Need Some GRE Lit Advice (any past test takers?)

[biyutefulphlower]

Hi Everyone!

 

I'm looking for some advice on the GRE Lit Exam.  (I'm posting it here and not on the GRE board, since I figured Lit folks are the only ones taking it. But, just let me know if it should go elsewhere.)

 

So, I'm signed up for the September Exam and I'm a kind of worried.  Looking through the practice exam in the back of the Princeton Review guide, I was shaken by how esoteric some of the questions were.  But, trolling around the forums (I think on here), I saw some people note that the Princeton Review guide is actually out of date as far as the test is concerned. And that leads me to wondering - did anyone on here take the exam in the last year or so?  If you did, is the Princeton Review on target with what we should be studying?  (I'm also supplementing with a few websites I found, but am still trying to find a bit more guidance rather than 'study everything', lol.)

 

I've been reviewing for about 1.5 months and in all honesty, I'm really trying to decide if it's worth it for me to continue dedicating time to studying for this beast of a test, or if I should just turn my attention to the applications themselves.  Only one school I'm applying to requires the GRE Lit exam (and it's not my top choice).  Decisions, decisions...

 

Really appreciate your advice guys!!

[echo449]

Unfortunately, the website I used to study was taken offline as the person hosting it left their graduate university. However, I think basically the best advice that I can give you is to find lists of major writers (particularly poets) from each of the major time periods. Read their biographical entries in the Norton anthology (the long version), and perhaps wikipedia as well, so that you understand why you are being tested on those figures in particular. The Lit GRE will test you on a caricature of the writer in question, so it is less important to know individual poems than to know just what about an individual writer is famous for. If the writer is a prose writer, don't bother reading their work at all--instead, read summaries of the work and try to remember the names of major characters. 

Basically, this test sucks. However! The idea of the test is scarier than the test itself, which, in the end, isn't super important outside the upper-tier of programs (and even then, it's debatable). Calm down, make flashcards, and don't spend more than a month studying for it, since there are other, more important parts of your application to focus on. 


Also, practice your scansion a bit; it will give you some easy points. 

Edit: rereading your post, I would partly say that you would be well-served to take a break for a couple weeks, then go back to studying once you are closer to the test date. I put things off the important things last round (I didn't finish a draft of my writing sample until October; my statement of purpose wasn't in a near final form until Thanksgiving), and, uh, that made for a rough 6 weeks. 

Edited July 24, 2015 by echo449

[Dr. Old Bill]

It's a tough question, really. You might get a wide range of responses on this thread, and some of them will be contradictory...yet all of them will be valid! My opinion on the GRE subject test and its import has wavered greatly over the past year or so. A recent email from a DGS of a program I applied to last year mentioned specifically that my GRE subject test score was part of the reason why I wasn't accepted. But conventional wisdom among many scholars and folks here on GC is that the subject test doesn't matter too much. I guess the takeaway has to be that you should do the best you can on the GRE subject test, but if you don't do well, you can't let it worry you overly much, so long as the rest of your application is solid. Trying to figure out how much weight each program places on the GRE subject test is nigh impossible, so you just have to do your best.

 

As for studying and the Princeton book, I found the book fairly helpful and applicable to the actual test, but I recall others who did the test during the same time period as me had a completely different take on it. I think Echo449's advice is sound. You need to study for breadth of knowledge instead of depth, which is, I should point out, completely anathema to the objective of graduate English. Being able to recognize that the Bundren family is from a Faulkner novel, for instance, is more important than knowing the significance of Anse's false teeth in As I Lay Dying. Reading overviews of critical theorists and the various schools of literary theory can help, and even basic synopses (we're talking Wiki level here) of a broad range of literature, poetry, authors, theorists etc. can help as well. The Princeton book amusingly (and accurately) refers to the kind of knowledge as a "cocktail party" level of detail.

 

Opinions on this will vary widely, but in my view there is truly no tried-and-true way of studying for the test. Were I to do it over again (which I will at some point...perhaps in April), I wouldn't answer every question. I made it through the test with about twenty minutes to spare, so I made educated guesses on the fifty or so answers I had skipped. Unfortunately I have no way of knowing if that hurt or helped my score, but I felt calm and confident during the test, so I hoped it would carry over into the results. I was admittedly very surprised when I got a decidedly mediocre score. I really thought I had done well.

 

Anyhow, it's a good thing that you're thinking about this in July.

[unræd]

My experience and recommendations as someone who took the test recently (last September) and did pretty well on it (760):

 

I'd gone into studying with plans to make 50,000 flashcards, but those never really materialized due to a bit of busyness and a greater amount of sloth; in the hurried couple of weeks leading up to the exam, the Princeton Review book is pretty much the only thing I used for studying, together with going back and reading some of the poems mentioned in there in their entirety. Don't get me wrong: the PR book has problems, and a ton of minor inaccuracies. But I fall into the camp--admittedly a small one on GC--that thinks it's still an accurate reflection of what's on the exam, at least in broad strokes. There was a bit more reading comprehension, but also plenty of straight-up identification, and some very, I repeat very, esoteric passages and questions. And certainly in terms of types of works discussed, I think it's still very useful--I can think of at least five questions that I got right because of things I'd learned reading the answers (especially the wrong ones!) in the PR's practice exam. Moreover, and as WT says, the "cocktail party" approach they advocate in re level of knowledge required is just the right one, I think. I mean, I've read almost nothing; I'm shockingly, terrifyingly, embarrassingly poorly read. But, if this is a distinction that holds, I've read about a a lot of things I haven't read, and I know all kinds of things about the things that I don't know.

 

The other big thing I think some people miss out on is the extent to which, like all multiple choice exams, it is ultimately just a test of your ability to take multiple choice exams. You shouldn't guess wildly, but you are able to eliminate at least one option from the five answers given, you should guess; even taking random stabs in the dark, that approach will yield a net .25 pts for every four of those questions answered--and usually you won't be guessing that randomly. (I don't remember the exact number, but the number of questions I left unanswered was in the mid teens.) All of the tools of elimination, logic, and deduction can be brought to bear on the test, and all for the better, especially on the huge, multiple-part question series.

 

I agree with echo449 that you're probably due for a break--especially if only one of your programs requires it, there are other things that will be a lot more important to the contours of your applications in total than this one component of one app, and those are the things you'd most likely do better to think about at this point. I will also say that my percentile score tracked relatively well with the scores on the practice tests I took--both the one in the PR book, and the one provided by ETS. If you've taken those and are happy enough with the score you get, I wouldn't worry!

[1Q84]

FWIW, I was one of the folks in the other thread that mentioned feeling like the Princeton Review guide didn't align with the actual test. I'll offer two minor correctives to that statement: 

 

1. I forgot that I was using the 2012 edition (I was a keener and bought it super early, before my MA even began), so the 2013-2014 edition may be more up to date, for all I know.

 

2. I think what unraed says is correct in that the strategies for general test-taking are still very accurate and useful. (I was also going to mention how I liked Princeton's analogy of a "cocktail party" level of knowledge being sufficient for that test but Wyatt pointed that out already.) What I do think could use some more emphasis on their part, however, is the fact that reading comprehension questions have both become more prevalent and also more tricky, in my eyes. The biggest problem for me was that the ones on my test felt simply far longer than I anticipated. I know the Princeton guide mentioned long passages and how to deal with them but these were long. It threw me for a loop getting so many long passages in one test, I think. 

 

Anyway, that's all to say that I didn't mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd still use Princeton as one of several study aides if I had a second go at it! 

 

PS. I'm happy to send my 2012 Lit Test guide to someone in need + the General Test guide too. PM me!

[silenus_thescribe]

I'd echo what echo, unraed, Wyatt, and IQ have all said; they're spot on. The cocktail party analogy is apt, and it'll quickly bear itself out in evidence as you take your practice tests. 

 

My experience with the test, relative to how my season ended up, is unclear on the matter of how much my score had a bearing on my eventual acceptances (three: 2 PhD, 1 MA). Of the 13 schools I applied to, only 5 required the test; two others "strongly recommended" it (or some variation thereof). One of my PhD acceptances required the subject test; the other did not. My MA acceptance didn't require GREs at all, including the standard test.

 

On their website, the school that I got accepted to that required the Subject Test (that's it in my signature line below) states that any score below the 60th percentile "raises questions about applicant readiness". I got the 55th. In addition to the fact that I was just shy of the 60th percentile, I think part of why that ended up not discounting my application is because of my areas of focus, which time-wise are almost entirely 20th century on. Since the test doesn't really ask too many questions on that subject, I think the ad comms might have thought, "Well, for someone not as ensconced in the canon, a score like that isn't entirely surprising." That's purely speculative, but it's one of the reasons that makes sense of why I got into my now future university with an otherwise "meh" score.

 

While 55th percentile ain't great, it's worth noting that the first practice test I took at the start of October 2014 (I took the October test, on the 25th) was dismal -- 7th percentile. A big part of that was that I poorly managed the strategy of the test (cf. the comments by Wyatt, IQ, et al -- like most standardized tests, I'd be willing to say the test is really 60-40 on strategy/knowledge, maybe 70/30), but after that failed test, I made more notecards than I thought humanly possible, and bumped my score up almost 50 points in a few weeks. On some practice tests, I even neared the 70th percentile. So while I know the test looks daunting, even requiring an impossible amount of knowledge, superficial knowledge truly reigns supreme, save for the spare tricky interpretive question (which are few and far between). The test wants a human literary Wikipedia, not the knowledge base of a tenured professor. Like Wyatt said, it's fantastic that you're thinking about this now; I know if I had been studying as much this time last year as I did last October, I'd have fared far better on the test. You are not in a bad place at all.

 

Lastly, I would especially emphasize IQ's point about the prevalence of reading comprehension questions. While the Princeton Review book -- which is definitely a must-purchase -- gets the types of individual questions right, it gets the overall structure of the test, at least based off of my October 2014 experience, wrong. The practice test in the PR book, as well as the numerous tests available online, feature numerous shorter excerpts with one or two questions; as the PR book sells it, these are largely identification. The October 2014 test, however, was much heavier on reading comp, as IQ points out, and the structure was longer excerpts with many questions -- sometimes upwards of ten -- for each excerpt. It's somewhat of a relief because it felt like like a "cram as much historical details" kind of test (although there will still plenty of identification questions), but it's also tricky because, if things remain the same, the test you'll take will be structured noticeably differently from the normal practice tests. 

[biyutefulphlower]

Thank you so, so, so *soooo* much all of you! You guys have really helped me feel better about this, especially since you went so in depth with your explainations. I'm really going to take all of your advice to heart. (One thing that made me nervous was a site I read that said the guy studied for six months - yikes!) Hopefully I make it through in one piece, haha. Thanks again!!

[BooksCoffeeBeards]

I'd like to echo biyute's sentiment as well. I was never given or advised on good strategies for taking the test before, this has been very helpful. I still have a little under three months to study, but I think I can take a couple weeks to gather general info, and then go through studying and committing as much to memory as possible.

 

If anything, this test will certainly give me more cocktail party tricks in the future. Ya know?

[Waco-Waco]

Hey, 

Just wanted to echo the thanks— I'm sitting the GRE Lit in September and this is all very very useful, and I'm very grateful that you've all taken the time to give such thorough replies. 
 

I wonder if I could push the question a little further— if, god forbid, one were to come out with a dire GRE Lit score, do you think one should radically change where they plan to apply? I kind of have two tailored lists of potential programs, one requires the GRE Lit and the other doesn't; if I come out with a dire score, I'll probably end up sticking mostly to the latter list. 

Finally, have you guys seen the UPenn grad student information that says 'we recommend the GRE Lit but it isn't required'? Seems strange to me. 

[Waco-Waco]

Oh, and PS: I've heard people mention using the Norton, at least to get a sense of the writers that may appear on the test. Are we talking Norton Anthology of English Lit (all volumes)? Or do you think The Norton Anthology of Major Authors would be of use? And finally... what about the Norton Anthology of American Lit? Obviously, that seems like waaay too much. Questions, questions, questions... 

[Dr. Old Bill]

Oh, and PS: I've heard people mention using the Norton, at least to get a sense of the writers that may appear on the test. Are we talking Norton Anthology of English Lit (all volumes)? Or do you think The Norton Anthology of Major Authors would be of use? And finally... what about the Norton Anthology of American Lit?

 

Yes.

[unræd]

Oh, and PS: I've heard people mention using the Norton, at least to get a sense of the writers that may appear on the test. Are we talking Norton Anthology of English Lit (all volumes)? Or do you think The Norton Anthology of Major Authors would be of use? And finally... what about the Norton Anthology of American Lit? Obviously, that seems like waaay too much. Questions, questions, questions... 

 

WT gets just at the rub of the thing, which is the breadth of the test, but I'll complicate that a bit. I do think you'd probably be fine just using Major Authors; moreover, personally, I wouldn't bother with the Norton American. At all.

 

I did. I was really worried about my lack of American coverage--I'm a medievalist, and got out of my school's American lit survey requirements, which meant that I knew I'd be just one month in to the only American lit class (focused narrowly on American poetry from 1860-1910) of my college career when I sat the exam. So I bought the American anthologies, but, being the restless creature of sloth and desire that I am, opened them exactly never. Granted, I only saw one form of the exam, so who knows? Maybe this year's will be all colonial homilists, but I think--others should jump in--it is the case that the emphasis generally is much more on specifically British lit than either American or Anglophone.

 

I would, though, recommend a different Norton: the Theory and Criticism. Not--and I can't stress this highly enough--NOT to read the actual selections, but for its helpful headnotes, and the introductory précis it gives of the scope of modern criticism at the front. I wouldn't necessarily shell out money for one if you don't already own it (although it's a useful, often-required book; I needed it for one course in undergrad, and it's--but this upsets me--required for one of my grad courses in the fall), but it's definitely worth some time spent in the library with a copy.

[cloudofunknowing]

I'd second investing in some sort of manageable (time-wise and money-wise) survey of criticism and theory. The Norton anthology is excellent but, like all put out by Norton, massive and expensive (I'm not sure if it's been released in paperback or not). Since the theory questions, from what I remember, tend to require you to be able to differentiate between the major trends of theory used in 20th century criticism - New Criticism, Psychoanalytic, Structuralist, Marxist, Deconstruction, Post-Structuralism, Postmodernism, Postcolonialism, for example - something like Jonathan Culler's Theory: A Very Short Introduction, or Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction might give you the mileage needed and the major conceptual buzzwords.

[Dr. Old Bill]

Since the theory questions, from what I remember, tend to require you to be able to differentiate between the major trends of theory used in 20th century criticism - New Criticism, Psychoanalytic, Structuralist, Marxist, Deconstruction, Post-Structuralism, Postmodernism, Postcolonialism, for example - something like Jonathan Culler's Theory: A Very Short Introduction, or Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction might give you the mileage needed and the major conceptual buzzwords.

 

I second both of these books. Partially because I own them, but mainly because they are indeed excellent primers to literary theory...an area that I am otherwise something of a neophyte in. Culler's book is nice and concise, while Eagleton's writing style is one of the most accessible you'll come across in academic texts. If you respond well to learning through analogy and example, it's definitely a book to check out.

[BooksCoffeeBeards]

I have been browsing my Norton Anthology of Theory/Criticism lately, mostly taking in the author's notes on certain figures and movements. it has been very helpful as a refresher, seeing as it has been 6 years since I last took a rigorous literary theory course at all.

[Waco-Waco]

Hey, great - thanks for the further advice, very very helpful. 

It's funny also, being from the UK, that I'm actually most worried about my lack of English lit coverage - I've got some serious gaps - and feel more comfortable with the American and theory stuff. 

I'll stick with trawling through the Norton contents and using wiki for now. Also for any others sitting the test, I'm sure you know but Poetry Foundation is a great source to get access to a lot of the poetry.

[1Q84]

Also, for those on a budget like I was, this nifty little site was useful as a (very supplemental) guide. I don't know who made it and I know it's incomplete in many places but it was easy to browse while waiting for the train!

 

https://vademecumgre.wordpress.com

 

As for me, as an early modernist, I was lacking a lot of American knowledge, and I think this site has a decent introduction to early American.

[silenus_thescribe]

I'd also recommend Charles Bressler's Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice for any study of theory (although it's worth noting there are probably less than ten theory questions on the subject test). It hits all the necessary buzzwords; although it regrettably skimps on feminist, postcolonial, and African-American criticism, it definitely addresses the major works of each, and covers the major developments of the 20th century (structuralism, New Criticism, etc) in a thorough fashion. Also includes a glossary of buzzwords and critical movements that makes for easy flashcard making. It's definitely worth picking up a used copy; you can score earlier editions (the current is the 5th) for a couple of bucks.

[Waco-Waco]

Hey— ah brilliant, thanks for rec silenus, and thanks for the link 1Q, looks like a very helpful website. 

Even though they're easy enough to find, I'll just link to the Norton (anthol of English Lit and Major Authors) contents, for anyone scanning this thread in panic in the future. Using these contents, along with 1Q's linked website, gives a pretty comprehensive idea of which works are key: 

http://media.wwnorton.com/cms/contents/NAEL9_Complete_TOC.pdf

http://media.wwnorton.com/cms/contents/na_major_authors8e.pdf
 

[biyutefulphlower]

Also, throwing this out there, I saved a lot of money by not getting the most recent Norton Editions, but the version before.  I think they're the 7th, but don't quote me on that.  I managed to get a few for like $5, which is much preferable to $50.

[empress-marmot]

Also, throwing this out there, I saved a lot of money by not getting the most recent Norton Editions, but the version before.  I think they're the 7th, but don't quote me on that.  I managed to get a few for like $5, which is much preferable to $50.

 

I saved money on textbooks in college by figuring out what pages of the Norton I was supposed to read, then checking the original versions out of the library. For some reason, my classmates thought I was really motivated instead of really cheap. 

 

Professors sometimes get free editions of those anthologies as well, so you can ask them for any materials they're not using. 

 

Also: good luck on the GRE, biyutefulphlower!

[biyutefulphlower]

Ah, the joys of College libraries.  I've been out of school for a couple years (and little far from where I studied) so I don't know if that's an option for me.  Though, perhaps others in the thread will benefit~

 

And thanks much emperess-marmot! I feeling a lot better after this threat. 

 

[SilasWegg]

The princeton review study guide offers a decent introduction to the test and is a great way to get started. HOWEVER I must caution that it seems like ETS might be experimenting with the test format and some of the strategies which the PR study guide recommends may not be useful. In fact, preparing for ID and super-POE type questions might be a waste of time. I took the test in October and was surprised at how few ID and POE questions were on the test. Instead, there were far more long reading passages and interpretation questions. There were very few stand alone ID questions and there were ZERO super-POE.

 

I'm not sure how this may alter your approach to test preparation. These changes in the testing format make the test much more difficult to prepare for (as if it wasn't an impossibly difficult test to prepare for already!). You may want to spend more time on the interpretation questions of long passages and poems in the extant practice tests available online, maybe dial back on the ID and POE questions. More than anything, be prepared for a speed reading test. 

[unræd]

 I took the test in October and was surprised at how few ID and POE questions were on the test. Instead, there were far more long reading passages and interpretation questions. There were very few stand alone ID questions and there were ZERO super-POE.

 

I do wonder how much of this variation is based on the specific test people take. The September exam, while certainly having more reading comprehension questions than PR would lead you to believe, still had plenty of super-POE.

[1Q84]

<puts on tin foil hat>

 

The purported variations in tests this past cycle are clearly evidence of collusion between ETS and test prep companies to sell more and newer guides. Gotta justify those yearly editions!

 

_{<not taking off tin foil hat>}