Timeline for Took GRE two times, same scores with minor differences - worth sending both?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2019 at 12:01 | comment | added | A Simple Algorithm | @AnonymousPhysicist I was referring specifically to test preparation for the GRE itself, and effort as in the effort spent in taking multiple GRE tests (which the OP was asking about demonstrating by sending multiple tests). Quite the opposite of efforts or preparations over a long period of time. As for what rates as a kind of IQ test, I'd say your definition of IQ test is just quite a bit stricter than mine. Both are tests that try to estimate potential; both focus on verbal and math skills; both purport to be innate metrics that are not supposed to be dependent on time spent cramming. | |
| Aug 17, 2019 at 10:31 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | The GRE purports to measure "skills that have been developed over a long period of time." That is the opposite of "aren't supposed to be based on your preparation and effort." Any decent test prep book will show that the "long time" part is only partly true. ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_info_bulletin_19_20.pdf The GRE is quite different from an IQ test. | |
| Aug 17, 2019 at 9:57 | comment | added | A Simple Algorithm | @AnonymousPhysicist you'll have to (also) explain more what you mean. I worded my statement rather carefully to avoid getting ensnared in the politics (and downright neo-luddism) surrounding testing. In addition to the qualifiers I pointed out in a previous comment, I also used phraseology like "meant to be" and "supposed to be". This is a direct interpretation of the stated goal of the general test and the definition of an IQ test. | |
| Aug 17, 2019 at 6:23 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | "standardized tests aren't supposed to be based on your preparation and effort, they are more meant to be a kind of IQ score" False, and terrible advice to test takers. | |
| Aug 15, 2019 at 3:53 | comment | added | A Simple Algorithm | @JacksonMace I didn't say "perfect", I said "great". Nor did I say "Phd career", I said "STEM areas". Finally, note that I also said "I personally find". So I can double-check for you, but doubt my data will change in light of hearing about your experiences. Perhaps a more fruitful direction would be to specify what you mean by brilliant and performance versus what I might mean. | |
| Aug 14, 2019 at 18:27 | comment | added | Jackson Mace | I've seen quite a few brilliant PhD students that received 150s in the quant, which is basically 50 percentile. So I don't agree at all that the quant section perfectly predicts the potential of a student in regard to how well they can/will perform in their PhD career. The quant test timing is pretty stressful, some "smart" students cannot recall the 100 little facts about triangles/combinatorics and test day...and the list goes on. | |
| Aug 14, 2019 at 10:45 | history | answered | A Simple Algorithm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |