Lowest GPA?

[eyestrain]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

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

wow...

No, not only the best GPA, but it's certainly a big factor. Do you think the best and brightest can't pull off a B average in undergrad? I think that the best and brightest should be able to get a B average in undergrad with both hands tied behind their backs. It's not that hard. No one is expecting a 4.0 from everyone.

 

[Optman87]

No, not only the best GPA, but it's certainly a big factor. Do you think the best and brightest can't pull off a B average in undergrad? I think that the best and brightest should be able to get a B average in undergrad with both hands tied behind their backs. It's not that hard. No one is expecting a 4.0 from everyone.

sure, but getting a B average doesn't translate completely to becoming a stellar optometrist.

Listen, I'm not saying there shouldnt be a standard, but to automatically say people below B average in undergrad should not even be looked at is non-sense.

Every student should be evaluated on an individual circumstance and the students who admissions believe will do well in their program and excel in the profession should deserve to be admitted regardless of a GPA number.

 

[gochi]

What do you guys think about pre-req GPA versus the GPA of upper level science courses ?

Hypothetically, if someone had a 2.0 gpa for his/her pre-reqs and a 3.5 GPA for his/her upper division science credits then should he/she be admitted to optometry school ?

What if another person had a 2.0 for his/her pre-reqs and had a 4.0 for his/her upper division liberal arts credits ?

I think GPA's are associated with huge uncertainties, therefore the OAT and interview are both used as "reducing GPA uncertainty" factors or "RGU" factors

Seing as most doctor's IQ's are >100 then maybe an IQ test could additionally serves as a "RGU" factor.

😳

 

[ToePUG]

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.

So you can dish it out? But you can't take it?

 

[winterlily05]

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

This makes no sense to me...I'm sure the schools could easily find the 'best and brightest' to fill in those seats. They wouldn't reject some people who have 3.0+ GPA in favor of those who have 2.8-2.9 GPA would they? (And please don't tell me this doesn't happen, I've seen a few cases of this happening).

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.

Then don't call it a standard. Let's just say there's a certain GPA that professional schools view as favorable, but that doesn't mean that they would reject those who doesn't deviate so far from that GPA if they see potential in that individual. Again, saying that a person having to have EXACTLY a 3.0 GPA to be considered for admission is a little ridiculous.


And to answer your 'using your argument' question:
WHen you're using '2.5' as an example, on what scale are you comparing the 2.5 to? (4.0?) If so, I don't see your logic in that example.

And please stop being so sensitive. I don't see how putting quotations around optometrists can be derogatory. I'm simply setting apart those who are optometrists and those who aren't in this discussion. I don't know about you, but I do see a correlation here.

 

[winterlily05]

No, not only the best GPA, but it's certainly a big factor. Do you think the best and brightest can't pull off a B average in undergrad? I think that the best and brightest should be able to get a B average in undergrad with both hands tied behind their backs. It's not that hard. No one is expecting a 4.0 from everyone.

I think you should go and set up an optometry school where you will only admit those with a 3.0+ GPA...as for the other schools, they do appreciate diversity.

 

[winterlily05]

No, not only the best GPA, but it's certainly a big factor. Do you think the best and brightest can't pull off a B average in undergrad? I think that the best and brightest should be able to get a B average in undergrad with both hands tied behind their backs. It's not that hard. No one is expecting a 4.0 from everyone.

Being able to pull a B average doesn't mean you're the best and brightest. Having a 3.0+ GPA doesn't translate into being the best and brightest optometrist. A 2.8 GPA optometrist can very well be better with patient interaction/treatment than a 3.0+ optometrist. I seriously do not agree that a good GPA means that you're going to be a good optometrist, or watever it is you're professionally going into. I personally would rather go to an optometrist who have a 2.8 GPA that treats me well , than a 3.0 GPA optometrists who acts like an @ss

 

[Optman87]

agree

 

[mwyt15]

wow...I haven't seen a thread that lasted 3 pages and counting with a majority of the postings from the same day in a LOOONG time. Why don't we just let the admissions committees worry about this subject matter and call it a night everyone?

Both sides make very relevant points. I agree that 4 year GPAs do reflect a lot about how an applicant's future academic performance may be but like winterlily and DrRob pointed out, there are always 3.5+ (arbitrarily picked number) students who lack the necessary social skills to be an effective optometrist. However, like KHE and eyestrain kept saying, I believe there are enough applicants who have 3.0+ GPAs AND who are approachable/friendly/sociable in the applicant pool every year. I think the admissions committees realize both sides of the argument in this thread so that's why they also require applicants to have optometry experience, write a personal statement, have an interview, etc in order to select the applicants who are best-suited for the optometry program.

Keep in mind that not everyone who's admitted to a program will graduate from the program and/or enjoy a successful career later. Those who the admissions committees didn't screen out and should've been screened out may drop out from the optometry school and/or graduate but won't enjoy a very successful career since his/her patients will go find other more competent optometrists instead of going to this person. So that's why I think the system we have now works and the society will weed out whoever that the committees failed to screen out initially. Good night everyone!

 

[FLCBRUIN84]

This thread is quite entertaining 😀

Point is simple... it is what it is. If standards are lowered, more and more students are only going to complain that they be lowered even more. Your "passion" to become an optometrist is only going to get you so far. So instead of thinking of all the creative ways to mask a low GPA, do something about it.

After graduating, I had a GPA below a 3.0 (~2.8 to be exact), a pretty decent OAT score and stellar extra curriculars and LORS. And yes, everyone has their own situations, trials and tribulations. I did have my own extenuating circumstance losing my mother to cancer my last year @ UCLA. But you know what, I knew that sitting around and making excuses for my poor academic performance wasn't going to get me anywhere. So, I decided to wait to re-apply (the first time around was almost like a joke to me)... and worked my butt off for almost 2 years to take as many classes as possible (yes, while working full time) to finally get my GPA up to an acceptable level. Best of all, when you're finally accepted.. it all feels so rewarding to know that all the hard work paid off!

And for everyone that is going to PM me for my stats:
Final Cum GPA: 3.19, OAT AA 340

 

[sportvision]

I don't believe taking courses just to raise your gpa. Then it's more like a game. It's a waste of time and money. But, if you need to freshen up on some subjects, then take them.

i believe to get through opt school you need intelligence, knowledge to build upon, and passion to drive you. So if someone has a good work ethic, good OATs, and a passion then he should be considered even with lower than average GPA. Then it's the school's responsibility to make sure that he's competent enough to be an optometrist.

I hope the schools will have high standard so there will be more respect for the profession. At the same time, I hope the admission committees can find those qualities in applicants other than GPA. There are some darn good OD with lower undergrad GPAs. If they set a definite GPA cutoff line, then there will be a lot of people crunching in GPA numbers rather than trying learn and apply the necessary skills.

 

[Omega3]

One arguement that keeps being made on this thread is that some low GPA applicants have qualities (ex. compassion, caring, social skills) that should partially off-set their low grades. But as others have pointed out, patient interaction skills are already figured into the equation through the interview, LORs, essay, extracurrics, etc, etc. GPA considers something entirely different - whether you have the background and mental fitness to be a successful optometrist. Remember that optometry requires that you learn, integrate and retain a huge amount of info. You then have to be able to refer to this info and think on your feet when you see patients. Not to mention that you need to keep learning throughout your career (because you have to keep up with all the new developments in vision science and product technology). Keeping your grades at B or higher indicates that you have at least trained yourself to learn effectively.

Also, I disagree that taking higher level courses to improve your GPA is a waste. It helps you build study habits AND shows adcoms that you're committed to the profession b/c you put the time and money in to be a competitive applicant when others didn't bother.

 

[senioreye]

Yes I know for a fact some students do enter based on school needs for minority diversity of specific groups, despite their denials of such accusations. Such students end up re-taking tests and even graduating a whole year or semester later than the rest because they could not keep up. So for those of you who don't have the high GPA you may still be accepted based on these other criteria. Also, international students who live in certain critical conditions are given preferences.

 

[eyestrain]

Being able to pull a B average doesn't mean you're the best and brightest. Having a 3.0+ GPA doesn't translate into being the best and brightest optometrist. A 2.8 GPA optometrist can very well be better with patient interaction/treatment than a 3.0+ optometrist. I seriously do not agree that a good GPA means that you're going to be a good optometrist, or watever it is you're professionally going into. I personally would rather go to an optometrist who have a 2.8 GPA that treats me well , than a 3.0 GPA optometrists who acts like an @ss

Please. Enough with this idea that people with GPAs over 3.0 have no social skills, while the sub 3.0 people are social butterflies.

Like I said before, people getting into professional school should be able to get a 3.0 in undergrad without even trying. It's really not that hard.

 

[eyestrain]

This thread is quite entertaining 😀

Point is simple... it is what it is. If standards are lowered, more and more students are only going to complain that they be lowered even more. Your "passion" to become an optometrist is only going to get you so far. So instead of thinking of all the creative ways to mask a low GPA, do something about it.

After graduating, I had a GPA below a 3.0 (~2.8 to be exact), a pretty decent OAT score and stellar extra curriculars and LORS. And yes, everyone has their own situations, trials and tribulations. I did have my own extenuating circumstance losing my mother to cancer my last year @ UCLA. But you know what, I knew that sitting around and making excuses for my poor academic performance wasn't going to get me anywhere. So, I decided to wait to re-apply (the first time around was almost like a joke to me)... and worked my butt off for almost 2 years to take as many classes as possible (yes, while working full time) to finally get my GPA up to an acceptable level. Best of all, when you're finally accepted.. it all feels so rewarding to know that all the hard work paid off!

And for everyone that is going to PM me for my stats:
Final Cum GPA: 3.19, OAT AA 340

Great post. This is how it should be done.

 

[DrRobs]

Great post. This is how it should be done.

Wasn't that what I was saying about my stats? When I said it it was just another "sob story", only difference is I knew I had to wait and apply. Yes this is how it should be done when you have problems later on in your career, thats what I've been saying ALL along.

 

[alanan84]

One arguement that keeps being made on this thread is that some low GPA applicants have qualities (ex. compassion, caring, social skills) that should partially off-set their low grades. But as others have pointed out, patient interaction skills are already figured into the equation through the interview, LORs, essay, extracurrics, etc, etc. GPA considers something entirely different - whether you have the background and mental fitness to be a successful optometrist. Remember that optometry requires that you learn, integrate and retain a huge amount of info. You then have to be able to refer to this info and think on your feet when you see patients. Not to mention that you need to keep learning throughout your career (because you have to keep up with all the new developments in vision science and product technology). Keeping your grades at B or higher indicates that you have at least trained yourself to learn effectively.

Remember what we're talking about here. Some are calling for a cutoff minimum GPA. That is a change in the current system of accepting students in any professional school. (This goes for the least competitive to the very most competitive) You're exactly right, the "X factor" IS figured into interviews, LORs, essays, EC's and all that and it CAN offset to a certain degree a lower than average GPA. The point that I'm trying to make is what is so horribly wrong with this way of doing it? Honestly, if a colleague gets into my Dental school with a 2.8 and I do it with a 3.9 I'm not going to care. It's what you do with the opportunity that matters. I'm going to have no idea HOW he got in with a 2.8 but I'm not going to be calling for a change in the system either. Seriously, you've got the odds stacked against you if you're applying with a sub 3.0 GPA. If you can make it happen then congrats!

Haha, I kind of feel like a liberal democrat fighting for the "underdogs". Funny because I'm a very conservative person. I guess maybe being conservative makes me say KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS!

 

[winterlily05]

Please. Enough with this idea that people with GPAs over 3.0 have no social skills, while the sub 3.0 people are social butterflies.

Like I said before, people getting into professional school should be able to get a 3.0 in undergrad without even trying. It's really not that hard.

Seriously, enough with the assumption that we are sterotyping people with 3.0+ GPAs lacking social skills. Nobody has a right to associate people with certain traits based on their GPA scores.
You need to stop with the idea that just because an undergraduate who has below a 3.0 GPA won't do as well in optometry school as a 3.0+ student.
You're completely missing the point that some of us are trying to make about this subject. Not ALL sub 3.0 individuals are '"social butterflies" and not all 3.0+ individuals lack people skills. It would be a shame to see an individual who might very well become an excellent optometrist missing the chance to become one because he/she is .1-.2 points away from the 'standard.'

And everyone who thinks that students with a sub 3.0 GPA automatically goes into an interview making up some sob stories to get some sympathy need to revise that thought.
Are you saying that when a person have below a 3.0 GPA, they can't go into an interview and say, "I know that I don't have the most desirable GPA, but I'm willing to work my best in Optometry school because it is what I wanted to do, and I'm committed to make it happen- Recommendations from my teachers, my extracurricular activities, etc. shows it." ?

And when you say that an undergrad should make a 3.0 GPA without trying...are you referring to people who have no kids, who doesn't work multiple jobs to pay for their education, and who have parents to pay for their education? Maybe if you spend 24/7 of your time studying and having no other responsibilities, then maybe you can achieve 3.0 'with your hands tied behind your back."
Sadly, there are those who have circumstances that prevents them from getting a 3.0 'easily.'

Should someone who have a 2.5 take extra classes and do what it takes to raise the GPA up? ABSOLUTELY.
But if the desirable GPA is 3.0, and an individual who has a 2.9, whose circumstances prevents them from spending money and time on taking extra classes to raise that GPA, I don't see why they couldn't be considered for admission.

I'm finding it hella funny that some people are taking others words and applying certain characteristics to a whole population as a whole..what happened to thinking outside the box?

 

[Omega3]

Remember what we're talking about here. Some are calling for a cutoff minimum GPA.

Which I agree with. I'm Canadian and all our health science professonal schools are extremely competitive. For Waterloo's School of Optometry the minimum average for consideration is 75% (3.0). Waterloo's program may leave some things to be desired, but on this I think they're right. And why not? These applicants may be looking after your health one day.

You need to stop with the idea that just because an undergraduate who has below a 3.0 GPA won't do as well in optometry school as a 3.0+ student.

How else can you prove that you can handle the academic rigors of opt school and practice? If, after 4 years of undergrad, your GPA is below a B then what are adcoms supposed to infer about your ability to understand, digest and recall biology, biochemistry, physics, physiology, anatomy and all the other info you need to know? I applaud FLCBRUIN84, DrRobs and all the others who took it upon themselves to increase their stats and prove they could handle the work.

 

[eyestrain]

Seriously, enough with the assumption that we are sterotyping people with 3.0+ GPAs lacking social skills. Nobody has a right to associate people with certain traits based on their GPA scores.

Go back through this thread and see how many times this idea is brought up. There seems to be this pervasive idea that people with good GPAs have no social skills.

You need to stop with the idea that just because an undergraduate who has below a 3.0 GPA won't do as well in optometry school as a 3.0+ student.

Okay. If you took a group of 3.5-4.0 students and put them up against the sub 3.0 students, who do you think would do better in optometry school? Which group will make the better doctors?

You're completely missing the point that some of us are trying to make about this subject. Not ALL sub 3.0 individuals are '"social butterflies" and not all 3.0+ individuals lack people skills.

Again, this is what is implied over and over and over in this thread.

"I know that I don't have the most desirable GPA, but I'm willing to work my best in Optometry school because it is what I wanted to do, and I'm committed to make it happen- Recommendations from my teachers, my extracurricular activities, etc. shows it." ?

This is the exact type of feel-good BS that drives me nuts. Hard work and passion will get you nowhere if you don't possess the ability to learn and retain knowledge.

And when you say that an undergrad should make a 3.0 GPA without trying...are you referring to people who have no kids, who doesn't work multiple jobs to pay for their education, and who have parents to pay for their education? Maybe if you spend 24/7 of your time studying and having no other responsibilities, then maybe you can achieve 3.0 'with your hands tied behind your back."
Sadly, there are those who have circumstances that prevents them from getting a 3.0 'easily.'

Sob story alert. Here's why I hate sob stories so much: EVERYONE HAS ONE. Guess what? I worked throughout college to pay for it too. Guess how much money my folks have given me since high school...... ZERO. Oh, my wife and I had a kid while in optometry school and guess what? I still got good grades. There are plenty of people who are able to overcome these obstacles and still get great grades. These are the type of people who should be getting into professional schools, not the ones who let the circumstances get the better of them.

 

[alanan84]

Which I agree with. I'm Canadian and all our health science professonal schools are extremely competitive. For Waterloo's School of Optometry the minimum average for consideration is 75% (3.0). Waterloo's program may leave some things to be desired, but on this I think they're right. And why not? These applicants may be looking after your health one day.

And again I'm telling you that I DO NOT CARE WHAT GPA MY DENTIST, DOCTOR, OPTOMETRIST, SURGEON, CHIROPRACTOR, PHYSICAL THERAPIST, NURSE, or anyone else in the health profession got. I want them to be good at what they do.

Example, competition has seriously risen within the last 20 years in the field of Dentistry. Average GPA's are going up and Dental schools are only accepting students with very impressive credentials. Now a question, does that mean that ALL those Dentists that went to school prior to this influx in competition are worse Dentists than those coming out now? No way, in fact I'd be willing to bet that they are much better due to their experience.

GPA is a great indicator in your ability work hard and learn. That is also why it is the most important factor in admission to Professional schools and it should be that way. Honestly though, someone answer the question, what is wrong with adcoms looking at the entire applicant, factoring in everything when they make their decision?

 

[winterlily05]

How else can you prove that you can handle the academic rigors of opt school and practice? If, after 4 years of undergrad, your GPA is below a B then what are adcoms supposed to infer about your ability to understand, digest and recall biology, biochemistry, physics, physiology, anatomy and all the other info you need to know? I applaud FLCBRUIN84, DrRobs and all the others who took it upon themselves to increase their stats and prove they could handle the work.

Really? You really think that you have to have a 3.0+ GPA to be able to handle the academic aspect of opt school?
Well, then I guess all the excellent optometrists that I've come into contact with who obtained less than 3.0 GPA as an undergraduate must've cheated through opt school or something then!
Why are there assumptions that just because you don't have 3.0+ GPA, then you won't be able to digest and recall information? In that case, I guess there's someone who graduated college behind Bill Gates telling him what to do because surely a person who dropped out of college just proved to the world that he can't retain and put information to good use!

 

[winterlily05]

Go back through this thread and see how many times this idea is brought up. There seems to be this pervasive idea that people with good GPAs have no social skills. Again, this is what is implied over and over and over in this thread.

Implied by who? you? I don't see anyone grouping the 3.0+ GPA individuals as a whole who lacks social skills. Subjects were used, such as: AN OPTOMETRIST, not ALL OPTOMETRIST. Get it?
On the other hand, all I see is, "Anyone who doesn't make a 3.0 will not do well in Opt school, and they shouldn't be there." ===> Translated, EVERYONE who makes less than a 3.0 doesn't deserve the chance to become an optometrist.

Okay. If you took a group of 3.5-4.0 students and put them up against the sub 3.0 students, who do you think would do better in optometry school? Which group will make the better doctors?

Really? Since when does making 3.5-4.0 make you a good doctor? As I seem to recall, there are doctors out there who are the top of their class who turned out to be quite shady. Sorry to tell you this, but I don't think being a good doctor means making good grades. There's more to it than that.

This is the exact type of feel-good BS that drives me nuts. Hard work and passion will get you nowhere if you don't possess the ability to learn and retain knowledge.
Sob story alert. Here's why I hate sob stories so much: EVERYONE HAS ONE. Guess what? I worked throughout college to pay for it too. Guess how much money my folks have given me since high school...... ZERO. Oh, my wife and I had a kid while in optometry school and guess what? I still got good grades. There are plenty of people who are able to overcome these obstacles and still get great grades. These are the type of people who should be getting into professional schools, not the ones who let the circumstances get the better of them.

Really, I should've seen this one coming. Quite entertaining story indeed...but guess what? You can't expect everyone to be like you.
Everyone is not made equally, so don't expect everyone to be able to things like you can. A little consideration goes a long way, and truly, I respect you for being able to do all of that and succeeding, but I also believe in giving people a chance. I don't expect everyone to achieve what is thought to be 'ideal,' but as long as they are close to it, and I see something good in them, I don't see any reason to shut them out.

 

[DrRobs]

Really? You really think that you have to have a 3.0+ GPA to be able to handle the academic aspect of opt school?
Well, then I guess all the excellent optometrists that I've come into contact with who obtained less than 3.0 GPA as an undergraduate must've cheated through opt school or something then!
Why are there assumptions that just because you don't have 3.0+ GPA, then you won't be able to digest and recall information? In that case, I guess there's someone who graduated college telling Bill Gates what to do because surely a person who dropped out of college just proved to the world that he can't retain and put information to good use!

There are assumptions based on what everyone has been saying, a 3.0 is really not that hard to get in reality. I have been arguing that there should be flexibilty, which there is for those who are borderline and even if they do raise the standards to a 3.0, there will probably be a few less than 3.0 who slip through the cracks. Some of them may have "sob stories" t hat prevented this, but couldn't quite improve enough to get there, and have excellent stats elsewhere in addition to being from a good institution. I think that will always hold. Its not that people CANT digest and recall information, however what is being said here the MAJORITY of people with a lower GPA in undergrads probably aren't as good at retaining information and test taking. There are small groups of people who are outside of these standards, and if you are improving your stats until you can prove yourself worthy then good, you can get in and hopefully will succeed. I don't think anyone who doesnt TRY to improve themselves, take extra classes, find good experience, take the OATs more are the MAJORITY, and thats whats being looked at here.

When you do think about it, there are probably more people in Optometry school with lower GPAs than other schools, however I think its more like a bell curve, not as many people who have stellar GPAs come to optometry as a first choice, so there are probably less 4.0/3.9/3.8 students for that reason. On the other hand there is a very small percentage of students who have a 2.9/2.8/2.7, because most students don't apply themselves to offset them enough to get in. If you look at most of the averege GPAs at larger optometry class sizes the averege is 3.2-3.4s I'd say. Thats where most people stand, it would be nice if we could raise that higher, why not. But I see the same sides but I am compassionate for those on the lower end because I was there, I am not passonate for those who don't try to make a difference in their files and improve themselves with extra classes and what not, bc honestly they probably are doing more whining than they are actually going and doing something about it.

 

[eyestrain]

Really, I should've seen this one coming. Quite entertaining story indeed...but guess what? You can't expect everyone to be like you.
Everyone is not made equally, so don't expect everyone to be able to things like you can. A little consideration goes a long way, and truly, I respect you for being able to do all of that and succeeding, but I also believe in giving people a chance. I don't expect everyone to achieve what is thought to be 'ideal,' but as long as they are close to it, and I see something good in them, I don't see any reason to shut them out.

I'm not asking everyone to be like me. All I'm trying to say is that EVERYONE has to deal with hardships. Sure, some deal with more than others, but I want people who have faced the hardships and still achieved great grades to be the ones getting into school. There are plenty of people in that group. We shouldn't need to even consider those that couldn't deal with it and let their grades flounder.

 

[FLCBRUIN84]

Wow! Winterlily05, Your efforts to justify yourself here on SDN are really just obnoxious. You have to realize that the time and effort you're using to justify your beliefs on this thread are really getting you nowhere in your attempts to be accepted. I've never put so much effort into replying to a specific thread, but your posts are annoying me so much! Maybe I'm just annoyed because I was once like you...stuck with a GPA lower than a 3.0, wasting my time rambling over and over about why I should be accepted into optometry school despite a deficient academic record. Since your probably going to ask me for specifics as to why I feel this way.. what better way to explain myself than to quote you...

Are you saying that when a person have below a 3.0 GPA, they can't go into an interview and say, "I know that I don't have the most desirable GPA, but I'm willing to work my best in Optometry school because it is what I wanted to do, and I'm committed to make it happen- Recommendations from my teachers, my extracurricular activities, etc. shows it." ?

As quoted by Eyestrain, stating that you are passionate about something can only get you so far. How can an admissions committee deem a candidate "passionate and willing" to work their best in optometry school? This is why they set minimum standards for applicants, because it is almost merely impossible to predict who will succeed academically at their instiution based on "passion," "determination," and "willingness" alone. Do you expect them to take your word against all the other thousands of applicants that state that they are just as "passionate, determined and willing" as you? Why don't you gear that passion towards showing them that you can succeed academically: re-take pre requisite classes, do well in them, and thus raise your GPA. If they lower their standards, they're only causing a potential domino effect: If it is lowered to a 2.9, applicants with 2.8's will want it to be lowered to a 2.8 and then applicants with 2.7's will want requirements to be lowered to 2.7. It's not changing, so stop whining!

While optometry school does have a lot to do with "passion" and "determination," let's not forget that it is an academic institution. Hey, I want to be the next American Idol, but I can't sing for the life of me.. will passion and determination really bring me to closer to reaching that goal? haha BE PRACTICAL!

And when you say that an undergrad should make a 3.0 GPA without trying...are you referring to people who have no kids, who doesn't work multiple jobs to pay for their education, and who have parents to pay for their education? Maybe if you spend 24/7 of your time studying and having no other responsibilities, then maybe you can achieve 3.0 'with your hands tied behind your back."

Yet again, you emphasize that everyone has their own sob story. If a person has this many things going on in their life, what makes an admissions committee believe that the "new and improved" applicant can succeed in optometry school if they're accepted? Have you forgotten that optometry school costs an average of $20,000? For the most part, you won't be able to work since you will be spending most of your time studying for weekly tests and board exams. If a person blames their poor academic performance on the fact that they have children, family obligations and "multiple jobs to pay for their education," what makes admissions think that they'll be able to succeed in an even more rigorous acadmic setting. If case you've forgotten, children, family issues and financial debt don't disappear once you start optometry school!

I'm employed full time, rent a house from a pricey community, have the same ol' bills as any other independent person and still did it. But I had to make my own sacrifices to get where I am now. This consisted of giving up the free time I yearned for after a long day at work to take night/online/weekend courses and succeeding in them to see the results! At my interview, they took note of the big jump in my GPA afe

Sadly, there are those who have circumstances that prevents them from getting a 3.0 'easily.'

Again, you want the admissions committees to believe that the "circumstances" you've endured to prevent you from getting a 3.0 are all of a sudden going to disappear after you've been admitted? Like you and me, they're normal people... not fortune tellers. Thus, they are forced to use academic statistics to determine if you're capable of succeeding at their institution.

Should someone who have a 2.5 take extra classes and do what it takes to raise the GPA up? ABSOLUTELY.
But if the desirable GPA is 3.0, and an individual who has a 2.9, whose circumstances prevents them from spending money and time on taking extra classes to raise that GPA, I don't see why they couldn't be considered for admission.

Come on, if you're really at a 2.9 you should only really have to retake a few classes and get A's in them (as you should) to bring that GPA up to meet the requirement. Why lower the standards if those who are so close are fully capable of meeting the requirements with a little hard work? The time you are spending browsing SDN forums and rambling on and on about why your 2.9 should be "good enough" should be devoted to more important things like getting off your tooshie and signing up for more classes to make that 2.9 a 3.0. If you're not willing to take some classes to bring that GPA up, is your "passion" to be an optometrist really all its worked up to be?

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE... IT IS WHAT IT IS, so get over it and do something about it!

Geez, and to think I'd ever post something this long on SDN. The purpose of this post was not to merely discourage you or anyone in your similar position, but to give you the best advice you're going to get to motivate you to take responsibility of your future.

 

[mwyt15]

Wow why is this thread still going...it seems like the same points are being said over and over again. Why don't we just let the admissions committees do their job.

Nicely put FLCBruin84, I totally agree with your points. The real world is out there people, whether you like it or not. Once in a while, we have to accept the fact that there will be hardships in everyone's lives. I'm sure the people with decent GPAs must've also encountered some form of hardships too. Life just sucks sometimes like that. There is nothing we can do about it but to learn from it and try to not let the same thing happen in the future. Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with everyone who's told their own stories in this thread. But I know personally of people who have struggled academically and/or personally during college and many of them have come through and succeeding.

 

[Omega3]

Word on the previous two posts.

 

[alanan84]

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE... IT IS WHAT IT IS, so get over it and do something about it!
quote]

You're right, it is what it is, which means that people with sub 3.0 GPA's will continue to get in. So get over it. The whiners that I see on here are the one's complaining that Billy Bob got in with a 2.8. Poor me, I worked my butt off to get a 3.5 and then Billy gets in with a 2.8. He can't possibly have worked as hard as me, blah blah blah. You're off track here. Life is unfair and people DO get in with lower GPAs. It is rare and it should be very rare. No one argues that these "bottom tier" students should be working their butts off to get their grades up. My point, and I'll say it again for the last time because no one seems to challenge me on this, is that why are we calling for a minimum cutoff? Why belittle the person that gets in with the lowest GPA? Again, if you miraculously get in with a GPA below 3.0, my hat's off to you. Goodness people, this is a little ridiculous.

 

[DrRobs]

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE... IT IS WHAT IT IS, so get over it and do something about it!
quote]

You're right, it is what it is, which means that people with sub 3.0 GPA's will continue to get in. So get over it. The whiners that I see on here are the one's complaining that Billy Bob got in with a 2.8. Poor me, I worked my butt off to get a 3.5 and then Billy gets in with a 2.8. He can't possibly have worked as hard as me, blah blah blah. You're off track here. Life is unfair and people DO get in with lower GPAs. It is rare and it should be very rare. No one argues that these "bottom tier" students should be working their butts off to get their grades up. My point, and I'll say it again for the last time because no one seems to challenge me on this, is that why are we calling for a minimum cutoff? Why belittle the person that gets in with the lowest GPA? Again, if you miraculously get in with a GPA below 3.0, my hat's off to you. Goodness people, this is a little ridiculous.

It is rediculous, no one is reading what things are posting anymore, why is this continuing. Now its just getting out of hand. Its a bell curve, theres gona be ppl who slip in even if there is a standard requirement, who have done that. I said that before so I'm saying it again, its not registering apparently, ur right rediculous is the word.

 

[DrRobs]

And I will do another quote, this time by one of my favorite singers...

"can't we get a little grace, and some elegance, no we scream in cathedrals, why can't it be beautiful, why does there have to be a sacrifice?"

those lyrics are probably way beyond anyones heads, but appropriate.

 

[Pre Opt Student]

Im a little confused. So I just recently got interested in Optometry so ive been reading alot of this forum to figure out how to increase my chances of getting in this fall. But, when I called around the schools to find out what sort of grades I would need they pretty much ALL told me that a 3.0 gpa is COMPETITIVE. so doesnt that mean you have a higher chance of getting in with a 3.0 if it is competitive? But the way you guys make it sound, its like the minimum requirement....

 

[winterlily05]

Wow! Winterlily05, Your efforts to justify yourself here on SDN are really just obnoxious. You have to realize that the time and effort you're using to justify your beliefs on this thread are really getting you nowhere in your attempts to be accepted. I've never put so much effort into replying to a specific thread, but your posts are annoying me so much! Maybe I'm just annoyed because I was once like you...stuck with a GPA lower than a 3.0, wasting my time rambling over and over about why I should be accepted into optometry school despite a deficient academic record. Since your probably going to ask me for specifics as to why I feel this way.. what better way to explain myself than to quote you...


As quoted by Eyestrain, stating that you are passionate about something can only get you so far. How can an admissions committee deem a candidate "passionate and willing" to work their best in optometry school? This is why they set minimum standards for applicants, because it is almost merely impossible to predict who will succeed academically at their instiution based on "passion," "determination," and "willingness" alone. Do you expect them to take your word against all the other thousands of applicants that state that they are just as "passionate, determined and willing" as you? Why don't you gear that passion towards showing them that you can succeed academically: re-take pre requisite classes, do well in them, and thus raise your GPA. If they lower their standards, they're only causing a potential domino effect: If it is lowered to a 2.9, applicants with 2.8's will want it to be lowered to a 2.8 and then applicants with 2.7's will want requirements to be lowered to 2.7. It's not changing, so stop whining!

While optometry school does have a lot to do with "passion" and "determination," let's not forget that it is an academic institution. Hey, I want to be the next American Idol, but I can't sing for the life of me.. will passion and determination really bring me to closer to reaching that goal? haha BE PRACTICAL!

Yet again, you emphasize that everyone has their own sob story. If a person has this many things going on in their life, what makes an admissions committee believe that the "new and improved" applicant can succeed in optometry school if they're accepted? Have you forgotten that optometry school costs an average of $20,000? For the most part, you won't be able to work since you will be spending most of your time studying for weekly tests and board exams. If a person blames their poor academic performance on the fact that they have children, family obligations and "multiple jobs to pay for their education," what makes admissions think that they'll be able to succeed in an even more rigorous acadmic setting. If case you've forgotten, children, family issues and financial debt don't disappear once you start optometry school!

Come on, if you're really at a 2.9 you should only really have to retake a few classes and get A's in them (as you should) to bring that GPA up to meet the requirement. Why lower the standards if those who are so close are fully capable of meeting the requirements with a little hard work? The time you are spending browsing SDN forums and rambling on and on about why your 2.9 should be "good enough" should be devoted to more important things like getting off your tooshie and signing up for more classes to make that 2.9 a 3.0. If you're not willing to take some classes to bring that GPA up, is your "passion" to be an optometrist really all its worked up to be?


Geez, and to think I'd ever post something this long on SDN. The purpose of this post was not to merely discourage you or anyone in your similar position, but to give you the best advice you're going to get to motivate you to take responsibility of your future.

First off all, what is the deal with people loving to jump to assumptions? Me defending the sub 3.0 GPA's automatically means that I myself have below a 3.0 huh? Sorry to tell you this, but I'm actually not in that catagory. My GPA may not be a 3.9, but it it above a 2.9, let me assure you.
My tooshie is fine right where it is, thankyou very much. And if you think I'm one of those obnoxious 2.9-ers who sits around whining about it and not doing anything (agian, this is assuming that 2.9 GPAs individuals just sit around doing NADA), then get over that thought real fast. I worked hard for my grades, and also have 2 jobs, and a family to take care of, but I don't look below those who are not up to par w/ my GPA.

I honestly don't see how my wanting the people close to the desirable GPA to have a chance at what they want to do is like the domino affect. Why do you have to go from a 2.9 to a 2.8, to a 2.7? If you have a 2.7, then yes, go retake some classes, but a 2.9? I, myself would like to increase my GPA up to a 3.9, that would be lovely, but it is hard for me to take summer classes, etc., so I do have compassion for those on borderline, and who is rejected because they are .1-.2 points away from 'the standard.'

And honestly, I did not bother to read your whole rambling, because the first paragraph already sounded absurd to me. All I have to say is, it really saddens me to see that people view GPA as such a critical component of success. After all, what it boils down to is, GPA is just a number. When an optometrist who have a 3.0 GPA and a optometrist with a 2.8 GPA works in the real world, all it matters is how well a job they do.

And to those who goes on and on about how they work their butts off to raise their GPA to above a 3.0..yeah..good for you? But don't be whining and b*tching about those who gets in with a 2.8 or 2.9...go complain to the schools who sends off those acceptance letters, and stop belittling people with that GPA, assuming they get in because of some dam sob story.

Like everyone else, I realized that things are just being said in circles over and over again, and things are going nowhere. People want to set a 3.0 standard and kick others who are below it out of the way? Great.
Other people wanting to support people who are 2.8-2.9? Lovely.
It's not up to us to make the rules anyway. Schools send acceptance letters to both GPA scales for a reason, so just let them be, and let's all shutup shall we?

 

[eyestrain]

Why do you have to go from a 2.9 to a 2.8, to a 2.7? If you have a 2.7, then yes, go retake some classes, but a 2.9?

Based on this, your absolute cutoff must be 2.8, correct? I just want to clarify, because on one hand you say their shouldn't be a standard, but yet you still seem to be advocating one. Just trying to understand....

 

[winterlily05]

Based on this, your absolute cutoff must be 2.8, correct? I just want to clarify, because on one hand you say their shouldn't be a standard, but yet you still seem to be advocating one. Just trying to understand....

Here we go again...this is going to be the absolute last time okay eyestrain? Let's give these folks some peace, because obviously, neither one of us is getting it.

I think the problem here is, when you say 'cut-off,' you mean ABSOLUTELY that GPA, and nothing else. And I know what you're going to say, "If your cut-off point is 2.8, then shouldn't a 2.6 or 2.7 be considered."

In my book, I guess I view it as more of a 'desirable' GPA...Professional schools would love to have everyone who are 3.0+ (considering that 3.0 is desirable to them), but they're not going to throw those who are 2.8 or 2.9 aside, they're going to take everything else of that person into consideration (ie, LOC, activies, etc) to see if that person deserves a chance to be in their school or not. However, what if another person have a 2.6 or 2.7? Well then, they should certainly try to raise that GPA, because it is not very close to the 'desirable' GPA. I think a 2.7 is worth some time to raise it up, but I guess in my book, a 2.9 is really not worth all that time and money to raise it up .1 point.
I don't know if any of you realize this, but classes are not cheap nowadays. And how can you guarentee that you won't have a @ss of a professor who hates your guts and give you a D no matter how hard you work?

 

[winterlily05]

Im a little confused. So I just recently got interested in Optometry so ive been reading alot of this forum to figure out how to increase my chances of getting in this fall. But, when I called around the schools to find out what sort of grades I would need they pretty much ALL told me that a 3.0 gpa is COMPETITIVE. so doesnt that mean you have a higher chance of getting in with a 3.0 if it is competitive? But the way you guys make it sound, its like the minimum requirement....

PreOpt Student, sorry about all the hoopla in here confusing you. The fact is that there IS a competitive GPA in optometry school, but does that mean that they'll automatically reject you if you don't have a 3.0? Not necessarily. (now, if you have a 2.0, that's a different story....) I think what some people in this thread are trying to say is, there SHOULD be a minimum requirement at 3.0. (It should be competitive at 3.0, but to say that you HAVE to have a 3.0 to even deserve to get into Opt. school is stupid, IMO).

However, do try to keep your grades up, as it WILL be more favorable, but it is really not the end of the world if you're below 3.0.
Not everyone who is above a 3.0 get in, and not everyone who is below a 3.0 get rejected.

 

[eyestrain]

Here we go again...this is going to be the absolute last time okay eyestrain? Let's give these folks some peace, because obviously, neither one of us is getting it.

I think the problem here is, when you say 'cut-off,' you mean ABSOLUTELY that GPA, and nothing else. And I know what you're going to say, "If your cut-off point is 2.8, then shouldn't a 2.6 or 2.7 be considered."

In my book, I guess I view it as more of a 'desirable' GPA...Professional schools would love to have everyone who are 3.0+ (considering that 3.0 is desirable to them), but they're not going to throw those who are 2.8 or 2.9 aside, they're going to take everything else of that person into consideration (ie, LOC, activies, etc) to see if that person deserves a chance to be in their school or not. However, what if another person have a 2.6 or 2.7? Well then, they should certainly try to raise that GPA, because it is not very close to the 'desirable' GPA. I think a 2.7 is worth some time to raise it up, but I guess in my book, a 2.9 is really not worth all that time and money to raise it up .1 point.
I don't know if any of you realize this, but classes are not cheap nowadays. And how can you guarentee that you won't have a @ss of a professor who hates your guts and give you a D no matter how hard to work?

I think I actually agree with you, but only because what you suggest is the same thing as a standard GPA. I'm really not trying to be dense, but you've said time and time again that a 2.8 shouldn't automatically be rejected. Okay, I understand. You also say that a 2.7 should have to raise their GPA because it's not competitive enough. How is that not a standard of 2.8?

 

[winterlily05]

I think I actually agree with you, but only because what you suggest is the same thing as a standard GPA. I'm really not trying to be dense, but you've said time and time again that a 2.8 shouldn't automatically be rejected. Okay, I understand. You also say that a 2.7 should have to raise their GPA because it's not competitive enough. How is that not a standard of 2.8?

Okay, if you MUST use the word standard...I'm not actually advocating for more sub 3.0 acceptance. However, I'm in favor of giving people who have GPAs very close to the desirable GPA a chance. To me, a 2.8 or 2.9 GPA is closer to a 3.0 than a 2.7 is. (Like I said, I'm not advocating for sub 3.0 admissions, and I do think a 2.7 could still be considered for admissions, but the 2.8 and 2.9 will have a higher chance, providing the desirable GPA is 3.0).
To say that anyone without a 3.0 GPA (exactly this number) should be automatically rejected because presumably, they're not going to well in the program, is just a little ridiculous. The small number difference does not make one better than the other. Giving those people with sub 3.0 a chance doesn't mean that they'll get in. It's up to them to prove to the adm. that they can do it through their interview, etc.
GPA's should not be the most important thing...it should be ofset by other things also.

Thus, I think that the more appropriate word would be 'desirable/competitive GPA' with what I'm trying to say. When you're associating the word 'standard' with what I'm thinking, then it's just not going to work.

Whether or not any of this is making sense, let's just end it.

 

[Chiuey]

/end topic nao

 

[149Leopard]

I think what we are misunderstanding is that admissions committees look at the overall student package. Yes, GPA does come into play but the level of difficulty in the courses taken also play a role. A tough hard science major, Like a Nueroscience or Biochemistry major, who has taken classes as a soph and jr in undergrad that are comparable to that of 1st and 2nd year opt school, is looked upon favorably. Also, the caliber of the undergrad institution plays a factor. Lastly, beyond the academic transcript is your essays which are huge! If you are a student athlete, that too play a big role. Involvement in the community and student leadership roles. Lastly, if you are an under represented minority (African American, Hispanic and native American; asians and poor people don't count) the percentage of optometrists in practice that are of these ethnicities is under 2%, so they may look at you favorably if you are one of the above.

 

[nc2tarheels]

sorry, but I'm 25. I had a son at age 16 and tried to the whole college thing. Couldn't balance that with a new son, so the focus went to the son. Now I'm back and averaging a 3.8 GPA. If you include my time back when i was 18 and fresh out of high school, my gpa was VERY low. But now that I can focus on it and i'm not in that circumstance....i'm better suited. I've also been working in optical since i was 18, and I'm a licensed optician. That should look good on my application.

 

[KHE]

sorry, but I'm 25. I had a son at age 16 and tried to the whole college thing. Couldn't balance that with a new son, so the focus went to the son. Now I'm back and averaging a 3.8 GPA. If you include my time back when i was 18 and fresh out of high school, my gpa was VERY low. But now that I can focus on it and i'm not in that circumstance....i'm better suited. I've also been working in optical since i was 18, and I'm a licensed optician. That should look good on my application.

Look....

Any reasonable person would say that in a case like yours, it is acceptable to discard the poor grades from years ago and start with a clean slate. No one expets that a poor performance from years ago, no matter the reason should be a boat anchor around your neck for the rest of your life. Certainly if you had a 1.5 10 years ago and dropped out of school then and you have since gone back and obtained a 3.8 now and it averages out to a 2.65, no one is going to begrudge you your admittance.

I'm not saying that you need to have a 3.0 cumulative for every single course you've ever taken in your life because there ARE plenty of cases like yours. However, for whatever 4 years worth of school you want to use towards your optometry school application, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to somehow manage to pull off a B.

 

[Noemimi]

I agree with many, even the two sides that keep fighting back and forth. A 3.0 should be the cut off to get into Optometry school. I'm sorry but I have had many family deaths, issues, and I also work. And yes, I have the bad professors, poorly written tests, etc. I am managing to get above a 3.0 gpa. If someone has the "passion" to become an Optometrist, then meet the requirements even if it takes you an extra year to take other classes. If someone wants it that badly, they can wait to reach their dream.

I also believe that there are some rare cases, but honestly, if you have ALL the time for the extra activities you added to your application, why don't you have the time to raise your grades? Many things are taken into consideration when applying.... TRUE. But just like you HAVE to take the required classes, you should meet the MIN GPA... it's not like it is THAT hard to achieve.

And come on... as DOCTORS, you would hope they would be able to get a B. As people have said, your grades also do reflect your ability to manage your time, your study ability, your intelligence, etc.

The funny thing is... most of the people that say that their shouldn't be a min, all got a B average, even with the obstacles tehy had to overcome. So if you were able to and you wanted it enough to raise your grades, so should others. When you show them you are trying to raise your grades to meet their min, it also shows determination and passion...

 

[sportvision]

getting into opt school is different from getting out....people were in different situations leading to opt school...so i don't think the cut off means anything....however yeh i believe O.D sshould be able to get B easily....so set the standard that O.D can't grad with gpa lower than 3.3 or even a 3.5 . everyone is in the same playing field that's fair. the number will make the profession look better and so is the quality. then there won't be anymore complain about oversupply of ODs...

 

[sportvision]

one more thing i like to add...undergrad and opt school are different...undergrads should seek a degree that will make them a more rounded person...because that's still an experimental stage...not to buff up GPAs. example if i have a 3.0 gpa and i want to take a neuroscience class for elective in addition to my regular course load....but i might get a C or D and drop my gpa below 3.0...vs someone trying to take classes to buff up their gpa.

another point...is being an A student in HS will meaing that he will get an A in college? Or does C student mean he won't get A in college...you guys see what i am trying to get at? GPA in HS means nothing in college...so why should college GPA means anything in opt school...?

one more thing i noticed...some of the people that wants a cutoff minimum are the ones that had a below 3.0 then had to work hard to bring it up...i respect that...if there were difficult circumstances then you guys would understand it already. why no chance for someone that has a lower than average gpa in undergrad?

when there is an absolute cutoff...all the pre-opt people going to care is gpa...sometime i get so tire of hearing all undergrad talking nowaday is gpa.

I have above average GPA... i am not saying accept a lot of people with below GPA...but certainly give them a chance of consideration. because if a 2.5 gpa 370 oat working a lot of hours vs 3.7gpa 320oat...i know 3.7gpa would get in, but i feel that gpa is bloated. i don't think it's fair to weedout that person with 2.5.

 

[eyestrain]

another point...is being an A student in HS will meaing that he will get an A in college? Or does C student mean he won't get A in college...you guys see what i am trying to get at? GPA in HS means nothing in college...so why should college GPA means anything in opt school...?

Are you joking? So I guess past performance doesn't predict future performance anymore. Listen, we all get that there are some people who sucked in high school and got great grades in college. There are also some people who stunk it up in college who squeezed into optometry school and excelled. We all understand. But those are exceptions. Students with high GPAs have shown that they are able to perform at a high level in school and, as a group, are going to better suited to perform in optometry school than those with lower GPAs who couldn't even get it done in college.

And the point here that is always missed is that a 3.0 iSN'T THAT HARD TO GET. Getting a 3.0 basically involves showing up for class, getting assignments done on time, and studying a little for the tests. It's a pretty low bar. No one is expecting perfection.

 

[Optman87]

Are you joking? So I guess past performance doesn't predict future performance anymore.

Well it sure didn't for Eli Manning in the playoffs this year!

 

[sportvision]

eyestrain...the point is i want people in those exceptions to have chance. no cut off because there are exceptions. it seems like we both agree that there are exeptions...i am arguing for these exceptions...cause not a lot of 2.? people will get in...but they should still beconsidered though.


when the school admission set a gpa standard...they are telling the pre-opts this...pick a major and take classes that you can get good grades in...don't pick anything challenging to risk your career... these students are missing out a lot from their undergrad years...then they get to opt school...they wished they should've gone into something else...med, law, engineers etc...(for the talented students)...i have heard a lot of stories and read posts about this...from opt students adn optometrists.

For those others tried the easy way to get to opt school...they will find it to be quite different and they might struggle.

i agree 3.0 is not a high standard...but it's comparing apples to oranges...i like the sport analogies that people make earlier. as long as people can perform at the professional level...that's all that matters. of course everyone has to pass through opt school first...



but honestly...how many pre opt students out there are chosing majors or picking classes because of gpa reasons?....since this is a pre opt forum...some input from pre opt students please. 😕

 

[eyestrain]

i agree 3.0 is not a high standard...but it's comparing apples to oranges...i like the sport analogies that people make earlier. as long as people can perform at the professional level...that's all that matters. of course everyone has to pass through opt school first..

Your analogy is a little flawed. A better analogy would be that of a person who thinks they can play baseball really well professionally, despite showing no ability to do so at any previous level. They might have all that "passion" that everyone blabs about, but passion doesn't get you very far if you can't play baseball.

 

[149Leopard]

And the point here that is always missed is that a 3.0 iSN'T THAT HARD TO GET. Getting a 3.0 basically involves showing up for class, getting assignments done on time, and studying a little for the tests. It's a pretty low bar. No one is expecting perfection.[/quote]



Ummmm..... you're wrong. Getting a 3.0 at a high level, competitive school where a cut throat environment is dominant, with a difficult major, is not easy!!!!!

You must just not know because you never experienced these conditions.

Very simple, a Biochem or Neuroscience major at Cornell who has bellow a 3.0 GPA is not only a harder worker than anyone in a state school, but is a more than likely a better candidate for optometry school. Just graduating from a school like Cornell where there is no grade inflation (like Harvard) and the grading scheme is designed to have students act towards each other in a cut throat fashion, is more of an accomplishment than anyone who went to some big state school where there is more competition in consuming alcohol and making home made girl gone wilds videos.


So yeah, getting a 3.0 is not as easy as going to class and studying a little bit before a test.