"The top schools only really look at 3.9+ GPA, anything lower is a serious disadvantage"

[GradHooting]

I talked to one of my old professors, in the past couple of days, who writes tons of letters of recommendations, and he told me something that amounted to this. Basically, his idea is that, since there is such high demand for grad programs recently, and the desire for so many to stay in their slots in grad programs, both due to the economy, that the top schools easily have their pick to fully fill their slots with academically perfect individuals. He stated that the commonly stated "3.5+" is more of a liability thing, and that it's far different from the true GPA cutoff they have, whereby they barely consider any applications below something like a 3.9. I'm really not sure anymore. Because, if that's the case, then I can very well be SOL in that category with a 3.6 and should just not even try applying to stated "tier 1" schools in the next round, since no amount of research, publications, experience in the industry, or connections with top professionals could change that relatively tainted record. He also provided an anecdote where the distinguished graduate from one year ended up not getting in anywhere, because his GPA wasn't at that pristine level. So, that was very uncomfortable to hear, but, maybe the truth hurts.

What do you think? Is this just a terrible time to apply? I personally know people with excellent credentials get rejected from the schools in my state, none of which are really high ranking at all. So, the whole application process is just a darned mystery to me. The best thing about the next few months is I won't have to worry about it too much. It's just given me a headache trying to figure it out.

[child of 2]

that's depressing to hear

[annieca]

Ah the curmudgeon professors.

I think that yes, more people are applying to graduate school than normal. For some it's a back-up plan for not getting a job, not wanting to face the real world. Others this is honestly the thing they want to do. Add that with degree inflation and you've got our current state of people in grad school programs.

I don't think that you HAVE to have a 3.9 to get into "tier 1" programs. They take into account a lot more than just GPA. Make your personal statement shine. Do the absolute best you can do on your applications. That's all you can do.

[cyberwulf]

In many fields, this "3.9+ GPA required for admission to top places" claim is demonstrably untrue.

First of all, undergraduate institution matters a *lot*; no adcom in their right mind would take a student with a 3.95 from Random Third-Tier State U over a 3.75 from Harvard (all other aspects of the application being equal).

Second, other parts of your application can also carry a lot of weight. In some fields, research experience is key; or very strong letters; or a compelling personal statement; or standardized test scores; or grades in particular classes. It's a cliche to talk about the evaluation of applications being "holistic", but for graduate school it really is (perhaps moreso than for undergraduate admissions).

This is not to say that people with great top-line numbers aren't rejected by good (and even less-good) places, but simply to point out that GPA doesn't tell the whole story.

Edited April 17, 2012 by cyberwulf

[hope4fall2012]

I'm an international student and the thing I really liked about applying to US universities is that GPA is not the only deciding factor, especially for PhD programs. I believe that everyone of those factors that you mentioned (research, publications, experience in the industry, or connections with top professionals) plays a very important role. The competition might be higher than ever before, but I believe that excellent research or a good paper in a highly reputed journal or even a conference can offset a lower GPA. You will find a lot of people (on this forum and elsewhere) who don't have a 3.9+ GPA who have still managed to get into tier 1 schools.

I'm sure admission committees do understand that your grades might have taken a beating if you spent more time than required than research or maybe even an internship.

[child of 2]

For liberal arts majors, a high GPA is mandatory. However, the OP is in aerospace engineering. I believe like all engineering disciplines, aerospace grad programs do not focus on GPA as much as research experience and LORs. It sounded to me like GPA is becoming more and more of an excuse to weed people out, just like the GREs. That both worries me and confuses me, because very few people in engineering have a 3.9+ GPA (VERY few), and my GPA is right around 3.5, so I'm f*ked either way.

Edited April 17, 2012 by child of 2

[OregonGal]

My mind is boggled by an engineering professor saying that no one with below a 3.9 GPA should apply for grad school. I was a liberal arts major, but I was friends with engineering students at a large university with a separate school of engineering, and they told me about how their freshman courses were there to weed out the weak by giving them tests where a score of 10% was a C on the curve. Their scholarships had a lower GPA maintenance requirement than mine too because of the hard grading at that school. I've always thought that graduate programs in the hard math/sciences disciplines would be more forgiving of GPA than liberal arts/professional programs, not less.

[GradHooting]

What about things done after graduation? I was pretty much a first gen student (everyone else in my family who knew about the in's and out's about large graduate schools died or disappeared long before they could give any pointers), so I didn't know the nuances until I tried applying afterwards.

He didn't say a 3.9+ is required for any grad school, just that anything less is a serious detriment for the top schools.

[ghanada]

In many fields, this "3.9+ GPA required for admission to top places" claim is demonstrably untrue.

First of all, undergraduate institution matters a *lot*; no adcom in their right mind would take a student with a 3.95 from Random Third-Tier State U over a 3.75 from Harvard (all other aspects of the application being equal).

Second, other parts of your application can also carry a lot of weight. In some fields, research experience is key; or very strong letters; or a compelling personal statement; or standardized test scores; or grades in particular classes. It's a cliche to talk about the evaluation of applications being "holistic", but for graduate school it really is (perhaps moreso than for undergraduate admissions).

This is not to say that people with great top-line numbers aren't rejected by good (and even less-good) places, but simply to point out that GPA doesn't tell the whole story.

hmmm, I don't know if I actually agree with your first point. Your argument makes sense, but I have heard from lots of people and adcoms that the name of your undergrad doesn't really matter. Now, I am sure adcoms get a sense of what "good" GPAs are from certain schools and might take that into consideration, but overall I think 3.95 GPA from a no name school holds JUST as much weight as a 3.75 from Harvard and I don't know if all things being equal they would automatically default to the Harvard applicant. I would be inclined to think that your position in your class would be more important in these cases.

However, I completely agree with your second point. To the OP, you should know that I am going to be attending University of Michigan in the Fall for a BME PhD and I had an undergrad GPA of 2.57. I don't know if you consider UMich a "tier 1" school or not, but I think it is a pretty competitive school nonetheless. But, the thing is that I did a lot of research (5+ years), published a lot (10+ authorships), did a Masters (3.8 GPA), and got great letters from all my previous experiences. So obviously I would not have gotten in with my undergrad GPA, but you should understand that if you are passionate about making it to a great program, it is not impossible. It took A LOT of hard work--5 years from when I graduated from undergrad, but it happened. Don't count yourself out! Work hard, take some time off and improve your resume if you need to. Also, the best thing you can do for yourself is find potential advisers at these schools you want to attend and talk to them about joining their labs. When it comes down to it, if a professor has money to fund you and wants you in their lab, the school will not say no. That is the route I went.

[ktel]

I know GPA plays a role, but I don't think it's quite as extreme as you think. Although I distinctly remember sitting beside my advisor when he received an e-mail from a potential student wanting to do research with him. He scanned the GPA and the school that the student attended, and promptly deleted the e-mail. Apparently the GPA wasn't good enough and the school was also questionable in his mind (it was an international student, I believe from India)

[TakeruK]

I also noticed things that would indicate your prof is right about Tier 1 schools have their pick of applicants since so many people were applying. At the Caltech GPS open house, prospectives went around introducing themselves and their undergrad (current) schools. Out of the ~20 people present, there were about 2 of us (including me) that was not from an Ivy League / Tier 1 school! From meeting the current graduate students in the department, there is a similar fraction of people with highly ranked undergrad schools until you get to ~4th year grad students.

It could be a fluke but it did feel like in the past few years, the competition has increased? So I do agree with your prof that the top schools can be very picky. But a 3.9+/4.0 GPA probably isn't required! My GPA is strong but I don't know how it translates to a 4.0 system. But, my subject GRE was barely above the 50th percentile and my current (Canadian) school wouldn't even appear on any of the rankings list. I feel super lucky that I somehow got in!

I think your prof definitely provides one useful perspective on admissions, but not everyone necessarily thinks like him/her. When I was applying, I was told that research is the most important element, GPA and GRE should just meet some cutoff (sure it's better to be higher, but there's quickly diminishing returns). So I would say that you don't let "GPA intimidation" scare you away from applying to top programs anyways. Research fit might help you get in. That said, it would be silly (even for 3.9 GPA students) not apply to other schools as well though.

[awvvu]

Berkeley EECS: "Most successful applicants last year had GPAs above 3.7 and GRE quantitative scores above 90%."

http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Gradadm/Competition.htm

[GradHooting]

I'll be living close to some of my goal schools, so I might be able to just become a familiar face and be convincing, if having someone who is willing to fund you can help.

[nimo6211]

I don't know......I was admitted to UChicago with a 3.81 GPA. I would apply anyway. Besides, you can always apply for a waiver of the application fee. good luck with your endeavors.

[ANDS!]

These threads always make me laugh. Usually ends up with someone saying One Thing determines a grad applicants success, and then someone else comes along and says "Nope. . .its the Other Thing" that is the true measure. For what its worth I was rocking a 3.7 GPA from a pretty no-name State University (in a state that does not lack for private universities), and was accepted into a top 10 program, and three top 20 programs out of 10 applications. There are a myriad of factors that will determine a persons success; a blanket "This is what one needs" ignores the needs of the program and university of interest.

[GradHooting]

Heh, good point, ANDS!, I suppose putting so much weight on a GPA is like determining how good a digital camera is by solely looking at the # of megapixels.

[child of 2]

my laptop webcam has 0.1 megapixels. It's total crap

[Sigaba]

I have it on good authority that some departments are so concerned about grade inflation that some admissions committees are placing less and less weight on applicants' GPAs and more on the LoRs, the SOP, and the writing sample.

FWIW, as an UG at Cal, I knew a few engineering students. Their experiences were very much in line with the dynamic described in post #8, above.

Overall, I would recommend to every aspiring graduate student to not let anything or anyone deter you from applying to at least one top program. Regardless of what the statistics say, there are always going to be outliers and those who travel a route off the beaten path. Why shouldn't that person be you?

[StephanieJ]

I got into UChicago and IU with a 3.84. My GRE quant was 57%, my verbal 90%. I'm going into public policy, so it might be different. Admissions told me they were looking for "well-rounded" candidates.

[GradHooting]

He really was a bit of an outlier mentioning the 3.9+ requirement. Everyone else seemed to think I'd be just fine. Oh well, after year at NASA I'll try once more

[modnoi]

I saw this post come up in a google search a while back and I just had to respond. What the OP has stated is absolute baloney.

 

I am currently attending a top 10 (Ivy) phd program. My stats were as follows:

 

Undergrad: 3.6gpa

Graduate (MBA): 3.2

GRE: 1500 combined

Institutions: mid-tier

Work experience: Lehman Brothers, Ernst & Young, Credit Suisse (total 5 years), worked in 3 different coutries

Research: 1 paper published in respectible journal before applying (sole author)

Statement of Purpose: Honest

Personal background: African-American from a low income family

 

Now let me address the OP's statement that graduate admissions only consider a gpa over 3.9. Firstly, GPA is one piece of a complex subjective puzzle. When I was an undergrad student I worked 2 part time jobs to put myself through college. Although my family was extremely supportive, they did not have the financial means to provide me with any assistance.

 

The ability to come up with original research ideas is a skill that is completely unrelated to GPA. This is the most difficult part of the phd process. The only thing GPA indicates is a students ability to handle coursework. For those who are currently not pursuing a phd, this accounts for only a small portion of your 4-5 years. Students with perfect gpa's and test scores are a dime a dozen.

 

What admission committees are looking for are student's who are different. Individuals who stand out. I was informed after my admission that what essentially sealed it for me was the diversity of my background and potential. No matter what you may read on these forums, the only thing that will set you apart is your SOP and your optional essay. These are the only non quantitative measures of the person behind the numbers. These are weighted more heavily than anything else.

 

If you have a 3.9 GPA, then great, but what did you do to acheive that? What did you overcome? Whate ELSE did you do during your 4 years? What is your personal background? These are more imprtant then that that little two digit number on your transcript.

 

Top programs have very low gpa cut-offs for a reason. They know the value of those characteristics that cannot be represented by a figrure.

 

I could never imagine a professor in my faculty telling a student such a thing as the OP has stated. No real academic would state such a riduculous thing to a student.

 

To all those who are going through this difficult process, do not let posts such as this one get you down. Anything is acheivable, it may just take you a little longer then you would like. Good luck to all.

[TeaGirl]

It depends what you mean by tier 1. I understand it to be the top 25% colleges in a certain program, and for that you absolutely can get into plenty with a 3.6GPA. I've a 3.6GPA and got into some pretty great programs, although my major GPA is more along the lines of ~3.8.

 

If you're talking about top 5 or 10 schools like MIT, Caltech, Stanford, etc. then yes, realistically it's more difficult to get in with a lower GPA depending on where you did your undergrad (3.6 from X University ranked 100 is different from a 3.6 from Princeton for example). Just looking at the results section here on the gradcafe you can see a few people who've gotten in with lower GPAs. These programs are very competitive to start with and even a 3.8 or 3.9 doesn't guarantee admission. Way more important than the GPA will be recommendation letters, contacts either via your own professors or getting an REU at one of those schools, and of course the research experience that you have.

[DeMoomin]

I'd imagine you just need to take a look at the convenient Results Search available here to realise that your Prof's cut-off point of 3.9 is not really the case. My guess is, the higher your GPA the better. But since all universities stress that they look at the package as a whole, I'd make sure you also apply with some good extras e.g. publications, relevant internships, years of work experience, maybe a terminal Masters etc.

 

A 4.0 doesn't hurt, but having no extras is probably a bigger liability than a 3.6 GPA with extras. 

[berkeleyan]

I went to the University of Maryland, got a GPA of 3.12, and I now attend UC-Berkeley on a fellowship. I'm a white male in a PhD program in one of the sciences. I went straight from college to grad school. Anything is possible.

[Tosh]

I think the GPA thing is bullshit. If the top 10 colleges concentrate on the GPA, then they can have that 'lot'. In my perspective, such 3.9+ people, with few exceptions, are usually useless for grad school purposes, working only for a good grade. They don't have much of researching ability, to think out of the box or to take required risks. They are usually calculative, unimaginative people. Not that it's a bad thing - but engineering or science grad schools aren't for them.