GRE doesn't matter

[djrg]

Good discussion... I will just want to add that for me taking a GRE Subject was a really good move... I got the best GPA for my undergrad class, however.. My undergraduate institution is at my home country in Costa Rica... and even though here it is the most respected Computer Science Program... Probably, no one at my target universities have heard from it... So, in a lot of places that in order to back-up my high GPA at a unknown program, I should do my best in the Subject GRE..... So, I did ... and i believe it was worth it.. I have two acceptances so far...

[Joel418]

This is a good discussion! Of course, it's difficult to deal with such an emotionally-charged issue (at least it has been for me, especially as an educator who is familiar with all of the deep, deep problems related to standardized testing).

My own experience has taught me the following:

GRE scores do matter if you are applying to PhD programs

If you are applying for PhD program in a field in which the degree does not pay for itself (read: fields that generally lead to professorships), you will need funding; if you need funding, GRE scores matter even more

The more competitive the program, and the smaller the number of acceptances per year, the more the GRE matters

In these fields, although the top schools will not say so, they will expect top-level scores. For example, I have discovered that the average scores of accepted students in my field at Berkeley, Stanford, and Harvard is a minimum score of 1400 and an AW score of at least 5.0 (Stanford was good enough to say so in their rejection letters).

If you do not have a stellar GRE score, you can still get through with a really good life story. I know it's an old cliche, but I have known at least two people who were able to get around this with a sufficiently interesting story.

[Hevan24]

I don't think you need a "stellar" GRE nor a "good life story" to get into a top program. Research interests, faculty and program fit, SOP, UGPA, and rigour of former programs/courses are all more important. An abysmal score may hurt you, but a decent to good score (12-1300s) will not keep you out of anywhere. An exception to this may be engineering programs (which require high Quant scores) and similar fields. Top schools look for scholars with original ideas who will add something dynamic to the program. A great GRE can help if you're deficient in another area, but adcoms are more likely to give weight to your trascript (which shows your ability over four or so years) above a test that shows your ability over four plus hours.

[Joel418]

I don't think you need a "stellar" GRE nor a "good life story" to get into a top program. Research interests, faculty and program fit, SOP, UGPA, and rigour of former programs/courses are all more important. An abysmal score may hurt you, but a decent to good score (12-1300s) will not keep you out of anywhere. An exception to this may be engineering programs (which require high Quant scores) and similar fields. Top schools look for scholars with original ideas who will add something dynamic to the program. A great GRE can help if you're deficient in another area, but adcoms are more likely to give weight to your trascript (which shows your ability over four or so years) above a test that shows your ability over four plus hours.

In a very friendly manner, I would like to suggest that you may have missed to point of my post. Simply getting into programs in certain fields is far from impossible with less-than-stellar GREs; getting into competitive academic-based programs (as opposed to performance-based programs such as music performance, dramatic performance, and dance) that take only 1-3 students per year where funding is required is very, very difficult with less-than-stellar GRE scores, and here's why:

When the ad com from department X knows that they can only accept three students, they go through the pile and consider all of the aspects that others have mentioned in this thread (research experience, publications, UGPA, GGPA, LORs, SoPs, etc). The field is narrowed to 20 or so well-qualified and well-suited candidates. Then the committee asks itself which students would be a shoo-in for university-wide fellowships (such is the case with the programs I listed in my last post); at this point, the applicants with the best GRE scores go to the top of pile. As I say, the only exception to this situation that I know from direct relation (one from an applicant, another from a member of an ad com) is that of a sufficiently compelling personal story.

Like so many others have said, great GRE scores alone will not get you in, or get you funding, but when it's a question of which two or three of the well-qualified and well-suited applicants will be accepted with funding, those with the top scores will get through.

[Hevan24]

I think you missed the point of my post too. Fit is critical, and research experience does not always equal the quality of research interests nor the originality of an applicant's ideas. Again, most elite programs, when they are narrowing it down to final slots, are not going to choose someone with a "top" score over someone who is a better fit/will make a more dynamic contribution to the cohort. Now, in terms of university fellowships and/or lowerish ranked schools, or departments that don't have much funding at their discretion, GREs may be more of a factor, but in programs/departments that fund every student they admit scores are less of a factor once they've established a cut off point. Why else do you see students mentioning how HYSPM rejected them with their "perfect" scores and/or "experience?" They probably weren't a good fit for the program, and there were applicants with more developed research interests in sync with what's going on in the department.

You're also overplaying the role of "compelling stories." While there are always exceptions, on the whole grad schools seek excellent scholars; if they don't think you can fulfill that requirement, I doubt having a "good life story" will get you in. GREs aren't the deciding factor. That's why you'll even see a 750/760 Quant applicant accepted over an 800 applicant (which is a big difference in engineering programs). Again, if you have an 800 and you're a perfect fit, great; if your score is a little weak, but you have everything else, and your fit is amazing you'll still be fine. There can be many "well qualified and well suited" applicants, but they are not going to be the same in every area. Some will have better SOPs and writing samples, others stronger GPAs and LORs while others more will have stronger work/research experiences and test scores.

A final applicant pool where everything other than the GRE is equal is a long shot; to say that the final decision will come down to who has the best score simplifies and disregards the holistic process most top ten schools use in their admissions.

[Joel418]

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to misunderstand each other

[Inspekt]

I went to a 6 school information session in Miami for the top education schools: Stanford, Harvard, Penn, U. Michigan, Vanderbilt, and Columbia. Every rep said they are looking for at least a 1200 and It would be much more difficult to get in with a lower score.

I'm sure there are minimums but I doubt it is ever as simple as the highest GRE wins. I didn't get much higher than 1200 and things turned out alright for me.

[ElusiveMuse]

I think it's unfortunate that the GRE is so important to admissions and funding because it seems like a bit of an unethical big business to me. The prep classes are outrageously expensive, it costs a fortune to sit for the exam, and another small fortune to send your scores to schools. I feel like higher education already tends to be a bit of a classist institution and I absolutely disapprove of yet another financial stumbling block. I think for certain disciplines, tests like this can be important. I'm thinking certain sciences maybe? But in the humanities? Does it really matter how well you can take a multiple choice exam? Isn't it more important that you can write well? It should be...

[Aceflyer]

I think it's unfortunate that the GRE is so important to admissions and funding because it seems like a bit of an unethical big business to me. The prep classes are outrageously expensive, it costs a fortune to sit for the exam, and another small fortune to send your scores to schools. I feel like higher education already tends to be a bit of a classist institution and I absolutely disapprove of yet another financial stumbling block. I think for certain disciplines, tests like this can be important. I'm thinking certain sciences maybe? But in the humanities? Does it really matter how well you can take a multiple choice exam? Isn't it more important that you can write well? It should be...

While I am not a fan of standardized exams by any means, I respectfully have to disagree with a few of your points. Taking a prep class is not a prerequisite for earning a good GRE score. ETS provides quite a few quality prep resources free of charge. GRE Fee Reduction Certificates are available to those who demonstrate financial need. As part of the test fee, scores can be sent free of charge to as many as 4 graduate institutions or fellowship sponsors. While ideally the GRE would be offered free of charge and unlimited free score reports would be provided to test takers, the reality is that there are costs associated with developing, administering, and scoring the GRE, and the best way to recoup these costs is to bill the test takers.

[ElusiveMuse]

Trust me, I benefited from the fee waiver (only covers half the cost of the exam, and you can only have one so if you need to re-take the exam, you can't get another) the free software, and I applied to 11 schools. (Which was in large part due to my qualifying for application fee waivers. I would never have been able to afford so many without those waivers.) So I still had to pay for 7 score reports. I felt like the free prep software was not helpful, at least nowhere near as helpful as the prep courses seem to be. For example, I was scoring consistently higher on the prep software than I scored on the exam. In my experience the exam was quite different from what the prep software gave.

I just think it's a bit ridiculous that something which is nowhere near an accurate measure of one's capability to perform at a graduate level, and which also happens to be a pretty booming business and money-maker, is keeping otherwise excellent candidates from funding and acceptances. Do you want someone who can fill in bubbles or conduct research and publish their work?

[fuzzylogician]

As Aceflyer said before, taking a course is not a prerequisite for succeeding on the exam. Many people have received high scores without taking a prep-course (myself included), all you need is enough time and self discipline to study on your own. I got a 10$-worth used book+disc and used that, free websites and the ETS materials to study. I thought that the ETS software gave the most accurate prediction of my score. The fact that you had to pay for 7 additional score reports was *your choice*. Most of us couldn't afford to send out as many applications as you did (we had to pay for the test and whatnot), so I don't really see how that's a fair argument.

I just think it's a bit ridiculous that something which is nowhere near an accurate measure of one's capability to perform at a graduate level, and which also happens to be a pretty booming business and money-maker, is keeping otherwise excellent candidates from funding and acceptances. Do you want someone who can fill in bubbles or conduct research and publish their work?

That's overstating it just a bit. I'm the last one to defend the ETS and have a lot to say against how things are currently going, but you have to admit it's not as bad as you make it sound. Most applicants will not have any published work by the time they apply, and having someone read a multitude of writing samples is time-consuming and unrealistic. On the other hand, studying for an exam and solving some analogies is not that difficult, though admittedly a less accurate predictor of your success. It is, however, a more feasible criterion for schools to contemplate, and all you have to do is pass a certain lower bound score that's not at all impossible to achieve in order to have your application considered. I think it's a common consensus that no one factor will get you into, or keep you out of, grad school. If you have a great writing sample, recs, research experience and publications, then you will get in someplace.

[Joel418]

As Aceflyer said before, taking a course is not a prerequisite for succeeding on the exam. Many people have received high scores without taking a prep-course (myself included), all you need is enough time and self discipline to study on your own. I got a 10$-worth used book+disc and used that, free websites and the ETS materials to study. I thought that the ETS software gave the most accurate prediction of my score. The fact that you had to pay for 7 additional score reports was *your choice*. Most of us couldn't afford to send out as many applications as you did (we had to pay for the test and whatnot), so I don't really see how that's a fair argument.

That's overstating it just a bit. I'm the last one to defend the ETS and have a lot to say against how things are currently going, but you have to admit it's not as bad as you make it sound. Most applicants will not have any published work by the time they apply, and having someone read a multitude of writing samples is time-consuming and unrealistic. On the other hand, studying for an exam and solving some analogies is not that difficult, though admittedly a less accurate predictor of your success. It is, however, a more feasible criterion for schools to contemplate, and all you have to do is pass a certain lower bound score that's not at all impossible to achieve in order to have your application considered. I think it's a common consensus that no one factor will get you into, or keep you out of, grad school. If you have a great writing sample, recs, research experience and publications, then you will get in someplace.

I have to stick up for ElusiveMuse here! As someone whose been teaching in the public schools for the past three years, I can tell you that standardized testing, both subjective and objective, is one of the least effective indicators of student aptitude or ability.

As anyone familiar with statistical research can tell you, one can always find one or two studies that seem to support whatever it is that you wish to believe. The only aspect that shows a statistically significant correlation in the vast majority of studies, however, is socio-economic background. That doesn't mean that only students from the higher socio-economic strata will succeed on the test; as the previous poster mentioned, those persons without means can work hard to prepare and do well. What it does mean, however, is that the higher the student's socio-economic group, the higher the average score within the group (within the limits of statistical significance, of course). Here's why:

The verbal section is a multiple-choice format in which the test taker is to attempt to find the best answer to the question of verbal-logical correlation. In the end, however, this ends up being a matter of learning how to make the same correlations as the test makers (or how to "read" the test). Since different people will make different associations (principally based on social experience and cultural disposition), the successful tester will think like the test maker. In this respect, those in the higher socio-economic strata will share signficant social experiences and cultural disposition as the test makers, in particular experiences in the arena of higher education. If one has money but not the "shared heritage" to create the necessary predisposition, they will have the disposable income to spend on a preparation program like the Princeton review. Such classes, of course, focus primarily on how to "read" the test, with a secondary emphasis on increasing personal aptitude.

The quantitative section will not show this bias as there are clear correct and incorrect answers. Therefore a person who understands the material will score well. This is why a perfect score will normally get you into only the top 8-10 percent of testers (those testers who know the material well and are sufficiently well-skilled in test-taking to achieve a perfect score).

This begs a very particular question: why does a score of 800 only put you in the top 10 percent of testers in the quantitative section, while any score between 800 and 740 on the verbal section normally place you in the top 1 percent (while a score in the mid-600s will place you within the same percentile (top 10%) as a perfect score in the quantitative section)? Is it because the aptitude of students in verbal-based fields is lower across the board than those in quantitative-based? Of course not! It's because the correct information for the verbal test is much harder to find than the quantitative, as it is truly known only to the test makers, and otherwise best-known to those who have the time and/or financial resources to try to figure out the test makers' way of thinking.

The same issue applies to the AW section. The ETS has given a broad rubric which each of the graders interpret as they feel appropriate. Therefore, the test taker must simply do their best to follow the rubric and hope that their interpretation matches the randomly-assigned grader's. This circumstance could explain all of the stories we have read on these forums of well-skilled and even professional writers struggling to score a 4.0 on the test.

Finally, one must ask, if the test is as ineffective in predicting student aptitude (not the ability to earn grades, but actual intelligence or ability), why do so many schools still use it? The simple answer: the practical inability to thoroughly evaluate a large number of applicants. With the inconsistency of aptitude evaluation methods and standards between undergraduate programs, the graduate schools need to show that they are comparing applicants on a level playing field. In short, I believe that although most administrators are aware of the deep fundamental flaws of the GRE, the system is not likely to change for the simple fact that there is not a more feasible method at this time.

[zeile9]

I'm in on the "GRE doesn't matter" bandwagon. My scores were nothing to write home about...at all... (barely cracked 1000) and I got into two great programs for my major. But I've also had solid professional experience at a major newspaper and major radio station... I think, especially in journalism, the admissions committee is looking at experience, references, and passion... as long as youre not scoring something like 600 on the GRE, you should be good.

[GirlattheHelm]

I think it all depends on the fate of the application as to whose hands it falls into, under what circumstances (did they have a good or bad day before reading your scores?), and all the things we have absolutely no control over. It's quite a tragic part of the comedy we call life - we're really not in control, folks. We can point all the signs to 'go!' - GRE included - and it might just not happen because somebody forgot their coffee or cigarette that morning, didn't get laid last night, drank one too many beers, they're simply too anal or, to be frank, don't give a rats ass that day.

I've talked to people on admissions committees of great variation. They all say its an arbitrary and bizarre process. We're gambling here - like sending out resumes - we're left praying to paper gods and they're given the power to muster the divine words of acceptance or damnation.

I'm on the paradoxical bandwagon of - it matters and it certainly does not matter.

Life's a crap-shoot; you only get to throw the dice, you can't decide the outcome...

[Leahlearns]

I am convinced that the GRE measures nothing more than your ability to take a test. I did not study for the SAT. I did study for at least two hours a day and many more on the weekends for a solid 3-4 months prior to taking the GRE. I didn't take a class, but I bought a prep book and also practiced with the software that came with the book. My GRE scores were almost identical to my SAT scores. (My quantitative score went up ten points, that was the only difference. This is actually kind of amusing because my ability to read and write improved tremendously in college, but I hadn't taken a math class since my senior year in high school and I didn't bother spending much time preparing for the quantitative section of the exam because I was told they would hardly look at it. I think the fact that I felt less nervous about the quantitative section because I'd been told my score wouldn't matter is what accounts for the difference.) What I didn't focus on when I was studying was the strategy section of the prep book. I figured if I knew the material I'd be fine. I am now convinced I was very wrong. Maybe the classes you can take can teach you that strategy more effectively than you can learn it on your own. Or maybe my scores would have improved if I had seen test prep as being about mastering strategy. But I certainly was better prepared for the content side of the GRE than I had been for the SAT and it did me no good.

[Stories]

Suppose I'll just toss out my GRE performance and GPA:

GRE: 520V/730Q/5AW

BA GPA: 2.9

MPH GPA: 3.5

And I did get several acceptances with plenty of funding offers. Go figure, right?

[GirlattheHelm]

I'm going to do this to make a few points and both are utterly humbling, in regards to the GRE process and bolster my first statement. My GRE scores, as follows:

Verbal - 370. Quantitative - 430. Analytical Writing - 5

It's embarassing, to say the least. I froze during the Verbal and never finished. The quanitative I moved well on but never finished. And the writing was just... lame. It was the first thing I did and, to be honest, I hadn't taken in any food, I drew a blank, and I did not want to endure four hours of a test.

My points are as follows:

1.) I got into a great Master's program with, economic uncertainty not withstanding, possibility of funding. No, not a super hard task as most Master's programs aren't totally difficult - even with stupid-awful-GRE scores. I had somewhere between a 60-70% chance of acceptance to an MA program in general (as per the statistical analysis of acceptances). But, my scores were somewhere between awful, terrible, and utter shit. What saved me? I'd wager that killer SOP, GPA, and my extensive field work, the formal acceptance letter noted the latter as an impressive factor.

2.) I did not get into any of the PhD programs I applied to. I sincerely think my awful GRE scores were a major factor. Sure, there are exceptions to this rule, but I am not one of them.

The GRE's are an arbitrary excersise. I think the test structure is great, the process daunting, and yet the whole thing a learning experience. The test itself is a game; you have to play it right to win it. I failed. I'll take it again and do it WAY different than the first time.

But I'm not shooting myself in the foot. I'm going to where I wanted to go in the first place (since I am not 100% sure I want a PhD anyway!).

Final Point -

3.) Apply to adequately safe Master's programs!

[DefinitelyMaybe]

But I'm not shooting myself in the foot. I'm going to where I wanted to go in the first place (since I am not 100% sure I want a PhD anyway!).

Congratulations! I remember reading about how much you wanted to go to that school!

[slowbro]

Leahlearns, I'm a little confused about why you're comparing your SAT and GRE experiences and scores. The two tests have some similarities, but they test different content and have different groups of people taking them.

Also, while people have pointed out that programs weigh GRE scores differently, nobody has mentioned that professors in the same program can also weigh them differently. One professor in my current department, for example, values GRE scores highly, so applicants who want to work with that person will probably need higher scores than other applicants to the program.

[stigMPA]

Leahlearns, I'm a little confused about why you're comparing your SAT and GRE experiences and scores. The two tests have some similarities, but they test different content and have different groups of people taking them.

Oddly enough I once came across a website that correctly predicted my IQ and SAT score based on my GRE scorewithin a few points. I realize my experience is unique, but I wouldn't be shocked if there were at least a rough correlation.

[juilletmercredi]

I think the statement that GRE scores do not matter is incorrect.

I think it is more appropriate to say that they do matter, but that admissions committees evaluate your application holistically, not just in terms of your GRE scores. Some people with great applications and mediocre scores will be accepted to great programs; that doesn't mean they don't matter. It just means that other factors in your application may have mattered more at the time to the priorities and needs of the program. For example, my psychology program doesn't admit anyone with less than a 1200, but once you have over that mark a 1250 has just as good a chance as a 1550. When discussing potential applicants after interview weekend, GRE and undergrad GPA were never mentioned; the quality of undergrad institution, famous mentors, and previous research were discussed, and the most important factors were fit with our lab (who's going to get along with everyone?) and previous research experience (who will have a smooth and easy segue into working in our lab?)

On the other hand, my public health department stacks GRE scores a bit more and will look more favorably upon higher scores, all other things being equal.

How much scores are worth is idiosyncratic and depends on the department and program.

In addition, I would be wary of not taking the GRE seriously and saying that it "doesn't measure anything" or "only measures how well you can take a test." If that were the case, graduate departments wouldn't use them. Apparently, most graduate programs find some use in using the GRE as a metric. It is accurate to say it's a game that one needs to learn how to play, but that's what graduate school is like, too!

[commcycle]

I think the statement that GRE scores do not matter is incorrect.

...

How much scores are worth is idiosyncratic and depends on the department and program.

In addition, I would be wary of not taking the GRE seriously and saying that it "doesn't measure anything" or "only measures how well you can take a test." If that were the case, graduate departments wouldn't use them. Apparently, most graduate programs find some use in using the GRE as a metric. It is accurate to say it's a game that one needs to learn how to play, but that's what graduate school is like, too!

Exactly. Joel418 raises some good points, but at the end of the day, there is a reason these tests exist. According to repeated studies in multiple disciplines, GRE scores do accurately predict success (GPA, likelihood of graduation) in Ph.D programs. The argument about needing to "think like test takers" may be true, but demonstrates a point: graduate programs are about absorbing and applying large amounts of frequently esoteric information. In that sense, graduate school is all about learning how to play "the game" - which you may or may not be naturally inclined to. I don't think any faculty would be very sympathetic to students saying that the reason they didn't do well in their class is because it's unfairly biased against them, and that they just don't think that way.

How much the GRE impacts your particularly chances is difficult to say. Some faculty are serious GRE kings/queens. Others place high value on LORs, SOP or GPA.

I can tell you informal brackets of how the doctoral program I was accepted to uses GREs as ballpark figures. Below 1200 and your application won't get looked at. Above 1300 is good, and (for those faculty who put stock in such things) above 1400 will have faculty fighting over you. Below 1000 is truly the kiss of death, unless you are an exceptional candidate (touring promoting your award-winning book and a signed SOP from Obama) or that year is particularly bad for applicants.

I also think that some applicants exaggerate what they mean when they say they got a "terrible" score. You really need above a 50th or 60th percentile to get looked at in many programs. Depending on the program, the rest could be gravy. Like OP (bowdoinstudent) - he thought that he got a bad score and was in the 81st percentile (a fine score, really).

[amperro]

Goal: Ph.D. in Biochemistry

Currently possess:

Master of Science in Biochemistry (non-thesis option).

Post-bacc/grad GPA: 3.25

Bachelor of Science in Biotechnology (no formally calculated GPA, it was not good, but I took post-bacc courses to address the deficiencies)

V: 690

Q: 740

AW: 4.5

Accepted: No school has accepted me

Rejected: UC Santa Cruz; Utah; Nevada, Reno

Waiting: one school

I am not trying to be pessimistic or have a bad attitude but I fully expect that I will not be going to grad school soon.

Are graduate departments having an unusually high number of applicants this year?

[stigMPA]

Some issues:

The quantitative section will not show this bias as there are clear correct and incorrect answers. Therefore a person who understands the material will score well. This is why a perfect score will normally get you into only the top 8-10 percent of testers (those testers who know the material well and are sufficiently well-skilled in test-taking to achieve a perfect score).

I have to disagree vehemently here - there most certainly are correct and incorrect answers for the verbal section. Words have meanings and ETS (as much as I loathe them) generally selects words with unambiguous definitions. The test-taker either knows the meanings or does not. Wealthy people may be able to buy better books and flashcards and devote more time to study, but don't try to tell me that 'Danforth J. Litchfield III' is somehow advantaged when it comes to brute force rote memorization. It's not like words like "enervate", "bivouac", and "slake" come up more frequently in conversation in the typical middle or upper class household. For almost everyone the only way to score well is to go over words lists - period.

This begs a very particular question

No, it doesn't. "Begging the question" doesn't mean "suggests the question" - it refers to a specific logical fallacy. (Sorry, major pet peeve of mine.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

why does a score of 800 only put you in the top 10 percent of testers in the quantitative section, while any score between 800 and 740 on the verbal section normally place you in the top 1 percent (while a score in the mid-600s will place you within the same percentile (top 10%) as a perfect score in the quantitative section)?

The answer is actually pretty straightforward. I've been told on several occasions that this phenomenon is largely a result of international students who are not native speakers of English, but have a solid math background. No need to read class-warfare conspiracies into this. Occam's Razor and all that...

The same issue applies to the AW section. The ETS has given a broad rubric which each of the graders interpret as they feel appropriate. Therefore, the test taker must simply do their best to follow the rubric and hope that their interpretation matches the randomly-assigned grader's. This circumstance could explain all of the stories we have read on these forums of well-skilled and even professional writers struggling to score a 4.0 on the test.

You'll get no argument from me on this count. The AW section is an utter disaster.

[Joel418]

Hi Stig,

I wasn't really meaning to raise the issue of class warfare; my goal was to point out the lack of soundness with the testing method. In short, that the test does not accurately measure aptitude or intelligence, but among the highest brackets of success, the ability of the test taker to read the test makers. As commcycle mentioned, the test often can predict scholastic success, though again I would point out, not actual intelligence or ability. The predisposition that may be created by the "shared social heritages" that I mentioned above was a broad example of why certain social groups tend to score higher than others on average.

I do have to disagree, however, with your assertion that there are clear right and wrong answers on the verbal section. I think one might better say that there are right and wrong interpretations of the verbal-logical correlations that the test makers have drawn. My point was that, to reach the highest level of success (the top one percent), the test maker must learn both the raw material (vocabulary) and how to interpret in a similar manner to the test makers. As I pointed out above, it is not as though only a fraction of a single percent of the verbal testers learned all of the words on the recommended lists; it is rather that such a small number have learned how to read the test to such an accurate level.

All of that said, I am just relieved that I have "crossed over Jordan", and that I should not have to take another standardized test EVER AGAIN!!!