How much stock do IR programs put into the math section of the GRE?

[Kevin1990]

How much stock do internatonal relations, defense/security studies, and other related programs put into the math section of the GRE?

I ask because even though I have not taken the GRE yet I know that my math scores(despite my best efforts) will prob be low since I have a very rough time with the subject academically. On the other hand I have a history of doing quite well on anything verbal and anyalitcal and I think my scores will be soild in this area.

So how much do admissions for these subjects read into math scores on the GRE?

I know it differs depending on the focus of the program I just want to get a fell of how important it is to them overall.

[balderdash]

It's a hurdle. Anything 700+ should be fine, 750+ optimal but 650+ won't kill you anywhere but the very top programs. Just do the best you can and let the rest of your application speak for you.

Edited December 31, 2011 by balderdash

[foosh]

How much stock do internatonal relations, defense/security studies, and other related programs put into the math section of the GRE?

I ask because even though I have not taken the GRE yet I know that my math scores(despite my best efforts) will prob be low since I have a very rough time with the subject academically. On the other hand I have a history of doing quite well on anything verbal and anyalitcal and I think my scores will be soild in this area.

So how much do admissions for these subjects read into math scores on the GRE?

I know it differs depending on the focus of the program I just want to get a fell of how important it is to them overall.

If you're aiming for a top-25 you want to break 700 because IR programs are shifting quantitative.

[Charlie2010]

Are you talking about an IR program or a poli sci program that has IR scholars? If the second, you'll need to improve your math scores and abilities, since a good chunk of the leading edge material (though by no means all) uses quantitative techniques. You have to at least be able to read these and evaluate the quality of the analysis. Otherwise you'll be stuck either having a knee-jerk negative reaction to what could be good stuff or (just as bad) being bamboozled by pseudo-sophistication wrapped in greek letters and computer code.

[balderdash]

Are you talking about an IR program or a poli sci program that has IR scholars? If the second, you'll need to improve your math scores and abilities, since a good chunk of the leading edge material (though by no means all) uses quantitative techniques. You have to at least be able to read these and evaluate the quality of the analysis. Otherwise you'll be stuck either having a knee-jerk negative reaction to what could be good stuff or (just as bad) being bamboozled by pseudo-sophistication wrapped in greek letters and computer code.

Scoring poorly on the GRE quant is in no way an indication of one's quantitative ability in general - especially when you're talking about regression analysis and such.

[RWBG]

Scoring poorly on the GRE quant is in no way an indication of one's quantitative ability in general - especially when you're talking about regression analysis and such.

How so? I mean I could see the argument that it's an imperfect indicator, but "in no way an indication"?

[balderdash]

How so? I mean I could see the argument that it's an imperfect indicator, but "in no way an indication"?

Well, this has been debated and such many times, but two quick reasons:

1. The GRE is timed. Real-life academic work is checked and re-checked many times, by many eyes, stretching over months.

2. The GRE quant analysis is mostly algebra and geometry. These are hardly useful when one is trying to answer, for instance, "does ethnic fragmentation increase electoral violence?" or the like.

There are many people who dominate the GRE-Q but would be absolutely lost doing quant analysis - I'm one of them - and vice-versa.

[RWBG]

Well, this has been debated and such many times, but two quick reasons:

1. The GRE is timed. Real-life academic work is checked and re-checked many times, by many eyes, stretching over months.

2. The GRE quant analysis is mostly algebra and geometry. These are hardly useful when one is trying to answer, for instance, "does ethnic fragmentation increase electoral violence?" or the like.

There are many people who dominate the GRE-Q but would be absolutely lost doing quant analysis - I'm one of them - and vice-versa.

Both your points are reasons why it's an imperfect signal, not reasons why it's not a signal at all. The latter claim is much harder to make. Beyond that, I won't rehash the debate about the GRE.

[balderdash]

Both your points are reasons why it's an imperfect signal, not reasons why it's not a signal at all. The latter claim is much harder to make. Beyond that, I won't rehash the debate about the GRE.

Well, fair enough. But I'm not attempting a dissertation on the subject; I was just reacting to a very, very off-base post, hence the "in no way." Mea culpa.

[Charlie2010]

I DID say math scores AND abilities. I recognize they are correlated, not identical. But every admissions committee in every quantitative discipline in the country finds them to be a strong indicator. If there were students out there with weak math GREs who a program could identify as undiscovered gems using other indicators (and thereby steal away from the narrowly GRE-focused programs) they would do it. Kind of a "Moneyball" story. But no one has found such a formula.

In any case, I agree with Balderdash about the threshold scores. How much weight to give those scores relative to other factors you can argue over once you're on an admissions committee.

[potbellypete]

I would assume that Q-GRE is important itself but if you have an 800Q with no math background on a transcript that might not be looked on as favorably as someone with say a 700 but As in Calc 1-3, etc

[catchermiscount]

I would assume that Q-GRE is important itself but if you have an 800Q with no math background on a transcript that might not be looked on as favorably as someone with say a 700 but As in Calc 1-3, etc

I disagree (note: I was somebody with an 800Q and no math background, so maybe I've got too much dog in this fight). I think many places---at least among the more technical places that would care about this sort of thing in the first place---want somebody with interesting ideas and sufficient technical potential to be able to withstand good, rigorous training.

[Eigen]

I cant direct my comment specifically to IR programs, but by and large, programs want to see all three- someone with interesting ideas, sufficient technical potential *and* a good background in the areas pertinent to your discipline.

I think oftentimes people focus way too much on which part of the application is most important, when in reality admissions committees are by and large looking for applicants that have the whole package. There are enough people applying relative to spots that its often a false dilemma to wonder whether a program will take someone with (for instance) a good background and low scores, or a worse background and high scores. Chances are, they will have a third option- to take someone with both a good background and high scores.

[foosh]

I disagree (note: I was somebody with an 800Q and no math background, so maybe I've got too much dog in this fight). I think many places---at least among the more technical places that would care about this sort of thing in the first place---want somebody with interesting ideas and sufficient technical potential to be able to withstand good, rigorous training.

They want somebody with good GRE scores AND good ideas.

[catchermiscount]

Well this is a fruitless (and boring) conversation if we're talking about somebody that dominates on all dimensions. If the question is of the much more interesting tradeoffs (Candidate A wrote an interesting thesis under a well-known professor but had a 700Q; Candidate B was an econ/poli sci double major at a well-known state school, didn't write a thesis, but got a 800Q)

It requires little insight to say that somebody that is superlative on all pertinent measures will do well on the application market.

[Eigen]

Assuming you're above the minimums set, GPA and GRE scores probably rank lower than anything else in your app, IMO. If you're instead talking about a score that's way below average but fantastic all around, it's a bit harder. But between a 700 and an 800? Its going to come down to the rest of your app, from my experience. Both scores are sufficient.

Also, the point I was trying to make is that in this market, top schools often have applicants that are quite supperlative all around to choose from.

[RWBG]

Assuming you're above the minimums set, GPA and GRE scores probably rank lower than anything else in your app, IMO. If you're instead talking about a score that's way below average but fantastic all around, it's a bit harder. But between a 700 and an 800? Its going to come down to the rest of your app, from my experience. Both scores are sufficient.

Also, the point I was trying to make is that in this market, top schools often have applicants that are quite supperlative all around to choose from.

The comment about scores between 700 and 800 cannot be generalized to all programs/disciplines; economics programs, for instance, would be unlikely to accept anyone below a 770 (and for top programs, probably a 790). Beyond that, just looking at average GREQ scores for admitted students, I think it's pretty clear that many admitted students are not perfect on all dimensions; trade-offs undoubtedly have to occur.

Ultimately, I think that getting a near perfect score on the GREQ may not imply an aptitude for quantitative/formal work, but it's a harder sell to suggest that someone getting <700 is going to be able to do formal theory, or use statistical modeling in a sophisticated fashion (i.e. a high GRE is necessary but not sufficient.) Small differences (e.g. between 700 and 730) may not tell you anything useful, but the large differences do, and because the old GREQ was pretty easy (800 was still only 94th percentile), most people with a serious inclination/aptitude for math seem to be able to pull off at least a 760 (maybe after a little time spent relearning triangles), even allowing for the timed conditions/environment.

[balderdash]

Ultimately, I think that getting a near perfect score on the GREQ may not imply an aptitude for quantitative/formal work, but it's a harder sell to suggest that someone getting <700 is going to be able to do formal theory, or use statistical modeling in a sophisticated fashion (i.e. a high GRE is necessary but not sufficient.) Small differences (e.g. between 700 and 730) may not tell you anything useful, but the large differences do, and because the old GREQ was pretty easy (800 was still only 94th percentile), most people with a serious inclination/aptitude for math seem to be able to pull off at least a 760 (maybe after a little time spent relearning triangles), even allowing for the timed conditions/environment.

Quite. I got an 800Q, but I'd be hopeless with any kind of statistical or formal-theoretical work (I do historical-sociological instead). Anyway, apologies for starting an immense blathering war.