PHD Student Quality

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
P

parto123

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Messages
316
Reaction score
0
Members do not see this ad.
I don't see why psy PHDs are always boasting about their student quality v. psyd student quality. If you look on avg, the objective stats for the PHD student is around a 590 (give or take) gre. Yes, there are more selective schools, but this is the avg PHD students. These type standardized test numbers couldn't even get students into second tier colleges and law schools.

Fact is that you are confusing "low acceptance percentage" with "high student quality". There are crappy colleges with lower acceptance rates than top 20 colleges, simply because crappy colleges get weak applicants.
At the end of the day, the applicant pool for phds in psychology (based on GPAs and standardized test numbers) is not that strong, so you shouldn't exactly be looking down on other degrees.

[Edit- adding section from my below post]

I read an article about this a few years ago. The numbers were something like 580 verbal, 620 math (like i said, give or take). I dont know the exact numbers today, and even those numbers i saw were not accurate, for the sake of argument, i will concede that the avg gre for phd students is 610 verbal and 660 math (even though these numbers would be very very unlikely). This translates to roughly 85th percentile verbal and 62nd percentile math (http://www.powerscore.com/gre/scoringscale.htm.) Heck simply for the sake of argument ill inflate PHD student's credentials even more and make it an average GRE in the 80th percentile for both verbal and math.

These numbers are simply not that impressive. Like i said in my previous post, an overall 80th percentile on the GREs (which is waaaay above the psyc phd avg) is equivalent to a 1200 sat or 159 lsat. These numbers would hardly get you into second tier schools in either.
 
I respectfully disagree. When you go through this process you realize that it is far more selective than you realize. Also, if you look at a 590 verbal (about 80th percentile) and compare it to 80th percentile on the LSAT you would have a score of 162. While this score is not setting the world on fire, it is not bad, especially if you consider it is "average" like you say, though I would argue that very few clinical programs have averages under 1200.

Where are you getting your info about the weak applicant pool? I just don't see the argument based on that. Trust me, given the experience of my friends, I would much rather be applying to law school than psych grad school.
 
**
 
Last edited:
I have no idea where you are getting this info, but the scores for most of the schools is at least a 1200 and a 3.6. if you want to be competitive. Certainly there are other factors that may affect this, but this has been my experience and the experience of other recent applicants I know.
 
"I have no idea where you are getting this info, but the scores for most of the schools is at least a 1200 and a 3.6."

I read an article about this a few years ago. The numbers were something like 580 verbal, 620 math (like i said, give or take). I dont know the exact numbers today, and even those numbers i saw were not accurate, for the sake of argument, i will concede that the avg gre for phd students is 610 verbal and 660 math (even though these numbers would be very very unlikely). This translates to roughly 85th percentile verbal and 62nd percentile math (http://www.powerscore.com/gre/scoringscale.htm.) Heck simply for the sake of argument ill inflate PHD student's credentials even more and make it an average GRE in the 80th percentile for both verbal and math.

These numbers are simply not that impressive. Like i said in my previous post, an overall 80th percentile on the GREs (which is waaaay above the psyc phd avg) is equivalent to a 1200 sat or 159 lsat. These numbers would hardly get you into second tier schools in either.

Now you may want to point to admission factors other than hard numbers to illustrate how strong the PHD student body is, however, once you do this, you lose the ability to say that the psy phd students are “objectively” high quality. My overall point is that you shouldnt be knocking on psyd. student quality, when the psychology applicant pool is not very strong...objectively.
 
The problem here is that you're confounding GRE scores with "student quality."

Although there is some evidence that GRE scores correlate with student grades when they ultimately matriculate, there is little evidence that GRE scores predict research quality, research productivity, or clinical skill - all of which are much more important markers for success in a PhD program in clinical psychology. There has been more than one occasion when my graduate advisor told me that "grades don't matter" in graduate school. It's hard to divorce ourselves of this idea, as many of us are over-achievers, but the end result is that it's true (as long as you are progressing at the expected level).

Also, just as a note, the GRE math score percentile ranks are very skewed because of all of the engineering/math/physics PhD applicants who take the test - a large percentage of whom receive a perfect score. My low-700s on the math part of the GRE resulted in a percentile score that was not terribly impressive. But the score, objectively, is still a solid score.
 
The problem here is that you're confounding GRE scores with "student quality."
Click to expand...

Ditto. Just because it's quantifiable doesn't mean it is a useful construct for predicting grad school outcome 🙂
 
I had a couple of thoughts about this....

Parto, are the numbers you have for the GRE of clinical psych for admitted students? Or is it those who have applied? Or is it all PhD students in psych(e.g., cognitive, social, etc.)?

Also, originally the GRE was meant to be pegged at a mean of 500 with a standard deviation of 100. But as LM points out, engeneeering students mess with the scew of the quantitiative test. The verbal score runs much truer to form as you can see by the percentiles.

This brings me to another point. Do you think that the mean is the best/only way to "objectively" evaluate these scores? I think it likely is not. I have found that the mean no longer tells me much by itself that is useful anymore. I need to know standard deviations or some other measure of variability, also kertosis would be nice. For example, as LM points out, GRE scores are not that predictive of success or failure in graduate school. The reason why is that you are correlating success in graduate school with a truncated sample of all the possible GRE scores. So, since there is little variability in GRE scores at the gradaute level (i.e., only those with relatively high scores were accepted) the correlation isn't going to be very useful at prediciting success from GRE scores since they are essentially being held constant. For a "real world" example, think of NBA basketball players vs. high school (HS) basketball players. For the NBA stars height doesn't correlate highly with skill, but for HS players it likely does. One reason is that for the NBA players they all are very tall, differing by a few inches for the most part. HS players have much greater variability in their heights allowing for a higher correlation (presumably taller plaers are better on average at that level of the game). My point being, we need more information to evaluate this question.

Also, what is the average PsyD student's score on the test? It is possible that all of the PhD students are complete idiots (objectively) and the PsyD students still suffer from lower intellectual capacity...

Are we all having fun with statistics?👍
 
<--not having fun with statistics. 🙁

I think what the OP overlooked was that success in a clinical graduate program, and then success in practice has no corrolation to the GRE. I believe it has some suggestion to 1st semester / 1st year performance....but that is about it. I think what makes our field unique, is that it takes a wide skill set to be successful (try quantifying success....ack!).

I'm a 'work smarter, not harder' kind of guy. I was not #1 in my graduating classes (though still top %), but I did the things to get into positions where I could hire the #1 (type) people to work for me. A smart man does great in school....a smarter man does great in life, and hires those who did great in school to do the work. :laugh:

-t
 
"The problem here is that you're confounding GRE scores with "student quality." "

Im not really making this argument. I have read several PHD students on this board boast how PHD students are objectively stronger than psyd students based on numbers. So my argument is that "based on numbers", PHD students are not that strong, and are in no position to brag.

Yes, using non-numeric measures PHD students may be very strong, but using that same reasoning, psyd students may be even stronger. There is no real way to measure it.

Numbers alone: Avg. PHD students= not too impressive (unless you consider a second tier college or law school "impressive")
 
All studies looking at success in psych grad school based on GRE scores suffer from a major statistical confound: restricted range. Unless you can show that people who score in the 25th percentile do as well in grad school as those in the 80th, then you should assume that GRE is a pretty good predictor. There is no relationship because the population consists of people who all did relatively well on the GRE.

As for the OP, you lack an understanding of the populations involved. SAT population involves high school students who have a large range of intellectual abilities. GRE population is made of college grads/soon to be college grads. The mean intellectual level would theoretically be significantly higher. Suffice to say 80th percentile on the SAT is not equivalent to 80th percentile on the GRE. GRE would be 80th percentile of a population with a higher IQ level. In other words, the scores are relative to the populations taking the tests. You are comparing apples and bananas.

And, I am having fun with stats.
 
Dr.JT said:
All studies looking at success in psych grad school based on GRE scores suffer from a major statistical confound: restricted range.
And, I am having fun with stats.
Click to expand...

This was the point I was attempting to make in my post. Thanks for reiterating it though. 👍

Hopefully the statistics that speak to this issue are being covered in programs of all kinds....
 
"SAT population involves high school students who have a large range of intellectual abilities. GRE population is made of college grads/soon to be college grads."

While this is true, i also mentioned the lsat, which only college grads take.
 
parto123 said:
"SAT population involves high school students who have a large range of intellectual abilities. GRE population is made of college grads/soon to be college grads."

While this is true, i also mentioned the lsat, which only college grads take.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the averages of clin psych program students on the analytic section of the GRE. These scores are not used since they are always very high. LSAT measures a specific skill set comparable to this section of the GRE. I would argue that those ph.d students getting into the top programs would score in the top percentiles on any of these tests. You are not comparing what you seem to think you are.
 
parto123 said:
While this is true, i also mentioned the lsat, which only college grads take.
Click to expand...

Can you assume that the LSAT = GRE?

I think that is like comparing 2 language exams: Latin vs. German. If people, on average, score higher on the latin exam...does that mean that the Latin people are smarter than the people taking the german exam?

-t
 
To the OP: You just can't make an argument like this without citing a source. Saying "oh, I remembering reading something somewhere" is not sufficient. I just don't believe that your claims about the low-ish GRE scores of clinical psych students are true-- either 1) you're misremembering, 2) the article you read included applicants and not people admitted, 3) the article included non-clinical psych, which is MUCH less competitive, or 4) the article may have been skewed by the inclusion of professional school Ph.Ds, which are less competitive.

The APA requires that all programs disclose admission data. For an example, here's UCLA's 2006 data:
Mean Verbal: 654, Mean Quant: 729, (total=1383) Mean GPA: 3.80.

OK, so UCLA is ranked #1, and thus might attract the best students. Let's instead look at, say, University of South Florida, which if memory serves me right is ranked around #50.
Verbal: 622 Math: 699 (total=1323), Mean GPA= 3.83.

I have no idea what the percentiles are here, but these figures are not close to what you're claiming. Also, as others have noted, GRE/ GPA scores speak little to the quality of a potential graduate student. The very fact that these programs attract usually 250-400 applicants and only accept the best 5 or so implies that the ones they do accept are going to be pretty damn smart.
 
psychanon said:
To the OP: You just can't make an argument like this without citing a source. Saying "oh, I remembering reading something somewhere" is not sufficient. I just don't believe that your claims about the low-ish GRE scores of clinical psych students are true-- either 1) you're misremembering, 2) the article you read included applicants and not people admitted, 3) the article included non-clinical psych, which is MUCH less competitive, or 4) the article may have been skewed by the inclusion of professional school Ph.Ds, which are less competitive.

The APA requires that all programs disclose admission data. For an example, here's UCLA's 2006 data:
Mean Verbal: 654, Mean Quant: 729, (total=1383) Mean GPA: 3.80.

OK, so UCLA is ranked #1, and thus might attract the best students. Let's instead look at, say, University of South Florida, which if memory serves me right is ranked around #50.
Verbal: 622 Math: 699 (total=1323), Mean GPA= 3.83.

I have no idea what the percentiles are here, but these figures are not close to what you're claiming. Also, as others have noted, GRE/ GPA scores speak little to the quality of a potential graduate student. The very fact that these programs attract usually 250-400 applicants and only accept the best 5 or so implies that the ones they do accept are going to be pretty damn smart.
Click to expand...

I am right with you on the majority of your post, but you lost me with the last paragraph. You cannot make these claims about GRE/GPA. The programs suffer from a selection bias in that those admitted have relatively high GPA and GRE's. It is like looking at a population where the IQ's range from 135 to 150 and saying IQ is not predictive of academic performance. Lets throw some people with GPA's pf 2.2 and GRE's of 900 into programs and see how they do. Then we can have this discussion.
 
Dr.JT said:
I am right with you on the majority of your post, but you lost me with the last paragraph. You cannot make these claims about GRE/GPA. The programs suffer from a selection bias in that those admitted have relatively high GPA and GRE's. It is like looking at a population where the IQ's range from 135 to 150 and saying IQ is not predictive of academic performance. Lets throw some people with GPA's pf 2.2 and GRE's of 900 into programs and see how they do. Then we can have this discussion.
Click to expand...

Right, I should have been more clear. The restricted range issues are very important, and cannot be glossed over. My point was that programs do not always make a point of picking the very top GRE scorers (above a certain threshold) because above a certain level GREs lose their predictive validity, and also because there are other criteria that are more important.

I would guess that the LSAT would have less of a problem of restricted range, because my guess is that Ph.D. applicants are more self-selected than law school applicants. But that's just my gut-- it's not based on anything empirical.
 
"The APA requires that all programs disclose admission data. For an example, here's UCLA's 2006 data:
Mean Verbal: 654, Mean Quant: 729, (total=1383) Mean GPA: 3.80."

Thanks, you really proved my point with this. UCLA is among the very programs in the country and they only average a 654 verbal (which is around the 90th percentile of GRE takers). If the very top program can only get around the 90th percentile of GRE takers it means THE APPLICANT POOL IS VERY WEAK. Why isnt UCLA filling up its class with 99th% test takers like the top program in other feilds do? Most of those who score in the top 10% on the GRE are NOT applying to psych, period.


Im NOT trying to compare different kinds of tests or imply that a good GRE means the person will become a good student.
 
parto123 said:
If the very top program can only get around the 90th percentile of GRE takers it means THE APPLICANT POOL IS VERY WEAK. Why isnt UCLA filling up its class with 99th% test takers like the top program in other feilds do?
Click to expand...

Because the LSAT is JUST for law school. The GRE is the GRADUATE Record Examination....which is not for just ONE type of program. Your 99th percentile quant is probably going for engineering...and your 99th Verbal may be for an english lit or similar program. Clinical programs are much more diverse in what is needed for a top applicant. If you score 99th in both...but have no research....you will be eliminated from a top program. Period. Does that mean they are 'less qualified'.....for a research intensive program....probably.

-t
 
psychanon said:
4) the article may have been skewed by the inclusion of professional school Ph.Ds, which are less competitive.
Click to expand...

Very valid point. Don't know the exact numbers but I'm guessing that would skew the data quite a bit.
 
parto123 said:
Thanks, you really proved my point with this. UCLA is among the very programs in the country and they only average a 654 verbal (which is around the 90th percentile of GRE takers). If the very top program can only get around the 90th percentile of GRE takers it means THE APPLICANT POOL IS VERY WEAK. Why isnt UCLA filling up its class with 99th% test takers like the top program in other feilds do? Most of those who score in the top 10% on the GRE are NOT applying to psych, period.
Click to expand...

This actually does not prove your point. The reason being is that different populations score higher on each section of the test. What I mean is, because the GRE has two components, verbal and quantitative, some one can ace one section and do relatively poorly on the other. Thus, although I don't have a source to cite the correlation of V to Q Scores does not = 1.0. Therefore, if the engineers and physicists are all getting 800s in Q(anyone who got above a 740 will back me up here at how you were shocked you are barely in the 80th percentile in Q), and the English and literature people are getting high scores in V, then each is going to be snapping up the respective high percentiles of each subsection but not necessarily the combined score.

So, my question for the OP is what is the percentile of the average combined score? I don't think you can take the average of each percentile for the sub-sections and call that the overall percentile since there will be people who score highly on one and not the other.

Am I making sense or just rambling here?

Let me know what you find on this out there.

Upon a more careful reading I see I just repeated the point made by T4C....maybe saying two ways will make it clearer.....
 
Porto,

if you are intersted you can go to this page http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/...nnel=54c846f1674f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD
and see what we are talking about, if you take a look at the pdf available you can see how the egineers all have Q score means in the 700s (but lower V) and how all the humanities students have V scores in the high 500s. This is what we are talking about.

But on another point, if you're telling me that I was part of a group that scores above the 90% of those who graduated college on this "objective" measure, then i would say hot damn, I'm doing pretty good, b/c I think that's pretty smart...maybe not smart enough for you, but smart enough for me.
 
parto123 said:
If the very top program can only get around the 90th percentile of GRE takers it means THE APPLICANT POOL IS VERY WEAK.
Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that admissions decisions are based solely on GRE scores, when we have repeatedly said that this is not the case! +pissed+ Someone with a 1600 GRE score and no research experience will never, ever get accepted over someone with a 1300 GRE score and terrific research experience. If UCLA (or any other school) rejected people with a perfectly respectable score of 1300 just because there were others in the pool with higher scores, they would end up rejecting people who are qualified on much more important domains. I bet lots of people with very high GREs are rejected from UCLA. In fact, I'm an example- I had a 1420 GRE, and my ass didn't even get an interview there.

The comparison to law school is highly flawed. Law school has a rigidly defined top ten, with no real diffentiation between schools based on individual characteristics. Thus, all the top applicants apply to the same top schools, and Yale gets to pick out the very cream of the crop. Clinical psych rankings are rarely cited and a match between the individual applicants' interests and those of the faculty is tremendously important. Thus, most people apply to a wide range of schools, and the top applicants end up dispersed across the country. Plus, unlike clinical psych rankings, law schools pick people almost solely on their test scores. It's a whole different animal.

Psyclops said:
But on another point, if you're telling me that I was part of a group that scores above the 90% of those who graduated college on this "objective" measure, then i would say hot damn, I'm doing pretty good, b/c I think that's pretty smart...maybe not smart enough for you, but smart enough for me.
Click to expand...

Not only that, you're smarter than 90% of those who graduated from college AND are applying to a graduate program requiring the GRE (a substantial minority of college grads, as the vast majority stick with the BA) . Go you!
 
Here are the gre numbers for the psych phd applicant pool:

avg quant= 30th percentile (530)
avg verbal= 50th percentile (480)

this places the psych phd applicant pool near the bottom of all PHD applicant pools (24th overall). This also puts the psyc phd applicant pool behind even the applicant pools for political science phds, sociology phds, art history phds and about 20 other different fields.

What this means is that although there are many applicants for very few spots, making acceptance rates very low, the overall quality of the applicant pool that psyc programs have to choose from is very weak. Low acceptance rate means very little when 3/4 of the applicants really have no business even applying. Is it any wonder that the very best psyc schools in the country have avg gres around the 85th percentiles? Face it, the field of psychology doesnt exactly attract the brightest students, it simply attracts alot of students.

To illustrate this point: University of chicago college accepts about 40% of its applicants and has an avg sat of about 1400. Several CUNYs accept about 35% of their applicants and have avg sats of 1020.
 
"Quit beating a dead horse!"

I have started a new thread because I have found specific numbers that answer many questions, and correct many false assumptions that were made in my other thread.

And this most certainly is not a dead horse. There is constant discussion on this board about comparing admissions to MD/JD/PsyD/ PHD etc.
 
I find this information interesting, and wondered if a breakdown between a clinical psychology program vs. school/social/developmental psychology program existed? It probably doesn't, but I'd think there would be some difference between these different type of applicants.

Psychology remains a very popular ungraduate major, and I know at some colleges it is recognized as an easier major than others by its students, which could potentially explain why a higher number of individuals then apply to graduate programs. I have a harder time accepting the correlation that individuals attracted to psychology programs are less intelligent than other types of applicants, but perhaps that's what this translates into? Quantity dillutes quality.

An important exercise would be to investigate how various majors would prepare applicants for taking the GREs. English majors would likely have higher verbals scores than normal, while science majors have potential to have higher math scores. Psychology could be verbally driven or mathematically driven depending on subspecialities. I was a biopsych major and subsequently felt like I benefitted in my quantitative score, but not verbally. However, having double majored in classics, I felt prepared verbally (but not as a result of my psychology courses).

Just my thoughts, feel free to refute/discuss.
 
I think you summed you points perfectly in your previous post..."false assumptions."

True there are many discussions on this board comparing MD/PH.D/Psy.D etc. However these posts do not aim to attack the very people (mainly clinical psych Ph.D. students) who consistently post on this board.
 
You've previously posted on this subject, and I'd advise that any 'new' information you may have on the subject be included in the original thread, and not split out into a duplicate thread.

*editted to merge threads*

-t
 
"True there are many discussions on this board comparing MD/PH.D/Psy.D etc. However these posts do not aim to attack the very people (mainly clinical psych Ph.D. students) who consistently post on this board."

Im not attacking people who post on this board. When i state that the AVG applicant pool is weak, im not saying that EVERYONE who applies is weak. And anyway, Psyds are attacked all the time on this board, and they post alot.

"and I'd advise that any 'new' information you may have on the subject be included in the original thread, and not split out into a duplicate thread."

Why? it doesnt cost any money to start new threads.
 
parto123 said:
Why? it doesnt cost any money to start new threads.
Click to expand...

When people are looking for information, it is much easier to have it in a collect thread, instead of fractured amongst many diff threads.

Also, it can clutter the forum. Having 2 threads on the same topic, both recently started.....is a waste of space.

I'll go ahead and merge the threads.

-t
 
"Also, it can clutter the forum."

Huh? This board gets about 3 new threads a day. I dont think you have to worry about clutter. Also, many people dont read through an entire thread, so if I am able to offer new information, or answer many of the questions asked, it would make far more sense to start a new thread, if i wanted it to be read. But whatever. Its your board.
 
i would like to say that many clinical PhD programs accept a very very small # of people (5-12) usually (at least at all the schools I am applying to). Therefore, my assumption is that they could very easily fill their slots with 750+/1450+ GRE scores or 4.0 GPA. But they don't.They accept people who may have a lot of research experience but are perhaps not that great at taking a lousy test. I've seen some schools who not only post median GRE but also a range, and have found it be as low as 480 and as high as 800 (obviously). OMG, how could they accept someone who got 480 on one of the sections! What a travesty, the applicant pool was so weak, this was the best they can get? Obviously, this is the wrong assumption.

Applications depend on a lot more than GRE/GPA. at this stage, I will even say that LORs will be one of the most important aspect of the application. Colleagues of people you want to work with who will speak highly of you should trump any test you take. To me, this is were quality is revealed, not in some number.
 
I think the numbers posted today were useful to read, even as a clinical psychology PhD student. I do not consider it an attack...more like food for thought. I agree that although PhD programs are as selective (or more selective) that other graduate routes such as the MD, this does not account for the "types" of students applying. GRE may not equal intelligence any more than the MCAT, SAT, LSAT, etc., but info on these stats in interesting nonetheless. Even if it makes "my kind" look "bad."
 
I agree with clinical people being much more than scores. I would be very hesitant if someone judged just on scores, since (as we all know)....a singular score on any one thing cannot represent them as a whole.

-t
 
Notice how many people on this board are all for using objective stats like GREs when claiming they are better than psyds. However, when we use these same stats to show psyc phds have a weak applicant pool (weaker than even art history and sociology) suddenly, numbers arent useful anymore.
 
I have never said GRE's or GPA made you better. In fact, I go to an Ivy League, but I will never say that is the reason I am "better" than someone else. You have to look at the whole package, not some sole indicator.
 
Psyclops said:
I had a couple of thoughts about this....

Parto, are the numbers you have for the GRE of clinical psych for admitted students? Or is it those who have applied? Or is it all PhD students in psych(e.g., cognitive, social, etc.)?

Also, originally the GRE was meant to be pegged at a mean of 500 with a standard deviation of 100. But as LM points out, engeneeering students mess with the scew of the quantitiative test. The verbal score runs much truer to form as you can see by the percentiles.

This brings me to another point. Do you think that the mean is the best/only way to "objectively" evaluate these scores? I think it likely is not. I have found that the mean no longer tells me much by itself that is useful anymore. I need to know standard deviations or some other measure of variability, also kertosis would be nice. For example, as LM points out, GRE scores are not that predictive of success or failure in graduate school. The reason why is that you are correlating success in graduate school with a truncated sample of all the possible GRE scores. So, since there is little variability in GRE scores at the gradaute level (i.e., only those with relatively high scores were accepted) the correlation isn't going to be very useful at prediciting success from GRE scores since they are essentially being held constant. For a "real world" example, think of NBA basketball players vs. high school (HS) basketball players. For the NBA stars height doesn't correlate highly with skill, but for HS players it likely does. One reason is that for the NBA players they all are very tall, differing by a few inches for the most part. HS players have much greater variability in their heights allowing for a higher correlation (presumably taller plaers are better on average at that level of the game). My point being, we need more information to evaluate this question.

Also, what is the average PsyD student's score on the test? It is possible that all of the PhD students are complete idiots (objectively) and the PsyD students still suffer from lower intellectual capacity...

Are we all having fun with statistics?👍
Click to expand...


Do you mean that the mean could predict meaningful or unmeaningful means?:idea:
 
psycholytic said:
Do you mean that the mean could predict meaningful or unmeaningful means?:idea:
Click to expand...

Way too many "means" in that sentence.

What I am talking about is taught in a basic testing course. That's what the GRE is, a test. So, if you want to understand how it works you should look into testing and psychometrics. Also, the point I was making about range restriction applies to your other thread on boycotting the test. None of the people getting a 700 on the GRE are going to graduate school in psychology. If they were you would see that the GRE is quite predictive of success in school. The reason it isn't is because all of the distribution is not represented.

But for you, please boycott it.
 
Psyclops said:
Way too many "means" in that sentence.

What I am talking about is taught in a basic testing course. That's what the GRE is, a test. So, if you want to understand how it works you should look into testing and psychometrics. Also, the point I was making about range restriction applies to your other thread on boycotting the test. None of the people getting a 700 on the GRE are going to graduate school in psychology. If they were you would see that the GRE is quite predictive of success in school. The reason it isn't is because all of the distribution is not represented.

But for you, please boycott it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, dude, but at least 3 people in my first year class alone got over 700 on their GRE quant.
 
Psyclops said:
Way too many "means" in that sentence.

What I am talking about is taught in a basic testing course. That's what the GRE is, a test. So, if you want to understand how it works you should look into testing and psychometrics. Also, the point I was making about range restriction applies to your other thread on boycotting the test. None of the people getting a 700 on the GRE are going to graduate school in psychology. If they were you would see that the GRE is quite predictive of success in school. The reason it isn't is because all of the distribution is not represented.

But for you, please boycott it.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean a 700 total, right?

Anyway, do we actually know this? Since, like you said, no one with a 700 would ever get into graduate school, how do we know how they would perform?
 
amy203 said:
I'm assuming you mean a 700 total, right?

Anyway, do we actually know this? Since, like you said, no one with a 700 would ever get into graduate school, how do we know how they would perform?
Click to expand...

Yes, 700 total is what I meant. We don't know how they would perform. But a range of scores from 1200-1600 is much smaller, then a range of 800-1600 and perhaps arguably different than 800-1200. When people have low aggregate scores and complain about the test not being predictive I think it should be noted that they are referring to a restricted generally high range. I don't care what anyone on this board says, if the scores are in the 90th %ile and above on the GRE, those are pretty high.

Furthermore, in reference the article cited on the other thread, Sternberg is a very well respected and good researcher on testing and intelligence. I think he would have addressed this issue for sure.

I don't mean to put anyone down by this post. But I think in fairness to the testing enterprise, we should note that prediction works best when the range is not restricted. This is really basic correlation stuff (also not meant as a put down, just pointing out that this isn't fancy statistical trickery, just run of the mill trickery).

So, it is possible that the GRE does an excellent job of predicting between a 860 total score and a 1420 total score, but as amy points out we don't see that too often.
 
Here are some quotes from the Sternberg article from American Psychologist, 52(6), 630-641 (from 1997 by the way):

Restriction of Range

Restriction of range cannot be fully blamed for the pattern of correlations we obtained. First, as noted earlier, our standard deviations and ranges were rather substantial. Second, the fact that substantial correlations were obtained between GRE scores and first-year grades and between the GRE Analytical score for men and the professors' ratings suggests that, in fact, correlations could be obtained where they existed. Third, good prediction of grades was found for the GRE subtest with the lowest scaled-score standard deviation (the Advanced test in psychology). Although we tried to correct for restriction of range as best we could, we of course acknowledge that Yale University's students are not typical of all students who enter psychology graduate programs and that rather different results might be obtained across the entire range of students in all programs. We also acknowledge that our relatively small sample size placed a restriction on the power of the significance tests used in this study to detect actual differences or relationships and placed a similar restriction on the generalizability of our results to future psychology graduate students at Yale University and at other schools as well.


Unreliability of Faculty Ratings

A second potential objection is that any kind of subjective rating is notoriously unreliable, so one could hardly expect any test, the GRE included, to show substantial correlations with such unreliable and possibly invalid criteria. In fact, grades correlated with the ratings, the ratings correlated with each other, and the GRE Analytical test score correlated with the ratings for men. So, in fact, it was possible to obtain correlations with the ratings, suggesting unreliability was not a major issue of the failure of the GRE to correlate with the ratings.
 
Psyclops said:
Way too many "means" in that sentence.

What I am talking about is taught in a basic testing course. That's what the GRE is, a test. So, if you want to understand how it works you should look into testing and psychometrics. Also, the point I was making about range restriction applies to your other thread on boycotting the test. None of the people getting a 700 on the GRE are going to graduate school in psychology. If they were you would see that the GRE is quite predictive of success in school. The reason it isn't is because all of the distribution is not represented.

But for you, please boycott it.
Click to expand...

Uhmm, lets see, I had several psychometrics classes, and in all of them the professors, as well as the students (after taking it for a while and analyzing the tests) came to the unanimous conclusion that the GRE is total BS.

Have a nice w/e angry man.
 
psycholytic said:
Uhmm, lets see, I had several psychometrics classes, and in all of them the professors, as well as the students (after taking it for a while and analyzing the tests) came to the unanimous conclusion that the GRE is total BS.

Have a nice w/e angry man.
Click to expand...

What's the r value for the correlation between the GRE and WAIS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Advanced PhD student feeling unhappy
Replies
8
Views
3K
bcliff
bcliff
Psycho Bunny
Clinical PHD vs Counseling PHD?
Replies
5
Views
2K
MCParent
MCParent
PsyDocNess
PhD/PsyD CV Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
Justanothergrad
J
S
Duquesne University Clinical Psychology PhD
Replies
5
Views
2K
sb1129
S
F
Designing an asynchronous PhD course
Replies
3
Views
990
flerfmcgerf
F
Top