peppermint.beatnik Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 From Dec.5, 2009 New York Times: New Look for Graduate Entrance Test Could be good or bad. Hope I'm not writing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyabean Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 From Dec.5, 2009 New York Times: New Look for Graduate Entrance Test Could be good or bad. Hope I'm not writing it! Me and the BFF are on the phone crying over this now! It basically takes all the stupid memorization out of the test. Seeing as how I'm a critical thinking versus memorization type person chances are good that I'd do better on this one!! A calculator! Of course you should have a d@#! calculator. Stupid, stupid ETS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tskinner Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Sounds like they're turning it into the GMAT, which is a shame, because I aced the GMAT and did OK on the GRE after I changed my plans for graduate school. If only they changed it this year...>.> They finally realized that knowing the definition to words that, if you used, would alienate your audience is not a good measure of verbal skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateAntique Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 If I were reading this at home and not in the middle of a crowded library, I would probably let loose a string of very awful swear words. I hate you, ETS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyabean Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 If I were reading this at home and not in the middle of a crowded library, I would probably let loose a string of very awful swear words. I hate you, ETS. I shall cuss for you! Cussing being the more southern and vile cousin of your swearing. It's a skill I have developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahlan_amnell Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Considering the number of times they have said they are going to revise the test but end up not going through with it, I'll believe that they are changing the test when I hear of people taking the new version. I'm glad I'm done with the GRE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a fragrant plant Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 That means if I don't get in this year I'll need to buy a new set of GRE books to study for the new test. Damn you ETS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socme123 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 wow, the changes sound terrific. i'm studying to take the test so I can apply next year. why couldn't they make the changes for like mid-2010??? :-( Damn ETS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesethunder Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 mo-effing ets continuing to be a waste of my life. god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennszoo Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 How about being able to skip a question and come back to it? What a nice option. Why did it take this long to offer it? Sound like good changes, but too late for me. They arent getting another dime of my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zilch Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 the changes are interesting and certainly seem to be positive. It does raise the question of how the scores will be viewed by admissions committees for the first few years. Even though there will be statistics from all the exams taken that first year, they may not be available before admissions decisions are due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ristastic Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Seems like they're getting rid of everything that was horrible about it. No analogies or antonyms, the ability to go back to a question, a CALCULATOR?! Curse you ETS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasses Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! I memorized thousands of words back in 2007 for this thing, and I remembered thinking, "Cool! I have a better vocabulary now! But wait . . . what does this have to do with graduate study? Also, what does the ability to do with long division have to do with graduate study? Also, what does the ability to get a question right without having the chance to come back to it after thinking for a while have to do with graduate study? Oh well. I've gotta take it, so I'll man up." And I'm not complaining about my score -- worked out fine. But seriously: OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Edited December 8, 2009 by glasses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LateAntique Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Is this an admission on ETS' part that their test is bonkers? Do you think adcomms will take this into account this year or will it be business as usual? Is a flawed test better than no test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hinesaj Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I think AdComs will always be aware that the only thing the GRE measures is your ability to take the GRE, new or old. They will treat the scores the way they always have: with serious reservations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyetea Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Why on earth did I not get a chance to do this new one? I seriously messed up on my verbal, no preparation at all. Not that there are any prep materials where I am but still, why did it take them this long to realise their test is crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All About The Bones Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I have been lurking around this forum for a bit but this has made me really feel the need to post. I do think that this sounds like a good substitute for the current test. However, I think that the reliance on any kind of standardised test is insane. I am from the British system and found the GRE horrendous, but I studied, didnt do great but didnt find it as bad as I thought given that I have not dont maths in any way for 8 years. I think that the problem ultimately lies in trying to pick people to participate in a program that lasts at least 5 years on the basis of tests rather than talking to them! PhD programs in Britain always interview, and whilst I prefer the US system generally (hence applying to it rather than to anything in the UK) the general admittance system seems so much better, why would you not want to talk to the people you are going to be working with and relying on teaching the undergraduate courses?! Anywho, revision is good but will it work and be fair is the main issue, as at the moment that is not the case. Feel free to ignore of course Just my personal view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacib Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Peppermint Beatnik... are you Canadian? You said write the exams instead of take them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peppermint.beatnik Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 Peppermint Beatnik... are you Canadian? You said write the exams instead of take them. Yup, I didn't know "write" was a British thing. Canadians tend to mix US and UK spelling, punctuation, etc. I always write with a u, though-colour, not color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlee306 Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 ***JAW DROPS*** I cannot believe this crap! "The new verbal section, for example, will eliminate questions on antonyms and analogies. On the quantitative section, the biggest change will be the addition of an online calculator." I waisted soooo much time and money on this stupid test!! And now they want to change it to the way I wanted it done in the first place! Ohhhhh, I don't believe it! All grad schools should just let all of us who have taken the current version in as repayment to the suffering ETS has caused us!! ETS--you know what they say about karma... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SisypheanStones Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Many people seem to be really frustrated that they did not get to take the new test, as they might have done better. If in fact more people do well on the new test, would that matter? In other words....wouldn't the percentile scores matter more than the score? So in this case, who thinks that those who take the test in the inaugural years with a higher score compared to the percentiles of immediately preceding years are the luckiest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialpsych Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 “We know that some faculty saw a 20- or 30-point difference on the 200-800 scale as more significant than it really was, and we hope that the new [130 to 170] scale will make things clearer,” Dr. Payne said. Obviously. 130 to 170 with one-point increments will be WAY clearer. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alea Iacta Est Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 The reactionary in me is glad that I took the old test. I would hate to have to use a calculator in the test since it basically seems like an Irrational Numbers Ahoy! alert to me. I like my solutions to be nice, round integers. In the old test, if I got a solution like 7.467938, I'd know that I'd likely done something wrong. Having a calculator would just deprive me of that guarantee. Furthermore, I'd be tempted to use it on problems that would probably be faster solved mentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant.gwyrdd Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 “We know that some faculty saw a 20- or 30-point difference on the 200-800 scale as more significant than it really was, and we hope that the new [130 to 170] scale will make things clearer,” Dr. Payne said. Obviously. 130 to 170 with one-point increments will be WAY clearer. ???? Well... they got the starting point down from 200 to 130, that's a start. Maybe they'll realize one day that the best place to start counting is 0, followed by 1. (And yes, I have read their explanation of why they didn't use the 100 scale and I think it's plain silly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now