High GPA going down vs. not-as-high GPA coming up

[amph119]

So take two cases, both traditional applicants with UG GPA's as follows:

A student starts out with a 3.3 freshman year, has a 3.55 or so by his or her sophomore year, and has a 3.7 by the time his or her app goes out

OR

A student starts at a 4.0, it comes down to a 3.8 after his or her sophomore year, and is down to a 3.7 when his or her app goes out

Do both cases look the same in the end since they both have the same GPA?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Wylde]

I would assume the second one is more favorable. I hear a lot of people say there isn't a huge difference between a 3.8 and a 4.0 (they are both really good GPAs and the difference becomes more or less negligible). A 3.7 is still not shabby, but starting with a 3.3 is pretty low.

 

[WinterLights]

So take two cases:

A student starts out with a 3.3 freshman year, has a 3.55 or so by his sophomore year, and has a 3.7 by the time his or her app goes out

OR

A student starts at a 4.0, it comes down to a 3.8 after his sophomore year, and is down to a 3.7 when his or her app goes out

Do both cases look the same in the end since they both have the same GPA? Or does case A look "better" so to speak?

the decline would look much worse. This would mean that said applicant with the downward trend would have to have a 3.3 or worse during the year prior to applying. This is definitely looked down upon by medical schools where as the upward trend is often thought of as a sign of determination.

 

[postbacker]

So take two cases:

A student starts out with a 3.3 freshman year, has a 3.55 or so by his sophomore year, and has a 3.7 by the time his or her app goes out

OR

A student starts at a 4.0, it comes down to a 3.8 after his sophomore year, and is down to a 3.7 when his or her app goes out

Do both cases look the same in the end since they both have the same GPA? Or does case A look "better" so to speak?

...upward trend looks better...but it may not make much of a real difference in the process...a 3.7 is a 3.7...

 

[167649]

So take two cases, both traditional applicants with UG GPA's as follows:

A student starts out with a 3.3 freshman year, has a 3.55 or so by his or her sophomore year, and has a 3.7 by the time his or her app goes out

OR

A student starts at a 4.0, it comes down to a 3.8 after his or her sophomore year, and is down to a 3.7 when his or her app goes out

Do both cases look the same in the end since they both have the same GPA?

It is much more than an assumption that a downward trend looks much worse than a upward trend. An upward trend indicates a growth in maturity and responsobility over college. A downward trend indicates a burnout or a decline in commitment.

With two students who have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend would be favored using this measure alone.

 

[drizzt3117]

I would assume the second one is more favorable. I hear a lot of people say there isn't a huge difference between a 3.8 and a 4.0 (they are both really good GPAs and the difference becomes more or less negligible). A 3.7 is still not shabby, but starting with a 3.3 is pretty low.

The upward trend is definitely better, but like the other poster mentioned, there's not a huge difference, as a 3.7 is a 3.7.

 

[postbacker]

It is much more than an assumption that a downward trend looks much worse than a upward trend. An upward trend indicates a growth in maturity and responsobility over college. A downward trend indicates a burnout or a decline in commitment.

With two students who have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend would be favored using this measure alone.

...and that would have to be the assumption that the trend is so closely analyzed to grant favor to the upward trend...these schools are dealing with thousands of apps...I know it is popular SDN wisdom that adcoms are poring over the individual applications and making note of grade trends, etc., but when it comes to a 3.7, that probably clears any and all screens at all but maybe a handful of schools, and I think the adcom quickly moves on to the rest of the app...

 

[amph119]

...and that would have to be the assumption that the trend is so closely analyzed to grant favor to the upward trend...these schools are dealing with thousands of apps...I know it is popular SDN wisdom that adcoms are poring over the individual applications and making note of grade trends, etc., but when it comes to a 3.7, that probably clears any and all screens at all but maybe a handful of schools, and I think the adcom quickly moves on to the rest of the app...

see that's kinda what I was wondering... if they even noticed this kind of thing when the adcom looks at a UG GPA.

 

[drizzt3117]

...and that would have to be the assumption that the trend is so closely analyzed to grant favor to the upward trend...these schools are dealing with thousands of apps...I know it is popular SDN wisdom that adcoms are poring over the individual applications and making note of grade trends, etc., but when it comes to a 3.7, that probably clears any and all screens at all but maybe a handful of schools, and I think the adcom quickly moves on to the rest of the app...

At an interview, in many cases, the interviewer is holding your AMCAS and if they flip to the grade page, it takes seconds to determine what your trend is. At one of my interviews, the interviewer was like "so you got x.xx GPA freshman year, x.xx GPA sophomore year, etc... how do you explain this?" It might not be a big deal during the screening process, but certainly it could come up in an open file interview.

 

[postbacker]

At an interview, in many cases, the interviewer is holding your AMCAS and if they flip to the grade page, it takes seconds to determine what your trend is. At one of my interviews, the interviewer was like "so you got x.xx GPA freshman year, x.xx GPA sophomore year, etc... how do you explain this?" It might not be a big deal during the screening process, but certainly it could come up in an open file interview.

Good point...still, we are talking a 3.7 in this example...it is far more likely that someone ends up at 3.7 by slowly coming down than to go up as dramatically as the OP asked (actually pretty hard to do what the OP asked, to go from a 3.3 to a 3.7 cum)...

The lower the cum GPA, the more that the adcom would look at the trend, I think, to justify the app, and thus the more important having an upward trend...3.7 and above probably would not get that kind of intense scrutiny...just my opinion of the moment, nothing hard and fast here...

 

[amph119]

I kinda overexaggerated it to make the point

 

[167649]

...and that would have to be the assumption that the trend is so closely analyzed to grant favor to the upward trend...these schools are dealing with thousands of apps...I know it is popular SDN wisdom that adcoms are poring over the individual applications and making note of grade trends, etc., but when it comes to a 3.7, that probably clears any and all screens at all but maybe a handful of schools, and I think the adcom quickly moves on to the rest of the app...

Absolutely agree with you postbacker. With the 3.7, any trend, upward or downwards, is probably slight and negligible anyways.

But I think that when the trend factor really comes into light is with a "borderline" GPA, more like 3.4-3.5. This is not substantial enough for the commitee member screening the application to simply ignore. So they will look more closely at the trend.

I tend to think that in the case of two students with a 3.4, the one with the upward trend has a much better chance. Even when one 3.4 has an upward trend and one 3.4 has no trend at all, I think the one with the upward trend may take precedence some of the time, because the upward trend student must have done much better in more recent coursework than the other student.

When you get GPA's below borderline, trends make less of a difference because the GPA is too low anyways. So think of the trend issue as a bellcurve, the closer you are to borderline, the more your academic record in it's entierty is to be scrutinized and therefore trends may come into play. But the further you fall from the borderline either way, the less your trend matters.

 

[drizzt3117]

Good point...still, we are talking a 3.7 in this example...it is far more likely that someone ends up at 3.7 by slowly coming down than to go up as dramatically as the OP asked (actually pretty hard to do what the OP asked, to go from a 3.3 to a 3.7 cum)...

The lower the cum GPA, the more that the adcom would look at the trend, I think, to justify the app, and thus the more important having an upward trend...3.7 and above probably would not get that kind of intense scrutiny...just my opinion of the moment, nothing hard and fast here...

I think there are quite a few cases in which people have 2.xx freshman year, and end up strong by the end of their undergrad, in which case, the upward trend will be noticed, but something might be mentioned.

 

[MWK]

I think there are quite a few cases in which people have 2.xx freshman year, and end up strong by the end of their undergrad, in which case, the upward trend will be noticed, but something might be mentioned.

I went 3.4-3.0-3.2-3.4 1st 2 years and 4.0-4.0 junior year for a total of 3.3-3.58. I asked in my interviews if the 3.5 would be a big deal and my interviewer laughed and said "not with that "trend", if you can call it one". In taking harder classes I got infinitesimally better grades. They liked that.

They'd be more worried about you making A's in your upper div classes rather than in intro sociology.

 

[postbacker]

Absolutely agree with you postbacker. With the 3.7, any trend, upward or downwards, is probably slight and negligible anyways.

But I think that when the trend factor really comes into light is with a "borderline" GPA, more like 3.4-3.5. This is not substantial enough for the commitee member screening the application to simply ignore. So they will look more closely at the trend.

I tend to think that in the case of two students with a 3.4, the one with the upward trend has a much better chance. Even when one 3.4 has an upward trend and one 3.4 has no trend at all, I think the one with the upward trend may take precedence some of the time, because the upward trend student must have done much better in more recent coursework than the other student.

When you get GPA's below borderline, trends make less of a difference because the GPA is too low anyways. So think of the trend issue as a bellcurve, the closer you are to borderline, the more your academic record in it's entierty is to be scrutinized and therefore trends may come into play. But the further you fall from the borderline either way, the less your trend matters.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say...the lower the GPA (below 3.6 down to around 3.4), the more important the upward trend, all else being equal...GPA of 3.7 and up is probably good to go no matter how it trended...

 

[littlealex]

Are we talking about cumulative GPA here? Because in the 1nd case, the guy has to be getting 3.3s his senior year to pull his cumaltive down to a 3.7. That is pretty bad.

If we aren't talking about cumulative GPAs, the first guy would have a higher cumulative GPA if he was still getting 3.7s in the end. That would make it more desirable.

 

[drizzt3117]

Basically the trend would be as such.

1F 3.3 cGPA 3.3
1S 3.3 cGPA 3.3
2F 3.8 cGPA 3.43
2S 3.8 cGPA 3.55
3F 4.0 cGPA 3.64
3S 4.0 cGPA 3.70

That looks pretty good to me.

As far as the other example,

1F 4.0 cGPA 4.0
1S 4.0 cGPA 4.0
2F 3.6 cGPA 3.9
2S 3.6 cGPA 3.8
3F 3.5 cGPA 3.75
3S 3.5 cGPA 3.70

I'm not sure it's really a big deal to be getting 3.6 and 3.5. Maybe the upward trend would be better, but the student is still doing ok.

 

[tourniquet1963]

well, as one proceeds in their college education, wouldnt they be taking harder classes during senior year than freshman year, so its not so surprising that their GPA would go down..

personally, i started with a 4.0 freshman year, sophomore year had maybe 3.7-3.8, got screwed junior year due to orgo, both semesters having a GPA below 3.0 (something like 2.8), and then senior year have like 3.9 both semesters.. resulting in a cumilative GPA of 3.6 (science 3.5)..... So, how exaclty would they look at that... its obviously a downward trend, but only b/c i was taking like 4 science classes a semster during my last 2 years.

 

[jr doctor in sd]

the decline would look much worse. This would mean that said applicant with the downward trend would have to have a 3.3 or worse during the year prior to applying. This is definitely looked down upon by medical schools where as the upward trend is often thought of as a sign of determination.

I agree that a decline looks bad but i dont know if this decline would really look too bad at all.

One could argue that freshman year the class really isnt that bad...and if you came in with a decent work ethic - taking all lower div. classes are manageable.

whereas...you get to those junior/sr year hardcore classes so getting a 3.7-3.8 is still very impressive

 

[Omyss]

there is no way a tend is going to factor in... your final gpa is alll that matters.

How can adcoms differentiaite majors that got harder or slightly easier in upper years? maybe the downward trend guy took more challenging courses? maybe the upward trend guy took easier courses to boost GPA.

 

[tourniquet1963]

there is no way a tend is going to factor in... your final gpa is alll that matters.

How can adcoms differentiaite majors that got harder or slightly easier in upper years? maybe the downward trend guy took more challenging courses? maybe the upward trend guy took easier courses to boost GPA.

yes i totally agree!

 

[drizzt3117]

well, as one proceeds in their college education, wouldnt they be taking harder classes during senior year than freshman year, so its not so surprising that their GPA would go down..

personally, i started with a 4.0 freshman year, sophomore year had maybe 3.7-3.8, got screwed junior year due to orgo, both semesters having a GPA below 3.0 (something like 2.8), and then senior year have like 3.9 both semesters.. resulting in a cumilative GPA of 3.6 (science 3.5)..... So, how exaclty would they look at that... its obviously a downward trend, but only b/c i was taking like 4 science classes a semster during my last 2 years.

Well, if you had less than 3.0 it means you were getting Cs in more than one of your classes, which is something that isn't good but your overall GPA isn't too bad. Taking four science classes per semester isn't a very good excuse because during med school you will have an even heavier course load.

 

[drizzt3117]

there is no way a tend is going to factor in... your final gpa is alll that matters.

How can adcoms differentiaite majors that got harder or slightly easier in upper years? maybe the downward trend guy took more challenging courses? maybe the upward trend guy took easier courses to boost GPA.

Well, I got asked about my trends during an interview, so I would imagine it would factor in. Certainly an upward trend is nice. You have to remember that they know every class you took. If you put in a bunch of basketweaving classes to pad your GPA, they'll know.

 

[tourniquet1963]

Well, if you had less than 3.0 it means you were getting Cs in more than one of your classes, which is something that isn't good but your overall GPA isn't too bad. Taking four science classes per semester isn't a very good excuse because during med school you will have an even heavier course load.

well i had a C+ in orgo..w hich was 5 credits.. totally pulled me down, and in orgo 2 i made it out of there with a B- (had like a 3.2) or something...but im not relaly blaming the coursework, i was just working like crazy during that time.

 

[drizzt3117]

well i had a C+ in orgo..w hich was 5 credits.. totally pulled me down, and in orgo 2 i made it out of there with a B- (had like a 3.2) or something...but im not relaly blaming the coursework, i was just working like crazy during that time.

Hm, that's not that bad. I mean, 3.6 cGPA is fine, and about average for matriculants. You might get a few questions about your classes, but if you can explain what happened without making excuses I'm sure it wouldn't really be a problem.

 

[postbacker]

well i had a C+ in orgo..w hich was 5 credits.. totally pulled me down, and in orgo 2 i made it out of there with a B- (had like a 3.2) or something...but im not relaly blaming the coursework, i was just working like crazy during that time.

What is your BCPM? This could make your science grades stick out like a sore thumb if they are too low...

 

[Legato]

I don't know why an upward trend should look better. This is how I look at the situation...

Low-GPA starter: wtf>? 3.3 my first year? this is bad. I need to do good from now on to get to a 3.7 so I can go to med school.

High-GPA starter: I got a 4.0 my first year...time to take it easy. All i need is a 3.7 and what I learn in college has little to do with what I'm planning to do, so it's all good.

The high-GPA starter is better in my eyes. College sucks...so much useless work.

 

[medguy83]

Since classes typically get more challenging and the coursework becomes larger as the years progress, I'd have to say the high gpa coming down looks pretty bad. Any downward trend in terms of gpa is always going to raise a red flag. It's much better to even be a steady 3.3 than to come down to a 3.3 from say a 3.8. Granted, if your courses go from gen chem, gen physics, and anthro to Diff. equations, P.chem, and advanced biochem they might understand a slight lag in your gpa considering the difficult nature of the subject matter.

 

[tourniquet1963]

What is your BCPM? This could make your science grades stick out like a sore thumb if they are too low...

yeh the C+ and the B- are definitely my lowest science grades..i have no more than 3 B's, everything else is mostly As, A- and i was a Bio major. But i do have another C+ in a history class that i couldnt get out of.

 

[IGNITE]

I talked to a former admissions officer at Miami, who currently practices in my local area. He said that of course an upward trend looks better. Science classes, yea there kinda hard, 25 credits in med school per year = a lot of science classes. However if your upward trend only boosts your overall g.p.a to a 3.3 or 3.4 your going to have a hard time getting into a med school. Lower trends aren't preferred but if you still have above a 3.5 you didnt plummet. He also said this trend is nearly a detailed look at your file. AKA, everyone who makes the initial cut off's gets 2nd's and at leat at Miami Dr. Hinkley dean of admissions personally reviews each file after 2nds and determines who gets an interview. Furthermore at Miami , your interviewer does not talk to anyone directly, most things are done by email and your interviewer rights his opionion. Ive got more to say but im intrested in anyone else who has talked to any admissions officers aside from this speculation?

 

[drizzt3117]

I talked to a former admissions officer at Miami, who currently practices in my local area. He said that of course an upward trend looks better. Science classes, yea there kinda hard, 25 credits in med school per year = a lot of science classes. However if your upward trend only boosts your overall g.p.a to a 3.3 or 3.4 your going to have a hard time getting into a med school. Lower trends aren't preferred but if you still have above a 3.5 you didnt plummet. He also said this trend is nearly a detailed look at your file. AKA, everyone who makes the initial cut off's gets 2nd's and at leat at Miami Dr. Hinkley dean of admissions personally reviews each file after 2nds and determines who gets an interview. Furthermore at Miami , your interviewer does not talk to anyone directly, most things are done by email and your interviewer rights his opionion. Ive got more to say but im intrested in anyone else who has talked to any admissions officers aside from this speculation?

I've talked to a lot of adcoms, as I've had a PI that was on an adcom, and some relatives and friends as well. I think most of them consider the grade trend and grades in specific classes. A downward trend, as others have mentioned, may not make a big difference if your overall grades are high. As far as the lower GPAs go, that's generally true, but 3.3-3.4 candidates may be competitive with good ECs and a high MCAT.

 

[skyeblue0610]

I think the first one is better. It's easy to go to college and bomb the first year because you fell into the overrated college hype and didn't study. Just as it's easy to go to college and do the hermit thing and make a 4.0 then after you achieve that start slacking.

If you can make a high GPA your junior and senior years when classes are much harder that's saying alot about you.

Starting high and going down is really bad. So how would that look in medical school....that first year you do really good then come 4th year you're struggling

 

[IGNITE]

Good point on the EC'S even with a subpar g.p.a. However the source I was talking to adressed that question when I asked he said straight up.. If your g.p.a and your mcat dont make the cut off numericly, you will have no oppurtunity to show off your E.C's. That being said this is strictly for the U of Miami. I know of other school's with more intresting mission statemets who are intrested in the whole canidate right off the bat. But you mine as well work on your grades anyways and not over extend yourself with several clubs or activities. But hey if you have a job and you got to pay the bills than you got to do what you got to do.

 

[GrumpyAlyson06]

Though the upward trend definitively looks better, you have to consider that your are taking harder classes progressively in your college career with the downward trend. I've known people to tweak their GPAs on purpose by starting out with a 3.3 their freshman year with the intent of starting low to raise it in harder classes just so the GPA has an upward trend.