PhD/PsyD GPA Question for Admissions

[bcliff]

I graduated UG cum laude with advanced honors (I took a few graduate courses and a handful of upper level honors courses) & research honors (I completed an honors thesis). My institution GPA when I graduated was 3.58, but my cumulative GPA was 3.42 (I had transferred to the school, where I graduated from with a 3.22, which brought down my cumulative GPA). I know that 3.5 is often the 'magic number' that schools use to cut a large portion of applicants; I wanted to ask if anyone had an idea of which side of this cut I would fall on with my GPA.

I was 19 when I graduated and had taken 25 credit hours over each semester preceding my graduation (I was taking graduate & honors courses and made the dean's list both times). I started college at 16, which is one of the reasons my transfer GPA of 3.22 wasn't very stellar.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psychtrauma]

I would have to lean towards you falling on the positive end of this "magical" threshold we've all heard so much about. However, it all depends on the institution and how you addressed your GPA in your SOP. For some schools where a GA or even admissions secretary is looking at the first cut, your 3.42 cum may have you removed from consideration. Unfortunately that is the culture we're in. However, if you have strong GRE's, research experience, and that all important match of interests with your POI, I see no reason that you should not be considered.

So my overall answer which seems to be a common one in our field is it depends. To be honest, would you really want to go to a school that would not even look at you due to a .08 discrepency? Probably not, odds are you'll end up where you're meant to. Best of luck, and don't stress over things that are beyond your control at this point. It sounds like you put your best foot forward, and at the end of the day that's all you can do.

 

[QAsPsych]

Honestly, why worry about something so completely out of your control?

It varies by school. I know at least one program (which is on your long list from the WAMC thread, as it happens) actually has multiple faculty members review every application. Two top-tier schools that I applied to specifically asked that applicants only give their GPA's and transcripts from the institutions they graduated with their BA/BS from, not CC's or other transfer credits. Some programs are primarily interested in your last two years. And, clearly from the stories we have all heard on here, some schools use "magic numbers" based on cumulative GPA's. I think it's a poor practice and would like to imagine it's limited to programs with problematic hyper-competitive atmospheres, but I couldn't say. I can say everybody does this differently, and I don't think there's a way to game around it, so I would try not to worry about it. There's a lot you can do to improve your chances, but this isn't an area where that's possible.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Don't worry about it. Its good and being young is a double edged sword. I started college at 15 and graduated a month after turning 19. Sometimes it can look good in that you can handle advanced academics at a younger age than most, but it can also be a negative in that you literally have to prove your maturity to everyone, including programs.

 

[bcliff]

Don't worry about it. Its good and being young is a double edged sword. I started college at 15 and graduated a month after turning 19. Sometimes it can look good in that you can handle advanced academics at a younger age than most, but it can also be a negative in that you literally have to prove your maturity to everyone, including programs.

That's one of the things I was concerned about when I graduated, so I'm hoping that since I took a few years off (I'll be 22 when I apply), schools won't be as worried about my maturity, especially since I've been working under the supervision of a clinical psychologist as a psychometrist since I graduated.

 

[CheetahGirl]

...schools won't be as worried about my maturity, especially since I've been working under the supervision of a clinical psychologist as a psychometrist since I graduated.

This is a fallacy. Programs will 100% need to see your individual and collective (within a group) maturity. Otherwise, your incoming statistics (GPA, GREs, etc.) can be stellar, but if you are not a mature individual...you will be turned away, which is precisely what in-person interviews determine. It's outstanding that you are as young as you are (as xXIDaShizIXx stated, "a double-edged sword"), but you will need to demonstrate that you can emotionally and mentally handle some serious life circumstances in order to help your future patients, like will you be able to stomach someone revealing some serious, gory details about past abuse or motivations to want to use drugs in order to stifle their emotional experience associated with past trauma? Or a woman who presents at a training clinic with marital problems who chooses to beat her children and becomes depressed as a result of it? Or someone who hears voices telling him to poke strangers in the eye and he can't understand where these voices are coming from or why the voices are asking him to harm others (I'm not intending this to be amusing at all)? It is essential (at the start of training) for the candidate to be mature. You never know who will walk into your training clinic...someone with severe psychosis, suicidal tenancies, or past trauma....nonetheless, these patients DESERVE a mature, bright and skilled individual to treat them regardless of whether you are in training (and it is your program's prerogative and liability to have you be as mature as you can possibly be going into training).

I want to write more about this, and perhaps will later, but regarding your original concern....I agree, the .08 should not be a concern if you can demonstrate that you are "mentally prepared" beyond your years. A great tip is to find knowledgeable folks who can do mock interviews with you. It will ease your anxiety and allow you to think quickly about how you'd like to present yourself. Plus it's always helpful to get all the fumbling and stumbling over words out during the mock interview and not at the real thing.

Good luck!

 

[chman]

For a little bit of anecdotal experience, the PhD student I was a research assistant for at a very well regarded large public research school said she had a GPA that was significantly lower than the average (from what I gathered, it was lower than 3.5, and I inferred to be somewhere between 3.2-3.4 since I was expressing concern over my GPA, which is 3.54).

So while schools do use cutoffs, I think schools and mentors who are truly concerned with accepting students based on overall fit for the program will take a comprehensive look at students. I know I would if I was looking to fund a student in my lab for the next 5+ years, etc.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

That's one of the things I was concerned about when I graduated, so I'm hoping that since I took a few years off (I'll be 22 when I apply), schools won't be as worried about my maturity, especially since I've been working under the supervision of a clinical psychologist as a psychometrist since I graduated.

I mean I got in. If you have a good statement of purpose and an excellent academic career and good references, they will see your maturity, which will shine through even more in the interviews. Don't give it too much thought. Good luck!

 

[MCParent]

In my experience: Graduate schools sometimes have a hard cut that they just don't allow in anyone under. My experience has been that the hard cut is something around a 3.0. A program might have ranges, but I don't think you're out of the running. Look at a random strong program, http://www.psy.ohio-state.edu/programs/clinical/admissions-outcomes.php; mean incoming GPAs of 3.6-3.8ish. It's probably reasonable to assume that there were a few 4.0s in there each year. So, while the GPA is certainly not an asset to your app, I don't think it will be murder.

I personally would not want people with GPAs under some artificial cutoff removed from my applicant pile. You'd potentially lose great applicants that way. Grade inflation at U.S. schools is rampant, so I don't put enormous stock in high GPAs anyway. I'd want to see reasonable performance in classes that matter to my area (research methods, multicultural psych) and then I'd look at research experience.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I got in with a 3.4 myself, so it's definitely possible. The most common cut-off I've seen/heard about is 3.0

In my experience: Graduate schools sometimes have a hard cut that they just don't allow in anyone under. My experience has been that the hard cut is something around a 3.0. A program might have ranges, but I don't think you're out of the running. Look at a random strong program, http://www.psy.ohio-state.edu/programs/clinical/admissions-outcomes.php; mean incoming GPAs of 3.6-3.8ish. It's probably reasonable to assume that there were a few 4.0s in there each year. So, while the GPA is certainly not an asset to your app, I don't think it will be murder.

I personally would not want people with GPAs under some artificial cutoff removed from my applicant pile. You'd potentially lose great applicants that way. Grade inflation at U.S. schools is rampant, so I don't put enormous stock in high GPAs anyway. I'd want to see reasonable performance in classes that matter to my area (research methods, multicultural psych) and then I'd look at research experience.

I would agree--my experience with "hard" cuts is that they're usually imposed by the university/grad school/department as a whole, and seem to float in the 2.5 to 3.0 range (along with a GRE of 1000 on the old scale). Beyond that, individual professors may have guidelines that they use, but I'd be surprised if there were a large number of places where a cut line over 3.0 was in place.

A 3.4 is, as MCParent mentioned, going to be below average at most places, but probably not significantly so. And hey, I got in with a 3.4, so it's definitely possible.