Low GRE score

[samman1994]

Hello everyone, 

 

I'm new to this forum, just took the gre, and didn't do all that hot, thought I'd come here and help my reduce my grief by seeing other stories. Anyways, I just took the GRE and got a scor of 303 (149Q/154V). I don't exactly understand what happened. I've taken 7 practice tests and gotten basically 155Q/154V, so I expected the same thing, but I don't know if I got harder questions or what (it was not test anxiety). I did run out of time on the Q, but I have run out of time every single practice test on the Q so that wasn't any different. Anyways, its over and done with, I could retake the GRE, but I doubt I would get a score of anything higher than 155 anyways. I was curious as to hear some stories, and see what you guys think of my application as it stands now. My Application:

GPA: 3.0 (B.S. in Chemistry)

Years of Research Experience: 3 (no publications, same lab)

GRE: 149Q/154V

Letters of Rec: 3

Now as it stands, just based of the numbers, it doesn't look very good. However, my hope lies primarily with my letters of rec. My academics and test taking skills aren't that amazing, but my work ethic and lab experience is what has really helped propel me. I have presented at 3 different conferences for my research, and won 1st place awards for every single one of them (I was the sole contributor to the research presented at all of them). My first letter of Rec is from my PI (Biochemist), the 2nd is from another professor (Physical Chemist) that I did a collaboration with for about 2 months. He was so impressed with my work ethic in those two months, he personally contacted me himself and told me to contact him for a letter of rec when I chose to apply. The 3rd letter of rec is from an upper division grad course I took (thought it'd be fun and good experience), that was primarily based on research as well. The professor of that class (Organic Chemist), also was so impressed with my work he also contacted me and told me to contact him for a rec letter (after he tried to convince me to join his lab). My point here is, every person, both at conferences, and at my university that I have worked with or presented my work to, has been impressed by my work itself. My grades and GRE scores aren't amazing, but I know for a fact the letters will paint me as a very research intensive individual. Which is sorta what I'm banking on. My plan is to apply to a good university for a PhD in Biochemistry. 

I had initially hoped that with a good GRE score, ok GPA, and great letters, I might have a chance at a really good university (Cal Tech, Berkley, UCLA, UCSD, etc.) With these scores, my hopes have diminished a bit. I know I have a decent chance at applying for masters programs with what I have now, but for financial reasons, and eventual career reasons, a PhD is what I was looking for. As it stands, I don't want to lower my standards of schools (I know going into a poor program will make my chances of finding work in the industry difficult later, which is the whole point for my PhD), but I'm worried I might not qualify for any of the better schools. Any of you guys have a similar story or scenario that worked out for you? What do you think of my chances?

Tl;dr I'm an average student at best, but a good worker that can only be expressed in rec letters. Am I way in over my head to try and get into top notch PhD programs? Should I just give up already?

 

[hj2012]

To be totally frank, the 149Q is concerning.  In combination with a low GPA, I find it somewhat unlikely that your application will get the attention it deserves. Keep in mind that you are competing against 500+ students, many of which will have excellent GRE scores and GPA in addition to excellent letters of recommendation and research profiles. As horrible as the GREs are, I would take them again - especially considering  your ambitions.

Are you planning on taking the subject test? That might be one way to mitigate the lower general GRE scores.

[samman1994]

Personally I was hoping for a 155 (still not great, but I feel like with that I'd have a fighting chance). Well if I were to take the subjects test, it would have to be in biochemistry (since that is the field I am applying for). However, all the biochemistry knowledge I have is self taught. My chemistry program required no bio or biochem classes, so I don't know how well I will do on that. Again, I've sorta already ruled out top notch schools, my GPA is meh, and now with the GRE there may not even be a possibility they will look at my rec letters. But I feel as if for some lesser schools, combined with my ok GPA and ok GRE, I might have a chance there. I am considering to take it again, but the $200 is actually a considerable financial burden on my current situation (which is also why I am looking at PhD programs and not Masters). If I can avoid taking it, then that is definitely the option I would choose, but if I have to, then I could arrange one more attempt. 

This is one of the reasons I came on here (aside from trying to make my depression feel better), I wanted to see whether my score was even acceptable with the rest of my credentials. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by samman1994

[hj2012]

I realize that the grad school application process is very stressful. If you are still a student, I recommend that you reach out to counseling services at your university - that can be really helpful. You should know, though, that PhD students face significant mental health challenges -- it might be worthwhile taking some time to recover from the stress of undergrad before committing to an even more difficult program. 

Also, it seems like you have good relationships with your mentors. The best way to confirm if you should retake or not is to ask your advisor(s) what score to aim for - they'll have more field-specific knowledge about the admissions process. You might also ask them to recommend programs in your area of interest and put you in contact with POIs -- making those connections is another way to mitigate "below average" scores. 

In any case, there's no reason for doom and gloom. You are likely very young, and you have plenty of time to rethink strategies, make connections, get more research experience, and yes, even retake the GRE if that ends up being the best path forward. 

[samman1994]

Well I am taking a year off technically (I'm applying this year to enroll for next year, but I already graduated). Secondly, my PI is a very.... high standards type of person (this is one of the reasons why I have the letters that I do and have the work ethic I've developed). She was a top notch student in all of her classes/field so she expects the same out of everyone in her lab (she has repeatedly told me I need to improve my GPA). On a research lab basis (conducting research in her lab), I have definitely reached her standard. On an academic level however I have not. Her response would probably be, I should retake it and get the highest score possible and apply to top notch programs. Again, her belief in me stems from my ability to work in a research lab (which I have no doubt for a PhD I wouldn't have a problem in that field), but my application itself isn't very strong. Which is why I'm riding primarily on the letters themselves. Also, what is a POI? I assume it means something along the line of other professors from different schools she has worked with or knows?

Edited August 11, 2017 by samman1994

[rphilos]

16 hours ago, samman1994 said:

I had initially hoped that with a good GRE score, ok GPA, and great letters, I might have a chance at a really good university (Cal Tech, Berkley, UCLA, UCSD, etc.)...

I'm an average student at best, but a good worker...

The programs you're aiming for generally recruit people from the top 1%, if not the top 0.1 or 0.01%, of academic ability. Even if it were possible for you to be admitted, would you really feel good about being in an environment where your peers will be much more academic? It sounds like you would be a valuable member of a lab as a technician. You don't need a PhD to be a technician.

[samman1994]

2 minutes ago, rphilos said:

The programs you're aiming for generally recruit people from the top 1%, if not the top 0.1 or 0.01%, of academic ability. Even if it were possible for you to be admitted, would you really feel good about being in an environment where your peers will be much more academic? It sounds like you would be a valuable member of a lab as a technician. You don't need a PhD to be a technician.

I don't want to stop just as a lab technician. A lab technician does not get paid much, and is usually stuck in academia (you could do industry lab technician, but then you borderline QA or errand boy for the actual research team). My eventual desire is to have a significant role/impact in the discovery of cures for various diseases. I am not completely opposed to a Masters (aside from financially), they do have an important role in research in the Industry, but the PhD is the one who directs projects and comes up with new and innovative ideas. I want to have an active role in the pharma industry, which I believe I can only really achieve with a PhD. Also, my entire undergrad has been an in environment where my peers were more academic. That has only increased my desire/drive to compete and do better, to reach their level. My test taking skills may be poor, but it is not due to a lack of understanding and learning a subject. I do honestly believe if I got into a .1% program, I would be able to (at least on a research basis), not only reach the standards of my peers but potentially excel past them as well. 

Just a quick backstory, so you get an understanding of where I come from. I joined my previous research lab when I was a sophmore undergrad. When I joined I had only taken general chemistry and algebra 2 at the time. I worked with 5 master students and 1 undergrad(or rather alongside them, nobody else worked on my project). These students were good students (the undergrad graduated with a 4.0 in Biochemistry with a bunch of scholarships), one of the masters went to UC Davis with a fellowship, the other to City of Hope. The rest are still there. Within 2 years of working at that lab, I acquired the most data, had the most success and made the most... I guess you could say connections regarding my data (I individually created a mechanism for selectivity between 2 proteins), so much so that I went to multiple conferences and presented said data whereas my associates were all still struggling with their projects. It primarily came down to time and effort. I read a lot of papers, a lot on my project, and a lot on biochem, cell, and molecular bio. I spent a lot of time analyzing my data coming up with different ideas and trying to connect the dots (sometimes even outside the lab if I hadn't answered the questions in the lab). I don't wish to sound too full of myself, but this is why I have attracted the attention that i have, and why I have the confidence that I have. I don't find my peers to be any less intellectual or hard working. I think they are very hard working and dedicated to their projects. I have had probably around 50+ people see my research, and they all asked me what my plans were after my undergrad and whether I considered their school as an applicant for PhD programs (yes I am an idiot and never jotted their names or information down). Anyways, I think it is my personality in the work force that pushes me above the rest, which is why I believe I have a shot at competing at a higher level. However, I do understand the shortcoming of my application, and where my flaws lie. I am not the best academically great by any standards, and I do understand why academically I wouldn't have a chance at getting into the .1% of schools. Again, that would be my desire, but I do have to be realistic and aim for a bit... lower than that. But I just wanted to give you an idea of why I want to shoot higher, and why I believe I have a chance to do so. 

[hj2012]

1 hour ago, samman1994 said:

 Her response would probably be, I should retake it and get the highest score possible and apply to top notch programs.

Then this is probably the best course of action. It seems like you have a strong work ethic. I imagine that you can get your GRE scores to an acceptable range if you apply the same amount of effort to the GRE as you have to research. You should know that succeeding in grad school is *not* only about research -- there's courses, written and oral exams, and a fair bit of politicking/networking. I know excellent researchers who failed comprehensive or qualifying exams (which often involve studying material that is not related to one's research) because they were not strong academic performers. You're applying to be a professional student -- and a high GPA/GRE is one indicator that you can succeed in that endeavor.

2 hours ago, samman1994 said:

Also, what is a POI? I assume it means something along the line of other professors from different schools she has worked with or knows?

Sorry for the "grad cafe" lingo -- POI refers to a professor who might be a potential advisor in the future. Making those personal connections might be one way to at least make sure someone looks at your application and doesn't toss it out based on your stats.

[samman1994]

1 hour ago, hj2012 said:

Then this is probably the best course of action. It seems like you have a strong work ethic. I imagine that you can get your GRE scores to an acceptable range if you apply the same amount of effort to the GRE as you have to research. You should know that succeeding in grad school is *not* only about research -- there's courses, written and oral exams, and a fair bit of politicking/networking. I know excellent researchers who failed comprehensive or qualifying exams (which often involve studying material that is not related to one's research) because they were not strong academic performers. You're applying to be a professional student -- and a high GPA/GRE is one indicator that you can succeed in that endeavor.

Sorry for the "grad cafe" lingo -- POI refers to a professor who might be a potential advisor in the future. Making those personal connections might be one way to at least make sure someone looks at your application and doesn't toss it out based on your stats.

My main issue with the GRE just comes down to time. On the untimed versions, I score near perfect scores (for quant at least), on the timed (actual GRE), I was unable to answer 7 problems in the first section (which is probably why I got the score I got). The problem is taking multiple years of math creates a sort of... mathematical thinking. I look at each problem as something completely new, and try to assess the best approach, not based on common approaches, but based off scratch (i.e. lets try and create an equation for this problem, lets try to solve said equation etc.). I find this approach superior, since there are few math problems I cannot solve in this manner. However, with the GRE, you don't have the time to approach each question with that approach, you have to learn which questions to skip (the ones that appear to consume time or are hard), and which questions to use straight up plug in chug. In all honesty, I have been a bit stubborn in my approach for the quant section of the GRE. I feel as if memorizing quick techniques and solving problems, is a terrible representation/demonstration of math skills, and at least for my way of thinking, 20 steps backwards. I don't really think  I can get rid of that approach in a matter of a few weeks either (its sorta been hardwired into me after multiple years of math). I have seen repeatedly for this reason, it appears other majors that aren't math heavy actually do better than those that are. I decided (while I was studying for this) to ask a variety of my friends who have taken it (ranging from English and Film majors, to physics and engineering majors) about their average quant scores. Almost 9 times out of 10 the English and Film majors had a better quant score. The math heavy majors had a very similar tale to mine, they knew the math, just not enough time to do it. Anyways, the verbal I could probably bring up higher by learning more vocab word, but I feel as if that score is already fine. If possible, I would like to retake the GRE, but I just wanted to know my chances as I stand now. 

[hj2012]

2 hours ago, samman1994 said:

 If possible, I would like to retake the GRE, but I just wanted to know my chances as I stand now. 

Every applicant is unique and I can't really speak to your individual profile...but if we are generalizing, your chances at a top 50 program are probably lower than you'd like. Magoosh publishes ranges for GRE scores (though I think this might include master's programs?) if it helps to give you a ballpark estimate: here and here 

And if we're discussing anecdotal data...my partner is a PhD student in a similar science program at a university that you've mentioned above. While it's possible that students with lower scores tend not to discuss the GRE, I've heard numerous times in social settings that "everybody" in top STEM PhD programs scores a 160+ on the Q. This was also the advice doled out by STEM PhD students while I was working last year in an undergraduate mentorship program. While I don't think this is universally true, it does reflect to a certain extent the attitude surrounding the GRE at many top programs -- that it's an easy, high-school level math test that anyone with basic competency should be able to tackle. 

Anyway, my approach to admissions (and my advice to my undergraduates) is to improve the elements you can (e.g. GRE) since there's less you can do for other weaknesses (e.g. GPA). Of course it is possible that you are particularly extraordinary in comparison to other PhD students, but I personally find it unhelpful to assume this as fact. 

[samman1994]

23 minutes ago, hj2012 said:

Every applicant is unique and I can't really speak to your individual profile...but if we are generalizing, your chances at a top 50 program are probably lower than you'd like. Magoosh publishes ranges for GRE scores (though I think this might include master's programs?) if it helps to give you a ballpark estimate: here and here 

And if we're discussing anecdotal data...my partner is a PhD student in a similar science program at a university that you've mentioned above. While it's possible that students with lower scores tend not to discuss the GRE, I've heard numerous times in social settings that "everybody" in top STEM PhD programs scores a 160+ on the Q. This was also the advice doled out by STEM PhD students while I was working last year in an undergraduate mentorship program. While I don't think this is universally true, it does reflect to a certain extent the attitude surrounding the GRE at many top programs -- that it's an easy, high-school level math test that anyone with basic competency should be able to tackle. 

Anyway, my approach to admissions (and my advice to my undergraduates) is to improve the elements you can (e.g. GRE) since there's less you can do for other weaknesses (e.g. GPA). Of course it is possible that you are particularly extraordinary in comparison to other PhD students, but I personally find it unhelpful to assume this as fact. 

I understand. That appears to be the general consensus from what I've seen as well. This is one of the reasons I ruled out some of the top schools, and am looking at below the 50+ schools now. The way I look at it (which could be wrong since I'm not in a PhD program), if I do get into a PhD program at some lesser known university (e.g. say some University in Utah or something), assuming the research fits my interests, then my goal is accomplished already. I know a couple people in the industry right now that got their PhD's at lesser known universities (some even out of the country), that have prosperous careers. I will attempt to take the GRE again, but as it stands now, I don't think my application is worth sending to top 50+ universities anyways (unless my next GRE score is godlike or something). 

Personally, I don't understand how a high GRE but low GPA would be more valuable. The GRE can easily be perfected with enough time and money (enough tutoring sessions, memorizing its format). It is a standardized test after all. If anything, I'd imagine the GRE should simply reflect your GPA (which, considering my usual scores aside from the real GRE, seem to do so). Again, at best I'm a slightly above average student academically, where I excel is more in the application/work. And even if I get into a below 50+ university, I think my work ethic should show through when I'm within the program, so I could still make a name/reputation/network for myself there as well to prepare for the industry. During my gap year I am planning to get a research job, and should obtain good networking there as well. I don't know, I havn't actually been in a PhD program, so all this is speculation on my part. Anyways, thank you for taking the time to evaluate my chances and respond to my inquiries! 

Edited August 12, 2017 by samman1994