Weaker the second time arround

[structuralBio]

So having not gotten into any graduate school I need to apply again next year, the problem is that I think I have messed up my last semester. I haven't gotten my grades back but I think I will get my first C and everything else will be a B. That's not horrible, but my GPA will drop from a 3.78 to probably a 3.67. Its not that my final GPA will be that bad, but do I need to worry that school are going to look at my application and see that I messed up at the end? How will I fare given that I didn't get in anywhere and now I will be an even weaker candidate the second time around (assuming I don't get a research job for the interim period, which is looking less and less likely? I'm worried.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I don't think your 3.78 was the reason you didn't get in this time around. There were probably other glaring weaknesses in your application for you to have been rejected by all schools. I think you should be more concerned about correcting whatever weaknesses got you rejected than your GPA dropping to a 3.67. You did NOT get rejected because of your GPA. 

[Vene]

I really don't think a 3.67 will mean anything. It's a high GPA. Factors like LOR, your personal statement, and research/work history will mean more.

Edit: I remember you now, you made a post a little while back about your lack of success getting into a program. Here's what comes to my mind. So far, I've gotten the impression that you are very much capable. There is no good academic reason to deny you an admission. But, I do get the impression from your posts that you don't believe you are actually good enough. Granted, this is just from text posts on a message board, but that's what I'm feeling over here. If you're not confident in your abilities, I imagine that the professors who interviewed you left thinking you were a weaker candidate than you really are. You have a good GPA from a respected university and you have strong research credentials, try again next year and hopefully your luck turns around.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Vene

[structuralBio]

thanks guys, yeah I do genuinely think I lacked confidence in the interviews and it showed, and also most importantly I think my research interests didnt overlap well enough with the people I was interviewing with. I just wanted to set my mind ease that my bad last semester wasn't going to really hurt me.

[Crucial BBQ]

So having not gotten into any graduate school I need to apply again next year, the problem is that I think I have messed up my last semester. I haven't gotten my grades back but I think I will get my first C and everything else will be a B. That's not horrible, but my GPA will drop from a 3.78 to probably a 3.67. Its not that my final GPA will be that bad, but do I need to worry that school are going to look at my application and see that I messed up at the end? How will I fare given that I didn't get in anywhere and now I will be an even weaker candidate the second time around (assuming I don't get a research job for the interim period, which is looking less and less likely? I'm worried.

I asked two of the programs where I was denied the areas in my application where I was deficient.  Both programs stated that it was my low grades earned in a few introductory-level courses that were the main cause. I thought that my grades in upper-level courses showed an upward swing (they did) and that programs love to see this.  I was wrong.  One program said that since I did not explain those low grades in my SOP they had no idea why they were so low.  Had I given an explanation I might have been admitted as a Master's student. Cs might get degrees, but apparently they do not get into graduate school.  

 

I contemplated including an addendum to my SOP explaining those low grades but in the end assumed that my grades during my last 60 hours would speak for themselves and my CV would illustrate how busy I was during undergrad.  The reason why I ultimately decided against mentioning my low grades was because I felt that I did not have a valid explanation and would appear to be whiny and grasping at straws.  Now, after discussing my application with those two programs, I realize that it was mistake to not mention the reasons.  

 

My advice to you would be to not make that same mistake.  

[Dedi]

I asked two of the programs where I was denied the areas in my application where I was deficient.  Both programs stated that it was my low grades earned in a few introductory-level courses that were the main cause. I thought that my grades in upper-level courses showed an upward swing (they did) and that programs love to see this.  I was wrong.  One program said that since I did not explain those low grades in my SOP they had no idea why they were so low.  Had I given an explanation I might have been admitted as a Master's student. Cs might get degrees, but apparently they do not get into graduate school.  

 

I contemplated including an addendum to my SOP explaining those low grades but in the end assumed that my grades during my last 60 hours would speak for themselves and my CV would illustrate how busy I was during undergrad.  The reason why I ultimately decided against mentioning my low grades was because I felt that I did not have a valid explanation and would appear to be whiny and grasping at straws.  Now, after discussing my application with those two programs, I realize that it was mistake to not mention the reasons.  

 

My advice to you would be to not make that same mistake.  

 

That is good advice. I wasn't sure if I should explain my low grades in my first year (it was an adjustment problem). I am allowed a page or less for the bio program I want to apply to, but I have a little more flexibility for the psych program. My POI understands, but the admissions committee may not. Would it be a good idea if I explained my low grades in my psych SOP but not the bio (especially since my POI will be more involved with the bio application)?

[rvict]

Low grades in intro courses is a pretty weak reason to reject someone. They're basically saying that another student(s) had your exact same profile, but an A instead of a C in some 1st year courses (that, by nature, are either irrelevant or are continually reinforced/required for upper-level courses). Or they're saying that they put a lot of weight on 1st year courses. Sounds like they're just looking for a concrete reason to give you for rejection. Everybody's told they're 2nd place. Interesting that 2 programs mentioned the same reason, though; maybe I'm wrong.

 

My main reason to post, though, is to remind people who may find this topic via Google to not to restrict themselves to the "official" documents. I had some schools that only allowed me to upload a single SoP document. Didn't stop me putting an addendum in to emphasize my strengths in areas that were not addressed in the word-limited boxes on some of the applications, or that were not appropriate for a SoP. I'd be surprised if any candidate could give an accurate picture of their suitability with some of the terrible application processes... If you reference the addenda in your SoP, you increase the chance of somebody reading it.

 

I would personally consider something to the effect of "my first year grades are bad because I was adjusting to univ life; plz consider my strong upward trend (as demonstrated by a x.xx gpa over x period) and a x.xx gpa for core courses as evidence of my academic suitability for graduate studies"  to be sufficient. It's not a perfect reason, but unless you have a legit excuse (parents died, illness), you're best off putting it on the table and trying to distract the ad comm with proof of academic excellence outside of a few bad 1st year courses. This goes for anything negative; always always always explain how you overcame it or how it's not an issue. This is something I see posted here often, but in both my academic and professional life, I see so many people leave Bad Things unadorned on a CV/resume/SoP/whatever.

You are losing points by addressing anything negative, but sometimes you are forced to, such as with your transcript. Your task is damage control. It's like the "what is your biggest weakness?" interview question; you can't win on the actual answer, but you claw back ground by explaining how you cope with/are learning to overcome/mitigate the weakness. That is, in fact, the reason many interviewers ask it. "I [bombed] Calc I and was not happy with the grade; my critical analysis of the outcome led me to take a university skills course, because I was comfortable with the basics of calculus, but was mismanaging my time on assignments and exams. I incorporated skills learned from this course, and passed Calc II and III with an A and A+, respectively. All of my courses since the 1st year were calculus-based, and my very high grades demonstrate my mastery of Calc I/II/III principles and my suitability for advanced studies of [whatever]."

Edited April 28, 2014 by rvict

[structuralBio]

Well, for me thats not the problem. I did very well in my intro classes, its more a question of whether having a bad last semester will really hurt me

[maelia8]

But are the classes you're struggling with right now (in your last semester) core classes required for your major, or requirements that you're just trying to get out of the way at the last minute? It seems to me like that could make a big difference when the grad admission committees are considering your application.

[spectastic]

I agree with probing for reasons on the rejection. ask nicely.