Top 30 Undergrad vs. State School: My Firsthand Experience

[Porkloins]

OP here....wow, guys, I was actually wrong the whole time! It turns out that all colleges are identical in terms of rigor and all college students are equally intelligent and capable! How could I be so blind! The only reason top 20 students get better MCAT scores than state schoolers and community college kids is that the mcat is just not as well suited to the style of test taking of the state schoolers! They are 100% equal in content knowledge, reasoning ability, and general intelligence, it's just that the MCAT is not suited to their learning style! How ignorant of me to assume that they did worse because they were dumber!

Given this epiphany I have just had, it's absolutely amazing how much I have inexplicably IMPROVED ever since I made the switch from top undergrad school to state school. I went from a B student to a straight A student overnight! It must be something in the water I've been drinking! It was so silly of me to think that it might be due to a pattern of gross disparity in rigor between institutions that correlates with ranking...how foolish I was! I see now that the difficulty is IDENTICAL. It's just that I have made a massive inexplicable self improvement in my abilities as a scholar!

Sorry for ever doubting you, State School Nation!

I don't even get what you're complaining about. You say these state school kids are stupid, so we say they don't score well on the MCAT and thus it doesn't matter if they got a 3.9. Conversely, you got a low GPA but only because your top-30 professors are a bunch of meanies, so you were able to ace the MCAT, and thus all things have equaled out, yes? And the actual smart kids who chose to go to the easier state school AND did well on the MCAT? Well, to me it just sounds like they had things figured out better than you. Shucks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[seizurecrow]

OP here....wow, guys, I was actually wrong the whole time! It turns out that all colleges are identical in terms of rigor and all college students are equally intelligent and capable! How could I be so blind! The only reason top 20 students get better MCAT scores than state schoolers and community college kids is that the mcat is just not as well suited to the style of test taking of the state schoolers! They are 100% equal in content knowledge, reasoning ability, and general intelligence, it's just that the MCAT is not suited to their learning style! How ignorant of me to assume that they did worse because they were dumber!

Given this epiphany I have just had, it's absolutely amazing how much I have inexplicably IMPROVED ever since I made the switch from top undergrad school to state school. I went from a B student to a straight A student overnight! It must be something in the water I've been drinking! It was so silly of me to think that it might be due to a pattern of gross disparity in rigor between institutions that correlates with ranking...how foolish I was! I see now that the difficulty is IDENTICAL. It's just that I have made a massive inexplicable self improvement in my abilities as a scholar!

Sorry for ever doubting you, State School Nation!

What's the point in applying to your inferior state medical school? The subpar academic quality of State School Nation will only jeopardize your chances at rocking the boards.

 

[haasbear]

State school ***** here...Sharing a slice of advice for any intimidated high school students, or pre-med students, skimming this thread.

Academics aren't everything but they certainly help. Theres a balance between rigor and atmosphere. Because of that, I turned down not one but...hold on to your backpacks... two top 30 schools. If you like a school, apply and attend it. So what if it isn't top 10...20...30. Brace yourselves, because the cold hard truth is that nearly none of your fondest memories will come from the classroom. Athletics, school spirit, organizations, and even the campus city are just as important. With the exception of Stanford (and maybe others my feeble state brain can't remember) there is nothing quite like waking up early, grabbing your sign, and walking down to the ESPN College GameDay set.

You already possess the intellect to get into medical school, just keep doing what you're doing and enjoy your time in undergrad. Life isn't about checking boxes and moving down the list, its about stuffing those boxes with good times and strong relationships.

 

[moop]

I wonder if it would surprise anyone if I told them that every single person that I know that scored 34+ on their ACT or 1500+ SAT CR+M elected not to go to one of HYP, and company. These are also people who are/were highly involved in sports and other extracurriculars, and would have been able to if they wanted to.

By the way, I know at least 10 such people.

Ooooooooooooo 10 people! Wow! Automatic applicability! So informative. Why is the data not published in a study yet?

 

[efle]

Ooooooooooooo 10 people! Wow! Automatic applicability! So informative. Why is the data not published in a study yet?

Also, maybe they chose not to go HYP because they wanted to avoid the extreme rigor and preferred to go somewhere dirt cheap they knew they'd be a top student? Doesn't really disprove the proposed gap in difficulty at all.

 

[moop]

Ooooooooooooo 10 people! Wow! Automatic applicability! So informative. Why is the data not published in a study yet?

P.S. No, it would not surprise anyone, but it doesn't mean jack sh*it. Just that those 10 people didn't like HYP. Doesn't mean anything else.

 

[Jumb0]

I don't even get what you're complaining about. You say these state school kids are stupid, so we say they don't score well on the MCAT and thus it doesn't matter if they got a 3.9. Conversely, you got a low GPA but only because your top-30 professors are a bunch of meanies, so you were able to ace the MCAT, and thus all things have equaled out, yes? And the actual smart kids who chose to go to the easier state school AND did well on the MCAT? Well, to me it just sounds like they had things figured out better than you. Shucks!

No, things have not "equaled out"...I have not received my MCAT score yet, but the fact of the matter is that GPA tends to get more weight. Getting a 29 or 30 on the MCAT is not that big of a deal...Neither is getting a 4.0 at a stateschool...yet people with that combo get accepted to medschool a bunch...whereas with my 3.2 from a top school, which was much more rigorous, I must achieve a 35+ to have a shot at acceptance, which is undisputably a big deal....and this, I feel, is unjust.

 

[WillburCobb]

...but the fact of the matter is that GPA tends to get more weight.

This varies CONSIDERABLY between schools and individual adcom members.

 

[estanton]

No, things have not "equaled out"...I have not received my MCAT score yet, but the fact of the matter is that GPA tends to get more weight. Getting a 29 or 30 on the MCAT is not that big of a deal...Neither is getting a 4.0 at a stateschool...yet people with that combo get accepted to medschool a bunch...whereas with my 3.2 from a top school, which was much more rigorous, I must achieve a 35+ to have a shot at acceptance, which is undisputably a big deal....and this, I feel, is unjust.

So you admit you should have gone to a state school? This seems like a compliment.

Why are you so upset about this? Everyone on here is going to defend their choice of undergrad. Do you want people to sympathize with how easy you find public school? Everyone made the choice that was right for them. You made your choice knowing that your classes might be a little harder but in turn you got to put a great university on your resume and countless opportunities state school students don't necessarily have. I get to go straight into med school but had to find a lot of opportunities that my university didn't put on a platter for me and l have to feel a little out of my league at interviews.

So you had to take an extra year to boost that GPA? You made your choice and you're getting there! You should be celebrating that a state school is giving you the opportunity to.

 

[NickNaylor]

Oh honey, not everyone wants to go to Harvard.

I have interviewed with several residents who went to HMS who were less than ecstatic about their medical education. Harvard isn't the end all be all just because USNWR says it is.

 

[LAtoDavis]

I'm sure it was a blow to his ego. Thankfully he found a way to reaffirm his intellelectual superiority by schooling us lowly state school students

Geet 'em, hoss

 

[ChiDO]

Everyone probably should have stopped reading the thread after my original post since it was the end of this argument. But I will reiterate

3.6 / 32 from state school > 3.2 / 32 from "top 1" school

/thread.

 

[el_duderino]

FWIW, I had a rather similar experience as OP going from a top-flight school to a state school, minus the "unambiguously #1 student" crap.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Guess what?

Going to a top 30 undergrad won't make you a better doctor than someone who went to a state school.

 

[Afford]

On an unrelated tangent, I do think that going to a name recognizable school helps during closed file interviews because it gives a good first impression to the interviewer. It doesn't help save a bad interview, but it does help give positive associations during the interview.

 

[efle]

Guess what?

Going to a top 30 undergrad won't make you a better doctor than someone who went to a state school.

Nobody has ever claimed it does. The central debate in these sorts of threads is always the "why are all GPAs treated equally when some are clearly harder to achieve than others" line of reasoning, nothing relating to "I went to Big Name School so I'll be a better doctor".

 

[WillburCobb]

On an unrelated tangent, I do think that going to a name recognizable school helps during closed file interviews because it gives a good first impression to the interviewer. It doesn't help save a bad interview, but it does help give positive associations during the interview.

Unless that interviewer associates top name schools with the entitled/elitist attitude demonstrated by OP and countless others every time these threads pop-up.

 

[allantois]

On an unrelated tangent, I do think that going to a name recognizable school helps during closed file interviews because it gives a good first impression to the interviewer. It doesn't help save a bad interview, but it does help give positive associations during the interview.

If you are an Ivy student applying to a state school in say Texas, or Florida you better not believe that your "recognizable" school is giving you an advantage over somebody who went to a school in-state.

 

[Baron Samedi]

Nobody has ever claimed it does. The central debate in these sorts of threads is always the "why are all GPAs treated equally when some are clearly harder to achieve than others" line of reasoning, nothing relating to "I went to Big Name School so I'll be a better doctor".

OP was just talking about how superior his education is to state schoolers and how he has a better grasp of science courses then all of them.

 

[Afford]

If you are an Ivy student applying to a state school in say Texas, or Florida you better not believe that your "recognizable" school is giving you an advantage over somebody who went to a school in-state.

I can't speak for Ivy League schools, but 2 of my interviewers said positive things about my undergrad when I interviewed at Texas schools.

 

[Rhino1000]

Also, maybe they chose not to go HYP because they wanted to avoid the extreme rigor and preferred to go somewhere dirt cheap they knew they'd be a top student? Doesn't really disprove the proposed gap in difficulty at all.

... but it demonstrates the fact that so many of the people who go to the top 20 schools forget: they aren't the only smart students in the country, and possibly not even a majority. That was my whole point. I didn't have the intention to disprove anything. Hence why I said "I wonder if it'd surprise anyone that..." Maybe you were under the impression that because of the way that I brought up "btw, I know at least 10 such people," that I thought my words were somehow conclusive or carried some heavy weight. Some of the posts that I've seen on this site seem to suggest that their posters think those who go to the top 20s are the top students, and only the very elite (upper one or three percent) at the mid tier schools are at the average of theirs, and that for the most part, they are comfortably correct (as if it's a given). Going to a decent mid-tier school usually isn't going to be a walk in the park, as long as you are not in an easy major (this statement proves that I'm not out to prove anything; this is an unsupported statement), at least, in my experience this is the case. I transferred from a community college into a school with an average ACT that is around top 20 level, but noticed no difference in rigor, despite similar grade distributions. And you also can't generalize your experience going from one top school to a certain mid-tier or even low-tier state school to say that "that is probably how it is at most schools." And I'm not saying that you said that, but my experience demonstrates that this generalization is not necessarily accurate anymore than my saying that there is no difference in difficulty by school (and I'm not saying that). As far as their intending to avoid the extreme rigor at the other schools, ostensibly, that is not their (of the ones that I talk to often) reason for neglecting those options.

Ooooooooooooo 10 people! Wow! Automatic applicability! So informative. Why is the data not published in a study yet?

This is an unpleasant reply. Did I say that it proved anything? Did it look like I was trying to end an argument? I was just pointing out the fact that there are smart people elsewhere other than in the top 20 colleges of the nation. As I said to Efle, maybe you were under the impression that I thought my words carried extra weight because of the fact that I knew "at least 10 people" who scored very well on the ACT. In fact, it is so common that I hardly know anyone who did not elect to go to one, even though they could have. Well, I do know some people who went to the top schools, but the vast majority did not. Some of the comments I've been reading lately on this site suggest the posters lost sight of this. In fact, your response suggests that you might disagree with a statement along the lines of "most smart people (140 IQ+, or whatever your criterion is) did not go to one of the elite colleges (top 20+). Else, why would you be so apparently charged at my post? It even looks like you'd be irritated if you read a study that proved it (although I would not venture to guess whether a study like this, if carried out, would prove or disprove it). My gosh, all I can say is that I'm really disappointed in your post.

 

[efle]

OP was just talking about how superior his education is to state schoolers and how he has a better grasp of science courses then all of them.

That's exactly what causes the GPA-difficulty disparities I think; someone earning A's in MIT physics courses probably does have greater mastery of the material than at my local community college, though they'll get the same GPA for it. But despite the common root word, I agree that physics mastery doesn't mean a better physician.

... but it demonstrates the fact that so many of the people who go to the top 20 schools forget: they aren't the only smart students in the country, and possibly not even a majority. ... Some of the posts that I've seen on this site seem to suggest that their posters think those who go to the top 20s are the top students, and only the very elite (upper one or three percent) at the mid tier schools are at the average of theirs, and that for the most part, they are comfortably correct (as if it's a given). Going to a decent mid-tier school usually isn't going to be a walk in the park, as long as you are not in an easy major. ...

My argument has always been that the difficulty of premed coursework at top schools comes from the curve/inherent competition with nearly all very gifted hardworking students. Sure there are also extremely bright, top percent type people at U of A, but they compose a far smaller part of the student body than at Princeton, so being in the top quarter of students which gets an A is much harder to do at the latter. U of A has an ACT 25-75th interval of 21-27; Princeton is 31-35. If you were advising a high schooler with an ACT of 32 and they wanted to get a competitive GPA in curved classes for medical apps, do you really think you should look at the two and tell them hmm, no real difference?

 

[Rhino1000]

My argument has always been that the difficulty of premed coursework at top schools comes from the curve/inherent competition with nearly all very gifted hardworking students. Sure there are also extremely bright, top percent type people at U of A, but they compose a far smaller part of the student body than at Princeton, so being in the top quarter of students which gets an A is much harder to do at the latter. U of A has an ACT 25-75th interval of 21-27; Princeton is 31-35. If you were advising a high schooler with an ACT of 32 and they wanted to get a competitive GPA in curved classes for medical apps, do you really think you should look at the two and tell them hmm, no real difference?

I honestly agree with your points in theory, even though it is a fact that I noticed no difference in difficulty or rigor in transferring from a community college to my university (my school is "top 30" and my engineering major is within the top 5). It would seem that community college -> good university would be at least comparable to a transfer from my current school into a school with an ACT average ~1 point above my current. Considering community college to my current would, I would guess, represent a difference of at least 6 points.

 

[efle]

I honestly agree with your points in theory, even though it is a fact that I noticed no difference in difficulty or rigor in transferring from a community college to my university (my school is "top 30" and my engineering major is within the top 5). It would seem that community college -> good university would be at least comparable to a transfer from my current school into a school with an ACT average ~1 point above my current. Considering community college to my current would, I would guess, represent a difference of at least 6 points.

I've heard similar CC ~= pretty well-ranked UC from my high school friends who have now transferred, and I think it's because transfers get to skip a lot of the real nightmare classes and go straight into the 300-level courses which are not very difficult. The really nasty huge, curved classes like genchem, bio, physics are a world apart from major-specific coursework, and they never experience those.

 

[Rhino1000]

I've heard similar CC ~= pretty well-ranked UC from my high school friends who have now transferred, and I think it's because transfers get to skip a lot of the real nightmare classes and go straight into the 300-level courses which are not very difficult. The really nasty huge, curved classes like genchem, bio, physics are a world apart from major-specific coursework, and they never experience those.

That's all well and good, but I would like to point out that in my experience, I am only taking one 300+ level course, which will be curved so the average person gets a C (thermodynamics). The others are 200 level courses and lower, including one of my major's supposedly most difficult class (a weedout introductory course) and this semester is similar to the ones I've taken at the CC in terms of science/math course concentration (typically 3 science/math classes +1-2 lib ed). Although, again, I agree with the likelihood of the reasonableness of that explanation regardless. Considering that on average, I think it is common that upper level classes have high GPAs. But this could be due to the more selected for group of individuals, rather than relative ease.

 

[efle]

... high GPAs. But this could be due to the more selected for group of individuals, rather than relative ease.

Heheh, that's what people say to explain the ridiculous inflating going on at some top schools, which just adds another element to delegitimize GPA. Considering the differences between majors, ability to take courses in summer or abroad to dodge tough classes or inflate GPAs, private schools hiding their GPA distributions, etc..really, if I ever sit on an adcom it will be tough to view GPAs as carrying much meaning at all.

 

[Rhino1000]

Heheh, that's what people say to explain the ridiculous inflating going on at some top schools, which just adds another element to delegitimize GPA. Considering the differences between majors, ability to take courses in summer or abroad to dodge tough classes or inflate GPAs, private schools hiding their GPA distributions, etc..really, if I ever sit on an adcom it will be tough to view GPAs as carrying much meaning at all.

Haha, you're right. Which is kind of funny. I agree that some standardization of GPA is lacking, and that (as you imply) the MCAT or other such tools can be so useful in these situations.

 

[moop]

My gosh, all I can say is that I'm really disappointed in your post.

orly

 

[Rhino1000]

orly

I'm over it

 

[efle]

@moop, he isn't mad, just disappointed.

I wonder why the current adcoms rank GPA as the number one most important thing? Did they not have all the same BS devaluing GPA back in their day?

 

[moop]

I'm over it

ORLY

 

[Rhino1000]

@moop, he isn't mad, just disappointed.

I wonder why the current adcoms rank GPA as the number one most important thing? Did they not have all the same BS devaluing GPA back in their day?

Maybe they just remember their college days and that those who have a good gpa are generally smarter, and they are overgeneralizing its validity. Maybe they are actually trying the best they can to measure work ethic, or maybe they are just idiots, etc.

 

[efle]

YARLY

 

[WillburCobb]

.

 

[altblue]

I just hope that nobody walks away from this thread thinking ease is linearly and inversely correlated with ranking.

You'll have an easier time at Harvard or Brown than at UCLA or Michigan, even though the last two are lowly state schools that are barely even prestigious.

Also as someone who spent time at an unrigorous plebian CC, I can say that some professors honestly can't write tests to save their lives. I aced a biology test only because I took the time to memorize the peeps who played a part in formulating the theory of evolution and the scientific names for ****ing trees; I don't remember. Or a history professor who believed that MDY dates and numbers (like 1,200,000 deaths) were integral to understanding history.

 

[efle]

Ease in curved courses is linearly and inversely correlated with capabilities of the student body you are in. Yes you can have weird professors testing BS things anywhere, but if my life depended on making a 3.8+ next semester I'd much rather be at a randomly chosen state school than a randomly chosen top 20.

 

[estanton]

Ease in curved courses is linearly and inversely correlated with capabilities of the student body you are in. Yes you can have weird professors testing BS things anywhere, but if my life depended on making a 3.8+ next semester I'd much rather be at a randomly chosen state school than a randomly chosen top 20.

*woah buddy we are discussing top 30

 

[Rhino1000]

Ease in curved courses is linearly and inversely correlated with capabilities of the student body you are in. Yes you can have weird professors testing BS things anywhere, but if my life depended on making a 3.8+ next semester I'd much rather be at a randomly chosen state school than a randomly chosen top 20.

At the same time though, going from a school which has an average ACT at the 80th percentile to a school at the 98th percentile isn't going to make getting an A 10 times more difficult (if you can consider a 98th percentile ACT 10 times tougher than an 80th percentile ACT), because ACT doesn't correlate 1.0 with grades. In fact, I was under the impression college grades are correlated with ACT scores, but not to a very large extent; according the the ACT's page on the subject, high school GPA is even a better indicator than the ACT, which makes the following sentences even more meaningful. Also, not everybody puts in a significant effort; those people are easier to pass up, which may have a larger or smaller effect at the top schools than the more medium ones. Consider that the average person who gets into those very tough schools likely had a fairly strong work ethic in high school; it seems more likely that a very strong work ethic decreases than a more medium work ethic decreases.

 

[efle]

*woah buddy we are discussing top 30

Good catch man, I forgot

At the same time though, going from a school which has an average ACT at the 80th percentile isn't necessarily going to be 10 times less easy to make an A than a school with an average ACT at the 98th percentile, because ACT doesn't correlate 1.0 with grades. Also, not everybody puts in a significant effort; those people are easier to pass up, which may have a larger or smaller effect at the top schools than the more medium ones. Consider that the average person who gets into those very tough schools likely had a fairly strong work ethic in high school; it seems more likely that a very strong work ethic decreases than a more medium work ethic decreases.

I bet Math/Verb SAT correlates very, very well with performance in reasoning based curved coursework like Ochem. (Nearly) everybody at top schools tries very hard in those classes as well - believe me, the people getting the bottom half of the curve don't shrug and say "yeah, I didn't study enough". Most of them studied with every spare hour and are crushed after every exam return because they give it their all and get a C+/B-. There is just no way to reasonably expect the prereq core experience somewhere like JHop, where everybody is very bright and wants to be a doctor and spent their high school years proving it, to be anything like what you'd see at U of Random.

 

[Rhino1000]

I bet Math/Verb SAT correlates very, very well with performance in reasoning based curved coursework like Ochem. (Nearly) everybody at top schools tries very hard in those classes as well - believe me, the people getting the bottom half of the curve don't shrug and say "yeah, I didn't study enough". Most of them studied with every spare hour and are crushed after every exam return because they give it their all and get a C+/B-. There is just no way to reasonably expect the prereq core experience somewhere like JHop, where everybody is very bright and wants to be a doctor and spent their high school years proving it, to be anything like what you'd see at U of Random.

Some courses probably have a better correlation to SAT scores than others, but I wouldn't be so quick to say "very very well," unless we have differing ideas on what that means; I would agree with your speculation on Ochem. BTW I edited some of that post you quoted, you should check it out.

Also, I want to say that while I may agree that Ochem would probably correlate pretty well, I think that more challenging conceptually classes might even have a better correlation. While Ochem is a very conceptual class, it isn't challenging conceptually. This isn't to say that I can think of a better example; maybe calculus II? While Calc II isn't incredibly challenging conceptually, it is probably more so than Ochem. Maybe differential equations, if you've ever taken that? Possibly even physics (I can't comment on algebra-based though). Challenging conceptually = more difficult to understand. Maybe ochem is a better option than all of these, but the idea behind my suggestion I think is valid. It's possible that accruing understanding of difficult-to-understand material doesn't correlate that well, but I really don't know.

Lastly, do you really know that there isn't a strong correlation with amount of hours put into the ochem class with overall grade? I'm sure that if people put in the effort, they could increase their grades. Also, I'm sure that not everyone who scored poorly put in all the extra hours that they had. I'm guessing those who got the top scores on those tests studied significantly more than the average person who scored below average on those tests. Furthermore, in a class like Ochem, there is a sort of snowball effect where if you don't study well on the first couple of exams, that could come back to haunt you with a tougher time with the rest of them. So even if there was consistency between tests as far as who is scoring well and who isn't, it could be partially due to the snowball effect characteristic of that class.

 

[altblue]

Ease in curved courses is linearly and inversely correlated with capabilities of the student body you are in. Yes you can have weird professors testing BS things anywhere, but if my life depended on making a 3.8+ next semester I'd much rather be at a randomly chosen state school than a randomly chosen top 20.

You're right, but I guess I should have been more specific. My experience is as anecdotal as the OP's, but just don't head to a random state school or CC and expect to coast by in every class. There are a small minority of classes and the average could be in the 60s (and uncurved!) not because the test was intellectually challenging but because it had poor questions that didn't even test for understanding.

 

[radkat101]

I hate it when people complain about this. If you knew you wanted to be a doctor, then why did you choose to go to a fancy school? Like many other things in life, good judgment and a good strategy are key to success. It doesn't take a genius to succeed in medical school, and adcoms are more concerned about keeping their stats high than feeling sorry for a bunch of applicants who made things more difficult for themselves than they had to be.

 

[efle]

Lol that's practically friendly looking.

One of the questions on my second ever Orgo I exam (approx a month into the course):

"Propose an arrow pushing mechanism to account for this conversion". Here's the answer - keep in mind we had about ten minutes per question. I couldn't even draw all that in ten minutes if I knew the mechanism ahead of time!

Passing grade on this exam was a 12/100.

That's why Orgo is scary - no amount of studying really helps you get ready for that because the textbook problems from the introductory ochem book are not even in the same ballpark. And memory certainly does nothing for you. It just comes down to you figuring it out better than all the other smart kids around you and beating them on a curve.

 

[efle]

I hate it when people complain about this. If you knew you wanted to be a doctor, then why did you choose to go to a fancy school? Like many other things in life, good judgment and a good strategy are key to success. It doesn't take a genius to succeed in medical school, and adcoms are more concerned about keeping their stats high than feeling sorry for a bunch of applicants who made things more difficult for themselves than they had to be.

The people who come out on top at the best schools gain a lot from having gone there. The other side of the bell curve get screwed. High schoolers don't know enough to predict which side they will be closer to - they just know they're smart and want to go to a famous fancy school with other smart kids. I don't think they're the ones to blame.

 

[radkat101]

The people who come out on top at the best schools gain a lot from having gone there. The other side of the bell curve get screwed. High schoolers don't know enough to predict which side they will be closer to - they just know they're smart and want to go to a famous fancy school with other smart kids. I don't think they're the ones to blame.

Agreed, except they should have known after the first semester or two, the amount of effort they'd need to put forth to achieve their goals. If they stuck around for 4 years without weighing other options, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[Kochanie]

I really did not expect premeds on SDN to be in so much denial. Even the Burger King cashier I was talking to yesterday was in less denial about the difference in rigors at different universities.

 

[acquiescing]

I think the conclusion here is: "yes, it is probably easier to get good grades at a state school. Deal with it and make your collegiate choices accordingly."

 

[GaiusOctavius]

Yup, looking at the numbers reveals how unfair the whole system can be, with many of the people weeded out at top schools having turned down invites to honors colleges at state schools where they would have been predicted to sit at the top of the class.

At your top 15 program was EVERY class curved down? For example, if the average on a particular test was a 90%, does a 90% become a C+? This is the only way your contention would make sense to me. Do all of your classes utilize a bell curve or are any other methods used to curve classes (e.g. grade forgiveness)? Not all of the courses at my state school even had a curve. It makes your argument irrelevant for those courses. For the classes that did curve, the average was still a C, and only the top ~5% end up with an A. Those top ~5% tend to be pretty smart and diligent workers, and if they were at a top 15 program, I'd bet they would still be earning As... Food for thought, most of the students who consistently had those grades at my school had exceptional MCAT scores (33-39).

P.s. There are differences in rigor between majors and classes (with different professors) at my institution. Some professors are easier than others. Are all majors, classes, and professors created equally at your institution (i.e. unanimously more difficult than state school classes)?

P.S.S. I recall comparing the tests for several of my classes with those on MIT open courseware, way back when taking those classes, and not noticing significant differences in rigor. I feel that this supposed difference in rigor is grossly exaggerated.

 

[Kochanie]

At your top 15 program was EVERY class curved down? For example, if the average on a particular test was a 90%, does a 90% become a C+? This is the only way your contention would make sense to me. Do all of your classes utilize a bell curve or are any other methods used to curve classes (e.g. grade forgiveness)? Not all of the courses at my state school even had a curve. It makes your argument irrelevant for those courses. For the classes that did curve, the average was still a C, and only the top ~5% end up with an A. Those top ~5% tend to be pretty smart and diligent workers, and if they were at a top 15 program, I'd bet they would still be earning As...

P.s. There are differences in rigor between majors and classes (with different professors) at my institution. Some professors are easier than others. Are all majors, classes, and professors created equally at your institution (i.e. unanimously more difficult than state school classes)?

P.S.S. I recall comparing the tests for several of my classes with those on MIT open courseware, way back when taking those classes, and not noticing significant differences in rigor. I feel that this supposed difference in rigor is grossly exaggerated.

I'm in a Bio class with very easy tests. I was happy after I received a 90, wait no... The class curves to a B- and the average was in the high 80s. No, the rigor of tests makes little difference if the professor grades on a scale at a top university where competition is fierce, but it is nice to do well on a test even if it means a B-.

 

[nOchemallday]

@moop, he isn't mad, just disappointed.

I wonder why the current adcoms rank GPA as the number one most important thing? Did they not have all the same BS devaluing GPA back in their day?

The link you posted reiterates the point that almost all the adcoms on this site have stated: Numbers get you to the door, everything else gets you through it.

Did you not read the first sentence of the discussion???: "These acceptance data show that some applicants with strong academic qualifications are not accepted into medical school and many with lower academic qualifications are."

or read any of it at all?: "While UGPA and MCAT scores help admissions committees identify academically qualified applicants, committees also consider non-academic data to identify applicants who best fit their schools’ unique educational missions and goals."