econApp2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Hi guys, I just took my GRE and received Q: 167 and V: 155. As far as I have heard, verbal does not matter much and 155 shouldn't matter much; correct me if I'm wrong please. I know 167 for quant gets me into the door but nothing exceptional. So I was wondering if I should retake the GRE and try to receive a higher score on quant? I have solved several ETS powerprep full practice exams and thought today's quant sections were definitely harder (maybe because I was nervous and etc). So I think I would be able to get a higher score if I retake it. How do you guys think? Should I just get over it and focus on SOPs and my research (I am doing summer research with two professors)? I am going for top 15-40 econ PhD programs. Thanks for any input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tutonic Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 If you have the time and money, give it another shot. Beyond that, it really isn't worth the time and effort. 167 is 93rd percentile if I'm not mistaken; should be sufficient at most places. With regards to Verbal, that is correct. Only a terribly low score will raise some questions (think mid to low 140s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econApp2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 Thanks for your input tutonic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pulsars Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 You should be fine for top 40 programs. For top 15, you may want to raise that verbal by just a little bit (learning 50 new vocab a day should do the trick). According to UCLA (a top 15 program) "Our admitted students have, on average, GRE scores that average in the 80th percentile in the verbal, 94th percentile in the quantitative, and 5.0 or above in the analytical sections." https://economics.ucla.edu/graduate/prospective-students So for top 15, you're right in line for quant. An 80th percentile verbal is around a 159-160 I think, which could be achieved by just learning vocab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chateauheart Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 GRE Verbal is virtually irrelevant for econ admissions. Pulsars is right that top econ applicants (and math/physics) do tend to have high GRE verbal scores, but this is almost entirely a second-order effect of the high intellectual requirements and entry barriers in these disciplines; that doesn't necessarily reflect admissions preferences. As an example, the verbal section is actually used in sociology admissions, but top PhD sociology verbal scores are 3-7 points lower than top econ PhDs, simply because of self-selection. Intelligent people don't study sociology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econApp2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 GRE Verbal is virtually irrelevant for econ admissions. Pulsars is right that top econ applicants (and math/physics) do tend to have high GRE verbal scores, but this is almost entirely a second-order effect of the high intellectual requirements and entry barriers in these disciplines; that doesn't necessarily reflect admissions preferences. As an example, the verbal section is actually used in sociology admissions, but top PhD sociology verbal scores are 3-7 points lower than top econ PhDs, simply because of self-selection. Intelligent people don't study sociology. Thanks for your input. What is your take on the quant score though? Do you think it's worth it to retake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econApp2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 Thanks for your input pulsars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pulsars Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 @chateauheart Thanks for correcting me! What’s your thought on how the GRE writing score is viewed? (sorry for hijacking the thread, but I think this question will also be of interest to the OP at some point) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathenomics Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 As an example, the verbal section is actually used in sociology admissions, but top PhD sociology verbal scores are 3-7 points lower than top econ PhDs, simply because of self-selection. Intelligent people don't study sociology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your example seems to suggest that higher verbal scores provide some indication of intelligence. If so, is there a reason why econ adcoms don't interpret verbal scores as containing some signals of intelligence? Is it because these signals are too weak compared to other stronger signals you can send through math classes, grades, rec letters, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econApp2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 Correct me if I'm wrong, but your example seems to suggest that higher verbal scores provide some indication of intelligence. If so, is there a reason why econ adcoms don't interpret verbal scores as containing some signals of intelligence? Is it because these signals are too weak compared to other stronger signals you can send through math classes, grades, rec letters, etc? Sounds like a good point. Following on this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcc Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 I got 167 then retook to get 170. I don't think it made my profile any better tbh. I guess if you have time & money and are certain about getting better score, then go ahead. Just so you know, I know someone who got into top 5 Econ PhD program with the exact same GRE as your current score. Imho, 167 quant is enough to be above the cutoff, and as long as you are above 50 pctile for verbal and writing, you should be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econApp2018 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 I see. Thanks for your input jcc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laborsabre Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 I took the GRE once and scored 167Q. I never took it again. I applied mainly to top 15, and was accepted at UCLA only and wait-listed at UCSD. I agree with the general advice that if its basically zero cost to you (ie you have the money and don't need to study or have plenty of time to study) then re-take. If not, don't worry about it, particularly if your goal is 15-40 not top 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econApp2018 Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share Posted June 16, 2018 I took the GRE once and scored 167Q. I never took it again. I applied mainly to top 15, and was accepted at UCLA only and wait-listed at UCSD. I agree with the general advice that if its basically zero cost to you (ie you have the money and don't need to study or have plenty of time to study) then re-take. If not, don't worry about it, particularly if your goal is 15-40 not top 15. Please check your inbox, I've sent you a message! And, thanks for your input! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookiz Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I wouldn't worry about it -- you meet the cutoff for most top 10 schools (perhaps it wouldn't be sufficient only for Harvard and MIT). I know people who've gotten admitted into top 5's with the same quant score or a lower one than yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chateauheart Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 Correct me if I'm wrong, but your example seems to suggest that higher verbal scores provide some indication of intelligence. If so, is there a reason why econ adcoms don't interpret verbal scores as containing some signals of intelligence? Is it because these signals are too weak compared to other stronger signals you can send through math classes, grades, rec letters, etc? Yes, I think pure math classes are a much more accurate signal of intelligence than verbal scores, and math classes are already used in admissions as a proxy for IQ. If admissions criteria were based solely on preparation for graduate econ research, then undergrad econometrics rather than real analysis would probably be the most important course. But undergrad econometrics is not reliable for signaling intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbe Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 I can tell you that we do use verbal scores in admissions decisions, especially for international students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econApp2018 Posted June 22, 2018 Author Share Posted June 22, 2018 I can tell you that we do use verbal scores in admissions decisions, especially for international students. Thanks for you input tbe. By "we", are you implying that you are in the admission committee at some school? And I also have heard that schools would like to see satisfactory scores on verbal from international applicants; that being said, is 155 not "satisfactory"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathenomics Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Based on my recent score report, 167Q is the 91st percentile (170Q is the 96th percentile). Stanford’s website says “If you do not score in at least the 92nd percentile on the quantitative section, we recommend that you re-take the exam and try to improve your score” My reading of this info is that if you’re aiming for the top 5 programs and you still have time before applications are due, it may make sense to retake, especially since you only have to send in your best score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chateauheart Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Based on my recent score report, 167Q is the 91st percentile (170Q is the 96th percentile). Stanford’s website says “If you do not score in at least the 92nd percentile on the quantitative section, we recommend that you re-take the exam and try to improve your score” My reading of this info is that if you’re aiming for the top 5 programs and you still have time before applications are due, it may make sense to retake, especially since you only have to send in your best score. Nope. Ignore Stanford's website. I know for a fact that they've admitted students below the 85th percentile in GRE Quant. I know for a fact that the GRE isn't even used for faculty evaluations in at least one top 5 program (i.e. it's not presented in the information sheet sent to faculty). Use your common sense: The GRE exam is just not that big of a deal, the math tested is almost completely irrelevant, and the idea that any top 5 school would even have a cut-off is presumptuous. Any candidate who's competitive for top 5 programs will have *much* clearer signals of quantitative ability elsewhere in their profile. University admissions websites are often written by admins or assistants who don't have a role in departmental admissions. "score in ...x percentile" isn't even a well-defined statement for discrete scores; 167 spans 92th to 95th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
startz Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 Stanford’s website says “If you do not score in at least the 92nd percentile on the quantitative section, we recommend that you re-take the exam and try to improve your score” Nope. Ignore Stanford's website. I know for a fact that they've admitted students below the 85th percentile in GRE Quant. I know for a fact that the GRE isn't even used for faculty evaluations in at least one top 5 program (i.e. it's not presented in the information sheet sent to faculty). Use your common sense: The GRE exam is just not that big of a deal, the math tested is almost completely irrelevant, and the idea that any top 5 school would even have a cut-off is presumptuous. Any candidate who's competitive for top 5 programs will have *much* clearer signals of quantitative ability elsewhere in their profile. Further on the points made by Chateauheart, here are two quotes from Stanford's website. We do not use any mechanical formulas to evaluate your application. We do not reject an application because of failing to meet any simple criterion, such as the quantitative GRE score or a grade-point average. Most successful applications score above the 95th percentile on the quantitative exam, but this is not a fixed requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
econApp2018 Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 Nope. Ignore Stanford's website. I know for a fact that they've admitted students below the 85th percentile in GRE Quant. I know for a fact that the GRE isn't even used for faculty evaluations in at least one top 5 program (i.e. it's not presented in the information sheet sent to faculty). Use your common sense: The GRE exam is just not that big of a deal, the math tested is almost completely irrelevant, and the idea that any top 5 school would even have a cut-off is presumptuous. Any candidate who's competitive for top 5 programs will have *much* clearer signals of quantitative ability elsewhere in their profile. University admissions websites are often written by admins or assistants who don't have a role in departmental admissions. "score in ...x percentile" isn't even a well-defined statement for discrete scores; 167 spans 92th to 95th. Thanks for your input. And, yep 167 is 92nd percentile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathenomics Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Nope. Ignore Stanford's website. I know for a fact that they've admitted students below the 85th percentile in GRE Quant. I know for a fact that the GRE isn't even used for faculty evaluations in at least one top 5 program (i.e. it's not presented in the information sheet sent to faculty). Use your common sense: The GRE exam is just not that big of a deal, the math tested is almost completely irrelevant, and the idea that any top 5 school would even have a cut-off is presumptuous. Any candidate who's competitive for top 5 programs will have *much* clearer signals of quantitative ability elsewhere in their profile. University admissions websites are often written by admins or assistants who don't have a role in departmental admissions. "score in ...x percentile" isn't even a well-defined statement for discrete scores; 167 spans 92th to 95th. Thanks for the helpful insight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.