GRE & Schools That Auto-Eliminate

[CogNeuroGuy]

I think most of us can attest to the dread of the GRE and the weight given to this particular piece of criteria in the admissions process for graduate school. With several doctoral programs within the applied fields of psychology, every school operates differently in terms of admissions. Given this, I can personally vouch for a handful of schools in Texas (in particular, North Texas) that explicitly utilize the GRE as the first criteria to weed out applicants to ultimately decide who will be placed in the Excel spreadsheet that will eventually pass in front of faculty members/ admissions committee. While most websites will provide a disclaimer on the variation of "we do not automatically dismiss applicants based on any one criteria," it is counter intuitive to proclaim this idea while dismissing applicants from being considered based on probably the most notorious criteria of all, the GRE.

My question becomes; Do you have personal experience with programs that utilize this approach? For faculty or admissions committee members: Do you review every applicant, or is it already condensed prior to getting the "spreadsheet" (or any other form of aggregation)?

Possibly it could be isolated to types of fields (i.e. microbiology vs. psychology, etc.), my husband had applied to UTSW's Ph.D. in Microbiology a couple of years ago and was ultimately denied admissions, to gain feedback for future applications we asked the administrator some of the reasons why he was denied. The very first thing she had mentioned was that they had utilized the GRE to weed out applicants before they ever constructed an Excel spreadsheet to pass to faculty members. After that, I realized that was pretty unfair to proclaim one statement yet the actions displayed were the opposite. If in fact he had a "holistic" chance in evaluation, they would have seen his professorships, publications, conferences, GPA, advanced degrees and advanced coursework taken. Due to the GRE criteria, not one faculty member saw him, his name did not get placed on the spreadsheet.

This post is not intended for a GRE debate, mostly, it is to gain insight into people's personal experiences, to gain knowledge about programs that operate like this. In particular, I think input from fellow faculty or admissions committee members would be very helpful.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[A Blue Duck]

With several doctoral programs within the applied fields of psychology, every school operates differently in terms of admissions.

Having worked for several different PIs, the first thing I can tell you is that the variation isn't limited to the program level; professors within each program have different procedures for weeding out applicants using the GRE. So even if you attain a nice list of programs who do/do not do this, you're likely still going to run into individual faculty who vary from their program's general approach.

Unfortunately, this will never be a completely transparent issue in the application process. My advice is to keep focus on what you can control- getting the best GRE score possible for you.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Good points.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

The "WOW" factor with a GRE score in the 99th percentile will put you in a category where a number of top programs will give you a full ride. I knew someone with scores so high that he had many offers sight unseen after finishing his BS in three years. He went to Europe for two years to see the world and then went to University of Pennsylvania and finished his PhD in three years. He then was on faculty for ten years and then went back to Europe before he was forty to live the good life!

GRE scores are a deal breaker.... People that are gifted score high without breaking a sweat while others study and take it over and their scores stay the same.

And.... It is not fair, and I believe when facing reality of gaining a top graduate school program slot... Is it realistic to expect fairness? These program may have 200 or more applicants so they have to have specific cutoff scores in the review of applications, and in the end, subjective or qualitative means more than the objective and quantitative factors in selection of students.

 

[cara susanna]

I can name a lot of programs that don't use cutoffs (or they do but the minimum is low), because that was a subset that I specifically targeted when I applied back in the day.

 

[aw34r]

Cara Susanna, would you please pm me the programs?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Most programs to which I applied stated that they had a minimum that was imposed by the graduate school (usually 1000 on the old scale), but that beyond this, no hard-and-fast cut-offs existed. My experiences with various labs at my own program were in line with this--no faculty of whom I was aware instituted their own automatic cut scores above and beyond whatever the grad school required. Some folks paid more or less attention to the scores, but none outright cut an application based solely on the GRE.

The same criteria existed for GPA (I think my program's cut-off was 3.0). Given the intra-program variability in grades, I appreciate that the GRE represents an at least somewhat level (i.e., standardized) playing field in that respect. I'd much rather have the information available than not.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, I'm ok with the use of the GRE minimum scores in conjunction with a minimum GPA. You're getting some variance that is plan old g with those measures, and to succeed in a reputable program, you need a certain level of g. When that falls below a minimum bar, all the hard work in the world ain't gonna get you there. However, trying to distinguish between people when they are already above a decent threshold is where some of the predictive validity starts to trend much lower (i.e., objective measures of success between those at the 80th% vs the 90th%).

 

[MCParent]

Most programs to which I applied stated that they had a minimum that was imposed by the graduate school (usually 1000 on the old scale)

This is correct. When you apply to a traditional program, you are typically not technically admitted to the program you apply to--you are admitted to the graduate school. The graduate school can have their own rules for admittance, including these cutoffs, and wouldn't approve the admission of students who fall below them. Like AA, every cutoff I've seen has been fairly low. WN is also right that there is utility in using the GRE and GPA as a rough guideline for achievement (barring something like UG with known rampant grade inflation disturbing the GPA, etc). Research on the predictive ability of the GRE and GPA support it, though certainly the relationships are weaker b/c of a floor effect (i.e., only people with better scores ever get into grad school to have their grad school performance assessed, so the correlation is weaker).

 

[WisNeuro]

True, and the GRE is much better at predicting g and achievement over and above undergrad GPA. Likely because of the inflation issue.

 

[EmotRegulation]

I would prefer to NOT weed out based on GRE, but there are cutoffs at my institution related to funding available to graduate students. Therefore, although the spreadsheet I receive has every student on it and I DO look at any student who mentions my name in their application, I don't seriously consider students who are below that cutoff. It's not because I don't want to give them a chance; I have serious doubts about the GRE and it's utility. However, the funding situation just isn't great for students below that line, and I want to be able to ensure full/adequate funding for students I admit into my lab (and thus into the program).

 

[psychrat]

Yeah, I'm ok with the use of the GRE minimum scores in conjunction with a minimum GPA. You're getting some variance that is plan old g with those measures, and to succeed in a reputable program, you need a certain level of g. When that falls below a minimum bar, all the hard work in the world ain't gonna get you there. However, trying to distinguish between people when they are already above a decent threshold is where some of the predictive validity starts to trend much lower (i.e., objective measures of success between those at the 80th% vs the 90th%).

What about the fact that many minority groups do not score as high as other groups on the GRE? As a minority student who did not do stellar on the GRE (and luckily still got into a solid university-based PhD program), I think so many other factors are involved in what makes a good applicant.

 

[WisNeuro]

What about the fact that many minority groups do not score as high as other groups on the GRE? As a minority student who did not do stellar on the GRE (and luckily still got into a solid university-based PhD program), I think so many other factors are involved in what makes a good applicant.

Notice I did say minimum scores. When you're dealing with a few hundred applications for about 5-6 spots, you need some minimum criteria to weed out people that will likely not be able to cut it in graduate school.

 

[psychrat]

Notice I did say minimum scores. When you're dealing with a few hundred applications for about 5-6 spots, you need some minimum criteria to weed out people that will likely not be able to cut it in graduate school.

I agree to an extent. If scores are extremely low there may be reason for concern, but feel that there should be some flexibility. The GRE is not an IQ test, and some people just do not test well on those types of tests, including many minority students. I was a little below what my school had listed as minimum, but addressed it in my personal statement. I had so many other strengths to my application (which did not include a test I took on a random Saturday morning).

 

[WisNeuro]

It's not an IQ test per se, but it does tap into g to some extent. In the end with a large enough application pool you have to skim off some of the applications. Depending on your cut scores, you have different types of errors. On one end you could eliminate some candidates who may succeed well in your program, On the other end, you could rule in people who will not do well and cost several years of a lot of invested time and money. You have to weigh the options depending on where your priorities are.

The thing is, other indicators are just as bad at predictive value in the application as the GRE. Yes, they should be taken holistically, but, if your scores are atrocious, I'm not sure I want to take the chance on wasting the time and effort to train/mentor someone if they are a greater chance of not making it through grad school.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yeah, it's mostly a matter of trying to gather as much information and make as informed a decision as possible so that you can sort through literally hundreds of what are essentially unknown quantities (i.e., applicants). The GRE helps to shed some standardized light on said unknown quantities so that you have some semblance of an objective frame of reference. Other ways of providing such a frame include some that have been mentioned--if the person's actually been able to demonstrate research competence/acumen, if the person has worked with a known colleague (or the faculty member her/himself) and done well, etc.

All applicants are going to say that they really, really want to be in grad school; that they really, really feel like they can succeed; and that they really, really are going to work their hardest to make it through. Heck, even many of their recommendation letters are going to sound very similar. Because of that, you basically just need to find ways to skew the decision-making odds in your favor, preferably based on metrics that are derived from some sort of actual demonstration of competence (rather than report about a demonstration). The GRE provides one such way of doing so.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Yeah, it's mostly a matter of trying to gather as much information and make as informed a decision as possible so that you can sort through literally hundreds of what are essentially unknown quantities (i.e., applicants). The GRE helps to shed some standardized light on said unknown quantities so that you have some semblance of an objective frame of reference. Other ways of providing such a frame include some that have been mentioned--if the person's actually been able to demonstrate research competence/acumen, if the person has worked with a known colleague (or the faculty member her/himself) and done well, etc.

All applicants are going to say that they really, really want to be in grad school; that they really, really feel like they can succeed; and that they really, really are going to work their hardest to make it through. Heck, even many of their recommendation letters are going to sound very similar. Because of that, you basically just need to find ways to skew the decision-making odds in your favor, preferably based on metrics that are derived from some sort of actual demonstration of competence (rather than report about a demonstration). The GRE provides one such way of doing so.

Would you say that other qualities to offset the GRE are things like publications (especially in higher tiered journals), conference posters (1st or second authorships) at notable and higher tiered conferences?

 

[WisNeuro]

Pubs in higher tired journals and posters definitely can offset a lower score, but that comes with a caveat. Authorship order matters. There are some research machines that pump out a lot of stuff and include a lot of people on things. If you were say the 5th author on a pub, chances are you didn't do much, if any, of the writing, so I still don't know how good your skills are there.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Would you say that other qualities to offset the GRE are things like publications (especially in higher tiered journals), conference posters (1st or second authorships) at notable and higher tiered conferences?

As WisNeuro mentioned, there are definite caveats, but yep, pubs and presentations represent one of the ways of demonstrating competence that I mentioned above. Basically, you're saying, "hey, I may not have done great on the GRE, but I can conduct and complete research projects appropriately."

There is something to be said for just basic test-taking ability as well, since you're going to face all sorts of high-stakes examinations in grad school, for licensing, and for boarding. But the content areas covered are at least more psychology-related that stuff on the GRE.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

As WisNeuro mentioned, there are definite caveats, but yep, pubs and presentations represent one of the ways of demonstrating competence that I mentioned above. Basically, you're saying, "hey, I may not have done great on the GRE, but I can conduct and complete research projects appropriately."

There is something to be said for just basic test-taking ability as well, since you're going to face all sorts of high-stakes examinations in grad school, for licensing, and for boarding. But the content areas covered are at least more psychology-related that stuff on the GRE.

I would agree, and it's unfortunate that many programs or faculty members won't even see these qualities. They have already judged a book by its cover.

 

[WisNeuro]

The thing is though, most of the application is the jacket cover of the book. Any one piece can be taken in isolation and torn apart in relation to its predictive validity. People may hate the GRE, but they can't produce anything better in that application to make judgments on.

 

[Ollie123]

I pretty much agree with what most have said...the GRE is a factor. Cutoffs probably shouldn't be absolute but this is often out of the hands of the actual program (i.e. the grad school at large makes a decision), though schoolwide cutoffs seemed to be very low (i.e. 1000 old scale - sorry, not familiar with the new scale). GRE does seem to have some predictive validity for grad school outcomes (albeit not a wildly robust effect) and as others have suggested does probably tap into general intelligence to some degree. Someone above mentioned the issues of minorities not doing as well...the effect size for this is actually smaller than you might think (at least from the research I've read), so truthfully its probably a very small percent of individuals who it would impact, though there is of course the issue of interpreting the translation from group to individual impact (i.e. a small group difference can be driven by most people being unaffected and a few who are dramatically affected). Anyways, the broader point is that I do believe most schools will take this into consideration when looking at applications, but a miserable GRE score is never just going to be ignored and it needs to be taken seriously. A low score needs to be "made up" for and just how much/what is needed depends on the individual program/faculty and how low a score.

The way it worked at my program (and several others I know) is top applicants get forwarded to a POI. Every applicant who does not make the cut is still reviewed by someone on faculty. Those with mitigating factors get pulled back into the pool. So someone with fantastic experience, a high GPA from a solid institution, etc. is not necessarily eliminated from consideration just because they missed the GRE cutoff by a few points. However, the key seems to be that at that point the burden of proof is on them to have impressive enough credentials to overcome a low GRE. Once it is in the hands of the actual POIs, most seem to pay very little attention to it (though I'm sure this varies) since likely everyone has passed the "this person seems like they have what it takes" test and it gets into more nuanced factors. Admissions is competitive and everything is taken into consideration. I was very upset about my GRE score and know it kept me from getting interviewed at several programs. I didn't even do that badly by objective standards (1250 old scale), but significantly lower than I was anticipating and low enough my other credentials were not enough to make up for it. It stinks, but that's the reality of competitive fields. Don't think it ends with admission, things like that will be ongoing throughout life!

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

The thing is though, most of the application is the jacket cover of the book. Any one piece can be taken in isolation and torn apart in relation to its predictive validity. People may hate the GRE, but they can't produce anything better in that application to make judgments on.

I can definitely empathize with the idea that there is not a more efficient method to evaluate such a wide array of variables for a potential applicant, considering there are hundreds of them. I also realize that many programs tend to side on the more conservative end of evaluation (i.e. limiting substantially how many people could be considered vs. limiting an even great amount of potential disappointing applicants), it brings up to mind the whole Signal Detection Theory where by beta is moved over to the right to limit the overall amount of "hits" but vastly limiting the amount of potential false alarms in the data. In this case, we could argue that the amount of "hits" refers to overall applicants and "false alarms" refers to poor students/ poor choices of applicants.

I think the whole idea that taking components of the GRE to individually predict a person's capabilities is not entirely correct. As you may know, there are many portions of cognition that simply cannot be accurately quantified, but we make our best "run" at it. There are situational factors that greatly contribute to a person's fit for a program. Personally, I know that I am more on the "slower" end of things when it comes to learning something new...that's a fact I have to deal with and a disability that won't go away, however, I have made great strides in compensating for these deficiencies and have over come many barriers via alternative routes to achieving a goal. I think taking a pure quantitative approach to evaluating a potential applicant really dismisses other qualities the person presents in terms of compensatory strategies to learning. To me, if I were taking a purely objective "looking glass" perspective on the admissions process, it seems to me that it publicly favors a very set specific type of person despite the underlying operations many programs utilize.

I suppose I had figured that as a psychologists, they would be aware of the skewness of people's behavior, intellect, etc. I think we have a huge advantage to really cherish the idea of diversity and "no one correct pathway" as an academic and applied field. I suppose at the end of it...the real message conveyed is: you may need to yet again find another career, despite vast improvements and compensating methods to attaining professional goals.

 

[WisNeuro]

There are a couple of premises that aren't entirely correct there. Admissions doesn't take the GRE alone to individually predict someone's capabilities. In a sense, it is merely a gatekeeper. A minimum low bar that must be met. As psychologist's we are well aware of cognitive abilities and differences. We are also aware that verbal ability remains the best overall predictor of those abilities.


When it comes down to it, we need several "quick and dirty" predictors to choose an applicant. Sure, we could measure everything under the sun and invite applicants to a theoretical "Clinical Psych Combine" where we measure everything under the sun and make some decisions, but where's the feasibility in that? Are there different pathways to the field, undoubtedly. But, it is a demanding field, and to graduate from a respectable institution with a good foundation of what you need to be a scientist-practitioner, you need to have a certain level of ability. Hard work is a necessary, but not sufficient, component.

 

[CogNeuroGuy]

Good points, and I am very familiar with the quick and dirty routines with my mentor . At the end of it, the biggest thing I think I can focus on is applying to a lot of programs, I think I will split it between Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs, especially lower tiered programs. I have a goal in mind to be a psychologist and I think for me, this will have to be the alternative path I take to achieve that goal.

 

[Ollie123]

I would say the take-home message is that programs do their best to take both quantitative and qualitative factors into consideration. However, graduate admissions is competitive and if you are lacking on one criterion (i.e. GRE) you don't get a free pass, you have to make up for it. Rather than being conservative, my impression is that most programs are very liberal when it comes to the quantitative measures.

I'm not sure the system is any more unfair to individuals who do poorly on the GRE with great research experience than it is to those who did great on the GRE, has a 4.0 GPA, but struggled to get good research experience for a variety of reasons (attended geographically isolated SLAC, had limited time to devote to unpaid internships, etc.). I think the person with a mediocre GRE likely has a better shot than the person with mediocre research experience at most programs.

Your strategy of diversifying applications seems reasonable. I'd also be realistic in where you applied - unless you are stellar on every criterion, Yale, UW, Wisconsin, UCLA, etc. are probably reaches. However, there are many programs with outstanding training that are still competitive..but not to the same degree.

 

[dudenkem]

I can name a lot of programs that don't use cutoffs (or they do but the minimum is low), because that was a subset that I specifically targeted when I applied back in the day.

Do you have a link of schools that do have use cutoffs?

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

There is not any type of lists as I believe most have a minimum score and there is both graduate school admissions and program admissions requirements.

Of course there are exceptions. If your grandfather is a State senator but you have low GRE, chances are good of being accepted.

Oh... There is such a thing as "luck."

 

[EmotRegulation]

Of course there are exceptions. If your grandfather is a State senator but you have low GRE, chances are good of being accepted.

Oh... There is such a thing as "luck."

I personally know of no faculty member who would admit a student to a doctoral program in psychology because their grandfather is a state senator or some other kind of celebrity. It's just too much work to mentor someone for 5+ years (much longer, realistically, considering collaborations are likely to continue beyond grad school) without some indication that the student will be helpful to your own research program and/or successful. Suggesting so is kind of insulting, actually.

Having exactly zero data on the subject other than movies (Admission?) I understand this kind of thing happens at the undergrad level. I also don't doubt random one-off exceptions for how/why people got into graduate school. But "luck" and "celebrity connections" are not the mode.

 

[southernpsych7]

When it comes down to it, we need several "quick and dirty" predictors to choose an applicant. Sure, we could measure everything under the sun and invite applicants to a theoretical "Clinical Psych Combine" where we measure everything under the sun and make some decisions, but where's the feasibility in that?.

May not be feasible but I would love to watch applicants run the 40 yard dash.... I agree with the majority of posts that view this as something to set a minimum bar. Unfortunately I think some potentially good people who don't test well for whatever reason could get lost in that shuffle but there is little other way to begin to weed through applicants. When I was searching I saw schools who publish their minimums on their admission page but know that (in my experience) the true minimum can be higher for a cut off based on the applicant pool.

 

[psychRA]

I don't remember whether my program stated this in the admissions materials, but we had a GRE and a GPA cutoff that were applied by the graduate school. Applications that didn't make that cut weren't forwarded to the department, so we never saw them. If an applicant fell below that threshold but identified themselves as a minority, the GRE cutoff was not applied, and their application would be forwarded to the department so that someone could take a second look.

At least in my program,the GRE didn't carry much weight in the process, other than as an initial weed out. A 99th percentile score wouldn't be enough to help someone with zero publications, and an applicant with a 1500 (old school) GRE with limited research experience would be less desirable than an applicant with a 1250 and a solid research track record.