GRE, how I loathe you.

[NYCStudent]

Hi all,

I'm new here, so please forgive me if this kind of question is redundant. I am planning on applying for PhD programs in American History for fall of 2013, and I'd like to know my chances of admission with funding, given my strengths and weaknesses. My top schools of interest are George Washington University, Georgetown University, Brown University, and Boston College.

So here is my profile:

I graduated from the University of Wisconsin- Madison in 2010 with BA in History. My GPA was a 3.54 overall (~4.0 in the major). While I did not write a thesis, I did two undergraduate research seminars and have 2 solid research papers to show for them (either of which I feel comfortable using as a writing sample). Both professors I worked with are respected in the field and will be more than willing to write letters of recommendations.

Additionally, I have solid work experience in and out of the field. I currently work in marketing for a political magazine and am also a freelance writer covering the intersection of history, politics and culture for numerous web publications. Additionally, I have interned/volunteered at both a History museum and a public theater.

What I've struggled with is the GRE. The first time I took it without studying I did mediocre on the verbal (155) and not so great on quantitative (145). After putting in a good three months of studying, I retook the test and only did slightly better (156 verbal and 148 quantitative). I haven't gotten my percentile rankings back from the most recent test, but judging from my earlier score, I am about in the 70th percentile for verbal and 50% (if that) for quantitative.

Long story short, standardized tests are definitely not my thing.

So, my question for you all is do you think my GRE scores will be a liability come application time? My GPA is also on the low end (3.5), so could those two statistics both play against me, even with solid work/research/recommendations?

Thank you!

[Simple Twist of Fate]

70-ish percentile certainly isn't anything to be ashamed of. After all, that means you did better than almost 3/4th of people taking the test. And nobody really cares about quantitative scores, unless you're interested in statistical methods. Your GPA shouldn't really hold you back, either. It really speaks to the lofty expectations we have developed (as well as perhaps widespread grade inflation) that a 3.5 and 4.0 in your major are worrying you.

Different schools are going to value your "numbers" very differently. Some don't seem to care at all about GRE scores. On the other hand, one prof told me that my very strong GRE scores really helped me to earn a funded offer from that school. Having really great numbers will make you more competitive for funding, especially the sort of funding that's competitive across the graduate school (rather than within the department). From my own experience, I believe that (among the schools I had occasion to interact with) my GRE scores were much more important in securing me funding (including an extra fellowship at the school I'll be attending in the fall) than in the admissions process. Admissions will be much more focused on research fit, writing sample, statement of purpose and letters of recommendation (in roughly that order). Good "numbers" are certainly a bonus, but if there's a glaring hole in one of those four things, the GPA/GRE won't even come into play.

Also - your extra-curriculars are cool, but don't try to oversell them. They're worth, at best, a passing mention in the SOP (and cut out in the eighth draft when you're pressed for space). If there's anything you can do to gain additional research experience in the next few months, you should do that.

[NYCStudent]

HI Simple Twist of Fate,

Thank you so much for your advice. I will definitely keep trying to beef up the research experience.

Thanks again,

BadgerAlum

[thedig13]

Hi all,

I'm new here, so please forgive me if this kind of question is redundant. I am planning on applying for PhD programs in American History for fall of 2013, and I'd like to know my chances of admission with funding, given my strengths and weaknesses. My top schools of interest are George Washington University, Georgetown University, Brown University, and Boston College.

So here is my profile:

I graduated from the University of Wisconsin- Madison in 2010 with BA in History. My GPA was a 3.54 overall (~4.0 in the major). While I did not write a thesis, I did two undergraduate research seminars and have 2 solid research papers to show for them (either of which I feel comfortable using as a writing sample). Both professors I worked with are respected in the field and will be more than willing to write letters of recommendations.

Additionally, I have solid work experience in and out of the field. I currently work in marketing for a political magazine and am also a freelance writer covering the intersection of history, politics and culture for numerous web publications. Additionally, I have interned/volunteered at both a History museum and a public theater.

What I've struggled with is the GRE. The first time I took it without studying I did mediocre on the verbal (155) and not so great on quantitative (145). After putting in a good three months of studying, I retook the test and only did slightly better (156 verbal and 148 quantitative). I haven't gotten my percentile rankings back from the most recent test, but judging from my earlier score, I am about in the 70th percentile for verbal and 50% (if that) for quantitative.

Long story short, standardized tests are definitely not my thing.

So, my question for you all is do you think my GRE scores will be a liability come application time? My GPA is also on the low end (3.5), so could those two statistics both play against me, even with solid work/research/recommendations?

Thank you!

I'm going to parrot what others have said in this forum, and try to make it clear that your GRE scores do matter, but not compared to your writing sample, letters of recommendation, and statement of purpose. You need to clearly demonstrate that you have interests which the department can help you pursue, and vice versa.

Which brings me to my question for you: what are you interested in studying, and who within these departments you're applying to share these interests?

Edited June 12, 2012 by thedig13

[Riotbeard]

If you can get glowing letters of rec from wisconsin that should go a long way further than great scores, since it is such a strong department with great scholars.

[annieca]

Some professor told me that the GRE scores don't tell you how well you will do in graduate school. (Unlike, perhaps, someone could argue, the ACT, or more concretely the MCAT, Praxis, NCLEX, etc.) Instead, the only thing your GRE score tells you is how well you did on GRE.

I like to think that admissions and funding committees understanding that we are human beings. Some of us don't do standardized tests well. Some of us really don't get math. (Ergo why we're Historians!) If a 3.5 and a 70th percentile make them say "Ugh, he or she isn't worth our time," then I think they're being a pompous committee.

Just my two cents.

[abdefghijkl]

This Professor of US History knows that in the US, GRE scores are used by most departments to thin out the pile of applications because so many come in it is necessary to do something to make some initial choices. Your record otherwise looks great, but anything that is inconsistent in an application can present a red flag to an admissions committee. Your inconsistency is the GRE score. Profs will all tell you they think the GRE is useless and doesn't predict performance, but apps with a low score stick out and, when the chips are down, many profs will get nervous and think you are a risky admission (unless they happend to have already met you). Remember, they don't want to admit you if they think you won't survive the program. (By the way, I'm not saying I think that - sounds like you have your act together and would be a good admission).

You have three options:

1. Phone/email/visit the faculty member grad program coordinator in each of your target departments and just straight out (but politely) ask: What is the average GRE score of the people you admit to your combined MA/PhD program?" Then you'll know before you waste money and effort on an app if there is really no point applying to school A or B.

2. You don't need the GRE at schools outside the US. Do a Master's Degree at a very good university in the UK or Canada (like McGill, U of Toronto, University of London). Study a US topic and do a very, very good job on a research-based thesis and get done FAST (five semesters, max). Then while you are finishing up, apply to do just the PhD at your target school. (I did this, got an MA in US History with a recently hired professor as a supervisor, in Canada, then had WAY BETTER options when it came time to choose a PhD program in the US - I went to UC Berkeley where my MA training helped me get through with funding, ta-work and working skills as a historian). Also, foreign degrees can cost less than US degrees.

3. Pay the money THIS FALL, take the Stanley Kaplan course and do the homework. They tell you the tricks that produce those jumbo scores, stuff like "In this section, on questions #37 amd #38, 91% of the time the answer is D. or E. So, pick one." Stuff that has nothing to do with how intelligent you are. I took the course way back when and it moved me from the 20th to the 4th percentile which made me and my Canadian degree comprehensible in the US.

Do not listen to 'nice' professors who are reluctant to tell you you how the GRE gets used and so don't tell you that, with a low score, you really are going to have a harder time. If you decide to proceed with the score you've got, politely ask your letter writers to explain your score in the letters they write for you. It may help. Also, if they know anyone in your target departments, you could politely ask them to make a phone call or send an email to the person they know there and ask that he/she say something to the admissions committee to recommend your application.

I also loathe the GRE! The whole ETS thing is a big racket.

[Sigaba]

Long story short, standardized tests are definitely not my thing.

Keep in mind that one has to take standardized tests as a graduate student--for example, qualifying exams.

Start doing what you can now to address your mindset when it comes to test taking. Love them or hate them, they are in your future even after you take the GRE.

[TMP]

(trying to decide which is the lesser of the two evils: the 4 hour long GRE or qualifying exams in my program that requires reading a total of 200 books for a 48 hour time limit for written exam and 2 hours for oral exam)

[Sigaba]

^ Both tasks require many of the same skills--time management, impulse control, memory recall, critical thinking.

Wait. Just one written exam and only 200 books?

[thedig13]

(trying to decide which is the lesser of the two evils: the 4 hour long GRE or qualifying exams in my program that requires reading a total of 200 books for a 48 hour time limit for written exam and 2 hours for oral exam)

Sorry, did you mean 200 books in 48 hours, or that you're given a total of 48 hours for the written exam? Because if you're required to study 200 books in the span of 2 days for qualifying examinations... That's outrageous.

[TMP]

The written exam has to be written within 48 hours. And to prepare for these exams, I have to read 200 books.

@Sigaba, well, not one but 3 written exams within 48 hours (1 major field and 2 minor fields).

Edited June 28, 2012 by ticklemepink

[Weepsie]

I have a deep dislike in all forms of standarised testing, though it's not that common in my neck of the woods. I've generally done fairly well in any I had to do, but they have always seemed unnessesary and have too much of a one size fits all.

Now if there was a facility to explain and justify answers rather than selecting (A) as the best answer then that's okay, I can at least apply my own logic and then they would see some form of critical thinking, but instead its just marked by machines.

[Sigaba]

I'm not OCD...but I always had an issue with:

A. Option 1

B. Option 2

C. Option 3.

D. None of the above.

E. All of the above.

[annieca]

I remember arguing with a professor that if you answered E, you were really setting yourself up for a logical impossibility. I mean, think about it. If 1, 2 and 3 are correct, then they can't be not correct as well. And if you choose "All of the above" you are saying that the three choices are both correct and incorrect.

Still didn't get the point though.

[Sigaba]

I remember arguing with a professor that if you answered E, you were really setting yourself up for a logical impossibility. I mean, think about it. If 1, 2 and 3 are correct, then they can't be not correct as well. And if you choose "All of the above" you are saying that the three choices are both correct and incorrect.

Still didn't get the point though.

Finally, someone who understands what I was saying.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Sigaba