GRE Scores are predictive of what??? Opinions please.

[SLPosteriorCricoarytenoid]

Now I know that there are oodles of topics out there about the GRE and how important it is for graduate admissions. There is no denying that getting a decent score is integral to graduate admissions, even if some programs claim they only use it as a small part of admission or "all things considered".

 

Should this be used at all for admission? GRE itself has made statements about how it SHOULD NOT be used as a cutoff for admission of applicants, although it is a common practice to be used as such. There is widespread disagreement about the degree of GRE score and graduate success, so why is this test being used as such a heavy weight in graduate admissions for a majority of programs? I know that predictive validity of the test correlates and improves (somewhat) depending on the discipline of a person taking the test, but even then the GRE has weak support. Another interesting thing is that those who were admitted  to graduate programs with a high GRE were more likely to fail than those admitted with a lower GRE. In simple terms, the GRE predicts your ability to take the GRE..So woop-dee-doo? Why is this so important, considering it is needed for admissions?

 

I will start by saying that I am against the GRE and think it should be done away with. Not because I have a low score or am bitter etc., but because it seems that it really does not measure anything that should be taken into consideration when making deciding decisions on something that will affect someone's life couse ie. graduate school. I know so many people that would be wonderful in a profession who don't have a shot at pursuing their chosen career. Much of which is due to a bad GRE that puts them out of the running to even be considered. This seems so wrong and backward to me. Not to mention that there is a large disparity in scores not only for minorities but also for women. I understand that high-volume programs need ways to slim down applicants, but using a flawed test is really the best way??? Something this flawed does not seem okay to me. That's just my two cents though.  

 

What is everyone's take on this test? Do you think that the GRE is indicative to success or accurately measured your aptitude? I am honestly curious what everyone thinks of their scores and the use of this test. 

[eeee1923]

Like you said the GRE measures one's ability to take the exam. IMO it should be done away with but standardized exams are an easy method to try "normalize" the playing field (both at the graduate and undergraduate levels). I did well on my GRE but man was it a waste of time to try to remember things from middle and high school instead of working on my research. Now if one is talking about the subject GREs then that's a whole different beast. But as for the general GRE I agree with you neuronparty - though with the increasingly growing graduate applicant pool each year, I don't see this problem going away anytime soon.

[GeoDUDE!]

GRE correlates with graduate student success more than people who do bad on it want to admit. That being said, of course it is not perfect. 

 

Though I disagree that the GRE does not measure something that is useful: if you are a graduate student and cannot do easy tasks in a timely manner you will have a much more difficult time in graduate students than who can. 

 

You, in theory, as much time as you need to prepare for the GRE. Its not as if the material is unknown, as most of the material is covered in high school. If you learned it then, you should be able to learn it after you have completed your bachelors degree. 

 

There are of course extended circumstances, but we are talking about the general application pool. I think the GRE overall does differentiate stronger students from weaker ones, which is the goal of the test.

[alexneuro]

I have a Mathematics BS degree. For people with similar degrees, I believe there is no need to study for the quantitative section much less fret about it. The verbal section to me seems like a good way to separate people who have no interest in reading of any sort from truly curious students who seek knowledge outside of their own fields. Anybody who reads books and magazines for pleasure doesn't need to study for the verbal section.

 

The kind of person who does well on the GRE without studying is usually the one with the right attitude towards learning. He has learned mathematical concepts instead of just memorizing formulas and he has read quality material throughout his academic life. Not to say that, if a different kind of student studies, he can't achieve a high grade. But it's hard to build the vocabulary of a prolific reader or the mathematical confidence of an interested student in a couple of months.

 

As for the score disparity of minorities and women, I have not seen data on this. But it is also true that minorities and women have lower GPAs and we won't do away with that as a parameter. I am a minority, I am female, and English is my third language. I scored 170s on both sections and 5.5 on writing. I did a single practice test and did not study after it. What I did do during my undergraduate degree was be interested beyond grades on the concepts being taught and I read about things that interested me, fiction and non-fiction. I was not the best student grade-wise, but I think the kind of student professors enjoyed having in class. 

 

From a very non-scientific sample of my peers, they seem to have similar experiences. Those who were readers and avid learners studied minimally and did great; those who studied for the test did fair. 

 

( The idea that there is any type of causality between the highest scores and failing graduate schools seems a bit preposterous to me even if there was a correlation found. )

[LittleMac]

I can see why the GRE is useful. Especially for people with weaker GPAs, the GRE can really be your saving grace by showing that you're either pretty darned smart, or were very determined to study your butt off for it.

 

That being said, I'm pretty sure it was the weakest part of my application. Of course, it favors people who have more time to study for it, which I did not have - I have been applying for programs after 2.5 years of undergrad, and I was studying abroad and working during this past summer... and the summer before that I was thinking law school. I shouldn't make excuses, though - I still could have done better and studied over a longer period of time. 

 

Overall, I really don't like standardized testing and I think it's a much weaker indicator of a person's capabilities than the other components of a candidate's profile. But I also see why it's in place, especially if a school sets a minimum. 

[Chubberubber]

Don't have any specific data but I would give hundreds of academic institutions the benefit of the doubt, and assume that there must be predective value to the GRE in terms of success as a grad student.

It stands to reason that minorities and women (let alone people with learning disabilities) will be less successful in this kind of test due for reasons outside their control. That's why you usually give your gender (and if I'm not mistaken your race/ religion' etc.) while you're taking the test and if not then than in your SOP/ diversity statement/ personal history statement etc. That means that minorities are not being compared to people of a more priveliged background, but rather to people of similar background. I think most universities know that a member of a minority with a 158 Q is probably more capable and more impressive than a non-minority person with a 163Q.

My GRE scores definitely accurately represent my capabilities- I'm good at verbal reasoning, not so much with quant, and I can't write very well in English under tight time constraints (English is my second language). I would be very surprised to hear that someone who was good in math her/his whole life would consistently get low scores in quant and the same is true for verbal and AW (obviously there are "glitches" and that's why you can take the test more than once). 

Finally, it is easy to forget but GRE really is just one part of the application and it really does vary from school to school how much weight is given to it. If you don't think your GRE accuratley represents your ability and you really don't like the idea of it- would you really enjoy your time at an institution with the opposite view regarding graduate education and training? So let the GRE heavy institutions/ programs take the GRE impressive students, and be happy that you have a chance at going to a graduate school with a more holistic approach that sees you and your potential the same way you do!

[Guest]

I can see why the GRE is useful. Especially for people with weaker GPAs, the GRE can really be your saving grace by showing that you're either pretty darned smart, or were very determined to study your butt off for it.

 

That being said, I'm pretty sure it was the weakest part of my application. Of course, it favors people who have more time to study for it, which I did not have - I have been applying for programs after 2.5 years of undergrad, and I was studying abroad and working during this past summer... and the summer before that I was thinking law school. I shouldn't make excuses, though - I still could have done better and studied over a longer period of time. 

 

Overall, I really don't like standardized testing and I think it's a much weaker indicator of a person's capabilities than the other components of a candidate's profile. But I also see why it's in place, especially if a school sets a minimum. 

 

Yeah. 

 

I have my fair share of life circumstances too. I was dealing being a full-time in undergrad, studying for 5+ classes, and working a job. The result? Mediocre GRE scores (except on the writing part). Most people who study for it have been out of undergrad for a bit of time and don't have to worry about studying for other things. But, what is done is done. Can't go back. Looking at the current internship and job market within my field, it took me a while to realize that I am screwed on that aspect. Even internships are calling for Master degrees in my field (not just experience). What else can I do with myself after I graduate this Spring? Grad school, I gusss. The decision of me going to graduate school did not come until mid-Fall of 2014, and I just competed all of my applications as of this month (started in mid-December).

 

It can definitely be a holy grail for those with weak GPAs. But, I don't know the destiny for people with high GPAs and mediocre scores. As I have read, every school is different. I just ensured to apply to some realistic schools (no Ivys for me).

Edited January 25, 2015 by Guest

[MathCat]

It stands to reason that minorities and women (let alone people with learning disabilities) will be less successful in this kind of test due for reasons outside their control.

What would those reasons be?

 

Barring people who flop exams due to exam stress, I think the GRE does give a good measure of your capabilities. I think the vocab is unnecessarily obscure at times, but if you learn the vocab, the verbal questions are pretty good about testing reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. The quantitative questions are pretty good at separating those who really understood math in high school from those who just memorized how to do each problem. They're not perfect, but you definitely can't get an awesome score without knowing your stuff. The time constraint is reasonable as well - if you have to think about it a ton, you don't really know it that well. I don't think the 30 minute essays measure much in the way of writing abilities, but I think the analyze an argument essay is pretty good for testing critical thinking as well.

 

It doesn't measure your abilities in your specific field at all, and I don't think the subject test is very good at this either (speaking only of the Math one, since that's the one I took). I definitely think schools should take more holistic approaches.

[GeoDUDE!]

What would those reasons be?

 

Barring people who flop exams due to exam stress, I think the GRE does give a good measure of your capabilities. I think the vocab is unnecessarily obscure at times, but if you learn the vocab, the verbal questions are pretty good about testing reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. The quantitative questions are pretty good at separating those who really understood math in high school from those who just memorized how to do each problem. They're not perfect, but you definitely can't get an awesome score without knowing your stuff. The time constraint is reasonable as well - if you have to think about it a ton, you don't really know it that well. I don't think the 30 minute essays measure much in the way of writing abilities, but I think the analyze an argument essay is pretty good for testing critical thinking as well.

 

It doesn't measure your abilities in your specific field at all, and I don't think the subject test is very good at this either (speaking only of the Math one, since that's the one I took). I definitely think schools should take more holistic approaches.

 

This is the prefect check your privilege moment.

 

Minorities often live in areas where the economic class is much lower than average, and thus, go to worse public schools. This might mean they have a weaker education in basic skills which is what the GRE tests. Though, If you are able to get a bachelors degree, one would think that you would be able to pick these skills up. 

 

I haven't looked up if there is a correlation between economic upbringing and and GRE score, but the SAT is a massacre with over half not meeting the minimum college readiness requirement. 

 

You might also argue that people who have less money in college also will have a harder time buying prep materials. But I think there are enough free online test prep stuff at this point (and at colleges depending on where you go) that you can adequately prepare. 

 

People study for the GRE like law students prepare for the bar: thats ridiculous. The Bar is a pass fail test that costs thousands of dollars to take and encompasses knowledge that you acquire doing an advanced degree. The GRE on the other hand can probably be taken by advanced HS students during sophmore or jr year without much trouble. 

 

Its a tricky thing, trying to make this fair. But lets all admit that we aren't trying to climb mount everest or K2. I don't think the GRE is responsible for keeping many qualified applicants out of graduate school. There are much deeper issues.

Edited January 25, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[Chubberubber]

What would those reasons be?

Everything GeoDUDE! said. Plus- and this is true for women as well: Throughout their lives, priviliged males are constantly being prepped for exams like the GRE. when it comes to women- while girls are still less encouraged to exhibit their intelllectual skills (sometimes for fear that being "too smart" would scare off potential husbands) and are guided more towards cooperative studies (often in humanities), boys are told very early on that school (much like anything else in life) is a contest they need to win. Parents still pay more attention to boys' education and academic skills since many think (consciously or unconsciously) that it's more important for guys to get good education since they are the ones that need to evetually support the family. Obviously I'm generalizing here, and I still think one would be better off as a priveliged woman rather then a disenfranchised male, but males are generally more proveliged than women within a given socio-economic cohort. 

Of course I don't think women are any less intelligent than men nor are they any less capable. I'm only saying that society treats them differentlly in a way that harms them when it comes to standardized tests.

Basically what I mean is that the GRE is good as a predictive test within each "group of equals"- I do think a priveliged male with good GRE scores will probably do better (by and large) in grad school than someone of the same background and worse GRE scores. Same goes for women and minorities. I do NOT mean, however, that the GRE has any predictive value when comparing a priveliged person with a disenfranchised one or when comparing man and women. I trust universities to be able to make that distinction, and we all know that even the most "prestigious" institutions don't take the applicants with the best GRE scores. I don't think they do that merely because they want to be "nice" or PC, but rather because they know that potential (especially academic potential) should be assessed within context.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Chubberubber

[ashiepoo72]

I'm just going to lay this out there...as a working woman in graduate school with a child, it was very hard for me to find time to study for the GRE. I didn't need to focus on the quant because of my field, so I studied vocab for the verbal and that's pretty much the extent of my preparation other than taking free practice tests. I ended up in the 95th percentile in verbal. I didn't need a class or a million test prep books because I read academic writing every day. For pleasure, I read high-brow magazines like The New Yorker and The Economist. I live an academic life--that is the BEST practice for the verbal section of the GRE. I don't think the actual material is useful knowledge for graduate students, just like I don't believe most of what I learned in undergrad was. It's the methods of learning, digesting and articulating knowledge gained through a serious academic career that make one succeed in graduate school. These methods should get you through the GRE verbal with a reasonable score.

 

The biggest impediment to success on the GRE, IMO, is not taking the time to learn the test. Once you take several practice tests, you should be able to figure out where the test is trying to trick you, how the questions and answers are structured, etc. You should be able to manage the time limit--as someone else mentioned, completing tasks in a timely manner and under pressure is what grad school is about. Some things are a slow burn, but others need immediate attention and completion.

 

Without studying for the quant AT ALL and not touching a math problem other than basic algebra since high school, I still managed around 50th percentile. That's nothing to write home about (though for my major it's pretty respectable!), but I'm someone who dislikes math, isn't great at it, did not study and practiced halfhearted guessing on that section of the exam. My basic high school knowledge of math got me halfway there. Had I studied, I know I would have gotten a more respectable score. From everything I have heard, the quant section is easier than the verbal if you take the time to study the material. The verbal takes a years-long commitment to intellectual and academic stimulation, whereas the quant covers high school math so, ideally, it should only take people a refresher to be up to snuff. 

 

I don't doubt that socioeconomically underprivileged students struggle more because they often don't receive as strong of an education in secondary school. I'm not being patronizing--I worked as a tutor in an area that, pretty recently, was the murder capital of my state. My students were wonderful, but they struggled because of things both outside and within their control. The outside issues were more egregious because the students' self-sabotage often stemmed from a sense of hopelessness and alienation because of said outside issues. I think GeoDUDE is on the money that a college education should mitigate some of this--it's really tragic that this often does not occur. I also don't doubt that certain people have test anxiety and mental issues that factor into lower scores. There is a reason the GRE is only one aspect of the application process.

 

That said, most programs that state their GRE threshold outright fall around a combined 300-310 score. This means you only need a 150-155 on both sections. For the verbal that is 52nd-67th percentile and for quant that is 40th-60th percentile. When I look at those scores, I can't help but feel that most students, barring some extreme circumstances that OF COURSE should be taken into account, should be able to score in or around the 50th percentile on both sections.

[alexneuro]

I'm just going to lay this out there...as a working woman in graduate school with a child, it was very hard for me to find time to study for the GRE. I didn't need to focus on the quant because of my field, so I studied vocab for the verbal and that's pretty much the extent of my preparation other than taking free practice tests. I ended up in the 95th percentile in verbal. I didn't need a class or a million test prep books because I read academic writing every day. For pleasure, I read high-brow magazines like The New Yorker and The Economist. I live an academic life--that is the BEST practice for the verbal section of the GRE. I don't think the actual material is useful knowledge for graduate students, just like I don't believe most of what I learned in undergrad was. It's the methods of learning, digesting and articulating knowledge gained through a serious academic career that make one succeed in graduate school. These methods should get you through the GRE verbal with a reasonable score.

 

The biggest impediment to success on the GRE, IMO, is not taking the time to learn the test. Once you take several practice tests, you should be able to figure out where the test is trying to trick you, how the questions and answers are structured, etc. You should be able to manage the time limit--as someone else mentioned, completing tasks in a timely manner and under pressure is what grad school is about. Some things are a slow burn, but others need immediate attention and completion.

 

Without studying for the quant AT ALL and not touching a math problem other than basic algebra since high school, I still managed around 50th percentile. That's nothing to write home about (though for my major it's pretty respectable!), but I'm someone who dislikes math, isn't great at it, did not study and practiced halfhearted guessing on that section of the exam. My basic high school knowledge of math got me halfway there. Had I studied, I know I would have gotten a more respectable score. From everything I have heard, the quant section is easier than the verbal if you take the time to study the material. The verbal takes a years-long commitment to intellectual and academic stimulation, whereas the quant covers high school math so, ideally, it should only take people a refresher to be up to snuff. 

 

 

I agree. Once again, I feel like the test does a good job separating people who study for tests and people who enjoy learning and reading. Those who like reading don't really need to study for the verbal. Those who enjoy and are curious about mathematics don't really need to study for quantitative. There is a minimal learning curve for the format of the test that can be learned in a week.  

 

No extra time studying can make up for years devoted to reading and learning mathematical concepts fully. An avid reader and student is exactly the type of grad student schools want. In that aspect, the test does help to select a certain profile.

If, for some reason, someone was not able to have solid years of reading and learning but applied himself fully to getting a great grade on the GRE,then that kind of tenacity is also something schools value. 

 

Out of all the things in an application, this may be the easiest thing to control. Since it can be repeated, there is really no reason to do poorly. Consistently doing badly on the GRE points to a problem either with knowledge, commitment, or stress management. Whatever the case may be, it probably is not a good sign for graduate school success. 

[MathCat]

This is the prefect check your privilege moment.

 

Minorities often live in areas where the economic class is much lower than average, and thus, go to worse public schools. This might mean they have a weaker education in basic skills which is what the GRE tests. Though, If you are able to get a bachelors degree, one would think that you would be able to pick these skills up.

I agree that these are all things that can impact one's success with the GRE. But they are not about being a minority, it's about being from a less privileged background. You could be a white male and still face the same hurdles.

 

Everything GeoDUDE! said. Plus- and this is true for women as well: Throughout their lives, priviliged males are constantly being prepped for exams like the GRE. when it comes to women- while girls are still less encouraged to exhibit their intelllectual skills (sometimes for fear that being "too smart" would scare off potential husbands) and are guided more towards cooperative studies (often in humanities), boys are told very early on that school (much like anything else in life) is a contest they need to win. Parents still pay more attention to boys' education and academic skills since many think (consciously or unconsciously) that it's more important for guys to get good education since they are the ones that need to evetually support the family. Obviously I'm generalizing here, and I still think one would be better off as a priveliged woman rather then a disenfranchised male, but males are generally more proveliged than women within a given socio-economic cohort. 

Of course I don't think women are any less intelligent than men nor are they any less capable. I'm only saying that society treats them differentlly in a way that harms them when it comes to standardized tests.

I don't really buy this. If you're writing the GRE, you want to go to grad school, and thus likely value a good education and are not worried about appearing too smart and scaring off men (if you would even somebody who was scared off by that...). Maybe this reasoning could explain fewer women writing the GRE or attending grad school (and I don't know if this is true), but if a woman is capable and smart I don't think she is going to do any worse on a standardized test than a man.

 

I don't disagree that some people are at a disadvantage for writing standardized tests. I disagree with saying that it's because they're a minority or a woman. It didn't affect my GRE.

 

I agree with what ashiepoo72 said. If you really know your stuff and didn't just cram it all (e.g. you read regularly, you have good reasoning and critical thinking skills), and don't get test anxiety, I think the GRE will reflect that. I don't think high GRE scores are a good indicator of success in grad school, but I think very low GRE scores can suggest fundamental weaknesses that may lead to failure in grad school.

Edited January 25, 2015 by MathCat

[GeoDUDE!]

 

I don't really buy this. If you're writing the GRE, you want to go to grad school, and thus likely value a good education and are not worried about appearing too smart and scaring off men (if you would even somebody who was scared off by that...). Maybe this reasoning could explain fewer women writing the GRE or attending grad school (and I don't know if this is true), but if a woman is capable and smart I don't think she is going to do any worse on a standardized test than a man.

 

 

 

My mother was a straight A chemistry student at UCSB and dreamed of being a chemist. She did research in a lab, and one day her PI told her that she just wasn't smart enough to get a PhD in chemistry. Being the fragile person she was, she became a pharmacist. Its probably not a good excuse to pin it on that one point, but the fact is that the only reason she was told she wasn't smart enough is because of his impression of women. This kind of situation does not happen to men as frequently as women. 

 

As a male in STEM, it is imperative that we be empathetic to the difficulties that women have. We need to be an open tent. I am very happy to be at a department that is waaay ahead of the curve in gender equality. The problems that we find interesting are difficult to solve, we shouldn't be hindering ourselves by oppressing an entire gender.

 

Women do worse in graduate school for the same reason women are paid less; societal bigotry. I believe this is true of standardized test scores. There is no biological evidence suggesting that men are able to test better (in fact, there is more to the contrary). I'm sure you would like to see more ladies in your mathematics office than you currently have, as that is one of the most male dominated fields there is. 

 

Just because it didn't affect you does not it doesnt mean it does not affect a majority. Sometimes we are privileged, and lucky. 

Edited January 25, 2015 by GeoDUDE!

[Chubberubber]

Thanks for the clarifications GeoDUDE!. And just to be clear MathCat- I never said that women have less of a motivation to succeed or that they themselves are worried about appearing too smart. I said that by-and-large, society tells girls (explicitly or implicitly) that they shouldn't be as smart as boys since society is male-dominated (it shouldn't be, but it is). 

 

I agree that these are all things that can impact one's success with the GRE. But they are not about being a minority, it's about being from a less privileged background. You could be a white male and still face the same hurdles.

You could, but more often than not- you won't be facing the same hurdles. We're not talking about individual cases, but rather about a general trend, or descriptive statistics. However, I agree with you that we shouldn't use "minority", "disenfranchised", and "un-privileged" interchangeably. 

[TakeruK]

As others said, if the general trend is "X is true", then specific cases of "X is not true" does not mean that the general trend is not correct.

 

For those that asked for data, here it is:

 

Nature jobs article: http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7504-303a

One professor's take on this article: http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-gre-test-that-fails.html

(this second one shows that even the Physics GRE is a better indicator of gender than ability)

 

Also, ETS published its own study: http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot_test_taker_data_2014.pdf

Edited January 26, 2015 by TakeruK
added ETS' study

[alexneuro]

These articles are very enlightening, but once again, all other parameters have gender and ethnicity gaps. The same societal pressures that cause a female minority to believe that she may not be as capable in doing well on the GRE are the ones that keep her from seeking out professors to argue for grades, go to office hours to ask for additional help, or get a student tutor with fear that she may appear less capable. In fact, minorities and women are less likely to push professors for research opportunities and are overlooked when presentation opportunities are available. 

 

All of this comes to play when entering graduate school. I did not give my personal example to discredit that this test may be largely unfair. Still, out of all the unfair things I have encountered as a mathematics major at an elite university who happens to be female and minority, the GRE was the one I could control best. I couldn't control I was the only female math major my year or that all but one of my professors were male. Removing the GRE is getting rid of the blatant example of disparity in our system, but it does nothing to diminish the actual disparity. It will also do nothing to change the graduate environment which has, by and large, the same prejudices as the undergraduate environment.  

 

 

 

 

 

As a male in STEM, it is imperative that we be empathetic to the difficulties that women have. We need to be an open tent. I am very happy to be at a department that is waaay ahead of the curve in gender equality. The problems that we find interesting are difficult to solve, we shouldn't be hindering ourselves by oppressing an entire gender.

 

That was an incredibly sensitive thing to write and if all colleagues felt like that, it would be a much more welcoming environment for all women. 

[breaks0]

Neuron, no of course it shouldn't, but unfortunately we don't have any control over that, believe me I wish we did. I'm not sure how many faculty do either, it's probably determined mainly by administrators, just as they're doing at lower level schools (ie elementary, middle and secondary ones).

 

 

Now I know that there are oodles of topics out there about the GRE and how important it is for graduate admissions. There is no denying that getting a decent score is integral to graduate admissions, even if some programs claim they only use it as a small part of admission or "all things considered".

 

Should this be used at all for admission? GRE itself has made statements about how it SHOULD NOT be used as a cutoff for admission of applicants, although it is a common practice to be used as such. There is widespread disagreement about the degree of GRE score and graduate success, so why is this test being used as such a heavy weight in graduate admissions for a majority of programs? I know that predictive validity of the test correlates and improves (somewhat) depending on the discipline of a person taking the test, but even then the GRE has weak support. Another interesting thing is that those who were admitted  to graduate programs with a high GRE were more likely to fail than those admitted with a lower GRE. In simple terms, the GRE predicts your ability to take the GRE..So woop-dee-doo? Why is this so important, considering it is needed for admissions?

 

I will start by saying that I am against the GRE and think it should be done away with. Not because I have a low score or am bitter etc., but because it seems that it really does not measure anything that should be taken into consideration when making deciding decisions on something that will affect someone's life couse ie. graduate school. I know so many people that would be wonderful in a profession who don't have a shot at pursuing their chosen career. Much of which is due to a bad GRE that puts them out of the running to even be considered. This seems so wrong and backward to me. Not to mention that there is a large disparity in scores not only for minorities but also for women. I understand that high-volume programs need ways to slim down applicants, but using a flawed test is really the best way??? Something this flawed does not seem okay to me. That's just my two cents though.  

 

What is everyone's take on this test? Do you think that the GRE is indicative to success or accurately measured your aptitude? I am honestly curious what everyone thinks of their scores and the use of this test. 

 

Edited February 10, 2015 by breaks0

[breaks0]

The problem w/your argument is you admit on the one hand its a discriminatory test and it points to deeper issues, then you say on the other hand that it's something w/less education, a high school student, can do fairly easily. Which is it? Besides, if there are deeper issues, why continue to use a biased test that priviliges existing power structures in terms of who's admitted, particularly to the best schools? To be blunt, there's nothing egalitarian about that, which is the problem, no? If you believe in giving people equal opportunities. Of course the best schools should generally take thebest people, but are the best people those from the whiter (in some cases Asian) backgrounds? How to square that w/the diversity argument, maybe very smart, hard working people of limitied means don't do as well on the test, how is that defensible? I think the problem frankly is you're defending a discriminatory test, which does not measure success in grad school at all, I was one of the best student in my MA programs, w/consistenly among the highest grades in my classes, despite a bad gre math score. That's entirely anecdotal, but I just don't test well and I'mnot the only one.

 

If you're gonna use a test, use a real one, like they do in some schools in Europe or Latin America (and I would guess Asia) or just use GPA. I forget if it was you or someone else gave the example of the Bar exam for law school or even the lsat. But those are related to the content of what you will or have studied in  law school, that isn't true of the gre general test at all and you know that to be true. This is entirely a money making racket for ETS, the schools and all the others who profit off of this industry and its a waste of time. I'm sorry adcomms are overworked, maybe underpaid, but it's their and/or admissions offices' jobs to pick the best people, not the best test score for an irrepairably discriminatory test that has nothing to do with intelligence or future academic or professional performance.

 

 

This is the prefect check your privilege moment.

 

Minorities often live in areas where the economic class is much lower than average, and thus, go to worse public schools. This might mean they have a weaker education in basic skills which is what the GRE tests. Though, If you are able to get a bachelors degree, one would think that you would be able to pick these skills up. 
 

I haven't looked up if there is a correlation between economic upbringing and and GRE score, but the SAT is a massacre with over half not meeting the minimum college readiness requirement. 

 

You might also argue that people who have less money in college also will have a harder time buying prep materials. But I think there are enough free online test prep stuff at this point (and at colleges depending on where you go) that you can adequately prepare. 

 

People study for the GRE like law students prepare for the bar: thats ridiculous. The Bar is a pass fail test that costs thousands of dollars to take and encompasses knowledge that you acquire doing an advanced degree. The GRE on the other hand can probably be taken by advanced HS students during sophmore or jr year without much trouble. 

 

Its a tricky thing, trying to make this fair. But lets all admit that we aren't trying to climb mount everest or K2. I don't think the GRE is responsible for keeping many qualified applicants out of graduate school. There are much deeper issues.

[breaks0]

And Alex, so the issue is power structures. Again, I'm missing why the issue isn't about changing the power structure that discriminates against you and other women, like you no? You're the exception on this kind of test statistically. Wouldn't it be fairer to judge you at least in the admissions process in gender and color blind terms? I failt to see how the GRE fixes any of that at a systemic level, either within a single dept or university or across the whole US, where it's nearly universally used esp for phd programs.

 

These articles are very enlightening, but once again, all other parameters have gender and ethnicity gaps. The same societal pressures that cause a female minority to believe that she may not be as capable in doing well on the GRE are the ones that keep her from seeking out professors to argue for grades, go to office hours to ask for additional help, or get a student tutor with fear that she may appear less capable. In fact, minorities and women are less likely to push professors for research opportunities and are overlooked when presentation opportunities are available. 

 

All of this comes to play when entering graduate school. I did not give my personal example to discredit that this test may be largely unfair. Still, out of all the unfair things I have encountered as a mathematics major at an elite university who happens to be female and minority, the GRE was the one I could control best. I couldn't control I was the only female math major my year or that all but one of my professors were male. Removing the GRE is getting rid of the blatant example of disparity in our system, but it does nothing to diminish the actual disparity. It will also do nothing to change the graduate environment which has, by and large, the same prejudices as the undergraduate environment.  

 

 

 

 

That was an incredibly sensitive thing to write and if all colleagues felt like that, it would be a much more welcoming environment for all women. 

[GeoDUDE!]

The problem w/your argument is you admit on the one hand its a discriminatory test and it points to deeper issues, then you say on the other hand that it's something w/less education, a high school student, can do fairly easily. Which is it? Besides, if there are deeper issues, why continue to use a biased test that priviliges existing power structures in terms of who's admitted, particularly to the best schools? To be blunt, there's nothing egalitarian about that, which is the problem, no? If you believe in giving people equal opportunities. Of course the best schools should generally take thebest people, but are the best people those from the whiter (in some cases Asian) backgrounds? How to square that w/the diversity argument, maybe very smart, hard working people of limitied means don't do as well on the test, how is that defensible? I think the problem frankly is you're defending a discriminatory test, which does not measure success in grad school at all, I was one of the best student in my MA programs, w/consistenly among the highest grades in my classes, despite a bad gre math score. That's entirely anecdotal, but I just don't test well and I'mnot the only one.

 

If you're gonna use a test, use a real one, like they do in some schools in Europe or Latin America (and I would guess Asia) or just use GPA. I forget if it was you or someone else gave the example of the Bar exam for law school or even the lsat. But those are related to the content of what you will or have studied in  law school, that isn't true of the gre general test at all and you know that to be true. This is entirely a money making racket for ETS, the schools and all the others who profit off of this industry and its a waste of time. I'm sorry adcomms are overworked, maybe underpaid, but it's their and/or admissions offices' jobs to pick the best people, not the best test score for an irrepairably discriminatory test that has nothing to do with intelligence or future academic or professional performance.

 

 

The point of that post is the nuance, yes its a discriminatory test, but taking it away won't stop the problems. Also, the GRE rarely keeps truly good candidates out of graduate school. Thats why we have holistic processes.  Most cutoffs aren't based on actual percentiles, but objective scores: 300, 310, and 320 are common ones. 

 

I disagree that the GRE isn't based on what you have or will study. Its just not advanced material. Everyone needs to know how to  recognize simple patterns. Everyone needs to know how to read a document and answer questions about it. Everyone needs to know how to make coherent arguments. Thats really what the GRE tests. Our preparation for the test is all different, some of it because of discrimination, some of it because of where we are in life. The test isn't the evil empire, and yeah it could be better, but you know the GRE as far as tests go is pretty cheap. The BAR exam takes thousands of dollars. The GMAT is 250. LSAT is 170. GRE is 160.

 

While that is expensive for some, I realize that, compared to the price of graduate school that is pennies. Yeah, they make a lot of money. So do book publishers, music labels, banks, technology, oil, ect.  And guess what, Colleges do to.

 

The GRE is a VERY small component of a bigger issue. Getting rid of it will change very little, but I'd actually bet that you'd find more Americans failing out of graduate school if you took away the GRE.

 

 

 

Another interesting note is that our "holistic" admissions process for college/graduate school came out of the early 1900s antisemitism. Admission into the best colleges (Harvard, in this case) was based on GPA + Test Scores completely. Soon Harvard found that their admissions classes were 40-50% Jewish. To combat this, Harvard changed the game, started requiring essays, extra curricular and background. The idea is that they weren't just interested in the smartest students at that point, but who had the most potential by the time they graduated from Harvard.  Well that was the politically correct reason anyway. 

[Edge]

I graduated from with my BS and MS over a decade ago, my GPA was decent, not great, from a very tough private college.  But since it's so old, what indication, good or bad, does it have on my current level of intellect?  Without the GRE the university wouldn't have any standardized scores to compare me to applicants coming fresh out of a masters.

[TheMercySeat]

GRE correlates with graduate student success more than people who do bad on it want to admit. That being said, of course it is not perfect. 

 

Though I disagree that the GRE does not measure something that is useful: if you are a graduate student and cannot do easy tasks in a timely manner you will have a much more difficult time in graduate students than who can. 

 

You, in theory, as much time as you need to prepare for the GRE. Its not as if the material is unknown, as most of the material is covered in high school. If you learned it then, you should be able to learn it after you have completed your bachelors degree. 

 

There are of course extended circumstances, but we are talking about the general application pool. I think the GRE overall does differentiate stronger students from weaker ones, which is the goal of the test.

I'm curious about how you explain gender and racial gaps on the GRE: http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot.pdf

 

Do you imply at the aggregate level that women and minorities are weaker students? Moreover, given the declines in GRE Q by age, is it safe to infer that you would argue that students are always 'stronger'/more capable/more successful/pick your poison than their professors?

Edited February 18, 2015 by TheMercySeat

[GeoDUDE!]

I'm curious about how you explain gender and racial gaps on the GRE: http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot.pdf

 

Do you imply at the aggregate level that women and minorities are weaker students? Moreover, given the declines in GRE Q by age, is it safe to infer that you would argue that students are always 'stronger'/more capable/more successful/pick your poison than their professors?

 

I've already addressed this in another post: 

 

But there is also a selection bias. People in physics and philosophy tend to score higher than people in education and english, and I think that physics and philosophy is much better preparation for the GRE than the latter 2 majors. And there is a major demographic disparity between those two groups. 

 

 

Professors and graduate students have to do different things, the GRE isn't meant to test one's ability to be a tenured professor.

MS students outnumber PhD students, and the GRE is used for MS candidates.  PhD students fail for a number of reasons. This is just one test. No one claims its perfect, but people who do poorly dismiss it because A) they can't test well they are not who they thought they are. I'd rather not have the test, but lets not be completely dismissive just because we aren't good at something. Thats not how we get better at stuff. I have difficulty with languages, I still passed latin, spanish and chinese. The difference is I don't whine about it.

[darklullaby]

From University of Maryland, American Studies website:

 

Although we do take GRE scores into account when we review applications, we don’t put as much weight on them. We have admitted students with Verbal GREs between 280 and 800. But the GRE isn’t an especially good predictor of success in our program. We require it because we cannot award fellowships or GAships to students who have not taken the GRE. From the standpoint of the UMD American Studies Department, you need not place a great deal of emphasis on the quantitative portion of the exam; we do not consider or report that score.