AWA: Computers don't know jack about wit

[DrFaustus666]

And in the 60's Miles Davis, Coleman, Coltrane, etc made it up on the spot and it was all brilliant.

I'm just messing with you!

These threads are all the same. If we get a good writing score we want justifications that we are great writers and that adom committees will care. If scores suck we want justifications ad committees do not care.

You forgot Charlie Parker and J.J. Johnson.

Yes, you've got a point of course. But please don't forget that this forum is for people to help and support each other, one for all and all for one, etc. (Yeah I know it's sappy, but it's important!)

[TheDude]

Quick thread hijack: You know I studied jazz performance and composition at a top music school for years, which in itself is kind of an oxymoron. Anyways, I could play Parker tunes, appreciate everything he did for jazz, but there is nothing I want to listen to less than Charlie Parker records. That tone!

Anyways, my point is don't freak about AW scores. It's like MENSA here sometimes, back patting for back patting sakes. Write a fabulous SOP and people will care less about you AW scores.

I am on the other side. Computers are starting to freak me out with what now can be done. I am glad to know human eyes do grace the AW write-ups. I'm still a bit of a stalwart with those romantic notions of perception.

Edited December 6, 2010 by musicforfun

[DrFaustus666]

Quick thread hijack: You know I studied jazz performance and composition at a top music school for years, which in itself is kind of an oxymoron. Anyways, I could play Parker tunes, appreciate everything he did for jazz, but there is nothing I want to listen to less than Charlie Parker records. That tone!

Anyways, my point is don't freak about AW scores. It's like MENSA here sometimes, back patting for back patting sakes. Write a fabulous SOP and people will care less about you AW scores.

I am on the other side. Computers are starting to freak me out with what now can be done. I am glad to know human eyes do grace the AW write-ups. I'm still a bit of a stalwart with those romantic notions of perception.

I studied classical music at a medium music school for years, played chamber music and in parttime professional orchestras, but am very much a dilletante when it comes to jazz. But I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with you that human eyes OUGHT to grace the AW write-ups. Also I'm 100% with you on the romantic notions of perception.

And I knew you were messing with me, and I was messing with you back. If I thought I'd get a minus point from somebody, no idea from whom, for encouraging encouragement and discouraging discouragement I wouldn't have posted at all.

[warpspeed]

I'm glad to hear that in at least some cases the "AW folklore" is not true: that folklore says that ETS mainly hires Princeton graduate students to be the human readers.

But the AW test is still a test of one very specific kind of writing---a kind that some very good writers cannot do, period.

Here's an analogy from my own field, music. Mozart for example, routinely wrote out perfectly formed entire pieces, finished in his brain, without corrections on paper. Whereas Beethoven worked and re-worked and re-worked his sketches over years (the notebooks survived, and are an amazing insight into the creative process!). My point is, equally good writers may not be all able to write equally well when under pressure of time. And thank goodness, by most accounts at least, Admissions Committees give this point of view precedence over a 30-minute timed essay, taken under pressure.

are you implying that mozart wouldn't be able to play chopsticks?

[DrFaustus666]

are you implying that mozart wouldn't be able to play chopsticks?

I'm really gunshy after somebody gave me a red-mark above, so I'll answer the question completely seriously, though it's quite possible you're kidding and a smart-aleck answer is what you're really inviting me to give.

Mozart was a superb pianist (or more properly, Klavierist) from the age of about 7 until his untimely death at age 35. His 21 piano concerti were all written (to the best of my knowledge anyway) for himself as soloist. Also, in his day, pianists were routinely expected to improvise over what was known as a ground-bass--quite similarly to the practice of the vast majority of jazz musicians today.

So, I don't know when chopsticks was composed or improvised, but I'm sure he could play it.

[warpspeed]

I don't know anything about these forums or what a red mark is/means, so I'll just disregard that comment towards me since it just leaves me confused. I'm guessing it means a thumbs down? If so, if you get that upset about an internet forum/what strangers think, maybe you should log off for a few days.

It was mostly meant in jest, but I was changing the bridge for your analogy. You were comparing a process, not the product. The GRE doesn't want to know how you got to a writing style/how hard it was for you/how long you studied/what your grades in composition are/how many papers you've published/etc, its about the finished product. And whether a finished product is a a masterpiece (good, intelligent academic writing) or chopsticks (gre writing), a truly gifted writer will be able to produce it in the time constraints. If two writers can compose the same quality work, but one produces it faster, in the GRE's and academia's eyes, who is more valuable?

Edited December 7, 2010 by warpspeed

[DrFaustus666]

I don't know anything about these forums or what a red mark is/means, so I'll just disregard that comment towards me since it just leaves me confused. I'm guessing it means a thumbs down? If so, if you get that upset about an internet forum/what strangers think, maybe you should log off for a few days.

It was mostly meant in jest, but I was changing the bridge for your analogy. You were comparing a process, not the product. The GRE doesn't want to know how you got to a writing style/how hard it was for you/how long you studied/what your grades in composition are/how many papers you've published/etc, its about the finished product. And whether a finished product is a a masterpiece (good, intelligent academic writing) or chopsticks (gre writing), a truly gifted writer will be able to produce it in the time constraints. If two writers can compose the same quality work, but one produces it faster, in the GRE's and academia's eyes, who is more valuable?

I had the same thought about the red mark, which is indeed a thumbs down: I'm being too sensitive and ought to just chill.

Certainly the writer who can produce a masterpiece faster is more valuable in the GRE's eyes. There are two problems though: the first problem is that the masterpiece can only take one very specific shape. The second, and far more troubling part, is that in academic work, there is almost never a 45-minute or 30-minute time limit. Students, even very gifted students, write research; professors hack up the research; the students re-write; the professors re-hack, ad infinitum and often enough, ad nauseum.

So it's questionable, at least in my mind, if the AW score measures the kind of work that anyone (except journalists) do in the real world.

[spozik]

I'd like respond to balderdash's "I mean seriously, when you're submitting to a journal, a dissertation committee, or a conference, you're structuring your argument and changing the scope of your work to the requirements at hand. Why should the AW section be any different?" and warpspeed's "A need here is to adapt to their dry style. If you can't change your writing style on the fly to a very basic, run of the mill standard, then really how good of a writer are you?"

As a test-taker, the information on how scoring works isn't provided by ETS, but rather by independent research companies whose products you have to purchase (Princeton Review, e.g.). These cases are markedly different. Nowhere on ETS's website or in the writing prompt do they tell you that you should use a 5-paragraph structure if you want to have the best chance at earning a higher score as the prep. books do, nor do they tell you that you should use a proliferation of transition words rather than forming more complex sentences or phrases for transitions. Their own scoring rubric and sample essays for that matter are extremely vague (you can't tell what it is that actually earns the higher score), it is only in these external sources that you actually find out the "rules".

Therefore, I find these comparisons to be a bit of a stretch. I don't have to go to a source outside of CAMWS to find out how to get an abstract accepted for presentation at CAMWS. Likewise, ETS should be honest and upfront about how arbitrary and calculated their "holistic" scoring system is. A test taker should not have to purchase another product from a different company to find out what their best guess is about the AWA.

Anyway, I'm already in a PhD program so I don't really have a horse in this race. I don't have a problem with the test's existence, but I do have a problem with what they sell you being different from what they advertise. You wouldn't know the real rules or know that they want you to write in a "dry style" unless someone other than ETS told you, and I think that's a bit unfair.

[DrFaustus666]

but I do have a problem with what they sell you being different from what they advertise. You wouldn't know the real rules or know that they want you to write in a "dry style" unless someone other than ETS told you, and I think that's a bit unfair.

Spozik Well said!

(to anyone reading) For the record, I've managed decent AW scores twice (5.0 and 5.5) and above 700-V on three occasions. So my remarks here are not pouting about a bad score that I received; rather, they're critical of the AW in general, and specifically, I strongly question that it measures what it purports to measure.

[Ishtmus]

Frankly, I think the reasons people are troubled by the AW section are different from those they cite. Let's look at some common criticisms:

1) "The AW section does not test any real-world skills! How often in your academic life will you need to write a 5-paragraph essay in 30 minutes? Never!"

This is equally valid for more or less any standardized test. How often in your academic life are you called upon to complete an analogy "upbraid : reproach :: ? : ?" picking from 5 different alternatives, without the help of a dictionary? Certainly you must agree that, prima facie, the "write an essay in 30 minutes" is more connected with skills you will actually have to use in academic life than completing analogies. And yet, people do not complain nearly as much about the verbal section.

2) OMG, I got 800 on the verbal test, but only 3.5 on the AWA, the AWA must be bonkers!

a) It seldom crosses people's minds that it could be that the verbal section is bonkers.

b ) More seriously, really, AW and verbal sections are meant to test two very different skills. There is really nothing that says that a person with a good vocabulary and reading comprehension must be a good writer. It's kind of like saying "OMG, I got 800+++ on verbal, but only 320 on quantitative, the quantitative section is obviously rubbish", but nobody does that, do they? And while I agree that you should expect a higher correlation between verbal section and AW section than between quantitative and verbal sections, say, that correlation certainly is not high enough to make "800V, 3.5AW" statistically unexpected.

3) "The SOP and writing samples are much better judges of writing capacity anyway, so AW is positively useless."

This is true to some extent, were it not for a fact that it is way too easy to have someone else heavily edit your SOP and writing samples, or indeed write it for you completely. The AWA does not suffer from that. And I this a glowing SOP and writing sample combined with a low AW score will raise some eyebrows, as it should.

4) "The type of writing required on the AW is nothing near anything you'll ever need to write in real life. They just require a long, dry 5-paragraph essay, with lots of stock transitional phrases. Nothing like the style of a good writer."

a) I'd like to see some hard data on this. It seems to me that this is the kind of myths that companies like Princeton Review perpetrate for their own benefit ("There is a secret formula that guarantees a 6 on the AWA, go to our classes/buy our books to find out!")

b ) As people have pointed out, good writers should be able to adapt their style depending on the circumstances.

5) "But how can people adapt, if ETS does not publish what criteria they use to assess the essays?"

a) See a) above. Also, if ETS have never said anything about what they want, how come there is such a strong consensus on these boards and others about the type of essays that will earn a high score?

b ) Admissions committees seldom publish what they want to see in the SOP. And yet nobody complains. Commercial publishing houses rarely make explicit what kind of texts they want. And nobody complains. People just seem to be able to figure out anyway, just like they do with the AWA.

6) "Not to brag, but I'm a truly great writer, and yet I got a low AW score. The AW section is just crap.

a) See 4b)

b ) I think that more often than not, people are bad judges of their own writing abilities.

c) Even if there is anecdotal evidence of great writers who don't get high scores, this is statistically expected for any imperfect test, just like there could be great mathematicians who receive a bad score of the quantitative section. Anecdotal evidence like that does not prove that the whole test is invalid, only that it does not have 100% validity.

7) The test is scored by a e-rater. Computers don't know jack all about wit.

I agree that this does hold some merit. But

a) See 4b).

b ) There is still a human grader too. If you get a low score on an essay, at least one human grader has assigned it a grade within 0.5 of what you received.

So, going out on a limb here, I think the real reason people complain so much about the AW section is because it is subjectively black-box scored. This makes it very easy to start rationalizing away low AW scores by declaring the whole process to be invalid. Which we all do, because of our human nature. The reason that we don't see as many posts similarly complaining about the other sections is that the scoring is much more transparent, which makes it harder to come up with those rationalizations.

But what many people forget, in my opinion, is that there are two parts to whether or not a test measures what it claims to measure: validity of the test quations, and validity of the scoring. I think that, compared to the other two parts of the GRE, the task the AW section sets us is in fact closest to anything we will need to tackle in real life. The scoring on the other hand, might or might not be completely rubbish, but I do not see hard data either way.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Ishtmus

[balderdash]

...

+1.

[TheDude]

+2

[shepardn7]

Frankly, I think the reasons people are troubled by the AW section are different from those they cite. Let's look at some common criticisms:

1) "The AW section does not test any real-world skills! How often in your academic life will you need to write a 5-paragraph essay in 30 minutes? Never!"

This is equally valid for more or less any standardized test. How often in your academic life are you called upon to complete an analogy "upbraid : reproach :: ? : ?" picking from 5 different alternatives, without the help of a dictionary? Certainly you must agree that, prima facie, the "write an essay in 30 minutes" is more connected with skills you will actually have to use in academic life than completing analogies. And yet, people do not complain nearly as much about the verbal section.

2) OMG, I got 800 on the verbal test, but only 3.5 on the AWA, the AWA must be bonkers!

a) It seldom crosses people's minds that it could be that the verbal section is bonkers.

b ) More seriously, really, AW and verbal sections are meant to test two very different skills. There is really nothing that says that a person with a good vocabulary and reading comprehension must be a good writer. It's kind of like saying "OMG, I got 800+++ on verbal, but only 320 on quantitative, the quantitative section is obviously rubbish", but nobody does that, do they? And while I agree that you should expect a higher correlation between verbal section and AW section than between quantitative and verbal sections, say, that correlation certainly is not high enough to make "800V, 3.5AW" statistically unexpected.

Oh man, thanks for saying this. I was thinking the exact same thing.

People all over this board keep saying good Verbal scores would "make up for" poor AWA scores, as if being able to do a difficult analogy in thirty seconds says anything about your ability to write well, let alone research and compose a dissertation that will contribute meaningfully to your field. Did anyone notice that some ESL speakers who have trouble with relatively basic syntax and diction (not meant offensively, as I have trouble with languages I didn't grow up speaking, too) still get 600+ or even 700+ through diligent studying? Being able to make connections between vocabulary words does not mean you have strong command of a language. And I don't think the reading comprehension performance says much about your actual level of reading comprehension, let alone anything about your writing skills. Sentence completion feels somewhat more relevant, but even that has intrinsic problems--all the question types do! And then people downplay grades because they're too "subjective," even though there is nothing objective about how ETS assesses language skills, and even though every professor's assessment of you in graduate school will be just as subjective (at least in the fields where Verbal scores count). Maybe many schools have grade inflation, but I worked hard for my 3.98, even while my family was falling apart and I was depressed as hell. I never even asked for an extension on an assignment, and the couple times I got a lower grade on a paper than I had expected, I accepted it without complaint.

I think the entire non-quantitative part of the test is rubbish (obv. that includes the AWA). ETS implies a student's score on a three-hour marathon test with logical tricks is a legitimate predictor of his or her performance over a six year Ph.D period, which people should find problematic for many reasons, whether or not they performed well on it. It's troubling to me that any school would institute a "secret" cut-off (against ETS's advisement!) because they essentially want to steal application fees from students who wouldn't meet it (it's really quite unethical to toss applications in a pile without reading them, so I hope it's not true this happens, but that is the rumor at some programs). But I will say I found it pretty easy to simplify my style for the AWA prompt. My 25-page papers are not 5 paragraph essays written with stock transitions, so I get a little frustrated when someone says "good writers just don't do well on the AWA." That's not true. My BA and MFA professors all think I'm a "good writer" -- in fact, I might even say it's the one task in life in which I excel -- but I am also a "creative writer," and do find it relatively easy to write in a style and voice not my own (with fake enthusiasm for an ETS topic). Just because I can downgrade my style for 75 minutes doesn't mean I'm a bad writer, and just because you can't doesn't mean you're a bad writer. Also: I don't think the computer assigns a grade. The computer "checks" the first grade and then sends the essay to another person, who assigns it another grade, and then the two grades are averaged. So the computer just makes sure that two people see the essay if it doesn't agree with the original grader.

[DrFaustus666]

So, going out on a limb here, I think the real reason people complain so much about the AW section is because it is subjectively black-box scored. This makes it very easy to start rationalizing away low AW scores by declaring the whole process to be invalid. Which we all do, because of our human nature. The reason that we don't see as many posts similarly complaining about the other sections is that the scoring is much more transparent, which makes it harder to come up with those rationalizations

I have to say you're probably right: for mysef, I dislike the AW because it is hard to rationalize away a disappointing score. +1 point from me too.

[Medievalmaniac]

I +1'd the above poster as well.

I just wanted to say, that it is so nice to read through this thread and see how much reasonable, rational, logical, and thoughtful dialogue is going on about this oftentimes extremely volatile and emotional subject. It's refreshing, and also calming, to see so many agreeing that yes, the GRE sucks, but in the end, a bad score means a bad score for a reason, whether we like that reason or not - and that in the end, it still is only one aspect of our multifaceted, for obviously good reason, applications.

For my part, I was a bit disappointed with my verbal score (620/89th percentile), delighted with my AWA (6) and totally nonplussed by my totally expected abysmal Math score (490). I'd like to say I have test anxiety, I ran out of time, the questions were a joke, it doesn't really measure how well I would do in a graduate program, I had a 4.0 leaving my MA so the test is bunk -- but honestly, if I'm being honest and self-reflective, I think the test is an accurate reflection of my ability on a 3 hour test, and that it does in large part point to my academic strengths (writing, probably the sentence completion and analogies and most of the reading comprehension) while clearly singling out my academic deficiencies (Math, obviously, in pretty much any form, and reading comprehension questions on which I am reading too much into a passage (know too much "outside knowledge" on the subject and interject that, instead of reading the way "they" expect me to, which is based only on what is in front of me.) Being someone who likes to make connections, I do sometimes have a hard time JUST looking at what is RIGHT in front of me. I also think I flubbed some of the analogies, in the end.) I'm hoping the high AWA and decent verbal score, plus my writing sample and SOP, convince the adcomms that I am a literature student worth coaching.

It's nice to see people in this thread able to look at the big picture as well. Yay, you guys!!

Edited December 9, 2010 by Medievalmaniac

[Ludwig von Dracula]

I +1'd the above poster as well.

I just wanted to say, that it is so nice to read through this thread and see how much reasonable, rational, logical, and thoughtful dialogue is going on about this oftentimes extremely volatile and emotional subject. It's refreshing, and also calming, to see so many agreeing that yes, the GRE sucks, but in the end, a bad score means a bad score for a reason, whether we like that reason or not - and that in the end, it still is only one aspect of our multifaceted, for obviously good reason, applications.

Agreed. It stings a bit, but these scores are not completely arbitrary; fortunately, neither are they the final determinator of our prospects. I'm one of those who was pleasantly surprised by an excellent verbal score and somewhat disappointed by a lower writing score. It wasn't terrible enough to make me lose sleep (5.0, which at the time was 79th percentile but is currently a few points higher), but my (likely overinflated) conception of myself as a writer was hurt--the whole, "Dammit, if my high school English teacher were here she'd tell those test-markers a thing or two!" But I remember feeling like my test essays were pretty crappy even as I wrote, and that I just didn't have time to make them good, so frankly I knew that it was my own fault for not practicing more.

What's done is done, and I'm well aware that my scores that day were due as much to luck as to my own preparation (probably a healthy balance of the two). No way I'm going to try improving on them because it would probably wind up biting me in the rear. Still, the trauma of the whole experience may explain why I feel a morbid fascination for this particular sub-forum...

[KirotBeiti]

I have to say I'm shocked at the way the AWA turned out. I practiced quite a bit, using a couple books, trying to get used to the way ETS implicitly wants the test-taker to structure their essays. I'm really left scratching my head, because my impression after the test was that I had done fairly well on the writing section, and now I find I've been given a 4, scoring in the 45 percentile (for reference, I got a 790 V and 730 Q).

I looked at the GRE Diagnostics site, which gives some nice info on the quantitative and verbal sections, but nothing at all about the writing sections--not even a breakdown of the two sub-sections. Because of this, test-takers are left guessing about what they did wrong. In the face of this silent judgment from ETS, any advice to test-takers that we should just adjust our writing to fit the particular task at hand rings hollow.

Trying to figure out what I could have possibly done wrong, the only conclusion I can come up with is that I did not include fabricated data in my Issue essay. In my essay on the topic of socialization of children, I made arguments that could certainly be backed up with more research, but I did not pull random facts out of the air as if they had any bearing. Doing so goes against everything I've learned in the social science disciplines (I'm applying to Public Policy programs).

Given that ETS insists that no outside knowledge is required on the topics, and the topics themselves are completely vague, it really seems like a dishonest exercise. Does ETS expect you to pretend you're writing a research paper without having done any research?

I understand that it's now up to me to write the best Statement of Purpose that I can, since I don't have time to re-take the test. and it's already been reported anyway. Still, the purpose of these discussions is to help those who come after us and, in doing so, reclaim a little bit of power from ETS.

[shepardn7]

Trying to figure out what I could have possibly done wrong, the only conclusion I can come up with is that I did not include fabricated data in my Issue essay. In my essay on the topic of socialization of children, I made arguments that could certainly be backed up with more research, but I did not pull random facts out of the air as if they had any bearing. Doing so goes against everything I've learned in the social science disciplines (I'm applying to Public Policy programs).

I doubt it had anything to do with lack of supporting research or data, since it's a standardized situation. They want clearly delineated examples and support, yes, but I personally didn't include anything beyond hypothetical and anecdotal examples and did fine (5.5./94th). Did you include a counterargument paragraph? I've heard that including one (or, at least, clearly engaging in counterargument) is important to getting a good score on the Issue essay. Also, is it possible one (or both) of your essays was well reasoned but a bit too short? Length seems important for both sections; I've heard to aim for six paragraphs for the Issue essay and five for the Argument Analysis. I only wrote five for my Issue and four for my Argument (I think?), but my paragraphs for the Issue essay were on the longer side.

Still, no worries--your 4 shouldn't be any kind of barrier for you because you'll be submitting a sparkly and engaging writing sample, yes?

Edited January 3, 2011 by sarandipidy

[KirotBeiti]

I don't think length could have been a major issue--both essays were five paragraphs. Of course, the whole point is that there's nothing I can do but guess, since no information is available.

I can't understand why they don't even break down the score for you over the two essays.

[university99]

What is there to be witty about on the GRE? The writing prompts are general stock debate questions that everybody should have some opinion on. I wrote my essays like a machine. They were unoriginal and extremely structured, with 2 paragraphs about why I agreed and another paragraph why I could also go the other way. I wrote my essays to get a good score, not to make some kind of stand or express my opinions. I got a 6!

[Trin]

Wow, this whole thread makes me feel sort of awkward, especially the "the AW portion has nothing to do with reality" comments. I've spent much of the past twenty-five years doing various kinds of writing. I certainly do use the basic 5 paragraph essay structure with regularity in the real world; I use it for essays, for complex customer service responses, for documentation. I used the basic argument style to deal with crap at my children's schools when they were little, to provide information during a legal proceeding, and to respond effectively during a workers' comp dispute.

To "prepare" for the GRE, I didn't use any prep software other than the crappy thing the GRE provided. I took the test once to see how it worked. I didn't bother to write a practice essay. I read over their scoring rubrics to get a sense of what they wanted. I took it once and got a 740V, 660Q, and 6.0 AW. The 660 is a little low for my standards, but I'm a humanities applicant, so it doesn't matter much, either. When people asked my how I did so well, I responded that I'm an adult, and I write like an adult -- I fit my writing style very precisely to what's asked of me. I didn't find the GRE AW especially tricky or arcane. There's a set of rubrics. You adhere to the rubrics, you get a good grade. Not all of my writing looks like GRE writing, but I can certainly write like that to spec. As for time limits, why yes, I've spent much of my life being expected to grind out writing in a short period of time. The big wide world is full of situations where you don't get multiple re-writes. Of course, that may not be true of grad school, but grad school isn't the entirety of life, either. :-)

[DrFaustus666]

There's a set of rubrics. You adhere to the rubrics, you get a good grade. ... but I can certainly write like that to spec. As for time limits, why yes, I've spent much of my life being expected to grind out writing in a short period of time.

So the moral of the story seems to be, as I think at least some of us who posted before and were mystified by our 700+ verbal scores and disappointing AW scores:

(1) use the 5-paragraph structure;

(2) PRACTICE (if you aren't accustomed to regularly writing in very strict time deadlines); and

(3) get another student friend (the analog of an employer or editor to whom one must answer every day) to critique your practice essays.

Did I miss anything?

[Eigen]

Hmm, I don't think they 5 paragraph form is strictly necessary. I got a 5.5 and I don't think I did a strict 5 paragraph format on either of my essays, at least not purposefully.

The other summations are pretty spot on, I would say.

The big one I would add is "don't worry about it too much, most places don't lean too heavily on the AW score anyway". I mean, maybe if we're talking scores around 2-3 it would be a problem, but I really don't think I'd worry about scores around 4-6.

[MoJingly]

I am just so very very sick of the GRE. I should stop reading these threads. But I can't. It's like an addiction. It's like I enjoy obsessing over the fact that I don't like my score. Lord help me.

[tls]

I would add:

- Give them what they want. Review the materials for ETS materials for analytical writing. Compare the "6.0" essays to the other essays and read the graders' comments closely.

- Write about what you know. The "issue" topics are purposefully broad, so you can frame the essay around something you are confident writing about. Going into the test I decided that I would write about architecture, art, or computer science.

I got a 5.0 on the AW section. It's not the highest score, but it's good enough for my purposes.

So the moral of the story seems to be, as I think at least some of us who posted before and were mystified by our 700+ verbal scores and disappointing AW scores:

(1) use the 5-paragraph structure;

(2) PRACTICE (if you aren't accustomed to regularly writing in very strict time deadlines); and

(3) get another student friend (the analog of an employer or editor to whom one must answer every day) to critique your practice essays.

Did I miss anything?

Edited January 14, 2011 by edwu19