To include or not include the Physics GRE scores?

[Phys12]

Hello everyone! I am an international student at a US university applying for PhD programs in Physics and Astronomy. I recently got my PGRE results back and I have an 800/990 (which put my at a 70 percentile). I have a perfect 4.0 GPA as a Physics and Math major, have 1 publication and 4 on the way with one as a corresponding author, the other as first author and all 3 of my recommendation letters will be very strong (with one of them being one of the strongest, if not the strongest, they have ever written). All my advisors encouraged me to apply to top schools.

Now for schools that have the PGRE scores' reporting as optional, should I submit my scores to them or not?

Thanks

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Include the PGRE scores.

 

[jedishrfu]

I would say yes rather have someone in the dept wonder why you didn’t submit them.

Others here may have a better idea about how these tests are perceived in grad school admissions.

 

[Phys12]

Include the PGRE scores.

Thank you for letting me know! Although, I'm curious, is there a reason why? Are my scores good enough? Would you have said the same if they were really bad like 30 percentile? I ask because departments that make the PGRE score optional mention on their website that the application will have no impact regardless of whether I submit my scores or not. Does that mean that if my scores were bad, I probably shouldn't have submitted them?

Just trying to get a sense of how good/bad my scores are and how departments perceive a "no submission of the PGRE scores"...

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Thank you for letting me know! Although, I'm curious, is there a reason why? Are my scores good enough? Would you have said the same if they were really bad like 30 percentile? I ask because departments that make the PGRE score optional mention on their website that the application will have no impact regardless of whether I submit my scores or not. Does that mean that if my scores were bad, I probably shouldn't have submitted them?

Just trying to get a sense of how good/bad my scores are and how departments perceive a "no submission of the PGRE scores"...

As it happens your qualifications seem very close to mine as a college senior, and I was admitted to MIT, Stanford, and Princeton.

I prefer not to give advice on hypotheticals, since it runs the risk of students reading the thread down the road and following the hypothetical advice. More questions would probably be in order for low PGRE scores. Can you take it again? Are you in an underrepresented minority? What is your undergrad school's national ranking? How strong is your desire for a top school vs. lower tier schools?

One mistake many students make is thinking they only have one application cycle for the next step (either college or grad school) which creates more pressure than their needs to be. Delaying graduation, taking a gap year, enrolling in a Masters program and other approaches to improve the strength of one's application are all available options. Of course, none of those things, by itself, strengthens an application. But a delay of a year can provide time to improve standardized test scores, earn better recommendations, boost one's GPA, and complete additional research (perhaps leading to publications).

 

[Vanadium 50]

I ask because departments that make the PGRE score optional mention on their website that the application will have no impact regardless of whether I submit my scores or not.

Who says that?

 

[TeethWhitener]

Who says that?

A few heavy hitters in the "optional/no impact" section, including Stanford (on a trial basis), UIUC, and UC Santa Barbara (all top 10 according to US News 2018: https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/physics-rankings). Most pure physics departments still strongly recommend PGRE scores.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Many of these places say "The pGRE can only help you, not hurt you." This seems logically inconsistent with accepting a (within a narrow envelope) fixed number of applicants: if you don't go down and everybody else moves up, what is the net effect?

 

[Infrared]

@Vanadium 50 I think the intended reading is that "The pGRE can only help you, not hurt you, as compared to not submitting the pGRE" i.e. submitting a low pGRE score will have the same effect as not submitting at all.

 

[Vanadium 50]

i.e. submitting a low pGRE score will have the same effect as not submitting at all.

Fine, but the other side of that is "not submitting at all will have the same effect as submitting a low pGRE score."

 

[Phys12]

All right, thank you all for you comments, I think I have my answer: submit the PGRE scores

 

[TeethWhitener]

Some (most?) admissions offices score applications according to a rubric that assigns points to where the individual applicant falls with respect to the median applicant. So for example, if the median applicant’s GPA is 3.5, an applicant with GPA > 3.5 will get 3 points, one with 3.5 will get 2 points, and one with less than 3.5 will get 1 point. I imagine if your PGRE hurts you, they simply leave that unscored.

(Of course, you’d have to do some averaging to compare applications with and without PGREs. So if there are 7 metrics that applicants are evaluated on including PGRE and applicant A submits a PGRE, his score is totaled and divided by 7, whereas if applicant B doesn’t submit a PGRE, her score is totaled and divided by 6. Or some other scheme to make it fair.)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Some (most?) admissions offices

Huh?
Graduate admission decsisions are normally done by the department, not the admissions office. I've never been anything like the point system you describe used for graduate admissions.

But in any event, there's still the logical problem. In a ranked system, "we won't take away points, we'll just give everyone else points" has the same effect.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Huh?
Graduate admission decsisions are normally done by the department, not the admissions office. I've never been anything like the point system you describe used for graduate admissions.

It’s true this is a feature most commonly associated with undergrad admissions. Grad admissions are generally individually evaluated.

But in any event, there's still the logical problem.

Here’s an example of how this could work: Say we have 3 applicants (A, B, and C). They are evaluated on a scale of 1-3 across 6 required criteria and one optional criterion. All three applicants get a score of 2 for each of the 6 required criteria. Applicant A gets a 3 on the optional criterion, B gets a 2, and C gets a 1. Admissions then averages across the 6 required criteria and compares with averaging across the 7 total criteria, then takes the higher of the two as the final score. So applicant A’s score will be $max\{\frac{15}{7},\frac{12}{6}\}=\frac{15}{7}$, B’s score will be $max\{\frac{14}{7},\frac{12}{6}\}=2$, and C’s score will be $max\{\frac{13}{7},\frac{12}{6}\}=2$. So the fact that C got a worse score than B on the optional part of the application doesn’t adversely affect C. However, A’s better than average score does help A.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, that's quite a complicated supposition, and one completely unlike any admissions process I've ever seen.

Grad schools admit N students per year. N is more or less determined before the process even starts: it's the size of the class they want divided by the expected yield. A bonus criterion cannot move someone into the top N without moving someone else out: indeed, it cannot move someone up in the rankings without moving someone else down.

The point of this thread isn't to see if one can contrive a complex counter-example. It's to provide advice to the OP. There is a general rule "do not let the committee guess". If you have a gap in your resume, you don't want them to conclude that you were in prison. If you don't provide a test score, you don't want them thinking that's because you bombed it.