Perfect GPA - does it help?

[Gandalf]

I am wondering if some schools differentiate between perfect (4.0/4.0) and near perfect graduate GPA (3.9/4.0). I am applying to graduate schools for my PhD next year, and my masters GPA till now is 4.0 (UG GPA is 3.7). However, I guess this semester I will be getting an A- or B because of a conference deadline (screwed up my test).

I know GPA is not as important as research publications, but just wanted to know if 4.0 makes any difference.

[StarvingStudentYeah]

From my conversations with professors and other academics I'd say that 99.9% of the time a 3.9 would be judged EXACTLY the same as a 4.0. The only exception being if you took an out of sequence foundational class late in a program and had your issue there.

Generally though, all 3.7's and above will be grouped as intelligent and scholastically capable and will be differentiated based on goodness of fit, LORs, research experience and personal statement.

Hope this helps.

[nertperson]

I actually had an interviewer say, "If you're getting Bs in grad school, that's okay......but if you're getting As, it means you're not spending enough time in the lab."

Not sure if that answers your question or not, but I think you already kind of know the answer to it anyway.

[firecolon]

If you're applying to CalTech, then a 3.9 is far worse than a 4.0. Aside from them, it doesn't matter much. Grades are important for admissions, but my experience is that graduate schools place more weight on the difficulty of the courses your taking and the research. Getting B's (and especially A's) in tough graduate-level courses is far more impressive than getting A's in bullshit easy electives.

[Gandalf]

Thanks a lot all! Your replies did help me a lot. Actually, I wanted to take a shot at MIT EECS, and heard from someone that they prefer only toppers. Anyways I am convinced that publications in top tier conferences, recommendations and statement of purpose are far more important than a perfect GPA.

[euges429]

Thanks a lot all! Your replies did help me a lot. Actually, I wanted to take a shot at MIT EECS, and heard from someone that they prefer only toppers. Anyways I am convinced that publications in top tier conferences, recommendations and statement of purpose are far more important than a perfect GPA.

As well, you really need to consider the quality of the program/school as well. A 4.0 from a top-rate research-intensive university will definitely be better than a 4.0 from a liberal arts college. It shouldn't be, but it's just a fact of life. Similarly: I had a friend who went to Western Illinois University -- obviously not as big as UIUC or UChicago -- and he got a perfect 4.0 as undergrad, in history. He applied to Ph.D. programs; he didn't get in anywhere. He applied to UChicago, Loyola Chicago, as well as a few others.

So, 4.0 truly means nothing. If it comes from a "bad" school, a 4.0 would be worse than even a 3.7 from a "strong" school. How you define "bad" and "strong," I'll leave it up to you.

[StarvingStudentYeah]

I disagree with the comment about a 4.0 from a liberal arts college being less than a 4.0 at a major research university if you're talking about an undergrad GPA. In fact, I have evidence from many primary sources that it's the reverse. Professors generally assume that undergrads and small intensive schools write their A**** off because faculty have time to grade with a fine-tooth comb, whereas undergrads at major universities take bubble-sheet tests have written work graded, at least initially, by more tentative TAs.

If, on the other hand you are talking about say MA GPA then the reverse would generally be true about which 4.0 would be (preferred). Really though, at this point we are splitting hairs.

Cal Tech, MIT, RPI, whatever the school - 3.9s are not the kiss of death (or much of a difference maker at all) at the 3.8 and above levels. 4.0 ppl want to believe it is, but there are always going to be instances at all schools where 3.8s beat out 4.0 because the simple fact is that the GPA is one piece of a complicated puzzle and GPA is not a particularly reliable measure of future professional performance within tenths of a point.

[historygirl]

Western Illinois isn't a liberal arts college. It's the state university with the worst reputation, though. it is the university one goes to when one is an Illinois resident and can't get in anywhere else. Not a shocker that your friend wasn't accepted anywhere for a PhD, particularly within Illinois where WIU's reputation is well-known.

[euges429]

Western Illinois isn't a liberal arts college. It's the state university with the worst reputation, though. it is the university one goes to when one is an Illinois resident and can't get in anywhere else. Not a shocker that your friend wasn't accepted anywhere for a PhD, particularly within Illinois where WIU's reputation is well-known.

That just supports what I said: a 4.0 doesn't necessarily mean anything. You have to consider the reputation of the school, and the difficulty of your courses.

[Gandalf]

Thanks for the replies. I currently attend UT Austin, which I believe is considered to be one among top 10 schools for CS. So I think in my case there is no difference between a 3.9 and 4.0.