As I noted in another post, I had a weak (2.7 cum, 3.4 finance/econ/biz) undergraduate gpa but have repaired it by posting a 3.72 in 10 classes through NYU. My undergraduate gpa was impacted heavily due to the fact that I left home due to a very negative home situation involving alcoholism and was on my own in terms of housing, food, tuition, etc and had to work heavily during school in order to make ends meet and to survive. I've talked to a good amount of people as how to portray this and generally people have said to 'briefly mention you had issues and it impacted you negatively but have grown/learned since then'. However, I just read another admissions consultants post where the consultant mentioned to another candidate that they should mention what their situation was as to create more of the story to the candidate and shine light on their situation. What is the healthy balance of these? You obviously dont want it to be a sob story and want to show what you learned and grew from, so do you briefly detail your situation, how you rose above and how youre doing well because of x y and z noww? Thank you all again for your time.
Short,
I think I may have responded to you on another thread. Explaining a weak GPA is fine, particularly if there are real issues. Of course your subsequent NYU classes and a strong GMAT are great remedies.
The only thing I would say is that your major GPA was 3.4, which is solid. I am not saying that your performance was not hampered by your situation, but as an admissions officer, I would wonder how you were able to do well in your major and not beyond. So perhaps one would argue not to blame this situation as much as say you were dealing with some serious issues and your perfromance was spotty but you were also less mature and could have handled it better. Taking responsibility is always attractive.
Alex
















