JFFA

I honestly think all programs are very accepting of students who come from out of field and non traditional backgrounds as long as they think they are strong students, so I wouldn't limit myself to applying to schools who just may take the extra effort to write in their literature/website that they are open to students from different backgrounds. Also, a lot of schools have a three year program for students who are out of field but simple don't advertise it (for example, Iowa), so it's worth taking a look if that is what you are thinking of too. From personal experience, I was quite successful getting into a broad range grad schools on my first try coming from out of field and having taken a few years off. I know it's not as far removed as acting, but as mentioned before, I and a lot of other people seem to know of a lot of successful applicants from a really diverse range of backgrounds. I took prereqs and volunteered, but the volunteering didn't having anything to do with SLP, and I had no other related experience. So in field experience can be nice, but is definitely not a must. Far more important is just showing you are strong academically.

I've know two individuals with similar stories! One was a professional actor on Broadway and the other a cruise ship performer. Both decided after several year in the industry to switch to SLP. They both were accepted and completed grad school, so it is entirely possible and actually perhaps more common than you think. If you are a strong student, no matter what your background, you stand a decent chance against other applicants. You can definitely do it : )

I'd recommend simple reaching out to prospective grad schools you wish to apply to in the future and asking them how they would view such coursework and, if they would so in a positive light, what types of courses to take? I'm honestly not sure that all graduate schools will weigh it heavily, but it's an idea, and it cannot hurt to look into it further! I have heard through the grapevine that sped classes might not be the best choice, but I'm sure the graduate schools themselves can give you a far more accurate and reliable answer. Also if you have get to fulfill you ASHA science and stats requirements, I know that doing very well in those courses does look good at least to the programs I talked to and those are also offered at USU at the undergrad level.

I got into Iowa with a 3.45 as well as other top 20 schools, you should check out the results page if you are interested in a specific school (just being aware they are self reported). ASHA also posts the GPA range of schools, though those numbers are self reported by the schools, so their can be some uncertainty as to their accuracy (ie what year? what do they mean by acceptance/flat out acceptance or waitlist acceptance). I think it's very hard with a GPA below 3.0 (most grad schools- not the department themselves set that as a cut off point), but schools really do look at GPA in respect to major and other factors. My major was out of field and showed a lot of hard coursework. All programs really do look at applicants as a whole, but I feel like sometime people with low GPAs will see that the school posts something like "we consider all applicants as a whole", don't get in and assume that the school must lying and not looking at applicants as a whole. Just because a school says that they look at applicants as a whole doesn't mean that a low GPA but lots of volunteer experience and passion will get you in. You should take a good objective look at all portions of your application and ask yourself honestly, do I fit the profile of a student admissions committees think would excel in their program. Yes there are some cuts off, but usually they are low and schools will tell you about them.

I don't have any advice on which to choose, but maybe how to go about it. Aside from the programs, of course there are factors like what's the cost of living, have I always wanted to live in NYC? But when it simple comes down to quality and reputation which is seems like you are struggling over in your post, my professors told me that when choosing a program, it's really best to compare the actually reputation of the program with each other not the reputation of the school. I'm sure to outside people, Columbia sounds far more impressive and fancy than the University of Maryland, but to people within the field, I think you will not find that is always the case, especially if you are considering pursuing a PhD, but even if you are not too. I'm not at all saying Columbia is bad or the wrong choice, it's probably a great program. I just wanted to address the fact that you should weigh the reputation of the program itself within the field more than just reputation of the school, if it is reputation you are looking at. If you feel like the draw of Columbia's name outweighs other factors and it is a good program for you then go for it (but let's be honest we're all a little vain about school ranking and reputation and you should be honest with yourself about what really draws you to a school) but you should know that within the field UMD is highly highly regarded. The top schools in our field are not "Ivy League" still considered the top in our field. If you haven't visited, consider taking a visit or calling so you can get a feel for how the program is organized and its general atmosphere. Hope that helps.