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

[midnight]

1. No I did not do any formal prep as i guessed through 75% of the exam (I was applying to a Masters) and at the time I did not think I would be applying to PhD programs. 

2. Curious question. The same reason you up-vote yours

 

P.S- I accidentley neg repped you, so can you please up-vote yourself... thanks

 

1. Good, otherwise the people of Sherwood have some explaining to do.

2. No one does that. It makes no sense.

 

PS Nah, I'm cool.

[oilandvinegar]

I think everything I say is absolutely awesome. I blow myself away.

[Guest |||]

Not  to comment on the scores but your replies

 

You seemed really defensive and almost argumentative when someone chimed in a negative opinion.  Worse than a GRE score is someone who can't take constructive or honest criticism. 

 

Hopefully im just not reading into this correctly.

[Darth.Vegan]

I know it has been said already, but with scores that low you need to retake if you want a chance at ranked PhD programs in sociology, never mind in the top 30 or 50. My suggestion has always been 70th + or a high split score. Head over to the GRE sub forum if you need help with specific questions or sections.

[Tahoma]

I am retaking it. I just don't agree, with other forum members, that very low or low GRE scores ALWAYS = no acceptance to decent* PhD schools. My opinion but I could be wrong, so only time will tell.

 

*Decent schools, top 30 programs

 

Look, no one's saying that it's impossible to be accepted into a good sociology program with bad GRE scores. Everyone, however, is saying that it's really, really difficult. Many PhD programs these days receive 300+ applications for only 10-15 spots, and GRE score thresholds just happen to be a straightforward, easily quantifiable means of presorting candidates. With terrible GRE scores, there's a decent chance that the program assistant will just toss your application into the waste bin before even a single member of the admissions committee takes a look at it. Is that always the case? Obviously not, and if you want confirmation that stranger things have happened than someone being accepted into a PhD program with abysmal GRE scores, then here you go: Stranger things have happened. But that doesn't change the fact that many, many, top programs seem to use these GRE cutoffs, and making no effort to improve your scores would severely limit your options. Everyone here is only advising you to maximize your options--don't give adcomms a big fat reason not to accept you before they even take a look at the components of your application that really matter.

 

See my posts on this thread for those with very low GPA/GRE  scores who were accepted, this year, 2013, into decent or semi-decent Sociology PhD programs. 

 

Source: 

 

It is possible and people with low scores get accepted more than some of you like to admit and don't tell me that these results are biased or only happen to a minority of people. I searched for 5 minutes and this is what I found, relevant and recent results!

 

...Okay. I won't tell you that you're cherry picking (unreliable, self-reported) data to suit your needs. I also won't point out that, even going by the tiny number of people who actually reported their stats, the vast majority of those accepted to top 30 programs reported GRE scores in the 65th-70th percentile or above. It's annoying, but the GRE is important. You're doing the smart thing in retaking it. 

[Darth.Vegan]

I am retaking it. I just don't agree, with other forum members, that very low or low GRE scores ALWAYS = no acceptance to decent* PhD schools. My opinion but I could be wrong, so only time will tell.

 

*Decent schools, top 30 programs

 

See my posts on this thread for those with very low GPA/GRE  scores who were accepted, this year, 2013, into decent or semi-decent Sociology PhD programs. 

 

Source: 

 

It is possible and people with low scores get accepted more than some of you like to admit and don't tell me that these results are biased or only happen to a minority of people. I searched for 5 minutes and this is what I found, relevant and recent results!

 

 

I think you're underestimating the competitiveness of top 30 programs. Most of these programs have acceptance rates between 3-10%. I saw the stats that you posted and I would just like to point something out. First, Pitt is a unique program to say the least and I would imagine they have a more forgiving and holistic approach to PhD admissions then some other programs.  Second, they are not top 30 anyway, not even top 50. That said they are a very good program, especially in social movements and likely on their way up. Third, the Rutgers stats you posted were a high split, high splits can help buffer the impact of a low GRE score because it gets your application noticed. 165 on verbal is not exactly common, and is well in the 90th percentile. The only one really worth a notable exception is CUNY, and I would venture a guess that getting into CUNY with scores like that is an anomaly to say the least.  Obviously there are other factors that will weigh with admissions committees if one is lucky enough to even have their file reviewed with scores that low, one of which is having a very strong letter from a well known scholar in the field. I know at least one applicant this year that got into a top 10 program with lower than average GRE scores (lower than the average top 10 accepted applicant anyway), but they were no where near as low as these scores. I know you said you're planning to retake but you were also giving what I would consider poor advice to the OP in regards to his scores. As Tahoma pointed out, this process is competitive enough, why give an adcom a reason to hesitate on what may otherwise be a strong application? I would also direct you to this thread by FertigMort, who served on a top 20 admissions committee this year and found out just how important GRE scores were in the admissions process. 

[chords]

I had a score of 157v and 141q, came from outside of sociology, and got into the number 1 program in the country with probably one of the best funding packages you can get. 

 

I only took the test once and it was a huge gamble that paid off for me. I can say that I'm definitely an aberration and luckily for me, my program recognized that my ABYSMAL GRE scores weren't indicative of my potential.

 

With that said...DO retake the GRE. Nobody likes it and not everyone will do well, that's the reality. But even if you don't do well the second time around, at least it would have shown the adcomm that you tried. If I were to go back, I'd probably retake it, even knowing that I'm going to bomb it since I never do well on standardized tests.

 

Best of luck to all those applying and retaking the GRE, I share your pain!

 

[Scrabble2]

I am retaking it. I just don't agree, with other forum members, that very low or low GRE scores ALWAYS = no acceptance to decent* PhD schools. My opinion but I could be wrong, so only time will tell.

 

*Decent schools, top 30 programs

 

See my posts on this thread for those with very low GPA/GRE  scores who were accepted, this year, 2013, into decent or semi-decent Sociology PhD programs. 

 

Source: 

 

It is possible and people with low scores get accepted more than some of you like to admit and don't tell me that these results are biased or only happen to a minority of people. I searched for 5 minutes and this is what I found, relevant and recent results!

 

To the OP:

 

Despite this advice, I think there are far more people that will point out that the GRE limited their prospects than people that "overcome" low GRE scores, so to speak. You don't want to feel lucky to get into a program--you want to feel like you are an asset that any school would be lucky to have. Unfortunately, I am basically positive that any faculty member, member of an admissions committee, or doctoral student at a "decent" program recognizes that the GRE is a necessary but insufficient requirement--a good score doesn't get you in, but a bad score almost always keeps you out.

 

There may be a few exceptions to the rule (people that attend the same university as they did in undergrad, legacy kids, an amazing lifestory, etc). But I think it is common knowledge in doctoral programs that schools have either formal or informal cutoffs for the GRE. So if a student has time to prepare, investing resources into a GRE prep courses is a great investment. 

 

There a ton of testimonies of students that increase their GRE scores significantly (including on here at gradcafe). Rather than hoping that you are the exception to the rule and get into a decent program with low GRE scores, I think the general advise here is: why not try and be one of many students that "beats" the gre through test prep? Then you won't have to hope that a school is willing to "take a chance" or "overlook" your GRE scores--you can be confident that your entire application illustrates your potential to succeed in a doctoral program. And then its just a question of research fit instead of chance.

 

It sounds like you have time to research the best study program for you, and it may seem overwhelming at first, but i'd encourage you to read some of the accounts from students that also improved their scores significantly. It is possible, and given your hard work to get to where you are at now, I bet you could improve the scores

 

Best of luck.

[Darth.Vegan]

I had a score of 157v and 141q, came from outside of sociology, and got into the number 1 program in the country with probably one of the best funding packages you can get.

I only took the test once and it was a huge gamble that paid off for me. I can say that I'm definitely an aberration and luckily for me, my program recognized that my ABYSMAL GRE scores weren't indicative of my potential.

With that said...DO retake the GRE. Nobody likes it and not everyone will do well, that's the reality. But even if you don't do well the second time around, at least it would have shown the adcomm that you tried. If I were to go back, I'd probably retake it, even knowing that I'm going to bomb it since I never do well on standardized tests.

Best of luck to all those applying and retaking the GRE, I share your pain!

Do you mind me asking where you got in and what the rest of your application looked like?

[chords]

Xdarthveganx, I'll pm you more specificcs. 4.0 major gpa, 3.96 cum gpa, and 3.97 grad gpa. Scrabble2 said it exactly right, GRE scores won't necessarily help you, but it can definitely hurt you.

[midnight]

I negative rep myself sometimes too (which I did on my previous comment). Its hard to be objective but I try

 

I give it to you like my boy from Fox, Bill O'Riley, "Fair & Balanced" 

 

 

oilandvinegar you up-voted yourself?

 

You certainly have a unique perspective. I hope it benefits you during next year's application season.

[Guest |||]

I am retaking the GRE aren't I? I think I can at least give my OPPINION (Even if it is "defensive and argumentative")!  I never would have dropped $100 and $500 bucks on Sherwood and Magoosh to study for and eventually re-take the GRE this May if I was not open to criticism. Stay out of this Cage. BTW I positive repp you, so I am defensive with your comment but open to it. 

 

 

Youre right on that front as well, I'm glad we reached an agreement, I positive rep you back to seal it.

[socgrad2013]

A non-trivial question that the OP asked but has not been answered is whether the GRE Q correlates with (or is taken as correlative of) ability to understand statistics.

 

My impression, as someone who did well on the GRE Q and who also has some enjoyment and facility with statistics, is that the two are probably less coupled than most people think, which is a double-edged sword. I would imagine that people who score low on the GRE Q can still do very well with graduate-level quantitative methods, since so much of the latter is foremostly conceptual rather than computational (plus in the real world the nitty gritty is done with computers). 

 

The other edge of the sword, as other people have pointed out, is that adcomms and administrators tend to associate the two more closely than they should.

 

That said, I think I would advance a somewhat different argument than many of the people here. I think it's easier than most people think it to be to get into a sociology Ph.D. program. Many programs will tout that they have 5-10% acceptance rates (receiving around 300 applications and accepting 15 to 30 applicants) but you have to imagine that many of these programs are drawing from the same pool of maybe 700 applicants. If you suppose that each program in the top 50 matriculates an *average* of 10 students, that means that in a perfect market the top 60 to 70% of applicants would get placed.

 

Of course, it's not a perfect market and the costs of applying to all 50 schools will be prohibitive for you so this is where all the advice about "fit" comes into play. You don't want to be in the top 50% or whatever of all applicants, but in the top 20% or so of the 300 people applying to the same schools as you are, and who are roughly comparable to you. You can think of this as a Bayesian process: P(getting into Berkeley) = 1/380 applicants or .2%, P(B|you have an above average GPA/GRE combo) = 1/190 applicants or .5%, P(B|GPA & you have a great SOP and writing sample) = 1/95 applicants, P(B|GPA & SOP & you have a great fit with a faculty member) = 1/75 applicants or 1.3%. Then you multiply that percentage by the number of offers Berkeley makes and you have maybe 30% estimated chance of getting into Berkeley.

 

Lastly, let's say you are applying to 8 schools with the same rough fit and ranking as Berkeley. Then calculate P(getting at least one school out of 8) = 1 - P(getting rejected from all 8 schools) = 1 - P(getting rejected from 1 school)^8 = 1 - .70^8 or ~94%. 

 

Of course, there are a lot of ridiculous assumptions being made here but I think the underlying intuitions are correct. If you want to maximize your chances of getting into the right graduate school, apply to programs where you'll have good fit (this will move you up in the applicant pool). Get your ducks in a row so you can get into the right normative batches of applicants (strong GRE and GPA, sociological-sounding SOP and writing sample, good letters of rec). Then at a certain point it will inevitably come to chance (grumpy vs happy adcomms, your POI leaving, missing files, plain luck, etc.). Here's where the advice to apply widely, across the range of programs suitable for your career goals, is appropriate.

 

Sorry for the ramble, best of luck.

[gilbertrollins]

A non-trivial question that the OP asked but has not been answered is whether the GRE Q correlates with (or is taken as correlative of) ability to understand statistics.

 

My impression, as someone who did well on the GRE Q and who also has some enjoyment and facility with statistics, is that the two are probably less coupled than most people think, which is a double-edged sword. I would imagine that people who score low on the GRE Q can still do very well with graduate-level quantitative methods, since so much of the latter is foremostly conceptual rather than computational (plus in the real world the nitty gritty is done with computers). 

 

The other edge of the sword, as other people have pointed out, is that adcomms and administrators tend to associate the two more closely than they should.

 

That said, I think I would advance a somewhat different argument than many of the people here. I think it's easier than most people think it to be to get into a sociology Ph.D. program. Many programs will tout that they have 5-10% acceptance rates (receiving around 300 applications and accepting 15 to 30 applicants) but you have to imagine that many of these programs are drawing from the same pool of maybe 700 applicants. If you suppose that each program in the top 50 matriculates an *average* of 10 students, that means that in a perfect market the top 60 to 70% of applicants would get placed.

 

I agree that the culture of the academy uses mathematical proficiency as a totem of raw intelligence that isn't in material fact a necessary correlation.  Two hundred years ago one's ability to read and write in Latin and Greek served the same function.

 

I'm not sure I follow your statistical breakdown at the end of what I quoted, but programs admit many of the same student.  It seems like you're assuming that students being admitted to one program versus another are independent events, which they are not.  Maybe you can make your calculation clearer so your assumptions would be as well.

Edited April 18, 2013 by The Soc Whisperer

[sdt13]

I honestly don't understand why the OP bothered to ask for an opinion if (s)he is so quick to dismiss what everyone says and become incredibly defensive...especially when it's practically a unanimous response. No one is criticizing you or saying it's 'impossible', but rather your chances are incredibly low given that most "decent" schools have cutoffs (albeit, you're in a masters program and that can give you a slight advantage providing you do well).

 

[gilbertrollins]

It is pretty common on these undergraduate advice boards.  Criticism of your credentials by anonymous strangers is tough to take.  I don't think OP planned on becoming defensive.

I honestly don't understand why the OP bothered to ask for an opinion if (s)he is so quick to dismiss what everyone says and become incredibly defensive...especially when it's practically a unanimous response. 

[Darth.Vegan]

It wasn't even the OP that became defensive.

[Scrabble2]

I don't think the OP became defensive. He/she seemed open to ideas and asked for help about how to go about improving the score after many people said that the GRE was important, but was candidly saying that he/she was frustrated because they didn't think the GRE is indicative of his/her potential. Hopefully, the discussion was helpful for him/her.

[Willows]

Why not just try and retake it? I didn't have much time to study, but I did focus a lot on reading and did some math. I had a great verbal score when I took it the first time, but I managed to raise my score even more when I retook it. 

 

The real answer is that it probably depends on the rest of your profile. I saw a quite a few people with much lower scores than me get into good programs. I can only assume the rest of their profile -- especially fit, related research within the range of their interests, and GPA -- was very strong. I don't think I saw anyone with scores quite as low as yours, so I'd honestly just step up and give the test another go. You don't have to memorize words to score in the 85+ percentile on verbal. My score was high because of the reading comprehension. Something like that can be fixed easily with heavy reading. There is an ETS link somewhere on this site that gives you access to the category of questions you missed; this would be very helpful for you.

[Willows]

I am retaking it! Studying for it as we speak ( I have stated this several times in this thread already)

 

I was talking to the OP, but good for you. It's the best thing to do if you have low scores.

[sociologia-psicologia]

Okie dokie,

 

I had enough time to read some of the prior posts (I haven't been on in a couple of days). Firstly, just want to make it clear...I am not being defensive by any means. I simply ask for advice, I break down the advice, share my opinion in regards to the advice, but none-the-less, I still digest the advice given to me. In the long run, I do apologize if you feel I was being defensive, but I wasn't. 

 

On another note, I will retake the GRE...as painstaking and against my beliefs as it may be, I will do it just so some secretary wont toss my file in the bin.

 

Curious though, will a high analytic score such as a 5.0+ help offset my lower scores between the quant. and verbal?

[AaronM]

I don't think that analytic score matters very much, which is unfortunate. Texas, for example, doesn't even have you report it. It obviously varies by school, but from what I've heard it's one of those things that doesn't really help you, but can hurt you if you do very poorly.

[gilbertrollins]

Confirmed.  Verbal and quant scores matter.

[sociologia-psicologia]

Well, it is good to hear the knowledge from you folks.