1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Why We Shouldn't Be Viewing New GRE Quant Scores in Context of the Old Ones
I think a lot of people are viewing 166Q on the new GRE to be an equivalent signal to an 800Q on the old GRE. And, while the percentile for 166 is, in fact, the same as the percentile for 800, the signal is not the same. This is for a number of reasons:
(1) A score of 166 reveals your "type" as at the lower end of what used to be 800. This is obviously not good given that before the 800 GRE constraint was pretty binding (e.g. MIT's admissions site states that they are primarily interested in students who received the top possible score on the quant section). This indicates that admissions committees at top programs would like to raise their GRE requirements, but could not do so (until now) because there didn't exist a signal better than "800."
(2) All sorts of heuristics/biases kick in. We seem susceptible to anchoring 166~800; however, I don't find it unlikely that admissions committees who are used to just burning all applications without top scores are going to be biased towards 170 ~ 800.
Anyways, that's just my two cents. Anyone agree? Have counter arguments?
Also, I have a question (and I know this doesn't technically belong here, so thank you to whoever, if anyone, answers):
Approximate (I know it varies by test) the number of questions one can miss in the quantitative sections and still receive: