- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 473
- Reaction score
- 3
This site is one of the last oasis that has not yet succumbed to even some 4chan influence. Please do not take us to that route!
lol I don't know why I thought this was funny
/goes back to amcas app.
Higher GPAs (ie, above 3.9) start working against you?
- Thread starter thebillsfan
- Start date
This site is one of the last oasis that has not yet succumbed to even some 4chan influence. Please do not take us to that route!
lol I don't know why I thought this was funny
/goes back to amcas app.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,777
- Reaction score
- 2
I don't think this is necessarily true. I think you can have a stellar interview and still not be accepted because of lower stats.
An interview is just part of your application. Once you've gotten to that stage, it doesn't mean your primary/secondary applications go out the window.
I think you are right, but at this specific school, if you get an interview they consider you to be qualified academcially. This is also a top ten school so im assuming they probably only interview people with fairly high stats or people with decent stats and some wow factor.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,168
- Reaction score
- 8
yeah maybe ata few schools, but this isnt the case at most.
UF JHMP owned me. I was surprised I got an interview without research so I was semi-expecting it (though I thought that if they were willing to interview me they would be willing to overlook the research, but I guess not).
I thought the interviews went really well. One of my interviewers offered me a spot in her lab for research next year, but I still didn't get in. I guess UF JHMP is definitely not one of those level playing field interview schools.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 3
No way. 100% disagree. If I didn't have a math major, and just a biology major, I would be scooting away with a 4.0. Every single grade that has hurt my GPA has been in a math class
Biology is facts. If you can conceptualize facts, your golden. There are a limited number of problems they can ask, based on what we know. Math, by definition, Moreover, the opportunity to "mess up" on analytical problems is >> than not being able to memorize biological facts. Bio you tend to stick it or you don't; not so much gray area. Put in a proportional amount of study time, and you will learn a proportional number of bio facts. With a largely analytical subject like mathematics, there is a point of diminishing returns once you can't comprehend the problem. In other words, you can't just guess a fact and get upperlevel math problems right (in complete contrast to bio).
Hats off to a 4.0 math major, no questions asked. It makes a bio major look pansy.
I don't know if I agree that math makes biology majors look like pansies. I can memorize the biology facts, but it takes time. I can normally soak up the mathematical stuff pretty quickly.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 13,095
- Reaction score
- 334
I agree (and I'm a bio major). A 4.0 math major is one smart cookie.
I'm a double math and biochem and I can promise you I spent more of my time studying for zoology than I did for any of my other math classes COMBINED.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 3
This is very dependent on ones own abilities, obviously. This is largely what was true, and what I thought, before I got to classes past abstract algebra. Then my math classes started handing it to me a bit, while even 400 level biology classes had the same basic premises of even intro-level biology.
IMO, there just isn't much you can change about grading and testing bio. Memorize and understand what is going on, maybe why. Fill in blanks, select a multiple choice, or write an essay. Maybe take a lab practical.
On the other hand, you gotta flippin prove something in every dam problem in math. If bio majors had to prove something, even theoretically, they would probably drop a brick in their pants. "WTF IS A PROOF???"
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,168
- Reaction score
- 8
Or....maybe it didnt go as well as you though...just saying
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
I think that if you honestly believe that a 4.0 is worse than a lower GPA, you're silly. The only way this could be the case is if you had no other activities that you participated in during college. That would be a clear red flag to a committee that says, "I did nothing but study for my classes."
As far as difficulty from school to school, what can the students do about that? Are you supposed to "try" and get a 3.9 to demonstrate that your school is somehow difficult? How does that even make sense?
I would venture to guess that as long as you had quality activities besides your academics, a higher GPA can only help you. Granted, there are diminishing returns... a jump from a 3.90 to a 3.95 is certainly not as helpful as a jump from a 3.8 to a 3.9, but I still think you should work for the GPA that you're happy with and can achieve. Attempting to suggest that a lower GPA is preferred because it demonstrates that you're human is lunacy.
As far as difficulty from school to school, what can the students do about that? Are you supposed to "try" and get a 3.9 to demonstrate that your school is somehow difficult? How does that even make sense?
I would venture to guess that as long as you had quality activities besides your academics, a higher GPA can only help you. Granted, there are diminishing returns... a jump from a 3.90 to a 3.95 is certainly not as helpful as a jump from a 3.8 to a 3.9, but I still think you should work for the GPA that you're happy with and can achieve. Attempting to suggest that a lower GPA is preferred because it demonstrates that you're human is lunacy.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 6,874
- Reaction score
- 1,359
I'm not sure if it's diminishing returns to consider a .05 increase to a .10 increase...Just saying.
2
229141
OH NO I have a 3.96 will the adcoms auto reject me now?
Lol @ entire thread!
Lol @ entire thread!
I was accepted to that program and I had'nt started research when I interviewed ... I bet it was your interviews...I am sorry to say you come off alittle cocky...
Last edited:
Who did you interview with/what was your interview date? Also, how do I sound cocky? I made mention of how I didn't even think I would get an interview due to lack of research. My interviews probably weren't great (though I did feel surprisingly well when I was leaving) but I don't think they would be holding me back either.
