Grad School GPA - does it actually matter?

[crazedpiggy]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Rebumping this thread.

A question for those who have selected their schools: Is it a wise idea to go to MSAR online and check the percentage of those with graduate degrees that have matriculated to a certain school?

You can view the percentage of students with grad degrees under the Matriculant demographics section.

I'm a bit worried myself - I had a 3.29 ugGPA (~3.20 BCPM); but I worked my butt of in a Biochemistry/Molecular Bio/Immunology Master's and got a 4.00. Not sure where all this graduate school is a joke is coming from but my program was definitely no walk in the park. Will be taking MCAT in June. I'm a TX resident if that matters.

If anyone has any schools to add, that would be very helpful.

Thanks and good luck to everyone. 🙂

 

[alisvolatpropri]

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. 3.93 uGPA, and 3.53 gGPA. 🙁

 

[qwerty2012]

I think around 30+ credits of high GPA(3.75+) in masters where u take hardcore + medical sciences, can redeem poor UG but only to a limit. The mcat has to match the average also.
A lot of factors matter also such as EC AND where you went to UG. I have read profiles of ppl from schools like Caltech, mit getting into top med schools with not so great gpa.

 

[zebalong]

From what i understand, at least from us allopath schools. Unfortunately a high grad gpa (even in a science) doesn't offset a lower undergrad gpa. But a low grad gpa can be a red flag.

Edit.. wait this post was from like may

 

[davismario36]

it all depends from what i understand. i attend Wayne State in Detroit which has a great science and medical reputation. important factors to consider:
1. major in which grad degree was earned
obviously the degree MUST be in a hard, didactic science. MPH or Psych will not help.

2. school where grad degree was earned
if you completed the grad degree at a school that has a med school APPLY THERE. bc it is the same school and the adcom may know or at least have heard of some of your grad school profs, they may look at that as a plus. IE,, if you apply to univ of XX med school, the adcom will likely feel that because you completed your degree at XX univ your grad education was worthy and rigorous

3. med schools applied to.
once again if you completed your grad degree at QQ univ the adcom at ZZ medical school may not be familiar with QQ univ. therefore they may not know exactly how rigorous your grad education was. they also may feel that QQ univ is relatively easy and is known for inflating grades. bc of this do not apply to superior med programs as they are sure to not care that you have a grad degree.

4. DEPENDS ON HOW MED SCHOOL CONSIDERs GRAD GPA
med schools consider grad gpa in 1 of 3 ways
A. uGPA and gGPA remain separate and different (worst method/most difficult to be accepted)
B. uGPA and gGPA combined into a single GPA (Umich does this)
C. if a certain number of grad credits are completed by the time of application, the medical school will ignore uGPA and only consider gGPA. (wayne state does this)

there is no way to know which method the med school uses other than to ASK EACH MED SCHOOL. they generally do not post this info on their websites bc they assume applicants had stellar undergrad performances. I know that my school Wayne State will "ignore uGPA and use only gPGA if at least 20 grad credits are taken in a hard, didactic science." obviously you want as close to a 4.0 as possible aiming for 3.8 minimum

PRIME EXAMPLE
I screwed around big time at my school Wayne State Univ. I did take upper level bio courses as electives to complete my degree. 2-3 of those electives were taught by the med school profs OR at least by bio profs who have a close connection to the med school profs. from there i am applying to MS programs at WSU med school (these classes are taught by the same profs who teach the MD and PhD students., some of whom are on the adcom) from there i will DEFINITELY apply to WSU med (and other schools, umich and Wayne have a great science/medical relationship and i should also stand a good chance there). as long as i do well in the MS program (3.8+) I am a pretty much guaranteed admission to Wayne Med and bc wayne and umich have a great relationship(universities work together and have a joint phyio symposium, students and profs cross train and teach among both schools) i stand a solid chance getting into umich.

 

[EnergyDrink]

I didn't know Wayne State did that. UMDNJ-SOM does as well. The cutoff is 30 credits; which is strict. 30 credits of graduate work completely erases your undergraduate GPA.

 

[Prettypuff1]

Rebumping this thread.

A question for those who have selected their schools: Is it a wise idea to go to MSAR online and check the percentage of those with graduate degrees that have matriculated to a certain school?

You can view the percentage of students with grad degrees under the Matriculant demographics section.

I'm a bit worried myself - I had a 3.29 ugGPA (~3.20 BCPM); but I worked my butt of in a Biochemistry/Molecular Bio/Immunology Master's and got a 4.00. Not sure where all this graduate school is a joke is coming from but my program was definitely no walk in the park. Will be taking MCAT in June. I'm a TX resident if that matters.

If anyone has any schools to add, that would be very helpful.

Thanks and good luck to everyone. 🙂

this is what i dont understand..
where these inflated grades are.. My MS and PhD courses have no curve at all. Both of them were/are in hard sciences with research/Thesis components

 

[IslandStyle808]

it all depends from what i understand. i attend Wayne State in Detroit which has a great science and medical reputation. important factors to consider:
1. major in which grad degree was earned
obviously the degree MUST be in a hard, didactic science. MPH or Psych will not help.

2. school where grad degree was earned
if you completed the grad degree at a school that has a med school APPLY THERE. bc it is the same school and the adcom may know or at least have heard of some of your grad school profs, they may look at that as a plus. IE,, if you apply to univ of XX med school, the adcom will likely feel that because you completed your degree at XX univ your grad education was worthy and rigorous

3. med schools applied to.
once again if you completed your grad degree at QQ univ the adcom at ZZ medical school may not be familiar with QQ univ. therefore they may not know exactly how rigorous your grad education was. they also may feel that QQ univ is relatively easy and is known for inflating grades. bc of this do not apply to superior med programs as they are sure to not care that you have a grad degree.

4. DEPENDS ON HOW MED SCHOOL CONSIDERs GRAD GPA
med schools consider grad gpa in 1 of 3 ways
A. uGPA and gGPA remain separate and different (worst method/most difficult to be accepted)
B. uGPA and gGPA combined into a single GPA (Umich does this)
C. if a certain number of grad credits are completed by the time of application, the medical school will ignore uGPA and only consider gGPA. (wayne state does this)

there is no way to know which method the med school uses other than to ASK EACH MED SCHOOL. they generally do not post this info on their websites bc they assume applicants had stellar undergrad performances. I know that my school Wayne State will "ignore uGPA and use only gPGA if at least 20 grad credits are taken in a hard, didactic science." obviously you want as close to a 4.0 as possible aiming for 3.8 minimum

PRIME EXAMPLE
I screwed around big time at my school Wayne State Univ. I did take upper level bio courses as electives to complete my degree. 2-3 of those electives were taught by the med school profs OR at least by bio profs who have a close connection to the med school profs. from there i am applying to MS programs at WSU med school (these classes are taught by the same profs who teach the MD and PhD students., some of whom are on the adcom) from there i will DEFINITELY apply to WSU med (and other schools, umich and Wayne have a great science/medical relationship and i should also stand a good chance there). as long as i do well in the MS program (3.8+) I am a pretty much guaranteed admission to Wayne Med and bc wayne and umich have a great relationship(universities work together and have a joint phyio symposium, students and profs cross train and teach among both schools) i stand a solid chance getting into umich.

+ infinity

YESSSSSSSSS!

You are the first person to lay it out straight. Not a lot of residents nor medical students have stated it as correctly as you have. This is bang on right.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Rebumping this thread.

A question for those who have selected their schools: Is it a wise idea to go to MSAR online and check the percentage of those with graduate degrees that have matriculated to a certain school?

You can view the percentage of students with grad degrees under the Matriculant demographics section.

I'm a bit worried myself - I had a 3.29 ugGPA (~3.20 BCPM); but I worked my butt of in a Biochemistry/Molecular Bio/Immunology Master's and got a 4.00. Not sure where all this graduate school is a joke is coming from but my program was definitely no walk in the park. Will be taking MCAT in June. I'm a TX resident if that matters.

If anyone has any schools to add, that would be very helpful.

Thanks and good luck to everyone. 🙂

It is because the SDN dogma has infected the minds of a lot of people. It is true that there are a lot of school that only look at the UG grades. However, there are still some that look at the Grad grades (not just as an EC). My state school for example awards you a few extra points towards your score if you have completed a masters degree or PhD degree.

Main message is check the school and ask how it views grad grades. SDN consensus will not give you the clear cut answer.

 

[Sparda29]

What about when you had a 3.2 GPA in undergrad but your grad school GPA was abysmal (2.3) because you fell in with the crowd that believed in C = degree.

 

[Telekinesis]

Bumping this thread. Anyone else find any schools that consider graduate degrees?

 

[ChrisMack390]

Sorry to bump after a long span, but this thread really pulled itself together after a few pages and became incredibly helpful.

One school I will mention is Tufts - they definitely love non-trads and grad degrees. I'm not sure on their specific policy, but they have a very holistic process.

I think what is important, for all schools, is your graduate GPA in its proper context. If you can honestly say that you didn't necessarily fully apply yourself in undergrad, but then later in life you became motivated to pursue and went back to school and killed it, and you have a good set of circumstances/grades/letters/activities to corroborate that, then I think you stand a solid chance. If you don't have anything going for you except some B+ graduate classes, then yeah its probably not helpful...

 

[IslandStyle808]

Almost 3 years later and I still stand by my former statement!

 

[ChrisMack390]

There are more. The list I have compiled from checking out school's websites and from other SDN posters:

U Colorado - averages all grades together
U Virginia - averages uGPA and gGPA
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Virginia Commonwealth University - website specifically discusses applicants with weak GPAs pursuing a masters degree
uMich - averages u and gGPAs
Georgetown
Wayne State and UMDNJ might entirely replace uGPA
UMinnesota
UCentral Florida
Arizona (initially screened only with uGPA, but then postbac and grad GPA considered).
UCalifornia-Irvine-adds an additional point to your "score"
UConn-includes gGPA in their GPA calculation
Albany-"includes all coursework"
Columbia
OUWB
BU
Drexel
Hofstra
University of Pittsburgh
SUNY Upstate
St. Louis University
New York Medical College (especially for re-applicants)
Dartmouth
Northwestern University


Now, do take this list with a grain of salt. Some of it is pulled directly from the admissions pages of their respective website, so it must be true unless you believe that, say VCU, is intentionally lying to applicants. Others are from SDN posters that claimed to have called the schools and asked. My advice would be to call the schools you are interested in yourself and ask. Some will surely tell you grad degrees are unimportant, but at least some others will look at it differently.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Did you decide not to go to medical school after all?

Waitlist at a few currently. Three years ago was when I started posting on SDN (been reading for 5-6 years). It was around the time I was finishing up my masters and decided to do more GPA repair.

 

[Catalystik]

Updated information, originally posted in PreMedAllo:

Common SDN advice is that masters degrees count as a nice EC but the GPA is not so important since there are courses, grades may be deflated, etc. This is probably true at a sizable chunk of schools, but not all of them. While researching my school list I emailed a bunch of schools about this topic. The most common response was that all academics and experiences are reviewed holistically. Only Mayo and Cornell were somewhat dismissive of the graduate GPA.

A few schools have very favorable policies. Im sure this is of interest to some SDNers. These are direct quotes from admissions staff.

Quote continues:

Vanderbilt - both GPA's are reviewed and the adcomm specifically likes to see upward trend from U to G.

UAZ-Phoenix - first, if you are below the 3.0 screen and compete a grad degree with >3.0, you are all set; second, they weigh the most recent 60 creditsmore heavily than earlier ones (regardless of U/G).

New Jersey Med School - looks for strength in the most recent academics, especially if it is focused on science and helps prepare the applicant for med school.

Oakland B - looks at big picture, looks for upward trend U→G if U was an issue.

W Michigan HS - "we weigh more heavily on more recent graduate coursework than undergrad coursework.

Wayne - if applicant has > 20 graduate credits, they will replace U with G.


Not a ton, but some good options for those with grad school. I hope this helps someone!

PS -@Catalystik I think this is relevant to your interests.

 

[Predocpremed]

When you fill in your graduate courses on AMCAS, do you include all the meaningless grades like research and seminars? Or just actual coursework?

 

[Catalystik]

When you fill in your graduate courses on AMCAS, do you include all the meaningless grades like research and seminars? Or just actual coursework?

You fill in everything listed on your official transcript.

 

[Predocpremed]

You fill in everything listed on your official transcript.

Thanks!

 

[Flower70954]

You only need a DO letter for certain schools (the CIB has that information).

I did not shadow a DO, but I know one that wrote a letter for me. I shadowed several other doctors for extended periods of time, though.

I acknowledge that it is a relief to be accepted, but it is still very frustrating to have only been offered a single interview at allo schools I applied to.

How many did you apply to? I have an overall uGPA 3.3 , science uGPA 3.7. I am worried, haven't taken the MCAT yet. What did you get on it? Thank you.

 

[Robin-jay]

Yes, grad school GPA DOES matter! After reading various threads on this subject I decided to venture out and get the information from my state med school admissions. I was told by an admissions official that ALL courses are taken into account when calculating the cumulative GPA. Your BCPM GPA will also include respective classes taken at both the undergrad and graduate levels. I also brought up the notion that many consider grad courses or a graduate degree as an EC activity. I was laughed at! LOL I was told that if someone considers a graduate degree as an EC activity, then perhaps they need to get their head examined. 🙂The bottom line is that you should check with the school(s) you are planning on applying to. Most schools do their own accounting before considering applicants. Cheers!

I've had similar experiences when conversing with ADCOMs, both in person and via E-mail.

 

[LittlePuppy]

Would you know if OHSU looks into gGPA? Any information would be helpful. Thank you!

 

[Robin-jay]

Would you know if OHSU looks into gGPA? Any information would be helpful. Thank you!

To be honest, I didn't even know there were some schools that didn't look at gGPA. All the MD and DO schools I ever E-mailed seemed perfectly fine with it.

You could just E-mail the school itself and ask.

 

[DrMidlife]

Ahem.

In the context of a low undergrad GPA, "grad work" by default does not accomplish what you are missing, which is a demonstration of academic prowess in the easily recognized undergraduate preparatory courses for med school, in the context of an easily evaluated undergraduate transcript.

There are literally thousands of grad programs that have no basis to claim med school preparation, and roughly 15 that do. (Gtown SMP et al.) Masters programs can be a tremendous generator of revenue for a struggling college which bears no responsibility for whether graduates of their programs ever get into med school.

From a 3.0, for example, an MPH is no better than an EC in a med school app. An MBA is an EC. Law school is an EC. A "masters in science" may have nothing at all to do with the work you need to do to be ready for med school. A "masters in science" that is legitimate preparation for med school is the exception not the rule.

By contrast, from a 3.0, a traditional masters with pubs in a hard bioscience is a fair and relevant claim to academic prowess. A 3.0 uGPA with a solid masters with pubs in peer-reviewed journals, combined with a competitive MCAT, is compelling redemption.

The person who answers the phone at a med school is not in the room where transcripts are picked over, where the default response to every application is "no," where the history of unsuccessful med students who were "given a chance" and did not do well hangs over the room like a cloud. The person who answers the phone is not an adcom. The person who answers the phone or greets you in the admissions office sees the 5000-10,000 apps that come in and the 500-or-so invites to interview and the 200-or-so offers of admission, and bulk processes the 5000-10,000 rejection letters, and hears lots of anecdotes about those applications without responsibility for the decisions behind that information flow. This person does not review apps nor make admissions decisions.

tl;dr: "grad work" is not sufficient to describe GPA redemption coursework, and you do a disservice to those on a GPA redemption path to advise that "grad work" is equivalent to well-recognized undergraduate premed coursework, or a traditional masters in a bioscience with pubs, or a program hosted at a med school that is designed to prepare low GPA students for med school.

And now, of course, all the anecdotes from people who "got in" with a "low" GPA and "grad work" will start rolling in. Don't plan your med school prep around anecdata. Plan your med school prep with full respect for the difficulty of the work. Getting in is not the hard part.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Robin-jay]

By contrast, from a 3.0, a traditional masters with pubs in a hard bioscience is a fair and relevant claim to academic prowess. A 3.0 uGPA with a solid masters with pubs in peer-reviewed journals, combined with a competitive MCAT, is compelling redemption.

Seems good to me.

 

[binderpaper]

Why does everyone say that masters arent considered because it's impossible to compare different programs among different students? Imo, undergrad rigor varies immensely but ugpa is still a majority of the application process??

 

[Robin-jay]

Why does everyone say that masters arent considered because it's impossible to compare different programs among different students? Imo, undergrad rigor varies immensely but ugpa is still a majority of the application process??

I agree with this.

 

[DrMidlife]

Why does everyone say that masters arent considered because it's impossible to compare different programs among different students? Imo, undergrad rigor varies immensely but ugpa is still a majority of the application process??

"aren't considered" isn't what anybody is saying. Grad work is visible on the app and is noticed. The point is that grad work doesn't equate to traditional premed work.

Undergrad work plus MCAT is the standard. MCAT is the equalizer for varying undergrad rigor. There is no equalizer for grad work other than peer-reviewed pubs.

 

[Robin-jay]

"aren't considered" isn't what anybody is saying. Grad work is visible on the app and is noticed. The point is that grad work doesn't equate to traditional premed work.

Undergrad work plus MCAT is the standard. MCAT is the equalizer for varying undergrad rigor. There is no equalizer for grad work other than peer-reviewed pubs.

The MCAT is the best equalizer. No doubt about it.

I generally agree with your post, but is does raise eyebrows when one excels in something like an bioengineering PhD or so, and med schools hardly seem to take notice.

In a rigorous traditional masters/PhD, one can teach pre-req. courses, excel in research, earn a great GPA in 600 level physics, chemistry, etc. courses, and med schools only take it "into consideration", as though it was a glorified EC.

I agree that grad. work doesn't equate to traditional premed work, but it should be considered more that what it currently is.

Since you can't equalize undergrad. work between several pre-med students anyway(pre-reqs are graded differently depending on university/professor), I don't see an issue with holding grad. school success as a higher accomplishment.

Let the MCAT be the equalizer.

Just my opinion.

 

[DrMidlife]

The MCAT is the best equalizer. No doubt about it.

I generally agree with your post, but is does raise eyebrows when one excels in something like an bioengineering PhD or so, and med schools hardly seem to take notice.

In a rigorous traditional masters/PhD, one can teach pre-req. courses, excel in research, earn a great GPA in 600 level physics, chemistry, etc. courses, and med schools only take it "into consideration", as though it was a glorified EC.

I agree that grad. work doesn't equate to traditional premed work, but it should be considered more that what it currently is.

Since you can't equalize undergrad. work between several pre-med students anyway(pre-reqs are graded differently depending on university/professor), I don't see an issue with holding grad. school success as a higher accomplishment.

Let the MCAT be the equalizer.

Just my opinion.

1. If this story, of a bioeng PhD who didn't get into med school and was told their grad work didn't matter, is a hypothetical, it's tiresome pre-allo silage.
2. If this story does not belong to you, thus you think you know somebody with a bioeng PhD who didn't get into med school and was told their grad work didn't matter, that person is not telling you the whole story.
3. If this story does belong to you, thus you are somebody with a bioeng PhD who didn't get into med school and was told their grad work didn't matter, then you are not telling the whole story.

You're setting up the story as if it's a person who is mature and accomplished and knowledgeable and an obvious clear asset to any med school, however it rests on assumptions that as a premed you have any say in med school admissions, and/or that a mature/accomplished/knowledgeable academic person can lack basic insight into and respect for the game being played in med school admissions, and/or that med school admissions doesn't screen out those with a massive chip on their shoulder about the value of their PhD vs. the value of the traditional premed curriculum and the reason for the existence of that premed curriculum and the prioritization of the overwhelming majority of premeds who are doing things more-or-less traditionally.

 

[rabbott1971]

Gotta disagree with you and agree with Midlife here. Grad program GPAs other than SMPs simply don't matter. In general a grad degree is going to be looked at as a nice EC, but really won't add much else to the equation. If you totally tanked a graduate program, that might be used as evidence that you won't do well in med school, but the GPA itself won't be factored in in any meaningful way. A med school might like to say "15% of our class has advanced degrees" and to this extent it's beneficial, although not so much more beneficial than allowing a school say "25% of our class has" published research, extra digits, whatever. Congrats for getting in, but I think you are likely giving credit to the wrong aspects of your app.

Unfortunately there is far too much of this kind of advice floating around SDN, when it is simply false and potentially dangerous for medical school applicants.

Many schools will generate an "overall GPA," which includes all coursework, undergraduate and graduate. For example, during this application cycle, my law school grades were averaged in with my undergrad GPA to give an overall GPA, which was a primary part of the screening metric for giving interviews. This occurred with both my state allopathic and osteopathic schools.

Some programs may not care about graduate GPA. But that is simply not a universal rule. It is dependent upon the specific program to which you are applying.

People need to be checking with their individual programs about this question, and SDN posters should avoid making sweeping, monolithic statements such as graduate grades "simply don't matter." For many medical school programs, graduate GPA is mathematically equivalent to undergraduate GPA.

 

[rabbott1971]

Ahem.

In the context of a low undergrad GPA, "grad work" by default does not accomplish what you are missing, which is a demonstration of academic prowess in the easily recognized undergraduate preparatory courses for med school, in the context of an easily evaluated undergraduate transcript.

There are literally thousands of grad programs that have no basis to claim med school preparation, and roughly 15 that do. (Gtown SMP et al.) Masters programs can be a tremendous generator of revenue for a struggling college which bears no responsibility for whether graduates of their programs ever get into med school.

From a 3.0, for example, an MPH is no better than an EC in a med school app. An MBA is an EC. Law school is an EC. A "masters in science" may have nothing at all to do with the work you need to do to be ready for med school. A "masters in science" that is legitimate preparation for med school is the exception not the rule.

By contrast, from a 3.0, a traditional masters with pubs in a hard bioscience is a fair and relevant claim to academic prowess. A 3.0 uGPA with a solid masters with pubs in peer-reviewed journals, combined with a competitive MCAT, is compelling redemption.

The person who answers the phone at a med school is not in the room where transcripts are picked over, where the default response to every application is "no," where the history of unsuccessful med students who were "given a chance" and did not do well hangs over the room like a cloud. The person who answers the phone is not an adcom. The person who answers the phone or greets you in the admissions office sees the 5000-10,000 apps that come in and the 500-or-so invites to interview and the 200-or-so offers of admission, and bulk processes the 5000-10,000 rejection letters, and hears lots of anecdotes about those applications without responsibility for the decisions behind that information flow. This person does not review apps nor make admissions decisions.

tl;dr: "grad work" is not sufficient to describe GPA redemption coursework, and you do a disservice to those on a GPA redemption path to advise that "grad work" is equivalent to well-recognized undergraduate premed coursework, or a traditional masters in a bioscience with pubs, or a program hosted at a med school that is designed to prepare low GPA students for med school.

And now, of course, all the anecdotes from people who "got in" with a "low" GPA and "grad work" will start rolling in. Don't plan your med school prep around anecdata. Plan your med school prep with full respect for the difficulty of the work. Getting in is not the hard part.

Best of luck to you.

Sorry, but you are making sweeping, general statements that are simply not correct in all instances. In fact it is exactly wrong for the two programs where I applied this cycle. I think you are taking your particular experience, and assuming that all programs do the same thing as yours. However, that is not the case, because graduate GPA can count, and does count in the case of some programs, equally with undergraduate GPA, when adcoms determine whom to invite for interviews. Please temper your advice with some sort of qualifying language so you do not lead others astray or give inaccurate advice, since I know you care about helping students successfully navigate the med school admissions process.

 

[Robin-jay]

1. If this story, of a bioeng PhD who didn't get into med school and was told their grad work didn't matter, is a hypothetical, it's tiresome pre-allo silage.
2. If this story does not belong to you, thus you think you know somebody with a bioeng PhD who didn't get into med school and was told their grad work didn't matter, that person is not telling you the whole story.
3. If this story does belong to you, thus you are somebody with a bioeng PhD who didn't get into med school and was told their grad work didn't matter, then you are not telling the whole story.

You're setting up the story as if it's a person who is mature and accomplished and knowledgeable and an obvious clear asset to any med school, however it rests on assumptions that as a premed you have any say in med school admissions, and/or that a mature/accomplished/knowledgeable academic person can lack basic insight into and respect for the game being played in med school admissions, and/or that med school admissions doesn't screen out those with a massive chip on their shoulder about the value of their PhD vs. the value of the traditional premed curriculum and the reason for the existence of that premed curriculum and the prioritization of the overwhelming majority of premeds who are doing things more-or-less traditionally.

I could have replaced PhD with masters, and/or replaced bioeng. with any hard science (chemistry, physics, etc.).

However my point was that most medical school committees appear to put less emphasis on these programs than they should, not that those programs aren't "considered".

Its as though I feel like if you've taught pre-reqs., its no more meaningful than taking them. Its just goofy.

Just being logical, a student that has taught orgo chem. lab in a graduate school 10 times should be impressive to adcoms, but instead I get the feel they think its just a "gloried EC".

Things like that, that just make no sense imo.

 

[RedBear3005]

@rabbott1971 @Robin-jay

(Note: I say this as a non-traditional student with a graduate degree)

DrMidLife isn't suggesting that there aren't medical schools who take into consideration your graduate GPA or that your graduate GPA isn't considered at all. (Note: I It is possible that both what you two are saying AND what they are saying is true...and in fact, in this instance, that is the case.

It is important to understand that DrMidLife is also writing for posterity. There will be hundreds of non-traditional students each year, many with a graduate degree, who will perform a Google search or use the forum search feature in an effort to understand how their graduate degree will be viewed in the medical school application process. They are trying to assess the landscape. Trying to understand how much sacrifice and hard work it will take to get into medical school. For students who performed poorly as undergrads but excelled in graduate school, they are trying to figure out if an excellent graduate school performance can redeem a poor undergraduate performance. What DrMidLife is saying, is that 1) in the absence of other compelling information to suggest that you can hack the academically rigorous challenge posed by medical school (such as formal or informal post-bacc coursework in BCMP, an SMP, etc. AND a decent MCAT score) that a good graduate GPA alone is not enough to get you into medical school.

(Additionally, and I don't want to further muddy the water, I believe that what DrMidLife is suggesting is that 2) even if a good graduate GPA alone were enough to get you into medical school that you might need to have some concerns about your degree of preparation for medical school. The hard part of medical school is not getting in, it's not drowning in the work once you are there. If you are applying to medical school, you should certainly research the admissions process and understand how your academic profile will be viewed. However, you should remember that getting in and being adequately prepared are two different things, and one of the reasons that many medical schools take post-bacc and SMP work more seriously than unrelated graduate coursework is because they do the later. The overriding concern here seems to be for students who might be able to get into on of the schools you mentioned, as a result of a good gGPA, who do little to no BCMP work beyond the prerequisites, who then are not adequately prepared for medical school).

Now, what you two are suggesting is that 1) a graduate degree, and its resultant GPA, is not an "extra curricular" and that there are quite a few medical schools who take the GPAs awarded seriously, several who in fact replace the uGPA with the gGPA depending on the number of credits completed or average all course work together. It also seems like you are suggesting that 2) the overall attitude towards the significance of non-SMP graduate coursework on SDN is too dismissive. (This is probably true but SDN only knows the extremes.) This is great news for folks who performed well in graduate programs. There are many folks who didn't know this, including myself, and your contributions to this thread will serve some folks well as they research the medical school admissions process. As folks strive to just get their application in front of human eyeballs. However, that doesn't make what DrMidLife is saying any less true.

Bottom line: Getting into medical school is difficult and applicants should do what it takes to make themselves competitive in the application process; this means creating an appropriate list of schools of which to apply. However, applicants should spend as much time, trying to ensure that they are as prepared as they can be, as success in the former doesn't necessarily suggest success in the later.

 

[857770]

The MCAT is the best equalizer. No doubt about it.

I generally agree with your post, but is does raise eyebrows when one excels in something like an bioengineering PhD or so, and med schools hardly seem to take notice.

In a rigorous traditional masters/PhD, one can teach pre-req. courses, excel in research, earn a great GPA in 600 level physics, chemistry, etc. courses, and med schools only take it "into consideration", as though it was a glorified EC.

I agree that grad. work doesn't equate to traditional premed work, but it should be considered more that what it currently is.

Since you can't equalize undergrad. work between several pre-med students anyway(pre-reqs are graded differently depending on university/professor), I don't see an issue with holding grad. school success as a higher accomplishment.

Let the MCAT be the equalizer.

Just my opinion.

This!

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I could have replaced PhD with masters, and/or replaced bioeng. with any hard science (chemistry, physics, etc.).

However my point was that most medical school committees appear to put less emphasis on these programs than they should, not that those programs aren't "considered".

Its as though I feel like if you've taught pre-reqs., its no more meaningful than taking them. Its just goofy.

Just being logical, a student that has taught orgo chem. lab in a graduate school 10 times should be impressive to adcoms, but instead I get the feel they think its just a "gloried EC".

Things like that, that just make no sense imo.

No, interpreting it as a glorified extra credit is already giving it more value than it has. Anyone that knows anything about grad school will know the system is basically pass = 4.0 and fail = 3.0 in that class. There are also stupid things like journal club and seminar that you get grades for. And yes, every person on SDN with a grad degree comes crying saying how their masters was different. Nobody buys it.

Your teaching a prerequisite is meaningless. You have time to sit there with an open book and create a powerpoint slide, write questions and present material at your own pace. On top of that, you've not only taken the prerequisite course but also built on it more through your undergrad major and your graduate school curriculum. Why would you not have proficiency on something basic at that point? The purpose of prerequisites is to see how well you can perform the first time around by grasping the knowledge, processing it and then being examined, which is what will happen in medical school. If you really have mastery of this material for testing purposes, show it on the MCAT. Otherwise, your grad degree is fancy toilet paper.

 

[Robin-jay]

No, interpreting it as a glorified extra credit is already giving it more value than it has. Anyone that knows anything about grad school will know the system is basically pass = 4.0 and fail = 3.0 in that class. There are also stupid things like journal club and seminar that you get grades for. And yes, every person on SDN with a grad degree comes crying saying how their masters was different. Nobody buys it.

Your teaching a prerequisite is meaningless. You have time to sit there with an open book and create a powerpoint slide, write questions and present material at your own pace. On top of that, you've not only taken the prerequisite course but also built on it more through your undergrad major and your graduate school curriculum. Why would you not have proficiency on something basic at that point? The purpose of prerequisites is to see how well you can perform the first time around by grasping the knowledge, processing it and then being examined, which is what will happen in medical school. If you really have mastery of this material for testing purposes, show it on the MCAT. Otherwise, your grad degree is fancy toilet paper.

Just within the second sentence, you are wrong 100%.

Literally the first thing my professor said in my first chem. 600 course was "no one will get an "A" in this course".

Not only that, I've never actually met anyone from my chemistry graduate school with a 4.0 (obviously one professor doesn't even give them).

Why on Earth would you think its easier to get an "A" in graduate advanced quantum chemistry 600, but harder to get an "A" in undergraduate quantum chemistry?

That makes no sense. It was 10 times easier to score in the "A" range for my undergraduate quantum chemistry 400/500 than what I scored in graduate school advanced quantum chemistry 600.

Most chemistry, physics, bioengineering, etc. hard sciences don't undergo the "4.0" inflation at all. There are buffers for sure, like seminar credits. But the "core classes" like P-chem, inorganic, organic, etc. 600 courses are waaaaay harder to get an "A" than their undergraduate counterparts.

That being said, I would love to be thrown into a classroom with unambitious undergraduate students in a course like quantum chemistry 400 for a higher grade than the rigorous quantum chemistry 600 course (some of your classmates are going to be professors in quantum chemistry in that class!).

You don't know as much about some graduate school programs as you think.

 

[rabbott1971]

Anyone that knows anything about grad school will know the system is basically pass = 4.0 and fail = 3.0 in that class. There are also stupid things like journal club and seminar that you get grades for. And yes, every person on SDN with a grad degree comes crying saying how their masters was different. Nobody buys it.

Not all graduate work is masters degrees. For example, law school isn't a choice between 4.0 and 3.0, it is the filling out of a curve of grades. So should it, or should it not, be averaged in with undergrad coursework to arrive at the GPA which med school admissions officers use? Spoiler: it is handled different ways across the 140+ allopathic programs in America.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Not all graduate work is masters degrees. For example, law school isn't a choice between 4.0 and 3.0, it is the filling out of a curve of grades. So should it, or should it not, be averaged in with undergrad coursework to arrive at the GPA which med school admissions officers use? Spoiler: it is handled different ways across the 140+ allopathic programs in America.

Law school is a unique environment. I'm talking about masters level work. I don't know how Law School is seen by admissions.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

Just within the second sentence, you are wrong 100%.

Literally the first thing my professor said in my first chem. 600 course was "no one will get an "A" in this course".

Not only that, I've never actually met anyone from my chemistry graduate school with a 4.0 (obviously one professor doesn't even give them).

Why on Earth would you think its easier to get an "A" in graduate advanced quantum chemistry 600, but harder to get an "A" in undergraduate quantum chemistry?

That makes no sense. It was 10 times easier to score in the "A" range for my undergraduate quantum chemistry 400/500 than what I scored in graduate school advanced quantum chemistry 600.

Most chemistry, physics, bioengineering, etc. hard sciences don't undergo the "4.0" inflation at all. There are buffers for sure, like seminar credits. But the "core classes" like P-chem, inorganic, organic, etc. 600 courses are waaaaay harder to get an "A" than their undergraduate counterparts.

That being said, I would love to be thrown into a classroom with unambitious undergraduate students in a course like quantum chemistry 400 for a higher grade than the rigorous quantum chemistry 600 course (some of your classmates are going to be professors in quantum chemistry in that class!).

You don't know as much about some graduate school programs as you think.

I've heard this excuse before from everyone that tries applying to medical school, yet when I talk to everyone that's masters/PhD as an end degree they all agree that pass = 4.0. I'm not even talking about non-science degrees. My experience is talking to students at top institutions like UCSF and Berkeley. Even the students at SFSU express the same. The same goes for faculty I've talked to at my school about their view on grad school GPA. They all say "everyone comes in with a 4.0 regardless of their undergrad GPA." That's the reason an SMP is taken seriously as a masters and not a masters from X university.

I'm not doubting the subject of quantum chemistry is harder than general chemistry 1, but the grading system is not equal at all. That's the reason nobody in medical school takes it seriously.

 

[Robin-jay]

I've heard this excuse before from everyone that tries applying to medical school, yet when I talk to everyone that's masters/PhD as an end degree they all agree that pass = 4.0. I'm not even talking about non-science degrees. My experience is talking to students at top institutions like UCSF and Berkeley. Even the students at SFSU express the same. The same goes for faculty I've talked to at my school about their view on grad school GPA. They all say "everyone comes in with a 4.0 regardless of their undergrad GPA." That's the reason an SMP is taken seriously as a masters and not a masters from X university.

I'm not doubting the subject of quantum chemistry is harder than general chemistry 1, but the grading system is not equal at all. That's the reason nobody in medical school takes it seriously.

But its not true.

Even one of the chem. 600 professors told a colleague of mine that "you should be proud of your C+", many people scored lower.

Breakdown of one of my chem. 600 courses was:

0% A's
50% B's
50% C's
0% D's and F's

Another 600 level course was (roughly):

25% A's
25% B's
25% C's
25% D's and F's

No, don't downplay what I said by saying "quantum chemistry is harder than gen. chem. 1"....The correct phrase is " Graduate school quantum chem. 600 is much harder to earn an "A" than undergraduate quantum chem. 400"

Which is both a true experience, and a logical one.

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

But its not true.

Even one of the chem. 600 professors told a colleague of mine that "you should be proud of your C+", many people scored lower.

Breakdown of one of my chem. 600 courses was:

0% A's
50% B's
50% C's
0% D's and F's

Another 600 level course was (roughly):

25% A's
25% B's
25% C's
25% D's and F's

No, don't downplay what I said by saying "quantum chemistry is harder than gen. chem. 1"....The correct phrase is " Graduate school quantum chem. 600 is much harder to earn an "A" than undergraduate quantum chem. 400"

Which is both a true experience, and a logical one.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt the best I can say is it may be the case at your program, but it's definitely not the trend at most graduate programs. If I saw a graduate student with something less than 3.7, it would give me pause. So your EC might actually be a hindrance if you are from a program that hurts students and your GPA is low.

 

[Robin-jay]

Giving you the benefit of the doubt the best I can say is it may be the case at your program, but it's definitely not the trend at most graduate programs. If I saw a graduate student with something less than 3.7, it would give me pause. So your EC might actually be a hindrance if you are from a program that hurts students and your GPA is low.

I have heard most programs tend to give better grades than the program I attended. I won't deny that.

However, when I talked to an ADCOM in person, he went on about how difficult physics grad. school would be and how impressed he was with so-so people who went those types of routes. So I do think everyone has their own opinion on the matter. E-mailing committee members about my grad. school degree seems to be only a major plus.

So I think it depends on the person, on which how impressed they are. To some ADCOMs, its probably a glorified EC. To others, it means much more than your undergrad. degree.

However, to say chemistry graduate school isn't much more academically rigorous than undergrad. is pretty illogical.

In terms of difficulty and grading:

Advanced biochemistry 600 >>>>>>>> biochemistry 400.

 

[Goro]

I have heard most programs tend to give better grades than the program I attended. I won't deny that.

However, when I talked to an ADCOM in person, he went on about how difficult physics grad. school would be and how impressed he was with so-so people who went those types of routes. So I do think everyone has their own opinion on the matter. E-mailing committee members about my grad. school degree seems to be only a major plus.

So I think it depends on the person, on which how impressed they are. To some ADCOMs, its probably a glorified EC. To others, it means much more than your undergrad. degree.

However, to say chemistry graduate school isn't much more academically rigorous than undergrad. is pretty illogical.

In terms of difficulty and grading:

Advanced biochemistry 600 >>>>>>>> biochemistry 400.

I agree, but this distinction is irrelevant because I don't care about how you do in a single course; I want to see you excel in all of your courses. You need to convince Adcoms that you can handle med school. You might indeed have an A in Biochem 600 and quantum physics 500, but you have more Bs than As in your coursework, you will be crowded out by people who are aceing their grad coursework.

Of the SDNers who have successfully reinvented themselves and shared their stories with me, they have done so via aceing DIY post-bacs or SMPs...not by an MS in the research sciences. Because of grade inflation, MD schools schools discount research GPAs. DO schools will count them. And we both ignore law school GPAs.

 

[Robin-jay]

I agree, but this distinction is irrelevant because I don't care about how you do in a single course; I want to see you excel in all of your courses. You need to convince Adcoms that you can handle med school. You might indeed have an A in Biochem 600 and quantum physics 500, but you have more Bs than As in your coursework, you will be crowded out by people who are aceing their grad coursework.

Of the SDNers who have successfully reinvented themselves and shared their stories with me, they have done so via aceing DIY post-bacs or SMPs...not by an MS in the research sciences. Because of grade inflation, MD schools schools discount research GPAs. DO schools will count them. And we both ignore law school GPAs.

MD schools are kind of jerks to anyone who's trying to reinvent themselves in almost any form.

The main issue with doing a DIY post-bac. after doing a "hard science research masters" is that you are now essentially taking courses on the same level you just taught for several years. Its kind of goofy. However, a DIY post-bac. after undergrad. makes sense.

For example, taking an undergrad. biochemistry course would be extremely illogical after doing well in the graduate biochemistry courses.

I think after taking a "hard science research masters" and doing well, DIY post-bac. means nothing, but going to an SMP still holds perfectly reasonable.

After undergrad. => DIY post-bac. or SMP

After "hard science research master" => SMP

 

[rabbott1971]

Of the SDNers who have successfully reinvented themselves and shared their stories with me, they have done so via aceing DIY post-bacs or SMPs...not by an MS in the research sciences. Because of grade inflation, MD schools schools discount research GPAs. DO schools will count them. And we both ignore law school GPAs.

You're in the minority with this approach, and to give this advice as universally true is just not up to your standards of helpfulness and responsible counseling.

Edit: I shouldn't have said "in the minority" because I haven't surveyed, I have only experienced two programs and kibbitzed with other applicants about experiences similar to mine.

 

[Goro]

You're in the minority with this approach, and to give this advice as universally true is just not up to your standards of helpfulness and responsible counseling.

@LizzyM
@Med Ed
@gyngyn
@gonnif
@HomeSkool
@Lannister

What say your schools are law school GPAs?????

And rabbot, your experience with med school admissions is exactly....what?

 

[rabbott1971]

@LizzyM
@Med Ed
@gyngyn
@gonnif
@HomeSkool
@Lannister

What say your schools are law school GPAs?????

And rabbot, your experience with med school admissions is exactly....what?

My experience is that I read your advice about this, followed it this admission cycle, and was completely blindsided by the fact that both programs I applied to used my law school GPA as the mathematical equivalent of undergrad and post-bacc. You can read my posts above in this thread, I can assure you they are the product of personal experience directly on point.

I don't care to get into complaining and I take responsibility for my own failure to know the rules of my programs. But it was a bit of a bitter lesson about trusting too much in the SDN wisdom, and so please don't begrudge me trying to correct some misinformation so others don't find themselves in the same quandary. Thanks.

 

[Med Ed]

@LizzyM
@Med Ed
@gyngyn
@gonnif
@HomeSkool
@Lannister

What say your schools are law school GPAs?????

Every applicant I can think of who came from law school had to do (or redo) the pre-reqs and take the MCAT. This typically gives us enough recent, pertinent academic data to make a decision on academic readiness. Depending on the rest of the package, the law school GPA (high or low) can be rationalized to fit any desired outcome.

I don't discount what @rabbott1971 is reporting, but the root problem in these discussions is that applicants see the front of the shop and adcoms live in the back of the shop. Our admissions dean tells the people answering the phones what to say, and directs the screeners to administer various formulas and rubrics to try and make cursory sense of each of application. The third party software we use to extract and sort AMCAS data came preconfigured with all sorts of inclinations, ones that keep the IT people busy.

The bottom line is that just because the front of the shop does something, like generate an overall GPA using all available coursework regardless of source, doesn't mean it provides any utility to the committee. We tear applications apart to look at the entrails; that means the whole story, as best we can reassemble it, with each element viewed in context.

 

[gyngyn]

What say your schools are law school GPAs?????

They are essentially uninterpretable, but no one would try to say (in committee) that good law school grades are evidence of readiness for medical school.
Bad law school grades would certainly be viewed darkly (especially by someone who already didn't want the applicant).