A 3.3 From Harvard/Yale/Princeton worth more than a 4.0 from a state school?

[riceman04]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Yea, i was going to say the same thing. A 3.3 at a state school is probably better than a 3.3 at Harvard, Princeton or Yale b/c everyone knows there is grade inflation at those 3 schools.

Unfortunately for people who do go to those state schools, adcoms dont look at it that way. Why do you think so many (relative to their size) from the Ivies and similar competitive schools are accepted?

Yeah these types of schools could be looking out for each other (something like a good ol' boys pact to protect all students attending these schools accused of grade inflation.

And besides, I have heard that Harvard is not as easy as many people would like to believe.

 

[riceman04]

Asking for stats? On an internet forum? Are you daft man?! Don't you know that they all refrence the "pull it out of my ass" handbook. You have one too, right? Let me consult mine. Ah, here it is!

According to this, graduates from Chico State score an average of 38 on the MCAT, with 10% getting a 43 or above. Also, they have bigger penises.

See how stupid it sounds to cite stuff without any sort of grounding to it? Bah, they will never learn. Be prepared for more random stats, ad infinum.

I so agree with you!!

 

[riceman04]

Why would you make the MCAT the entire admissions criteria and then add weight for a top school?

GPA should still be considered so you don't get any brilliant slackers in med school who never learned how to study for any period of time.

There will always be a system that attempts to initially "handicapp" those who cannot afford an elite system (and this applies to anything).

 

[riceman04]

urban legend my friend

Not urban legend at Baylor College of Medicine. I heard they do it to Rice U. student gpa's all the time

 

[riceman04]

Christ on a bike. You know what? Here's my two cents from a state university: my university couldn't care less if it passed people or not. If you meet its standards, fine. If you don't, who cares? My state has three universities and it knows that the vast majority of its high school students are going to go there because they don't have any other choice for low prices on education. The idea that state schools have gone soft is absurd. There's no one looking out for individual students nor is the curriculum set up to necessarily help people who don't work hard. Basically, its fend for yourself and prove to the school that you can hack it. So before the Ivy League crowd does what they did during interview season (which is to get down on the state school system) maybe they should actually go to a state school and see what its like. Granted, its foolish to run around saying that one system is harder than the other speaking only in generalizations, but I'm tired of people looking at the name of my university and automatically assuming that I just showed up and filled out some forms to get my degree.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

ASU=PARTY SCHOOL
UOFA=PARTY SCHOOL

 

[Will Ferrell]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

ASU=PARTY SCHOOL
UOFA=PARTY SCHOOL

Yea, I think Playboy ranked it the #1 party school a couple years ago.

 

[Will Ferrell]

This is SO true, and not just at Harvard. Legacies=$$$$$$=As.

I think the weight of that has been dropping since George W's time. Most (I think 80%+) of legacies are rejected to these "grade inflated" schools. My double-legacy friend had a 1500+ SAT, high GPA, and a bull$hit major and was still rejected from one of these top 5 schools twice.

 

[beefballs]

I feel that the best at a state school could compete at an Ivy. As for the 3.3 29 MCATs The Ivy has their share of them too. As for the party school b.s. I go to a HUGE undergrad state school with plenty of that, but we have a great deal of diligent, bright, industrious students too, and I am sure Columbie et al has there fair share of drunken bashes as well. Don't be a snob either way, it is what an individual puts into their opportunity not where they got it from that matters.

 

[Larsitron]

Not only did Playboy rank both of our schools as party schools, the student body president (or maybe vice president?) was involved in a porn shoot at his on campus frat!

But you know what? I'm tired of people acting like my degree came out of a cracker jack box or because I had enough box tops from Froot Loops. I guarantee you the people doing the most partying are the business majors and they pretty much bring up the average for all of us. I have a 4.0 coming out of the U of A majoring in molecular and cellular biology (not trying to toot my own horn, but just providing a basis for my indignation towards the thread) and I would defy any Ivy league person with a 3.3 to sit and justify to me why they weren't able to manage the same thing because of their school and its added "difficulty."

If we want to talk about perceptions, there's no way a 3.3 out of an Ivy would be considered a better GPA than a 4.0 out of a state school. Do the Ivy's have carbonyl groups that are tricker to master? Do their biochemical pathways get more complicated as their tuition rises?

U of A and ASU may be party schools, but I know that I didn't do my share and neither did most of my friends who were successful out of the sciences or engineering.

 

[Biffer]

Grades have nothing to do with basic mastery of scientific topics but everything to do with relative performance (see class composition) on demonical exams that often set curves at 55-65%. Professors at top ugrads are aware of the universal talent (legacy status isn't what it used to be)sitting in front of them and on occasion decide to pepper tests with extremely challenging/obscure q's related to their research interests. In a way, the profs are searching the room for their next protege or colleague; as well, profs get off on stumping so many highly gifted individuals (sad and true). Personally, I would be very impressed w. a state U 4.0 as it shows dilligence, intelligence, and motivation, yet, I would be starstruck by the rare 3.8+(sci major) ivy individual as the result shows intelligence, extraordinary committment to the major, and a somewhat thorough reading of current research. That being said, there is nothing holding back a state U 4.0 from exceptional achievement, its just a steeper mountain to climb.

 

[sandg]

Unfortunately for people who do go to those state schools, adcoms dont look at it that way. Why do you think so many (relative to their size) from the Ivies and similar competitive schools are accepted?

I think a lot of this can be explained with the all-squares-are-rectangles-but-not-all-rectangles-are-squares analogy. Someone who was admitted to an Ivy undergrad is obviously bright and talented and able to go on to do great things. Someone who chooses his/her state school, conversely, cannot be assumed to be less bright or talented. You and many others on this thread assume (or at least imply that you do) that those at state schools could not gain admittance to the best undergrad private schools. This is hardly the case; I didn't apply to a single Ivy school by my own choice for a variety of reasons. So even though people like me or Larsitron went to our state schools, we probably would have stood a decent shot at an Ivy had we so chosen. In addition, you will find we will do pretty decent in med school in the chair next to you.

 

[ajt2003]

I'm too lazy to read this thead from start to finish - but, I do think that if you went to an Ivy - regardless of what you're GPA is - you're more likely to be looked at than if you didn't. It's a sad, true fact. It does open doors.

Prestige is prestige - whether you agree with it or not - and the adcoms like to play the game...I had a number of my interviewers say something like, "students from Yale tend to thrive here."

Do I agree with this 'special' treatment? No. Do I think it happens? Absolutely - ESPECIALLY with the top 10 med schools. As someone said earlier, most adcoms at these schools went to Ivies...they stick with what feels familiar. Worst offenders in my opinion? Columbia, Penn, Stanford, Yale.

 

[Mitro]

Someone who was admitted to an Ivy undergrad is obviously bright and talented and able to go on to do great things.

Not true - there are still plenty of stupid people at Ivy schools, just a smaller precentage of them.

Someone who chooses his/her state school, conversely, cannot be assumed to be less bright or talented.

Very true, in numbers, there are probably more highly intelligent people at most state schools than at most Ivy league school.

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

The princeton data speaks for itself. Don't misinterpret it.

you need a 3.45 and a 30mcat at princeton to have a good chance at getting into A medical school. But you're not gonna get into top tier med schools.
all top tier undergrad schools have this kind of rule of thumb. 3.5 + 30.
lower tier schools will require a higher gpa and slightly higher mcat.

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/MedStats.stm << just look at the stats from my undergrad. they're not the best stats. but you get the general trend.

Listen to me. I know it all!!

a 3.3 from harv,yale,prince is NOT equivalent to a 4.0 at "non-podunk" state schools.
it's more like a 3.5-3.6 at decent state schools.
a 3.3 gpa from the top ivys will exponentially decrease your chances at getting into a med school.

So don't go justifying your lower gpa at the ivys. The fact is, the ivy-leaguers have it hard because they have to maintain higher standards once they're in.
But on the bright side, if ivy students are able to maintain a high gpa, they're pretty much set for life.

 

[63768]

honestly, i knew a lot of smart kids in high school. but they lacked motivation and drive to go anywhere but a state school. that and they wanted "stay with their friends" which is a bad reason for not going to an ivy league school when you can.

basically, these students at ivys have to be given a legup for working hard and being motivated enough to get in. yea sure there are always the people who get in based on legacy. same thing happens with med school, except those who get by more easily are URMs. (this is a whole other debate, i know, but i know too many URMs that get into med school and are way dumber than many other applicants, not looking at GPA and MCAT).

people are going to get past the system somehow. but looking at the majority, ivy league students worked hard to get in. that and the caliber of ivy classes is far above that in state schools due to higher profile profs.

 

[Scrubz67]

Consider this: University A is an Ivy/Top 5/Top 10 university and University B is a school with less selective admittance (by this I mean acceptace rate is much higher than school A's). I think it is not unreasable to say that the probability of running into a top student in your class is higher at University A than B, after all, it was a criteria for admittance through high school GPA/SATs and activities. That is NOT to say that there are not top students at University B.

A common saying is that if you take the top 1% out, amongst those 1% someone will have to rank at the bottom. I think this principle applies especially to classes that are graded on curves (like orgo for most). Competing for an A may very well be harder at University A because of the overall level of students. Many unversity's feel that if their students are the top students in the nation why not let more students have A's (thus a perceived grade inflation)? Just think of transplanting an engineering student who studied engineering at a smaller lesser-known school into MIT, the student may be brilliant but the level of competition and performance at MIT may cause he/she to receive lower grades. Now this also may not happen, but it's pretty probable.

Bottom line: as long as there is selectivity in admissions, there will be academic elitism. Whether it is right or wrong, we can't say for sure but thats reality (and probability & statistics) folks.

 

[Biffer]

Not true - there are still plenty of stupid people at Ivy schools, just a smaller precentage of them.



Very true, in numbers, there are probably more highly intelligent people at most state schools than at most Ivy league school.

you can't be serious? ivy league (top ten schools, etc) deserve their prestige as they have huge endowments, attract top faculty and as a result get the best students. no mystery here. Ivy and other top schools rightfully own a sizeable chunk of the global brain trust. Yes, there ARE highly motivated/gifted individuals at less well known institutions and i'm sure they would fare very well in an ivy setting. Yet, the truth is that they are FAR from the norm at their schools.

 

[Mitro]

you can't be serious? ivy league (top ten schools, etc) deserve their prestige as they have huge endowments, attract top faculty and as a result get the best students. no mystery here. Ivy and other top schools rightfully own a sizeable chunk of the global brain trust. Yes, there ARE highly motivated/gifted individuals at less well known institutions and i'm sure they would fare very well in an ivy setting. Yet, the truth is that they are FAR from the norm at their schools.

Did you go to one of these schools? because I am 100% serious. There are tons of stupid people at Ivies. I am talking about students - not faculty. No doubt, the princeton/harvard/yales of the world attract some of the best faculty. However, the students run the gamut from the highly motivated and intelligent student to the kind of person who you sit there wondering how they got into college to begin with. Guess what, it's the same at every school in America - it's just that the distribution is skewed towards the highly motivated and intelligent people at the big three and more towards the middle and the other side at some schools.

 

[Biffer]

Did you go to one of these schools? A: yes, if you refer to ivy (not HYP though)


Guess what, it's the same at every school in America - it's just that the distribution is skewed towards the highly motivated and intelligent people at the big three and more towards the middle and the other side at some schools.[/QUOTE]

ok-super, you agree with me, thanks.

 

[idkoop]

The princeton data speaks for itself. Don't misinterpret it.

you need a 3.45 and a 30mcat at princeton to have a good chance at getting into A medical school. But you're not gonna get into top tier med schools.
all top tier undergrad schools have this kind of rule of thumb. 3.5 + 30.
lower tier schools will require a higher gpa and slightly higher mcat.

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/MedStats.stm << just look at the stats from my undergrad. they're not the best stats. but you get the general trend.

Listen to me. I know it all!!

a 3.3 from harv,yale,prince is NOT equivalent to a 4.0 at "non-podunk" state schools.
it's more like a 3.5-3.6 at decent state schools.
a 3.3 gpa from the top ivys will exponentially decrease your chances at getting into a med school.

So don't go justifying your lower gpa at the ivys. The fact is, the ivy-leaguers have it hard because they have to maintain higher standards once they're in.
But on the bright side, if ivy students are able to maintain a high gpa, they're pretty much set for life.

someone said that they graduated from UofA with a 4.0 in bio. i also noticed that they were attending UofR med school. that's fine, but it just goes to show what adoms at better schools thought of your 4.0 from UofA. the avg SAT at UofA is what, less than 1300, 1200? The top students from AZ don't go to UofA, they end up at Stanford/MIT/H/Y/P/Ivy, etc.

and a 3.3 at even a "top" state like berkeley is crap, especially if you're a reasonably savvy premed. it just goes to show you either slacked off or weren't smart enough to take the grade-boosting liberal-arts classes with URM admits. a 3.3 at an ivy or other top school means a lot, because even the savvy premeds there can't necessarily gun an A in an "easy" class like sociology or psych - there's a ton of other gunners who are taking it for a good grade, and a lot of people who specialize in those fields, etc.

You also aren't very good at statistics. A mean may be 3.45 or whatever, but if P has a 90% acceptance rate, that means that people with GPA's MORE than one standard deviation below the mean GPA are likely still getting it. Only the ****up's with sub <3.0's (and i'll admit it here, that a sub 3.0 at even an Ivy is f'in up), don't get in to A med school. This doesn't even include the people with 3.8's or whatever (and there are many of them at Ivies) that didn't get accepted because they only bothered applying to top programs like HMS, MD/PhD, JHU, etc, got rejected, even though they could've easily made another med school.

 

[rjgennarelli]

Yeah, I think most people who are from middle class backgrounds who scored less than a 1300 on their SAT's and get less than a 28 on their MCAT are essentially ******ed as well. Oh wait, thats pretty much everyone at state schools.

Why is it that you expect students who have outachieved you to not respond to such insanely stupid comments? Oh thats right, b/c you're busy talking **** on the internet while they're working.

Wow. You are really making the group of people that you are representing look bad. How dare you draw such conclusions? Not everybody at state schools has the money to go to private schools.

As for the original subject, a 3.3 from an ivy league school is definitely not worth more than a 4.0 from any state school, I don't care where it is. That is just pushing it too far. Now, a 3.3 at an ivy league school being worth more than a 3.4 or maybe a 3.5 from a state school, that probably depends on the schools you are talking about (that is, a 3.3 from Princeton is definitely not worth more than a 3.3 from Berkeley, but a 3.3 from Harvard might hold more value than, say, a 3.4 or 3.5 from Penn State).

I would also like to clarify what we mean by what we say the "value" of a GPA from an ivy league as opposed to a state school. A 3.3 from Harvard should not be thought of as, when compared to Penn State, a 3.5 when converted to a Penn State GPA, but rather a 3.3 GPA + having graduated from Harvard is looked on more preferably by adcoms than a graduate from Penn State with a 3.4 GPA. This might be kind of hard to understand at first, but what I am trying to say is, when comparing a GPA at an ivy league school to a GPA at a state school, the ivy league school should not be converted into a positive numeric value and be added to that GPA, and likewise, when doing the opposite, the state school should not be converted into a positive numberic value and subtracted from that GPA; school and GPA should be looked at as two separate entities.

Now, as for the grade inflation: this is true, ivy league schools (and many other tier 1 schools for that matter) have a tendency to inflate their grades, which has accounted for the steady rise in national GPAs over the years. What I believe this does, is makes them more comparable with other schools, though still preferred (ie, a 3.3 from an ivy league that is not notorious for grade inflation has a greater chance of being valued higher than a 3.3 from a state school than does a 3.3 from an ivy league school that is notorious from grade inflation).

 

[DrBowtie]

If you go to a state school and get a 4.0...you did the best you could possibly do. If the ad com wants to knock it for being a state school fine that's their right but you made the most out of your situation.

Conversely, If you go to an IVY, you are choosing to compete with a bigger group of equally intelligent people. If you do your best and get a 3.3 then you probably made the wrong decision.

I knew I wanted to go to med school when I started college. I got into a few of the top schools your talking about but my situation dictated that I go to my state school because A) I have a full ride aka no debt going into med. school. B) If you look at state med schools websites, they take a good number from their own school. C) I knew I could get a good education and maintain a high GPA since the school isn't as competitive.

People think state schools are like CC's. State schools have good professors and are doing cutting edge research too.

 

[koopa_troopa]

Just a few questions about ivy schools:

1. People say that in Ivy league schools, students are competing against each other, so does that mean that these schools are grading on curve? and their are only so many A's that the school is going to hand out for a course?

2. How much harder is an Ivy school than a regular? The material, say in Organic I, at an ivy league and state school aren't going to be very different, but how much harder could the exams be?

 

[DrBowtie]

Few can answer question #2. Only a few people have been to both an IVY and state school and secondly only a few have taken the same class at both places.

 

[YouDontKnowJack]

With the average school gpa of 2.7 or so, you can see why berkeley is hard as f***. while a 3.3 at berkeley gets more weight, it still won't get you looked at by many med schools. Just as a 3.3 at H/Y/P won't get you looked at much. Top Ivy med schools won't even consider you.

if you think your 3.3 ivy is worth a 4.0, you got yourself an overinflated sense of self-worth. Certainly adcoms will think you're full of sh**, and will reject you.


as for the "stupid" people at the Ivy's that some are talking about here.... they got in based on their extracurricular activities.

 

[EyeAmCommi]

Yeah, I think most people who are from middle class backgrounds who scored less than a 1300 on their SAT's and get less than a 28 on their MCAT are essentially ******ed as well. Oh wait, thats pretty much everyone at state schools.

When you say state school, I hope you're not lumping the UCs into it. 🙂

 

[Scarletbegonias]

Excuse me if someone else already said so, but I don't think that gpas from Ivy League schools are worth more, but med school adcoms, and apparently a lot of people, may seem to think so. This may explain what was found on mdapplicants. Keep in mind that there's no way to verify the info people post on their profiles.

 

[tank you]

even though i agree that a 4.0 from a state school should by worth more than 3.3 from ivy, i think i would rather have the 3.3 because adcoms seem to regard ivys more highly.

 

[Scarletbegonias]

Christ on a bike. You know what? Here's my two cents from a state university: my university couldn't care less if it passed people or not. If you meet its standards, fine. If you don't, who cares? My state has three universities and it knows that the vast majority of its high school students are going to go there because they don't have any other choice for low prices on education. The idea that state schools have gone soft is absurd. There's no one looking out for individual students nor is the curriculum set up to necessarily help people who don't work hard. Basically, its fend for yourself and prove to the school that you can hack it. So before the Ivy League crowd does what they did during interview season (which is to get down on the state school system) maybe they should actually go to a state school and see what its like. Granted, its foolish to run around saying that one system is harder than the other speaking only in generalizations, but I'm tired of people looking at the name of my university and automatically assuming that I just showed up and filled out some forms to get my degree.

Amen.

Besides, what exactly is "proficiency"? I'm sure proficiency at Orgo differs greatly from class to class, to speak nothing of differences between schools. Professors make the tests harder to give credit to the harder working or smarter people, even from a field of people who are already hard working and smart.

At my school, which is a state university, we took a national standardized organic chem test for a final in the second semester organic chem class. Does this count as a measurement of proficiency? I think professors are more concerned about teaching a certain organic chem curriculum than making a test harder for the more "proficient" students.

 

[EyeAmCommi]

Just a few questions about ivy schools:

1. People say that in Ivy league schools, students are competing against each other, so does that mean that these schools are grading on curve? and their are only so many A's that the school is going to hand out for a course?

2. How much harder is an Ivy school than a regular? The material, say in Organic I, at an ivy league and state school aren't going to be very different, but how much harder could the exams be?

1. At certain schools such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford they do not grade on a curve. Students compete against themselves for the grade they earn, which just happens to be mostly As and A-s. The average GPA at Stanford is a 3.5 compared to UC Davis's (a decent state school) GPA of 2.8. It's also known that if you miss a class at Stanford, etc. that someone will personally send notes to your room to cover material that you missed. It might seem unfair but anyone would love to have that sort of perk. Also remember that 48% of Harvard acceptances for undergrads were high school valedictorians. 38% went to salutatorians. They already have the edge on us there.

2. Certain state schools I say are harder and prepare a person better than the Ivy's. Schools like UC Berkeley and UMichigan take the best and brightest across the world (just like the Ivies) and pits all the students AGAINST each other on do-or-die curves (unlike the Ivies). These public schools will produce the most outstanding, the most competitive, and the hungriest students on the face of this earth. Imagine taking Organic I with students who had the grades and the SATs of Ivy students and now you're competing for a fixed number of As. It's gonna get messy. The top 1 or 2% of students from public schools who survive the curves are much better prepared than those babies at Stanford, Harvard, etc. Just my honest opinion though 🙂

So I say a 3.3 at Harvard is a serious problem. They obvious took the George W route in college.

 

[LadyBulldog]

Just a few questions about ivy schools:

1. People say that in Ivy league schools, students are competing against each other, so does that mean that these schools are grading on curve? and their are only so many A's that the school is going to hand out for a course?

depends on the class and the professor--most science classes seem to say that like the top 15-25% will get A or A-, but labs are generally free for all.....and again, although that might seem high, there are a lot of graduate students and undergraduate students in the same class....

And although grade inflation def occurs and sometimes sucks for those of us who actually put the work in to get the highest grade in the class.....it's still fairly impressive/rare to have a 3.8 or above for the science majors--and those who have 3.9 or above are generally candidates/winners of goldwater scholarships, truman, rhodes, fullbright, mitchell etc...just remarkable people with whom its a priviledge to know

as far as med school goes, it does seem like columbia really likes Yale students for some reason--the numbers that get in each year are really high. But then, some other schools (stanford, even harvard) don't take many of our most qualified candidates.....go figure

 

[ajt2003]

So I say a 3.3 at Harvard is a serious problem. They obvious took the George W route in college.

Yeah...that would be more like 2.7ish...if that. Scary. And now the man's our president.

 

[idkoop]

even though i agree that a 4.0 from a state school should by worth more than 3.3 from ivy, i think i would rather have the 3.3 because adcoms seem to regard ivys more highly.

i think that is true, as long as the 3.3 has a substantial ie 32+ MCAT.

anyway, most of the responses from posters defending the 4.0 state school haven't impressed me very much. i dont mean this in regards to the content - all opinions are worthwhile to entertain - but the posters from Rice/Yale/Penn have struck me as more eloquent in their communication. this probably shows up in med school interviews too, when the adcom is interviewing some kid from Chico State/UofF /XYZ craptacular state school with a 3.8.

 

[rme04]

i went to an Ivy undergrad, and it was extraordinarily difficult to get A's in some classes. In the past 10 years only 4 or 5 students have graduated with a 4.0, and almost all of them were from Bulgaria. I don't whats up with Bulgaria, but theyve got some smart folks over there.

In any event, getting a 3.7 at my school would probably be equivalent to a 4.0 at a state school. I mean that someone getting a 4.0 at a state school would probably struggle as much as my Ivy classmates and I did to get a 3.7

With the prestige added on, a med school applicant with an ivy degree and a 3.6 will probably get as much of a look by the adcoms as a student from University of wherever.

 

[sven]

1. At certain schools such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford they do not grade on a curve. Students compete against themselves for the grade they earn, which just happens to be mostly As and A-s.

So I say a 3.3 at Harvard is a serious problem.

While this is true of many humanities and small seminar course at Harvard, it does not hold for science/pre-med classes. Most of these are curved, and curved around a B or B-. That said, I still did not feel that the pre-med program was as "cut-throat" as at other places.

Those in the upper-level hard sciences with 3.3s, as well as computer scientists and engineers, still deserve some respect.

 

[Coldsweat_06]

and state schools that let people graduate with near 4.0s but sub 30 MCATs aren't grade inflated?

Just because a person recieves below a 30 on the MCAT with a 4.0 GPA doesn't mean that there is inflation. That student could be a horrible standardized test taker. There could also be other factors preventing success on the exam. The MCAT exam is not an accurate predictor of how well a person will do in medical school or in the medical arena. There is so much more to a good physician than figures.

 

[whattodowithmys]

this really isnt to piss anyone off.. but check out the other thread called "how did your spring semester go.." or something like that. 1st check out all the posts, then look at how many go to COMPETITIVE schools (im not saying ivy.. becasue i want to include schools like northwest, duke, hopkins, etc. that are all "ivy-caliber" whatever that means)...
anyway my point is i dont know a single person at the school i am at (which shall remain nameless) that can manage to pull of A/A+ in all thier chem and physics classes and not break a 10 on PS section of the mcat....

yes.. ivy schools and those like them are harder. to say otherwise would simply be a lie. now, should thier grades be weighted differently? thats the question to debate..

another example:
uva, a great state school has thier organic tests as all multi-choice (at least they did 4 years ago when my olser sister was there). now thats not a bad thing considering thats what the mcat does. but consider that hopkins, cornell and mit all have open-ended orgo tests.. (i.e. given this, outline a synthesis to this) and you see the increase in difficulty. my older sister has seen my tests and says they are significantly harder than what she did in undergrad..

agian not trying to piss anyone off, just stating some facts

 

[idkoop]

Just because a person recieves below a 30 on the MCAT with a 4.0 GPA doesn't mean that there is inflation. That student could be a horrible standardized test taker. There could also be other factors preventing success on the exam. The MCAT exam is not an accurate predictor of how well a person will do in medical school or in the medical arena. There is so much more to a good physician than figures.

not the way you think. MCAT tests how well and how fast a person can think under a deadline/under pressure, all else being equal (that's why only a small, and relatively low-level knowledge base is tested by the MCAT). this correlates to clinical medicine. If you're a doc in the ER, or a doc doing an open-heart surgery, you don't have have 12 frickin' hours to do ur thing. Even if you're a pediatrician or in family care, your day in and day out work will be spent doing appointments of limited duration. A doctor who thinks faster/smarter can handle more appointments, make better/quicker/more accurate diagnoses => thus make more money for his practice or hospital, and cost the medical system less in malpractice. Studies should really be done to correlate the docs with the most malpractice complaints with their USMLEs/MCATs, etc => I'd bet there'd be some interesting results.

a person with a 4.0 and a crap MCAT that is reflective of their performance in timed and standardized testing situations is neither smart nor quick. Both of these are necessary traits to succeed in any type of medicine.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

another example:
uva, a great state school has thier organic tests as all multi-choice (at least they did 4 years ago when my olser sister was there). now thats not a bad thing considering thats what the mcat does. but consider that hopkins, cornell and mit all have open-ended orgo tests.. (i.e. given this, outline a synthesis to this) and you see the increase in difficulty. my older sister has seen my tests and says they are significantly harder than what she did in undergrad..

I don't know who taught your sister's class four years ago. The Orgo tests here are just as hard as anywhere else, and most orgo classes here have open-ended tests as well.

Thanks for the "facts".

 

[Dookter]

Christ on a bike. You know what? Here's my two cents from a state university: my university couldn't care less if it passed people or not. If you meet its standards, fine. If you don't, who cares? My state has three universities and it knows that the vast majority of its high school students are going to go there because they don't have any other choice for low prices on education. The idea that state schools have gone soft is absurd. There's no one looking out for individual students nor is the curriculum set up to necessarily help people who don't work hard. Basically, its fend for yourself and prove to the school that you can hack it. So before the Ivy League crowd does what they did during interview season (which is to get down on the state school system) maybe they should actually go to a state school and see what its like. Granted, its foolish to run around saying that one system is harder than the other speaking only in generalizations, but I'm tired of people looking at the name of my university and automatically assuming that I just showed up and filled out some forms to get my degree.

I'll have to agree with this completely! I always heard of the huge curves in classes before I went to college, but my experience so far [with only 16 hours left until I get my degree] is that the huge curves do not exist in most cases. I know I have never had huge curves. Most of my classes have been where the cut off for an A is 90%...if you're under that, you get no A. The bashing of Ivy schools or state schools is all a little ridiculous anyway. For one thing, med schools have obviously figured out how to determine who is a good student [MCAT] and who really wants to be a doctor [applications, interviews]. I had a really interesting experience comparing schools when I took a practice course for the MCAT last summer. We had students from a lot of different schools and it really showed me how much I had learned at my state school. Not to mention that I got a 36S on the MCAT [and I know others who have had the same experience...at least 3 friends I can think of right off the top of my head from my school who have nailed the MCAT...so if three of my friends do well I am sure there are plenty more I do not know]. When it comes down to it, college is what you make of it, regardless of the school. Of course, if we want to talk averages, etc., Ivy schools will always be on top. But when it comes down to individual situations [which are important for medical school!], state schools can hold their own with anybody.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

Christ on a bike. You know what? Here's my two cents from a state university: my university couldn't care less if it passed people or not. If you meet its standards, fine. If you don't, who cares? My state has three universities and it knows that the vast majority of its high school students are going to go there because they don't have any other choice for low prices on education. The idea that state schools have gone soft is absurd. There's no one looking out for individual students nor is the curriculum set up to necessarily help people who don't work hard. Basically, its fend for yourself and prove to the school that you can hack it. So before the Ivy League crowd does what they did during interview season (which is to get down on the state school system) maybe they should actually go to a state school and see what its like. Granted, its foolish to run around saying that one system is harder than the other speaking only in generalizations, but I'm tired of people looking at the name of my university and automatically assuming that I just showed up and filled out some forms to get my degree.

I'll have to agree with this completely! I always heard of the huge curves in classes before I went to college, but my experience so far [with only 16 hours left until I get my degree] is that the huge curves do not exist in most cases. I know I have never had huge curves. Most of my classes have been where the cut off for an A is 90%...if you're under that, you get no A. The bashing of Ivy schools or state schools is all a little ridiculous anyway. For one thing, med schools have obviously figured out how to determine who is a good student [MCAT] and who really wants to be a doctor [applications, interviews]. I had a really interesting experience comparing schools when I took a practice course for the MCAT last summer. We had students from a lot of different schools and it really showed me how much I had learned at my state school. Not to mention that I got a 36S on the MCAT [and I know others who have had the same experience...at least 3 friends I can think of right off the top of my head from my school who have nailed the MCAT...so if three of my friends do well I am sure there are plenty more I do not know]. When it comes down to it, college is what you make of it, regardless of the school. Of course, if we want to talk averages, etc., Ivy schools will always be on top. But when it comes down to individual situations [which are important for medical school!], state schools can hold their own with anybody.

This is one of the best posts in this whole thread. Let's just let the discussion end here.

 

[yossariang]

I'll have to agree with this completely! I always heard of the huge curves in classes before I went to college, but my experience so far [with only 16 hours left until I get my degree] is that the huge curves do not exist in most cases. I know I have never had huge curves. Most of my classes have been where the cut off for an A is 90%...if you're under that, you get no A. The bashing of Ivy schools or state schools is all a little ridiculous anyway. For one thing, med schools have obviously figured out how to determine who is a good student [MCAT] and who really wants to be a doctor [applications, interviews]. I had a really interesting experience comparing schools when I took a practice course for the MCAT last summer. We had students from a lot of different schools and it really showed me how much I had learned at my state school. Not to mention that I got a 36S on the MCAT [and I know others who have had the same experience...at least 3 friends I can think of right off the top of my head from my school who have nailed the MCAT...so if three of my friends do well I am sure there are plenty more I do not know]. When it comes down to it, college is what you make of it, regardless of the school. Of course, if we want to talk averages, etc., Ivy schools will always be on top. But when it comes down to individual situations [which are important for medical school!], state schools can hold their own with anybody.

I couldn't agree more! I went to a huge state school, in a state that certainly isn't known for it's universities. Maybe i'm being defensive, but all this 3.3 from Ivy means more than a 4.0 from a state schools is absurd. I wonder where the one's making this sort of post recieved their education? Yea, i'm being defensive, but I've grown very sick of this "debate".

It seems that the medical school you attend doesn't really seem to have a significant impact on your future path anyway? If you're good, you're good period. You'll excell anywhere. If you're going to excell at Harvard, you'll excell and stand out at UX period. Sure there are some that are impressed by the ivy's. Not me. I'm doing MSTP at a top 3 school (will remain nameless), went to a huge state school. I would be perfectly happy going back to my state university, but cannot do to circumstances beyond the scope of this post.

 

[riceman04]

Christ on a bike. You know what? Here's my two cents from a state university: my university couldn't care less if it passed people or not. If you meet its standards, fine. If you don't, who cares? My state has three universities and it knows that the vast majority of its high school students are going to go there because they don't have any other choice for low prices on education. The idea that state schools have gone soft is absurd. There's no one looking out for individual students nor is the curriculum set up to necessarily help people who don't work hard. Basically, its fend for yourself and prove to the school that you can hack it. So before the Ivy League crowd does what they did during interview season (which is to get down on the state school system) maybe they should actually go to a state school and see what its like. Granted, its foolish to run around saying that one system is harder than the other speaking only in generalizations, but I'm tired of people looking at the name of my university and automatically assuming that I just showed up and filled out some forms to get my degree.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

ASU=PARTY SCHOOL
UOFA=PARTY SCHOOL

 

[riceman04]

I think a lot of this can be explained with the all-squares-are-rectangles-but-not-all-rectangles-are-squares analogy. Someone who was admitted to an Ivy undergrad is obviously bright and talented and able to go on to do great things. Someone who chooses his/her state school, conversely, cannot be assumed to be less bright or talented. You and many others on this thread assume (or at least imply that you do) that those at state schools could not gain admittance to the best undergrad private schools. This is hardly the case; I didn't apply to a single Ivy school by my own choice for a variety of reasons. So even though people like me or Larsitron went to our state schools, we probably would have stood a decent shot at an Ivy had we so chosen. In addition, you will find we will do pretty decent in med school in the chair next to you.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm sorry, but no I dont assume that kids who go to state schools cannot get into Ivy league type school!!! That's you putting words into my mouth. I strongly believe that state schools are not schools for kids who could not gain acceptance into a competitive private school. It is obvious that not some students and their families can afford private school tuition and come to the realization that an education is an education. Some also just choose a public school over private school simply for personal non-financial reasons. I definitely recognize this and personally do not assume that the kid who went to Cal St. L.A. is not capable of performing at my level or above it. I was only commenting on the fact that in many cases adcoms, unfortunately, do not recognize this truth.

And me saying that ASU and UofA are party schools should not be interpreted to mean that all public schools carry this stereotype.

So before you assume that I think less of public school students, I suggest you get your facts straight.

 

[sojahsay]

These types of questions seriously irritate me. Are you planning to change undergrads are do better/worse in your classes? Or are you just trying to subjectively place yourself in the egotistical food chain? You earned what you earned you went where you went. End of story. Write the PS and apply to the schools that interest you, regardless of what your 'status' is.

I like your reply. Good job!

 

[freaker]

Speaking as someone who attended an Ivy-like institution (Emory) and a pretty typical large state school (UT-Knoxville), I can honestly say that my coursework was a bit less demanding at UT. But only a bit.

Don't expect your average Ivy kid to coast at state U and pull a 4.0. It ain't gonna happen. You can get by with slightly less, and pulling a 4.0 is a lot easier. I ended up with a lot of 3.65-3.75 semesters at Emory. A comparable amount of work translated into 4.0s at UT.

With that said, I had a blast at UT, loved my classmates (probably moreso that those @ Emory,even though I wasn't as plugged in), and probably would have gone there if I had to do it over again.

Don't take this stuff too seriously. Once you get out in the real world, people stop caring.

Now as for where you go to business or law school, yeah, that probably matters more.

 

[sojahsay]

good job huduvudu, nice reply!

 

[45408]

I feel that the best at a state school could compete at an Ivy. As for the 3.3 29 MCATs The Ivy has their share of them too.

You don't hear about them though, because the pre-med committees won't write them a letter, so they can't even apply. That's how their average applicant looks absolutely outstanding (and having a good number of well-stacked applicants).

 

[NikkiFSU]

This is really ridiculous. I can think of a million reasons to attend a "Toilet state school."
1) Cheap tuition
2) Close to family/ BF/ GF/ friends
3) Prefer a large, DIVERSE school
4) WAY more opportunities, clubs, EC's...
5) Prefer to be in an environment with more down to earth people
6) Lack of motivation, money, plans when applying in high school
7) Scholarships
8) Lack of psycho parents that stick their nose to the grindstone, literally, from age 3
9) Whoever made the comment on football and partying: jealous. It's a GREAT time. You have no idea how wild we get here. And who can pass up 4 years having a blast in undergrad....I'm sure nobody will be able to do it again in medical school when all hell breaks loose.

Here at FSU, TONS of people get Florida bright futures and pre-paid. They choose to go here because it is almost free. Not everyone's parents can shove $30,000 or whatever it costs up Harvard's ass.
A few of my friends just graduated. One of them was here at FSU on a minority scholarship. He is being paid to go to Columbia this fall with his 37 MCAT and damn-near 4.0. IF any of you get in there, ask HIM how "easy" the state schools are.
And it isn't just a minority thing. Another of my friends just got into Columbia, caucasian. Another got into Duke, but the ****ing ******s there sent him a rejection letter. 2 weeks later, he gets a letter saying that they sent him the wrong one. Bright. He will be attending UF for next-to-nothing with his 38 MCAT...
The list goes on and on. But also, have any of you considered that some people are NOT a good standardized test taker, and that their higher GPA results from their self-discipline and willingness to work their ass off in their classes? Until one of you have sat in one of our classes, gone to our school.....you have no room to pass judgement on what goes on here.

You self-important twits that consider the school name on your degree to be more important than what you do for four years there can have a great time worshipping yourselves. It depends on where you feel you belong and fit in. It depends on what YOU make out of YOUR education, what classes you take, if you take them seriously, if you learn above and beyond what you must, and what outside activities you pursue.

P.S. State schools are not "schools for the people who can't get into Ivies." The vast majority of the nation's college students are NOT enrolled in them. There are very few of them and they are relatively small and over-priced. I haven't looked up #'s, but I bet that the population at U Mich alone is several ivy leagues combined.

 

[45408]

someone said that they graduated from UofA with a 4.0 in bio. i also noticed that they were attending UofR med school. that's fine, but it just goes to show what adoms at better schools thought of your 4.0 from UofA.

🙄 Yeah, since you know that guy's whole story. Not like some people ever want to stay near their families.