2016 Applicant Profiles and Admissions Results

[Ferroportin]

22 minutes ago, StemCellBio said:

Congratulations! Which track did you apply to? 

Thanks! I applied with Physiology as my primary track.

[biochemgirl67]

1 minute ago, PlanB said:

 You are talking out your butt if you believe that someone with 3.2 is likely to get into a program that on average admits students with 3.7+ GPA's. My above assessment is based off of facts!  The fact is that everybody applying to those programs has a research experience. 

The above applicant that I am referring to has a 3.4 gpa and is applying to an IVY league(top 10) graduate program. The other applicant has below a 3.2 and is applying to equally competitive programs.  Go onto the websites of those programs. 90% of people are rejected and the average GPA of the admitted candidate is above a 3.7.  What makes you think that he or she would be a strong applicant to such programs? 

I'm not going to get into a fight with you over this because I don't think you're asking me or anyone else why honestly someone with a 3.2 could get into a competitive program.  But 1) GPA is subjective in that schools grade differently and you can take an easy courseload and get a 3.99 or a heavy, rigorous courseload and get a 3.3 and be the same level of intelligence; 2) GPA is not the only/most important things considered in admission; and 3) I don't think we should discourage anyone from applying to their dream schools.  Apply broadly across all types of schools, yes!  And I would like to see the websites you are referring to because I've looked for them and the FEW I saw for the caliber of schools to which I've applied have average entrance GPAs of 3.5-3.7.  Finally, your assessment is not based off facts.  Everyone's experiences are different and are considered and weighed differently.  Your research isn't the same as mine.  The only reason I've responded AT ALL to you is to let future thread-readers know that they SHOULD apply to their dream schools and try their best and hope to get in and not feel that unless they have a 3.9 they won't get in anywhere they want to go.

[Bioenchilada]

5 minutes ago, PlanB said:

You are taking my responses very personal. None of my responses were directed at you or your application stats. My response was very objective. Go to the results section on this website or to the institutions that i mentioned. 

I agree that If someone went to a very competitive undergrad that he or she with a low GPA could get into a very competitive PhD program(seen it happen).  The fact is that it cost money to apply to these programs(100 roughly per school).Spending a 1000 dollars on applying to programs you have a less then likely chance of getting admitted to is just stupid.  

There are other factors involved in admission, duh. But everybody has those experiences. And the above applicants had zero publications. 

You can apply where ever you want(I do not care). I apply to harvard, yale, mit, stanford. Apply to 20 programs.  And you can make yourself feel better with the idea that you are not wasting your money. However, then there is reality. 

 

 

 

 

In the end, people can do whatever they want with their money. lol 

And, after all, the chance of getting in if you don't apply is 0. By coughing up some bucks and filling in an application, you're automatically increasing your chances. 

[Ferroportin]

Just wanted to add that when I first started reading through this thread back in July/August, I was SO discouraged by the amazing stats that everyone had posted. I think it's easier to agree that applicants with 3.8+ GPAs, 1st author pubs, etc etc stand solid chances when applying to top tier schools. That being said, I think one of the most important things to take away from reading through this forum is the fact that GPA is not the end all be all factor in the admissions process. Letters of recommendation, research experience, and statement of purpose (including extenuating circumstances or challenges) ARE huge factors that come into play. And this sentiment has been reiterated over and over again in this thread...

Applicants with stellar stats may be easier sells to top tier schools, but that doesn't mean that you don't stand a chance if you have a 3.2 or 3.4 GPA. Duh, it's obviously more difficult - but to just shoot down an individual's profile solely on GPA is not something any of us are qualified to do. The overall process of graduate school applications is nerve wracking and depressing at times - we should be supporting each other rather than dealing out "reality".

 

[Neuro PolarBear]

53 minutes ago, PlanB said:

The above applicant that I am referring to has a 3.4 gpa and is applying to an IVY league(top 10) graduate program. The other applicant has below a 3.2. Why am I so confident? Go onto the websites of those programs. 90% of people are rejected and the average GPA of the admitted candidate is above a 3.7.  What makes you think that he or she would be a strong applicant to such programs? 

One's GPA alone does not make or break a candidate. Yes, a high GPA can strengthen your application and a lower one can make it more difficult to get an interview, but one's GPA by itself is by no means an indicator of one's aptitude to conduct research. Fortunately, admission committees understand this, and place more weight into better indicators, such as research experience and letters of recommendation.

Additionally, science benefits from having diverse ideas and perspectives and this comes from having scientists with diverse cultural and educational backgrounds. We should be encouraging all students, especially those who have been traditionally underrepresented, to apply.

Based on the results I've seen so far and in past threads, I think many students end up being pleasantly surprised by where they end up getting interviews and acceptances—especially after being told on here, or elsewhere, that they're not good enough. That it is so hard to judge applicants by the stats they present or to gauge their passion for research (among many other qualities), is one of the main reasons programs have interviews in the first place!

[ballwera]

11 minutes ago, PlanB said:

http://weill.cornell.edu/news/publications/pdf/factsheet/WCMC_fact_sheet_2010.pdf

The average  science GPA of  entering PhD students at Cornell is 3.7.   Fact.

I agree that there are plenty of smart people that do not necessarily have high grades. Not trying to put down applicants here, however, again, just being objective.  

I am a scientist. I liked data. Not opinions.

And stop rating my posts negatively.

What's the median? Std deviation? Average is pretty much useless here...

[biochemgirl67]

12 minutes ago, PlanB said:

http://weill.cornell.edu/news/publications/pdf/factsheet/WCMC_fact_sheet_2010.pdf

The average  science GPA of  entering PhD students at Cornell is 3.7.   Fact.

I agree that there are plenty of smart people that do not necessarily have high grades. Not trying to put down applicants here, however, again, just being objective.  

I am a scientist. I liked data. Not opinions.

And stop rating my posts negatively.

http://bmcb.cornell.edu/admission/index.html

Here is a link for your link.  However, an appropriate range discussed by the admissions faculty that attended the 2015 Amgen National Symposium from UCSF, UCLA, Stanford, NIH, MIT, Caltech, WUSTL, Harvard, Columbia, and UC-Berkeley was 3.5 - 3.7.  There was a presentation on the most important parts of your application and the question was asked to the panel and that was how they responded.  I think the larger group probably has more weight than one published 2010 PDF, no?

[Neuro2016]

I have a question which has probably been asked before:

 

When college websites say they don't have GRE /GPA cutoffs, do they really mean that or do they pre-screen our applications anyway and weed out people (like me) with less than stellar stats?

 

Edited December 12, 2015 by Neuro2016
typo

[Edotdl]

11 minutes ago, Neuro2016 said:

I have a question which has probably been asked before:

 

When college websites say they don't have GRE /GPA cutoffs, do they really mean that or do they pre-screen our applications anyway and weed out people (like me) with less than stellar stats?

 

I feel like it depends on the school, I'm sure there are at least some that do and it might depend on how many applications they get. However, I feel like if they did have hard cutoffs they would not be that high, maybe like a 2.5.

[biochemgirl67]

12 minutes ago, Neuro2016 said:

I had a question which has probably been asked before:

 

When college websites say they don't have GRE /GPA cutoffs, do they really mean that or do they pre-screen our applications anyway and weed out people (like me) with less than stellar stats?

 

Who really knows?  I don't think there are cutoffs in the way that you are talking about them.  I think they probably organize the applications and go through them manually.  At least, that's what I've heard from professors at my school.  But it is probably different everywhere.  Don't worry about it!

[Gram Neutral]

2 hours ago, PlanB said:

 You are talking out your butt if you believe that someone with 3.2 is likely to get into a program that on average admits students with 3.7+ GPA's. My above assessment is based off of facts!  The fact is that everybody applying to those programs has a research experience. 

The above applicant that I am referring to has a 3.4 gpa and is applying to an IVY league(top 10) graduate program. The other applicant has below a 3.2 and is applying to equally competitive programs.  Go onto the websites of those programs. 90% of people are rejected and the average GPA of the admitted candidate is above a 3.7.  What makes you think that he or she would be a strong applicant to such programs? 

I actually moderately agree with your sentiment in general, although with less of a jerk attitude/absolutism (only siths deal in absolutes). Statistically, someone with a lower GPA has a much lower chance of getting into a Harvard etc than a higher GPA person. That's just how it is. It isn't impossible, but just statistically harder. GPA isn't everything though. Some people shoot for the stars, but might also want to have a few backup rockets aimed at the moon as well. Nothing wrong with the moon. I just want people to get into grad school. If their feelings are hurt (nobody in particular) by someone tempering their expectations, well then they probably shouldn't ask for people's opinions. I've seen in threads for years people being told that they should aim a little lower. I've also seen some people aim too high and go 0/7. It doesn't help someone to bolster them up just to see them fail. It's fine to shoot high but remain realistic. 

Anywho, I wish we could all get along like we used to in middle school. I could bake a cake full of rainbows and smiles everyone would eat and be happy. 

[BiochemVitD]

As the individual whose profile sparked much of this debate about low GPA, I guess I'd like to say a few things.

First off, there's no offense taken from any criticism here. Frankly, if somebody gets hurt because of an individual pointing out an obvious weakness or being critical, then they probably don't belong in the sciences. I'd rather take his arguments as they stand and comment on the issue directly.

PlanB, you are right to acknowledge that a low GPA is a concern for any application. This should be obvious. However, as has been pointed out and is explicitly stated on the websites of multiple top tier programs, applications are graded holistically. I would argue that the correlation of high GPAs with qualified applicants is no surprise, but from my discussion with advisors and a few adcom members, I don't think they weigh GPA nearly as heavily as you suggest. In particular, for a candidate with research experience and strong LORs with a convincing SOP, GPA becomes a non-issue.

I'll elucidate some of the thought process that went into my application. At the very least it will be useful for future applicants or make for interesting discussion. I knew that my GPA was shit going into the application process, which is part of why I waited until I had an additional year of full-time industry experience post graduation to apply. This gave me the opportunity to take graduate level classes my senior year (so that adcoms would actually see those grades), perform very well in them, and bolster my research experience. 

My GPA also resulted from a few extenuating circumstances, namely my diagnosis with cancer during my sophomore year, and one year after my recovery followed the return of my father's cancer for the third time. During these next two years I worked part-time, did well in my classes, all while assisting my father through a slow decline. My advisor (who wrote one of my LORs) was explicitly aware of all of these facts, and I left it up to him to address that in his letter. I didn't want to make any excuses for my early years, so in a supplemental statement for most schools all I said was this, verbatim

" I will keep this short as I also address this in my statement of past work. Although a number of circumstances led to a GPA that does not represent my potential, I have no desire to make excuses for this fact. Instead, I will reassert that the process I went through led to great personal development in terms of both maturity and motivation, and I would not change this experience. The ability to learn from my missteps, and then move forward constructively has played an integral role in my success in other areas. This is evidenced by my GRE scores, academic improvement, and my professional and research achievements. These factors are much more indicative of my dedication, as well as preparation and potential for graduate study. "

The point I'm trying to make is that PlanB's criticism isn't unwarranted, but I think the broader message should be that if somebody with a low GPA wants to apply to good programs then they have to make up for that in other areas. For me, it wasn't a concern I just brushed over, but my choices and approach was very calculated around this fact. I would expect the same for anybody in my shoes if they want to have any hope of being successful.

Anyways, I say all of this with the full acknowledgement that my choices were ambitious, but intentionally so. As far as my approach above, I acknowledge I could just be blowing hot air out my ass, and may not be successful at all. That will play out in the next month or two, but I appreciate the discussion people are having and hope it continues.

[adiJ]

12 hours ago, Metbio2016 said:

Interview from Columbia!!! It is in the Nutritional and Metabolic Biology PhD program though, so I am not sure if this is happening now for the other programs

Man that's one of my top choices. fingers crossed. And also first few people that are interested in metabolism as well hi. I personally didn't like that the essay was only 500 words long, I don't think I did a great job on it :/

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what are the interview dates?

Edited December 12, 2015 by adiJ

[jaesango]

just got an interview to UPenn immunology! I'm at a loss for words right now...never expected this on a Saturday morning xD

[Earl]

31 minutes ago, jaesango said:

just got an interview to UPenn immunology! I'm at a loss for words right now...never expected this on a Saturday morning xD

Me too!

[gs1992]

10 hours ago, PlanB said:

http://weill.cornell.edu/news/publications/pdf/factsheet/WCMC_fact_sheet_2010.pdf

The average  science GPA of  entering PhD students at Cornell is 3.7.   Fact.

I agree that there are plenty of smart people that do not necessarily have high grades. Not trying to put down applicants here, however, again, just being objective.  

I am a scientist. I liked data. Not opinions.

And stop rating my posts negatively.

So you're making absolute claims based off the average of one arbitrarily chosen variable to a complex process. That's pretty much the definition of being a crappy scientist. Hopefully you'll learn this stuff in grad school... 

[Metbio2016]

1 hour ago, adiJ said:

Man that's one of my top choices. fingers crossed. And also first few people that are interested in metabolism as well hi. I personally didn't like that the essay was only 500 words long, I don't think I did a great job on it :/

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what are the interview dates?

Yeah it seems like there aren't many metabolism people here!! I'm glad there is at least one other. And they said they did their first look at applicants yesterday so there are definitely more waves going out probably next week or something. The dates I was given were Feb 19-20th. Not sure if there are others being offered or if that is the only time. 

[Caffeine Junky]

Im sure no one knows for sure but does anyone think/know if all UPenn BGS will go out today? Or just certain concentrations? I saw neuro and I had heart palpitations, I applied for cancer bio!

Edited December 12, 2015 by Caffeine Junky

[parafilm]

14 minutes ago, Caffeine Junky said:

Im sure no one knows for sure but does anyone think/know if all UPenn BGS will go out today? Or just certain concentrations? I saw neuro and I had heart palpitations, I applied for cancer bio!

Me too. Fingers crossed! But I think immunology and CAMB are separate, so it may not mean anything for us.

Edited December 12, 2015 by parafilm

[Bioenchilada]

1 hour ago, Caffeine Junky said:

Im sure no one knows for sure but does anyone think/know if all UPenn BGS will go out today? Or just certain concentrations? I saw neuro and I had heart palpitations, I applied for cancer bio!

They have different dates. I also applied to cancer bio, by the way

1 hour ago, PlanB said:

This is not a complex system. To be admitted into a top program you need good grades. FYI, the person was applying to cornell. This should not even be debated.

It's like every time you post something, your reputation goes lower. 

[Kinetic Isotope Defect]

1 hour ago, PlanB said:

This is not a complex system. To be admitted into a top program you need good grades. FYI, the person was applying to cornell. This should not even be debated.

 

On 12/11/2015 at 10:30 AM, KineticIsotopeDefect said:

I was admitted to Cornell (and other top programs) last application cycle with a 2.9 GPA straight from undergrad. It is by no means an automatic disqualification, and great research experience and letters of recommendation can overcome it.

 

See my quote above. Good grades aren't a prerequisite to getting into top programs. I know you think you're being objective and looking at "the facts" or whatever, but the truth is admissions committees do look at applications holistically, and grades aren't everything. My current rotation advisor told me that she looks favorably upon students who overcame some sort of struggle (in my case, which led to poor grades in my first 2 years of undergrad), because it shows you have what it takes to come back after failure and succeed. This is immensely important for success in graduate school and should not be discounted.

[Kinetic Isotope Defect]

1 minute ago, PlanB said:

WHere do you go to grad school? What were your grades?  In many cases people THINK they have low grades/scores. The applicants I was referring to had below 3.4/3.2.  

I had a 2.9 when I applied. I'm currently a first year at the University of Michigan.

[BiochemVitD]

2 minutes ago, PlanB said:

http://medicine.umich.edu/medschool/sites/medicine.umich.edu.medschool/files/UMMS_PiBS_Info_2015.pdf

 

Data for the 2015 entering class for PIBS for U of Michigan

3.59, average undgrad gpa. 3.76 masters gpa. 

IDK the full extent of your situation. Maybe you had an steep upward trend? Maybe you went to a tough undergrad. 

So what you're saying is the admissions committee looked at their entire application and didn't discount them simply because of a low gpa? Weird.

[BiochemVitD]

3 minutes ago, PlanB said:

You can dance around the grade/test scores issue all you want. The vast majority of people with a 2.9 would get rejected from U of Michigan. B/c at the end of the day we are talking about applying to graduate programs and if you could not handle undergrad classes....   

We're not in any real disagreement here, It's mostly that there's more to the entire process, and people are taking issue with the absolutism in your phrasing.

[jaesango]

Serious question: Does hitting a certain number of negative rep get you banned?