Which GPA would you rather have?

[PuKcAo]

...a 3.4 GPA for the first two years in college and 4.0 the second two, cumulative= 3.7 (given that course rigor naturally increases in the second two years)

or

a 3.8-3.85 cumulative GPA with little deviation all four years.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Revolution #9]

Isnt the second choice the obvious answer?

 

[Ambs]

What kind of a question is this?

(Like the above poster said, isn't the consistent 3.8 the obvious choice?)

 

[sunUCB]

i'd go with the second one, assuming you want a better chance of getting in....why would you want the first one?

...a 3.4 GPA for the first two years in college and 4.0 the second two, cumulative= 3.7 (given that course rigor naturally increases in the second two years)

or

a 3.8-3.85 cumulative GPA with little deviation all four years.

 

[PuKcAo]

I'm debating whether the admocs would put more weight on what has been done in the most recent past--in the first choice it took the applicant 2 years to get his head on straight, now that its on straight, he gets down to bussiness--more so than the second applicant.

It can be construed as applicant A is a 4.0 student at present--regardless of his underclassmen years--and applicant B is a 3.8 student. Consistency is not the right word for what applicant B has over A.

 

[Ambs]

I'm debating whether the admocs would put more weight on what has been done in the most recent past--in the first choice it took the applicant 2 years to get his head on straight, now that its on straight, he gets down to bussiness--more so than the second applicant.

The second applicant always and consistently "had his head on straight." It didn't take him two years to do so. That's clearly better, IMO. Shoot for the consistent 3.8, as it shows solid, persistent hard work and dedication. The first applicant is probably going to get questions like, "what happened the first two years of college," in interviews, whereas the second applicant won't even get questions on his grades, as they will be stellar.

Seriously, this process sometimes makes us lose our senses. I know it's hard, but don't constantly think of what the adcoms are going to think - because you will NEVER know what they're thinking, and second because you should simply work hard and go from there.

 

[stoic]

i'm not sure that most adcoms would really even see a difference b/w those gpa's. they both show that the applicant is a strong student who will probably be able to perform well a the med school level.

 

[antissa]

How about this: all else being equal, would you rather have

1) a consistent 3.7 through all years
2) 4.0 first year, 3.8 second year, then 3.45 last year giving ~3.75 overall
...or something similar, because I realized the difference between 3.7 and 3.75 is not significant

Reword: would you rather have a consistent, good GPA or a higher cGPA with a steady downward trend?

 

[Ambs]

It can be construed as applicant A is a 4.0 student at present--regardless of his underclassmen years--and applicant B is a 3.8 student. Consistency is not the right word for what applicant B has over A.

Well after that addition, I still believe appilcant B is better off. That "regardless of his underclassmen years" for applicant A is a pretty large regardless.

Either way though, an overall 3.7 versus 3.8 overall is not a huge difference and both will be competitive. Why don't you go the applicant A way and tell us the outcome?

 

[mynameistino]

I would take the bigger GPA

 

[schofield kid]

...a 3.4 GPA for the first two years in college and 4.0 the second two, cumulative= 3.7 (given that course rigor naturally increases in the second two years)

or

a 3.8-3.85 cumulative GPA with little deviation all four years.

I'd rather have the steady gpa. who wants to explain improvement unless you have to?

 

[Iwy Em Hotep]

How about this: all else being equal, would you rather have

1) a consistent 3.7 through all years
2) 4.0 first year, 3.8 second year, then 3.45 last year giving ~3.75 overall
...or something similar, because I realized the difference between 3.7 and 3.75 is not significant

Reword: would you rather have a consistent, good GPA or a higher cGPA with a steady downward trend?

The UW calculates your GPA in this way (some other schools might do something similar):

UW GPA = ( (1 x 1st year GPA)+(2 x 2nd year GPA)+(3 x 3rd year GPA) ) / 6

So yeah, I'd say consistency is best, and improvement good if you didn't do too well to start.

 

[crys20]

I would agree with stoic and say that I don't think there's that much difference. Both are above average GPAs and consistency vs. strong upward trend are both desirable attributes to a GPA. Really don't think there's a big diff in the two scenarios.