Devastated by my GRE score. Is there any hope for me?

[lost_and_confused]

Well, I took the GRE a couple days ago and somehow got a 640Q and 420V. WTF? This is not good for someone that wants to go to graduate school in electrical engineering....

I have a double major in EE and Physics with an overall GPA of 3.45, a physics GPA of 3.92, and an engineering GPA of 3.68. I have about 8 months of research experience but no publications. However, I learned a great deal about ultra high vacuum systems, molecular beam epitaxial growth of AlN films, etc. It was a good hands on experience. I have around 4 months of industry co-op experience at an automotive safety firm.

I am primarily interested in solid state device electronics, mainly organic semiconductor devices. I am applying to Cornell, MIT, Michigan, Arizona State, Penn State, and U of Texas. I was going to apply to Stanford and UIUC, but after seeing my GRE score I decided against it. I know who I would like to work for at all of these universities and I attempted to contact these professors. I received positive responses from a couple, no response from a couple, and neutral responses from a couple. This was all before I knew about my GRE score.

Unfortunately, most of the application deadlines are Dec. 15th and the next time I can take the GRE is Jan. 1st. I might retake it, but most of the schools will not consider scores that are received past the deadline. What do I do? Are my chances destroyed or is my low GRE score not a big deal?

Thanks

[flyingwalrus]

Apply. The worst thing that could happen would be getting rejected. If you don't apply, you won't have any chance at all.

[Minnesotan]

At least you're not applying to programs in the humanities. A 420 verbal would look pretty bad.

I would say it can't hurt to try, but you seem to be choosing some pretty elite programs. MIT? Is that realistic with your grades, let alone your gre scores?

Make sure you have some true safety schools in the mix (I'm not familiar with the electrical engineering rankings, so maybe that's what Arizona or Texas are). I know I would rather get a PhD from South-Central Missouri State Baptist University, than not earn one at all.

And, if there is a South-Central Missouri State Baptist University, no offense to those who attend what I am sure is a fine, fine institution of higher learning.

[lost_and_confused]

At least you're not applying to programs in the humanities. A 420 verbal would look pretty bad.

I would say it can't hurt to try, but you seem to be choosing some pretty elite programs. MIT? Is that realistic with your grades, let alone your gre scores?

Make sure you have some true safety schools in the mix (I'm not familiar with the electrical engineering rankings, so maybe that's what Arizona or Texas are). I know I would rather get a PhD from South-Central Missouri State Baptist University, than not earn one at all.

And, if there is a South-Central Missouri State Baptist University, no offense to those who attend what I am sure is a fine, fine institution of higher learning.

Well, Texas is ranked Cornell is ranked #6 for EE, Michigan is ranked #5, Texas is ranked #10, Penn State is #18, and ASU is #28. MIT is of course #1. I figure I would at least have a good should at ASU and Penn State. I really want to go to grad school, but I figure if I get rejected by all of the schools I applied to then I could just get an industry job and get a masters or something later.

[Minnesotan]

Only you know what you want. Like I said, I would rather have a PhD from *somewhere* than none at all. If you're only willing to settle for the top schools, then that's your call, and good luck to ya'.

I suppose it's different when you can easily get a decent-paying job with your bachellor's degree. In the humanities, it doesn't always pan out. If we want to work in the industry (and be respected, and paid a reasonable wage), a PhD is fairly important.

[snowcapk]

I know I would rather get a PhD from South-Central Missouri State Baptist University, than not earn one at all.

I thought this was an interesting point to bring up. My adviser told me that there's no such thing as a "safety" graduate school for those of us who want to be professors. What he meant was that if you don't get a Ph.D. from a big-name school, you can't have a career in academia. There are just too many Ph.D.s flooding the market. I think there is some truth to what he said, because I know a lot of stellar graduates even from our top-ten school who are having to work as adjuncts or go into industry, even after a few postdocs. Certainly if your plan is to go into industry, this doesn't apply to you. But I thought I should remind all the future professors out there that you might be better off getting a master's/working as a lab tech for a year or two, then reapplying to those big-name schools, because getting a Ph.D. from a "lesser" institution could sink your career.

[amanda1655]

My professor said something similar but for totally different reasons. He said that because the volume of applications is so high that even second tier schools can be choosy. Also, professors will pick students with lower scores who match their interests or whose application excites them in some way over students with higher scores with unexciting projects.

When I was applying, however, I still tried to pick some lower tier schools. When I e-mailed professors, though, I had interesting replies. It was the professors at the top-rated institutions who were interested in my project and encouraged me to apply, sending me multiple e-mails and the names of their grad students. The ones at the second and third-tier universities said that they didn't feel that their university had the resources to support my research. As a result, I ended up with a list that includes mostly top 10 schools and a few from the second tier. That makes me very, very nervous.

[Minnesotan]

Yeah. I am hoping that the good schools I applied to, with 1-2% acceptance rates, get about 99 total @#$% ups for every application like mine.

I don't think I'm being very realistic, though. lol

Thus, I sent out some safety apps.

[eyeofbrian]

Perhaps it is too late for this application cycle, but you should just take it again. I scored lower than I wanted on my first GRE attempt, panicked, and then retook it and did much better. On the score report, both scores are listed separately, with the date that each exam was taken. I'm applying this cycle, so I don't know yet whether I'm right; but I've heard that admissions commitees will not much care that you've taken the test twice and will generally just consider your better score.

Unlike the LSAT, which is supposed to measure some sort of innate ability, the GRE is just like a hoop that you have to jump through. If you missed the first time, line up and try it again.

[Minnesotan]

Retaking the GRE only works if you manifest definite improvement. If you retake it and score poorly again, you may just reinforce the idea that you're not smart or dedicated enough to make it in grad school.

[crazypoligirl]

Retaking the GRE only works if you manifest definite improvement. If you retake it and score poorly again, you may just reinforce the idea that you're not smart or dedicated enough to make it in grad school.

I don't think that is the case at all. The GRE is completely arbitrary. The fact that they decided to totally revamp the test because it was deemed inadequate... only to find that the updated version wouldn't suffice either is telling.

I think it is kind of ridiculous that we are subjected to the test in the first place. I have taken it twice myself. The first time I tanked. I took it again and improved immensely.

SOP and LORs are much more telling of an applicants promise.

[Minnesotan]

I don't agree. It's too rare these days that people are tested by the same standards. Yes, there are subjective concerns, but those are pretty easy to evaluate from SoPs, LoRs, and writing samples (let alone diversity statements, which are basically a competition to see who can whine the best). Having a strong grasp of the English language is important for programs in the humanities, and people going into science and engineering should not find the high school math questions all that difficult.

The GRE only seems arbitrary to people who do poorly on it. I found it a very straightforward exam.

[NO8DO]

I think that standardized testing in general is a bit arbitrary (not speaking of the GRE in particular). I don't think that it will ever be able to accurately measure the 'promise' of a particular student in the way that a CV or 4 years of undergraduate learning can do. Just to give an example, I took the SAT to get into college and got a pretty decent score, but no where near a level that would reflect my overall success in my undergrad career; my guess is that the same will be said of my GRE score. In fact, I had a friend in high school who was sooo incredibly lazy - honestly would not hand papers in on time, didn't study, but then received a huge score on his SAT. Sure in theory, the potential is there, but just because he scores high on those tests doesn't mean that he'll make a good student - quite the opposite as his record suggested.

However I do think that it is necessary - at least in some form. No, that is not saying that the way they have it set up now is particularly effective, although I do think that some form of standardized testing has to be administered because there's simply too much of a difference among different institutions across the nation/world, etc. I will say though that I do not particularly agree with institutions making 'cut-offs' with GRE scores - I think that in every case the whole package needs to be respected. It might cut away some time spent on particular applications, but it also might ignore otherwise excellent scholars. This of course is just my opinion though, I'm quite sure that the GRE won't be going anywhere anytime soon.

[crazypoligirl]

I don't agree. It's too rare these days that people are tested by the same standards. Yes, there are subjective concerns, but those are pretty easy to evaluate from SoPs, LoRs, and writing samples (let alone diversity statements, which are basically a competition to see who can whine the best). Having a strong grasp of the English language is important for programs in the humanities, and people going into science and engineering should not find the high school math questions all that difficult.

The GRE only seems arbitrary to people who do poorly on it. I found it a very straightforward exam.

I agree that some sort of leveling component is necessary in the admission process. I just don't think a test that has been proven to be flawed should hold as much weight as it does (in some, NOT ALL departments). One of the programs that I am applying to pretty much stated that if you don't have a 1250+, you might as well keep walking. I just don't think that is right. I am guessing several otherwise well qualified students didn't even bother applying because they thought they would get canned off the bat.

I also agree that a strong grasp of the English language is important, but this ability is easily distinguished in an applicant's SOP and writing sample. In fact, I think it is better measured via these avenues. The Verbal section on the GRE is pretty much a vocabulary test, in my opinion.

And you're right, the GRE is one of the more straightforward standardized tests out there (once upon a time, I wanted to go to law school so I have taken both the LSAT and GRE). If you have enough time (and money) you can get the study aids and coach yourself into a 1200+, but some people don't have that luxury. Applying to graduate school is expensive enough before you even begin considering test preparation costs. Kaplan, PR and Testmasters are not equally accessible, so how can the test truly be?

Furthermore, diversity statements are an important component of the application. I'm sorry if you think its only function is a whining competition. There are people out there that have overcome real adversity to get where they are, and that should be taken under consideration. I think that people with different backgrounds, values, upbringings contribute immensely to the academic atmosphere; particularly in a field like mine, political science.

Let's just get it straight, when a school is selecting a student for admission, they are making an investment just like we are. The whole applicant should be represented in the process, and diversity statements are just providing a space. And the saddest story ever isn't going to get an unqualified applicant in the door, i'm sorry.

And your assertion that the only people that critique standardized testing are those that don't do well on them:

I am laughing at you right now, because obviously you did do well and you are trying to make yourself feel more important than you really are.

[Minnesotan]

Not at all. I'm not one of those people who presents their resume to people they just meet, in an effort to earn their respect. My point was made in the utmost humility, based on my experiences on this, and other forums devoted to grad school applications. I did find the exam straightforward, and I do notice a trend when reading many people who did poorly on the exam complain about its arbitrary nature.

I completely agree with you that an applicant is the sum of his or her parts, not any single part. That is also why I think diversity statements are often a thinly veiled attempt to insinuate racist, sexist, or classist policies. Everyone has to overcome adversity, but it is not the adversity that defines us, but our ability to succeed. Just because a rich white heterosexual male protestant from the suburbs applies to graduate school does not mean he should be turned down because of past trends in graduate education. He probably had his own problems to overcome, but society does not recognize them, because he is not a member of a minority group, gender, or religion in the U.S. When a person in the "majority" is passed over, in favor of a less successful minority applicant, academia suffers. We should educate the best, not the most pleasing to our notions of social justice.

And, so you don't mistake me, I do not fit half of the categories I named above - I just do not choose to play on the sympathy of others to succeed in life, unlike so many Americans. I would rather do it on my own merit.

But, again, this is merely my opinion, and is in no way meant to be insulting to you, or anyone else.

[snowcapk]

I agree with Minnesotan. The diversity statement (notably called a "Personal History Essay" by some schools that employ it) is often phrased in such a way that you can write about any adversity you've overcome. This allows everyone to fill the box with something and feel happy about themselves. However, as Minnesotan put it, the essay is just "a thinly veiled attempt to insinuate racist, sexist, or classist policies." If you don't discuss your experience as a minority of some sort, your essay will be ignored, no matter what unique obstacle you've written about. My guess is that a university would set Affirmative Action Initiatives 1, 2, and 3 (let's say race, gender, and socioeconomic status), and it would be a secretary's job to read the essay and decide whether the applicant fits any of those initiatives. If not, the essay would never be seen again.

I also agree that a strong grasp of the English language is important, but this ability is easily distinguished in an applicant's SOP and writing sample. In fact, I think it is better measured via these avenues.

In theory, a polished writing sample written by the applicant is the best measure of writing ability. But how can you guarantee that the applicant wrote the SoP and writing sample? People can, and do, pay to have those things written for them. Others require extensive hand-holding from their professors, writing center, peers, and random people on the internet. At some point, arguably the instant that outside help is sought, the essay no longer reflects the applicant's own ability level, and from there it's all just shades of gray up to hiring someone to write "his" essay out of whole cloth. I'm not saying it's wrong to get help, I'm just saying that for all the adcomm knows, the applicant could be anywhere on that continuum. This is why I think that the writing sample/SoP should never substitute for a standardized test that measures the applicant's abilities alone.

[Minnesotan]

"This is why I think that the writing sample/SoP should never substitute for a standardized test that measures the applicant's abilities alone."

That's why I defend standardized testing - ideally we should have both subjective and objective criteria.

[NO8DO]

Do some schools actually label this as a 'diversity statement'? I've never even heard of that. Or is it just a person's choice to give their SoP that sort of a spin on it?

I feel that especially for graduate school it is important to take the person with the best academic fit. It's not like undergrad at all(which is becoming more and more a 'right' than the privilege I think it might have been, what with the undergrad quickly becoming 'part 2' of high school for a lot of students). Grad shcool, on the other hand, is completely a privilege and only the most qualified of applicants (whether that be in terms of research interests, grades, etc.) should be offered admissions, in all cases - it's no different than applying for a full time job, in that respect.

[Minnesotan]

Yeah. A lot of programs ask for a separate diversity statement. It would be fine with me if people wanted to list the challenges they've overome within the statement of purpose, but to ask for a statement specifically related to diversity seems wrong to me.

For one, it runs under the faulty assumption that an individual can be diverse. Diversity is a relative term - individuals are only diverse when compared to other members of an established group. Therefore, diversity within an incoming cohort can only be judged if it is planned out ahead of time (meaning people *will* be selected on the basis of race, class, gender, or sexual or religious preference). These seem like questionable criteria for selecting candidates to accept into an academic program, if you ask me. If the shoe was on the other foot (i.e. people who are now considered "diverse" were discriminated against, due to race, class, gender, sexual or religious preference), there would be lawsuits.

[crazypoligirl]

Not at all. I'm not one of those people who presents their resume to people they just meet, in an effort to earn their respect. My point was made in the utmost humility, based on my experiences on this, and other forums devoted to grad school applications. I did find the exam straightforward, and I do notice a trend when reading many people who did poorly on the exam complain about its arbitrary nature.

I completely agree with you that an applicant is the sum of his or her parts, not any single part. That is also why I think diversity statements are often a thinly veiled attempt to insinuate racist, sexist, or classist policies. Everyone has to overcome adversity, but it is not the adversity that defines us, but our ability to succeed. Just because a rich white heterosexual male protestant from the suburbs applies to graduate school does not mean he should be turned down because of past trends in graduate education. He probably had his own problems to overcome, but society does not recognize them, because he is not a member of a minority group, gender, or religion in the U.S. When a person in the "majority" is passed over, in favor of a less successful minority applicant, academia suffers. We should educate the best, not the most pleasing to our notions of social justice.

And, so you don't mistake me, I do not fit half of the categories I named above - I just do not choose to play on the sympathy of others to succeed in life, unlike so many Americans. I would rather do it on my own merit.

But, again, this is merely my opinion, and is in no way meant to be insulting to you, or anyone else.

I agree that there are people who abuse diversity statements, and feel "entitled" because of historic wrongs committed against them and whatever group they may identify with. My point is that, once you get to the point of applying for doctorate programs, the caliber of an applicant is much different than say, undergraduate admissions. The person who just threw together their application at the last minute, hoping to just coast through on their URM status, in my opinion, just isn't an overwhelming presence .

I think all of us on here understand that doctorate study is not for the faint of heart. Really I just don't believe there are hordes of unqualified people applying to these programs in the first place. For the most part, we are all amazing applicants, but the adcomm has got to make distinctions somehow.

I just think someone coming from a background in which no one has a college degree, let alone an advanced degree (among other circumstances) should not be made to feel bad about saying so. Information about how to be successful in academia is not as easily attained as most people would like to think. If it were just about what grades you made and how hard you worked, I would totally be there with you. But it is not. It is just as much who you know as what you know.

And this is not even isolated to class, race, etc. either. I went to an elite college, where we learned about networking and were encouraged to gain life experience via travel, etc. Heck, I had the opportunity to work directly under a member of Congress, just because someone in her office had an aunt that went to my school. That was an AMAZING experience; but one that I had just because I could afford to go to a college that holds some weight.

In contrast, I have friends that went to mediocre state school because they didn't know any other way. And yea, they graduated a year early but with no real experience under their belt. Should they be boxed in forever because they were not privy to those experiences that make our applications look so great?

In no way am I saying that a lesser qualified applicant if coming from a "problematic" background should be accepted over one that comes from one of more privilege. What I am saying is that people should be judged based on how well they performed in the situation that was offered to them. If you are in a small pond, you best be the big fish. If you come from a more competitive program, it is understandable why you weren't number one in your class.

It works both ways.

[Minnesotan]

She called me a fish...

[crazypoligirl]

She called me a fish...

Not a personal attack dude. It's just a saying. I like it because I think its true; we are all fishes when it comes to academia...

[snowcapk]

She called me a fish...

LMAO

[Minnesotan]

Not a personal attack dude. It's just a saying. I like it because I think its true; we are all fishes when it comes to academia...

As Snowcap realized, I was just being cute.

[crazypoligirl]

As Snowcap realized, I was just being cute.

It's hard to tell sometimes. I am new to the forum and, hey, people get touchy about these things. I couldn't really see how being called a fish would be insulting but better to be on the safe side. I don't know what field you are in, but I may have to do some research with you at some point. Better yet, you could be a family member, lol.

Gotta love the anonymity of the net!