From a 4.0 Student: Why GPA shouldn't matter

[deleted36260]

Getting F's or having alot of W's should disqualify you if you don't have valid excuses.

Thank goodness you weren't my interviewer! I've got a couple of F's, a couple of W's, and a C on my transcript. And I'm IN!

My excuse? I wasn't mature enough. Is that not a valid excuse now?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Drogba]

Anyone ever wonder why science TAs hate premeds?

 

[DemetriMartin]

3.98 != 4.0 (I kid)

See, this is a great example of where differences come into play. At my undergrad school, no one takes the same classes the first 2 years unless you're in the same major - and even then only the first 2 or 3 classes in your major are the same.

What I mean when I say "people take the same classes during the same 2 years" is if you're pre-med, you're going to be taking Biology, Chemistry, Orgo, Physics, and all though pre-med classes, no matter whether you're a philosophy major or film major or bio major. Pre-meds have to take pre-med classes, don't they??

 

[Womialas]

I purposely took the hardest classes my school had to offer, with as many science labs and credits at a time as possible. My reasoning was no matter how hard I pushed myself in undergrad, it's only going to get harder in medical school... so why not be prepared? Sure, my GPA suffered greatly and will be the sole reason if I don't get into medical school, but I think the variety of classes and the struggles I had helped me learn from my mistakes and made me that much more prepared for medical school.

While I agree that not all GPAs are the same, I commend you on your 4.0. Even getting through just the pre-reqs untainted is insanely difficult. Nice work.

 

[ncb]

What about a more realistic scenario of gpa vs. mcat?

Applicant A: average state school, 3.7, balanced 30 MCAT

Applicant B: top 25 school, 3.3, balanced 33.

Lets say they both took the same courses / credits per semester. Wouldn't applicant B be more qualified despite the lower gpa because the superior MCAT would indicate that he/she has a better grasp of the basic science courses than Applicant A?

 

[etf]

What about a more realistic scenario of gpa vs. mcat?

Applicant A: average state school, 3.7, balanced 30 MCAT

Applicant B: top 25 school, 3.3, balanced 33.

Lets say they both took the same courses / credits per semester. Wouldn't applicant B be more qualified despite the lower gpa because the superior MCAT would indicate that he/she has a better grasp of the basic science courses than Applicant A?

i'm pretty much applicant B, and the med schools have spoken - i'm not more qualified.

 

[batman1983]

Because I've called and asked them. They don't care about the # of credits each semester, and the don't care about your major/course selection outside of their required or recommended courses.

From my experience, the most messed up aspects of the admission process are these:

1. School difficulty is really not taken into account when looking at GPA. Obviously, if two applicants had the same GPA, but one went to Chico State and the other to Harvard, then the Harvard applicant is probably given some consideration. But what about situations where the Harvard applicant has a 3.5-3.6 GPA vs the Chico guy who had a 4.0. Essentially, its the difference of getting As at Chico vs A-/B+ at Harvard. Lets be frank about, the difference in difficulty between the top 30 schools and the rest are a joke.

2. Major/class difficulty. From my experience at Cal, I know that the engineering/science classes usually adhere to a strict curve, whereas the humanities courses do not and are full of GPA inflation. So, obviously the avg science applicant is probably going to have a lower GPA than the avg english/history applicant.

 

[fisko82]

Wouldn't applicant B be more qualified despite the lower gpa because the superior MCAT would indicate that he/she has a better grasp of the basic science courses than Applicant A?

I don't think you can say applicant B is more qualified than applicant A for a lot of reasons other than just stats. However, if we're speaking in terms of stats, you have to consider that the MCAT is a one day assessment of your ability to think through material that is presented that day. Each test is different and depending which form you get may affect what scaled score you receive. For example, when I was taking my mocks my scores ranged from as low as 30 to as high as 41. On the real deal, I scored somewhere in between, but I could've just as easily scored a 30 if I had gotten a "bad" form for me and by your definition, a person with a 33 would have had a better grasp on the basic science. Or on the flip side, I could've scored a 41 and said that I have one of the best grasps on basic science and critical thinking than anyone applying to medical school, which wouldn't have been necessarily accurate either; I could've just gotten a form that was tailored to my strengths. The point is the difference between say a 30 and 33 can be only a handful of questions, and I think the questions one is asked on a given sitting can have a large effect on their overall score. AAMC likes to believe there isn't this kind of fluctuation on the tests, but I'm sure many of you can attest, your practice scores can be somewhat bipolar at times as were mine. In addition to MCAT discrepancies, grades are subject to this kind of bias as well. The person with a 3.7 could've taken an easy major at an easier institution and done relatively well and the person with a 3.3 could've had a hard major etc. You get the idea. Thus, I think both grades and the MCAT can be subjective and the truth as to which is a better indicator probably lies somewhere in between the two. They both have their pros and cons, and I think using the combination of the two helps balance these factors. And since grades and mcat scores are used to screen applicants, just do well on both and save yourself and adcoms the trouble of deciding whether or not you're qualified enough for their school. edit: sorry about the block of text, my work computer is acting up.

 

[Maxprime]

From my experience, the most messed up aspects of the admission process are these:

1. School difficulty is really not taken into account when looking at GPA. Obviously, if two applicants had the same GPA, but one went to Chico State and the other to Harvard, then the Harvard applicant is probably given some consideration. But what about situations where the Harvard applicant has a 3.5-3.6 GPA vs the Chico guy who had a 4.0. Essentially, its the difference of getting As at Chico vs A-/B+ at Harvard. Lets be frank about, the difference in difficulty between the top 30 schools and the rest are a joke.

2. Major/class difficulty. From my experience at Cal, I know that the engineering/science classes usually adhere to a strict curve, whereas the humanities courses do not and are full of GPA inflation. So, obviously the avg science applicant is probably going to have a lower GPA than the avg english/history applicant.

I think it would be more useful to compare an applicant's GPA vs. the rest of the school's GPA. In '02, privates averaged a 3.26 where publics averaged a 2.97. Assuming that privates have more difficult competition, this almost evens things out.

 

[batman1983]

I think it would be more useful to compare an applicant's GPA vs. the rest of the school's GPA. In '02, privates averaged a 3.26 where publics averaged a 2.97. Assuming that privates have more difficult competition, this almost evens things out.

That would work for the comparisons of similarly ranked private and public universities. Yet, the problem arises when comparing an applicant from a top tier school with one from a lower tier university.

 

[Maxprime]

That would work for the comparisons of similarly ranked private and public universities. Yet, the problem arises when comparing an applicant from a top tier school with one from a lower tier university.

I didn't say I had found the golden ticket.

I move to a vote on dismissing GPA's as irrelevant and only considering MCAT's.

 

[student12x]

There are many state schools that have lower GPAs averages than do top privates. Should we just assume that the state school is harder than the top private? In fact, the opposite is true. A school with low gpa averages could imply 2 things. There is severe grad deflation or a lower level of work ethic. If one went to the latter, it wouldn't be to hard to pull a high gpa.

 

[hawk126]

From my experience, the most messed up aspects of the admission process are these:

1. School difficulty is really not taken into account when looking at GPA. Obviously, if two applicants had the same GPA, but one went to Chico State and the other to Harvard, then the Harvard applicant is probably given some consideration. But what about situations where the Harvard applicant has a 3.5-3.6 GPA vs the Chico guy who had a 4.0. Essentially, its the difference of getting As at Chico vs A-/B+ at Harvard. Lets be frank about, the difference in difficulty between the top 30 schools and the rest are a joke.

I absolutely disagree with your first point. Perceived "school difficulty" is emphasized too much. I was an undergrad at a small, relatively unknown liberal arts university in the midwest and did my postbacc at probably the least respected of the public undergraduate institutions in texas. I was asked about those institutions several times on the interview trail. Those ?'s were always posed unceremoniously, and usually within a context like "let's face it, school X (where you did your postbacc) isn't exactly an ivy, why should I consider your 4.0 postbacc GPA, especially given your mediocre UG GPA from unknown school Y?" I was always on the defensive when it came to talking about my GPA from these schools. Perhaps it had something to do with my mediocre (at best) GPA, but that wasn't the feel that I got, especially after talking to other students at my postbacc institution.

Fielding these ?'s was really frustrating b/c my classes at both institutions were tough. When it comes right down to it, what does my interviewer know about class difficulty at an institution that he is essentially totally unfamiliar with? I used to hear repeatedly from highschool friends who attended top 25 ivies that there was a ton of grade inflation that went on at their schools mostly because 1/2 the students were legacies. The last sentence (bolded) is totally bogus.

 

[student12x]

" I used to hear repeatedly from highschool friends who attended top 25 ivies that there was a ton of grade inflation"

Haven't you ever thought that higher average gpa at a top school is due to the academic quality of the student body rather than blatant grade inflation?

 

[decafplease]

Haven't you ever thought that higher average gpa at a top school is due to the academic quality of the student body rather than blatant grade inflation?

I'm not saying one way or another (can't - haven't taken the same courses at different schools) but I've me enough kids from Harvard and Stanford (et al) to make me wonder about the real possibility of grade inflation. In fact, I've even heard from a few of them about the low quality of teaching they are receiving (prof's too busy with their book/research/etc to answer questions) and the grade inflation to keep their numbers high. Now, this is hearsay, but I'm just saying it calls into question the prestige of some of these ivy league types.

By the way, if you got into Harvard or the like, good for you, I'm sure that will impress people. I'll take my 40-something ranked school, thanks. I feel more comfortable here and like my profs and classmates.

 

[dazlindz]

perhaps schools should report your grade, plus the average grade that the class got, so adcoms know where to place you? it's definitely a problem at my undergrad, because we have no grade inflation whatsoever, so our pre-meds generally have lower gpa's than other top 20's.

but i do agree with the general sentiment that you should take what you're interested in, and not just the easy classes for a good GPA. I mean, I didn't even know I was pre-med until after my second year! Just work hard in the classes that you're taking and strive for the best - I always get annoyed at the people who complain that classes are tough, unfair, etc., when they're going out to party every weekend. Well, I wonder why they did so poorly!

 

[student12x]

I speculate the reason that students at top schools find it easier to get better grades relative to students from lower schools is due to admission standards.
Take Harvard for example, the level of difficulty of gaining admission to Harvard far out paces the level of difficulty it takes to graduate( Harvard has a 98% grad rate). Some 80% of all Harvard applicants has the ability to graduate, yet only about 8% get admitted. So the people in Harvard are already smart. Sure their exams are most likely very difficult, but they can hack it. On the other hand you have public schools in which their admissions standards are less competitive. Resulting in the admission of some not so qualified students. This explains the lower gpa average.

Basically I view it like this, the course work at a top private school is more difficult that at a lower end college. But the Harvard students are that much more prepared to handle college work that it creates the aformentioned discrepancy in average gpa.

 

[Drogba]

perhaps schools should report your grade, plus the average grade that the class got, so adcoms know where to place you? it's definitely a problem at my undergrad, because we have no grade inflation whatsoever, so our pre-meds generally have lower gpa's than other top 20's.

but i do agree with the general sentiment that you should take what you're interested in, and not just the easy classes for a good GPA. I mean, I didn't even know I was pre-med until after my second year! Just work hard in the classes that you're taking and strive for the best - I always get annoyed at the people who complain that classes are tough, unfair, etc., when they're going out to party every weekend. Well, I wonder why they did so poorly!

You would still have to account for the competitiveness of the student body. This is unavoidable in my opinion. I agree the evaluation of the objective criteria of an application should be heavily weighted towards the MCAT. If you don't test well then thats just too bad (I hope I do well on my MCAT ). Seriously though, standardized testing is the best way to OBJECTIVELY measure candidates (which is what the "hard" criteria are supposed to do to a degree). You still have the rest of your application to show your quality but you better get used to test taking because you will have to deal with the same thing in med school (boards).

 

[batman1983]

I absolutely disagree with your first point. Perceived "school difficulty" is emphasized too much. I was an undergrad at a small, relatively unknown liberal arts university in the midwest and did my postbacc at probably the least respected of the public undergraduate institutions in texas. I was asked about those institutions several times on the interview trail. Those ?'s were always posed unceremoniously, and usually within a context like "let's face it, school X (where you did your postbacc) isn't exactly an ivy, why should I consider your 4.0 postbacc GPA, especially given your mediocre UG GPA from unknown school Y?" I was always on the defensive when it came to talking about my GPA from these schools. Perhaps it had something to do with my mediocre (at best) GPA, but that wasn't the feel that I got, especially after talking to other students at my postbacc institution.

Fielding these ?'s was really frustrating b/c my classes at both institutions were tough. When it comes right down to it, what does my interviewer know about class difficulty at an institution that he is essentially totally unfamiliar with? I used to hear repeatedly from highschool friends who attended top 25 ivies that there was a ton of grade inflation that went on at their schools mostly because 1/2 the students were legacies. The last sentence (bolded) is totally bogus.

K, let me digest this because I really dont get what you are trying to prove with your example. So, you did your UG at a "small, relatively unknown liberal arts university" and then did your postbac at "the least respected of the public undergraduate institutions in texas". Based on the descriptions you have provided, Im assuming that both schools are not top 30 institutions. If so, then your essentially saying you did ****ty at a 2nd tier school and then did well as a post bac at another 2nd tier school. Either way, you haven't proven me wrong at all. My point was that academically, it is tougher at a top 30 school vs the rest. Now, Im not arguing that there is grade inflation at some of these schools(I believe to some extent there should be to account for the better academic quality of the student body) and that many ppl get into those schools via legacy and so forth. What I am saying is that if I went to a top 30 school and then went to some other school, I am probably going to have a harder time at the top 30 school. Everything else being equal, I am going to have more respect for a guy that got a 3.5 at Harvard/Cal/UT Austin than some guy with a 3.5 at San Diego State or Texas A&M.

 

[ncb]

I'm not saying one way or another (can't - haven't taken the same courses at different schools) but I've me enough kids from Harvard and Stanford (et al) to make me wonder about the real possibility of grade inflation. In fact, I've even heard from a few of them about the low quality of teaching they are receiving (prof's too busy with their book/research/etc to answer questions) and the grade inflation to keep their numbers high. Now, this is hearsay, but I'm just saying it calls into question the prestige of some of these ivy league types.

By the way, if you got into Harvard or the like, good for you, I'm sure that will impress people. I'll take my 40-something ranked school, thanks. I feel more comfortable here and like my profs and classmates.

A 40 something school is a lot closer if not equal or better academically to an Ivy League school than it is to an average state school. There will always be Ivy students that shouldn't be Ivy students and other students who didn't get into an Ivy that should have.

My point: Me: 3.33 engineering, 33 MCAT. My brother, B- average at a public high school, a couple D's, admittedly not a great student, now has a gpa in the range of 3.8 - 3.9 at an average state school. If he wanted to, he could take the MCAT right now and if he got a 30, apply to med school and have a better chance of admission than I do. I was fortunate enough to have my undergrad paid for by my parents, but if I had to do it all over again I'd probably save my parents $100,000, go to state school, and be near the top of class rather than be average at a better school. Going back to the first post, its unfortunate that medical schools want students to play their game rather than develop academically and challenge themselves.

 

[student12x]

b/c my classes at both institutions were tough.

It doesn't matter whether it was tough or not. What matters is if the classes are tougher relative to other institutions ceteris paribus.

 

[TRanger]

I am going to have more respect for a guy that got a 3.5 at Harvard/Cal/UT Austin than some guy with a 3.5 at San Diego State or Texas A&M.

I don't want to get into an argument here, but claiming that UT Austin is that much better than Texas A&M is the most preposterous thing I've ever heard on these boards.

 

[Decicco]

A 40 something school is a lot closer if not equal or better academically to an Ivy League school than it is to an average state school. There will always be Ivy students that shouldn't be Ivy students and other students who didn't get into an Ivy that should have.

My point: Me: 3.33 engineering, 33 MCAT. My brother, B- average at a public high school, a couple D's, admittedly not a great student, now has a gpa in the range of 3.8 - 3.9 at an average state school. If he wanted to, he could take the MCAT right now and if he got a 30, apply to med school and have a better chance of admission than I do. I was fortunate enough to have my undergrad paid for by my parents, but if I had to do it all over again I'd probably save my parents $100,000, go to state school, and be near the top of class rather than be average at a better school. Going back to the first post, its unfortunate that medical schools want students to play their game rather than develop academically and challenge themselves.

Your situation demonstrates my point exactly

 

[Vihsadas]

A 40 something school is a lot closer if not equal or better academically to an Ivy League school than it is to an average state school. There will always be Ivy students that shouldn't be Ivy students and other students who didn't get into an Ivy that should have.

My point: Me: 3.33 engineering, 33 MCAT. My brother, B- average at a public high school, a couple D's, admittedly not a great student, now has a gpa in the range of 3.8 - 3.9 at an average state school. If he wanted to, he could take the MCAT right now and if he got a 30, apply to med school and have a better chance of admission than I do. I was fortunate enough to have my undergrad paid for by my parents, but if I had to do it all over again I'd probably save my parents $100,000, go to state school, and be near the top of class rather than be average at a better school. Going back to the first post, its unfortunate that medical schools want students to play their game rather than develop academically and challenge themselves.

Similar situation here...Instead of taking a joint major in Physics and Physiology I could have taken just Physiology, or Anatomy or something else easier (anything really beside engineering) and probably sailed through with a 3.6 -3.8 (At McGill). Alternatively, I could have gone to a smaller school and come out with a 3.8-3.9.

someone up there mentioned that gpa is a measure of your dedication. this is absolutely true. it's easy to fluke on the mcat. it's hard to fluke a good/bad gpa.

[btw i know fluke is not a verb.]

Not to sound harsh
but I think this is bull****. It is true that you can't 'fluke' a good GPA, but some GPAs do mean more than other GPAs. And GPA does say *something* about your work ethic. BUT it's not the be all end all. I developed my work ethic toward the end of my studies, but with how dedicated I am now, I will kill medical school.
I'm in a joint majors program in physiology and physics. Students at Mcgill make it a point to stay away from this program because its ridiculously difficult. I know the skill level of the medical students at McGill, and I know that I could be close to the top of their class...regardless of my GPA.
I also know the MCAT, I worked my ass off for it...And I learned how to defeat it. I dissected the exam structure, and the question delivery. I mastered that sucker, and I beat its ass. If I took it again, I am certain that I could get within the 38-42 range again, and again, and again.

 

[osli]

I agree with the OP 100%.

Pre-med students often seem to follow this checklist of application criteria such that in the end they all look much more similar than different. Shadow a doctor? Check. Volunteer at a food shelter/clinic/tutoring/etc.? Check. Plan undergraduate courses carefully to maintain as high a GPA as possible? Check.

The greatest differentiator is the MCAT. In an ideal world, GPA would be something more useful, but it is far from idea. Many undergrad institutions suffer badly from grade inflation. Many students steer well clear of a difficult professor. Many plan their courses so that they can have as even and easy road as possible through undergrad (noticed any "should I take physics and orgo at the same time?" threads lately?). Many simply don't take courses that interest them because of the perceived difficulty and potential impact on their GPA.

Not all students are like this, of course. But I would posit that the ones that don't follow many of these strategies are the brighter students that can handle tough courses and/or loads. The net result is that pre-med GPA's are much closer in variation than would otherwise be the case, making it a much less useful indicator to adcoms.

And I personally don't believe many put a great deal of time into analyzing your transcript for course load, etc. Perhaps a cursory glance to see what the GPA was for your highest credit-hour semester, if anything. They certainly don't have the ability to know what courses (much less what professors) were easy or difficult at your institution. All they get is a few numbers, and an average.

If you look on the other side of the coin, you'll notice that grading policy at medical schools varies so widely that many residency program directors give your preclinical grades little weight, despite the fact that practically all medical students are educated in exactly the same material. Add in the variability of entirely different subjects, majors, and courses from one undergrad to the next, and one wonders how an adcom can get any insight out of that whatsoever.

 

[Tx1227]

Lets say they both took the same courses / credits per semester. Wouldn't applicant B be more qualified despite the lower gpa because the superior MCAT would indicate that he/she has a better grasp of the basic science courses than Applicant A?

I'm not going to discredit the MCAT at all, but to be fair it is ONE test... I think a strong GPA or atleast a strong UPWARD trend warrants greater respect than most tend to give it. GPA and GPA trends say alot about a person's drive, determination, and probability of success in such a demanding academic environment as medical school...

Just my $0.02

 

[batman1983]

I don't want to get into an argument here, but claiming that UT Austin is that much better than Texas A&M is the most preposterous thing I've ever heard on these boards.

No offense to the A&M ppl, a buddy of mine goes to A&M and reads these boards often. Just wanted to piss him off.

 

[osli]

And for the record, I believe that many "top/ivy" schools suffer from significant grade inflation. I've read reports on this somewhere in the past, no idea where.

Whether you believe ivy's are more difficult, or suffer from grade inflation, both sides support the argument that GPA is not a universally equivalent indicator and should not play that large a role in admissions process.

FYI, my MCAT score was likely much more instrumental in keeping my out of certain medical schools than my GPA - which was a 3.8 earned in engineering when I was not even considering medical school. My undergrad/graduate coursework should be the poster-child for the argument that difficulty of courses, course load, and professor (un)avoidance should be factored in, but I think the final conclusion is that GPA shouldn't be such a large factor.

 

[Drogba]

College station is lame.

 

[batman1983]

In my opinion, the blame for the current state of the premed path as well as to some extent the current state of healthcare lies with the AAMC.
One of the major problems of healthcare is the shortage of qualified staff. While the US population has doubled in the last 30 years, the number of medical students hasn’t not even keep close. Now there might be several reasons for this, but a major reason is the quota placed on number of ppl allowed to enter medical school as a mechanism of wage protection for doctors.

Thus, with more applicants each year competing for essentially the same number of seats that existed 30 years ago, the competition has become intense. I have already applied once with what I believed were decent stats (34R, 3.6) and was unable to gain any acceptances. Yet, according to the doctor I volunteered with, back when he was applying (15 yrs ago), those stats got you into Stanford.

 

[Vihsadas]

In my opinion, the blame for the current state of the premed path as well as to some extent the current state of healthcare lies with the AAMC.
One of the major problems of healthcare is the shortage of qualified staff. While the US population has doubled in the last 30 years, the number of medical students hasn’t not even keep close. Now there might be several reasons for this, but a major reason is the quota placed on number of ppl allowed to enter medical school as a mechanism of wage protection for doctors.

Thus, with more applicants each year competing for essentially the same number of seats that existed 30 years ago, the competition has become intense. I have already applied once with what I believed were decent stats (34R, 3.6) and was unable to gain any acceptances. Yet, according to the doctor I volunteered with, back when he was applying (15 yrs ago), those stats got you into Stanford.

Yup. I was astonished at the stats of a few of my profs. Not to say AT ALL that they aren't fabulous doctors. This is commentary on how GPA/MCAT isn't necessarily a good correlate for how well you'll do as a physician.

 

[lex]

I am a 4.0 student, yet I recognize that including GPA in the medical school application process is detrimental to both the breadth and depth of your undergraduate education.

I reluctantly play the GPA game so that I can get into medical school. I take fewer credits each semester. I take the easier teachers. I study towards the test and not to truly understand the material. I'd love to take more Italian classes until I'm fluent, but won't because I might not get A's. I'd also love to take classes from some of the world-renowned professors that my institution has, but won't because their classes are difficult. Perhaps I am just an idealist, but I believe that undergraduates should be encouraged to take classes with the best teachers (which are not necessarily the easiest or the hardest), and take classes that are of most interest to them, irregardless of ease. For those of us trying to get into medical school, the system creates huge incentives for us not to pursue these ideals. Anything below a B and you have alot of explaining to do. Likewise with a GPA below a 3.5. I even find myself thinking of this when I write my english papers: "How can I approach this topic in a way that will get me an 'A'," rather than, "How can I approach this topic in a way that will most accurately reflect my beliefs."

For adcomms not to include the difficulty of your classes or the number of your credit hours each semester in their analysis of your application makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Wait, yes it does: medical schools are ****** to the medical school ranking lists, and they want to beef up there average GPAs at the cost of the quality of the undergraduate experience. But, I suppose you could say that I am just a ***** to the medical school admissions commitee by taking light courseloads and choosing easier professors, and thats fine--I want to get into medical school and I follow the incentives that are created for me.

Thats it, now discuss.

EDIT: I'm not saying that GPA should not matter at all, just that it should be a much smaller part of your application. Getting F's or having alot of W's should disqualify you if you don't have valid excuses.

We live in a superficial world, so we have to play the game. Yes, sometimes top professors are hard graders but the learning experience is often worth it. I transferred from a state school to a Jesuit school just because I want to learn from the world-renowned math professors at the school. As a result, a $2000/semester tuition became $15000/semester. I got some As, some B+s, and a B in this school. Before I transferred, the lowest grade I had was an A-. But guess what, the learning experience far exceeds my expectations and the money I paid for. My GPA went down from 3.91 to 3.8, but it is still competitive (methinks) for med school. Is it worth it? Yep! But would I do this for all of my courses. Nope! Pick your battle, do that for the courses you really want to learn. A little sacrifice is good along the way.

But keep in mind that your transcript only says your course number/description and your grade. The name of the professor is not on it, and people don't care who you took the course with... even if you took it with Stephen Hawking..., only you do.

 

[drizzt3117]

Thus, with more applicants each year competing for essentially the same number of seats that existed 30 years ago, the competition has become intense. I have already applied once with what I believed were decent stats (34R, 3.6) and was unable to gain any acceptances. Yet, according to the doctor I volunteered with, back when he was applying (15 yrs ago), those stats got you into Stanford.

You said yourself in your MDApps that the likely reason you weren't admitted was because of the timing of your applications. If you look at the statistics, you'll notice that the number of applicants this cycle is actually 20% less than it was in the mid 90s. There are also quite a few new schools opening in the next few years.

 

[Maxprime]

You said yourself in your MDApps that the likely reason you weren't admitted was because of the timing of your applications. If you look at the statistics, you'll notice that the number of applicants this cycle is actually 20% less than it was in the mid 90s. There are also quite a few new schools opening in the next few years.

Honestly not arguing here, just curious - did the AAMC release application #'s yet? I'd like to have a look.

The # of med student spots hasn't changed much since the 70's and the population has risen a great deal, things are far more competitive than they used to be. But, that's how it goes - there was a time when going to college at all set you apart - evolution is a bitch.

 

[drizzt3117]

Honestly not arguing here, just curious - did the AAMC release application #'s yet? I'd like to have a look.

The # of med student spots hasn't changed much since the 70's and the population has risen a great deal, things are far more competitive than they used to be. But, that's how it goes - there was a time when going to college at all set you apart - evolution is a bitch.

Here are the numbers from 1996-2007. Go to the very bottom. It looks like apps bottomed out around 2002, and have increased a bit since.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2007/2007slr2.htm

Also, this table has interesting info about first time applicants vs all applicants.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2007/0507sumyrs.htm

 

[hawk126]

K, let me digest this because I really dont get what you are trying to prove with your example. So, you did your UG at a "small, relatively unknown liberal arts university" and then did your postbac at "the least respected of the public undergraduate institutions in texas". Based on the descriptions you have provided, Im assuming that both schools are not top 30 institutions. If so, then your essentially saying you did ****ty at a 2nd tier school and then did well as a post bac at another 2nd tier school. Either way, you haven't proven me wrong at all. My point was that academically, it is tougher at a top 30 school vs the rest. Now, Im not arguing that there is grade inflation at some of these schools(I believe to some extent there should be to account for the better academic quality of the student body) and that many ppl get into those schools via legacy and so forth. What I am saying is that if I went to a top 30 school and then went to some other school, I am probably going to have a harder time at the top 30 school. Everything else being equal, I am going to have more respect for a guy that got a 3.5 at Harvard/Cal/UT Austin than some guy with a 3.5 at San Diego State or Texas A&M.

-

 

[Maxprime]

Here are the numbers from 1996-2007. Go to the very bottom. It looks like apps bottomed out around 2002, and have increased a bit since.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2007/2007slr2.htm

Also, this table has interesting info about first time applicants vs all applicants.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2007/0507sumyrs.htm

As of 9/25/07, we're at 42k and the peak on that chart is 47k in 1996 - I'm willing to bet that 2 months in the cycle picks up that many (another 12%) - lots of people like me had to apply late.

Thanks for the links.

 

[drizzt3117]

As of 9/25/07, we're at 42k and the peak on that chart is 47k in 1996 - I'm willing to bet that 2 months in the cycle picks up that many (another 12%) - lots of people like me had to apply late.

Thanks for the links.

BTW, the numbers from earlier in the mid 90s are higher than 47k, close to 50k as I recall. The deadline for AMCAS was 10/15, so there will be more applications, but not that many. The biggest thing people have commented on is people applied EARLY this year, relative to other years.

 

[Maxprime]

BTW, the numbers from earlier in the mid 90s are higher than 47k, close to 50k as I recall. The deadline for AMCAS was 10/15, so there will be more applications, but not that many. The biggest thing people have commented on is people applied EARLY this year, relative to other years.

Ahh - thanks for the color. What you're saying is that it's a great year to do apps late? I forgot about the AMCAS deadline - good call.

 

[HumbleMD]

Wow. I always love these types of insights where everyone's opinion on the situation seems to be crafted just so that their application would come out on top.

You guys don't give adcoms credit. GPA is a great screener for the thousands of applications a school gets. Is it the only determining factor? Goodness no. And as far as school difficulty, class difficulty, and balancing extra-curriculars, adcoms are really good at seeing right through resume-padders and cake schedules. Not all 4.0s are created equal and adcomms know this, and look at the whole picture. Thus, no offense to the O.P., but from the sound of it, you may make it right past the initial GPA filters, but when they see that you put in the minimum effort in coursework, they won't look to keenly at your transcript.

And save the Harvard versus state school for another thread. It's been debated ad nauseum and never will arrive at a concrete conclusion. Instead, I'd look at the anecdotal evidence (sadly the best we have), such as undergraduate institution lists of accepted students from a medical school of interest.

 

[drizzt3117]

Ahh - thanks for the color. What you're saying is that it's a great year to do apps late? I forgot about the AMCAS deadline - good call.

Haha, I guess that's one way to look at it. For some confirmation of this, someone posted a thread where UM had something on their website about applications being 40% higher than last year as of 9/1, and revised that down to 20% higher than last year as of 10/1. You can search for it if you're really interested.

 

[DemetriMartin]

A 40 something school is a lot closer if not equal or better academically to an Ivy League school than it is to an average state school. There will always be Ivy students that shouldn't be Ivy students and other students who didn't get into an Ivy that should have.

My point: Me: 3.33 engineering, 33 MCAT. My brother, B- average at a public high school, a couple D's, admittedly not a great student, now has a gpa in the range of 3.8 - 3.9 at an average state school. If he wanted to, he could take the MCAT right now and if he got a 30, apply to med school and have a better chance of admission than I do. I was fortunate enough to have my undergrad paid for by my parents, but if I had to do it all over again I'd probably save my parents $100,000, go to state school, and be near the top of class rather than be average at a better school. Going back to the first post, its unfortunate that medical schools want students to play their game rather than develop academically and challenge themselves.

you can't really base your opinion on one case, buddy. have you ever thought that maybe your brother might have tried harder than you? I had the opportunity to attend a really low ranked state school for a year before transferring to one of the top universities in the country. I got a 4.0 in both, and in fact, I felt that the state school was MUCH tougher. If you're going to get a 3.3 at an IVY, than you're going to get a 3.3 in a state school. Stop making excuses for such a low gpa, chief.

 

[drizzt3117]

Wow. I always love these types of insights where everyone's opinion on the situation seems to be crafted just so that their application would come out on top.

You guys don't give adcoms credit. GPA is a great screener for the thousands of applications a school gets. Is it the only determining factor? Goodness no. And as far as school difficulty, class difficulty, and balancing extra-curriculars, adcoms are really good at seeing right through resume-padders and cake schedules. Not all 4.0s are created equal and adcomms know this, and look at the whole picture. Thus, no offense to the O.P., but from the sound of it, you may make it right past the initial GPA filters, but when they see that you put in the minimum effort in coursework, they won't look to keenly at your transcript.

And save the Harvard versus state school for another thread. It's been debated ad nauseum and never will arrive at a concrete conclusion. Instead, I'd look at the anecdotal evidence (sadly the best we have), such as undergraduate institution lists of accepted students from a medical school of interest.

I think lost in the original post is that the rankings aren't based on GPA at all, but on NIH funding and NIH funding per faculty member/student.

 

[shantster]

To the OP: if you didnt have a 4.0, how would you get into medical school? Your MCAT is very mediocre, so you might want to think about what it is that you are saying.

Actually, I could take their MCAT score as evidence for his point. Seeing the 26 paired with the 4.0 suggests that he took the easy classes and never really learned the material.

 

[DrUgly]

I agree with the completely OP.

I must admit, I always laugh at people who take the stance "The MCAT is a one day measure of your abilities that puts people under pressure, its just a standardized test, etc."

Woe is me... I can't perform under pressure with a standardized test. Oh really? Did you know that a doctor must perform under pressure when a patient's life is on the line? "Greatness" isn't measured in controlled situations. MJ wasn't the greatest basketball player ever because he could pull up and hit a 20 foot jump shot in practice. He could pull up and hit the same shot with one of the league's best defenders on him, with time running out to win the Eastern Conference Championship. All while RELISHING in it when it COUNTS the most. I suggest you choose another profession if you can't handle the heat. Deal with it.

MCAT is easier to fluke than a great GPA? Do tell me, can you go to the person grading your MCAT and grub, argue and force points back on the test? Can you beg the test graders to give you a 30 from a 29 because "I just have to have this score in order to still be competitive?" Can you get last year's copy of a test in order to have any advantage over another student?

In my opinion, someone with a 3.9 and a 29 should automatically receive a large red flag on their application. You were exposed to 99% of the material in your premed classes that you've "aced" and you can't score above a 30, please. Perfect example of grade inflation. You didn't deserve those As. I've taught MCAT classes for quite sometime and many of the students that brag about their astronomical GPAs struggle the most with equations they learned just 2 years ago. In one ear, out the other without any information ACTUALLY shoved in those egotistical little brains of theirs.

MCAT should definitely be measured in a higher regard in comparison to your overall GPA (Which I think is a better measure of work ethic).

 

[ncb]

you can't really base your opinion on one case, buddy. have you ever thought that maybe your brother might have tried harder than you? I had the opportunity to attend a really low ranked state school for a year before transferring to one of the top universities in the country. I got a 4.0 in both, and in fact, I felt that the state school was MUCH tougher. If you're going to get a 3.3 at an IVY, than you're going to get a 3.3 in a state school. Stop making excuses for such a low gpa, chief.

I wouldn't have written the post if I thought my brother was trying. I'm sure he's not trying any harder than I am. He has different priorities than I do. Anyway, you're missing my point because I'm not making any excuses for my gpa. I certainly deserved what I got and can honestly say that I worked hard and did about as well as I was capable of doing. Why are you telling me to stop basing my opinion on one case when you did the same thing by telling me that I would get the same gpa in an Ivy and state school just because you did? An above poster was right when he said the only evidence that we have for this debate is anecdotal. In reality not all medical school spots will be filled with students possessing high gpa's and MCAT's and its the borderline cases that we debate the most.

 

[Decicco]

Actually, I could take their MCAT score as evidence for his point. Seeing the 26 paired with the 4.0 suggests that he took the easy classes and never really learned the material.

All sciences courses are only offered by one professor each at my school. When I say that I am taking easier classes, it is the non-science classes I am talking about. I take the same bio/orgo/physics/chem as anyone. My MCAT is low because I took it early and didnt study enough.

 

[Quix]

Yup. I was astonished at the stats of a few of my profs. Not to say AT ALL that they aren't fabulous doctors. This is commentary on how GPA/MCAT isn't necessarily a good correlate for how well you'll do as a physician.

I think I'm the poster-child for this statement.

 

[surfstarj]

perhaps schools should report your grade, plus the average grade that the class got, so adcoms know where to place you? it's definitely a problem at my undergrad, because we have no grade inflation whatsoever, so our pre-meds generally have lower gpa's than other top 20's.

That would be a start...but it's another thing for adcoms to have to look at and it's not as easy as just saying "applicant received a B- in XX class" even if the median of that class was a C-.

 

[osli]

Wow. I always love these types of insights where everyone's opinion on the situation seems to be crafted just so that their application would come out on top.

For the record, I'm arguing that GPA is not a universal yardstick and thus shouldn't have much weight in the process, yet my GPA was a strong point on my application (3.8 in BS/MS mechanical engineering, 3.9 BCPM). My MCAT was mediocre, and probably why I didn't get acceptances to some schools that I wanted to, yet I think it should have even more weight. So when you say "everyone" perhaps you should qualify it with "that fits the following pulled-outta-my-ass generalization."

BTW (not addressed to the poster I quoted), I don't believe the argument that adcoms are really good at figuring out how difficult your classes were to put your GPA in context... they have thousands of applications and GPA/MCAT is a good numerical filter that takes little effort. They won't care that your 3.1 was in theoretical physics or chemical engineering and pulled off in a clean 8 semesters if it doesn't meet their cutoff. Further, most adcoms wouldn't know what half the classes on my transcript were without looking them up or asking, so they'd have no idea at all how to rate their difficulty. And suggesting that they rate the difficulty based on credit hours per semester is equally fruitless, since there can be wide variations in difficulty based on the actual classes you are taking. For example, I'd take a 21 hour semester composed of general biology, english comp, psych, intro econ, college algebra, choir, band, jazz band, freshman seminar, and art appreciation over any four upper level engineering or math or chemistry or literature courses that total only 12 hours.