GRE score cutoffs?

[Body Politics]

Y'all should be studying for the GRE.

[sacklunch]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited November 2, 2013 by furtivemode

[11Q13]

There are no cut offs, but I think posing it in terms of "safe" scores, it's going to be 95% or above on the verbal and writing (honestly couldn't tell you about the quantitative, but I hope it doesn't matter too much), which matches the old standard of 700. 90% is seemingly not high enough; I recall a couple SBLs ago having a meeting with a potential advisor, who, when I told him I had a 640V (90% at the time), told me I should retake it. 

[MsBOOM]

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. 

 

 

To answer your question and not get off topic, I'm going to just say that apply to Emory. You won't get thrown off the table immediately because of GRE scores. And I know this for a fact.

[sacklunch]

If we are to be honest, Drew, Iliff, and Claremont, while fantastic programs, simply do not get as many applicants (esp. Claremont). I'm not saying you don't need a good score to get in, but I doubt having anything lower than 75% would cause too much concern. Yale, of course, is a different story. Who knows. A friend got into their PhD program two years ago with a verbal in the 80's, so score requirements are never as strict as some claim. Though, again, I'm sure the people with 90%+ there are higher than those with below 90%. Meh.

Edited November 3, 2013 by furtivemode

[Perique69]

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.

 

Of course all of those factors are good for reputation.  You're flat wrong--flat wrong--that they are "vastly more important" than applicant numbers, however.  Your synopsis of my point(s) is a misread to some extent.  I couldn't care less who believes me, but the truth about the most competitive TT religion programs is that they take great pride in tallying their total number of applicants and maintaining that number as best they can.  It mystifies me that some can't understand why a top school would be troubled by, say, a sudden and significant drop in their number of applicants.  If said school normally receives 300 applicants per year but this year they received 150, do you really think they wouldn't pay critical attention to this, particularly when their competitors stayed on mark at 300 or so?  If this point still befuddles you, you might consider reading a business strategy for dummies type of book.  

 

I know it's incredibly tough for people with lower verbal scores to accept that they won't be admitted to the most competitive programs.  I also know that a few here love to reference their "friend" who got into one of the most competitive programs with a low score.  I realize it's counter-intuitive, but there is no strong correlation between an excellent GRE score and equally excellent writing samples, SOP, etc.  My previous posts emphasize precisely the opposite point that you accuse me of making: adcoms use GRE scores subjectively when it serves them to do so.  Read that very carefully.  This is the point that will elude 99% of applicants.  Again, this is why they do not, and will not, publish or even verbally acknowledge specific cut-off scores. As for your 167 versus 84th percentile example, as a rule adcoms will go with 167 given everything else is equal.  Hard pill to swallow, I know.  These schools have done a spectacular job at convincing applicants that "everyone has a chance."  The key word is "chance."  Chance does not mean acceptance, however.  

 

Adcoms weed out unqualified applicants for all sorts of reasons.  Some reasons are not surprising while some are utterly shocking.  But the one reason they use in court is the GRE score.  It's the only objective AND defensible response.  Herein lies the crux of the matter that escapes virtually everyone unfamiliar with the legal entanglements that top programs occasionally encounter as a result of a disgruntled applicant.  I know it's tempting to believe that religion / theology programs operate outside of the "real world."  But they don't and they can't.  

 

Lastly, the example of people applying right out of undergrad, poor writing and missing materials is, well, silly.  Most of these programs require an M degree just for starters.  Only a real dunce would overlook a basic requirement and apply anyway.  

 

Peace and good tidings.  None of my response is meant to be personal.  It's just an arrow to the heart of deception.  Remember that a turtle shell is utilitarian.         

[newenglandshawn]

"Lastly, the example of people applying right out of undergrad, poor writing and missing materials is, well, silly. Most of these programs require an M degree just for starters. Only a real dunce would overlook a basic requirement and apply anyway."

Not to belabor this discussion, but that's just wrong (cf. the most prestigious institution in the world: http://studyofreligion.fas.harvard.edu/pages/admissions).

Edited November 4, 2013 by newenglandshawn

[Perique69]

"Lastly, the example of people applying right out of undergrad, poor writing and missing materials is, well, silly. Most of these programs require an M degree just for starters. Only a real dunce would overlook a basic requirement and apply anyway."

Not to belabor this discussion, but that's just wrong (cf. the most prestigious institution in the world: http://studyofreligion.fas.harvard.edu/pages/admissions).

 

Did you not see the word "most" in my second sentence?  Harvard is a slight exception.  Slight because while they say it's ok to apply without an M degree, it is highly unlikely to be accepted without one because most applicants hold one or two M degrees.  Also, on what authority does your "most prestigious institution in the world" sit?  It's prestigious, but there's a running, indefinite battle for "most prestigious."     

[Lux Lex Pax]

Of course all of those factors are good for reputation.  You're flat wrong--flat wrong--that they are "vastly more important" than applicant numbers, however.  Your synopsis of my point(s) is a misread to some extent.  I couldn't care less who believes me, but the truth about the most competitive TT religion programs is that they take great pride in tallying their total number of applicants and maintaining that number as best they can.  It mystifies me that some can't understand why a top school would be troubled by, say, a sudden and significant drop in their number of applicants.  If said school normally receives 300 applicants per year but this year they received 150, do you really think they wouldn't pay critical attention to this, particularly when their competitors stayed on mark at 300 or so?  If this point still befuddles you, you might consider reading a business strategy for dummies type of book.  

 

I know it's incredibly tough for people with lower verbal scores to accept that they won't be admitted to the most competitive programs.  I also know that a few here love to reference their "friend" who got into one of the most competitive programs with a low score.  I realize it's counter-intuitive, but there is no strong correlation between an excellent GRE score and equally excellent writing samples, SOP, etc.  My previous posts emphasize precisely the opposite point that you accuse me of making: adcoms use GRE scores subjectively when it serves them to do so.  Read that very carefully.  This is the point that will elude 99% of applicants.  Again, this is why they do not, and will not, publish or even verbally acknowledge specific cut-off scores. As for your 167 versus 84th percentile example, as a rule adcoms will go with 167 given everything else is equal.  Hard pill to swallow, I know.  These schools have done a spectacular job at convincing applicants that "everyone has a chance."  The key word is "chance."  Chance does not mean acceptance, however.  

 

Adcoms weed out unqualified applicants for all sorts of reasons.  Some reasons are not surprising while some are utterly shocking.  But the one reason they use in court is the GRE score.  It's the only objective AND defensible response.  Herein lies the crux of the matter that escapes virtually everyone unfamiliar with the legal entanglements that top programs occasionally encounter as a result of a disgruntled applicant.  I know it's tempting to believe that religion / theology programs operate outside of the "real world."  But they don't and they can't.  

 

Lastly, the example of people applying right out of undergrad, poor writing and missing materials is, well, silly.  Most of these programs require an M degree just for starters.  Only a real dunce would overlook a basic requirement and apply anyway.  

 

Peace and good tidings.  None of my response is meant to be personal.  It's just an arrow to the heart of deception.  Remember that a turtle shell is utilitarian.

No.

[sacklunch]

I come bearing levity!

 

(ノ ◑‿◑)ノ

 

But really, how about we all come back to this thread in a couple months and list our GRE scores, acceptances, (mostly) denials, and waitlists. 

Edited November 4, 2013 by furtivemode

[newenglandshawn]

Thank you for the levity - even though the "unintentional comedy" was off the charts already on this thread (at least for me)!

[B-612]

Stop the violence!
 

I didn't mean to ignite such a debate. 

 

Thank you all for weighing in. After much consideration, I've decided to take the GRE again. Maybe I'll do better, maybe I won't. I think I may have a leg up since I've done it recently and am prepared for the layout and timing of the whole thing. I was able to finish my previous GRE in a timely fashion with time to go over previous questions and check for errors. 

 

I'm looking at my GRE as a learning experience and hoping that I can draw from it where I need to focus. I did exceedingly well on the math section, which was a total and utter surprise, so now I can concentrate on the verbal part which is more critical to my applications anyway. 

 

My major hope is that my body and mind are in this. I have wretched, stress-induced insomnia (anything stresses me out) and didn't sleep three nights before the GRE. The night before the GRE, I took Nyquil and Unisom in hopes of getting to bed in a timely manner but even that didn't work so I woke up for the test in a haze of grogginess and confusion. 

 

What they don't tell you about the GRE is that it's as much psychology as it is actual knowledge and discernment. 

Edited November 4, 2013 by besixdouze

[Perique69]

No.

 

Says the person who'd argue with a fence post. You're so convinced that you're always right.   

[Perique69]

Stop the violence!

 

I didn't mean to ignite such a debate. 

 

Thank you all for weighing in. After much consideration, I've decided to take the GRE again. Maybe I'll do better, maybe I won't. I think I may have a leg up since I've done it recently and am prepared for the layout and timing of the whole thing. I was able to finish my previous GRE in a timely fashion with time to go over previous questions and check for errors. 

 

I'm looking at my GRE as a learning experience and hoping that I can draw from it where I need to focus. I did exceedingly well on the math section, which was a total and utter surprise, so now I can concentrate on the verbal part which is more critical to my applications anyway. 

 

My major hope is that my body and mind are in this. I have wretched, stress-induced insomnia (anything stresses me out) and didn't sleep three nights before the GRE. The night before the GRE, I took Nyquil and Unisom in hopes of getting to bed in a timely manner but even that didn't work so I woke up for the test in a haze of grogginess and confusion. 

 

What they don't tell you about the GRE is that it's as much psychology as it is actual knowledge and discernment. 

 

Best of luck!  I'm sure you'll do very well and get admitted to your school of choice.  Yes, concentrate on the verbal.  It's great that you did well in math, so you can relax about that.  

 

I agree, too, about stopping the violence! There's some tenacious curmudgeons around here! Yikes!  

[Kuriakos]

I know someone who was admitted to UNC straight from undergrad. 

[marXian]

Of course all of those factors are good for reputation.  You're flat wrong--flat wrong--that they are "vastly more important" than applicant numbers, however.  Your synopsis of my point(s) is a misread to some extent.  I couldn't care less who believes me, but the truth about the most competitive TT religion programs is that they take great pride in tallying their total number of applicants and maintaining that number as best they can.  It mystifies me that some can't understand why a top school would be troubled by, say, a sudden and significant drop in their number of applicants.  If said school normally receives 300 applicants per year but this year they received 150, do you really think they wouldn't pay critical attention to this, particularly when their competitors stayed on mark at 300 or so?  If this point still befuddles you, you might consider reading a business strategy for dummies type of book.  

 

 

Well damn, I guess I should've only applied to schools with 300+ applicants every year since my Ph.D from Northwestern is going to be worth nothing when I'm done. At least I'm being paid to do it!

[MsBOOM]

I don't think I've ever seen a verbal and/or physical fight between two (potential) religious studies scholars. Something tells me it might be somewhat hilarious, lol.

[marXian]

I don't think I've ever seen a verbal and/or physical fight between two (potential) religious studies scholars. Something tells me it might be somewhat hilarious, lol.

 

You've not been to enough AAR panels. =)

[MsBOOM]

You've not been to enough AAR panels. =)

 

 

CRAP. YOU'RE RIGHT! O.O

[sacklunch]

Speaking of...me and another fellow student are still looking for people (one even) to split a hotel cost in Baltimore AAR/SBL. We are not insane people, I swear. Just trying to make the trip as cheap as possible. I will gladly sleep on the floor.

ANYONE?

[Lux Lex Pax]

I know someone who was admitted to UNC straight from undergrad.

That's because few of the top schools actually "require" a master's degree for admission into their Ph.D. programs. In addition to Harvard, you can add Yale, Princeton, Duke, UVa, Emory, Columbia, and just about every other university-based, as opposed to divinity school- (Chicago, HDS, Duke Div) or seminary-based (PTS, Union), program. Just this past year, Princeton admitted three students straight from undergraduate programs. But I have a feeling that actual facts and evidence won't convince those that need convincing in this thread.

[MsBOOM]

Damn. That would've been perfect, as my fiance lives in Baltimore, and I was going to offer up his small apartment to people that needed a place to stay.

 

Unfortunately, however, the Harvard Academic Calendar gods cursed me by making finals the weekend after Thanksgiving, so he's coming up here instead. Womp womp womp

Edited November 4, 2013 by MsBOOM

[Perique69]

I know someone who was admitted to UNC straight from undergrad. 

 

No surprise. UNC doesn't require an M degree.  

[Body Politics]

Isn't it a little early in the application season for this sort of pressure-induced and pointless bickering? 

It's fun to read, though -- so, by all means, carry on.

[Perique69]

That's because few of the top schools actually "require" a master's degree for admission into their Ph.D. programs. In addition to Harvard, you can add Yale, Princeton, Duke, UVa, Emory, Columbia, and just about every other university-based, as opposed to divinity school- (Chicago, HDS, Duke Div) or seminary-based (PTS, Union), program. Just this past year, Princeton admitted three students straight from undergraduate programs. But I have a feeling that actual facts and evidence won't convince those that need convincing in this thread.

 

Very few?  Try getting into Duke, Yale, Harvard, Emory, Chicago, Princeton seminary, Union without an M degree.  Ain't gonna happen.  These are the top dogs (not sure Union is such a top dog anymore but oh well) and they need M degrees. And, yes, I know it is technically possible to gain admission to Harvard with a BA, but only for the "rare, exception" within the 5 to 6% admitted.  Regardless, I'm growing weary of your exception to rule tactic.  How do 3 students purportedly admitted to Princeton U PhD (not seminary) without M degrees disprove, or even weigh heavily against, my point that most of the very top, most competitive programs require an M degree?  Peace and tranquility to you as you reflect upon my response.  

Edited November 4, 2013 by Perique69