What are the most important sections on the application?

[Aero SSX]

This is actually two questions. First: What do you think is valued most for the admissions committee on an application? [e.g., cGPA (cumulative GPA), pGPA (prerequisite GPA), observation hours, statement, LOR, EC's, etc.]

Second: Which of these do you think is overrated and underutilized? For example, do you think people focus too much on extra-curriculars, but not enough on the GRE, or maybe not enough on different observation settings?

From what I've gathered, the four most important things are: pGPA>cGPA>GRE>observation hours (especially different settings). Of course this is just in general and depends on the school.

I feel like people could really stand out more if they studied more for the GRE and scored really high. I also think people rarely explore a lot of observation settings, and that schools would be more impressed if they did. What are your thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dropping101]

pGPA>cGPA>GRE>observation hours

You pretty much said it. Since schools get hundreds of applications a cycle, some schools first screen students through overall/pre-req GPAs. Then, once that cohort is screened out, they might look at GRE scores. Then, once it gets narrowed down further they might have a more manageable pool of individuals. From personal experience, your observational hours help you during the interview. Explaining your varied experiences show why exactly you want to do PT, what you learned and what separates you from other applicants.

 

[HughLee]

For my program:
1. pGPA (which is different from the PTCAS GPA or sGPA) > Interview > GRE. Observation hours and statement are covered in the interview.
cGPA and pGPA are also cut-offs. If you are below the minimums, your application will be rejected.

2. Some people feel that interviews are overrated, and some programs no longer have interviews. Studies have shown that they are not the best way to evaluate and compare individuals, they require a large time commitment from faculty and applicants, and can be expensive for applicants. But they are a time for the applicant and the program to meet each other, we can see how the applicants handle stress and think, and sometimes we get a different impression of the applicant compared to their prepared statements.

 

[SnowyDPT]

Make sure to put sufficient time into studying for the GRE. From my personal experience, schools focus more on the AW and qualitative sections. Simply stated, don't take this test lightly. It is very important. Like HughLee stated, my program that I chose to attend actually didn't require interviews and it was my number 1 choice. Thus, it does vary by school. But, your GPAs and your GRE score is a way for schools to thin out the pool of initial applicants, then they start looking at the specifics of each application.

 

[a7rcana]

Studies have shown that they are not the best way to evaluate and compare individuals

Do you mind citing these? I would be curious to see these because some (well, one) students in my program complained about peers being accepted without an interview due to exceptional stats.

 

[HughLee]

Do you mind citing these? I would be curious to see these because some (well, one) students in my program complained about peers being accepted without an interview due to exceptional stats.

I would have to track them down, and now is a busy time. We are having final exams. The one thing that I do remember is that interviewers tend to give higher marks to interviewees who are more like them. We tend to like people who are more like us.

 

[DesertPT]

These answers to these questions vary hugely program to program. Some programs base almost their entire decision on how well they like you at the interview. Some don't even do interviews. Some base a huge part of your score on pre-req GPA, some place very little emphasis on pre-req GPA. Some schools look closely at GRE score, some couldn't give a crap less about GRE scores. In the end the whole system really is anything but objective at a large number of schools, and the most qualified candidates don't always get the most desirable seats.

 

[starrsgirl]

My school is pGPA, cGPA, GRE, personal statement, interview....not focused on observation hours...in my opinion.

 

[SwampPT]

I would have to track them down, and now is a busy time. We are having final exams. The one thing that I do remember is that interviewers tend to give higher marks to interviewees who are more like them. We tend to like people who are more like us.

I read the exact same thing, but I'm also not sure of the source.

 

[SwampPT]

This is exactly why you should research programs thoroughly before applying. You should know how a program weighs each category and apply to those that will look more favorably on you.

 

[DesertPT]

My school is pGPA, cGPA, GRE, personal statement, interview....not focused on observation hours...in my opinion.

I feel like my school is more or less: pGPA, cGPA, interview/essay/LORs, observation hours, GRE. But maybe not exactly.

Another school I interviewed at seemed to be: p/cGPA, GRE, observation hours, interview

And another I interviewed at was: interview, interview, interview, interview...minor bonus points for GPA/GRE/observation hours.

There really is value in talking to each potential school and determining which schools out there will value the strengths of your application and be more likely to overlook the weaknesses.

 

[maurerpower7]

Often times school websites do not list clearly how much they weigh each item. How do you guys find out this information

 

[low5059]

I truly believe, from my experience, that gpa and gre are just weed outs. My both of my gpa's both fell below 3.4 and my gre's just fell mid 150's.. aka they met the minimums. I don't think I stood out in either of those categories. When I applied, I had nearly 4500 hours of experience, what I assume were great letters of recommendation, and focused on the schools essays if they required them making sure I was passionate about the school. I got accepted into a top 20 program in addition to 2 others, waitlisted at 5-6 schools, many considered top 10 programs, declined 2 interviews, and the schools I didn't get accepted to are ones known for GPA weight (or declines that didn't make sense). I strongly believe one of the programs I got accepted to was due to letters of recommendation coming from alumni of the program.

 

[ptisfun2]

I read all of the time on here, "I have great letters of recommendation." I have to say that this is often the weakest part of our applicant's package. Often it is a run of the mill LOR and does nothing to make the application stand out. The applicant, although the PTCAS box is checked as 'highly recommend' the letter puts the applicant in the 'average' category. We use overall GPA, then GRE, then interview with personal statement and LOR, then pre req GPA. So the LOR don't break an application but they can make it but typically it is just meh.