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

[502845824]

Hard for me to say. I got 169v, 161q, and 5.5aw. So I got really high scores. And I got into Pitt. But I was rejected by programs ranked similarly to Pitt and a slew of programs ranked far lower than Pitt. So I'm thinking I didn't get into Pitt based on my GRE scores. Definitely not that alone, at least.

[D-NixRT]

 

On 3/11/2016 at 10:17 AM, PrimeMumble said:

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.

I definitely agree with this. I believe my writing sample and letters were the strongest parts of my application.

I had pretty poor GRE scores and I was still able to get into an MA program that I'm very enthusiastic about with funding + teaching assistantship. I think applicants worry about the GRE way too much, but good scores can't hurt.

[Contretramp]

Surely there is no way that reports of our individual experiences can establish anything useful here? 

• Got in with good GREs - unclear if causal factor or not. 
• Got in with poor GREs - at most, evidence that in your case those schools didn't consider your scores a deal breaker. 
• Didn't get in with good GREs - at most, evidence that that in your case those schools didn't consider GREs important enough to admit you.
• Didn't get in with poor GREs - unclear if causal factor or not.

[FettuccineAlfrege]

On March 11, 2016 at 11:17 AM, PrimeMumble said:

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.

Yeah, I get the impression that the writing section isn't taken vey seriously by most departments. Especially since you can get a perfect verbal score and a 4 writing (which happened to me). Plus, they have your writing sample. 

 

Verbal and quant matter to some extent, however, when it comes to funding from graduate schools at large. For example, I received the highest fellowship available at OSU as a (partial) result of my GRE scores. 

[PrimeMumble]

2 hours ago, FettuccineAlfrege said:

Yeah, I get the impression that the writing section isn't taken vey seriously by most departments. Especially since you can get a perfect verbal score and a 4 writing (which happened to me). Plus, they have your writing sample. 

 

Verbal and quant matter to some extent, however, when it comes to funding from graduate schools at large. For example, I received the highest fellowship available at OSU as a (partial) result of my GRE scores. 

Maybe second/third tier universities consider that GREs are a useful way to instantly show the "quality" of their students. Top schools don't need to show anything to anyone and that is why they can focus on accepting different (more risky?) profiles. What do you think?

[iamtheother]

3 hours ago, PrimeMumble said:

Maybe second/third tier universities consider that GREs are a useful way to instantly show the "quality" of their students. Top schools don't need to show anything to anyone and that is why they can focus on accepting different (more risky?) profiles. What do you think?

As I mentioned, GRE scores play a role in the way funding is offered, and in some cases may even be contingent. Thus the previous posters nomination of an external fellowship. Those fellowships can mitigate the money the department pays out, and make a department look good for having had a prospective student awarded such a fellowship. How that nomination process plays out can be wildly different depending on the institution. If you're going by the PGR, NYU may accept a student with mediocore GRE scores for whatever reason because they can fund them without consequence. But, maybe Rutgers needs funding from the Graduate School qua Graduate School, and is in that sense beholden to making cutoffs based on certain scores. That being said, as a previous poster mentioned, as long as you're in the 310-325 range that would seem to satisfy most institutions.

[jacbarcan]

Just to add to all this:

One person has a 165V/157Q/4.5W and 3.73 GPA and got into Yale, UCLA, Cornell, Michigan, and USC and is wait listed at Harvard and Pitt. There may be more...I'm forgetting.

One person has a 157V/165Q/5.0W and a 3.69GPA and got into NYU, Princeton, Rutgers, Michigan, Pitt, Cornell, UCLA, USC, Stanford, UCSB, and UNC.

One person had something like a 167V/152Q/4.5W with a GPA around 3.49 and got into Pitt, Cornell, and Arizona and was wait listed at UNC.

I should mention though that all three of these people went to a particular undergraduate program that is different with their grading system and I wouldn't read too much into the GPA. All are extremely high GPAs given that institution. 

I think this is soooooo clearly evidence that the GRE does not matter much at all. A 152Q is 48th percentile. A 157V is 74th percentile. You might think these are absurdly low. The applicant clearly did wonderfully. 

HOWEVER: as has been mentioned here and in Leiter's blog, GRE scores tends to go hand in hand with GPA and quality of writing sample. I would say that most people getting into these top programs just so happen to also have great GRE scores because they're excellent candidates overall. I would by no means think or ever tell anyone that that they got into a program because of their GRE score. Less strongly (though still very much inclined to say so), I believe that no decision is made purely off of the GRE (mainly thinking of low GRE score cases). Focus on the writing sample, come from an excellent undergraduate institution for philosophy, have great letters, vary your coursework in philosophy, and get a good major GPA. GRE comes last. 

 

[FroggyFriend]

GREs sooooo do not matter that it's not even worth fretting about.

I assume pedigree matters, but I think it matters less than what some people are claiming.  I do know of people admitted to top-5 schools from no name undergrads, and I know of undergrads from Ivys who can't get into places. 

Honestly, if you (generic you) had a bad season, the most likely culprit was your writing sample.  See if you can take a look at writing samples from students in top departments to get a sense of what you're up against.

[historicallinguist]

No, not at all. GRE is like a threshold. As long as you are above the threshold (I guess it is around 320/340, writing 4/6), it does not matter any more.

I think the personal statement and wring sample are far more important when it comes to whether you can get admitted or not.

[R614]

I didn't score all that well on the GRE (164V/154Q/4.0W) and my cumulative GPA is embarrassingly low, but I haven't been completely shut out.

Edited March 20, 2016 by R614

[shitandthings]

I more or less bombed the GRE and I did okay. 

[dgswaim]

I think we've established that a high GRE score is neither necessary nor sufficient for being admitted, but you should still get a high score if you can.

Not the most helpful of conclusions. 

[samori]

10 hours ago, dgswaim said:

I think we've established that a high GRE score is neither necessary nor sufficient for being admitted, but you should still get a high score if you can.

Not the most helpful of conclusions. 

Yeah - it's a good idea to take the GRE seriously, study seriously, and do the best you can - but if you don't do as well as you'd hoped, don't let that deter you from applying to higher-ranked schools. (I wish I followed this advice... mostly the taking it seriously bit.)

[kat99]

I think GRE is one of the least important factors, if not the least important.  I scored 160/156/4.5 and was admitted to 6/10 schools: 3 in the top 15, and 1 in the top 5.  I also lack a strong pedigree.  A strong writing sample and good LORs can make up for lack of pedigree and below average GRE scores.  I worried so much about GRE and pedigree because it seems the smallest factor can shut you out in this process.  In retrospect, my advice would be to focus on your writing sample.  It's the most important factor and it's in your control!  I spent a good five months on mine (including research), and it paid off.

[steve3020]

On 3/13/2016 at 0:48 AM, philosophe said:

 

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by steve3020

[Duns Eith]

On 3/21/2016 at 6:15 PM, shitandthings said:

I more or less bombed the GRE and I did okay. 

Quoted for the sake of bumping this important thread from last year's app season.

I have found this thread really, really encouraging as I go into a season with a paltry 157v (75%), 155q (59%), and 5.0a (93%) score set. Sure, I got a 312 combined score. That's good enough if my letters, GPA, and writing sample are enough.

If.

[hector549]

I'm going in with a high verbal score (169) and OK quantitative (156) but I got a 4 on the AW?! Hoping that that won't matter too much

[Swann]

9 hours ago, jkm871 said:

I'm going in with a high verbal score (169) and OK quantitative (156) but I got a 4 on the AW?! Hoping that that won't matter too much

Your score looks decent to me (for whatever that is worth). If your WS is quality work, then I'd imagine that the 4 on AW would become less of something to worry about. 

On April 6, 2016 at 0:19 PM, kat99 said:

I think GRE is one of the least important factors, if not the least important.  I scored 160/156/4.5 and was admitted to 6/10 schools: 3 in the top 15, and 1 in the top 5.  I also lack a strong pedigree.  

This post is encouraging. I also don't have a "strong pedigree".  I feel I have an okay-not-excellent score (165/157/5). Its not a score I feel will hurt me, but it won't help that much either.

I am pretty confident with the quality of my writing sample...but you can never be too sure. So I'm trying to not be all too confident.

[Schopenhauerfanboy]

I'm sure some of you have already investigated this on other blogs, but this thread is worth re-posting here:

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/03/are-some-schools-using-undisclosed-gre-cut-offs-in-admissions-decisions.html

In the comments section, profs from admissions committees weigh-in on the value they assign to the GRE. Seems like it's never a disqualifying factor in the first round of review unless other parts of the app are also bad (sub-optimal letters, lower grades, usually low GRE = booted in the first round, ceteris paribus).

Suggests that within a certain threshold, low-GRE is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having your application eliminated in the first round of reviews, although you could imagine a candidate with a perfect GRE score and terrible grades who might get rejected first round, but bracketing those kinds of cases I think the preceding statement holds..

[jacbarcan]

I'm going to sound like a broken record to a lot of you: I am 100% positive that the GRE (mostly) means shit. Make sure you pass a certain threshold that is surprisingly low (like 60th percentile--probably combined score is more important) and you're fine. I know 2 people who not only got into 1 top ten program but like 8 top ten programs each and each scored in the 70th percentiles (one was 70's quant and 90's verbal other was 70's verbal and 90s quant). I know one person who got into 2 top ten programs with something like 49th percentile in quant (though had 90's in verbal). 

My advice is always: Take the GRE seriously for the first time you take it. If you do just fine, FOCUS FOCUS FOCUS on your writing sample. That's what's important. Do not take the GRE again if you don't have to because it's a huge waste of time and money. Most important factors to getting in: luck, writing sample, fit and interests, where you went to school and whether or not it is know to have a good *undergraduate* philosophy program, recs, and grades (depending on the school you went to---some schools are known to hand out easy grades, some are known to hand out very few As. Know your school).

I would work at personal statements and personalize to each school but some people disagree with this. 

Please don't waste your time on the GRE unless you desperately need to.  

[jacbarcan]

Oh and btw---writing score doesn't mean anything at all. No one looks at it. 

[Duns Eith]

3 hours ago, jacbarcan said:

Most important factors to getting in: luck, writing sample, fit and interests, where you went to school and whether or not it is know to have a good *undergraduate* philosophy program, recs, and grades (depending on the school you went to---some schools are known to hand out easy grades, some are known to hand out very few As. Know your school).

And almost in that order, too, I bet. Maybe letters of rec are weighted higher, just after writing sample.

[Gilgamushy]

I was explicitly told by a grad admissions director at a top 20 program just this fall that they don't care about GRE's "because they are predictive of nothing beyond students' first year performance."   More than likely, a lot of departments are ignoring them, however the university graduate school to which the department belongs may require them nonetheless.  Basically, admitting departments are just doing their own thing and don't care about what the university requires of students in their applications materials.   This sounds about right, judging by all the people who reported shockingly mediocre GRE scores who were accepted to top 10 programs in last year's app season.   (That's not intended as a knock on anyone.  It's just to say GRE scores don't mean much about how you perform as an academic, as a philosopher, etc.  They predict how well you trained for the GRE test conditions and questions.  Departments have caught onto that.)

 Now everyone do as I say:  breathe a sigh of relief and chill out about your GRE scores.   Worse things to agonize over.   

[vse]

I have some time before I take the GREs (I will be applying next cycle), but I am genuinely very worried about its implications - so this thread has in many ways been of comfort - and was wondering if anyone here might have some thoughts on my particular circumstance:

See - I have a spatial processing disability. What that means in practice is that re-arranging numerical symbols (as well as balance) is difficult for me, which brings down my quantitative scoring and mathematical abilities quite a bit.

This isn't a logic problem - I could explain the logic of math to you easily, have succeeded in graduate seminars in an analytic program (think: professor graduated from NYU), and will likely be able to glean a strong letter from my logic professor (the 'symbolic' part of it is still a bit difficult for me but because it's ultimately working with verbal ideas I can translate well enough where the symbols don't get in the way of my love of the actual conceptual / argumentative aspects). I have also presented at professional conferences in my specific AOI and will have strong letters generally. The problem is quite literally only in the symbols themselves. 

While I can work to minimize the impact (and do qualify for accommodations, though I have complex thoughts on using them), there is nothing that I can do to prevent it from hurting my score as a fact of neurology. I am terrified that my quant. score will keep me out of a discipline that I love and am committed to, either through outright rejection or not being able to get into a program that will get me a job.

I am wondering how much I should be concerned - and at what score ought I be concerned - as well as if it would be worthwhile to communicate this fact to ad coms. I don't want to needlessly stigmatize myself, as there is still a deeply false association between hyper-specific learning disabilities such as mine and "intellectual disabilities", but if it would explain the concern in a way that would have an honest, positive impact I would of course prefer that. I could also have letter writers communicate it, though that would seem potentially odder to me. The main focus is on convincing a committee that my quant score is not reflective of my philosophical abilities or potential, which - while I would always caution on being overconfident - is something that everyone universally agrees is true. 

(Note: I mention the analytic background to emphasize what this concern does not indicate. While I use analytic philosophy as method quite often, my interests are more pluralistic. For example, if I would have to pick schools whose faculty line up most closely with my AOI, I would say that Georgetown and PSU would be at the top. Of the PGR top-top schools, Stanford is likely the best match. Even if was entirely otherwise qualified, the likelihood that I would actually be accepted to NYU is slim to none because there is nobody there who could mentor me.) 

(There is also a greater than zero chance I would be able to come in with a little bit of my own funding, at least for the first few years, via an external scholarship that could be extended into graduate school.)

Edited December 24, 2016 by vse

[Gilgamushy]

17 hours ago, vse said:

I have some time before I take the GREs (I will be applying next cycle), but I am genuinely very worried about its implications - so this thread has in many ways been of comfort - and was wondering if anyone here might have some thoughts on my particular circumstance:

See - I have a spatial processing disability. What that means in practice is that re-arranging numerical symbols (as well as balance) is difficult for me, which brings down my quantitative scoring and mathematical abilities quite a bit.

This isn't a logic problem - I could explain the logic of math to you easily, have succeeded in graduate seminars in an analytic program (think: professor graduated from NYU), and will likely be able to glean a strong letter from my logic professor (the 'symbolic' part of it is still a bit difficult for me but because it's ultimately working with verbal ideas I can translate well enough where the symbols don't get in the way of my love of the actual conceptual / argumentative aspects). I have also presented at professional conferences in my specific AOI and will have strong letters generally. The problem is quite literally only in the symbols themselves. 

While I can work to minimize the impact (and do qualify for accommodations, though I have complex thoughts on using them), there is nothing that I can do to prevent it from hurting my score as a fact of neurology. I am terrified that my quant. score will keep me out of a discipline that I love and am committed to, either through outright rejection or not being able to get into a program that will get me a job.

I am wondering how much I should be concerned - and at what score ought I be concerned - as well as if it would be worthwhile to communicate this fact to ad coms. I don't want to needlessly stigmatize myself, as there is still a deeply false association between hyper-specific learning disabilities such as mine and "intellectual disabilities", but if it would explain the concern in a way that would have an honest, positive impact I would of course prefer that. I could also have letter writers communicate it, though that would seem potentially odder to me. The main focus is on convincing a committee that my quant score is not reflective of my philosophical abilities or potential, which - while I would always caution on being overconfident - is something that everyone universally agrees is true. 

(Note: I mention the analytic background to emphasize what this concern does not indicate. While I use analytic philosophy as method quite often, my interests are more pluralistic. For example, if I would have to pick schools whose faculty line up most closely with my AOI, I would say that Georgetown and PSU would be at the top. Of the PGR top-top schools, Stanford is likely the best match. Even if was entirely otherwise qualified, the likelihood that I would actually be accepted to NYU is slim to none because there is nobody there who could mentor me.) 

(There is also a greater than zero chance I would be able to come in with a little bit of my own funding, at least for the first few years, via an external scholarship that could be extended into graduate school.)

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...