Do PhD grades matter?

[Catria]

My supervisor claimed that PhD grades were used by professors to make decisions regarding who to take on as a RA... he claimed that he could get Wilczek for a supervisor only because he had a 4.0 while at UCSB. (That was long before Wilczek moved to MIT)

 

Then again, my supervisor obtained his PhD from a different era (mid-1980s) where research experience opportunities for undergrads weren't as abundant as today, so what he has to say may not apply today.

[aberrant]

I don't think there is a standard grade in chemistry/biochemistry/biology/biophysics courses. what standard is a "B or above" grades, just because you really need to try real hard to fail a class. For that reason, my experience in graduate level courses (both current institution and alma mater) do not have a grade inflation-type of situation. Average is likely to be a A-, but definitely not A.

 

One thing that is always in many professors mind is one should pay more attention on research than coursework in my field (and related fields). I have heard plenty that a B+ / A- is good enough. Getting straight As only telling them that one isn't working "hard enough" in the lab.

[Eigen]

Very different than my impressions.

 

The vast majority have close to 4.0 or 4.0 GPAs, anything under 3.5 is pretty rare.

 

A is the standard, expected grade for a "good" student. B is a grad that indicates you're not doing too well, B-/C+ is just above failing.

[astaroth27]

It depends. At my school most students have around a 3.5 and a few really exceptional students have a 4.0. It really means very little though. They just want you to do well enough to pass then go and do research. If your grades are too high they accuse you of sandbagging your rotations. If you do too badly they just make you take the core courses again (if they like you and your research) or give you the boot (if you suck). 

[Catria]

There is only one good practical reason why some people may aim for 4.0 in a PhD program while still in the coursework stage: it is because they are externally funded and said external funding is renewed contingent on grade requirements for which the compliance requirements (I've seen 3.0, 3.3 or 3.5 as compliance requirements) are too low. I think some Chinese and Indian grants operate in that sort of fashion; in practice the recipients of these grants will have to be at 4.0 or close to it to keep the grants. (In masters programs, it could be that the student's employer will only refund As for graduate coursework)

 

Of course, people in direct-PhD fields may also use a PhD as a medium to obtain a masters for free or to otherwise plan ahead for future needs where PhD grades are a factor (say, they think it's likely that their post-graduation job will lead them to get, say, a MBA, a MPP or some other such thing).

 

It depends. At my school most students have around a 3.5 and a few really exceptional students have a 4.0. It really means very little though. They just want you to do well enough to pass then go and do research. If your grades are too high they accuse you of sandbagging your rotations. If you do too badly they just make you take the core courses again (if they like you and your research) or give you the boot (if you suck). 

 

What does sandbagging rotations even mean? Do you mean neglecting rotations instead?

 

It's normally rather easy to meet compliance requirements in hard sciences, I'll grant you this much.

 

But my supervisor claimed that the reason why PhD grades matter to make decisions to take on students at schools without rotations (Minnesota is a rotation-less school for physics, and UCSB in the mid-1980s was without rotations either) was because the professors outside of the admissions committee or the quals committee would mostly know any given student through graduate coursework. By my supervisor's claims, they say that, all else being withheld (or equal), the professor would be more likely to take on a student at 4.0 than a student barely meeting compliance requirements. Just that, in my supervisor's eyes, better have grades that are too high than too low.

 

Of course, if there were rotations, then the rotations will obviously be weighted more.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Catria

[Pitangus]

 

One thing that is always in many professors mind is one should pay more attention on research than coursework in my field (and related fields). I have heard plenty that a B+ / A- is good enough. Getting straight As only telling them that one isn't working "hard enough" in the lab.

 

I've heard this sentiment before, and I would hope it's just a half-serious "warning" for new grad students and not the actual way of thinking in most programs. I think it's unreasonable to assume that those who excel at coursework can only do so at the expense of their research. I'd like to think at least that advisors and committees can recognize cases where this sentiment does not apply. 

[Between Fields]

In graduate psychology courses, maybe A is the standard grade but I do not think it holds true across all fields or all departments within a field.

 

It's worth considering, though, that in this case "standard" doesn't mean that "A" is the  minimum grade assigned for graduate courses, it means that work less than "A" quality just isn't acceptable at the graduate level. By not meeting the standard, you're sending a red flag to whomever's looking at your transcript. A "B" definitely signals extreme displeasure with a graduate student's work. Perhaps it's slightly different when schools have the A- and B+ available to them--my university uses straight grades.

[TakeruK]

I've heard this sentiment before, and I would hope it's just a half-serious "warning" for new grad students and not the actual way of thinking in most programs. I think it's unreasonable to assume that those who excel at coursework can only do so at the expense of their research. I'd like to think at least that advisors and committees can recognize cases where this sentiment does not apply. 

 

It's a statement that's used here to help new graduate students get a sense of what kind of effort is expected to be put into coursework. Especially since most people entering the program have GPAs close to 4.0. That said, no one is going to be kicked out or get in trouble for having straight As.

 

A student might only get some advice/counseling if their research advisor is unhappy with their research progress and it turns out that they have a 4.3 GPA. And I say "might" because this will only happen if the student is lucky enough to be in a program that is looking out for their students and finding ways to help them meet the program requirements. If they are unlucky, no one will notice and they will continue to put too much effort into classwork and then flunk out due to unsatisfactory research progress or take much longer than necessary to finish.

[Eigen]

There is only one good practical reason why some people may aim for 4.0 in a PhD program while still in the coursework stage: it is because they are externally funded and said external funding is renewed contingent on grade requirements for which the compliance requirements (I've seen 3.0, 3.3 or 3.5 as compliance requirements) are too low. I think some Chinese and Indian grants operate in that sort of fashion; in practice the recipients of these grants will have to be at 4.0 or close to it to keep the grants. (In masters programs, it could be that the student's employer will only refund As for graduate coursework)

 

Or you plan on applying for external grants during your PhD program, or you plan on applying for competitive post-doctoral fellowships.

 

You should pretty much always aim for a 4.0, and most warnings don't contradict that. Faculty (and older graduate students) warning new graduate students not to spend too much time on coursework is to help them put the priorities in line. I tell this to our incoming students that spend hours a day studying for classes, when they should be spending much less time on coursework and much more time in the lab. So does my advisor. That doesn't mean he doesn't expect them to make an A in his class.

 

Keeping a 4.0 while not making good research progress is bad. That doesn't mean that having a 4.0 is bad, it just means you shouldn't have to put in so much time that you detract from other areas. On the flip side, making good research progress while maintaining a 4.0 is good- it shows that you can excel in multiple areas at once. It's not an either-or thing.

 

It's like the "Do GRE scores matter" that comes up here all the time. In the relative ranking of importance, they're low. But if you're aiming to be a very competitive applicant, you should still shoot for high scores.

 

In the overall ranking, your graduate grades aren't the most important thing. That doesn't mean you shouldn't aim for having very good grades throughout graduate school, as having those grades will always help, even if only a little bit.

[Pitangus]

It's a statement that's used here to help new graduate students get a sense of what kind of effort is expected to be put into coursework. 

 

 

This is what I would assume, and I think that's reasonable. If someone poured most of their time into a maintaining a high GPA in undergrad, then they probably will need to adjust their expectations for a grad program. 

I only have a problem with the assumption of "If you have a 4.0 GPA, then you are spending too much time on coursework." I have not encountered a professor who has expressed such an opinion, but I have heard it often enough that I wonder how prevalent it is. 

 

 

 

You should pretty much always aim for a 4.0, and most warnings don't contradict that. Faculty (and older graduate students) warning new graduate students not to spend too much time on coursework is to help them put the priorities in line. I tell this to our incoming students that spend hours a day studying for classes, when they should be spending much less time on coursework and much more time in the lab. So does my advisor. That doesn't mean he doesn't expect them to make an A in his class.

 

Keeping a 4.0 while not making good research progress is bad. That doesn't mean that having a 4.0 is bad, it just means you shouldn't have to put in so much time that you detract from other areas. On the flip side, making good research progress while maintaining a 4.0 is good- it shows that you can excel in multiple areas at once. It's not an either-or thing.

 

This is my thinking as well. If you are making good research progress and not sacrificing research goals to complete homework or study for exams, then having a 4.0 GPA is a feather in your cap, not a sign that you spent too much time on coursework. 

[rising_star]

Some of this is field-specific. As someone who didn't work in a lab in graduate school but did do research, I'd say that coursework is actually exceedingly important since that's where you read and discuss the theories that are the foundation of the discipline and the work that you (will) do. In my field, not having a 4.0 is a sign that you seriously struggle to write and conduct research at the graduate level. That is not a good thing for faculty to see at your annual review and it's definitely not good if you apply for external fellowships or funding (whether to do your dissertation research, to support writing up your results, or for postdoc positions).

 

I think if you're in the sciences, then there is sometimes less of an emphasis on coursework and more of an emphasis on how you do in the lab. But, at least in my experience, that is not the case in the social sciences.

[mop]

At my biomed lab based program, grades are High Pass/Pass/Low Pass/Fail, and a common saying around here is "P is for PhD" meaning do just enough work in class to pass (around a B in a normal grading system) and learn what you need to learn, and don't spend double the amount of time studying a week to improve the grade by 10% to get a High Pass (A equivalent). The extra 10-15 hours is better spent in lab doing experiments or reading about your specific thesis topic to help you graduate sooner. That is, lab time >>> class time.

[Chiqui74]

Hey all. I was wondering if grades received in PhD programs matter. I'm in my first year and just got my first grade so far this semester (B+) when I should have gotten an A- without all the of the subjective BS the professor put in (the class was also a very theoretical/discussion based class, but that's a whole different story).

I sort of care because I've been primed my whole life to care about grades, but now that I realize that there is nothing left to strive for since I'm at the highest level of education, are grades really that important?

On a side note, I need a 3.0GPA to stay off of academic probation, and a B+ is a 3.3.

You've answered your own question.  If you want to stay off probation, or not be kicked out of the program, grades absolutely matter.

[Chiqui74]

Oh, geez, I just realized this is an ancient thread.

[Queen of Kale]

It depends. At my school most students have around a 3.5 and a few really exceptional students have a 4.0. 

I just wanted to reiterate that there is a lot of inconsistency in grading between schools and even within each school between departments. My roommate and I attend the same school but in different departments (of the same division). In her department everyone basically has a 4.0 or close to it. In mine few people have as high as a 3.5 GPa. A 4.0 wouldn't be considered a red flag I would think, but I've yet to meet anyone with a GPa above a 3.7 in my department. We have a lot of professors who throw out B-/C+'s like rice & no one blinks an eye as long as your average is above a 3.0.

 

I just wanted to put that out there in case there is any first year student in a department like mine reading a thread about how everyone in grad school has a near perfect GPa who is hyperventilating into a paper bag.