Yet another GRE question: only GRE/GPA looked at in "cut-off" phase?

[pérégrinations]

Hello All,

I know that many departments have cut-offs (GREs/GPA) to make for a more manageable pile of applications, but I'm wondering if any other portion of the application is looked at at all during that process. Here is my concern: I just tanked the GRE. 147 Q, 159 V, felt good about writing (maybe 5.5?). I'm now considering which schools it is realistic to apply to this year. I planned on applying to all top tier schools (15 of them: Berkeley, Harvard, Penn, Madison, Michigan, NYU, Columbia, Chicago, Northwestern, Yale, Princeton, UCLA, Stanford, Brown, Washington), but I know those scores are LOW, most likely too low for the top schools. But other parts of my application are stronger:

Good undergrad liberal arts school, decent GPA (3.5 overall GPA, 3.78 last two years)

Fulbright Fellowship (gave me international ethnographic research experience)

Masters in Soc at la Sorbonne (more international research experience)

I'm wondering if my scores will prevent things like "Fulbright" and "Sorbonne" from ever being seen, let alone my SOP, writing sample and good recs. I knew I wouldn't have a stellar quant score, but hoped that a high verbal score (which I didn't get) and/or other parts of my application could outshine those scores. Does anyone have any insight as to how the process of cut-offs really works?

Thank you!

[jacib]

I don't think (in sociology) most application are literally thrown out because of low scores, even at top-10 schools. At my undergraduate school, one of my friends did work-study in the bio department and she did the grad application presort and (knowing nothing about biology) chucked some relatively high percentage of the applications (a quarter? half?) based purely on quantitative factors (GPA, scores, etc). No professor ever saw those. At my sociology grad program (which is on your list), at least the year I applied, I think one professor did a "presort" and took out a similarly large percentage he didn't think had any chance of admission. However, while I know that professor cared more about GRE scores than GPAs, I know he also reads CVs so I doubt this was based only on scores. I don't think there is literally a "hard cutoff" below which applications won't be looked at it. I think it's much more probabilistic than that, but I do think the probity is s-shaped, meaning it’s flat (an old style 700 isn't considered that differently from an old style 790), and then there’s a steeper drop (for the top 25, starting probably around 650-600), and then it levels out again at a point where it’s very, very low probability that you’ll get in (there’s also an interplay between the two scores, obviously, and an interplay between the scores and what you say you want to do). There are rumors of cut offs at 1200, or 1000. Look at the results page (if you're new to the board, there's an explanation of how to do that ). I glanced through that in the past--there are definitely a few sub 600V scores accepted at top 10 programs, but I don't recall ever seeing two below 600 old style scores reported at a top 25 sociology program. HOWEVER, THIS IS A SELF-SELECTED SAMPLE (people who report their scores) OF A NON-RANDOM POPULATION (people who read grad cafe). The only general information I know about scores is

As you already know, your scores mean you will have a harder time of getting in, definitely, but when my dad (a sociology professor) was emailing his colleagues about top sociology department's GRE expectations before I took the test, one said to him something along the lines of "Most of our applicants have at least [Jacib: low 600s, I think?], but we have very occasionally let in a superlative candidate with scores lower than these. Like, last year we admitted one student who had won her university's undergraduate thesis prize with lower scores" (this was from a professor at another school on your list). I think admissions committee looking for some outside thing to confirm that, yes, this student is a special little snow flake who is just right for our school, a bright shining star who may bring us fame, glory, and repute. Anyway, for at least two schools on your list, I am confident that someone on the graduate committee will at least see your other accomplishments, though I don’t know how they will specifically be “counted” against your GRE scores.

If I had to guess, already proving you can succeed at graduate level work will make your scores matter less (how much less is a question). At least, people on this board have often mentioned getting a terminal masters as a way of compensating for being bad at taking tests. One way that I'm sure some people think of the scores is as an outside way of vetting you: the GRE sees you more neutrally than your letters of rec and your grade inflated GPA. However, Fulbright + masters degree are two other ways of vetting you. As someone who had very high GRE scores, I hope we are in a discipline that your other credentials at least get you taken seriously.

And as for your mention of "this year": the GRE is the easiest part of your application to change. Literally. If you're already thinking multi-year, G-d forbid should it not work out this year, you can reconsider a list of schools next year in light of what you've learned this year and in light of your GRE retake. If you really want to be at a top 25 school, I would guess it's probably possible and you shouldn't discount that option just because you did badly on one test.

Edited November 22, 2012 by jacib

[gilbertrollins]

The cost in extra time of glancing at a CV is very low relative to its marginal benefit (in the event people like you may get tossed for having a bad GRE day). That said -- there is plenty of evidence to show that people are pretty poor calculators of marginal costs and benefits.

[pérégrinations]

Thank you so much for your wonderful insight!! Of course it's so hard to know how things will really go down in the adcomm room, but it helps to know that there is a potential chance. I have one more question to throw at you: I could possibly retake the GRE Dec 21st, and I imagine that I will fare much better this time (I had the misfortune of having a high fever for the first round, and unless I have seriously bad luck, I should be able to manage a more respectable score in a retake). It will be past the deadline for the majority of the schools, but there are two who have deadlines beginning of January, so I could at least have a better chance with two schools. My question, however, is whether or not the other schools would consider scores sent after the deadline. Of course they would see my initial scores, and don't technically accept material post-deadline, but if they see other parts of my application and decide to consider me, could knowing that I can produce decent GRE scores help my case, especially because of the weight of GRE scores in funding decisions? Or would it be a huge waste of money to send a second set of scores to all the schools? Or worse, would it look bad to send them a late, last-ditch effort like that? Any insight you have would be much appreciated!

[jacib]

I think all of the schools you apply to now fully fund all their PhD students (though I could be wrong) so it matters less for funding.

As for getting in... I don't know. If you feel like you could do like ten points higher on either score, you can retake it and IMMEDIATELY send out the unofficial scores (a lot of schools won't look at the material until january, probably) and send out the official once you can. Email the department secretaries (not the DGS's) about if you can send in an "update" to your application late. They may say yes and they may say no, but they'd be the people to ask, I think, though maybe DGS would, too. If your CV changes, for example, you're encouraged to send an updates (I know a guy who was already unofficially rejected from a program, but he updated them that he had full outside funding and was immediately admitted). How much they will count it, no one knows, but if you did take it, and did approve significantly, and just sent out a little "update" to schools of your unofficial scores (before they started looking) that MIGHT do something.

If you do retake, find time to study and take practice tests. And examine why you got each question wrong. Maybe worth buying a book with a CD of practice tests (I haven't tried any of the new GRE study guides, but across the board, Barron's practice material is more difficult than say Kaplan's or Princeton Review's, so maybe you want to buy that CD of practice tests. When I taught standardized tests, I'd always give my smart kids stuff from Barron's).

[OrangeSoc]

You might want to take a quick look at each department's web site before emailing the grad secretaries. I know, for example, that Berkeley's site says they will accept GRE scores that are a few weeks late as long as the rest of the application is complete by the Dec. 10 deadline.

http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faq-admissions

[midnight]

I think that it's worth applying to those schools if you have an interesting, well-rounded application, e.g., definitely apply to Berkeley as they seem to value more than just test scores. "Fulbright" and "Sorbonne" are impressive even if your GRE scores are lackluster (though 159 V is 84th percentile and isn't all that low).

And if you do decide to retake the GRE, I strongly suggest The Princeton Review's Cracking the GRE (this book helps you approach the actual test by learning process of elimination techniques and avoiding common pitfalls), Barron's Six Practice Tests, and ETS's Powerprep software.

Bon courage!

[pérégrinations]

Thank you all so much for your guidance and encouragement! I really appreciate it. I'm so glad I found this forum. I feel more at ease just having more information and opinions. Best of luck to this year's applicants!

[Darth.Vegan]

The verbal is fine, I think you'll probably do fine at programs that aren't super quant heavy.