GRE Policies Raise Questions

Re “Rethinking the GRE” (On the Campus, Oct. 23): Fourteen departments and programs will no longer require the GRE for graduate admission, but 29 will continue to require it. Are we to infer that two-thirds of graduate departments and programs don’t need — or is it want? — any broader “diversity”? That they are satisfied with how well they “identify, attract, and develop the most promising individuals from as many segments of society as possible”?

Or maybe we’re to infer that two-thirds of Princeton’s graduate departments and programs discount Professor Zemer Gitai’s claim — oops, I mean “suggestion” — that GRE scores “are not great indicators of graduate-school success.”

Seems to me that somebody is wrong, either Gitai or two-thirds of the departments and programs. Is there some reason that Princeton hasn’t researched and found out who is right and then brought the wrong parties  into compliance?

Hey, wait! Maybe Gitai is wrong  and the test is a great indicator of graduate-school success, but the 14 that are dropping the GRE requirement are less concerned with graduate-school success than they are with being “diverse and inclusive.”

I’m wondering also if I’m the only one wondering why PAW didn’t ask my questions in this article.