How do AdComs view graduate school GPA?

[emongali]

So this is a question I'm sure you all get on a regular basis, with posters usually asking about how favorably a good (3.7+) grad school GPA is received by admissions committees. Well, I'm coming from the other end to ask you all how much a red flag would a gGPA of ~3.40 for a hard science graduate program would be viewed.

In my case, I'm currently enrolled in a 1-year "post-bacc" program in Anatomy and Physiology that offers graduate level courses taught by medical school professors and that are also at the same calibre as the medical school courses they're equivalent to. However, unlike most typical post-bacc programs in the US, the grades we get in our courses have no impact on our undergraduate GPA. And, unlike SMPs, top students at our program do not get automatic interview and enrollment considerations for the medical school that hosts us (Saint Louis University). Additionally, it has the reputation of being very rigorous, with the average GPA in our cohort being about a 3.10. In other words, compared to most graduate programs, ours does not inflate grades at all.

Now, despite my 3.40, I've managed to be in the top 3 of my class out of a group of 10 students (originally we had 16 students in our first semester, but unfortunately most who left felt like they didn't make high enough grades to warrant continued enrollment). And with that, I've been accepted to the 1+ year M.S. in Anatomy program that's run by our department. The top 3-4 students with the highest GPAs in the first year courses are offered TA assistantships to help run the anatomy lab and tutor students in the summer, fall, and spring Gross Anatomy courses (including the Fall anatomy course for medical students). Additionally, the M.S. provides a thesis option, which means a lot of research hours and strong publication potential. All this is to say that I'll be getting a lot of perks out of this experience.

So, with that being said, how bad would a graduate GPA of <3.50 look to ADCOMs? Would they blankly look that that number individually and be like "pfft! He won't be able to handle medical school!" Or would they look at all the other tangible take-aways achieved by the applicant that came with their graduate degree?

Thanks in advance for all your answers!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RNtoMD87]

Well LSU only looks at your last 32 post back hours in order to calculate sGPA so theres that...

 

[Catalystik]

Well LSU only looks at your last 32 post back hours in order to calculate sGPA so theres that...

Historically, Wayne has done something similar.

 

[Catalystik]

So this is a question I'm sure you all get on a regular basis, with posters usually asking about how favorably a good (3.7+) grad school GPA is received by admissions committees. Well, I'm coming from the other end to ask you all how much a red flag would a gGPA of ~3.40 for a hard science graduate program would be viewed.

In my case, I'm currently enrolled in a 1-year "post-bacc" program in Anatomy and Physiology that offers graduate level courses taught by medical school professors and that are also at the same calibre as the medical school courses they're equivalent to. However, unlike most typical post-bacc programs in the US, the grades we get in our courses have no impact on our undergraduate GPA. And, unlike SMPs, top students at our program do not get automatic interview and enrollment considerations for the medical school that hosts us (Saint Louis University). Additionally, it has the reputation of being very rigorous, with the average GPA in our cohort being about a 3.10. In other words, compared to most graduate programs, ours does not inflate grades at all.

Now, despite my 3.40, I've managed to be in the top 3 of my class out of a group of 10 students (originally we had 16 students in our first semester, but unfortunately most who left felt like they didn't make high enough grades to warrant continued enrollment). And with that, I've been accepted to the 1+ year M.S. in Anatomy program that's run by our department. The top 3-4 students with the highest GPAs in the first year courses are offered TA assistantships to help run the anatomy lab and tutor students in the summer, fall, and spring Gross Anatomy courses (including the Fall anatomy course for medical students). Additionally, the M.S. provides a thesis option, which means a lot of research hours and strong publication potential. All this is to say that I'll be getting a lot of perks out of this experience.

So, with that being said, how bad would a graduate GPA of <3.50 look to ADCOMs? Would they blankly look that that number individually and be like "pfft! He won't be able to handle medical school!" Or would they look at all the other tangible take-aways achieved by the applicant that came with their graduate degree?

Thanks in advance for all your answers!

It's impossible to generalize about how all Adcomms will interpret this gGPA. Many MD schools don't regard grad school GPAs much, aside from true SMPs. DO schools and some MD schools, OTOH, do incorporate gGPAs into their decision-making Your best bet would be to talk to one of your school's counselors and find out which med schools have accepted their students in the past, and what the success rate among MD and DO applicants has been historically, as those institutions likely have an idea of the grade deflation you've experienced.

That said, of course the research and teaching opportunities will enhance your application. A thesis: not so much.

 

[wormboge]

Well LSU only looks at your last 32 post back hours in order to calculate sGPA so theres that...

What is LSU?

 

[LizzyM]

What is LSU?

Have you ever used Google? It is really great and will get you an answer quicker than SDN in some cases. Try Googling LSU and you'll see how it works.

 

[RNtoMD87]

It really does make me scratch my head that the adcoms see all majors as equal. I helped an ex do her senior level small business degree classes and it was common sense, unbelievably easy stuff. Meanwhile, physics and biochem majors majors kick ass to end up with a 3.3-3.4 and grades are all that matters. Or you have a 7 point grading scale versus a 10 point grading scale and it doesn't matter. Or you are a graduate student doing much harder work, and it is equated to an undergraduate doing much easier work.

 

[gyngyn]

We expect graduate school gpa's to be close to 4.0. Much less will raise eyebrows.
Even excellent graduate gpa's do not change minds when the undergrad gpa is marginal.

 

[SpoiledMilk]

It really does make me scratch my head that the adcoms see all majors as equal. I helped an ex do her senior level small business degree classes and it was common sense, unbelievably easy stuff. Meanwhile, physics and biochem majors majors kick ass to end up with a 3.3-3.4 and grades are all that matters.

That's why the MCAT exists. It's the great equalizer...

 

[RNtoMD87]

Just doesn't seem equal if say two people had a 515 MCAT, but one had a 3.9 in small business and the other had a 3.8 in Biochemistry

 

[SpoiledMilk]

If both have a 515, then regardless of the major, it's reasonable to conclude that they have the aptitude to potentially do well in medschool.

The undergrad GPAs of 3.9 and 3.8 give Adcoms the view that both are serious/studious students and not lazy/unmotivated.

 

[Dr. Meliodas]

The most recent AAMC data placed "Degree from graduate or professional program" in the "Lowest Importance Rating" along with "Undergraduate Major"

 

[RNtoMD87]

Late efforts are also important, No business likes a lazy person, even if you have a high degree.

Seems it would be kind of hard to have a good GPA in a graduate degree and be lazy, especially for a PhD in some real science. However its pretty simple to be lazy and do a useless undergrad degree.

 

[Goro]

Just doesn't seem equal if say two people had a 515 MCAT, but one had a 3.9 in small business and the other had a 3.8 in Biochemistry

The kid who took small business still had to take all the prereqs. Have you ever studied economics? It's not a cakewalk

 

[676188]

If both have a 515, then regardless of the major, it's reasonable to conclude that they have the aptitude to potentially do well in medschool.

The undergrad GPAs of 3.9 and 3.8 give Adcoms the view that both are serious/studious students and not lazy/unmotivated.

How do Adcoms determine the difference between someone who has a 3.0 GPA who is lazy and unmotivated, and someone who has a 3.0 GPA because of a crappy first year, came back and worked part or full time during their entire 4 years of undergrad, and raised a family, and just didn't have as many hours in a day to study? Secondaries? Upward trend?

 

[LizzyM]

How do Adcoms determine the difference between someone who has a 3.0 GPA who is lazy and unmotivated, and someone who has a 3.0 GPA because of a crappy first year, came back and worked part or full time during their entire 4 years of undergrad, and raised a family, and just didn't have as many hours in a day to study? Secondaries? Upward trend?

For a 3.0 student, they wouldn't waste their time trying to figure it out... NEXT!

 

[676188]

For a 3.0 student, they wouldn't waste their time trying to figure it out... NEXT!

I meant 3.0 undergraduate GPA...obviously a 3.0 graduate GPA would indicate someone who wouldn't succeed in medical school

 

[SpoiledMilk]

How do Adcoms determine the difference between someone who has a 3.0 GPA who is lazy and unmotivated, and someone who has a 3.0 GPA because of a crappy first year, came back and worked part or full time during their entire 4 years of undergrad, and raised a family, and just didn't have as many hours in a day to study? Secondaries? Upward trend?

I am assuming that's why the AAMC is advocating for a more holistic approach, and why the application process is such a big production. To fill out the actual application is pretty labor intensive, and then requires an in-person interview, if it gets that far.

Like scouting and drafting a #1 quarterback in the NFL, the process is not an exact science, but it is the best method thus far...

 

[LizzyM]

I meant 3.0 undergraduate GPA...obviously a 3.0 graduate GPA would indicate someone who wouldn't succeed in medical school

I was referring to a 3.0 undergrad gpa.

Wish I knew how to upload the "Ain't nobody got time fo dat." meme.

 

[SpoiledMilk]

For @LizzyM

 

[676188]

I was referring to a 3.0 undergrad gpa.

Wish I knew how to upload the "Ain't nobody got time fo dat." meme.

Ok, so I guess hoping for an MD adcom to look favorably on reinvention is out. Good to know.

 

[Goro]

How do Adcoms determine the difference between someone who has a 3.0 GPA who is lazy and unmotivated, and someone who has a 3.0 GPA because of a crappy first year, came back and worked part or full time during their entire 4 years of undergrad, and raised a family, and just didn't have as many hours in a day to study? Secondaries? Upward trend?

The rising GPA trend speaks volumes.

 

[Xyzcannon18]

Just doesn't seem equal if say two people had a 515 MCAT, but one had a 3.9 in small business and the other had a 3.8 in Biochemistry

If both of these applicants applied to medical school, they took the same prereqs. Just because one was business and one was biochemistry doesn't necessarily make a big difference in my opinion. In fact, a lot of people find it more advantageous to be a science major for GPA because they constantly have the chance to raise their science GPA where a business major is one and done after their prereqs. Just my two cents though.

Edit: seems like someone has already addressed this, sorry. Point still stands.

 

[RNtoMD87]

The kid who took small business still had to take all the prereqs. Have you ever studied economics? It's not a cakewalk

i study Austrian school, not a big fan of Keynesian. Find it to be short term fix BS. Hard to find college courses on in depth though, it's ALL Keynesian. Pretty much have to be self taught if you want to study Austrian.