TestMagic

Tatonnement · 2006 March 22nd, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vagabond_shoes

Tatonnement, since you know from the other side and you say the statement of purpose doesn't matter, how much does QGRE matter? Is it just a quick way cut off, i.e. only those above Q750 are reviewed or is it also a main decision variable?

750 is an effective cutoff. But even on top of that, the GREQ does matter, in that anything other than an 800 is a strike against you. This can be offset by good grades in high level math classes, but it is something to explain.

Whether this is reasonable or not can be argued....

associate · 2006 March 22nd, 08:15 PM

Would you recommend then that someone with a 780 or 790 GREQ take the test over if they thought they could get an 800? In what kinds, if any cases, might it make a difference. eg. Could this difference help if there was a question about one's ability to excel in math classes?

OneMoreEcon · 2006 March 22nd, 08:19 PM

Is this really true about the GREQ? I've heard the opposite directly from a few grad directors (including one top school... two depending on where you place the second). They both said that they only look to see at/above 750. Below is a bad signal, but anything above really doesn't reveal additional information (ie 800 vs 770 doesn't indicate the applicant with 800 will pass quals or do better research), so GREQ is only used as a quick cutoff.

Tatonnement, without revealing too much, do you mind letting us know the general ranking of your school: Top 5, 10, 15, 20?

Edit: associate, they also said there's no reason to take it again in such a case. I think, again, it doesn't reveal additional information... unless you do worse, which is an awful signal to send.

Tatonnement · 2006 March 22nd, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by associate

That makes sense. I wasn't trying to disagree with you, Tatonnement, as much as to clarify notacolour's comments that yes, sometimes depts have to use arbitrary criteria, especially for the last few slots. Overall though, I would still consider the admissions process a merit-based system as opposed to a lottery, as others have sometimes suggested.

Anyways, thanks for your good advice and thoughts on UMD. Here's another question: How would you view additional math classes (say, grad real analysis and measure/integ theory as in my case) taken by someone who has been out of college for a few years. To what extent can such classes signal a serious interest in grad econ, an ability to do rigorous math (assuming good grades in these courses), an improvement over less stellar grades rigorous post-Calc courses from a competitive college, and/or an improvement over little/no post-Calculus/linear algebra math courses in college?

This is something I've wondered and often been asked about, so I'm really curious how you find it's viewed "from the other side."

Good -- so we're basically agreed. It's not a lottery draw, but there is still some residual uncertainty about who will read the file etc...

A couple more thoughts on Maryland -- they have what could be a good niche in "macro-IO" (structural, dynamic industry models with macro applications) . They placed somebody at Chicago a few years ago who worked with Haltiwanger, and now with Rust there too there is even more strength there. More to your interests, I could see doing an international/devo type program say with Calvo/Reinhart/Vegh on the interational side and Kranton on the applied micro/devo side....

One concern with applicants who have been out for a bit is the transition back to school, so taking advanced math and doing well is definitely a good sign. Generally the performance in later and higher level courses gets more weight, so it's a question of degree... If you took the grad level math from a comparable institution as a sub-par undegrad math grades, then they would definitely help make up for that.

vagabond_shoes · 2006 March 22nd, 08:26 PM

I also thought more like OneMoreEcon. I got 770Q and still got into 3 top 15 programs. I do think the GRE has some flaws. In my case I think I can do preety good abstract thinking, but I usually make silly mistakes when counting/adding/multipliyng, etc. I only had a week or so to prepare it so perhaps I could have improved it a bit. After the test they let me try the new version (with calculator) and I got 800.

Tatonnement · 2006 March 22nd, 08:34 PM

Maybe saying "a strike" was too strong, but scores below 800 do get noticed. I wouldn't retake with a 780 or 790 (although we do get applicants who do so), since both scores get reported. But with a 750-760 or so I would consider it.

Again it's all shades... I don't view it as a contradiction of what vagabond_shoes said. It's not that 770 means you won't get in, but it does mean that other factors may get a closer look.

econapplicant · 2006 March 23rd, 02:14 AM

Just wanted to add my own experience since it seems relevant to the GRE discussion, and also perhaps to the randomness/abitrary discussion.

I got a 780 on the qaunt, but felt like I "should" have gotten an 800 so I retook it and got a 790. I come from a second tier private university, but I've taken a lot of math (and gotten good grades). My track record so far is:

accepted: Princeton, Yale, Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin, NYU, Northwestern
rejected: Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley
no word yet: MIT

So, the reject from Berkeley doesn't seem to fit in with the fact that I got into (higher ranked) Princeton/Chicago, but they probably just put more weight on the 780/790 or something like that. Hope that helps shed a bit of light on the issues.

Tatonnement,

It is really great that you have offered yourself as a target for so many questions. If you aren't tired out already, I was wondering if you could comment on the relative reputations of the top 5. I know it goes something like MIT, Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, but I was wondering if PhD students/professors/employers judge people differently based on which top 5 school they are at.

I am curious because I am currently deciding between Chicago and Princeton (and possibly Yale), and although Chicago technically ranks higher on most lists, I think I would like the atmosphere at Princeton more.

Thanks for the advice!

planetes · 2006 March 23rd, 02:15 AM

I didn't do well on the Q GRE - but above the 750 cutoff. I think I could have done better but ran out of time (took the GRe in JAn). However, My VA were quite decent - around 86 percentile.

I got into a couple top 15s .... IMO I suck at the GREs. If I took it with a calculator - I could have easily 800. My practice ones had a median of 800. IMO the GRE is useless. If you're gonna test math - why not take the subject based one .... and make it the one that counts. That one actually tests math you'll use in the Econ PhD

econapplicant · 2006 March 23rd, 02:22 AM

Planetes,
Based on my experience (see above), I feel as though grad schools use the Quant section as a "last resort" indicator of math ability. Lots of tough math courses + high grades + recommendations that talk about your math ability all probably weigh in higher than the GRE score. That said, since the Quant GRE should be pretty basic for someone with the aforementioned math ability, anything below a 770 probably raises some red flags. At best, it means the applicant didn't take the time to study and/or is not that great at mental math.

planetes · 2006 March 23rd, 02:25 AM

i guess my problem was test taking ability with the CAT. i'm just a bit slow - cause i tend to check / recheck .. and you can't with the CAT. with the verbal i jsut skipped through and got above 600 ... the problem with Q was i dint'w ant to skip .. i wanted to get every question right cause i knew i could - but that sucked up time. i didn't know until afte rthe test that you can SKIP and still get a 800 - and that you should skip

BTW most programs say above 90th percentile = fine. no problems. and it doesn't really matter after that.

2006 March 23rd, 02:14 AM	#27 (permalink)
econapplicant I JUST got here. Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 26	Just wanted to add my own experience since it seems relevant to the GRE discussion, and also perhaps to the randomness/abitrary discussion. I got a 780 on the qaunt, but felt like I "should" have gotten an 800 so I retook it and got a 790. I come from a second tier private university, but I've taken a lot of math (and gotten good grades). My track record so far is: accepted: Princeton, Yale, Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin, NYU, Northwestern rejected: Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley no word yet: MIT So, the reject from Berkeley doesn't seem to fit in with the fact that I got into (higher ranked) Princeton/Chicago, but they probably just put more weight on the 780/790 or something like that. Hope that helps shed a bit of light on the issues. Tatonnement, It is really great that you have offered yourself as a target for so many questions. If you aren't tired out already, I was wondering if you could comment on the relative reputations of the top 5. I know it goes something like MIT, Chicago, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, but I was wondering if PhD students/professors/employers judge people differently based on which top 5 school they are at. I am curious because I am currently deciding between Chicago and Princeton (and possibly Yale), and although Chicago technically ranks higher on most lists, I think I would like the atmosphere at Princeton more. Thanks for the advice! Last edited by econapplicant : 2006 March 23rd at 02:14 AM. Reason: Automerged post

2006 March 23rd, 02:15 AM	#28 (permalink)
planetes Within my grasp! Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: shittsburgh! Posts: 278	I didn't do well on the Q GRE - but above the 750 cutoff. I think I could have done better but ran out of time (took the GRe in JAn). However, My VA were quite decent - around 86 percentile. I got into a couple top 15s .... IMO I suck at the GREs. If I took it with a calculator - I could have easily 800. My practice ones had a median of 800. IMO the GRE is useless. If you're gonna test math - why not take the subject based one .... and make it the one that counts. That one actually tests math you'll use in the Econ PhD _ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _ i should be studying instead of posting.

2006 March 23rd, 02:25 AM	#30 (permalink)
planetes Within my grasp! Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: shittsburgh! Posts: 278	i guess my problem was test taking ability with the CAT. i'm just a bit slow - cause i tend to check / recheck .. and you can't with the CAT. with the verbal i jsut skipped through and got above 600 ... the problem with Q was i dint'w ant to skip .. i wanted to get every question right cause i knew i could - but that sucked up time. i didn't know until afte rthe test that you can SKIP and still get a 800 - and that you should skip BTW most programs say above 90th percentile = fine. no problems. and it doesn't really matter after that. _ _ _ _ SIG _ _ _ _ i should be studying instead of posting. Last edited by planetes : 2006 March 23rd at 03:06 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2006 March 22nd, 08:15 PM	#22 (permalink)
associate Within my grasp! Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 128	Would you recommend then that someone with a 780 or 790 GREQ take the test over if they thought they could get an 800? In what kinds, if any cases, might it make a difference. eg. Could this difference help if there was a question about one's ability to excel in math classes?

2006 March 22nd, 08:19 PM	#23 (permalink)
OneMoreEcon TestMagic Guru-in-Training Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 683	Is this really true about the GREQ? I've heard the opposite directly from a few grad directors (including one top school... two depending on where you place the second). They both said that they only look to see at/above 750. Below is a bad signal, but anything above really doesn't reveal additional information (ie 800 vs 770 doesn't indicate the applicant with 800 will pass quals or do better research), so GREQ is only used as a quick cutoff. Tatonnement, without revealing too much, do you mind letting us know the general ranking of your school: Top 5, 10, 15, 20? Edit: associate, they also said there's no reason to take it again in such a case. I think, again, it doesn't reveal additional information... unless you do worse, which is an awful signal to send.

2006 March 22nd, 08:26 PM	#25 (permalink)
vagabond_shoes Eager! Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 93	I also thought more like OneMoreEcon. I got 770Q and still got into 3 top 15 programs. I do think the GRE has some flaws. In my case I think I can do preety good abstract thinking, but I usually make silly mistakes when counting/adding/multipliyng, etc. I only had a week or so to prepare it so perhaps I could have improved it a bit. After the test they let me try the new version (with calculator) and I got 800.

2006 March 22nd, 08:34 PM	#26 (permalink)
Tatonnement Groping toward equilibria Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 152	Maybe saying "a strike" was too strong, but scores below 800 do get noticed. I wouldn't retake with a 780 or 790 (although we do get applicants who do so), since both scores get reported. But with a 750-760 or so I would consider it. Again it's all shades... I don't view it as a contradiction of what vagabond_shoes said. It's not that 770 means you won't get in, but it does mean that other factors may get a closer look.

2006 March 23rd, 02:22 AM	#29 (permalink)
econapplicant I JUST got here. Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 26	Planetes, Based on my experience (see above), I feel as though grad schools use the Quant section as a "last resort" indicator of math ability. Lots of tough math courses + high grades + recommendations that talk about your math ability all probably weigh in higher than the GRE score. That said, since the Quant GRE should be pretty basic for someone with the aforementioned math ability, anything below a 770 probably raises some red flags. At best, it means the applicant didn't take the time to study and/or is not that great at mental math.

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests