>Taking GRE test for a masters in clinical research in stanford medicine.
>Practice test shows 162 average on both verbal and quantitative. Meaning I would be above 80th percentile in both.
>Test day comes. Get 165 (95th percentile) on verbal and 157 (67th percentile) on quantitative.
I'm fucked am I? Should I retest?
Other urls found in this thread:
medicalschoolsuccess.com
twitter.com
>157 (67th percentile) on quantitative
You should have reviewed your multiplication tables the night before, dumb-ass.
>failing SAT 2.0 math
Use your 95th percentile verbal IQ to convince the board
>tfw your verbal intelligence is higher than your mathematical intelligence
It's only good for saying pretty, big words to (not so much) impress people.
>157 (67th percentile) on quantitative.
literally retarded
That would be interpersonal IQ.
>TFW good at writing and reading and asimilating complex thought and abstract concepts but have only taken statistical mathematica in college because of med school and had to review literal high school math.
Feels bad, man.
I fucking feel retarded enough. I didn't budget my time and rushed the second half because I spent too much time rechecking then first questions. That probably explains why I did better on the practice tests, because I sort of knew they didn't count.
How do I do that? Don't they just take the paperwork and argue amongst themselves and then choose without much input on the applicant on the individual details?
Verbal sections tests written comprehension and interpretation of scientific writing.
>memorizing multiplication tables
top kek
how do you do simple addition and multiplucation without memorizing at least a few cases?
Wow what even is "simple" addition and multiplication?
Post concrete examples and I'll show you.
>tfw top 1% for both
brainlets, i swear
Tests fucking suck m8. Med school tests are a special kind of bullshit. Don't lose sleep over it.
I am familiar with that affective state, my fellow verbal savants.
>tfw the only kind of autism that can't be weaponized
>not memorizing up to at least 15
Pleb.
>memorizing entire tables of data
Who's the real pleb?
>getting less than 170/170
Both are correlated. Only savants get that kind of disproportionate score.
Most people are just slightly better at one than the other.
Isn't there any way to reverse that? I want to be better at devising solutions to actual problems than making pretty sentences.
I'm just going to take advantage of it and start a side business of editing undergrad and maybe high school papers, assuming that normies will pay for such a service.
I already know that I'm useless as an innovator or even a lab or field drone. I don't think that much can done about it.
>being this much of a gunner
medicalschoolsuccess.com
>assuming that normies will pay for such a service.
You bet your ass they will. A girl in my class literally paid someone to do research for her-- I mean help her.
Recognize the many, many inefficiencies in the academia and offer to plug them -- for a price.
>repeating the GRE
>studying for the GRE at all
>not getting 170/170 on your first time ever seeing the test
It's to get in to the program. I want to be competitive.
It's not like my quant score was terrible. The score's curve is very skewed because of all the engineering programs that use the GRE. The problem is they completely ignore the balance between the two and only ask for high quant scores, making the applicants forget about the verbal part of the test.
David Foster Wallace would get payed to write essays and thesis for other people. He would be able to actively immitate their writing style.
You guys really underestimate how important interpreting abstract data and being able to articulate your ideas really is. Most of the scientific concensus comes from people taking individual studies and being able to competently relate them, analyze them, and express the accordingly.
Let's suppose I want to start my undergrad research paper editing empire at the school I graduated from. I don't know if I can get undergrads to pay right off the bat with no credibility except former professors as references. One of those professors runs her own side business doing the same thing, but I don't see that as a conflict of interest because my clients (if any) would be her students.
Besides that I'd have to rely primarily on referrals. I've found a few sites (I don't use Faceberg) to advertise, but I have no idea if the premise is sustainable.
You'll be fine. I got into a biomedical PhD at USC with a 165/160/4.5. They care a hell of a lot more about your GPA, research experience, and letters of recommendation. GRE is just a gateway requirement to make sure you're not too much of a brainlet.
>physics undergrad
>took a weird sequence of math classes due to a 2-year program I did prior that had a simple algebra class that counted as pre-req straight into calculus
>study for GRE never having seen a single problem like "sally is 7 years older than sarah. If Sarah will be 25 in 12 years, how old is Sally?" before and barely even touching probability/statistics
>I can do it, just not quickly
>scored 155 on quantitative
JUST
fortunately I was able to get into a master's Nuclear Engineering program without a GRE. But I probably need to retake if I want to go for a PhD.
I'm applying from a foreign university with a different grading scale and I feel the the lack of familarity will be to my disadvantage.
Also, research not in the US is probably less significant for them I assume.
>USC
lmao