I think the GREs are a deterrent mechanism

[90sNickelodeon]

In many ways, I believe that the GREs are there to deter people from applying to graduate school. Think about it: it costs $150 to take--an exorbitant amount for some people. Many times you have to take it more than once. Also, the prep classes costs thousands of dollars placing some people at an unfair advantage.

Do you feel that the GREs should be necessary for graduate admissions? Why or why not?

Edited November 11, 2009 by 90sNickelodeon

[a fragrant plant]

I'm taking it tomorrow. Sigh...

[tarski]

Are you asking if they are necessary, or if they *should* be necessary?

If the former, it's a simple yes/no answer based on a program's requirements.

[90sNickelodeon]

Are you asking if they are necessary, or if they *should* be necessary?

If the former, it's a simple yes/no answer based on a program's requirements.

Should be necessary?

[90sNickelodeon]

I'm taking it tomorrow. Sigh...

You'll knock it out of the ballpark, I know it!

[tarski]

The edit helps .

So then my answer is no, because some of the most competitive programs in my field (MIT, Cornell) don't even ask for the scores. But everyone else asks for it, and we do what they tell us to...

[sometimesiexist]

I'm pretty conflicted about it. Having done all of my undergrad at an institution that doesn't provide grades (pass/fail grading supplemented by narrative evaluations of course work) I don't have any other way in which I can be quantitatively measured against other students. There's no GPA for them to look at and say, oh she did well/poorly. Only my GRE to prove that I could have been competitive at a large grade-issuing institution.

That said, taking the GRE was miserable, and I'm not convinced it really measures more than the ability to learn a lot of vocabulary, and how to take the test. Paying for it was even worse, and if I hadn't had my student loans, this entire process would have been inaccessible to me.

[ristastic]

That said, taking the GRE was miserable, and I'm not convinced it really measures more than the ability to learn a lot of vocabulary, and how to take the test. Paying for it was even worse, and if I hadn't had my student loans, this entire process would have been inaccessible to me.

Agreed. I don't think the GRE should be necessary, because I think it measures all the wrong things. It measures your ability to prepare for and successfully take a stressful exam, definitely not your "verbal" ability, etc. I think the GRE General should be done away with, and if a school really wants a standardized exam, they should require just the subject test. I'm a humanities person and I stressed out over the math after my adviser said that adcoms weren't necessarily looking for a high score, but a low score would say to them that you didn't bother to prepare for it. I think that's totally unfair, but such is the GRE! I just hate to think that something as trivial as my GRE score could keep me out of the programs I want to get into to.

As for the GRE being a deterrent, it definitely is, but isn't the whole process sort of a deterrent? The LoRs, the SoP, the organizational skills, the sheer fortitude of will (not to mention the hundreds of dollars spent on application fees!)? To my mind, anyone who wasn't totally committed to grad school wouldn't bother.

[LateAntique]

I'm not a huge fan of the GRE. Thus far all it has done for me is put me 350 bucks in the hole (two tests plus books) and reminded me I'm bad at math. I've had to re-learn stuff just for the test that I will never use again, so it doesn't seem like it's a very good evaluation of me as a candidate for graduate school. I've also heard that there's little to no correlation between how one does on the GRE and how they will do in grad school, but I don't have any source for that. I would be much more comfortable if the programs I'm applying to just gave me a test to translate Greek and Latin, and maybe write a bit on Greek and Roman history. Those are the kinds of things I'm supposed to know after 4 years of undergraduate work, not how to determine the slope of a line.

[90sNickelodeon]

I'm not a huge fan of the GRE. Thus far all it has done for me is put me 350 bucks in the hole (two tests plus books) and reminded me I'm bad at math. I've had to re-learn stuff just for the test that I will never use again, so it doesn't seem like it's a very good evaluation of me as a candidate for graduate school. I've also heard that there's little to no correlation between how one does on the GRE and how they will do in grad school, but I don't have any source for that. I would be much more comfortable if the programs I'm applying to just gave me a test to translate Greek and Latin, and maybe write a bit on Greek and Roman history. Those are the kinds of things I'm supposed to know after 4 years of undergraduate work, not how to determine the slope of a line.

Right on! Test me on something that is relevant to what I will actually be doing.

[captiv8ed]

I have been thinking about this a lot the past few days as I have been cramming for my test.

I haven't taken a lot of math. I got a 4.0 in logic, so that should show that my brain can wrap itself around difficult concepts. I need to know statistics, and will probably never look at a triangle again.

4 years of hard work and nearly perfect grades and really good recommendations should count for much more than a handful of questions, I think

[misterpat]

The GREs are definitely a deterrent mechanism, but I don't think that means we should do away with it.

[cheesethunder]

In many ways, I believe that the GREs are there to deter people from applying to graduate school. Think about it: it costs $150 to take--an exorbitant amount for some people. Many times you have to take it more than once. Also, the prep classes costs thousands of dollars placing some people at an unfair advantage.

Do you feel that the GREs should be necessary for graduate admissions? Why or why not?

i definetly agree with you i know alot of people who didnt apply to schools that needed it cuz they just didnt feel like taking it

its easy to weed quantitative....aspects of an application gre/gpa etc

i think at the stage of graduate school where its omre about ideas and reserach potential gre is a distraction/ poor indicator

[swisnieski]

In many ways, I believe that the GREs are there to deter people from applying to graduate school. Think about it: it costs $150 to take--an exorbitant amount for some people. Many times you have to take it more than once. Also, the prep classes costs thousands of dollars placing some people at an unfair advantage.

Do you feel that the GREs should be necessary for graduate admissions? Why or why not?

Sure. They provide useful information to graduate admissions committees, which are looking at investing a huge sum of money in producing future academic leaders. They ought to make sure their candidates for admission are as well qualified as possible.

The GREs may have the effect of deterring people from pursuing grad school (for instance, by discouraging them from finishing the application process if they do poorly) but that is hardly the same as having the purpose of deterring them.

Agreed. I don't think the GRE should be necessary, because I think it measures all the wrong things. It measures your ability to prepare for and successfully take a stressful exam, definitely not your "verbal" ability, etc.

Well, to the extent your verbal ability consists of your vocabulary, there's not a lot you can do to study for it. I learned maybe 110-120 words during studying for the GREs, of which maybe one or two appeared on the final test. If it were possible to learn the amount of vocabulary tested on the GREs, the mean verbal score would not be as low as it is. If you don't have a good vocabulary to start with, studying for it won't help you much.

And remember, the ability to prepare for and take stressful exams is rather intrinsic to success in graduate school!

To be sure, the GREs do not measure SOLELY one's academic potential. Test anxiety, preparation, and mental/physical health at the time of test taking can also influence scores. This means that high score's are a good sign of one's academic potential but low scores may or may not be. But that still makes high scores desirable, no?

[tarski]

Well, to the extent your verbal ability consists of your vocabulary, there's not a lot you can do to study for it. I learned maybe 110-120 words during studying for the GREs, of which maybe one or two appeared on the final test. If it were possible to learn the amount of vocabulary tested on the GREs, the mean verbal score would not be as low as it is. If you don't have a good vocabulary to start with, studying for it won't help you much.

That's the general trend, but if you look at the TestMagic forums (for some reason there in particular) you get a lot of examples of non-English speakers who get 750+ verbal scores by enough brute studying. Some of them seem to go through tons... and tons... and tons of books.

In my own experience, I scored around 450 on the first few practice tests (but I had learned about format and so on, and done a small amount of practice), and then after lots of studying vocabulary (several book-lists, Kaplan cards, freerice) scored 770.

The verbal, like the quant, can be effectively studied for.

This means that high score's are a good sign of one's academic potential but low scores may or may not be.

"Academic potential" is a broad term. The GRE does measure how good how are at studying some facts, and doing *small* bits of analysis with them. But there's nothing about research ability in there, which is far more important. And if you define "Academic potential" to be mostly about research ability, a high GRE score is not necessarily a good sign.

---coda---

At best, it demonstrates your ability to jump through a silly hoop better than the other guy, and as long as they ask for it, that is what we need to do. Even after all these complaints about it, the fact of the matter is that what's best is to to do well on it.

Edited November 12, 2009 by tarski

[swisnieski]

That's the general trend, but if you look at the TestMagic forums (for some reason there in particular) you get a lot of examples of non-English speakers who get 750+ verbal scores by enough brute studying. Some of them seem to go through tons... and tons... and tons of books.

There will, of course, always be exceptions to the rule.

Ordinarily I would've thought non-native English speakers would be at an advantage compared to English speakers, in part because of the debased and ineffective use of language we're taught in our own schools and in part because non-native speakers have honed the ability to effectively acquire a foreign language, with all its rules and oddities. But I hear a lot about non-native English speakers doing poorly as well, so hmm.

"Academic potential" is a broad term. The GRE does measure how good how are at studying some facts, and doing *small* bits of analysis with them. But there's nothing about research ability in there, which is far more important.

Agreed, but then admissions committees also request information about prior research experience, so this is not a major concern. They're not limited to looking at only one or two bits of evidence.

As I've said, if nothing else, the GREs provide a useful assessment of how well one can study for and take high-stress exams, which is (usually) crucial to graduate school. If an applicant is the kind of person who gorks out when placed in a stressful environment, that's something admissions committees ought to know.

[jlee306]

I. HATE. THE. GRE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tam]

I've always done better on standardized tests (and tests in general, for that matter) than I do in other ways, so I'm glad the GRE is used for admissions, just like I was glad the SAT was when I was getting into college the first time. This doesn't reflect entirely well on me, though, I admit.

No real opinion on whether it "should" be used.

[père_fume]

I beleive that GRE scores are correlative to socio-economic background. GREs represent how the american education system works: instead of being a social equalizer, they accentuate inequality. Intelligence is equally distributed, what is not, however, is access to preparation courses and materials.

[misterpat]

I beleive that GRE scores are correlative to socio-economic background. GREs represent how the american education system works: instead of being a social equalizer, they accentuate inequality. Intelligence is equally distributed, what is not, however, is access to preparation courses and materials.

This post is so full of unverifiable claims that I don't know where to start.

I suppose I'll just say that the test probably measures equality but doesn't accentuate it, and that you're criticizing the GRE for not "being a social equalizer" when that's not its purpose.

[a fragrant plant]

I beleive that GRE scores are correlative to socio-economic background. GREs represent how the american education system works: instead of being a social equalizer, they accentuate inequality. Intelligence is equally distributed, what is not, however, is access to preparation courses and materials.

totally.

[jlee306]

I beleive that GRE scores are correlative to socio-economic background. GREs represent how the american education system works: instead of being a social equalizer, they accentuate inequality. Intelligence is equally distributed, what is not, however, is access to preparation courses and materials.

My scores didn't correlate to my socio-economic background (although I wish they had). But I can see the reasoning behind what you are saying here. People with lower SES normally (not always) have lower education or go through an education system that does teach as well as education systems that provide for people with higher SES. However, with that being said, people that are taking the GRE have either already achieved a BS or BA degree or are about to achieve it. That means these people are pretty intelligent, especially if they plan on going into grad school. Some people that take the GRE are from low socio-economic backgrounds, some from middle, and some from high...it is my opinion that if they are taking the GRE to get into grad school, than they have pushed past what their SES was supposed to limit them to and achieved greater things. At the university I am currently at, they have a GRE fee waiver if you are on financial aid. My school tries to help people out with lower income as much as they can so they have equal chances at succeeding as anybody else does.

[modernity]

I don't think it measures socio-economic status necessarily - because as it was pointed out, the people who take the GRE already have a BA/BS - they've had access to school libraries, and school programs to help them with the GRE. They've had financial aid that they could use to pay for the GRE (or books or courses if they think they needed them). If they had time to go to school, and study, and do well enough that they are considering grad school - then they should have time to study for the GRE. I am sure there could be some extreme exceptions, but for the most part... I disagree. This is the case in grade schools, and high schools - but not so much with college level.

[spozik]

I don't think it measures socio-economic status necessarily - because as it was pointed out, the people who take the GRE already have a BA/BS - they've had access to school libraries, and school programs to help them with the GRE. They've had financial aid that they could use to pay for the GRE (or books or courses if they think they needed them). If they had time to go to school, and study, and do well enough that they are considering grad school - then they should have time to study for the GRE. I am sure there could be some extreme exceptions, but for the most part... I disagree. This is the case in grade schools, and high schools - but not so much with college level.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the GRE, to be honest. It is what it is, and as long as programs ask for it, students will need to take it. Also, I don't want to make any assumptions about where you're coming from, nor do I want to make it sound like I spent my formative years in labor camps. However, I think your opinion is a bit misguided. I think that you may underestimate the ways in which coming from a lower socio-economic bracket can permeate an individual's life. I noticed in your post that you referenced the cost of the GRE: $150 is a cute little amount, but it pales in comparison to the wealth of knowledge someone who grew up in a well-educated area with well-educated peers in a well-educated family has had the opportunity to acquire.

While it is certainly true that someone who is taking the GRE has earned (or is about to earn) a BA or BS, this has little to do with the GRE. There are people in this thread and others who have prided themselves on the fact that they spent 80 hours a week of their teenage years reading and expanding their vocabulary. That's all well and good, but when it comes time to take a test on it, there are others who haven't had that opportunity. Many of us weren't just sitting around playing video games: we were working, taking care of a sick or disabled family member, or dealing with any other number of circumstances beyond our control.

I think that it's important to acknowledge that, especially for many first generation college students (moreso than any arbitrary racial divide, I firmly believe), the playing field isn't exactly level. If you grow up around people who are talking the talk and walking the walk, of course it's going to come more naturally to you when you get there. I think that this is especially to the detriment of the Analytical Writing section of the exam, although it certainly affects the Verbal as well. The Quantitative part is something that you can prepare for, but the other sections are testing you on exactly what you described: skills that you acquired (or began acquiring, or should have begun acquiring) in elementary, middle, and high school.

[JerryLandis]

Well, in a sense, it kind of is its purpose. Some people claim that the GRE is useful because GPAs from different institutions cannot always be compared fairly or accurately. At some universities, grading is more or less strict than at others. The idea, then, is that the GRE allows candidates from different universities (potentially some from private, expensive universities and others from less expensive in-state programs) to be compared by taking the same test.

The problem with this is the same as the SAT problem. Preparing for the GRE can significantly improve scores, however it is expensive. Books, sample tests, classes, etc. - these are all available to people who can afford them, which places such people at a distinct advantage. I don't know if it's the case with the GRE, but I remember that when I took the SAT there were several books and courses that guaranteed customers a significant raise in their scores. If people can be guaranteed higher scores by paying into expensive programs, then clearly these tests do not measure basic intelligence or aptitude, but a person's level of preparation and how much he or she was willing to pay. I attended a private high school, where almost every single person not only purchased SAT prep books, but also attended regular SAT prep courses. Many of these people were complete idiots ("What is the capital of Africa?" "Was the Black Death the cause of the Great Depression?" "It's unfair to say that private school kids all drive BMWs. All my parents bought me was a Jeep." etc.) and yet most of them scored in the 1400s if I remember correctly, and were all admitted to colleges that thereafter lost some of my respect as institutions of learning.

I don't know enough people who took the GRE to comment about how well scores represent general intelligence. I'm sure that one has to be rather intelligent to get a score in the highest percentiles, and quite dumb to get a score in the lowest ones. But in between, say, ranging from 500-650, where most people seem to find themselves, I don't believe that the test really does determine very much about a person's intelligence or potential success. I think it's pretty much only useful in that it shows how good a person is at jumping through pointless bureaucratic hoops, as someone else already mentioned.

The bottom line is that I don't appreciate having to spend a minimum of $150 (in my case it cost over $400 due to transportation and all that) to take a test that is generally considered to be the least important part of an application. Maybe the test helps admissions committees in certain decisions, but I don't think that is worth making thousands of students waste their time and money on a pointless test.