<p>I've thought about the LAC route, but I'm a spotlight whore. I'm really into the idea of being "that guy that gets cited" or being the "hotshot professor."</p>
<p>Not that you can't get that at a LAC, but I definitely noticed that most of my own citations in undergrad were from research uni profs. </p>
<p>Besides, what's cooler than being able to cite yourself down the road? :p</p>
<p>kihyle, i'd actually like it if the GRE tested precalculus/calculus. at least then there would be more of a distribution and not everyone who possesses basic junior high math skills and has gotten "enough sleep" will get a high score. maybe an 800 would actually mean something then... but i guess that is what the subject math gre is for...</p>
<p>This is interesting - I'm not really involved in graduate school stuff at all yet (just got out of high school), but since I'll inevitably go through it I decided to check it out. My impression is that the GRE verbal is currently very different from the SAT "critical reading": with the analogy and antonym sections, it's far more focused on vocabulary. </p>
<p>I (somewhat sloppily) went through the paper-based practice test on the ETS website and got 700 V 800 M - my SAT was 800 CR 800 M. Every missed verbal question belonged to one of the vocabulary games: analogies and antonyms. This is probably a good reflection of my less-than-stellar vocabulary. Luckily, these are exactly the sections that are disappearing from the GRE!</p>
<p>(It's not that I shouldn't acquire a better vocabulary, but I spend most of my reading time with current-events works like The Economist, which are generally good for improving literacy but don't use really obscure words regularly enough to impart their meanings effectively)</p>
<p>Incidently, UCLAri, I'm a bit mystified by your mention of 3-D geometric formulas as barriers to a good math GRE score. I think that all the formulas that could possibly be needed on the test can be included in a few lines. My attempt:</p>
<p>If the sides of a rectangular prism are a,b,c, the volume is abc and the surface area is 2(ab+bc+ac). The volume of a pyramid (including cones) is 1/3<em>base area</em>height. The volume of a cylinder (a type of prism) is just pi<em>r^2h, and its surface area is 2pi</em>r<em>h+2pi</em>r^2. Finally, the volume of a sphere is 4/3<em>pi</em>r^3, and its surface area is 4pi*r^2.</p>
<p>That's a lot easier than memorizing 1000 vocabulary words, isn't it?</p>
<p>randomperson,</p>
<p>If you're for real, and I get the feeling that you are, then you're a far brighter person than I'll ever be. Don't pick on the idiots, please. 700 V and 800 M puts you well within range for any top graduate program in almost any field. There are people graduating from tons of top undergrad programs who would give their left kidneys for those kinds of scores. </p>
<p>Besides, go for over 6 years without using any of the formulae, and see how far you get. >:-O</p>
<p>Uhm, the average verbal score of entering grad students at Harvard's Kennedey School of Gov't is a 630. You think you have an aweful vocab, huh?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uhm, the average verbal score of entering grad students at Harvard's Kennedey School of Gov't is a 630. You think you have an aweful vocab, huh?
[/quote]
Hmmm... well, the Kennedy School of Government somehow managed to admit (and graduate) Bill O'Reilly and Katherine Harris, so I don't think that its admission standards are particularly rigorous. The school strikes me as more of a resume-booster for people with cash to burn. O'Reilly, who certainly couldn't have won undergraduate admission to Harvard, can now boast that he has a "Harvard graduate degree."</p>
<p>Anyway, I don't want to look like an idiot who doesn't understand what makes a good score, so I'll try to explain myself further. By my nature, I worry continually about the future, and at the moment I'm worrying about grad school admissions (even though they're three and a half years away!). For years, I assumed that I would eventually head to a physics graduate school. Physics has the physics subject GRE, whose scores are spread much more widely than the general GRE - the general test is of minimal importance. Upon examining (and even taking) the physics GRE, I realized that I would do very well, and that test scores would be an advantage for me in the admissions process.</p>
<p>This mentality lingered, even as I decided that I was really much more passionate about social sciences like economics. Economics doesn't have a subject test, and although standardized testing is only a small part of the overall graduate admissions package (recommendations, research, grades), it isn't entirely insignificant. Out of curiosity, I decided to look at ETS's sample paper GRE online, and I've already mentioned what happened.</p>
<p>I had read somewhere that the Princeton economics department admitted students with median math and verbal scores both between 780 and 800, and so the idea of a 700 verbal made me fairly upset. After a few minutes, I discovered that ETS is eliminating the analogy and antonym questions from the "revised" GRE. Fortunately, these were the only question types I missed on the sample verbal section - this made me dramatically less upset. After carefully examining the score distributions on the ETS website, I also think that the Princeton story is either apocryphal or a stunning fluke.</p>
<p>And sorry, UCLAri, I do understand that math can be very tough for people who haven't been exposed to it for a long time. I suppose that my point is just that the math sections of these standardized tests are infinitely more "studyable" than the corresponding verbal parts.</p>
<p>So, because a school admits Republicans, it must have low standards? You know for a fact that O'Riley and Harris are not bright people? My God, for someone who seems to be very bright, that was a really weak argument, actually laughable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, because a school admits Republicans, it must have low standards? You know for a fact that O'Riley and Harris are not bright people? My God, for someone who seems to be very bright, that was a really weak argument, actually laughable.
[/quote]
No, not because a school admits "Republicans" in the abstract. I'll admit that my point there was more rhetorical than substantive - obviously, two people can't define an entire institution's admissions policy. But the point about O'Reilly and Harris isn't that they are Republicans, but that all evidence tells me that they aren't very concerned with thoughtful contemplation of any sort. There are indeed many very intelligent Republicans: if you want an example at Harvard, take Professor of Economics N. Gregory Mankiw - well, actually, I'm not sure that he's a registered Republican, but he did serve as Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors. I deduce that he's extremely intelligent in the same way that I find O'Reilly and Harris ignorant, if not stupid: listening to public statements, evaluating arguments, and seeing how individuals defend their positions.</p>
<p>I would assert that the Kennedy School doesn't have very high admission standards for a number of reasons. First, consider its cost. According to the school's website, its MPA mid-career program's annual total cost adds up to $70,213. Unlike Harvard's law, business, and medical schools, the Kennedy School doesn't prepare its students for any particularly lucrative occupational niche. While Harvard medical students may find attaining credit easy thanks to the obvious wealth associated with medicine and the school's immense prestige in the area, I doubt that the same holds true for Kennedy School students. So who's going to attend? A student is going to need enormous financial resources - or certain promises of funding in the future. That hacks dramatically at the pool of potential students - can you imagine how Harvard's undergraduate student body would deteriorate if expenses were $70,213 and financial aid was extremely limited?</p>
<p>This all suggests that mid-career Kennedy School students come overwhelmingly from a similar mold: people with very secure finances who want the prestige, perceived educational value, or credibility associated with a Harvard degree.</p>
<p>This isn't to say that the school has completely unselective admissions policies. I suspect that Bill O'Reilly, for instance, was at the low end of Kennedy students. It's always easier for public figures - like O'Reilly, who had already anchored a tabloid news show, Inside Edition - to win admission to any school. The average verbal GRE score, however, does suggest that the school isn't nearly as selective as most other Harvard institutions (along with the other arguments I've already listed).</p>
<p>
I had read somewhere that the Princeton economics department admitted students with median math and verbal scores both between 780 and 800, and so the idea of a 700 verbal made me fairly upset.
The problem here is that GRE scores do not seem to be predictive of admissions into graduate programs in the same way that SAT scores are a somewhat reliable predictor of admissions into undergraduate programs.</p>
<p>I think this is partially because graduate programs are smaller than most undergraduate schools, so admissions can afford to conduct a much more individual review of applicants which centers around factors relevant to success in graduate school. Intangibles like dedication and personal history factors like extensive research experience are predictive of success in graduate school; GRE scores are not.</p>
<p>It is not possible to classify graduate programs as "matches" or "reaches" based on average GRE scores alone. There's just too much variability in the scores of admitted students to suggest that GRE scores are a primary factor in graduate school admissions.</p>
<p>In other words, even if a school's average GRE score is x and you have x-40, this is not an extreme liability as long as you're in the neigborhood. Applying to an extremely selective program with scores in the 20th percentile probably doesn't bode well, but applying with anything above about the 75th or 80th percentile is fine for very selective programs.</p>
<p>randomperson,</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suspect that Bill O'Reilly, for instance, was at the low end of Kennedy students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Based on what, other than conjecture? I may not like O'Reilly, but I'm not about to make any assumptions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to the school's website, its MPA mid-career program's annual total cost adds up to $70,213.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not terrible, when you consider that it's a mid-career program. The people looking to attain an MPA are usually professionals with good resources, subsidies, or a willingness to take out loans for the degree in order to secure pecuniary benefits in the long run. </p>
<p>
[quote]
While Harvard medical students may find attaining credit easy thanks to the obvious wealth associated with medicine and the school's immense prestige in the area, I doubt that the same holds true for Kennedy School students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No offense, but what do you know about credit and the process of securing it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unlike Harvard's law, business, and medical schools, the Kennedy School doesn't prepare its students for any particularly lucrative occupational niche.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, MPPs and MPAs, especially mid-career students, tend to find themselves paid very well. Again, please don't start shooting your mouth off about things that you don't know about.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had read somewhere that the Princeton economics department admitted students with median math and verbal scores both between 780 and 800, and so the idea of a 700 verbal made me fairly upset.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just graduated from high school, get over it. You honestly believe that you're at the absolute peak of your academic development?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I had read somewhere that the Princeton economics department admitted students with median math and verbal scores both between 780 and 800, and so the idea of a 700 verbal made me fairly upset.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I browsed the sites of about five of the top ten econ departments, and none of them seemed as concerned with verbal as with quant. The rule seems to be that 780+ is minimim for quant. Verbal, however, wasn't really brought up as a particularly big issue. What was your source, anyway?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think this is partially because graduate programs are smaller than most undergraduate schools, so admissions can afford to conduct a much more individual review of applicants which centers around factors relevant to success in graduate school. Intangibles like dedication and personal history factors like extensive research experience are predictive of success in graduate school; GRE scores are not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that and many departments are willing to, at least to an extent, "look past" weak verbal scores if there's an international student they're hot for. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In other words, even if a school's average GRE score is x and you have x-40, this is not an extreme liability as long as you're in the neigborhood.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I found it far more useful to look at the ranges of scores (25th percentile down to 75th percentile of admitted students) and see where they fell in terms of the aggregate GRE percentiles. Few people seem to realize that 650 on verbal is well within the 90th percentile, while nothing short of 780 is 90th percentile on quantitative. Most departments expect at least some gap between verbal and quantitative scores, especially due to the significant international presence driving up quant and driving down verbal. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Applying to an extremely selective program with scores in the 20th percentile probably doesn't bode well, but applying with anything above about the 75th or 80th percentile is fine for very selective programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most of my professors agreed that the GRE, unlike the SAT, hardly served as an indicator of success. Instead, it was used a simple "green flag" or "red flag." If your score was strong enough, you were a "green flag," and then they actually got down to business, looking at what they cared about. If you were a "red flag," then they scrutinized other factors that they otherwise didn't spend much time on, or simply rejected you outright.</p>
<p>It was rarely used for actual admissions, and one professor went so far as to say that he didn't look at them until AFTER he had looked at the rest of the application and made a decision.</p>
<p>My professors also talked about GRE scores in such a way -- a good score being cause to move on to the next item, and a bad score as a point of caution to note while reviewing the rest of the application.</p>
<p>Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: Exceptional GRE scores can never really hurt, and may actually be a significant factor in aid. This is especially true for cash-strapped master's programs.</p>
<p>Though, one of my professors did say that if he saw a very strong GRE score, but weak grades, it was an "automatic lazy bastard flag." And yes, that was quoted verbatim.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem here is that GRE scores do not seem to be predictive of admissions into graduate programs in the same way that SAT scores are a somewhat reliable predictor of admissions into undergraduate programs.
[/quote]
Yes, this definitely makes sense, and I think that it's true. The general GRE tests an absurdly narrow range of skills for it to be of significant use in graduate admissions - every field has its own particular traits and skills, and it's hard to see how the GRE could be very useful in predicting, say, capacity for creative research in civil engineering. I think that you're completely right.</p>
<p>You have to understand that I was worried about the Princeton average score because I remembered seeing it at some reputable source. If Princeton's average economics verbal GRE indeed ranged from 780-800, Princeton would have to place an enormous amount of emphasis on the score, contrary to all other evidence we've observed. Now that I've thought about the topic more, I think that the statistic itself must be incorrect: there are simply too few individuals with those scores applying for economics grad schools (according to ETS's report), and such a high average would only be possible if Princeton blindly picked all the top verbal scorers. Obviously, that's not true, and it doesn't even make a grain of sense.</p>
<p><em>sudden interruption in train of thought</em></p>
<p>I was about to say that I didn't know where I originally saw the statistic, but that I recall it was from a reputable source. Now I know why I thought it was a "reputable source": I just found it on the website of the economics department! <a href="http://www.econ.princeton.edu/grad/prospective.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.econ.princeton.edu/grad/prospective.html</a></p>
<p>Now, if you look at the ETS report (<a href="http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/994994.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/GRE/pdf/994994.pdf</a>), it's extremely unlikely that the average verbal GRE is that high for Princeton economics. Strangely, the most likely possibility is that their own site has it wrong. But if they don't have it wrong, then they must indeed put an absurdly enormous emphasis on the verbal score. After all, only around 15 (according to the pdf) economics applicants received an 800 verbal, and 780s and 790s couldn't be that much more common (there isn't a precise breakdown for the GRE, but I recall that with the SAT perfect scores are actually more common than slightly-below-perfect scores... or at least they once were). That's what worried me.</p>
<p>That kind of emphasis on the score doesn't make any sense, and it goes against everything people know about the admission process, but it's the only way to explain the supposedly extremely high average listed on the Princeton website. I realize that I'm looping around in rhetorical circles here, so I'll just conclude by saying that my guess is that the website stats are wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, MPPs and MPAs, especially mid-career students, tend to find themselves paid very well. Again, please don't start shooting your mouth off about things that you don't know about.
[/quote]
Well, I did do a little research before saying that. I'll admit that it wasn't particularly exhaustive or scientific, but I looked around for statistics where I could find them. Take this: <a href="http://www.payscale.com/salary-survey/vid-138869%5B/url%5D">http://www.payscale.com/salary-survey/vid-138869</a>. That's barely more lucrative than some engineering degrees. Now look at the same numbers for Doctors of Medicine: <a href="http://www.payscale.com/salary-survey/vid-22937%5B/url%5D">http://www.payscale.com/salary-survey/vid-22937</a>. They're much, much higher. The numbers for business and law graduates are also noticably higher, although not to the same extent. That's why I thought I could validly say that MPAs aren't, on average, in the same financial boat as medical, law, or business school graduates. There may be an even wider gulf for Harvard because of its professional schools' general prestige compared to the Kennedy School's relative newness.</p>
<p>In the end, this discussion doesn't really matter, although it's interesting. I'll just reiterate my conclusion: although the Kennedy School probably has decently selective admissions policies, it's not nearly as selective as the better-known Harvard schools. My quip about Katherine Harris and Bill O'Reilly was just that: a quip, and again it's in reality absurd to draw hard conclusions from just a few people (and schools always loosen their policies for well-known applicants). </p>
<p>But I stand by my initial skepticism about the implication that because Kennedy School students have an average verbal GRE of 630, ergo, anything above 630 is spectacular. From the admittedly limited evidence available to me, I'd conclude that Kennedy School admission isn't nearly as difficult as admission to the better-known parts of Harvard, and that it doesn't necessarily deserve to bask in the aura of perceived Harvard greatness.</p>
<p>Okay, I'm sorry, I browsed the threads and noticed that you (UCLAri) applied to KSG and were denied, which makes me feel like somewhat of a jerk, and now I understand the dynamic of the conversation better. While yes, I still don't think that KSG is as competitive as the other Harvard schools, that's a pretty insanely high standard for comparison, and admissions certainly don't constitute some kind of ultimate test of personal worth. </p>
<p>Maybe put better: there's a substantial gap between the "admissions world" and the "real world," and for this conversation I was stuck in the "admissions world." So when I said that KSG isn't as competitive as the other schools, I don't mean that "anyone who gets in isn't any good" - unless my path dramatically changes, I don't think I'd be accepted there either (I might qualify on test scores, but not otherwise). This whole time, I've basically been trying to justify my initial reaction to the idea that the KSG's average verbal score sets some sort of exceptional standard for verbal aptitude - that's what started the whole conversation, although it seems like a while ago.</p>
<p>Okay, now I see that you were probably denied for lack of work experience. That probably says a lot about their admissions policies: more related to life experiences (which take time to acquire) than traditional academic criteria. In that sense, the system is somewhat like business school (probably not as competitive as Harvard Business yet, although I'll admit that I'm not certain). </p>
<p>So while the hurdles to admission may overall be pretty large, the academic hurdles aren't nearly as significant. And so (hate to keep returning to this, but it's what started it all) the average verbal GRE score of KSG students isn't a particularly good representation of an elite academic level. It's just not the focus.</p>
<p>And, in conclusion, as everyone has pointed out, these scores aren't that critical anyway. For economics programs (my interest), near-800 quantitative scores are a must, but overall scores don't matter as much as recommendations, research, etc. Of course, if Princeton's listed statistics turn out to be valid, then this entire paragraph becomes completely false.</p>
<p>randomperson,</p>
<p>Don't overlook the fact that salary gaps between top program grads and average program grads rae oftentimes large. The difference in average income between an MBA grad from Harvard and an MBA grad from University of Phoenix is gaping. KSG, even though it is relatively young, is incredibly well-respected, and its grads can command a much higher salary than grads from other schools.</p>
<p>However, there is also the fallacy of the argument that a degree's worth can be ascertained from salaries of its holders. Yes, there is some truth to it-- economically, it makes perfect sense-- but it is not a perfect metric of value. PhDs make far less money on average than MBAs, but I don't know that it's possible to say with a straight face that an MBA is certainly a more worthwhile degree.</p>
<p>And 630 IS a great score. That's what we're trying to tell you. 630/640 or so already puts you in the 90th percentile of score earners in the United States. That's the 90th percentile of COLLEGE GRADUATES in America. I know that you'll reply with, "Oh, but most college graduates are so pedestrian..." but it still says something. </p>
<p>And again, I bet that if you position yourself correctly, a 630 or so could get you into almost any graduate program. It's not the median that matters, in any case, it's the standard deviations and where you fall within those that matters. </p>
<p>
[quote]
From the admittedly limited evidence available to me, I'd conclude that Kennedy School admission isn't nearly as difficult as admission to the better-known parts of Harvard, and that it doesn't necessarily deserve to bask in the aura of perceived Harvard greatness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm...I have to disagree. You're basing your notion of "difficulty" on a single metric- the GRE. And how pretentious and... bratty... of you to say that it "doesn't necessarily deserve to bask in the Harvard aura." Ugh.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm...I have to disagree. You're basing your notion of "difficulty" on a single metric- the GRE. And how pretentious and... bratty... of you to say that it "doesn't necessarily deserve to bask in the Harvard aura." Ugh.
[/quote]
Sorry... that was supposed to be sarcastic. Since I haven't been on the Graduate School forum before, you probably haven't seen many of my posts and exchanges with people like Byerly - I've been skeptical of Harvard's elite reputation in just about everything, not just KSG. I used the word "perceived" to try to indicate that I took Harvard's "greatness" in general with a grain of salt. "Aura" is a silly, flowery word that I threw in for the same purpose. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at communicating sarcasm when I write.... (and the preceding sentence is not meant to be sarcastic)</p>
<p>Basically, I've been responding to the original poster whose implication was this:
1) The average verbal GRE for KSG is 630.
2) Anything above this is thus clearly awesome, and I'm incensed that you'd be upset about anything higher.</p>
<p>I'll grant that my first responses weren't informed by a particularly comprehensive knowledge of the situation. My impression now is that Kennedy School admissions aren't as difficult (maybe a better word is "impossible," for the medical and law schools) as admissions to many other parts of Harvard, but "nearly as difficult" is an exaggeration. And I don't base this just on the GRE - it's hard to compare between such different kinds of schools, but selectivity comes from two factors:</p>
<p>1) The breadth and strength of the applicant pool.
2) The number of students a school admits.</p>
<p>There are more KSG students than M.D. students in Harvard Medical School. Medical school is absurdly competitive, and a lot of students consider themselves premed - I think that this number probably dwarfs those who are eventually interested in an MPA (although the MPA usually comes a while after college, while the MD comes shortly after, so it's not the easiest comparison). The difference in the sheer size of the pools here (and if this is off base, let me know) indicates to me that the Medical School (and the Law School, and perhaps/probably the Business School) is forced to have measurably more competitive admissions policies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, there is also the fallacy of the argument that a degree's worth can be ascertained from salaries of its holders. Yes, there is some truth to it-- economically, it makes perfect sense-- but it is not a perfect metric of value. PhDs make far less money on average than MBAs, but I don't know that it's possible to say with a straight face that an MBA is certainly a more worthwhile degree.
[/quote]
No, definitely not - I wasn't trying to imply that money is a valid measure of worth (if I wanted to make money, I wouldn't be aiming for an economics Ph.D - I'd be going for an MBA or MD). I just thought the lower salary/high cost constituted a higher barrier to entry than exists for some other degrees, and that this might have an impact on the pool and therefore the selectivity. Maybe this specifically isn't so much of a problem - I still think, however, that there are likely significant differences in size for the applicant pools that are reflected in relative selectivity. I'm not saying at all that KSG is unselective - just that it's probably markedly less selective than places like Harvard Medical School. Since HMS is at the "impossible" level of selectivity, this isn't really so bad.</p>
<p>KSG's admissions qualifications are also very different, which seems to be your point too. They're based more on life experiences and less on conventional academics (not to say that there's no academic selectivity). I've been looking at the "academic selectivity" side more in this discussion because that's the context in which KSG was brought up: the poster mentioned it as proof that a 630 was excellent. I don't want to start a discussion about what's really "excellent" and what's not, since the topic is so subjective and (often) offensive. I took issue with the statement because I thought that the KSG wasn't a good example to make that particular point.</p>
<p>Dude, from the ETS:</p>
<p>All Majors GRE Test Takers (Verbal)::
Mean=477
600= 85th percentile
650= 92th percentile
700= 97th percentile
730+= 99th percentile</p>
<p>Public Administration GRE Test Takers (Verbal):
Mean= 457
600= 89th percentile
650=95th percentile
700= 98 percentile
710+= 99th percentile</p>
<p>So, The average for KSG is the 93rd percentile of their particular applicant pool. </p>
<p>Economics GRE Test Takers (Verbal):
Mean= 497
600= 75th percentile
650= 84th percentile
700= 93 percentile
750+= 99th percentile</p>
<p>If you look at these numbers and don't think that a 700 GREAT score, or that a 630 is still an awesome score, then it's hopeless. You have made up your mind, facts be damned and no one should even bother to convince you otherwise, because logic has been tossed to the wind. My God, a 700 verbal puts you at the 93rd percentile of literature majors and a 630 in the 76th percentile of the same group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
(if I wanted to make money, I wouldn't be aiming for an economics Ph.D - I'd be going for an MBA or MD
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Seriously. Don't worry about money with an econ PhD. My buddy just finished his PhD from UCSD, and got offered a great job with PriceWaterhouseCoppers. And let's just say that he's not doing too badly.</p>
<p>Oh, and saying "less selective than HMS" is like saying "less militarily powerful than the US. It's just not a fair comparison. :p</p>