Low GRE score in verbal

[skarthikselvan]

I took my GRE exam on May 2. I scored 720 in quantitative and 300 in verbal. I have 6 years experience in software engineering. I got 77.1% in my undergraduate degree and 3.58 out of 4.00 in M.S. (Computer Engg.). Currently I am doing M.Tech in Nano technology. I may score 240-250 in TOEFL, 45-50 in TSE and 700 in AGRE (computer science). I want to do Ph.d in Computer Science.

1) Can you recommend some universities

 

[Guest someone]

I don't know what department you are applying to, but I should warn you that at least in computer science the GRE is not taken very seriously (especially at top schools). MIT, e.g., refuses to look at them even if you send them. They're concerned more with previous research, letters of rec, statement of purpose, and grades (probably in that order).

[Guest sunday]

If you are applying to schools that DO take the GRE seriously you should retake it. It won't be too difficult to increase your verbal score if you have some time to study. You should also try to get your quant up to the high 700s for the schools you list.

[Guest Ida]

I had the impression that the Verbal GRE is not taken very seriously for non-native English speakers if the TOEFL score is good enough, but still try to get a verbal score in the 400s at least (close to average). The Analytical writing is more important than the verbal, because as a graduate student you are expected to know how to write good essay/thesis/dissertation, so try to get at least a 4/6 in that.

However, since you'll be applying in an Applied Sciences, you'll need to get at least a 780 in the Quantitative, as most of the other applicants in the field will have a straight 800 in that. If you have a much lower than that, it might raise some eyebrows and it'd be difficult to explain away.

I would not worry much about the subject GRE, unless the schools insist on it. You can usually tell how much importance they place on this score by looking at their websites for clues.

That said, make sure you get good references and show research abilities/potential in your application.

As an international student myself, I can give you another piece of advice when choosing schools to apply. Many state schools in the US have differential tuition, hence they very rarely accept foreign graduate students, unless they are stellar. So select some private schools to apply to, on top of the ones you are considering already, because they have more funds.

[History_Nerd]

I would like to add that I didn't do well on the verbal or the quant. sections of the GRE. My scores were more closely aligned that 300/700, and I did very well on the writing section, but I would suggest that low GRE scores might raise a few red flags at some institutions and not others. I got lucky in a sense and was accepted at my top choice school, but was turned down at 3 of the 4 schools that I submitted GRE scores to. I'm guessing my low GRE scores didn't help.

Imagine if you are on a committee picking incoming graduate students and everyone has at least a 3.7, has published articles, etc. etc. and one person has nearly perfect GRE scores and the other person has a section that stands out as being significantly low, who would you pick. I mean, geesh, you might have 300 applications to choose from for 30 spots, this CAN happen.

Also, in my experience, most of the time, you are not going to get a straight answer from a school on GRE scores (or grades for that matter). Every school that asks for them in your application will probably consider them somewhat, but I've also talked to people that indicate that the GRE is an example of how you do on a test, on a particular day. Your grades as an undergrad, on the other hand, are an indicator of how you fare over the course of several years.

I guess my advice would be that if you have your heart set on starting graduate school right away, and you have the time and the means to practice, study, and retake the GRE, why not retake it? But, if you are like me, and HATE taking tests like the GRE, and don't have the money to do it over and over again, why bother?

[Minnesotan]

I'm not sure how helpful this is, as I am in the humanities, but I did extremely well on the GRE, had a flawless undergrad record, had several professors look over my research proposal/statement of purpose, and had all the pubs, internships, fellowships, etc. that one should need, and I was still hit and miss. For example, of my top three schools, I got into one. I got offers from all of my 'second-choice" schools. But, for some reason, only got one offer out of three back-up schools that I felt were guaranteed to accept me.

I never got waitlisted anywhere, though, which made me sit up and take notice (what, with the majority of the chatter on these forums coming from people on waitlists). So my conclusions are these:

-What they say about finding a fit being more important than anything else is probably true - places like Oxford and Yale see over four hundred applicants in my field per year, of whom they pick twelve or fourteen people (respectively) who somehow stand out. I seriously doubt there was a lack of applicants in the pool with 4.0 gpas or near-perfect GREs. I would, in fact, expect the opposite is true: most people without flawless CVs are either scared off or weeded out damned quick.

-Again, there's the point about lining up an advisor ahead of time - your proposed research may be original and important, but the experts in your area might not be taking on new advisees. I went to Oxford for a while as an undergrad, and I can tell you for a fact there is still a sort of patronage-clientage system that goes on there behind the scenes. Sometimes the old maxim is true: it's not what you know, but who you know.

-The opposite of my first scenario is also true. If the vast majority of successful applicants in a pool are mediocre students holding 3.5 GPAs and 600/600/4.5 GREs, people with good grades and test scores would stick out like a sore thumb.

-Last, but certainly not least, I think there is a high level of chance once it comes down to the final round of vetting apps. I mean, maybe you said something particularly clever (or stupid) in your statement that sticks out in one professor's mind. Maybe someone was in a particularly good or bad mood when they first read your statement. With so many applications and so few spots, most decent programs have to make some tough choices using - let's face it - information that is incomplete at best.

I mean, really! How many of you out there feel a couple of paragraphs about your life history embedded in a research proposal could come anywhere near describing your potential as a grad student? I am overjoyed I got in where I did, but there was a point there where I had gotten all my rejections right away and no acceptances yet, and I was worried!

Anyway, enough of all that. The real point to my little lecture unbid is that I would do a few things better if I had to do it again. 1) I would send out more feelers to professors whose research interests match mine. 2) I would send out a whole lot of applications, regardless the ridiculous costs (this is the next seven years of your life you're applying for). And 3) I would triple check every piece of material that is sent from my home, from my referees, from testing services, and from my undergrad institutions to make sure it all arrives on time and reflecting the best light possible; if that means taking the GRE a couple of times, I would do it.

Good luck with the apps. I feel your pain.