Do I need to take the GRE again?

[uhohlemonster]

Hi everyone -

I'm applying to History programs to study Israeli history post-1948, although more broadly I am interested in Jewish history as well. Here are my stats:

I went to The New School, Eugene Lang College (a good liberal arts school in NYC, 1200 students, very small classes, writing based - no tests)

3.86 gpa

3.94 history

Excellent letters of rec from professors who know my work very well, and two are famous in the field of Jewish history (unfortunately, that matters)

Wrote a 70 page honors thesis which will be shortened as my writing sample. Lots of primary source research.

I've been emailing with professors at every school I'm applying to, and have been visiting some (NYU, CUNY, Rutgers, Princeton because they are close by). Mostly good vibes on that front.

Fluent in Hebrew, learning Arabic, semi-fluent in French.

I got a 161 on v, a 144 on q, and a 5.5 on the essay.

I feel that I studied hard and that the 144 is the best I'm ever going to do (I'm *historically* terrible at math), and the 161 is on the low end for me (I was getting great scores on the practices) but that just might be how I perform under pressure and at the computer. Should I study more and take it again in a month? I feel that it is more important that grad schools see you as a match than the scores, but I don't want to be shut out of top programs for a mere 4 points....

Help me decide, please! Thanks guys!

[TMP]

If you are fluent in Hebrew and are applying to NYU, you have excellent chances of getting in. The DGS looks extremely favorably on anyone who is capable of doing research and speaking in Hebrew. I would consider Brandeis as well as they have a fellowship specifically for Israeli Studies.

Don't worry about your GRE. Your Hebrew will trump it.

[uhohlemonster]

Hey - thanks for responding! I actually have had meetings at NYU where they have emphasized that exactly. They still want me to take Hebrew next semester and during the summer because my Hebrew skills are extremely colloquial and were derived from informal Hebrew education. However, I do plan on taking advanced Hebrew (don't know what level they will put me in yet) at NYU next semester, so hopefully they will see my effort and consider me TRULY fluent. Apparently, to them, being able to carry a conversation fluently is irrelevant - and I've never read academic books in Hebrew. I see their point, but still.

But again, thanks for your opinion! very helpful..

[Sigaba]

Hi everyone -

I'm applying to History programs to study Israeli history post-1948, although more broadly I am interested in Jewish history as well. Here are my stats:

I went to The New School, Eugene Lang College (a good liberal arts school in NYC, 1200 students, very small classes, writing based - no tests)

3.86 gpa

3.94 history

Excellent letters of rec from professors who know my work very well, and two are famous in the field of Jewish history (unfortunately, that matters)

Wrote a 70 page honors thesis which will be shortened as my writing sample. Lots of primary source research.

I've been emailing with professors at every school I'm applying to, and have been visiting some (NYU, CUNY, Rutgers, Princeton because they are close by). Mostly good vibes on that front.

Fluent in Hebrew, learning Arabic, semi-fluent in French.

I got a 161 on v, a 144 on q, and a 5.5 on the essay.

I feel that I studied hard and that the 144 is the best I'm ever going to do (I'm *historically* terrible at math), and the 161 is on the low end for me (I was getting great scores on the practices) but that just might be how I perform under pressure and at the computer. Should I study more and take it again in a month? I feel that it is more important that grad schools see you as a match than the scores, but I don't want to be shut out of top programs for a mere 4 points....

Help me decide, please! Thanks guys!

U--

Were I in your position, I'd not worry about my GRE scores a bit.

A quick question. The following comment in your OP struck me as a bit odd: "Excellent letters of rec from professors who know my work very well, and two are famous in the field of Jewish history (unfortunately, that matters)[.]" Should it not matter that established scholars in your field of specialization think highly of your work as an undergraduate?

[uhohlemonster]

No, of course established scholars thinking highly of me is very nice and good. I only am implying that it's a shame that their prestige might matter more than let's say a letter from someone who knows my work better. For example, for one of those people, I chose him because other professors encouraged me to find someone famous, and he is indeed very famous. However, many other professors can write much more detailed letters about me and had me in class for more semesters. Now, of course, I am going along with it, so I inherently accept it as useful to my apps. It just doesn't sit perfectly well with me. You know? I do feel lucky to have him on board with my recs and feel lucky in general that I went to a school where so many professors know me well enough to write - I realize that is a privilege.

Thank you for your advice! I appreciate it.

Edited November 10, 2011 by uhohlemonster

[Sigaba]

No, of course established scholars thinking highly of me is very nice and good. I only am implying that it's a shame that their prestige might matter more than let's say a letter from someone who knows my work better. For example, for one of those people, I chose him because other professors encouraged me to find someone famous, and he is indeed very famous. However, many other professors can write much more detailed letters about me and had me in class for more semesters. Now, of course, I am going along with it, so I inherently accept it as useful to my apps. It just doesn't sit perfectly well with me. You know? I do feel lucky to have him on board with my recs and feel lucky in general that I went to a school where so many professors know me well enough to right - I realize that is a privilege.

Thank you for your advice! I appreciate it.

U--

Thanks for the clarification! I understand your point. Something to consider--many historians develop an ability to separate the "ooh" factor that comes from name recognition from the specific content of a LoR. That is, your interests may be better served if you balance your LoRs in favor of those written who know you and your work best regardless of their current stature in your field of specialization.

[uhohlemonster]

Absolutely. Well the two main letters are from professors who know me VERY well. The famous professor actually had me in a class of only 5 people, so although it was only one semester, I definitely left an impression and he seemed glad to write it. So, I think the balance is good, and so do the profs in my undergraduate department. Thanks very much for your advice! Very kind.

[TMP]

Remember, it's more important that the person actually knows YOU and YOUR work. 2 of 3 letters that I had weren't super well known as the third but they know me much better (they've seen me cry and have nervous breakdowns) and nobody complained why didn't I ask the other super famous professor in my department (who would've written a lukewarm letter).

I would suggest that you PM me with any more questions about your admissions process.

[Sigaba]

U--

In retrospect, I'd like to amend my two cents worth of guidance regarding the GRE. While I stand firm in my belief that you should not take it again, I also think that, because you've not done much (if any) test taking as a collegian, that you find a way to develop your skills at taking time based exams. In graduate school, it is likely that you will be required to take at least one series of time-based exams (i.e., your quals).

This recommendation is based upon my own experiences. As an undergraduate, I took very few courses that had timed exams. (IIRC, I had a grand total of twelve midterms and finals in about 135 units of classwork.) As a graduate student, I felt that the relative lack of experience taking timed exams added significantly to my stress level when I was required to take exams during a semester and, later, when I sat down to write my quals.

Again, this is two cents' worth of advice for you to take and to leave as you see fit.

[uhohlemonster]

That's very interesting advice... My courses, I should amend, did have a some tests, but they were all essay writing under timed circumstances. Hence my very decent AW score. But no multiple choice type stuff. Do grad schools mostly have writing based exams or multiple choices? I feel that with History it would be doubtful to see a multiple choice exam but I could be wrong.

[Sigaba]

That's very interesting advice... My courses, I should amend, did have a some tests, but they were all essay writing under timed circumstances. Hence my very decent AW score. But no multiple choice type stuff. Do grad schools mostly have writing based exams or multiple choices? I feel that with History it would be doubtful to see a multiple choice exam but I could be wrong.

U--

I had one professor who had his students take final exams that were set up in the traditional format (short I.Ds, short essay, long essay). My qualifying exams were all longish essays.

(Also, as I am an Americanist, the process of satisfying the foreign language requirements was different--read: easier--than what you will probably face. Your POIs may administer additional written and oral exams to make sure you're up to speed with your Hebrew, Arabic, and French.)

To tease out the thought...another advantage to finding a way to work on timed exam skills is that you'll be able to empathize better with undergraduates if/when you work as a teaching assistant. As an example, while working as a T.A., I had a boss who gave absolutely brutal exams and insisted that we adhere to equally brutal grading criteria. (As a team, we t.a.'s would wonder how we'd do on his midterms.) Consequently, while I did not cut anyone slack in my evaluation of blue books, I put in a fair amount of additional effort getting students prepared to take those exams.

HTH.