GRE Experiences

[AlwaysHungry]

Hey kids...I'm scheduled to take the GRE on June 9, and I'm wigging out about it. I registered back in March and didn't realize how much time I'd need to review (especially the math). I'm thinking I might pay the $40 fee to reschedule (better than paying another $130 to retake, right).

Can anyone share their GRE experiences? Did you pass the first time? Is it as scary as the review book makes me think? Any stories much appreciated!

[Bocheezu]

First, let me start off by saying I took it a long, long time ago. 1998-1999. I don't know how it's set up now. Back then, it had three parts --

Verbal -- Pretty much all vocabulary. People that couldn't speak English or compose a complete sentence could still ace it, because all you had to do was study the "GRE words" non-stop. Anachronism, taciturn, loquacious, etc. -- yes, I know what all those words mean now. Thank you GRE. Pretty sure it got changed so that you actually had to write essays.

Analytical -- A bunch of logic puzzles, kind of fun actually

Quantitative -- I think this was predominately math. Don't remember. I'm an engineer, so this was the section that I didn't study for at all because it was super easy for me.

I took the test twice. First time was a paper version at college the morning before a big football game. I basically tanked it. Analytical/Quantitative was fine, but verbal was something akin to what a retarded chimp would score.

Retook it with a computer version and did a lot better on verbal. Good enough for an engineer, anyway. I think the computer versions had an adaptive mechanic in it, so if you got one wrong, the next one was easier, but worth less points. That way you wouldn't get only hard ones and get them all wrong like you could on the paper test.

EDIT: Fixed what the different sections were called

[EmberMae]

I took it in 2004 except instead of logic puzzles, it had a writing section.

Anyway, I had no time whatsoever to review and was convinced I would never pass, but the program I was applying for had a really low threshhold so I figured I'd better try it anyway. I thought the test was very hard, and it is especially hard for me to do math on a computer based test, and I hadn't taken a math class since 1999. And the vocab...I'm pretty good with vocab,I know what Anachronism, taciturn, loquacious all mean, but the words on my test were much harder than that, words I have never seen before, or seen only in passing. I felt like I was guessing on almost every question. But I ended up with a score in the 700s something on the math and 600s on the verbal and a 5.5/6 on the writing. It was more than enough for what I was trying to do although not the greatest score ever.

[steph78]

I took the computer version in fall 1999 - we had three sections as well: verbal, quantitative (straight up math), and analytical (the crazy word problem brain teaser stuff).

When I took it we got four sections, one of which was for research only and was not scored. But they didn't tell us which one. I figure my research section was verbal, because I had to take two verbal sections. This really saved my butt, because on one of the verbal sections I totally tanked. It was like Bocheezu said - it started out with a medium-difficult question and if you got it right, your score went up and you got and you got a harder question; if you got it wrong your score went down and you got an easier question. Well, by the end of the first verbal section I was getting questions involving words that I had on my 3rd grade spelling lists back in the day so I'm assuming my score was pretty low! Luckily I did better on the next verbal which I think must be the one they counted because I got a decent score (good enough to get me into engineering grad school anyway).

My impressions were that the quantitative section was pretty much like the SAT math section - covered pretty much the same stuff, nothing more advanced than algebra/geometry. The analytical section is the type of thing that you are either good at or you aren't. You can practice but studying will only help you so much. I almost ran out of time in this section but got a great score. Finally, I thought verbal was way harder than the SAT. I read a LOT of books in my spare time so I feel like I have a pretty good vocabulary but I struggled with the verbal more than I thought I would.

I think there's an essay section now so that's something I can't help you with.

Good luck!

[AlwaysHungry]

And the vocab...I'm pretty good with vocab,I know what Anachronism, taciturn, loquacious all mean, but the words on my test were much harder than that, words I have never seen before, or seen only in passing.

I have an English degree and the vocab is freaking me out almost as much as the math. I'm good on the sentence completion and reading comprehension, but the analogies and antonyms seem tough. The book I bought contains a word list with stuff like "osseous." Hmm. Don't think I've ever even seen that word before.

I was always pretty good at standardized tests, but I've never done one on a computer. Maybe I should just relax and take it with a clear mind.

[Bocheezu]

analogies and antonyms seem tough.

I hated these things so much

how bout hand:glove as my foot:your ass, to whoever the wizard was that came up with those questions

[steph78]

I was always pretty good at standardized tests, but I've never done one on a computer. Maybe I should just relax and take it with a clear mind.
You can get CD-ROMS with the review books that will let you take practice tests on the computer so you get familiar with the test format/interface - should be able to find this sort of thing at Barnes & Noble, etc. pretty easily. That helped me a lot - practice tests helped me get a feel for how much time I could spend on each question and also got me used to the fact that you can't skip a question and come back to it on a computerized test (which really threw me because my strategy has always been to skip a question if I didn't know how to do it, finish what I DO know how to do, and then go back to the tricky ones afterwards - can't do that anymore!!)

[chicagogirl]

I took it back in 2003 and did pretty well. It actually was the first fluke in standardized testing for me. We had two English sections, where one was an experimental section. I think the last section was the real one because this was the first test ever where I scored higher on the math than on the English. I just remember being tired afterwards.
Take ear plugs with you. The place I took it gave them out, but you might be taking it next to people who are typing things for a different exam.

[redav]

I took it back in 2003 and did pretty well. It actually was the first fluke in standardized testing for me. We had two English sections, where one was an experimental section. I think the last section was the real one because this was the first test ever where I scored higher on the math than on the English. I just remember being tired afterwards.
Take ear plugs with you. The place I took it gave them out, but you might be taking it next to people who are typing things for a different exam.
Everyone gets two verbal sections as far as I can tell. I know one guy who didn't even bother answering any questions on the first verbal section b/c he knew it didn't count.

To the OP--the math shouldn't have anything beyond HS algebra & geometry. (IMO, it's kind of sad that the test is for grad school and they don't expect you to have learned any math after your junior year in HS :rolleyes: ) If you're not up on it, a study book & practice tests would help a lot. It's no where near as difficult as the verbal section(s), so you can get up to speed on it quicker.

I took the GRE in 2000, and I'm pretty sure it's changed quite a bit.

[capella]

I took it at the end of 2005. It had verbal, quantitative, and writing. I did alright, but not stellar (my grad program only wanted a score of 1000 or better soo...). I did far worse on the math (460) than most people because I suck at math. But I did OK with the verbal and writing (600 and 5 out of 6). It's not an easy test at all. I would spend more time studying if I had to do it again.

[AlwaysHungry]

To the OP--the math shouldn't have anything beyond HS algebra & geometry. (IMO, it's kind of sad that the test is for grad school and they don't expect you to have learned any math after your junior year in HS :rolleyes: ) If you're not up on it, a study book & practice tests would help a lot. It's no where near as difficult as the verbal section(s), so you can get up to speed on it quicker.

You're right in that the math appears to only be algebra, geometry, and trig, but for someone who's always had a hard time with those concepts, it's hard for me to get back up to speed. I took algebra, trig, geometry, and discrete math in high school and was good student. But for some reason my mind couldn't wrap itself around the concepts no matter how hard I tried. I managed to pass math classes in high school based on memorization rather than a full grasp of the logic/concepts. I guess that's why I'm so intimidated. But I'm doing the book and CDROM thing, so there's hope!

This just goes to show that every test is so subjective. Some think the verbal's a breeze, others think the math's simple (thanks for making me feel dumb all you engineers out there :p.)

[TinyDancer]

I took it in 2002. . . when they still had the analytical "games" section. Shockingly, I did remarkably well in that area. . . and did the worst in verbal (which was a big surprise as well). I still did a good job overall (can't remember my score). . . I was just surprised that analytical was my strong point.

I used the Princeton Review book, and really liked it. I only had one week to study. I think that this was ideal because I really had to buckle down. . . as opposed to having months to study. I just studied for a few hours every night. The book really helped me, and there were definitely tons of helpful and applicable tips.

Good luck!

[redav]

This just goes to show that every test is so subjective. Some think the verbal's a breeze, others think the math's simple (thanks for making me feel dumb all you engineers out there :p.)
Why yes, I am biased on the matter. :p

But I still think it's easier for a non-math oriented person to prep for that section than it is to up your vocabulary for the verbal:

Eponym is to pusillanimous as defenestration is to ____________

A. Nadir
B. Trope
C. Ambigram
D. Omphaloskepsis

[capella]

Why yes, I am biased on the matter. :p

But I still think it's easier for a non-math oriented person to prep for that section than it is to up your vocabulary for the verbal:

Eponym is to pusillanimous as defenestration is to ____________

A. Nadir
B. Trope
C. Ambigram
D. Omphaloskepsis
I disagree. It takes a long time to build up either skill set. If you're not good in math, some of those questions (the compare A to B, which answer is the higher number? ones come to mind) look Greek to me, and not in a Oh, I know that root word kind of way.

It is not easy to try to solidify several years of math skills (which you were shaky on to begin with) after 8 years since your last math class and one week to do it (my scenario). My brain just doesn't see things mathematically. Some of the GRE questions definitely wanted you to see a pattern or rule and automatically be able to surmise the answer. I can't do that!!! :eek:

And the trick to the verbal is to study up on root words (Greek and Latin) and affixes (suffixes, prefixes) since it is damn near impossible to know EVERY word in the world. If you know a lot of common roots and affixes then it is easier to figure out what the word could mean and start to find a pattern that makes sense.

[redav]

It takes a long time to build up either skill set.
The GRE & SAT are thinly veiled IQ tests. They don't want you to be able to easily 'study' for them. If you could, it would negate what they perceive is the value & purpose of the test.

There has been shown a correlation that those who are more intelligent have larger vocabularies, hence they test vocabulary for 2/3 of the verbal and comprehension of crappy articles for the remaining 1/3.

For the math, I have noticed that many of the questions are geared toward set theory & logic. Being able to see a pattern is only the first part--knowing the limitations of the pattern is the second. Questions along these lines might be like a given inequality may be obvious with certain numbers, but what about with all numbers? How can you deduce it, or can you not tell? Another would be if a given statement is not correct, does that mean its reverse is correct? You do need basic math skills (knowing Venn diagrams, process of operations, properties of even/odd numbers, etc) to be able to work out the problems, but the mechanics are very similar to those used when playing Minesweeper or Sudoku, and are the same as proofs in geometry. (IMO, most people can (re)learn the math skills fairly quickly/easily, but its their application in the test that gives people problems. Studying how to do proofs & why proofs work would be much more effective for preparing for that.) The GRE went all out with this type of approach when they included the logic section. I really have no idea how most people scored on that section, but it must not have been as useful as they hoped considering it was eliminated fairly quickly.

[arrow]

When I took the GRE, I hadn't had a math class in about 6 years but I'd done plenty of reading. Therefore, the verbal section was much easier for me (plus I studied up on my root words prior to the test, which was an enormous help). I also studied for the math section, and did very well in both, but I do remember having to commit various formulas to memory and then use them. But I spent a LOT of time re-learning lost math skills and I still did better on the verbal section.

I wish they had the logic portion when I took the test. Instead, they had a written test. I think I'm a decent writer, especially after a few re-reads and revisions, but I was rusty and spaced on it and had a hard time expressing myself as well as I'd wanted. I didn't do as well as I would have liked on that part, but nevertheless I got into all the programs where I applied and was offered scholarships so obviously it didn't make that much of a difference.