Masters GPA overcome low undergrad GPA?

[Jean]

I was wondering if anyone knows how your undergrad GPA are weighted compared to a Master's degree GPA? I had a realy low undergrad GPA, a 2.8 and got into a one-year Master's program in Molecular Genetics. Did decent there, a 3.7. Do you think that is more important than the undergrad one? I'm applying to a Ph.D program in Immunology and looking at some top schools like Columbia, Duke, and then some middle ones. My GRE is also decent, 1380 and I took a year off to work at a research lab at a hospital and got published though not first author. Thoughts?

[Eigen]

The problem you'll run into here is that Grad GPAs are weighted to a different scale than undergrad GPAs. Your 3.7 is better, but not by as much as you might think.

I'll generalize to most grad schools: a B- (or thereabouts) is usually the lowest passing grade for a class, at a 3.0 GPA. A C+ is usually failing, at a 2.67 GPA.

That said, for grad school you take what was essentially a 4.0 scale and break it down to a 1 point scale- 3.0 to 4.0. I'd place a 3.7 graduate GPA at around a solid "B" (3.0-3.2) average on comparison to the equivalent undergrad.

That said, your MS thesis and the research therein should be a much bigger draw than your GPA throughout.

Publications are always helpful- in the sciences, in general, grades and scores are secondary to publications and research experience.

The only problem you may run into is schools that have "minimum" GPA requirements, but I don't think these are particularly common anymore.

[Medievalmaniac]

I was wondering if anyone knows how your undergrad GPA are weighted compared to a Master's degree GPA? I had a realy low undergrad GPA, a 2.8 and got into a one-year Master's program in Molecular Genetics. Did decent there, a 3.7. Do you think that is more important than the undergrad one? I'm applying to a Ph.D program in Immunology and looking at some top schools like Columbia, Duke, and then some middle ones. My GRE is also decent, 1380 and I took a year off to work at a research lab at a hospital and got published though not first author. Thoughts?

Apply and see.

I had a low GPA as an undergrad (2.77). Fifteen years ago. I have since taken a year of study with a 3.56, and then returned to school after a hiatus and received a Master's degree in my field (2010) with a 4.0 GPA and a presentation at the biggest conference in my field. My GRE V was 690 and AWA was a 6; I received a perfect score on the Praxis II subject test in English. I also have publications, conference experience, journal editing experience, and have been teaching in my field for a decade. My top choices didn't even look at me because my undergraduate GA from 1997 was too low to qualify. I am, however, applying again and hoping for better results this time around - I'm taking the GRE subject test and will include a letter of explanation concerning the lower undergraduate GPA this time around.

I recommend taking the subject test if your field offers one, a high score on that MIGHT offset your undergraduate GPA.

Ultimately, who knows? Any given year....On the other hand, contacting a graduate admissions counselor at your school of interest and discussing your situation might be a good idea as well; they can tell you if your application would receive serious consideration or not.

Good luck!!

[aginath]

The problem you'll run into here is that Grad GPAs are weighted to a different scale than undergrad GPAs. Your 3.7 is better, but not by as much as you might think.

I'll generalize to most grad schools: a B- (or thereabouts) is usually the lowest passing grade for a class, at a 3.0 GPA. A C+ is usually failing, at a 2.67 GPA.

That said, for grad school you take what was essentially a 4.0 scale and break it down to a 1 point scale- 3.0 to 4.0. I'd place a 3.7 graduate GPA at around a solid "B" (3.0-3.2) average on comparison to the equivalent undergrad.

That said, your MS thesis and the research therein should be a much bigger draw than your GPA throughout.

Publications are always helpful- in the sciences, in general, grades and scores are secondary to publications and research experience.

The only problem you may run into is schools that have "minimum" GPA requirements, but I don't think these are particularly common anymore.

I'll preface this post by saying that not all schools and fields are created equally.

Where I did my undergrad and Masters, there was no difference in GPA weighting. I had a 2.6 as a undergrad. Lackluster and unfocused would barely begin to describe my performance. I got into grad school and found myself. I did a thesis, internship, and professional study in 15 months, graduating with a 4.0. They grade on a straight A-F scale with the traditional breakdown.

My doctoral school is on a +/- grading scale where my 2.6 is just shy of a B-. While we're at it, a C+ is a 2.3 here. I'm not a personal fan of +/- grading scales, but it seems that numerical scores generally tell the story (at least in my field).

What Medievalmaniac posted is great advice. I would go one step further and suggest talking to prospective schools and ask if it'll be a problem.

[Eigen]

Since he's in biology, I'm comfortable with the field being similar to mine.

I have yet to find a PhD program in the sciences in which a 3.0 average is not failing.

It's not about a change in GPA "weighting". Just that a B average is considered the lowest acceptable, and anything lower puts you on academic probation. I'm sure there are some schools that don't do it this way, but I'd say it is by far the norm.