Why is GPA so important?

[Kag01]

I understand that all else being equal , someone with a 3.5 GPA is considered a better student than someone with let's say a 3.0 GPA but for med school how does that make sense?

Do Adcoms really have the background to judge all majors?

I really don't see how someone with a 3.5 GPA in history or psychology is better than someone with a 3.0 GPA in Mathematics or Physics.

Courses like Abstract algebra , Linear Algebra , PDEs , Quantum Mechanics , etc. make every single course in a history major or psychology look like a joke.

Based on what I heard , Adcoms have no idea how hard the aforementioned courses are so they consider all majors equal.

Is medical school really about memorization and not critical thinking?
From personal experience I would say someone who majored in Engineering , Physics , or Math all have great critical thinking skills but how many medical doctors actually have a degree in one of those areas?

I've seen premeds run from hard courses all the time to protect their precious GPA.
I guess people who take the easier road get rewarded more.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kag01]

whether they have the ability to judge background of all majors or not, they reality is that Adcoms do judge based on the measure of GPA. Last reasonable actual survey of adcoms at allopathic schools shows a minimum of 75% consider GPA as one of the top 2 factors when considering an applicant.

Isn't there a problem with that way of thinking since some majors have major grade inflation?
I've seen engineering professors give a 0% (an F) if you don't get a 100% of the material right on a test (no partial credit if your design isn't 100% right).

 

[Storph]

I think the problem is, aside from the MCAT, there is little else with which to judge an applicant's ability to perform. I was very frustrated because I asked several medical school deans about this, and they basically said that they look at all GPAs the same. I took the most rigorous biology major at my university, and I watched many of my friends go with the easier one and score higher than me with much less work.

 

[Dressagequeen 247]

If you search the forum there are plenty of students who got in with a 3.0 GPA. Gpa is very important but so are the other parts of the application. No offense but people who seem to complain about the science vs liberal arts majors seem bitter. There are plenty of ways to strengthen your application but it seems like these people do not want to hear that. They just want to complain about how unfair life is. Smh...

 

[Kag01]

I think the problem is, aside from the MCAT, there is little else with which to judge an applicant's ability to perform. I was very frustrated because I asked several medical school deans about this, and they basically said that they look at all GPAs the same. I took the most rigorous biology major at my university, and I watched many of my friends go with the easier one and score higher than me with much less work.

The education system is so segregated so that's the

If you search the forum there are plenty of students who got in with a 3.0 GPA. Gpa is very important but so are the other parts of the application. No offense but people who seem to complain about the science vs liberal arts majors seem bitter. There are plenty of ways to strengthen your application but it seems like these people do not want to hear that. They just want to complain about how unfair life is. Smh...

Of course if you have the time and the money you can offset a 3.0 with other things but the point that I'm making is that liberal art majors essentially get rewarded for doing an easier major.

 

[ERK123]

I agree with this but I just think it is really difficult for ADCOM's to assess the variability of different majors at different school or even different classes at different schools. I mean at the university I went to there was one general chemistry professor that curved his class to a C and another that curved the class to a B. Both were teaching the same semester. There were also different intro biology classes that had quite a variable percentage of students getting A's, B's, C's. It is unfortunate that these factors cannot be controlled for by medical schools, but that is the game we are playing.

 

[Kag01]

I agree with this but I just think it is really difficult for ADCOM's to assess the variability of different majors at different school or even different classes at different schools. I mean at the university I went to there was one general chemistry professor that curved his class to a C and another that curved the class to a B. Both were teaching the same semester. There were also different intro biology classes that had quite a variable percentage of students getting A's, B's, C's. It is unfortunate that these factors cannot be controlled for by medical schools, but that is the game we are playing.

That was another thing that I wanted to point out. Thanks for mentioning it.

I've seen premeds cherry pick their courses so they get a professor that grades easier. The downside is that they sometimes take a long time to graduate but adcoms don't care about that.

 

[Dressagequeen 247]

They say that the MCAT is the great equalizer. I know a girl who's doing an official post bacc at some big university/ medical school and says those professors also push those kids through. She even told me that despite failing a couple exams she was still mataining a high C !! It happens and unless adcoms personally pick every professor for the whole country I doubt its going to change. That's real life for ya!

 

[Kag01]

Lets see:

1) In the real world, the accepted social process across virtually all adcoms is based on GPA, thus making it a "social law" if you will. Therefore, one would expect an engineer to work within the constraints of this social structure to be successful.

2) The social, political, and historical complexities of the world, do require thought and analysis that is a different skill set than the ability to solve different equations or material properties.

3) The core courses of BCPM are required of virtually every premedical student along with MCAT, which is one reason why science grades are so important to adcoms.

4) Lastly, I am really not sure that someone with the analytic skillset of say, Sheldon from Big Bang over someone with a less brilliant but more socially aware background of history major would make a better physician.

Bottom line: what adcoms should do is beyond the scope of most applicants. What an adcom will do is more directly related to an applicant's prospects for medicine

1. Engineers are not graded like most of majors. If your design kills people when it's not supposed to then you get punished for that (failing a test , it's either an A or F from the point of some professors). History majors don't do any designs so they get graded completely different.
2. Engineers do more than just solve equations. A lot of equation solving is done by computers nowadays (nobody solves a 100 x 100 matrix with a bunch of unknowns by hand).
3. The core courses of the BCPM group consist of mostly lower division sciences. An A in non calculus based Physics I is not the same as an A in Quantum Mechanics I. Someone who has only done the bare minimum (the easiest set of courses) is at an advantage.
4. People in the hardcore sciences are more known for coming out with new techniques or better ways of doing things. I don't know of any history majors who helped lay the foundations for huge technological development or standard of living but there are a bunch of mathematicians , engineers , etc. who helped make the world the way it is today. Not all those mathematicians , engineers , etc. had a 3.5+ GPA while they were in school (if they were in school) but they learned how to apply what they learned to the real world.

 

[zoopers]

"Some professors." There are tough professors in liberal arts too. At least in engineering, you're scored on a very concrete, objective, easy-to-understand scale, whereas liberal arts has a more unclear, sometimes subjective grading scheme.

The point is that if you can't excel at something you're passionate about, what would make adcoms think that you would excel in medicine?

 

[Kag01]

"Some professors." There are tough professors in liberal arts too. At least in engineering, you're scored on a very concrete, objective, easy-to-understand scale, whereas liberal arts has a more unclear, sometimes subjective grading scheme.

The point is that if you can't excel at something you're passionate about, what would make adcoms think that you would excel in medicine?

As an example , some people like abstract math but they are better at other things like memorizing reactions.

I'm sure a real genius would have no issues doing well in abstract math courses but medical doctors don't need to be geniuses.

 

[NeuResurgens]

Easy. It's a reliable measure of your ability to manage a course load, and the degree to which you succeeded while managing multiple commitments. It also is correlated to your work ethic and your commitment.

 

[Apollo1]

My initial reaction: "Sour grapes make for a poor w(h)ine..."

OP, liberal arts majors are usually graded on a basis that is subjective at best (and subjective is when you're lucky). Tests, to reiterate what @zoopers said, don't have definitive equations and known reaction pathways; they involve using semantics and rhetoric to engage the instructor on the issue at hand. I'd say that having a background in the liberal arts can give a person certain soft skills that the hard sciences do not. Disclaimer: I was a history major.

3. The core courses of the BCPM group consist of mostly lower division sciences. An A in non calculus based Physics I is not the same as an A in Quantum Mechanics I. Someone who has only done the bare minimum (the easiest set of courses) is at an advantage.

It's on the applicant to get the best grades possible, while being smart about what classes they employ to get those grades. If adcoms determined that Quantum Mechanics I was necessary for med school, or would be extremely beneficial (such as Genetics), then you might have a point.

4. People in the hardcore sciences are more known for coming out with new techniques or better ways of doing things. I don't know of any history majors who helped lay the foundations for huge technological development or standard of living but there are a bunch of mathematicians , engineers , etc. who helped make the world the way it is today. Not all those mathematicians , engineers , etc. had a 3.5+ GPA while they were in school (if they were in school) but they learned how to apply what they learned to the real world.

Not all physicians are persons developing "new techniques of better ways of doing things;" for example, many are simply clinicians serving their patients, and soft skills gained through whatever medium could be the difference in getting a patient to stick to their health plan.

TL;DR: Don't worry about what other applicants are doing or what backgrounds they're coming from. In the end, it's on YOU to convince the adcom that you're the better choice.

 

[NonTrad16]

OP: I received two degrees in engineering with well over 3.0, but nowhere near 3.9... From my perspective, you sound like someone who is resentful that people don't appreciate "how hard you've worked."

Please realize, in your future job, no one really cares how hard you worked, what they care about is the result. Whether your task is engineering, product marketing, project management, whatever... you need to excel at the task you're dealt. Your task in college was to excel. Now, you have a predicament: you have a relatively marketable degree (assuming that GPA isn't too low... companies care too!), but you're trying to change the metric of evaluation to fit you. They won't.

They have a mold they to fill, and if you think engineering degrees are highly valuable (based on...? research? your experience as a student?) then it's on you prove it. They have 2x as many applicants as spots, so we're in the weaker position...

 

[theriomorphos]

.

 

[AM508]

I have two bachelor's degrees, one in the realm of liberal arts and one in biology so I can see things from the two perspectives here. It does vary, but there are plenty of hard liberal arts professors out there. At my school, it wasn't hard to meet the threshold for a C. But if you wanted anything more than a B or B+ you had to bust your ass. Not to mention the grading was relatively subjective in a lot of classes which made studying fairly murky. I found it easier to do well in science because there was a way for grading to be reasonably objective, for example, you do a physics problem and the answer is either wrong or right. My science GPA was a bit HIGHER than my non-science GPA as a result.

Secondarily, medical school is competitive, adcoms for better or worse are not going to spend a huge amount of time looking at an applicant with a 3.0 (unless the applicant has other extremely exceptional areas of note) when they have a huge stack of apps that are 3.5+.

EDIT: a clarification added.

 

[Goro]

OK, hold very still while I smack some sense into you across the electrons.

Firstly, I have never once been convinced of the logic of "my low GPA in X major is = to a high GPA in Y major."

It's a seller's market and with literally tens of thousands of applicants with good GPAs, we can afford to ignore engineering/physics/math/ [insert your perceived difficult major here] majors.

I consider a 4.0 in ANY major to be a 4.0. BTW, after checking MSAR and three random med schools, about 60% of med students were science/math majors.

I understand that all else being equal , someone with a 3.5 GPA is considered a better student than someone with let's say a 3.0 GPA but for med school how does that make sense?

Yes, we do. And it's not just the GPA, it's MCAT and ECs. Stats just get you to the door, ECs get you through the door.
Do Adcoms really have the background to judge all majors?

I really don't see how someone with a 3.5 GPA in history or psychology is better than someone with a 3.0 GPA in Mathematics or Physics.

You wish.
Courses like Abstract algebra , Linear Algebra , PDEs , Quantum Mechanics , etc. make every single course in a history major or psychology look like a joke.

If you were such a good student, why didn't YOU ace them...or at least get a 3.5?
Based on what I heard, Adcoms have no idea how hard the aforementioned courses are so they consider all majors equal.

No, it's about memorizing and then being able to apply and reason.
Is medical school really about memorization and not critical thinking?

I have a DO colleague (my go to guy whether I'm hurting) who was a math major. On the other hand, I once had an engineering student who struggled in his courses. He constantly said "well, as an engineer, I was trained to think this way..." He finally stopped when my Pathologist colleague pointed out "Your days as an engineer ended when you put on that white coat".

From personal experience I would say someone who majored in Engineering , Physics , or Math all have great critical thinking skills but how many medical doctors actually have a degree in one of those areas?

Those pre-meds never make it to medical school. We know their tricks.
I've seen premeds run from hard courses all the time to protect their precious GPA.

You could always do a SMP and prove to us that you can handle medical school, instead of resenting the world and pulling the "woe is me" card.
I guess people who take the easier road get rewarded more.


That's one kid who won''t get into medical school either. We expect people to ace post-bac programs. B's won't cut it.
They say that the MCAT is the great equalizer. I know a girl who's doing an official post bacc at some big university/ medical school and says those professors also push those kids through. She even told me that despite failing a couple exams she was still mataining a high C !! It happens and unless adcoms personally pick every professor for the whole country I doubt its going to change. That's real life for ya!

 

[QofQuimica]

In answer to the OP's question, yes, med school is all about memorization and not about critical thinking. No one wants or expects a med student to think critically as if they were designing a new bridge. For one thing, it's helpful to learn the current body of medical knowledge before you go out there building your better mousetrap and telling everyone else that they're wrong.

 

[efex101]

you are making assumptions that adcoms are clueless and trust me they are not, there are plenty of applicants with HARD majors and great GPA, you are making excuses and sound petulant.

 

[mavric1298]

The only frustrating thing about this from my point of view is mandatory grade allocation - i.e. x number of 4.0, x number of 3.8's etc. UW chem sets mandatory 2.6 +- .2 averages for it's chem department but 3.2-3.4 in others, which is kinda stupid, especially for lab's; so for example you can have a 95% and still get a 2.6. It has no relation to how well you do or your mastery of the material, it's purely how you do compared to your classmates (which is exactly what a lot of med schools are trying to get away from, with pass/fail/honors. All it does is foster hostility and gunner mentality, I mean why would I help you study when all that does is to hurt me). And because of this, the prof's purposefully make ridiculous tests to allow a larger distribution. My final for this term had a 33% average.

But as far as easy majors vs not, that kind is our choice isn't it? Everyone goes in knowing that; if you don't like it, you should have gone with one of the "easy" majors.

 

[Law2Doc]

Major in what you enjoy AND can do well in. If your goals are med school it shouldn't be either or. If you love math but stink at it, don't expect to get into med school with the lousy labors of your love. If you hate eg history you probably won't do nearly as well in it as you are postulating. Most of my med school colleagues dreaded the notion of essay tests and lengthy thesis papers. To them, that was a LOT harder than just studying for and taking a test. And truth of the matter is their mmorization skill-sets probably proved more useful in the early years of med school and less useful thereafter.

Bottom line is the only thing you must take for med school is the prereqs, and we all have an even playing field with those. After that it's up to you what you take, and you have nobody else to whine to if you choose badly and end up with a lousy GPA. Med schools like math and physics majors just fine, it's the 3.0 that they abhor, in every discipline. Do what you need to to get into med school or have a great time taking impossible classes where you'll probably get a C -- you really don't get to do both. Choose wisely. But frankly in my experience most of the people who whine that others have it easier don't tend to do that great when they put on those others shoes.

 

[ConfusedChemist]

If you think needing a 3.5 is bad, be glad you aren't in Canada
My undergrad school has a med school with an AVERAGE gpa of 3.94/4 last year....
and that number is actually a falsely low estimate because it includes grad students with lower GPA cutoffs

 

[Kag01]

you are making assumptions that adcoms are clueless and trust me they are not, there are plenty of applicants with HARD majors and great GPA, you are making excuses and sound petulant.

I finished my BS in two years since I had lots of college credit from highschool. I also finished Multivarible Calc and Diff eq before starting 12th grade.

Offsetting all the Bs and Cs in college courses from high school would take awhile. I had to handle 12+ college credits with my high school courses (multiple AP courses) for awhile so it's not like I had it easy.

 

[MrLogan13]

I finished my BS in two years since I had lots of college credit from highschool. I also finished Multivarible Calc and Diff eq before starting 12th grade.

Offsetting all the Bs and Cs in college courses from high school would take awhile. I had to handle 12+ college credits with my high school courses (multiple AP courses) for awhile so it's not like I had it easy.

If you had trouble maintaining good grades in your college coursework because of your competing course load from HS, then why did you choose to do that? You may poo poo others for protecting their GPA's, but wrecking your GPA just to demonstrate what an academic stud you are by taking on too much is also unwise and demonstrates poor decision making.

 

[Kag01]

If you had trouble maintaining good grades in your college coursework because of your competing course load from HS, then why did you choose to do that? You may poo poo others for protecting their GPA's, but wrecking your GPA just to demonstrate what an academic stud you are by taking on too much is also unwise and demonstrates poor decision making.

Well , when I was in high school I was actually one of the top math/science students so I thought I could handle the load. Of course I know better now but the damage is done.

 

[MrLogan13]

Well , when I was in high school I was actually one of the top math/science students so I thought I could handle the load. Of course I know better now but the damage is done.

You're right, the damage is done. All you can do is proceed from there. It does no good to denigrate the accomplishments of others by accusing them of choosing the easy path or how much harder your coursework is. To do so only serves to make you sound arrogant and condescending. Taking what you perceive to be more challenging coursework doesn't make you any better than those who don't take similar coursework. Make the most out of what you enjoy and do whatever you can to make yourself a competitive applicant. Don't worry about what anyone else is doing. Good luck on your journey.

 

[mavric1298]

I think it's being disingenuous to say "perceived more challenging" when comparing some majors. It's just a fact that a lot of the science majors are more difficult and are graded more harshly then some of the humanities/arts/etc. However, it's all of our choices to study what we did, and everyone is level having to take the same required pre-recs. Also the difficulty says nothing of the value of the degree. I can honestly say most bio majors I know are using little to none of their education.

 

[MrLogan13]

I think it's being disingenuous to say "perceived more challenging" when comparing some majors. It's just a fact that a lot of the science majors are more difficult and are graded more harshly then some of the humanities/arts/etc. However, it's all of our choices to study what we did, and everyone is level having to take the same required pre-recs. Also the difficulty says nothing of the value of the degree. I can honestly say most bio majors I know are using little to none of their education.

It's not a fact because perceived difficulty is exactly that, perceived. Difficulty is subjective. And that's okay. It's not a pissing contest.

 

[mavric1298]

I agree 100% it's not a pissing contest. But a 3.59 art average, 3.79 dance average, VS a 2.99 and 2.85 bio and chem average. You can't say that's perceptive. It clearly, statistically, more difficult.

http://depts.washington.edu/grading/pdf/FROG_UWAverageGrades_UNDERGRAD_1213.pdf

 

[efex101]

the problem is no matter what anyone "thinks" the bottom line is that there ARE science majors APPLYING with excellent GPA/scores. SO IT IS possible. The OP sounds well, I said it all in my prior post.

 

[Lawgiver]

inch by inch lifes a cinch, yard by yard life is hard.

pUt That on ur forehead mmkay?

 

[TwinsFan]

There are adcoms that will take some of this into account. But you will need to take a lot of "easy" classes for a several semesters full time and kill them as well as the MCAT to demonstrate your aptitude. If everything you do from now on is top tier worthy for the next couple years then you will probably have your shot. Don't be bitter, go out there and win!

I say this as a former engineer, with a low gpa, who walked the path and is living it. It can be done

 

[WaterPog]

I agree 100% it's not a pissing contest. But a 3.59 art average, 3.79 dance average, VS a 2.99 and 2.85 bio and chem average. You can't say that's perceptive. It clearly, statistically, more difficult.

http://depts.washington.edu/grading/pdf/FROG_UWAverageGrades_UNDERGRAD_1213.pdf

The arts are a very poor choice for this argument, they are far more talent centric and self selecting than the sciences. People who aren't dancers tend to know they aren't dancers by 18 and don't major in dance.

Could you be a successful dance or art major?

 

[mavric1298]

I just grabbed the first thing I saw on the report. But If I wanted to be a art major, hell even a dance major, of course I could be successful. You get graded by effort, not by talent at the undergrad level. There is just as much self selection in science; people who hate/bad at chemistry don't major in chemistry. People who love history major in history. Etc etc etc. That in itself says nothing about the academic rigors of the subject.



Again, don't get me wrong, difficulty has nothing to do with importance/value/etc. My mom was an art teacher and I was a photographer/writer for 5+ years. I think more people should move away from the sciences, and too many people are pressured or go into it for the wrong reason. There is a reason why English majors that do all the pre-reqs have great acceptance rates.

But I stand by what I said earlier. Science classes are generally more difficult to do well in. Advanced molecular orbital theory is going to be harder grade wise then upper level art classes (art 440 for example. Make a coherent theme portfolio over 3 quarters). The natural sciences majors have almost a .5 average gpa difference to the humanities. You can't argue that it's not more difficult to do well in the courses. It's statistically backed up.

 

[Goro]

Having been a Fine Arts minor, you're way off base. College level courses aren't kindergarten. And try writing a paper critically evaluating an artist's work or a genre every two weeks. You don't get graded on effort.

I just grabbed the first thing I saw on the report. But If I wanted to be a art major, hell even a dance major, of course I could be successful. You get graded by effort, not by talent at the undergrad level. There is just as much self selection in science; people who hate/bad at chemistry don't major in chemistry. People who love history major in history. Etc etc etc. That in itself says nothing about the academic rigors of the subject.