163 Q

[zhangvict]

So I took the test without preparation and only got 163 in the quantitative section though my verbal was good (165). Not sure why, maybe it was boredom or concentration. Should I waste another afternoon retaking the test?

 

I'm a Math major at a top undergrad, with a lot of upper level math classes.

[pch]

Depends where you will be applying and how strong your profile is.

But I would say 163Q raises a flag - either something is wrong with your math skills or you're just not serious about grad school/not committed enough. Clearly not preparing for GRE is a sign of the latter.

[zhangvict]

I walked into the test under the impression that nobody really cares about the scores, which may have been mistaken otherwise I would have taken it seriously.

 

In terms of my profile, my math and statistics grades are high, like mostly A's and some A- with all the real analysis probability econometrics etc. I'm looking at top 10 with some top 5.

[thagzone]

I walked into the test under the impression that nobody really cares about the scores, which may have been mistaken otherwise I would have taken it seriously.

 

In terms of my profile, my math and statistics grades are high, like mostly A's and some A- with all the real analysis probability econometrics etc. I'm looking at top 10 with some top 5.

 

I wouldn't say that's true. If you have well-known recommenders pulling strings for you and you've got a near-flawless profile elsewhere, then maybe it won't matter at all. However, that score is low enough to, as pch said, raise some red flags. If you're as polished quantitatively as you say, it shouldn't be too much work to study for a week or two and bump your score up to somewhere near perfect. It will take some time and another couple hundred dollars, but my opinion is that it's worth it. You don't want something as silly as your GRE score to be the reason you don't maximize your admissions outcome.

 

I know some people disagree, but I've seen plenty of evidence that it can make a big difference, and with something this big, why leave it to chance?

[zhangvict]

Good advice, what's a good enough Q score to make it a non-flag? Also does the verbal count at all, if my writing score turns out fine, will it make up for the bad Q score?

[thagzone]

You'll get a range of answers--some people say 165+ and you're in the clear. Anecdotal evidence and dozens of hours scanning over results from the past few years on Gradcafe have given me the impression that 167+ is the range in which you're absolutely secure anywhere. Some institutions don't seem to pay the GRE Q score much mind, and some use it as a hard and fast screening rule. Assuming you'll be applying to a range of schools--even if mostly in the T20--you'd like your GRE Q score to be high enough that there's no way it will, on it's own, be a reason to pass you over. With 163, that's a possibility (though how likely it is is a matter of occasional disagreement on this forum and elsewhere).

 

A high writing score is nice, especially at the top schools, but it's generally relatively unimportant and certainly will not be seen as compensating for a lower Q score.

[Food4Thought]

My professors, who have spoken to professors at top schools, have told me that at both MIT and Berkeley, there have been years where there were so many applicants with perfect GRE scores that anybody without a 170 Q (or, previously an 800Q) was simply not considered.

 

Obviously there are counterexamples, as chateauheart will be quick to point out. But this is just an illustration of the fact that there is really no reason to try for any score other than 170, especially for someone who claims to be a math guy.

[brwar]

Food4Thought is that for real? My GRE Q is only 169-_-

[thagzone]

While top schools often have a very high GRE Q cutoff for screening, your 169 is absolutely fine. Just now I found a couple people on Gradcafe who were accepted to MIT last year with a 168 and a 167. The difference from 169 to 170 shouldn't change your fate at all, but 163 to 167-170 may be enormous.

[Zubrus]

My professors, who have spoken to professors at top schools, have told me that at both MIT and Berkeley, there have been years where there were so many applicants with perfect GRE scores that anybody without a 170 Q (or, previously an 800Q) was simply not considered.

 

Obviously there are counterexamples, as chateauheart will be quick to point out. But this is just an illustration of the fact that there is really no reason to try for any score other than 170, especially for someone who claims to be a math guy.

 

 

This is pretty far from the truth. GRE is used differently for different applicants. (Foreign, domestic, mature, etc). Also, schools are different. You really think that a PhD program is going to reject an applicant because of their GRE score not being perfect?

 

No.

 

To OP: retake it, but don't retake it again if you get higher than, say 167 or so.

[chateauheart]

As I mentioned before, I know someone from the same university as OP, similar profile (maybe stronger overall, but not in math), with a 163Q who got funded admits to all the top 5s.

 

I'd still retake it since I'm risk-averse, but honestly it doesn't matter that much either way.

[zhangvict]

On reflection, pch is right and I deserved it for approaching the test with a poor attitude, which should be a lesson regardless if I end up retaking it.

[brwar]

Thanks:)

While top schools often have a very high GRE Q cutoff for screening, your 169 is absolutely fine. Just now I found a couple people on Gradcafe who were accepted to MIT last year with a 168 and a 167. The difference from 169 to 170 shouldn't change your fate at all, but 163 to 167-170 may be enormous.