Difference between 3.9 and 4.0

Discover Your Odds of Getting into Medical School
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
M

mcattaker

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
How much of a difference does it make to have a 3.9 to 3.95 to 4.0 GPA? I would assume that once you have above a 3.9 in both science and regular GPA, it wouldn't matter at all. Just wanted to get your thoughts.
Members don't see this ad.
 
I doubt very little. A 4.0 just "looks special;" people here would argue that it can be a good or bad thing. At some point, though, a good GPA is a good GPA. It's kinda like asking the difference between a 41 and a 42 on the MCAT.
 
mcattaker said:
How much of a difference does it make to have a 3.9 to 3.95 to 4.0 GPA? I would assume that once you have above a 3.9 in both science and regular GPA, it wouldn't matter at all. Just wanted to get your thoughts.
Click to expand...

:smack:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
mcattaker said:
How much of a difference does it make to have a 3.9 to 3.95 to 4.0 GPA? I would assume that once you have above a 3.9 in both science and regular GPA, it wouldn't matter at all. Just wanted to get your thoughts.
Click to expand...

None. Nada. Nil. Nobody will care. There is a law of diminishing returns at work. If you have a "high" GPA and a "high" MCAT, you will have met the numerical standards of the top schools, and will pass any screening they have. You have to realize that schools want high everything, and good ECs, LORs, essays. If you have all this, you will get invited in to an interview, in which they will decide if you are a good fit. By high everything, I mean if you have better than a 3.5/30 you will get looked at by most med schools and better than a 3.7/34 you will get looked at by the top schools. Nobody is going to split hairs if one dude has a 3.8 and the other has a 4.0 (let alone a 3.9 or 3.95. It simply doesn't matter. It's not a wholly numeric process, and after a point the numbers really aren't a big deal. They won't think -- this guy is 0.5 better than this other guy. They will say both these guys have adequate GPA for our program so lets see who has the better essay/ECs and that's the guy we will interview to see if he's a good fit. Truth of the matter is that in every admission pool there WILL be someone with lower numbers than you who the school wants more than you, and someone with higher numbers than you who the school is going to dump to the waitlist. It's not an objective -- if your numbers add up to X you're in -- process. It's more like -- if your numbers are above a certain threshold we will take a look at you and see if you are a "good fit" -- process.

Premeds on here focus on numbers because that is the one component they have control over. But once you get into the minutia it matters a whole lot more to the premeds than to the adcoms. Med school admissions isn't just about getting the folks with the highest numbers. It's about getting well rounded people who excel in multiple areas (including leadership, experience, research) and ALSO have solid academics. They want the best and the brightest in EVERYTHING they do not just academics. They will always go nuts for the competitive athlete/mountain climber/ career changer/ artist/ dancer with the 3.7 and solid ECs over the library mole with a 4.0 and mundane ECs. Hope that helps.
 
I believe that a previous discussion concluded that schools will take the 3.9 over the 4.0, all other factors being equal.
 
Law2Doc said:
They will always go nuts for the competitive athlete/mountain climber/ career changer/ artist/ dancer with the 3.7 and solid ECs over the library mole with a 4.0 and mundane ECs. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

:scared: [returns to cave]
 
Law2Doc said:
They will always go nuts for the competitive athlete/mountain climber/ career changer/ artist/ dancer with the 3.7 and solid ECs over the library mole with a 4.0 and mundane ECs. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

That's unfortunate. I'm a boring person with few hobbies. And I'm not too much of a genius. :laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If you go from a 3.9 to a 3.95 to a 3.98 you can write about how you have had a strong upward trend in your GPA since freshmen year; however, you should probably write about your poor performance in your personal statement, and say what drove you to improve your GPA.
 
Funny thing is how much less it means once you are at orientation. We had people talking about interviews, their gpa, mcat, and all that stuff the other day. Guess what? Even though my gpa and mcat were substantially lower, we're still in the same location. It means nothing now. Some people hold on to their former glory with a death grip, that is for sure.

Whenever I see someone with a 3.8+ I know they are about equal. That gpa difference can result from a couple of points in a couple of classes. I took numerous science classes without + or - grades. I missed out on A's in a few classes by 1 or 2 points, resulting in a B. Stuff like that happens to a lot of people, so they usually have a little flexibility in it.
 
@Law2Doc, you wrote its to pass screening and as examples, above 3.5/30 blah and above 3.7/34 you get looked at by the top schools. what if you are aiming at a moderate school lets say rank 50 with 3.9, 37 vs a 3.6 ,32. how then do numbers play out since both obviously pass screening. will the 3.9 have a big advantage or are they viewed as about the same and other factors will be used to decide?

@ above

its true they dont seem much but when you have 100 credits worth of grades, .1 is actually pretty big. since 40 x .1 = 4, with 100 credits it is about 2.5 Fs vs someone with all 4.0s. of course if we are taking about Ds and Cs, the number increases
 
anbuitachi said:
@Law2Doc, you wrote its to pass screening and as examples, above 3.5/30 blah and above 3.7/34 you get looked at by the top schools. what if you are aiming at a moderate school lets say rank 50 with 3.9, 37 vs a 3.6 ,32. how then do numbers play out since both obviously pass screening. will the 3.9 have a big advantage or are they viewed as about the same and other factors will be used to decide?

@ above

its true they dont seem much but when you have 100 credits worth of grades, .1 is actually pretty big. since 40 x .1 = 4, with 100 credits it is about 2.5 Fs vs someone with all 4.0s. of course if we are taking about Ds and Cs, the number increases
Click to expand...
The 3.9, 37 wins everytime...well most times.
 
I'll have to disagree with those that say "no difference." A guy with a 4.0 has maxed out his grading system. There may be nothing that he cannot do (academically speaking), while the 3.9 has found his limits in an area.
 
rivativ said:
I'll have to disagree with those that say "no difference." A guy with a 4.0 has maxed out his grading system. There may be nothing that he cannot do (academically speaking), while the 3.9 has found his limits in an area.
Click to expand...

4.0 students are sometimes 3.5 students at a harder school... unless, of course, they already go to the hardest school.

In short, my point is that 3.9 vs. 4.0 is not a meaningful way of differentiating between candidates. Thus the MCAT and all the other factors come in.
 
I think the difference is almost totally trivial, but that in some cases the perfect 4.0 can help. On a subjective level it is like "oh damn look at that, don't see that much in the sea of 3.9 whatevers." It seems highly unlikely that it would ever matter all that much. Another thing is that it sort of implies that you ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS work things so that they go just your way, which is a commendable quality.
 
I would also like to point out that if you can get a 3.9 way easier than you can get a 4.0, which is definitely almost always true, it is worth it to get the 3.9 and spend your time doing things that are more important, like doing really impressive extracurriculars..
 
It is about 2.5% difference bro...no one will care THAT much if at all.

I had a 4.0 but dropped to 3.96 after last semester...I was disappointed at first but now laugh at the fact I ever cared...
 
Evergrey said:
4.0 students are sometimes 3.5 students at a harder school... unless, of course, they already go to the hardest school.

In short, my point is that 3.9 vs. 4.0 is not a meaningful way of differentiating between candidates. Thus the MCAT and all the other factors come in.
Click to expand...

Again, it's the law of diminishing returns. The person who gets the 4.0 probably would have been smarter getting a 3.8 and spending the extra time doing more non-academic things. There is a point where the GPA is fine -- no school is going to be particularly concerned that you got a few A-'s to go along with the slate of A's, but they will be wowed by the dude who got A-'s and has a ton of interesting ECs.
 
anbuitachi said:
@Law2Doc, you wrote its to pass screening and as examples, above 3.5/30 blah and above 3.7/34 you get looked at by the top schools. what if you are aiming at a moderate school lets say rank 50 with 3.9, 37 vs a 3.6 ,32. how then do numbers play out since both obviously pass screening. will the 3.9 have a big advantage or are they viewed as about the same and other factors will be used to decide?
...
Click to expand...

There's no real point trying to focus in on where the breaking point is where your score becomes a factor. Suffice it to say that above a certain point it won't matter, and the OPs question of trying to distinguish a 3.9 from a 4.0 is a silly one. I don't know if it's a 3.7/34 or whatever that anything above isn't going to make a huge difference, but my experience is that it's in that ballpark. With a 3.6/32, you should be competitive for med school. A bit higher and you should be competitive for a top med school. But beyond that the non-objective factors loom large. You also have to have the ECs, LORs, interview skills and essays. There WILL be someone with a lower GPA/MCAT than you who was more coveted by the med school you ultimately got into. There WILL be someone with much higher GPA/MCAT who simply wasn't a "good fit". It's not a "by the numbers" process. It used to be, a few decades back, and the profession wasn't happy with the doctors the process was generating, so things got revamped to put more weight on the subjective things, like "good fit" and the interview.
 
I don't get it with posters who say "If you can get a 3.9 and do activities its better than studying your *** off to get a 4.0"

Under any light, all other things being equal, a 4.0 is of course better than a 3.9. And if you're studying enough to get a 3.9, a 4.0 is just a few less errors. I think better rationalizations/thinking/rest/etc have more to do with that difference than hours upon hours upon hours of additional study. I have yet to meet anyone who has been so driven by a flawless GPA (and achieved it) that they waived off doing any other activities and resigned themselves to living under a rock just to get that GPA. In fact, the 5 people I know with 4.0's (OK, one dropped to a 3.98 after her last quarter- blame senioritis) are the most amazing people I have met who have done far more activities than most of the die-hard pre-meds I have run into (much more unique as well)
 
plsletmein said:
... I have yet to meet anyone who has been so driven by a flawless GPA (and achieved it) that they waived off doing any other activities and resigned themselves to living under a rock just to get that GPA. ...
Click to expand...

You must not have read enough thread in pre-allo then. There are a LOT of people on here who are absurdly focused in the numbers, at the expense of other things. Which is why you see a ton of posts like -- what are my chances without any clinical experience, or what's the minimum number of hours I can volunteer and still get into med school. Lots of premeds don't get it. And yes, you will realize after going though this process that there is no value of improving your GPA after a certain point. What that point is is perhaps a matter of opinion, but there is a threshold above which no one but you will care.
 
Law2Doc said:
You must not have read enough thread in pre-allo then. There are a LOT of people on here who are absurdly focused in the numbers, at the expense of other things. Which is why you see a ton of posts like -- what are my chances without any clinical experience, or what's the minimum number of hours I can volunteer and still get into med school. Lots of premeds don't get it. And yes, you will realize after going though this process that there is no value of improving your GPA after a certain point. What that point is is perhaps a matter of opinion, but there is a threshold above which no one but you will care.
Click to expand...

sorry, i based my statement on people i met in real life
 
After about a 3.8, it doesn't matter much. I applied with a 3.85, and the issue of GPA was basically that a 3.8 or better is in the top tier. Beyond that, it's just how it looks on your transcript. ECs, clinical work, and research are a much better use of time than trying to keep a 4.0 when you can do more and get a 3.8/3.9.
 
The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is just that little "extra".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Difference between interviewers
Replies
5
Views
839
pedneuro6894
P
S
Difference between PTE and CTE Deadline
Replies
24
Views
4K
Med Ed
Med Ed
ParentOfReapplicant
Difference between "Student Doctor" and HPSA/SDN on-demand pay-what-you-can advising!
Replies
4
Views
665
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
M
GPA: 3.75 from Top 5 vs. 3.9/4.0 at State University?
Replies
9
Views
2K
FlowRate
FlowRate
D
Is the time between secondary submission and interview invite indicative of anything?
Replies
5
Views
641
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top