GRE dirty little secret

[pomoisdead]

Perhaps I should have retaken the test, then? I scored a 5.5 on the writing portion and did better on the math section. But this was in 2009! Maybe I did myself a disservice, but I'd hate to see programs basing hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding on some biased test.

[bluecheese]

I got a 6 on the writing when I applied to MFA programs (I took the test over 5 years ago so I had to re-take it), this time I received a 4.5 on the writing... I still got in a bunch of places. When I took it last time I was much more used to churning out 3 page (5-6) paragraph analytical papers for history courses -- that's not something I don't do anymore. 

 

Anyway, the essays were particularly silly... one of mine was basically "define the difference between experience and imagination." 5 paragraphs: go!

 

It's annoying and expensive... but it probably isn't going to go away. 

Edited February 23, 2013 by bluecheese

[practical cat]

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.

My down vote was totally accidental. Touch screens will be the death of me here.

[Gdom87]

I took the GRE general three times and the GRE subject test twice. My scores varied slightly each time (up and down), but, overall, they were pretty abysmal. However, I've been accepted at two really great programs and wait listed at two others, so it couldn't have mattered too much. When it comes down to it, I'm terrible at standardized/multiple choice tests. I get extremely anxious and over think every option because I try to make an argument for why certain answers could be right. 

 

When it comes down to it, ETS exists only to make money, and the company is one of the worst operated EVER. I almost hit the floor when I found out it was a "non-profit." I've fed them so much money over the past 3 years. Check out "criticism" section of their wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_Testing_Service#Criticism

[patientagony]

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.

 

Honestly, I think that admissions committees probably care more about your verbal score than your analytic writing score. I got a 4.0 on my writing portion and I've managed to get into good schools so far. I think the only reason the analytic writing exists is that fields which aren't writing based need some sort of test of an applicant's writing. 

 

I mean, why does an English adcom care about your ability to write a thirty minute essay about some vague inconsequential topic? Does this even remotely replicate anything you will be required to do to get a Ph.D? No. The English field cares way more about your writing sample because it shows your ability to do research and think critically about literature, which the analytic writing section cannot test.

[bfat]

Because cuts do happen because of numbers, I think saying that some things are "weighted" more in the application process can be misleading. As others have pointed out, bad GRE scores can keep you out, but they may be counterbalanced by another factor that is easy to judge quickly (like undergrad prestige). So if the factors in an application are:

 

1. GPA

2. GRE

3. Undergrad prestige

4. SOP

5. Writing Sample

6. Miscellaneous connections (w/POIs, adcom members, etc.)

 

Having one thing out of this list that's not so great won't keep you out (unless maybe it's a crappy SOP), but it would need to be balanced by something really good in one of the other categories. So if you scored, say, a 70% in the verbal GRE and you went to an unranked program, you might get the boot. But if you went to a program with an average/good reputation, and you had a contact at the school, that 70% probably wouldn't get you cut.

 

The process seems very dynamic, which is what makes it so hard on us, as applicants, trying to judge what will or won't get our applications read closely. (What's good? What's bad? How does my undergrad school affect my app? What if I mentioned a POI that the DGS hates?)

[zielschmerz]

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 :/

Ew, this is gross. Forget all the problems with standardized testing -- ETS ends up being such a big expense. What a racket.

[bluecheese]

Ew, this is gross. Forget all the problems with standardized testing -- ETS ends up being such a big expense. What a racket.

 

Yeah, blehhhhh.

[ErnestPWorrell]

As I clicked on this thread, I was hoping someone found "dirty secrets" in the GRE like the "dirty secrets" of The Little Mermaid. Major disappointment. 

[Porridge]

Does undergrad prestige really matter? Or is it, rather, that prestigious universities have excess funding to invest in undergraduate students (thereby devoting more materials and resources to upskill them)?  I suspect it is the latter.

[asleepawake]

Does undergrad prestige really matter? Or is it, rather, that prestigious universities have excess funding to invest in undergraduate students (thereby devoting more materials and resources to upskill them)?  I suspect it is the latter.

 

It's both.

[bfat]

Yeah, I totally forgot to include Letters of Rec on that list, but this will be connected, in some ways, to ugrad prestige--who your letters are from does matter, and "big names" mostly teach at "big schools," with a few exceptions, I'm sure.

[bluecheese]

Does undergrad prestige really matter? Or is it, rather, that prestigious universities have excess funding to invest in undergraduate students (thereby devoting more materials and resources to upskill them)?  I suspect it is the latter.

 

 

Based on my own experience (I attended two third-rate state schools, and now am getting an MFA from a major state school):

 

The general quality (motivation, level of learning coming into the institution, etc.) of the student body tends to result in things getting "dumbed down" at smaller state colleges.

 

Or, even in the more challenging courses, the theoretical discourse, literature, etc. tends to be out of date.

 

This isn't always the case, but it seemed to be true to a degree. I do think you can get in somewhere good out of those schools, but it is going to be harder and you're going to have to back it up with a great writing sample, GRE scores, etc. I feel like I had to do that--while our the PhD program in English here is in the middle of the second tier, I definitely am not in a "top"/prestigious school. It's a good school and a lot of the scholars here are on par with those at top ranked programs imo, but yeah. 

 

Also, smaller state colleges often don't get as interesting of scholars. They get some, and if you hunt them down and do well in their courses you'll be fine at ANY school. But it is definitely harder.

 

I don't think it has that much to do with funding in terms of _Humanities_ degrees. That's kind of silly. I suppose it is easier to end up lost in the crowd writing mediocre papers at a large state school, especially in large lecture classes--but if you're the motivated type of student who hops into a low level graduate course as an undergrad, etc. you'll be in great shape. It's pretty easy to be a C student at a prestigious university and then to jump into a absurdly profitable corporate consultation job, I hear. There are definitely less opportunities to do that elsewhere. 

Edited February 24, 2013 by bluecheese

[KenAnderson]

"Based on my own experience (I attended two third-rate state schools, and now
am getting an MFA from a major state school):"

 

Yes, but applying to a MFA program is not quite the same as applying to a MA or PhD English program...the MFA programs do not care about GRE scores.... and much less concerned about where you received your undergraduate degree.... 

[YesPhDinHumanities]

Replying late to this thread, but I thought my point of view might help some future applicants who are worried about the GRE...

 

I know it's just one anecdote, but I have awful GRE scores (except in writing, 92nd percentile) and I got into my top choice PhD program and landed on very short wait-lists at my next two top choices. All of these programs have excellent reputations for my areas of interest. I went to a small liberal arts college for undergrad that is in the top 100 in the country but is not a college everyone knows about. I went to a big state school for my MFA where the MFA is well-regarded in MFA circles, but it isn't the top state school in that state and isn't otherwise well known. I had great GPAs in both, but I think most people who think about pursuing a PhD will likely have high GPAs. 

 

I think the real singular determining factor is FIT. Of course many factors play into a program's perception of the fit, including the personal statement, writing sample, and value added experience (masters degree, teaching experience, additional academic work... it's worth saying that when I met with faculty and admins during my program visit they all had my CV in front of them, not my personal statement). I agree with patientagony, the writing sample is probably the most important thing for the people on the admissions committee, not only because it demonstrates your ability to think critically, but also because it (ideally) shows you engaging with your research interests and reveals the potential and promise of those interests. 

 

In short, unless these programs were only looking at the writing scores there is no way the GRE was (for me, anyway) any kind of gatekeeper in these decisions. The programs I got into and got wait-listed for have reputations for specific strengths that match up with my strengths and interests, and project philosophies and missions I also believe in. During my MFA search I just applied to thirteen programs mostly due to big names and ended up at my "last choice," and I couldn't have been happier with my experience. The people who serve on admissions committees know more about their program than you do, so THEY KNOW when they come across an applicant who they can support and who will do well by the program in their future publications and professional work.

 

I guess I can be my own devil's advocate and say that perhaps it's true that I didn't get into the other programs I applied to because someone similarly qualified had higher GRE scores than me. When I think about that, though, a program that didn't consider me valuable because of low scores on a standardized test that is a manipulative logic game rather than an actual test of critical thinking isn't one I'd want to go to anyway.  

[hopefulscribbler2014]

This is all nerve-wracking. What actually counts as a good GPA / GRE score? Basically, should I be worried about my 3.83 MA gpa from a tough school if my MFA will be a 4.0 or higher? It all seems so arbitrary - I'm pretty sure some of my grades suffered because profs simply didn't give As as a matter of course, and one old farty pants just disagreed with an opinion I had in a final essay (he told me this)! Sigh.

 

Also, in terms of the reputation of your previous school, I'm from the UK and it's always been a thing at home to attend the best department in your field that you can, (even as an undergrad because we specialise immediately). I've tried to do that with each program I've attended, but now it seems I shouldn't have bothered! I wonder if departmental prestige is taken into consideration at all?

 

On another note, based on my last GRE quant scores (which didn't matter a jot for my MFA), I'm now going to have to add "LEARN MATH" to my list of things to do for PhD applications!

[asleepawake]

Basically, should I be worried about my 3.83 MA gpa from a tough school if my MFA will be a 4.0 or higher? 

 

No. Your GPA is very good.

 

 

I'm pretty sure some of my grades suffered because profs simply didn't give As as a matter of course, and one old farty pants just disagreed with an opinion I had in a final essay (he told me this)! Sigh.

 

Never speak of this again. Nothing is more annoying than someone who assumes any time they earn a less-than-perfect grade that it is the result of a rogue professor who is just out to sabotage them. Even if it's true. Your GPA is great (certainly good enough for top programs if you other materials are also good enough) and you don't need to make excuses for it. Everyone should have a few blips.

Edited March 27, 2013 by asleepawake

[Gwendolyn]

 .... a retired professor who has taught at three large Universities and has been directly involved in the admit process... there are just too many S.O.P's, essays, etc.,  to read.... "

 

I wonder if this is different at smaller universities or programs that receive less applications.

[hashslinger]

There are always exceptions when it comes to GRE scores. It seems that everyone knows someone (or is someone, perhaps) who got in with less-than-stellar scores.

 

But I would caution against running with this anecdotal information. Though you are not well served by spending time on your GRE at the expense of your writing sample, you really shouldn't underestimate the importance of the score. It is, after all, a big blinking number that sits on top of your application. It's hard to ignore. And human beings love numbers. It's hard not to look at them when everything else is so damn subjective.

 

Though I know people who didn't do well on the GRE, I know far more people in top grad programs who did. At the risk arguing against anecdotal evidence with my own anecdotal evidence, I'd say there's definitely a big correlation between high scores and getting accepted.

[hopefulscribbler2014]

Never speak of this again. Nothing is more annoying than someone who assumes any time they earn a less-than-perfect grade that it is the result of a rogue professor who is just out to sabotage them. Even if it's true. Your GPA is great (certainly good enough for top programs if you other materials are also good enough) and you don't need to make excuses for it. Everyone should have a few blips.

 

Point taken, asleepawake, and thanks for the advice. I realise how I sound but in my general panic I will say, though, that I feel "blips" don't seem to be appreciated in this process; perfection or at least near-perfection appears to be the basic standard for top flight departments in areas like the GPA and GRE and I had been warned of this by previous profs. I'd be amazed if anyone on an adcomm has the time to even consider, let alone give a shit about "blips". All they see is the numbers, and when confronted with two applications where the SOP and sample have equal albeit different merits, the app with the 4.0 wins. I'm not hating on that; it's just logic, but it's sucky logic for us mere mortals trying to make it into top programs.

 

I think I'm just nervous because the GPA and GRE feel like the only objective aspects of an application in a highly subjective field (although not as bad as my MFA!) and if those are a bit wonky, it makes me worry about the rest.

 

Perhaps departments count the gpa of your most recent degree? Seems like that would be sensible.

[smellybug]

There are always exceptions when it comes to GRE scores. It seems that everyone knows someone (or is someone, perhaps) who got in with less-than-stellar scores.

 

But I would caution against running with this anecdotal information. Though you are not well served by spending time on your GRE at the expense of your writing sample, you really shouldn't underestimate the importance of the score. It is, after all, a big blinking number that sits on top of your application. It's hard to ignore. And human beings love numbers. It's hard not to look at them when everything else is so damn subjective.

 

Though I know people who didn't do well on the GRE, I know far more people in top grad programs who did. At the risk arguing against anecdotal evidence with my own anecdotal evidence, I'd say there's definitely a big correlation between high scores and getting accepted.

 I agree. I had to take the GRE three times to get the score I wanted. I think chances are that successful applicants will do what they have to (get tutoring, attend workshops, etc.) to get the score they need. It's do-able. 

[hashslinger]

All they see is the numbers, and when confronted with two applications where the SOP and sample have equal albeit different merits, the app with the 4.0 wins. I'm not hating on that; it's just logic

 

I don't necessarily think that adcoms are expecting perfection. Although I'm not in the mind of an adcom (and each one is different), I'm guessing that they look to the numbers more to confirm what they see in more subjective parts of the application. 

[asleepawake]

Point taken, asleepawake, and thanks for the advice. I realise how I sound but in my general panic I will say, though, that I feel "blips" don't seem to be appreciated in this process; perfection or at least near-perfection appears to be the basic standard for top flight departments in areas like the GPA and GRE and I had been warned of this by previous profs. I'd be amazed if anyone on an adcomm has the time to even consider, let alone give a shit about "blips". All they see is the numbers, and when confronted with two applications where the SOP and sample have equal albeit different merits, the app with the 4.0 wins. I'm not hating on that; it's just logic, but it's sucky logic for us mere mortals trying to make it into top programs.

 

I think I'm just nervous because the GPA and GRE feel like the only objective aspects of an application in a highly subjective field (although not as bad as my MFA!) and if those are a bit wonky, it makes me worry about the rest.

 

Perhaps departments count the gpa of your most recent degree? Seems like that would be sensible.

I mean, feel free to complain about it on gradcafe as much as you want But I wouldn't say it to adcoms. Your GPA is great.

 

My undergrad GPA was 3.16 and it was even lower in undergrad English classes. These grades came from an unimpressive commuter school, too. Granted, I have an MA and it's been a while since I got that GPA, but I have 4 offers and 2 wait lists. Lots of people with higher stats than mine were rejected from these schools. Fit/writing sample/SOP/LORs/etc are more important than GPA and GREs. Then again, who knows? Maybe if I had a 4.0 I would have even more offers, or I wouldn't have been shut out from the top schools that I applied to.

Edited March 27, 2013 by asleepawake

[iExcelAtMicrosoftPuns]

I mean, feel free to complain about it on gradcafe as much as you want But I wouldn't say it to adcoms. Your GPA is great.

 

My undergrad GPA was 3.16 and it was even lower in undergrad English classes. These grades came from an unimpressive commuter school, too. Granted, I have an MA and it's been a while since I got that GPA, but I have 4 offers and 2 wait lists. Lots of people with higher stats than mine were rejected from these schools. Fit/writing sample/SOP/LORs/etc are more important than GPA and GREs. Then again, who knows? Maybe if I had a 4.0 I would have even more offers, or I wouldn't have been shut out from the top schools that I applied to.

I love you. Love you. Love you.

I'm in a shitty commuter school (better gpa [but likely shittier school]) and you are my inspiration. Wellllll inspiration is a little dramatic- listen- you give me hope for 2014.

[hopefulscribbler2014]

Thanks, asleepawake, for assuaging my fears a little, and I'd never try to justify or excuse my poor performance on an application unless I absolutely had to - this ain't my first time at the rodeo - but it's nonetheless good advice! You're completely right that stats aren't at all the most important thing, and I shouldn't obsess, but it can't hurt to have to numbers behind you... I must be a masochist because I hate this process with every hater fibre I possess!

 

Now for a completely ignorant question: what exactly is a commuter school? Please don't laugh, I'm foreign!