One bad quarter ruining an upward trend?

[amakhosidlo]

I've been on an upward trend for the past 2.5 years (>3.6 in U.D bio), after getting really mediocre grades in the majority of my prereqs (2.8's)

This quarter I'm worried that my upward trend will be ruined by two classes that are regarded as GPA killers due to an exceptionally harsh grading scale. I'm standing at around a 3.0 right now, which my professors for some reason think is "excellent" (given the subject matter).

I'm doing really well in my other classes (biochem and a special topics class) but since the 'killer' classes are both 5 credits, and the others TOTAL 5 credits, I'm worried that this quarter will totally ruin the turnaround I've put together, and that it'll look on my transcript like I reverted to my "old ways".

I realize that everyone has "tough quarters" but for most people it's just one (or two) rough spot(s) on an otherwise stellar record.

How do "rough quarters" impact applicants who are working on an upward trend? Aside from simply "buckling down" and getting 4.0's, how would I demonstrate that this isn't a reversion, and that my performance this quarter is actually significantly "under par" for these harshly curved classes?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[redlight]

can the prof who told you your grade is "excellent" write you a strong rec and explain the quirky grading scale in the letter? how harsh is this class anyways, grading wise?

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

Aside from simply "buckling down" and getting 4.0's, how would I demonstrate that this isn't a reversion, and that my performance this quarter is actually significantly "under par" for these harshly curved classes?

i'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. in order to demonstrate an "upward trend", you need to consistently do well in your classes.

i'm also not sure how much weight is given to "upward trends" anyway, and i always thought it was a sneaky way for people to highlight an artificial strength in something that is really a weakness. think about it, if you don't have a very good GPA, unless you consistently perform mediocrely, there will be durations that you perform poorly, and durations that you perform well. and generally, it happens in THAT order (as people advance through school, they realize they need to get their acts together). so saying you have an "upward trend" is like asking someone to ignore the times you didn't perform well. and how is that better than someone who did well the whole time?

my point:

i think overall/BCMP GPA's are better measures of your competitiveness in the application process. so i would say to forget about trends, and just shoot for as high a GPA as you can get-- or until you feel you have strong enough stats. you may be in a bind because it sounds like you're nearing the end of your undergrad career (2.5 years of strong grades following a rough start of X semesters leaves you with [8 - (5 + X)] semesters left), so you may want to consider a postbac if your GPA's are not up to par.

 

[amakhosidlo]

One of them already is, but I'm worried that (a) He was just being nice when he said that and (b) He doesn't see the grading scale as quirky...

It's really strange too, because everyone else seems to be struggling, and completely fine with "just passing". I'm doing better than ~80% of the class, but I'm still fighting to stay above a 3.0

...and I realize that my stats aren't nearly in the competitive range, and that I'll probably need to do an SMP (mcat's fine, better than fine actually), right now my plan is to apply this cycle, try to get an on a waitlist at a low-tier school, work on my app that year (SMP, EC's), and legitimately shoot for 2015.

 

[amakhosidlo]

i'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for. in order to demonstrate an "upward trend", you need to consistently do well in your classes.

i'm also not sure how much weight is given to "upward trends" anyway, and i always thought it was a sneaky way for people to highlight an artificial strength in something that is really a weakness. think about it, if you don't have a very good GPA, unless you consistently perform mediocrely, there will be durations that you perform poorly, and durations that you perform well. and generally, it happens in THAT order (as people advance through school, they realize they need to get their acts together). so saying you have an "upward trend" is like asking someone to ignore the times you didn't perform well. and how is that better than someone who did well the whole time?

Not to be smart about it, but why shouldn't they?
There are quite a few factors that influence early grades ASIDE from innate ability and work ethic.

The point of an upward trend, from my understanding, was that it demonstrates both of these qualities.

My question, and the answer I was looking for, regarded the impact of a single bad quarter on an upward trend, and the effect it has on an adcom member's perception of your record as a whole.

Example:

Student A does well in all of their pre-reqs because they took AP's in highschool and live down the street from the school. He/she has one bad quarter due to personal issues (breakup, family issues, etc), but are forgiven because they did well in their other classes.

Student B doesn't do as well, for whatever reason initially, but improves dramatically throughout their undergrad. career. Then he/she hits the same rough spot as Student A. Are they too forgiven in light of their otherwise encouraging record of improvement? (Provided that subsequent quarters demonstrate a continuation of their trend, of course).

 

[MDman87]

I'm in the same boat. My GPA has been increasing for the past year or so, but this quarter is destroying me. I've already dropped one class, and it looks now like I might end up with a C in another. A year's worth of hard GPA work down the drain. . . Well, guess it's time to stop whining and get back to studying 🙄

 

[flip26]

Ultimately what matters is the cumulative GPA.

Having an "upward trend" is great, but it is not going to make up for a poor cumulative GPA (same for BCPM GPA).

Lots of your competitors for med school consistently made As all through college - I realize that has to be obvious if the median matriculant GPA is 3.7, but if you are relying on the "upward trend story" to get med schools to overlook your low GPA, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Excelsius]

...
i'm also not sure how much weight is given to "upward trends" anyway, and i always thought it was a sneaky way for people to highlight an artificial strength in something that is really a weakness. think about it, if you don't have a very good GPA, unless you consistently perform mediocrely, there will be durations that you perform poorly, and durations that you perform well. and generally, it happens in THAT order (as people advance through school, they realize they need to get their acts together). so saying you have an "upward trend" is like asking someone to ignore the times you didn't perform well. and how is that better than someone who did well the whole time?

my point:

i think overall/BCMP GPA's are better measures of your competitiveness in the application process. so i would say to forget about trends, and just shoot for as high a GPA as you can get-- or until you feel you have strong enough stats. you may be in a bind because it sounds like you're nearing the end of your undergrad career (2.5 years of strong grades following a rough start of X semesters leaves you with [8 - (5 + X)] semesters left), so you may want to consider a postbac if your GPA's are not up to par.

Let's take a simple scenario: person A has 3.7GPA overall. He has taken close to the minimum number of units (per quarter and overall), has done very well in non-science courses and "fluff," including lower division courses, but his last two years he did poorly in those few, higher level "non-fluff" courses bringing his GPA down. Compare that to person B, who did not do well in most of her lower division classes, but had a close to 4.0 in her last two-three years in a difficult courseload AND she has double the amount of units of person A (let's say her upward trend alone has almost equal number of units as person A's total undergrad) , but her GPA is 3.4. You don't have to be an adcom to see which one is a better deal…

Yes, the overall GPA is very important, but every person has a different case. Also, every SCHOOL has a different requirement, even some of the top schools. There are schools that place 3x more weight on your junior year than on your freshman year. There are adcoms who will place almost all of the weight of your GPA on the last two years of your school, especially if you transferred between schools or had a gap in between. There are many other factors, like the percentage of "fluff" courses vs harder courses. I don't even have to mention personal circumstances, growth, ECs, MCAT and LORs addressing your weaknesses. This is why an upward trend, if done correctly, can be very powerful.

 

[flip26]

Let’s take a simple scenario: person A has 3.7GPA overall. He has taken close to the minimum number of units (per quarter and overall), has done very well in non-science courses and “fluff,” including lower division courses, but his last two years he did poorly in those few, higher level “non-fluff” courses bringing his GPA down. Compare that to person B, who did not do well in most of her lower division classes, but had a close to 4.0 in her last two-three years in a difficult courseload AND she has double the amount of units of person A (let’s say her upward trend alone has almost equal number of units as person A’s total undergrad) , but her GPA is 3.4. You don't have to be an adcom to see which one is a better deal…

Yes, the overall GPA is very important, but every person has a different case. Also, every SCHOOL has a different requirement, even some of the top schools. There are schools that place 3x more weight on your junior year than on your freshman year. There are adcoms who will place almost all of the weight of your GPA on the last two years of your school, especially if you transferred between schools or had a gap in between. There are many other factors, like the percentage of “fluff” courses vs harder courses. I don’t even have to mention personal circumstances, growth, ECs, MCAT and LORs addressing your weaknesses. This is why an upward trend, if done correctly, can be very powerful.

Where are you coming up with the idea that there are schools that place 3X more weight on the junior year, or almost all the weight on the last 2 years? Citations, please.

Your straw man with the negative GPA trend conveniently skirts the issue of BCPM - are you including most or all of the pre-reqs that make up the core of the BCPM in the "fluff" years? If someone has a cum 3.7 GPA, but a much lower BCPM, that will definitely be a problem.

The truth is that in many ways the introductory classes, particularly in the sciences, are the hardest classes to make As in - it is the upper levels where As are more plentiful. This is true not only in the sciences but in the liberal arts.

Therefore, I don't really think there are a lot of people running around out here with 4 year cum 3.7 GPAs who averaged 4.0 in years 1 and 2 followed by a 3.4 for years 3 and 4...

 

[amakhosidlo]

iPhones suck at creating links, but check out the UW's website, and look for selection factors. It's there in black and white: ((Junior Gpa x 3)+(Soph. Gpa x 2) + (frosh Gpa x 1))/6

Some other schools have the same type of policy, though it may not be as public/formalized...

 

[146233]

Yes, a 2.8 "ruins" an upward trend insofar as it's no longer trending upward. Trends help you later in your career; schools understand that freshman year you're adjusting to college and branching out socially and studying Beryllium and Erbium (BeEr). A one-quarter slump won't doom you, but it won't help either. Get back on track.

 

[flip26]

iPhones suck at creating links, but check out the UW's website, and look for selection factors. It's there in black and white: ((Junior Gpa x 3)+(Soph. Gpa x 2) + (frosh Gpa x 1))/6

Some other schools have the same type of policy, though it may not be as public/formalized...

I had never looked at the UW website, but you are correct.

However, I have perused the websites and FAQs of at least 40 other med schools, and have never seen anything like that mentioned.

Any other examples would be helpful.

 

[146233]

Any other examples would be helpful.

Sure would, but many admissions committees keep those kinds of details close to the vest.

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

iPhones suck at creating links, but check out the UW's website, and look for selection factors. It's there in black and white: ((Junior Gpa x 3)+(Soph. Gpa x 2) + (frosh Gpa x 1))/6

Some other schools have the same type of policy, though it may not be as public/formalized...

i think UW is unique in this policy. i haven't seen/heard any concrete evidence about other schools that do this, but even if there are, it's still only "some".

so if you're looking to apply to UW, then you have your answer: the later in your undergrad career that you have a bad semester, the worse it will affect you. and since UW is a highly competitive school, i would start relying on some other strengths to help make you stand out.

i still say do the best you can all the time and not worry about "upward trend". if the school considers something like that to be important, they will select you based on that; but it's not like you can make your case for acceptance by arguing "my GPA's not the best, but, oh, look at my TREND." i hope you have (and you probably do) other things besides trendlines in your stats that serve as highlights of your app.

 

[flip26]

i think UW is unique in this policy. i haven't seen/heard any concrete evidence about other schools that do this, but even if there are, it's still only "some".

so if you're looking to apply to UW, then you have your answer: the later in your undergrad career that you have a bad semester, the worse it will affect you. and since UW is a highly competitive school, i would start relying on some other strengths to help make you stand out.

i still say do the best you can all the time and not worry about "upward trend". if the school considers something like that to be important, they will select you based on that; but it's not like you can make your case for acceptance by arguing "my GPA's not the best, but, oh, look at my TREND." i hope you have (and you probably do) other things besides trendlines in your stats that serve as highlights of your app.

And another point: the applicant who has made As all the way through will still have the "upward trend" people beat, even with this formula.

Nothing beats making As from Day 1 of your freshman year.

 

[MDman87]

This idea that junior and senior GPAs are weighted more heavily than freshman and sophomore (at least by some schools) is new to me. It's very interesting, though. If anyone knows of other schools that do something similar, please share. But like someone said earlier, this type of info is probably kept private by most schools

 

[Excelsius]

Where are you coming up with the idea that there are schools that place 3X more weight on the junior year, or almost all the weight on the last 2 years? Citations, please.

Your straw man with the negative GPA trend conveniently skirts the issue of BCPM - are you including most or all of the pre-reqs that make up the core of the BCPM in the "fluff" years? If someone has a cum 3.7 GPA, but a much lower BCPM, that will definitely be a problem.

The truth is that in many ways the introductory classes, particularly in the sciences, are the hardest classes to make As in - it is the upper levels where As are more plentiful. This is true not only in the sciences but in the liberal arts.

Therefore, I don't really think there are a lot of people running around out here with 4 year cum 3.7 GPAs who averaged 4.0 in years 1 and 2 followed by a 3.4 for years 3 and 4...

Others answered pretty much all of your points. A few additions: I am as familiar with science majors as anyone else since I am double majoring in it. I have also been through about four different schools, ranging from CC to top 5. Science classes get harder as you progress farther. Maybe if inflation is a big issue in a given school, you will not notice this trend as much. Also, I think this is especially true for harder science courses like math and physics. Conservation biology might never get any harder than what it is in the first course, but physics and math get more complex as they progress. There is a reason why the majority of premeds hate physics. Try to take quantum mechanics and come back here to tell me that it was easier than introductory physics or that abstract algebra is easier to understand than the garden variety calculus. You are wrong, and I don't think that even grade inflation is enough to make these upper division courses look easier than the introductory ones. I can understand though if you didn't major in science.

By the way, BCPM is not composed of just pre-reqs. It includes ALL sciences, including many courses that are much more difficult than the pre-req courses - see the above argument. Therefore, it doesn't matter much in my example if pre-reqs have been taken or not. Let's just call them science, which is what they are.

 

[Excelsius]

And another point: the applicant who has made As all the way through will still have the "upward trend" people beat, even with this formula.

Nothing beats making As from Day 1 of your freshman year.

Yes, it is kind of tough to beat 4.0 when it is at the top of the scale, isn't it? But no one is arguing about that (though I could bring you some examples).

 

[flip26]

Others answered pretty much all of your points. A few additions: I am as familiar with science majors as anyone else since I am double majoring in it. I have also been through about four different schools, ranging from CC to top 5. Science classes get harder as you progress farther. Maybe if inflation is a big issue in a given school, you will not notice this trend as much. Also, I think this is especially true for harder science courses like math and physics. Conservation biology might never get any harder than what it is in the first course, but physics and math get more complex as they progress. There is a reason why the majority of premeds hate physics. Try to take quantum mechanics and come back here to tell me that it was easier than introductory physics or that abstract algebra is easier to understand than the garden variety calculus. You are wrong, and I don't think that even grade inflation is enough to make these upper division courses look easier than the introductory ones. I can understand though if you didn't major in science.

By the way, BCPM is not composed of just pre-reqs. It includes ALL sciences, including many courses that are much more difficult than the pre-req courses - see the above argument. Therefore, it doesn't matter much in my example if pre-reqs have been taken or not. Let's just call them science, which is what they are.

I did not say BCPM is composed of just pre-reqs. Reread what I wrote...

I attended a Top 30 research university with a rep for tough grading, and if Pick-A-Prof and similar sites are accurate, the percentage of As awarded in the intro level science classes is much lower than what is awarded in the upper levels. I am not arguing which material is easier but which classes are easier to earn As in.

If what you are saying is true, then science majors would steadily see their GPAs decline in college as they progress to the upper level science classes, and based on everyone I know, and the myriad examples here on SDN, that is not the typical GPA trend.

 

[pakola]

For those interested, I think some of the LCME accredited Canadian schools place more weight on Junior and Senior year GPA's. But it's been a while since I've looked at their websites. Check for those schools in the MSAR and take a look at their websites. I think UBC is one of them though.

 

[MCP1]

It's really strange too, because everyone else seems to be struggling, and completely fine with "just passing". I'm doing better than ~80% of the class, but I'm still fighting to stay above a 3.0

B- = ~80-83%

You say you are doing better than 80% of the class. I do not think this class is graded as harshly as you think.

 

[MDman87]

B- = ~80-83%

You say you are doing better than 80% of the class. I do not think this class is graded as harshly as you think.

Just because someone is doing better than 80% of the class doesn't mean their grade is in the 80% range. I'm near the top of one of my classes (>90%) and I have a high C. . . Talk about frustrating

 

[amakhosidlo]

Just because someone is doing better than 80% of the class doesn't mean their grade is in the 80% range. I'm near the top of one of my classes (>90%) and I have a high C. . . Talk about frustrating

Exactly.

Sometimes I get the feeling that a few upper division courses within my major (and probably others) exist solely to keep you from using the major as a pre-professional stepping stone, or at the very least to try to keep you in the field. Instructors never seem to understand why you're not happy with your 3.(<5) since it's great for the course and the admissions board for (insert your major)'s graduate program will be impressed.

"K...but to the rest of the world, it looks like I suck"