GREat (or not)

My recent post at the Valve has spawned an interesting subthread in the comments about the GREs.   Jonathan Goodwin argues that "the GRE subject test is directly correlated with a traditionalist curriculum," and further suggests that "you can generally guess that the average undergraduate from a university with a doctoral program in English is going to have had a less traditional curriculum and probably would not do as well on the test..."  This latter point was certainly true of UCI in the early 90s, when I took the subject exam; a couple of my professors warned me that because the department's requirements for historical coverage were fairly open-ended, English majors often stubbed their toes on the GRE.  Since I had actually pursued what Jonathan calls a "traditionalist" approach--Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, the works--I did well enough on the exam to flap one normally unflappable professor ("You got a what on the where?!").  But even so, the exam struck me as a fairly odd bird.  In the 90s, at least, it was really a test on the various and sundry contents of the Norton anthologies, and good test-taking skills frequently seemed more important than actually knowing all that much about the material.  (I remember one i.d. question that repeatedly incorporated the play's title into the plot summary.  Um, golly, I wonder what the right answer could be...)  Did it accurately test what I knew, or just what I happened to know of?

Comments

[Jonathan]

My undergrad regional comprehensive was quite traditionalist, and I did well on the subject test; but so would anyone with a good memory and time enough to cram the Norton's. I'm not sure that traditionalist requires quotes here.

[La Lecturess]

I'm inclined to agree with you, LP, that the GRE tests how well one tests. I went to a major research university with certain traditionalist requirements for the English major, and my interests were in a relatively early period--but by no means did my education actually cover all the expected canonical works or authors.

In taking a practice test before the exam itself and looking over the suggested reading list I remember thinking to myself, "What exactly IS this _Volpone_? And who's _The Jew of Malta_? But I got an extremely high score nevertheless. Maybe I lucked out with the particular questions I got, or maybe the curve was steep enough in my favor; who knows?

[Ancrene Wiseass]

I absolutely agree with your description of the test and its "know of" rather than "really know" qualities.

The year I took it, weirdly enough, the exam incorporated an awful lot of modern *French* literature.

[Skwid]

It took me several attempts to parse your second parenthetical as not having something to do with an Intelligent Design question being on the English GRE test...

[Anne]

My favorite memory of my GRE test was an identification question about the Irish revival phrased "Which red-haired Irish playwright..."

I was working on a B.A. thesis on Yeats at the time so the anecdotes about who at the Abbey was a redhead was fresh in my mind.

But the real lesson I learned was that yes, it was a test on how well I'd learned the gossip, cocktail conversations, and Norton headnotes of my traditionalist education.

[What Now?]

Yes, I think it's largely about knowing the Norton headnotes. In fact, that was how I studied, on the advice of a professor: Read through the historical and author introductions in the two World, two British, and two American Norton volumes...but don't waste time reading the literature itself, since one doesn't need to know that. The advice worked beautifully, and I've passed it on to students since then. And certainly there's good info there in the headnotes, exactly the kind of stuff that's helpful to know, but obviously the test doesn't really get at any knowledge besides the "knowing of," as you put it so well.