English Lit GRE Subject Test boycotters, anyone? (also, fee waivers?)

[1Q84]

Yes, very lucky indeed. I'm a Canadian citizen and it's been a long time since I applied to a Canadian school but I don't recall there being fee waivers there (at least not at my alma mater, U of T). This lack of waiver is probably offset by how dirt-cheap Canadian education is in comparison to American.

Edited November 19, 2014 by 1Q84

[jhefflol]

That's really awesome, but I'm not sure what "GRE profile thingy" you speak of.  I haven't seen any such emails, at least not that I know of.  Perhaps there's some way to do it through the ETS account?

 

When I signed up to take the GRE, I was asked if I wanted to create some kind of profile so that schools can see how I did for recruitment purposes. Does that sound familiar? I'm not sure how to access it or anything, but I'm being contacted by schools so obviously someone can see it.

[__________________________]

When I signed up to take the GRE, I was asked if I wanted to create some kind of profile so that schools can see how I did for recruitment purposes. Does that sound familiar? I'm not sure how to access it or anything, but I'm being contacted by schools so obviously someone can see it.

 

Ah, I see.  It does sound sort of familiar.  It also sounds like the sort of thing I would have automatically declined to cut down on spam, unfortunately.

[angel_kaye13]

I agree that the subject test is stupid, pointless, and [insert synonym here]. However, at the risk of sounding like a defender of ETS (I assure you I'm not!), the problem is more with programs that still require the subject test. There are no doubt some good reasons for this. I suspect that most of the places that require the subject test are routinely inundated with applications, and the subject test just adds one more layer of "weeding" to the process. In other words, if 400 people wanted to apply to a certain tippy-top-tier institution, having a subject test requirement might dissuade 100 or so of those people (i.e., those who might apply on a whim...like "hey, maybe I can get into Harvard, hyuk hyuk"). There has been a steady decline in recent years of programs requiring the test, but as it stands, if some of your best "fit" programs have the lit test as a requirement, you can't really boycott ETS without effectively boycotting yourself, unfortunately.

I totally concur! I do not like ETS, I think they do a horrid job (because, hey! why do what you're paid to do well, when there's no competition???)! I'll take this one step further and say that I despise the general test about as much as the subject test. That being said, I also realize it's the nature of the beast: universities need a "weeding" process, so to speak, and - in theory - a business that offers to standardly test all potential applicants, thus negating the need for each individual university to set up such procedures (probably more costly for us in the long-run), is a great idea.

All this is to say, I don't so much have a problem with a test, or even a subject-specific test. What I have a problem with is ETS, and not having options outside of them. I would be pleased with options outside of ETS, that might make them stop jerking around and wasting our time and money.

Edited January 6, 2015 by angel_kaye13

[echo449]

So, to kind of switch the discussion towards a more positive-bent, what do we think should replace the Lit exam, if we allow that it's purpose is to test for background in incoming applicants. By this I mean, taking the purpose of the exam at face value (and not assuming just another arbitrary way of weeding out applicants), what can replace it? Should departments create a standardized breadth requirement for undergraduate coursework (i.e. to go to Harvard, you must have had X, Y, Z period courses) that split the difference between a Bloomian canon and the more diverse topics that reflect the current state of the discipline? 

[ToldAgain]

echo449, I think that is precisely the sort of criteria the subject test should be replaced with. The rigidity of the subject test does not account for the vast differences in scope and focus of English graduate programs. Basically, fit counts. If you are going into a theory-intensive program to study Lacan, how does the subject test help you prove you are prepared for that kind of study? It doesn't, but the two theory classes you took as an undergraduate, along with that seminar in psychoanalysis, does.

 

The same goes for any other subfield of English, even those traditionally focused on in the subject test. What indicates your preparedness for graduate school better: Taking a course in Renaissance literature from a respected scholar in the field culminating in a 20-page research paper, or recognizing that a certain passage was, indeed, pulled from the Faerie Queene? I think most schools realize this, which is why the subject test is falling out of favor. It just doesn't really predict success.

 

It is fun to study for, though

[InHacSpeVivo]

After boycotting the subject test last app cycle, I was all set to take it. Being an Americanist, I even went out and bought the Norton Anthologies of Brit Lit. However, I soon realized only two schools that were strong fits for my interests, the University of South Carolina and the University of Southern California, required the subject test. Given the cost of living in SoCal, I had to cut that school anyway, so I decided one program, as great as it is, wasn't worth the substansial time/money investment for just one school.

 

On a related note, does anyone get the sense that there's a giant conspiracy re: GRE score reports? Most schools where I applied only require unofficial transcripts until you're admited, but everyone requires the official GRE. It seems like if unofficial transcripts are okay until after admitted, then why can't the same go for the GRE? At $27 a pop, it look me more than two hours of work just to send one score report! Yeah, ETS is evil.

[__________________________]

After boycotting the subject test last app cycle, I was all set to take it. Being an Americanist, I even went out and bought the Norton Anthologies of Brit Lit. However, I soon realized only two schools that were strong fits for my interests, the University of South Carolina and the University of Southern California, required the subject test. Given the cost of living in SoCal, I had to cut that school anyway, so I decided one program, as great as it is, wasn't worth the substansial time/money investment for just one school.

 

On a related note, does anyone get the sense that there's a giant conspiracy re: GRE score reports? Most schools where I applied only require unofficial transcripts until you're admited, but everyone requires the official GRE. It seems like if unofficial transcripts are okay until after admitted, then why can't the same go for the GRE? At $27 a pop, it look me more than two hours of work just to send one score report! Yeah, ETS is evil.

 

Word.  While I recognize some standards are needed, there's no escaping this: it's awfully scammy.  I ended up having to cut schools I was interested in because of the subject test but I don't really regret it.  I was still able to apply to nine schools, any of which I'd be excited to go to.  Granted, a few were not English programs. 

 

Honestly, I don't think it's as big a deal as I thought it would be when I initially decided to just ignore it.  I couldn't spare the money at the time (Fall was very tight for me).  There's a couple schools that it would have been nice to be able to apply to, but on the whole I'm happy with my list, which I think was long enough.

 

Also, yeah LA can be super expensive if you live in the city-city (rather than the SF Valley or something).  USC is a gross campus too. 

 

Re: replacing the GRE Lit exam... I don't see any point in having a Lit exam.  The WS and SOP seems enough to me.  No other Language area (French, Chinese, Spanish, what have you) or Comp Lit seems to need one -- what makes English so special?  One thing I kind of wish I had done was build up the gusto to ask departments if they cared if I took it.  Boston College told me they wouldn't require it for me because I want to do medieval studies and the GRE Lit test is completely useless for evaluating knowledge of that field.

[unræd]

Boston College told me they wouldn't require it for me because I want to do medieval studies and the GRE Lit test is completely useless for evaluating knowledge of that field.

 

Really? That's so cool--good on them!

[Dr. Old Bill]

As we edge closer and closer to rampant-acceptance-and-rejection time, I can't help but start to dwell on the weakest part of my applications...which is, without question, my GRE subject score. I still believe that an otherwise great application won't be brought down by an average subject test score, but I really can't help but worry about it regardless. Figures, of course, are easy ways to make quick judgments. In most cases, adcomms won't want to make quick judgments, but in a competitive field, a swift and easy way to make a cull is indeed with things like GRE scores or GPA. I have nothing to worry about with my GPA, but if my application is buried because of the mediocre number on that subject test...well, no Ivy for me.

[snyegurachka]

There was just no way I could take it...not only is it nearly $200, but it is offered nowhere in my city. I would have to rent a zipcar, drive to suburbs more than an hour away, and then pay for the car the whole time I would be taking the test. Oh, and I would have had to miss work to take it. 

 

One of the reasons I applied for Comp Lit programs over English was because most do not require the Lit subject test. I think it is all a conspiracy to weed out those who can afford/have the time to take subject tests. From what I could tell from practice versions, there is a HUGE British/American bias in terms of what are considered seminal literary texts. I also realized that most of what I knew came from Peanuts cartoons and Jeopardy. 

[HesseBunuel90]

I got below a mediocre subject test score, and I still applied to 6 schools that required it. (Luckily, 11 schools which I applied to did not need it, and this includes the one ivy I did apply to, Brown). I have heard of people getting into top programs with subject scores as low as the 18th percentile. It is far from the most important part of an application. Analytical ability and original ideas for research are far more important.

Edited January 18, 2015 by HesseBunuel90

[__________________________]

Really? That's so cool--good on them!

Sure did!  I was surprised and pleased.  First time I was thankful for their website being poorly organized and self-contradictory.

 

 

There was just no way I could take it...not only is it nearly $200, but it is offered nowhere in my city. I would have to rent a zipcar, drive to suburbs more than an hour away, and then pay for the car the whole time I would be taking the test. Oh, and I would have had to miss work to take it. 

 

One of the reasons I applied for Comp Lit programs over English was because most do not require the Lit subject test. I think it is all a conspiracy to weed out those who can afford/have the time to take subject tests. From what I could tell from practice versions, there is a HUGE British/American bias in terms of what are considered seminal literary texts. I also realized that most of what I knew came from Peanuts cartoons and Jeopardy. 

 

Yes.  Totally.  This is my biggest issue with this whole process.  Why is it that the most wealthy and prestigious schools have the highest application fees?  Especially since those same schools absolutely require the Subject Test... which is, as you note, less well-distributed.  Fuck that.  I cannot think of any good reason for the graduate school application process to be so expensive for any logical reason except to weed out people who can't afford to do it.  Which I don't want to think is intentional, but it does make one pause...  I dunno, it's complete bullshit if you ask me.  Sure there are fee waivers available here and there, but they sure know how to make those difficult to access.  Sometimes anyway.  U of Chicago was very easy for me to get a waiver for.

 

Also, ROFL @ "I also realized that most of what I knew came from Peanuts cartoons and Jeopardy."  I feel like that's exactly how I would feel taking it...

 

As we edge closer and closer to rampant-acceptance-and-rejection time, I can't help but start to dwell on the weakest part of my applications...which is, without question, my GRE subject score. I still believe that an otherwise great application won't be brought down by an average subject test score, but I really can't help but worry about it regardless. Figures, of course, are easy ways to make quick judgments. In most cases, adcomms won't want to make quick judgments, but in a competitive field, a swift and easy way to make a cull is indeed with things like GRE scores or GPA. I have nothing to worry about with my GPA, but if my application is buried because of the mediocre number on that subject test...well, no Ivy for me.

 

Yo, Wyatt, from what I can tell you are a highly eligible candidate.  If some snotty place like Harvard rejects you because of a subject test score, fuck them!  Also, you applied to like 17 amazing schools!  My GRE's and GPA aren't amazing; I'm just betting on my sparkling personality .  And also pre-formulating disses for all the super white collar fancy schools that are too pretentious to handle me.   

[Dr. Old Bill]

 

Yo, Wyatt, from what I can tell you are a highly eligible candidate.

 

Thanks! What worries me a little bit is that I think I'm a fairly eligible candidate too. The problem is that so are dozens, scores, or hundreds of others (in a subjective process it's hard to know which of those numerical categories best applies...).

[snyegurachka]

Yes.  Totally.  This is my biggest issue with this whole process.  Why is it that the most wealthy and prestigious schools have the highest application fees?  Especially since those same schools absolutely require the Subject Test... which is, as you note, less well-distributed.  Fuck that.  I cannot think of any good reason for the graduate school application process to be so expensive for any logical reason except to weed out people who can't afford to do it.  Which I don't want to think is intentional, but it does make one pause...  I dunno, it's complete bullshit if you ask me.  Sure there are fee waivers available here and there, but they sure know how to make those difficult to access.  Sometimes anyway.  U of Chicago was very easy for me to get a waiver for.

 

One crazy thing is that it was quite easy for me to get waivers at Brown, U of Chicago, and UC Berkeley—also schools that do not require the subject test (I applied to Rhetoric at Berkeley, but I think maybe English does require it). Unfortunately I also had to take some good state schools (like UT-Austin and UCLA) off of my list because of the subject test. It's all such bullshit, especially because it seems to be much more of a "you have it or don't" thing than any measure of cultural aptitude. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

One thing that's worth remembering is that professors generally think the GRE (both general and subject) is ridiculous as well. The GRE is almost completely in place for administrative reasons for many / most disciplines. I find this to be a little comforting, really.

[Katla]

Thanks! What worries me a little bit is that I think I'm a fairly eligible candidate too. The problem is that so are dozens, scores, or hundreds of others (in a subjective process it's hard to know which of those numerical categories best applies...).

 

This is so true and why I hate being told by my friends that of course I'll get in somewhere... I know I probably am just as good as everybody else who's applying, but I also know that excellent candidates get rejected by programmes all the time and it's really difficult to predict any outcome.. We've basically all paid to send out unsolicited proposals to unis that for one reason or other we think would be great but there's no telling what they think or what kind of cohort they want one particular year, it makes me go from confident to depressed in nanoseconds...

Edited January 18, 2015 by Katla