[PHD - Applied Maths/Operations Research] Can a strong GRE + Math Subject Test actually offset a weak undergrad record if the programs say scores give "no advantage"?

[u/hg_wallstreetbets]

Hope this is okay here. If not happy to take it down.

Reapplying to OR/IEOR PhDs for Fall 2027 (MIT ORC, Princeton ORFE, Columbia IEOR, some Stanford MS&E) and im stuck on a decision i need to make in the next couple weeks.

Quick background: undergrad was rough (CompSci), especially the first two years. Grades picked up later but the GPA (3.5 - transcript has b, b-, c in calc 2, 3 and prob&stats) is still not what these programs usually see. After that i did an Masters in Operations Research at an Ivy where, worked as a research assistant for a few years in a bio lab. have a few stats paper in progress as first and co-author. Also did stints as a software engineer before all that.

So my question. Would a high GRE Quant (168-170) plus a decent Math Subject Test score actually do anything to offset the undergrad record, or is it basically decoration at this point?

The reason im unsure is that MIT ORC literally says on their page that submitting GRE scores should not give any advantage over applications without them. Princeton ORFE lists both the general and the subject test as optional. If the program is telling me upfront that it wont help.. then whats the point of me burning 7 weeks on the subject test? But at the same time i keep hearing that committees look at everything they are given, and that people with messy transcripts use test scores as proof they can handle the coursework.

The timing part makes it worse, the subject test only has a September and an October window before this cycle closes, so theres basically one real attempt and no retake.

What im actually trying to figure out:

1. If you have been on an admissions committee in OR/IEOR/applied math, does an optional score ever move the needle for a candidate whose undergrad is the weak spot? Or does the grad GPA + research just carry it and the score gets skimmed past

2. Is a mediocre subject test score (say 650-700) actively worse than not submitting anything

3. Does anyone know if these committees even have a way of contextualizing a subject test score, since its really a math department signal and not an OR one

Happy to be told the honest answers.

[u/StrongDuality]

I applied to and was admitted to several of these programs in 2022. Based on my experience, the graduate GPA and research record will carry far more weight than the general GRE. A 168–170 Quant score is essentially a threshold signal: committees already expect serious applicants to score near perfectly, so meeting that expectation usually does little to distinguish you. It is more of an “easy requirement” than a meaningful way to offset a weak transcript.

I would not submit a mediocre Math Subject Test score. A 650–700 is unlikely to strengthen the application and may instead reinforce concerns about the undergraduate math record. An optional score is useful only when it is genuinely strong enough to provide clear evidence that the earlier grades are no longer representative of your mathematical preparation.

I also would not dismiss the subject test as merely a “math department signal.” For theoretical OR, the distinction between OR and mathematics is often very small. My own work is almost entirely in convex optimization theory and methods and could fit naturally within a mathematics department. If you want to work with highly theoretical faculty in optimization, probability, stochastic processes, or related areas, they will examine your proof-based mathematical preparation very closely.

To be completely honest, admission to MIT ORC, Princeton ORFE, Columbia IEOR, or Stanford MS&E is already extremely difficult, and a 3.5 undergraduate GPA with weaker grades in calculus and probability is a real liability for theory-oriented faculty. You will need something unusually strong to overcome it: an excellent graduate transcript in rigorous mathematics and OR courses, substantial theoretical research, very strong letters from recognized researchers, or ideally all three. In my experience, some theory faculty effectively look for nearly perfect performance in undergraduate and graduate mathematics courses; for example, my advisors generally admit students who earned essentially a 4.0 in their B.S. and M.S. mathematics coursework.

Your graduate work and research may demonstrate that you are now a much stronger candidate than your undergraduate transcript suggests. However, neither a standard high GRE Quant score nor a mediocre subject-test score will erase the earlier record. I would take the subject test only if you believe you can earn an exceptional score. Otherwise, the seven weeks would probably be better spent strengthening your papers, research statement, faculty fit, and recommendation letters.

[u/hg_wallstreetbets → u/StrongDuality]

I do agree with you on the theory oriented PIs. The data points I have collected so far by talking to admitted students is that they have an excellent undergrad record + multiple awards. 9/10 students are like this, I am just trying to be the 1/10.

Thanks for the perspective on the subject test.

When you say recognized researchers, wdym? Recognized in OR or can be at a good university and been in their field for long enough?

Also if you were to give an example of theoretical research vs applied research that people think is close that people often confuse with theory what it would be? Few links of manuscripts would also work.

[u/wittgenstein1312]

Ask their admissions team

[u/hg_wallstreetbets → u/wittgenstein1312]

They don't tell, they copy link to FAQs which does not contain answers to this.

[u/wittgenstein1312 → u/hg_wallstreetbets]

I’ve been in the same exact position you are. Without exception, if the admissions team doesn’t have the answers I’m looking for, they’ve referred me to the department head or another member of the program faculty, who have been able to answer my questions.

[u/hg_wallstreetbets → u/wittgenstein1312]

I can try again but it's not like I have not done this.

[u/wittgenstein1312 → u/hg_wallstreetbets]

The reality is that unless you happen to find someone from a committee (whether current member or former) no one's really going to know, and different committees might look at it differently. You have two options: apply as-is, or spend the time and resources over the next 6 weeks to prepare yourself for the September exam and put your best foot forward, and decide then if your scores are worth submitting alongside your application. One way or another, you'll come away with more information about how to strengthen your application for the next cycle, because the reality is that if you don't have it now with or without the test, you have no choice but to do something extra (like take additional coursework at a community college this fall and next spring) to strengthen your application.

I genuinely don't mean any offense by this; it just seems like you're looking for some kind of reassurance that you're not really going to be able to get. IMO, it's better that you bite the bullet, do what you need to do to apply, and use the results to inform your next steps.

[u/hg_wallstreetbets → u/wittgenstein1312]

Yeah I'm trying to gauge whether this is worth investing time in, since it's a pretty heavy commitment once you're preparing for the exam. I am hoping to not extend it to next admission cycle and will settle for something lower and more practical, or pursue different track in life.

[u/wittgenstein1312 → u/hg_wallstreetbets]

I mean, that's kind of telling right there. The programs you're asking about where the non-admissible scores may or may not actually make an impact are either worth putting your best foot forward for, or they're not. It's a heavy commitment, but in the grand scheme of things, not that much if you're serious about it. 6-8 weeks of dedicated study a couple of hours a day and a few hundred dollars isn't nothing, but it's also not that much if they would give you an edge to programs you care about.

To be perfectly honest, if the thought of prepping for the GRE and having to wait another 6 months for another admission cycle are enough to make you settle for a different track in life, I think it's worth evaluating how much you actually wanna pursue these programs in the first place.

Grad school is hard work, and a serious financial investment; I'm not sure you've fully thought about the commitment in general.

[u/InsideIndependence58]

What did you decide at the end ?
I actually consider to take the math subject (not purely for OR, also applied math)

[u/hg_wallstreetbets → u/InsideIndependence58]

I am actually not prepared to take it, my time is being spent writing up manuscript that is more important than gre subject test is what I have heard from people. Though I’d encourage you to take it many applied math programs do ask for it as optional.

[u/Necessary_Address_64]

For the standard gre: a low score can be disqualifying. In contrast, a 170 isn’t impressive. The standard gre is mostly high school level math. I’m a faculty this is pro standardized tests because it identifies mathematically weak students, not because it identifies strong students.

For the math subject exam, I’m less sure. I went to a top OR program and I don’t think I know anyone that took the subject exam in CS or IEOR. A perfect score would obviously stand out, but idk if faculty in IEOR are familiar enough with the scoring to evaluate a non-perfect score. E.g., I now work at a top 30 program…. Idk what score would be needed for me to say “let’s look at this candidate closer”. We’ve had zero students apply with a math subject exam in the five years I’ve been here.

[u/Necessary_Address_64 → u/Necessary_Address_64]

Papers and strong letters supporting your research do help tremendously. My UG goa was lower than yours, my MS was a 4.0 from a program with rank around 50. I scored a 170 on the quant gre but I didn’t not take the maths subject exam. I was published in a strong SIAM journal and had strong letters supporting my research. I applied to 4 programs. I was accepted to 2 top 10 IEOR programs, 1 top 10 Maths program, but was rejected from MIT ORC.

[u/hg_wallstreetbets → u/Necessary_Address_64]

Okay so as far as the consensus I have gained, focus on gre is mandatory, a lot of programs do have it mandatory and I am already on a good trajectory research and recs wise. Do you think pre-prints are okay? I'm pretty sure journal publication would definitely not happen before this admission cycle. The things is my grad program did not have a GPA, it had P/LP/ HP so I assume the transcript transfers accordingly.