The dietetic internship application form recommended by the Council on Education requires the applicant to report six grade point averages (GPA). Some internship programs rely on the students to accurately and honestly calculate these GPAs. Other programs verify and recalculate grade point averages from all official transcripts. Recalculation requires accuracy, concentrated labor and speed to meet selection deadlines. One internship developed a computer software program to calculate four grade point averages: professional courses, biological sciences, “other”, and total. The “other” GPA is a compilation of the other three GPAs students calculate, plus any additional courses on transcripts not included by the student. The purpose of this study was to determine if significant differences exist between student reported and program calculated GPAs. The GPAs of 83 applicants were compared using a paired t-test. No statistically significant differences were found between student and program calculated professional courses and natural sciences GPAs (p < 0.40 and 0.14, respectively). The mean student reported science GPA was 2.78 ± 0.66 compared to 2.73 ± 0.61 calculated by the program. Total GPAs were 3.19 ± 0.39 and 3.15 ± 0.39 for student and program, respectively. The total GPA difference, however, was highly significant (p< 0.02). Recalculated total GPAs were sufficiently lowered to disqualify six out of 83 (7%) from program consideration. The most common error was failure to include all courses, especially failed courses. Inaccurate conversion of quarter hours to semester hours, incorrect hours or grades, elimination of a minus or a plus on the grade, and multiple schools attended added to differences. These data suggest programs should not rely on student reported GPAs to determine cutoff GPAs or to establish selection points. These findings plus the increased accuracy and ease of recalculation with the software program support the continued practice of recalculating student reported GPAs.