<p>i think i am gonna get the 3.6, but there is a slight chance that i may get a 3.5, it really depends if i get an A in a class or if i get an A-. I don't know, the final will determine tihs.</p>
<p>I am at Cornell</p>
<p>applying to Chicago (accepted as a freshman), Northwestern (previously accepted), Columbia, Penn, Duke, Brown, Harvard,</p>
<p>It obviously doesn't matter that much. There is kind of like a 3.5-3.75 category--other factors can set you apart from the crowd.</p>
<p>so what you are saying is that 3.7 and 3.8 are different categories? Damn, I really hope I can pull my cumulative to 3.8 this semester.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is kind of like a 3.5-3.75 category
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not think that this universally true, or true at all for that matter I think it is simply misleading advice. I personally have seen no evidence for the existence of such a category - not even one iota.
Gabe, what makes you think that this category exists?<br>
Clearly, you want the highest GPA possible, and you want to set yourself apart from the crowd. However, I simply reject the claim that the difference between a 3.75 and a 3.8 is more appreciable than the difference between a 3.65 and a 3.7. I do not buy it, and until a credible source confirms that this category is indeed used by the preponderance of competitive schools, I advise CCers not to fret. The notion of a 3.5-3.75 category is very different than an unofficial threshold.</p>
<p>You have misinterpreted what I said. </p>
<p>First of all, I said "there is kind of like" a category.</p>
<p>Secondly, even assuming the existence of a category would not necessarily lead to a 3.75, 3.8 difference being much more significant than a 3.65, 3.7.</p>
<p>You should certainly always aim for the highest GPA; my point was that it's likely a 3.5 student will not be rejected after comparison with a 3.6 student on the sole basis of GPA. Likewise, a 3.5 student can easily get to the same level as a 3.7 based on certain factors.</p>
<p>what is your justification for saying this, gabe? (btw, I REALLY hope you are right about the 3.5 thing...)</p>
<p>I've talked to transfer advisors. </p>
<p>BY THE WAY--this is referring to the UC admissions system of COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW.</p>
<p>In that case, that may only apply to people going to the UC system -next time you should say where you got your info up front. <em>Sigh</em></p>
<p>The UC system or any system that uses something similar to "comprehensive review."</p>
<p>It's a continuum. Just get the best grades possible.</p>
<p>Hanna, as a guidance counselor, have you talked to admissions counselors who could give their opinion regarding GPA in transfer admissions?</p>
<p>I'm not a guidance counselor -- I'm a consultant. Most of what I say about transfers is based on experience with previous clients and transfer classes I knew well at Harvard and Penn (where my best friend from Bryn Mawr went when I went to Harvard).</p>
<p>There's no school that I know of where there is a bright-line rule or minimum GPA for transfer consideration. What kind of GPA will make the grade at a given target school has everything to do with your first college, your HS record (esp. if you're transferring as a soph), your scores, and how tough a schedule you're taking. They'll be a lot more forgiving of a B if it's in a 400-level theoretical physics course you're taking along with 5 other classes. As a huge generalization, to get good odds you want a 3.7+ for a school like Penn and a 3.85+ at a school like Harvard.</p>
<p>And for a school like USC?</p>
<p>And so, if I was accepted to a school like Swarthmore with a 3.56 GPA and not-outstanding high school records as a sophomore transfer, would you guess it was primarily other factors in my application that made me a strong candidate for admission previously? Do you think I would need to have a 3.6 overall GPA as a junior transfer in order to be as strong a candidate? Is there no chance admissions officers would mentally delete my bad semester with mono when looking at my transcript? I've heard so many theories from students, I'd just like to get this spelled out by a professional.</p>
<p>Okay, I have it on the authority of both Williams and Brown that there is not some "threshold-GPA" at which point other factors become more important for admissiosn. Looks like that way of viewing grades does not exist at every college with "comprehensive review." As to how important a 3.6 is in comparison with a 3.5, we still really don't know. Personally, I'm aiming for straight-As as a sophomore, and hoping that an upward-trend at an academically-rigorous college will count for something.</p>
<p>That's (again) a misinterpretation of what I said; no one said that.</p>
<p>"You should certainly always aim for the highest GPA; my point was that it's likely a 3.5 student will not be rejected after comparison with a 3.6 student on the sole basis of GPA. Likewise, a 3.5 student can easily get to the same level as a 3.7 based on certain factors."</p>
<p>I think your quote above COULD be true, but the fact is I could not get an admissions officer to admit to it, let alone tell me one way or the other that if I applied as a sophomore transfer with a 3.35 GPA and a medical excuse I would be considered as much as a 3.6 GPA...</p>
<p>I don't think you presented the quote to admissions officers word for word. Secondly, the quote has nothing to do with your medical excuse thing. And of course the adcoms aren't going to give you any pre-judgments. They'll judge when they see the file.</p>
<p>I could, I would be willing to present the quote word-for-word at a couple of comparable schools that I don't think I will be applying to. Do you think that would be an adequate experiment? I could post the results here. Before I do that though, could you specify what "certain factors" you mean?</p>
<p>Well, guess what boys and girls, i guess I will have a 3.6 after all. No worries now.</p>