I think the GREs are a deterrent mechanism

[ChickenPotPie]

The only good thing about it is that it compares students from different universities. Other than that the general test is based on vocab, tricky math, and the ability to write good fast which might not be the best criteria for comparing students.

Edited November 16, 2009 by ChickenPotPie

[dzk]

The only good thing about it is that it compares students from different universities. Other than that the general test is based on vocab, tricky math, and the ability to write good fast which might not be the best criteria for comparing students.

The fun thing is that it's not actually "tricky math;" in fact, it's hardly math at all. The strict time limit (1.6 minutes per question) means that it's almost entirely a test of pattern recognition and basic concepts. The reason I had difficulty with it my first time was because I didn't bother to pick up those patterns ahead of time, and figured I could just do it on the fly. Some problems are really difficult if you don't immediately recognize a pattern or have a prescribed way of solving it, because the calculations are outrageously painful.

The ability to write well quickly is a reasonable thing to test. I think the structure of the analytical writing section is actually quite good, especially relative to the other portions of the test. The problem is that it is graded based on extraordinarily lame criteria that have nothing to do with the quality of the writing.

[swisnieski]

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.

Nothing in the psychological literature supports the idea that intelligence (understand in the raw cognitive ability sense of the word) is "equally distributed." But that's a story for a different forum, esp. since there is little evidence that the GRE measures intelligence, anyway.

I don't see that SES has much of an impact on GRE's, either. If you can afford to get a bachelors, paying for the GREs and associated test prep stuff is probably not out of reach. Prep courses are unnecessary (and in my estimation useless); I did pretty well, I think, using just two books I bought for a total of maybe $30.

I don't think you guys appreciate the extent to which a bad admissions decision will hurt a school. Graduate students are a large investment of time and money; when they TA, they are representatives of the school. If a student is revealed to be a poor investment there is no way for the school to recover that money. That's why it's important for them to get their decision right, for which the maximum amount of information is required. If a minor investment of $200 or so gives them that information, give it to them, considering the value of the education you'd have them give you basically for free.

[palindrome]

I think taking the GRE should be necessary (though maybe I'm biased--I did pretty well on it). There's evidence that the qualities that it measures do correlate with academic success. Of course, there are other measures that contribute, but I think the GRE has something to contribute to the application package.

But at the same time, as someone from a disadvantaged background, I think that it is downright wrong for the ETS to charge such exorbitant fees ($20 to send a school an email and CD w/ your scores???). It should be inexpensive.

From the same perspective I believe that preparation classes should be proscribed as a matter of academic integrity (like plagiarism). That is, if they actually have any effect on scores. Our education system should be totally about merit and not at all about socioeconomic status. It's certainly possible to do well without preparation. I know this would be difficult to enforce, but so are plagiarism provisions--anyone who is found to take a prep class should suffer a severe disadvantage in admissions.

Edited December 16, 2009 by palindrome

[Pamphilia]

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.

Yes. The GRE is one vestige of a racist and classist system. Though it may not be explicitly designed to maintain an elitest status quo by keeping the "unwashed masses" out of the ivory tower, it still accomplishes that function. The exorbitant price of the test, coupled with the fact that it tests one's ability to take the *test* rather than one's actual intellectual abilities mean that what it is really testing is an applicant's access to test prep materials (financially, socially, culturally) and the test prep system (again, financially, socially, culturally, and yes, politically). Is this an extreme interpretation? Yes. Do I feel this way out of bitterness? No--I did very well on the thing (largely because I have the privilege of access to the system). I will also say that I am not a big fan of standardized testing in general, but I think there can be far more equitable ways to execute it--ways that do not prop up what is still, despite notable exceptions, a racist and classist system.

The key word here: privilege.

[alexis]

I agree with many of you in this discussion regarding the exorbitant cost of the GRE and the discriminatory nature of it.

The GRE has been known to show an achievement gap based on SES, ethnicity, and in some areas, gender. The gap isn't as great as it is with the SAT, but it's still there. (The GRE also has been shown to predict graduate grades by only 9%, but that's another issue.) However, I think it's a mistake for anybody to say, "anyone can spend a little bit of money and do well on the GRE" as if to imply everyone has equal opportunity. That's precisely part of the problem, that spending hundreds/thousands of dollars (that some don't have) can improve your score. How is that a measure of aptitude? And it's completing ignoring a plethora of data on how SES and other contextual variables of one's life can affect how individuals do on these standardized tests, despite extra studying and training.

I'm middle class and have been relatively privileged, attending good public schools and parents who read to me, never had to worry about where my next meal was coming from, could focus on school, etc. But if I didn't have this--and was in a different type of situation that a lot of other students are in--I don't think I would have done as well as I did (I didn't do fabulously either, despite a lot of studying; I'm smart, but not brilliant on standardized tests).

The existence of the achievement gap is one reason why affirmative action is still in place in graduate admissions, in addition to the need for diversity.

I don't know what the solution is--the GRE does allow admissions committees to compare apples to apples--but what if we're all just pears, kumquats, and grapes, and they're just forcing this artificial standard?

[ScreamingHairyArmadillo]

Isn't there a fee reduction option? Half price? I qualified, but didn't feel like going through the process of filling out a form, sending in fin aid info, and essentially having to sign up through the mail instead of online.

But hell, I did well, so I don't really care now.

[coyabean]

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.

me, too

[coyabean]

Isn't there a fee reduction option? Half price? I qualified, but didn't feel like going through the process of filling out a form, sending in fin aid info, and essentially having to sign up through the mail instead of online.

But hell, I did well, so I don't really care now.

There is but it varies by school. At my school I had to have a certain number of earned credit hours to qualify. I was six hours short. Yet, had I waited until next semester it would have been too late. So, a financially indigent student has to make decisions about their future based on economic guidelines beyond their control. It sucks. If I had not had another route to go I would have lost the momentum of being in school while applying -- which helps. And I, theoretically, would have had a year after graduation to languish. That sucks. And its the arbitrariness of the rules. It's just like the cost of apps -- designed to keep the student aid office from getting too many requests. The institution's needs are put before the students'; although the institution supposedly exists FOR the students.

And now I'm angry, again! GAH! Someone better let me in a program so I can get to my work or I'm gonna blow smoke out my ears.

[ridgey]

I'm happy that they use the GRE because it strengthens my application. But, I don't think it is useful at all. There is a reason that other countries don't use standardised tests for grad admissions (or uni admissions even). It strikes me as bizzarre that there can be a whole industry around standardised tests. In that NYTimes article posted somewhere here it talks mentions how ETS is trying to position itself as the test for business schools, in competition with the GMAT. These tests are first and foremost a business, and their success is far more about good marketing than intrinsic value.

[shorty06]

Isn't there a fee reduction option? Half price? I qualified, but didn't feel like going through the process of filling out a form, sending in fin aid info, and essentially having to sign up through the mail instead of online.

But hell, I did well, so I don't really care now.

Half price is still $75. If I had the same financial situation as when I came into undergrad, this still would have been prohibitive. Also, the fee reduction voucher took 4 weeks to get, after which you could call and schedule your appointment. Because the test centers fill quickly, this requires a lot of careful planning. They seriously need to revamp their program for the underprivileged. I think in general, the GRE is helpful. I'm glad my performance from a large public university, which curves most classes to a 2.8, can be compared to, say, an Ivy League with massive grade inflation by another means than GPA. I will admit that it is probably a better measure of how you perform under stress than anything else, but isn't this still a good number for adcom's to keep in mind? You are a candidate for a stressful program after all.

[modernity]

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.

Oddly enough, I fit into all of these categories you are claiming are disadvantaged students... I'm speaking from personal experience when I say that someone from a lower ses and a first generation college student (who worked all through college and paid for it themselves in addition to having a sick family member) can overcome the GRE. A $30 book from the bookstore did wonders. It wasn't easy, it took more money than I could afford really, and I didn't get a perfect score but it was a hurdle I could jump through . If I had still been in undergrad, where a lot of this information was fresh in my mind, and I had even more resources available to me at the library/through student services I think it would have made it much easier.

If you had not acquired those skills in K-12, you would have had to have made up for them in college, or at the very least learned how to study effectively or you would have had a number of problems succeeding in getting your BA/BS in the first place. The GRE is more about learning how to take a test, than it is knowing the information that's on it. This is something that may be left out of your education regardless of SES and background.

That said, I think the GRE is flawed in a lot of ways and is largely unnecessary for grad school admission- as someone said it's really not that great of a predictor for grad school performance. Can SES have an effect? Certainly - it obviously does if there are correlation studies on the matter. I just don't think you have to spend thousands to overcome it - college education and the tools available there, assuming you know you want to pursue grad school, can certainly go a long way in doing so. Low SES/working in college/etc. in and of themselves are not singular factors in performing poorly, a lot of things factor into how you will perform on the GRE, and I just don't think it's that easy to explain. I think the cost of the GRE is the bigger deterrent- and is the biggest influence on people from low ses (that and the cost of apps!!).

[spozik]

Oddly enough, I fit into all of these categories you are claiming are disadvantaged students... I'm speaking from personal experience when I say that someone from a lower ses and a first generation college student (who worked all through college and paid for it themselves in addition to having a sick family member) can overcome the GRE. A $30 book from the bookstore did wonders. It wasn't easy, it took more money than I could afford really, and I didn't get a perfect score but it was a hurdle I could jump through . If I had still been in undergrad, where a lot of this information was fresh in my mind, and I had even more resources available to me at the library/through student services I think it would have made it much easier.

If you had not acquired those skills in K-12, you would have had to have made up for them in college, or at the very least learned how to study effectively or you would have had a number of problems succeeding in getting your BA/BS in the first place. The GRE is more about learning how to take a test, than it is knowing the information that's on it. This is something that may be left out of your education regardless of SES and background.

That said, I think the GRE is flawed in a lot of ways and is largely unnecessary for grad school admission- as someone said it's really not that great of a predictor for grad school performance. Can SES have an effect? Certainly - it obviously does if there are correlation studies on the matter. I just don't think you have to spend thousands to overcome it - college education and the tools available there, assuming you know you want to pursue grad school, can certainly go a long way in doing so. Low SES/working in college/etc. in and of themselves are not singular factors in performing poorly, a lot of things factor into how you will perform on the GRE, and I just don't think it's that easy to explain. I think the cost of the GRE is the bigger deterrent- and is the biggest influence on people from low ses (that and the cost of apps!!).

Hey, thanks for replying. I, too, speak from personal experience, I just wanted to be a little more objective than turning my post into a "woe-is-me" parade. I'm also a few years out of undergrad and would probably have benefited from some of the information being a little more fresh. I agree that you don't need to sink thousands of dollars into the GRE to do well on it, necessarily. I also just bought a book and I did OK (670V 760Q), but I imagine that if I had had the time and money to take a course (and I'm not sure I would have, anyway, but as it was I didn't have the choice) I'm sure I could've done even better. Now, for the kids who really need that extra practice, it gives the ones who are better off a big leg up.

I'm not talking about you and me or even much of the population of this board (which seems to be frequented largely by talented students looking for external affirmation of their abilities), but the situation is unfortunately real for many people who would otherwise like to enter academia. If you look at some of the studies done on this kind of thing, you'll see that people like you and me are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to lower SES. It's an unfortunate fact. Of course you can always find people (and it's especially convenient when it is yourself) who are in the statistical minority.

I was mainly trying that a lot of the issues for students that come from a disadvantaged (and under this distinction, I wouldn't include myself) background, the problems are deeper to overcome. The gaps in education are bigger, there is less time available, and there are, in general, more external sources of stress. Certainly, you can keep on chugging and do well. And I'm also not saying that people who come from a higher SES bracket have it easy: everyone can and must create opportunities for themselves. It's just a little easier for some people to make those than others.

[modernity]

Hey, thanks for replying. I, too, speak from personal experience, I just wanted to be a little more objective than turning my post into a "woe-is-me" parade. I'm also a few years out of undergrad and would probably have benefited from some of the information being a little more fresh. I agree that you don't need to sink thousands of dollars into the GRE to do well on it, necessarily. I also just bought a book and I did OK (670V 760Q), but I imagine that if I had had the time and money to take a course (and I'm not sure I would have, anyway, but as it was I didn't have the choice) I'm sure I could've done even better. Now, for the kids who really need that extra practice, it gives the ones who are better off a big leg up.

I'm not talking about you and me or even much of the population of this board (which seems to be frequented largely by talented students looking for external affirmation of their abilities), but the situation is unfortunately real for many people who would otherwise like to enter academia. If you look at some of the studies done on this kind of thing, you'll see that people like you and me are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to lower SES. It's an unfortunate fact. Of course you can always find people (and it's especially convenient when it is yourself) who are in the statistical minority.

I was mainly trying that a lot of the issues for students that come from a disadvantaged (and under this distinction, I wouldn't include myself) background, the problems are deeper to overcome. The gaps in education are bigger, there is less time available, and there are, in general, more external sources of stress. Certainly, you can keep on chugging and do well. And I'm also not saying that people who come from a higher SES bracket have it easy: everyone can and must create opportunities for themselves. It's just a little easier for some people to make those than others.

I think we largely agree. My original point was that low SES isn't going to be reflected in the GRE the way that it would be in the SAT or ACT... college has some mitigating factors- those that go to college have drive/ambition to overcome their situation, typically find a cohort/professor to cheer them on if they didn't have it at home, have had an additional 4 years to overcome gaps in their K-12 education, etc. In some ways they've already become a statistical minority by jumping that hurdle, which makes the next hurdle (the GRE) that much easier to leap across. I didn't mean to imply that it was easy by any means, or that it can't a factor.

I think being a first gen. college student also might outweigh the low SES in factors that cause difficulty. I am sure it has to be easier for someone with parents who have graduate education, where they can go to them and get advice on the process, than it is to spend hours scouring the internet and other sources for the "how tos". I know when I started, I didn't even know what the GRE was going to be like.

Perhaps some sociology grad student(or other related discipline) can look into this further for us.

[randybobandy]

I don't think it has much to do with socioeconomic status. I didn't buy any preparatory materials because there's more than enough websites around the internet specifically devoted to helping people on the GRE. You can find anything, greek/latin roots, vocab lists, etc for free if you look for a bit

[expressionista]

If you have regular, free access to the internet.

[swisnieski]

If you have regular, free access to the internet.

Lack of access to a computer would disadvantage people in other ways beside GRE test prep -- like, for instance, keeping them from writing an SOP or using online applications. Perhaps these requirements should be abolished as well?

[jacib]

Lack of access to a computer would disadvantage people in other ways beside GRE test prep -- like, for instance, keeping them from writing an SOP or using online applications. Perhaps these requirements should be abolished as well?

I've been teaching SAT/GRE/GMAT for a while now and of all of those, GRE is the most frustrating to teach because it is the hardest to study for. In the Verbal section, other than memorizing words, there are a limited number of strategies (there are a few good ones in the sentence completion part. a few decent ones in the analogies, and a few things that make reading comprehension easier), but overall, it is not a test like the SAT where I can regularly improve scores 200+ points (granted some of those score improvements are because these students are non-native speakers so learning words that the SAT loves like "bewildered" helps them a lot). The thing is, the GRE is "fairer" to those without access to study materials than some other tests are because it is harder to study for. The only student who really significantly improved her score did so through two months of solid work, during which time she memorized a significant portion of the Barron's 3500 word list. The majority of the words she'd never seen before. I think if you study very hard and raise your score significantly, that in-and-of itself means something--presumably you would put the same amount of effort in to your actual work at graduate school.

This is one of the reasons that I don't like the changes--whatever the old GRE did or didn't test on, it was at least hard to study for. The GMAT, however, is RIDICULOUSLY easy to study for. The more practice tests you take, the better you do. I don't think the GRE is the best possible test, and it is better than the alternatives. And I do think there needs to be some sort of standardized test, but I certainly don't think it should be everything. Luckily, I don't think it is. One of my friends said, your GRE scores don't matter... unless they're really low or really high. I think that's as it should be. High scores indicate a certain kind of aptitude, low scores indicate perhaps the lack of it. The former should not be an automatic acceptance (it's not), the latter should not be an automatic rejection (it is apparently in some places... though my father's colleagues say often other aspects can make up for one low score... but perhaps that's just in the social sciences).

The graduate process in general is way too opaque. I like Northwestern's pages and pages of stats, showing exactly attrition rates, acceptance rates, etc. My alma matter is not nearly so good. During college, one of my friends worked in the biological sciences division (top 5/10 in some subfields, top 25 in the rest, I just checked). Part of her job responsibilities included doing the first round of graduate application sorting. This undergraduate would get rid of about half the candidates... now if an undergraduate could do it, it's probably pretty much set limits (GRE scores below y, no research experience, wrong major, GPA below z). Those are the kinds of things that should be posted on the website... but rarely are. I wish I could remember more about how she actually did the sorting (we've fallen out of touch) but it's ridiculous that if so many people were gonna be eliminated so quickly by a non-expert (she wasn't even a bio-concentrator... she just got the job through work-study), I think the department as a moral obligation to discourage people it will never accept from applying.

Edit: Now, a lot of those people were grossly underqualifed and many also didn't meet clearly marked minimum standards (TOEFL for example) or had trouble expressing themselves in English. I don't mean to scare you. And I think someone else did double check all her rejections. But still.

Edited December 19, 2009 by jacib

[swisnieski]

The graduate process in general is way too opaque. I like Northwestern's pages and pages of stats, showing exactly attrition rates, acceptance rates, etc. My alma matter is not nearly so good. During college, one of my friends worked in the biological sciences division (top 5/10 in some subfields, top 25 in the rest, I just checked). Part of her job responsibilities included doing the first round of graduate application sorting. This undergraduate would get rid of about half the candidates... now if an undergraduate could do it, it's probably pretty much set limits (GRE scores below y, no research experience, wrong major, GPA below z). Those are the kinds of things that should be posted on the website... but rarely are. I wish I could remember more about how she actually did the sorting (we've fallen out of touch) but it's ridiculous that if so many people were gonna be eliminated so quickly by a non-expert (she wasn't even a bio-concentrator... she just got the job through work-study), I think the department as a moral obligation to discourage people it will never accept from applying.

Agreed 100%. I've said elsewhere I think grad schools are reluctant to tip their hands with such stats for fear of discouraging good candidates with one or two glaring weaknesses (as in low GRE scores despite a strong GPA, lots of research experience, great LORs, etc.), but if some base measure of quality is used to assess first-round rejections, it should definitely be public knowledge, if only to save themselves the time of weeding out such candidates and the candidates themselves the humiliation.

[alexis]

Agreed 100%. I've said elsewhere I think grad schools are reluctant to tip their hands with such stats for fear of discouraging good candidates with one or two glaring weaknesses (as in low GRE scores despite a strong GPA, lots of research experience, great LORs, etc.), but if some base measure of quality is used to assess first-round rejections, it should definitely be public knowledge, if only to save themselves the time of weeding out such candidates and the candidates themselves the humiliation.

I can't help but wonder if they do this just so they can boast a lower acceptance rate.

[cheesethunder]

I can't help but wonder if they do this just so they can boast a lower acceptance rate.

gradschools a scam!

i just wanna sit in a room and read aritcles! is that toomuch to ask

[swisnieski]

I can't help but wonder if they do this just so they can boast a lower acceptance rate.

Good point; I wouldn't be at all surprised.

But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a scam, cheesthunder. Maybe an accounting gimmick. People with below a 1000 on the GRE's probably aren't exactly surprised to get their rejection letters from Harvard.

[Kreid]

I think the role of money has to be considered as well. If schools are publishing data that allows a person to make a highly accurate evaluation of their chances, they will make less money from fees, as will ETS. Of course, there's no way to know if they actually are making a considerable amount of money from fees or not.

[jacib]

Of course, there's no way to know if they actually are making a considerable amount of money from fees or not.

Sure there is. Columbia sociology, for example, had 290 applicants for like 11 spots. Let's assume be generous and say 70 of those applicants (roughly 1/4) got a fee waiver. It's still like... what 75, 85 bucks to apply (I don't want to think about it) so 75*220= 16,500. That's not chump change, I'd hope it was enough to cover all the costs, but it's probably not a ton left over (maybe enough to fund travel to a conference or two or three). It works out to 1500 per admitted student, minus fixed costs (or perhaps a fixed amount out of each application) paid to a place like embark, minus the grad school assistant, minus all the paper used etc. I have no idea if the adcoms get paid, but if that is it, its even less per admitted student. I think the cost is in more way a deterrence than anything else so that they only get applications from students who really want to go there. "Serious word" that came up a lot while talking to sociology departments. My old roommates got a common app fee waiver and applied to 32 colleges for ungrad, which he would never have done if he had to pay for each. I think he got into more than half of them. (For the record, he had legitimate reasons for applying so widely: he was the only kid to go out of state for college that year from his high school so he got next to no guidance from his counselor, she just didn't know. Not many people from his high school had questions about private university vs. private liberal arts college).

At a place like Harvard, where the application for the Committee on Religion is $105 and they have tons of applicants (including many more from abroad who cannot get fee waivers), it's more lucrative, but still, it's not like they're making mint. Though it might be enough to fund one more student for one year.

Do admit rates matter so much in grad school? Both USNWR and NRC seem to rank only based on reputation. It seems that they want higher rates perhaps for some indirect prestige rather than an actual, immediate bump in rankings... Some schools have awful attrition rates, and awful year-to-degree rates, so perhaps that's what they're more worried about being generally known. Also no school publishes an average GPA, that I've seen at least (this is perhaps because most use some sort of curving mechanism, either formally or in formally, so a Harvard undergraduate GPA is worth more than one from East Podunk Teacher's College... and this doesn't even consider graduate vs. undergraduate GPAs. As a side note, during one affirmative action law suit, Berkeley Law School released all of this data, exactly how much it curves for individual undergrad schools, you can find it online, but law schools make much more quantitative assessments than graduate schools because law schools don't worry about "fit".)

Anyway, I think Swisnieski is right: they'd rather wade through a bunch of crap in order to avoid possible getting rid of a good candidate. That said, there are clearly some minimums at play. If I apply with a 1.9 GPA and 800 GRE, you know... I like that the UC's post 3.0 minimum GPA. Toronto (at least for Religion) says that it's mainly based on your grades from your last year or two, and most, but not all, people admitted have A's or A-'s. Likewise, Harvard Religion says only a "rare, exceptional candidate" is admitted without a masters. Even though those aren't strict cutoffs and minimums, it's a good deal being able to know you at least either do or don't meet this minimal guidelines. That said, Swisnieski, I think some people with 1000 GRE's are surprised: I was reading a forum somewhere, a college administrators forum (where the hell was it? I got a link to it from the board), and one graduate student adviser was complaining about the people who are rejected then call indignantly, demanding to be let into the program... she said these almost always tend to be the least qualified people who just have no idea about the process (she administered an education program at a public university in California, if I remember correctly).

[ridgey]

Sure there is. Columbia sociology, for example, had 290 applicants for like 11 spots. Let's assume be generous and say 70 of those applicants (roughly 1/4) got a fee waiver. It's still like... what 75, 85 bucks to apply (I don't want to think about it) so 75*220= 16,500. That's not chump change, I'd hope it was enough to cover all the costs, but it's probably not a ton left over (maybe enough to fund travel to a conference or two or three). It works out to 1500 per admitted student, minus fixed costs (or perhaps a fixed amount out of each application) paid to a place like embark, minus the grad school assistant, minus all the paper used etc. I have no idea if the adcoms get paid, but if that is it, its even less per admitted student.

Of course, that $16 500 doesn't go to the sociology department but to the GSAS.