Lowest GPA?

[Bluesteel01]

Hey guys,

I'm new to the forums. I wish I found this thing earlier in my undergrad career... Here's my question.

How come some people say they get into Opt school with lower than 3.0 GPAs? Isn't there an automated screening process that automatically junks transcripts with lower than 75% average?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rprasad1]

Hey guys,

I'm new to the forums. I wish I found this thing earlier in my undergrad career... Here's my question.

How come some people say they get into Opt school with lower than 3.0 GPAs? Isn't there an automated screening process that automatically junks transcripts with lower than 75% average?

You are blindly mistaken my friend. I know SCCO is gung ho with 3.0 GPA's, they don't even take a peek at ur app if you have lower.

Other schools do admit students with lower GPA's, so don't call those transcripts "junk" because you don't know their circumstance

If ppl do not get in with lower than a 3.0 average, then I'm in trouble, because i'm a reapplicant and still haven't gotten in. I was told that everything in my file is fine but for GPA which I fixed a little bit. Now i'm still painfully waiting. I'm not tryna switch my career over that stupid factor.

 

[eyestrain]

Hey guys,

I'm new to the forums. I wish I found this thing earlier in my undergrad career... Here's my question.

How come some people say they get into Opt school with lower than 3.0 GPAs? Isn't there an automated screening process that automatically junks transcripts with lower than 75% average?

I wish there was. It's ridiculous that people continue to get into school with less than a B average. But, what you'll soon find out is that a lot of people here think that any GPA should be allowed into school, as long as they have good extracurriculars and "passion". I mean, who cares you only got 2.3 if you REALLY want to be an OD, right? You'll also hear a lot of sob stories about illnesses and family troubles and having to work 12 jobs while in school, all in an effort to explain away crappy GPAs.

 

[Bluesteel01]

Other schools do admit students with lower GPA's, so don't call those transcripts "junk" because you don't know their circumstance

I didn't mean the below 75% transcripts were garbage, I just thought that a computer does the initial assessment and then the rest is decided on by the admission committee, as in an effort to save time...

 

[ToePUG]

I wish there was. It's ridiculous that people continue to get into school with less than a B average. But, what you'll soon find out is that a lot of people here think that any GPA should be allowed into school, as long as they have good extracurriculars and "passion". I mean, who cares you only got 2.3 if you REALLY want to be an OD, right? You'll also hear a lot of sob stories about illnesses and family troubles and having to work 12 jobs while in school, all in an effort to explain away crappy GPAs.

um... cynical much?

 

[KHE]

um... cynical much?

His delivery may not have been the best, but it's a valid point that comes up on here and the other forums on SDN a lot.

What SHOULD be the minimum GPA? Is it not unreasonable to expect that people who are requesting admission to programs in which they are going to be trained to care for the visual welfare of the population somehow be expected to achieve a B average, regardless of their personal issues? We all have personal issues that affect our academic performance. I certrainly wasn't the top of my graduating class in undergraduate but I somehow managed to at least get a B. I don't think that that's too much to ask.

 

[eyestrain]

His delivery may not have been the best, but it's a valid point that comes up on here and the other forums on SDN a lot.

Hey, I liked my delivery. And to Toepug, yes, I cynical much, especially on this topic.

 

[rprasad1]

I wish there was. It's ridiculous that people continue to get into school with less than a B average. But, what you'll soon find out is that a lot of people here think that any GPA should be allowed into school, as long as they have good extracurriculars and "passion". I mean, who cares you only got 2.3 if you REALLY want to be an OD, right? You'll also hear a lot of sob stories about illnesses and family troubles and having to work 12 jobs while in school, all in an effort to explain away crappy GPAs.

eyestrain: are you a licensed optometrist? meaning an OD, if so, i would NEVER go to you to get consultation because what you stated was pretty apathetic and ignorant.

given i did not have to endure any truly crazy hardships through college, asides from a death in the family in fall 2006, i never blamed any of that on my grades. i genuinely earned my grades, whether good or bad, ever heard of bad professors? or poorly written exams? if so, then that was always my case and i didn't wanna take another semester off to not take the course because that would put me behind. i was never alone and all of my 'smart' friends agreed with all this.

extracurriculars mend your personality, and I've noticed that optometrists that do not give a **** about these things tend to have the least people skills. not bashing u personally, but i think it always helps and a gpa a little shy of a 3.0 didn't hurt anyone. as long as the individual has what it takes to excel -- people get the reality check when the career path comes into play.

this is always and mostly the case with why students attend carribean schools to get MD's because their gpa's are low but still have the motivation to become something significant

 

[Optman87]

i have to agree with rprassad1

I believe if you are around a 3.0 (give or take .1 - .2) and have solid OAT and of course can communicate effectively, you should be fine.

but to say that automatically below 3.0 = NO HOPE is ridiculous

everybody has different circumstances and the GPA does not determine how great of a Optometrist someone can become

A Optometrist told me, admissions want to see if they can picture you as a colleague and to work along side you. (have a personality)

Best of Luck!

 

[Optman87]

Also, the undergraduate school at which you attend does play a role.

A 3.2 GPA from Western Timbucktoo State is not the same as a 3.2 GPA from UCLA or UCSD

I would much rather take the 2.8 GPA (UCLA/UCSD) than a 3.2 GPA (WTS)

you have those GPA's from those schools, similar OAT's if not better from UCLA/UCSD student, and you are going to tell me the WTS student will be better prepared to enter OPT school just because he has a higher GPA...... :/

 

[Chiuey]

hey my gpa is under 3.0 and I'm going to optometry school so its definitely possible.

 

[eyestrain]

Wow, rprasad1, your post exemplifies pretty much everything I said in my first reply. Where do I start????

eyestrain: are you a licensed optometrist? meaning an OD, if so, i would NEVER go to you to get consultation because what you stated was pretty apathetic and ignorant.

Yes, I'm an OD. It says so right by my name over there. Also, I'm not sure how what I said was "apathetic", which would imply that I don't care about this.

i genuinely earned my grades, whether good or bad, ever heard of bad professors? or poorly written exams?

Yes I've heard of them. They're typically the professors who actually give bad grades for bad work. Students who expect to get all As and Bs no matter what tend to label them as "bad professors". Same type of thing for those "poorly written exams".

i think it always helps and a gpa a little shy of a 3.0 didn't hurt anyone. as long as the individual has what it takes to excel

Has what it takes to excel? Obviously someone who can't get a B average in undergrad does not have what it takes to excel.

 

[eyestrain]

I believe if you are around a 3.0 (give or take .1 - .2) and have solid OAT and of course can communicate effectively, you should be fine.

but to say that automatically below 3.0 = NO HOPE is ridiculous

Why is that ridiculous? You're saying "3.0 give or take .1 - .2". Does that mean someone with a 2.7 automatically has no hope? Is that ridiculous too?

 

[rprasad1]

Why is that ridiculous? You're saying "3.0 give or take .1 - .2". Does that mean someone with a 2.7 automatically has no hope? Is that ridiculous too?

Where did you go to school?

 

[Optman87]

Why is that ridiculous? You're saying "3.0 give or take .1 - .2". Does that mean someone with a 2.7 automatically has no hope? Is that ridiculous too?

No, absolutely not. I'm just noticed that people above me said below 3.0 is hopeless. I am saying it is not hopeless below a 3.0. I could use bigger numbers than .1 or .2. I just picked those.

All I'm saying is that admissions is based on an individual basis rather than some standard that is used for everyone.

Everyone has a unique story and can offer something beyond a GPA to determine admissions into an Optometry program.

 

[rprasad1]

Wow, rprasad1, your post exemplifies pretty much everything I said in my first reply. Where do I start????



Yes, I'm an OD. It says so right by my name over there. Also, I'm not sure how what I said was "apathetic", which would imply that I don't care about this.



Yes I've heard of them. They're typically the professors who actually give bad grades for bad work. Students who expect to get all As and Bs no matter what tend to label them as "bad professors". Same type of thing for those "poorly written exams".



Has what it takes to excel? Obviously someone who can't get a B average in undergrad does not have what it takes to excel.

You need to get a life and stop spending time criticizing ppl about their futures on this forum. Who cares if you've been on this thing for a while or your professional status. I think it's pretty immature and unnecessary. Show some professionalism (if you have any) and worry about other, ahem, important things.

 

[DrRobs]

I wish there was. It's ridiculous that people continue to get into school with less than a B average. But, what you'll soon find out is that a lot of people here think that any GPA should be allowed into school, as long as they have good extracurriculars and "passion". I mean, who cares you only got 2.3 if you REALLY want to be an OD, right? You'll also hear a lot of sob stories about illnesses and family troubles and having to work 12 jobs while in school, all in an effort to explain away crappy GPAs.

For a person who survived a what could have been fatal head injury, survived, went back to school despite everyones apprehensions...I take offense to this. My gpa definately suffered and ended up lower than average, but I went to a school where my GPA was rated much more highly than most schools. I worked hard, I over came, I WORKED 35 hrs a week my senior year for an OD, and did what I could to make sure my OAT scores were competative enough to get into school. This to me is a biased remark...someone with a 3.4 from some hum drum school with a 320 on their OATs, no experience doesn't have ****. Its who you are as a person that does get you in. If you do what you can to improve yourself and show that to the schools, then you get in. I had a 3.5 up until that injury, and I had a D that semester after, but I overcame it and I don't feel it was an "excuse" for my overall GPA and I don't think it was an "excuse" that I had to work my way through school senior year because my parents could no longer support me in anyway. So, yea, you may be bitter towards some people but there are people who have passion and drive and will overcome things and GET in with a lower gpa from their school, but no...if you have less than a 2.7 and ur not showing ur improvements and being as competative as you can then don't whine. But, I just have to say this because things happen in life u can't always help, and you can't be cynical towards ppl based on a GPA alone.

 

[Bluesteel01]

hey my gpa is under 3.0 and I'm going to optometry school so its definitely possible.

Hey Chiuey,

Mind if I ask what your stats were like (i.e. extracurriculars, OATs, etc.)?

 

[KHE]

For a person who survived a what could have been fatal head injury, survived, went back to school despite everyones apprehensions...I take offense to this. My gpa definately suffered and ended up lower than average, but I went to a school where my GPA was rated much more highly than most schools. I worked hard, I over came, I WORKED 35 hrs a week my senior year for an OD, and did what I could to make sure my OAT scores were competative enough to get into school. This to me is a biased remark...someone with a 3.4 from some hum drum school with a 320 on their OATs, no experience doesn't have ****. Its who you are as a person that does get you in. If you do what you can to improve yourself and show that to the schools, then you get in. I had a 3.5 up until that injury, and I had a D that semester after, but I overcame it and I don't feel it was an "excuse" for my overall GPA and I don't think it was an "excuse" that I had to work my way through school senior year because my parents could no longer support me in anyway. So, yea, you may be bitter towards some people but there are people who have passion and drive and will overcome things and GET in with a lower gpa from their school, but no...if you have less than a 2.7 and ur not showing ur improvements and being as competative as you can then don't whine. But, I just have to say this because things happen in life u can't always help, and you can't be cynical towards ppl based on a GPA alone.

Look....

There's hundreds of reasons why a person may have a sub-par GPA. Some of them are due to the student, and other times there can obviously be extenuating circumstances. But the fact of the matter is is that there has to be SOME SORT of minimum standard, regardless of the circumstances of the person.

The standard to vote is 18 years old. Not 17 1/2 and being really into politics and the head of the high school junior democrats club.

The standard to drive is 16 years old in my state. Not 15 7/8 and having lots of experience driving because your dad lets you drive his beat up old Buick around the farm or around the mall parking lot when it's closed on Sunday morning.

The standard to ride space mountain in Disney World is 48 inches tall. Not 47 inches and being really brave and not scared of the dark.

I believe that 3.0 needs to be that standard. It seems perfectly reasonable to expect that people seeking admissions to programs in which they are to be trained to care for the visual welfare of the population somehow be expected to attain a B average. If you haven't, then take some more classes to bring it up. It's not that hard.

 

[DrRobs]

well, like I said, most schools have a 2.7 requirement..thats a B-, but it gets weighed more or less based on the difficulty of the undergrad program. I'm not saying a slack of should get in. But, if you are on the lower end you need to make sure you do whatever you can to improve your application. Its competative, it gets more competative every year and it should be that way. But I'm just saying, someone with a lower GPA can improve themselves however they can. If they don't do what they can to outweigh that then, no they shouldnt deserve to get in because optometry school is just like any other professional school...hard! OATs are more standardized than GPA, once they weren't, but now they are so if you have a lower GPA (that meets the minimum requirement of the school) but an outstanding OAT, with exceptional experience, how can you knock those people? You can't just say wah wah everyone has a story, sure everyone has a story, but there are people who have a story that they overcome and improve and continue to improve to get what they want.

 

[ToePUG]

Also, the undergraduate school at which you attend does play a role.

A 3.2 GPA from Western Timbucktoo State is not the same as a 3.2 GPA from UCLA or UCSD

I would much rather take the 2.8 GPA (UCLA/UCSD) than a 3.2 GPA (WTS)

you have those GPA's from those schools, similar OAT's if not better from UCLA/UCSD student, and you are going to tell me the WTS student will be better prepared to enter OPT school just because he has a higher GPA...... :/

KHE, you make a very good point.
Optman87 (quoted above) also makes a very good point.

What would you say in response to what he says here?

 

[KHE]

KHE, you make a very good point.
Optman87 (quoted above) also makes a very good point.

What would you say in response to what he says here?

I would take your "WTS" student.

All things being equal, you can make a reasonable argument that a 3.1 from UCLA would outweigh a 3.2 from WTS. And there may even be some level of legitimacy to the argument that a 2.9 from UCLA would outweigh a 3.2 from WTS but I still maintain that there needs to be some minimum standard regardless of ones personal situation, and that personal situation to me also includes the difficulty of your undergraduate program. Life is not fair sometimes and yes, it is conceivable that a "more" qualified student from UCLA would lose out on a spot in optometry school to the student from WTS but again.....some minimum standard needs to apply here regardless of the persons situation.

 

[Optman87]

I would take your "WTS" student.

All things being equal, you can make a reasonable argument that a 3.1 from UCLA would outweigh a 3.2 from WTS. And there may even be some level of legitimacy to the argument that a 2.9 from UCLA would outweigh a 3.2 from WTS but I still maintain that there needs to be some minimum standard regardless of ones personal situation, and that personal situation to me also includes the difficulty of your undergraduate program. Life is not fair sometimes and yes, it is conceivable that a "more" qualified student from UCLA would lose out on a spot in optometry school to the student from WTS but again.....some minimum standard needs to apply here regardless of the persons situation.

Are you serious???

Do you think knowledge that the WTS student is equivalent to that from the UCLA student???

Look, I play collegiate sports so I will make an analogy to sports.....

A collegiate football player (QB) from a Division 3 school (WTS) passes for 5000 yards and tosses 60 TDS 5 INT and COMPETES with subpar athletes in the country

A collegiate football player (QB) from a Division 1 school (USC) passes for 2500 yards and tosses 20 TDS 12 INT and COMPETES with the best athletes in the country

Should the NFL set standards for the QB they draft?
***(We will not draft any QB with less than 25 TD passing and > 10 INT)

why is it that the majority of the NFL draft consists of D1 athletes when D3 athletes have "career statistics" that shatter D1 athletes?

Answer: NFL scouts realize that the competition plays a role and the difficulty to which they compete at varies. The NFL is a whole new beast (Opt School) and players in D1 (UCLA) will be best prepared to succeed on the next level.

going back to optometry, admissions also realize this. Thus, there should be no "standard line" that MUST be met.

Every student should be individually assessed and determined whether the committee is confident in that student succeeding in their particular program.

 

[DrRobs]

Are you serious???

Do you think knowledge that the WTS student is equivalent to that from the UCLA student???

Look, I play collegiate sports so I will make an analogy to sports.....

A collegiate football player (QB) from a Division 3 school (WTS) passes for 5000 yards and tosses 60 TDS 5 INT and COMPETES with subpar athletes in the country

A collegiate football player (QB) from a Division 1 school (USC) passes for 2500 yards and tosses 20 TDS 12 INT and COMPETES with the best athletes in the country

Should the NFL set standards for the QB they draft?
***(We will not draft any QB with less than 25 TD passing and > 10 INT)

why is it that the majority of the NFL draft consists of D1 athletes when D3 athletes have "career statistics" that shatter D1 athletes?

Answer: NFL scouts realize that the competition plays a role and the difficulty to which they compete at varies. The NFL is a whole new beast (Opt School) and players in D1 (UCLA) will be best prepared to succeed on the next level.

going back to optometry, admissions also realize this. Thus, there should be no "standard line" that MUST be met.

Every student should be individually assessed and determined whether the committee is confident in that student succeeding in their particular program.

Well said, I agree completely

 

[KHE]

Are you serious???

Do you think knowledge that the WTS student is equivalent to that from the UCLA student???

Look, I play collegiate sports so I will make an analogy to sports.....

A collegiate football player (QB) from a Division 3 school (WTS) passes for 5000 yards and tosses 60 TDS 5 INT and COMPETES with subpar athletes in the country

A collegiate football player (QB) from a Division 1 school (USC) passes for 2500 yards and tosses 20 TDS 12 INT and COMPETES with the best athletes in the country

Should the NFL set standards for the QB they draft?
***(We will not draft any QB with less than 25 TD passing and > 10 INT)

why is it that the majority of the NFL draft consists of D1 athletes when D3 athletes have "career statistics" that shatter D1 athletes?

Answer: NFL scouts realize that the competition plays a role and the difficulty to which they compete at varies. The NFL is a whole new beast (Opt School) and players in D1 (UCLA) will be best prepared to succeed on the next level.

going back to optometry, admissions also realize this. Thus, there should be no "standard line" that MUST be met.

Every student should be individually assessed and determined whether the committee is confident in that student succeeding in their particular program.

That argument makes the assumption that the 2.7 from UCLA would have achieved much higher at WTS which may or may not be the case depending on the reasons why they performed poorly in the first place.

To have "no standards" means that if you get a D- it's ok as long as it's from Harvard. Come on here.....we can go around and around coming up with all kinds of possible scenarios where this student or that student may be, in theory, more qualified than another based on a whole host of circumstances but at some point you have to draw a line in the sand regardless of someone's situation and I see no reason why that line shouldn't be a B average.

When I got my teaching certificate, they made me take History 101 because I never took it on college. Being a biochemistry major was essentially a double major in biology and chemistry, so needless to say I never took History 101. But despite my undergraduate degree, and my OD degree, they still made me take History 101 because that was what the standard was. Is it silly? Is it fair? Who knows....but there needs to be some standard. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are against that idea. If we aren't going to have standards for programs where people are trained to care for the vision of the population, then what SHOULD we have standards for?

 

[Optman87]

are u saying that a students GPA determines whether they can "care for the vision of the population?"

So automatically below a B average means they can't be good Optometrists?

 

[DrRobs]

That argument makes the assumption that the 2.7 from UCLA would have achieved much higher at WTS which may or may not be the case depending on the reasons why they performed poorly in the first place.

To have "no standards" means that if you get a D- it's ok as long as it's from Harvard. Come on here.....we can go around and around coming up with all kinds of possible scenarios where this student or that student may be, in theory, more qualified than another based on a whole host of circumstances but at some point you have to draw a line in the sand regardless of someone's situation and I see no reason why that line shouldn't be a B average.

When I got my teaching certificate, they made me take History 101 because I never took it on college. Being a biochemistry major was essentially a double major in biology and chemistry, so needless to say I never took History 101. But despite my undergraduate degree, and my OD degree, they still made me take History 101 because that was what the standard was. Is it silly? Is it fair? Who knows....but there needs to be some standard. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are against that idea. If we aren't going to have standards for programs where people are trained to care for the vision of the population, then what SHOULD we have standards for?

Thats not the point any of us are trying to make, there are standards set. Optman did not make any correlations that the student would have a 2.7 gpa per say...even though that may be the min...he made the point as I was making that there are a lot more things to consider than GPA alone and thats where it stands with any school and thats where it should stand.


So by your standards you're saying someone who has a 3.5 gpa from a sub-par under grad program should get in before someone with a gpa from a program that is much more competative and difficult??? thats the point we are trying to make, it not your GPA that matters the most..thats why Opt schools have the OAT, its standardized! someone from a lower quality program usually scores lower on the OAT, and if GPA is less you have to have something else going for you to improve your app. What about those people who take the time and the initiative to go out and find a job or a substaintial way to learn what the field is about and learn that its their passion if they are weakening in one category. The same argument could be made for someone with a low OAT score, so why does GPA matter so much?! thats the point thats trying to be made here! If you learn more clincically than someone who just decided to do optometry because "it might be easier than med school" what makes them better? their 3.5+ gpa? thats what is trying to come accross here...its more than your gpa that matters and the standards the schools have now are ok, and similar to the other professional schools, optometry should be and is no different. Infact there are some schools in other professions that are even lower than that standard, so what does that say? there is just less competition, and there needs to be even less competition and we need to weed out those ppl who think "optometry is easy" and is going to give them "flexibility and a good pay check without being on call at a hospital"

thats the issue here, not GPA. Once those ppl get into school who have worked hard against the best of the best may be at the top of their class because they found it was their passion and worked hard to get there. Those are the types of people that deserve respect.

To quote emerson..."to be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you into something else, is the greatest accomplishment"

 

[DrRobs]

Overall, if you want a standard so bad, don't make it the GPA make it the OAT. Every school is different...if you dont make at least a 300 in a category, then work harder. Standardization is key, thats why they have this test. But if you are comparing someone with say a 2.95 gpa from princeton to someone with a 3.4 from scranton (no offense), and the 2.95 princeton student scored a 370 on the OAT whereas the scranton student scored a 320, with 3 scores below a 300...what would you pick just on scores alone??? I'd take the standardization test personally...thats what opt school and any grad/prof school looks at and should weigh more highly.

A lower GPA matters more to most school on intial apperance...thats what people have made their standards in general and obviously a higher gpa will get an interview first, but don't be knocking the system so harshly is all. Harder schools have harder programs, easier schools have easier programs and they already have a system to recognize that so don't get all worked up over a number on a GPA and leave it at that...

 

[Optman87]

very good reply DrRobs.

There is no reason to try and prove my point to KHE.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and KHE i respect you and your opinion.

Best of Luck

 

[KHE]

are u saying that a students GPA determines whether they can "care for the vision of the population?"

So automatically below a B average means they can't be good Optometrists?

No, I'm not saying that someone with less than B can't be a good optometrist. I'm saying that it is a lot LESS likely that someone with less than a B will be a good optometrist.

 

[KHE]

Thats not the point any of us are trying to make, there are standards set. Optman did not make any correlations that the student would have a 2.7 gpa per say...even though that may be the min...he made the point as I was making that there are a lot more things to consider than GPA alone and thats where it stands with any school and thats where it should stand.


So by your standards you're saying someone who has a 3.5 gpa from a sub-par under grad program should get in before someone with a gpa from a program that is much more competative and difficult??? thats the point we are trying to make, it not your GPA that matters the most..thats why Opt schools have the OAT, its standardized! someone from a lower quality program usually scores lower on the OAT, and if GPA is less you have to have something else going for you to improve your app. What about those people who take the time and the initiative to go out and find a job or a substaintial way to learn what the field is about and learn that its their passion if they are weakening in one category. The same argument could be made for someone with a low OAT score, so why does GPA matter so much?! thats the point thats trying to be made here! If you learn more clincically than someone who just decided to do optometry because "it might be easier than med school" what makes them better? their 3.5+ gpa? thats what is trying to come accross here...its more than your gpa that matters and the standards the schools have now are ok, and similar to the other professional schools, optometry should be and is no different. Infact there are some schools in other professions that are even lower than that standard, so what does that say? there is just less competition, and there needs to be even less competition and we need to weed out those ppl who think "optometry is easy" and is going to give them "flexibility and a good pay check without being on call at a hospital"

thats the issue here, not GPA. Once those ppl get into school who have worked hard against the best of the best may be at the top of their class because they found it was their passion and worked hard to get there. Those are the types of people that deserve respect.

To quote emerson..."to be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you into something else, is the greatest accomplishment"

Again...

You can come up with more and more extreme examples all day long. Yes, you're right....it's probably true that an astrophysics major from MIT with a 2.99999 GPA is a brighter individual than a biology major from Southwestern Mississippi State University with a 3.0000001 GPA.

And in this cruel world, it's probably not fair that the person from MIT is not offered admission, but that's just the way it goes sometimes. I'm not saying that GPA is the only thing that should matter, but it should matter substantially, and it should matter more than "passion" or "drive" or the fact that your grandmother died in your second year and you got really depressed or the fact that you're a nice person who plays the piano at the old folks home on weekends or that you spent 3200 hours shadowing ODs.

We set standards, and they should be met regardless of the persons personal circumstances. The OAT is a reasonable test that has it's purpose but it's one test given on one day for a few hours. You can get lucky...you can get unlucky. A GPA is a culmination of 4 years of work and has tremendous value in predicting someones ability to learn and retain complex material.

 

[DrRobs]

They are being met, and they are being met by the right people. Thats what I'm trying to say, use your right brain, see outside the box of the text for once...see the meaning with the words we are saying instead of being so negative. You are missing the point entirely...these are not EXTREEME examples, they may be for someone who has never had to work hard....have you ever had to work hard? I have, I overcame, I was an "underdog" thats why I'm so passionate about this...sure the average person is not going to feel this way but I feel personally offended because I have succeeded and I got into PCO, my first choice, so don't knock the people who are reading this and need some inspiration. The worst thing you can do for someone is knock their inspiration. If they aren't a good canidate, they won't get in, opt schools are smart enough to know that. So whats you're problem?

Again...

You can come up with more and more extreme examples all day long. Yes, you're right....it's probably true that an astrophysics major from MIT with a 2.99999 GPA is a brighter individual than a biology major from Southwestern Mississippi State University with a 3.0000001 GPA.

And in this cruel world, it's probably not fair that the person from MIT is not offered admission, but that's just the way it goes sometimes. I'm not saying that GPA is the only thing that should matter, but it should matter substantially, and it should matter more than "passion" or "drive" or the fact that your grandmother died in your second year and you got really depressed or the fact that you're a nice person who plays the piano at the old folks home on weekends or that you spent 3200 hours shadowing ODs.

We set standards, and they should be met regardless of the persons personal circumstances. The OAT is a reasonable test that has it's purpose but it's one test given on one day for a few hours. You can get lucky...you can get unlucky. A GPA is a culmination of 4 years of work and has tremendous value in predicting someones ability to learn and retain complex material.

 

[DrRobs]

In addition to the "shadowing" comment. if you note, I have been stressing WORKING for an OD, not only do you get the technical aspects, you learn the buisness aspects, exp if you work in a small practice.

 

[winterlily05]

Wow, all this back and forth is making me dizzy

Honestly, if GPA was as critical as some ppl make it, then there wouldn't be the OAT, letters of recommendations, interviews, essays, etc. that are taken into consideration. This being said, I think schools know that sometimes things happen, and that not everyone can make a 3.0+ GPA. THerefore, they take multiple things into consideration, not just linking GPA instantly with the capability of a student.

Of course, you can't expect schools to be thrilled with a student having a GPA below 2.5...but of course they're not going to instantly put aside a student with a 2.7 GPA. Having a 4.0 GPA does not mean you are Optometry School material. You can have a 4.0 and still be rejected because your attitude might not match with what they want.

 

[KHE]

They are being met, and they are being met by the right people. Thats what I'm trying to say, use your right brain, see outside the box of the text for once...see the meaning with the words we are saying instead of being so negative.

I'm not being negative, and I know exactly what you're saying because I've heard it all before many times. You're saying in essence that it really doesn't matter how someone performs during their 4 year undergraduate career as long as they went to the right school, have a story that is sad enough, or they have a lot of "passion." I simply can't get on board with that logic because I believe that at the end of the day, performance counts. Would my system leave out some people who probably would have "made it" in optometry school? Probably....but them's the breaks.

You are missing the point entirely...these are not EXTREEME examples, they may be for someone who has never had to work hard....have you ever had to work hard? I have, I overcame, I was an "underdog" thats why I'm so passionate about this...sure the average person is not going to feel this way but I feel personally offended because I have succeeded and I got into PCO, my first choice, so don't knock the people who are reading this and need some inspiration.

Of course I have had to work hard in my life. The vast majority of us have. I freely admit that during my first year of undergraduate school, I was pummeled mercilessly and my GPA was quite a bit below 3.0. This happens all the time, and I get that. However, by the time it was all said it done, it was up way over 3.0.

No one is going to begrudge you your acceptance but I believe it is unwise to have a policy set up in which there is, for all intents and purposes no standard set for admission. Sadly, the schools will fill up their classes regardless of how poorly qualified the "last" applicant of the class is. No school will ever say in a given year "well, we really didn't have a good applicant pool this year so we'll just admit less students." That never happens. They always admit the maximum number possible and I do not think that that is wise.

The worst thing you can do for someone is knock their inspiration. If they aren't a good canidate, they won't get in, opt schools are smart enough to know that. So whats you're problem?

I am skeptical that optometry schools are "smart enough" to know that, and the reason for that is given above. I would never knock someone's inspiration. I spent three years teaching high school math and science and I did my darndest to provide as much inspiration as possible but sometimes, the reality of the situation is that whoever you're trying to inspire needs to be told "Hey. This isn't going to work out for you." It's the same with optometry school. And I'm not saying that someone with a 2.9 should shut the door on their dreams. I'm saying that they should go back to school for one more year and get it up over 3.0.

When I was a younger man, I played competitive hockey with dreams of being a pro hockey player. But the reality of it is, is that for all intents and purposes, I couldn't really skate that well. I had all the drive, passion, desire, and I took as many skating classes/clinics as you can imagine and some of the most unGodly hours of the morning you can imagine and whatever you can think of but in the end, it just wasn't enough. There's no shame in that. And again, I'm not saying that someone with a 2.9 should shut the door on their dreams. I'm saying that they should go back to school for one more year and get it up over 3.0.

 

[winterlily05]

In addition to the "shadowing" comment. if you note, I have been stressing WORKING for an OD, not only do you get the technical aspects, you learn the buisness aspects, exp if you work in a small practice.

Dr. Robs,
I will start my shadowing this summer, and I was wondering if you need any special skills/license to work for an OD?

 

[winterlily05]

I'm not being negative, and I know exactly what you're saying because I've heard it all before many times. You're saying in essence that it really doesn't matter how someone performs during their 4 year undergraduate career as long as they went to the right school, have a story that is sad enough, or they have a lot of "passion." I simply can't get on board with that logic because I believe that at the end of the day, performance counts. Would my system leave out some people who probably would have "made it" in optometry school? Probably....but them's the breaks.


And again, I'm not saying that someone with a 2.9 should shut the door on their dreams. I'm saying that they should go back to school for one more year and get it up over 3.0.

Yes, performance counts, but you don't have to have above a 3.0 to prove that you're worthy of becoming an optometrist. School environment, family pressure, etc, can greatly impact the performance of a student during their undergraduate study. So what if they don't make at least a 3.0? Does that mean that they shouldn't be given a chance? Is that not the same as discriminating against those who are not in the 3.0 GPA club? Honestly, I find it a little cruel to say to a person: "I will only accept those who have 3.0 GPA, but you have a 2.9, so why don't you go waste one more year of your life and be in more debt, to get it up 0.1 more point."

 

[Optman87]

Dr. Robs,
I will start my shadowing this summer, and I was wondering if you need any special skills/license to work for an OD?

No license is required. All you need is a willing Optometrist who will give you hands on experience, patient interaction, and active guidance

Best of Luck!

 

[KHE]

So what if they don't make at least a 3.0? Does that mean that they shouldn't be given a chance?

Yea....pretty much.

Is that not the same as discriminating against those who are not in the 3.0 GPA club? Honestly, I find it a little cruel to say to a person: "I will only accept those who have 3.0 GPA, but you have a 2.9, so why don't you go waste one more year of your life and be in more debt, to get it up 0.1 more point."

So now asking for a minimum standard is somehow discriminatory? To me, that makes little sense. When does all this end?

How about someone with a 2.8? 2.7? How about a 2.6 but who went to a really hard school?

How about someone with a 2.5 but who went to a really REALLY hard school?

How about someone with a 2.4 but who went to a really REALLY hard school and who's grandma died while they were in school?

How about someone with a 2.3 but who went to a really REALLY hard school and who's grandma dies while they were in school and who's boyfriend dumped them the night before their organic chemistry final?

How about someone with a 2.2 but who went to a really REALLY hard school and who's grandma dies while they were in school and who's boyfriend dumped them the night before their organic chemistry final, but they spent a year building houses for Habitat for Humanity?

How about someone with a 2.1 but who went to a really REALLY hard school and who's grandma dies while they were in school and who's boyfriend dumped them the night before their organic chemistry final, but they spent a year building houses for Habitat for Humanity and they also volunteer to tutor inner city 4th graders on reading?

How about someone with a 2.0 but who went to a really REALLY hard school and who's grandma dies while they were in school and who's boyfriend dumped them the night before their organic chemistry final, but they spent a year building houses for Habitat for Humanity and they also volunteer to tutor inner city 4th graders on reading while working 38 hours per week as a waitress at Chili's?

I'm particularly saddened that this attitude is becoming more and more pervasive. I saw this amongst high schoolers when I taught math and science, and even worse I saw it amongst their parents. Of course, GPA isn't the ONLY thing, but it seems that we're getting to a point where for a whole lot of people, performance just doesn't matter....as long as the person tries really hard, has "passion" and a sad enough story, we can overlook how they actually PERFORM on the examinations and assignments. It's crazy.

There is probably little point in going round and round on this any further because I know that you all have your opinions on this, and I understand where they come from. They're not entirely without merrit. But I remain firmly committed to the notion that students who are applying for admission to professional programs in which they are to be trained to care for the visual welfare of the public somehow be expected to obtain a B average. I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[eyestrain]

Yes, performance counts, but you don't have to have above a 3.0 to prove that you're worthy of becoming an optometrist. School environment, family pressure, etc, can greatly impact the performance of a student during their undergraduate study. So what if they don't make at least a 3.0? Does that mean that they shouldn't be given a chance? Is that not the same as discriminating against those who are not in the 3.0 GPA club? Honestly, I find it a little cruel to say to a person: "I will only accept those who have 3.0 GPA, but you have a 2.9, so why don't you go waste one more year of your life and be in more debt, to get it up 0.1 more point."

I think this wins the most ridiculous post of the thread award. "Discriminating against those not in the 3.0 GPA club" Okay, let's take some of KHE's examples eariler. Are we "discriminating" against people who want to drive but aren't in the 16yrs old and over club? Are we "discriminating" against people who want to vote but aren't in the 18yrs old and over club?

Maybe optometry schools should throw out any standards they do have in favor of a "best sob story wins" approach.

And once again, like I've done on so many of these threads, I ask ALL OF YOU here: you must have some kind of GPA cutoff in mind where no matter what the sob story, a GPA below X.XX won't make it in. I want to know what it is. You can't tell me you'd let sub 2.0 GPAs in for any reason. So where would YOU cut it off?

 

[opto delux]

I think this wins the most ridiculous post of the thread award. "Discriminating against those not in the 3.0 GPA club" Okay, let's take some of KHE's examples eariler. Are we "discriminating" against people who want to drive but aren't in the 16yrs old and over club? Are we "discriminating" against people who want to vote but aren't in the 18yrs old and over club?

Maybe optometry schools should throw out any standards they do have in favor of a "best sob story wins" approach.

And once again, like I've done on so many of these threads, I ask ALL OF YOU here: you must have some kind of GPA cutoff in mind where no matter what the sob story, a GPA below X.XX won't make it in. I want to know what it is. You can't tell me you'd let sub 2.0 GPAs in for any reason. So where would YOU cut it off?

Probably a 2.50 MINIMUM, no if ands or buts

 

[eyestrain]

Probably a 2.50 MINIMUM, no if ands or buts

Wow, someone actually answered the question. Usually everyone ignores it. Thanks!

 

[DrRobs]

Minimum GPA at a 2.7 is reasonable, and thats where it mostly is. If your GPA is low and you have to do more work then yea go do more work its only going to help you and show more interest, but taking a class or two does not improve your GPA significantly so make sure your other criteria is up there. Thats the point. KHE you were lucky enough to get your whits together early, but its a lot harder later when u take a blow in your higher level courses, but I did what I could to improve myself, and thats what I'm trying to tell others to do. Just do everything possible to improve your file, and GPA may not reflect it, but your efforts should shine through that little number.

 

[DrRobs]

Maybe optometry schools should throw out any standards they do have in favor of a "best sob story wins" approach.

quote]

Also, I don't think they do this, nor should they. You should never try to make excuses but if it was a reason then sometimes you have to talk about it but be prepared to prove to them you've tried your best and make sure you have significant examples of what you did to compensate that. They don't want mentally unstable people/people who make up stories as an excuse when they probably were out drinking every night or something. No, you can see through those people and find those who had to ligitimatly work hard, whether they had a "sob story" or whether they have had to work their way through school.

Actually I think the people who are working their way through school appreciate it better and end up doing better than a lot of people who's mommy's and daddys fund their educations so their kid can have a fancy degree. Thats opening up another can of worms so I won't elaborate on that though!

But I do see your points, I'm just trying to open up the box that there are people who do work hard and do do things like taking extra classes, and they should, if you figure it out before you apply though you probably wont have to re-apply and cry about your sub-par file because you didn't investigate options when u had the chance.

 

[alanan84]

Haha, I'm actually a predental student but sitting on the fence looking into other things. Optometry looks interesting. Just saw this thread and thought it was interesting. There is a dental school that has significantly lower average stats than the rest of the schools. (we're talking average gpa at around 3.0 and DAT scores of 15-16, thats basically 50% of the questions answered correctly) There was a thread on here that asked the question of if they should be allowed to have these stats? The answer that basically shut everyone up was that if the school's students passed their boards and if the school produced successful Dentists, why should they be punished?

I DO think we need to keep what's most important at the forefront. Schools produce professionals. If those professionals are competent and successful, who cares what their gpa was? Personally I have never asked my Dentist, Doctor, or Optometrist what their undergraduate or professional GPA was. I DON'T CARE! I care about whether they know what they're doing. I care about whether they like their job. I care about how they treat me. To me, that's what matters. I think that's what matters to schools as well. GPA and test scores are a good indicator of the intelligence and work ethic of an individual. That's why they look at them. But if they want to accept someone with a 2.8 gpa because they see something in him/her that will make them a good professional then more power to them! (Unless we're talking about the nephew of the Dean of admissions and then it's nepotism!)

Nice thread though, I've enjoyed it!

 

[BKtomodachi]

.

 

[winterlily05]

Yea....pretty much

.
Wow, I'm amazed...If everyone have your same way of thinking, then imagine how many talented people are being overlooked.

So now asking for a minimum standard is somehow discriminatory? To me, that makes little sense. When does all this end?
How about someone with a 2.1 but who went to a really REALLY hard school and who's grandma dies while they were in school and who's boyfriend dumped them the night before their organic chemistry final, but they spent a year building houses for Habitat for Humanity and they also volunteer to tutor inner city 4th graders on reading?
I'm particularly saddened that this attitude is becoming more and more pervasive. I saw this amongst high schoolers when I taught math and science, and even worse I saw it amongst their parents. Of course, GPA isn't the ONLY thing, but it seems that we're getting to a point where for a whole lot of people, performance just doesn't matter....as long as the person tries really hard, has "passion" and a sad enough story, we can overlook how they actually PERFORM on the examinations and assignments. It's crazy.
There is probably little point in going round and round on this any further because I know that you all have your opinions on this, and I understand where they come from. They're not entirely without merrit. But I remain firmly committed to the notion that students who are applying for admission to professional programs in which they are to be trained to care for the visual welfare of the public somehow be expected to obtain a B average. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Thanks for all the sob stories, it was really entertaining. Although, I think you're completely missing the point. You're making it sound like people who have below a 3.0 GPA don't actually care about their acedemics in school, then make up excuses and sad stories to make up for their performance later on. I'm not saying to overlook their GPA completely. Of course, a 2.5 GPA should not even be considered, and that individual should take more classes, etc. to raise their GPA. But a 2.8-2.9 GPA? If they're that close to your required 3.0, then why not give them a chance? I think schools also realize this, as they also take other things into factors when making a decision to accept or reject.
And who says that people who are accepted to Optometry school with a GPA below a 3.0 will actually finish to become an optometrist? The same goes for those above 3.0 GPA. That's why you give people a chance. A person with 2.9 GPA could be a better optometrist and care for more about their work than a 3.2 GPA.

 

[winterlily05]

I think this wins the most ridiculous post of the thread award. "Discriminating against those not in the 3.0 GPA club" Okay, let's take some of KHE's examples eariler. Are we "discriminating" against people who want to drive but aren't in the 16yrs old and over club? Are we "discriminating" against people who want to vote but aren't in the 18yrs old and over club?

Maybe optometry schools should throw out any standards they do have in favor of a "best sob story wins" approach.

And once again, like I've done on so many of these threads, I ask ALL OF YOU here: you must have some kind of GPA cutoff in mind where no matter what the sob story, a GPA below X.XX won't make it in. I want to know what it is. You can't tell me you'd let sub 2.0 GPAs in for any reason. So where would YOU cut it off?

Maybe 'discriminating' might not be the best word choice..how about 'inflexible?"

Honestly, how can you take driving, voting, smoking, drinking, etc, to compare it to GPA required to get into professional school? Those things affect society as a whole, but GPA? Unless you're saying that optometrists with a low undergraduate GPA automatically mean that they're going to be bad optometrists?

Why are people assuming that just because a school is a little flixible when it comes to GPA, then they should just throw out any standards because OBVIOUSLY, they're listening to all these sob stories to make their decisions.

Do you really expect schools to look at a 2.5 GPA and think it's acceptable?
However, if it's a 2.8+ GPA, then I really don't see why a person shouldn't be considered.

 

[winterlily05]

I DO think we need to keep what's most important at the forefront. Schools produce professionals. If those professionals are competent and successful, who cares what their gpa was? Personally I have never asked my Dentist, Doctor, or Optometrist what their undergraduate or professional GPA was. I DON'T CARE! I care about whether they know what they're doing. I care about whether they like their job. I care about how they treat me. To me, that's what matters. I think that's what matters to schools as well. GPA and test scores are a good indicator of the intelligence and work ethic of an individual. That's why they look at them. But if they want to accept someone with a 2.8 gpa because they see something in him/her that will make them a good professional then more power to them! (Unless we're talking about the nephew of the Dean of admissions and then it's nepotism!)

Thanks, this pretty much summed up what I'm thinking. GPA doesn't really reflect you as a person, nor does it reflects whether you're going to be good at what you do.
A person with a too low GPA should not be accepted, because they should improve their GPA. But if you have close to what the school thinks is acceptable? I don't see why people are objecting to those students being admitted.

 

[KHE]

I DO think we need to keep what's most important at the forefront. Schools produce professionals. If those professionals are competent and successful, who cares what their gpa was? Personally I have never asked my Dentist, Doctor, or Optometrist what their undergraduate or professional GPA was. I DON'T CARE! I care about whether they know what they're doing. I care about whether they like their job. I care about how they treat me. To me, that's what matters. I think that's what matters to schools as well. GPA and test scores are a good indicator of the intelligence and work ethic of an individual. That's why they look at them. !

The likely reason you don't ask your doctor what their undergraduate GPA was is that you are making the assumption that they are smart, and performed well in school just by virtue of the fact that they WERE admitted to school and graduated in the first place. In the past, that was probably a reasonable assumption to make but if the standard is going to get lower and lower, I imagine that soon you WILL have patients start to ask these things.