Can clinical experience and MCAT make up for a low GPA

[jorge921995]

Let's someone ends up with like a 3.2 but get like a 4o on the MCAT and lot of shadowing, could that get someone an interview at least?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NickNaylor]

No.

 

[ZedsDed]

Probably not. Also, plenty of 4.0 students get less than a 35 on the MCAT, so you're asking for the near impossible. Learn to get straight A's.

 

[WedgeDawg]

I hear 4o is a really good score though

 

[moisne]

DO or MD?
MD - that would be tough, hopefully your sGPA is 3.5+ with a MCAT 40 (or whatever their new scoring system is)
But 40 is very very very hard to get... :/ Hope you aren't counting on that.

 

[Azete]

According to the AAMC data, if you're a white male the acceptance rate with these stats is around 50%, which is higher than someone that has a 3.5 and 31 MCAT (48.9%).

So yes, it is possible and highly likely you would receive an interview.

Also, I can't speak for the new MCAT but take it from someone that scored 40+ on multiple practice tests and 36 on the actual -- everything above 36 is luck. Everybody inevitably has to guess on a few questions (it's designed that way), if you get them right you're in the 40s, you get them wrong you're mid 30s.

 

[mehc012]

Also, I can't speak for the new MCAT but take it from someone that scored 40+ on multiple practice tests and 36 on the actual -- everything above 36 is luck. Everybody inevitably has to guess on a few questions (it's designed that way), if you get them right you're in the 40s, you get them wrong you're mid 30s.

I'd disagree with that assessment.

 

[Cawolf]

I hope so OP!

I'll report back next year.

 

[Vain Brother]

I'd disagree with that assessment.

it's a bit overstated but it is true that the higher up you go, the fewer correct questions between the scores

the answer to the OP's question is: of course it can. just look at table 24.

 

[mehc012]

it's a bit overstated but it is true that the higher up you go, the fewer correct questions between the scores

the answer to the OP's question is: of course it can. just look at table 24.

That part I know. I simply disagree that you're guessing above mid-30s.
I guessed on maybe 1 or so VR questions on each practice test and the real deal, and that's it. You really should not be guessing at that level.
There is definitely some random luck, but it's more 'where are you going to make a stupid mistake' rather than outright guessing. And I'd say it's more between 40+ scores, not all the way down to mid 30s.

 

[TheRhymenocerous]

That part I know. I simply disagree that you're guessing above mid-30s.
I guessed on maybe 1 or so VR questions on each practice test and the real deal, and that's it. You really should not be guessing at that level.
There is definitely some random luck, but it's more 'where are you going to make a stupid mistake' rather than outright guessing. And I'd say it's more between 40+ scores, not all the way down to mid 30s.

I don't think he means that people are guessing, just that it's pretty arbitrary past ~37 so it really comes down to luck. I had two practice tests with the same number of wrong answers and one was a 37 and one was a 39.

 

[mimelim]

No.

Probably not. Also, plenty of 4.0 students get less than a 35 on the MCAT, so you're asking for the near impossible. Learn to get straight A's.

DO or MD?
MD - that would be tough, hopefully your sGPA is 3.5+ with a MCAT 40 (or whatever their new scoring system is)
But 40 is very very very hard to get... :/ Hope you aren't counting on that.

Plenty of 3.2/40 people get into medical school, even more get interview invites. I would hazard a guess that for people with an otherwise completely average application and a solid game plan (applying early, broadly etc) that your chances of an interview invite are 80%+.

According to the AAMC data, if you're a white male the acceptance rate with these stats is around 50%, which is higher than someone that has a 3.5 and 31 MCAT (48.9%).

So yes, it is possible and highly likely you would receive an interview.

Also, I can't speak for the new MCAT but take it from someone that scored 40+ on multiple practice tests and 36 on the actual -- everything above 36 is luck. Everybody inevitably has to guess on a few questions (it's designed that way), if you get them right you're in the 40s, you get them wrong you're mid 30s.

That part I know. I simply disagree that you're guessing above mid-30s.
I guessed on maybe 1 or so VR questions on each practice test and the real deal, and that's it. You really should not be guessing at that level.
There is definitely some random luck, but it's more 'where are you going to make a stupid mistake' rather than outright guessing. And I'd say it's more between 40+ scores, not all the way down to mid 30s.

I don't think he means that people are guessing, just that it's pretty arbitrary past ~37 so it really comes down to luck. I had two practice tests with the same number of wrong answers and one was a 37 and one was a 39.

The only people that think these things are luck are the people that are guessing. Practice test scoring is not MCAT scoring. The distributions are different and they are graded differently. Just because you had an experience with a practice test and it didn't line up with your actual test doesn't mean everything comes down to luck. Is it meaningless after a certain point? Sure. Personally, I think +/- 3 points is somewhat of a wash. But the difference between a 36 and a 41 is quite substantial. I would argue that 40+ is completely indistinguishable. But at 36, you are missing quite a few questions in sections to get that score.

And lastly OP...

Let's someone ends up with like a 3.2 but get like a 4o on the MCAT and lot of shadowing, could that get someone an interview at least?

The vast majority of applications that get serious consideration have a fair bit of shadowing. By saying something like, "make up for with shadowing" you fundamentally don't understand the purpose of shadowing. There is an upper limit of utility of shadowing. While it is different for everyone and most people don't reach it, shadowing doesn't impress people or make them want you. It gives us comfort in knowing that you are likely to know what you are getting into and aren't going to regret your decision to go into medicine, but that is about it. It should be a part of every solid application, not a 'gotta have that guy' chip. Do not bank on 40+ MCAT scores to bail you out. The number of people that score that high is quite small and it is no small feat to obtain that. It is also not exactly encouraging that you are getting a 3.2 and want to 'make up for things' with shadowing. Fix your academic problems. That is your best bet for getting into medical school. I guarantee that you have them. It is also by far the best way to perform as well as possible on the MCAT.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

the question has two parts:

1) Can I get in/ get interviews ... yes. but you should apply everywhere.

2) Will my high MCAT score make my grades irrelevant?

Absolutely not.

This particular disparity looks bad -- anyone who can get a 40 on the MCAT (unless it is different then my era) should have near perfect grades at any college in 'Merica. You are likely going to get screened out by a bunch of places.

 

[cloudmurder1]

A 3.2 is unfortunately too low, so no. Focus hard on increasing your GPA

 

[mehc012]

The only people that think these things are luck are the people that are guessing. Practice test scoring is not MCAT scoring. The distributions are different and they are graded differently. Just because you had an experience with a practice test and it didn't line up with your actual test doesn't mean everything comes down to luck. Is it meaningless after a certain point? Sure. Personally, I think +/- 3 points is somewhat of a wash. But the difference between a 36 and a 41 is quite substantial. I would argue that 40+ is completely indistinguishable. But at 36, you are missing quite a few questions in sections to get that score.

Exactly. I knew going into the test that I would get at least a 40, but beyond that? Came down to if I had a few misreads, silly math errors, or tricky VR issues. I wouldn't call that 'luck,' per se, but simply whether I performed at my best or my worst that day.

 

[Azete]

The difference between a 12 and 14 on each section is maybe 4 questions at most, and usually 2 questions on verbal. So the difference between a 36 and 42 is ~10 questions. Is that significant? Sure. But let's not pretend comparing a 30 to a 36 and a 36 to a 42 is the same thing.

Also, I don't care if someone scored straight 45s on their practice tests, saying a 97th percentile score is a poor test day performance just sounds ridiculous.

 

[mimelim]

The difference between a 12 and 14 on each section is maybe 4 questions at most, and usually 2 questions on verbal. So the difference between a 36 and 42 is ~10 questions. Is that significant? Sure. But let's not pretend comparing a 30 to a 36 and a 36 to a 42 is the same thing.

Also, I don't care if someone scored straight 45s on their practice tests, saying a 97th percentile score is a poor test day performance just sounds ridiculous.

Source regarding the red part for the actual MCAT?

Link to where anyone said that a 30 vs. 36 was the same thing as 36 vs. 42? Of course they are different. Basic statistics...

 

[WedgeDawg]

Source regarding the red part for the actual MCAT?

Link to where anyone said that a 30 vs. 36 was the same thing as 36 vs. 42? Of course they are different. Basic statistics...

I think you can find them in the scoring tables that the AAMC publishes alongside their practice exams, which means they might no longer be available as the transition has happened.

 

[Azete]

Source regarding the red part for the actual MCAT?

Link to where anyone said that a 30 vs. 36 was the same thing as 36 vs. 42? Of course they are different. Basic statistics...

Given that the old AAMC practice tests with actual raw conversion scales for previous exams are available, it's reasonable to conclude that scoring wasn't drastically altered for recent exams.

Sure, experimental questions and scaling variations make it impossible to define accurate parameters for the actual MCAT. You could make the same argument for the practice tests then, if you want to nitpick.

http://i46.tinypic.com/dyrggp.jpg

 

[LizzyM]

Do keep in mind that a 3.2/40 who gets into medical school may have done a special masters program and/or post-bac demonstrating their ability to do well in the sciences. The 3.2 -40 might be a person who skated by doing okay but not great in a business major,in an engineering degree, or at a music conservatory or seminary and then came around to the idea of medicine. It might be someone who came back from a 2.0 and a severe chronic illness with a 4.0 after things straightened out. There are stories that go along with the numbers and that may make all the difference.

 

[mehc012]

The difference between a 12 and 14 on each section is maybe 4 questions at most, and usually 2 questions on verbal. So the difference between a 36 and 42 is ~10 questions. Is that significant? Sure. But let's not pretend comparing a 30 to a 36 and a 36 to a 42 is the same thing.

Also, I don't care if someone scored straight 45s on their practice tests, saying a 97th percentile score is a poor test day performance just sounds ridiculous.

If I had scored a 38, that would have been an extremely poor test day performance for me. It would have been an excellent score and I would have gone with it, but it would not have been my best work, regardless of the percentile.

If a track runner hits a PR, they had an excellent day for them, even if they come in 7th. If another runner performs below their own average, they had a bad day, didn't perform well (for them), etc...even if they walk away with a medal. Most people wouldn't call that 'luck' - that would be silly. It's not 'luck' whether you perform your worst or your best...it's a complex amalgam of factors, some of which are under your control, some of which you don't even recognize.

Now, if you're guessing on a substantial number of questions (more than 1 or 2, total), or you aren't equally prepped on all subjects and thus your score is wildly different depending on which topics the hard questions fall on...well, yes. There's luck involved there. But in that case, you are 'lucky' if you score well despite those deficiencies, not 'unlucky' if you miss the questions you didn't know.

 

[Lawpy]

Let's someone ends up with like a 3.2 but get like a 4o on the MCAT and lot of shadowing, could that get someone an interview at least?

@mimelim already dispelled your shadowing misconceptions, so I won't bother with that.

There is some evidence that someone with a 3.8/28 is more likely to get into medical school than someone with a 3.3/40. Different LizzyM scores aside, I personally think such a claim is absurd because there are various reasons why someone who did well on the MCAT got a low GPA (bad start initially followed by a sustained upswing, critical illness, laziness, college hatred etc.).

So, yes, as adcoms mentioned previously, the high MCAT does (and should) make up for the low GPA. Is it enough? No, and that's where the ECs come into play, which should be far more substantial than just racking up shadowing hours.

This particular disparity looks bad -- anyone who can get a 40 on the MCAT (unless it is different then my era) should have near perfect grades at any college in 'Merica. You are likely going to get screened out by a bunch of places.

Not unless you go to a very grade-deflating school like Princeton, MIT, UChicago etc.

 

[DokterMom]

The risk with a super-high MCAT and a low GPA is that the applicant comes off as brilliant but ____? But what? - Lazy? Unfocused? Not serious about his/her goals? Rebellious? Stoner? Score-fluke? or perhaps: Misguided youth that's now well behind him/her? Upward trend? Had to work to put him/herself through school? Severe grade deflation?

The "Brilliant" part is presumed from the 40. But so's the "but ___?"

 

[Lawpy]

The risk with a super-high MCAT and a low GPA is that the applicant comes off as brilliant but ____? But what? - Lazy? Unfocused? Not serious about his/her goals? Rebellious? Stoner? Score-fluke? or perhaps: Misguided youth that's now well behind him/her? Upward trend? Had to work to put him/herself through school? Severe grade inflation?

The "Brilliant" part is presumed from the 40. But so's the "but ___?"

I don't understand the grade inflation part? Unless you mean grade deflation.

But I admit that any GPA/MCAT wide discrepancies warrant a careful caution, but in the low GPA/high MCAT situation, the sustained upward GPA trend in rigorous coursework should dispel the concerns.

 

[DokterMom]

I don't understand the grade inflation part? Unless you mean grade deflation.

But I admit that any GPA/MCAT wide discrepancies warrant a careful caution, but in the low GPA/high MCAT situation, the sustained upward GPA trend in rigorous coursework should dispel the concerns.

Sorry - meant DEflation. Fixed.

 

[Azete]

If I had scored a 38, that would have been an extremely poor test day performance for me. It would have been an excellent score and I would have gone with it, but it would not have been my best work, regardless of the percentile.

If a track runner hits a PR, they had an excellent day for them, even if they come in 7th. If another runner performs below their own average, they had a bad day, didn't perform well (for them), etc...even if they walk away with a medal. Most people wouldn't call that 'luck' - that would be silly. It's not 'luck' whether you perform your worst or your best...it's a complex amalgam of factors, some of which are under your control, some of which you don't even recognize.

Now, if you're guessing on a substantial number of questions (more than 1 or 2, total), or you aren't equally prepped on all subjects and thus your score is wildly different depending on which topics the hard questions fall on...well, yes. There's luck involved there. But in that case, you are 'lucky' if you score well despite those deficiencies, not 'unlucky' if you miss the questions you didn't know.

You're totally over analyzing here. The goal of the MCAT is to adequately display your ability to handle med school curriculum. A 38 would get you into any school that a 42 would. A better track analogy would be the Olympic qualifiers where the top runners score less than their personal best (on purpose), because the goal is to qualify and not to win. The goal of the Olympics is to win and the scores reflect as such.

The "luck" is more referring to you reading every question as the MCAT writers want you to read them. Or, in some instances, choosing the least wrong among a group of incorrect answers, or the most right among multiple correct answers. Depending on your logic, which may be correct, you may "guess" incorrectly. Suggesting someone that scores in the mid or high 30s is less prepared is just unnecessarily condescending.

 

[Goro]

For MD Schools, most likely no and no, because there are more than enough people with high GPAs, good MCATs and ECs.

For DO schools, yes.

See LizzyM's post above

Let's someone ends up with like a 3.2 but get like a 4o on the MCAT and lot of shadowing, could that get someone an interview at least?

 

[RustBeltOnc]

Do keep in mind that a 3.2/40 who gets into medical school may have done a special masters program and/or post-bac demonstrating their ability to do well in the sciences. The 3.2 -40 might be a person who skated by doing okay but not great in a business major,in an engineering degree, or at a music conservatory or seminary and then came around to the idea of medicine. It might be someone who came back from a 2.0 and a severe chronic illness with a 4.0 after things straightened out. There are stories that go along with the numbers and that may make all the difference.

All of the above are possible, but let's be real here. Anyone who can get that MCAT score should have a 4.0. There's no college in america - none - where this person wouldn't dominate.

We're talking AIIMS level test-taking here, people!

 

[mehc012]

You're totally over analyzing here. The goal of the MCAT is to adequately display your ability to handle med school curriculum. A 38 would get you into any school that a 42 would. A better track analogy would be the Olympic qualifiers where the top runners score less than their personal best (on purpose), because the goal is to qualify and not to win. The goal of the Olympics is to win and the scores reflect as such.

The "luck" is more referring to you reading every question as the MCAT writers want you to read them. Or, in some instances, choosing the least wrong among a group of incorrect answers, or the most right among multiple correct answers. Depending on your logic, which may be correct, you may "guess" incorrectly. Suggesting someone that scores in the mid or high 30s is less prepared is just unnecessarily condescending.

Someone who scores in the mid 30s is either less prepared or less skilled at test-taking than someone who scores in the 40s. That's not condescending, it's just the entire point of scores in the first place.

But sure, people aim for 35s because they don't need a higher score

 

[RustBeltOnc]

Someone who scores in the mid 30s is either less prepared or less skilled at test-taking than someone who scores in the 40s. That's not condescending, it's just the entire point of scores in the first place.

But sure, people aim for 35s because they don't need a higher score
QUOTE]

All of this is sound and fury, signifying nothing. Back in the day, Hopkins didn't even require the MCAT. Why? Because if you have solid grades at a solid college .... anyone could predict your MCAT score from your SATs.
You can make the argument the MCAT itself is unnecessary for this reason.

 

[Azete]

Someone who scores in the mid 30s is either less prepared or less skilled at test-taking than someone who scores in the 40s. That's not condescending, it's just the entire point of scores in the first place.

But sure, people aim for 35s because they don't need a higher score

Keep up that mentality, you'll go far with it.

You clearly missed (or ignored) the point and would prefer to stick to juvenile pomposity, so touché friend.

 

[LizzyM]

All of the above are possible, but let's be real here. Anyone who can get that MCAT score should have a 4.0. There's no college in america - none - where this person wouldn't dominate.

We're talking AIIMS level test-taking here, people!

That assumes that the person was working up to their potential from day 1 of college which is not always the case. Non-trads in particular can have a GPA which is out of whack with the MCAT sometimes because there was no "need" to work for A's and priorities were different when one was not "pre-med". When you see Table 25 you can't assume that everyone was pre-med from day 1.

 

[mehc012]

All of this is sound and fury, signifying nothing. Back in the day, Hopkins didn't even require the MCAT. Why? Because if you have solid grades at a solid college .... anyone could predict your MCAT score from your SATs.
You can make the argument the MCAT itself is unnecessary for this reason.

None of that has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

Keep up that mentality, you'll go far with it.

You clearly missed (or ignored) the point and would prefer to stick to juvenile pomposity, so touché friend.

I would make the same statement whether I scored a 15 or a 45...that your score on the MCAT is based on your preparedness and test-taking ability. It has nothing to do with me or you. Now, if you want to argue that there's little utility in putting in the extra work to get a 40+ vs a 35, I might agree with you (for the majority of candidates). But that's not what you said, and so it's not what I was responding to.

How about you focus a little less on critiquing my personality and a more on providing any evidence for your assertion that someone's score on a standardized exam is not based on their ability and their preparation for that test.

 

[mehc012]

That assumes that the person was working up to their potential from day 1 of college which is not always the case. Non-trads in particular can have a GPA which is out of whack with the MCAT sometimes because there was no "need" to work for A's and priorities were different when one was not "pre-med". When you see Table 25 you can't assume that everyone was pre-med from day 1.

QFT. The MCAT is the great equalizer. It allows those with disparate backgrounds or who took circuitous routes to medicine to demonstrate their academic abilities in a standardized forum, based solely on their performance once they truly committed to applying. It helps erase discrepancies based on school rigor, life events, and prior immaturity.

 

[Cawolf]

All of the above are possible, but let's be real here. Anyone who can get that MCAT score should have a 4.0.

Like @LizzyM said above, it is often students like myself who have that disparity. My GPA is nowhere near predictive of my MCAT, not unless you only look at my post-bac work.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

Let's someone ends up with like a 3.2 but get like a 4o on the MCAT and lot of shadowing, could that get someone an interview at least?

It's definitely possible OP, so don't give up! I had a 3.2 overall, got great clinical experiences scribing and shadowing, and got a 34 on the MCAT. Result: got into two MD schools. I completed (and crushed) a SMP though, so definitely look into that.

 

[ZedsDed]

It's definitely possible OP, so don't give up! I had a 3.2 overall, got great clinical experiences scribing and shadowing, and got a 34 on the MCAT. Result: got into two MD schools. This was almost certainly due to the fact that I completed (and crushed) a SMP though, so unless you crush an SMP it's not likely. Considering your academic past, success in an SMP is unlikely until you learn how to get A's. Also, keep in mind that n=1 stories are never reliable.

There, I fixed that for you.

 

[doktorcardinal]

.

 

[ZedsDed]

N=2

3.1 gpa and 39 mcat here got into two md schools. Likewise needed the SMP. Dont give up it is there for you if you work hard

Why do you guys mention the SMP last, like an afterthought? It was no doubt crucial to your admittance. That, coupled with the high MCAT score. I don't have a crystal ball, but chances are your strength as an applicant would've been severely diminished without the SMP.

 

[doktorcardinal]

Why do you guys mention the SMP last, like an afterthought? It was no doubt crucial to your admittance. That, coupled with the high MCAT score. I don't have a crystal ball, but chances are your strength as an applicant would've been severely diminished without the SMP.

Lol it wasnt an afterthought its more like chronological order of events in which it happened. You do smp after you get bad grades and good mcat

 

[ZedsDed]

Lol it wasnt an afterthought its more like chronological order of events in which it happened. You do smp after you get bad grades and good mcat

You and previous poster I was referencing: I had a 3.1 and a high MCAT so it is definitely possible (to get into med school with a low GPA.) I needed an SMP though.

It should have been: OP I had to do an SMP to get into med school, as this is very hard to do with a low GPA.

 

[doktorcardinal]

But yes I think it is a given a person should redeem themselves with either an SMP or postbacc work with a low gpa situation because MCAT does not say the same things about you as years of hard earned GPA

 

[RustBeltOnc]

I will repeat. If you can get a 40 on the MCAT, you should dominate at any college in america.

Even with poor study skills, work ethic issues, or various life circumstances, you get great grades.

If you don't, your competitor with a 35 and 4.0 (and there are many) will beat you 9/10 times.

This is true in med student admissions, and life.

 

[mehc012]

You and previous poster I was referencing: I had a 3.1 and a high MCAT so it is definitely possible (to get into med school with a low GPA.) I needed an SMP though.

It should have been: OP I had to do an SMP to get into med school, as this is very hard to do with a low GPA.

I'll let you know next year whether it's possible to do without that SMP!

 

[Goro]

Y'know, it's all well and good to throw out this super high number, but when people ask "what if I get a 40...?", they're engaging in magic thinking.

I will repeat. If you can get a 40 on the MCAT, you should dominate at any college in america.

Even with poor study skills, work ethic issues, or various life circumstances, you get great grades.

If you don't, your competitor with a 35 and 4.0 (and there are many) will beat you 9/10 times.

This is true in med student admissions, and life.

 

[mehc012]

I will repeat. If you can get a 40 on the MCAT, you should dominate at any college in america.

Even with poor study skills, work ethic issues, or various life circumstances, you get great grades.

If you don't, your competitor with a 35 and 4.0 (and there are many) will beat you 9/10 times.

This is true in med student admissions, and life.

Your wording confuses me...are you saying "you still have to get great grades" or "even with poor study skills, work ethic issues, or life circumstances, a 40 MCAT student would get great grades."

I absolutely concur that, barring some sort of academic redemption (upward trend, postbacc, career change, SMP, etc) your last sentence is true.
However, with some form of redemption? I wouldn't write the low-gpa/high-MCAT student off so quickly.

 

[Storph]

I'd disagree with that assessment.

I second your disagreement

 

[ZedsDed]

Y'know, it's all well and good to throw out this super high number, but when people ask "what if I get a 40...?", they're engaging in magic thinking.

It never ceases to amaze me how many students, who are unable to get an A- in one lower division bio class, think they will somehow rise to 99.9th %tile of test takers on a notoriously difficult exam.

 

[RustBeltOnc]

Your wording confuses me...are you saying "you still have to get great grades" or "even with poor study skills, work ethic issues, or life circumstances, a 40 MCAT student would get great grades."

I absolutely concur that, barring some sort of academic redemption (upward trend, postbacc, career change, SMP, etc) your last sentence is true.
However, with some form of redemption? I wouldn't write the low-gpa/high-MCAT student off so quickly.

Both. you will get great grades and you need to.

? redemption? think about what you are proposing: more school to get into school.

I couldnt get a 40, but ... even I don't have the patience for that. There is no SMP in real life.

 

[ZedsDed]

Both. you will get great grades and you need to.

? redemption? think about what you are proposing: more school to get into school.

I couldnt get a 40, but ... even I don't have the patience for that. There is no SMP in real life.

I disagree, not everybody is ready to be a phenomenal student right out of the gate. Thankfully, many AdCom's agree with me. Not sure exactly what you mean by "there is no SMP in real life."