Do Med Schools Consider Rigor of Undergraduate University?

[eshack]

I'm not sure if this is posted in the right place, and if it's not, I would appreciate if an admin could move it to the right place rather than just delete the post.

Anyways, I was wondering if medical schools take into consideration the difficulty/rigor of your undergraduate institution while reviewing your application. I believe my GPA is about 0.4 points lower than it might be had I gone to a less rigorous university. The science classes at my university are incredibly intense (which is good, I like a challenge), while my friend that goes to a neighboring university breezes through his sciences without hardly ever studying (and it's not simply due to intelligence differences. I've looked over some of his course work and quite frankly it's an absolute joke how little they're expected to know).

For example, which of the following would look better to a medical school admissions committee: Graduating from a known party school with lax grading/standards that waters down course material with a 3.9-4.0 vs. graduating from a well-known prestigious academic institution that's known to be particularly rigorous with a 3.4-3.6 GPA. Assume all other qualifications (MCAT, volunteer work, research, etc.) are identical. Also, what if the person with the 3.4-3.6 GPA had slightly better MCAT scores (which I assume they would since they were prepared better during undergrad).

I've heard conflicting answers to this question, so I'm looking for an honest, truthful answer, preferably based on experience or verified information. I can't help but think that an admissions committee would take this into consideration to some extent. Wouldn't they want students that challenged themselves during their undergraduate study?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheWeeIceMan]

You're not going to get actual data on this. You may get an adcom to give their opinion (and even then, it varies by school and adcom member). A 3.5 isn't going to beat a 3.9 or 4.0, assuming similar applications. That's much too wide of a gap for a rigorous UG to bridge. With that said, a difficult or prestigious UG will probably give you some edge, but it is difficult to quantify and varies from institution to insitution and by person to person.

 

[lmn]

They know some schools to be grade inflating vs some grade deflating and adjust accordingly. Some schools even have certain members deal with candidates from certain schools that they are very familiar with. On the other hand, just because you think your school was hard doesn't mean that adcoms will feel that way, so I wouldn't use that as an excuse for your gpa's. Read some of what LizzyM has said on the topic for more information.

 

[davidb25]

I had a 2.9-3.0 sGPA at BU, then went to my stateschool for an additional 2 years of GPA redemption and had a straight 4.0 in all upper-level science. They don't care.

They prefer the 4.0 from state than the 3.0 from prestige.

 

[darkjedi]

I had a 2.9-3.0 sGPA at BU, then went to my stateschool for an additional 2 years of GPA redemption and had a straight 4.0 in all upper-level science. They don't care.

They prefer the 4.0 from state than the 3.0 from prestige.

Ugh BU is the worst, I'm glad I somehow made it out of that place

 

[Lamel]

https://www.aamc.org/students/download/267622/data/mcatstudentselectionguide.pdf

Scroll to page 7. Undergrad prestige/selectivity is definitely a factor. How much? That's hard to quantify. According to the table, private institutions care much more about undergrad prestige than public institutions.

 

[lmn]

I had a 2.9-3.0 sGPA at BU, then went to my stateschool for an additional 2 years of GPA redemption and had a straight 4.0 in all upper-level science. They don't care.

They prefer the 4.0 from state than the 3.0 from prestige.

Read what some adcom members have said on this topic before, they do take it into account, but it isn't going to turn a 3.0 into a 4.0. Also many people like to believe their schools are much harder than everywhere else, but that doesn't mean it is in reality.

 

[snowflakes]

For example, which of the following would look better to a medical school admissions committee: Graduating from a known party school with lax grading/standards that waters down course material with a 3.9-4.0 vs. graduating from a well-known prestigious academic institution that's known to be particularly rigorous with a 3.4-3.6 GPA. Assume all other qualifications (MCAT, volunteer work, research, etc.) are identical. Also, what if the person with the 3.4-3.6 GPA had slightly better MCAT scores (which I assume they would since they were prepared better during undergrad).

It's hard to define how much schools value prestige. It's also going to vary by school, with some higher ranked schools valuing prestige more. Some schools may even mostly take the student from the top undergrad school with a high GPA and a high MCAT. Some schools won't care where you did your undergrad.

All things equal, I think it's probably better to have a 3.9 from the less rigorous school than a 3.4-6 from the more rigorous school. That's a big difference in GPA! But, all things will not be equal. The real value of a school is not the GPA they allow you to get, but the other resources and opportunities they have available that will enhance your ECs. So, if you think the more rigorous school will give you a access to better experiences, then that's a big factor to figure in to your choice.

 

[UlahSnackbar]

I'm not sure if this is posted in the right place, and if it's not, I would appreciate if an admin could move it to the right place rather than just delete the post.

Anyways, I was wondering if medical schools take into consideration the difficulty/rigor of your undergraduate institution while reviewing your application. I believe my GPA is about 0.4 points lower than it might be had I gone to a less rigorous university. The science classes at my university are incredibly intense (which is good, I like a challenge), while my friend that goes to a neighboring university breezes through his sciences without hardly ever studying (and it's not simply due to intelligence differences. I've looked over some of his course work and quite frankly it's an absolute joke how little they're expected to know).

For example, which of the following would look better to a medical school admissions committee: Graduating from a known party school with lax grading/standards that waters down course material with a 3.9-4.0 vs. graduating from a well-known prestigious academic institution that's known to be particularly rigorous with a 3.4-3.6 GPA. Assume all other qualifications (MCAT, volunteer work, research, etc.) are identical. Also, what if the person with the 3.4-3.6 GPA had slightly better MCAT scores (which I assume they would since they were prepared better during undergrad).

I've heard conflicting answers to this question, so I'm looking for an honest, truthful answer, preferably based on experience or verified information. I can't help but think that an admissions committee would take this into consideration to some extent. Wouldn't they want students that challenged themselves during their undergraduate study?

Thanks!

No unfortunately not. I went to a public ivy and yet my GPA is still considered equal to another applicant's from a school like emory or another one these small liberal arts colleges which is BS because my university invests a ton in research and has faculty that pushes us to the limit

 

[el_duderino]

No one can give you an answer that will satisfy you. But ask yourself: does it matter to you? It's not like you're going to aim for certain grades based on this.

Do the best you can.

 

[Lamel]

So, one of the second looks I attended at a highly ranked med school had a list of students present, with their undergrad schools listed. I was curious so I did some rough calculations. 25% went to a top 5 undergrad, 50% total went a top 10 undergrad, and 75% total went to a top 20 undergrad. There's probably all sorts of selection bias present (students who get into a highly ranked undergrad are more likely to get into a highly ranked med school because of their own abilities, independent of their undergrad school). But, it was interesting nonetheless.

Selection bias is surely present; they also likely have higher MCAT scores.

But admittedly it does look better to have a 3.8 from Harvard/Yale/Cornell etc. compared to a 3.8 from a lower ranked state school (LizzyM herself has suggested this, I just can't find the post itself).

 

[el_duderino]

No unfortunately not. I went to a public ivy and yet my GPA is still considered equal to another applicant's from a school like emory or another one these small liberal arts colleges which is BS because my university invests a ton in research and has faculty that pushes us to the limit

You're spending so much time setting up your pre-app excuses I fear you're going to forget the actual applications.

 

[lmn]

No unfortunately not. I went to a public ivy and yet my GPA is still considered equal to another applicant's from a school like emory or another one these small liberal arts colleges which is BS because my university invests a ton in research and has faculty that pushes us to the limit

Lol well if you're education is so good and you are so smart, you will surely score a 36+ on the mcat...

Grow up and get out of your delusions, just going to a top undergrad doesn't make you smarter than anyone else, get off your high horse.

 

[Lamel]

No unfortunately not. I went to a public ivy and yet my GPA is still considered equal to another applicant's from a school like emory or another one these small liberal arts colleges which is BS because my university invests a ton in research and has faculty that pushes us to the limit

Emory and many liberal arts colleges are very prestigious...so having your GPA considered equal is a good thing, even if you're from a public ivy (whatever that is).

 

[UlahSnackbar]

Lol well if you're education is so good and you are so smart, you will surely score a 36+ on the mcat...

Grow up and get out of your delusions, just going to a top undergrad doesn't make you smarter than anyone else, get off your high horse.

I never said it makes me smarter than anyone else, but what I meant is I work harder than people who go to these small, liberal arts colleges where they hold your hand throughout school

 

[snowflakes]

Selection bias is surely present; they also likely have higher MCAT scores.

But admittedly it does look better to have a 3.8 from Harvard/Yale/Cornell etc. compared to a 3.8 from a lower ranked state school (LizzyM herself has suggested this, I just can't find the post itself).

Here, in this thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/quick-question.1046085/#post-14719556

Yes. For example, a 3.95 from Yale might be viewed as a stronger record than a 3.95 from Southern Connet-the-dots University just few miles away. Typically, the student from the higher ranked school also presents with the higher MCAT.

A very strong MCAT can shut up the naysayers who would criticize an applicant from a low tier undergrad institution.

 

[el_duderino]

I never said it makes me smarter than anyone else, but what I meant is I work harder than people who go to these small, liberal arts colleges where they hold your hand throughout school

 

[lmn]

I never said it makes me smarter than anyone else, but what I meant is I work harder than people who go to these small, liberal arts colleges where they hold your hand throughout school

Then again it should clearly show in your mastery of the subject materials on the big equalizer - the MCAT. Many people like to complain that their schooling was harder and they could have just taken the easy route to a great gpa, yet the vast vast majority don't score those super high mcat scores, so they somehow "worked harder" and "had a more rigorous education" yet they didn't learn any better when it comes to performance on the mcat.

 

[el_duderino]

Then again it should clearly show in your mastery of the subject materials on the big equalizer - the MCAT. Many people like to complain that their schooling was harder and they could have just taken the easy route to a great gpa, yet the vast vast majority don't score those super high mcat scores, so they somehow "worked harder" and "had a more rigorous education" yet they didn't learn any better when it comes to performance on the mcat.

You mean a below-median MCAT isn't enough evidence of the superiority of someone's work ethic and undergrad institution?

 

[QuentinT88]

@UlahSnackbar where did/do you go to undergrad?

 

[UlahSnackbar]

@UlahSnackbar where did/do you go to undergrad?

Well, if I gave that away, people would know too much about me on here. Sorry.

 

[QuentinT88]

Like @Lamel mentioned, Emory is a prestigious school in this country...and your complaining that your "public ivy" status being compared to it is somehow a bad thing when it comes to applying to med school?

I'm going to assume you either went to UC-Berkley, UVA, Michigan? B/c if so, all of those schools are rated as good (or lower) than Emory. Just saying

 

[egressive]

@UlahSnackbar where did/do you go to undergrad?

I have a feeling he went to umich.

 

[Kochanie]

No unfortunately not. I went to a public ivy and yet my GPA is still considered equal to another applicant's from a school like emory or another one these small liberal arts colleges which is BS because my university invests a ton in research and has faculty that pushes us to the limit

"Public ivy"
No worries, I go to a school that deflates too, but the only thing you can do is focus on yourself and not others that may have it slightly easier.

 

[Kochanie]

I think that they definitely do! I came across a presentation from a medical school in my state and it listed all of the average sGPAs students had from certain universities. A school like U Chicago was close to 3.4 whereas another low ranked university in my state was a 3.7. That's a pretty large difference.

 

[AspiringERMD]

I went to a small liberal arts college, and I'm terrified that it will affect my application. I did receive a 4.0, but I had multiple Ws. I was a little too obsessed with my GPA; that was a mistake. >.<

Anyway, it just seems like the top med schools barely take anyone from small liberal arts schools. That is worrying me a fair amount. There's little to be done about that now.

 

[youmed]

Public ivy LOL. Please don't use that word. Ever.

No unfortunately not. I went to a public ivy and yet my GPA is still considered equal to another applicant's from a school like emory or another one these small liberal arts colleges which is BS because my university invests a ton in research and has faculty that pushes us to the limit

 

[shyfed]

For what it's worth, I noticed that most friends from top undergrads (Ivies, MIT, Stanford) were consistently able to get into multiple top med schools and MD/PhD programs with slightly lower than average GPA's (for said school) when it was balanced by their high MCAT (36+). I also noticed that friends from state schools with similar stats were a lot more hit/miss with admissions. Obviously, this is probably confounded with better research, , LOR, etc.

edit: To answer your question, if everything else was absolutely identical, I'm sure the higher GPA (regardless of which school is better), especially if the difference is between a 3.4 and a 4.0. I assume the people that get into top schools like Harvard either have some talent (athlete, art, debate, etc.), are very intelligent (high GPA, publications, business), or have a compelling story/are a minority, all of which will convert to better chances of medschool admissions.

 

[jm192]

No one can give you an answer that will satisfy you. But ask yourself: does it matter to you? It's not like you're going to aim for certain grades based on this.

Do the best you can.

Really, this is all that matters.

We can say yes, but that doesn't mean you go start getting B's.
We can say no--that shouldn't change anything either.

You do the best you can, submit your application, and hope for the best.

 

[jm192]

I never said it makes me smarter than anyone else, but what I meant is I work harder than people who go to these small, liberal arts colleges where they hold your hand throughout school

I'm guessing you've never been to another college, so you have no idea how much their faculty push the students or how much they hold their hand. All you know is that your school is "Ivy" so it must be better.

 

[Whale]

For 2012 admissions, UC Berkeley's admissions rate is 18% and Cornell's 16.2%

The selectivity appears to be about equal, despite it being state vs Ivy

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm guessing you've never been to another college, so you have no idea how much their faculty push the students or how much they hold their hand. All you know is that your school is "Ivy" so it must be better.

Public Ivy actually, which is to say, not Ivy at all, just some BS term made up by people trying to pick the best public schools out there. It's like saying "publicly exclusive," it's just an oxymoron.

Schools care slightly about grade deflating institutions that are well known. A guy from Brown with a 3.4 GPA will do as well as a guy with a 3.6 from Northwesterneastern State University. But it only helps you so much. The MCAT is far more important if you have a low GPA. The guy with the 3.4 from Brown with a 30 will lose to the guy with a 3.6 from Northwesterneastern and a 33 errytime.

 

[mrh125]

If they do they should consider the varied difficulty of mcats depending on the month people take them, but for some reason I don't think they account for the latter.

 

[F.Underwood]

It depends on the schools reputation for grade inflation/deflation. If you have a 3.5 from Berkeley, you are good! If you have that from Stanford, you should worry.

 

[Dwan]

It depends on the schools reputation for grade inflation/deflation. If you have a 3.5 from Berkeley, you are good! If you have that from Stanford, you should worry.

Not true, UCB publishes some of their pre-med data and those with 3.5s do not typically do well. In my opinion, it's based more on reputation/selectivity - Stanford has an acceptance rate of 5% for undergraduate admissions and is very well respected throughout the nation, plus they prove their qualifications with the overall high MCATs coming from that school. Their medical acceptance rate is the highest in CA.

I do think reputation holds the most weight in comparing schools as the same concept applies in residency admissions. Harvard medical students don't necessarily have a harder path; we all prepare for the same boards. However, they will get a boost despite similar scores. The name impresses people, fair or not.

 

[Dwan]

No unfortunately not. I went to a public ivy and yet my GPA is still considered equal to another applicant's from a school like emory or another one these small liberal arts colleges which is BS because my university invests a ton in research and has faculty that pushes us to the limit

You attained a 31 MCAT from your "public ivy" education which is below the average MCAT of undergraduates at real ivy schools. Plus, Emory is no easier than any of the "public ivies."

 

[ridethecliche]

I never said it makes me smarter than anyone else, but what I meant is I work harder than people who go to these small, liberal arts colleges where they hold your hand throughout school

Well you've surely gotten the arrogance down. Ps: small liberal arts schools like swat are hard as balls and are notorious for grade deflation.

 

[dudewheresmymd]

Yes they do, but I believe more so when GPAs are similar not when you're comparing a 3.4-3.6 to a 3.9/4.0. They demand academic excellence regardless of what institution you attend.

 

[el_duderino]

Yes they do, but I believe more so when GPAs are similar not when you're comparing a 3.4-3.6 to a 3.9/4.0. They demand academic excellence regardless of what institution you attend.

Eh. I'll say not a lot of people have attended both a middle-of-the-road state school and a top engineering university. But I have. And let me tell you, getting straight As at the state school is an absolute cake walk, especially compared to getting a 3.6-3.7 at the engineering university.

 

[Doudline]

Who knows.

However, I'm quite certain that they consider the ability to use the search function on SDN.

 

[DokterMom]

I never said it makes me smarter than anyone else, but what I meant is I work harder than people who go to these small, liberal arts colleges where they hold your hand throughout school

You say that like it's a bad thing... Don't underestimate the amount of learning that can occur in a nurturing environment where professors actually take the time to teach their students and get to know them as individuals. Whether knowledge is 'spoon fed' into a passive student's mouth (it actually isn't) or the student has to wrest it from a textbook since the 2,000-student lecture wasn't particularly effective -- knowledge is knowledge. Understanding of the material is understanding of the material, regardless of how obtained. Stimulating a desire to learn is something the small liberal arts schools do exceptionally well, so they don't deserve the bad-mouthing they often get here. Sure it's 'easier to learn' when you can ask your professor to clarify something you didn't understand from lecture. That's why families who can shell out the big bucks for those schools -- because they want their students to learn.

And the "Public Ivy" term, unless someone is referring to Cornell, which actually is part public, is an oxymoron. I'd suggest "Top Tier Public" or "Rigorous Public" instead.

 

[QuentinT88]

Agreed. The "New Ivy" and "Public Ivy" terms are pretty stupid in my opinion.

 

[NeuroticTwilightSparkle]

Do adcoms factor in some of the grade inflation that goes on some of the top schools?

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/12/3/grade-inflation-mode-a/

 

[takishi]

While there are good schools that have intense grading systems, there also plenty of top tier schools that have grade inflation. I spoke with an adcom who said that their school immediately knocked of .2-.3 of applicants' gpas from certain Ivy League schools. Anyone else here heard anything like this?

 

[Goro]

To a degree. Many UG schools are feeders for medical schools, so, for example, the kids from our state school system are known to have undergone a decent preparation for med school. Ditto, day, the NYC metro area schools for the SUNYs and the NYC schools.

 

[Hipocrates]

To a degree. Many UG schools are feeders for medical schools, so, for example, the kids from our state school system are known to have undergone a decent preparation for med school. Ditto, day, the NYC metro area schools for the SUNYs and the NYC schools.

Yes, and some undergraduate universities are feeder schools for their own medical schools because the medical school knows how rigorous and challenging their undergraduate courses are; for example although UCLA medical school has one of the lowest acceptance rates in the country at only 3.5%, the UCLA medical school acceptance rate for UCLA undergraduates for the 2013 entering class was 13%: http://career.ucla.edu/Students/gra...rnia-medical-schools-acceptance-matriculation

 

[alpinism]

I'm not sure if this is posted in the right place, and if it's not, I would appreciate if an admin could move it to the right place rather than just delete the post.

Anyways, I was wondering if medical schools take into consideration the difficulty/rigor of your undergraduate institution while reviewing your application. I believe my GPA is about 0.4 points lower than it might be had I gone to a less rigorous university. The science classes at my university are incredibly intense (which is good, I like a challenge), while my friend that goes to a neighboring university breezes through his sciences without hardly ever studying (and it's not simply due to intelligence differences. I've looked over some of his course work and quite frankly it's an absolute joke how little they're expected to know).

For example, which of the following would look better to a medical school admissions committee: Graduating from a known party school with lax grading/standards that waters down course material with a 3.9-4.0 vs. graduating from a well-known prestigious academic institution that's known to be particularly rigorous with a 3.4-3.6 GPA. Assume all other qualifications (MCAT, volunteer work, research, etc.) are identical. Also, what if the person with the 3.4-3.6 GPA had slightly better MCAT scores (which I assume they would since they were prepared better during undergrad).

I've heard conflicting answers to this question, so I'm looking for an honest, truthful answer, preferably based on experience or verified information. I can't help but think that an admissions committee would take this into consideration to some extent. Wouldn't they want students that challenged themselves during their undergraduate study?

Thanks!

A 3.5 GPA is never going to beat a 3.9 GPA unless you go to MIT, CalTech, or Princeton and have a great MCAT.

That being said, most adcoms do take into account the academic rigor of each school when evaluating applications.

 

[SweetCaroline7]

I'm not sure if this is posted in the right place, and if it's not, I would appreciate if an admin could move it to the right place rather than just delete the post.

Anyways, I was wondering if medical schools take into consideration the difficulty/rigor of your undergraduate institution while reviewing your application. I believe my GPA is about 0.4 points lower than it might be had I gone to a less rigorous university. The science classes at my university are incredibly intense (which is good, I like a challenge), while my friend that goes to a neighboring university breezes through his sciences without hardly ever studying (and it's not simply due to intelligence differences. I've looked over some of his course work and quite frankly it's an absolute joke how little they're expected to know).

For example, which of the following would look better to a medical school admissions committee: Graduating from a known party school with lax grading/standards that waters down course material with a 3.9-4.0 vs. graduating from a well-known prestigious academic institution that's known to be particularly rigorous with a 3.4-3.6 GPA. Assume all other qualifications (MCAT, volunteer work, research, etc.) are identical. Also, what if the person with the 3.4-3.6 GPA had slightly better MCAT scores (which I assume they would since they were prepared better during undergrad).

I've heard conflicting answers to this question, so I'm looking for an honest, truthful answer, preferably based on experience or verified information. I can't help but think that an admissions committee would take this into consideration to some extent. Wouldn't they want students that challenged themselves during their undergraduate study?

Thanks!

I said essentially the same thing in another thread, but I suggest asking your school's pre-health office if they have statistical data specific to students from your school. Mine provided a chart where you could line up your GPA and MCAT score and see what percentage of students were admitted. It certainly showed a great consideration for the grade deflation/rigor of our school, as 80% of applicants with last year's median MCAT were accepted somewhere. I don't say this to promote slacking; your GPA should certainly be the highest you can manage. But I think it does alleviate some of the premed panic.

 

[kyamh]

Here's what I don't understand: why does it matter? Chances are, you can't change your GPA. You aren't sitting there saying, well I got to MIT so I don't need an A in this class and can get away with only doing the work for a B. No, you are working hard, trying to get the best grades possible. Your GPA is what it is. Your MCAT is what it is. There is (except when choosing what schools to apply to) no point comparing yourself to others since the outcome of your application will be the same regardless of what other people are doing.

If your GPA is low for a certain medical school, don't assume you will get slack for going to a hard college. If your GPA is high for a certain medical school, don't waste your time worrying about whether your college will be judged.

Keep your head down, put your best foot forward when applying, be nice to your peers, hope you get in.

 

[kyamh]

I don't say this to promote slacking; your GPA should certainly be the highest you can manage. But I think it does alleviate some of the premed panic.

Or it can increase panic...only worrying about yourself is the most healthy choice you can make in this situation.