Should I retake GRE?

[SBL]

Hey all,

Was hoping to get your ever so useful advice on something. I know this probably belongs in the GRE forum but I wanted to get the specific perspective of poli sci applicants and it will get a much better hit rate here.

As you can no doubt deduce from my signature, I will be applying for programs again next year. But given limited resources and time pressures, I will probably need to be selective as to where I direct efforts to improve my application.

I'm wondering if I should retake the GRE or instead direct my energies elsewhere.

My scores are V620 (89%), Q760 (85%), AQ6.0 (98%)

The verbal score is pretty low compared to a lot I see here, and certainly below the averages of your HPS-type schools. But according to places like Berkeley, I am well within range (their average is 80%+ in each section).

Do you think any benefits from improving my verbal will be negligible or could putting up the higher score be a determining factor that gets me past the first cut?

Thanks for any input.

[curufinwe]

I've heard often that, as long as you are over 600 for verbal and over 700 for quantitative, you will be alright. Though if you will apply to the same schools in your signature again, then a verbal over 700 and quantitative over 750 would be the ideal, especially if your native language is English.

I would suggest you to work on (and given my results, I will have to apply next year as well and will do the same) write a good writing sample. My writing sample was just one paper for one class. So it was superficial and weak. Plus, unless you are done with school as of now, try to take classes from nice people that you can impress so that you can ask for their rec. letters. Remember, they need to go on and on and on as to how great you are in their letters. If you assume your recommenders did not write more than half a page, this would be the smart thing to do.

Edited February 24, 2010 by curufinwe

[SBL]

Thanks very much. The main problem with my letters of rec are that I had to have one from my employer (which is in an IR field, but not academic). The ones from my professors however (my undergrad thesis advisor and my master's thesis advisor) would have been very good. In fact, I used the same 3 individuals whose recommendations made me a finalist for a major national scholarship that would have paid for some of my phd.

My writing sample was a selection from my master's thesis, the highest scoring piece of work I've ever written. That said, it was a historical piece and didn't demonstrate extensive knowledge of formal poli sci methods etc (was very qualitative). It was however all original research and the subject matter had not been written on previously, so I thought that would be a good illustration of my research abilities. Maybe I should go in with a critical piece next time, one that furthers a subject that has been written on?

Maybe landing an RA position would be a better boost, I really don't know.

[curufinwe]

Thanks very much. The main problem with my letters of rec are that I had to have one from my employer (which is in an IR field, but not academic). The ones from my professors however (my undergrad thesis advisor and my master's thesis advisor) would have been very good. In fact, I used the same 3 individuals whose recommendations made me a finalist for a major national scholarship that would have paid for some of my phd.

My writing sample was a selection from my master's thesis, the highest scoring piece of work I've ever written. That said, it was a historical piece and didn't demonstrate extensive knowledge of formal poli sci methods etc (was very qualitative). It was however all original research and the subject matter had not been written on previously, so I thought that would be a good illustration of my research abilities. Maybe I should go in with a critical piece next time, one that furthers a subject that has been written on?

Maybe landing an RA position would be a better boost, I really don't know.

All I can see in your profile is that you lack the methodology side. I mean, I don't know if you have specified that you will do quantitative, but that seems like the way to go these days.

[SBL]

All I can see in your profile is that you lack the methodology side. I mean, I don't know if you have specified that you will do quantitative, but that seems like the way to go these days.

Yeah, I'd like to mix them, but I don't have any formal quant training. I thought this was the point of the first two years in a program - to train you in the methods you require to pursue your research interests fully. If I'm expected to have it all before I get there that will be problematic. If the the point of a program isn't to train you but just to have you publish a dissertation at the end, I might as well do a phd in my country and be done in three years (I was offered a fully funded one at my last institution but turned it down as I wanted a program that would actually train me and not just facilitate dissertation writing).

[Penelope Higgins]

Knowing nothing else but what the OP posted, my sense is that the letters are a problem here. As an admissions committee member, I would wonder why the applicant can't get a third letter from a faculty member (either from their undergrad or their MA) and has to get a letter from an employer. You need letters from academics to apply to a PhD program - or at least from people who have a PhD in a relevant field and can write about your academic potential. If I were to look at your file, it would be the letters and not the test scores that would hurt you. I would, therefore, worry less about retaking the GREs and more about getting new, better, letters in your file. The writing sample is probably fine - though its purely qualitative nature won't help you in some departments or subfields, what we want to see is original research done well and situated in the relevant literature. If you're confident that you've done that, you should be fine on that front.

All I can see in your profile is that you lack the methodology side. I mean, I don't know if you have specified that you will do quantitative, but that seems like the way to go these days.

[SBL]

Knowing nothing else but what the OP posted, my sense is that the letters are a problem here. As an admissions committee member, I would wonder why the applicant can't get a third letter from a faculty member (either from their undergrad or their MA) and has to get a letter from an employer. You need letters from academics to apply to a PhD program - or at least from people who have a PhD in a relevant field and can write about your academic potential. If I were to look at your file, it would be the letters and not the test scores that would hurt you. I would, therefore, worry less about retaking the GREs and more about getting new, better, letters in your file. The writing sample is probably fine - though its purely qualitative nature won't help you in some departments or subfields, what we want to see is original research done well and situated in the relevant literature. If you're confident that you've done that, you should be fine on that front.

Thanks very much for those thoughts. The reason I opted for a work reference is because the programs emphasized individuals who were best placed to assess my abilities. In my case this includes a work reference (intelligence analysis) as they had a much better idea of my research and writing abilities than would a random professor from a class I took years ago who probably doesn't remember me. Those professors that do remember me aren't in poli sci so that could also be a problem. In my master's I worked very closely under one professor who headed up my entire program, so there wasn't much opportunity to work with others anyway.

I wish departments would just outright say on their websites that they wont accept references from non-academics, rather than specify "those best placed to assess". Had I known of GradCafe before, this wouldn't have been a problem

Regarding the writing sample, it couldn't be situated in any relevant literature, as as I mentioned, it was on an esoteric subject not written on previously. It was however all original research - and done pretty well given my advisor loved it and will probably be using some of the research in an upcoming book. I guess the best step here would be to create another original research paper but use quant methods in it as a demonstration of capability.

[Penelope Higgins]

Two quick responses, which represent my two cents about how I look at files:

First, research and writing for intelligence analysis is not the same as academic research and writing. They require different set of skills, and the ability to do the former tells me little about the ability to do the latter. And I say this as someone who has taught at times in my career some of my courses to graduate students in public policy.

Second, if your writing is on a subject not written on previously, it still must be relevant to the questions currently studied in political science. You might be applying an existing theory to a new set of issues, for example, or showing how existing theories can't explain a particular outcome or set of outcomes. If you can't situate this paper in the context of political science questions, or for the relevance of your research interests to the kinds of things political scientists study, your application is in trouble.

Thanks very much for those thoughts. The reason I opted for a work reference is because the programs emphasized individuals who were best placed to assess my abilities. In my case this includes a work reference (intelligence analysis) as they had a much better idea of my research and writing abilities than would a random professor from a class I took years ago who probably doesn't remember me. Those professors that do remember me aren't in poli sci so that could also be a problem. In my master's I worked very closely under one professor who headed up my entire program, so there wasn't much opportunity to work with others anyway.

I wish departments would just outright say on their websites that they wont accept references from non-academics, rather than specify "those best placed to assess". Had I known of GradCafe before, this wouldn't have been a problem

Regarding the writing sample, it couldn't be situated in any relevant literature, as as I mentioned, it was on an esoteric subject not written on previously. It was however all original research - and done pretty well given my advisor loved it and will probably be using some of the research in an upcoming book. I guess the best step here would be to create another original research paper but use quant methods in it as a demonstration of capability.

[SBL]

Thanks very much. I think given this, it is probably best I create a new writing sample that's a bit more mainstream and ties in other poli sci work.

Given your position, do you think it is feasible to obtain research positions with professors with whom I have not studied under previously?

[fromark17]

Hey all,

Was hoping to get your ever so useful advice on something. I know this probably belongs in the GRE forum but I wanted to get the specific perspective of poli sci applicants and it will get a much better hit rate here.

As you can no doubt deduce from my signature, I will be applying for programs again next year. But given limited resources and time pressures, I will probably need to be selective as to where I direct efforts to improve my application.

I'm wondering if I should retake the GRE or instead direct my energies elsewhere.

My scores are V620 (89%), Q760 (85%), AQ6.0 (98%)

The verbal score is pretty low compared to a lot I see here, and certainly below the averages of your HPS-type schools. But according to places like Berkeley, I am well within range (their average is 80%+ in each section).

Do you think any benefits from improving my verbal will be negligible or could putting up the higher score be a determining factor that gets me past the first cut?

Thanks for any input.

I agree with everything that has been said here and would add this:

My GRE scores were exactly the same as yours (my AW was actually lower) and I've gotten into some of my top choices. I'm not sure how much the writing sample matters in the grand scheme of things because some schools don't even require one. I would focus on getting some solid research experience, improving your statement, and getting a third strong faculty recommendation. You have to show adcoms that you know how to do academic research and are prepared for the work grad school entails.

Also, at first glance it seems like almost all the programs you applied to are extremely selective. There are really none on there that could be considered a safety. I know when you apply to 14 schools you think, "I should get into at least one right?" I was initially only planning on applying to top-20 programs, but I was worried I might strike out so I tried to include a couple safeties that I still would be happy going to. Choosing some large public schools with higher admit rates or lower ranked programs that are still good fits are a couple things you could do to improve your chances.

[natofone]

The verbal score is pretty low compared to a lot I see here, and certainly below the averages of your HPS-type schools. But according to places like Berkeley, I am well within range (their average is 80%+ in each section).

I wouldn't put too much into what these schools say on their websites. They don't always take the time to update them, so the information can be quite old.

[SBL]

This is very true. I did see Irvine as a safety school but I guess that is through my own naivety haha. I will certainly spread the net wider next time around.

I would love to apply to big state schools and indeed looked at a number of them (Berkeley was my top choice of course). I looked at not just the high ranking ones such as UCSD but also places like UCSB (I would have loved to go there). The problem for me is that I'm foreign and I cant claim state residency after my first year in the program. So the only state schools I can apply to are those that are able and willing to cover non-resident tuition for the majority of my program (such as Berkeley). This obviously isn't a problem with private schools, which is why I applied to places like Penn and Brown even though they aren't as good a fit for me as others. They have money so are actually places I could physically attend were I ever admitted.

The only schools I applied to where funding is not guaranteed (UCLA, MIT, Georgetown) were those where my fit was particualrly strong and so I hoped I would have a good shot at landing the limited funding they do offer.

If you have any suggestions of big state schools that could fund me the whole way then please do let me know. UT is a place I am looking at for next year, though again a very selective program.