Graduate GPA vs Undergrad GPA

[jeff.jones]

I've got a Masters in Mechanical Engineering, along with a BS in the same field. My graduate GPA is 3.96 while my undergrad GPA is 3.54.

I have a strong research background (conducted my own full research project which will contribute later to a larger published article). I have ~100 hours of physician shadowing and ~50 hours of veterinary community service. My work and experiences section of my application is also pretty impressive.

I'm a KY resident. MCAT = 33 (12 P, 12 B, 9 V)

My question is, will adcoms tend to look more closely at my graduate or undergraduate GPA?

Here's my school list:

Drexel
Eastern Virginia
Emory
George Washington
Indiana University
Loyola
Saint Louis University
Ohio State
University of Cincinnati
University of Illinois
University of Kentucky
University of Louisville
University of North Carolina
University of Tennessee
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Commonwealth University
Wake Forest



Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gyngyn]

Your undergrad gpa is what will be used to compare you to other applicants as most applicants don't have Master's grades.

Master's grades are widely perceived to be inflated. High scores are the norm.

 

[jeff.jones]

Thanks for your response. Any suggestions as far as my school list, anyone?

 

[gyngyn]

Thanks for your response. Any suggestions as far as my school list, anyone?

Delete the George's, you're fine.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I wouldn't really recommend UNC or Vandy. Emory and Ohio State are real long shots as well. Tennessee with its 94% in state matriculants is also one I would avoid. Illinois is 80% in state but I honestly have no idea if they would still show some preference to those who are out of state but near by Illinois(I'm guessing no but I don't know the policies specific to Illinois).

More to Consider
Medical College Wisconsin
Penn State
West Virginia
Temple
Jefferson
Oakland
Quinnipac
Rush
Creighton(maybe)
Tufts(maybe)

Apply broadly and early to these type of schools, you'll have a realistic shot of getting an acceptance.

 

[NeuResurgens]

Emory and Vanderbilt are probably out of your GPA range, and your MCAT will be on the low side for them as well. UNC and UT strongly prefer NC residents and Tennessee residents, respectively, so you'll probably want to consider other options (although you can appy to a couple of stretch schools just to see, you'll want more schools within your range as well).

 

[Annaleise]

While most Masters grades are "inflated," I find that only holds true for non-science programs like Masters in education or MBAs. But you got an engineering Masters. That's impressive! A 4.0 was NOT the norm at my grad school and anything above a 3.5 was impressive, considering you probably took diff eq, quantum, math methods, device design, etc...your Masters work will be acknowledged and appreciated heavily, I would hope.

Did you happen to take any upper level bio or chem courses during grad school? If you didn't do well in Bio101 or any pre-reqs, it would look good to get an A in graduate level biomedical science courses.

 

[jeff.jones]

I decided after junior year that I wanted to pursue a degree in medicine. I retook gen chem 2 for an A, then proceeded to receive A's across the board in all my premed classes.

My 3.54 undergrad GPA comes from a few C's that I received in COMM, and a lower level programming class, etc. My worst classes have been general education credits that don't count toward my major. I also had a couple semesters of solid B's during sophomore year.

In masters, I got all A's and one A-.

I have not taken any higher level bio or chem classes.

 

[Annaleise]

In my opinion, you're fine. A 3.5 isn't that terrible and you have an extra accomplishment that most other applicants don't.
With that and your MCAT you're fine as
long as you apply broadly. I'm in a similar boat (I have an M.Eng and PhD) with a similar uGPA. I got in straight out of undergrad with a 3.4 in engineering and a good MCAT, so with your Masters I wouldn't worry - as long as you have good volunteer history and ECs.
I'm a TN resident and I'm looking at similar schools - I know UTHSC prefers TN residents and Arkansas, but I'm sure they would consider you so you might as well try. And I would try for Johnson City as well.

Good luck!!

 

[Annaleise]

I just asked about grad bio/chem because I assumed you got B's in undergrad so A's in grad would look good. But if you got A's off the bat then you're fine

 

[ChrisMack390]

The SDN dogma is that graduate degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on, however I believe that is a load of BS.

Glad to see Virginia Commonwealth on your list, since their website specifically states that if you don't have a super high uGPA you should complete a masters program.

Honestly, depending on what your ECs and letters look like, I think you should apply more broadly and don't be afraid to throw in a couple of reaches. Not saying you are Harvard bound, but you have solid #s and if the other parts of your app are as impressive as you say you never know what may happen...

 

[gyngyn]

The SDN dogma is that graduate degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on, however I believe that is a load of BS.

A Master's degree can enrich understanding and give you tools that come in handy in unexpected ways.
For most MD programs they do not remediate a poor undergrad performance.
Luckily, OP does not require remediation. He does need to accurately assess his prospects, though.

 

[Annaleise]

So happy to see other SDNers say positive things about graduate degrees!

Whenever someone says a masters degree (or even an MPH, PhD, PharmD or PA degree) is worthless I always wonder where they got that idea from. Advanced degrees may not get you a guaranteed acceptance but extra experience and maturity sure as heck won't hurt.

 

[ChrisMack390]

For me it came down to a simple decision: I am working full time while taking classes. I could have done the graduate courses plus a thesis project before putting in my med app, or I could have piled on more undergraduate courses and boosted my GPA a tenth or two. I feel like the option that actually gets me something tangible (an advanced degree) is the obvious choice.

The funny thing about the whole "grad school is a free 4.0" attitude is that my courses are literally what the undergraduates do plus either a project or more difficult exams (or both). There are literally undergraduates in the lecture with me, doing the same homework as me and speaking with the same professor as me - the only difference is they are responsible for less work and easier exams. It's insane to me to suggest that it would have been "better" to just take random undergrad courses.

I know certain medical schools very heavily weight the uGPA, and that is fine. Those schools are probably not especially friendly to non-traditional types anyway...

 

[gyngyn]

I know certain medical schools very heavily weight the uGPA, and that is fine. Those schools are probably not especially friendly to non-traditional types anyway...

Everybody loves non-trads!
An uGPA is the only one that everybody has, though.
Understanding how we look at different gpa's helps you gauge your competitiveness and find schools that will welcome you.

 

[K1NG]

I was considering an SMP but have been advised against it by a few, since I have strong upward trend from undergrad. My overall GPA is still a 3.5 so I've been really considering a MS to put me over the hump for some allopathic programs. I think the right MS program can bring some great opportunities for research, collaborating with faculty, getting great letter of recs, etc. and also give time to beef up ECs

 

[GrapesofRath]

In the late 1980's and 1990's many mediocre students attempted to use MPH as a way to remediate poor undergrad performance, which left a "bad taste" in many adcoms to the value of these programs and why SMPs started to develop about 20 years ago. While advanced degrees are not worthless, they have much less impact upon GPA than most students like. Since most applicants have only UG degrees and since the GPA is standardized via AMCAS, it makes sense most schools use this a primary evaluator. The advanced degrees are certainly worth much in other areas but not a primary impact of academic performance in comparison to other applicants

There is something I always wanted to ask that's relatively basic but I never got a good answer to. Obviously an informal post-bacc is just taking undergrad classes at a given institution, but what exactly is the difference between a formal post-bacc(such as say at Temple or Northwestern) and a Masters Program? How do those formal post-baccs represent undergrad level classes in ways that masters programs don't? Is it just that these MPHs are grade inflated and formal post-baccs are graded on a curve in the class and are hence not as inflated? Or is there something deeper than that in say for content for example. I should clarify I am talking about post-baccs made for people who want to raise their GPA, not people who are late to the premed game and need to take the pre-reqs like you see at a school such as Bryn Mawr.

Also I should clarify I am not talking about Special Masters Programs which you take classes with medical students, I am talking more about those formal post-baccs like at Goucher and why strong performance in those helps an applicant far more than a high GPA in an MPH. Thanks.

 

[jeff.jones]

Thank you, everyone, for your explanations. I'm glad this sparked a bit of conversation.

Since uGPA is looked at so closely, is it still okay for me to enter my undergrad and grad classes on the same transcript in AMCAS, as long as I designate each class respective of my "year" in school? Like assigning "Freshman" to classes I took in my first year, etc, and "Graduate" to classes I took after graduating? Will AMCAS sort out my GPA on its own?

Again, thanks for all the answers, this has been a learning experience for me.

 

[ChrisMack390]

In my case, I have a handful of crappy biology/chemistry grades sinking my uGPA. It is not devastatingly bad (3.44 / 3.22), but it is bad. I feel that my masters in biology, for which I have or will have taken Developmental Biology, Biology of Cancer, Immunology, Scientific Writing and Reasoning, Biostatistics, Genetics of Human Disease, etc. should play some role in atoning for this.

Will I be choosing between Harvard and Stanford next year? Absolutely not. But I really cannot believe that I am just wasting my time here. Coupled with my personal statement and secondaries that detail my lack of maturity/motivation in my earlier years and the factors that made me turn it around, I have to believe that at least 1 adcom will be sympathetic...

 

[GrapesofRath]

I am not sure I can give an adequate explanation in a short SDN post, but I will try

A formal certificate program is just that: you take a certain list of classes and complete them successfully and you get a certificate. At some schools the difference between that and DIY/informal is just that: a certificate. Nothing else. As the institutional and cultural barriers to age weakened, there was a growing population of these nontraditional/older students looking for a pathway to medicine. There was also a population of recent grads with either insufficient academic achievement or lacking needed course work that was also seeking a path. It wasnt until 15 years ago you really started to see these two paths diverge. As more schools began to cater to both these populations of students, some added services designed for these groups as well as a way to differentiate their program from others. These programs can be "profitable" to schools in terms of FTEs (which I wont get into here). So separate classes, dedicated advising, organized research and clinical possibilities can be found in some of these. But both informal and formal have the basic goal of preparing students for the basic set of core prerequisites that, until very recently, were required at almost every medical school.

This core requirement concept was originally put forth by the Flexnor Report in 1910 and can seen presently be seen in the AMCAS BCPM GPA used now by every medical school and its analogous AACOMAS science GPA. This allows medical schools to get at least some standardized evaluation of applicants across a spectrum of schools along with the MCAT. When you examine several thousand applications for a 100 or 200 spots, you need a broad-base comparison and this is what the standard has become.

The idea of a masters degree as an evaluation tool presents issues on several fronts. First, all applicants have this core set of prereqs (or did until this year). Certainly a smaller fraction have a masters degree. These masters will cover multiple disciplines across multiple schools and presents challenges to have to compare. While undergraduates go many schools, the general similar nature of the course work (intro bio, general chem, Ochem, etc) is roughly the same across UG schools. For MPH which has little "hard science" with perhaps the exception statical courses, how would you compare a 4.0 MPH to a 3.6 UG Bio Major with the core courses? Apples to Oranges. To add to this, in the late 1980's and 1990's, as there were few post-baccs for less than stellar students to increase GPA, many attended MPH as a way to bolster their records. This left the perception in many medical schools that MPH was an attempt to cover a weak UG record. You might say MPH suspect by association as opposed to any definitive rational statement the programs. Going into other masters, that might be more scientifically rigorous. It may say much about the applicant but how do you then make a direct comparison to all the other applicants in the pool?

That is my off the cuff comments to a rather complicated subject

Good stuff as always. I can definitely get from this why an MPH isn't given too much weight from many medical schools. But I think the thing I still am not completely clear about is how is this different from a post-bacc program which can have a much bigger impact on improving one's medical school chances?
Often times you will see when someone posts----what should I do I have a poor GPA? the responses will be do an SMP or a post-bacc. I get why an SMP is valued by med schools----doing better than a majority of medical students in a med school class is the best indicator you can get someone can handle med school. But a post-bacc now how does this differ from an MPH in terms of one being more valuable for trying to see if someone can handle med school? I should make clear that I am talking about formal post-baccs designed to help people with their GPAs; not informal postbacs which are just more undergrad classes at institution X and not a post-bac which is designed for people late to medicine who need to take pre-reqs.

Maybe perhaps I am confused by what a formal post-bac designed to raise people's GPAs is. Are they classes at a graduate school level and are used as useful indicators because you are going up against other pre-meds? Or are they just undergrad level classes where you compete with undergrads from that institution and those in your specific program? Obviously all post-bacs differ but I'm just trying to get a general idea.

Thanks alot again as always.

 

[samac]

I have very little doubt that you could get into UK or UofL as long as you can write a decent personal statement and interview well, with their 3.5 average GPAs and 31/30 MCAT average anything on top of those pick places you would really like to be.

 

[mphfuturedoc]

I would think doing well in a masters program would have at least some weight... I understand/agree with the argument that uGPA is the best way to directly compare applicants, but, assuming someone has a borderline GPA, wouldn't something like doing well in an MPH program help sway committees? (Especially when coupled with added research experience.)

 

[gyngyn]

I would think doing well in a masters program would have at least some weight... I understand/agree with the argument that uGPA is the best way to directly compare applicants, but, assuming someone has a borderline GPA, wouldn't something like doing well in an MPH program help sway committees? (Especially when coupled with added research experience.)

Everyone is expected to get A's in an MPH!
Anything less may sway them.

 

[Gandyy]

Yea I have to agree with gyngyn here. Most graduate programs actually seem to be easier than the pre-med undergraduate rigor. For example, I had a friend attend two different Master's programs before he got into a DO school.

We both agreed that the Master's in Public Health was a complete and utter joke. He barely had any class and his "tests" were well... it was basically a community college on steroids rigor.

His postbacc was much more difficult as it had difficult science courses, but then DO schools seem more forgiving about poor UGPAs if you do well in a SMP. MD schools, it seems still place a large emphasis on UGPAS and they should

because thats when everyone was in "the heat" of things so to speak.

However, at the same time I do agree with other posters that an engineering master is no joke.

In fact, engineering is probably the hardest major one can undertake in college or graduate school. That or maybe physics.

However what makes pre-med more difficult is all the EC's that destroy your time plus you have the MCAT etc. And you cant just pass your classes.. you have to get pretty much all A's in them and so forth.

This is why I applaud others who major in engineering and also choose to do pre-med because that is insanity lol