What's a good GRE score?

[historygeek]

Hi everyone! My diagnostic GRE tests are putting me at a 163 verbal and a 159 quant. I’m taking the GRE in late July.

What scores would make my GRE scores good and competitive in a history program?

[TMP]

90th percentile.  You're fine.

https://www.prepscholar.com/gre/blog/gre-score-percentiles/

[dr. t]

GRE scores don't make you competitive for history programs. Just a bar to hop over.

[historygeek]

4 hours ago, telkanuru said:

GRE scores don't make you competitive for history programs. Just a bar to hop over.

I know it won't make me competitive for history programs! My GPA is not great (3.45) so a high verbal GRE score could easily make me into a more competitive candidate by making up for my GPA. 

[psstein]

4 hours ago, historygeek said:

I know it won't make me competitive for history programs! My GPA is not great (3.45) so a high verbal GRE score could easily make me into a more competitive candidate by making up for my GPA. 

Not really, that's not how it works. I had a 3.44 when applying. My DGS told me that my recommendations/SoP made me a really strong candidate, not my GRE score.

The 90th percentile verbal score and 5-5.5 AW score are simply barriers. If you don't get over them, the application goes straight into the circular file. If you do, it just means your application survives the first barrier, where the majority are weeded out.

I'm not totally sure if this is true, but I know Harvard gets 500+ apps a year. I imagine that 300 or so immediately go into the garbage for GRE scores/GPA.

[AfricanusCrowther]

5 hours ago, historygeek said:

I know it won't make me competitive for history programs! My GPA is not great (3.45) so a high verbal GRE score could easily make me into a more competitive candidate by making up for my GPA. 

Nobody thinks like this (except maybe admins at public universities, about whom I know little). GPA and GRE aren’t comparable; large majority of academics don’t care; and at any rate your GRE score is high enough that it probably won’t receive anything more than a passing glance. Focus on your SoP, writing sample, and figuring out the markers of good historical work and professional comportment.

Edited May 24, 2018 by AfricanusCrowther

[TMP]

Remember, admissions for the PhD is entirely a different beast than undergraduate.  Discard all the things you have learned from applying to undergraduate and start afresh with all the advice you're getting now.

[AfricanusCrowther]

11 hours ago, psstein said:

The 90th percentile verbal score and 5-5.5 AW score are simply barriers. If you don't get over them, the application goes straight into the circular file. 

FWIW, I got well below 5 on my AW score (don’t ask) and I did just fine (trust me). I wouldn’t let low GRE scores alone discourage anyone from applying.

[historygeek]

5 hours ago, TMP said:

Remember, admissions for the PhD is entirely a different beast than undergraduate.  Discard all the things you have learned from applying to undergraduate and start afresh with all the advice you're getting now.

The thing is, I’ve gotten conflicting information on the GRE in regards to the GPA. I realize that the written portions of the application are the most important.

[dr. t]

38 minutes ago, historygeek said:

The thing is, I’ve gotten conflicting information on the GRE in regards to the GPA. I realize that the written portions of the application are the most important.

There may be a very small amount of merit in the idea that you can boost your app by increasing your GRE for applying to state schools, since the better (and competitive) stipend packages there are awarded more or less purely on quantifiables. But in terms of places you should be putting your effort, this is not one of them.

I've said this elsewhere, but it's a hard lesson for undergrads to learn that not everything in life is fixable. Your ugrad GPA will forever be your ugrad GPA. It's a bit low, not catastrophically so (I'm at an Ivy with a 3.06 ugrad GPA), but it may close some doors for you. That's just life. But instead of trying to accumulate more quantifiables to somehow make up that ground (you can't) spend your time working on the actual skills you will need in life. 

[TMP]

1 hour ago, historygeek said:

The thing is, I’ve gotten conflicting information on the GRE in regards to the GPA. I realize that the written portions of the application are the most important.

Welcome to graduate school!  You will definitely get conflicting information along the way in all aspects of professionalization (You will get different advice on writing a historiographical paper or an academic book review, to begin with).  You will have to learn, eventually, how to make calls for yourself.  (But, generally, you'll want to listen to your dissertation adviser the most.)  If you hate the GRE, take it once and just move on.  If you love the idea of boosting your GRE scores and take it again, be all means do it.  You choose what's most comfortable for you but you also have to weigh in what will be the best use of your valuable time.

[psstein]

4 hours ago, AfricanusCrowther said:

FWIW, I got well below 5 on my AW score (don’t ask) and I did just fine (trust me). I wouldn’t let low GRE scores alone discourage anyone from applying.

I'm told the writing sample can compensate for the AW section. According to some department websites (e.g. Chicago's), a low AW score can be "cause for concern." 

The GRE is probably the least important element of any application. So long as you score in the 90th percentile on verbal, it's a "set it and forget it" kind of exam.

[ashiepoo72]

There isn't any general rule, to be honest. I think a tippy top GRE score can be important at public universities for funding purposes (like you need 80th percentile or better on everything, including the quantitative section, for some university fellowships, and some departments struggle to fund students so these fellowships matter a great deal to them). I also think the GRE can "help" a weak undergrad GPA, but only if the rest of the application is strong. I had a mediocre undergrad GPA (like 3.44), but it was high in history (around 3.8), however I wanted to help my chances so I got an MA and had a verbal and written GRE score above 90th percentile (quant was in the 50s) so I felt like it balanced out--but from what I gather, the adcomms were way more interested in my statement and writing sample. Several profs, even outside of my field, specifically talked to me about those.

This is anecdotal, but I know at least 3 people who got into top 5 programs with GRE verbal scores in the low 80 range. I will say, if you get verbal or written scores below 80 I would STRONGLY urge you to retake. And I would have retaken it if I hadn't gotten at least 90, just because I was very concerned about my weak undergrad GPA and didn't want anything else in my file that would discourage adcomms.

To be repetitive, the written material is all more important imo. But once those applications are out of your hands, your power over the process is gone until you get acceptances. Might as well bolster your chances as much as possible while you can, especially because we can only guess at how important things like the GRE are and that importance varies from program to program.

Edited May 25, 2018 by ashiepoo72

[historygeek]

19 hours ago, psstein said:

I'm told the writing sample can compensate for the AW section. According to some department websites (e.g. Chicago's), a low AW score can be "cause for concern." 

The GRE is probably the least important element of any application. So long as you score in the 90th percentile on verbal, it's a "set it and forget it" kind of exam.

Yeah, I told my parents that if I get a 163+ on the verbal, I don't think that there's any use in retaking the GRE. 

[MastigosAtLarge]

On 5/23/2018 at 5:16 PM, historygeek said:

I know it won't make me competitive for history programs! My GPA is not great (3.45) so a high verbal GRE score could easily make me into a more competitive candidate by making up for my GPA. 

I had a 2.91 overall from undergrad, and got into the Boston College and UMD--College Park history MAs.  My GREs were 161 Verbal (88%), 153 Math (51%), and 5.5 Writing (98%).  Now, I'm going to UC Irvine for Ph.D. on full funding (to be fair, my MA GPA is a 3.85 or something).

Edited May 29, 2018 by MastigosAtLarge
Added GRE scores, and my other MA acceptance to UMD.

[noctua]

Just to echo everyone else-- it really is just a hurdle that you should do well *enough* on. For me, though, with a 5 AW, 167 Verbal and 153 Q, I was one percentile under qualifying for a 3-year fellowship for my PhD - it sucks, but I have good funding anyway so it wasn't a make it or break it situation. 

[Averroes MD]

6 hours ago, noctua said:

Just to echo everyone else-- it really is just a hurdle that you should do well *enough* on. For me, though, with a 5 AW, 167 Verbal and 153 Q, I was one percentile under qualifying for a 3-year fellowship for my PhD - it sucks, but I have good funding anyway so it wasn't a make it or break it situation. 

I agree with this post, and would want to warn against not taking the GRE seriously at all. You do need a decently good score, and a high score on verbal and writing would absolutely give you a little small boost to your application overall. This was certainly the case for me, coming in with a mixed undergraduate GPA due to initially being an engineering student before switching to the humanities. (Engineering GPA's are notoriously low/lower.)

Edited July 28, 2018 by Averroes MD

[HTM18]

Focus on your SOP and getting LORs from faculty. 

[samaasl]

I have good stats in Verbal (170, 99%) and Quant (162, 80%), but completely messed up the AWA with  4.0. I don't really want to retake the test, both because of time and money concerns, but I am considering it because of the AWA score. 

Do you think I should retake it?

If it helps, I am an international student and not a native-speaker. I did the TOEFL a few years ago and got a 116, and am currently waiting on the results of the IELTS test (strongly hoping that I did not mess up the writing section....)

[psstein]

1 hour ago, samaasl said:

I have good stats in Verbal (170, 99%) and Quant (162, 80%), but completely messed up the AWA with  4.0. I don't really want to retake the test, both because of time and money concerns, but I am considering it because of the AWA score. 

Do you think I should retake it?

If it helps, I am an international student and not a native-speaker. I did the TOEFL a few years ago and got a 116, and am currently waiting on the results of the IELTS test (strongly hoping that I did not mess up the writing section....)

The AW score is secondary to your writing sample. A high-quality writing sample will compensate for a mediocre AW score.

[historygeek]

Hi everyone. 

I just took the GRE and it went not as well as expected. I got a 160v (86th percentile), 142Q. Should I retake it?

[mama]

yes

[historygeek]

update: my faculty mentor said with the rest of my application it should be okay!

[WhaleshipEssex]

Verbal *should* be on the low end of good enough but, as has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread, taken with your SoP and writing sample you'll be fine.

[urbanhistorynerd]

You still have time to retake it! Applications aren't due until December. I would study some more and try again.

I've been testing 158 V on 2 diagnostic tests, but after a week and half of studying (vocab, vocab, vocab!) I got it up to 161! I plan to take it at the end of August. I'm aiming for 165 V+.

Here are some useful practices: http://web.csulb.edu/~acarter3/course-carterlab/1014-practice-questions.pdf