Goal GREs for Religion/Ethics Ph.D. program?

[ubuntu]

I will be applying to Ph.D. programs this fall and am looking for GRE advice. For easy reading..

Degree: M.T.S. at Vanderbilt Divinity, current GPA 3.825 (one semester)

Grad applications: Applied and accepted-- M.A. Religious Studies at UVA, M.T.S. at Vanderbilt with full tuition, M.T.S. at Wesley Theological with full tuition, M.T.S. at Duke Divinity

Past GRE: 08/08/09 v540, q640, a5.5

Undergraduate GPA: BA in Religion, 3.95 major, 3.895? overall (can't quite remember, graduated summa cum laude)

Potential Ph.D. programs: Georgetown, Yale, Duke, Emory, etc.

I realize the above is more information than necessary, but I hope it forms a clearer picture about my academic strength. Though my first GRE scores were low, I was accepted to each graduate program and offered full tuition scholarships at two institutions. Ph.D. applications, however, are an entirely different beast. I am not sure if my strength in other areas can negate another low score. I have begun studying for GRE again, with plans to take it 1-2 times before August.

Here is where I need advice-- what score(s) should I aim for this time around? Additionally, is there specific advice you would offer to someone who is trying to make a huge jump in her next score? I am currently using Barron's 18th edition.

Thanks!!

[ydg23]

I am applying for my first time, so my opinion may not be the most valuable. That being said, here are my thoughts:

Phds.org has great information on the average GRE scores that most schools have taken within each discipline. I am going to guess that your verbal needs to get at least to 650 if not over 700.

If you have the money, I'd take a GRE prep course. They are expensive; they cost around $1,000.

Vocabulary and practice. ETS has a free practice program. Do all the practice problems in the ETS book, and I'd recommend the Princeton Review books. Practice, practice, practice.

Best of luck!

[wtncffts]

I don't mean to be flippant, but your 'goal' should really be 800 on each. I never understood the studying philosophy of aiming for a particular grade rather than just preparing as much as possible and doing your best.

For the preparation, I have to say my GRE scores (770 on each part) were obtained through luck and, frankly, previous education. I did no studying at all but for flipping through a guide in a bookstore a couple days prior. I don't know if there's any correlation at all between paying hundreds or thousands of dollars on 'GRE courses' or books and actual performance. The posts on this forum make me think that there's no relation, or even a negative one - I've read some people have gotten worse scores after such efforts.

Edit: I did do the free Powerprep tests, but not very rigorously, just to see the kinds of questions that would be asked.

Edited January 17, 2011 by wtncffts

[joops]

I don't mean to be flippant, but your 'goal' should really be 800 on each. I never understood the studying philosophy of aiming for a particular grade rather than just preparing as much as possible and doing your best.

For the preparation, I have to say my GRE scores (770 on each part) were obtained through luck and, frankly, previous education. I did no studying at all but for flipping through a guide in a bookstore a couple days prior. I don't know if there's any correlation at all between paying hundreds or thousands of dollars on 'GRE courses' or books and actual performance. The posts on this forum make me think that there's no relation, or even a negative one - I've read some people have gotten worse scores after such efforts.

Edit: I did do the free Powerprep tests, but not very rigorously, just to see the kinds of questions that would be asked.

"I never understood the studying philosophy of aiming for a particular grade rather than just preparing as much as possible and doing your best."

Because some people want to spend as little time as possible learning asinine facts they will never need again. These are likely people who have a lot of other things going on and want to concentrate on valuable parts of their applications. The OP asked a simple question. S/he did not ask you to brag about your natural talent for standardized tests. Your post was quite patronizing and not very helpful. Please think about the people who struggle with standardized tests despite having other affinities before you post something like that again.

[shepardn7]

"I never understood the studying philosophy of aiming for a particular grade rather than just preparing as much as possible and doing your best."

Because some people want to spend as little time as possible learning asinine facts they will never need again. These are likely people who have a lot of other things going on and want to concentrate on valuable parts of their applications. The OP asked a simple question. S/he did not ask you to brag about your natural talent for standardized tests. Your post was quite patronizing and not very helpful. Please think about the people who struggle with standardized tests despite having other affinities before you post something like that again.

It's also true that 800 on both sections is nigh impossible for some of us. Let's be real here. As a literary arts student, my "best" is not 800Q. Perhaps I could approach 800 on the math section if I had a year straight of intense private tutoring! Realistically, the highest I could get studying on my own might be 650 or so, because math does not come easily to me, and I need a real person to explain some of the concepts and techniques whooshing over my head. As a humanities applicant, aiming for a 650 gives me a realistic goal I can hope to achieve in this lifetime, and allows me to focus my studying on the more basic math concepts required to reach 600-650Q on test day. I mean, I was getting rather easy questions wrong at the beginning of my studying because I was falling for tricks and needed to retrain my mind to think mathematically. There's no need for me to waste valuable time trying to learn the more complex concepts required to get an 800, because I don't have the time to understand them, and the adcom in my field won't care that much about a high math score anyway. It won't help me get in, so why bother aiming that high?

And so, OP, I would try to get your verbal up to 600V min and 650-700V ideal to maximize your chances of acceptance. If you push past 700V, that's great, but I don't know how necessary it is. 650 is already in the upper 90th percentile. I doubt your quant will matter at all, but I don't know much about admissions in your field.

[wtncffts]

"I never understood the studying philosophy of aiming for a particular grade rather than just preparing as much as possible and doing your best."

Because some people want to spend as little time as possible learning asinine facts they will never need again. These are likely people who have a lot of other things going on and want to concentrate on valuable parts of their applications. The OP asked a simple question. S/he did not ask you to brag about your natural talent for standardized tests. Your post was quite patronizing and not very helpful. Please think about the people who struggle with standardized tests despite having other affinities before you post something like that again.

I apologize if my post sounded patronizing, I honestly did not mean it so. I thought the point I was trying to make was that the GRE is a poor indicator of one's intelligence and/or the time spent in studying for it. If I could get pretty high scores without much prep beforehand, and some people get worse scores after studying more, it seems to me there's not much point in general to spending a lot of money and time on it. If you're really rusty on math, I think it does make sense to brush up on the basics, but from what I remember the GRE does not require much more than high school level math. I didn't intend to brag about my "natural talent"; I admitted that much of my GRE performance was luck. I happened to get questions for which I happened to be able to figure out the answer. Believe me, I've done GRE practice tests since and I haven't done as well.

As for my first statement, I merely meant that I don't get this philosophy because I don't understand how it works. I mean, how do you know when you've 'studied enough' to reach that critical level? And when you have, do you just stop? I remember when I was a TA and students used to ask me straight out things like "What is the minimum I can do to get a B on my paper", and I was befuddled. I've just never thought like that.

[joops]

I apologize if my post sounded patronizing, I honestly did not mean it so. I thought the point I was trying to make was that the GRE is a poor indicator of one's intelligence and/or the time spent in studying for it. If I could get pretty high scores without much prep beforehand, and some people get worse scores after studying more, it seems to me there's not much point in general to spending a lot of money and time on it. If you're really rusty on math, I think it does make sense to brush up on the basics, but from what I remember the GRE does not require much more than high school level math. I didn't intend to brag about my "natural talent"; I admitted that much of my GRE performance was luck. I happened to get questions for which I happened to be able to figure out the answer. Believe me, I've done GRE practice tests since and I haven't done as well.

As for my first statement, I merely meant that I don't get this philosophy because I don't understand how it works. I mean, how do you know when you've 'studied enough' to reach that critical level? And when you have, do you just stop? I remember when I was a TA and students used to ask me straight out things like "What is the minimum I can do to get a B on my paper", and I was befuddled. I've just never thought like that.

Ah, okay, I see your point. It's no problem at all, I think we're all a little on edge. I also wonder about the doing minimally well on papers thing. There is a big difference, though, between papers and the GRE :-)

[ubuntu]

Everyone, thank you for the advice. Sarandipidy, the range you offered is what I had in mind. Wtncffts, I understand your logic, but as pointed out, the GRE is a bit different from a paper. It's not that intend to aim low or scrape by, but I need to approach this realistically. Essentially, I am looking for a number that would tell me whether to stay at that score or take the test again. I'm planning to take the GRE in May, leaving myself time to take it again in August. Hopefully, I will score well! I also hope I can pull out another 5.5 (or 6!) on the AWA. Too much to worry about, I'd definitely say we're all on edge.

As for approaches, I definitely don't have the money for a prep class. I also am a full-time grad student with two jobs and.. you get the picture. I've laid out a 19-week plan and divided up the Barron's reading lists/prefixes/stems/etc. It's ridiculous, but I have to organize this somehow. I'm also planning to take a diagnostic test this weekend. Does anyone else have advice for studying? Right now the plan is just to go through the book, take a practice test halfway through, then use the remaining time to polish and perfect.

[SarahSocPsy]

Hello Ubuntu,

I had a similar verbal score my first time taking the test (520) and I was able to raise it to a 650 after studying vocabulary words and taking practice tests. I recommend buying the Kaplan: GRE Exam Advanced Verbal book. During my practice tests, I had been scoring about a 700, so I was surprised to get a 650 on the test. However, I had answered nearly half of the reading comp questions wrong because I was running low on time. My best advice is just to practice, learn LOTS of new words, and remain calm during the exam.

[Scottielass]

Take as many practice tests as you can and time them. I cannot stress this enough. The clock got me big time when taking the actual GRE. I had to fly through my last 5 questions on Q section. I scored much better on my practice tests, but I suffered from serious test anxiety on the actual day.

[thepoorstockinger]

I apologize if my post sounded patronizing, I honestly did not mean it so. I thought the point I was trying to make was that the GRE is a poor indicator of one's intelligence and/or the time spent in studying for it. If I could get pretty high scores without much prep beforehand, and some people get worse scores after studying more, it seems to me there's not much point in general to spending a lot of money and time on it. If you're really rusty on math, I think it does make sense to brush up on the basics, but from what I remember the GRE does not require much more than high school level math. I didn't intend to brag about my "natural talent"; I admitted that much of my GRE performance was luck. I happened to get questions for which I happened to be able to figure out the answer. Believe me, I've done GRE practice tests since and I haven't done as well.

As for my first statement, I merely meant that I don't get this philosophy because I don't understand how it works. I mean, how do you know when you've 'studied enough' to reach that critical level? And when you have, do you just stop? I remember when I was a TA and students used to ask me straight out things like "What is the minimum I can do to get a B on my paper", and I was befuddled. I've just never thought like that.

I 100% disagree with you when it comes to the GRE, not because "learning asinine facts" is a waste of time, but because the GRE needs to be approached strategically. Your own experience is certainly an exception but for many people (myself included) scoring in your target range requires approaching the test with a plan.

If your goal is to score 800 then you need to approach the section in a much, much different manner than if your goal is 600 or 700. The most obvious element of this is timing. If your goal is to score in the 750-800 range then you should spend less time on the initial questions so that you have enough time to actually put in considerable effort on the end of the test. If all you want to score is 600 (which was what I was aiming for for quant) you are better served spending a disproportionate amount of time on early questions to avoid the risk of dropping yourself into a lower range early on.

For those of us who aren't some sort of standardized test prodigy it is important to find ways to maximize your chances of getting the score you feel you need.