Does university matter?

[lifetothefullest]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Actually I just found this site which is illuminating and relevant: http://www.dailycal.org/2013/03/11/...t-grade-inflation-through-new-grading-system/

As you will see, UC Berkeley actually awards lower grades on average than some of the top Ivies and Stanford.

This is not Harvard but someone I know at Stanford says that most BCPM are curved to B (and B+ at best).

Yeah, I'm just trying to get a feel for how uniform science grading is across top universities. I know that B/B+ is pretty common at Princeton and engineering usually to a B- but we're known for grade deflation. Stanford and Harvard aren't grade deflating schools so I wasn't sure what the curve usually was.

 

[lifetothefullest]

1) that may have changed slightly in the 6-10 years since he was taking prereqs there. What we know for sure is that in 2013 the all-school most common grade was an A, median A-

Yeah but I'm interested in only the science classes. Humanities and social science classes universally pull the average GPA up - actually, in that light, the average science GPA may be lower than the average.

 

[efle]

Whoa, does Stanford really out-inflate Harvard while Harvard is giving A- median grades??

 

[justadream]

Whoa, does Stanford really out-inflate Harvard while Harvard is giving A- median grades??

I looked into it and here's on more wrinkle to keep in mind:

Some schools like Stanford give out A+'s which count as 4.3 grade points per credit. I'm not sure if those graphs account for that by turning those A+'s into just normal A's for comparison purposes.

Also, these average and median GPA data include humanities classes.

 

[lifetothefullest]

Whoa, does Stanford really out-inflate Harvard while Harvard is giving A- median grades??

It looks like it, but what's interesting isn't the median grade. Because there are a great many more non-BCPM classes, i.e. classes that are inflated, than deflated BCPM classes, the median will obviously be pulled towards the higher side. Which means that when you're looking at average GPA, BCPM classes should be lower than the average - if the average is far from the median, then the BCPM average grades are far lower than the non-BCPM average grades. And the science and math classes are the ones we're interested in because that's where significant grading differences between universities exist.

 

[efle]

@justadream I've heard Rice also gives 4.3's for A+ grades. Luckily AMCAS don't stand for none of that nonsense and it's a 4.0 with or without the +

@lifetothefullest Gotcha man. The reason I am interested in the full GPA numbers is because that's whats in the Prehealth Handbook and Table 24. Too bad there's no access to their distributions of MCAT scores.

Fun datapoint: According to the prehealth handbook the median wustl applicant cGPA is in the 3.4-3.59 bracket, just over 2/3rds of the way towards the 3.4 side (or about 3.46 assuming an even distribution). All our prereqs are curved to B/B- median

 

[RedPhys]

This is not Harvard but someone I know at Stanford says that most BCPM are curved to B (and B+ at best).

From friends at Cornell, honors courses (in chemistry and physics; no honors biology) curve to B+ while regular courses curve to B.

 

[caffeinemia]

I really agree with your argument in principle. However, like the guy above, I don't agree with the specific example you used because Berkeley is obviously very competitive. As is U of Michigan, U of Illinois in certain fields, etc. Those "state" schools have competition that, if not at the same level as the Ivies, is pretty damn close. But in principle, the argument that Ivies are much more competitive than other state schools I agree with.



Well, the reason your classmates consistently go into those top positions has a lot more to do with the connections afforded to them at the Ivies than one would get at a state school, even Berkeley. The level of networking is just unreal - taking classes taught by Nobel Laureates, former high-level government officials, etc. Not to mention that the political elite tend to send their children to top Ivies anyway, so your student body is already biased towards having good political connections.

I have just one question for you (it's one that I've been wondering about for some time now): how does Harvard curve its science classes? To an A- or B+?

It was a b/b+ if a curve did exist at all. There was no overarching rule for the sciences. Each prof did what they felt like. All classes were generally taught by tenured profs or teams of tenured profs + senior lecturers or new profs. So the idea of curving to get student satisfaction and tenure is bogus. That said assuming a curve is only half truth. There's no cap on a's. If 3/4 of the class scores in the 90 percent, then all of them will get a's. At Harvard we generally just didn't eff around on courses -- you actually wanted to learn the material. And if it was hard, there were people to ask help you get the concepts all the time. The actual effups got c's or flunked and a year off. They made no jokes about that. It happened to plenty of people. The difference is that the level of personal responsibility for getting what you wanted was tremendous. Ie if you wanted that a, you were at every single office hour.

I met zero Nobel laureates when there. Or if I did, I didn't care to know it or was 1 in 800 people standing 60 feet away. No Nobel laureates gave me crap. I did however see all of my friends performing their asses off at all times to become the next laureate. You can't ever rest on your laurels there. At the same time, I wasn't there bemoaning my status either. I knew I was good and so I self fulfilled that prophecy and made sure other people saw it.

My issue is not that cal grads don't do well. I'm happy they do well. I know many do well. I'm saying if you're whining that going to x school doesn't give you a fair shot and that x ivy got gpa bonus handed to them, then i laugh at you because I would have crushed it at your school too and your institution wasn't the thing that shafted you. And mine certainly had nothing to do w your shortcomings.

 

[efle]

i laugh at you because I would have crushed it at your school too and your institution wasn't the thing that shafted you. And mine certainly had nothing to do w your shortcomings.

Nobody has ever taken this stance - the idea that people at the top at tough schools would do well elsewhere too isn't contested. But it appears people in the middle of the pack at tough schools do get shafted (assuming middle of the pack is low 3's) at least according to MCAT scores. See the difference?

Funny that doing well at H gives you so much confidence you'd kill it anywhere though. Places like Princeton, U Chicago, MIT and Hopkins have much gnarlier reputations

 

[ErbB1]

Tufts curves science classes to a B-….****ing hate it.

 

[caffeinemia]

All the sudden he's banking on "reputations."

 

[efle]

Tufts curves science classes to a B-….****ing hate it.

Tuft **** man, deal with it 😉

All the sudden he's banking on "reputations."

You're kidding right? Harvard is notorious for inflating to the point of scandal while those other schools are similarly qualified student bodies with notoriously tough policies. Pretty sure I explicitly mentioned earlier that you'd have to adjust on the 0.6 from my data to account for that sort of thing.

 

[caffeinemia]

Tuft **** man, deal with it 😉



You're kidding right? Harvard is notorious for inflating to the point of scandal while those other schools are similarly qualified student bodies with notoriously tough policies. Pretty sure I explicitly mentioned earlier that you'd have to adjust on the 0.6 from my data to account for that sort of thing.

Clearly doesn't understand the concept of hypocrisy.

 

[lifetothefullest]

My issue is not that cal grads don't do well. I'm happy they do well. I know many do well. I'm saying if you're whining that going to x school doesn't give you a fair shot and that x ivy got gpa bonus handed to them, then i laugh at you because I would have crushed it at your school too and your institution wasn't the thing that shafted you. And mine certainly had nothing to do w your shortcomings.

This is a straw man argument. Like the guy above just said, nobody is arguing that going to, say, UC Berkeley doesn't give you a fair chance because of GPA bonus. No, people are arguing the opposite. That students at top schools should be getting a GPA bonus because it's much harder than the curriculum at average state schools - a stance that you would agree with.

 

[efle]

Clearly doesn't understand the concept of hypocrisy.

You don't make a lot of sense here. I previously said there would be differences in that ~0.6 value among top schools based on inflation/deflation. Then I said you shouldn't be sure your GPA would still be stellar at Prince/Hop because they have a reputation for much harsher deflation while you have one for massive inflation. Nothing is incompatible here. Eg your H 3.8 being a P 3.4 wouldn't really cause issues with anything else I said.

 

[WingedOx]

I don't think I've ever argued anyone should be entitled to anything for going to some school or another. I've only asked why people don't react/adjust to the differences I've given some evidence do exist.

sigh...

You've already shown evidence exists... it's just not enough to justify giving someone a look without other objective data to back up the rigor of that GPA.

and my comment from many threads ago still stands. If the kid from [Ivy U] can't beat the kid from [Directional State] on the MCAT, he doesn't deserve the spot. You're entitled to your problems with the test, but as stated earlier in the thread, rote memorization and 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 is what is essentially what's tested in medical school thru step 1. The MCAT could use a couple more second/third order questions, but besides that, the phrase "taking an MCAT every 3 weeks" isn't inaccurate.

Trust me, those of you at top tier schools REALLY don't want to see the alternative where the MCAT is de-emphasized in admissions. Cowboys (and Lions before them) fans may not like the "process" rule, but it exists for a good reason. The rules of this game ain't perfect, but they're as good as we can get.

/my ever so sincere apologies for 'bowing out" of the thread....

 

[efle]

sigh...

You've already shown evidence exists... it's just not enough to justify giving someone a look without other objective data to back up the rigor of that GPA.

and my comment from many threads ago still stands. If the kid from [Ivy U] can't beat the kid from [Directional State] on the MCAT, he doesn't deserve the spot. You're entitled to your problems with the test, but as stated earlier in the thread, rote memorization and 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 is what is essentially what's tested in medical school thru step 1. The MCAT could use a couple more second/third order questions, but besides that, the phrase "taking an MCAT every 3 weeks" isn't inaccurate.

Trust me, those of you at top tier schools REALLY don't want to see the alternative where the MCAT is de-emphasized in admissions. Cowboys (and Lions before them) fans may not like the "process" rule, but it exists for a good reason. The rules of this game ain't perfect, but they're as good as we can get.

/my ever so sincere apologies for 'bowing out" of the thread....

What other objective data could be used to back up the rigor behind GPAs being significantly greater than average at some places? The only other academic metric used is the MCAT. I seem to recall in the Top 30 vs state thread everyone had decided MCAT vs GPA data for a tough school vs the norm was exactly what would help

Re the bold: And so what if he does beat him by a couple points on the MCAT? His 3.3 GPA still gets his app tossed at a lot of schools while Directional's -2 +0.6 leaves him in a better spot. If I were to agree the MCAT is a necessary/useful metric I'd still have the same issues I been b*tchin about

My sparring mates can take a breather whenever they need 😉

 

[lifetothefullest]

You're entitled to your problems with the test, but as stated earlier in the thread, rote memorization and 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 is what is essentially what's tested in medical school thru step 1. The MCAT could use a couple more second/third order questions, but besides that, the phrase "taking an MCAT every 3 weeks" isn't inaccurate.

Keep in mind that with the new MCAT, the questions are very different. Many are interdisciplinary in nature and de-emphasize rote memorization.

Also, an interesting argument could be made about the average Ivy applicant (average MCAT score for Ivies are in the mid-30s, indicative of the relative strength of the student bodies) with a lower GPA. So, say, a 3.3 from Princeton with a 35 MCAT against a 3.9 unknown state school with a 30 MCAT. Would you say that the Ivy student is stronger there given the higher MCAT and just ignore the GPA?

 

[WingedOx]

Keep in mind that with the new MCAT, the questions are very different. Many are interdisciplinary in nature and de-emphasize rote memorization.

Also, an interesting argument could be made about the average Ivy applicant (average MCAT score for Ivies are in the mid-30s, indicative of the relative strength of the student bodies) with a lower GPA. So, say, a 3.3 from Princeton with a 35 MCAT against a 3.9 unknown state school with a 30 MCAT. Would you say that the Ivy student is stronger there given the higher MCAT and just ignore the GPA?

Depends... what are the median stats of the school I'm a theoretical ADCOM of? If I'm an admissions dean of Wright State, where the average matriculant has a 30, both have a good shot, but the 3.3 gets a little more scrutiny (though probably isn't going to sink him). If I'm at a school like Michigan, with a much higher MCAT for matriculants, the kid with the 30 gets a rejection as soon as his secondary check cashes.

 

[WingedOx]

What other objective data could be used to back up the rigor behind GPAs being significantly greater than average at some places? The only other academic metric used is the MCAT. I seem to recall in the Top 30 vs state thread everyone had decided MCAT vs GPA data for a tough school vs the norm was exactly what would help

Re the bold: And so what if he does beat him by a couple points on the MCAT? His 3.3 GPA still gets his app tossed at a lot of schools while Directional's -2 +0.6 leaves him in a better spot. If I were to agree the MCAT is a necessary/useful metric I'd still have the same issues I been b*tchin about

My sparring mates can take a breather whenever they need 😉

Maybe... I don't think a 3.3 from WashU is going to sink anyone's medical career, but like I said, it's something they're going to have to answer for. A kid with those stats are going to get interviews... just not everywhere.

 

[lifetothefullest]

Depends... what are the median stats of the school I'm a theoretical ADCOM of? If I'm an admissions dean of Wright State, where the average matriculant has a 30, both have a good shot, but the 3.3 gets a little more scrutiny (though probably isn't going to sink him). If I'm at a school like Michigan, with a much higher MCAT for matriculants, the kid with the 30 gets a rejection as soon as his secondary check cashes.

Say you're at a highly competitive school. Say, Sinai. Average MCAT=35 and average GPA=3.7. And let's bump the stakes up a bit. 3.9 GPA, 30 MCAT from unknown state school and 3.3, 38 MCAT from grade-deflating Ivy. What is your opinion on what should happen? Emphasis on "should" because I think we've established that in reality, there is no huge GPA bump.

 

[WingedOx]

Say you're at a highly competitive school. Say, Sinai. Average MCAT=35 and average GPA=3.7. And let's bump the stakes up a bit. 3.9 GPA, 30 MCAT from unknown state school and 3.3, 38 MCAT from grade-deflating Ivy. What is your opinion on what should happen? Emphasis on "should" because I think we've established that in reality, there is no huge GPA bump.

The 30 doesn't even have a shot unless they're a URM, has an olympic medal, has a building on campus named for their dad, etc.

the 38 certainly gets a consideration.

High GPAs are a dime a dozen. It's much harder to get on that downslope of the high MCAT bell curve.

 

[lifetothefullest]

High GPAs are a dime a dozen. It's much harder to get on that downslope of the high MCAT bell curve.

So what you are arguing is to give an effective boost to the Ivy applicant's low GPA? That is, now what if both applicants have 35 MCAT but one has a 3.3 from grade deflating school and the other has a 3.9 from non-deflated/inflated school? That is what I believe is the crux of what people have been arguing before. If you believe that both applicants deserve to be looked at on equal footing on the basis of the MCAT being equal, then you believe in an effective GPA correction.

 

[WingedOx]

So what you are arguing is to give an effective boost to the Ivy applicant's low GPA? That is, now what if both applicants have 35 MCAT but one has a 3.3 from grade deflating school and the other has a 3.9 from non-deflated/inflated school? That is what I believe is the crux of what people have been arguing before. If you believe that both applicants deserve to be looked at on equal footing on the basis of the MCAT being equal, then you believe in an effective GPA correction.

I think in that situation I lean toward the 3.9 (and I think others I know who actually make those decisions generally do too), though the MCAT trumps the GPA enough that by that point, the other intangibles are going to trump the numbers. If a school is using a hard GPA cutoff to screen people out... not much they can really do except raise the GPA.

 

[lifetothefullest]

I think in that situation I lean toward the 3.9 (and I think others I know who actually make those decisions generally do too)

I've actually heard the opposite - that rigor is taken into account, that is. So that a 3.5 at MIT isn't the same as a 3.5 elsewhere. Meaning that there's some small GPA correction going on. But again, it's small and usually only at the top medical schools.

 

[kaspersky]

When a debate goes lengthy like this, facts are only the ones we can rely on.

Look at the SLU SOM match vs. UC SOM match. Look at the proportion of the prestigious hospitals and residency matches.

Game Closed. Which one is a smarter choice?

Paying ****ing 200K to the school and getting a lower tier match, or paying 60K and getting a higher level match?

 

[NickNaylor]

The issue with this the concept of "rigor" or the the overall "prestige" factor is :

1) generally of much less importance to adcoms than what premeds assume it does. My rule of thumb it is a magnitude below GPA/MCAT
2) it wholly inconsistent across adcoms. A few may formally rank it, some will make broad categories, others barely notice it
3) it is often inconsistent within adcoms. Some members may specifically give schools more weight, others may ignore the school
4) The concept of feeder schools is likely more consistent way to view this. That is, a medical school may take a large percentage of students from consistently from certain undergraduate institution. This will vary widely across medical schools.
5) Most adcoms dont do any direct side-by-side applicant comparison of "GPA by school." Numbers lose direct importance/comparison as the applicant makes it further thru the process. It would better thought of as the overall academic "caliber" of the applicant, which is only part of the picture that adcoms use to make final selection

Rigor does matter, I think. Otherwise, how are you to interpret the GPA? On my committee "rigor" was broadly separated into a few categories. It very seldom came up in actual discussion, but it certainly does inform how you look at an application.

 

[WingedOx]

And to further gonnif's point, "rigor" can be entirely inconsistent even within a single institution. It's why I don't put much weight into things like "average school GPA"

 

[Greenberg702]

Say you're at a highly competitive school. Say, Sinai. Average MCAT=35 and average GPA=3.7. And let's bump the stakes up a bit. 3.9 GPA, 30 MCAT from unknown state school and 3.3, 38 MCAT from grade-deflating Ivy. What is your opinion on what should happen? Emphasis on "should" because I think we've established that in reality, there is no huge GPA bump.

I think Sinai was ~3.8/36 last year.

 

[medic86]

And to further gonnif's point, "rigor" can be entirely inconsistent even within a single institution. It's why I don't put much weight into things like "average school GPA"

I'll tell you: virology was the hardest class I've ever taken, but someone reviewing my transcript will just not have a clue. They'd probably be more impressed with my performance in the organics and biochem.

 

[RedPhys]

I'll tell you: virology was the hardest class I've ever taken, but someone reviewing my transcript will just not have a clue. They'd probably be more impressed with my performance in the organics and biochem.

No kidding... I majored in Engineering Physics, and one of my interviewers only commented on my performance in organic chemistry (which, to me, was worlds easier than Physics courses).

 

[Dormouse]

Looking at "median grade" given out in classes is very misleading when judging the grade deflation/inflation at any school for their premed programs, because it tells you nothing about how much their common premed classes are curved and how competitive/high achieving your classmates in those schools will be. Upper level classes and humanities classes typically give out much higher grades that bring up the overall grade average. Also, if your classmates have better academic preparation than you from high school (i.e. have taken advanced math or genetics already etc), then even if classes at that college is curved to a higher grade, your grade will still suffer.

A better metric for grade inflation is to ask for the average GPA and average MCAT score of past students accepted to medical school. If that average for one school is is 3.4/36 and at another it's 3.8/32, the first school is grade-deflated for premeds even if it gives a higher overall average GPA.

 

[lifetothefullest]

Looking at "median grade" given out in classes is very misleading when judging the grade deflation/inflation at any school for their premed programs, because it tells you nothing about how much their common premed classes are curved and how competitive/high achieving your classmates in those schools will be. Upper level classes and humanities classes typically give out much higher grades that bring up the overall grade average.

Actually, if you look at the median in combination with the average grades, that is very illuminating, given the assumption that humanities/social sciences classes give out higher grades. So if your median is very high and far from your average GPA, then that strongly suggests that humanities are really grade inflated relative to your science classes. Given that there are many more humanities classes than science classes (usually at research/liberal arts colleges), then if you have, say, a median of 3.7 and an average of 3.4, that means that your science classes are really really grade deflating.

A better metric for grade inflation is to ask for the average GPA and average MCAT score of past students accepted to medical school. If that average for one school is is 3.4/36 and at another it's 3.8/32, the first school is grade-deflated for premeds even if it gives a higher overall average GPA.

Yeah, we're not arguing about this though. We realize that grade inflation/deflation exists across the spectrum of undergrad schools. What's more interesting to discuss is what should be done about it. So that a kid with a 3.4 GPA, 36 MCAT from a competitive school doesn't have his GPA held against him, so to speak.

 

[Dormouse]

Actually, if you look at the median in combination with the average grades, that is very illuminating, given the assumption that humanities/social sciences classes give out higher grades. So if your median is very high and far from your average GPA, then that strongly suggests that humanities are really grade inflated relative to your science classes.

I'm not following the math lol... Bringing up the mean with high grades also bring up the median, unless the "high grades" are absurdly out of the range. It's also more nuanced than humanities/social sciences having higher grades, which may or may not be true!

I went to a school perhaps known for "grade inflation" but the average GPA for applicants was ~3.6 while the MCAT was 36. I have no idea how rigor/inflation is (or is not) taken into account in med school admissions, but thought to comment on the impression of some people that going to a more competitive but supposedly more grade inflated school necessarily results in a higher GPA. Hopefully this can be helpful for people reading this thread who are in the position of choosing an undergrad college.

 

[lifetothefullest]

I'm not following the math lol... Bringing up the mean with high grades also bring up the median, unless the "high grades" are absurdly out of the range. It's also more nuanced than humanities/social sciences having higher grades, which may or may not be true!

Not with a set n. So let me make it explicit with actual numbers. Say you have 10 classes total that your school offers. 7 are humanities, 3 are sciences. It is generally agreed that humanities/social sciences do hand out higher grades on average than science classes (there's also a ton of data to back this up should you request it). So say that your humanities classes' grades were all 3.7. Your median grade would therefore necessarily be 3.7 as well. Then I tell you that the average grade over all ten courses is a 3.3. So what do the science grades look like, on average? Well, 0.7(3.7)+0.3x=3.3. Now solve for x (this is just a weighted average). You'll find that x<3.3, meaning that on average, your science classes award grades below the average GPA at that school.

So generalizing, a high median and a lower average GPA for a given school means that your science classes are likely to be graded more rigorously. Why? Because I think that it's safe to make the two assumptions I made here: 1) there are more humanities classes than science classes - think of all the language departments, the English/literature departments, the social science departments versus bio, chem, physics, and math, so you'll have a lot more "humanities" including social science classes than you will have BCPM at a given school and 2) humanities classes award higher grades than science classes.

Now, you argue that it's more nuanced than that and I agree. But on a macro scale, this provides a pretty good approximation of how a school grades its science courses. You just need the median and average GPA to derive these approximations!

 

[justadream]

I'm not following the math lol... Bringing up the mean with high grades also bring up the median, unless the "high grades" are absurdly out of the range. It's also more nuanced than humanities/social sciences having higher grades, which may or may not be true!

I went to a school perhaps known for "grade inflation" but the average GPA for applicants was ~3.6 while the MCAT was 36. I have no idea how rigor/inflation is (or is not) taken into account in med school admissions, but thought to comment on the impression of some people that going to a more competitive but supposedly more grade inflated school necessarily results in a higher GPA. Hopefully this can be helpful for people reading this thread who are in the position of choosing an undergrad college.

The average MCAT at your school was 36 for applicants? Are you sure about that? I thought even at HYPMS, it was like 34ish at best.