Average GPA of.....

[tautomer]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Ok, this maybe a little inaccurate, but go with me on this for a sec. On the aamc website, they list the average GPAs of applicants and matriculants but not the average GPAs of those not accepted. But considering the acceptance rates are about 50%, I'm assuming if the average total GPA of a matriculant is 3.62 and the average total GPA of all applicants is a 3.47, then the average total GPA of all people who were not accepted would be around a 3.32, and likewise for science GPAs and AO GPAs. Is it safe to assume this? Is there a place to go where I could look this up? I'm interested in finding out what these GPAs are.

Follow up question: Am I too paranoid about my GPA?

 

[TRUE]

I'm not sure where you can find that information. However, about the GPA paranoia question: I was freaked out going into the whole process about my GPA (3.35). Everywhere I looked it said, 3.65 science and 3.6 overall or you're not getting in anywhere. There is nothing you can do about those classes you've taken and the grades you've gotten. The only thing you can probably still do is the MCAT. If you feel your GPA is "deficient", try to score very well on the MCAT to overcome it. That's just my two cents. I've gotten into a few places and i'm very happy with the process and you can be too, even with a poor GPA.

 

[theDr.]

FACTED....was your mcat very high?

 

[TRUE]

Originally posted by theDr.
FACTED....was your mcat very high?

34-O. I didn't do amazing in the classes that comprise the MCAT (mostly B range grades, though I did well in physics). I just took so many practice mcat's...i think that was the key for me personally.

 

[dookbloo]

facted where did you go for undergrad? im similar but not having the same results...

 

[emt30119]

Thinking back to my much hated Stats class, To make this assumption you would need to know if college GPA's when graphed are normally distributed. Then you would need to know what part of the distribution the points in question fell on I.E. accepted GPA and Applied GPA. Sounds like to much work to me...

P.S. Please don't burn me if this is incorrect. I hated my stats class and attempted to remove all info that accumuated in my brain from that class. The theory above is made up of bits and peices i was unable to scrap away, and may not be correct.

 

[AlternateSome1]

Nah, the basic average can be taken by just finding the distance between the accepted average and the applied average (.15), then multiplying by the weighting (.5 for 50%). That value should be equal to the weighting of the nonaccepted applicants (.5) times the distance between the average applicant and nonaccepted average (X). It is a lot like a lever problem in physics.

.5 * .15 = .5 * x..... x = .15...

3.47 - .15 = 3.32

The original OP had the calculation straight. The only problem with the statistic is that it doesn't say much. Yes, having a 3.32 is worse than having a 3.62, but you still don't know the percentage of people with a 3.32 getting accepted, which is where you need the two distributions.

~AS1~

 

[jlee9531]

yeah i think you are a bit paranoid about the gpa thing.

3.4 cumgpa
3.1 bcpm

and i feel ive been very fortunate this application cycle even with the increased number of applicants. but i never felt too worried about my chances of getting in because i felt my application overall was strong.

 

[CalBeE]

I don't think you can figure out the average GPA of rejected people that way, although it's safe to assume the average GPA of rejected people is lower than that of the accepted ones.

Besides, I do believe many file-reviewers look at GPA as a range (eg. 3.3 and 3.4 are probably not that much different). What's more important are general grades in important classes like O-Chem and Bio.

 

[AlternateSome1]

Originally posted by CalBeE
I don't think you can figure out the average GPA of rejected people that way, although it's safe to assume the average GPA of rejected people is lower than that of the accepted ones.

Seriously, average the two. It works out. Any other number wouldn't work.

~AS1~

 

[AlternateSome1]

I will demonstrate actually.... 9 people with GPA's of: 4.0, 3.7, 3.7, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, 1.0 apply. The average GPA of applicants is 2.956. If 4 applicants get accepted, say 4.0, 3.7, 3.4, 3.3, the average accepted GPA is 3.6. The weight is 4/9 = .4444. Now, (3.6 - 2.956) * (4/9) = .286. To calculate the average GPA of unaccepted applicants, you divide this value by the other weight, (5/9) = .515. Now, 2.956 - .515 = 2.441. If you add up 3.7, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, and 1.0, and then divide by 5, you get 2.44. It is seriously just like lever problems in physics.

~AS1~

 

[Rose122]

Actually, the calculation is much simpler (8th grade algebra) and doesn't require standard deviations. I have to make up numbers since I haven't actually seen them but if there are 40,000 applicants each year, 16,000 get in and 24,000 don't. To figure out the average of those that don't get accepted you multiply 40,000 by the average applicant gpa, then subtract 16,000*average accepted gpa. Finally, divide that term by 24,000. That's your average not-accepted gpa. While this number may be helpful in considering which schools to apply to, it should not be studied to determine whether or not you wish to become a physician.

 

[smc927]

Go to:

http://www.princetonreview.com

The Medical School section lets you look at stats by school. It tells you the tuition cost, average GPA, MCAT (by section even), etc. Very useful.

 

[Supadupafly]

It should be meaning full that from a statistical point of view, there isn't that much difference between the GPA of people accepted vs rejected.

If you consider the effect of outlyers who should not have even applied (GPA<~2.9), the average not accepted would be higher.

Take this to indicate the importance of MCAT scores. Unless your GPA is incredibly low, it's your MCAT score that draws attention to your application (not to say that trends within your GPA are meaningless).