Lets say you have a B- average right now

[Benzoate]

so far I've only taken 4 physics classes. I have at least 14 more physics classes to taken. Is it possible to raise my GPA to at least a 3.0 because I really , really want to go to physics grad school and most grad schools require the applicant to have a GPA of around 3.0-3.5 range.

 

[CaptainQuaser]

Do the math... it should be trivial to figure out what grades you need to get above a 3.0.
Also, if you want to do theoretical physics, forget about it with marks that low, and for experimental often good reference letters and research experience is more important than GPA.

 

[CPL.Luke]

do you honestly think that a grad school truly cares about the marks you get your freshman year?

I actually have a friend who is now in grad school for theoretical physics and he got a 2.7 cumulative in undergrad.

The reason why is that for his first three years he didn' do muc homeowrk and eventualy became demotivated, after taking a year off he returned and re-took mechanics, quantum mechanics, E&M (grad), stat mech (grad), and quantum mechanics (grad). the 4 subjects that really give you the preparation to go on to grad school, he got A's in them and good recommendations from the professors, this is enough to prove to a grad school that your capable and willing to get it done. Granted he's not into a great grad school, but in the end it matters far more who your advisor is and what you do in grad school than where you go.However you don't want to do what he did, with only 4 classes down, you could theoretically pull a 3.7 average or so if you got all A'sone more thing, a B average is a 3.0 ;)

 

[G01]

If you get good grades from here on out the B-'s as a freshman will not matter at all. Assuming you work hard and get good grades from now on, you'll have no problem getting your GPA above a 3.0. I know the B-'s look like they affect your GPA a lot now, but remember that you probably don't have many credits overall. Once your total credit count gets above 70, the B-'s won't matter, assuming your grades from here on out are better, of course.

 

[Shackleford]

What if someone DID get a B in all their physics courses?

 

[CaptainQuaser]

then they would be a very mediocre student...

 

[G01]

What if someone DID get a B in all their physics courses?

They're physics GPA would be a 3.0 exactly...

Could you explain your question? Are you asking about that someone's grad school chances?

 

[Shackleford]

They're physics GPA would be a 3.0 exactly...

Could you explain your question? Are you asking about that someone's grad school chances?

I was just nonchalantly wondering what the conceptions would be of that student. Would grad school chances be severely diminished if that were the case?

 

[Benzoate]

then they would be a very mediocre student...

just because a student doesn't get straight A's doesn't make him a mediocre student. Everybody learns physics differently and will not absorbed physics material at the same rate .

 

[Cyrus]

If you can't absorb undergrad material, you don't stand a chance absorbing grad material in the same amount of time. There really is no reason why anyone would get all B's in their physics class, unless they don't know what's going on.

 

[CaptainQuaser]

Actually, not getting straight A's, aka being average or moderate, is the definition of mediocre.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, not getting straight A's, aka being average or moderate, is the definition of mediocre.

He said B- average, his B- might not be a 3.0 but lower, hence the below 3.0 grade. Some schools assign point value based on +/- next to the letter.

 

[Defennder]

Don't mean to sound naive here, but are we talking about a 5 point GPA scale or a 4 point one? And if it's 5 point, B- corresponds to 3.0 right?

 

[Benzoate]

Actually, not getting straight A's, aka being average or moderate, is the definition of mediocre.

Actually getting only C's would be mediocre. a student who only earns B's and B'+'s and A-'s are what many consider above average student.

I think a lot of graduate students would not be graduate students if the students only got A's. In addition, earning a high GPA is not the only indicator to determine if a student truly understands what they are learning. Don't you think then graduate committees would solely factor in GPA if a student truly understands if she is learning physics well?

 

[G01]

Actually getting only C's would be mediocre. a student who only earns B's and B'+'s and A-'s are what many consider above average student.

I think a lot of graduate students would not be graduate students if the students only got A's. In addition, earning a high GPA is not the only indicator to determine if a student truly understands what they are learning. Don't you think then graduate committees would solely factor in GPA if a student truly understands if she is learning physics well?

The grad school, I'm sure, looks at other factors other than GPA, like research experience, and recommendations, as well as GRE scores.

 

[Andy Resnick]

What if someone DID get a B in all their physics courses?

I look at more than grades for admission. Partly it's because of grade inflation- I can't trust letter grades out of context from institutions I am unfamiliar with. But I'm also looking for maturity and the desire to be independent- those characteristics mean a lot in grad school, when we expect students to learn things on their own.

To be sure, "mediocre" grades from a random college are not an encouraging sign, but if a student showed improvement during school, or the mediocre grades were confined to a particular semester, or any number of other factors, I'd be more than willing to overlook poor grades.

 

[Benzoate]

I look at more than grades for admission. Partly it's because of grade inflation- I can't trust letter grades out of context from institutions I am unfamiliar with. But I'm also looking for maturity and the desire to be independent- those characteristics mean a lot in grad school, when we expect students to learn things on their own.

To be sure, "mediocre" grades from a random college are not an encouraging sign, but if a student showed improvement during school, or the mediocre grades were confined to a particular semester, or any number of other factors, I'd be more than willing to overlook poor grades.

what letter grades do you consider mediocre? Would any grade between a B and an A- be mediocre to you?

 

[Andy Resnick]

I look for A's and B's, hoping to see mostly A's. Again, I do not have a magic formula.

 

[Shackleford]

I look for A's and B's, hoping to see mostly A's. Again, I do not have a magic formula.

Same here, man. I've always had an innate interest in physics, so coupled with a bit of perseverance and diligence maybe I'll pull mostly "A"s in my physics courses.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually getting only C's would be mediocre. a student who only earns B's and B'+'s and A-'s are what many consider above average student.

I think a lot of graduate students would not be graduate students if the students only got A's. In addition, earning a high GPA is not the only indicator to determine if a student truly understands what they are learning. Don't you think then graduate committees would solely factor in GPA if a student truly understands if she is learning physics well?

I think an average student would be B's, B+'s and A-s. Thats def. not above average by any measure. Above average would be all A's with one or two B's.

If you are not getting As in physics, you are spending too much time on other classes. Get As in physics, if that means getting a B- in other courses. Master what you're in college to learn.

Personally, I think 3.0-3.6 is a mediocre GPA. If you want to stand out, get above a 3.70 GPA, and do an internship.

 

[CaptainQuaser]

As far as mediocre, I would consider the boundary to be about a B+, anything lower than that would in my mind be mediocre. At my school to graduate with honours you need over a B+.

 

[Cyrus]

Thats the problem with honors, it varies from school to school. Here, to graduate with honors is as follows:

Summa Cum Laude 4.000 – 3.974
Magna Cum Laude 3.973 – 3.934
Cum Laude 3.933 – 3.860

Anything below that is not honors.

But at another school, Magna might be anything above a 3.7. So, you really have to see how the individual school defines the honors to see its 'value'.

 

[Barfolumu]

How do "C's" look when not in your chosen field?

I'm pulling a 3.7 now, my Chem classes are A's, but in an effort to get all of my gen eds done this semester, well... a couple are looking like they're going to be in the C to B- range.

 

[CaptainQuaser]

What I hate is the arbitrariness with which GPA corresponds to marks. We have a 4.5 point system. 4.0 is 85-95 and 4.5 is 95+. So there is not a constant scale factor

 

[CPL.Luke]

yeah it depends on the schools and the professors, for instance it was disclosed a number of years ago that harvard had an A- average, thus a B+ from harvard would mean the student was a bit below average.

In my department the average is a B or a B- and so a B+ average would be pretty decent.

I've heard that princeton or some other ivy league has started to combat this by mandating that the average for all classes must be a C or a C+ hence something in the B range is pretty good.

In reality I don't think there is that much of a difference in the students who go to one college or another in this day and age, and so really the difference is in the professors, and the grades with respect to the rest of the class.

 

[Cyrus]

What I hate is the arbitrariness with which GPA corresponds to marks. We have a 4.5 point system. 4.0 is 85-95 and 4.5 is 95+. So there is not a constant scale factor

You would have to convert the numbers I posted so that 4.0 read 4.5 on your scale. I know MIT uses a 5.0 scale. I have no idea why though, I guess they just want to be different. Everyone else should use the standard 4.0 scale.

 

[Cyrus]

yeah it depends on the schools and the professors, for instance it was disclosed a number of years ago that harvard had an A- average, thus a B+ from harvard would mean the student was a bit below average.

In my department the average is a B or a B- and so a B+ average would be pretty decent.

I've heard that princeton or some other ivy league has started to combat this by mandating that the average for all classes must be a C or a C+ hence something in the B range is pretty good.

In reality I don't think there is that much of a difference in the students who go to one college or another in this day and age, and so really the difference is in the professors, and the grades with respect to the rest of the class.

I don't know how harvard could have an A- average, but that's not good to hear. It essentially makes saying, "I got an A in harvard" worthless if they are just handing them out. I would expect a C average in harvard, with a C being a B+ at a state univ. and an A being a stellar student who will be going places.

 

[RufusDawes]

Thats the problem with honors, it varies from school to school. Here, to graduate with honors is as follows:

Summa Cum Laude 4.000 – 3.974
Magna Cum Laude 3.973 – 3.934
Cum Laude 3.933 – 3.860

Anything below that is not honors.

But at another school, Magna might be anything above a 3.7. So, you really have to see how the individual school defines the honors to see its 'value'.

I never understood how americans manage to get such good grades. Particularily in engineering classes. Perhaps it is all just more competitive in the states ?

 

[symbolipoint]

An evaluater should view course grades carefully and cleverly, and really must do something beyond just viewing a set of course grades to know what each grade really means. One understanding of grade A is that the course was too easy; and of grade C is that the student worked very very hard in order to achieve meaningful learning. The C grade was due to much learning occurring.

Really, has anyone ever tried to repeat a course and achieve the same grade the second time as was earned the first time? Generally, the second grade should be higher. Really too, has anyone ever studied in a class that relied on a pre-designed strict grading scale of 90-80-70-60 for A-B-C-D, instead of the instructor grading "on a curve"?

 

[Cyrus]

An evaluater should view course grades carefully and cleverly, and really must do something beyond just viewing a set of course grades to know what each grade really means. One understanding of grade A is that the course was too easy; and of grade C is that the student worked very very hard in order to achieve meaningful learning. The C grade was due to much learning occurring.

This doesn't really make sense to me, you'll have to explain more on how earning a C means learning more than getting an A. I think that's just an assumption you made.

Really, has anyone ever tried to repeat a course and achieve the same grade the second time as was earned the first time? Generally, the second grade should be higher. Really too, has anyone ever studied in a class that relied on a pre-designed strict grading scale of 90-80-70-60 for A-B-C-D, instead of the instructor grading "on a curve"?

My vibrations class was not graded on a curve. I know graduate controls is not either. People who get below a B simply fail. As for taking the same class over again simply to raise your GPA, that is a waste of time and money. Get the A the first time, its possible.


I have also had a thermo professor who would grave on a huge scale because he made his exams hard on purpose. He said you should be happy if you get above 60%, and don't worry if you run out of time. He was impressed by our class because many people got As without the curve, which was rare.

 

[CaptainQuaser]

You would have to convert the numbers I posted so that 4.0 read 4.5 on your scale. I know MIT uses a 5.0 scale. I have no idea why though, I guess they just want to be different. Everyone else should use the standard 4.0 scale.

My point was there is a 10% gap between all other letters, B-B+, B+-A, but then for A-A+ there is a 5% gap. So it is not a linear conversion from % to GPA and can't just easily be scaled that way.

 

[Cyrus]

Thats odd, why would they do that?

 

[symbolipoint]

This doesn't really make sense to me, you'll have to explain more on how earning a C means learning more than getting an A. I think that's just an assumption you made.



My vibrations class was not graded on a curve. I know graduate controls is not either. People who get below a B simply fail. As for taking the same class over again simply to raise your GPA, that is a waste of time and money. Get the A the first time, its possible.


I have also had a thermo professor who would grave on a huge scale because he made his exams hard on purpose. He said you should be happy if you get above 60%, and don't worry if you run out of time. He was impressed by our class because many people got As without the curve, which was rare.

Again the forums cut me off after I wrote a lengthy response to Cyrus's comments. Very briefly what I tried to say is that the C earner could be the one who had more to learn while the A learner found the course to be easy, therefore has less trouble learning or did not need to learn as much. I know that is not the amount of detail that you wanted, but that's what I say right now after the forum cutting my message off.

 

[Benzoate]

This doesn't really make sense to me, you'll have to explain more on how earning a C means learning more than getting an A. I think that's just an assumption you made.
My vibrations class was not graded on a curve. I know graduate controls is not either. People who get below a B simply fail. As for taking the same class over again simply to raise your GPA, that is a waste of time and money. Get the A the first time, its possible.I have also had a thermo professor who would grave on a huge scale because he made his exams hard on purpose. He said you should be happy if you get above 60%, and don't worry if you run out of time. He was impressed by our class because many people got As without the curve, which was rare.

No offense cyrus but I think that is a silly thing to say. As long as a person eventually gets the material well enough to earn an A average, I think that's all that matters. Its not about who can get the highest grade during the first go round you take a course, its about what works best for you. Its about gaining insight knowledge and understanding of a course subject at your own pace. And besides there are a number of factors as to why a student might retake a course. Such factors may be that the student was sick all the time and could not attend classes everyday or a student maybe adjusting to college and needs to get and the swing of things. Or a student may just have family problems or the teacher sucked.

 

[Cyrus]

Again the forums cut me off after I wrote a lengthy response to Cyrus's comments. Very briefly what I tried to say is that the C earner could be the one who had more to learn while the A learner found the course to be easy, therefore has less trouble learning or did not need to learn as much. I know that is not the amount of detail that you wanted, but that's what I say right now after the forum cutting my message off.

If the C learner learned so much, why did they get a C? You just shot yourself in the foot, and your making a TON of assumptions. What do you mean the A learner found the course to be easy? How do you know this? How do you know the A learner did not work hard for their A?

 

[Cyrus]

No offense cyrus but I think that is a silly thing to say. As long as a person eventually gets the material well enough to earn an A average, I think that's all that matters. Its not about who can get the highest grade during the first go round you take a course, its about what works best for you. Its about gaining insight knowledge and understanding of a course subject at your own pace. And besides there are a number of factors as to why a student might retake a course. Such factors may be that the student was sick all the time and could not attend classes everyday or a student maybe adjusting to college and needs to get and the swing of things. Or a student may just have family problems or the teacher sucked.

A person gets an A provided they understand the material, sure. Actually, it is about who gets the material the first go around you take a course. Retaking a course is horrible on your record. You don't want more than one or two retakes, at the MOST. If you are that sick, drop the entire semester, that's not a valid excuse. Also, college is not about learning at your own pace, its about learning at the pace set by the college, i.e. in one semester. I am sorry, but you're not going to get a whole lot of sympathy points on this one.

 

[Benzoate]

A person gets an A provided they understand the material, sure. Actually, it is about who gets the material the first go around you take a course. Retaking a course is horrible on your record. You don't want more than one or two retakes, at the MOST. If you are that sick, drop the entire semester, that's not a valid excuse. Also, college is not about learning at your own pace, its about learning at the pace set by the college, i.e. in one semester. I am sorry, but you're not going to get a whole lot of sympathy points on this one.

not true at all. the grad committees will not know if you audit a course. I also had a friend who retook most of his math courses and now is an aeronautical engineer for NASA .

do you happened to know anyone in particular who retook more than two classes and couldn't find a grad school to accept them?

 

[BioCore]

In an earlier reply to this thread, someone said that you should focus primarily on your physics classes and try to get A's in them. I was wondering, to those who are on a grad committee, if doing poorly in a course that is not of importance to grad school will affect entrance in any way? This is also in first year, so I am expecting that they won't mind but do these committees ever look into the first years of an undergrad?

 

[Benzoate]

In an earlier reply to this thread, someone said that you should focus primarily on your physics classes and try to get A's in them. I was wondering, to those who are on a grad committee, if doing poorly in a course that is not of importance to grad school will affect entrance in any way? This is also in first year, so I am expecting that they won't mind but do these committees ever look into the first years of an undergrad?

All my professors (well at least my physics professors) say its your physics GPA that they are mainly concerned about , meaning they would not care if you got a C+ in British literature

 

[BioCore]

All my professors (well at least my physics professors) say its your physics GPA that they are mainly concerned about , meaning they would not care if you got a C+ in British literature

I see, well that makes me less stressed out. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Cyrus]

not true at all. the grad committees will not know if you audit a course. I also had a friend who retook most of his math courses and now is an aeronautical engineer for NASA .

do you happened to know anyone in particular who retook more than two classes and couldn't find a grad school to accept them?

I don't know how it is at your school, but here an audit def DOES show up on your transcript. If someone had to retake 'most' of their math courses, I question why they have a degree. Here, you can retake up to 12 credits. If you exceed 12 credits of retake, you are kicked out of the program.

Also, an audit is not the same thing as retaking a course.

 

[Andy Resnick]

In an earlier reply to this thread, someone said that you should focus primarily on your physics classes and try to get A's in them. I was wondering, to those who are on a grad committee, if doing poorly in a course that is not of importance to grad school will affect entrance in any way? This is also in first year, so I am expecting that they won't mind but do these committees ever look into the first years of an undergrad?

I can only speak from personal experience. For me, a single outlying poor grade in an elective isn't worth spending time thinking about.

 

[Barfolumu]

All my professors (well at least my physics professors) say its your physics GPA that they are mainly concerned about , meaning they would not care if you got a C+ in British literature

This is very good news for me. Thanks.

 

[Cyrus]

Each school has its own poilcy,

http://www.eng.umd.edu/advising/advising_faqs.html

What is the 45 Credit Review?
In accordance with University policy, the A. James Clark School of Engineering has been designated a Limited Enrollment Program (LEP). Newly admitted Freshmen to the A. James Clark School of Engineering will need to complete specified requirements by the end of the semester in which they reach their 45th University of Maryland credit in order to remain in the Clark School.

The requirements are as follows:
ENES 100 with a 2.0 or better
MATH 141 with a 2.0 or better, or AP credit
PHYS 161 with a 2.0 or better, or AP credit
CHEM 135 or CHEM 113 with a 2.0 or better, or AP credit

Minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.00
*Only one repeat of anyone single course from the above list allowed

University Repeat Policy

Any course may be attempted twice
Students may repeat up to 18 credit hours at UMCP
A "W" counts as an attempt
Both attempts at a course are calculated into the GPA unless the course was originally taken during the first semester or within the first 24 credits taken here at UMCP (this INCLUDES transfer work). For those courses, there is a grace period where the new grade will replace the old grade in the UMCP grade point average. Please note the original grade will never be deleted from the transcript No more than 4 credits may be dropped during 1 semester

http://www.eng.umd.edu/advising/advising_acad-policies.html#repeat

I would not willingly apply to grad school with a transcript full of aduits, retakes and withdrawals, which will all be SEEN by the school you apply to.

 

[CPL.Luke]

at UMASS they only use the second grade for gpa purposes however the original grade stays on the transcript.

you are saying that because you may have messed up for various reasons in undergrad you would never apply to grad, even if you went on to do well in these courses later on in your undergrad career?

personally I have two W's on my transcript from early on, 1 was in stat 1 the second was in advance calc, I dropped both of the courses as the material wasn't necessary and the things that were being taught I already knew, hence I dropped the courses. I doubt an admissions commitee would really care, and if it did I could easily explain them. same thing goes if there is a really bad semester somewhere in that transcript, you can pretty easily explain it as you decided to enjoy college but hadn't found the proper balance yet.

If there was an important course in there that you did poorly in but understood the material you can always take the next course in the sequence. Personally I didn't do enough work or my quantum class or my mechanics class, hence in part why I'm taking the graduate courses in those subjects before I graduate.

(although the graduate quantum is really more for fun than anything else)

 

[Cyrus]

you are saying that because you may have messed up for various reasons in undergrad you would never apply to grad, even if you went on to do well in these courses later on in your undergrad career?

Im not saying that. What I am saying; however, is that its not ok to start retaking classes left and right to learn the material better a second time around.

As you get later into your academic career (past being a junior), you really should not have W's, and retakes. You've been in college for at least 2 years at this point, and should understand the process of looking up the course description, and talking to the professor before you sign up.

I've retaken courses (Calc II, statics, and one humanity course), but that was early in my career. After that, I got all A's. Had those retakes been towards the end of my career, that would have been a bigger problem.

 

[symbolipoint]

If the C learner learned so much, why did they get a C? You just shot yourself in the foot, and your making a TON of assumptions. What do you mean the A learner found the course to be easy? How do you know this? How do you know the A learner did not work hard for their A?

You are confusing proficiency with amount of learning. You are also confusing how hard a student studies with the letter grade earned.

 

[Cyrus]

Errr...if you can't show on an exam how to solve a problem, then you didnt really LEARN anything in the course. Learning is knowing how to apply what you did to a new type of problem. Not to reguritate back what is already known in your book. You are making assumptions about how hard someone studies with the letter grade they earned. Just becase someone got an A, does not mean it was easy for them. They, like you, are learning the material for the first time. Hence, they LEARNED the same amount of material as you did.

If a student studies very very hard and earns a C, they can't hack it.


-I don't now where you are getting all these assumptions from, but they are generally false.

 

[Benzoate]

Errr...if you can't show on an exam how to solve a problem, then you didnt really LEARN anything in the course. Learning is knowing how to apply what you did to a new type of problem. Not to reguritate back what is already known in your book. You are making assumptions about how hard someone studies with the letter grade they earned. Just becase someone got an A, does not mean it was easy for them. They, like you, are learning the material for the first time. Hence, they LEARNED the same amount of material as you did.

If a student studies very very hard and earns a C, they can't hack it.


-I don't now where you are getting all these assumptions from, but they are generally false.

You are so narrowminded. You are like those inadequate public school teachers in grade school who placed a student in a in a special ed's class just because he receives a bad IQ score and tells the student he will amount to nothing.
Not everyone learns in the same way. Therefore, not everyone one will get the lecture a professor presents to his students. If everybody learned a subject in the same way, their would only be one textbook publisher. Everybody's brain is wired differently.
Another thing I want to mentioned. We are PAYING these professors to teach physics. They should be encouraging their students to do better.

I'm sorry to say this but if a professor sat down privately with his student for the x amount of hours a student desire, I gurantee you the student will improve his performance in solving physics problems 150%. Richard Feynman even said this because he was not proud the way his famous introductory physics lectures notes from Caltech that were later published and formed into a book for the lay public were written or presented . He said the best physics education a physics major could received was if the professor was able to privately tutor a student who was having trouble understanding basic physics concepts.

Of course this scenario would be impossible since professors have to devoted an equal amount of time to all 30 + students inside their class , not to mentioned there research.

 

[Cyrus]

You are so narrowminded. You are like those inadequate public school teachers in grade school who placed a student in a in a special ed's class just because he receives a bad IQ score and tells the student he will amount to nothing.
Not everyone learns in the same way. Therefore, not everyone one will get the lecture a professor presents to his students. If everybody learned a subject in the same way, their would only be one textbook publisher. Everybody's brain is wired differently.
Another thing I want to mentioned. We are PAYING these professors to teach physics. They should be encouraging their students to do better.

Actually, if I were a professor, I wouldn't put anyone in special ED, I would flunk them out of the department. You should understand, for the most part, what your teacher is teaching you or you just don't know how to take notes or pay attention in class. I would learn how to do this if I were you. Yep, you paid for your teacher, and he stands infront of you and teaches you. Whats your point? His job is not to spoon feed you becuase you can't study on your own and review his lecture notes. He has office hours, go to them. The TA has office hours, go to him. You have other students in the class, go to THEM. Dont like your book, get another one from the library. Do you get my point? STOP COMPLAINING, or you can't cut it in physics.

I'm sorry to say this but if a professor sat down privately with his student for the x amount of hours a student desire, I gurantee you the student will improve his performance in solving physics problems 150%.

It does not work this way, college is not hold my hand and teach me. Get used to it. If you can't do this, you WILL NOT survive grad school where you are expected to learn ON YOUR OWN.

Richard Feynman even said this because he was not proud the way his famous introductory physics lectures notes from Caltech that were later published and formed into a book for the lay public were written or presented . He said the best physics education a physics major could received was if the professor was able to privately tutor a student who was having trouble understanding basic physics concepts.

Of course this scenario would be impossible since professors have to devoted an equal amount of time to all 30 + students inside their class , not to mentioned there research.

30+ students? I had classes with upwards of 100+ students. They call such courses 'weed out' classes. If you can't make it, they weed you out of the engineering program. Life is tough, suck it up and study.