Recommendations for Schools that do not require the GRE

[BeingThere]

Canis, you wrote:  "My suggestion is to do what the schools in Europe, UK, and Canada do - make it like a job application. Ask for a statement, a research plan, a CV, and transcripts. Require students to get an advisor to agree to work with them before applying. And then judge the applications on their merits. . ."

 

What "merits" do you refer to?  How would you assess and rate these "merits"?  How would you assess two competing CVs or transcripts or research plans?  What rubric or rating system would you use?  How would your proposed system eliminate or decrease bias? 

 

If we want to continue the trend of opening academia up to under-represented groups, then limiting bias in the selection process should be of great concern. Your system sounds a lot like the "good ol' boy" system.  I am guessing you wouldn't want that.   

 

The solution you propose doesn't do anything to address the problems you've identified. 

[PsychGirl1]

Well, again - completely missing the point...

 

It doesn't limit my career to go to a full funded, top school, with my ideal POIs, in a department that is well organized, funded, and smart enough to recognize the GREs aren't a useful indicator of potential student success. It's does the opposite. It ensures that I'm in a department where they don't think of students as numbers.

 

If you're someone who loves reducing complex human lives into statistics, programs that value the GRE might be right for you! But in my case, and for other students - they're not the right programs.

 

Part of this comes from the fact that the BA in the U.S. is the new American high school diploma. Students are not independent thinkers when they're graduating from college in the U.S. - so they're still thinking like high school students when they're looking at PhD programs. As a result, PhD programs are treating them like high school students. This is also reflected in the essays people write about their life stories instead of their research plan.

 

On the other hand, you have a good point about working from the inside out. For example, when Timothy Leary was arrested and put in prison, they gave him a standardized test to determine what kind of person he was, and which work detail he should be assigned to. It turned out that as a PhD in psychology, he had designed some of the tests they gave him - so he filled them in appropriately so they would make him a gardener at a low security prison. And they did, and he escaped.

 

So, yes, if you can design the system, or hack the system, all the better. But aside from the tyranny of the GRE, I'm also boycotting the tyranny of the corporations commodifying education through testing all the way from the 'teach to the test' problems in grade schools - through the GRE. Education, and your education specifically, should not be a commodity - it should be your path of bliss. 

 

... Okay. Best of luck with that.

[lewin]

Random thoughts about the GRE.

 

1. Those familiar with psychological measurement will know that the studies that correlate GRE scores and GPA with grad school success probably underestimate the relationship because of restricted range (i.e., only high-scorers are admitted).

 

2. There's measurement error in GRE scores (and GPA) so I doubt that someone in the 95th percentile that much different than somebody in the 80th. But when people say "GRE scores shouldn't matter" I think they must be talking about minor distinctions at the top end, right? Because I will never believe that somebody who scores the 50th percentile on the general and subject GRE's (or has a 2.0 GPA) is just as likely to succeed as somebody who gets 80th percentile or above (or has a 3.5 GPA). Yes there are contaminants like cultural bias and standardized test anxiety but there's also variance in GRE scores that's due to real knowledge and ability. In part, the scores still reflect ability to read, write, and do math (and, for the subject, psychology knowledge)

 

3. Standardized tests can be biased but so are more informal means of evaluation. See this article for example.   One proposed solution is to retain the standardized tests but bump up the scores of stereotyped groups, which is provocative but seems empirically supported.

 

4. This is completely anecdotal, but I've known lots of grad students and wannabe grad students. I can't shake my experience that good students get good GRE scores and the ones who bombed it I wouldn't take as my grad student on a bet. Frankly, I can't shake the feeling that somebody who studies hard and still bombs it (i.e., < 70th percentile on all subscales & subject) is not cut out for academia... especially bombing the subject GRE. If you don't know intro psychology you shouldn't be a PhD psychologist.

[Canis]

The best part about these exchanges is how utterly obvious it is that we are products of our disciplines. My position is so clearly anthropological. (cultural, post-representational, etc. obviously not all anthropologists)

 

And all of these replies are just as clearly informed by psychological approaches to understanding not only how humans work, but how we ought to study how they work.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Canis

[Canis]

And a great example is this quote: "In part, the scores still reflect ability to read, write, and do math"

 

Do they? Or do they reflect the ability to read certain things, write other certain things, and do certain kinds of math within very specific genres and presentations of those tasks? and under very specific, timed circumstances, without the technological, social, and (dare I say) psychological affordances one might have in, say, a library at school, or a study room at home, or on the couch, or on a blanket on the lawn or any other number of locations in which one might perform differently?

 

How strange to assume that the human mind is a portable unit contained entirely within the body, which can be moved into a testing space and examined - and that the scores from individual experiences can then be compared as though every test taker responded to the experience the same way, or brought the same background to the experience.

 

And even stranger to assume that the results of that test would indicate anything at all about potential success in completely different fields, at completely different schools, working with completely different faculty, subject matter, life experiences, etc.

 

The whole thing is just baffling from the perspective of this anthropologist.

[lewin]

Good questions and, of course, this is why it's necessary to establish the predictive validity of psychological measures, which is something that people do a lot. 

 

 

Do they? Or do they reflect the ability to read certain things, write other certain things, and do certain kinds of math within very specific genres and presentations of those tasks? and under very specific, timed circumstances, without the technological, social, and (dare I say) psychological affordances one might have in, say, a library at school, or a study room at home, or on the couch, or on a blanket on the lawn or any other number of locations in which one might perform differently?

 

Yes and yes. They're not mutually exclusive propositions. GRE scores can reflect both individual differences and contextual factors and we have the methods to determine which of the testing variance comes from each portion. The portion that reflects stable individual differences can predict important life outcomes and task performance in other domains.

 

 

 

How strange to assume that the human mind is a portable unit contained entirely within the body, which can be moved into a testing space and examined - and that the scores from individual experiences can then be compared as though every test taker responded to the experience the same way, or brought the same background to the experience.

 

That everybody responded to the test the same way is not one of the assumptions of psychological tests and not something they require. Of course people respond to items differently but proper techniques can quantify error variance.

 

 

Not to be too snarky, but this IS the psychology forum. Measuring the mind is a lot of what we do--not the GRE necessarily, but personality, attitudes, ability, clinical disorders, etc.   I'm happy to talk about the pros and cons of the GRE but if you're arguing that the mind can't be measured within individuals at all then that's fine, but it's a different conversation. It's like coming into the anthropology forum and saying, "What can we really know about culture anyway? Isn't it all just genes?"

Edited December 19, 2013 by lewin

[BeingThere]

 

And even stranger to assume that the results of that test would indicate anything at all about potential success in completely different fields, at completely different schools, working with completely different faculty, subject matter, life experiences, etc.

 

The whole thing is just baffling from the perspective of this anthropologist.

 

Yes, it would be strange to assume that.  This is why propositions such as those are tested.  With research. The kind that psychologists do. 

 

Sorry to leave you baffled.  Perhaps you could consider broadening your education.  Psychology is a fabulous field.  And you must be interested in it, as you posted in a psychology forum.

  

Edited December 19, 2013 by Bren2014

[BeingThere]

So much snark on this thread! I tend to agree that GRE is not always reliable - I did a decent amount of studying beforehand, and during the math portion I got nervous. I got up between two sections and went to the restroom and noticed my entire trunk and neck had hives from anxiety. Test anxiety is a real thing, especially when you've told yourself that if you don't do well, your life goals won't be accomplished. And interestingly, I have GPAs of over 3.9 in both undergrad and grad school, and As in all stats classes. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I am sure others are in the same situation. And for what it's worth, you're already ahead of the game if you have enough money to spend thousands on a tutor and/or classes beforehand. Not everyone is on a level playing field. 

 

I think you have misunderstood my comments.  And it seems you have not read the full thread.

 

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with the GRE.  I would not dispute the reality of test anxiety.  I am not clear why you chose to quote my post; I would not - and have not - disputed anything you wrote.

 

If you look back at my posts on this thread you will find a genuine attempt to get Canis to propose practical, reliable, valid alternatives to the GRE.  We are all agreed the GRE is not perfect. 

Edited December 19, 2013 by Bren2014

[BeingThere]

I didn't mean to pick on you specifically I apologize. The thread in general looked not-so-friendly (especially the post that assumed he/she advocates against it because they assume he/she scored poorly..) and I think what he/she brings up is important. I think the fact is, if anyone had a better idea on some kind of measurement for predicting grad school success than what has been proposed here, it (hopefully) would have been introduced into the application process already. And, hopefully it would be something that doesn't cost $25 to alert each school about. 

 

And thank you for bringing us back to square one. 

 

For myself, I think we've said anything useful that is to be said already.  I wish you luck, PsychCT and hope schools will see your true aptitude despite your struggles with the GRE!

[lewin]

 

 

Test anxiety is a real thing, especially when you've told yourself that if you don't do well, your life goals won't be accomplished. And interestingly, I have GPAs of over 3.9 in both undergrad and grad school, and As in all stats classes. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I am sure others are in the same situation.

 

...and good reason to support a multi-method approach to graduate school admissions.

 

The GRE definitely has its flaws but it's just one tool in the box. The other tools have problems too....

 

1. GPA seems good but it can mean different things between different schools. To some extent, it's also subject to the same cultural biases as the GRE.

 

2. Reference letters contain subtle biases against female students (source, source).

 

3. Requiring students to line up an advisor before applying is problematic because, when reviewing applicants, professors are influenced by gender stereotypes (source)

 

4. Most programs require on-campus visits and the unstructured interviews that typically occur there have very little predictive validity. In fact, there's probably more evidence of the GRE's validity than an unstructured interview's validity.

 

5. I read and edit my honours students' research proposals, and I'm sure I'm not alone, which advantages students who have the social skills and ability to make connections with senior people.

 

My point in all this is that no tool is perfect; let's use what we can and keep in mind their drawbacks.

Edited December 19, 2013 by lewin

[Canis]

Thank you for all your replies and the discussion. I'm actually very interested to know how those trained in psychology think about standardized testing, which is why I posed these questions and made the above arguments. I'm interested in how scientists turn to certain methods based on discipline in order to answer both research questions and broader epistemological questions - how, for example, psychologists might ground their own ideas about 'knowing' in ideas from the discipline.

 

I'd also be very interested to know your opinions on the methods of assessment used to grade the written portion of the GRE, which as you may know is scored by someone "trained" to read and score GRE essays, as well as a computer program.

 

What do you think of this method? and Would it make sense to introduce such a computer program into the university to read all student work and "monitor the human reader" in the process of grading undergraduate papers? 

 

 

From "How The Test Is Scored":

"For the Analytical Writing section, each essay receives a score from at least one trained reader, using a six-point holistic scale. In holistic scoring, readers are trained to assign scores on the basis of the overall quality of an essay in response to the assigned task. The essay score is then reviewed by e-rater®, a computerized program developed by ETS, which is used to monitor the human reader. If the e-rater evaluation and the human score agree, the human score is used as the final score. If they disagree by a certain amount, a second human score is obtained, and the final score is the average of the two human scores."

 

(https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/scores/how/)