GRE - does raw score or percentile matter more?

[Determinedandnervous]

21 minutes ago, ultraultra said:

I know you meant well but I find this response fairly frustrating, and on the basis of it I'm not sure that you've actually read the thread.  No one has said that applicants should eschew studying for the GRE. No one has recommended students "act according to how we wish the process operated." Everyone (including me) has emphasized that applicants should still try to get the highest score possible (whatever that may be given an individuals amount of free time and test-taking ability). Everyone has also agreed that ad comms take the GRE seriously, though there are disagreements about the cutoffs and the centrality of the GRE (to which the only answer is really, it varies). The main subject that people are debating is whether or not the GRE has merit as an indicator of academic potential, and thus whether or not it is right that committees take it so seriously. Of course this thread has no bearing on what committees will actually do... even so, why shouldn't we be allowed to have a discussion about this? If you don't think its fruitful, you're free to bow out, but I'm not sure why you're policing peoples' abilities to discuss a topic that is 1) interesting and 2) of great personal importance to many of us. Since when are we not allowed to discuss whether certain material realities are just or unjust? Imagine how absurd your comment would sound if you replaced references to the GRE with references to sexism or racism.

I'm sorry that my response frustrated you, I did not intend to make anyone feel bad. I have been following this thread and I was just putting in my two cents. I'm not even quite sure where we have disagreement (I agree that AdComs should de-emphasize it, since it has little bearing on grad student success), or how I was policing anyone in any way by merely stating an opinion. I said nothing discouraging anyone from having a conversation.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Determinedandnervous

[s1994]

5 minutes ago, ultraultra said:

In other words, you are saying the ad comms should take the GRE seriously...

I am saying, GRE should be used to weed out weak applicants, and that's why applicants (instead of departments) should take the GRE seriously.

If you can, get at least a 320. If not, people should be well prepared to hear that he or she did not get admitted into any top 10s.

Hitting the 320 threshold is really not that difficult. 90 hours should be sufficient for one to get 330+. If one just wants 160+160, 20 hours would probably be really sufficient, assuming that one is not wasting his past three years in college.  

Edited January 31, 2016 by shane94

[ultraultra]

Just now, shane94 said:

I am saying, GRE should be used to weed out weak applicants, and that's why applicants (instead of departments) should take the GRE seriously.

If you can, get at least a 320. If not, people should be well prepared to not get into any top 10s.

Hitting that threshold is really not that difficult. 90 hours should be sufficient for one to get 330+. If one just wants 160+160, 20 hours would probably be really sufficient, assuming that one is not wasting his past three years in college.  

I've already explained in detail why I think all these premises are flawed (that the GRE indicates who is weak, that the GRE indicates quantitative potential, that everyone can achieve 160+, that everyone has 90 hours to spare). Rather than talking in circles, I am going to bow out at this point.

[s1994]

1 minute ago, ultraultra said:

I've already explained in detail why I think all these premises are flawed (that the GRE indicates who is weak, that the GRE indicates quantitative potential, that everyone can achieve 160+, that everyone has 90 hours to spare). Rather than talking in circles, I am going to bow out at this point.

Do you know of anyone mastering a quant sequence at a top 10 who actually got 155- in quant section of GRE? I have almost *never* heard of it. 
Oops, I guess GRE is somewhat correlated to your performance in your coursework in grad school. 

[s1994]

Just look at Berkeley. Here is the quant score of the admitted students in the past. 

162/160/170/*153*/168/170/168/*800*

Do we see a pattern? Is 160+ really that difficult to achieve? Do people really get a high chance of going to a top 10 without 330? 

I think the answers are straightforward. 

 

**disclaimer**

I am not talking about what is the *right* way to evaluate an applicant. I am talking about, if you want to go to a top 10, what would be a necessary (though *not* sufficient) factor that every single applicant should consider. I argue so much in this thread, not because I want to prove that who is right or wrong, but I want to make sure that the ambitious prospective students would bear in mind that if he or she wants to go to a top 10, scores lower than 330 probably won't do you any good. 

Edited January 31, 2016 by shane94

[VMcJ]

I would not go as far as saying it is easy to get 320, 330 or whatever score you want.

But the main point is: should the admissions committees place the emphasis they currently do on GRE scores? If not, what is the alternative?

If we are going to carefully review every single application, costs will rise and then applications will not be affordable for most people anymore. Also, GREs are comparable, where GPAs and transcripts really are not (grade inflation is only the first of many problems here). I think our criticisms are mostly correct, but I think some may be missing advantages the current system presents.

[s1994]

Now we look at a low-ranked top 10 -- MIT:

162/160/168/166/162/168/163/166/...

Do we see a pattern? Is 160+ really that difficult to achieve? Do people really get a high chance of going to a top 10 without 330? 

I think the answers are straightforward. 

 

**disclaimer**

I am not talking about what is the *right* way to evaluate an applicant. I am talking about, if you want to go to a top 10, what would be a necessary (though *not* sufficient) factor that every single applicant should consider. I argue so much in this thread, not because I want to prove that who is right or wrong, but I want to make sure that the ambitious prospective students would bear in mind that if he or she wants to go to a top 10, scores lower than 330 probably won't do you any good. 

Edited January 31, 2016 by shane94

[s1994]

Now we look at a non-top 10 (but extremely quantitative) department -- Rochester:

Here are the admitted quant scores -- 

170/166/165/168/163/170/159/162/163...

Do we see a pattern? Is 160+ really that difficult to achieve? Do people really get a high chance of going to a top quantitative department without a high quant score? 

I think the answers are straightforward. 

 

**disclaimer**

I am not talking about what is the *right* way to evaluate an applicant. I am talking about, if you want to go to a quantitative department, what would be a necessary (though *not* sufficient) factor that every single applicant should consider. I argue so much in this thread, not because I want to prove that who is right or wrong, but I want to make sure that the ambitious prospective students would bear in mind that if he or she wants to go to a quant department, quant score lower than 160 probably won't do you any good. 

Edited January 31, 2016 by shane94

[Determinedandnervous]

@shane94, I think we get the point.