Grad School GPA - does it actually matter?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yes, I'm planning on applying this June. Taking the MCAT May 7th. I've heard of students with very high stats getting rejected from CU. However, one of my former roommates was accepted with a 25. LOL She did have a 4.0 GPA though. It's totally unpredictable. Good luck!

CU is an odd duck when it comes to acceptance. My wife and I lived in Boulder for about 15 years and I've applied there twice. I know people with high stats and low stats that have gotten in. I constantly heard that CU is one of the most difficult schools to get into. I would've certainly have loved to have gotten in there, but we were sort of done with living in Colorado overall anyway.

Best of luck to you!

Members don't see this ad.
 
CU is an odd duck when it comes to acceptance. My wife and I lived in Boulder for about 15 years and I've applied there twice. I know people with high stats and low stats that have gotten in. I constantly heard that CU is one of the most difficult schools to get into. I would've certainly have loved to have gotten in there, but we were sort of done with living in Colorado overall anyway.

Best of luck to you!

I hear you. I have met a lot of med students through social circles and they have quite a range of stats.The school does tend to use their median GPA and MCAT scores in their promotional materials. In addition, in 2009 they did received a spanking from the state board for several issues. I am curious to see what changes they have made since. My former roommate hated the program but then again she hated working with people anyways. LOL Good luck at Tulane!
 
Well, I'm not sure if there isn't some miscomprehension going on on this thread. While I agree with folks actually talking to schools to learn how specific places handle things, bear in mind that what they do as adcoms behind closed doors may not be exactly what they tell you and bear in mind that any school could be an unusual outlier. As mentioned above in this threads, grad GPAs are problematic for adcoms because (1) most undergrad applicants won't have any, so you are doing an apples and oranges comparison if you weigh these in, and (2) there's often very substantial grade inflation in grad school, and (3) for some applicants the number of course hours taken for a lengthy graduate degree can dwarf the undergrad hours and change a GPA pretty handilly.

I also think there are folks on this thread who don't get that when you talk about "grad school grades" we aren't talking about SMPs. SMPs are looked at differently because that's not so much of a terminal degree program as it is a "prove you are able to handle med school" type endeavor. So for SMPs, yes grades matter. That's more of a post-bac/pre-health path than a graduate degree although they do give you a parchment at the end. Put that one aside -- it's really not what we are talking about here.

What we are talking about here is whether your MPH or MBA or JD or non-SMP MS or PhD is going to be factored in and pump up your undergrad GPA, or whether those degrees are simply used otherwise, as a nice "EC" type credential.

When you fill out AMCAS, there are two different GPAs calculated, one that includes undergrad plus undergrad level postbac, and the other that includes all grades including graduate. The former is what most adcoms use as your GPA, and in fact they pretty much have to use that one because it's the only one that's an apples and apples comparison when looking at everyone who applied, when most only have undergrad coursework history. It would be unfair to do otherwise. Should that dude who did pretty average in undergrad get a big boost because A's are easier to come by in grad school?

However sometimes after they accept you, when they want to print out the recruitment brochure or fill out data for US News, etc stating their average GPA, they will use the higher average that includes the graduate GPA. Makes them look more competitive. But if a place is truly telling you yeah, you can average up a low undergrad GPA with A's in (a non-SMP) grad school, that school is a rare outlier.

I am not disagreeing with your logic on why "most" schools do not weigh in grad gpa's (non-SMP) to the extent of undergraduate GPA's, if they do at all, as I am well aware of how the majority of schools view graduate gpa's - for the exact reasons that you have just illustrated.

However, don't assume that I mis-understood or didn't thoroughly discuss this particular schools admissions process with the adcom after a Q&A session last semester. I have an extremely unique background that this particular adcom took an interest in, and we had a very long conversation after the meeting in which she directly told me that they factor graduate GPA's just as heavily as the undergraduate GPA when making their admissions decisions - prior to offering applicants interviews and acceptances. She directly told me that they would take the AMCAS calculated undergrad + postbacc GPA and add it to the AMCAS calculated Grad GPA to compute a totally new internal GPA that would then be used to evaluate students when deciding to interview or reject etc. So whether this school is an "outlier" or not, this is what they claim to do, and that is all I claimed to say in my post above.

Although it is possible she "lied" to me about their internal admissions process, I really see no motive as to why she would have done that - both my undergrad and graduate GPA's are competitive as far as I am concerned. I can only assume to take her for her word - in which I did.

Also, whether or not they have a different policy for the non-hard science graduate programs such as the MPH or MBA I didn't ask, and she didn't specify. I am in a graduate biochemistry program and she knew that, so at the very least they seem to weigh the graduate GPA for the hard sciences to the same extent as the undergraduate GPA. It seems that from nattydreads posts Colorodo seems to adopt a similiar policy and who knows how many other schools might do the same. So rather than just writing these schools off as "outliers" and dismissing the importance of graduate work completely during the process, I feel it would be beneficial to seek out which and how many "outlier" schools there may be as it would obviously be beneficial to students with strong graduate GPA's.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It depends on the school in question. Here at MCG we separate your GPA down by subject, year, and by undergrad/graduate work. We also acknowledge the fat that graduate school GPA's are highly inflated, thus performing poorly really puts a red flag on your GPA.

While grad school grades don't really do that much for you, they absolutely can kill any chances that you had of getting into medical school, if you perform below a high standard of your peers.
 
While grad school grades don't really do that much for you, they absolutely can kill any chances that you had of getting into medical school, if you perform below a high standard of your peers.


Yes, that seems to be the general consensus here on sdn and has been over the past 7 years that I have been a member - so therefore it has also been my own consensus, and I still feel that there is some truth to it.

However, lately, the only 3 schools that I have spoken to directly (as opposed to indirect sdn info) have all stated that they do NOT discredit graduate GPA's in the hard sciences, and have directly rejected my sdn influenced opinion on the weight of the graduate school GPA - especially when its a hard science program. Although only 1 of the three schools (UVA) told me directly how they determine the cGPA in regards to ugrad + grad gpa's the other two schools rejected the notion of graduate GPA work being percieved as any less than undergraduate work. The adcom from EVMS (one of the other two schools) directly stated that if anything - grad gpa is perceived as harder come by then undergrad gpa???

So I now find myself taking this grad gpa doesn't matter attitude that is soooo prevelant on sdn with a little grain of salt. I mean what are the chances that the ONLY three schools that I have ever asked will adamently and sternly contradict the common view point about the weight of grad gpa's?

So in response to your post, yes I still believe that the majority of schools probably employ a policy similiar to your school (MCG) - in which the grad gpa is probably nothing more than a nice EC, but I am slowly now beginning to realize that it really is more school specific that I originally had thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes, that seems to be the general consensus here on sdn and has been over the past 7 years that I have been a member - so therefore it has also been my own consensus, and I still feel that there is some truth to it.

However, lately, the only 3 schools that I have spoken to directly (as opposed to indirect sdn info) have all stated that they do NOT discredit graduate GPA's in the hard sciences, and have directly rejected my sdn influenced opinion on the weight of the graduate school GPA - especially when its a hard science program. Although only 1 of the three schools (UVA) told me directly how they determine the cGPA in regards to ugrad + grad gpa's the other two schools rejected the notion of graduate GPA work being percieved as any less than undergraduate work. The adcom from EVMS (one of the other two schools) directly stated that if anything - grad gpa is perceived as harder come by then undergrad gpa???

So I now find myself taking this grad gpa doesn't matter attitude that is soooo prevelant on sdn with a little grain of salt. I mean what are the chances that the ONLY three schools that I have ever asked will adamently and sternly contradict the common view point about the weight of grad gpa's?

So in response to your post, yes I still believe that the majority of schools probably employ a policy similiar to your school (MCG) - in which the grad gpa is probably nothing more than a nice EC, but I am slowly now beginning to realize that it really is more school specific that I originally had thought.

So the three schools you are talking about are UVA, EVMS, and...?

Yeah I have to agree with your evaluation here. I assumed from reading SDN that, basically, grad GPA is dirt. Which was sad, because while there may be a degree of grad GPA inflation, I had to work my ass off to get a good grad GPA, and I would have hoped that that would help me this year. But now I am hearing that while the AMCAS separates the grad/ug GPAs, there are quite a few schools who not only weight in the grad GPA evenly, but some schools weight it more heavily. Whilch honestly makes more sense to me since it is a more recent and accurate reflection of my academic abilities...


Thus far, here then is a list of schools that we know from speaking directly with the adcoms, that weight gradGPA (non-SMP ofcourse) = or > than ugGPA:

UNM (>)
UC
UVA
EVMS

and whatever third one you were talking about...any others?

note: I freely admit the possibility that adcoms might do things differently behind their doors than they tell us, but frankly I don't see it in their interest to lie to us. There might be a bias against us for having grad degrees, but I think if they tell you that gGPA matters, then it probably does. Either way, this is probably a really useful list of schools for those of us applying this summer....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I listed Columbia because I was told that it was one which is the only reason that it's on my "to be applied to" list. I haven't confirmed it from Columbia itself but the source I heard it from seemed reliable. Off the top of my head, I don't know of others.

Oh yeah, if you can confirm this, or tell us a little about this "source" perhaps it ought to be added to the list ^?
 
So the three schools you are talking about are UVA, EVMS, and...?

Yeah I have to agree with your evaluation here. I assumed from reading SDN that, basically, grad GPA is dirt. Which was sad, because while there may be a degree of grad GPA inflation, I had to work my ass off to get a good grad GPA, and I would have hoped that that would help me this year. But now I am hearing that while the AMCAS separates the grad/ug GPAs, there are quite a few schools who not only weight in the grad GPA evenly, but some schools weight it more heavily. Whilch honestly makes more sense to me since it is a more recent and accurate reflection of my academic abilities...


Thus far, here then is a list of schools that we know from speaking directly with the adcoms, that weight gradGPA (non-SMP ofcourse) = or > than ugGPA:

UNM (>)
UC
UVA
EVMS

and whatever third one you were talking about...any others?

note: I freely admit the possibility that adcoms might do things differently behind their doors than they tell us, but frankly I don't see it in their interest to lie to us. There might be a bias against us for having grad degrees, but I think if they tell you that gGPA matters, then it probably does. Either way, this is probably a really useful list of schools for those of us applying this summer....

Interesting that EVMS is up there. I had a 3.9+ in graduate school and I didn't get even an interview from them. 31 MCAT as well.

Grad school matters from the since that if you don't get a great grade and fantastic letters, your applicant fate is dead on the spot. No performance in graduate school will make up for a lackluster undergraduate performance, and that should be obvious. But, what it an do is give you an opportunity to grow as as person, as an applicant, and as a student, which is more important to the adcom's than seeing that you are able to make an A while taking 1 class a semester (what real graduate school is like in science).

Graduate school science classes are a joke, if you assume that this post is about a real graduate degree and not the SMP's that are offered to people willing to drop 50k to take a chance at getting an acceptance.
 
Interesting that EVMS is up there. I had a 3.9+ in graduate school and I didn't get even an interview from them. 31 MCAT as well.

Grad school matters from the since that if you don't get a great grade and fantastic letters, your applicant fate is dead on the spot. No performance in graduate school will make up for a lackluster undergraduate performance, and that should be obvious. But, what it an do is give you an opportunity to grow as as person, as an applicant, and as a student, which is more important to the adcom's than seeing that you are able to make an A while taking 1 class a semester (what real graduate school is like in science).

Graduate school science classes are a joke, if you assume that this post is about a real graduate degree and not the SMP's that are offered to people willing to drop 50k to take a chance at getting an acceptance.

Sorry, no. Disagree. I did a hard science masters at UPenn, and I would say that a couple classes were "easy" and more than that were hard. Much like undergrad. To say that grad classes are a joke...makes me wonder where you did your masters. It's no different than UG in that there are easy classes and hard classes. I'm not dumb, and I def had to work for the grades...
 
Sorry, no. Disagree. I did a hard science masters at UPenn, and I would say that a couple classes were "easy" and more than that were hard. Much like undergrad. To say that grad classes are a joke...makes me wonder where you did your masters. It's no different than UG in that there are easy classes and hard classes. I'm not dumb, and I def had to work for the grades...

The difference between undergraduate and graduate work is that graduate professors understand that you are there for research, and that 99% of the learning that you do is going to be self-taught in the field that your work is done in. When I was in my phd program, this was a very common understanding and almost universal opinion that was held by the faculty. My degree is in Cellular and Molecular Biology, with the entire research being done on innate immunity and it's role in cancer detection/rejection.

My undergraduate classes demanded a lot more time and effort than any graduate class that I took (including 9000 level classes in RNA processing, toxicology, molecular signaling, and synergistic immune relationships). Everyone in the program received at least a B for their effort. All of the tests were short answer/essay.
 
Interesting that EVMS is up there. I had a 3.9+ in graduate school and I didn't get even an interview from them. 31 MCAT as well.


I am sure there are people that had a 3.9+ in undergrad and didn't get interviewed their as well, what is your point? The fact that you didn't get interviewed say's nothing regarding their policy on admissions and how grad gpa's are factored into their decisions.

[/QUOTE] taking 1 class a semester (what real graduate school is like in science)[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself and your graduate school cause that's not really what graduate school was like at my school? I was taking 3-4 hard core science courses per semester and doing 20-40 hours of research each week on top of that.


[/QUOTE] Graduate school science classes are a joke, if you assume that this post is about a real graduate degree and not the SMP's that are offered to people willing to drop 50k to take a chance at getting an acceptance. /QUOTE]

Once again, I am not sure where you went to school but my grad school courses were no joke. We went into much much more detail than we ever did in undergrad. For example, in undergrad my lecture courses consisted of mostly theory w/ a little sprinkle of application. In grad school my lecture courses consisted of more advanced theory and then tested us on that theory via methods in research - MUCH MUCH harder.

I will agree however, that although the courses and material is much harder in grad school, the grade you recieve could be percieved as more inflated since everybody practically gets a B or above in graduate school.

In my experiences, getting a B or B+ was almost guranteed; an A- was comparable to undergrad; but getting a solid A, however, was much harder in grad school. They typically gave no more than 10-15 percent of the class solid A's, and you have to consider that nearly everybody in your grad school class is extremely knowledgeable and interested in the field, unlike undergrad where you always have a large portion of the class that just doesn't do well or care as much. Additionally, there are some students that have a lot of practical experience that helps them tremendously when it comes to the applied problems.

In conclusion, I guess I would say that a 3.3-3.6 shouldn't be too difficult to obtain if you put in the work in grad school (still have to put in the work) but a 3.7+ requires talent and hardwork. I found it much easier to maintain a 3.7+ in undergrad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The difference between undergraduate and graduate work is that graduate professors understand that you are there for research, and that 99% of the learning that you do is going to be self-taught in the field that your work is done in.

I guess our experiences can be used as a testiment to show just how much variance there is to graduate gpa's, explaining why the majority of medical schools can't really use them to evaluate students by.

Because, although my program was also research based, such as yours, it didn't prevent the instructors teaching our courses - regardless of the level (500-900) - from easing up on us and chalking it up to "oh they will just self-teach themselves the material relevant to their research during their careers later on." On the contrary, the director of our program can be quoted to repeatedly say that "the A grades are used to identify the Stallions in the class." Either way, the only real difference between graduate lecture courses and undergraduate lecture courses is that the material is more advanced in grad courses.
 
So the three schools you are talking about are UVA, EVMS, and...?

Yeah I have to agree with your evaluation here. I assumed from reading SDN that, basically, grad GPA is dirt. Which was sad, because while there may be a degree of grad GPA inflation, I had to work my ass off to get a good grad GPA, and I would have hoped that that would help me this year. But now I am hearing that while the AMCAS separates the grad/ug GPAs, there are quite a few schools who not only weight in the grad GPA evenly, but some schools weight it more heavily. Whilch honestly makes more sense to me since it is a more recent and accurate reflection of my academic abilities...


Thus far, here then is a list of schools that we know from speaking directly with the adcoms, that weight gradGPA (non-SMP ofcourse) = or > than ugGPA:

UNM (>)
UC
UVA
EVMS

and whatever third one you were talking about...any others?

note: I freely admit the possibility that adcoms might do things differently behind their doors than they tell us, but frankly I don't see it in their interest to lie to us. There might be a bias against us for having grad degrees, but I think if they tell you that gGPA matters, then it probably does. Either way, this is probably a really useful list of schools for those of us applying this summer....


UNM (>)
UC
UVA
EVMS
Georgetown (not sure how much it weighs in however, I was just told it does)
 
Last edited:
I guess our experiences can be used as a testiment to show just how much variance there is to graduate gpa's, explaining why the majority of medical schools can't really use them to evaluate students by.

Because, although my program was also research based, such as yours, it didn't prevent the instructors teaching our courses - regardless of the level (500-900) - from easing up on us and chalking it up to "oh they will just self-teach themselves the material relevant to their research during their careers later on." On the contrary, the director of our program can be quoted to repeatedly say that "the A grades are used to identify the Stallions in the class." Either way, the only real difference between graduate lecture courses and undergraduate lecture courses is that the material is more advanced in grad courses.

What's funny about the "stallion in the class" comment is that it's graduate school, and the success that the person has is not defined by his GPA in those classes, but by the quality of research and level of grant funding that he or she is able to accrue by the time he is complete.

BTW, I doubt that you took 3-4 classes per semester for the entire duration that you were in your research based program. If so, that is the only graduate degree program that I have ever heard about that did that, since the ones that I have heard about are SMP programs that have nothing to do with real research. I could have taken 2-3 classes/semester for the first year, but after that my PI and committee would have slammed me for not being in the lab, doing what I came there to do.
 
Just thought I would repost the review I gave about my experience at Georgetown's Physiology Masters program:

Georgetown SMP: 2009-2010

Pros:
- If you are in the upper part of the class then you are guaranteed an interview (I forgot what % you have to be in to get it, though. I think it was top 50%)
- Great reputation
- I applied to my current school (USUHS) twice. The first time I got an interview and was put on the waitlist (eventually to be rejected). The second time I applied I was accepted. During my first year of medical school I spoke to one of the people on the admissions board (and a Dean at the school) and he told me that my performance in the Georgetown SMP is what made them decide to accept me. Students so rarely get a decisive answer like that, so I thought I would share. For reference, my undergrad GPA was 3.3, MCAT was 32Q, and Georgetown GPA was 3.8.

Cons:
- Very expensive
- No guarantees on getting into med school, even if you do well in the program
- The program directors play favorites. I won't name names, but I will state that some people accepted to Georgetown med from our SMP class shouldn't have been.

It's just one example, but graduate work can be very helpful in your overall application.
 
SMP's are very different than traditional graduate programs.
 
What's funny about the "stallion in the class" comment is that it's graduate school, and the success that the person has is not defined by his GPA in those classes, but by the quality of research and level of grant funding that he or she is able to accrue by the time he is complete.

BTW, I doubt that you took 3-4 classes per semester for the entire duration that you were in your research based program. If so, that is the only graduate degree program that I have ever heard about that did that, since the ones that I have heard about are SMP programs that have nothing to do with real research. I could have taken 2-3 classes/semester for the first year, but after that my PI and committee would have slammed me for not being in the lab, doing what I came there to do.


I think you really need to learn to seperate this notion that your graduate school experience equals everyone's experience at other schools. The discussion of this topic is the Master's degree, not the Ph.D. For the MS students at my school and several others that I have looked into, the entire first year is spent taking 3-4 courses a semester plus research. The second year is as you describe, but the majority of the GPA, which consists of a total of 30 credits in my school, comes from the 1st year courses (24 credits)which is what I am referring to.

In short, I did Biology and Chemistry at the University of Virginia as an undergrad, which is by no means an "easy" undergraduate institution. Yet, I still I found GRAD SCHOOL HARDER!!! So just take it at that, and don't assume everybody went to a grad school where they took 1 class per semester and there instructors didn't try and challenge the students to determine who is superior in classroom based work in addition to the research component that you've also mentioned.
 
I think you really need to learn to seperate this notion that your graduate school experience equals everyone's experience at other schools. The discussion of this topic is the Master's degree, not the Ph.D. For the MS students at my school and several others that I have looked into, the entire first year is spent taking 3-4 courses a semester plus research. The second year is as you describe, but the majority of the GPA, which consists of a total of 30 credits in my school, comes from the 1st year courses (24 credits)which is what I am referring to.

In short, I did Biology and Chemistry at the University of Virginia as an undergrad, which is by no means an "easy" undergraduate institution. Yet, I still I found GRAD SCHOOL HARDER!!! So just take it at that, and don't assume everybody went to a grad school where they took 1 class per semester and there instructors didn't try and challenge the students to determine who is superior in classroom based work in addition to the research component that you've also mentioned.

Too much competing projection in this thread for me. It is widely acknowledged around here, by people who have served on adcoms, that graduate GPA, particularly those from Master's programs, are not as heavily weighted as undergraduate GPA. The grades are inflated. Somehow, every reapplicant with a 3.0 uGPA somehow manages to pull-off a 4.0 as a graduate student. Take a trip through MDApplicants and verify for yourselves. Additionally, uGPA, not gGPA, reportedly shows up on your primary app "cover sheet," how your application is provided to schools from AAMC/AMCAS, along with your MCAT score. I think there is some fire to this smoke about Master's GPAs not being as predictive, and thus less weighted by adcoms. The rest of these posts are all just competing anecdote.
 
Does anyone know if medical schools differentiate professional GPA from graduate GPA? I know AMCAS lumps everything together so I'm leaning towards no unfortunately.

One can argue that it would be comparing apples to oranges. Many individuals in my class saw a drop in their GPA as compared to their uGPA so I don't believe that there is grade inflation in class. What's everyone's view with regards to this?
 
Last edited:
In short, I did Biology and Chemistry at the University of Virginia as an undergrad, which is by no means an "easy" undergraduate institution. Yet, I still I found GRAD SCHOOL HARDER!!! So just take it at that, and don't assume everybody went to a grad school where they took 1 class per semester and there instructors didn't try and challenge the students to determine who is superior in classroom based work in addition to the research component that you've also mentioned.

I have no dog in this fight, but didn't you just make the point that grad GPA's are all very different and therefore not always comparable? That may be the reason that some, or possibly most, medical schools don't mix it with the uGPA.
 
In short, I did Biology and Chemistry at the University of Virginia as an undergrad, which is by no means an "easy" undergraduate institution. Yet, I still I found GRAD SCHOOL HARDER!!! So just take it at that, and don't assume everybody went to a grad school where they took 1 class per semester and there instructors didn't try and challenge the students to determine who is superior in classroom based work in addition to the research component that you've also mentioned.

lol. And with "grad school being harder" everyone in your program still managed to get a 3.5 GPa after the first year, which is strikingly different than what you experienced in undergraduate school.

I personally haven't ever met any graduate students (that were in a program other than a SMP program) that really gave 2 ****s about their classroom performance, as long as they maintained a 3.0 GPA. By the time it's all said and done, a two year master's program is about 50% classroom credits and 50% research credit, which ends up inflating the GPA's even more.

I literally had 36 hours of "independent student, thesis, etc" that were all A's, which further inflated my graduate GPA.

If you think that a thesis-based master's program is "really hard", just wait till you see the load of information that you have to get through to "excel" in medical school. I'd hate to see how the undergrads from Virginia do in medical school, if a chemistry degree is that easy to get through.

PS. I took 6 didactic classes in 3 years of graduate school. When the admissions committee asks the student representatives about graduate education and difficulty of the curriculum, we always state that most graduate programs are highly inflated, and that we expect a student to do very well in their programs. SMP's where students have to take the same class as medical students are the exception to this rule, and if a student gets through those with a 3.75 it strongly supports that applicant's ability to perform in medical school.
 
... It is widely acknowledged around here, by people who have served on adcoms, that graduate GPA, particularly those from Master's programs, are not as heavily weighted as undergraduate GPA. The grades are inflated. Somehow, every reapplicant with a 3.0 uGPA somehow manages to pull-off a 4.0 as a graduate student. Take a trip through MDApplicants and verify for yourselves. Additionally, uGPA, not gGPA, reportedly shows up on your primary app "cover sheet," how your application is provided to schools from AAMC/AMCAS, along with your MCAT score. I think there is some fire to this smoke about Master's GPAs not being as predictive, and thus less weighted by adcoms. ...

^ This.
 
Too much competing projection in this thread for me. It is widely acknowledged around here, by people who have served on adcoms, that graduate GPA, particularly those from Master's programs, are not as heavily weighted as undergraduate GPA. The grades are inflated. Somehow, every reapplicant with a 3.0 uGPA somehow manages to pull-off a 4.0 as a graduate student. Take a trip through MDApplicants and verify for yourselves. Additionally, uGPA, not gGPA, reportedly shows up on your primary app "cover sheet," how your application is provided to schools from AAMC/AMCAS, along with your MCAT score. I think there is some fire to this smoke about Master's GPAs not being as predictive, and thus less weighted by adcoms. The rest of these posts are all just competing anecdote.

I agree with that, which is why I stated earlier that the reason grad gpa's are not a great indicator for medical schools is because their is a lot of variance in terms of difficulty and grading. Therefore it would not be a great predictor when it comes down to evaluating applicants.

However, this particular post isn't implying that medical schools favor grad gpa's or undergrad gpa's etc. In this post I am merely responding to fahim7's post in which he state's that grad school is a joke and much easier than undergrad, in which I completely disagree. While I agree with him that some grad schools and grad programs may in fact be that way, including his own, that doesn't mean that all of them are. I know mine wasn't.
 
I have no dog in this fight, but didn't you just make the point that grad GPA's are all very different and therefore not always comparable? That may be the reason that some, or possibly most, medical schools don't mix it with the uGPA.

Indeed I did and that is the point I am trying to get across to fahim7 - who apparently thinks that all grad gpa's are a joke and that all grad students take 1 class at a time in which the professors don't challenge the students and give everyone in the class A's because research after all is the priority in grad school?
 
Indeed I did and that is the point I am trying to get across to fahim7 - who apparently thinks that all grad gpa's are a joke and that all grad students take 1 class at a time in which the professors don't challenge the students and give everyone in the class A's because research after all is the priority in grad school?

That is a reasonable point. I ought to leave it there, but my fingers are twitching. If the graduate degrees aren't comparable, aren't they, therefore, effectively useless for adcomms to use to differentiate between candidates - unless they are familiar with that particular program?
 
lol. And with "grad school being harder" everyone in your program still managed to get a 3.5 GPa after the first year, which is strikingly different than what you experienced in undergraduate school.

I think the average is a 3.3 in my department to be exact, but whatever, what you are failing to consider is the fact that the average published uGPA to get accepted into my departments grad program is a 3.5 cGPA in undergrad. So you can look at it like this, in undergrad their are plenty of students that get C's and below, hence a percieved lack of grade inflation. In grad school the bottom half of the class didn't get in, so although it may seem as if everyone is getting a 3.0+ you have to consider that all of those students that weren't getting that in undergrad are no longer in the class and those that were getting a 3.0+ in undergrad are doing just as well in grad school.

I personally haven't ever met any graduate students (that were in a program other than a SMP program) that really gave 2 ****s about their classroom performance, as long as they maintained a 3.0 GPA. By the time it's all said and done, a two year master's program is about 50% classroom credits and 50% research credit, which ends up inflating the GPA's even more.

That's not how it is in my program, the majority of students seem to be extremely motivated here. Additionally, our programs seem to differ a little, we have 24 credits of lecture courses that are required and we only get 6 credits for the research. So although we seem to be involved in research for what seems to be 50% of our time they only give us 6 measly credits for it. Therefore the majority of our GPA is coursework. If you think 6 credits inflates the overall GPA, well then I had more then 6 credits of upper level credits in undergrad due to research as well so I guess my uGPA is inflated as well.

I literally had 36 hours of "independent student, thesis, etc" that were all A's, which further inflated my graduate GPA.

Like I said we only get 6 credits of research, definitely not 36 credits.

If you think that a thesis-based master's program is "really hard", just wait till you see the load of information that you have to get through to "excel" in medical school. I'd hate to see how the undergrads from Virginia do in medical school, if a chemistry degree is that easy to get through.

I am sure the undergrads from Virginia do just fine in med school - it is a top 25 school after all. And you must of missed my point, I was implying that UVA isn't considered an easier undergraduate institution and therefore, using your logic of "grad school is a joke," then I should have really found grad school easy, considering I didn't come from a walk in the park undergrad - but I didn't! So my only logical conclusion is that all grad programs aren't a joke as you seem to think.

PS. I took 6 didactic classes in 3 years of graduate school. When the admissions committee asks the student representatives about graduate education and difficulty of the curriculum, we always state that most graduate programs are highly inflated, and that we expect a student to do very well in their programs. SMP's where students have to take the same class as medical students are the exception to this rule, and if a student gets through those with a 3.75 it strongly supports that applicant's ability to perform in medical school.


So just to recap, let me reiterate this for you one more time. I am merely saying that there are extreme variances in grad schools, as evidenced by the differences in your experiences and mine. This is the exact reason most (not all) med schools do not heavily weight them into their admissions decisions. But for whatever reason you can't seem to agree with this and feel that ALL grad programs are a joke? Where is the logic in that? All grad programs are easy? Sounds pretty naive to me.
 
Last edited:
That is a reasonable point. I ought to leave it there, but my fingers are twitching. If the graduate degrees aren't comparable, aren't they, therefore, effectively useless for adcomms to use to differentiate between candidates - unless they are familiar with that particular program?

Yes, I think that is why most schools don't use them. I have however, found a couple schools that have told me that they do value them - the extent of it I am not sure however (besides UVA, who seems to weight them the same as ugrad).


Edit: Just a further thought, all undergraduate schools are not considered equal as well. I have went to three undergrad schools and I will tell you right now that UVA was harder to excell in than the other two by a large margin - not even comparable.
 
Last edited:
So just to recap, let me reiterate this for you one more time. I am merely saying that their are extreme variances in grad schools, as evidenced by the differences in your experiences and mine. This is the exact reason most (not all) med schools do not heavily weight them into their admissions decisions. But for whatever reason you can't seem to agree with this and feel that ALL grad programs are a joke? Where is the logic in that? All grad programs are easy? Sounds pretty naive to me.
Having completed two MSes and one PhD, I would humbly submit that a large part of the disconnect here is that fahimaz did a PhD, whereas you did an MS. Taking classes is not a major goal of a PhD program; in fact, the PI will want you to spend as little time in the classroom as possible because whenever you're in class, you ain't working in the lab! So classes are more tolerated as a necessary evil for a PhD. In contrast, for MS programs, especially if they're Plan B (non-thesis) degrees, classes are a significant part of the curriculum. Even if they're thesis MSes (which one of mine was and one wasn't), the focus on coursework in an MS program is still a lot heavier than it is for a PhD program. Also, regardless of the difficulty of the grad school class itself, I think we all agree that the *grading* of grad school classes is easier. Again, you can't get through grad school with a "gentleman's C", and the profs know that. So if you do the bare minimum, you'll slide by with straight Bs and never fall below a 3.0. Finally, I agree with fahimaz that since grad GPAs tend to be inflated because of the grading policies, someone with a grad degree is expected to have a higher grad GPA, and nearly everyone does.

Getting back on topic, again, the biggest problem we have as an adcom when it comes to evaluating grad school grades is not even that different grad school programs have different coursework policies or course difficulties. It's that most applicants do not have a grad degree, because graduate coursework is not a prereq for medical school. So how do I compare you with a kid who's applying straight out of college? The only objective stats you both have in common are your MCAT scores and your UG GPAs, and *that* is why we look primarily at UG grades.
 
Having completed two MSes and one PhD, I would humbly submit that a large part of the disconnect here is that fahimaz did a PhD, whereas you did an MS. Taking classes is not a major goal of a PhD program; in fact, the PI will want you to spend as little time in the classroom as possible because whenever you're in class, you ain't working in the lab! So classes are more tolerated as a necessary evil for a PhD. In contrast, for MS programs, especially if they're Plan B (non-thesis) degrees, classes are a significant part of the curriculum. Even if they're thesis MSes (which one of mine was and one wasn't), the focus on coursework in an MS program is still a lot heavier than it is for a PhD program.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this. I can easily see how the Ph.D program would be heavily weighted with research credits, especially since their coursework requirements typically aren't that much more than those of the MS students, if at all, thereby leaving them practically three years for resesarch alone.

Also, regardless of the difficulty of the grad school class itself, I think we all agree that the *grading* of grad school classes is easier. Again, you can't get through grad school with a "gentleman's C", and the profs know that. So if you do the bare minimum, you'll slide by with straight Bs and never fall below a 3.0. Finally, I agree with fahimaz that since grad GPAs tend to be inflated because of the grading policies, someone with a grad degree is expected to have a higher grad GPA, and nearly everyone does.

Ok, I see your point in terms of an admissions comparison. However, in terms of just raw difficulty of the class, I found it easier to get a B in undergrad than grad school in terms of hours put in. Those students that are doing the bare minimum in grad school to get that B are still working pretty hard and had they worked that hard in undergrad they would have at least ended up with the same B. Would you agree with this or is this just unique to my program?

Edit: On further reflection, I will agree that the B grades might be a little easier to obtain in grad school, since the curves at the bottom are pretty large, but the A- or A grades are just as hard, if not harder, in terms of raw time put in.


Getting back on topic, again, the biggest problem we have as an adcom when it comes to evaluating grad school grades is not even that different grad school programs have different coursework policies or course difficulties. It's that most applicants do not have a grad degree, because graduate coursework is not a prereq for medical school. So how do I compare you with a kid who's applying straight out of college? The only objective stats you both have in common are your MCAT scores and your UG GPAs, and *that* is why we look primarily at UG grades.

Yes, I am not contesting this at all. I realize that not only is there is a lot of variance in terms of grading, but when added to the fact that most students have not even gone to grad school, it makes it difficult to use as a tool from an admissions perspective, I completely get this. My earlier posts were just stating that although I see the logic in why most schools do not use grad gpa's in terms of admissions considerations, I have been recently surprised to find out that several schools do value them and even weigh them in just as heavily as the undergrad GPA. Now, although I know that those schools are in the minority in regards to this policy, I still think it would be useful to try and determine the few schools that do have this policy.

EDIT: My responses are above in red.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: My responses are above in red.

It is just unique to your program. Apparently you are at the only graduate program in the country that treats a research-based master's student to the same didactic standards as a SMP or plan-B master's student.

Are you in a one year program? If so, please quit arguing with me since I'm talking about a research/thesis based program that requires students to complete at least 2 years of basic science research and a 100 page thesis prior to their defense/graduation, of which 0 of it may have been covered at any point during their didactic coursework.

Every single graduate student with half a brain can get at least a 3.0 in a research based master's program. That's the difference. QQ above had a valid point when he said that everyone gets at least a 3.0 GPA in graduate classroom work, and that most of the students don't have to work very hard to do it.

PS. You're not the first graduate student to have come on to SDN and tried to justify the difficulty of their current graduate program, in some attempt to talk the community into believing that a master's degree is going to make up for years of poor grades/performance. A master's degree (SMP or Plan A/B) allows a student to show that he or she can excel in classes for a set period of time. Only a SMP shows that that particular student can excel in a medical school-like curriculum, in which he or she must compete with current medical students in their same classes. If you beat 50% of the current MS1 students as a SMP, the school would be stupid to not let you into the class. With that said, it's not the norm for an SMP student to have that type of success in a SMP program.
 
It is just unique to your program. Apparently you are at the only graduate program in the country that treats a research-based master's student to the same didactic standards as a SMP or plan-B master's student.

Are you in a one year program? If so, please quit arguing with me since I'm talking about a research/thesis based program that requires students to complete at least 2 years of basic science research and a 100 page thesis prior to their defense/graduation, of which 0 of it may have been covered at any point during their didactic coursework.

Every single graduate student with half a brain can get at least a 3.0 in a research based master's program. That's the difference. QQ above had a valid point when he said that everyone gets at least a 3.0 GPA in graduate classroom work, and that most of the students don't have to work very hard to do it.

PS. You're not the first graduate student to have come on to SDN and tried to justify the difficulty of their current graduate program, in some attempt to talk the community into believing that a master's degree is going to make up for years of poor grades/performance. A master's degree (SMP or Plan A/B) allows a student to show that he or she can excel in classes for a set period of time. Only a SMP shows that that particular student can excel in a medical school-like curriculum, in which he or she must compete with current medical students in their same classes. If you beat 50% of the current MS1 students as a SMP, the school would be stupid to not let you into the class. With that said, it's not the norm for an SMP student to have that type of success in a SMP program.

You are the only one talking about PhD programs - we're exactly trying to talk about 1 and 2 year MS programs.

Look dude, QofQ just pointed out that PhD programs and MS programs are pretty different in terms of how classroom time is treated, and we are not talking about SMPs at all - the thread is strictly asking about hard science MS GPAs and how they are viewed by med schools, and there are a lot of valid points being made. Nobody is trying to "justify the difficulty of their current graduate program, in some attempt to talk the community into believing that a master's degree is going to make up for years of poor grades/performance." Honestly nobody is trying to do that. We are having a conversation, and the conversation is about/for people who have completed a hard science MS degree (not PhD, not SMP), and how that will affect their app to med school. That's it. No need to start bashing on us. We know we f***ed up our ugGPAs, and we're trying to move forward. Please be constructive or else go find a thread where people are actually trying to "convince the SDN community blablabla." Thats not happening here dude - its irrelevant.
 
It is just unique to your program. Apparently you are at the only graduate program in the country that treats a research-based master's student to the same didactic standards as a SMP or plan-B master's student.

No - actually apparently you have the short sight to consider all graduate programs the same. Since it was like that at YOUR grad school it MUST be like that at ALL grad schools?? Oh but wait, you must have attended every graduate program in the US to reference your claim right?

I am not trying to convince you, I am telling you that my grad program was every bit as hard as my undergrad program was - and yes - my undergrad program was rigorous! Stop trying to tell me that my grad program or anybody else's program wasn't hard, unless you've also been to it and have completed it. You have no real basis to compare your school to any other. I don't believe you have the audacity to tell someone how hard or easy THEIR program is from the outside?


Are you in a one year program? If so, please quit arguing with me since I'm talking about a research/thesis based program that requires students to complete at least 2 years of basic science research and a 100 page thesis prior to their defense/graduation, of which 0 of it may have been covered at any point during their didactic coursework.

The program is two years, however, we do have an option to do a 6 credit internship with a poster / paper presentation as opposed to a thesis. I am not sure if that is what you mean by a plan-B program or not, but it doesn't change the coursework requirements regardless of the option you choose. It is still the same 24 credits of courses + 6 credits of research -whether it is applied towards a thesis or an internship. The thesis is recommended for students planning on later pursuing a Ph.D or staying within academia, whereas the internship is recommended for those looking to join the workforce.


Every single graduate student with half a brain can get at least a 3.0 in a research based master's program. That's the difference. QQ above had a valid point when he said that everyone gets at least a 3.0 GPA in graduate classroom work, and that most of the students don't have to work very hard to do it.

Consider this, most grad programs require a 3.0 minimum to get admitted - do you agree? My program considers a 3.5+ to be competitive, so if the students came in with a 3.0+ you don't expect that they will leave with at least that? Did the students suddenly lose their competitive drive or academic abilities upon entering grad school?

Let me give you a comparison here, I believe a friend of mine at Georgetown's SMP stated that a P in the medical school classes is equivalent to a B+ for their program, so we can make the assumption that had the actual medical students received letter grades they would all be receiving a3.3 minimum to graduate. So can I therefore say, by your logic, that medical school is easy since everyone graduates with a 3.3 GPA? That is ludicrous!


PS. You're not the first graduate student to have come on to SDN and tried to justify the difficulty of their current graduate program, in some attempt to talk the community into believing that a master's degree is going to make up for years of poor grades/performance. A master's degree (SMP or Plan A/B) allows a student to show that he or she can excel in classes for a set period of time. Only a SMP shows that that particular student can excel in a medical school-like curriculum, in which he or she must compete with current medical students in their same classes. If you beat 50% of the current MS1 students as a SMP, the school would be stupid to not let you into the class. With that said, it's not the norm for an SMP student to have that type of success in a SMP program.

Again, you need to realize that I am not trying to justify that grad GPA's should be used in the med school admissions process - I could care less if they are used or not. I am just trying to tell you that not ALL grad programs are easy and a joke as you seem to think based on your years of experience at practically every grad school program in the country. Also, both my undergraduate and graduate GPA's are competive for med school, I didn't go to grad school as a remedial thing, but out of interest to further my knowledge in my choosen subject. So stop making this a med school admissions thing, cause its not - I am merely saying that grad programs aren't all easy.

Anyways, I am done arguing about how difficult MY graduate program is to someone that has not been through it. So we can just agree to disagree here.
 
Let's all just let this one die its hoary death. This horse is dead and its carcass has been rendered and repurposed for various other products. Some programs are hard. Some are easy. None of them matter to adcoms.
 
Interesting that EVMS is up there. I had a 3.9+ in graduate school and I didn't get even an interview from them. 31 MCAT as well.

Grad school matters from the since that if you don't get a great grade and fantastic letters, your applicant fate is dead on the spot. No performance in graduate school will make up for a lackluster undergraduate performance, and that should be obvious. But, what it an do is give you an opportunity to grow as as person, as an applicant, and as a student, which is more important to the adcom's than seeing that you are able to make an A while taking 1 class a semester (what real graduate school is like in science).

Graduate school science classes are a joke, if you assume that this post is about a real graduate degree and not the SMP's that are offered to people willing to drop 50k to take a chance at getting an acceptance.

Well, I found my graduate school science courses to be MUCH MORE conceptually difficult than my MD courses. My doctorate is in one of the hard physical sciences, and no med school course compared to those course I took in my graduate program. I also took a grad level course in biochemistry, and the med school biochem was not as difficult.
 
Well, I found my graduate school science courses to be MUCH MORE conceptually difficult than my MD courses. My doctorate is in one of the hard physical sciences, and no med school course compared to those course I took in my graduate program. I also took a grad level course in biochemistry, and the med school biochem was not as difficult.

Not only are we beating the glue that the horse was turned into, we are killing the donkeys, mules and zebras and other animals that even look like horses.

We got the answer a long time ago. A few schools treat the grad courses as equivalent, some schools treat them more important. If you are trying to recover your uGPA with grad courses, then you will want to apply to those schools.
 
You are the only one talking about PhD programs - we're exactly trying to talk about 1 and 2 year MS programs.

Look dude, QofQ just pointed out that PhD programs and MS programs are pretty different in terms of how classroom time is treated, and we are not talking about SMPs at all - the thread is strictly asking about hard science MS GPAs and how they are viewed by med schools, and there are a lot of valid points being made. Nobody is trying to "justify the difficulty of their current graduate program, in some attempt to talk the community into believing that a master's degree is going to make up for years of poor grades/performance." Honestly nobody is trying to do that. We are having a conversation, and the conversation is about/for people who have completed a hard science MS degree (not PhD, not SMP), and how that will affect their app to med school. That's it. No need to start bashing on us. We know we f***ed up our ugGPAs, and we're trying to move forward. Please be constructive or else go find a thread where people are actually trying to "convince the SDN community blablabla." Thats not happening here dude - its irrelevant.

I'm actually talking about MS programs, as that is the degree that I have. After matriculating into a PHD program, I decided I didn't like basic science research and left with a thesis-based master's degree.
 
Anyways, I am done arguing about how difficult MY graduate program is to someone that has not been through it. So we can just agree to disagree here.

My point is that it doesn't matter how hard your program was. If all the other schools in the country do not have that same curriculum then your MS degree is going to be grouped with everyone else's, when it comes to applying to medical schools across the country.

If you polled ADCOM's from the ~120 medical schools in the county, almost all of them would agree that a MS program will not replace poor grades in college, and that if you do poorly in it the doors to medical school will close. If you do great in it, it will show them a track record of academic focus and responsibility, which is what your undergraduate transcripts were lacking.

I know for a fact that our ADCOM's feel this way (all 26 of them), since this conversation has been waged almost monthly at our campus. SMP>Plan B> Plan A, in terms of showing the admissions committee that you can handle a rigorous load of medically relevant classes, and it will help you establish that 1-2 year track record of doing so.
 
Not only are we beating the glue that the horse was turned into, we are killing the donkeys, mules and zebras and other animals that even look like horses.

We got the answer a long time ago. A few schools treat the grad courses as equivalent, some schools treat them more important. If you are trying to recover your uGPA with grad courses, then you will want to apply to those schools.

Ed, I feel like we're having our own, ignored conversation here.

Keep at it boys. I always love to bring a little pre-allo style to the non-trad forums...

deadhorse.jpg
 
Let's all just let this one die its hoary death. This horse is dead and its carcass has been rendered and repurposed for various other products. Some programs are hard. Some are easy. None of them matter to adcoms.

With all due respect, this is the real question we are trying to discuss, and I think we've come to the conclusion that, in fact, they do matter to some adcoms. I was initially just trying to find out which adcoms those where. Not trying to turn this in to a pre-allo flame war.
 
Ed, I feel like we're having our own, ignored conversation here.

Keep at it boys. I always love to bring a little pre-allo style to the non-trad forums...

deadhorse.jpg


You know, and I was just about to say earlier this morning that this is like a pre-allo thread minus the cool internet pictures.


YOAR MY FAVE SDN'ER TODAY :love:
 
Hey all - So I'm trying to get a consensus opinion here re: grad school GPAs.

The conventional wisdom as I've heard it is that your graduate GPA matters less than your UG GPA. I think we can take this as a given - every pre-med advisor I've talked to has said as much. It seems silly, but there you have it.

Given that, what have you all heard about the importance of grad GPA?

Can a high one counteract a low UG GPA? Can a low one kill your chances? Is it assumed that you should have a 4.0 cause "grad courses are easy"?
(my tentative answers to these three questions are, I think not, definitely yes, and oh god I hope not cause grad courses are NOT easier than UG classes, with few exceptions).

That was the original question, with your personal opinions included. The general consensus is that the actual answers to those questions are:

1. Very little
2. Yes
3. Yes, because the "exceptions" that you mention are actually considered the rule.

You're looking for schools that think differently, and you have a short list, because that list is short. Hence, the formation of a general consensus. Your best bet for getting recognition for your (I believe you) much harder program will unfortunately be UPenn.
 
That was the original question, with your personal opinions included. The general consensus is that the actual answers to those questions are:

1. Very little
2. Yes
3. Yes, because the "exceptions" that you mention are actually considered the rule.

You're looking for schools that think differently, and you have a short list, because that list is short. Hence, the formation of a general consensus. Your best bet for getting recognition for your (I believe you) much harder program will unfortunately be UPenn.

Fair enough. Thanks for putting this conversation back in perspective :thumbup:
 
It would be great if we could keep the list growing.
UNM (>)
UC
UVA
EVMS
Georgetown (not sure how much it weighs in however, I was just told it does)
Some additions I've heard about from other SDNers, but cannot personally vouch for:

UMinnesota
UCentral Florida
Arizona (initially screened only with uGPA, but then postbac and grad GPA considered).
UCalifornia-Irvine-adds an additional point to your "score"
UConn-includes gGPA in their GPA calculation
Albany-"includes all coursework"

Colorado was also on my list and has been twice verified on this thread.
 
I wish I would have known about these places last year...I didn't apply to any of them. Although I'd be OOS for all of them anyways.
 
Nevermind....
 
Last edited:
My point is that it doesn't matter how hard your program was. If all the other schools in the country do not have that same curriculum then your MS degree is going to be grouped with everyone else's, when it comes to applying to medical schools across the country.

If you polled ADCOM's from the ~120 medical schools in the county, almost all of them would agree that a MS program will not replace poor grades in college, and that if you do poorly in it the doors to medical school will close. If you do great in it, it will show them a track record of academic focus and responsibility, which is what your undergraduate transcripts were lacking.

I know for a fact that our ADCOM's feel this way (all 26 of them), since this conversation has been waged almost monthly at our campus. SMP>Plan B> Plan A, in terms of showing the admissions committee that you can handle a rigorous load of medically relevant classes, and it will help you establish that 1-2 year track record of doing so.


Fahimaz7 - I think you need to go back and read my previous posts, although the thread started out talking about how medical schools view graduate gpa's - we pretty much ALL concluded that the majority of med schools do not consider them for admissions purposes. So why you keep using that as your cruch in this debate is beyond me... I have repeated this over and over and over and over and over, but for some reason your still stuck talking about how adcoms view MS's vs. SMP's vs. blah blah blah - your preaching to the choir buddy, I am not disagreeing with you on this point!

For the 20th time, I am merely responding to your post regarding your statement that grad school is a joke, in which I disagree - have you not realized this by now??

What in the world does how adcoms view grad gpa's and the fact that they aren't useful for med school admissions say about their difficulty??? Just because adcoms don't use them in their admissions processes, for the various reasons that we have already covered, it doesn't mean that they are easy and a joke. Med school adcoms might not use a slew of things in their admissions policies such as foreign college credits, technical non-accredited schools, military courses, or even activities such as bodybuilding, or mountain climbing, but it doesn't mean they weren't hard? The litmus test of the difficulty of a pursuit is not measured via how medical adcoms view things?

What about all the professors you had in undergrad that taught you those nice interesting subjects such as chemistry, physics, philosophy, english, etc. etc. Would you go up to them and tell them their grad degree was a joke because med adcoms don't view them as highly as they do the undergrad degree?

Like I said I am done with this conversation, if you insist to believe that all grad programs are a joke then so be it.
 
It would be great if we could keep the list growing.
Some additions I've heard about from other SDNers, but cannot personally vouch for:

UMinnesota
UCentral Florida
Arizona (initially screened only with uGPA, but then postbac and grad GPA considered).
UCalifornia-Irvine-adds an additional point to your "score"
UConn-includes gGPA in their GPA calculation
Albany-"includes all coursework"

Colorado was also on my list and has been twice verified on this thread.

Yes absolutely - I feel like this would be the most useful thing we can get out of this discussion, and having a list of schools that treat gGPA favorably would be huge for a bunch of us this upcoming cycle.

As far as the schools you mentioned, it's too bad there isn't any info "straight from the horse's mouth" (if horse=adcom). Hearsay is tricky, and ofter straight up wrong. We should try to get some hard facts from adcoms....

Like I said, the list so far is composed of schools whose adcoms have told us specifically that gGPA is used to calculate a new GPA, which you are then judged on. Regardless of how hard your grad program was (it ultimately doesn't matter) some schools including UNM, CU, and the few others on that short list explicitly use gGPA to recalculate a new, post-AMCAS GPA.

So the 6 schools you mentioned are a great place to start... we should start calling them and trying to find out exactly how gGPA is used. Moving forward!
 
Top