Med schools dont expect perfect GPAs but many do expect you to match up to other applicants from the same school and know that you didn’t do as well at that school if your fellow applicants are in 3.8 from your school but you have a 3.3. Most private schools also provide a leeway for the GPA based on the school one attends and how well they did in other areas and so they don’t always compare all GPAs from all schools as being equal. Caltech likes to brag that their 3.3s still get into top 10 medical schools because everyone knows that Caltech GPAs are lower than other schools.
I am unclear why so many feel that college GPA doesn’t matter. My kids have been asked their GPA for every internships and job they applied to while in college (and many since then, not to mention SAT scores too) and eventually had to submit their transcript before the offer was finalized. In addition, the career center at colleges will often pre-screen resumes and transcripts and essentially choose which of their students end up interviewing for a particular company. My S’s 3.79, since it was not 3.8 or higher, kept him off the interview schedule for many top companies which came to campus. This pre-screening is part of the contractual agreement the school’s career center has with the companies they allow access to their students. Sometimes it is driven by the company’s requirements, sometimes not.
I recall asking for some pre-med success (survey) data from a top 100 public U and their responses were EXTREMELY evasive and sketchy. I asked the same question to Wash U and they gave me everything I asked for and more. The diff in transparency was night and day, and I think we all know why.
I attended one of those “state schools”. I got a great education, had no debt, and have been able to maintain a good career. There was an article today about Texas A&M. It is great university and is reasonably priced. http://www.chron.com/news/education/article/No-university-graduates-more-Fortune-11-CEOs-than-6390756.php
Oldfashioned- college major is a short cut proxy to rigor. I would be flabbergasted if you could show me a company which considers a 4.0 in sociology from Cornell “better” than a 3.3 in applied math from Cornell- assuming that both students were applying for an entry level job for a training program in a Fortune 100 company that didn’t care about college major.
Whether they say it or not- rigor counts. If a college is a “core school” for a particular company (i.e., they send a team to interview on campus, they typically hire multiple grads for multiple locations) then the recruiters know the college. Better than the parents. Philosophy at Princeton is a really, really hard major, even when the average Joe thinks of it as a fluff course of study. Philosophy at Wittenburg is also hard btw- so it’s not my “ivy or bust” mentality (which I don’t have). Geology at college A can be the “easy way out” for athletes and pre-meds and it may be a really tough major at college B. There are reasons that on certain campuses the “helmet sports” cluster around 2-3 departments, and it’s not because every single football player has a specific interest and aptitude for that subject. More likely that coaches have found that you can fulfill the requirements of the major with a decent GPA and still have time for a very intensive sport. Grade inflation. Classes that weigh “participation” more heavily than a 50 page research paper, with sources, which is very hard to fake.
GFG- I never said GPA doesn’t matter. I said that it’s a poor reason to pick a college thinking that a high GPA is the be all and end off of your education. If your son missed a few interview opportunities- is that REALLY why he’s going to college? And it’s not like a 3.79 didn’t get him on a LOT of interview schedules, beautifully launched into his adult life.
“The fixation on GPA as the be-all and end-all of the college experience is a fascinating one.” - why not to have the GPA 4.0 at college? It is not preventing a student to live full life during school year, work, had lots of friends, be in Greek, participate in various meaningful for them ECs, like research lab internships, volunteering, expand their horizon by adding minors, going abroad…etc. We are not talking about the level of education that require a genius, we are talking about college here. And one wants it or not, but the door to some places like medical schools will be shut down unless a certain level of college GPA is reached which is very high. Do you want them to work hard and not reach this level and have a tragedy instead of celebration after graduating from college? I do not see any reason whatsoever for not putting your best efforts with the goal of an A in every single class. Many have this goal and many of these have it simply because of their good habits that they develop before college. And vast majority of these people are well rounded with wide un-related interests who live a happy and fulfilling life at college.
Miami- there are handfuls of students every decade at MIT who graduate with a perfect GPA. Not because everyone else is lazy or a moron. But because kids challenge themselves with really hard material, the grading is very tough after the first semester which is pass fail, AND the institute requires everyone to take classes outside of their comfort zone.
A kid fixated on getting a perfect GPA at MIT is at the wrong college. It happens rarely, and it ain’t because the kids rae lazy.
got it?
Working hard may be necessary for top grades, but it is certainly not sufficient, at least in the Humanities and Social Sciences. I get very tired of students who whine “but I worked so hard” when they get a B. Great, I expect you to work hard, that doesn’t mean effort, without corresponding A level content, gets a better grade.
I think the point is that to the extent GPA matters, it matters relative to your peers. A kid with a 3.8 from BGSU is not necessarily a stronger candidate than a kid from Princeton with a 3.2. I would also be willing to bet that the GPA cut offs you are referencing change from school to school. I seriously doubt that any companies are establishing blanket GPA cut offs and applying the same number to every school.
“Philosophy at Princeton is a really, really hard major, even when the average Joe thinks of it as a fluff course of study.”
Philosophy is a really, really hard major most anywhere. Average Joe is average; that’s why he has average thoughts and an average point of view. Educated people know better.
Many people think GPA doesn’t matter or that it is OK to " fail" and not win all the time. Tell that to a student who has to maintain a certain GPA to retain scholarships that are allowing them to attend college in the first place. They don’t necessarily have the same options that full pay students have.
“I think the point is that to the extent GPA matters, it matters relative to your peers. A kid with a 3.8 from BGSU is not necessarily a stronger candidate than a kid from Princeton with a 3.2.”
This.
“Do you really think an employer prefers the kid with the 4.0 from Stonehill who majored in Marketing vs. the math whiz from Harvard who took the tough poli sci sequence but ended up with a 3.0?”
Law schools, unfortunately, will prefer the Stonehill 4.0, assuming the same LSAT score. In most other circumstances, you’re likely better off as the Harvard 3.0.
I just wanted to throw this out there because it is something that has always troubled me about this board. People use the term “middle class” to mean something different on this board than what that term commonly means. According to pretty much every definition out there, “middle class” is defined as a household income somewhere above $65k and below $100k. Even “upper middle class”, which is really a descriptor of education and profession, is defined by the Census bureau as households in the top third of income earners, which means household incomes of about $100k. Above the “upper middle class” is the “5%” which is a household income above @$150k. The terribly evil “top 1%” is defined as household income above @$250k. Most of the “elite” schools under discussion are going to have exceptional financial aid for pretty much everybody up to and including some of the top 5% families.
So I guess this is a long winded way of saying unless you are talking about pure merit aid schools, it is hard to see how any school is going to be more or even as affordable as the Ivys et al for the vast, vast majority of families. Running through this process for the second time now, I can certainly say that has been our experience.
My perception is that med schools care about GPA as well. Another thread mentioned the story of a Lake Forest (not Wake Forest) student with a near-perfect GPA and LSAT scores who was admitted to top-5 medical schools and possibly others with merit scholarships.
Very true. Personally know a kid in that position at the moment, who is shaking in her boots that her finals broke right this semester so she can maintain a very generous scholarship. That said, pretty much all of the schools we are debating about are no merit/full need schools. So in reality there would be less pressure on a kid with financial aid at Penn than a kid on a merit scholly at Villanova or Drexel, as an example. I would think that would be a pretty good argument that the “more elite” school would be the better choice, no?
I think it’s beyond dispute: not all GPAs are made of the same stuff. That’s because not all schools are made of the same stuff. Some schools have a greater % of highly accomplished students than others. That raises the bar for everyone.
Then, some schools are simply more rigorous in how they administer their educational experience. Cal Tech and MIT are obvious. But Swarthmore is another school whose reputation for rigor precedes itself. I know of families whose children were admitted and ultimately chose another school after figuring out what a pressure cooker that place can be.
Some people find comfort in, and self-sooth, by convincing themselves that “everything is the same,” when in fact it is not.
I am not as good a golfer as Jordan Spieth. I try really hard. I golf at reasonably maintained courses. I have decent clubs and I spend a good amount of time doing it, though not nearly as much time as he does. But at the end of the day, I can hang with that guy for two holes max, and then, BOOM! The differences in our game will be obvious for anyone to see, and he will crush me.
It is what it is. That there are brilliant people at lower-end schools is both obvious and irrelevant to much of what has been discussed here. There are people at a community college within 10 miles of where I type who can run intellectual circles around all of us, and they have their own stories.
But there is no question, based on my experience, that much more often than not, you’re going to get a more consistent product out of an Ivy League or other highly selective college than you will from Texas A&M. A big part of that has nothing to do with the teachers, the facilities or the water they drink at said Ivy League schools, and everything to do with who gets admitted in the first place.
I think it a far more interesting discussion to ask the question what the big deal is about the Ivy League when they start with the best raw material. That, I think, is a worthwhile topic, on which opinions vary I’m sure.
@Hanna , I disagree with that assertion. Law schools will take into account both where you earned your degree and the rigor of study. Of course, at least 50% of the admissions equation will be LSAT score, but I know for a fact that the vast majority of national law schools review where you attended and what you studied.
the 4.0 marketing guy from Stonehill will get in somewhere, but the Harvard math kid with a 3.0 will, too, and will likely be reviewed more favorably.
@Hanna, do you really think so? I did not attend an elite law school, but I have worked with many Harvard/Yale/Columbia/Boalt/Stanford law grads over time (I spent far too many years in BigLaw). My completely unscientific sense is that most of those lawyers attended an elite undergrad institution as well as an elite law school. But I grow old and could be nuts.
It makes sense that GPA matters in a relative sense, but we all know there are high school A students who can go on and be A students at an Ivy, and high school A students who will be B or C students at an Ivy. It would not have been a problem that S only got a 3.79 if there hadn’t been kids with even higher GPA’s who were interested in the same companies. But there were, and I think there always will be at the schools who attract the best minds in the country and beyond.
There were twin girls who graduated from our high school around the same time as my S. One was a bit smarter than the other with better grades etc. and was admitted to Princeton. Her sister “only” went to UDel. They both worked very hard on their studies and eventually applied to law school. The UDel sister was admitted to several, while the Princeton sister was denied everywhere. The flaw in her application? Lower GPA. But isn’t Princeton notorious for grade deflation? Seems that common knowledge didn’t do enough to compensate.