<<The only thing is that the graduate GPA is fairly meaningless since almost all graduate programs have very high curves.>>
I'm sure this is the way admissions folks look at grad school GPA. Probably why they won't calculate it in with your undergrad grades.
Thing is, I think that's misguided. I got an MBA, and that's probably known as one of the grad-programs with one of the higher curves.
Thing is, you had to do more work to get an A in a master's level class than you did to get an A in an undergrad class. I remember one of the first classes I took, Finance, I studied harder than I'd ever studied for any other class, ever. I got a B.
The school I went to DID award Cs and Fs. I don't know if a D was even possible.
However, the thing admissions counsellors are not taking into account is that the people who were going to get Cs, Ds and Fs are an extreme rarity in graduate school.
Like I said, yeah, most people are getting As and Bs, but in undergrad, those people all got As and Bs, too. It's not that it's easier to get As and Bs. In fact, I thought it was harder. It's that the folks who fill out the left side of the bell curve are just not in those programs anymore.
Granted, there were some local liberal arts schools that conferred non-AACSB accredited MBAs and I have to believe that any self-ambulatory monkey probably couldn't get less than a B in any of their classes, and an A was a foregone conclusion if you simply did all the assignments.
However, those schools also had undergrad business degrees (also non AACSB) and they probably weren't that hard to annihilate the curve in those classes, either. And if you went to undergrad there, your GPA would be perfectly valid for the LSAC.