I am currently worried that I would not be accepted into grad school. Highschool was a breeze for me and I never had to study even while taking honors and advanced placement classes. However do to not studying I never developed study habits. With that being said I graduated with a 2.2 Gpa in college. Which isn’t bad but it’s not good. It took me a while to decide on a major as well and even with that I wasn’t all too interested in it. My professor noticed this and started giving me different programs and things to work on while in class. I had an internship where I counseled children and they hired me as a camp counselor right after graduation. Added to this I have done a lot of research when it comes to adolescents and even have conducted my own study. I wrote two 13 page papers (working on my third) for this research and I eventually found out what I wanted to do with my life and I want to go into Guidance Counseling. I decided to take a year off and work more to build up my resume and I just scheduled my GRE’s. I still feel like it is not enough to get into a program. So I am asking if anyone knows what more I should do or the next necessary steps I should take in order to succeed and get into a school it would be amazing if you could help me. (Btw I also have at least 4 strong letters of reccomendation but I still don’t think it’s enough).
Contact the programs that you are interested in, and find out if there is a minimum GPA requirement. You may need to take some extra classes in the field that you want to study so that you can raise your overall GPA.
Graduate school admissions are, in my experience, much more personalized then those for undergraduate work. While your GPA is a factor, there are really three GPAs being calculated: your overall GPA (which matters very little), your junior/senior GPA (more important), and your GPA from just the classes in your major (most important).
Other factors, though, can trump even a poor in-major GPA: excellent rec. letters, great GRE scores, and killer sample work are sometimes more important than the raw numbers. With much smaller applicant pools, and far more faculty involvement, grad schools really can use the ‘holistic’ evaluation process many undergrad programs aspire to.
A secret most people don’t really get: The ‘prestige’ of your undergraduate university matters almost not at all.
I would disagree with that. I’ve observed admissions committees cut applicants greater “slack” if they are coming from an elite institution.
I’ve experienced the opposite: we’ve knocked people from consideration who looked like cookie-cutter ‘overachievers’ from ivies, instead favoring those from lower-ranked schools whose work made it clear they were pursuing the field because of honest enthusiasm and aptitude.
YMMV.
Fair enough. I don’t disagree honest enthusiasm for the field is paramount. I was thinking more related to GPA.
It seemed easier for them to overlook a lower GPA from certain schools, where it was harder for them to overlook a lower GPA from other schools.
But yes, graduate school admissions are definitely a far more holistic process than undergraduate admissions are.
Though an “elite” university isn’t necessarily going to give a boost, there might be a benefit from coming from a school that they know to be a solid program. Essentially, where they know that students coming from there are generally well-prepared in the field, the GPA is meaningful to them (as opposed to being unsure of the amount of inflation/deflation there), and they may know the letter writers. All these things make the applicant more “certain,” whereas someone coming completely from left field is a riskier bet for them but may pay off.
Some top-ranked graduate programs consider undergraduate pedigree in their admissions decisions. The author of the recent book “Inside Graduate Admissions” observing several top-ranked graduate admissions committees described this phenomenon as “Homophily of the Pedigreed”:
“Graduate admissions committees in top-ranked programs preferred students with credentials that connoted academic prestige (i.e. undergraduate pedigree)”.
“The common thread was an underlying preference for applicants whose profiles resembled committee members’ own academically distinguished biographies”. (pages 99 and 100)
I’d say that a program’s perceived prestige can’t hurt you but can sometimes help you. Like @nanotechnology said, some admissions committees are impressed by solid programs in the field (this could also mean state schools). For example, I went to a regional state university no one outside my state will probably know, but they have one of the best undergrad programs in my field, so grad schools know about the program, know the faculty, know the kind of work students coming out of the program can do, etc. I applied to one school a couple students from my program went to a few years back, and it honestly almost sounded like I was admitted because those students did so well there and we had the same mentor/letter writer. The director even said, “your mentor always sends us great students,” so hey, sometimes it happens.
I’ve read the passages in question and while I don’t doubt that it comes up occasionally in graduate deliberations, the experiences the author shares are anecdotal and don’t necessarily reflect the way admissions is done everywhere. It wasn’t really a systematic investigation of this across programs. Nonetheless, it’s kind of a moot point since OP graduated from college already. They can’t change where she went, so there’s no use worrying about this.
As for OP’s immediate program - many M.Ed programs in guidance counseling are going to have a 3.0 minimum - or maybe even a a 2.5 minimum, but a 2.2 GPA will be a hard sell by itself. Counseling programs that prepare counselors for working in schools may have certain standards they have to adhere to in order to remain accredited. Yes, of course, your entire profile will be taken into account. But frankly, there are many students who have experience with children in various settings and also higher GPAs.
Whether or not the research is useful depends on the setting. Professors may be skeptical of any research you conducted independently without the supervision or oversight of a PhD-level researcher, but if you conducted that research with guidance from a professor OR if the research is objectively very good, that might pique their interest. Before submitting evidence of your research, I would get a professor not involved in the admissions process at any school you want to attend - so a former professor, for example - to look it over and give you feedback.
I would also contact some programs you’re interested in ahead of time and talk to a departmental secretary and/or a professor and explain your situation, seeing how competitive you look.
My advice is to take a couple of graduate-level classes in a related area as a non-degree student and prove that you can do well in them during your year off.
Thank you Juillet, and I am sorry for this delayed response but I have another question for you. If I were to take graduate level courses should I take them at my previous college even though I have graduated or should I try and take them at another school? As for ,y research that I’ve conducted it was supervised by not only a professor but a graduate assistant and a in field Guidance counselor. I am just afraid. I know that I am highly intelligent and qualified for this but I know my GPA does not reflect that.
You can take them anywhere. The better the department the better they look, but cost is also a consideration! Your local public university (if they have grad courses) is probably the most cost-effective choice.