OAT to offset low gpa?

[socal2014]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Wondering what the minimum OAT score necessary to offset a low GPA is.

I am pretty sure 300aats is the avg, while 400aats is the highest score one can receive.

thanks.

 

[KHE]

Wondering what the minimum OAT score necessary to offset a low GPA is.

I am pretty sure 300aats is the avg, while 400aats is the highest score one can receive.

thanks.

This is something that needs to be directed to the schools you are thinking of applying to. Obviously, the question is "how low is low?" Different schools will have different standards on that.

 

[oceanblue392]

I had a low GPA, around 2.9 area..and compensated with a high OAT. first time i took it I got a 350, but didnt feel it was high enough, so took it a second time and got a 390. obviously there are other factors that go into admissions.

 

[JMU07]

It really depends on the rest of your app. I got in with a 3.1 and a 350. But the rest of your app is important as well.

 

[dentiist2be]

I had a low GPA, around 2.9 area..and compensated with a high OAT. first time i took it I got a 350, but didnt feel it was high enough, so took it a second time and got a 390. obviously there are other factors that go into admissions.

What did you use to study for the OAT? & how did you study differently the second time around to improve so much?

Thanks!

 

[eyestrain]

Wondering what the minimum OAT score necessary to offset a low GPA is.

I am pretty sure 300aats is the avg, while 400aats is the highest score one can receive.

thanks.

How low of a GPA are we talking about here?

I think my feelings on the subject are well known, or least WERE well known. I still don't think anyone with a sub 3.0 should be getting in under any circumstances. Sorrrrrrry.

 

[Kevin4Eyes]

How low of a GPA are we talking about here?

I think my feelings on the subject are well known, or least WERE well known. I still don't think anyone with a sub 3.0 should be getting in under any circumstances. Sorrrrrrry.

So the person with a 2.9 cumulative who got a 3.9 and 4.0 their last 2 semesters before applying, and got a 390 OAT shouldn't get in? I hate to break it to you but that's exactly what one of my friends did and she got offered an interview to all of the 5 schools she applied to, and got accepted to all 3 of the schools she elected to interview at. During her undergraduate career when her grades weren't very good she was a varsity athlete.

How does one's undergraduate GPA determine how good of a doctor they will be? I'm just so happy you're able to look at the gray areas of life and look at things on a case by case basis instead of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.

 

[KHE]

So the person with a 2.9 cumulative who got a 3.9 and 4.0 their last 2 semesters before applying, and got a 390 OAT shouldn't get in? I hate to break it to you but that's exactly what one of my friends did and she got offered an interview to all of the 5 schools she applied to, and got accepted to all 3 of the schools she elected to interview at. During her undergraduate career when her grades weren't very good she was a varsity athlete.

How does one's undergraduate GPA determine how good of a doctor they will be? I'm just so happy you're able to look at the gray areas of life and look at things on a case by case basis instead of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.

Assuming an 8 semester undergraduate career, someone who received a 3.9 and a 4.0 in their last two semesters to obtain an overall cumulative GPA of 2.9 would have had to have averaged a 2.55 over the first six semesters.

Is it unreasonable to expect that people applying for admission to professional programs in which they are to be trained to care for the visual welfare of the public be expected to somehow manage to come up with a B average over the course of an undergraduate career?

We have arbitrary lines in the sand all over our society. You have to be 16 to drive a car. Not 15 years and 363 days but your dad let you drive the car every Sunday in the mall parking lot.

You have to be 18 to vote. Not 17 and 360 days but you're president of the local young democrats and are really really into politics.

You have to be 48 inches tall to ride Space Mountain. Not 46 inches.

It would seem to me that a 3.0 GPA is not an unreasonable think to expect someone asking to be trained and licensed to care for the vision of the public.

 

[jc328]

I believe the purpose of calculating GPA and OAT is to help the schools to determine whether a person is capable of handling the rigors load of optometry school. But it is not a good estimate of one's intelligence, personality, work ethic, etc., that's why schools considers extracurricular experiences in the application and many adopt close file interviews so they can better evaluate a person as a whole without prejudice.


We (Americans) have elected a President with GPA lower than 3.0…. twice, I think the public can accept an optometrist with sub 3.0 undergrad GPA. Also, it is not a smooth ride after one enrolled to the optometry school. There are many exam and practical throughout the program to ensure the students are competent with the knowledge and skill that are required for the profession, and a national board to certify the training. In my opinion, it is easy to find applicants that's smart enough to complete the program, but much harder to find someone with a passion in the field. And as a patient, I care about my health care provider's skill, personality, and passion much more than his/her undergrad GPA.

 

[rodomon]

You have to be 16 to drive a car. You have to be 18 to vote. You have to be 48 inches tall to ride Space Mountain.

There are exceptions to all of those, both legal and not. Most rules, including laws, are general guidelines; individual circumstances matter. As they would in this case.

Is it unreasonable to expect that people applying for admission to professional programs in which they are to be trained to care for the visual welfare of the public be expected to somehow manage to come up with a B average over the course of an undergraduate career?

People can change.

 

[KHE]

I believe the purpose of calculating GPA and OAT is to help the schools to determine whether a person is capable of handling the rigors load of optometry school. But it is not a good estimate of one’s intelligence, personality, work ethic, etc., that’s why schools considers extracurricular experiences in the application and many adopt close file interviews so they can better evaluate a person as a whole without prejudice.


We (Americans) have elected a President with GPA lower than 3.0…. twice, I think the public can accept an optometrist with sub 3.0 undergrad GPA. Also, it is not a smooth ride after one enrolled to the optometry school. There are many exam and practical throughout the program to ensure the students are competent with the knowledge and skill that are required for the profession, and a national board to certify the training. In my opinion, it is easy to find applicants that’s smart enough to complete the program, but much harder to find someone with a passion in the field. And as a patient, I care about my health care provider's skill, personality, and passion much more than his/her undergrad GPA.

So let's just bag the whole annoying admissions process then.

We'll have open admissions for optometry school and then anyone who can pass the exams and the NBEO can practice. Those that can't can go find something else to do. That sounds good.

 

[KHE]

There are exceptions to all of those, both legal and not. Most rules, including laws, are general guidelines; individual circumstances matter. As they would in this case.


People can change.

Are you kidding me? Please show me any one law that is a "general guideline." I can't think of any.

And as far as people can change, of course they can. I did. I can't say that my first year of undergraduate was my time to be the shining star.

But by the time I was done, I had it up over 3.0. Is that so unreasonable?

 

[Eye Understand]

.

 

[thecgrblue]

I find it quite hard to believe that optometry students find time out of their daily routine to debate about meaningless topics through online forums. I guess it shows that I will have a great deal of time on my hands once I start optometry school.

Spare us the sarcasm, we can all play that stupid game.

I appreciate what KHE has to offer in all these forums especially in his attempts to prevent the propagation of incompetent health care professionals in this world.

In a perfect world the admissions process and board exams will act as a filter to keep standards high. Even if that doesn't work, hopefully patients won't go to an idiot doctor for very long and he will leave the field bankrupt before causing any real damage to someone.

 

[KHE]

This issue seems to flare up on here from time to time and I guess I just would ask again for clarification...

Are people actually suggesting that there should be NO minimum standard for optometry school admissions?

Like, a 2.7 is OK as long as they have a good OAT and really really want to be an optometrist?

Or a 2.5 is OK as long as they have a REALLY good OAT and really really REALLY want to be an optometrist?

Or how about a 2.0 as long they have a SUPERB OAT and really really REALLY want to be an optometrist, pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top?

Is that what people are saying? No minimum standard?

 

[jc328]

While I appreciate KHE's concern for the quality of optometry students, most schools has their own formula to determine the level of threshold GPA and OAT they want their students to have. Some school weights the OAT more than others, in that case high OAT might offset low GPA. The way I see the issue is that low GPA ie 2.9 is probably on the bottom 5% of the applicant population, hence that person will probably need a 380 OAT (top 5% of the population) to pass the threshold. Of course there will be a point where the GPA is too low to be offset by the OAT, and it's probably very close to 3.0, but it is up to the admissions to determine where to draw the line. The best way to find out if your stats is competitive enough for the school is to call them and ask.

 

[Eye Understand]

.

 

[eyestrain]

It's about time someone responded to me and my post went over about as well as I expected. People still seem to think that we don't need any standards to get into OD school (which, with additional schools, is unfortunately becoming more of a reality). A 3.0 is a perfectly fine line in the sand. Anyone intelligent enough to get into optometry school should be able to pull a 3.0 in undergrad with their eyes closed and two hands tied behind their backs. And like KHE says, where are you guys going to draw that GPA line? You know there's a limit somewhere. Put a number on it.

EDIT: Seriously, I want to see some numbers. What's your bottom line.

 

[SilhouetteSight]

I agree with KHE and eyestrain.

No one is arguing that personality and passion do not matter. But there need to be academic standards and objective measures, because how you can choose between two people based off of a 1-2 hour interview?

I can only speak for my school but I think SCCO's admissions process is very fair. No one under a 3.0 GPA and at least a 300 on EVERY OAT section is even granted an interview. But after you are granted an interview, throw all those numbers out the window because it's closed file and acceptance is based purely off how they assess your commitment to optometry is.

Some questions you need to be ready for. But many are things you should have asked yourself already before choosing a career that may last a lifetime.

Why do you want to do optometry? Have you shadowed some ODs to determine that this is really what you want to do? Why do you want to go to this school? Do you know optometry is a legislated profession? Etc.

 

[socal2014]

IMO, schools should just use the OAT score or at least put more emphasis on the OAT score, while also noting the interview. Of course, the OAT might need to be altered a bit.

There are just too many factors that can influence the GPA and after all GPA is just a number. Is a 3.5 THAT much better than a 3.3 or is a 3.0 THAT much better than a 2.8? Is a B+ grade THAT much better than a B- grade? Numbers are deceiving, and as such, should not be directly used to analyze a students college career and the abilities of that student in future educational years.

Lastly, what does the GPA even mean? I do not think there is an agreement in the definition of GPA between schools and students, therefore even the most able students are turned down by schools.

 

[eyestrain]

IMO, schools should just use the OAT score or at least put more emphasis on the OAT score, while also noting the interview. Of course, the OAT might need to be altered a bit.

There are just too many factors that can influence the GPA and after all GPA is just a number. Is a 3.5 THAT much better than a 3.3 or is a 3.0 THAT much better than a 2.8? Is a B+ grade THAT much better than a B- grade? Numbers are deceiving, and as such, should not be directly used to analyze a students college career and the abilities of that student in future educational years.

Lastly, what does the GPA even mean? I do not think there is an agreement in the definition of GPA between schools and students, therefore even the most able students are turned down by schools.

What does GPA mean? It's a number that represents your overall academic performance over a period of time. I'd say it's pretty important. And what's to stop you from saying, "oh, 3.0 isn't THAT much better than a 2.8 and 2.8 really isn't THAT much better than a 2.4 and 2.4 isn't THAT much better than a 2.0" etc etc etc.

What's your bottom line? Put a number on the absolute lowest GPA that should be considered for admission to an optometry school.

 

[jc328]

How would you compare a 2.8 (B- average) from more competitive schools such as the MIT to 3.0 (B average) from a less competitive school? There's a big gap in the quality of education and competitiveness among undergrad institutes, hence it is difficult for optometry school to draw the GPA line. Each school has their own way of determining the quality of applicants, and it is not up to us to say where to draw the line. A better approach would be contacting opt. schools and ask about their policy on GPA rather than arguing in the forum.

 

[kiwi5frog]

I agree with KHE and eyestrain.

No one is arguing that personality and passion do not matter. But there need to be academic standards and objective measures, because how you can choose between two people based off of a 1-2 hour interview?

I can only speak for my school but I think SCCO's admissions process is very fair. No one under a 3.0 GPA and at least a 300 on EVERY OAT section is even granted an interview. But after you are granted an interview, throw all those numbers out the window because it's closed file and acceptance is based purely off how they assess your commitment to optometry is.

Some questions you need to be ready for. But many are things you should have asked yourself already before choosing a career that may last a lifetime.

Why do you want to do optometry? Have you shadowed some ODs to determine that this is really what you want to do? Why do you want to go to this school? Do you know optometry is a legislated profession? Etc.

Actually, this year SCCO is accepting scores under 300. I believe there's a student with sub 300 scores in 2 sections that was accepted this year. Dr. Munroe also confirmed that you don't need a 300 in every section to be accepted.

 

[SilhouetteSight]

Actually, this year SCCO is accepting scores under 300. I believe there's a student with sub 300 scores in 2 sections that was accepted this year. Dr. Munroe also confirmed that you don't need a 300 in every section to be accepted.

Oops I stand corrected. Thanks for the update.

 

[eyestrain]

Actually, this year SCCO is accepting scores under 300. I believe there's a student with sub 300 scores in 2 sections that was accepted this year. Dr. Munroe also confirmed that you don't need a 300 in every section to be accepted.

Ugh. It just keeps getting better.

 

[socal2014]

Honestly, there is no number. The GPA is relative to each student. As a poster mentioned above, schools have a great amount of influence on your GPA, for example. What you major in is also a huge factor.

All the GPA is supposed to show is how hardworking a person is (which can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it) though there are some outliers. It isn't hard to obtain a 3.0 GPA, but that doesn't mean it should be the fine line.

Ultimately, however, supply and demand dictates GPA.

 

[eyestrain]

Honestly, there is no number. The GPA is relative to each student. As a poster mentioned above, schools have a great amount of influence on your GPA, for example. What you major in is also a huge factor.

All the GPA is supposed to show is how hardworking a person is (which can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it) though there are some outliers. It isn't hard to obtain a 3.0 GPA, but that doesn't mean it should be the fine line.

Ultimately, however, supply and demand dictates GPA.

Well, that begs the question: should someone with 1.0 be allowed in under any circumstance? Apparently you'd say yes.

 

[kiwi5frog]

OAT 300/GPA 3.0 bare minimum seems perfectly reasonable. If anything, raising those standards would be ideal.

My question is, will the optometry curriculum and NBEO eliminate students who did poorly in undergrad (but made it through admissions) from the field anyway?

 

[eyestrain]

OAT 300/GPA 3.0 bare minimum seems perfectly reasonable. If anything, raising those standards would be ideal.

My question is, will the optometry curriculum and NBEO eliminate students who did poorly in undergrad (but made it through admissions) from the field anyway?

I would hope so, but honestly, I don't think OD school is particularly difficult. There are probably some kids who SHOULD have been weeded out, but weren't. I imagine that problem is only getting worse.