GPA Question

[Pezpoet]

Hey all. I can't stop agonizing over my application packet and have a question for the community. Most schools don't publish their GPA cutoffs. Do y'all have any insider knowledge of whereabouts adcoms make the cutoff? I recently read that it can be as high as 3.75. I know this must vary by school. And I'm basically calling on you to assuage my fears. But, that's what this forum is for right? Right? [wrings hands]

My gen stats: 3.5 undergrad gpa (3.7 for lit) / MFA / 164 verbal

Any/all thoughts are welcomed and would give me something else to do then sleuth the deep tracks of the grad cafe all damn day.

[Straparlare]

I'm certainly no expert, and I haven't really applied to English Programs, but I've heard schools look at anything above a 3.0, and anything at about 3.4-3.5 is competitive but that's only what I've heard (really read) here and there.

[Axil]

I definitely know someone who got into a top 20 program with a 3.3, major GPA 3.9

 

[imogenshakes]

7 minutes ago, Straparlare said:

I'm certainly no expert, and I haven't really applied to English Programs, but I've heard schools look at anything above a 3.0, and anything at about 3.4-3.5 is competitive but that's only what I've heard (really read) here and there.

I've heard this, too. And remember, adcomms also look at the application as a whole, so if you have strong recs, writing sample, SOP, etc. there's a good chance it will balance out.

[Pezpoet]

8 minutes ago, imogenshakes said:

I've heard this, too. And remember, adcomms also look at the application as a whole, so if you have strong recs, writing sample, SOP, etc. there's a good chance it will balance out.

I guess I'm more worried about my app not even getting a look because it didn't cross a certain threshold. I mean, there's no real way to know that but I'm itchy with the thought of all that hard work. Oof. Thanks for responding all.

[Straparlare]

15 minutes ago, Pezpoet said:

I guess I'm more worried about my app not even getting a look because it didn't cross a certain threshold. I mean, there's no real way to know that but I'm itchy with the thought of all that hard work. Oof. Thanks for responding all.

I think we all are worried that we don't hit some mark that they're looking for and just breeze past our applications. It probably rarely happens and as @imogenshakes said, they're generally looking holistically at the applications so you'll probably be fine. Don't worry

Edited February 7, 2017 by Straparlare

[Kilos]

I'll echo what everybody else has said, while adding that if you spend some time combing through the results boards you'll see a ton of 4.0 GPAs with a nice pretty [REJECTED] stamp next to them. No single piece is all-important. I'm no expert, and I constantly wring my hands over this stuff, but I'd say that for almost any program it's going to go:

SoP > Writing Samples > LoRs > GPA > CV > GRE

Keep in mind, though, that this is not a steadfast science; some schools have GPA/GRE cutoffs so you're only competitive if you make the first cut. Some schools place more emphasis on the writing samples, some schools look closely at LoRs, and others are looking for specific things. Above all else, remember that it's almost always a holistic approach. They want somebody who's got it all. They want a decent, competitive GPA, GRE, with good letters, good CV, good writing skills, and a solid statement of where they want to go and what they want to do.

If you're looking for something to assuage your fears, don't stare at your GPA. Print all of your documents out and look at it as a holistic whole. Or... realize it's completely out of your hands and get some friggin' rest. haha.

Good luck!

[Straparlare]

Good point. Does anyone else, though, appreciate when there are people who get into programs, whatever they are, with less than a 3.0? I like the underdog win story, especially when there have been rejections of people with 4.0s on the results board that have implied subtext of "I'm perfect, I don't know what they're f*ing looking for!". Maybe I'm evil but it makes me giggle. There's a lot of terror in this process but a lot of hope too.

[yanicus]

For what it's worth (with the caveat that obviously everyone's application is different) I wouldn't worry too much about it. My undergrad GPA was below 3.5 with one very bad grade, and I've received some acceptances already.

I was worried too - but I think it would be silly of programs not to look at your application holistically with a 3.5 GPA in undergrad plus a postgrad degree.

[KikiDelivery]

I agree that most programs look at applications holistically. If I have to name my weakest link in my applications, I would certainly have to say my GRE scores. Yet, I've also received several acceptances.

Stay calm, and if there are aspects of your application you can't change much, then work towards making other parts be stellar

Edited February 7, 2017 by KikiDelivery

[Pezpoet]

Thanks y'all. I was really reticent to write the post because I know everyone is in the same boat. But that to say, I really appreciate your helpful (and calming) comments. I didn't anticipate having such an exasperating waiting period, but here I am. 

[Kilos]

5 minutes ago, Pezpoet said:

Thanks y'all. I was really reticent to write the post because I know everyone is in the same boat. But that to say, I really appreciate your helpful (and calming) comments. I didn't anticipate having such an exasperating waiting period, but here I am. 

Yeah, I'm with you. I think most of us are in the same state of mind. I'm a nontraditional student and I feel like I've developed some thick skin during my time in the work force--but nothing I've been through could have prepared me for this kind of stress. In another thread I likened it to condensing your life's achievements into a tiny packet only to ship it off to a bunch of strangers whose job is to accept or reject you without ever meeting you. It's taxing to put yourself out there like that.

On a side note, I really wouldn't stress about your GPA. I have a 4.0 and I'm petrified that it's too high. I read an article and some forums somewhere a long time ago that stated that it looks bad to have a 4.0 because it looks like you spend too much time studying and not enough time reading and researching. I know how absurd it sounds but it's haunted me ever since. I tried to go above and beyond with every other part of my application to show that I wasn't just a good student but a dedicated scholar. My point is: everybody will find something to stress about. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

1 hour ago, Straparlare said:

Good point. Does anyone else, though, appreciate when there are people who get into programs, whatever they are, with less than a 3.0?

No, actually.

This has nothing to do with the OP's question, but as a metric, I think major GPA is a strong indicator of one's academic potential. It's possible that I'm biased, given my own strength in that area, but on the most basic level, major GPA is based on how well you've fared over several semesters of studying what you'll need to be familiar with in grad school. There's a bit of arbitrariness involved, given that some professors (and some programs) will be more strict or more lenient about grading than others, but it usually shakes out -- since there are usually at least half a dozen separate numbers involved, there's simply more data to give an adcom a sense of the student's potential. Contrast that with the GRE, which is a 3.5 hour test -- one hour of which is focused on an abstract knowledge of vocabulary, one hour is focused on generating as many big words as possible to trick the computer into giving you a good AW score (and yes, the writing portion is analyzed by a computer as well...), while another hour and a half is focused on that necessary graduate English skill of twelfth grade mathematics.

In completely practical terms, a graduate student with a sub 3.0 GPA (major or no) is likely not a student who can excel in the academic environment, even if he/she is capable of doing some things well. It might reflect intellectual laziness, but even if not, it reflects an inability to perform the necessary academic functions on a high level.

This is partially my opinion, of course, but I hold it because despite the frustrations we all have over the vagueness of the process, I appreciate the major GPA as a part of the determining factor as it demonstrates sustained ability in one's field. Exceptions can be explained away (poor performance in a semester due to a death in the family etc.), but in general, I certainly wouldn't applaud an adcom's decision to admit someone with a sub-3.0 GPA in almost any situation.

[Kilos]

14 minutes ago, Wyatt's Terps said:

No, actually.

This has nothing to do with the OP's question, but as a metric, I think major GPA is a strong indicator of one's academic potential...

This is partially my opinion, of course, but I hold it because despite the frustrations we all have over the vagueness of the process, I appreciate the major GPA as a part of the determining factor as it demonstrates sustained ability in one's field.

It may be opinion, but I think you're spot-on with your reasoning and your conclusions. I agree entirely, though I too might be a bit biased. Institutional discrepancies aside, GPA does seem like the best overall indicator of (theoretical) graduate-level performance.

[Straparlare]

@Wyatt's Terps I am in no way saying that GPA isn't relevant or should be ignored, but I'm surprised you don't find it heartening, since you seem to be the most encouraging of GCers, that even an applicant with a terrible GPA can over come it and get into a graduate program. Since most programs now look at applications holistically, I thought everyone might take a sigh of relief. I know I did.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Straparlare

[rheya19]

I've told this story on several threads, but I was surprised last year when my husband (a PhD student) was asked by his advisor to help sort through their applications. He and his colleague went through them and spent most of their time considering the applicants' research interests. The GPAs and GREs were more like boxes that just needed to be checked off. He said the telling things were the personal statements and the letters of reference. You learn a lot about applicants from those. Of course, every program is different, but I'm sure a lot of programs are similar to that.

[NowMoreSerious]

3 hours ago, Wyatt's Terps said:

No, actually.

This has nothing to do with the OP's question, but as a metric, I think major GPA is a strong indicator of one's academic potential. It's possible that I'm biased, given my own strength in that area, but on the most basic level, major GPA is based on how well you've fared over several semesters of studying what you'll need to be familiar with in grad school. There's a bit of arbitrariness involved, given that some professors (and some programs) will be more strict or more lenient about grading than others, but it usually shakes out -- since there are usually at least half a dozen separate numbers involved, there's simply more data to give an adcom a sense of the student's potential. Contrast that with the GRE, which is a 3.5 hour test -- one hour of which is focused on an abstract knowledge of vocabulary, one hour is focused on generating as many big words as possible to trick the computer into giving you a good AW score (and yes, the writing portion is analyzed by a computer as well...), while another hour and a half is focused on that necessary graduate English skill of twelfth grade mathematics.

In completely practical terms, a graduate student with a sub 3.0 GPA (major or no) is likely not a student who can excel in the academic environment, even if he/she is capable of doing some things well. It might reflect intellectual laziness, but even if not, it reflects an inability to perform the necessary academic functions on a high level.

This is partially my opinion, of course, but I hold it because despite the frustrations we all have over the vagueness of the process, I appreciate the major GPA as a part of the determining factor as it demonstrates sustained ability in one's field. Exceptions can be explained away (poor performance in a semester due to a death in the family etc.), but in general, I certainly wouldn't applaud an adcom's decision to admit someone with a sub-3.0 GPA in almost any situation.

 

Response to the bolded: I don't think GPA is enough information for me to make that inference, personally. All it says is that the student did not do well in a particular set of classes in a particular school, during a certain period.  For instance, is the GPA weighed down by lower grades in the first few years?  Is even the major GPA weighed down by courses outside of the students passion?  Now I know somebody might say that even if that's the case, success in graduate school requires an overall ability toward academic excellence in general.  Maybe, but there's just so much more to the story than GPA.  Ph.D. is a different, since one can direct and focus their work on what they want to, for the most part.  

I know people who had fairly poor undergrad GPAs. EVEN IN the major, who are now incredible scholars in graduate school.  

Personally, I would consider GRE and GPA equally lukewarm indicators, with maybe GRE being a slightly better indicator because GRE is somewhat like a test that you have to crack, and the ability to crack the GRE and form a study plan which will maximize your score might actually be a transferable skill to the sometimes breakneck pace of graduate school.  

For example, the same sort of "shortcuts" I used to score high on the GRE...that same muscle, has served me well when being able to make the most out of my time and energy as a grad student.  

All that is to say, though, that the question of how important any of these things are doesn't answer the question of whether a particular school has a cut-off.  

I've said it many times on here, but it really is a very mysterious process that decides who gets in to particular schools. It often seems illogical and counterintuitive. 

[JessicaLange]

I looove this topic. This was a huge fear of mine, especially because I was applying with only my grades up until the second semester of my Junior year and my GPA went up during my first semester of my Senior year. This semester? I don't want to talk about it...but I have some stories about the cutoff topic. I was lucky enough to spend 10 days over the summer with my friend in NYC. I visited Columbia, NYU and CUNY (also Fordham, but I didn't get the chance to meet with a representative so I won't count that one). I asked them all if there was a cutoff for GPAs and GREs. I was really candid and told them that I was worried my application would just be thrown in the trash and I didn't want to spend the application money if that was the case.

The woman from NYU told me there was no cutoff. I told her that I knew that was the officially policy, but asked her if there was a secret one. She said no, and actually for that program LORs and the Writing Sample are the most important components. I asked the woman from Columbia and she said that absolutely every application gets looked at and that a lot of them get dismissed because of their SOPs, though that wasn't the only reason, of course. I told her my GPA wasn't very high and she assured me that they will take the major GPA into account. The man from CUNY was super helpful. I think he was more of a school representative than an English Department representative, but he told me the lowest GPAs and GRE scores for everyone that had received an acceptance from the previous year. I forget the GPA, but the GRE was a 157 Verbal. I remember because that was my score and that's when I decided to retake the test. So, I'm taking all of this time to tell you that you're fine. You might not get accepted somewhere, but it isn't because they just threw your application out.

[Yanaka]

You'll find a topic somewhere else on the forum dedicated specifically to students who got in with a > 3.00 GPA! I'm on my phone right now so not very convenient to search for the topic but it's there!

[Yanaka]

3 hours ago, Yanaka said:

You'll find a topic somewhere else on the forum dedicated specifically to students who got in with a > 3.00 GPA! I'm on my phone right now so not very convenient to search for the topic but it's there!

Obviously meant inferior to 3.00. Math.

[jrockford27]

One of my recommenders told me that "as long as you're over 3.8 it doesn't make a difference." 

[Pezpoet]

Thanks everyone for the solidarity. So, what's everyone else's application hiccup, that one thing you can't stop thinking about?

[Kilos]

11 minutes ago, Pezpoet said:

Thanks everyone for the solidarity. So, what's everyone else's application hiccup, that one thing you can't stop thinking about?

SoP. Without question.

I applied to schools that I thought were perfect fits, and I tried to express that (without directly addressing it) using my SoP. What if they don't think it's a perfect fit? What if I could have changed or added two sentences that had the potential to alter the course of my entire future? It's such a shit-show, in my opinion. I realize there's really no feasible "better" way to do it, but I'm left with this feeling that five hundred to a thousand words isn't enough to adequately explain my passion and drive. I did my best.

[Pezpoet]

6 minutes ago, Kilos said:

SoP. Without question.

I applied to schools that I thought were perfect fits, and I tried to express that (without directly addressing it) using my SoP. What if they don't think it's a perfect fit? What if I could have changed or added two sentences that had the potential to alter the course of my entire future? It's such a shit-show, in my opinion. I realize there's really no feasible "better" way to do it, but I'm left with this feeling that five hundred to a thousand words isn't enough to adequately explain my passion and drive. I did my best.

I hear ya. Did you have any that limited it to 300-500 words? The. worst.

[Kilos]

10 minutes ago, Pezpoet said:

I hear ya. Did you have any that limited it to 300-500 words? The. worst.

Yep, one that was 400 and two that were 500. The rest were 1000+, but still rough. I understand that they simply don't have the time to read everybody's personal autobiography, but 400 words seems like an awfully scant explanation--especially when some of these programs place such heavy emphasis on SoPs. I'm really not complaining, I understand the situation, but it's definitely the one thing I worry about above all else. 

 

p.s.: If you don't mind my asking, whereabouts in Oregon are you from? I moved to Ohio a few years ago, but prior to that I spent my entire life in/around Eugene. I'm happy enough where I'm at (it's actually affordable to live here), but there isn't a day that goes by that I don't miss pine trees, mountains, and moss-infused air. Gaaaah.