Is there a gpa cutoff beyond where it does not matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

You have no proof of "colleges are sick of STEM," one way or another. Just because you are sick of STEM doesn't mean "as well they should be." This sounds like the wishful thinking of a mom whose child is inclined towards non-STEM and didn't have the highest rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

You have no proof of "colleges are sick of STEM," one way or another. Just because you are sick of STEM doesn't mean "as well they should be." This sounds like the wishful thinking of a mom whose child is inclined towards non-STEM and didn't have the highest rigor.

Np. Why is everything so personal here? This is so weird.
Noone is "sick of STEM". It's oversaturated, and the AO eyes roll when they see another application. Nothing is personal or even specifically about your child, whatever their inclinations are.

- T20 application reader

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

You have no proof of "colleges are sick of STEM," one way or another. Just because you are sick of STEM doesn't mean "as well they should be." This sounds like the wishful thinking of a mom whose child is inclined towards non-STEM and didn't have the highest rigor.

College admissions is a holistic review process. GPA is a factor, rigor is a factor. We do review transcript carefully to see which courses the applicant has taken in junior year and senior year.

And no, colleges are not sick of STEM. This is absolutely false. It's just STEM is so popular and attracts so many applicants.

- T10 Admissions Officer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

Schools are shutting down their humanities departments and expanding their stem offerings.
I'm sure they would like students to be interested in the things they want to teach but with large language models a lot of humanities are as useful as an abacus in an age of calculators.
Students are choosing Purdue STEM over Brown humanities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

Schools are shutting down their humanities departments and expanding their stem offerings.
I'm sure they would like students to be interested in the things they want to teach but with large language models a lot of humanities are as useful as an abacus in an age of calculators.
Students are choosing Purdue STEM over Brown humanities.

Wow, you are so wrong it’s funny.

In 5 years, AI will make most STEM majors obsolete.

Companies are recruiting for people who can think creatively, communicate in ways that motivate and touch people, and can lead strategically. Sadly, STEM majors are taught none of these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

Schools are shutting down their humanities departments and expanding their stem offerings.
I'm sure they would like students to be interested in the things they want to teach but with large language models a lot of humanities are as useful as an abacus in an age of calculators.
Students are choosing Purdue STEM over Brown humanities.

Almost all of Duke’s transfer students admitted this year were humanities majors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

Schools are shutting down their humanities departments and expanding their stem offerings.
I'm sure they would like students to be interested in the things they want to teach but with large language models a lot of humanities are as useful as an abacus in an age of calculators.
Students are choosing Purdue STEM over Brown humanities.

Almost all of Duke’s transfer students admitted this year were humanities majors

Doesn't that tell you humanities are not popular, and that they need transfers to pay the tuitions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

Schools are shutting down their humanities departments and expanding their stem offerings.
I'm sure they would like students to be interested in the things they want to teach but with large language models a lot of humanities are as useful as an abacus in an age of calculators.
Students are choosing Purdue STEM over Brown humanities.

Wow, you are so wrong it’s funny.

In 5 years, AI will make most STEM majors obsolete.

Companies are recruiting for people who can think creatively, communicate in ways that motivate and touch people, and can lead strategically. Sadly, STEM majors are taught none of these things.

This is full of bs.

AI will not create new knowledge. Who is going to discover biological pathways, who is going to invent a new treatment regime, who is going to isolate a new organism?

Don’t be fooled by job ads that say “we’re recruiting people who can…”. Once the AI bubble bursts, they’ll all be making lattes in Brooklyn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

Schools are shutting down their humanities departments and expanding their stem offerings.
I'm sure they would like students to be interested in the things they want to teach but with large language models a lot of humanities are as useful as an abacus in an age of calculators.
Students are choosing Purdue STEM over Brown humanities.

Almost all of Duke’s transfer students admitted this year were humanities majors

Doesn't that tell you humanities are not popular, and that they need transfers to pay the tuitions?

Yes and that applying as a freshman for humanities with strong EC/transcript/LOR alignment might be a good strategy too (I think the issue is too many pretend with that plan in ED/RD and then when they get to Durham they switch. So they look to the transfer pool to fill that gap - bc their freshman year transcript is authentic---with indications of true academic interests).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a gpa cutoff beyond which candidates are grouped in the high academic bucket. Some people seem to think at private schools 3.9 is a cutoff. When a 3.93 and 4.0 with same rigor are evaluated, does the 4.0 get a slight edge? Or AOs pretty much focus on ECs at that point. Should a student who has a 3.94 apply to same school as a 4.0 in ED or is it a disadvantage?

FWIW, my DD applied ED to a school with a 4.341, her friend (almost exactly the same class load) applied to the same school EA with a 4.35. My DD got a "no" and her friend got a "yes". This is in the data that our private school shares, it's anonymous, but there is enough data to know who is who.

All the decimals matter - especially at a large school. It's how they make these decisions.

I am directly involved in the admissions business and this is incorrect. As someone mentioned earlier "higher is always better" when things like rigor and school quality are equal. That is just common sense and how an AO will look at it.

But GPA is just one factor and it isn't looked at in a bubble. Nobody that I have ever worked or talked with cares if things are basically identical but on applicant has one more A- than the other applicant. It just isn't a significant difference. They really don't care if one's GPA is a bit higher because they took a class or two more than the other candidate. Again, not a significant difference.

If that implies that GPAs are "bucketed" then you are correct in that thinking. Unless everything is exactly equal between two candidates (which it never is) a 4.0 and a 3.9 are differentiating factors in the decision. Both have crossed the bar.

In the case above the applicant will never know why they were denied and why the other applicant was accepted but the GPA difference wasn't the deciding factor. I understand that they are looking for something clear to point to but the GPA difference isn't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a gpa cutoff beyond which candidates are grouped in the high academic bucket. Some people seem to think at private schools 3.9 is a cutoff. When a 3.93 and 4.0 with same rigor are evaluated, does the 4.0 get a slight edge? Or AOs pretty much focus on ECs at that point. Should a student who has a 3.94 apply to same school as a 4.0 in ED or is it a disadvantage?

FWIW, my DD applied ED to a school with a 4.341, her friend (almost exactly the same class load) applied to the same school EA with a 4.35. My DD got a "no" and her friend got a "yes". This is in the data that our private school shares, it's anonymous, but there is enough data to know who is who.

All the decimals matter - especially at a large school. It's how they make these decisions.

Something in your daughter’s friend’s application was more appealing to the school—essay, recs, ECs, or some combination. There’s no way one-one-hundredth of a point in GPA was a factor in the decision.

Maybe, or maybe in order to manage the 30,000 they received last year, they make hard decisions easier by letting the numbers make the decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

Schools are shutting down their humanities departments and expanding their stem offerings.
I'm sure they would like students to be interested in the things they want to teach but with large language models a lot of humanities are as useful as an abacus in an age of calculators.
Students are choosing Purdue STEM over Brown humanities.

Wishful thinking from someone who has no real understanding of what AI is doing and going to do to entry level STEM careers.

Engineering (like CS) is mostly "training" as opposed to educating and the jobs that entry level engineers are doing are going to be impacted in the exact same manner that entry level CS jobs are currently suffering from.

Love Purdue but the idea that anyone would turn down Brown for Purdue is not making sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a gpa cutoff beyond which candidates are grouped in the high academic bucket. Some people seem to think at private schools 3.9 is a cutoff. When a 3.93 and 4.0 with same rigor are evaluated, does the 4.0 get a slight edge? Or AOs pretty much focus on ECs at that point. Should a student who has a 3.94 apply to same school as a 4.0 in ED or is it a disadvantage?

FWIW, my DD applied ED to a school with a 4.341, her friend (almost exactly the same class load) applied to the same school EA with a 4.35. My DD got a "no" and her friend got a "yes". This is in the data that our private school shares, it's anonymous, but there is enough data to know who is who.

All the decimals matter - especially at a large school. It's how they make these decisions.

I am directly involved in the admissions business and this is incorrect. As someone mentioned earlier "higher is always better" when things like rigor and school quality are equal. That is just common sense and how an AO will look at it.

But GPA is just one factor and it isn't looked at in a bubble. Nobody that I have ever worked or talked with cares if things are basically identical but on applicant has one more A- than the other applicant. It just isn't a significant difference. They really don't care if one's GPA is a bit higher because they took a class or two more than the other candidate. Again, not a significant difference.

If that implies that GPAs are "bucketed" then you are correct in that thinking. Unless everything is exactly equal between two candidates (which it never is) a 4.0 and a 3.9 are differentiating factors in the decision. Both have crossed the bar.

In the case above the applicant will never know why they were denied and why the other applicant was accepted but the GPA difference wasn't the deciding factor. I understand that they are looking for something clear to point to but the GPA difference isn't it.

The PP's post is obviously fictional. But thanks for taking time to explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a gpa cutoff beyond which candidates are grouped in the high academic bucket. Some people seem to think at private schools 3.9 is a cutoff. When a 3.93 and 4.0 with same rigor are evaluated, does the 4.0 get a slight edge? Or AOs pretty much focus on ECs at that point. Should a student who has a 3.94 apply to same school as a 4.0 in ED or is it a disadvantage?

FWIW, my DD applied ED to a school with a 4.341, her friend (almost exactly the same class load) applied to the same school EA with a 4.35. My DD got a "no" and her friend got a "yes". This is in the data that our private school shares, it's anonymous, but there is enough data to know who is who.

All the decimals matter - especially at a large school. It's how they make these decisions.

Something in your daughter’s friend’s application was more appealing to the school—essay, recs, ECs, or some combination. There’s no way one-one-hundredth of a point in GPA was a factor in the decision.

Maybe, or maybe in order to manage the 30,000 they received last year, they make hard decisions easier by letting the numbers make the decisions.

That's just not how it happens at highly selective schools because it doesn't add any value in shaping the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rigor has always mattered regardless of school type (private or public). The 4.0 with easy classes will have far worse outcomes than the 3.85 with the most difficult courseload.

This is old advice. Not at all true if the supposed “rigor” courses (math? STEM?) have nothing to do with the 4.0 student’s interests. Major matters more than ever: colleges are sick of STEM, Econ, and biosciences applicants — as well they should be,

You have no proof of "colleges are sick of STEM," one way or another. Just because you are sick of STEM doesn't mean "as well they should be." This sounds like the wishful thinking of a mom whose child is inclined towards non-STEM and didn't have the highest rigor.

College admissions is a holistic review process. GPA is a factor, rigor is a factor. We do review transcript carefully to see which courses the applicant has taken in junior year and senior year.

And no, colleges are not sick of STEM. This is absolutely false. It's just STEM is so popular and attracts so many applicants.

- T10 Admissions Officer

First off, it is unlikely you are who you say you are: this is an anonymous message board. And if you are being truthful, it means you are really insecure.

On another level, why engage in semantics? Whether you are “sick” of it or not, the fact that it is “so popular and attracts so many applicants” means it is an admissions advantage. Nobody cares how you felt about giving the rejection — only that you gave it. Maybe yo7 aren’t sick of these applicants. Maybe it makes your day to reject them. Who cares?