Do adcoms not care about class rigor at all?

[paul2752]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I heard many times that med schools do NOT care about your classes' rigor at all. How true is this?

 

[Astra]

very true. GPA > anything else.

Take the easiest professors you can.

If you wanna go even a step further, do a easy major and do only the prereqs for med school

 

[paul2752]

Wow that sounds a bit unfair lol...

 

[pioneer22]

along these lines, do adcoms not care if you take 17 credits per semester, compared to 15?
ie. is 17 credits seen as more rigorous than 15, if two applicants are the same otherwise?

 

[Astra]

along these lines, do adcoms not care if you take 17 credits per semester, compared to 15?
ie. is 17 credits seen as more rigorous than 15, if two applicants are the same otherwise?

I'm fairly confident adcoms would select a student with a 4.0 who took 15 credits per semester over a student with 3.8 who took 17 credits per semester. Schools love to brag about their matriculant averages

 

[libertyyne]

Wow that sounds a bit unfair lol...

Life is unfair, get used to it. It is a game, play the game win the prize.

 

[doctorbob23]

very true. GPA > anything else.

Take the easiest professors you can.

If you wanna go even a step further, do a easy major and do only the prereqs for med school

Id say they do look at it but theres so many applicants that GPA is much easier to compare them, at least in the beginning stages.

And I agree, put yourself in a situation where you can produce the highest grades and aim for the highest gpa

 

[kb1900]

I'm fairly confident adcoms would select a student with a 4.0 who took 15 credits per semester over a student with 3.8 who took 17 credits per semester. Schools love to brag about their matriculant averages

there is no doubt about this statement.

i say this as someone who took 12 credits for the majority of their semesters

(though i had some 19 credit semesters while balancing everything else to show them i could handle the academic workload)

 

[Daodejing]

The answer to your question is nuanced and highly depends on the school the adcoms are representing. They might be used to seeing, and therefore more familiar with, applicants from certain undergrads.

That being said, a 3.8 from historically rigorous schools like a Princeton or MIT > 3.95 from non-flagship state school.

If all other things are a wash, this is where the MCAT comes in and is the great application equalizer. Generally, the # of credits/semester may be looked at a good bit after they initially screen your application with the GPA and MCAT. You want these to be high at least to get your foot in the door.

 

[efle]

You can at least say with certainty that they don't care enough to justify the hit to your GPA is usually brings. Unfortunately, in this process the safest move is to take an easy major and dodge any harsh grading that you can. Doing what you want and getting the most out of college will often mean more difficulty/risk for your app.

 

[ciestar]

along these lines, do adcoms not care if you take 17 credits per semester, compared to 15?
ie. is 17 credits seen as more rigorous than 15, if two applicants are the same otherwise?

I think this is largely adcom dependent...one I have spoken to takes it into account to an extent..basically, if you're only taking 12 credits a semester and not much science, it doesn't reflect well on you. But that's just one adcom, so idk what that overall consensus on this is

 

[Goro]

If you major in Art History and have a 4.0 GPA, you're Harvard or Stanford caliber.
The MCAT is the great equalizer, and people still have to take pre-reqs, if only for MCAT prep.

And 15 creds vs 17? No one's going to get that granular. Stop thinking like a pre-med.

12-13 creds/semester, we notice.

In addition, it's not a zero sum game. We don't compare applicants to each other; you are competing against yourself. Med schools don't interview two people for a single seat.

I heard many times that med schools do NOT care about your classes' rigor at all. How true is this?

 

[aldol16]

This would depend on how you define "care." Is it noticeable that you took a heavier science courseload than someone who takes intro to photography or something? Yes. But would anyone ever correct your GPA for that? No. People care about the bottom line. Because the bottom line is what they have to report. US News doesn't care that a med school admits students who took more difficult classes and thus has a lower average GPA. They only care about that GPA number. Same for adcoms.

That said, it generally is easier to do well in a major/class that you are genuinely interested in rather than a class on subject matter you abhore. If you love quantum mechanics enough to take the class and you're qualified for it, you could probably do well in that course.

 

[zurc2014]

very true. GPA > anything else.

Take the easiest professors you can.

If you wanna go even a step further, do a easy major and do only the prereqs for med school

I told myself this lol. If I could do it all over I would major in something interesting and stupid easy while taking the prereqs. 4.0 in Art Studies>> 3.4 Biochemistry Adcoms will look at the Art Studies student and be like " Wow this student is unique and stands out among the billions of science majors" Nah...he just played the system like a boss.

 

[787593]

I heard many times that med schools do NOT care about your classes' rigor at all. How true is this?

One of the microbiology professors at my university taught in the fall and was super strict and gave few As. The other professor taught in the spring and was incredibly slack.

I took micro in the spring, rocked a 96%, and never looked back.

#PadTheGPA

 

[mavric1298]

This would depend on how you define "care." Is it noticeable that you took a heavier science courseload than someone who takes intro to photography or something? Yes. But would anyone ever correct your GPA for that? No. People care about the bottom line. Because the bottom line is what they have to report. US News doesn't care that a med school admits students who took more difficult classes and thus has a lower average GPA. They only care about that GPA number. Same for adcoms.

You kinda say two different things in the same paragraph...but stats say your first sentence doesn't hold true. They don't care at all. Everyone has to take science pre-recs, and outside of that no one cares what classes your take. Some of the non-science majors have the highest acceptance rate, and higher gpas is a huge part of that. Look at my school - the average undergrad bio major had a 2.89 cGPA, and other non-sciences all average close to 3.3-3.6. What do you think would be a better path to take?

I mean why not be a chem major?! My school sets a mandatory average of 2.8 +-.2. The average in the 6 chem courses I took? 2.4, 2.6 x 4, and one 2.8. You think they do that in literary arts or comparative history if ideas?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[aldol16]

You kinda say two different things in the same paragraph...but stats say your first sentence doesn't hold true. They don't care at all. Everyone has to take science pre-recs, and outside of that no one cares what classes your take. Some of the non-science majors have the highest acceptance rate, and higher gpas is a huge part of that. Look at my school - the average undergrad bio major had a 2.89 cGPA, and other non-sciences all average close to 3.3-3.6. What do you think would be a better path to take?

I mean why not be a chem major?! My school sets a mandatory average of 2.8 +-.2. The average in the 6 chem courses I took? 2.4, 2.6 x 4, and one 2.8. You think they do that in literary arts or comparative history if ideas?

I don't think you understood what I'm saying. It's noticeable to anybody if one person pursued a hardcore physics major as compared to somebody else who majored in history. If you've ever looked at transcripts before in context of any sort of application, the course names stand out to you. You'll get a sense of the applicant's academic history. But it's possible to notice something but not care about it in the context of admissions. "Oh, it looks like this guy took a bunch of math-heavy physics courses! But he got a 2.9 GPA - sucks for him." *throws application away. That first sentence is noticing and the latter sentence is not caring.

As far as I can tell, a similar proportion of biological science, humanities, mathematics, and social sciences applicants end up matriculating - at around 40%. Physical science majors and specialized health sciences majors have lower rates of matriculation. But this is not necessary due to social science and humanities majors having higher GPA. Med schools want a diverse class and diversity of perspective is very important.

 

[efle]

I don't think you understood what I'm saying. It's noticeable to anybody if one person pursued a hardcore physics major as compared to somebody else who majored in history. If you've ever looked at transcripts before in context of any sort of application, the course names stand out to you. You'll get a sense of the applicant's academic history. But it's possible to notice something but not care about it in the context of admissions. "Oh, it looks like this guy took a bunch of math-heavy physics courses! But he got a 2.9 GPA - sucks for him." *throws application away. That first sentence is noticing and the latter sentence is not caring.

As far as I can tell, a similar proportion of biological science, humanities, mathematics, and social sciences applicants end up matriculating - at around 40%. Physical science majors and specialized health sciences majors have lower rates of matriculation. But this is not necessary due to social science and humanities majors having higher GPA. Med schools want a diverse class and diversity of perspective is very important.

There are also some interesting MCAT score discrepancies between majors that confound things. Health sciences score way lower, and Humanities actually come out on top, even above Maths and Physical Sciences.

 

[aldol16]

There are also some interesting MCAT score discrepancies between majors that confound things. Health sciences score way lower, and Humanities actually come out on top, even above Maths and Physical Sciences.

This was the table I was referencing. There are far too few math/stats majors for the information to carry much statistical power. The humanities applicant pool is also relatively small compared to biological sciences and even to physical sciences (less than half the size). Given the small number of data points, the mean and SD will be especially sensitive to fluctuations. Furthermore, the SD of all groups is fairly large and overlap broadly, so that suggests that major is not a particularly good predictor of MCAT score (if it was, you would expect very little variance about). It may be that the humanities majors who took the MCAT may already be good scientists and could have pursued science but instead chose the "easier" route. Similarly, the humanities majors who took the exam are a self-selecting group, as it's a large leap from history to medicine (relative to the sciences) and the people who want to do medicine have already thought it out well and are committed to it. Whereas many scientists who were not ready for medicine may have taken the exam simply because they are good scientists and everybody around them has always told them they should be doctors because they're good at science.

 

[paul2752]

Let me be more specific this time:

Assume there is economics major 3.8 GPA who only took pre-reqs and nothing else. And there are chem. E major with 3.8GPA who took pre reqs AND some extra upper level chem/physics/math classes. Who will be favored, if everything else is same?

 

[gyngyn]

Let me be more specific this time:

Assume there is economics major 3.8 GPA who only took pre-reqs and nothing else. And there are chem. E major with 3.8GPA who took pre reqs AND some extra upper level chem/physics/math classes. Who will be favored, if everything else is same?

They're both fine. We don't compare them head to head this way.

 

[Lucca]

Let me be more specific this time:

Assume there is economics major 3.8 GPA who only took pre-reqs and nothing else. And there are chem. E major with 3.8GPA who took pre reqs AND some extra upper level chem/physics/math classes. Who will be favored, if everything else is same?

You are falling into the most common pre-med trap in existence.

1) admissions is not a zero sum game; both can get in
2) GPA is not strictly a measurement stick and how it is used will vary from school to school. Schools like WashU with median GPAs in the 3.9 area are clearly trying to boost numbers. Other schools view GPA more like a competency bar and consider other things more important than pure academics -- Loyola Stritch and Rush for example. The previous director of admissions at Stanford (things could have changed since) once remarked publicly in a speech you can find on youtube that you are either "academically prepared for medical school" or not. What that phrase means can vary from school to school, and, hence, so will the important of academic metrics. This is why the MSAR is such a useful tool.

 

[efle]

I love how Stanford says that and then seems to think "academically prepared" means around the top 3-8% lol

One great example of walking the walk is University of Washington. Extremely well regarded (according to res directors, similar to Vanderbilt and Cornell) yet rocking a 31 median MCAT and with GPA ranges down to 3.2-3.3. I really doubt they care if your 3.8 was in engineering or basket weaving.

 

[619959]

I thought schools care more if you take upper level science courses than not taking any of the upper level science courses.
I know for AACOMAS, they count in certain Anthropology courses in the SGPA calculation? What if someone takes bunch of such Anthropology courses instead of taking Anatomy and Physiology (or any other similar courses) ?
Does it make a difference?

 

[mavric1298]

As has been said, basically no, they don't care

 

[Goro]

This is a pre-med delusion. Adcoms do NOT compare candidates side by side on a few data points. The two people are NOT competing for a single seat. This isn't like tenure selection at Yale.

If both are good, both will be accepted.

Let me be more specific this time:

Assume there is economics major 3.8 GPA who only took pre-reqs and nothing else. And there are chem. E major with 3.8GPA who took pre reqs AND some extra upper level chem/physics/math classes. Who will be favored, if everything else is same?

 

[Dagrimsta1]

Unfortunately there is no objective way to test "rigor". Best example: My physics professor would occasionally throw us the "Oh, I have a conference this week, read chapters 16-17, complete the HW, and we have a test on Wednesday." This made the course extremely more difficult then necessary b/c we had no to interact with and bounce questions off... On the other end, a buddy of mine in a private school had the cell phone # of his physics professor whom was easily accessible outside of class... While our material was the same, my professor made the class much more difficult then necessary. I ended up with a B while my buddy got his A-...
Now it comes time for the MCAT....
130 of physics/chem for me
126 for my buddy.
Is it a perfect system? Hell no, but it's the best one we've got.

 

[paul2752]

Thanks for the all responses.