Is there a gpa cutoff beyond where it does not matter

[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,

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?

NP. It's not about sematics. Saying "sick of STEM" is not only incorrect, but a troll behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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,

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?

NP. It's not about sematics. Saying "sick of STEM" is not only incorrect, but a troll behavior.

So sorry. Top colleges are by no means “sick” of STEM and Econ applicants. It is only with great regret that they are disproportionately rejecting them, despite their great love for them and their unique skill set. Far from being sick of them, they fill an AOs heart with joy. God bless them all!

[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.

This -OP, you need to learn about weighted GPAs if they exist at your school. The 75th percentile of incoming students last fall at UVA had a 4.5: median was a 4.4 and bottom 25th percentile had a 4.2. I know of students who entering UVA with a 6.3 or higher via the Governor’s Schools and were granted second year status immediately.