170 Verbal on 1st GRE, Middling Quant; Retaking: am I crazy to think of not answering verbal on GRE 2?

[tacos95]

I took the GRE a couple weeks ago and was very pleased to end up with a 170 on verbal. However, my quant was lower. Not horrendous, but not where I wanted it to be. I had taken several practice tests, and my official score was about 5 points below the average of my practice tests. Not sure what happened. Primary study plan now is to take practice tests with reduced time.

Now, I just want to see if an idea I have is totally hair-brained: what if I just didn't answer the verbal questions on my second test, and then sent GRE scores from both tests to all my desired universities? That way, they'll see the 170, and I don't have to worry about not doing as well on the verbal while I try to recover some quant points. 

But I could also see plenty of reasons that this would look weird to people reviewing my application , e.g. did I just focus on one section each time and I have a really one-track mind, etc. And I don't feel daunted by taking the verbal again. I just wanted to see if taking the verbal again is like disposing of a gem.

Anyhow, advice on whether it's stupid to consider not answering verbal on my second test would be appreciated. My undergrad background isn't super impressive, so I'm trying to bulk up where I can.

thanks.

[Dwar]

First off, congrats on the 170! that's super impressive. 

Second, I'd say that as long as your quant is above the 155 mark, you should be good for all but the top 10 of schools in terms of GRE. If you are looking to break into the top 10 then I'd say that the quant should be in the 160 range. With a verbal score of 170 I'm sure they will be impressed. 

Third, I would say that it is not a good idea to retake it and not do the verbal test. I see what you're trying to do,  but I'm not sure how that would work with the adcoms. They may only look at one of your scores, or they may look at both. But honestly it'll be a crapshoot as to whether or not that actually works. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Dwar

[uchenyy]

14 minutes ago, Dwar said:

Second, I'd say that as long as your quant is above the 155 mark, you should be good for all but the top 10 of schools in terms of GRE.

This is interesting, as I've heard that it will be difficult to get accepted to a top 20 school without at least a 160 on the GRE. I'm not arguing with you; I'm simply curious as to where you are getting this information from. 

Also, what's your definition of top 10? Chicago and UNC, for example, are not in the USNWR top 10, but they're pretty darn close. 

[Dwar]

5 minutes ago, uchenyy said:

This is interesting, as I've heard that it will be difficult to get accepted to a top 20 school without at least a 160 on the GRE. I'm not arguing with you; I'm simply curious as to where you are getting this information from. 

Also, what's your definition of top 10? Chicago and UNC, for example, are not in the USNWR top 10, but they're pretty darn close. 

Generally I'd agree with you and say that a 160+ for quant is required for the 10-20 range, but I was thinking that with a Verbal score of 170, it can make up some of the difference. Obviously I could be wrong, but that was my thinking. 

Now for the top 10 thing, I'd say that on the USNWR list they extend to the top 15, essentially everything before OSU. Thats not to say that OSU isn't an amazing school, but I would say that CHYMPS, Columbia, UNC, UCSD, and the like are in another slightly higher field. For the OSU onward schools i'd say that you can get by with a 155 Q coupled with a 170 V as long as the rest of your profile is killer. But TBH you need a complete killer profile regardless of your GRE scores. A lot of schools simply use it to check a box, and then disregard it from the admissions decision.  

[uchenyy]

7 minutes ago, Dwar said:

Generally I'd agree with you and say that a 160+ for quant is required for the 10-20 range, but I was thinking that with a Verbal score of 170, it can make up some of the difference. Obviously I could be wrong, but that was my thinking. 

Now for the top 10 thing, I'd say that on the USNWR list they extend to the top 15, essentially everything before OSU. Thats not to say that OSU isn't an amazing school, but I would say that CHYMPS, Columbia, UNC, UCSD, and the like are in another slightly higher field. For the OSU onward schools i'd say that you can get by with a 155 Q coupled with a 170 V as long as the rest of your profile is killer. But TBH you need a complete killer profile regardless of your GRE scores. A lot of schools simply use it to check a box, and then disregard it from the admissions decision.  

Ah, alright. That makes sense. I know of someone who was waitlisted at UNC with a 148 Q and 162 V, so it seems like some programs take a more holistic approach and don't use the GRE as a check box. My sense is that the Harvards and Yales, simply because they receive so many applications, are inclined to use it as a check box.

[Dwar]

9 minutes ago, uchenyy said:

Ah, alright. That makes sense. I know of someone who was waitlisted at UNC with a 148 Q and 162 V, so it seems like some programs take a more holistic approach and don't use the GRE as a check box. My sense is that the Harvards and Yales, simply because they receive so many applications, are inclined to use it as a check box.

Yaaaaaaaa, of course there are those cases. Thats why I would encourage someone, regardless of their GRE scores, to apply to at least one reach. You never know? 

But of course only if there is excellent fit and all that. For me my GRE scores are fairly poor at 309, so I am mostly applying to schools in the 50-80 range, but I am applying to two schools in the 30-50 range simply because there is excellent fit and why not? While I obviously don't think that I'll get in to the 30-50 schools, you never know. But that's why I'm also applying to four schools in the 50-80 range, as that is far more likely for my profile. 

[sargon01]

I was in a similar position. I had money and time for only one GRE and I got 169/160. As I was aiming at #20-30 schools anyway, I did not retake it, since I figured my score would more help than hinder my application. It all worked out in the end. But if you're truly aiming at getting into top 10 (or 15) schools, I would retake it to get your quant score above 160. You have to keep in mind that people competing with you will have scores around 330-333, so you need to push your score up in order to maximize your chances. It's also worth checking how the schools rank in your specific subfield. The school I'm at is around the #20 in general but top 10 in American Politics, so they get more competitive applicants for that subfield.

[tacos95]

Good work to you on the GRE Sargon! Yeah, the subfield bit makes sense.

I did end up taking it again and got V:168 and Q:160 (13 percentile improvement in quant), so even if some schools take only most recent score, my verbal is only one percentile lower than I would've had otherwise.  

However, I've decided to go MPP route . . . I know, I know: not pure academic goodness. I really do appreciate that and would love to dally around with a PhD, but I don't want to have such minimal income for 5 years (even after considering PhD fellowhips vs MPP cost).

[Dwar]

On 11/1/2019 at 4:56 PM, tacos95 said:

Good work to you on the GRE Sargon! Yeah, the subfield bit makes sense.

I did end up taking it again and got V:168 and Q:160 (13 percentile improvement in quant), so even if some schools take only most recent score, my verbal is only one percentile lower than I would've had otherwise.  

However, I've decided to go MPP route . . . I know, I know: not pure academic goodness. I really do appreciate that and would love to dally around with a PhD, but I don't want to have such minimal income for 5 years (even after considering PhD fellowhips vs MPP cost).

Thats a great option!

For more info on those types of programs I would suggest you check out the "government affairs" page. They have more info and discuss those sorts of programs much more then we do here.