20% of people with a GPA of 3.8+ but MCAT of 18-20 get accepted?

[brado]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Is the table like "accepted to at least 1 school?" or "overall acceptance rates"?

 

[maggie08]

looking at this table reminded me of when i first learned about the (electronegativity, size, ionization energy, etc.) trends on the periodic table. based on this framework, i think i'm somewhere around phosphorus.

um, this has my vote for favorite post of the day.

 

[235009]

Is the table like "accepted to at least 1 school?" or "overall acceptance rates"?

obviously "accepted to at least 1 school" ....overall acceptance rates would be absolutely worthless

 

[Superman78]

Yea zero. All doctors have to pass the USMLE to graduate from a MD school, including the person who got a 12 on the MCAT. You can't pass the USMLE without having science knowledge - do you have any idea how hard that test is?

So if they can pass the USMLE, why does the MCAT have any relevance that is greater than zero when assessing physician ability?

None at all. The MCAT is only for medical schools to assess you, and it's a pretty good assessment IMO. I was just saying if someone got in the teens on the MCAT, I wouldn't want them getting into medical school until they took it again and scored higher. There are some people who get straight A's and then forget everything after the class is over. The MCAT makes sure that doesn't happen. If you get a 4.0 and do horribly on the MCAT, how are we to know that 5 years after you take the USMLE, medical school won't all be a blur to you? That's why you have a lot of useless doctors - they forgot all the science and just turned into prescription writing machines.

 

[Lokhtar]

You realize that MCAT requires you to remember & apply 2 years of science...and the USMLE....wait for it...requires you to remember & apply 2 years of science. Except its a LOT more science in those two years that the USMLE tests.

And the fact that you have to take the USMLE Steps II, and III years down the road, where there is nothing like that for the MCAT.

 

[Law2Doc]

I am not a statistics person, but I would have to say that the sample size is a bit small in comparison to the rest of the chart.

... So in reality, people who have an MCAT of under 20 make up only slightly more than half a percent of accepted people. ...

This analysis is probably a lot more accurate. If there were truly a substantial (eg 20%) of people in med school with an MCAT below 20, you'd think med students on here would have come across such folks or seen this number on the range med schools post when describing the admission stats of each of the incoming classes.

There is always the rare individual who gets into med school with a much lower stat due to the strength of other various accomplishments; these would have to be mindblowing, and so the person above who suggested that he wouldn't want someone with such a low MCAT to become his doctor is a bit myopic in his view -- there are multiple measures of ability and almost nobody considers the MCAT the best. And I agree with the suspicion that there are folks taking the MCAT related to BA-MD paths or other reasons that they don't need the MCAT that get factored into the mix. Or folks who wing it once, do badly, and then study and retake (a really bad plan but it happens) -- how do you know if this first score gets into the mix in these stats? So don't read anything into these stats. You won't see many (any) folks in most med schools with a 20 MCAT. That is absurdly rare. But if you do they are probably so phenomenal in some other aspect of their lives that I'd expect that adcoms know what they are doing, and wouldn't read anything more into it. Premeds focus too much on numbers, but this is only part of the admissions process, and is a trap some people fall into.

 

[Law2Doc]

You realize that MCAT requires you to remember & apply 2 years of science...and the USMLE....wait for it...requires you to remember & apply 2 years of science. Except its a LOT more science in those two years that the USMLE tests.

And the fact that you have to take the USMLE Steps II, and III years down the road, where there is nothing like that for the MCAT.

The pace and volume in med school dwarfs the prereqs far more than you might think. In most med school courses, you will have covered the undergrad equivalent in the first two weeks of class. So at that pace the typical med school course probably covers 5-6 times the volume of material of the typical college prereq IMHO. So if the MCAT covers 2 years of college science, and the Step 1 covers 5-6 times that much information... you get the picture. You will devote almost the entire summer between second and third year of med school studying long days for Step 1. If you did well in the first two years of med school you will be at a decent starting point, but never will remember everything you should know. It is a much harder test than the MCAT volume-wise. No real comparison.

 

[deleted74029]

None at all. The MCAT is only for medical schools to assess you, and it's a pretty good assessment IMO. I was just saying if someone got in the teens on the MCAT, I wouldn't want them getting into medical school until they took it again and scored higher. There are some people who get straight A's and then forget everything after the class is over. The MCAT makes sure that doesn't happen. If you get a 4.0 and do horribly on the MCAT, how are we to know that 5 years after you take the USMLE, medical school won't all be a blur to you? That's why you have a lot of useless doctors - they forgot all the science and just turned into prescription writing machines.

You do realize that MCAT takers spend a substantial amount of time doing content review. Which means that just about everyone has forgotten alot of the material. I'm pretty sure the same thing is true for the USMLE.

 

[deleted74029]

Why don't we rephrase what Superman is saying!!!

There are a lot of people I know with close to 4.0s at my institution who can't score past the teens on the MCAT. A lot of these people are ones who took easier online classes, classes which were open notes, classes where the old tests were being passed around and in many cases the same questions as the year prior, etc. People who needed their cheat sheets for their physics classes to pass them but probably couldn't tell you much about it if they had to on their own.

In other words people who got As but not really learned anything nor necessarily more intelligent then a person who got say a B but didn't cheat their way through or took harder classes.

I know a lot of people like this at USF and have discussed this issue adnauseam in the Fl. threads in the past.

However, the MCAT--at least the sci. portion of the MCAT--distinguishes between those who actually can understand what they learned and understand well enough to apply it and those who just got by in classes in a lot of cases.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out that not being able to "remember everything" is probably not the primary reason people get horrible scores on the MCAT considering probably 95% of ppl who take it have to review their college coursework fairly heavily. I honestly think the MCAT is one of the most perfect standardized tests ever developed.

 

[Law2Doc]

... I honestly think the MCAT is one of the most perfect standardized tests ever developed.

Only if you focus on what it tests, rather than what it is used for. It tests the prereqs nicely. But the prereqs are only hoops to jump through and don't themselves relate well to what physicians need to know or demonstrate aptitude for. So it's a very good test on the prereqs that does a very bad job of assessing who will be a good doctor. Which is why no med school focuses solely relies on this kind of stat.

 

[NicoDuval]

I am not a statistics person, but I would have to say that the sample size is a bit small in comparison to the rest of the chart.

In the example by the OP, 20% of people with 3.8+ and and 18-20 MCAT get accepted. Looking at the chart, 99 people out of 515 got accepted from this category. But, looking at total applicants, there were 784 applicants at under 20 MCAT and 3.8+ GPA out of 23850 total in the 3.8+ range. This means that out of all the applicants, 3.29% had an MCAT of 20 or less and a GPA of 3.8+. Now, if we look at the total number of people who got accepted with a 3.8+, we see that MCAT scores of 20 and less make up 119 acceptees out of 17676, which equals .673%. So in reality, people who have an MCAT of under 20 make up only slightly more than half a percent of accepted people. I think that shows that your MCAT really makes a difference, regardless of what your GPA might be.

Moving to 29 and under with 3.8+, there are 5753 acceptances out of the 17676. This equals 32.5%. So this chart actually shows that with an MCAT score of 30, you still have only ~35% chance of getting accepted regardless of GPA.

I think that this is the most telling part of the chart, along with the excel graph. 20% of people is a lot, except when it is out of 515, and that 515 is out of 17676 total acceptances in the range. When you think about, 20% of 3.29% is not very significant in any way.

If I made a miscalculation, please correct me.

Finally, I read the first two pages of people misinterpreting the data. The percentages do not tell you the probability of getting into a school with a certain gpa and mcat. Still, it is shocking to see that anybody could get in with some of those stats. I'm wondering how the data was collected.

 

[Lokhtar]

Only if you focus on what it tests, rather than what it is used for. It tests the prereqs nicely. But the prereqs are only hoops to jump through and don't themselves relate well to what physicians need to know or demonstrate aptitude for. So it's a very good test on the prereqs that does a very bad job of assessing who will be a good doctor. Which is why no med school focuses solely relies on this kind of stat.

Not in the US, but Australian schools rank their applicants based on the MCAT (or their version of the MCAT), and the interview only. You only need a minimum GPA to qualify, and then everyone's even.

 

[Wiingy]

This table=wonderful, and I agree that it essentially negates most of the "What are my chances?" threads... one more thing to keep in mind is mean age of matriculants... found here http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/age0208.htm. Higher age/more experience can make up for some faults, like low GPA or MCAT and it would be wise to keep that in mind.

 

[flip26]

This table=wonderful, and I agree that it essentially negates most of the "What are my chances?" threads... one more thing to keep in mind is mean age of matriculants... found here http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/age0208.htm. Higher age/more experience can make up for some faults, like low GPA or MCAT and it would be wise to keep that in mind.

No, it really does not negate the need for those threads because the tables do NOT tell an applicant his "chances" at a certain intersection of GPA and MCAT, particularly on the lower end. To apply these stats to individual chances is a total misuse of statistical probability the further away from the meaty part of the bell curve the data lie (high and low).

The applicants with low MCAT and low GPA are highly self selecting - just look at how small the pool of applicants and acceptees is at the lowest combinations - most people with these stat combos do not apply because they know they have no chance. Virtually all of these applicants have intangibles or other mitigating factors (URM, UG GPA was from 10+ years ago - have a PhD now, English is not their first language, Olympic athlete, etc). People with really low stats aren't stupid - they know that they do not have any chance and thus they do not apply UNLESS they have special factors in their favor.

A sub 3.0 GPA and/or a sub 28 MCAT is deadly for the vast majority of people with those stats, the exceptions coming for applicants with special circumstances and other mitigating factors like race, post graduate degrees, world class ECs, etc.

 

[TecmoFootball]

I'm sure that particular applicant had an amazing background and extenuating circumstances, so stop being so quick to judge and jumping to conclusions, unless you're this guy:

That's it, screw this pre-med stuff. I'm gonna create a "jump to conclusion" mat and live happily ever after...

 

[Wiingy]

No, it really does not negate the need for those threads because the tables do NOT tell an applicant his "chances" at a certain intersection of GPA and MCAT, particularly on the lower end. To apply these stats to individual chances is a total misuse of statistical probability the further away from the meaty part of the bell curve the data lie (high and low).

The applicants with low MCAT and low GPA are highly self selecting - just look at how small the pool of applicants and acceptees is at the lowest combinations - most people with these stat combos do not apply because they know they have no chance. Virtually all of these applicants have intangibles or other mitigating factors (URM, UG GPA was from 10+ years ago - have a PhD now, English is not their first language, Olympic athlete, etc). People with really low stats aren't stupid - they know that they do not have any chance and thus they do not apply UNLESS they have special factors in their favor.

A sub 3.0 GPA and/or a sub 28 MCAT is deadly for the vast majority of people with those stats, the exceptions coming for applicants with special circumstances and other mitigating factors like race, post graduate degrees, world class ECs, etc.

Hold on now cowboy, I'm not saying that the threads are useless, nor am I advocating the misapplication of statistics - I'm saying that this chart now takes the guesswork out of the "low GPA high MCAT what are my chances kind of inquiries." Negate was perhaps the wrong word to use, but my vocab has shrunk because I no longer use English on a daily basis. This table is about as accurate an answer as can be provided regarding their chances (purely statistically speaking) of admission to ONE (not any given) allopathic medical school. Unless people responding to the "WAMC" threads are part of an admissions committee than I'd say it would be hard to provide more meaningful input reagarding the numbers. EC's are also exteremely difficult to quantify, so again, unless the poster is bringing some special experience or insight to the table, then no real comment on chances going up or down can be made. I never said that people with low GPA and MCAT were stupid or that this chart means that they should give up hope, but it certainly drives home the point that with such scores, they need to stand out in other ways.

 

[flip26]

Hold on now cowboy, I'm not saying that the threads are useless, nor am I advocating the misapplication of statistics - I'm saying that this chart now takes the guesswork out of the "low GPA high MCAT what are my chances kind of inquiries." Negate was perhaps the wrong word to use, but my vocab has shrunk because I no longer use English on a daily basis. This table is about as accurate an answer as can be provided regarding their chances (purely statistically speaking) of admission to ONE (not any given) allopathic medical school. Unless people responding to the "WAMC" threads are part of an admissions committee than I'd say it would be hard to provide more meaningful input reagarding the numbers. EC's are also exteremely difficult to quantify, so again, unless the poster is bringing some special experience or insight to the table, then no real comment on chances going up or down can be made. I never said that people with low GPA and MCAT were stupid or that this chart means that they should give up hope, but it certainly drives home the point that with such scores, they need to stand out in other ways.

Wrong. You don't get it. Misapplied statistics squared.

 

[Wiingy]

Wrong. You don't get it. Misapplied statistics squared.

Fine, I'll rephrase to say that this chart now provides a useful to *estimate* your chances of being accepted to medical school in comparison to similar applicants inasmuch as it allows you to compare yourself against others, and does not provide concrete percentages or chances for individuals (which I thought was generally understood so did not feel a need to explain it), but when applied to large groups is likely to be accurate.

 

[235009]

No, it really does not negate the need for those threads because the tables do NOT tell an applicant his "chances" at a certain intersection of GPA and MCAT, particularly on the lower end. To apply these stats to individual chances is a total misuse of statistical probability the further away from the meaty part of the bell curve the data lie (high and low).

The applicants with low MCAT and low GPA are highly self selecting - just look at how small the pool of applicants and acceptees is at the lowest combinations - most people with these stat combos do not apply because they know they have no chance. Virtually all of these applicants have intangibles or other mitigating factors (URM, UG GPA was from 10+ years ago - have a PhD now, English is not their first language, Olympic athlete, etc). People with really low stats aren't stupid - they know that they do not have any chance and thus they do not apply UNLESS they have special factors in their favor.

A sub 3.0 GPA and/or a sub 28 MCAT is deadly for the vast majority of people with those stats, the exceptions coming for applicants with special circumstances and other mitigating factors like race, post graduate degrees, world class ECs, etc.

first of all you can easily divide out URM using the ethnicity table so that point is moot. second, it isn't a misuse of statistics to look at the chart ans say that on average, among those who apply with Y GPA and Z MCAT score X% get accepted. whatever assumptions you have to make for those who apply is a different story. just as you claim that those who are applying with lower stats have other parts of their apps that are very strong there are those who apply with high stats (especially MCAT) with other parts of their application being especially weak and they decidied to apply simply because they got a high MCAT score.

 

[flip26]

first of all you can easily divide out URM using the ethnicity table so that point is moot. second, it isn't a misuse of statistics to look at the chart ans say that on average, among those who apply with Y GPA and Z MCAT score X% get accepted. whatever assumptions you have to make for those who apply is a different story. just as you claim that those who are applying with lower stats have other parts of their apps that are very strong there are those who apply with high stats (especially MCAT) with other parts of their application being especially weak and they decidied to apply simply because they got a high MCAT score.

You either did not read or do not understand my post. I pointed this out with my comments on both low and high stats applicants.

Believe what you want about the AAMC stats, but to apply the outlier stats to an individual to assess "chances" is pretty useless.

 

[ICmyFuture]

This table=wonderful, and I agree that it essentially negates most of the "What are my chances?" threads... one more thing to keep in mind is mean age of matriculants... found here http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/age0208.htm. Higher age/more experience can make up for some faults, like low GPA or MCAT and it would be wise to keep that in mind.

Its interesting that the mean age for men is 24 and the mean age for women is 23, since 2002. I wonder why that is?

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

My MCAT and pre-req classes (which are towards the upper right of that chart) haven't taught me much about surgery. Apparently that's what medical school and residency are for.

zing!

 

[Dr McSexy]

I am not a statistics person, but I would have to say that the sample size is a bit small in comparison to the rest of the chart.

In the example by the OP, 20% of people with 3.8+ and and 18-20 MCAT get accepted. Looking at the chart, 99 people out of 515 got accepted from this category. But, looking at total applicants, there were 784 applicants at under 20 MCAT and 3.8+ GPA out of 23850 total in the 3.8+ range. This means that out of all the applicants, 3.29% had an MCAT of 20 or less and a GPA of 3.8+. Now, if we look at the total number of people who got accepted with a 3.8+, we see that MCAT scores of 20 and less make up 119 acceptees out of 17676, which equals .673%. So in reality, people who have an MCAT of under 20 make up only slightly more than half a percent of accepted people. I think that shows that your MCAT really makes a difference, regardless of what your GPA might be.

Moving to 29 and under with 3.8+, there are 5753 acceptances out of the 17676. This equals 32.5%. So this chart actually shows that with an MCAT score of 30, you still have only ~35% chance of getting accepted regardless of GPA.

I think that this is the most telling part of the chart, along with the excel graph. 20% of people is a lot, except when it is out of 515, and that 515 is out of 17676 total acceptances in the range. When you think about, 20% of 3.29% is not very significant in any way.

If I made a miscalculation, please correct me.

In addition let's not forget that these low percentages come from people who actually applied to medical school. Who knows how many people had these stats and didn't apply to various reasons. I'm sure if everyone who had these scores applied, the percentages of people who would accepted would drop even more.

I do like this chart though. It let's you see that the X factor can play a role in being accepted to medical school, whether it's getting you in with below average GPA or MCAT or keeping you out even with your high MCAT and GPA.

 

[pinkblue]

They should get slapped in the face. How dare they have fun while the rest of us slave away for this test?😀

I mean.. it is a standardized test. appreciate those "Just for fun" people...their scores may have boosted your score 😛

Also, maybe some people w/ those low gpas got better grades in grad school, etc..

 

[WannaBePreMed]

Maybe they were applying to a carib school, could it really be that preposterous?

 

[Revilla]

Maybe they were applying to a carib school, could it really be that preposterous?

As has been said more than once in this thread, the grid is only for U.S. medical schools.

 

[WannaBePreMed]

As has been said more than once in this thread, the grid is only for U.S. medical schools.

Woops sorry bout that.


Maybe they were accepted to U of PR... could that be so preposterous :]

 

[Heimerfink]

I never knew how random admissions were.

I had a 3.8something and a 36 MCAT.

I got rejected from everywhere first time around. Next year I applied (without any new grades/MCAT), and I got a scholarship from a top 15 school. I'm just glad I decided to apply to "one more place".

It's hard to say what will happen until you put your hat in.

-random MS2

 

[WashMe]

I never knew how random admissions were.

I had a 3.8something and a 36 MCAT.

I got rejected from everywhere first time around. Next year I applied (without any new grades/MCAT), and I got a scholarship from a top 15 school. I'm just glad I decided to apply to "one more place".

It's hard to say what will happen until you put your hat in.

-random MS2

This post makes me feel much better about how next year will go if I don't hear some good news soon 🙂 I would be reapplying with the same GPA/MCAT but hoping for better results. Thanks for the pick-me-up.

 

[scarletgirl777]

Woops sorry bout that.


Maybe they were accepted to U of PR... could that be so preposterous :]

No 🙂 The Puerto Rican schools are certainly part of this data.

 

[dragonfly99]

cubssox
is right about the statistics. I think some of you misunderstood them.
Also, I think a lot of the low MCAT acceptees are probably in combined BA/MD or BS/MD programs and didn't have to care about their MCAT scores.

I wouldn't be surprised if some people achieved a 3.8 GPA and had terrible MCAT scores, like <20. Some colleges are very easy, gradewise, particularly if you go and pick out easy classes on purpose. The grade inflation at a lot of universities and colleges is one of the reasons adcoms put so much stock in the MCAT.

 

[tennisball80]

Wow one guy with a 2.60-2.79 GPA and 5-14 got accepted.

 

[235009]

The AAMC takes into acct not just the 50 states but PR schools and Canadian Schools data. The PR schools are known for lower averages but need people who understand spanish to be able to go there.

the point about PR has already been mentioned at least a couple of times in this thread. as for canadian schools...from the MSAR it seems that most dont report MCAT scores

 

[HPSPpayissues]

Someone with such low MCAT score probably would not get accepted to any med school in the US. Also, high MCAT score doesn't necessarily mean that you will do well on the step 1. The USMLE is more about how much you can cram, memorize and retain everything from your first two years. There are plenty of people with 35+ gets below 50%tile on the boards. I personally know even some Ivy league grads that had good stats during undergrad that are in bottom 20% of the class. No matter how brilliant you are, if you can't memorize 200 new terms in one day per day throughout medical school years and retain all those, you are not going to do well in med school, period. However, although not necesaarily true, in most cases, those that did better during undergrad - higher GPA and MCAT- tend to do better overall in med school and the board exams. Except for those that go to pass no pass schools like Yale or UCLA. Their stats are a bit lower than other schools.

 

[WannaBePreMed]

Wow one guy with a 2.60-2.79 GPA and 5-14 got accepted.

I'm guessing he/she is a URM, was disadvantaged economically, was an orphan, had spectacular ec's, and had health issues that restricted him/her from doing well in college.

 

[Katatonic]

Contrary to some people's small world, the MCAT does not relate to how good of a doctor you will be. It's a standardized test, given to you ~10 years before you will be a practicing physician, how could you possibly make any inference about whether someone will be a good physician 10 years from now because they got below a 20 on a standardized test? Threads like this are why I usually stay far, far away from Pre-Allo.

 

[flip26]

Contrary to some people's small world, the MCAT does not relate to how good of a doctor you will be. It's a standardized test, given to you ~10 years before you will be a practicing physician, how could you possibly make any inference about whether someone will be a good physician 10 years from now because they got below a 20 on a standardized test? Threads like this are why I usually stay far, far away from Pre-Allo.

Maybe not, but the MCAT is highly predictive of who gets into med school in the first place...I'm just sayin'...

 

[WashMe]

Maybe not, but the MCAT is highly predictive of who gets into med school in the first place...I'm just sayin'...

disagree.

 

[Revilla]

Maybe not, but the MCAT is highly predictive of who gets into med school in the first place...I'm just sayin'...

Not always. If it was, you wouldn't have sub-20 scores getting in since most would predict that no one with that low a score would get past a secondary. I'm sure if there wasn't a grid from AAMC, most people here would call someone a liar if they suggested someone with an MCAT score of 15 got in.

 

[WashMe]

In the great majority of cases this is true but not always true. You can see my exceptions down below. I believe no rules in this game that is admissions process are set in stone per say always. A lot of them depend on the circumstances of the file and subjective factors involved in this process.

I am honestly not smart enough to understand this sentence.

 

[Myuu]

I am honestly not smart enough to understand this sentence.

You'd need a pair of commas and a couple of words. Then you'd be smart enough! Or.. then it would be readily intelligible.😳

 

[WashMe]

Jesus christ!!! What's with the grammar nazis???????

Let me rephrase: THERE ARE NO RULES THAT ARE SET IN STONE 100% OF THE TIME!!!!!! Happy??????????

People need to get the overall point instead of making a big deal over a few grammar issues on a message board. SERIOUSLY!

Take it easy lol, I really was trying to understand it. I read it like 40 times, no joke. Thanks for clearing it up 🙂

 

[basupran]

i presume that this is just us/can allopathic schools

 

[RoadRunner17]

Jesus christ!!! What's with the grammar nazis???????

Let me rephrase: THERE ARE NO RULES THAT ARE SET IN STONE 100% OF THE TIME!!!!!! Happy??????????

People need to get the overall point instead of making a big deal over a few grammar issues on a message board. SERIOUSLY!

Hate to break it to you, but that sentence really didn't make much sense to me either. I had to sort of guess what you were trying to say.

 

[jringo1984]

so it's all URM students that make up this %?

 

[basupran]

This post rocks!

I didn't get into a US school when I applied but I was fortunate enough to transfer. I did well on the MCATs but got rocked when it came to my GPA. This graph really makes me wish I didn't take on so many engineering classes....

Would you mind if I shared this graph with some undergrad students? I will reference you Lokhtar.

Put it in an excel graph real quick:

What does this mean? It seems that there is a big jump in acceptance when you reach 3.4 in your GPA. The jumps are smaller after that.

Meaning, it seems medical schools tend to look for a minimum of 3.4 as evidence of enough capability so that GPA isn't a huge hinderence. Obviously, higher the better as with anything else, but there isn't a huge difference after 3.6, and probably not worth worrying too much about improving your GPA once you hit that number.

MCAT, there is a big benefit of every point until about 32-33. Then it starts to drop off, so much so that after 36, there seems to be very little benefit in getting that extra point and not worth worrying about improving the MCAT after 35.

What does this mean from strategy perspective? If your GPA is below 3.4, you should first spend some time to get it up to that point. After that, if you have a choice between GPA and MCAT, your best bet is to focus on the MCAT until it is around 33. Conversely, if your MCAT is 33+, then your highest yield might be spending a year and trying to get your GPA to 3.4. If your GPA is already a 3.6, and/or your MCAT is a 33, you should focus on another part of your application.

3.6 and 35 seem to be the points where you get diminishing returns, while 3.4 and 30 seem to be the 'big' jump points for minimum qualification.

Pretty much stuff we had guessed, but it seems to be validated by data.

 

[Handy388]

while broswing the data of UC Berkeley career center, I found this

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/2007seniors.stm

Note, there is one person with 3.90+ GPA and below 20 MCAT got in, it's a table for traditional, junior applicants.

As far as I know, there is no BS/MD program linked with berkeley.

Disclaimer: this table does not specifically state if someone made it into LCME school, so they could fudge the data by including caribean or DO schools

 

[riceman04]

so it's all URM students that make up this %?

why do posts like this still make me upset?

 

[Excelsius]

so it's all URM students that make up this %?

I think that the general stereotype that SDNers generally cannot digest a lot of data simultaneously is unfortunately true. If you cared to look here AMCAS Statistics Refinement: MCAT vs GPA vs Acceptance you'd see that low numbers do NOT apply just to URMs. All this hype about med school is just that - an SDN-hype. It is not a medschool standard that you need a 3.7 to get into med school. It is an SDN "standard." Learn to separate the two.

This post rocks!

I didn't get into a US school when I applied but I was fortunate enough to transfer. I did well on the MCATs but got rocked when it came to my GPA. This graph really makes me wish I didn't take on so many engineering classes....

Would you mind if I shared this graph with some undergrad students? I will reference you Lokhtar.

The graph is fine, but his interpretation of data is not. Look at the thread I mentioned above. I published the data and hoped that someone would take it from there, but the thread died in just 16 posts. So much for scientific method. When I have time, I will go back and add more graphs and make the data simpler so that most of SDNers stop eschewing the data based on sesquipedalian-abstruse grounds. Good luck!

 

[Lukkie]

so it's all URM students that make up this %?

according to SDN, anyone with sub 3.8/35 mcat with acceptance is URM