Schools That Don't Require Subject Test

[Timshel]

Hey, so I really don't want to have to take the subject test if I don't have to, and a lot of the schools I am looking at don't require it, and I know I'm not the only one who would like to avoid it, so I thought this could be a good place to list schools we know that don't require it to help other people out.

Here are the schools I know so far:

Buffalo

Stony Brook

Albany

Penn State

WashU

Brown

UC Riverside

UMinnesota Twin Cities

Please feel free to add to the list.

[Timshel]

I forgot to also add UF

[ZeeMore21]

Vanderbilt does not require a Subject Test. Although, I honestly wouldn't limit yourself to only schools that don't require the subject test...perhaps a mix of schools would be fine. Some schools who do demand the Subject Test really don't even take those scores seriously. Just my two cents.

[truckbasket]

Keep in mind that some of the programs that make the test 'optional' will still accept the subject test scores results; Duke, Vanderbilt and Northwestern were doing that last season. And maybe I'm reading too much into it, but unless a program outright rejects it (Columbia, UCR), the score can still be used as leverage -- meaning that the applicant who nails it might have an (admittedly small) additional edge compared to the applicant who didn't submit.

Until more programs openly reject the test (and state the reason why), it's going to be a necessary evil of the process. To the OP, spend some time brushing up on your Nortons, read through the links posted in the other current thread on the subject, but mainly focus on your test taking skills -- the same kind you learn to 'crack' the standard GRE. Frankly, the test isn't worth your time if you're feeling pressured by other aspects of the process, but it still holds some weight -- even at the 'optional' programs. Just keep in mind, it's universally hated.

[Emelye]

Also, University of Iowa and Duke University's English Department (not sure about their "Literature" department - they are two different things for some reason).

[Timshel]

I guess I'm just really worried about having to study for ANOTHER test. I have test anxiety, so I always under perform. Also, the schools I attended for undergrad and Masters didn't have any requirements of lit classes, so I have never taken any British lit courses, which is about 50 percent of the subject test, and I have never had to read (besides for my own interests) anything older than the 1800s.

I just don't even know when I would have the time to study/read for it. I am an adjunct instructor at the university where i got my Masters, and I teach 4 classes, plus I'm a supervisor at the Writing Center on campus, too, so I'm just worried about studying for another test on top of trying to do all of the other components of my application once work starts back up.

[truckbasket]

I guess I'm just really worried about having to study for ANOTHER test. I have test anxiety, so I always under perform. Also, the schools I attended for undergrad and Masters didn't have any requirements of lit classes, so I have never taken any British lit courses, which is about 50 percent of the subject test, and I have never had to read (besides for my own interests) anything older than the 1800s.

Well the trick really is to give it your best shot -- and by that I mean spending some time studying for it and making sure you're able to concentrate for the three hours or so that it takes. Some people do well on these things, and some people do not. It's just not worth the stress that it tends to create. Do your best, and see where the cards fall. Also, keep in mind that this is probably the last test of this nature that you'll ever have to take. Some programs have field exams to make sure you're well-versed in all areas of the canon, but they're not quite so comprehensive as this. Quals don't even remotely resemble this, and, while certainly anxiety-producing, are quite practical in their function -- and more aligned with what humanists actually do.

As far as lacking Brit Lit and <1800, that might be a problem -- not just for the test, but in your goal to become an expert in the field. Of course none of us is expected to know everything about all literature for our professional careers, but a passing, superficial knowledge of literary history is obviously important in that, for example, you can't really read Ulysses unless you've read Homer.

The good news is, as you'll find out, the stuff you need to know for the subject test is really just that -- passing knowledge. I think in one of the study guides I read they used the metaphor of being at a cocktail party in which you're required to appear knowledgeable simply by throwing around tidbits of information. That's what this test is supposedly all about. (Mine wasn't that at all, but in general that's what it's supposed to be.) For example, you will be tested on Beowulf, Gawain, Paradise Lost, Canterbury Tales etc. but this is stuff that is pretty easy to learn and spot. In fact, what you'll most likely find is that once you read some snippets, you'll want to read these texts (many of them aren't that long). Shakespeare is huge on the test, obviously, and there aren't really as many easy ways around that other than reading as much as you can. That Vade Mecum page gives you some great tips on how to spot certain authors from just a couple of themes, or specific lines.

I just don't even know when I would have the time to study/read for it. I am an adjunct instructor at the university where i got my Masters, and I teach 4 classes, plus I'm a supervisor at the Writing Center on campus, too, so I'm just worried about studying for another test on top of trying to do all of the other components of my application once work starts back up.

I worked two non-academic jobs, taught two classes, worked in a Writing Center, had a full-course load, researched and wrote one standard and one honors thesis, and applied to thirteen programs while I studied. It sucked -- big time. But one thing I can say for certain is that I spent far too much time studying for it. There were people on here posting about how well they did after just cracking their books a couple of days prior (or simply not at all), whereas others slaved over their texts for months and did poorly. Again, what this thing tests is that you have some basic canonical knowledge, but also how well you can take standardized tests. Were I you, I wouldn't restrict yourself to programs that reject the test (and by this I don't mean programs that simply "don't require it" or make it optional, as those programs are the ones whose applicants will still be submitting strong subject test scores), but I'd pick up the study guides and work your way through them, a page or two a day -- if for no other reason, so that you'll have some Brit Lit. / <1800 knowledge under your belt.

Apply to the programs that you'd want to be in, irregardless to whether or not they require the test. Your 'fitting' in to the program, and the kind of work you'd be doing is far more important to them than some three-digit number. Plan on taking the test, give it your best shot, and if your score blows goat, keep in mind that plenty of other people who totally borked it still got into great, funded programs. So just cross that bridge when (if) you come to it

And to address Emelye's point about Duke, one program is a more traditional English track, the other is comparative literature. I forget which is which, but they make it pretty clear on the website.

Also, if Brown is now making the test optional (are they making it optional or rejecting it?), then I think that's new. I remember briefly researching them last year, and I'm pretty sure they required it then. Could be wrong though.

[ZeeMore21]

I would "like" your posts truckbasket but I filled up my plus one quote for today lol...but you hit it right on the head.

I did apply to Brown this admissions season and the subject test is no longer required.

Edited July 22, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[Timshel]

Well the trick really is to give it your best shot -- and by that I mean spending some time studying for it and making sure you're able to concentrate for the three hours or so that it takes. Some people do well on these things, and some people do not. It's just not worth the stress that it tends to create. Do your best, and see where the cards fall. Also, keep in mind that this is probably the last test of this nature that you'll ever have to take. Some programs have field exams to make sure you're well-versed in all areas of the canon, but they're not quite so comprehensive as this. Quals don't even remotely resemble this, and, while certainly anxiety-producing, are quite practical in their function -- and more aligned with what humanists actually do.

As far as lacking Brit Lit and <1800, that might be a problem -- not just for the test, but in your goal to become an expert in the field. Of course none of us is expected to know everything about all literature for our professional careers, but a passing, superficial knowledge of literary history is obviously important in that, for example, you can't really read Ulysses unless you've read Homer.

The good news is, as you'll find out, the stuff you need to know for the subject test is really just that -- passing knowledge. I think in one of the study guides I read they used the metaphor of being at a cocktail party in which you're required to appear knowledgeable simply by throwing around tidbits of information. That's what this test is supposedly all about. (Mine wasn't that at all, but in general that's what it's supposed to be.) For example, you will be tested on Beowulf, Gawain, Paradise Lost, Canterbury Tales etc. but this is stuff that is pretty easy to learn and spot. In fact, what you'll most likely find is that once you read some snippets, you'll want to read these texts (many of them aren't that long). Shakespeare is huge on the test, obviously, and there aren't really as many easy ways around that other than reading as much as you can. That Vade Mecum page gives you some great tips on how to spot certain authors from just a couple of themes, or specific lines.

I worked two non-academic jobs, taught two classes, worked in a Writing Center, had a full-course load, researched and wrote one standard and one honors thesis, and applied to thirteen programs while I studied. It sucked -- big time. But one thing I can say for certain is that I spent far too much time studying for it. There were people on here posting about how well they did after just cracking their books a couple of days prior (or simply not at all), whereas others slaved over their texts for months and did poorly. Again, what this thing tests is that you have some basic canonical knowledge, but also how well you can take standardized tests. Were I you, I wouldn't restrict yourself to programs that reject the test (and by this I don't mean programs that simply "don't require it" or make it optional, as those programs are the ones whose applicants will still be submitting strong subject test scores), but I'd pick up the study guides and work your way through them, a page or two a day -- if for no other reason, so that you'll have some Brit Lit. / <1800 knowledge under your belt.

Apply to the programs that you'd want to be in, irregardless to whether or not they require the test. Your 'fitting' in to the program, and the kind of work you'd be doing is far more important to them than some three-digit number. Plan on taking the test, give it your best shot, and if your score blows goat, keep in mind that plenty of other people who totally borked it still got into great, funded programs. So just cross that bridge when (if) you come to it

And to address Emelye's point about Duke, one program is a more traditional English track, the other is comparative literature. I forget which is which, but they make it pretty clear on the website.

Also, if Brown is now making the test optional (are they making it optional or rejecting it?), then I think that's new. I remember briefly researching them last year, and I'm pretty sure they required it then. Could be wrong though.

Thanks. this actually makes me feel a little better about taking it. I just have terrible test anxiety, and I'm already studying to retake the GRE, so taking the subject test has gotten me totally terrified, but I guess I have to do what I have to do. Are there certain numbers that schools want you to get on a subject test, or that look good? I really don't know anything about it, so I don't know what is a decent score or what number you want to try to get above.....

[runonsentence]

Thanks. this actually makes me feel a little better about taking it. I just have terrible test anxiety, and I'm already studying to retake the GRE, so taking the subject test has gotten me totally terrified, but I guess I have to do what I have to do. Are there certain numbers that schools want you to get on a subject test, or that look good? I really don't know anything about it, so I don't know what is a decent score or what number you want to try to get above.....

You can find this info on the websites of programs (the ones that have their act together, of course), or often grad coordinators/admins can furnish this info in a quick phone call or email. At my own program, they want to see a minimum 500 on the subject test.*

*And to back up truckbasket's post, note that I was 10 points shy of the minimum score. Do your best on the exam and study for it, but don't despair if your scores are awful, and don't make studying for the exam the most time-consuming portion of working on your application.

[truckbasket]

Are there certain numbers that schools want you to get on a subject test, or that look good? I really don't know anything about it, so I don't know what is a decent score or what number you want to try to get above.....

There are, and they vary from program to program. To be honest, I wouldn't even bother to look them up as it'll only add to your anxiety. Just know that for top-ten programs they are quite high, but even then the test still only makes up a small fraction of your overall application package.

[Timshel]

I am probably going to end up taking it, but I did want to keep adding to this list just so people know because if they don't require it, then a lower score won't hurt as much. I looked at a couple of Ivy Schools that didn't ask for, which I can't remember, but I do know Chapel Hill no longer requests it.

[truckbasket]

I am probably going to end up taking it, but I did want to keep adding to this list just so people know because if they don't require it, then a lower score won't hurt as much. I looked at a couple of Ivy Schools that didn't ask for, which I can't remember, but I do know Chapel Hill no longer requests it.

It's a good idea to keep such a list handy, but again, keep in mind that just because a program doesn't require it, that doesn't mean that they don't accept and consider it. There is a huge difference between a program that makes it optional and one that rejects it, and your list should make this very clear for future grad cafe patrons who may stumble upon it thinking they can sidestep the GRE and still have equal footing. I can guarantee you that if you're looking at "a couple of Ivy Schools," you will be up against hundreds of applicants who not only have top-notch subject scores in the high 700s, but are also submitting and highlighting them with their application -- regardless of the program's policy.

To quote UPenn's department page, "The GRE Subject Test in Literature is recommended but not required; although scoring well on the Subject Test may help your application, not taking the Subject Test will not adversely affect your application." You can parse this however you want. But just be clear on your list that these schools (the ones who make the test optional) actually do accept, review, and take into consideration strong subject scores and that by skipping it you may not be "adversely affecting your application" as a individual, isolated document, but you will certainly be placing yourself at a distinct disadvantage to the other applicants who did submit strong test scores. The only Ivy that rejects it (as of right now) is Columbia.

Edited July 23, 2011 by truckbasket

[lyonessrampant]

A friend of mine got accepted at UTA with something like a score in the 20th percentile on the subject test. I think that you should probably take it so you have more school options to look at, but as others have said, it isn't the be-all-end-all of the application.

[Timshel]

All of the schools that I have personally listed just say "the subject test is not required." It does not say that it is encouraged or that it would have any affect in any way. Some just don't even mention it by saying things like "send GRE general scores" and some said "subject scores are not required."

[ThePoorHangedFool]

*My apologies if someone else has already said something to this effect; I didn't notice such a post when reading through them, if so.*

Regarding the GRE Literature Subject test, I wholeheartedly agree with truckbasket's most recent post from a few days ago. It is certainly important to acknowledge the difference between one program's emphatically dissuading its applicants from submitting the Lit test (with such tactics as the same italics just used--one of the schools I was researching last night did just this [i'll have to check on my list-in-progress to make sure I name the right one - sorry]) and another program seemingly stating their disinterest in seeing a Subject test score while never flatly denouncing its value.

In a parallel vein, it is worthwhile to make a note of each school's program(s) while going through and doing research on them all. A program that celebrates A) a HUGE faculty, particularly if of which 85% have been getting published for over a decade (and/or are either already tenured or on the last few yards of their tenure-track), and furthermore, represent as a collective wealth of knowledge essentially the entire canon twice over, in addition to theorists, etc. playing an auxiliary yet pronounced role within the Department, TAKE THE SUBJECT TEST AND SEND YOUR SCORE TO THEM. The website might sound discouraging in how it assures prospective students that only the GRE itself is required, but think about it.... What is it to them other than a useful supplement to your application file if you send them your score (assuming you think said score is impressive to the program in question)? It's ONE NUMBER. Literally. Hence the painful truth behind the above remark about the handfuls of applicants who will not only send their Subject test score, they'll put it in a brightly-dyed envelope and fill it with confetti to announce their triumph as deliberately as possible...

And while that sucks - yes, it sucks quite a lot - the chances of that applicant, "A," getting a spot at a competitive program over applicant B who, though in every other respect is undoubtedly equal in merit to applicant A, didn't take/send their score from the Lit test, are TRAGICALLY favorable to "A." They may seem annoying to the rest of us, but to the directors and admissions committees of these programs, they see an applicant who went just a few feet further in his or her efforts than did another.

Sorry to ramble on about this...I'm sure you all are perfectly aware already of most (if not everything) I just said...I just am finding the Internet to be my only place to vent these days...working at a summer studies camp for middle schoolers severely precludes my habitual tendency to blurt all kinds of exciting and shiny obscenities for various or nonexistent reasons...apparently that's how I release a lot of my stress usually. Who knew.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Apply to the programs that you'd want to be in, irregardless to whether or not they require the test.

irregardless irregardless irregardless irregardless...I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Don't be offended. I just couldn't let it sit there pretending to be a real word any longer.

Carry on.

Edited July 26, 2011 by ThePoorHangedFool

[lyonessrampant]

Wanted to say the same thing Poor Hanged Fool. . .sorry. . .drives me batty. . .

[truckbasket]

irregardless irregardless irregardless irregardless...I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Don't be offended. I just couldn't let it sit there pretending to be a real word any longer.

I must admit that when I wrote it I paused and scratched my head a few times but never bothered to verify its usage. It has now been registered as a no-no.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Wanted to say the same thing Poor Hanged Fool. . .sorry. . .drives me batty. . .

I must admit that when I wrote it I paused and scratched my head a few times but never bothered to verify its usage. It has now been registered as a no-no.

Seriously, guys... I legitimately can't remember the last time I corrected someone's grammar (which I've been doing since elementary school, to give some perspective) and he or she didn't subtly begrudge me indefinitely for doing so (I'm pretty sure that over time I lost more than a few friends that way, but evidently most of them have a kid and/or are married, so...can't say I'm overly regretful).

Alternatively, this could very well be the first time anyone has taken my admittedly annoying red-pen remarks in a way not immediately described most accurately as "livid."

My heart overfloweth... This is why the people who have no interest in the realms of higher education or academia are the same people who were annoyed by my attempts to help them sound less uneducated...

: )

[Two Espressos]

irregardless irregardless irregardless irregardless...I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Don't be offended. I just couldn't let it sit there pretending to be a real word any longer.

I have heard two former professors use that word--one quite old, the other relatively young. In fact, I hear "irregardless" used quite frequently, even though it's not even a real word!

*sighs*

[ThePoorHangedFool]

*sighs*

...today I saw the word "examplery" embedded in a message from the head director at the summer job I've been working for a few weeks (which, thank sweet weeping Jesus on the cross, ends on Saturday). This message was sent to the entire staff, which consists of about fifty or sixty people, all of us working toward the educational enrichment of (and being held mortally responsible for) two hundred middle-schoolers at what effectively is an absurdly expensive summer school.

We are role models; resources for how to think, talk, act, behave, and generally exist---as far as this program goes, at least.

We are the chosen few...the examplery.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Oh, I forgot to mention that the person leading us as the examplery staff is headed toward getting a Master's degree in education administration/management...focusing on bright or intellectually gifted adolescents....

WE HAVE TO SAVE AMERICA GUYS.

[Historiogaffe]

irregardless irregardless irregardless irregardless...I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Don't be offended. I just couldn't let it sit there pretending to be a real word any longer.

Well, well. Google Chrome doesn't mark "irregardless" as a misspelling. I guess it's time to join 'em, HangedFool: may I suggest "notunwithstanding"?

[truckbasket]

Well, well. Google Chrome doesn't mark "irregardless" as a misspelling. I guess it's time to join 'em, HangedFool: may I suggest "notunwithstanding"?

Play from 1:25 to 4:25