3.3 Gpa, 36p Mcat

[benbk]

---

Members do not see this ad.

x

 

[illiniTJ]

why does it have to always be about the numbers? you can't judge yourself or anyone else by saying that you're generally "better" because you did well on a test. You and everyone else on this board knows very well that a GPA of 3.3 is average and an MCAT of 36 is above average for those matriculated. So number wise, sure you got a decent chance at a med school. How's your other stuff, where you applying, whats your personal statment say, who recommended you? Lots of factors to say for sure buddy.

 

[size_tens]

I applied with a 3.3/34 last year and got interviews at Drexel, Tulane and SLU. I ended up with a handful of waitlists and no acceptances. Good luck to you benbk

 

[ball372]

have you considered a plan B? (i had to use mine). That is, maybe taking some grad school level classes or even a post-bac to boost the GPA? unfortunately for people like us, i've found that adcom people really rely on GPA and MCAT, almost equally.

 

[Sage880]

36p is a solid MCAT. If I were you, I'd put stuff in your PS about how your GPA doesn't affect your ability. A lot of people do that, but you have the MCAT mark to back it up.

I'm sure you'll get accepted to a couple different schools if you put together a solid app with those stats.

Good luck to you!

 

[monopolova]

I don't know your situation, so don't be insulted cause I'm just analyzing.

Anyway, 36 shows that you're smart as hell -- that you have the intellect to handle the information given in med school.

A 3.3 paired with the 36, unfortunately, says (whether it is true or not) that you may not have a lot of drive, ambition, patience for academic work, etc. etc. even though you are smart as hell. Again, I'm not saying that this is the case, I'm just saying what might just possibly perhaps you never know be hypothesized by schools.

Spend time in personal statements on secodaries and in interviews saying that you do have the drive and ambition, etc.

Just a thought ...

Congrats on the MCAT, by the way! 👍

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Funny how one good MCAT makes up for years of marginal GPA, while one bad MCAT will kill years of superb GPA.

 

[Medikit]

Funny how one good MCAT makes up for years of marginal GPA, while one bad MCAT will kill years of superb GPA.

Extremes like those are pretty rare and it's usually indicative of the institution rather than the person.

 

[Sage880]

I actually don't think it's rare at all. I think a fair number of people decide to get into medicine late in life and have to make up for years of slacking in undergrad so they study their asses off for the MCAT.

At least that's what I ended up doing...

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

why does it have to always be about the numbers? you can't judge yourself or anyone else by saying that you're generally "better" because you did well on a test. You and everyone else on this board knows very well that a GPA of 3.3 is average and an MCAT of 36 is above average for those matriculated. So number wise, sure you got a decent chance at a med school. How's your other stuff, where you applying, whats your personal statment say, who recommended you? Lots of factors to say for sure buddy.

MCAT and GPA, despite what some people will tell you, are the most important admission criteria. Not the only, of course, but worth at least fifty percent of your application, regardless of the school. So I think he poses a fair question, but unfortunately, not one that any of us can answer with a great deal of authority.

 

[Albert Einstein]

.

 

[Deuce 007 MD]

Some of us on the board are actually in med school, and have actually interviewed students during last years cycle. Some well actually be interviewing students again this cycle so maybe we do know a little about what the adcoms thinks because maybe we do have some input. As for the OP don't get to confidant and apply to a wide range of schools. I've know some people w/35+ and similar gpa not get into an allopathic program cause they only applied to too few schools. I've got 36 and 3.49 gpa and was lucky to stay in Calif.

 

[Radio Edit]

i dont know! im scared though 🙁 🙁

 

[exmike]

I had a 3.1 and a 35P and i got 19 interviews. I'm in at great school and also got in a CA allo school (same as deuce's)

Its not an ideal situation to have a low gpa / high mcat, but there are things ou can do to make yourself stand out

 

[Albert Einstein]

.

 

[benbk]

.

 

[sweatybrain]

Funny how one good MCAT makes up for years of marginal GPA, while one bad MCAT will kill years of superb GPA.

why? 🙂

seriously, someone could graduate from MIT with a 3.9, fell ill on the day of the test, and ended up doing poorly on the MCAT. I never figured out why 4 (or more) years of academic excellence is weighed equally as the MCAT.
👎

 

[pseudoknot]

seriously, someone could graduate from MIT with a 3.9, fell ill on the day of the test, and ended up doing poorly on the MCAT. I never figured out why 4 (or more) years of academic excellence is weighed equally as the MCAT.

I'm sure that person would get a great score when he or she retook the MCAT, but the person who got a 3.9 from an extremely grade-inflated school in an easy major might never be able to do as well.

 

[palmtree]

why? 🙂

seriously, someone could graduate from MIT with a 3.9, fell ill on the day of the test, and ended up doing poorly on the MCAT. I never figured out why 4 (or more) years of academic excellence is weighed equally as the MCAT.
👎

A high GPA is NOT 4 years of academic excellence. It's simply a measure of your work ethic. Almost anyone applying to medical school has the ability to achieve a 4.0...all it takes is a huge time committment and hard work. Honestly, think about what it takes to get an A at most undergraduate institutions. Going to class everyday/not missing lecture already puts you ahead of everybody since the professor always drops hints about exams during lecture. Office hours are huge...they give away almost everything there. Doing the assigned, but not required, homework will also give you clues about the exam. Does any of this measure your academic capability? Not really.

This is why the MCAT is used...it is designed to evaluate your skills in analysis and interpretation. A high MCAT speaks volumes about how much you really excel in academics. A high GPA says you are motivated, and have a great work ethic.

Please dont take this as me insulting the intelligence of those with 4.0's...you obviously have the intelligence to know that a high GPA will help you in admissions. A high GPA isn't by any means easy, mad props to those with the high GPA's.

For those wondering about me, I made lots of mistakes and have a low GPA because I simply didn't care. However, hopefully (with god's grace) I did well enough on the August MCAT to say that I can hang with the rigors of medical school.

 

[Blade28]

I always went by the rule, "1/3 GPA, 1/3 MCAT, 1/3 everything else" (letters of recommendation, personal statement, extracurriculars, difficulty of major/coursework, etc.). Seems to be true, generally speaking. Interviews may not help much, but they can certainly hurt you (if you bomb them).

 

[Arb]

Is it possible to designate more schools even though the AMCAS application is submitted? I keep hearing about "Tulane" and am thinking of adding that in.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

You sure can, AMCAS always gives you more chances to spend money.

 

[Arb]

You sure can, AMCAS always gives you more chances to spend money.

haha

Is Tulane a good school?

 

[uic1999]

A high GPA is NOT 4 years of academic excellence. It's simply a measure of your work ethic. Almost anyone applying to medical school has the ability to achieve a 4.0...all it takes is a huge time committment and hard work. Honestly, think about what it takes to get an A at most undergraduate institutions. Going to class everyday/not missing lecture already puts you ahead of everybody since the professor always drops hints about exams during lecture. Office hours are huge...they give away almost everything there. Doing the assigned, but not required, homework will also give you clues about the exam. Does any of this measure your academic capability? Not really.

This is why the MCAT is used...it is designed to evaluate your skills in analysis and interpretation. A high MCAT speaks volumes about how much you really excel in academics. A high GPA says you are motivated, and have a great work ethic.

Please dont take this as me insulting the intelligence of those with 4.0's...you obviously have the intelligence to know that a high GPA will help you in admissions. A high GPA isn't by any means easy, mad props to those with the high GPA's.

For those wondering about me, I made lots of mistakes and have a low GPA because I simply didn't care. However, hopefully (with god's grace) I did well enough on the August MCAT to say that I can hang with the rigors of medical school.

For most people, doing well on the MCAT is just as much about work ethic and preparation as it is about intelligence. Also, I don't know where you go to school but at quality, competitive institutions who value educating students rather than enrollment numbers and tuition dollars, 4.0s are earned for knowing concepts and being able to apply them to new and advanced situations, not showing up for office hours and memorizing a laundry list of definitions.

I don't think you walked into the MCAT with the same preparation that earned you your low GPA, but, if you did, and you do well, congrats...not a lot of people can do that.

Good attempt to justify your intelligence, though.

 

[jlee9531]

Which schools pay more attention to MCAT than GPA? Do I have a better shot than someone with a 24 MCAT and a 4.0 GPA?

I hope so.

soley based on numbers, you have a much better chance than a 4.0 24

 

[palmtree]

i go to UCLA...which is a competitive university. I dont need to justify my intelligence to anyone, I know I'm not the smartest guy in the world.
but anyways...at UCLA...getting A's in classes is just following the steps I outlined in the previous post. I didnt' mean to say that it was simply memorizing definitions and such...theres never anything like that on the midterms/finals. HOWEVER, i can tell you that getting A's isnt rocket science...i made mistakes in the past but I've gotten a 4.0 the last two quarters...and i'm not smarter than alot of the people in those classes. the only thing i'm doing that they're not is going to lecture every time, office hours...discussion sections...review sections...and based off of those I pretty much knew exactly what was going to be on the tests. I had a significant advantage. And I know its not just at UCLA...I've talked to so many of my friends at Berkeley and they say the same thing...
I was really dissapointed by all of this when i first came to ucla...which i think is part of the reason i lacked any motivation to do well...i thought i would receive a higher education or something...but it was the same ole crap...

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Getting an A might not be rocket science, but consistently getting them for four years with a tough courseload while taking part in many extracurricular activities is. Oh yeah, check out my sig.

 

[Ajay]

Grades and the MCAT can only offer a one dimensional window into your life. Some people are unable to fulfill their potential due to personal stresses not necessarily related to academics; this is not always evident in one's transcript. I'd say a 3.3 and 36P are just fine. Moreover, since you can't make any drastic changes to your profile during this application cycle, I suggest you take all this in stride and see how everything goes. Keep working towards improving some of the numbers if you feel you must, but NEVER apologize for your performance. Accept it and be willing to explain it if you are able; do not, however, allow anyone to suggest they hold power over you just because they were more anal when it came to exams or assignments.

I'm sure you'll make a great doctor. Good luck!

 

[derf]

A high GPA is NOT 4 years of academic excellence. It's simply a measure of your work ethic. Almost anyone applying to medical school has the ability to achieve a 4.0...all it takes is a huge time committment and hard work. Honestly, think about what it takes to get an A at most undergraduate institutions. Going to class everyday/not missing lecture already puts you ahead of everybody since the professor always drops hints about exams during lecture. Office hours are huge...they give away almost everything there. Doing the assigned, but not required, homework will also give you clues about the exam. Does any of this measure your academic capability? Not really.

This is why the MCAT is used...it is designed to evaluate your skills in analysis and interpretation. A high MCAT speaks volumes about how much you really excel in academics. A high GPA says you are motivated, and have a great work ethic.

Please dont take this as me insulting the intelligence of those with 4.0's...you obviously have the intelligence to know that a high GPA will help you in admissions. A high GPA isn't by any means easy, mad props to those with the high GPA's.

For those wondering about me, I made lots of mistakes and have a low GPA because I simply didn't care. However, hopefully (with god's grace) I did well enough on the August MCAT to say that I can hang with the rigors of medical school.

your logic is horrible. if you went to ucla, you would know that most classes are curved to limit A's to say 15-20% of the class. If all the students, say, studied for 1000 hours prior to a given test with the same "committment and hard work", will the instructor give everyone an A grade?

 

[Code Brown]

Trying to think about this logically, one of the big factors that will affect how your GPA is looked upon is how it's distributed:

If the first two years are at 2.5, you figure out you want to be a doctor and the last two are at a 4.0, your 3.3 will be fine.

If the first two years are at 4.0, and the last two are at a 2.5, you may be in trouble.

If all 4 years you are at a 3.3, it probably depends on who is reviewing your app and how THEY performed during their undergrad years and their individual opinion of your curriculum and where you went to school.

Well, just my 2 cents worth.

 

[SailCrazy]

why does it have to always be about the numbers? you can't judge yourself or anyone else by saying that you're generally "better" because you did well on a test.

Why all the hostility? 😱 The OP didn't seem to imply that they were "better." They wanted to know how they looked to an admissions comittee. Whether you like it or not, those two factors are the primary consideration... Wondering if a Good GPA/Low MCAT is better than a Good MCAT/Low GPA is a common - and valid - question.

You and everyone else on this board knows very well that a GPA of 3.3 is average and an MCAT of 36 is above average for those matriculated. ?

For someone with less than a month's time registered, you claim a lot of knowledge about what "everyone" around here knows. In fact, you are incorrect. In 2003, for example, the average applicant GPA was 3.47 and the average matriculant GPA was 3.62.

Check out the actual data if you'd like a little more detailed info: MCAT scores and GPAs for Applicants and Matriculants, 1992-2003

Overall I'd say this reply earns a 3.3 for below average accuracy and a 36 for above average aggressive and bitter attitude!

 

[Sweet Tea]

Trying to think about this logically, one of the big factors that will affect how your GPA is looked upon is how it's distributed:

If the first two years are at 2.5, you figure out you want to be a doctor and the last two are at a 4.0, your 3.3 will be fine.

If the first two years are at 4.0, and the last two are at a 2.5, you may be in trouble.

If all 4 years you are at a 3.3, it probably depends on who is reviewing your app and how THEY performed during their undergrad years and their individual opinion of your curriculum and where you went to school.

Well, just my 2 cents worth.

Great advice here. Here are my stats:
GPA: 3.1
GPA breakdown: first 2 years GPA was 2.0; 2nd 2 yeas was 4.0. Post-bacc year (retook the orgo series and added some graduate bio classes) was 4.0
MCAT: 32R (or maybe S...i don't really remember b/c it's not important)
4 years as an EMT, 2 years in clinical research, 1 paper published, presented 2 abstracts at national conference.

Current status: M2.

So yes, it is possible for you to get into med school with a lower GPA and higher MCAT. OP, your graduate GPA is rock-solid (congrats!!), and that will go a long way to help compensate for a lower undergrad GPA. Your MCAT is fantastic (again, congrats!). Assuming you have some decent ECs, some solid LORs, and a good reason for wanting to go to medical school after grad school, you should be okay. Best of luck to you!

 

[SailCrazy]

your logic is horrible. if you went to ucla, you would know that most classes are curved to limit A's to say 15-20% of the class. If all the students, say, studied for 1000 hours prior to a given test with the same "committment and hard work", will the instructor give everyone an A grade?

Speaking of horrible logic: "If all the students, say, studied for 1000 hours prior to a given test"... What planet is your college on? 😕

I don't think that the original logic is that bad at all. Most students don't spend the "maximum" time studying for any given class or test. Maybe they have other class work, maybe extracurriculars, maybe they just want to have a few beers.

You can be pretty sure that 15-20% of the class isn't taking the time to stop by office hours to ask extra questions and pick up extra test hints. If they did, office hours would be just that - hours, and hours, and hours long!

My understanding of what you describe as "horrible logic" was simply that on average there is plenty of room for more people to put in more work and pick up better grades. That seems pretty straightforward and believable to me!

Granted, if everyone were studying 1000 hours for each test, this wouldn't apply. I believe, however, that palmtree was attempting to explain a situation that might actually exist in reality.

 

[Treg]

Did/Do you guys really actually go to office hours? Seriously?

Treg

 

[Code Brown]

Did/Do you guys really actually go to office hours? Seriously?

Treg

Yes, otherwise it will be dificult to get decent LORs. Most students forget about this part.

 

[derf]

Speaking of horrible logic: "If all the students, say, studied for 1000 hours prior to a given test"... What planet is your college on? 😕

I don't think that the original logic is that bad at all. Most students don't spend the "maximum" time studying for any given class or test. Maybe they have other class work, maybe extracurriculars, maybe they just want to have a few beers.

You can be pretty sure that 15-20% of the class isn't taking the time to stop by office hours to ask extra questions and pick up extra test hints. If they did, office hours would be just that - hours, and hours, and hours long!

My understanding of what you describe as "horrible logic" was simply that on average there is plenty of room for more people to put in more work and pick up better grades. That seems pretty straightforward and believable to me!

Granted, if everyone were studying 1000 hours for each test, this wouldn't apply. I believe, however, that palmtree was attempting to explain a situation that might actually exist in reality.

I was just trying to point that getting a 4.0 or A's (not better grades) doesn't necessarily correlate to worth ethic, in most cases, as the poster was trying to allude to. Maybe at some universities, but definitely not at others, especially the university where the poster is from. I'm sure anyone would have understood why I used the 1000 hours example, and the point I was trying to make. 😉

 

[SailCrazy]

I was just trying to point that getting a 4.0 or A's (not better grades) doesn't necessarily correlate to worth ethic, in most cases, as the poster was trying to allude to. Maybe at some universities, but definitely not at others, especially the university where the poster is from. I'm sure anyone would have understood why I used the 1000 hours example, and the point I was trying to make. 😉

I was just trying to make the opposite point! 🙂

I would argue that work ethic, in virtually all cases, is the primary factor in determining A's. There aren't many brainiacs out there who can coast through a class with little to no work and pick up an A at the end. Those who earn A's get there because they work hard.

Sure there are some people who do a lot of work and don't get and A in the end; but as a general rule, the harder you work, the better your grade.

If not work ethic, what would you say is the primary determining factor in getting A's? (Either in general or at a particular school.)

 

[SailCrazy]

I was just trying to point that getting a 4.0 or A's (not better grades) doesn't necessarily correlate to worth ethic, in most cases, as the poster was trying to allude to. Maybe at some universities, but definitely not at others, especially the university where the poster is from. I'm sure anyone would have understood why I used the 1000 hours example, and the point I was trying to make. 😉

I'm not trying to be a jack*ss, but I'll stand by my original statement that your logic is also "horrible." ("Horrible" in your words... I'd choose to use something a little less confrontational like "flawed"... 😉 )

You're arguing that grades don't correlate to work ethic. No problem there.

You then choose an example that is beyond the constraints of reality in an attempt to illustrate a situation in which work ethic would not directly correlate to a particular grade. How does that support your claim that (in reality) grades are not directly tied to work ethic?

I'll gladly agree that if everyone studied 1000 hours for each test, your argument would be spot on. However, this isn't much further from reality than suggesting a hypothitical situation in which every student rode a unicorn back in time in order to receive personal tutoring from the greatest minds in the history of science...! 🙂

 

[derf]

I was just trying to make the opposite point! 🙂

I would argue that work ethic, in virtually all cases, is the primary factor in determining A's. There aren't many brainiacs out there who can coast through a class with little to no work and pick up an A at the end. Those who earn A's get there because they work hard.

I would argue that work ethic is a sufficient factor, but not a necessary factor. Thats the whole point I've been trying to make. That is, work ethic definitely helps you do better, but doesn't assure you of a 4.0, as was earlier implied. Again, we have to distinguish b/t getting some A's and getting all A's as this thread entails.

Sure there are some people who do a lot of work and don't get and A in the end; but as a general rule, the harder you work, the better your grade.

agree that hard work increases your performance.

If not work ethic, what would you say is the primary determining factor in getting A's? (Either in general or at a particular school.)

hard work is often necessary, but as illiniTJ referred to earlier, you have to grasp concepts and understand certain material in a manner that will justifiy or warrant being placed in the 'A' group. At least this is the case at schools like Michigan, UCLA, Duke, Berkeley, UCSD, etc

 

[MrTee]

I was just trying to make the opposite point! 🙂

I would argue that work ethic, in virtually all cases, is the primary factor in determining A's. There aren't many brainiacs out there who can coast through a class with little to no work and pick up an A at the end. Those who earn A's get there because they work hard.

Sure there are some people who do a lot of work and don't get and A in the end; but as a general rule, the harder you work, the better your grade.

If not work ethic, what would you say is the primary determining factor in getting A's? (Either in general or at a particular school.)

I completely agree here. Work ethic is generally correlated with GPA, even at UCLA. My basis for this statement is that I have served as a TA at UCLA for several classes multiple times, and I can assure you, the students who end up at the top are the ones who dedicate the most time to studying. My top performing students are the ones who come to office hours, who clearly know what's going on as evidenced by their coming to lecture, labs, discussions, etc. Many bright students who are obviously very intelligent, do not perform on their exams...not because they don't have the capacity to comprehend, but because they don't prepare as well as the students who end up with the top grades.

 

[drguy22]

I completely agree here. Work ethic is generally correlated with GPA, even at UCLA. My basis for this statement is that I have served as a TA at UCLA for several classes multiple times, and I can assure you, the students who end up at the top are the ones who dedicate the most time to studying. My top performing students are the ones who come to office hours, who clearly know what's going on as evidenced by their coming to lecture, labs, discussions, etc. Many bright students who are obviously very intelligent, do not perform on their exams...not because they don't have the capacity to comprehend, but because they don't prepare as well as the students who end up with the top grades.

i agree

 

[AsianDoc816]

I completely agree here. Work ethic is generally correlated with GPA, even at UCLA. My basis for this statement is that I have served as a TA at UCLA for several classes multiple times, and I can assure you, the students who end up at the top are the ones who dedicate the most time to studying. My top performing students are the ones who come to office hours, who clearly know what's going on as evidenced by their coming to lecture, labs, discussions, etc. Many bright students who are obviously very intelligent, do not perform on their exams...not because they don't have the capacity to comprehend, but because they don't prepare as well as the students who end up with the top grades.

I have to agree with this point as well--this post portrays the type of student I am--always in class, sitting in the front, at office hours, etc. Basic intelligence can only bring a person so far. I know plenty of gifted people who simply "sit" on their intelligence because they'd rather sleep, play video games, or party. My point is this: while doctors have to possess intelligence, they also have to have a good work ethic and be dedicated to their careers. A 200 IQ alone will not solve a patient's problems....motivation and dedication combined with intelligence will. I guess I'm a little biased, but this is a point that I firmly believe in.

 

[SailCrazy]

I would argue that work ethic is a sufficient factor, but not a necessary factor. Thats the whole point I've been trying to make. That is, work ethic definitely helps you do better, but doesn't assure you of a 4.0, as was earlier implied. Again, we have to distinguish b/t getting some A's and getting all A's as this thread entails.

Sounds reasonable to me. I didn't realize that we were discussing whether or not there is a 100% correlation between lots of work and an A! 🙂

Obviously there are always a few people who study themselves to death without getting an A. And there are a few people who can get A's without working hard - but not very many.

hard work is often necessary, but as illiniTJ referred to earlier, you have to grasp concepts and understand certain material in a manner that will justifiy or warrant being placed in the 'A' group. At least this is the case at schools like Michigan, UCLA, Duke, Berkeley, UCSD, etc

Agreed. And I'd also say that most of the people at that caliber of school that get A's are also the hardest working. At least that was my experience at Penn.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

always in class, sitting in the front, at office hours, etc.

You're one of those guys huh? Haha, do you interrupt the professor to ask a lot of questions during a lecture too?

 

[AsianDoc816]

You're one of those guys huh? Haha, do you interrupt the professor to ask a lot of questions during a lecture too?

No, I wait until office hours. I don't like those obnoxious people either. Haha.

 

[prettyslick]

always in class, sitting in the front, at office hours, etc.

I smell a gunner.

 

[neoncandle]

I got a slightly lower MCAT and I have a slightly higher GPA and all the schools I have applied to so far seem interested. But I also have clinical experience and a good reason for becoming a doctor. My GPA was low because I worked my way through college. However, I have a 4.0 science GPA (which I got when I didn't work). It takes hard work to get through medical school. Since you didn't demonstrate that with your GPA, make sure you demonstrate it through your essays and your interview. Good luck. If you are doing this for the right reasons you will do great.

 

[benbk]

.

 

[derf]

Ouch. The 15-20% A is only true for LS, Chem, Engr, Math, etc. Didn't you see the Bruin where the avg. liberal arts major GPA is like a 3.8 at UCLA?

I should know: I've taught Chem 14a, b, c, and LS3 and 4.

Ben

my bad, I do remember the article. It sucks to be on the south end of campus 😡

 

[InductionAgent]

Not that the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine wasn't my first choice school, but...

I had a similar experience. 35 MCAT, 3.2 GPA. The worst of it was that I had 2 F's during a bad semester when I was a sophomore. I was a non-traditional 26 year-old applicant/interviewee, and hoped they would pay more attention to my post-bac-all-As on my pre-med requisites, but to no avail.

I applied to the full range of schools, and found that the top-tier programs (Duke, Hopkins) wouldn't interview me, the mid-tier programs (UNC, Wake Forest, University of Oklahoma, East Carolina) automatically granted me interviews based on my MCATs, then wanted to hammer me about grades from 7 years earlier, and well, WVSOM really needed to boost their average MCAT admission scores so they forgave me my 19 year-old sins.

Anyway, if I had it to do again, I would have applied to more programs and completed all the secondary apps. So that is my biggest advice to anyone with some concern about the marginality of their application - work the field for all it's worth, and practice getting drilled on the interview for any bad marks. Also, at any state school, tell everyone that interviews you that you're interested in doing primary care.