Under 3.0 admitted

[Eyes Only]

Dawg,

No one is going to begrudge you your acceptance but the issue there is why does optometry need to even consider someone with "about" a 2.8? Why can optometry schools not attact enough qualified applicants of all races who are much higher than 2.8?

Optometry programs shouldn't accept anyone with a GPA lower than 3.0. This doesn't benefit the profession, only benefits the individual who wants something they are not qualified for.

I want to be a professional athlete making millions of dollars a year. Unfortunately I don't have the talent, so should someone feel bad and let me play professional sports anyway?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Bioflare]

A lot has been said about low gpa. How about you guys talk about more than just GPA and EC/ OAT scores in the mix. They do tell a lot about a person.

What would you guys say for candidates that had sub 3.0 GPA but 400 on the OAT's? Would that change your mindset? Maybe some people had pretty rough starts for undergrad or attended a school that was much more difficult than the average.

You could easily have a person smart enough for a graduate school but is not interested in their particular undergraduate courses. Who here can say they love bacteriology? I don't expect many people to have even taken it let alone like it. Point is, all I see here in this thread is people don't deserve a shot at anything because their GPA is low. So what? Whether it be Optometry or any other profession, if that is their true interest let it be for them to try and prove that they are capable.

/little less offtopic
Why is a pre-pharmacy student talking like he knows about getting into any graduate program?
And why is Jason K acting like a 4 year old. Seriously?
U MAD about your bad career choice? Suck it up, Optometry may not be rainbow and butterflies for you but it doesn't mean it can't be for some that actually put some effort into it.

/ONTOPIC

optomhopeful good luck - PCO should be fun? lol.

TL;DR
Grades != whole picture
GRADES + EC + OAT = decent chunk of the picture
Jason K & Judgement = Professional Trolls

LOW GPA & OAT = try harder or start looking elsewhere

 

[Jason K]

And you know this how?

He's right on this point. Not all programs are having the same level of difficulty in filling their seats primarily with tier 1 and tier 2 students, but some are not able to get it done with students who meet the minimums. When that happens, they start digging.

 

[Jason K]

What would you guys say for candidates that had sub 3.0 GPA but 400 on the OAT's? Would that change your mindset? Maybe some people had pretty rough starts for undergrad or attended a school that was much more difficult than the average.

You could easily have a person smart enough for a graduate school but is not interested in their particular undergraduate courses. Who here can say they love bacteriology?

Raw intelligence is enough to get you by in undergrad. You can cram the night before and be just fine if you're smart enough and let's face it; most of us did this in college. You can't do that in optometry school, at least not in the reputable programs, mainly due to the large volume of proficiencies which really can't be crammed for.

Your student with the 400 OAT and marginal GPA would have proven himself as someone who is not able or not motivated to perform academically, just on standardized tests. That's a combination that spells disaster in a difficult, fast-paced program. Many of the students who failed out of my program (my group lost about 15% of our original students) had done extremely well on the OAT, but had lower GPAs in the low 3s. They did just fine cramming until proficiencies entered the equation, then their system fell apart. As for the bacteriology nonsense, are you kidding me? Do you not realize that much of what's studied in OD school has nothing to do with the eye or clinical practice of optometry? Christ - more cluelessness.

And why is Jason K acting like a 4 year old. Seriously?

I don't know many 4 year olds who can post pictures online. I'd say it's more like a solid 12 or 13. And like I've said before, my posts rise to the level of that to which they are responding.

U MAD about your bad career choice? Suck it up, Optometry may not be rainbow and butterflies for you but it doesn't mean it can't be for some that actually put some effort into it.

This one makes me laugh. Have you not figured out by now that I'm "mad" about my career choice? Are you that clueless? The very reason I'm so verbal about my distaste for the future of optometry is BECAUSE of all the effort I've put into it and because of what's sure to come down the road for everyone. It's the same effort you'll put in, but you'll get even less than I. You may like to think otherwise, but the numbers don't lie.

Get ready, big boy, your time is coming. Funny how no one ever comes on this site to dispute the claims that new optometry grads are all funneling into commercial crap like moths to a flame. I suppose optohopeful or netmag will go make up an account as a new grad and start posting. People have been on this site for years complaining, at a steadily increasing volume, that optometry is a declining profession, and yet the only one who seems to have come back to dispute the claims happens to be the moderator of the forum. Everyone else is either a pre-OD or an OD student. Interesting how that works, don't you think?

Jason K & Judgement = Professional Trolls

There's a difference between a troll and a whistleblower. You're all being scammed in one of the greatest cons ever. Everyone in the deal is making out very well, except the students. Commercial companies, the AOA, the schools, they're all bringing it home by the millions, but it's the naive students who will lose ultimately. You'll see once you come out of the narcotic cloud of optometric education, and then you'll think back to my posts with a much different attitude.

 

[KHE]

A lot has been said about low gpa. How about you guys talk about more than just GPA and EC/ OAT scores in the mix. They do tell a lot about a person.

What would you guys say for candidates that had sub 3.0 GPA but 400 on the OAT's? Would that change your mindset? Maybe some people had pretty rough starts for undergrad or attended a school that was much more difficult than the average.

No one would suggest that only GPA should be looked at.

But understand that the OAT, while valuable is a one shot deal. You can have a low OAT because you were sick that day. You can get "lucky" on the OAT if you just get asked the right questions. I actually got lucky when I took it years ago.

Everyone knows that the issue with the RC section is time. You always run out of time. When I took it, one of the sections on the reading comprehension part was a long, dense page about the anatomy of the chest. I had just completed a course on anatomy so I never read the paragraph. I went right to the questions and I did very well because I didn't run out of time. Had it been on some other topic, I would not have been as fortunate.

A GPA however is a cumulative reflection of 4 YEARS worth of work.

Everyone understands that people may have rough patches during their academic career. Everyone understands that when people first get to college, there's a major adjustment period and many students don't do well their first semester or even their first year.

I KNOW THAT because I WAS ONE OF THOSE STUDENTS. I did TERRIBLY my first year.

But again....by the END of my coursework, I had somehow managed to get it up over 3.0. Is that so unreasonable? Is it so unreasonable to ask people applying for admission to professional programs in which they will be trained and licensed to care for the visual health of the population to somehow figure out how to get a B average? Is that really asking too much?

You could easily have a person smart enough for a graduate school but is not interested in their particular undergraduate courses. Who here can say they love bacteriology? I don't expect many people to have even taken it let alone like it. Point is, all I see here in this thread is people don't deserve a shot at anything because their GPA is low. So what? Whether it be Optometry or any other profession, if that is their true interest let it be for them to try and prove that they are capable.

That implies that talent or brains doesn't matter. As long as you're interested that should be enough for admission? I'm interested in playing the piano at Carnegia Hall. Should they just let me get up on stage?

 

[optom123]

A lot has been said about low gpa. How about you guys talk about more than just GPA and EC/ OAT scores in the mix. They do tell a lot about a person.

What would you guys say for candidates that had sub 3.0 GPA but 400 on the OAT's? Would that change your mindset? Maybe some people had pretty rough starts for undergrad or attended a school that was much more difficult than the average.

You could easily have a person smart enough for a graduate school but is not interested in their particular undergraduate courses. Who here can say they love bacteriology? I don't expect many people to have even taken it let alone like it. Point is, all I see here in this thread is people don't deserve a shot at anything because their GPA is low. So what? Whether it be Optometry or any other profession, if that is their true interest let it be for them to try and prove that they are capable.

/little less offtopic
Why is a pre-pharmacy student talking like he knows about getting into any graduate program?
And why is Jason K acting like a 4 year old. Seriously?
U MAD about your bad career choice? Suck it up, Optometry may not be rainbow and butterflies for you but it doesn't mean it can't be for some that actually put some effort into it.

/ONTOPIC

optomhopeful good luck - PCO should be fun? lol.

TL;DR
Grades != whole picture
GRADES + EC + OAT = decent chunk of the picture
Jason K & Judgement = Professional Trolls

LOW GPA & OAT = try harder or start looking elsewhere

Bioflare, I must say that everything you have said thus far I agree with to the nth degree!

I would basically avoid reading any posts by JasonK since he is evidently a loser And yeah, I find it funny that Judgement Dragon is a pre-pharmacy student and yet posts ridiculous claims like "my friend got in with a 2.38"

Anyways, I think it would be in the best interests of the posters here to keep on topic and not derail this thread.

 

[optom123]

That implies that talent or brains doesn't matter. As long as you're interested that should be enough for admission? I'm interested in playing the piano at Carnegia Hall. Should they just let me get up on stage?

This question has been posed twice in this thread, and it is valid question that merits some discussion. Eyes only used the analogy of athletes and you are using the analogy of a pianist.

The simple answer is, just because you have the desire to become an athlete or a pianist doesn't mean you can become one because you lack the special talent or skill to do so.

What does Optometry require? Some can say intelligence, dedication, motivation etc. These things are not really talents but acquired traits. Optometrists and doctors aren't special people folks.

Is a person with a 2.8 gpa more likely to fail Optometry school than someone who earned a 3.0? Maybe, however they are both B averages on paper, and if someone with a higher b average can do well than so can someone with a lower b average.

 

[hye345]

What does Optometry require? Some can say intelligence, dedication, motivation etc. These things are not really talents but acquired traits. Optometrists and doctors aren't special people folks.

You are right, these are acquired traits for the most part. No one really expects someone to enter college and shine from the start. However, is it too much to ask that after 4 years of college, a student interested in ANY health profession should have at least a fairly good grasp on these traits?

Yes, people have a few bad semesters/quarters, and not just in freshman year either. These 'dry spells' may or may not be your fault, but they are your responsibility. As someone who has had them from time to time, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that they (alone) probably wouldn't cause one's GPA to slip below a 3.0, assuming decent performance during the 'good' times.

And finally, of course most people are theoretically capable of most things (except those tasks limited by physical restraint maybe). However, you also have to consider the effort put in vs. the payoff in a non-emotional way.

Example: I might like the idea of building airplanes and space ships, but my grasp on math isn't exactly an iron fist, and I would most likely struggle horribly in engineering classes, for something that was more of a passing interest than anything else. A hyperbolic example I know, but hopefully the point is apparent.

Is a person with a 2.8 gpa more likely to fail Optometry school than someone who earned a 3.0? Maybe, however they are both B averages on paper, and if someone with a higher b average can do well than so can someone with a lower b average.

Well, the difference between a 2.8 and a 3.0 is slim, and I agree, sort of arbitrary. However, its a slippery slope...

If a 0.2 difference is no big deal, then a 0.3 difference isn't much different either, right? Once that is established, what about a 0.4 difference? Hell, why not just make it a nice 'round' number and say 0.5? By then, you are looking at someone with a GPA of a 2.7, and viewing them on the same level as someone who managed to get a 3.2. That is a pretty sizable difference in my opinion. You gotta draw the line somewhere, right?

 

[KHE]

This question has been posed twice in this thread, and it is valid question that merits some discussion. Eyes only used the analogy of athletes and you are using the analogy of a pianist.

The simple answer is, just because you have the desire to become an athlete or a pianist doesn't mean you can become one because you lack the special talent or skill to do so.

What does Optometry require? Some can say intelligence, dedication, motivation etc. These things are not really talents but acquired traits. Optometrists and doctors aren't special people folks.

Is a person with a 2.8 gpa more likely to fail Optometry school than someone who earned a 3.0? Maybe, however they are both B averages on paper, and if someone with a higher b average can do well than so can someone with a lower b average.

Maybe your right. Maybe standards don't matter and should be done away with.

You say that intelligence, dedication and motivation are not really talents but acquired traits.

Has someone with a 2.5 GPA acquired them? Has someone with a 2.5 GPA demonstrated intelligence or motivation? If 2.5 is acceptable, then why 2.4? 2.1? 1.5? 0.5?

Let's not have standards for anything....

Let's allow 13 year olds drive as long they're really motivated.
Let's allow 16 year olds drink alcohol as long as they're dedicated.

And while we're at it, let's do away with standards while we're in optometry school too....

Never mind testing or scores....they didn't matter in undergraduate so why should they matter now as long as a student is motivated, that's enough.

Never mind passing the NBEO. What's the point? As long as you're dedicated, you don't have to take it. Or if you decide to take it and fail, no problems. Practice anyways because we know you really really want to and dedication is enough in these situations.

 

[319671]

according to jasonk it doesnt really matter anymore because we're all going to be commercial walmart drones anyway

Maybe your right. Maybe standards don't matter and should be done away with.

You say that intelligence, dedication and motivation are not really talents but acquired traits.

Has someone with a 2.5 GPA acquired them? Has someone with a 2.5 GPA demonstrated intelligence or motivation? If 2.5 is acceptable, then why 2.4? 2.1? 1.5? 0.5?

Let's not have standards for anything....

Let's allow 13 year olds drive as long they're really motivated.
Let's allow 16 year olds drink alcohol as long as they're dedicated.

And while we're at it, let's do away with standards while we're in optometry school too....

Never mind testing or scores....they didn't matter in undergraduate so why should they matter now as long as a student is motivated, that's enough.

Never mind passing the NBEO. What's the point? As long as you're dedicated, you don't have to take it. Or if you decide to take it and fail, no problems. Practice anyways because we know you really really want to and dedication is enough in these situations.

 

[319671]

He's right on this point. Not all programs are having the same level of difficulty in filling their seats primarily with tier 1 and tier 2 students, but some are not able to get it done with students who meet the minimums. When that happens, they start digging.

doesnt answer the question. judgment dragon told me many many things about the PCO interview that were 100% false

 

[Jason K]

Is a person with a 2.8 gpa more likely to fail Optometry school than someone who earned a 3.0? Maybe, however they are both B averages on paper, and if someone with a higher b average can do well than so can someone with a lower b average.

That this thread even exists is pretty telling of the future of optometry. Before, optometry could limit its entrants to those who have the academic ability and drive become knowledgeable clinicians. Now, we're talking about "how low is too low?" How much of a slacker do you have to be to not be allowed into optometry school? Is that what we're asking now? Are you kidding me? Hey, why even bother with GPA and OAT scores, why not just base the whole thing on the personal statement, that way, everyone can get in.

A 2.8 is considered a C+ by most standards and a 3.0 is a B- so yes, there's a difference between a 3.0 and 2.8. If a student can't earn a 3.0 in undergrad, I don't care how difficult a program, he doesn't belong in optometry school. Go into something else.

 

[netmag]

Once a person enters a graduate school, their prior GPA means nothing. All that matters is that they are able to effectively learn what they are taught from that point forward. The schools do take a risk in terms of accepting someone with too low of a GPA because they can’t be quite as sure that this person will be able to make it through all 4 years of the program. However, that’s the risk that the school takes. There is no cause for anyone else to have such angst that a low GPA person would have the audacity to even try to apply. I don't think this thread is about where the exact GPA cutoff should be, but moreso about why this person can not even pose a question without receiving such angst.

On the one hand there is the claim that the schooling is too difficult and these people wouldn’t be able to make it through anyway. If that’s the case then there’s no reason for anyone to feel that they need to try to force a low GPA person not to even try to apply. If a school wants to offer them a chance then that is their prerogative to do so. If someone wants to apply to a school then it’s no one’s place here to tell them that they shouldn’t even try or shout in their face that their not qualified to do it. That’s just a personal opinion and probably one that should be kept to yourself if you have any common courtesy. To put it bluntly, complaining about the number of schools and the number seats being offered is one thing. Also, complaining about the lack of effectiveness of your respective organizations in dealing with oversupply is another thing. But jumping into a pre-optometry thread to trash it and tell people that they shouldn’t even be allowed to apply is somewhat hateful and childish.

On a side note, there’s a contingent of people who like to claim that they want THEIR America back and THEIR freedoms and liberties are being curtailed. However, many of these same people actively want to stop certain other people from even having a chance to compete. They may want something, but only if it benefits them personally and cuts someone else off at the knees at the same time. If you're ok with the free market system then why would it be any concern of yours if the school wants to offer someone a chance in their program? If they make it through the program, then they make it. If they don’t, then they don’t. Some people need to just focus on their own personal success instead of feeling like they need to hold others back to guarantee their own happiness in life. I think it says something about yourself as a person if you feel you need to do that in order to better yourself.

I personally think the pre-optoms that jumped in to complain about who was getting accepted really should focus themselves on their own applications instead of elevating themselves to a level where they get to pick and choose who has a right to apply and who doesn’t. It’s not a very good start to come into a profession thinking and talking like the resident troll who hangs around on an internet forum. Certainly not the type of entity you should want to model yourself after.

 

[Jason K]

doesnt answer the question. judgment dragon told me many many things about the PCO interview that were 100% false

It does answer the question. I've sat on admission committees where this exact situation came up. Not enough quality applicants to fill the seats so hmmm....which of the apps in the "crap" pile stinks the least?

JD is a pre-pharm student. If he's been wrong before, it has no bearing on this topic because he's right in this case. I've sifted through thousands of applications like yours and interviewed too many applicants to count. All the schools are running out of quality applicants, some more so than others. Very soon, this thread will be obsolete since anyone with a pulse and a pen (to sign the loan apps) will be able to get in. Oh, the future looks bright for this profession......not academically bright, but...

 

[KHE]

according to jasonk it doesnt really matter anymore because we're all going to be commercial walmart drones anyway

Even Walmart shoppers deserve some level of assurance that they are getting reasonable care.

 

[Shnurek]

It does answer the question. I've sat on admission committees where this exact situation came up. Not enough quality applicants to fill the seats so hmmm....which of the apps in the "crap" pile stinks the least?

Lol wow

 

[janedoe88]

Once a person enters a graduate school, their prior GPA means nothing. All that matters is that they are able to effectively learn what they are taught from that point forward. The schools do take a risk in terms of accepting someone with too low of a GPA because they can’t be quite as sure that this person will be able to make it through all 4 years of the program. However, that’s the risk that the school takes. There is no cause for anyone else to have such angst that a low GPA person would have the audacity to even try to apply. I don't think this thread is about where the exact GPA cutoff should be, but moreso about why this person can not even pose a question without receiving such angst.

On the one hand there is the claim that the schooling is too difficult and these people wouldn’t be able to make it through anyway. If that’s the case then there’s no reason for anyone to feel that they need to try to force a low GPA person not to even try to apply. If a school wants to offer them a chance then that is their prerogative to do so. If someone wants to apply to a school then it’s no one’s place here to tell them that they shouldn’t even try or shout in their face that their not qualified to do it. That’s just a personal opinion and probably one that should be kept to yourself if you have any common courtesy. To put it bluntly, complaining about the number of schools and the number seats being offered is one thing. Also, complaining about the lack of effectiveness of your respective organizations in dealing with oversupply is another thing. But jumping into a pre-optometry thread to trash it and tell people that they shouldn’t even be allowed to apply is somewhat hateful and childish.

On a side note, there’s a contingent of people who like to claim that they want THEIR America back and THEIR freedoms and liberties are being curtailed. However, many of these same people actively want to stop certain other people from even having a chance to compete. They may want something, but only if it benefits them personally and cuts someone else off at the knees at the same time. If you're ok with the free market system then why would it be any concern of yours if the school wants to offer someone a chance in their program? If they make it through the program, then they make it. If they don’t, then they don’t. Some people need to just focus on their own personal success instead of feeling like they need to hold others back to guarantee their own happiness in life. I think it says something about yourself as a person if you feel you need to do that in order to better yourself.

I personally think the pre-optoms that jumped in to complain about who was getting accepted really should focus themselves on their own applications instead of elevating themselves to a level where they get to pick and choose who has a right to apply and who doesn’t. It’s not a very good start to come into a profession thinking and talking like the resident troll who hangs around on an internet forum. Certainly not the type of entity you should want to model yourself after.

Well said!

 

[Jason K]

The schools do take a risk in terms of accepting someone with too low of a GPA because they can't be quite as sure that this person will be able to make it through all 4 years of the program. However, that's the risk that the school takes.

netmag, clearly you don't understand how these things work. The school assumes very little risk. On the contrary, they stand to gain. When I was a 4th year student, my classmates and I once tallied up the total tuition paid by "repeat" students for our class and the three behind us; those who were required to make up one or more years before they either graduated or were bounced from the program completely. It was well over a million dollars. The schools don't take the risk, students do.

Also, complaining about the lack of effectiveness of your respective organizations in dealing with oversupply is another thing. But jumping into a pre-optometry thread to trash it and tell people that they shouldn't even be allowed to apply is somewhat hateful and childish.

Will you please point out where the "hatefulness" is? And where did I claim to say they shouldn't be allowed to apply? WHERE DID I SAY THEY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPLY? PLEASE SHOW ME. I said they shouldn't get in. I don't expect a response, you never produce anything of substance when I ask you to back up your false claims. Consider it a rhetorical request. I've exposed you as a blatant liar on several occasions before and this is just another example.

It's not a very good start to come into a profession thinking and talking like the resident troll who hangs around on an internet forum. Certainly not the type of entity you should want to model yourself after.

You're the troll netmag. As usual, you show up, make comments designed to illicit a response (almost always in the form of some false statements about something a "resident troll" has said), and then disappear since you are unable to create any sound responses to questions posed to you or to back up your claims. You're a pharmacist, netmag, go "hang out" on the pharmacy forum.

 

[Shnurek]

You're a pharmacist, netmag, go "hang out" on the pharmacy forum.

lolol the dynamics of these forums r mad funny

 

[Judgment Dragon]

And you know this how?

Well, let's just say I have connections. But I know the 2.38 / 4.00 GPA figure to be true.

 

[Eyes Only]

T\
What does Optometry require? Some can say intelligence, dedication, motivation etc. These things are not really talents but acquired traits. Optometrists and doctors aren't special people folks.

Is a person with a 2.8 gpa more likely to fail Optometry school than someone who earned a 3.0? Maybe, however they are both B averages on paper, and if someone with a higher b average can do well than so can someone with a lower b average.

I think attending graduate level classes all day (20+ semester hours) and then studying every night, getting decent grades, learning to think like a doctor, and taking board exams (500 questions in two days) all take some sort of talent. A talent that someone who can't get a 3.0 in undergrad probably doesn't have in excess.

Students come to these forums to talk at length about the OAT, which is a joke compared to the NBEO exams. If you have trouble with undergrad grades and getting decent OATs, you will have some serious issues trying to pass the NBEO exams.

There are students who graduate every year and never pass the boards. Did the optometry schools that admitted them do them any favors?

 

[optom123]

Maybe your right. Maybe standards don't matter and should be done away with.

You say that intelligence, dedication and motivation are not really talents but acquired traits.

Has someone with a 2.5 GPA acquired them? Has someone with a 2.5 GPA demonstrated intelligence or motivation? If 2.5 is acceptable, then why 2.4? 2.1? 1.5? 0.5?

Let's not have standards for anything....

Let's allow 13 year olds drive as long they're really motivated.
Let's allow 16 year olds drink alcohol as long as they're dedicated.

And while we're at it, let's do away with standards while we're in optometry school too....

Never mind testing or scores....they didn't matter in undergraduate so why should they matter now as long as a student is motivated, that's enough.

Never mind passing the NBEO. What's the point? As long as you're dedicated, you don't have to take it. Or if you decide to take it and fail, no problems. Practice anyways because we know you really really want to and dedication is enough in these situations.

Never said standards don't matter. I was just responding to your very analogy of doing what you want provided that you have a passion for it. That's not the case, you need some skill to back it up (obviously).

I think PCO must know what they are doing when their minimum acceptable gpa is 2.5, which is a C+ at my school. PCO believes that a student with a C+ average can do well in Optometry school, so why are we even talking about 2.8 being too low? Or anything below a 3.0 too low?

 

[Jason K]

I think PCO must know what they are doing when their minimum acceptable gpa is 2.5, which is a C+ at my school. PCO believes that a student with a C+ average can do well in Optometry school, so why are we even talking about 2.8 being too low? Or anything below a 3.0 too low?

PCO is a private school. They want to fill seats with warm, tuition-paying bodies. If they could fill their class with 3.0 and up students, they would. They leave the 2.5 minimum there so they can have some extra padding to fill the class if they can't fill it with quality applicants. They want those people to apply so they have some backup because there's nothing worse than letting a $200K seat go unfilled for 4 years. It is absolutely not so that they can "give those students with low GPAs and test scores a chance." An admission committee can let in whomever they want, regardless of gpa, test scores, application, minimum requirements, whatever. Those guidelines are for students, not for the admission committee.

 

[optom123]

If that were true, they wouldn't even require a 2.5. They would be fine with even a 1.5 gpa, since it is for profit after-all.

 

[Jason K]

If that were true, they wouldn't even require a 2.5. They would be fine with even a 1.5 gpa, since it is for profit after-all.

Salus is a non-profit school, but it's private so they have to come up with their own cash through tuition and donations. That aside, they could very well admit someone with a 1.5 if they chose to, even if the minimum were a 2.5. That student would not have a degree, however, since every undergraduate program I've ever heard of requires at least a 2.0 to graduate with a degree.

The minimums set by the school are at the discretion of the school and its committee, they are not hard rules that must be followed to the letter. That student, if admitted, would make the program look bad and would almost certainly go down in flames once in the program. It's all based on who's applying. When the top of the pile is a 2.8 and the middle is a 2.0, you'll very well might see a 1.5'er in there somewhere, somehow. With the trend moving in the direction it is currently moving, that scenario is not all that unlikely in 5 or 10 years. The quality of applicants to OD programs is dropping. Whether they're going into other health profession or not, I don't know, but the reality is, the ODs of the future will not be as academically inclined as the ones from the past.

You guys are looking at things from the student perspective. You need to start seeing at things from outside of the students' view, on all of the topics at hand. You might be surprised what you see.

 

[Eyes Only]

I think PCO must know what they are doing when their minimum acceptable gpa is 2.5, which is a C+ at my school. PCO believes that a student with a C+ average can do well in Optometry school, so why are we even talking about 2.8 being too low? Or anything below a 3.0 too low?

Anyone who has been through an optometry program knows that someone with an undergrad GPA of 2.5 has little chance of getting through school and getting licensed. Of course a school would rather sell the seat to someone with a 3.0 who might actually graduate, but they'd rather have the seat occupied by anyone than no one.

If you think someone with a 2.5 GPA can "do well in optometry school" you have no idea what you are getting into.

 

[319671]

Well, let's just say I have connections. But I know the 2.38 / 4.00 GPA figure to be true.

what connections? then why was everything you told me abtr the interview was wrong?

 

[nicmc]

Salus is a non-profit school, but it's private so they have to come up with their own cash through tuition and donations. That aside, they could very well admit someone with a 1.5 if they chose to, even if the minimum were a 2.5. That student would not have a degree, however, since every undergraduate program I've ever heard of requires at least a 2.0 to graduate with a degree.

The minimums set by the school are at the discretion of the school and its committee, they are not hard rules that must be followed to the letter. That student, if admitted, would make the program look bad and would almost certainly go down in flames once in the program. It's all based on who's applying. When the top of the pile is a 2.8 and the middle is a 2.0, you'll very well might see a 1.5'er in there somewhere, somehow. With the trend moving in the direction it is currently moving, that scenario is not all that unlikely in 5 or 10 years. The quality of applicants to OD programs is dropping. Whether they're going into other health profession or not, I don't know, but the reality is, the ODs of the future will not be as academically inclined as the ones from the past.

You guys are looking at things from the student perspective. You need to start seeing at things from outside of the students' view, on all of the topics at hand. You might be surprised what you see.

While there are certainly some schools who are accepting a lower quality of applicant, there are still multiple schools whose averages are remaining the same or increasing. There will certainly be a lot of ODs in the future who are not as academically inclined (especially with the new schools), but I think there will still be a large number that are.

 

[nicmc]

Anyone who has been through an optometry program knows that someone with an undergrad GPA of 2.5 has little chance of getting through school and getting licensed. Of course a school would rather sell the seat to someone with a 3.0 who might actually graduate, but they'd rather have the seat occupied by anyone than no one.

If you think someone with a 2.5 GPA can "do well in optometry school" you have no idea what you are getting into.

 

[DawgOD]

A 2.8 is considered a C+ by most standards and a 3.0 is a B- so yes, there's a difference between a 3.0 and 2.8. If a student can't earn a 3.0 in undergrad, I don't care how difficult a program, he doesn't belong in optometry school. Go into something else.

I agree with this, but can't completely agree with this.. i mean sometimes people grow and mature after undergrad.. I personally was one of them. I wasn't really focused on school work when I was in undergrad. I was young, out of the house, and really just enjoying life. As a matter of fact.. I actually have a higher GPA in opt. school than I did in undergrad.

ANother thing, I think the schools are still getting quality students. SCO's most recent incoming class had an average GPA of about 3.5 which has been the highest in years. I think maybe the newer schools may have issues on account that most applicants apply there as a last resort/just in case basis.

 

[Jason K]

While there are certainly some schools who are accepting a lower quality of applicant, there are still multiple schools whose averages are remaining the same or increasing. There will certainly be a lot of ODs in the future who are not as academically inclined (especially with the new schools), but I think there will still be a large number that are.

Overall, the averages for applicants are decreasing for GPA, OAT performance, and quality in general, at least from what I'm told by several programs. Notice, I didn't say "entering students," I was referring to "applicants." I am no longer on any admission committees, but I speak often with several people in a few programs who are and they confirm that, across the board, it is getting harder and harder each year to find quality applicants from which to fill their classes.

If there are a few programs who have been able to disguise the problem by taking a proportionately higher percentage of their "good" applicants, it still doesn't change the underlying problem. At some point, the "fuel" will run out and there won't be enough solid applicants to make things happen. That has already happened at a number of programs.

Schools have to assemble classes according to a plan. They want some top tier students, some 2nd tier students, and a few from the lower end of the spectrum who still have the talent and the drive to get things done. Those students, in general, fall on the spectrum between 4.0 and 3.0 or so. It's no coincidence that those tend to be the students that most graduate programs focus on. If they have a class of 60 students and they have 60 4.0 / 400 OAT applicants, they aren't going to fill the class with those students. They want a mix. Unfortunately, when the top of the pile drops, the rest of the scale follows accordingly. That's what's happening right now. The top of the pile is dropping as top quality applicants choose to do something other than optometry. No one knows where they're going, but they're going away from optometry, that part is for sure.

 

[Judgment Dragon]

Jason K & Judgement = Professional Trolls

It seems like you are running out of arguments if you are resorting to ad hominem.

I would basically avoid reading any posts by JasonK since he is evidently a loser And yeah, I find it funny that Judgement Dragon is a pre-pharmacy student and yet posts ridiculous claims like "my friend got in with a 2.38"

What's funny is that pre-optometry students and current optometry students are arguing against practicing optometrists on their own profession.

what connections? then why was everything you told me abtr the interview was wrong?

The things I told you were valid for the first 2 weeks of September. You interviewed after the end of the 2nd week of September.

Overall, the averages for applicants are decreasing for GPA, OAT performance, and quality in general, at least from what I'm told by several programs. Notice, I didn't say "entering students," I was referring to "applicants." I am no longer on any admission committees, but I speak often with several people in a few programs who are and they confirm that, across the board, it is getting harder and harder each year to find quality applicants from which to fill their classes.

If there are a few programs who have been able to disguise the problem by taking a proportionately higher percentage of their "good" applicants, it still doesn't change the underlying problem. At some point, the "fuel" will run out and there won't be enough solid applicants to make things happen. That has already happened at a number of programs.

Schools have to assemble classes according to a plan. They want some top tier students, some 2nd tier students, and a few from the lower end of the spectrum who still have the talent and the drive to get things done. Those students, in general, fall on the spectrum between 4.0 and 3.0 or so. It's no coincidence that those tend to be the students that most graduate programs focus on. If they have a class of 60 students and they have 60 4.0 / 400 OAT applicants, they aren't going to fill the class with those students. They want a mix. Unfortunately, when the top of the pile drops, the rest of the scale follows accordingly. That's what's happening right now. The top of the pile is dropping as top quality applicants choose to do something other than optometry. No one knows where they're going, but they're going away from optometry, that part is for sure.

I wished the threads in the optometry section weren't locked so we can see more of your good posts.

 

[Rinnegan]

I am now waitlisted at PCO. At first they were asking for my Spring grades, then changed their mind to Fall grades, and now waitlisted me.

 

[Blondiechick919]

I am now waitlisted at PCO. At first they were asking for my Spring grades, then changed their mind to Fall grades, and now waitlisted me.

Unfortunately the school has the ability to change their mind as much as they want essentially. This is why rolling admissions is a nightmare for some people, as the waiting is often worse than a rejection. Since interviews are ongoing, they are admitting qualified applicants who may not have had the opportunity to interview earlier or applied later. Wait listing this early has a better chance of getting in than wait listing you in april when most students have committed.

 

[DawgOD]

Overall, the averages for applicants are decreasing for GPA, OAT performance, and quality in general, at least from what I'm told by several programs. Notice, I didn't say "entering students," I was referring to "applicants."

I'm sure Optomcas has something to do with that.. Applicants didn't come up with that system, someone else did.. $$$ It's a lot easier for people to apply to more schools now, and applicants are taking advantage of it.


Entering Class numbers mean a heck of a lot more to me than applicant numbers..

 

[Jason K]

I'm sure Optomcas has something to do with that.. Applicants didn't come up with that system, someone else did.. $$$ It's a lot easier for people to apply to more schools now, and applicants are taking advantage of it.


Entering Class numbers mean a heck of a lot more to me than applicant numbers..

Entering class data are important, but the overall data are far more telling of the quality of the average person interested in optometry. You can have two years with identical entering class stats. Year 1 has a top-notch applicant pool, year 2 has an abysmal applicant pool. During year 2, the high entering class stats are maintained because a much higher percentage of the "good" applicants were taken. Entering class stats don't mean much beyond showing you who's in optometry school.

The electronic application system has a part in all of this, but it does not drive applicant quality down; it only facilitates more applications per applicant. The "on-paper" quality of the average person interested in optometry is dropping, like it or not, and that's going to have dire consequences down the road.