Addressing low GPA

[repatriate]

I had a conversation with my advisor yesterday about admissions to our program and the relative weight our committee places on GPA versus GRE. My advisor complemented my own narrative for explaining my less than stellar GPA. Since this is a common question on the forum, I figured I would share my own experience. Of course, different committees will have different values and each applicant has a unique narrative, but knowing what others had done helped me when I was applying, so I hope that I can return the favor a little.

Basically, the committee here sees GRE as the best indicator of future success. I also learned that GPA is not weighted as strongly here because it is seen as possible for very intelligent people to mess up during undergrad, so long as there is an explanation. Here is something like what I wrote in my SOP to explain my grades:

Overcoming hardship has given me gratitude for engagement in academic studies and increased my dedication to the pursuit of scientific psychological knowledge and research. The grades from my first years at some Decent State School do not reflect my true intellectual and academic abilities. Aware that I was not achieving to my potential, I chose to withdraw from university for one year to reevaluate my circumstances and goals for my studies. When I reentered the same Decent State School, I did so with an appreciation for the challenge I would face and gratitude for my second chance at academic studies. My record since returning to university has been one of continuous improvement, culminating in a 4.0 GPA in my final 28 credits at that Decent State School, a combined score of OMGWOW on the GRE, and a Pretty Awesome on the GRE Writing assessment. Since leaving that Decent State School, I have continued to achieve at a high level, earning a 4.0 GPA in further undergraduate psychology work at a Less Reputable but Cheaper State School, scoring in the 91st percentile on the Psychology GRE despite competing with test takers with greater formal training in psychology, and entering a Master of Arts program at a highly ranked university in the United Kingdom.

So basically, I said, "Yes, my GPA is not what you are looking for, but that's because of some stuff that happened a long time ago, and now I am as awesome as anyone else you might admit." And it worked for me.

[shepardn7]

Basically, the committee here sees GRE as the best indicator of future success. I also learned that GPA is not weighted as strongly here because it is seen as possible for very intelligent people to mess up during undergrad

But it is not considered possible for "very intelligent people" to "mess up" their GRE, or have difficulty doing exceptionally well on standardized tests? Or have difficulty finding another 150 dollars to retake the GRE if they had the flu or another issue when taking it? And it is not seen as a strength that someone might have had trauma or death or what have you, and still managed to maintain a good undergrad GPA (even if those reasons sufficiently excuse poor undergrad performance, because yes, of course bad things happen and not everyone can devote the necessary attention to their grades). That's very sad. Depressing, even.

Edited December 16, 2010 by sarandipidy

[repatriate]

I do not know about those attitudes here or elsewhere, but I would guess that, since I am enrolled at a department with a strong quantitative psychology program, psychometric assessments such as the GRE are viewed more favorably here than elsewhere.

Edited December 16, 2010 by repatriate

[shepardn7]

I do not know about those attitudes here or elsewhere, but I would guess that, since I am enrolled at a department with a strong quantitative psychology program, psychometric assessments such as the GRE are viewed more favorably here than elsewhere.

True -- that makes sense, since they will primarily look at the quant score (which I think is a much better indicator of success in a quant-field than the verbal for a non-quant field). Still, just as very intelligent people fall on hard times and underperform in undergrad courses, very intelligent people in all fields can still get mediocre scores on a section they "should" do well on for various reasons, and it's a little scary that even in a quant-heavy field only 45 minutes of mathematical reasoning under the pressure of testing conditions could potentially outweigh a high GPA in all quant-related courses over a four year period. In other words, it's of course not sad to me that a high GRE could compensate for a poor GPA that could have been high under different conditions, but that a program would consider it a better indication of potential success and place more weight on it in general. But I think I might feel this way -- have such an adverse reaction to the idea, I mean -- because I'm in the humanities.

[repatriate]

Just for clarification: What I meant was not that one or another section of the test would be weighted more heavily (I don't know about this). Rather, I am speculating that knowledge and acceptance of things like item response theory and test validation would make an admissions committee in a department like mine more apt to trust the GRE than a department where such things are not well-known or accepted.

There are general problems with both forms of assessment (e.g., GPAs from different institutions reflect different levels of achievement, and the GRE is not an equal assessment for all demographic groups). How these assessments are weighted very likely differs across programs. However, I cannot speak to what I do not know.