What's considered a competitive GPA?

[XRanger]

especially for cali med schools?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Surf Rx]

4.0

 

[uhohspaghettio]

4.0

 

[Glorified]

anything above a 3.9999

 

[Surf Rx]

Seriously though, it's not all about your GPA. You should have a solid MCAT and ECs, as well as some good LORs. It won't matter if you have a 4.0 if you have a crappy MCAT and ECs. Check out the MSAR or mdapplicants.com for the numbers though.

 

[eastcoastyall]

US News also posts the average GPA and MCAT scores for incoming applicants as well.

 

[postbacker]

3.6+ and climbing in recent years...anything less and you are sliding down the other side of the bell curve...to be truly "competitive" 3.7+...

 

[alwaysaangel]

For Cali schools you really need to be 3.7+.

3.62 and 33Q weren't enough for me (unless Irvine comes through). But I knew they wouldn't be. UCs are a tough crowd. You need heavy research, and good numbers.

 

[chaldobruin]

For Cali schools you really need to be 3.7+.

3.62 and 33Q weren't enough for me (unless Irvine comes through). But I knew they wouldn't be. UCs are a tough crowd. You need heavy research, and good numbers.

Well, the average GPAs of Cali schools run from 3.6-3.7, but all of them except loma linda are research powerhouses.. thus, a lack of scientific research will put you out of the running with them (unless you are an olympic athlete or something).

 

[notdeadyet]

Well, the average GPAs of Cali schools run from 3.6-3.7, but all of them except loma linda are research powerhouses.. thus, a lack of scientific research will put you out of the running with them (unless you are an olympic athlete or something).

Completely untrue. They are research powerhouses and therefore attract research-minded folks, but it's by no means a requirement. I have somewhat average stats (30/3.8) and interviewed at UC Davis and UCSF and no one mentioend the fact that I have zero research background.

In fact, at one interview, I asked the interviewer if the fact that I had no research was a strike against me. The interviewer asked if I wanted to go into medical research. I said "no". He shrugged and said, "then it's not a problem."

If you have research, great. But don't feel a lack of it should prevent you from UC traction.

 

[trichomoniasis]

Completely untrue. They are research powerhouses and therefore attract research-minded folks, but it's by no means a requirement. I have somewhat average stats (30/3.8) and interviewed at UC Davis and UCSF and no one mentioend the fact that I have zero research background.

In fact, at one interview, I asked the interviewer if the fact that I had no research was a strike against me. The interviewer asked if I wanted to go into medical research. I said "no". He shrugged and said, "then it's not a problem."

If you have research, great. But don't feel a lack of it should prevent you from UC traction.

not trying to start a fight here, but you really can't compare the OP to yourself, you're more than a decade older probably and definitely fall into that "nontrad" category. Completely different process than the "traditional" premed.

 

[Divine Furor]

not trying to start a fight here, but you really can't compare the OP to yourself, you're more than a decade older probably and definitely fall into that "nontrad" category. Completely different process than the "traditional" premed.

Um, howso exactly? I'm a nontrad and I can completely identify with a 22-yr-old's question about GPA. I asked the same question myself last year. Also, experience in research has nothing to do with trad versus nontrad--if an interviewer told ANY applicant that if they're not interested in research, then lack of research doesn't strike against them: why shouldn't they share that anxiety-relieving anecdotal evidence?

 

[trichomoniasis]

Um, howso exactly? I'm a nontrad and I can completely identify with a 22-yr-old's question about GPA. I asked the same question myself last year. Also, experience in research has nothing to do with trad versus nontrad--if an interviewer told ANY applicant that if they're not interested in research, then lack of research doesn't strike against them: why shouldn't they share that anxiety-relieving anecdotal evidence?

you misunderstand. I'm not saying that the concerns of a "traditional" applicant aren't concerns for "non-traditional" applicants (ie. GPA, MCAT, clinical experience, etc).

There's a difference between someone who graduated from college 15 years ago with a degree in English and working what I can only assume is a career unrelated to health sciences and a 22 year old graduating this year with a degree in Molecular Bio never having done a lick of research.

I guess I was unclear. If the OP's whole deal has nothing to do with biomed research, and their app is tailored that way (ie. heavy on community service, teaching, outreach, etc) then of course science research is irrelevant.

however if they're a Bio major (or similar) and do the normal (ie. traditional) premed stuff (shadowing, volunteering in hospital, etc) and they never spent a day in a lab, that's a bit weird. no?

 

[Divine Furor]

Gotcha trich, thanks for clarifying.:smile: And you're right, it would be weird for a recent grad in biomed or...wait what did that other OP say a while ago? "HARD SCIENCE", lol, to have completely avoided pursuing any kind of research experience.

 

[prmdbeach17]

I was going to answer that especially by standards on SDN it is 4.0000 but it seems as though someone beat me to it. There's also a thread around here "Anything you would like to see in the MSAR" or something like that and you can ask the OP whatever you want him/her to look up in it. There's already stats from a good number of schools posted.

 

[notdeadyet]

I guess I was unclear. If the OP's whole deal has nothing to do with biomed research, and their app is tailored that way (ie. heavy on community service, teaching, outreach, etc) then of course science research is irrelevant.

however if they're a Bio major (or similar) and do the normal (ie. traditional) premed stuff (shadowing, volunteering in hospital, etc) and they never spent a day in a lab, that's a bit weird. no?

Why would you assume that the OP is a 21/22 year old college student majoring in Bio? I agree with you that if someone is a bio major it would be odd to not have any lab experience. But I didn't take it from the OPs post that s/he is necessarily a bio major.

And regardless of the OP's situation, it doesn't change the fact that not having research experience will not stop you from getting traction at a UC. Will it stop an engineering major who completed prereqs? No. Will it stop a bio major? Not necessarily; not if they focused on life science extension and education or something.

There's a million good reasons that applicants may don't pursue research and most medical schools realize this. You'll only get killed if you're applying to a few select schools, applying MD-PhD or try positioning yourself as a physician-scientist when you haven't walked the walk.

 

[trichomoniasis]

Why would you assume that the OP is a 21/22 year old college student majoring in Bio? I agree with you that if someone is a bio major it would be odd to not have any lab experience. But I didn't take it from the OPs post that s/he is necessarily a bio major.

just going with instinct

And regardless of the OP's situation, it doesn't change the fact that not having research experience will not stop you from getting traction at a UC. Will it stop an engineering major who completed prereqs? No. Will it stop a bio major? Not necessarily; not if they focused on life science extension and education or something.

I don't know, people making headway at research schools (ucla, ucsf, stanford, etc) seem to be the exceptions not the rule.

There's a million good reasons that applicants may don't pursue research and most medical schools realize this. You'll only get killed if you're applying to a few select schools, applying MD-PhD or try positioning yourself as a physician-scientist when you haven't walked the walk.

while I'm not a huge fan of generalizing, research experience is becoming "one of those things" like clinical experience and shadowing experience that is "recommended" (read: soon to be required). There's just no reason that kids graduating from college now can't get experience doing research, the opportunities are everywhere.

Also, because research experience is so easy to get, the "market" will eventually be saturated with candidates who have research experience, making marginal candidates with no experience in research more marginal, but the unique ones with no research experience for a reason will stand out.

Basically what I'm saying is, if you're going into medicine from the health science (emphasis on science) angle, you're going to need experience in research to prove your mettle. This is my opinion, of course, and this is what I think the future of the med school process will look like.

 

[chaldobruin]

Completely untrue. They are research powerhouses and therefore attract research-minded folks, but it's by no means a requirement. I have somewhat average stats (30/3.8) and interviewed at UC Davis and UCSF and no one mentioend the fact that I have zero research background.

In fact, at one interview, I asked the interviewer if the fact that I had no research was a strike against me. The interviewer asked if I wanted to go into medical research. I said "no". He shrugged and said, "then it's not a problem."

If you have research, great. But don't feel a lack of it should prevent you from UC traction.

You do bring up a good point, especially with the example of your own application.. perhaps I was too extreme with my words. I was merely trying to hint that alwayssangels' lack of success at the UC"s might have had to do with the lack of research, since her stats are great (3.62, 33 is competitive for the UC's). I do believe that a complete lack of research on a traditional applicant's applicant is definitely a red flag nowadays. If you don't believe me, look at the MSAR.. for each school there is a figure stating "% of accepted students involved in research" or something to that effect. That number hovers close to 90% for each of the UC's. 90% !! That says something.

However, if an applicant has something else that stands out, I think a lack of research can be compensated for. E.g. if you are an athelete, a nontraditional applicant with major life experience such as yourself, a URM, etc. Just my two cents. Agree, disagree anyone?

 

[notdeadyet]

If you don't believe me, look at the MSAR.. for each school there is a figure stating "% of accepted students involved in research" or something to that effect. That number hovers close to 90% for each of the UC's. 90% !! That says something.

Actually, that number is in the 80's or higher for most med schools I looked at. It had me worried.

I think folks misinterpret the number, though. Most premeds get research experience as part of their degree. It's sort of knee-jerk. For every person passionate about their undergrad medical research, there are 10 doing it because it's required by their program.

Think of participation in a science club. I'd wildly guess that 75% of UC matriculants participate in a science club. But I wouldn't use that stat to indicate that an applicant needs to have it. Just because 75% of matriculants have something in their application doesn't mean that that something had any bearing on their acceptance.

Also (and correct me if I'm wrong here), I think the MCAT reports % of matriculants who indicate that they have done research (medical or otherwise). I had an AMCAS EC in the research category for linguistic research I conducted. So I might have been figured into that 90% too.

I understand where you and trich are coming from, and I understand that it's conventional wisdom. It's just that my experience and the experience of lots of other folks have indicated differently. I know lots of folks with no research experience and it hasn't been mentioned once in an interview situation.

 

[uhohspaghettio]

However, if an applicant has something else that stands out, I think a lack of research can be compensated for. E.g. if you are an athelete, a nontraditional applicant with major life experience such as yourself, a URM, etc. Just my two cents. Agree, disagree anyone?

I've heard that anything less than 31 and 3.6 means doom for the UCs

 

[notdeadyet]

I've heard that anything less than 31 and 3.6 means doom for the UCs

The UCs can be fussy. They get lots of great applicants. To get an acceptance, therefore, you need to have a great application.

Lots of folks make their great application through a combination of a great GPA and a great MCAT. But even that's not foolproof. There are a lot of stories of folks with great GPAs and great MCAT scores who are rejected.

You can help your application greatly by standing out from the herd. If you look just like 90% of the other applicants, you need to have better stats than if you distinguish yourself some other way.

If your MCAT is less than 31 and your GPA less than 3.6, I would hope that you have an application that is notable in some other way.

 

[nick_carraway]

The UCs can be fussy. They get lots of great applicants. To get an acceptance, therefore, you need to have a great application.

Yeah the UCs seek a well rounded class--not a well rounded individual. Although some in the class will have heavy research experience, not all will. Some will be brilliant students with numbers to show for it, but some will have a 3.0. Some will be fresh out of undergrad, but at least at Davis, the non-trad applicant is viewed extremely favorably.

 

[notdeadyet]

Yeah the UCs seek a well rounded class--not a well rounded individual.

Oooh, nicely put. I like that. And I firmly believe it. Once you have four olympic medal winners in your entering class, do you really care about a fifth?

 

[trichomoniasis]

Oooh, nicely put. I like that. And I firmly believe it. Once you have four olympic medal winners in your entering class, do you really care about a fifth?

agreed, as another student I met described it: the powerhouse schools treat their class like a trophy case.

 

[notdeadyet]

agreed, as another student I met described it: the powerhouse schools treat their class like a trophy case.

And I feel like one of them little pink ribbons you get for 2nd place in the cub scout pinewood derby...

 

[Dr2Bee]

I'd say around a 3.7 and up with at least a 31 (evenly distributed)??

 

[AnesthesiaMD]

According to AAMC, last year's Matriculants from CA had a 3.60 average GPA. However I didn't look to see what % of students got into CA schools.