2016 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results

[Edotdl]

For those applying to UCSF BMS I heard that interview invites should be sent by Dec 18.

[mirrormethods]

Hi everyone,

I worry a lot because my app is very different from most people's on here. I have multiple first author publications / other publications and perfect GREs. I'm also a domestic biochem major at small top 10 US university (~top 5 bio program) where there is significant grade deflation and competition. Because of this, my GPA is a 3.3, and in freshman year I failed a big intro science course and had to retake it. (So that F doesn't even factor into the GPA)

I often hear and/or see that a lot of graduate schools are "blind" to your institution's prestige. To be honest, it frustrates me to see how almost every other applicant has a 3.9 from a "big state school". I wish I had gone to a school where the average SAT score was like only 2000 or something and the students aren't as good at jumping through the academic hoops as they are at elite school, and just, statistically speaking, it would be a lot easier to get A's. (No offence to you guys, you did the smart thing) I feel as though going to an elite undergrad institution screws you over in science and ends up counting for nothing in graduate admissions. Is there any hope for me?

[laxgoal100]

3 minutes ago, mirrormethods said:

Hi everyone,

I worry a lot because my app is very different from most people's on here. I have multiple first author publications / other publications and perfect GREs.

you'll be fine

[Bioenchilada]

12 minutes ago, mirrormethods said:

Hi everyone,

I worry a lot because my app is very different from most people's on here. I have multiple first author publications / other publications and perfect GREs. I'm also a domestic biochem major at small top 10 US university (~top 5 bio program) where there is significant grade deflation and competition. Because of this, my GPA is a 3.3, and in freshman year I failed a big intro science course and had to retake it. (So that F doesn't even factor into the GPA)

I often hear and/or see that a lot of graduate schools are "blind" to your institution's prestige. To be honest, it frustrates me to see how almost every other applicant has a 3.9 from a "big state school". I wish I had gone to a school where the average SAT score was like only 2000 or something and the students aren't as good at jumping through the academic hoops as they are at elite school, and just, statistically speaking, it would be a lot easier to get A's. (No offence to you guys, you did the smart thing) I feel as though going to an elite undergrad institution screws you over in science and ends up counting for nothing in graduate admissions. Is there any hope for me?

Your post sounds incredibly pretentious, I really can't take you seriously. A lot of top school have massive amounts of grade inflation, so I don't see the point in you expressing yourself in this regard. In fact, a lot of "big state schools" have grade deflation, making it more difficult to get an A.  

In any case, if your post is in fact real and you're legitimately concerned, I think that the rest of your alleged merits should compensate for your "low" GPA. Of course, this is assuming your attitude is not reflected on your personal statement.

(Also, I don't think the graduate admissions process is as prestige-blind as you think.)

[mirrormethods]

29 minutes ago, Bioenchilada said:

Your post sounds incredibly pretentious, I really can't take you seriously. A lot of top school have massive amounts of grade inflation, so I don't see the point in you expressing yourself in this regard. In fact, a lot of "big state schools" have grade deflation, making it more difficult to get an A. 

Lol, I'm sorry it came off that way. Meh. Yeah, some top schools do have grade inflation, but, the 25th percentile of students at schools like H.Y.P. are, statistically speaking, going to be at least the 75th percentile at most larger state schools. I'm not saying they're better future scientists, but merely that they're better at studying for and getting the grades that go into the GPA, and that a student at one of these schools with a 25th percentile GPA would have a 75th percentile GPA at a large state school. We simply know this from the SAT and high school GPA statistics of attendees to both types of schools.

This might even things out if like, Harvard has huge grade inflation and the average GPA is like a 3.6 and the ranked 50 school has an average GPA of 3.0, but that's not nearly always true. Seems like a shame that at a large extent, committees don't really consider the huge influence of context on GPA, and honestly, I feel like it's a topic that nobody ever addresses because they're afraid of seeming elitist. I'm not disparaging anybody or any schools (I reccommend to younger sibilings of friends to aim for a large state school with some top profs in whatever they're interested in), just saying that there's basic statistics which, officially speaking, admissions committees don't really take into account, pushing a lot of good people out of science. I know more people who simply aren't applying because of similar situations.

Edited December 6, 2015 by mirrormethods

[Gram Neutral]

Lol. Assuming there are no good public schools. Good one. 

[ilovelab]

5 minutes ago, mirrormethods said:

Lol, I'm sorry it came off that way. Meh. Yeah, some top schools do have grade inflation, but, the 25th percentile of students at schools like H.Y.P. are, statistically speaking, going to be at least the 75th percentile at most larger state schools. I'm not saying they're better future scientists, but merely that they're better at studying for and getting the grades that go into the GPA, and that a student at one of these schools with a 25th percentile GPA would have a 75th percentile GPA at a large state school. We simply know this from the SAT and high school GPA statistics of attendees to both types of schools.

No..... Just No. I don't know what you consider "larger state schools" but I guarantee you that the 25th percentile of HYP students are NOT 75th percentile at my alma mater UCLA. There are as many  smart people at both schools as there are rich entitled morons. 

[Gram Neutral]

33 minutes ago, mirrormethods said:

admissions committees don't really take into account, pushing a lot of good people out of science. I know more people who simply aren't applying because of similar situations.

If they are not applying to graduate school because they have a 3.0 GPA from Harvard or whatever, then they probably aren't actually that interested in going to graduate school. Tons of kids get into graduate school with lower GPAs, and they get into all types of graduate schools. If they quit that easily, then I'm sure the admissions board would pick up on that during an interview anyway. 

[Bioenchilada]

41 minutes ago, mirrormethods said:

Lol, I'm sorry it came off that way. Meh. Yeah, some top schools do have grade inflation, but, the 25th percentile of students at schools like H.Y.P. are, statistically speaking, going to be at least the 75th percentile at most larger state schools. I'm not saying they're better future scientists, but merely that they're better at studying for and getting the grades that go into the GPA, and that a student at one of these schools with a 25th percentile GPA would have a 75th percentile GPA at a large state school. We simply know this from the SAT and high school GPA statistics of attendees to both types of schools.

This might even things out if like, Harvard has huge grade inflation and the average GPA is like a 3.6 and the ranked 50 school has an average GPA of 3.0, but that's not nearly always true. Seems like a shame that at a large extent, committees don't really consider the huge influence of context on GPA, and honestly, I feel like it's a topic that nobody ever addresses because they're afraid of seeming elitist. I'm not disparaging anybody or any schools (I reccommend to younger sibilings of friends to aim for a large state school with some top profs in whatever they're interested in), just saying that there's basic statistics which, officially speaking, admissions committees don't really take into account, pushing a lot of good people out of science. I know more people who simply aren't applying because of similar situations.

The thing is adcoms actually do consider where you come from! Regardless, I would really like to know where you're getting these statistics from because this all sounds like bs to me. 

Besides, why are you complaining?! Going to a top 10 schools already gives you a lot of privilege.

[Edotdl]

27 minutes ago, mirrormethods said:

...honestly, I feel like it's a topic that nobody ever addresses because they're afraid of seeming elitist.

Although I don't necessarily agree with some of the other things you wrote, I feel like there is some essence of truth here. It is difficult to compare GPAs from two different schools let alone infer what they say about their respective students. However, I believe most people would believe that getting a perfect GPA at MIT is likely harder than at <insert large state school>. That being said, it really bothers me when people claim that they're getting a 3.2 because they go to an elite school and there's grade deflation and they could go to a state school and get a 4.0. Besides the problem of generalizing all state schools, I believe most people magnify the difference in grading. Additionally, instead of thinking about how much your GPA would rise if you went to an easier school, we can think about the converse. Do you think it's likely that your GPA will drop by 0.8 if you transfer from a state school to a top school? Well I was in that position and I thought about it a lot, since as you mention it is a big deal to grad school applications. Result? It dropped by 0.06. This may be a bit unique but the other people I know who transferred from state schools and even community colleges only dropped by around 0.5. Also worth mentioning is the law of diminishing returns with grades. In my opinion a drop from 4.0->3.5 is very different than a 3.5->3.0 since the work required to get from one to the other is not the same in the two cases, generally.

[Edotdl]

2 minutes ago, Bioenchilada said:

The thing is adcoms actually do consider where you come from! Regardless, I would really like to know where you're getting these statistics from because this all sounds like bs to me. 

Besides, why are you complaining?! Going to a top 10 schools already gives you a lot of privilege.

Another thing to note. Schools will have some idea of the grading situation at your school (if it's reasonably well known) either from other applications that season or from previous years. If they see that everyone applying from the school has a 3.8+ then they'll expect that but if, as you said, there's massive grade deflation and everyone has a 3.3 then I'm sure they'll find that acceptable too.

[jaesango]

3 hours ago, mirrormethods said:

Lol, I'm sorry it came off that way. Meh. Yeah, some top schools do have grade inflation, but, the 25th percentile of students at schools like H.Y.P. are, statistically speaking, going to be at least the 75th percentile at most larger state schools. I'm not saying they're better future scientists, but merely that they're better at studying for and getting the grades that go into the GPA, and that a student at one of these schools with a 25th percentile GPA would have a 75th percentile GPA at a large state school. We simply know this from the SAT and high school GPA statistics of attendees to both types of schools.

This might even things out if like, Harvard has huge grade inflation and the average GPA is like a 3.6 and the ranked 50 school has an average GPA of 3.0, but that's not nearly always true. Seems like a shame that at a large extent, committees don't really consider the huge influence of context on GPA, and honestly, I feel like it's a topic that nobody ever addresses because they're afraid of seeming elitist. I'm not disparaging anybody or any schools (I reccommend to younger sibilings of friends to aim for a large state school with some top profs in whatever they're interested in), just saying that there's basic statistics which, officially speaking, admissions committees don't really take into account, pushing a lot of good people out of science. I know more people who simply aren't applying because of similar situations.

Context does matter, and if you are coming from a top undergrad institution it's very likely there are knowledgeable people on the admissions committee from past experience. Moreover, I think your research experience is fabulous and makes you a good fit for top programs. (I'm also from a top undergrad program too with slightly better grades, but my research experience is nowhere near yours)

3 hours ago, ilovelab said:

No..... Just No. I don't know what you consider "larger state schools" but I guarantee you that the 25th percentile of HYP students are NOT 75th percentile at my alma mater UCLA. There are as many  smart people at both schools as there are rich entitled morons. 

I'm not sure the 25th vs 75th percentile comparison is relevant since private schools are only a fraction the size of public schools. But you're right that there are lots of smart people at state schools, I know several incredible scientists who did their undergrad at UCLA (including a G2 at Harvard MCO!). 

Edited December 6, 2015 by jaesango

[biochemgirl67]

13 hours ago, Edotdl said:

For those applying to UCSF BMS I heard that interview invites should be sent by Dec 18.

Where did you hear this from?

[biochemgirl67]

11 hours ago, mirrormethods said:

Lol, I'm sorry it came off that way. Meh. Yeah, some top schools do have grade inflation, but, the 25th percentile of students at schools like H.Y.P. are, statistically speaking, going to be at least the 75th percentile at most larger state schools. I'm not saying they're better future scientists, but merely that they're better at studying for and getting the grades that go into the GPA, and that a student at one of these schools with a 25th percentile GPA would have a 75th percentile GPA at a large state school. We simply know this from the SAT and high school GPA statistics of attendees to both types of schools.

This might even things out if like, Harvard has huge grade inflation and the average GPA is like a 3.6 and the ranked 50 school has an average GPA of 3.0, but that's not nearly always true. Seems like a shame that at a large extent, committees don't really consider the huge influence of context on GPA, and honestly, I feel like it's a topic that nobody ever addresses because they're afraid of seeming elitist. I'm not disparaging anybody or any schools (I reccommend to younger sibilings of friends to aim for a large state school with some top profs in whatever they're interested in), just saying that there's basic statistics which, officially speaking, admissions committees don't really take into account, pushing a lot of good people out of science. I know more people who simply aren't applying because of similar situations.

Regardless, you DO come across as pouty.  Of course adcoms take into account the prestige to some degree.  But my friends from Harvard all have great grades and research and didn't feel the way you do.  It is difficult to get good grades everywhere.  Big state schools can use real curves a lot, which makes it hard.  I would probably caution you against saying your application is different than everyone else's... Because of your school.  Adcoms don't push you out of science, they accept you if you are a good fit.  Maybe you could have applied to a wide variety of schools if you felt the top programs care about your GPA as a #1 priority.  Either way, good luck on hearing back.  Just my 2 cents from a state school girl who didn't have to compete with my dull colleagues who couldn't jump through the hoops of college.

[Gram Neutral]

Just now, StrongTackleBacarySagna said:

And here I was worrying that my state school (as in, "Blank State University")'s lack of prestige was going to keep me out of places unless I was perfect across the board...

I'm surprised we were even able to figure out how to graduate. 

[StrongTackleBacarySagna]

Just now, Gram Neutral said:

I'm surprised we were even able to figure out how to graduate. 

Dude to be fair. I did literally miss the deadline to apply to graduate and had to exploit some loophole to save myself...

[Gram Neutral]

Just now, StrongTackleBacarySagna said:

Dude to be fair. I did literally miss the deadline to apply to graduate and had to exploit some loophole to save myself...

Shhhh, you're ruining the illusion!

[biosci]

I think that the important thing to remember is that every undergraduate school has its advantages and disadvantages, and there are many reasons to choose which college to go to besides prestige and SAT scores/high school GPA - reasons including cost, size, location, etc. For example, I chose to go to a small liberal arts school close to home for all of these reasons.  My school isn't well known nationally or anything but it has been a great fit for me and I have had to work hard for my grades.  I am sure that grade deflation and inflation are real issues, but I don't think that a 4.0 from an Ivy should be valued more than a 4.0 from my school just because it's from an Ivy.  Yes, I assume it can be hard for ad-coms to compare GPAs if they don't know the schools, but if you are from a well-known school they probably know if your school has grade deflation.  Besides, GPA is only one part of the application and, from what I have heard, your research experience matters more.  Coming from a prestigious school, you likely have more opportunities for cutting-edge research.  

Regardless, all of this trying to compare schools is besides the point.  We should focus on the benefits of our chosen institutions and use the resources we have.  

[pandorse]

Those lucky ducks who have already received interview offers- did you get an e-mail, or was it just listed online when you checked your application status?

[Focus]

2 minutes ago, pandorse said:

Those lucky ducks who have already received interview offers- did you get an e-mail, or was it just listed online when you checked your application status?

I got a phone call and a follow-up email. 
I checked my application online and it still just says "submitted".

[Edotdl]

1 hour ago, biochemgirl67 said:

Where did you hear this from?

A friend who worked with a professor there. 

[biochemgirl67]

24 minutes ago, Edotdl said:

A friend who worked with a professor there. 

EEEEEK.

[Azia]

35 minutes ago, pandorse said:

Those lucky ducks who have already received interview offers- did you get an e-mail, or was it just listed online when you checked your application status?

Invite via email. I don't think they expect you to check your application status that quickly/ frequently.

[biochemgirl67]

3 minutes ago, Azia said:

Invite via email. I don't think they expect you to check your application status that quickly/ frequently.

Then they really don't get the angst that goes into this process. 

[Azia]

13 hours ago, mirrormethods said:

Hi everyone,

I worry a lot because my app is very different from most people's on here. I have multiple first author publications / other publications and perfect GREs. I'm also a domestic biochem major at small top 10 US university (~top 5 bio program) where there is significant grade deflation and competition. Because of this, my GPA is a 3.3, and in freshman year I failed a big intro science course and had to retake it. (So that F doesn't even factor into the GPA)

I often hear and/or see that a lot of graduate schools are "blind" to your institution's prestige. To be honest, it frustrates me to see how almost every other applicant has a 3.9 from a "big state school". I wish I had gone to a school where the average SAT score was like only 2000 or something and the students aren't as good at jumping through the academic hoops as they are at elite school, and just, statistically speaking, it would be a lot easier to get A's. (No offence to you guys, you did the smart thing) I feel as though going to an elite undergrad institution screws you over in science and ends up counting for nothing in graduate admissions. Is there any hope for me?

Besides agreeing that you sound incredibly snobby and pretentious with this comment (there is no saving yourself now), I think you are forgetting, or maybe just naive to the fact that admissions committees don't only care about your grades. There is a huge push in many of these programs to stop accepting the top 4.0 ivy league students because this limits the diversity and experience of the incoming class. Now many schools are looking for a significant commitment to research (more than just 2 years) and individuals that have had to overcome adversity to get where to where they are.

I'm not saying those top students aren't going to get in, but you have to realize adcoms are also interested in the personality and drive of those they admit. Often times individuals who have dealt with set backs and difficulties along the way are more likely to persevere in a doctoral program. You would be surprised to know how many people don't realize what they are getting themselves in to and end up mastering out because they can't hack it.

There are so many qualified candidates on this forum that come from "state schools" with average GPA's but who are likely to be amazing research scientist. Grades aren't even half the story.