GRE score cutoffs?

[B-612]

Hi all,

 

Most of the doctoral programs I'm looking into say things like, "Pshaw. Don't worry so much about your GRE score. We evaluate all elements of your applications package." Sometimes: "We have no miminum GRE score and accept students with a wide range of scores."

 

But let's face it: the schools with good reputations and funding (the Harvards, the Yales, etc.) are highly competitive and are probably getting a lot of excellent GRE scores--not to mention the test must mean something or else they wouldn't make you take it.

 

Anyway, having just completed my GRE and gotten my quantitative/verbal scores back, I was wondering whether I could rule out any of these schools since I don't want to spend money and time on applications if my package gets tabled immediately because of the GRE. 

 

The schools I'm considering thus far are

 

Drew

Yale

Emory

Claremont

Iliff

 

I know there's probably no "make you" score for these schools, but would anyone know what a "break you" score would be? 

 

I'm most appreciative of any advice on the subject. Many thanks. 

 

[sacklunch]

Good question. No idea. I have seen so many threads over the years I don't know what to think. Some people say 'good luck getting in without 95%+" others say "dude I know got in with 75% verbal." Meh. I have no idea. I imagine having above 80% is more or less the minimum (verbal). But, as you said, it varies dept. to dept (and set by the graduate school usually).

[matthew2725]

If I'm not mistaken, YDS doesn't require the GRE as part of the application to the Masters program. 

[B-612]

I've got an M.Div. I'm shooting this time around for a PhD.  

[Kuriakos]

I remember a bunch of people telling me I needed to break 700 on the verbal to be competitive. I have no idea what that is on the new system. 

[Macrina]

I've been told 165+V, 160+Q for TT programs. Many of them have the published info for actual admissions in previous years somewhere on their websites.

[Macrina]

Here's the info for Duke; GRE stats are at the bottom of the page. Other schools have similar stats and info available online.

http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admitrel.htm

[marXian]

I would apply to all of them. I got into Northwestern with a 161V (89%, roughly in the 620-640 range on the old system.) When I was contacting POIs, there were some that said the GRE is absolutely vital (UVA for instance.) I think for some top tier schools that receive 200+ (or way way more) applications, it's a way of weeding out applicants. I don't know if this is the case for Yale though. On some level, it is always a way of weeding out applications, i.e. those that are below 80% verbal. Other schools are not so keen on it.

 

Best thing to do is ask each department.

[Perique69]

As a rule, verbal needs to be at least 90th percentile to be competitive for top-tier programs.  These schools are predictably cagey when asked about GRE scores.  They imply that it's possible to be admitted with low scores.  But they neglect to say that it is extremely unlikely to be admitted this way.  The main reason most programs will not reveal specific numbers or cut-off scores, however, is because it allows them to use the GRE as the primary way of rejecting applicants.  Believe it or not, some programs even reject applicants with perfect scores because such scores suggest too much "rigidity" in belief and intellectual ability.  The "safe zone" is 90 to 97 percentile, meaning these scores won't necessarily result in admission, but they at least keep you in the running.  Scores outside of this range, in most cases, result in rejection from the most competitive programs (i.e., Emory and Yale from your list).      

[B-612]

If 81st percentile is a typical throwaway cutoff then I'm at least above that. I feel confident that SOPs, references and writing sample would show I know what I'm doing. But this cagey thing is cropping up over and over. Cagey in my mind is translating as misleading. At least that's how it feels. Getting disillusioned before I even apply!

Perhaps I'll focus my energies into more ST schools and researching how to procure more funding.

[Lux Lex Pax]

I think most programs are hesitant to post cutoffs because they don't want to discourage otherwise well-qualified candidates from applying. Not having an official cutoff allows them to holistically evaluate applicants who might not fit the usual criteria.

[B-612]

I think most programs are hesitant to post cutoffs because they don't want to discourage otherwise well-qualified candidates from applying. Not having an official cutoff allows them to holistically evaluate applicants who might not fit the usual criteria.

 

That's what a professor of mine said. He can be a bit scatterbrained at times and was a second-career scholar. He said he wasn't a good test taker, was very reserved and wasn't the typical name-dropping, self-promoting type that seems to fare well in academia, but he was a hard worker and open-minded. It's a shame that humility seems to work against you these days, but if he made it in, there's hope for all of us.

[sacklunch]

Only one way to find out. If missing one or two questions on a verbal test about fish research keeps me out of a good problem. Well, I guess there isn't much I can do. 

[Perique69]

I think most programs are hesitant to post cutoffs because they don't want to discourage otherwise well-qualified candidates from applying. Not having an official cutoff allows them to holistically evaluate applicants who might not fit the usual criteria.

 

Schools want as many applicants as possible to apply.  It makes their program look better when they get 300 applicants a year.  Of course, the program immediately slices those 300 to 50 within the first hour of decision-making.  Most programs aren't "hesitant" to post cutoffs.  They simply do not post them.  "Otherwise well-qualified" candidates don't get in at the most competitive schools.  But these schools want you to think that some do.  Only the "most qualified candidates" get in.      

[Kuriakos]

I've heard professors at more than one school admit that they use GREs to bring the number of applications down to a reasonable size. I take their comments to mean they don't give those eliminated applications much of a reading at all. 

[Lux Lex Pax]

Schools want as many applicants as possible to apply.  It makes their program look better when they get 300 applicants a year.  Of course, the program immediately slices those 300 to 50 within the first hour of decision-making.  Most programs aren't "hesitant" to post cutoffs.  They simply do not post them.  "Otherwise well-qualified" candidates don't get in at the most competitive schools.  But these schools want you to think that some do.  Only the "most qualified candidates" get in.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're wrong. Unless your numbers are absolutely horrendous, your application will be read at most schools. How much time they'll spend reading your application is another matter. Because of the time-intensive nature of the admissions process, I don't think faculty members are elated when they receive 300+ applications for a handful of slots. I also highly doubt that any school cuts the pool from "300 to 50 within the first hour of decision-making," but if they did, it's probably because the school receives lots of applications from people who have no business applying to Ph.D. programs because they're completely unprepared. I have a white male friend who got into an Ivy-league NELC department with a verbal GRE score in the low 80s percentile-wise; if it were just a numbers game, he should've been cut in the "first hour of decision-making." But apparently someone in the department thought that all his other qualities outweighed a low GRE score. I'm not arguing that the GRE isn't important - it is. But posting an official cutoff would've prevented my friend from applying (and gaining admission) into an excellent program, so I wouldn't discount the holistic evaluation of applicants.

[Perique69]

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're wrong. Unless your numbers are absolutely horrendous, your application will be read at most schools. How much time they'll spend reading your application is another matter. Because of the time-intensive nature of the admissions process, I don't think faculty members are elated when they receive 300+ applications for a handful of slots. I also highly doubt that any school cuts the pool from "300 to 50 within the first hour of decision-making," but if they did, it's probably because the school receives lots of applications from people who have no business applying to Ph.D. programs because they're completely unprepared. I have a white male friend who got into an Ivy-league NELC department with a verbal GRE score in the low 80s percentile-wise; if it were just a numbers game, he should've been cut in the "first hour of decision-making." But apparently someone in the department thought that all his other qualities outweighed a low GRE score. I'm not arguing that the GRE isn't important - it is. But posting an official cutoff would've prevented my friend from applying (and gaining admission) into an excellent program, so I wouldn't discount the holistic evaluation of applicants.

 

It's a tough position to argue from when you say "I don't know … but you're wrong."  If you knew the source of my information, you'd hardly say I'm wrong.  I didn't say all applications are not read.  I said most are discarded very soon within the decision-making process.  I also did not say that the decision-making process is a purely  numbers game.  If you saw my previous post, I said that many programs are cagey about GRE scores for a reason; it gives them leverage to accept who they want without being completely dependent on numbers.  Your friend is an exception, not the rule.  But your example is exactly the sort of "information" that competitive programs want to propagate.  It attracts applicants.  Faculty members may not be overjoyed by sorting through 300 applications, but I guarantee that very competitive schools want as many as applicants as possible, and they will do whatever they can to attract applicants.  You underestimate the "business" of top religion programs.  Reputation and money are at stake.  Your view ignores this important point.        

Edited November 1, 2013 by Perique69

[newenglandshawn]

I highly doubt that programs will "do whatever they can to attract applicants."

And I'm struggling to follow one line of logic: what benefit do they gain from having 300 applicants instead of 100 - especially if they're allegedly going to throw 250 of them in the trash right away?

 

And the fact that there are "exceptions" totally contradicts what you said, doesn't it?

Edited November 1, 2013 by newenglandshawn

[Perique69]

I highly doubt that programs will "do whatever they can to attract applicants."

And I'm struggling to follow one line of logic: what benefit do they gain from having 300 applicants instead of 100 - especially if they're allegedly going to throw 250 of them in the trash right away?

 

And the fact that there are "exceptions" totally contradicts what you said, doesn't it?

Ok, it's fine for you to doubt that.  Second, it regards competition between schools.  The TT, most competitive programs communicate with one another and they know that the others generally receive around 300 per year.  Fewer applicants would spell less interest in the program.  TT programs want way more applicants than they can accept.  It shows fierce demand for their program.  I'm surprised that this concept is so difficult to understand.  It's a classic business model.  Lastly, no.  Reread all of my posts.  My point is that these schools are cagey about numbers precisely because it allows them to be subjective when they want to be.  

Edited November 1, 2013 by Perique69

[Lux Lex Pax]

Ok, it's fine for you to doubt that.  Second, it regards competition between schools.  The TT, most competitive programs communicate with one another and they know that the others generally receive around 300 per year.  Fewer applicants would spell less interest in the program.  TT programs want way more applicants than they can accept.  It shows fierce demand for their program.  I'm surprised that this concept is so difficult to understand.  It applies well to any other business model.  Lastly, no.  Reread all of my posts.  My point is that these schools are cagey about numbers precisely because it allows them to be subjective when they want to be.

Comparing the total number of people that applied to each of the top religion departments is a terrible metric for evaluating interest in each of the programs. The numbers need to be broken down into subfields to be of any use, but even then, not all similar subfields are created equal since some have very different emphases. For example, NT studies needs to be compared with other NT studies subfields, Islam with Islam, Christian theology with Christian theology, etc.

A better way of determining the strength of a subfield is figuring out where people who were admitted into multiple programs ultimately decided to attend - information that'll never be made public by those in the know. If someone were accepted to study Islam at Princeton, Yale, Duke, or Chicago, for example, where they decided to attend could be an indicator of the strength of the subfield; however, the decision is also likely to reflect the student's particular focus rather than the overall strength of the subfield.

The take away is that, at least at the top programs, overall departmental numbers are misleading if you think that they help you gauge the level of interest in the program because most people don't apply to a religion department in general, they apply to particular subfields with particular faculty with particular strengths that aren't always easy to compare across different programs. I don't understand why that concept is so difficult to understand.

[Perique69]

Comparing the total number of people that applied to each of the top religion departments is a terrible metric for evaluating interest in each of the programs. 

 

You're grabbing for straws.  Like it or not, programs pay close attention to their total number of applicants compared to competitors' total numbers.  It's a quick reference and comparison point that programs readily use.  They don't ignore them for the sake of sub-field numbers.  What's more troubling though is your way of injecting an unrelated point.  Sorry, it doesn't work in this discussion.  It is helpful to know sub-field interests and numbers, I agree.  But the point doesn't relate to my point.  To make another correction to your previous post, applicants usually do, in fact, apply to a program "in general" then they indicate a sub-field.  Take Emory for example: all applicants apply to their "Graduate Division of Religion" THEN applicants select two out of nine "courses of study."  Applicants are admitted to the Graduate Division of Religion "in general" then to one respective sub-field.  According to the school, students belong to the general Graduate Division of Religion, as well as their sub-field.                

Edited November 1, 2013 by Perique69

[MBIGrad]

Y'all should be studying for the GRE.

[Kuriakos]

Actually, total number of applicants is reported to the NCHE and gets factored into a programs selectivity numbers which in turn affects their ranking. I do not, however, believe that the top programs like wading through so many applications.

[Perique69]

Actually, total number of applicants is reported to the NCHE and gets factored into a programs selectivity numbers which in turn affects their ranking. I do not, however, believe that the top programs like wading through so many applications.

 

Exactly.  And, of course, they probably don't enjoy the labor, but it's preferable to lower rankings.  

[marXian]

Faculty members may not be overjoyed by sorting through 300 applications, but I guarantee that very competitive schools want as many as applicants as possible, and they will do whatever they can to attract applicants.  You underestimate the "business" of top religion programs.  Reputation and money are at stake.  Your view ignores this important point.        

 

You know what else is good for the reputation of a program? Its job placement. Its students' awards, fellowships, and grants. Publications. Its faculty awards, publications, and overall reputation. Factors that are vastly--vastly--more important than how many applicants it receives each year. What money are you talking about? Application fees? I know this all came up in the context of GRE scores, but... wow did this get way off track. Follow the train of this conversation. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh. I don't mean it to be, but I'm really not understanding this thread. You went from insisting that GRE scores are a vitally important part of the application, maybe the most important, to essentially making the case that the reason departments don't want to list their "GRE cut off numbers" is so that programs can increase their reputation via generating application numbers. I'm honestly mystified by your insistence on this applicant numbers to program strength correlation. But more relevant to the thread, you make it sound like all adcoms have in mind an exact hard number below which all applications are automatically tossed.

 

If a person has a V 167, a good writing sample and decent letters, do you think he/she is getting into a program over someone whose supplemental materials are not just good but truly special but who has a GRE score in the 84th percentile as a rule? Put another way: Do you think that an adcom would ideally want to always admit the former over the latter? The process is just way more subjective than you're making it sound. It may be in some cases that there are good reasons for an adcom to admit the former over the latter--but that is by no means "the rule." I think it's safe to say that there's probably a strong correlation between an excellent GRE verbal score and a truly special writing sample, SOP, etc. But simply because that correlation may exist, doesn't mean that the rule is that high GRE scores are admitted and low GRE scores are rejected. The other factors are just more important. If this "high score" correlation is more or less right, I'd bet there's probably a low score correlation as well: an applicant who scores below 80% verbal probably has a lot of other problems with his/her application that would equally result in elimination from the running.

 

As Lux mentioned, there are plenty of other ways by which an adcom can weed out unqualified applicants. People applying right out of undergrad with low GPAs. Poor writing. Missing materials. Etc. A truly horrendous GRE score would probably disqualify an applicant. But 80-90% isn't truly horrendous.