I hate the GREs

[Ilovethebrain]

I think GREs are worthless.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[JackD]

I think GREs are worthless.

True. Go to a school that doesn't require them. There are plenty. I have found that every school i want to go to doesn't require them. You would think that psychologists would know that one standardized test isn't going to tell you anything about someone's academic achievement. I got like 19 or so on the ACT and yet i have a 3.4 GPA, i have been on the dean's list several times, and am in the national honors society. I have also excelled at math and science, the two areas that the ACT predicted i would have a lot of trouble in. I didn't significantly below average on the ACT but have performed significantly above average in college. As far as i can tell, tests like the GRE are meaningless.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It may not be the best measure, but unfortunately it is the one that 95% of doctoral programs use; a necessary evil.

 

[deleted176373]

I think GREs are worthless.

Really, why do you think they are worthless? You don't believe that they tell you anything about a student?

A couple of perspectives.

1. You believe that people can do well on the GRE by studying for it.
2. You don't believe that people can control their GRE score.
3. You believe that GRE's are some how biased against you.

Let's look at these arguements, as they are the most common ones against the predictive value of the GRE.

1. If you believe that GRE's can be manipulated through preparation (and I do) then those who prepare for it are the same types that are likely to study and do well in graduate school. Seems to have some face value.

2. If you believe that GRE's cannot be manipulated then it may be tapping IQ constructs which could be predictive in determining graduate school success. There are inherent measures of speed of reading comprehension, complex problem solving, and abstract conceptualization that graduate psychology programs seem to place a value on. Seems to also have face value.

3. If you believed that the GRE is somehow biased (and it may be), it may be no less biased than graduate school itself. After all, graduate school requires you to change how you think. Doing well on the GRE may be testing this same intellectual flexibility. If you cannot adapt your thinking here, what makes you think that you will have the intellectual fluidity to adapt in graduate school. Another case where face value exists.

Don't shoot the messenger here, I am playing devils advocate for the purpose of stimulating an interesting discussion. I hear people complain about how the GRE's are unfair. I would like to know how they are unfair outside of people who are suffering from TBI or other disabilities.

I would have loved to score higher. I believe a higher score would have opened opportunities to me that I would have certainly pursued. I don't feel that the GRE was unfair, but my low GRE certainly kept me from U of Michigan, Yale, and other top schools.

If someone can tell me why these tests are "worthless", I would love to hear it. I believe that previous analysis suggesting the lack of predictive value suffers from many methodological flaws.

And yes, Psychologists know that one test is not sufficient to determine your suitability for graduate school. However you better believe that your GPA, Personal Statement, and other application materials combined with your interview provide a rich data set from which to draw from.

Mark

 

[EquestriAnn]

I think it's funny that people call it "the GREs," when there's really only one

 

[erg923]

I think it is important to realize the purpose of the GRE exam. It is not a measure of intelligence, or even achievement at all....and they were never meant to be. The sole reason the GRE is used is for its predictive validity. Most studies confirm that it is indeed the single best valid and reliable predictor of success in the first year of grad school. Better than grades even. To my knowledge the regression line flattens out and asymptotes soon after 1000 though...and isn't nearly as useful when predicting success of a student with a 1075 vs: 1300 to my knowledge..some one correct me if I am wrong here? When a program is "investing" in you so to speak, I think they have the right to use the best predictive measures...even if they are annoying and not nearly perfect. And by the way...what doctoral programs in psychology don't require the GRE exam? I had to take that darn thing 3 times to get into a Ph.D program...grrr!

 

[JockNerd]

I think it is important to realize the purpose of the GRE exam. It is not a measure of intelligence, or even achievement at all....and they were never meant to be. The sole reason the GRE is used is for its predictive validity. Most studies confirm that it is indeed the single best valid and reliable predictor of success in the first year of grad school. Better than grades even. To my knowledge the regression line flattens out and asymptotes soon after 1000 though...and isn't nearly as useful when predicting success of a student with a 1075 vs: 1300 to my knowledge..some one correct me if I am wrong here? When a program is "investing" in you so to speak, I think they have the right to use the best predictive measures...even if they are annoying and not nearly perfect. And by the way...what doctoral programs in psychology don't require the GRE exam? I had to take that darn thing 3 times to get into a Ph.D program...grrr!

What? I think you're mistaken; I believe the best predictor of grad school success is undergrad GPA, which is the reason that a lot of people call the GRE redundant. Also, I'm not sure about your regression line assertion; who are the people with sub-1000s? I don't think you can get into a grad school with a score like that, so I'm not sure how many people with that score would be included in a study on the topic. One reason for the weak predictive powers of either the GRE or GPA is that the distribution is pretty truncated.

I'm fine the the GRE, but I wish it were cheaper. That seems the most prohibitive thing about it to me.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I believe in the GPA a lot more than a GRE, as there are 30-40 data points (each class) instead of 1. I think most programs use the GRE was a first cut rule out.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

I think it's funny that people call it "the GREs," when there's really only one

Actually there are a handful of them... the general and then the subject ones.

 

[cara susanna]

Markp: Can I ask what you define as a low score for you?

Anyway, I saw a study that showed that the biggest predictor of success in graduate school was research experience as an undergrad.

I may be biased though, because right now the practice GRE is kicking my butt.

 

[EquestriAnn]

Actually there are a handful of them... the general and then the subject ones.

Oh well yes this is true, but I think it is implied that "the GREs" is the general test.

 

[deleted176373]

Markp: Can I ask what you define as a low score for you?

Anyway, I saw a study that showed that the biggest predictor of success in graduate school was research experience as an undergrad.

I may be biased though, because right now the practice GRE is kicking my butt.

Low scores are different for everyone. If you want to go to Yale, U of Michigan, or other top schools... Well a 1300 is low. If you want to get into a great many mid-range programs, a 1300 is perfectly acceptable but you won't get any special attention. If you want to shoot for fairly modest programs it's on the high side of the curve.

Reality is that my score was a 75th percentile score in both Math and Verbal and my AW score was 86th percentile, but no one cares about your AW score. My GRE subject was 80th percentile as well. Certainly nothing to cry about, but not in the 90th plus percentile that top schools expect.

If you think Psychology is crazy, take Law School. The LSAT essentially dictates what school you will be able to get into and what your future earning potential is. Period. We have it much better in Psychology than some of our peers.

Mark

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

If you think Psychology is crazy, take Law School. The LSAT essentially dictates what school you will be able to get into and what your future earning potential is. Period. We have it much better in Psychology than some of our peers.

Mark

I think what is easier about law school is the rigidity of acceptance. People say you should go to the highest program you can get into, though they typically stick pretty close to your LSAT score in regard to where you have a shot. After the LSATs you pretty much know where you have a shot and where is your reach. It is a little trickier if you want to go to a program for a specialty (they may be #31 on the list, but #2 for that specialty). I have a bunch of friends who all went through it and most went to big firms for the big $$ and crazy hours. Their school/ranking pretty much dictated who would be interested in them. A few of my friends went the small/boutique route and it was much different, though the pay was a fraction of the big firm money (usually).

 

[razzled]

Undergraduate GPA is actually a much better predictor of future academic success than the GRE or any other standardized test. That's why many schools use the GRE primarily as a way to make sense of a low GPA or a high GPA from a school that the graduate institution is unfamiliar with. But, all in all, if the admissions folks are up on their psychometrics, they should know to look at GPA first.

 

[deleted176373]

I think what is easier about law school is the rigidity of acceptance. People say you should go to the highest program you can get into, though they typically stick pretty close to your LSAT score in regard to where you have a shot. After the LSATs you pretty much know where you have a shot and where is your reach. It is a little trickier if you want to go to a program for a specialty (they may be #31 on the list, but #2 for that specialty). I have a bunch of friends who all went through it and most went to big firms for the big $$ and crazy hours. Their school/ranking pretty much dictated who would be interested in them. A few of my friends went the small/boutique route and it was much different, though the pay was a fraction of the big firm money (usually).

As you might already suspect, I have someone close to me who's trying to get into Georgetown or GW and needs to score high enough on the LSAT to make the cut. She's not sure if she should take GW who is #3 in intellectual property (which she wants to specialize in) or go for Georgetown which is #14 overall vs #22 at GW.

 

[EquestriAnn]

If you think Psychology is crazy, take Law School. The LSAT essentially dictates what school you will be able to get into and what your future earning potential is. Period. We have it much better in Psychology than some of our peers.

Mark

My friend had a 3.4 GPA and got a 172 on the LSAT....he got in to NYU, Columbia, and many other top 10 schools. My friend with a 3.9 GPA and a 168 on the LSAT didn't get into any top 10 schools. Apparently the LSAT has the final say.

 

[cmuhooligan]

Undergraduate GPA is actually a much better predictor of future academic success than the GRE or any other standardized test. That's why many schools use the GRE primarily as a way to make sense of a low GPA or a high GPA from a school that the graduate institution is unfamiliar with. But, all in all, if the admissions folks are up on their psychometrics, they should know to look at GPA first.

Although somewhat dated, I came across this article after a brief search...

Predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examination in a clinical psychology program. [References].
Year of Publication 1989
Author Dollinger, Stephen J.
Source Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Vol 20(1) Feb 1989, 56-58.
Other Serial Titles Professional Psychology
Abstract Previous research on the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) has been plagued by the problem of restricted ranges resulting from the failure of low scorers to gain admission to graduate programs. This difficulty did not obtain with the present sample of 105 clinical students, which included a number of minority students admitted without consideration for their GRE scores. Two criterion variables were used, both reflecting students' performance while in graduate school: number of failed preliminary examinations ("prelims") and a composite reflecting efficient and competent progress through the program. Both variables were significantly predicted from the GRE, particularly from the Advanced Psychology test (both at p<.001). In contrast, the undergraduate GPA was unrelated to failed prelims and only slightly correlated with the composite. The significant relations shrank when majority and minority students were considered separately, although shrinkage was less for minority students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved)

 

[Ilovethebrain]

I think it is important to realize the purpose of the GRE exam. It is not a measure of intelligence, or even achievement at all....and they were never meant to be. The sole reason the GRE is used is for its predictive validity. Most studies confirm that it is indeed the single best valid and reliable predictor of success in the first year of grad school. Better than grades even. To my knowledge the regression line flattens out and asymptotes soon after 1000 though...and isn't nearly as useful when predicting success of a student with a 1075 vs: 1300 to my knowledge..some one correct me if I am wrong here? When a program is "investing" in you so to speak, I think they have the right to use the best predictive measures...even if they are annoying and not nearly perfect. And by the way...what doctoral programs in psychology don't require the GRE exam? I had to take that darn thing 3 times to get into a Ph.D program...grrr!

I would disagree, I know someone who has a very low GRE score, and their CV would already indicate that they are a graduate student. They are 24 have had no graduate training but have 7 professional presentations, one second authorship and 4 research labs (two at prestigious institutions).

I think that's a pretty good predictor of getting in without a stupid test.

 

[deleted176373]

I would disagree, I know someone who has a very low GRE score, and their CV would already indicate that they are a graduate student. They are 24 have had no graduate training but have 7 professional presentations, one second authorship and 4 research labs (two at prestigious institutions).

I think that's a pretty good predictor of getting in without a stupid test.

And as you noted, they are not in a graduate program. What was your point? That they should be in one? Perhaps... but unfortunately it's just part of the game we all have to play. Doesn't mean it's fair, Doesn't mean it's right... it's just the reality we all face. I don't see a groundswell of action on the part of Psychology faculty anywhere to change that either.

Mark

 

[erg923]

You Wrote:
"I think that's a pretty good predictor of getting in without a stupid test."

I totally agree that research experience/publications is a good predictor of success in grad school....hence why it is weighted so heavily by clinical programs. Unfortunately, in this world, it doesn't really matter what you think would be a good predictor. One of my mentors always says "Your opinions and personal experience aren't empirical studies." Statistics are your friend in this field. No measure can be perfect, not grades, not research experience, nor GRE. It's just one factor that helps the predictor model, thats all. Perhaps you could articulate what you think it is so "stupid," instead of just calling it that?

There is a decent lit review discussing predictive validity of the GRE in http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-85007765.html

"GRE scores have been found to be significant predictors of cumulative grade performance (House, Gupta, & Xiao, 1997), grades in specific graduate psychology courses (House & Johnson, 1998; Huitema & Stein, 1993), and graduate degree completion (House & Johnson, 1993a). Further, GRE scores were significantly correlated with a multifaceted rating that reflected student progress in a clinical psychology graduate program (Dollinger, 1989)."

Also a good meta-analysis too done by Kuncel, Hezlett and Ones (2001) that I read for a psychometric theory class

 

[childphdapp]

I would disagree, I know someone who has a very low GRE score, and their CV would already indicate that they are a graduate student. They are 24 have had no graduate training but have 7 professional presentations, one second authorship and 4 research labs (two at prestigious institutions).

I think that's a pretty good predictor of getting in without a stupid test.

The problem with GPA is that it isn't standardized across schools and a 3.5 at one school may be harder to get than a 4.0 at another school. That said, I am NOT fond of the GRE either - I studied my butt off and still couldn't pass a certain threshold. Do I think that it is a fair judgment of how I will perform in graduate school? Definitely not! Although I was told my scores were "good enough" to get me past any cutoffs ... I still believe the GRE was the one glaring thing that took me out of the running at some of the programs that I applied to. I have very similar stats to your friend. In the end, all the research I've done for the past 4 years may amount to nothing ... had I known this, maybe I would have said screw the research positions and just studied EVEN harder for the GREs as a full time job?

This process isn't fair, but it also isn't going to change it anytime soon. Even more and more qualified applicants with sub-par GRE scores are going to get overlooked with the increasing number of applicants each year ...

 

[Ollie123]

It was most likely the reason I didn't get many interviews so I'm not exactly a huge fan.

That being said "My friend has a strong CV and didn't do that well on it" isn't exactly a very convincing argument to get rid of it. It sucks for that person, but that doesn't make the test worthless. No test will be perfectly predictive for everyone who takes it, that's why you have to do that whole application process rather than just having them forward your GRE scores

Basically, we need something to standardize GPA. If not the GREs, than what?

 

[socialcog]

Basically, we need something to standardize GPA. If not the GREs, than what?

arm wrestling contest?

No but seriously, it's a tough test and I can empathize with those that have repeatedly struggled with it. I have never been accused of *dazzling* anyone with my numbers therefore I have always felt compelled to showcase other stronger qualities of mine that might offset my mediocre stats.

It's interesting that those that speak harshly of the GRE are those who do poorly. Those who walk away with strong scores, or perhaps feel pride in their scores, are usually in support of it.

 

[pointzerofive]

I agree that the GRE is a necessary evil.

However, motivation and networking may be able to get you where you need to be with a low GRE. For instance, my overall and psych GPAs are 2.9 and 3.6, respectively. My GRE is <1000. However, as an undergraduate I was on 4 research teams with one leading to a paper where I am 2nd author. I was able to get into a clinical M.A. program with my numbers.

Now granted, I'm in a masters program, but I do have a 3.9 GPA now.

My point? I barely made the GRE cut-off for the program I'm in. Sometimes you have to go in the back door (i.e. a masters program). You may not be able to go straight into a PhD program. If it is truly something that you want, you won't stop at NO.

 

[JoRaven]

The problem with the so-called predictive validity of the GRE is that it morphed into, for lack of a better term, a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the GRE was introduced by ETS, schools automatically bought into it, assuming that a higher score meant better performance. These schools did not let students into PhD programs regardless of their GRE score, and so there are no truly valid studies linking good GRE scores to grad school performance.

In order for the validity to be set, schools would have to let in students with lower GRE scores and basically see what happens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Anyone with any background in stats can see that the so-called statistical significance of these studies is based on a biased sample. There is a narrow margin of scores that leads to PhD program admission.

I am taking the GRE for the 1st time in 3 weeks. I have been studying my butt off, so we'll see what happens. Right now I stand with a 4.0 gpa for all coursework in undergrad, and I will be getting research experience with a highly-regarded professor in my area of interest. Needless to say, if my GRE scores keep me out of the good grad schools, I will be extremely upset to have worked as hard as I have.

 

[deleted176373]

I am taking the GRE for the 1st time in 3 weeks. I have been studying my butt off, so we'll see what happens. Right now I stand with a 4.0 gpa for all coursework in undergrad, and I will be getting research experience with a highly-regarded professor in my area of interest. Needless to say, if my GRE scores keep me out of the good grad schools, I will be extremely upset to have worked as hard as I have.

Take practice tests, take a lot of them, so you know where you are at. You want to get it as "right" as possible the first time through. It's not an easy test and it can, as you note, cause trouble for an otherwise well qualified student.

Mark

 

[pointzerofive]

Good point. I believe the biased sample is called restricted range. I think I saw an article out there regarding this?

Best of luck to you on the GRE!

The problem with the so-called predictive validity of the GRE is that it morphed into, for lack of a better term, a self-fulfilling prophecy. When the GRE was introduced by ETS, schools automatically bought into it, assuming that a higher score meant better performance. These schools did not let students into PhD programs regardless of their GRE score, and so there are no truly valid studies linking good GRE scores to grad school performance.

In order for the validity to be set, schools would have to let in students with lower GRE scores and basically see what happens. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Anyone with any background in stats can see that the so-called statistical significance of these studies is based on a biased sample. There is a narrow margin of scores that leads to PhD program admission.

I am taking the GRE for the 1st time in 3 weeks. I have been studying my butt off, so we'll see what happens. Right now I stand with a 4.0 gpa for all coursework in undergrad, and I will be getting research experience with a highly-regarded professor in my area of interest. Needless to say, if my GRE scores keep me out of the good grad schools, I will be extremely upset to have worked as hard as I have.