Another GRE retake question...

[zjwah]

Sorry guys, another "should I retake the GRE" question!

I'm applying for my PhD in Public Health, specifically health services research though the program differs from school to school. I plan on applying to Johns Hopkins, Yale, UNC-Chapel Hill, U of Pittsburgh, U of Mich, U of Washington, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. I took the GRE 4 years ago and got a 550 V and 720 Q with a 4.5 AW. I was able to get into my top choice Master's program (Uni of Denver for International Studies). My GPA for my MA is 3.78. I just took the GRE again (today, so I don't know what my AW score is) but got a 640 V and 680 Q. I know I could do better on the math (I didn't study as much as I should have and haven't used any GRE math since the last time I took the test), but I'm wondering if it is really necessary to spend all that money again (and not to mention all the time studying). Thanks for the help!

[DrFaustus666]

I don't know anything about Public Health at all. But it sounds like a field where very good but not necessarily superlative scores in both areas would be expected ... which for PhD programs at those top-ranked schools means a minimum of 700 in each test---for most people. (George W. Bush and people with connections and "legacy" relatives similar to his excepted.)

If you got 720-Q before you shouldn't have much difficulty pushing that up to 750. Same thing with the 640-V. You ought to be able to touch the low 700's without a tremendous amount of effort.

Certainly if your application is truly outstanding in some other way then the AdComms might tend to cut you some slack on the GRE, so I've been told.

So, my gut feeling to the question "Should I retake the GRE?" is "probably, and it shouldn't require a monumental effort on your part to improve your scores."

Edited August 27, 2010 by DrFaustus666

[adaptations]

I don't know anything about Public Health at all. But it sounds like a field where very good but not necessarily superlative scores in both areas would be expected ... which for PhD programs at those top-ranked schools means a minimum of 700 in each test---for most people. (George W. Bush and people with connections and "legacy" relatives similar to his excepted.)

If you got 720-Q before you shouldn't have much difficulty pushing that up to 750. Same thing with the 640-V. You ought to be able to touch the low 700's without a tremendous amount of effort.

Certainly if your application is truly outstanding in some other way then the AdComms might tend to cut you some slack on the GRE, so I've been told.

So, my gut feeling to the question "Should I retake the GRE?" is "probably, and it shouldn't require a monumental effort on your part to improve your scores."

I generally agree with the previous post. Focus on getting your math score up to the high 700s and keep working on the verbal to see if you can gain a little extra ground there. I think your scores are such that you have a chance, but it sounds to me like you can strengthen them, which will certainly help your chances.

[milestones13]

... which for PhD programs at those top-ranked schools means a minimum of 700 in each test---for most people. (George W. Bush and people with connections and "legacy" relatives similar to his excepted.)

So, my gut feeling to the question "Should I retake the GRE?" is "probably, and it shouldn't require a monumental effort on your part to improve your scores."

I have never heard of legacy having an impact on graduate school admissions. Perhaps there might be some of this going on for MBA or Law programs, but this is, as I understand it, largely an undergraduate phenomenon. I have heard that Yale refers to these progeny of the uber rich (not necessarily legacies) as "development cases." lol. Though unspectacular academically, Bush would amazingly not be an example of this. $ developmentals have low SAT's and grades (not C's ala Bush) and ordinarily nothing of an extracurricular background to support their admission to a prestigious college or even a remotely competitive one...

It is true, however, that they may "interview well" due to a cheerful disposition bestowed upon them by palmy parents. How well they interview ultimately depends on the number of 0's on the check.

Where did you hear that money and connections and/or legacy plays a role in graduate school admissions?

Edited August 30, 2010 by milestones13

[DrFaustus666]

I have never heard of legacy having an impact on graduate school admissions. Perhaps there might be some of this going on for MBA or Law programs, but this is, as I understand it, largely an undergraduate phenomenon. I have heard that Yale refers to these progeny of the uber rich (not necessarily legacies) as "development cases." lol. Though unspectacular academically, Bush would amazingly not be an example of this. $ developmentals have low SAT's and grades (not C's ala Bush) and ordinarily nothing of an extracurricular background to support their admission to a prestigious college or even a remotely competitive one...

It is true, however, that they may "interview well" due to a cheerful disposition bestowed upon them by palmy parents. How well they interview ultimately depends on the number of 0's on the check.

Where did you hear that money and connections and/or legacy plays a role in graduate school admissions?

The Grundprinzip (fundamental notion) stems from my own possibly overactive imagination. In every other respect, graduate admissions seem to resemble undergraduate admissions, albeit at a higher level. I could be totally wrong, but it's one of those things I always assumed as an axiom.