Anybody with a low gpa who's a bio major?

[aeromed]

Hi everyone,

I've read quite a few posts dealing with people with low undergrad GPAs who eventually went into post-bacc programs, but I've yet to find out about people with low GPAs who actually majored in biology.

I have a low undergrad GPA and I majored in biology at MIT. I started out as an engineering major but switched majors my junior year to Biology. "Low GPA" = around 2.8/4.0. My grades got a little better after I switched majors but not enough to say I made a "dramatic improvement" that med schools say they want to see.

Now, I know my biology, chemistry, physics, etc. I work as a tech in a lab now, I actually TA'd experimental biology in college, and I was a consultant with an engineering group after college, so I know my stuff. I just couldn't manage to score that elusive "one standard deviation above class avg" on exams: kinda hard to do that when you're taking classes that are curved with a bunch of geniuses (not exaggerating there. 😱 🙂 ) So I am NOT interested in re-taking all my science classes in a post-bacc program or at another school: I already spent waaay too much $$ on undergrad and I refuse to re-take classes.

SO my question is this: are there any of you out there with sucky GPAs who actually majored in biology/"pre-med", and what did yo do to improve your chances of getting in to med school?
(Oh, I'm retaking the MCAT to score higher and I have all the ECs and LORs that I need, so feel free to not comment on that. 🙂 I'm just asking about GPA strategies.)

Thanks!
😎

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lola]

i think cabruen went to mit and had a lowish gpa. i don't know if that helps, but you can pm him probably or do a search for some of his posts.

 

[All-Star14]

I'm sure there are bio majors w/"low" (in this case, barely 3.0) GPAs, but they probably don't want to post their scores. If MIT's bio department is anything like the department at my school, I wouldn't even think about majoring in biology (WAY too much competition and too many b*stard pre-meds). Since there's such a diverse range of bio courses, perhaps you could take courses in, say, ecology or marine biology (where you could raise your GPA w/o worrying about the competitive nature of typical pre-med classes like genetics, cell & molecular bio, developmental bio, physiology, microbiology). Just my $0.02.

 

[merlin17]

Hi,

I don't know if this will help, but I would check out MIT's pre-med office...or career services office. I know that at Harvard's office of career services, they have a big book that has statistics for each medical school and how harvard students did with particular grades/mcat combinations. There are plenty of people with lower gpas that are getting in to good schools. I am sure the same thing is available for MIT students and that might help you judge where you stand.

I wouldn't retake classes only because I am sure you know all the material that would be seen in a pre-med class already and probably in a more rigorous form. I don't know if these classes would count towards your undergraduate gpa, but the harvard extension school offers some upper level biology classes that look like they might be be interesting, have some pretty good professors and I'm sure would be much easier to do well in than your typical mit pre-med course. They do cost $770 though...and I have no clue if you are still in Cambridge.

Good luck =)

 

[group_theory]

Hehe - there is a reason why the unofficial motto of MIT is "IHTFP"

I understand your concerns. It's hard to be in the top of the class in a class full of people who were top of their classes in high school.

Anyway, are you interested in academic medicine or research? Or do you want to be a physician?

Have you consider osteopathic medicine? It is a perfectly viable option to becoming a physician. Granted - it may be difficult to get a highly competitive speciality (but even w/ a MD it is still difficult to get that ortho or ENT or derm speciality)

Osteopathic medical schools have a reputation of looking pass the numbers and looking at WHO you are. They are willing to take someone w/ not so impressive scores who they believe will make perfectly fine doctors. However, because they do take people w/ lower scores, their stats are lower and DO schools receive a lot of negative impressions from premeds for that.

If you want to be a physician, stay in the US, don't care about the letters after your name ... consider osteopathic medicine.

Look into the pros and cons. Decide for yourself if it is a viable option for you. If not - at least you made an inform decision.

Good luck and best regards

Group_theory
PCOM Class of 2007
___________________________________________________
On the 5th day of FINALS my true love (profs) gave to ME
FIVE PROBLEM SETS
four case studies
three big exams
two pop quizzes
and a paper in biochemistry

 

[Gleevec]

You sound like one of the cases that would really benefit from a high MCAT score. But even then, a 2.8 is low. Consider a post-bacc program.

Originally posted by aeromed
Hi everyone,

I've read quite a few posts dealing with people with low undergrad GPAs who eventually went into post-bacc programs, but I've yet to find out about people with low GPAs who actually majored in biology.

I have a low undergrad GPA and I majored in biology at MIT. I started out as an engineering major but switched majors my junior year to Biology. "Low GPA" = around 2.8/4.0. My grades got a little better after I switched majors but not enough to say I made a "dramatic improvement" that med schools say they want to see.

Now, I know my biology, chemistry, physics, etc. I work as a tech in a lab now, I actually TA'd experimental biology in college, and I was a consultant with an engineering group after college, so I know my stuff. I just couldn't manage to score that elusive "one standard deviation above class avg" on exams: kinda hard to do that when you're taking classes that are curved with a bunch of geniuses (not exaggerating there. 😱 🙂 ) So I am NOT interested in re-taking all my science classes in a post-bacc program or at another school: I already spent waaay too much $$ on undergrad and I refuse to re-take classes.

SO my question is this: are there any of you out there with sucky GPAs who actually majored in biology/"pre-med", and what did yo do to improve your chances of getting in to med school?
(Oh, I'm retaking the MCAT to score higher and I have all the ECs and LORs that I need, so feel free to not comment on that. 🙂 I'm just asking about GPA strategies.)

Thanks!
😎

 

[Gleevec]

Also, if you didnt like bio (especially molecular and pre-med stuff) and you dont like premeds, you might want to reconsider the field or try out a post-bacc or something first. If you think undergrad is competitive, med school is going to by WAY more of the same.

Originally posted by All-Star14
I'm sure there are bio majors w/"low" (in this case, barely 3.0) GPAs, but they probably don't want to post their scores. If MIT's bio department is anything like the department at my school, I wouldn't even think about majoring in biology (WAY too much competition and too many b*stard pre-meds). Since there's such a diverse range of bio courses, perhaps you could take courses in, say, ecology or marine biology (where you could raise your GPA w/o worrying about the competitive nature of typical pre-med classes like genetics, cell & molecular bio, developmental bio, physiology, microbiology). Just my $0.02.

 

[All-Star14]

Originally posted by Gleevec
Also, if you didnt like bio (especially molecular and pre-med stuff) and you dont like premeds, you might want to reconsider the field or try out a post-bacc or something first. If you think undergrad is competitive, med school is going to by WAY more of the same.

I'm not the originator of the post; I never said I didn't like bio. I'm just trying to help out someone who might need to raise his/her bio GPA. Plus, where do you get off insinuating that I don't like all premeds and that I'm afraid of competition? I clearly stated that I don't like a$$holes who happen to be premed (not all premeds are a$$holes--this observation certainly doesn't apply to you) and that almost every premed wants to (at some point) major in bio. I want to be different.

 

[All-Star14]

Originally posted by Gleevec
If you think undergrad is competitive, med school is going to by WAY more of the same.

I already know this...why are you telling me this?🙄

 

[Gleevec]

Allstar,
I never said you dont like competition, yet again you are making up stuff.

You said: "I wouldn't even think about majoring in biology (WAY too much competition and too many b*stard pre-meds)"

So what else is a reader supposed to assume? Sounds like 1. you dont like many of the premeds who majoring in bio, which is a good chunk of med students, and 2. too much competition is bad, obviously the OP managed to competition fairly well, so I dont know what youre getting at

Back to the OP:
you sound like you have a very good shot to get in with your background once you do some post-bacc work and some research.

 

[ttac]

Originally posted by Gleevec
Also, if you didnt like bio (especially molecular and pre-med stuff) and you dont like premeds, you might want to reconsider the field or try out a post-bacc or something first. If you think undergrad is competitive, med school is going to by WAY more of the same.

Actually, in defense of the 'tute, I think that MIT is more competitive than at least most of the lower tier med schools...consider this: Last year, 70% of MIT applicants got into med school, and the AVERAGE MCAT of those that got into med school was 34.2. I think the average MCAT of all MIT applicants was around a 33. And as someone who graduated from MIT in '97, I think it's fair to say that on average, the smartest people that I knew didn't want anything to do with biology... they were in math, physics, EECS, MechE, or some of the harder sciences.

For the record, I was a chem major/bio minor who left MIT with a 2.5/4.0 GPA. I'm a first year med student at Drexel now, but it took 7 postbac classes (informal, at UCSD), research, 3 years of applying, and a good MCAT score to finally get into med school.

-ttac
p.s. You can do a search/pm me if you have other questions.

 

[care bear]

yale undergrad here, double major in biology and political science, my gpa's low enough that i'm a bit bashful about posting, if that helps.
good luck! 🙂
and i know what you mean about curves set by geniuses. they aren't so nice to me either.

 

[Gleevec]

Im not trying to say that his GPA was bad for his school or anything, there are a lot of tough schools without grade inflation. Many schools with grade inflation have high MCAT averages as well. Im just saying, yeah it is competitive, and if he had an MCAT that proved his GPA was lower than it should be, he would be AOK. If his MCATs arent as high, then he might need a post-bacc.

Originally posted by ttac
Actually, in defense of the 'tute, I think that MIT is more competitive than at least most of the lower tier med schools...consider this: Last year, 70% of MIT applicants got into med school, and the AVERAGE MCAT of those that got into med school was 34.2. I think the average MCAT of all MIT applicants was around a 33. And as someone who graduated from MIT in '97, I think it's fair to say that on average, the smartest people that I knew didn't want anything to do with biology... they were in math, physics, EECS, MechE, or some of the harder sciences.

For the record, I was a chem major/bio minor who left MIT with a 2.5/4.0 GPA. I'm a first year med student at Drexel now, but it took 7 postbac classes (informal, at UCSD), research, 3 years of applying, and a good MCAT score to finally get into med school.

-ttac
p.s. You can do a search/pm me if you have other questions.

 

[ttac]

Actually, as much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I think that it is almost 100% impossible to get into med school with a 2.8 if you haven't taken any post bac classes, no matter what your MCAT is (at least up to 35, and probably even up to 40). I'd be really interested in seeing if any non-URM got into a med school with a GPA of <=2.8 without taking any additional postbac classes, unless your GPA trend was something crazy like: Fr=1.0 So=2.0 Ju=3.0 Se=4.0

If you have <=2.8, the onus is on you to prove that you have both the intelligence, and the work ethic to survive in med school... getting an MCAT >=33 will prove the former, but until you prove the latter, I don't think med schools will take a chance on you. IMHO, they would rather have someone who did worse on the MCAT, but has proven than he/she has the dedication and work ethic to do well in their classes. Now if you go back and do well in your postbac classes, then you have proven the latter, and they'll probably accept you.

Just my 0.02$ worth.
-ttac

 

[panda81]

aeromed,
just so you know, i also go to a pretty tough undergrad. from my experience in speaking with people in and around admissions committee's, the mcat is the even-all. a lot of people on here may have 3.8's or 3.9's, but they also go to undergrad's where grades are GIVEN NOT EARNED. i also have found it difficult to do well in classes that are curved with extremely intelligent people. the admissions committee will look more favorably on an app. with a 33 and a 3.0 from a very competitive school, than someone with a 27 and a 3.9.

don't let people with inflated gpa's get you down, the only time they're ever in competition with you is the mcat....see how their education stacks up compared to yours then.

oh, and by the way, i'm willing to bet money that most med. school's are NOT more competitive than MIT (or many other top undergrads) premed. you can take that to the bank.

 

[Deuce 007 MD]

To answer the OP, I graduated w/low gpa 3.4 from UCLA with a bio major. I also had alot of C's and W's. I knew I had to do well on the mcat to get in, so I did all the kaplan, princeton, and berkley review stuff. I started in Oct. to prepare for the April mcat and did ok, enough to get in. So you've got to rock the mcat, that 2.8 is low though. I had a friend from my school who had a 2.8 and 33 mcat, but didn't get in any allopathic. He did get DO, so think about that.

 

[Sweet Tea]

Hey OP--

I graduated in 2001 with a bio major with a 3.1 undergrad GPA. My freshman and sophomore years sucked, but I did well my junior and senior years. I re-took some of my "problem classes" (organic chem) after I graduated, and took some grad-level biology classes. I didn't do an actual post-bacc program, but I was able to work full-time (or close to full-time) and get some more ECs while taking the classes. I also studied my a$$ off for the MCAT. I haven't been accepted yet, but I was told at my interview that the work since graduation makes up for my undergrad GPA and that they wouldn't hold my GPA against me. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's a nice thought!

Best of luck!

 

[aeromed]

Wow, thanks for all the replies!!! You guys are great.

Just want to clear a few things up: I graduated from school about 2 years ago. I have an excellent pre-med advisor at MIT (although I'm in California now). I did apply last year but only got one interview and didn't get in (but I had a not great MCAT). So I will be reapplying in summer of 2003 with a bunch of new things to add to the application (a complete career switch, lots of new ECs, total of 8 really great LORs, and a great MCAT). But the GPA remains the same....

So, yes, I do want to go into medicine. 🙂 I do like pre-meds and I can handle the competition! 😛 I know for a fact that I can handle the workload at med school. Basically, the one thing that kept me out of school was the GPA (my interview went great but since it was a closed file interview they didn't ask about the GPA and I never had a chance to explain things....) so I was ultimately rejected. That's why I was curious if anybody who had a low GPA and majored in biology got in, and how they did that. (And no, you don't have to post your GPA: I wasn't asking for that...I only posted mine so that you all wouldn't think I thought a 3.6/4.0, for example, was low! 🙄 )

Maybe I'll try taking some grad classes at UC-Berkeley or something (my lab will pay for it....). It looks like I'm going to have to take some kind of classes....oh well. If that's what it takes, I'll do it! (oh, and I wish MIT had offered marine biology or something "easy"...but there was no such thing there....dang. 🙁 )

Take care!

(p.s. I am a girl, so you can refer to me as a "she" 😀 )

 

[All-Star14]

Originally posted by aeromed
Wow, thanks for all the replies!!! You guys are great.

Just want to clear a few things up: I graduated from school about 2 years ago. I have an excellent pre-med advisor at MIT (although I'm in California now). I did apply last year but only got one interview and didn't get in (but I had a not great MCAT). So I will be reapplying in summer of 2003 with a bunch of new things to add to the application (a complete career switch, lots of new ECs, total of 8 really great LORs, and a great MCAT). But the GPA remains the same....

So, yes, I do want to go into medicine. 🙂 I do like pre-meds and I can handle the competition! 😛 I know for a fact that I can handle the workload at med school. Basically, the one thing that kept me out of school was the GPA (my interview went great but since it was a closed file interview they didn't ask about the GPA and I never had a chance to explain things....) so I was ultimately rejected. That's why I was curious if anybody who had a low GPA and majored in biology got in, and how they did that. (And no, you don't have to post your GPA: I wasn't asking for that...I only posted mine so that you all wouldn't think I thought a 3.6/4.0, for example, was low! 🙄 )

Maybe I'll try taking some grad classes at UC-Berkeley or something (my lab will pay for it....). It looks like I'm going to have to take some kind of classes....oh well. If that's what it takes, I'll do it! (oh, and I wish MIT had offered marine biology or something "easy"...but there was no such thing there....dang. 🙁 )

Take care!

(p.s. I am a girl, so you can refer to me as a "she" 😀 )

Taking classes is a good idea (didn't know you had an interview last year 🙂. Also, if you do very well on the MCATs (assuming you'll retake it), you will greatly improve your chances of getting in. Hope this helps a little.

 

[cabruen]

I just saw this thread so I will throw in my advice for aeromed.

Whether it is right or wrong, the MIT carries more weight than you can possibly imagine. I had a 2.9 GPA from MIT, and anytime it has come up in interviews, I give a slight roll of my eyes, mention it was from MIT, and point to my MCAT score (35). All of the interviewers seem to be completely understanding and could then care less about the low GPA.

Best of luck. You can pm me and we can discuss any issues you might have in more detail.

 

[Katie]

as a second year med student, I am getting very tired of hearing about how people who didn't graduate from an Ivy League school or from MIT had their GPA's handed to them. If you're talking about a junior college or no-name lower tier school, then this may be the case, but I found my state school education to be challenging enough and felt well-prepared for many med school classes. Although the MIT/JHU/Hah-vahd name may help you in the admissions process, it doesn't mean very much when it comes to getting through and/or doing well in med school. Of the 3 people who failed first year and are now repeating selected courses at my school, 1 went to Tulane (male), 1 was a girl from MIT (and she was NOT exactly a party animal who didn't study), and 1 was a female graduate of Columbia/Barnard. I'm not trying to rag on anyone, just saying to not make the assumption that the prestige of your undergrad institution will carry you through med school if you are admitted.

As for the notion that med school is competitive, the difference between undergrad and med school is that you are only trying (at least for the first 2 years) to compete with yourself to do your best and not obsessing over how well you do in comparison to your classmates. There are a few med schools that use the letter grade system, but judging by recent trends (e.g. Jefferson and UW changing over to H/P/F), most of these schools will convert from the darkside😀

 

[ttac]

If you're referring to my post, I didn't mean to imply that people who graduated from less-well known schools had their grades handed to them. One can't make that generalization. There are many people from lesser known colleges than MIT/Hah-vahd (I call it that too 🙂 ) etc that worked really hard for their grades, and probably learned more, and were smarter than people from MIT/Harvard (I am using those 2 schools as an example, but you can substitute any of the top-schools for those two)

However, there is a clear difference in the level of difficulty between lesser known colleges and a school like MIT. I know because I took 7 classes at UCSD to atone for my sins as an undergrad. As far as I know, UCSD is a fairly good school. However, there wasn't really a comparison in level of difficulty of classes from UCSD to MIT. For example, when I was a HS senior, and taking intro to diff-eq at UCSD, I would go to about half the classes, and still got an A. I then took Diff-Eq at MIT and failed it (my only F)

Now, given that UCSD is a 'good' school, imagine how much the difference would be between MIT (average SAT 1470) and a state school (in California, the Cal-State schools, not the UC's) with an average SAT of 1000. The level of competition to get in the top 15% (and get the 'A') is far more intense at MIT. That's not to say that there aren't smart people who go to Cal-state schools. There are (I believe there was a poster last year who got into all the top schools coming from a Cal-State... I think her name was Jessica?) However, in light of the fact that the competition is not as intense, I think it is fair to prefer an MIT grad with a 3.5 over a Cal-state grad with a 3.5, ceteris paribus.

That's where the MCAT becomes the great equalizer. All this conjecturing is put to the test when you take a standardized test. If you have a 35/3.0 from MIT, and someone scores a 30/3.5 from a cal-state, well, I think the MIT applicant is at least as qualified (and possibly more qualified). Why? because under standardized testing questions, the MIT grad understood the bio/chem/verbal stuff better than the person with a 30 MCAT.

Just in case it wasn't clear from this message, I don't have anything against people from cal-state schools. If someone gets a 3.9/37 from a Cal-state, then they deserve to get in before a 3.0/37 from MIT. However, if they got a 3.9/30, it kind of calls into question that 3.9, and is a little less clear.

-ttac

 

[neofight]

It's true that getting good grades at top-tiered schools like MIT carry more weight to adcoms. But what about other top-tiered schools where GPA inflation exists? Do GPAs from these schools still carry more weight than the same GPA from a state school?

 

[canadagirl]

I think the problem with comparing non-competitive (NC) schools to competitive (C) schools is that you can't compare the grades in a linear way. I think it's _much_ easier to pass (getting, say, a C or a C+) at a NC school than a very C one. On the other hand, it is often just as hard to EXCEL at a very NC school - they often give a VERY SMALL NUMBER of 4.0's or A+'s out, and the top few students at ANY SCHOOL are going to be outstanding.

There are going to be a group of VERY EXCELLENT IVY-QUALITY students at any reasonable college. To get top grades you have to compete with those students - it really doesn't matter how many crummy students are way below you, imho.

 

[zer0el]

To the OP:

I am a senior bio major at MIT and will be going to med school this coming fall. My GPA here is not spectacular (about a 3.45/4.0 science and 3.6/4.0 overall), but was good enough to get into several top 20 med schools. There were a number of schools that showed me no love, however. Stanford and UCSF both rejected me pre-secondary and many rejected me post-secondary (Duke, UCSD, Harvard, Chicago come to mind). I would attribute the pre-secondary rejections to my GPA since my MCAT is respectable.

To give you a sense of how MIT grads have fared in the process, the following data was taken from the MIT OCSPA's website for the Class of 2001:

Average G.P.A. of all Accepted 3.74/4.0*
Undergraduate Applicants

Average MCAT of all Accepted 34.2
Undergraduate Applicants

Female 54.5% Male 45.5%

Range of G.P.A. Acceptances for 3.29- 4.0*
Undergraduate Applicants

Range of G.P.A. Denials for 2.23 - 4.0*
Undergraduate Applicants

Range of MCAT Acceptances for 27 - 40
Undergraduate Applicants

Range of MCAT Denials for 17 - 37
Undergraduate Applicants

I wish you the best of luck.

 

[ttac]

Originally posted by canadagirl
I think the problem with comparing non-competitive (NC) schools to competitive (C) schools is that you can't compare the grades in a linear way. I think it's _much_ easier to pass (getting, say, a C or a C+) at a NC school than a very C one. On the other hand, it is often just as hard to EXCEL at a very NC school - they often give a VERY SMALL NUMBER of 4.0's or A+'s out, and the top few students at ANY SCHOOL are going to be outstanding.

There are going to be a group of VERY EXCELLENT IVY-QUALITY students at any reasonable college. To get top grades you have to compete with those students - it really doesn't matter how many crummy students are way below you, imho.

As I have said before, I agree that there are excellent students at pretty much any college. These are the people that, for whatever reason, decided not to attend a 'top' school, for financial, geographical reasons, or whatever (despite the fact that they were probably accepted there anyway). I definitely agree with you on the non-linear scale... Just from looking at the people from UC Berkeley, or UCSD, with a 3.9+ GPA, they were excellent students, and probably would have done pretty well at MIT. Or Harvard. Or (insert other well-known college here). However, from my experience (MIT student/took classes at UCSD) I think I have a rough idea of the relative difficulty of getting an A in each class.

I would estimate that a 3.5 GPA in a bunch of MIT classes would probably be equivalent to a 3.9+ in a bunch of UCSD classes, based on what grade I think a comparable level of understanding would receive.

In my experience, alot of classes at UCSD emphasized memorization of past year's problems, or the exam questions were almost identical to problems in the homework or on past exams. For example, a problem on the past exam would be something like:

(calculating velocity as a hypothetical example...obviously exam questions would be harder than this, but the same principle applies)

PAST EXAM QUESTION
1. You are moving at 10 m/s at time zero. Your accelerate for 2 seconds at 5 m/s^2. What is your final velocity at time 2 seconds?

CURRENT EXAM QUESTION
1. You are moving at 20 m/s at time zero. Your accelerate for 2 seconds at 5 m/s^2. What is your final velocity at time 2 seconds?

In this case, you could just memorize v = v0 + at and not even really understand what it means, but you know that if you plug that into your calculator you can get the final velocity. In order to study for exams like this, all you have to do is memorize alot of past exam questions, and you'll probably do well, even if you only understand it 50%.

At MIT, we would rarely get questions that easy. It would be something like:

1. Given the graph of the acceleration of an object vs. time looks like this (insert x-y graph with horizontal line), draw the graphs for the velocity vs. time and the position vs. time.

In order to study for exams in the first example, as long as you memorized the sample problems, you could do pretty well. At MIT, if you didn't understand something 100%, then you were pretty much hosed.

Having to think like this for 4 years is why MIT students to well on the MCAT. They have been 'training' for four years for exactly the type of questions the MCAT has: Can you take the information given, and figure out an alternative application for it to get the answer?

This difference is most apparent when people get high GPA's, but complain about 'test anxiety' on the MCAT. First of all, before I get 50 nasty pm's from people who truly have a pathophysiological medical condition that somehow causes them to pass out when they take the MCAT, I will say that there probably are a _few_ people that truly can blame standardized testing problems on an underlying physiological condition.

However, I think that the vast majority of people who do poorly on the MCAT, but had high GPA's never really understood the material in the first place. Unlike your typical college class, you can't just memorize past exams and hope that this year's exam will be the same, but with a few different numbers to plug in. You can't talk to the prof and get 'hints' about what to study. Sure, you can do that in college, but when it comes to the MCAT or USMLE, your true understanding will shine through. I do not know a single person at MIT with a >3.8 GPA in chem or physics (can't speak for bio) who wasn't very bright. They all did as expected on the MCAT (at least 36). That's because they truly understood the material, and could apply their understanding in a totally different situation that forced them to look at the equation from a different angle, or derive it, or whatever.

So what is the purpose of this extended rant this afternoon? I finished a physio exam this morning, and was reminded of how many of my classmates complain that "They try to trick us on physio exams". Translation: "Physio exams don't just test your ability to regurgitate on exams. They test your understanding of the material, and your ability to apply it in different situations". If I don't do well in physio, I know it's because I didn't understand the material fully. Just memorizing past exams isn't going to save you.

Ok. I'm done with my tirade. I guess we'll find out if I'm full of crap when I take Step I.

ttac

 

[drbella]

I believe that GPA without knowledge of the school it came from is almost irrelevant. You can not equate GPA to success, knowledge, or effort without out taking into consideration the school. Some schools require science majors to complete distribution requirements that force them to overload on the class and lab time as well as workoad. Science majors and denied from concentrating on their major due to irrelevant side classes that provide nothing but busywork. My school is known for its rediculous amount of outside work that each teacher dishes out. In addition, the liberal arts foundation refuses chem majors as exceptions and forces them to complete school requirements as well as ACS requirements in order to receive a B.A. (ACS certified). We don't even get a B.S.!!!! Everytime someone tries to scare me with the word GPA I must remind myself of what I've been through. A 3.3 while taking Physical Chemistry, Biology, and Organic Chemistry (3 labs) is worth much more in my mind than a 3.8 as an English or Business major.