How important is your GPA anyway?

[purplepepper]

Hi all,

I thought I'd start a discussion about GPA since a lot of topics on the board address the issue, and everyone's opinions seem to be different. I've really just made this scenario up... and if anyone has any real experience on these issues please feel free to comment.

So here's the hypothetical situation.

Let's say Mary Jane is applying for a PhD at a top university in the humanities..we'll call it Yaleston (this is hypothetical remember ) She's applying straight out of undergrad with a solid GPA, let's say a cumulative 3.8. She's gone as far as she can with language work in her undergrad career, wrote a superstar senior thesis, has relevant work/research experience, and graduated with all the bling bling an undergrad can have. You know what I mean.

Then let's say Lois Lane comes along and is applying to the same program. Her undergrad wasn't so hot and she graduated with a 3.2 overall. She realized that she wanted to go to graduate school, so she went on to do a Master's degree, and graduated with a much higher GPA of 3.75. During her MA degree, let's say that she won some kind of grant, has not only done language work but lived abroad and its apparent that she too has gained critical research skills as seen from her writing sample and SOP. Maybe she's given a conference paper too.

Assuming that both candidates have similar GRE scores, and both have written coherent SOPs/writing samples, and good recs, the question is, who is the stronger candidate? Is there a clear answer? Would it come down to who matches the department better? or who can take advantage of university resources more? Would the undergrad GPAs be compared against each other? Would it simply come down to pinning the two applicant's names on a dart board, blindfolding the Director of Graduate Studies and seeing which one he hits with a dart?

Any thoughts/comments/opinions welcome!

[rokxal]

Well in this hypothetical situation, the relative GPAs are negligible. Research is considered more important and the candidate who had more/quality journal or conference publications and grants wins. Depending on the field, this advantage may be huge. A comp sci major Joe brown with a 3.5 undergrad gpa and 2 publications has an overwhelming advantage over a 3.9 gpa Billy Smith with nada research experience if both applied to Stanfordson .

Like the business world, I think the system values a person's most recent accomplishments over their past successes. Lois Lane's 3.75 gpa during her MA would overshadow her undergrad record. Her research experience makes her the "safer" choice in terms of investment because doing well in research is quite different from being taught and successfully regurgitating material from class.

[timuralp]

Besides, keep in mind the two hypothetical situations you drew are very different to a committee. Lois Lane is applying straight for PhD and will be expected to start her thesis work almost immediately and complete it within 3-4 years. Mary Jane on the other hand will probably take 1-2 years of classes and get her MA first. So, these two are not equivalent

Also, research is the only reason anyone should be in a PhD program, which is why a lower/low GPA is oftentimes irrelevant. It says nothing about your research potential or aptitude. With no other factors, it may indicate that you didn't work hard enough. I know of cases, once again in CS, where an undergrad gpa of 2.0 did not impede a guy's chances of going to CMU, after he got his MS. In fact, universities were fighting for him, because of the stellar research work.

[BruBru]

Interesting topic. I have a close friend who graduated last year and is currently in his first year at the PhD program at Cornell. He got accepted (with full funding) despite a 3.1 GPA and a GRE score of only 1140. As timuralp stated, a PhD program is about research, and since he had solid research experience that seemed to compensate for his low GPA and GRE score. I think students tend to place too much emphasis on those indicators, and fail to understand the importance of a good SAP, strong letters and research experience.

Also, he had a choice between Cornell, University of Washington, University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Texas - Austin (all with funding).

[UKbound]

I suspect that the field the candidates are coming from (and entering) will be relevant here. Research experience for those of us who have done our undergrad work in fields like Philosophy or English is fairly unusual (as a Phil major, my honors capstone was simply a graduate level course which required a much longer paper). On the other hand, it's basically a given for things like Anthropology (for my Anth major, the honors project involved a year-long research project with a proposal at the beginning and the presentation of my thesis at the end), Biology, CS. With that in mind I would say the stronger candidate is going to be the one whose actually been most successful accomplishing what is expected for the field at that stage of his/her education. The GPA will probably be a more significant factor in those areas where research wasn't really an option. I would guess this would also be the case for the GRE.

[rising_star]

Assuming that both candidates have similar GRE scores, and both have written coherent SOPs/writing samples, and good recs, the question is, who is the stronger candidate? Is there a clear answer? Would it come down to who matches the department better? or who can take advantage of university resources more? Would the undergrad GPAs be compared against each other? Would it simply come down to pinning the two applicant's names on a dart board, blindfolding the Director of Graduate Studies and seeing which one he hits with a dart?

Any thoughts/comments/opinions welcome!

I think fit with the department would be a huge part of it, at least in my field. If there's no one that can supervise your project, they aren't going to admit you (definitely not with funding and perhaps not at all). The undergrad GPAs may or may not be compared against each other, it really depends. The quality of the undergraduate school will be interpreted along with the GPA (as in 3.0 from Harvard better than 3.8 from Regional Satellite State U), whether that's fair or not. Definitely not a dart board. They'll take a holistic look and decide who they think will be more successful and/or is better suited to the program.

[hartshorneBoy]

This kind of question depends on who's on the committee. There's no way to say, really. Some people like the dedication and demonstrated interest and experience of the MA student, others like the speed and intensity of the UG student. For my degree, they like students that can finish before they hit their intellectual peak in the field: 29. Otherwise, you really never know.

Just apply and see what happens. No reason to freak out about these things right now. Send out applications and you'll get their opinion on your application. Don't take any of this personally, just make your app the best it can be and freak out during the waiting game instead. :wink:

~Signed,

Someone who's gotten 2 rejections already, but isn't discouraged.

[purplepepper]

a little late reply, but thanks to those who responded. I hope that others have gotten something from the discussion!

Anyone is welcome to add anything else, ask another question, etc etc.

In other personal news, my apps are just about done, but have brought on an early bout of waiting anxiety. ack. i'm sure everyone is experiencing the same thing!

[anese]

eh, as long as it is higher than 3.0 and you are genuinely enthusiastic about the subject area, read it voraciously and know exactly what it is you want to study and with whom--it's not that important.

Fit is the most important thing...oh and stellar recommendations. The professors are trying to decide if they want to work with you for 5-7 years, the GPA is just one small indicator of success if you think of it in this way.