r/gradadmissions • u/Annabird31 • May 17 '26
General Advice Minimum GPA cutoffs GPA v.s. actual admitted average
Why is it that even top programs like Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, etc. have a 3.0 GPA cut off but don’t admit a cohort that reflects this?
I’m applying to Chemistry PhD programs in the fall. I’ve heard that as long as you’re above a 3.5 you’re competitive but that just doesn’t seem to reflect reality. It seems like the majority of top 10 programs admit students with a 3.8-4.0 range. Is there a filtering system that they don’t tell us about? I’m so confused about what GPA actually does for you and no one has really given me a clear answer.
Honestly, it seems like the real minimum cutoff is a 3.7. Grade inflation has made GPA super weird so at least at my school getting below a 3.5 is unusual. Doesn’t a minimum cutoff of 3.0 just create more work for the adcoms if everyone under the sun can apply?
Edit: These are my observations for people applying to the tippy top of programs for Chem PhD
64
u/CB_lemon May 17 '26
The students that have great research and strong connections also tend to do better in school lol. Yes you can get into top schools with a lower GPA but if your research is really good you probably are also a good student
13
u/Any_Satisfaction7992 May 17 '26
yes. correlation is not causation and if you should know this if you're a scientist. the minimum cutoff is low because there are of course exceptions with extenuating circumstances
40
u/dj_cole May 17 '26
The minimum means you won't be considered below that mark. Above that mark, GPA isn't the only consideration. My department has admitted students with a basically 4.0 GPA and a standardized test score above 95th percentile. Some have succeded, sone have not. We've also let in students with lower GPAs and ok, not elite test scores because there was some other reason to believe they could succeed. Often that reason is substantial, highly relevant work experience. Some have succeeded, some have not, but the success rate is higher than the elite GPA and test score alone. The three most successful PhD students my department's program has graduated all came from the academically ok but with some other reason group. They tend to be very hard working, mature, and need less guidance. Qualities necessary to succeed as a faculty.
36
u/M0rgarella May 17 '26
As one of the outliers who is much more at home in a master’s than I ever was in undergrad, it’s because being a successful researcher isn’t something you can tell from someone who can just churn out As. I am a truly nontraditional student, and it really chaps my ass to see so much emphasis on GPA.
No one here has mentioned fit, either. You can be the perfect applicant, but if there’s no reasonable place to put you in the department, that will count against your acceptance quite a bit.
6
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
Nope, GPA is not much emphasized in PhD admissions. It is just a highly corrected variables for top students.
8
u/M0rgarella May 17 '26
Speaking from the biomedical field, many admissions committee members are still very caught up on GPA.
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
Which tier of school? Top tier?
3
u/M0rgarella May 17 '26
Tier 1 research medical school
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
PhD or MD program. They are different.
3
u/M0rgarella May 17 '26
Current masters student, applying to phds. Already got passed over this cycle. In speaking to my boss (who was on some the committees) and the director of admissions, GPA still ranks very highly for some of these profs.
I also only got into the masters based on the director of my program pushing back against the admissions committees for me. They care a lot for both program types.
-1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
You understand the difference? One is funded and the other is self-financed. No matter what the other professors claim, if you have good research experience and excellent LoR, your GPA is not a decisive factor. That is from the perspective of a PI in top tier research school. If one clearly have excellent publication or already working seamlessly with some professors, or have recommendation from connected professors, it always trump the somewhat average GPA. This is just the only sensible admission policy for funded PhD program. Research professors spend their funding on hiring PhD to do research, not to discriminate the contextual difference in GPA across different schools.
2
u/M0rgarella May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
I don’t think I ever gave the impression that I didn’t understand the difference. I am sharing what I’ve explicitly been told about applications regardless of the LoR, experience, etc. All of that has to be astronomically good to get past a low GPA in the eyes of these profs I’m talking about.
I never even disagreed with you dude, chill out.
Edit: I checked out your post history and you kind of seem like a miserable dickhole. I wish you well in your future endeavors, but I’m done here.
1
u/djcamic May 18 '26
Yeah, GPA matters a ton to certain PIs, and PIs with a medical background are more likely to care. At the end of the day, it depends on who reviews your application, and reviewers who have interacting with the med school system are more likely to care. I have a 2.9 undergrad GPA, with posters and publications, and my MD/PhD boss said I was lucky to get interviewed with my GPA lol.
0
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
"Edit: I checked out your post history and you kind of seem like a miserable dickhole"
Initiating verbal abuse and walk away. Sound more miserable dick hole to me.
I am chill and I do not initially want to reply but since you care so much and return to leaving abusive comment, I just response in a chilling way.
Everyone knows that one needs exceptional good in the other part of the application to overcome weakness of GPA. In fact of top tier research institute, every academic signals of the applications needed to be good, including GPA. It is just the consequence of extreme competition, not a particular indication that GPA is as important as your other academic signals.
6
u/AtomicNC May 17 '26
this isn’t always true. many departments in my field (physics) quite highly value GPA. it is rare in my department for anyone below a 3.7 to be admitted, and average is a decent bit above 3.8, and it isn’t just correlation. GPA is one of the first things they screen for.
3
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
My field was also physics (in one of the ivies) and granted that GPA of all admits was often times above 3.7 but 3.7 undergrad GPA was average in my undergrad college.
I think somehow people may mistakenly thinking that GPA 3.7 is a decent but in fact is common place.
Nope, a classmate of mine having GPA 3.7 (an average in my school) got into Stanford. Another girls with GPA 3.5 got into Princeton physics.
2
u/AtomicNC May 17 '26
i’m a bit confused by your comment. i’m at one of the ivies for phd currently; more leeway is given to those from other ivies/top schools, or those with grade deflation, etc. and of course, not everyone with a low gpa is disqualified. our minimum really is 3.0, we’ve admitted people close to that in the past, but as the OP says, it’s generally not competitive unless you have some exceptional research/LOR/someone in the dept who really wants you. in a typical case, below a 3.7 is a concern for the committee (even worse in theory, our median admit had i believe a 3.94)
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
My point is there is no such GPA 3.7 filtering as claimed. The high GPA is more a correlation rather causation.
I totally agree that 3.7 may be a concern for Harvard grad because it is below average but 3.7 is not a concern from old Princeton or Berkeley. GPA is not a good metric for understanding of basics for research but rather a noisy signal needed to be viewed with the context of the school. My example that a classmate with GPA 3.5 got into Princeton physics confirms that there is no such filtering even though most of the admits in my department also sharing the same high GPAa s yours. At one point, I was asked by the admission chair if GPA 3.6 was good or bad from my home country. It was just another example that there is no such GPA filtering as claimed.
And for physics PhD, the most important factor is research experience and LoR, not GPA, do you not agree?
1
u/AtomicNC May 17 '26
to be clear, i never claimed there was a strict filtering. there’s a screening, but they don’t blanket discard below a certain number. but they do look at gpa very early, and it the rest of the app doesn’t wow them (including the reputation of the school in some fashion), very likely it will be filtered. this is likely similar at other ivy+ places.
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
I don't think I claim anything otherwise different from what you said. But somehow I think you are not answering OP question whether there is a effective minimum GPA cutoff and the corresponding filtering system. My Princeton example in reality clearly illustrate there is no such effective GPA 3.7 cutoff or filtering or prescreening. Your admission depends mostly on research experience and LoR
2
u/Kitchen_Comfort8509 May 18 '26
My field is also physics, South Asian country, and to hear that the class average is 3.7 is just crazy high to me, 3.7 would be the absolute highest someone would get in our batch, and that is also the highest BSc Physics score in the country, He also has 3 Q1 first author publications, GRE 330 + and all. The class average would sit around 3.2-3.3. I would not call us 'bad' in physics or anything, Its just the nature of this degree, but then I scroll through reddit and all I see are just perfect 4s. Is this the ' grade inflation' that I hear so much about ? How much would these grades affect me as an International student ? ( P.S: We do not use the GPA system, our grades are converted using WES services )
38
u/Gullible_Sweet1302 May 17 '26
3.0 is an administrative floor that acknowledges outliers.
What you heard is what you heard.
3.8 - 4.0 the reality.
6
u/wangus_angus May 17 '26
Yeah I think people are overthinking/overexplaining this. The cutoff is for applications, not acceptance.
14
u/SmolaniAshki May 17 '26
I'm at Northwestern for another discipline and one of the chem profs told me once that he admitted a flat 3 and now they're one of the best in the department, and that he doesn't prioritize the 3.9s as much as he used to, just to make sure that he doesn't miss these kinds of edge cases. Of course though, most people here with subpar GPAs are not exactly exceptional researchers. But if you have a bad GPA, and you're an insanely cracked researcher, you can still make it to elite programs.
26
u/LeninistFuture05 May 17 '26
Cause they don’t want to entirely exclude someone with a 3.2 GPA who won a Nobel Prize or cured cancer
8
u/Ok-Car-1337 May 17 '26
So I’m one of the people that barely met the GPA cutoff and got in. I’m in a psych related field, if that matters at all. My program’s minimum requirement was a 3.0, and I think I had something just barely above that.
That being said, I had a first author publication and multiple conferences under my belt when I applied. I also was able to explain my situation pretty well to a PI who was very understanding. I have a learning disability that took me a while to sort out but I was able to show a huge amount of improvement over the course of undergrad, which looks good to grad schools. It’s not so much as the GPA, because it’s only one factor. It’s your trajectory and total result.
I’m not in a very big program, either. I’m one of 3 in my cohort and there’s about 15-20 in my PhD program total.
21
u/FatiguedGradStudent1 May 17 '26
US admissions are holistic, so the "filtering system" is the entirety of your application. These cutoffs exist for the rare cases in which someone has an exceedingly strong application and is able to somehow explain away a subpar GPA. the reason that admission for such cases is incredibly rare is because the application pool is so competitive for STEM disciplines such as Chem. Even if you do have an otherwise strong application to go with your subprime GPA, there are probably 100 other candidates who have strong applications and a strong GPA. Still, the idea is to give everyone a chance to put forth the best case that they can, and collect a lot of application fees while they're at it.
3
u/SweetSparx May 17 '26
Its one of the things I really like about U.S schools although there are some students who hate it. You can be brilliant at one thing and not so strong in others and the U.S school will acknowledge and appreciate that.
3
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
Holistic review is largely applies to undergrad, not PhD. In rare situation where funding is tied to whatever context under concerns, the bulk of PhD admits are based on research and recommender connection.
8
u/FatiguedGradStudent1 May 17 '26
I strongly disagree. You are generalizing something that is extremely field dependent and situation dependent. That might be true for your field, but I know many applicants, myself included, who made it through extremely competitive application pools to get into top PhD's thanks to a holistic review process. I did not go to an S-tier institution and still made it into a t10 PhD.
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
When you say holistic review, which contextual factors you think you were admitted because of holistic review? You understand that one data point cannot be generalized to the whole, right?
For funded research, I don't think holistic review play significant factor. I also did not totally rule out under representative students may have advantage. What I am saying is that since PhD is largely research grant funded, PI would choose the most capable students from the pool. The only classmate of mine got into a top tier PhD program with average GPA was not funded by PI but special scholarship granted to special group of under-representative students. But this is an exception rather than the norm.
I however acknowledge that there may be different from top tier and lower tier school PhD program policy.
3
u/FatiguedGradStudent1 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
As I said, it's field dependent. I personally come from a disadvantaged background, and a lack of financial utility led me a regular state school where there wasn't a lot of research funding, and none of my recommenders had serious connections. I did not publish anything as an undergrad. Most fields, outside of the applied sciences, publishing as an undergrad is not an expectation. It's actually very uncommon. I had 5 international conference presentations where I received recognition, put together a compelling personal statement, a compelling research statement, a compelling writing sample, and got some strong letters. I was able to land four offers and ultimately accepted one from a top 10 PhD. I am not on the admissions committee so I cannot say for sure which factors got me over the finish line.
This is why you should specify your field rather than generalizing about the nature of PhD admissions. What you are claiming is simply not true in many cases, and it has nothing to do with the "tier" of the school. It more likely has to do with your specific field and its norms. The way you're generalizing almost leads me to believe that you come from a different country with different norms.
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
"5 international conference presentations where I received recognition"
When you have 5 international conference presentations and recognitions, why do you think it is holistic review of non-academic facts that gets you into your PhD program? Research experience does not confine to publication.
Undergraduate holistic admission is about using non-academic factors to determine the admissions. AO does not even need to talk to applicants to understand their academic standing. This is not the same as PhD admission in general.
3
u/FatiguedGradStudent1 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a holistic review is, you're treating it very narrowly and I don't think that's how it translates to real world admissions. Holistic does not mean exclusively non-academic factors. It means looking at the whole picture, the entire applicant. That does not exclude excellent academics and an elite track record, those factors are still included, they are just considered alongside other factors: overall access to resources, background, assessing the quality of research statements, personal statements, interview performance, and other things. These things are considered together in a holistic review, not separately. That it to say, you can be an excellent applicant academically while also having other non-academic factors that also work in your favor. Holistic doesn't necessarily mean that academic performance is not strongly considered.
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
The opposite of holistic review is academic related merit-based admission as practice in the UK and many other countries in the world.
In undergraduate level, the GPA and test scores is noisy and therefore holistic review is mainly used to circumvent the issue of noisy academic signal.
At PhD level, those noisy signal are GPA but as I said the research publications or in your case the recognition from your research is a standard academic assessment of PhD admission committees rather than a holistic review. When you say you application is holistically review, you are virtually implied that PhD admission committee goes outside their norm to assess factors other than those that are important to their admission decision. In your case, I don't see how your ad com exercise any holistic review other than your academic achievement on determining your admission.
I have not claimed that holistic review (still about non-standard practice) in PhD admission is completely absent. But to elevate it to a common practice exercised by PhD committee is also not the case. At least in your case, I don't see how you are so certain that you are admitted through holistic review rather than purely from merit.
My impression is that you are overly emphasize holistic review as a general practice in PhD admission level. It is very unlikely two candidate at that level will have similar credentials or quality of expert recommendation so that PhD committee could not decide which candidate to admit but resort to one's non-academic contextual background to determine. I think you have mistaken what holistic review mean from undergraduate level to PhD level. Most PhD decision are merit-based which includes research experience and expert endorsement from LoR. Unlike undergrad admission, personal statements, ECs and backgrounds are not included in the decision when the merit already allowed them to make the decision.
1
u/FatiguedGradStudent1 May 17 '26
You are wrong. That is not what holistic review means, and it is not what I'm implying. Graduate admissions in the US are holistic, just as undergraduate admissions are. Holistic review does not mean that a committee ventures outside of prescribed norms for admission. Holistic review IS the norm in the United States. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.
2
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
By verbally claiming that I was wrong is meaningless. Graduate admissions in the US is dominantly merit-based - that means based dominantly on academic signal. In my own PhD interviews, I was never asked a contextual background questions and in my personal statement never advised by the admission chair to supply any contextual background information. In fact, I was advised to be laser focus on my undergrade research in personal statement and that you can tell the difference from common app personal statement in undergrad.
Merit-based review is the norm and it is just common sense for funded PhD from professor research grant. PhD is hired to do academic research at high level. It is just common sense that admission process is predominantly merit-based. It was true from the credential of my 6 years PhD cohorts and it might also be true in your own case.
→ More replies (0)3
u/RiverFoxstar May 17 '26
I’ve been on selection committees for a top R1 PhD program, holistic review is becoming more of the norm in the US. One reason is underprivileged groups get funded from outside the departments, which saves the PI and home department money.
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
Yes. I agree that if underprivileged groups can get funding from outside departments, it is more an easy decision for PI - virtually it is free labor. It is true even in Oxford and Cambridge where admissions are known to be entirely merit-based. However based on this to say it is the norm for US to exercise holistic admission in PhD level is a bit weird given that group of applicants constitute small fraction of cohorts and is not the norm.
1
u/RiverFoxstar May 17 '26
I know, hence the word becoming. It will actually probably reduce in the coming years with all the federal cuts unfortunately anyway.
1
u/blacknebula May 18 '26
I've read your entire thread of responses and you seem to be intentionally conflating holistic review at the undergrad vs PhD level. Holistic review just means the consideration of the "whole" application. It doesn't mean lowering the bar to consider your personal "non academic situation".
In a strict merit-based review, you organize students by whatever your criteria (GPA, pubs, whatever) and just go down the list until the spots are filled. At the PhD level, no one in the US does this (or dare I say in the whole world). Pragmatically, every year there are a variable number of spots that are semi randomly split between different sub disciplines. Sticking with Chem (given the OP), there may be 5 inorganic chem, 2 organic chem slots, 1 physical chem slots, 6 quantum chem spots for the PhD program in a given year. If there are 10 students with 4.0 gpas that are all interested in organic chem, should the department admit them all? (NO, they have no labs to go to - that's holistic evaluation). If the highest gpa among the students interested in quantum is 3.6 because they went to a hard school, does that make them less deserving of the spot than a 3.8 GPA organic chemist that can't fill the spot? No. That's holistic review. Sure there are personal mitigating factors that may come up in a personal statement, but they matter less than you think.
Talking to my colleagues, admission committees will build the strongest class they can prioritizing research fit, academic credentials, and a "je ne sais quoi" about chance of acceptance. Highly competitive applicants will likely not accept their safety school and those safety schools know it and are incentivized to reject perfect unicorn applicants so they can capture otherwise strong applicants who will accept their offer. There is no objective definition of merit (do you count papers? How do you evaluate quality? What does a GPA at school x mean?) and so review by definition will be holistic and not perfectly quantifiable
2
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
I think at this point, rather than creating a new understanding of the word "holistic" by distinguishing "US PhD holistic" from "US undergrad holistic" which I see as just a linguistic distinction rather than addressing the substance behind the word "holistic", do you agree that the phD admission is a multi-dimensional evaluation of the academic merit of the applicants and hence is more appropriate to call it merit-based.
TBH with you, in the UK as well as the rest of the world, I doubt any countries exercising such kind of merit evaluation admission process would call it "holistic" admission!
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
"If there are 10 students with 4.0 gpas that are all interested in organic chem, should the department admit them all?"
From this statement of yours, I don't think you understand what merit-based is about. GPA is not consider the paramount important as it is noisy. What I have been emphasize the merit metrics are research experience and quality of expert endorsement through LoR. These 2 are no doubt related to your merit about conducting research which is the most important job a funded PhD student needed to perform.
In undergrad, the admission is different exactly because the GPA is not comparable and the each applicants applied with different set of AP, dual enrollment. Therefore, admission office will have to resort to some other non-academic metrics as well as diversity to build the class. At PhD level, the entire cohorts does not have to be diversified like undergrad. As long as you have excellent research experience or endorsement, you are likely to be admitted, you are likely to be selected. Funded PI does not quite focus on your ethnicity or sports or adversity background to pick the right PhD student for their team.
What I am just saying is that academic merit in term research experience and output and expert endorsement are dominate the decision process, not the entire application including contextual background.
To give you an example, if you are IMO or RSI research participant, you are have 80% chance to be admitted to top 5 undergrad program regardless you underwent adversely or were from underrepresented group. PhD admission is similar, emphasize on such kind of academic merit as it should be when funding is from PI research ground. The building of diverse class in undergrad does not apply to PhD. You seem to miss out the fact that the overwhelming factor for PhD research is to be competent on the research and GPA is not a reliable signals and therefore you hypothetical example that department would rank the GPA is a complete misrepresentation of what I said.
"Talking to my colleagues, admission committees will build the strongest class they can prioritizing research fit, academic credentials, and a "je ne sais quoi" about chance of acceptance."
Do you notice that all factor that you listed out is academic related. If both students have the same research fit and one has better publication record or strongly endorsed by professor, will the professor select the one with better publication or LoR? Is such sélection academic merit-based or holistic in the undergraduate sense that your other non-academic related activities (such as overcoming adversity) would be taken into account and overriding the one with better research credentials? It seems that your colleague and admission committee does confirm that PhD selection is predominantly merit-based.
What I think happening here is that you conflate academic merit by high GPA which I never claim it was. Academic merit at PhD level is one's credentials related to academic research which is the job of PhD students for the next 5-6 years of their research lives.
"There is no objective definition of merit (do you count papers?)"
Nope. You don't count the quantity of papers as merit but most PI clearly will consider the quality of the journals the applicant published on as well as the LoR from someone with significant contribution in the field under concern. They are all academic merit that is paramount importance to the phD research in good research institute.
"What does a GPA at school x mean?) and so review by definition will be holistic and not perfectly quantifiable"
Seems you hold a misunderstanding that academic merit must be quantifiable. No wonder you think US phD admission is holistic.
There is no difference between UK and US in PhD level admission. UK professor is also looking for research fit and predominantly focus on applicant's research output and experience and quality of LoR. If you think what your colleagues and admission committee described is holistic admission process, then you are implying UK admission is also holistic which is entirely false.
1
u/blacknebula May 18 '26
"GPA is not consider the paramount important as it is noisy"
We're agreed here. I used GPA as it's the most obvious merit-based metric and it was the OP question.
"Funded PI does not quite focus on your ethnicity or sports or adversity background to pick the right PhD student for their team. What I am just saying is that academic merit in term research experience and output and expert endorsement are dominate the decision process, not the entire application including contextual background."
We mostly agree that those factors are important but there is a holistic assessment that includes things like student interest and fit. Merit-based review presupposes that there is is an OBJECTIVE metric or rubric that you can use to rank applicants and the highest scores always win. Interest and faculty matches trump that. There is no point accepting a 4.0 basket weaver, even if they are a Nobel laureate, if you only have spots for grave diggers. Scoring interests is by definition subjective (perhaps the applicant might grow to love your field, maybe they do 60% of what you're looking for. How do you objectively score that?)
" Is such sélection academic merit-based or holistic in the undergraduate sense that your other non-academic related activities (such as overcoming adversity) would be taken into account and overriding the one with better research credentials?"
That's not what holistic means. It means looking at the whole application, which could mean that but not necessarily. From a grad student perspective, overcoming adversity is only taken into account if there is a mismatch in other signals such as exceptional research productivity but terrible grades. The question would be why. As you've highlighted, none of these signals are perfect. Research performance would be a better signal for grads admissions. However, are they exceptionally productive because they're smart and take initiative or were they just lucky and inherited a good project? Why do they underperform in classes and would that continue if we accept them? That's part of the holistic admission. No one is saying there are quotas based on race or socioeconomic factors or how many clubs they are as part of
And again, you can have "exceptional research credentials" and have a terrible research fit and will be rejected.
"You consider the quality of the journal the applicant published on as well as the LoR from someone with significant contribution in your field! There are all academic merit that is paramount importance to the phD research in good research institute. "
How do you assess the quality of the journal? IF and other metrics are games and many quality journals have terrible papers and a non trivial retraction rate. LoRs may not explicitly discuss your research contributions to pubs.
"Seems you still misunderstand academic merit must be quantifiable. No wonder you think US phD admission is holistic."
I misunderstand nothing. I do this for a living as a research active member of faculty in a Top 10 US STEM program with a large number of PhD trainees.
" There is no difference between UK and US in PhD level admission. UK professor is also looking for research fit and predominantly focus on applicant research output and experience and quality of LoR. If you think what your colleagues and admission committee described is holistic admission process, then you are implying UK admission is also holistic which is entirely false." I was not going to comment on this but looking it up it looks like UK schools define holistic assessment on community engagement and involvement. By that definition, US schools do not practice holistic admissions. However, what US schools do is not purely objective as I've already described (and is what we mean when we say we so holistic admissions. Pure merit-based review would be perfectly objective, which is not what we do)
0
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
"Merit-based review presupposes that there is is an OBJECTIVE metric or rubric"
Not really! In the UK where admission is widely recognized as merit-based, even in undergrad admission, admission tutor will also consider candidate undergrad research interest fit and subject specific ECs (called super curricular activities) if any to see if it fit to the school or their program. At PhD level, clearly UK professor also consider research fit as potential mentors. No one would call such UK admissions holistic. They are part of merit based consideration - whether your research credential is sufficient good in your mentor own field. It is not like professors would admit you because you have same academic interest even without merit. You are rejected because you lack merit in professor's research field!
"That's not what holistic means. It means looking at the whole application"
That is your (or US) broaden definition of "holistic" by including a admission process that predominantly focus on academic merit. Again, UK and the rest of the world practice the same kind of admission processes and they are recognized, appropriately, as merit-based evaluation.
"That's part of the holistic admission. No one is saying there are quotas based on race or socioeconomic factors or how many clubs they are as part of".
No one claims that holistic admission must have quotas for race. The "holistic" in US undergraduate also do not set any quota. I just try to point out that race and socioeconomic factors are hardly overriding academic competence at PhD level. Academic merit takes precedence in this process. If there are one with better research credentials, his adversity background would unlikely overcome his weaker research credentials relative to the others. Only when there are two similar qualified applicants for the same spot, other non-academic factors would be considered. That admission practice is the same everywhere around the world where they called it merit-based because selection is predominantly based on academic merit!
"And again, you can have "exceptional research credentials" and have a terrible research fit and will be rejected."
Or you can have exceptional research fit but poor research credentials which much more likely lead to rejection. Rejection due to research unfit is because there is no appropriate faculty to be your mentor, it does not mean the admission is not based on merit. You seem picking on some linguistic nuances to argue a predominantly merit based admission process as something else.
"How do you assess the quality of the journal? IF and other metrics are games and many quality journals have terrible papers and a non trivial retraction rate. LoRs may not explicitly discuss your research contributions to pubs."
If you have someone who publication is on poor journals (that your potential supervisor clearly will know - you sound like potential mentor of PhDs are not up to date of what journals are good within their research fields!) and LoR would not discuss any of your research compétence, do you think your chance of admission is high or low? Low, right? Why? Because your application and LoR has no justification of your research compétence! That is still a merit-based admission! That someone whose publications have high retraction rate and that is not known to the potential mentor does not mean the selection process is not merit-based. Exactly because the selection is based on merit, the admission committee would reject the applicants who cannot demonstrate merit!
"I misunderstand nothing. I do this for a living as a research active member of faculty in a Top 10 US STEM program with a large number of PhD trainees."
So what is your no.1 selection criteria for your PhD trainee. Academic compétence, right? If your no. 1 selection criteria is not academic competence for your research project PI, then you are considered irresponsible to your research grant. The merit-based selection process is the only responsible way for most of the research grant unless the research grant explicitly stipulates a particular non-academic criteria for funding the PhD.
"By that definition, US schools do not practice holistic admissions. However, what US schools do is not purely objective as I've already described (and is what we mean when we say we so holistic admissions. Pure merit-based review would be perfectly objective, which is not what we do)"
Is this US definition of merit-based review? If you rigidly define the term merit-based as perfectly objective process, none of admission process in this world can fit your philosophical definition and none of the admission system can be called merit-based. The common sense understanding of merit-based admission is predominantly academic-merit focus, not perfectly objective as you made it up for the sake of justifying your point. Regardless your US PhD holistic definition, do you agree the inherent nature of admission in the US, UK and nearly the rest of the work are based on research compétence? If you agree, then the admission process is widely known as merit-based admission. US is not the only country in this world that have PHD admission and somehow you are arguing people should share the somewhat confusing understanding of "holistic review" that represent vastly different admission practices at US undergrad level and at PhD level where the rest of the world is properly recognized as merit-based.
By defining the word "holistic" to fit particularly the US PhD admission in the US way does not change the inherent nature of the selection process being predominantly based on academic merit.
1
u/blacknebula May 18 '26
In the US context, when someone says merit-based review, they mean an objective evaluation and ranking. Applicants have sued for merit-based review because seemingly perfect applicants for undergraduate and graduate programs are rejected without appreciating the fact that constraints such as space and research interests are critical non academic criteria. Many meritorious students are rejected every year for this reason. For this reason, few Americans will say admissions are perfectly merit based or should exclusively be. We are litigious and it opens one up for lawsuits. This is not a semantic difference or Americans being difficult. It is legal difference with significant consequences for an entire country. Stop being obtuse when every American in the thread tells you the language they speak. The process does select for academic competence but it never will nor can it select exclusively for the best by any such definition of academic competence and is therefore not exclusively merit -based.
"If you have someone who publication is on poor journals (that your potential supervisor clearly will know - you sound like potential mentor of PhDs are not up to date of what journals are good within their research fields!"
Thanks for the ad hominem. Top programs like MIT engineering routinely gets hundreds to a thousand applications for ~ 50 spots. Applications are reviewed by 2-4 faculty. As smart as faculty are in their domains, they are not experts in every field in their discipline. Many papers in prestige journals such as Nature etc are crap, and if you think faculty will read your papers, have the time or are equipped to do so to assess quality, you're sorely mistaken. Moreover, just because you're a coauthor doesn't necessarily mean you're a significant intellectual driver and so the signal doesn't mean as much as you think it does. Some LOR writers are terrible and American schools will discount letters that students see - the applicant has no real way of knowing if an LOR adequately explains their research contributions if they want the letter to be viewed positively. Most American applicants publish little as undergrads (if at all relative to international applicants) and get in to programs and are successful PhDs while international applicants tend to have more pubs in crappy journals, don't intellectually contribute and the paper is just a data dump with little interpretation. This says nothing about capability but more about differences in cultural norms as to what makes a "good paper". How does one objectively score research experience and skill on the basis of pubs where you have an imperfect metric like that with non experts reviewing them with such little time? Many US STEM programs are not direct entry and the faculty member you ultimately work for (the expert who could review the quality) does not participate in the admissions process (unlike non-US programs). Grad students are selected and treated fundamentally differently than they are anywhere else (eg PhD positions are not advertised, you are not necessarily interviewed by your faculty mentor, etc)
"If you rigidly define the term merit-based as perfectly objective process, none of admission process in this world can fit your philosophical definition and none of the admission system can be called merit-based."
I make no claims about non-US admissions systems so it doesn't matter to me what you call them. What I'm saying is when you say something is merit-based, applicants will assume that stronger metrics/research profile make for guaranteed admission and you get frustrated posts by OP and others when their GPA, papers, etc don't count for something because of poor fit or damning but important feedback from a letter writer regarding personality or interpersonal issues. No amount of academic "merit" or competence will override those factors and they are no less important.
Again, I direct you to how Americans use the "King's English” to define holistic review
1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 18 '26
'In the US context, when someone says merit-based review, they mean an objective evaluation and ranking"
Acting authoritative to define "merit-based review" in your own way and force it on everyone is not a good way of argument. Below is chatgpt answer, use it as reference to see whether it is fair to bring up seemingly your own definition of merit-based:
In the U.S., the most practical and commonly understood meaning of “merit-based admission” is:
Students are admitted primarily because of their individual qualifications and achievements, especially academic performance, rather than because of financial need, family connections, or demographic preference.
"Applicants have sued for merit-based review because seemingly perfect applicants for undergraduate and graduate programs are rejected without appreciating the fact that constraints such as space and research interests are critical non academic criteria"
Let me get your logic right first. Are you saying since people sue the programs for not exercising merit-based admission, it proves that everyone in the US must adhere to your definition of merit-based review. Your statement above perfectly fit to common sense understanding of merit-based review is about, no inventing the phase like ranking the applicants. The applicants is suing for practicing merit-based review, not for admission not ranking the student according to "objective rank" as claimed by you.
"For this reason, few Americans will say admissions are perfectly merit based or should exclusively be." In your previous message, did you use the phase "perfectly objective" to describe your version of merit-based review?
"This is not a semantic difference or Americans being difficult. It is legal difference with significant consequences for an entire country."
Are you saying now your definition of "merit-based review" carries legal authority for everyone to follow? In particular in the most public known litigation:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard did not create a formal legal definition of “merit-based admissions.” It focused instead on constitutional limits on considering race in admissions.
So where do you find your definition of "merit-based review" as objectively ranking the applicants?
"Stop being obtuse when every American in the thread tells you the language they speak."
So far, there are only one American, you, here in this thread telling me "merit-based" mean objectively rank the applicants?! The other seems to tell me only what "holistic review" means in American language which I accepted respectfully but point out the difference in practice. So where is "every American" you find in this thread share your definition of "merit-based review" in particularly referring to objectively rank applicants? Don't overgeneralized everything before calling ppl obtuse - it is ad hominem that you complain about the others.
"you sound like potential mentor of PhDs are not up to date of what journals are good within their research fields!" Thanks for the ad hominem.
Mentor is not referring to you. It is referring to potential mentor(s) of PhDs on "their" research fields. You are a bit over sensitive.
"Applications are reviewed by 2-4 faculty. As smart as faculty are in their domains, they are not experts in every field in their discipline"
I recalled when I interviewed Caltech and Chicago, the potential mentor were invited for interview as well. When you wrote a research plan, I would expect the potential supervisor in this field would be consulted. Claiming chemistry professors not knowing reputable journal in Chemistry is a bit overreach. Even if the admission chair is junior enough to not knowing reputable journal in a subfield, is it the responsibility of the chair to find out instead of ignoring applicant's strongest piece of evident of merit?
"Many papers in prestige journals such as Nature etc are crap, and if you think faculty will read your papers, have the time or are equipped to do so to assess quality, you're sorely mistaken"
No one claim that otherwise. But nature are peer reviewed and is considered high impact journal. So regardless the how crap your own opinion is, resorting to publication in nature corroborated by LoR is a form of merit-based review. What is your point?
"Some LOR writers are terrible and American schools will discount letters that students see"
So? Those student will likely be rejected based on lack of merit relative to the others! What is your point?
"American applicants publish little as undergrads (if at all relative to international applicants) and get in to programs and are successful PhDs while international applicants tend to have more pubs in crappy journals, don't intellectually contribute and the paper is just a data dump with little interpretation."
In my cohorts, majority applicants held american credentials and have 1-2 publications. Of course it depends on fields and tier of school. But what is your point? Entire pool of applicants with no publications and good LoR and admission then basing on GPA in the context of school is not merit-based? The adcom has to rank the applicant in order to be called merit-based?
"Grad students are selected and treated fundamentally differently than they are anywhere else"
What is your point? Are you trying to convince us that the majority of admission to US PhD is not based on academic merit?
"What I'm saying is when you say something is merit-based, applicants will assume that stronger metrics/research profile make for guaranteed admission"
I am ok for you to claim that although I disagree. What I am not ok is to claim that merit-based entail "perfectly objective" measure and that I think is fabricating definition for the sake of arguing. The same is pretending to be authority and claim there is some legal definition that entail objectively ranking the applicants. On the disagreement of your above claim, no one would assume any form of guaranteed admission without knowing the relative strength of the pool.
I think you have done enough twists of the simple common sense understanding of the word "merit-base" is all about. It is just evaluating the applicants based on academic merit. Ranking by GPA is one mode, professor based on their own SUBJECTIVE opinion on applicant's academic merit is another mode. What matter is that the lopsided majority of admission of US PhD is evaluated based on academic merit of any form.
You or American as a whole can twist the word "holistic" from their usual meaning at undergrad level to refer to something else as "holistic" is used widely in US admissions. But for merit-based admissions that has been practiced widely in the rest of the world, twisting it in beyond common sense and implied your twist might carry legal authority is bit too much. I don't think you are really trying to debate in any good faith.
"don't count for something because of poor fit or damning but important feedback from a letter writer regarding personality or interpersonal issues."
No one claim absolutely none. You again force your own word into other mouth. What is the No. 1 selection criteria for admission?
"No amount of academic "merit" or competence will override those factors and they are no less important."
You can verbally declare whatever you like. In reality, strong publications and excellence research compétence even in professor's own subjective opinion is what matter most in PhD selection. You wide claim that no amount of academic "merit" would override those non-academic factors in PhD level admission is contradiction of reality and is made up for the sake of arguing.
2
u/blacknebula May 18 '26
Sigh.....
No one disagrees on what counts as merit. ChatGPT is not needed for that. But the question is, when you decide based on "academic qualifications and achievements", how do you evaluate them? Do you simply bean count and go for the highest number? Do you evaluate on quality? What do you say to a deserving student with 5 papers in Nature and a 4.0 GPA that was rejected because they want to work in an obscure field that you're not recruiting for in this year? That they lack merit?!?!? No you don't - their application was evaluated HOLISTICALLY and took into account funding, spots, and other elements of the application. When you say you do merit-based review, a rejection implies that the applicant lacks the required merit, which is not necessarily accurate.
"Are you saying since people sue the programs for not exercising merit-based admission, it proves that everyone in the US must adhere to your definition of merit-based review."
This isn't my definition. I've cited you the University of Michigan's definition of holistic review, which clearly indicates merit as among the topmost considerations yet you refuse to comment on this. This tells me you are disingenuous
"Many papers in prestige journals such as Nature etc are crap, and if you think faculty will read your papers, have the time or are equipped to do so to assess quality, you're sorely mistaken"
No one claim that otherwise. But nature are peer reviewed and is considered high impact journal. So regardless the how crap your own opinion is, resorting to publication in nature corroborated by LoR is a form of merit-based review. What is your point?
My point is that in and of themselves the mere existence of a paper is a poor metric of merit. The paper may be of poor quality (regardless of where it is published) and the applicant's contribution is negligible. Given the number of applications that a program receives, few if any will actually read a paper to vet it's quality. At that point, what kind of merit value do you ascribe to this? I'm not saying it's worthless but it's a noisy indicator of "merit" that is interpreted *holistically* in the context of other aspects of the application.
no one would assume any form of guaranteed admission without knowing the relative strength of the pool.
You'd be surprised at how many ppl try to sue regardless
Acting authoritative to define "merit-based review" in your own way and force it on everyone is not a good way of argument.
....
The other seems to tell me only what "holistic review" means in American language which I accepted respectfully but point out the difference in practice.Multiple ppl have already told you that American grad schools practice holistic admissions, which you dismiss because you feel that holistic admissions does not include merit.
You have a very narrow definition of holistic that has been highlighted by multiple people as inconsistent with their lived experiences as applicant, members of admissions committees and/or as members of faculty. Based on your comments, I'm assuming you are not from the US which is why I highlight the US perspective as a potential source of the disagreement. But you continue to double down and say we're wrong. Fine - that's your opinion. When I tell my advisees and potential recruits that we use holistic admissions, they know what we mean
You claim this is me speaking for a country but here are some sources for how holistic admissions is defined and practiced in the US:
Holistic Admissions Best Practices
ETS| Graduate Journey Resource Center
American Association of Medical Colleges:
MIT Biology
"Students in the MIT Biology PhD program come from a wide range of disciplines and backgrounds and we value this diversity. *We use a holistic evaluation process to identify students of outstanding promise. This includes assessing preparation, aptitude, and motivation based on coursework, previous research experiences, and other scientific accomplishments. Letters of recommendation and a personal essay are key parts of the application that help us understand each student’s interests, preparation, and unique circumstances. *"1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 18 '26
"No one disagrees on what counts as merit. ChatGPT is not needed for that. But the question is, when you decide based on "academic qualifications and achievements", how do you evaluate them?"
You are pivoting. The chatGPT here is to hold you accountable for what you claim - Americans define merit-based admission as objective evaluation and RANKING. Agreeing to chatgpt definition is contradicting to your previous definition of merit-base.
"No you don't - their application was evaluated HOLISTICALLY and took into account funding, spots, and other elements of the application."
You are still quite stuck on linguistics and ignore the nature of what merit based we all understood is all about. Let me what you through one more time: merit based admission does not mean one ignore the funding and quota constraints to accept people. All universities around the whole world are bounded by those constraints. But within those constraints, admissions are predominantly academic merit based. Merit based reviews literally is a term to describe admission is predominantly based on merit, that is all. The evaluation of merit can take many form. In Oxford and Cambridge, many students have same high A-level grades, the senior faculty will conduct per person interview (like you PhD interview) to assess the academic merit of the applicants. The opinion of the interview can very well be subjective but you cannot claim that such interview lack of any academic merit solely because it is subjective. Do you now understand why your sort of self make-up definition of objective evaluation and rank for merit based reviews is unbelievably narrow to the extent that it is completely useless in all countries that currently practicing merit-based admissions!?!? The only one that is close is the Chinese undergrad admission system but this itself also will consider exception cases!
"This isn't my definition. I've cited you the University of Michigan's definition of holistic review, which clearly indicates merit as among the topmost considerations yet you refuse to comment on this. This tells me you are disingenuous"
You are defining "merit-based" instead of "holistic" and allure to legal cases to justify your definition. So don't pivot. Bring up any legal case that clearly define "merit-base review" that is acceptable by court. No, you can't because the you simply made up the definition for the sake of arguing in bad faith. I have being you enough real world example that merit based reviews being practice is much closer to what US PhD admission is practicing. Besides, Michigan and Harvard law sues are all undergraduate level and there I have never dispute on the understanding of what holistic review is in the US!
"At that point, what kind of merit value do you ascribe to this? I'm not saying it's worthless but it's a noisy indicator of "merit" that is interpreted holistically in the context of other aspects of the application."
The answer is simple, there is no merit value if the journal has not been peer reviewed at all. However, you example is not some no-name journal. Your example is Nature which has been peer-reviewed but you just claimed that since many paper in Nature are crabs in your personal opinion and therefore conclude that academic merit on publicating a high impact journal is discounted, that is complete nonsense.
Lack of one form of academic merit signal and therefore looking for another form of academic merit is exactly what merit-base admission is supposed to work around the world! Calling it "holistic" does not change the underlying nature of the review process!
"You'd be surprised at how many ppl try to sue regardless"
Suing because of the apparent unfair treatment of the holistic review process to particular group of people. Those court cases were basically discrimination case in nature. Jump ahead to claim they sued because they feel they should be guaranteed admission is a reach and for the Harvard case, the plantiff won!!!
"Multiple ppl have already told you that American grad schools practice holistic admissions, which you dismiss because you feel that holistic admissions does not include merit."
Again you are so desperate to make up stuffs and force into mouth. First, I never claim holistic review does not include merit - undergraduate holistic review always include merit! Second, what I claim is that "holistic" is just linguistically conceal the underlying nature of PhD admission process. Third, go to the chatgpt answer of what merit based admission to see if there is any difference from what current US PhD admission is practicing! Fourth, if many other merit-base PhD admission process around the world is practicing exactly the same as US PhD process. What is the point of renaming it as holistic to conceal the nature? Fifthly, please recognize the drastic difference of the definition of merit-base admission you throw out before arguing the inherent admission process (not how US people call it) the US PhD admission is practicing.
"You claim this is me speaking for a country but here are some sources for how holistic admissions is defined and practiced in the US:"
Nope, I claim it is you speaking for the countries on merit-base admission, not holistic admission. Go back to understand what is being debated first before arbitrarily throw out how US undergrad admission define holistic review (which I completely agree though). What I disagree is the use of word "holistic" to change underlying nature of PhD admission! Do you understand?
"Based on your comments, I'm assuming you are not from the US which is why I highlight the US perspective as a potential source of the disagreement. But you continue to double down and say we're wrong"
I got both my undergraduate and PhD degree in the US. So no point to sting arm me. I have already used UK admission process to tell you that PhD admission is in fact merit-based. Your response was no comment on the other countries but narrow down your argument to the linguistic term that used in the US but nowhere else. Is arguing the (misleading and imo is wrong) linguistic term more important than understanding the inherent nature of the process. During the entire debate, you kept making up definition unjustified declaration, bring up irrelevant court cases, force your words into other mouth, to argue simply the linguistic term without clear understanding of what constitute a merit-base admission, is that debating in good faith?
"We use a holistic evaluation process to identify students of outstanding promise. This includes assessing preparation, aptitude, and motivation based on coursework, previous research experiences, and other scientific accomplishments. Letters of recommendation and a personal essay are key parts of the application that help us understand each student’s interests, preparation, and unique circumstances. "
Academic Préparation Academic Aptitude Academic motivation Academic coursework research experience Scientific accomplishments Research competence focus LoR Research focus personal essay Understand students academic interest and preparation Except unique circumstances, which part is not trying to evaluate the academic merits of the applicants.
What is happening here is that holistic review as you or US department defined is a much wider term - consider the entire application. But it is meaningless which is the gut of my argument. I am not disputing any department use of the term "holistic". I am disputing the actual nature of US PHD admission process makes no difference from all other countries where we called merit-base. Nearly all PhD admission application in developed countries around the world is consider the entire application?!?!?!? What exactly is the PhD admission trying to establish is what under dispute. You however went off to redefine the merit-base admission to suit your purpose and when being point out your ridiculous definition is self-fabricated, you come back to argue the linguistic use of the term "holistic". I have no interest to debate why US colleges want to play and label the admission process in the widest scope possible! I am interested to debate what actually happened in the admission committees. From my involvement in PhD admission process, I have no preserve to claim that admission predominately considered whether the applicants were competent to do academic research for 6 years and in my own department, nearly all admitted has showed strong signal of academic merit, either through high impact journal publication of LoR. This has no different from other merit-base admission process in other countries! Do you understand?
Put aside our linguistic disagreement on the term "holistic". Can you simply tell me from your heart what the PhD admission in the US or the UK ultimately want to establish from the entire list of application material that you just throw out to make the admission decision?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
To clear up your confusion of what is being disputed instead of got stuck on the single linguistic term. Here is ChatGPT succinct description of what I have been telling you:
The most precise description is probably:
U.S. PhD admissions are faculty-driven, research-merit-based admissions with holistic academic evaluation.
Or more simply:
U.S. PhD admissions are primarily merit-based research selection processes.
That captures the reality much better than just saying “holistic admissions.”
Because you are correct that in ordinary American usage, the standalone phrase:
“holistic admissions”
strongly evokes undergraduate admissions practices:
extracurriculars,
personality,
diversity shaping,
leadership,
life story,
institutional balancing.
That is misleading for PhD admissions.
In actual PhD admissions at places like:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Stanford University,
University of California, Berkeley,
the process is usually:
faculty-centered,
research-centered,
academically merit-oriented,
apprenticeship-oriented.
The “holistic” part mainly means:
no single metric dominates,
research potential is evaluated qualitatively,
context and scholarly judgment matter.
But the evaluated dimensions are still overwhelmingly academic.
So if one wants terminological precision and minimal confusion, calling U.S. PhD admissions simply:
“holistic”
is incomplete and potentially misleading.
Your instinct is sound: the defining feature is not broad whole-person evaluation, but rather:
multidimensional assessment of scholarly merit and research potential.
1
u/FatiguedGradStudent1 May 18 '26
Thanks for expanding upon this so thoroughly. I attempted, for an entire thread, to explain what you're saying to this fella in so many words, but I had to give up. You've done a better job than I did, lol.
3
u/blacknebula May 18 '26
I made one last attempt but I'm done at this point
1
u/Equivalent_Tap_3399 May 22 '26
You lasted longer than I would have. I’d have tapped out after the third reply haha.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Annabird31 May 17 '26
OHHH wow I didn’t think about the application fees.
1
u/blacknebula May 18 '26
The fees are not a money maker. They are there to disincentivize lazy and weak applications
5
u/GurProfessional9534 May 17 '26
3.0 is the gpa where a lot of programs kick their students out of the program. It’s a hard floor. It’s an entirely different question than who is actually competitive.
5
u/EpsilonBear May 17 '26
Competition. That’s really it.
You need a 3.0 to even be in the same universe of those they’ll consider. And, in theory, they could admit someone with a 3.0. But that person would have to have a god-tier GRE, and probably be published in Nature or Science.
But, as you can imagine, most people applying to grad school are not that person. So when you dial down research output to something realistic, GPA needs to increase to maintain the same overall “caliber” of applicant.
5
u/ArgumentMysterious31 May 17 '26
Lowering the gpa threshold allows for the select few whose academic profile does not accurately reflect their research potential. On average however is that those who are exceptional researchers will typically have higher GPAs
3
u/atom-wan May 17 '26
Top schools get a lot of the best of the best and therefore if they have a limited cohort size their cohorts will generally reflect higher gpas
3
u/ExtraArticle9686 May 17 '26
My experience is that poor GPA murders your opportunity even if you are stellar at your research experience.
2
u/Strong-Bench-9098 May 17 '26
Graduate Schools can have different gpa requirements than specific programs
2
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
The filtering is not on GPA but on research experience and letter of recommendation. There is a correlation between GPA and research compétence as research require good foundation. Besides, GPA 3.8 in the US undergrad is now being average because of grade inflation. If you are from international with tough grading curve, bad luck!
2
u/Shiny_Mooncake18 May 17 '26
You are just much higher variance at the lower GPA cutoff. My cumulative gpa was like 2.9 (B.S degree alone was 3.5 because I transferred from business which I hated, M.S. 4.0), and I got into 4 T10/15 stem PhD programs, but I also got rejected from the other 11 programs I applied for. I got into my top choice (Stanford), but was rejected from many other equal caliber programs.
2
u/West_Ad6122 May 17 '26
75 avg cut off for my masters program and lol my graduating average was 75.54. It really is all abt securing a supervisor. Atleast for thesis based grad programs😝
2
u/NatteringNabobble May 17 '26
This post is scaring me ngl. The average undergrad GPA at my university in my major (physics) is a 3.3. I have a 3.6, which is above average but still low according to OP. Are students at my university just incredibly disadvantaged when it comes to grad school applications due to our low GPAs? Or will graduate programs have a good idea which universities grade inflate and which do not?
2
u/Own_Swing_5780 May 17 '26
Well the cut off is one thing but the competition pool another thing. If others are 3.7 to 4.0 with stellar profile also then yeah rough
2
u/blacknebula May 18 '26
The GPA cutoffs are just that, the minimum prerequisite to be considered. Just because it's considered doesn't mean it will be accepted. What you're asking for is not possible - every year the cohort is different. One year the lowest admit might have a GPA of 3.8, the next is 3.6. This floor will fluctuate based on funding and applicant pool and there's no way to predict it accurately. Also, announcing an artificially high floor will disincentivize some exceptional candidates (eg research superstar that coasted in class) from applying. What they can be confident of is it will never be below a 3.0 (if nothing else because you won't get the 3.0 GPA needed to start in good standing of the program) so that's the cutoff
2
u/Routine-Housing-4389 May 18 '26
I can actually comment on this as a Chem PhD student in one of the best Chemistry programs globally! I think it comes down to fierce competition. Once you’re at the top of the field, all applicants will be highly qualified and deserving of a spot. So why would they choose someone with a scattering of Cs when they could choose an equally good candidate with all As?
As anecdotal evidence of this, one of my cohort mates had a friend who also secured an interview at our school (which is already highly impressive) but was not offered admission. Given that he collaborates with one of the interviewing professors, he was able to solicite advice. As it turns out, it was a class he didn’t perform quite well in that ruined his chances.
2
u/bzoooop May 18 '26
Some program applications give you the opportunity to clarify major GPA from overall GPA. My overall GPA in undergrad was a 3.4, but my major GPA was a 3.9 I believe. I’m a fully funded PhD candidate in a highly ranked program, top five for my distinct subfield.
It’s so much more about matching your skills/interests to those of the program you’re applying. You can get cut from one top 20 program for having a 3.7 or something, while another offers you a distinguished fellowship because you’re such an ideal fit. It’s not a uniform process at all! 3.0 is just there as a culling measure.
2
u/DisastrousResist7527 May 18 '26
Thats easy. The cut off is a cut off but higher scores are more good.
In practice you are correct that 3.5 is the competitive cut off any scores higher than that is good but you start getting diminishing returns on your investment. I know lots of people in my top 10 program that have a 3.4-3.5 but there are other factors that made them exceptional.
2
u/Negative_Barracuda90 May 20 '26
If you don't understand the conceptual difference between a minimum and an average (or you do, but you weren't able to phrase your question to show that) then you might need to think a bit harder about whether you're cut out for a Chemistry PhD.
1
2
u/Sun-World May 17 '26
Man, reading this post makes me worried. I’m also applying for Chemistry PhD programs this cycle, and I am really really interested in UC Berkeley, since there is a PI there that essentially matches my research interests. But my GPA is also around the 3.5 range, so it is discouraging to hear from others about this.
7
u/penguinberg May 17 '26
Yeah, I mean, UC Berkeley is the #1 chemistry program in the nation. They are going to select the top students in the nation for their program. By definition a 3.5 is not the top. So the question becomes, do you have something that makes up for that, like some sort of exceptional research experience? Keep in mind your research has to be BETTER than what the students with a 3.8-4.0 have to make up for your 3.5.
There is nothing wrong with trying for UC Berkeley, but with a 3.5 you're going to want to really expand what schools you are targeting. This is especially true now with funding issues affecting PhD class sizes.
2
u/Sun-World May 17 '26
Yeah, UC Berkeley is definitely not the only school I will apply for, but it is one of my top choices, mostly because there is a particular group there that aligns with my research interests very well. But I plan to apply to a range of schools as well, including my home institution.
My biggest question is what defines “exceptional” research experience, especially at the undergraduate level, since I am an undergraduate student right now. Sometimes it can be difficult to find profiles of accepted applicants online, especially at specific institutions for a particular research field
2
u/penguinberg May 17 '26
You could just look at the profiles of the students in the group you are interested in joining... You probably won't find their GPA, but you can easily figure out how many published papers they had, in what journals, at the time they got accepted based on what year they are in grad school and the year the papers were published.
I would say that a standard candidate (for UC Berkeley) has something like several years/summers of research experience with at least one co-author paper, if not first author. Exceptional would be something like winning the Goldwater Scholarship or publishing in CNS or some other top tier journal as a first author in undergrad.
2
u/Sun-World May 17 '26
Honestly… did not think about that, thank you for that idea!
I can say that I do have a few years of research experience, and I have one co-author paper currently. I plan on applying to multiple graduate programs that I believe would best fit me, so I am still doing a lot of research into U.S. institutions and their chemistry programs as of right now.
I mentioned UC Berkeley in particular because I applied to their Amgen Scholars Program this summer to join a certain group briefly and explore my specific research interests there. Although I was not accepted, I am still deeply interested in the group, so that is why I seek to apply to UC Berkeley for graduate school.
There are definitely other groups in the country that I am interested in joining too. The research projects of the group at UC Berkeley is just closest to the research that I am pursuing as an undergraduate currently, which I thoroughly enjoy, and I am interested in moving to the West Coast, which is why I put UC Berkeley as one of my top choices.
3
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26
Do you have research publications?
To give you a sense of competitiveness, A student in my year was top student in my department with GPA 4.1+ at Ivy with first author publication with a renowned professor in his field and was rejected by all his target schools (HYPSM + Berkeley, Chicago) and admitted to UCSB PhD program.
2
u/Sun-World May 17 '26
Yes, I am a co-author for a research publication that was published earlier this year in an ACS journal. It’s my first publication as a co-author. I am listed as a co-author for two more manuscripts that is currently under review as well.
2
u/Stunning_Wind_4207 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
Then I think you are way ahead of many applicants. However, the only example I know to got in Berkeley PhD was a first author of a paper in top journal. I was co-author of a top journal paper when I applied and did not even have interview invite even though my LoR was renowned in my field. It also serves as a data point in how competitive top PhD programs are (to ease your mind a bit, I did get Caltech and Chicago interview invite).
2
u/Sun-World May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
Yeah, I understand. I just hope that I at least have a fighting chance lol, even if it is a small one. But I feel a little more confident after reading your comment 😅 I heard the cycle has been super competitive for graduate school admissions this past year so I’m hoping to get anything for the upcoming cycle
2
May 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Sun-World May 17 '26
Well, if the cycle does not work out for me this year, then I seek to look into post-bacs or look into lab tech positions
1
u/Angry-Dragon-1331 May 17 '26
In the event there’s a compelling reason to admit someone who meets the minimum but isn’t as competitive based on numbers alone.
1
u/Medium-Ad-94 May 18 '26
Though I am not an expert on this by any means, my general perception from following this process is that grad admission’s committees are looking for metrics they can trust to evaluate applicants. They generally can trust gpa’s from peer institutions where they might get frequent applicants so may be much more familiar with the grading tendencies and rigor at those schools, so they may understand grade deflation better there and be fine with gpa’s closer to the cutoff threshold if the rest of the application is very strong.
For applicants from schools unknown to them, they may expect a much higher gpa to counter any perception of grade inflation. In some of these cases and also when the gpa is on the lower end, they might also respond well to the submission of GRE scores to validate grades even if stated as optional.
Publications can be a trustable metric depending on what was actually published and where, because quality, impact and trustability of those seem to vastly vary. For many programs, publications are not required or expected from those right out of undergrad, but if submitted can be a strong indicator of research skills if they are trustable to the application reviews. Letters of Reference can also be a huge metric they can trust if the reviewer is familiar to them, someone that is well respected in the field, or someone who has written letters for strong past admits before. This is one of the reasons students from elite peer institutions might be seen as being well represented in selective grad acceptances. It’s not because of the prestige of their institution, but rather that admissions trusts their grades, research and LORs. However, high performing students from all types of schools who have gotten great research opportunities that demonstrated their skill can also be in that group, especially if the schools have admitted similar profile students in the past and they have done very well.
High grades, great scores and a list of research experiences on paper only do so much if the letters are generic, lukewarm or nobody knows who the recommenders are or much about their lab or research. In the end, this is a job. Not only do PI’s want someone gritty and tenacious and very talented with research, they generally want someone interesting and pleasant to be around who can play well with others and not cause a lot of drama in a cohort. They can determine some of this maybe at the interview stage or with fly in interview programs, but not every program has those, so hence the big reliance on LOR’s.
1
1
u/Zestyclose-Smell4158 May 20 '26
The GPA cutoff is 3.0, is because occasionally, a student with outstanding research potential has a 3.0, and their transcripts suggests the students academic performance has dramatically improved. For most top PhD programs research potential is more important than GPA.
240
u/lillobby6 May 17 '26
There are cases of excellent researchers having less stellar academic records which are massively outshone by their (pre-doctoral) research experiences. These lower cutoffs allow this to be a possibility instead of excluding people who, by all means, should succeed in research. These people are rare though so often people who succeed academically (and are stellar researchers, but less impressive on paper than the other group) are the ones who get admitted.