<p>For freshman year grades, how much will bad grades screw you when applying to grad schools? I did OKAY my first semester and got an A, A-, B, B-, and C+. This semester I will probably get a C/C+ in my language again. Will these types of grades kill me for getting into a good graduate program/job. It just seems that most folks have like a 3.9-4.0 and I feel like I will probably get a 3.4-3.5 if I work my tail off. Thanks (I know its probably too early to be worrying :) )</p>
<p>Two things:</p>
<p>A) Not that many people have 3.9 or 4.0 GPA's upon graduation, in any field. Although many applicants at top schools have good GPA's, they don't all have perfect GPA's.</p>
<p>B) Nothing under a 3.3 GPA is really problematic when applying to a good grad school, so if you graduate wityh a 3.5, you are probably within the required range for consideration. However, your application will need to be bolstered by other things since your GPA is phenomenal, i.e. great GRE scores, great LOR's, a good statement of purpose, ect.</p>
<p>It is too early to be worrying, seriously. Your GPA can change quite a bit between now and when you apply for graduate schools.</p>
<p>Try to get good grades in classes in the area in which you plan to go to graduate school, and start worrying about your GPA when you're a junior.</p>
<p>yes, it is waaaaay too early be worrying about this. </p>
<p>Do your best in all of your classes. Though some grad schools focus primarily on your final 2 years, others may account for all of your grades from start to finish. The rule of thumb is anything over a 3.0 cumulative will at least get you into the discussion.</p>
<p>Can someone elaborate more on how colleges determine your GPA for Grad school. </p>
<p>Some of the UC's I looked at seem to only consider your GPA from your last 2 years of undergrad. Is this the norm everywhere else? </p>
<p>How would this work if someone were to apply directly to a grad program out of undergrad? This would mean that only their junior year and maybe 1 quarter of their senior year would count when considering their application. Isn't that too short of a timeframe?</p>
<p>Gatt,</p>
<p>Thats usually not how it works. Graduate schools will look at your entire undergraduate record, but will usually place more emphasis on your final two years. So if you were so-so your first two years than caught fire in your final four semesters, you will probably be alright.</p>
<p>I see, thanks jm</p>
<p>Also do any schools look at your Upper Division course grades in any emphasis?</p>
<p>The reason I'm asking is because I did really bad during my first 2 years (GPA < 3.0) and just now am I really trying. I hope my first 2 years didnt jeopardize my chances at going to grad.
Would working in industry for a couple years or so help my chances?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Will these types of grades kill me for getting into a good graduate program/job. It just seems that most folks have like a 3.9-4.0 and I feel like I will probably get a 3.4-3.5 if I work my tail off. Thanks (I know its probably too early to be worrying )
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One of the posters here, Molliebatmit, got a 3.4/4 GPA, yet still got into every single top bio Phd program in the country, and is now at Harvard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One of the posters here, Molliebatmit, got a 3.4/4 GPA, yet still got into every single top bio Phd program in the country, and is now at Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As bizarre as this sounds, I knew someone with a 2.7GPA that gotten into MIT for his Ph.d. I don't know how he did on the GRE but he had 4 years of UG research experience where he eventually did his own project which lead to a publication. I think the glowing reviews from top faculty who knew him and his work very well got him in.</p>
<p>If you want to dig into history, Robert Burns Woodward actually flunked out of MIT undergrad. But MIT gave him a second chance, and he eventually graduated and got into MIT for grad school, where he completed his PhD in 1 year, and later won one Nobel Prize, and many think his work was good enough for a 2nd Nobel if he had stayed alive (the Nobel committee does not award posthumously). He is often times cited as the greatest synthetic chemist in history.</p>
<p>Believe me when I say that I probably give the most blunt advice of anyone on this forum. Some people hate it, but thats life. That said, your poor grades in your first few semesters really wont effect you that much unless you let them. Get good greats for the remainder of your time in undergrad, try to get some relevant experience in your field or maybe even get published it possible. A GPA is only on of several factors on a grad school admission and is arguably not even one of the Top 3 most important factors at that. Just work hard and concentrate on showing which ever grad school you apply to that you can excel at the grad level.</p>
<p>I should perhaps add that, in addition the fact that I had a 3.4 when I applied to grad school, I had a 3.0 at the end of freshman year. And it would have been a 2.6 if MIT didn't have hidden first semester grades! :)</p>
<p>Mollie, I have faith that you will be the next Robert Burns Woodward.</p>
<p>Haha, R. B. Woodward pulled off 186 units in his final term as an undergrad! :D The most I ever accomplished was 75.</p>
<p>The gist of this thread is that admissions boards use common sense when they look over their application. When they take a look at your grades and see that you went from a 2.6 your first year to a 3.95 your last year, they aren't going to say "Yeah, this guy is obviously a moron, because he sucked his freshman year..." They are going to say "This kid can obviously work hard and knows how to turn it up a notch, even after lagging at first." Honestly, I am impressed by kids who do really bad at first in undergrad, than catch fire by working extremely hard just because it shows great determination and a great work ethic.</p>
<p>I think you would have to make up for a 3.5 (from a school that is not arguably the best technical school in the world) with some stellar research and recommendations. This is assuming you are talking about really top notch grad schools.</p>
<p>As Dirt alluded to, you have to understand that alot of thr discussion on thi forum is about getting into the "Top" grad schools. It's not always realistic, or pratical, but thats the way things tend to work around here. You can get into a number of grad schools with a 3.9 GPA, 5 years of research or LOR's from Wayne Gretzky, the Pope and Thomas Aquinas. It just really depends where you want to go and what you want to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I should perhaps add that, in addition the fact that I had a 3.4 when I applied to grad school, I had a 3.0 at the end of freshman year. And it would have been a 2.6 if MIT didn't have hidden first semester grades!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To the readers out there, what mollie just said above makes her experience all the more poignant. After all, the 'hidden MIT first-semester grades' are hidden only to people outside of MIT. MIT itself can see them. So when she applied to the MIT bio PhD program, that program could have chosen to view them (and I suspect they probably did). If that's true, then mollie was applying to MIT with an effectively * lower * overall GPA than she was to any other program. Couple that with the fact that MIT bio doesn't really like to admit its own undergrads anyway, because they don't believe in ' academic inbreeding'.</p>
<p>Despite all that, she got back into MIT anyway, just like she got into everywhere else. Which only proves my point that grades really aren't that important. What is important is strong research potential, which is not equivalent to top grades. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Haha, R. B. Woodward pulled off 186 units in his final term as an undergrad! The most I ever accomplished was 75.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where did you find this information? Are Woodward's academic records availabe somewhere?</p>
<p>One of the MIT bloggers, Sam, is somewhat</a> infatuated with RB Woodward. :) You'd have to ask him where he got his info, as I'm not sure.</p>
<p>A 3.5 is not something you would have to make up for. That is the mean GPA in graduate programs in some top schools including MIT. </p>
<p>The thing is, the best schools place most weight on research experience and LORs, and far less weight on GPA and GRE. So as you move down the uni rankings, GPA and GRE become progressively more important, while research experience and LORs become progressively less important. </p>
<p>Thus if you want to get into a decent/so-so school, it will really help to have a perfect GPA and near perfect GRE score no matter how many times you have to retake the test to achieve that. (Maybe because those schools are trying to pad their stats and move up the selectivity rankings? who knows...) If you want to get into a top school, it will really help, no, it is almost a necessity to have impressive research experience and glowing-yet-credible LORs. They won't care about your 4.0GPA/1560GRE if you have no research experience and your profs know you only as the kid who sat quietly in class, studied hard and got great grades, but otherwise did nothing out of the ordinary.</p>