According to your recent experience, would you say that the GRE was a very important factor to get admitted?

[pecado]

You just had the experience of being admitted or rejected. According to what you see this time, would you say that the GRE was crucial to get admitted?

Do you think that you were rejected somewhere only because of that low GRE? What is the minimum GRE score they want?

What is your general conclusion about the damn GRE?

[sidebysondheim]

Yes and no. I got into some great places with quite poor GRE scores (UNC, WashU, Georgetown). But also, I got rejected from places that were less awesome than those three, and it's hard for me to figure out why since they were roughly the same fit and so on. GRE definitely seems like it'd play a role in that, especially if they made cuts based on that before giving my writing sample a more serious look (or something). 

I guess what that tells me is that some programs definitely care about it, and some could care less if the other aspects of your packet are strong. 

 

EDIT- I should probably include my scores, iirc, 152Q, 159V, 5AW.

Edited March 12, 2016 by sidebysondheim
added gre scores

[dgswaim]

Mine aren't anything to write home about (165 verbal; 154 quant; 5.0 AW). I seem to be doing ok. The fact that I've done quite a bit of advanced logic and math perhaps makes up for my relatively poor quant score.

[Davidspring]

GRE is VERY important:  if you got high scores, people in top departments would take your application seriously (this wouldn't be enough for them to admit you, though).  Otherwise, you would probably be shut out immediately, especially if your education background isn't impressive either.  They don't need to find diamonds in the sand, given that there are plenty of diamonds in front of them.

I'm so sad about this.

[gughok]

Not important enough to worry about so long as you're managing a 310, 320. I've seen people get into practically all the programs I was rejected from with those sorts of scores (consider e.g. one person with 157/165/5 who got into NYU and a number of other places, also with a 3.69 GPA). We're talking correlation much more than causation when it comes to GRE and success.

Edited March 12, 2016 by gughok

[dgswaim]

51 minutes ago, Davidspring said:

GRE is VERY important:  if you got high scores, people in top departments would take your application seriously (this wouldn't be enough for them to admit you, though).  Otherwise, you would probably be shut out immediately, especially if your education background isn't impressive either.  They don't need to find diamonds in the sand, given that there are plenty of diamonds in front of them.

I'm so sad about this.

I'm not sure how to take this. I mean, it's plausibly true that it's very important not to score below, say, a 315 or 310 or something. But beyond that it's far from clear that the GRE is "VERY" important. It seems there are many counterexamples to this.

[sidebysondheim]

Yeah, I think Davidspring is inflating the importance.

[AnotherKantFan]

Nope. It's not important at all. I got into a Leiter top-10 place and got waitlisted at other two Leiter top-10 places with quite poor GRE

Edited March 12, 2016 by AnotherKantFan

[Epictetus]

I have excellent GRE scores. Perfect Verbal and much better than most on Quant and I've not had a great application season. 

[Davidspring]

8 hours ago, dgswaim said:

I'm not sure how to take this. I mean, it's plausibly true that it's very important not to score below, say, a 315 or 310 or something. But beyond that it's far from clear that the GRE is "VERY" important. It seems there are many counterexamples to this.

I should have made my claim clearer: by high scores I mean scores over 160 (better: >=90%).  If you are from a prestigious school or have recommendation letters from great people, then maybe that's different.  Many people claimed that they had poor scores, but they didn't make clear that how poor they were.  And they didn't tell us anything about other parts of their file.  Moreover, most students admitted into top schools scored very high in the GRE.  How do you know you would become the exceptions?  We'd better have a cautious attitude towards any ecouraging (and maybe misleading) results in this respect.

My recommendation is to try your best to make every part of your file strong, which, of course, includes the GRE.  Many schools don't even carefully read your file if your GRE is not impressive in their eyes.  But as I said, good or perfect scores alone won't promise you an offer:  they only make people take your application seriously.

Given my experience in this season, I come to not believing that GRE is trash, though it is trash.  I do hate this sort of standardized tests!  If one day the US schools didn't use these stupid tests any more, then I'd be more than happy to apply again.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Davidspring

[sidebysondheim]

While a lot of what you said is true (high GREs won't hurt you and probably help), I think it's a lot more specific program to program than in general. I think there are programs that do not care about it. I did not score over 160 in verbal or math, came from a large, unknown, community based state university, letters of rec by professors who are not generally well known (though they know some people at programs I was both rejected from and accepted to). All this is to say, it's possible. 

But ultimately you're right: make every part of your file strong, including the GRE. But I think some people sweat it trying to get high GREs when really they should be putting more time building their writing sample, etc. Just my $.02.

[philstudent1991]

Good GRE scores will never hurt you, but even perfect ones won't save you if you don't have pedigree. 

[dgswaim]

18 minutes ago, philstudent1991 said:

Good GRE scores will never hurt you, but even perfect ones won't save you if you don't have pedigree. 

I actually don't think pedigree counts for much.

[philosophe]

I don't think there's any real correlation. It can help but as long as your math score isn't below average (50th percentile) and your verbal is above average (say, in the 160's to be safe), that's probably fine.

I got into a Phd program and an excellent MA program with ok scores (162 v, 156 q), and then retook them for this season. I ended up with 166 v and 152 (yikes!) q. Rejected from a lot of top schools, but wait listed at a bunch of decent schools, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm starting to feel that it's like the leiter rankings, if we're not talking about the very best or very worst scores I doubt it matters much. (I don't think rank matters unless you're talking about the top ten or the bottom ten). 

Hope that's at least somewhat helpful.

[philstudent1992]

2 minutes ago, dgswaim said:

I actually don't think pedigree counts for much.

Why don't you think so? Look at the BA or MA granting institutions of the students at top-10 Leiter ranked programs (I assume these are the sort of program philstudent1991 had in mind). Schools like Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford are grossly overrepresented (Berkeley, for instance, is particularly bad about this). It's certainly not the case that pedigree is all that matters, or anything like that, but I think you need very good reasons to deny the value of the prima facie evidence that pedigree is very important.

[dgswaim]

12 minutes ago, philstudent1992 said:

Why don't you think so? Look at the BA or MA granting institutions of the students at top-10 Leiter ranked programs (I assume these are the sort of program philstudent1991 had in mind). Schools like Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford are grossly overrepresented (Berkeley, for instance, is particularly bad about this). It's certainly not the case that pedigree is all that matters, or anything like that, but I think you need very good reasons to deny the value of the prima facie evidence that pedigree is very important.

Maybe I should restate. I don't think lack of pedigree counts against you very much as long as your application is strong in other ways. 

Edit: I can draw some anecdotal evidence (super reliable, I know) from my own case. I was a hair's breadth from being admitted to ND (HPS), and I'm still in the running at Indiana (HPS) (two very top-notch HPS programs). I've been admitted and wait listed at some of the best places for my particular specialty (phil bio). I have a BA from a good, but unknown SLAC, and an MA from a place that's mainly known for producing Heidegger and Derrida scholars.

Edited March 12, 2016 by dgswaim

[betun]

11 hours ago, pecado said:

You just had the experience of being admitted or rejected. According to what you see this time, would you say that the GRE was crucial to get admitted?

Do you think that you were rejected somewhere only because of that low GRE? What is the minimum GRE score they want?

What is your general conclusion about the damn GRE?

@pecadoIs your statement pertaining only to Philosophy applications or to any discipline?

[PrimeMumble]

I got 4.0 in analytical writing.

I was accepted by Stanford.

End of story.

 

Work on your philosophy, not on these silly numbers. An excellent writing sample can get you anywhere.

[Davidspring]

1 hour ago, sidebysondheim said:

While a lot of what you said is true (high GREs won't hurt you and probably help), I think it's a lot more specific program to program than in general. I think there are programs that do not care about it. I did not score over 160 in verbal or math, came from a large, unknown, community based state university, letters of rec by professors who are not generally well known (though they know some people at programs I was both rejected from and accepted to). All this is to say, it's possible. 

But ultimately you're right: make every part of your file strong, including the GRE. But I think some people sweat it trying to get high GREs when really they should be putting more time building their writing sample, etc. Just my $.02.

Thanks for the feedback.  I think international students have more difficulties: given the limited spots for them, non-native English speakers have to compete with students from UK, Canada, Australia, etc.  This year, I was admitted into a few decent schools and they suspect that I'd be admitted into top schools, given the strength of my file.  But unfortunately, I didn't get into any top 20 schools, though I was waitlisted at very few of them.  The only weaknesses I can think of is my low GRE verbal score and my unknown foreign institutions.

To add, I got very strong letters from great people and they thought very highly of my writing sample: they recommended me to publish it in a well-respected journal.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Davidspring

[philstudent1992]

41 minutes ago, dgswaim said:

Maybe I should restate. I don't think lack of pedigree counts against you very much as long as your application is strong in other ways. 

Edit: I can draw some anecdotal evidence (super reliable, I know) from my own case. I was a hair's breadth from being admitted to ND (HPS), and I'm still in the running at Indiana (HPS) (two very top-notch HPS programs). I've been admitted and wait listed at some of the best places for my particular specialty (phil bio). I have a BA from a good, but unknown SLAC, and an MA from a place that's mainly known for producing Heidegger and Derrida scholars.

I mean, I don't know. I don't want to toot my own horn or whatever, but I think I have a very strong application (1 point from a perfect GRE, 4.0 grad gpa, very strong letters, a sample that I think is pretty good, clear interests and good fit with the schools I applied to), but I was rejected from around 8 or 9 schools that I thought I had a good chance at. Now it's certainly possible that my estimation of myself is just too high. In fact, I'm sure it is. But the explanation that my pedigree is just not good enough is also rather compelling; it helps explain, I think, my pattern of rejections/admissions/waitlists, but it also helps explain broader patterns of people's success depending on the institutions they're coming from. 

And, of course, it doesn't undermine the claim that pedigree counts if there are some schools for whom pedigree is irrelevant. It's possible that the schools you mention are like this (and I don't know whether HPS programs are any different on this score than philosophy programs). I was claiming that top 10 or top 20 PGR schools care a lot about pedigree. And note that it isn't a zero-sum game here, anyway. If having good pedigree helps you get into schools, that means that you're taking a spot away from someone else. So even if bad pedigree didn't actively hurt you (by making your app look directly worse), pedigree is still important (since it still plays a big role in who gets in). That being the case, I don't know if there's much of a distinction between lack of pedigree counting against you and strong pedigree counting in your favor.

Oh, and so I guess my case sort of bears on the actual question of the thread: my own experience does not suggest that a good GRE score is a sufficient condition for getting into top PhD programs.

Edited March 12, 2016 by philstudent1992

[betun]

I do not think GRE scores are as important to the file as may seem so. The writing samples plus LORs carry greater weightage. Except in some highly technical or quantitative programs, scoring a decent high score is enough.For eg, SAIS as students scoring very high GRE scores with third quartile scores in the 160s. Scoring above 150 is usually ok enough for most programs even in the topmost universities as I have seen very a great range in GRE scores on websites of the programs I applied to which were all top varsities. Usually 70th percentile scores are good enough.

Having said that, GRE is an area which could be used to add weightage to an application, especially for international students whose universities are not very well known and with no GPA system for easy transcript evaluation. It was my GRE score which motivated me to apply to the universities I finally applied to. However, I should have worked on my writing samples sooner and I would suggest applicants to read up more about programs and get great writing samples through rather than fret too much about GRE.

As I am working, I could not put much time into GRE preparation and I did not attend any GRE tutorials. I just tried to improve my aptitude in general through test and non test-material and this I did for quite a few months but very sporadically. Worried about the unstructured manner of my GRE preparation and the fact that I did not want to take a single mock till I was 'ready', I did not take GRE until October when my mother literally forced me to take it immediately.

I got a great score but thinking about the GRE made me think less about what schools should apply to and why. That is far more important. I did not get into one program because I did not fit a prerequisite requirement( most probably). In a couple of others, I could not apply as I could not arrange official transcripts on time. My delay in taking the GRE made me think about writing the actual application much later. I could not apply to two because I did not discover the program till after deadlines. I applied to every program on deadline day and pretty much wrote my SOPs in a day or two or even less though you could say that my mind must have been working on them before I put pen on paper. I would highly recommend not having such a stressful application process as mine due to a GRE focus. 

I scored 170 VA 167 QA and 5.0 AW and it was my first attempt. 

[philstudent1991]

4 hours ago, dgswaim said:

I actually don't think pedigree counts for much.

That's just not compatible with the data. 

[anthrostudentcyn]

People always talk about GRE scores, and I really don't think it means that much, unless they are really bad. Mine were 160/167/6, which is decent, but still only got one acceptance out of many (I'm in anthro, however). If I reapply next year, there are many other parts of my application that I'll choose to work on, GRE scores definitely NOT being one them. 

[iamtheother]

What I've learned:

1) GRE scores are important. But, qualify "important". In most cases GRE scores tell a part of the story - as in, they are supposed to indicate - as to your success in graduate school. Rightly or wrongly, that is their intended purpose.

2) The import of those scores for admission to a program (that is to say, direct admission where only your attendance, and not your funding are considered) is lessened by the successful completion of an MA (or other graduate degree). As you've proven you can be a graduate student.

3) But...funding decisions, if made my a larger entity (the Graduate School, and not the department) may be dependent on your scores. So, the department likes your application in all other respects, but cannot offer you admission with funding (which means you're often not offered admission at all).

Ultimately, most applications don't hinge on GRE scores if it can be avoided. The exceptions to this rule seem to be if either your scores are super low (below 300) or a department has their hands tied by outside rules. Near perfect GRE scores really just tell someone you're good at taking tests. If you'll hold on, I have to head over to this Merleau-Ponty text and do some fuckin' algebra in it.

Edit: All of this assumes you're not an international student (US Citizen, Native English Speaker, US educated). The story may be very different otherwise.

Edited March 12, 2016 by iamtheother

[SamStone]

I haven't read all the replies to this thread...so I post this at the risk of repeating something that's already been said:

I've been rejected by a lot of programs this year and may have to reapply next year. My GRE scores were 165v, 158q, 5.0w. From what I understand, these scores are not excellent but they are also not bad. In any case, in thinking of the possibility that I may reapply, I've thought that the most important thing I'd do is just work on a different, better writing sample. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking this, but I do not think my GRE scores were a crucial factor in my receiving rejections.