GRE dirty little secret

[KenAnderson]

  Concerning the importance of the GRE scores and graduate school, I had an interesting conversation today with a retired professor who has taught at three large Universities and has been directly involved in the admit process.  Quote: "No program will admit to it, but they ALL look at GRE scores and use the scores as the initial factor to weed down the number of applicants. The cutoff varies from program to program, but the reality is that it is done... there are a few exceptions....personal knowledge of the applicant and with internal admits, but there are just too many S.O.P's, essays, etc.,  to read.... "

 

Of course I have always suspected this, we all have, despite the denials from programs stating that the GRE is not the "only" factor..... hogwash.  ( Although, UC Irvine is upfront in stating their GRE cutoff..)

 

 

[uromastyx]

Indeed, this is often the case. Hence why I shake my head when people mention the irrelevance of the GRE in the context of applications. Very often these scores are particularly crucial for top programs. And if they are not used as initial  cut-off marks they will almost undoubtedly be weighed in some fashion.

[midnight]

I guess that's not too surprising. And isn't the GRE quite often used for funding purposes?

 

Love it or hate it, some of the schools have determined that it's a worthy application component, and that's why it's important to take it seriously even if the test itself is seriously flawed or not an accurate representation of someone's ability.

 

In my field, I think it's kind of refreshing that many of the schools blatantly state, "We expect XXX on the GRE and a GPA of 3.X. Our program is competitive and receives hundreds of applications. You likely won't get in if you don't meet our minima."

Edited February 23, 2013 by midnight streetlight

[KenAnderson]

Oh,  and the more prestigious programs DO look at where you did your undergrad too!  Several former professors have confirmed this fact to me.... 

 

I agree that if you want to get into a PhD program, you have to play the game (no matter how flawed or unfair).....

[midnight]

Oh,  and the more prestigious programs DO look at where you did your undergrad too!  Several former professors have confirmed this fact to me.... 

 

I agree that if you want to get into a PhD program, you have to play the game (no matter how flawed or unfair).....

 

Right--I think for some people, it seems unfair or callous to see this sort of thing written out; maybe it is, I don't know. And perhaps if someone is an exemplary candidate with an amazing writing sample who's a perfect fit, none of those other considerations truly matter; however, if there are gatekeepers like the GRE and alma mater rankings, it might be harder for that superb applicant with a so-so GRE from a no-name school to get proper (or any) attention.

 

I'm sure not every top program is unbending about GRE scores or whatever else, but it's just too hard to say without being a fly on the wall when an adcom meets. Some schools seem to value scores quite a lot, especially if you look at stunningly high raw numbers (if you can find them!), but it's important to remember that the applicant pool tends to be rather self-selecting and that those with appealing applications may also just happen to have high GRE scores.

 

(I majored in English and considered pursuing literature studies, but man, it's intimidating. It doesn't help that my undergrad institution is a lower ranked state school that used to be considered a commuter campus.)

[asleepawake]

I don't think it's a coincidence that thus far I have been accepted to 2 strong-fit but lower-ranked programs with smaller applicant pools, and to Buffalo, the school that specifically says they DGAF where you you went to undergrad. That doesn't mean, of course, that I could get into any program I wanted to if only I had brand recognition and the GPA for it (don't worry, I'm not that arrogant). I do think, though, I'd have a better chance.

 

If most schools really are literally just trashing apps based on numbers, it's really their loss. I know that it would be hard to read 400-600 applications really closely, but I do think most adcoms at least glance at the SOP and see if they find your application interesting. I imagine a crappy SOP gets you cut pretty early. I imagine a lot of things, though, and so often they aren't accurate...

[Timmy_the_Tooth]

Oh,  and the more prestigious programs DO look at where you did your undergrad too!  Several former professors have confirmed this fact to me.... 

 

I agree that if you want to get into a PhD program, you have to play the game (no matter how flawed or unfair).....

 

I don't think this is an absolute. I went to a lower-end (underrated) state school and have two great offers and a promising waitlist.  I'm more inclined to agree with the GRE anecdote, but I think if you make it past the initial cut, it doesn't really matter where you went to school.  GRE might get one foot in the door, but your SoP and writing sample, IMHO, determine your fate. 

[asleepawake]

GRE might get one foot in the door, but your SoP and writing sample, IMHO, determine your fate. 

 

Well, no. If GRE can get you in the door, it can also keep you out of the door. If this is true, your SOP and writing sample do not wholly determine your fate. 

[Timmy_the_Tooth]

Well, no. If GRE can get you in the door, it can also keep you out of the door. If this is true, your SOP and writing sample do not wholly determine your fate. 

 

If you read carefully, I clearly state that the GRE is probably the reason most people make it past the first cut, hence the "one foot in the door" remark. I'm willing to believe that most programs have a bottom-line GRE score they use to filter applications, and most applications probably never meet a pair of eyeballs.  If you happen to survive the first cut, your GRE scores probably matter less than your other application materials (SoP, writing sample, LoR), at least I would imagine (I guarantee you I have lower GRE scores than a lot of people who were rejected to Cornell). So, to recap: GRE scores are probably important during the first application screening, and therefore party responsible for any offer you may potentially receive, but less important in the later stages of the admissions process. 

[asleepawake]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. This same advice has been repeated many times on this forum, and I'm on with you on it.

 

But it isn't accurate to say "your SoP and writing sample . . . determine your fate." This is untrue for anybody who gets cut for their scores. For them, GRE scores do precisely determine their fate, and to a an even greater degree than the writing sample helped the final admits get in (since a numbers cut implies the rest of your application isn't ever legitimately considered). Likewise, surviving a GRE cut means you have far fewer writing samples and SOPs to compete with.

Edited February 23, 2013 by asleepawake

[Timmy_the_Tooth]

Getting cut for your scores is probably a terrible feeling, especially if the rest of your application is strong, but honestly it's not that hard to post respectable GRE scores.  If an applicant wants the committee to read their application materials, then he/she should invest the time and raise their GRE scores.  Give your writing sample a chance to get you in...

[midnight]

Getting cut for your scores is probably a terrible feeling, especially if the rest of your application is strong, but honestly it's not that hard to post respectable GRE scores.  If an applicant wants the committee to read their application materials, then he/she should invest the time and raise their GRE scores.  Give your writing sample a chance to get you in...

 

I don't know, it's a little too easy to say, "Well, you should've just scored higher on the GRE." Some programs seemingly (perhaps tacitly) expect 165+ on the verbal, which may not be feasible for someone, even if s/he studies for the test.

 

I suppose you could claim someone with a lower GRE score just didn't try hard enough or by virtue of a lower score just isn't right for a specific program, but I don't doubt that there are people who are highly talented, interesting, and motivated writers, thinkers, and critics (and they probably have sizable vocabularies and read/analyze literature all the time) who may struggle with GRE, be it the timed component, the more obscure vocabulary words (though the new test is easier and more approachable in this regard IMO and IME), or the longer science-based reading comps.

 

I've long been conflicted about the use of the GRE--not that anyone cares or that my opinion matters, ha. I see pros and cons to it. And I'm also speaking as someone who did pretty well on the GRE verbal with minimal studying (and more than well enough for the field I'm hoping to enter), so it's not a matter of sour grapes.

[thestage]

the better the GRE is at testing what it is supposed to test, the less likely you are to be able to raise your scores to any significant degree

 

of course, you can raise your scores.  which means the GRE is pretty bad.

[no_foam_cappuccino]

I suppose you could claim someone with a lower GRE score just didn't try hard enough or by virtue of a lower score just isn't right for a specific program, but I don't doubt that there are people who are highly talented, interesting, and motivated writers, thinkers, and critics (and they probably have sizable vocabularies and read/analyze literature all the time) who may struggle with GRE, be it the timed component, the more obscure vocabulary words (though the new test is easier and more approachable in this regard IMO and IME), or the longer science-based reading comps.

 

I agree. I'm not one of those people who say "the GRE tests nothing but how well you take the GRE," since I think getting a GRE score shows competence at comprehension and logic. But those are a completely different set of skills than are needed while you're taking classes and writing seminar papers. Taking the GRE is like walking into a random classroom, listening for five minutes, and somehow getting something out of it. But, at least in my experience, your course of study in grad school is supposed to be planned out and streamlined toward a specific professional goal. It's not that I think the GRE should be done away with, but maybe there could be a more relevant method of evaluation?

[KeelyMK]

My professors who have been on adcomms said that the GRE is really not an important factor at all and certainly not a determining one. They said that the only reason for requiring it is that the schools get some sort of backend money from ETS. If the rest of your app checks out, even an an aberrantly low score should not put you out of the running - at least at the places I asked about and applied to. I scored in the 34th percentile :/

[Lycidas]

Oh,  and the more prestigious programs DO look at where you did your undergrad too!  Several former professors have confirmed this fact to me.... 

 

I agree that if you want to get into a PhD program, you have to play the game (no matter how flawed or unfair).....

 

This is a constant worry of mine. My undergraduate school is a mid-ranked PLAC that isn't widely known outside the midwest (or even the upper midwest), and I imagine that it'll be a weak point in my application, especially since I'd like to apply to several prestigious programs. I have seen many qualified applicants from my undergrad get across-the-board denials by MA programs with what I felt to be stellar applications. Obviously every application is different, and there are too many unknown variables (fit, mainly, and the fact that I haven't seen many applications from students outside of my undergraduate institution) to chalk their denials up to a lack of undergraduate prestige, but it's worrisome nonetheless. I realize that there isn't anything I can do about it now, and I do like my undergraduate school, but I kick myself everyday for not being less of a screw-up in high school and getting into a more prestigious undergraduate school. 

[jazzyd]

My professors who have been on adcomms said that the GRE is really not an important factor at all and certainly not a determining one. They said that the only reason for requiring it is that the schools get some sort of backend money from ETS. If the rest of your app checks out, even an an aberrantly low score should not put you out of the running - at least at the places I asked about and applied to. I scored in the 34th percentile :/

 

This is actually somewhat comforting to hear. I scored around 40-something percentile on my Subject test. The majority of schools I applied to that required the Subject rejected me (except for UCLA) and the majority of schools that didn't (except for UPenn, NYU, Columbia) accepted me, and I've been beating myself up about that feeling as if I could have gotten a better look at places had I gotten a much better score. 

 

My mentor rationalized it as, a bad score won't doom an applicant, however it makes them MUCH harder to fight for. If Professor A thinks Student X is better, but Professor B thinks Student Y is better, Professor B can remind the committee of Student X's abysmal Subject Test and sway them that way. 

 

But it really must vary from school-to-school, correct? For example, Columbia is pretty transparent about the fact that students w/o 95+ percentile GRE scores and a 3.9+ GPA need not apply (of course I did so anyway!). 

 

Anyway, I'm glad to see that a lot good programs do not require or even consider the GRE Subject. It's completely unbalanced and places any budding Americanist at a distinct disadvantage.

[t1racyjacks]

My professors who have been on adcomms said that the GRE is really not an important factor at all and certainly not a determining one. They said that the only reason for requiring it is that the schools get some sort of backend money from ETS. If the rest of your app checks out, even an an aberrantly low score should not put you out of the running - at least at the places I asked about and applied to. I scored in the 34th percentile :/

GREs matter less if they trust your undergrad institution, according to some faculty I've spoken to. Esp if you're a student from a more or less unknown asian school like mine

[Ategenos]

Far as I can see, doing well on the GRE (and subject test) isn't the most important thing. Doing actively badly can be important, because it shows you didn't take time to prepare (and there are plenty of books out there) for a whole section of the application. Saying that, I'd imagine being great in all other areas of the application (prestige of the department you're coming from, high GPA, good LoRs preferably from respected academics, great SoP & Writing Sample) is more important.

 

The GRE is just an initial hook, like having famous letter writers saying good stuff about you, or coming from a school with good pedigree (often these last two come together). If you have neither of the latter two, it's probably a good idea to do as well as humanly possible on the GRE and subject test, because then the adcom will pretty much HAVE to look carefully at the rest of the application (for university-wide fellowships, and just because it's high), which will then allow you to shine.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Ategenos

[KenAnderson]

Interesting the post above said that GRE does not matter received their undergraduate degree from Berkley...well a degree from Berkley will get you in the door in A LOT of places even with a low GRE.....  a "34 percentile" GRE from a lower ranked program I doubt it....    of course, I am sure if your last name was "Kennedy" and belong to the elite Kennedy family.... GRE??? really is not a factor... sometimes it is who you know that matters too....or if they know you.... it does in the job market... 

Edited February 23, 2013 by KenAnderson

[pomoisdead]

Then someone please explain how people get a 4.5 on the writing portion and still get into an English program? It would seem that if a program begins with numbers they're not very consistent.

Edit: Not that I disagree to an extent, but if we take the results board for its word, some recent acceptances had 4.0 and 4.5 writing portion numbers, including a Stanford acceptance, which seems counterintuitive.

Edited February 23, 2013 by pomoisdead

[getoutofmyhouse]

The GRE is the reason why we should all boycott American universities.

[Ategenos]

Then someone please explain how people get a 4.5 on the writing portion and still get into an English program? It would seem that if a program begins with numbers they're not very consistent.

Edit: Not that I disagree to an extent, but if we take the results board for its word, some recent acceptances had 4.0 and 4.5 writing portion numbers, including a Stanford acceptance, which seems counterintuitive.

With the ones with really low GREs, sometimes you gotta take a look at the prestige of their previous institution, their letter writers, or maybe their SoP was just fantastic. High GREs can be a hook, but there are other (more important) ones.

[chaussettes]

I don't think they use the writing portion scores for the cut-off; in fact, I have never seen it mentioned as a factor by departments that give explicit numerical cut-offs for GRE scores. It makes sense that they wouldn't. Firstly, the other portions are scored on a wider range of numbers and have a lot more give, and thus are, to an extent, more consistent indicators of performance (or at least might appear to be so). If you really mess up on one or two questions in those portions, it might affect your score by a few points. If you make a comparable mistake in the writing section, especially given the subjective way in which they are scored and the nature of human perception, that can be the difference between a 5.0, which seems like a decent score, versus a 4.5, which according to you seems awful enough to preclude admission into any English program at all. It seems that they might potentially be cutting a much larger proportion of viable candidates by setting a minimum writing score requirement than by only requiring certain verbal and/or math scores. Secondly, the writing portion is a ridiculous exercise, and the skill it measures has a direct alternative for comparison in the SOP and writing sample. I will say that I got a 4.5 writing score and was admitted into programs, including some very fine ones, that do use GRE cut-offs and/or take them into consideration in the admissions process (because candidates with higher scores are more likely to receive prestigious university fellowships, which relieves pressure on the department to fund those students themselves). My verbal and math scores, on the other hand, were quite high.

Edited February 23, 2013 by chaussettes

[intextrovert]

Then someone please explain how people get a 4.5 on the writing portion and still get into an English program? It would seem that if a program begins with numbers they're not very consistent.

Edit: Not that I disagree to an extent, but if we take the results board for its word, some recent acceptances had 4.0 and 4.5 writing portion numbers, including a Stanford acceptance, which seems counterintuitive.

 

Because they already have your actual writing (in the form of your SoP and especially your writing sample), so they can judge it themselves. The GRE Writing section is scored by a mix of a computer and maybe a high school English teacher (not that I'm knocking those, I was one before being a grad student, but their judgment of writing can be based on very different metrics than academics), which ad comms know. I get the feeling the writing score is one of the ones they care about the least.