Suppose, someone completed his Bachelor degree 10 years ago, or, someone had bad grades in the Bachelors, he can still manage to get into a Graduate research program, if he can demonstrate good GRE score.
On the contrary, non-GRE schools do not offer such advantages to the applicants.
In the UK at least, PhD applicants generally have a Master's degree already, whereas in the USA PhD applicants are more likely to come straight from undergrad. It would make no sense for UK and other similar non-US students to take the GRE as it would not test their more advanced knowledge.
@astronat, try applying to a British MPhil program with average grades in the Bachelors. You will most likely be refused. While try applying to a US MS program (with similar ranking) along with good GRE. You will most likely be accepted.
@why You can't compare apples and oranges. I would interpret that as the UK MPhil having higher entry requirements than its US counterpart, probably due to the fact that UK bachelor's degrees have a much narrower and deeper focus than those in the US.
@Thomas, firstly, UK MPhil + PhD == US MS + PhD == 5 years. secondly, US and UK masters programs are very different. - whatever it is, UK programs offer disadvantages to students with mediocre grades. At the end of the day, USA wins.
@why If your real question is why the entrance requirements for US and UK masters are different, then I think you should ask that as a new question. The difference is much more than the GRE.
@why "UK programs offer disadvantages to students with mediocre grades" yes, because they have standards to maintain. Also, an MEng is typically 5 years here and is an integrated Master's degree (i.e. an undergraduate Master's), so again not comparable to an MPhil or MS.
@why The length of the programs is not the key difference. UK masters are more research focused and US masters are course-based. (And, IMHO, US universities are more willing to churn out masters in exchange for money.) Ask a separate question to get a more thorough comparison.
@why Please ask a separate question for a comparison of US and UK masters programs. Comments are not the appropriate place for answering that question.
@astronat, because they have standards to maintain. - that means, USA doesn't have to maintain quality. If that is not the case, then UK system assumes that humans are doomed if they have bad grades early on.
@why if I were evaluating a candidate I would rather trust their long term performance over the course of an entire degree than the result of one random test on which they may get a fluke good (or bad) result that is not reflective of their overall skills, knowledge and research potential.
@HermanToothrot, US example of how a useless standard is promoted as something needed just to create a huge revenue. - that is why they have 25% of the world's GDP, and 3000+ tertiary educational institutions (rest of the world combined can't equate).
@astronat, I would rather trust their ... ... research potential. - which means, you are profiling students on their life history. In which case someone with alcoholic parents cannot have a PhD.
@why in fact, I am living proof that someone with an alcoholic parent can get a PhD. However, I see that trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is not working. I will leave you to grind your axe in peace.
@astronat, I am living proof that someone with an alcoholic parent can get a PhD. - may be a different example would have been worth considering. Like a student from a war torn country, or who was imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit, etc.
Discussion on question by why: Why do…
Discussion on question by why: Why do…