How to compensate for 3.2 major GPA?

[uncle_weasel]

My undergrad GPA in biology is 3.2 (3.6 overall). This is probably a big red flag for grad programs and likely below the cutoff for most competitive programs. I'll be doing some work as a research assistant following my graduation in May, but will this (provided I get good publications, LORs, etc.) be enough to make me a competitive applicant? If not, what should I do? Should I take post-bac classes? Are there good programs that accept lower GPAs?

[Throwawaydnf99]

Yes. That is not even a bad gpa once so ever.

[DevoLevo]

I think you're more worried than you need to be.

There are plenty of ways to compensate for a low GPA, and 3.2 is really not that low (3.6 certainly isn't). My undergrad GPA was 3.5, and my major GPA was probably similar, though many schools don't require you to list major GPA and its not even listed on my transcript. Focus on writing a killer personal statement and getting great letters of rec (LORs are the most important factor anyway).

[paraent]

Have a GPA around yours (lower than yours!) and lots of research experience and very good GREs. I'm applying to schools right now and have been seeing lots of success. So don't be so insecure about the GPA and focus on maxing out the other parts of your application. When the time comes to apply for graduate school, stick with labs that are doing really similar work to the stuff you've already done. Experience and lab match can get you really far in grad admissions.

Edited January 23, 2019 by paraent

[shadowclaw]

I made many horrible mistakes as an undergrad. My biology GPA was 3.8ish, but my overall was sub 3.0. Although it was a weird situation where I had a 3.59 at the college I graduated from, but when you added in the other three schools I attended, it was baaaaaaaad. My GRE scores also weren't bad, but not amazing either (something like 84th percentile V, 63rd percentile Q). On my first go, I was rejected from all of the PhD programs I applied to and accepted to all of the master's programs. I was even offered funding. At the school I chose, the program director had a chat with me one day and told me that the admissions committee really wasn't sure about admitting me. However, my LORs were so amazing that they decided to take the risk. 

When it came time to apply again for a PhD program, I had one publication submitted but not yet accepted, and I was in the process of writing my thesis. I had two of the same LOR writers again, plus my master's advisor. My graduate GPA was like a 3.85. I felt really good about that application season, although I ultimately got rejected by all but one school (although I was waitlisted at my top choice for a while). But here I am!

Based on my own experiences, I would say that your GPA isn't really going to hold you back. A 3.6 is quite good, and while your bio gpa might be lower than you'd like, it also depends on where the low grades are. If you bombed your intro courses but aced your upper level courses, no one is going to bat an eye. And to be honest, working as a research assistant and getting those publications are going to make you look really good to the admissions committee.

[BabyScientist]

You're fine. Research experience, publications, etc are all you need

[AnonNeuroGrad]

I think it really depends on the sorts of programs but I feel like the filters apply to overall GPA more so than the major GPA purely because that is more inobvious when staring at a pile of 100. I had a 3.2 overall and 3.0 in major but I found myself rejected from most places despite having a very strong research record. I'm saying that I think you will be mostly fine because you'll be getting second-looks. I think that major GPA matters but overall GPA is where the filter is first applied.

Edited March 12, 2019 by HawaiiLee808