Compare 2 applicants: High MCAT+low GPA+great ECs vs. average MCAT+GPA+EC

[Curioso06]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I just wanted to know what everyone's opinions may be between two applicants with the following characteristics:

1) High MCAT (98th+ percentile); low GPA (~3.2-3.3 science and cumulative); and very strong ECs (10+ publications)

versus

2) Average MCAT + GPA (for accepted students) and cookie-cutter ECs

Which one would be admitted to medical school? Does either candidate have a better shot at low/mid/top tier schools?

 

[Officer Farva]

I'm going to guess based on my experience. Number two is more likely to be admitted to A school in general. It's more up in the air with one, but they can potentially go to a top tier program of the stars align properly, but acceptance rate overall is lower.

 

[Curioso06]

I'm going to guess based on my experience. Number two is more likely to be admitted to A school in general. It's more up in the air with one, but they can potentially go to a top tier program of the stars align properly, but acceptance rate overall is lower.

I think based on MCAT & GPA alone, your projection is probably true. Although, I guess the wild card here is mostly about the ECs and how they might be valued at each med school. Cookie-cutter ECs probably won't make it at top tier institutions but doing something really impressive (via ECs) would probably be the compelling reason to admit such a candidate at top schools.

 

[efle]

3.3/37 -> 53% admitted

3.7/30 -> 61% admitted

I think having incredible ECs vs normal ones would make up that 8% difference and then some. I'd much rather be the first type of app, especially being from California!

 

[Officer Farva]

I love how in medical admissions, the 3.4 computer engineers from MIT/Princeton/Chicago are seen as lazy compared to the 4.0 exercise science major from midwestern tech state university of agriculture.

 

[efle]

I love how in medical admissions, the 3.4 computer engineers from MIT/Princeton/Chicago are seen as lazy compared to the 4.0 exercise science major from midwestern tech state university of agriculture.

How dare you, are you suggesting that competition would be more intense depending on your area of study or the academic strength of your peers? Blasphemy

 

[Officer Farva]

How dare you, are you suggesting that competition would be more intense depending on your area of study or the academic strength of your peers? Blasphemy

Guilty 🙂 Plus, at my undergrad, a small portion of the postbacs took a tactical postbac. Meaning, they were pre-pre-meds in undergrad. They majored in whatever in undergrad, got a 4.0 with the goal of completing premed requirements part time through a postbac. GPA is a meaningless number.

 

[mimelim]

I love how in medical admissions, the 3.4 computer engineers from MIT/Princeton/Chicago are seen as lazy compared to the 4.0 exercise science major from midwestern tech state university of agriculture.

#1 Having reviewed the applications you refer to, I dispute that people with 3.4s from challenging programs are seen as lazy compared to others.
#2 I don't know how one can argue that a 3.4 computer engineer will make a better physician than a 4.0 exercise major. I can buy that they are more intelligent baseline, but have a hard time reconciling that they will make better students/residents/attendings.

 

[Lawpy]

I just wanted to know what everyone's opinions may be between two applicants with the following characteristics:

1) High MCAT (98th+ percentile); low GPA (~3.2-3.3 science and cumulative); and very strong ECs (10+ publications)

versus

2) Average MCAT + GPA (for accepted students) and cookie-cutter ECs

Which one would be admitted to medical school? Does either candidate have a better shot at low/mid/top tier schools?

Really depends on what #1 is. Several friends of mine followed the pattern of #1 and they all got into Top 20 schools and rejected by low tiers. Grade-deflation and rigorous universities like MIT, Princeton, UChicago generally explain low GPA

Applicant 2 has a greater success for MD schools in general but not so much for Top 20

I love how in medical admissions, the 3.4 computer engineers from MIT/Princeton/Chicago are seen as lazy compared to the 4.0 exercise science major from midwestern tech state university of agriculture.

How dare you, are you suggesting that competition would be more intense depending on your area of study or the academic strength of your peers? Blasphemy

Ya it would be pretty sad if schools/adcoms were blind to rigor/famous grade deflation etc, but they're not. Quite the opposite actually. And verified by the MD adcoms here

#1 Having reviewed the applications you refer to, I dispute that people with 3.4s from challenging programs are seen as lazy compared to others.
#2 I don't know how one can argue that a 3.4 computer engineer will make a better physician than a 4.0 exercise major. I can buy that they are more intelligent baseline, but have a hard time reconciling that they will make better students/residents/attendings.

Better is vague because we're making personality comparisons from there. I'd argue that the 3.4 engineer would provide a lot of critical assets and skills to medicine than the 4.0 exercise science major. Why? Because medicine depends heavily on engineering to be efficient, and the engineering skills learned can help improve medical technology. Are there any benefits of exercise major? Maybe for PT school but kinda useless for medicine (i'm probably wrong so i apologize in advance).

But this is purely made in terms of major only. Thats why it'd be better to favor the engineer.

 

[Med Ed]

I love how in medical admissions, the 3.4 computer engineers from MIT/Princeton/Chicago are seen as lazy compared to the 4.0 exercise science major from midwestern tech state university of agriculture.

How long have you served on admissions?

 

[efle]

They majored in whatever in undergrad, got a 4.0 with the goal of completing premed requirements part time through a postbac.

Wait what...how is this advantageous to them at all. It's much easier to handle classes like Ochem or Biochem when you're a full time student with little else on your plate. Unless you mean they took it at a different university?

 

[efle]

have a hard time reconciling that they will make better students/residents/attendings.

So then why do med admissions so heavily prioritize high GPAs?

 

[Officer Farva]

How long have you served on admissions?

Never have. Just anecdotal experience from me and a few friends.

Wait what...how is this advantageous to them at all. It's much easier to handle classes like Ochem or Biochem when you're a full time student with little else on your plate. Unless you mean they took it at a different university?

I mean, I took orgo and biochem while having to write fifty page papers for another course and doing extensive programming for another while doing bench research outside of class. I would have loved to do problem sets in the comfort of the library with little distractions like that. However, not all postbacs at my school did this, only a few with deep pockets. Intro premed classes are easy in terms of difficulty, but insanely difficult in terms of volume of work.

 

[Officer Farva]

#1 Having reviewed the applications you refer to, I dispute that people with 3.4s from challenging programs are seen as lazy compared to others.
#2 I don't know how one can argue that a 3.4 computer engineer will make a better physician than a 4.0 exercise major. I can buy that they are more intelligent baseline, but have a hard time reconciling that they will make better students/residents/attendings.

You sound very fair for giving them fair review as well, if only more adcoms were like you!

 

[piii]

I love how in medical admissions, the 3.4 computer engineers from MIT/Princeton/Chicago are seen as lazy compared to the 4.0 exercise science major from midwestern tech state university of agriculture.

Oh god not this bs again

 

[Lawpy]

How long have you served on admissions?

Is it a naive method to evaluate applicants based on the skills/assets they can provide to medicine? As well as providing specific context to GPA? Because in mimelim and Officer Farva examples, i'm not sure how the engineering major with a low GPA is beaten out by some applicant in a fluff/grade-inflation major that provides no significant benefits to medicine

 

[efle]

Oh god not this bs again

What's the bs?

 

[efle]

Is it a naive method to evaluate applicants based on the skills/assets they can provide to medicine? As well as providing specific context to GPA? Because in mimelim and Officer Farva examples, i'm not sure how the engineering major with a low GPA is beaten out by some applicant in a fluff/grade-inflation major that provides no significant benefits to medicine

I think he was implying his experience refutes Farva, and he has seen low GPAs considered differently under tough majors at tough schools.

 

[GrapesofRath]

What these discussions of "I go to a top school and have a high MCAT so that explains why my GPA is low" seem to miss is that by and large the majority of people with high MCAT scores at any school also have good GPAs.

https://www.career.cornell.edu/resources/upload/applicant_guide_v2014.pdf
Cornell: 179/224 people who hit 36+ on the MCAT also have a 3.6+

National statistics
https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstablea23.pdf
36-38 MCAT: 6900/9000 have a 3.6+

As you can see the ratios are pretty damn close to identical. Point is no matter where you go if you have a high MCAT score and a low GPA you arent the majority at all. At all types of schools, people who hit 36+ tend to have solid GPAs. If you have a high MCAT and low GPA, that is often more a reflection on you than it is the school and its overall rigor regardless of where you go. Plenty of people at your school, no matter where you went who had that 36+ also did better than you in the classroom. There's just no getting around it.

 

[Lawpy]

I think he was implying his experience refutes Farva, and he has seen low GPAs considered differently under tough majors at tough schools.

Wouldnt that mean he was agreeing with Farva? Because Farva's comments imply that low GPA engineers should be looked differently and be favored. Im not sure what Med Ed and mimelim are disputing on

 

[efle]

Wouldnt that mean he was agreeing with Farva? Because Farva's comments imply that low GPA engineers should be looked differently and be favored. Im not sure what Med Ed and mimelim are disputing on

Farva said they're viewed as 4.0 > 3.4 always, regardless of context. Mimelim and med ed are saying that's not true

 

[piii]

What's the bs?

The "oh no it's so unfair that someone can go to some crappy state college and get a 4.0 studying [insert easy major] while I go to this top school that has grade deflation and studied the hardest major know to man" attitude.

Its BS. It's elitist. It avoids responsibility for your grades. GPAs are subjective across every student, every class, every major within one school. That's why the MCAT is the equalizer.

This pops up every time, and somehow EVERY top school is apparently notorious for grade deflation. And the comment poster is @Officer Farva who just posted about how he's entitled to get interviews from lesser schools cause he got one from penn - proves my point. If he says his experience is anecdotal, then I bet he'd get th same 3.4 GPA at a state college.

 

[Lawpy]

Farva said they're viewed as 4.0 > 3.4 always, regardless of context. Mimelim and med ed are saying that's not true

.... Wait then whats the issue here? We all agree that admissions factors in rigor and undergrad selectivity. The AAMC survey illustrates that. So what are we arguing here?

 

[Officer Farva]

Is it a naive method to evaluate applicants based on the skills/assets they can provide to medicine? As well as providing specific context to GPA? Because in mimelim and Officer Farva examples, i'm not sure how the engineering major with a low GPA is beaten out by some applicant in a fluff/grade-inflation major that provides no significant benefits to medicine

True, skills >>>>>> GPA in an ideal world. Who is going to cure the next disease, the bioengineering major or the literature major?

 

[Med Ed]

Never have. Just anecdotal experience from me and a few friends.

As long as we're clear that you're just making things up.

 

[Officer Farva]

The "oh no it's so unfair that someone can go to some crappy state college and get a 4.0 studying [insert easy major] while I go to this top school that has grade deflation and studied the hardest major know to man" attitude.

Its BS. It's elitist. It avoids responsibility for your grades. GPAs are subjective across every student, every class, every major within one school. That's why the MCAT is the equalizer.

This pops up every time, and somehow EVERY top school is apparently notorious for grade inflation. And the comment poster is @Officer Farva who just posted about how he's entitled to get interviews from lesser schools cause he got one from penn - proves my point. If he says his experience is anecdotal, then I bet he'd get th same 3.4 GPA at a state college.

I took genetics one summer at a local state college. While my friends who were taking genetics at my school were mapping genes to chromsomes and analyzing experimental data, I was asked basic questions on transcription vs translation, and also "What is a gene?".

 

[Lawpy]

True, skills >>>>>> GPA in an ideal world. Who is going to cure the next disease, the bioengineering major or the literature major?

I wouldnt go that far since literature/humanities majors have creativity aspects linked to it, which is critical for medicine. I just think exercise major is useless. And the cliched biology major provides little to no skills whatsoever.

 

[Officer Farva]

I wouldnt go that far since literature/humanities majors have creativity aspects linked to it, which is critical for medicine. I just think exercise major is useless. And the cliched biology major provides little to no skills whatsoever.

My bad, agreed on that point.

 

[Med Ed]

I just wanted to know what everyone's opinions may be between two applicants with the following characteristics:

1) High MCAT (98th+ percentile); low GPA (~3.2-3.3 science and cumulative); and very strong ECs (10+ publications)

versus

2) Average MCAT + GPA (for accepted students) and cookie-cutter ECs

Which one would be admitted to medical school? Does either candidate have a better shot at low/mid/top tier schools?

There isn't enough information here to inform a decent discussion. Where are these candidates from? Under what family/economic circumstances were they raised? When and why did they decide to pursue medicine? How good are their PS's? What were their undergrad institutions? What were their majors? How were their course loads? How strong are the LOR's? How were the interviews? What circumstances might mitigate any weaknesses in their apps?

These are just a few of the questions that come to mind.

 

[Med Ed]

.... Wait then whats the issue here? We all agree that admissions factors in rigor and undergrad selectivity. The AAMC survey illustrates that. So what are we arguing here?

Here's an interesting question: why do ~10% of applicants with 3.80+ GPAs and 39+ MCATs not get accepted?

 

[Officer Farva]

Here's an interesting question: why do ~10% of applicants with 3.80+ GPAs and 39+ MCATs not get accepted?

I am actually very curious about that. Are they falling through the cracks? Do the mid and low tiers think they will attend a top 10. While the top 10s nowadays prize X-factors above all else nowadays and they lack a certain x-factor.

 

[mimelim]

So then why do med admissions so heavily prioritize high GPAs?

Wouldnt that mean he was agreeing with Farva? Because Farva's comments imply that low GPA engineers should be looked differently and be favored. Im not sure what Med Ed and mimelim are disputing on

I'm getting a little confused myself, so let me try to summarize my thoughts without really referring directly to anyone.

There are going to be differences of opinion among adcoms, but I think that the majority, if not most would agree on the following:

#1 I didn't initially reply to this thread for a simple reason. The premise is silly. We do not compare applicants like this. It is not a competition between two applicants. You are competing with the field. So while you can derive "chances" or who would be "preferred", it is a very indirect measurement.
#2 GPA is just a number. It can mean a whole lot of different things depending on modulating factors such as school, course load, major, extenuating circumstances etc. It means very little by itself except...
#3 Schools prefer higher scores for a number of reasons, arguable how important those reasons are. For starters, higher scores generally means better students with better habits. They also generally mean that students are less likely to struggle with future academics/tests. The less they struggle, the theory is, the more time they will have to learn everything else that goes into becoming a physician.

 

[efle]

What these discussions of "I go to a top school and have a high MCAT so that explains why my GPA is low" seem to miss is that by and large the majority of people with high MCAT scores at any school also have good GPAs.

https://www.career.cornell.edu/resources/upload/applicant_guide_v2014.pdf
Cornell: 179/224 people who hit 36+ on the MCAT also have a 3.6+

National statistics
https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstablea23.pdf
36-38 MCAT: 6900/9000 have a 3.6+

As you can see the ratios are pretty damn close to identical. Point is no matter where you go if you have a high MCAT score and a low GPA you arent the majority at all. At all types of schools, people who hit 36+ tend to have solid GPAs. If you have a high MCAT and low GPA, that is often more a reflection on you than it is the school and its overall rigor regardless of where you go. Plenty of people at your school, no matter where you went who had that 36+ also did better than you in the classroom. There's just no getting around it.

That's not the crowd of concern in most of these discussions though. True, if you're in the top few percent of medical hopefuls you'll probably be fine academically anywhere. The people getting screwed are the ones with a low 30s MCAT that now have a GPA in the low 3s instead of high 3s.

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile app

 

[mimelim]

I am actually very curious about that. Are they falling through the cracks? Do the mid and low tiers think they will attend a top 10. While the top 10s nowadays prize X-factors above all else nowadays and they lack a certain x-factor.

The answer is far simpler than that. They are ****ty applicants. A high MCAT/GPA combo is not enough to say that they will be a good physician. I think you can make the argument that they are more likely to survive the training than others, but that doesn't mean that they are the best fit for a medical school class.

 

[Lawpy]

Here's an interesting question: why do ~10% of applicants with 3.80+ GPAs and 39+ MCATs not get accepted?

Stats are necessary but not sufficient?

 

[Officer Farva]

The answer is far simpler than that. They are ****ty applicants. A high MCAT/GPA combo is not enough to say that they will be a good physician. I think you can make the argument that they are more likely to survive the training than others, but that doesn't mean that they are the best fit for a medical school class.

What makes a ****ty applicant with high stats? No EC's? Maybe average EC's? I knew plenty of LizzyM 75-80s who could not get in and I consider them smarter than me. They invested a lot into their ECs.

 

[Govols22]

Better is vague because we're making personality comparisons from there. I'd argue that the 3.4 engineer would provide a lot of critical assets and skills to medicine than the 4.0 exercise science major. Why? Because medicine depends heavily on engineering to be efficient, and the engineering skills learned can help improve medical technology. Are there any benefits of exercise major? Maybe for PT school but kinda useless for medicine (i'm probably wrong so i apologize in advance).

But this is purely made in terms of major only. Thats why it'd be better to favor the engineer.

As someone who is reaching the end of his Exercise Science degree, I disagree. I thought I learned a lot of interesting things. There were a good amount of anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics classes that I found interesting. Many of the classes are primarily focused on the musculoskeletal system, which can be interesting for someone who wants to go into ortho. Is it as difficult as any engineering major? Nope. But if someone aced Orgo, Chem, Physics, Biology, and Biochem.... are they a weak applicant because they majored in exercise science? Nope. Personally, I don't envision much of what I do in undergrad to ultimately affect my performance as a doctor. But I damn sure understand the importance of exercising and its role in good health. No regrets. Plus, it's funny watching the Pre PT kids duke it out.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm getting a little confused myself, so let me try to summarize my thoughts without really referring directly to anyone.

There are going to be differences of opinion among adcoms, but I think that the majority, if not most would agree on the following:

#1 I didn't initially reply to this thread for a simple reason. The premise is silly. We do not compare applicants like this. It is not a competition between two applicants. You are competing with the field. So while you can derive "chances" or who would be "preferred", it is a very indirect measurement.
#2 GPA is just a number. It can mean a whole lot of different things depending on modulating factors such as school, course load, major, extenuating circumstances etc. It means very little by itself except...
#3 Schools prefer higher scores for a number of reasons, arguable how important those reasons are. For starters, higher scores generally means better students with better habits. They also generally mean that students are less likely to struggle with future academics/tests. The less they struggle, the theory is, the more time they will have to learn everything else that goes into becoming a physician.

So you would say admissions isnt a zero-sum game?

As someone who is reaching the end of his Exercise Science degree, I disagree. I thought I learned a lot of interesting things. There were a good amount of anatomy, physiology, and biomechanics classes that I found interesting. Many of the classes are primarily focused on the musculoskeletal system, which can be interesting for someone who wants to go into ortho. Is it as difficult as any engineering major? Nope. But if someone aced Orgo, Chem, Physics, Biology, and Biochem.... are they a weak applicant because they majored in exercise science? Nope. Personally, I don't envision much of what I do in undergrad to ultimately affect my performance as a doctor. But I damn sure understand the importance of exercising and its role in good health. No regrets. Plus, it's funny watching the Pre PT kids duke it out.

But arent those skills simply repeated in a much deeper and more clinical focus in medical school? What are the non-medical skills from exercise major that can be useful in medicine?

 

[efle]

I'd throw out terrible school lists as a reason as well. If they look at their numbers, school numbers, and then apply only to the top ~10 because they match, good chance they get no acceptances.

 

[GrapesofRath]

That's not the crowd of concern in most of these discussions though. True, if you're in the top few percent of medical hopefuls you'll probably be fine academically anywhere. The people getting screwed are the ones with a low 30s MCAT that now have a GPA in the low 3s instead of high 3s.

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile app

I brought up the 36+ MCAT because that's what the initial post was about. And whenever we have this discussion, the high MCAT/low GPA from a top school is already a point of interest.

As for what you are saying you can compare the same AAMC table to a top 20 school like Emory(I didnt use Cornell because their MCAT range for there stats is too big at 30-35)
http://career.emory.edu/images/parents_images_pdf/2013_med_mcat_gpa.pdf

% of applicants with a 30-32 MCAT score with a 3.0-3.6 GPA

National Statistics: roughly 13,600/35,000
Emory: 29/66 24/68 for the ranges 30-31 and 32-33 respectively

As you can see not really a big difference. More people arent really being screwed at top schools for the low GPA/30-32 MCAT range than the national average.

 

[Nietzschelover]

The "oh no it's so unfair that someone can go to some crappy state college and get a 4.0 studying [insert easy major] while I go to this top school that has grade deflation and studied the hardest major know to man" attitude.

Its BS. It's elitist. It avoids responsibility for your grades. GPAs are subjective across every student, every class, every major within one school. That's why the MCAT is the equalizer.

This pops up every time, and somehow EVERY top school is apparently notorious for grade deflation. And the comment poster is @Officer Farva who just posted about how he's entitled to get interviews from lesser schools cause he got one from penn - proves my point. If he says his experience is anecdotal, then I bet he'd get th same 3.4 GPA at a state college.

Please try to be more pissed off, arrogant, disparaging and dismissive in your postings. No need to hold back.

 

[Med Ed]

What makes a ****ty applicant with high stats? No EC's? Maybe average EC's?

Keep going...

 

[Officer Farva]

Keep going...

Bad interview of course, but interviewing is a trick that can be easily learned after the first time. I mean, how bad can EC's possibly be? I knew people who took years/summers off from ECs with mediocre stats who got into my state school.

 

[Med Ed]

Bad interview of course, but interviewing is a trick that can be easily learned after the first time. I mean, how bad can EC's possibly be? I knew people who took years/summers off from ECs with mediocre stats who got into my state school.

Let's reframe the question: how many ways can a high stat applicant kill his/her chances? We'll see how long the differential gets.

 

[Officer Farva]

Let's reframe the question: how many ways can a high stat applicant kill his/her chances? We'll see how long the differential gets.

It's funny, by the way we are talking, it almost feels like we are talking about a 2.0/20 MCAT applicant 😉

 

[starspells]

Let's reframe the question: how many ways can a high stat applicant kill his/her chances? We'll see how long the differential gets.

-Bad/irrelevant/no ECs
-poor school list (hubris?)
-IAs or legal trouble (probably more rare among these applicants
-bad or irrelevant PS
-awkward AF

 

[WedgeDawg]

Let's reframe the question: how many ways can a high stat applicant kill his/her chances? We'll see how long the differential gets.

Bad interview
Bad personal statement
Bad letters
Bad secondaries
Bad ECs or missing vital components
Red flag
Poor school list
Late application
Any combination of the above

 

[Govols22]

But arent those skills simply repeated in a much deeper and more clinical focus in medical school? What are the non-medical skills from exercise major that can be useful in medicine?

Well I think my program makes a big emphasis on how to communicate and talk to patients/clients. We spend a good amount of time learning and practicing the most effective ways of talking to sedentary people and convincing them to exercise. Learning how to convince a sedentary and obese person to exercise is similar to convincing patients to take their medicine. I think it builds a good bit of interviewer and communication skills.

 

[mimelim]

What makes a ****ty applicant with high stats? No EC's? Maybe average EC's? I knew plenty of LizzyM 75-80s who could not get in and I consider them smarter than me. They invested a lot into their ECs.

I will try to be blunt. The job of the admissions committee is to build a class of students who will become future physicians. Despite the opinions of most pre-meds, this is NOT about them individually. This process is not about rewarding people for being the best. This is about finding the 'best' future physicians. I think that an argument can be made that at 'top' schools they are not only looking for students that are 'guaranteed' to be good physicians and have the potential to be great/leaders of the field. So, what makes someone less desirable?

#1 Poor academics (GPA/MCAT/modulating factors), if you have a lower chance of surviving the training, there is less reason to accept you.
#2 Drive (ECs/PS/LOR/Interview), people who are not motivated do not get as much done. They realize that they can coast/do minimal and still get through and so they don't end up benefiting their community/others as much as they could.
#3 Poor understanding of medicine (ECs/PS/LOR/Interview), there are many applicants (I was one of them) who had no clue what medicine was when they applied. They are at much higher risk for burning out, dropping out or simply being less productive.

I have interacted with hundreds of medical students and residents. I can readily identify dozens who I think their medical school spot could have been better used. My biggest headaches right now are the residents who were those medical students that got in with great scores and were admitted despite having obvious other deficiencies.

 

[Officer Farva]

I also have this suspicion that schools may view a normal high stat reapplicant with suspicion since something MUST be wrong with them even if they do everything right. Let's face it, sometimes you can do everything right and still mess up.