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

[psm1580b]

Go look at the results page for the last couple of years and look at the GRE scores of those that have been admitted (and rejected) from the school's you're applying to. That will give you a rough estimate of what the different departments are looking for. Another way to think of it is, it will give you an idea of what past accepted and rejected students have looked like in terms of GRE. Try and be like the former. Maybe the highest GRE score won't get you in, but I don't see a lot of acceptances in the 150's (or 4.5) and below...

[vse]

11 hours ago, Gilgamushy said:

This is no doubt a tough issue.   I would guess that letter writers who know you well would mention your spatial processing disorder in their letters.  You might encourage them to write about how this does not affect your academic abilities in the field, or to what extent it does (I.e, dealing with symbols).  I think admission committees will want reassurance that a student with non-intellectual deficits can really do the work.   That said, if possible, I think it would also be wise to take some grad level classes in philosophy in the coming year to demonstrate that you can succeed in doing the work.  Then get a letter from that professor of that course(s).   In addition, most university admissions applications ask if you have a disability and to explain what it is.   you will probably want to elaborate on this in supplementary materials you submit with your applications, explaining in as medically sterile a way as possible that this is not an intellectual deficit.  Most people just don't know anything about any of the vast variety of neurological or neuropsychological disorders out there and don't understand that they may have nothing to do with intellectual and problem solving aptitude.   (My dad is a neuropsychologist, so I myself try not to make any assumptions, because I've learned so much about the different disorders that can affect the brain.  But not many people have this perspective.). I think you are right to be concerned about how you may be viewed as a result, and so I think the best strategy to demonstrate how you have succeeded in the discipline and to define exactly what you are unable to do and what alternatives plans might be put into place to test your aptitude on things like math and logic where the standard practice is to rely on symbols or spatial depictions.  If an admitting department can see how you yourself have worked through these obstacles successfully, they may be more confident that they can bring you on as well as confident that there are ways to work with the issue that they hadn't thought of.  (You're partly working against the rigidity and lack of creativity of the people and the system.  But if you can show them how you have creatively gotten through it, then that will also demonstrate both your intellectual aptitude and your commitment.)

i hope others will chime in here who might have relevant experience...

Thank you for the thoughtful response. As I mentioned in my initial comment, I have already excelled in both an analytic graduate seminar taught by an NYU alum (I will have at least two more by the time I apply) and in an undergraduate logic course (including symbolic logic, which I can work through because the ideas are still ultimately verbal). I have also participated professionally in my particular AOI. The spatial processing deficit has never impacted my non-mathematical academic performance; I have performed well in the discipline, will have strong letters (the only reason they know about this is because I have brought it up for this reason; it wouldn't have become apparent to them otherwise), and have people familiar with my research in some of the departments that I am considering applying to. I caution at being arrogant, because I sincerely do not think I am more or less philosophically qualified  than any other applicant, but to the degree that most applicants can be presumed to be qualified, I am in that pack minus my quantitative scoring. If I can get my score to a mediocre place, it seems from this thread that a lot of folks are saying not to worry about it too severely. But if it is a bad score, it seems as if risking disclosing might be better than risking inexplicably poor performance. 

8 hours ago, psm1580b said:

Go look at the results page for the last couple of years and look at the GRE scores of those that have been admitted (and rejected) from the school's you're applying to. That will give you a rough estimate of what the different departments are looking for. Another way to think of it is, it will give you an idea of what past accepted and rejected students have looked like in terms of GRE. Try and be like the former. Maybe the highest GRE score won't get you in, but I don't see a lot of acceptances in the 150's (or 4.5) and below...

This is genuinely my concern. I have not gone through practice tests on the quantitative section at this point, but it would not surprise me at all if I hit terribly low scores such as that in the Quant. section, while hitting high percentiles in writing and verbal. Of the many, many reasons standardized admissions testing is bad, which also includes class disparities and the like, this is one of them. These tests simply don't work if you fall outside the white, middle-class, neurotypical archetype they have been built for. It doesn't mean I am not going to do everything that I humanly can; but I also know that I am not someone who can simply practice into succeeding at the GRE. There's a clear ceiling and it has nothing to do with my philosophical abilities. Concrete mathematical abilities (as opposed to understanding the logic behind math, which is separate)? Certainly. American Sign Language abilities? As I learned at a conference recently, I will never be able to learn ASL. Ability to take timed mathematics examinations? Quantifiable impact. Analytic metaethics? Not a problem (a meaningful challenge, as it ought to be for all of us, but not because of this). 

I don't expect anyone here to have a clear bullet; I was just wondering if anyone might have personal experience with an ad. com or with this in their own experiences. Neurodivergence among graduate students and academics is not uncommon, so it's always worth trying.

Edited December 26, 2016 by vse

[Gilgamushy]

1 hour ago, vse said:

Thank you for the thoughtful response. As I mentioned in my initial comment, I have already excelled in both an analytic graduate seminar taught by an NYU alum (I will have at least two more by the time I apply) and in an undergraduate logic course (including symbolic logic, which I can work through because the ideas are still ultimately verbal). I have also participated professionally in my particular AOI. The spatial processing deficit has never impacted my non-mathematical academic performance; I have performed well in the discipline, will have strong letters (the only reason they know about this is because I have brought it up for this reason; it wouldn't have become apparent to them otherwise), and have people familiar with my research in some of the departments that I am considering applying to. I caution at being arrogant, because I sincerely do not think I am more or less philosophically qualified  than any other applicant, but to the degree that most applicants can be presumed to be qualified, I am in that pack minus my quantitative scoring. If I can get my score to a mediocre place, it seems from this thread that a lot of folks are saying not to worry about it too severely. But if it is a bad score, it seems as if risking disclosing might be better than risking inexplicably poor performance. 

This is genuinely my concern. I have not gone through practice tests on the quantitative section at this point, but it would not surprise me at all if I hit terribly low scores such as that in the Quant. section, while hitting high percentiles in writing and verbal. Of the many, many reasons standardized admissions testing is bad, which also includes class disparities and the like, this is one of them. These tests simply don't work if you fall outside the white, middle-class, neurotypical archetype they have been built for. It doesn't mean I am not going to do everything that I humanly can; but I also know that I am not someone who can simply practice into succeeding at the GRE. There's a clear ceiling and it has nothing to do with my philosophical abilities. Concrete mathematical abilities (as opposed to understanding the logic behind math, which is separate)? Certainly. American Sign Language abilities? As I learned at a conference recently, I will never be able to learn ASL. Ability to take timed mathematics examinations? Quantifiable impact. Analytic metaethics? Not a problem (a meaningful challenge, as it ought to be for all of us, but not because of this). 

I don't expect anyone here to have a clear bullet; I was just wondering if anyone might have personal experience with an ad. com or with this in their own experiences. Neurodivergence among graduate students and academics is not uncommon, so it's always worth trying.

If you think you are going to do fine in the GRE verbal and analytical, I would not worry too much about the math, particularly since you have demonstrated that you can succeed in logic and other grad level courses and have been professionally engaged in your AOI.   That WILL count for a lot if you highlight it strongly.    I got a very mediocre GRE score in math (this was 11 years ago) but excelled in the verbal and got 6.0 in the analytical.   Totally fine.   And as I said, I was explicitly told by an admissions committee member GREs are not really a concern because they are not predictive of long-term performance in a grad program.  Seriously.   GREs don't track anything meaningful and committees know that.   Your performance in logic, etc. will mitigate for a bad math score.   The only way a bad math score is going to doom you is if the rest of your application looks very weak, in which case your weak application will already have doomed ypu.    I can't emphasize enough how shocked I was last season to see people with far lower scores than I got on my GRE getting into top 10 programs.   It's just not what departments care about.   They care about, to be honest, where you went to school for your undergrad or MA and *WHO* is writing your letters of recommendation.   It's brutally elitist in that regard.   They care about the quality of your writing sample and how well you convey your research project and areas of interest in your SOP.   Just do a killer good application dossier.   Your math score will not be a problem because the rest of the application will show that the GRE score is an anomaly.  People have bad days in the testing room.  They flake out while taking the test.   This happens.   Committees just don't place much credence in these scores as being indicative of a person's philosophical aptitude.  I swear, I hear faculty say these things all the time.  I am applying for re-admission after a long hiatus away from my PhD program and I am expected by my department's committee to submit a full application dossier as if I were a brand new applicant.   I freaked out when they asked for all that because I hadn't taken the GRE in 11 years and I don't want to have to learn how to do crap like solve simultaneous equations all over again at the age of freaking 40+!   They told me, "oh don't worry about it.  We don't care about GRE scores because they don't tell us anything."   Focus on a top quality writing sample, preferably 15-20 pages with a killer good introduction that lays out exactly what your paper is doing and why.  Critical.  You need your Intro to be very clear and tight because they will just look at the intro when they are giving the applications the first pass.   They will judge based on the intro.   Only applications that make it to further rounds in the weeding out process get their full papers read.   And focus on your SoP.  The blog "The Splintered Mind" has some good advice on these topics.   If you can convey in your dossier of grades, coursework, writing sample, good letters, and SoP that you are perfectly competent, the math GRE score is not going to faze them.  I think the fact that you are active in the field really says a lot more for you than you realize.   I have a very good sense of these things because of much I am already involved in my department (been here 10 years!) and how things work.  

The other thing is this:  you are who you are.   In the end, you can't change what you are and what you have to work with.    At some point you just gotta let it all loose and embrace it to the hilt and just do what you love by means of who you are.   You can't afford to fret so much about this disadvantage and let it use up so much of your mental space.   You're doing the philosophy thing just fine.  Is it really a disability in respect to the field if you're performing just fine?   It's extremely difficult to adopt an attitude of viewing oneself as NOT disabled when you've got the scientific/medical community and society screaming "disability!" in your face, but you've got to adopt the attitude that this is not really a disability in any relevant sense with respect to academic work.  I mean, just look-- it isn't!    Not that that will change other people's attitudes when they don't really know you, but survival in grad school is SO much more about your own attitude towards yourself than it is about others' attitudes towards you.   People think about your abilities-- whether peers or supervisors-- a whole lot less than you think they do.   Grad school is a battle against yourself, not against the system.  It's about learning to work with yourself and who you happen to be.  In the end, it's critical you come to adopt the posture and attitude of your own ability and let that show in the way you convey yourself or live your life.  I had to take 7 years off from my PhD program to figure that out.   Don't fret too much.  Just give it your all.  

[XinluLee]

writing part might be most important, and AW>5 is awesome for phil programs....why are you guys still discussing the verbal part? 

[be.]

8 minutes ago, XinluLee said:

writing part might be most important, and AW>5 is awesome for phil programs....why are you guys still discussing the verbal part? 

I can't imagine AW matters much. They'll have your writing sample, so they'll presumably judge your writing ability based on that. 

[Duns Eith]

11 hours ago, XinluLee said:

writing part might be most important, and AW>5 is awesome for phil programs....why are you guys still discussing the verbal part? 

Can you name a school that said they care about that score? Or some discussion on Leiter where it is said?

[necessaryandsufficient]

8 hours ago, Turretin said:

Can you name a school that said they care about that score? Or some discussion on Leiter where it is said?

I haven't seen it, but programs presumably know that the writing samples (or some) have been heavily edited with lots of feedback. Some programs might view the AW as your "raw ability" (i.e., the quality of your writing and logical reasoning when you have to evaluate/make an argument in 30 minutes). I don't think it matters much since the writing sample is far more important, but I can see why a score above 5 might strike some adcoms as impressive. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by necessaryandsufficient

[Glasperlenspieler]

6 hours ago, necessaryandsufficient said:

I haven't seen it, but programs presumably know that the writing samples (or some) have been heavily edited with lots of feedback. Some programs might view the AW as your "raw ability" (i.e., the quality of your writing and logical reasoning when you have to evaluate/make an argument in 30 minutes). I don't think it matters much since the writing sample is far more important, but I can see why a score above 5 might strike some adcoms as impressive. 

I mean they also know that what's being tested in the AW section of the GRE (whatever it is that it actually does test) has nothing to do with academic philosophy. Also, every published philosophy article these days is heavily edited with lots of feedback. So being able to do that well may actually be a sign of professionalization. 

Everything I've read indicates the the verbal and quantitative sections of the GRE are of some value to admissions committees (how much varies), but the the AW is pretty much useless unless perhaps it's alarmingly low.

[necessaryandsufficient]

9 hours ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

I mean they also know that what's being tested in the AW section of the GRE (whatever it is that it actually does test) has nothing to do with academic philosophy. Also, every published philosophy article these days is heavily edited with lots of feedback. So being able to do that well may actually be a sign of professionalization. 

Everything I've read indicates the the verbal and quantitative sections of the GRE are of some value to admissions committees (how much varies), but the the AW is pretty much useless unless perhaps it's alarmingly low.

3

Oh, I don't disagree at all–it's not like journal articles have to be written in thirty minutes. I was just speculating in response to the earlier comment.

[psm1580b]

Remember that your letter of intent is your chance to explain in your own words any discrepancies or divergences from the norm in your application. Study, take the GRE, and then give a couple sentence explanation of your particular struggles and what they affect in your life. You'll be fine. 

[Duns Eith]

2 hours ago, psm1580b said:

Remember that your letter of intent is your chance to explain in your own words any discrepancies or divergences from the norm in your application. Study, take the GRE, and then give a couple sentence explanation of your particular struggles and what they affect in your life. You'll be fine. 

Or get your letter writer(s) to do that for you.

[Duns Eith]

45 minutes ago, tomsellecksmustache55 said:

I think all you people can go shove it. 

I got a 150 V and 142 Q with a 4 W. 

You know why I got these? Because I've spent the last 5 years working in my field and I didn't have the time or energy to seriously study for some retarded exam when I was working full-time. Now one of you may say that this means I didn't take my admissions process seriously and to that I would say that I get to mention all the millions of grant funds I've accumulated for research in my SOP. I took it serious in the parts of the application that mattered, not some stupid exam. This is especially true since I already have a master's degree. I think years of actual experience and a masters with a 3.7 gpa mean alot more than some dumb exam score. 

This thread has returned from the dead!

[Bumblebea]

1 hour ago, tomsellecksmustache55 said:

some retarded exam

Yikes.

[The_Last_Thylacine]

At least this post was thoughtfully and respectfully exhumed by a philosophy applicant today, on opposite day. 

Edited January 19, 2019 by The_Last_Thylacine

[Duns Eith]

Post deleted? Since when was that a thing?

[StHoly]

I think it is quite important. I have great credential (I'd like to think) but I think GRE is bringing me down and not to be considered. I am not sure if this round of application will be the last one for me cause I don't think I want to go through another GRE test taking anymore. 

[Warelin]

1 hour ago, Duns Eith said:

Post deleted? Since when was that a thing?

Moderators can choose to warn an individual or hide a post when we feel a post is inappropriate, it violates the terms and conditions, or another circumstance arises.