Low quant GRE: successes and failures

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

:raises hand meekly:

I had to literally reteach myself everything.

Everything.

I work in research. I get paid to calculate Cohen's d, eta squared, and Bayesian probabilities by hand. I use R and SPSS to do everything else from CFAs and binary logistic regressions to ANOVAs.

I haven't had a math class with exception to stat since... 2008.

I don't know wtf the square root of -54 divided by 72 to the 5th exponet plus Z cubed is.

Sorry everybody.

 

Sameish, except last non-stats math class was in 2005. It's difficult to cram a bunch of essentially useless math back into your head after 10-15 years. I studied, I'm actually really good at math & had great ACT/SAT scores pre-college, and I'm disappointed in my quant score.

 

Agreed!

I'm also a female over the age of 25. According to the means ETS posts for my demographic, I did a spectacular job.

(Q particularly deteriorates with age, and females score lower on Q and V). According to the expectations of PhD programs, I bombed it :x.

I would honestly like to know how you guys(sorry as I think 2? of you are female) prepare. I only ask because I definitely don't have "natural" talent for mathematics. Coming out of high school I couldn't properly add fractions, (yea, while it was still fresh in my head) and my SAT quantitative score was abysmal, it was around 200. To share what personally worked for me, 1. changing my attitude about mathematics. 2. dedicating an inordinate amount of time to mechanics based practice. 3. (I think this may be the most important) Tackling difficult problems, one which incorporate mechanics but emphasize problem solving (and not giving up right away, thinking through a problem, even if that single problem took me several days).  When I took calculus I went through 3 entire five subject notebooks (not because this much work was given but because I needed this much practice just to get an A) while most of my classmates would just need a single subject notebook. 

Fast forward now to my current discrete math course, I'm out performing most of my classmates which are either applied math majors or computer science majors (and I'm a psychology major) without the need to dedicate that much more time and effort.(Though, it could be argued these applied math majors and CS majors also have a bunch of other math courses, but I would argue my current schedule compares to a typical math major student's schedule) 

Now I know this may seem to go against what I previously stated, as a time period of 3 months probably doesn't compare to the amount of time I put in to studying math,  but this was in regards to mathematics as subject, not a math section on an exam. Anyways, maybe you can also try documenting where you get stuck, and going through those notes to find out where your sticking points are, maybe you'll find interesting patterns?. There are also websites where you can ask a question and receive help almost immediately (yes, free help)

What I'm really trying to get across here is, anyone who's having/has had difficulties with the quant section of the GRE can get through it, and do well on it at the same time. & I mean this more in an encouraging way rather than a "you're just not trying" way. 

Edited February 13, 2015 by TenaciousBushLeaper

[EastCoasting]

You are being compared to other psychology students--those who are applying to the same programs as you. Maybe most of psychology majors score terrible, but they are not the ones being considered for funded grad school slots, because there are enough applicants with good scores. I studied for months and took a course. English is my second language, I was 29 and pregnant with my second child, and I too had to relearn all the math stuff that I hadn't thought about in years. At the end of the day, it's about remembering the information--both verbal and quant--until it is reflexive, and you need to be able to analyze what is in front for you in order to be able to utilize that information correctly. I agree that higher level stats classes should trump quant grades, but I also think this test can demonstrate the ability to work hard and think quick. I took at least 9 practice tests, and went through countless questions. The hard work paid off and I scored in the 90th+ percentiles.

[YoungOldMan]

You are being compared to other psychology students--those who are applying to the same programs as you. Maybe most of psychology majors score terrible, but they are not the ones being considered for funded grad school slots, because there are enough applicants with good scores. I studied for months and took a course. English is my second language, I was 29 and pregnant with my second child, and I too had to relearn all the math stuff that I hadn't thought about in years. At the end of the day, it's about remembering the information--both verbal and quant--until it is reflexive, and you need to be able to analyze what is in front for you in order to be able to utilize that information correctly. I agree that higher level stats classes should trump quant grades, but I also think this test can demonstrate the ability to work hard and think quick. I took at least 9 practice tests, and went through countless questions. The hard work paid off and I scored in the 90th+ percentiles.

You are right. However for some of us, specially students who are from developing countries its a real tough exam. It is very expensive, the material is very expensive and many of us have to work and study. Of course people on countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc.. the material can be quite cheap, but for countries in south america, africa and asia it can be really an economical burden. And of course our logic also works based on your language, the way we structure information changes a lot. While the exam may reflect work, it doesn't reflect the ability of to student to do research and academic work. I am an engineering student and I can take upon very advanced math but in the GRE seriously sometimes I can struggle to see what they want me to calculate. When I took the GRE for the first time I had been reading papers almost dialy for about a year and to be honest nobody writes like this in scientific journals.

Edited February 13, 2015 by YoungOldMan

[.letmeinplz//]

You are right. However for some of us, specially students who are from developing countries its a real tough exam. It is very expensive, the material is very expensive and many of us have to work and study. Of course people on countries like the US, UK, Germany, etc.. the material can be quite cheap, but for countries in south america, africa and asia it can be really an economical burden. And of course our logic also works based on your language, the way we structure information changes a lot. While the exam may reflect work, it doesn't reflect the ability of to student to do research and academic work. I am an engineering student and I can take upon very advanced math but in the GRE seriously sometimes I can struggle to see what they want me to calculate. When I took the GRE for the first time I had been reading papers almost dialy for about a year and to be honest nobody writes like this in scientific journals.

There are lots of free GRE guides/tests/help too, you just have to look for them. That way you don't have to invest tons of money you don't have while still being able to prep.

 

Also if the GRE is very expensive/completely illogical for you, why not stay in your country/nearby countries and go to university there? Do universities in your country require the GRE as well or do they have different requirements for admissions?

Edited February 13, 2015 by <ian>

[spunky]

There are lots of free GRE guides/tests/help too, you just have to look for them. That way you don't have to invest tons of money you don't have while still being able to prep.

 

Also if the GRE is very expensive/completely illogical for you, why not stay in your country/nearby countries and go to university there? Do universities in your country require the GRE as well or do they have different requirements for admissions?

 

 

the GRE is really only "a thing" in North America... and i would go as far as say it's mostly "a thing" in the U.S. because even some Canadian universities (like McGill) have peculiar policies where you don't have to submit your GRE scores depending on where you studied.

 

NEVERTHELESS i kind of have to agree on this one. if you want to do graduate school in English or in a North American setting you just have to suck it up and jump through the hoops like everybody else. yes, we do have to do twice the work (i was born in Mexico so i know what i'm talking about here), yes we have to study twice as hard and yes, we need to struggle twice as much. but that is life and it can be done if you're willing to make the sacrifice. 

[YoungOldMan]

There are lots of free GRE guides/tests/help too, you just have to look for them. That way you don't have to invest tons of money you don't have while still being able to prep.

 

Also if the GRE is very expensive/completely illogical for you, why not stay in your country/nearby countries and go to university there? Do universities in your country require the GRE as well or do they have different requirements for admissions?

I know there is free material but then again this isn't about my case, I only prepared myself with free material. It is really that the results for the GRE clearly shows that certain populations are favoured. Unless certain groups of human beings are more intelligent. I don't believe that, they could be more prepared though.The point is that the GRE is not a good indicator.

People anywhere who want to make doctoral studies would like to go to a good university if possible. Many institutions offer scholarships besides Universities that can help people to pursue studies and if anyone can have this opportunity, why not take it. On the other hand these "Universities" that claim that their programs are orientated to people from any background, etc... they use a general exam that is not really general. Maybe I am not explaining things correctly but I hope you get what I am trying to say.

About universities in my country, most of them don't require the GRE. Although some do it, specially to satisfy certain qualifications. The rest of the admissions requirements are all the same, usually universities have their own version of a GRE exam but it more descriptive in all the questions. Also I don't think these exams are any better, they're just more descriptive because of the nature of the language, these local universities don't face the situation of having international applicants as well. 

 

Edited February 13, 2015 by YoungOldMan

[TXInstrument11]

Does anybody defending the GRE actually think it is a useful test or is this thread now just a giant pissing contest of "but I had it worse" stories?

Edited February 13, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[.letmeinplz//]

Does anybody defending the GRE actually think it is a useful test or is this thread now just a giant pissing contest of "but I had it worse" stories?

I guess a better question is, if it isn't a useful predictor of success why are universities still using it?

 

Standardized tests seems ingrained in academia. State standardized tests to pass high school, SAT/ACT to get into college, GRE/GMAT to get into Grad school... Why haven't some universities stood up against the status quo and invented a better way to pick the best students?

[mb712]

I guess a better question is, if it isn't a useful predictor of success why are universities still using it?

 

Standardized tests seems ingrained in academia. State standardized tests to pass high school, SAT/ACT to get into college, GRE/GMAT to get into Grad school... Why haven't some universities stood up against the status quo and invented a better way to pick the best students?

 

It's an easy way to weed out people? I hate standardized tests for an amount of reasons I can't even count, but it is an indication of how you've faired in a system designed to churn out test results. For the most part people teach and learn for the purpose of passing tests, right? So if you've been groomed in an American educational system well ("well" according to American educational standards), you'll perform as such on standardized tests. 

 

I've had more than one somewhat young faculty member tell me they don't think they would perform well enough on the GRE to be accepted into a graduate school these days. It's basically a contest of who has the best resources growing up - who was taught how to take tests and who currently has the money/time to do test prep. Because of things like this, and how much data is showing the GRE is a poor predictor of graduate school success, I really don't think the GRE will continue to be a measure so highly emphasized. (I hope this isn't just wishful thinking.)

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

Does anybody defending the GRE actually think it is a useful test or is this thread now just a giant pissing contest of "but I had it worse" stories?

I honestly think it has its use. Although I wouldn't say it's useful in predicting success in graduate school(I actually have no data to back this up) where I would say it's useful is in getting graduate programs  top students. Now, a top student may be someone who has little difficulty on the GRE, took it once and aced it. A top student may also be someone who found it extremely difficult but despite, managed a great score. 

I mean starting a PhD program, it's a pretty big commitment on both parts, the incoming graduate students and the universities. If I were a university I would want something in place that may weed out people (although it may prevent people who'd do great from getting it as well) who didn't do what was necessary, whatever that may be in their case, to make sure their GRE scores wouldn't be a problem when it came to admissions decisions. This is variable however, and sometimes it could simply be the case that it just isn't worth it for person x to sacrifice n amount of something(s) just to get into graduate school but ultimately that's what I think is the purpose of this exam (or at least where I see it's use). Universities would rather be safe than sorry, they have to protect themselves, and I believe it's understandable.   

Edited February 13, 2015 by TenaciousBushLeaper

[coggiedoggie]

Sameish, except last non-stats math class was in 2005. It's difficult to cram a bunch of essentially useless math back into your head after 10-15 years. I studied, I'm actually really good at math & had great ACT/SAT scores pre-college, and I'm disappointed in my quant score.

 My quant score was 151 without prep. I am sure it will go up after prep-work. My last math class was in 199, so I am sure there is going to be a lot of prep needed.

[VulpesZerda]

I've been taking standardized tests every 2-3 years since elementary school thanks to the particular location I grew up in. I hated the GRE but understand why I had to take it - I'll be the first to admit my high GPA isn't comparable because my school isn't super challenging. But like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I did very average and still got in. Many programs take a holistic approach now.

[Much Anxious Very Waiting]

Does anybody defending the GRE actually think it is a useful test or is this thread now just a giant pissing contest of "but I had it worse" stories?

 

I think it's useful insofar as it's just another means to include / exclude applications. Many of these programs get 1000s of applications - they need a universal scale on which to compare students. Sure, the GRE might not be revealing any real Truth about an individual's abilities, but at least it creates a point of comparison for the admissions committees. If two equal candidates have score discrepancies, then why not choose the one with the better score? If anything, they're better at taking tests, and that's a skill. I think it helps good scorers more than it hurts bad scorers, at least above a certain threshold.

 

Unfortunately, if You don't do well on the GRE, someone else will. 

Edited February 13, 2015 by Much Anxious Very Waiting

[TXInstrument11]

I honestly think it has its use. Although I wouldn't say it's useful in predicting success in graduate school(I actually have no data to back this up) where I would say it's useful is in getting graduate programs  top students. Now, a top student may be someone who has little difficulty on the GRE, took it once and aced it. A top student may also be someone who found it extremely difficult but despite, managed a great score. 

I mean starting a PhD program, it's a pretty big commitment on both parts, the incoming graduate students and the universities. If I were a university I would want something in place that may weed out people (although it may prevent people who'd do great from getting it as well) who didn't do what was necessary, whatever that may be in their case, to make sure their GRE scores wouldn't be a problem when it came to admissions decisions. This is variable however, and sometimes it could simply be the case that it just isn't worth it for person x to sacrifice n amount of something(s) just to get into graduate school but ultimately that's what I think is the purpose of this exam (or at least where I see it's use). Universities would rather be safe than sorry, they have to protect themselves, and I believe it's understandable.   

GRE success is probably a better indicator of an applicant's SES (a strong predictor of grad school success through no fault of their own) than tenacity. In fact, I have actually heard that very few people manage to improve significantly between testings, which has lead some to advocate preparing and taking the test only once. [actually, ETS aims for this very thing in the name of "accuracy"] It also appears to be the case that you have purposefully ignored my earlier post about comparison to the SAT. I studied quant for 3 months using the exact study schedule you put forward with absolutely no improvement to my score. 

 

There is nothing wrong, in theory, with using a standardized test. However, if the standardized test is not supported by empirical data to be a better predictor of success than other measures, it is a indeed a bad and arbitrary requirement. In fact, such a lack of support defeats the purpose of using a standardized test as a semi-objective measure. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[TXInstrument11]

I think it's useful insofar as it's just another means to include / exclude applications. Many of these programs get 1000s of applications - they need a universal scale on which to compare students. Sure, the GRE might not be revealing any real Truth about an individual's abilities, but at least it creates a point of comparison for the admissions committees. If two equal candidates have score discrepancies, then why not choose the one with the better score? If anything, they're better at taking tests, and that's a skill. I think it helps good scorers more than it hurts bad scorers, at least above a certain threshold.

 

Unfortunately, if You don't do well on the GRE, someone else will. 

Test taking skill is of no real-life value. Also, a fake point of comparison is not helpful. It's like flipping a coin. 

 

And of course the system helps high scorers better than low scorers and if (I) "don't do well on the GRE, someone else will". Just what are you trying to argue here?

 

Of course schools need a universal scale to combat rampant grade inflation. I'm not advocating chucking all standardized tests. They just need evidence to back up their use. Otherwise, that universal scale is pointless.

 

All in all, I am very pro standardized test. For example, here in FL, the FCAT was nearly bashed into the last century by teachers and parents. I found some criticisms of the test valid, but not most. Two or three years back when we were still transitioning to Common Core, a majority of 3rd graders actually failed FCAT reading. Numbers had to be tweaked for many to pass, but it was ultimately a good day. The test did its job in finding an area where our school system needed improvement. 

 

Common Core math, as unpopular as it is, also appears to be superior to FCAT math. Rigorous study and a fervent willingness to improve our standardized test system will only lead to good things when all is said and done. I don't see the point in propping up the status quo when we can devise a better way. 

 

For the next few decades, it seems inevitable that standardized tests punish low SES students and merely measure soft skills like "test taking ability", but it doesn't need to be this way. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

GRE success is probably a better indicator of an applicant's SES (a strong predictor of grad school success through no fault of their own) than tenacity. In fact, I have actually heard that very few people manage to improve significantly between testings, which has lead some to advocate preparing and taking the test only once. [actually, ETS aims for this very thing in the name of "accuracy"] It also appears to be the case that you have purposefully ignored my earlier post about comparison to the SAT. I studied quant for 3 months using the exact study schedule you put forward with absolutely no improvement to my score. 

 

There is nothing wrong, in theory, with using a standardized test. However, if the standardized test is not supported by empirical data to be a better predictor of success than other measures, it is a indeed a bad and arbitrary requirement. In fact, such a lack of support defeats the purpose of using a standardized test as a semi-objective measure. 

Maybe I ignored your comments comparing your SAT with GRE scores and the lack of improvement but not purposely, it just wasn't in mind at the time.  I will admit, I'm extremely biased when it comes to arguing for the impact of 'tenacity' or effort, since in terms of SES, and what I'll call here "having a leg up in life" I'm at the very end of the line (by US standards) & I've never been 'good' at test taking.  

[TXInstrument11]

Maybe I ignored your comments comparing your SAT with GRE scores and the lack of improvement but not purposely, it just wasn't in mind at the time.  I will admit, I'm extremely biased when it comes to arguing for the impact of 'tenacity' or effort, since in terms of SES, and what I'll call here "having a leg up in life" I'm at the very end of the line (by US standards) & I've never been 'good' at test taking.  

And what is your point? You have provided an anecdote just as I have. All anecdotes do is indicate what is possible, not probable.

 

Either way, our results say absolutely zip about the utility of the GRE. Only predictive validity can do that.

Edited February 15, 2015 by TXInstrument11

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

And what is your point? You have provided an anecdote just as I have. All anecdotes do is indicate what is possible, not probable.

 

Either way, our results say absolutely zip about the utility of the GRE. Only predictive validity can do that.

Lol, I was conceding to your point, should have made that more clear. 

[TXInstrument11]

Lol, I was conceding to your point, should have made that more clear. 

Ah, okay. Sorry, I think I was in full-on debate mode and went a little overboard.

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

Ah, okay. Sorry, I think I was in full-on debate mode and went a little overboard.

It's all cool, I get the same way at times. 

[TheMercySeat]

I think something we all learned is that a 'good' test is both valid and reliable.

Does the GRE *really* measure what it is suppose to measure?

The correlations here are sad, and the GRE Q is even negatively correlated with time to completion: http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~nkuncel/gre%20meta.pdf

The above article found that the subject GRE is consistently a stronger predictor of nearly all graduate school outcomes. It doesn't make sense to me why universities hold the General GREs in high regard while consistently ignoring the subject GREs, especially if schools are truly concerned about using the GREs as an indicator of academic success and retention.

Edited February 15, 2015 by TheMercySeat

[spunky]

i still feel this has more to do with an issue of practicality and not necessarily with accuracy of performance. psych undergrads score pretty high up on both the verbal and the subject GRE. from a test-developing perspective these scores are not very discriminating because the majority of people do well. the quant GRE score is the one where you actually have bigger chunks of variability (unfortunately towards the lower end) and i guess that's why AdComms focus so much on it. the problem is, of course, with the jump in the logic that goes from "they did well on the quant section THERFORE they will do well in graduate school" which is not necessarily warranted. 

 

i do believe, however, that the bigger issue is how can universities develop a common standard along which they can compare their students. like how do you know that a 4.0 GPA from university A is equivalent to a 4.0 GPA from university B? there is no easy way to go about this from a standardization perspective unless you're willing to step on a lot of peoples toes and get yourself in situations like, i dunno, someone claiming "how can it be that a 4.0 from some crappy state school translates into a 2.0 from Standford U!?!" 

 

i truly do think that the GRE is the best the education establishment has been able to come up with to address this issue. it is incredibly limited, as we have discussed, but the other alternative that i have heard people champion (holistic evaluations) would simply cost too much. and now that we live in the "for-profit" model of education i don't really see it happening any time soon. at least not in my lifetime.

[TenaciousBushLeaper]

i do believe, however, that the bigger issue is how can universities develop a common standard along which they can compare their students. like how do you know that a 4.0 GPA from university A is equivalent to a 4.0 GPA from university B? there is no easy way to go about this from a standardization perspective unless you're willing to step on a lot of peoples toes and get yourself in situations like, i dunno, someone claiming "how can it be that a 4.0 from some crappy state school translates into a 2.0 from Standford U!?!" 

Not sure if this is what you're saying but I think I can relate since I transferred from a community college to my current university, in some subjects courses are about equal in terms of work load and difficulty however in others, they're worlds apart. (particularly in mathematics) 

[spunky]

Not sure if this is what you're saying but I think I can relate since I transferred from a community college to my current university, in some subjects courses are about equal in terms of work load and difficulty however in others, they're worlds apart. (particularly in mathematics) 

 

This is definitely a big part of it. And if we’re all honest about it, we’ve done something similar before. Like how many times as an undergrad did you or anyone else go on ratemyprofessors just to see who gave away “easy As”? Or maybe decided to skip a particular course until another prof taught it? I mean, it happens even within universities where profs themselves don’t have the same standards of effort when it comes to grading. Now, if that happens within the micro cosmos of a university department, imagine just how much bigger the problem is across universities themselves?

 

Even from a purely psychometric point of view, the question of standardization is not easy. People are simply too different to find that magic one-size-fits-all approach that the test is supposed to be. That’s why I do have to say that even with all its limitations, the GRE is kind of the least crappy thing we have that is still feasible . As I said, if we lived in the magical land of spunky’s awesomeness everything would be holistic examinations… but we don’t live in said place. Which is why, I guess, we can sort of try and do the best we can with what we have which is acknowledge that yes, maybe the GRE score should be something to consider but definitely not carry the weight that it carries. It was never designed to do the stuff people do with it… but it’s just too darn convenient to let it go!

[TheMercySeat]

I think ETS should feature items on the GRE that women and minorities consistently outperform white males in. just to see how society reacts

Edited February 16, 2015 by TheMercySeat