Does university matter?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
K

kaspersky

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Members don't see this ad.
I'm a Californian, flushed by the UCSD medical scholars program so stuck in nowhere in SLU for its medical scholars program. I have to wait for the interview which is just two weeks later and still don't know the hell how to answer why I would advance to SLU SOM. I'm looking forward to practice back in my city.

Is Saint Louis University SOM a really good school? I always doubt it when I hear Wash U guys come over and make fun of us calling "the school over there (Forest Park)" in a slightly negative tone. Would it worth when I try to settle in my business back there?

I do know that in order to get into a medical school I should be in a top tier in undergrad. Still I wonder whether this university, which is not even in the US top 100 ranking and QS World University report ranking, would give me a prestige.

Or should I shoot for transferring into UC so that I can apply for Cali med schools?

Helpful answers pls
 
Try using the search function to answer your questions as they've almost certainly been addressed at some point.

Generally speaking, no, the university you attend has little bearing on your competitiveness. Don't fixate on getting into any of the UC med schools, either. Definitely aim more broadly.
 
Cali med schools (the UCs specifically) are notoriously difficult to get into for out of state students.

This thread is probably going to end up being a controversial one, but I think undergrad school matters a lot more for getting into top med schools than it does for mid- to low-tier ones. We've had numerous info sessions and conferences with deans of admission from various top programs and they do say that they take into account your school, specifically how hard it is. Obviously an A from MIT means a lot more than an A elsewhere because the caliber of the average student at MIT is different from the caliber of the average student at unknown state university. You're simply competing against the top students and someone at MIT has to be "average" even though they might be a straight-A student elsewhere.

Now, to pre-empt some debate, I am not saying that other schools are not as rigorous as the highest ranked schools. For instance, U of Michigan has excellent science programs and U of Illinois is known for engineering. But the controversial point that I'm making is that undergrad school is taken into account in terms of rigor so that U of Michigan might be viewed as a "top school" in that regard.

Now, this doesn't mean that you still don't need a high MCAT/GPA to get in. But applicants from my school with above 3.4 and over 30 MCAT have been very successful at getting into med schools and we're known for having a rigorous program.
 
If you're trying to get into medical school for the prestige factor then you shouldn't be going to med school. If you think the prestige of the school is a major factor in determining your career, then you're just inexperienced. Certain universities (typically top 10-20) will help you get into better residencies because they have better resources, better opportunities, and can help you make better connections. The name itself doesn't matter as much as it does for undergrad. SLU is a solid school and as long as you make yourself a competitive applicant it won't hinder your career goals. That is true for almost any med school you would attend. If you're really concerned about getting into a certain specialty, then look at the match lists of different schools and see if they match a decent number of people into those fields.

Also, keep in mind Wash U is one of the top med schools in the world. They would refer to 95% of med schools as "the school over there", including most of the California schools.
 
No one cares where you do your undergrad. Just get good grades and obliterate the MCAT.
 
OP, I'm sorry, I just re-read your post and I'm not sure if you're asking whether SOM prestige matters or whether undergrad prestige matters. Could you clarify?
 
lifetothefullest said:
OP, I'm sorry, I just re-read your post and I'm not sure if you're asking whether SOM prestige matters or whether undergrad prestige matters. Could you clarify?
Click to expand...

I mean both.

SOM prestige for the match,
Undergrad prestige for the SOM.
 
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. See above for my input on the undergrad prestige for SOM then. Keep in mind that this is controversial and people have different opinions. My experience is only with top med schools - I don't know how much it matters for mid- to low-tier med schools.
 
UC sounds better for me. I'm tired of this weird and depressing city. Thanks for advice everyone.
 
Both matter (i.e., med school for residency, undergrad for med school) but the degree to which they matter varies. In general, though, they aren't going to be as important as other things in your application. A person from Harvard with a weak app isn't going to get in just by virtue of being from Harvard. On the flip side, a desirable candidate is a desirable candidate regardless of where they came from.
 
NickNaylor said:
A person from Harvard with a weak app isn't going to get in just by virtue of being from Harvard.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But one can be much more certain of the rigor of the applicant's classes/program if he/she comes from MIT versus one who comes from unknown state school, ceteris paribus. And that's all there is to the real world - people hire/admit people they trust because their own reputation is at stake. That's why letters of recommendation, submitted in good faith, are so important.
 
lifetothefullest said:
Exactly. But one can be much more certain of the rigor of the applicant's classes/program if he/she comes from MIT versus one who comes from unknown state school, ceteris paribus. And that's all there is to the real world - people hire/admit people they trust because their own reputation is at stake. That's why letters of recommendation, submitted in good faith, are so important.
Click to expand...

Sure, but rarely is the vigor of your undergrad going to be the distinguishing factor between two candidates. Those false dichotomies only exist in the minds of neurotic pre-meds trying to figure out which _____ is "better" when it comes to applying.
 
NickNaylor said:
Sure, but rarely is the vigor of your undergrad going to be the distinguishing factor between two candidates.
Click to expand...

Sure, but as I've said, deans of admissions have said that they do take undergrad school into account. And from what I've seen, candidates with >3.4 GPA and above 30 MCAT have an excellent shot at med school from my school. Take that as you will.

I also think that those who are from highly ranked schools will tend to think that it does matter while those who are not will tend to think it doesn't, perhaps influenced by what they want to be true.
 
From my experience, no medical school will care about your UG school. They will care about your GPA, MCAT (equalizer), experiences, LORs, etc. Med school isn't like law school. Schools want individuals that can handle the academic load that is medical school and will make good physicians.
 
Last edited:
NickNaylor said:
Sure, but rarely is the vigor of your undergrad going to be the distinguishing factor between two candidates. Those false dichotomies only exist in the minds of neurotic pre-meds trying to figure out which _____ is "better" when it comes to applying.
Click to expand...

lifetothefullest said:
Sure, but as I've said, deans of admissions have said that they do take undergrad school into account. And from what I've seen, candidates with >3.4 GPA and above 30 MCAT have an excellent shot at med school from my school. Take that as you will.

I also think that those who are from highly ranked schools will tend to think that it does matter while those who are not will tend to think it doesn't, perhaps influenced by what they want to be true.
Click to expand...

Speaking from personal experience (and a few friends), going to a top undergraduate university helped with admissions to top 10 schools. I don't say so because I want it to be true, I say so because I'm thankful that it did. This is separate from who "deserves" to be accepted, because frankly many people do, and this is more about who actually gets the acceptance letter.

Of course it doesn't matter if you're going to torpedo yourself with a 3.0 GPA, but we're making the assumption you perform relatively well. Also, as lifetothefullest mentioned earlier, your undergraduate university doesn't seem to matter all that much outside of the very top medical schools. Just go somewhere you can excel.
 
gonnif said:
something I wrote at length at and posted a few seasons back on the prestige factor
Click to expand...

It was a great piece and very illuminating. However, it might be hard to gauge how one might do at a highly competitive top school versus at an unknown state school without having actually made the choice and done it. There's really no easy solution to that question so I won't delve into it too much. But a great many factors do go into the decision. For instance, some schools give you access to an alumni and/or support network that results in huge ripples down the line. Perhaps your school's courses prepare you very well for MCATs (and from the Ivy averages I've seen, some schools seem to do well although one could argue that the students would have done well even at another institution - there's no way to separate them except by actually doing it, like I noted above) or your professors give you more time and so can write you better LORs.

So I think a better way of phrasing it might be to go to a school you feel would prepare you best for your MCAT. That means that it will challenge you sufficiently in a way that is conducive to your performing well on the MCAT. That might be a school that challenges you academically. Or, that might be a school that gives you a lot of time to study for the MCAT. With the new MCAT format, the emphasis is no longer on rote memorization, so the school that challenges you might be a better option now than it was two years ago. It depends on the student. I know this is a hand-wavy explanation, but I think it's sufficiently detailed that everybody can interpret it for his or her particular situation.
 
North meets South said:
Speaking from personal experience (and a few friends), going to a top undergraduate university helped with admissions to top 10 schools. I don't say so because I want it to be true, I say so because I'm thankful that it did. This is separate from who "deserves" to be accepted, because frankly many people do, and this is more about who actually gets the acceptance letter.

Of course it doesn't matter if you're going to torpedo yourself with a 3.0 GPA, but we're making the assumption you perform relatively well. Also, as lifetothefullest mentioned earlier, your undergraduate university doesn't seem to matter all that much outside of the very top medical schools. Just go somewhere you can excel.
Click to expand...

But that fails to distinguish the age-old correlation vs. causation problem, i.e., are the students coming from top undergrads simply better applicants by virtue of the fact that they got into Harvard/Yale/whatever, or are they better applicants because of their undergrad name? I think the former is much more true than the latter.

At my institution, at least, not once did we talk about an applicant's undergrad during a committee meeting. It simply never came up.
 
lifetothefullest said:
Perhaps your school's courses prepare you very well for MCATs

So I think a better way of phrasing it might be to go to a school you feel would prepare you best for your MCAT. That means that it will challenge you sufficiently in a way that is conducive to your performing well on the MCAT.
Click to expand...

Oh boy my favorite type of thread!!!

Tough prereqs do not make good MCAT prep, which is why everyone studies from MCAT-specific prep books and does MCAT-style practice instead of reviewing prereq exams and textbooks. Prereqs go into too much difficulty/depth (like physics actually using calc) while MCAT needs only a general shallow review of topics and really tests if you can read with comprehension and do many easy problems quickly and with high accuracy.

It makes sense the most selective schools favor the toughest undergrads - by the MCAT numbers a 3.3 from such a school may be as impressive as 3.9 from a nationally average school, quite the disparity.
9PLjYC1.png

As you can see, performance for the National GPA bins are ~equivalent to Wustl GPA bins over half of a GPA point lower. That's absolutely massive, as a half point is the difference between the median for matriculants and being low enough to need a post-bacc.

I doubt adcoms account for anywhere near that level of difference but some (mimelim iirc) have said undergrad name can change how much faith they have in an app with a middling GPA (eg a 3.5 won't make him doubt your academic abilities if it was earned studying a hard science at U Chicago).

Graph data taken from the Wash U Pre-Health Handbook (page 21) and AAMC Table 24.
 
Last edited:
efle said:
You don't agree? Because the whole "half our class comes from HYPSM&co" phenomenon doesn't really happen outside the Top 20
Click to expand...
I agree that it's more accentuated for top schools, but I don't think that for midtiers it's negligible either. The mentality on these forums is that it has "little bearing" and that "schools don't care". And I think that's BS.
 
Half my class came from HYPSM etc, and I went to the mid-tieriest mid-tier med school in the country. But to assume the diplomas of the schools were causative of anything makes me wish LSAT-style logical reasoning sections were part of med school standardized testing.
 
WingedOx said:
Half my class came from HYPSM etc, and I went to the mid-tieriest mid-tier med school in the country. But to assume the diplomas of the schools were causative of anything makes me wish LSAT-style logical reasoning sections were part of med school standardized testing.
Click to expand...
Your post is the most logical post.
 
SympatricSpeciation said:
I agree that it's more accentuated for top schools, but I don't think that for midtiers it's negligible either. The mentality on these forums is that it has "little bearing" and that "schools don't care". And I think that's BS.
Click to expand...
I agree. At my undergrad school we were told 3.3+ gpa, and 30+MCAT to have a very good shot at an acceptance and there are at least 8 MD schools where the average sGPA of alumni accepted is under 3.3. Undergrad school definitely plays a role in all tiers. At top med schools the boost is A-student from top school vs A student from other school. At low level med schools it's B+ top school students vs A students from other schools. And it's not because of the name of the school so much as it is that being above average (B+ is above average) at a top school is impressive.
 
To add to the discussion, it is known (check this year's school-specific thread) that at the University of Miami's medical school, where you come from (your undergrad institution) factors into the point scoring system for receiving an interview invite. So, at least for n=1, it straight up provides a boost (in a similar vein that being a URM does[?], but let's not go down that route).

EDIT: Here's the link to the relevant post (re. University of Miami) http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...lication-thread.1074090/page-21#post-16039454
 
efle said:
Tough prereqs do not make good MCAT prep, which is why everyone studies from MCAT-specific prep books and does MCAT-style practice instead of reviewing prereq exams and textbooks. Prereqs go into too much difficulty/depth (like physics actually using calc) while MCAT needs only a general shallow review of topics and really tests if you can read with comprehension and do many easy problems quickly and with high accuracy.
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind that this will probably be less true for the new MCAT, as it covers material more in-depth than the old MCAT. For example, the biochem questions aren't bull**** questions you learned in intro molecular biology and there are more of them. The test is also integrating concepts across disciplines better so that critical thinking is required - it's not a simple I'm throwing this ball horizontally at 7 m/s... anymore. So I think that with the new MCAT, pre-reqs that do foster critical thinking and applying concepts will give students an advantage - somebody who has taken the new MCAT please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
efle said:
MCAT needs only a general shallow review of topics and really tests if you can read with comprehension and do many easy problems quickly and with high accuracy.
Click to expand...

Sounds like about 95% of the material tested in medical school.
 
WingedOx said:
Half my class came from HYPSM etc, and I went to the mid-tieriest mid-tier med school in the country. But to assume the diplomas of the schools were causative of anything makes me wish LSAT-style logical reasoning sections were part of med school standardized testing.
Click to expand...

And were they the people making your school's avg GPA at HYPSM? Or were they the lower 3's crowd benefiting from a rep bump?

We know that some schools factor in undergrad numerically, and I/we have heard from adcoms that it at least plays a role in evaluation of GPA (especially at the top) - and it does seem the logical assumption that adcoms realize top quarter at MIT is not the same as top quarter nationally and react at least a little to that. But anyways I've always argued more that it should be considered a massive GPA-adjuster (now with some data to support) not that it actually is at most places.

WingedOx said:
Sounds like about 95% of the material tested in medical school.
Click to expand...

Probably why med schools love strong performance on it so damn much
 
efle said:
But anyways I've always argued more that it should be considered a massive GPA-adjuster (now with some data to support) not that it actually is at most places.
Click to expand...

It isn't and probably shouldn't be a "massive" adjuster - I've seen "rules" on the adjustments but I don't recall where. At the risk of sounding fake, I think the maximum "adjustment" was 0.1 or 0.2 points depending on the school. But this is purely from memory so it could be wrong.

efle said:
And were they the people making your school's avg GPA at HYPSM? Or were they the lower 3's crowd benefiting from a rep bump?
Click to expand...

You have to remember that the average GPA at some of those schools IS a "lower 3." Princeton's average, for example, sits at around 3.3-3.4 and lower for engineering. And from Princeton, you're competitive if you've got a 3.3+ and 30+ MCAT.
 
lifetothefullest said:
It isn't and probably shouldn't be a "massive" adjuster - I've seen "rules" on the adjustments but I don't recall where. At the risk of sounding fake, I think the maximum "adjustment" was 0.1 or 0.2 points depending on the school. But this is purely from memory so it could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Based on the data for Wustl I posted above it looks like a 0.6 adjuster compared to the average university would be about right (if you believe the MCAT does a good job at being an Equalizer) and I'd call that massive. Obviously I agree it isn't currently recognized how massive the difference is.

lifetothefullest said:
You have to remember that the average GPA at some of those schools IS a "lower 3." Princeton's average, for example, sits at around 3.3-3.4 and lower for engineering. And from Princeton, you're competitive if you've got a 3.3+ and 30+ MCAT.
Click to expand...

You're competitive, yes, but not for the same caliber school you could have been with a +0.6 to your GPA ceteris paribus
 
efle said:
Based on the data for Wustl I posted above it looks like a 0.6 adjuster compared to the average university would be about right (if you believe the MCAT does a good job at being an Equalizer) and I'd call that massive. Obviously I agree it isn't currently recognized how massive the difference is.



You're competitive, yes, but not for the same caliber school you could have been with a +0.6 to your GPA ceteris paribus
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. Like coming from my undergrad with the gpa I have, I could get into a T14 law school, a top business school, or top grad program, while I have a very very low chance at a top med school. But the difference between going to a T14 law school and a mid-tier law school is ginormous and going to a top grad school could be the difference between becoming a professor or not. Going to a low-tier med school can make some doors more difficult to open, but you will still end up with a solid career. It's not as important that higher caliber med schools are closed off
 
Last edited:
efle said:
You're competitive, yes, but not for the same caliber school you could have been with a +0.6 to your GPA ceteris paribus
Click to expand...

I don't understand - you mean a 3.3 from Princeton wouldn't be as competitive as, say, a 3.9 from unknown state school? Or that a 3.3 from Princeton wouldn't be as competitive as a 3.9 from MIT? The second case I can understand and I don't have a problem with. The first case I think is debatable, given that you just claimed a 0.6 adjustment for WUSTL.
 
Mviande29 said:
I understand what you are saying. Like coming from my undergrad with the gpa I have, I could get into a T14 law school, a top business school, or top grad program, while I have a very very low chance at a top med school. But the difference between going to a T14 law school and a mid-tier law school is ginormous and going to a top grad school could be the difference between becoming a professor or not. Going to a low-tier med school can make some doors more difficult to open, but you will still end up with a solid career. It's not as important that higher caliber med schools are closed off
Click to expand...
While I agree with you, whether or not med school prestige matters is irrelevant. We're just talking about whether undergrad name changes interpretation of performance, and it's pretty clear that for some adcoms and some schools it does, but probably not nearly to the magnitude that the GPA/MCAT data show is appropriate.

lifetothefullest said:
I don't understand - you mean a 3.3 from Princeton wouldn't be as competitive as, say, a 3.9 from unknown state school? Or that a 3.3 from Princeton wouldn't be as competitive as a 3.9 from MIT? The second case I can understand and I don't have a problem with. The first case I think is debatable, given that you just claimed a 0.6 adjustment for WUSTL.
Click to expand...

I'm saying:
  • When you align performance on the MCAT to the national average, WUSTL students have GPA's ~0.6 lower; if you think the MCAT is an Equalizer, this means you should view a 3.3 from WUSTL the same as a 3.9 from Average School.
  • However this is not what happens; adcoms do not give boosts that massive in their eval of GPAs. Many many many times adcoms have said you're better off with a 3.8 from State than a 3.5 from Hopkins. How much of a boost you get varies by school and app reader, which on SDN range from none (Goro, who says Kutztown or Ivy, an A is an A) to slight (Mimelim, who says GPA is all about context including outside workload and undergrad institute).
  • The obvious one: a 3.3 from any school is far less competitive than a 3.9 from that same school; 3.3 <<< 3.9 at WUSTL, Average School, Princeton, anywhere.
  • I think the 0.6 disparity is a fair expectation for the disparity you'd see when comparing other top non-inflaters to the national average, because the student bodies are similar (99th percentile average test scores, straight A high school track records, lots of nation merit recipients and valedictorians, etc) and the grading is similar (B or B- averages in curved prereqs, slightly higher in upper level classes or humanities). Schools which deflate more that WUSTL would probably have a slightly larger disparity (maybe Princeton needs a 0.8 added to the GPA) and vice versa for schools which inflate more.
So yeah, a 3.3 from any school, Princeton MIT w/e will not be as competitive as a 3.9 from an unknown, if all else on the app is equal, but it should be.
 
efle said:
While I agree with you, whether or not med school prestige matters is irrelevant. We're just talking about whether undergrad name changes interpretation of performance, and it's pretty clear that for some adcoms and some schools it does, but probably not nearly to the magnitude that the GPA/MCAT data show is appropriate.



I'm saying:
  • When you align performance on the MCAT to the national average, WUSTL students have GPA's ~0.6 lower; if you think the MCAT is an Equalizer, this means you should view a 3.3 from WUSTL the same as a 3.9 from Average School.
  • However this is not what happens; adcoms do not give boosts that massive in their eval of GPAs. Many many many times adcoms have said you're better off with a 3.8 from State than a 3.5 from Hopkins. How much of a boost you get varies by school and app reader, which on SDN range from none (Goro, who says Kutztown or Ivy, an A is an A) to slight (Mimelim, who says GPA is all about context including outside workload and undergrad institute).
  • The obvious one: a 3.3 from any school is far less competitive than a 3.9 from that same school; 3.3 <<< 3.9 at WUSTL, Average School, Princeton, anywhere.
  • I think the 0.6 disparity is a fair expectation for the disparity you'd see when comparing other top non-inflaters to the national average, because the student bodies are similar (99th percentile average test scores, straight A high school track records, lots of nation merit recipients and valedictorians, etc) and the grading is similar (B or B- averages in curved prereqs, slightly higher in upper level classes or humanities). Schools which deflate more that WUSTL would probably have a slightly larger disparity (maybe Princeton needs a 0.8 added to the GPA) and vice versa for schools which inflate more.
So yeah, a 3.3 from any school, Princeton MIT w/e will not be as competitive as a 3.9 from an unknown, if all else on the app is equal, but it should be.
Click to expand...
The fact that a 3.3 from Princeton can get into a medical school suggests that it is acknowledged that a 3.3 is not a bad gpa from Princeton. And quite frankly, there are probably enough 3.7 pre-meds from the top 50 undergrad schools to fill all the top tier med schools, so even with a 0.6pt boost, a 3.3 student would still be left out. Plus, such a large boost would make it so that only students from top undergrad schools go to top med schools. Top undergrad admissions are very much swayed towards well off students (54% of students from my undergrad receive zero need-based financial aid). So now you have rich students going on to top undergrad schools to go on to top med schools. Med schools are already worse than any grad-level program at being accessible to low-income students, and your plan would make that worse.
 
kaspersky said:
I'm a Californian, flushed by the UCSD medical scholars program so stuck in nowhere in SLU for its medical scholars program. I have to wait for the interview which is just two weeks later and still don't know the hell how to answer why I would advance to SLU SOM. I'm looking forward to practice back in my city.

Is Saint Louis University SOM a really good school? I always doubt it when I hear Wash U guys come over and make fun of us calling "the school over there (Forest Park)" in a slightly negative tone. Would it worth when I try to settle in my business back there?
Click to expand...

I know graduates of WashU undergrad with 36+ MCAT scores who currently attend SLU School of Medicine. It's a great school, and I would be happy to go there. Saint Louis is also a great place to live, in my opinion.
 
Mviande29 said:
Top undergrad admissions are very much swayed towards well off students (54% of students from my undergrad receive zero need-based financial aid). So now you have rich students going on to top undergrad schools to go on to top med schools. Med schools are already worse than any grad-level program at being accessible to low-income students, and your plan would make that worse.
Click to expand...

You are making so many generalizations that I have lost count. About 60% of Princeton's students are on financial aid and the top undergrad schools are really good at admitting low-income students as it is, me included. And your undergrad obviously admits 46% of lower-income students. These students tend to be hard working and grateful the opportunities they are given. So it's not "rich students" from top undergrad schools to top med schools. A more accurate way of saying it is top students going to top undergrad schools going to top med schools. That's why the above poster is saying that a 3.3 from MIT shouldn't be the same as a 3.9 from an unknown state school. The MIT kid probably could have gone to the state school and maintained a 4.0 (again, it's impossible to know unless one can live two simultaneous and separate lives). But from my personal experience taking courses at other institutions, that could easily be the truth.
 
lifetothefullest said:
You are making so many generalizations that I have lost count. About 60% of Princeton's students are on financial aid and the top undergrad schools are really good at admitting low-income students as it is, me included. And your undergrad obviously admits 46% of lower-income students. These students tend to be hard working and grateful the opportunities they are given. So it's not "rich students" from top undergrad schools to top med schools. A more accurate way of saying it is top students going to top undergrad schools going to top med schools. That's why the above poster is saying that a 3.3 from MIT shouldn't be the same as a 3.9 from an unknown state school. The MIT kid probably could have gone to the state school and maintained a 4.0 (again, it's impossible to know unless one can live two simultaneous and separate lives). But from my personal experience taking courses at other institutions, that could easily be the truth.
Click to expand...
Just because someone receives some financial aid, doesn't mean low-income. And I come from a low-income family (I didn't pay any tuition at school) and most other low-income students dropped pre-med within the first year of school, so it does tend to be the wealthy people who have made it to the point of applying to med school from my undergrad. Efle is saying that a 3.3 from MIT SHOULD be viewed the same as a 3.9 from an unknown state school. A student from a top school with a 3.3 should be seen as academically prepared for med school, but in terms of top school med school admissions, it's overdramatic to say a 3.3 from a top school should be more competitive than a 3.7 from a state school with everything else being equal.
 
Mviande29 said:
The fact that a 3.3 from Princeton can get into a medical school suggests that it is acknowledged that a 3.3 is not a bad gpa from Princeton. And quite frankly, there are probably enough 3.7 pre-meds from the top 50 undergrad schools to fill all the top tier med schools, so even with a 0.6pt boost, a 3.3 student would still be left out. Plus, such a large boost would make it so that only students from top undergrad schools go to top med schools. Top undergrad admissions are very much swayed towards well off students (54% of students from my undergrad receive zero need-based financial aid). So now you have rich students going on to top undergrad schools to go on to top med schools. Med schools are already worse than any grad-level program at being accessible to low-income students, and your plan would make that worse.
Click to expand...
I've never said you're in a bad spot with a 3.3 from a top school as far as getting in somewhere, at WashU the acceptance rate among 3.2-3.4 applicants is 66%. But the type of school you are competitive for, as well as your odds of getting in anywhere, both improve drastically with a +0.6 to your GPA.

That's a terrifically bad argument. Firstly, half the people at top schools aren't well-off, and they get screwed just as badly by the hit to their GPA; you hinder the high-achieving poor kids just as much as the rich ones. More importantly the system is supposed to be a meritocracy aimed at producing the best doctors, and knowingly filtering out kids top schools because there's a good chance they're wealthy is nonsense.
 
Mviande29 said:
And I come from a low-income family (I didn't pay any tuition at school) and most other low-income students dropped pre-med within the first year of school, so it does tend to be the wealthy people who have made it to the point of applying to med school from my undergrad.
Click to expand...

I'm also paying no tuition and paying for everything myself, and my experience at WashU has not been that it's the poor kids who drop out, but rather that when finally given all the resources they could ask for and being put on a level field with the kids from expensive private schools, they kick ass.

Let's just say our anecdotes cancel each other out.
 
Mviande29 said:
most other low-income students dropped pre-med within the first year of school, so it does tend to be the wealthy people who have made it to the point of applying to med school from my undergrad.
Click to expand...

That, again, is a generalization. You are speaking from personal experience. Here's another for you. Most other low-income premeds at my school work extremely hard because they worked hard to get here. High-income students tend to party more because that's what they're used to. You don't drop your previous life once you get to college. Rather, it influences you in many ways. If you can quote a statistic saying that nationally, applicants from top schools tend to be from high-income families, then your argument would gain some credibility. Until then, there is no evidence showing that boosting a 3.3 from MIT would disproportionately affect wealthy students. I rather suspect it's the opposite.

Lol, just read the above post. N=2 now.
 
lifetothefullest said:
That, again, is a generalization. You are speaking from personal experience. Here's another for you. Most other low-income premeds at my school work extremely hard because they worked hard to get here. High-income students tend to party more because that's what they're used to. You don't drop your previous life once you get to college. Rather, it influences you in many ways. If you can quote a statistic saying that nationally, applicants from top schools tend to be from high-income families, then your argument would gain some credibility. Until then, there is no evidence showing that boosting a 3.3 from MIT would disproportionately affect wealthy students. I rather suspect it's the opposite.

Lol, just read the above post. N=2 now.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that it would disproportionately affect wealthy MIT students. I'm saying that on average, top schools aren't the best at attracting top low-income students http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/education/scholarly-poor-often-overlook-better-colleges.html (and tons of other articles). So giving a boost to students from top universities that would make their gpas viewed as above a 4.0, would exclude students from schools where lower-income students are more likely to go.
 
lifetothefullest said:
If you can quote a statistic saying that nationally, applicants from top schools tend to be from high-income families, then your argument would gain some credibility.

Lol, just read the above post. N=2 now.
Click to expand...

He'd actually need a race-controlled statistic that says the drop-out rate is higher among middle/lower class than wealthy at only top schools. If wealthy kids do better at all levels of colleges then he fixes nothing by filtering out applicants from only the toughest schools

His reasoning is nonsense anyways, unless he wants to argue he'd take a lower quality doctor so long as making it into that career had moved the doc up a socioeconomic class
 
efle said:
He'd actually need a race-controlled statistic that says the drop-out rate is higher among middle/lower class than wealthy at only top schools. If wealthy kids do better at all levels of colleges then he fixes nothing by filtering out applicants from only the toughest schools

His reasoning is nonsense anyways, unless he wants to argue he'd take a lower quality doctor so long as making it into that career had moved the doc up a socioeconomic class
Click to expand...
Not really, I just don't think a 3.3 student with a 35 MCAT from a top school is more deserving of going to a top med school than someone from a state school with a 3.7 and 35 MCAT. And I said before, that the 3.3 from a top school has academically earned med school, just not a top med school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
How Much Does the MCAT Actually Matter in the App Review Process?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
J
  • Locked
Does URM matter anymore?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
T
Does Undergrad matter ?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Angler
Angler
Qpworueury
  • Locked
Read this: Your Med School name does matter
2
Replies
63
Views
8K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
A
Does this count as clinical?
Replies
4
Views
513
asterok
A
Top