Average GPA at your school

[mmmkay121]

---

Members do not see this ad.

a buddy of mine thought just like you. He went to MIT and always spoke poorly of Illinois. One summer he decided to come here and hang out, take a class, room with me. His 4.5/5.0 gpa at MIT was just barely able to get him a B in a literature class (and even though MIT isn't know for lit/comp, his SATs were way below average and his essay was what got him in the door). He had to bust his ass for that B at U of I, and ever since I haven't heard him bad mouth public schools.

Isolated example.

 

[Andre04]

i didn't get any sleep last night and didn't bother to read what i'm writing b/c it doesn't matter here.

i've gotta correct you on this. everybody is from a different race, not a different culture. it's something about a concept on 'marked' vs 'unmarked'.

i don't feel like explaining this right now, but my experiences are quite a bit different. some of my gsi's (graduate student instructor) were negatively commenting on my lifestyle, such as vegetarianism or the fact that i'm waiting until marriage to have sex. with the students, it's even worse.

it seems that people who are not white and nonwhites who aren't white washed generally seem to be friendlier to different people.

right now, my thoughts are incoherent but i've learned that in order to have a less stressful experience at michigan i have to expect that certain people won't be as responsive compared to other groups of people. overall, my experience here at umich has been extremely bad and unpleasant.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. But at any school you're going to find students for whom the school is a perfect fit, and students who absolutely hate it. The thing to do if you find yourself in the latter situation is be proactive and (1) try to find a community of like-minded people; (2) try to address your concerns in as positive a way as possible (start a club for your interests? speak to the instructors who belittle your beliefs?); (3) honestly evaluate whether your own thoughts and actions are contributing to the negative experience, and take appropriate action if they are; and (4) if nothing else works--transfer.

I guess I find cries of racism and discrimination and intolerance rather stupid if you (the general you) have no intentions of doing anything about it, and especially if there's a more likely explanation for what you've experienced (hint: starts with a "wh," endings with "ining").

Why do you even say it's racism if the only "prejudice" you've experienced there is for the moral choices you've made? Even if you do belong to the Meatless Virgin tribe there's a difference between debating their practices and discriminating against the Meatless Virgin people. Another people might eat their own. Is that a good practice that we shan't question for fear of racial insensitivity?

BTW I'm abstinent and was a vegan for 7 years, including most of my undergrad. I've met people who disagree with these choices, but it wasn't for my Caucasianess. I don't think so at least.

 

[Zoom-Zoom]

What do you think the average GPA is at your school, or most schools for that matter? Common sense tells me it's somewhere between 2 and 2.5 considering the average of most classes is a C or C+.


Puts things in perspective for those worried about their 3.2. Then again, med school admissions is a whole other story.

2.97 here.

 

[Julius Erving]

Exactly. Average GPA means nothing without putting the competition into consideration. A school with a median GPA of 3.2 can be inflated if the median student can't break a 23 on the MCAT. A school with a median GPA of 3.2 can be deflated if the median student breaks 30 on the MCAT. The average Cornell student probably can blow the top students of many other schools out of the water (Ok, bash me all you want now). GPA is such a useless number.

.... it hurts to know your extra $20,000/year tuition doesn't buy as much as you thought. I know this. I apologize for hurting your feelings.

You are assuming that TOP students at public universities did not go to Cornell b/c they weren't good enough. It is very plausible that TOP students at public universities could not afford Cornell, or didn't think it was worth it. So maybe while the competition is less at public schools, the education is largely the same. I got A's in my science, and while it might be harder to get them at Cornell, I'm sure I could. The smartest person in the world could go to Community College and get the same GPA as Joe Shmo. So how can you say this smartest person is less smart than an average Cornellian? If he went to Cornell, he would get a 4.0 too.

 

[mmmkay121]

.... it hurts to know your extra $20,000/year tuition doesn't buy as much as you thought. I know this. I apologize for hurting your feelings.

You are assuming that TOP students at public universities did not go to Cornell b/c they weren't good enough. It is very plausible that TOP students at public universities could not afford Cornell, or didn't think it was worth it. So maybe while the competition is less at public schools, the education is largely the same. I got A's in my science, and while it might be harder to get them at Cornell, I'm sure I could. The smartest person in the world could go to Community College and get the same GPA as Joe Shmo. So how can you say this smartest person is less smart than an average Cornellian? If he went to Cornell, he would get a 4.0 too.

Of course, I agree. Many schools have quite a few very smart and hardworking students. It's easier for them to stand out (big fish in small pond). At Cornell a big fish would just be average. I'm not saying each and every one of the top students at every other school (there are like 2,000 of them in America) isn't as bright as the average the Cornell student. Just that the average Cornell student (with their 3.2-3.3 GPA) can probably study at many other places and move up to the top of a class. Do you agree? The average Cornell student came into college with a 1400 SAT and was well into the top 10% of his/her HS class.

Where did I say it was about public vs. private schools? That makes no sense. Some of the best and most difficult schools are public (Berkeley, UVA, UIUC, etc.). You're not in a small pond and would do equally fine elsewhere. The schools with the lowest standards I know are private.

 

[Remiller]

Of course, I agree. Many schools have quite a few very smart and hardworking students. It's easier for them to stand out (big fish in small pond). At Cornell a big fish would just be average. I'm not saying each and every one of the top students at every other school (there are like 2,000 of them in America) isn't as bright as the average the Cornell student. Just that the average Cornell student (with their 3.2-3.3 GPA) can probably study at many other places and move up to the top of a class. Do you agree? The average Cornell student came into college with a 1400 SAT and was well into the top 10% of his/her HS class.

Where did I say it was about public vs. private schools? That makes no sense. Some of the best and most difficult schools are public (Berkeley, UVA, UIUC, etc.). You're not in a small pond and would do equally fine elsewhere. The schools with the lowest standards I know are private.

I don't think the average Cornell student is on par with the top students at many UC schools. The top students from each school are probably very similar, whereas the average Cornell student is probably smarter/harder working than the average UC student. A school like Cornell just has it's students concentrated in the upper part of the performance spectrum, whereas other schools would have a more broad performance distribution.

 

[mmmkay121]

I don't think the average Cornell student is on par with the top students at many UC schools. The top students from each school are probably very similar, whereas the average Cornell student is probably smarter/harder working than the average UC student. A school like Cornell just has it's students concentrated in the upper part of the performance spectrum, whereas other schools would have a more broad performance distribution.

UC schools = "etc." = Superb

Some of the best schools are public!!!! God, whenever a thread is about how adcoms evaluate a GPA from a school, it turns into a silly public vs. private debate.

 

[BigRedPremed]

Like I said, GPA/MCAT data would help and we wouldn't need to assume or make any conjectures as to who could get what GPA where. As I also said before, I don't think top publics like UCLA or Berkeley are easier than any top private school.

GPA is also heavily major dependent. I'm a science major with no special talent for humanities but due to the requirements of my college within Cornell I've had to take classes in math, Spanish, Asian American studies, writing, english, anthropology, psychology, history, English, etc. etc. etc. To date, despite the fact I like science more, every grade lower than an A I've received (including A-'s) has been in a bio or chem course.

Edit: To answer the OP, avg. GPA at Cornell is around a 3.2.

 

[solitude]

.... it hurts to know your extra $20,000/year tuition doesn't buy as much as you thought. I know this. I apologize for hurting your feelings.

You are assuming that TOP students at public universities did not go to Cornell b/c they weren't good enough. It is very plausible that TOP students at public universities could not afford Cornell, or didn't think it was worth it. So maybe while the competition is less at public schools, the education is largely the same. I got A's in my science, and while it might be harder to get them at Cornell, I'm sure I could. The smartest person in the world could go to Community College and get the same GPA as Joe Shmo. So how can you say this smartest person is less smart than an average Cornellian? If he went to Cornell, he would get a 4.0 too.

I'm not going to address the second paragraph, but the statistics do suggest that those students do, on average, actually receive a rather significant benefit for going to Cornell, etc. There are isolated individuals that will ace every class no matter their undergrad, but on the average, a 3.x GPA at Cornell is worth more than a 3.x GPA at a state school. The statistics don't lie. Sorry if this hurts your feelings.

 

[mvenus929]

For what it matters, we had a discussion about grade inflation in o chem today. Our professor said that he developed his grading scale when he first began teaching so that about 15% of students got A's, 25% got B's, etc, and found that it didn't vary much from year to year, so he just kept it the same. Now, a lot of professors in the chem department use his grading scale. However, the cut off for an A- in o chem lab is 5% higher than in lecture. There are some professors on campus that will give everyone A's, and others who will give very very few students A's. I'm not sure the average GPA, though. At the main campus it's a little more than 3.0, I think.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Provided it is a decent state school: Berkley, UVa, Michigan, UCLA, UNC etc, there is not going to be a major difference in the quality of students or how a given admissions committee views the same GPA. There are so many other factors involved in med school admission that the fact that someone goes to Cornell is not going to be the deciding factor.

The 'average' cornell student is not going to be vastly smarter than the average student from most of the state schools it is ranked around either.
SAT scores
Cornell 1415
UCLA 1415
UVA 1405
Berkley 1370
Michigan 1365

No major differences there so you would assume there would be no major differences in the students at any of those schools.

In my experience, the people who feel the need to assert their school as so hard or so great usually just trying to make themselves feel superior despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[Wannabemed]

Provided it is a decent state school: Berkley, UVa, Michigan, UCLA, UNC etc, there is not going to be a major difference in the quality of students or how a given admissions committee views the same GPA. There are so many other factors involved in med school admission that the fact that someone goes to Cornell is not going to be the deciding factor.

The 'average' cornell student is not going to be vastly smarter than the average student from most of the state schools it is ranked around either.
SAT scores
Cornell 1415
UCLA 1415
UVA 1405
Berkley 1370
Michigan 1365

No major differences there so you would assume there would be no major differences in the students at any of those schools.

In my experience, the people who feel the need to assert their school as so hard or so great usually just trying to make themselves feel superior despite all evidence to the contrary.

wtf, since when does UCLA have a higher SAT average than Berkeley???? That has NEVER happened in history. Secondly, the UCs look at SATs differently than Cornell and UVA (I don't know about Michigan) do. The UCs take the highest ONE-SITTING SAT score while Cornell and UVA add up the highest individual sub-scores from different test sittings to come up with a composite SAT score that they use and report. For example, when I applied to college, I had taken the SATs 3 times and my UC SAT1 was 1500........but to Cornell, it was 1540. That's a 40 point difference! If you account for SAT inflation, there is negligible difference in SAT scores between Cornell, UVA, and Berkeley (and UCLA, although it is slightly lower than Berkeley's)....and probably Michigan too.

 

[solitude]

Provided it is a decent state school: Berkley, UVa, Michigan, UCLA, UNC etc, there is not going to be a major difference in the quality of students or how a given admissions committee views the same GPA. There are so many other factors involved in med school admission that the fact that someone goes to Cornell is not going to be the deciding factor.

The 'average' cornell student is not going to be vastly smarter than the average student from most of the state schools it is ranked around either.
SAT scores
Cornell 1415
UCLA 1415
UVA 1405
Berkley 1370
Michigan 1365

No major differences there so you would assume there would be no major differences in the students at any of those schools.

In my experience, the people who feel the need to assert their school as so hard or so great usually just trying to make themselves feel superior despite all evidence to the contrary.

I'm not interesting in disputing whether the students are actually better or worse. But if you think that adcoms don't give an advantage to big-name schools then you are just wrong. At least at the best medical schools, a disproportionate number of committee members (almost always professors at the medical school) attended brand-name schools and as a result, give advantages to applicants from these schools. Perhaps it's not fair, but it is the case. The advantage given is of course more pronounced as the differential quality of the undergrad institution increases, though it's only a rough correlation and admittedly varies a lot between individual adcoms.

 

[BigRedPremed]

wtf, since when does UCLA have a higher SAT average than Berkeley???? That has NEVER happened in history. Secondly, the UCs look at SATs differently than Cornell and UVA (I don't know about Michigan) do. The UCs take the highest ONE-SITTING SAT score while Cornell and UVA add up the highest individual sub-scores from different test sittings to come up with a composite SAT score that they use and report. For example, when I applied to college, I had taken the SATs 3 times and my UC SAT1 was 1500........but to Cornell, it was 1540. That's a 40 point difference! If you account for SAT inflation, there is negligible difference in SAT scores between Cornell, UVA, and Berkeley (and UCLA, although it is slightly lower than Berkeley's)....and probably Michigan too.

That doesn't explain why Berkeley consistently lags behind 2nd tier private schools like Cornell or Notre Dame in acceptance rates to med school or why their acceptance rates to top 10 med schools are often below the overall average. If you look at the avg. GPA of accepted applicants, there seems to be nothing that suggests med schools account for the grade deflation at Berkeley. In fact, many times, they seem to require a HIGHER GPA from Berkeley applicants. The data available online is incomplete but unless you can suggest why it would be biased it's valid:

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/national.stm

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm

I'm a Californian resident who attended middle school and high school in the Bay Area so I am well familiar with the kind of student that attends Berkeley. I don't think student quality is inferior at Berkeley but why the low acceptance rates?

 

[solitude]

That doesn't explain why Berkeley consistently lags behind 2nd tier private schools like Cornell or Notre Dame in acceptance rates to med school or why their acceptance rates to top 10 med schools are often below the overall average. If you look at the avg. GPA of accepted applicants, there seems to be nothing that suggests med schools account for the grade deflation at Berkeley. In fact, many times, they seem to require a HIGHER GPA from Berkeley applicants. The data available online is incomplete but unless you can suggest why it would be biased it's valid:

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/national.stm

http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm

I'm a Californian resident who attended middle school and high school in the Bay Area so I am well familiar with the kind of student that attends Berkeley. I don't think student quality is inferior at Berkeley but why the low acceptance rates?

Wow I'd never seen those before. Those are extremely low for a school of Berkeley's caliber. I know there was a big thread on this a few months ago. Another thing that stuck out was how few students applied to the big-name schools. Weird.

 

[BigRedPremed]

Wow I'd never seen those before. Those are extremely low for a school of Berkeley's caliber. I know there was a big thread on this a few months ago. Another thing that stuck out was how few students applied to the big-name schools. Weird.

The data is heavily incomplete unless Berkeley has an insane attrition rate. You would expect many many more applicants from Berkeley than just 150. But I can't think of a reason why the data would be biased.

 

[Wannabemed]

Berkeley doesn't have a pre-med commitee, and the data you see are self-reported and only represent a fraction of the applicants. For year 2005, the webpage you brought up considered 136 UC Berkeley applicants: http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/national.stm. According to AAMC, there were a TOTAL of 605 medical school application from UC Berkeley: http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/masian.htm

As medical school acceptance rates are very very low for almost all schools, reporting acceptance rates based on only ~20% of the applications will inevitably lead to misleading conclusions. Sorry to say, Berkeley does not have a commitee like Cornell does, and thus it is simply unable to report data for 100% of its applicants.

 

[BigRedPremed]

Berkeley doesn't have a pre-med commitee, and the data you see are self-reported and only represent a fraction of the applicants. For year 2005, the webpage you brought up considered 136 UC Berkeley applicants: http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/national.stm. According to AAMC, there were a TOTAL of 605 medical school application from UC Berkeley: http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/masian.htm

As medical school acceptance rates are very very low for almost all schools, reporting acceptance rates based on only ~20% of the applications will inevitably lead to misleading conclusions. Sorry to say, Berkeley does not have a commitee like Cornell does, and thus it is simply unable to report data for 100% of its applicants.

Correct. But can you think of any reason for bias in the self-selection?

My guess for the low overall acceptance rate is that most Berkeley students are CA residents and therefore apply to very competitive UC med schools. I've also heard that Stanford's acceptance rate is only in the 70's due to this same reason (although I can't confirm Stanford's actual acceptance rate). However, even when you control for med school (which the second set of data does), Berkeley applicants still have a miserable time.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm attacking Berkeley. However, I am interested in its stats as I have a lot of friends attending Berkeley.

 

[solitude]

Berkeley doesn't have a pre-med commitee, and the data you see are self-reported and only represent a fraction of the applicants. For year 2005, the webpage you brought up considered 136 UC Berkeley applicants: http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/national.stm. According to AAMC, there were a TOTAL of 605 medical school application from UC Berkeley: http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/masian.htm

As medical school acceptance rates are very very low for almost all schools, reporting acceptance rates based on only ~20% of the applications will inevitably lead to misleading conclusions. Sorry to say, Berkeley does not have a commitee like Cornell does, and thus it is simply unable to report data for 100% of its applicants.

Good to know, but it is still striking how low the acceptance rates are at the top schools and the average GPA and MCAT of accepted applicants. If the average admitted student has a 37 and a 3.97, that means there are a ton of great students that are being rejected. Or else, there is a huge dichotomy in qualification between Berkeley's best applicants and their other applicants.

 

[Wannabemed]

And also, it is likely that the career center homepage counts having submitted PRIMARY APPS as applying. As we all know, many of us don't fill out secondaries, and some us are bound to turn down interviews. This would explain why Berkeley students' acceptance rates to the UCs are quite a bit higher than the average for non-Berkeley students: Berkeley students are more likely to "go through" with applications to UC schools. Have a second look, but this time, look closely at the acceptance rates to the UC schools only: http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm


You will see that the acceptance rates to UC Davis, Irvine, LA, SD, and SF are 13%, 11%, 11%, 14%, and 9% respectively for 2005.

 

[solitude]

Correct. But can you think of any reason for bias in the self-selection?

My guess for the low overall acceptance rate is that most Berkeley students are CA residents and therefore apply to very competitive UC med schools. I've also heard that Stanford's acceptance rate is only in the 70's due to this same reason (although I can't confirm Stanford's actual acceptance rate). However, even when you control for med school (which the second set of data does), Berkeley applicants still have a miserable time.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm attacking Berkeley. However, I am interested in its stats as I have a lot of friends attending Berkeley.

Yeah I'm not meaning to attack it either. I have a lot of respect for the school. Just hypothesizing why their pre-meds do so poorly in admissions.

 

[solitude]

And also, it is likely that the career center homepage counts having submitted PRIMARY APPS as applying. As we all know, many of us don't fill out secondaries, and some us are bound to turn down interviews. This would explain why Berkeley students' acceptance rates to the UCs are quite a bit higher than the average for non-Berkeley students: Berkeley students are more likely to "go through" with applications to UC schools. Have a second look, but this time, look closely at the acceptance rates to the UC schools: http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm

I don't know. How many students submit a primary to Harvard or Hopkins and then don't fill out the secondary? My guess is not many. If you have the chutzpah to submit the primary, I would think you would go through with the secondary as well (with a few exceptions).

 

[Wannabemed]

I don't know. How many students submit a primary to Harvard or Hopkins and then don't fill out the secondary? My guess is not many. If you have the chutzpah to submit the primary, I would think you would go through with the secondary as well (with a few exceptions).

For one, I submitted a primary to Columbia and Yale...and I didn't submit a secondary to either. Also, UCs tend to make admissions decisions earlier than many elite private schools with non-rolling admissions do and I know of quite a few people who turned down interviews at places like Yale after they received an acceptance from UCSD/UCLA/UCSF.

 

[solitude]

For one, I submitted a primary to Columbia and Yale...and I didn't submit a secondary to either. Also, UCs tend to make admissions decisions earlier than many elite private schools with non-rolling admissions do and I know of quite a few people who turned down interviews at places like Yale after they received an acceptance from UCSD/UCLA/UCSF.

The earliest you can receive an acceptance is Oct. 15th, but haven't most people submitted their secondaries by then?

 

[Wannabemed]

The earliest you can receive an acceptance is Oct. 15th, but haven't most people submitted their secondaries by then?

I decided to leave out Yale and Columbia before I got any interview offers from anyone.

 

[solitude]

I decided to leave out Yale and Columbia before I got any interview offers from anyone.

Hm. I believe that it happens, but I guess we can't know for sure how frequently and just what sort of an effect that would have on the statistics.

 

[Wannabemed]

Correct. But can you think of any reason for bias in the self-selection?

My guess for the low overall acceptance rate is that most Berkeley students are CA residents and therefore apply to very competitive UC med schools. I've also heard that Stanford's acceptance rate is only in the 70's due to this same reason (although I can't confirm Stanford's actual acceptance rate). However, even when you control for med school (which the second set of data does), Berkeley applicants still have a miserable time.

I don't want to make it seem like I'm attacking Berkeley. However, I am interested in its stats as I have a lot of friends attending Berkeley.

Hahahahahahahahaha, BigRedPremed, you're my favorite online buddy EVER. Between your school (Cornell), your MCAT score (37), your hometown (Bay Area), and the arguments you use (you have to admit, you stole that Berkeley=> mostly CA residents=> only states schools they can apply to are the ultra-competitive UCs argument from me!!!) , I RECOGNIZE you from the collegeconfidential forums. Back then you HATED Berkeley and wouldn't stop talking **** about it, and we spent DAYS arguing why Berkeley's med school acceptance rate is lower than Cornell's, etc etc and stupid **** like which school is a "better" premed school. Good times, buddy. Cheers. G'luck with your apps. As I recall from the collegeconfidential forums, your top choice is UCSF.

 

[solitude]

Hahahahahahahahaha, BigRedPremed, you're my favorite online buddy EVER. Between your school (Cornell), your MCAT score (37), your hometown (Bay Area), and the arguments you use (you have to admit, you stole that Berkeley=> mostly CA residents=> only states schools they can apply to are the ultra-competitive UCs argument from me!!!) , I RECOGNIZE you from the collegeconfidential forums. Back then you HATED Berkeley and wouldn't stop talking **** about it, and we spent DAYS arguing why Berkeley's med school acceptance rate is lower than Cornell's, etc etc and stupid **** like which school is a "better" premed school. Good times, buddy. Cheers. G'luck with your apps. As I recall from the collegeconfidential forums, your top choice is UCSF.

I was on collegeconfidential many moons ago. I can't remember my screenname though.

 

[Rafa]

Hahahahahahahahaha, BigRedPremed, you're my favorite online buddy EVER. Between your school (Cornell), your MCAT score (37), your hometown (Bay Area), and the arguments you use (you have to admit, you stole that Berkeley=> mostly CA residents=> only states schools they can apply to are the ultra-competitive UCs argument from me!!!) , I RECOGNIZE you from the collegeconfidential forums. Back then you HATED Berkeley and wouldn't stop talking **** about it, and we spent DAYS arguing why Berkeley's med school acceptance rate is lower than Cornell's, etc etc and stupid **** like which school is a "better" premed school. Good times, buddy. Cheers. G'luck with your apps. As I recall from the collegeconfidential forums, your top choice is UCSF.

Hahahaha Someone should make a poll asking how many members of SDN are CC veterans...

 

[BigRedPremed]

Hahahahahahahahaha, BigRedPremed, you're my favorite online buddy EVER. Between your school (Cornell), your MCAT score (37), your hometown (Bay Area), and the arguments you use (you have to admit, you stole that Berkeley=> mostly CA residents=> only states schools they can apply to are the ultra-competitive UCs argument from me!!!) , I RECOGNIZE you from the collegeconfidential forums. Back then you HATED Berkeley and wouldn't stop talking **** about it, and we spent DAYS arguing why Berkeley's med school acceptance rate is lower than Cornell's, etc etc and stupid **** like which school is a "better" premed school. Good times, buddy. Cheers. G'luck with your apps. As I recall from the collegeconfidential forums, your top choice is UCSF.

haha

I remember that. That was a pretty intense debate although I'm not sure why you're saying that I hate Berkeley. I don't remember you making the UC argument although you might've. Someone else PMed with the acceptance rate for Stanford (he claims the dean told him it was only in the 70+% range) and suggested it might be because a lot of Stanford applicants apply to UC med schools. If I remember correctly, you weren't premed though?

 

[Testy McAterson]

and also explains my gpa too by messing up on some useless classes (i got a C in ecology)

ditto that for ecology. the lab was so easy (we took field trips and counted cacti within a given area) but unfortunately had a small weight in that class. 4 credits of C...gotta love it now.

 

[solitude]

haha

I remember that. That was a pretty intense debate although I'm not sure why you're saying that I hate Berkeley. I don't remember you making the UC argument although you might've. Someone else PMed with the acceptance rate for Stanford (he claims the dean told him it was only in the 70+% range) and suggested it might be because a lot of Stanford applicants apply to UC med schools. If I remember correctly, you weren't premed though?

Stanford undergrads have a med acceptance rate only in the 70's?

 

[BigRedPremed]

Stanford undergrads have a med acceptance rate only in the 70's?

Apparently. I figured it would be in the 90's which is what its peer institutions (Harvard, Princeton, etc.) have. But someone on CC said that a Stanford dean said it was only in the 70's. Again, the info is not online and I have not confirmed it.

 

[solitude]

Apparently. I figured it would be in the 90's which is what its peer institutions (Harvard, Princeton, etc.) have. But someone on CC said that a Stanford dean said it was only in the 70's. Again, the info is not online and I have not confirmed it.

Yeah I had never heard that before and my buddy who is a junior there said he had never heard of the acceptance rate. I also figured it would be in the low 90's. Weird. I guess the UC med school thing explains it?

 

[DavisStudent]

Case in point, one of my friends showed me his orgo exam from UC Davis. To be perfectly honest, it was not much different than my orgo midterm at Cornell in terms of material and difficulty. So what was the difference? The mean on his midterm was a 39 while the mean on my orgo midterms is around a 65. I generally have to get approx. 80 to get an A- in the class. Are you telling me if I get an 80 at UC Davis when the mean is 39, I wouldn't at least get an A-? I would be considered an orgo god while at Cornell I barely got an A-.

As a UC Davis undergrad, I must admit, I'm a bit biased. However, I find it hard to compare tests like that. Perhaps they were similar in difficulty, but maybe there is a discrepancy in teaching or other resources. Maybe your professor taught it to you in an amazing way that made it click for everyone. Or maybe he/she gave the class a practice exam very similar to the actual midterm. There are many variables that make it impossible to compare. Case in point:

In my ochem 118B course (second quarter of ochem) I received an A- with a 74%. Now that may seem low for an A-. However, when you consider the fact that , according to pickaprof.com which receives grade distributions directly from my universty, my 118B professor gave out only 6.00% A grades to the whole class of roughly 200-250 students, it paints a new picture. I'm fairly certain the top 6% of students at UC Davis could do well at any of the top universities in the country, as it is true that students do turn down top schools (ie elite private schools) to go to Davis for various reasons (scholarships, they just wanted to, much cheaper, closer to home, etc.).

So back to my point... generally I don't think you can fairly compare school competitiveness of earning top grades, based on tests. There are too many variables.

 

[Dr.TobiasFünke]

What do you think the average GPA is at your school, or most schools for that matter? Common sense tells me it's somewhere between 2 and 2.5 considering the average of most classes is a C or C+.





Puts things in perspective for those worried about their 3.2. Then again, med school admissions is a whole other story.

my undergrad's average was like a 3.2 (grade inflation somewhat i guess). It was a top 25. A C was considered failing essentially, you had to really F*** up to get one. .nn