October Subject Test

[laurathebadseed]

So I've been lurking on the forums for a few months and just had to join to commiserate/mourn with you all. WHAT was this test we took this morning?? I couldn't believe the amount of lengthy passages- When I realized that I had more than half the test to finish and only an hour left I almost had a panic attack.

I did skip a good deal of questions, but I'm afraid that I rushed too much at the end and my score may suffer for it. Like most of you have said, all the practice tests I've taken didn't prepare me for the structure of the test.

But then again- I hope the low test scores are overlooked by graduate admissions. It's got to show them that something is just inherently flawed about testing obscure literature in a series of 230 multiple choice questions in two hours and fifty messages.

Blah.

Edited October 16, 2011 by laurathebadseed

[ecritdansleau]

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?

I think there might be more to be gained from eliminating the test from the inside out (through English departments).

I have already vowed, earlier today--if/when I am ever of a position of any power within an English department with graduate admissions--to completely disregard the test, not out of spite so much as the fact that it is ridiculously arbitrary and does not reflect upon the unique research skills and writing that are actually significant for literary scholarship.

Although some more instant gratification/avenging would be nice right now, haha. The problem is the power structure regarding the test--ETS has a monopoly on it, and as long as English departments view it as something useful, ETS doesn't really have enough of an incentive to be fair to its actual customers by, for instance, informing them of changes in test structure (which they did for the general test--?). I would say that the change in test structure for the subject test is of comparable magnitude, and yet there was no indication/publicization of this whatsoever, and they are still sending out those old practice test booklets as we speak for the next exam. I guess over time the word gets out, but still.

I love how Columbia does not stop at saying the subject test is not required, but takes the opportunity to say exactly what they think of it.

"Our department does not require the GRE Subject Test in English literature, which we regard as unsubstantive and not predictive of the quality of graduate work."

Fun fact: There used to be subject tests in philosophy and history.

Now: no more.

Let's make English next!

[ecritdansleau]

Because of drastically falling registrations, Educational Testing Service, which administers the GRE tests, has decided that the April 2000 test will be the last history subject test it will conduct.

According to Kathy O' Neill, director for the GRE subject tests, many of the GRE subject test volumes have been declining in the last few years, but the decreases for history and sociology have been larger than for the other tests.

The decline in registration for the history test last fall was so large that it triggered the decision to discontinue because there were too few examinees to be able to perform the necessary statistical analyses. More than 1,800 students took the test in the l995–96 academic year, but last year's volume was only 560 (for all test dates combined). O' Neill stated that when fall 1998 registrations showed that the volume for this year would be even lower, it was clear to the ETS decisionmakers that the statistical equating calculations that were necessary to sustain the history test could no longer be performed accurately.

O' Neill added that the decision to cancel the test was also based, in part, on a survey of all 300 graduate history departments conducted last fall by ETS. The results of this survey indicated that most departments had no plans to require or recommend the history test for applicants. The departments responded that they do not consider the history test to be necessary because they believe that it does not predict success and that it serves as a barrier for students. In their admissions decisions they consider the most valuable information to be GPA in history coursework, letters of recommendation, and the GRE general test scores. This feedback led the GRE program to believe that the decline in volume for the history test would not be reversed in the foreseeable future.

You can read the rest here: http://www.historian...05/9905new2.cfm

I think there is a very similar issue at hand with the Lit in English subject test, especially the idea that the test actually works as a "barrier."

Did anyone else who is applying to NYU notice that they no longer require the subject test? Did I read it wrong before, or did they just change the website?

Edited October 16, 2011 by ecritdansleau

[TripWillis]

"In addition, applicants for the Ph.D. program in English and American literature must also submit results of the GRE subject test in English"

That's from the NYU English Dept. website... so...

[takethiswaltz]

On this page it says that the subject exam is recommended but not required:

http://english.fas.nyu.edu/object/english.grad.ProspectiveStudents

Hmm...

[wintergirl]

So it's been 12 hours and I'm still mad about that test--even more so after reading that most people had a similar WTH reaction to the obscure texts and overemphasis on long reading passages.

It doesn't help that I remembered (and Googled) one weirdo lit term that showed up in no less than three questions as a possible answer. Not only did I have no idea what this term meant but I had never even SEEN it before. That's after studying for a couple of months and getting my BA from a top-ranked English program!

Grrrrrrrrr. Viva la revolution.

[Timshel]

I'm curious: If my scores aren't that great (which is what I'm anticipating), should I even send them to the other schools that don't require it? Only 2 of the 10 schools I am applying to require it (although I stupidly sent the scores to 4 schools), so I'm just wondering if I should even bother sending it to the rest if I have an embarrassingly low score.

[Rupert Pupkin]

On this page it says that the subject exam is recommended but not required:

http://english.fas.n...pectiveStudents

Hmm...

This really annoys me. As of the last time I checked the site (a couple weeks ago), they still required it. I would have not included NYU on my GRE Subject score reports had I known this. I could have used their slot for another school that requires it. As the subject test won't be sent out for 6 weeks (and I strategically selected general and subject scores for NYU instead of using them for one of my free general test score reports) , my scores will be sent unnervingly close to their Dec. 1st deadline.

Not to mention that my subject score will probably be the weakest part of my application.

Ugh.

[TripWillis]

I guess if it's "recommended," you might as well just send it. That indicates to me that a poor GRE Subject score probably won't hurt you with them.

[Two Espressos]

After perusing this topic, I'm even more nervous for this test. Fuck.

[TripWillis]

After perusing this topic, I'm even more nervous for this test. Fuck.

Don't be too nervous. My nervous racing mind really worked against me during the test, as around question 124 I started to get mentally exhausted and overwhelmed due to the difficulty and my inability to "speed analyze" for more than an hour at a time. It began to cripple my confidence, even though I was doing alright (I thought) for the first half.

(Seriously, if they wanted to reflect actual graduate life, they'd give us a break every 45 minutes to check facebook and pour a cup of coffee and eat a few potato chips.)

Just remember: it is no mystery that this test is hard, and therefore, there's no reason to be nervous. I wish I had told myself this.

[truckbasket]

I was keeping my fingers crossed for everyone who wrote the test yesterday, but it sounds like you all had the same experience that I did. I sat it last October and it bore no resemblance to any prep material I'd seen -- even the one supplied by the ETS (that was easy). The reading comp must have been at least 85% of the test, so all of the studying I did for it was essentially wasted. When I did the initial scan for quick points, I was shocked by how few there were -- perhaps 20 questions? Plus, I had to take it in an overcrowded, noisy, hot room so I couldn't concentrate for shit. I ended up leaving about 50 questions blank.

There was a similar uproar about it last year, and the general consensus was that there were too many practice tests floating around, and so the ETS needed to overhaul it. That's the only reason people could imagine as to why it was so different from what they said it would be.

But with that said, I still got some fully funded PhD offers, so while freaking out, keep in mind that it's not the be all, end all. AND, chances are, you'll never have to do anything like this again.

Hang in there, everybody -- and get back to work on the meaningful aspects of your applications!

[the giaour]

To echo truckbasket, I also sat for the October exam last year, and was surprised by the new format. My score, though, was actually better than I thought it would be. I, too, received multiple fully funded PhD offers, so there's hope!

Best of luck to you who haven't taken it, and for those who are already done, truckbasket is right on: now you can get back to perfecting the important components of your applications. We're cheering for y'all =)

[ecritdansleau]

This really annoys me. As of the last time I checked the site (a couple weeks ago), they still required it. I would have not included NYU on my GRE Subject score reports had I known this. I could have used their slot for another school that requires it. As the subject test won't be sent out for 6 weeks (and I strategically selected general and subject scores for NYU instead of using them for one of my free general test score reports) , my scores will be sent unnervingly close to their Dec. 1st deadline.

Not to mention that my subject score will probably be the weakest part of my application.

Ugh.

I did the same exact thing--I bet they'll be getting a good number of subject test scores!!

It's funny that the information would be announced so late, considering they have basically the earliest deadline of all the programs I've even looked at.

[Phil Sparrow]

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.

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

I'm definitely not trying to defend ETS or this absurd exam, but...it's not an aptitude test. They are supposed to be testing you on prior knowledge. *ducks to avoid Hulk-like rage over the utter crapitude of the exam*

Finally, do not despair over having studied Chaucer and C17 poetry! Even if it didn't show up on the exam, it's good to know. "Cocktail party" knowledge of this stuff can be very useful when you're actually studying and doing research on later works, because you'll be able to identify allusions to those major canonical texts. Sometimes I get sad because I'll be in class with, say, a bunch of utterly brilliant nineteenth-centuryists and, despite their huge breadth of specialized knowledge and kickass reading ability, they will completely miss allusions to older works which, when acknowledged, totally change the meaning of the text we're working on. It's always good to be able to pick that stuff out, which is one of the benefits of having to study for an otherwise stupid exam.

Rest easy, good people! You've slain the beast! Congratulations on getting through it.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Phil Sparrow

[ecritdansleau]

Finally, do not despair over having studied Chaucer and C17 poetry! Even if it didn't show up on the exam, it's good to know. "Cocktail party" knowledge of this stuff can be very useful when you're actually studying and doing research on later works, because you'll be able to identify allusions to those major canonical texts. Sometimes I get sad because I'll be in class with, say, a bunch of utterly brilliant nineteenth-centuryists and, despite their huge breadth of specialized knowledge and kickass reading ability, they will completely miss allusions to older works which, when acknowledged, totally change the meaning of the text we're working on. It's always good to be able to pick that stuff out, which is one of the benefits of having to study for an otherwise stupid exam.

Rest easy, good people! You've slain the beast! Congratulations on getting through it.

aahh, yes, I agree. The best thing about the subject test, in fact, was studying for it. Particularly the reading and revisiting of poems outside of my proposed area of specialty, just because I hadn't looked at them in awhile; in fact, I even ended up making a list of texts that I came across for the first time during studying that I want to read fully now that I have the time! I also like the fact that surveying all the major time periods gives me a sort of aerial perspective on english literature as a whole--It actually made me realize how much I'm looking forward to coursework!

It does seem like the test was a bit of a "take this" to the idea that the subject test only tests "cocktail party knowledge": although surface knowledge of texts/authors does help with some process of elimination questions, I don't think anyone could excel without having some sort of deeper/ingrained knowledge of particular texts.

The problem I have with the test though, is that I feel as if the format (the expectation of more questions that could be answered quickly) caught me off guard and in fact did not allow me to show off all the knowledge I do have--It felt almost psychologically..discriminatory (?) because the performance of someone who is thrown off by the format is going to be skewed exponentially worse, even if that person has the same knowledge as someone who is less psychologically thrown off.

[Two Espressos]

So, considering how many of you state that studying for the Subject Test proved unhelpful (at least as regards the test itself), would you still recommend studying for it, or not? I'm sure you'll agree that studying anything is productive and useful, but would it negatively affect me if I didn't study for the exam specifically?

If I have time, I'll definitely study for it; the problem is that the next year and a half is going to be quite hectic for me: studying abroad in France, attending a national conference (hopefully), taking more rigorous and theoretically informed coursework (via independent studies), etc. This of course is excluding the hell that is applying for PhD programs.

What say you?

[ecritdansleau]

So, considering how many of you state that studying for the Subject Test proved unhelpful (at least as regards the test itself), would you still recommend studying for it, or not? I'm sure you'll agree that studying anything is productive and useful, but would it negatively affect me if I didn't study for the exam specifically?

If I have time, I'll definitely study for it; the problem is that the next year and a half is going to be quite hectic for me: studying abroad in France, attending a national conference (hopefully), taking more rigorous and theoretically informed coursework (via independent studies), etc. This of course is excluding the hell that is applying for PhD programs.

What say you?

I definitely wouldn't recommend not studying for it at all. Looking through all the introductions in the Norton's definitely was helpful for the exam (not to mention kind of fun for little tidbits), and it takes a bit of the panic that could arise from the feeling "I've never heard of any of these answer choices" because you'll know Lyly's Euphues, Spenser's Amoretti, and Milton's Il Penseroso, etc.

If I were to prepare for it again, I would basically make it a point to familiarize myself with authors I've never heard of, but also, to pick out my favorite poets from each major period and make sure to be familiar with all their poems in the major anthologies (Norton or Longman). This is partly for my own satisfaction, and also partly because I saw just how obscure some of the passages were. For whatever reason, the worst thing would have been not recognizing a poem and later realizing it was Keats or Marvell or Dickinson (all of whom I adore). You can only do so much, so you might as well read what matters to you.

Before I really started to prepare for the test, I remember being angry that I would be "forced" to look over synopses of novels I hadn't yet read so I'd be familiar enough with them for the test. I ended up only doing this for certain novels that I don't see myself reading. I'm glad I didn't really bother with "spoiling" novels--it wouldn't have helped much, if at all. I recognized plenty of prose passages from things I'd read in full. Many of them were passages that did not include character names, nor did they give details about the plot of the work. There is a lot to be said for knowing the formal style of an author on this test, and remembering the strange contours of texts you have read.

Edited October 17, 2011 by ecritdansleau

[takethiswaltz]

So, considering how many of you state that studying for the Subject Test proved unhelpful (at least as regards the test itself), would you still recommend studying for it, or not? I'm sure you'll agree that studying anything is productive and useful, but would it negatively affect me if I didn't study for the exam specifically?

If I have time, I'll definitely study for it; the problem is that the next year and a half is going to be quite hectic for me: studying abroad in France, attending a national conference (hopefully), taking more rigorous and theoretically informed coursework (via independent studies), etc. This of course is excluding the hell that is applying for PhD programs.

What say you?

The best way to study for the subject exam is by taking as many practice tests as possible and using them to figure out your weak areas. I took about 4 practice tests and it really helped me boost my score from an approximate scale score of 590 to 710 on the last practice test. Given that I just barely made it to the end of the real exam, and that I had to rush through the last quarter of the test, I'm expecting to score anywhere from 600-640. We'll see...

To get the fullest benefit of the practice exams, I would only give myself 2 hours to complete them if I were you. You want to get used to reading those passages rather quickly...

Edited October 17, 2011 by takethiswaltz

[bdon19]

@Two Espressos: I definitely say still study. The thing that helped me most was reviewing poetry forms the night before--types of sonnets, stanzas, you name it, most of that was tested. That being said, all of the "cocktail party" stuff I'd studied for the past two years basically went to crap. It simply wasn't necessary.

@Phil Sparrow, I get what you're saying, that prior knowledge is what is tested here, I really do. However, when you're expected to answer questions that are dependent upon small details in a part of the work that is not included in the passage on the text, I just don't see how that's all that fair. I can understand testing things like that in the identification format, for sure. I just don't get when six to ten questions depend on knowing the larger context, especially when it's a work that's a bit of a "fringe" canonical text.

I'm just still bitter about this test. And about the fact that I may be losing a shot at getting into 7 schools that I love because of how horribly I've done, despite the fact that I started studying for this test two years ago. It's just not fair.

Also, I realize that I am being overdramatic and that this test is not the "be-all or end-all" (I definitely failed to correctly identify that passage, fml) of grad school admissions. I also realize that there's a chance I did better than I'm currently thinking I did. But there's also a chance that I did much, much worse. I've been in a weird slump all day, and I know it's because of this stupid test. If only I didn't have to wait so long for the inevitable bad news... :/

[TripWillis]

So, considering how many of you state that studying for the Subject Test proved unhelpful (at least as regards the test itself), would you still recommend studying for it, or not? I'm sure you'll agree that studying anything is productive and useful, but would it negatively affect me if I didn't study for the exam specifically?

If I have time, I'll definitely study for it; the problem is that the next year and a half is going to be quite hectic for me: studying abroad in France, attending a national conference (hopefully), taking more rigorous and theoretically informed coursework (via independent studies), etc. This of course is excluding the hell that is applying for PhD programs.

What say you?

I would focus on prosody, literary terms, verse forms, stanza forms, etc. and, rather than focusing on identification, focus on reading about 10 well-known poems from each literary period of note in-depth so that you can really familiarize yourself with antiquated language and periodic style. I think if you focus more on style and structure, it will help you. For instance, I was able to nail John Donne and John Milton just by style, even though I'm not super familiar with either of those works. I could just tell it was them.

[0000000000AAA]

I'd echo a lot of what was said here. Even if no amount of studying will guarantee a perfect score, studying is still helpful. I think the idea of the test is that no one should get a perfect score, because no one has all that knowledge. You aren't expected to know the context for obscure poems; you're expected to get those questions wrong. It makes for a harrowing, terrible experience.

Also, I was taken aback by the amount of raw historical knowledge that was tested--like the questions that asked to correlate poems with concurrent historical events.

[wintergirl]

@ WellSpring:

Also, I was taken aback by the amount of raw historical knowledge that was tested--like the questions that asked to correlate poems with concurrent historical events.

This!!! There were at least two questions I remember that just listed British monarchs. Hellllooo! I'm an Americanist for a REASON. I was also a lit major because memorizing stuff like that bores me silly. It just was so heavily weighted towards British history that it made me kind of sad that the test makers think so little of our own history--including very little American lit/history on the test itself.

@tripwillis:

I would focus on prosody, literary terms, verse forms, stanza forms, etc.

And critics! Good lord there was a ton of theory on that test. I was not happy about that.

@bdon19:

I realize that I am being overdramatic and that this test is not the "be-all or end-all" (I definitely failed to correctly identify that passage, fml)

Ha!! Me too. (I had that "lean and hungry look" in mind instead.) Been Googling random stuff for the last 24 hours when I remember it, and most of it is stuff it turns out I got wrong. Of course. Yay.

I'm just still bitter about this test.

Ditto. Wishing I could issue a fatwa on the test writers, so been trying to cheer myself up instead by watching Bridesmaids tonight, finally.

Edited October 17, 2011 by bespeckled

[bdon19]

Been Googling random stuff for the last 24 hours when I remember it, and most of it is stuff it turns out I got wrong. Of course. Yay.

Yep. My roommate kept yelling at me yesterday for randomly remembering things to look up. She got so sick of me saying, "Well, there's another one I got wrong" in my most dejected voice that she banned me from talking about the test at all. Hahaha

[Two Espressos]

Thanks for your diverse perspectives. I'm rather lazy (not good, I know), so I don't think I'd be able to force myself through rote memorization of canonical works and authorial styles. But I will make an effort to study to some degree, seeing as most of you have really pushed for such.