Clinical Psych PhD: GRE Verbal vs Quant

[NeuroBatman]

I just took the GRE and got a 165V(95th %) and a 152Q(48%). I'm wondering if I should retake it due to the low Quant score. I'm planning to apply to clinical psychology PhD programs. I'm a Neuroscience/Psychology double major with a 4.0 GPA, close relationships with professors and significant research experience. I've taken a ton of natural science (biology/chem) courses and have thrived. I don't feel like the GRE accurately reflects my mathematical acumen. I got nearly 100% in stats and solid A's in Gen Chem 1 and 2; however, I was one of those kids who thought that high school was boring and didn't try, so I failed to learn foundational algebra and geometry (I got C's and D's) . . . not to mention the fact that it's been 15 years since I've taken those classes. Will I automatically be tossed out due to that score, or will schools look at my profile holistically? Would it help me to take college algebra in the Spring and then take the GRE immediately afterwards?  I feel like I do well in math when it has a pragmatic application. Any help would be greatly appreciated. That score was a real kick to the gut. My verbal went up five points from the practice tests and my quant went down five points. Ugh . . .

[spunky]

tricky, tricky situation... particularly because when you apply to clinical programs you're competing against a lot of well-qualified candidates. when you say "significant research experience", does that include published articles? that could  potentially compensate for it.

 

and i'm not trying to be mean or anything... but like you didn't even crack the 50th percentile. practicing questions for this one helps a lot. when you say you could take "college algebra" do you mean linear algebra/matrix theory? a good grade there could probably help because you can demonstrate competence at a higher level of mathematics that could make up for that lower score. or maybe you just need to practice more questions, re-take and that would be enough. 

 

but i have to say that my vote would be more on the side of "study/practice and re-take", just to be on the sure side. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by spunky

[NeuroBatman]

I'm not offended.  I am willing to retake the test.  My primary concern is that I won't score as well as I did the first time on verbal.  Do admissions committees look more at the individual scores or your score as a whole?  I mean, I've read that the cutoff used to be around 1200 total and my score is equivalent to 1350.  Clearly I'm not incompetent, or I wouldn't have scored in the 95th percentile verbally . . . but I digress.  Also, I'm not trying to get into Stanford or Yale, I'm aiming more at 2nd or 3rd tier programs.  I saw that the mean score for those admitted to Northwestern U was 155Q a few years back. 

 

I was considering taking college algebra and trig in the spring hoping that it will get my brain working in the right direction so I can boost my quant score.  I have plenty of electives so I thought that it might be useful.  Like I said in my prior post, I was a troubled teenager and didn't learn ANY math in high school.  In fact, I really have no idea how I passed.  I was absent almost as many days as I was present (stupid yes, but I had my reasons).  That being said, when math is used for practical purposes, I do really well.  I excelled in Gen Chem 1 and 2, for example.  So I guess I was hoping that if the math had some practical purpose, as it does in the classroom, I might learn it better. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by justinhayes1982

[spunky]

the thing is (and i think i mentioned this in another thread somewhere) GRE scores are interpreted contingent on the rest of your application. like if sent out an application and you had like, i dunno, say 1 or 2 published articles in high-impact factor, peer-reviewed journals that would probably put you ahead of anyone, regardless of whatever GRE score you'd get. 

 

but when you start looking like "every other candidate" then small differences like this do matter. like, i quickly googled NorthWestern U like you mentioned and in their website they say they receive over 300 applications/year, out of which only around 25 are granted acceptance. that means not even 10% of the people who apply get accepted (and they didn't break down it by program numbers which means it could potentially be even less for clinical). 

 

research experience is probably your strongest suit when it comes to applications to graduate programs. you said you had quite a bit of it. is any of it published?

 

oh, and i would never discourage anyone to study more math. but for your very specific case, maybe you just need to practice all the usual "tricks" related to the quant section of the GRE in order to improve your score? or maybe you can do both if you want so you've both getting a refresher of your math AND practice the little quant strategies that will boost your score

Edited August 22, 2014 by spunky

[citypsych]

I guess today is my "duck into grad cafe and share my opinions" day .

 

OP, my opinion is that (a) there's nothing wrong with your scores as they are, but if you have time and $, there's no harm in retaking. I lean toward (a), because I think it's a logical error that GRE quant percentile is the right metric. It is easier to prep for the quant, so mean scores have been moving up over time. In my opinion the appropriate metric is whether an applicant meets a threshold, not whether s/he meets the threshold AND scores higher than X% other applicants. Of course, some folks in some places won't really think that through.

 

I think your quant score is the equivalent of the old scale 650ish? That meets the bar for most places, yes?

 

Also, if you re-take and somehow your verbal drops, the lovely people at ETS have an option to send all scores to programs. Virtually all faculty will go with the highest in each category and not care about the lower.

Edited August 22, 2014 by citypsych

[NeuroBatman]

Thank you so much!  ^^^^

Edited August 22, 2014 by justinhayes1982

[theman5141]

What might the general consensus be for a clinical applicant who scores, say, a 168v and 155q? I ask because these preliminary scores will likely be the ones I see in my official score report. Much like OP, there's a clear discrepancy in the scoring - a middling quant score coupled with an extraordinary verbal effort.

 

Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the remainder of the application is stellar (3.8+ GPA, extensive research experience), but clearly bereft of some things (i.e. publications, significant work experience in the field). 

 

Roughly speaking, how would I fare against "competitive" applicants in tier 1 programs? 

[when]

In case it helps, I'll paste here what I wrote elsewhere on the board earlier.

 

My personal GRE/grad school experience:

 

I did really well on my verbal and pretty well on my analytical writing, but extremely poorly on quantitative (as in 25th percentile poorly). I got A+s in both my stats courses and my undergrad GPA was 4.0. I held a research scholarship in undergrad and worked in a number of labs. I won several academic awards throughout undergrad, as well as an award for my thesis. I was involved in many extracurricular activities, sat on committees, was very involved with the faculty etc. I had one poster and one conference presentation, but no publications. I'm sure my letters of recommendation were good, though of course I did not see them. I applied to the same school I did undergrad in for clinical psychology and got accepted the very first time I applied, and with external funding. BUT a LOT of it was down to luck and connections. My supervisor knew me well and believed in my potential, plus I had made the "right" connections with other decision makers. Even so, getting in was tough - my supervisor, though he wanted me, was on a waiting list. Also, the only other school I applied to did not even offer me an interview.

 

Again, this was just my experience, but I would also add that I know several other students with very poor quantitative scores, plus faculty members who scoff at the idea that the GRE even predicts performance in grad school (which research shows it does not).

Edited September 14, 2014 by DeltaSkelta

[spunky]

BUT a LOT of it was down to luck and connections. My supervisor knew me well and believed in my potential, plus I had made the "right" connections with other decision makers.

 

honestly, i'd be willing to bet my brownies that no GRE score, research experience, etc. can help you out more  than good connections and knowing the right people in the right places. 

[when]

honestly, i'd be willing to bet my brownies that no GRE score, research experience, etc. can help you out more  than good connections and knowing the right people in the right places. 

 

I definitely agree. I'd say about half the students in my cohort are there because of connections. Not that that takes away from someone's merits; it simply means they're not just capable (which so many applicants are anyway), but they are known on a personal level and liked. And of course researchers know other researchers all around the country, so a little connection can open many doors. That has to be a huge edge.