October Subject Test

[bdon19]

Ahhhhhh, yes. That makes me feel a lot better, too. I guess I shouldn't be freaking out so much. I scored 700 and 730 on my most recent practice tests, though I'm not sure how accurate those scores are because I've taken the practice tests before and therefore was able to anticipate quite a few of the questions and answers. I guess I've just been kind of feeling like this test will validate my worth as an English major or something, even though that's clearly not true. God, I just can't wait to get this over with.

[bdon19]

Is anyone using, or has used, the princeton review to prepare for this test?

I have the Princeton Review book, and I've used it, to an extent. I didn't like the test, so I stopped taking it, but I may go back to it tonight. I did like that it concisely summarizes Chaucer and some other people I'm really behind on, but for the most part I've been relying on the Vade Mecum site and such.

[Timshel]

I feel like the Princeton Review has been really helpful for me with things like Chaucer and what not because I am WAY out of my element with that. Like I said, my area is contemporary, ethnic, and theory, which is not exactly represented much on the test. The school I went to for undergrad and grad didn't require any certain time periods or anything, so I have never read most of that stuff. I'm just taking in as much as I can and hoping to crack the 600s.

[bdon19]

Aaaaaargh just have to chime in with my frustration again. I thought the Princeton Review was helpful for stuff like Chaucer but I DO NOT LIKE their practice test. I just finished it, and it was brutal. I really, really doubt that we're going to be expected to identify a quotation from The Notebook of Malte Laurids Brigge. It's just not important enough a text. I can understand if it was something based on style, but in that case it just wasn't. There were a lot of other really arbitrary things in there, too. I wasn't a fan of the Princeton Review for the regular GRE, either. I always scored the lowest on those practice tests. And in this case, too I was really, really frustrated by the Princeton Review.

[ecritdansleau]

Aaaaaargh just have to chime in with my frustration again. I thought the Princeton Review was helpful for stuff like Chaucer but I DO NOT LIKE their practice test. I just finished it, and it was brutal. I really, really doubt that we're going to be expected to identify a quotation from The Notebook of Malte Laurids Brigge. It's just not important enough a text. I can understand if it was something based on style, but in that case it just wasn't. There were a lot of other really arbitrary things in there, too. I wasn't a fan of the Princeton Review for the regular GRE, either. I always scored the lowest on those practice tests. And in this case, too I was really, really frustrated by the Princeton Review.

I agree about the identification of Rilke--I noticed, in the official ETS practice test, that they never ask for quote identifications of texts from the continent even while they do expect you to know titles and authors and sometimes have a general sense of say, Strindberg's or Ibsen's significance in the history of drama. I was actually kind of happy to discover this. Although the Princeton Review's method perhaps reinforces your knowledge of someone like Rilke, a practice question with an actual quote identification of Rilke (or someone else big like Moliere, Racine, Proust etc) doesn't seem to reflect the way the actual ETS questions are written--almost all the bare quotation identifications were lines from major authors in English (Spenser, Milton, Dryden, Pope, Wordsworth, Tennyson, and then some famous/yet lesser known English writers as well). Although, one exception--On the practice test they send you in the mail, there is one identification of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but they make it kind of obvious just because of the accent marks--

Then again, I've never actually sat for the real subject test until tomorrow--hopefully I won't be eating my words!!

Edited October 15, 2011 by ecritdansleau

[Rupert Pupkin]

Just got back from this.

Pretty much all reading comprehension, which was a bit different than the practice tests I had taken.

The only matching identifying questions had to do with theorists.

[bdon19]

I just cried for the past hour after finishing the test. It was that horrible.

[wintergirl]

I just cried for the past hour after finishing the test. It was that horrible.

I'm too pissed to cry. What a f***ing rip off: Sure, I'll pay you $150 (plus cost to send all the scores) for you to come up with the trickiest, most obscure 230 questions you can. Whee!!!

Assholes.

Seriously, that test was insane.

Pretty much all reading comprehension, which was a bit different than the practice tests I had taken.

The only matching identifying questions had to do with theorists.

Yes, this. I wonder if we all took the same one today or if it's just luck of the draw as to the specific test you get?

In any case, may we all have acceptances in our future--and copious amounts of alcohol/chocolate/sleep in our very near future. :|

Edited October 15, 2011 by bespeckled

[Timshel]

I am SO glad I am not the only one that was surprised at how much reading comprehension there was. It.was.terrible. I left a LOT of blanks because I literally could read fast enough, and some of those longer passages had like 12 questions associated with them.

[wassermelone]

Agreed. I scored 700 on the official practice test ETS sent me. Took that last weekend. Had no trouble finishing it; in fact, even had a few minutes to spare on that one.

This test was completely different. I left at least 30 questions blank, simply because I could not get through it. In my post-test panic, I canceled the score. I hope they'll accept the November test...

UGH.

[ecritdansleau]

I just cried for the past hour after finishing the test. It was that horrible.

I feel the same way.

Like I got hit over by a truck, and then it just kept rolling me over.

Where to begin...?!?! I'm particularly frustrated because my experience today confirms that the official practice tests are outdated and do not reflect the format of the test now, and this fact severely compromised my execution of the test. And now I won't have another chance....I feel like so much of the knowledge I had went to waste because I didn't even get a chance--to even glance over--an embarassingly large amount of the test. I am dumbfounded because when I took practice tests, I actually completed them in less than 2 hours and 40 minutes. (Except on the first practice test I took years ago and had a hard time, so I just thought I'd improved by now. Wrong. The practice tests I finished early were just ridiculously easier than the real thing!). "Finishing" was not the case during the sitting today. I can't believe how much of the test I didn't even get to look at. I haven't even anticipated that pacing would be an issue since I had "clicked in" with the practice tests after putting in a lot of preparation.

As above posters have mentioned, there were very few stand-alone, independent questions over the course of the test, much in contrast to the official practice tests. All the "giveaway" fact questions are basically gone, because even questions that are somewhat peripheral to the passage at hand (drawing on mythological knowledge or whatnot) still require you to get the jist of the passage to process the question. It was page after page of a passage followed by 5-6 questions, sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more. It makes it almost impossible/futile to go with the "three pass" route proffered by the Princeton Review's Cracking the GRE. You have to read it, move on, read it move on. Instead I was floundering, trying to first do the passages I instantly recognized and whatnot. There were also only one or two of those questions where they give you five small passages and you match a few of them to three writers below--I kept expecting there to be more "quick"/"brief" questions but they really weren't there!

It's ridiculous to say it tests "reading comprehension" because for much of the test you're screwed if you actually try to "read" the passage as an isolated piece of text. You may get a few points for the grammatical questions, here and there. But the strange thing is, I was almost annoyed by all the passages I did recognize, because it made me realize just how off I would have been if I had not known the larger context within the work. And there were many that I did not recognize. As I think about it, it's just ridiculously evil to have so many passages from texts that one has possible never had the chance to read, has never even heard of (especially all the texts that weren't even originally English literature! Why call it the literature in english subject test then?). I was an English major for five years and took around around 20 english courses during that time. And yes, I am one of the nerds who read everything I was assigned. Am I conceited if I say I can't imagine how hard it would be for someone who didn't major in English???

And, worse, is that this year the dates come up so that it is now too late to register for the November test--Am I not the only one who went straight online to check if I could do that to find out that I couldn't?

And worst of all, I need to know my score now. Now! So I can have closure and get on with things.

[takethiswaltz]

Wow. That test was truly devastating. I spent most of my preparation time concentrating on Restoration literature and Modern Drama, both of which were featured prominently on the practice tests. However, there was so little of it in the test. :: sigh :: I came in to the testing center with such high hopes, too.

[BurningShips]

Though I have nothing to say which has not been said, I offer my agreement to many of the previous assessments. It makes me feel better to know I was not the only one surprised by the format. Clearly the practice tests and study materials, including the Princeton Review, are out of date. I did well on all my practice tests (hovering around the 95%). In fact, on the official ETS test I did even better and finished with plenty of time. However, I was shocked by the test I was given this morning. Many of the selections were pieces that even an English major may never have come across as an undergraduate or a graduate student. If I were to look at a sunny side of the debacle, it would be that I know more about literature than I did before I decided to take this test. Also, since most of us (the test takers) were surprised and frustrated, the scores and percentages will be different. I am frustrated that I have to wait six weeks!

[wintergirl]

However, I was shocked by the test I was given this morning. Many of the selections were pieces that even an English major may never have come across as an undergraduate or a graduate student.

Exactly. I really felt like laughing once I'd done my first pass through and realized just how little of the material I recognized on sight. I can't believe that ANYONE (even a tenured professor) would know some of the things that were on my test today.

Also, since most of us (the test takers) were surprised and frustrated, the scores and percentages will be different.

I was looking back over my ETS and Princeton Review materials to try to figure this out, since the actual test today was way harder than either practice test I took. So, if our test--assuming we all took the same one today(?)--was deemed to be "difficult", does that mean the grading scale is slightly different? I know I left at least 40 questions blank and can't imagine that I got more than 2/3 of the rest correct. If everyone else struggled too, does that mean we actually have a chance of doing okay in the end?

And haha, I realize the irony of asking a bunch of lit nerds to do math. Especially after that brain-blender this morning!

Edited October 15, 2011 by bespeckled

[TripWillis]

It was pretty much exactly what I expected: a total trainwreck.

I'm just glad that I survived. I've always known that this test isn't going to be the star of my application, nor should it be the star of anyone's application. But, my studying did help because I was able to nail all the stanza and verse form and literary term questions. Those were points I wouldn't have had before.

Overall, I just have to say that this test had very, very long passages with lots of dependent questions. I'll admit, that was very frustrating. It was too hard to get through it all and I left a bunch of questions unanswered (though I definitely at least scanned the whole thing). I don't understand what the purpose is of making sure someone can analyze literature quickly. Taking the test today maybe reinforced my opinion that schools are probably not taking this as seriously as we all think, especially for those of us focusing on American Literature. There were like 0 American Lit questions! I'm not even exaggerating!

[wassermelone]

Thanks for the heads-up, ecritdansleau. I just checked the website to confirm that the late deadline to sign up for the November test date was yesterday. At least ETS is generous enough to let test-takers reinstate their canceled scores -- for a fee of $30, that is.

I assumed that I had just grossly mismanaged my time, at first. But after looking at the practice test they sent, I now see that the format today was entirely different.

[BurningShips]

I was looking back over my ETS and Princeton Review materials to try to figure this out, since the actual test today was way harder than either practice test I took. So, if our test--assuming we all took the same one today(?)--was deemed to be "difficult", does that mean the grading scale is slightly different? I know I left at least 40 questions blank and can't imagine that I got more than 2/3 of the rest correct. If everyone else struggled too, does that mean we actually have a chance of doing okay in the end?

The percentages are based on the test takers. For example, a more difficult test would possibly mean lower overall scores; therefore, a 500 or 600 may be worth a higher percentage than they may have been with an easier test. I have yet to see someone post that they enjoyed the test (and I talked to a few people after my test, and they all agreed with what most of the members of this site are saying), which may indicate lower overall test scores. Sadly, we will not know for another six weeks.

[HunkyDory]

I'm really surprised to see people so upset by the test. Like all of you, mine was exclusively reading comp. No quick passage ID, and only a single super POE.

But it made the test so much easier! Almost nothing from the 19th century, which is my weak point. And the IDs you had to do were easier for one reason--

On most of those passages that had 7+ questions, there was almost a path you could weave your way through. Some answers excluded other possibilities on meaning and identification. So it became super obvious what those were. There were at least three or four long passages like that.

I ran out of time too--left about 10 questions blank. Starting moving quickly at the end, so I probably messed up, but I took the shorter passages that I also recognized in the last 10 minutes, and only answered questions that were identifying things like word syntax or literary terms, since I didn't have to read the passage the whole way through.

Overall I'm really satisfied with how the test went--we'll see the results when they're out.

Edited October 15, 2011 by dokkeynot

[bdon19]

Sigh. Well, now my breakdown moment is over, and I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in this post-exam frustration--though I'm surely not glad that we all had to suffer through this awful exam. I feel like we should have had some sort of heads up at some point in the game that the test format wouldn't necessarily always be the same.

While I agree with dokkeynot that the reading comp questions were easier in some cases, as the questions often followed from one another, this really was mainly the case when I already was able to identify the passage in question. For passages that I couldn't as easily identify, there were some moments when I'd get through the first four or five questions and then realize that I was reading it incorrectly--then I'd have to go back and re-think all the answers, wasting precious time.

Overall, it was time that was the main issue. I don't have time to go through four stanzas of a poem just to find the main verb of the sentence. It just didn't work out, given that I had somewhere around, oh, I don't know, like 40 seconds per question. I was banking on those "easy" identifications to allow me lots more time for the reading comp questions. I really felt one of the worst feelings of my life when I opened the test book and didn't find it at all similar to what I was expecting.

Also, I don't want to sound pretentious or anything, but as far as canonical literature is concerned, I may not be well-versed or anything, but I definitely can recognize just about any canonical writer by name--it was one of my memory's strengths that I was banking on helping me through this test. There were names on this test that I've never heard in my entire life, and not just because I was blanking. I've just never heard them. Ever.

[bdon19]

But the strange thing is, I was almost annoyed by all the passages I did recognize, because it made me realize just how off I would have been if I had not known the larger context within the work. And there were many that I did not recognize. As I think about it, it's just ridiculously evil to have so many passages from texts that one has possible never had the chance to read, has never even heard of (especially all the texts that weren't even originally English literature! Why call it the literature in english subject test then?). I was an English major for five years and took around around 20 english courses during that time. And yes, I am one of the nerds who read everything I was assigned. Am I conceited if I say I can't imagine how hard it would be for someone who didn't major in English???

THIS. There were some works that I was familiar with that I am absolutely certain very few people taking the test would actually know--things that I only know because of offbeat professors and whatnot. I felt like way too many of these passages dealt with really obscure texts (or at least obscure portions of more familiar texts), but even more frustrating was the extent to which THEY RELIED ON PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE TEXTS. Seriously. The questions I actually liked the most were the ones that didn't ask to be identified but instead just provided an author's name, because those didn't expect previous knowledge.

I'm really depressed that my newly-acquired knowledge of Chaucer and 17th-century poetry ended up being completely useless, too.

[user_name]

too many all-night ragers this past week to pre-game the subject test like i'd the general.

i'd been studying in stretches for months. a lot more comprehension than i though. no 10-section stretch of identification questions like all the other practice tests (I have a couple official ets). telling the difference between 4 post-structuralists or 5 restoration comics when no names or buzzwords were used.

but, i didn't feel terrible. (<---does that sentence count as litotes?) not great either. not what i was expecting and hopefully the universal bombing of it is enough to put me ahead of the curve.

[rawera]

I was kind of concerned since the only other kid taking the Lit exam in the room finished and left when the proctor called 20 minutes. Now that I've seen your responses I wonder if he just gave up the ship or he's actually the world's fastest test-taker. I finished with 10 left, just enough time to hopefully answer one of the middle/old (I don't even know) sections, sacrificing the opportunity to blindly guess on what I've come to learn was simply shakespeare. Didn't get to review any of the questions I marked as being unsure on.

That said, I thought it was easier than I expected it would be. Lots of reading comprehension, which is definitely a double-edged sword. I do agree with the prevailing sentiment that some of the passages were pretty tricky: it was easy to misread one word and come up with a fairly coherent interpretation without any larger context that was incorrect. On the other hand, I too also thought you could follow the answer choices if you didn't quite catch the meaning at first ('cloth, feet' anyone?). I didn't mind the way most of the ID questions were tacked on at the end of a passage, though I powered through the exam in one go.

I may be in the minority but I think the infamous editor question is pretty fair. It's not fair, however, to put a poet's 8th or so most famous work (I read the most of his for prep, 7 of them, I guess) as an ID along with 2 authors who are probably as close as any three poets on the exam. "Well there's an s in civilisation...but the other two were expats too...that one wouldn't write such short lines would he? maybe, he did compare a dog and civ that one time...eh, time for the anglo answer" [times up]. googled it immediately upon my return, 3 seconds short of changing to the right answer...

I can think of three or so "key" poems from my prep that were on the exam. No, 4. One of the minor poems was studied in the same class as an "important" one (and I only read his other rakeish works because I thought they'd be about sex: they were).

It's a lottery, I bet with maybe 30 different questions (though I doubt the ETS question bank runs that deep or varied) scores could change significantly. Oh yeah, narrowing the guy I don't know down to two practically identical theory passages (but I could name the school, of course) was kind of bullshit.

Maybe it's just my undergraduate institute, but I felt woefully unprepared for theory, and I took more than a few classes on it. I feel as if there is even less a canon of theoretical readings, again a lottery. Too much post-struct? One last point of aggravation: the colonial piece about collection. come on. Are you supposed to reason that none of the other answers can be right rather than positively identify the author's style?

[eriksmegs]

ditto to most of what's been said about the test. I like analyzing passages, but I think it sucks that ETS sent a practice test that has a lot of identification and super POE questions and then doesn't give a test that matches that format. I would have approached the test differently had I known it was all passages, rather than skipping some beginning passages thinking I'd return to them after my first pass for quick questions, then getting halfway through the test and realizing there were no quick questions. And I'm bummed that I spent so much time cramming so many little bits of info in my head and not nearly as much of it was necessary for the test as it was for the practice tests. AND it was very frustrating because they changed our test center location and didn't tell anybody. I mean, it was in a nearby building, and because most people showed up half an hour early I think most people made it in time, but it was just a very stressful and annoying situation to go through right before taking a test you're already stressed about.

[and...and...and...]

UM, can we please start a revolution? Seriously. Most of us are extremely unhappy about the test; I personally am unhappy both because the test was not formatted as promised and because I just spent the better part of 4 months studying the English cannon...seemingly for nothing (as I was studying superficial things about the cannon).

I really want to confront ETS about this. Is anyone with me in thinking that could be a good idea?

[Sigur]

I'll paraphrase everyone by saying that the test blew my mind. I studied essentially the same way everyone else did, looking especially over the Princeton Review guide over and over and making decent study materials. What got me through the test was prosody, quick IDs, and Biblical references, and I KNOW I could have answered most of the reading comprehension questions if I had more than 40 seconds per question! Absurd.

We're not human test subjects for tolerance to psychological torture. I didn't sign an IRB form.

Come on ETS. What scholar takes 40 seconds to do a lengthy reading and answer a question, having to reread for prosody and other factors??? This test is torture and should be deemed inhumane and a catalyst for suicide. I left at least 50 questions blank because I couldn't even read through them all. I skimmed through once, skipping many questions, sometimes 7 at a time with long reading comp passages, and STILL by the 2nd time through I had only a half hour left.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one with an exploded mind, but at the same time I feel the revised general test was MUCH more reasonable. This test is a battle of the mind. I'm a third year MA student with extensive background in French philosophy, and I just didn't have time to differentiate between Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, and others in 40 seconds!!! I'd be interested to see what tenured professors in literature would score on this test.

Thank God for prosody, and may the ETS burn in hell for those excruciating, sadistic reading comprehension passages. I would love them if I had time, and some of them were definitely advantageous, but it just got to the point where I wondered where nearly three hours went. And I thought I'd have to go to the bathroom. Boy was I wrong. I didn't have time to breathe.

I'd also be interested in knowing how many questions we each left blank. A few people mentioned this, but it might help us all to get a feel for the average. I left at least 50 blank because I was way too cautious in the test earlier on, and that's what I regret most. Been thinking of it all day.

The worst part is that only 2 schools out of 4 need my scores, but like an idiot I elected when I registered to send the scores to all 4 schools! If I really bombed, I wonder if the departments that technically "don't count" the subject test will still consider my awful failure!!! Oh dear; and all of this to get a job at a school that will be strangled to death by budget cuts? Please let me know if anyone's in the same boat. We can share the pain.