Took the GRE today...here are the stats:

[sociologia-psicologia]

I took the GRE today, and it stated I made a 142 (V) and 137 (Q). I majored in sociology and minored in psychology. My GPA is as follows (3.7 major), (3.66 minor), (3.3 cumulative undergraduate) (3.75 university GPA). I am currently in the M.A. program in sociology at TWU, I wanted to know if these stats are workable to go into a decent sociology or psychology program for the Ph.D.? 

[midnight]

You remind me of myself. I double majored in crim and soc and have a 3.7 GPA undergrad. I currently have a 3.7 GPA in my MA. My GRE scores were about 144 v and 132 Q. I am applying to 6 PhD programs this summer. People will tell you that you cant get into any decent PhD school with those GRE scores. Don't listen to them! You can get into a decent program but don't expect top 10. I am currently in the 4th best program in the country for criminal justice but that's only for my MA. Like you I have an AS, BA and soon to have an MA (Fall, 2013). I actually am applying to Texas State University in San Marcos for the CJ PhD program (My top choice).

 

I think you need to be realistic. Extremely low GRE scores will keep you out of programs, even less competitive ones. They will also be a hindrance to funding and other opportunities at certain schools.

 

It's not a matter of raining on someone's parade by stating that GRE scores do matter to some degree. A quant score in the fourth percentile or lower is a red flag.

[sociologia-psicologia]

I think you need to be realistic. Extremely low GRE scores will keep you out of programs, even less competitive ones. They will also be a hindrance to funding and other opportunities at certain schools.

 

It's not a matter of raining on someone's parade by stating that GRE scores do matter to some degree. A quant score in the fourth percentile or lower is a red flag.

 

Well, I will say this: I took 2 statistics courses in my undergrad (math department and sociology department) and I made a 92 in the first one and a 110 in the second one (the professor offered bonus questions on his exams, and I took advantage of it). I also took 2 research methods courses in both quant. and qual. research, made A's. So, as far as my math is concerned in context to what I am studying, I do very well at it. As I stated on another forum, I was the type that was essentially told that my ACT needed to be a certain level, or I wouldn't even go to college. I made a 13 on the ACT, I started my career off as a student at the New England Conservatory of Music, and decided to go to the University of North Texas. Instead of relying on standardized test scores to indicate how well I may or may not do, I worked my ass off. I graduated in the top percentile of my class, and came out knowing much more about the science of sociology and psychology than many of my classmates who boasted top SAT and ACT scores. I think as social scientists, we can attest to the fact that tests are not always the best indicator of success. I am a living testament to that theory. 

 

As far as graduate schools, I realize they have X amount of spots, in which most likely provide funding. Since that is the case, those programs will deal a bit with GRE's just to narrow it down to look at a smaller percentage of applicants. Essentially, once you make it through the GRE cut-off point, then they look at the QUALITY of work one has done. It's sad when I read these forum articles about graduate students who scored very well on the GRE and did decently in their course work, but not as good as others and many falter. I am realistic in the fact that I know what these programs need to do as far as the bind that they are in, however, it is not to excuse the blatant disregard for otherwise qualified applicants. It's sad when those who have decent coursework grades, yet stellar GRE scores drop out or wash out of graduate programs, and waste that spot that could have gone to someone better equipped. 

 

I do very well with applying statistics and the concepts derived from it. I love theory, I can recite DSM diagnostic criteria all day. I was one of few who took advantage of case studies in the class room and could accurately provide a preliminary diagnosis for someone. I am proud of that. Like midnight said...you have to be realistic. I know that TWU's program director told me that they rely more on GPA and letters and research interests as better predicators for their program, but they still need to evaluate the GRE.

[midnight]

sociologia, where do you think the disconnect is between your academic abilities and your performance on the GRE (and other standardized tests)? Is it a matter of test anxiety?

[sociologia-psicologia]

sociologia, where do you think the disconnect is between your academic abilities and your performance on the GRE (and other standardized tests)? Is it a matter of test anxiety?

 

Possibly, I know that on case studies, methods exams, statistics exams and typical course exams I do extremely wonderful. I would say that a good chunk of it is the fact that I didn't take algebra or geometry in high school, yet, I was able to comprehend statistics (applied math). I took a GRE prep course at UT and...I would say that in order for me to be proficient enough for the algebra and geometry components, I would need formal classes in those two subjects. I know some folks say, "just read the book," unfortunately, I am not that type in relation to this form of information my brain is trying to encode. The worst feeling is, I know that but, yet I don't want to learn algebra and geometry for the sake of doing well on a standardized test which will ultimately afford me the opportunity to go into a program that I know I will do well in (from other indicators stated before), only to be left doing statistics as the mathematical expression of my field. I won't be in there trying to figure out the surface area of a damn square with a triangle inside of it just to conduct research on LGBT psychopathology. 

[sociologia-psicologia]

I respect your oppinion but hear my oppinion out. "Extremely low GRE scores will keep you out of programs, even less competitive ones" If that is true than why am I in the 4th best program in the country for my field? Extremely low GRE scores do not equal exclusion. And since I scored so low on the GRE how come I have a decent or high GPA? The GRE's methodology of predicting sucess in a program is not perfect and I am living proof of that

 

My fiancee (a pharmacist from Brazil) took the GRE when he came here to apply to some of the Ph.D. programs in pharmacology. He did amazingly on the math, yet, poorly on the verbal (250?). However, he scored a 95 on the TOFEL and has published in eight different journals in pharmacy and microbiology, two of which are in English. I often attended the graduate orientations (UT, UT-Southwester, UH, UNT) and got to meet many of the prospective students whom scored high on the GRE as well, yet, their abilities to control and articulate in the English language were horrible. My fiancee might as well have sounded as a professor of English compared to these fellow applicants we met over a period of three years.

 

Many people often say "then what should we do," and both my fiancee and I both agreed upon for example, if one is applying to a psychology program, require the applicants to take the subject exam. If you really want to see if a person can expel knowledge on information relative to the program they seek a career in, test them on the concepts of pathology, history and systems, personality, neuroscience, statistics, research design. I scored in the 90th percentile on the subject exam for psychology...yet, the general exam is stating I am a dumbass, and that I wont be successful in a graduate program in psychology. I get the point of including verbal reasoning, I would add a caveat in saying that the verbal section could also be contextual to the field one is aspiring to go into. I, along with many of the GRE prep faculty at UT agreed that geometry is extremely irrelevant unless you are going into engineering (two of those professors worked for TI and Raytheon). 

 

I think what's even funnier is, psychologists play a huge part in the construction of standardized tests, including the GRE.

Edited April 16, 2013 by sociologia-psicologia

[sociologia-psicologia]

God Damn you f*@king psychologists for making my life miserable by creating standardized test to categorize and stigmatize people in! Jk, I am retaking the GRE as my scores suck and hopefully you will too. Best of luck

 

LOL! What a nice way to say "you suck."  

 

I will, I know that these are poor. Just to test my theory out, I may apply to some Ph.D. programs this fall just to see the odds. I am in the M.A. program already, so, the worst that could happen is that they say no (and I would spend another $300+ on fees and transcripts).

 

I wonder if these scores are decent enough to get into MPH or MPA programs?

 

midnight: I really do appreciate your honesty and your input from the other end of the spectrum, without it, scientists wouldn't be scientists. I always tell this to my fiancee, that, sometimes we need to really see the alternative reality of what we are passionate on...and after the argument, one can finally see the picture after the dust settles. 

[midnight]

LOL! What a nice way to say "you suck."

 

I will, I know that these are poor. Just to test my theory out, I may apply to some Ph.D. programs this fall just to see the odds. I am in the M.A. program already, so, the worst that could happen is that they say no (and I would spend another $300+ on fees and transcripts).

 

I wonder if these scores are decent enough to get into MPH or MPA programs?

 

midnight: I really do appreciate your honesty and your input from the other end of the spectrum, without it, scientists wouldn't be scientists. I always tell this to my fiancee, that, sometimes we need to really see the alternative reality of what we are passionate on...and after the argument, one can finally see the picture after the dust settles. 

 

Thanks. I don't know if anyone aside from the adcomms themselves can say just how much the GRE does or doesn't matter in admissions, but the fact is that most programs require it and likely use it to eliminate certain candidates. I think it's wise for you to study and retake; I scored the equivalent of 143 Q my first time and raised my score to 150 (not great, but something) the second time.

 

It might be a good idea to see if the program sites offer any guidance about GRE scores; it's also helpful to check the results page here, though of course it's not necessarily the most accurate representation of accepted applicants.

 

Best of luck to you and semperfi!

[Wicked_Problem]

Achievement motivation and achievement behavior

David McClelland of Wesleyan developed a theory called "need achievement." This did not occur in a vacuum as Henry Murray had previously outlined a taxonomy of human needs, one of which was the need for achievement. McClelland was interested in outlining why some people demonstrate higher levels of both achievement motivation and achievement behaviors than others. He framed it, as Murray did, as a learned motive, but added that it could vary based on the experiences of childhood based on culture, class, and parental attitudes. His approach was the story writing technique, in which subjects would write about ambiguous scenes involving work or study. The resulting texts would be graded for achievement imagery, and then validated against independent measures of actual achievement.

The next step was to generalize this theory validation. McClelland scored the stories in the readers used in primary grades in more than twenty countries in the same way that the story writing samples were graded. Readers from 1920-1950 were scored, and the achievement imagery in those books correlated (r=+.53) with increases in economic productivity during subsequent years. It is important to remember that correlation is not causation, and a third variable (or combination of such variables) could precede both. However, the reverse (increases in production produce achievement imagery in readers) was not supported, which in and of itself still does not establish causality.

Atkinson's response to need achievement theory

Instead of a third variable, Atkinson postulated two competing variables: the motive to achieve success (Ms) and the motive to avoid failure (Maf). Basically, a hypothetical Subject #1 with a strong Ms can be overcome by a stronger Maf such that his achievement behaviors are lower than Subject #2 with a relatively weak Maf and a Ms that is objectively weaker Ms than Subject #1's.

Furthermore, Atkinson argued that the value one places on any success one might gain is an important determinant of achievement behavior. This emphasis on values in addition to motives was shared by Crandall, who pointed out that areas of achievement might not be those generally associated with success by society. For example, a gang member might place a very high value on peer identification and affiliation, and exhibit extremes in achievement behavior in that particular domain, to the exclusion of most socially acceptable forms of behavior.

Raynor's experimental validation of Atkinson

Raynor built off of both of these theorists experimentally when he evaluated introductory psychology students with respect to Ms, Maf, and level of relevance (value) the course had for their futures. His results supported Atkinson since GPA in the course varied in expected ways, with dominant Maf scored significantly lower when their value score was high, and actually score slightly higher than their dominant Ms counterparts when their value scores were low. In layman's terms, fear of failure was, especially in situations where the personal stakes are high, a severe inhibitor of success behaviors.

Perhaps this might be the issue with the subpar GRE scores when all other indicators are positive? High Maf or Motive to avoid failure.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Wicked_Problem

[jmu]

I respect your oppinion but hear my oppinion out. "Extremely low GRE scores will keep you out of programs, even less competitive ones" If that is true than why am I in the 4th best program in the country for my field? Extremely low GRE scores do not equal exclusion. And since I scored so low on the GRE how come I have a decent or high GPA? The GRE's methodology of predicting sucess in a program is not perfect and I am living proof of that

 

Some universities (not specific programs) use them to screen applicants. In my case the university checked my GRE scores to make sure they met minimum requirements before sending my application to the department.

[gilbertrollins]

Those scores are awful, and will like other posters said dramatically impact your file at schools well outside the top 10.  If they're not indicative of your abilities, which it appears they are not, I recommend you drill hard and retake the test.  

 

Remember that many schools have cutoffs enforced by the graduate school, and not the department.  Moreover, many departments have cutoffs for GREs that an admissions secretary uses to sort the files before they even get sent to reviewers.  Your application, with that score, has a non-zero probability of ending up in a pile when going out to reviewers that will only get a second glance to make sure there isn't anything monumentally stand-out on your CV, among the names of your letter writers, or transcript.  Committees are under significant time constraints and consider the GRE an appropriate signal of ability.

 

People are correct to note that the GRE is an insufficient criterion for admissions -- bear in mind that it is still necessary.

[sdt13]

What I've learned throughout this process is that GRE's, whether we like it or not, are important to some extent. In psychology (at least from my experience) and presumably in most social sciences, you don't necessarily need to excel unless you are looking into clinical or top programs. At the very least, it is important to score at least 50%+ on each. Despite having taken 3 graduate level statistics courses (first year psychology grad stats and HLM), I was rejected from all but one US school of various ranks. The one's that were less concerned were in Canada, but even then I was waitlisted for funding up until Friday at the program I will be attending (and they don't take students without funding). Oh, I should mention my GRE's were HORRIBLE (150'sV and 148Q), as I waited until the very last minute to take them without any prep whatsoever. 

 

For a little more perspective, I have a GPA of 3.76, 4 years of research experience, several national and international conference presentations, 2 research grants, and am currently writing up my thesis for publication. It's a tough market out there and no one is going to see your profile unless you make the cutoffs.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2013 by sdt13

[gilbertrollins]

If you look at this chart, and observe the lower left quadrant, you see that mean scores are pretty low for sociology and psychology.  Then if you trace down and to the left from there, you see how much they drop off for public administration and social work programs.  To the degree that those fields correlate with a criminology masters being an application of sociology and psychology, semperfi 101's experience with scores probably does not say a great deal about where cutoffs peg for sociology PhD programs.  

Edited April 16, 2013 by econosocio

[sociologia-psicologia]

Achievement motivation and achievement behavior

David McClelland of Wesleyan developed a theory called "need achievement." This did not occur in a vacuum as Henry Murray had previously outlined a taxonomy of human needs, one of which was the need for achievement. McClelland was interested in outlining why some people demonstrate higher levels of both achievement motivation and achievement behaviors than others. He framed it, as Murray did, as a learned motive, but added that it could vary based on the experiences of childhood based on culture, class, and parental attitudes. His approach was the story writing technique, in which subjects would write about ambiguous scenes involving work or study. The resulting texts would be graded for achievement imagery, and then validated against independent measures of actual achievement.

The next step was to generalize this theory validation. McClelland scored the stories in the readers used in primary grades in more than twenty countries in the same way that the story writing samples were graded. Readers from 1920-1950 were scored, and the achievement imagery in those books correlated (r=+.53) with increases in economic productivity during subsequent years. It is important to remember that correlation is not causation, and a third variable (or combination of such variables) could precede both. However, the reverse (increases in production produce achievement imagery in readers) was not supported, which in and of itself still does not establish causality.

Atkinson's response to need achievement theory

Instead of a third variable, Atkinson postulated two competing variables: the motive to achieve success (Ms) and the motive to avoid failure (Maf). Basically, a hypothetical Subject #1 with a strong Ms can be overcome by a stronger Maf such that his achievement behaviors are lower than Subject #2 with a relatively weak Maf and a Ms that is objectively weaker Ms than Subject #1's.

Furthermore, Atkinson argued that the value one places on any success one might gain is an important determinant of achievement behavior. This emphasis on values in addition to motives was shared by Crandall, who pointed out that areas of achievement might not be those generally associated with success by society. For example, a gang member might place a very high value on peer identification and affiliation, and exhibit extremes in achievement behavior in that particular domain, to the exclusion of most socially acceptable forms of behavior.

Raynor's experimental validation of Atkinson

Raynor built off of both of these theorists experimentally when he evaluated introductory psychology students with respect to Ms, Maf, and level of relevance (value) the course had for their futures. His results supported Atkinson since GPA in the course varied in expected ways, with dominant Maf scored significantly lower when their value score was high, and actually score slightly higher than their dominant Ms counterparts when their value scores were low. In layman's terms, fear of failure was, especially in situations where the personal stakes are high, a severe inhibitor of success behaviors.

Perhaps this might be the issue with the subpar GRE scores when all other indicators are positive? High Maf or Motive to avoid failure.

Ah...some nice social/ personality psychology

 

Well, let's assume that I have a fear of failure (which I comfortably can admit to some extent, I was trained first and foremost as a classical musician ), it's still a variable that drives me. I would say that I have a fear of failure, however, my fear alone I am comfortable with (?). If I can find a program, that is great, if not, I fully recognize the need to adapt to the current requirement of raising the GRE score. It's not fair, but it is reality. Then, you would need to consider if such path is the appropriate one...and if it is, the motive of pursing that goal will be the aspect of goal attainment (in this case, getting the Ph.D. so I can teach, and do a little research). 

 

I would say that 60-70% of me really finds teaching lucrative enough, and the remaining 30-40% to be focused on research. As a classical musician, I used to teach a lot for middle school, high school students and college music minors. Has it become so bad to admit that I may just want to teach with a good salary? Sure, I could stop at the M.A. level and find a community college job, but, one's future salary will also deal with education level. One could be a master's-level college professor for 10+ years and may never see above $80K a year, however, the Ph.D. professors are able to achieve the title of "professor" with the potential income level that reflects such attainment. So, it boils down to...I want to be a Ph.D., but right now, my interests point towards teaching.

[Scrabble2]

I think the question is: what do you mean by a "decent program"? For some students, that really want to teach at a research institution, that means entering a fully funded doctoral program that is at least ranked in the top 30ish programs. I think with your current GRE scores you would not be able to get admitted to these doctoral programs. 

 

For others, a "decent program" is a doctoral program at a respected state university. Their graduates might teach at a community college or another state college. I think there is nothing wrong with this path but you do have to be realistic about the job prospects. The first job of a graduate is rarely at a program ranked higher than their doctoral program. So if you start at a low-ranked (or unranked) program, you are limiting your job prospects. And i'd point out that what was once considered less prestigious jobs like professorships at community colleges and state colleges are now highly competitive.

 

You should discuss these issues with your advisor and identify what type of job you want when you graduate from a doctoral program, what type of school you need to graduate from to be competitive for that type of job, and then you can figure out what the average GRE scores are for those types of doctoral programs.

 

I would be not compare yourself to students that were admitted into masters programs with low GRE scores. Masters programs are completely different from doctoral programs (masters programs prepare people to work in industry or government jobs and schools make money from them in terms of tuition; doctoral programs are more like investments, with the school investing x amount of money and time to prepare students to enter the job market and increase the prestige of the school). 

 

Doctoral programs are much more challenging to get into. If they weren't, masters students could just get admitted into the doctoral program and get free tuition and a living stipend.

[Dexterchi]

As I am sure you already know the application process is grueling and I don't understand why you won't just take it again and give yourself the BEST possible chance of entering a fully funded program. Your accomplishments are amazing and I'm sure you would be an asset to any department, why give them a reason to hesitate? I also have great stats, wonderful recommendations and a much higher gre score, but it was still a struggle to get funding. I'm not saying it is impossible to get accepted with those scores, but with the number of qualified applicants increasing exponentially why risk it, especially when the remedy is right in front of you. Either way good luck!

[sociologia-psicologia]

I think the question is: what do you mean by a "decent program"? For some students, that really want to teach at a research institution, that means entering a fully funded doctoral program that is at least ranked in the top 30ish programs. I think with your current GRE scores you would not be able to get admitted to these doctoral programs. 

 

For others, a "decent program" is a doctoral program at a respected state university. Their graduates might teach at a community college or another state college. I think there is nothing wrong with this path but you do have to be realistic about the job prospects. The first job of a graduate is rarely at a program ranked higher than their doctoral program. So if you start at a low-ranked (or unranked) program, you are limiting your job prospects. And i'd point out that what was once considered less prestigious jobs like professorships at community colleges and state colleges are now highly competitive.

 

You should discuss these issues with your advisor and identify what type of job you want when you graduate from a doctoral program, what type of school you need to graduate from to be competitive for that type of job, and then you can figure out what the average GRE scores are for those types of doctoral programs.

 

I would be not compare yourself to students that were admitted into masters programs with low GRE scores. Masters programs are completely different from doctoral programs (masters programs prepare people to work in industry or government jobs and schools make money from them in terms of tuition; doctoral programs are more like investments, with the school investing x amount of money and time to prepare students to enter the job market and increase the prestige of the school). 

 

Doctoral programs are much more challenging to get into. If they weren't, masters students could just get admitted into the doctoral program and get free tuition and a living stipend.

 

Very good points. So, it boils down to retaking the GRE (obviously). My research interest(s) are good and align with many programs I have been in touch with (UT-Austin, TWU, U . of Iowa and some others). The GPA is pretty solid, I know that my referees provide solid letters of recommendation for me (two of them have their Ph.D.'s from Washington State University in sociology, another did his Ph.D. in psychology and emphasized in neuropsychology at University of Houston). Other than the cliche term "just study," what is recommended for someone who didn't have algebra or geometry in high school, yet, went off to college and took statistics and made A's all throughout the program? I can apply equations in context to what is being measured, I understand my measurements of variability and central tendencies, etc. Would one recommend taking an algebra class at a community college? Most don't offer geometry, so I am not sure how I could remedy that deficiency. 

 

Again, I am open to ideas...I have never been ashamed or felt inferior to others because I ask for help. It has made me to person I am today (even my faults) 

[blixx008]

Magoosh has a good online practice portal, as well. Lot's of practice questions, and they give you a mock score as you go, which serves as a pretty good measure of your progress.

[amlobo]

If you have never taken algebra or geometry, I don't know if the GRE books will give you a good enough overview of those topics to get a grasp on them.  I found Princeton Review's math overview to be a bit better than Kaplan's overall, but I used multiple books to study and would recommend you do the same, as they employ different approaches.  But, something you also might consider is getting an SAT or ACT prep book.  It might sound odd, but the high school-level prep books will have a much stronger overview of algebra and geometry.  Also, if you have the financial resources, you might consider taking a GRE prep course or tutoring... instead of trying to self-study.  Sometimes it's good to have an actual person to guide you.

[sociologia-psicologia]

If you have never taken algebra or geometry, I don't know if the GRE books will give you a good enough overview of those topics to get a grasp on them.  I found Princeton Review's math overview to be a bit better than Kaplan's overall, but I used multiple books to study and would recommend you do the same, as they employ different approaches.  But, something you also might consider is getting an SAT or ACT prep book.  It might sound odd, but the high school-level prep books will have a much stronger overview of algebra and geometry.  Also, if you have the financial resources, you might consider taking a GRE prep course or tutoring... instead of trying to self-study.  Sometimes it's good to have an actual person to guide you.

 

I took a GRE prep course in March at UT-Dallas, I own most of the major GRE books since last year to current. I know that when I looked over the math sections, many things I did not have a conceptual basis on. Example: algebraic expressions and fractions went over my head. When I took statistics, everything clicked for me, I managed to make an ending score of a 95 in my first statistics class and a 110 in my sociological statistics class. I knew that taking a class really enforced the rule of needing to comprehend certain material in a certain timeframe (giving direction). I am very certain that there is no one model to learning, studying psychology taught me that. The fact that a school diagnostician tells my family that I would do well enough to make it out of high school would be a miracle. I know some folks may be on here thinking "if he needs that kind of structure, he might as well not go into graduate school"...I would say that is a false conception. 

 

It's unnerving to know the deficiency, having evidence to support that a test is not indicative of my abilities, or my abilities to think abstractly. In this instance, there are many outliers that are essentially making up a new majority. Since science deals with what one can measure as a constant rather than with intervening or confounding variables, I think it is the perfect time for the education system to revamp their standards on measuring the "goodness of fit" (Chi Square reference, personality psychology reference).

 

I watch my fiancee of 6 years whom has a B.S. (3.96) in pharmacy and an M.S. (4.0) in pharmaceutical sciences whom was very successful and essentially turned down from UT Southwestern, whom would be LUCKY to have him...all because he scored a 200 on the verbal, yet, his TOEFL (99) score indicates he has a firm grasp of the English language. His abilities to think abstractly are insane, and are proven with his quantitative score of 750+. So, now he studies for medical school and works for Pizza Hut...

 

I firmly believe that the methods of measurement to indicate the ability to see if an applicant can think abstractly, handle graduate-level coursework, work independently and in inventive ways is horribly skewed with the GRE.

[sociologia-psicologia]

On another note (forgot to add this in the previous post), if one has a good undergraduate GPA, good LOR's, good GPA in a master's program, a thesis, graduate teaching experience, took courses in more than just one statistics or research methods course...would this person be decently competitive despite a lower GRE score? So, in other words, would the fact that the person whom is applying to a Ph.D. program that shows they have the conceptual ability to do good quality work as well as a plethora of coursework from undergraduate to graduate school in statistics and research methods essentially be deemed as non-competitive because of a low GRE? The ability to write in ASA format at the graduate level, the ability to combine both psychological and sociological courses to provide that "independence" that is necessary in a Ph.D. program, goes out the window because of one test score? 

 

Forgive me if I sound frustrated (I am), it is not directed at no single person...it is an overall frustration. And I thank those that read this for providing this feedback.

Edited April 16, 2013 by sociologia-psicologia

[ohgoodness]

On another note (forgot to add this in the previous post), if one has a good undergraduate GPA, good LOR's, good GPA in a master's program, a thesis, graduate teaching experience, took courses in more than just one statistics or research methods course...would this person be decently competitive despite a lower GRE score? So, in other words, would the fact that the person whom is applying to a Ph.D. program that shows they have the conceptual ability to do good quality work as well as a plethora of coursework from undergraduate to graduate school in statistics and research methods essentially be deemed as non-competitive because of a low GRE? The ability to write in ASA format at the graduate level, the ability to combine both psychological and sociological courses to provide that "independence" that is necessary in a Ph.D. program, goes out the window because of one test score? 

 

Forgive me if I sound frustrated (I am), it is not directed at no single person...it is an overall frustration. And I thank those that read this for providing this feedback.

 

Since most of us tick all those boxes then the GRE can become the dividing factor.   If you can prove that your intangibles beats other applicants for that position then a lower (not very low) GRE would not be an issue.  Remember that fit is important. 

 

My GRE was far from stellar and I would probably have been more competitive with a higher score but I still got into my #1 choice where I fit perfectly. 

[amlobo]

I'm going to be honest, here.  Some programs will require a minimum GRE.  I took a brief look at the schools you mentioned, and Iowa requires a minimum of an 1100 on the GRE, which is considerably higher than your current scores (680 on old scale - check out a concordance table to convert).  So, at a school with minimum GRE requirements (which most have, even if undisclosed), yes, your GRE score will keep you from being considered.  Something to remember is that not only must the sociology department admit you, the graduate school must also admit you.  So, while a professor or department may be willing to overlook your GRE score, the graduate school probably will be more rigid in evaluating your scores.  Funding will basically be impossible, and as everyone here will tell you, do NOT do a PhD without funding.

 

What's the good news?  You have a ton of time until you apply to PhD programs!  You are just starting your MA program and won't need to apply until 2014 for PhD programs.  It will definitely be worth your while to study, study, STUDY.  Take as many practice tests as you can get your hands on, and retake the GRE - multiple times, if necessary.  I do not doubt that you are a bright and competent individual... and I understand that GRE scores are not the best indicator of a person's ability to succeed.  However, the fact is, the GRE matters and there are real cutoffs for programs that you need to be able to meet.  No one will look at your other accomplishments if you can't meet the minimum requirements for the program.  So, while you don't need to get stellar GRE scores, you need to at least meet that threshold.  It may not be fair, but it's just the way it works.

[ELM616]

Just take it again. It could be the difference between getting an assistantship or not. Take it again and this time study for it.

[midnight]

 I took the Sherwood test prep for 6 weeks, costs a total of $500 and it was okay. I just started Magoosh and it was $100 for 6 months access. I received a lot more bang for my buck for Magoosh and I recommend it highly. It provides so much content and questions/practice exams/Videos/Quiz's. I suggest this as I think I can bump my scores up to 150 on V and Q. The schools I am applying to suggest (do not require) old GRE scores from 900-1000. However the PhD programs I am applying to state their is no "GRE minimum" (An informal cutoff could be possible but that does not mean there is one). Some schools have mandatory GPA cutoffs like at least a cumulative 3.5 GPA for grad and I thin under grad. It depends on the school how important GPA or GRE is.

 

PhD Program Sources

http://www.cj.txstate.edu/degrees-programs/doctoral/doctoral_admission.html

http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=38513

 

Did you do formal prep before sitting for the GRE the first time?

 

Also, why do you upvote your own comments? Just curious.