Taking Class to Challenge yourself vs. Easy Class for the A

[Doug Underhill]

Research for credits is pass/fail only

No, it's not, at least not at my undergrad (Kutztown State). At other schools, it may be.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrShephardWannabe]

I think my roommate (A 4.0 Aerospace Engineer) put it well when he said:

"About 60-70% of GPA tells someone your book smarts. The other 30-40% tells someone your social intelligence and work ethic. The only reason I have a 4.0 is because I've spent the time asking people what classes to take and which to avoid, I've spent countless hours talking to professors in office hours to show my willingness to learn, and I've had several grades bumped due to just this. I also make friends with the smart people in my classes. I study with them, which pays off in itself, but they also usually have test banks or other past resources they're willing to share I wouldn't have otherwise."

A friend of mine who is now doing plastics at Baylor told me he was going into his junior year with ~3.4cGPA. He switched his major from neuroscience to human bio to take easier classes and applied with a 3.6. His advice to me was to do whatever it took (Ethically right of course) to get your GPA as high as possible.

 

[ZedsDed]

You heard back from Hopkins already?

A friend of mine from another cycle.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean I really don't think there's nearly the split you think there is on this. I think your idea of what "assigning context to a GPA is" and what ADCOMs does varies significantly. But like I said above, I didn't want to start a debate here merely I was just trying to offer some food for thought with what gonnif was talking about how there are ADCOMS he knows of who have questioned engineers desire for medicine as a counter point. We all have our own opinions and that's fine and good, I just personally don't see any "split" on this issue.

I was referring to this:

Your GPA is your GPA. It is that simple. It is a single variable in a complex, non-linear equation that is medical school admissions. It is completely meaningless without context. Anyone who tells you otherwise, pre-med, medical student, resident or adcom, is full of ****. What school you went to, your major, your course load, your working full time during school, among half a dozen other things all influence what that GPA means.... However, as previously stated your GPA (unlike the MCAT) has a whole host of variables that can significantly affect it. Never mind between schools, but within a single school, the 'ease' of attaining a high GPA varies significantly.

I see what you are saying and the general idea of a 38 vs 33, obviously we all know a 38 is better. But it's often somewhat more complicated than this.

The problem you run into with re-taking a 33 and getting a 38-39 on the re-take is this
a) lower tier type schools you might apply to with a 33 and be a good candidate for are going to look at a 38-39 in a number of cases low yield. Furthermore, there are absolutely some(if not a fair number) of schools that will question the decision making of someone who re-takes a 33 to some extent.
b) For those bigger name schools, a 38-39 just doesn't look as impressive when it took two attempts and there was a 33 the first time around. These types of schools often can afford to take a pass on someone like this. And for those that average multiple attempts, a 33 and 38 comes out to 35.5. Good, but still about 2 points below the median of many top 20's.

So for many people what ends up happening is you hurt yourself with that big of an improvement for lower tiers, and for the top tiers you really still have some disadvantage from that prior 33 attempt. Now obviously there are many exceptions and it isn't that simple, I definitely know of people at top 20 schools who took the MCAT more than once. But you can also easily see how it's not always just simply say your in much better shape with that 38 on the re-attempt than you were with the 33 the first time around. And this doesn't even account for the vast vast majority of people who re-take 33's and don't hit near 38. This is all simplifying things to a fair extent, just as people get in with multiple MCAT attempts to top 20 schools people with 38's get into lower tier schools. But the general idea I'm trying to get across should show there are negatives that come with that re-take and the positives of that 38 can be a little overstated, particularly when so many people who get 38's on teh first attempt still get shut out from top 20's.

I agree that retaking a good score is discouraged, but people who do retake a 33 and score higher have many more doors opened to them (especially as a reapp with nothing much improved over the cycle). Yes, a 38 with a 33 in the background isn't as good as a 38 by itself, but scoring a 38 in the first place isn't something that is easily achievable. That is what adcoms should (and do) keep in mind.

 

[ZedsDed]

In > 15 years of being on the Adcom, never once has someone said "but he has a 3.3 engineering degree...that's harder than being a X major".

Maybe Admissions deans take this into account, but the rank and file Adcom members don't.

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of candidates have will be Biology majors. Engineers are as common as English or Music majors.

I understand Goro, I believe you.

Nobody is saying that AdCom members don't think that way. What we are saying is that the whole "4.0 engineering=4.0 underwater basket weaving" is silly (laughable really) and unjustified.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I posted this earlier but why does the major matter?? They are looking at science gpa which doesn't include engineering or basket weaving

 

[Lawpy]

I posted this earlier but why does the major matter?? They are looking at science gpa which doesn't include engineering or basket weaving

Because major gives insight to the overall rigor. It's a weak relationship since people can take many rigorous courses as free electives and minors.

I believe you Goro.

Nobody is saying that AdCom members don't think that way. What we are saying is that the whole "4.0 engineering=4.0 underwater basket weaving" is silly (laughable really) and unjustified.

More like insulting actually.

 

[ZedsDed]

I posted this earlier but why does the major matter?? They are looking at science gpa which doesn't include engineering or basket weaving

Well they look at both cGPA and sGPA. But there are definitely rigorous non-bio science majors that can sink your sGPA.

 

[ZedsDed]

More like insulting actually.

I wouldn't go that far. But I did always chuckle a little on the inside when my friends who were art history majors taking 12 units would bitch to me about getting "no sleep" finals week.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Well they look at both cGPA and sGPA. But there are definitely rigorous non-bio science majors that can sink your sGPA.

sGPA is valued more . You could take challenging non bcpm classes if you find them interesting and as long as you have a solid science gpa, I don't think a 3.5 or something in engineering would affect you negatively

 

[ZedsDed]

sGPA is valued more . You could take challenging non bcpm classes if you find them interesting and as long as you have a solid science gpa, I don't think a 3.5 or something in engineering would affect you negatively

It's valued slightly more. See efle's signature. I can tell you as someone with a low cGPA and a high sGPA that it definitely puts you at a disadvantage. And a 3.5 in engineering at many deflating schools is approaching rock-star status. IIRC the average GPA at the engineering school at my alma-mater was ~2.7.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

It's valued slightly more. See efle's signature. I can tell you as someone with a low cGPA and a high sGPA that it definitely puts you at a disadvantage. And a 3.5 in engineering at many deflating schools is approaching rock-star status. IIRC the average GPA at the engineering school at my alma-mater was ~2.7.

If we are assuming they look at all majors without considering the rigor,3.5 is on the low end and idk if you would make it to med school with 2.7, but that's around our average too

 

[Cotterpin]

I wouldn't go that far. But I did always chuckle a little on the inside when my friends who were art history majors taking 12 units would bitch to me about getting "no sleep" finals week.

I imagine they were up writing papers all night. I would always choose a taking a massive exam over writing a massive paper. What a nightmare.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Yup exams>>>> papers

 

[Lawpy]

sGPA is valued more . You could take challenging non bcpm classes if you find them interesting and as long as you have a solid science gpa, I don't think a 3.5 or something in engineering would affect you negatively

It's valued slightly more. See efle's signature. I can tell you as someone with a low cGPA and a high sGPA that it definitely puts you at a disadvantage. And a 3.5 in engineering at many deflating schools is approaching rock-star status. IIRC the average GPA at the engineering school at my alma-mater was ~2.7.

A recent discussion illustrates this:

This table is a little newer and shows a few more things ranked. In order starting with most important, the big 6 academic metrics are

1) sGPA
2) MCAT - note that this is a departure from the earlier survey where it was sGPA, then cGPA, then MCAT
3) Upward/downward trends
4) cGPA
5) Post-bacc grades
6) Selectivity of alma mater (only for private MD schools)

All of them fall under "highest importance" though

"Importance was rated on a four-point scale ranging from 1 to 4 (“Not Important,” “Somewhat Important,” “Important,” and “Very Important,” respectively). .... We chose to classify variables using overall mean importance ratings because their mean importance ratings were similar for the interview and the acceptance phases. Variables are ordered by overall mean importance rating."

So it seems the variables are organized from highest mean importance to lowest mean importance and subdivided into three categories.

sGPA > MCAT > GPA trends > cGPA > postbac grades > undergrad selectivity

Of least importance is "Completion of challenging non-science courses", but engineering isn't a nonscience category despite AAMC saying the contrary.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I was referring to this:

I agree that retaking a good score is discouraged, but people who do retake a 33 and score higher have many more doors opened to them (especially as a reapp with nothing much improved over the cycle). Yes, a 38 with a 33 in the background isn't as good as a 38 by itself, but scoring a 38 in the first place isn't something that is easily achievable. That is what adcoms should (and do) keep in mind.

No ADCOM would disagree with what mimelim said there. Like I said though above, the idea of how that context is actually applied and considered in real life in admission is probably a fair amount different from how you wish it were applied. Gyngyn and many other ADCOMs can agree whole heartily with what mimelim said and still not apply nearly the "context" and "adjustment" to a GPA as you want for an engineer.

As for the whole discussion about re-taking a good score can open a lot more doors for you, whenever I hear this brought up while I don't necessarily just flatly disagree with it I always like to refer people to this thread

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...advice-to-assess-app-weakness-thanks.1074437/

Long story short you had somebody here with a 42 MCAT who didn't get into medical school. They took the MCAT previously and had a score of 33. The OP who did this made the same assumption you did that 42 has to be greater than 33. The always wise ADCOM Law2Doc had a bunch of good quotes in response to it

Consider

In response to someone saying your mistake was retaking a 33 MCAT
"Agree. There's a lot of focus on numbers and Lizzy scores on this thread, but I think the focus is maybe in the wrong place. That was never OPs problem. A 33 is enough to get into most med schools. . If you have a 3.5/33 and aren't getting in, guess what, it not a numbers thing".

"The problem with the multiple MCATs is it telegraphs something about you to the schools, so it's something not unreasonable to look at when analyzing where things went south. A 33 is plenty for med school. So to the extent your application came up short with a 33 we know with almost certainty that it had nothing to do with your score. So it's nice that you did better the next time, but I'm not sure it plays out as a positive because it highlights that places didn't want you with a 33".

"my point is your 42 isn't worth the 42 of the guy who took it once. In a funny way it hurts you because the top places are still going to dismiss your 42 because you are a reapplicant who took it multiple times. It just looks like you spent too much time focusing on a daTa point that never mattered."

That's really the main point here. You gotta look past the numbers and what it does to your LizzyM score or what it does for your chances at a specific top school. What does it say about a person that they are re-taking a good score. As gyngyn has said and as others such as Law2Doc have said, it's showing you aren't really addressing your weaknesses. I know gyngyn has thrown around the word narcissism for people retaking all these 35 type scores and that probably has a good bit to do with why his school is so gun shy of people like that. These aren't good characteristics. And you're just bringing them upon yourself needlessly re-taking a good score.

Now for the guy who got in JHU with a 38 on the re-take good for them. Clearly it can work out for you sometimes. They probably wouldn't have gotten in without the re-take. But its a slippery slope re-taking those scores and improving on them. It might help your odds specifically at some top 20 schools. But it also brings up negative things, not even to mention the fact that many schools will average that out to a 35.5 or some lower tier schools will look at a 38 as low yield. For many others, that re-take really isn't nearly as beneficial as people seem to think it is.

 

[ZedsDed]

No ADCOM would disagree with what mimelim said there. Like I said though above, the idea of how that context is actually applied and considered in real life in admission is probably a fair amount different from how you wish it were applied. Gyngyn and many other ADCOMs can agree whole heartily with what mimelim said and still not apply nearly the "context" and "adjustment" to a GPA as you want for an engineer.

As for the whole discussion about re-taking a good score can open a lot more doors for you, whenever I hear this brought up while I don't necessarily just flatly disagree with it I always like to refer people to this thread

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...advice-to-assess-app-weakness-thanks.1074437/

Long story short you had somebody here with a 42 MCAT who didn't get into medical school. They took the MCAT previously and had a score of 33. The OP who did this made the same assumption you did that 42 has to be greater than 33. The always wise ADCOM Law2Doc had a bunch of good quotes in response to it

Consider

In response to someone saying your mistake was retaking a 33 MCAT
"Agree. There's a lot of focus on numbers and Lizzy scores on this thread, but I think the focus is maybe in the wrong place. That was never OPs problem. A 33 is enough to get into most med schools. . If you have a 3.5/33 and aren't getting in, guess what, it not a numbers thing".

"The problem with the multiple MCATs is it telegraphs something about you to the schools, so it's something not unreasonable to look at when analyzing where things went south. A 33 is plenty for med school. So to the extent your application came up short with a 33 we know with almost certainty that it had nothing to do with your score. So it's nice that you did better the next time, but I'm not sure it plays out as a positive because it highlights that places didn't want you with a 33".

"my point is your 42 isn't worth the 42 of the guy who took it once. In a funny way it hurts you because the top places are still going to dismiss your 42 because you are a reapplicant who took it multiple times. It just looks like you spent too much time focusing on a daTa point that never mattered."

That's really the main point here. You gotta look past the numbers and what it does to your LizzyM score or what it does for your chances at a specific top school. What does it say about a person that they are re-taking a good score. As gyngyn has said and as others such as Law2Doc have said, it's showing you aren't really addressing your weaknesses. I know gyngyn has thrown around the word narcissism for people retaking all these 35 type scores and that probably has a good bit to do with why his school is so gun shy of people like that. These aren't good characteristics. And you're just bringing them upon yourself needlessly re-taking a good score.

Now for the guy who got in JHU with a 38 on the re-take good for them. Clearly it can work out for you sometimes. They probably wouldn't have gotten in without the re-take. But its a slippery slope re-taking those scores and improving on them. It might help your odds specifically at some top 20 schools. But it also brings up negative things, not even to mention the fact that many schools will average that out to a 35.5 or some lower tier schools will look at a 38 as low yield. For many others, that re-take really isn't nearly as beneficial as people seem to think it is.

Let's not forget that someone who is retaking a 33 is more likely than not going to get the same score or worse.

 

[ZedsDed]

I imagine they were up writing papers all night. I would always choose a taking a massive exam over writing a massive paper. What a nightmare.

I've taken my share of engineering and humanities courses. I think that the majority of people who have done both would agree with me that they are worlds apart.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Let's not forget that someone who is retaking a 33 is more likely than not going to get the same score or worse.

This is a great way for people with 3.8/33 type stats to start screwing with the likely acceptance they would have to an MD school if they apply broadly. Reach for the stars and the top 20's, fall completely flat on your face and start raising lots of questions to all med schools. AAMC changed up their website with data completley so I can't find the MCAT re-take stats but I can guarantee you at least 25% of people who retake 33's do worse the second time around. And another 20% or so do the same which is also detrimental.

 

[ZedsDed]

sGPA > MCAT > GPA trends > cGPA > postbac grades > undergrad selectivity

These are marginal differences though. As efle said, all of these things were rated "highest importance."

 

[Glazedonutlove]

These are marginal differences though. As efle said, all of these things were rated "highest importance."

Rated by who?

 

[Lawpy]

Let's not forget that someone who is retaking a 33 is more likely than not going to get the same score or worse.

That is obviously a bad thing, but the assumption here is that a significant improvement is made on the retake here.

No ADCOM would disagree with what mimelim said there. Like I said though above, the idea of how that context is actually applied and considered in real life in admission is probably a fair amount different from how you wish it were applied. Gyngyn and many other ADCOMs can agree whole heartily with what mimelim said and still not apply nearly the "context" and "adjustment" to a GPA as you want for an engineer.

As for the whole discussion about re-taking a good score can open a lot more doors for you, whenever I hear this brought up while I don't necessarily just flatly disagree with it I always like to refer people to this thread

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...advice-to-assess-app-weakness-thanks.1074437/

Long story short you had somebody here with a 42 MCAT who didn't get into medical school. They took the MCAT previously and had a score of 33. The OP who did this made the same assumption you did that 42 has to be greater than 33. The always wise ADCOM Law2Doc had a bunch of good quotes in response to it

Consider

In response to someone saying your mistake was retaking a 33 MCAT
"Agree. There's a lot of focus on numbers and Lizzy scores on this thread, but I think the focus is maybe in the wrong place. That was never OPs problem. A 33 is enough to get into most med schools. . If you have a 3.5/33 and aren't getting in, guess what, it not a numbers thing".

"The problem with the multiple MCATs is it telegraphs something about you to the schools, so it's something not unreasonable to look at when analyzing where things went south. A 33 is plenty for med school. So to the extent your application came up short with a 33 we know with almost certainty that it had nothing to do with your score. So it's nice that you did better the next time, but I'm not sure it plays out as a positive because it highlights that places didn't want you with a 33".

"my point is your 42 isn't worth the 42 of the guy who took it once. In a funny way it hurts you because the top places are still going to dismiss your 42 because you are a reapplicant who took it multiple times. It just looks like you spent too much time focusing on a daTa point that never mattered."

That's really the main point here. You gotta look past the numbers and what it does to your LizzyM score or what it does for your chances at a specific top school. What does it say about a person that they are re-taking a good score. As gyngyn has said and as others such as Law2Doc have said, it's showing you aren't really addressing your weaknesses. I know gyngyn has thrown around the word narcissism for people retaking all these 35 type scores and that probably has a good bit to do with why his school is so gun shy of people like that. These aren't good characteristics. And you're just bringing them upon yourself needlessly re-taking a good score.

Now for the guy who got in JHU with a 38 on the re-take good for them. Clearly it can work out for you sometimes. They probably wouldn't have gotten in without the re-take. But its a slippery slope re-taking those scores and improving on them. It might help your odds specifically at some top 20 schools. But it also brings up negative things, not even to mention the fact that many schools will average that out to a 35.5 or some lower tier schools will look at a 38 as low yield. For many others, that re-take really isn't nearly as beneficial as people seem to think it is.

It's something to consider nonetheless and not brush it away. And for the MCAT retake issue, well retaking a balanced 33 is unnecessary but the fact OP got a 42 after 2 years is something to be dismissed. Law2Doc and others are correct, and I agree with you that it's an unnecessary stress to focus on a factor that is already good. OP should've resolved other glaring issues before applying. If OP fixed all the other issues and went from a 33 to a 42, he would be in a much better case, because even when a 42 is held down by a 29 and 33 in the background, it's still a 42 in the end. And that is worth a lot, especially with the very high risk of doing the same or worse.

I don't know what top schools average, since they nearly always take the highest/most recent scores just to boost their overall stat averages. Nor do I know why low tiers would view someone who retook and scored higher as low yield.

Speculating what adcoms do is a fool's errand since the overall process is irrational. But it's one of those situations where relying on SDN may not be a good thing since SDN can't forecast admissions, no matter how many adcoms are dumped into the forums.

 

[ZedsDed]

Rated by who?

AdCom members

 

[GrapesofRath]

That is obviously a bad thing, but the assumption here is that a significant improvement is made on the retake here.



It's something to consider nonetheless and not brush it away. And for the MCAT retake issue, well retaking a balanced 33 is unnecessary but the fact OP got a 42 after 2 years is something to be dismissed. Law2Doc and others are correct, and I agree with you that it's an unnecessary stress to focus on a factor that is already good. OP should've resolved other glaring issues before applying. If OP fixed all the other issues and went from a 33 to a 42, he would be in a much better case, because even when a 42 is held down by a 29 and 33 in the background, it's still a 42 in the end. And that is worth a lot, especially with the very high risk of doing the same or worse.

I don't know what top schools average, since they nearly always take the highest/most recent scores just to boost their overall stat averages. Nor do I know why low tiers would view someone who retook and scored higher as low yield.

Speculating what adcoms do is a fool's errand since the overall process is irrational. But it's one of those situations where relying on SDN may not be a good thing since SDN can't forecast admissions, no matter how many adcoms are dumped into the forums.

I mean the whole point of that was you have someone directly involved in admissions telling you what you believe to be so isn't true. The bold are just largely assumptions that might seem like they make sense but you have someone directly involved in admission telling you otherwise. Obviously its all subjective, but an opinion of someone like Law2Doc is probably as good as any as you'll get on the matter of something like this. Certainly, that's better than just making assumptions that go against what an ADCOM is telling you.

Anyway though, this whole topic is kind of just going in circles and it doesn't really seem like there's a point to it right now. Bottom line----Probably not a good idea to retake good scores, I think we all can agree on that.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean the whole point of that was you have someone directly involved in admissions telling you what you believe to be so isn't true. The bold are just largely assumptions that might seem like they make sense but you have someone directly involved in admission telling you otherwise. Obviously its all subjective, but an opinion of someone like Law2Doc is probably as good as any as you'll get on the matter of something like this. Certainly, that's better than just making assumptions that go against what an ADCOM is telling you.

Anyway though, this whole topic is kind of just going in circles and it doesn't really seem like there's a point to it right now. Bottom line----Probably not a good idea to retake good scores, I think we all can agree on that.

Basically, retaking a score is necessary when:

1. It's low (<<30 or <<510)
2. A subsection is too low despite an overall strong score

Retaking a balanced 30s score to have a higher score is indeed a gray area that should be taken seriously. But i don't know how it can be disputed that retaking a balanced low 30s and scoring high 30s/40s will open more doors. It does even with the low score holding back

 

[JewishPrincess2]

@efle @ZedsDed i don't know why you guys are trying to convince us that "rigor" matters. Education in the U.S Is largely standardized. School is hard, regardless of institution or major. And Efle, before you whip out those MCAT stats, understand that the MCAT really only tests level of preparation and content knowledge.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Basically, retaking a score is necessary when:

1. It's low (<<30 or <<510)
2. A subsection is too low despite an overall strong score

Retaking a balanced 30s score to have a higher score is indeed a gray area that should be taken seriously. But i don't know how it can be disputed that retaking a balanced low 30s and scoring high 30s/40s will open more doors. It does even with the low score holding back

The best way to look at is it can open some doors and also potentially close others. Whether the new opening of doors that could come outweighs those that it could close just depends and varies.

 

[Lawpy]

@efle @ZedsDed i don't know why you guys are trying to convince us that "rigor" matters. Education in the U.S Is largely standardized. School is hard, regardless of institution or major. And Efle, before you whip out those MCAT stats, understand that the MCAT really only tests level of preparation and content knowledge.

Higher education is absolutely NOT standardized. Not even close, especially with for-profits popping up like the plague and some universities running like businesses. Grade inflation, selection of terrible professors etc all severely affect the education quality.

And no, the MCAT tests much more than preparation and content knowledge, otherwise scoring even a 30, much less a 40+, should be achieved by every test taker, when in reality it's not the case.

The best way to look at is it can open some doors and also potentially close others. Whether the new opening of doors that could come outweighs those that it could close just depends and varies.

I agree

 

[efle]

@efle @ZedsDed i don't know why you guys are trying to convince us that "rigor" matters. Education in the U.S Is largely standardized. School is hard, regardless of institution or major. And Efle, before you whip out those MCAT stats, understand that the MCAT really only tests level of preparation and content knowledge.

Agree to disagree on whether knowledge and practice alone can guaruntee a high MCAT

 

[efle]

In > 15 years of being on the Adcom, never once has someone said "but he has a 3.3 engineering degree...that's harder than being a X major".

Maybe Admissions deans take this into account, but the rank and file Adcom members don't.

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of candidates have will be Biology majors. Engineers are as common as English or Music majors.

And I believe it was mimelim that said he views area of study, like alma mater and workload, to be informative context for a GPA. Small N's create chaos! Considering the surprising aamc survey results for whether undergrad selectivity matters after all our disagreements there, best to just say Not Enough Data rather than extrapolate either way

 

[efle]

I think you're being arbitrary. If you don't want to believe that fine arts classes (which are taught by instructors at accredited universities, are graded, and count on AMCAS) are really, truly "classes" according to your own personal standards, then that's up to you.

I got graded in PE in high school, doesn't convince me it's of the same category as math just because they both went into my GPA...at this point it's an argument over semantics, I think we agree that they are very different types of education/learning/assessment

So you wouldn't consider labs (bio/chem/phys) as classes either? I think what you're saying is art is more application less content which is true, but i don't get why that wouldn't be a class

If the lab is to teach you a skill/procedure rather than concepts and application, I would call it similar to fine art.

 

[efle]

No, it's not, at least not at my undergrad (Kutztown State). At other schools, it may be.

I was answering someone who specifically asked about here
Interesting to hear it's graded some places though. What's the criteria for the grade?

 

[Cotterpin]

I got graded in PE in high school, doesn't convince me it's of the same category as math just because they both went into my GPA...at this point it's an argument over semantics, I think we agree that they are very different types of education/learning/assessment


If the lab is to teach you a skill/procedure rather than concepts and application, I would call it similar to fine art.

HEAVY EYEROLL.

 

[ZedsDed]

What's the criteria for the grade?

At my school? Show up and don't be a lab tourist. Basically the grading mimics that of grad school.

Higher education is absolutely NOT standardized. Not even close, especially with for-profits popping up like the plague and some universities running like businesses. Grade inflation, selection of terrible professors etc all severely affect the education quality.

And no, the MCAT tests much more than preparation and content knowledge, otherwise scoring even a 30, much less a 40+, should be achieved by every test taker, when in reality it's not the case.

*sigh* Ya just don't get it dingus

Community college=Johns Hopkins=Devry

The MCAT doesn't test anything except your ability to afford prep courses

And intelligence is probably just a myth anyway.

Any questions?

 

[ZedsDed]

HEAVY EYEROLL.

You seem to really dislike alternate opinions.

 

[Lawpy]

At my school? Show up and don't be a lab tourist. Basically the grading mimics that of grad school.


*sigh* Ya just don't get it dingus

Community college=Johns Hopkins=Devry

The MCAT doesn't test anything except your ability to afford prep courses

And intelligence is probably just a myth anyway.

Any questions?

I stand corrected

Me =

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I got graded in PE in high school, doesn't convince me it's of the same category as math just because they both went into my GPA...at this point it's an argument over semantics, I think we agree that they are very different types of education/learning/assessment


If the lab is to teach you a skill/procedure rather than concepts and application, I would call it similar to fine art.

You might learn about spatial concepts and then apply that in your own art. concept + application!

but lol I don't think we will change each other's minds so agree to disagree

 

[Lawpy]

HEAVY EYEROLL.

Did you see your brain?

 

[GrapesofRath]

And I believe it was mimelim that said he views area of study, like alma mater and workload, to be informative context for a GPA. Small N's create chaos! Considering the surprising aamc survey results for whether undergrad selectivity matters after all our disagreements there, best to just say Not Enough Data rather than extrapolate either way

I generally agree that all this extrapolation past a point serves no purpose but I'll just add a few things because they address things I see stated all the time on here and I think are worth clarifying or thinking about.

a) People fall in love with this specific result from that survey that "private schools chose selectivity of undergrad institution as "highly important"" and jump to the conclusion from this "well where you went to undergrad matters alot". Let's actually look at what this survey states. First off it states, that things like GPA, MCAT, grade trend etc are all given more weight. Secondly, it states that where you went to undergrad matters more than your non science GPA. Well, that shouldn't come across as a surprise to anybody really. Every surveyor is going to have all kinds of different ways of evaluating things. Some ADCOMs are simply going to give everything listed a 4 or 5 with one small exception and the real difference ins how they value the 4 or 5. Some evaluators might simply just give everything a 1 or a 2 except for a few things and the real thing that matters there is what constitutes a 1 vs a 2. Some might actually use the whole 1-5 scale. So there is a real limitation in saying "hey UG selectivity got above a 3 so it must matter a lot". The best thing you can really tell from that survey is where it falls relative to other things. And from the survey we can tell it falls after GPA and MCAT and before performance in non science courses.

b) I'll also quickly add that it's dangerous to try and compare different groups ie say "ADCOMs care more about selectivity of undergrad institution more than research experience because one is above a 3 and one isn't". Everything is relative to each other. Would you consider the MCAT and GPA as important as leadership experience? Probably not. Probably not even close. But they are both above 3. So bottom line is people have to be rather careful in how they interpret that survey. Comparing across different groups is rather dangerous and can lead to flawed conclusions real fast.

c) I'll also add that "selectivity of UG institution" is different than "perceived grade inflation than grade deflation" which people often make this about. By this very definition, Harvard and Yale are definitely more selective than schools like Vandy and WashU in terms of getting into. Does that mean they are given more points than Vandy or WashU? Well there's no good answer for that. But based on the description is that impossible? No, perhaps not. But people have to be careful in how they interpret what the survey is saying. It's saying "selectivity" of UG institution. The other huge thing people forget with how much UG institution matters is it isn't just about grade inflation/deflation. It's about regional bias and some schools being feeders to others. These feeders aren't always top schools; the SUNYs could easily be feeders to the Rochesters and Cornell's of the world. This is something I hear in particular a lot from ADCOMs who I've gotten to know fairly well personally that I've talked to.

d) Like I was telling Lawper this idea of "providing context to a GPA" can mean a far different thing than what people think it means and will mean far far different things to different people. To cite mimelims example, I think in one of those posts addressing that someone was like "at my top school my pre-med advisor told me I can add around 0.4 to my GPA to adjust for deflation" and mimelim responded that something along the lines of "suggesting that any adjustment we might make is as big of a 0.4 adjustment is laughable to the point of absurdity". Providing context, even for someone open to the idea of it like mmielim, doesn't at all always mean just adjusting or boosting GPAs the way people think it does. Because guess what, ADCOMs might acknowledge that engineers have it hard but they might also think your generic bio major has it pretty hard as well. While you might argue ADCOMs can add points to GPAs of people have it rough, what happens to the reverse? What are you supposed to do with your 3.9 psych major at a State U with a competitive MCAT? Take off GPA points and say "oh that should really be a 3.6". That's a big problem that all these people who want GPA adjustments don't realize; adjustments have to work both ways and the way of dropping points on someone's GPA is alot harder and slipperier of a slope in a number of cases. The bottom line I always say is that there are just so many applicants who ace hard courses and/or at hard schools that schools can afford not to make these adjustments even if they felt inclined to do which is a huge if.

 

[efle]

You might learn about spatial concepts and then apply that in your own art. concept + application!

but lol I don't think we will change each other's minds so agree to disagree

Ehh sort of. I def concede its not a totally pure division, eg with music you can learn a lot of stuff outside purely skill/form. But these things still seem more to me like mini apprenticeships

 

[Goro]

Grapo, if our wily old Admissions dean finally decides to retire, I want YOU to replace him!

I generally agree that all this extrapolation past a point serves no purpose but I'll just add a few things because they address things I see stated all the time on here and I think are worth clarifying or thinking about.

a) People fall in love with this specific result from that survey that "private schools chose selectivity of undergrad institution as "highly important"" and jump to the conclusion from this "well where you went to undergrad matters alot". Let's actually look at what this survey states. First off it states, that things like GPA, MCAT, grade trend etc are all given more weight. Secondly, it states that where you went to undergrad matters more than your non science GPA. Well, that shouldn't come across as a surprise to anybody really. Every surveyor is going to have all kinds of different ways of evaluating things. Some ADCOMs are simply going to give everything listed a 4 or 5 with one small exception and the real difference ins how they value the 4 or 5. Some evaluators might simply just give everything a 1 or a 2 except for a few things and the real thing that matters there is what constitutes a 1 vs a 2. Some might actually use the whole 1-5 scale. So there is a real limitation in saying "hey UG selectivity got above a 3 so it must matter a lot". The best thing you can really tell from that survey is where it falls relative to other things. And from the survey we can tell it falls after GPA and MCAT and before performance in non science courses.

b) I'll also quickly add that it's dangerous to try and compare different groups ie say "ADCOMs care more about selectivity of undergrad institution more than research experience because one is above a 3 and one isn't". Everything is relative to each other. Would you consider the MCAT and GPA as important as leadership experience? Probably not. Probably not even close. But they are both above 3. So bottom line is people have to be rather careful in how they interpret that survey. Comparing across different groups is rather dangerous and can lead to flawed conclusions real fast.

c) I'll also add that "selectivity of UG institution" is different than "perceived grade inflation than grade deflation" which people often make this about. By this very definition, Harvard and Yale are definitely more selective than schools like Vandy and WashU in terms of getting into. Does that mean they are given more points than Vandy or WashU? Well there's no good answer for that. But based on the description is that impossible? No, perhaps not. But people have to be careful in how they interpret what the survey is saying. It's saying "selectivity" of UG institution. The other huge thing people forget with how much UG institution matters is it isn't just about grade inflation/deflation. It's about regional bias and some schools being feeders to others. These feeders aren't always top schools; the SUNYs could easily be feeders to the Rochesters and Cornell's of the world. This is something I hear in particular a lot from ADCOMs who I've gotten to know fairly well personally that I've talked to.

d) Like I was telling Lawper this idea of "providing context to a GPA" can mean a far different thing than what people think it means and will mean far far different things to different people. To cite mimelims example, I think in one of those posts addressing that someone was like "at my top school my pre-med advisor told me I can add around 0.4 to my GPA to adjust for deflation" and mimelim responded that something along the lines of "suggesting that any adjustment we might make is as big of a 0.4 adjustment is laughable to the point of absurdity". Providing context, even for someone open to the idea of it like mmielim, doesn't at all always mean just adjusting or boosting GPAs the way people think it does. Because guess what, ADCOMs might acknowledge that engineers have it hard but they might also think your generic bio major has it pretty hard as well. While you might argue ADCOMs can add points to GPAs of people have it rough, what happens to the reverse? What are you supposed to do with your 3.9 psych major at a State U with a competitive MCAT? Take off GPA points and say "oh that should really be a 3.6". That's a big problem that all these people who want GPA adjustments don't realize; adjustments have to work both ways and the way of dropping points on someone's GPA is alot harder and slipperier of a slope in a number of cases. The bottom line I always say is that there are just so many applicants who ace hard courses and/or at hard schools that schools can afford not to make these adjustments even if they felt inclined to do which is a huge if.

 

[Cotterpin]

You seem to really dislike alternate opinions.

I'm just laughing at efle here.

 

[ZedsDed]

I generally agree that all this extrapolation past a point serves no purpose but I'll just add a few things because they address things I see stated all the time on here and I think are worth clarifying or thinking about.

a) People fall in love with this specific result from that survey that "private schools chose selectivity of undergrad institution as "highly important"" and jump to the conclusion from this "well where you went to undergrad matters alot". Let's actually look at what this survey states. First off it states, that things like GPA, MCAT, grade trend etc are all given more weight. Secondly, it states that where you went to undergrad matters more than your non science GPA. Well, that shouldn't come across as a surprise to anybody really. Every surveyor is going to have all kinds of different ways of evaluating things. Some ADCOMs are simply going to give everything listed a 4 or 5 with one small exception and the real difference ins how they value the 4 or 5. Some evaluators might simply just give everything a 1 or a 2 except for a few things and the real thing that matters there is what constitutes a 1 vs a 2. Some might actually use the whole 1-5 scale. So there is a real limitation in saying "hey UG selectivity got above a 3 so it must matter a lot". The best thing you can really tell from that survey is where it falls relative to other things. And from the survey we can tell it falls after GPA and MCAT and before performance in non science courses.

b) I'll also quickly add that it's dangerous to try and compare different groups ie say "ADCOMs care more about selectivity of undergrad institution more than research experience because one is above a 3 and one isn't". Everything is relative to each other. Would you consider the MCAT and GPA as important as leadership experience? Probably not. Probably not even close. But they are both above 3. So bottom line is people have to be rather careful in how they interpret that survey. Comparing across different groups is rather dangerous and can lead to flawed conclusions real fast.

c) I'll also add that "selectivity of UG institution" is different than "perceived grade inflation than grade deflation" which people often make this about. By this very definition, Harvard and Yale are definitely more selective than schools like Vandy and WashU in terms of getting into. Does that mean they are given more points than Vandy or WashU? Well there's no good answer for that. But based on the description is that impossible? No, perhaps not. But people have to be careful in how they interpret what the survey is saying. It's saying "selectivity" of UG institution. The other huge thing people forget with how much UG institution matters is it isn't just about grade inflation/deflation. It's about regional bias and some schools being feeders to others. These feeders aren't always top schools; the SUNYs could easily be feeders to the Rochesters and Cornell's of the world. This is something I hear in particular a lot from ADCOMs who I've gotten to know fairly well personally that I've talked to.

d) Like I was telling Lawper this idea of "providing context to a GPA" can mean a far different thing than what people think it means and will mean far far different things to different people. To cite mimelims example, I think in one of those posts addressing that someone was like "at my top school my pre-med advisor told me I can add around 0.4 to my GPA to adjust for deflation" and mimelim responded that something along the lines of "suggesting that any adjustment we might make is as big of a 0.4 adjustment is laughable to the point of absurdity". Providing context, even for someone open to the idea of it like mmielim, doesn't at all always mean just adjusting or boosting GPAs the way people think it does. Because guess what, ADCOMs might acknowledge that engineers have it hard but they might also think your generic bio major has it pretty hard as well. While you might argue ADCOMs can add points to GPAs of people have it rough, what happens to the reverse? What are you supposed to do with your 3.9 psych major at a State U with a competitive MCAT? Take off GPA points and say "oh that should really be a 3.6". That's a big problem that all these people who want GPA adjustments don't realize; adjustments have to work both ways and the way of dropping points on someone's GPA is alot harder and slipperier of a slope in a number of cases. The bottom line I always say is that there are just so many applicants who ace hard courses and/or at hard schools that schools can afford not to make these adjustments even if they felt inclined to do which is a huge if.

Your detailed analysis deserves a detailed response, which I unfortunately don't have time to give. What I will say is that all I've ever advocated for is for context to take a greater role. I understand that AdComs neither care enough nor have the time to do this.

And yes, I have no problem with a 4.0 in underwater basket weaving from a community college being taken less seriously if, say, they receive <3.5 in prereqs.

At the end of the day this process is partly rational and partly irrational, like anything else. The difference is that physicians/AdCom members tend to be a particularly stubborn, self-assured lot and slow to change. Hence the decades-old archaic prereqs.

 

[cryhavoc]

If I would have taken a couple less science courses for the challenge, and a couple more for their easy, A, I bet I'd have a few more interview invites right now. I think the challenge helped me grow as a person, refine habits and prepared me better for med school.

If I get in somewhere, I will regret nothing. If I don't, I might a little.

 

[ZedsDed]

If I get in somewhere, I will regret nothing. If I don't, I might a little.

I'll wager it'll be more than a little.

 

[Lawpy]

Your detailed analysis deserves a detailed response, which I unfortunately don't have time to give. What I will say is that all I've ever advocated for is for context to take a greater role. I understand that AdComs neither care enough nor have the time to do this.

And yes, I have no problem with a 4.0 in underwater basket weaving from a community college being taken less seriously if, say, they receive <3.5 in prereqs.

At the end of the day this process is partly rational and partly irrational, like anything else. The difference is that physicians/AdCom members tend to be a particularly stubborn, self-assured lot and slow to change. Hence the decades-old archaic prereqs.

The application process is chaotic. Adcoms rationally follow a certain set of rules described pretty well by SDN doctrine. However, the process itself is so sensitive to inherent human biases, admin issues, technicalities, interview dynamics etc. that these factors sharply affect the outcome. And this is for one school. The admission processes for a set of schools take into account of all of these factors, plus some inter-school communications resulting in surprising and unpredictable outcomes.

 

[virtuos locust]

Your detailed analysis deserves a detailed response, which I unfortunately don't have time to give. What I will say is that all I've ever advocated for is for context to take a greater role. I understand that AdComs neither care enough nor have the time to do this.

And yes, I have no problem with a 4.0 in underwater basket weaving from a community college being taken less seriously if, say, they receive <3.5 in prereqs.

At the end of the day this process is partly rational and partly irrational, like anything else. The difference is that physicians/AdCom members tend to be a particularly stubborn, self-assured lot and slow to change. Hence the decades-old archaic prereqs.

I'm addressing you personally because IIRC you have mentioned on another thread that you attended UCLA, but the problem I have with judging applicants' GPA and undergrad location *points to CC reference* at face value is that not all the classes are held to the same standards.


For example at SMC, I've enrolled in courses where the professor(s) taught at the university level; I'm talking about 3 hr. long exams (200-300 questions), covering upper div. subjects such as histology intensively, exhibiting cadaver examinations, with enforced mandatory lab attendance, etc. Needless to say, over half the class dropped out. When you compare classes like that to Prof. Doe's Mickey Mouse course where A's are giving out like Halloween candy it is really fair to compare them evenly? Is an A in the former more impressive than an A in the latter? I'd say yes. It's unfortunate that there is no actual way to gauge the difficuly of each course from an admin.'s perspective. and sadly there is a lot of bias in terms of judging one's undergrad residence. What is your opinion about this?

 

[ZedsDed]

I'm addressing you personally because IIRC you have mentioned on another thread that you attended UCLA, but the problem I have with judging applicants' GPA and undergrad location *points to CC reference* at face value is that not all the classes are held to the same standards.


For example at SMC, I've enrolled in courses where the professor(s) taught at the university level; I'm talking about 3 hr. long exams (200-300 questions), covering upper div. subjects such as histology intensively, exhibiting cadaver examinations, with enforced mandatory lab attendance, etc. Needless to say, over half the class dropped out. When you compare classes like that to Prof. Doe's Mickey Mouse course where A's are giving out like Halloween candy it is really fair to compare them evenly? Is an A in the former more impressive than an A in the latter? I'd say yes. It's unfortunate that there is no actual way to gauge the difficuly of each course from an admin.'s perspective. and sadly there is a lot of bias in terms of judging one's undergrad residence. What is your opinion about this?

SoCal community colleges are particularly excellent in comparison to other JCs nationwide, so your school is kind of an anomaly. I was using extremes to make a point (JHU, DeVry, etc.) And you can turn your example on its head. The same way it may not be fair to compare SMC to other community colleges, it is also unfair to say a 4.0 at college X with 1100 SAT average=4.0 at JHU.

Are there rigorous community college courses? Absolutely. We have to do the best we can with general patterns. And generally speaking, rigorous majors at cutthroat institutions are going to be more difficult than fluff majors at noncompetitive institutions.

 

[cryhavoc]

I'll wager it'll be more than a little.

I meant it wouldn't be the part of my application I'd be most focused on for the next cycle. I only got to take the MCAT once before the format changed, and scored a lot lower than my average practice scores. I'm going to divert my attention to improving on that, and more experiences rather than taking out a loan and going back to college.

Unless I get in, then it won't matter.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Having not read any posts other than the OP, my opinion is it depends on what you're trying to do. Are you trying to increase your GPA to get into medical school? Take the easy class. Are you trying to learn something? Take the interesting class. There's no point to taking a challenging class just to prove you can do it. Who are you trying to prove it to? Yourself?

In college, here's the selection process I used to choose my classes.

1) Do I need it to get into medical school?
2) Do I need it for my major/minor?
3) Do I find the material interesting?
4) Do I need it to graduate?
5) Is the class easy/light workload?

If I needed it for medical school, I took it regardless of how hard or easy it was because I needed to get into medical school. If I needed it for my major/minor, I generally found it interesting, otherwise I would have studied something else, which generally took care of both 2 and 3. The only situations where I really had to make "hard" choices were when I had to take classes to graduate that were not related to my major, minor, or medical school. Fortunately, the way I set it up, I only had like 3 of these "orphan" classes to take. For one, I managed to find a class that looked interesting, so I took it, even though it was the hardest class in the department (though I didn't know that at the time lol). For the other two, because I left them until senior year, I was a lot more limited in my choices because I needed a specific combination of classes in order to graduate (I frontloaded all my premed classes and thus had to backload all these other required classes that I needed), so I had to settle for something that I found uninteresting. At this point, I just tried to make these two classes as easy as possible so that I didn't waste much time on things I didn't care about and could spend more time on more important things (like my two senior theses).

I don't really care what people take, because everyone is going to have their own priorities, and these aren't always going to be mutually exclusive. You can become a great critical thinker and still take underwater basketweaving type courses. Not all learning comes from the classroom - in fact, I would say most does not. At the same time, just because you're taking hard classes doesn't mean you're going to become a great critical thinker.

For me, the worst thing a class could be was both hard and boring. I liked hard but interesting, and I could deal with boring and easy by doing the minimum necessary to get an A, but boring and hard meant I was devoting more time to doing something I really couldn't give two sh*ts about.

Sorry, this was kind of stream of consciousness, and I have no idea where the current conversation is, but these are my thoughts on the issue.

tl;dr - take what you want to get you where you want to be and don't think that your educational experience will be defined by the difficulty of the classes you're taking