Upward trend v. consistency

[coolcucumber91]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

How much more of an advantage would a person with a 4.0 have over a person who say got a 3.0 freshman year but got all As afterwards? Sorry if this is a dumb question I'm confused on how upward trend works

 

[mishaS]

I doubt much if any. If you can 4.0 your advanced chemistry and bio classes who cares if you didn't ace your first gen chem, or basic bio, class. With that said, any very poor grades will likely require explaining, regardless.

 

[somepremedkid]

It's hard to say since there are so many other factors to take into account.

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

Upward trend is overplayed on sdn. There is no place for "gpa trend" in the application process. I can think of special circumstances where a school should look at trend rather than just the number, but in the majority of cases, the gpa speaks for itself.

 

[NewEngland21]

4.0 > Upward trend > Downward trend

 

[Barcu]

Upward trend is overplayed on sdn. There is no place for "gpa trend" in the application process. I can think of special circumstances where a school should look at trend rather than just the number, but in the majority of cases, the gpa speaks for itself.

Maybe. But I think "upward trend" is so frequently mentioned because a bunch of posters prematurely freak out. The average admitted gpa is a 3.6 or so. That allows plenty of leeway if you don't do as well a semester or two and you improve from there. If your a junior with a 3.0, an upward trend is not going to do much good unless you do a postbacc. And if you've screwed up your gpa enough, it may not matter.

 

[Wafflyw]

I thought the upward trend in the GPA is only beneficial in the case of a low GPA. Does it apply to high GPAs, too?

 

[TexasPhysician]

Upward trend is overplayed on sdn. There is no place for "gpa trend" in the application process. I can think of special circumstances where a school should look at trend rather than just the number, but in the majority of cases, the gpa speaks for itself.

Agreed. The higher the gpa the better. An upward trend doesn't get you any "bonus points". Someone with a marginal gpa would benefit from an upward trend that shows they can now handle upper level courses assuming they can an interview.

 

[Dipraman]

How much more of an advantage would a person with a 4.0 have over a person who say got a 3.0 freshman year but got all As afterwards? Sorry if this is a dumb question I'm confused on how upward trend works

HUH???
HUHHH???

 

[two thirty]

Downward trend with a 3.6 overall GPA > Upward trend with a 3.55 overall GPA

 

[skiing]

There is no place for "gpa trend" in the application process.

This is information is 100% FALSE. According to this website (http://uwmedicine.washington.edu/Ed...ions/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx#mcat), the GPA in your last few years is weighted MORE than your first few years (at UW, your junior year GPA is worth triple your freshman year!) From speaking directly with admissions officers, I know of several other top 10 schools with similar calculations (I won't disclose here however).

Let's say an applicant gets a 4.0 his last 2 years in hard science classes. Will that person really look under-qualified for medical school compared to someone who had a 3.8 all 4 years? Admissions officers are not blind, and to assume that no upward trend is taken into account is ignorant. This is not a numbers game.

 

[raltima07]

This is information is 100% FALSE. According to this website (http://uwmedicine.washington.edu/Ed...ions/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx#mcat), the GPA in your last few years is weighted MORE than your first few years (at UW, your junior year GPA is worth triple your freshman year!) From speaking directly with admissions officers, I know of several other top 10 schools with similar calculations (I won't disclose here however).

Let's say an applicant gets a 4.0 his last 2 years in hard science classes. Will that person really look under-qualified for medical school compared to someone who had a 3.8 all 4 years? Admissions officers are not blind, and to assume that no upward trend is taken into account is ignorant. This is not a numbers game.

I think WeAreNotRobots point was that you total GPA is looked at first, be it computer or human (but not robot). They see the overall first, and that can have an impact. The trends come second.

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

UW explicitly says they do that for the initial screening process, but if you are screened out based on the first three years and have senior year/postbac work that makes up for it, you can request to be re-evaluated. So in the end, how much does it really matter?

Anyway, the point is that the guy who does well for 4 years will always look better than the guy that does well for a shorter period of time. And no one really cares if your gpa changes by a few hundredths-of-a-gpa points from year to year; just always do your best. Of course there are circumstances outside of academics that affect peoples' grades, and thus, some applicants must point to a "trend" to say, "look, once I finished chemo/grieving for my brother's death/working 40 hr weeks, my grades drastically improved." but the majority of people on sdn are just neurotic and obsess about something like a 0.1 gpa point change as a "trend"; or hope that a few semesters of decent grades can make up for years of garbage grades.

But go ahead and provide more examples, skiing, and maybe you can change some minds on here.