2017-2018 Application Cycle

[CandyCanes]

6 minutes ago, sfirus93 said:

I mean in terms of exchange rate, GRE is much stronger but basically, yes. As long as you excelled in the math and statistic courses, your low quant score would not be a huge defect. Likewise, if you published a batch of articles (even though on the student journals), I believe that your low verbal score or AWA would be somewhat compensated.

Wait... You're saying GRE is actually more important? How can one standardized test outweigh four years of coursework?

Edited January 27, 2018 by CandyCanes

[Albert01]

9 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

Wait... You're saying GRE is actually more important? How can one standardized test outweigh four years of coursework?

That is somewhat ridiculous but true... I think it is because the committees want to level-out the difference between the schools and this is more true if you are from international schools. It is widely know that they minus everyone's GPA from foreign schools since committes do not trust foreign curricula (or sometimes, professors); therefore, GRE matters more for the internationals. And for the American (school-attended) students, I am not quite sure... but almost every americans who apply to the phd program tends to do well in V and AWA, and Q seems where there is difference; but unless you apply for the quant-centric program, that would not be a problem. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by sfirus93

[jnewcomb08]

9 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

Wait... You're saying GRE is actually more important? How can one standardized test outweigh four years of coursework?

one 3 hour test that bombs can ruin anything you did over 4 years.  yep.  standardized tests are great, aren't they?

[toad1]

8 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

Wait... You're saying GRE is actually more important? How can one standardized test outweigh four years of coursework?

 

3 minutes ago, jnewcomb08 said:

one 3 hour test that bombs can ruin anything you did over 4 years.  yep.  standardized tests are great, aren't they?

Personally I'm a huge advocate for the GRE (and standardized tests in general). I'll try to explain my reasoning.

Firstly, everyone's GPA largely boils down the around the same area (3.6-4.0) which is a difference less than one letter grade according to most grading systems--a metric which, comparing grades in different classes taught by different professors in different universities (possibly in different countries in different years). This hardly is an accurate way to assess people.

Conversely, the GRE is 'the great equalizer', in that everyone is subject to the same exact rules and questions that are constructed in order to be of near equal difficulty, testing people on their skills regardless of their background. Of course you can have a bad day, but then you are able to take it again (literally as many times as you want) so that you think it actually reflects your ability.

This works in favor of people that aren't as privileged. If you are well off such as being a legacy at an Ivy League college or having enough family wealth to pay for expensive prestigious schools your whole life (kindergarten through undergrad), you have a huge advantage on nearly EVERY metric except the GRE. The GRE is literally the ONLY metric that allows someone who has grown up in a poorer neighborhood, maybe only had one option of attending a less-than-ideal public school their whole life (K-undergrad) and is still swimming in debt from a public university.

Just my 2 cents. I understand completely how people can be frustrated with one test weighing so heavily, but someone else could argue that everything else has been against them their whole life in this fight for top spots--and this is their one truly equal chance to show they can compete too. So, I say: good.

[jnewcomb08]

5 minutes ago, toad1 said:

 

Personally I'm a huge advocate for the GRE (and standardized tests in general). I'll try to explain my reasoning.

Firstly, everyone's GPA largely boils down the around the same area (3.6-4.0) which is a difference less than one letter grade according to most grading systems--a metric which, comparing grades in different classes taught by different professors in different universities (possibly in different countries in different years). This hardly is an accurate way to assess people.

Conversely, the GRE is 'the great equalizer', in that everyone is subject to the same exact rules and questions that are constructed in order to be of near equal difficulty, testing people on their skills regardless of their background. Of course you can have a bad day, but then you are able to take it again (literally as many times as you want) so that you think it actually reflects your ability.

This works in favor of people that aren't as privileged. If you are well off such as being a legacy at an Ivy League college or having enough family wealth to pay for expensive prestigious schools your whole life (kindergarten through undergrad), you have a huge advantage on nearly EVERY metric except the GRE. The GRE is literally the ONLY metric that allows someone who has grown up in a poorer neighborhood, maybe only had one option of attending a less-than-ideal public school their whole life (K-undergrad) and is still swimming in debt from a public university.

Just my 2 cents. I understand completely how people can be frustrated with one test weighing so heavily, but someone else could argue that everything else has been against them their whole life in this fight for top spots--and this is their one truly equal chance to show they can compete too. So, I say: good.

The GRE and other standardized tests have been shown to do the exact opposite actually in regards to it creating a wider gap between rich and poor/minorities and whites.

[toad1]

2 minutes ago, jnewcomb08 said:

The GRE and other standardized tests have been shown to do the exact opposite actually in regards to it creating a wider gap between rich and poor/minorities and whites.

Well, whether they are effective could be debated, and if you say studies show otherwise I have no reason to question you. Although, I don't really understand the logic of 'how' and would be interested in seeing the literature.

My point is, there should be a test that can equally assess people on a level playing field. It's easy to buy experiences a top schools and get to know elite professors to write your LORs, etc. I think that, when it's all said and done, people should also be assessed on a quantitative, across the board metric that will allow people who maybe didn't have those opportunities to show that they are cognitively able to take on the program too.

[styliane]

8 minutes ago, toad1 said:

 

Personally I'm a huge advocate for the GRE (and standardized tests in general). I'll try to explain my reasoning.

Firstly, everyone's GPA largely boils down the around the same area (3.6-4.0) which is a difference less than one letter grade according to most grading systems--a metric which, comparing grades in different classes taught by different professors in different universities (possibly in different countries in different years). This hardly is an accurate way to assess people.

Conversely, the GRE is 'the great equalizer', in that everyone is subject to the same exact rules and questions that are constructed in order to be of near equal difficulty, testing people on their skills regardless of their background. Of course you can have a bad day, but then you are able to take it again (literally as many times as you want) so that you think it actually reflects your ability.

This works in favor of people that aren't as privileged. If you are well off such as being a legacy at an Ivy League college or having enough family wealth to pay for expensive prestigious schools your whole life (kindergarten through undergrad), you have a huge advantage on nearly EVERY metric except the GRE. The GRE is literally the ONLY metric that allows someone who has grown up in a poorer neighborhood, maybe only had one option of attending a less-than-ideal public school their whole life (K-undergrad) and is still swimming in debt from a public university.

Just my 2 cents. I understand completely how people can be frustrated with one test weighing so heavily, but someone else could argue that everything else has been against them their whole life in this fight for top spots--and this is their one truly equal chance to show they can compete too. So, I say: good.

Not true: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/the-problem-with-the-gre/471633/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5226333/, https://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7504-303a

[toad1]

4 minutes ago, styliane said:

Not true: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/the-problem-with-the-gre/471633/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5226333/, https://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7504-303a

Thanks, I'll look into these when I have time. But, I can speak from experience with friends in those situations: it is sometimes the case. I quickly glanced at the first article and it claims it costs thousands of dollars of prep material to study for GRE... I don't know, one of my best friends who was in a similar situation as I described above just bought one prep book for LSAT and killed it, and it got him into virtually every top programs and full rides. His background, outside of that, was good but nothing memorable: good GPA at a mediocre state university. He was able to overcome because of the LSAT, not in spite of it. But I'll look into these with an open mind.

[CandyCanes]

Why have people been saying the GRE isn't important? Would you say it's more or less important than personal statement and letters of rec?

[toad1]

2 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

Why have people been saying the GRE isn't important? Would you say it's more or less important than personal statement and letters of rec?

For the sake of political science programs, personal statement / LORs is more important from what I understand. GRE has to be above the school's threshold but it won't get you into programs alone.

[Hamb]

I thought the "prestige/top 10" argument was as controversial as we'd get, but I have a feeling this GRE debate is going to occupy our attention until we start getting results on Monday.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Hamb

[CandyCanes]

3 minutes ago, toad1 said:

For the sake of political science programs, personal statement / LORs is more important from what I understand. GRE has to be above the school's threshold but it won't get you into programs alone.

So you would say... 

Letters of rec > personal statement> GRE > GPA > Writing sample?

[styliane]

3 minutes ago, toad1 said:

Thanks, I'll look into these when I have time. But, I can speak from experience with friends in those situations: it is sometimes the case. I quickly glanced at the first article and it claims it costs thousands of dollars of prep material to study for GRE... I don't know, one of my best friends who was in a similar situation as I described above just bought one prep book for LSAT and killed it, and it got him into virtually every top programs and full rides. His background, outside of that, was good but nothing memorable: good GPA at a mediocre state university. He was able to overcome because of the LSAT, not in spite of it. But I'll look into these with an open mind.

With all due respect: the plural of anecdote is not data.

The data shows that the GRE underpredicts the academic performance of minority students.  Other fields are moving to GRE-optional applications for a reason (e.g. http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199607/gender.cfm).

Do forums overstate the importance of the GRE?  Likely; it's the easy thing for us to compare.  If schools are really using it heavily, I'm judging them pretty hard tbh.

 

(...  and this argument isn't because my GRE score is low; I have a 169V/168Q/5.0W.  It's still a bad test that tests nothing.  My last GRE required me to know the definition of quotidian on three separate questions; I am pretty damn sure that this indicates exactly nothing about my ability to conduct independent research.)

[jnewcomb08]

2 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

So you would say... 

Letters of rec > personal statement> GRE > GPA > Writing sample?

i would say:  GRE to get past the initial threshold, then personal statement, GPA, LOR, Writing Sample

[Albert01]

3 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

Why have people been saying the GRE isn't important? Would you say it's more or less important than personal statement and letters of rec?

They must be more important than GRE, especially SOP. Proof: with 167/170, I am rejected from several schools (not even the very top-ranked). Fit seems to be very important.

For the GRE importance, one thing is for sure. IF committee does not consider GRE seriously, the internationals like me who have not much things to show but GRE would not have any chance of admission. For Americans and American-educated, I am not sure.

[toad1]

4 minutes ago, styliane said:

With all due respect: the plural of anecdote is not data.

The data shows that the GRE underpredicts the academic performance of minority students.  Other fields are moving to GRE-optional applications for a reason (e.g. http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199607/gender.cfm).

Do forums overstate the importance of the GRE?  Likely; it's the easy thing for us to compare.  If schools are really using it heavily, I'm judging them pretty hard tbh.

 

(...  and this argument isn't because my GRE score is low; I have a 169V/168Q/5.0W.  It's still a bad test that tests nothing.  My last GRE required me to know the definition of quotidian on three separate questions; I am pretty damn sure that this indicates exactly nothing about my ability to conduct independent research.)

You're talking about the actual GRE in practice, I'm talking about the idea of the GRE as an opportunity to test all prospective grad students on an equal playing field. I don't deny the GRE is imperfect.

[CandyCanes]

What are your thoughts on the writing sample? For me, I was taking an excerpt of my thesis, so it felt hard to condense the entire argument into twenty pages. Is it just to show that you're able to write coherently and make original arguments, or did they actually want a complete product?

[CandyCanes]

3 minutes ago, toad1 said:

You're talking about the actual GRE in practice, I'm talking about the idea of the GRE as an opportunity to test all prospective grad students on an equal playing field. I don't deny the GRE is imperfect.

So do you think it's actually used as the great equalizer in practice and weighted more than GPA, or is this just what you would do ideally?

[Albert01]

10 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

What are your thoughts on the writing sample? For me, I was taking an excerpt of my thesis, so it felt hard to condense the entire argument into twenty pages. Is it just to show that you're able to write coherently and make original arguments, or did they actually want a complete product?

I don't think they would expect that applicants are able to produce any complete product (in a publishable level); and if you are able to do that, then it must be a great news for your admission.

For GRE,

Let me summarize the whole situation how GRE works in your application in the limit of my understanding. It mainly works as threshold; if your score is below what the committe expects you to be, then, unless your other materials (such as high grades in several math or stat courses for low Q score) compensate it, the committee may not look into your application seriously. After you pass this threshold, your SOP, WS, LOR, and other stuffs will do the rest of the work. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by sfirus93

[toad1]

7 minutes ago, CandyCanes said:

So do you think it's actually used as the great equalizer in practice and weighted more than GPA, or is this just what you would do ideally?

As others mentioned, I think it's largely a gateway to be considered seriously. In the later, more important rounds that determine whether or not you are admitted, I doubt that either the GRE or GPA is a huge factor.

[maria24]

If one is wait listed, then later accepted, is there much chance to receive funding/fellowships? Or is it more of a 'Hey just be happy you got in' kind of deal?

[CandyCanes]

12 minutes ago, toad1 said:

As others mentioned, I think it's largely a gateway to be considered seriously. In the later, more important rounds that determine whether or not you are admitted, I doubt that either the GRE or GPA is a huge factor.

Would you say GPA is also a gateway?

[styliane]

Is there a reason we're assuming admits don't come out over weekends?

[Positivist]

27 minutes ago, styliane said:

Is there a reason we're assuming admits don't come out over weekends?

I think, it might be attributed to weekends being non-working days. Moreover, if admissions were already done with decisions in the first place, it seems strange for them to actually schedule email blasts on a non-working weekend and instead do it immediately or on workdays.

But, there is still a minor chance that rejections might get sent out over weekends or ungodly hours due to the generic nature of such notifications that does not necessitate any immediate response from faculty should there be any questions from rejected applicants.

Well, I may be wrong, but this are my experiences with the cycle so far.

[Salve]

3 hours ago, BobBobBob said:

My two cents:

I think LORs are the most important thing, provided that your recommenders are either well-known scholars from related fields or scholars from well-known institutions. In this case, LORs carry a lot of weight when AO are making a decision.

The same goes for GPA. If someone's GPA is from a well-known (American or international) institution, then it is probably more important than GRE. As others have mentioned, GRE gets you through the initial cut-off line but does not do much in later rounds of screening.

At least for political science, I think very few of us have published articles in peer-reviewed journals at this stage. And as some other threads in this forum have mentioned, AO generally just skim through writing samples. So I would say LOR and SOP are the most important things. LOR gives AO an overall sense of how strong you as a contender and SOP indicates faculty fit.

I have to disagree with the point about recommendations. It is not true that LORs are the most important thing only provided that they are from famous scholars or scholars at famous institutions. The reason this is not true is because famous scholars often do not bother to write a nice personalized letter of recommendation. Instead, they opt out for something generic. A letter from a professor who is not famous, but knows you well and can write that you are the best, brightest student she has ever had will be more beneficial for your overall 'package' than a boring letter from a famous scholar.