My GPA is low because of my school/major. Do I still have a chance?

[MaybeBaby]

Junior at MIT double major in Biochemical Engineering and Molecular Biology with a minor in French. I've been taking 6-7 classes per semester which is super heavy courseload that I've had to convince my advisor to take. Basically I study all day and my cGPA and sGPA are both 3.2 but that's actually above the average (a 2.8) for my major.

Took the MCATs at the end of the year and got a 14/11/14 39 total

From what I've heard a 3.2 is too low for Allopathic schools. Any advice?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jamcat]

I'm actually in an eerily similar situation, only with a double major in lit instead of a minor (with a near 4.0 in my humanities major ). Just took the MCAT two days ago but my AAMC average was very similar to your score.

I am by no means an expert, but I am quite a bit farther down this road than you are so I'm happy to share what I've learned. The consensus seems to be yes, a 3.2 is low for MD. You may have a chance if you have an extraordinarily compelling story and ECs, but more than likely you'll have to do some GPA rehab and/or an SMP. The good news is that since you're obviously very capable academically, this shouldn't be a problem. The bad news is that it takes some time, and the top schools are probably out for good.

If you're happy with DO, you'd be fine right now.

Adcoms on here have noted that major or difficulty of school don't matter too much for admissions. Whether this should be the case or not is irrelevant to our situations; it is what it is and we have to make the best of it.

If you have any questions, let me know! It's a long slog and I'm happy to help a fellow comeback kid out.

 

[DrShephardWannabe]

My personal experience/anecdote on this:
Engineering is the one major I've seen people get into medical school with <3.5 GPA's and average MCAT scores (~30) from my school without being an URM, or having something completely outstanding on their application. It's well known our engineering school has a low B average and adcoms on here have stated they do take the rigor of your undergrad into consideration.
But you've also got a stellar MCAT score, so apply broadly and you've got excellent chances of getting in somewhere.

 

[jamcat]

Eh, adcoms on here have varied. Goro has repeatedly stated that a GPA is a GPA, period. Some other adcoms have stated that it's a minor consideration. I do think it's possible for the OP to get in, but s/he is going to need some super strong ECs to supplement the academics, and I wouldn't say the chances are "excellent."

I do agree that if any low-GPA applicant is likely to get in, a person with a 3.2 in engineering from MIT is likely to be one of them (as they should be!).

 

[DrShephardWannabe]

Eh, adcoms on here have varied. Goro has repeatedly stated that a GPA is a GPA, period. Some other adcoms have stated that it's a minor consideration. I do think it's possible for the OP to get in, but s/he is going to need some super strong ECs to supplement the academics, and I wouldn't say the chances are "excellent."

I do agree that if any low-GPA applicant is likely to get in, a person with a 3.2 in engineering from MIT is likely to be one of them (as they should be!).

However a 39 on the MCAT seems to prove he's learned the material well, it would be an equalizing factor in my opinion. A 39 is a ridiculously good score

 

[jamcat]

Oh, I quite agree. I agree 1000%. But it's been said over and over on here that an MCAT doesn't make up for a low GPA. I really wish it weren't so, because I'm in the exact same situation as the OP, but c'est la vie! Perhaps if you're right I'll be pleasantly surprised when I apply.

 

[Mad Jack]

You shouldn't have picked such a ridiculous major combination. You will probably get in somewhere, but you have certainly hurt your competitiveness within the higher tier programs.

 

[gyngyn]

The most challenging situation to give advice for is the broad gpa/MCAT split with MCAT high.
You absolutely have a chance. Come up with a list of schools that share your interests, and show them that you have what it takes for clinical medicine.

 

[jamcat]

Mad Jack, not all of us know we want to go into medicine when we're 16 years old and picking a college. Sure, if I knew then what I know now I would have either a) gone to my state school and gotten a 4.0, or b) gone to my Ivy, gotten a 3.9 in my humanities major (which I have), and then gone to my state school for a quick post-bacc of pre-reqs and gotten a 4.0. I would have my choice of med schools right now.

The way the system is set up majorly disfavors those of us who didn't play the game from the start and ended up like the OP. The system is not going to change, which is fine, I'm not complaining, but saying that the OP shouldn't have gone to MIT or studied engineering because s/he might at some point in the future decide s/he wants to go to med school is quite myopic, in my opinion, and counter to the idea that sometimes we pursue something for passion and knowledge and challenge, not just to perfect or cater to a hypothetical application that we don't even know we'll be completing.

 

[MaybeBaby]

The most challenging situation to give advice for is the broad gpa/MCAT split with MCAT high.
You absolutely have a chance. Come up with a list of schools that share your interests, and show them that you have what it takes for clinical medicine.

Would they still view it as a 3.2? How would adcoms compare my GPA to say a 3.6 psychology major from Harvard? Would the psych major's GPA really be viewed as better than mine?

 

[gyngyn]

Would they still view it as a 3.2? How would adcoms compare my GPA to say a 3.6 psychology major from Harvard? Would the psych major's GPA really be viewed as better than mine?

In general, a higher gpa is a higher gpa. We don't compare applicants to each other the way you describe.
Overall the screeners are looking for stats that match their historical norms. There are no schools with a split like yours, though. That's why it's hard to come up with a list of schools, other that your state schools that may have a vested interest in you.
Wash U could probably absorb that gpa without much trouble, though!

 

[Goro]

Sometimes one has to apply with the app one has, warts and all. Try an app cycle and see how things shake out.

fWIW, you're fine for any DO program.

Junior at MIT double major in Biochemical Engineering and Molecular Biology with a minor in French. I've been taking 6-7 classes per semester which is super heavy courseload that I've had to convince my advisor to take. Basically I study all day and my cGPA and sGPA are both 3.2 but that's actually above the average (a 2.8) for my major.

Took the MCATs at the end of the year and got a 14/11/14 39 total

From what I've heard a 3.2 is too low for Allopathic schools. Any advice?

 

[ProudMD]

A 3.2 is definitely low for MD schools (though not lethal), but your stellar MCAT and rigorous undergraduate curriculum/major should give you a fair amount of leeway. How are your ECs? They better be rock-solidly strong across all areas.

 

[penguinss]

I'd say look for schools that take rigor of undergraduate curriculum into account when they evaluate candidates. I know the University of Washington at St. Louis does. Their range of GPA is from 3.2 to 4.0, from what I saw on their website. Different medical schools place emphasis on different components of the application right? Best wishes to you! You are stellar!

 

[ProudMD]

I'd say look for schools that take rigor of undergraduate curriculum into account when they evaluate candidates. I know the University of Washington at St. Louis does. Their range of GPA is from 3.2 to 4.0, from what I saw on their website. Different medical schools place emphasis on different components of the application right? Best wishes to you! You are stellar!

Schools do look at the entire application, and rigor of the curriculum does have an impact. However, a higher GPA is almost always preferred over a rigorous major that led to a lower GPA.

Those accepted applicants with GPAs at the 10th percentile (or lower) often have absolutely compelling ECs and/or unique life stories. The OP has a shot at MD schools with a 3.2 paired with a 39, but his ECs will be monumental in determining his final fate.

 

[penguinss]

Schools do look at the entire application, and rigor of the curriculum does have an impact. However, a higher GPA is almost always preferred over a rigorous major that led to a lower GPA.

Those accepted applicants with GPAs at the 10th percentile (or lower) often have absolutely compelling ECs and/or unique life stories. The OP has a shot at MD schools with a 3.2 paired with a 39, but his ECs will be monumental in determining his final fate.

But is that fair? A 3.2 double hard science major from MIT could mean a 4.0 from a state university. I still don't see why people who put in more effort should be deemed less capable.

 

[ProudMD]

But is that fair? A 3.2 double hard science major from MIT could mean a 4.0 from a state university. I still don't see why people who put in more effort should be deemed less capable.

I am not saying it's fair, but that's just how the process works. A 3.7+ GPA in the humanities from a state school will most likely be more competitive than a 3.2 GPA from MIT.

 

[Goro]

Life's not fair, especially with a seller's market for medical school applicants. I'm also not a fan of the logic "If I did X, I'd have a 4.0." For all we know, OP may be a 3.2 student, no matter what the major or school.

But is that fair? A 3.2 double hard science major from MIT could mean a 4.0 from a state university. I still don't see why people who put in more effort should be deemed less capable.

 

[penguinss]

Well, I think the Adcoms are wiser than us. A 39 on the standardized MCAT proved that OP is no way less capable than people even with 4.0 GPAs. Evaluation only based on GPAs without considering the rigor of the curriculum and schools is flawed. It is as if saying that "we encourage you to find easy way out and take easy courses just to boost your GPAs instead of challenging yourselves with harder courses."

 

[gyngyn]

Well, I think the Adcoms are wiser than us. A 39 on the standardized MCAT proved that OP is no way less capable than people even with 4.0 GPAs. Evaluation only based on GPAs without considering the rigor of the curriculum and schools is flawed. It is as if saying that "we encourage you to find easy way out and take easy courses just to boost your GPAs instead of challenging yourselves with harder courses."

We are also evaluating judgement.

 

[penguinss]

We are also evaluating judgement.

? Are you saying it's smarter to take easy courses for the sake of GPA? That's a better judgment? I think that would be mindset of those who desperately just want to get into med schools, not that of true learners.

 

[gyngyn]

? Are you saying it's smarter to take easy courses for the sake of GPA? That's a better judgment? I think that would be mindset of those who desperately just want to get into med schools, not that of true learners.

Nope. I'm saying that knowing one's limitations is also under review and is an important part of what is expected from college students applying to medical school.
OP is studying "all day" to get a 3.2 in two majors and a minor. That's perfectly fine for many post graduate careers. For medicine, time has to be used judiciously in order to present an application that is well-received.

 

[jamcat]

Life's not fair, especially with a seller's market for medical school applicants. I'm also not a fan of the logic "If I did X, I'd have a 4.0." For all we know, OP may be a 3.2 student, no matter what the major or school.

Goro, I usually agree with you but are you seriously saying that a 3.2 engineering major from MIT would be a 3.2 student, no matter what the major or school???? I get that that's how it has to play out in the admissions game, and that's fine. That's how it works, life's not fair, and life's a whole lot more unfair to a lot of people in this world than those of us who have to do an extra few years of post-bacc before applying to med school. No problems with that.

My guess is you're quoting me when I said if I knew I wanted to go to medical school I could have gone to my state school and gotten a 4.0. The evidence for that, among much else, is in my state school 4.0 science post-bacc. The classes simply aren't equivalent. I sure wouldn't have a 4.0 if I took the same classes at my undergrad school--I'm just not a 4.0 student there--so I'm happy that med schools won't care.

It's no secret that I'm in NYC, and I tutor students in Intro Bio at Columbia, several of the CUNYs, and several community colleges. The Intro Bio classes at Columbia are on a completely different plane than the CUNY classes. At Columbia it's expected that you've had AP Bio and done well in it, so that material is not reviewed; there is no such expectation at Hunter. The material covered and the depth of analysis expected in exams are completely different. My students who are struggling in the B- territory at Columbia are heads and tails above the students making As at Hunter (the "top" CUNY). I wish I could show you examples; if you're truly interested, PM me and I can send you this year's Intro Bio exams from both Hunter and Columbia. I guarantee you wouldn't be saying that a 3.2 is a 3.2. That's just denying fact.

 

[gyngyn]

Goro, I usually agree with you but are you seriously saying that a 3.2 engineering major from MIT would be a 3.2 student, no matter what the major or school???? I get that that's how it has to play out in the admissions game, and that's fine. That's how it works, life's not fair, and life's a whole lot more unfair to a lot of people in this world than those of us who have to do an extra few years of post-bacc before applying to med school. No problems with that.

My guess is you're quoting me when I said if I knew I wanted to go to medical school I could have gone to my state school and gotten a 4.0. The evidence for that, among much else, is in my state school 4.0 science post-bacc. The classes simply aren't equivalent. I sure wouldn't have a 4.0 if I took the same classes at my undergrad school--I'm just not a 4.0 student there--so I'm happy that med schools won't care.

It's no secret that I'm in NYC, and I tutor students in Intro Bio at Columbia, several of the CUNYs, and several community colleges. The Intro Bio classes at Columbia are on a completely different plane than the CUNY classes. At Columbia it's expected that you've had AP Bio and done well in it, so that material is not reviewed; there is no such expectation at Hunter. The material covered and the depth of analysis expected in exams are completely different. My students who are struggling in the B- territory at Columbia are heads and tails above the students making As at Hunter (the "top" CUNY). I wish I could show you examples; if you're truly interested, PM me and I can send you this year's Intro Bio exams from both Hunter and Columbia. I guarantee you wouldn't be saying that a 3.2 is a 3.2. That's just denying fact.

Nobody here is saying that all 3.2's are equally difficult or easy to obtain. We are saying that for the application to medical school, there are minimum expectations below which, even the the most challenging major (or school) will have limited effect on the outcome. That's why there are graphs like the one in the sticky on the opening page of WAMC.

There is wiggle room but that is all it is.

 

[jamcat]

Actually, Goro is, and has repeatedly in other threads.

I'm quoting from this one, "I'm also not a fan of the logic "If I did X, I'd have a 4.0." For all we know, OP may be a 3.2 student, no matter what the major or school." Making the claim that a 3.2 MIT engineering student could be a 3.2 student in any major anywhere is just flat out wrong.

Your statement of how med school adcoms view these grades is perfectly valid and I accept it 100%, as I've stated.

 

[Jamie561]

Goro, I usually agree with you but are you seriously saying that a 3.2 engineering major from MIT would be a 3.2 student, no matter what the major or school???? I get that that's how it has to play out in the admissions game, and that's fine. That's how it works, life's not fair, and life's a whole lot more unfair to a lot of people in this world than those of us who have to do an extra few years of post-bacc before applying to med school. No problems with that.

My guess is you're quoting me when I said if I knew I wanted to go to medical school I could have gone to my state school and gotten a 4.0. The evidence for that, among much else, is in my state school 4.0 science post-bacc. The classes simply aren't equivalent. I sure wouldn't have a 4.0 if I took the same classes at my undergrad school--I'm just not a 4.0 student there--so I'm happy that med schools won't care.

It's no secret that I'm in NYC, and I tutor students in Intro Bio at Columbia, several of the CUNYs, and several community colleges. The Intro Bio classes at Columbia are on a completely different plane than the CUNY classes. At Columbia it's expected that you've had AP Bio and done well in it, so that material is not reviewed; there is no such expectation at Hunter. The material covered and the depth of analysis expected in exams are completely different. My students who are struggling in the B- territory at Columbia are heads and tails above the students making As at Hunter (the "top" CUNY). I wish I could show you examples; if you're truly interested, PM me and I can send you this year's Intro Bio exams from both Hunter and Columbia. I guarantee you wouldn't be saying that a 3.2 is a 3.2. That's just denying fact.

I talked to 31 adcoms at 17 schools and have got the official insider formula they use to evaluate and normalize GPA. This is TOP SECRET so pls don't quote:

1. calculate sGPA and cGPA using AMCAS method.
2. if institution is Ivy, add 0.08
3. if major is engineering or hard science, add 0.03
4. if institution is 1st tier state or equivalent, subtract 0.01
5. if institution is 2nd tier state (X State University) or equivalent, subtract 0.03.
6. if institution is Directional State University, subtract 0.04 times the number of Directions in the name. Southwest is considered 2 directions, as is East Central.
7. if major has the words "comparative," "applied," "integrative," or "studies" in it, subtract 0.02 for each of these words.
8. if institution is for profit or community college, subtract 0.13

Ur welcome!!!

 

[candbgirl]

Now that's funny but thanks for sharing! I'm sure it will put a lot of minds at ease!

 

[Goro]

Calm down, jamcat! Jeeze, you're reminding me of my 12 year old, who goes ballistic when I whisper something to my 9 year old. The older one always thinks that I'm talking about him....which I'm not!

I was NOT quoting nor even thinking about you.

I was quoting penguins, who made an assertion that is never tested. Yet, I see people claim this all the time

IF I didn't play soccer, I'd have a 4.0"
IF my mom didn't get sick, I'd have a 4.0"
IF I went to Kutztown U instead of X Univ., I'd have a 4.0"
IF we didn't have grade deflation, I'd have a 4.0"
IF
IF
IF

I'm not saying that engineering is easy, nor am I saying that MIT is the equivalent of the 13th grade. Nor am I saying that all college content is equivalent.

But IF you want me to believe your claim, prove it.

Goro, I usually agree with you but are you seriously saying that a 3.2 engineering major from MIT would be a 3.2 student, no matter what the major or school???? I get that that's how it has to play out in the admissions game, and that's fine. That's how it works, life's not fair, and life's a whole lot more unfair to a lot of people in this world than those of us who have to do an extra few years of post-bacc before applying to med school. No problems with that.

My guess is you're quoting me when I said if I knew I wanted to go to medical school I could have gone to my state school and gotten a 4.0. The evidence for that, among much else, is in my state school 4.0 science post-bacc. The classes simply aren't equivalent. I sure wouldn't have a 4.0 if I took the same classes at my undergrad school--I'm just not a 4.0 student there--so I'm happy that med schools won't care.

It's no secret that I'm in NYC, and I tutor students in Intro Bio at Columbia, several of the CUNYs, and several community colleges. The Intro Bio classes at Columbia are on a completely different plane than the CUNY classes. At Columbia it's expected that you've had AP Bio and done well in it, so that material is not reviewed; there is no such expectation at Hunter. The material covered and the depth of analysis expected in exams are completely different. My students who are struggling in the B- territory at Columbia are heads and tails above the students making As at Hunter (the "top" CUNY). I wish I could show you examples; if you're truly interested, PM me and I can send you this year's Intro Bio exams from both Hunter and Columbia. I guarantee you wouldn't be saying that a 3.2 is a 3.2. That's just denying fact.

 

[jamcat]

Oh, the touchiness wasn't personal! I thought you were referring to me because I said, word for word, what you mentioned you weren't a fan of, but I honestly don't care whether it was or not. The touchiness is from something different, which I'll address later.

Like I said, I'd be happy to email to email you the semester's worth of exams from Hunter and Columbia for your comparison.

I'm not quite sure how else it is possible to "prove" this to your standards, or to any scientist's standards, because it's impossible to create a controlled experiment. So all we can do is look at what evidence we do have and literally all the evidence we do have points to one conclusion. So you say "prove it," but I say "how?"

If what you mean by "prove it" is that people with MIT 3.2s need to prove to admissions committees that they are indeed 4.0 State U students, then I would agree wholeheartedly. Like I said, I've never objected to post-baccs being necessary for these people, ever.

So perhaps I've been misunderstanding what you've been meaning by "prove it." It has always come across, in thread after thread, that you didn't recognize the inherent differences in difficulties among colleges.

I freely admit I am a bit touchy about this because it breaks my heart to see these B- Columbia students get disheartened and decide to pursue another career because they think they're not smart enough to be doctors when they would have been acing the class at other schools. People think there's a lot of arrogance in the Ivy League and there is some of that to be sure, particularly among the pre-law and finance types. But there is a lot more of getting beaten down again, and again, and again, and again, to the point where you start to actually believe you're stupid and unworthy of a career as a doctor because you can't get that A (or A- or B+) no matter how hard you work. So when I see somebody tell a 3.2 MIT student that they may very well be a 3.2 student in any major anywhere, the mama bear comes out in me to defend him/her, because I--sorry--still do see that as having an extraordinarily overwhelming chance of being false.