<p>So for grad school do they take into account that you graduated from UCLA with a lower gpa compared to someone who graduated from a school that could be considered “easier” with a higher gpa?</p>
<p>not as much as one might like!</p>
<p>Not really. The ivies tend to have grade inflation and give higher grades, which look better because they’re from ‘better’ schools which are supposed to be harder.</p>
<p>Not. At. All. </p>
<p>You’re supposed to use UCLA’s opportunities and resources to create an impressive resume to make up for the possible low GPA. UCLA is basically an easy to get into school for the Ivy caliber opportunities/research/faculty that it provides. So, should you compete and take advantage of those opportunities that are absent at “easier” schools, your resume should make up for the lower GPA, but the brand name won’t because as mentioned, Ivy leagues have some grade inflation so their GPAs are similar but are perceived as “better” so it won’t help your cause much at all.</p>
<p>Depends on which grad program. Some care more about being able to pay for the program than grades. Example: many expensive MBA programs admit lower GPA’s, but the applicant is able to easily pay tuition and contribute to the alumni network.</p>
<p>For undergrad, absolutely NOT!</p>
<p>+1 what g0ld3n said.</p>
<p>It’s not about how your 3.1 looks against the 3.1 from CSULA. It’s about how that 3.1 looks against another UCLA 3.8 applicant.</p>
<p>They should but they don’t.</p>
<p>Why did I ever choose ucla?</p>
<p>Everyone has the right idea. Unfortunately, graduating from the top UCs isn’t worth a significantly lower GPA. </p>
<p>You could check what the top grad schools do. They have GPA multipliers for each college based on rigor. There isn’t that big of a difference between the multipliers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep. I sure wish I knew that four years ago.</p>