Which part of the GRE is of least importance to Engineering schools?

[Mechanician2015]

Gee, I don't think the OP imagined he would generate such a debate

[TakeruK]

It sounds like you believe getting good at mistake-free computation will not improve your ability to do well on the GRE Q section, and I hope you're joking. Double checking things is great, but when a student asks you to do a problem you didn't have prepared in advance, and you can't do it without messing up the calculations, that is a problem.

 

I am actually trying to say the reverse of this first sentence. Of course getting good at mistake-free computation will help you do well on the GRE Q.

 

What I'm saying is that getting good at mistake-free computation (in the time-limited exam environment of the GRE Q) is not that useful of a skill for being an effective graduate student. It sounds like we do agree on this though--we both say that the GRE does not measure your success as a grad student, but I seem to take it further to say that I don't think being good at tests is a necessary criteria we want to set for incoming graduate students.

 

I interpret your posts as saying "students write tests all the time, therefore, a good student will be good at tests, so a poor test score is no excuse for a new grad student". My counter-argument is that because "doing well on exams is not the intended goal of education, it is possible for a good student to be terrible at tests. Therefore, there is more than one type of good student, and if we have the attitude that good students must have high GRE Q scores, then we are only going to admit one type of grad student--the type that is good at tests."

 

And I am worried about this attitude in general because if we continue to choose to expect that good students must have good test scores, then we are only labelling one type of good student as "good" and because we often spend resources (time, opportunities, etc.) on the "good" students, we are potentially limiting academia from other types of good students.

 

I agree that the reality is that exams take place more often in education than we would like. In some ways, they are necessary to have some kind of standardization. But as I wrote in previous posts, there are ways to make exams less like the standardized GRE exams and better at actually evaluating knowledge, even at big schools (I went to a big public university with 45,000 students). Given that these exams are a reality, we (albeit just current graduate students, but eventually some of us will be professors) have a choice of whether or not we want to continue to judge people based on exam performance. So I reject the fatalistic idea that "this is how it is, we'll just have to deal with it forever". Obviously, we must still be practical (no one here is saying to protest the system by boycotting the GREs completely) but we can still critically examine the realities and take actions for small changes towards what we'd like.

[velua]

I don't think being good at tests should be a necessary criterion for incoming graduate students either, and it's not that big a deal in general if you get a "bad" Q score (whatever that means), but it is alarming if you get a "bad" Q score as a student in math, CS, physics, engineering, etc. Presumably all of these students have taken a calculus sequence, which is a pretty computationally intensive subject area, and all of these students have the opportunity to review the material and practice. I know the GRE doesn't test calculus, but knowing your way around a triangle and being able to solve linear equations or inequalities is a pre-requisite for calculus.

As you say, standardization is somewhat important (especially if you come from an unknown program), and tests can provide that. Subject GREs are obviously better for this than the general GRE, but not all students take them. Exams are not the point of graduate school, but students who are dishonest with themselves about their strengths use "bad test taker" as an excuse, and it gets old. I hear it with the GRE, and I hear it from people who do poorly on the math subject GRE as well ("oh, I was busy proving things, I can't believe I'm supposed to know calculus"). I'm sure people also complain about the other subject GREs. That excuse won't fly if you mess up exams in first-year grad classes and get placed on probation for a poor GPA, and it won't fly if you don't pass your quals and get downgraded to a Master's student.

My views are also geared toward the more selective schools (let's say top 50 or so). Bad GREs and GPAs are more forgivable at less prestigious schools. If we get rid of tests, how should applications be evaluated at, say, Stanford, where there are so many applicants with strong LORs and research experience? Should they just throw away applications without a LOR from someone well-known?

[Eigen]

I think things have changed a bit now, but I have never considered rote arithmetic that useful for graduate school, or that indicative of someone being intelligent. 

 

Accordingly, doing long division by hand (old style GRE) was not very useful to determine a "good" physical scientist, or engineer. In the real world, you'll always double check with a calculator anyway. No reason to rest the results of a costly experiment (time, materials, etc) on the result of back of the envelope math. 

 

I strongly, strongly disagree that taking exams is what we're trained to do. If you feel that way about your education, I would personally say that school failed you. 

 

I also consistently find that the least prepared graduate students were the ones who "did really well in class" or "did really well on exams". A thorough knowledge of your subject area is important. Being able to work things out is important. 

 

Being able to have ideas that have the potential to revolutionize fields is crucial. As is the ability to practically troubleshoot and carry those ideas through. 

 

Personally, I'd argue that the more elite schools are less reliant on scores- they're getting more than enough applicants with publications and research experience that allows them to not rely on scores that they really don't care about. 

 

Also, who cares about being on probation due to low grades if you're publishing? I know plenty of fellow students that spent years in grad school on academic probation because of grades, but came out with great publications, grant proposals, etc. and went on to do fine. None of the faculty really cared either. 

[velua]

It's usually standard policy to kick people out for being on probation too long and not raising their grades.

 

I think I learned a lot from college, not just how to take exams. But when I was TAing at a large public university, I saw how everything was about exams and not learning. This was forced by having so many exams and quizzes, and the students often had poor attitudes too (if I had some extra time, I might mention something interesting that was extra, and the most common question was "is this going to be on the exam?"). It's a sad truth. Many of my friends from college who went on to grad school elsewhere told me basically the same things.

[Mechanician2015]

 

No one cares about grades in grad school.

There's a simple formula for the optimal GPA in grad school:

Optimal GPA = Minimum Required GPA + ε

Anything higher implies time that could have been spent on research was wasted on classes. Advisors might even raise an eyebrow at a 4.0

During the first two years, students need to find an advisor, pick a research area, read a lot of papers and try small, exploratory research projects. Spending too much time on coursework distracts from these objectives.

 

Since I'm not a graduate student, I'd like to know to what extent this quote is true.

 

Also:

 

 

A word on GPA cut-offs

I discovered through feedback that some schools (including Utah) have a GPA cut-off. I think GPA cut-offs are absurd. Of course, GPA cut-offs are not hard. In practice, there is a way to override them, but it probably requires a professor going to bat for you and getting the right bits flipped in the university bureaucracy. So, if you have a low GPA, mention it after you've piqued a professor's interest, and ask if you think it will be a problem during the admissions process. [One of Utah's Turing award winners was a "special-case" admit for grad school because his GPA was below the cut-off. We're glad we didn't reject him.] If I really like you, I'll go to bat for you.

 

Quotes from here.

[TakeruK]

I don't think being good at tests should be a necessary criterion for incoming graduate students either, and it's not that big a deal in general if you get a "bad" Q score (whatever that means), but it is alarming if you get a "bad" Q score as a student in math, CS, physics, engineering, etc. 

 

I feel like the second part of your sentence and the parts where you say people are just "excusing" their bad test scores are in contradiction with the first part (where you say being good at tests should not be necessary). If being good at tests is not necessary, then bad test scores and being a "bad test taker" should not be a big deal. I agree with you that one should never say that they are a "bad test taker" in their SOP or anything, because it does sound like an excuse. However, we evaluate a candidate, I'm saying we should not be alarmed by bad test scores if the rest of their profile is consistent with someone who knows what they are doing.

 

I agree that some people do use "bad test taker" as an excuse for a poor performance. Perhaps for some people, a little more preparation would have increased their score. What I'm objecting to is that it sounds like you don't believe "bad test takers" exist at all and that in STEM fields, everyone with a bad GRE Q score could have gotten better if only they prepared more, and since they didn't, we should use this as a factor in admission decisions. As I said above, I think this attitude is harmful and it places actual bad test takers (as well as people who cannot prepare for or retake the exam) at an unfair disadvantage in admissions.

 

Also, I don't think your claim that top schools require high test scores is true. As Eigen points out, they are getting more than enough applicants with publications and other research experience that they can generally use these factors to determine an applicant's potential as a graduate student. That said, having a super impressive GRE score might still make your application catch the eye of a reviewer. But doing well on the GRE is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for grad school acceptance. Just like having a first author paper is not necessary nor sufficient. 

 

I only noticed the "exam based" learning in the very large freshman physics classes (>2000 students per course). Very few students continue to ask me these questions when I TA 2nd year undergraduate classes and beyond. 

[TakeruK]

@Mechanician

 

In my experience, both quotes are fairly true. I think they do describe nuanced cases that is easy to take out of context though. For the first quote, professors in my department told this to all incoming students at the campus-wide orientation. A 4.0 GPA is too high. A 3.0 GPA is too low. They expect us to aim for 3.5-3.7 (roughly B+/A-). 

 

The second case is an example why you rarely see hard cutoffs published, especially for GRE scores. By setting a hard cutoff rule, they have to justify it to some authority if they want to override it. Usually though, the University-wide requirements will set some cutoff GPA for admission but as the quote says, if a professor/department is willing to go to bat for you, this will be waived. Since University-wide policies don't generally cover GREs, I find that most departments in my field try to avoid adding more regulations by not setting GRE cutoffs. If you ask the department carefully, you might get some information like "the median accepted score is X" or "the range in accepted scores tends to be Y-Z" which is helpful for knowing how you compare to the competition. However, they have nothing to gain by setting a cutoff and a lot to lose (more work, lose a good student) if they did have one.

 

When cutoffs are published, they tend to be very low though. In the old 800 scale, one top school published cutoffs at 500 / 800 for both Q and V sections.

[velua]

I agree that some people do use "bad test taker" as an excuse for a poor performance. Perhaps for some people, a little more preparation would have increased their score. What I'm objecting to is that it sounds like you don't believe "bad test takers" exist at all and that in STEM fields, everyone with a bad GRE Q score could have gotten better if only they prepared more, and since they didn't, we should use this as a factor in admission decisions. As I said above, I think this attitude is harmful and it places actual bad test takers (as well as people who cannot prepare for or retake the exam) at an unfair disadvantage in admissions.

 

Also, I don't think your claim that top schools require high test scores is true. As Eigen points out, they are getting more than enough applicants with publications and other research experience that they can generally use these factors to determine an applicant's potential as a graduate student. That said, having a super impressive GRE score might still make your application catch the eye of a reviewer. But doing well on the GRE is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for grad school acceptance. Just like having a first author paper is not necessary nor sufficient.

 

 

Everything is relative. In STEM, < 165 might be "bad" for Stanford or Berkeley or MIT, while < 160 might be bad for schools like ASU or Utah.

 

If Stanford receives 1500 applications for 100 spots, and let's say 1000 of them have strong LORs and research experience, the easiest thing to get it down to a reasonable number is to filter by GPA or GRE. I think passing the GRE filter is even more important at top schools. Why take a promising candidate with bad scores when they can take a promising candidate with good scores? That's why I think having a "decent" GRE score is necessary (but obviously not sufficient).

Edited April 29, 2015 by velua

[velua]

Since I'm not a graduate student, I'd like to know to what extent this quote is true.

 

Also:

 

Quotes from here.

 

GPA of 3+epsilon (usually 3 is the minimum) is really not ideal. Yes, it's a bad idea to stress out about getting a 4.0 to the detriment of your research. But if you keep a 3.1, then you have very little room for error in case you have a bad semester. Academia is a nasty game, and if you go on probation, they'll try to get you to leave with a Master's if they don't really like you. It's not hard for a professor to give you an A- instead of an A or a B+ instead of an A- if that's what it takes to keep you from getting above the 3.0. If they do like you, they'll find ways to keep you around anyway.

 

There are other reasons to keep a high GPA as well: you don't want to apply to fellowships with a 3.3 grad GPA for example. Summer support is very competitive and TAs are often chosen on factors such as GPA and reasonable TA ratings.

 

Bottom line: try to stay above 3.7, at the very least above 3.5. It's not worth the risk or stress of dropping into the 3.0-3.3 range.

[Eigen]

Since I'm not a graduate student, I'd like to know to what extent this quote is true.

 

Also:

 

Quotes from here.

 

One of the more common things I hear from our faculty about our first year students is that they spend too much time on classes, and care too much about grades.

 

Also, while close to a 4.0 is easy to maintain, I see no reason to shoot for it to the detriment of anything else.

 

For a PhD program, your research productivity is the primary concern. With good research, no one really cares what your grades are, they don't matter much anyway. Do well, learn the material, publish papers, and get a good reputation from that.

 

When it comes to grades, minimums and probation.... Most schools have set times you can stay below a minimum, or on probation, with exceptions granted either by committee or by the PI. Since generally if you're doing well research wise it's your PI that funds you (RAships), making them happy is usually the most important thing.

 

I've never heard a faculty member say "Man, Eigen did really well in my class, he'll go far".

 

Getting back to the GRE- there was a comment about being able to take the test multiple times to raise scores. Personally, I can't think of many things that are more of a waste (time and money) than re-taking the GRE unless you had a particularly abysmal score to begin with. It's only useful for getting into graduate school- nothing else- and other things will likely benefit you more.

 

Also, Velua- just curious, but are you currently in a PhD program? I notice you have a 2016 application season on your profile. I ask, because the advice I'd give for a MS program is totally different than what I'd give for a PhD program- they're quite different.

[velua]

In math (and possibly other fields), your first order of business is to pass the quals. You then start attending seminars, looking for advisors, and starting research. It is possible to go to seminars and start some small research projects before then in many cases, but it's not your priority. This might take 1 or 2 years to get to that stage. Keep in mind first-year classes are often intended to prepare you for quals, so getting good grades and passing the quals tend to go hand in hand.

Eigen: I was in a math Ph.D. program, my interests changed, now I'm getting ready to apply for CS M.S.

[Eigen]

That's... Certainly not how our math program works, and it's quite well ranked. Granted, Math is quite a different beast from the physical sciences and engineering even here.

 

Regardless, isn't this thread about Engineering?

[Mechanician2015]

That's... Certainly not how our math program works, and it's quite well ranked. Granted, Math is quite a different beast from the physical sciences and engineering even here.

 

Regardless, isn't this thread about Engineering?

Excellent point.

 

I allow myself to point out that the average GRE-Q for Aerospace(the specific subject of the OP) at the top 10 is below the 90th percentile(the highest being Stanford, 165). They never publish a measure of dispersion, but with the amount of asians with Q=170(Indians, Iranians and Chinese in particular) I would say that either some people get in Stanford with a lot less than Q=165 or a lot of people get in with considerably less than that.

 

Ironically, Upenn is well below the top 10 and has the highest in my field(mechanical engineering) with 167 average.

 

@velua, you are right in this: someone with a low GPA(let's say due to lack of commitment and youth) has the chance to work hard to ace the GRE and catch the attention of AdComm. In that sense, Standarized tests represent an opportunity for otherwise disqualified applicants(due to low GPA).