No GRE Required?

[Brian1]

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 qhine about it.

I am now full time faculty at a university. And advisors do not like whiny students.

Read my other post, I do study for it.
Not everyone can study for the test for months and do well.
Some people aren't as smart as you on the GREs, and could not do well on the GREs...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wigflip]

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

Wow, erg, congrats! Are you T-T?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It sounds like you're doing everything you can at the moment. In all honesty, as frustrating as the test can be/has been for you, posting about how much it stinks on here probably isn't going to do much other than amp you up even more. Given that it sounds like you're sitting for the exam in 2 days, being worked up probably isn't going to do you any good.

If you've been hitting over 300 on practice exams but got below that on the "real deal," then you at least know where things stand in terms of what you can accomplish, although of course there are a variety of other factors that come into play on the actual test day. If things go well this time, awesome. If not, maybe start to really see if you can identify specific things that you feel detracted from your performance, and whether they're in your control (e.g., got flustered and ran out of time before finishing; the room was freezing and you didn't happen to think to bring a sweater) or not (e.g., the computer setup wasn't what you were used to).

As for vocab, I personally found that memorizing a slew of new words (probably around 600-700 or so) helped, but I'm also fortunate in that the English/verbal portions of these types of tests tend to go fairly smoothly for me. Standardized math testing has always been my weakness, so I made sure to brush up on as many forumulae as possible...and even with all that, I think I only hit low-to-mid-600's. In my case, if I had needed to take the exam again, I definitely would've looked into recognizing and learning to efficiently respond to the types of questions themselves, as that's an entire strategy all its own. You've probably already done this yourself, but it's the only personal insight I can offer into things that would've helped my own performance.

 

[Brian1]

It sounds like you're doing everything you can at the moment. In all honesty, as frustrating as the test can be/has been for you, posting about how much it stinks on here probably isn't going to do much other than amp you up even more. Given that it sounds like you're sitting for the exam in 2 days, being worked up probably isn't going to do you any good.

If you've been hitting over 300 on practice exams but got below that on the "real deal," then you at least know where things stand in terms of what you can accomplish, although of course there are a variety of other factors that come into play on the actual test day. If things go well this time, awesome. If not, maybe start to really see if you can identify specific things that you feel detracted from your performance, and whether they're in your control (e.g., got flustered and ran out of time before finishing; the room was freezing and you didn't happen to think to bring a sweater) or not (e.g., the computer setup wasn't what you were used to).

As for vocab, I personally found that memorizing a slew of new words (probably around 600-700 or so) helped, but I'm also fortunate in that the English/verbal portions of these types of tests tend to go fairly smoothly for me. Standardized math testing has always been my weakness, so I made sure to brush up on as many forumulae as possible...and even with all that, I think I only hit low-to-mid-600's. In my case, if I had needed to take the exam again, I definitely would've looked into recognizing and learning to efficiently respond to the types of questions themselves, as that's an entire strategy all its own. You've probably already done this yourself, but it's the only personal insight I can offer into things that would've helped my own performance.

If I sounded all worked up and everything it wasn't my intention. This test just gets to me you know?

Thanks for the response. I have gotten MUCH better at reading comp which is great. I focused mainly on things I did not do well on and studied that stuff.
I would really be happy with breaking a thousand at this point, anything is better than a 970!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

If I sounded all worked up and everything it wasn't my intention. This test just gets to me you know?

Thanks for the response. I have gotten MUCH better at reading comp which is great. I focused mainly on things I did not do well on and studied that stuff.
I would really be happy with breaking a thousand at this point, anything is better than a 970!

Understandable; it can be a rough test, and I can see how it'd be particularly frustrating when feeling as though that's pretty much the only part of the application holding you back.

You likely don't need to hear it, but just in case: what I will say is that you should definitely do your best not to let any frustration come across in things such as your personal statements and on interviews. The one characteristic that professors almost-universally seem to not like in applicants is feeling as though the person has a chip on their shoulder/axe to grind/some level of entrenched bitterness/etc. (this, in part, gets at the "whiny" part bit erg was mentioning).

If you feel as though you're still irked about the GRE by the time apps/interviews roll around, see if maybe going for a long run, heading to the gym, playing some pickup basketball, or something similar doesn't help calm things down.

 

[erg923]

Wow, erg, congrats! Are you T-T?

Yes. Small university.

 

[Brian1]

Understandable; it can be a rough test, and I can see how it'd be particularly frustrating when feeling as though that's pretty much the only part of the application holding you back.

You likely don't need to hear it, but just in case: what I will say is that you should definitely do your best not to let any frustration come across in things such as your personal statements and on interviews. The one characteristic that professors almost-universally seem to not like in applicants is feeling as though the person has a chip on their shoulder/axe to grind/some level of entrenched bitterness/etc. (this, in part, gets at the "whiny" part bit erg was mentioning).

If you feel as though you're still irked about the GRE by the time apps/interviews roll around, see if maybe going for a long run, heading to the gym, playing some pickup basketball, or something similar doesn't help calm things down.

I must sound like the hulk to everyone ! lol
I know about all that, I will never blame the GREs for anything, because then professors would think I am an external blamer. I wouldn't like that as much if I was a professor interviewing students.
After Saturday 5pm, I will throw all my GRE books out the window, and carry on with my life. I will feel like the freest bird in the world!

 

[Ollie123]

If your professor taught you the GRE had no reliability and validity....I'm sorry, but they were bad professors and are wrong. Even the link you posted to "prove" how useless it is cites a study showing it IS associated with important outcomes. The one they use to back it up is the one I had already slammed earlier in the thread (the Sternberg paper) as being used for exactly this purpose ("RAHHHH I HATE THE GRE!!!") by people who didn't read it and evaluate it. Its not a good paper. The meta-analysis is a far better one (though still not without flaws). The Sternberg paper is frequently used in stats classes as an example of a paper with serious methodological flaws. We can certainly debate its utility, if it meets the threshold of "clinical significance", HOW it should be used, etc. However, you aren't helping your "I'm qualified to get into grad school" cause right now by letting your personal frustrations with it dictate/overrule the literature. If that comes through in other situations, it will make people question your readiness for graduate school far more than any GRE score possibly would.

In addition - many (most?) schools use "soft" cutoffs. I know they do at my current program and a couple others I'm familiar with. You have to "make up" for a low score by having other aspects of your application stand out, but I'm quite certain someone with 5+ publications (etc.) would get pulled in for an interview even if their GREs didn't make the cutoff.

Edit: See that others have already posted similar things while I was waiting for this to go through. Think the point has been made on the first paragraph, but I think the second is important for you to realize. Yes, its important. If it is truly the only weakness in your app, and you can still get your score into the "mediocre" range (don't know the new scales but 1100ish old scale) it certainly makes things more challenging, but doesn't mean you can't get in anywhere.

 

[Brian1]

If your professor taught you the GRE had no reliability and validity....I'm sorry, but they were bad professors and are wrong. Even the link you posted to "prove" how useless it is cites a study showing it IS associated with important outcomes. The one they use to back it up is the one I had already slammed earlier in the thread (the Sternberg paper) as being used for exactly this purpose ("RAHHHH I HATE THE GRE!!!") by people who didn't read it and evaluate it. Its not a good paper. The meta-analysis is a far better one (though still not without flaws). The Sternberg paper is frequently used in stats classes as an example of a paper with serious methodological flaws. We can certainly debate its utility, if it meets the threshold of "clinical significance", HOW it should be used, etc. However, you aren't helping your "I'm qualified to get into grad school" cause right now by letting your personal frustrations with it dictate/overrule the literature. If that comes through in other situations, it will make people question your readiness for graduate school far more than any GRE score possibly would.

In addition - many (most?) schools use "soft" cutoffs. I know they do at my current program and a couple others I'm familiar with. You have to "make up" for a low score by having other aspects of your application stand out, but I'm quite certain someone with 5+ publications (etc.) would get pulled in for an interview even if their GREs didn't make the cutoff.

Edit: See that others have already posted similar things while I was waiting for this to go through. Think the point has been made on the first paragraph, but I think the second is important for you to realize. Yes, its important. If it is truly the only weakness in your app, and you can still get your score into the "mediocre" range (don't know the new scales but 1100ish old scale) it certainly makes things more challenging, but doesn't mean you can't get in anywhere.

I have heard of "hard" cut offs, but not "soft"? What is a soft cut off?
Is that when the site says they generally want a certain score, but view the entire application?

 

[Ollie123]

I'm sure there are different ways of doing it, but a soft cutoff basically just means that a school with a cutoff of say 1200, doesn't just throw applications with an 1190 and below in the trash.

For example, they might forward those over all the cutoffs (GRE, GPA, etc.) on automatically to the desired faculty mentors. All applications that do not meet cutoffs might go to a designated person on the admissions committee. They look through them and "save" applications with redeeming qualities. For example, "This person was screened out because of a 3.2 GPA, but has been working at NIH for 4 years and has 6 publications and fantastic letters!", etc. Those are pull back in and forwarded on to the individual faculty members, who make decisions about who to invite for interviews.

 

[Brian1]

I'm sure there are different ways of doing it, but a soft cutoff basically just means that a school with a cutoff of say 1200, doesn't just throw applications with an 1190 and below in the trash.

For example, they might forward those over all the cutoffs (GRE, GPA, etc.) on automatically to the desired faculty mentors. All applications that do not meet cutoffs might go to a designated person on the admissions committee. They look through them and "save" applications with redeeming qualities. For example, "This person was screened out because of a 3.2 GPA, but has been working at NIH for 4 years and has 6 publications and fantastic letters!", etc. Those are pull back in and forwarded on to the individual faculty members, who make decisions about who to invite for interviews.

Wow I did not know that. Even though all schools are different, that is definitely a great sign!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm sure there are different ways of doing it, but a soft cutoff basically just means that a school with a cutoff of say 1200, doesn't just throw applications with an 1190 and below in the trash.

For example, they might forward those over all the cutoffs (GRE, GPA, etc.) on automatically to the desired faculty mentors. All applications that do not meet cutoffs might go to a designated person on the admissions committee. They look through them and "save" applications with redeeming qualities. For example, "This person was screened out because of a 3.2 GPA, but has been working at NIH for 4 years and has 6 publications and fantastic letters!", etc. Those are pull back in and forwarded on to the individual faculty members, who make decisions about who to invite for interviews.

That's always been my understanding as well, with the "soft" cut-offs sometimes being department-wide (or at least administered by the initial screener of applications), and some being unique to each professor (e.g., some faculty might only seriously consider an app if the GRE is >1100 or 1200).

The hard cut-offs are the ones listed on department websites or reported by secretaries when you call to inquire. Those are the ones that, in general, if you fall below, the department can't do anything about it (perhaps because they are university-wide and/or university-imposed, for example). The most common hard cut-off I've seen is 1000 on the old scoring scale, which I think is about 300 on the new scale...?

 

[Pragma]

Yes. Small university.

Congrats, erg. Welcome to the wonderful world of T-T politics and committee meetings

I don't intend to have a set GRE cutoff when evaluating students, but I do intend to look at these scores as a part of a larger schema for evaluating students. To the OP and other folks suggesting the GRE means nothing and other parts of your apps do: As a faculty member I am skeptical of high performance in certain areas.

For example, high GPAs mean absolutely nothing to me. Grade inflation is ridiculous these days. Low GPAs do mean something. Having several publications prior to graduate school would actually scare me that you are being artificially inflated by your lab, or perhaps haven't had to do other things which I think are predictive of success (like actually work for a living?). If you have several posters, I am going to ask you what it was like at the conferences. Hope you catch my drift - professors aren't idiots, either. We have characteristics we value in students beyond pubs and scores.

 

[deleted176373]

Read my other post, I do study for it.
Not everyone can study for the test for months and do well.
Some people aren't as smart as you on the GREs, and could not do well on the GREs...

6 months is what I spent studying and raising my score from a 9XX to a 1300. It was a focused, intense period in my life and it pissed me off every day. I was not gifted at testing on the GRE, but I made it happen. I hope you can too.

Don't lose hope and as others have alluded to, relax, being spun up might not help.

 

[toysofvanity]

I apologize for bumping this thread up as it's seemingly ancient, but I'll cut to the chase.

I have my Masters in Social Work as well as Bachelors. I'm published in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment as first author and have other publication/research/IRB experience as well. I have had straight A's my entire college experience and have been in honors programs and have been featured in the NASW. I have presented at conferences.

I have had a desire for a long-time to get my PhD. I initially wanted to do a PhD in Social Work, but I'm more interested in Clinical Psych.

But I truly, wholeheartedly suck at the GRE and all standardized tests.
I've taken practice ones and gotten awful scores.
As a social worker now, I cannot afford to purchase practice/study materials and take exam after exam to raise my GRE score and make me competitive.

I have a good job and don't want to quit (I have a pension that I would "vest" in during my tenure in a PhD program) but surely, others have been in similar positions.

Suggestions?

 

[erg923]

I apologize for bumping this thread up as it's seemingly ancient, but I'll cut to the chase.

I have my Masters in Social Work as well as Bachelors. I'm published in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment as first author and have other publication/research/IRB experience as well. I have had straight A's my entire college experience and have been in honors programs and have been featured in the NASW. I have presented at conferences.

I have had a desire for a long-time to get my PhD. I initially wanted to do a PhD in Social Work, but I'm more interested in Clinical Psych.

But I truly, wholeheartedly suck at the GRE and all standardized tests.
I've taken practice ones and gotten awful scores.
As a social worker now, I cannot afford to purchase practice/study materials and take exam after exam to raise my GRE score and make me competitive.

I have a good job and don't want to quit (I have a pension that I would "vest" in during my tenure in a PhD program) but surely, others have been in similar positions.

Suggestions?

Doesn't sound like you u are able or willing to make the life and monetary sacrifices needed/required for a Ph.D. What else where you expecting to hear?

 

[WisNeuro]

I apologize for bumping this thread up as it's seemingly ancient, but I'll cut to the chase.

I have my Masters in Social Work as well as Bachelors. I'm published in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment as first author and have other publication/research/IRB experience as well. I have had straight A's my entire college experience and have been in honors programs and have been featured in the NASW. I have presented at conferences.

I have had a desire for a long-time to get my PhD. I initially wanted to do a PhD in Social Work, but I'm more interested in Clinical Psych.

But I truly, wholeheartedly suck at the GRE and all standardized tests.
I've taken practice ones and gotten awful scores.
As a social worker now, I cannot afford to purchase practice/study materials and take exam after exam to raise my GRE score and make me competitive.

I have a good job and don't want to quit (I have a pension that I would "vest" in during my tenure in a PhD program) but surely, others have been in similar positions.

Suggestions?

I honestly do not know of any reputable programs that do not require the GRE as well as full-time commitment to the program. I'm sure some of the diploma mills out there may not require it, but it will also limit your ability to work after the program as a psychologist and will also saddle you with a ton of debt that would more than offset any pension vesting most likely. Your potential salary with one of these degrees will not differ substantially from what you likely make now, so I doubt it'd be worth it on that end. Additionally, your social work training is likely the same, if not more rigorous as what these places will offer, so I don't see that as a good reason.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

I apologize for bumping this thread up as it's seemingly ancient, but I'll cut to the chase.

I have my Masters in Social Work as well as Bachelors. I'm published in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment as first author and have other publication/research/IRB experience as well. I have had straight A's my entire college experience and have been in honors programs and have been featured in the NASW. I have presented at conferences.

I have had a desire for a long-time to get my PhD. I initially wanted to do a PhD in Social Work, but I'm more interested in Clinical Psych.

But I truly, wholeheartedly suck at the GRE and all standardized tests.
I've taken practice ones and gotten awful scores.
As a social worker now, I cannot afford to purchase practice/study materials and take exam after exam to raise my GRE score and make me competitive.

I have a good job and don't want to quit (I have a pension that I would "vest" in during my tenure in a PhD program) but surely, others have been in similar positions.

Suggestions?

How bad are we talking about here?

You can get prep books used and study from those, but you're going to have to put in some time. If you're talking about applying next year, you've got just under a year to prep. Awesome! Study at least weekly if not daily. Take it, apply, highlight your strengths, see what happens.

And I can't imagine you'll be able to work during a clinical psych PhD program, but you're an adult and can figure that out for yourself. Good luck.

 

[AGallier]

Can you afford $100? I used an online class/study program and it raised my total score from a 309 to a 327 in three months. I'm with you, most classes are super expensive and I tried one of those expensive ones and didn't get an increase in score. I don't want to seem like an advertiser or something so you can PM me if you want to know more about what I used. I personally haven't seen a program that doesn't require the GRE but I'm just in the application process now.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[toysofvanity]

I have taken multiple practice exams and have gotten no more than 5/50 right at any given time. :-( And this whole idea that the GRE is a reliable baseline for success is frustrating. I have gotten 4.0+ GPA out of a 4.0 scale, plus first author in a major journal and coauthor on pending articles. My ability to contribute to the sector is not cancelled out by my poor standardized test skills.

Doesn't sound like you u are able or willing to make the life and monetary sacrifices needed/required for a Ph.D. What else where you expecting to hear?

Money is not the issue, if I felt I could sufficiently master the GRE, I would. I would invest in the required materials and study. But my brain doesn't work like that, never has.

 

[psych.meout]

I have taken multiple practice exams and have gotten no more than 5/50 right at any given time. :-( And this whole idea that the GRE is a reliable baseline for success is frustrating. I have gotten 4.0+ GPA out of a 4.0 scale, plus first author in a major journal and coauthor on pending articles. My ability to contribute to the sector is not cancelled out by my poor standardized test skills.


Money is not the issue, if I felt I could sufficiently master the GRE, I would. I would invest in the required materials and study. But my brain doesn't work like that, never has.

1. Sure, you got a 4.0+/4.0 GPA, but how are grad programs supposed to compare your GPA to other programs? How are they supposed to know the relative difficulty and comprehensiveness of your classes versus those taken by an applicant who graduated from another institution? How do they know the course content and requirements between courses ostensibly covering the same topics, e.g. abnormal psych, etc.? The GRE combined with GPA is one method they have of comparing applicants and it does have some correlation with grad program performance.

2. If you have difficulty with standardized testing like this, you may have similar difficulty passing the EPPP and getting licensed.

 

[AGallier]

I have taken multiple practice exams and have gotten no more than 5/50 right at any given time. :-( And this whole idea that the GRE is a reliable baseline for success is frustrating. I have gotten 4.0+ GPA out of a 4.0 scale, plus first author in a major journal and coauthor on pending articles. My ability to contribute to the sector is not cancelled out by my poor standardized test skills.


Money is not the issue, if I felt I could sufficiently master the GRE, I would. I would invest in the required materials and study. But my brain doesn't work like that, never has.

It's your choice, but I wouldn't lose hope. I have a professor who scored in the 7th and 10th percentiles on the verbal and quant sections respectively. He decided that he was capable of improvement, studied rigorously, retook it and scored in the 60ish percentile for both and ended up getting into a funded PhD program. Granted this was a few years ago, but I still think the lesson applies. The first step is changing your internal stable attribution into an internal unstable attribution. In other words, you need to believe that you are capable of learning how to master the GRE. Either way, I hope you're successful.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[erg923]

if I felt I could sufficiently master the GRE, I would. I would invest in the required materials and study. But my brain doesn't work like that, never has.

Well, this is a problem. Grad school has lots of tests. There are qual exams for matriculation later in the program. There are standardized tests for licensing (EPPP exam). There are jurisprudence exams for licensing in many states as well. It's not like this is the last standardized test you will ever take.

You might want to read about learned helplessness and it detrimental role in goal attainment/outcomes.

 

[singasongofjoy]

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.

I think there are ways you can try to show your qualifications if you don't do that great (within reason). I did very well on the verbal portion but squarely mediocre on the quant section both times I took it (right at 50th percentile- I'm reasonably accurate but rather slow on this section and it didn't come up even after studying for a couple of months) which was kind of a reverse pattern from the programs I was interested in- the average quant scores were all significantly higher than that. I had a terminal masters with a good GPA and also studied hard and aced the subject test GRE after I got my general GRE scores back the second time. My future advisor later told me those things (subject test and MS) helped balance out the lower GRE quant score. But if you think some intense prep might help your GRE it might be worth taking it twice. Some schools will look at the combo of your best 2 (e.g., if you scored better the first time on verbal but better second time on quant they'll look at the highest of each of the scores). For most schools you'll at least need a GRE score high enough to get past their first weed-out of applications; unfortunately, you won't know what that cutoff score is.

 

[psych.meout]

I think there are ways you can try to show your qualifications if you don't do that great (within reason). I did very well on the verbal portion but squarely mediocre on the quant section both times I took it (right at 50th percentile- I'm reasonably accurate but rather slow on this section and it didn't come up even after studying for a couple of months) which was kind of a reverse pattern from the programs I was interested in- the average quant scores were all significantly higher than that. I had terminal MS with a stellar GPA and also studied hard and aced the subject test GRE after I got my general GRE scores back the second time. My future advisor later told me those things (subject test and MS) helped balance out the lower GRE quant score. But if you think some intense prep might help your GRE it might be worth taking it twice. Some schools will look at the combo of your best 2 (e.g., if you scored better the first time on verbal but better second time on quant they'll look at the highest of each of the scores). For most schools you'll at least need a GRE score high enough to get past their first weed-out of applications; unfortunately, you won't know what that cutoff score is.

Uh....phrasing?

 

[singasongofjoy]

Uh....phrasing?

Ack! Yep, good point I'll edit!

 

[deleted343839]

I have taken multiple practice exams and have gotten no more than 5/50 right at any given time. :-(

Something's really not right here, then. If you chose answers completely at random (assuming 4 response choices per item) the likelihood of getting 5 or fewer correct hits out of 50 is less than 1 percent.

I have a good job and don't want to quit (I have a pension that I would "vest" in during my tenure in a PhD program) but surely, others have been in similar positions.

On a different subject, you haven't shared much about your motivation for a PhD. What are your reasons for pursuing another degree at this point if you like your job and don't want to quit? If this is about salary/earning potential, take some time to crunch the numbers, taking into account at least 5-6 years out of the workforce with a minimal cost-of-living stipend, in addition to any retirement funds or salary raises you might forfeit. A PhD program in clinical psychology is a full-time job (and then some), so you would need some other source of financial support if you wish to maintain your current lifestyle or anything like it. Keep in mind that it is difficult to work even part time during a PhD program, especially in the first few years, and some programs restrict outside employment.