Low quant GRE: successes and failures

[dragonage]

Hello there, new to the site and wondering if we could discuss how having a low quantitative gre score will affect our chances of being admitted to Psychology (research-based) PhD programs. 

 

This is my first time applying to PhD programs. Although I am finishing up a master's right now and have a great application otherwise, my quantitative gre score is lower than the 50th percentile. 

 

I did not apply to any seriously high-ranked schools (I only applied based on research fit, but am still hoping for funding from some of the public ones), however, I have not heard any news from any of the schools I applied to (the last deadline was Jan. 15th, with most others having Dec. deadlines). 

 

I understand the gre is used extensively in the admissions process, but I'm also hoping that some programs may view it as more of a formality (especially if the application is outstanding otherwise)?

 

I would love to hear from those with low quant scores who are already attending or admitted to programs, but I'm also interested in hearing from those that have been rejected from programs due only to their low quant score. 

 

Thank you all, and best of luck to those applying this year!

[.letmeinplz//]

...

 

I would love to hear from those with low quant scores who are already attending or admitted to programs, but I'm also interested in hearing from those that have been rejected from programs due only to their low quant score. 

 

...

I doubt people would receive a rejection letter that says "your quant score is too low". ETS even says you shouldn't filter applications solely on GRE scores (using cut off scores that say "if you are below this, you are rejected").

Edited February 4, 2015 by <ian>

[mb712]

I've had a lot of people tell me that if you have something to counter a low quant score like methods/analysis training or even a stats class, it doesn't matter as much. There are some top tier schools that don't consider applicants who have poor GRE scores, but it sounds like you are avoiding those anyway.

My quant score was below 50% & I've been accepted to a very quant methods heavy polisci cognition program. I've also taken three methods classes and a stats class though, I believe that was my saving grace. I've also had a couple informal "interviews" with social psych faculty after they received my application, so my low quant score didn't automatically disqualify me at those places.

There's my anecdotal contribution. Hope it was helpful in some way.

[Gvh]

I doubt people would receive a rejection letter that says "your quant score is too low". ETS even says you shouldn't filter applications solely on GRE scores (using cut off scores that say "if you are below this, you are rejected").

 

Actually, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. One program I applied to specifically said my Q score is what kept me out.

[.letmeinplz//]

Actually, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. One program I applied to specifically said my Q score is what kept me out.

Then that school has more faith in the GRE than even ETS does... I see only one of your denials is official. Shame that Stanford has lost its way.

https://www.ets.org/gre/institutions/scores/guidelines/board_guidelines

"A cut-off score (i.e., a minimum score) should never be used as the only criterion for denial of admission or awarding of a fellowship."

Edited February 4, 2015 by <ian>

[MyDogHasAPhD]

I was in the final cuts for a PhD program this cycle and my Quant score was below the 50th. My verbal and analytical were well above the 50th. My POI told me she wanted to accept me but had to petition to the grad school to secure my funding since one portion of my GRE was below the 50th percentile. She was unsuccessful at convincing that I was worth "the risk." So it definitely does hold a negative weight at certain schools and this wasn't even an ultra competitive program in comparison to others. She said it was the only reason I could not be admitted

I had high grades in stats and methods and a good amount of quantitative based research. It's a total crappy reality but with as competitive as these programs are, it may be a pretty substantial ding in an otherwise very strong application. I speak from experience.

Edited February 4, 2015 by MyDogHasAPhD

[dragonage]

Actually, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. One program I applied to specifically said my Q score is what kept me out.

 

Yes, I have heard this happens quite a lot. 

 

 

Then that school has more faith in the GRE than even ETS does... I see only one of your denials is official. Shame that Stanford has lost its way.

https://www.ets.org/gre/institutions/scores/guidelines/board_guidelines

"A cut-off score (i.e., a minimum score) should never be used as the only criterion for denial of admission or awarding of a fellowship."

 

 

It's definitely unfortunate, but I think the big timey schools receive too many applications, so they use it as a cutoff anyway. 

[TheMercySeat]

Yet there's a paucity of evidence indicating that the GRE predicts retention in a PhD program and what little evidence there is of it loses significance after the first year.

Ironic!

[Gvh]

Yes, I have heard this happens quite a lot. 

 

 

It's definitely unfortunate, but I think the big timey schools receive too many applications, so they use it as a cutoff anyway. 

 

Agreed. One POI in particular  - who I had a positive interaction with over email for a number of months - completely lost interest in corresponding with me after hearing about my 50th percentile Q score. It was definitely disappointing, but at the same time I don't think I would want to work with someone who held a 4-hour exam in such high regard.  

[MyDogHasAPhD]

Yet there's a paucity of evidence indicating that the GRE predicts retention in a PhD program and what little evidence there is of it loses significance after the first year.

Ironic!

Ah yes. I really need to take a look at this data as it really irks me. How can one predict that the test truly predicts "graduate school success" when those who score poorly are often times not given the chance to show that it actually doesn't? Does anyone know if they look at, for instance, someone who scored in the 80th percentile and someone who scored in the 50th percentile and compare their graduate school performance? Does the 80th percentile outperform? I really am wondering how they can come to this conclusion if often the only people allowed in to graduate school score high?

[CogPsych2015]

One of my friends has taken graduate level statistics courses, but had poor GRE quant scores. She was told by two different programs that her quant score was the reason she was rejected. It does happen, regardless of if it is the correct decision. 

[TheMercySeat]

Ah yes. I really need to take a look at this data as it really irks me. How can one predict that the test truly predicts "graduate school success" when those who score poorly are often times not given the chance to show that it actually doesn't? Does anyone know if they look at, for instance, someone who scored in the 80th percentile and someone who scored in the 50th percentile and compare their graduate school performance? Does the 80th percentile outperform? I really am wondering how they can come to this conclusion if often the only people allowed in to graduate school score high?

That too!!!

the one study that popped a barely significant, negligible first year correlation relied on post-hoc observation without the benefit of a comparison group or even randomization. It's bad 'science' and the abuse of psychometrics. Moreover, the gender/race gaps in mean scores across subscales are concerning-- such a system is guilty of endorsing and promoting 'white male privilege' in that regard (or there's the alternative hypothesis-- "women and minorities aren't as bright"-- which I don't buy for a second)

[jujubea]

Agreed. One POI in particular - who I had a positive interaction with over email for a number of months - completely lost interest in corresponding with me after hearing about my 50th percentile Q score. It was definitely disappointing, but at the same time I don't think I would want to work with someone who held a 4-hour exam in such high regard.

Yes! This!

[JoePianist]

Agreed. One POI in particular  - who I had a positive interaction with over email for a number of months - completely lost interest in corresponding with me after hearing about my 50th percentile Q score. It was definitely disappointing, but at the same time I don't think I would want to work with someone who held a 4-hour exam in such high regard.  

 

Sounds like a jerk Look at it this way: that POI saved you a lot of grievance in the future by showing their true nature earlier rather than later if you were mentored under them.

[Journey2015]

One of my friends has taken graduate level statistics courses, but had poor GRE quant scores. She was told by two different programs that her quant score was the reason she was rejected. It does happen, regardless of if it is the correct decision. 

 

It happened to me as well. However, the program I just interviewed with asked me flat out about my score. They didn't stand it  when evaluating the rest of my credentials. I had the opportunity to explain that the score was 4 years old, and since taking the GRE I'd successfully completed graduate level stats courses, and a quantitative master's thesis. They were satisfied with the response. 

[when]

First, my anecdote, and then some garb about the value of GRE...

 

My quant score was very low, much lower than yours, and I was admitted to a clinical psych program on first application. However, my verbal comp. score was very high, my analytical writing score was pretty high and my subject GRE was very high. I got A+s in all stats courses, had a CGPA of around 90%, and busted out a bunch of extra-curricular stuff to pad out the ol' CV. Plus I networked. HARD. And definitely, definitely had some good luck. Most of the profs I spoke to said that they didn't think GREs meant much, and that a lot of students come into psych with lowish quant scores. They said that they can boost an app if other aspects are weaker, but generally won't break an app that's already strong. However, that doesn't help with programs that do have cut-offs, or profs who have contempt for those with low quant scores.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Some GRE garb:

 

In some textbook I saw last year, a study of n = 90 found that GPA predicted graduate grades and so did GRE verbal and analytical writing to a lesser extent, while quantitative scores were not predictive of graduate grades and even less predictive of PhD completion (actually, there was a slight - but nonetheless insignificant - negative correlation with the latter, if I remember correctly). The GRE overall didn't predict PhD completion either, but did predict stipend acquisition, so I agree that in some ways it is useful. It's just interesting to note that it seems to be a useless indicator of how likely a person is to actually finish a PhD. Maybe *some* of the good GRE performers end up overextending themselves and not finishing their PhD?

 

Buuut, that's just one study of many, so this might be more helpful: http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1071921

[Piagetsky]

Old study, but I sure hope adcoms are aware that older female students' performance on the GRE is not particularly indicative of their success in grad school.

https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-87-22-Swinton.pdf
 

Abstract

 

Data from 99 graduate department participants in the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) Validity Study Service from 1983 through 1985 were analysed with an empirical Bayes regression model that allows each department's mean scores to influence that department's regression coefficients. To be included in the analysis, students had to have taken the GRE General Test on or after October 1981, when the analytical measure was revised. The major finding was a significant underprediction of first-year grade average for older females in all graduate fields. Although it had been predicted that they would do less well than younger students and about as well as males, they in fact earned considerably higher grades than all other groups. It is suggested that graduate admissions committees broaden efforts to identify nontraditional evidence of talent, motivation, and accomplishment in applicants from this group. The GRE data analysis shows that if a larger proportion of returning females were recruited and admitted, they would perform as well or better than currently enrolled younger students.

[when]

Old study, but I sure hope adcoms are aware that older female students' performance on the GRE is not particularly indicative of their success in grad school.

https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-87-22-Swinton.pdf

 

Abstract

 

Data from 99 graduate department participants in the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) Validity Study Service from 1983 through 1985 were analysed with an empirical Bayes regression model that allows each department's mean scores to influence that department's regression coefficients. To be included in the analysis, students had to have taken the GRE General Test on or after October 1981, when the analytical measure was revised. The major finding was a significant underprediction of first-year grade average for older females in all graduate fields. Although it had been predicted that they would do less well than younger students and about as well as males, they in fact earned considerably higher grades than all other groups. It is suggested that graduate admissions committees broaden efforts to identify nontraditional evidence of talent, motivation, and accomplishment in applicants from this group. The GRE data analysis shows that if a larger proportion of returning females were recruited and admitted, they would perform as well or better than currently enrolled younger students.

Interesting. I wonder who is considered an "older female" in this study. I strongly suspect I fall into that category in any case.

[MyDogHasAPhD]

Old study, but I sure hope adcoms are aware that older female students' performance on the GRE is not particularly indicative of their success in grad school.

https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-87-22-Swinton.pdf

 

Abstract

 

Data from 99 graduate department participants in the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) Validity Study Service from 1983 through 1985 were analysed with an empirical Bayes regression model that allows each department's mean scores to influence that department's regression coefficients. To be included in the analysis, students had to have taken the GRE General Test on or after October 1981, when the analytical measure was revised. The major finding was a significant underprediction of first-year grade average for older females in all graduate fields. Although it had been predicted that they would do less well than younger students and about as well as males, they in fact earned considerably higher grades than all other groups. It is suggested that graduate admissions committees broaden efforts to identify nontraditional evidence of talent, motivation, and accomplishment in applicants from this group. The GRE data analysis shows that if a larger proportion of returning females were recruited and admitted, they would perform as well or better than currently enrolled younger students.

 

I also wonder if at the ripe old age of 28, I'd be considered an "older female." I suppose relative to those fresh out of undergrad, I would be. 

[TheMercySeat]

I also wonder if at the ripe old age of 28, I'd be considered an "older female." I suppose relative to those fresh out of undergrad, I would be.

Yup!

If you look up the distribution by age: http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot.pdf

The mean consistently drops for both genders on quant.

With the under prediction problem (female Q scores under predict), race gaps, and age gaps, I'm surprised the GRE is held in high regard

Edited February 5, 2015 by TheMercySeat

[mb712]

This is all incredibly interesting.

So, I wonder how long the GRE is going to have so much weight attached to it in applications.

[spunky]

About a couple of years ago or so I took an internship on ETS and was particularly interested in working in the department that handles the GRE (& all the other post-grad tests like the PRAXIS and whatnot). Here are some of the things I took home from them:

 

- Every single study where the ETS claims you shouldn’t use a cut-off score is merely a formality that they use to prevent getting sued. Think about it… they want to sell you a product and then they’re gonna bash it? Of course not! Heck, if they were not sued they’d probably trumpet them as the secret oracle of success in graduate school. There are lists of results that are available to the public and there are lists of results that are only privy to ‘clients’ (e.g. universities). It’s mostly technical stuff and I never saw one but I knew from the people who worked on them that they were mostly devoted to come up with “diagnostic scores” which is the euphemism ETS uses for cut-scores. Funding agencies, AdComms, everybody is always asking you for the cut-score because they all need to make quick, easy decisions. Whether the decision is accurately reflected by the score or not is mostly irrelevant. That is one of the many dirty little secrets out there that you get to learn about if you hang around ETS.

 

- If a uni says the GRE is not required but ‘recommended’ you can bet your brownies they will use it against you.

 

- Psych (& other social sciences programs) relies on the quantitative score on the GRE for a very simple reason: it’s the one where psych majors tend to score the lowest. Just look at the table on p. 29 (http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf). You can see that around 60% of people with a major in Psych just meeerely scratched above the 50 ^th percentile.

 

The fact of the matter is that the number of GRE test takers is increasing exponentially and, with that, the number of applications that Psych (and other grad) departments receive every year. This is especially true after the 2008 crisis and the loss of value in a college degree. Anyone who has glanced at the sheer number of apps that departments receive every year knows that no prof is gonna take the time to look through 100s upon 100s of applications, especially if the POI is well-known and the program is prestigious. For clinical in my uni, for example, we got WAY over 300 applications for like… maybe 7-8 positions? No department is interested in spending the resources to evaluate applications holistically so unless there is something that REALLY makes you stand out (funding, publications in prestigious journals, your POI knows you, etc.) people are probably gonna default back to the GRE.

 

I dunno but I really don’t see this situation improving in any way in the short term, especially as the love affair between the U.S. and standardized testing just becomes deeper and deeper. 

[spunky]

- Psych (& other social sciences programs) relies on the quantitative score on the GRE for a very simple reason: it’s the one where psych majors tend to score the lowest. Just look at the table on p. 29 (http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf). You can see that around 60% of people with a major in Psych just meeerely scratched above the 50 ^th percentile.

 

 

actually, i added wrong lol... it's more like 80% (yes, that's EIGHTY percent) of applicants with a Psych major score just barely above the 50th percentile. the breakdown of the table (which is on page 30, not 29) to focus on is:

 

20%   - 140-144 (10th - 18th)

27.1% - 145-149 (21th - 37th)

24.8% - 150-154 (40th - 56th)

 

so 20% of psych majors score between the 10th - 18th percentile of the quant section (that's really, low), 27.1% score between the 21th and 37th percentile and 24.8% are in the 40th-56th percentile range.

 

if you add those three big groups to people who score below the 10th percentile (i.e. people for who numbers are really, really not their friends) then you get that around 80% of grad school applicants with a psych major score either at the 56th percentile or below on the quantitative portion of the GRE.

 

i think i'm starting to get now why my field of Quant Psych is so unpopular...LOL. 

Edited February 5, 2015 by spunky

[TXInstrument11]

 

actually, i added wrong lol... it's more like 80% (yes, that's EIGHTY percent) of applicants with a Psych major score just barely above the 50th percentile. the breakdown of the table (which is on page 30, not 29) to focus on is:

 

20%   - 140-144 (10th - 18th)

27.1% - 145-149 (21th - 37th)

24.8% - 150-154 (40th - 56th)

 

so 20% of psych majors score between the 10th - 18th percentile of the quant section (that's really, low), 27.1% score between the 21th and 37th percentile and 24.8% are in the 40th-56th percentile range.

 

if you add those three big groups to people who score below the 10th percentile (i.e. people for who numbers are really, really not their friends) then you get that around 80% of grad school applicants with a psych major score either at the 56th percentile or below on the quantitative portion of the GRE.

 

i think i'm starting to get now why my field of Quant Psych is so unpopular...LOL. 

 

Wow, that's crazy - 80%! Damn. 

 

I thought the BS programs put about it being an important indicator of your stats ability was fishy.

 

Since you worked at ETS, do you know enough to compare the GRE with the SAT? I actually heard the SAT > GRE math and vice versa for verbal. [the crazy GRE vocab being the main reason]

If it's true, we should just use our SAT scores and be done with it. Surely if we're talking about true quant aptitude tested by basic math, this shouldn't swing too much between high school and college. 

 

Of course, since I did really well on the SAT, I'm biased - but I'd sure appreciate a comparison either way. 

Edited February 5, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[AnomalousApplicant]

I am very interested in this thread. I was recently diagnosed with a learning disability in mathematics, which makes processing numbers very difficult for me on something like the GRE(even with accommodations, so suffice it say, my GRE scores are really low for that portion, but the rest of my application is good. Surprisingly, statistics themselves are not hard for me to comprehend from a conceptual standpoint, just the calculation and processing of the numbers themselves. I do believe that is why I am getting rejected from PhD programs.