David vs Goliath: A story for underdogs aka me

[GoldMember1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello all,

I’m new to sdn but I would like to share an underdog story along with my own.

Caroline Sacks (real person, fake name) fell in love with science at a young age. Her family used to call her science girl because she collected bugs, loved science novels etc.. She was also an outstanding student growing up. She received straight A’s all throughout grade school and high school and never once received a B. In high school she took 1 or 2 college level courses at a local community college and also scored very well on her SATs and AP course exams. She worked hard and her hard work paid off. The next step for Caroline was college. After searching for some time, she was down to 2 choices - Brown University and University of Maryland. After visiting Brown she fell in love with the school, especially for its academic prestige. Brown University is the 14th best university in the country and Caroline was sure that if she goes there she will be able to fulfill her dream of a career in science & medicine.

When Caroline started at Brown something unexpected happened. She failed Chem 1 her first semester. She was devastated. She never received anything but A’s her entire life. The teacher explained to her that she was deficient in most areas of chemistry. The following year she retook the course, the first time was just a fluke. However, Caroline didn’t perform much better the second time around, ending up with a low B. Caroline grew confused and frustrated. Then came Organic Chemistry and things only got worse. No matter how many nights she stayed up and studied she couldn’t perform well on orgo exams. “I worked so hard and never got it down,” she said. For her second exam, she put in extra preparation to ensure she would perform well. She stayed up until 3am for weeks before her test. Unfortunately, Caroline had failed again. At this point she was disheveled, disheartened and began to question her major. She became ashamed of herself and her failures and decided to switch out of science - the subject she had loved her entire life.

What was Caroline’s problem? Was Caroline not smart enough? Was she incapable of taking rigorous science courses and completing a science major? Could be. However, it could also be because of something entirely separate from her intellectual capabilities. Brown University only accepts the top students in the nation. The fact that Caroline is at Brown theoretically makes her a better overall student than 90% of the students around the US that were taking Organic Chemistry at the time. The problem for Caroline was not her inability to perform well in Orgo, it was the fact that the students she was being compared to were 19 of the smartest students in the nation. The real curve busters. They made her look and feel stupid, even though she wasn’t stupid at all. If Caroline had gone to University of Maryland instead, would she be in medical school?


My story is a lot like Caroline’s. After high school I moved across the country to attend college. It wasn’t Brown University, but it wasn’t a community college either. It probably falls smack dab in between the two. During my time there I performed very well in my pre-med courses. A’s in pre-calc and calculus, Bs in chemistry, As in biology, As in Anatomy and Physio, and so on.. I had a 3.6 GPA, well on my way to medical school. After 2 years at the college, I decided to transfer to a prestigious university, to increase my chances of getting into medical school, as I was advised to do at the time. The school I transferred to was the best in its state and arguably the best in the region. It’s nationally ranked and known for its pre-med program. When I transferred the fall of my junior year, my grades took a turn for the worse. Cs in orgo I, orgo II, physics I and physics II – the most important classes on a medical school application. Things were different. There were 45 min waits to see my professors. Students were called out by numbers and not by name. I didn’t find out until a year later that the best way to study at this school was to seek extra help through third party businesses that specializes in help for specific teachers. It was completely different, I felt lost in a sea of 1,000 students per class and like Caroline I was falling short on the curves. My sGPA took a huge hit. Consequently, while applying to medical school this past cycle, I didn’t receive 1 interview (both MD or DO).

The past few years, I have volunteered for a traveling health clinic that provides healthcare to underserved communities. I have had the opportunity to work alongside some great primary care physicians. Humbly speaking, I have had nurses, PAs and physicians approach me and tell me that they are absolutely confident that I have what it takes to be an outstanding physician. I am now in the process of retaking Orgo over the summer at a local community college, in hopes for a successful application to DO programs the next time around, to fulfill my dream of becoming a primary care physician. Will those Cs I received at the prestigious institution count against me in my reapplication? Probably. Are my chances of getting into an allopathic school shot? Maybe. Does it mean I don’t have the intellectual capacity to succeed in medical school and become a quality physician? Absolutely not.

What Caroline and I have experienced is a real phenomena that sociologists call “relative deprivation” and it affects many smart students pursuing medical school. Our stories are just one of many occurrences.

Here is an example:

If you look at Harvard University students, the most prestigious university in the world, and divide the STEM majors into three categories (Top students, Middle Students, Bottom students) based on their average Math SAT scores (1990 SAT scoring) you get this:

Top students/ Middle students/ Bottom students

Math SAT: 753/ 674 / 581

If you look at the percent of those students that earned science degrees and got into professional schools, pharmacy schools etc.. this is what it looks like:

Top students/ Middle students/ Bottom students

Percentages: 53 % / 31 % / 15%

So 53% if the top STEM students at Harvard, based on their Math SAT scores go on to earn science degrees (and pursue professional schools etc..) while only 15% of the bottom students earn the same opportunities.

If you look at the same numbers for Hartwick University, a less prestigious school you get this:

Top students/ Middle students/ Bottom students

Math SAT: 569 / 472 / 407

And the percent of those students that earn science degrees (and go on to professional schools):

Top students/ Middle students/ Bottom students

Percentages: 55 % / 27 % / 17.8%


To me these are extremely revealing statistics. Why is it that 55% of the top students at Hartwick, with Math Sat scores clearly below the bottom Harvard students, are able to stay in science (and go off to professional schools)? Yet, only 15% of the bottom STEM majors at Harvard, with Math SAT scores well above the top Hartwick students, have the same opportunities.

Why is it that professional school will accept the top half of the Hartwick students but not the bottom half of the Harvard students? It’s most likely because the GPA of the bottom students don’t reflect the ranges that medical schools are looking for. It doesn’t matter that the bottom half of Harvard students went to Harvard if they’re sGPA is a 2.9. My Cs at the more prestigious university don’t count as Bs on my transcript. Medical schools don’t dock students for not attending the best schools; they dock students who attend those schools but don’t fall in the top part of their curve. This example also holds true for universities across the board.

There are many stories like these in Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants, if anyone's interested. I thought I would share this as one of my first posts because it really spoke about the situation I'm in and I’m sure there are others in this situation as well. Finally, I’ll end by saying this. If you’re an underdog like me, don’t ever give up like Caroline did if this is your dream because ultimately in the end, David ends up beating Goliath and wins.

**Credit for Caroline’s story and the statistics on Universities goes to Malcolm Gladwell’s book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, misfits and the art of battling giants.**

EDIT: Disclaimer- my intention is not to whine, call out any schools or knock any students in this post, rather to share my story and raise a valid, debatable issue that affects premed students.

EDIT 2: For more information, you can watch Mr. Gladwell's lecture at http://drunkonlife.net/malcolm-gladwell-on-relative-deprivation-theory/

 

[Chipster.]

Hello all,

I’m new to sdn but I would like to share a story.




Caroline Sacks (real person, fake name) fell in love with science starting from a young age. Her family used to call her science girl because she collected bugs, loved science novels etc.. She was also an outstanding student growing up. She received straight A’s all throughout grade school and high school and never once received a B. In high school she took 1 or 2 college level courses at a local community college and also scored very well on her SATs and AP course exams. She worked hard and her hard work paid off. The next step for Caroline was college. After searching for some time, she was down to 2 choices - Brown University and University of Maryland. After visiting Brown she fell in love with the school, especially for its academic prestige. Brown University is the 14th best university in the country and Caroline was sure that if she goes there she will be able to fulfill her dream of a career in science & medicine.

When Caroline started at Brown something unexpected happened. She failed Chem 1 her first semester. She was devastated. She never received anything but A’s her entire life. The teacher explained to her that she was deficient in most areas of chemistry. The following year she retook the course, the first time was just a fluke. However, Caroline didn’t perform much better the second time around, ending up with a low B. Caroline grew confused and frustrated. Then came Organic Chemistry and things only got worse. No matter how many nights she stayed up and studied she couldn’t perform well on orgo exams. “I worked so hard and never got it down,” she said. For her second exam, she put in extra preparation to ensure she would perform well. She stayed up until 3am for weeks before her test. Unfortunately, Caroline had failed again. At this point she was disheveled, disheartened and began to question her major. She became ashamed of herself and her failures and decided to switch out of science - the subject she had loved her entire life.

What was Caroline’s problem? Was Caroline not smart enough? Was she incapable of taking rigorous science courses and completing a science major? Could be. However, it could also be because of something entirely separate from her intellectual capabilities. Brown University only accepts the top students in the nation. The fact that Caroline is at Brown theoretically makes her a better overall student than 90% of the students around the US that were taking Organic Chemistry at the time. The problem for Caroline was not her inability to perform well in Orgo, it was the fact that the students she was being compared to were 19 of the smartest students in the nation. The real curve busters. They made her look and feel stupid, even though she wasn’t stupid at all. If Caroline had gone to University of Maryland instead, would she be in medical school?


My story is a lot like Caroline’s. After high school I moved across the country to attend college. It wasn’t Brown University, but it wasn’t a community college either. It probably falls smack dab in between the two. During my time there I performed very well in my pre-med courses. A’s in pre-calc and calculus, Bs in chemistry, As in biology, As in Anatomy and Physio, and so on.. I had a 3.6 GPA, well on my way to medical school. After 2 years at the college, I decided to transfer to a prestigious university, to increase my chances of getting into medical school, as I was advised to do at the time. The school I transferred to was the best in its state and arguably the best in the region. It’s nationally ranked and known for its pre-med program. When I transferred the fall of my junior year, my grades took a turn for the worse. Cs in orgo I, orgo II, physics I and physics II – the most important classes on a medical school application. Things were different. There were 45 min waits to see my professors. Students were called out by numbers and not by name. I didn’t find out until a year later that the best way to study at this school was to seek extra help through third party businesses that specializes in help for specific teachers. It was completely different, I felt lost in a sea of 1,000 students per class and like Caroline I was falling short on the curves. My sGPA took a huge hit. Consequently, while applying to medical school this past cycle, I didn’t receive 1 interview (both MD or DO).

The past few years, I have volunteered for a traveling health clinic that provides healthcare to underserved communities. I have had the opportunity to work alongside some great primary care physicians. Humbly speaking, I have had nurses, PAs and physicians approach me and tell me that they are absolutely confident that I have what it takes to be an outstanding physician. I am now in the process of retaking Orgo over the summer at a local community college, in hopes for a successful application to DO programs the next time around, to fulfill my dream of becoming a primary care physician. Will those Cs I received at the prestigious institution count against me in my reapplication? Probably. Are my chances of getting into an allopathic school shot? Maybe. Does it mean I don’t have the intellectual capacity to succeed in medical school and become a quality physician? Absolutely not.

What Caroline and I have experienced is a real phenomena that sociologists call “relative deprivation” and it affects many smart students pursuing medical school. Our stories are just one of many occurrences.

Here is an example:

If you look at Harvard University students, the most prestigious university in the world, and divide the STEM majors into three categories (Top students, Middle Students, Bottom students) based on their average Math SAT scores (1990 SAT scoring) you get this:

Top students/ Middle students/ Bottom students

Math SAT: 753/ 674 / 581

If you look at the percent of those students that earned science degrees and got into professional schools, pharmacy schools etc.. this is what it looks like:

Top students/ Middle students/ Bottom students

Percentages: 53 % / 31 % / 15%

So 53% if the top STEM students at Harvard, based on their Math SAT scores go on to earn science degrees (and pursue professional schools etc..) while only 15% of the bottom students earn the same opportunities.

If you look at the same numbers for Hartwick University, a less prestigious school you get this:

Top students/ Middle students/ Bottom students

Math SAT: 569 / 472 / 407

And the percent of those students that earn science degrees (and go on to professional schools):

Top students/ Middle students/ Bottom students

Percentages: 55 % / 27 % / 17.8%


To me these are extremely revealing statistics. Why is it that 55% of the top students at Hartwick, with Math Sat scores clearly below the bottom Harvard students, are able to stay in science (and go off to professional schools)? Yet, only 15% of the bottom STEM majors at Harvard, with Math SAT scores well above the top Hartwick students, have the same opportunities.

Why is it that professional school will accept the top half of the Hartwick students but not the bottom half of the Harvard students? It’s most likely because the GPA of the bottom students don’t reflect the ranges that medical schools are looking for. It doesn’t matter that the bottom half of Harvard students went to Harvard if they’re sGPA is a 2.9. My Cs at the more prestigious university don’t count as Bs on my transcript. Medical schools don’t dock students for not attending the best schools; they dock students who attend those schools but don’t fall in the top part of their curve. This example also holds true for universities across the board.

There are many stories like these in Malcolm Gladwell’s new book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants, if anyone's interested. I thought I would share this as one of my first posts because it really spoke to me and the situation I'm in and I’m sure there are others in this situation as well. Finally, I’ll end by saying this. If you’re an underdog like me, don’t ever give up like Caroline did if this is your dream because ultimately in the end, David ends up beating Goliath and wins.

**Credit for Caroline’s story and the statistics on Universities goes to Malcolm Gladwell’s book, David and Goliath: Underdogs, misfits and the art of battling giants.**

but seriously, what's up with all these essays lately?

 

[Microglia]

Ok. That's it. Being at brown university does not mean you are among the top 10% of students in the nation. Many of those students went to state schools for financial reasons (such as u maryland). This story and viewpoint shows *severely* underdeveloped social skills and lack of maturity.

What's more, I went to a random state school and am currently doing perfectly well at a top med school filled with successful ivy leaguers. Not doing well in college courses isn't because the competition is tougher, it's because of an inability to adapt.

 

[loltopsy]

but seriously, what's up with all these essays lately?

You reused my gif.

 

[GoldMember1]

but seriously, what's up with all these essays lately?

This isn't rivals. I thought people on here were capable of reading.

 

[crimsonkid85]

Ok. That's it. Being at brown university does not mean you are among the top 10% of students in the nation. Many of those students went to state schools for financial reasons (such as u maryland). This story and viewpoint shows *severely* underdeveloped social skills and lack of maturity.

What's more, I went to a random state school and am currently doing perfectly well at a top med school filled with successful ivy leaguers. Not doing well in college courses isn't because the competition is tougher, it's because of an inability to adapt.

well, we don't agree on most things, but it appears we do agree on this --

If you're stupid, you're stupid. It doesn't matter whether you're stupid at CC, U of ____, Brown, or HYP. There are plenty of dumb butts at all of the aforementioned institutions, although PERHAPS there is, on average, slightly less at the latter schools.

If you can't seem to progress beyond a certain point, instead of blaming it on others being too smart, how about taking responsibility for being too stupid? That, or being too lazy. Only you know whether you're stupid or lazy, or god forbid both.

Different people have different capabilities. Sometimes it is important to recognize that you weren't meant to be a physician. You can go into marketing! lol

 

[butchmfjones]

What is this thread attempting to accomplish?

 

[supermintyfresh]

I enjoyed the read -- thanks for sharing your story! Hope all goes well on your journey to medical school -- whether it be MD or DO.

I also didn't know Gladwell had a new book -- big fan of Outliers 🙂 Off to buy it tomorrow. 🙂

 

[CooIBreeze]

Hello all,

I want to post a long-winded anecdote about how I overcame adversity. Did you know that I am the first person to ever overcome a difficult situation? Roughly 50000 students apply to medical school each year, but I am the special and unique snowflake among them. I earned a few Cs on my transcript in pre-med courses, but it clearly wasn't my fault; I didn't have the same "resources" in my ivory tower of higher learning that the stupid plebs had at the poverty colleges. I hope you enjoyed reading about how special I am and it inspires you to overcome something comparable to my situation, like losing a limb or your entire family dying.

xoxo CoolBreeze

 

[GoldMember1]

What is this thread attempting to accomplish?

I posted it mainly to share the my story for underdogs. You could take shots at me like crimsonchild or you could provide me some advice and/or feedback, or debate the content of the book. Just thought I'de share it.

 

[GoldMember1]

Hello all,

I want to post a long-winded anecdote about how I overcame adversity. Did you know that I am the first person to ever overcome a difficult situation? Roughly 50000 students apply to medical school each year, but I am the special and unique snowflake among them. I earned a few Cs on my transcript in pre-med courses, but it clearly wasn't my fault; I didn't have the same "resources" in my ivory tower of higher learning that the stupid students had at the poverty colleges. I hope you enjoyed reading about how special I am and it inspires you to overcome something comparable to my situation, like losing a limb or your entire family dying.

xoxo CoolBreeze

Look how mad this one is.

 

[Mad Jack]

This isn't a new poster, this is just MDforMee reposting his "bottom students from top schools are better than top students at bottom schools but still have trouble getting into med school" garbage. Or so I speculate...

 

[crimsonkid85]

I posted it mainly to share the my story for underdogs. You could take shots at me like crimsonchild or you could provide me some advice and/or feedback, or debate the content of the book. Just thought I'de share it.

I'm not taking shots at you boo, I'm simply pointing out the fact that being a doctor isn't solely about making nice -- although the current culture of medical education certainly makes it seem so. There are such things as core competencies.

 

[Reckoner]

I posted it mainly to share the my story for underdogs. You could take shots at me like crimsonchild or you could provide me some advice and/or feedback, or debate the content of the book. Just thought I'de share it.

Advice: stop blaming others for your failures. It's not the Hartwick student's fault that you couldn't do well in the pre-med classes at the university you chose to attend.

 

[BANGO]

..

 

[GoldMember1]

Advice: stop blaming others for your failures. It's not the Hartwick student's fault that you couldn't do well in the pre-med classes at the university you chose to attend.

Who said I'm blaming anyone for my failures? I'll straight up tell you I deserved the grades I got and I'm working to fix them.

All I'm saying is I came across this story today in Gladwell's new book, which is a very similar story to mine, and I figured I would bring it to the board to see if any one else out there can relate.

Obviously, it fell into the wrong hands.

 

[chenzt]

Don't forget that Brown's avg GPA is about 0.6 higher than many state schools. It is an entire point higher than the average CC. They are cutting Caroline Sacks some slack already.

 

[Plecopotamus]

All I'm saying is I came across this story today in Gladwell's new book, which is a very similar story to mine, and I figured I would bring it to the board to see if any one else out there can relate.

Did you at any point just question the validity of Gladwell's interpretation of the events with Caroline? G Chem 1 at Brown is hard to fail. This is not a story about a girl who was good at science and then was put in an environment where everybody was simply better than her. This is a story about a girl (and someone documenting her) with poor insight into the reality of her situation. Only 1 or 2 people per class fail it.

I wholly understand the point about academic self esteem and momentum that this story was meant to convey. However, this story was not a demonstration of it. If she never came back and did better, what reason is there to believe that she didn't simply have a misconception of her own aptitude? Perhaps that's more of a statement of the background she came from than anything to do with these highly selective environments.

. . . so perhaps a valid point with an absolutely invalid example. I can't believe I'm posting about this, but dragging my (ridiculously lenient, support-laden) alma mater in as an example of an institution that beats down their bright-but-not-quite-as-bright students rubs me the wrong way. In fact, I can't think of a single school that puts in more effort to prevent this sort of problem -- OP, do you realize that Brown doesn't report F's on transcripts so your GPA isn't tarnished and you can redeem yourself before applying to professional/grad school?

 

[DoctorWhoo]

MCAT = The great equalizer.

I'm a top student at a smaller university... still did well on the same standardized test that all the ivy-league students took. N=1, but I would have to say that there are a number of flaws and generalizations in your argument.

EDIT: What I am trying to convey is that students with 4.0's that didn't get pushed in undergrad will not perform well on the MCAT and consequently will not have advantages over students that were pushed in their undergraduate studies by ridiculous curves.

 

[GoldMember1]

I'm not taking shots at you boo, I'm simply pointing out the fact that being a doctor isn't solely about making nice -- although the current culture of medical education certainly makes it seem so. There are such things as core competencies.

This is a pre-medical post on a pre-medical forum with a title that says "..FOR UNDERDOGS". The fact that medical students feel the need to come here and knock an underdog and make suggestions about my competency is very telling about the type of physician you will be.

 

[crimsonkid85]

This is a pre-medical post on a pre-medical forum with a title that says "..FOR UNDERDOGS". The fact that medical students feel the need to come here an knock an underdog and make suggestions about my competency is very telling about the type of physician you will be.

Well....to be honest I didn't really make any suggestions about your competency that you didn't point to yourself..... :/

 

[GoldMember1]

MCAT = The great equalizer.

I'm a top student at a smaller university... still did well on the same standardized test that all the ivy-league students took. N=1, but I would have to say that there are a number of flaws and generalizations in your argument.

EDIT: What I am trying to convey is that students with 4.0's that didn't get pushed in undergrad will not perform well on the MCAT and consequently will not have advantages over students that were pushed in their undergraduate studies by ridiculous curves.

That's a good point. However, the student that was pushed hard and learned a lot but ends up on the lower part of the curve comes out with an noncompetitive GPA, regardless if he has a competitive MCAT score (like myself) and still doesn't get into medical school.

 

[GoldMember1]

Did you at any point just question the validity of Gladwell's interpretation of the events with Caroline? G Chem 1 at Brown is hard to fail. This is not a story about a girl who was good at science and then was put in an environment where everybody was simply better than her. This is a story about a girl (and someone documenting her) with poor insight into the reality of her situation. Only 1 or 2 people per class fail it.

I wholly understand the point about academic self esteem and momentum that this story was meant to convey. However, this story was not a demonstration of it. If she never came back and did better, what reason is there to believe that she didn't simply have a misconception of her own aptitude? Perhaps that's more of a statement of the background she came from than anything to do with these highly selective environments.

. . . so perhaps a valid point with an absolutely invalid example. I can't believe I'm posting about this, but dragging my (ridiculously lenient, support-laden) alma mater in as an example of an institution that beats down their bright-but-not-quite-as-bright students rubs me the wrong way. In fact, I can't think of a single school that puts in more effort to prevent this sort of problem -- OP, do you realize that Brown doesn't report F's on transcripts so your GPA isn't tarnished and you can redeem yourself before applying to professional/grad school?

Good point and I appreciate you shedding light on the specifics of Brown's chem class. I don't mean to pedestal your alma mater, I'm just going off of what I read and my thoughts based on my own personal experiences. Throughout the book I definitely questioned some of Gladwell's research. Sometimes it's a bit far-fetched, almost like he's fishing for correlations to make a point. Most of his arguments are definitely debatable.

It's possible Caroline was inept, couldn't handle the material and that her incompetencies were based on how she was prepared in a previous scholastic environment. However, there are hundreds of students at top 10 academic institutions that fall below the curve and consequently receive Cs for it, not because they are incompetent but because they aren't the best at where they are. Entertain the possibility that those students would perform better a a less prestigious institution and should be in medical school. Shouldn't medicals school then correct for university rankings and offer a point value for grades at once institution versus another?

 

[primordialfruit]

Shouldn't medicals school then correct for university rankings and offer a point value for grades at once institution versus another?

The problem then becomes how do you fairly adjust these values. How does one distinguish between a student who just (as you say it) "falls below the curve" vs. those who are not working hard? How do you justify adding extra points to an institution that has a reputation for grade inflation?

In addition to this, if you were to award automatic points just for going to a specific school based on ranking, you're perpetuating a system that favors students who can afford to go to the schools of their choice regardless of financial considerations (I.e. Great students who choose to attend state schools will be at a slight disadvantage for an average student who goes to an elite university).

 

[terp720]

After 2 years at the college, I decided to transfer to a prestigious university, to increase my chances of getting into medical school, as I was advised to do at the time. The school I transferred to was the best in its state and arguably the best in the region. It’s nationally ranked and known for its pre-med program.

I think you got bad advice....

the issue I see with a story like this, is that there are probably tons of other applicants from Brown or schools higher ranked than Brown that didn't struggle and tank their GPAs.

In addition to this, if you were to award automatic points just for going to a specific school based on ranking, you're perpetuating a system that favors students who can afford to go to the schools of their choice regardless of financial considerations (I.e. Great students who choose to attend state schools will be at a slight disadvantage for an average student who goes to an elite university).

-- this exactly. Why should my GPA at Maryland be looked down on compared to Brown's just because I couldn't afford to not go to my state school.

 

[grumpiestcat]

Since when is the math SAT the ultimate meter of intelligence? As one of those poor, dumb state school students (who took the ACT instead of the SAT -gasp-), I think your elitist attitude about undergrad institutions is obnoxious. I've been very satisfied with the education I've received, and I can assure you that I had to earn my grades. Also, if you only had a 3.6 at your previous institution, why did you think you were prepared for a "harder" program?

 

[Stabley17]

OP, the frustrations you experienced at the more "prestigious" institution seem to have little to do with the difficulty of the classes, but with the learning environment you were in. I, for one, would never choose some large university, like Harvard, over something like Amherst or Williams for my undergrad, though others may be attracted to a larger institution for other reasons. The fact that most professors at small liberal arts colleges are there to teach, rather than research, changes the culture of these institutions entirely. What it comes down to is which environment will cultivate the ability to think. It sounds like you, and perhaps Caroline, were mislead into thinking that prestige > learning (the purpose of education) - what a shame.

 

[GoldMember1]

If you're comparing Hartwick's top students and Harvard's bottom students, part of the problem is you don't know how the top Hartwick student would have performed at Harvard. Comparing average SAT scores of the two schools can give you a vague idea but they don't predict performance perfectly. It's sort of like the saying "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." It's better to go to a lower tier school and do really well, and have people doubt whether or not you would have still done well at a top school, than to go to a top school, do badly, and remove all doubt. You don't know what the Hartwick student would have accomplished at Harvard, so maybe you give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he had the potential to have been at least average at Harvard. Maybe he would have excelled there, or maybe he would have tanked. Who knows? But with the Harvard student, you know exactly how he would do at a top school--you saw he came out on the bottom. There's no room for speculation with the Harvard student, while the Hartwick student gets the benefit of the doubt.

This is part of the reason the MCAT exists. If the bottom Harvard student and the top Hartwick student have similar scores, you could consider their academic potential to be equal.

It's a double standard though. If your saying top Hartwick's students are given the benefit of the doubt that they could potentially perform well in a top institution, then why shouldn't bottom Harvard's students be given the benefit of the doubt that they could perform well at schools like Hartwick. The Harvard student may have been at the bottom of the curve at Harvard, bringing into question his competencies, but the reason he didn't perform well could be entirely separate form his capabilities. It could instead be because he was up against the best students in the nation. Does that mean he is incapable of performing well in professional school and shouldn't be given the opportunity?

We've all taken these courses, most averages on exams for physics II - for example - are in the 50s at some institutions. What the teacher then does, is normalize the class and distributes grades accordingly. A student might fall a the bottom of the curve for a class of 19 Brown students but somewhere in the middle at University of Maryland with much large samples sizes. Who's fault is that, the students?

I agree that the MCAT normalizes the entire playing field, however, a Harvard student with a 3.0 (B average) and a 30 MCAT would still have a hard time getting into medical school over a Hartwick student with a 3.6 GPA / 30 MCAT simply because of the GPA which I believe is not a fair assessment of the Harvard student's abilities.

 

[primordialfruit]

We've all taken these courses, most averages on exams for physics II - for example - are in the 50s at some institutions. What the teacher then does, is normalize the class and distributes grades accordingly. A student might fall a the bottom of the curve for a class of 19 Brown students but somewhere in the middle at University of Maryland with much large samples sizes. Who's fault is that, the students?

I feel like this idea of below the curve above the curve applies more to courses with subjective grading. English, for example. For objective courses like Physics II... you're either wrong or you're right. You know how to solve the problems or you don't.... What's wrong with getting the grade you deserve based on the number of questions you answer correctly on exams...? (Maybe I'm just biased because our institution didn't curve grades or scale grades. In some faculties, grades are actively deflated.)

As for the fairness of judging students who don't benefit as much from a curve against students who do benefit from a curve... Unfortunately, that's just how the game works. Study harder! Fight your way to the top of that curve! It's good preparation for Med School.

MCAT is one way to normalize, but there are tons of other factors as well. Extra curricular activities. Would the student from Hartwick have the same resources for research or volunteering as the Harvard student? Letters of recommendation: Harvard has some big names in the faculty that will probably get a lot more pull than some professor from Hartwick.

 

[GoldMember1]

I think you got bad advice....

the issue I see with a story like this, is that there are probably tons of other applicants from Brown or schools higher ranked than Brown that didn't struggle and tank their GPAs.



-- this exactly. Why should my GPA at Maryland be looked down on compared to Brown's just because I couldn't afford to not go to my state school.

I think so too. At the time I was heralded by my friends and family for getting into such an outstanding school but in retrospect it was the worst decision I have made.

Had I stayed at my previous institution I believe I would be in microglia's shoes - came from a small state school, performing just fine in medical school. Holding everything else constant (my MCAT score, clinical experience, publications etc..) conventional wisdom says I have what it takes to perform well in medical school, the steps and become a physician. However, the problem with my application is that I fell below the curve at the more prestigious institution in those 4 classes- which I believe is an unfair assessment of my actual ability.

I guess we'll see this summer when I retake those courses.

Also, I agree your GPA at Maryland should not be looked down upon but rather the GPA at Harvard should be looked at differently. (Harvard is an extreme example of course)

 

[primordialfruit]

Also, I agree your GPA at Maryland should not be looked down upon but rather the GPA at Harvard should be looked at differently. (Harvard is an extreme example of course)

Doesn't Harvard have a reputation for grade inflation.....?

 

[terp720]

Doesn't Harvard have a reputation for grade inflation.....?

that seemed to be the consensus.
and apparently Brown is a bad comparison too.

 

[GoldMember1]

Doesn't Harvard have a reputation for grade inflation.....?

I feel like this idea of below the curve above the curve applies more to courses with subjective grading. English, for example. For objective courses like Physics II... you're either wrong or you're right. You know how to solve the problems or you don't.... What's wrong with getting the grade you deserve based on the number of questions you answer correctly on exams...? (Maybe I'm just biased because our institution didn't curve grades or scale grades. In some faculties, grades are actively deflated.)

As for the fairness of judging students who don't benefit as much from a curve against students who do benefit from a curve... Unfortunately, that's just how the game works. Study harder! Fight your way to the top of that curve! It's good preparation for Med School.

MCAT is one way to normalize, but there are tons of other factors as well. Extra curricular activities. Would the student from Hartwick have the same resources for research or volunteering as the Harvard student? Letters of recommendation: Harvard has some big names in the faculty that will probably get a lot more pull than some professor from Hartwick.

I'm not sure. Harvard was one of the examples in the book that I chose to use but there are others as well. Mostly, because it's known for being a top 5 undergraduate institution.

I know at my university the averages were very low for upper division science courses (50s - 60s). I remember one of my physics II exams had an average in the 40s. Every science class I took here was curved.

Study harder! Fight your way to the top of that curve! It's good preparation for Med School.

Retaking those courses and doing an SMP next year. You can bet I'll be at the top of that curve. lol

 

[GoldMember1]

that seemed to be the consensus.
and apparently Brown is a bad comparison too.

When I get back home later today I'll be sure to list the 12 other examples - just for you.

The point is relative deprivation is a real issue that affects many premed students.

 

[terp720]

When I get back home later today I'll be sure to list the 12 other examples - just for you.

The point is relative deprivation is a real issue that affects many premed students.

haha I don't really care, I was just answering primordialfruit.

I am a bit confused about your comment about low averages in upper division classes. What are you trying to get at here?
Possibilities:
a) your professor makes hard tests, everyone does poorly so the whole class is curved -- you benefit with higher grade than you actually scored
b) everyone just doesn't know what they're doing and gets low scores -- professor curves to bring up the average -- you benefit with a higher grade than you scored
much better than the alternative of the average grades in your upper divisions start off at 80 because everyone is awesome and a top student in the nation, then your professor curves down to limit % of As, etc, which does happen some places.

To me, saying that averages are low so all your grades are curved up doesn't really support your initial claims

 

[repititionition]

Malcom Gladwell has a knack for (and a sincere following from) the ability to spin hundreds of pages from a simple premise.

Unfortunately, most of those hundreds of pages are full of examples just like this: making data say things that support the premise.

The TL;DR of gladwell's thesis as presented here - and this shouldn't be news to anyone - is that there are bright students at every college. There are dumb students at every college.

For the OP and anyone else who is really an underdog (I'll include myself, and my stats are all over my prior posts) HERE IS THE TRUTH: it don't matter even a little bit where you went to school as long as you do well there and do well on the MCAT.

Edited to add:

Medicine is about as meritocratic as professional schools get.

If you want to go in to corporate finance or management consulting, go Ivy and don't look back (this from someone who has worked in both fields); there is a huge multiplier to "name" diplomas in those fields. For medicine, chase GPA (and then be sure to murder the MCAT).

 

[Reckoner]

What are you trying to get at here?

OP claimed that the purpose was:

to share the my story for underdogs.

But if that's the case, why mention students from other schools at all? If you wanted to warn future students about choosing a school that is too difficult because they think it's "prestigious," then fine. Thanks for posting. When you start talking about the "double standard" of top students from lesser schools getting in over students like you, however, it gives the impression that you made this thread to vent about an unsuccessful cycle, and those damn state-schoolers were just an easy target for your frustration.

This is why I advised you to stop blaming others. Perhaps we're all just misinterpreting your noble intentions, but in our defense the goalposts seem to be moving with every post.

 

[that redhead]

Caroline's first mistake was choosing Brown over Maryland. Go Terps 😀

 

[GoldMember1]

Since when is the math SAT the ultimate meter of intelligence?

I agree, the connection Gladwell made seems a bit far-fetched but he goes into other examples as well. This is one of his main examples and it's correlation is definitely questionable but theoretically it makes sense.

As one of those poor, dumb state school students (who took the ACT instead of the SAT -gasp-), I think your elitist attitude about undergrad institutions is obnoxious. I've been very satisfied with the education I've received, and I can assure you that I had to earn my grades.

Where - in any of my text - do I knock state school students? I think your reading way too much into it. Actually, I believe I received a better education at my smaller college than at the other institution and if I were to advise anyone it would be not to go to those elitist institutions, as you call them.

What I'm trying to do is stick up for the Harvard student (again just an example) who doesn't get in anywhere because he performed at the bottom end of the curve among the top 1% of students taking his orgo class at the time (for example).

I don't doubt you worked hard for your grades. I honestly hope you get into medical school and become a great physician. But what about the student who goes to a university that traditionally has been known to recruit the best undergrads in the country and is being normalized against them? Does that student not deserve the same opportunity?

The whole thing about relative deprivation is that you working hard for your grades is relative, right? It's different for every student not in your class at the time. So your teacher teaches the way she does, assigns the HW she wants, creates questions for her exams. How hard you are working and the grade you receive is based on your experience in that class at the time. However, it's different between teachers, attending students, class sizes and schools - how then can you compare them? Some pre med programs are harder than others. So is the student at the harder premed program who gets a C incapable of performing well in med school compared to a student at a different institution who receives a B? According to admissions committees, yes.

But how do you know that the Harvard student wasn't working just as hard as you and understood the material the same way you did, but just wasn't the top 50% of his class (especially with 20 students per class at some of these top schools) causing the student to get a C. How do you know Brown (example) didn't just have a really hard chem and orgo compared to other institutions causing Caroline to fail?

Also, if you only had a 3.6 at your previous institution, why did you think you were prepared for a "harder" program?

my sGPA was a 3.6, my cGPA was higher. I was advised by my parents and the schools faculty to apply based on my merit in my previous institution.

 

[GoldMember1]

OP claimed that the purpose was:

But if that's the case, why mention students from other schools at all? If you wanted to warn future students about choosing a school that is too difficult because they think it's "prestigious," then fine. Thanks for posting. When you start talking about the "double standard" of top students from lesser schools getting in over students like you, however, it gives the impression that you made this thread to vent about an unsuccessful cycle, and those damn state-schoolers were just an easy target for your frustration.

This is why I advised you to stop blaming others. Perhaps we're all just misinterpreting your noble intentions, but in our defense the goalposts seem to be moving with every post.

My intention was not to vent, call out any schools or knock anyone but rather to share my story and raise a debatable issue.

 

[terp720]

Where - in any of my text - do I knock state school students? I think your reading way too much into it.

Maybe I am reading too much into it.. but you kind of did. Or maybe it's just because I am biased. You may not have meant to, but by continually comparing it saying at Maryland she would have done better because she's not being compared against the top 10% of students in the nation, then yeah..it comes off that way.

What was Caroline’s problem? Was Caroline not smart enough? Was she incapable of taking rigorous science courses and completing a science major? Could be. However, it could also be because of something entirely separate from her intellectual capabilities. Brown University only accepts the top students in the nation. The fact that Caroline is at Brown theoretically makes her a better overall student than 90% of the students around the US that were taking Organic Chemistry at the time. The problem for Caroline was not her inability to perform well in Orgo, it was the fact that the students she was being compared to were 19 of the smartest students in the nation. The real curve busters. They made her look and feel stupid, even though she wasn’t stupid at all. If Caroline had gone to University of Maryland instead, would she be in medical school?

We've all taken these courses, most averages on exams for physics II - for example - are in the 50s at some institutions. What the teacher then does, is normalize the class and distributes grades accordingly. A student might fall a the bottom of the curve for a class of 19 Brown students but somewhere in the middle at University of Maryland with much large samples sizes. Who's fault is that, the students?

 

[GoldMember1]

OP, the frustrations you experienced at the more "prestigious" institution seem to have little to do with the difficulty of the classes, but with the learning environment you were in. I, for one, would never choose some large university, like Harvard, over something like Amherst or Williams for my undergrad, though others may be attracted to a larger institution for other reasons. The fact that most professors at small liberal arts colleges are there to teach, rather than research, changes the culture of these institutions entirely. What it comes down to is which environment will cultivate the ability to think. It sounds like you, and perhaps Caroline, were mislead into thinking that prestige > learning (the purpose of education) - what a shame.

I wholeheartedly agree and I appreciate your insight.

 

[GoldMember1]

Malcom Gladwell has a knack for (and a sincere following from) the ability to spin hundreds of pages from a simple premise.

Unfortunately, most of those hundreds of pages are full of examples just like this: making data say things that support the premise.

The TL;DR of gladwell's thesis as presented here - and this shouldn't be news to anyone - is that there are bright students at every college. There are dumb students at every college.

For the OP and anyone else who is really an underdog (I'll include myself, and my stats are all over my prior posts) HERE IS THE TRUTH: it don't matter even a little bit where you went to school as long as you do well there and do well on the MCAT.

Edited to add:

Medicine is about as meritocratic as professional schools get.

If you want to go in to corporate finance or management consulting, go Ivy and don't look back (this from someone who has worked in both fields); there is a huge multiplier to "name" diplomas in those fields. For medicine, chase GPA (and then be sure to murder the MCAT).

I wish someone would have told me this before I chose to transfer.

As HS students we're told that we have to get a high GPA and perform well on the SAT to get into a great college. You come out of HS hoping to get into the best school you can. However, as you point out, that's not necessarily the best advice for someone pursuing medicine. Instead, HS students should be advised to come somewhere where they can be above the curve and perform well on the MCAT. While I agree with you and appreciate the advice, it misses my question - Should premed students from top institutions, who are in an environment where they are compared to the best undergrads in the US be assessed differently than students at other institutions? If not, why?

 

[crimsonkid85]

I wish someone would have told me this before I chose to transfer.

As HS students we're told that we have to get a high GPA and perform well on the SAT to get into a great college. You come out of HS hoping to get into the best school you can. However, as you point out, that's not necessarily the best advice for someone looking to go into medicine. Instead, HS students should be advised to come somewhere where you know you can get straight As and perform well on the MCAT. While I agree with you and appreciate the advice, it misses my question - Should premed students from top institutions, who are in an environment where they are compared to the best undergrads in the US be assessed differently than students at other institutions? If not, why?

but you forget that most premeds who matriculate at the best ivies don't end up doing medicine after all.

 

[DokterMom]

I'm not sure why everyone's panties seem to be in such a wad here... While the OP's post is not 100% universally true, there is, without a doubt, some substantial truth to it. Fully half of the students at any college fall into the bottom half of their class, and the odds of a hard-working person's falling into that lower half are far higher at the most competitive schools. (Hard-working in bold to emphasize that even bright, hardworking students can be below average when all the students are very bright and/or well-prepared, as they tend to be at schools like Harvard or Brown.) And the simple fact is that students whose GPAs fall below a 3.0 even at these top schools have a really hard time getting into medical school; whereas students with high GPAs at less-stringent schools have better odds of admission.

As to the MCAT as a great equalizer argument -- Not everyone is a great standardized test taker. There are some truly brilliant, highly capable people who don't perform anywhere near their capabilities on standardized tests, and others whose standardized test scores are higher than their work product would suggest they should be. Most SDNers are going to test well. It's just the nature of this self-selecting group. And I don't expect to convince anyone of the limited predictive value of standardized tests until you see it for yourselves. As someone who tests really well, I always thought it was 'just excuses' and politely played along until I saw the scores some people I knew really well got. Those scores didn't correlate at all with their performance or functional intelligence. Really understated... So they're just NOT that reliable.

Take heart OP. Replace those bad grades, go DO, practice and thrive. And know that if med school doesn't happen, at least you have a 'better' UG degree to fall back on --

 

[Microglia]

I'm not sure why everyone's panties seem to be in such a wad here... While the OP's post is not 100% universally true, there is, without a doubt, some substantial truth to it. Fully half of the students at any college fall into the bottom half of their class, and the odds of a hard-working person's falling into that lower half are far higher at the most competitive schools. (Hard-working in bold to emphasize that even bright, hardworking students can be below average when all the students are very bright and/or well-prepared, as they tend to be at schools like Harvard or Brown.) And the simple fact is that students whose GPAs fall below a 3.0 even at these top schools have a really hard time getting into medical school; whereas students with high GPAs at less-stringent schools have better odds of admission.

As to the MCAT as a great equalizer argument -- Not everyone is a great standardized test taker. There are some truly brilliant, highly capable people who don't perform anywhere near their capabilities on standardized tests, and others whose standardized test scores are higher than their work product would suggest they should be. Most SDNers are going to test well. It's just the nature of this self-selecting group. And I don't expect to convince anyone of the limited predictive value of standardized tests until you see it for yourselves. As someone who tests really well, I always thought it was 'just excuses' and politely played along until I saw the scores some people I knew really well got. Those scores didn't correlate at all with their performance or functional intelligence. Really understated... So they're just NOT that reliable.

Take heart OP. Replace those bad grades, go DO, practice and thrive. And know that if med school doesn't happen, at least you have a 'better' UG degree to fall back on --

Using this logic, premeds should start turning down those ivy acceptances and flooding to state schools because apparently the school boost thing works in reverse for medicine.

As far as "not being a great standardized test taker" goes, that's all well and good, but if you can't get it together for the MCAT, what are you going to do for Step I? Or all your shelf exams? Or boards certification every 10 years for the rest of your life?

If you're GPA is "low because you went to an ivy" AND "you're not a good standardized test taker," essentially you're just not doing well academically and that will greatly diminish your chances of succeeding in med school.

If you're not a good standardized test taker by college, you need to take the time and figure them out prior to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a career of standardized tests.

 

[DokterMom]

As far as "not being a great standardized test taker" goes, that's all well and good, but if you can't get it together for the MCAT, what are you going to do for Step I? Or all your shelf exams? Or boards certification every 10 years for the rest of your life?

If you're not a good standardized test taker by college, you need to take the time and figure them out prior to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a career of standardized tests.

I hear ya - The person I'm most familiar with that falls into this category does 'well enough' to get into a mid-level program, then kills it while there. 'Squeaked' into a 'good' college after ~1700 SATs, and graduated first in his/her class. 'Squeaked' into a mid-tier med school with a ~30 MCAT and is currently also top of his/her class. (And it's not all hard work)

 

[repititionition]

I wish someone would have told me this before I chose to transfer.

As HS students we're told that we have to get a high GPA and perform well on the SAT to get into a great college. You come out of HS hoping to get into the best school you can. However, as you point out, that's not necessarily the best advice for someone pursuing medicine. Instead, HS students should be advised to come somewhere where they can be above the curve and perform well on the MCAT. While I agree with you and appreciate the advice, it misses my question - Should premed students from top institutions, who are in an environment where they are compared to the best undergrads in the US be assessed differently than students at other institutions? If not, why?

Still not getting it...

The MCAT doesn't know or care what you got in the class, or where you took it. It only cares how much you know and how fast you can integrate that knowledge with novel information on the fly.

If you get straight C's in your BCPM's at an Ivy (eg lower half, probably lower quartile percent class rank) and get a mean-matriculant MCAT (call it 33) and "tick the boxes" for EC and commitment to medicine (also: not an overt psycho/sociopath), I have news for you - you ARE going to medical school if you want it. You might think the medical school that "takes" you is a step down from the Ivies, but if that's the case, well, you have a long road of disappointment in front of you.

Finally, if you get D's and F's, the issue is with you, not the material. Anyone can brute-force a C in any undergraduate science course, P-chem perhaps excepted. [ETA: if you go to a school that legitimately forces a curve inclusive of D's and F's, irrespective of performance, that's a different story, but the amount of applicants subjected to this is pennies on the dollar. Most schools that curve, curve to a B- and end the tail at a C-]

As for those who don't think they can do their knowledge/ability justice on a standardized test... I can understand this BUT ONLY TO A POINT.

There is nobody who has diligently applied themselves to the S2N (?) schedule (& legitimately had a command of the material beforehand, irrespective of grade earned), taken all of the practice exams under realistic circumstances, that absolutely CANNOT get a 30+ (diagnosed learning disability aside). There's just not.

ETA: There's such an incredible culture of victimization in admissions, and my fear is that it carries over to med school and beyond.

At some point, you gotta become an adult and simply say, "ok. this is where I am now. what can I do to get to where I want to be?".

Past mistakes/less-than-ideal decisions aside, etc. One simply needs to create a well-formed plan and execute on it. Guess what? Barring the proverbial I-got-hit-by-a-bus legitimate bad luck, the advice above works almost every time.

 

[Reckoner]

Should premed students from top institutions, who are in an environment where they are compared to the best undergrads in the US be assessed differently than students at other institutions? If not, why?

No. There are too many variables at every scale of comparison to safely assume the level of competition any given student faced in each of their classes. It's not even fair to assume all classes within a single institution were curved, or curved in the same way.

Should students from schools that actively grade deflate get some slack? Sure, as long as their GPA is still competitive relative to that school's average. And if you read any of the five million previous threads on this topic, you will probably come across posts by AdCom members like LizzyM and Goro confirming that they already do this.

 

[wiloghby]

It's a double standard though. If your saying top Hartwick's students are given the benefit of the doubt that they could potentially perform well in a top institution, then why shouldn't bottom Harvard's students be given the benefit of the doubt that they could perform well at schools like Hartwick.

AdComms will make decisions based on the information they have. They know there are plenty of smart and capable students at schools all around the country, and that top students from just about every college in the country have made it through med school to become physicians. For a Hartwick student, they may only know that the student has a 3.8 and a 34 MCAT. The 34 MCAT lets them know this student is sharp, and decides to take a chance that they will perform well when surrounded exclusively by the top students in the country (as in medical school).

Now let's a take a Brown student who -- hey, let's be fair -- also has a 34 MCAT. But this Brown student has a 3.0 GPA, (even though Brown is renowned for grade inflation and withholding bad grades from transcripts). In this situation, it's pretty clear who to take. You have a student from a state school who has done quite well at the college he can afford to / chose to go to. You don't know exactly how they will do when surrounded by the best and brightest, but you know they have what it takes to learn the material needed to be a doctor based on your umpteen years of experience admitting people to med school.

You also have a student who is going to a school surrounded by, according to you (and I would agree), some of "the best students in the country" -- as one would in medical school, and has only proven thusfar that they aren't thriving in that environment. Sure, maybe they aren't passionate about their major -- which would be a red flag for me -- or maybe they have a reasonable excuse for poor grades and would otherwise be a great student in that environment. Their MCAT tells you they'll be able to handle the workload, and you could admit that student. But with a surplus of talent, if you get the vibe that they don't like being surrounded by really smart people, why make them miserable for 4 years by admitting them to your school?

So if you have to choose between two students with equal MCAT scores, would you rather admit the student who excels at the state school and may do the same when in a more competitive environment? Or do you admit the student who has conclusively proven that that environment is not for them?

It's really all hypothetical, I know.

But here's a question that is not hypothetical: if you think transferring to Brown was the worst decision of your life (first of all congrats on being an otherwise fantastic decision-maker), why do you think going to medical school where everyone is even more talented is going to be a great decision? The competition will be undoubtedly be much, much greater. I wouldn't bring it up normally, but it sounds like this is about more than "fair admissions practices". I got the impression that you do not enjoy being in that sort of environment at Brown based on how much you are lamenting it. Just a heads up that med school is going to be way more of it.

As @repititionition said, your treatise on the topic is not important. All that matters is your game plan. Look at the AAMC's admissions data, look at your application as it would stand today, and ask yourself: how are you going to bridge the gap? Then, just do it.

If you can get into Brown as a transfer student, you can get into medical school -- I promise! Just do it.