schools that only consider sgpa completed within the last three years?

[ethylalcohol]

---

Members do not see this ad.

accoding to their web site, Roseman dental school considers the higher of the Science GPA completed within the last three years in its admissions decisions.
do you guys know any other schools that do the same thing?
Thanks!

 

[wired202808]

accoding to their web site, Roseman dental school considers the higher of the Science GPA completed within the last three years in its admissions decisions.
do you guys know any other schools that do the same thing?
Thanks!

I've never heard of any other school that does that. In principal, most schools look at totals to access candidates adequately. Its not fair to look only at the last 3 years because you might have a 2.0 GPA previously and that would be totally discounted.

 

[white fang]

While I would think many/most schools heavily weight the most recent 3 years, Roseman is the only one I have seen state it as a policy.

I've never heard of any other school that does that. In principal, most schools look at totals to access candidates adequately. Its not fair to look only at the last 3 years because you might have a 2.0 GPA previously and that would be totally discounted.

Who cares what is fair? Dental schools want applicants that are most likely to succeed. Someone with a 1.0 sgpa from 12 years ago and 3 years of 4.0 in a post-bacc is a better candidate than someone with a consistent 3.3 in my opinion.

Roseman is probably on to something looking at 3 years of SGPA instead of all of it, the most recent 3 years tell the most about a candidate.

 

[Seamonkey Doc]

While I would think many/most schools heavily weight the most recent 3 years, Roseman is the only one I have seen state it as a policy.





Who cares what is fair? Dental schools want applicants that are most likely to succeed. Someone with a 1.0 sgpa from 12 years ago and 3 years of 4.0 in a post-bacc is a better candidate than someone with a consistent 3.3 in my opinion.

Roseman is probably on to something looking at 3 years of SGPA instead of all of it, the most recent 3 years tell the most about a candidate.

I didn't know some schools did this. I don't think having a policy or not would make a huge difference. Granted a 2.3 from a class from freshman year won't look that nice, but would it matter much if you overall GPA and sci GPA were 3.5+? There are undergraduate schools who don't count first year or first semester grades either (MIT and Hopkins). The only time I see this as a disadvantage is if your overall GPA freshman year was something like 3.7 but there was a downward trend later on for w/e reason.

Interesting topic though

 

[wired202808]

While I would think many/most schools heavily weight the most recent 3 years, Roseman is the only one I have seen state it as a policy.





Who cares what is fair? Dental schools want applicants that are most likely to succeed. Someone with a 1.0 sgpa from 12 years ago and 3 years of 4.0 in a post-bacc is a better candidate than someone with a consistent 3.3 in my opinion.

Roseman is probably on to something looking at 3 years of SGPA instead of all of it, the most recent 3 years tell the most about a candidate.

Most people dont apply 12 years ago and it doesnt make any sense to discount past performance. You took it, its part of your history and schools accept students based on the overall GPAs. While I would LOVE not to have to go back in the past and explain those grades, going to college and beyond is a pretty responsible situation. If you choose to party it up and get a 1.0 GPA then you should live with that consequences and be able to explain it to the adcoms.

 

[white fang]

Most people dont apply 12 years ago and it doesnt make any sense to discount past performance. You took it, its part of your history and schools accept students based on the overall GPAs. While I would LOVE not to have to go back in the past and explain those grades, going to college and beyond is a pretty responsible situation. If you choose to party it up and get a 1.0 GPA then you should live with that consequences and be able to explain it to the adcoms.

Most people don't apply 12 years ago? What does that mean? I was referring to people that did college a LONG time ago and did poorly. Try to understand that examples aren't always literal.

I think the entire point of my post flew over your head, as per usual.

Who are you to say what makes sense in evaluating applicants? Adcoms aren't responsible to have admissions standards that are fair in your or any other applicant's eyes. They are responsible for admitting a class of students that is likely to succeed and work well together. Whatever criteria they want to use is fine whether or not you think it is fair. They will likely use a decision process that works, as it is their job on the line if they admit students that flunk out.

 

[white fang]

I didn't know some schools did this. I don't think having a policy or not would make a huge difference. Granted a 2.3 from a class from freshman year won't look that nice, but would it matter much if you overall GPA and sci GPA were 3.5+? There are undergraduate schools who don't count first year or first semester grades either (MIT and Hopkins). The only time I see this as a disadvantage is if your overall GPA freshman year was something like 3.7 but there was a downward trend later on for w/e reason.

Interesting topic though

The policy makes more of a difference for non-trads or those who majored outside of the sciences. Most of us non-trads were not driven to have high marks in our first degree as for many/most professions a 3.1 vs. a 3.5 does not matter.

When going back to school with a goal in mind and actually engaged in science courses, true colors shine and the most recent performance is the most accurate as to an applicants abilities.

I believe more schools could move to formally judging applicants like this. I think they do it in Canada already and their dentists still turn out alright👍.