2013-2014 Oakland University Application Thread

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
doctornthemakin said:
This is why I should have gone to an easier and less competitive school for undergrad. How does someone who almost has a 4.0, only get a 29 on the MCAT. I'm not attacking the student, just the system. It seems kind of unfair. I'm just gonna go cry in the corner with my sub par gpa. 🙁
Click to expand...
Awfully presumptuous..plus a question or two is the difference between a 29 and a 30. Alas you might scoff at a 30 even.
 
hart024 said:
Awfully presumptuous..plus a question or two is the difference between a 29 and a 30. Alas you might scoff at a 30 even.
Click to expand...

stopped by to say that these folks were nice enough to grant me an advising session to go over areas of improvement, then i saw this.

while there's more to it than what that guy said, i can't help but sympathize. i went to a hard, grade deflationary undergrad, and then did what a lot of people might consider to be a hard major with a double in another, but only got a 3.6. highly respectable but subpar for medical school. i see all the time people saying on here, go to an easy school and major in something easy, but at the time engineering was what i wanted to do. i feel that my mcat reflects what I've done, but i suspect that at other schools, not necessarily this one, my gpa is holding me back. and that's a damn shame.

sorry, just had to vent a little.
 
i went to a horribly ranked undergrad that about 90% of the U.S. probably has never even heard of. but the science curriculum was incredibly challenging and I was even allowed to take a few classes with graduate students (even though it still counted as undergrad credit, despite the difficulty being at the graduate level). and Captain Sisko, I think "only a 3.6" is actually pretty spectacular considering how ridiculously challenging some science classes were in my undergrad and how ridiculously awful the grading system was for some of them. for instance, in one of my classes, the average was consistently around 70% for exams...yet an A was 95%, A- 90-95%, etc.

and to the other person saying how can someone have a 4.0 and a 29...well i have to chime in. i had a 3.71 and my first time on the MCAT i got a 26S....in fact I got A's in all my junior/senior level classes, but my GPA is "lower" because I was making up for D's and C-'s my first semester. You can imagine how hard I had to work and how many summer semesters I took to recover from that kind of GPA.

anyways, sorry for rambling forever: my point being, lots of intelligent people are just not good test takers. the MCAT doesn't accurately predict ability to succeed in medical school, but is unfortunately the only way schools can standardize everything. and then there are folks who are excellent test takers and extremely intelligent, but slacked off for 4 years b/c they weren't willing to work hard (or perhaps circumstances prevented them from doing so)

making assumptions without having actually lived through those exact events, side by side with that person, is not a good way to conduct your life....esp if you're going into a profession where you will have countless opportunities day after day to judge your patients (even though you really don't have the right to), but should know better than to not to esp since those judgments would be unfounded
 
Last edited:
Ubiquinator said:
Do you know where ThisSiteisOkay went to undergrad or are you just assuming he went somewhere "less competitive" because of his 4.0/29?..
Click to expand...

People's grades and their MCAT scores are both based heavily on their test-taking ability. How can someone do so ridiculously well on their exams all throughout college and then not break a 30 on the MCAT?
 
doctornthemakin said:
People's grades and their MCAT scores are both based heavily on their test-taking ability. How can someone do so ridiculously well on their exams all throughout college and then not break a 30 on the MCAT?
Click to expand...

how can people do ridiculously well on the MCAT (scoring 38-41, for example) and have uGPAs of 3.1 to 3.2? oh and exams in college are content specific...and don't contain sections covering material from other classes...MCAT covers ALL of undergrad bio, physics, gen chem, and o-chem....and adds verbal in to make it worse.
 
blackjack42 said:
how can people do ridiculously well on the MCAT (scoring 38-41, for example) and have uGPAs of 3.1 to 3.2?
Click to expand...

They probably slacked off in undergrad. Additionally, anyone who got a 4.0, probably took studying for the MCAT very seriously.
 
Captain Sisko said:
the msar and the schools website make it pretty clear.
Click to expand...

ah, I see. the website isn't that clear though. all the numbers point to in-state preference...but in the FAQs they clearly state that there is no in-state preference...maybe they are obligated to say this b/c they are privately funded?
 
blackjack42 said:
how can people do ridiculously well on the MCAT (scoring 38-41, for example) and have uGPAs of 3.1 to 3.2? oh and exams in college are content specific...and don't contain sections covering material from other classes...MCAT covers ALL of undergrad bio, physics, gen chem, and o-chem....and adds verbal in to make it worse.
Click to expand...

If someone aced all of those classes, why shouldn't he/she do well on those sections on the MCAT?
 
doctornthemakin said:
They probably slacked off in undergrad. Additionally, anyone who got a 4.0, probably took studying for the MCAT very seriously.
Click to expand...

could be, but not always true. i have a friend who got a 4.0 and ended up with a 28 on the MCAT...and she is one of the smartest people i know. she is just not good at standardized tests...oh and she did work hard in undergrad and in studying for the MCAT...also people can have major test anxiety when it comes to the MCAT b/c well, it's the MCAT...there are a lot of factors and hypotheticals that can account for discrepancies b/w scores and GPA and vice versa...point is, it isn't all black and white. maybe the the 4.0/29 person had spectacular ECs (throwing in another possibility)
 
doctornthemakin said:
If someone aced all of those classes, why shouldn't he/she do well on those sections on the MCAT?
Click to expand...

b/c the MCAT requires integrating all of that info in 1 sitting...which is much more difficult to do b/c you have to remember a vast amount of info plus you need to practice taking the test to und how tricky the questions are...in undergrad you focus on one subject (and not the entire thing, unless it's the final) and you don't have to worry about practicing for the format...you either have MC, short answer, or a combo. and you have a feel for what the particular teacher's writing style is in making questions. also, some teachers will tell you what concepts are really important. the MCAT tells you that ALL concepts are important, again making it challenging to master all of them. in other words, college exams are not necessarily standardized.
 
doctornthemakin said:
If someone aced all of those classes, why shouldn't he/she do well on those sections on the MCAT?
Click to expand...

I agree with what blackjack42 said in that not everyone is good at taking standardized tests. Fortunately, medical schools take into account more than just your GPA and MCAT score (although they are important components)
 
doctornthemakin said:
They probably slacked off in undergrad. Additionally, anyone who got a 4.0, probably took studying for the MCAT very seriously.
Click to expand...

oh and med schools most likely would want someone who worked hard for 4 years than someone who slacked and worked hard for 1-3 mos for 1 exam. it speaks to how committed the hard worker is...
 
Never understood the whole excuse of "some people just aren't good test takers." I've heard it starting with the state exams in like 6th grade.

Fact is, you're gonna be taking a lot of standardized tests during your education and possibly your career. For medicine alone there's the MCAT, USMLE, then you get into board exams and such.

If you are a mediocre test taker, you're gonna need to convince med schools that you have enough positives in other areas. They don't want to accept people who are going to do okay in class and then tank the USMLE. Standardized testing is a part of the process everyone deals with it.
 
TheThirdLevel said:
Never understood the whole excuse of "some people just aren't good test takers." I've heard it starting with the state exams in like 6th grade.

Fact is, you're gonna be taking a lot of standardized tests during your education and possibly your career. For medicine alone there's the MCAT, USMLE, then you get into board exams and such.

If you are a mediocre test taker, you're gonna need to convince med schools that you have enough positives in other areas. They don't want to accept people who are going to do okay in class and then tank the USMLE. Standardized testing is a part of the process everyone deals with it.
Click to expand...

USMLE is a lot diff than MCAT. not easier, but def something you can better prepare for. there are combined med programs that people go to out of hs and in a number of them, you don't take the MCAT. you are accepted into med school. and there are some where you don't even take physics or general bio at all and only 1 year of o-chem. yet these individuals still do well on step 1 and step 2. in fact, I have a few friends who scored 240+ on step 1 and never took the MCAT (they took aamc #8 for fun..let's just say they completely bombed them). the bottom line: the MCAT has nothing to do with your performance in med school (considering a large number of people never take it and succeed in med school and ace the boards).

It doesn't test your ability to succeed in med school and it certainly won't have an impact on your performance on step 1/step 2. it's simply your ticket in to med school. It's just a part of the process and the best way medical schools can find a way to select students. once you're in, it's up to you whether to work hard or not. and that doesn't come down to who's smarter. b/c in my experience, the ones who are not as smart are the ones who work harder and actually do better on the exams that count (step 1 & 2) than the kids who were smarter but weren't willing to work as hard.
 
blackjack42 said:
USMLE is a lot diff than MCAT. not easier, but def something you can better prepare for. there are combined med programs that people go to out of hs and in a number of them, you don't take the MCAT. you are accepted into med school. and there are some where you don't even take physics or general bio at all and only 1 year of o-chem. yet these individuals still do well on step 1 and step 2. in fact, I have a few friends who scored 240+ on step 1 and never took the MCAT (they took aamc #8 for fun..let's just say they completely bombed them). the bottom line: the MCAT has nothing to do with your performance in med school (considering a large number of people never take it and succeed in med school and ace the boards).

It doesn't test your ability to succeed in med school and it certainly won't have an impact on your performance on step 1/step 2. it's simply your ticket in to med school. It's just a part of the process and the best way medical schools can find a way to select students. once you're in, it's up to you whether to work hard or not. and that doesn't come down to who's smarter. b/c in my experience, the ones who are not as smart are the ones who work harder and actually do better on the exams that count (step 1 & 2) than the kids who were smarter but weren't willing to work as hard.
Click to expand...

it's been well documented that mcat predicts success on usmle.
 
Ubiquinator said:
Do you know where ThisSiteisOkay went to undergrad or are you just assuming he went somewhere "less competitive" because of his 4.0/29?..
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be terribly rude but at top schools, a 4.0 in pre-requisite courses means you're going to hit at least a 34+ on the MCAT with a summer of studying. There is a reason that certain undergrads have much better reputations and it's reflected in the general level of preparation of their undergrads. It is a lamentable, unfair system that rigor isn't accounted for or you're in fact penalized for challenging yourself in undergrad.
 
Ubiquinator said:
A friend of mine who goes to VCU had a 24/3.95. He got a 240+ on Step I.

Well, its good thing VCU took a chance on him with his sub-par mcat score...
Click to expand...

i rest my case. must be the fact that his 3.95 proved he's a hard worker and can succeed where it counts. kudos to him.
 
Last edited:
Captain Sisko said:
it's been well documented that mcat predicts success on usmle.
Click to expand...

it's also been well documented that the 1000s of hs students across the U.S. who enter combined BS/MD or BA/MD programs never even take the MCAT (or a number of the prereqs) and still score really high on the boards....as do individuals with low MCATs who do SMPs, get into med school, and excel on the boards.

Check this out...
Are my MCAT scores predictive of my USMLE and medical school performance?

Much as the USMLE Step 1 score is an important variable in the residency application process, the MCAT score is given important weight in the medical school application process. Medical school admissions officers are faced with the daunting task of determining which students are the most qualified, comparing applicants from different institutions of different quality and grading schemes. The MCAT is meant as an objective and consistent means of comparison, though other factors are certainly considered in the medical school application process.

A 2007 meta-analysis evaluated the relationship between the MCAT and medical school performance. There was a small to moderate correlation of MCAT performance with performance during the preclinical years, with the r value equal to roughly 0.39. There was also a correlation of certain subtests with preclinical performance, particularly the biological sciences subtest. The correlation was less strong between MCAT performance and performance during the clinical years. The writing subtest of the MCAT was shown to have no correlation with either performance during the preclinical years or the clinical clerkships.

A small to moderate correlation was also found between MCAT and USMLE scores, with r values ranging from 0.38 to 0.60. This correlation was highest for USMLE Step 1. Among the different MCAT subsets, the highest correlation was found for the biological sciences and verbal sections. There was near zero correlation between the writing subtest and USMLE scores.

http://www.usmleworld.com/Step1/step1_facts.aspx

So it seems biology and verbal are the only relevant portions in terms of success in med school (which makes sense since bio and organic are the foundations of how the body works, while gen chem and physics are focused more on scientific processes that are not really concerned with the body as much).
 
blackjack42 said:
it's also been well documented that the 1000s of hs students across the U.S. who enter combined BS/MD or BA/MD programs never even take the MCAT (or a number of the prereqs) and still score really high on the boards....as do individuals with low MCATs who do SMPs, get into med school, and excel on the boards.

Check this out...
Are my MCAT scores predictive of my USMLE and medical school performance?

Much as the USMLE Step 1 score is an important variable in the residency application process, the MCAT score is given important weight in the medical school application process. Medical school admissions officers are faced with the daunting task of determining which students are the most qualified, comparing applicants from different institutions of different quality and grading schemes. The MCAT is meant as an objective and consistent means of comparison, though other factors are certainly considered in the medical school application process.

A 2007 meta-analysis evaluated the relationship between the MCAT and medical school performance. There was a small to moderate correlation of MCAT performance with performance during the preclinical years, with the r value equal to roughly 0.39. There was also a correlation of certain subtests with preclinical performance, particularly the biological sciences subtest. The correlation was less strong between MCAT performance and performance during the clinical years. The writing subtest of the MCAT was shown to have no correlation with either performance during the preclinical years or the clinical clerkships.

A small to moderate correlation was also found between MCAT and USMLE scores, with r values ranging from 0.38 to 0.60. This correlation was highest for USMLE Step 1. Among the different MCAT subsets, the highest correlation was found for the biological sciences and verbal sections. There was near zero correlation between the writing subtest and USMLE scores.

http://www.usmleworld.com/Step1/step1_facts.aspx

So it seems biology and verbal are the only relevant portions in terms of success in med school (which makes sense since bio and organic are the foundations of how the body works, while gen chem and physics are focused more on scientific processes that are not really concerned with the body as much).
Click to expand...

Aren't those programs really hard to get into? For example, you would need an amazing ACT/SAT score to be competitive. Since these people are good test-takers, they would have most likely done well on the MCAT and consequently on the USMLE.
 
doctornthemakin said:
Aren't those programs really hard to get into? For example, you would need an amazing ACT/SAT score to be competitive. Since these people are good test-takers, they would have most likely done well on the MCAT and consequently on the USMLE.
Click to expand...

yes. the reason they do poorly on practice mcat exams is because they've no reason to bother studying for the thing. i took a practice exam cold and didn't do so hot. end result turned out ok.

as far as your friend who got mid 20's and then blew his step 1 away that's great, but it's a sample size of 1. I'm sure you can find people who beat the odds everywhere, but they don't make the rule.
 
blackjack42 said:
oh and med schools most likely would want someone who worked hard for 4 years than someone who slacked and worked hard for 1-3 mos for 1 exam. it speaks to how committed the hard worker is...
Click to expand...

That's kinda the point. Two people can both work just as hard, but they go to different schools. One gets a 3.9+ and the other gets a 3.5. Let's say they both get a 29 on the MCAT. At the end of the day, the guy with the 3.9+ is a lot more competitive overall.
 
doctornthemakin said:
Aren't those programs really hard to get into? For example, you would need an amazing ACT/SAT score to be competitive. Since these people are good test-takers, they would have most likely done well on the MCAT and consequently on the USMLE.
Click to expand...

No not all of them are. For example, I have several friends at the UMKC 6 year program. They barely took any honors or AP classes in hs. They only took the ACT and one scored a 27, the other a 29. They did not take physics or any gen bio classes in undergrad and 1 semester of an abridged o-chem for program students. Certain programs, like lehigh/drexel and the northwestern one, for example, are harder to get into. At the lehigh program, you do have to take the MCAT and score either a 30 overall or 9's in all the subsections.

The UMKC 6 year is an example of where avg stats can get you accepted and pretty much every one gets in (even if you are wait listed there is a HIGH chance you will get in later when people with higher stats get accepted into bette programs and reject their umkc acceptance). Also, the program has pretty low standards (2.5 GPA to stay in the program, 2.8 to promote to the next year), to ensure students can make it through. HOWEVER, I do know a good number of people there and they all have GPAs from 3.5-4.0. And they have scored between 220-240+ on Step 1.

I do know there are several other combined programs that are not difficult to get into. But I don't know the specifics, so I won't speak about them. Oh and it is a big misconception that only valedictorians and top students get into these programs. It's unfortunate that potentially successful candidates don't apply based on this notion. Because it certainly is not true. You just have to do your research. And programs like UMKC are proof of that.

Edit: and if you're in-state, the requirements are even lower. a good number of in-state applicants accepted have ACT scores ranging from 24-26. For all students (in state and out of state),"The range of scores for students admitted between the fall 2010 and fall 2012 years is 22 – 36." (directly from the website)
 
Last edited:
doctornthemakin said:
Aren't those programs really hard to get into? For example, you would need an amazing ACT/SAT score to be competitive. Since these people are good test-takers, they would have most likely done well on the MCAT and consequently on the USMLE.
Click to expand...

oh and my sister got a 33 on the ACT, 2240 on the SAT, 3.7 GPA in hs, got accepted into multiple straight med programs (UMKC, VCU, villanova/drexel). she didn't go b/c she wasn't sure if she wanted to do medicine at that point (and frankly had the same misconception that these programs are impossible to get into, so she didn't expect to get interviews/get accepted). she is sure now and her highest MCAT score is a 29 (after taking it 4 times). Oh and her uGPA is 3.86 (penn state).

Edit: She didn't do any sports in hs and EC's were 4-5 clubs she was actively involved in and volunteering at the library for 3 yrs.
 
Captain Sisko said:
yes. the reason they do poorly on practice mcat exams is because they've no reason to bother studying for the thing. i took a practice exam cold and didn't do so hot. end result turned out ok.

as far as your friend who got mid 20's and then blew his step 1 away that's great, but it's a sample size of 1. I'm sure you can find people who beat the odds everywhere, but they don't make the rule.
Click to expand...

exactly. and you just proved the point that IT IS POSSIBLE for individuals to do well in undergrad and NOT do well on the MCAT, and still ace the boards and succeed in medical school. and this is specifically in response to the person(s) who don't believe that people can be able to get high GPAs in undergrad and break 30+ on the MCAT. and that the statement "some people are just not good test takers" is untrue. b/c i'm sure there are countless people on sdn alone who could tell you how true that statement really is.
 
blackjack42 said:
exactly. and you just proved the point that IT IS POSSIBLE for individuals to do well in undergrad and NOT do well on the MCAT, and still ace the boards and succeed in medical school. and this is specifically in response to the person(s) who don't believe that people can be able to get high GPAs in undergrad and break 30+ on the MCAT. and that the statement "some people are just not good test takers" is untrue. b/c i'm sure there are countless people on sdn alone who could tell you how true that statement really is.
Click to expand...

Being a good test-taker is a requirement for getting a 4.0. Your grades are based almost entirely on test performance. Thus someone with a 4.0 should be able to break a 30+ easily. Only other alternative is that the person isn't a good test-taker but the exams were easy through undergrad.
 
How about we pretend that this digression about test taking ability / MCAT / GPA / success in medical school never happened and talk about things that actually matter related to this school's admission cycle.
 
QuantumQuark said:
How about we pretend that this digression about test taking ability / MCAT / GPA / success in medical school never happened and talk about things that actually matter related to this school's admission cycle.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Didn't think it would go this far and that people could be so ignorant and presumptuous (and belittle people's success in undergrad). I'm officially done addressing the matter.

But back to discussions about Oakland! Any status updates?
 
This is a thread about Oakland med, not about discussing mcat scores in relation to undergrad program difficulty. Life isn't fair, get used to it.

Now... Back to Oakland...
 
Yikes! 91 interviews offered. Submitted 7/4, 3.86, 34, IS, haven't heard a word 🙁
 
QuantumQuark said:
How about we pretend that this digression about test taking ability / MCAT / GPA / success in medical school never happened and talk about things that actually matter related to this school's admission cycle.
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
Quick question about filling out the pre-requisite section. If my biology classes included lab, do I still need to check the biology lab tab? And if I do, do I write the same course number and in the notes just say, "lab included in general biology I" or something along those lines?
 
dnovikov said:
Quick question about filling out the pre-requisite section. If my biology classes included lab, do I still need to check the biology lab tab? And if I do, do I write the same course number and in the notes just say, "lab included in general biology I" or something along those lines?
Click to expand...

I think as long as they understand what you're saying from your notes, you'll be fine. If I were you I wouldn't fill out a whole new line saying the exact same thing. Rather, I would check yes for the lab requirement, write a note on the line for the lecture information stating that it included a lab component, then in the notes for the lab requirement say see above (for the line containing the lecture information).

Then again I didn't have this problem so maybe others who had the same question can tell you what they did.
 
Anyone heard anything lately from Oakland? I've been complete since 7/18 but haven't heard anything since.
 
Did anyone get a chance to attend the admissions webinar? What did they cover? I wanted to watch it but I couldn't because of work.
 
Does anyone else's status say that their LoR(s) have been received, but the literal checkmark is still red? I recently submitted my secondary so I'm assuming it's just because I'm not officially complete yet, but just wanted to make sure. Thanks!
 
Rejected here. IS, balanced 34, 3.86 sGPA/3.87cGPA. Had a good amount of clinical, volunteer, and a bit of research (little lacking).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wysdoc
2024-2025 Oakland (Beaumont) OUWB
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
638
Views
168K
CoolSocks
C
chilly_md
2023-2024 Oakland (Beaumont)
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
609
Views
158K
wolverine2023
W
wysdoc
2022-2023 Oakland (Beaumont)
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
835
Views
177K
Penny02
P
chilly_md
2024-2025 Boston University
21 22 23 24 25
Replies
1K
Views
265K
an2five
A
wysdoc
2024-2025 Saint Louis University
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
498
Views
108K
Sue C
Sue C
Top