difference between a 3.5 and a 3.8

[nekrogg]

---

Members do not see this ad.

im just curious, what is the difference between a 3.5 with a say 30 mcat and a 3.8 with a 30 mcat? is the difference really big? what sort of schools are these two candidates looking at? (a ball park rank of med schools would be nice)

 

[Turkeyman]

well, I guess you could say a 3.5 hits juuust below a lot of school's GPA averages, and a 3.8 hits a good bit above many school's GPA averages. With that in mind, just look through the MSAR to get a good idea of matriculant GPA for the various med school classes. The difference is significant I'd say.

Of course EC's can really bring a person out as well, so my thoughts go by simply looking at the numbers

 

[Law2Doc]

im just curious, what is the difference between a 3.5 with a say 30 mcat and a 3.8 with a 30 mcat? is the difference really big? what sort of schools are these two candidates looking at? (a ball park rank of med schools would be nice)

I think the difference is not necessarilly significant -- as to the extent the MCAT is used to "validate" the undergraduate grading system, the matching 30s will tell schools these are comparable candidates. For example, if the person with the 3.8 was coming from a known grade inflated school or a less competitive school (eg a JC), then it wouldn't necessarilly stand up against the other candidate's 3.5. Or if the one with the 3.5 had an objectively more challenging major (perhaps some form of engineering), they they might be given a bit of slack on the numbers. But sure, if these applicants were from the same school, in the same major and otherwise had the same ECs, the one with the 3.8 would get picked first for an interview.
But you need to bear in mind that the admissions process is not totally by the numbers, and few candidates get compared simply by such. So if your candidate with a 3.5/30 had substantial ECs -- years of clinical experience, some lab work, maybe a publication, while the 3.8/30 had just a summer of hospital volunteering, the one with the better ECs would likely get the interview at more schools, notwithstanding the lower GPA.
There is thus no way to give a "ballpark rank" of med schools without spelling out the ECs, as not having adequate ones - especially clinical experience- will make it very hard for either of these candidates to get admitted. With decent ECs, I would personally guestimate that both these candidates should focus the bulk of their applications on the schools which are "ranked" by US News, but are not within the top 25 - but that is just my own guess.

 

[doc05]

a 3.8/30 means an invalid GPA, likely the result of going to a crappy school or a grade-inflated ivy.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I'd say it's 0.3 😀

 

[AggieJohn]

a 3.8/30 means an invalid GPA, likely the result of going to a crappy school or a grade-inflated ivy.

I disagree. Undergraduate isn't as much about intelligence as it is about hard work. Even a *****, who studies enough, can do well. Intelligence just makes it easier 🙂

 

[Psycho Doctor]

a 3.8/30 means an invalid GPA, likely the result of going to a crappy school or a grade-inflated ivy.

Stop with the grade-inflated ivy. That's simply not true. To get into some ivies you need to be within the top 1% of your graduating class. You need a 4.0 (yes that's perfect A's), etc etc etc. So wouldn't you naturally assume most of these students are capable of doing A work? Not all schools throw everything onto a bell curve.

 

[tigress]

Stop with the grade-inflated ivy. That's simply not true. To get into some ivies you need to be within the top 1% of your graduating class. You need a 4.0 (yes that's perfect A's), etc etc etc. So wouldn't you naturally assume most of these students are capable of doing A work? Not all schools throw everything onto a bell curve.

Yeah, but there have been reports, some even made by the schools themselves, that say that some of the Ivys have grade inflation. It's not restricted to the Ivys, of course. But didn't Harvard, not too long ago, admit that there was grade inflation there, and promise to do something about it?

I agree that a high GPA and low MCAT doesn't mean the GPA isn't valid. I don't think a "*****" could do well in college 😛, but certainly a high GPA is largely about working hard. That's why a low GPA and a high MCAT is not unusual, either. I think any fairly intelligent person can do really well in college if they put the time in. For many people, GPA is only a factor of how much they're willing to study. I just wish I had been more disciplined and studied more when I was in college!

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah, but there have been reports, some even made by the schools themselves, that say that some of the Ivys have grade inflation. It's not restricted to the Ivys, of course. But didn't Harvard, not too long ago, admit that there was grade inflation there, and promise to do something about it?

Yes - Harvard had serious problems with grade inflation - it was covered in every major paper and so articles can likely be found on google (See eg. "Grade inflation spurs Harvard changes", http://archives.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/04/19/harvard.grade.inflation.ap/). Several ivies (but not all) had similar problems. There was apparently a pervasive feeling by professors at those schools that just by virtue of the students being there, they, by definition, were "B students or better", and they were graded accordingly. An enormous percentage (>90%) of Harvard's classes also ended up graduating with honors (cum laude or above). This undermined the credentials of those who were legitimately at the tops of those classes, and graduate programs started to take issue with Harvard credentials, forcing the school to concede it had a problem. They claim it is now remedied, but I'm sure med schools have their own views...

 

[housemd]

a 3.8/30 means an invalid GPA, likely the result of going to a crappy school or a grade-inflated ivy.

I just had to respond to this stupid remark. A 30 is a very solid score and not everyone has a lot of time to study for the MCAT (people have jobs and a life) or is rich enough to take a $1500 prep course. The MCAT is not an IQ test, it takes a lot of preparation to figure out the test, get timing down, etc... What about a a score of 31 or 32, probably a few more questions right on the test, would that then validate the GPA? And when would the 3.8 be valid then since you ruled out ivy league schools and "crappy schools?" I bet it would be valid at your school right

 

[Law2Doc]

So wouldn't you naturally assume most of these students are capable of doing A work? Not all schools throw everything onto a bell curve.

I think a school's naturally assuming most of their students do A work and not using a bell curve is actually the definition of grade inflation... 🙄

 

[rugirlie]

a 3.8/30 means an invalid GPA, likely the result of going to a crappy school or a grade-inflated ivy.

I guess I should take this as an insult then since I fit.... only i'm not at an ivy and even though I'm from a state school, I def don't consider it crappy.... you seriously think test taking and classes take the same kind of skills? Whats your reasoning behind this kind of thinking?

 

[USArmyDoc]

a 3.8/30 means an invalid GPA, likely the result of going to a crappy school or a grade-inflated ivy.

What a stupid comment. Stop jumping to conclusions the MCAT is one test. A 30 is awesome.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Yeah, but there have been reports, some even made by the schools themselves, that say that some of the Ivys have grade inflation. It's not restricted to the Ivys, of course. But didn't Harvard, not too long ago, admit that there was grade inflation there, and promise to do something about it?

Yes - Harvard had serious problems with grade inflation - it was covered in every major paper and so articles can likely be found on google (See eg. "Grade inflation spurs Harvard changes", http://archives.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/04/19/harvard.grade.inflation.ap/). Several ivies (but not all) had similar problems. There was apparently a pervasive feeling by professors at those schools that just by virtue of the students being there, they, by definition, were "B students or better", and they were graded accordingly. An enormous percentage (>90%) of Harvard's classes also ended up graduating with honors (cum laude or above). This undermined the credentials of those who were legitimately at the tops of those classes, and graduate programs started to take issue with Harvard credentials, forcing the school to concede it had a problem. They claim it is now remedied, but I'm sure med schools have their own views...

Obviously any school that has mostly As and Bs is going to be called grade-inflated. My point is it's not like these kids didn't work hard and aren't smart enough to be A and B students. And it's not like the work isn't harder and the competition greater than at community colleges where you could be at the top of your class without working very hard at all.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I think a school's naturally assuming most of their students do A work and not using a bell curve is actually the definition of grade inflation... 🙄

well it's not like these aren't the nation's top students anyway.

and no, i did not go to harvard.

 

[gujuDoc]

What a stupid comment. Stop jumping to conclusions the MCAT is one test. A 30 is awesome.

I agree a 30 is a good score and puts you in the 80th percentile, which shows that you are intelligent and capable. Granted a 45 or even a 35 looks better, a 30 is a good score that will get you in somewhere and shows your competence for the test.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I guess I should take this as an insult then since I fit.... only i'm not at an ivy and even though I'm from a state school, I def don't consider it crappy.... you seriously think test taking and classes take the same kind of skills? Whats your reasoning behind this kind of thinking?

well you don't fit, he said a 'crappy' school, not a 'state' school. There is NOTHING wrong with most state schools. Congrats!

 

[Law2Doc]

well it's not like these aren't the nation's top students anyway.

Some are, but frankly some aren't. Speaking as someone who is a bit older, I can assure you that you will find that the people who were the smartest in high school do not necessarilly stay the smartest in college, nor grad school, nor later life, and so on. College admissions is largely based on a small snapshot of your life (high school), as is med school (college). I would be willing to bet that the smartest people on the planet and the people who went to the best schools are not exclusively overlapping groups. So saying that people at harvard, etc are the nation's top students is just saying that people should be judged on who they are from ages 14-17 forever. Honestly, those who excel during the years 18-21 are probably at least equally smart. The smartest person in my law school was from a school I'd never even heard of. I expect to come across the same kind of "discrepancy" in med school.

 

[crazy_cavalier]

Hmmm, go figure. A thread that asks the question, "what's the diff between 3.5 and 3.8" immediately degrades into a grade-inflation spitting contest and the whole public vs. ivy school crap gets recirculated. Will this ever end? Can't we all be friends? 🙁

Here's the diff between 3.5 and 3.8: a lot of A-'s instead of a lot of A's. Both, in my opinion, are excellent GPA's. I consider an A- still an A, basically. So anything close to a 3.7 (3.5 to 3.9 range) is a pretty stellar GPA in my mind.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Hmmm, go figure. A thread that asks the question, "what's the diff between 3.5 and 3.8" immediately degrades into a grade-inflation spitting contest and the whole public vs. ivy school crap gets recirculated. Will this ever end? Can't we all be friends? 🙁

Here's the diff between 3.5 and 3.8: a lot of A-'s instead of a lot of A's. Both, in my opinion, are excellent GPA's. I consider an A- still an A, basically. So anything close to a 3.7 (3.5 to 3.9 range) is a pretty stellar GPA in my mind.

Well it reverts to a pissing contest when someone makes a generalized deragatory comment intended to attack others when it doesn't totally fit and serves no purpose.

Anyway I answered what the difference between a 3.5 and a 3.8 many posts ago:

I'd say it's 0.3 😀

 

[Law2Doc]

Hmmm, go figure. A thread that asks the question, "what's the diff between 3.5 and 3.8" immediately degrades into a grade-inflation spitting contest and the whole public vs. ivy school crap gets recirculated. Will this ever end? Can't we all be friends? 🙁

Here's the diff between 3.5 and 3.8: a lot of A-'s instead of a lot of A's. Both, in my opinion, are excellent GPA's. I consider an A- still an A, basically. So anything close to a 3.7 (3.5 to 3.9 range) is a pretty stellar GPA in my mind.

It's a pretty natural nexis to go from differences in GPA to issues involving grade inflation. Considering that schools use the MCAT as a check against grading differences, the fact that the MCAT was kept the same in the initial example is actually suggestive of this - it's not really a stretch.
More troubling to me was the initial notion that only numerical stats were relevant -- I could certainly conceive of situations where both of the OPs hypothetical applicants had a shot at top schools and situations where neither had a shot at any allopathic schools.

 

[TypeSH07]

a 3.8/30 means an invalid GPA, likely the result of going to a crappy school or a grade-inflated ivy.

I'ts funny you say that because I know students at state schools with 3.9+s and MCAT scores of 30 yet the students I know who attend schools like Hopkins and Ivy leagues with 3.8 gpas or higher tend to score 35+ on the MCAT. Hell, I go to Hopkins and people with below 3.5 gpas score pretty dam well on the mcat while the students with stellar gpas at state schools seem to struggle with the test. Grade inflation at privates? I think not.

 

[DrBowtie]

I'ts funny you say that because I know students at state schools with 3.9+s and MCAT scores of 30 yet the students I know who attend schools like Hopkins and Ivy leagues with 3.8 gpas or higher tend to score 35+ on the MCAT. Hell, I go to Hopkins and people with below 3.5 gpas score pretty dam well on the mcat while the students with stellar gpas at state schools seem to struggle with the test. Grade inflation at privates? I think not.

He is essentially agreeing with your post. He thinks someone of 3.8 GPA should have a 35+ and if they don't then there is something wrong with the grading scheme.

 

[jon stewart]

taking the mcat and taking regular classes are somewhat different things, i dont think that just beacause you have a high gpa, that it means you should get a higher mcat, or vice versa, otherwise your gpa is "invalid". The mcat is your performance on one day, while your GPA is more representitive of several years of your work. Besides isnt the mcat used to determine your success in medical school? Just like the SATs are used to determine your success in college, i remember i few posts ago where poeple how had lower SAT scores had high college gpa's. Go figure.

 

[Law2Doc]

taking the mcat and taking regular classes are somewhat different things, i dont think that just beacause you have a high gpa, that it means you should get a higher mcat, or vice versa, otherwise your gpa is "invalid". The mcat is your performance on one day, while your GPA is more representitive of several years of your work. Besides isnt the mcat used to determine your success in medical school? Just like the SATs are used to determine your success in college, i remember i few posts ago where poeple how had lower SAT scores had high college gpa's. Go figure.

The MCAT probably correlates less with your success in medical school than as to your success on subsequent science related standardized tests, such as the boards. The fact that the MCAT is the only uniform, across the board, means of comparison amongst all applicants results in it being used as a check against things like grade inflation. While one person's low score could just be a bad test day, if a significant number of applicants from the same school do below what their GPA would suggest, it probably means something else.

 

[gujuDoc]

It's a pretty natural nexis to go from differences in GPA to issues involving grade inflation. Considering that schools use the MCAT as a check against grading differences, the fact that the MCAT was kept the same in the initial example is actually suggestive of this - it's not really a stretch.
More troubling to me was the initial notion that only numerical stats were relevant -- I could certainly conceive of situations where both of the OPs hypothetical applicants had a shot at top schools and situations where neither had a shot at any allopathic schools.

I agree. I know some people with lower MCAT scores and GPA's that got into med school this year, and some with slightly higher stats that didn't get in. What was different???? Exposure to the field through volunteerism, research, etc. Greater leadership skills, etc.

Stop worrying about what's better and just do the best you can do and give applying a shot.

In the end people with 3.5 and 3.8's most likely will both become MDs. These debates are getting to be more and more and more and more useless with each new day. One day its a debate on whether one needs or doesn't need advanced classes to get a good MCAT score, the next day its a debate over what the validity of GPA at different schools is, the next day after that it is about how MCAT/GPA correlates with intelligence and IQ levels, and then whether intelligence is better then good bedside manner and vice versa. Oh my god, just stop with all the useless debates and realize these forums were meant to be created for real questions, not senseless debates. By real questions, I mean things of importance like suggestions on how to study if you are doing something wrong, help with specific questions, etc. etc.

As per applying to med school, we are all glad to help give suggestions on schools to apply to, but people, please realize that most of us are premeds too. We are only giving you anecdotal information and there is more to applying then anecdotal information. We'll give you some suggestions, but don't just apply somewhere because someone said to do so. There are resources like the MSAR for a reason, and that reason is to do one's own research and make final decisions. If you want to apply to an outreach school, do so. If you want to apply to a state school only, do so. Don't tell us to tell you like there is a magic formula to admission to med school. And for those of you like 10094 who is lazy to look up their own med school information, these boards aren't here for lazy people to get others to their research for them. It is here for real questions. If once you've done your research, you find specific questions that you would like to know, go ahead and ask it.

But for god's sake, please stop with all the senseless debates. They are a waste of time.

Last but not least, I apologize if I'm being sooooo blunt. But I hate seeing so many senseless debates.

 

[anomic]

OKAY.

(warning, this isn't spell checked)

This is the BIG secret of med school amdmissions. MCAT and GPA are only numbers!!! They are used during the initial screen and maybe looked at only a big afterwards. Once you have good marks (greater than 3.5 and a 29) they look at the EC's and Letters of Rec. It turns out that often, people with higher marks have better EC's and Letters b/c they are generally more motivated.

Often, we pre-meds are so narrow minded and live in a sheltered academic world. The best doctors are NOT always the ones with the highest scores from the "best" med schools. Look how many foreign doctors there are here who are terrific and didn't even go to a US med school.

Hopefully, most of us will look back in our mid-30's and realize how pathetic deteterming your life based on grades were. I wish pre-meds were forced to take business (not econ) classes and observe corporate institutions to realize how trivial grades really are.

 

[gujuDoc]

OKAY.

(warning, this isn't spell checked)

This is the BIG secret of med school amdmissions. MCAT and GPA are only numbers!!! They are used during the initial screen and maybe looked at only a big afterwards. Once you have good marks (greater than 3.5 and a 29) they look at the EC's and Letters of Rec. It turns out that often, people with higher marks have better EC's and Letters b/c they are generally more motivated.

Often, we pre-meds are so narrow minded and live in a sheltered academic world. The best doctors are NOT always the ones with the highest scores from the "best" med schools. Look how many foreign doctors there are here who are terrific and didn't even go to a US med school.

Hopefully, most of us will look back in our mid-30's and realize how pathetic deteterming your life based on grades were. I wish pre-meds were forced to take business (not econ) classes and observe corporate institutions to realize how trivial grades really are.

I agree with this totally. One B or even C in the long run isn't going to make you less of a good doctor then a person with a 4.0. There's so much that goes into healthcare its not even funny. I.E. there are good booksmart people who are real poor people at clinical sort of things. Then there are those who are equally good in both aspects.

This is a senseless debate.

 

[zurned]

OKAY.

(warning, this isn't spell checked)

This is the BIG secret of med school amdmissions. MCAT and GPA are only numbers!!! They are used during the initial screen and maybe looked at only a big afterwards. Once you have good marks (greater than 3.5 and a 29) they look at the EC's and Letters of Rec. It turns out that often, people with higher marks have better EC's and Letters b/c they are generally more motivated.

Often, we pre-meds are so narrow minded and live in a sheltered academic world. The best doctors are NOT always the ones with the highest scores from the "best" med schools. Look how many foreign doctors there are here who are terrific and didn't even go to a US med school.

Hopefully, most of us will look back in our mid-30's and realize how pathetic deteterming your life based on grades were. I wish pre-meds were forced to take business (not econ) classes and observe corporate institutions to realize how trivial grades really are.

Yep i totally agree with you. Grades are meaningless. However, becuase we are pre-meds and there are so many of us, it is the only way that they can screen us out. They can't interview us all. So i guess as much as i hate myself and other premeds for obsessing over grades, its very justafiable cuz of the system.

 

[gujuDoc]

Yep i totally agree with you. Grades are meaningless. However, becuase we are pre-meds and there are so many of us, it is the only way that they can screen us out. They can't interview us all. So i guess as much as i hate myself and other premeds for obsessing over grades, its very justafiable cuz of the system.

Yes, but once you get past the initial screening of MCAT/GPA, there's more they look at like what else you have on your application. Do you work or volunteer?? Do you do research?? Have you ever been published??? Do you have any awards from things such as sports or research or academic things??? They look at the whole package. So its senseless to assume that someone with a 3.5 and 3.8 are a huge difference if they have they have the same MCAT. Because its hard to figure out who is better based solely on a .3 difference in their GPA. One has to look at their ECs, letters of recommendation and other qualifications before determining that one.

 

[MoosePilot]

well it's not like these aren't the nation's top students anyway.

and no, i did not go to harvard.

Nation's top students?

Doesn't the bible say something about pride, PD?

Not everyone wants to go to an Ivy, so the students who do go aren't chosen out of the entire pool. The main difference between an Ivy and any other school is history. Why do I care if a school has been there a long time, is on the East coast, and thinks too highly of itself? I just wanted to learn some science, I didn't need the attitude.

 

[gujuDoc]

Nation's top students?

Doesn't the bible say something about pride, PD?

Not everyone wants to go to an Ivy, so the students who do go aren't chosen out of the entire pool. The main difference between an Ivy and any other school is history. Why do I care if a school has been there a long time, is on the East coast, and thinks too highly of itself? I just wanted to learn some science, I didn't need the attitude.

Yes, I should point out that I knew quite a few students when I was younger that chose state schools over top IVY league schools too. Many can't afford the ridiculously high prices of IVY league schools when they have state scholarships, etc. to keep them in state schools and family issues to think about. So trying to say one is better then the other is as useless as trying to ask questions like the original question.

 

[dragonmate]

taking the mcat and taking regular classes are somewhat different things, i dont think that just beacause you have a high gpa, that it means you should get a higher mcat, or vice versa, otherwise your gpa is "invalid". The mcat is your performance on one day, while your GPA is more representitive of several years of your work. Besides isnt the mcat used to determine your success in medical school? Just like the SATs are used to determine your success in college, i remember i few posts ago where poeple how had lower SAT scores had high college gpa's. Go figure.

I am a perfect example of this case...25 on ACT, 3.9 gpa in college. And a comment on the gpa vs mcat deal: First off, let me say that I go to a research 1 university (no history of grade inflation as far as I know). Unfortunately I ended up with a 27 on the mcat. If I were to assess what went wrong, I can tell you that the physical sciences section happened to test mostly the very things that I was dreading. This unfortunate circumstance produced a 7 on P.S. I personally don't know if this is a reflection of my potentional as a medical student or future physician (it may be...who knows?). The point is, like a previous post said, the MCAT is somewhat of a crapshoot and is one day of your life. High gpa doesn't necessarily yield high MCAT and vise versa.

 

[45408]

I'ts funny you say that because I know students at state schools with 3.9+s and MCAT scores of 30 yet the students I know who attend schools like Hopkins and Ivy leagues with 3.8 gpas or higher tend to score 35+ on the MCAT. Hell, I go to Hopkins and people with below 3.5 gpas score pretty dam well on the mcat while the students with stellar gpas at state schools seem to struggle with the test. Grade inflation at privates? I think not.

Generalizations? I think so. Your reading comprehension is lacking as well, because you're arguing with a guy who agrees with you.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Generalizations? I think so. Your reading comprehension is lacking as well, because you're arguing with a guy who agrees with you.

Ha Ha, funny ****

 

[DrBowtie]

I pointed that out on page 1.

 

[jon stewart]

The MCAT probably correlates less with your success in medical school than as to your success on subsequent science related standardized tests, such as the boards. The fact that the MCAT is the only uniform, across the board, means of comparison amongst all applicants results in it being used as a check against things like grade inflation. While one person's low score could just be a bad test day, if a significant number of applicants from the same school do below what their GPA would suggest, it probably means something else.

with thousands of applicants from various schools, do the adcoms actually have the time to compare mcat statistics from students from your own undergrad school?

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Nation's top students?

Doesn't the bible say something about pride, PD?

Not everyone wants to go to an Ivy, so the students who do go aren't chosen out of the entire pool. The main difference between an Ivy and any other school is history. Why do I care if a school has been there a long time, is on the East coast, and thinks too highly of itself? I just wanted to learn some science, I didn't need the attitude.

ok ok i shouldn't have generalized so much. By top students i meant they are top %s of their classes,; it doesn't mean there are no top students that went anywhere else. personally I would never pick a school based on prestige.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Applicants need to meet certain expectations to be able to prove they're suitable for med school. A 3.5, 30, accomplishes that. Consider these numbers to be the dividing line between competitive and non-competitive applicants. Every school has students with 3.5's, every school has students with 30's, usually they are mutually exclusive, but not always the case. GPA doesn't become an asset unless you have 3.9 or above. MCAT doesn't become an asset unless you score 36 or above. If you fit somewhere in between these numbers, great, you're now competitive. Now your other stuff has to shine for schools to take notice.

 

[45408]

I pointed that out on page 1.

thank you

 

[rugirlie]

Applicants need to meet certain expectations to be able to prove they're suitable for med school. A 3.5, 30, accomplishes that. Consider these numbers to be the dividing line between competitive and non-competitive applicants. Every school has students with 3.5's, every school has students with 30's, usually they are mutually exclusive, but not always the case. GPA doesn't become an asset unless you have 3.9 or above. MCAT doesn't become an asset unless you score 36 or above. If you fit somewhere in between these numbers, great, you're now competitive. Now your other stuff has to shine for schools to take notice.

Well said!! I was one of those people who was worried about MCAT score-gpa discrepency. While my gpa was great, my MCAT score was just okay and I actually asked one of my interviewers and he pretty much told me exactly what angus here said. My gpa makes me stand out. The fact that my MCAT score is not amazing does not hurt me at all. It is just not an added stand out factor. My score is perfectly fine and I'm a competitive applicant. Basically there is the cutoffs to make you competitive and from there, it takes a high number to make ya stand out. If you don't have that high number, you're still fine, you just won't stand out in THAT specific area. Instead, you dazzle them with your ECs, LORs, interview, etc....

 

[GiantGiantsFan]

Applicants need to meet certain expectations to be able to prove they're suitable for med school. A 3.5, 30, accomplishes that. Consider these numbers to be the dividing line between competitive and non-competitive applicants. Every school has students with 3.5's, every school has students with 30's, usually they are mutually exclusive, but not always the case. GPA doesn't become an asset unless you have 3.9 or above. MCAT doesn't become an asset unless you score 36 or above. If you fit somewhere in between these numbers, great, you're now competitive. Now your other stuff has to shine for schools to take notice.

I agree with this, although I would add that the location of the "dividing line" changes depending on what schools you are looking at. For the top tier schools, the line between competitive and noncompetitive GPAs may be closer to a 3.8, for example.