Correlation between MCAT/GPA and institution?

[AcademicAnon]

I realize different schools vary in their difficulty and to take this into account, the MCAT is used as an "even" playing field (obviously it's not perfect.) I'm wondering if there are any studies out there that show correlations between MCAT, GPA, and institution.

If the hypothesis is correct, then MCAT scores should be higher at some institutions, and at said institutions, the GPA should correlate with MCAT scores.

Any ideas? I realize this has probably been discussed several times but I'm curious if there's any recent information that could shed light on this!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Goro]

MCAT results and Step I scores vary from school to school, especially when looking at MCAT subsections.

I realize different schools vary in their difficulty and to take this into account, the MCAT is used as an "even" playing field (obviously it's not perfect.) I'm wondering if there are any studies out there that show correlations between MCAT, GPA, and institution.

If the hypothesis is correct, then MCAT scores should be higher at some institutions, and at said institutions, the GPA should correlate with MCAT scores.

Any ideas? I realize this has probably been discussed several times but I'm curious if there's any recent information that could shed light on this!

 

[GrapesofRath]

http://www.career.ucla.edu/Portals/14/Documents/PDF/MedStats/2013 Medical School Admissions Statistics.pdf
https://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/FirstTimeApplicantsAcceptance Rates.pdf
http://opsa.tamu.edu/OPSA/media/library/Documents/PDFs/Med-2014-report.pdf
https://careercenter.umich.edu/article/2014-medical-school-application-statistics
https://career.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/MedStats/Acceptance-Rates-MCAT-GPA-2014.pdf
https://www.jmu.edu/pph/premed/_files/JMU Admissions to Allopathic Medical Schools.pdf
https://www.career.cornell.edu/resources/upload/applicant_guide_v2014.pdf
http://as.vanderbilt.edu/hpao/documents/2014_Annual_Report.pdf
http://career.emory.edu/images/prehealth_documents/AMCAS 7 Year Composite Matriculate Chart.pdf

Google a school and youll likely find the average GPA and MCAT of the people who get into medical school from there. Do all the digging and time itll take and come to your own conclusions.

 

[gyngyn]

http://www.career.ucla.edu/Portals/14/Documents/PDF/MedStats/2013 Medical School Admissions Statistics.pdf
https://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/FirstTimeApplicantsAcceptance Rates.pdf
http://opsa.tamu.edu/OPSA/media/library/Documents/PDFs/Med-2014-report.pdf
https://careercenter.umich.edu/article/2014-medical-school-application-statistics
https://career.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/MedStats/Acceptance-Rates-MCAT-GPA-2014.pdf
https://www.jmu.edu/pph/premed/_files/JMU Admissions to Allopathic Medical Schools.pdf
https://www.career.cornell.edu/resources/upload/applicant_guide_v2014.pdf
http://as.vanderbilt.edu/hpao/documents/2014_Annual_Report.pdf
http://career.emory.edu/images/prehealth_documents/AMCAS 7 Year Composite Matriculate Chart.pdf

Google a school and youll likely find the average GPA and MCAT of the people who get into medical school from there. Do all the digging and time itll take and come to your own conclusions.

Self reported data is so hard to believe, er interpret.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Self reported data is so hard to interpret.

For what the OP wants to do itll give them a reasonable idea and estimate.

 

[gyngyn]

For what the OP wants to do itll give them a reasonable idea and estimate.

I really did mean believe...

 

[GrapesofRath]

I really did mean believe...

What causes you to question their credibility?

It's one thing when private schools openly advertise and pull the infamous "Over 80% of our grads get into MD schools" line, when in reality they actively discourage/block people who arent competitive from applying. But these charts include people who have no business applying to medical school in their data(ie 2.8/25) so I dont think that's really the issue here.

 

[AcademicAnon]

@gyngyn @GrapesofRath @Giro

More simply, is there a correlation between MCAT score and GPA of people who take the exam?

I cringe at the thought of analyzing data that only takes into account applicants because there's a non-trivial number of students at the lower end of the GPA spectrum who do not sit for the MCAT.

 

[gyngyn]

What causes you to question their credibility?

It's one thing when private schools pull the infamous "85% of our grads get into MD schools"when in reality they actively discourage/block people who arent competitive to apply. But these charts include people who have no business applying to medical school in their data(ie 2.8/25) so I dont think that's really the issue here.

Schools do have a reason to make it appear that a lower gpa from their school will be comparatively more successful, though. How they define an applicant could help them achieve this goal.

 

[Lawpy]

Just leaving this here:

@efle

 

[GrapesofRath]

Schools do have a reason to make it appear that a lower gpa will be comparatively more successful, though.

But how are they doing this in such a way that makes it hard to believe?

It's one thing when these schools actively block people with low GPAs from applying but schools that do this often wont publish these types of charts. You can see in these charts people with low GPAs and their results. Do you think these schools are fabricating parts of this data and excluding lots of unsuccessful applicants? On the surface that doesnt seem likely; schools like Cornell, WashU and Vanderbilt are coming in at about 65-70% acceptance rates for their students which sounds about normal and isnt at that 80-90+% level many other top private schools openly advertise which is when red flags start going up.

Edit: What do you mean by "how they define an applicant"?

 

[gyngyn]

But how are they doing this in such a way that makes it hard to believe?

It's one thing when these schools actively block people with low GPAs from applying but schools that do this often wont publish these types of charts. You can see in these charts people with low GPAs and their results. Do you think these schools are purely just fabricating this data and excluding lots of unsuccessful applicants? On the surface that doesnt seem likely; schools like Cornell, WashU and Vanderbilt are coming in at about 65-70% acceptance rates for their students which sounds about normal and isnt at that 80+% level many other top private schools openly advertise which makes you question the veracity of such a advertisment.

There is no way to standardize or verify these reports. Given the stakes, I'd take them all with a grain of salt. Of course some of them may be accurate. I can't tell which ones, though.
I believe centrally reported data from AMCAS, that's about it.

 

[GrapesofRath]

There is no way to standardize or verify these reports. Given the stakes, I'd take them all with a grain of salt. Of course some of them may be accurate. I can't tell which ones ,though.
I believe centrally reported data from AMCAS, that 's about it.

Fair enough, I guess the logical question is have you ever personally seen an example of a private school that releases such charts manipulate/fabricate their data in a way that's rather misleading or significantly changes the results? I'm not talking about the "X% of our grads get into medical school", I'm talking about charts that in theory tell you how everyone of their grads did, even those with low stats. I could see where your skepticism could come from if you have encountered something like this.

 

[gyngyn]

Fair enough, I guess the logical question is have you ever personally ever seen an example of a private school that releases such charts manipulate/fabricate their data in a way that's rather misleading or significantly changes the results? I could see where your skepticism could come from then.

I've seen public institutions do it!

 

[GrapesofRath]

I've seen public institutions do it!

To clarify your not talking about schools actively discouraging low stat applicants to not apply to protect their stats, you're talking more about schools blatantly fabricating data/leaving out certain unsuccessful applicants in their data they release? I guess that relates to what you were talking about with how a schools "definition" of applicant might vary/change.

 

[gyngyn]

To clarify your not talking about schools actively discouraging low stat applicants to not apply to protect their stats, you're talking more about schools blatantly fabricating data/leaving out certain unsuccessful applicants in their data they release?

By defining terms idiosyncratically one can achieve many goals.
If you only define an applicant as someone who has a committee letter, or not including transfer students...

 

[GrapesofRath]

By defining terms idiosyncratically one can achieve many goals.
If you only define an applicant as someone who has a committee letter, for example.

This I could absoultely see happening.

 

[efle]

Grapes beat me to it. Yes, many top 20 names publish very high average MCATs, and yes the higher MCATs tend to go with higher GPAs. You can make comparisons against the AAMC national dataset.

Should stress that this isn't evidence of the schools being particularly good at preparing you for the MCAT though. It's that the schools attract hard workers that do well on exams, whittle them down to the top ~1/3rd, and then get nice high acceptance rate numbers to publish.

By defining terms idiosyncratically one can achieve many goals.
If you only define an applicant as someone who has a committee letter, or not including transfer students...

This I could absoultely see happening.

The stuff Grapes posted generally shows GPA bins down below 3, so do they really refuse anyone a letter?

 

[GrapesofRath]

Grapes beat me to it. Yes, many top 20 names publish very high average MCATs, and yes the higher MCATs tend to go with higher GPAs. You can make comparisons against the AAMC national dataset.

Should stress that this isn't evidence of the schools being particularly good at preparing you for the MCAT though. It's that the schools attract hard workers that do well on exams, whittle them down to the top ~1/3rd, and then get nice high acceptance rate numbers to publish.



The stuff Grapes posted generally shows GPA bins down below 3, so do they really refuse anyone a letter?

It honestly wouldnt shock me if they throw some of those sub 3.0 data points in their for "show" just to prevent suspicion of the games they play with their stats. It's not out right fabrication of data per se, it's just twisting things in ways you might not expect. I tend to suspect however these games dont significant affect their data. Schools like WashU Cornell and VAndy are advertising 65-70% acceptance rates with their data. That's a far cry from many private schools advertising 85+%.

Didnt you do an analysis last year about the schools with most pre-meds and most pre-med applicants using AAMC data? Maybe you can compare how many applicants the AAMC says a school like Emory or Vandy or WashU has a year and compare it to what those charts published by the schools claim. If there's a real difference that can show that schools are "hiding" certain applicants in their data.

 

[AirplaneFruit]

You can look at a list of schools who list their average GPA of their matriculants to med school.

I think Princeton and MIT matriculants average ~3.5 GPAs

 

[efle]

It honestly wouldnt shock me if they throw some of those sub 3.0 data points in their for "show" just to prevent suspicion of the games they play with their stats. It's not out right fabrication of data per se, it's just twisting things in ways you might not expect. I tend to suspect however these games dont significant affect their data. Schools like WashU Cornell and VAndy are advertising 65-70% acceptance rates with their data. That's a far cry from many private schools advertising 85+%.

Didnt you do an analysis last year about the schools with most pre-meds and most pre-med applicants using AAMC data? Maybe you can compare how many applicants the AAMC says a school like Emory or Vandy or WashU has a year and compare it to what those charts published by the schools claim. If there's a real difference that can show that schools are "hiding" certain applicants in their data.

Now this is interesting. WashU graduated 354 medical applicants last report, 379 this report according to AMCAS. Yet from the prehealth page you linked earlier, there are 1087 included from 2011-2015. Hmm.

I don't think this is because we refuse to write letters for hundreds of people though. The table also says " First-Time Applicants and Acceptees from WU Arts & Sciences " so I'd bet the missing people are due to 1) high numbers of reapplicants and 2) applicants coming out of engineering, business, art.

What schools claim 85+%???

 

[GrapesofRath]

Now this is interesting. WashU graduated 354 medical applicants last report, 379 this report according to AMCAS. Yet from the prehealth page you linked earlier, there are 1087 included from 2011-2015. Hmm.

I don't think this is because we refuse to write letters for hundreds of people though. The table also says " First-Time Applicants and Acceptees from WU Arts & Sciences " so I'd bet the missing people are due to 1) high numbers of reapplicants and 2) applicants coming out of engineering, business, art.

What schools claim 85+%???

Well why do you think they exclude people from the engineering school and the other ones? Probably lots of low GPAs coming out from there or those who just dont really pursue the ECs medical schools want and hence people who dont have as much success in admission. It's not some coincidence that they just decide they wont include those groups in their data, they have the data from those schools and choose not to present it deliberately. If the data would help them and present them in a more favorable light, you bet your a** they would present it.

WashU isnt a good example though because they dont include all the schools. Try comparing to the data from AAMC to another school I linked above like Emory or something.

https://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/explore/admission-facts
http://admissions.duke.edu/experience/excellence
http://ocs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/med_school_stats.pdf
http://dartmouthperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/11/so-you-want-to-be-pre-med.html

That 85% number gets thrown around like Halloween candy by many of these big name schools. In particular Yale claiming they have only "173" pre-meds apply to medical school in a given year is pretty laughable. So I dont think the fabrication and "gamesmanship" is as bad at WashU or Cornell or Vandy who release their stats specifically as some of these other big name schools who have no problem telling people "85+% acceptance rate to medical school take it to the bank!". But there still is a level of manipulation that goes on at those schools even which is why gyngyn isnt really buying what they're selling.

 

[Officer Farva]

I realize different schools vary in their difficulty and to take this into account, the MCAT is used as an "even" playing field (obviously it's not perfect.) I'm wondering if there are any studies out there that show correlations between MCAT, GPA, and institution.

If the hypothesis is correct, then MCAT scores should be higher at some institutions, and at said institutions, the GPA should correlate with MCAT scores.

Any ideas? I realize this has probably been discussed several times but I'm curious if there's any recent information that could shed light on this!

Probably. But I will tell you that my school probably leads the country in low GPA/high MCAT applicants. I think the average person applying from my school is a 3.5/33-34.

 

[efle]

Probably. But I will tell you that my school probably leads the country in low GPA/high MCAT applicants. I think the average person applying from my school is a 3.5/33-34.

That sounds about right, the median sGPA / MCAT for WashU is ~3.4x / 33ish.

 

[efle]

Well why do you think they exclude people from the engineering school and the other ones? Probably lots of low GPAs coming out from there or those who just dont really pursue the ECs medical schools want and hence people who dont have as much success in admission. It's not some coincidence that they just decide they wont include those groups in their data, they have the data from those schools and choose not to present it deliberately. If the data would help them and present them in a more favorable light, you bet your a** they would present it.

WashU isnt a good example though because they dont include all the schools. Try comparing to the data from AAMC to another school I linked above like Emory or something.

https://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/explore/admission-facts
http://admissions.duke.edu/experience/excellence
http://ocs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/med_school_stats.pdf
http://dartmouthperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/11/so-you-want-to-be-pre-med.html

That 85% number gets thrown around like Halloween candy by many of these big name schools. In particular Yale claiming they have only "173" pre-meds apply to medical school in a given year is pretty laughable. So I dont think the fabrication and "gamesmanship" is as bad at WashU or Cornell or Vandy who release their stats specifically as some of these other big name schools who have no problem telling people "85+% acceptance rate to medical school take it to the bank!". But there still is a level of manipulation that goes on at those schools even which is why gyngyn isnt really buying what they're selling.

Wow, yeah I don't buy 80+% for a second. So not only are high schoolers given no warning about the majority weed out attrition rates, they're pretty much lied to about success even for those that make it.

 

[Officer Farva]

That sounds about right, the median sGPA / MCAT for WashU is ~3.4x / 33ish.

I don't want to derail this thread into a battle between State U's and MIT/University of Chicago type of schools, but how does WashU place their students into graduate programs in the sciences?

As I have complained, my school places all of its candidates basically to the Islands/DO programs, some going to low tier MD if they are lucky. However, our graduate placement is phenomenal despite the low average GPA. The least prestigious graduate program you will go to is the alma mater, although we routinely place people to top 5-10 programs in the sciences/engineering/CS.

 

[efle]

I don't want to derail this thread into a battle between State U's and MIT/University of Chicago type of schools, but how does WashU place their students into graduate programs in the sciences?

As I have complained, my school places all of its candidates basically to the Islands/DO programs, some going to low tier MD if they are lucky. However, our graduate placement is phenomenal despite the low average GPA. The least prestigious graduate program you will go to is the alma mater, although we routinely place people to top 5-10 programs in the sciences/engineering/CS.

I've never heard of anyone going Carib or actually DO, though I do know a few reapplicants that applied middle and low range MD with no luck. I also know a few that had strong numbers and went insanely good places like full rides to top 20s. No idea what the usual luck is like for the typical 3.4 or 3.5 / 33 though, I'd guess people mostly have best chances with state schools if they're from the Midwest states