GRE: Any way to dodge this elaborate, money-making scam?

[Fresh Brew]

I have been practicing for the GRE since November, with a target test date in February, but the concepts aren't sinking in, and putting life on hold to master it is not worth doing. I'm not convinced at all of its correlation to success in graduate school, and find it ridiculous that both test materials and the exam itself are sold at such astronomical prices. I spoke with an adviser at Columbia who flat-out dismissed the exam's relevance in their evaluation of a student's abilities in their MA program. The trickily worded math and tangential platitudes of the analytical writing section are torturous, and I wonder if anyone on this forum has been successful in dodging this elaborate, money-making scam that ETS has come up with to line their pockets? It would be beneficial if ETS admitted that the GRE's purpose is to assist certain universities in denying higher education to segments of society in lieu of the economy being in the dumps and people wanting to go back to school to make themselves more marketable.

 

 

[midnight]

Well, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think the universities should be held just as accountable--if not more so--for requiring and perpetuating specious standardized tests.

 

If it's any consolation, many schools seem to use the GRE as merely one indicator of performance and ability; it's not always the end-all, be-all for competitive programs. I think that we as applicants make a bigger deal about its importance than is usually necessary or warranted.

 

The GRE is an expensive annoyance, a moneymaking scheme, and a whole cottage industry (one that I fell prey to by signing up for a Kaplan class and buying all sorts of prep books), but it's not a wholly unreasonable test, and it does its job well enough. It's ultimately up to the schools whether they believe the GRE to be a valid measure of a student's worth or potential.

 

Even the AW--and as an English major, I loathe the AW and what it stands for in many ways--does serve a purpose, i.e., if an AW score is very low (say, lower than 3.0), it raises a red flag about the student's most basic writing ability, and that could be a real concern.

 

And this may be an unpopular opinion, but I think that humanities majors should be able to attain a high score on the verbal, just as I think STEM majors should be able to attain a high score on the quant. It's a studyable test, and with the recent revamping, the questions it asks are more intuitive and sensible IMO.

Edited January 16, 2013 by midnight streetlight

[Seeking]

It's true that GRE is an expensive unnecessary annoyance. I have never quite understood its relevance.

 

Candidates' verbal/linguistic/analytical skills are well tested by TOEFL/IELTS, writing sample and SOP, in addition to the previous GPA and also referred to in the LORs. 

 

If additional linguistic/verbal skills are to be gauged in a standardized test format, then all candidates - including the English speakers - can write the TOEFL/IELTS and these scores can show the language-related skills of the candidates.

 

There is no need for additional verbal and writing skills to be tested on the GRE. Further, there is no reason why the candidates in non-Quant-intensive disciplines should suffer the GRE-Quant test. If this section is important for the candidates in Quant-intensive disciplines, ETS can make it available as a separate test for them, rather than making it mandatory for all candidates, regardless of whether it is important for their Graduate study or not, as is the case at the moment.   

 

The current General GRE also does not make the distinction between different kinds of skills needed for different Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines. 

 

For example, Social Sciences research requires data analysis based on graphs, tables and numerical values. However, they don't require advanced mathematical calculations used by the STEM researchers.

 

In contrast, Humanities researchers almost never use any kind of quantitative data analysis. But their research involves an advanced level of reading comprehension and verbal-analytical skills. Social Sciences researchers also use these skills, but in lesser degree as compared to the Humanities researchers. STEM researchers don't need this kind of advanced verbal skills.

 

So, if GRE has to be a requirement for Graduate admissions, there is a need to revamp the test and have 3 versions of it for three categories of candidates - there should be an 1) advanced Quant-intensive + simple verbal section GRE for STEM candidates, 2) a less Quant-intensive cum more advanced verbal GRE for Social Sciences candidates and 3) an advanced verbal GRE without Quant section for Humanities candidates - based on reading comprehension, innovative and critical writing (not the kind that exists now) and critiquing the arguments in a few given passages from the Humanities disciplines.

 

If this kind of overall revamp is not possible, at least the Universities can ask for only the IELTS/TOEFL scores from all candidates regardless of their native language and the ETS can develop a Quant only test for the candidate who require the Quant ability.

 

Different disciplines can have different minimum scores requirement on the TOEFL and IELTS, depending upon the level of language ability required.

 

The form in which GRE exists now has no relevance and it requires an unnecessary investment of time, money and energy.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Seeking

[blakeblake]

It's easy to say bad things about the GRE.  It sucks to put in time and effort studying when you have homework to do, a job to finish, articles to write, etc.  I feel your pain.  But in the end, either you take the GRE or you apply only to schools that don't require GRE scores.  As far as preparing for the GRE on the cheap is concerned, I would give you the following tips:

 

1. Buy used GRE study materials at Amazon, a local used book store, or other source.  I've never been a Kaplan fan, but The Princeton Review is decent.

2. Take practice tests, especially the ones offered as software on the GRE website (with free registration).

3. You may well do worse on the practice tests than you do on the actual GRE, so don't get discouraged if your scores are a little lower than you'd like.

4. Just take the GRE.  After you have done it once, the mystery will be over.  Many people do better with a retake.

5.  If you must get extra help to study, look into GRE prep programs offered by your school (which will be cheaper than Kaplan/ Princeton Review) or a tutor.

[33andathirdRPM]

Having to take the GRE sucks. That said, it's another one of "those things" that must be endured. So, if you must take it, crush it!

[midnight]

The current General GRE also does not make the distinction between different kinds of skills needed for different Social Sciences and Humanities disciplines. 

 

For example, Social Sciences research requires data analysis based on graphs, tables and numerical values. However, they don't require advanced mathematical calculations used by the STEM researchers.

 

In contrast, Humanities researchers almost never use any kind of quantitative data analysis. But their research involves an advanced level of reading comprehension and verbal-analytical skills. Social Sciences researchers also use these skills, but in lesser degree as compared to the Humanities researchers. STEM researchers don't need this kind of advanced verbal skills.

 

I often see the arguments you've made, but I think that I mostly disagree.

 

STEM applicants should be required to have strong verbal, writing, and reading comprehension skills. Reports and research conclusions require clarity and in-depth, precise descriptions, not solely with figure- or chart-based data, but with words as well.

 

I also think it's fair to expect humanities majors to possess logic and reasoning skills, which the GRE tests in some capacity.

 

Further, the GRE quant currently includes a sizeable portion of chart/graph- and stats-based questions, which are germane for those in the social sciences, essential for those in STEM, yet still decipherable by those in the humanities.

 

The more I mull this over, the more I think it makes sense that many top programs often consider both quant and verbal for all applicants.

 

And I definitely don't mean to sound like a champion for the ETS/GRE. I don't think the GRE is a perfect or even very good test, and it caused me undue stress and cost me a lot of cash. I resented taking it. I just think there may be some method to the madness, and that the current GRE may be the best they can do given the vast diversity of applicant fields as long as the schools maintain that standardized testing is necessary.

[DropTheBase]

 I wonder if anyone on this forum has been successful in dodging this elaborate, money-making scam that ETS has come up with to line their pockets?

 

Even the Grim Reaper himself pays his dues to the monster that is ETS.

[Seeking]

Logic and reasoning can form part of the verbal test for the Humanities - but logic and reasoning questions should be based on reading passages, not on numerical problems.

 

Even many humanities departments of elite schools don't look at the Quant scores (and I am talking about top-ranking programs here) - simply because they are not needed in Humanities research. English literature is amongst the few exceptions to this because of the large number of applications received - so the quant scores become more a filtering tool than an assessment of research-related ability. Humanities candidates have to spend unnecessary time, money and effort in mastering this section of the GRE simply because it is there.

 

It's not true that Humanities candidates can attempt the Quant section. Most of them have not studied Maths for ages - since they left high school - and they don't need it in their research. They have to undergo a lot of stress and make a lot of effort to do well on a quant test that they don't need in their research. It's really unfair for the Humanities students.

 

Similarly, many elite schools look at mostly the Quant scores for their STEM programs and really expect the very decent minimum in the verbal section - these candidates don't require the kind of advanced verbal skills needed in the Humanities.

 

And GRE doesn't test those kinds of verbal skills in its current format.

 

This is also the reason why even the top-ranking schools don't make it an important benchmark for acceptance into Graduate programs - because they understand that quant scores are not required by the Humanities research, STEM candidates don't require advanced verbal skills and Social Sciences don't require about half of the kind of questions that are asked in the Quant section. Besides, the verbal section of the GRE is seriously flawed, when looked at the kind of linguistic/verbal skilled required for Graduate research in Humanities and Social Sciences.

 

In effect, GRE as it exists today is a waste for everyone, precisely because it does not distinguish the different types of skills needed for different disciplines.

 

This is why I am arguing for three different kinds of GREs - for STEM, Social Sciences and Humanities - that would be a more realistic assessment of the skills used by the Graduate candidates.

 

It's not a revamp that ETS cannot achieve and it will give a lot of meaning to this test in the candidates' minds and also in admission process.

 

Earlier, GRE did hold a prime place in Grad admissions and the schools admitted a lot of mediocre candidates in the process, who could get great scores on the GRE but didn't understad what Graduate research was all about. That is why GRE has lost its prominence now. We have come far away from that stage and we are not going back again.

 

The solution is to revamp the GRE to realistically identify and test the skills in different disciplines, not to go back to the earlier system.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Seeking

[ridofme]

Earlier, GRE did hold a prime place in Grad admissions and the schools admitted a lot of mediocre candidates in the process, who could get great scores on the GRE but didn't understad what Graduate research was all about. That is why GRE has lost its prominence now. We have come far away from that stage and we are not going back again.

 

 

I wonder where you are getting this information?

 

I think the GRE is far from perfect, and I agree that it makes little sense to require the same test for aspiring English PhDs as for aspiring engineering master's students. Perhaps three different tests would make sense. But I do think the GRE's useful in helping schools compare candidates directly because GPAs can be more reflective of the grading policies and rigor of one's undergraduate institution than anything else. For example, a few of my friends who went to our state's flagship campus - considered a "public Ivy" - for the liberal arts all had ridiculously high GPAs: 3.96, 4.0, etc. They are all smart people, but nobody I knew in college got grades like that. I think the GRE can help adcomms better compare students who went to different undergrad institutions.

 

I don't think a 2 or even 5-point difference in scores (on the new GRE) between two applicants necessarily means that there is a corresponding difference in intelligence between the two. But if someone really bombs the GRE, I do think that says something, either about the student's intellectual abilities, their unwillingness to prepare, or their ability to perform under pressure, all of which are relevant to admissions decisions. 

[amlobo]

I wonder where you are getting this information?

 

I think the GRE is far from perfect, and I agree that it makes little sense to require the same test for aspiring English PhDs as for aspiring engineering master's students. Perhaps three different tests would make sense. But I do think the GRE's useful in helping schools compare candidates directly because GPAs can be more reflective of the grading policies and rigor of one's undergraduate institution than anything else. For example, a few of my friends who went to our state's flagship campus - considered a "public Ivy" - for the liberal arts all had ridiculously high GPAs: 3.96, 4.0, etc. They are all smart people, but nobody I knew in college got grades like that. I think the GRE can help adcomms better compare students who went to different undergrad institutions.

 

I don't think a 2 or even 5-point difference in scores (on the new GRE) between two applicants necessarily means that there is a corresponding difference in intelligence between the two. But if someone really bombs the GRE, I do think that says something, either about the student's intellectual abilities, their unwillingness to prepare, or their ability to perform under pressure, all of which are relevant to admissions decisions. 

 

I almost posted something exactly like this, but am glad to just +1 onto yours.  GPAs are increasingly useless tools of comparison for applicants.  I didn't know anyone with over a 3.5 at my school... I know they existed... somewhere.  But, a friend who flunked out of my university transferred to a different school, which was still a top 100 school, and got a 4.0 in the same major.  So, there has to be SOME kind of "great equalizer" to account for those kinds of differences.  The GRE is far from perfect, or even good, probably.  

 

But, it's a hoop to jump through, and it can gauge some of the exact things you point out.  I work full time, plus a part-time job, and I put every spare moment I had into preparing for the GRE because I knew I had to do well.  Did I feel like my performance had anything to do with my intellectual abilities?  To some extent, yes.  But, mostly I think it showed I was taking the process seriously and did everything I could to make myself an attractive candidate.  I know there are people who just don't do well on standardized tests, and that is why there are all of the other parts of the application to show your abilities.  The GRE is just one thing, but I think it does have its place.  I also think programs recognize the relevance of the GRE to their particular program and utilize it accordingly.  

 

That said, if you really don't want to take the GRE, there are programs that don't require it.  

[Eigen]

The GRE is a *general* test. It shouldn't test discipline specific knowledge or skills. 

 

As mentioned, minute differences in scores aren't that big of a deal- admissions committees use the test as general indicators of vocabulary, mathematical reasoning, and writing. Getting excellent scores doesn't mean you'll do great in grad school, but it's a standardizing factor. 

 

All other facets of your application are non-standardized, which can make comparing different applicants difficult- GPAs aren't equivalent between schools, LOR writers don't know both students, etc. 

 

So in addition to the non-standardized but highly personal and discipline specific admissions materials (LoRs, SoP, GPA, CV), you include one standardized measure that allows you to compare people on an even, centralized footing. 

 

And honestly, it's not that expensive. And you can get low-income waivers for the test itself. At a lot of schools, getting copies of your transcripts will be as or more expensive than your GRE!

 

You don't *need* to buy expensive study materials. No one I know in grad school studied extensively for the GRE- it's not necessary. Most didn't study at all, some reviewed the test format, some studied vocab words and brushed up on math a bit the few weeks before the test. They all got "fine" scores, and got in. 

[Fresh Brew]

Sorry for the freakout, guys. I needed to vent my frustration with the exam. I got anxious not being able to memorize concepts as good as I need to, and so I considered the grand scheme of things wherein my ability to do well in grad school couldn't possibly correlate to the geometry and probability concepts of the GRE quant section. I am always encouraged by other applicants who do well on the exam and who go on to succeed at being admitted to their program of choice.

[iowaguy]

 I wonder if anyone on this forum has been successful in dodging this elaborate, money-making scam that ETS has come up with to line their pockets?

 

Not if you're applying to a school that requires the GRE (most good ones do).

 

Here's why I think schools use the GRE, besides the point that it's an independent equalizer for GPA's (which as stated above are hard to compare across multiple universities).  Let's say you're on the adcom of a top program that receives hundreds of applicants.  Would you rather scrutinize every single application, utilizing lots of (high-priced) professor time in the process?  Or would you like to find a way to significantly cut down the pile of applications that you have to review?

 

Let's say your a quant-heavy program.  You can cut 1/2 to 3/4 of your pile right from the get-go by setting a minimum Q score.  Same concept goes for a literature/English-heavy program, they can set a minimum V score.  And, if you're getting lots of international applicants (in some programs over half the applicants are international), you can set a minimum V and/or AW score to weed out those who don't know English very well (I realize the TOEFL does this to a certain extent, but the GRE would be a 2nd "check" on their English ability).

 

Just some food for thought...  In the end I just tried to accept the fact that I had to play ETS's little "game" in order to be a top applicant to PhD programs.  Then I studied hard for several months so that I could rock the test.  I do find it interesting that some prospective graduate students will work hard for 4 years for a good GPA, yet will only work hard for a few weeks for a good GRE?!?

[OctaviaButlerfan]

And honestly, it's not that expensive. And you can get low-income waivers for the test itself. At a lot of schools, getting copies of your transcripts will be as or more expensive than your GRE!

 

I don't know that I would agree that it's not that expensive. When I accounted for the time I had to take off of work, the gas money it took to drive almost an hour away from my home, the cost of the test (even WITH a fee waiver), and the extra money sending scores.. it cost me at least $150. This would have been quite a bit more if I had applied to more schools.

 

I do think that we do what we have to do in order to achieve the goals that we want. That said, there is something to be said for "changing the system."

[Tabes]

To a full-time, self-supporting student with no family support, $150 is a lot of money.

[Seeking]

"One size fits all" is a bad idea for testing "general skills" for Graduate Research. For the simple reason that Graduates are not going to use the same "general skills" in their varied disciplines. There is no such thing as "general skills" for all Graduate research disciplines.

 

I have not argued that the GRE should be done away with - I understand that when a program gets a number of applications, or even if it gets a small number of applications but from different parts of the world, a standardized test score comes handy in selecting the candidates.

 

I have only argued that the GRE should not be the most important criteria for selecting the candidates - it doesn't test the skills required for Graduate research and certainly not in the specific disciplines.

 

I am only arguing for making the GRE more relevant for testing Graduate Research skills - the current version of the GRE doesn't do it. I don't see why there is a problem in having three versions of the GRE - with varying focus on different aspects of the Verbal and Quant skills to be tested for three different categories of disciplines - I am not saying it should be discipline-specific, just that it should test the verbal and quant skills according to the measure and form in which candidates use them in different streams of Graduate schools.

 

I really don't see what's the problem in having a STEM GRE focusing on advanced quant and general verbal skills, a Social Sciences GRE focusing more on the type of quant and verbal skills used by the candidates in Social Sciences and a Humanities GRE focusing only on the advanced verbal skills and not on quant skills.

 

This will only make the GRE reflect the Graduate research skills in a more realistic manner. There is really no point in making the candidates go through a test that is really not related to Graduate research skills.

 

The expenditure is not only $150 if you calculate the resources needed to prepare for the GRE, re-take of the test if you don't get good scores - and you don't get good scores not because you will not make a good researcher, but because GRE is not related to Graduate research skills - the extra cost of sending scores to more than 4 schools, the more cost of sending scores next year and re-applying to more schools if you didn't get in this year - not because you were a bad researcher, but because you scored badly in a non-graduate-research skills related test. The overall cost comes to over a $1000, perhaps more. And the registration fee for GRE has increased and it will increase further in future.

 

Everything cannot be measured in terms of money. Add to this the extreme stress, anxiety and unnecessary efforts the Humanities candidates have to go through for this meaningless test for Humanities. Add to this the stress STEM candidates have to go through on a verbal test that doesn't test Graduate verbal skills anyway. Add to this the unnecessary effort and stress the Social Sciences candidates have to go through to master a test that tests their Graduate quant skills only partially and doesn't test the Graduate verbal skills - much of the energy is wasted in mastering questions that are not relevant for Graduate research in Social Sciences.

 

So, I am only arguing that this test can be made really more helpful, relevant and realistic if only it is recast into three versions with varying focus on verbal and quant skills, each suitable for the stream it is designed for. And it is really not a great feat for the ETS to accomplish.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Seeking

[saphixation]

Seeking, I agree with you that portions of the GRE are harder/less relevant, depending on your major. However, I'm not sure if your solution is really all that reasonable. For example, consider the contents of an advanced quant GRE for STEM majors. What, exactly, would be on such a test? Just because STEM majors are quant-heavy doesn't mean they all use the same types of skills; a math or computer science major may know a lot about graph theory, for example, but those might be completely irrelevant to other STEM fields. Even within the same field, people's quant backgrounds can be vastly different. Someone who specializes in computer graphics may know a lot about linear algebra, while someone else doing cryptography may primarily have a background in number theory. My point is, it's easy to talk about a GRE that tests "advanced quant topics", but the truth is that there are so many things that fall under that umbrella that there would be the exact same problem with some people suffering because their specific STEM discipline does not cover all of the topics. The current GRE avoids this problem by only testing things that people are assumed to have known when they started college; it doesn't expect anyone to have taken any quant-heavy classes post-high school, and in fact, I think the only college-level math course that would possibly be relevant to the GRE is stats, and even then it's pretty basic. Besides, we already have subject GREs to test more discipline-specific knowledge, and even those are frequently considered optional by grad schools, so I don't think attempting to specialize the general test is going to help much.

[33andathirdRPM]

For what it's worth, the GRE ran me $175, then I had to pay to have my scores sent to the many programs. That sucks, but it's part of the 'cost of doing business.'

[midnight]

For what it's worth, the GRE ran me $175, then I had to pay to have my scores sent to the many programs. That sucks, but it's part of the 'cost of doing business.'

 

Yeah, the test itself is overpriced but not necessarily prohibitively exorbitant. However, $25 per extra score report is criminal.

Edited January 17, 2013 by midnight streetlight

[DiamondWheelchair]

I personally think the GRE is a giant scam. How do I come to this conclusion? This is the question I ask, "Does the GRE do its job?" Does it give an accurate reflection of the test takers skills (reading comp, Quant, whatever!), and their ability to use those skills, as well as predict the likelihood of the test takers success in a graduate level program. The GRE fails in all these categorizes. I don't want to put a three page long post will all my examples and explanations so I'll stick with just one example. When I was in the 3rd grad I had a the reading comp. of a 10th grader and that gap between my real life grade level and my reading comp. has remained steady throughout my life. So, one would expect that someone like me would blow the verbal section of the GRE out of the water. I did not. I did alright, much better then I did on the math section, but no where near what I was capable of in the real world. 

 

 

As for getting around the GRE, there really is no way. As another poster put it, it's just one of those things in life that you have to deal with. Since my score was not great I spent a lot of time getting real world experience to put on my resume and got four references instead of just three. This will help balance my score.

 

Good luck!

[ridofme]

Re: cost, I would also add that you do not have to spend money on practice materials. I checked out a few books from my local library, and they were all editions for the new GRE.

[33andathirdRPM]

Yeah, the test itself is overpriced but not necessarily prohibitively exorbitant. However, $25 per extra score report is criminal.

 

Agreed.

[Balladeer]

Well, the real scam starts after you take the test. Pay up $18-25 for every score dispatch! No, it cannot be viewed online (even the though the very test you took was online). Even the universities play ball. Then ETS sends your score after weeks. Yes, weeks! You are lucky if you didn't miss a few deadlines if you took the test a little late (especially if you applied to Europe). 

 

But you don't have a choice. Somehow it has contributed in diminishing my faith in higher education system. But then again, I don't have a choice either.

[med latte]

I read in one of the many books on the market on how to apply to grad school that in some cases a school might accept the Miller Analogies Test in lieu of the GRE.  Have any of you seen this happen in real life?

[midnight]

I read in one of the many books on the market on how to apply to grad school that in some cases a school might accept the Miller Analogies Test in lieu of the GRE.  Have any of you seen this happen in real life?

 

There are definitely some schools that accept the MAT over the GRE; I know that William and Mary does (or did circa 2010 when I considered applying there--yikes, I guess I have dated info now!) for certain programs. However, I don't think many schools do.

 

I took the MAT and the GRE. The nicest thing about the MAT is that it's a much shorter test and cheaper as well, but it's likely not worth taking unless you've exclusively found programs that accept it since the GRE is by far the go-to standardized grad admissions test.