How Much Weight Should Vet Schools Give GPA/GRE/Experience/Interview?

[russellang]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I have looked at most of the vet school web sites and alot of them have broken down their admissions process into certain categories with weights for each (GPA/GRE/Experience/Interview). I was just wondering how much weight you guys think each category should be given without bias towards your own file.

So if you were starting a new veterinary program and could choose weights each category received or at least which ones you wanted to emphasize over others, what would they be?

 

[squirrelsrule]

I'd say GPA (shows how well you can do in school), then Experience, then GRE, then Interview. I don't think much weight should be put on an interview because some people do well in interview situations and others not so much. It doesn't really mean you'll make a good vet if you do well in an interview. I think the interview should make sure that you can communicate with other human beings and aren't totally antisocial. Other than that, I don't think it should count for much.

GPA and experience should be most important because they show your ability and commitment to the field I think.

 

[New Foundland]

I'd say GPA (shows how well you can do in school), then Experience, then GRE, then Interview. I don't think much weight should be put on an interview because some people do well in interview situations and others not so much. It doesn't really mean you'll make a good vet if you do well in an interview. I think the interview should make sure that you can communicate with other human beings and aren't totally antisocial. Other than that, I don't think it should count for much.

GPA and experience should be most important because they show your ability and commitment to the field I think.

you think GRE should be more weight than interview?
wow..

 

[cowgirla]

I think a big chunk of it should be personal statement and LORs. It can really make or break you, IMO.

As for GPA, well, I'm certainly glad not all schools put all their focus there. I think once you make a minimum GPA (even better- a minimum pre req GPA) cut off- say 2.75 or 3.0, they should forget all about that, and focus on experience/interview/personal statement/LORs. Same for GRE really, except it should be looked at in conjunction with GPA to see if things balance out there.
I'm not saying to completely scratch off those below the cut off- I like how CSU does it though with a separate review for those people, and then they don't leave you hanging until April as to your status. If they want to consider you, they do. If they don't, they let you know pretty quickly.

 

[SocialStigma]

I would put the least emphasis on the GRE/MCAT because it's only one test and typically isn't reflective of a student's true academic capabilities. GPA, experience and interview should be about equal, I'd say, with the interview being slightly less because once again it's a one-time thing, people get nervous etc.

So 40:30:20:10 (GPA:experience:interview:GRE/MCAT).

 

[twelvetigers]

I think I would want all of them to be equal. Except add a 'last 45' category too.

 

[Trematode]

I think less emphasis should be placed on the GRE.
I can only apply to a school that does not have a PS or LOR requirements.
I feel that LOR should be emphasised the most. A positive LOR is going to reflect your personality (maturity, leadership skills, etc.) and is going to act as a cushion if your GPA is lower due to certain circumstances.
I do not think that an interview should be based solely on GPA/GRE unless your GPA happens to be very low.

So hmm.

From greatest to least emphasis:
LOR + PS + Experience ----> GPA ----> (decide whether to grant an interview) ------> Interview ------> GRE

 

[HelloNello]

.

 

[jtom]

To be honest I think vet schools have put a lot of weight on GPA/GRE and not enough on interpersonal skills in the past. In a profession like this it is not enough to be intelligent, you need to communicate well with other people (techs, other doctors, clients) and you need to be personable so that people actually like to come back to you. Weighting GPA/GRE too much produces vets that are very very smart, but not wonderful with people. My motto is everything in moderation. Of course it is important to be smart and learn the material, but grades and test scores do not indicate accurately whether someone will make a good vet...

JMHO

Happy turkey day!

I agree. I think some vets schools emphasize grades too much. Interpersonal skills are extremely important and if you cannot be friendly and outgoing, clients will not use you. I have worked for a vet for a few years now and we have hired a few associates in that time. When they were doing their working interviews, several of the recent grads were extremely shy and would not talk much with the clients. My vet disregarded their experience and education and do not hire them because the cleints would not return to them.

 

[pooter]

No idea how I would weight things, but if it were all up to me (please don't throw things at me) I would remove the GRE and either require the MCAT or go back to the VCAT. Knowing and retaining some science is much more likely to be helpful than being able to spot the usage mistake.

 

[nyanko]

Experience = 30% --> experience shows you have a good understanding of the profession. If you don't have experience then you probably dont have a good understanding of the profession and might be surprised when you get to vet school...

I guess you put LORs and PS here as well - I actually disagree with weighting experience itself as 30%. Experience is super, super important but is also self-reported with very little to corroborate it except for the LORs and PS. The PS should be able to illustrate WHAT you got out of the experiences you had and the LORs should provide an outside opinion of your character and aptitude.

edit: regarding the GRE - once you've got enough mediocre (or downright bad) grades under your belt it's really really difficult to make that GPA budge. One way that those of us with that problem can demonstrate some reasonable manner of ability to perform in a relatively short time is by a standardized test. It also helps to balance the issue of difficulty and differences in grading methods for courses across institutions or professors even. Not saying that GRE is perfect or is the ideal test to use for vet school (I agree that perhaps the MCAT would be better..) but there really is a need for some standardized test in the mix IMO.

 

[bunnity]

I guess you put LORs and PS here as well - I actually disagree with weighting experience itself as 30%. Experience is super, super important but is also self-reported with very little to corroborate it except for the LORs and PS. The PS should be able to illustrate WHAT you got out of the experiences you had and the LORs should provide an outside opinion of your character and aptitude.

edit: regarding the GRE - once you've got enough mediocre (or downright bad) grades under your belt it's really really difficult to make that GPA budge. One way that those of us with that problem can demonstrate some reasonable manner of ability to perform in a relatively short time is by a standardized test. It also helps to balance the issue of difficulty and differences in grading methods for courses across institutions or professors even. Not saying that GRE is perfect or is the ideal test to use for vet school (I agree that perhaps the MCAT would be better..) but there really is a need for some standardized test in the mix IMO.

The other thing with experience is that any vet tech can get thousands of hours of experience by working a few years - but not every vet tech is qualified to be a vet. If you're going on hours alone, it hugely favors people that are older, and people that can afford to work as a tech (I had a job offer as a tech but had to keep my job in a human hospital because the tech job wouldn't have paid rent).
Like you said - quality over quantity is what matters with experience, and that's covered in a PS and LORs.

 

[HelloNello]

.

 

[bbeventer]

No idea how I would weight things, but if it were all up to me (please don't throw things at me) I would remove the GRE and either require the MCAT or go back to the VCAT. Knowing and retaining some science is much more likely to be helpful than being able to spot the usage mistake.

This is what I was thinking as well. I would just remove the GRE. And then the rest what cowgirla said.

 

[Trematode]

This is what I was thinking as well. I would just remove the GRE. And then the rest what cowgirla said.

I am one of the people who cannot do well on the GRE to save my life, yet my strongest courses are my biology courses. I have no idea what the VCAT entails but if they were to scrap the GRE tomorrow and implement the VCAT, I will not complain! I do not know which is sadder: my combined score on round one is 980 (I think??) or that 980 is the average for the vet school I have applied to. Mind = boggled. 😕.

 

[LetItSnow]

I guess you put LORs and PS here as well - I actually disagree with weighting experience itself as 30%. Experience is super, super important but is also self-reported with very little to corroborate it except for the LORs and PS. The PS should be able to illustrate WHAT you got out of the experiences you had and the LORs should provide an outside opinion of your character and aptitude.

Well said.

I kinda like the way my school does (or did; I don't know if they've changed it) things - they evaluate academics first, and set a minimum bar for all candidates. If you make that, great, they look at the rest of your application.

To me that just makes sense. In the long run, sure, everyone needs more than academic skills to be a good vet. But in the short term, there's no point in admitting someone who doesn't have the academic skills to get through. So to my way of thinking, it's a great way to make a first cut at the list. I'd probably give equal value to the various GPAs. Maybe a bit less to GRE. I'd use last-45 GPA and overall GPA, whereas I think my school uses last-45 and pre-req GPAs.

Once I've slimmed my list at that point, I would put equal weight on PS, experience, and interview. But, I'd expand the interview to be a mixture of behavioral and 'background checking' - I'd sneakily throw in a few questions to each candidate designed to dig into their claimed experience in an effort to see who was exaggerating and who wasn't.

LOR would be last on my list. I agree that they provide a character reference, but I just don't think they're as valuable as the other components.

 

[AllieGoat]

I also think that its great to have a lot of great quality experiences, but another problem I have with it is I think its harder for some people to get a variety of experiences than others. For example, the only two types of practices that I could feasibly shadow at are small animal and large animal/equine (which took me a while to find). However, if I had more time/money to drive into the city I could have a wider variety of experiences because I know the zoo and the aviary take volunteers and interns and the Pittsburgh area also has specialty practices that might allow shadowers. On the other hand, I'm lucky to have the chance to shadow the large animal vet because I know other people have a hard time finding large animal people to shadow.

 

[Trematode]

I was doing some thinking. I am just going to throw this out there to see what you guys think. I agree that the GRE is a good tool to determine how well you can memorize material and regurgitate, how well you write and how well you can comprehend material. But... assuming you are earning a BSc, how often are you given a random list of 500 words to memorize, random passages to read that are not related to your interests, and high school math problem (without having a lecture first?). An exception would be if you are taking courses by distance.

I don't necessarily agree that being great at memorizing something means you are a smart and ready to handle the rigors of vet school.

This reason I was thinking this: I knew a girl who would memorize questions to whatever old tests she could get her hands on... and when it came to studying with her classmates, she was essentially useless at explaining why an answer is A and not C. She just knew the answer was A because that was what was on the test. If she was confused about an assignment, she would ask all of her friends to tell her their answers and go from there (One night, my friends and I had figured out that she had asked all of us to the answer for #4 on a certain assignment... she got the highest mark in the class while the rest of us did a lot less great). She got into pharmacy school. Me, and a few other people, are secretly wondering how she is doing.

I agree that memorization is a HUGE part of vet school. But I think it helps a lot to be interested in the topic that you are being forced to memorize and be able to comprehend the relevance and the processes behind the things that you are being asked to regurgitate.

I already said I suck at the GRE. But give me a long list of definitions to memorize for a biology course that I find interesting, and I will be able to give you an 85+ on an examination (if other factors are in my favor... like I'm not sick with the flu prior to the test ). Give me a list of random words to memorize... barf. 😛.

 

[cowgirla]

This reason I was thinking this: I knew a girl who would memorize questions to whatever old tests she could get her hands on...

Yup, this sounds familar. Yay for vet school professors who have 15 years worth of old exams floating around.
I hate that its so much memorization and so many re-used questions, but honestly, when you have back to back exams, sometimes it's easier to cross your fingers and hope something familiar shows up again!

Obviously you cant get away with strictly looking at old exams, but for some classes, they were more than 50% of my time.

 

[fromthebox]

I was doing some thinking. I am just going to throw this out there to see what you guys think. I agree that the GRE is a good tool to determine how well you can memorize material and regurgitate, how well you write and how well you can comprehend material. But... assuming you are earning a BSc, how often are you given a random list of 500 words to memorize, random passages to read that are not related to your interests, and high school math problem (without having a lecture first?). An exception would be if you are taking courses by distance.

I'm not sure we view the GRE the same way. I get the frustration at the apparently arbitrary info to be memorized, however when I began studying for the GRE it felt a lot more like a refresher than a memorization exercise. Of the 500 words to memorize many were in my vocabulary from having learned them in previous classes and through outside exposure. There were less than 100 that I did not encounter regularly enough to be able to give a working, if not 100% accurate definition, and less than that that I had not ever seen before (example: acclivity aka "a fancy word for incline" WTF?.)
The math was admittedly much harder, as I had not had geometry or trig in years, and had to work hard to refresh these, basically re-learning a lot of math. Both of these sections are in my opinion a test of retention ability, and how you approach the exam varies a lot. (e.g. cramming for what is on the test vs having the basics ingrained in your head and applying them to the situation.)
Likewise, the sections for comprehension are on areas that are not to the taker's interest because not all coursework reading will be. I guarantee that not every passage you are assigned in veterinary school will be scintillating.

In short, I think it tests more than memorization. It tests whether you learned how to implement the knowledge you acquired in your BSc/BA program.

I don't necessarily agree that being great at memorizing something means you are a smart and ready to handle the rigors of vet school.

This reason I was thinking this: I knew a girl who would memorize questions to whatever old tests she could get her hands on... and when it came to studying with her classmates, she was essentially useless at explaining why an answer is A and not C....She got into pharmacy school. Me, and a few other people, are secretly wondering how she is doing.

I wonder as well, but my suspicion is, she has found another group of friends like you to ask about the answers. If I had been in this situation, after finding her useless for explaining why the answer was A, plus knowing she had asked you and your friends the answer for the assignment I would have stopped providing her any answers or advice, as she is obviously a leach and not contributing to the group's success. She will likely make it through her program right up until she has to work completely independently and rely on her own reasoning.

I agree that memorization is a HUGE part of vet school. But I think it helps a lot to be interested in the topic that you are being forced to memorize and be able to comprehend the relevance and the processes behind the things that you are being asked to regurgitate.

It definitely helps to be interested in the topic. I have encountered my fair share of topics that were not very interesting to me. If I get in to vet school, I expect to encounter more. Eventually, we all have to find a work-around or incentive that helps us to retain this information. For me, that is context. I did much better in calculus (but not amazing) when I took it concurrently with calculus-based physics because I could apply the dry equations to a real world problem.

 

[macita183]

I wish the GRE would be given the least amount of weight. I am horrible with standardized exams and especially horrible with the format the GRE had (answer a question, then the next one is harder/easier based on if you answered the first correctly). When I take standardized tests I like to go through the questions, answer the ones I know, then come back and spend more time on the ones I am unsure of. The way the GRE was set up made me get very anxious since I could not do it my preferred way. I was in the 90% for the written portion, but the rest, not so great. My GPA is pretty good so I do not think this test reflects my academic abilities at all. I had a friend take the GRE for her graduate program and she is amazing at standardized tests. She did very well on it and was accepted in a lot of places (occupational therapy program) even though her GPA was pretty low.

 

[NStarz]

I honestly kind of like how it is now. With every school focusing on different aspects of your application. This makes it so people who are lacking in one area (say, GRE or GPA) can make up for it with kick-butt PS/LORs/experience. But other people who have higher numbers but are lacking in the other areas can apply to those schools that are numbers-based. Overall, I think it makes for a well-rounded veterinary profession once everyone graduates.

However, I would like for every school to agree on the same pre-requisite courses. Then I'm not applying based on where I meet the pre-reqs but on where I would 100% want to apply (I would have loved to apply to UCD b/c of their shelter med program, but I lacked a physio class, for example).

 

[squirrelsrule]

I honestly kind of like how it is now. With every school focusing on different aspects of your application. This makes it so people who are lacking in one area (say, GRE or GPA) can make up for it with kick-butt PS/LORs/experience. But other people who have higher numbers but are lacking in the other areas can apply to those schools that are numbers-based. Overall, I think it makes for a well-rounded veterinary profession once everyone graduates.

However, I would like for every school to agree on the same pre-requisite courses. Then I'm not applying based on where I meet the pre-reqs but on where I would 100% want to apply (I would have loved to apply to UCD b/c of their shelter med program, but I lacked a physio class, for example).

I agree! Uniform pre-requisites would be awesome! Then you'd know which classes you needed and could get them done and know you're ready to apply to any vet school.

 

[nyanko]

I agree that memorization is a HUGE part of vet school. But I think it helps a lot to be interested in the topic that you are being forced to memorize and be able to comprehend the relevance and the processes behind the things that you are being asked to regurgitate.

Well but the thing is, it's really unlikely that you're going to find absolutely everything in vet school interesting or relevant and with the volume that gets dumped on you, it's just not always feasible to understand every single thing and you really have to pick and choose and sometimes just brute force memorize it. But you absolutely will at some point there have to slog through something that you may find boring or pointless.

 

[StartingoverVet]

For the most part I like the holistic approach, which I think most schools utilize. Look at the application as a whole!

There are a ton of different combinations that work, and you need to get an over-all sense of the applicant. Just because I may excel in one area, I don't presume to think that is most (or least) important.

You can get in with a variety of backgrounds and strengths and weaknesses and that is exactly the way it should be. I really don't see that who is getting into vet school is the biggest problem with the profession. Most schools seem to do a pretty good job of retaining the students and pass the NAVLE so I'm not sure how much room for improvement there is (without denying that there is always some room for improvement).

 

[Trematode]

I liked the opinions. 👍. Thanks guys!

 

[scb44f]

I'm not sure we view the GRE the same way. I get the frustration at the apparently arbitrary info to be memorized, however when I began studying for the GRE it felt a lot more like a refresher than a memorization exercise. Of the 500 words to memorize many were in my vocabulary from having learned them in previous classes and through outside exposure. There were less than 100 that I did not encounter regularly enough to be able to give a working, if not 100% accurate definition, and less than that that I had not ever seen before (example: acclivity aka "a fancy word for incline" WTF?.)
The math was admittedly much harder, as I had not had geometry or trig in years, and had to work hard to refresh these, basically re-learning a lot of math. Both of these sections are in my opinion a test of retention ability, and how you approach the exam varies a lot. (e.g. cramming for what is on the test vs having the basics ingrained in your head and applying them to the situation.)
Likewise, the sections for comprehension are on areas that are not to the taker's interest because not all coursework reading will be. I guarantee that not every passage you are assigned in veterinary school will be scintillating.

In short, I think it tests more than memorization. It tests whether you learned how to implement the knowledge you acquired in your BSc/BA program.

I totally, wholeheartedly disagree. What classes did I ever take prepared me for the GRE? Oh, high school math classes. Want to know why? All the vocabulary and writing from my undergrad courses were for technical things. No essay on the GRE would warrant the use of words we use in chemical engineering in the format in which I learned to write. None of those words that I did learn in undergrad (that Microsoft Word doesn't even know) would ever ever ever appear on the vocabulary section. It is a big stretch to say that it makes you implement what you acquired in undergrad, unless you got your BS in GRE-taking and focused on learning new vocabulary and high school math. (Yes, I'll admit that my vocab sucks, but seriously, I found it ridiculous that vet schools wanted me to take this absolutely irrelevant test. I eventually got so fed up with memorizing f-ing words that I just quit and went with my 470 on that section.)

ETA: Obviously I don't put much weight on that test. They seem to think it's necessary, but just because the scores might correlate with the NAVLE scores doesn't make it a good test. Other than that, my spread would look like a more equal split between GPA, vet/animal experience (quality-wise, not just hours-wise), LORS/interview, and non-vet experiences, with a tiny percentage for whatever test.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I totally, wholeheartedly disagree. What classes did I ever take prepared me for the GRE? Oh, high school math classes. Want to know why? All the vocabulary and writing from my undergrad courses were for technical things. No essay on the GRE would warrant the use of words we use in chemical engineering in the format in which I learned to write. None of those words that I did learn in undergrad (that Microsoft Word doesn't even know) would ever ever ever appear on the vocabulary section. It is a big stretch to say that it makes you implement what you acquired in undergrad, unless you got your BS in GRE-taking and focused on learning new vocabulary and high school math. (Yes, I'll admit that my vocab sucks, but seriously, I found it ridiculous that vet schools wanted me to take this absolutely irrelevant test. I eventually got so fed up with memorizing f-ing words that I just quit and went with my 470 on that section.)

ETA: Obviously I don't put much weight on that test. They seem to think it's necessary, but just because the scores might correlate with the NAVLE scores doesn't make it a good test. Other than that, my spread would look like a more equal split between GPA, vet/animal experience (quality-wise, not just hours-wise), LORS/interview, and non-vet experiences, with a tiny percentage for whatever test.

As long as we are still debating the GRE I will weigh in....

I believe pretty strongly that some sort of standardized test for academic prowess is necessary to "normalize" the varying degree of difficulty in undergrad GREs. We all know about grade inflation, and the varying degrees of difficulty at different schools, and different majors at different schools. The GRE is the best way to figure out who got a lower GPA due to workload, degree of difficulty, and more competitive environment. I agree that something like the old VCAT might have made more sense, since everyone has to take pre-reqs, but I am guessing that people who don't like standardized tests in general are going to score poorly (or complain) regardless of the standardized test. It is far from perfect admittedly, but it does give a chance to those who haven't gotten the easy As.

For those who ask, what does the GRE test? Well, it tests your ability to take a test, something you will be doing way more frequently in vet school.

 

[scb44f]

As long as we are still debating the GRE I will weigh in....

I believe pretty strongly that some sort of standardized test for academic prowess is necessary to "normalize" the varying degree of difficulty in undergrad GREs. We all know about grade inflation, and the varying degrees of difficulty at different schools, and different majors at different schools. The GRE is the best way to figure out who got a lower GPA due to workload, degree of difficulty, and more competitive environment. I agree that something like the old VCAT might have made more sense, since everyone has to take pre-reqs, but I am guessing that people who don't like standardized tests in general are going to score poorly (or complain) regardless of the standardized test. It is far from perfect admittedly, but it does give a chance to those who haven't gotten the easy As.

For those who ask, what does the GRE test? Well, it tests your ability to take a test, something you will be doing way more frequently in vet school.

I agree with you on all accounts. There needs to be some test to normalize things, but I don't think the GRE is it. I've said before, and I stick to it, that if we are going to take a test that is currently offered, the MCAT would be a better test to require than the GRE.

 

[LMMS]

For those who ask, what does the GRE test? Well, it tests your ability to take a test, something you will be doing way more frequently in vet school.

Yes, but some people are just 'good' standardized test takers. The fact that certain individuals are able to 'crack' a 55 question computer randomized test has nothing to do with how they will perform inside a classroom; nor does it prove that they will be good doctors. I will never refer to the ocean as a beautiful shade or cerulean; nor will I ever say that I admire someone's guiless in tough situations. Who would? I will agree that math has importance in any field. But, if I feel the need to calculate the area of the circle in which the cow is standing prior to shoving my hand up her posterior so that I can avoid being stepped on, I really should consider a new profession. Rather, I would prefer some type of reasoning be placed on the test in order to look at critical thinking patterns given that's what medicine (hell, science in general) requires. And please do not get me started on the subjectively scored 'writing sample'. Oi! I've actually written the same essay twice and received two completely different scores: 5.5 and 4.0. Yeah... 13 peer reviewed publications and an A in calculus and I can't get above an 1150 on that horror. However, I have taken standardized certification examinations for my standing in the lab animal community (they're given the exact same way as the GRE). Nailed all three on the first shot. Thus, I can argue that my faults on the GRE are not indicative of my testing ability. But I never get that far...

I understand full well that some type of standardized score is necessary for graduate and professional schools. But, for them to place as much weight on it as they do disappoints me. I would much rather that they added something to the two be all and end all numbers, and THEN decide who they'll interview rather than toss a bunch of people away in the first round because they didn't make the mark. Sure, there are schools that do this (Colorado comes to mind readily) but does that really make much difference in the end? Yes, GPA and GRE have their place in this process. However, I feel that the ad coms need to put more weight on LORs, experience and an illustrated passion for the profession. Good numbers do not make good doctors. Passion, drive, reasoning, caring, perception, and an ability to understand/determine what's 'right' from 'wrong' makes good doctors.

**Steps down from soap box.**

 

[fromthebox]

I totally, wholeheartedly disagree. What classes did I ever take prepared me for the GRE? Oh, high school math classes. Want to know why? All the vocabulary and writing from my undergrad courses were for technical things. No essay on the GRE would warrant the use of words we use in chemical engineering in the format in which I learned to write. None of those words that I did learn in undergrad (that Microsoft Word doesn't even know) would ever ever ever appear on the vocabulary section. It is a big stretch to say that it makes you implement what you acquired in undergrad, unless you got your BS in GRE-taking and focused on learning new vocabulary and high school math. (Yes, I'll admit that my vocab sucks, but seriously, I found it ridiculous that vet schools wanted me to take this absolutely irrelevant test. I eventually got so fed up with memorizing f-ing words that I just quit and went with my 470 on that section.)

ETA: Obviously I don't put much weight on that test. They seem to think it's necessary, but just because the scores might correlate with the NAVLE scores doesn't make it a good test. Other than that, my spread would look like a more equal split between GPA, vet/animal experience (quality-wise, not just hours-wise), LORS/interview, and non-vet experiences, with a tiny percentage for whatever test.

What's so wrong with testing you on high school math? Did you expect to be able to forget it all? Once again, it is a test of retention, and that includes stuff from high school. As to "getting a BS in GRE taking" my BS in Microbiology (MS Word doesn't know my major either) came with a lot of GE requirements. I had to take comparative literature, writing courses and art courses. I took upper division ones so I wasn't bored re-taking HS English. General Ed is the part of everyone's degree that's about the GRE, and it is what you make of it. There are also other activities, such as reading things not assigned for class in your downtime that can expose you to these words. It appalled me to no end to encounter co-workers and others who had their BA and could not write a grammatically correct police report, even with use of spell check and MS Word. To heck with the GRE vocab, these guys get homonyms wrong!
Should that be forgiven because they took basic English in HS, so it isn't relevant anymore?

I also agree with SOV that it tests how well you take a test. That's not a bad thing.

ETA: I don't think the GRE is the end all of admissions, as it isn't perfect (no standardized test is.) Also, high scores don't balance out bad GPA as much as we think they do, if they counted as another measure of performance above "they made the average score" I would be happier with it's use.

 

[scb44f]

What's so wrong with testing you on high school math? Did you expect to be able to forget it all? Once again, it is a test of retention, and that includes stuff from high school. As to "getting a BS in GRE taking" my BS in Microbiology (MS Word doesn't know my major either) came with a lot of GE requirements. I had to take comparative literature, writing courses and art courses. I took upper division ones so I wasn't bored re-taking HS English. General Ed is the part of everyone's degree that's about the GRE, and it is what you make of it. There are also other activities, such as reading things not assigned for class in your downtime that can expose you to these words. It appalled me to no end to encounter co-workers and others who had their BA and could not write a grammatically correct police report, even with use of spell check and MS Word. To heck with the GRE vocab, these guys get homonyms wrong!
Should that be forgiven because they took basic English in HS, so it isn't relevant anymore?

I also agree with SOV that it tests how well you take a test. That's not a bad thing.

Well, for me personally, it was a pain in the butt to go back and relearn things that I never use (and honestly didn't recognize). I was in calc 3 and diff eq my first year of undergrad, so please don't take that like I just don't know how to do math (or that I forgot, because you do in fact use math in engineering...). I forgot how to do the stupid calculations they want you to know.

Just because you can write something that's grammatically correct doesn't mean you will do well on the GRE. I believe my grammar is just fine, and yet I receive average scores on essays. I know it's because my style of writing is not the most compelling; it never was and it never will be. I write what I think, and tend to be blunt about it. That's not what these graders want, but my mind and my hand don't put essays together in that way no matter how hard I try.

ETA: I'd be highly impressed if your gen eds really helped you that much with the vocabulary seen on the GRE. I get the argument for outside reading. That's not something that I did during undergrad though, and it's not part of school, so that still is evidence to me that it's not a good test for graduate programs. The only required gen eds for my curriculum that might have been useful were humanities/social sciences (I chose psychology classes), and an English class (which I got out of because of classes from high school).

ETA Part 2: I just noticed your comment that I bolded. When the heck did I ever say that it wasn't relevant anymore? I think being able to form a coherent sentence with proper spelling is a good thing, and yeah, I'd like my doctor to be able to do that. I'm not arguing having a writing section, I'm arguing the other two portions of the test.

 

[fromthebox]

LMMS- I would call the ocean cerulean. Especially if I were describing it to someone who was not there viewing it. These type of words give texture to communication. Some of the words are silly because they have fallen out of use, but a lot are still relevant.

 

[fromthebox]

Well, for me personally, it was a pain in the butt to go back and relearn things that I never use (and honestly didn't recognize). I was in calc 3 and diff eq my first year of undergrad, so please don't take that like I just don't know how to do math (or that I forgot, because you do in fact use math in engineering...). I forgot how to do the stupid calculations they want you to know.
.

I don't mean to attack your math ability. Chem E is a difficult major and I applaud your skills, diff eq is hard stuff for me. I failed the AP Calc exam, and had to re- take Calc 2 in undergrad. The problem is, vet schools don't require Calc. They are right to not- it isn't necessary, but unlike my mother's generation, who took Algebra 2 as seniors in high school and that was an elective, we need to have at least Pre-Calc/trig to get into college these days. The test is flawed in this way, but requiring we be tested on Calc is not a cure.

 

[mulletsarelove]

As far as the GRE goes, I think that something to keep in mind is that most of the people applying to vet school are not people who took tons of upper level English classes with a big vocab component, so no, most of us have not had exposure to a lot of the random words nor do we know a ton of Latin/Greek to reason through it that way. We are all being compared to each other, and the vast majority of us focused on science rather than english. So, in that aspect, even though some of the GRE material may seem irrelevant, it's still a decent way to compare testtaking ability.

I think that there should be some sort of a cutoff for the GRE--if you do above that, then it can roll over to help out your GPA. I guess the same for GPA-if you have a really high GPA, obviously you've been able to do well on tests, so the GRE shouldn't be as critical.

I think that interviews are relatively important, since I've met my fair share of people who have great GPA/GRE but would never be able to keep clients because of their lack of personal skills. It's great to say that eLORs should have a big impact, but in reality, there's very few people who are going to get poor eLORs. In my experience, if a friend has asked for a LOR from someone who wouldn't write a positive one, the prof just told them that they wouldn't write it. Most people can find three people who will write positive things about them, even if they're not really that great at client relations, etc, so the interview helps with that and kind of verifies the LoRs.

In the end, I think everything (academic, experience, and interview) should be weighed equally with a holistic approach where lower stats in something can be helped by doing well in something else.

 

[scb44f]

I don't mean to attack your math ability. Chem E is a difficult major and I applaud your skills, diff eq is hard stuff for me. I failed the AP Calc exam, and had to re- take Calc 2 in undergrad. The problem is, vet schools don't require Calc. They are right to not- it isn't necessary, but unlike my mother's generation, who took Algebra 2 as seniors in high school and that was an elective, we need to have at least Pre-Calc/trig to get into college these days. The test is flawed in this way, but requiring we be tested on Calc is not a cure.

I agree that calc shouldn't be tested. I didn't mean to give that feeling either. I just don't think that the kinds of things the GRE focuses on is appropriate for aspiring veterinarians.

 

[breenie]

The reason that was explained to me for why the VCAT went bye bye is that there isn't a high enough number of people taking it every year for it to be especially profitable for the testing company.

That's why we got rolled into taking the GRE, supposedly, which is a pretty crappy reason. Why we didn't get rolled into the MCAT is beyond me.

Just some food for thought. I think the GRE is really stupid unless you're taking the subject tests for **** like grad school.

 

[bunnity]

I'm surprised that people are saying the GRE is all memorization. The verbal section has a ton of reading comprehension, which you couldn't possibly memorize anything for. There is some vocabulary, but the point isn't for you to be able to memorize the word list (which is from thousands of words not the 500 in the Kaplan book) - it is to see what you have picked up along the way. A lot of that is deduction too - do you know a word that has a similar root, do you know a word in another language that looks similar, can you use process of elimination effectively from the information you do know? The math section requires some basic knowledge but once you learn or re-learn that, the math problems are all about reasoning. I agree that the MCAT might be a more practical test, but I think ANY standardized test is conquered not by knowing everything on the test, but by knowing how to reason through the information you don't already know.

 

[StartingoverVet]

That's why we got rolled into taking the GRE, supposedly, which is a pretty crappy reason. Why we didn't get rolled into the MCAT is beyond me.

l.

Of course it is vet schools decision which test to use. Why anyone would want to take the torture that is the MCAT is beyond me? I don't have that level of masochism.

 

[breenie]

Of course it is vet schools decision which test to use. Why anyone would want to take the torture that is the MCAT is beyond me? I don't have that level of masochism.

Eesh, I would never WANT to take it, but it seems the more sensible of the two tests to make your applicants take, right?

 

[Trematode]

As far as the GRE goes, I think that something to keep in mind is that most of the people applying to vet school are not people who took tons of upper level English classes with a big vocab component, so no, most of us have not had exposure to a lot of the random words nor do we know a ton of Latin/Greek to reason through it that way. We are all being compared to each other, and the vast majority of us focused on science rather than english.

I know the root words behind a lot of major the major insect and invertebrate groups. I know a lot of Latin/Greek... just not the type of Latin/Greek that will make the GRE a little bit easier. .

 

[StartingoverVet]

Eesh, I would never WANT to take it, but it seems the more sensible of the two tests to make your applicants take, right?

Ah that word, sensible, I believe it has fallen out of use in our society. Really, you are so naive.

 

[twelvetigers]

As someone who managed to make a 640 on the verbal bit... yeah, I got that by memorizing the crap out of words. I did okay the first time because I have always had pretty good reading comprehension, but the extra push to get my score up there was definitely just recognizing more words. Most of which I have since forgotten.

 

[StartingoverVet]

As someone who managed to make a 640 on the verbal bit... yeah, I got that by memorizing the crap out of words. I did okay the first time because I have always had pretty good reading comprehension, but the extra push to get my score up there was definitely just recognizing more words. Most of which I have since forgotten.

I actually remember quite a few. A lot better % than remembering what IL-3 does vs IL-5 or whatever from immunology, or which genes do what from biochem etc etc.

 

[Trematode]

It frightens me that most people admit they had to "memorize the crap out of words" in order to do well. I guess all of those little tips and hints talked about in the study guides that are ment to make recognizing unknown words has failed in a lot of cases. I remember reading that someone did memorize all 500 Kaplan flashcards. .

I think the only GRE word I learned that appeared in real life is anachronism.
Yet I know that Siphonaptera means "Sucking mouthparts" and "without wings".
And that Digenea means "two births"
And hexactinellidae has six-sided spicules and are the class sponges!
And that rhaphidophoridae are camel crickets!
And I studied for the GRE long after I took those two courses. 🙁

 

[breenie]

Ah that word, sensible, I believe it has fallen out of use in our society. Really, you are so naive.

I prefer idealistic! 😛

 

[bunnity]

It frightens me that most people admit they had to "memorize the crap out of words" in order to do well. I guess all of those little tips and hints talked about in the study guides that are ment to make recognizing unknown words has failed in a lot of cases. I remember reading that someone did memorize all 500 Kaplan flashcards. .

I think the only GRE word I learned that appeared in real life is anachronism.
Yet I know that Siphonaptera means "Sucking mouthparts" and "without wings".
And that Digenea means "two births"
And hexactinellidae has six-sided spicules and are the class sponges!
And that rhaphidophoridae are camel crickets!
And I studied for the GRE long after I took those two courses. 🙁

So proud of myself that I now know Siphonaptera and Digenea...

 

[fromthebox]

I think we all approached it differently. While TT may have done it through memorization, others, including myself do it the way Bunnity described.
Personally, I was worried about the math. I'd done ok on it on the SAT, but hadn't done much with it in the interim and was quite freaked out about the 700s only being the high 70th percentile 😱. I studied like crazy, and it paid off, I did better on the math than on the verbal. Likely because I didn't memorize all the words. Then again, I didn't memorize, and I still scored around where TT did.

This is, by the way not an attempt at bragging about scores. I have always been good with tests and I scored exactly the same on the GRE and the SAT, the only difference being that after college, my math score was better than my verbal. This is still not enough in the eyes of most schools to make up for my GPA. My advice to those who are applying in future years - get the GPA up as much as possible and load up on the experience, the GRE is not your biggest worry.

ETA antidisestablishmentarianism! In HS we joked about it being the longest word in the dictionary. "To be against those who are in favor of dismantling the Church of England"

 

[nyanko]

fromthebox: your IS school weights GRE and GPA equally. It absolutely helped me.

 

[bksambo]

I agree that the GRE seems a strange test for vet school. Especially the verbal section. In terms of studying, I think most people have trouble with the verbal part of the GRE simply because it isn't the sort of thing you can cram for easily. This would be my tip for the pre-vets out there who are a year or so away from the application process: start GRE prep now! It really worked for me. I bought a few of the 800/500 word list books and just flipped through them regularly (I live in NYC, so subway commuting time was perfect for this). I did this for about a year, with varying amounts of dedication. As far as encountering those words in real life, I found that the New York Times and Washington Post actually use a fair amount of GRE-type words, so I made it a point to read as many of their articles as I possibly could. It was actually sort of fun to come across a really obscure word in an article and to know what it meant. I also made sure to look up an unfamiliar words that I encountered. By the time the GRE came around for real, I felt that I had not only learned a ton of new words, but also had experienced many of them in context, which really helps to make them stick.

Anyway, the point of this ramble, I suppose, is that I agree the GRE verbal is a strange thing to have to tackle for vet school, but since you have to do it, prep early and often. The math part you can improve on quickly, but improving on the verbal portion requires a more sustained effort.