<p>So I am currently a freshman at a large state university. I am currently a Microbiology/Biochemistry major who would like to pursue a PhD in Biology/Microbiology at a top ranked program. I was fortunate enough to get working in a lab during the summer before the fall semester. After contributing countless hours of work, I am now first author on an abstract for my project that was accepted for a presentation (which I will be giving, I'm already nervous!) at an international conference, and would be the first author on a subsequent publication. While I am told this is an absolutely fantastic position to be in as a freshman, it has come at a bit of a cost...namely, my GPA is somewhat low, will likely be a 3.35 or so after this semester. I have been receiving credit for my research (7 credits so far our of 32), yet I am told that it is highly frowned upon by graduate schools if you take too many research credits, as it is an easy way to "pad" your GPA. </p>
<p>So I have a few questions, to what extent will extensive research experience/publications/presentations offset a lukewarm GPA at a top ranked school? How many research credits are too many to take? Is there any other advice regarding research/GPA balance that could help me? </p>
<p>I am most interested in MIT as a grad school (their interdisciplinary approach to things really excites me haha), is they any specific advice that anyone can offer?</p>
<p>I deeply appreciate all of the help.</p>
<p>
To a very large extent. Grad schools are interested in your academic performance only insofar as it relates to your likely ability to do great research, and if your recommendation letters say (as they presumably will) that you rock and do great science, much will be forgiven in the way of your GPA.</p>
<p>It’s much better for science PhDs to have extensive research experience and a publication record with a 3.3 than to have little research experience with a 4.0.</p>
<p>I’ve actually never heard that schools cared about research credits. I did research for credit three semesters, and each semester my research work carried at least the credit weight of a typical class. I did not find this to be a problem. Perhaps others have different views.</p>
<p>Rock on. The research is great, and a 3.35 gpa is not bad with good research as the reason.</p>
<p>The only caution I see anywhere here is to try and bring it up to a 3.5 before you graduate - some schools do have hard requirements, so you want to keep your options open.</p>
<p>If research is King, then published first author research is Emperor.</p>
<p>Biohazard, your GPA is 3.35 but what about your major GPA (GPA in courses related to your major) cuz that is what counts.</p>
<p>The others are absolutely correct. Serious research experience, solid LORs from proffs, and a publication will outweigh grades.</p>
<p>That 1st author publication already puts you ahead of most of the competition and if the research continues strong till you graduate, you should have a solid shot at top schools.</p>
<p>I would say it is perfectly fine to do research to the point where your grades start slipping. That is the case for me. Just don’t let them slip any further.</p>
<p>if you drop below 3.3, spend more time on studying for courses to keep it up.</p>
<p>I’d like to reiterate that it’s your major GPA that’s more important. If it’s history, literature or even physics, it’s not as important if you’re getting Bs. As you move through the rest of your undergraduate career, you’ll be taking more and more specialized classes, and I personally always did better in those.</p>
<p>I think the concern with grad schools is also that you won’t have taken enough classes to have a solid foundation later on. It’s fantastic to spend so much time doing research, but you really need to make sure you’re taking those pertinent upper-division courses, too.</p>
<p>I applied with a 3.3 and a couple of publications and was accepted to [almost] everywhere I applied. I don’t think you need to worry about a GPA like that.</p>