Low, average, or good GPA?

[Farm D]

I was wonder what are your guys take/opinions on the range of what is a low, average or good GPA?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmtoCS]

I was wonder what are your guys take/opinions on the range of what is a low, average or good GPA?

Low: <3.0
Average: 3.0-3.4
Good: >3.4

 

[Sugoi Travis]

Low: <3.0
Average: 3.0-3.4
Good: >3.4

Pretty much this

 

[Carboxide]

Low: <3.0
Average: 3.0-3.4
Good: >3.4

Pretty much this for most schools. If you are looking at top 20, I'd adjust to:

Low: < 3.2
Average: 3.2-3.5
High: > 3.5

 

[VictorAlpha]

to me:

low: <3.3
decent/avg: 3.3-3.5
good: >3.5

 

[Twentytwelve2]

I always thought high would be 3.8+ and average is 3.5 and below average is less than 3.5.
I didnt find it hard pulling a 3.7 GPA at UC. Felt average...

 

[Skrumpy]

I always thought high would be 3.8+ and average is 3.5 and below average is less than 3.5.
I didnt find it hard pulling a 3.7 GPA at UC. Felt average...

Well TBH you really can't compare GPAs without giving some baseline.. I mean are we talking 13 credits or 21? Social science courses or all upper division hard science courses? This is why the OP needs to understand that GPA doesn't make a difference unless you look at the pertinent details of the semester (i.e. credit hours taken, ECs, etc). I once had a 25 credit semester (I had to get special permission to do this) which was mostly hard science courses. I did fairly well (3.5). Compare that to someone who got a 4.0 taking the bare minimum 13 credits and had a similar mix of classes. There is no comparison, and ad coms do look at that information. Also they will look at your extra curricular activities and take it all into account. They would rather take someone who had a 3.0 and took an extremely high course load of difficult courses than someone who took the minimum number of credits of upper level fluff courses but got a 4.0. It just isn't as cut and dry as it appears to be.

 

[Twentytwelve2]

Well TBH you really can't compare GPAs without giving some baseline.. I mean are we talking 13 credits or 21? Social science courses or all upper division hard science courses? This is why the OP needs to understand that GPA doesn't make a difference unless you look at the pertinent details of the semester (i.e. credit hours taken, ECs, etc). I once had a 25 credit semester (I had to get special permission to do this) which was mostly hard science courses. I did fairly well (3.5). Compare that to someone who got a 4.0 taking the bare minimum 13 credits and had a similar mix of classes. There is no comparison, and ad coms do look at that information. Also they will look at your extra curricular activities and take it all into account. They would rather take someone who had a 3.0 and took an extremely high course load of difficult courses than someone who took the minimum number of credits of upper level fluff courses but got a 4.0. It just isn't as cut and dry as it appears to be.

What if they were good at management and planned out their classes well? Knowing which classes to take and when are important and prevents you from having to take a full science course load because you are struggling to finish it all senior year.

 

[Skrumpy]

What if they were good at management and planned out their classes well? Knowing which classes to take and when are important and prevents you from having to take a full science course load because you are struggling to finish it all senior year.

Are you assuming that because someone took a heavy course load that they planned poorly? Planning your classes well and taking a heavy course load are not mutually exclusive components. Ad coms want to see that someone can take a heavy course load (or a decent course load with a large amount of ECs) so that they can handle the rigors of pharmacy school. They can't judge that you "planned" your courses well by looking at your course list and I've never heard that being taken into account for a metric by any ad com. Someone with a 3.0 could double major in 2 hard science fields and get a minor in something else and have a ton of ECs, whereas someone with a 4.0 could simply major in some fluff field (as long as they had the prereqs) and have no ECs. The long drawn out point here is that you cannot simply equate GPAs as you are attempting to do. Of the two fictional applicants above the one who has a 3.0 double science major/minor and many ECs is superior to the 4.0 with only a major and no ECs. No one doubts that 4 is a larger number than 3.. but ad coms don't just stop at the numbers so why should we?

 

[Twentytwelve2]

Are you assuming that because someone took a heavy course load that they planned poorly? Planning your classes well and taking a heavy course load are not mutually exclusive components. Ad coms want to see that someone can take a heavy course load (or a decent course load with a large amount of ECs) so that they can handle the rigors of pharmacy school. They can't judge that you "planned" your courses well by looking at your course list and I've never heard that being taken into account for a metric by any ad com. Someone with a 3.0 could double major in 2 hard science fields and get a minor in something else and have a ton of ECs, whereas someone with a 4.0 could simply major in some fluff field (as long as they had the prereqs) and have no ECs. The long drawn out point here is that you cannot simply equate GPAs as you are attempting to do. Of the two fictional applicants above the one who has a 3.0 double science major/minor and many ECs is superior to the 4.0 with only a major and no ECs. No one doubts that 4 is a larger number than 3.. but ad coms don't just stop at the numbers so why should we?

I dont think anyone in my class did a double major.... you are comparing it to something extremely uncommon. How about we use realistic assumptions and not assume a 4.0 student would have no EC and did an easy major? The majority are biological/chemistry sciences that get accepted and a single major thus its fair to use GPA as the only comparison. Assuming everyone has pharmacy experience/volunteer EC.

 

[Skrumpy]

I dont think anyone in my class did a double major.... you are comparing it to something extremely uncommon. How about we use realistic assumptions and not assume a 4.0 student would have no EC and did an easy major? The majority are biological/chemistry sciences that get accepted and a single major thus its fair to use GPA as the only comparison. Assuming everyone has pharmacy experience/volunteer EC.

I know quite a few that double majored, and while it may be uncommon it is definitely by no means rare. Regardless, who is to say that my assumptions are less realistic than yours? Do you have any hard data to back-up your assertions? At a school I applied to (happens to be ranked #3) they list the following under "making yourself a strong candidate"

• Course selection - grades in upper-level courses, especially science and math courses.
• Course load - ability to obtain strong grades while taking full course loads.

Again the reason why they (the ad com) like to see a heavy course load is that it shows them that you are able to do well under academic stress. It is informative because it highlights your ability to stay organized and on task while maintaining a decent GPA. They cannot tell this about someone who sailed through taking the bare minimum full-time course load (~13 credits/semester) and got a 4.0. Depending on where the classes were taken they could even be suspect of GPA inflation (this is a recurring topic on many campuses these days).

You can argue all you want, but the ad coms will look at the course load to see how the GPA was determined. They will not simply stop at the number and judge them all equally. Just like they will not judge someone who got a 4.0 with a biology degree equally to someone who got a 4.0 with a biochemistry degree (as a biochem degree involves "harder" and more upper division courses). All in all, I would say strive to be a well-rounded applicant rather than a 4.0 applicant. A well-rounded individual will have a variety of different areas on which to draw on to make themselves stand out, whereas a solely focused academically strong individual will have relatively fewer. Strive for excellence in all you do but do not limit yourself to being a bookworm as it will come back to bite you. As with most things in life, a balanced approach is the best path when it comes to marketing yourself as a solid applicant. I would be extremely wary of taking advice from members of the "just get a 4.0 or 99% PCAT" crowd.

 

[Sugoi Travis]

I always thought high would be 3.8+ and average is 3.5 and below average is less than 3.5.
I didnt find it hard pulling a 3.7 GPA at UC. Felt average...

3.7 GPA at a UC? Felt average?

Uhh which UC did you go to?

 

[88888888]

3.7 GPA at a UC? Felt average?

Uhh which UC did you go to?

Lol I wish I could get a 3.7 at UC.. I'm no where near that.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using SDN Mobile

 

[Twentytwelve2]

I know quite a few that double majored, and while it may be uncommon it is definitely by no means rare. Regardless, who is to say that my assumptions are less realistic than yours? Do you have any hard data to back-up your assertions? At a school I applied to (happens to be ranked #3) they list the following under "making yourself a strong candidate"


Again the reason why they (the ad com) like to see a heavy course load is that it shows them that you are able to do well under academic stress. It is informative because it highlights your ability to stay organized and on task while maintaining a decent GPA. They cannot tell this about someone who sailed through taking the bare minimum full-time course load (~13 credits/semester) and got a 4.0. Depending on where the classes were taken they could even be suspect of GPA inflation (this is a recurring topic on many campuses these days).

You can argue all you want, but the ad coms will look at the course load to see how the GPA was determined. They will not simply stop at the number and judge them all equally. Just like they will not judge someone who got a 4.0 with a biology degree equally to someone who got a 4.0 with a biochemistry degree (as a biochem degree involves "harder" and more upper division courses). All in all, I would say strive to be a well-rounded applicant rather than a 4.0 applicant. A well-rounded individual will have a variety of different areas on which to draw on to make themselves stand out, whereas a solely focused academically strong individual will have relatively fewer. Strive for excellence in all you do but do not limit yourself to being a bookworm as it will come back to bite you. As with most things in life, a balanced approach is the best path when it comes to marketing yourself as a solid applicant. I would be extremely wary of taking advice from members of the "just get a 4.0 or 99% PCAT" crowd.

It said full course load not heavy course load. And using your logic, most school's class average from undergrad would be subpar 3.0 because they prefer low GPA but double major + tons of EC. There are plenty with low GPA that do not get in even with tech experience. Which brings me back to my main point that GPA is high priority in CA schools. I'm sorry I cant agree with u. :s I am more confident to say that a high GPA applicant would get a seat than a low GPA with more experience.

3.7 GPA at a UC? Felt average?

Uhh which UC did you go to?

UCD. Didn't u go there too?

 

[Skrumpy]

It said full course load not heavy course load. And using your logic, most school's class average from undergrad would be subpar 3.0 because they prefer low GPA but double major + tons of EC. There are plenty with low GPA that do not get in even with tech experience. Which brings me back to my main point that GPA is high priority in CA schools. I'm sorry I cant agree with u. :s I am more confident to say that a high GPA applicant would get a seat than a low GPA with more experience.

The difference between a full course load and full time are different from one another at our school. They made that distinction clear to us at their informational meeting. So feel free to disagree with what the school specifically told us I guess. I never said they "prefer a low GPA", I said they prefer a well-rounded individual who is active as opposed to a mindless automaton that takes the bare minimum requirement and just focuses all of their time into studying. Again I'm parroting what was told to us, this isn't my own take on the matter (but does align with how I feel a school should run). Maybe it is different in CA, honestly I don't know. I am sure that the importance of GPA varies from school to school, and we can really only speculate as to how much it matters. Personally, I wouldn't want to go a school that solely looks at the number and doesn't consider how the GPA was attained and then weighs GPA more heavily than other more important factors. To each their own I guess. What I can say is that the average GPAs for the University of Minnesota (ranked 3rd in the nation) are: Average PharmCAS GPA: 3.52, Average Science GPA: 3.45. Which according to your previous post means that you are suggesting that one of the top schools in the nation takes in more "below average students" than not. Something that flies in the face of any logical reasoning. UCSF (ranked #1) accepted someone with a 2.62 GPA last year, by your reasoning this person should not have been admitted into the top school in the nation. Obviously something doesn't add up there.

 

[Sugoi Travis]

UCD. Didn't u go there too?

Yeah I go to UCD. But a 3.7 GPA, at least in the hard sciences, is very, very difficult to get here. My strong point is physiology and I only managed to get a B in NPB 101 after studying my ass off every week and going to office hours on all occasions.

I learn an awful lot here as well as put a lot of effort into my classes, but my grades don't show that at all. Kinda discouraging if you think about it...makes me reconsider if it really was a good choice to attend UCD.

 

[MShopes]

Totally depends on the school. Some schools a good GPA is 3.5 and above whereas in other schools, 3.5 is a very average GPA.

Which school are you talking about?