LOWEST SUCCESSFUL GRE SCORES

[zblaesi]

Ian, if I decide to re-apply, you're going to need to point me in the right direction for test-prep.

[greencoloredpencil]

Ian, if I decide to re-apply, you're going to need to point me in the right direction for test-prep.

 

Seconded wholeheartedly. 

[perpetuavix]

This may be the wrong place for this question but, do you have any idea as to how they grade the writing section?  I felt really good about it walking out of the test, but I ended up only getting a 4.5.

 

Aside from that I would say that my experience has been similar to yours Ian, despite high scores (167 verbal, 168 quant), I've only been waitlisted at one place and rejected from 7.  (Still waiting on 2 more, but those are looking more and more like rejections too). 

 

I also work at a test prep company (although I mostly work with pre-college tests). 

The writing section is graded by someone who probably either has or is getting a PhD in English. They generally take less than a minute to score your essay. The ETS is a little coy about it, but it's probably also graded by a computer. Generally, length, varied vocabulary and sentences structure, and well developed examples are enough to get you a high score (5.0+). 

The ETS sample responses are somewhat illustrative of what they're looking for: http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/issue/sample_responses  and http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/argument/sample_responses

Edited March 13, 2014 by perpetuavix

[stressedout]

Philstudent22, I mean this with all due respect (truly, I do):

 

When I read your description, I can't help but wonder whether your scores really did hurt you at all. You had a stellar app, and you were admitted to a top-20 department, despite your relatively low scores. Right? What more could you expect? Do you think that with better scores, you would have done better than this? I mean, frankly, you did very, very well. I know this is a sensitive subject, because not everyone has the same idea about what it means to "do well." But I think you did very well, and I think you did it with fairly low scores. This lends some credibility to my view that the optics of a 160-ish plus score is typically enough.

 

You had to have a stellar app to be admitted to a top-20 school.

 

Now listen, I think I had a stellar application. I think it's a damn good application. People in my high-ranked MA program thought so (or pretended to think so, perhaps out of sympathy for me). A good friend of mine was admitted to like seven top-30 departments or something crazy, including a few top-10s (if I recall correctly). She said that my application wasn't much different from hers, in terms of overall quality.

 

My verbal is 169 (99%), my quant is 157 (69%), and my writing is 6.0 (99%). These scores are from a test I took prior to my working for a major test prep company. My quant is now around 167 (my last diagnostic test).

 

We can't really conclude anything from this, except that there appear to be examples of weak scores among successful applicants (you) and strong scores among failed applicants (me).

 

I'm sure your application is stellar. But I don't think that the difference between you and the person who is admitted to NYU and Rutgers is the GRE score. (I don't think you mean to say this, either.) More likely, the person admitted to Rutgers and NYU is lucky and ridiculously talented and connected to the right people.

 

After this application season, I am convinced that philosophy admissions is less predictable (in terms of who will be successful) than what many would like to believe. We can shape a lot of what happens, and then some of it is like playing the lottery. Hence great applicants often fail.

 

Frankly, I'm warming up to law admissions. You plug in your numbers, and out comes your result!

 

Dude, how did you improve your quant so much?  Would you be willing to give some advice about quant prep?

[ianfaircloud]

I also work at a test prep company (although I mostly work with pre-college tests). 

The writing section is graded by someone who probably either has or is getting a PhD in English. They generally take less than a minute to score your essay. The ETS is a little coy about it, but it's probably also graded by a computer. Generally, length, varied vocabulary and sentences structure, and well developed examples are enough to get you a high score (5.0+). 

The ETS sample responses are somewhat illustrative of what they're looking for: http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/issue/sample_responses  and http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/argument/sample_responses

 

This person is exactly right about the ETS essay, in my experience.

 

 

Dude, how did you improve your quant so much?  Would you be willing to give some advice about quant prep?

 

Actually, I'm more impressed with what I've done with my verbal. I started at 49th percentile and raised it to 99th percentile -- without the help of a test-prep company! I did this before I was hired by the company. I never took a test-prep class. I think the prep classes aren't as magical as some people think they are, though they do offer a structured setting, materials, etc.

 

I'm pretty passionate about standardized tests. I've taken all of the major standardized tests for admissions in the United States, except MCAT, and scored at least 95th percentile in all of these. But I'm convinced that it's not from natural intelligence. I simply learned how to take these tests. I teach ACT, SAT, and GRE. I'm trained on GMAT. I've scored 174 on LSAT (which is 99%+), but on the real deal I scored a 169 (97%). I didn't retake the LSAT, for some personal reasons. I may go for it this summer.

 

With enough practice, most people can do this, I think. But my advice is not to do this, because (see above) I think it doesn't make enough difference. Diminishing returns after a few months of (very serious) studying. (At least this holds true concerning philosophy admissions. But if you are considering law, I advise you to WORK YOUR ASS OFF to boost that LSAT score. Law admissions are fairly predictable.)

 

I can't offer free advice, because I've signed a contract with this company. Basically you have to pay like $190 an hour to get my advice. Which is bullshit, because I make a tiny fraction of that. But send me a message, and I'll see what I can do...

Edited March 13, 2014 by ianfaircloud

[Glasperlenspieler]

I also work at a test prep company (although I mostly work with pre-college tests). 

The writing section is graded by someone who probably either has or is getting a PhD in English. They generally take less than a minute to score your essay. The ETS is a little coy about it, but it's probably also graded by a computer. Generally, length, varied vocabulary and sentences structure, and well developed examples are enough to get you a high score (5.0+). 

The ETS sample responses are somewhat illustrative of what they're looking for: http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/issue/sample_responses  and http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/argument/sample_responses

 

 

This person is exactly right about the ETS essay, in my experience.

 

Thanks for the info (although I don't really like that sort of scoring method).  Is it worth a retake just the AW score?  Or is Ian's point about diminishing returns operative here?

[zblaesi]

Guys, not that it makes a big difference, but apparently I got a 161 in verbal. Editing my signature now.

[PHILSTUDENT22]

Philstudent22, I mean this with all due respect (truly, I do):

 

When I read your description, I can't help but wonder whether your scores really did hurt you at all. You had a stellar app, and you were admitted to a top-20 department, despite your relatively low scores. Right? What more could you expect? Do you think that with better scores, you would have done better than this? I mean, frankly, you did very, very well. I know this is a sensitive subject, because not everyone has the same idea about what it means to "do well." But I think you did very well, and I think you did it with fairly low scores. This lends some credibility to my view that the optics of a 160-ish plus score is typically enough.

 

You had to have a stellar app to be admitted to a top-20 school.

 

Now listen, I think I had a stellar application. I think it's a damn good application. People in my high-ranked MA program thought so (or pretended to think so, perhaps out of sympathy for me). A good friend of mine was admitted to like seven top-30 departments or something crazy, including a few top-10s (if I recall correctly). She said that my application wasn't much different from hers, in terms of overall quality.

 

My verbal is 169 (99%), my quant is 157 (69%), and my writing is 6.0 (99%). These scores are from a test I took prior to my working for a major test prep company. My quant is now around 167 (my last diagnostic test).

 

We can't really conclude anything from this, except that there appear to be examples of weak scores among successful applicants (you) and strong scores among failed applicants (me).

 

I'm sure your application is stellar. But I don't think that the difference between you and the person who is admitted to NYU and Rutgers is the GRE score. (I don't think you mean to say this, either.) More likely, the person admitted to Rutgers and NYU is lucky and ridiculously talented and connected to the right people.

 

After this application season, I am convinced that philosophy admissions is less predictable (in terms of who will be successful) than what many would like to believe. We can shape a lot of what happens, and then some of it is like playing the lottery. Hence great applicants often fail.

 

Frankly, I'm warming up to law admissions. You plug in your numbers, and out comes your result! 

The application process sure is cooky, that's for sure! 

I know I did well - but I also know my GRE hurt me, at least at one school (and so I naturally think it hurt me other places, but of course I can't be certain). My professors were shocked that I didn't get into school X (a top 10) because all of them have very strong connections there, and my letters compared me favorably to a very successful student that came from our department and now teach at school X. In light of being rejected from school X, one of my professors sent an email to several committee members that he/she knew to figure out what happened....only to find out that "[student Y] was in our first group of rejections, which means that [student Y] did not meet the admission committee's minimum expectations with respect to GPA or GRE this year."  And my I have a perfect GPA. Maybe School X put their informal cap at (say) 90% verbal or something, who knows. Would I have gotten in otherwise? Hard to know, but at least the rest of my app would have gotten a serious look.  

Nevertheless, everyone that has posted here and was successful with sub-par scores seems to have otherwise extremely stellar qualifications. I had three top people in their field write me awesome letters, for instance, and took 8 graduate courses as an undergrad. I of course worked really hard to impress my writers for many years, but it ultimately comes down to sheer luck that I went to a college with such a good faculty. Mavngoose1 (who also did well with a 160 verbal) wishes to keep his/her information private, but let me just say that he/she was even more circumstantially lucky than I with respect to undergrad institution (especially) and quality of letter writers. So I don't think we should go around saying a 160 verbal is good enough for it not to hurt you - it would probably be safer to say something like 160 verbal is perhaps good enough not to hurt you if the rest of your app is really really really stellar. This is what we should expect of outliers anyway - they have special compensatory qualifications. If you aren't lucky enough to come from a top department with the ability to obtain letters from awesome people, you may not be able to compensate for sub-par scores in the committee's eyes and get cut early. 

 

[zblaesi]

PHISTUDENT22, I find that incredibly disturbing^

[katethekitcat]

Is it possible, rather than scores or GPAs or the quality of writing samples, it's actually your area of personal interest that's hurting you?

 

I am currently employed at major research university, one that many people on this forum have expressed great desire to be admitted to. Through my job, I've come into contact with current graduate students, professors, and deans, etc, all who have a connection to the philosophy department. One professor who sits on the admissions committee told me about an applicant they'd had who had applied with an AOI of the French existentialists. He had a perfect GPA, perfect GRE scores, he had a letter of recommendation written by the field's leading philosopher, who basically told the committee, "This student will be as good as or better than me someday." They turned him down two years in a row simply because neither they - nor any other program in the country - had room for that area of interest. It was too popular, too tapped out, and the scholarly community just already had researchers in the area. This professor also told me that's not uncommon. "Not meeting the minimum threshold" can translate to, "This year, we need one philosophy of science student and one person studying this particular chapter of Wittgenstein." An academic department at the University of Toronto know they're going to be looking for a professor of religion, so they've already started looking at candidates among the nation's PhD students. Oh, by the way, they're going to need this professor in five years.

 

The same thing happens in math and science. My best friend is in the mathematics PhD program at the University of Iowa. Last year, they extended 10 offers, expecting 4 students to accept; by fluke chance, all 10 accepted and about 70% were focusing in linear algebra. Although the department would never tell you this, it means, no matter who applied this year, maybe 1 or 2 would receive offers, and if you said you wanted to study linear algebra, you had no chance. But they obviously can't put that on their website - it would ruin their reputation for all future years.

 

Whatever the big fad in philosophy is today: do they really need any more people to study it? Since it's currently "hot," that means there's already PhD students studying it, and the ones already in the department are certainly enough - far more than enough - to fill any future teaching jobs. Once someone becomes a professor, they can hold on to that job for thirty, forty, fifty years. Is it in a school's best interests to continue taking PhD students in that area, or is in their interests - for their placement rates, to keep unique publications flowing - to take PhD students in areas that might become big in the future? Yet, meanwhile, a lot of people are still applying in this area since it's suddenly become so popular.

 

Just some thoughts - and I'm not actually working in the field of philosophy. But the field of philosophy can only have so many scholars in so many areas, and whether or not that area is already full seems more relevant than if you got 2 additional points on the quantitative section of your GRE. I read these forums often, and I haven't seen a single person (well, among the people who haven't been, er, forcibly ejected) who had less than what they considered "a stellar application." If they're all stellar, the only thing that separates you is: who chose an area of study in which universities are short on scholars?

[Dialectica]

I'm a bit late to the party, and although I'm applying only to MA programs, I figure I should post my scores: 164 verbal, 146 quant., and 5.5 AW. Quant is atrocious, I know. 

[stressedout]

I'm a bit late to the party, and although I'm applying only to MA programs, I figure I should post my scores: 164 verbal, 146 quant., and 5.5 AW. Quant is atrocious, I know. 

 

LOL, 167/148 and 4.5 here...

[Neither Here Nor There]

Probably these people who got accepted with low GREs got their undergrad degrees from top universities as well. 

[PHILSTUDENT22]

Probably these people who got accepted with low GREs got their undergrad degrees from top universities as well. 

yup

[PhD applicant]

Man and here I was thinking maybe my low Quant score had something to do with my lack of acceptances.

Well damn guys this is the most depressing thread yet. 

Think how depressed I am, since I actually studied for it, like an idiot.

Look at your dream school's acceptances who posted their GRE scores. That's what really made me feel stupid.

I was already good at math and writing, and my vocabulary was already above average. Before studying I probably would have been above cutoff. After studying I got 167-169, which isn't necessary. So all I really did studying for the GRE and stressing about it was waste my time and energy. I was initially thinking I would retake it if I got shutout, but I have decided that is most certainly not going to happen. I couldn't care less about the GRE anymore. I think it's a stupid test that is just meant to filter out total morons who should have known better than to apply to grad school in the first place.

[dgswaim]

Think how depressed I am, since I actually studied for it, like an idiot.

Look at your dream school's acceptances who posted their GRE scores. That's what really made me feel stupid.

I was already good at math and writing, and my vocabulary was already above average. Before studying I probably would have been above cutoff. After studying I got 167-169, which isn't necessary. So all I really did studying for the GRE and stressing about it was waste my time and energy. I was initially thinking I would retake it if I got shutout, but I have decided that is most certainly not going to happen. I couldn't care less about the GRE anymore. I think it's a stupid test that is just meant to filter out total morons who should have known better than to apply to grad school in the first place.

Those are great scores. Kick the shit out of my scores, for sure. I've had some limited success... though I feel I've done pretty well, considering my background. I scored a 162 verbal, 151 quant, 5.5 AW. I'm sure that if I wind up taking an MA I'll probably spend some time working on my algebra and geometry skills and retaking the test, as torturous an experience as I find it to be.