AW: If mediocre scores don't matter, do good scores hold any weight?

[TypeA]

Let me preface with saying that this is not a thread about deciding whether or not to retake the GRE. It's an exercise in genuine curiosity.

There's a multitude of threads on here about people getting lower scores on the analytical writing section than they anticipated, or scores that seem incongruent with their verbal scores. The general consensus seems to be that anything over a 3.5/4/4.5 (depending on your field) is acceptable, and adcomms easily dismiss the AW score, because it's a crapshoot and the SoP serves as a writing sample (or the application may actually call for a writing sample).

So in your opinion, does this mean that there really isn't any benefit to scoring a 5.5 or 6.0? Discuss.

[cunninlynguist]

If an applicant scores a 6 and produces a thoroughly mediocre SOP and/or writing sample, it seems unlikely the adcomm will give any serious thought to the AW score as a compensatory factor.

However, since the AW section doesn't exclusively measure writing ability, it does offer some evidence regarding the applicant's analytical skills. Still, I think the general consensus is true: the AW is by and large the least important component of the application and is only notable if fellowships require a minimum score or if it's abysmally low. A score of 5 or higher is cool, but not a big deal.

[kaykaykay]

someone mentioned that in some fields eg. English literature the AW score may have some weight.

[dimanche0829]

someone mentioned that in some fields eg. English literature the AW score may have some weight.

Adcomms only get to see the number that some person from somewhere assigned to you; they don't get to see the questions you had to write on, nor do they get to see what your responses were. I would be incredibly put off by any English program that placed much emphasis on the AW, especially since I had to put so much more time, energy, research, blood, sweat, tears, and every fiber of my being into my SOP and writing sample.

Not to mention, their questions rarely have to do with our field so even if we did well on the AW section, it still fails to accurately represent our ability to write about literature. I don't know what kinds of questions you had on the test, but I had to argue whether I thought scientists were more important than artists (by artists, I mean: Picasso and Monet...not the broader definition) and then I had to analyze statistical data from a mock scientific newspaper. Let's just say my approach of analyzing statistics and sharing a personal opinion is not the same approach I would take for analyzing a book like Tristram Shandy.

Several professors I've spoken to, who serve on my school's adcomm, have told me that when they see a high AW score, they think: "Look, this person scored well; that's good" and then move on to the SOP and writing sample to analyze your talents for themselves. Then again, like all things grad school, I'm sure it's just going to be a matter of: it depends on the school.

This was unnecessarily long, my apologies.

Edited September 13, 2011 by dimanche0829

[user_name]

would good scores across the board make up for a not-too-hot undergraduate record/school if you're a few years out?

[Kimmo]

would good scores across the board make up for a not-too-hot undergraduate record/school if you're a few years out?

Not likely

[dimanche0829]

would good scores across the board make up for a not-too-hot undergraduate record/school if you're a few years out?

I second Kimmo. For English PhD, you really need to shine in your SOP, writing sample, and LORs. It is possible that the "few years away" from school could work to your benefit. Sometimes it can be a good thing to apply a few years out because it shows maturity. If you had a stable job during this time that was relevant to your interests, that could also be beneficial. But the biggest emphasis will almost always be placed on the writing sample/SOP more than anything else.

Also, what do you mean by gpa? Are we talking last two years? Major gpa? 4 years' cumulative? This makes a difference. If you had rough fresh/soph years, but solid junior/senior years, then you should be ok (many schools only consider last two years and major). If you had mediocre junior/senior years but a solid gpa in your major, you might be able to slide by with an explanation. If both your gpa for junior/senior years AND major gpa are low, it will be more of a challenge to get acceptance, but not impossible. You could always try to sit in on grad courses, try for non-matriculated, or apply to both PhD and MA programs and see how you fare.

Edited September 14, 2011 by dimanche0829