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

[Minnesotan]

Again, let's keep this topic on track. The question had nothing to do with the validity or usefulness of standardized testing. If that's what you would like to discuss, start a new thread, please.

The subject obviously chaps some people's hides. =)

[rising_star]

Minnestan wrote:

Isn't that why the devil invented the subject test?

I seriously doubt in the humanities Q is used as a tiebreaker for fellowships...I think they would look at the subject test or something else, anything else other than math...I think quant scores between 600-800 are looked at all the same, but if you dip too low, it can raise eyebrows that they're dealing with someone lazy. A 780 verbal 400 Quant, say, looks odd and some schools might question this discrepancy -- and could be a problem if the university (especially at state schools) have thresh-holds that need to be met.

However, if you go on their site and read their material, ETS seems adamant about having schools judge verbal and quant as disparate scales and are not to be viewed as a conflated lump of of ability, the way the SAT often is.

What about the countless fields where there isn't a GRE subject test? In that case, the subject test couldn't be used as a cutoff or tiebreaker. I'm thinking of history, art history, geography, political science, classics, area studies, anthropology, sociology, etc.

Though again, I'd imagine there are cutoff scores for the subject test, below which your application won't receive the same consideration. This thread has focused on the GRE general since it's more common.

[Minnesotan]

Like female dwarves, it's a common misconception to think that there is no history subject test. It's just that nobody uses it.

But, yes, I agree with Rising. There are only subject tests for a small minority of disciplines.

[JackofSpeed]

650v is low at 93-95%?

A 650 verbal is definitely not low and is, generally, an excellent score...but it's true it's not a selling point for an application in a humanities programs as those on the committee seem to be eyeballing that verbal score in particular.

What's often bandied about from professors in Humanities dept's to those students who've not done as well as they would have liked on the GRE is: "if you feel you can score 700+ (97%ile) I would suggest retaking the test." (I've not taken the GRE yet myself but I have heard others who've gotten this advice). If there's a magic number for verbal score to be taken seriously at the very top programs, it seems 700 is it...and while definitely not a cut-off, it seems to be "preferred" level to reach to be given serious consideration by extremely competitve programs.

Trying to get this thread back to its original question...but I think the poster who went over the application process did a good job of explaining where GRE's have their greatest value -- at the outset of the sift and discard process.

[StarvingStudentYeah]

Wow, ~650 Verbal is certainly not "ridiculously" low. It's a relatively well known idea that the Quan has a MUCH stronger reliability and validity than the Verbal.

There are a great many people who get into the truly elite PhD programs in English/Lit (Iowa and UVA MFA for instance) that have scores quite average GRE numbers.

The simple fact of the matter is that GRE score has NOTHING to do with writing ability - and it's far easier to find high GRE scores than truly innovative and talented writers. The bottom line is that if you are weak in one area, you need to be superlative in another to make it up.

[purplepepper]

Haven't read all of the posts closely. Sorry this reply is a bit late--here's my experience. Maybe it will help. I've just sent out my apps so I'm anxiously waiting too. Anyway, I did my first year of undergrad at OSU. They are on the quarter system, and did fairly well when it came to grades. I transferred to Boston University after the first year, (semester system) and anyone who has ever been to BU will tell you about the rumored grade deflation. Whether that's true I don't know, but BU, for being one of the top 20 schools in the country, has a relatively low average undergrad GPA that hovers around a 3.0 (compared to the ivies, which Ive heard are much higher). I had to work damn hard for those Bs.

Spent a semester in france, had some abroad grades. Even though I got letter grades, the French don't like to give out As' if I remember properly. Anyway, the whole purpose of this post is that

1. an A in the quarter system (5 credits) = 13.32 semester points

a B+ in the semester system (4 credits) = 13.2 semester points

The point being, when calculating GPA combining semester points and quarter points, A's from the quarter system become equivalent to B+s in the semester system. Obviously, my major GPA reflects both courses took at both universities (plus those I took in France), and if it was straightforward it would actually be a lot higher than it really is because of conversions and blah.

GPAs are objective? I don't think so. Or, well, at least I hope not.

So, yes, I believe that GREs are important because they serve as a kind of balance and a point of reference when comparing different GPAs from different universities. With my GRE scores, I'm hoping that institutions will have a better idea of what my grades from BU really mean compared with other candidates.

2. I don't understand how there can be a cut-off (maybe I'm being naive) keeping this in mind. Unless its something unarguably low or the contents of your curriculum is not up to par

3. I think people with straightforward GPAs would be less affected by a poor GRE score than people with discrepancies in their gpas. i could have made this up, but it's the impression i get from talking this subject over with some people in the field.

With that being said, I do have solid GREs and a solid MA to back up my application. Don't get me wrong, I'm worried like everyone else that somewhere down the line something that I did as an undergrad 5 years ago will come back to haunt me. But like the next person, I find it discouraging to read posts that claiming that with a non-stellar undergrad GPA its next to impossible to get into a top program in one's field, be it an ivy or not. I guess I just have to wait and see.

[Minnesotan]

2. I don't understand how there can be a cut-off (maybe I'm being naive) keeping this in mind. Unless its something unarguably low or the contents of your curriculum is not up to par

Because some of the programs I applied to had a 1% acceptance rate last year. GRE and GPA are quantifiable, and are therefore the easiest to use as a guideline for the first major cut. I'm sure adcoms are happier folks when looking at a stack of 60 applications, rather than 600.