GPA easy vs hard classes

embracethepain said:

I've looked through old threads but can't find a satisfactory answer.

In my graduating class, the majority of premed students take easy A classes that require little to no work. They have high gpa's. Then there are students (who I believe are much smarter) who go for the really tough classes and know a TON more. They may not do as well grade wise because of harder profs and tougher material. So they have lower gpa's. Do adcom members look at the rigor of classes? If they don't, how is it fair to students who put learning above getting an easy grade? Advanced Immunology at the graduate level (where no one gets an A) is much harder and much more useful than a class called "plants." Can anyone (esp adcom members and med students) shed some light on this?

Click to expand...

I would suspect that AdComs will only really compare students from the same institution with regard to coursework. In your case, this is true. If, say, the decision comes down to giving an II/Acceptance to one of two people from the same school, I can see them looking into specifics regarding specific classes, but otherwise they're going to be focused more on your overall cGPA/sGPA and trends. This is why most people advise to take classes that you know you can perform well in.

Protip: You are not simply 'smarter' or 'more worthy' because you took harder classes, this is a very common misconception. Yes, you can learn more in these classes, but if you can't pull off learning the material and mastering it, you're going to end up killing your GPA and not getting much out of your classes other than stress. If it's only a minor bump, it won't matter, but any significant detriment to your GPA is absolutely not worth it. Remember, upper level and in-depth material isn't tested on the MCAT and gives you no leg up in admissions. In fact, I think the smarter people realize their own limits, and only take courses that they know they can handle to keep their GPA up. If you're really smart, you can do this with multiple majors, upper level sciences, difficult curves. But if you can't, you shouldn't. A GPA below 3.5 will significantly hurt your chances for admissions.

If this is the case, they would then focus more on the courses you took and your MCAT. Since the MCAT is standardized they can compare everyone regardless of the courses they took. The MCAT is going to be what actually demonstrates the person's intellectual capacities, whereas the GPA just signifies how hard they worked, how they can manage their time, and how much they understand their limits.

Now, within the range of 3.5 to 4.0, from what I've heard is GPAs +/- .1 GPA points are basically the same in regards to admissions.

IE: a 4.0 is going to be considered on about equal grounds with a 3.9... and 3.9 is going to be considered on about equal grounds with students from 3.8 to 4.0... etc. Of course, higher is always better, and these numbers are going to play a more significant role in your chances than the actual courses you took.

I wonder why people always say to take "upper level" classes like Biochem then.

pfaction said:

I wonder why people always say to take "upper level" classes like Biochem then.

Click to expand...

Many reasons, including but not limited to:

• If you can handle the coursework it's helpful for the MCAT, as well as medical school
• Some schools require a semester of Biochemistry
• Biochemistry is awesome
• A thorough understanding of upper level sciences makes lower level sciences more natural
• Some people, but not all, can do very well in these courses

Keep in mind I'm not saying you shouldn't take these courses at all. In fact, if I were to say that, I did the exact opposite of what I would be advising. I have only taken upper level sciences (including 3+ labs a semester and work) since the beginning of my Sophomore year. The difference is that it has hardly impacted my GPA. If you can't do this, there is no reason you should. It will not help me in my admissions process at all. If anything, even the minor GPA hit I took could negatively impact me, though I doubt it will significantly.


I am in the same situation as OP, though maybe not as drastic. In fact. I do, in some respect, wish I would have taken a bit more of a lenient schedule so my GPA was a 4.0 like a lot of other premedicals at my school. But I'm okay with it not being higher, my MCAT made up for it.

Note: Low GPA (3.5), High MCAT (36) > High GPA (3.9), Low MCAT (28)

Well you said you took upper level classes. Someone must see that, and your A's, and compare them to a regular premed's Bio 1000 and 2000 and go "hmm....", right?

I dunno. I feel that more pre-meds are playing it super safe. I think they should be, just so the # appears good, until their courses are looked over. Having all generic classes and A's, like you said, is better than some of the courses I've taken and B's.

I don't see what the purpose of an education is if you shy away from learning and taking harder classes just for the sake of the GPA.

Click to expand...

This is a means to an end, it's not the final step. That's why people shy away. It's the same thing as people in high school, though that doesn't matter as much compared to med school.

At the end of the day, you only have a number to represent your hard work in college. It sucks that the system is set up this way, but as long as you've developed the work ethic to succeed in medical school you should be fine.

embracethepain said:

I don't see what the purpose of an education is if you shy away from learning and taking harder classes just for the sake of the GPA.

Click to expand...

We don't live in an ideal world, that's why your "purpose" is flawed. Unfortunately, college is not just about education. If your end goal is to be a physician, college is about setting up a track record to flaunt your stuff for medical schools. It's just the harsh reality. Note how, in most countries, 'college' does not exist between high school and medical school.

There's a multitude of reasons why the 'learning' is not accounted for completely. First, it's hard to measure based on classes themselves, so the MCAT is used to gauge your intelligence. AdComs simply do not have time to filter through every single school, all their classes, check the difficulty of each, compare professors, etc. They do their best to do so, but it's not always possible. The only thing they can most reliably compare with is the final numbers they see. It's just how it is. Yes, challenge yourself, but if your goal is medical school, know your limits.

Medical schools will absolutely start filtering you out automatically if your GPA is in the ****ter. It's simply all they can do.

However, like I mentioned, if your GPA is in the competitive range (3.5-4.0) your classes and alma mater will become more important. But in the end it's a very small amount. The raw number will be more effective in displaying your competence.

embracethepain said:

I've known students who take unbelievably difficult courses together and end up with B's (which is extremely good) and students who take really easy classes and get A's. If I were an adcom member, I would personally want a student who is continuously challenging themselves and mastering difficult material.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider getting a B ''mastering'' the material. The whole point of using a grading system is to demonstrate your mastery of the material. If you "master" the material, you should be receiving an A. If that's not the case, your school and professor are going to hurt your application.

And you're not an AdCom. Either way, the classes you take don't make you a better person. Sure, you're challenging yourself. But if you can't handle it, how do I know you can understand your limits when you're adjusting your study schedule for the Step exams? How about how many patients you can manage in the ER? etc etc

embracethepain said:

I feel this demonstrates more interest and better ability.

Click to expand...

Your ability is shown by your grades, not specifically your classes.

embracethepain said:

I do feel that the mcat standardizes everyone but I also strongly feel that the gpa should not be weighted equally or more heavily than the mcat. Because gpas are very subjective depending on the major and rigor of the classwork.

Click to expand...

The MCAT is already weighted more heavily than GPA. This is very evident in the graphs of MCAT/GPA and acceptance.

embracethepain said:

With regards to intelligence, maybe this is something unique to my university. But students who are taking graduate level coursework with 3.5 gpas are very intelligent compared to many students who take below fundamentals level classes with gpas of 3.9. Just something for adcoms to consider (I'm sure they already do....I'm just not sure to what extent).

Click to expand...

They already do. See the end of my last post. A GPA of 3.5 and an MCAT of 36 is favored over a GPA of 3.9 and an MCAT of 28.

embracethepain said:

I mean there have been instances where I've taken grad classes and ended up with a B+. I learned a ton of useful things in classes like this. I would probably be a better medical student with this knowledge. However, if compared against a student who got an A in an intro class, this particular grade would look bad. Mastery in some difficult classes is a B and mastery in easier classes is an A. I guess what I'm saying is there is no basis for comparison because the classes are two completely different levels.

Click to expand...

Individual classes vary a huge amount depending on the professor you have. I had a genetics professor that the average on the first test was in the 50s. He did not curve whatsoever. Another genetics class with another professor had an average of a 95 on the first exam. Needless to say, I did not receive an A and all of my fellow premeds in the other class did, simply because they used ratemyprofessors.com to chose their instructor based on easiness, rather than teaching capability. I learned through this that, although I learned plenty, the grade loss was not worth it, I can teach myself the material, after all.

embracethepain said:

I definitely did not play it safe in college and as a result have a few grades that are not A's. I just hope med school admission committee members can look at my classes and appreciate the difficulty.

The system is flawed. I guess you can't really blame premeds for taking easy classes so they can stay in the safe zone.

Click to expand...

Nope you can't. But 'a few Bs' is not going to significantly hurt your chances. Kill your MCAT and the people that did not learn much and are not naturally intelligent will stick out like sore thumbs in comparison to you. But yes, staying in the safe zone is perfectly okay and I don't understand why it's frowned upon so much. I didn't do it, but doing it probably would have been smarter.

Sad truth of the matter is that GPA is probably more important than the difficulty of the class. While adcoms can certainly identify people who blatantly took fluff classes, they have to process thousands of applications. They just don't have the time compare each and everyone's class difficulty on an individual basis. GPA is an easy number to use that can directly compare student to student, but it's not perfect by any means. This is why the MCAT is considered the great equalizer as it can 'prove' whether or not your abilities are up to par to your GPA. Alternatively in my case my MCAT made up for my lower GPA that was the result of rampant grade deflation at my school.

Protip: You are not simply 'smarter' or 'more worthy' because you took harder classes, this is a very common misconception

Click to expand...

It doesn't make you smarter for just taking the classes, but I believe the higher level thinking involved in challenging yourself has the potential to make you smarter. Also the critical thinking skills used in tougher classes will be helpful in the future even if it isn't making you smarter per se. You may benefit from the tougher classes but your GPA might also suffer, so it's up to you either way.

I think the smarter people realize their own limits, and only take courses that they know they can handle to keep their GPA up

Click to expand...

It may be a smart move, but I don't think they're smarter for not taking tough classes the same way as you're not smarter for taking tough classes. I think they're perhaps more goal oriented since they are cognizant of their end goal (medical school) and what a bad grade in a class would do for them.

The really really smart people take the tough classes AND ace them. Non-genius smart people should do a combination of challenging themselves and assessing the chances that they'll get a good grade.

Personally, if I saw someone with a 3.6 with an impressive amount of tough classes I'd say they might be smarter than someone who got a 3.8 by avoiding difficult classes and scoping out all the easy professors. I can think of 3 friends of mine who fit into the latter category, thankfully the MCAT was the great equalizer and I kicked their butts by 10-15 points.

In the end, its up to the reviewers and what we think doesn't matter.

Barley426 said:

It doesn't make you smarter for just taking the classes, but I believe the higher level thinking involved in challenging yourself has the potential to make you smarter. Also the critical thinking skills used in tougher classes will be helpful in the future even if it isn't making you smarter per se. You may benefit from the tougher classes but your GPA might also suffer, so it's up to you either way.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.

Barley426 said:

It may be a smart move, but I don't think they're smarter for not taking tough classes the same way as you're not smarter for taking tough classes. I think they're perhaps more goal oriented since they are cognizant of their end goal (medical school) and what a bad grade in a class would do for them.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Barley426 said:

The really really smart people take the tough classes AND ace them. Non-genius smart people should do a combination of challenging themselves and assessing the chances that they'll get a good grade.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was saying. I think you and I would get along...

Barley426 said:

Personally, if I saw someone with a 3.6 with an impressive amount of tough classes I'd say they might be smarter than someone who got a 3.8 by avoiding difficult classes and scoping out all the easy professors.

Click to expand...

The whole might part is the problem. If you take one or two less tough classes and pull a 3.8 it'd still be better, as that will go unnoticed. However, if you take Bio 101 ten times to improve your BCPM, they're going to notice, obviously.

In the end, killing your prereqs is the only thing that matters to med schools.

Barley426 said:

I can think of 3 friends of mine who fit into the latter category, thankfully the MCAT was the great equalizer and I kicked their butts by 10-15 points.

Click to expand...

10-15 points? A 22? And a 27 was the highest of those three students? Ouchies. They got what was coming to them, I suppose. Nice work on the MCAT though. If your GPA is in the 3.5-4.0 range I don't foresee you having any difficulty as long as you have at least a cookie cutter app!

darkjedi said:

Sad truth of the matter is that GPA is probably more important than the difficulty of the class. While adcoms can certainly identify people who blatantly took fluff classes, they have to process thousands of applications. They just don't have the time compare each and everyone's class difficulty on an individual basis. GPA is an easy number to use that can directly compare student to student, but it's not perfect by any means. This is why the MCAT is considered the great equalizer as it can 'prove' whether or not your abilities are up to par to your GPA. Alternatively in my case my MCAT made up for my lower GPA that was the result of rampant grade deflation at my school.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think once you get past crude screening mechanisms, someone with a more rigourous courseload (a nuclear engineering major with a 3.6, for example) is going to be considered approximately equivalent to a sociology major with a 3.8.

Also, I think sGPA pretty much evens things out. If a psych major has a 4.0 AO but 3.4 BCPM, that will be noted. If the nuke engg has 3.2 AO but 3.9 BCPM, that will be noted.

However, the issue you raise is interesting. What about BCPM courses that vary in difficulty? What if a bio major takes the pre-reqs and only "easy" bio classes? I honestly don't think schools have the ability to analyze courseload this finely, or that they even care to.

Individual classes vary a huge amount depending on the professor you have. I had a genetics professor that the average on the first test was in the 50s. He did not curve whatsoever. Another genetics class with another professor had an average of a 95 on the first exam. Needless to say, I did not receive an A and all of my fellow premeds in the other class did, simply because they used ratemyprofessors.com to chose their instructor based on easiness, rather than teaching capability. I learned through this that, although I learned plenty, the grade loss was not worth it, I can teach myself the material, after all.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. The same thing happened to me in introductory biochemistry. I learned a lot load more than my friends who took the other professor, but they got A's and I didn't. In my class 3 people out of 200 got A's. He failed 163 kids. It was bull but I should have checked ratemyprof, because I would have known he was a tenured professor who's wife had died and he was determined to flunk premeds.

I remember comparing my friend's tests and they couldn't even understand my test, and their test was like bio1. In the end, the only saving grace was that I went on to get an A+ in advanced biochemistry and they didn't take it for fear of failing. I learned my lesson, but it didn't stop me from taking harder classes completely.

McPhee said:

I agree. I think once you get past crude screening mechanisms, someone with a more rigourous courseload (a nuclear engineering major with a 3.6, for example) is going to be considered approximately equivalent to a sociology major with a 3.8.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would highly doubt it. Admissions for medical schools always describes how your major does not come into play in the admissions process. The sociology major is likely going to have an easier time in admissions. Engineering is the one field I have heard AdComs being 'more lenient', but not necessarily meaning they'll take two tenths of a GPA point difference and put them on equal footing. As long as the GPA range is between 3.5 and 4.0, though, I can foresee AdComs being much more critical of the particular courseload you took.

McPhee said:

Also, I think sGPA pretty much evens things out. If a psych major has a 4.0 AO but 3.4 BCPM, that will be noted. If the nuke engg has 3.2 AO but 3.9 BCPM, that will be noted.

Click to expand...

Of course, but those are pretty extreme GPA differences, though.

McPhee said:

However, the issue you raise is interesting. What about BCPM courses that vary in difficulty? What if a bio major takes the pre-reqs and only "easy" bio classes? I honestly don't think schools have the ability to analyze courseload this finely, or that they even care to.

Click to expand...

They can't. The schools don't even get to see who your professors were. The only thing that they have to gauge your school performance is past applicants from the same school, which they do use as a comparison.

Barley426 said:

I completely agree with this. The same thing happened to me in introductory biochemistry. I learned a **** load more than my friends who took the other professor, but they got A's and I didn't. In my class 3 people out of 200 got A's. He failed 163 kids. It was bull**** but I should have checked ratemyprof, because I would have known he was a tenured professor who's wife had died and he was determined to flunk premeds.

Click to expand...

This is quite common, it seems. Ratemyprofessors and word of mouth are definitely a life saver in this regard.

Barley426 said:

I remember comparing my friend's tests and they couldn't even understand my test, and their test was like bio1. In the end, the only saving grace was that I went on to get an A+ in advanced biochemistry and they didn't take it for fear of failing. I learned my lesson, but it didn't stop me from taking harder classes completely.

Click to expand...

It seems like that one lower grade will do very little to you. A small GPA hit won't kill you, especially if you're in the 3.5-4.0 range. Also, having done well on your MCAT, you're going to look like a beast in comparison to them. I doubt your low BC grade will matter or even raise an eyebrow in admissions.

Taking 'harder' classes is a great thing to do, don't get me wrong. But this is only true if you can handle them. There's no point of taking Quantitative Chem if you suck at it, won't learn much, and will get a C/D/F. As long as you're averaging an A, you should be fine overall. It's when you are getting lower grades that it's going to be very detrimental.

My TL;DR advice is: Take the hardest classes you can while maintaining the highest GPA, work involvement, and activity involvement as possible. Just don't let any one of them fall behind or hinder your overall application.

Edit: Jesus, I should just write an article...

embracethepain said:

I disagree that getting a B is "not" mastering material. The highest you can get in some classes is a B. Some professors refuse to give out A's unless students discover a new protein that can become a drug target or something similar. I once got 99's and 100's in every single assignment/test in a class, well above the average, and still didn't end up with an A. When I asked the prof, his reply was that he doesn't give out A's. So did I master the material in the class? Definitely. But does the grade reflect it? No.

Click to expand...

Then your professor is poor in his assessment. Grading scales are a convention, and mastering the material should absolutely warrant an A. That's how AdComs view it, and that's how professors should view it. If they don't, they're only punishing their students. Avoid these types of people at all costs if you value being a medical student. If the highest possible grade you could receive was a B, you should not have been in the class. If all your classes did this, the best you possibly could do in school is a 3.0 GPA, which is in itself below admissions cutoff requirements for most US MD schools.

My class syllabuses specifically state that if you achieve a threshold grade in the class the professor may absolutely not under any circumstance barring academic dishonesty raise the GPA cutoff so you don't receive that grade. If yours does not do this, drop the class immediately and find a respectable professor. At this, if your professor is shady, make sure you keep all your work/tests saved until your receive your grade. This will give you valid records regarding the class if something does come out incorrectly.

embracethepain said:

Didn't realize I wasn't an adcom...I've been living the past few years imagining I was sorting through potential med student apps.....jesus

Click to expand...

Can you take criticism, or identify a popular idiom? I was simply stating that you aren't an adcom, you aren't capable of doing that, and in the end it's not realistic. Don't take it so personally.

embracethepain said:

I definitely agree with you that balance is important. And I also agree that the gpa dispute is best solved by comparing mcat scores.

Click to expand...

Yup. All along, I am simply saying keep your GPA in a 3.5 to 4.0 range. The higher you are while taking the more difficult classes the better off you are.

embracethepain said:

I just discovered ratemyprofs.....

wow.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

PreMedOrDead said:

I completely agree with you.

10-15 points? A 22? And a 27 was the highest of those three students? Ouchies. They got what was coming to them, I suppose. Nice work on the MCAT though. If your GPA is in the 3.5-4.0 range I don't foresee you having any difficulty as long as you have at least a cookie cutter app!

Click to expand...

Yes, they did awful. One's now in ND school, one went DO, and the 27 got into MD because of URM status.

Thanks for the support. My GPA is 3.43, just shy of the 3.5 range but with a significant upward trend (3.77 in last 79 credits). The low GPA I explained in my personal statement but there was a death in the family sophomore year. Also my application is stacked with plenty of research, life experiences, 10 years of work history, volunteering, leadership, sports, and organizations. 5 letters from researchers, professors, and physicians. Thanks to my MCAT I'm not too worried, but of course there is always neurotic premed doubt about my cGPA.

Barley426 said:

Yes, they did awful. One's now in ND school, one went DO, and the 27 got into MD because of URM status.

Thanks for the support. My GPA is 3.43, just shy of the 3.5 range but with a significant upward trend (3.77 in last 79 credits). The low GPA I explained in my personal statement but there was a death in the family sophomore year. Also my application is stacked with plenty of research, life experiences, 10 years of work history, volunteering, leadership, sports, and organizations. 5 letters from researchers, professors, and physicians. Thanks to my MCAT I'm not too worried, but of course there is always neurotic premed doubt about my cGPA.

Click to expand...

You'll do work this application cycle, don't fret. The upward trend will be particularly helpful. If your sGPA is high you will have even better fortune, I'm sure. Maybe top tiers might not be as lenient, but I don't think you should have problem getting into an MD school with your record. Just make sure you apply smartly and broadly. Best of luck, bud

And the neuroticism is there regardless of GPA/MCAT status. I am freaking out with a > 3.9 GPA and > 38 MCAT because I only have one interview thus far. It's not logical, I know. Lingering thoughts like "Do my secondaries suck?" "Is there a red flag on my app?" "What if..." do not go away even with good scores. This is especially true since the propensity to run into high stat applicants with amazing ECs is staggeringly high on SDN, whether they are truthful or not.

PreMedOrDead said:

You'll do work this application cycle, don't fret. The upward trend will be particularly helpful. If your sGPA is high you will have even better fortune, I'm sure. Maybe top tiers might not be as lenient, but I don't think you should have problem getting into an MD school with your record. Just make sure you apply smartly and broadly. Best of luck, bud

And the neuroticism is there regardless of GPA/MCAT status. I am freaking out with a > 3.9 GPA and > 38 MCAT because I only have one interview thus far. It's not logical, I know. Lingering thoughts like "Do my secondaries suck?" "Is there a red flag on my app?" "What if..." do not go away even with good scores.

Click to expand...

Thanks, good luck to you too. (by luck I of course mean luck while traveling to the boatload of interviews you're going to be going on, since your app is so stacked. )

embracethepain said:

I went to a university where convention is mocked and people rejoice in being nerdy and difficult. I would say about a fourth of my professors didn't give out A's to anyone. I still managed above a 3.5 tho (god knows how). My university is notorious for grade deflation so I'm sure adcoms will be aware. The sucky part is these professors don't tell you that they don't give out A's at the beginning of the class. They change grading scales on a whim.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this is illegal. My school requires a syllabus and a grading scale. If this weren't provided, I would switch classes. Either way, your university sounds like it sucks, sorry.

embracethepain said:

I've already graduated, so ratemyprofs isn't useful anymore but I wish I had known earlier!

Click to expand...

It definitely comes in handy identifying poor and easy professors.

Barley426 said:

Thanks, good luck to you too. (by luck I of course mean luck while traveling to the boatload of interviews you're going to be going on, since your app is so stacked. )

Click to expand...

I hope so, thanks! I'm not really stacked, but my GPA/MCAT are definitely doing well. I'll be more confident once I have more than one interview, I'm sure.

embracethepain said:

I went to a top 5....without giving too much away...

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I heard a majority of the top tiers grade inflate. I'm not going to look into it though, I don't want to attack your anonymity.

Barley426 said:

Thanks, good luck to you too. (by luck I of course mean luck while traveling to the boatload of interviews you're going to be going on, since your app is so stacked. )

Click to expand...

PMOD above is a dbag, he'll get in anywhere.

Kidding about the first part, of course.

> 3.7, > 34 here. A bit more modest.

embracethepain said:

That's true, the majority do inflate.

Click to expand...

Should have gone to Stanford.

Didn't read the above posts but what happens if the person who took easy classes scores the same/higher on the MCAT than the person who took harder classes?

Wrestler said:

Didn't read the above posts but what happens if the person who took easy classes scores the same/higher on the MCAT than the person who took harder classes?

Click to expand...

lol, read the above posts

It's really depressing how much grade inflation has changed the mindset of the average student in the American university system. My father is a college professor and hates that he is essentially prevented by his administration from giving any grade lower than a B-, because of how heavily institutionalized the inflation is. Both my brother and I sought out and happily attended schools which heavily de-emphasized grades -- we each attended different colleges where students are heavily discouraged from checking their transcripts. The school I attended for several years does not, in fact, give grades on individual assignments, and many students go their entire four years without ever checking their transcripts. As professional school became a goal for me after my freshman year, I wasn't able to go quite so far - but it was incredibly refreshing, after a competitive college feeder public high school, to go somewhere where noone gave a **** about test scores - they cared about your passion for learning, for your curiosity, for your imagination and ability to synthesize different ideas.

It's also worth noting that many very fine educational institutions have professors who do just what embracethepain mentioned - professors who will only hand out an A for truly exceptional work. This used to be far more common in America, and is still common in much of the rest of the world. I heard on the radio today, listening to an NPR show on higher education, that in 1969 only 5% of students scored a 3.6 or higher. Now as many as 40% of all students do (keeping in mind this includes community colleges and for profit institutions, of course).

I would prefer to live in a world where grades were deemphasized and where people cared about what they were learning for its own sake (because it's interesting, because it's challenging, because it's teaching me to work hard and be creative) rather than because of its box-checking abilities. But America has made this a luxury, and we'll get what we deserve as a society, I expect.

.

eggs13 said:

lol, read the above posts

Click to expand...

Damn... I was trying to get around that.

I also hope adcoms take into account the difficulty level of classes taken.

After two years of below average grades I was trying to maintain a 4.0 sGPA for my last two years of college. I got 4.0 my junior year taking Bio, Biochem, and Analytical chem, but my senior year I ended up with a 3.8 sGPA because even though I got A's in physics, I ended up with A-'s in P-chem I & II. I hope adcoms will understand how hard P-chem is and don't think that my GPA-trend went up and then down.

Wrestler said:

Didn't read the above posts but what happens if the person who took easy classes scores the same/higher on the MCAT than the person who took harder classes?

Click to expand...

Short answer: the person who took easy classes and has a higher GPA just won the game.

Richard Dawkins said:

this whole discussion is why adcoms should give more weight to state school students' GPAs than private school students' GPAs

Click to expand...

That actually had absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

embracethepain said:

Also, question. I was just reading in another section of sdn about gpa boosting postbacs. My friend and I were looking at it and wondering if there was a cutoff for what gpa it is reasonable to pursue a postbac? She is currently signed up to do a teach for america type thing (but only 1 year) and has a 3.5 undergrad gpa. Should she do an SMP instead? Is that reasonable? SMP with 3.5 gpa??

Click to expand...

3.5 really isn't awful. The average GPA is a 3.67. I think Teach for America is really, really highly regarded too. However, I'd look at what the SMP offers, some actually give you a Med school spot if you attain a certain GPA IIRC.

Irish Football said:

I also hope adcoms take into account the difficulty level of classes taken.

After two years of below average grades I was trying to maintain a 4.0 sGPA for my last two years of college. I got 4.0 my junior year taking Bio, Biochem, and Analytical chem, but my senior year I ended up with a 3.8 sGPA because even though I got A's in physics, I ended up with A-'s in P-chem I & II. I hope adcoms will understand how hard P-chem is and don't think that my GPA-trend went up and then down.

Click to expand...

Certainly they will notice the difficult coursework, but it won't make or break you.

Edit: you should all be honored to be part of my 1,000th post. Let's celebrate, bring out the tequila!

I go to UToronto, pretty good/top ranked/difficult Canadian university. Unfortunately, no one in the US knows about the school ....

pfaction said:

I wonder why people always say to take "upper level" classes like Biochem then.

Click to expand...

Biochem varies school to school just like the majority of courses. I heard biochem was a joke at my school but other students had dreadful professors who taught nonsense.

Richard Dawkins said:

this whole discussion is why adcoms should give more weight to state school students' GPAs than private school students' GPAs

Click to expand...

Because state schools are the beacon of tough grading?

embracethepain said:

I don't see what the purpose of an education is if you shy away from learning and taking harder classes just for the sake of the GPA. I've known students who take unbelievably difficult courses together and end up with B's (which is extremely good) and students who take really easy classes and get A's. If I were an adcom member, I would personally want a student who is continuously challenging themselves and mastering difficult material. I feel this demonstrates more interest and better ability. I do feel that the mcat standardizes everyone but I also strongly feel that the gpa should not be weighted equally or more heavily than the mcat. Because gpas are very subjective depending on the major and rigor of the classwork.

With regards to intelligence, maybe this is something unique to my university. But students who are taking graduate level coursework with 3.5 gpas are very intelligent compared to many students who take below fundamentals level classes with gpas of 3.9. Just something for adcoms to consider (I'm sure they already do....I'm just not sure to what extent).

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that's just the system we have. There are many classes I'm sure students would love to take and make the most out of their tuition money, but with GPA being so important for use after your college years, it's a sacrifice many students take, sadly.

high GPA trumps hard classes. That's the nature of the beast.

embracethepain said:

So I directly asked an adcom member I know today. Apparently hard classes are definitely considered, as is the rigor of the school. Top school + hard classes + decent gpa > avg school + easy classes + high gpa...

given mcats are about equal

Click to expand...

of course that's what he's going to say. He doesn't want you to put the kid gloves on, but the reality is that when you look at the numbers, gpa trumps content. Adcoms have only a few sessions to filter through 5,000 applications. Best case scenario, admins meet twice a month starting in July and ending in March. That's 300+ applications a session.

embracethepain said:

So I directly asked an adcom member I know today. Apparently hard classes are definitely considered, as is the rigor of the school. Top school + hard classes + decent gpa > avg school + easy classes + high gpa...

given mcats are about equal

Click to expand...

I know you really want to believe this, and I am not entirely sure why. Maybe it is because you took hard classes and think you deserve special treatment or maybe it is because it's the 'right' thing to do. Either way, it's a lie. They say that for show, but it's not what they follow. It's not because they don't want to, it's because it is just impossible to do on a broad scale.

notbobtrustme said:

of course that's what he's going to say. He doesn't want you to put the kid gloves on, but the reality is that when you look at the numbers, gpa trumps content. Adcoms have only a few sessions to filter through 5,000 applications. Best case scenario, admins meet twice a month starting in July and ending in March. That's 300+ applications a session.

Click to expand...

This.

And congrats on 1,000 bob!

embracethepain said:

It's not about wanting to believe it, it's about wanting to know what's going on! I took hard classes but don't have a bad gpa so I'm not concerned personally but many of my friends took hard classes and have lower gpa's, and it's raised a bit of a controversy about the system.

I mean, I already got my q answered, so all is well.

Click to expand...

The system, in order to work, must be functional. To function, the calculated cGPA/sGPA and trends are things they can check on a whim. If they want to see how you can handle tough coursework, then they'll look at your courses. This would be more appropriate at the interview stage in justifying the likely 'How do you know you can handle medical school? Why should we believe you?' However, getting to this point is a far bigger challenge than justifying a single response in an interview.

So yes, they try to do the right thing, and they often consciously do later in the cycle. But overall, cGPA/sGPA and trends are what will make or break you.

It sounds like you're fine though, so best of luck!

I read through this entire thread and i have to agree with PremedOrDead on every point. The sorry state of medical school admissions (from what i've understood over 2 years of being pre-med) is that your GPA/MCAT are almost 70% of what gets you admitted. Taking harder classes and doing poorly (<B) is not favored over taking easy classes and doing well >B+. But then again theres so many things to consider when trying to quantify or describe "easiness". At least half of a class's easiness really depends on the professor. Being a smart pre-med means checking RMP and making sure previous students recommend the professor. Not necessarily for his/her easiness but their amicability and general demeanor to the subject. A professor that expects ALOT and gives out FAIR grades is a good professor. (Fair in my mind means, if i spent the time studying my ass off, i should get a B+ or better). Unfortunately some professors expect ALOT and don't like to give out FAIR grades. To make matters worse, some schools even use the bell curve grading system where only 5% of the class can get an A.

So in summation, in order to succeed as a pre-med, you can't really rely on "easy" classes- there are only a finite amount of them at any given school. You need to build solid work ethic and study habits. Taking hard classes is INEVITABLE, everyone will have to do it, so the best thing to do is to find out who is teaching it and make sure you have a FAIR professor (and obviously take the "easy" professor if there is one). If there isn't a fair professor, avoid taking it as long as possible until someone else is available. Its a horrible tactic but its the way it has to work. Personally, i'm avoiding taking any classes i know i'm going to do poorly in or hate (language for example) until senior year (post application submission)

notbobtrustme said:

of course that's what he's going to say. He doesn't want you to put the kid gloves on, but the reality is that when you look at the numbers, gpa trumps content. Adcoms have only a few sessions to filter through 5,000 applications. Best case scenario, admins meet twice a month starting in July and ending in March. That's 300+ applications a session.

Click to expand...

lol, no. A bad GPA will kill you, but this is simply not true. A good GPA + a real course load trumps a great GPA + fluff course load, any day of the week. My data sources are Wash U and HMS faculty adcoms who are old friends as well as my personal experience developing recruitment strategies for a medical school adcom.

There is ZERO question on anyone's mind that MCAT and grades are filters. The data shows that people with better scores and grades have better admission rates. But, how do you explain the heterogeneity of grades and scores in medical school classes? School's have averages of 3.7, 3.8 have students with 4.0s as well as 3.4s. You can not tank your GPA. Nobody is saying that. But to say that people who take real classes instead of fluff in undergrad are at a disadvantage is simply wrong. I would love to see any type of data to indicate otherwise.

All I know is that when I see an application with good grades, but all fluff, I lose interest in the applicant. 4.0 is meaningless without context.

mimelim said:

lol, no. A bad GPA will kill you, but this is simply not true. A good GPA + a real course load trumps a great GPA + fluff course load, any day of the week. My data sources are Wash U and HMS faculty adcoms who are old friends as well as my personal experience developing recruitment strategies for a medical school adcom.

There is ZERO question on anyone's mind that MCAT and grades are filters. The data shows that people with better scores and grades have better admission rates. But, how do you explain the heterogeneity of grades and scores in medical school classes? School's have averages of 3.7, 3.8 have students with 4.0s as well as 3.4s. You can not tank your GPA. Nobody is saying that. But to say that people who take real classes instead of fluff in undergrad are at a disadvantage is simply wrong. I would love to see any type of data to indicate otherwise.

All I know is that when I see an application with good grades, but all fluff, I lose interest in the applicant. 4.0 is meaningless without context.

Click to expand...

Just curious, how do you determine if one student's course load is heavier than the other?