<p>“Please do so. In particular, you should ask whether somebody with an unimpressive GPA but who has stellar LOR’s and demonstrated research potential will be chosen over somebody with a stellar GPA but unimpressive LOR’s and research potential. I am quite certain that they will take the former. It won’t even be a close call.”</p>
<p>Well, I don’t have to ask them to agree with this statement. My point, though, is that the very top schools seem to require both on average. A large part of an undergrad’s time is spent taking advanced courses. Part of the measure of how prepared an undergrad is for grad school is how much he LEARNED. I mean, sure you can do research as a freshman or sophomore…but the more you learn, the better the potential for research to an extent. You can be great at classes but not be interested in research, sure, but I think both your effort at learning material + attempts at research convey two very different things, both important factors. </p>
<p>While I think a CS major is more likely to get his major on a paper of some significance than a math major is, the bottom line is that there’s a ton of stuff to learn before you can think at the level of the top grad students, and doing well at classes that’re graded with SOME integrity actually says something.</p>