Real bad GRE scores

i don't know what kind of school you could go to, get a 3.9, and then F up on the GRE that bad... it's basically just the SAT all over again. Sorry for being a jerk. You should take the GRE again.

As far as I know, a lot of schools don't have a minimum score for the subject test. I am a grad student in biology right now and I had to take the bio subject test, but it was just to see where my strengths were. The general test score was what mattered, although they only required a 1100 which is no big deal. It might not be a bad idea to retake the subject test, but the most important thing is to talk to the professors that you want to work with. If they think that you would be a good fit with them then they will be willing to look past some weaknesses. I know that, because I got in with a 3.6 GPA with a double in Bio and Env Science. My subject test was ok, I did really well in one section (90th) and 30th percentile in one and 50th in the other. Hope this helps, one last thing is to make sure to look into schools way ahead of time, a lot of deadlines for next year have already passed.

Well the subject test isn't the SAT all over again... Thats the general test, and I did pretty well. FYI I plan on going to grad school in 2 years.

Study your ass off, retake, and then make up an excuse for your first dismal score (my girlfriend slept with my roommate the night before).

pessimist wrote:

i don't know what kind of school you could go to, get a 3.9, and then F up on the GRE that bad... it's basically just the SAT all over again. Sorry for being a jerk. You should take the GRE again.

Reading...is...good.

Please start sentences with a capital.

GRE scores typically improve the second time that you take the test. I would certainly take them again. It took me a couple of trys to get into a good Ph.D. program.

All of the other criteria you listed are more important than the GRE subject test. It sounds like you're a pretty strong candidate all around, so I wouldn't scale back on the quality of the schools you apply to. I would, however take the subject test a second time to show the schools that your previous exam was a fluke. At the end of the day, the other factors (undergrad curriculum and grades, research experience, letters, general GRE and interviews) are all much more important than the subject test.

I got into MIT with a 65%, as did one of my classmates.

Thanks for the advice (most of you). The gf excuse isn't that far off, my girl of three years did break up with me two nights before the test, and the whole last week of our relationship things were going to hell, so I wasn't really focused, and didnt' get much sleep before the test. However, I don't think I should have gotten that low, even with the problems with the girl. I'm going to retake them, just going to take a long time studying for them.

BioChem wrote:

So I have really bad GRE subject test scores... as in <30th percentile. There's a number of excuses I could give for this, but bottom line is I ate shit. I could take it again, maybe hit in the 60th range, but still, schools get all your scores.

On the other hand, I have a 3.9, great recommendations, a double major in Bio and chemistry, and pretty solid research experience. I also did excellent on the GRE general tests.

I want to go to a good grad school for biology. Not top of the top, but a pretty good one. Do I have any hope, or did I just shoot myself in the foot really bad? I knew after I took the test I should cancel the scores, but didn't...

You need to take a prep course like Princeton Review and take the test again at least once. Schools get all the scores, but either average them or look at the higher one (ususally the latter, I believe). Standardized tests matter A LOT. As in, A LOT.

Definitely retake the subject test, and definitely study your ass off first. I was in a milder version of your situation in physics: good grades but didn't study for the subject test, aced the general but only 70-something percentile on the subject. Took I don't know how many practice tests (best way to study--everything you don't get, study over, then take the next one) and then killed it a few months later, got into Stanford, rest is history. Most schools will let you slide if you do much better the second time around. It's easy to accidentally have a bad test but not the reverse... Good luck.

Doctor Truth wrote:

You need to take a prep course like Princeton Review and take the test again at least once. Schools get all the scores, but either average them or look at the higher one (ususally the latter, I believe). Standardized tests matter A LOT. As in, A LOT.

Some look only at the first. Berkeley did this when I was applying, on the grounds that not everyone has the resources to take the test over. I didn't get in to Berkeley.

Look at it this way: what does getting a bad grade on the subject test say about your GPA? What does it say about the people giving you your references (assuming they are your teachers that gave you the 3.9)?

You'll have to master the concept of adverbs first

more wrote:

Look at it this way: what does getting a bad grade on the subject test say about your GPA? What does it say about the people giving you your references (assuming they are your teachers that gave you the 3.9)?

Classes are about learning how to learn, subject test is about knowledge accumulation. You can basically cram over a few weeks for a subject test to score high--someone who studied hard and rememorized all the formulas is not necessarily more capable of learning graduate level material.

For example, the math subject test is about 50% calculus (though quite tricky questions). Like a lot of people, 4 years had passed since I'd had an intro calculus course, so I was at a severe disadvantage to those who were for example in grad school teaching calc who were also taking the test.

A lot of people who take subject tests are already in grad school, so don't get too hung up on the percentages.

It really depends on the field. My wife had a similar "problem" as you, she had nearly a 4.0 from a top school in Molecular Bio. She didn't do so great on the GRE subject, it seems a problem with the test is that it is too broad, if I remember correctly, Biochem, Molecular, and I think even some Ecology all take the same test, so everyone pretty much knows about 30% of the test. She didn't do great on it, and it didn't seem to matter when applying to grad schools. She went into Immunology/Pathology in grad school and although a lot of the schools required the subject test, they didn't seem to look at it. She got into all the top schools. The thing that seemed to matter the most was undergrad research experience. She had done a lot of individual research in undergrad and spent summers at NIH. The research experience as well as the contacts made during the summers were more valuable in the end than undergrad grades and GRE tests.

Grad schools require subject tests for a reason. I know the program I am in right now assumes that you came in with a certain level of knowledge; knowledge that the subject test will test you on. Think about going into grad school and not understanding the fundamental ideas of your discipline.

I definitely agree that research experience will trump almost anything else.

Maybe it's time to scrap the grad school plan. Do you really want to be making 35K after 5 years of school and 2 post-docs anyway?