Preparing for the GRE Biology subject test

[stresshair]

I am planning on writing GRE biology test October 19th and I am curious if anyone has any good tips for how to go about preparing for the test. I have taken classes in molecular/cellular/organismal biology, and have no background in ecology/evolution. My main question is how in depth I should go into the topics that ETS lists on their website.

 

Any general tips are welcome, thanks in advance!

[sunpenguin]

I'm taking it on Oct. 19, too! The advice I've seen the most often is to study Campbell, because the exam supposedly sticks very close to the info you'll find in there.

 

Good luck! I need to get busy studying, too.  

[biotechie]

My advice is that if schools don't require it, don't take it.

But seriously, as long as you know basic prokaryotic and eukaryotic biology, you'll be fine. I like Campbell's stuff, but I also like Brock's Microbiology and Boron's Medical Physiology.

[sawatch22]

I just read Campbell through once.  98%.  I don't feel like there were many topics on the test that weren't at least touched on in Campbell.

[Vejas]

I'm thinking about taking GRE Biology - one of the programmes I'm planning to apply to highly recommends it (ugh.....). I didn't do any biology during my undergrad (I studied in the UK and you can't choose your classes there) but I'm currently doing Masters in Cognitive Neuroscience so I'm pretty familiar with cell biology and stuff. Everybody keeps mentioning the Campbell book - I used it in high school and remember some of the topics. How feasible is it to take the test if you haven't actually studied biology at university level? 

[scienceowl]

A bunch of schools I applied to last year "highly recommended" the subject GRE. I didn't take it, and they still interviewed me (and accepted me). Only one school that "required" it didn't offer me an interview. My advice is that unless you have a really bad GPA or have studied something totally unrelated to biology, don't take it.

[nermah1]

As an international, I felt it was very difficult for internationals to get high scores in GRE biology.

I got 790 last year (a test in September) and it was about 80%. I was fortunate because I almost missed 50 questions out of total 200 questions. (I think September test was pretty difficulty)

 

Anyway here are my reasons.

 

First, GRE biology deals with too much topics. And some of them are NOT in Campbell!

For example, you cannot find what clathrin protein is in Campbell.

If you receive GRE biology practice test, you can immediately recognize this is not the thing that you can prepare with Campbell.

I don't deny Campbell is the best (I studied Campbell too and it was surely helpful), but it was never enough.

 

Second, GRE biology requires English proficiency very much. (This is for granted but still difficult for internationals like me)

Last part of GRE biology test is almost interpreting data. You don't need pre-knowledge about those questions.

That is, studying Campbell actually doesn't increase your skill at this part. 

But those questions are not easy for test takers who are not highly familiar with English.

Actually, I felt data questions are more likely a GRE general test.

 

I am very happy that I got a score over 80%.

But I don't wanna take that ever again.

 

You can search for topics already posted at the gradcafe and most of them recommend NOT to take the subject biology 

unless you are from dubious college or have very bad scores in biology.

 

Actually, most of admitted applicants in TOP schools say they didn't take the subject test.

 

In my case, I took the test because I withdrew from my master's program and have no master's degree.

 

Well......but if you still want, just take it and if the score is not good enough, just don't send the score!

[nermah1]

And I think GRE biology questions are sometimes too meticulous or ridiculous at all.

 

Like practice test No. 17 question, tubulin heterodimer problem is too minor detail I think.

 

Questions in ecology and development really suck, too.....!!

Edited January 20, 2014 by nermah1

[Justin123]

Well, I have to admit I'm SUPER happy I didn't take the GRE subject test. Maybe it would have helped me for Berkeley, but got other cool interviews without it (btw, I'm an international student). 

[pyrocide]

I took the Biochem/Cell/Molec bio GRE last October. A subject test was either required or strongly recommended by most (if not all) of my apps, and I took the Biochem specifically since it seemed more tailored to my research interests (i.e., had less plants and ecology questions.)  I did okay, but that test was just beastly, and I always wondered if taking the standard Bio GRE would have gone better, or would have been preferred by adcomms. Did any other of you biology kids seriously consider/choose to take the BCM test over the standard Biology test? 

[Vejas]

I did Psychology as my undergrad, so not exactly related. I'll be applying for Neuroscience PhDs. I might as well try, it can't hurt. I've heard that the Bio one is the easiest of the three. My programme recommends either Bio or Chem, and the Bio one sounds a lot easier. 

Edited January 20, 2014 by Vejas

[elanorci]

I took the Biochem/Cell/Molec bio GRE last October. A subject test was either required or strongly recommended by most (if not all) of my apps, and I took the Biochem specifically since it seemed more tailored to my research interests (i.e., had less plants and ecology questions.)  I did okay, but that test was just beastly, and I always wondered if taking the standard Bio GRE would have gone better, or would have been preferred by adcomms. Did any other of you biology kids seriously consider/choose to take the BCM test over the standard Biology test? 

 

I took BCM instead of Biology and did way better on it than I would have on the Biology test. My degree is in Molecular and Cellular Biology, though, so my undergrad training pretty much explicitly prepared me for the Biochem test. I would have bombed the Biology test -- I don't know anything about ecology...  

[ERR_Alpha]

I took the Biochem/Cell/Molec bio GRE last October. A subject test was either required or strongly recommended by most (if not all) of my apps, and I took the Biochem specifically since it seemed more tailored to my research interests (i.e., had less plants and ecology questions.)  I did okay, but that test was just beastly, and I always wondered if taking the standard Bio GRE would have gone better, or would have been preferred by adcomms. Did any other of you biology kids seriously consider/choose to take the BCM test over the standard Biology test? 

The places I looked at recommend you take whatever subject test you could do the best on. My problem was my degree in biochemistry is VERY chemistry heavy. I would have bombed the Biochem but who wants a Chem GRE score for MCB programs? It could have hurt me for the Ivy League schools, but who knows.

[thegirldetective]

The pre-grad/em advisor at the Big Prestigious Place where I work gave the following advice:

 

"Avoid taking a subject test at all costs. It's basically just a random trivia memorization test. Contact program directors to see if they really mean it when the website says 'subject test recommended.' Ask what percentage of accepted applicants take the subject test. Ask if there are any specific situations where a subject test could help an applicant with a deficiency in another area. Then decide whether or not it's worth it for you to take it, but be biased towards not doing it."

 

I followed this advice, and every time I asked a program director how many of their successful applicants took the subject test, they answered something along the lines of "not many" regardless of what the website said.

[Crucial BBQ]

The pre-grad/em advisor at the Big Prestigious Place where I work gave the following advice:

 

"Avoid taking a subject test at all costs. It's basically just a random trivia memorization test. Contact program directors to see if they really mean it when the website says 'subject test recommended.' Ask what percentage of accepted applicants take the subject test. Ask if there are any specific situations where a subject test could help an applicant with a deficiency in another area. Then decide whether or not it's worth it for you to take it, but be biased towards not doing it."

 

I followed this advice, and every time I asked a program director how many of their successful applicants took the subject test, they answered something along the lines of "not many" regardless of what the website said.

I know this is an old thread, but for some clarification...

 

...in general, those applying to top programs are going to have top grades, good undergrad research experience, and generally "good" applications overall.  For those applying to these same programs with a lower GPA, or lower grades in chemistry, orgo, biology, biochem, etc., the subject tests are a good way to show that you know the material.  

 

Besides, you kind of have to know a little bit about everything to do well on these subject tests and I can think of only a few undergraduate tests that were not "random trivia memorization tests".