Excessive-Obsessive GRE worries in P Theory

[hobbeslocke]

Hello all,

I am applying in theory to about 7 top ten programs. (hypchicago etc.)

My stats are

3.7 ugrad from a top 10 slac (phil),

3.86 grad ma in religion from an ivy+ school

I also attended two different ivy+ schools, as well a top foreign (not brittish or german) university, under strange but not negative circumstances for graduate work in poli sci and religion and did very well.

I have good to very good letters from 3-4 professors, including some important theorists.

I think my sop is good and there is good or reasonable fit at most of the departments.

Sounds good right? I think so too! But I keep hearing on these boards about how if you dont have over a 700 on each section you can go fly a kite. I dont really believe that can be true all the time, but im perhapps excessively worried nonetheless.

680v 690q 6w

those 30 point are absolutely killing me. What do you people (or committee members) think?

[rainy_day]

Seriously, you have incredible stats. And you know that.

I've never heard anyone on these boards suggest that you need a 1400 to even be considered; that is the exact opposite of the common wisdom I have heard.

I think a lot of people on these boards would kill for GRE score like that, and at a time when people are feeling incredibly insecure about this process, the tone of this post, to be honest, is kind of insulting.

Sorry at the cranky response. I've been up until 5 am every night this week working on applications, and I just don't have much patience.

[natofone]

I wouldn't worry about the GRE as much because you applied for theory and a 680V is still relatively high.

[captiv8ed]

I agree with rainy_day. Especially since this was your first post.

[hobbeslocke]

I apologize if my op came off as arogant--that wasnt my intent. I am honestly concerned, and I think it has been suggested all over this board that the 700 ceiling is serious at certain schools.

I even recall having a nice interview at yale a few years ago in religion when the professor told me: sounds great, dont you worry about the gre's, you just need a 700 for each--very easy (I had a 600 v at the time, which i diddnt tell him)! He suggested that even if the department would accept you, the university might object based on the scores, and for that reason that can have an effect on the process from the start.

As I said, I am probably excessively worried over this, but what can ya do? The future, right?

[hobbeslocke]

I apologize if my op came off as arogant--that wasnt my intent. I am honestly concerned, and I think it has been suggested all over this board that the 700 ceiling is serious at certain schools.

I even recall having a nice interview at yale a few years ago in religion when the professor told me: sounds great, dont you worry about the gre's, you just need a 700 for each--very easy (I had a 600 v at the time, which i diddnt tell him)! He suggested that even if the department would accept you, the university might object based on the scores, and for that reason that can have an effect on the process from the start.

As I said, I am probably excessively worried over this, but what can ya do? The future, right?

(btw, first post but longtime multiyear lurker)

[brouhaha]

My understanding is basically that GRE scores are not as important as we make them out to be. If you want to go to a tippy tip top place like Princeton then a 700 in each section would certainly be nice but I think at most places as long as you hit 1200 GRE is no longer an issue in your acceptance vs denial.

[Ferrero]

I'm going to have to be the first to disagree here, unfortunately. I think we'll see a substantial uptick in applications this cycle. Some will be more credentialed, some not so much. On balance, though, I think you need 700+ in both sections to make the final rounds at the top 5, 6.

[natofone]

Here is what some of the school websites say:

Stanford

Although we have no official score requirement, admitted students typically have GRE scores of 700+ on both the Verbal and Quantitative sections, and a score of 5.5 in the Analytical section. Admitted students typically have a GPA of at least 3.8 in their previous studies.

http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/grad_faq.html

MIT

What is the average range of GRE scores of accepted students?

720 to 750.

http://web.mit.edu/polisci/grad/faq.html

Columbia

Q. What is the minimum level you require on the GRE exam?

A. While there is no minimum GRE score required for admission, applicants who are admitted tend to score in the upper percentiles. Not scoring in the upper percentiles does not preclude admission, and weak GRE scores can be overcome by strengthening other components of the application.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/grad/main/admissions/index.html

Duke

5. Successful applicants generally have GPA's of 3.5 or above and combined GRE's of at least 1350. Exceptions to these thresholds are sometimes made, however.

http://www.poli.duke.edu/grad/admission.html

Yale

Q. What is the minimum GRE score required to apply?

There is no minimum GRE score required. GRE scores of previously admitted students have ranged between 550-800 for the verbal section and 550-800 for the quantitative section. Please keep in mind that GRE scores are but one of many criteria used to evaluate an applicant.

http://www.yale.edu/polisci/resources/docs/AdmissionsFAQ.pdf

Berkeley

Q: What are the minimum score requirements for the standardized tests?

A: We do not have minimum score requirements for the GRE. However, due to the highly competitive applicant pool we receive each year, the average scores of admitted students are typically in the 80th percentile or higher on each of the three sections of the GRE General Test.

http://polisci.berkeley.edu/grad/applying/faq/

Averages (from school websites):

Duke 694V, 693Q

UCSD 710/14V, 745/78Q, 4.5/1.29AW

Michigan 667V, 729Q, 6.0AW

Wisconsin 681V, 747Q, 5.5AW

George Wash 670V, 720Q, 5.1AW

Minnesota 661V, 687Q, 5.2AW

Chicago 638V, 698Q, 4.85AW

UWashington 634V, 703Q

Virginia 685V, 727Q

Georgetown 674.55V, 726Q, 5.39AW

[Ferrero]

I wholly disagree. What is your evidence for this statement? Do you honestly believe that there will be a substantial uptick in applications this cycle from last year, when the economy was truly in shambles? And how can you justify that statement on the back of data like this: Georgetown (#39) has an average Q score of 726 for admitted applicants, while Chicago (#11) and Duke (#9) both have Q scores of under 700. Moreover, here is data on GRE scores from the top 6 schools (building partially off of what natofone posted earlier):

Harvard - no specific information whatsoever, except for anecdotal evidence from profs that scores are not decisive

Yale - no specific info

Princeton - "typical" admitted applicant has over 700, but lower GRE scores CAN be compensated for in other parts of the app

Michigan - 667V, 729Q, 6.0AW (note the verbal score)

Stanford - "typically" over 700

Berkeley - 80th percentile or higher on all three sections (which translates roughly into 740Q, 570V, 5.0A)

So it seems that scores of under 700 could be a problem at Stanford and Princeton, but that the data do not support such a blanket statement such as you made.

All this only has application to previous years. My assessment is based on a larger quantity of applicants and higher quality of applicants this year. For the top 5-7, one must have 700 or over on at least one section (a 800 on one section carries a nice cachet too). Otherwise, many people will be doomed.

[hawk]

you might speculate that with a lack of jobs available on the market, more students are turning to grad schools

but as to whether that increases competitiveness at the top I would probably say no, since those who performed so well in school to generate such high GRE/GPA data in their applications would probably already (mostly) be applying to grad schools, even in a good job market, which means less qualified applicants are probably applying now, which probably doesn't impact the top schools at all.

[readeatsleep]

i agree with cpaige and hawk.

first, the main reason the economic trouble has made graduate school more difficult is not necessarily because of an increase in the quantity or quality of applicants, but a decrease in the number of funded positions within departments.

second, while the quantity of applicants may have certainly gone up, i dont see why the quality will have. excellent students who have prepared themselves for an academic career is probably constant, while those who have decided to 'go back to school' dont strike me as candidates for top 10 programs.

additionally, economic turmoil turns students' attention toward practical job training, not academia.

finally, the worst of the downturn was last year. the dow recovered 61 percent this year. i imagine this means there will be more positions open (but this may not be entirely true).

however, i do not want to claim that the process is not more competitive than it has ever been. i do think, though, that people tend to overstate the situation in a romantic attempt to make the application process seem like some sort of battle to the death where only the strong survive. in reality, the process is more of a crap shoot, and the idea that one needs a 700 in order to be accepted demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the way the admissions process works.

do not take your successes or your failures in the admissions process too seriously.

[natofone]

To be fair, I didn't say troll. I do find his/her jokes to be generally amusing...

[thegradstudent]

cpaige, hawk and readeatsleep are all spot on. really good analysis and good logic. Ferrero is completely wrong.

as for hobbeslocke, your stats are very good for theory. your verbal score is in the 96th percentile which is fantastic. remember that applicants to all sorts of programs take the GRE so the distribution of scores is not solely based on those applying to political science programs. 96th percentile is kickass. Your quant score isn't very important to be honest since you're doing theory. The SOP, writing sample, letters and fit will make or break your application. Your GRE scores have already put you in the mix.

[Ziz]

690 is a good score even if it doesn't start with a 7 .

I have heard arguments on other philosophy boards (I realize we are talking political theory, but it's similar) that adcoms do consider the quant score for an applicant in philosophy because they see math skills as similar to the logic skills a theorist/philosopher needs. So someone who bombs the math section might be hurt somewhat by that score. That being said, in no way did you bomb the math section and your score is not low enough to raise any red flags considering that I doubt you will ever need to know the probability of choosing a red marble after choosing 3 blue marbles .

[anxiousapplicant]

690 is a good score even if it doesn't start with a 7 .

I have heard arguments on other philosophy boards (I realize we are talking political theory, but it's similar) that adcoms do consider the quant score for an applicant in philosophy because they see math skills as similar to the logic skills a theorist/philosopher needs. So someone who bombs the math section might be hurt somewhat by that score. That being said, in no way did you bomb the math section and your score is not low enough to raise any red flags considering that I doubt you will ever need to know the probability of choosing a red marble after choosing 3 blue marbles .

I really don't know about that. I took logic and got an A, when most of my class floundered in the C range, so it wasn't a cake class. But I bombed the quant section. I can see how reasoning skills may be employed if you recall the rules of geometry, for example, but if you haven't studied math in years, like me and many philosophy majors, and you simply don't use math at all, I don't see how any amount of logic is going to help you arrive at a mathematical rule you don't remember, at least not in forty-five minutes. Ninety percent of the quant section is just memorizing rules, in my opinion.

[hobbeslocke]

I can say that despite my 690Q I got an A in topics in calculus freshman year (8 years ago!) and was actually a logic tutor for my undergrad philosophy department!

The real problem with the gre for me was, I think, the amount of time since ive done serious math combined with the total lack of time to take the test itself--I actually had to put in answers at random towards the end for lack of time to deal with problems which I could have actually solved.

I

[Ferrero]

look at the average GRE scores of people who were admitted to chicago last year: 638V, 698Q, 4.85A.

i spoke with a professor at harvard who said, "GRE scores are not decisive."

princeton says that admitted students "typically" have GRE scores of about 700 in each section, but that they do NOT have artificial cutoffs and that a perceived weakness in one part of an application can be more than made up for by other factors being strong.

my scores are 680Q/700V/5.5A. i was told by my advisor, who has been on a top adcomm for several years, that these scores should not prevent my app from being looked at by any school to which i am applying. you can see that list in my signature.

need i go on?

does that answer your question?

I'm going to have to be the first to disagree here, unfortunately. I think we'll see a substantial uptick in applications this cycle. Some will be more credentialed, some not so much. On balance, though, I think you need 700+ in both sections to make the final rounds at the top 5, 6.

I wholly disagree. What is your evidence for this statement? Do you honestly believe that there will be a substantial uptick in applications this cycle from last year, when the economy was truly in shambles? And how can you justify that statement on the back of data like this: Georgetown (#39) has an average Q score of 726 for admitted applicants, while Chicago (#11) and Duke (#9) both have Q scores of under 700. Moreover, here is data on GRE scores from the top 6 schools (building partially off of what natofone posted earlier):

Harvard - no specific information whatsoever, except for anecdotal evidence from profs that scores are not decisive

Yale - no specific info

Princeton - "typical" admitted applicant has over 700, but lower GRE scores CAN be compensated for in other parts of the app

Michigan - 667V, 729Q, 6.0AW (note the verbal score)

Stanford - "typically" over 700

Berkeley - 80th percentile or higher on all three sections (which translates roughly into 740Q, 570V, 5.0A)

So it seems that scores of under 700 could be a problem at Stanford and Princeton, but that the data do not support such a blanket statement such as you made.

All this only has application to previous years. My assessment is based on a larger quantity of applicants and higher quality of applicants this year. For the top 5-7, one must have 700 or over on at least one section (a 800 on one section carries a nice cachet too). Otherwise, many people will be doomed.

Well someoneouthere, I bookmarked this thread in the hope of revisiting it when the application process was over. Did you get into any top 5, top 6 schools with sub-700 scores?

[anxiousapplicant]

I don't know about "someoneoutthere," but Yale told me they didn't even read my application on account of either my GRE (730V, 600Q) or my GPA (3.98). You decide which number sent my application to the rubbish heap.

[Ferrero]

I don't know about "someoneoutthere," but Yale told me they didn't even read my application on account of either my GRE (730V, 600Q) or my GPA (3.98). You decide which number sent my application to the rubbish heap.

Hardly a question, isn't it? I think the hard truth is that scores won't get you in, but can keep you out.

ETA: (Especially in tough years, which this year was).

Edited March 18, 2010 by Ferrero

[anxiousapplicant]

Hardly a question, isn't it? I think the hard truth is that scores won't get you in, but can keep you out.

I know. I was arrogant. I thought, Oh, I'm going for political philosophy, I don't need to study math. I'll know to play by the stupid rules next time.

[liszt85]

I really don't know about that. I took logic and got an A, when most of my class floundered in the C range, so it wasn't a cake class. But I bombed the quant section. I can see how reasoning skills may be employed if you recall the rules of geometry, for example, but if you haven't studied math in years, like me and many philosophy majors, and you simply don't use math at all, I don't see how any amount of logic is going to help you arrive at a mathematical rule you don't remember, at least not in forty-five minutes. Ninety percent of the quant section is just memorizing rules, in my opinion.

Math doesn't require memorizing. Biology and Chemistry probably do but not math.. if you have the ability to "see" what these rules actually say, its very simple. Lets take the very simple example of a question that goes: Two sides of a triangle are 4 and 5. What is the range of values that the third side can take?

You don't need to memorize any rule to answer this. You don't even need to have done any math at all in high school to be able to answer this. You would need to know what a triangle looks like though, is that what you mean by memorizing?

Another question: 5 people can complete a job in 10 minutes.. after 2 minutes of working, one more guy joined in. How many more minutes does it take to complete he job?

Again, do you really need to memorize rules to figure this out? So 90% of the quant section does NOT require any form of memorizing. Also not having done math for years is not a valid reason. You are expected to prepare for the test, you know? That is a sign of a good potential grad student. If you haven't practiced taking timed tests, you will be unable to complete the section and unanswered ones are penalized heavily which is one of the major reasons why many people don't do well.

[Ferrero]

I know. I was arrogant. I thought, Oh, I'm going for political philosophy, I don't need to study math. I'll know to play by the stupid rules next time.

Yes, it is a gate-keeping mechanism for you as a theorist. Although I was not questioned on the finer points of German Idealism.

[applying12010]

I wholly disagree. What is your evidence for this statement? Do you honestly believe that there will be a substantial uptick in applications this cycle from last year, when the economy was truly in shambles?

In fact applications are up this year - at least for Princeton. The website says 500+ applicants apply each year, but this year is 600+ (according to an email from a professor). A 20% increase! I guess Ferrero is right after all...

[anxiousapplicant]

Math doesn't require memorizing. Biology and Chemistry probably do but not math.. if you have the ability to "see" what these rules actually say, its very simple. Lets take the very simple example of a question that goes: Two sides of a triangle are 4 and 5. What is the range of values that the third side can take?

You don't need to memorize any rule to answer this. You don't even need to have done any math at all in high school to be able to answer this. You would need to know what a triangle looks like though, is that what you mean by memorizing?

Another question: 5 people can complete a job in 10 minutes.. after 2 minutes of working, one more guy joined in. How many more minutes does it take to complete he job?

Again, do you really need to memorize rules to figure this out? So 90% of the quant section does NOT require any form of memorizing. Also not having done math for years is not a valid reason. You are expected to prepare for the test, you know? That is a sign of a good potential grad student. If you haven't practiced taking timed tests, you will be unable to complete the section and unanswered ones are penalized heavily which is one of the major reasons why many people don't do well.

Um... the math on the GRE isn't that easy. It has math that runs through Algebra II, which, as I recall, is taught in high school.