Weak freshman grades?

[ProspectStu8735]

I graduated from an Ivy with an average GPA, though I had very strong performance in my last couple of years.  I also took a lot of higher level courses and did exceptionally well in them.

 

A few more details:

 

I have very strong GREs (97th percentile verbal, also very strong in other sections), glowing letters of recommendation from well-known profs and several years of research experience.  I am worried that my weak earlier performance will hold me back from consideration at top 10 programs.  Do you guys have any thoughts?

[Bearcat1]

Your GRE scores are really, really good, and if you finished strong, I think your chances are really good. From what I've heard (from professors) they are mostly concerned with your major grades and the last two years. Getting a D in some kind of required math or science course isn't going to hurt you. And you've done great things since then, so you've shown that you're capable of more than your freshman grades show. And, like everyone says, your letters of rec and writing sample count for much more than the numbers.

[runaway]

A few applications actually ask for your GPA recalculated to include only your final two years, so you'll be fine.

[ProspectStu8735]

Thanks guys! I suppose the informal 3.5 gpa cutoffs have got me pretty worried, especially given that I have a humanities degree from a university known to have pretty heavy grade inflation. I was in the top 25% of my major class, but missed honors on a technicality. Alas.

If I get into a PhD program, that'll make up for it!

[losemygrip]

You went to Yale. They're not going to care about the GPA.

[auvers-sur-oise]

^^ not accurate.

You were admitted to a very prestigious institution... when you were 18. What you did for the four years following matters.

That said, I agree that your application overall is strong and that your weak freshman grades won't be held against you. I just disagree with losemygrip's assertion that where you went to school wholly trumps what you accomplished there.

[losemygrip]

^^ not accurate.

You were admitted to a very prestigious institution... when you were 18. What you did for the four years following matters.

That said, I agree that your application overall is strong and that your weak freshman grades won't be held against you. I just disagree with losemygrip's assertion that where you went to school wholly trumps what you accomplished there.

Let me elaborate.

You went to Yale. They're not going to care about the 3.4 GPA.

[auvers-sur-oise]

Adcomms get grade inflation better than anyone, and you're talking about a school where the median GPA is 3.6+, including the hard sciences. 3.4 in ARTH is going to be a red flag.

That said, I still think you're a very strong candidate! Just picking on losemygrip cause s/he's wrong.

Edited November 21, 2012 by auvers-sur-oise

[losemygrip]

Au contraire, auvers-sur-oise. 'Tis thee who art wrong.

Unless you're talking about another Ivy League institution, where they get many Ivy League applicants, your 3.4 at Yale is going to be more respected than a 4.0 at Eastern Connecticut. For better or worse, the Ivy League degree still carries a cachet. I'm going to pull rank here and remind everyone I'm speaking from 20+ years experience in the field.

Don't worry about the GPA.

[loubun85]

If you graduated six years ago and have been working in an art-related field the entire time, would your undergraduate GPA matter as much? I'm asking for myself...Thanks!

[ProspectStu8735]

Thanks auvers-sur-oise and losemygrip. Very reassuring, both.

I find it strange that the brand of the school carries so much weight in the admissions process, regardless if its simply that, "the weak freshman grades won't be held against you" or that admissions committees won't be alarmed in the least by a 3.4 from Yale. I would suppose, at any rate, that these biases among committee members occur with even greater frequency in instances where an upward trend accompanies the lower overall GPA from a top 3 UG institution. My case presents a comically exponential spread: below 3.0 to above 4.0.

We seem to have achieved consensus that a disproportionate amount of attention is allotted to graduates of particularly flashy name brand institution. Is it possible, then, to articulate why this particular custom of elite bias is perpetuated? It seems in making an adequate assessment we'd need to particularize the types of departments in which this bias is displayed. For instance, Losemygrip asserts that:

"Unless you're talking about another Ivy League institution, where they get many Ivy League applicants, your 3.4 at Yale is going to be more respected than a 4.0 at Eastern Connecticut," implying that at the top everything tends to flatten out.

It seems to me that if a student has had adequate training as an art historian at the undergraduate level -- which I'd assess as exposure to the most essential art historical and philosophical texts -- then the name of the school should be of minor consequence, if considered independent of other factors weighing in the assessment of academic preparedness for research. (Aside: My off the cuff list of essential texts would be Plato, Vasari, Winkelmann, Panofsky, Sasseur, Kubler, Krauss, TJ Clark, the "Bergs" --and-- Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault, Weber, Freud, toss in Sartre, Levi-Strauss, Spivak or Frankfurt School, if you will.). I obviously only have my own experience, but I was under the impression that down through the middle tier of schools students were getting essentially the same education in critical texts. This assumption owes in part to the very bias that the present inquiry interrogates: faculty hires at state or lower ranked institutions frequently hail from same 5 art history PhDs: Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia and, with greater variation, Princeton/NYU/Chicago. These graduates, having attained an education similar to the one outlined above, would presumably devise syllabi similar to the ones through which they attained their expertise. (I realize Berkeley is technically a state school but for all intents and purposes...)

[auvers-sur-oise]

"We seem to have achieved consensus that a disproportionate amount of attention is allotted to graduates of particularly flashy name brand institution."

I don't think that's necessarily true, and that's where I disagree with losemygrip. S/he claims, "You went to Yale. They're not going to care about the GPA," but that's overly reductive. Adcomms care about GPA, and if you had a steady 3.4 average for all four years, Yale or not, that would be a red flag. Adcomms care about where you went to school, but look at the current graduate students at the top schools you mentioned, and look at their undergraduate backgrounds. You're going to find as many strong mid-level UG institutions as Ivies.

I don't have 20+ years experience in ARTH. I worked in the private sector for years before circling back to Art History, and I will tell you that outside of academia, the list of name brand institutions runs much deeper - Duke, WashU, Rice, Notre Dame, Georgetown, USC, UCLA, UNC... all major draws for employers. Are you on an adcomm, losemygrip? It would be good to know what program to avoid, although I suppose I will be able to tell from my "'Tis thee who art ..." decision letter.

Also, "faculty hires at state or lower ranked institutions frequently hail from same 5 art history PhDs: Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia and, with greater variation, Princeton/NYU/Chicago" - is exactly why users on this board who want to become professors and are weighing one mid-level PhD program against another should pack it up and try something else.

Edited November 23, 2012 by auvers-sur-oise

[asdf123]

I'll pipe up and back auvers here -- I have plenty of friends in the top 5 PhD programs who did not come from ivy undergraduate institutions -- but all did distinguish themselves (no matter where they went) by doing precisely what you've said, ProspectStu... reading voraciously at a graduate level and producing graduate-level scholarship. I'd say you're on the right track.

I've been following these boards sporadically over the past two (or so) years, and losemygrip has consistently trolled around espousing dated, conservative, and (at times) very misogynistic "advice" -- so take what he says with a grain of salt.

Edited November 26, 2012 by asdf123

[losemygrip]

Well, this discussion has taken an unfortunate turn. My argument was limited to the specifics of the OP's question. The 3.4 GPA (still quite respectable in any case) at Yale will be more respected by admissions committees than a 4.0 at Eastern Connecticut University. I did NOT argue that one had to have an Ivy-League degree to get in a major program. Asdf123, are you actually suggesting that I made such a claim? If so, please direct me to the text. I believe you imagined this, as I believe you also imagined this strange idea that I have "consistently trolled around espousing dated, conservative, and (at times) very misogynistic 'advice'..." I'm particularly interested in what you have found misogynistic in anything I have stated here. Unless you're able to back up this claim, I believe that you alone can claim the title of "troll" for your abrupt, unfounded, personal attack.

Auvers, you're correct that my statement was "overly reductive." It was purposely reductive in an attempt to be humorous. That seems to have been lost on folks here. Sorry. I actually agree with most of your response above. People from a variety of undergraduate programs can still "make it" in a good grad school. But that was well beyond the scope of my response, which, as I just noted, was about the OP's specific situation only. I don't know why people are insisting on reading more into my brief responses than was actually there (and insisting on getting all angry about it as well).

Finally, I'm confused by Auvers's sudden interjection of:

Also, "faculty hires at state or lower ranked institutions frequently hail from same 5 art history PhDs: Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia and, with greater variation, Princeton/NYU/Chicago" - is exactly why users on this board who want to become professors and are weighing one mid-level PhD program against another should pack it up and try something else.

Hold it. This is something that ProspectStu wrote. It is demonstrably false. Just look at the faculty listings in the CAA handbook of graduate programs. And that doesn't even cover the many programs without graduate degrees. You will see a huge variety of grad programs represented in art history faculties as such schools. It is much more true of large, famous, art history departments that they only hire from OTHER large, famous art history departments. But you seem to be saying that mid-level PhD programs are worthless, which seems to contradict your initial argument. (Even though you have broadly extended the list of "name-brand institutions"--all excellent, well-respected programs, and ones that I would have never argued are NOT name-brand, except Rice, because it's so new it hasn't had much time to develop a reputation.) On the one hand, you seem to be arguing that I'm too snobby about non-Ivy programs, and then on the other you're saying it's pointless to attend a "mid-level PhD program." Huh?

[kunstgeschichtedude]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjm4n4umw1rn1xxfo1_400.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.ranker.com/list/the-best-popcorn-gifs-on-the-internet/michael-gibson&h=210&w=275&sz=221&tbnid=Ye0oX3pYVOFmCM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=118&prev=/search%3Fq%3Deating%2Bpopcorn%2Bgif%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=eating+popcorn+gif&usg=__pitVlsJRhvMfg_HTQQQ4ygH1HZk=&docid=4AzaBK53SwPefM&sa=X&ei=_ty2UICgMsrj0QGW1YGgBQ&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAw&dur=550

[auvers-sur-oise]

http://i.imgur.com/W2keG.gif

[arthistoryvoe2]

From 10 years of experience on admissions at one of the abovenamed institutions, I can say this: the problem with grades as a factor is that you can't tell whether the person who got a 4.0 at Eastern Connecticut would have gotten a 4.0 at Yale or a 3.4 at Yale. That's why the writing sample and statement of purpose are much more decisive for both of these hypothetical candidates.

Yes, the 4.0 at Yale will get you noticed, but most successful applicants don't have that - and it still needs to be backed up with the other, more important documents.

[poliscar]

If you're coming equipped with references from Armstrong/Joselit/Wood/etc & a senior paper/Yale graduate seminar paper as a writing sample you should be more than fine. GPA is fairly negligible portion of the application, so I wouldn't worry.

In addition, it's not so much the brand name of the school as it is the professors within that school's department. As you've more or less insinuated, the field is fairly small, especially, for example, if you're looking at Modern/Contemporary. The reality is that the vast majority of scholars at top schools are going from have some sort of link to either the October crowd or T.J. Clark/Anne Wagner (throw in W.J.T. Mitchell, Crow, Nochlin, etc as you wish). I'm not as familiar with Early Modern/Medieval/Classical/Asian scholarship, but I'd imagine that the same applies to some degree. Yes, it seems somewhat incestuous, but since you've presumably worked with professors from those circles you have a head start.