I’ll put it this way: in the average GRE scores by intended field, education ranks below philosophy & STEM in every subtest, and various forms of education rank very low (early childhood education is, out of 50 groups, second from the bottom in 2 subtests and fifth from the bottom in the last subtest).
Average GRE is useless. Elementary teachers have far lower GRE scores than secondary school teachers, and are about average in verbal and below average in math. Secondary school content teachers are above average in verbal and average in math. However, close to half of all secondary school teachers get higher than 600 on the math section, which is more than the number of math and science teachers. While I suppose it’s possible that math and science teachers have terrible math scores and the English/history teachers are scoring those 600+ scores, I’m figuring it’s far more likely that math and science high school teachers have eminently respectable GRE scores in math, and that English/history teachers have higher than average verbal.
Anyone who claims that teachers are stupid is using propaganda instead of ETS data.
Not surprising, given my experience. Most religion majors I’ve met were relatively smart and often made fun of the more fundamentalist/evangelical types who typically were turned off by their religion classes. Religion majors seemed like philosophy-lite majors (which is consistent with the rankings).
Edit: Also, relative to Religion, econ has a bunch of poor english speakers that pull the other two categories down. (Note: the “analytical” section is/was actually a couple of very short essays)
Also, Economics is only quantitatively better than Religion.
Yes, given that economics is apparently one of the most lucrative fields around going by Caplan’s recent post on majors, it’s interesting that the econ students aren’t ranked even higher.
Another category that jumped out at me—see all the public/education/business administration near the bottom. These are the people running institutions. The world is the way it is for a reason.
I notice that I’m confused: the maximum score on the Quantitative section is 800 (at that time), and Ph.D. econ programs won’t even consider you if you’re under a 780. The quantitative exam is actually really easy for math types. When you sign up for the GRE, you get a free CD with 2 practice exams. When I took it, I took the first practice exam without studying at all and got a 760 or so on the quantitiative section (within 10 pts). After studying I got a 800 on the second practice exam and on the actual exam, I got a 790. The questions were basic algebra for the most part with a bit of calculus and basic stat at the top end and a tricky question here and there. The exam was easy—really easy. I was a math major at a tiny / terrible liberal arts school; nothing like MIT or any self respecting state school. So it seems like it should be easy for anyone with a halfway decent mathematics background.
Now you’re telling me people intending to major in econ in grad school average a 706, and people intending to major in math average a 733? That’s low. Really low relative to my expectations. I would have expected a 730 in econ and maybe a 760 in math.
Possible explanations:
1) Tons of applicants who don’t want to believe that they aren’t cut out for their field create a long tail on the low side while the high side is capped at 800.
2) Master’s programs are, in general, more lenient and there are a large number of people who only intend to go to them, creating the same sort of long tail effect as above in 1).
3) There’s way more low-tier graduate programs than I thought in both fields willing to accept the average or even below average student.
4) Weirdness in how these fields are classified (e.g. I don’t see statistics there anywhere, is that included in math?)
5) the quantitative section of the standard GRE actually doesn’t matter if you’re headed to a math or physics program (someone in that field care to comment?). Note: the quantitative section of the standard GRE does matter in econ, but typically only as a way to make the first cut (usually at 760 or 780, depending on the school). I don’t know much of the details here though.
6) very few people actually study for the GRE like I did—i.e. buy a prep book and work through it. This depresses their scores even though they’re much better quantitatively than I am.
Unsurprisingly since these are in when-I-though-of-them order, 1)-3) appeal to me the most, but 5) and 6) also seem plausible. I don’t see why 4) would bias the scores down instead of up so it seems unlikely a priori.
I was actually too lazy to study for my GRE, so I think I got like in the 600s on the math section (it had been a long time since I had studied any of that stuff); I realized while taking it that this was a stupid mistake and I was perfectly capable of answering everything, but the GRE cost too much for me to want to take it a second time. Oh well.
My guess is that there are a lot of grad schools (consider law schools, the standard advice is to not bother unless you can make the top 10, yet there are scores if not hundreds of active law schools), and few actually intend to do a PhD.
How, exactly is it, that these people get hired in the first place?
I’ll put it this way: in the average GRE scores by intended field, education ranks below philosophy & STEM in every subtest, and various forms of education rank very low (early childhood education is, out of 50 groups, second from the bottom in 2 subtests and fifth from the bottom in the last subtest).
Average GRE is useless. Elementary teachers have far lower GRE scores than secondary school teachers, and are about average in verbal and below average in math. Secondary school content teachers are above average in verbal and average in math. However, close to half of all secondary school teachers get higher than 600 on the math section, which is more than the number of math and science teachers. While I suppose it’s possible that math and science teachers have terrible math scores and the English/history teachers are scoring those 600+ scores, I’m figuring it’s far more likely that math and science high school teachers have eminently respectable GRE scores in math, and that English/history teachers have higher than average verbal.
Anyone who claims that teachers are stupid is using propaganda instead of ETS data.
Cite for SAT scores and for GRE scores
What makes “higher than 600 on ONE section” a cutoff above which counts as an “eminently respectable” score?
Would you accept “mediocre”? ;-)
Education even ranks below Religion in every category. Also, Economics is only quantitatively better than Religion.
Not surprising, given my experience. Most religion majors I’ve met were relatively smart and often made fun of the more fundamentalist/evangelical types who typically were turned off by their religion classes. Religion majors seemed like philosophy-lite majors (which is consistent with the rankings).
Edit: Also, relative to Religion, econ has a bunch of poor english speakers that pull the other two categories down. (Note: the “analytical” section is/was actually a couple of very short essays)
Yes, given that economics is apparently one of the most lucrative fields around going by Caplan’s recent post on majors, it’s interesting that the econ students aren’t ranked even higher.
Chicken-and-egg problem: Non-economics majors don’t think economically enough to choose fields on the basis of their remuneration?
That seems to explain why Econ majors get a premium, but that doesn’t seem to explain why econ majors don’t rank higher, or am I missing something?
Those who can’t do...
Another category that jumped out at me—see all the public/education/business administration near the bottom. These are the people running institutions. The world is the way it is for a reason.
I notice that I’m confused: the maximum score on the Quantitative section is 800 (at that time), and Ph.D. econ programs won’t even consider you if you’re under a 780. The quantitative exam is actually really easy for math types. When you sign up for the GRE, you get a free CD with 2 practice exams. When I took it, I took the first practice exam without studying at all and got a 760 or so on the quantitiative section (within 10 pts). After studying I got a 800 on the second practice exam and on the actual exam, I got a 790. The questions were basic algebra for the most part with a bit of calculus and basic stat at the top end and a tricky question here and there. The exam was easy—really easy. I was a math major at a tiny / terrible liberal arts school; nothing like MIT or any self respecting state school. So it seems like it should be easy for anyone with a halfway decent mathematics background.
Now you’re telling me people intending to major in econ in grad school average a 706, and people intending to major in math average a 733? That’s low. Really low relative to my expectations. I would have expected a 730 in econ and maybe a 760 in math.
Possible explanations:
1) Tons of applicants who don’t want to believe that they aren’t cut out for their field create a long tail on the low side while the high side is capped at 800.
2) Master’s programs are, in general, more lenient and there are a large number of people who only intend to go to them, creating the same sort of long tail effect as above in 1).
3) There’s way more low-tier graduate programs than I thought in both fields willing to accept the average or even below average student.
4) Weirdness in how these fields are classified (e.g. I don’t see statistics there anywhere, is that included in math?)
5) the quantitative section of the standard GRE actually doesn’t matter if you’re headed to a math or physics program (someone in that field care to comment?). Note: the quantitative section of the standard GRE does matter in econ, but typically only as a way to make the first cut (usually at 760 or 780, depending on the school). I don’t know much of the details here though.
6) very few people actually study for the GRE like I did—i.e. buy a prep book and work through it. This depresses their scores even though they’re much better quantitatively than I am.
Unsurprisingly since these are in when-I-though-of-them order, 1)-3) appeal to me the most, but 5) and 6) also seem plausible. I don’t see why 4) would bias the scores down instead of up so it seems unlikely a priori.
I was actually too lazy to study for my GRE, so I think I got like in the 600s on the math section (it had been a long time since I had studied any of that stuff); I realized while taking it that this was a stupid mistake and I was perfectly capable of answering everything, but the GRE cost too much for me to want to take it a second time. Oh well.
Statistics does not seem to be broken out in the latest GRE scores I found: https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf I think statistics is almost always part of the math department.
My guess is that there are a lot of grad schools (consider law schools, the standard advice is to not bother unless you can make the top 10, yet there are scores if not hundreds of active law schools), and few actually intend to do a PhD.