GRE score was terrible.

[coyabean]

as far as i can tell, this seadub character lives to rove around grad cafe looking for people who are fretting about their weaknesses, solely to belittle them and make general bootstrap-related commentary. it's weird. this is a forum for anxious applicants, not an ayn rand fan site. yeesh.

LOL

I always find it odd when people get angry at a thing for being what it is designed to be. A discussion board, like this one, is designed for people to DISCUSS their concerns and feelings. Telling one to "suck it up and stop whining" is tantamount to negating the purpose of the board. No one is suggesting anyone storm Princeton and burn score reports in the quad, but if you cannot discuss your opinion in a space designed for that function then where can you? And more importantly why is someone diametrically opposed to the board's function participating in it?

[modernity]

No one is suggesting anyone storm Princeton and burn score reports in the quad,

Exactly, I was thinking ETS headquarters personally...

[jacib]

Actually, if you look at the numbers, women aren't paid significantly less for the same work. The numbers are about equal now. A lot of people might get mad at me for saying it, but believe me...I didn't believe it at first either.

This thread really needs to go away.

Will you PM the numbers for this? If you have them handy. You have proven yourself quite reliable with your evidence, so I'm going to trust you on this one but I'm curious. Last I remember reading there was still a gap, but it had to do more with childcare/childbirth etc. than any real starting salary discrimination (it also had to with things like women being less willing to ask for a raise/promotion).

And SEADUB, it's more how you say it than what you say. You're not "speaking truth to power", you're just being a bit unpleasant to talk with. If you had said, "Competition in graduate school is higher than ever, and more and more people are applying for the same positions at top schools. When these schools want to narrow down their search criteria, the first thing they are going to use is some combination of GRE and GPA. While no one likes to talk about it, it is still a numbers game. While your 4.0 in a masters degree is obviously good and the rest of your app might be equally strong, unfortunately I simply don't think it is enough to get over your low GRE scores. Since the whole application process is so much based on perception, GRE scores are very important at elite schools. This process is inherently unfair, as are many other things: witness the glass ceiling, legacy admits at elite schools, etc. While you can of course apply to the top schools, I would guess you have a slight chance of admittance. I would make sure to apply to a range of schools. If going to a top school is your dream, I'd recommend studying hard and retaking the exam. No matter how holistically a school claims to look at an application, GRE scores still matter. The fact of it is, GRE scores act as an equalizer. In this day and age of grade inflation, no one knows what a 4.0 means. Universities use the GRE to see how a student does on a universal, objective standard. In a way, it is a good measure of grad performance because if you're motivated to study hard for the test it indicates you'll be motivated to study hard during grad school. The mathematics section is middle school [sic] math, so any candidate who does poorly on that section would raise a serious red flag for me if I were on a grad committee. Assuming you're a native English speaker, you should do well on the verbal section too, as many of those types of words show up in the readings you will be expected to do as well. I know a lot of people are going to tell you that scores don't matter, but I absolutely believe those GRE scores are going to look out of place on an application at a top school and my impression is that they may well cause your app to be discarded before it is even read."

Did I miss any points you wanted to make? If I missed any of your points, please excuse me. I think I said pretty much everything you said in your three posts on this board, but I just said it in a much more collegial way. To make it clear, I don't necessarily agree with what was written above. But seriously SEADUB, no one is upset by what you say, it's how you say it. Was any one bothered by what i wrote above? I hope not. However, many people were bothered by HOW you wrote what you wrote. The medium is the message.

[sometimesiexist]

Go to Evergreen State College then. They give out "narrative evaluations" instead of letter grades.

Or suck it up like everyone else and realize that sometimes in life we are judged on numbers and rankings rather than on lofty dreams and goals.

Life's not fair. And then you die. Get over it!!

I did go to an undergrad with narrative evaluations, I also scored very well on the GRE despite my lack of 'grades'. My narrative evaluations have told me more about my academic work, potential, and weaknesses than any grade could have. I received pointed criticism and praise, as well as constructive advice in them. I don't know how this is something to mock.

I understand how the GRE is something you can be cynical about, hate, or think is just plain useless. But if an adcomm wants it, they don't think it's useless. While not everyone can take a test particularly well, you can put forth more effort in other parts of the application to hopefully "outshine" your less than stellar GRE. Also, it's always good to keep in mind that it won't get you in, but it can keep you out.

[katalytik]

Go to Evergreen State College then. They give out "narrative evaluations" instead of letter grades.

Or suck it up like everyone else and realize that sometimes in life we are judged on numbers and rankings rather than on lofty dreams and goals.

Life's not fair. And then you die. Get over it!!

A little humanity helps everyone, including you. I know its an anonymous board, but this sort of behavior in your life and career will only get in the way of things you want to do. Academic career is not the only thing that's important, but do as you wish. No one can stop you.......

I do agree with your points made, but the majority of people here are not looking to get into the highest school possible. I am not sure I stand any chances, but there is no reason to stomp on already-concerned people.

[Roll Right]

Here's some evidence against ongoing gender discrimination out of a very good book called the Meritocracy Myth. You'll see that seadub is right, its 79 cents on the dollar. I was mistaken about the numbers being just about equal. But this isn't due to ridiculous discrimination practices, as Jacib pointed out. And the closing wage gap is actually due to the falling wages of men. And no, its not getting worse. In fact its getting better.

"In 2007, the median earnings for full-time, year around female workers was 79 percent of the median hourly wage of male counterparts, whereas in 1970 it was only 60 percent (US Bureau of the Census 2007). However, the rate at which the male-female wage gap has declined has slowed in recent decades, perhaps indicating that the most blatant forms of wage discrimination have largely been eliminated, but remaining subtler forms may be more difficult to overcome. In addition, much of the recent wage-gap reduction is due to the falling wages of men rather than the increasing wages of women. Also, the gains relative to male incomes have been experienced mostly by upper class women, whereas incomes for lower-class woman have remained stagnant. (Massey 2007, 240; Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto 2007, 163)."

This has to do with the male domination in upper level management and CEO/partner positions. This is where things get really interesting. Male partners in firms are unlikely to take female lawyers under their wing, as they don't want to risk their reputations by allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. They don't want to start rumors around the office, basically. Also there is a king shit affect that Ellis Cose identified, highly successful women who have convinced themselves they got as far as the did alone, and are unwilling to support other women in lower level positions because of it. Frankly the pay gap we see right now is largely due to two factors, 1)birth (as you mentioned), 2) Old men holding on to their positions of power and high pay. When they die, the next in line for many high powered white collar jobs are women. heres some numbers here:

"By 2005, women earned 58 percent of all bachelors degrees, 60 percent of all master's degrees, and 49 percent of all doctoral degrees (National Center for Education Statistics 2007a). Women have also achieved parity or near parity in professional degrees in law (48 percent), and podiatry (45 percent), and they have far exceeded men in earning degrees in optometry (59 percent), pharmacy (67 percent) and veterinary medicine (77 percent)...Likewise, women are rapidly closing the gaps in degrees in the male-dominated field of engineering..."

So this all really makes sense. Consider the time line..the increase in wages since the 1960's is due to a flood of women into high paying technical/professional positions. The number of women gaining higher degrees will create a huge influx of females in hiring processes to replace old men who pass their jobs off after retirement/death. The fall in pay for men is likely due to their minority status in the education field. The wage gap is probably closing also because the men who are dominating the labor market in high paying positions are slowly dying off, hence the drop in wages as well.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Roll Right

[Roll Right]

We should really talk about some issues in the sociology section. This is interesting.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Roll Right

[ecg1810]

Incredible. Lets encourage everyone to forget about grades and test scores since none of you seem to think it matters when applying to grad school. Oh, Princeton won't care if Ms Sallie Joe has a 2.8 GPA and a 1200 GRE because she says here that "Ever since I was a little kid I really really wanted to be an English professor and I like to use big words" and she sounds like she really means it!

One of my friends got into an Ivy English program a couple of years ago with a 1200 combined GRE (580V, 620Q). . .

[curufinwe]

it all comes down to this:

i took the GRE for my masters program. and now applying for the phd's, i was curious if my score was enough or if i was supposed to take it again. ( 440V and 800Q ) Being an int'l student, i tried to hear the positive stuff said as to how they tolerate int'l students a bit more on the verbal part. but then i thought, 500 is better than 440. so why not take it again in a month and try to pull it as high as i can. coz to say "they tolerate low verbal scores for int'l students" is comforting. but my main motivator was, "what if another int'l student applies with the same profile but higher verbal score?" anything u do will improve ur chances. so, as the saying goes, i sucked it up and crammed for a month and raised my score. did i whine during the study period? oh yeah! "who uses the verb -bowdlerize!" but the gre score IS something they use to judge people.

and hey, I know for a fact that luck is also a factor. I mean, i memorized 1500 words and luckily (we all know how the first 10-15 questions are really important) the first questions had the words I memorized and very few words that i didnt know. A friend of mine from the MA program i also attend took it as well. even though he memorized 2000 words, (and I have seen his papers and his class performance, i can say that the guy is verbally better than I am) he failed to even get close to my verbal score. so try to get ur lucky friends to wish luck for u hehe

[jacib]

We should really talk about some issues in the sociology section. This is interesting.

For anyone who didn't get the memo, the gender/wage part of this particularly discussion has

[jojobee]

Actually, if you look at the numbers, women aren't paid significantly less for the same work. The numbers are about equal now. A lot of people might get mad at me for saying it, but believe me...I didn't believe it at first either.

This thread really needs to go away.

Hey Roll Right, I found this thread because I was cracking up at seadub and wanted to read more of her/his prolific posts. But I did want to throw my two cents towards your comment. Statistically speaking, you're right: the downturn of the economy has somewhat evened out the numbers of employed women and men. However, this isn't due to progress in terms of equal opportunities for women, simply that more men--more of whom are in high-pay white-collar jobs--are losing their jobs than women.

And my bad jacib! I obviously missed the memo

Edited January 27, 2010 by jojobee

[coffeeandtoast]

Well, I would argue that there is some positive correlation with graduate school success and GRE success. That is what the test is there for, isn't it? If you are a native English speaker and doing well below average on both the Verbal and Quantitative sections on an exam that someone with at least a middle school background in reading/algebra has all the knowledge to take, I would be very concerned about that specific applicant's ability to succeed at the graduate level.

I'm a Chemical Engineer with 5 years of experience with a 4.0 GPA undergrad (that means I made straight A's in all my upper math courses) and I still did poorly in quantitative (by poorly I mean 60th percentile). While I'm not a native English speaker and scored in the 90th percentile in Verbal. This was all with a few months worth of preparation (on a daily basis). I have a full-time job and travel extensively, so my studying time was not nearly as much as, say, a full-time grad student (like my husband). My results do not make any sense given my background and I'm sure it doesn't make any sense for a lot of people with low scores who can do very well in grad school and be ultimately successful.

I think the GRE is a nice measure--a nice addition to an overall application, but it should not determine your fate in grad school. It may clear any doubts that the adcom may have, or get you a nice fellowship. I, for once, HATE standardized tests and almost had a nervous breakdown in the middle of the GRE, which explains my OK score that I'm actually VERY happy with. Does that say that I'm not fit for grad school? Hardly. It shouldn't be that way for other people either.

And I guarantee you that I would not need basic algebra or basic geometry if I were to pursue a PhD in Chemical Engineering. The Analytic writing section, on the other hand, I consider a little bit more important, but the two other scores are a waste of time, in my opinion. I know adcoms may not see it that way, but I think that if you have an overall strong application, you can dispel any doubts they may have of a somewhat weak aspect of your application.

So, RollRight, I would try to assemble a very strong application overall and maybe include a short addendum explaining your low GREs, if you wish. My husband submitted addendums explaining his low GPA in undergrad and it got him to half of the schools he was applying too and wait listed in a few more (PhD in Philosophy). Good luck!

[strokeofmidnight]

Incredible. Lets encourage everyone to forget about grades and test scores since none of you seem to think it matters when applying to grad school. Oh, Princeton won't care if Ms Sallie Joe has a 2.8 GPA and a 1200 GRE because she says here that "Ever since I was a little kid I really really wanted to be an English professor and I like to use big words" and she sounds like she really means it!

Again, does it really matter if you personally feel wronged because you think you are being unfairly judged by your GPA and test scores? No, absolutely not. Princeton is still going to judge you. Berkeley is still going to judge you. Harvard is still going to judge you. Try University of Phoenix if you don't want to be judged (but squander away lots of money anyway).

The point is that life is never fair and we are far more often judged based on perception than on reality. Why do women still get paid significantly less than men for the same work? Why do well-off legacies have a better chance at getting into ivy league schools than others of equal profiles? Why do better looking people have better career opportunities than ugly ones (true study) with the same resume?

Ultimately, it all comes down to one thing: perception.

My advice? Stop crying over it and use it to your advantage. If people perceive you to be better or more qualified than you really are, you are going to get much further in life than someone who whines about how life's not fair or, in this case, challenges the importance of grades and test scores in graduate admissions. Simple as that.

Actually, Seadub, for the PhD in my field, Berkeley will not even consider GRE or GPA scores. It's all about the writing sample and statement of purpose. My source? Professors who have served on the admissions committee every year for the past decade, backed up by DGS. And before you turn around to accuse me of trying to feel better about my inadequacies, I graduated with virtually a 4.0 from a top university and my GRE score is over 1500. I do know, however, that while the numbers are not meaningless, they play very minor roles in the application process for my field.

You're right. This is indeed about perception. There are, unfortunately, professors on ad-comms that believe as you do: that the numbers do correlate. However, it seems that many more professors emphasize the non-quantifiable parts of the application. The numbers say very little about my aptitude or preparation for research in my field. My GRE only indicates that I was indeed willing to pour an entire summer into memorizing vocabulary and that I have a knack for high school math. The GPA suggests that I matured early and worked hard from freshman year onwards. It's my writing sample and my statement of purpose that will hopefully tell the committee that my scholarship has potential and I know what I'm doing...and fellowship or TAships won't be wasted on me.

Professors, frankly, aren't dumb. They know what it takes to succeed in their field. And while the GRE and GPA can favor or hurt an application in case of a close decision, they certainly know that memorizing vocabulary and high school math skills have little to do with the skills that are truly necessarily--at least for my field. Other parts of the application are far better indicators of the student's potential. Your flippant reply completely trivializes the SoP and seems to suggest that you have no idea what it actually *should* convey for...to use your example...an English Lit PhD. The example that you gave would actually be a terrible SoP, and would weed out the applicant even if she had a 1600 and 4.0 from Harvard. A good SoP/writing sample would show that the applicant understand the discourse of her field and can think, research, and write on a level that can contribute to the field.

Besides, there were at least TWO students accepted into Princeton's English PhD cohort last year...with GRE scores well under 1200. One of them had an undergraduate GPA that wasn't far from the 2.8 that you used as an example.

Edited January 31, 2010 by strokeofmidnight

[fuzzylogician]

Are you refering to this example: "Ever since I was a little kid I really really wanted to be an English professor and I like to use big words"? Because if you are, and you are in a English PhD program, I would desperately hope that you could infer the facetious nature of this statement. I am not seriously implying that someone who started their SoP in that manner would be a qualified applicant. I'm doing the exact opposite.

Really?

You could be speaking the Truth and I wouldn't care to hear you out.

I'm sure from your reputation that you've been told this before, but just in case--is it really that hard to make your point without personally attacking the other posters or dismissing their views?

[curufinwe]

guys, unfortunately, ALL is important, some are more than the others. i agree that SOP is really critical, not coz of the "i've been into politics since i was 5" arguments, but your own description of what you academically can be and what field u r interested in. (more things can be added). BUT, right now we're talking about a very competitive process. small things like gre score or that evaluation reports ur undergrad students filled when u were a TA will help them decide when its a tie and u r almost the same with some other candidate. so, lets just make ALL aspects of our application perfect and if, given the time, we cant, lets hope for the best. then again, as of now, the die is cast...

Edited January 31, 2010 by curufinwe

[coffeeandtoast]

I just read a status of a person who got accepted to UC Davis with a 980 GRE.

[coffeeandtoast]

Are you refering to this example: "Ever since I was a little kid I really really wanted to be an English professor and I like to use big words"? Because if you are, and you are applying for an English PhD program, I would desperately hope that you could infer the facetious nature of this statement. I am not seriously implying that someone who started their SoP in that manner would be a qualified applicant. I'm doing the exact opposite.

Really?

Ok, how old are you? Seriously.

[strokeofmidnight]

Are you refering to this example: "Ever since I was a little kid I really really wanted to be an English professor and I like to use big words"? Because if you are, and you are applying for an English PhD program, I would desperately hope that you could infer the facetious nature of this statement. I am not seriously implying that someone who started their SoP in that manner would be a qualified applicant. I'm doing the exact opposite.

Really?

Your example is supposed to point out that someone who has poor numbers has absolutely no chance at getting into a strong English PhD program. I don't see what the SoP--in this example--has anything to do with it. You ARE, however, completely dismissing the independent (and incredibly influential) role of the SoP in this process by lumping it with the lower numbers.

You've also "forgotten" to address the rest of my points.

I don't see why you feel the need to be so abrasive and rude to your peers. What exactly do you gain from it? There's plenty of room to disagree without attacking everyone else...and such behavior will only alienate you in graduate school. While you certainly don't have to be friends with everyone, your career as well as your social life will suffer if you manage to make everyone dislike you.

[strokeofmidnight]

Seadub,

We'll find out in a month or so

You seem hell-bent on proving that you are right, and anyone who disagrees with you is not wrong, but also intellectually insufficient. There's no point in having a conversation under these circumstances. Did it strike you that the many people who are disagreeing with your perspective might have valid reasons for holding the opposing stance? You also seem determined to NOT "believe" me when I cite sources that you--as well as I and anyone else on these boards--knows that I cannot quote or name. You're convinced that there's no possible way that someone could have access to information that you lack. So be it. At this point, everyone's apps are in and it's not as though our speculation would make a difference either way. Dealing with your personal attacks, frankly, isn't worth it.

Best of luck to you in this process.

[Roll Right]

Im surprised this thread is still fired up. We've really done this to death here.

[jacib]

Believe me, I have tried. And yet other members continue to try to take it away. Not cool.

Last word!

[Emma2003]

Yes, of course there are studies on the correlation between GRE and Graduate School success. According to the ETS, " Validity coefficients range from .30 to .45 between the GRE and both first year and overall graduate GPA in ETS' study."

That being said, I don't think the GRE alone should have a higher influence on an AdCom's decision-making than GPA, LORs, and the SoP. I do think, though, that it certainly "levels the playing field" as a high GPA at one school might be a low or mediocre GPA at another.

If you were applying for an Engineering degree, for example, I don't think you could get away with getting any less than a 760Q for a good school. You can complain all you want about how "outdated" the test may be, but at the end of the day the Q section is simply a high school algebra test and there is no excuse for anyone serious about going into a technical field to score below the 85th percentile or so. I would be very worried if a future nuclear physicist did not know how to read a graph or understand the basic axioms of multiplication.

Similarly if you are interested in a PhD in English or something, there is no excuse for scoring below 700 on the Verbal Section. Even if it takes memorizing hundreds of words that you may never use, it is inexcusable to do poorly on that section for someone really serious about pursuing a degree in English or a closely related field.

The point is everyone is on the same page when it comes to this test. No one has any greater advantage or disadvantage for doing well than the next test taker, which is why we are given both a raw score and percentiles. As long as this test is still widely used, it is in everyone's best interest to just suck it up and stop complaining about it.

I realize this is an old post, but are you aware that a 700 on the verbal section is a 97th percentile. You can get an 800 on the quantitative and still not reach that percentile. I think that's an unreasonable expectation. The equivalent to a 760Q score in percentile range, would be a 600-610v.

(Funny, I came to this thread to get an idea of what reasonable GRE scores might be, and made these comments before I read very far in the thread, didn't quite realize what a fight there was here. Not trying to fuel the fire, but it just seems to me that if we're basing things on how likely your score is to be better than another person's score, we should use the same percentile as a tool for measurement. The numbers felt more like what you thought were good scores, than scores based on the standardized measurement tool that you are purporting them to be. If you are truly looking at the scores as a way to weed out the chaff, I suggest being fair in your measurements. You should look up the average admitted student GRE scores, they tend to be around or below 600 for verbal.)

http://testprep.about.com/od/thegretest/f/GRE_FAQ_Score.htm

Edited February 12, 2010 by Emma2003

[Emma2003]

omg

This really is my last reply on this thread because I am tired of people misinterpreting everything I say. Seriously.

I am fully aware that the Quantitative and Verbal scores do not map to each other. Nowhere did I imply or suggest that a 760Q is equal to a 760V.

I did, however, suggest that most engineering/technical programs are looking for high Q scores, which generally means 85th percentile (~760) and above for "good" schools and 90th percentile (~780) and above for top schools. Yes, 800 is only the 94th percentile, but that just tells you that a good percentage of people score perfectly on this section. I never suggested that these programs are looking for a 760V or 800V as well. I think everyone on here realizes that a "good" verbal score may be in the 600s (~90th percentile), but a quantitative score in the 600s would be considered mediocre or bad.

And yes, many English PhD programs do indeed expect scores over 700 (~97th percentile). This isn't a number I pulled out of thin air, it is a reality that most top English/Humanities programs expect.

Source :

So not exactly sure what you are trying to teach me or anyone else on this thread that we don't already know. Absolutely nothing new. Sorry.

You know, I wasn't trying to teach you anything. Nor did I personally attack you. I am sorry that you feel the need to be combative. I am not in anyway implying that there aren't cut off numbers for programs, and that depending on the type of programs, that the standards are more rigorous than others. I made this post originally before I read the long history of intense fighting in this thread, and went back and edited it to explain that. However, the just of what you seemed to be saying was that no one should apply to grad school without reaching a particular score on the GRE, and I still disagreed with that, so I didn't delete what I wrote. Top schools do accept candidates with varying scores, and what a good score is depends upon more things than the raw score itself. You did not provide any substantive back up data at that point, and you really did seem to be discounting the fact that there are great differences in percentile rankings between the two sections. Things aren't black and white. A score of 1200 that has a 500Q and a 700v might have an excellent shot of getting into the English PHD program at Berkley (your example). And a person with an 800Q and a 700+ verbal might not make it into MIT because of a lack of relevant research experience or less noteworthy LOR. (I removed the part about Brown, because I found individual subject area pages of their site that stated the GRE is required. I was basing this on several sites i found that said Brown did not require GRE scores for acceptance. for example: http://www.greexplorer.com/Average-GRE-Scores/Brown-University.html. And: http://testprep.about.com/od/thegretest/f/GRE_FAQ_Score.htm. Its important to be accurate and admit when I've made a mistake! :-) )

People are making the decisions, and a lot can happen inside that process.

I am sympathetic to your frustration after reading the thread, and I don't necessarily disagree that sometimes, especially in this competitive climate that the GRE is a controllable way that you can improve your chances. I do think it is excessive to discourage people who are excellent candidates to apply because they are poor test takers. In researching Berkley, in general, based on your response to my reply, I found this response to what the average GRE scores they accepted were: "Many students admitted into our program score in the 750-800 range in the Quantitative section and above 500-550 in the Verbal section. Again, this is an average and the admissions committee looks at a student's WHOLE application not just their GRE scores." Emphasizing the last part. I found similar language used on most of the university sites I visited.

Graduate school is difficult to get into, but not impossible, and there are many people who do succeed, with varied backgrounds, scores and experiences. And sometimes, the decisions are arbitrary, or based on funding and fit. I was speaking with a friend who got into a program during a year when they let 20 people into her department and the next year, they let one person in.

I took issue with you presenting an argument through which you indicated that the GRE was a dispassionate tool, yet your examples of the 760q and 700 v didn't support that. It implied that there were different standards between fields in terms of general score. It implied that there were differences in the playing fields, even in your mind. The GRE is not a dispassionate tool. It makes decisions about your abilities and is extremely unforgiving, and not necessarily the best indicator of those abilities. It decides what questions you see, and places a value level on what you are able to answer correctly. People are not getting the same test and being judged based on performance to an identical measuring stick. On the verbal, you can memorize 1500 words and if there is one there you either haven't seen, or don't remember, it may not matter. The GRE is a blunt knife. And I think that most admissions committees understand this.

I am sorry if I rubbed salt in your wounds, I didn't mean to offend. I hope that you got high scores, and I hope they serve you well. I was average on writing and average on quantitative and "good" on verbal. Here's hoping each of is right with respect to the programs we applied.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Emma2003

[liszt85]

You must realize, though, that not everyone can be in the upper percentiles, due to the very nature of the GRE. That doesn't mean they're not qualified for grad school, it just means that there are people out there who have done better on a test that is, as you mentioned, quite generic, and ultimately unrelated to success in one's own field.

I agree with seadub. Nobody is saying that successful applicants are always in the higher percentiles. My point is this: If you score below 1000 on the GRE, it *might* be suggestive of your potential success(failure) at grad school. With sufficient preparation, I'm convinced that you can do well on the test. Like I mentioned elsewhere on this forum, I know a guy from my undergraduate institution who had NO knowledge of English when he came in (he knew the alphabet of course and knew how to read but he'd been studying all his life in regional languages and probably never had/got to read a book beyond his kindergarten "apple", "bat", "cat" books.. a lot of Chinese people are in similar situation afaik). He took evening classes and learnt English in 3 years (Most Chinese people I know watched "Friends", all seasons multiple times, to improve their spoken English for the TOEFL). He worked HARD(!!!) for the GRE. His verbal score was 650 (a few points higher than mine, and I went to English medium schools all my life..the difference was the amount of work he put in). So if people like that can do it, why can't native speakers put in some effort and avoid getting drastically bad scores on this test? The same goes for the quant section. I don't hear people complaining about the SAT but why so much about the GRE?

Also if you're competing for university wide fellowships, they really have very little to base their decisions off (comparing apples and oranges... helps only if both apples and oranges have taken the GRE or something equivalent).

Edited February 12, 2010 by liszt85

[Tiglath-Pileser III]

I have a friend who scored in the mid-700s on verbal and mid-300s on the quantitative. And even though he was applying to schools that officially did not consider the math scores, he found himself on the "fast reject" path with 5 out of the 6 PhD programs he applied for. It appears that the GRE serves as a reason to reject more than it does as a reason to accept.

I think that the GRE serves a very important sociological purpose for admissions committees. The two most important rules for success at graduate school are: (1) know the system, and (2) jump through the hoops. Those who excel at the GRE are the types who will prepare for any test, and thus are more likely to learn the tricks and the rules of the test (and the system). Those who treat one section less seriously than another are less likely to be pliable and flexible in a graduate school setting and are less inclined to want to jump through the hoops.

My friend did get into a PhD program, but he had to take one at a third tier college with almost no funding.