Why does uGPA matter so much if you have a Master's GPA?

[Crucial BBQ]

The question is in the title.

 

While I am not there yet, the likelihood of me "having" to attend a Master's program first is high.  One thing that concerns me is that I have found some programs of interest (Ph.D.) that indicate in their FAQs or About the Program that the undergraduate GPA is still held to a higher standard than the Master's.  One program in particular specifically states that the Master's GPA can help with consideration of the Ph.D. application, but that the emphasis will still be on the uGPA.  

 

This topic has been mentioned a few times here on GradCafe, but one thing still remains a mystery:  why?  Perhaps there is something I am not realizing here other than that is just the way it is, but it does not make any sense.  This is confounded even more by the realization that the first year or two of a Ph.D. program is essentially the Master's program, right?  

 

For the record, I do not mind attending a Master's program.  My #1 choice program out of them all only offers a Master's in Marine Science.  I am asking out of curiosity because as of right now it seems so absurd. 

 

If anyone can shed some light onto this subject I would greatly appreciate it.  

[GeoDUDE!]

Because graduate classes are super easy, since graduate students are supposed to do research. In undergrad, your job is to get good grades (sorta), where as in graduate school you are expected to get good enough grades. 

[shadowclaw]

I wish the quote button would work for me...

 

@GeoDUDE... I have to disagree with you on your statement that graduate classes are super easy. I suppose they are easier to do well in than say a first year biology sequence, which a student goes into with little knowledge and is basically forced to memorize vast quantities of information. When you get to upper level and graduate courses, that element of memorization is gone and it's more about building on your existing knowledge base and integrating new ideas. There's less slaving over notes and textbooks and more critical thinking. However, I wouldn't say that they are super easy. I've taken graduate courses that were very similar in structure and workload as senior level courses, and I've also had courses where the workload was quite intense, especially when considering that there were other courses plus research and TA duties to attend to. Sometimes I think grad school is a test to see if you have good time management skills.

[essequamvideri]

Grad classes aren't necessarily super easy, but the average is definitely skewed towards the higher range (i.e., getting a B is similar to getting a C or D in undergrad). Committees realize this and don't give the GPAs the same weight.

[Catria]

Grad classes aren't necessarily super easy, but the average is definitely skewed towards the higher range (i.e., getting a B is similar to getting a C or D in undergrad). Committees realize this and don't give the GPAs the same weight.

 

For this reason they pretty much expect a higher graduate GPA vs. undergraduate GPA if there is a graduate GPA...

[shadowclaw]

While I agree that the average grade for a grad class is skewed towards the higher end, I don't think it's because classes are easy. It's because there's a different caliber of student taking the class.

Also, a B is not the equivalent of a C or D in all cases. There is a discussion about this in the officially grads forum I think. Basically, the consensus was that a B is the kiss of death for a grad student in a subject such as literature. For the sciences, however, a B is a B. As someone put it, straight A's mean that you're not spending enough time in the lab.

Regardless of the easiness of grad courses or how an adcomm views a grad GPA vs an undergrad GPA, I do find it irritating that some (or all) grad programs would put such an emphasis on the undergrad experience. As Crucial BBQ noted, a masters is in many ways similar to the first two years of a PhD program. So by having a high grad GPA and doing a thesis (which should lead to publications), one should essentially be proving to the adcomm that they are capable of being a productive and successful grad student.

[GeoDUDE!]

I got a 3.05 in undergrad and studied some. I got a 3.85 (3.7 at time of application) for my masters and didn't study a lick. That was over 9 classes, including graduate level analysis (where I was the only non math graduate student), advanced field geology (where I hadn't taken even intro geology), and quite a few statistics and geophysics courses.

 

Perhaps its field based, or perhaps my undergraduate preparation was much better than it appears from my GPA.   It's entirely possible.  But the point of a graduate student isn't to get As in their classes, its to get research done. My classes in my PhD Program (I have to take 6, because almost every top program in my field doesnt let masters classes count towards phd if you did it at another school) have been easy as well. Read a paper, give a presentation. No tests. No problem sets. The goal is to get familiarized with the relevant literature. 

 

No one cares about your GPA in graduate school, they just want you to pass quals and get your research done. I got into PhD programs on the strength of my thesis, if there was no thesis, but i had a 4.0 masters gpa, no one would have even looked at me.  Sure, it was probably nice for them to see me mostly get As, but its not like i put in any more effort (and actually less). I spent less than 10 hours a week on my own classes (when taking 2-3). 

Edited November 22, 2014 by GeoDUDE!

[Catria]

While I agree that the average grade for a grad class is skewed towards the higher end, I don't think it's because classes are easy. It's because there's a different caliber of student taking the class.

Also, a B is not the equivalent of a C or D in all cases. There is a discussion about this in the officially grads forum I think. Basically, the consensus was that a B is the kiss of death for a grad student in a subject such as literature. For the sciences, however, a B is a B. As someone put it, straight A's mean that you're not spending enough time in the lab.

Regardless of the easiness of grad courses or how an adcomm views a grad GPA vs an undergrad GPA, I do find it irritating that some (or all) grad programs would put such an emphasis on the undergrad experience. As Crucial BBQ noted, a masters is in many ways similar to the first two years of a PhD program. So by having a high grad GPA and doing a thesis (which should lead to publications), one should essentially be proving to the adcomm that they are capable of being a productive and successful grad student.

 

Are there some internal fellowships that require you to maintain a certain GPA to keep? For some students, not getting straight As can mean the end of their funding...

[shadowclaw]

Perhaps its field based, or perhaps my undergraduate preparation was much better than it appears from my GPA.   It's entirely possible.  But the point of a graduate student isn't to get As in their classes, its to get research done. My classes in my PhD Program (I have to take 6, because almost every top program in my field doesnt let masters classes count towards phd if you did it at another school) have been easy as well. Read a paper, give a presentation. No tests. No problem sets. The goal is to get familiarized with the relevant literature. 

 

That sounds absolutely wonderful. I have yet to take a graduate class without any tests. I've read plenty of papers, written plenty of papers, and given plenty of presentations, but I haven't escaped test taking yet.

 

Are there some internal fellowships that require you to maintain a certain GPA to keep? For some students, not getting straight As can mean the end of their funding...

 

I honestly cannot say I have a definite answer for this. I've looked at several fellowships at schools that I am applying to, and the only requirements I've seen are to remain in good standing with the program (which means maintaining a 3.0+ and being registered for x amount of credits each semester, and in some cases not getting less than a B in more than one class). Obviously there could be fellowships with higher standards, but I don't think requiring a student to maintain a 4.0 would be  a smart move. As GeoDUDE said, the point of graduate school is to do research, and having that stringent of a requirement on grades would be counterproductive.

[columbia09]

I don't know if grad school classes are easier. My TAs always complain about some of their grad classes that are ridiculous. This is in geology by the way

[bsharpe269]

My grad classes are at least as hard as my undergrad ones. Every grad class I have taken has had lots of tests, weekly problem sets, etc.

[jujubea]

I was told by admissions decision makers that my graduate GPA would definitely help my application - and I wasn't even in a degree program.

[ilovelab]

It depends on the department honestly. The few grad courses (stem cell bio/Advanced Human Genetics/Cell Biology/Developmental Biology) I took as an undergrad I can say were harder than my undergrad courses. Mainly b/c you had to figure out everything on your own. There were no OH, no TA's. Some classes the entire grad was based on a final paper. So it really varies by institution and department.