Boohoo. Yet another sob story. I don't care where you went to school. We should only be letting people into PROFESSIONAL school who are intelligent enough to get a THREE POINT ZERO GPA in undergrad. If someone can't do it at Cornell they should study harder.
Lowest GPA?
- Thread starter Bluesteel01
- Start date
Boohoo. Yet another sob story. I don't care where you went to school. We should only be letting people into PROFESSIONAL school who are intelligent enough to get a THREE POINT ZERO GPA in undergrad. If someone can't do it at Cornell they should study harder.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
your ridiculous.
so are you just saying for professional school or other aspects of life such as professional sports too?
so if a QB doesn't complete 65% of his throws in college (STANDARD) then the NFL should not allow a team to draft him because 65% is the STANDARD? (I mean come on, if you cant complete 65% of your passes in college playing at USC then you will be a failure in the NFL for sure huh???)
SO i guess according to you, Troy Aikman, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Joe Montana (sub-par collegiate careers) all should have never even been permitted to be play in the NFL because we have a STANDARD and they didn't meet the STANDARD. (funny how all those guys end up being the best EVER huh? why is that?? Why do teams even draft these players because by gosh they didn't meet a STANDARD??)
Definately people that throw 65% comp will succeed at higher levels right???
(Ryan Leaf) or how about running backs that are off the charts in college but are a bust in the NFL? (Reggie Bush)
oh NO, your not going to say this is another SOB story is it??????
ridiculous eyestrain.....
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 477
- Reaction score
- 3
LMAO!!!!!!!! You said reggie bush is a bust. Gah, you my friend, need to watch more football. ESPECIALLY games that involve people that you are speaking of (bush)
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Let me rephrase, He has been a bust thus far in his short NFL career. May I remind you, that he was suppose to be the greatest player to ever come out of college.
Just like a 4.0 student with the best OAT score going to Opt school and getting a 2.5 gpa in his first 2 years in Opt School. Just like Bush, the student would be considered a bust. ....
Do you play college football? Cause I do. So I'm pretty sure I know more football than you. haha
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 477
- Reaction score
- 3
just like harold miner, penny hardaway, grant hill, and jerry stackhouse were all considered to be the next jordan? LMAO, it's funny that you point out that you play college football. It's like that makes you better in your own personal world. You're right.....I don't play college football. But I do understand the game better than most people. But I guess.........my opinion means nothing because I don't play college football. If you remember, the saints made the playoffs and made a great run after finishing dead last and being able to select Bush the year before (made it to the NFC championship). He also had a pretty good back in front of him (mccallister). Bush is also not your typical back. He comes out of the backfield and out of the slot. He's more of a "westbrook" type of back. So he will never have HUGE rushing #'s because he can be used in so many different ways. In 07, he averaged 85 yards per game (recieving and rushing combined). Not too shabby coming from a 2nd year back in the NFL (considering he has a pro bowl type RB in front of him in mccallister). But then again.........I know nothing because I don't play college football.
Reggie bush>me
Reggie Bush>you
so your view is better then mine because your the "big man on campus"? Why don't an NFL team just hire you as a scout? I mean....you play COLLEGE FOOTBALL!!!!!! Obviously you can spot talent and the guys that get paid to scout...know nothing. 🙄
Reggie bush>me
Reggie Bush>you
so your view is better then mine because your the "big man on campus"? Why don't an NFL team just hire you as a scout? I mean....you play COLLEGE FOOTBALL!!!!!! Obviously you can spot talent and the guys that get paid to scout...know nothing. 🙄
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 0
OK so first of all this post needs to stop, its getting redic.
In response to this, you are basically saying to everyone here if they go to an easier school and get a 3.0 they should be set.
I'm going to relate this just to Penn State. First of all, anyone who goes to penn state, no matter what campus gets the same degree. HOWEVER, branch campuses are a joke compared to university park. I was there starting at a freshman, I can't even tell you how many transfer students came to main campus with a 3.5+ gpa and had the reaction "man university park is hard" because it is compared to the branch campuses, which are basically a glorified version of HS. Their first year, GPAs drop because of the difference in difficulty. REGARDLESS their OVERALL gpas are probably going to be higher than if they STARTED at main campus. but its annoying when they come in and actually have to start working their butts off...so coming from a school regardless of their numbered GPA from that school is nothing. Optometry, dental, and medical schools take in to account the DIFFICULTY of the program the person attended and therefore weigh GPAs depending on the program. WHICH THEY SHOULD! Don't give a number just from the institution priority. In response to the previous post about it being hard to get a 3.0 at cornell, it is hard! Its harder to get a "better gpa" than it is in an easier program, as it should be! You go to a better school to get a better education, therefore its going to be HARDER.
Therefore, in response to this again, you'd rather have a bunch of ppl coming from crappy schools with a 3.0+ just to struggle in optometry school wehre its going to be HARDER than their undergrad, and have more probability of failing because they are used to things being easy? OK, thats FLAWED logic.
someone who has a harder program is going to be better prepared for optometry school, or even any of the other professional schools, regardless of the "number they got" in undergrad, because they have had to work harder to get what is probably a lower GPA than from someone who went to an easier program. I don't think you should disregard the school by any means, someone's "adjusted GPA" at any professional school is going to be rated higher or lower depending on the difficulty of the program they had. This has nothing to do with the averege GPAs of incoming student from their individual schools. There is definately a distinction and they DO take that into account, so stop labeling it as a "sob story"
if you are borderline of the required GPA of the school you are looking for and you went to a harder program in undergrad, don't worry, you'll get rated higher. HOWEVER, if you went to a lower school, your GPA will get rated lower and you probably don't have a shot. ADDITIONALLY, thats where OAT scores come in to account, they are standardized, so if you F up your OAT and you went to a good/harder program, sorry, you're screwed unless you do something like taking the OATs again or taking extra classes to boost your scores. On the other hand, someone with a 3.5 from a lower ranked school, who gets a 310 on their OATs is probably going to get ranked lower than a 3.0 who scores a 350+ on their OATs.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 0
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
I never said anything about big man on campus or knowing more than you in football. If you want to have a sports argument go to ESPN. This is an optometry forum.
But to help you with why I say bush is a bust, I leave you with this:
Let me say this, when Reggie Bush entered the NFL, he was expected to be a future 1000 yard rusher, and a possible 1000 yard receiver. What seemed possible before he was drafted is now almost laughable. Reggie is having a hard time getting 100 yards total offense and has had one 100 yard rushing game since being drafted and none this season. His longest run for his career is 22 yards.
A lot of that has to do with Reggie refusal, and yes I said refusal to follow his block and use his eyes instead of hightailing it to the sidelines. It's almost as if he is running scared. NFL defenses are built on speed, going horizontal then cutting up sidelines will not work anymore.
Many would think that without Deuce this year, that Reggie's numbers would have gotten better…They haven't…With Deuce having over 1000 yards and getting most of the carries, we all thought that it maybe Reggie's year to shine. At this rate Reggie will have a hard time getting 700 yards rushing, and that's pushing it.
A lot of people have argued that Reggie is not that type of running back who can give you 20 carries, that he is more of a third down running back. I have argued back saying that if I'm the Saints I've guaranteed a man 26 million dollars to be nothing more than a glorified Kevin Faulk? And that's no offense to Kevin Faulk, who is a great third down back, but I don't believe that a third down back is what Reggie was drafted to be.
The Saints have only profited from Reggie economically. He sells jerseys, he does endorsements, and he has brought in fans old and new to New Orleans. People come from all around to watch him do nothing.
Reggie Bush is not even the best, second best, or even third best running back in his 2006 draft. Can we seriously put Reggie in front of a Laurence Maroney, Joseph Addai, or Maurice Jones-Drew? I don't think so.
But then again maybe I'm being a little harsh on Reggie, after all it's only his second year. But when it comes to running backs, it's the second and third year where the quote "what you see is what you get" begins to surface.
***BTW, even SCOUTS have been critical of Bush and realize he isn't as good as he was made out to be
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 477
- Reaction score
- 3
you say to go to espn.......you brought up sports and brought up the fact that you play college football so you would know.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2008
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 0
I am going to SCCO next year. SCCO has a 3.0 cutoff, no "buts" "if" "c'mon's" about it. SCCO also has a 300 cutoff score for the OATs.
With that said there are still too many applicants for spots and a long waitlist (ppl love Southern California I guess =) )
I went to UCLA. Would I take a 2.8 GPA from UCLA over someone from WTS with a 3.2? Heck no. At the undergraduate level, you will learn the same material regardless of the school you went to. I had to take some community college classes and they were just as demanding as my UCLA classes.
The problem with admitting the 2.8 GPA student is that you've just denied the guy with a 3.2 GPA admission based on a subjective measure of "hardship."
If there is truly burning desire to be an optometrist. Simply work hard and show that you can do well in school by raising your GPA. If you are really gung-ho about it, you will be equally gung-ho in proving you do have a good grasp of the fundamental science concepts.
Take FLCbruin's example, if you have a 2.8, don't give up and bitch about how much hardship you had to go through, just suck it up and raise your grades.
With that said there are still too many applicants for spots and a long waitlist (ppl love Southern California I guess =) )
I went to UCLA. Would I take a 2.8 GPA from UCLA over someone from WTS with a 3.2? Heck no. At the undergraduate level, you will learn the same material regardless of the school you went to. I had to take some community college classes and they were just as demanding as my UCLA classes.
The problem with admitting the 2.8 GPA student is that you've just denied the guy with a 3.2 GPA admission based on a subjective measure of "hardship."
If there is truly burning desire to be an optometrist. Simply work hard and show that you can do well in school by raising your GPA. If you are really gung-ho about it, you will be equally gung-ho in proving you do have a good grasp of the fundamental science concepts.
Take FLCbruin's example, if you have a 2.8, don't give up and bitch about how much hardship you had to go through, just suck it up and raise your grades.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 334
- Reaction score
- 1
i hope u never get to be on any admissions panel cuz you're nuts. The admissions criteria at UCLA or any other top tier university is far more competitive than those of state universities and especially community colleges. The latter means that even if the same amount of material is covered at a community college, the curve set at the cc would be MUCH lower, thus allowing those attending CCs to get As much more easily than being in a class of 300 pre-meds. Thankfully there is the OAT that serves as a standarized tool to measure the academic abilities of applicants.
so. where you went for undergrad does matter to a certain extent and should be taken into consideration (and it is).
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
The undergraduate program matters. If you go to certain schools (UCLA,UCSD...) and apply to graduate programs they will add a certain amount of points to those student's GPA's because of the point systems used at these undergraduate schools.
Penguin 2012, how can you say undergraduate schools doesn't matter? You say that you learn the same material? I think not. You do not learn the same material at WTS than at a Harvard. The better professors and academic curriculums are found at the Harvard-like schools. Why do people "oooh and aww" over a Harvard Degree but nobody "oooh and awwws" over a WTS degree if it is the same competitiveness and same material learned???
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2008
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 0
No matter where you go to school, glycolysis is still glycolysis. I am speaking from the perspective of a person who has taken classes at a top tier university and also at the community college level. You are speaking from the perspective of... ?
Degree of difficulty as well as material were similar.
In general, the difference between two schools at an undergraduate level aren't the professors but the quality of students. THe quality of students at UCLA is superior than WTS on average. But if the UCLA student is lazy and ends up with a 2.8 GPA, that tells me that he hasn't worked hard enough.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
and also a lot of money as well...if you can get the same education from cc as from UCLA then i think UCLA probably overcharged for tuitions. Make no sense to go into debt just to go to a good name school right?
i totally agree that the professor at cc has the same capability to teach the students as the one from UCLA...i just think the professor at cc probably didn't have the grades like the one UCLA.
i totally agree that the professor at cc has the same capability to teach the students as the one from UCLA...i just think the professor at cc probably didn't have the grades like the one UCLA.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
hmmm...so u agree that a student who had got a 2.5 gpa in his academic career has the same capability to succeed in Optometry school as the one with a 4.0 gpa...you just think the student who got a 2.5 gpa didn't have the grades like the 4.0 student???
because you say that the professors have the SAME capability its just their grades they received that made a difference...
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
about the professors...to get a teaching position at UCLA i would imagine that you would have outstanding academic credentials (grades etc...)...better than the one at CC... they both can be effective teachers. high GPA helps the professor get the position at UCLA and higher salary than the cc...but the ability to teach depends on the professor not his GPA and salary.
2.5gpa vs 4.0gpa...again it depends on the individual...but i will not say that 2.5gpa student will flunk out of opt school for sure.
2.5gpa vs 4.0gpa...again it depends on the individual...but i will not say that 2.5gpa student will flunk out of opt school for sure.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 334
- Reaction score
- 1
im speaking from the perspective of a UCSD biochem student (and im sure you know that our bio/biochem department is ranked higher than UCLA's) who have taken classes at JCs and at other UCs. anyway, the material and difficulty can be similiar. but once again, at a top tier unversity, you're competing with people who all spent years working hard with goals of becoming a professional in the health field. It means that even if you're NOT LAZY but just don't have the means of getting old exams or other useful materials, you'll most likely end up with a B, or B- which is usually the average cut off. now, put that same student who got a B- at UCLA/ UCSD into a community college class, the chances of him/ her getting an A is much higher given that the average student enrolled in that class probably isn't as academically prepared as the student from ucla/ucsd. Also, the "average" student from JC taking the same class (same difficulty, same material) at UCLA/SD, will probably end up getting a lower grade just because of a more competitive curve. transfer student: "but i always got As at my JC" : o i guess they got "lazy" after they transferred.
on a more personal note, i average a 3.2 at UCSD with tons of work, internship, and leadership experience. when i took classes over the summer at JCs (over 20 units of science classes), i EASILY got above a 3.7. even though some people say that taking classes at a JC over the summer, especially one that's located near a large university, is much harder than usual. it was still a joke. i also took classes at UCI (no offense) over a summer that consisted of upper div bio, ochem, labs, and got a 3.75 with much less studying than that of a regular quarter at UCSD.
students from higher ranked colleges are not only academically qualified, they're likely to have more leadship abilities and other extra curricular activities that prepares them to be better optometrists/ health professionals.
i don't know what you're smoking but once again it DOES matter where you go for undergrad. how can you even try to say that a 3.2 (B+)at a JC is equal to that of a 2.8 (B-) at a top tier university? you're undermining the quality of your own university and that of many others.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 393
According to who?
According to who?
According to who?
I too have attended and taken classes at both "top tier" (more than one) universities as well as local community colleges. I believe that it is almost universally true that the depth of knowledge of the material required at the top universities was far greater than in the community colleges.
HOWEVER, even at the top universities, it was fairly EASY to obtain a 3.0 for anyone with half a brain and a half way decent work ethic regardless of whatever personal trauma or issues you are dealing with.
Yes, a 3.2 at Harvard is not the same as a 3.2 at WTC (or whatever that is) but the reality of it is is that anyone seeking to become a health care professional should be able to obtain a 3.0.
Hell.... I myself obtained way above a 3.0 and I was far far faaarrrrrrr from the brightest student in my class. That's the point that eyestrain and I are trying to make.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 334
- Reaction score
- 1
thank you for the redundant and annoying "according to Whos". maybe you've been out of the loop for too long.
from the US news and world report (and any other credible source). here! i have saved you the trouble of looking it up before you ask "according to what!!!"
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/che/biochemistry
hm... according to common sense.
and, just to satisfy your hunger for knowledge, it's also according to the admissions standards and the profile of the incoming classes.
the entering average GPA for both UCLA and UCSD are ABOVE a 4.0. that's on top of taking 20 AP/IB classes and being active in the community, among other things like sports, music, and clubs. now would someone who've worked that hard choose to go to a JC? no. don't ask me why.
what are the requirements to a JC? a freaking high school degree. and no need for community service or any other extra curriculars cuz they'll take ANYONE.
according to the many grad schools that add points (wo favoritism) to applicants who graduated from a competitive university. and, common sense.
you and eyestrain must be much smarter than you guys think u are.... u closeted geniuses. 😉
Originally Posted by pienfoo
im speaking from the perspective of a UCSD biochem student (and im sure you know that our bio/biochem department is ranked higher than UCLA's)
According to who?
from the US news and world report (and any other credible source). here! i have saved you the trouble of looking it up before you ask "according to what!!!"
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/che/biochemistry
are u kidding me????
hm... according to common sense.
and, just to satisfy your hunger for knowledge, it's also according to the admissions standards and the profile of the incoming classes.
the entering average GPA for both UCLA and UCSD are ABOVE a 4.0. that's on top of taking 20 AP/IB classes and being active in the community, among other things like sports, music, and clubs. now would someone who've worked that hard choose to go to a JC? no. don't ask me why.
what are the requirements to a JC? a freaking high school degree. and no need for community service or any other extra curriculars cuz they'll take ANYONE.
Originally Posted by pienfoo
i don't know what you're smoking but once again it DOES matter where you go for undergrad. how can you even try to say that a 3.2 (B+)at a JC is equal to that of a 2.8 (B-) at a top tier university? you're undermining the quality of your own university and that of many others.
According to who?
according to the many grad schools that add points (wo favoritism) to applicants who graduated from a competitive university. and, common sense.
you and eyestrain must be much smarter than you guys think u are.... u closeted geniuses. 😉
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 393
Silly ranking lists like that mean nothing to me because the reality of the situation is that it doesn't matter what the "best" school is when you are considering an undergraduate, graduate, or professional program. What is important is which program is the "best" for YOU. And there are many many things to consider with respect to that and a silly ranking list from US News is about as far down on the list of things that should be considered as anything else. To me, a list like that is as important as the Top 10 one hit wonders of all time, or the Top 10 rebounders of all time, or the Top 10 blah blah blah of all time.
See....again....I think the mistake that so many high schoolers and college students, and many people on these forums make is that they get so caught up in "prestige" "respect" and "the best" and blah blah blah. It really doesn't matter. The "best" program is the best program for YOU. No one is going to care which school you graduate from. No one is going to care what undergraduate institution you went to. When I meet people who say they went to Harvard, or Yale, or UCLA or Stanford, or any other elite institution, I am impressed for about 4 seconds. But at the end of the day, it matters little. When I hire associates, I look for people who can make my clinic and myself money.
I can't speak for him but I can say with absolute certainty that I am not a genius. A sexy sexy man, maybe. But a genius....nah. And that's really the crux of this whole thread. Even those students at elite universities who have had personal trauma and hardship and whatever other horrors befall them should still be able to pull off a 3.0 because it just isn't that hard, even at the top schools.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok, now you are contradicting yourself based on your previous postings (or maybe this was eyestrain) you have stated that if you can't pull off at least a 3.0 in undergrad you will have a hard time in optometry school and thats why you need a 3.0 GPA. When you knock the ranking of the school based on the difficulty level it makes a difference here that is very clear to me but seems to be going right over you and others who are posting about how it "does not matter the school as long as you have a 3.0". The difference between difficulty may not be the material, sure subjects learned stay the same. However, at a smaller, less ranked school or at a community college, or even going back to a Penn State Branch campus, you have lighter course loads and more "hand holding" from your professors, and probably easier tests. This is based on the students who leave high school and don't get the grades for harvard, yale, and Penn State's main campus, they have a lower level of learning and need an easier program that suits them, yes.
Now by saying this, you are going to have to work harder in a harder school no matter how smart you are, you go to a better school or even a bigger school where you are handed a sylabus in the beginning of the semester and expected to knwo when your assignments are due, when ur tests are and have virtually no "hand holding". The students who slack off here, aren't going to get good grades and probably have the "smarts to do it" but need someone to remind them of these things or they flunk out. Maybe they go to an easier school, put in no work but have a higher intellegence level, get a 3.5+, go to optometry school and find out "oh crap I'm in professional school I have to be responsible and do my work", and maybe they put in the work they need to but maybe they don't.
Here's my main point though, if someone gets a 3.0, 2.95, 2.8, 3.2, 3.3 whatever in a harder school their GPA gets bumped up a little bit because they had to WORK HARDER in college than someone who had easier tests with more hand holding. Someone who has had to WORK for their 3.2 or 3.0 and got it from a higher institution is NOT the same thing as someone who went to a lower end/easier course load program. To me you are basically telling people to slack off, go to the easiest school you can, get as high of a GPA as you can, as long as its a 3.0 you're smart enough and can cut it in optometry school...and thats a wrong opinion to give students on here because the caliber of intelligence is not going to increase that way, and theres probably going to be more people flunking out because they are not used to the harder course load, don't retain knowelege as well, whatever it is.
People should be CHALLENGED by the school they attend in undergrad as they should be when they go to a professional school. But I can tell you if you have a harder course load in undergrad, its probably going to prepare you better for optometry school and make your first couple years of life sciences a little mroe bearable, in addition to having a heavier course load easier to adapt to someone who may have had a lighter courseload in undergrad.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 0
Lets make some examples here, and these are hypethetical, but lets say you have Peter, Joe, Mike and Bob...they all went to the same high school, recieved say a 3.4 GPA, were all in the top say 20% of their class. None of them has had to face any "hardships" their educations were all funded and never had to worry about paying their way and never had any "sob stories", they all played varsity football, all in the same classes, same activities, same lifestyles and study habits but never really had to study THAT much in high school. Lets say they all live in New Jersey and they all want to attend a new jersey school
Peter decides to go to Fairleigh Dickenson, Joe Goes to rutgers, Mike attends TCNJ, and Bob decides to go with Ramapo. They all decide to be biology majors and eventually go to optometry school.
Peter attends class everyday, has good communication with his teachers, only studies for about 4 hours before an exam, graduates with no extracurriculars because his extra carriculars involved partying, cuz hey why not, he's in college? He graduates with a degree in biology with a 3.3 gpa.
Bob goes to ramapo, decides he wants to play football, studies about 2 hours, and does his share of partying too, but decides to switch majors after he completed his pre req to say psychology because it was easier. He gets A's in these classes, maybe he got B's and Cs in the prereq, but who cares he got Cs and now hes getting As in this "easy major". He graduates with a 3.4.
Mike goes to TCNJ and soon learns why everyone calls it the "suitcase school". He puts in what he needs to during the week, goes to class everyday, has constant reminders with his small classes that he has tests so he makes sure hes prepared He gets invovled around campus when he can, but no one is around on weekends so he goes home/visits his friends, and ends up getting a 3.0.
Joe at Rutgers quickly gets involved with the "party scene" as a freshman, but soon realizes his grades were suffering and his teachers aren't reminding him everyday that he has a test, skips class, but then he learns "hey this is my life" and starts to buckle down his second year. He becomes really involved with an optometry practice and various activities and clubs around campus, and learns to be independant and makes sure he puts in his study time when he can and then the night before he really makes sure hes focused to help outweigh that silly freshman year. He graduates with a 3.1.
They all take the OATs, Joe scores the highest with a 370, Mike gets a 330, however Bob gets a 310 and Peter gets a 300 and both boys have at least 2 scores under a 300.
Why is this? They were all from the same high school with the same GPAs so they MUST have the same intellegence level? Expecially Bob who had the highest GPA of all 4 boys in his undergrad classes, why didn't he do as well as Mike and Joe? Its because it depends on the student and the level program they went to. Also wasn't he the one who switched to an easier major not to work hard so he could party. He didnt care about excersizing good study habits because he never had to. Peter had his hand held and was reading these forums and figured, hey I'm .3 higher so I'm golden I can get good scores and get into optometry school no problem.
Mike got the lowest GPA, worked hard, had a harder program at TCNJ but he needed the smaller classes and reminders from his teachers so maybe he didnt study so hard for his OATs, but still he's in good shape, he got about the averege OAT score, maybe he has a shot.
Now take Joe, his GPA was low, but thats because of his freshman year, and he quickly learned what he had to do and therefore took his classes seriously and learned good study habits, without any hand holding from teachers. But he's up against 3.4 students like bob when he applies to optometry school.
Now looking at that, you can't just say the school doesnt matter and the GPA does not matter. These may not be real cases and I'm sure you're going to pick on them but I'm trying to get accross a point. Comparing the school and the individual is important, your OATs are important, GPAs vary based on difficulties no matter how hard you try in undergrad. Compare this to students who did bad in highschool and some students will work their butts off just to get a 3.0 at a lower level school, work their butts on their OATs, but still not score as high because "they don't have the intellegence level" but hey they tried right? They may not prepare themselves, but hey maybe they have enough motivation to make it in and through optometry school? Its all relative and everything comes into account. Stop making it seem like a 3.0 is EASY for everyone, despite sob stories. Someone who can cut it with a 3.0 in a harder program with limited studying obviously has higher intellegence than the person who had to struggle with hand holding, and easier tests.
Then again, anyone who cops out and goes to an easier program just so they can slack off because "oh they just need to look at my GPA and disregard my institution and I'm set". Thats wrong.
Optometry schools have weighed measures based on the performance of the students they have accepted in previous years from the harder and the easier programs, because they want to make sure they ADMIT students that aren't going to drop out because its too hard. They aren't out to get someone by not accepting them because their GPA was a 2.9, they are going to look at the person and what they did, what caused that drop, what school was it, did they try to improve themselves, what did they do to improve themselves?
Regardless of your situation, what you went through the important thing to do is not worry about your GPA number, its what can you do to improve it while you are still an undergrad, and how can you outweigh it if you have limited time left?
Peter decides to go to Fairleigh Dickenson, Joe Goes to rutgers, Mike attends TCNJ, and Bob decides to go with Ramapo. They all decide to be biology majors and eventually go to optometry school.
Peter attends class everyday, has good communication with his teachers, only studies for about 4 hours before an exam, graduates with no extracurriculars because his extra carriculars involved partying, cuz hey why not, he's in college? He graduates with a degree in biology with a 3.3 gpa.
Bob goes to ramapo, decides he wants to play football, studies about 2 hours, and does his share of partying too, but decides to switch majors after he completed his pre req to say psychology because it was easier. He gets A's in these classes, maybe he got B's and Cs in the prereq, but who cares he got Cs and now hes getting As in this "easy major". He graduates with a 3.4.
Mike goes to TCNJ and soon learns why everyone calls it the "suitcase school". He puts in what he needs to during the week, goes to class everyday, has constant reminders with his small classes that he has tests so he makes sure hes prepared He gets invovled around campus when he can, but no one is around on weekends so he goes home/visits his friends, and ends up getting a 3.0.
Joe at Rutgers quickly gets involved with the "party scene" as a freshman, but soon realizes his grades were suffering and his teachers aren't reminding him everyday that he has a test, skips class, but then he learns "hey this is my life" and starts to buckle down his second year. He becomes really involved with an optometry practice and various activities and clubs around campus, and learns to be independant and makes sure he puts in his study time when he can and then the night before he really makes sure hes focused to help outweigh that silly freshman year. He graduates with a 3.1.
They all take the OATs, Joe scores the highest with a 370, Mike gets a 330, however Bob gets a 310 and Peter gets a 300 and both boys have at least 2 scores under a 300.
Why is this? They were all from the same high school with the same GPAs so they MUST have the same intellegence level? Expecially Bob who had the highest GPA of all 4 boys in his undergrad classes, why didn't he do as well as Mike and Joe? Its because it depends on the student and the level program they went to. Also wasn't he the one who switched to an easier major not to work hard so he could party. He didnt care about excersizing good study habits because he never had to. Peter had his hand held and was reading these forums and figured, hey I'm .3 higher so I'm golden I can get good scores and get into optometry school no problem.
Mike got the lowest GPA, worked hard, had a harder program at TCNJ but he needed the smaller classes and reminders from his teachers so maybe he didnt study so hard for his OATs, but still he's in good shape, he got about the averege OAT score, maybe he has a shot.
Now take Joe, his GPA was low, but thats because of his freshman year, and he quickly learned what he had to do and therefore took his classes seriously and learned good study habits, without any hand holding from teachers. But he's up against 3.4 students like bob when he applies to optometry school.
Now looking at that, you can't just say the school doesnt matter and the GPA does not matter. These may not be real cases and I'm sure you're going to pick on them but I'm trying to get accross a point. Comparing the school and the individual is important, your OATs are important, GPAs vary based on difficulties no matter how hard you try in undergrad. Compare this to students who did bad in highschool and some students will work their butts off just to get a 3.0 at a lower level school, work their butts on their OATs, but still not score as high because "they don't have the intellegence level" but hey they tried right? They may not prepare themselves, but hey maybe they have enough motivation to make it in and through optometry school? Its all relative and everything comes into account. Stop making it seem like a 3.0 is EASY for everyone, despite sob stories. Someone who can cut it with a 3.0 in a harder program with limited studying obviously has higher intellegence than the person who had to struggle with hand holding, and easier tests.
Then again, anyone who cops out and goes to an easier program just so they can slack off because "oh they just need to look at my GPA and disregard my institution and I'm set". Thats wrong.
Optometry schools have weighed measures based on the performance of the students they have accepted in previous years from the harder and the easier programs, because they want to make sure they ADMIT students that aren't going to drop out because its too hard. They aren't out to get someone by not accepting them because their GPA was a 2.9, they are going to look at the person and what they did, what caused that drop, what school was it, did they try to improve themselves, what did they do to improve themselves?
Regardless of your situation, what you went through the important thing to do is not worry about your GPA number, its what can you do to improve it while you are still an undergrad, and how can you outweigh it if you have limited time left?
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2008
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 0
Man I didn't read Dr. Robs post because it's insanely long, but I am going to post one last thing.
Getting a 3.0 isn't too much to ask for, for someone to enter professional school of any kind.
Optometry schools just aren't as fortunate as Medical School. You would never hear a debate on the pre-med forums about people with a 2.9 deserving to be a "doctor." THat is laughable.
Getting a 3.0 isn't too much to ask for, for someone to enter professional school of any kind.
Optometry schools just aren't as fortunate as Medical School. You would never hear a debate on the pre-med forums about people with a 2.9 deserving to be a "doctor." THat is laughable.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 0
Well maybe you should read things, maybe if people read things and paid attention they would get better grades instead of taking everything half-heartedly all the time.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2008
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 0
I vote this thread needs to close and everyone should smile and be happy.
🙂
Who's with me?
🙂
Who's with me?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 0
I just wanted to say (in the kindest way possible) that as a Canadian student I have basically realized the following:
If you can't get 3.0+ in undergraduate, don't bother applying for graduate school.
That being said... would you really want that Optometrist of yours who barely scored Bs in undergrad let alone professional school (I believe a 60 or a C is passing at most?) co-managing serious life-threatening diseases like diabetes?
In my eyes, it's a good thing this world has something called 'standards'.
If you can't get 3.0+ in undergraduate, don't bother applying for graduate school.
That being said... would you really want that Optometrist of yours who barely scored Bs in undergrad let alone professional school (I believe a 60 or a C is passing at most?) co-managing serious life-threatening diseases like diabetes?
In my eyes, it's a good thing this world has something called 'standards'.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 1
I really did try to refrain from commenting further on this thread, I really did..
but with this post, I really couldn't help myself.
Ok, honestly, when I go to an optometrist, am I going to ask to see his school academics record before I let him examine me? (If someone in here does, then I really suggest you get some help).
What I really do give a darn about is that he managed to get the training in Optometry school (which he obviously did since he's practicing what he learned). Now, would it matter to me if one optometrist got a 3.2 in undergraduate school, and another got 2.9 GPA? No, in reality, I don't think it really matters at all, as long as he does his job and let me move on w/ my life.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 164
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh I was all for this a long time ago, ppl dont read each others responses and jsut think how they want to anyway so its like whats the f'n point
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 393
Again.....I would be willing to bet $100 that if you took a survey of the general public, 99.99% of them would think that anyone who is a "doctor" and who is "seeing patients" was at least a B student.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 393
My head is swimming after that lengthy posting....
I'm not trying to equate a 3.0 at WTS with a 3.0 at Harvard. And I'm not saying that someone with a 3.0 at WTS should be admitted over someone with a 2.9 at Harvard. I'm saying that BOTH of those candidates should be rejected. 3.0 is not the standard above which everyone gets admitted. 3.0 is (or should be) the MINIMUM standard to even be considered.
In reality, I feel that obtaining a 3.0 should be the minimum standard because obtaining a 3.0 at even the most difficult institution in the most difficult of programs is not entirely that difficult for anyone with even a half way decent work ethic and half a brain. I DID IT! That's the point I'm making! I"m not any smarter than any of you! And yes....I worked many jobs (including working in a Karaoke Bar and also tending bar in a Mafia run restaurant) to get myself through school and I dealt with emotional break ups of cherished girl friends, surgery for which I missed a good chunk of a semester, and deaths in the family. Through all of this, I managed above a 3.0 at an elite university in a tough program. I'm nothing special in this regard. I did it, and you all can too! Or at least, you should be able to, if you want to be doctors.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 393
I'm not sure what the point of all that was....
I'm not going to make any judgement on any of those people with respect to who should be admitted. However, they all obtained a 3.0 so I would at least allow them to throw their hat in the ring, so to speak. I'm not saying that one, or any of them should be admitted. However, if they meet the minimum standard, they can apply.
So for the final time.....3.0 should be the minimum standard to apply, not get admitted. Obtaining a 3.0 is not that difficult in even the most difficult programs at the most difficult universities. Is it as easy as getting a 3.0 at Ramapo, or whatever school that was? Probably not....but it's still not that hard! That doesn't mean you admit the 3.0 Ramapo guy and reject the 2.99 Harvard guy. It means you reject them both.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
To me, if you have the devotion and dedication to be a doctor, then you should have some sense to maintain the standards to get into any medical field you want to pursue. College is all about learning about yourself, and I agree that a 3.0 should not be difficult to maintain if you obtain a sense of responsibility to your education. Plus, if you are below that standard, and you are compassionate, you should be able to raise your GPA by showing your devotion to school to make good grades.
Remember that when you do become a doctor, you are always continuously learning. Therefore, if you can at least maintain that standard 3.0 GPA, then at least you have the compassion to keep on learning, which shows your ultimate spirit in becoming a doctor.
Remember that when you do become a doctor, you are always continuously learning. Therefore, if you can at least maintain that standard 3.0 GPA, then at least you have the compassion to keep on learning, which shows your ultimate spirit in becoming a doctor.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 0
No, I wasn't saying anyone should question the marks of their optometrist. I think you should expect the AOA, CAO and all other organizations to have the schools set up a standard for their entering classes. I'm in love with optometry through and through, but I like the way medicine runs their show (at least here in Canada) - it's a privilege to be going to that school, because you are the best of the best.
I think the bar has to be set to at LEAST a 3.0 and 300AA OAT in the OD case. It's the responsibility of the school to be admitting quality people. Thus, if the question "is my optometrist qualified, or did he/she barely graduate?" ever came around, no one has to worry. Because these standards will be in place that will ensure every optometrist graduating from every accredited school i s"the best of the best".
