Caution fellow applicants: Some schools discreet about their GRE bottom-line

[oliviaeden]

I've applied to 15 universities for fall 2012 in hopes to get into a graduate program that would be a good fit for me. I have learned a great deal about the application process and how idiosyncratic it can be from university to university. The one area that makes this process more grueling than it needs to be is the GRE, especially if you’re an applicant like me who lacks a cushy score. The research it takes just to find a school’s particular GRE perimeters is at times overwhelming. The calls and emails I have sent out about this number too many. Graduate websites and online applications are so good to offer printable lists to streamline the application process for their prospective students. Often, they include a portrait of what a typical, successful students in their program may look like such as:

GRE scores average this number; GPAs average this number, etc…

In fact, when it comes to GPAs, these schools often denote a number, such as undergraduate GPA must be over a 3.0 or a 3.5 for funding consideration. Yet, these schools often do not provide the same benchmark for the GRE. Why? Why do they choose to use elusive language, such as saying, “Send in your competitive GRE scores.” I scratch my head, “Competitive GRE scores?” Okay, how am I to know what score this school considers competitive? After searching and finding the same discreet language on the department page, the graduate studies page, the application checklist, the student handbook, I called this particular department twice and received an email address of someone who could answer my question.

“300” she writes in response to my email. “The target score for a file to be reviewed is 300.” Although I am safe to apply, (barely safe, but safe) my curiosity urges to me onward. "So if an applicant sits right below a 300," I ask, "then they will not be reviewed no matter their other application materials.”

“Yes,” she confirms, “that’s my understanding on how the graduate office processes files.”

Even though I am very interested in their program and I think I would be a good fit, I can't help but wondering...why can’t this school publish this information directly on their website: “Applicants must have the target score of 300 on GRE in order to be considered for graduate study?”

Yet, I guess the answer I seek is partly found in this person’s response. Although she was very polite and quick to reply, in all her responses, she referred to potential students not as applicants but files.

We are files, files to be processed—or not to be processed. I get it. If I were employed to go through an exorbitant number of applications, I am sure that the stacks would slowly stop representing people and become files. However, this does not excuse schools from using ambiguous language and making potential students think they have a shot of acceptance when in reality many schools do use empirical data such as GRE scores as means to eliminate applicants (files) outright. And since the nature of this game has to be by the “process of elimination,” then wouldn’t it be better to let applicants know this information up front, especially when dollar amounts of letters, transcripts, score reports, and application fees (not to mention postage, paper, and ink) add up to be over $100+ per application. Whatever a school's reasons for this ambiguity (even if it is simply because benchmarks can and do vary year to year) updates on websites cannot be that taxing. And I find it hard to believe thousands of dollars of application fee revenue is anything but pocket change to big universities; so I left with the feeling that this is simply bad business practice that does not get called out enough. I am questioning applying to any schools that can't outright state that there are certain criterion such as a GRE number that immediately mark an applicant as unreviewable and ready for the shredder. I value holistic scoring and therefore would most likely fit in at a school that parallels this philosophy.

Perhaps, my experiences here are singular, but I wanted to at least share this with others who are embarking on this process that GRE bottom-lines do exist even though the language on graduate school websites do not reveal such. So I’m paying it forward, one file to all the other files out there.

Edited January 24, 2012 by oliviaeden

[juilletmercredi]

I'm of the opinion that if it is easy to find a cutoff score, then that cutoff score is probably relatively hard. And if it is difficult to find the cutoff score on the website, then that "cutoff" probably has some fluidity.

My department's website states our cutoff (1200 on the old test) right on the main prospective grad page. Our department doesn't look at any applications with a GRE of less than 1200. I feel like if a school really did not want applications from people below a threshold, they would advertise that fact so that you didn't waste your time or theirs. Perhaps the school you inquired to would take a student with a 280 and an otherwise outstanding portfolio.

Graduate school admissions usually aren't based on hard numerical factors. They're far more subjective, and I think too many students spend too much time obsessing over the GRE scores and the GPA. Yes, there are certain numbers you should aim around - on the old test, it was commonly understood that you should aim for about a 1200 combined for PhD programs (and that the balance was mainly determined by field - 650+ verbal for humanities fields, 720+ quant for math related fields), and about a 3.5 GPA. But a lot of committees may not have hard cut-offs. They may be LOOKING for around a 1200, but if they come across an 1180 with an NSF, great research experience and a publication, would they turn them down? Probably not.