No GRE Required?

[TenaciousGirl]

California School of Professional Psychology IS APA approved and does not require the GRE. Despite all of the trash talking on this site concerning professional schools, Alliant is worth checking out. Check it out for yourself and form your own opinions regarding the program.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TenaciousGirl]

It is a problem. And until someone comes up with a solid substitute for the GREs, they are likely to stay in the game.

It's been proven that the GREs are a rather a poor predictor for actual success in graduate school ( and if I am not mistaken, Robert Sternberg supports that view).

Personally, it bothers me to see that some of my brightest students ( I teach Psychology undergrad) do not stand a chance to get addmitted to doctoral programs due to being less than wonderful standardized testers. I do not have a solution for it but it is certatinly an issue that I wish programs would address.

Last semester, when I was in school, I encountered quite a few people who did well on their GREs but were still struggeling in the program; while I had no GRE scores ( and do not usually do very well on these types of tests) but had no problem keeping up. I am sure that I am not the exception to the rule. GREs, in my opinion, do not measure intelligence or graduate school readiness. All they do measure is your ability to do well on a specific test called GRE...

Just my 2 cents,

Compassionate1

THANK YOU for writing this! I have been trying to tell people this exact sentiment and no one will really listen.

 

[FahlenStar]

This is somewhat related but not totally related to this thread, but I got turned down by doctoral programs and will likely attend a Masters program first.I don't think the GRE's were the main reason I didn't get into doctoral programs but they were one of my weak areas. My question is do you feel that having a masters degree and showing you can excel in graduate school will negate the importance placed on the GRE's? I would really like to avoid having to retake them at all costs as I would much prefer to focus on psychology work then on preparing for the GRE again.

If you have other areas that you feel you were particularly weak in (such as your gpa, research experience, work experience in the field, letters of rec, etc.), then a masters degree would be a great alternative and give you some time to strengthen those areas. I am not sure if it would negate your GRE scores-it really depends on the school and how heavily they use the GRE scores for admission. You might want to consider retaking them-I have a friend who applied to all phd programs and didn't get in-he went through a masters program, retook the GREs, and now is in a phd program in behavioral neuroscience at Arizona State. =)

 

[apumic]

Originally Posted by compassionate1
It is a problem. And until someone comes up with a solid substitute for the GREs, they are likely to stay in the game.

It's been proven that the GREs are a rather a poor predictor for actual success in graduate school ( and if I am not mistaken, Robert Sternberg supports that view).

Personally, it bothers me to see that some of my brightest students ( I teach Psychology undergrad) do not stand a chance to get addmitted to doctoral programs due to being less than wonderful standardized testers. I do not have a solution for it but it is certatinly an issue that I wish programs would address.

Last semester, when I was in school, I encountered quite a few people who did well on their GREs but were still struggeling in the program; while I had no GRE scores ( and do not usually do very well on these types of tests) but had no problem keeping up. I am sure that I am not the exception to the rule. GREs, in my opinion, do not measure intelligence or graduate school readiness. All they do measure is your ability to do well on a specific test called GRE...

Just my 2 cents,

Compassionate1
THANK YOU for writing this! I have been trying to tell people this exact sentiment and no one will really listen.

Well, it's not the best predictor, no, but it does have a significantly positive correlation and enhances the GPA significantly. According to a Psi Chi article the following are the correlation coefficient values for 1st year grad school grades and the following potential admissions data points...

Undergraduate Grade Point Average (GPA) .37 GRE Psychology Test .37 GRE Aptitude: Verbal (V) .29 GRE Aptitude: Quantitative (Q) .29 GRE Aptitude: Analytical (A) .28 GRE V, Q, and A combined .33 Undergraduate GPA and Psychology Test combined .46 Undergraduate GPA and GRE V, Q, and A combined .44 All combined (GPA, Psychology Test, and GRE V, Q, and A) .50
The above would appear to at least somewhat support the use of the GRE (esp. the Psych GRE) in graduate admissions. My guess would be that the GRE will be considered an useful tool for graduate admissions until some other school-independent standard becomes available. Additionally, the GRE is often a very important factor in getting fellowships as it is a standard that crosses disciplines...

 

[Thrak]

According to a Psi Chi article the following are the correlation coefficient values for 1st year grad school grades and the following potential admissions data points...

Aside from the data being old (and the GRE having undergone at least one format change in the interim), the data seem to be for all graduate psychology students. I would dare say there's a qualitative difference between terminal MA students and PhD students in terms of the selection process. There may be differences between the areas (Clinical vs. Cognitive vs Social etc.), but I think the degree difference will be more pronounced. I don't think the two groups should be collapsed.

Also, how good are 1st year grad school grades at predicting number of publications upon attainment of the PhD, or success in predicting things like getting a tenure track position?

I realize I'm in social, not clinical, but we're told from the moment we walk in that research is of absolute primary importance, teaching is quite a bit lower, and classwork is of minor significance (i.e., don't fail).

Maybe correlating GRE scores with pubs and tenure-tracks would yield different results?

 

[cardamom]

Also, the biggest problem I see with that data is that it doesn't include the students who did not get into grad school or who did not apply due to poor GRE scores. If there is a substantial portion of the population who performs well academically and yet poorly enough on the GRE to ruin their chances at a grad program, testing the correlation between GRE scores and graduate performance would never catch it. By using grad students, they are automatically selecting students for whom the test presumably wasn't that problematic. It is possible that for students without some major problem with the standardized test format, it is fairly predictive, but for those who do have a problem with it, it is not, and thus the results would be misleading by oversampling the first group.

 

[cara susanna]

My professor told me that there is a questionnaire that's more supported for predicting grad school success than the GRE.

My problem with the GRE is the CAT, specifically. I think it decreases reliability because the type of first question you get can always change. Imagine that you're bad at sentence completion, but good at analogies. If you get an analogy vs. a sentence completion question for that first question, it could make all the difference in your score.

 

[myelin]

It is interesting to see how much weight that programs place on this test. I scored a 1070 but have 4 publications in relatively good journals (Clinical Neurophysiology, J of International Neuropsychological Assn.) and will have a MA degree in clinical psy in Aug. Yet, I was rejected from all 5 of the programs that I applied to.

It seems that the only logical reason for using general GRE scores in the selection process is to make the application pile more managable. The data clearly show weak correlations especially for what they seem to be using the test to measure: who is more likely to succeed in graduate school. It is beyond me how a program can look me in the face and tell me that they believe my GRE score is more predictive of my abilities than the above mentioned accomplishments.

It is frustrating.

 

[myelin]

This is somewhat related but not totally related to this thread, but I got turned down by doctoral programs and will likely attend a Masters program first.I don't think the GRE's were the main reason I didn't get into doctoral programs but they were one of my weak areas. My question is do you feel that having a masters degree and showing you can excel in graduate school will negate the importance placed on the GRE's? I would really like to avoid having to retake them at all costs as I would much prefer to focus on psychology work then on preparing for the GRE again.

Sadly, no, I do not believe it will negate the score. Unless you find a program that is willing to overlook your score, you will have to re-take the GRE. I was hoping to counter my score by obtaining a MA degree first. Instead, all that I did was spend 2 years and $30k to be rejected from programs again.

 

[wkupmaggie]

I just wanted to pop in and say that the University of Alaska Anchorage and the University of Alaska Fairbanks have a joint PhD program in Clinical-Community Psychology with a rural and indigenous focus. They don't require the GRE for admission. They are a new program but will seek APA accreditation as soon as they can.

 

[GradStudent87]

Sadly, no, I do not believe it will negate the score. Unless you find a program that is willing to overlook your score, you will have to re-take the GRE. I was hoping to counter my score by obtaining a MA degree first. Instead, all that I did was spend 2 years and $30k to be rejected from programs again.

Interesting, did you do anything besides just the MA to improve on your undergraduate credentials. Also I know some programs value the GRE more then others, especially I think PhD's tend to value it more then PsyD's although am not positive about that. I have heard from some people that it may help you to get a masters and prove you can do graduate work but probably not tremendously. I would hate to have to retake that test which i took twice already and waste so much time on it rather then focus on getting good research experience and clinical experiences that would actually be meaningful and valuable toward the career I want to pursue. I am very willing to retake the Psych GRE but from what i've read that doesn't seem to be valued as much as the general one, I agree with what you wrote in your other post, it is very frustrating

 

[aurisha7]

Interesting, did you do anything besides just the MA to improve on your undergraduate credentials. Also I know some programs value the GRE more then others, especially I think PhD's tend to value it more then PsyD's although am not positive about that. I have heard from some people that it may help you to get a masters and prove you can do graduate work but probably not tremendously. I would hate to have to retake that test which i took twice already and waste so much time on it rather then focus on getting good research experience and clinical experiences that would actually be meaningful and valuable toward the career I want to pursue. I am very willing to retake the Psych GRE but from what i've read that doesn't seem to be valued as much as the general one, I agree with what you wrote in your other post, it is very frustrating

I agree that it is frustrating! I am finishing up my MA right now and starting a PsyD program this fall. I took the general GRE 3 times and my score did not improve (to my dismay), and unfortunately I do think my score hurt me. I had two interviews for programs and at both they brought up my low scores. I just tried to emphasize my other strong areas and say that I do not think they represent my abilities. I pursued an MA after my bachelors and I am happy I did...my GPA improved, I got great research experience, and more clinical experience. Unfortunately, I was not able to raise my GRE score though. I think that some programs definitely do value the GRE more than others, and I am just happy that I was given a chance to interview and show that I am more than my low scores. Good luck!

 

[RileyG]

it's interesting that you assume that it is your GRE score that kept you from being accepted. 5 schools isn't very many...i applied to 16 schools in order to ensure a good match (obviously you don't have to apply to 16...i'm just saying 5 isn't very many).

Considering that one of the labs you applied to wasn't accepting students this year, that leaves 4 schools. Factoring in budget cuts and many other possible "behind the scenes" reasons, do you know that it was strictly your GRE score? Of course for some or all of the schools, it may have been the GRE score...but there's no way to know without asking the schools. Obviously if a school has strict cut-off scores, you would automatically be excluded...but I know how thorough you were with applying, and assume you checked to make sure none of the schools you applied to had strict cut-off scores...right?

It is interesting to see how much weight that programs place on this test. I scored a 1070 but have 4 publications in relatively good journals (Clinical Neurophysiology, J of International Neuropsychological Assn.) and will have a MA degree in clinical psy in Aug. Yet, I was rejected from all 5 of the programs that I applied to.

It seems that the only logical reason for using general GRE scores in the selection process is to make the application pile more managable. The data clearly show weak correlations especially for what they seem to be using the test to measure: who is more likely to succeed in graduate school. It is beyond me how a program can look me in the face and tell me that they believe my GRE score is more predictive of my abilities than the above mentioned accomplishments.

It is frustrating.

 

[myelin]

it's interesting that you assume that it is your GRE score that kept you from being accepted. 5 schools isn't very many...i applied to 16 schools in order to ensure a good match (obviously you don't have to apply to 16...i'm just saying 5 isn't very many).

Considering that one of the labs you applied to wasn't accepting students this year, that leaves 4 schools. Factoring in budget cuts and many other possible "behind the scenes" reasons, do you know that it was strictly your GRE score? Of course for some or all of the schools, it may have been the GRE score...but there's no way to know without asking the schools. Obviously if a school has strict cut-off scores, you would automatically be excluded...but I know how thorough you were with applying, and assume you checked to make sure none of the schools you applied to had strict cut-off scores...right?

All schools were accepting students. I pre-interviewed in-person at 2 of the 5 (you saw me at one of them RileyG!) and was in frequent contact with the other 3 via e-mail. 4 of the 5 schools specifically stated that other accomplishments, specifically research experience and publications, would offset low GRE/GPA. All programs specifically stated that they did not have strict GRE cut-off scores.

Although the 5 I applied to wasn't many, I was in close contact with all of them for at least 10 months. All of them knew of my GRE score and stated that they were receptive to my other accomplishments and that I had a good chance of gaining admission.

As I am sure you are aware, many programs use the general GRE as a preliminary cut-off before applications are even reviewed by the admissions committee. That is, your application reaches a secretary, they enter the applicant's "vitals" (e.g., GPA, GRE, POI) and if they don't meet a departmentally established stardard, the application isn't reviewed. Thankfully, some programs state that they review all applications regardless of credentials.

Match was excellent. I published an article with one of the POIs The others publish regularly in similar journals on similar topics.

 

[myelin]

Interesting, did you do anything besides just the MA to improve on your undergraduate credentials. Also I know some programs value the GRE more then others, especially I think PhD's tend to value it more then PsyD's although am not positive about that. I have heard from some people that it may help you to get a masters and prove you can do graduate work but probably not tremendously. I would hate to have to retake that test which i took twice already and waste so much time on it rather then focus on getting good research experience and clinical experiences that would actually be meaningful and valuable toward the career I want to pursue. I am very willing to retake the Psych GRE but from what i've read that doesn't seem to be valued as much as the general one, I agree with what you wrote in your other post, it is very frustrating

I joined a research lab as a RA. I also worked with 2 other professors on research projects. I did a neuropsych practicum. I went to an international conference to present a first-authored research project. I really tried to behaviorally bolster that GRE score in an attempt to show that I could do the work of a PhD student.

I think where I went wrong was getting my hopes up about admission. You read these forums and talk to other PhD students about their stories and think that you too have a chance. If I were to do it all over, I'd stay off this forum and replace that time with studying for the GRE. All that I've done here is bitch and moan and complain about how my score stinks.

 

[cara susanna]

Myelin, can I ask what your percentiles were? You can PM me if you want.

 

[GradStudent87]

I joined a research lab as a RA. I also worked with 2 other professors on research projects. I did a neuropsych practicum. I went to an international conference to present a first-authored research project. I really tried to behaviorally bolster that GRE score in an attempt to show that I could do the work of a PhD student.

I think where I went wrong was getting my hopes up about admission. You read these forums and talk to other PhD students about their stories and think that you too have a chance. If I were to do it all over, I'd stay off this forum and replace that time with studying for the GRE. All that I've done here is bitch and moan and complain about how my score stinks.

Yea that does sound like a lot, granted I'm still not sure if it was definitely the GRE or other wierd/unknowable factors. The more i'm reading this board the more I think the process is a little less standardized and randomn then i thought, like some people have absolutely awesome credentials(making me realize mine weren't as good as i first thought) and yet these people don't get in anywhere and then there are some who seem to have not bad but lesser credentials and get in places so it seems hard to say specific thigns one needs to do to get into a school. I have the same thing you have where I took the GRE twice and my score improved a little but not much, I don't have this idea that I would score great even if i took the test 10 times, it's not really something you can do all this intensive studying for IMO, it's either you know the stuff or you don't. I agree that I too have probably become more focused on reading this board and trying to figure out what I need to do to get into doctoral programs rather then just doing what I should be doing which is getting out there and doing stuff on the field.

 

[GradStudent87]

I agree that it is frustrating! I am finishing up my MA right now and starting a PsyD program this fall. I took the general GRE 3 times and my score did not improve (to my dismay), and unfortunately I do think my score hurt me. I had two interviews for programs and at both they brought up my low scores. I just tried to emphasize my other strong areas and say that I do not think they represent my abilities. I pursued an MA after my bachelors and I am happy I did...my GPA improved, I got great research experience, and more clinical experience. Unfortunately, I was not able to raise my GRE score though. I think that some programs definitely do value the GRE more than others, and I am just happy that I was given a chance to interview and show that I am more than my low scores. Good luck!

Yea I actually never had my lowish score brought up in interviews, I remember I was dreading the whole can you explain your GRE's score question and no one asked about it on any of my interviews. Granted i only had two of them but that's probably where I got the idea GRE isn't valued as highly as some people are claiming. Also I'm not even that sure if my scores are considered that low, since my percentiles are pretty decent but the actual number is low for what doctoral programs want.

 

[cara susanna]

They never asked me about mine, either, but it was over 1200 composite (just really low quant) so maybe that's why.

 

[RileyG]

ha, yeah I remember you...that's how I know it wasn't your GRE scores for all the schools. My lab wasn't taking anyone this year. It wasn't you...it wasn't your GRE scores...it was the lab and bad timing.

I feel like we're breaking up...it's not you, it's me.

All schools were accepting students. I pre-interviewed in-person at 2 of the 5 (you saw me at one of them RileyG!) and was in frequent contact with the other 3 via e-mail. 4 of the 5 schools specifically stated that other accomplishments, specifically research experience and publications, would offset low GRE/GPA. All programs specifically stated that they did not have strict GRE cut-off scores.

Although the 5 I applied to wasn't many, I was in close contact with all of them for at least 10 months. All of them knew of my GRE score and stated that they were receptive to my other accomplishments and that I had a good chance of gaining admission.

As I am sure you are aware, many programs use the general GRE as a preliminary cut-off before applications are even reviewed by the admissions committee. That is, your application reaches a secretary, they enter the applicant's "vitals" (e.g., GPA, GRE, POI) and if they don't meet a departmentally established stardard, the application isn't reviewed. Thankfully, some programs state that they review all applications regardless of credentials.

Match was excellent. I published an article with one of the POIs The others publish regularly in similar journals on similar topics.

 

[myelin]

myelin, can i ask what your percentiles were? You can pm me if you want.

v: 47%, q: 48%, a: 77%

keep in mind that these % indicate the % of examinees that scored below me.

 

[myelin]

ha, yeah I remember you...that's how I know it wasn't your GRE scores for all the schools. My lab wasn't taking anyone this year. It wasn't you...it wasn't your GRE scores...it was the lab and bad timing.

I feel like we're breaking up...it's not you, it's me.

Hmm, interesting. That is the exact opposite from what I was told. That is, if we are talking about the same person. I was told that they didn't have to take someone, but if they did, they wanted me specifically. I haven't heard from them in over a month so who knows. Not even a rejection letter. I've decided to move on to non-clinical programs where I can focus more on research and have a better chance of getting in.

 

[myelin]

Yea that does sound like a lot, granted I'm still not sure if it was definitely the GRE or other wierd/unknowable factors. The more i'm reading this board the more I think the process is a little less standardized and randomn then i thought, like some people have absolutely awesome credentials(making me realize mine weren't as good as i first thought) and yet these people don't get in anywhere and then there are some who seem to have not bad but lesser credentials and get in places so it seems hard to say specific thigns one needs to do to get into a school. I have the same thing you have where I took the GRE twice and my score improved a little but not much, I don't have this idea that I would score great even if i took the test 10 times, it's not really something you can do all this intensive studying for IMO, it's either you know the stuff or you don't. I agree that I too have probably become more focused on reading this board and trying to figure out what I need to do to get into doctoral programs rather then just doing what I should be doing which is getting out there and doing stuff on the field.

Indeed, the process is not nearly as linear as it seems on paper.

 

[GradStudent87]

Indeed, the process is not nearly as linear as it seems on paper.

Yea in the end there are basic credentials you need to even be considered but once you make it to the interview phase it probably comes down mainly do the bottomline, do they like you and do they think your personality/interests fit with the program. I doubt anywhere you got interview your GRE scores were a major problem. Also for heavy research programs do they have a professor taking people into their labs seems to be the big one, however I cant relate to that because none of the programs I applied to ran it like that that since they were a little more clinically focused. No matter what program though, probably the most important thing is that there are faculty there who match what you want to do.

 

[myelin]

Yea in the end there are basic credentials you need to even be considered but once you make it to the interview phase it probably comes down mainly do the bottomline, do they like you and do they think your personality/interests fit with the program. I doubt anywhere you got interview your GRE scores were a major problem. Also for heavy research programs do they have a professor taking people into their labs seems to be the big one, however I cant relate to that because none of the programs I applied to ran it like that that since they were a little more clinically focused. No matter what program though, probably the most important thing is that there are faculty there who match what you want to do.

I did not receive any formal interviews. The 2 interviews that I went on were pre-interviews in December that I setup. They both went very well. I also made sure that the POI was taking students, no formal GRE cutoff, just about anything else that you could think of, I asked ahead of time. All of the doors seemed to be open. I dropped 2 schools off my list because the POIs decided to not take students.

Bla bla bla I can go on for days about how depressing it has all been. I'm sure there are plenty of other students on here who are in the same boat, experiencing similar emotions. You can also see the opposite end on this forum where people with 1400+ GRE scores, publications, excellent LOR, etc. get rejected from all programs. It's just a strange process.

 

[GradStudent87]

I did not receive any formal interviews. The 2 interviews that I went on were pre-interviews in December that I setup. They both went very well. I also made sure that the POI was taking students, no formal GRE cutoff, just about anything else that you could think of, I asked ahead of time. All of the doors seemed to be open. I dropped 2 schools off my list because the POIs decided to not take students.

Bla bla bla I can go on for days about how depressing it has all been. I'm sure there are plenty of other students on here who are in the same boat, experiencing similar emotions. You can also see the opposite end on this forum where people with 1400+ GRE scores, publications, excellent LOR, etc. get rejected from all programs. It's just a strange process.

yea I know your credentials do seem like they should have got you in somewhere, I think it's harder if you really are into research and apply to more research focused programs because it's almost about luck that you have a professor accepting students that year into their lab. More practice oriented programs whether they are PhD's that don't use the mentorship model or PsyD's I think are easier to get into. That may be an option to think about unless you know for sure you want to be a professor/work in academia.

 

[RileyG]

if you are talking about the prof we've discussed before (the one you published with) then we are talking about the same person. I'm not sure when he found out he wasn't talking a new student, but I was told the same thing you said...if we were going to take a student it would've been you. Budget cuts were major this year.

I've heard from others that the school is bad about sending rejection letters. I wouldn't sell yourself short if clinical programs are what you want. If you continue contacting profs like you said you did this year, and you know of places that said they were willing to look past your GRE score (I think you said that in a previous post) I would be surprised if you didn't get in somewhere. Like another poster said, some amazing applicants don't get in every year...some not-so-great applicants do get in every year.

Hmm, interesting. That is the exact opposite from what I was told. That is, if we are talking about the same person. I was told that they didn't have to take someone, but if they did, they wanted me specifically. I haven't heard from them in over a month so who knows. Not even a rejection letter. I've decided to move on to non-clinical programs where I can focus more on research and have a better chance of getting in.

 

[FahlenStar]

I took the general GRE 3 times and my score did not improve...

From what I understand, if you do not do well on the GRE the first time you take it you should really consider retaking them because you need to do a heck of a lot better than the first time for the new scores to be considered better. Maybe this is why the professors complained about the low GRE scores.

 

[lravister]

I would like to understand why people see it as a "red flag" when a school doesn't require a GRE score for admission. You do realize that GRE scores have NOTHING to do with the grad program quality, right?

I wrote a paper on the GRE my senior year as an undergrad. It is a very commonly misunderstood and misused test. It is ONLY designed to predict the likelihood of success during year 1 of grad school. It also demonstrates that you actually have verbal and quantitative skills. That's all it does. It is not an intelligence test or an assessment of the quality of your undergrad education.
Actually, research has shown that the single best predictor of grad school success is your undergrad GPA. (citations at home, BTW)

Yet, many school still mistakenly use the GRE as a measure of student quality.
That is not what it was designed for.

AMEN! I couldn't have said that better myself !!!

 

[Ollie123]

I'm not a huge fan of the GRE either, but I grow very weary of selective lit searching and/or the frequent citation of Sternberg by people who I'm guessing don't realize that paper is frequently used in stats classes as an example of a highly flawed approach. There may be more recent work (I keep intending to do a thorough update on this but haven't gotten around to it yet) but awhile back, the GRE was certainly predictive of a lot more than just first year GPA. We can debate whether it meets the threshold of "clinical significance", is used appropriately, etc. but some of what has been said in the thread is just flat out untrue. One example is below (there are many others) - the literature is FAR from perfect but I get the distinct impression most objections here are based more on visceral reactions and/or people not liking the fact that its holding him back than the reality of it.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance.
Kuncel, Nathan R.;Hezlett, Sarah A.;Ones, Deniz S.
Psychological Bulletin, Vol 127(1), Jan 2001, 162-181

 

[animaladvocate]

Ottawa U (in Ontario, Canada) doesn't ask for GRE, because it's a bilingual school, so the GRE would not be available to francophones (I think that's the reasoning). Hence, it might follow that the francophone universities (in Canada) might be the same: U Quebec? i think there's a few others...if you know/want to learn french.

note that you don't need to know french to get into Ottawa U.

If you do not know French it would be very difficult to be accepted to uOttawa.

There is also a bilingualism policy once you are in the program - in order to graduate from the program, you have to complete either a French language test, a full course in French, a section of your dissertation in French, or treat at least 2 clients in French.

 

[Slugathor]

I just wanted to forward some updated information in regards to some of the things mentioned in this thread. According to the AMEDD Recruiter in Alaska, the Clinical/Community Psychology joint program is currently not recognized for HPSP. Also, Argosy Hawaii (not sure about the rest) now requires the GRE, but has no required cutoff scores.

 

[psychRA]

One example is below (there are many others) - the literature is FAR from perfect but I get the distinct impression most objections here are based more on visceral reactions and/or people not liking the fact that its holding him back than the reality of it.

I think this is especially important in light of the fact that, for the majority of programs that do require the GRE, it's not necessarily because the program itself believes that the test is a predictor of how well you will do in grad school. Rather, I think that programs may view the GRE as a measure of how willing applicants are to buckle down and put in the work required to do decently well on a test that is a required hoop in the admissions process. And when programs are routinely getting hundreds of applications every year, it's the fastest way to reduce the pool of applications that they need to read.

That's not to say that there's a clear linear relationship between the amount of work you put in and your eventual score. There are plenty of people who are able to do well on the test with minimal studying, and there are people who can spend every waking moment studying and still not get a perfect score. But for the most part, if you are unhappy with your score, you have the ability to raise your score (to an extent) by studying and practicing more. Vocab is rote memorization, as are basic math principles. Analogies and actual math problems can be practiced. I'm not saying "just study, and you'll raise your score by hundreds of points!" but I think a lot of people assume that they're not "good at tests" or that their GRE score is innate and unchangeable, and that's not true.

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

Hey, there is there new website I wanted to share that lists graduate programs that don't require standardized tests [mod note: edited to remove quoted advertisement]

That's a good resource! Although it looks like there are only a couple of psychology programs, and they're both Masters programs?

 

[wigflip]

That's a good resource! Although it looks like there are only a couple of psychology programs, and they're both Masters programs?

Yeah: Farleigh Dickenson and Farleigh Dickenson (sp?).

I know the GRE is a pain, but I'm not sure that avoidance of the GRE is the best selection criteria for a graduate program...

 

[dumbledoresgirl]

Yeah: Farleigh Dickenson and Farleigh Dickenson (sp?).

I know the GRE is a pain, but I'm not sure that avoidance of the GRE is the best selection criteria for a graduate program...

Oops haha I didn't even notice they were listing the same school! And I agree, that really shouldn't be what determines which programs you apply to.

 

[wigflip]

Oops haha I didn't even notice they were listing the same school! And I agree, that really shouldn't be what determines which programs you apply to.

Just checked on the poster who posted the website, and s/he has 3 posts: all virtually identical and pushing the no-tests website.

On another note: some reputable MSW programs actually don't require the GRE (not that social work is the same as psych, or that folks should be dodging the stupid GRE in the first place, blah blah).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I agree with wigflip on both points: 1) I definitely wouldn't use non-requirement of the GRE as a criterion upon which to base application decisions (and in actuality, I'd be hesitant to apply to a program for which the GRE wasn't mandatory), and 2) it seems to be more common (and potentially less-indicative of overall program quality) at the masters level.

 

[Brian1]

I will be taking the GRE again for the 3rd time. If I can not beat my 970, I will not take it again.
I have spent months wasting my life studying for this exam for nothing. I have not hung out with friends as much, barely worked, my own research on hold...everything.
I could rant all day about the GRE but I think a program that does not require it is not a very good one.
Hopefully in the future NO programs will require this useless, idiotic "exam".

 

[deleted176373]

I will be taking the GRE again for the 3rd time. If I can not beat my 970, I will not take it again.
I have spent months wasting my life studying for this exam for nothing. I have not hung out with friends as much, barely worked, my own research on hold...everything.
I could rant all day about the GRE but I think a program that does not require it is not a very good one.
Hopefully in the future NO programs will require this useless, idiotic "exam".

Brian1, while I agree that there is limited evidence to support the GRE's use as a predictive measure of academic success, that hardly makes the exam useless or idiotic. The exam is clearly measuring something, otherwise the results of the exam would be so random as to be useless or idiotic. What has been seen is that GRE scores are typically reliable in test-retest results, which suggests that the exam is measuring something and that something may or may not be useless or idiotic. I struggled with the GRE, I took practice test after practice test. I worked until I was fairly confident that I was able to take the test and get the result I wanted (1200 or better).

There appear to be two rate limiting factors on the GRE for most people (although I might be wrong in this assumption, feel free to correct me), the first factor is fluid intelligence (or some reasonable proxy for fluid intelligence) and the second is knowledge. Without both or either of these things, one would expect performance to suffer considerably, the brightest person on earth without the requisite fund of knowledge tested on the GRE will likely do poorly, just as the person with the most crystallized knowledge imaginable attempting to take the GRE would struggle without the fluid intelligence to arrive at the correct answer. Lack both fluid intelligence and an adequate fund of knowledge and performance will be very poor.

As a result, the GRE and most other standardized test appear on the surface to be "stupid" and "useless" because they may not be measuring something important for graduate education, on the other hand, with a majority of applicants it may very well be measuring something important and useful. If you get rid of the GRE for comparing the majority of applicants, what would you replace it with?

How else do you compare students from different institutions, backgrounds, and even degree programs? Standardized testing puts everyone up against the same criteria and under the same conditions. Maybe the GRE is not the proper standardized test in which applicants from different backgrounds can be evaluated for graduate education in psychology, but what alternative would you suggest?

The use of the GRE as a general screener may be an inappropriate way of using this assessment tool, but using the GRE to objectively differentiate between students competing for limited positions could be appropriate. I would argue how the GRE is used is even more important than the test used to evaluate potential students.

I hope you get the score you want/need and you can move forward.

M

 

[Brian1]

Brian1, while I agree that there is limited evidence to support the GRE's use as a predictive measure of academic success, that hardly makes the exam useless or idiotic. The exam is clearly measuring something, otherwise the results of the exam would be so random as to be useless or idiotic. What has been seen is that GRE scores are typically reliable in test-retest results, which suggests that the exam is measuring something and that something may or may not be useless or idiotic. I struggled with the GRE, I took practice test after practice test. I worked until I was fairly confident that I was able to take the test and get the result I wanted (1200 or better).

There appear to be two rate limiting factors on the GRE for most people (although I might be wrong in this assumption, feel free to correct me), the first factor is fluid intelligence (or some reasonable proxy for fluid intelligence) and the second is knowledge. Without both or either of these things, one would expect performance to suffer considerably, the brightest person on earth without the requisite fund of knowledge tested on the GRE will likely do poorly, just as the person with the most crystallized knowledge imaginable attempting to take the GRE would struggle without the fluid intelligence to arrive at the correct answer. Lack both fluid intelligence and an adequate fund of knowledge and performance will be very poor.

As a result, the GRE and most other standardized test appear on the surface to be "stupid" and "useless" because they may not be measuring something important for graduate education, on the other hand, with a majority of applicants it may very well be measuring something important and useful. If you get rid of the GRE for comparing the majority of applicants, what would you replace it with?

How else do you compare students from different institutions, backgrounds, and even degree programs? Standardized testing puts everyone up against the same criteria and under the same conditions. Maybe the GRE is not the proper standardized test in which applicants from different backgrounds can be evaluated for graduate education in psychology, but what alternative would you suggest?

The use of the GRE as a general screener may be an inappropriate way of using this assessment tool, but using the GRE to objectively differentiate between students competing for limited positions could be appropriate. I would argue how the GRE is used is even more important than the test used to evaluate potential students.

I hope you get the score you want/need and you can move forward.

M

I stand by what I said because the test makes no sense whatsoever.
It does test something, it tests how well you take the GRE.
I am not going to university for GRE studies am I? No.
The GRE was created by money hungry people, that's it. Think of all the money that is made yearly because of this test. All the students stressing over this test, taking classes, buying books, retaking exams, sending scores. They make a fortune.

The reason that it is idiotic is because, as psychologists or future psychologists, we know it is useless! This is why it amazes me that psychology programs force us to take it. In statistics courses we are taught that the reliability and validity are low, yet we have to take it.

And there is enough to measure a student's capabilities in an application. Everything besides the GRE is a correct measure. We work hard in undergrad and grad school to show we can do the work. Clearly I am capable, I have a masters degree, yet, people will look at my GRE and toss my app out.

I do horrible on the GRE, yet I graduated with Honors from my undergrad and grad program. Does that mean I got it easy? No, it means I worked my ass off for what I got.

Most people who don't care or stand by the GRE are those that do well on it and "don't see why so many people don't do well".
Its disgusting that universities, mainly in America btw, use this crock of a test.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

(I'm late to tbe thread and just read the last few posts.)

Do you have a hard time with tests in general or just the GRE? One thing which occurs to me is that you might want to be assessed for learning disabilities. If you have done so well in school and keep struggling here something is going on.

Or is it test anxiety that is interfering here? If so, a few sessions with a psychologist to address this might be in order.

To speak to the argument/discussion that Mark and Brian are having...I think our knowledge of how predictive the GRE is for clinical psych programs has not been adequately evaluated. People with low scores are not admitted, so we have no idea how they'd do! If we look at correlations between outcomes of admitted students and their scores we have serious restriction of range issues.

Best,
Dr. E

 

[Pragma]

I stand by what I said because the test makes no sense whatsoever.
It does test something, it tests how well you take the GRE.
I am not going to university for GRE studies am I? No.
The GRE was created by money hungry people, that's it. Think of all the money that is made yearly because of this test. All the students stressing over this test, taking classes, buying books, retaking exams, sending scores. They make a fortune.

The reason that it is idiotic is because, as psychologists or future psychologists, we know it is useless! This is why it amazes me that psychology programs force us to take it. In statistics courses we are taught that the reliability and validity are low, yet we have to take it.

And there is enough to measure a student's capabilities in an application. Everything besides the GRE is a correct measure. We work hard in undergrad and grad school to show we can do the work. Clearly I am capable, I have a masters degree, yet, people will look at my GRE and toss my app out.

I do horrible on the GRE, yet I graduated with Honors from my undergrad and grad program. Does that mean I got it easy? No, it means I worked my ass off for what I got.

Most people who don't care or stand by the GRE are those that do well on it and "don't see why so many people don't do well".
Its disgusting that universities, mainly in America btw, use this crock of a test.

There is data to suggest that GRE scores + GPA have greater predictive validity for academic performance in graduate school compared to GPA alone.

I agree it is not good as a sole measure, but it isn't useless by any measure. There is a purpose for standardized testing, as MarkP suggests, even if that purpose is overstated in some programs. But you'll find programs where it is less emphasized. In this competitive environment, I find the suggestion to do away with it to be silly.

To be honest, I thought the EPPP (taken to get licensed upon completion of postdoctoral requirements) was more in the category of "worthless." Let's test people on areas of psychology not even related to clinical practice (like I/O) or emphasize old theories that we never even discussed in graduate school because hardly anyone uses them anymore. The test didn't have face validity to me. But after you suck it up, bite your lip, study in various ways, and pass it, you can put it behind you.

For the most part, these tests require unpleasant and time-consuming preparation. It may surprise you to realize that graduate school often requires unpleasant and diligent preparation as well, learning from your mistakes and adapting with new stategies, etc.

 

[erg923]

I stand by what I said because the test makes no sense whatsoever.
It does test something, it tests how well you take the GRE.
I am not going to university for GRE studies am I? No.
The GRE was created by money hungry people, that's it. Think of all the money that is made yearly because of this test. All the students stressing over this test, taking classes, buying books, retaking exams, sending scores. They make a fortune.

The reason that it is idiotic is because, as psychologists or future psychologists, we know it is useless! This is why it amazes me that psychology programs force us to take it. In statistics courses we are taught that the reliability and validity are low, yet we have to take it.

And there is enough to measure a student's capabilities in an application. Everything besides the GRE is a correct measure. We work hard in undergrad and grad school to show we can do the work. Clearly I am capable, I have a masters degree, yet, people will look at my GRE and toss my app out.

I do horrible on the GRE, yet I graduated with Honors from my undergrad and grad program. Does that mean I got it easy? No, it means I worked my ass off for what I got.

Most people who don't care or stand by the GRE are those that do well on it and "don't see why so many people don't do well".
Its disgusting that universities, mainly in America btw, use this crock of a test.

"Fair" seems to be your main issue here, no? "Its not fair, I am a hardworking, intelligent individual with good experience and good grades. Its not fair that I cant get into a grad program without doing good on this stupid test." Is this accurate?

Got news for ya pal, life is full things that serve a purpose, but may not be "fair" or give everyone (people with severe test anxiety?) an equal chance. I got DQed from the military cause I had asthma when i was a kid...

 

[Brian1]

"Fair" seems to be your main issue here, no? "Its not fair, I am a hardworking, intelligent individual with good experience and, good grades, its not fair that I cant get into a grad program without doing good on this stupid test." Is this accurate?

Got news for ya pal, life is full things that serve a purpose, but may not be "fair" or give everyone (people with severe test anxiety?) an equal chance. I got DQed from the military cause I had asthma when i was a kid...

Thanks pal. Like I didn't know that.
This isn't just a "test" its a test that seems to determine one's future. I can have 5 published articles, graduated with honors, etc. Yet, no one would know anything about me becuase they didn't like my score on the GREs.

The only purpose this test serves is to make a professor's life easy. God forbid you go through 100 applicants, let the secretary do it for you.

So what should I do if I do not do well in 2 days? Just give up and say, oh well life isn't fair. Let me find another career path because ETS has determined I am a ***** therefore can not perform well on the GRE which means I would fail at a Ph.D program even though I have a Masters? Sorry pal, that isn't gonna happen.

And Dr. Eliza, I do not have a learning disability.... Plenty of people, as are on this thread, have done poorly on the GREs but proven themselves in a Masters program, or even in a Ph.D program.
I only do poorly on the GREs because it tests you on abstract material that has NOTHING do to with ANYTHING.

I can guarantee that everyone defending this test has either had no issues studying for it or are tied in with ETS somehow.

Also Pragma, every psychologist knows that research is to be taken with agrain of salt. Just because their is some sort of correlation does not mean that their is any truth to it. Someone may be great at taking exams or writing up phenomenal essays. Then once they start interning you find that they have absolutely 0 clinical skill whatsoever. Plenty of factors go into it.

EDIT: For all you people saying it proves something or even has an ounce of reliability or validity, here you go: http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2009/03/score.aspx

 

[erg923]

Thanks pal. Like I didn't know that.
This isn't just a "test" its a test that seems to determine one's future. I can have 5 published articles, graduated with honors, etc. Yet, no one would know anything about me becuase they didn't like my score on the GREs.

The only purpose this test serves is to make a professor's life easy. God forbid you go through 100 applicants, let the secretary do it for you.

So what should I do if I do not do well in 2 days? Just give up and say, oh well life isn't fair. Let me find another career path because ETS has determined I am a ***** therefore can not perform well on the GRE which means I would fail at a Ph.D program even though I have a Masters? Sorry pal, that isn't gonna happen.

And Dr. Eliza, I do not have a learning disability.... Plenty of people, as are on this thread, have done poorly on the GREs but proven themselves in a Masters program, or even in a Ph.D program.
I only do poorly on the GREs because it tests you on abstract material that has NOTHING do to with ANYTHING.

I can guarantee that everyone defending this test has either had no issues studying for it or are tied in with ETS somehow.

Also Pragma, every psychologist knows that research is to be taken with agrain of salt. Just because their is some sort of correlation does not mean that their is any truth to it. Someone may be great at taking exams or writing up phenomenal essays. Then once they start interning you find that they have absolutely 0 clinical skill whatsoever. Plenty of factors go into it.

Brian, I think your conspiracy theories need evidence.

No one said you should give up. I would suggest you study and prepare for the test. If you're poor at math, learn math (take a class, get a tutor, whatever). If you have a lower than ideal vocab, learn words. If you have problems with analogies, practice. The right answers are there! Don't treat it like its theoretical physics that you'll never hope to understand...

Its math, words, and writing. All VERY relevant and necessary skills/abilities for a Ph.D., in ANY field.

 

[wigflip]

So what should I do if I do not do well in 2 days?

Brian, what you should do now is probably stop trying to convince the many ETS conspirators--ahem!--I mean current and former grad students--on this forum that the GRE is hopelessly whacked, and just study. It's a pain, I know, but a necessary one.

Edit: while I was writing this, erg basically just said what I was gonna say. Sorry for the redundancy.

I didn't read closely enough to discover whether you have a passion for clinical work, social science research, or both, but there are reputable paths to these outcomes in which your low GRE scores might not be prohibitive, especially if you do indeed have publications (not sure if that was a hypothetical example).

Good luck, but cool out a little bit. I do think that people like Dr. Eliza and Pragma are just trying to be helpful.

 

[Brian1]

Brian, I think your conspiracy theories need evidence.

No one said you should give up. I would suggest you study and prepare for the test. if your poor at math. Learn math. If you have a lower than ideal vocab. learn words. If you have problems with analogies. Practice. The right answers are there! Don’t treat it like its theoretical physics that you’ll never hope to understand...

Its math, words, and writing. All VERY relevant and necessary skills/abilities for a Ph.D., in ANY field.

My evidence is everysingle person in this world who has done poorly on the GREs and succeeded in Graduate School. You are talking to one right now. I graduated with honors both from undergrad and grad. I am working on my own research now and am a co-author on a soon to be published article.

I have been studying since April. I took the exam in July and got a 146/147. On every practice test I was getting over 300 combined with no issue so I don't know what happened.

When I first took this test 2 years ago I learned almost 300 words. Not one was on the test, so I did not bother this time. I only learned a few words, and mainly roots.

Also analogies are not on the test anymore.
This brings up another point but no need to beat a dead horse. What purpose will learning a Swahili word serve? Or words that are extinct, but only exist in the GRE?

 

[Brian1]

Brian, what you should do now is probably stop trying to convince the many ETS conspirators--ahem!--I mean current and former grad students--on this forum that the GRE is hopelessly whacked, and just study. It's a pain, I know, but a necessary one.

I didn't read closely enough to discover whether you have a passion for clinical work, social science research, or both, but there are reputable paths to these outcomes in which your low GRE scores might not be prohibitive, especially if you do indeed have publications (not sure if that was a hypothetical example).

Good luck, but cool out a little bit. I do think that people like Dr. Eliza and Pragma are just trying to be helpful.

I am studying, this is my break lol.
It is hard to cool down when you know a stupid exam stands in the way of your future, even though you meet the criteria on all other levels.

 

[erg923]

My evidence is everysingle person in this world who has done poorly on the GREs and succeeded in Graduate School. You are talking to one right now. I graduated with honors both from undergrad and grad. I am working on my own research now and am a co-author on a soon to be published article.

I have been studying since April. I took the exam in July and got a 146/147. On every practice test I was getting over 300 combined with no issue so I don't know what happened.

When I first took this test 2 years ago I learned almost 300 words. Not one was on the test, so I did not bother this time. I only learned a few words, and mainly roots.

Also analogies are not on the test anymore.
This brings up another point but no need to beat a dead horse. What purpose will learning a Swahili word serve? Or words that are extinct, but only exist in the GRE?

I think its clear that you wont get much sympathy on this issue here. We are all either in graduate school or new Ph.Ds, such as myself, and we ALL had to do it. It wasn't fun.

Frankly, all your time whining about it could used to study for it so you wouldnt need to whine about it.


PS: I am now full time academic faculty. And advisors do not like whiny grad students.