GRE scores/Application strength

[probingtheology]

Like many of us applying this year, I am wondering how strong my application is. I feel like I have at least a competitive shot, except my GRE is low. Here are my stats:

2 master's degrees in theology: 4.0 in each

Religion BA

German/Greek languages

very solid Recommendation letters

publications: 1 article in Heythrop Journal and a couple of book reviews.

GRE V: 670

Q: 640

A: TBD

Now, I also have considered at length my 'fit' with each school I am applying to. With all of this in mind, should I consider my GRE a bit under the cut for programs like UVA, Chicago, UC-Santa Barbara, Duke, Columbia and Fordham? Should I think about even trying to squeeze one more test in early December and rush it to the schools? I'm feeling very nervous, so any straight talk would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks all

[achowa00]

This may or may not be helpful, but I was told by a professor that places like Chicago and Columbia have an unwritten cutoff of around 730 Verbal GRE...eek.

[demondeac]

They didn't give me a precise cut-off, unfortunately. One would think that if they had the cutoff, they would have no reason to keep it secret; people who didn't make it wouldn't apply, which would mean fewer apps to consider (but I suppose that limits the funding aspect of applications...welcome to academic$). All the prof did was make funny faces at my 670v and ask if I was retaking it (so I suppose there is the inferential step, no matter how small). The prof did say my quant score (750) was better than most of their applicants, but maybe he was just trying to soften over the fact that the score that really matters wasn't up to snuff. Anybody else have any concrete information on any hidden requirements? T

[ModusTollens]

Probingtheology-

Your GRE scores are not bad at all (although they won't help your application to the top schools), and the rest of your application seems strong. You might want to keep this in mind before you retake your GRE.

There are risks involved in retaking the GRE. If you get the same score, it will make that part of your application stand out even more (and there is always the possibility of scoring lower, which looks even worse). Going from a 670 to a 730 is actually a big leap on the Verbal section. I don't want to come off abrasive, but it may be in your best interest to play it safe and submit your moderately good GRE scores, since the rest of your application looks great.

But then again, how did you do on your Powerprep tests? These are the most accurate indication of how you should perform on the actual test. But unless you can score 730V on the powerprep, it might not be worth the gamble.

[rollofthedice]

Hey all,

I have never heard of a 730+ cut-off. I have definitely heard rumors that places like Duke-Yale-Chicago (but especially Duke) won't touch an application with a verbal lower than 700 and a cumulative lower than 1350-1400. I think that at most other programs, high 600s with a higher cumulative (And obviously a high writing score) ensures that your GRE's wont get you eliminated.

As the profs always say, these scores dont get you in a program, but they will most certainly knock you out.

[probingtheology]

Rollofthedice:

I think you make a good point about the GRE scores. Also, I have to think that within each department GRE scores are weighted differently and even within each professor's mind at a specific school the GREs are weighted differently. Who the hell knows if there are arbitrary cutoffs or not, and if there are cutoffs, then who knows what number it is.

So, did you apply last year and no acceptances? Who are your interests, especially at UVA and Fordham? Best of luck this year, we all need it!

[rollofthedice]

So, did you apply last year and no acceptances? Who are your interests, especially at UVA and Fordham? Best of luck this year, we all need it!

I applied to 6 schools last year. Was wait-listed at two (ultimately no offers). I was accepted to Durham (in the UK) but financing and finding employment for my wife would have been near impossible. I had to decline, though it is an appealing program. Expanded the list to double the size this year for one last "hoorah". My quantitative score was abysmal last year, though i had a 700 verbal and 5.5 Analytical. I raised my math by 100pts this fall but it is still quite poor. I hope it is enough to get me over the hump at least at one program. We will see. Someone even tried to tell me that my 3.75 MTS GPA was a liability. That makes me a tad bitter.

At UVA, I am interested in working with Mathewes, Marsh, Hart, and Jones. My background is actually in Patristic theology, but my interests are more constructive than simply church history. At Fordham, Demacopolous and Papanikolaou would be my primary focus. Demacopolous has been really nice via email correspondence. Moving to NYC would be somewhat daunting though, eh?

What about you?

[probingtheology]

Rollofthedice:

You seem like you fit at either school. Wilken at Virginia would be another great resource for you if he is not retiring soon.

I am interested in Christology and Phenomenology--specifically the French version (Marion, Henry, Lacoste, Levinas, etc) as well as Heidegger. Obviously, Kevin Hart at Virginia would be great to work with as well as Jones and Mathewes. Getting into that program has gotten immensely more difficult over the last few years, or so I hear--which means I am preparing myself for a rejection there. I am interested in Fordham because of the many there who work on the atonement, especially Viladeseau. I like the work of Papanikolaou too. Have you contacted anyone at Virginia? If so, how were they in responding? Some programs the faculty get back to you easily and some, like Princeton's Religion dept, act like they don't receive prospective student inquiries, which annoys me. and where did you get your MTS? I'm curious.

[rollofthedice]

Got my MTS at Emory with thesis work under the supervision of Lewis Ayres and Ian McFarland.

I visited UVA last year and had great conversations with Mathewes, Hart, and Jones. I had a long correspondence with Mathewes via email and he was very approachable. Obviously, none of that got me an acceptance. I think that, because Wilken is retiring, they assumed that I would not have someone to supervise a Patristics focus. When, in fact, my interests are not so rigidly historical. I tried to explain my interests better this year in the personal statement. We'll see how that goes.

As for the competitiveness of UVA: I think that the lower first-tier/higher second-tier schools that offer reasonable money will be receiving as many apps as the top programs in the country. There just arent enough slots to go around. The sheer numbers suggest that even smaller/less prestigious programs like UVA, Brown and Indiana will be equally as competitive as an Chicago, Emory, Yale, Princeton etc because demand exceeds supply...by a long shot.

It does sound like Hart would be an excellent match for you. Having two Masters degrees is also en vogue these days. I think that goes a long way with many admissions committees. That is a sure strength compared to someone like myself who only has one. It seems to me that, recently, two masters degrees is becoming more of a rule than an exception. I know at Emory many of the Bible students had to go to Columbia Seminary for a ThM to even be considered. As a theology student, a ThM just wasnt practical or feasible.

and now, the waiting game.

[waitingtoexhale]

Duke's GPR posts the average GRE scores for matriculating doctoral students every year. In 2007-08, it was 760V and 720Q. In 2008-09, it was 729V and 739Q. I'm sure some scores were higher and some were lower, but it provides a general (and more official) idea of what they are looking for in applications.

[mconsul]

in case anyone is still interested in this discussion: i know Duke's average GRE scores are that high, but i was (virtually*) offered a spot with a 670 verbal, under the average. couldn't accept, but there are exceptions made with a good fit overall.

*made it past the rejections and was invited down by prof. clark & co. for the all-expense paid visit and interview, which almost always leads to the formal offer.

[SteveyD]

I was looking for everyone's honest advice on this (my feelings won't get hurt, I promise!)

Let's say you are me, and you wasted your undergraduate years away (a 2.35 gpa, I'll let you imagine all the ways that could happen as a young punk at a sweet Floridian university)

and by a stroke of luck I interviewed well (and somehow had great rec. letters) and got into a MA and have proceeded to get a 4.0 there.

What are my chances like for top PhD programs? I was hoping everyone here could help me gauge what quality of school should be my safety, my reach, and what not. Again, go ahead and be painfully honest and thanks for everyone's time!! Additionally, if you think I should hold off on PhD talk and go the second masters route, please let me know whatever knowledge you might have gained as to where good schools are for that also! (Philosophy of Religion)

[studyordie]

I think you want to touch on the undergrad gpa as briefly as possible in your purpose statements, enough to explain/justify/recognize the reality of a shitty gpa but after that I don't think you're out of the game anywhere, at least not necessarily. Factor #1, given my experiences this season, is FIT. If you can convince an adcomm you fit better than all-star student number 81, many a fault can be overlooked. The school I did the best job of making a case for fit vis-a-vis their faculty interests is the school I have the only chance at getting into (UVA). One important thing will be your GRE, it is easily more important than an undergrad GPA, especially when combined with a 4.0 grad, where you got that grad degree is also important. Even so, I don't think any single stat outweighs fit, going into next season it's going to be my credo .

[Emma]

My undergrad GPA was not as bad as yours but I was also young and crazy and in the habit of droping courses post limit. The thing is they did not count in my GPA but appear in the transcripts, so it looks really ugly; a bunch of really good grades mixed with Fs. Weird. But I did get it back together for my Masters and made it to the Ph.D with full funding and merit Fellowship! Try to focus on what really matters; your statements (proposal and writing sample) and the profs (the ones who recommend you and the ones you plan to work with). I am not shy when comes time to ask for advice (to everybody I can get my hands on in the field, respectfully of course, not like a sociopath) and it paid well. I certainly would not waste time doing another Masters (I think this will just look weird, unless you enter a 1 year program that leads directly to the Ph.D). First, put together a short research proposal, then ask your former profs where they think you should go. Do your own research via internet. Then, send emails to profs with similar interests with just a short paragraph of what you want to work on and ask if they could meet with you, and/ or redirect you elsewhere. If they redirect you elsewhere, send the next email saying that prof recommended contacting him/her. Name droping, when done tacfully can help. As long as it is done subtely, without pressuring them and without making anything up. Keep the focus on the research always.

If you are still doing your masters, try to TA if possible.

Good luck.

Ps. Some of my former profs admitted having terrible grades during their undergrad. Even the ones coming from the best Uni and who rae really top in their field

[SteveyD]

I greatly appreciate all the advice guys! Thank you very much, its encouraging to know I have a shot still!

[Satori]

I know this was last year, but it's always relevant, right?

This kind of information is notoriously difficult to find. It's really obnoxious, honestly. As an applicant, obviously, I don't want to waste my time and energy getting excited about working with certain people and attending certain schools if my GRE scores are not in the ballpark for them. So here's some information that I hope everyone will find interesting and useful. From the Duke GDR website at http://www.duke.edu/...ssions/faq.html

"For the 2007-2008 admissions cycle, Ph.D. students admitted to the Graduate Program in Religion presented a mean GRE verbal score of 760 and a mean GRE quantitative score of 720."

For those of you who don't already know GRE statistics intimately, this is an astronomical average for the verbal score. You hit the 99th percentile at 700. So 760+ is very, very rare.

Unfortunately, it's somewhat in the department's best interest not to publish these things. They don't want to unnecessarily eliminate candidates up front who might otherwise be a perfect "fit" for the program. The problem is, if you are not otherwise networked with the school and don't have that perfect "in" with a particular faculty member, these statistics are awfully useful. When I applied for Ph.D. programs in philosophy back in 2000, my impression was something like this: ~1300 for fellowships at state schools, ~1400 for lower-tier private and ~1500 for upper tier private.

Here's the other bit of information that I found while scouring the ETS information on the GRE. Statistically speaking, you cannot meaningfully differentiate two GRE scores on a single section that are within 50 points of one another. So, if you have a 670 and a 720 from two different students, you cannot justifiably say that one student has more verbal ability as measured by the test. This extends to 100 points for the composite score. What this means is that any score above 1500 is, unless the variation is entirely within one section, indistinguishable from any other in that same range.

I'd be interested in what others' expereinces are with this.... I've gotten the impression that the GRE scores for a particular school don't vary all that terribly much in general from the SAT scores for their undergraduates. You have some programs that stick out, for sure. But in general, they seem somewhat similar... this is perhaps because of the "university-wide" nature of the fellowships. That would tend to favor the creation of departments with similar constituencies. Anyone have any insight on this?

[mike.whitenton]

Like many of us applying this year, I am wondering how strong my application is. I feel like I have at least a competitive shot, except my GRE is low. Here are my stats:

2 master's degrees in theology: 4.0 in each

Religion BA

German/Greek languages

very solid Recommendation letters

publications: 1 article in Heythrop Journal and a couple of book reviews.

GRE V: 670

Q: 640

A: TBD

Now, I also have considered at length my 'fit' with each school I am applying to. With all of this in mind, should I consider my GRE a bit under the cut for programs like UVA, Chicago, UC-Santa Barbara, Duke, Columbia and Fordham? Should I think about even trying to squeeze one more test in early December and rush it to the schools? I'm feeling very nervous, so any straight talk would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks all

I would definitely retake the GRE until you break 700 for both the Quantitative and Verbal. The GRE won't get you in, but it can definitely keep you out. PLUS, it can add upwards of $6,000 per year to your stipend depending on the program. I GRE is a bear. I took it three grueling times. But, on the other side of the application process (well, almost on the other side), I can say that taking the test multiple times was the best decision I could have made. Without doing so, I would not be in the position that I am currently in. I am certain of that.

Hope this helps...

Mike

[plo]

I would definitely retake the GRE until you break 700 for both the Quantitative and Verbal. The GRE won't get you in, but it can definitely keep you out. PLUS, it can add upwards of $6,000 per year to your stipend depending on the program. I GRE is a bear. I took it three grueling times. But, on the other side of the application process (well, almost on the other side), I can say that taking the test multiple times was the best decision I could have made. Without doing so, I would not be in the position that I am currently in. I am certain of that.

Hope this helps...

Mike

As much as this advice is right on, I'd simply say that my intuition is that GRE scores matter most when it comes to university funding sources. For better or worse (and I think for Far Far worse!) the GRE is considered something of an objective criteria wherein a department chair can take a student's information to a dean and say, 'look, this guy/gal scored in the 99th percentile in his Algebra II for adults exam!' So, it seems to me that when a faculty member tells a prospective student that they need to do well on the GRE they are in no way saying that if one does well on the GRE they would be delighted to advise them, but, if not, they wouldn't. They are simply saying that if you are an otherwise attractive candidate for admission, high GRE scores might bump you into the 'accept' category due to the fact that it may be easier to make a case for funding on your behalf.

On this, I've often thought that any department/div. school that has anything close to a 700 cut off (officially or not) should promise to have one or two senior faculty members take the exam every year and then publish their results on their webpages. Wouldn't those results be fascinating?

[mike.whitenton]

On this, I've often thought that any department/div. school that has anything close to a 700 cut off (officially or not) should promise to have one or two senior faculty members take the exam every year and then publish their results on their webpages. Wouldn't those results be fascinating?

That would be fascinating indeed! Unfortunately, there are probably tons more programs that have the 700 cut off that those who would have faculty member take the cursed test...

[mike.whitenton]

I know this was last year, but it's always relevant, right?

This kind of information is notoriously difficult to find. It's really obnoxious, honestly. As an applicant, obviously, I don't want to waste my time and energy getting excited about working with certain people and attending certain schools if my GRE scores are not in the ballpark for them. So here's some information that I hope everyone will find interesting and useful. From the Duke GDR website at http://www.duke.edu/...ssions/faq.html

"For the 2007-2008 admissions cycle, Ph.D. students admitted to the Graduate Program in Religion presented a mean GRE verbal score of 760 and a mean GRE quantitative score of 720."

For those of you who don't already know GRE statistics intimately, this is an astronomical average for the verbal score. You hit the 99th percentile at 700. So 760+ is very, very rare.

Unfortunately, it's somewhat in the department's best interest not to publish these things. They don't want to unnecessarily eliminate candidates up front who might otherwise be a perfect "fit" for the program. The problem is, if you are not otherwise networked with the school and don't have that perfect "in" with a particular faculty member, these statistics are awfully useful. When I applied for Ph.D. programs in philosophy back in 2000, my impression was something like this: ~1300 for fellowships at state schools, ~1400 for lower-tier private and ~1500 for upper tier private.

Here's the other bit of information that I found while scouring the ETS information on the GRE. Statistically speaking, you cannot meaningfully differentiate two GRE scores on a single section that are within 50 points of one another. So, if you have a 670 and a 720 from two different students, you cannot justifiably say that one student has more verbal ability as measured by the test. This extends to 100 points for the composite score. What this means is that any score above 1500 is, unless the variation is entirely within one section, indistinguishable from any other in that same range.

I'd be interested in what others' expereinces are with this.... I've gotten the impression that the GRE scores for a particular school don't vary all that terribly much in general from the SAT scores for their undergraduates. You have some programs that stick out, for sure. But in general, they seem somewhat similar... this is perhaps because of the "university-wide" nature of the fellowships. That would tend to favor the creation of departments with similar constituencies. Anyone have any insight on this?

Well said!

[plo]

Well said!

You know, I've wondered whether or not the writing section of the GRE actually matters more than the simple score (1400+ etc.). Has anyone ever been told that they need to get a certain score on the writing bit? That seems to me to be the most suggestive of a student's overall ability on this wretched test...

[ariadne]

I'd just like to quickly weigh in with my experience. My GRE scores were not great, both in the low 600s. I got into Duke GPR and was waitlisted at Harvard (and I am waiting on one more). My impression is that a good GRE is a bonus to a good application, but a bad GRE won't sink you.

[Satori]

I'd just like to quickly weigh in with my experience. My GRE scores were not great, both in the low 600s. I got into Duke GPR and was waitlisted at Harvard (and I am waiting on one more). My impression is that a good GRE is a bonus to a good application, but a bad GRE won't sink you.

Naturally, as soon as I posted my bit about Duke, I wandered around and discovered something even more interesting... They report a LOT of statistics for their entering grad students (and have the information as far back as 2000). Here's the one for their grad school in general (http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/stats.php) and here's the one for religion in particular (http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitrel.htm). What you'll notice is that the 760 that I found to be a staggering statistic was, in fact, just an anomaly. Their real average is in the low 700s, a much more reasonable number. The GRE is all messed up, though, since the 95th percentile for math is at 800 while it's at 670 for verbal... but that's topic entirely, I suppose...

Unfortunately, from what I know of admissions committees (my wife sits on one for a grad dept in a different discipline) and despite ETS' admonishment to the practice, there really is a cut-off. Even if it's not a hard and fast rule, in practice, there is one. So, the tired phrase follows that a good score won't guarantee admittance, but a bad score will preclude it.

The only personal issue I have with this aspect of the process is that unless the student makes an effort to get to know the faculty, the faculty do not frequently make much of an effort to get to know the prospective students. Especially for people on a waiting list (as was my experience in 2000-2001 with Duke), it surprises me that more effort isn't made to get to know the students and gauge their "fit" and likelihood for success based on direct conversation with the student as opposed to the admissions committee meetings with only a few papers and numbers.

[Satori]

You know, I've wondered whether or not the writing section of the GRE actually matters more than the simple score (1400+ etc.). Has anyone ever been told that they need to get a certain score on the writing bit? That seems to me to be the most suggestive of a student's overall ability on this wretched test...

When I met with a graduate director last year, he told me that their applicants "generally have a five or better" on the written section, but that it didn't matter that much since they get a writing sample from the students and a statement of purpose. Personally, I think ETS needs to double the length of the verbal and math sections and eliminate the analytical section altogether. It takes about half of your time at the testing center to write essays that no one really cares much about... then you have half an hour (which may be at the very end of four hours) to answer 28-30 questions which do the most to determine your destiny than almost anything else in your application. And this results in an accuracy of +- 50 points for a section (this is something that ETS officially states in their literature). I was willing to study for about a month for my GRE... I certainly would be willing to spend longer than 30 minutes to get an accurate verbal score since it matters so much!

By the way, if you look at the percentages, a lot of people score a five or better anyway (73rd percentile). So it's really and truly not all that useful to the schools, especially the very competitive programs.

[peppermint.beatnik]

I'd just like to quickly weigh in with my experience. My GRE scores were not great, both in the low 600s. I got into Duke GPR and was waitlisted at Harvard (and I am waiting on one more). My impression is that a good GRE is a bonus to a good application, but a bad GRE won't sink you.

I'm in a similar position, score-wise. None of my schools have replied, yet, so I can't say much on that end. I don't want to get into why the GRE is, or is not, useful, but as a Canadian, the emphasis on GRE is totally baffling to me.