Lowest GPA?

[KHE]

.
Wow, I'm amazed...If everyone have your same way of thinking, then imagine how many talented people are being overlooked.

Thanks for all the sob stories, it was really entertaining. Although, I think you're completely missing the point. You're making it sound like people who have below a 3.0 GPA don't actually care about their acedemics in school, then make up excuses and sad stories to make up for their performance later on. I'm not saying to overlook their GPA completely. Of course, a 2.5 GPA should not even be considered, and that individual should take more classes, etc. to raise their GPA. But a 2.8-2.9 GPA? If they're that close to your required 3.0, then why not give them a chance? I think schools also realize this, as they also take other things into factors when making a decision to accept or reject.
And who says that people who are accepted to Optometry school with a GPA below a 3.0 will actually finish to become an optometrist? The same goes for those above 3.0 GPA. That's why you give people a chance. A person with 2.9 GPA could be a better optometrist and care for more about their work than a 3.2 GPA.

So again....if a 2.9, then why not a 2.8. If a 2.8, then why not a 2.7, or 2.6? I mean cmon...surely every DESERVES to at least have a CHANCE don't they? Why don't we just bag the whole admissions thing in it's entirety?

Let's just let EVERYONE matriculate regardless of their past performance and we'll just let whoever makes it through the program make it through. We'll just have open admissions.

You seem to have answered the question that a 2.8 would be your minimum GPA for admittance. It's not completely unreasonable...mine just happens to be a little bit higher.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Omega3]

A GPA is a culmination of 4 years of work and has tremendous value in predicting someones ability to learn and retain complex material.

This sums it up for me. Studies have shown that the best indication of future performance is past performance. GPA reflects that b/c it means that you have mastered (or not) crucial study, time management and critical thinking skills. I expect optometry school to be extremely challenging. The thread about opt school difficulty seems to back me up on this. If you do have a low GPA due to goofing off as a freshmen/unfortunate circumstances/illness there are things you can do to bring it up. Why not take an extra year (or whatever) of upper-level courses, ace those, bring up your GPA and learn some good study habits that will carry over to your professional life as well?

 

[Jay12]

This sums it up for me. Studies have shown that the best indication of future performance is past performance. GPA reflects that b/c it means that you have mastered (or not) crucial study, time management and critical thinking skills. I expect optometry school to be extremely challenging. The thread about opt school difficulty seems to back me up on this. If you do have a low GPA due to goofing off as a freshmen/unfortunate circumstances/illness there are things you can do to bring it up. Why not take an extra year (or whatever) of upper-level courses, ace those, bring up your GPA and learn some good study habits that will carry over to your professional life as well?

Well said...

 

[alanan84]

The likely reason you don't ask your doctor what their undergraduate GPA was is that you are making the assumption that they are smart, and performed well in school just by virtue of the fact that they WERE admitted to school and graduated in the first place. In the past, that was probably a reasonable assumption to make but if the standard is going to get lower and lower, I imagine that soon you WILL have patients start to ask these things.

Haha, I'm going to hold you to that ok?

Seriously thats ok with me if you think that. Personally I don't see it happening. I figure they have a job and know how to do it. The only people that pay attention to admission stats are the ones trying to get in.

I'm thinking KHE should just become the Dean at an Optometry school so he can make the rules. Until then though, I think schools have a common system and they probably have it that way for a reason... Because it works.

 

[eyestrain]

Maybe 'discriminating' might not be the best word choice..how about 'inflexible?"

Honestly, how can you take driving, voting, smoking, drinking, etc, to compare it to GPA required to get into professional school? Those things affect society as a whole, but GPA? Unless you're saying that optometrists with a low undergraduate GPA automatically mean that they're going to be bad optometrists?

Why are people assuming that just because a school is a little flixible when it comes to GPA, then they should just throw out any standards because OBVIOUSLY, they're listening to all these sob stories to make their decisions.

Do you really expect schools to look at a 2.5 GPA and think it's acceptable?
However, if it's a 2.8+ GPA, then I really don't see why a person shouldn't be considered.

I get a kick out of how you go on and on about how their shouldn't be a standard GPA, but then you come out and say a 2.5 is not acceptable. So which is it? What if that 2.5 went to a really tough school and got stuck with all the "bad professors" and had all "poorly written tests" and had to work 40 hrs/week on top of it all?

I think the point KHE and I are trying to make is that a 3.0 should be easy for an professional school caliber student to achieve, and thus, not too much to ask. I mean, seriously, it's a B average. I don't care how hard your school is.

 

[KHE]

I'm thinking KHE should just become the Dean at an Optometry school so he can make the rules. Until then though, I think schools have a common system and they probably have it that way for a reason... Because it works.

THank you for the vote of confidence but I would not take that job for all the tea in China.

However, I disagree with the notion that schools work the way they do for a reason. That's true in theory, but in reality schools are going to admit the maximum number of students that they have deemed appropriate regardless of how poorly performing the bottom tier students are. It would be inconceivable that the schools would admit less than their capicity should they have a year with a particularly weak applicant pool, and that to me is yet another reason why a minimum standard should be in place.

 

[winterlily05]

I get a kick out of how you go on and on about how their shouldn't be a standard GPA, but then you come out and say a 2.5 is not acceptable. So which is it? What if that 2.5 went to a really tough school and got stuck with all the "bad professors" and had all "poorly written tests" and had to work 40 hrs/week on top of it all?

I think the point KHE and I are trying to make is that a 3.0 should be easy for an professional school caliber student to achieve, and thus, not too much to ask. I mean, seriously, it's a B average. I don't care how hard your school is.

You get a kick out of ASSUMING that I think there shouldn't be a standard GPA? On the other hand, I get a kick out of you and others saying that the absolute GPA for optometry school admittance should be 3.0+ and all other below that number should not get in because they are not optometry school material.

I never said there shouldn't be a 'x' GPA that is considered for an individual to apply to optometry school. If there were no standards, then why don't the whole world just go and apply to optometry school and get in?
The point I'm trying to make is: It's okay to not have a 3.0 GPA.
Having a 2.5 and below GPA on the other hand, is NOT okay. If you have a 2.5, then yes, do whatever it takes to raise it up. But if you have -.1-.2 points away from that 3.0 standard? Shouldn't there so flexibility in the system to give that individual a chance?
For those of you who are saying a 2.8 can very well lead to a 2.7, 2.6 and onwards, shouldn't those number depends on what standards are set?
Let's say the "standard" is 2.7 instead of 3.0....then I don't see why a student with a 2.5-2.6 GPA shouldn't be considered.
The standard that most of you are in favored of, from what I can see, is 3.0 GPA. Thus, I've used 2.8-2.9 as being okay. Like a said, a few points shy from the supposed 'standard' shouldn't result in an individual losing out on something that they really want to do.

 

[alanan84]

THank you for the vote of confidence but I would not take that job for all the tea in China.

However, I disagree with the notion that schools work the way they do for a reason. That's true in theory, but in reality schools are going to admit the maximum number of students that they have deemed appropriate regardless of how poorly performing the bottom tier students are. It would be inconceivable that the schools would admit less than their capicity should they have a year with a particularly weak applicant pool, and that to me is yet another reason why a minimum standard should be in place.

Ok I don't know much about how Optometry schools work but I know that Dental schools don't run out of "Top tier" applicants. (I.E. 3.5+ gpa) You can make a quick trip to predents.com and see a number of 3.7, 3.8, or even 3.9 applicants that get rejected to certain schools. I have a hard time believing that Optometry schools are much different. I'm sure they have plenty of high gpa applicants. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one though.

The key phrase in the above post is that schools are going to admit the maximum number of students that they have deemed appropriate. My point is why be upset if someone gets in with whatever gpa they get in with? If they have somehow proven that they can handle it I trust the admissions committees that they can.

To some degree it's like there is jealousy towards those getting in with lower gpas. How is that different then me being jealous of someone with a higher gpa than me? I can't do that, they've earned their gpa. If someone gets in with a 2.8, they earned it, why get upset about it?

 

[DrRobs]

Ok I don't know much about how Optometry schools work but I know that Dental schools don't run out of "Top tier" applicants. (I.E. 3.5+ gpa) You can make a quick trip to predents.com and see a number of 3.7, 3.8, or even 3.9 applicants that get rejected to certain schools. I have a hard time believing that Optometry schools are much different. I'm sure they have plenty of high gpa applicants. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one though.

The key phrase in the above post is that schools are going to admit the maximum number of students that they have deemed appropriate. My point is why be upset if someone gets in with whatever gpa they get in with? If they have somehow proven that they can handle it I trust the admissions committees that they can.

To some degree it's like there is jealousy towards those getting in with lower gpas. How is that different then me being jealous of someone with a higher gpa than me? I can't do that, they've earned their gpa. If someone gets in with a 2.8, they earned it, why get upset about it?

I your responses, and I appreciate them but there is no way getting to KHE apparently. So what, they admit the max amount of students but those are students who deserve to get in! Sure its more competative for dentistry and medicine because people generally want to follow these paths due to money and scope of practice. Optometry is competative now, schools are not giving everyone interviews, they give interviews and acceptances to those who have proven themselves worthy in some way. It works the same, unfortunately there are those who think it is "easier" to get into optometry school and don't try to improve themselves however they can. But fact is, competition is getting tougher and tougher every year and going back to a pervious post they are looking for people who want to improve the standard of optometry as a whole. The number of students accepted may be the same numbers, however the applicant pool grows more and more and it forces optometry schools to look at those who are striving, REGARDLESS of a number, and thats why they have a system of checks with the requirements. Most people with low GPAs who apply early don't get interviews and acceptances as quickly, they go through the highest OAT and GPA first, and not even they get accepted because u can have a high GPA but you can be a horrible interviewer without passion and be put on a wait list.

There is no winning this arguement, and the undergrad GPA is just an undergrad GPA. The national board exams won't pass a student if they don't excell later on but those who know they got a chance because of a GPA weakness, probably want to be there and will do what they can to pass the boards. Unfortunately there are still those who have the "easy attitudes", and u know what too bad for them. Optometry school is a professional school like any other professional school, and if they get in and can't cut it they won't cut it, obviously they didn't really want to do it. If someone is a good doctor, why would you ever ask their GPAs in undergrad? who cares? People do however look at what degree you got your undergrad from, and a more impressive school with higher standards are well known by the public and thats enough for them. They obviously passed their boards and feel like they are getting the proper care, so why question what their GPAs are?

Overall if someone does what they can and proves that this is whawt they want to do, passes optometry school and National boards, goes to practice then who cares? The people who don't deserve it won't go far and schools make sure they don't let those people in. Thats why there are interviews, thats why there is a standard OAT, thats why there is an essay, so come on already! Give it a rest, there are minimum requirements set and most people below a 3.0 ARE NOT getting in because they are not doing what they need to to prove themselves in an increasing applicant pool size.

 

[Optman87]

This thread is all opinion based. We are all entitled to our opinions and leave it at that.

However, there is a reason why nobody asks a DOC what their GPA b/c it doesn't matter.

Do they put your GPA on your diploma when u graduate if it is so indicative or how good of a DOC you will become?

GPA does not show how GREAT of a DOC a person will become!!!

 

[DrRobs]

THank you for the vote of confidence but I would not take that job for all the tea in China.

However, I disagree with the notion that schools work the way they do for a reason. That's true in theory, but in reality schools are going to admit the maximum number of students that they have deemed appropriate regardless of how poorly performing the bottom tier students are. It would be inconceivable that the schools would admit less than their capicity should they have a year with a particularly weak applicant pool, and that to me is yet another reason why a minimum standard should be in place.

Honestly, to me this just sounds like you think everyone who applies to optometry school is a **** off and there aren't enough good applicants to fill the spots. You underestimate the changing world and the competition you need to set forth now to succeed in any career! Everyone needs a job and it gets harder and harder every year with more and more people with "high gpas" sitting at home on their butts twiddling their thumbs. It takes more than an undergrad diploma and a high gpa to set yourself aside. PCO for instance had about a 1,000 applicants this year and only extend 300 interviews out of that group. There are checks, would you want to work with someone who has no personal skills and doesn't give a crap about their patients and their needs just because they performed well in UNDERGRAD? I mean come on, if you were hiring someone you would be hiring them because you want to work with them as a benefit. Someone who is a benefit will have proven themselves IN optometry school, not undergrad where you learn a whole bunch of prereqs...in addition to the required classes in humanities, art, ect...

Stop underestimating the applicant pool as a whole because of those naive posts that are on this forum. I don't think this forum is a good judge of the competition...people post things like "how easy is it" I can get in with my 2.7, 320 OAT, as a reapp who just worked as a pharmacy tech and has no experience in optometry...the people with low gpas and passion do what they can to get in, they take the OATs more than once if needed, they take extra classes, they get experience...at least they should. But like any job or school you're always going to have people who are putting forth a bad rep for themselves and unfortunately they are usually the people who whine and wonder what they are doing wrong, when they don't take any intitiative to actually ASK the school(s) and rely on other internet users to tell them what to do. No those people don't deserve to get in, they want life handed to them on silver platters, but they can reapply and reapply and be told the same things over and over but they say they have "passion". You only show your passion if you are doing something to improve yourself but your undergrad GPA doesn't show those efforts the majority of the time, its what they do to compensate and thats that.

 

[winterlily05]

To some degree it's like there is jealousy towards those getting in with lower gpas. How is that different then me being jealous of someone with a higher gpa than me? I can't do that, they've earned their gpa. If someone gets in with a 2.8, they earned it, why get upset about it?

Maybe these 'optometrists' are afraid that new optometrists are being accepted + produced too many in numbers, and that the field will be too saturated?
What they seem to forget is that not everyone who gets into optometry school will become optometrists...you have to pass boards, get through the classes, etc...so if one can succeed in optometry school, who cares if that individual was accepted with a 2.9 GPA instead of a 3.0?

Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and those who believe that you MUST have a 3.0 GPA to be considered for acceptance, than hey, I completely respect that. But as always, there are always exceptions.

 

[eyestrain]

I your responses, and I appreciate them but there is no way getting to KHE apparently. So what, they admit the max amount of students but those are students who deserve to get in!

That makes no sense. Just because the seats are filled doesn't mean the last ones in should be there. You should know that.

But fact is, competition is getting tougher and tougher every year and going back to a pervious post they are looking for people who want to improve the standard of optometry as a whole. The number of students accepted may be the same numbers, however the applicant pool grows more and more

I'd like to see some proof here. You may be right, but I'd like proof. And don't forget, there are three new schools opening. I'm sure all those extra seats will also be filled by the best and brightest

Overall if someone does what they can and proves that this is whawt they want to do, passes optometry school and National boards, goes to practice then who cares?

So again, why not have open enrollment where EVERYONE can go to optometry school? As long as they "do what they can" and "prove this is what they want to do", let 'em in.

 

[eyestrain]

This thread is all opinion based. We are all entitled to our opinions and leave it at that.

However, there is a reason why nobody asks a DOC what their GPA b/c it doesn't matter.

Do they put your GPA on your diploma when u graduate if it is so indicative or how good of a DOC you will become?

GPA does not show how GREAT of a DOC a person will become!!!

This isn't the point. The point is that this is PROFESSIONAL school and we should only be allowing the best and brightest in.

 

[eyestrain]

Maybe these 'optometrists' are afraid that new optometrists are being accepted + produced too many in numbers, and that the field will be too saturated?

This has nothing to do with saturation, it has to do with the caliber of students getting into schools. I've BEEN to optometry school. I've seen some kids who shouldn't have been there. I don't give a rat's a$$ if they passed boards or not. Anyone with half a brain can pass boards. And watch it with that "optometrist" crap.

Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions, and those who believe that you MUST have a 3.0 GPA to be considered for acceptance, than hey, I completely respect that. But as always, there are always exceptions.

Again, YOU said a 2.5 "should not even be considered". How is that not the same damn thing I'm saying, only with a lower standard?

 

[eyestrain]

Oh, and only one person was brave enough to answer the question:

At what GPA would you place a cutoff for admission to optometry school?

 

[alanan84]

Oh, and only one person was brave enough to answer the question:

At what GPA would you place a cutoff for admission to optometry school?

I've been arguing this whole time that there SHOULD NOT be a cutoff GPA for admission to ANY professional school.

 

[eyestrain]

I've been arguing this whole time that there SHOULD NOT be a cutoff GPA for admission to ANY professional school.

That's wonderful. And by saying that, you must be open to the possibility of a 1.0 getting into school. Maybe if they had enough of that "passion" everyone keeps talking about.

 

[KHE]

Ok I don't know much about how Optometry schools work but I know that Dental schools don't run out of "Top tier" applicants. (I.E. 3.5+ gpa) You can make a quick trip to predents.com and see a number of 3.7, 3.8, or even 3.9 applicants that get rejected to certain schools. I have a hard time believing that Optometry schools are much different. I'm sure they have plenty of high gpa applicants. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one though.

The top applicants at most schools of optometry have incredibly high GPAs and would be competitive to virtually any professional program. It is the BOTTOM tier that concerns me, and some other posters on here. Optometry schools, if an applicant pool is less than stellar will STILL fill the school. They will simply not deny admission to that "last kid" despite how lousy his or qualifications may be. I can't speak for dental schools but I think that the number of students applying to optometry schools with GPAs of 3.8 and 3.9 who are NOT getting admitted somewhere is virtually zero, save for perhaps the school in Canada.

The key phrase in the above post is that schools are going to admit the maximum number of students that they have deemed appropriate. My point is why be upset if someone gets in with whatever gpa they get in with? If they have somehow proven that they can handle it I trust the admissions committees that they can.

To some degree it's like there is jealousy towards those getting in with lower gpas. How is that different then me being jealous of someone with a higher gpa than me? I can't do that, they've earned their gpa. If someone gets in with a 2.8, they earned it, why get upset about it?

Did they really earn it? I don't know about that. It is conceivable, if not likely that they were simply the "least worst" candidate for that last slot. To me, that is not a good scenario.

 

[KHE]

I never said there shouldn't be a 'x' GPA that is considered for an individual to apply to optometry school. If there were no standards, then why don't the whole world just go and apply to optometry school and get in?
The point I'm trying to make is: It's okay to not have a 3.0 GPA.
Having a 2.5 and below GPA on the other hand, is NOT okay. If you have a 2.5, then yes, do whatever it takes to raise it up. But if you have -.1-.2 points away from that 3.0 standard? Shouldn't there so flexibility in the system to give that individual a chance?
For those of you who are saying a 2.8 can very well lead to a 2.7, 2.6 and onwards, shouldn't those number depends on what standards are set?
Let's say the "standard" is 2.7 instead of 3.0....then I don't see why a student with a 2.5-2.6 GPA shouldn't be considered.

For the 37th time....if you're going to set a "standard" of whatever, but then continue to consider students who don't meet that standard you have set, then the defacto "standard" becomes whatever the lowest GPA you would still consider.

Why not just take that argument to it's logical conclusion and just say "open admission to any school of optometry of your choice and whoever makes it through makes it through!"

The standard that most of you are in favored of, from what I can see, is 3.0 GPA. Thus, I've used 2.8-2.9 as being okay. Like a said, a few points shy from the supposed 'standard' shouldn't result in an individual losing out on something that they really want to do.

Then again....there is no point in setting the standard at all if you're still going to consider people who are below it. Now matter how low you make it, someone will always be just below it so the only logical solution to the problem then is to just bag the whole admissions process and have open admissions.

 

[alanan84]

That's wonderful. And by saying that, you must be open to the possibility of a 1.0 getting into school. Maybe if they had enough of that "passion" everyone keeps talking about.

Now thats a little ridiculous. We all know that no one with a 1.0 gpa is getting in anywhere. You don't need a minimum gpa to keep that from happening.

 

[KHE]

Maybe these 'optometrists' are afraid that new optometrists are being accepted + produced too many in numbers, and that the field will be too saturated?

Oh, don't worry about that. We are already waaaay past that point.

To me, I find it more than a bit depressing that we have SO MANY available slots for a position in optometry schools (and three more new schools on the way) that schools even HAVE to consider people with sub 3.0 GPAs.

 

[eyestrain]

Now thats a little ridiculous. We all know that no one with a 1.0 gpa is getting in anywhere. You don't need a minimum gpa to keep that from happening.

Okay, so if someone has amazing extracurriculars, perfect OAT scores, has worked for an OD for 10 years, blah blah blah, but has a 1.0, they can't get in? Why not? GPA too low? If a 1.0 is too low for the person above, what wouldn't be too low?

 

[DrRobs]

1.) I'm not saying the first seat is filled by the brightest person, I'm not saying the last person is the brightest either. Anyway you cut it theres going to be people who don't deserve to be there in any job or school whether professional or not. There is always going to be people who don't deserve it. So yes I know that.

2.) If you want me to find you solid proof over the internet its not going to be reliable. If you want proof call up the current schools and ask them yourself, thats what I did. So if you really want me to research this topic, theres no point the stats for the current class aren't out there yet, and they don't post ALL the stats on the internet..YOU should know that. The only way to get proof is if you spend the time calling all the schools and asking them about their applicant pools, so if you have the time to do that be my guest. I did that with the schools i was interested in, and thats where this information came from. So if you want your proof look it up and get it yourself. As far as the other opt schools opening, thats a whole other ball park and personally I don't think they should be doing this. Those schools are not going to have accrediation, and it will only benefit those who are desperate to get in and thats not right by any means. I've been following that controversy for a while but I have never really posted about it, but fact is, the AOA isn't stopping it despite everyones concerns. I'm sure there are students out there that are jumping for joy because they think they have a chance to get in at one of these new schools, and they probably do and they don't know enough about the situation because they are probably looking at the stats everyone posts about optometrists working in chain places with starting salaries that are tempting for someone looking for "security", when fact is that security will drop if we pump out 3 more schools of optometrists. Theres a lot of posts on this topic but i think the best are on ODwire so if you want to argue about that go there. Thats not what I'm talking about here.

3.) I have said time and time again and its starting to beat a dead horse into the ground now. I'm not saying there shouldn't be standards, I'm saying SOMETIMES there are people who exceed those standards that should be given the chance. Proving yourself can be as simple as taking one pre req class that you may have done bad in or it may be repeating all of them, some people should have to do that.

4.) You aren't reading what we are all saying, I know you are concerned about the competition, and yes people should excel, but you are missing the whole picture. Dental schools and medical schools have the same issues and have people who feel the way you do, but maybe those people are bitter because they had these "high standards" on their apps when they got into school and had a reality shock when they had to have more intensive programs when they went to an easier program in undergrad, then they see someone who has a number that was lower than theirs and they are bitter. I'm not saying you had this, maybe you have. Just give good people a chance instead of bashing the whole process as it is. There are people who are never going to be good people who can just get through everything but not do anything to make a difference. Theres a small group of people who are willing to make a difference in anything. Everyone wants finacial security now, why not? But what about the people who want to do anything in their power to MAKE a difference, improve patient awareness about low vision, vision therapy, the needs for infant and pediatric eye exams, who want to help those who have had strokes, head trauma and what not and not CARE if they don't make money as long as they know they are helping people. These people are rare, but I am one of them. I just have to say you can't stereotype everyone based on a number in an undergrad. Thats all this thread is about, you are just beating it into the ground to create more controversy. I understand your concerns, but I am not speaking as a whole for the entire student body, I get pissed off seeing my peers talking about needing to make money and working in a chain because they havent had the wide range of experience they should have. But no one will, unless they take the time and find a good doctor who is going to expose them to all these concerns. Take them to an AOA or state OA delegates cousil meeting, I was privleged enough to do that at the POA confrence last year and it was very enlightening. Most people aren't going to find that and are only looking at the surface.

I am trying to only improve how applicants think by what I'm saying, and I know you are too, but the difference is I dont think you can judge someone just on one number alone. If I never had my injury, I probably would be thinking like everyone else who has a 3.5 gpa, but I learned a lot about myself and I know others won't ever have that privelege, but if I don't try and help them "see outside the box" then what good is that going to do? I don't care who listens to me and who doesn't, it doesn't matter to me at least I can sleep good at night knowing I did what I could, whether it was encouraging words or whether it was a reality check. People need reality checks, but they also need some encouragement to do things outside of a good GPA because thats not all that matters in a good doc, in any field.

That makes no sense. Just because the seats are filled doesn't mean the last ones in should be there. You should know that.




I'd like to see some proof here. You may be right, but I'd like proof. And don't forget, there are three new schools opening. I'm sure all those extra seats will also be filled by the best and brightest




So again, why not have open enrollment where EVERYONE can go to optometry school? As long as they "do what they can" and "prove this is what they want to do", let 'em in.

 

[DrRobs]

Oh, don't worry about that. We are already waaaay past that point.

To me, I find it more than a bit depressing that we have SO MANY available slots for a position in optometry schools (and three more new schools on the way) that schools even HAVE to consider people with sub 3.0 GPAs.

See you just have to say that first instead of just jumping down everyones throats. That is a concern. Opening up more schools is not helping the cause when things just started getting competative with the availible schools now, opening more seats just hurts the cause. This is a legit concern, for sure and when these schools do open up maybe they should raise the requirements but u can't just raise a GPA requirement and not expect to raise any other requirements such as the OAT score or experience.

 

[alanan84]

Here's my problem with the idea that the optometrists (I say optometrists because it seems like they are the only ones defending this) have of a cutoff gpa.

Let's say you set up a school were you only accept the highest GPAs and OAT scores. You have 100 spots, you give them to the top 100 students above a 3.0 (like you all say). What I would predict with that school is that just as you have people that aren't "qualified" to be in Optometry school under the old system, you will have students that aren't "qualified" in your "new" school for other reasons. Maybe they can't comunicate effectively. Maybe they have zero social skills. Maybe they have no desire to serve people. Maybe they are selfish, ungrateful, or rude. Maybe all they want is money.

You see I believe that being a professional means that you are well rounded and those are the applicants I see getting in. I just really don't see a problem with the way it is.

 

[alanan84]

Okay, so if someone has amazing extracurriculars, perfect OAT scores, has worked for an OD for 10 years, blah blah blah, but has a 1.0, they can't get in? Why not? GPA too low? If a 1.0 is too low for the person above, what wouldn't be too low?

I'm not saying they can't get in, I'm saying they probably won't. I'm also saying that it's the decision admissions committee. Competition creates a standard eyestrain, not a cutoff. In the case of optometry the standard is obviously well above a 1.0.

 

[eyestrain]

In the case of optometry the standard is obviously well above a 1.0.

So where is it, or where should it be? You said before there should be no standard.

 

[eyestrain]

You have 100 spots, you give them to the top 100 students above a 3.0 (like you all say). What I would predict with that school is that just as you have people that aren't "qualified" to be in Optometry school under the old system, you will have students that aren't "qualified" in your "new" school for other reasons. Maybe they can't comunicate effectively. Maybe they have zero social skills. Maybe they have no desire to serve people. Maybe they are selfish, ungrateful, or rude. Maybe all they want is money.

Or, if you can't fill those 100 spots with great students who proved themselves in undergrad and have "passion" AND have great people skills, you don't let 100 people in.

 

[alanan84]

So where is it, or where should it be? You said before there should be no standard.

Now you're just digging, you should be smart enough to realize I said that there should be no CUTOFF. The standard is created by the competition within the applicant pool. The standard is also different depending on the professional program. People are accepted above AND BELOW that standard. That is very different then creating a cutoff that keeps certain people from applying.

 

[alanan84]

Or, if you can't fill those 100 spots with great students who proved themselves in undergrad and have "passion" AND have great people skills, you don't let 100 people in.

Again, even those with 4.0's may not be well rounded applicants. Are you reading?

 

[DrRobs]

So where is it, or where should it be? You said before there should be no standard.

As he is has been stating, and as the rest of us have been stating, it is a well rounded person that makes a good doctor. I appreciate the fact that we have another professional students view on this, because like they said, only current optometrists are arguing this but you are only arguing one aspect that does not exemplify who the canidate is. Do you want your patients to come to you because of your number? No, you want them to come to you because they appreciate you for how you can help them...or at least I hope thats how you think.

When you look at your patient profile, what do you see? Are you making legitimate differences in their lives now that you are an OD? If you are, good, but theres a lot of docs out there now who aren't trying to improve the quality of patient care. Medicare is even trying to improve this with PQRI codes, but most opts don't submit to insurances, and why not? because they don't want to do medical billing in their practice and buy extra equipment to improve their care? Do they just want to pump out refractions and sell glasses? I don't...I want to improve the public view as many optometrist do who have to fight against those who don't think that way. The opthamologists aren't going to refer patients to you unless you can offer them some extra care that they don't want to deal with because maybe their practice is too overrun by surgeries where they make more money than they care enough to take the time and show their retinal disease patients alternative measures to help them regain some daily activities. Also, theres a lot of optometrists who refer to an opthalmologist for gluacoma treatment where there are pleanty of private practice optometrists who can fully treat this. Don't you want more docs who have that view? I do. I wish more people saw things this way, but again, not everybody will. Sooo, maybe raising standards on experience you could argue will make a difference. Not encouraging people to just sit and watch an OD once or twice, but actually get involved and LEARN before they decide to pursue the career path. Probably won't happen, but to me thats the best way to figure out what you HAVE to do and makes you WANT to do something and WORK harder.

 

[alanan84]

Well eyestrain and KHE, thanks for the discussion, I've honestly enjoyed. I respect your opinions. Now however, I must go home from work.

 

[alanan84]

Yes I have to work, Mommy and Daddy or Uncle Same doesn't pay for my education. I guess it's one of those sob stories that keeps me from my perfect 4.0. Haha, just kidding!

 

[KHE]

Here's my problem with the idea that the optometrists (I say optometrists because it seems like they are the only ones defending this) have of a cutoff gpa.

Let's say you set up a school were you only accept the highest GPAs and OAT scores. You have 100 spots, you give them to the top 100 students above a 3.0 (like you all say). What I would predict with that school is that just as you have people that aren't "qualified" to be in Optometry school under the old system, you will have students that aren't "qualified" in your "new" school for other reasons. Maybe they can't comunicate effectively. Maybe they have zero social skills. Maybe they have no desire to serve people. Maybe they are selfish, ungrateful, or rude. Maybe all they want is money.

You see I believe that being a professional means that you are well rounded and those are the applicants I see getting in. I just really don't see a problem with the way it is.

The supposition here is that a substantial number of people with sub-par GPAs have all these desirable social skills while a substantial number of people who are above a 3.0 are simply nebbish book worms who will make horrible doctors because they can't "communicate" or "relate" to patients.

There should be no reason why optometry schools can't attract enough people to the profession who have at least a B average AND who have some modicum of social grace.

 

[DrRobs]

Yes I have to work, Mommy and Daddy or Uncle Same doesn't pay for my education. I guess it's one of those sob stories that keeps me from my perfect 4.0. Haha, just kidding!

Good for you, thanks for your responses on this thread but yea its beating a dead horse into the ground apparently.

 

[KHE]

As he is has been stating, and as the rest of us have been stating, it is a well rounded person that makes a good doctor. I appreciate the fact that we have another professional students view on this, because like they said, only current optometrists are arguing this but you are only arguing one aspect that does not exemplify who the canidate is. Do you want your patients to come to you because of your number? No, you want them to come to you because they appreciate you for how you can help them...or at least I hope thats how you think.

It saddens me that we can not seem to fill optometry schools with people who have at least a B average AND who have some level of social grace. It seems that in order to "fill" the schools, we have to sacrifice something just to fill them. That is a tragedy.

When you look at your patient profile, what do you see? Are you making legitimate differences in their lives now that you are an OD? If you are, good, but theres a lot of docs out there now who aren't trying to improve the quality of patient care. Medicare is even trying to improve this with PQRI codes, but most opts don't submit to insurances, and why not? because they don't want to do medical billing in their practice and buy extra equipment to improve their care? Do they just want to pump out refractions and sell glasses? I don't...I want to improve the public view as many optometrist do who have to fight against those who don't think that way. The opthamologists aren't going to refer patients to you unless you can offer them some extra care that they don't want to deal with because maybe their practice is too overrun by surgeries where they make more money than they care enough to take the time and show their retinal disease patients alternative measures to help them regain some daily activities.

This part of the posting is so far in la-la land that it's actually making my head spin.

Also, theres a lot of optometrists who refer to an opthalmologist for gluacoma treatment where there are pleanty of private practice optometrists who can fully treat this. Don't you want more docs who have that view? I do. I wish more people saw things this way, but again, not everybody will. Sooo, maybe raising standards on experience you could argue will make a difference. Not encouraging people to just sit and watch an OD once or twice, but actually get involved and LEARN before they decide to pursue the career path. Probably won't happen, but to me thats the best way to figure out what you HAVE to do and makes you WANT to do something and WORK harder.

Yes, I want to have people who "see the things the way that you do" but I would also like to have them all be at least B students. Why is that so much to ask? Why does it have to be an either/or proposition for a significant portion of the student body? Why is optometry school so easy to get into it that these sub par people even have a chance? Why can optometry not attract enough of the best and brightest? Why are we even having to consider people with sub-par GPAs? Our dentist friend here talks of pre dental students getting rejected with 3.8s and 3.9s. I would bet that you can could on exactly one hand the number of optometry students with stats like that that aren't being admitted somewhere.

 

[eyestrain]

As he is has been stating, and as the rest of us have been stating, it is a well rounded person that makes a good doctor.

Trust me, KHE and I get this too. What I'm trying to say is that the admissions committees have to look at a lot of stuff when considering a candidate. They need to evaluate the person's desire, motivation, people skills, etc., because those things matter. What also matters is someone's intellectual ability. So how do they measure that? With OAT scores and GPAs. For my money, a GPA holds a lot of weight because it is FOUR years worth of academics. And if someone can't pull off a B average in undergrad, no matter how hard your school was, you shouldn't be getting in. Plain and simple. Everyone has a sob story and I'm sick of hearing them.

Like I've said before, I've known some of the students on the low end of the intelligence scale. They were not good students and will not be good doctors. Did they make it through school? Yes. Did they pass boards? Eventually, yes they did. But I wouldn't send a family member to them if my life depended on it. They should never have been in school in the first place.

 

[eyestrain]

Yes I have to work, Mommy and Daddy or Uncle Same doesn't pay for my education. I guess it's one of those sob stories that keeps me from my perfect 4.0. Haha, just kidding!

I hope you're kidding because I got into this big time with a poster last year at about this time. That argument devolved quickly into me being called a racist.

 

[DrRobs]

It saddens me that we can not seem to fill optometry schools with people who have at least a B average AND who have some level of social grace. It seems that in order to "fill" the schools, we have to sacrifice something just to fill them. That is a tragedy.



This part of the posting is so far in la-la land that it's actually making my head spin.



Yes, I want to have people who "see the things the way that you do" but I would also like to have them all be at least B students. Why is that so much to ask? Why does it have to be an either/or proposition for a significant portion of the student body? Why is optometry school so easy to get into it that these sub par people even have a chance? Why can optometry not attract enough of the best and brightest? Why are we even having to consider people with sub-par GPAs? Our dentist friend here talks of pre dental students getting rejected with 3.8s and 3.9s. I would bet that you can could on exactly one hand the number of optometry students with stats like that that aren't being admitted somewhere.

well you know, its a "newer" profession that has not been looked upon as highly because it was "holistic" medicine before. It was only in more recient years that opts have been given medical privleges, and it translates to how the public views the field and the "bashing" we have had previously from the medical fields. But in good faith I feel its changing, but yes they are rushing the change too quickly and should not rush to open new schools when this change is just starting to translate to the population. If I went around and asked people who they would go to if their eye was red they would never think to go to an optometrist and many of them think they are only good for giving patients glasses. So yea, I definately see your points, we should not have to lower our standards, let alone offer more seats. But I am hopeful in years to come things will change.

Its funny that this is brought up, its one of the things I had talked about during my interview. I was interviewed at PCO by the head of research and I could tell he did not want to bother with me right off the bat, knowing nothing about my file. But I pushed those buttons, and he just went on a rant about why can't opt just do surgery, all the opthamologists learn are what any medical student learns. When they are in their residency and internships or whatever, someone just says "hey heres a slit lamp" "hey heres a book" learn about eyes. And its true, optometry is underrated, and its unfortunately because of the population's attitude as a whole. But if we continue to push people who want to make a difference good, but no its not going to be that way opening up more schools that are encouraged by chains where the Doc can't even have a say on the lens type their patients get, and they have to settle for that because they can't get anything better. Its horrible it has to be that way, and its not going to change instantly and until we start getting people who have that view the standards unfortunately will not be raised to a min gpa of a 3.0

 

[winterlily05]

This has nothing to do with saturation, it has to do with the caliber of students getting into schools. I've BEEN to optometry school. I've seen some kids who shouldn't have been there. I don't give a rat's a$$ if they passed boards or not. Anyone with half a brain can pass boards. And watch it with that "optometrist" crap.



Again, YOU said a 2.5 "should not even be considered". How is that not the same damn thing I'm saying, only with a lower standard?

"Optometrist crap?" Are the majority of you in here advocating for 3.0 standards not optometrist? What makes you so special that you can put people down like that? The kids who "shouldn't have been there" got into Optometry school because they obviously have something that the school found favorable (maybe not favorable to YOU). And congrats to have completed Optometry school, I'm sure that makes you superior to everyone else.

When you are setting the "standard" at 3.0, you are saying that anyone below that should not even be considered.
When I say that those with 2.5 should not be considered, I said that meaning that there's still plenty of room for improvement...but a 2.8 or 2.9? I really don't see why individuals with those score shouldn't be considered.

When standards are set, I don't think it as being you HAVE to have that EXACT GPA to be able to get accepted to professional school. There is room for forgiveness, when it is not too far from the 'standard.'

 

[winterlily05]

It saddens me that we can not seem to fill optometry schools with people who have at least a B average AND who have some level of social grace. It seems that in order to "fill" the schools, we have to sacrifice something just to fill them. That is a tragedy.

Yes, I want to have people who "see the things the way that you do" but I would also like to have them all be at least B students. Why is that so much to ask? Why does it have to be an either/or proposition for a significant portion of the student body? Why is optometry school so easy to get into it that these sub par people even have a chance? Why can optometry not attract enough of the best and brightest? Why are we even having to consider people with sub-par GPAs? Our dentist friend here talks of pre dental students getting rejected with 3.8s and 3.9s. I would bet that you can could on exactly one hand the number of optometry students with stats like that that aren't being admitted somewhere.

The best and brightest? I'm sure sure these "best and brightest" optometry students all turned out to be the best optometrists, including caring a great deal for the patients they care for.
Why not consider people with GPA's below 3.0? Can a person with a 2.9 GPA not perform the job as well as one with 3.0?

 

[winterlily05]

Oh, and only one person was brave enough to answer the question:

At what GPA would you place a cutoff for admission to optometry school?

We have been arguing about this question all this time.
In your book, 'cut-off' means that when a GPA is set at a certain number, than any number below that should not even be considered.

In my book (also in a few other people's book), when there's a cut-off, there should be some flexibility (-.1-.2 points), when taking other things into consideration.

I think those who are advocating for 'no cut-off,' what they're trying to say is, there shouldn't be an absolute GPA that dictates those below it shouldn't be considered for acceptance. Having no cut-off doesn't mean that a 1.0 GPA student should also have the chance to get it. Having no cut-off means that a student a few points shy away from that cuf-off could still be given a chance, considering how well they do in other criterias.
The problem here is that a few people are taking GPA numbers to the extreme...1.0? huh?

 

[eyestrain]

The kids who "shouldn't have been there" got into Optometry school because they obviously have something that the school found favorable (maybe not favorable to YOU).

Yeah, it's called a check book and the school had some seats to fill.

When you are setting the "standard" at 3.0, you are saying that anyone below that should not even be considered.
When I say that those with 2.5 should not be considered, I said that meaning that there's still plenty of room for improvement...but a 2.8 or 2.9? I really don't see why individuals with those score shouldn't be considered.

When standards are set, I don't think it as being you HAVE to have that EXACT GPA to be able to get accepted to professional school. There is room for forgiveness, when it is not too far from the 'standard.'

Are you not understanding the irony in what your saying? You say a 2.5 shouldn't be considered, which means YOU have a standard in mind somewhere in the 2.5-2.7 area. So even though you say there should be no standard, you then turn around and say, or at least imply, there should be. And again, by arguing that a 2.8 or 2.9 might be good enough if the standard were a 3.0, IT'S NO LONGER A STANDARD!!!!!!!

You say a 2.5 shouldn't get in. Fine, I agree. So let's assume you're standard is right at that 2.5. Then to use YOUR argument, why not a 2.4 or a 2.3? It's pretty close, right? And what if they have just a little extra "passion".

And in regards to the "optometrist" thing, YOU put the word in quotes in one of your above posts. I'm not sure what the point was, but putting things like that in quotes is usually meant to be derogatory in some fashion.

 

[winterlily05]

Like I've said before, I've known some of the students on the low end of the intelligence scale. They were not good students and will not be good doctors. Did they make it through school? Yes. Did they pass boards? Eventually, yes they did. But I wouldn't send a family member to them if my life depended on it. They should never have been in school in the first place.

If that's the case, then I also know a few people who are very intelligent, and made it through professional school with flying colors. But does that make them good doctors? NO
I find a few very intelligent doctors who should have never become doctors in the first place. On the other hand, I know a few doctors who were not the most intelligent and did not the top grades, but was really good at what they do, and genuinely care for their patients.

 

[eyestrain]

We have been arguing about this question all this time.
In your book, 'cut-off' means that when a GPA is set at a certain number, than any number below that should not even be considered.

In my book (also in a few other people's book), when there's a cut-off, there should be some flexibility (-.1-.2 points), when taking other things into consideration.

I think those who are advocating for 'no cut-off,' what they're trying to say is, there shouldn't be an absolute GPA that dictates those below it shouldn't be considered for acceptance. Having no cut-off doesn't mean that a 1.0 GPA student should also have the chance to get it. Having no cut-off means that a student a few points shy away from that cuf-off could still be given a chance, considering how well they do in other criterias.
The problem here is that a few people are taking GPA numbers to the extreme...1.0? huh?

Again, this makes absolutely no sense. If you have this "flexibility" with a standard, it's not a standard anymore. If you build in .2 flexibility to the 3.0 cutoff, you really have a 2.8 cutoff. Then what about the 2.79? Would they be cutoff with your system, no ifs, ands, or buts?

 

[eyestrain]

If that's the case, then I also know a few people who are very intelligent, and made it through professional school with flying colors. But does that make them good doctors? NO
I find a few very intelligent doctors who should have never become doctors in the first place. On the other hand, I know a few doctors who were not the most intelligent and did not the top grades, but was really good at what they do, and genuinely care for their patients.

Ugh. I saw this one coming from a mile away. Yes, some intelligent people with no people skills are doctors. And yes, apparently every dolt who can't get a 3.0 possesses the world's best people skills. I get it. But like KHE said, there are more than enough people with great grades and great personalities and those are the ones who should be getting in.

 

[alanan84]

Having no cut-off means that a student a few points shy away from that cuf-off could still be given a chance, considering how well they do in other criterias.
The problem here is that a few people are taking GPA numbers to the extreme...1.0? huh?

This is not what I'm saying. I see yall's point on this.

 

[Chiuey]

I always thought it was the farther you deviate from the standard, being at 3.0 usually for optometry school, the less of a chance you get in. Since some schools use a point system, with a low gpa such as 2.7, you better make up some points with other activities/oat/recs. It's not a matter of cutoff, its a matter of scale.

 

[Optman87]

This isn't the point. The point is that this is PROFESSIONAL school and we should only be allowing the best and brightest in.

Does best and brightest mean having the best GPA???

wow...