GPA's can hide truths and be MISLEADING

[Pharmpills]

Ok heres a situation a student has a 3.7 GPA and another student has a 3.2 GPA. Ur first impression is to say the 3.7 student is better prepared but are they??

GPA's can be artificially inflated by taking alot of easy courses at lower division while the person who has the 3.2 has taken biochem, cell bio, micro bio, anatomy 2 (all at upper division level) hypothetically.

My question is what impact is this when it comes to adcom, i mean i think the person with the 3.2 is at a better advantage bc they have more knowledge and have been challenged. what do u guys think??

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[CaliCPhT]

I think this is the reason that adcoms look at the applicant as a whole versus basing their decisions solely on the GPA.

 

[Pharmpills]

I think this is the reason that adcoms look at the applicant as a whole versus basing their decisions solely on the GPA.

but what if they soley based it on GPA though if it came down to that?

 

[nerv12345]

they also look at science/pharmacy pre-requisite gpa..not just overall

 

[Pharmpills]

they also look at science/pharmacy pre-requisite gpa..not just overall

u guys are not getting it..ok lets say they looked at the science GPA then the person with the 3.7 will most likely be higher BUTTT what about the difficulty of class level. see my point now.

example:
student A took orgo 1, environ. science, marine biology (lower division) and has a 3.9 science gpa

Student B took orgo 1, cell bio, micro bio (upper division) and has a 3.3

seee the point made here

 

[rxgales]

isn't this where the PCAT comes in? sounds like some match tourament ... again, student A could be taking an easy teacher or some short cut

 

[leinaala6]

u guys are not getting it..ok lets say they looked at the science GPA then the person with the 3.7 will most likely be higher BUTTT what about the difficulty of class level. see my point now.

example:
student A took orgo 1, environ. science, marine biology (lower division) and has a 3.9 science gpa

Student B took orgo 1, cell bio, micro bio (upper division) and has a 3.3

seee the point made here

some schools don't calculate science gpa with classes that fit into the science category...i mean, i think they look at classes like bio, chem, ochem and stuff that are part of their pre-reqs so classes like environ and marine bio wouldn't be taken into account.... umm..i think that's how it is anyways,...

 

[steveysmith54]

isn't this where the PCAT comes in? sounds like some match tourament ... again, student A could be taking an easy teacher or some short cut

not if u're in CA.

I think motivation to become a good a pharmacist and care about the profession is overlooked sometimes.

 

[Pharmpills]

isn't this where the PCAT comes in? again, student A come be taking an easy teacher or some short cut

hmmm yeahh i guess this is where the pcat does come in lol. but the main point in this thread was to show that GPA's can be flawed at times. there are various facors such as community colleges, easy prof, etc where some students can have phenomenal gpa but not be as smart as some1 with a much lower GPA BUT I GUESS THATS Y THERES THE PCAT.

 

[michelle_is_me]

life is unfair in general... suck it up buttercup!

i find the PCAT to be one ******ed test. I am least confident in Chem yet I always end up doing ok, however I am a big reader but I am always below average in reading comprehension... I finished the reading part soo early and i was napping b/c i had nothing to do!

so is the gpa reliable? not really. Pcat? not really. I think it really comes down to the interview and what kind of presence you give off during the interview that makes or breaks you. Unfortunately I suck at interviews...boo

 

[LoKoTe]

50% you 50% luck

 

[eelo]

Ok heres a situation a student has a 3.7 GPA and another student has a 3.2 GPA. Ur first impression is to say the 3.7 student is better prepared but are they??

what do u guys think??

I think that you're looking at this from an immature perspective. Please don't take that as an insult; what I mean is that it appears you're viewing this from the perspective of a young college student. Since that's probably where you are with your life, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, adcoms are full of people who are at a completely different 'maturity' when it comes to assessing grades, scores, attributes, shortcomings, and potential. The people who sit on adcoms have many, many years of experience and are highly unlikely to have a first impression of the 3.7 student being better prepared than the 3.2 student. People on adcoms don't simply look at GPAs, and to pose a question that asks us to look solely at GPA, then makes an assumption about our "first impression," is not a realistic scenario.

Luckily for the majoriy of applicants to graduate or professional schools, adcoms certainly do look at more than just GPAs.

 

[starrfishes]

Ok heres a situation a student has a 3.7 GPA and another student has a 3.2 GPA. Ur first impression is to say the 3.7 student is better prepared but are they??

GPA's can be artificially inflated by taking alot of easy courses at lower division while the person who has the 3.2 has taken biochem, cell bio, micro bio, anatomy 2 (all at upper division level) hypothetically.

My question is what impact is this when it comes to adcom, i mean i think the person with the 3.2 is at a better advantage bc they have more knowledge and have been challenged. what do u guys think??

I think some adcoms do keep in mind where you took your courses, and they don't always go by the numbers. If you took more challenging courses, that's a plus and they'll see that. However, as an applicant, I wouldn't get too caught up about the person next to me who's got a 3.7 inflated G.P.A.

... G.P.A. prior to pharmacy school is only one predictor - it doesn't necessarily say how well you might do in pharmacy anyways, even it was a 3.2 or a 3.7 prior to pharmacy. That's why there's interviews and other factors to see who's more qualified.

 

[rxgales]

this raises a question...can someone explain why some student who got high gpa do poorly while other students who got low gpa do well in professional school?

 

[Pharmpills]

this raises a question...can someone explain why some student who got high gpa do poorly while other students who got low gpa do well in professional school?

i think u mean it answers the question lol. thats y i said sometimes some ppl have high GPA's bc its artificially inflated and that they havnt taken the real hard classes like biochem and such. thats what this whole discussion is about.

 

[confettiflyer]

i think u mean it answers the question lol. thats y i said sometimes some ppl have high GPA's bc its artificially inflated and that they havnt taken the real hard classes like biochem and such. thats what this whole discussion is about.

i think adcoms aren't as stupid as you make them out to be and can figure out when a candidate with a 3.2 is better prepared than a candidate with a 3.7.

 

[collegegirl247]

I think that pharmpills is right. When a school receives 2000 applications during an application cycle, they dont have the tme to distinguish between upper and lower level classes. First they narrow down the applicant pool by gpa and THEN when they have a more reasonable number of applications to look at then they take into consideration the level of classes, where they were taken, extracurricular activities, LOR's etc. I think that many student are naive if they really believe that every single application is receiving the same consideration even with a lower gpa.

 

[eelo]

I think that pharmpills is right. When a school receives 2000 applications during an application cycle, they dont have the tme to distinguish between upper and lower level classes. First they narrow down the applicant pool by gpa and THEN when they have a more reasonable number of applications to look at then they take into consideration the level of classes, where they were taken, extracurricular activities, LOR's etc. I think that many student are naive if they really believe that every single application is receiving the same consideration even with a lower gpa.

I think you're on the right track, but I don't really think there are very many adcoms that are making the distinction at 3.7-3.2, as was alluded to in the original post.

The adcoms that I've sat on (not pharmacy) reviewed applications that had already been vetted for basic qualifications. Of 2000 applications received, probably up to 20% were from people who didn't meet basics, one of which was GPA. HOWEVER- the minimum GPA accepted was a 2.8. That's quite a bit different from a GPA of 3.2, and our experience, compiled over many, many years, was that a person with less than a 2.8 GPA probably wasn't ready for graduate or professional school, regardless of where they took their pre-reqs.

So now we're down to 1600 applications, for 150 spots. From those 1600, we want to have a group of no more than 500 to interview for those 150 spots. Before the applications even make it to the actual adcom, they are reviewed by staff who are qualified to make the determination if one person's 3.0 might be better than another's 3.3.

Different schools have different criteria. Even the same school may have different criteria for each admission year (not significantly different, but maybe they're emphasizing certain things in a given year). It sucks to be rejected, and I know that wnenever I've been rejected/turned down/overlooked for anything I always tried to find the reason why. In some cases it was GPA; in others it was strength of schedule, one time (for a job)it was because they didn't feel my personality would fit with the rest of the group (turns out they were right, and I'm glad I didn't end up there).

 

[shikamaru]

I think that pharmpills is right. When a school receives 2000 applications during an application cycle, they dont have the tme to distinguish between upper and lower level classes. First they narrow down the applicant pool by gpa and THEN when they have a more reasonable number of applications to look at then they take into consideration the level of classes, where they were taken, extracurricular activities, LOR's etc. I think that many student are naive if they really believe that every single application is receiving the same consideration even with a lower gpa.

I have to second this too. My brother is a genius who interned for one of the graduate school adcom members at Stanford University, and he was allowed to look through piles of applications. Guess what? RIGHT at the very top of the pile is a sticky note: a 3.7 at Stanford > 3.7 at Berkeley > 3.7 at UCSD, etc.

Granted, this is not for professional school, but I can bet that a lot of adcom out there perform similar preliminary cuts when they have so many applications to go through. It doesn't matter how many or how difficult the classes you take are--no matter what your degree, you better try your hardest to get a high GPA, because otherwise your application process will only be very hard (not impossible, just very hard )

 

[aboveliquidice]

I almost certain that your main gripe is academic rigor - but measuring such things is a fallacy. GPA is based on how well a student performs - academic rigor is how difficult a course is - they are NOT the same thing.

That being said - your argument goes on to assume, if I am understanding it correctly, that if said person were placed in a different academic setting (say from CC to 4yr Uni) - that person would be unable to rise to the same level of academic performance. That is a pretty bold statment.

The fact is - you must always consider your goal - if it is to get into pharmacy school - maybe getting your BS in Chemistry wasn't such a good idea - seeing as the people majoring in Botany (a program with less academic rigor) are getting into school without question.

Now if you get a 4.0 BS in chem - rock on - your getting into school almost anywhere you choose. Now if you are only capable of getting a 3.2 BS in chem - it might be a better path for you to choose a 3.5 BS in Botany. I know my strengths and weaknesses - and I chose my path wisely - you should definitely do the same.

Just for perspective - I did 5 yrs military, 2 yrs CC, 1 yr at UF with a GPA of 3.84 = and I am now a P1 at Pacific university.

~above~

 

[Pharman]

Some schools actually have a weighted GPA, where a B in a hard or honors class actually counts more towards their general GPA. Most professional schools don't simply glare at one's GPA, they also scrutinize the course load and specifically what one has taken.

 

[evilolive]

I have to second this too. My brother is a genius who interned for one of the graduate school adcom members at Stanford University, and he was allowed to look through piles of applications. Guess what? RIGHT at the very top of the pile is a sticky note: a 3.7 at Stanford > 3.7 at Berkeley > 3.7 at UCSD, etc.

Granted, this is not for professional school, but I can bet that a lot of adcom out there perform similar preliminary cuts when they have so many applications to go through. It doesn't matter how many or how difficult the classes you take are--no matter what your degree, you better try your hardest to get a high GPA, because otherwise your application process will only be very hard (not impossible, just very hard )

A lot of schools look at the quality of the courses you've taken and from what school - they won't look at just the numbers. I don't necessarily agree however that a 3.7 at Stanford is superior to a 3.7 at Berkeley; Berkeley's pretty crazy competitive and a 3.7 in my opinion is worth more in weight about that person's character and academic ability.

That being said - your argument goes on to assume, if I am understanding it correctly, that if said person were placed in a different academic setting (say from CC to 4yr Uni) - that person would be unable to rise to the same level of academic performance. That is a pretty bold statment.

I think a lot of schools understand this concept, but the point is if a student is capable of increasing the rigors but is purposefully not doing so, that's a bad sign. A lot of students due to their socioeconomic background are not able to attend Harvard and thus make due with the best resources available to them, but struggling at a community college/unmotivated university and saying that the grades are comparable to that at Harvard is a ridiculous claim to egalitarian treatment (not to mention the particular flare of entitlement - sometimes things just aren't fair in life and not everyone is equal).

 

[koercive]

It's unfair, but that's how it works. As much as ADcoms try to separate those who are more qualified with lesser stats, it is a NUMBERS GAME like everything else in life.


I went to one of the hardest high schools in the nation, and I got pretty screwed for colleges due to a "deflated" GPA. It worked out in the end (with my doing very well in undergrad / doing lots of EC / working full time / having a lot of fun), but I was angry early on. At least graduate schools look at standardized testing more so than undergrad colleges, 97% percentile on the SATs didn't do jack **** for me for undergrad.

 

[UES Girl]

u guys are not getting it..ok lets say they looked at the science GPA then the person with the 3.7 will most likely be higher BUTTT what about the difficulty of class level. see my point now.

example:
student A took orgo 1, environ. science, marine biology (lower division) and has a 3.9 science gpa

Student B took orgo 1, cell bio, micro bio (upper division) and has a 3.3

seee the point made here

It's not just gpa - do not worry. I have several friends who go to UCSF - certainly one of the best schools and their GPAs were all 3.2 or lower. If I understand your question correctly - you shouldn't worry so much about your gpa. A lot of schools take into account your economic situation and various other factors that could have impacted your gpa.

 

[betweenusgurls]

life is unfair in general... suck it up buttercup!

i find the PCAT to be one ******ed test. I am least confident in Chem yet I always end up doing ok, however I am a big reader but I am always below average in reading comprehension... I finished the reading part soo early and i was napping b/c i had nothing to do!

so is the gpa reliable? not really. Pcat? not really. I think it really comes down to the interview and what kind of presence you give off during the interview that makes or breaks you. Unfortunately I suck at interviews...boo

You are SO like me and SO right about all of it. My reading score was terrible and i felt great about it, and spend all my free time reading. It's terrible.