How does scoring actually work? (New GRE)

[conticuere24]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to ask you all what your impression is on how scoring the New GRE works. It does not seem transparent at all.

I am a literature student. I have studied texts intensively for many years now. I have studied several languages, and I tutored for a long time for the SAT. I scored between 750 - 800 consistently on practice tests for the old GRE, but I wasn't able to take the exam until this past September, so I was forced to take the new one.

While I managed to achieve respectable scores in the areas that matter most to me, I'm still somewhat disappointed and confused by them. On test day, I received a 750 - 800 estimate, and I thought the test was relatively easy. I ended up getting a 168, which corresponds to a 720-730 according to the concordance table.

I realize that a 168 is a good, even very good, score, but I really am surprised that I didn't get a 169 or 170, since both scores correspond to the 750 - 800 range, or 99th percentile. 168 is 98th.

I am not sure how they arrived at this figure. I had a look at the diagnostic service. I answered 37/40 questions correctly, according to them. Shockingly all the questions I missed were Reading Comprehension I missed 2 L4 RC's, 1 L5.

Strangely, looking at some of the other people's results on the forum who used the diagnostic service got as many, if not more, questions incorrect , and received a higher score. One person claims to have 36/40 with a 169, and a few others with 37/40 received a 169. Are RC's rated differently from the sentence completion/equivalence questions? Some of these people who got a 169 got L3 questions wrong. I don't understand how the computer arrived at this number for them and a 168 for me.

I am somewhat skeptical of ETS's scoring method and concordance tables. It seems to me that the way ETS developed the concordance tables was mostly to match given percentiles in the new GRE with percentiles in the old GRE. (That is to say, because a 168 ended up being in the 98th percentile, ETS was forced to downgrade its estimate to the 720-730 range rather than the 750 - 800, because the percentiles did not line up exactly how they expected.)

But what if a 168 on the new test is not really equivalent to the old GRE at all? The new test, after all, has a number of significant changes and comparing a test with analogies and one with sentence questions is rather hard indeed. How much, really, do the two tests have in common with one another? And perhaps the most qualified students were taking the new GRE in August-September 2011 anyway, such that percentiles are somewhat skewed in relation to the general population.

Anyway, I understand that a 168 is fine and all, but I have no idea how it is going to be interpreted by admissions committees. It seems that now for top English/Humanities programs, the only acceptable range will be quite small (166 or possibly 165 - 170 if we go by the concordance tables and set a minimum at 700). What do you think about the new scoring system and the determination of levels of difficulty? What constitutes their difficulty? How is it best for a close reader of many difficult texts to approach a very simple passage on a very simple subject to forget everything he ever knew about ambiguity and zero in on the "correct" answer? And how is the damn test scored anyway? 3 wrong on the old test would have easily yielded a 750+.

This is all caviling and minor problems, and I know that I should be pleased with what I did receive. I would feel more comfortable with improvements into the 99th percentile. But this is me being crazy.

[poeteer]

Sorry if this is harsh, because I understand your anxiety, but you need to chill out about the GRE. Start freaking out about your writing sample, if you're going to freak out about anything -- at least then you can channel that anxiety into another revision if necessary.

A 720 or 730 is absolutely fine for the tip-top English programs. If you don't get in, it will be your sample or your lack of program "fit"--plain and simple. At least, from what I've heard. And if you honestly want to work with literature scholars living in the 21st century who would literally and honestly reject you because you received a 730 and not a 770 (or, say, a score one percentile rank below another score) on a standardized test, of all things, more power to you. I'd be running away from those professors, myself. Any English professor who thinks 37/40 on the verbal section is "not good enough" for their precious program is woefully simple-minded and/or under-informed about the nature of the test, and needs some serious perspective.

Look. You can know every definition of every word in the world and still receive sub-800 for a couple simple mistakes made as a result of nervousness or, simply, a silly blip in your brain that failed to do the logical somersaults they expected of you. The reading comprehension is the hardest part, for me, because they expect you to think "like them"--to conform to their exact reading of a text--and typically 2 out of the 5 answers are perfectly viable readings. ETS has somehow decided that one is "best." In other words, your answers were not necessarily incorrect readings of what you read (this is likely why you thought it was straightforward and easy). If you don't know this as a literature scholar, I worry for you.

This brings me back to my first point: literature scholars should know better than to reject you for a 730. I understand your paranoia, but your score is acceptable at any top program, and you need to move on.

[ringo-ring]

Man what is the matter 170 or 168? I got 166 preliminary result after testing, wasn't able to access my official score until 17 days after test date (despite they've promised results to appear on Dec, 8 for test-takers on Nov, 28) and when it finally appeared, it was 160 (!) for Verbal, they stole six points from me Now I cannot even access the diagnostic service - it says data incorrect, but I'm sure I type in everything as it is: registration number, test date, possibly I forgot my birthday? Well I'm not applying to English program so 160 is OK, but still this is kinda annoying, Damn ETS!

[poeteer]

Also, I will add that someone in this forum got into Yale's English Ph.D last year with a Verbal score in themid-600s. She also got into several other top programs. You can bet she took the spot of a finalist who had a higher score. You're okay with what you have, and due to sheer luck (or lack thereof), it's possible you could actually do worse -- all it takes is one difficult question (or, worse, a mid-difficulty question you blunder) and you could end up with a lower score. Why risk it for a mere pittance of points, just one percentile rank? Just to hit an "average," which completely neglects that several admits scored lower than the average?

[habanero]

Now I cannot even access the diagnostic service - it says data incorrect, but I'm sure I type in everything as it is: registration number, test date, possibly I forgot my birthday? annoying, Damn ETS!

The test date is formatted as month-year, not day-month. Did you try it that way?