A little hope for Applicants

[eyecare4eyecare]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

This is just about the time pre-optometrists start worrying over applying, getting in, taking OAT, etc. , so I thought this thread might inspire a little hope.

Background: I applied with a GPA of 2.9 (rounded UP) from a decent college, and had an OAT of 330 AA/350 TS taken once. I had pretty good extra-curriculars with a couple leadership roles, and plenty of shadowing/volunteering with an optometrist. My letters of rec. were probably generic and average.

Out of the 7 schools that I applied to; I got interviews with 6. Out of those 6 interviews, I got accepted to 2, went off the waitlist for 1 and rejected from 3.
Coincidently, the 2 I got accepted into, and the 1 I got waitlisted for, were the ones I felt I had better interviews at, so interviews DO matter! If you want to know which schools...well, it was most of the schools you could apply to, that accept out of state applicants. I'm trying to keep the schools anonymous, but I think in a thread somewhere, I mentioned them.

Also, I know plenty of people who got accepted with below the school average, and some even with a 3.0 or lower (like myself). However, like myself, these people had decent OAT's and plenty of optometry experience and knowledge. If anything, it was my knowledge of the field and professionalism during the interviews that got me in. Review the interview questions on this site!...the schools are pretty consistent on asking the same questions 😀

SO...to sum up; there is hope. I'm not saying to slack off or anything, but for those who are unsure whether their GPA cuts it...at least TRY. On the same note, only TRY if you think you're ready for optometry school. If your GPA is low then you might not be ready. I improved my GPA over the past semesters, and really stepped up in my study habits, so I've already mentally prepared myself. Optometry school is something to not be underestimated...I BARELY got in, so low GPA people...you just have to step everything else up, and try a little harder in the application process.

GOOD LUCK to everyone; hope this helped!😎

 

[JMU07]

Thanks for sharing your story! It made me feel a little better, I'm applying this year with a 3.15 and I'm definitely feeling nervous about it.

 

[JeffChou]

Thanks for sharing.
When, in the application period, did you apply? If you don't mind, could you also elaborate on the extracurricular activities and leadership roles you assumed?

Thanks again!
Jeff

 

[Bulls-eye]

Thanks for posting...it does offer hope to me at least🙂 I haven't taken the OAT yet, but my GPA is a little on the low side partly due to some non-science classes (but improving every semester). Not many people are brave enough to post below-average scores (for admission into optometry school anyways as I don't see anything wrong with having a B-average), so I salute you.

 

[KHE]

Not many people are brave enough to post below-average scores (for admission into optometry school anyways as I don't see anything wrong with having a B-average), so I salute you.

I'm surprised and more than a little bit perplexed by this statement.

We've kind of gone it over it before...but if there is nothing wrong with B- average then why not a C+ average? Or a C average?

Is it not unreasonable to expect that people who are applying for admission to programs in which they are going to be trained and licensed to care for the visual welfare of the population be expected to at least get a B average?

I know, I know....lots of people don't do well in their first year etc. etc. I'm the first to admit that my first year in university wasn't so hot either. But by the time I was done, I had it up way over 3.0.

Should there not be some kind of cut off? Is a B average in college THAT hard to get? I know we all have our "issues" and tough times and such but c'mon.....at least get a B.

 

[Bulls-eye]

I

We've kind of gone it over it before...but if there is nothing wrong with B- average then why not a C+ average? Or a C average?... I know we all have our "issues" and tough times and such but c'mon.....at least get a B

I do agree that grades should be thoroughly considered by admissions committees for optometry schools and other professional schools because they give insight into what kind of student an applicant is and how seriously they take their education. And while I don't like the idea of a grade cutoff Per say, for admission to the school because not every applicant takes the the same classes of the same difficulty outside of the mandatory prerequisites, I do believe schools could require a minimum grade if they wanted to. Hey, it is their school. But most of the optometry schools I've looked into just see having higher grades as increasing an applicant's competitiveness and obviously the most competitive applicants will get accepted. Schools look at the whole picture to determine who will make a good optometrist.

I do think most applicants should have a B average (by the way, I meant B not B minus) by the time they are matriculated into optometry school because I believe the average 3.3-3.4 GPA quoted on most optometry school websites is the student's final GPA before they start optometry school. Schools can give applicant's a chance to raise their GPA during their senior year. The original poster applied with a 2.9 but brought it up to over a 3.0 their final year, so they did have a B average when they were accepted. In my case, I already have a 3.0 and plan on raising it even more my last year, so I too will have a B average.

I only posted because I thought it was nice the poster was reassuring people with lower than the average quoted by optometry schools to still apply, especially when it seems most people will only post their stats when they feel they are competitive.

 

[eyecare4eyecare]

Sure...I guess I'll elaborate some more. Like I stated, when I applied I had a 2.9, however, that was in October & November. I had most my interviews after the semester break, but was placed on "hold" for a lot of the schools after I interviewed (for 1st term grades). Once grades came in, I had a 3.0 rounded down...so in the end, it did become a "B" average.

Also, I think what impressed them, despite the below average GPA, was the fact that I had drastically improved. I went from academic probation my freshman year (below 2.0), to a 3.0...with mostly A's and B's in the upper-division science classes. I still had a couple C's here and there in my upper-level years, but I had reasons for those.

For extracurriculars: I was in a leadership position for the pre-optometry club, leadership-position in a voluteering club, and part of many other voluteer, and culture clubs. On top of that, I had voluteered with a private optometrist for over a year, and shadowed a couple others.

For OAT: I studied for about 2 months, but only seriously for 1 out of those 2 months, LOL. I used the Kaplan OAT book I got from a friend, and OAT achiever.

Again, I'm not saying you should apply with a low GPA, just to apply. I'm saying...don't let grades hold you back, ESPECIALLY if you've improved, and feel you're ready for optometry school. The schools look at performance trends, your personality (a lot of the questions during interviews access your study habits), and other factors to see if you're ready. If you apply with a low GPA, and don't get in, then get a masters, or retake some classes to better prepare yourself. If you do get in...then know that you're not necessarily lucky, but that the school feels you're ready; so you were right in believing you are prepared. I've heard many stories of people doing BETTER in OD school, so it's possible.

Oh, and finally...I didn't list the schools I applied to, interviewed with and got acceptances from because I don't want people basing where they applied based on me. However, if you REALLY wanna know...then you can PM me. I suggest you research the schools on your own and apply where you want to based off that.

Hmm...I guess that's enough rambling...GOOD LUCK again!

 

[eyestrain]

We've kind of gone it over it before...but if there is nothing wrong with B- average then why not a C+ average? Or a C average?

Is it not unreasonable to expect that people who are applying for admission to programs in which they are going to be trained and licensed to care for the visual welfare of the population be expected to at least get a B average?

At least I know there is one person out there who agrees with me on this subject. I remember being called a racist the last time this came up. I hope it doesn't come to that again.

 

[IcanSEEanOD]

.

 

[JeffChou]

I think this debate calls for a discussion on the purpose of a GPA/OAT minimum in admissions. Many people would--reasonably--expect pre-professional students to have at least a B average (3.0) and I certainly agree that a B average is an acceptable minimum standard. I wouldn't, however, advocate a minimum cutoff for admission because of many of the reasons stated already. Some students just have bad first years, some have a bad first two years, some just have a REALLY BAD first year. A student's final cumulative GPA won't always match up to their competence, and some may still have trouble with their average, even while getting competent grades in his/her latter years of college.

It is, after all, the job of the admissions committee to select the most qualified and promising applicants so the possibility of a student with less than a 3.0 getting in is rather slim anyway. Enforcing a GPA minimum would only exclude otherwise selected (for whatever reasons the admissions committee has) students from applying. It does not give an unfair advantage to anyone, nor does it take any advantage away from the high GPA/OAT score applicants. The decision is ultimately up to the admissions committee.

In such an arrangement where sub-3.0 students are not allowed to apply, the work on administration's behalf is reduced. Fewer applicants means fewer files to sort through. The burden of reviewing rejecting already unqualified applicants is reduced. There is a chance that a qualified student who has been doing well (but still not all the way up to a 3.0 cum. avg) will be excluded from the application pool, but there is still less work.

Perhaps I'm still not seeing the entire picture and someone can enlighten me, but I just don't feel that a GPA minimum should be enforced, even if I believe that students should be able to do well anyway to apply.

 

[hfpepperbean47]

At least I know there is one person out there who agrees with me on this subject. I remember being called a racist the last time this came up. I hope it doesn't come to that again.

I think that person is off the forum, LOL

But please oh please lets not get into the minimum GPA discussion again. BEAT TO DEATH so many times since I've been a member, which has only been about three months!

 

[KHE]

I definitely do not agree with you, but it's not because I have a low gpa and I think I'm "special". It's because gpa is such a poor indicator of how intelligent or capable a person is at being an optometrist.

A poor indicator? Are you even in optometry school yet? On what possible basis could you make a statement like that?

Sure, I didn't do as well as I could have my freshman year, but not because I was out partying or "adjusting", it was because my "professors" set unrealistic expectations. And I didn't do amazing after my freshman year either, even though I was studying more and hardly having a social life.

If you're studying all the time, and having no social life and still making mediocre grades, then maybe....just maybe you don't have what it takes. That doesn't mean you're a bad or stupid person...it just means you might not have what it takes to make it....

I also had to work to pay for college, as my parents have 4 other kids, yes I said 4, and I know that working is definitely something that lowers gpa, and it is certainly not fair to expect someone who works to be able to spend as much time on schoolwork as someone who has never had a job.

Join the club....lots of people work their way through college and make top grades even at elite and competitive schools all while dealing with professors who were adjunts, or snotty researchers who didn't care to teach students. That's common at colleges of ALL levels.

I know that I should expect the courseload in optometry school to be higher, but I really don't see that as a problem because I am very hardworking and recieve high grades when professors are actually fair, as I did in high school (where I was also working).

But it sounds like you're not producing the results....hard working is great but if you don't produce the results then how can you reasonably expect admission? Because you "try hard?" Look....I wanted to be a professional hockey player when I was growing up and believe me...I tried real hard but you know what? I COULDN'T SKATE VERY WELL! Should I have been offered a professional contract because I tried my hardest and I had to work at Arby's and that took away some time from practicing every minute of the day?

So please, do not say suggest there should be a minimum gpa requirement. Being a good optometrist consists of way more than fufilling idiotic class requirements in courses that have absolutely no value when someone is an optometrist. I know that college is supposed to assess how well someone can suceed in a graduate level school, but there are so many different levels of professors in colleges that gpa is not the great equalizer. On the other hand, I think that the OAT while not perfect, is a very fair assesment of how well you know the material, not how well you know the professor.

Those "idiotic" classes assess your ability to learn obscure and difficult material as well as your ability to see through a difficult and unpleasant task.

I have to admit....I'm shocked again by the tone of this thread. It seems that far too many students out there have the attitude that if you just want something bad enough....that's good enough. Results or performance don't matter....it's how much "passion" you have or how much "desire" you have or how "badly" you want to be admitted that should be counted.

I'm also shocked that people don't seem to think that there should be some kind of minimum standard for admission. There are minimum standards for optometric licensure...there are minimum standards for getting a drivers license. Why is it unreasonable to have minimum academic standards for people asking to be admitted to programs in which they are to be trained and licensed to care for the visual welfare of the popluation? To take your argument to the illogical extreme...we should admit people who have a 1.2 as long as they had to take care of their sick grandma and take a bus at 5:30am to get to school. Let's be serious now....

 

[cunikki]

all right children lets stop fighting! when it comes down to it; whether you like it or not there is a minimum requirement for optometry school.... you have to get an admissions committee to let you in!!!! i highly doubt there are a lot of schools which have admissions committees meeting and saying oh well this student is really poor, has a low gpa, did poorly on the oat but they really want to be an optometrist so lets just let them in. when it comes down to it.. not everyone can cut it
clearly the best way to make sure people become good optometrists is to start with people who can succeed, but im sure that every year there are some people who drop out/get kicked out of their school cause they just arent going to make it. and when it comes down to it you still have to pass the board exams in order to make it. so i really dont see that there is a giant problem that unqualified people just suddenly become ODs.... and if there is probably reform to the board exams is the quickest most global way to make sure that people who are qualified get to be ODs. whatever each individual school wants to do to pick candidates isnt really any of our business... that is kinda the point of having different schools that are in charge of themselves and making sure that the school as a whole succeeds. admitting people to an OD school does not make them an OD.

 

[IcanSEEanOD]

.

 

[qwopty99]

this is specifically not meant to be a criticism of eyecare4eyecare or whatever, nor is it to suggest that GPAs should be the end-all (so i do accept the argument in this thread that GPAs at different colleges mean different things). however, when it comes down to it:

- admissions is basically a nuissance procedure that all schools/colleges/programs have to go through. they have to weed through hundreds of useless applications just to select an incoming class in as "fair a manner" as possible. it's a matter of having to go through the motions. if a class could simply be given to them, they'd take that class in a heartbeat. you can bet on this. most colleges just want to be over the procedure, and TEACH the curriculum.

- most of the adcom folks have been through it many times. it's mindless work for them. they gloss over materials, get a sense of things, then make a decision. its usually a number. obviously, admissions works differently at different places, but u can probably assume that that the highest averaged numbers are those who are ranked highest, and offers of admission are given in descending order.

- adcoms ARE NOT trying to look into every piece of material u sent them, trying to palpably feel why it is your righteous destiny to become an optometrist. they've got hundreds of applications to go through, and honestly, you get your glance over (and for the most part, ur application basically looks and feels the same as the next guy's, except for the GPA and OAT score) and that's it.

Schools look at the whole picture to determine who will make a good optometrist.

when it comes down to it (specific extenuating circumstances aside), if you have a 2.9 GPA (or whatever less-than stellar GPA), and they gave you admission, it isn't because they were able to realize your god-given destiny to become an optometrist, it's because they didn't have enough 3.9 GPA candidates to choose from.

speaking from experience, i'm sure at the end of their adcom meeting, some were lamenting how weak some of the admitted candidates were.

 

[KHE]

I said that most people are able to get a better gpa if they go to an easier college. Is this not true? Your gpa is something that is very very hard to bring up if you've had a few professors that gave you grades that were lower than you earned. If you do bad in a few courses and do excellent afterwards, your gpa barely improves. Sure you can usually take the courses over, but what if you can't afford to?

I disagree. If you do "badly" in a "few" courses then you need to do "well" in a "few" courses to earn a B average.

For example, I had one literature class where I repeatedly got a A- on every paper that I turned in, but there was absolutely no explanation or markings or critera that suggested why. When I went to the professor to find out how to improve, she just said that "I should quit whining." So you are saying that I should be penalized because my professor refused to grade accurately?

So is there something wrong with an A-? If you are earning A-s and its not enough to increase your GPA then the only logical conclusion is that your other grades were so catastrophic.

I'm a bit concerned that you keep referring to a "few" courses that you seem to have done poorly in. But again...if it's only a "few" courses then it shouldn't be that hard to bring the GPA up by doing well in a few courses. Please accpet my apology if I'm wrong but I'm getting the impression that you did poorly in a "few" courses and mediocre in a bunch of other ones and now you're having a hard time getting your GPA to budge.

And do I think there should be minimum requirements to get into Optometry school, yes, of course I do. But they should be based on minimum OAT score, and a certain gpa RELATED to the competitiveness of the college AND the circumstances of a person's life. Otherwise, we might as well get rid of the whole admissions committee and interview process and just let computers determine who has the minimum gpa and OAT, would that make sense?

I personally have been interested in Optometry since high school, I have been working for 25+ hours a week at an busy Optometrist's office (not Arby's) during the school year, and 40+ hours during the summer. How does my gpa show this? I know that I can do well in Optometry school because I not only "try hard" but because it I did well in high school, and I do well in college when I have fair professors. A few courses in college that are in no way related to Optometry should not prevent me from becoming an Optometrist.

Again...it's the professors fault.... I would be willing to bet that a significant number of students in that unfair professors class did well. I'm also willing to bet that there are other professors at your school whos classes you did well in but some students did not and now it is them who think that THAT professor is unfair.

I also decided I wanted to be an OD when I was 14 and I also worked (for free) for on OD while in high school and college while working at Arby's (high school) and a karakoe bar and a mobbed up restaurant (college) and I went to a competitive school too. I know exactly what you're talking about. I've put in all those hours working to pay for school. I also didn't do so hot in my first year. I'm the first to admit it. But that's very common. That happens to millions of kids starting college every year. But by the time I was done, I had the GPA up way over 3.0 while majoring in biochemistry.

And as far as gpa in Optometry school itself, why is gpa not a strong indicator of how well an Optometrist is there? You personally said:

So if gpa is so important in undergrad, why isn't it important in Optometry school? As for those who are admitted with low gpa's, are they failing out? I don't know, because I am not in Optometry school yet, but I would like to hear from someone who knows.

Your question is legitimate and I understand why you're asking it given my previous comments but I stand by them. I don't think you're comparing apples to apples. GPA in optometry school is being used to measure students who have already been selected out as top performers. GPA for college is being used to assess a much broader base of people. Also, what I'm looking for in someone to join my practice as a provider is not the same as what I'm looking for in someone to join my school as a student.

This thread has really perplexed me. I purchased a practice a few months ago but before I did that I took a sabbatical from practicing optometry to teach math and science to high schoolers. It was incredibly depressing how many of them felt that they should be given high grades because they "tried hard." They didn't seem to care that they had given the WRONG answers on the test...that didn't matter. What mattered was they tried hard, and really WANTED to do well. As depressing as it was that so many of the students had that attitude, it was even more depressing how many PARENTS had the same attitude.

Sadly, I'm detecting that same attitude on this thread and others like it. People seem to think that their performance in school really doesn't matter that much....that the main thing an adcomm should be looking at is how hard someone tried, or how much they want to be an optometrist, or how much woe they have had in their life.

I'm not saying those things should be discounted in their entirety but I am saying that there has to be SOME minumum standard for admission and if you fall below that, then you can not be admitted no matter how hard your college was, how unfair your professors were, how early you had to get up to take a bus to school, how late you had to stay up taking care of your sick grandma, how many hours you had to work at a job to pay for school, or how badly you want to be an optometrist. There are minimum standards for everything in life and while sometimes some of them may seem a bit arbitrary but that is the bar we set.

To get a drivers license, you have be 16 in my state. Not 15 years and 11 months...16 years of age.

To ride Space Mountain at Disney World, you have to be 48 inches tall. Not 47 1/2. 48 inches tall.

To be President, you have to be at least 35 years old. Not 34 1/2. 35 years old.

To be considered for optometry school, I stand by my position that you should be expected to someway somehow obtain a 3.0. Not a 2.90. Not a 2.99. And not a 2.999. A 3.0.

Is that so much to ask?

 

[asmaka19]

I noticed someone mentioned in their reply that schools should take into consideration the competitiveness of the university they come from when looking at GPAs, I just wanted to say that I was specifally told by an admissions advisor at an optometry school recently that they do look at the competitivness of the school. They classify schools into tiers of competitiveness when comparing GPAs, so they do consider that!

 

[eyestrain]

Again...it's the professors fault.... I would be willing to bet that a significant number of students in that unfair professors class did well. I'm also willing to bet that there are other professors at your school whos classes you did well in but some students did not and now it is them who think that THAT professor is unfair.

This is an excuse that drives me nuts too. I have this argument with my high school age brother all the time. He's constantly bitching about the teachers being "out to get him". Sadly, my parents seem to buy into it. For some reason it is out of the realm of possibility that the kid just goofs off all the time and subsequently gets bad grades. Its always those evil teachers who just assign grades based on someone's name (this is what my brother AND my mom actually believe). Stop blaming your teachers and take some responsibility for your grades.

 

[IcanSEEanOD]

.

 

[asmaka19]

that was from UHCO, but if they do it I'm sure there are other schools that follow something like that!

 

[KHE]

that was from UHCO, but if they do it I'm sure there are other schools that follow something like that!

They all do it....a 3.2 in Chemistry from MIT obviously more impressive than a 3.3 in communications for Eastern Mississippi State.

(No offense to communications majors or alumni of EMS meant...)

But I still believe that someone with a 2.9 in anything from MIT should not be admitted, as impressive or as difficult as MIT is.

 

[KHE]

This is an excuse that drives me nuts too. I have this argument with my high school age brother all the time. He's constantly bitching about the teachers being "out to get him". Sadly, my parents seem to buy into it. For some reason it is out of the realm of possibility that the kid just goofs off all the time and subsequently gets bad grades. Its always those evil teachers who just assign grades based on someone's name (this is what my brother AND my mom actually believe). Stop blaming your teachers and take some responsibility for your grades.

As a former teacher, I can assure you that no teacher is out to "get" anyone because we just simply don't have the time to be sitting around, maniacally wringing our hands and thinking "hee hee heee.....I'm going to screw that kid over today!"

That is especially true in math and science where there is much less subjectivity.

I will say however that if a kid is a mouthy jerk who is constantly late to class or causing trouble, they are much less likely to get the benefit of the doubt in some situations.....

For example...I was usually very strict with deadlines for work to be handed in but I wasn't a tyrant. Things come up all the time and I know that. So if someone has a reasonable excuse why a certain project needs an extra day or two, that was always fine. However, if the kid was a mouthpiece, or had a long history of demanding extensions, they are less likely to get one.

 

[sniklegem]

However, if the kid was a mouthpiece, or had a long history of demanding extensions, they are less likely to get one.

Demanding? People seriously demand extensions??? Haha, I always thought tucking your tail between your legs and groveling was the best way to get one. I'm going to start demanding them.

 

[sweetie02]

I do have to say I have had plenty of professors who made the course way harder than it should have been. They aren't necessarily "out to get the students," but they had some attitude problem. In introductory courses, I have had some professors make 15 page essay tests that were completely ridiculous. When taking a course, it does depend what teacher you get. It's always smart to talk to students and do some research to find a teacher that isn't ridiculously hard. I believe in pushing students and not making a course an "easy A," but there is a happy medium.

 

[cunikki]

good luck with that in opt school. there is not really any choice of teachers.. some choice of lab teachers but usually there are still big proficiencies at the end so it really doesnt matter cause you can still get the hard teachers for that.... obviously some teachers make you do work that you think is 'ridiculous' but that teacher is making everyone write the same essay test or whatever else... and probably somebody is getting an a or a b in that class....???

 

[Ryan_eyeball]

They all do it....a 3.2 in Chemistry from MIT obviously more impressive than a 3.3 in communications for Eastern Mississippi State.

(No offense to communications majors or alumni of EMS meant...)

But I still believe that someone with a 2.9 in anything from MIT should not be admitted, as impressive or as difficult as MIT is.

I agree with KHE on all of his posts. There needs to be at least a minimum GPA for admission. I worked 2 out of the 4 years in the college school calender year, had good scholarships, but come on a 3.0 GPA (i'd rather see 3.2 and higher) is not that hard to get. The value of a bachelor's degree isn't worth what it used to because its so easily attainable today. I felt in college most professors were more worried about everyone passing than actually challenging people.

We have low malpractice rates, and even more of our professional image hurts with 2.0'ers GPA gaining admissions. Wanna be a doctor but don't have a high enough GPA for Med school, dental or pharmacy school, hey lets pick OD school. An average applicant for a profession will just flood with more average doctors, and people who can't pass boards. Four years to get at least a 3.0

I went to a top 5 listed school in america with the highest Truman, Goldwater, & Rhodes winners