Top 30 Undergrad vs. State School: My Firsthand Experience

[efle]

Professors, at least at my undergrad, make their own curve. At the beginning of the semester, there is no "chart" to explain what percentage of students get A's, B's, etc., it's something that's determined throughout the course. Some professors do talk amongst their colleagues to see how others are designing their curve, but ultimately, the professor can decide to award zero A's if he or she chooses (happened in my intro bio course).

You're the exception in this I think. Most schools (every state school I've looked up the published grade distribution for and all of the Top 20) keep a pretty constant %-each-letter-grade curve between years and profs. It's rare to find somewhere that nobody fails or nobody gets an A.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[altblue]

Penn is the nickname for The University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy league private school founded by Ben Franklin.
Penn State is a state school. Penn State is never called Penn.

Ah whoops, typo...

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Penn is the nickname for The University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy league private school founded by Ben Franklin.
Penn State is a state school. Penn State is never called Penn.

Does Penn have a med school?

 

[IlDestriero]

Does Penn have a med school?

Hahahaha!

 

[efle]

It has a mediocre one

/jk I wish I could go there

 

[m.a.r.r.]

I'm perfectly happy that medical schools don't give too much weight to undergraduate school attended. I feel that with every passing year people's futures are more and more determined by the time they are like 15. If medical schools treated a 3.0 at Harvard the same as a 4.0 at a state school then it would mean nobody would get in from state schools and so people would have no chance to turn their life around if they weren't perfect enough to get into a top school right out of high school.

 

[Helse23]

I'm perfectly happy that medical schools don't give too much weight to undergraduate school attended. I feel that with every passing year people's futures are more and more determined by the time they are like 15. If medical schools treated a 3.0 at Harvard the same as a 4.0 at a state school then it would mean nobody would get in from state schools and so people would have no chance to turn their life around if they weren't perfect enough to get into a top school right out of high school.

....Except there aren't too many pre-meds from Harvard, so the Harvard 3.2 student and the state school 4.0 can go to med school.

And if you want to get into a discussion about turning around lives, a disproportionate amount of students that get weeded out or don't perform spectacularly at top schools come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So those people were trying to turn their lives around by doing everything they thought was right and they were successful, but just because a single number looks to be low, their hard work should be discredited?

 

[radkat101]

I agree with that, I know several people who did the transfer from CC route and I think it was very wise for them.

I was mostly referring to getting a scholarship that may pull you away from a top school to a less prestigious school. Still some opportunities, but not nearly as nice or plentiful as from the top ones. Why get yourself into heaps of debt just for UG?

It is absolutely not true that top schools provide more opportunities than lower ranked schools. It is just a myth parroted by pre-meds in their top-tier bubble. I took a couple of summer classes at a small local branch campus of a state school and was stunned at the opportunities that were available to the small circle (maybe 15-20) of pre-med students who went there, and how different the culture was from the much larger institution I attended. The classes were super chill, everyone was heavily involved in the research (the school was small but did conduct research), and the students would go out drinking with professors after class every Wednesday. These were the same professors from the biology dept. who served on the pre-med committee and wrote these students' letters. A high percentage of their applicants were accepted, considering many of these students were CC transfers. My med-school class is full of students who went to schools like this. The few I know well are down to earth, and I can already tell they are going to make great docs. I'm sure it came through in their interviews as well. I stillI regret not going there SO bad, because it was close to home and would have saved me tons of $$$.

 

[allantois]

....Except there aren't too many pre-meds from Harvard, so the Harvard 3.2 student and the state school 4.0 can go to med school.

And if you want to get into a discussion about turning around lives, a disproportionate amount of students that get weeded out or don't perform spectacularly at top schools come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So those people were trying to turn their lives around by doing everything they thought was right and they were successful, but just because a single number looks to be low, their hard work should be discredited?

There are students at state schools who are trying to turn their lives around too and who work hard.

 

[efle]

a disproportionate amount of students that get weeded out or don't perform spectacularly at top schools come from disadvantaged backgrounds. So those people were trying to turn their lives around by doing everything they thought was right and they were successful, but just because a single number looks to be low, their hard work should be discredited?

Which makes sense, because they got into college with on average slightly lower stats than their peers and are now forced to compete against a curve with people who didn't have that affirmative action bump. But the affirmative action continues at the med school level, so the disadvantaged people getting B-B+'s still get into med schools at good rates.

There are students at state schools who are trying to turn their lives around too and who work hard.

The under-performance of disadvantaged matriculates is especially pronounced at top schools however, iirc

 

[Helse23]

There are students at state schools who are trying to turn their lives around too and who work hard.

No one is saying there aren't. M.a.r.r's post was just implying that the 3.0s at Harvard weren't.

 

[radkat101]

I'm a student at a small LAC and your bolded statement above hasn't applied to me at all. Granted, our school's mission is really focused on going out in the world and actually using what we learn in the classroom.

Every single one of our full-time faculty members in the lab and social sciences are required to do research with undergrad students, and many of our students (including me) are invited to join labs by their professors after doing well in a class they taught. We also have 12-15 kids participate in paid research internships at a top 5 hospital system nearby every summer, which often extends into the school year for students who are interested. Lots of us have ended up with first-author publications in major journals. We also have tons of clinical opportunities...we send students to do service at two big local hospitals and several free clinics every year, great alumni connections in the area for shadowing, and some of us work paid jobs as EMTs, CNAs, scribes, etc. So far, everyone I know who's applying (and who got their apps done in a timely manner, i.e. are not still finishing their secondaries) has gotten in to at least one school.

I'm not disagreeing that SOME LACs, especially those further removed from urban areas with several major hospitals, may be lacking in these kinds of opportunities. But it's not true that most LACs don't have them.

Exactly. I have also found that the reality is the reverse of what is repeated over and over on SDN by people who have no basis for their claims.

 

[altblue]

.

 

[efle]

Exactly. I have also found that the reality is the reverse of what is repeated over and over on SDN by people who have no basis for their claims.

Yep, that's usually what these threads are, people who haven't experience both sides of something (like a top university vs average one) claiming they know them to be equal, while those with time at both proclaim them vastly different

 

[altblue]

I'm a student at a small LAC and your bolded statement above hasn't applied to me at all. Granted, our school's mission is really focused on going out in the world and actually using what we learn in the classroom.

Every single one of our full-time faculty members in the lab and social sciences are required to do research with undergrad students, and many of our students (including me) are invited to join labs by their professors after doing well in a class they taught. We also have 12-15 kids participate in paid research internships at a top 5 hospital system nearby every summer, which often extends into the school year for students who are interested. Lots of us have ended up with first-author publications in major journals. We also have tons of clinical opportunities...we send students to do service at two big local hospitals and several free clinics every year, great alumni connections in the area for shadowing, and some of us work paid jobs as EMTs, CNAs, scribes, etc. So far, everyone I know who's applying (and who got their apps done in a timely manner, i.e. are not still finishing their secondaries) has gotten in to at least one school.

I'm not disagreeing that SOME LACs, especially those further removed from urban areas with several major hospitals, may be lacking in these kinds of opportunities. But it's not true that most LACs don't have them.

Fair enough, my home state's LACs are mostly rural so I'm probably a bit biased. :/

The under-performance of disadvantaged matriculates is especially pronounced at top schools however, iirc

Isn't a disadvantaged matriculant at schools like HMS or WUSTL like a 33 3.8, though? Just wonderin'.

 

[radkat101]

Yep, that's usually what these threads are, people who haven't experience both sides of something (like a top university vs average one) claiming they know them to be equal, while those with time at both proclaim them vastly different

The larger school WAS more difficult, and full of 43747237 obnoxious pre-meds scrambling to snatch up every "opportunity" that existed. I'm not denying it. That's why I wish I had gone to the smaller one. It's all in the game.

 

[Kochanie]

I agree with that, I know several people who did the transfer from CC route and I think it was very wise for them.

I was mostly referring to getting a scholarship that may pull you away from a top school to a less prestigious school. Still some opportunities, but not nearly as nice or plentiful as from the top ones. Why get yourself into heaps of debt just for UG?

True and that is reality for a lot of people. I probably would not go to my school if my parents were rich and would instead go to one of those schools that give anyone with decent grades a scholarship. But with my school's amazing financial aid (like most tops), I pay less than I would with a scholarship at another private school or no scholarship at a state school.

 

[efle]

Isn't a disadvantaged matriculant at schools like HMS or WUSTL like a 33 3.8, though? Just wonderin'.

I meant matriculants to the undergrad coming in with lower SAT/ACT/high school GPA and then struggling in curved courses. I don't think any schools release info about acceptance stats per race since they'd only get negative attention for it.

 

[PantherPride]

The larger school WAS more difficult, and full of 43747237 obnoxious pre-meds scrambling to snatch up every "opportunity" that existed. I'm not denying it. That's why I wish I had gone to the smaller one. It's all in the game.

I go to a fairly large school with a million or so premeds, so healthcare opportunities are very limited/fill up quick. I'm happy I came here though because there are still a lot of other opportunties, especially research, that are very abundant and highly encouraged.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Yes, very likely, based on the performance of honors college students at state schools with similar (in fact slightly lower) stats than the average student at top universities, many of whom drop.

whatever you say

 

[efle]

whatever you say

Good counterpoint, I'm convinced

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Yep, that's usually what these threads are, people who haven't experience both sides of something (like a top university vs average one) claiming they know them to be equal, while those with time at both proclaim them vastly different

In terms of difficulty, you simply can't lump the pre-med tracks of schools into 2 categories (ie hard vs easy). As I stated earlier, there are at least 4-5 levels of difficulty, which can even vary within a school, depending on the professors you take. Yes, some schools are (for the most part) more challenging than others. But this does not only apply to the upper ranked colleges.

 

[efle]

In terms of difficulty, you simply can't lump the pre-med tracks of schools into 2 sides (ie hard vs easy). As I stated earlier, there are at least 4-5 levels of difficulty, which can even vary within a school, depending on the professors you take. Yes, some schools are (for the most part) more challenging than others. But this does not only apply to the upper ranked colleges.

True, I'm always talking a truly average school vs take your pick of top 20 but within both camps there's variations, I know my life here is less stressful than it would be at Hopkins for example

Is your avatar a sigil stone

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

True, I'm always talking a truly average school vs take your pick of top 20 but within both camps there's variations, I know my life here is less stressful than it would be at Hopkins for example

Is your avatar a sigil stone

It is a Sigil Stone. I love Oblivion. Although, Skyrim is more fun.

 

[efle]

It is a Sigil Stone. I love Oblivion. Although, Skyrim is more fun.

This made oblivion better

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

This made oblivion better

Oblivion is easily one of the best games I've ever played, but Skyrim actually improved on it IMO. Yeah, it doesn't have the spell maker, but the graphics are better, the combat improved, dragons swoop down out of nowhere etc.
Also, you get to play sniper with your bow and follow the arrow's trajectory with the close-up shot (among other things).

I'm actually not yet finished with the main quest (although I've logged in over 100 hrs ). I must first slay the MCAT

 

[JingleChips]

In terms of difficulty, you simply can't lump the pre-med tracks of schools into 2 sides (ie hard vs easy). As I stated earlier, there are at least 4-5 levels of difficulty, which can even vary within a school, depending on the professors you take. Yes, some schools are (for the most part) more challenging than others. But this does not only apply to the upper ranked colleges.

Quoting the bolded for emphasis - this occurs even independent of professors. At my school ( medium sized state university) , there were 3 levels of gen chem and orgo, 1 level of physics (non-calc based), and 2 levels of gen bio.

Non-science majors / non premed health science majors took the lowest level gen chem, organic, gen bio, and didn't need physics.

Biology / Premed majors took the middle level of gen chem and organic, the highest of gen bio, and the only nonc- calc physics.

Chem / Biochem / Chem Eng / Biomed Eng majors took the highest level of gen chem, organic, gen bio, and then physics was split (engineers had to take calc based, chem/biochem had the choice of either).

The higher level chem/orgo classes definitely were harder CONTENT / time consumption wise than the middle level and lower level. However, there were only a handful of premeds in these classes compared to the middle level which i swear had to have been at least 33% premed if not more. Thus, there was probably less gunnerness/competition in the upper level classes (most kids focusing on grad school) compared to the premed overachievers. Overall it probably evened itself out, but it just goes to show the difference in class difficulty can be present within the same school without even considering different professors (which also can make a huge difference in class difficulty).

 

[GaiusOctavius]

You're the exception in this I think. Most schools (every state school I've looked up the published grade distribution for and all of the Top 20) keep a pretty constant %-each-letter-grade curve between years and profs. It's rare to find somewhere that nobody fails or nobody gets an A.

no. you keep using this oversimplified argument--all schools use a bell curve and "top schools" have a greater number of great testers (see ACT scores) so they are at an overwhelming disadvantage. This isn't always the case. Not all schools employ this simple bell curve you have concocted in your mind where each class doles out exactly 15% As, 25% Bs, etc. Many schools curve but it's not necessarily employed in a uniform way at every school/class across the nation. You and others, neglect countless factors in favor of a simple logic which appeals to elitist mentality. It's another good reason for schools to mix it up a bit and not recruit students exclusively from the ivory towers.

 

[altblue]

no. you keep using this oversimplified argument--all schools use a bell curve and "top schools" have a greater number of great testers (see ACT scores) so they are at an overwhelming disadvantage. This isn't always the case. Not all schools employ this simple bell curve you have concocted in your mind where each class doles out exactly 15% As, 25% Bs, etc. Many schools curve but it's not necessarily employed in a uniform way at every school/class across the nation. You and others, neglect countless factors in favor of a simple logic which appeals to elitist mentality. It's another good reason for schools to mix it up a bit and not recruit students exclusively from the ivory towers.

I'm curious as to what these phrases mean. They sound like some bygone 2012 political commercial. Surely you're not calling good schools "ivory towers" too?

 

[Helse23]

I

 

[efle]

no. you keep using this oversimplified argument--all schools use a bell curve and "top schools" have a greater number of great testers (see ACT scores) so they are at an overwhelming disadvantage. This isn't always the case. Not all schools employ this simple bell curve you have concocted in your mind where each class doles out exactly 15% As, 25% Bs, etc. Many schools curve but it's not necessarily employed in a uniform way at every school/class across the nation. You and others, neglect countless factors in favor of a simple logic which appeals to elitist mentality. It's another good reason for schools to mix it up a bit and not recruit students exclusively from the ivory towers.

Uh huh. It isn't like STEM courses being curved to ~ a 3.0 is the norm at most universities. I'm just too elitist thinking that people at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz who each land middle of their Ochem class and get a 3.0 are in fact quite disparate in their capabilities. The thirty percentile point gap in test scores indicate nothing. I'm just too entitled to understand how balanced the system actually is.

 

[sum dude]

To further kick you in the junk, they probably paid a lot less in tuition and will have way less student debt than you...so who are the smart ones now?

So earlier this year I graduated from a top 30 undergraduate university with a low GPA (3.21), so this Fall I began a DIY post-bacc program at my local State College in order to improve my GPA...I am taking five upper level biology courses, each with a laboratory component. 28 hours of class/lab a week in total.

At my alma mater, taking five laboratory courses in one semester would have been suicide. In fact, the premedical advisers strongly urged students to never take more than ONE lab course a semester since they were notoriously difficult...Taking five science courses, lab or not, was just unheard of.

Nevertheless, I have a high A average in each of these classes at the moment, with my lowest exam grade being a 97%. It sounds pretentious, but it is the objective truth that I am unambiguously the #1 student in each of my classes in terms of grades, class participation, and mastery over the material. Moreover, I am pulling off these grades with minimal effort. I only study for a couple hours the night before the exams, and I ace them with ease while my state-school classmates bemoan how "impossible" the courses are. I should note that I have never taken these classes before. They represent 100% brand-new material to me.

In short, I am utterly SHOCKED by the disparity in rigor between my alma mater, which isn't even top 20 (though our SAT scores are), and this average state school. I mean, a senior level biochemistry course at this state school isn't even half as difficult as the introductory biology course taken by freshmen at my alma mater. Having experienced both schools firsthand, it is absolutely MIND-BOGGLING and disturbing to me that GPA's from these two establishments are supposedly given the same weight. Whenever one of my state-school classmates tells me that he/she is planning on going to medical school, I smile and nod as I die a little bit on the inside knowing that they may have a statistically better shot than me even though they struggle with basic concepts of the sciences.

What. the. ****.

 

[efle]

To further kick you in the junk, they probably paid a lot less in tuition and will have way less student debt than you...so who are the smart ones now?

Probably the people who went to top schools on a solid financial aid package and pulled a 3.9+ GPA, the bastards!
But yeah, I'd never tell a bright high schooler that they should fork over $50k or more to go likely have their soul and dreams of medicine crushed somewhere like Berkeley, U Chicago, Hopkins, etc. Now why didn't anybody tell me this stuff when I was in high school?

 

[PreMed015]

You're the exception in this I think. Most schools (every state school I've looked up the published grade distribution for and all of the Top 20) keep a pretty constant %-each-letter-grade curve between years and profs. It's rare to find somewhere that nobody fails or nobody gets an A.

Where are your citations for this? Only one department in my entire university has set grade distributions for ranks. Every other department, or at least the sciences, decides the distribution at the end of the semester. I had a very limited knowledge of what my grade was in a class following each exam. If these curves are set, as you say they are, I think a lot of premeds at my university would love to have that information.

 

[PreMed015]

The person who went to Yale would absolutely get the seat and be more qualified. That is evidenced by their not being stupid enough to attend Liberty University. Seriously.

I would choose the Yale student as well. I personally have an extreme distaste for Liberty, as does the majority of SDN, which is why I chose it.

 

[LMBLBM]

Absolutely true. I busted my ass for 4 years through the pre-req's to come out with a 3.0 out of BU. Did a DIY post-bac at my state-school and took nothing but upper-level/grad-level courses, came out with a 4.0 and had a very relaxed stress free time.

It's not that the material is any easier. It's tested easier and curved easier.

lol BU is hard?

 

[Gorne]

BU science is extremely hard. The undergrad physio went more in depth than we are currently going in 1st year physio.

 

[altblue]

nvm

 

[justadream]

It doesn't matter what you curve it to. Ultimately, the peer group matters A LOT. Getting average at Harvard is most likely harder than getting average at most* non-top-20 schools.

Even if schools graded on an absolute scale (in which everyone theoretically could get an A), schools with high-achieving peers are going to be harder because
1) The tests/homework will probably test harder material
2) You probably cover the content in a more rigorous way (and/or cover more content and/or cover it in less time). For example, I know that at a certain top 10 school, the intro bio course use biochemistry/cell biology textbooks (instead of a traditional intro bio text). Also, subjects like introductory math (i.e., differential equations, linear algebra), general chemistry, and organic chemistry are covered in a fraction of the time most other schools take (and I'm not talking about special accelerated classes - just normal classes).

*Key word is "most" - there are exceptions of course but in general this is true

 

[SympatricSpeciation]

lol BU is hard?

The only thing to LOL about is your ignorance of BU's well-respected science program. Let me guess, next thing you say will be that BU is a state school.

 

[EngineerAndDoctor]

I agree and no worries, I wholeheartedly which I could transfer to another school. But I can't, so I'll just spend two years after undergrad pretending like I matured when my courses just got significantly easier. I'm just bitter that a person with an 18 ACT can get As at a **** school for identifying the end of a mechanism.

seriously guys...college is difficult where ever you go...work your butt off, get a great MCAT/extra-curriculars and a decent GPA. DONE.

 

[Kochanie]

seriously guys...college is difficult where ever you go...work your butt off, get a great MCAT/extra-curriculars and a decent GPA. DONE.

I'm assuming you don't go to one of these universities talked about here.

 

[parapraxish]

i went to a top 10 university for undergrad known for its academic rigor. they certainly were not lying about the difficulty of the academics. there is certainly a difference in the difficulty of courses between my college and my local state school.

however, there was very little difference in the quality/intelligence of students, although yes probably the average student at my college worked a little harder than the average state school student.

in terms of grades the difficulty of the course material was balanced due to the curve (most science courses were curved to a B/B-, which I would prefer over a course being uncurved as many state school science courses are). i can imagine this scenario applies to other top universities as well.

it was difficult and will likely hold me back a few years in applying to medical school. if medicine were my sole goal in life i would be regretting it tremendously in terms of money, time and stress. but i learned things i probably wouldn't have learned at my state school, read thinkers i wouldn't have read otherwise, learned how to think in a way i wouldn't have developed fully otherwise, and suffered through a nervous breakdown that would have probably popped up later in medical school/residency had i gone to an easier university so i suppose it was better to get it out of the way earlier rather than later (i feel pretty confident i've addressed the root issue).

all in all i have no regrets in choosing to attend a more rigorous university, and honestly the overall grades between a state school/top 30-whatever-who-cares is negligible. the courses are more difficult, yes, but the grades you receive would generally have been the grades I received at my state school.

 

[Helse23]

I don't have any regrets either and I agree that there are students at other schools who can certainly give me and students at top universities a run for our money with their intelligence. However, to say the intelligence of the students is the same, would mean the B+ student at a top university would be as intelligence as the B+ student at a lower ranked school. B+ students at top schools usually get 33+ on the MCAT from what I've seen, whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that is the norm for other schools. How would you explain this disconnect?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I don't have any regrets either and I agree that there are students at other schools who can certainly give me and students at top universities a run for our money with their intelligence. However, to say the intelligence of the students is the same, would mean the B+ student at a top university would be as intelligence as the B+ student at a lower ranked school. B+ students at top schools usually get 33+ on the MCAT from what I've seen, whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that is the norm for other schools. How would you explain this disconnect?

I would argue that the 3.7+ 32 student at a "lower ranked school" is in fact very intelligent

 

[Helse23]

I would argue that the 3.7+ 32 student at a "lower ranked school" is in fact very intelligent

They are intelligent, but that isn't related to whether or not a person a top school would get a similar gpa at a lower ranked school. And I would say that a student at a top school with a 3.3 and a 32 on the MCAT is likely to be at relatively similar intelligence level, but one will get into med school without needing remediation whereas the other will have to continue to prove their intelligence.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

They are intelligent, but that isn't related to whether or not a person a top school would get a similar gpa at a lower ranked school.

And for the 6,000th time, you and others are arbitrarily lumping lower ranked schools into this artificial "easy category."

 

[Helse23]

And for the 6,000th time, you and others are arbitrarily lumping lower ranked schools into this artificial easy category.

Just because someone says it might be easier to get a higher gpa, doesn't mean anyone is saying that the subject matter is easier or that you don't have to work as hard to achieve the higher gpa. What I am saying is that if every school, say, curved to a B, if you were graded against students that were the top of their classes it would be harder to be above average than in classes where the students are a mix of top students and mediocre students. Where are there more likely to be more top students? Top school. Yes, there are oversimplifications, but if it is such an arbitrary argument than it is arbitrary to put much clout in GPAs. Which would mean standardized tests would be the best indicator for med school. Which would mean students from tops schools with lower GPAs and high MCATs shouldn't have trouble getting into med schools. Anyways, this argument isn't going to go anywhere or accomplish anything, so I guess I've made my choices and you've made yours and I'm sure we'll both be successful in the end.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Just because someone says it might be easier to get a higher gpa, doesn't mean anyone is saying that the subject matter is easier or that you don't have to work as hard to achieve the higher gpa. What I am saying is that if every school, say, curved to a B, if you were graded against students that were the top of their classes it would be harder to be above average than in classes where the students are a mix of top students and mediocre students. Where are there more likely to be more top students? Top school. Yes, there are oversimplifications, but if it is such an arbitrary argument than it is arbitrary to put much clout in GPAs. Which would mean standardized tests would be the best indicator for med school. Which would mean students from tops schools with lower GPAs and high MCATs shouldn't have trouble getting into med schools. Anyways, this argument isn't going to go anywhere or accomplish anything, so I guess I've made my choices and you've made yours and I'm sure we'll both be successful in the end.

The argument is pointless because it's misdirected (among other reasons). If a school is making material unnecessarily difficult, then it's harming students IMO. On the other hand, if the material is too easy, then the school is doing a disservice by not adequately preparing students for future challenges. It's all about achieving balance.

Also, keep in mind that a lower emphasis on GPA can hinder students at more challenging schools who did not perform well on the MCAT but managed to achieve a competitive GPA.

 

[Helse23]

The argument is pointless because it's misdirected (among other reasons). If a school is making material unnecessarily difficult, then it's harming students IMO. On the other hand, if the material is too easy, then the school is doing a disservice by not adequately preparing students for future challenges. It's all about achieving balance.

Also, keep in mind that a lower emphasis on GPA can hinder students at more challenging schools who did not perform well on the MCAT but managed to achieve a competitive GPA.

I've already said that I disagree with that though. Top schools are top schools because they go so in depth. For example, with biochem. I have a friend at Yale Med who has told me that students there use my biochem classes' course notes to supplement their studying. I already have the steps of all the major metabolic/biochemical processes memorized (including structures) and I understand the implications of altering these steps. So now my school has made it so that when I am in med school, I will be very well prepared to learn everything again and more fully. 10 weeks to learn all these pathways and more was difficult, but will be very helpful for my future. Why sacrifice knowledge for the sake of a pretty number?

And, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with people with high GPAs and low scores being hindered. It would level the playing field for people who may work 20hrs/wk for financial reasons (like me) or wanted to explore more difficult subjects or had other issues come up in their life, so they didn't have the same amount of free time available to study but still were learning. The test is a way of seeing what useable knowledge has actually been retained. And the MCAT is almost certainly a better representation of how a student will do on the USMLE than GPA. If you can get a high GPA, but don't do well on standardized tests, you are going to run into problems in med school