Hello everyone.

I have a question pertaining to GPA. Specifically, just how important is it? Right now, my four-year undergrad GPA is a 2.8, sadly. My first year in college was marred by horrible grades(GPA after my first year was in the low to mid 1's), mostly because I wasn't taking my education seriously and just wanted to goof off. But a lightbulb went off in my head after my freshman year, and since then I took things a bit more seriously. But even after working as hard as I could, I was only able to get it to where it stands today. (Note to self: It's easier to drop your GPA than to raise it...)

As I understand it, a lot of Film Schools require a 3.0 to be considered for admissions. Many of them state they only calculate your GPA for your last two years in college, or your last 60 hours/units. Thats a good thing for me, because my GPA is a little over a 3.0 if you only calculate my last 60 units/two years.

What I wanted to know is this: Is is true many film schools only look at your last 60 units/two years for GPA? Do they really discard and disregard your first two years? Am I reading their requirements correctly, or am I comprehending their requirements incorrectly?

When I first read the GPA requirements for some Film Schools, my heart sank after I kept reading the same "3.0 minimum GPA required for consideration" for every school. But if my eyes are not decieving me, and that they only look at your last two years, then things are definetely looking up.

For the record, I'm looking at FSU, UT Austin, Loyola Marymount and Chapman. I'll probably look at more as time goes on, but those are my 4 at the moment.

Appreciate any and all help!

My average my junior year was a 1.75, leaving my cumulative at a paltry 2.75.

I came back five years later, and though I graduated with a 3.27, my last two years were almost a 3.9.

I got into all of my schools...most, if not all, the applications actually have a space there for the "last two years" GPA, with some schools going as far as to provide a worksheet to help you calculate it.

The grades are for the university's graduate school, most of the time, and not the film school, but they do matter, as they serve as a hopefully accurate indicator of your ability to bear the great pressure that film school puts on you.

Just to be sure, though, I'd make sure you have amazing creative samples and nail the GRE...but you were planning on doing that anyway, of course.

Feel free to address the lapse in your personal narratives and statements, to help them understand the journey you've taken to get here.

Don't discount yourself, though. Not ever.

Best of luck.

I think that most schools understand that writers are often unconventional people. My GPA is about a 2.95 though it's from a top 20 university. I was able to get into Northwestern and Hollins and haven't been rejected by anyone as of yet. See if you can spin your GPA in a more positive light. What's your major GPA? Typically it's higher than your cumalative one.

I too had way too much fun during my first two years and was bored with classes until I discovered a love for creative writing. See if you can incorporate that into your essay some how. Make it sound like a struggle that you learned from and overcame.

For the most part, I think schools are looking for potential so the letter of recs and writing samples may be more important than GPA.

sorry to be the downer, but what i have been told and what i geared my entire undergrad around was that you must have a good gpa to be in good standing with schools.

however, i have heard of the fact that they calculate the ladder portion of the undergrad. what makes me say this is that there is an initial screening of all applications in which those who are missing recommendation letters, essays and other portions are immediately eliminated before any member of the committee ever looks at it. i am thinking a lot of people are eliminated at this stage because of small stupid stuff.

i know some schools allow you to do bad in gpa if you are able to get a high gre score and visa versa.

good luck!

This is, of course, the answer to every debate, but here it is again...it probably depends on both the school and the program.

As I posted before, I was originally planning on applying to the Peter Stark Program at USC. The program coordinator informed me that the GRE is used strictly as an eligibility filter, meaning an 1100 GRE is just as valuable as a 1600 GRE (or so she told me). She didn't mention anything about the GPA, but if they treat this massive standardized test as just a checkpoint of sorts, then I don't have much reason to believe that the GPA is incredibly important. I guess it's worth remembering also that NYU, UCLA, and Columbia don't even require the GRE.

This is only the Peter Stark Program, but I don't think it's irrational to assume this extends to other programs at USC (with the exception of critical studies).

On the other hand, I remember Calliegirl saying that NYU administrators told her that grades are the second most important part of an applicant's profile. So it looks like each school has its own take on the weight of grades, though it's quite obvious that they're not nearly as important as they would be if you were applying to law or med school. There's plenty of room to compensate for a lackluster GPA.