Applications - GRE Scores

[CornUltimatum]

Hello all, 

I recently joined this forum after seeing it pop up a few times when browsing around for statistics and things. 

Anyways, I've been a bit on edge because I have recently finished all of my applications to graduate school, but I know that my GRE-scores were not the best. I contacted professors I wanted to work with, and each one encouraged me to apply once we found we had common interest in research and positions may be available. 

So, my applications in general were as follows:
Interests: Structural geology, geomorphology, tectonics, GIS
Major: B.S. in Geosciences with a concentration in Geology
Geology GPA: 3.50
Total GPA: 3.47
GRE Scores: Verbal 155 (67%), Quantitative 152 (48%), and Writing 4.5 (80%)
I took the GRE three times, and I did study each time for it. The scores were mostly consistent. For whatever reason I can't bring up my scores. I think it may have to do with my ADHD, which I don't medicate for... Typically it's a non-issue because most tests are over one subject and only an hour long or so. I had the same issue with SATs as well. As far as math goes, I had Bs in Calculus I, and Calculus II, and an A in Calculus III. I know a strong math background is going to be important for the field I'm interested in, so I'm pretty concerned.
Position in Class: I am not sure... Certain courses I know I ranked fairly well though. In Field Methods I ranked 5 out of 21 students, and 4 out of 19 (there was a course in the Spring, and then in the Summer). 
Research Experience: I have been a student assistant to a professor (structural geologist) since Spring of 2013. I began my undergraduate research Spring 2015. Those results should be published this Spring. I did field camp in Big Bend National Park. I also have been able to go on many field trips, all included with my major. 
Rewards: I've earned some scholarships in the past. 
Reccomendation Letters: They should be pretty strong. I have three letters from professors who I got to know very well and are doing work all pertinent to my field. 

That's about everything. I didn't draw too much attention to my GRE in my statement of purpose, nor did I mention any excuses for it. I would rather own my low scores rather than try to make excuses for them. My statement of purpose varied a bit according to each university since programs varied a bit, but I generally concentrated on research focuses and what experience I had that would be relevant. I am definitely eager to be accepted at any of these programs, but I think my top picks based on the research would be Arizona State (I know it's a big reach) and University of Nevada at Reno. 

I applied to:
Texas Tech University
Oklahoma State University
Arizona State University
University of Nevada at Reno
Idaho State University
New Mexico Tech

I looked at some statistics for these schools, and even looked at the rates as reported to this forum. I am a bit nervous concerning UN at Reno since they "require," a minimum 50% score on all GRE subjects, but it also says they don't disqualify applicants based on GPA and GRE scores alone. I honestly have no idea what my chances are given my current application bundle. What are your opinions given experience? I'm mostly wondering because I am having to really prepare myself to be flexible to move to any of these locations - which vary a lot. Also if I am not accepted at any of these Universities - what are some ways I can bring up my GRE score? I am currently considering just sucking it up, and getting medicated long enough to take the exam as well as spending far more time studying for it. Before I was using Magoosh to study for it, is there anything better?

Thank you all in advance for any thoughts you may have, and may your applications go well!


 

Edited January 4, 2016 by CornUltimatum

[magnetite]

Regarding the GRE, check out these threads. You might find something useful in them.

 

 

 

[CornUltimatum]

15 hours ago, magnetite said:

Regarding the GRE, check out these threads. You might find something useful in them.

 

 

 

Thank you so much! 

[CornUltimatum]

I suppose I should mention that I am applying to a Master of Science program for each of these!

[GeoMex]

Mostly I think it means that they want to improve their own rankings or data regarding what type of students they get, which would get them more or better students, etc. 

But if in your program you are a good fit for other reasons you might not get rejected.

I have a not so good GPA, a decent GRE except on AWA, but I have work experience and a scolarship from my gov if accepted, so I might not be the best candidate but I won't cost them much, etc.

Just my two cents

[CornUltimatum]

On January 6, 2016 at 8:20 AM, GeoMex said:

Mostly I think it means that they want to improve their own rankings or data regarding what type of students they get, which would get them more or better students, etc. 

But if in your program you are a good fit for other reasons you might not get rejected.

I have a not so good GPA, a decent GRE except on AWA, but I have work experience and a scolarship from my gov if accepted, so I might not be the best candidate but I won't cost them much, etc.

Just my two cents

Good thoughts. So suppose the higher ranking schools (ASU, NMT and UN at Reno) may be a bit more selective purely on GRE ranking. I suppose I should retake the GRE anyways to increase my likelihood of being funded by outside sources since some require certain scores. Ah well. Since I have a semester off I could maybe make a significantly better score. Also there are a lot of good resources on here I was not aware of before! 

Well I suppose I can't assume anything until the results are in, so I'll just be anxious until then. At least I haven't gotten any super early rejections yet.

[GeoMex]

On 9/1/2016 at 2:33 PM, CornUltimatum said:

Good thoughts. So suppose the higher ranking schools (ASU, NMT and UN at Reno) may be a bit more selective purely on GRE ranking. I suppose I should retake the GRE anyways to increase my likelihood of being funded by outside sources since some require certain scores. Ah well. Since I have a semester off I could maybe make a significantly better score. Also there are a lot of good resources on here I was not aware of before! 

Well I suppose I can't assume anything until the results are in, so I'll just be anxious until then. At least I haven't gotten any super early rejections yet.

There are a lot of great resources online and apps for your cellphone, all for free. And there are other great stuff that cost, but you can do most for free. Books are other thing that might help, I have a ton for the GRE and I will never use them again, hopefully. Good luck

[Science_Girl_]

"I took the GRE three times, and I did study each time for it. The scores were mostly consistent. For whatever reason I can't bring up my scores."

Oh man do I feel you. That test is totally bogus, a bad representation of anyones abilities to do anything, except excel at that specific type of testing. Here's my stats:

Interests: Genetics, bioengineering
Major: B.S. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from a UC
Major GPA: 3.7ish
Total GPA: 3.79
GRE Scores: Verbal 160 (89%), Quantitative 155 (60%), and Writing 4 (I don't recall, piss poor)
I took the GRE twice now. I simply can't crack that test. Quantum mechanics? A+. Overall math GPA 3.9. GRE, failed.
Position in Class: cum laude, top 15%
Research Experience: 1.5 years during undergrad. 3+ post grad. 1 first name authorship, a second name in review.
Reccomendation Letters: I was told by the only school I got an interview at they were 'outstanding, very strong'

 

See the problem here? Top student, tons of experience, publications, BUT THE GRE IS HOLDING ME BACK. No other developed nation uses this useless metric. I've had to watch people with class rankings lower than mine that I tutored get invited to Stanford and UW. The system is broken.

That said, I'll hold a good thought for you. The application process seems really random. Maybe you'll strike gold

signed- Bitter Biology Student

[columbia09]

38 minutes ago, Science_Girl_ said:

"I took the GRE three times, and I did study each time for it. The scores were mostly consistent. For whatever reason I can't bring up my scores."

Oh man do I feel you. That test is totally bogus, a bad representation of anyones abilities to do anything, except excel at that specific type of testing. Here's my stats:

Interests: Genetics, bioengineering
Major: B.S. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from a UC
Major GPA: 3.7ish
Total GPA: 3.79
GRE Scores: Verbal 160 (89%), Quantitative 155 (60%), and Writing 4 (I don't recall, piss poor)
I took the GRE twice now. I simply can't crack that test. Quantum mechanics? A+. Overall math GPA 3.9. GRE, failed.
Position in Class: cum laude, top 15%
Research Experience: 1.5 years during undergrad. 3+ post grad. 1 first name authorship, a second name in review.
Reccomendation Letters: I was told by the only school I got an interview at they were 'outstanding, very strong'

 

See the problem here? Top student, tons of experience, publications, BUT THE GRE IS HOLDING ME BACK. No other developed nation uses this useless metric. I've had to watch people with class rankings lower than mine that I tutored get invited to Stanford and UW. The system is broken.

That said, I'll hold a good thought for you. The application process seems really random. Maybe you'll strike gold

signed- Bitter Biology Student

Preach 

[gelologist]

1 hour ago, Science_Girl_ said:

"I took the GRE three times, and I did study each time for it. The scores were mostly consistent. For whatever reason I can't bring up my scores."

Oh man do I feel you. That test is totally bogus, a bad representation of anyones abilities to do anything, except excel at that specific type of testing. Here's my stats:

Interests: Genetics, bioengineering
Major: B.S. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from a UC
Major GPA: 3.7ish
Total GPA: 3.79
GRE Scores: Verbal 160 (89%), Quantitative 155 (60%), and Writing 4 (I don't recall, piss poor)
I took the GRE twice now. I simply can't crack that test. Quantum mechanics? A+. Overall math GPA 3.9. GRE, failed.
Position in Class: cum laude, top 15%
Research Experience: 1.5 years during undergrad. 3+ post grad. 1 first name authorship, a second name in review.
Reccomendation Letters: I was told by the only school I got an interview at they were 'outstanding, very strong'

 

See the problem here? Top student, tons of experience, publications, BUT THE GRE IS HOLDING ME BACK. No other developed nation uses this useless metric. I've had to watch people with class rankings lower than mine that I tutored get invited to Stanford and UW. The system is broken.

That said, I'll hold a good thought for you. The application process seems really random. Maybe you'll strike gold

signed- Bitter Biology Student

I don't mean to knock you down a peg, really! But I have seen some studies that suggest there is a correlation between the GRE and completion rate for PhDs. Whether that correlation is stronger than the link between test scores and income etc, I don't know. But I don't also necessarily fault schools for trying to weigh each student against the other applicants, if only to make themselves feel better about "guessing" which kids will do well. 

That said, I did well on the GREs, so (a) I'm probably a little biased. But (b) I still got rejected from everyone my first app cycle because of a mediocre GPA and SOP. Various factors go in; I think after an initial screening, SOPs count A LOT, especially since most profs have mentioned my bad grades in UGrad and, after I try to explain a little, follow with "well, people mess up, and one off thing on the app alone is forgiveable." But YMMV, just offering a slightly different perspective. 

[Science_Girl_]

"some studies that suggest there is a correlation between the GRE and completion rate for PhDs"

I totally don't read that as knocking me, just straight forward info. But thanks for the kind disclaimer.

I could see how this is, but not because the test itself is a good indicator. I'm now considering turning down my current (pending) offer, maxing out my credit card on prep courses, and taking the test yet again. This will probably lead to a better score. What that better score will actually say is not that the test is a good predictor, but that the determination to create a commutative application package is a good predictor. 

"Whether that correlation is stronger than the link between test scores and income etc, I don't know"

As far as other correlations, I feel they're stronger, personally. I'm a first generation college student who grew up in income controlled housing. I went to really poor public schools until the family needed my income, and I dropped out of high school to work full time and help. When I returned to school, I worked my entire way through college. I'm not trying to write a sob story, simply highlight that you can almost tell that these factors are present by one and only one part of my application package, my GRE....

[Science_Girl_]

Also, sorry your rounds didn't yield what you wanted. This is a really heart wrenching process for all of us. I truly hope you get in at the programs you want next round.

I've been told a masters can be good for addressing undergrad GPA. Just a thought. I'm most certainly not an expert of how to get in :/

[GeoDUDE!]

The problem with the GRE isn't that only a few people score high on it (certainly, this is what we want), but just like the SAT there are certain groups of people that continue to underperform, and that has a lot to do with income. That being said, the point i've made before is that the GRE is high school level material that you have an endless amount of time to study for: If someone really wanted to score a 310 and they had the mental capacity for a research based MS/PhD they should be able to do it (barring any disabilities).  At what point do we stop blaming our upbringing and sit down and study? I don't know the answer to that, but it complaining about it in a way that many do on this forum comes off so immature that i'd argue that a low GRE score is the least of their problems. 

I really sympathize with people who have lower scores: my UGPA is 3.05. What I don't sympathize is people who just say "I don't test well", and then right it off. There are some people who have disabilities who can't test well, but the vast majority of people who score low are probably unprepared for the GRE, an exam that tests High school level material. 

Another thing about graduate school: it's often now how much you work but how you work. If you really need to invest a significant amount of time to prepare for the GRE, you should be worried about self learning complex ideas in graduate school. Your advisor won't be there to help you with all of the material, or even most. 

[CornUltimatum]

2 hours ago, GeoDUDE! said:

The problem with the GRE isn't that only a few people score high on it (certainly, this is what we want), but just like the SAT there are certain groups of people that continue to underperform, and that has a lot to do with income. That being said, the point i've made before is that the GRE is high school level material that you have an endless amount of time to study for: If someone really wanted to score a 310 and they had the mental capacity for a research based MS/PhD they should be able to do it (barring any disabilities).  At what point do we stop blaming our upbringing and sit down and study? I don't know the answer to that, but it complaining about it in a way that many do on this forum comes off so immature that i'd argue that a low GRE score is the least of their problems. 

I really sympathize with people who have lower scores: my UGPA is 3.05. What I don't sympathize is people who just say "I don't test well", and then right it off. There are some people who have disabilities who can't test well, but the vast majority of people who score low are probably unprepared for the GRE, an exam that tests High school level material. 

Another thing about graduate school: it's often now how much you work but how you work. If you really need to invest a significant amount of time to prepare for the GRE, you should be worried about self learning complex ideas in graduate school. Your advisor won't be there to help you with all of the material, or even most. 

I'm fairly sure it's the nature of a forum is why people complain. We all need to vent sometimes, whether or not it's productive, I suppose you could say it is productive for self esteem. Forums can be a good outlet for that since many people can empathize.

Like you said, it is high school material, so people who seem to otherwise perform well (or exceptionally) are going to be understandibly frustrated when they under perform on the GRE. 

Also I know why the GRE is important, it's not just there to be an unfair barrier. The GRE is the only flat-comparison programs have to compare students. How letter grades are given vary across schools. Some As are harder to earn than others, so a 3.5 at one school may not mean as much as a 3.5 at another. 

Anyways, a 310 is a good goal? Like a 155/155? I just wanted to at least get above that 50% margin for quantitative.

I appreciate all of you guys' comments though. Seems like the GRE is definitely deserving of some focus and concern - and I should keep pushing forward if not everything goes well.

 

Good luck this season though!  We're in Febuary so I hope some good news is heading our way. 

[gelologist]

7 hours ago, Science_Girl_ said:

"some studies that suggest there is a correlation between the GRE and completion rate for PhDs"

I totally don't read that as knocking me, just straight forward info. But thanks for the kind disclaimer.

I could see how this is, but not because the test itself is a good indicator. I'm now considering turning down my current (pending) offer, maxing out my credit card on prep courses, and taking the test yet again. This will probably lead to a better score. What that better score will actually say is not that the test is a good predictor, but that the determination to create a commutative application package is a good predictor. 

"Whether that correlation is stronger than the link between test scores and income etc, I don't know"

As far as other correlations, I feel they're stronger, personally. I'm a first generation college student who grew up in income controlled housing. I went to really poor public schools until the family needed my income, and I dropped out of high school to work full time and help. When I returned to school, I worked my entire way through college. I'm not trying to write a sob story, simply highlight that you can almost tell that these factors are present by one and only one part of my application package, my GRE....

Sorry, just wanted to be sure no one saw me as the one to sit on a high horse saying, "what's so hard about the GRE?" Because I get there's other factors involved, including things like income, prior history, disabilities, etc. But hey, if you do have another offer, especially if it's funded, I don't see why you'd turn that down just for another crack at the GRE! Don't forget in the year between this cycle and the next, you'd have to do stuff to stay up to date and relevant and productive so that an adcomm would think it was a worthwhile year off, no?!

That said, I do agree a bit with @GeoDUDE! (below), in order to be leveling, the GRE doesn't go into higher level things as much as it could, so there's also a limit to complaining.

 

5 hours ago, GeoDUDE! said:

The problem with the GRE isn't that only a few people score high on it (certainly, this is what we want), but just like the SAT there are certain groups of people that continue to underperform, and that has a lot to do with income. That being said, the point i've made before is that the GRE is high school level material that you have an endless amount of time to study for: If someone really wanted to score a 310 and they had the mental capacity for a research based MS/PhD they should be able to do it (barring any disabilities).  At what point do we stop blaming our upbringing and sit down and study? I don't know the answer to that, but it complaining about it in a way that many do on this forum comes off so immature that i'd argue that a low GRE score is the least of their problems. 

I really sympathize with people who have lower scores: my UGPA is 3.05. What I don't sympathize is people who just say "I don't test well", and then right it off. There are some people who have disabilities who can't test well, but the vast majority of people who score low are probably unprepared for the GRE, an exam that tests High school level material. 

Another thing about graduate school: it's often now how much you work but how you work. If you really need to invest a significant amount of time to prepare for the GRE, you should be worried about self learning complex ideas in graduate school. Your advisor won't be there to help you with all of the material, or even most. 

7 hours ago, Science_Girl_ said:

Also, sorry your rounds didn't yield what you wanted. This is a really heart wrenching process for all of us. I truly hope you get in at the programs you want next round.

I've been told a masters can be good for addressing undergrad GPA. Just a thought. I'm most certainly not an expert of how to get in :/

And this ^. SO MUCH THIS. I've actually been fortunate: I already got an acceptance 2 years ago to a master's that I'm finishing up, and I already have some offers this year for PhDs to start in the fall! I CAN'T COUNT HOW OFTEN PEOPLE (INCLUDING ME) HAVE SAID THAT DOING THE MASTER'S WAS WORTHWHILE. It's helped me outrun pretty awful grades (3.14 ugrad GPA, C's in the major classes, including a D+), all while really maturing, getting a handle on why grad school is for me, what I want to do, and what are some really worthwhile and current problems in the field to study (and including in my SOP). I can't stress enough the value of a master's. Whether your problem is low GPA, you're not sure whether academia is right for you, etc. Master's degrees, I think, are unfairly written off as "middling" degrees for those who aren't "committed" to a PhD. I really hope anyone reading this in the future feels reassured about deciding to go with an MS program because it's the best fit for them; I can say from experience that it DOES NOT HURT. Don't slog through a PhD only to hate it, or drop out early, or.... Do what's best for you, it at the very least can help you get a leg up the next time around.

[Science_Girl_]

2 hours ago, gelologist said:

Sorry, just wanted to be sure no one saw me as the one to sit on a high horse saying, "what's so hard about the GRE?" Because I get there's other factors involved, including things like income, prior history, disabilities, etc. But hey, if you do have another offer, especially if it's funded, I don't see why you'd turn that down just for another crack at the GRE! Don't forget in the year between this cycle and the next, you'd have to do stuff to stay up to date and relevant and productive so that an adcomm would think it was a worthwhile year off, no?!

That said, I do agree a bit with @GeoDUDE! (below), in order to be leveling, the GRE doesn't go into higher level things as much as it could, so there's also a limit to complaining.

Yeah, there is a logic flaw in waiting when I'm not sure how I'd stay relevant in the town I recently moved to. I'd probably take a few classes at a local school, maybe redirect to support the computational tools I'd like to pick up during my doctorate. Perhaps I should take my own advice and pursue a masters in the meantime, I might be able to take classes as non-degree seeking and whip them into something down the road. 

The thing is, I think I can get into a better school if I fix the obvious problem in my package (GRE), and I'll have at least one more publication out. 

Weather or not we want to admit it, pedigree counts. Better pedigree is often better training, more access to conferences and travel that support networking, and better post-doc opportunities. When I scan the bio's of the scientists I admire, who've been very successful and have appointments at the places I'd like to see myself, they're mostly from Harvard, Stanford, UCSF, Berkeley, UW, etc. for my particular field. 

To the second paragraph: I really really wish it did go into higher math. Ask me to integrate in spherical coordinates or calculate a p-value. I'd do better. The quant GRE is not about math. It is not a math test. It's just not. It's about understanding the language in which they are posing a question that you can use simple calulations to answer, and answering that question in the way they designed it for you to approach, in the interest of time. If you ace the first part, which you can see in the free ETS power prep, the second section is, unfortunately, just extremely convoluted questions designed to be answered with the same set of basic mathematics. If you don't have experience or do well with  that sort of questioning it becomes problematic. 

7 hours ago, GeoDUDE! said:

If someone really wanted to score a 310 and they had the mental capacity for a research based MS/PhD they should be able to do it (barring any disabilities).

Yeah, I do partially agree. Except that a 310 is not competitive for well ranked PhD programs. The names I see, just in this thread, are Harvard, Columbia, Davis, etc. A 310 is not going to cut it for schools like that.

7 hours ago, GeoDUDE! said:

Another thing about graduate school: it's often now how much you work but how you work. If you really need to invest a significant amount of time to prepare for the GRE, you should be worried about self learning complex ideas in graduate school. Your advisor won't be there to help you with all of the material, or even most. 

I never had a problem during my undergrad coursework, which included calculus and physics for engineers. I most certainly have never found that I had any significant problems with the math involved in biochemistry, or biophysics, in their real world applications. Or in approaching complex patterns of genetic changes in experiments with high sample numbers and multiple experimental parameters, and properly utilizing statistics to determine the global changes and relevance of the data sets. What I'm trying to say is, I totally disagree. The GRE is a thing unto itself that has zero bearing on ones ability to function in hard sciences at a doctorate level and beyond. It's about a language of testing, that most people acquire during their education and experience wth standardized testing prior to reaching this level. Most, but not all. They're are always outliers.

7 hours ago, GeoDUDE! said:

At what point do we stop blaming our upbringing and sit down and study? I don't know the answer to that, but it complaining about it in a way that many do on this forum comes off so immature that i'd argue that a low GRE score is the least of their problems. 

Hm...

"so immature that i'd argue that a low GRE score is the least of their problems". That seems a bit of a reach to be able to determine someones level of maturity based on how they choose to utilize an online forum.  Also it discourages people from reaching out in what I believe is supposed to be a supportive community.

"At what point do we stop blaming our upbringing and sit down and study?" Considering the power of social media these days, it seems rather productive to open a dialogue about aspects of education that may be socially inequitable.

To redirect: there's a difference between complaining and commiserating. No scientist is an island. Being able to relate and support each other bodes well for the social savy that's needed to be successful. In order to collaborate and be productive, you'll need to interface with people that are different than you, hold opinions you dislike, communicate in a way you might find uncomfortable, and sometimes people you just plain can't stand. The soft skills are often under-rated, and I've seen more than a few candidates or post docs sink or swim as a result of judicious use of communication. 

 

 

[GeoDUDE!]

A few things I'd like to address:

1 hour ago, Science_Girl_ said:

Yeah, I do partially agree. Except that a 310 is not competitive for well ranked PhD programs. 

At least in the Earth Sciences, a 310 would be considered "competitive" in the sense that GRE is really only used as a cutoff in my field. In Biology, it might be different. I'm not going to speculate about things I have little experience in... which brings me to 

2 hours ago, Science_Girl_ said:

The GRE is a thing unto itself that has zero bearing on ones ability to function in hard sciences at a doctorate level and beyond. 

Really? Are you telling me that asking someone to learn (or relearn) simple a simple task, perform them under pressure, and do well really has nothing to do with functioning in a graduate program? Have you ever taken a qualification exam? What about a thesis defense?  But what is more absurd, is that you aren't in a PhD program yet you claim to have such insight!  I don't know everything, but in my 4 years of graduate school, the thing that most students struggle with is not what they learn in class, but what they have to learn outside of class. Classes are easy, thats why no one cares about grades once you get to graduate school (at least in my field). 

2 hours ago, Science_Girl_ said:

To the second paragraph: I really really wish it did go into higher math. Ask me to integrate in spherical coordinates or calculate a p-value. 

The "math" section of the GRE is called "Quantitate Reasoning" for a reason. Taking an integral, calculating a p value is memorizing a formula, there is very little reasoning in that. So what you are saying is that "you'd do better" if they didn't ask you to think. I'm not saying you aren't capable, I'm just trying to shed some perspective: being able to identify what kind of interest (compounding vs not, for example) a word problem requires is more important than any of that because you are matching words to quantitate behavior.  

No one, not even ETS itself, would say its a perfect predictor. Furthermore, even graduate programs would probably do away with it if they could. But so many people send in applications to graduate school, that they have to make some sort of quick cut somewhere. Either that, or they'd have to take less graduate students so they could hire full time admissions staff. Time is money, time is research. 

2 hours ago, Science_Girl_ said:

That seems a bit of a reach to be able to determine someones level of maturity based on how they choose to utilize an online forum.  

How else would one determine someone's maturity if not by the choices they make?

2 hours ago, Science_Girl_ said:

To redirect: there's a difference between complaining and commiserating.

I agree, but your threshold for "commiserating" seems to big a bit higher than mine. That's fine, but I'd argue calling something completely useless when one has very little experience in what they are talking about a bit more than commiserating. 

It's a lot like Patriot fans saying they lost to the Broncos because of a missed extra point: games aren't won and lost on single plays ever. Just like applications, for the most part aren't ever rejected because of 1 thing. Sometimes they are, but being completely shut out of programs, at least in my field, speaks to deeper problems than just a single measure of their score.  

But to be honest, I don't really know anything, as I am not on every single adcom (or even 1). The trouble is, when you think you know, that is often the time you stop thinking. 

[columbia09]

Question what if you've taken the GRE three times and had no improvement in your scores ? What would be the best way to get into a school like UT Austin ?

Edited February 3, 2016 by columbia09

[trulytriaxial]

@columbia09 I read some studies that show that taking your GREs in quick succession is more than likely only going to cause slight fluctuations. I've personally seen peers get boosts of over 10-15 points (V + Q) when they retake after a gap of 6-12 months, after preparing with multiple practice tests.

Places like UT Austin (this is petroleum engineering I'm speaking of, although Jackson shouldn't be much different especially for Geology), as @GeoDUDE! mentioned, merely use the GRE as a cutoff. My friend at UT Petroleum says that the cutoff is only about 315 and your recommendations and SOP matter much more (whether the POI knows your referees, funding availability etc). Apparently they literally just put students in an Excel sheet and get rid of the cells below the cutoff GRE (unless the student has exceptional circumstances as reported elsewhere). As much as I want to believe that he is exaggerating, I think it may be true.

[GeoDUDE!]

4 hours ago, columbia09 said:

Question what if you've taken the GRE three times and had no improvement in your scores ? What would be the best way to get into a school like UT Austin ?

If what I remember is correct, you applied to work with 10 people at UT Austin: imo thats a major red flag. Show's a clear lack of research focus.  Maybe your GRE scores are holding you back... but maybe fit is also an issue? I don't know how you can write a coherent statement of purpose when trying to work with so many people: how can you outline what you might do with 10 people in a short paper? 

Edited February 3, 2016 by GeoDUDE!

[columbia09]

1 hour ago, GeoDUDE! said:

If what I remember is correct, you applied to work with 10 people at UT Austin: imo thats a major read flag. Show's a clear lack of research focus.  Maybe your GRE scores are holding you back... but maybe fit is also an issue? I don't know how you can write a coherent statement of purpose when trying to work with so many people: how can you outline what you might do with 10 people in a short paper? 

I'm generally interested in earth history so I contacted 10 advisors in that field. Two of th m expressed interest in working with me so they are going to try to get me in with a TA position. Now last year I only applied with one person And hE did the same thing but I obviously didn't gain admissions. My understanding is that you can apply to work with as many people as you want

[sjoh197]

@columbia09 When you said " I applied to work with about 11 professors and 5 already got back saying they can't take students because of funding or they just aren't looking for students at all " 

I'm guessing you meant that you contacted 11 people, not that you actually applied to work with them right? As in... including them on your SOP and such

[Different_Name_111!!!]

@columbia09 You contacted 10 POIs at UT, but you didn't write about all of them in your personal statement, correct?  

From my perspective, it looks like you might be having issues with your GRE scores (I saw them posted in the '15 thread), your statement of purpose, and possibly boundary restraint.  This year, I'd try to hold off on repeatedly contacting your POIs, the department heads, and admissions committees.  If you haven't heard anything by April, then send short but courteous emails to your POIs (assuming you were in contact with them before you applied).  

Maybe you'll get in this cycle, but if you don't, I have a couple of suggestions:  volunteer time in a lab at your old school and begin a research project to help you narrow your potential research focus while simultaneously studying the dickens out of the GRE.  Read journal articles.  Take the GRE in September and contact POIs that fit a narrower range of interests.  Let them know you've been working on X project and ask how you can apply some of what you've learned to the projects they're working on....

Write a bitchin' statement of purpose relating everything you've done to what you want to do with professor X.  If your scores didn't turn out for the 4th time after serious studying, I wouldn't bother taking them again and just hope for the best.  Ask previous professors for feedback on your SOP, unless they said your statement last year looked good - then you know you're on your own.

[Geo1993]

I was in this situation when I applied for grad school last year.  I think it's easy to be complacent with average GRE scores and hope that other aspects of your application will shine through. Although it may not seem like it, it is very important to study for the GRE. In a way the GRE doesn't seem to test how smart you are, rather, it tests to see if you know all of it's tricks. Since the GRE only tests material that you would learn up until high school they are purposely try to trick you. In fact, they will do anything in their power to try and trick you and try to get you to answer in correctly. Put in the time and learn vocab and learn all of their tricks. The more you understand how the test writers are trying to trick you. The better you will do. I took the GRE last year and this year. Last year I didn't put the time into studying and it showed. This year I took it much more seriously

2014 Verbal: 153 (59 percentile)

2014 Quantitative: 156 (64 percentile)

2014 Writing:4.0 (56 percentile)

 

2015 Verbal: 157 (74 percentile)

2015 Quantitative: 161 (80 percentile)

2015 Writing: 5.0 (93 percentile)

[CornUltimatum]

4 hours ago, Geo1993 said:

I was in this situation when I applied for grad school last year.  I think it's easy to be complacent with average GRE scores and hope that other aspects of your application will shine through. Although it may not seem like it, it is very important to study for the GRE. In a way the GRE doesn't seem to test how smart you are, rather, it tests to see if you know all of it's tricks. Since the GRE only tests material that you would learn up until high school they are purposely try to trick you. In fact, they will do anything in their power to try and trick you and try to get you to answer in correctly. Put in the time and learn vocab and learn all of their tricks. The more you understand how the test writers are trying to trick you. The better you will do. I took the GRE last year and this year. Last year I didn't put the time into studying and it showed. This year I took it much more seriously

2014 Verbal: 153 (59 percentile)

2014 Quantitative: 156 (64 percentile)

2014 Writing:4.0 (56 percentile)

 

2015 Verbal: 157 (74 percentile)

2015 Quantitative: 161 (80 percentile)

2015 Writing: 5.0 (93 percentile)

Wow! That'a a huge improvement, it gives me hope. 

 

Do you mind me asking what resources you used to study? I was using Magoosh, but I noted there were several kinds of problems on the GRE concerning the quantitative portion that it did not include - it seems like an incomplete tool. Also anything that can help me disect how the test is set up would be immensely helpful. 

 

I haven't begun jumping into studying for a restest yet since I'm doing some other things at the moment, but I'll be revisiting this thread again down the road.