Some Thoughts on the GRE

[kretschmar]

Rationally-justified distaste for the GRE has guided this discussion. I fully agree with the two main critiques: that the GRE is poor tool for philosophy admissions (though I maintain that it still has legitimate academic relevance), and that its monopolistic price-gouging are reflective of structural problems in admissions and in higher education generally. We can all pine for a government-administered, European-style national graduation exam in the U.S., which would entail all kinds of other, desirable adjustments to our wildly unequal public education system. But in the (possibly eternal) meantime, there will remain demand in graduate admissions for a standardized measure, which I maintain is a legitimate counterbalance to disparities in grading and rigor at undergraduate institutions. In other words, it is something we, as applicants, should want.

Just in case there is anyone reading this thread, now or in the future, who has not yet taken the GRE, I want to caution against a potentially costly contempt for the exam. So long as the GRE is required for philosophy admissions, respected schools will be awash in top-scoring applicants, who also have excellent profiles, grades, etc. In other words, they are as smart as you in every way, and they have top scores. Some people have pointed out how applicants with perfect scores are frequently rejected, suggesting that this confirms that the GRE is trivial in admissions. While these instances certainly show that the GRE cannot get you accepted, they do not indicate that GRE's were ignored, nor that ten other candidates weren't eliminated using the GRE. The bottom line is that you cannot afford to neglect any component of your application. This is especially true if you envision yourself at a school within a country mile of the top of the field.

There are so many factors beyond your control when you apply to grad school, but the good news is, the GRE is not one of them. The high-end courses and tutoring @soproperlybasic mentioned, which no doubt can help your score, boil down to structured study time and months-long game plans. It is not necessary to pay for the courses, nor do they provide secret silver bullets for the exam. Exam tutors will tell you that the way to improve any standardized score is to simply practice the test, hour after hour, until you can take it in your sleep.

Again, this is not to champion the test, nor to suggest you should spend time on it that would detract from your writing sample, statements, etc. Just don't do yourself the disservice of sending out fabulous applications and then appending a mediocre score. Even if you take the view that the GRE is entirely arbitrary and unjust, your self-interest should motivate you to ace it anyway.

Edited February 9, 2018 by kretschmar

[poppypascal]

I agree: don't think you can get away with a bad GRE score simply because it's such an unfair mode of evaluation to begin with. However, we are in some sense addressing the future faculty of philosophy departments in the US here, and therefore the future admissions committees. And to them I would say: let us find a better solution. Either figure out a way to render public the standardized testing, or somehow come up with a "European-style" final exam, but whatever happens, this model is hopefully on its last legs.

[Neither Here Nor There]

9 hours ago, Scoots said:

2 hours ago, kretschmar said:

Rationally-justified distaste for the GRE has guided this discussion. I fully agree with the two main critiques: that the GRE is poor tool for philosophy admissions (though I maintain that it still has legitimate academic relevance), and that its monopolistic price-gouging are reflective of structural problems in admissions and in higher education generally. We can all pine for a government-administered, European-style national graduation exam in the U.S., which would entail all kinds of other, desirable adjustments to our wildly unequal public education system. But in the (possibly eternal) meantime, there will remain demand in graduate admissions for a standardized measure, which I maintain is a legitimate counterbalance to disparities in grading and rigor at undergraduate institutions. In other words, it is something we, as applicants, should want.

Just in case there is anyone reading this thread, now or in the future, who has not yet taken the GRE, I want to caution against a potentially costly contempt for the exam. So long as the GRE is required for philosophy admissions, respected schools will be awash in top-scoring applicants, who also have excellent profiles, grades, etc. In other words, they are as smart as you in every way, and they have top scores. Some people have pointed out how applicants with perfect scores are frequently rejected, suggesting that this confirms that the GRE is trivial in admissions. While these instances certainly show that the GRE cannot get you accepted, they do not indicate that GRE's were ignored, nor that ten other candidates weren't eliminated using the GRE. The bottom line is that you cannot afford to neglect any component of your application. This is especially true if you envision yourself at a school within a country mile of the top of the field.

There are so many factors beyond your control when you apply to grad school, but the good news is, the GRE is not one of them. The high-end courses and tutoring @soproperlybasic mentioned, which no doubt can help your score, boil down to structured study time and months-long game plans. It is not necessary to pay for the courses, nor do they provide secret silver bullets for the exam. Exam tutors will tell you that the way to improve any standardized score is to simply practice the test, hour after hour, until you can take it in your sleep.

Again, this is not to champion the test, nor to suggest you should spend time on it that would detract from your writing sample, statements, etc. Just don't do yourself the disservice of sending out fabulous applications and then appending a mediocre score. Even if you take the view that the GRE is entirely arbitrary and unjust, your self-interest should motivate you to ace it anyway.

I agree completely that the GRE should not be blown off, and that committees probably use it to select between otherwise equal candidates all the time. I don't blame the professors. I might do that as well if I was on the committee. The issue, as you well know, is that it takes an enormous amount of time to relearn the math tricks if you are not a math person (as a lot of continental students particularly are) and a lot of time to memorize the vocabulary. I had to study on top of full-time graduate studies in my MA program, where I was writing a meaningful thesis, writing and presenting at a conference, and studying languages. All this on top of the fact that I was working.  And I'm sure my story is shared by almost everyone else here.

So they are asking me to forfeit the time I need to do actual things to improve my philosophical future (master Latin and German; conference papers; graduate work) to study for an exam that is only mildly related to philosophy at best.

But sure, you are right that it should not be blown off, and you are also right that it could have been a way to set me apart from the other applicants, by receiving a top score.

 I would much prefer that if they insist on a test to balance the subjectivity of the committees that we have a different test. I would prefer a language or logic exam, or philosophy subject test. That would be a peel to study for, but I'd complain less because at least what I would be learning I would need in a very direct way in the future (forcing me to double down on studying a language is never a bad thing).  


P.S. I wrote this. Not scoot. Not sure what happened. 
 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Neither Here Nor There

[coffeepls]

I had a weird GRE experience. I ended up w/ 163V 162Q and 6W. So I did slightly better on the quant than expected, but slightly worse than I had hoped for on the verbal. The math was just annoying, to put it simply. I think the reason I scored how I did wasn't because I knew the formulas and things like that, but because I did some problems in the most roundabout way possible. I went through and did the ones I could do quickly first, then started doing the others the 'long way.' 

[Descartes blanche]

Is there any general rule of thumb concerning acceptable scores when applying to M.A. programs? I've always been really bad at taking tests under time constraints. I ended up with a meager V 155 Q 152 AW 4.5 

One of my letter writers expressed a lot of confidence in my writing sample and even urged me to apply to Ph.D. programs despite my GRE scores. Unfortunately, I was mostly out of money and time when she told me. Also, I still have the sneaking suspicion that my scores will be a burden. Any former M.A. students (especially from top-ranked M.A. programs) care to share some personal experience with the average scoring in their cohort? 

 

[Swann]

27 minutes ago, Descartes blanche said:

Is there any general rule of thumb concerning acceptable scores when applying to M.A. programs? I've always been really bad at taking tests under time constraints. I ended up with a meager V 155 Q 152 AW 4.5 

One of my letter writers expressed a lot of confidence in my writing sample and even urged me to apply to Ph.D. programs despite my GRE scores. Unfortunately, I was mostly out of money and time when she told me. Also, I still have the sneaking suspicion that my scores will be a burden. Any former M.A. students (especially from top-ranked M.A. programs) care to share some personal experience with the average scoring in their cohort? 

 

i went to one of the top ma programs (and was admitted to a few others with funding) with similar scores: v 160, q 150, aw 4.5. i know that my scores were not below average compared to most other students in the program. i don't remember the specifics, but in my cohort (and those in the year above and below me) mine were much better than a few, on par with most, and noticeably lower than some. i did spend a lot of time studying for, and retaking, the gre before submitting my apps for phd programs. my scores improved a to v 165, q 159, and aw 5, which were sufficient to get me admitted to phd programs. in terms of phd applications, your scores could perhaps be a burden...its hard to say; but i do not think that your scores would pose a problem for your ma application.

[soproperlybasic]

37 minutes ago, Descartes blanche said:

Is there any general rule of thumb concerning acceptable scores when applying to M.A. programs? I've always been really bad at taking tests under time constraints. I ended up with a meager V 155 Q 152 AW 4.5 

One of my letter writers expressed a lot of confidence in my writing sample and even urged me to apply to Ph.D. programs despite my GRE scores. Unfortunately, I was mostly out of money and time when she told me. Also, I still have the sneaking suspicion that my scores will be a burden. Any former M.A. students (especially from top-ranked M.A. programs) care to share some personal experience with the average scoring in their cohort? 

 

I got into NIU this cycle with a 158V, 151Q, so don't worry too much as long as your writing sample and letters are strong.