GRE Lit: "first sweep"?

[shepardn7]

Many sources, including the Princetown Review book, say to do an initial "sweep" of the test and pick up all the easy points. Did this work out well for people, either for the real test or practice tests? This isn't how I took my one and only practice test and I'm worried that a "first sweep" will eat up too much time. What was your "first sweep" strategy? Did you only answer simple ID questions (e.g. NOT the long "match the passage" questions) first, and save ANY reading for later? Did you find that even just reading the questions to see if you could answer them quickly wasted time? If I'm going to do this tomorrow, I want to do it right.

[wreckofthehope]

Many sources, including the Princetown Review book, say to do an initial "sweep" of the test and pick up all the easy points. Did this work out well for people, either for the real test or practice tests? This isn't how I took my one and only practice test and I'm worried that a "first sweep" will eat up too much time. What was your "first sweep" strategy? Did you only answer simple ID questions (e.g. NOT the long "match the passage" questions) first, and save ANY reading for later? Did you find that even just reading the questions to see if you could answer them quickly wasted time? If I'm going to do this tomorrow, I want to do it right.

I found that this method did not work for me - I tried it while preparing for the test, but I found it near impossible to not read questions. What seemed to work best for me was just to plough through, answering almost every question , in sequence, except those I really didn't have any clue about. In my first practice test, I answered every question, and in the real test I finished the test, but left about 6 blank. I came out with exactly the same score in both tests.

I would be wary about trying out a new approach under test conditions - this is the only remaining chance to take the subject test this year, so you want to get it right...

Edited November 13, 2010 by vallensvelvet

[shepardn7]

I found that this method did not work for me - I tried it while preparing for the test, but I found it near impossible to not read questions. What seemed to work best for me was just to plough through, answering almost every question , in sequence, except those I really didn't have any clue about. In my first practice test, I answered every question, and in the real test I finished the test, but left about 6 blank. I came out with exactly the same score in both tests.

I would be wary about trying out a new approach under test conditions - this is the only remaining chance to take the subject test this year, so you want to get it right...

Yes, I think I'm just going to try to plod through the whole thing from start to finish. I'm glad you were able to finish using that strategy, because it seems like a more "relaxing" way to take the test to me. I have a question, though. Suppose I want to make an educated guess or guess at an interpretation of a passage, but would like to return to it and reevaluate should I have time. Is there any way to mark/star it in the test book or on scratch paper? Or are we not allowed to write in the test at all?

[papillon]

Yes, I think I'm just going to try to plod through the whole thing from start to finish. I'm glad you were able to finish using that strategy, because it seems like a more "relaxing" way to take the test to me. I have a question, though. Suppose I want to make an educated guess or guess at an interpretation of a passage, but would like to return to it and reevaluate should I have time. Is there any way to mark/star it in the test book or on scratch paper? Or are we not allowed to write in the test at all?

You can write all over the test, and definitely should! Just make sure to be careful with bubbling your answer if you do skip questions.

I also answered almost all questions on the first time through, and then had about 20 minutes at the end to work on the 30 or so questions I left blank. I did skip a few passages that I took one look at and didn't feel like dealing with (i.e. middle English...) and all of those questions, and then went back to them at the end. I don't think it would be a good idea to skip some of the questions on a passage though. The main thing that takes up time is reading the passage, so once you have read one, it's a good idea to answer all the questions, even if you aren't sure. You don't want to have to go back and read the passage again. Most of all, don't stress! It's a marathon of a test, but if you stay focused and use all of the time available, you will be fine. Good luck tomorrow!

[BrandNewName]

I used the sweep method and it worked well for me. During the first sweep, if I saw a question that mentioned authors or novels that I felt comfortable with, I answered them immediately (for me, this included Shakespeare/Renaissance Drama, Modernism, all things American, and all things theory). The first sweep took me a little over half of the test time. Anything I completed on the first sweep I would draw an X through and cross out the page number at the bottom.

I knew oafter the first sweep, then, about how many points I was almost certain to get and was then able to calculate how many I had to at least attempt in order to end up in the score range that I wanted. I realized from practice tests that to even have a chance at ending up in the score range I was hoping for, I had to answer approximately X number of questions (understanding standing that about X% of them would be incorrect).

By the time my second sweep came around, I first went to any comprehension questions I had left blank (at an initial glance, I marked the bottom of pages iwth comprehension questions with a C). After that, I ended with questions on Middle English and Romanticism (my two weakest areas) and made decisions on puzzling identifications (in my eyes, I either knew these or I didn't, once I decided I didn't know it, I didn't return to it).

Although I found the sweep method inefficient when i first started practicing, once I trained it I think it became a method that made me feel a bit more in control of the test itself. I was not only able to calculate with some degree of accuracy how many questions I had correct, but also how many I still needed to answer. So, say I only needed to answer five more questions to get into the range of questions that had to be answered in order to end up near my desired score, the fact that I had mapped the test out (and made small notations next to the page numbers), enabled me to decide which questions were worthy of my time and attention. Also, because I knew, hey, there is no chance in hell I am going to figure out that section on the Canterbury Tales or whatever, I didn't feel bad about giving two or three extra minutes to a particularly difficult comprehnsion passage that could actually lead to picking up a point or two.

Finally, there were a few questions that stumped me at first, but seeing other authors/works listed on the exam somewhere else jostled my memory of something and led me to a correct answer. Because I had swept and had time to go back, not to mention the fact I that I knew roughly where to find the applicable question, I was actually able to put the information made available on the test itself to use for me.

It feels awkward to use the sweep at first, but I think there is something to be said for it.

[Cato's Daughter]

I was able to get a 700 working more or less straight through the test, start to finish. My personal feeling is that if you are reasonably confident that you can finish the test in the allotted time, the sweep method is not necessary. I was not at all certain I could finish in time, but after taking a practice test I realized that this was feasible for me. I agree that working straight through is less stressful, although I do see that the sweep method could give you a greater feeling of control.

While taking the test, I had a close scrape. I accidentally misread/failed to read the directions to a question (I thought the question had asked me to mach each passage to an author, but it was actually a question about five passages by the same author), which caused me to waste a fair amount of time. I only barely figured out my error in time! So, even if you are going quickly, try to make sure you are actually reading the questions. I know it sounds obvious, but I still fell into that trap!

Good luck, you're going to be fine!

[fall-11]

Hi all, how'd it go today? I thought it was harder than the practice tests I had taken. Also, I kept hearing that ETS loves the 16th and 17th centuries, so I learned as much as I could about stuff like Jacobean and Restoration drama -- and there was practically nothing from there. There was more of comprehension type stuff, and less of straight identifications (again unlike the practice tests). All in all, it wasn't terribly bad -- it was all right, I guess. How did other people feel about ti?

[Medievalmaniac]

Hi all, how'd it go today? I thought it was harder than the practice tests I had taken. Also, I kept hearing that ETS loves the 16th and 17th centuries, so I learned as much as I could about stuff like Jacobean and Restoration drama -- and there was practically nothing from there. There was more of comprehension type stuff, and less of straight identifications (again unlike the practice tests). All in all, it wasn't terribly bad -- it was all right, I guess. How did other people feel about ti?

I thought it was absolutely hell on Earth. I got a perfect score on the Praxis II English exam last year to get certiification to teach public school English courses. For the GRE subject test, I took two practice exams and studied my a** off based on the works that were featured on them and on the Vade Mecum website - and then only about 40% of the exam today was on the same sort of material. After 13 years of teaching and the same amount of education, I can honestly say that I didn't recognize the vast majority of what was on the exam, or only vaguely so. No Woolf, no Gray, NO DONNE...what kind of English literature subject test doesn't feature Donne?! ONE question on Chaucer. Three questiopns with anything to do with Shakespeare, and no Marlowe. Beowulf in a modern translation only, and no Old English at all, just Middle. And after all the focus on Restoration during practice exams and in the Princeton Review- only one question on the Restoration comedies. No Wordsworth or Shelley. Oh. My. God. I don't even know what time period I was working in for most of this morning. I only know I correctly identified a litote, and got a couple of history questions right. If I scored in the 60th percentile, I might have to be thrilled.

GAH.

[anonacademic]

I thought it was absolutely hell on Earth. I got a perfect score on the Praxis II English exam last year to get certiification to teach public school English courses. For the GRE subject test, I took two practice exams and studied my a** off based on the works that were featured on them and on the Vade Mecum website - and then only about 40% of the exam today was on the same sort of material. After 13 years of teaching and the same amount of education, I can honestly say that I didn't recognize the vast majority of what was on the exam, or only vaguely so. No Woolf, no Gray, NO DONNE...what kind of English literature subject test doesn't feature Donne?! ONE question on Chaucer. Three questiopns with anything to do with Shakespeare, and no Marlowe. Beowulf in a modern translation only, and no Old English at all, just Middle. And after all the focus on Restoration during practice exams and in the Princeton Review- only one question on the Restoration comedies. No Wordsworth or Shelley. Oh. My. God. I don't even know what time period I was working in for most of this morning. I only know I correctly identified a litote, and got a couple of history questions right. If I scored in the 60th percentile, I might have to be thrilled.

GAH.

I'm too exhausted. Repeat what medievalmaniac said. I just don't have a clue. It seemed even more trivial (trivia-esque) than the test I took a few years ago. (If that's possible!)

Edited November 13, 2010 by Chumlee

[ahlacruz]

I was thrown off by how different it was from the practice tests. I took four practice tests and this one was notably different. There was no section where you had to match the style of a passage with an author. 90% of the test must have been "what does this line or word mean in this poem?' It wasn't an impossible test but I don't understand why they suddenly restructured the test . It felt like it was designed to reward those who didn't spend a lot of time with the practice tests. I heard of someone in a different test center who was getting 90 percentile on the practice exams but forfeited their scores today because the test was a bit of a curve ball.

[anonacademic]

I was thrown off by how different it was from the practice tests. I took four practice tests and this one was notably different. There was no section where you had to match the style of a passage with an author. 90% of the test must have been "what does this line or word mean in this poem?' It wasn't an impossible test but I don't understand why they suddenly restructured the test . It felt like it was designed to reward those who didn't spend a lot of time with the practice tests. I heard of someone in a different test center who was getting 90 percentile on the practice exams but forfeited their scores today because the test was a bit of a curve ball.

Yikes - why did they do that? I'm sure there was an outstanding reason, but if you were getting 90th percentile, it stands to reason that you'd still get a decent score on this test.

Now that I'm more recuperated, let me share my thoughts. I certainly agree with you about the restructuring. I will hypothesize that they did it to combat the Princeton Review book and the (two!) websites out there, which is somewhat understandable (but seems like an overreaction, especially considering even with that "wealth" of help it's still challenging). However, when the practice test that they send is drastically different than the one administered, I will cry foul. (An aside - the "practice" test sent to me was the same I took several years ago - thanks, ETS! )

[anonacademic]

Also, let me say thank you to everyone who posted their recent experiences with the test on these boards - it definitely helped today.

[fall-11]

Yeah, I was really bummed out that it was so different from the practice tests. But honestly, I think we'll be okay. If you look at the score conversion tables from the practice tests, a raw score of 150 converts to a scaled score of 600. So, for instance, if you get 160 right and 40 wrong and didn't attempt 30, you can still end up with 600. Also, since I'm sure most people got thrown by the test, just like we did, that also means that the percentile rankings will be in our favor. So ultimately it'll turn out okay, maybe not super-great, but not terrible either. So don't despair!

I treated myself to lunch at a Thai restaurant after the test, just to console myself for having to go through the ordeal that is the Subject Test ... I'm afraid I might gain a few pounds by the time this application season is over The whole process is like a triathlon or something, a sheer test of endurance, so we should pat ourselves on the back for even braving the process!

[anonacademic]

I treated myself to lunch at a Thai restaurant after the test, just to console myself for having to go through the ordeal that is the Subject Test ... I'm afraid I might gain a few pounds by the time this application season is over The whole process is like a triathlon or something, a sheer test of endurance, so we should pat ourselves on the back for even braving the process!

I love this! My post-test kit included a panini, a half pound of chocolate (with almonds!) (no, I haven't eaten it all - yet), and a glass of wine

I agree with your test of endurance observation - that's definitely how I felt today. I'm sure that under more favorable conditions, the test would not be so difficult. A large portion, after all, was reading comprehension - isn't that what we live for? But the hard seats, minuscule desks, guy in the next row with a squeaky chair, and, above all, the amount of questions paired with the time limit make it difficult and exhausting.

And honestly, why does the ETS go through the pretense of asking if I prefer left handed seating? Each time, my ticket comes back without the check I so carefully made sure would be there, and each time my proctors tell me, "Oh, we're very sorry... we only have righty desks that are *just* smaller than your test book..."

[shepardn7]

I thought it was absolutely hell on Earth. I got a perfect score on the Praxis II English exam last year to get certiification to teach public school English courses. For the GRE subject test, I took two practice exams and studied my a** off based on the works that were featured on them and on the Vade Mecum website - and then only about 40% of the exam today was on the same sort of material. After 13 years of teaching and the same amount of education, I can honestly say that I didn't recognize the vast majority of what was on the exam, or only vaguely so. No Woolf, no Gray, NO DONNE...what kind of English literature subject test doesn't feature Donne?! ONE question on Chaucer. Three questiopns with anything to do with Shakespeare, and no Marlowe. Beowulf in a modern translation only, and no Old English at all, just Middle. And after all the focus on Restoration during practice exams and in the Princeton Review- only one question on the Restoration comedies. No Wordsworth or Shelley. Oh. My. God. I don't even know what time period I was working in for most of this morning. I only know I correctly identified a litote, and got a couple of history questions right. If I scored in the 60th percentile, I might have to be thrilled.

GAH.

I thought there was one question on Donne (at least, the one I noted), but I don't think there were any more. I was happy to see Marquez on there. It was such breath of fresh air, after all the meandering, inverted, archaic language of the poetry passages. And also the Nabokov. Otherwise, yes, it was absolute hell for me, too, and we are in completely different areas. The test was relishing in its own obscurity, laughing at all the knowledge we had stored away but could not use. I couldn't believe it when I (a gd poet) recognized a poem by Keats. The worst part was getting bogged down in all the long reading passages with 5-7 interpretation questions, which means I had to rush through the remainder of the test. I get so anxious during these things that I sometimes I don't register what I'm reading and need to reread the passages to find the "treasure," which really hurt my time. I left thirty-six blank and am thus starting the test with a 710, so I expect to see a score ranging from 550-640 (please not lower than 550!). Most of the questions I skipped were straightforward ID questions or comprehensive questions on passages I didn't have time to read in full. I didn't recognize that translation Beowulf because I had it drilled in my head that Beowulf would always be untranslated. Though I considered it might have been BW, I decided to play it safe (always trust your instincts on this test, I think). Which means I got one question wrong in that section, at least. I have a lot of expletives for ETS right now. I wasted a lot of time preparing for this test; I could have walked in there with the knowledge I already had and received the same score. I just hope my guessing didn't hurt me too much.

Edit: I am also upset it was not at all like the practice test they sent, because I knew the majority of answers on it and could move through it quickly. I didn't do a simulated practice test for it, but I was surprised how much I knew on that test -- I think that if I took it I would have gotten a 700+. It was just geared to my interests. This test was the opposite of that test for me. I floundered about, hoping for the best.

Edited November 14, 2010 by sarandipidy

[Capo]

Glad I wasn't the only one freaking out after this test. My timing was all screwed up because I kept on waiting for that block of questions that are just straight identifications that have shown up on all three (THREE!) practice tests I've taken and are usually easy to breeze through. But no. And it felt like a lot of the stuff that screwed me up before and I made sure I was good on - postco novelists, 19th-20th C playwrights (Williams? Ibsen? Chekhov? Ionesco? NOTHING?!) - didn't make an appearance whatsoever. I ended up skipping around 30 questions, and rushed through the last three long sections. Seriously, I don't know what happened to me this morning, but it sure didn't feel like the GRE Literature subject test.

Oh well, this glass of sangria (not the first of the evening) makes this morning go down just a little easier.

[shepardn7]

Glad I wasn't the only one freaking out after this test. My timing was all screwed up because I kept on waiting for that block of questions that are just straight identifications that have shown up on all three (THREE!) practice tests I've taken and are usually easy to breeze through. But no. And it felt like a lot of the stuff that screwed me up before and I made sure I was good on - postco novelists, 19th-20th C playwrights (Williams? Ibsen? Chekhov? Ionesco? NOTHING?!) - didn't make an appearance whatsoever. I ended up skipping around 30 questions, and rushed through the last three long sections. Seriously, I don't know what happened to me this morning, but it sure didn't feel like the GRE Literature subject test.

Oh well, this glass of sangria (not the first of the evening) makes this morning go down just a little easier.

I think it will be interesting to see how we all do in light of our post-test feelings. I've resigned myself to a score below 600, but my boyfriend is convinced I'm just a pessimist and will end up with a 620 or 630. He's like, You know more than you think you do, there's no way you got more than thirty wrong, etc. I'm like, You didn't see this test. But I wonder if we'll all end up with scores higher than we expected. Here's hoping. Wine sounds like a good idea.

[BrandNewName]

After taking the October test I felt the same way that many of you are describing and I was pleasantly suprised by my score. Honest to God, I was thinking that I might not even break 500 I felt so defeated after that exam, but it is true what they say, you remember the things that were difficult and then they come to dominate your mind. Don't fret everyone! And, at the very least, it's over! Congrats!

[Medievalmaniac]

Honestly, the more I think on it...I think I probably did get a decent score. What I find to be my biggest issue with this test isn't the length or the difficulty level. I can handle long, hard tests. In fact (and I'll tell everyone you are lying if you reveal this off-board! lol [j/k]) I actually kind of enjoyed the Praxis II literature exam (secondary teaching licensure test), because while there were certainly questions I didn't know the first thing about, mostly it reinforced for me that I am a capable individual and have a good base of knowledge to work from.

My problem with the GRE subject test we took yesterday wasn't that there were a lot of questions I didn't know the answer to, or a lot of text blocks I had never seen before. It was that there weren't very many that I honestly felt I did know the answer and know the chosen reading. It's that the practice examination the ETS sent out truly didn't resemble in style or format what we ended up seeing yesterday. No blocks of identifications. Only three or four questions on Classical mythology, all based around two myths. Hardly any drama at all, and no modern drama, which the practice book had plenty of. One section on literary theory, and two of the theorists FAR closer in their style and subject than we were led to believe we would see (they told us in the practice materials that the chosen theorists for such questions would be clearly working in different traditions, but three of those quotes were from the same movement). No theory application, which ETS made it a point to tell us to expect and which is actually much easier than straight identifying, especially for an undergraduate just out of a BA program.

There were a lot of questions where if you hadn't had a class in that time period, you couldn't have known the answer - survey courses don't cover the more obscure works by writers. For example, you're looking for Herrick's Julia poems, or "To the Virgins", or "Corinna's Gone a - Maying", and they've chosen "To Find God" [they didn't, this is just an example of the sort of thing they did do]. No Paradise Lost, so if you hadn't had the chance to read any other Milton - and would you, in a survey course, necessarily?) you might have had trouble there. Questions like, "Who was the editor to whom this poem was dedicated?" REALLY? How is that a reasonable thing to expect a wide cross-section of students from all over the world enrolled in English classes to know about a poem - any poem - much less a particularly difficult one that is NOT usually featured in survey courses because the author has a more easily accessible and equally impressive one to work with (fortunately, I teach the one in question, or I promise you I would not have known that answer).

We should have been able to expect a lot of reading comprehension questions - but it was more like 50% of the exam than 25-30%, and ate up a lot of time because the passages were long and for the most part not from easily recognizable texts. I tried the two-pass strategy, but by the time I was done with the first pass, there were only about 10 minutes left. I could do the work, but most of the first pass was eaten up doing the work I could do - reading comp. I recommend to anyone taking it in the next go-around to go through and skip all the reading comp sections, answering only singleton questions - that will take you less than thirty minutes, if the test is structured anything like what we saw yesterday - then go back and do the reading comp.

For yesterday's test - people who work primarily in 18th, (19th - these were the types of question I could handle aside from older works) and 20th century literature and literary theory probably found the exam to be much, much easier than I did. The thing is, I have spent the p[ast four months working specifically in the 18th and 20th centuries and literary theory trying to prepare for that, but what they gave us to work with didn't match up at all to what they ended up issuing on the text as regards chosen readings and identifications. So unless you've read much more widely, say for a course in that era, you are at a very distinct disadvantage no matter how much you have studied. (In my case, because I have a family and a full-time job, I have been waking up at 4:20 EVERY MORNING [OK, not on Sundays, but Saturdays and weekdays, yes] since September for an extra hour and a half to study before my day began. And that may have picked me up one or two extra points - it wasn't worth it.)

I'm not upset that the test was long and hard. I do think that ETS should be sending out practice materials that reflect the exam you are going to see, and they did NOT do this. And for those going on to take the exam in April - don't bother with the Princeton Review or even with Vade Mecum, either. I think the earlier exams probably did resemble these study aids, but what we saw yesterday was nothing like it. Your best course of action is going to be to just randomly open Norton Anthologies, read whatever is in front of you, and see if you understand it. If you don't, then figure out why. Also - know the historical events surrounding each literary movement, because there were several questions of the "what was going on politically when this writer was active?" variety.

In the end, I probably did OK. But I doubt highly my score will in any way reflect the work I put into preparing for it or what I am really capable of. That's frustrating to me. The only thing I can say is, I know I did everything I could and that I was as prepared as I could have been to take the exam, and with that, I must lie content.

[HappyCat]

There were a lot of questions where if you hadn't had a class in that time period, you couldn't have known the answer - survey courses don't cover the more obscure works by writers. For example, you're looking for Herrick's Julia poems, or "To the Virgins", or "Corinna's Gone a - Maying", and they've chosen "To Find God" [they didn't, this is just an example of the sort of thing they did do]. No Paradise Lost, so if you hadn't had the chance to read any other Milton - and would you, in a survey course, necessarily?) you might have had trouble there. Questions like, "Who was the editor to whom this poem was dedicated?" REALLY? How is that a reasonable thing to expect a wide cross-section of students from all over the world enrolled in English classes to know about a poem - any poem - much less a particularly difficult one that is NOT usually featured in survey courses because the author has a more easily accessible and equally impressive one to work with (fortunately, I teach the one in question, or I promise you I would not have known that answer).

I actually threw my hands up when I saw the editor question. How absurd. The theorists also threw me off a little bit because of how closely some of the passages were related.

There were also more grammatically oriented questions than I had anticipated, including things like "Adding which word to lines 8-9 will not change the author's meaning?" I'm pretty sure the poet would be pissed if we just stick in adverbial conjunctions and the like. Or, also, "The passage relies (or functions, something like that) on what?" And it lists intransitives, passive, etc. etc. I'm glad I know grammar well enough that I feel those helped me a lot.

There was also a set of three questions on a rather obscure part of Greek myth without any reading passage, which I found strange.

I'm thinking I should have left more blank than I did (only 6), because I was running out of time and then rushing. Also, the clock didn't work in my test room, which is always quite lovely.

[diehtc0ke]

I actually threw my hands up when I saw the editor question. How absurd. The theorists also threw me off a little bit because of how closely some of the passages were related.

There were also more grammatically oriented questions than I had anticipated, including things like "Adding which word to lines 8-9 will not change the author's meaning?" I'm pretty sure the poet would be pissed if we just stick in adverbial conjunctions and the like. Or, also, "The passage relies (or functions, something like that) on what?" And it lists intransitives, passive, etc. etc. I'm glad I know grammar well enough that I feel those helped me a lot.

There was also a set of three questions on a rather obscure part of Greek myth without any reading passage, which I found strange.

I'm thinking I should have left more blank than I did (only 6), because I was running out of time and then rushing. Also, the clock didn't work in my test room, which is always quite lovely.

They STILL haven't fixed that clock? Ridiculous.

[shepardn7]

"I actually threw my hands up when I saw the editor question. How absurd. The theorists also threw me off a little bit because of how closely some of the passages were related."

Yes, they were mean and gave us two related theorists (theorist X and and then theorist who's an X-ian). I'm pretty sure I chose the correct one in that case (having not read the works), but it forced me to read the passage rather than look for the word clue. I think I got 3 out of 4 in that section. There was one theory question I didn't know (one of the "Who wrote this?" questions) and left blank; I should have put my guess after eliminating the other 4 answers, but again played it safe because I guess that's my style (hoping it pays off in few wrong answers). I think I got most of the grammatical and literary terms questions correct. If I didn't, I'm screwed, but those came easiest to me. I think I'm just frustrated because I honestly recognized very few passages that I had ever read in school at all -- in any school, from HS to undergrad to grad. I think there might have been one or two out of all of them. And so it seems wrong of ETS to act as if this test is meant to test how well undergrad prepared you for grad school. Some of those I didn't recognize were obvious to me (certain poets) based on style, and others based on content. But there were definitely some that threw me for a loop, and that was frustrating. I made a couple bold guesses for those. I keep vacillating about how low my score can go. I already think I've got about five wrong in my head. I don't know how anyone waits to find out by mail; I want to know now. Let's just get it over with and rip the band-aid.

Edited November 14, 2010 by sarandipidy

[thereandbackagain]

I'm really glad that I found this thread. I, too, felt a bit flummoxed by the test yesterday. I walked out feeling, if not defeated, just confused. I wouldn't be surprised by any score I got - 300 to 700. On the last two practice tests I took (Princeton Review & ETS), I got a 600 and a 620 respectively. Not great, but not too bad, especially considering I'm applying to all MFA programs (with the exception of Cornell's MFA/PhD program), and a couple of back-up MA programs. Cornell is the only reason why I took the test, and they don't have a required minimum (at least according to that website), so I'm just trying to focus on that. Otherwise, weird, weird test. I just don't know.

[tinapickles]

Yup. That pretty much sums it up. I skipped a LOT--I'm not good with putting names with poems (novels and plays, not a problem, but poems for some reason KILL ME). A lot of my time was gobbled up by the reading comprehension--they seemed to be incredibly long and I felt like (though this just could be me) that there were more than usual number of Middle/Old English. I don't have a problem "reading" and "translating" them, it just takes ma long time.

I was kinda irritated by the theory questions. I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing theory and who was connected with what theory. However, I didn't get incredibly in depth about it so the theory questions (specifically how similar the theories were) really bogged me down.

I don't really have too much to complain about the test. It's been 10+ years since I've taken a survey class, about 4 since a theory class. I didn't expect to do stellar on this test. Also, from what I understand, it counts for very little of your application. So...I consider it a hoop jumped.

Those of you who had a clock in your classroom, consider yourself lucky.There was no clock in my classroom and I didn't have a watch (too hot to wear one in India--it gave me heat rash that lasted for a month--so I left it at home). I took this test in India and the proctor was a douche. He yelled at the room right off the bat because someone asked him to clarify directions, and I quote, "Do not ask me questions or I will not give you extra time." Then, once the test got started, he left the room so we couldn't even ask for a time check (we got a five minute warning, which according to the girl behind me who did have a watch, should have been a 10 minute warning, so I'm not convinced he didn't gyp us 5 minutes--which would have been all I needed to answer the last set of 6 questions). He came back exactly twice--both times he interrupted our test taking--once to take our answer sheet to check to make sure we'd filled out everything on it, the second time to record information off our test booklets. I almost went balistic on him the second time because he took the test booklet while I was in the middle of reading a question and then HELD ONTO IT while he answered some other test takers' question. I'm sure it was less than 5 minutes, but it felt like forever and I had to start all over again on that particular set of questions (i.e. re-reading the poem, re-reading the questions, etc.).

A little part of me want to lodge a formal complaint with ETS, the other part of me is like "you can't undo the did." So... meh.

[anonacademic]

Yikes! That sounds awful! My proctors (there were two for about seven of us?) were lovely, slightly frumpy, completely sympathetic ladies - thankfully.

But your point is a good one: this was just a hoop, and it's been jumped through!

So when will we find out? Six weeks - right around Christmas? Perfect