Advice on majoring and who actually gets into these top med schools?

[doctormaybe2018]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi guys, I'm currently a sophomore at Cornell. I decided over the summer that I wanted to be a doctor in the future after a year of having no idea what to do with my life. Since I didn't really know what I wanted to do, I had no motivation and got a 3.7 taking a lot of easy classes (including some pre-med courses).

The issue I have now is that I don't really want to just major in something pre-med related such as Biology. I really enjoy Computer Science so hopefully I'm going to major in that in addition to Biology. What I was wondering is whether or not this is detrimental to my future application. I've been doing some digging around and it seems like med schools really don't care much about what you study and they care more about your GPA. Since CS is much harder than pre-med I'm torn between staying in CS + Bio rather than just dropping CS to get a higher GPA...

Another side note.. I was also wondering how realistic it is for the top 20 med schools. It seems that it's ultra competitive, and I literally have no idea how I can even approach this problem. I'm looking to getting a MD/MBA at a top school with both a great business school and med school (i.e. HMS/HBS). I looked at the statistics and it seems like for these schools the average GPA is always over a 3.9. I killed this semester with above a 4.0 GPA taking all pre-med and CS courses so I will have ~ 3.84. I did some more math and projected my GPA and assuming I get straight A's throughout the rest of college (which would be increasingly hard as I get further along the CS curriculum), I will barely get much above a 3.9. Because of this, I was wondering if it is even realistic for me to consider schools like Harvard or Penn or really any school in the top 10.

Sorry for such a long post. Thanks for any advice

 

[md-2020]

1. GPAs above 4.0 (like cornell 4.3 A+'s) don't translate to AMCAS.
2. The effect of a 3.7 vs 3.9 on admissions chances is negligible. MCAT, ECs, med experiences, etc are far more important.
3. Major doesn't matter at all.
4. It's a crap shoot regardless of your stats at top schools.

 

[Jalby]

Major in whatever major will get you the highest GPA possible. Take the easiest possible classes on earth. Nobody will actually care if someone majors in something hard versus easy. Your classes are really just a number.

 

[flapjack3d]

im becoming more and more convinced that if youre meant to be at a top school it'll happen. your major, differences of <.2 GPA points, etc shouldn't really be considerations. excel in whatever you choose and you'll end up where you should.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

Any major is okay. Get involved in ECs and research, take the mcat, then start considering what schools you will be competitive for. it is impossible to say right now.

 

[kmp0410]

The difference between a top medical school and any medical school will likely be MCAT, research, and ec's. Primarily impressive an unique ones. Ex: Papers published, organizations started, leadership positions, etc. GPA probably won't be the decider considering a lot of schools have a 3.7 anyways.

Finally, why do you want to go to a "top med school?" Why do you want a MBA? And if you like CS so much, why don't you do that?

 

[TBV]

Big fan of majoring in something easy. I did exercise science and never studied for an exam in my major, automatic 4.0 right there. Then dumped all my effort into pre-med classes which at that point you have to kill (did that) and it turned into 3 acceptances at my top 3 choices and I withdrew from my other interviews. Med schools don't care what you major in, they care that you do well.

 

[mimelim]

1. GPAs above 4.0 (like cornell 4.3 A+'s) don't translate to AMCAS.
2. The effect of a 3.7 vs 3.9 on admissions chances is negligible. MCAT, ECs, med experiences, etc are far more important.
3. Major doesn't matter at all.
4. It's a crap shoot regardless of your stats at top schools.

I agree with 1, 2 and 3. #4, no way. Competition higher? Yes. Need more than scores? Yes. But, it is not random and it certainly doesn't hing on getting lucky. Certainly not a perfect system, but if someone is looking for "90th percentile ECs", their interview days are littered with them.

 

[Smoove]

I'm also a big fan of majoring in anything you want (IF you really believe you will do well in your classes). I loved my biomedical engineering major and all of the experiences that came with it. It gave me a lot to talk about during interviews and no one ever questioned my slightly lower (relatively speaking) GPA. However, looking back im fairly certain I could have gotten a higher GPA in an "easier" major, which may have yielded more interviews in the long run. Either way, it ended up working out. Realistically a CS degree, I would imagine, wouldn't need a 3.9 GPA for top 20 schools if everything else is solid.

tl; dr
Major in what you love, but unfortunately only if you think you can keep your grades very high because in the long run you already know you want to go MD

 

[WedgeDawg]

Someone with a strong GPA, high MCAT, solid research experience, demonstrated excellence and commitment to an activity or cause, and strong recommendations has a good chance of getting into a top 20 school. However, it's impossible to tell which one, which is why I recommend that most strong applicants apply to most of them. Generally, you're going to want to be shooting for a 3.8+ GPA and a 518+ MCAT, but those are flexible (in both directions) and while a necessary component, are not sufficient for admission to these types of schools.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I agree with 1, 2 and 3. #4, no way. Competition higher? Yes. Need more than scores? Yes. But, it is not random and it certainly doesn't hing on getting lucky. Certainly not a perfect system, but if someone is looking for "90th percentile ECs", their interview days are littered with them.

I get both md2020 and your persepctive here. Given how often what md2020 is saying is recited on this site here might be a better way of phrasing it and getting at what I think him and all the people who say this are getting at.

Nobody, regardless of what they have, be it a 3.9/40 applicant with 95th percentile EC's etc should be going into an admissions process thinking they are a lock to get an acceptance at a top school or anywhere close to a lock. There are applicants who are so strong its easy for a school to want them. But nobody should assume this will be them regardless of qualifications.

There are all kinds of things that can influence whether or not somebody with those credentials will or won't get in. Are they luck based? No. But no applicant can go into the cycle expecting they are close to a lock getting into top schools. From the applicant perspective, you can't predict with anything to close to certainty whether you'll be the one who says something in an interview that doesn't come across great or doesn't make you sound like a fit for the school in the eyes of the ADCOM. You can't predict whether a school might not react favorably to your response to a tough secondary response. Does that make it luck based when these applicants don't get in? No. Are there ways of trying to control for this to mitigate the chances these issues might arise? Sure.

But from the outside perspective without an inside direct knowledge of how the process works(which is the case for 99.9% of pre-meds) it is rather difficult to predict where flaws about you might be perceived. And that's kind what the process is about; different schools will have completely different interpretations of the same applicant. That's why the process exists.

So if you don't want to use the term "crapshoot" that's fine. I get it and agree with it to a large extent. But I can also see how from an outsider perspective(which all of us pre-meds are) who might see the need to use that term to a point. If youre a top tier applicant, you kind of have to look at it as: I have a fair chance of being competitive for top schools. Will I get in for sure? No way. Why? Because this process has alot things that an applicant cant reasonably predict about it. To some, that entails something similar to a "crapshoot' past a point.

 

[mimelim]

I get both md2020 and your persepctive here. Given how often what md2020 is saying is recited on this site here might be a better way of phrasing it and getting at what I think him and all the people who say this are getting at.

Nobody, regardless of what they have, be it a 3.9/40 applicant with 95th percentile EC's etc should be going into an admissions process thinking they are a lock to get an acceptance at a particular top school or anywhere close to a lock. Nobody with those stats should even look at themselves to be a lock at getting into a top school period. There are applicants who are so strong its easy for a school to want them. But nobody should assume this will be them regardless of qualifications.

There are all kinds of things that can influence whether or not somebody with those credentials will or won't get in. Are they luck based? No. But no applicant can go into the cycle expecting they are close to a lock getting into top schools. You can't predict with anything to close to certainty whether you'll be the one who says something in an interview that doesn't come across great or doesn't make you sound like a fit for the school in the eyes of the ADCOM. You can't predict with certainty that someone might question something about you(ie this guy sounds fake) or have some other concern about you. You can't predict whether a school might not react favorably to your response to a tough secondary response. Does that make it luck based when these applicants don't get in? No. Are there ways of trying to control for this to mitigate the chances these issues might arise? Sure.

But from the outside perspective without an inside direct knowledge of how the process works(which is the case for 99.9% of pre-meds) it is rather difficult to predict where these flaws will lie. And that's kind what the process is about; different schools will have completely different interpretations of the same applicant. Perhaps most importantly no applicant can reasonably have anywhere close to a level of understanding of what that school's mission statement is about without actually being involved in admission for that school. They can get a good rough idea which they can base their school list and essays around, but in terms of figuring out precisely how well they can fit a fit to that school compared to all the other applicants(which is what admission is about)? No way. That's why the process exists.

So if you don't want to use the term "crapshoot" that's fine. I get it and agree with it to a large extent. But I can also see how from an outsider perspective(which all of us pre-meds are) why the term crapshoot could be used in terms of trying to figure out how you will come across specifically to these top schools that can be so picky in choosing the absolute best of the best.

I agree with some and disagree with some.

I think the fundamental problem is that most pre-meds don't know what they don't know. You say, "no applicant can go into the cycle expecting they are close to a lock getting into top schools." I think that that is categorically false. They make up a small part of the application pool, but after talking to them and reviewing their applications, they will go to whatever medical school they want to, whether it be Harvard or Stanford. There is a larger group that will go to a top 5 school, maybe not of their choice, but 90%+ chance they will end up at one of those top 5 schools. The problem is that most pre-meds aren't exposed to those people. At most big pre-med campuses, there are only a handful around, but some places they are more common than others. I think that it is hard to appreciate that while there is variability amount interviewers, there are people that simply stand out enough that it really doesn't matter. Their application, persona and presentation is so far the rest of the pack, virtually any school will want them, usually enthusiastically.

We can squabble about things never being 100%, and given that nothing in life is 100% it is a bit silly to discuss. But, for me, if someone has a 90% chance of getting into a specific school that is a "lock". And there are honestly applicants that I'd give you 10 to 1 odds on reasonable amounts of money will get into HMS.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I agree with some and disagree with some.

I think the fundamental problem is that most pre-meds don't know what they don't know. You say, "no applicant can go into the cycle expecting they are close to a lock getting into top schools." I think that that is categorically false. They make up a small part of the application pool, but after talking to them and reviewing their applications, they will go to whatever medical school they want to, whether it be Harvard or Stanford. There is a larger group that will go to a top 5 school, maybe not of their choice, but 90%+ chance they will end up at one of those top 5 schools. The problem is that most pre-meds aren't exposed to those people. At most big pre-med campuses, there are only a handful around, but some places they are more common than others. I think that it is hard to appreciate that while there is variability amount interviewers, there are people that simply stand out enough that it really doesn't matter. Their application, persona and presentation is so far the rest of the pack, virtually any school will want them, usually enthusiastically.

We can squabble about things never being 100%, and given that nothing in life is 100% it is a bit silly to discuss. But, for me, if someone has a 90% chance of getting into a specific school that is a "lock". And there are honestly applicants that I'd give you 10 to 1 odds on reasonable amounts of money will get into HMS.

I agree there are applicants that you can bet good money on that they would get into HMS. But this is something you can do and a bet you can make with good reason having years of experience in the process. A normal pre-med who applies with a 3.9/40 and top 5 percentile EC's should not be the ones making that assumption they are good as gold for those top schools, even if they actually are. That's the distinction I tried to make above( and didn't do too well).

And that kind of gets to what you are saying; us pre-meds don't know what we don't know. How many of those 3.9/40 applicants think they have top 5 percentile EC's when in reality it is closer to bottom 40 percentile? Compare the number of pre-meds with top stats who think they have top 5 percentile EC's etc but in reality are the definition of average to those who think they have top soft factors to go along with their stats. Which is bigger? The answer has to be the latter because by definition very few people will be in that top 5 percentile EC group.

To a point we are arguing semantics here. But from the outside looking in, every top applicant should be prepared mentally for the idea that they might not go to a top school at all(hell they should prepare themselves mentally for alot more). And they should be prepared for the idea that a top school might see flaws in them they would never predict nor could they necessairly reasonably predict in some situations. Because there is a difference between a pre-med thinking hes in that top 5 percentile EC group to go along with their 3.8/37 and one who actually is.

 

[Nietzschelover]

Sorry to butt in, but maybe I can help.

There is a difference for me between being a "lock" or "near-lock" and whether any applicant should approach the process as though he or she is a lock. Any single applicant of course still needs to be conservative in the sense of protecting oneself.

On the other hand, I think I know what Mimelin means. There are people who are so outstanding they don't even think about whether they are outstanding, and they don't think (or have to think) of themselves or their applications in terms of scores or EC percentiles or what not. These are the people who aren't gunning for publications or for impressive ECs. They've naturally had and done all those things in a fashion that appears almost organic, as opposed to another category of high stats folks who fit more into the resume-enhancer (very self-consciously) category. A caveat in all this are the narcissists. You won't find many of them in the truly ultra-superior group, but you will find them in the superior-appearing, high stats, self-consciously high end resume group. And it's with a narcissist in the second group that one can imagine getting 10 or more top 15 IIs but only 1 oe 2 or zero acceptances.

Here's another way of looking at it. The real 95% EC folks don't have to ask on SDN how to get in the 95% stats category.

 

[RuggerMD]

I majored in an engineering field which, like CS, tends to have lower GPA averages than my biology/biochemistry pre-med friends report. 10/10 would not go back and do anything differently. My cycle is going well (I've gotten interviews at top ten schools) and my interviewers have seemed to appreciate my different take on research and medicine. I don't feel like my lower GPA (although it isn't crazy low) has held me back.

Do what you love and you'll do it well. You'll get good grades, explore your field in interesting ways that lead to compelling ECs, and have meaningful relationships that turn into wonderful letters of rec. It'll fall into place if you focus less on your pre-med checklist and more on ways to grow your passions and interests.

 

[Lucca]

1. The best way to ensure you have high stats for medical school is to major in the easiest thing imaginable and get a 4.0 and also have plenty of time to study for the MCAT to get a respectable score.

2. The best way to get into the very top programs is to become a real person in college with real goals and aspirations and the intellect and ability to realistically accomplish them. What @mimelim and @Nietzschelover say is true. If you don't believe me, try to find someone in the Rhodes vetting process at your university (not that these students are exclusively interested in academics or things like prestigious scholarships but they tend to be). Their goals are not to get into Harvard. Their goals are far bigger than Harvard and they are so demonstrably capable that schools feel they need to give these students whatever they need to get where they want to go. I don't know how many people really stay this way all the way through the pipeline but we all know who these people are once we meet them.

You might find doing both 1 and 2 very difficult so choose your favorite balance based on your own priorities. Don't become so hyperfocused on gaming the system or becoming a superstar that you forget why it is you do anything, or your friends, or where you came from. Nothing is worth becoming a drone.

 

[Goro]

I think it be more accurate to say that one can be a lock for IIs from top schools, but nailing the acceptance is totally on them.