2015 Applicants Assemble!

[reixis]

I took the GRE last week and got very bad scores (155V, 152Q, waiting for AW). I think I did better on the AW, but I don't know. I'm applying with these scores since I don't have money to take the test again.

 

Anyway, I asked one of my letter writers and he said that I'm an URM (Brazilian). Do you guys think it is a good idea to mark this information when applying? I've been reading about it online and it seems to be much more a matter of whether you consider yourself an URM then really being a member of a specific group.

Edited August 22, 2014 by reixis

[MorganFreemanlives]

I took the GRE last week and got very bad scores (155V, 152Q, waiting for AW). I think I did better on the AW, but I don't know. I'm applying with these scores since I don't have money to take the test again.

 

Anyway, I asked one of my letter writers and he said that I'm an URM (Brazilian). Do you guys think it is a good idea to mark this information when applying? I've been reading about it online and it seems to be much more a matter of whether you consider yourself an URM then really being a member of a specific group.

this isnt even a question. you are definitely  minority even if you arent lol.

 

i get all my opinions on affirmative action from Thomas Sowell and im still putting that im a minority. (its not a lie either). if the academic market values the fact i was born in a piece of land i dont associate myself with and so was my family, thats their problem. the field is far too competitive to not use anything which isnt inmoral or illegal to your advantage in applications.

 

now far more questionable is applying to  place like penn state claiming you love critical race theory when in reality all you want to is "white man metaphysics" but thats not the case here.  for what its worth, yes brazilian would certaintly fit URM category.

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

 it incorperates a lot of cutting edge empirical data with traditional analytic philosophy,

 

This makes me a little suspicious already.

 

I took the GRE last week and got very bad scores (155V, 152Q, waiting for AW). 

 

This is well below the cutoffs for the top programs, I think. Though someone who knows how the admissions process works would be more helpful.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Chiki

[jjb919]

This is well below the cutoffs for the top programs, I think. Though someone who knows how the admissions process works would be more helpful.

 

For what it's worth, Chicago, ranked 20th in the country by Leiter, states on its website that the average GRE scores for its philosophy grad students are 167V/169Q

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

For what it's worth, Chicago, ranked 20th in the country by Leiter, states on its website that the average GRE scores for its philosophy grad students are 167V/169Q

 

Holy crap.

 

You guys might wanna read this: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/03/are-some-schools-using-undisclosed-gre-cut-offs-in-admissions-decisions.html

[overoverover]

I highly doubt there is an actual GRE cutoff—they're a formality in the eyes of many. One director of grad admissions at a top program told me as much in a meeting. Yes, it's better to have a high GRE than a low one, but if the rest of the dossier is solid, it isn't something to worry about. 

[MorganFreemanlives]

I took the GRE last week and got very bad scores (155V, 152Q, waiting for AW). I think I did better on the AW, but I don't know. I'm applying with these scores since I don't have money to take the test again.

 

Anyway, I asked one of my letter writers and he said that I'm an URM (Brazilian). Do you guys think it is a good idea to mark this information when applying? I've been reading about it online and it seems to be much more a matter of whether you consider yourself an URM then really being a member of a specific group

 

so much for philosophy being the major with top gre scores. now its used agaisnt us  as something to expect and anything less is a liability. i wonder how much of it is undergrads having to artificially uphold that castle in the clouds.

 

its true that there is a correlation between higher gre scores and majoring in philosophy but its not like taking 2 philosophy classes your sophomore year and 10 or so in junior year raised your IQ score by 20 points or anything. its just the fact philosophy attracts a disproportionate amount of intellectual self reflecting eccentrics and the perpetually curious (also common in the more difficult technical fields like physics, computer science and math, or at the creative almost encyclopedia end in history and literature), and many but not all of these are good at standardized tests.

 

dont lose faith reixis. hopefully, more astute admissions people will see our worth despite our lack of gre brilliance , deem us exotic enough, and coursework wise too big to fail

 

even if things turn for the worse, we can still take solace in not being dfinleys

[perpetuavix]

For what it's worth, Chicago, ranked 20th in the country by Leiter, states on its website that the average GRE scores for its philosophy grad students are 167V/169Q

Philosophy students have the highest average verbal scores, but don't generally have especially high quant scores (in fact, most programs don't seem to care too much about quant scores, as long as it's not awful). I think you used the wrong table to convert the quant score from the old to new. The average old quant score at UChicago was 740, which is equivalent to a 158 on the new test. The quant table is the second one in this document: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/concordance_information.pdf

The actual text from the UChicago website has a nice reminder about what averages really mean:

"For what it's worth, the average grade average in philosophy for our recent admitted students has been about 3.9 (out of 4). The average verbal score on the GRE was around 710, the quantitative was 740 and the analytic writing was just under 5.5. The qualification "for what it's worth" is important: quite a few applicants who were not admitted had significantly better numbers than these (especially GREs). And, at the same time, since these are averages, roughly half of our admittees were at or below them. The reason, needless to say, is that other factors—especially, the writing sample—are making a big difference."  (taken from http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/prospective/admissions.html)

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

I took the GRE last week and got very bad scores (155V, 152Q, waiting for AW). I think I did better on the AW, but I don't know. I'm applying with these scores since I don't have money to take the test again.

 

Anyway, I asked one of my letter writers and he said that I'm an URM (Brazilian). Do you guys think it is a good idea to mark this information when applying? I've been reading about it online and it seems to be much more a matter of whether you consider yourself an URM then really being a member of a specific group.

You aren't alone- I just retook my GRE- I got a 159 Verbal, 148 Quant, and AW not yet received. Looks like we both have the same cumulative score of 307. All my practice scores (nonetheless from Magoosh too) were much higher and yet my GRE results were lower. I can't afford a retake and it is what it is. I know this will be a deterrent at some schools, but I'm hoping that my application will still be considered at some, given the fact that my overall resume is quite strong (3.98 GPA, strong letters of rec and what I believe to be a strong writing sample). Just wanted to offer my company and any input from current students would be appreciated as to whether a score such as this would still be considered at some schools given an otherwise strong application.

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

so much for philosophy being the major with top gre scores. 

 

One person's scores don't change that.

 

I like what someone in the comments in the link I provided said:

 

The GRE certainly has its flaws. But consider its virtues. It tests reading comprehension, the relations between concepts, the subtleties of language, and your powers of deductive reasoning (what one commentator calls “finding clever tricks to solve geometry problems”). Unlike course grades, the GRE is standardized. And it’s refreshingly impartial. Your undergraduate professors may be invested in your success, but the GRE isn’t. It doesn’t care where you’re from or who you know. You can’t cajole or complain your way to a higher score. It won’t show you any favoritism, and it will assess you by the same criteria it assesses everyone else. As I said earlier, it’s an application’s least corruptible part.

Should it be given more weight than letters, grades, etc.? Of course not. But I don’t see why it should be regarded as trivial or as a mere tie-breaker.

Edited August 23, 2014 by Chiki

[jjb919]

Philosophy students have the highest average verbal scores, but don't generally have especially high quant scores (in fact, most programs don't seem to care too much about quant scores, as long as it's not awful). I think you used the wrong table to convert the quant score from the old to new. The average old quant score at UChicago was 740, which is equivalent to a 158 on the new test. The quant table is the second one in this document: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/concordance_information.pdf

Haha, that's a relief, good thing I was wrong about that one!

[reixis]

 

You aren't alone- I just retook my GRE- I got a 159 Verbal, 148 Quant, and AW not yet received. Looks like we both have the same cumulative score of 307. All my practice scores (nonetheless from Magoosh too) were much higher and yet my GRE results were lower. I can't afford a retake and it is what it is. I know this will be a deterrent at some schools, but I'm hoping that my application will still be considered at some, given the fact that my overall resume is quite strong (3.98 GPA, strong letters of rec and what I believe to be a strong writing sample). Just wanted to offer my company and any input from current students would be appreciated as to whether a score such as this would still be considered at some schools given an otherwise strong application.

 

Thanks! I don't know my AW either, but I think I did well (I couldn't revise my first essay though). Anyway, I think the importance of the GRE is pretty controversial. As the comments on the link above show, admission folks have very different perspectives on how to evaluate scores, sometimes even contradictory ones. If this is of any comfort, it seems that all files are generally revised by at least two or three different people, so I wouldn't give up just because my GRE scores are low. You never know who is gonna read your files!

Edited August 23, 2014 by reixis

[philstudent1991]

I took the GRE last week and got very bad scores (155V, 152Q, waiting for AW). I think I did better on the AW, but I don't know. I'm applying with these scores since I don't have money to take the test again.

 

Anyway, I asked one of my letter writers and he said that I'm an URM (Brazilian). Do you guys think it is a good idea to mark this information when applying? I've been reading about it online and it seems to be much more a matter of whether you consider yourself an URM then really being a member of a specific group.

idk your life, and there is a lot more to an application than GRE and school prestige, but believe me, you are setting yourself up for heartbreak if you are only applying to pretty much top ten schools. Even UConn is super, super competitive. Consider an MA: Tufts, Georgia State, Brandeis, NIU, Wisconsin Milwaukee, and a few others all have great programs with great placement into ranked PhD programs.

[Kantianisms]

Just took the GRE. I received a 166 verbal and 153 quant. I'm still waiting on the writing portion, but I don't feel that I did much better than my previous 4.0; 5.0 at best. Assuming that the rest of my application would be good enough to get me into the final round of cuts but not good enough to clearly be the best, do you think that it's worth applying to top programs with such a score?

[dgswaim]

Just took the GRE. I received a 166 verbal and 153 quant. I'm still waiting on the writing portion, but I don't feel that I did much better than my previous 4.0; 5.0 at best. Assuming that the rest of my application would be good enough to get me into the final round of cuts but not good enough to clearly be the best, do you think that it's worth applying to top programs with such a score?

Absolutely. Lots of people get into great programs with scores like yours.

[jjb919]

Just took the GRE. I received a 166 verbal and 153 quant. I'm still waiting on the writing portion, but I don't feel that I did much better than my previous 4.0; 5.0 at best. Assuming that the rest of my application would be good enough to get me into the final round of cuts but not good enough to clearly be the best, do you think that it's worth applying to top programs with such a score?

I agree with dgswaim. From the anecdotal evidence and claims from professors on adcoms, the general message is that top programs don't use GRE cutoffs; a poor score may make them look a bit harder at your other application materials to try to come to terms with the discrepancy, but they won't drop your application altogether just because of the scores. I just took the GRE last weekend and got a 165V and 155Q. I would have liked to do a bit better on the quantitative section, but I think I did well enough that I won't be taking it again.

[MorganFreemanlives]

I agree with dgswaim. From the anecdotal evidence and claims from professors on adcoms, the general message is that top programs don't use GRE cutoffs; a poor score may make them look a bit harder at your other application materials to try to come to terms with the discrepancy, but they won't drop your application altogether just because of the scores. I just took the GRE last weekend and got a 165V and 155Q. I would have liked to do a bit better on the quantitative section, but I think I did well enough that I won't be taking it again.

this is interesting and i have heard this quite often. its not that i dont believe the claim but what follows from it is a bit puzzling. presumably

 

1. gre cutoffs exists

2. top departments dont use them

 

therefore, non top departments do presumably use gre cutoffs, top being a bit undefined here

 

why is that though? do mid tier or top 40-50 schools feel pressured by admins to show more concrete promise in quantifiable term? do they feel lees capable of sniffing out the stars by writing sample alone? or do they simply accept the fact a lot of people they would like by other factors will get poached by the top schools, presumably because most also applied to a higher ranked places?

 

in some of the grad program sites, when they do post average gre scores, they seem pretty high and only schools like MIT and princenton are considerably higher, so outside the very top, schools from 10 or 15 to 50 seem to have comparable gre scores.

 

of the 3 possibilities i mentioned above, i think the last is the most reasonable but here is the rub. if top schools get almost all the saying in their preferred spots without caring too much about gre, woudnt the gre scores NOT be substantially higher than the gap i mentioned in the last paragraph?

 

i have no idea

[jjb919]

this is interesting and i have heard this quite often. its not that i dont believe the claim but what follows from it is a bit puzzling. presumably

 

1. gre cutoffs exists

2. top departments dont use them

 

therefore, non top departments do presumably use gre cutoffs, top being a bit undefined here

Maybe. Or maybe premise (1) is a myth. GRE scores are nice, quantitative packets that assist in ordering applicants along a spectrum of (highly contestable) reasoning skills prized by philosophy departments. What better use for such a metric than to use it to narrow down a dauntingly large applicant pool so adcoms can focus on the really promising ones. It's easy to see how nervous applicants can fall into this mindset when perhaps the real value of GRE scores to adcoms (and I'm not claiming I know what this is) is something entirely different.

 

That being said, it is possible to think that (1) is true and (2) is false. The shitstorm caused by swaths of bitter applicants who were victims of a GRE cutoff would be enough to deter top departments from admitting they have a cutoff. It seems any anecdotal or apocryphal evidence I have heard for GRE cutoffs have been stories of professors from one department claiming that a different department uses them. Why would any department willingly admit that it uses cutoffs? It doesn't seem like there is much benefit to admitting it, if they do. 

 

Personally, I lean toward the first possibility. Having worked in graduate admissions (albeit not at a top department!), I can say that our department did not use cutoffs. At most they were used as a means of gauging consistency among an application (a very strong application but weak GRE scores could mean that a promising student doesn't test well, or it could mean that a promising student's application was doctored to some degree. Something worth looking into closer).

 

I think to some extent we applicants want to believe that there is a GRE cutoff; it makes it easier to pinpoint the weakness in one's application: "I was rejected because my GRE scores weren't high enough for the adcom to take a close look at my application. If I can just get those scores up, I'll be sure to get a fair shake." It adds a much-desired element of certainty in a frustratingly uncertain process (if my scores pass the cutoff I still may not get in, but if they do not make the cutoff then I am certain to not get in). But I simply haven't seen strong enough evidence to think that cutoffs are actually used at any department let alone top ones, and I think there is more than enough evidence for the failings of the GRE (as HegelHatingHegelian aptly points out) to make it unwise for adcoms to use cutoffs. Too many good applicants would fall through the cracks, and I think adcoms know this.  

[MorganFreemanlives]

Maybe. Or maybe premise (1) is a myth. GRE scores are nice, quantitative packets that assist in ordering applicants along a spectrum of (highly contestable) reasoning skills prized by philosophy departments. What better use for such a metric than to use it to narrow down a dauntingly large applicant pool so adcoms can focus on the really promising ones. It's easy to see how nervous applicants can fall into this mindset when perhaps the real value of GRE scores to adcoms (and I'm not claiming I know what this is) is something entirely different.

 

That being said, it is possible to think that (1) is true and (2) is false. The shitstorm caused by swaths of bitter applicants who were victims of a GRE cutoff would be enough to deter top departments from admitting they have a cutoff. It seems any anecdotal or apocryphal evidence I have heard for GRE cutoffs have been stories of professors from one department claiming that a different department uses them. Why would any department willingly admit that it uses cutoffs? It doesn't seem like there is much benefit to admitting it, if they do. 

 

Personally, I lean toward the first possibility. Having worked in graduate admissions (albeit not at a top department!), I can say that our department did not use cutoffs. At most they were used as a means of gauging consistency among an application (a very strong application but weak GRE scores could mean that a promising student doesn't test well, or it could mean that a promising student's application was doctored to some degree. Something worth looking into closer).

 

I think to some extent we applicants want to believe that there is a GRE cutoff; it makes it easier to pinpoint the weakness in one's application: "I was rejected because my GRE scores weren't high enough for the adcom to take a close look at my application. If I can just get those scores up, I'll be sure to get a fair shake." It adds a much-desired element of certainty in a frustratingly uncertain process (if my scores pass the cutoff I still may not get in, but if they do not make the cutoff then I am certain to not get in). But I simply haven't seen strong enough evidence to think that cutoffs are actually used at any department let alone top ones, and I think there is more than enough evidence for the failings of the GRE (as HegelHatingHegelian aptly points out) to make it unwise for adcoms to use cutoffs. Too many good applicants would fall through the cracks, and I think adcoms know this.  

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/03/are-some-schools-using-undisclosed-gre-cut-offs-in-admissions-decisions.html

 

my gut reaction to the whole situation was actually identical to yours, but this link is truly disheartening. its only 3 years old, so its like it was a decade ago.

Edited August 28, 2014 by HegelHatingHegelian

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

is it just me or is the GRE weighed much more heavily for grad school admissions than the sat/act was for college admissions?

[perpetuavix]

Based on the survey data, only 3 people reported GRE verbal scores below the 80th percentile, and all of their 32 applications were rejected. Out of the 9 applicants who reported verbal scores between the 80th and 89th, 6 were shut out. Out of the 80 applications submitted by this group, only 8 resulted in an offer of admissions or a waitlist. 

Compare to those who scored above the 95th percentile: out of 528 applications across 53 applicants, there were 190 offers (and 10 applicants were shut out). 

[jjb919]

Based on the survey data, only 3 people reported GRE verbal scores below the 80th percentile, and all of their 32 applications were rejected. Out of the 9 applicants who reported verbal scores between the 80th and 89th, 6 were shut out. Out of the 80 applications submitted by this group, only 8 resulted in an offer of admissions or a waitlist. 

Compare to those who scored above the 95th percentile: out of 528 applications across 53 applicants, there were 190 offers (and 10 applicants were shut out). 

This is pretty compelling evidence, but it is also somewhat circumstantial. There is definitely a correlation between GRE scores in the 95th percentile and offers of admission, but this does not mean that an applicant's GRE scores (if below that threshold) are the reason for rejection, or, what a cutoff really implies, that his or her application was not reviewed at all.

[jjb919]

Hello everyone!

 

Undergrad: Big state school, with some name recognition. 3.3 if I remember correctly.

 

Grad: MA from a continental heavy school. 3.8 GPA (my professors believed in grades for graduate students...)

 

Interests are: contemporary continental philosophy, hegel, spinoza, phenomenology, and political philosophy.

 

GRE is 163V/145Q/4.5AW (I studied for it in two weeks and didn't privilege the quant, hence I'll be retaking it)

 

I applied last year, got two waitlists, almost got into one and then got shut out. I used a non-traditional writing sample last year, so this year I'm trying with a sample that's a little more traditional.

what was the topic of your non-traditional writing sample? Do you think it was a big factor in your being shut out?

[perpetuavix]

This is pretty compelling evidence, but it is also somewhat circumstantial. There is definitely a correlation between GRE scores in the 95th percentile and offers of admission, but this does not mean that an applicant's GRE scores (if below that threshold) are the reason for rejection, or, what a cutoff really implies, that his or her application was not reviewed at all.

I think it's likely that higher GRE scores tend to track with other criteria that adcomms care about, which was essentially the message I got from the discussion on Leiter. I also think schools are being honest when they say they don't use cutoffs, but if you have a low GRE score and it's within your ability to improve it, it seems like it would be worthwhile. 

[jjb919]

I think it's likely that higher GRE scores tend to track with other criteria that adcomms care about, which was essentially the message I got from the discussion on Leiter. I also think schools are being honest when they say they don't use cutoffs, but if you have a low GRE score and it's within your ability to improve it, it seems like it would be worthwhile. 

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this.