- Joined
- Apr 14, 2009
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 0
Just wondering because it always seems to be a case of decent cGPAs but low sGPAs and never the other way around.
That profile is just unreal.
SDN user rabbit36. he posted some great advice while applying and after his mcat.That profile is just unreal.
What kind of loser only gets a 43? He should've worked harder.
not implying I'll get a 43 on the test though lol, but i can definitely get it up to around a 3.1 or a 3.2
my sGPA is 4.0 while my cGPA us 3.92... so yes, many times it is the other way around...
that's what she said?
okay, get real: neither of those is a low GPA. i do not think your situation is what the OP had in mind with the original question. 🙄
I'm the same way...3.9 science and 3.4something cgpa...18 hours of very difficult german classes is pulling the average down. 😛 I'm hoping that they see the fact that I got a fellowship from the department that the german grades werent due to gross idiocy.
I feel your pain with German classes. I've got more than 18 hours worth, but they seemed to love subjective grading. I'd spent 2 weeks working on a paper that was proofread by a Ph.D. in German Applied Linguistics and a native German. I'd then get back the paper with "C, I just don't don't like your ideas here." If you ever feel like a professor is out to get you then you should be the only male in a german feminist lit course.
If you ever feel like a professor is out to get you then you should be the only male in a german feminist lit course.
Same. cGPA/sGPA = 3.51/3.71I have a much higher sci gpa. I did much better in my sci pre-reqs than my engineering classes.
I have a 3.1 overall GPA and a 3.9 sGPA. I'm a non-traditional who messed up in undergrad, but luckily, I wasn't a science major.
Its certainly interesting to hear everyone's stories on why their GPAs are unbalanced in an opposite fashion to what is normally seen in an unbalanced GPA. I wonder how this is treated by an ADCOM. Naturally, you would think that they would be most interested in applicants that have consistantly done well in their studies. But what about the case above where an applicant has no knowledge or interest in medicine and begins his college career cruising through a non-science major, earning average (C+) marks. Then falls in love with medicine, realizes how competitive it is, and performs really well in a new major (3.8ish), like biology or chem? They would end up with a low cGPA but a high sGPA. Additionaly, their later non-science coursework would be consistant with their science courswork, suggesting that the low cGPA is not a matter of ability, rather a matter of motivation and interest.
From what I have been told, the cGPA is most important. However, a Northwestern admissions person gave a presentation at my school. She was asked which is more important. She said that they look most heavily at the sGPA, but both are important. So I would assume that in most cases, the cGPA is most important, but some schools may look more heavily at the sGPA. But I am certainly no authority on this.
Maybe some adcoms could chime in? LizzyM, anyone?