Do I stand a chance?

[gsrimport]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi,
I applied to osteopathic medical schools because the concept of osteopathy makes a lot more sense to me. I really want to attend an osteopathic medical school and I have applied already. However, I have faced problems in freshman year which resulted in a low gpa. I am a senior right now and over the years, I have increased my gpa a considerate amount.

During my freshman year, I got a science gpa of 2.0 and an overall gpa of 2.7

I have increased my science gpa to 2.9 and non science to 3.3 and have an overall of 3.1. Would medical schools pay attention that I have increased my gpa or do they just look at the pure numbers rather than the overall process? Thanks.

 

[boysetsfire]

Hey-
You do have a chance. Osteopathic schools look more at your enthusiasm for DO medicine, and your extracurricular experience. My recommendation is to find a DO and shadow him or her, and get a good rec letter. You can find DO's on www.do-online.org (i think). This is a crucial point. Speaking from someone who sits on an admissions committee, this is very important. Also, be very knowledgable about osteopathic medicine if you get interviews. I saw my admissions committee accept a 22 mcat 2.8 gpa because they were a great person, and reject a 3.9 35 mcat because he was a cocky bastard. I had a 3.3 overall, and I got in with a 26 mcat to most of the schools I applied. Stay positive. You'll make it.

 

[Sharon Lee]

That is good advice...stay positive. Osteopathic schools definitely look at improvements in grades and your clinical exposure or healthcare related activities. My first two years were pretty rocky as well but I pulled it up to a 3.3 with only a 25-O on the MCAT and I have one acceptance and a second interview on its way.

In an interview don't point out your freshman year. Talk about how you've improved and what you have done to be at the GPA you are at now. And if you don't have much healthcare experience, get on that now, and get those applications out as soon as possible.

Good luck.

 

[bigbassinbob]

Hey-
You do have a chance. Osteopathic schools look more at your enthusiasm for DO medicine, and your extracurricular experience. My recommendation is to find a DO and shadow him or her, and get a good rec letter. You can find DO's on www.do-online.org (i think). This is a crucial point. Speaking from someone who sits on an admissions committee, this is very important. Also, be very knowledgable about osteopathic medicine if you get interviews. I saw my admissions committee accept a 22 mcat 2.8 gpa because they were a great person, and reject a 3.9 35 mcat because he was a cocky bastard. I had a 3.3 overall, and I got in with a 26 mcat to most of the schools I applied. Stay positive. You'll make it.

This kind of thing pisses me off. Accept a 2.8/22 and reject a 3.9/35? That's just ridiculous. The guy with the 3.9/35 has a right to be cocky, he's put in a ton of work to get to that place. I just don't understand how adcoms can justify this process when they do such idiotic things like this.

 

[medic170]

This kind of thing pisses me off. Accept a 2.8/22 and reject a 3.9/35? That's just ridiculous. The guy with the 3.9/35 has a right to be cocky, he's put in a ton of work to get to that place. I just don't understand how adcoms can justify this process when they do such idiotic things like this.

Don't believe everything you read on SDN

 

[JohnDO]

This kind of thing pisses me off. Accept a 2.8/22 and reject a 3.9/35? That's just ridiculous. The guy with the 3.9/35 has a right to be cocky, he's put in a ton of work to get to that place. I just don't understand how adcoms can justify this process when they do such idiotic things like this.

Because medicine is already chock full of arrogant people who do well academically but are so socially inept they couldn't string together a coherent conversation with a stranger for more than a minute. You know what might be refreshing to adcoms? Someone that has a right to be cocky but isn't.

 

[sia_simba]

1. you don't stand a chance if you don't apply.
2. Your grades don't necessarily determine whether you are cocky/arrogant or not. Some people w/ 3.3gpa and a 25mcat is hella cocky.
3. To rain on people's sunshine, there are tons of people who attend DO schools and don't have any personality at all.
4. I personally know many student who are doing rotations and saying that the DOs at the hospital are more of a jerk than the MDs... probably because the DOs think they have to prove something ? I don't know.

It is pretty sad how the 3.9gpa and 35 didn't get accepted into a DO program, but he probably brought that upon himself. But I am pretty sure he got accepted some place. But seriously though... who cares about what other people got ? Just know that the only chance you've got is the opportunities you give yourself. APPLY NOW!!!!

 

[docbill]

I think.. "the truth lies somewhere in between".. that is my saying.
And I will end with that.

Okay.. maybe by adding that I would trust my Nurse friend (she's going into med) as my future doctor rather than some other peope with a 3.99 and 35MCAT. My opinion.

 

[Vince]

Hi,
I applied to osteopathic medical schools because the concept of osteopathy makes a lot more sense to me. I really want to attend an osteopathic medical school and I have applied already. However, I have faced problems in freshman year which resulted in a low gpa. I am a senior right now and over the years, I have increased my gpa a considerate amount.

During my freshman year, I got a science gpa of 2.0 and an overall gpa of 2.7

I have increased my science gpa to 2.9 and non science to 3.3 and have an overall of 3.1. Would medical schools pay attention that I have increased my gpa or do they just look at the pure numbers rather than the overall process? Thanks.

You have a good chance, especially if you did at least average on the MCAT. Apply to all the schools and study hard during school once you're in...b/c once your in, your college GPA won't matter anymore....you can start over with a clean slate.

 

[boysetsfire]

This kind of thing pisses me off. Accept a 2.8/22 and reject a 3.9/35? That's just ridiculous. The guy with the 3.9/35 has a right to be cocky, he's put in a ton of work to get to that place. I just don't understand how adcoms can justify this process when they do such idiotic things like this.

Bigbassinbob-
I assure you that this in fact happened, I was right there when it took place. The faculty who interviewed this kid with the 3.9 said that he had no idea what osteopathic medicine was, he was only applying to the school as a "worst case scenario" and he said he didn't think he would have to work very hard to excel at the school. Does that sound like someone you would want in your class? I don't care what numbers someone has, there's much more to it than that. Those of us know that just being smart in med school is not enough. Sure, the 3.9 kid was probably very bright, and most people with those numbers did achieve them by hard work and dedication. But some people who are naturally very good at taking tests, etc, are just plain a-holes and no one can stand to be around them. Imagine what type of doctors people like this make. One has to have a baseline level of ability to perform to be successful in medical school. That being said, the person with the low gpa had a crappy first year, like many of us did, and made up for it the last three years. He showed an outstanding work ethic, had great communication skills, and interviewed very well. I would take this guy over the 3.9 kid any day.

 

[boysetsfire]

1. you don't stand a chance if you don't apply.
2. Your grades don't necessarily determine whether you are cocky/arrogant or not. Some people w/ 3.3gpa and a 25mcat is hella cocky.
3. To rain on people's sunshine, there are tons of people who attend DO schools and don't have any personality at all.
4. I personally know many student who are doing rotations and saying that the DOs at the hospital are more of a jerk than the MDs... probably because the DOs think they have to prove something ? I don't know.

To comment on this--
Its true, there are several people in my class who are cocky jerks, and who I wonder how they ever got in.
This is the case at both MD and DO schools I'm sure.
I do think that DO schools tend to instill their students with the "little man" syndrome, and want them to believe that they are somehow more superior to their MD counterparts, and this is just plain wrong. During my pre-clinical years, it would constantly piss me off when one of the DO faculty would describe the incompetence of an MD evaluating back pain, and then go into how wonderfully the DO would treat the patient. DO's, at least the old guard of DO's, tend to perpetuate the rift between MD and DO's. It's more of a problem with the faculty than the students actually.

 

[bigbassinbob]

Bigbassinbob-
I assure you that this in fact happened, I was right there when it took place. The faculty who interviewed this kid with the 3.9 said that he had no idea what osteopathic medicine was, he was only applying to the school as a "worst case scenario" and he said he didn't think he would have to work very hard to excel at the school. Does that sound like someone you would want in your class? I don't care what numbers someone has, there's much more to it than that. Those of us know that just being smart in med school is not enough. Sure, the 3.9 kid was probably very bright, and most people with those numbers did achieve them by hard work and dedication. But some people who are naturally very good at taking tests, etc, are just plain a-holes and no one can stand to be around them. Imagine what type of doctors people like this make. One has to have a baseline level of ability to perform to be successful in medical school. That being said, the person with the low gpa had a crappy first year, like many of us did, and made up for it the last three years. He showed an outstanding work ethic, had great communication skills, and interviewed very well. I would take this guy over the 3.9 kid any day.

Even if the guy had no idea of what osteopathic medicine was (which I find hard to believe considering the exhausting essays osteopathic schools make you write on "why osteopathic medicine"), I personally don't think this should prevent him from getting into an osteopathic school. The bottom line is that he obviously wants to be a doctor or else he wouldn't be applying, and osteopathic medicine really isn't that different from allopathic medicine. Adcoms should turn their attention away from "why osteopathic?" questions and focus on the real isssue - "why medicine?"

As for the other responses he gave, I would be willing to bet a kidney that this guy didn't say he was applying to the school as a "worst case scenario." Someone with a 3.9/35 has enough common sense to know that's an automatic rejection, and I think this was just an adcom member's inference considering his high numbers. I'd also be willing to bet that his statement saying he didn't think he would have to work very hard to excel at the school came from a twisted summary of an interviewer's impression. For God's sake, he probably wouldn't have to work very hard to excel in a place where they admit people with 2.8 GPAs and 22 MCATs.

Finally, how could you justify admitting a person with a 2.8/22 because of their "outstanding work ethic?" This guy probably spent his entire college career in bars every night getting plastered while the guy with the 3.9/35 was at home studying his ass off for the exam several weeks away. It's just ridiculous that things like this are allowed to happen.

 

[mdsh00]

This guy probably spent his entire college career in bars every night getting plastered while the guy with the 3.9/35 was at home studying his ass off for the exam several weeks away. It's just ridiculous that things like this are allowed to happen.

Yeah but you could argue that the 3.9 guy could luck out on easier professors. Or he/she could have got a lot of good grades by cheating on exams or using material from previous semesters. I know this happens a fair number of times at UCLA. Point is that it's all subjective. If the school has a bad vibe about a person, then they won't take him/her. This is the same reason you hear of 3.9 students getting rejected from Tier III allo-schools.

 

[docbill]

This happens everywhere... I am just upset I was not part of this group.
They had it easy.

 

[sia_simba]

To clarify on the "myth" about whether or not a 3.9gpa 35mcat can be rejected or not on the basis of ignorance toward osteopathic medicie, I draw my attention to an experience I've had...

During my interview period, I was in a room w/ about 11 other students. As we were taking turns to get interview, whoever was left in the room was talking about osteopathic medicine. Some person/people in my group didn't know what OMM/OMT stood for, didn't know who founded osteopathy, didn't know what is COMLEX and many more ridiculous stuff which you would think a common person applying to an osteopathic school would know. As the conversation continued, there was this one girl had NO IDEA what she was doing there... she even confessed to NOT KNOWING WHAT OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE is!!! NOW is that ridiculous or what ? At that point, I just smiled at her and deep inside, hope she survive the interview because I wasn't sure how she got through the primary application... maybe its her grades ?

 

[OmedDOC]

Finally, how could you justify admitting a person with a 2.8/22 because of their "outstanding work ethic?" This guy probably spent his entire college career in bars every night getting plastered while the guy with the 3.9/35 was at home studying his ass off for the exam several weeks away. It's just ridiculous that things like this are allowed to happen.

These are not my numbers but I'll tell you how someone has these numbers and still has the "most outstanding work ethic in his class" ,..my quote. How does anyone know anothers situation, what other things are in their life, and so on.. What if they were forced to work full time to support their family (have you ever worked full time and went to school/studied for the MCAT full-time). What if they lived their whole life there own and dont have a good support system? What if this person has the great compassion and motivation towards others,..wouldn't you want this person to be your doctor?

So dont sit there with the certain sense of attitude and command toward what this person did to get those grades. It doesnt always mean they were at bars at night so open your eyes. And I'm pretty sure the person with 3.9/35 didnt work full-time, was supported monetarily, and had plenty of time to focus on school.

So, NO its not ridiculous that this happens. That it happens and pisses you off is another story.

P.S. Sorry but you hit a nerve

 

[medic170]

These are not my numbers but I'll tell you how someone has these numbers and still has the "most outstanding work ethic in his class" ,..my quote. How does anyone know anothers situation, what other things are in their life, and so on.. What if they were forced to work full time to support their family (have you ever worked full time and went to school/studied for the MCAT full-time). What if they lived their whole life there own and dont have a good support system? What if this person has the great compassion and motivation towards others,..wouldn't you want this person to be your doctor?

So dont sit there with the certain sense of attitude and command toward what this person did to get those grades. It doesnt always mean they were at bars at night so open your eyes. And I'm pretty sure the person with 3.9/35 didnt work full-time, was supported monetarily, and had plenty of time to focus on school.

So, NO its not ridiculous that this happens. That it happens and pisses you off is another story.

P.S. Sorry but you hit a nerve

I worked full time to put myself through undergrad and support my family and I still managed to get a decent gpa and MCAT score. With a 2.8/22 I have to agree that someone slacked off at sometime. I understand your point though and you are right. there are many other variables to consider in admissions than a high gpa and MCAT.

 

[bigbassinbob]

Yeah but you could argue that the 3.9 guy could luck out on easier professors. Or he/she could have got a lot of good grades by cheating on exams or using material from previous semesters. I know this happens a fair number of times at UCLA. Point is that it's all subjective. If the school has a bad vibe about a person, then they won't take him/her. This is the same reason you hear of 3.9 students getting rejected from Tier III allo-schools.

Oh yeah, people get 3.9 GPAs all the time based on easier professors and cheating on tests. Are you serious? I certainly hope not. Grading is not subjective, which is why it is the most important admissions criteria at most allopathic schools. Granted that a person may "luck out" and get an easier professor for a hard class, this would balance out on the MCAT because you still have to know the material. The fact that the guy had a 35 on the MCAT proves he knew the material, and the fact that he had a 3.9 proves that really learned the material in the classes he took. I think there are way too many people who apply to osteopathic schools with low GPAs/MCAT scores hoping to get in based solely on their great "communication skills" or "compassion for people." I also think that way too many people associate low GPAs/MCAT scores with great "communication skills" or "compassion for people." This is a myth perpetuated by people with low numbers, but unfortunately some adcoms fall for it and I don't know why. The only part of a person's application that is truly subjective is the whole "people skills" thing, and it's really too bad that osteopathic schools place the most weight on this.

 

[JohnDO]

Oh yeah, people get 3.9 GPAs all the time based on easier professors and cheating on tests. Are you serious?

Are you an undergrad or in med school? At my state university the class difficulty is all about who's teaching it. There were people who glided through organic 1 because their professor basically told them what was on the test. That was the class the summer before me. I got Dr. B, who liked to make tests no one could finish on time. Thus it was a race against the clock and against each other. Those who scored the highest and got the most done got the A's. I guarantee the class before me had a higher % of A's (considering ours was on a bell curve, only 10% got A's). If you know what professors to take, you'll have a much easier time than if you don't. That's the way it works.

Grading is not subjective, which is why it is the most important admissions criteria at most allopathic schools.

Grading may not be subjective, but test writing certainly is. As far as I know there isn't some national "Organic Chemistry Test 1" that everyone in the nation gets. Test difficulty is all about teacher. Check out ratemyprofessor.com. Why do you think people make comments "easy professor". They never say "easy subject", because any subject can be inherently hard. It's all about who's writing the tests.

the fact that he had a 3.9 proves that really learned the material in the classes he took.

How do you explain everyone with a 3.9 and a 20 on the MCAT? "the fact that he had a 3.9 proves that really learned the material in the classes he took." - you

I also think that way too many people associate low GPAs/MCAT scores with great "communication skills" or "compassion for people."

Perhaps. I don't think anyone does though.

This is a myth perpetuated by people with low numbers, but unfortunately some adcoms fall for it and I don't know why

Perhaps you should write the medical schools adcoms and bestow upon them the blessings of your knowledge about what truely makes a good doctor. I'm sure you'll impress them with your outstanding credentials and qualifications on the matter. Afterall, the physicians, professors, and students who sit on adcom panels probably have no idea.

 

[bigbassinbob]

Are you an undergrad or in med school? At my state university the class difficulty is all about who's teaching it. There were people who glided through organic 1 because their professor basically told them what was on the test. That was the class the summer before me. I got Dr. B, who liked to make tests no one could finish on time. Thus it was a race against the clock and against each other. Those who scored the highest and got the most done got the A's. I guarantee the class before me had a higher % of A's (considering ours was on a bell curve, only 10% got A's). If you know what professors to take, you'll have a much easier time than if you don't. That's the way it works.


Grading may not be subjective, but test writing certainly is. As far as I know there isn't some national "Organic Chemistry Test 1" that everyone in the nation gets. Test difficulty is all about teacher. Check out ratemyprofessor.com. Why do you think people make comments "easy professor". They never say "easy subject", because any subject can be inherently hard. It's all about who's writing the tests.


How do you explain everyone with a 3.9 and a 20 on the MCAT? "the fact that he had a 3.9 proves that really learned the material in the classes he took." - you



Perhaps. I don't think anyone does though.



Perhaps you should write the medical schools adcoms and bestow upon them the blessings of your knowledge about what truely makes a good doctor. I'm sure you'll impress them with your outstanding credentials and qualifications on the matter. Afterall, the physicians, professors, and students who sit on adcom panels probably have no idea.

I'm in between undergrad and med school -- I have a 3.85/30, so I got passed over last year for someone with lower numbers and I'm kind of bitter about this process.

I also went to a state university, and of course there was a small number of classes (just as there are at big-name private institutions) that had easier teachers. But the vast majority of the time, the number of people who got A's were minimal. In some cases, there were only 3 or 4 people in the entire class of 100 or so who got A's -- obviously a very difficult accomplishment. It insults me when people say "someone with a 3.9 got it by being lucky," since this is not true at all. A person gets a high GPA through hard work and dedication, and I can guarantee you that nobody gets it by getting "lucky."

When I said the guy with the 3.9 understood the material it was because he also scored a 35 on the MCAT. People who have a high GPA/low MCAT like you mentioned are pretty rare, since most people with high GPAs really learned the material when they took the class. There are, however, some people who get very good grades through strict memorization (this is hard work in itself), and they never really spend the time to comprehend the material - because they don't have to. Unfortunately for them, the MCAT will expose their lack of true understanding. But, like I said, these folks are not very common and a good GPA usually correlates with a good MCAT score.

In my opinion, I think adcoms should be a bit more numbers oriented and rely less on interviews/essays/skin color etc. I stand by my statement that rejecting someone with a 3.9/35 and accepting someone with a 2.8/22 is ridiculous.

 

[mdsh00]

It insults me when people say "someone with a 3.9 got it by being lucky," since this is not true at all. A person gets a high GPA through hard work and dedication, and I can guarantee you that nobody gets it by getting "lucky."

Don't you think it's also insulting to say that someone with the lower grades got it because he/she partied too much? Everybody has different circumstances.

 

[ockhamsRzr]

BigBass,

Did the schools that rejected you tell you that they preferred a candidate with lower numbers. It would seem that your conclusion/rationale for why you are not MS1 right now is a bit, well, unrealistic.

It kills me how many people seem to forget that being an excellent doctor requires a incredibly well-rounded individual (notice I said "excellent" doctor). The numbers can only minimally speak to this assessment of an individual. That you are so quick to blame skin color and how a person articulates their desire may be more of a liability for you than you care to accept.

-OckhamsRzr

 

[bigbassinbob]

BigBass,

Did the schools that rejected you tell you that they preferred a candidate with lower numbers. It would seem that your conclusion/rationale for why you are not MS1 right now is a bit, well, unrealistic.

It kills me how many people seem to forget that being an excellent doctor requires a incredibly well-rounded individual (notice I said "excellent" doctor). The numbers can only minimally speak to this assessment of an individual. That you are so quick to blame skin color and how a person articulates their desire may be more of a liability for you than you care to accept.

-OckhamsRzr

Over the summer, I met with a couple admissions deans and they really couldn't give me any definitive answers as to why I didn't get in. One said I needed more non-healthcare related volunteer work, which I find to be strange since there are tons of people in med school who have no non-healthcare volunteer experience. I have a few ideas of my own as to why I didn't get in, and I think I've corrected these things for this year (LORs, research, august MCAT last year, etc.). I don't really want to start another AA thread, I just feel slighted at the fact that so many URMs get in with much lower numbers.

 

[Pooh Chong]

Even if the guy had no idea of what osteopathic medicine was (which I find hard to believe considering the exhausting essays osteopathic schools make you write on "why osteopathic medicine"), I personally don't think this should prevent him from getting into an osteopathic school. The bottom line is that he obviously wants to be a doctor or else he wouldn't be applying, and osteopathic medicine really isn't that different from allopathic medicine. Adcoms should turn their attention away from "why osteopathic?" questions and focus on the real isssue - "why medicine?"

As for the other responses he gave, I would be willing to bet a kidney that this guy didn't say he was applying to the school as a "worst case scenario." Someone with a 3.9/35 has enough common sense to know that's an automatic rejection, and I think this was just an adcom member's inference considering his high numbers. I'd also be willing to bet that his statement saying he didn't think he would have to work very hard to excel at the school came from a twisted summary of an interviewer's impression. For God's sake, he probably wouldn't have to work very hard to excel in a place where they admit people with 2.8 GPAs and 22 MCATs.

Finally, how could you justify admitting a person with a 2.8/22 because of their "outstanding work ethic?" This guy probably spent his entire college career in bars every night getting plastered while the guy with the 3.9/35 was at home studying his ass off for the exam several weeks away. It's just ridiculous that things like this are allowed to happen.

Being a good physician has a lot more than just #s. Just because you get a 2.8/22 does not mean you would make a poor physician at all. Don't fall into the trap with #s. There also something called a good fit, if a student doesn't fit well with the school - it doesn't matter what their numbers are, they won't get accepted.

 

[EMTLizzy]

Being a good physician has a lot more than just #s. Just because you get a 2.8/22 does not mean you would make a poor physician at all. Don't fall into the trap with #s. There also something called a good fit, if a student doesn't fit well with the school - it doesn't matter what their numbers are, they won't get accepted.

Amen to that!

I'm interviewing at WVSOM in two weeks. It's in a small town. I love small towns. It's in West Virginia. My sister lives an hour from the school. The school is small. I'm all about small schools.

For someone who needs large cities and lots of action WVSOM would be a bad fit.

I think that's one of the reasons for the interview. People can say a lot in an essay, but it's hard to tell if they mean it and if they really will be a good fit for the school until the adcom can meet with them.

Schools aren't looking to accept people who look great on paper just to find out in a year that they are miserable and want to leave. Bad for the school and bad for the student.

 

[Jojo tuna]

This kind of thing pisses me off. Accept a 2.8/22 and reject a 3.9/35? That's just ridiculous. The guy with the 3.9/35 has a right to be cocky, he's put in a ton of work to get to that place. I just don't understand how adcoms can justify this process when they do such idiotic things like this.

what you are missing is the big picture? does a 2.8/22 always indicate that he is not a hard worker? and a 3.9/35 is always working harder? That isn't true. There are people out there who have problem at the wrong time of their lives. People who get really sick after high school, or something big happened in their lives and they didn't know how to handle it; so athough they had good grades in high school and great potential they were not allowed to focus as well as the other people. They went through some bad stuffs already, and then they had to deal with its after-effects AND school at the same time. How would that make a person?

Don't be so naive into thinking that stats represent EVERYTHING. Just because the 3.9/35 person has a smooth life and able to work hard doesn't mean that the ones with less stats are the "stupid lazy people". In fact, sometimes, the 2.9 student often has other unique insights that are really useful when he becomes a doctor.

 

[boysetsfire]

I'm in between undergrad and med school -- I have a 3.85/30, so I got passed over last year for someone with lower numbers and I'm kind of bitter about this process.

I also went to a state university, and of course there was a small number of classes (just as there are at big-name private institutions) that had easier teachers. But the vast majority of the time, the number of people who got A's were minimal. In some cases, there were only 3 or 4 people in the entire class of 100 or so who got A's -- obviously a very difficult accomplishment. It insults me when people say "someone with a 3.9 got it by being lucky," since this is not true at all. A person gets a high GPA through hard work and dedication, and I can guarantee you that nobody gets it by getting "lucky."

When I said the guy with the 3.9 understood the material it was because he also scored a 35 on the MCAT. People who have a high GPA/low MCAT like you mentioned are pretty rare, since most people with high GPAs really learned the material when they took the class. There are, however, some people who get very good grades through strict memorization (this is hard work in itself), and they never really spend the time to comprehend the material - because they don't have to. Unfortunately for them, the MCAT will expose their lack of true understanding. But, like I said, these folks are not very common and a good GPA usually correlates with a good MCAT score.

In my opinion, I think adcoms should be a bit more numbers oriented and rely less on interviews/essays/skin color etc. I stand by my statement that rejecting someone with a 3.9/35 and accepting someone with a 2.8/22 is ridiculous.

There have been studies done, and I'm trying to find the exact articles, about the lack of correlation between MCAT scores and USMLE/Overall performance in medical school. Having high numbers doesn't mean you'll do well. Sure, natural intelligence has a lot to do with it. But strong work ethic has more to do with your performance. I personally got a 26 mcat, 3.4 gpa, with a non science major, so I had less than stellar undergrad numbers. However, I am now in the top 15% of my class, got a 230 on USMLE (not phenomenal, but still solid), and 97th percentile on COMLEX, because I worked my butt off. I know several people who scored much higher on the MCAT that didn't do as well as I did on boards, class grades, etc.
I understand your frustration with not getting in. I'm suprised you didn't, your numbers seem very good. Personally, I think schools should look less at numbers, and more at personalities, and character.

 

[InductionAgent]

There have been studies done, and I'm trying to find the exact articles, about the lack of correlation between MCAT scores and USMLE/Overall performance in medical school. Having high numbers doesn't mean you'll do well. Sure, natural intelligence has a lot to do with it. But strong work ethic has more to do with your performance. I personally got a 26 mcat, 3.4 gpa, with a non science major, so I had less than stellar undergrad numbers. However, I am now in the top 15% of my class, got a 230 on USMLE (not phenomenal, but still solid), and 97th percentile on COMLEX, because I worked my butt off. I know several people who scored much higher on the MCAT that didn't do as well as I did on boards, class grades, etc.
I understand your frustration with not getting in. I'm suprised you didn't, your numbers seem very good. Personally, I think schools should look less at numbers, and more at personalities, and character.

There is a weak, but statistically significant, correlation between MCATs and board scores. I believe the correlation is in the vicinity of 0.4.

In my personal experience, I got a 35 MCAT, a C in Pathology (supposedly a highly accurate predictor of board scores), and 98th %ile on COMLEX Part I. I studied a hell of a lot harder for COMLEX than for Path.

Personality and character are important, because in order to be an effective physician, you have to be able to work with others - patients, nurses, other physicians, etc. But an adcom's measurement of personality and character solely from an interview, an essay, and some letters is equally prone to error as is the assessment of knowledge and work ethic from grades and scores.

As to the argument that some people are "bad test takers:" One of the most important parts of being a "good test taker" is studying and knowing the material. The other is being able to accurately recall and process information and to perform under pressure. These traits are extremely vital to being a good physician.

 

[bigbassinbob]

There have been studies done, and I'm trying to find the exact articles, about the lack of correlation between MCAT scores and USMLE/Overall performance in medical school. Having high numbers doesn't mean you'll do well. Sure, natural intelligence has a lot to do with it. But strong work ethic has more to do with your performance. I personally got a 26 mcat, 3.4 gpa, with a non science major, so I had less than stellar undergrad numbers. However, I am now in the top 15% of my class, got a 230 on USMLE (not phenomenal, but still solid), and 97th percentile on COMLEX, because I worked my butt off. I know several people who scored much higher on the MCAT that didn't do as well as I did on boards, class grades, etc.
I understand your frustration with not getting in. I'm suprised you didn't, your numbers seem very good. Personally, I think schools should look less at numbers, and more at personalities, and character.

Actually the studies show a strong correlation b/w MCAT and USMLE Step I, but not Step II. If I remember correctly from what one of the admissions guys told me, I think it was that once you score 10's on the MCAT subtests, you have a 99.something% chance of passing the USMLE Step I the first time.

Your numbers aren't bad by any means. There's a big difference between admitting someone with a 3.4/26 and someone with a 2.8/22. I'm pretty sure the guy with the 2.8/22 didn't score in the top percentage of COMLEX or his class.

Last year, I didn't apply to osteopathic schools because I was never exposed to the idea. My advisor didn't know much about them, so he never even mentioned them to me. So I did some research on osteopathy, and I found it was an attractive alternative to traditional medicine. This year I've applied to some osteopathic and some allopathic schools, and I'm pretty sure I'll get in somewhere. But seeing the way an osteopathic school shuns away one of the top applicants (numbers-wise) in the nation, it seems like they don't show enough respect to the people who have worked their tails off. Personally, I don't think I'd like being in a place that shows favoritism to slackers based on the fact that they can fast-talk you into submission. But that's just me, and I realize there are a lot of differing opinions on the qualifications of medical school applicants. I just like the way allopathic schools seem to be more numbers oriented, and I think this is a fair way to do things. Why have the Medical College Admissions Test if you're not going to use it in medical school admissions? Just my opinion.

 

[ockhamsRzr]

Personally, I don't think I'd like being in a place that shows favoritism to slackers based on the fact that they can fast-talk you into submission. But that's just me, and I realize there are a lot of differing opinions on the qualifications of medical school applicants. I just like the way allopathic schools seem to be more numbers oriented, and I think this is a fair way to do things. Why have the Medical College Admissions Test if you're not going to use it in medical school admissions? Just my opinion.

It seems that you are positively dim about yourself. I, as well as others here, have been fairly kid-gloved with you and your myopic view of yourself and this whole process.

First you state that you prefer Allo schools, but clearly since none of them accepted you last year, THEY don't prefer you. I'm sure many schools took candidates with your numbers last year...but not you.

This cycle you tell us you lower your standards to apply to Osteo schools "because it's an attractive alternative to traditional medicine" but then indict those same schools for "showing favoritism to slackers" 😱 😱; And "fast-talking into submission"? By your logic, an Osteo applicant would barely be able to string a sentence together if they didn't score a 12+ on VR...but they can "fast-talk" their way into med school??

This, coupled with your anger about URM's being accepted and not you (didn't I read in another thread that URMs make up less than 10% of med students), makes you seem like the most pathetic applicant one could possibly imagine. I mean a 30 MCAT is just barely over the median score nationwide...so by the numbers you're hardly special.

The coup de grace here is that you take so little responsibility for your own future (other than to gripe about others getting in your way) that you deferred to your advisor to the point of not even knowing that Osteo schools existed until you found yourself with no acceptances...and then you BLAME YOUR ADVISOR 😕 😕. Who will you blame when you lose a patient?

Unbelievable! I saw in another thread that you have an interview at SLU...I truly hope they see through you.

-OckhamsRzr 😴

 

[bigbassinbob]

It seems that you are positively dim about yourself. I, as well as others here, have been fairly kid-gloved with you and your myopic view of yourself and this whole process.

First you state that you prefer Allo schools, but clearly since none of them accepted you last year, THEY don't prefer you. I'm sure many schools took candidates with your numbers last year...but not you.

This cycle you tell us you lower your standards to apply to Osteo schools "because it's an attractive alternative to traditional medicine" but then indict those same schools for "showing favoritism to slackers" 😱 😱; And "fast-talking into submission"? By your logic, an Osteo applicant would barely be able to string a sentence together if they didn't score a 12+ on VR...but they can "fast-talk" their way into med school??

This, coupled with your anger about URM's being accepted and not you (didn't I read in another thread that URMs make up less than 10% of med students), makes you seem like the most pathetic applicant one could possibly imagine. I mean a 30 MCAT is just barely over the median score nationwide...so by the numbers you're hardly special.

The coup de grace here is that you take so little responsibility for your own future (other than to gripe about others getting in your way) that you deferred to your advisor to the point of not even knowing that Osteo schools existed until you found yourself with no acceptances...and then you BLAME YOUR ADVISOR 😕 😕. Who will you blame when you lose a patient?

Unbelievable! I saw in another thread that you have an interview at SLU...I truly hope they see through you.

-OckhamsRzr 😴

Actually I've got 4 interviews so far, but I think you've misunderstood my point here. I'm not saying my numbers are anything special, nor am I saying that I'm a tremendously acceptable applicant. However, judging by the numbers, I should be in medical school right now, so I'm a bit frustrated with this. I'm also not saying that I particularly prefer allo schools or "lowered my standards" to apply to osteo schools. I'll admit I was fairly ignorant in not knowing about osteo schools in any detail up until last year, and I'm not blaming my advisor for this. My advisor just didn't provide any assistance in looking into osteo schools, and I think most people's advisors would -- that's all. I should have looked into osteopathy before I applied to medical school in the first place, and I regret not having done so.

In my opinion, osteopathy is an attractive alternative to allopathic medicine, meaning that I consider both DO and MD schools equally valid routes of becoming a physician. What I don't like is the osteopathic admissions process (from what the people on this board say anyway), in that they tend to brush aside a person who has done four years of hard work and shows it with a high GPA and MCAT for someone who can convince a member of the admissions committee in 30 minutes that he is "doctor material" despite his poor performance the past four years in school and on the MCAT. This is what I meant by fast-talking an adcom. From what I've read and heard about, it's very unlikely that a 3.9/35 person would be rejected from an allo school with average numbers comparable to an osteo school.

It's a proven fact that URM's get in with lower numbers based solely on their race, so I won't start this again.

My point in posting was to make it clear that rejecting a person with a 3.9/35 and accepting someone with a 2.8/22 is UNFAIR and should not fly with any medical school. Personally, I'm in between these two extremes, but considering the fact that there are so many applicants for so few spaces in med school, you cannot make me believe a person with a 2.8/22 deserves to be there - no matter what their situation.

 

[Jojo tuna]

Actually I've got 4 interviews so far, but I think you've misunderstood my point here. I'm not saying my numbers are anything special, nor am I saying that I'm a tremendously acceptable applicant. However, judging by the numbers, I should be in medical school right now, so I'm a bit frustrated with this. I'm also not saying that I particularly prefer allo schools or "lowered my standards" to apply to osteo schools. I'll admit I was fairly ignorant in not knowing about osteo schools in any detail up until last year, and I'm not blaming my advisor for this. My advisor just didn't provide any assistance in looking into osteo schools, and I think most people's advisors would -- that's all. I should have looked into osteopathy before I applied to medical school in the first place, and I regret not having done so.

In my opinion, osteopathy is an attractive alternative to allopathic medicine, meaning that I consider both DO and MD schools equally valid routes of becoming a physician. What I don't like is the osteopathic admissions process (from what the people on this board say anyway), in that they tend to brush aside a person who has done four years of hard work and shows it with a high GPA and MCAT for someone who can convince a member of the admissions committee in 30 minutes that he is "doctor material" despite his poor performance the past four years in school and on the MCAT. This is what I meant by fast-talking an adcom. From what I've read and heard about, it's very unlikely that a 3.9/35 person would be rejected from an allo school with average numbers comparable to an osteo school.

It's a proven fact that URM's get in with lower numbers based solely on their race, so I won't start this again.

My point in posting was to make it clear that rejecting a person with a 3.9/35 and accepting someone with a 2.8/22 is UNFAIR and should not fly with any medical school. Personally, I'm in between these two extremes, but considering the fact that there are so many applicants for so few spaces in med school, you cannot make me believe a person with a 2.8/22 deserves to be there - no matter what their situation.

-Personally, I'm in between these two extremes, but considering the fact that there are so many applicants for so few spaces in med school, you cannot make me believe a person with a 2.8/22 deserves to be there - no matter what their situation."


--You don't deserve to be a doctor, esspecially a DO, if you don't change your attitude, period. A DO should always consider the person as a whole at ANY situation. Go apply to MD school instead. You have no understanding of what is a DO, and you are not showing any humlity on learning its unique point of view on treating paitents with an althernative mindset. All you care about is yourself and your precious numbers. I feel bad that a person with your potential is wasted. However, that closed mind of yours is going to prevent you from being a successful healer for a community anyway. I am glad no school would waste a seat for the likes of you.

 

[theOC]

You don't deserve to be a doctor, esspecially a DO, if you don't change your attitude, period. A DO should always consider the person as a whole at ANY situation. Go apply to MD school instead. You have no understanding of what is a DO, and you are not showing any humlity on learning its unique point of view on treating paitents with an althernative mindset. All you care about is yourself and your precious numbers. I feel bad that a person with your potential is wasted. However, that closed mind of yours is going to prevent you from being a successful healer for a community anyway. I am glad no school would waste a seat for the likes of you.

word jojo tuna. bigbassinbob, you already have established some negative comments against you in this tread. if potential physicians in SDN are labeling you as "closed minded", "wasted", "dim", and "missing the big picture" then how do you think your patient rapport will fair? obviously i am conjecturing here and i am sure you have many positive relationships with others. but one negative against you is all it takes for a school to reconsider and a patient to question your practice of medicine. clearly, you are committed to becoming a physician. but whether you take the journey to become D.O. or M.D., make sure you represent the profession with dignity and compassion.