Evidence that medical schools do care about rigor of undergrad?

[ZedsDed]

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

http://www.career.ucla.edu/Portals/...2013 Medical School Admissions Statistics.pdf

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Goro]

My young colleague efle will disagree with me on this, but the concept of school rigor is rather nuanced. Firstly, members of the Adcom may not be familiar with how hard or easy schools are. Some schools we may never hear of, but be quite rigorous. But Admissions deans have a good idea, especially when the schools are feeders to the med school. Our state schools are the biggest suppliers of students and their products are quite competent.

Yet this often happens in our Adcom meetings when a schools name is brought up particularly when someone is a borderline candidate:

Dr X: "I'm concerned about that low sGPA
Dr Y: "Well, he had a 3.2 at [big name school here]. that has to count for something.
Rest of Adcom: Nod for a moment, and then place candidate on wait list.

My own belief (and calm down, efle) is that a 4.0 is a 4.0 is a 4.0, whether it's from U Chicago, or Kutztown Sate. A 3.1, not so much.


The banhammer being applied produces a very satisfying sound!

Just came here to post how glad I am that OP finally got banned

 

[ZedsDed]

My young colleague efle will disagree with me on this, but the concept of school rigor is rather nuanced. Firstly, members of the Adcom may not be familiar with how hard or easy schools are. Some schools we may never hear of, but be quite rigorous. But Admissions deans have a good idea, especially when the schools are feeders to the med school. Our state schools are the biggest suppliers of students and their products are quite competent.

Yet this often happens in our Adcom meetings when a schools name is brought up particularly when someone is a borderline candidate:

Dr X: "I'm concerned about that low sGPA
Dr Y: "Well, he had a 3.2 at [big name school here]. that has to count for something.
Rest of Adcom: Nod for a moment, and then place candidate on wait list.

My own belief (and calm down, efle) is that a 4.0 is a 4.0 is a 4.0, whether it's from U Chicago, or Kutztown Sate. A 3.1, not so much.


The banhammer being applied produces a very satisfying sound!

No offense to anyone in here. But if an individual has only had one experience with one ivy league school, I don't know how they can possibly call UCSD, UCI, or UCSB "podunk-state" chicken-s*** schools that are a joke. Let alone public schools that are known for their rigor like UCLA, Berkeley, or Cal. This, in particular, is why I tend to not get along with Stanford grads who have lower GPAs, even though the average is like an A- at that school.

 

[WedgeDawg]

No offense to anyone in here. But if an individual has only had one experience with one ivy league school, I don't know how they can possibly call UCSD, UCI, or UCSB "podunk-state" chicken-s*** schools that are a joke. Let alone public schools that are known for their rigor like UCLA, Berkeley, or Cal. This, in particular, is why I tend to not get along with Stanford grads who have lower GPAs, even though the average is like an A- at that school.

Sorry to beat a dying horse here, but the link in my signature may again help elucidate this misconception (which pertains to Stanford as well).

 

[ZedsDed]

Sorry to beat a dying horse here, but the link in my signature may again help elucidate this misconception (which pertains to Stanford as well).

I appreciate your perspective, and I read the link, but I disagree to an extent. Which is why we are discussing it further.

 

[Lawpy]

Just came here to post how glad I am that OP finally got banned

Splat goes the OP!

My young colleague efle will disagree with me on this, but the concept of school rigor is rather nuanced.

@efle got promoted to Goro's colleague! What an accomplishment

 

[altblue]

what did the OP do?

 

[md-2020]

No offense to anyone in here. But if an individual has only had one experience with one ivy league school, I don't know how they can possibly call UCSD, UCI, or UCSB "podunk-state" chicken-s*** schools that are a joke. Let alone public schools that are known for their rigor like UCLA, Berkeley, or Cal. This, in particular, is why I tend to not get along with Stanford grads who have lower GPAs, even though the average is like an A- at that school.

Pretty sure those are the same place?

Calling any school a "podunk-state chicken-s*** school" is unfair and ignorant, regardless of your own resume.

I for one went to a non-inflated Ivy and still know that students at many fine institutions of all levels have it significantly harder than I.

 

[WedgeDawg]

I appreciate your perspective, and I read the link, but I disagree to an extent. Which is why we are discussing it further.

Of course! Just wanted to have my perspective heard in this conversation. Forgive me for not being able to participate to a greater extent right now.

 

[ZedsDed]

Pretty sure those are the same place?

Calling any school a "podunk-state chicken-s*** school" is unfair and ignorant, regardless of your own resume.

I for one went to a non-inflated Ivy and still know that students at many fine institutions of all levels have it significantly harder than I.

Cal as in cal tech

 

[md-2020]

Cal as in cal tech

Well CalTech is private, and I'd probably drop to the ground and rofl if anyone used "Caltech" and "easy" in the same sentence.

Caltech is more famous than people realize sometimes.

 

[ZedsDed]

Well CalTech is private, and I'd probably drop to the ground and rofl if anyone used "Caltech" and "easy" in the same sentence.

Yeah, bad example. I forgot it was public. But I only included it because of the one individual I had in mind who was a Stanford grad who trashed basically every school in Ca that was not Stanford. God I hate that guy haha.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Yeah, bad example. I only included it because of the one individual I had in mind who was a Stanford grad who trashed basically every school in Ca that was not Stanford. God I hate that guy haha.

I think you'll find students at every school who aren't well adjusted, Stanford included. I know my own undergrad has some of these...

 

[md-2020]

Yeah, bad example. I only included it because of the one individual I was thinking of was a Stanford grad who trashed basically every school in Ca that was not Stanford.

Sounds like a d'bag.

Good thing that superiority complex won't last in life.

Edit: @WedgeDawg prestige-****** be everywhere at my undergrad as well. Didn't tend to be very good at conversation, as our school would invariably be worked into the topic at hand. Almost comical sometimes.

 

[ZedsDed]

Sounds like a d'bag.

Good thing that superiority complex won't last in life.

Yeah. It's amazing how he decided med school material was too frivolous, and that he would rather pursue a PhD, as soon as his GPA tanked.

I think you'll find students at every school who aren't well adjusted, Stanford included. I know my own undergrad has some of these...

Very true. I'm having a hard time fully arguing my point from my phone. #firstworldproblems

 

[WedgeDawg]

Very true. I'm having a hard time fully arguing my point from my phone. #firstworldproblems

I'm periodically checking SDN on my phone too, which is why I'm not completely engaged in this conversation

Makes it kind of hard to quickly type long responses.

 

[efle]

Cal is Berkeley's nickname
I'd add CalTech to the list of scariest places to need a high sGPA, I always forget about it because it's so itty bitty and everyone there is headed into engi so a 2.5 GPA ain't no problem

@Goro I think there are nuanced things to consider between ballpark similar schools, especially grade inflation. I just think nuances are drowned out by the student body differences when comparing Directional State vs Fancy Private full of valedictorians and top percent test scores. I mean if you took an average school and repopulated it with only the students who were there on merit scholarships, you don't think it would suddenly get much harder to be in the top X% that get A's?

As an aside it's pretty insane to think about just how disparate selectivity can be - students that midlevel universities and LACs will pay full rides to attend, are often rejected by the big names. Talk about different demographics...one school would pay for everything to entice you, while another won't even give you the option to attend!

 

[NewHorizons]

what did the OP do?

Hidden among some of his posts.... I saw his post history before he got banned since I thought he was perpetuating stereotypes and bashing other members...... >50% of his posts do not contribute to anything other than insult members, provide poor opinions/whining ... the list goes on...

Lets be fair, even this topic isn't exactly a post made by someone that you would think isn't salty about something.... most people wouldn't concern themselves heavily over whether one degree is harder or another and what leeway is given, but focus on doing their best to try and gain admittance.

 

[mw18]

Cal is Berkeley's nickname
I'd add CalTech to the list of scariest places to need a high sGPA, I always forget about it because it's so itty bitty and everyone there is headed into engi so a 2.5 GPA ain't no problem

@Goro I think there are nuanced things to consider between ballpark similar schools, especially grade inflation. I just think nuances are drowned out by the student body differences when comparing Directional State vs Fancy Private full of valedictorians and top percent test scores. I mean if you took an average school and repopulated it with only the students who were there on merit scholarships, you don't think it would suddenly get much harder to be in the top X% that get A's?

As an aside it's pretty insane to think about just how disparate selectivity can be - students that midlevel universities and LACs will pay full rides to attend, are often rejected by the big names. Talk about different demographics...one school would pay for everything to entice you, while another won't even give you the option to attend!

I agree that having to compete with top level talent and work ethic in college makes it that much more difficult to get great grades. It was not something I suffered from, as I attended a small public campus. I also think that were I on an admissions committee it would be something I certainly took into consideration. But, I do think it does become increasingly important to back up that slightly deflated gpa with a big-time MCAT score. Because if your lower gpa means you could do better at less competitive schools, you should still be able to really do well on the equalizer. Especially considering the assumption will be that though your classes were harder, they should be better, and better prepare you at those top undergrads.

 

[efle]

IMO classes don't make for good MCAT prep, and personally I have a very low opinion of the MCAT compared to strong grades in prereqs, but the phenomenon you say should be observed of much better test score performance than predicted by the GPA is indeed seen, at least where I've tried to look in my school numbers. I'll just use links to avoid taking up a page with my images

here (washu 3.1s perform slightly better than nationwide 3.7s) and here (3.8+ in particular predicts much better MCAT performance when earned here vs nationwide)

 

[james11]

I go to yale and it's easy to get good grades here lmao my orgo class was curved to a b+/a-

 

[efle]

I go to yale and it's easy to get good grades here lmao my orgo class was curved to a b+/a-

jumping on that harvard/brown 3.7 medians bandwagon I see
you guys even got princeton to abolish their anti-inflation policy !

 

[mw18]

IMO classes don't make for good MCAT prep, and personally I have a very low opinion of the MCAT compared to strong grades in prereqs, but the phenomenon you say should be observed of much better test score performance than predicted by the GPA is indeed seen, at least where I've tried to look in my school numbers. I'll just use links to avoid taking up a page with my images

here (washu 3.1s perform slightly better than nationwide 3.7s) and here (3.8+ in particular predicts much better MCAT performance when earned here vs nationwide)

Oh I would definitely expect that performance. I wasn't doubting it at all. I was saying more on an individual level. If an adcom is looking at a person's individual applicationa and sees a 3.3 and says, "Well, their school is very deflated." They can't then see a sub-30 score and honestly think that the student would necessarily do better anywhere else.

I also agree that classes don't generally make for good mcat prep. I had a few that did though. I barely had to review physics and genetics because my teachers prepared me well.

 

[ZedsDed]

Oh I would definitely expect that performance. I wasn't doubting it at all. I was saying more on an individual level. If an adcom is looking at a person's individual applicationa and sees a 3.3 and says, "Well, there school is very deflated." They can't then see a sub-30 score and honestly think that the student would necessarily do better anywhere else.

I also agree that classes don't generally make for good mcat prep. I had a few that did though. I barely had to review physics and genetics because my teachers prepared me well.

I will say that the argument that inflation is not really inflation holds a lot more credibility In my eyes when the school in question has a very high MCAT score median. The MCAT is the great equalizer, IMO.

 

[Goro]

Just keep in mind that the average Adcom member may have never heard of, say Rice, even though it's considered the "Harvard of the South" with the lousy football team to prove it.


When we're unfamiliar with a particular school, the wily old Admissions dean usually tells us "oh that's a good school" or "no name school". The whole business of UG school rigor is the domain of the Dean, and much less the Adcom, at least at our school. We Adcom members do know where our students come from (for example, we see spread sheets showing

U X1 22%
U X2 20%
U NV 18%
U AZ 14%
etc.

And so we get a handle on what the quality of our feeders is like.

But this business of "U Chicago has grade deflation, while grade inflation occurs at Dartmouth" is outside our knowledge base.

So, another way to think about this is the quality of your UG school is less of a factor to the Adcom, post interview, than it is in deciding who to interview.

@Goro I think there are nuanced things to consider between ballpark similar schools, especially grade inflation. I just think nuances are drowned out by the student body differences when comparing Directional State vs Fancy Private full of valedictorians and top percent test scores. I mean if you took an average school and repopulated it with only the students who were there on merit scholarships, you don't think it would suddenly get much harder to be in the top X% that get A's?

 

[GrapesofRath]

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.

I'm not saying you are incorrect in this, but is there any kind of link or source available to show this? Because I have heard of a number of schools with acceptance rates post-interview below 50% off the top of my head, well below in some cases? In fact a school I am lucky enough to have family friends involved in admission who I've known for a while the post interview acceptance rate is without question definitely lower than 50%(and by a decent amount).


Like I said, I'm more interested in seeing if there is an online source or other kind of source with info on this or any wondering out of curiosity any other way you came up with this info, rather than stirring some debate about your credibility and whether this is right or not.

 

[mw18]

I'm not saying you are incorrect in this, but is there any kind of link or source available to show this? Because I have heard of a number of schools with acceptance rates post-interview below 50% off the top of my head, well below in some cases? In fact a school I am lucky enough to have family friends involved in admission who I've known for a while the post interview acceptance rate is without question definitely lower than 50%(and by a decent amount).


Like I said, I'm more interested in seeing if there is an online source or other kind of source with info on this or any wondering out of curiosity any other way you came up with this info, rather than stirring some debate about your credibility and whether this is right or not.

It's really tough to tell because some places publish "acceptance rates" and what they really mean is matriculation rate. If they post true acceptance rates, then it won't be hard to see what the post-interview rate is. Take the acceptance rate and multiply it by the total applicants on msar. Then divide by the number interviewed.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I appreciate your perspective, and I read the link, but I disagree to an extent. Which is why we are discussing it further.

1) Good link above about UCLA. Anybody wondering why people are always cautioning against going to the UC's for pre-med look no further. 9/14 people admitted with a 35+ and 3.6-3.79 for a top 25 school? really? 8/15 for a 3.8+ and 30-34? 18/33 for 3.6-3.8 and 30-34? Christ Cali has it bad.

2) What exactly is it that you disagree with from the Dawg out of curisoity in regards to this? This notion of Stanford and other top schools having classes curved to "A-s" that people love to throw around when arguing about how bad the grade inflation is true sometimes for social science classes; I have rarely(if ever) heard of a pre-req at a top tier school curved to an A-. When it comes to grade deflated State U being curved to a B-/C+ vs top tier school being curved to a B which do you think is harder? It's not necessairly clear cut. And this is coming from someone who chose a scholarship and went to a State U not known for grade deflation.

 

[GrapesofRath]

It's really tough to tell because some places publish "acceptance rates" and what they really mean is matriculation rate. If they post true acceptance rates, then it won't be hard to see what the post-interview rate is. Take the acceptance rate and multiply it by the total applicants on msar. Then divide by the number interviewed.

Yeah I've done that before. Obviously its not easy(and med schools make it vague for a reason). But the idea that the vast majority of med schools have acceptance rates over 50% for the people they interview is something that seems surprising to me. Like I said Mad Jack is a smart experienced poster who knows alot about this whole process, maybe he has something that I'm not seeing or additional insight which is why I wanted to ask him.

 

[Banco]

The Harvard/Yale grade inflation is pretty sweet, you don't have to worry so much about your grade and can focus on actually learning something. Environment doesn't need to be that cutthroat and dreams don't need to be crushed, like at JHU or whatever. Harvard/Yale students do terrific on the MCAT as well, so it's not like they aren't learning anything.

But still, beating the median among students who average 2200 SATs is not a cakewalk, but at least if you don't beat the median you aren't doomed with a C.

 

[md-2020]

The Harvard/Yale grade inflation is pretty sweet

Meanwhile the biggest offender of them all skates under the radar.


Brown.

 

[Banco]

Meanwhile the biggest offender of them all skates under the radar.


Brown.

Brown is its own little special school that attracts a certain kind of student. Best to let them be.

 

[WingedOx]

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?

Yes, but how good is your football team?

 

[ZedsDed]

1) Good link above about UCLA. Anybody wondering why people are always cautioning against going to the UC's for pre-med look no further. 9/14 people admitted with a 35+ and 3.6-3.79 for a top 25 school? really? 8/15 for a 3.8+ and 30-34? 18/33 for 3.6-3.8 and 30-34? Christ Cali has it bad.

Here's a better link: http://www.career.ucla.edu/Students/Resources-Reports-and-Media/Med-School-Stats

2) What exactly is it that you disagree with from the Dawg out of curisoity in regards to this? This notion of Stanford and other top schools having classes curved to "A-s" that people love to throw around when arguing about how bad the grade inflation is true sometimes for social science classes; I have rarely(if ever) heard of a pre-req at a top tier school curved to an A-. When it comes to grade deflated State U being curved to a B-/C+ vs top tier school being curved to a B which do you think is harder? It's not necessairly clear cut. And this is coming from someone who chose a scholarship and went to a State U not known for grade deflation.

I had a PMathon with elfe about this a while back, so I'll try and keep it short. As Wedge has said before, the mean is meaningless without the distribution. I'm more concerned with how many B/B+/A-/A's are assigned than anything else. First, there are certainly schools (yes, even in the science classes) that inflate higher than a B- average; no one disputes this. What the argument is about is whether or not the assigned grades are justified. Therein lies my disagreement with Wedge. It's possible to look at the average student at, say, Stanford and say that the caliber of student is high enough to justify not weeding the vast majority of the students out through competition. The thing is, this standard is not applied consistently. One can easily make the same argument about Berkeley students, yet the weed-out there is insane. What about all of the potential doctors we're losing there? Honestly, I just don't buy it. Quality of student and quality of school lies along a spectrum. So while I do acknowledge that top-20 schools are ranked accurately, I deny the existence of hard breaks, and instead see more of a continuum. In order to say that inflation is justified at Stanford, but not at Berkeley, we have to say that Stanford has an exponentially higher quality of education than Berkeley. I simply do not believe that is the case. Many, many great students are weeded out every year at rigorous state schools. Cases of inflation have to remain relatively isolated for them to have any effect. Also, while I do commend those who achieve high SAT/ACT scores and high GPAs in high school, I don't put too much stock in that. Most people I grew up with aced both. The main difference between my Berkeley friends and those at Stanford seem to be some cool EC's. I only harp on Ca because I am from here.

The other major issue I have is that prestige is used as a tool to dictate which schools are and are not excellent schools, and therefore which schools have student bodies worthy of inflation. An argument someone made to me recently was that "more prestige --> a stronger student body attracted --> more difficult to be above-average there." Sure. But is the correlation 1:1? Does Harvard attract all of the top students to all of it's science programs? Again, the general trend is there but it is oversold. It is arguably the most prestigious undergraduate institution in the country, if not the world. One major may be very rigorous, while another one is just somewhat rigorous.Vague concepts of "prestige" are not useful descriptors because they do not make these kinds of distinctions. All of Harvard is seen as incredibly rigorous, and UCSB is seen by many as a mediocre school (by those in the elite); despite having a top-25 engineering program that attracts students from all over the world. And even if we did make the leap of faith, can we so easily say that the top 50% of Harvard>the top 17% of UCLA?

I really don't have a problem with the Ivy League (except for Stanford... bastards. Kidding! Sort of...) But you asked for my opinion, so there it is. I'll say again that if the school in question produces pre-meds with incredibly high MCAT scores, then I am more willing to swallow the grade inflation. Inversely, if the school in question produces MCAT averages that are only 1 point above the ones produced by middle-tier UCs...(cough*Rice*cough) then something is wrong with the reputation of one or both of those schools.

I really respect the position WedgeDawg takes on all of this, which is infinitely more nuanced than what I have heard before. Huh, looks like I failed to keep it short. I'm going to go hit the gym. I look forward to intelligent opposing views!

 

[GrapesofRath]

Here's a better link: http://www.career.ucla.edu/Students/Resources-Reports-and-Media/Med-School-Stats



I had a PMathon with elfe about this a while back, so I'll try and keep it short. As Wedge has said before, the mean is meaningless without the distribution. I'm more concerned with how many B/B+/A-/A's are assigned than anything else. First, there are certainly schools (yes, even in the science classes) that inflate higher than a B- average; no one disputes this. What the argument is about is whether or not the assigned grades are justified. Therein lies my disagreement with Wedge. It's possible to look at the average student at, say, Stanford and say that the caliber of student is high enough to justify not weeding the vast majority of the students out through competition. The thing is, this standard is not applied consistently. One can easily make the same argument about Berkeley students, yet the weed-out there is insane. What about all of the potential doctors we're losing there? Honestly, I just don't buy it. Quality of student and quality of school lies along a spectrum. So while I do acknowledge that top-20 schools are ranked accurately, I deny the existence of hard breaks, and instead see more of a continuum. In order to say that inflation is justified at Stanford, but not at Berkeley, we have to say that Stanford has an exponentially higher quality of education than Berkeley. I simply do not believe that is the case. Many, many great students are weeded out every year at rigorous state schools. Cases of inflation have to remain relatively isolated for them to have any effect. Also, while I do commend those who achieve high SAT/ACT scores and high GPAs in high school, I don't put too much stock in that. Most people I grew up with aced both. The main difference between my Berkeley friends and those at Stanford seem to be some cool EC's. I only harp on Ca because I am from here.

The other major issue I have is that prestige is used as a tool to dictate which schools are and are not excellent schools, and therefore which schools have student bodies worthy of inflation. An argument someone made to me recently was that "more prestige --> a stronger student body attracted --> more difficult to be above-average there." Sure. But is the correlation 1:1? Does Harvard attract all of the top students to all of it's science programs? Again, the general trend is there but it is oversold. It is arguably the most prestigious undergraduate institution in the country, if not the world. One major may be very rigorous, while another one is just somewhat rigorous.Vague concepts of "prestige" are not useful descriptors because they do not make these kinds of distinctions. All of Harvard is seen as incredibly rigorous, and UCSB is seen by many as a mediocre school (by those in the elite); despite having a top-25 engineering program that attracts students from all over the world.

I really don't have a problem with the Ivy League (except for Stanford... bastards. Kidding! Sort of...) But you asked for my opinion, so there it is. I'll say again that if the school in question produces pre-meds with incredibly high MCAT scores, then I am more willing to swallow the grade inflation. Inversely, if the school in question produces MCAT averages that are only 1 point above the ones produced by middle-tier UCs...(cough*Rice*cough) then something is wrong with the reputation of one or both of those schools.

I really respect the position WedgeDawg takes on all of this, which is infinitely more nuanced than what I have heard before. Huh, looks like I failed to keep it short.

I'll do a more careful look of this later( there's a lot here as you acknowledged) but the problem is you are comparing Berekeley a top 20 caliber school to private ones. It's a lot easier to make your argument if you assume all state schools are as cutthroat and grade deflated as Berekley. They aren't though at all. Try comparing a solid state school but one with a far lower class of students in caliber(perhaps use SAT averages as a gauge) to Stanford. Maybe a school like U of Arizona or Baylor or Piit to name some examples. The difference in quality of student body and competition is a lot more apparent there

I should preface I'm not really on any "side" here. Rather my interest is in seeing both viewpoints. What I do disagree though is how hastily people throw around the notion of top schools being grade inflated( not saying you did)

 

[ZedsDed]

I'll do a more careful look of this later( there's a lot here as you acknowledged) but the problem is you are comparing Berekeley a top 20 caliber school to private ones. It's a lot easier to make your argument if you assume all state schools are as cutthroat and grade deflated as Berekley. They aren't though at all. Try comparing a solid state school but one with a far lower class of students in caliber(perhaps use SAT averages as a gauge) to Stanford. Maybe a school like U of Arizona or Baylor or Piit to name some examples. The difference in quality of student body and competition is a lot more apparent there

Sure. But even if we were to take, say, all top 30 schools and grant them inflation, we still run into the problem of a continuum, and where to draw the line. As I said, one has to believe that these schools are in an entirely different plane for the privilege granted to be justified. If you go to opposite ends of the continuum, you will find the disparity you are looking for, of course.

 

[Goro]

I have wonderful colleagues who went to Harvard Med, but George W Bush convinced me that their MBA school is worthless.

I am NOT making up the following story.

When I was in grad school, "DA", a Harvard undergrad, came to our lab to do a summer research rotation.

Not once, but twice DA burst into tears when someone moved her ice bucket. Mind you there was no experiment or reagents in the bucket, just ice.

And she used to bitch about timers going off for too long. So my colleagues once set off all the timers in the lab to go off at once.

Here's a better link: http://www.career.ucla.edu/Students/Resources-Reports-and-Media/Med-School-Stats



I had a PMathon with elfe about this a while back, so I'll try and keep it short. As Wedge has said before, the mean is meaningless without the distribution. I'm more concerned with how many B/B+/A-/A's are assigned than anything else. First, there are certainly schools (yes, even in the science classes) that inflate higher than a B- average; no one disputes this. What the argument is about is whether or not the assigned grades are justified. Therein lies my disagreement with Wedge. It's possible to look at the average student at, say, Stanford and say that the caliber of student is high enough to justify not weeding the vast majority of the students out through competition. The thing is, this standard is not applied consistently. One can easily make the same argument about Berkeley students, yet the weed-out there is insane. What about all of the potential doctors we're losing there? Honestly, I just don't buy it. Quality of student and quality of school lies along a spectrum. So while I do acknowledge that top-20 schools are ranked accurately, I deny the existence of hard breaks, and instead see more of a continuum. In order to say that inflation is justified at Stanford, but not at Berkeley, we have to say that Stanford has an exponentially higher quality of education than Berkeley. I simply do not believe that is the case. Many, many great students are weeded out every year at rigorous state schools. Cases of inflation have to remain relatively isolated for them to have any effect. Also, while I do commend those who achieve high SAT/ACT scores and high GPAs in high school, I don't put too much stock in that. Most people I grew up with aced both. The main difference between my Berkeley friends and those at Stanford seem to be some cool EC's. I only harp on Ca because I am from here.

The other major issue I have is that prestige is used as a tool to dictate which schools are and are not excellent schools, and therefore which schools have student bodies worthy of inflation. An argument someone made to me recently was that "more prestige --> a stronger student body attracted --> more difficult to be above-average there." Sure. But is the correlation 1:1? Does Harvard attract all of the top students to all of it's science programs? Again, the general trend is there but it is oversold. It is arguably the most prestigious undergraduate institution in the country, if not the world. One major may be very rigorous, while another one is just somewhat rigorous.Vague concepts of "prestige" are not useful descriptors because they do not make these kinds of distinctions. All of Harvard is seen as incredibly rigorous, and UCSB is seen by many as a mediocre school (by those in the elite); despite having a top-25 engineering program that attracts students from all over the world. And even if we did make the leap of faith, can we so easily say that the top 50% of Harvard>the top 17% of UCLA?

I really don't have a problem with the Ivy League (except for Stanford... bastards. Kidding! Sort of...) But you asked for my opinion, so there it is. I'll say again that if the school in question produces pre-meds with incredibly high MCAT scores, then I am more willing to swallow the grade inflation. Inversely, if the school in question produces MCAT averages that are only 1 point above the ones produced by middle-tier UCs...(cough*Rice*cough) then something is wrong with the reputation of one or both of those schools.

I really respect the position WedgeDawg takes on all of this, which is infinitely more nuanced than what I have heard before. Huh, looks like I failed to keep it short. I'm going to go hit the gym. I look forward to intelligent opposing views!

 

[efle]

Sure. But even if we were to take, say, all top 30 schools and grant them inflation, we still run into the problem of a continuum, and where to draw the line. As I said, one has to believe that these schools are in an entirely different plane for the privilege granted to be justified. If you go to opposite ends of the continuum, you will find the disparity you are looking for, of course.

It'd be pretty easy to place schools along the continuum if they published GPA and MCAT data tables like Wustl, but the bastards mostly hide their GPA info even from their own students!

 

[Banco]

Sure. But even if we were to take, say, all top 30 schools and grant them inflation, we still run into the problem of a continuum, and where to draw the line. As I said, one has to believe that these schools are in an entirely different plane for the privilege granted to be justified. If you go to opposite ends of the continuum, you will find the disparity you are looking for, of course.

The privilege isn't granted only on prestige of a school. Med schools have a lot of data tables for students from specific schools; you have to give adcoms some more credit. There is no universal "line" that is drawn; everything is in context, including major and school.

 

[efle]

The privilege isn't granted only on prestige of a school. Med schools have a lot of data tables for students from specific schools; you have to give adcoms some more credit. There is no universal "line" that is drawn; everything is in context, including major and school.

I hear this kind of thing but I'm skeptical adcoms really put in that kind of effort. From stuff mimelim and goro say its either no consideration or very brief and minor though, nothing as concrete as looking up what 3.7s from School X do on steps or some such. Hope you're right though

 

[Banco]

I hear this kind of thing but I'm skeptical adcoms really put in that kind of effort. From stuff mimelim and goro say its either no consideration or very brief and minor though, nothing as concrete as looking up what 3.7s from School X do on steps or some such. Hope you're right though

It is also different for each school. I don't think it is about how well X GPA does on Step 1. Damn near everyone past 3.0 passes Step 1.

It is more about having data from a certain undergrad; if one sees that there are barely any GPAs >3.8 applying from UChicago, but really high MCATs, that is something to notice. In the end it is likely more nuanced than we make it out to be.

The dogma on SDN is always about "Is 3.5 from Harvard better than 4.0 from UMass?" This is a foolish way to go about it; there are too many factors and there is no such thing as an "all else equal" criteria.

 

[ZedsDed]

The privilege isn't granted only on prestige of a school. Med schools have a lot of data tables for students from specific schools; you have to give adcoms some more credit. There is no universal "line" that is drawn; everything is in context, including major and school.

AdComs have no say in which schools inflate. The schools have whatever grade policies they do, and prestige determines how their policies are received by academia at large. As for how inflation is viewed by the majority of AdCom members? I really don't know, but I doubt all of them look at inflation with a neutral eye. Ok I'm really gonna hit the gym now lol.

 

[avgn]

It's really tough to tell because some places publish "acceptance rates" and what they really mean is matriculation rate. If they post true acceptance rates, then it won't be hard to see what the post-interview rate is. Take the acceptance rate and multiply it by the total applicants on msar. Then divide by the number interviewed.

USNWR Grad Compass has this information. It is behind a paywall.

 

[Banco]

AdComs have no say in which schools inflate. The schools have whatever grade policies they do, and prestige determines how their policies are received by academia at large. As for how inflation is viewed by the majority of AdCom members? I really don't know, but I doubt all of them look at inflation with a neutral eye. Ok I'm really gonna hit the gym now lol.

Yes but adcoms have institutional data, and they can draw what conclusions they want.

And yes go to the gym!

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I don't see why adcoms would care about grade inflation from top undergrads. I mean, why would they waste their time fussing about it? However, I'd be surprised if the apps with gpas <3.7 from Wash U, Chicago, etc were not discussed in terms of grade deflation/rigor.

 

[mw18]

I don't see why adcoms would care about grade inflation from top undergrads. I mean, why would they waste their time fussing about it. However, I'd be surprised if the apps with gpas <3.7 from Wash U, Chicago, etc were not discussed in terms of grade deflation/rigor.

I don't think they would spend much time worrying about it, but admissions can often be a zero sum game. So if they say that a WashU 3.5 is really worth something more, do they give them the interview slot over a (insert inflated top school here) 3.9? You can't always just worry about one and not the other. I think difficulty associated with achieving the gpa lends credence to the gpa or takes credibility away. At least a little. Especially for the big private med schools.

 

[altblue]

I feel like we care way too much about this...

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I don't think they would spend much time worrying about it, but admissions can often be a zero sum game. So if they say that a WashU 3.5 is really worth something more, do they give them the interview slot over a (insert inflated top school here) 3.9? You can't always just worry about one and not the other. I think difficulty associated with achieving the gpa lends credence to the gpa or takes credibility away. At least a little. Especially for the big private med schools.

We often hear from mimelim, nick naylor, and others that admissions never comes down to an "all else being equal scenario" between two applicants. You do raise an interesting point though.

However, I'd still say the 3.5 from Wash U is given a .2 gpa bump while the 3.9 from Duke is still a reputable 3.9, especially with a good MCAT.

 

[Lawpy]

I don't think they would spend much time worrying about it, but admissions can often be a zero sum game.

I'd like to point out that admissions is never zero sum. Even in the rare-to-impossible case where two identical applicants equally impressed the adcom, they aren't competing for only one seat. Rather, schools will adjust and take them both into their class.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Hi guys. Good stuff going on here. Just remember that how a lot of this stuff is treated in a practical level is extremely variable depending on school and even on the adcom reading the application. Broad generalizations can absolutely be made, but without knowing the perspective of the person reading the information, we have little grounds to extrapolate from these generalizations to a specific school or committee member. So while this stuff is useful in theory for determining overall competitiveness of an application, it is near useless at the school-specific level. Just food for thought.