Being "good for the school" is why an acceptance is offered. Rationalizing $200k-300k award usually requires more than that.
Yup. But the rationalization, as stated, isn't always about merit in terms of GPA and MCAT. This student, for example, has a great stage presence, an interesting history of activities since his youth, and I'm certain that his PS/LoRs were far above average. Of course, this should be pretty obvious given the circumstances.
*sigh* We're in agreement here. I'm just saying there are ways to rationalize that kind of money other than the MCAT. Maybe this guy/gal started a successful non-profit, did some sort of really important research or something like that.
See above.
LizzyM has said on many occasions that one way adcoms check for grade inflation/deflation from schools is by looking at the average GPA and MCAT of applicants from those schools. If it's something like 3.8 + 26, then it's pretty obvious there's heavy inflation; if it's 3.4 + 35 though, then you've got severe deflation.
GPA is heavily school dependent, and there are plenty of ways to make a high GPA easier to obtain even for students at the same school (choice of classes, choice of professors, etc). The MCAT, however, is standard, so it's a nice even ground to compare everyone on. So yes, someone with a 3.9+ GPA but average MCAT is going to raise flags.
You are right, and schools do do this. However, even this system is greatly flawed. Grades are determined by
professors, not institutions. It is entirely possible to go to a severely grade-deflating school (e.g. Princeton), yet use things like networking and RMP to pick professors that act candidly with As. Since medical programs cannot see professors, they would be clueless in this regard. Now, if you went to a grade inflating school yet don't follow the candid professors, you could easily fall into a grade deflation trap.
This is why GPA is more a reflection of work ethic than intelligence, and also describes the variation and unreliability of GPA as an indicator for medical school success in comparison to the MCAT. This is also partly why medical schools are becoming more reliant on the MCAT as times progress.
How is it that 5ish hours of 1 day in two people's lives covering a minute fraction of your undergraduate coursework irrefutably determines which student is superior?
Irrefutably? That word shouldn't even exist in medical school admissions talk. However, the MCAT is a much stronger indicator of medical school performance, and there are studies out there to back that up. I believe the correlations were approximately .4 and .7 to Step I score, but don't have it in me to search for the source.
Plus, you realize the difference between a 32 and a 35 might be as little as 3 questions right?
It's possible, but the odds of this are quite unlikely considering the span of points that determines the score in the range of 10 and 11. The difference can vary to as many as 7-10 questions
per section, or 21-30 questions
per exam. This is far more likely in scores of 38-45, which are determined by 1-2 questions per section maximum. Scores in the 28-34 range are actually quite indicative of scaling knowledge and intellect. Above or below these the process because far more 'random' as you deviate.
Funny anecdote and something you can see in the MCAT threads every now and then, a student from my school was averaging low 30s on their MCAT practice tests throughout their prep course. Took the real thing, got a 38.
Both MCAT and GPA have their inherent flaws when it comes to ranking individuals according to "academic superiority" or whatever. Neither is "better" than the other. But why rank them in the first place? That's the job of adcoms, and not us. I had to laugh out loud when you said you get emotionally angry when you hear of students with high GPA and low MCAT. Are you kidding me? I sure hope so
Don't fall victim to minor trolls. You became defensive as well. It's a rather irrational topic to be emotional about, and AdComs do realize the importance of having both, but are beginning to emphasize (and have done so since 2000ish) the importance of the MCAT.
Just as a reasonably smart person can manipulate a higher cGPA and sGPA (than they normally would have gotten), a reasonably smart person can use study aids/prep classes to get a higher MCAT than they normally would have gotten.
Study aids are widely available, even free ones. In fact, the AAMC provides the list of all of topics on the exam. Not utilizing these tools is foolish, not abuse as you seem to imply.
I didn't study for the MCAT...no prep classes, no study aids. The only practice I did was take one practice test the night before the MCAT. I'm reasonably sure that if I had done Kaplan or used other study aids, I could have added at least 2-4 points to my MCAT.
And that's your own fault. It's not a problem with the exam. The MCAT isn't the ACT/SAT, where few people study for it. The MCAT is widely known as an exam that you're going to have to prepare for if you want to do well on it, and it's also widely known (and quite stereotypical of premeds) to study for it excessively during their Junior year. Not doing so is only disadvantageous to yourself. There are plenty of accessible materials in order to practice, and even the FAP can help those in need of aid if pockets are tight.
If I've learned anything while being [modestly] poor, it's how to become resourceful.
What do you find confusing?
You don't think people can strategize to make sure that their GPAs are high? Or, do you think that people can't get higher MCAT scores from prep classes, etc?
It's would be foolish to refute either of those statements. Of course you can inflate your own GPA. Of course you can get higher MCAT scores from adequate preparation. This is a competitive process, not taking advantage of every opportunity you get is only hurting yourself. However, this does not belittle the importance of things like GPA, MCAT, etc.
Just surprised you took it without prep, but now that I look at your MDApps I guess you had your reasons.
I'd guess the bump would be higher than what you've estimated here. There was a 10 point difference between my first diagnostic and my real score.
Agreed, you probably would have had a higher bump if you prepared significantly. 10 points, however, is only common from the Kaplan diagnostic. Its benchmarks are set artificially high on artificially difficult passages to encourage studying and adherence to the Kaplan plan. For example, my Kaplan diagnostic was a 28. It is quite common for people to score in the teens on their first Kaplan, yet score high 20s or low 30s on the real thing. My first AAMC (the next day) was a 36. My actual test was also over 10 points higher than my diagnostic.
Alright, done procrastinating. Back to work.
