logic than anything else. The GRE is flawed, but at least it provides an objective standard by which to judge people. And the problem with your example, is that, in my opinion, the GRE does not test knowlege (except obscure vocab, which I think is ludicrous), it tests general problem solving ability, which is relevant to almost any discipline. I know people, and I'm sure you do as well, who knew which classes to take and with whom in order to get higher grades. I'm not talking about taking basket weaving instead of orgo, I'm talking about taking the same class with a professor with a better curve or a class that appears difficult on paper, but was actually easy at the school it was taken. In addition, some schools inflate grades to an almost unreasonable extent, while others make it difficult for a student to get a B average. I had a professor who never gave an A in his 10 years of teaching and professors that rarely give Cs. So that's why I think it's unfair to compare 2 people's GPAs and come to a judgement on their ability based on that. I think recommendations can tell a school much more about a person's ability to solve complex specific problems in a person's area of study than a GPA. I think the GPA should definently be a factor in admission decisions, but I think the GRE and LORs are more important.

[Minnesotan]

To advocate on behalf of the devil, obscure vocab is a good test of reasoning skills for people in the humanities. Obviously those with Latin, Greek, and German backgrounds will have an easier time of it, but that's not really a departure from traditional humanistic skills.

The ability to glean meaning from words -- especially nuances of meaning, alternate meanings, connotation, or obscure words -- is a valuable tool for the humanities phd.

[JordanJames]

I see your point, and in the case of those studying certain humanities subjects, it is useful. But for a philosopher or even a historian, I would certainly imagine problem solving skills are more important than knowledge of obscure words. I plan to study political science and I'm not in graduate school, so I obviously don't know, but I would think that testing verbal ability rather than vocabulary would be a step up.

Anyways, having a test is certainly better than not having the test. I understand that a taught law school program is different than a graduate research program, but from my experience, those in law school who scored higher on the LSAT but had a low GPA did better than those with a high GPA and a low LSAT score. I know when I applied to law school I heard plenty of complaints about the LSAT from other prospective law students, but after going to law school, I realized that LSAT scores do matter.

[ahug030]

I know people, and I'm sure you do as well, who knew which classes to take and with whom in order to get higher grades. I'm not talking about taking basket weaving instead of orgo, I'm talking about taking the same class with a professor with a better curve or a class that appears difficult on paper, but was actually easy at the school it was taken. In addition, some schools inflate grades to an almost unreasonable extent, while others make it difficult for a student to get a B average. I had a professor who never gave an A in his 10 years of teaching and professors that rarely give Cs. So that's why I think it's unfair to compare 2 people's GPAs and come to a judgement on their ability based on that.

I can see your viewpoint now that you have qualified it in this way - yes this is all familiar to me too.

To advocate on behalf of the devil, obscure vocab is a good test of reasoning skills for people in the humanities. Obviously those with Latin, Greek, and German backgrounds will have an easier time of it, but that's not really a departure from traditional humanistic skills.

The ability to glean meaning from words -- especially nuances of meaning, alternate meanings, connotation, or obscure words -- is a valuable tool for the humanities phd.

Also a good point. Unfortunately, even 3 years of latin in secondary school didn't help me much - it's those damn anglosaxon words with no roots that screw you! :wink:

[Canadianpolsci]

I actually teach the GRE to foreigners whose first language is not English. I only teach the verbal and writing sections, though. Another teacher handles math. But still, I really do know this subject matter.

There is an aspect of the GRE no one has touched on. This is the fact that the verbal and math sections are vastly different in their difficulty level.

Look, I only studied high school math, but I have extremely strong verbal aptitude. I studied for the GRE, and got verbal 700, math 710, writing 6/6 (this was 4 years before I started teaching the GRE. Today I can score 770 since I really have memorized 3300 words from those fat books, just over time by teaching).

But look at my (2003) percentages: verbal 700 is 97%. math 710 is 74%. Why? BECAUSE THE MATH IS EASY. IT WAS NOT SO EASY FOR ME, BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

The GRE math is taken my science applicants, who must be at least 25% of all applicants. And it is absurdly easy for them. It is high school math! Meanwhile, the verbal is tough for everyone. I know classics students, who are extremely bright, know Greek, Latin, German and French, and read ALOT of English literature, who got only 710 on the verbal. It is VERY VERY hard to improve a verbal score from 700 to 750.

GRE quantitative can ONLY hurt you in humanities and social sciences apps. If it is below 650 it raises a slight flag. Below 600, it is bad (they can see you aren't great at math). If it is 650 and up, you are safe. Other than that, short of 750+, it is all the same. 650-750 is the same!

Period.