The GRE FACTOR

[Psyched2525]

What are people's thoughts about the GRE's being the most heavily weighed factor in choosing applicants for interviews and admission? How reliable and valid are the GRE's in determining success in graduate school? What is it about the GRE's specifically that predict success?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CounselingGirl]

What are people's thoughts about the GRE's being the most heavily weighed factor in choosing applicants for interviews and admission? How reliable and valid are the GRE's in determining success in graduate school? What is it about the GRE's specifically that predict success?

Thanks!

Well, I wouldn't say they are the most heavily weighted factor. It really depends on the school.

Personally, I don't think my standardized test scores are a good predictor of how well I do in school. I didn't do very well on my SAT but graduated with a very high GPA from a respected college.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Sometimes GRE is a factor in the graduate school's ability to fund you. Not sure what it predicts, if anything, besides your ability to take the test, but the reality is it matters. Not sure it's always #1 but it's become a mainstay of the application process.

 

[Aura5]

Personally, I don't think my standardized test scores are a good predictor of how well I do in school. I didn't do very well on my SAT but graduated with a very high GPA from a respected college.

I concur. My SATs, while just about good enough, were not mind-blowingly amazing. Yet I was salutatorian of high school and summa cum laude from undergrad...ya know. I haven't taken the gre yet and am a little scared

 

[mas810]

The reason that it is so heavily weighted is because its the only common denominator among candidates. Most people who apply to school have taken different courses from different universities and have different experiences. The only objective factor is the GRE.

I personally think it means absolutely nothing. I did extremely well in undergrad and graduated from a highly respected university and my SATS were not fabulous. I also think my GREs are not that great but I've received three interviews. I think it depends what school you apply to some say that it is the number one factor. I tried not to apply to these schools. I think it says a lot about an institution if their number one criteria is the GRE. I think that the whole picture should always be kept in mind and most institutions say they try to do this.

 

[Metta]

What are people's thoughts about the GRE's being the most heavily weighed factor in choosing applicants for interviews and admission?

My experience suggests that's not the case. I'm one of those annoying people who does *really* well on standardized tests; my combined GRE score is over 1500, and my psych subject test GRE score is over 800. Yet I got interview invitations from fewer than 50% of the schools I applied to. (Other parts of my application are competitive, but not quite as good as my GRE scores. I wasn't over-reaching with the schools I applied to; I chose schools based on my entire application, so my GREs were always much higher than the numbers given in their previous years' admission stats.) If anyone knows of schools that really *would* give me interviews and offers of admission based on my GRE scores, please tell me which ones they are!!!

 

[Kat 22]

I personally think the GREs are almost completely useless and based on my experience it seems that as long as you're over some predetermined threshold set by the school, it won't hinder or hugely benefit your application.

In my case, I wrote the GREs twice. Once on Oct 31st, and they didn't go so well (1090) due to lack of sleep, not studying enough, etc. I had to write them almost immediately afterward so they would be available for distribution to schools on Dec 1st. I rewrote on Nov 5th (a short 5 days later) and scored 1290 (ahem, so much for test reliability). 1200 is the generally agreed upon cut off, so I was fine.

I had a competitive application aside from my GRE scores and went on to receive interviews at 6 out of the 7 schools I applied to, along with 3 offers for admission, and after I received an offer from my top choice I pulled my name from consideration at the remaining schools. No one said a single thing about my scores, and much to my surprise no one asked about me writing them twice in such a short time period.

 

[Psyched2525]

I agree! I think the GRE's are useless, but that could be because I'm bitter about the whole experience. I have taken the GRE 4 times (YES 4) only to improve my application so that schools would just open my application LOL. This is my third time applying and the first time I received an interview. My feedback in previous years has always been "it's your GRE score" which boggles my mind considering I have a stellar CV including 4 publications, 10 years of research experience, a dozen presentations and teaching experience. I also was a great match for the programs I applied to (both in model and mission). I just feel like my whole career is dependent on a 4 digit number!

I was outright rejected from 3 schools, and my one interview I received focused solely on my GRE's. On the positive side, most of my interviewers were more perplexed by the disconnect between my CV and my GRE's. One professor literally said, "I don't understand-how could this be." Needless to say, I spent the whole day trying to explain why my GRE scores were crap as compared to my CV. Hopefully they will see beyond the GRE.

 

[UnLurked]

I certainly don't think the GRE is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I have to disagree with other people about its utility. On paper I think we have to face up to the fact that most of us look pretty much the same. We've all got research experience in labs, we all have glowing letters of recommendation, and, because of grade inflation, we all have about the same GPA. Particularly because of grade inflation and differences between schools, committees making choices about candidates have to have an objective test to add variability to the data.
That's where the GRE steps in. It has fairly high correlation to grad school success (although I think an argument could be made that the scores themselves create academic success). And, for better or worse, the scores on the Verbal correlate fairly well with traditional measures of intelligence (that's part of the reason that section is so hard to study for).
That said it's not a perfect test. It is terrible and incredibly stressful to have so much of your future riding on only one test but then again, grad school is fairly stressful as well. The test also has a fairly strong racial bias, which is absolutely awful but I think most professors are aware of this and make corrections accordingly (I do, however, think the test should have a work over to remove these biases). I also have my own personal beef with writing section and think that the quality of one's writing is better indicated by a writing sample than that score.
The test isn't perfect but it's the only game in town and if you can come up with a better (and cheaper, please!) way to add variability to applicant data, without sacrificing validity, then I am all for it. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I did great on the GRE (high 1400s) so I am, to some degree, invested in its value. That said I think the amount the GRE is taken into account varies depending on the people doing the reviewing. My high GRE got me interviews at only four out of ten schools (and two offers thus far) but my research experience was a little weaker than many students because it was all in non-clinical areas.

 

[jnine]

+1 in general to UnLurked's thoughts above.

that said, i hate the GRE because it is an awful example of high stakes testing and the one-size fits all approach that permeates much of higher education. i am anti high stakes testing because it devalues all skills not tested and collects a single data point. admission to top institutions (in a majority of fields) essentially requires a high GRE score, so without one, you're generally SOL regardless of your other abilities. i think this systematically elminiates certain types of folks who might contribute to the field (no data to prove this )

on the other side of the coin, the GRE is one important and necessary piece of data in an application package. admissions committees need practical ways to evaluate candidates. i wouldn't try to defend the GRE's technical adequacy - the best thing it has is face validity, IMO. however, it is the equalizer and allows you to rank candidates against each other on... the GRE. indeed that's the only thing that the score certainly reflects.. the "verbal" and "quant" (etc.) constructs are loose labels for the material being tested. i try to remember that when i read these ridiculously complicated reading comp passages that are designed to trip you up, or these math problems that are intended to test your ability to realize the shortcut in 15 seconds or less, that it's simply an exercise to see how well i do this relative to everyone else. then i feel like barfing all over.

I certainly don't think the GRE is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I have to disagree with other people about its utility. On paper I think we have to face up to the fact that most of us look pretty much the same. We've all got research experience in labs, we all have glowing letters of recommendation, and, because of grade inflation, we all have about the same GPA. Particularly because of grade inflation and differences between schools, committees making choices about candidates have to have an objective test to add variability to the data.
That's where the GRE steps in. It has fairly high correlation to grad school success (although I think an argument could be made that the scores themselves create academic success). And, for better or worse, the scores on the Verbal correlate fairly well with traditional measures of intelligence (that's part of the reason that section is so hard to study for).
That said it's not a perfect test. It is terrible and incredibly stressful to have so much of your future riding on only one test but then again, grad school is fairly stressful as well. The test also has a fairly strong racial bias, which is absolutely awful but I think most professors are aware of this and make corrections accordingly (I do, however, think the test should have a work over to remove these biases). I also have my own personal beef with writing section and think that the quality of one's writing is better indicated by a writing sample than that score.
The test isn't perfect but it's the only game in town and if you can come up with a better (and cheaper, please!) way to add variability to applicant data, without sacrificing validity, then I am all for it. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I did great on the GRE (high 1400s) so I am, to some degree, invested in its value. That said I think the amount the GRE is taken into account varies depending on the people doing the reviewing. My high GRE got me interviews at only four out of ten schools (and two offers thus far) but my research experience was a little weaker than many students because it was all in non-clinical areas.

 

[UnLurked]

+1 in general to UnLurked's thoughts above.

that said, i hate the GRE because it is an awful example of high stakes testing and the one-size fits all approach that permeates much of higher education. i am anti high stakes testing because it devalues all skills not tested. admission to top institutions (in a majority of fields) essentially requires a high GRE score, so without one, you're generally SOL regardless of your other abilities. i think this systematically elminiates certain types of folks who might contribute to the field (no data to prove this )

on the other side of the coin, the GRE is one important and necessary piece of data in an application package. admissions committees need practical ways to evaluate candidates. i wouldn't try to defend the GRE's technical adequacy - the best thing it has is face validity, IMO. however, it is the equalizer and allows you to rank candidates against each other on... the GRE. indeed that's the only thing that the score certainly reflects.. the "verbal" and "quant" (etc.) constructs are loose labels for the material being tested. i try to remember that when i read these ridiculously complicated reading comp passages that are designed to trip you up, or these math problems that are intended to test your ability to realize the shortcut in 15 seconds or less, that it's simply an exercise to see how well i do this relative to everyone else. then i feel like barfing all over.

You are, indeed, correct that the GRE leaves a ton of skills out. My philosophy has generally been that past being a relatively intelligent individual the thing that really matters for a graduate student is work ethic. Come up with a valid test that predicts overall work ethic in grad school and you would be a millionaire in short order.

 

[Psyched2525]

You are, indeed, correct that the GRE leaves a ton of skills out. My philosophy has generally been that past being a relatively intelligent individual the thing that really matters for a graduate student is work ethic. Come up with a valid test that predicts overall work ethic in grad school and you would be a millionaire in short order.

I agree!! This test does not capture my intelligence or predict my success in graduate school! The interesting thing is that many non-psych graduate programs don't weight the GRE as heavily (why?), and some very prestigious schools are doing away with it completely. Unfortunately, I think that the GRE's are a time management tool for admissions committees so that they can sort through hundreds of applicants. If two applicants match exactly, but one has a higher GRE score, the school would mostly likely take them, no?

 

[progter]

altho i don't think the GRE is an "accurate" measure of ones ability to perform in grad school... you really do have to look at applicant's who perform poorly on it and wonder why they did. The test is easy. Memorize some vocab, learn some math and you should score really well. I've taken both the LSAT and the GRE and the GRE is an absolute joke compared to other grad school exams (LSAT/MCAT). There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it.

When competition is so fierce you need a very solid app. You might have a great app w/o the GRE scores, but so do many others who have great GRE scores. Its just the sad world we live in

 

[Psyched2525]

altho i don't think the GRE is an "accurate" measure of ones ability to perform in grad school... you really do have to look at applicant's who perform poorly on it and wonder why they did. The test is easy. Memorize some vocab, learn some math and you should score really well. I've taken both the LSAT and the GRE and the GRE is an absolute joke compared to other grad school exams (LSAT/MCAT). There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it.

When competition is so fierce you need a very solid app. You might have a great app w/o the GRE scores, but so do many others who have great GRE scores. Its just the sad world we live in

I'm sorry, but can you explain to me how your boasting about how easy the GRE, LSAT, blah blah blah is constructive or additive to this discussion? Have you ever considered that some people don't do well on standardized tests? I certainly hope that you don't treat your clients like this!

 

[PhishGirl]

The test is easy. Memorize some vocab, learn some math and you should score really well. I've taken both the LSAT and the GRE and the GRE is an absolute joke compared to other grad school exams (LSAT/MCAT). There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it.

I have to admit, it drives me nuts when people say this. Sure, the GRE is super easy for some people, but by declaring that it's an easy test in general isn't fair to people who haven't taken it yet. It's a serious test with serious consequences. I know many smart people who heard that the GRE was easy, barely studied, and got scores that wouldn't make them competitive for grad school.

My academic credentials are fabulous, and I still studied hard for the GRE to get my 1400+ score. I think that you shouldn't mislead people, as that's not helpful.

 

[psich]

altho i don't think the GRE is an "accurate" measure of ones ability to perform in grad school... you really do have to look at applicant's who perform poorly on it and wonder why they did. The test is easy. Memorize some vocab, learn some math and you should score really well. I've taken both the LSAT and the GRE and the GRE is an absolute joke compared to other grad school exams (LSAT/MCAT). There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it.

When competition is so fierce you need a very solid app. You might have a great app w/o the GRE scores, but so do many others who have great GRE scores. Its just the sad world we live in

If it were easy, the mean score wouldn’t be around 1000-1100. This is because some of the questions are tricky, even though the concepts may be quite basic. Not to mention the fact that the stress surrounding the exam, etc. may affect someone's score.

 

[UnLurked]

altho i don't think the GRE is an "accurate" measure of ones ability to perform in grad school... you really do have to look at applicant's who perform poorly on it and wonder why they did. The test is easy. Memorize some vocab, learn some math and you should score really well. I've taken both the LSAT and the GRE and the GRE is an absolute joke compared to other grad school exams (LSAT/MCAT). There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it.

When competition is so fierce you need a very solid app. You might have a great app w/o the GRE scores, but so do many others who have great GRE scores. Its just the sad world we live in

Not only is it rude to minimize both people's struggles and accomplishments but I think it's a little simple to reduce all the factors that affect test outcomes to whether or not someone studied. Part of studying and understanding psychology is trying to understand the multitude of factors that yield particular outcomes for people. Leaping directly to negative and simplistic internal attributions speaks poorly of how well you've understood those lessons.

 

[phillips101]

I love how a lot of people are complaining that the GRE doesn't truly measure their "intelligence". Is this a psych thread we're talking about here? Granted, I only have a bachelors, but if there's anything I remember from my psych classes, it's that intelligence isn't a black and white issue. There are shades of gray/grey in between. Particularly, there are different TYPES of intelligence. Would you say someone who is a great orator is more/less intelligent than a math genius who cannot verbally express himself? So what would we rather do, take the GRE...or take the IQ test (which within itself has problems) and have our whole future dependent on that. As an example, I am extremely, horribly, absolutely HORRIBLE at mental rotation- something IQ tests love to give. So if I can flip an image 60 degrees in my head...I'm smart.....?!! So as much as the GREs suck, and as much as I hate memorizing words I will probably never use just to prove I'm "smart"- right now, it's the best thing we've got.

 

[PsychAddict]

altho i don't think the GRE is an "accurate" measure of ones ability to perform in grad school... you really do have to look at applicant's who perform poorly on it and wonder why they did. The test is easy. Memorize some vocab, learn some math and you should score really well. I've taken both the LSAT and the GRE and the GRE is an absolute joke compared to other grad school exams (LSAT/MCAT). There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it.

When competition is so fierce you need a very solid app. You might have a great app w/o the GRE scores, but so do many others who have great GRE scores. Its just the sad world we live in

Wow, I am appalled by your comments. I've taken the GRE three times, I have excellent letters of rec, excellent research exp., excellent GPA, and clinical skills and yet you say "There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it". So if someone does score below a 1200 what does that say about their ability to practice as a psychologist? Please, tell me so that I can waste another year of my life studying for a meaningless test for the sake of making ETS richer. I hope you took the MCAT b/c you are plannig to be a medical doctor cause honestly I'm not so sure you'd make a very good psychologist.
I do not mean to offend but this GRE issue is something I am very passionate about especially considering how ETS is getting rich off of us.

 

[Schooled]

Not only is it rude to minimize both people's struggles and accomplishments but I think it's a little simple to reduce all the factors that affect test outcomes to whether or not someone studied. Part of studying and understanding psychology is trying to understand the multitude of factors that yield particular outcomes for people. Leaping directly to negative and simplistic internal attributions speaks poorly of how well you've understood those lessons.

I think Progter was just being real, albeit cynical. Poor GRE scores create a contrast. If EVERYTHING else is great, but the GRE is poor, it makes people wonder about the reason. It could have been a legit reason –poor test taker, sick that day, etc –but it could also be carelessness, or that person didn't take it seriously enough because it wasn't an accurate measure of their intelligence. Now, in this situation they might overlook the poor GRE score, but if there are other less stellar parts of your application, the shadow cast by poor GRE scores is even greater.

Regardless of how one feels about the GRE (or SAT, MCAT, etc for that matter) is that it's a hoop you MUST jump through and perform well.

Admission boards KNOW there are BAJILLIONS of resources that help your prepare for the test. They know that with effort, it's easy to prepare for the test. Yes, not everyone can make 1350 even with months of preparation, but I believe that a 1200ish should be attainable by someone capable of a doctoral program.

Just to give you some perspective, I have two friends: one accepted to an English Literature PhD and one into a Chemical Engineering PhD. All the English programs REQUIRED at least a 500 on math and all the engineering programs reported 600+ medians for verbal. So regardless of the focus of the program, doing well on the GRE is expected of someone seeking doctoral education.

Great GRE scores =/= great psychologist. True, but having poor GRE scores makes even getting into the programs difficult. Again, its a hoop! Please hear me, A HOOP! You have to do well regardless of how you feel about it. Petition to the ETS, muster support, and rally others to your cause to change the system...do it if you believe that's what is right! However, that may not help you get into a psychology PhD program...

Regardless of how you feel about it, buy some books, memorize 500 words, work on your math skills and get at least a 1200.

 

[PsychAddict]

I think Progter was just being real, albeit cynical. Poor GRE scores create a contrast. If EVERYTHING else is great, but the GRE is poor, it makes people wonder about the reason. It could have been a legit reason –poor test taker, sick that day, etc –but it could also be carelessness, or that person didn’t take it seriously enough because it wasn’t an accurate measure of their intelligence. Now, in this situation they might overlook the poor GRE score, but if there are other less stellar parts of your application, the shadow cast by poor GRE scores is even greater.

Regardless of how one feels about the GRE (or SAT, MCAT, etc for that matter) is that it’s a hoop you MUST jump through and perform well.

Admission boards KNOW there are BAJILLIONS of resources that help your prepare for the test. They know that with effort, it’s easy to prepare for the test. Yes, not everyone can make 1350 even with months of preparation, but I believe that a 1200ish should be attainable by someone capable of a doctoral program.

Just to give you some perspective, I have two friends: one accepted to an English Literature PhD and one into a Chemical Engineering PhD. All the English programs REQUIRED at least a 500 on math and all the engineering programs reported 600+ medians for verbal. So regardless of the focus of the program, doing well on the GRE is expected of someone seeking doctoral education.

Regardless of how you feel about it, buy some books, memorize 500 words, work on your math skills and get at least a 1200.

Lol, awesome I guess I should look for new career options.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Lol, awesome I guess I should look for new career options.

Not necessarily, although Schooled does make excellent points--my take on the GRE situation is that, as others have mentioned, it...:

1) Provides an opportunity (albeit an imperfect one) for schools to quantitatively level the playing field, as it is a standardized, nationally-normed test

2) Provides a glimpse into an individual's level of "seriousness" about doctoral education/graduate school. Yes, some people will do well without studying; and yes, others will not despite earnest attempts at studying. But I would hazard a guess that the majority of individuals who succesfully complete graduate school in clinical psych were able to attain scores in the ~1200-ish range based largely on their ability to adequately apply themselves in preparing for the exam. However, keep in mind that this is a generalization, and begins to break down when applied on the level of the individual

In terms of program cut-offs, the numbers I've heard tossed around generally hover somewhere around 1200, with my undergraduate advisor telling me to either hit at least 1300 or not bother applying (he tended to be a bit harsh at times).

Does this mean that a student won't ever be accepted for graduate study in cliical psych with a GRE <1200? Of course not. But it does likely mean they will have a significantly more difficult time finding programs that're willing to grant them interviews, and they will possibly have to do a better-than-average job of selling themselves on said interviews. It also might mean that they will need to apply themselves more diligently in the first few years to ensure that they adequately pass exams in all required courses (although most of these exams tend to be essay- and/or short-answer-based it seems, so that could make things a bit easier...or harder, depending).

 

[Psyched2525]

I have taking advantage of all the resources I could to overcome my GRE anxiety. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion I have taken the GRE 4 times (and taken it seriously). I have taken both the Kaplan and Princeton Review courses (1100 bucks each), and finally a private tutor (2200 bucks)-all of which said to me, "it's not the content that you have an issue with, it's your anxiety surrounding the test." I scored well on practice tests, but when it came to the actual test I practically had a nervous breakdown because I KNOW this is the first thing admission committees look at. And no, I don't think I will have to work extra hard to pass exams because I seriously don't have this kind of issue when I'm actually in school. In fact, I completed my first year of a PhD program with ease-so I know I can succeed. I withdrew from the program to seek a more research oriented program(why I'm here now). I understand the reality, but please don't tell me that those of us who score low should not be given a chance or in some way less competent.

 

[progter]

I never said that those of you who score low are incompetent. I simply stated the cold hard truth, whether you like it or not. In my graduating psych class there are 11 of us graduating w/ honors. We all have national conference presentations, tons of research experience, publications, 3.8+ GPAs, amazing LoRs, clinical experience and have taken the GRE. Out of us 11, 4 broke 1200, 3 broke 1300 and one broke 1400.

Are we all able to get through a phd and do well in psychology? yes. Will we all get in a clinicial program? (assuming everyone tried) probably not.

Thats just life.

psych2525 if you've done all the prep work and you are having anxiety then perhaps you should work on that instead of the test. If you stress out that much about a GRE, how will you handle your board certification exams later in life?

Schools have to draw the line somewhere and sadly its usually drawn to the GRE.

Sorry if what I said came off rude, but thats just the way I see it and frankly thats the way I've been told by professors and those on admission boards. They have literally told me "if a student cannot at least get a 1200 on a standardized test w/ all the available studying options then it raises a serious red flag to us." Whether you want to hear it or not, thats the truth.

 

[progter]

Wow, I am appalled by your comments. I've taken the GRE three times, I have excellent letters of rec, excellent research exp., excellent GPA, and clinical skills and yet you say "There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it". So if someone does score below a 1200 what does that say about their ability to practice as a psychologist? Please, tell me so that I can waste another year of my life studying for a meaningless test for the sake of making ETS richer. I hope you took the MCAT b/c you are plannig to be a medical doctor cause honestly I'm not so sure you'd make a very good psychologist.
I do not mean to offend but this GRE issue is something I am very passionate about especially considering how ETS is getting rich off of us.

Like I said, it says nothing about their ability to practice as a psychologist and that is what sucks. But it will hinder your getting into a top psych program, thats just life. Does the LSAT breed success in law? Hell no. But it is the number 1 factor in getting into law school.

I appreciate your thoughts on whether or not I'd make a good psychologist. I won't stoop to your level and attack you personally.

 

[katciao]

I have taking advantage of all the resources I could to overcome my GRE anxiety. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion I have taken the GRE 4 times (and taken it seriously). I have taken both the Kaplan and Princeton Review courses (1100 bucks each), and finally a private tutor (2200 bucks)-all of which said to me, "it's not the content that you have an issue with, it's your anxiety surrounding the test." I scored well on practice tests, but when it came to the actual test I practically had a nervous breakdown because I KNOW this is the first thing admission committees look at. And no, I don't think I will have to work extra hard to pass exams because I seriously don't have this kind of issue when I'm actually in school. In fact, I completed my first year of a PhD program with ease-so I know I can succeed. I withdrew from the program to seek a more research oriented program(why I'm here now). I understand the reality, but please don't tell me that those of us who score low should not be given a chance or in some way less competent.

Psyched2525, Have you tried to find psychotherapeutic ways to lessen your performance anxiety? I generally don't experience standardized test anxiety (I'm an SAT/GMAT/GRE coach), but I do get uptight about interviews, even in situations where I've done everything possible to prepare. I would rather have standardized test anxiety than interview anxiety as I have to interview more often than take standardized tests! Have you considered techniques such as EMDR or mindfulness (meditation)? These techniques often help.

 

[jnine]

actually, what you said was...

I've taken both the LSAT and the GRE and the GRE is an absolute joke compared to other grad school exams (LSAT/MCAT). There really is no reason that anyone should be unable to score 1200+ on it.

and this makes you sound like an a ***** e.

think before you write, unless you like being an *******. i dont take issue with the "cold hard truth" part of your message after you revised it - just what you said above.

and btw my wife got a 99% on the LSAT but scored much lower on the GRE.

Does the LSAT breed success in law? Hell no. .

I'll argue that the LSAT is probably more relevant to the practice of law than the GRE to psych. At least the LSAT has a section of logic puzzles that seem to assess similar constructs/competencies used to understand and intrepret legal decisions. The logic section could be measuring a person's ability to make logical and thus persuasive legal arguments. Does the GRE have as direct a relationship to the fundamental practice of clincal psych? how many times during internship are students required to guess the shortcut to a math problem? know the antonym to a word? (i kid i kid)

 

[Psyched2525]

Psyched2525, Have you tried to find psychotherapeutic ways to lessen your performance anxiety? I generally don't experience standardized test anxiety (I'm an SAT/GMAT/GRE coach), but I do get uptight about interviews, even in situations where I've done everything possible to prepare. I would rather have standardized test anxiety than interview anxiety as I have to interview more often than take standardized tests! Have you considered techniques such as EMDR or mindfulness (meditation)? These techniques often help.

I have tried these. Thanks! The funny thing is that I don't get anxious for interviews. In fact, I kind of look forward to them. I think this is the fun part of the process. The other thing is that I've never experienced test anxiety in any other environment. I was fine, and experienced no anxiety passing my first year comps (when I was in my previous program). It is literally just the GRE and the GRE only. I know-weird.

Thanks for all your comments everyone!

 

[eatsleeppsych]

.

 

[kapinkkidowski]

I understand that the GRE is hard, but I dont really see how it is 'unfair', at least not any more unfair than any other part of this process. Let's face it guys, this field is RIDICULOUSLY competitive. All of it. Most of us take at least 2 or 3 years after undergrad to gain more skills and strengthen our apps. Is it fair that we have basically have to be as qualified as people were when they were half way through their phd programs 10 or 15 years ago just to get an interview? Not at all. You also need near perfect grades. You also need to show you went above and beyond classwork and did research, and maybe some clinical work, and any of a whole bunch of other things. You also need to do well on the GRE. What I dont see is why people single out the GRE as the single most unfair thing, and usually when its the weak point of their application. Don't get me wrong, I dont think its a true accurate measure, but it's all part of the process.

Now unless your GRE is less than 1100 (or below the cutoff for that school), I dont think is *fair* to take away from the accomplishments of others by pointing that out as the reason they got an interview and you didnt. The GRE is definitely not the most heavily weighted part of your application, research experience and letters of rec are, according to most sources. I agree with others here. Say you were to have an identically strong application as soemeone else. They have a 1400 GRE. You have 1150. How is it unfair that they would get picked over you? Now what would be unfair is if they didnt put in all the hard work and tears adn late nights that you did, had a lower GPA, less research experience, didnt even fit with the professor, and then just waltzed into an ETS center and got a better score than you did and got into a program over you, then yea, that would be unfair. But lets be honest, which situation do you think actually happens? I dont belive its ever been the second. Trurst me, the people out there with really high scores are not feeling like this process is any easier for them than it is for you.

I think it just isnt constructive to complain over one particular 'unfair' part of this process. Just like with every thing else, take some classes, study harder, find a good tutor. Take practice exams. Dont give up and feel like the whole thing is rigged against you; I feel like that's the message people get about the GRE. Taking standardized tests is a skill just like any other, and it can be learned, even if it takes you a bit more effort than others.

In any case, happy studying, and good luck!

 

[progter]

actually, what you said was...



and this makes you sound like an a ***** e.

think before you write, unless you like being an *******. i dont take issue with the "cold hard truth" part of your message after you revised it - just what you said above.

and btw my wife got a 99% on the LSAT but scored much lower on the GRE.



I'll argue that the LSAT is probably more relevant to the practice of law than the GRE to psych. At least the LSAT has a section of logic puzzles that seem to assess similar constructs/competencies used to understand and intrepret legal decisions. The logic section could be measuring a person's ability to make logical and thus persuasive legal arguments. Does the GRE have as direct a relationship to the fundamental practice of clincal psych? how many times during internship are students required to guess the shortcut to a math problem? know the antonym to a word? (i kid i kid)

I did think before I wrote and I stand by that statement as well. Compared to other grad school exams the GRE is the easiest because you can actually study for it. The LSAT is not something that you memorize formulas for, you learn concepts and apply them under timed conditions. In my OPINION that is harder to do than the GRE is.

Hate on what I had to post all you want but nowadays with the competition the way it is this is just the world we live in. A 1200 score is not that hard to get, it really isn't. A 1200 score will get you an interview, after that its up to you to win the spot. Its not that hard to get if you properly prepare for it. Period.

 

[progter]

I have tried these. Thanks! The funny thing is that I don't get anxious for interviews. In fact, I kind of look forward to them. I think this is the fun part of the process. The other thing is that I've never experienced test anxiety in any other environment. I was fine, and experienced no anxiety passing my first year comps (when I was in my previous program). It is literally just the GRE and the GRE only. I know-weird.

Thanks for all your comments everyone!

You got an interview at the best forensic program in the country. I can assure you that your GRE scores will not keep you out of it if you do not get in. I believe that once you get the interview, the GRE score is a non-factor. If it was a factor they would not have asked to meet you, they would have just rejected your app.

 

[Messler]

Shame on the GRE for causing so much cognitive dissonance!

 

[Ganzheit]

A 1200 score will get you an interview, after that its up to you to win the spot. Its not that hard to get if you properly prepare for it. Period.

Regardless of the rest of your sentiments (and certainly you're allowed your opinion, and 'hardness' is, in this context, a matter of opinion, not objective fact), a 1200 isn't sufficient to get an interview. It may be necessary, but it's not sufficient. Trust me on this.

What I think is interesting is that I've never encountered anybody who doesn't work for ETS who believes that the GRE is actually a good predictor of much of anything. Yet it is consistently used. The schools all say they need it to sort through the massive wave of applications. But they could use height just as easily, with almost as much predictive value. Yes, the GRE probably has predictive value at the extremely low end, but not in the middle, and not at the top. That the GRE is used consistently is one of many shames of the admissions process. That we accept it with a simple 'that's the way the world is' is our shame.

When you get in - when you get an academic job - rail against the GRE.

 

[Psyched2525]

I understand that the GRE is hard, but I dont really see how it is 'unfair', at least not any more unfair than any other part of this process. Let's face it guys, this field is RIDICULOUSLY competitive. All of it. Most of us take at least 2 or 3 years after undergrad to gain more skills and strengthen our apps. Is it fair that we have basically have to be as qualified as people were when they were half way through their phd programs 10 or 15 years ago just to get an interview? Not at all. You also need near perfect grades. You also need to show you went above and beyond classwork and did research, and maybe some clinical work, and any of a whole bunch of other things. You also need to do well on the GRE. What I dont see is why people single out the GRE as the single most unfair thing, and usually when its the weak point of their application. Don't get me wrong, I dont think its a true accurate measure, but it's all part of the process.

Now unless your GRE is less than 1100 (or below the cutoff for that school), I dont think is *fair* to take away from the accomplishments of others by pointing that out as the reason they got an interview and you didnt. The GRE is definitely not the most heavily weighted part of your application, research experience and letters of rec are, according to most sources. I agree with others here. Say you were to have an identically strong application as soemeone else. They have a 1400 GRE. You have 1150. How is it unfair that they would get picked over you? Now what would be unfair is if they didnt put in all the hard work and tears adn late nights that you did, had a lower GPA, less research experience, didnt even fit with the professor, and then just waltzed into an ETS center and got a better score than you did and got into a program over you, then yea, that would be unfair. But lets be honest, which situation do you think actually happens? I dont belive its ever been the second. Trurst me, the people out there with really high scores are not feeling like this process is any easier for them than it is for you.

I think it just isnt constructive to complain over one particular 'unfair' part of this process. Just like with every thing else, take some classes, study harder, find a good tutor. Take practice exams. Dont give up and feel like the whole thing is rigged against you; I feel like that's the message people get about the GRE. Taking standardized tests is a skill just like any other, and it can be learned, even if it takes you a bit more effort than others.

In any case, happy studying, and good luck!

In none of my posts do I ever allude to the notion of "unfairness".

"I dont think is *fair* to take away from the accomplishments of others by pointing that out as the reason they got an interview and you didnt." This is completely false and your inaccurate assumption. What I said was that I thought the GRE was heavily weighed (this has nothing to do with fairness), and put out a scenario in question form to those participating in the discussion (e.g. if two applicants are identical, wouldn't the one with the higher GRE have a better chance etc etc). I have also NEVER stated in any of my posts that those with higher GRE scores are more at ease with the process, don't work hard or are less qualified. I also don't think the GRE is unfair, but I am openly sharing my bitter experiences with it on this forum. So before you make an accusations or assumptions -read carefully.

 

[Psyched2525]

Regardless of the rest of your sentiments (and certainly you're allowed your opinion, and 'hardness' is, in this context, a matter of opinion, not objective fact), a 1200 isn't sufficient to get an interview. It may be necessary, but it's not sufficient. Trust me on this.

What I think is interesting is that I've never encountered anybody who doesn't work for ETS who believes that the GRE is actually a good predictor of much of anything. Yet it is consistently used. The schools all say they need it to sort through the massive wave of applications. But they could use height just as easily, with almost as much predictive value. Yes, the GRE probably has predictive value at the extremely low end, but not in the middle, and not at the top. That the GRE is used consistently is one of many shames of the admissions process. That we accept it with a simple 'that's the way the world is' is our shame.

When you get in - when you get an academic job - rail against the GRE.

Well said!!

 

[Messler]

Regardless of the rest of your sentiments (and certainly you're allowed your opinion, and 'hardness' is, in this context, a matter of opinion, not objective fact), a 1200 isn't sufficient to get an interview. It may be necessary, but it's not sufficient. Trust me on this.

What I think is interesting is that I've never encountered anybody who doesn't work for ETS who believes that the GRE is actually a good predictor of much of anything. Yet it is consistently used. The schools all say they need it to sort through the massive wave of applications. But they could use height just as easily, with almost as much predictive value. Yes, the GRE probably has predictive value at the extremely low end, but not in the middle, and not at the top. That the GRE is used consistently is one of many shames of the admissions process. That we accept it with a simple 'that's the way the world is' is our shame.

When you get in - when you get an academic job - rail against the GRE.

Seriously? I don't work for ETS and I believe the GRE is actually a good predictor of graduate school success. There has been research done on the value of using the GRE in the admissions process. Height...not that I'm aware of?

 

[Aura5]

The LSAT is not something that you memorize formulas for, you learn concepts and apply them under timed conditions. In my OPINION that is harder to do than the GRE is.

Yes, it is your opinion. (Not saying that in a antagonistic way). Because I feel what you wrote there is the crux of it. To ME, memorizing formulas is not as easy as learning concepts and applying them. If I learn something, I know it. But formulas and weird little word games and tricks (antonyms/all that) don't sink into my brain nearly as easily as learning and applying a concept. You can study all you want but sometimes someone's brain will just draw a blank for those kind of things because they don't work right that way. Now I'm not using the excuse of "everyone who fails it's because they learn different" because I am a big advocate for studying/working hard paying off. But some people have different strengths and weaknesses. To me, studying forever to predict an antonym analogy is not the same as studying forever to learn a concept and have it ingrained in my brain. The latter would be much more long-lasting and productive.

That being said, yes, it is just another indicator they use to assess an application. Standardized testing is not one of my strengths, but at least it's just one component and not the end-all be-all.

 

[progter]

Regardless of the rest of your sentiments (and certainly you're allowed your opinion, and 'hardness' is, in this context, a matter of opinion, not objective fact), a 1200 isn't sufficient to get an interview. It may be necessary, but it's not sufficient. Trust me on this.

What I think is interesting is that I've never encountered anybody who doesn't work for ETS who believes that the GRE is actually a good predictor of much of anything. Yet it is consistently used. The schools all say they need it to sort through the massive wave of applications. But they could use height just as easily, with almost as much predictive value. Yes, the GRE probably has predictive value at the extremely low end, but not in the middle, and not at the top. That the GRE is used consistently is one of many shames of the admissions process. That we accept it with a simple 'that's the way the world is' is our shame.

When you get in - when you get an academic job - rail against the GRE.

thats funny, since I got a 1200 the one and only time I took the GRE and I was admitted to one of the top phd/jd programs in the country just recently.

if you have a solid app and a 1200 gre, you should get many interviews. if you get an interview and dont get in it wont be because of your GRE

If the GRE did really predict grad school success then ETS wouldnt be under so much pressure to change it now would they? theres a reason business schools only want a GMAT and not the GRE. Because they are with the times and the current research has shown that the GRE is outdated a a bad indication of grad school in this day in age. This is why ETS is scrambling to update the GRE by aug 2011. They are at risk of losing all credibility.

 

[Kat 22]

I remember finding this article in December, it made me so angry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/education/06gre.html?_r=3

I agree with some of the above comments that if the GRE were truly valid, they wouldn't be making such huge changes. I'm not sure about it's predictive value, but common sense tells me that the only rationale for changing a standardized test is because there is something that can be improved. I think I speak for everyone when I say that the GRE leaves something to be desired in design.

 

[kapinkkidowski]

Before getting defensive, realize that although you began this post, no where in my comment did I directly respond to you or your experience, with the exception of your statement that the GREs are the most heavily weighed factor in choosing applicants for choosing applicatns for interviews or admission, which I said I did not believe was at all true.

There were plenty of posts between yours and mine, and PLENTY of discussions about the GRE in general on this board. You opened a discussion about our thoughts on "The GRE factor", not 'how do you feel about my personal opinion on GREs'. I joined the disucssion and gave my thoughts. I did not say hey Psych2525 said this is unfair and he/she is taking away from the accomplishments of others. So please read carefully as well. I did not attack you or accuse you of anything; refrain from any inaccurate assumptions or accusations yourself.

If anything I was actually empathizing with those struggling with the GRE, perhaps you dont think the GREs are unfair, but I do, just not any more so than another factor in the application process. As I said, this whole process is far from fair, to any of us.

In none of my posts do I ever allude to the notion of "unfairness".

"I dont think is *fair* to take away from the accomplishments of others by pointing that out as the reason they got an interview and you didnt." This is completely false and your inaccurate assumption. What I said was that I thought the GRE was heavily weighed (this has nothing to do with fairness), and put out a scenario in question form to those participating in the discussion (e.g. if two applicants are identical, wouldn't the one with the higher GRE have a better chance etc etc). I have also NEVER stated in any of my posts that those with higher GRE scores are more at ease with the process, don't work hard or are less qualified. I also don't think the GRE is unfair, but I am openly sharing my bitter experiences with it on this forum. So before you make an accusations or assumptions -read carefully.

 

[KillerDiller]

thats funny, since I got a 1200 the one and only time I took the GRE and I was admitted to one of the top phd/jd programs in the country just recently.

if you have a solid app and a 1200 gre, you should get many interviews. if you get an interview and dont get in it wont be because of your GRE

This actually supports Ganzheit's point rather than refuting it. The point was that a +1200 GRE is necessary, but not sufficient. In order for it to be sufficient, you would have had to be admitted without having an otherwise solid app.

 

[KillerDiller]

In case it warms some hearts, I also took the LSAT and the GRE and I felt the latter was more difficult. I scored in a higher percentile on the LSAT.

 

[elphaba]

Let me start by saying that I absolutely agree that there needs to be some sort of standardized measure of assessment within our applications and I understand the intentions of programs' use of the GRE. That said...

I had a horrific time with the GRE. My entire application (clinical PhD) was stellar, save for my very low, non-competitive GRE score. I was absolutely terrifed that this aspect of my application would single-handedly keep me out of graduate school and yes, I found that notion to be deeply, deeply unfair. I have tons of research experience, a very lengthy independent project, multiple poster presentations (including national conferences), a very high GPA, university and departmental honors.... and a lame test score. I applied to 11 schools and only received 3 interview invites (and I was honestly surprised to receive that many) despite some fantastically strong matches at several programs. I absolutely believe that my GRE score tanked my application at first glance at the majority of those programs and, had it been higher, I would have received significantly more interviews.

My story is a combination of what others above me have mentioned: I am a smart, determined individual who simply sucks at standardized tests. Between anxiety, issues with pacing, a poor educational background when it comes to even basic algebra (I have always struggled with it and wasn't taught it particularly well until I hit college, so while I get it now, it takes me longer to do computations that seem "logical" to other people), and so on. Those are not excuses, just explanations: it was just a huge, huge struggle for me. Suffice it to say, I worked my butt off for MONTHS... I ended up with what most individuals in clinical PhD world would consider a highly undesirable (and perhaps embarrassing) score, but I was content with it simply because I knew how hard I had worked for it.

Last week I received an offer at my top choice program (and, of course, accepted on the spot). I'm thrilled beyond explanation and incredibly proud that my determination and work ethic paid off and led me to a program that could not possibly be more perfect for me. That said, I take it very personally when people imply that the GRE accurately measures intelligence, accurately predicts graduate school success, or accurately indicates one's willingness to work hard (i.e., as one of the professors at my undergrad institution said, "if you score under a 1250, you didn't try. don't bother applying." ouch.). I am no less intelligent than those applicants who scored 1400+. Do they take the GRE better than I do? Yep. But that doesn't mean, in ANY way, that I won't excel in my graduate program or in my professional life or that I don't deserve a spot as much as they do. I truly cannot explain the visceral frustration of working so, so hard only to be bombarded with individuals stating that the GRE is easy, the concepts are simple, and a low score is predictive of grad school failure. It's simply NOT the case. (Note: this isn't directed at anyone in this thread... I'm solely referencing the distinctly discouraging words of several profs in my undergrad psych department.)

Take home message: the GRE is different for everybody and as such, I hate that it's weighed so heavily in the initial admissions stages (weeding out, etc.). Again, I certainly understand and agree with the need for some sort of standardized measure, but I also wholeheartedly believe that, particularly as current and to-be psychologists who understand the vast array of learning styles and intelligences, there HAS to be a more balanced method of comparing applicants (revamped standardized test or otherwise). I am indescribably grateful for my good fortune in this process, but I hate knowing that there are plenty of fantastic applicants out there who may never get a chance solely because of their GRE score. For some people, it's not a matter of "just sucking it up and making a 1250+ happen."


(heeyyy, I'm longwinded... thanks for humoring me!)

 

[deleted176373]

Like I said, it says nothing about their ability to practice as a psychologist and that is what sucks. But it will hinder your getting into a top psych program, thats just life. Does the LSAT breed success in law? Hell no. But it is the number 1 factor in getting into law school.

I appreciate your thoughts on whether or not I'd make a good psychologist. I won't stoop to your level and attack you personally.

Yep, gotta love the people who think that your internet posts are a reflection of your capability to provide empathy or engage in a therapeutic alliance with a client.

Surprise it has NOTHING to do with it. I agree, too many people whine about the GRE. The LSAT is a far more heavily relied on test than the GRE, psychologists (or future psychologists) have nothing to complain about when compared to law students. The LSAT predicts nearly everything for the law student... LSAT = Quality of graduate school = Quality of first offers = Career trajectory.

We, in psychology, have nothing nearly as brutal to deal with. You can get into a program with a low GRE, you can even get into VERY good programs with modest GRE scores provided everything else looks good. Psychology programs use these scores as gross go/no-go sorting implements or as a small part of the overall picture. It's not so much about the predictive validity, but rather going after what would appear to be the highest quality applicants first... given the level of competition, why select someone with an 900 combined GRE when you have 6 other people for the same slot with 1200-1400 GRE scores?

As previously noted, if you don't like the system, protest it... if all students refused to take the damn thing, programs would eventually have to find a new way to quickly evaluate and sort students.

Mark

 

[Psyched2525]

Let me start by saying that I absolutely agree that there needs to be some sort of standardized measure of assessment within our applications and I understand the intentions of programs' use of the GRE. That said...

I had a horrific time with the GRE. My entire application (clinical PhD) was stellar, save for my very low, non-competitive GRE score. I was absolutely terrifed that this aspect of my application would single-handedly keep me out of graduate school and yes, I found that notion to be deeply, deeply unfair. I have tons of research experience, a very lengthy independent project, multiple poster presentations (including national conferences), a very high GPA, university and departmental honors.... and a lame test score. I applied to 11 schools and only received 3 interview invites (and I was honestly surprised to receive that many) despite some fantastically strong matches at several programs. I absolutely believe that my GRE score tanked my application at first glance at the majority of those programs and, had it been higher, I would have received significantly more interviews.

My story is a combination of what others above me have mentioned: I am a smart, determined individual who simply sucks at standardized tests. Between anxiety, issues with pacing, a poor educational background when it comes to even basic algebra (I have always struggled with it and wasn't taught it particularly well until I hit college, so while I get it now, it takes me longer to do computations that seem "logical" to other people), and so on. Those are not excuses, just explanations: it was just a huge, huge struggle for me. Suffice it to say, I worked my butt off for MONTHS... I ended up with what most individuals in clinical PhD world would consider a highly undesirable (and perhaps embarrassing) score, but I was content with it simply because I knew how hard I had worked for it.

Last week I received an offer at my top choice program (and, of course, accepted on the spot). I'm thrilled beyond explanation and incredibly proud that my determination and work ethic paid off and led me to a program that could not possibly be more perfect for me. That said, I take it very personally when people imply that the GRE accurately measures intelligence, accurately predicts graduate school success, or accurately indicates one's willingness to work hard (i.e., as one of the professors at my undergrad institution said, "if you score under a 1250, you didn't try. don't bother applying." ouch.). I am no less intelligent than those applicants who scored 1400+. Do they take the GRE better than I do? Yep. But that doesn't mean, in ANY way, that I won't excel in my graduate program or in my professional life or that I don't deserve a spot as much as they do. I truly cannot explain the visceral frustration of working so, so hard only to be bombarded with individuals stating that the GRE is easy, the concepts are simple, and a low score is predictive of grad school failure. It's simply NOT the case. (Note: this isn't directed at anyone in this thread... I'm solely referencing the distinctly discouraging words of several profs in my undergrad psych department.)

Take home message: the GRE is different for everybody and as such, I hate that it's weighed so heavily in the initial admissions stages (weeding out, etc.). Again, I certainly understand and agree with the need for some sort of standardized measure, but I also wholeheartedly believe that, particularly as current and to-be psychologists who understand the vast array of learning styles and intelligences, there HAS to be a more balanced method of comparing applicants (revamped standardized test or otherwise). I am indescribably grateful for my good fortune in this process, but I hate knowing that there are plenty of fantastic applicants out there who may never get a chance solely because of their GRE score. For some people, it's not a matter of "just sucking it up and making a 1250+ happen."


(heeyyy, I'm longwinded... thanks for humoring me!)

Thank you so much for posting this! Exactly what I was thinking, but perhaps couldn't express it as eloquently as you. Congrats on your acceptance!! I have one program left and I really hope my story turns out like yours!!

 

[Psyched2525]

After inquiring about my flat out rejections (no interview), this was the response:


Program #1
"Reviewing the notes from the faculty members who reviewed your folder, their main concern was the GRE scores. In the past we were less rigorous about GRE scores and we found that they proved to be the #1 predictor of whether students demonstrated academic difficulties while in the program. As a result we focused more on GRE performance in our determinations about which students to invite for interviews."

Program #2
"The most salient factor had to do with your objective credential, most notably your GRE scores. The other aspects of your application, including your research experience, professional experience, and publications/presentations, are strong."


HMMMM...still thinking the GRE is a heavy factor and the first factor looked at!!

 

[4Ever]

Just to give you some perspective, I have two friends: one accepted to an English Literature PhD and one into a Chemical Engineering PhD. All the English programs REQUIRED at least a 500 on math and all the engineering programs reported 600+ medians for verbal. So regardless of the focus of the program, doing well on the GRE is expected of someone seeking doctoral education. . . .

Regardless of how you feel about it, buy some books, memorize 500 words, work on your math skills and get at least a 1200.

Yes, it is a hoop that we need to jump through, but I don't think a lower score is the kiss of death for all psychology programs.

Some PhD programs in psychology have a cutoff of 500 V and 500 Q, and some only require 1100 combined. So, a 1200 is not an absolute requirement.

 

[richzeelv]

People who have low gre scores should not give up!!!! Just try your best to make the other aspects of your application stronger.

 

[4Ever]

I did think before I wrote and I stand by that statement as well. Compared to other grad school exams the GRE is the easiest because you can actually study for it. The LSAT is not something that you memorize formulas for, you learn concepts and apply them under timed conditions. In my OPINION that is harder to do than the GRE is.

YOU find the GRE to be easier than the LSAT. We're all different and have different strengths. I did incredibly well on the LSAT, but my GRE score was below 1200. Maybe it could be proven that for most people the GRE is easier. I don't have that answer. But, I know that for ME the LSAT was much, much easier.