next »

[sarahanne]

Acrimone, I am starting another thread because the original post was hijacked.

Since the GRE discussion began, you have failed to validate your position with any reliable stats.

To question the intelligence or the ability of an applicant to successfully complete a degree based upon one set of scores, graded on one particular day with specific time limits in place smacks of snobbery.  Academics, who worship at the feet of the GRE god, often have an inflated opinion of their own intelligence and their own abilities. A 1600 GRE score means one thing, and one thing only: The person is good at standardize tests. Period.

As a phd candidate, I've seen my super star classmates with the nearly perfect GRE scores crash and burn to the same degree as those with unremarkable scores. In my department, GRE score are not predictive of student success. Child-bearing female applicants are more likely to drop out of my program.

What should we do with women phd candidates? When I began grad school, 27 students were enrolled in the program.  Of the 27 students, 15 female and 12 male candidates. Almost five years later, only 16 students remain in the program. Six female students are left, including myself!

Unreliable childcare was cited as the main reason most women left my program. Other phd candidates, both male and female, realized academia wasn't their calling. In my program, the high failure rate was attributed to the inability of women to juggle their studying and child rearing responsibilities.

So what shall we conclude from the information above? What should the grad admissions committee do in the future? Not admit women applicants in their child-bearing years? If the committee delved deeper, they would learn that a greater percentage of white female candidates left the program.

Judging purely by the raw numbers, my department must deny admissions to all female white candidates. After all, the numbers indicate that child-bearing white female candidates pose a greater risk of dropping out. 

Of course, we will follow your argument to its most illogical conclusion. Low scoring GRE applicants are too dumb for graduate work. And, white child-bearing females can't multi-task because they have poor coping skills.

Using my examples, the raw numbers prove nothing. Likewise, I cannot support rejecting an applicant because of what you call “unremarkable” GRE scores. No one can honestly judge GRE scores by the numbers because no one knows what the numbers means.

Once, again, acrimone, I ask: Who put pee in your tea?

[argarg]

Visit the ETS GRE site - they have articles up about research studies that have been conducted, and according to those studies gre scores when combined with undergraduate gpa (note that these elements are COMBINED when used in an application) were an accurate predictor of success in graduate school.
http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/

Schools would have stopped using these tests long ago if they found there was no relationship  between scores and potential.  There are some PhD programs that don't require them, and perhaps that's why, but the vast majority still value them as a component to an application.

These boards aren't for starting fights.   Just as some schools might look at low scores and reject you because a)they don't think you're smart enough or b)it looks like you're smart but you didn't take enough time prepare for the GRE, which says to them that you didn't take preparing for your application seriously enough, so might other people. 

You asked for people's opinion, and admitted that the scores wouldn't look good to a potential admissions committee - "I know that with these scores I have virtually no hope of gaining admission to a clinical psych phd program"

If you want to start a thread on the value of standardized tests, go for it, but comparing GRE scores to measuring a candidate's potential based on gender + childbearing is just insulting.  If you have low GRE scores and you don't do well in a program, the relationship is about some lack of ability in you.  If you have a child in a graduate program and have to leave, it is at least as likely that a lack of flexibility on the part of the department led to your leaving, not necessarily a "lack of ability to multi-task."

[sarahanne]

argarg,

I am merely pointing out the insanity of acrimone's argument. Furthermore, I am not picking a fight with hu. I want hu to justify hu's position using logic instead of prejudices.

Peace.

[argarg]

"Peace."


ditto.

p.s. - as a newbie, what is this "hu" business I keep seeing?

[trentsands]

http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/

Can you provide a better link?  Or let us know the set of links to follow to find this study?

[argarg]

"Can you provide a better link? "


go to ets, click on gre, then scroll down to the research section, and click on "more research"

http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.c988ba0e5dd572bada20bc47c3921509/?vgnextoid=7d3caf5e44df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=b3c146f1674f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD

[acrimone]

Oh Damn... I been called out!

So what shall we conclude from the information above? What should the grad admissions committee do in the future? Not admit women applicants in their child-bearing years? If the committee delved deeper, they would learn that a greater percentage of white female candidates left the program.

Judging purely by the raw numbers, my department must deny admissions to all female white candidates. After all, the numbers indicate that child-bearing white female candidates pose a greater risk of dropping out. 

Of course, we will follow your argument to its most illogical conclusion. Low scoring GRE applicants are too dumb for graduate work. And, white child-bearing females can't multi-task because they have poor coping skills.

Well, no, not exactly.  First off, it's a logical conclusion.  You seem to disagree either (a)  that the three skills I described in the prior thread are indicative of a characteristic that is useful in graduate study, or (b) that the test measures those three characteristics.  Which is fine -- you can contest that and skip everything else that I'm about to write.  But remember that you're criticizing the premises, not the logic.  Keep your terminology straight.

Second off, let's work through what you're saying for a second.  I think the logical conclusion to your arguments is that White child-bearing females can't multi-task because there are only so many hours in the day, not because they have poor coping skills.  I don't see any reason -- either from your expostulations or from anywhere else -- to assume that they have poor coping skills.  Raising kids is tough.  Doing it while handling a graduate level workload is even tougher.  The harder things get, the more likely someone is going to wash out.  I assume you aren't going to argue with that?

So with that in mind, and dispensing with your wish to paint me as someone who thinks women can't cope, yes, it absolutely would make sense for your department not to admit them if there is a quanitifiably greater risk that the first few years of fellowship funding are pretty much wasted.  So to that extent, I agree with you.

Where we differ is in what to do with that conclusion.  Your instinct appears to be to say "well we can't rely on things that relate to the ability to handle the workload, and should instead should rely on indicia that reflect the ability to do the work regardless of time or other practical restrictions."  I think that's a little wrongheaded, but whatever.  You can take whatever dreamy-rootless approach to admissions that you want.  But it doesn't really follow from what you said, and if you want to take it as a first premise that we should ignore practical considerations and give everyone asterik-free "extra time" in the admissions process, I'm just going to have to flatly disagree with you and call it a day.  That's not terribly constructive, however, so I propose looking at this a little differently.

You see, we're allowed to have competing principles, even higher-order principles, that tell us to ignore otherwise practical advice when we find ourselves making decisions based on age, race, and sex.  Indeed, there are, in many cases, laws against such determinations.  There are also strong policy arguments against it.  (I should point out for the legal thinkers in the room that, regardless of statistical trends, being a Not-WhiteChildBearingFemale can't really be said to be a B.F.O.Q. for graduate study.)

So I ask you to respond to the following question: since we know with absolute certainty (800 apps, 12 spots) that we have to discriminate one way or another -- whether it be on grades, letters, or what not, what is the policy argument that you have against discriminating against people who can't do 10th grade math?

I suspect that your answer is going to be a variation on

A 1600 GRE score means one thing, and one thing only: The person is good at standardize tests. Period.

To which I can only respond by re-emphasizing that you are ass-over-teakettle wrong about that.  You cannot possibly get an 800 on the GRE quantitative section if you don't know how to do 10th grade math.  It doesn't matter how good of a test taker you are.  Likewise, if you really know how to do 10th grade math (and I explained the difference between knowledge and following rote mechanical procedures in the prior thread), it's almost impossible to get less than a 400.  

Now, that last statement is almost a bit of a tautology, since absent some sort of inquiry into a particular person's actual math capabilities, I'm more or less forced to say that if you can't beat 400, you clearly don't know how to do 10th grade math.  But I'm comfortable saying that because I'm fairly certain I'm right about that: under 400, you simply don't understand mathematics.  That goes for the other tests as well: under 400 Verbal, you might have memorized a lot of vocabulary, but you don't really have knowledge of the underlying structure of language and you probably didn't read enough books when you were a kid.  Under 4.0 on the AWA?  You don't know how to answer a question directly (or, and I suspect that this is probably less common, you simply don't really know how to write at all).

As an aside, I'm also willing to admit that certain people are subject to extraordinary circumstances that can affect their scores.  So maybe we could say that the GRE is "unreliable" because some people don't test well, or have a bad day, or what not.  But people are also subject to extraordinary circumstances that can affect their class grades, that can affect their writing samples, the timelieness of their applications, their personal statements, and everything else under the sun.  Saying "some people don't test well" proves too much.  It's not an effective argument against using the test as a mechanism.  Some Olympic athletes get the jitters.  Should we give them a head start?  A do-over?  So I also ask you the following: What is it about not testing well that deserves special consideration over, say, not being able to write well?

Remember that this is admissions we're talking about: the goal is to admit a cohort of students that will (a) be able to help instruct undergraduates and (b) maybe yield some good academics down the line.  We have to discirminate som

I should also point out that I'm not saying you have to use the GRE or any other standardized measure.  I've never said that.  If you want to have GRE-free admissions, you don't need to use it.  But it is certainly better than throwing them down the stairs.  The GRE is, as I mentioned before, a bastard sword, not a scalpel.  You can use it to very effectively hack off the bottom of the stack of applications you have to review -- and what's more, you know for absolute certain that every single person took essentially the same test, which makes it a fair, if imperfect, bastard sword.

[voxprincipalis]

p.s. - as a newbie, what is this "hu" business I keep seeing?

Have you tried using the search function?

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,33390.0.html

You may be able to tell from my signature that this is a topic that causes me some frustration.

VP

[argarg]

"Have you tried using the search function?"

yes, I have, and it came up with so many responses that I had a difficult time wading through, but thank you for your patience and answer.

[trentsands]

Hmm...Interesting study.  It does determine at least that the Verbal and Quantitative scores of the GRE are a better predictor of performance in graduate school than undergraduate GPA (based on faculty review of students and graduate GPA) and that the GRE scores predict nearly as well as GRE scores and undergraduate GPA together.  Undergraduate GPA and GRE scores do predict best out of the three.

This, though, is based purely on using numbers to predict success and doesn't compare predictions based on numbers to predictions based on things like writing samples, statement of purpose, previous publications or presentations, etc.

More interesting is the results comparing degree completion to GRE scores and undergraduate GPA.  Those who withdrew earned an average Verbal Score of 421, Quantitative score of 422, and undergraduate GPA of 2.95.  Those who had not yet earned their masters degree but stayed in the program earned V 483, Q 471, and GPA 3.1.  Those who finished the degree earned V 453, Q 465, and GPA 3.01.  So on average, for all masters degree students measured, those who took longer to earn the degree earned higher scores than those who finished it, though predictably, those who withdrew earned the lowest average scores.

The study breaks this down by graduate programs as well.  The same pattern as above bears out for Education departments.  It also bears out for Biology, Chemistry, and Psychology departments for Verbal score and GPA but not for Quantitative scores.  In English departments, those who finished their degrees had higher average GPA scores and undergraduate GPA (English depts also show the highest average scores and GPA's among the depts).

The pattern isn't quite the same for doctoral students though.  Those who attain their doctoral degrees had higher average Verbal scores and undergrad GPA but those who withdrew had the highest average Quantitative scores.  In the Education depts., only one person withdrew from the doctoral programs and everyone else finished the degree.  Withdrawal and prolongation of earning degree was also low for English depts (4 withdrew and 5 did not yet complete).  Withdrawal of lack of completion in time allotted are much higher for Biol, Chem, and Psy.  The study notes that, "Among doctoral degree students, students who withdrew have relatively good GRE scores and undergraduate grade point average" (16).  About this, the study suggests "that master's degree programs" may "give marginal students a chance."  At the least, it seems to suggest to me that students who low undergraduate GPA's and/or GRE scores just aren't all that likely to get into doctoral programs in the first place. Hence, in the case of doctoral programs, assessing success of the GRE and GPA's to predict graduate school performance based on only those who have been accepted into the programs may be rather mute.

[argarg]

"Is it really SO HARD to figure out what "hu" is from context? Really?"

reply -
context is not the only thing one might be looking for..  (history, common-ness of use, acceptance in formal papers, is it limited to certain disciplines, or at least more so than others..  )

sorry for the off topic posts folks, I'll stop now.

[trentsands]

So I also ask you the following: What is it about not testing well that deserves special consideration over, say, not being able to write well?

Because the the characteristics you note are developed over a period of time and can thus be adjusted and improved.  Students can earn a couple bad grades but demonstrate good performance overall or in the final couple of years of school.  Writing samples can be developed and improved or selected to demonstrate the student's best performance. Personal statements can be revised and enhanced.  Letters of Recommendation can reflect relationships built with faculty members over time.  The bad can be balanced with the good.  The GRE measures a three-hour moment in time, which can be simultaneously measuring bad days, test anxiety, having to pee during the test, as well as verbal and quantitative performance.  With the other factors, students have time to work on them.

Of course, people can practice and study for the GRE, thus improving their scores.  They can retake the GRE for an improved score.  But in one sense, do these are prohibitive in terms of cost and likelyhood of good returns.  In another sense, how valid is a test that can be manipulated after a month or two of study, whereas the other factors, arguably, require a prolonged commitment over at least two years (to build one's writings skills to develop a strong writing sample, to develop relationships with professionals and a work ethic and skills they will respect, to show the focus and drive to sustain high grades years of an academic career, etc.).

[acrimone]

Trent-

A legitimate reply to my question,  although I don't think it changes anything.

Yes, GRE scores can be improved some with a little study.  But, as you note, there's a limit on that.  (particularly if you're in the 1000-1100 range).  But the overall abilities that the test measures (albeit imperfectly) are also developed over time.  It takes 21 years to study for the GRE if you want to do it well.  Then you don't need to worry about silly test tricks -- you just know the stuff cold.

What's more, you ask "how valid is a test that can be that can be manipulated after a month or two of study?"  At the very least, you know that the person sitting in that chair taking that test is in fact the applicant.  With personal statements, you have no such guarantee, and I know for a fact that many students essentially have their statements written for them, or edited to the point where the student's contribution is less than 33%.  (I've seen that with my own eyes.)  Same thing with writing samples.

How valid are measures that don't even guarantee you that you're seeing the student's own performance?

The answer, of course, is valid enough: valid enough to let you do a decent job discriminating amongst the various applications.  Just like the GRE (and, incidentally, GPA cut-offs) is valid enough to let you carve a swatch of rejection through the lower score reaches with minimal energy, with a fair measure of confidence that you're getting rid of the people who can't do 10th grade math and don't know how to answer a question.

And here's something maybe I should have made more explicit before:

If someone can take a prep course and, in so doing, attain a certain level of mastery over the three traits I've described before (i.e., the ability to understand 10th grade math, the facility with language that comes from reading books, and the ability to answer a question in written English) then does it really matter where that ability came from?

[trentsands]

Having taken the GRE and done well on it, I'm not all that sure it measure verbal skills, for instance, all that broadly.  The word analogies compare vocubulary on a limit number of linguistic bridges and ignore other viable comparisons.  The reading comprehension seems rather valid (that is what one often does in graduate school) and the fill in the blank sentences I think are rather too easy.

The Verbal portion of the GRE reminds me of some sort of bad syllogism.  Like trying to identify whether organisms are birds based on flight and warm-bloodedness.  Sure, there's a very good chance that those organisms that fly and are warm-blood are in fact birds.  But you've tossed out penguins, ostriches, and emus, and accepted a few flying rodents.

Not that I disagree with the use of the GRE as a gauge to measure academic success, it is just one that should be compared to many other factors.  And, as I understand it, it usually is.  What's more, if a person does earn scores low enough to eliminate their chances of entering graduate school but is sure that the test is not measuring hus true abilities, then hu can study and practice it, retake, and earn the necessary scores.  (Based on the average GRE scores reported in the study cited above, many programs don't demand incredibly high scores) Or, they can look for programs that don't require them.

[acrimone]

Having taken the GRE and done well on it, I'm not all that sure it measure verbal skills, for instance, all that broadly.  The word analogies compare vocubulary on a limit number of linguistic bridges and ignore other viable comparisons.  The reading comprehension seems rather valid (that is what one often does in graduate school) and the fill in the blank sentences I think are rather too easy.

The Verbal portion of the GRE reminds me of some sort of bad syllogism.  Like trying to identify whether organisms are birds based on flight and warm-bloodedness.  Sure, there's a very good chance that those organisms that fly and are warm-blood are in fact birds.  But you've tossed out penguins, ostriches, and emus, and accepted a few flying rodents.

Not that I disagree with the use of the GRE as a gauge to measure academic success, it is just one that should be compared to many other factors.  And, as I understand it, it usually is.  What's more, if a person does earn scores low enough to eliminate their chances of entering graduate school but is sure that the test is not measuring hus true abilities, then hu can study and practice it, retake, and earn the necessary scores.  (Based on the average GRE scores reported in the study cited above, many programs don't demand incredibly high scores) Or, they can look for programs that don't require them.

I agree completely.

Now where is sarahanne?