those darn GREs

[mks114]

670 verbal, 770 quantitative, waiting on results for essay (I feel pretty good about this section)

3.9 GPA, MA in New Testament

Actually not applying to PhD yet, but just wanted to know if this score would be good in a year and a half when I'm applying to PhD for New Testament during my 2nd masters (probably MTS or STM degree) at a major research univ.

Any thoughts?

[Sparky]

GRE scores are good for five years. You did very well (you knew that ).

How are your languages? You've got a couple years of Greek, I presume? What about biblical Hebrew, Latin, German...Languages, SOP and LORs seem like the biggest deals to religion/theo programs. The history depts I'm applying to have emphasized the writing sample.

[jacib]

670 verbal, 770 quantitative, waiting on results for essay (I feel pretty good about this section)

3.9 GPA, MA in New Testament

Actually not applying to PhD yet, but just wanted to know if this score would be good in a year and a half when I'm applying to PhD for New Testament during my 2nd masters (probably MTS or STM degree) at a major research univ.

Any thoughts?

Duke, obviously one of the most competitive programs in Religion in general (I know nothing about NT or things like that, but I get the sense it's very well respected), posts all their admissions info, year by year, here. Your quant is considerably above average for every year, your verbal below average for every year of the last ten years except 2005-6. But that said, it's not very far below average. Your GRE's won't make or break you. Your statement and your writing sample and then your recs will. If you are absolutely confident that you could do considerably better, you could retake, and it would improve your application, but it wouldn't be worlds of difference i don't think unless you improved by 40, 50 or so points. And even then, your statement and your writing samples and your recs are still what will matter most. Others may have different opinions than I do. But the advice I got was, "Your GRE's only matter if they're really above average, or really below average."

Edited January 16, 2010 by jacib

[PhdWannabee]

Mks114, there is no simple answer about your GRE scores; your scores are very close to mine so I feel I have some authority on this! Some programs have very high initial cutoffs based on the GRE, usually at or slightly over 700 for each section. For these programs, I would recommend meeting with faculty and asking them outright (we're all adults here) if your scores are sufficient for consideration. Most programs will be fine with your scores though, and they are far more interested with a well-written research project of interest to the faculty.

The sad thing is that percentile is the only indicator that can be compared across tests, not raw score, so a cutoff of 700 actually varies widely based on how difficult the test was that particular time. Many humanities professors have not taken (or simply do not remember) any statistic courses that would have made this clear! But then again, who wants to go into science or math!

[jacib]

The sad thing is that percentile is the only indicator that can be compared across tests, not raw score, so a cutoff of 700 actually varies widely based on how difficult the test was that particular time. Many humanities professors have not taken (or simply do not remember) any statistic courses that would have made this clear! But then again, who wants to go into science or math!

To the best of my knowledge, the above is incorrect. Peep page ten on of this ETS report, especially the chart on page 13.

The percentile is adjusted periodically. That's the part that varies. Your 770 will always be a 770, it is the percentile for ALL 770 that EVER (ever meaning in the last five years) took the test that will change. The percentile varies (small amounts generally), but this variations reflects changes in the ability of the tested pool, not of changes in the relative difficulty of the test. Everyone who got a 770 will have the same percentile because all 770 performed to the same level of competence.

As for 700 cut off, I am not sure this true. I doubt any program has a "hard cap" at 700. At least one political science programs advertize their typical student has a 700+ in both sections, but they do not list this as requirement. They likely have a soft cap at 700, however. The only real hard caps that I have heard of consistently are of 1000 and 1200. I have no heard of individual hard caps for either score, generally just the total score. It is absolutely a good idea to email professors (maybe not this month but next month...), particularly the director of the graduate program, and say these are my scores, would you recommend retesting? Everyone gave me really honest answers to my questions. One applicant definitely wrote on here how even a semester of German made him a stronger applicant (a professor told him).

Also PhDwannabe, is histrionic a typo or an incredibly clever irreverent pun?

[PhdWannabee]

To the best of my knowledge, the above is incorrect. Peep page ten on of this ETS report, especially the chart on page 13.

The percentile is adjusted periodically. That's the part that varies. Your 770 will always be a 770, it is the percentile for ALL 770 that EVER (ever meaning in the last five years) took the test that will change. The percentile varies (small amounts generally), but this variations reflects changes in the ability of the tested pool, not of changes in the relative difficulty of the test. Everyone who got a 770 will have the same percentile because all 770 performed to the same level of competence.

As for 700 cut off, I am not sure this true. I doubt any program has a "hard cap" at 700. At least one political science programs advertize their typical student has a 700+ in both sections, but they do not list this as requirement. They likely have a soft cap at 700, however. The only real hard caps that I have heard of consistently are of 1000 and 1200. I have no heard of individual hard caps for either score, generally just the total score. It is absolutely a good idea to email professors (maybe not this month but next month...), particularly the director of the graduate program, and say these are my scores, would you recommend retesting? Everyone gave me really honest answers to my questions. One applicant definitely wrote on here how even a semester of German made him a stronger applicant (a professor told him).

Also PhDwannabe, is histrionic a typo or an incredibly clever irreverent pun?

Definitely a pun, since most theology is pretty histrionic. Thanks for the ETS link...it was pretty interesting and somewhat metaphysical! The distinction between "observed score" and some kind of primordial "real score" is just fantastic.

As far as percentiles, it is impossible to account for the changes in percentile and raw score correlation by appealing to variations in "level of competence", especially given the tremendous sample size of students who take each GRE. This would hold relatively constant over time. Your "raw score" is just that, raw, and the only standard that remains constant across disparate tests is how many people you surpassed on your particular exam. This number of people above and below your score is adjusted and updated (so it does change) but it is still the only number that can be compared across different examination groups.

As for the hard caps, you argued that because some of the programs you talked to didn't have them (or didn't admit to them), that they likely do not exist. Don't conflate an existential claim with a universal one! Vanderbilt has a hard cap at 700, Duke's is even higher at 720-730. I suspect Chicago has one, but I was never able to determine where it fell. Most of the 12 schools I applied to last year did not have hard caps. Caps vary widely, but true hard caps exist at these aforementioned schools. Some have suggested that not advertising hard caps makes more money for the graduate programs through application fees. I don't know if this is the motive, but there is a disconnect between advertised requrements and actual criteria the adcomm will use to pare down the applicant pool. Such is this uber-fun process called admissions.

[mks114]

Definitely a pun, since most theology is pretty histrionic. Thanks for the ETS link...it was pretty interesting and somewhat metaphysical! The distinction between "observed score" and some kind of primordial "real score" is just fantastic.

As far as percentiles, it is impossible to account for the changes in percentile and raw score correlation by appealing to variations in "level of competence", especially given the tremendous sample size of students who take each GRE. This would hold relatively constant over time. Your "raw score" is just that, raw, and the only standard that remains constant across disparate tests is how many people you surpassed on your particular exam. This number of people above and below your score is adjusted and updated (so it does change) but it is still the only number that can be compared across different examination groups.

As for the hard caps, you argued that because some of the programs you talked to didn't have them (or didn't admit to them), that they likely do not exist. Don't conflate an existential claim with a universal one! Vanderbilt has a hard cap at 700, Duke's is even higher at 720-730. I suspect Chicago has one, but I was never able to determine where it fell. Most of the 12 schools I applied to last year did not have hard caps. Caps vary widely, but true hard caps exist at these aforementioned schools. Some have suggested that not advertising hard caps makes more money for the graduate programs through application fees. I don't know if this is the motive, but there is a disconnect between advertised requrements and actual criteria the adcomm will use to pare down the applicant pool. Such is this uber-fun process called admissions.

Man.. I didnt know that such "hard caps" existed! And that other theory about profiting from application fees and advertising the caps is very devious if it is really true...

Anyway, I'd love to get into Univ of Chicago's NT PhD program later... would my 660 be a longshot to even get past the initial stages of applications? Dang that verbal section.

[jacib]

Definitely a pun, since most theology is pretty histrionic. Thanks for the ETS link...it was pretty interesting and somewhat metaphysical! The distinction between "observed score" and some kind of primordial "real score" is just fantastic.

As far as percentiles, it is impossible to account for the changes in percentile and raw score correlation by appealing to variations in "level of competence", especially given the tremendous sample size of students who take each GRE. This would hold relatively constant over time. Your "raw score" is just that, raw, and the only standard that remains constant across disparate tests is how many people you surpassed on your particular exam. This number of people above and below your score is adjusted and updated (so it does change) but it is still the only number that can be compared across different examination groups.

As for the hard caps, you argued that because some of the programs you talked to didn't have them (or didn't admit to them), that they likely do not exist. Don't conflate an existential claim with a universal one! Vanderbilt has a hard cap at 700, Duke's is even higher at 720-730. I suspect Chicago has one, but I was never able to determine where it fell. Most of the 12 schools I applied to last year did not have hard caps. Caps vary widely, but true hard caps exist at these aforementioned schools. Some have suggested that not advertising hard caps makes more money for the graduate programs through application fees. I don't know if this is the motive, but there is a disconnect between advertised requrements and actual criteria the adcomm will use to pare down the applicant pool. Such is this uber-fun process called admissions.

Where on earth are you getting your information? How do you know which schools do and don't cap, if you the schools won't admit to doing it? I don't mean to start a fight or argue unnecessarily, but I believe you're mistaken about several things. First of all, it's mathematically impossible that, assuming their published numbers are honest, Duke has a 720-730 cap. 720 is their AVERAGE score for a roughly AVERAGE year. Some years' averages were considerably lower than the supposed cap. If they had any sort of cap, one would assume that it'd be at least 50 points lower than their average. Probably more. I'm not saying that they don't have a cap of some kid, I'm just guessing its more of a "below 650 and you've really, really got to impress me" kind of thing than a "we throw out all numbers below 700". But even if the former is what you meant, considering the average scores, 700 still seems too high for that kind of soft cap. I suspect applications at all or most of these highly competitive programs do go through a number based pre-sort, but I don't presume to know what that entails.

Second, raw scores (number of right and wrong) mean nothing on an adaptive tests because questions are not weighted equally. Also no one actually knows their raw score because it's immediately converted to an official, scaled score. Minor point. More important point: The scaling is meant to render a consistent score. However, there is that there is no reason to assume a consistent pool of GRE test takers. In fact, there are strong reasons to assume it varies considerably from year to year, in addition to following certain larger trends. The percentage of foreign test takers, for one, makes a large difference in scores, and since foreigners are less well-funded as a group, they are more or less likely to apply to grad school based on economic realities, among other factors. Further, there is probably a long-term trend of more foreign students applying to graduate school as well as the shorter term variations based on economic cycles. Secondly, very specifically, more economics and finance programs are accepting, or even in some cases requiring, the GRE, bringing in a whole new pool of applicants where before these programs only allowed the GMAT. Generally these programs are very competative so one can assume they bring a new type of very high scoring applicant to the GRE. Thirdly, if there is an externality which encourages more, say, engineers to apply to school and fewer humanities majors, this will also have major effects on the pool. Finally, if people start preparing more, that will obviously also change the outcomes of the pool independent of changing its composition of taker. This all doesn't even touch on the possibility about changing numbers of people considering grad school, and occasional use of the GRE for a purpose other than graduate school. Some people on this board have actually reported changes in their percentiles between the report they got last and when they checked again this year: notice the changes are small, generally (except the writing section which, because there are so few possible scores and therefore has much lower precision*, can have much greater swings), indicating that yes because of the size of the pool, it is relatively difficult to change its composition quickly. I believe someone mentioned a 4 percentile move on their writing score, and a 1 percentile move after ETS's latest recalibration.

GRE scores are absolutely meant to have an absolute meaning, not one relative to all the test takers at a certain time. The GRE went through great pains to assure that the new computer adaptive scores meant the same thing as the old scores (as opposed to a test like the TOEFL, where every change of delivery system meant a new scoring system). The "on your certain exam" is also irreleveant because it's a computer adaptive test... very few people got the exact same questions as you. Further, I don't think they ever completely redo all the questions at the same time, but rather I believe they cycle questions in and out so two tests a few weeks apart might draw from a similar pool of questions, but let's say x% would be new and y% of the old ones would have been removed. I could be wrong about this. However, anyway, there is no way to really develop a percentile of everyone who took "your test".

The real score/observed score thing is their admission that they don't perfectly test your ability, and there is a margin of era. Remember your SAT score when you applied to undergrad also implied that your "real score" was somewhere within a range of about 60 points or something.

*Not to be confused with accuracy.

[jacib]

Man.. I didnt know that such "hard caps" existed! And that other theory about profiting from application fees and advertising the caps is very devious if it is really true...

Anyway, I'd love to get into Univ of Chicago's NT PhD program later... would my 660 be a longshot to even get past the initial stages of applications? Dang that verbal section.

I don't think hard caps exist the way PhdWannabe describes. I have heard people say that some schools have a 1200 cap, which I can buy. No one knows exactly how the schools use the GRE, some use them only as a minimum standard. Some use them throughout the entire process. In some fields (I don't think religion) they are mainly used to determine funding after all else, or as a tie breaker. It depends on schools. I think there is good evidence that in Religion scores, both quantative and verbal, are taken very seriously and a raising your score will help your profile. However, I don't think it is absolutely necessary. Your score would probably be on the lower end of Duke's average (i keep citing them because they have all the best public data) for verbal and obviously 770 is on the higher end of quantitative. How that matters to adcomms is mostly speculative. If you think you can do better, do better. It will help. But don't let anyone scare you unnecessarily.

[PhdWannabee]

Wow...I'm a little surprised at how polarizing this topic is! Last year I applied to 12 programs, ten of which I visited in person. I spoke directly and honestly, and faculty where usually straightforward if my GRE was not up to snuff. You can read through last year's posting in results and in the various forums if you want additional corroboration. Ultimately I'm just trying to help applicants with what I've learned from last year; this way you can either improve your scores for these programs or spend your time more effectively on other applications.

Ultimately, talk to the programs. You can deny caps at some programs until you're blue in the face, but don't be surprised when your sub-700 verbal scores lead to first-round rejection.

[jacib]

Wow...I'm a little surprised at how polarizing this topic is! Last year I applied to 12 programs, ten of which I visited in person. I spoke directly and honestly, and faculty where usually straightforward if my GRE was not up to snuff. You can read through last year's posting in results and in the various forums if you want additional corroboration. Ultimately I'm just trying to help applicants with what I've learned from last year; this way you can either improve your scores for these programs or spend your time more effectively on other applications.

Ultimately, talk to the programs. You can deny caps at some programs until you're blue in the face, but don't be surprised when your sub-700 verbal scores lead to first-round rejection.

Haha dude there's no polarization, just me and you. I'm just curious where you're getting your info is all. I looked on the official results page, nothing about GRE scores. From what I can tell, most things you said about the way the GRE is given was wrong, though I'm not totally sure I'm right on everything either.

I agree a sub 700 score is a weak point on a religion application for top programs, but I don't think it's a breaking point. I am currently looking through the forums for anything that confirms what you said, and I'm not seeing it. The closest I've found is one kid claims you need a 1500+... which again as we've seen from the averages is not true.

Then I found the there was very little info about the GRE's but someone with a got into The numbers are usually presented as a total (i.e. not "over 700 in verbal" but rather "over 1400") when people talk about them is one thing I've definitely noticed...

I should remind you, ... though this student eventually got into

One further note: a competitive program like Islamic Studies might have a different standard of GRE scores than a very competitive program like Old Testament which might have a different standard from the ubercompetitive spots, like the theology things and New Testament. It seems like most of the PhDs on this site are applying to those.

Oh someone gave their .02 about 1200.

Someone else mentioned that one needs a 1400 on the GRE (but read the next few posts to see why that's weird and perhaps a one student thing).

Some said wanted a minimum 1200.

So again, I think you're exaggerating the minimum GRE requirements, the weight of the individual sections vs. total score, and the importance of the GRE in general, but I'm totally willing to reevaluate.

I haven't read the

Edited January 18, 2010 by jacib

[jacib]

I'd add that there is a good thing called How To Get Accepted to a PhD Program in Religion/Theology: The Series. Particularly check out section 2.2.b GRE (you have to scroll down to subsubsection .

I'd say the quote I'd like to highlight is:

1. No school will admit to a "hard and fast" cut-off score (either cumulative or each section individually), so it does little help to ask a professor if you are OK with a particular score.
2. That being said, most of the perennially popular schools (i.e. Duke, Yale, Chicago) are rumored to cast aside applications below 1400 without ever reading beyond the GRE scores simply to pare down the sheer number of applicants in one fell swoop.

Further he seems to imply that the individual sections are what I'd call a "soft cap", but your 700 benchmark seems accurate, PhdWannabe.

When it comes to the Verbal, most doctoral applicants will be scoring at or above 700. If you hit a 680 or 670, I would not despair. But if you are sitting on a 620 or 630 I would highly recommend trying to boost it up a little higher. By and large, a 700 seems to be the benchmark for Verbal scoring. As for the Quantitative, the point is simply to not bomb it. somewhere in the 600's will usually suffice.

Edited January 18, 2010 by jacib

[PhdWannabee]

Good work Jacib; I think the blog you cited is a good reference. It seems to reinforce the importance of having a high verbal GRE score (670+), while leaving open the possibility of a cap at some schools at 700. Having a verbal of 670, 93% I can say this is good enough for consideration at most schools; last year I was accepted to 4 out of the 12 programs to which I applied. But at 2 of those schools (that I at least know of) there was a cutoff at 700, and the results were predictable.

I can't underestimate how helpful reading through the religion/PR threads from 2008-9 and 2007-8. They are sizable, but the first night I discovered them I stayed up half the night learning just how arbitrary the process can be. The blog you mentioned certainly drew heavily on the gradcafe resources (which he specifically mentions in the section on "community". So given your last two posts (which seemed to make opposite conclusions), do you still think I'm exaggerating the minimum GRE requirements, since I'm clearly not claiming that all have a v700 cutoff? And on an unrelated point, they have rap in Istanbul? I just want to know where you're getting that information...

[jacib]

Good work Jacib; I think the blog you cited is a good reference. It seems to reinforce the importance of having a high verbal GRE score (670+), while leaving open the possibility of a cap at some schools at 700. Having a verbal of 670, 93% I can say this is good enough for consideration at most schools; last year I was accepted to 4 out of the 12 programs to which I applied. But at 2 of those schools (that I at least know of) there was a cutoff at 700, and the results were predictable.

I can't underestimate how helpful reading through the religion/PR threads from 2008-9 and 2007-8. They are sizable, but the first night I discovered them I stayed up half the night learning just how arbitrary the process can be. The blog you mentioned certainly drew heavily on the gradcafe resources (which he specifically mentions in the section on "community". So given your last two posts (which seemed to make opposite conclusions), do you still think I'm exaggerating the minimum GRE requirements, since I'm clearly not claiming that all have a v700 cutoff? And on an unrelated point, they have rap in Istanbul? I just want to know where you're getting that information...

Yo if you want some Turkish hip hop, check out Cartel ("Old School" Turkish Hip Hop) and then peep Ceza and Sagopa, who used to work together and are now "beefing" (think Tupac and Biggie). If you're interested, Elif Cinar wrote a really interesting piece on how the Ultranationalists adopted Cartel as one of their own, but Cartel was more ambivalent because of their own immigrant experience (in Germany); many of their songs are against the racism in Germany, and I think they were quite shocked when the Ultranationalists courted them. The song "Cartel" has a verse in English (which unabashedly bites from a Cyprus Hill verse), and a few other songs have verses in German if you happen to know that. Most Turkish rappers spent time in Germany (in fact, a disproportionate number of Turkish pop stars spent time in Germany). One of the religious political parties during the last election wanted to use the Ceza song "Fark var" ["There's a difference"] as their official campaign song, but Ceza declined, saying that other parties he liked more had also asked and he didn't want to get mixed up with politics. "Fark var" was that party's campaign slogan; it was trying to differentiate itself from the other religious party (imagine a Pat Buchanan-type party railing against the Republicans for being sell outs on Christian values, as a comparison).

Yeah I absolutely am not arguing with that idea that superior test scores are a must to be looked at. I think you still think, based on all the evidence I've seen, exaggerated the hardness of the 700 cutoff, you've been giving it at as an end-all, be-all number, which it's not. Yes a place like Harvard or Chicago likely wants very high numbers, but I think most apps above 1300 are at least looked at. This is a personal suspicion. Which schools are you claiming have a cutoff? I think most people agree that Duke is a top five program (forgive me, I am rather ignorant on the more sectarian side of study, but it's a top program, correct?) and the average last year was about 1420, and lower in other years. I'd argue that to be a strong candidate one should get around 700, but I will argue against any kind of 700 or bust system that's labeled as fact and not rumor (I could absolutely believe the rumors... I'm just talking about how the information is presented). I might believe "under 700 and you should have something important that we want" for one of the top five or so programs. Considering that it breaks down by subfield, each group is only looking at a manageable number of applicants. One of the old posts said U of C got 15-20 applicants in Philosophy of Religion. I think that's a number where they can be expected to physically look at all of the apps. New Testament probably has more applicants, let's say if they had double that number, it would be harder (but not impossible) for two or three committee members to look at all of applications individually. That said, some probably eliminate themselves right away (no MA for example, GPA's below 3.0). I don't think a 670v and 770q get's you eliminated, but it doesn't get you noticed either. However, when you have 40+ applicants for two or fewer spots, it's hard to get noticed anyhow.

My second point is that there are different levels of competition, I'd guess those Theology degrees and NT degrees are the most competitive and therefore the most arbitrary, but I doubt saying there is a program-wide 700+ limit in place is in correct. Totally guesstimating, I'd wager the number of OT, Jewish Studies, Philosophy of Religion at a place like Chicago would be comparable. I would guess the non-Judeo-Christian religions/interdisciplinary programs have fewer applicants. I'd also guess that for certain things, such as the African-American religious experience, programs have certain faculty who focus on it, and therefore, they have a certain number of spots set aside for it (one a year, one every two years, perhaps).

I think we agree overall that GRE's are important, and that the demands are very, very high, but I questioning your idea that there is a certain number of programs with a 700 cap. Which two programs do you say have "true caps"? Duke and Vanderbilt? I think a look at Duke's numbers disproves that... unless you meant only in NT or PR (PR=Philosophy of Religion, right?), which I might believe, but I still want to know how you know it. It's something I had never heard before. You said:

Vanderbilt has a hard cap at 700, Duke's is even higher at 720-730. I suspect Chicago has one, but I was never able to determine where it fell. Most of the 12 schools I applied to last year did not have hard caps.

How do you know that set of information specifical? Suspect Chicago has one, okay I can buy that. I suspect they do too. I also expect that it would be rare for Chicago to admit a candidate who scores under 700 to be let into a program with 40+ applicants. But you state the rest of the information as fact. How do you know those facts? Especially because I think a look at Duke's numbers refutes one of your facts, and while it doesn't automatically disprove all of them, it does put some onus on you to establish how you "know" these things. Which you still haven't dealt with. I have tried to put all the information I could find out there in a clear, public way, including (as you noted) the information that doesn't exactly support my original thesis.

[PhdWannabee]

Yo if you want some Turkish hip hop, check out Cartel ("Old School" Turkish Hip Hop) and then peep Ceza and Sagopa, who used to work together and are now "beefing" (think Tupac and Biggie). If you're interested, Elif Cinar wrote a really interesting piece on how the Ultranationalists adopted Cartel as one of their own, but Cartel was more ambivalent because of their own immigrant experience (in Germany); many of their songs are against the racism in Germany, and I think they were quite shocked when the Ultranationalists courted them. The song "Cartel" has a verse in English (which unabashedly bites from a Cyprus Hill verse), and a few other songs have verses in German if you happen to know that. Most Turkish rappers spent time in Germany (in fact, a disproportionate number of Turkish pop stars spent time in Germany). One of the religious political parties during the last election wanted to use the Ceza song "Fark var" ["There's a difference"] as their official campaign song, but Ceza declined, saying that other parties he liked more had also asked and he didn't want to get mixed up with politics. "Fark var" was that party's campaign slogan; it was trying to differentiate itself from the other religious party (imagine a Pat Buchanan-type party railing against the Republicans for being sell outs on Christian values, as a comparison).

Yeah I absolutely am not arguing with that idea that superior test scores are a must to be looked at. I think you still think, based on all the evidence I've seen, exaggerated the hardness of the 700 cutoff, you've been giving it at as an end-all, be-all number, which it's not. Yes a place like Harvard or Chicago likely wants very high numbers, but I think most apps above 1300 are at least looked at. This is a personal suspicion. Which schools are you claiming have a cutoff? I think most people agree that Duke is a top five program (forgive me, I am rather ignorant on the more sectarian side of study, but it's a top program, correct?) and the average last year was about 1420, and lower in other years. I'd argue that to be a strong candidate one should get around 700, but I will argue against any kind of 700 or bust system that's labeled as fact and not rumor (I could absolutely believe the rumors... I'm just talking about how the information is presented). I might believe "under 700 and you should have something important that we want" for one of the top five or so programs. Considering that it breaks down by subfield, each group is only looking at a manageable number of applicants. One of the old posts said U of C got 15-20 applicants in Philosophy of Religion. I think that's a number where they can be expected to physically look at all of the apps. New Testament probably has more applicants, let's say if they had double that number, it would be harder (but not impossible) for two or three committee members to look at all of applications individually. That said, some probably eliminate themselves right away (no MA for example, GPA's below 3.0). I don't think a 670v and 770q get's you eliminated, but it doesn't get you noticed either. However, when you have 40+ applicants for two or fewer spots, it's hard to get noticed anyhow.

My second point is that there are different levels of competition, I'd guess those Theology degrees and NT degrees are the most competitive and therefore the most arbitrary, but I doubt saying there is a program-wide 700+ limit in place is in correct. Totally guesstimating, I'd wager the number of OT, Jewish Studies, Philosophy of Religion at a place like Chicago would be comparable. I would guess the non-Judeo-Christian religions/interdisciplinary programs have fewer applicants. I'd also guess that for certain things, such as the African-American religious experience, programs have certain faculty who focus on it, and therefore, they have a certain number of spots set aside for it (one a year, one every two years, perhaps).

I think we agree overall that GRE's are important, and that the demands are very, very high, but I questioning your idea that there is a certain number of programs with a 700 cap. Which two programs do you say have "true caps"? Duke and Vanderbilt? I think a look at Duke's numbers disproves that... unless you meant only in NT or PR (PR=Philosophy of Religion, right?), which I might believe, but I still want to know how you know it. It's something I had never heard before. You said:

Vanderbilt has a hard cap at 700, Duke's is even higher at 720-730. I suspect Chicago has one, but I was never able to determine where it fell. Most of the 12 schools I applied to last year did not have hard caps.

How do you know that set of information specifical? Suspect Chicago has one, okay I can buy that. I suspect they do too. I also expect that it would be rare for Chicago to admit a candidate who scores under 700 to be let into a program with 40+ applicants. But you state the rest of the information as fact. How do you know those facts? Especially because I think a look at Duke's numbers refutes one of your facts, and while it doesn't automatically disprove all of them, it does put some onus on you to establish how you "know" these things. Which you still haven't dealt with. I have tried to put all the information I could find out there in a clear, public way, including (as you noted) the information that doesn't exactly support my original thesis.

I didn't apply to Duke, but many of my friends who have knew of the hard cap above 700. It seems to be well known by Duke's applicants, so perhaps they are a little more straightforward? If you read the threads, you will see that Duke uses a high cutoff to weed out the majority of applicants (of which they have MANY), so the result and forums are littered with rejected masses before any acceptances (most programs cut, admit, then reject, so very strange indeed).

At Vandy, I was told straight up by two tenured faculty who sit on the adcomm that my 670 would not be sufficient for consideration. I called their bluff, and the results were predictable. I also knew of their cap from several friends of mine from my grad program who had moved on to study at Vandy (and actually used the MA at Vandy as a way to get around the cutoff!).

You make a great point that subdisciplines might affect any selection criteria. I applied mostly to theology, PR, and philosophy programs so my experience is most directly related to those fields. For Chicago with 15-20 PR applicants, though, I wouldn't directly assume that PR professors where the ones reviewing these applications from day one. Many schools divy up applications randomly for the first cut, so academic preparation could be more "fairly" assessed, but also to spread out applications from the more competitive disciplines so everyone has to review X number of applications. As the second cut (the admission decision) is usually a roundtable discussion, presumably the PR profs would have read the application after it had been cleared in the first cut. But this is program specific.

Ultimately, talk to a programs' professors directly. Find professors who used to sit on their adcomm to find out how the review applications. Talk to current students who might have knowledge of the particular intricacies of each program. This is what I did, and this is what I've learned from them.

We should probably wrap up this post...the horse is no longer just dead, but vaporized. We could just talk about Ceza?

[classicsgirl]

ok, i went to both chicago and vanderbilt at the graduate level, so i think i speak with a bit of authority when i say that neither chicago nor vanderbilt has a cap on their GRE score. i know someone who's at chicago pushing a 1240 (640 V/600Q) and someone at vanderbilt with something in the neighborhood of a 1200 (don't know the specific scores). i can also speak on emory. i know a student who got an interview in New Testament with a 1220, and a student with a 1400+ and higher GPA who did not get an interview. what made the difference? the 1220 student's interests were more compelling to the committee. your GRE score will NEVER make your application. they can break it though; but yours are high enough to preclude that from happening. in short, your scores are EXCELLENT, well in range of good funding opportunity, and you don't need to take them over again unless you really want to. for NT, i'd be more worried about Greek facility and articulating a solid research agenda and methodology. we're all pretty damn sharp at this stage. your application is more about fit than it is competence.

[Joe001]

I agree with classicsgirl. Your GRE is very good and whether or not you get in will be based on your recs, SOP, fit in the department and writing sample more than your GRE score.

[jacib]

ok, i went to both chicago and vanderbilt at the graduate level, so i think i speak with a bit of authority when i say that neither chicago nor vanderbilt has a cap on their GRE score. i know someone who's at chicago pushing a 1240 (640 V/600Q) and someone at vanderbilt with something in the neighborhood of a 1200 (don't know the specific scores). i can also speak on emory. i know a student who got an interview in New Testament with a 1220, and a student with a 1400+ and higher GPA who did not get an interview. what made the difference? the 1220 student's interests were more compelling to the committee. your GRE score will NEVER make your application. they can break it though; but yours are high enough to preclude that from happening. in short, your scores are EXCELLENT, well in range of good funding opportunity, and you don't need to take them over again unless you really want to. for NT, i'd be more worried about Greek facility and articulating a solid research agenda and methodology. we're all pretty damn sharp at this stage. your application is more about fit than it is competence.

So let's summarize what we know: though difficult to prove, we all know that high scores (let's say 1300, 1400+ being high scores) are necessary except when they're not (a la what Classicsgirl said). And there are no firm caps except where there are. Since most of the admissions process is done by the subfield rather than program as a whole, some subcommitees (like apparently some subfields/the whole program at Vandy) may have hard caps, or perhaps hard caps for certain students (perhaps to compensate for a lower GPA or an unknown undergrad institution--I have heard in other places that GRE's matter more if they don't know the rigor of your undergrad). Moral of the story: adcomms are incredibly capricious and opaque as hell. I think we can all agree: when in doubt, email someone you want to work with plenty in advance, preferably someone on the adcomm, and ask if they would recommend retaking the exam because they will hopefully give an honest assessment. Ask if they would "recommend it" not if they "require it". I have a feeling that'll make them more honest. GRE's will not get you in, but they just might keep you out. But we really can't know when they'll keep you out at any particular school or subfield without asking because these vary too much. Have we reached a consensus?

Final note: I think this convo was useful, though really fucking long, so I feel sorry for all those people who have to start reading at the beginning.

Edited January 19, 2010 by jacib

[mks114]

ok, i went to both chicago and vanderbilt at the graduate level, so i think i speak with a bit of authority when i say that neither chicago nor vanderbilt has a cap on their GRE score. i know someone who's at chicago pushing a 1240 (640 V/600Q) and someone at vanderbilt with something in the neighborhood of a 1200 (don't know the specific scores). i can also speak on emory. i know a student who got an interview in New Testament with a 1220, and a student with a 1400+ and higher GPA who did not get an interview. what made the difference? the 1220 student's interests were more compelling to the committee. your GRE score will NEVER make your application. they can break it though; but yours are high enough to preclude that from happening. in short, your scores are EXCELLENT, well in range of good funding opportunity, and you don't need to take them over again unless you really want to. for NT, i'd be more worried about Greek facility and articulating a solid research agenda and methodology. we're all pretty damn sharp at this stage. your application is more about fit than it is competence.

Wow, I didn't expect such a long thread... thanks so much to everyone for the input. I originally flipped out when I saw that I got the dreaded 600s for the verbal portion, but I see what you mean by solid research, methodology, and "fit" being the more important factors for the application

I'm not even applying to PhD right now so I guess I shouldn't freak out too much, but I just wanted to do well the first time around so I wouldn't have to worry about it come PhD application time after my MTS degree in a year and a half

Thanks everyone and best of luck to you