How do admission committees typically begin to rank applicants?

[propsych]

---

Members don't see this ad.

More specifically, do they first check the application and transcript for grades and then move on to experience? Or perhaps they will stop looking after they deem something like gpa too low (despite program website saying there is no cutoff)?

I guess I’m worried that no one will actually read my statement or look at my research filled cv because of a low overall gpa of 3.0( though a 4.0 during last 60 credits)

Much appreciated

 

[futureapppsy2]

This will vary tremendously by program and perhaps even vary by PI within programs, for those that admit by PI.

 

[NewNeuroDemic]

I have an interest in grad school (and subsequent postdoc) admissions, so I've participated as much as possible at the institutions where I was trained, so I think I can shed some light on this for you. (The generalizability of this info, however, is questionable as futureapppsy2 alluded to.) In my grad program, an administrative associate of the clinical program would make an initial cut of applications based upon GRE scores and GPA. The GPA cutoff was 3.5. Those applications that survived that initial cut were then forwarded to the PI mentioned in the applicant's cover letter. Each PI had idiosyncratic criteria, though most valued research productivity to date most highly. My PI did not care about undergrad GPA as long as it met that arbitrary program-wide cutoff. The PI then took a handful of their top applicants to the admissions committee's next meeting and said, "I want this person. If they say no, I want this person. And then this person."

 

[Justanothergrad]

Its.... hard.

It's fairly easy to figure out who rises to the top amongst a pool (I do a holistic review, so don't use specific cuts). It becomes hard and I'm yet to figure out a 'right' method to separate the folks amongst the top 10%, generally speaking.

 

[manifestbobcat]

It also depends on where you went to school. If your undergrad is known for being more rigorous/having less grade inflation, it may matter less. Also, I know my grad program specifically looked at GPA in major (psych) and non-major GPA separately.

 

[EPPPb42020]

As others have noted the GPA can vary - while the 3.5 GPA cut-point is fairly common, many programs do not require it. I would advice you to ask a letter writer speak to your GPA and positive trajectory. As faculty, I have done this in many letters in which students may have been pre-med/lots of hard STEM, had life circumstances, or just simply maturity issues first years in college, in which that performance is not reflective of their ability to succeed in graduate school and where they are at now. We also look at your research methods and stats - if those are low than I would recommend trying to retake them somewhere as we need to know you can perform grad stats. Regardless of GPA, a PhD is going to want to see research productivity - I look for a senior thesis, first author posters, etc.

 

[NeuroPsychosis]

It really depends on the program and PI. I applied to programs that only uses a holistic review and no minimum GPA required. I have listened to some of their faculty panels about admissions and this is the results I got in what they weigh heavily: SOP > Research experience & productivity > LOR > Diversity/ background > coursework choice > GPA.

If you have a really bad GPA, they would like to know why but it will not filter you out considering you are strong in other areas I mentioned above. If you have a master's with good GPA that can sometimes help a little to prove yourself. From a top university panel, PIs seemed to really undermine the GPA in their consideration for admissions...one PI mentioned that she checks transcripts to see the class distribution rather than the actual GPA- to get a sense about your academic choices/ interests.

But keep in mind, maybe those top universities attract very high performers anyways, so you really have to make a case for yourself to make it through the pile if your GPA is below 3.7+... Maybe... if someone can chip in on that!