Triangles wrote:Triangles wrote:Found out today everyone has already been getting invites to journals. Apparently I didn't make a single journal despite being above the gpa requirement for every single one of them. FML.

I've decided I am going to write an article on my own, make it fucking amazing, and get it published in a journal ranked higher then my school. Spite is powerful.

I did the math, and if they actually used the scoring method they say they do (2/3rds of the score gpa, 1/3rd competition), with about 85% of the people making some journal, I had to have been awarded NEGATIVE POINTS to end up where I am now. Negative.

It all depends on how they quantify GPA for composite score purposes. My school has the same problem and nobody can tell me how they convert it to a composite score, saying only that GPA is worth 50% and writing is worth 50%.

One person told me that they THINK 4.0 is worth 50 composite points and whatever % your GPA is of 4.0 is how many composite points you get. So if you have a 3.8 hat would give you 47.5 composite points. A 3.7 is worth 46.25 composite points. A 3.5 would be worth 43.75. Of course the gulf between a 3.8 and 3.5 is HUGE in terms of class rank and reality, but it is only 3.75 composite points or a whopping 7.8% advantage. I could have any or all of this math wrong.

tl;dr- the way they convert a GPA to a composite score for the write-on may provide VERY LITTLE differentiation between candidates, minimizing the advantage of a higher GPA. I understand why it would work this way (to promote merit), but it sucks to be the guy with a relatively high GPA just outside the grade-on cut off.