<p>I know that good GPA isn’t indicative of research ability whatsoever. But shouldn’t it be an indispensable trait of some one who can yield research with significant impact? For instance, I don’t see the logic of being able to conduct great research in computer architecture when you did poorly in that class or worse, never even took it. If so, I don’t see the point of taking any class at all at the undergrad level. Just do research for the sake of research.</p>
<p>Any way, it seems all the people that I know with great research experience also had extremely good undergrad GPA.</p>
<p>Doing poorly/failing a class related to your field of interest is an obvious red flag, but then that has to do only with specific classes, not your overall GPA.</p>
<p>
Your argument seems to stem from a hypothetical situation where no one has research experience, only grades. In that case, well, of course you might think the student who did well in computer architecture (CoAr) is better prepared to do research on that topic than the student who failed/did not take the course. However, without research experience, the student with the A+ basically stands no chance of being accepted to CoAr programs anyway.</p>
<p>If the “good” student and the “bad” student both have successful CoAr research experience, then I think their performance in the CoAr class becomes somewhat irrelevant. Their research experiences are proof enough that they can put CoAr research into practice, and the poor grade/lack of a grade from the “bad” student could be for a myriad of (legitimate) reasons. As I said before, too many factors are involved in class grades to make them useful indicators of research ability, which is why a good grade in a specific class will never be an “indispensable trait” in prospective PhDs. With all else being equal (including their success in CoAr research), I think the “good” student would have only slight advantage over the “bad” student.</p>
<p>Yes, kryptonsa36. I concur with you that success in CoAr research experience can make the performance in the CoAr classes irrelevant. However, it’s really hard to believe it’s a result from a “bad” student. “bad” as in receiving poor GPA’s. Yes, it’s possible that a student might receive a poor grade for a SPECIFIC class based on many reasons like you said. But, actually receiving a poor GPA means that you are actually receiving poor grades in most classes (at least in average), and you can’t really make up any excuse for this. If such “bad” student is still able to yield success research experience, shouldn’t the adcom feel some inconsistency in the application? It’s like saying you suck at all the discrete math classes but for some reason, you can yield significant research finding in cryptography. Or, you basically don’t understand Shakespeare (supposedly evident from class grades), but somehow you can write a good literary research commenting on his work.</p>
<p>You’re forgetting that graduate programs DO have GPA thresholds. The rest of us are arguing that, as long as you’re above the 3.0 required by most institutions, GPA really just doesn’t matter anymore. Frankly, if you are serious about your coursework, you will have a B average or better; therefore, research experience is far more important as a means to distinguish yourself from your peers.</p>
<p>Just because C average students won’t get into grad school doesn’t mean GPA is somehow incredibly important now.</p>
<p>yes… that’s what I am saying. 3.8+ GPA ALONE doesn’t get you in. However, having research experience but with a GPA lower than 3.8 seems to put you in the “less competent” pile. At least this is what it looks like from the statistics. It looks like it’s one of the many pretty important factors.</p>
<p>It’s almost like saying, a 2400 SAT score won’t get you into MIT undergrad, but still, having a 4.0 high school GPA with not so stellar SAT score will make you less competent too.</p>
<p>The truth is, nearly every one I look at who went to tip top grad schools, has GPA 3.9+. I have yet to find any one who got admitted with a GPA lower than 3.8 (at least in my fields (computer science / mathematics)).</p>
<p>To re-assert my point, it seems like in most cases, one would need research experience AND high GPA to stand a chance at most top grad schools. I say in most cases, because I mean, a Nobel prize for your research (exaggerating, but not so much) could indeed boost your application so much that GPA becomes irrelevant, but this is exceptional of course.</p>
<p>most of the top applicants have both research and GPA. Many with lower GPAs also do not have great research experience and therefore do not have great LORs. This is the trend-students who were together enough to get the top grades in rigorous courses and get involved in great research are rightfull at the top of the lists.</p>
<p>However, someone can do great research and remediate their prior poor performance. But it takes real dedication and effort in the research front.</p>
<p>ccpsux- Of course both high gpa and research is desirable. But I think you overestimate the worth of high gpa, and underestimate value of okay gpa from strong institute/department, and you way underestimate research.</p>
<p>Demonstrated research shows much about how you work independently, how you work as a team, how driven your are, what your potential is, your intellectual capacity and thirsts, your interests. You can argue a point all you like, but you won’t get any points for it from people who know better than you.</p>
<p>This paper was a good read for my grad student, when that student was an undergrad, and not a 3.8 one either, but still was accepted to 3 top 20 schools. I guess it gets a lot harder for top 4 schools.</p>
<p>There are so many good points in this talk:</p>
<p>A 3.4 GPA from a top-ranked CS undergraduate program like CMU counts
the same as a 3.8 or 3.9 GPA from a less well-known CS undergraduate program.</p>
<p>It does not help you, in my opinion, to be closer to 4.0 as opposed to 3.5. It’s a much better idea to spend your time on research than on optimizing your GPA.</p>
<p>yes. BrownParent, I’ve read that gradschooltalk.pdf long time ago. This is exactly why I was asking question like: why do most people accepted have 3.8+ GPA, especially when research experience is highly valued? </p>
<p>Again, I am not trying to denounce the value of research experience. In fact, I plan on doing it for a significant length of time on an applied topic I enjoyed. However, since nearly ALL my classes taken now are relevant to my research interest in the general sense, I really wonder whether or not I should indeed slack off on them, especially those advanced/rigorous ones after what you said about the importance of GPA. Initially, my motivation has been to do well in them so that I understand the topics really well to put my own thoughts into it while writing mini-research paper / doing projects in these classes. Hence, I treat these advanced classes as a foundation that I will build upon to further my research interest/ideas and knowledge base. So naturally, in the process of doing so, I would indeed obtain a good GPA. That’s why I feel odd about obtaining a poor GPA but still yield quality research.</p>
<p>It’s not about excess classes. I am taking them because I want to know more about my research interests. For instance, I will be taking analytic number theory class. Such topic will be deemed really helpful when I do research in cryptography during a summer research.</p>
<p>Are you telling me to just do research, even though I only have a meager background in it?</p>
<p>Also to BrownParent, I know US is not so number driven, but I see having a “good GPA” and yielding quality research is sort of a cause-and-consequence relationship, in a general sense. I guess Parlum delineates similar idea too in his/her post. Maybe because professors pick undergrads for research positions based on how well they do in the relevant classes? I am not sure.</p>
<p>I am not trying to put down you want to have classes.You just can’t do everythin you want. Let’s Pm about it, since you started that, and not bore everyone with this? yes?</p>
<p>There is very little causal relationship between GPA and research experience, only correlation: students with great GPAs have the work habits that enable them to also succeed in research (and vice versa). I did terrifically in courses relevant to my research, and I learned a lot of useful information. However, none of that contributed to my research success; if anything, enjoyment of performing labwork and plain, old persistence and were the major factors.</p>
<p>And no one is telling you to slack off in classes for the sake of research. Rather, if so much effort has to be put in to maintain a good (~3.5) GPA and to obtain good research experience, then any EXTRA time you have is better spent on turning good research into great research, NOT on turning a good GPA into a great GPA.</p>
<p>Grad programs want to identify applicants who have aptitude and ambition. They want students who will go beyond mere coursework and into the more serious area of scholarly research. For this reason, programs consider the GPA a starting point – they want students who can do the coursework well and pass the generals/prelims – but they look at research experience as more of a predictor. That’s why a 3.4 student with excellent research will trump a 3.8 one with little experience. At a certain point, generally above 3.3 for top programs, GPA fails to matter.</p>