<p>Hi all,
Ok, I know this forum doesn’t need another one of those “what are my chances” threads, so I’m not going to make this into one! (maybe:)</p>
<p>But I think this question can apply to a lot of people so it might be worth starting a discussion. </p>
<p>I’m a humanities person, so assume this is all humanities related.
- There are people who come straight out of undergrad with eye blinding stats. You know 3.9s, honors theses, the works.</p>
<li>Then there are people who don’t do so hot in undergrad, I think the majority of people in this situation would get in the 3.0-3.4 range. But go on to do an MA and do extremely well, take time to learn how to research and get the languages etc. </li>
</ol>
<p>I’ve read so many conflicting opinions on the subject. Some people say it’s impossible for someone in situation #2 to be accepted into a top program, like yale, harvard, etc. Then again, some people say having an MA compensates for the BA. </p>
<p>Also, I have read that GPAs are relative to the university, and even to the professor. How do admissions committees take these factors into account? Of course people say that a 3.3 at UChicago is worth more than a 3.8 at University of Easy Grades. But I’m sure there are gray areas when comparing GPAs from 2 schools with similar rankings. </p>
<p>What do people think? assuming of course, letters, writing, gres are similar.
Any opinions welcome. and also feel free to add onto the argument/bring up other important factors.</p>
<p>This is so field-dependent, even within the humanities (so, for that matter, is what constitutes a good, or adequate, GPA to begin with). In my own field (which is not in the humanities), if you have strong research experience, recommendations, etc, you ironically often have a <em>better</em> shot at the top schools than at lower-ranked ones with an adequate-but-not-great GPA, because the top schools put a higher priority on these academic but non-GPA factors.</p>
<p>I imagine that regardless of field (it's certainly true in mine), research fit can trump a less stellar GPA.</p>
<p>As more and more of my acquaintances apply to grad school, I've become increasingly aware that GPA does matter, but it's sort of a more important GRE score, in the sense that a great one will help you out, a bad one will sink you, and a decent on will move you on to the next step. The only fields where this really isn't the case and you need a fantastic GPA are probably law school and med school.</p>
<p>Normally what is more important is your last 2 years GPA, often more so than your cumulative. I did pretty bad my first few years after coming out of h.s. with lots of accolades as I just wasn't taking thing serious... so was kind of disapointed. Then I got serious and focused and started posting A's again. Then did 5 years of work and returned. So when going to apply they definitely see how you are doing lately and often brush off some of the early stuff... Now if you did great in undergrad then started to slip in the harder upper level courses you are going to have a harder time getting in.</p>
<p>Depends on the school and it definitely doesn't hurt to apply and try.</p>
<p>I had a 3.2 cumulative GPA from undergrad...my last two years were ~3.7 (forgot exactly)...but my major GPA for my final two years was 3.85. </p>
<p>The school I got into asked for my final two years and I purposely rubbed in my 3.85 since I knew my weakness. I got rejected from the school that asked for all 4 years though (even though I made an effort to point out my later grades were better). At the time one was ranked 5th (rejected) and 10th (accepted) for my major, I think they both dropped to the 9-11th area now so they're essentially similar schools with good programs, just different preferences.</p>
<p>Captain, similar situation here, most programs if you dig deep will specify almost exactly what they are looking for, I was tailoring mine to one that put "last 2 years gpa" over cumulative gpa. Many are specific.</p>