GRE score

[jacib]

Im not entirely sure why everyone worries about the GRE so much.

Because its the only way we can actually compare ourselves to each other. It's no good to say "Oh they didn't want anyone working on China this year" because that's out of our control. GRE is basically the only thing we can change besides SoP. So it's comparable variable, and the only one that is easily quantified on the same standard (GPA's probably vary a lot depending on school).... of course we, as sociologists, are going to love it, even if it doesn't actually mean much.

I'm pretty sure this refers not to the analytical writing section, but to the old analytical (reasoning) section that was dropped several years ago.

It could well refer to both. One professor at a top ten school sent my old man (another professor) an email that said, "Then there's the third part,and I have no idea how to weight the [analytical writing]. Personally, i ignore it but look very closely at the essay and personal statement as well as the writing sample the student turns in" Another one sent something like "A lot of the old timers don't know what the new writing section means so they all just ignore it." It wouldn't surprise me if one or two schools were brave enough to adopt this as an official policy, rather than just an unofficial one.

[coffeeandtoast]

I'm not in the 90th percentile in any of my GRE scores. I'm just hoping my 4.0 and 3.9 GPA in undergrad and grad school do the job. If they don't, oh well.

I *highly* doubt that they cut off people based on GRE scores at least based on what I saw on my husband's grad school admission cycles last year. All schools are very different from each other.

[hawk]

if your GRE score is low enough, it can and will be used in the process of weeding out applications.

[ineedcaffeine]

I find it so weird that we are hearing so much conflicting information about GRE. Like some of the people who already responded, I've spoken to the graduate chair of a top 20 program and the first thing she mentioned was the importance of GRE. So go figure.

[readyforachange]

if your GRE score is low enough, it can and will be used in the process of weeding out applications.

I think the biggest impact it has is on the initial weeding out process in determining which applications to just reject right off the bat. There is a cutoff somewhere, and GRE scores provide an easier way of doing it. However, there is some hope: when I applied last year, one program scheduled a phone interview with me to discuss my 'abnormally low verbal GRE score' compared to other parts of my application. Thankfully they gave me the opportunity (and thankful my quant score brought up my GRE as a whole). I didn't address my scores in my SOP but some suggest to do just that.

Edited January 8, 2010 by readyforachange

[jacib]

I'm not in the 90th percentile in any of my GRE scores. I'm just hoping my 4.0 and 3.9 GPA in undergrad and grad school do the job. If they don't, oh well.

The percentiles have changed a lot over the years. I would say anything over the 90th percentile(just don't remember what the most recent numbers are) is considered a good score; below 70ath is a badscore. If someone is weak in both verbal and quantitative, they would have a hard time getting in unless those scores were counterbalanced by an outstanding GPA from a good school. Then there's the third part,and I have no idea how to weight the [analytical writing]. Personally, i ignore it but look very closely at the essay and personal statement as well as the writing sample the student turns in

Generally, it's a question of balancing one thing against the other, and I have found much to my dismay that recent admissions committees vary widely in how much they weight GRE's and sadly enough,individuals also vary.One low sore won't hurt; two low scores need to have something pretty outstanding to counter balance;a bad GRE and a less than stellar record will have a hard time, though we admitted one such person who won a prize for the best senor thesis.

That is the "inside scoop" from a top public university. My father is a sociologist, and because I was applying to grad schools, he emailed his colleagues at other departments and got their take on GRE scores. I'm not actually applying to any of these schools, but these are places where my dad knows people quite well (and who actually know me pretty well) and they were all quite candid with my dad so there's no reason to doubt this info.

Another top public school wrote back:

I actually have a precise answer for this. Mean GRE of admitted students in 2008 was 1349, Verbal 644, Quant 705, and Analytical 5. In 2009, the mean GRE was 1409, Verbal 679, Quant 730, and Analytical 5.1Of course, what really matters is the writing sample and statement of purpose

A professor at a top ivy league school wrote:

We have not always ruled people out on low GREs. But generally people have at least around 630-650 in each. Sometimes verbal is a little higher and math a little lower. Foreign students often get by with lower verbal because they have higher math. Score in high 600s and low 700s do attract more instant attention.Some students with around 630-630 have decided to retake for application.

However, one of the professors at the one of the public schools listed above specifically wrote

My guess is that a place like [the ivy league university above] would be much more rigid than we are about scores, because they are more concerned with improving with their "ranking" and have a larger percent of demographers.At least in one case I can tell you [a different ivy league university] is more rigid than we are. You should ask [a person we both know there].

Whether the professor from Penn was write when she said that the numbers need to be "at least" 90%, I'm not sure that's right (though the Ivy league school did say 630, which is about 90%), but all the schools indicated flexibility, none indicated a hard cap anywhere, and it seemed clear that the GRE scores could be balanced out with info from elsewhere. 90% obviously doesn't apply to the math (780=89%). Private schools seem to care about GRE more than public ones (though this sample size is very very small). Of course, outside the top ten scores get lower fast, I think.

Edited January 8, 2010 by jacib

[coffeeandtoast]

I think speculation about GRE scores and GPA is everything but helpful. There seems to be no magic formula for being admitted since we all have different strengths and weaknesses in our applications.

I, for one, have an engineering background, so my application is going to be weighed differently against those other candidates who have a background in sociology and so forth. Applications are looked as a whole not just particular numbers (or at least that is how I do it at work when we are hiring and looking at resumes). My guess is that if you have low GREs or even a low GPA but you have a stellar record in publishing articles and/or a lot of awards/scholarships, then your application is given a different consideration.

Edited January 8, 2010 by coffeeandtoast

[exposingfalsehoods]

Having been involved in admissions, I can attest that some people here are blowing a lot of smoke. GRE's are typically the least important component of an application.

GRE's are typically used for two purposes in admissions: 1) university-wide fellowship competition; 2) department admissions' minimum cut-off. Typically, anywhere from 1150-1200 on Q and V stands as an absolute minimum cut-off point for some, though not all, schools. Superb GRE scores (i.e., 1450+) can give you a boost, but they will never get you in in their own right. GRE scores are not used as the main basis for comparison of applicants. In fact, statement of purpose, letters of recommendation, and writing sample (where applicable) are the most important components of the applications and serve as the most reliable basis for comparison (someone could get very lucky on the GRE but evince no real talent for sociological study).

The confusion seems to be over the difference between average GRE scores of admitted and/or enrolled applicants and minimum required GRE scores. There is often, though not always, a correlation between successful applicants and applicants with high GRE scores, but this is certainly not a casual relation (as we all have learned in Sociology 101, correlations and causal relations are not coextensive).

Finally, let's look at UNC's published admissions stats in sociology (a top-5 program):

In 2009, the average GRE scores for ACCEPTED applicants were: 526.67 V, 633.33 Q. These are both well below the 90th percentile in their respective area. The average scores for DENIED applicants were: 587.14 V, 610.00 Q. Source: http://gradschool.unc.edu/pdf/2009-ADMISSION-STATISTICS.pdf

As you can see, UNC's denied applicants had a higher average GRE score in V than the applicants it accepted, and the Q scores were comparable. This is just one example (though there are many more), but it is enough to show that there is quite a bit of confusion in this thread on how graduate admissions work.

[hip2btriangle]

Having been involved in admissions, I can attest that some people here are blowing a lot of smoke. GRE's are typically the least important component of an application.

GRE's are typically used for two purposes in admissions: 1) university-wide fellowship competition; 2) department admissions' minimum cut-off. Typically, anywhere from 1150-1200 on Q and V stands as an absolute minimum cut-off point for some, though not all, schools. Superb GRE scores (i.e., 1450+) can give you a boost, but they will never get you in in their own right. GRE scores are not used as the main basis for comparison of applicants. In fact, statement of purpose, letters of recommendation, and writing sample (where applicable) are the most important components of the applications and serve as the most reliable basis for comparison (someone could get very lucky on the GRE but evince no real talent for sociological study).

The confusion seems to be over the difference between average GRE scores of admitted and/or enrolled applicants and minimum required GRE scores. There is often, though not always, a correlation between successful applicants and applicants with high GRE scores, but this is certainly not a casual relation (as we all have learned in Sociology 101, correlations and causal relations are not coextensive).

Finally, let's look at UNC's published admissions stats in sociology (a top-5 program):

In 2009, the average GRE scores for ACCEPTED applicants were: 526.67 V, 633.33 Q. These are both well below the 90th percentile in their respective area. The average scores for DENIED applicants were: 587.14 V, 610.00 Q. Source: http://gradschool.unc.edu/pdf/2009-ADMISSION-STATISTICS.pdf

As you can see, UNC's denied applicants had a higher average GRE score in V than the applicants it accepted, and the Q scores were comparable. This is just one example (though there are many more), but it is enough to show that there is quite a bit of confusion in this thread on how graduate admissions work.

given that there still seems to be a lot up in the air with all of this, does anyone have any sense of how adcom's look at people with multiple (say....three? ) GRE scores? i've been told some schools take the best scores from each, some take averages of all. and for the quote above, if my scores were factored into their applicant averages...which score would they use to add to that? my best scores or my average? just curious.