Sounds like son did the right thing. all turned out well and maybe he learned something.
But FTR I agree with #consolation that I think parents owe it to their kids to explain not everyone will like you or even be fair. You may have teachers like that and you may have bosses like that. You have to figure out what they want. I remember, on a small note, how much better one boss seemed to like my work when I used her preferred paperclip rather than stapling. Took me awhile to figure that out.
Umm, I guess it depends on your definition of “exceptional”; it is not unusual for 3.6’s to be admitted to top grad programs, including history. (And given the grade inflation today, a 3.6/3.7 doesn’t seem to ‘exceptional’ to me.)
Training is everything. I had a Freshman writing professor who was teaching at my college for her second semester.
I received a final grade that I thought was not possible based on midterm grade and final paper grade and how I thought I did on the final exam. Turns out the teacher gave me a B+ in the class, only problem: the school didn’t use pluses or minuses so it was converted into a B on my transcript. When I questioned the grade, the professor changed it to an A because she didn’t know that the school didn’t use pluses or minuses and with that knowledge she agreed that I deserved an A- , which means I got an A! I have no idea why she thought my work was now worth an A- vs. a B+, but I was happy to get the A. She further told me that she had to go back and review 2 semesters worth of grades and determine if she was still in agreement with all the grades she had given out during that time. I have always wondered how many kids out there had their grades changed, positively, and never knew why or what had happened. Kind of always felt like they must have thought they had a fairy godmother out there.
Admission to grad school involves a whole lot more than GPA or even GPA/GRE–research experience, teaching/TAing experience, publications, sometimes service.leadership/clinical work (depending on the field), etc.
I’d be very surprised if many students with a 3.6 GPA in history courses are admitted with funding to top-20 history PhD programs.
Why would that be surprising? A 3.6 GPA merely reflects a balance of A and Bs that are very reasonable grades at competitive schools. Further, would a 3.6 GPA with a very high GRE be worse than a 4.0 from Podunk coupled to a lowish GRE score? Take a look at the GRE statistics for guidance.
I had a 3.83 undergrad gpa and was told by a friend on the adcomm for my top 5 history PhD program that I was one of the lowest gpa applicants let alone admitted.
A balance of As and B’s IN HISTORY (the major GPA) would be astoundingly low for a top PhD. And the vast majority of admitted students will have excellent GRE- many programs don’t even consider the GRE.
Not that it is horribly important because the answer will be long on opinion and short on facts, but do you have any source for that? Or do you happen to think that this is somehow only relevant to History majors?
But on a related note, what are those top 5 PhD programs in history? Isn’t that highly dependent on the specialty as in Asian History vs Women’s History?
Of course, your mileage may vary, but coming from a household with two professors – students are generally not accepted to my spouse’s top 20 research humanities department with more than an isolated B in their major/area of graduate study. The view is, they are not strong enough in the discipline to make it through the program and be a successful scholar.
Ph.D. programs – at least not top departments – don’t let in students who are not already at the top of their undergraduate pyramid. The GRE can only hurt a student – they are similarly expected to test very well. A lower score will hurt them, a high score will not rehabilitate a bumpy gpa in the major.
Of course, there are always stories about students who did get in with less. Did they get funding? Did they make it through orals/comprehensive exams? There is a lot more to getting your Ph.D. than being admitted.
" Not that it is horribly important because the answer will be long on opinion and short on facts, but do you have any source for that? Or do you happen to think that this is somehow only relevant to History majors?"
It’s a general thing - most PhD programs care more about the “major GPA”, in the discipline being applied for. Many of the top candidates might have surprisingly low GPAs, if they’ve been taking 700-level graduate seminars in the department for undergraduate credit.
Put it this way: top history PhD programs routinely get 250 applicants for about 8-10 slots. And since to apply you need to spend about $100 per school and get letters from about three faculty, there are not too many no-hopers in that application pile.
That makes no sense! Unless one wants to discredit the notion that grades in graduate schools are usually higher. And why would an UG embark on enrolling in graduate seminars outside his or her core objective?
It remains that all PhD programs are not equal in terms of selectivity. Many are little bubbles living on remnants of the past with drastic changes coming to question their mere existence.
" That makes no sense! Unless one wants to discredit the notion that grades in graduate schools are usually higher. And why would an UG embark on enrolling in graduate seminars outside his or her core objective?"
Undergraduates at top departments with a good PhD program will often take graduate seminars in that program for undergraduate credit. That will set the UG apart from his/her competitors when they apply for the PhD, and allow for recommedation letters to be written saying that the student can perform at the top PhD level. But it is a high risk strategy, since their GPA might well take a hit fromthe vastly harder standards and requirements.
“It remains that all PhD programs are not equal in terms of selectivity.”
Obviously.
I agree with ChuoShinkansen.
Depends on the school if they want undergraduates to take graduate courses. My buddy was an undergraduate math major and he was asked to take a graduate level physics course so they would have at least 5 students. I think I am guessing too high for the number of students taking the physics class.
I guess that the outside the core objective was unclear. Let’s try again. If an UG is looking at joining a PhD program in History, he might decide to take a seminar in Philosophy to boost his chances of admissions at the … Philosophy program? Perhaps in borderline cases where the objective remain vague.
To be clear, part of this discussion is about the discrepancy in GPA and the difficulty of the program. I am not sure if there is much evidence that a qualified UG would necessarily take a hit in his grades by signing up for a graduate seminar in his field since the grading is often more generous at the higher level.
OP- this happened to my daughter last fall. She made an appointment with the professor who changed the grade after reading the paper. She advocated for herself and it work out well for her.