GRE scores - what is expected for politics?

[hannah_christina]

Hi there fellow graduates,

 

I really hope that someone can help me with that because after reading through a ridiculous amount of blogs and websites I somehow still don't know what to think...

I'm preparing to apply for a PhD in politics at some of the top US universities such as Duke, NYU, UCLA (amongst others in Europe) - so I did a GRE and just received my scores - and I simply don't know what to think of them. Or, to be more precise, I know that they are not really great: 163 (91%) verbal, 157 (69%) quantitative and 5.5 analytical writing, but I also don't know if they're SO bad that I definetely need to re-take the test (and pay for it again) or if I could take a chance with the scores I have. Does anyone have an opinion/some advice/ a similar case for comparison? I would really, really appreaciate it since I'm quite psyched about that whole application stuff at the moment.

Just as background info: I'd consider my application as quite thorough otherwise, just received my MSc with distinction in politics from Edinburgh University, should have good references, some academic experience (work as research assistant, conference presentations, a first publication), a TOEFL of 119... So might that be enough? What do you think?

 

Thanks a A LOT!

[Yaya IR PhD]

I am also applying to poli-sci programs and have similar questions and concerns. Some people on this forum post that their low 160 scores in V or Q saying they are not good enough for top-tier political science programs. Other people say they are happy with the same scores. 

 

Here is a little bit of what I learned or was confused by after reviewing the threads and I hope this helps:

 

1) Generally, if you have scores below a certain cut off at a school they throw it out. For example, if you get less than 50th percentile on either they don't even bother with the rest of your application. Different schools suggest different cut offs on their sites. Northwestern says most applicants have at least 160v and 148q. Princeton says at least 160v and 160q otherwise admissions is very unlikely. 

 

2) The GRE has more weight at public universities. More often at these schools funding decisions are based on a standard algorithm designed by the graduate school administration. If your undergrad GPA and GRE don't equal some magic number... well... funding might not be in your cards even if the program wants you.

 

3) Your GRE scores value depends on your reader. Some professor might have accepted someone with less-than-average GRE scores a few years ago and they performed excellently under them. Consequently he overlooks or undervalues scores in the admissions process. Easily, the exact opposite could happen. Problematically, this cannot be predicted. 

 

4) Some schools explicitly say low GRE scores will not break an application. I think people should take them at their word. Could they just want to scoop up the application money? Meh! I think of all of the components of your application, the GRE never ranks as most important. This simply means (except the extreme situations where scores don't qualify as graduate ready) that if you impress or amaze in other aspects, you will be able to overcome blah scores. 

 

5) Know your program. Some programs are known for the quantitative focus and obviously put more value in your quantitative score.

 

6) Know yourself. If your research interest is entirely qualitative, a less than stellar quantitative score won't be as contrarian or damaging as a poor verbal score. 

 

And a little bit of general advice. If you have to ask a question, you know the answer. How much more confident in all of your apps will you be if you take it again and bring you q-score up past 160? One thing I can tell you is I promise you at Duke or NYU or UCLA, many applicants are applying with higher GRE scores. I don't mean this to sound harsh. And I certainly sympathize that this forum has provided a lot of contradictory information on GRE scores and their value and blah blah blah... but I believe that is because there is no certain answer, no magic formula for admission and no real way to guess your odds. There have been some great posts on people who get rejected from some school not even in the top-30 and accepted into Princeton. There have been some great sounding profiles that don't get accepted anywhere for multiple cycles.

 

Simply put - if you can do better, just retake it. If you don't do better, don't send the scores. Best of luck and I hope that helps!!!

[awells27]

I think the point about who's vetting your app is crucial.   I talked to a History POI today and asked him, and he was not overly enthused about the GRE in general.  In his particular emphasis, he and two other faculty members evaluate the apps and advise the larger adcomm accordingly.  Barring extreme circumstances, their decisions carry significant weight in who gets into their emphasis. If you had a poli-sci adcomm of that nature, you'd be better off.    On the other hand, professors in my masters program actually assign a numerical weight to the GRE scores as part of determining who gets admitted to the PHD program.  Some profs take the GRE more seriously than others. With 5.5 on the AW, taking the test over is a difficult decision, since some profs consider the AW to a high degree and others virtually ignore it.  I hate this test..  

Edited October 26, 2013 by awells27

[Seeking]

While both above commentators make great suggestions, it should be borne in mind that Political Science research is partially quantitative in nature and is a Social Science discipline, while History is a Humanities discipline that is not largely based on quantitative research - unless one is researching in an economic historical topic.

 

Hence, the Quant score will be important in the Political Science Department while it won't be of much interest in the History Department. In case of a candidate wanting to research in economic history, the quant score may become relevant.

 

So, I would suggest that Political Science candidates having a Quant score of 157 should try to improve it as much as they can. Of course, it also matters where you are applying. In some departments a Quant score of 157 may be acceptable, but in most competitive departments it may not be regarded as sufficient.

 

On the other hand, a History candidate with a quant score of 157 may be just fine, unless they are planning to research a topic that requires quantitative analysis, in which case they should try to improve their quant score.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Seeking

[Cesare]

I think the point about who's vetting your app is crucial.   I talked to a History POI today and asked him, and he was not overly enthused about the GRE in general.  In his particular emphasis, he and two other faculty members evaluate the apps and advise the larger adcomm accordingly.  Barring extreme circumstances, their decisions carry significant weight in who gets into their emphasis. If you had a poli-sci adcomm of that nature, you'd be better off.    On the other hand, professors in my masters program actually assign a numerical weight to the GRE scores as part of determining who gets admitted to the PHD program.  Some profs take the GRE more seriously than others. With 5.5 on the AW, taking the test over is a difficult decision, since some profs consider the AW to a high degree and others virtually ignore it.  I hate this test..  

In political science, the AW isn't taken too seriously as long as it isn't below the graduate school set minimum (typically a 4.0 I believe). Professors have writing samples and your statement to evaluate your writing. 

And Seeking (the post above mine) is quite correct in his/her post about history vs. political science. 

Edited October 26, 2013 by Cesare

[Scarf in the wind]

I am also applying to poli-sci programs and have similar questions and concerns. Some people on this forum post that their low 160 scores in V or Q saying they are not good enough for top-tier political science programs. Other people say they are happy with the same scores. 

 

Some people are gunning for a Ph.D program. My scores, though not bad by any means, do not reach the 160 threshold but I am happy with it. The reason why is because I, unlike most people who post on this forum, am gunning for a Master's degree.

[overworkedta]

I'm ABD and a political scientist so things may have changed a bit but I applied in 2009-2010 for a Fall 2010 position.

 

It's never a bad idea to re-test.  You will do better, be more comfortable, and be more aware of what to expect.  My scores weren't amazeballs on the GRE (not as much as I wanted, anyhow).  However, they were okay.  I took it again and improved my quant enough to feel better.  I applied specifically to a lot of quant-focused programs, so I knew that part mattered.  My verbal was still higher, though.  That said, I got many offers (I took a fellowship offer at my current school that paid the most) and had tough choices to make.  My letters of rec were apparently sterling and my past research and conference attendance was really important to the schools that accepted me (per the several DGS's I did speak with).  My GRE scores actually mattered less than those two components.

 

I was recommended and received a fellowship despite my GRE scores being lower than some of the other people in my program who didn't receive a fellowship on top of their stipend, so it's a crapshoot.

And yes, this only applies to PhD applicants and not Masters students.  They have different expectations and baselines depending on who they fund, if they fund, etc.  My department pretty much funds all people - including masters students- at least quarter time!  We are very lucky over here.