How are the 2019 applications coming

[magnetite]

Thanks! I was going to mention in response to your post that my first time around I applied at eight schools and didn't get in anywhere. Only wait-listed at one school, and never actually formally rejected. This time around I only applied to three schools and this symposium invitation, even without an acceptance, already makes this a more successful cycle for me! Seems like the case for you, too. I thought that was a nice juxtaposition.

Anyway, I'm applying to their PhD program. My POI said she has four years of funding for a graduate student on one of her grants, but that I'd likely have to TA for my final year. How do you think that works out into the spots that the department has available? Is it considered a Fellowship if you're being paid out of your POI's grant, rather than through the department?

[rockwizard]

 

Well, there it is! Heard back from 2/3 schools so far. All rejections. I really thought I had the research background necessary to go from undergrad to PhD. Maybe planetary science isn't for me. Kinda bummed I got this degree cos there aren't many jobs available in industry with it either. *DJ Khaled voice* Congrats, you played yourself.

[OcelotTracks]

50 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

 

Well, there it is! Heard back from 2/3 schools so far. All rejections. I really thought I had the research background necessary to go from undergrad to PhD. Maybe planetary science isn't for me. Kinda bummed I got this degree cos there aren't many jobs available in industry with it either. *DJ Khaled voice* Congrats, you played yourself.

I know that undergrad to PhD does happen, but I've spoken with several profs who won't accept PhD students directly from undergrad, for various reasons. I've also been told by many current PhD students that it's just not really a thing in a lot of the geosciences, regardless of what you've done in undergrad. I've done two research projects, including conference presentations, and contributed to 4 papers, and applied to M.S. degrees anyway.

[rockwizard]

52 minutes ago, OcelotTracks said:

I know that undergrad to PhD does happen, but I've spoken with several profs who won't accept PhD students directly from undergrad, for various reasons. I've also been told by many current PhD students that it's just not really a thing in a lot of the geosciences, regardless of what you've done in undergrad. I've done two research projects, including conference presentations, and contributed to 4 papers, and applied to M.S. degrees anyway.

Eh, I thought so too. But after looking at a lot of POI's current student's CVs I was convinced otherwise. 

[goosejuice]

1 hour ago, jimmay said:

Going for MS or PhD? Because at least when I applied to NAU I think it was masters only, but u could've been wrong/maybe it was for different departments

PhD. I've spoken with the person I am interested in working with and they mentioned they have an opening for a PhD student.

 

1 hour ago, rockwizard said:

 

Well, there it is! Heard back from 2/3 schools so far. All rejections. I really thought I had the research background necessary to go from undergrad to PhD. Maybe planetary science isn't for me. Kinda bummed I got this degree cos there aren't many jobs available in industry with it either. *DJ Khaled voice* Congrats, you played yourself.

Last year, I applied to two of the three schools you mentioned for planetary science. One thing I learned in my first go at grad apps is that planetary science positions are scarcer, highly competitive, and sometimes unfairly lumped together with astronomy/physics in certain departments. You're competing not only with other earth/planetary science majors, but more often, physics, math, and astronomy majors. Places like Caltech, UA, CU Boulder, ASU, and Harvard get enough super high quality applicants to filter out everyone else instantly.

Going from undergrad to PhD is quite common. Getting a masters in planetary science isn't really a thing because its not really a field in industry to begin with. A masters in earth science could help, but going from undergrad to PhD is still quite common. You most likely have the capability to do so, but you may want to shoot a little lower than the top of the top planetary science schools and instead focus on specific professors at other universities.

[rockwizard]

15 minutes ago, goosejuice said:

Last year, I applied to two of the three schools you mentioned for planetary science. One thing I learned in my first go at grad apps is that planetary science positions are scarcer, highly competitive, and sometimes unfairly lumped together with astronomy/physics in certain departments. You're competing not only with other earth/planetary science majors, but more often, physics, math, and astronomy majors. Places like Caltech, UA, CU Boulder, ASU, and Harvard get enough super high quality applicants to filter out everyone else instantly.

Going from undergrad to PhD is quite common. Getting a masters in planetary science isn't really a thing because its not really a field in industry to begin with. A masters in earth science could help, but going from undergrad to PhD is still quite common. You most likely have the capability to do so, but you may want to shoot a little lower than the top of the top planetary science schools and instead focus on specific professors at other universities.

Yeah I noticed that lumping with astro/physics people. I felt like, as a geophysics major I was going to be somewhat competitive background-wise but I guess not. I may consider re-applying next year perhaps I will get into mudlogging or something to try to get my foot in the door in industry instead. Not sure what else to do without spending years waiting/putting my life on hold and spending hundreds of more dollars to apply and retake GRE to look more competitive on paper. ? This sucks.

[magnetite]

28 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

Yeah I noticed that lumping with astro/physics people. I felt like, as a geophysics major I was going to be somewhat competitive background-wise but I guess not. I may consider re-applying next year perhaps I will get into mudlogging or something to try to get my foot in the door in industry instead. Not sure what else to do without spending years waiting/putting my life on hold and spending hundreds of more dollars to apply and retake GRE to look more competitive on paper. ? This sucks.

I definitely empathize, and I'm sorry you're going through this. My first cycle, I applied to two of the three schools you did and was rejected from both fairly quickly. For most of the other schools, the rejections came on April 15th. I didn't have as much time to work on my backup plan between then and graduation, so it took me a few months to find a job.

Are you still waiting to hear from Harvard?

[rockwizard]

2 minutes ago, magnetite said:

I definitely empathize, and I'm sorry you're going through this. My first cycle, I applied to two of the three schools you did and was rejected from both fairly quickly. For most of the other schools, the rejections came on April 15th. I didn't have as much time to work on my backup plan between then and graduation, so it took me a few months to find a job.

Are you still waiting to hear from Harvard?

Right on. Sorry to hear you had to go through this too! Did you end up working in industry for a bit then?

And yes, still waiting to hear from Harvard. At this point I'm fairly certain I am probably just being filtered out by GPA and GRE so I am expecting a rejection from them as well despite me having been in contact with the POI over email and phone previously. 

[magnetite]

10 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

Right on. Sorry to hear you had to go through this too! Did you end up working in industry for a bit then?

And yes, still waiting to hear from Harvard. At this point I'm fairly certain I am probably just being filtered out by GPA and GRE so I am expecting a rejection from them as well despite me having been in contact with the POI over email and phone previously. 

Not industry, but IT and web development. My first job after graduating was half support for Linux servers, half web development. Then I found a software engineering job. I had done a lot with Linux, MATLAB, and python for a few semesters and a summer REU, which helped me convince people to pay me to do this stuff. At the time, I didn't want to move, so my job opportunities were limited to what was local. 

Good luck with Harvard!

[chasebf]

To Rockwizard (sorry unsure how to tag people here, or if that's a thing).  Allow me via the anonymity of the internet to have a frank conversation with you.

You're background in research is stellar.  GPA is a bit low, but nothing bad and as long as it wasn't showing a downward trend in your junior-senior year will be washed out by your research easily. 

That said CU and Harvard (probably Arizona) will look for a few type of candidates coming form a pure undergrad background, these are generalizations but you'll get the point:

Candidate A:  High GPA, High GRE - these are your 'that guy/girl' valedictorian students.  What filters these people out is how much they bank on their high scores to get in.  If they're just in it thinking this is high school and good grades get you everywhere they're likely to be rejected.  They will need a good research focus to be let in, even with top marks. Some risk with these students, top marks doesn't mean good researcher. 

Candidate B: High GPA, High GRE (probably less so than Canid A, but still high), and research experience - these are you admits everywhere. Proven proficient students and proven proficient researchers. The total package.  Almost no risk in them failing.

Candidate C Okay GRE, Okay GPA, and research experience - these are admitted some places, rejected others.  Entirely based on the discretion of the POI and admin council.  Usually what gets these people in is research experience or a SOP that's focused towards a particular avenue of research at that school indicating they'd be a good fit. For example: this candidate might like seismic geophysics and have some background in it.  In their SOP they indicate the seismic geophysics people at that school and discuss briefly how they'd really like to be involved in their work. 

 You're a candidate C, or you could be as your GRE is an issue.  151 on quant is ~43rd percentile or so.  CU and Harvard will see candidates with stellar GREs and GPAs applying,  and almost all will filter out anything below a 50th, and most schools will filter out anything below a 70th (even though they say they wont).  Now this isn't to say you need a 95th+ on everything to beat out all of those 70th percentile cutoff people, you don't, research is far more important than GPA and GRE and you've demonstrated you're proficient in that.  WHAT YOUR GRE IS HOWEVER is this analogy:

You've built a really solid ship, great potential, this thing could sail the oceans for decades, and it's got all the amenities I'm looking for, nice cabin, a pool, open bar ------ this is your research experiences and background

But prior to launching this ship you decided to torpedo the side of it ------ this is your quantitative GRE. 

Now that ship could still float, heck it could make it across the oceans forever.  But if I'm left with the options between that torpedo-ship or another ship that doesn't have a torpedo hole, I'm going to go with the non-torpedo ship.

Get the quant up, it's dragging you down. Consider doing research for a year while you stage for 2020 applications. 

Let me stress this to you:

YOU HAVE A HARVARD, MIT, COLUMBIA, name a fancy school and it fits, application package in the making. But you've shot yourself with that GRE. 

Your PhD is merely delay, not on hold, and it's only delayed a year.  Spend the hundreds of dollars again to retake the GRE, it's trivial compared to how much you've invested in your education already. 

That said I hope you get into Harvard and this conversation is moot. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by chasebf
Grammar and spelling

[jimmay]

26 minutes ago, chasebf said:

To Rockwizard (sorry unsure how to tag people here, or if that's a thing).  Allow me via the anonymity of the internet to have a frank conversation with you.

You're background in research is stellar.  GPA is a bit low, but nothing bad and as long as it wasn't showing a downward trend in your junior-senior year will be washed out by your research easily. 

That said CU and Harvard (probably Arizona) will look for a few type of candidates coming form a pure undergrad background, these are generalizations but you'll get the point:

Candidate A:  High GPA, High GRE - these are your 'that guy/girl' valedictorian students.  What filters these people out is how much they bank on their high scores to get in.  If they're just in it thinking this is high school and good grades get you everywhere they're likely to be rejected.  They will need a good research focus to be let in, even with top marks. Some risk with these students, top marks doesn't mean good researcher. 

Candidate B: High GPA, High GRE (probably less so than Canid A, but still high), and research experience - these are you admits everywhere. Proven proficient students and proven proficient researchers. The total package.  Almost no risk in them failing.

Candidate C Okay GRE, Okay GPA, and research experience - these are admitted some places, rejected others.  Entirely based on the discretion of the POI and admin council.  Usually what gets these people in is research experience or a SOP that's focused towards a particular avenue of research at that school indicating they'd be a good fit. For example: this candidate might like seismic geophysics and have some background in it.  In their SOP they indicate the seismic geophysics people at that school and discuss briefly how they'd really like to be involved in their work. 

 You're a candidate C, or you could be as your GRE is an issue.  151 on quant is ~43rd percentile or so.  CU and Harvard will see candidates with stellar GREs and GPAs applying,  and almost all will filter out anything below a 50th, and most schools will filter out anything below a 70th (even though they say they wont).  Now this isn't to say you need a 95th+ on everything to beat out all of those 70th percentile cutoff people, you don't, research is far more important than GPA and GRE and you've demonstrated you're proficient in that.  WHAT YOUR GRE IS HOWEVER is this analogy:

You've built a really solid ship, great potential, this thing could sail the oceans for decades, and it's got all the amenities I'm looking for, nice cabin, a pool, open bar ------ this is your research experiences and background

But prior to launching this ship you decided to torpedo the side of it ------ this is your quantitative GRE. 

Now that ship could still float, heck it could make it across the oceans forever.  But if I'm left with the options between that torpedo-ship or another ship that doesn't have a torpedo hole, I'm going to go with the non-torpedo ship.

Get the quant up, it's dragging you down. Consider doing research for a year while you stage for 2020 applications. 

Let me stress this to you:

YOU HAVE A HARVARD, MIT, COLUMBIA, name a fancy school and it fits, application package in the making. But you've shot yourself with that GRE. 

Your PhD is merely delay, not on hold, and it's only delayed a year.  Spend the hundreds of dollars again to retake the GRE, it's trivial compared to how much you've invested in your education already. 

That said I hope you get into Harvard and this conversation is moot. 

Maybe -- but for example, Harvard EPS has moved to GRE optional stance to my knowledge because of how standardized tests add cost to applicants and only vouch for things like socioeconomic status, both of which reduce diversity. As someone who got into Harvard with a terrible undergrad record, I'm much more convinced it's the statement that makes the biggest difference in any package. If you have a clear goal for what you want to do, how your trajectory has prepared you for that work, and how this slots into your present view of your long-term aims, you're okay. Add in what benefit the department will get from you being there (as opposed to just what you will get out of the relationship) and you're even better. It also never gets said enough about how things like funding make a huge difference...the same application in 2 different years could see 2 very different results. Same goes for advisors, one might be okay taking a chance on someone, others (I can think of one in my current dept) are much more particular about boxes applicants have to check to be considered qualified for entry, but as long as your POI is vested enough to pull you in, that's all that matters. Of course, none of us have sat on adcoms and so this is mostly speculation, but this is my 4th application cycle so I like to think I've gotten some anecdotal sense of what can help you rise in the pile.

[chasebf]

44 minutes ago, jimmay said:

Maybe -- but for example, Harvard EPS has moved to GRE optional stance to my knowledge because of how standardized tests add cost to applicants and only vouch for things like socioeconomic status, both of which reduce diversity.

The GRE isn't a great predictor for students who all range around the same (e.g. an 88th vs a 74th is likely to be irrelevant).  However, for students who range outside of the traditional range or who have a great package but a bad GRE it's a red flag.  In fact probably one of the biggest, as the GRE is the only thing the student has complete control over (even grades are subjective sometimes with certain institutions giving As out like candy).  This comes from a variety of admin councils I've spoken to, discussions between faculty and students at seminars I've organized, and so forth.  I agree the GRE is a roadblock for low-income students, but in reality being low income is a roadblock in life in general, the GRE isn't going to be the ultimate roadblock here.  Additionally, no matter how sad your story in a grad application there's always somebody with a sadder one. 

Harvard EPS has a requirement of the GRE but allows you to explain why you didn't take it if you don't submit the scores.  Not really truly 'optional.' If anything that seems more of a test for everybody who isn't dirt poor or from some very impoverished nation with no infrastructure. 

Funding is an X factor we can't control for, so I don't even both.  However it's unlikely that these 3 schools, all of which have considerable financial resources, couldn't scrap together a TA-ship to support a stellar candidate for a year while a POI gets money together. 

You are correct with the SOP.  By far the most important piece of a application, but I defer to the boat analogy.  

Edited February 6, 2019 by chasebf

[Unconsolidated_Regolith]

4 hours ago, magnetite said:

How do you think that works out into the spots that the department has available? Is it considered a Fellowship if you're being paid out of your POI's grant, rather than through the department?

@magnetite I was basically wondering the same thing.  My POI said that he had grants in the works, but wasn't certain about them, and then a week later sent me an email saying "Know that we do anticipate a large recruitment year with 4  fellowships and 4 TAs available for our most competitive applicants. I hope to see one from you."  That makes me think that the 4 fellowships he mentioned must be departmental fellowships that can go to any incoming student. 

I'm super happy to have been accepted to a few places this year, but my goal is to at least find a position where the cost of study is totally covered. So far for the places I've been accepted that's not totally guaranteed, but I guess you can't expect to make progress without having to sacrifice some of your expectations ⛄

[rockwizard]

3 hours ago, chasebf said:

To Rockwizard (sorry unsure how to tag people here, or if that's a thing).  Allow me via the anonymity of the internet to have a frank conversation with you.

You're background in research is stellar.  GPA is a bit low, but nothing bad and as long as it wasn't showing a downward trend in your junior-senior year will be washed out by your research easily. 

That said CU and Harvard (probably Arizona) will look for a few type of candidates coming form a pure undergrad background, these are generalizations but you'll get the point:

Candidate A:  High GPA, High GRE - these are your 'that guy/girl' valedictorian students.  What filters these people out is how much they bank on their high scores to get in.  If they're just in it thinking this is high school and good grades get you everywhere they're likely to be rejected.  They will need a good research focus to be let in, even with top marks. Some risk with these students, top marks doesn't mean good researcher. 

Candidate B: High GPA, High GRE (probably less so than Canid A, but still high), and research experience - these are you admits everywhere. Proven proficient students and proven proficient researchers. The total package.  Almost no risk in them failing.

Candidate C Okay GRE, Okay GPA, and research experience - these are admitted some places, rejected others.  Entirely based on the discretion of the POI and admin council.  Usually what gets these people in is research experience or a SOP that's focused towards a particular avenue of research at that school indicating they'd be a good fit. For example: this candidate might like seismic geophysics and have some background in it.  In their SOP they indicate the seismic geophysics people at that school and discuss briefly how they'd really like to be involved in their work. 

 You're a candidate C, or you could be as your GRE is an issue.  151 on quant is ~43rd percentile or so.  CU and Harvard will see candidates with stellar GREs and GPAs applying,  and almost all will filter out anything below a 50th, and most schools will filter out anything below a 70th (even though they say they wont).  Now this isn't to say you need a 95th+ on everything to beat out all of those 70th percentile cutoff people, you don't, research is far more important than GPA and GRE and you've demonstrated you're proficient in that.  WHAT YOUR GRE IS HOWEVER is this analogy:

You've built a really solid ship, great potential, this thing could sail the oceans for decades, and it's got all the amenities I'm looking for, nice cabin, a pool, open bar ------ this is your research experiences and background

But prior to launching this ship you decided to torpedo the side of it ------ this is your quantitative GRE. 

Now that ship could still float, heck it could make it across the oceans forever.  But if I'm left with the options between that torpedo-ship or another ship that doesn't have a torpedo hole, I'm going to go with the non-torpedo ship.

Get the quant up, it's dragging you down. Consider doing research for a year while you stage for 2020 applications. 

Let me stress this to you:

YOU HAVE A HARVARD, MIT, COLUMBIA, name a fancy school and it fits, application package in the making. But you've shot yourself with that GRE. 

Your PhD is merely delay, not on hold, and it's only delayed a year.  Spend the hundreds of dollars again to retake the GRE, it's trivial compared to how much you've invested in your education already. 

That said I hope you get into Harvard and this conversation is moot. 

Yeah I know I should retake the GRE. But I'd rather get into a mediocre school than pay-to-win and get in at a "top tier" school.

I signed up to take the GRE like a week before test date. Given that I've taken and done well in Calc I-III, differential equations, linear algebra, partial differential equations, and even tensor calculus I figured it wouldn't be a problem for me. I got to the test and it was all questions like "Paul is Sarah's cousin. Sarah is George's sister. George is Sally's great grandfather. How is Sally related to Paul?" which, imo, is not math. The questions weren't hard, they were time consuming, so I ended up running out of time and not being able to finish them all which is I'm sure why I got this quant score. 

Also, Its nice that $200 isn't alot of money to you but for us who are "dirt poor", as you put it.. it is. Haha. 

[Boolakanaka]

@rockwizard What does “pay-to-win” mean?

[rockwizard]

4 minutes ago, Boolakanaka said:

@rockwizard What does “pay-to-win” mean?

Basically the people who can pay hundreds and hundreds (or thousands) of dollars to retake the GRE over and over to get a perfect score are, imo, paying to win.

Because in the end, a high GRE score doesn't mean much when it comes to predicting grad student success. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by rockwizard

[Boolakanaka]

@rockwizard In my experience, and that’s based on being on admissions committees and having two daughters in graduate school (MIT and Yale) that after a couple of attempts, multiple scores are sort of discounted and but a piece of the admissions puzzle. That said, upper tier programs will be looking for consistency of high achievement in a variety of areas. For the record, both my Ds took the GRE just once...

[chasebf]

1 hour ago, rockwizard said:

Yeah I know I should retake the GRE. But I'd rather get into a mediocre school than pay-to-win and get in at a "top tier" school.

I'm not sure what type of pride this is, but your applications indicate otherwise. If you wanted to get into a mediocre school you would have applied elsewhere. 

1 hour ago, rockwizard said:

I signed up to take the GRE like a week before test date. Given that I've taken and done well in Calc I-III, differential equations, linear algebra, partial differential equations, and even tensor calculus I figured it wouldn't be a problem for me. I got to the test and it was all questions like "Paul is Sarah's cousin. Sarah is George's sister. George is Sally's great grandfather. How is Sally related to Paul?" which, imo, is not math. The questions weren't hard, they were time consuming, so I ended up running out of time and not being able to finish them all which is I'm sure why I got this quant score. 

So you didn't prepare for it much. Okay that's fine, prepare for it and you should do much better.  

Also the GRE doesn't test any college math, it tests math up to college level as it's made for students from engineer all the way to psych/socio who don't have to take anything beyond precalc. It's a test of logic problems, if you're sitting down to physically write out much math you're doing it wrong.  Based on this it seems like you fell for the trap the GRE is supposed to catch people in. 

1 hour ago, rockwizard said:

Also, Its nice that $200 isn't alot of money to you but for us who are "dirt poor", as you put it.. it is. Haha. 

I could sit here and enthrall you with a history of the socioeconomic status of my family to pity justify myself to you but I won't.  Nothing I said was intended as a derogatory remark, but I'm sorry I may have wrote it in a way that misconstrued it to you as such; additionally dirt poor is an expression in the rural midwest where I'm from.  Anyway you've spent what $50000-150,000+ on an education over 4+ years of life? The GRE's 200 dollar cost (100 with the low-income voucher if you qualify) and a month of study. It's a a small sum by comparison, find a way, I know poorer people than you who have.

1 hour ago, rockwizard said:

Because in the end, a high GRE score doesn't mean much when it comes to predicting grad student success.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5c69/875be977c1de9392dd8392937ebbf606dd18.pdf

This is a very well cited meta-analysis of the GRE and its predictive value for graduate student success and correlates that a good GRE corresponds to success in graduate school.

If you reject this fine, but for the time being the GRE is used by everybody and the system isn't going to change soon.  Don't put yourself out of it due to a stupid test.

 

Anyway, take my advice or don't, but don't try to bite a hand that's trying to do nothing but help you succeed. 

Edited February 7, 2019 by chasebf

[chasebf]

6 minutes ago, Boolakanaka said:

In my experience, and that’s based on being on admissions committees and having two daughters in graduate school (MIT and Yale) that after a couple of attempts, multiple scores are sort of discounted and but a piece of the admissions puzzle

I'm curious what's defined as multiple and how frequently?  Is this more a metric of rapid retaking of it like 3-4 times in a 6 month interval or retaking it multiple times in the 5 year window that any single test is valid for (say 2 times rapidly and 1 time some years later)?

[Boolakanaka]

@chasebf More of the former than the later. Observations are made to what the length of the time span between test taking and what other life events have been occurring, e.g. a masters degree, field study, etc.....

[geononymous]

57 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

Yeah I know I should retake the GRE. But I'd rather get into a mediocre school than pay-to-win and get in at a "top tier" school.

I signed up to take the GRE like a week before test date. Given that I've taken and done well in Calc I-III, differential equations, linear algebra, partial differential equations, and even tensor calculus I figured it wouldn't be a problem for me. I got to the test and it was all questions like "Paul is Sarah's cousin. Sarah is George's sister. George is Sally's great grandfather. How is Sally related to Paul?" which, imo, is not math. The questions weren't hard, they were time consuming, so I ended up running out of time and not being able to finish them all which is I'm sure why I got this quant score. 

Also, Its nice that $200 isn't alot of money to you but for us who are "dirt poor", as you put it.. it is. Haha. 

@rockwizard :

Unfortunately, @chasebf has got it right mostly, especially their first response in this thread. I do think that the human mind is very complex and no tests could adequately judge its abilities.  Having said that, adcom will definitely want to base their decision on something more concrete, e.g., your GRE score. Now, great thing about the US is this: it is super rich and can entertain all sorts of possibilities. Meaning, there are professors who will dismiss GRE right away. But, there are others who will NOT budge a tad bit if you could not pass their threshold. 

Personally, I am suffering from my bad GRE quant score (155). Usually, I take more time thinking about even the simplest things. I do think it is a strength because it allows me to get a deeper understanding of any concept or topic. However, anyone can disagree and refuse me to offer an opportunity based on just that. It is what it is. 

Apart from all that, you truly need to think really hard about a career in planetary science. Given the funding situation, it is like hunger games. Even a Caltech Ph.D. can't necessarily save you from the real world. My two cents.

Edited February 6, 2019 by geononymous

[rockwizard]

17 minutes ago, chasebf said:

if you're sitting down to physically write out much math you're doing it wrong.  Based on this it seems like you fell for the trap the GRE is supposed to catch people in. 

The fact that its designed to be a "trap" speaks volumes about the value of the test itself.

18 minutes ago, chasebf said:

Anyway you've spent what $50000-150,000+ on an education over 4+ years of life? The GRE's 200 dollar cost (100 with the low-income voucher if you qualify) and a month of study. It's a a small sum by comparison, find a way, I know poorer people than you who have.

I got by on mostly scholarships and grants with a bit of loans on the side so no I did not spend that kind of money, but it's pretty bold of you to assume you know how "poor" I am. Yikes! Judging by the fact that you apparently have $50-150k to fork over for college, I'm guessing you don't actually know people who are actually poor lol. 

20 minutes ago, chasebf said:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5c69/875be977c1de9392dd8392937ebbf606dd18.pdf

This is a very well cited meta-analysis of the GRE and its predictive value for graduate student success and correlates that a good GRE corresponds to success in graduate school.

And here are multiple studies that say otherwise. [1] [2] [3] [4] ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to worship the GRE as a holy grail tell-all of someones worth as a student instead of an indicator of socioeconomic status, go for it! 

[rockwizard]

2 minutes ago, geononymous said:

Meaning, there are professors who will dismiss GRE right away. But, there are others who will NOT budge a tad bit if you could not pass their threshold. 

Yeah, honestly if a professor is the latter it's probably a sign I don't want to work for them anyway. I've heard from many professors that they don't even glance at GRE scores so. 

3 minutes ago, geononymous said:

Usually, I take more time thinking about even the simplest things. I do think it is a strength because it allows me to get a deeper understanding of any concept or topic.

Yeah, I'm like this too. Which is, in part, why I ran out of time on the GRE. The whole "being treated like I was in a high security prison" thing during the test didn't help with my anxiety either.

[chasebf]

6 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

The fact that its designed to be a "trap" speaks volumes about the value of the test itself.

Why? You walked into a test thinking you were going to crush it with limited studying. The GRE humbled that notion.

8 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

I got by on mostly scholarships and grants with a bit of loans on the side so no I did not spend that kind of money, but it's pretty bold of you to assume you know how "poor" I am. Yikes! Judging by the fact that you apparently have $50-150k to fork over for college, I'm guessing you don't actually know people who are actually poor lol. 

Again not going to justify myself, and you stated earlier how poor of a background you came from.  So you're telling me you've been able to secure enough grant/scholarship money to finance a college education (again probably something like 50-150K based on current values of college in the US) and you can't find 200 more? 200 dollars will be the a pivotal sum of money for your life?

16 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

And here are multiple studies that say otherwise. [1] [2] [3] [4] ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to worship the GRE as a holy grail tell-all of someones worth as a student instead of an indicator of socioeconomic status, go for it! 

None of these are meta-analysis, they're specific to singular departments, or have dramatically less N numbers, or their goals are set for completion not ultimate success (e.g. more citations, more research done, etc) as just a quick scan can see. Additionally, so what? We can debate till we're blue regarding the validity of the GRE, but admin councils are still going to use it for the next few years at a minimum. 

 

22 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

But I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to worship the GRE as a holy grail tell-all of someones worth as a student instead of an indicator of socioeconomic status, go for it!

I never said this.

 

Again, we're all just trying to help you succeed. 

[magnetite]

20 minutes ago, rockwizard said:

Yeah, I'm like this too. Which is, in part, why I ran out of time on the GRE. The whole "being treated like I was in a high security prison" thing during the test didn't help with my anxiety either.

When taking the GRE, I found the incredibly loud, mechanical keyboards in my test-taking center quite a distraction. I had the headphones on pretty much the entire time, not just during the writing sections, but that didn't help much. Just in that regard it seems like there could be quite a variance in GRE scores, depending on the environment of the center and how prone to distraction the person taking the test is. If I'm in there all by myself, rather than with a room full of others, I'd think my score would have been better.