next »

[ea15792]

I agree with Kedves about getting more experience.  I graduated from college with a 3.6, but my GRE scores sucked...I believe I had something like a 970 math and verbal combined.  So my scores were really horrible.  I went to a master's program that didn't require the GRE, but it was at a regional university with no Ph.D. program.  I knew that even with solid GPA (and I had a 4.0 in my MA program) that I'd have to have competitive GRE scores.  So I went and worked for about four years and then I took the GRE again.  The combination of graduate classes and work helped my GRE scores go up almost by 300 points.  And I got into my first choice Ph.D. program.

So it's possible.  But, I think you need to take some more undergraduate classes that will help boost your GPA to at least a 3.0.  And you need to take the GRE again, preferably in five years, when your original scores won't be reported along with your new scores.  Basically, with your current GPA and GRE scores no half-decent program is going to touch you no matter how great your letters of recommendation and personal statement.   If you take some time and go and work, beef up your GPA, etc., you will look significantly more stable and it will look like you've had a plan.

[didotwite]

The others are correct:  your scores and gpa will keep you out of most programs.  Your personal statement will not overcome them.  I do know of a few people who, in your position, entered MA programs that did not require the GRE, and produced excellent work, improved scores and writing samples, and moved on to top Ph.D. programs.   But you may need to seriously rethink your plan.  Why do you want to be a professor?  Research is the primary focus of the Ph.D. and of most jobs in higher education.  How do you feel about that?

[nanaflakes]

I am, unfortunately, not surprised at some of the advice you got here. This isn't something to be taken lightly. I might be posting an unpopular "opinion," but first of all, it is a huge pet peeve of mine when people combine scores. They are not combinable. They are separate constructs. I'm off my soap box now.

Now...here is something to consider. The "new" GRE uses computer adaptive testing. The mean-(the average) is no longer 500, but 465. The standard deviation is no longer 100, it has increased to 119. That means (and I'm guessing here since you didn't break down your scores) that you likely performed "average" compared to other testers who took the GRE in the past three years. If your verbal score is around 465 (which would translate into a "true score" of anywhere between 430 and 500, given the standard error of measurement for the new GRE), it is "average." Not "bad." Not "abysmal." If it is lower than that, or whatever it is, take plus and minus 36. That is your score range for verbal...if 465 is anywhere between there, you scored average compared to those taking the GRE (not any Joe Smoe on the street!). And, it is all relative...how selective is your school? If you scored even higher than that on verbal, poli sci departments often don't look as closely at math--but some do, if they are heavily quantitative. Regardless--no one scores a perfect verbal score anymore (or rarely), and tons of people--6%--score a perfect math score. So an average verbal is not a tragedy. Apply. Keep your fingers crossed. Retake it if it can help get you in.

Another rant: why on earth would anyone not interested in education pursue an education PHD because they didn't score highly enough for political science? Why would anyone think that getting into an education program is "easier" than political science? Absurd. People in education--psychometrics, to be exact--create these standardized tests. But an education department is easy? Pfft.

[ideagirl]

Should I take the GRE a THIRD time? Will my score get ANY better?

No, not unless you change the way you're studying for the GRE. In your situation, I would strongly suggest--I cannot suggest it strongly enough--investing in some tutoring. I did Kaplan for the LSAT and it was fantastic, though I have no reason to believe any other private tutoring company isn't just as good. They increased my score by 11 points, which on the LSAT is a huge amount (the LSAT score needed to get into law school ranges from about 142 to the test's max of 180, so you can see why 11 points matters).

So you have two choices:
(1) apply to a school that doesn't require the GRE, or
(2) pay for private tutoring before you take the test again.

In any case, don't take the test again on your own. It certainly won't help you to have three similarly low scores.

[ideagirl]

Oh and a word of advice on your goals.  A master's degree in Political Science will not get you a tenure-track position as a professor.  You will need a Ph.D. from a good school, be willing to relocate anywhere in the country, and have a substantial research record just to have a shot at one of those jobs.

Ah, good point. I didn't even notice that on my first scan-through. Yeah, of course an MA is insufficient for the OP's stated goal of becoming a college prof, and if the OP has problems with relocating (as it seems hu does), then hu can just give up on that goal right now.

But, an MA would increase hu's salary as a public school history teacher. So there's that to consider.

[secretweapon]

Another rant: why on earth would anyone not interested in education pursue an education PHD because they didn't score highly enough for political science? Why would anyone think that getting into an education program is "easier" than political science? Absurd. People in education--psychometrics, to be exact--create these standardized tests. But an education department is easy? Pfft.

I think the PhD in Education was suggested, wisely, because the OP is currently working in the field of education.  The OP is a high school history teacher; the OP does not, as far as we know, have any work experience in a field related to political science that might compensate a little bit for weak GRE and GPA scores.  (Weak in the sense that graduate admissions are highly competitive, so "average" is usually not good enough).

[hegemony]

Students at my school who've been faced with this problem have gone back to do a second B.A. here or elsewhere.  Typically it can be done in one year (two semesters).  This gives the chance to prove that you can do superior work and earn a good g.p.a. under better conditions.

That said, I wonder if an academic life is really right for you, OP.  The sentence "No one can anticipate what live will bring your way" is typical of my students whose literacy levels and lack of attention to detail are more suited to different types of careers.  Not meaning to be snarky -- different skills apply to different careers.  "Live" should obviously be "life," and the subject starts off in the third person (no one) and veers into the second (your).  This would bring down a graduate application at our place.  This, plus the fact that your GREs are not stellar, suggest to me that perhaps academia may not really be the place for you.  I don't mean to be offensive; just taking a hard cold look at realities.  There are plenty of other paths in life, most of them better paid.

[polly_mer]

People, people, people.

Please check the date on the original post.  It's been months.  The OP hasn't been active since September. 

Save your advice for people who could use it now.  Move along; there's nothing to see here.

[scheherazade]

I'm going to address Nanaflake's post, though, because I don't like leaving generally false information where unsuspecting people can find it.

Nanaflakes, you are completely wrong.  Firstly, for MA applicants in polisci, the GRE scores for those test takers are a mean of 508/median 550 for verbal, and a mean of 570/median 600 for quant.  This is readily available information from the GRE website, recent for the computer-adaptive test.

Secondly, you're right it saying it's all relative.  The problem is, given that group of applicants, only the top, say, 30% of the test takers have a shot at acceptance.  Why on earth would a program take a person with low scores across the board, when they can have someone with high scores in either the GPA or GRE?  Polisci is a very competitive field, and unlike many other fields, it's competitive at the MA level as well.

I love an underdog as much as the next person.  But telling a person that an incredibly low GPA and a below-mean GRE (which qualifies as abysmal, like it or not) should think positive and, hey, everyone has a shot! - well, that's just silly.  No one appreciates asking for advice and having smoke blown up their asses.  The more concrete and restrained advice here was good.

[nanaflakes]

I'm going to address Nanaflake's post, though, because I don't like leaving generally false information where unsuspecting people can find it.

Nanaflakes, you are completely wrong.  Firstly, for MA applicants in polisci, the GRE scores for those test takers are a mean of 508/median 550 for verbal, and a mean of 570/median 600 for quant.  This is readily available information from the GRE website, recent for the computer-adaptive test.

Secondly, you're right it saying it's all relative.  The problem is, given that group of applicants, only the top, say, 30% of the test takers have a shot at acceptance.  Why on earth would a program take a person with low scores across the board, when they can have someone with high scores in either the GPA or GRE?  Polisci is a very competitive field, and unlike many other fields, it's competitive at the MA level as well.

I love an underdog as much as the next person.  But telling a person that an incredibly low GPA and a below-mean GRE (which qualifies as abysmal, like it or not) should think positive and, hey, everyone has a shot! - well, that's just silly.  No one appreciates asking for advice and having smoke blown up their asses.  The more concrete and restrained advice here was good.

You're right--the GRE scores I posted were for all test takers, not poli sci specifically. BUT, the OP did not tell us hu's score. Hu could have had a "mean" score in either verbal or math--which is absurd to be considered as abysmal. I am aware I hold an unpopular opinion, and as mentioned, there is "nothing to see" given the OP's original post...but there is a difference between blowing smoke up someone's ass and considering someone's situation (three excellent letters of recommendation and extenuating circumstances while completing a degree).

[scheherazade]

I'm going to address Nanaflake's post, though, because I don't like leaving generally false information where unsuspecting people can find it.

Nanaflakes, you are completely wrong.  Firstly, for MA applicants in polisci, the GRE scores for those test takers are a mean of 508/median 550 for verbal, and a mean of 570/median 600 for quant.  This is readily available information from the GRE website, recent for the computer-adaptive test.

Secondly, you're right it saying it's all relative.  The problem is, given that group of applicants, only the top, say, 30% of the test takers have a shot at acceptance.  Why on earth would a program take a person with low scores across the board, when they can have someone with high scores in either the GPA or GRE?  Polisci is a very competitive field, and unlike many other fields, it's competitive at the MA level as well.

I love an underdog as much as the next person.  But telling a person that an incredibly low GPA and a below-mean GRE (which qualifies as abysmal, like it or not) should think positive and, hey, everyone has a shot! - well, that's just silly.  No one appreciates asking for advice and having smoke blown up their asses.  The more concrete and restrained advice here was good.

You're right--the GRE scores I posted were for all test takers, not poli sci specifically. BUT, the OP did not tell us hu's score. Hu could have had a "mean" score in either verbal or math--which is absurd to be considered as abysmal. I am aware I hold an unpopular opinion, and as mentioned, there is "nothing to see" given the OP's original post...but there is a difference between blowing smoke up someone's ass and considering someone's situation (three excellent letters of recommendation and extenuating circumstances while completing a degree).

However, polisci is one of the few fields that weighs the vocab and quant sections nearly equal.  So even if someone gets a mean score in one, if they then completely bomb the other, it's the same difference.

Like it or not, the GRE and GPA are the initial screening tool.  With hundreds of applications, it's likely most won't even read the personal statement or recs when both scores are so, so bad.  And, as has been said already, most programs have either a hard or soft 3.0 requirement for entrance.

As Dvf said, grad school and academia require a certain skill set.  Some people simply don't have that skill set, even if they are hard workers.  I'm 5' tall.  I'm not going to try out for the WNBA, even though I'm willing to work harder than anyone.  SOmetimes, it's better to redirect than encourage.

[sciencephd]

Obtaining mean scores on the GRE is, in fact, quite poor when considered relative to graduate school applicants.  Perhaps abysmal is a slight exaggeration, but such scores do not put one on the path of an academic career.

[nanaflakes]

Obtaining mean scores on the GRE is, in fact, quite poor when considered relative to graduate school applicants.  Perhaps abysmal is a slight exaggeration, but such scores do not put one on the path of an academic career.

A mean score on the GRE *IS* relative to other graduate school applicants. The purpose they exist is to "predict" graduate school success, but the should not be taken into consideration in and of themselves--and despite ETS making this clear, people put way too much faith in a score. Such scores do not put one on the path of an academic career? It depends.

[sciencephd]

Obtaining mean scores on the GRE is, in fact, quite poor when considered relative to graduate school applicants.  Perhaps abysmal is a slight exaggeration, but such scores do not put one on the path of an academic career.

A mean score on the GRE *IS* relative to other graduate school applicants.

No, they are relative to other people who take the exam.   They will not all apply to grad school.  The "average" grad school applicant is rather unlikely to obtain an academic job.

[scheherazade]

Obtaining mean scores on the GRE is, in fact, quite poor when considered relative to graduate school applicants.  Perhaps abysmal is a slight exaggeration, but such scores do not put one on the path of an academic career.

A mean score on the GRE *IS* relative to other graduate school applicants.

No, they are relative to other people who take the exam.   They will not all apply to grad school.  The "average" grad school applicant is rather unlikely to obtain an academic job.

And even if it was, only 20-30% of applicants even get a spot in grad school.  So the mean score is the score of people that, basically, have failed to be accepted to grad school.