Evidence that medical schools do care about rigor of undergrad?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

WonderGrill

Membership Revoked
Removed
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2015
Messages
66
Reaction score
25
I go to a top 20 undergrad which is known for grade deflation. Every year my school's medical advisory office releases acceptance rates into medical school from our college.

For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x<27 MCAT, 6 applied, 3 were accepted, acceptance rate 50%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and 27<x<30 MCAT, 31 applied, 18 were accepted, acceptance rat 58%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x>30 MCAT, 111 applied, 92 were accepted, acceptance rate was 83%.

From the info given there, you can calculate that 8 out of 14 (57%) of those between 3.3 and 3.4 get accepted.

This is all MD btw.

Doesn't this show that medical schools do care about school name? From what I've read here, any GPA below a 3.4 is pretty much killer for MD schools. But the info here says otherwise?

Thoughts?

Members don't see this ad.
 
@efle

Bat-signal_1989_film.jpg


Also read the link in my signature for more information about this too.

Yes, schools care about where you went to college. To what extent is up for debate.

Also, I might be missing something, but how did you derive your 3.3<x<3.4 number?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
A good MCAT forgives a lot. Plus I imagine self-selection is at play here - the average Harvard student is likely to be more accomplished (academics and non-academics) than a bottom tier school student.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I go to a top 20 undergrad which is known for grade deflation. Every year my school's medical advisory office releases acceptance rates into medical school from our college.

For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x<27 MCAT, 6 applied, 3 were accepted, acceptance rate 50%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and 27<x<30 MCAT, 31 applied, 18 were accepted, acceptance rat 58%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x>30 MCAT, 111 applied, 92 were accepted, acceptance rate was 83%.

From the info given there, you can calculate that 8 out of 14 (57%) of those between 3.3 and 3.4 get accepted.

This is all MD btw.

Doesn't this show that medical schools do care about school name? From what I've read here, any GPA below a 3.4 is pretty much killer for MD schools. But the info here says otherwise?

Thoughts?

Numbers alone just help you get to the interview stage.... afterwards your interview is a huge game changer regardless of your stats.

I have the same question as Wedgedawg... how did you get that number?
 
A 3.4 isn't horrible, but yeah, but the median is a b- or less at most difficult schools. That's like a 2.66.

Many of people with these grades switch to a terminal lab tech job, pre ph, pre law as well. Sure, name probably helps, but Obviously those stats don't tell the full story either

Phone post
 
Last edited:
@efle

Bat-signal_1989_film.jpg


Also read the link in my signature for more information about this too.

Yes, schools care about where you went to college. To what extent is up for debate.

Also, I might be missing something, but how did you derive your 3.3<x<3.4 number?

Oops sorry! I forgot the put in all of the info lol. Let me try again.

I'm just going to include pictures of the tables, it would take to long to type it all out lol.
a.PNG
b.PNG
c.PNG
 
I'd be weary of thinking like this because of SSS. Plus, MCAT and GPA aren't the only factors for admission. I would just apply broadly and to DO as well, and just see what happens.

I go to a top 20 undergrad which is known for grade deflation. Every year my school's medical advisory office releases acceptance rates into medical school from our college.

For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x<27 MCAT, 6 applied, 3 were accepted, acceptance rate 50%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and 27<x<30 MCAT, 31 applied, 18 were accepted, acceptance rat 58%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x>30 MCAT, 111 applied, 92 were accepted, acceptance rate was 83%.

From the info given there, you can calculate that 8 out of 14 (57%) of those between 3.3 and 3.4 get accepted.

This is all MD btw.

Doesn't this show that medical schools do care about school name? From what I've read here, any GPA below a 3.4 is pretty much killer for MD schools. But the info here says otherwise?

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Numbers alone just help you get to the interview stage.... afterwards your interview is a huge game changer regardless of your stats.

I have the same question as Wedgedawg... how did you get that number?
If you're getting an interview, the school likes you already and the spot is yours to lose. It isn't the make or break moment- the interview is simply the break moment if you screw it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'd be weary of thinking like this because of SSS. Plus, MCAT and GPA aren't the only factors for admission. I would just apply broadly and to DO as well, and just see what happens.

What's SSS? And yeah, I know that there are other factors in med school admissions, but numbers dont lie. I dunno, I just feel like if someone posted in "What are my Chances" with a 3.4 cGPA and a 30 MCAT, most people would probably suggest a postbacc or SMP.
 
@efle

Bat-signal_1989_film.jpg


Also read the link in my signature for more information about this too.

Yes, schools care about where you went to college. To what extent is up for debate.

Also, I might be missing something, but how did you derive your 3.3<x<3.4 number?

I'll post this here in advance

(https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf#page=12)

Undergrad name is of highest priority, along with GPA and MCAT. Attending a highly selective undergrad carries an implicit notion that your coursework is rigorous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Schools definitely care about school name. No doubt about that. I think it probably factors in more when you do well at a great school compared to someone who also does well at a decent, state school. Or maybe not quite as well. This would create a difference maker when looking at apps. A 4.0 at Harvard is likely worth more than a 4.0 at stateU but definitely worth far more than a 3.7 at StateU. As far as how badly you can do at Harvard, I think it would have to be MCAT dependent.

The way they went about organizing the data is probably a little biased. But they're not proving anything overly contested.
What's SSS? And yeah, I know that there are other factors in med school admissions, but numbers dont lie. I dunno, I just feel like if someone posted in "What are my Chances" with a 3.4 cGPA and a 30 MCAT, most people would probably suggest a postbacc or SMP.
To show the randomness associated with admissions and this data, it says students had a better chance with a less than or equal to 3.4 gpa and a 27-30 MCAT than those with a greater than 30.
 
I go to a top 20 undergrad which is known for grade deflation. Every year my school's medical advisory office releases acceptance rates into medical school from our college.

For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x<27 MCAT, 6 applied, 3 were accepted, acceptance rate 50%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and 27<x<30 MCAT, 31 applied, 18 were accepted, acceptance rat 58%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x>30 MCAT, 111 applied, 92 were accepted, acceptance rate was 83%.

From the info given there, you can calculate that 8 out of 14 (57%) of those between 3.3 and 3.4 get accepted.

This is all MD btw.

Doesn't this show that medical schools do care about school name? From what I've read here, any GPA below a 3.4 is pretty much killer for MD schools. But the info here says otherwise?

Thoughts?

Additionally, grade-deflating Top 20s receive a lot of respite (or at least they should). You are competing against brilliant minds across the nation, and on top of that, your professors curve you down. That is brutal, but the good news is, your academic aptitude is shown through your strong MCAT score, which is actually common despite your low GPA.

So a 3.4 GPA with a 37/520+ MCAT as a direct consequence on top of the undergrad name and good ECs will actually help you a lot for even the top tiers.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This photo is from an event UMMSM hosts for College Students interested in applying to their medical school. It's the formula they use to score applicants:

img_4196-jpg.188145


As you can see, GPA, MCAT, and undergrad "prestige" are only 120/300 points. Your experiences, LORs, overcoming adversity, etc. are actually given more weight at 180/300 points! So don't skimp on elaborating about those experiences ;)

--------------------------------

Good luck to everyone applying! :luck:

Specific for Miami, but likely applies similarly to other schools
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
If you're getting an interview, the school likes you already and the spot is yours to lose. It isn't the make or break moment- the interview is simply the break moment if you screw it up.

This is true at many schools that have lost-interview acceptance rates of 60%+, but there are also a good number of schools (generally top schools) that have much lower post interview acceptance rates hovering around 25-30%. I think in these scenarios, it's more "make or break" rather than just "break".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is true at many schools that have lost-interview acceptance rates of 60%+, but there are also a good number of schools (generally top schools) that have much lower post interview acceptance rates hovering around 25-30%. I think in these scenarios, it's more "make or break" rather than just "break".
I'm more speaking to the majority of the time- there's a few schools where the interview will make it, but usually you're just trying not to break it. Few schools have lower than a 50% acceptance rate post-interview.
 
Specific for Miami, but likely applies similarly to other schools
That's really interesting. I wonder if they target everyone who scores highly, or if they target people who fall in the score range that their matriculants normally do.
 
I just want to clear up some misconceptions that people have about grade deflation at top schools (in my opinion).

A lot of people think that the professors will create a curve or something, so that only 5% of the class gets an A. I have never seen this in my college career. When premeds complain about grade deflation at my school, they aren't complaining about how unfair the grading is. Honestly, I feel like tests are only ever graded down if the tests are too easy and the class does too well. Rest assured, this phenomenon never happens. When premeds complain about grade deflation at my school, they're mostly complaining about how incredibly hard the classes are. The tests are so difficult that a bell curve is naturally created so that the average is around a 75.
 
It does matter, mostly for the top schools. The MCAT selectivity guide has already been posted by Lawper.

In an "Ask LizzyM almost anything" thread LizzyM specified that the typical matriculant at her school is from a Top 50 USNWR undergrad: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ing-2012-edition.972513/page-14#post-13476332

Another post: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...t-harvard-stanford-med.1096272/#post-15675258

But it is one factor among many. I doubt a top school is going to refuse an interview at a 3.8/36 with great ECs because they come from a state school.
 
If you're getting an interview, the school likes you already and the spot is yours to lose. It isn't the make or break moment- the interview is simply the break moment if you screw it up.

Eh I guess I'm not as familiar with how many are interviewed vs accepted. In most Canadian schools its around 30% of interviewees are accepted, with about 5% more on the wait-list.

Some schools like the UofT can get upwards of 40%, but it's still not really a "yours to lose"situation. Granted the probability is better but I guess I took it too far out of context.
 
I just want to clear up some misconceptions that people have about grade deflation at top schools (in my opinion).

A lot of people think that the professors will create a curve or something, so that only 5% of the class gets an A. I have never seen this in my college career. When premeds complain about grade deflation at my school, they aren't complaining about how unfair the grading is. Honestly, I feel like tests are only ever graded down if the tests are too easy and the class does too well. Rest assured, this phenomenon never happens. When premeds complain about grade deflation at my school, they're mostly complaining about how incredibly hard the classes are. The tests are so difficult that a bell curve is naturally created so that the average is around a 75.
I thought that Harvard etc was the birthplace of grade inflation.

I did have an upper division bio class that had a bell-curve grading system. The struggle of getting a 92 on an assignment and it correlating to a B... Lol
 
Eh I guess I'm not as familiar with how many are interviewed vs accepted. In most Canadian schools its around 30% of interviewees are accepted, with about 5% more on the wait-list.

Some schools like the UofT can get upwards of 40%, but it's still not really a "yours to lose"situation. Granted the probability is better but I guess I took it too far out of context.
A big thing people forget about is that most schools need to accept roughly applicants per seat. So if you've got 600 interviewed for 175 seats, for instance, the school probably actually accepted 350 people, but 175 declined and chose to go elsewhere.
 
I go to a top 20 undergrad which is known for grade deflation. Every year my school's medical advisory office releases acceptance rates into medical school from our college.

For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x<27 MCAT, 6 applied, 3 were accepted, acceptance rate 50%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and 27<x<30 MCAT, 31 applied, 18 were accepted, acceptance rat 58%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x>30 MCAT, 111 applied, 92 were accepted, acceptance rate was 83%.

From the info given there, you can calculate that 8 out of 14 (57%) of those between 3.3 and 3.4 get accepted.

This is all MD btw.

Doesn't this show that medical schools do care about school name? From what I've read here, any GPA below a 3.4 is pretty much killer for MD schools. But the info here says otherwise?

Thoughts?
Ah Vanderbilt, fellow tough school nobody has ever heard of. Y'all have ballpark similar numbers to Wustl which has 3.2+ / 30+ accept rate of 87% (and 95% accept rate for 3.8+ :0)

Yes undergrad matters, but there is much better evidence than this - the AAMC survey shows undergrad selectivity is highly important to private MD schools (public MD don't care)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Ah Vanderbilt, fellow tough school nobody has ever heard of. Y'all have ballpark similar numbers to Wustl which has 3.2+ / 30+ accept rate of 87% (and 95% accept rate for 3.8+ :0)

Yes undergrad matters, but there is much better evidence than this - the AAMC survey shows undergrad selectivity is highly important to private MD schools (public MD don't care)

I wondered if someone would figure out the school haha. Go Dores!! WOOO
 
In an "Ask LizzyM almost anything" thread LizzyM specified that the typical matriculant at her school is from a Top 50 USNWR undergrad: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ing-2012-edition.972513/page-14#post-13476332
To what extent does that rule apply though? My alma mater is 23 on that list, but UCI is in the low 40's or so. Does that mean UCI is "rigorous?" Don't get me wrong, I think all of the UC are great schools. But I don't know if I would describe middle-tier UCs as extremely rigorous.
 
To what extent though? My alma mater is 23 on that list. But UCI is in the low 40's or so. Does that mean UCI is "rigorous?" Don't get me wrong, I think all of the UC are great schools. But I don't know if I would describe middle-tier UCs as extremely rigorous.

Really this will vary for every school and every adcom. I think going to an established school is what LizzyM was referring to mainly. I'm sure all schools in the top 50 can be described as "rigorous". Some more than others, but still. It's a pretty arbitrary cutoff.
 
Your school curved to a B- no? Just curious.

Not sure overall, but the average grade for "pre-med" classes (bio, orgo, math, etc.) is consistently 77. Although, I've heard that the average for the first genetics test was a 60, so idk.
 
Not sure overall, but the average grade for "pre-med" classes (bio, orgo, math, etc.) is consistently 77. Although, I've heard that the average for the first genetics test was a 60, so idk.
I'm quite skeptical that Vandy awards a 2.0 median in the prereqs. Unless that's a raw 77 and the B range starts at 75 or some such
 
Some were to B- some to B
I thought this was standard? Is this considered deflating? If so I can think of some "top" state schools that deflate like crazy; C+/B- actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm more speaking to the majority of the time- there's a few schools where the interview will make it, but usually you're just trying not to break it. Few schools have lower than a 50% acceptance rate post-interview.

Yes, you're absolutely right, but I think it should be noted that the same schools with these low post interview acceptance rates are also the ones that will care most about where you went to college (ie the top 20s, particularly the private ones).
 
<--- biochem class averages in the low 50s...
 
I thought this was standard? Is this considered deflating? If so I can think of some "top" state schools that deflate like crazy; C+/B- actually.

Read the link in my signature and that might help explain why these grades are not "deflated". I don't explicitly spell it out, but the answer can be inferred from what I say. Sorry can't type a long post here as I'm on my phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Read the link in my signature and that might help explain why these grades are not "deflated". I don't explicitly spell it out, but the answer can be inferred from what I say. Sorry can't type a long post here as I'm on my phone.
The link disappeared! Sorry, are you referring to the state schools or WashU? I was indirectly describing Berkeley/LA specifically. It's pretty rare for me to hear those schools described as "easy."

Edit: Found the link in an earlier post, I'll check it out.
 
The link disappeared! Sorry, are you referring to the state schools or WashU? I was indirectly describing Berkeley/LA specifically. It's pretty rare for me to hear those schools described as "easy."

Edit: Found the link in an earlier post, I'll check it out.

Sorry I actually misread your post - my bad I should probably go to sleep lol.

But I do encourage everyone to look at the relevant link in my sig for my thoughts and personal experience about this stuff, if you're interested.
 
I thought this was standard? Is this considered deflating? If so I can think of some "top" state schools that deflate like crazy; C+/B- actually.
Deflated/inflated is totally relative. Among top private schools inflating means ~A- medians, and deflating is ~B- (maybe even into C+ at the worst offenders like Hopkins). In the public university world it's much gnarlier, a B- median wouldn't be considered deflated at all for most state schools, maybe even a little kind/inflated, and that includes UCs from the times I've gone onto the grade distributions for UCSD and Cal. Personally if my life depended on making a very high GPA as a science major, the top schools I would be most terrified of would be Hopkins, MIT, Chicago, Cal, UCLA and names like Cornell, Vandy, WashU would be a step down in scariness.
 
I'm quite skeptical that Vandy awards a 2.0 median in the prereqs. Unless that's a raw 77 and the B range starts at 75 or some such

I don't know what to tell you. That's what the average was. I don't know how to prove it to you. And no, a 75 is a C, so none of that is going on either. I can show some some screenshots of emails that my professor sent me that include the averages if you want.
 
So you actually believe half of your classes gets a 2.0 or lower to their GPA?

Thing is, that stuff can be misleading. Exams can be dropped, there can be a lab component that most people get very high marks in, the average may be skewed 4-5 points below the median, and so on. If you had any sort of distribution of final grades that would be great, that's what I always looked at to see what the median grade was in classes, exam averages before that were usually considerably lower. And often times the stated cutoffs given by the profs after each exam erred on the safe side of being too high, eg. they said 82+ can expect a B and then in the end 78+ became the B range, since they'd much rather surprise some students with unexpectedly higher grades rather than unexpectedly lower.

On a separate note, it's odd you have no truly curved classes, since converting everyone's performance into Z-scores is by far the easiest way to assign the desired distribution of grades and really the only way to handle variation between exam means or just very low medians in general (30's to 50's on many ochem and bio tests here)
 
Deflated/inflated is totally relative. Among top private schools inflating means ~A- medians, and deflating is ~B- (maybe even into C+ at the worst offenders like Hopkins). In the public university world it's much gnarlier, a B- median wouldn't be considered deflated at all for most state schools, maybe even a little kind/inflated, and that includes UCs from the times I've gone onto the grade distributions for UCSD and Cal. Personally if my life depended on making a very high GPA as a science major, the top schools I would be most terrified of would be Hopkins, MIT, Chicago, Cal, UCLA and names like Cornell, Vandy, WashU would be a step down in scariness.
Tell me about. I have plenty of 3.5/34 friends who are short on options.
 
Yeah, at least the people suffering at Michigan and UVA have some good instate odds... I wonder what percent of incoming UC premeds makes it through to an MD acceptance. Can't be much
 
So you actually believe half of your classes gets a 2.0 or lower to their GPA?

Thing is, that stuff can be misleading. Exams can be dropped, there can be a lab component that most people get very high marks in, the average may be skewed 4-5 points below the median, and so on. If you had any sort of distribution of final grades that would be great, that's what I always looked at to see what the median grade was in classes, exam averages before that were usually considerably lower. And often times the stated cutoffs given by the profs after each exam erred on the safe side of being too high, eg. they said 82+ can expect a B and then in the end 78+ became the B range, since they'd much rather surprise some students with unexpectedly higher grades rather than unexpectedly lower.

On a separate note, it's odd you have no truly curved classes, since converting everyone's performance into Z-scores is by far the easiest way to assign the desired distribution of grades and really the only way to handle variation between exam means or just very low medians in general (30's to 50's on many ochem and bio tests here)

Well I'm sure the liberal arts classes balance out the GPA.

This is all my personal experience: none of my classes dropped exams (I've heard of one bio class being able to do this though), lab components are completely separate from the lecture grade.

Here's a grade distribution for my orgo class. It's the only class I have one of these for.
a.PNG

This is nice because it shows you letter grades instead of number grades. You can see that roughly half the class is in the C-F range. You can also see the average at around 77%.
 
Well I'm sure the liberal arts classes balance out the GPA.

This is all my personal experience: none of my classes dropped exams (I've heard of one bio class being able to do this though), lab components are completely separate from the lecture grade.

Here's a grade distribution for my orgo class. It's the only class I have one of these for. View attachment 194780
This is nice because it shows you letter grades instead of number grades. You can see that roughly half the class is in the C-F range. You can also see the average at around 77%.

This seems pretty normal for an orgo distribution.
 
I go to a top 20 undergrad which is known for grade deflation. Every year my school's medical advisory office releases acceptance rates into medical school from our college.

For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x<27 MCAT, 6 applied, 3 were accepted, acceptance rate 50%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and 27<x<30 MCAT, 31 applied, 18 were accepted, acceptance rat 58%
For applicants with x>3.3 GPA and x>30 MCAT, 111 applied, 92 were accepted, acceptance rate was 83%.

From the info given there, you can calculate that 8 out of 14 (57%) of those between 3.3 and 3.4 get accepted.

This is all MD btw.

Doesn't this show that medical schools do care about school name? From what I've read here, any GPA below a 3.4 is pretty much killer for MD schools. But the info here says otherwise?

Thoughts?
@WonderGrill my friend from Harvard was Chinese with a 3.4 and he is currently at Standord med school. So it is quite possible. He had a 35 MCAT. However, the higher the better. Better schools are not compensated as much as you may think so aim for 3.5+. If you want to get to a top school 3.7+ is safe.
 
@WonderGrill my friend from Harvard was Chinese with a 3.4 and he is currently at Standord med school. So it is quite possible. He had a 35 MCAT. However, the higher the better. Better schools are not compensated as much as you may think so aim for 3.5+. If you want to get to a top school 3.7+ is safe.

I just wish that there was a way to quantify the advantage so that we could stop wondering about how significant it is XD

Ah Vanderbilt, fellow tough school nobody has ever heard of. Y'all have ballpark similar numbers to Wustl which has 3.2+ / 30+ accept rate of 87% (and 95% accept rate for 3.8+ :0)

Yes undergrad matters, but there is much better evidence than this - the AAMC survey shows undergrad selectivity is highly important to private MD schools (public MD don't care)

Can you explain why only private MD schools care about school name?
 
Well @WonderGrill he had a first author publication as an undergrad which is huge and can get you into top schools since they are research heavy and training physicians to go in academic medicine. My other friends at top med schools all had 3.7+ and 37+ At top 5-10 undegrads. I'd say 3.5+ for a med school and 3.7+ for a top med school unless you have some unique factor like that you are an Olympic gold medalist or under represented minority or such.
 
Well I'm sure the liberal arts classes balance out the GPA.

This is all my personal experience: none of my classes dropped exams (I've heard of one bio class being able to do this though), lab components are completely separate from the lecture grade.

Here's a grade distribution for my orgo class. It's the only class I have one of these for. View attachment 194780
This is nice because it shows you letter grades instead of number grades. You can see that roughly half the class is in the C-F range. You can also see the average at around 77%.
That shows the 77 average to be exactly at a B- , which is very standard and similar to bio and ochem here. That shows there is a slight curve, the curve is to a B-, so median GPA given is a 2.7 not a 2.0

And that shows the distribution for exams, but isn't there a lab component also factored into final grades?

Public schools have a major aim of producing physicians for their state, and that involves accepting a lot of students from the local public schools. If they suddenly took on a policy of favoring elite undergrads which are overwhelmingly private, they'd be working against this goal and drastically reducing the number of attractive instate apps.
 
Just came here to post how glad I am that OP finally got banned
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Top