Is GRE for screening out the applicants?

[greenlover45]

What exactly is GRE for? Will people's applications be thrown out early if their GRE scores don't meet the cut offs? Is that really true? 

[peachypie]

The GRE is away to standardize applicants since it is a standardized test.  It allows another facet of the applicant since purely looking at GPA would be subjective to the course load and university that each applicant attended.  It is another way of getting a view of how an applicant compares to others, just as GPA, letters of recommendation, statement of purpose and interviews do as well.

[Gvh]

What exactly is GRE for? Will people's applications be thrown out early if their GRE scores don't meet the cut offs? Is that really true? 

 

In most competitive programs, yes. It's a way of initially thinning the applicant pile.

[greenlover45]

That's scary.. 

 

So if you have scores that are above the cutoffs that are set by each program, will your application not be thrown out? If your theory is true? 

[Gvh]

Eh, I mean, I get why it makes sense. If a program gets 600 applications, what's the most "objective" way to weed out weaker applicants quickly? All the issues with GRE testing aside, I understand, from an administrative side, why this is an attractive option. But if your scores are above the cutoff, then yes, your application is more likely to be reviewed in its entirety. But it obviously doesn't guarantee admission.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Gvh

[Crucial BBQ]

What exactly is GRE for? Will people's applications be thrown out early if their GRE scores don't meet the cut offs? Is that really true? 

ETS claims that the GRE offers an indication of preparedness for study at the graduate level.  Some people claim that the GRE is not a good indicator of success in graduate school, and even ETS states that this is true.  If you read through the ETS website, one word pops up numerous times: comprehension. There also are a handful of other words that have a similar meaning that ETS likes to use, a lot, as well.  So, the GRE is then a measure of how well you can comprehend, analyze, and respond to what you read.  

 

As a standardized test the GRE is meant to be the same test to everyone who takes it while giving everyone who takes it the same chance at acing it; the MIT engineering student, the Stanford computer science geek, the rhetoric major from Yale, the art student from The-No-Name-University, and the english major from the small LAC all take the same test.  Issues with the GRE aside, it is really the only way to compare applicants against each other as it is the only part of the application outside of the SOP (and perhaps LORs) that all applicants have an equal, measurable, chance to make the cut [at least hypothetically].

 

The GRE is just an accepted part of the application process (there are some programs that do not require it.  Actually, quite a few). Chances are that everyone on the admissions committee, as well as all of your professors past, present, and future, had to take it.  And like everything in academia, those before you who had to jump through the hoops will expect you to jump through those same hoops, too.  A rite of passage if you will. 

 

I have heard anecdotal accounts of programs that do immediately dismiss all applications that do not meet a certain, specific GPA (usually 3.0), but never yet heard such accounts for "low" GRE scores, although I am sure they are out there.

 

If you are concerned, I would suggest shooting an email to the respective program directors at all programs you may be considering.  Simply state that you are interested in their program and want to know if the program has a minimum GRE requirement.    

[GeoDUDE!]

This post might wander beyond the scope of the question asked, but I still think its relevant. 

 

People who have low GREs are often dismissed on the basis of low GREs. This is 100% true, especially at top tier programs. Many Adcomms process applicants like so:

 

1. Impressive Applicant: Has High GRE, GPA, Lots of experience ect

2. Strong Applicant: Has two of the three: GRE, GPA, Experience 

3. Average Applicant: Above minimum requirements, maybe has some research experience, but nothing too impressive.

4. Admissible Applicant: Meets minimum requirements

5. Inadmissible Application: Does not meet minimum requirements

 

 

A high GRE would be considered between the 325-340 range at top 20 institutions. Professors are encouraged to pick students from the 1 and the 2 range because they are generally very easy to get through the adcom and they are impressive on their own right. Who wouldn't want to pick someone with high GRE barring everything else. What people often don't realize is that there are more 1 and 2s at competitive schools than there are spots: places like MIT and Caltech will have more 1s than open spots. There are ways to get your application to stand out, like having a POI go to bat for you, but the POI wouldn't have to go to bat for you if you were a 1 or a 2, he would just have to call your name to the committee and they would approve it. Most students are admissible when they apply to schools, but really only 1s or 2s have a legitimate shot of getting in. And really, you want to be a 1.

 

As for ETS admitting their is no correlation with graduate success and GRE score, that is also false: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-46.pdf study by ETS clearly shows that the highest polarity  of success in graduate school comes from students in the top 25% of GRE scores. This shouldn't be shocking: students who tend to score high on the GRE also tend to be smart. It is by no means a perfect test, but it does have some predictive qualities. It's like saying don't draft a quarterback in the first round when you can get someone like Tom Brady in the 7th round; Sure, there are outliers, but doing poorly on the GRE (or less than impressive) requires you to make an additional argument. Often this argument is harder to make than a low GPA because you can take the GRE as many times as you want and only send your very best score: GPAs are much harder to correct. 

 

A lot of advice in this forum comes from people who try to rationalize the faults in their application, but I find that to be the wrong attitude. If you are someone who is used to doing excellent things, and then write a GRE score that is not excellent, you should be embarrassed about it.  Just like GPA. Or a research paper which was written poorly. 

 

Its surely possible to get bad stats past an adcomm, but again, you have to make an argument that people who have good stats do not have to make. 

 

and FWIW, you can find my stats on this website: I have a very low undergraduate GPA.

Edited September 3, 2014 by GeoDUDE!

[Catria]

When general GRE scores aren't used for screening out applicants, GRE scores are also sometimes used to award fellowships that do not discriminate by department (e.g. Centennials at Princeton).

[whitsand]

Although I can understand programs using GRE scores to simply weed applicants out it still is nonetheless depressing form my perspective. I am considering returning to graduate school for another Masters in Speech-Language Pathology. Obviously I had to retake the GRE again since my scores apparently "expired" to get my application ready. I studied for a month or so (certainly more than I did in my 20s for first round of graduate school) only to do worse in quantitative (143) and better in verbal (159)and analytical (4.5). I new Q would be difficult for me but figured since I prepared a lot more this time I would be fine as I was in the 30 percentile last time for grad program. Anyways decided to give it another try and focus just on Q  a few weeks ago only to bump my Q to 145. I'm not sure about retaking it again- money, time and perhaps some personal distaste for ETS. The school I'm thinking of applying to states several times they will not consider any applicants who are not in 30 percentile for each subtest. I'm not sure how this is actually determined as percentiles change and if AdComm typically look at ETC percentiles or break it down into the percentiles for applicants in  a certain field which would seem more accurate. Interestingly I've noticed they are flexible regarding a low GPA if applicant already has a Master's with high GPA. Go figure.  I find it strange because I have been working in a similar field for 12 years and already have a Master's degree. What's even funnier is I had the scores they are asking for when I originally too the GRE but those "expired".  I've also been taking prerequisites specifically for this career change and have been performing excellent in the courses related to the actual program. I cannot understand how a university would consider the GRE a better indicator of graduate success than prior completion of an actual Master's  program. It just doesn't make sense to me and somewhat disenchanting. Do AdComm not value professional experience in the field, GPA, prior graduate degree not demonstrate a candidate's ability to perform at a graduate level?  

[GeoDUDE!]

Although I can understand programs using GRE scores to simply weed applicants out it still is nonetheless depressing form my perspective. I am considering returning to graduate school for another Masters in Speech-Language Pathology. Obviously I had to retake the GRE again since my scores apparently "expired" to get my application ready. I studied for a month or so (certainly more than I did in my 20s for first round of graduate school) only to do worse in quantitative (143) and better in verbal (159)and analytical (4.5). I new Q would be difficult for me but figured since I prepared a lot more this time I would be fine as I was in the 30 percentile last time for grad program. Anyways decided to give it another try and focus just on Q  a few weeks ago only to bump my Q to 145. I'm not sure about retaking it again- money, time and perhaps some personal distaste for ETS. The school I'm thinking of applying to states several times they will not consider any applicants who are not in 30 percentile for each subtest. I'm not sure how this is actually determined as percentiles change and if AdComm typically look at ETC percentiles or break it down into the percentiles for applicants in  a certain field which would seem more accurate. Interestingly I've noticed they are flexible regarding a low GPA if applicant already has a Master's with high GPA. Go figure.  I find it strange because I have been working in a similar field for 12 years and already have a Master's degree. What's even funnier is I had the scores they are asking for when I originally too the GRE but those "expired".  I've also been taking prerequisites specifically for this career change and have been performing excellent in the courses related to the actual program. I cannot understand how a university would consider the GRE a better indicator of graduate success than prior completion of an actual Master's  program. It just doesn't make sense to me and somewhat disenchanting. Do AdComm not value professional experience in the field, GPA, prior graduate degree not demonstrate a candidate's ability to perform at a graduate level?  

 

 

They do value these things, but they also value competency. In many ways that's what the GRE is. 

[spellbanisher]

 As someone already mentioned, for university fellowships (as opposed to the funding you get from your department), GRE scores are the only way students from different departments can be compared. That's an important consideration, because if a student can get a university fellowship, it frees up funding for the department.

 

This would be particular to history, but I think the basic idea applies more broadly.

 

http://www.historiann.com/2012/11/03/great-scores-or-egregious-scores-who-gives-a-crap-hint-we-do-sorta/

 

 

 

 

 Once upon a time, I too thought they were silly formalities and was confident that my college GPA, my senior thesis, and my enthusiasm for the field were the only things a reasonable admissions committee could want.  I expressed this opinion even to my graduate advisor at one point, and he said (and now I’m paraphrasing here):  “are you nuts?  We use GRE scores as a cutoff.  We don’t even open the applications from people who don’t make the score.”

 

...

In my department, we glance at the scores to ensure they’re not alarmingly low, and we use them as a rough baseline against which to compare the GPA.  I would say that at this point in my department’s history, people with a verbal GRE score below 550 would be viewed skeptically, and people with GREs below 500 almost categorically excluded from serious consideration.  (Silver lining:  most history departments will only care about your verbal score, although you should still look like you tried on the math and logic components of the exam. 

...

I think your college and M.A. GPAs, your admissions essay, and your writing sample would be much more important to me, were I reading your application.  But the point remains that if your GRE scores are below a given department’s drop-dead GRE floor, then your application won’t get read or considered fully at all.

Edited September 10, 2014 by spellbanisher