GRE 165 Q -- retake?

[alter]

Took the GRE last week and I'm pretty disappointed. It's the usual spiel; got an experimental quant section (which was easy) and didn't take my second quant as seriously (which was harder), leading to unnecessary mistakes. Got a 169 V, if it's worth anything (didn't study for it besides powerprepp, go figure).

 

I'm only targeting the top 15 (top 10 undergrad with high gpa, recs from good professors, etc.), should I retake the exam?

[chateauheart]

Seems like you're confident you can do better. Why not? The cost is pretty insignificant over a lifetime compared to a marginal chance of getting into a better program.

[alter]

Seems like you're confident you can do better. Why not? The cost is pretty insignificant over a lifetime compared to a marginal chance of getting into a better program.

 

I'm pretty sure I can get it up to a 167 Q at least, but I'm not sure that a few points is worth the pain/effort/money. I do understand that I'm on the low end of the cutoff for top programs, though

[Insti]

Honestly, the ETS gives 164 as 790(old scale) and 166 as 800(old scale). You being in the middle, means you did pretty well and shouldnt worry about your score too much. Most programs are not quite sure how to read the new scores anyway (saw that on a couple of schools' sites), so your score places you in a good position. Also, even if your score was actually bad, I do not see the point in spending 1 month of effort in order to raise your score with 2-3 points. Personally, I don't think that having 167 is much different than 165. If you think you can score 170-169, or if you think you can do better on the next try without putting much effort in preparing for it, then why not go ahead. But I really dont see the point in spending a lot of time studying for the test to raise your score with 2-3 points.

[pemdas]

If I were you and did graduate recently from T10, I wouldn't worry even with q score 160. You will cross the cut-off at many top rated schools/programs, and don't be deceived by averages of admitted students. The median GRE quant score at many high-ranked programs is much lower than the score of 790 (old scale).

 

Do not retake the test. Better concentrate on the first semester math prerequisites for economists, if you have an intense drive for studying, or else polish your SoP and do some research on the schools/programs for which you intend to apply.

[chateauheart]

"The GRE doesn't matter, don't retake it" is the classic response you'll get get on TM every time you ask something like this. I'm not sure there's any merit in it. The GRE is used as a minimal cut-off, and you're safer if you get beyond that cutoff, but its importance goes beyond that. For one thing, the NRC somehow thinks that GRE scores tell you something about a program's quality, which gives universities an additional incentive to admit students with high GRE scores. Some universities also use GRE as an easy, lazy factor in determining fellowships and funding.

 

Admissions usually work on nearly a thousand applications per year and have to make a decision on whom to admit and waitlist in two weeks. They'll tell you that the GRE score is only a small part of their evaluation and that they're holistic and all that - every school wants to exaggerate their own effort in finding good students - but the reality is that your GRE quant score is one of the few things on their minds as they hastily skim through your application. It also happens to be the only part of your application that's comparable across candidates. You bet a 790 and a 800 makes a difference on the first impression they get.

 

If the cost is sufficiently low - i.e. you're sure you can improve a few points without having to put too much effort into preparation - retake it.

[Humanomics]

The GRE doesn't matter. Don't retake it.

 

Boom!

[Griedman]

"The GRE doesn't matter, don't retake it" is the classic response you'll get get on TM every time you ask something like this. I'm not sure there's any merit in it. The GRE is used as a minimal cut-off, and you're safer if you get beyond that cutoff, but its importance goes beyond that. For one thing, the NRC somehow thinks that GRE scores tell you something about a program's quality, which gives universities an additional incentive to admit students with high GRE scores. Some universities also use GRE as an easy, lazy factor in determining fellowships and funding.

 

Admissions usually work on nearly a thousand applications per year and have to make a decision on whom to admit and waitlist in two weeks. They'll tell you that the GRE score is only a small part of their evaluation and that they're holistic and all that - every school wants to exaggerate their own effort in finding good students - but the reality is that your GRE quant score is one of the few things on their minds as they hastily skim through your application. It also happens to be the only part of your application that's comparable across candidates. You bet a 790 and a 800 makes a difference on the first impression they get.

 

If the cost is sufficiently low - i.e. you're sure you can improve a few points without having to put too much effort into preparation - retake it.

 

790 vs 800 in the old system is different from 165 vs 167 in the new system. With a quick skim 800 says perfect score. Even though it can be anything from 95th to 100th percentile, it still the highest score. 167 however, is not the highest score. I think the marginal benefit from few points increase from 165 isn't that significant, unless you score 170.

 

But like you said, it all depends on the opportunity cost.

 

If 165 is OPs biggest concern about his profile, he can expect good results in March.

[gradeconomist]

Adequate score, don't need to retake. All the best !

[OneArmedEcon]

No need to retake.

[bholly]

If I were you and did graduate recently from T10, I wouldn't worry even with q score 160. You will cross the cut-off at many top rated schools/programs, and don't be deceived by averages of admitted students. The median GRE quant score at many high-ranked programs is much lower than the score of 790 (old scale).

 

Do not retake the test. Better concentrate on the first semester math prerequisites for economists, if you have an intense drive for studying, or else polish your SoP and do some research on the schools/programs for which you intend to apply.

 

Unless we have a very different definition of 'highly-ranked' then "the median GRE quant score at many high-ranked programs is much lower than the score of 790 (old scale)" is completely untrue, at least based on all the data I've ever seen.

Unless, that is, you're talking about the median of all students applying, rather than those accepted - in which case I'm not sure how you can think that is any more relevant than the mean of admitted students. The median applicant, and many more better than he, don't make the cut.

 

I empathize with your GRE issues - I had to travel internationally and at significant cost to take mine, too - but your rationalizations for not re-taking it for your sub-40 applications are not necessarily relevant or helpful to someone only interested in the top 15.

 

"The GRE doesn't matter, don't retake it" is the classic response you'll get get on TM every time you ask something like this. I'm not sure there's any merit in it. The GRE is used as a minimal cut-off, and you're safer if you get beyond that cutoff, but its importance goes beyond that. For one thing, the NRC somehow thinks that GRE scores tell you something about a program's quality, which gives universities an additional incentive to admit students with high GRE scores. Some universities also use GRE as an easy, lazy factor in determining fellowships and funding.

 

Admissions usually work on nearly a thousand applications per year and have to make a decision on whom to admit and waitlist in two weeks. They'll tell you that the GRE score is only a small part of their evaluation and that they're holistic and all that - every school wants to exaggerate their own effort in finding good students - but the reality is that your GRE quant score is one of the few things on their minds as they hastily skim through your application. It also happens to be the only part of your application that's comparable across candidates. You bet a 790 and a 800 makes a difference on the first impression they get.

 

If the cost is sufficiently low - i.e. you're sure you can improve a few points without having to put too much effort into preparation - retake it.

 

This. I've been told the same thing (that the importance of the GRE goes beyond that first cutoff) by multiple professors very familiar with the process, including one who has read applications at a top-10 for a long time. Even absent those comments, I think I'd find it hard to believe - given how marginal many of the decisions must be - that the GRE doesn't play any role beyond the first quant cutoff.

 

Based on data like school-released means and untitled's tmanalysis, which as far as I can tell are about all we have, the "cut-off and then irrelevant" and "cut-off and then still has an impact" views are likely observationally equivalent.

I don't have time to go back and find every account of an adcom weighing in on the issue, but it wouldn't surprise me if the "...and then irrelevant" part of the story has been emphasized much more here than the original comments justified.

 

 

Alter, it's entirely plausible - and I'd like to believe - that the rest of your record will make up for any slight deficiency on the GRE. I can understand people saying not to worry about it on that basis. But given how slim the margins must be on many admissions decisions, given our uncertainty about the process, and given the huge influence it could have on your career (particularly relative to the cost), if it were me I'd absolutely re-take it.

[pemdas]

Unless, that is, you're talking about the median of all students applying, rather than those accepted - in which case I'm not sure how you can think that is any more relevant than the mean of admitted students. The median applicant, and many more better than he, don't make the cut.

I am not speculating and/or reporting inaccurate data. My saying has been sourced not only from the publicly disclosed FAQs under PhD admission sections but also from my recent communication with a few admitted PhD students. I agree that admission process at T10, T15 programs is a bit different from that at the sub-40. I intended to say without statistical explanation (considering econ audience of this sub-forum) that a mean GRE score of the admitted students exceeding a median score requires scrutiny of the latter. The median, in this case, is a better measure of the GRE score distribution, as we can infer about proportion of the applicants who passed the admission cut-off, became successful through the final selection stage and were admitted despite their GRE scores.

 

Note please, that admission is offered with funded and unfunded options. When I write the admitted PhD students I never discriminate admission funding-wise. I would be happy to get unfunded PhD offer and sell my car or take loan which will serve my life ends better than to say obtaining a mortgage loan.

 

I empathize with your GRE issues - I had to travel internationally and at significant cost to take mine, too - but your rationalizations for not re-taking it for your sub-40 applications are not necessarily relevant or helpful to someone only interested in the top 15.

I am obliged for your attention towards my past activity on this forum and inform you of my GRE exam registration scheduled on Oct 20/12. I shall take the paper-based exam, as this is the only option in my place (country); I am unwilling to travel abroad. When I am done taking the *wonderful* self-contained test, I will let you know of my score, but not earlier than mid-Nov. :)

 

I don't insist that OP need not to take GRE again. I just think with his T10 graduation it's unlikely that PhD econ program AdComs will behave like Business school AdComs who view the GMAT as a major admission criteria. I have been advised by admitted PhD students several times that all applicants for the respective programs, especially those who received a formal university education in the US, must demonstrate academic and research potential primarily. The US graduates are reviewed differently from international applicants who graduated outside of the US.

 

GRE quant score 165 can do walking through not only T15 but also T7 programs.

[bholly]

I am not speculating and/or reporting inaccurate data. My saying has been sourced not only from the publicly disclosed FAQs under PhD admission sections but also from my recent communication with a few admitted PhD students. I agree that admission process at T10, T15 programs is a bit different from that at the sub-40. I intended to say without statistical explanation (considering econ audience of this sub-forum) that a mean GRE score of the admitted students exceeding a median score requires scrutiny of the latter. The median, in this case, is a better measure of the GRE score distribution, as we can infer about proportion of the applicants who passed the admission cut-off, became successful through the final selection stage and were admitted despite their GRE scores.

 

Note please, that admission is offered with funded and unfunded options. When I write the admitted PhD students I never discriminate admission funding-wise. I would be happy to get unfunded PhD offer and sell my car or take loan which will serve my life ends better than to say obtaining a mortgage loan.

 

 

I am obliged for your attention towards my past activity on this forum and inform you of my GRE exam registration scheduled on Oct 20/12. I shall take the paper-based exam, as this is the only option in my place (country); I am unwilling to travel abroad. When I am done taking the *wonderful* self-contained test, I will let you know of my score, but not earlier than mid-Nov. :)

 

I don't insist that OP need not to take GRE again. I just think with his T10 graduation it's unlikely that PhD econ program AdComs will behave like Business school AdComs who view the GMAT as a major admission criteria. I have been advised by admitted PhD students several times that all applicants for the respective programs, especially those who received a formal university education in the US, must demonstrate academic and research potential primarily. The US graduates are reviewed differently from international applicants who graduated outside of the US.

 

GRE quant score 165 can do walking through not only T15 but also T7 programs.

 

I think we all know alter isn't missing any cutoffs with this score, so any discussions of medians and where the actual cutoff is seems irrelevant to me, at least for this situation.

 

What it really comes down to for this situation is whether you believe the GRE plays a role in your application after that first cutoff or not. I'm yet to see any real evidence that it does not. I see a common belief that it doesn't, but as far as I can tell that's part of the forum's 'conventional wisdom' that has become 'fact' because it's been repeated so many times, but could well have been extrapolated poorly from things that just weren't evidence of that.

 

If alter has such a stellar profile that he (apologies if she) expects to waltz through all his admissions decisions with no problem, then I just hope he isn't wasting his money applying to the entire top 15.

If, on the other hand, he expects to have at least some difficulty at some places - ie he expects a few rejections or a few unfunded offers or whatever - then to not re-take it he either has to be really confident the GRE doesn't matter at all beyond that first cutoff, or he has to not have any particularly strong preferences between the schools where he'll waltz through and the schools where he could be marginal.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like any such lack of preference is unlikely, so what the OP is really asking here is whether there's value in a higher GRE score beyond any first-round cutoff - the conventional forum wisdom answer seems to be "no", but I think the answer should be "we don't know".

 

Maybe I'm biased by the belief that everyone planning on doing well in a top-15 programme should be capable of a 168 or so (not every time of course, but once you allow for silly mistakes and re-takes), but personally, if I were in the OP's situation, unless I was extremely confident in the supremacy of the rest of my profile I'd want every possible advantage and would re-take.

[pemdas]

Ok, I think you will insist on your opinion with quick review of every other post coming out, as the subject stressed by me was not cut-off GRE score but academic+research evidence coupled with the difference of AdCom review process when it comes to the US and non-US graduating applicants.

 

All in vein, as you joined the GRE score mania consortium of applicants wasting their resources and pre-application time on winning one-two scaled scores beyond that set, of course, not as cut-off limit(s) but the admission limit(s). Don't you find these two are different: one is cut-off which is linked to a possible auto-reject decision, and the other is a median GRE score of the PhD admitted students. If this is not relevant then what is pertinent (avoiding tautology, sorry for the verbosity)?

 

PhD econ is not MBA and GRE is not GMAT. What's GRE? Do you understand what this exam tests? It tests only strategy, and it would be stupid to think of GRE as the language or math test, or somewhere here it also sounded as general literacy test. GRE doesn't tell you anything of your exceptional mental abilities nor it does signal to a reviewer of your academic potential; the latter is the strongest evidence for AdComs. When people start prepping for GRE they are put in a similar position as if they are figuratively placed in the streets of unrecognized city and state and need to get the right orientation quickly. People who get lost are not stupid, but they are qualified as bottom-liners because they were offered time and opportunity to learn how not to be lost. So if you come first at the finish line and claim that you are the best, this doesn't mean that the grand prize will be yours. It only means that you handled this task and at this time better than others. What about your previous achievements - academic records, research experience and recommendations?

 

Anyway, I am not approving of the emphasis put in your post, which says to score higher than what is already acceptable. However, if the OP doesn't have any better job for which he is willing to spend his time, then he may prep again and retake GRE or just retake GRE which is also time and money.

[bholly]

pemdas,

What evidence do you have that the GRE doesn't make a difference to your application beyond making it past that first cutoff?

 

I've read your explanations. I understand (and mostly agree) with your reasoning that it should be different to the GMAT for an MBA, and that other achievements should be better indicators of research and academic ability, and that it would be stupid to put too much weight on a test as silly as the GRE. Fine. But how we think admissions should be run and what we think the GRE should mean to our applications isn't really relevant, and re-stating that belief doesn't really help - what we want to know is how admissions decisions are actually made.

 

Again I ask, what evidence do you have that GRE scores won't make a difference beyond that first cutoff?

 

I'm not denying the use of the GRE in an early cut-off, and I'm not saying it's the sole (or even the most important) determinant of some 'admission limit'. I'm not jumping on 'GRE mania'. I'm saying we don't know exactly how it's used, and given that uncertainty and the slim margins on many of these decisions, I'd retake it.

If you disagree, that's fine. If you don't actually have any evidence to back up your position, you need to stop stating it with such certainty and arguing with those who simply point out said lack of evidence.

[pemdas]

If you ask for my evidence, it's based on my e-mail communication re the same issue, GRE score importance for the PhD admission. I could deal only with a few students at my target programs, which as you noted are not T15 but the sub-40s. However, I doubt that the NRC ranked PhD econ. programs (up to "all green zones" through the 64th ranked PhD program) each will have different criterion when it comes to GRE score evaluation in the admission process. As an experienced auditor (my living has been earned so), I know - to review any process all criteria must be agreed upon, aligned.

 

I am not asking for a favor of trusting my words with making such disclosure. We are strained enough and need to support each other. The *sealed* document evidencing importance of GRE is missing :) These are only to the best of my knowledge that is based on the described sources.

 

it's fine that you inquire about reliability of the information. It demonstrates your scholar taste of seeking a disclosure for uncertainty you've read in my posts

[OneArmedEcon]

It's not used very much beyond a cut-off mostly because there's not a great deal of variation amongst those who survive, particularly if one considers the score to be a noisy measure. This was more true under the old system, but it still holds true.

 

If your application survived the GRE-based screening, then there are more germane criteria--transcripts, LORs, etc--that they're going to weigh. Or, put another way, if the only thing in your application that demonstrates mathematical ability is a perfect GRE score, then you're probably not going to get a very long look.