Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

How are bad first year marks (i.e., ranked around average among my peers) but outstanding 2nd-4th year marks (i.e., top 2%) perceived by PhD admissions committees in the U.S.? What emphasis is placed onto first year marks?

share|improve this question
up vote 9 down vote accepted

There's no absolute universal standard as to how this will be perceived, but it's definitely better to be in the situation you describe than the reverse (good in general courses, mediocre in the major)!

One of the issues is where the first-year grades are bad. If you have some poor grades in "general education" classes unrelated to your major (for example, an engineer who gets a "C" in American history and English literature), that hopefully won't matter too much if the admissions committee is actually looking at the transcript, rather than just the overall GPA.

Ultimately, it comes down to how rigid the admissions committee is about reviewing things, as you can see in this thread.

share|improve this answer

As long as you are able to justify what went wrong during the first year in the personal statement,for example, you had a major illness that caused you to miss many classes and thus resulted in average performance, I think adcom will not take it too seriously.

share|improve this answer
Well any evidence of what happened is no longer existing. Surely, given the lack of evidence, claiming something like this is unacceptable? – Jase Dec 16 '12 at 3:01
The reason should be convincing,however, to adcom. – ketau Dec 16 '12 at 4:03

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.