Top 30 Undergrad vs. State School: My Firsthand Experience

[Helse23]

I feel like this thread was pretty much ended by lamel's contribution with internal data on hundreds of applicants - clearly people from top schools do get admitted with lower GPAs than applicants from typical schools, and they also bring along higher MCAT scores with lower GPAs. There is a sizable discrepancy, and it is accounted for (at least somewhat) by admissions. End of debate.

Maybe I mis-interpreted the chart, but didn't it say applicants and not accepted students? That data doesn't show that students from top schools with lower GPAs are actually getting accepted

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[IlDestriero]

Lizzy herself has said her shop is aware of many schools that do not grade inflate, mine included. My GPA was below average for a top 20 medical school, interviews came. They know.

 

[Kochanie]

My friend just told me 1/2 her Chem midterm questions were symbols for the elements, nuff' said.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

My friend just told me 1/2 her Chem midterm questions were symbols for the elements, nuff' said.

So we are now extrapolating this to every state school?!

@efle, Lamel's chart didn't end this thread. It will continue for eons

 

[Kochanie]

Lizzy herself has said her shop is aware of many schools that do not grade inflate, mine included. My GPA was below average for a top 20 medical school, interviews came. They know.

They know, they want the numbers. The gap is waaaay bigger.

 

[Kochanie]

So we are now extrapolating this to every state school?!

@efle, Lamel's chart didn't end this thread. It will continue for eons

Nah, I can compare any school in the Chicagoland area to the top two schools here.

 

[altblue]

I thought you guys may find this interesting. This is from a specific medical school's presentation they gave; it lists a bunch of undergrads, the average MCATs from their applicants, and the average sGPA from their applicants. Data is from ~2010.
*snip*

TBH, I'm genuinely unsure of what this image is conveying. :x

Does the first column "MCAT" represent the number of applicants to the school? Is it just telling me who has applied, or who has accepted? I'm not sure what to take from it, other than how applicants from good schools have higher MCATs relative to their GPA.

 

[efle]

Maybe I mis-interpreted the chart, but didn't it say applicants and not accepted students? That data doesn't show that students from top schools with lower GPAs are actually getting accepted

Good catch, it was different dataset being listed earlier that showed higher-than-typical acceptance rates for given GPA ranges - lamel's post only shows that applicants from top schools are usually ~.2-3 GPA point lower but ~2-3 MCAT points higher. Would be very interesting to see the acceptance breakdown here as well.

So we are now extrapolating this to every state school?!

@efle, Lamel's chart didn't end this thread. It will continue for eons

Idk man, this is the first time that you can bring in Great Equalizer scores to show a lack of GPA parity. Could be the end of days for these wonderful threads.

TBH, I'm genuinely unsure of what this image is conveying. :x

Does the first column "MCAT" represent the number of applicants to the school? Is it just telling me who has applied, or who has accepted? I'm not sure what to take from it, other than how applicants from good schools have higher MCATs relative to their GPA.

That's exactly the takeaway - if you think the MCAT is The Equalizer like most people on SDN do, then this data shows that people earning lower GPAs at top universities are actually more capable (better MCATs) than students with higher GPAs at typical/random universities

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Good catch, it was different dataset being listed earlier that showed higher-than-typical acceptance rates for given GPA ranges - lamel's post only shows that applicants from top schools are usually ~.2-3 GPA point lower but ~2-3 MCAT points higher. Would be very interesting to see the acceptance breakdown here as well.




Idk man, this is the first time that you can bring in Great Equalizer scores to show a lack of GPA parity. Could be the end of days for these wonderful threads.




That's exactly the takeaway - if you think the MCAT is The Equalizer like most people on SDN do, then this data shows that people earning lower GPAs at top universities are actually more capable (better MCATs) than students with higher GPAs at typical/random universities

Ppl will continue to lump most state schools into the same category. That's why these threads won't stop. It'll be the same ol' anecdote of a high school level bio or chem test (which of course should not happen at the college level) that posters will project to other programs. And of course, those of us who were challenged at our state institutions will (rightfully) find this offensive. It would be more productive if the actual "easy" schools were called out. I mean, we frequently mention Wash U, Chicago, and Hopkins. Why not name the individual Mickey Mouse programs?

I don't think anyone ever doubted that applicants from certain schools are accepted with gpas that are .2-.3 points lower. Although, earlier, ppl were advocating for even lower gpa's from top schools to receive consideration (i.e. .5 pts lower). And that's not gonna happen.

The MCAT is a great equalizer, however, some ppl have bad days. And we have to accept this. IMO, it would be unfair to punish a 3.7 student from Chicago who scored a 31 on the MCAT. This scenario is not very common, but it must be accounted for.

Anyway, I apologize for continuing this cyclical argument. Hopefully, I'm wrong, and these threads will stop...

 

[WillburCobb]

...hopefully...these threads will stop...

 

[Narmerguy]

I thought you guys may find this interesting. This is from a specific medical school's presentation they gave; it lists a bunch of undergrads, the average MCATs from their applicants, and the average sGPA from their applicants. Data is from ~2010.

View attachment 187049




View attachment 187050

I feel like this thread was pretty much ended by lamel's contribution with internal data on hundreds of applicants - clearly people from top schools apply with lower GPAs than applicants from typical schools, but actually bring along higher MCAT scores with those lower GPAs. The discrepancy is real.

No, lamel's data is useful but hardly the final word. The sample size is incredibly small. Most of the non "ivy schools" have samples lower than 40. Michigan is the only exception, and their numbers are pretty much in line with the other schools (10.7/3.54 at Michigan vs 10.8/3.50 at JHU). In addition, it represents only students applying to one school, which has selection bias because students with certain MCAT/GPA combos may feel they have have a better chance at those schools. One must consider whether students from top schools with high MCAT/lowGPA feel better about their chances than comparable other students. If so (perhaps because they believe their name pedigree will help them) you'll see more such students, causing us to see a higher MCAT/GPA ratio in those students. In reality this would say little about the actual caliber of students at either school but much about how willing they are to apply. Of course not knowing acceptance information also leaves a lot lacking. And again this is data from one school, and we'd need to see information at more schools (top schools, state schools, other private schools, etc) to begin to suggest anything of a broad trend since we can reasonably expect that different applicant pools will be attracted to different school scenarios.

This data is useful but let's not over interpret our limited information!

 

[efle]

No, lamel's data is useful but hardly the final word. The sample size is incredibly small. Most of the non "ivy schools" have samples lower than 40. Michigan is the only exception, and their numbers are pretty much in line with the other schools (10.7/3.54 at Michigan vs 10.8/3.50 at JHU). In addition, it represents only students applying to one school, which has selection bias because students with certain MCAT/GPA combos may feel they have have a better chance at those schools. One must consider whether students from top schools with high MCAT/lowGPA feel better about their chances than comparable other students. If so (perhaps because they believe their name pedigree will help them) you'll see more such students, causing us to see a higher MCAT/GPA ratio in those students. In reality this would say little about the actual caliber of students at either school but much about how willing they are to apply. Of course not knowing acceptance information also leaves a lot lacking. And again this is data from one school, and we'd need to see information at more schools (top schools, state schools, other private schools, etc) to begin to suggest anything of a broad trend since we can reasonably expect that different applicant pools will be attracted to different school scenarios.

This data is useful but let's not over interpret our limited information!

Hold on now. Michigan is a top 30, same category as JHU. And I haven't claimed any school-specific trends, only looked at top 30 vs non top 30, and each of those two categories has n = plenty and from a good variety of schools. I also have made no claims about whether we are looking at top/middle/bottom students at each category, or whether they'll get accepted at significantly different rates, etc. I've never heard of midlevel schools which forgive low GPA in exchange for better MCAT more than other schools; I think it's very safe to assume applicants applied to this school because their two stats fit the interval for both. Neither sets of stats (3.5 and 33 or 3.6 and 30) is lopsided compared to the averages at those schools to imply a selected-for sample with unexpectedly strong MCAT or GPA from within the student population like you suggest.

The only claim I'm making, and one which the data backs up, is that a group of students who are of mean ~33 MCAT ability earned a lower GPA at top 30 schools than a group of students who are of a mean ~30 MCAT earned at non-top-30 schools. If the MCAT is truly an equalizing assessment of ability, and there was not a significant difference in difficulty between the groups of schools, you'd have predicted the opposite (higher MCATers earning higher GPAs).

 

[efle]

Ppl will continue to lump most state schools into the same category. That's why these threads won't stop. It'll be the same ol' anecdote of a high school level bio or chem test (which of course should not happen at the college level) that posters will project to other programs. And of course, those of us who were challenged at our state institutions will (rightfully) find this offensive. It would be more productive if the actual "easy" schools were called out. I mean, we frequently mention Wash U, Chicago, and Hopkins. Why not name the individual Mickey Mouse programs?

I don't think anyone ever doubted that applicants from certain schools are accepted with gpas that are .2-.3 points lower. Although, earlier, ppl were advocating for even lower gpa's from top schools to receive consideration (i.e. .5 pts lower). And that's not gonna happen.

The MCAT is a great equalizer, however, some ppl have bad days. And we have to accept this. IMO, it would be unfair to punish a 3.7 student from Chicago who scored a 31 on the MCAT. This scenario is not very common, but it must be accounted for.

Anyway, I apologize for continuing this cyclical argument. Hopefully, I'm wrong, and these threads will stop...

I don't think there are any Mickey Mouse programs in the top bracket. Some schools make life a living hell in terms of workload more than others, but anywhere that selective will require you to compete against absolutely brilliant peers and beat them for a competitive GPA.

Well, a .3 lower GPA also comes with a 3 point higher MCAT. Very possible that a .5 lower GPA would come with an equal MCAT, which is exactly in line with what people have been saying: that ability (measured as MCAT) held constant, changing the group of peers you compete against to the top 1% would impact your GPA by a large amount (half point).

I'd counter-argue that someone earning a 3.7 at UChi who gets a 31 MCAT will retake their MCAT the vast majority of the time. But as I've argued in other threads, I think the MCAT is an absolutely abysmal measure of ability and should be largely ignored compared to sGPA at a quality university. So with most of this I'm really playing devil's advocate more than supporting my own views, which helps keep these threads alive!

 

[KnuxNole]

Out of curiosity, how did they make general chemistry a weed out class? Was it a brutal curve or something? I'm interested as to how they'd weed kids out in a chemistry class with (ostensibly) minimal calculus involved.

Our chem class had no calc, but it was non multiple choice, required multi step calculations, critical thinking, and you needed to practice problems. Combine that with a bunch of freshmen and averages are in the low 60s.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I don't think there are any Mickey Mouse programs in the top bracket. Some schools make life a living hell in terms of workload more than others, but anywhere that selective will require you to compete against absolutely brilliant peers and beat them for a competitive GPA.

Well, a .3 lower GPA also comes with a 3 point higher MCAT. Very possible that a .5 lower GPA would come with an equal MCAT, which is exactly in line with what people have been saying: that ability (measured as MCAT) held constant, changing the group of peers you compete against to the top 1% would impact your GPA by a large amount (half point).

I'd counter-argue that someone earning a 3.7 at UChi who gets a 31 MCAT will retake their MCAT the vast majority of the time. But as I've argued in other threads, I think the MCAT is an absolutely abysmal measure of ability and should be largely ignored compared to sGPA at a quality university. So with most of this I'm really playing devil's advocate more than supporting my own views, which helps keep these threads alive!

The Mickey Mouse programs are the alleged state schools that give easy material. Some ppl wrongly assume that this is the case at most state schools. That's my principal beef with these threads.

 

[Lamel]

No, lamel's data is useful but hardly the final word. The sample size is incredibly small. Most of the non "ivy schools" have samples lower than 40. Michigan is the only exception, and their numbers are pretty much in line with the other schools (10.7/3.54 at Michigan vs 10.8/3.50 at JHU). In addition, it represents only students applying to one school, which has selection bias because students with certain MCAT/GPA combos may feel they have have a better chance at those schools. One must consider whether students from top schools with high MCAT/lowGPA feel better about their chances than comparable other students. If so (perhaps because they believe their name pedigree will help them) you'll see more such students, causing us to see a higher MCAT/GPA ratio in those students. In reality this would say little about the actual caliber of students at either school but much about how willing they are to apply. Of course not knowing acceptance information also leaves a lot lacking. And again this is data from one school, and we'd need to see information at more schools (top schools, state schools, other private schools, etc) to begin to suggest anything of a broad trend since we can reasonably expect that different applicant pools will be attracted to different school scenarios.

This data is useful but let's not over interpret our limited information!

True, I don't mean to make any judgments based on the success of students from top schools. The reason I posted that chart was to compare GPAs and corresponding MCATs for applicants from different schools, and there does seem to be a difference, which sort of supports OPs point (even though I think OP is being way extreme about it.)

 

[Narmerguy]

Hold on now. Michigan is a top 30, same category as JHU. And I haven't claimed any school-specific trends, only looked at top 30 vs non top 30, and each of those two categories has n = plenty and from a good variety of schools. I also have made no claims about whether we are looking at top/middle/bottom students at each category, or whether they'll get accepted at significantly different rates, etc. I've never heard of midlevel schools which forgive low GPA in exchange for better MCAT more than other schools; I think it's very safe to assume applicants applied to this school because their two stats fit the interval for both. Neither sets of stats (3.5 and 33 or 3.6 and 30) is lopsided compared to the averages at those schools to imply a selected-for sample with unexpectedly strong MCAT or GPA from within the student population like you suggest.

The only claim I'm making, and one which the data backs up, is that a group of students who are of mean ~33 MCAT ability earned a lower GPA at top 30 schools than a group of students who are of a mean ~30 MCAT earned at non-top-30 schools. If the MCAT is truly an equalizing assessment of ability, and there was not a significant difference in difficulty between the groups of schools, you'd have predicted the opposite (higher MCATers earning higher GPAs).

You cannot hand waive away that this is a self-selecting group, and thus selection bias could just as easily explain the trend you are trying to explain as inherent trends in the student population. The only thing that [limited] data tells you is that at this particular school, they have more student applicants with certain MCAT/GPA combinations from School A vs School B.

If the MCAT is truly an equalizing assessment of ability, and there was not a significant difference in difficulty between the groups of schools, you'd have predicted the opposite (higher MCATers earning higher GPAs).

Again, this is one interpretation, but there are many others that could explain the data, and you don't have sufficient information to distinguish among them. If the MCAT is truly an equalizing assessment of ability, and there is not a significant difference in difficulty between the groups of schools, one must also ask whether these applicants are representative samples of A) the students from each school B) the applicants from each school. I would argue that no applicants to any one med school is representative of all the students from all the schools represented in that medical school's application pool (simple thought experiment: are the applicants from Harvard to University of Nevada Medical School representative of all Harvard applicants at other schools?).

This is not "n = plenty and from a good variety of schools." I apologize for being blunt, but I don't have the time to go into detail explaining statistics, regression [which is basically what you're attempting to do], and how to interpret data to you. I'm not saying that there is no relationship between the school (your top 30 groupings appears arbitrary, but we can accept it for now) and an applicant's MCAT and the GPA. There may be, and if there is, the magnitude of the difference matters (is there a nominal difference that is basically being scapegoated here to explain away failures, or is there a large trend here that must be recognized in order for schools to avoid making perilous decisions?). What I am saying, is that you do not at all have sufficient information to make any claim beyond that which is relevant to this one school for which the data was obtained, and even for this one school, your sample size is incredibly limited. You cannot begin to control for factors like race, age, school, major, etc when some of your schools have less than 10 data points.

Having data is great, but knowing your limits is greater.

 

[Jumb0]

OP here with an update.

I got a 34 on my MCAT.

 

[Mad Jack]

OP here with an update.

I got a 34 on my MCAT.

And?

 

[W19]

And?

That score proves OP is smart...