Does university matter?

[efle]

---

Members don't see this ad.

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.

Ceteris Paribus, including socioeconomic status? Because if the only difference is that GPA, then yes in fact the GPA of the first student is more impressive and you've no reason to prefer the latter

 

[lifetothefullest]

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

That's exactly what I said - that applicants from top schools tend to be from high-income families. We're only looking at top schools here, so why would I mention other levels?

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.

Okay, but what about a 3.3 student from a top school and a 3.5 student from unknown state school? The GPA difference could be solely due to the fact that the MIT student faced tougher competition. The fact that they have similar MCAT scores leads me to think that they are similarly minded individuals. Put the 3.5 kid at MIT and he'd get a 3.3 and vice versa.

 

[famoussquamous]

From what I understand, being an "average" applicant at a top school will make it much more likely that you get into SOME medical school. That said the whole "is a 3.3 from there really that important" is moot since Harvard students that make 3.3s usually won't get into Harvard med. The students that go to top medical schools usually kick butt in undergrad for both GPA and MCAT.

 

[Mviande29]

Ceteris Paribus, including socioeconomic status? Because if the only difference is that GPA, then yes in fact the GPA of the first student is more impressive and you've no reason to prefer the latter

Guess we'll agree to disagree. And if you are just above average at a top undergrad, you'd probably be just above average (or possibly lower since now all the non-pre-med students in science classes won't be around) at a top med school. Now you'll have the chance to go to a low or -level school and be at the top and get all honors. Have fun 👍

Lifetothefullest, I don't disagree with you necessarily. Efle is saying that straight up that 3.5 student is less deserving of a top med school because that 3.3 student should be treated as a 3.9. And I definitely agree that people at top schools would do better at less challenging schools, but I don't think that a 3.7 from a state school with a high MCAT should be discredited in the way that giving a 0.6 point boost would discredit them. (And it's unlikely that either student would get accepted to a top school, but the 3.3 MIT would actually probably be more competitive in mid- and l0w-level schools)

 

[efle]

Guess we'll agree to disagree. And if you are just above average at a top undergrad, you'd probably be just above average (or possibly lower since now all the non-pre-med students in science classes won't be around) at a top med school. Now you'll have the chance to go to a low or -level school and be at the top and get all honors. Have fun 👍

I have a LizzyM > 80 but **** you too, buddy 🙂

Lifetothefullest, I don't disagree with you necessarily. Efle is saying that straight up that 3.5 student is less deserving of a top med school because that 3.3 student should be treated as a 3.9. And I definitely agree that people at top schools would do better at less challenging schools, but I don't think that a 3.7 from a state school with a high MCAT should be discredited in the way that giving a 0.6 point boost would discredit them

You may as well argue 2 > 3

 

[mimelim]

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.

Nobody "deserves" to go to medical school because they have good grades. Nobody "deserves" to get into a top ranked school because their academics are better than someone else.

We want the best, most productive students that you can be. If someone has a 3.3/35, they sure as hell better have a good explanation for why they have a 3.3 because no matter what medical school they are applying to, there are going to be thousands of applicants with better grades. For consideration at most schools, they are going to need to have something on their application that schools want in their class. However, by the exact same token, 3.7/35 is by no means a guarantee of admission. Are they less risky than your 3.3/35, absolutely, and every school wants to minimize their risks.

All else being equal, no school reputation will garner you a 0.4 GPA boost. But, things are never equal. Schools, majors, course loads, extracurriculars etc. always come into play.

 

[Mviande29]

Nobody "deserves" to go to medical school because they have good grades. Nobody "deserves" to get into a top ranked school because their academics are better than someone else.

We want the best, most productive students that you can be. If someone has a 3.3/35, they sure as hell better have a good explanation for why they have a 3.3 because no matter what medical school they are applying to, there are going to be thousands of applicants with better grades. For consideration at most schools, they are going to need to have something on their application that schools want in their class. However, by the exact same token, 3.7/35 is by no means a guarantee of admission. Are they less risky than your 3.3/35, absolutely, and every school wants to minimize their risks.

All else being equal, no school reputation will garner you a 0.4 GPA boost. But, things are never equal. Schools, majors, course loads, extracurriculars etc. always come into play.

That is what I have been arguing. I don't think that students from a top school deserve a 0.6pt boost and that a 3.7/35 state school students shouldn't be viewed as less competitive than a 3.3/35 for top school admissions

 

[efle]

Are they less risky than your 3.3/35, absolutely, and every school wants to minimize their risks.

All else being equal, no school reputation will garner you a 0.4 GPA boost.

In light of these two statements, that your odds do change and nobody compensates a 0.4 difference, does this sort of thing justify grade inflation at top schools?

 

[efle]

That is what I have been arguing.

No, you haven't, you've been arguing that there shouldn't be a big difference in perception of grades, mimelim is saying there isn't a big difference. Nobody has ever disputed whether you deserve med school, other aspects matter, etc

 

[Mviande29]

No, you haven't, you've been arguing that there shouldn't be a big difference in perception of grades, mimelim is saying there isn't a big difference. Nobody has ever disputed whether you deserve med school, other aspects matter, etc

My point was that his comment would be more appropriately directed towards you who believe that a 3.3 from a top undergrad should be competitive for a top med school

 

[efle]

My point was that his comment would be more appropriately directed towards you who believe that a 3.3 from a top undergrad should be competitive for a top med school

My belief is that a 3.3 from a top school should be as competitive as a 3.9 from state school, which is still not very. Look at Table 24, 3.8-4.0 GPAs are a dime a dozen. The goal of adjusting GPAs by undergrad institution would only protect people from being more likely screened out/glanced at and rejected for a lower GPA at a top school.

And, this is the same guy who said he would not take issue with a 3.4 coming from someone in a hard science major at a tough school like U Chicago. If anything he's evidence that adcoms do adjust per institution, just not as much as the numbers would point to

Edit: I don't even know why I keep responding to this. As I've already shown several times, if a 3.9 is X competitive from a nationally average school, so too should a 3.3 from a top one be X competitive. Arguing with that is arguing with the data or the validity of the MCAT, not with me.

 

[mimelim]

In light of these two statements, that your odds do change and nobody compensates a 0.4 difference, does this sort of thing justify grade inflation at top schools?

Personally, I am very much against grade inflation. I had a 3.4 coming out of Wash U. and I deserved every A and B that I got in my time there. I reject the argument that I would have gotten better grades at another school. Is it potentially true? Yes. But, it is immaterial. My diploma says Washington University in St. Louis. I don't have a good answer for you. Is it, "unfair" if students who WOULD get better grades at other schools are discriminated against because of their undergrad? Yes. By the same token, it is a student's choice as to what school they go to. We can have an endless debate about whether a 17 year old picking schools could possibly understand the ramifications of their college choice, but to me a school sets it's policies and its grading and it should be up to us as adcoms to understand the basics of what schools do. Will we ever know the full picture? Doubtful, but to me that is where the burden should lie. To be honest, it DOES happen. There is no way to accurately 'smooth out' grading across the country, so I don't think that people should try. I would also argue that what major you are in and your course load will impact your GPA just as much or more than the school that you are at. More complexity that should really not be touched with a ten foot pole as far as compensation.

That is what I have been arguing. I don't think that students from a top school deserve a 0.6pt boost and that a 3.7/35 state school students shouldn't be viewed as less competitive than a 3.3/35 for top school admissions

My point was that his comment would be more appropriately directed towards you who believe that a 3.3 from a top undergrad should be competitive for a top med school

My primary issue was with the concept of "deserving" a spot in a medical school class. Personally, I think that academics are a very poor way of picking between medical students. After living in the hospital for the better part of the last 5 years, I am thoroughly convinced that a 3.9 student on average has no better chance of being a good doctor than a 3.6 student. Are they more likely to survive the training? Absolutely. Are they more likely to do well on their steps and shelves? I think you can make a compelling argument. But, better physician? I don't think so. Every school in the US can fill their classes with extremely good students, there are plenty of high GPA/MCAT students to go around. What else do people bring to the table? I don't think that people with a 3.7 are innately better than a 3.3 or more likely to be a better physician. If that 3.3 brings something to the table that is unique or better than the 3.7, I'm more interested in interviewing them.

 

[Mviande29]

Personally, I am very much against grade inflation. I had a 3.4 coming out of Wash U. and I deserved every A and B that I got in my time there. I reject the argument that I would have gotten better grades at another school. Is it potentially true? Yes. But, it is immaterial. My diploma says Washington University in St. Louis. I don't have a good answer for you. Is it, "unfair" if students who WOULD get better grades at other schools are discriminated against because of their undergrad? Yes. By the same token, it is a student's choice as to what school they go to. We can have an endless debate about whether a 17 year old picking schools could possibly understand the ramifications of their college choice, but to me a school sets it's policies and its grading and it should be up to us as adcoms to understand the basics of what schools do. Will we ever know the full picture? Doubtful, but to me that is where the burden should lie. To be honest, it DOES happen. There is no way to accurately 'smooth out' grading across the country, so I don't think that people should try. I would also argue that what major you are in and your course load will impact your GPA just as much or more than the school that you are at. More complexity that should really not be touched with a ten foot pole as far as compensation.





My primary issue was with the concept of "deserving" a spot in a medical school class. Personally, I think that academics are a very poor way of picking between medical students. After living in the hospital for the better part of the last 5 years, I am thoroughly convinced that a 3.9 student on average has no better chance of being a good doctor than a 3.6 student. Are they more likely to survive the training? Absolutely. Are they more likely to do well on their steps and shelves? I think you can make a compelling argument. But, better physician? I don't think so. Every school in the US can fill their classes with extremely good students, there are plenty of high GPA/MCAT students to go around. What else do people bring to the table? I don't think that people with a 3.7 are innately better than a 3.3 or more likely to be a better physician. If that 3.3 brings something to the table that is unique or better than the 3.7, I'm more interested in interviewing them.

Oh, well maybe my writing wasn't clear, but I when I said that someone isn't "more deserving" I didn't mean to imply that the other person deserves to be accepted. I just meant that the other person isn't less deserving, as in they don't show less of an ability to handle the academics of a top med school.

Edit: In other words, I was using the "to qualify for" definition of deserving and not the "to be owed" definition

 

[efle]

Personally, I am very much against grade inflation. I had a 3.4 coming out of Wash U. and I deserved every A and B that I got in my time there. I reject the argument that I would have gotten better grades at another school. Is it potentially true? Yes. But, it is immaterial. My diploma says Washington University in St. Louis. I don't have a good answer for you. Is it, "unfair" if students who WOULD get better grades at other schools are discriminated against because of their undergrad? Yes. By the same token, it is a student's choice as to what school they go to. We can have an endless debate about whether a 17 year old picking schools could possibly understand the ramifications of their college choice, but to me a school sets it's policies and its grading and it should be up to us as adcoms to understand the basics of what schools do. Will we ever know the full picture? Doubtful, but to me that is where the burden should lie. To be honest, it DOES happen. There is no way to accurately 'smooth out' grading across the country, so I don't think that people should try. I would also argue that what major you are in and your course load will impact your GPA just as much or more than the school that you are at. More complexity that should really not be touched with a ten foot pole as far as compensation.

Why are you against grade inflation? Do you do some sort of negative compensation for places known to inflate to ridiculous levels or do students in fact benefit from inflationary policies? I think it's bad because there needs to be a way to tell the very best even from a group of the best, and a grade distribution centered on A- doesn't leave much room for people to push their limits and distinguish themselves. But my reasoning isn't too popular.

RE the bold: It would cease to be immaterial if adcoms performed this job and understood the role of humbling peer abilities in deflated, competitive coursework. If adcoms go around thinking there's no difference in schools, Kutztown vs UChicago an A is an A, they've not even tried to see part of the picture. Even worse if they've caught a glimpse firsthand but ignore that and statistical evidence because it's easier to reject that a discrepancy exists. I at least know if I'm ever reviewing applications I'll view a 3.4 from WashU >> a 3.5 from the average state uni...another matter whether it's worth caring who's better at academics.

My primary issue was with the concept of "deserving" a spot in a medical school class. Personally, I think that academics are a very poor way of picking between medical students. After living in the hospital for the better part of the last 5 years, I am thoroughly convinced that a 3.9 student on average has no better chance of being a good doctor than a 3.6 student. Are they more likely to survive the training? Absolutely. Are they more likely to do well on their steps and shelves? I think you can make a compelling argument. But, better physician? I don't think so. Every school in the US can fill their classes with extremely good students, there are plenty of high GPA/MCAT students to go around. What else do people bring to the table? I don't think that people with a 3.7 are innately better than a 3.3 or more likely to be a better physician. If that 3.3 brings something to the table that is unique or better than the 3.7, I'm more interested in interviewing them.

Would you change it up? Go for more people who might struggle to pass training but have that elusive "uniqueness" or "diversity"? Why does your school maintain a selective set of median stats if the acdoms are so disillusioned with stats as a way to select good doctors?

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Oh boy my favorite type of thread!!!

And it took you ~10 hours to respond? 😵 You're slowing down 😛

I think it's bad because there needs to be a way to tell the very best even from a group of the best, and a grade distribution centered on A- doesn't leave much room for people to push their limits and distinguish themselves. But my reasoning isn't too popular.

You don't need grades at top unis to distinguish the very best from the best. A thesis, pubs, contests, and other ECs (academic and non-academic) can effectively separate some from the rest of the pack. Obviously, coursework should be challenging, but if a student achieves a high level of competency, then they should be rewarded with a good grade. Essentially, if 90% of the class puts in A work, then 90% should get an A.

 

[lifetothefullest]

You don't need grades at top unis to distinguish the very best from the best. A thesis, pubs, contests, and other ECs (academic and non-academic) can effectively separate some from the rest of the pack.

The problem with this is that it takes too simplistic a view of the how pre-meds or, indeed, people spend their time. At a top university, most of the time is spent studying and in order to maintain competitive/good grades, you have to put in a lot of work. Which means less time for other ECs or even research. I've had to slow down my research a lot these past few weeks because of the increased workload - exams, papers, presentations, etc. I have no doubt that if I went to a less competitive institution, I would have a lot more time on my hands to pursue research, etc. For example, I have a friend who went to a no name regional school. He did not pull great grades in high school, but immediately after he went to college, he got straight A's. Not only that, but he also does it with a lot less time commitment because he's being compared only to other people in his class. The big fish in a small pond kind of story. He becomes the curve-setter, so to speak. Whereas if he had gone to a more competitive college, he would have had to work harder to stay on top of the curve.

Obviously, coursework should be challenging, but if a student achieves a high level of competency, then they should be rewarded with a good grade. Essentially, if 90% of the class puts in A work, then 90% should get an A.

Sadly, that's not how it works. I agree that if 90% of the class puts in A-quality work, then 90% of the class should get an A. But sometimes A-quality work is difficult to determine, especially in the sciences. Should the student know enough to perform a research-level synthesis? Should the student be expected only to remember the basic reaction mechanisms taught? The professor must weigh this when creating exams and it's hard to measure students on an absolute scale. That's why science classes are often curved by rank. Top 1/4 of the ranked class get As, 2/4 get Bs, and 1/4 get Cs, etc. In other words, people are being compared to other people in the class. Which creates the cross-university problem.

 

[efle]

And it took you ~10 hours to respond? 😵 You're slowing down 😛

You don't need grades at top unis to distinguish the very best from the best. A thesis, pubs, contests, and other ECs (academic and non-academic) can effectively separate some from the rest of the pack. Obviously, coursework should be challenging, but if a student achieves a high level of competency, then they should be rewarded with a good grade. Essentially, if 90% of the class puts in A work, then 90% should get an A.

I should clarify, I meant the best of the best academically not as applicants. All sorts of things can make you stand out, but none of them measure the same thing as the GPA, especially the prereq GPA - and good grades being valuable but limited in number identify the individuals which can academically outperform the majority of a very smart, very motivated group. What gives an A value is its rarity and the stiff competition that's overcome in earning one. I think you'd lose a lot of information by replacing all grading with P/F or unlimited A's for competency and, like I said before, it would take away your ability to really test and push yourself to your max.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

The problem with this is that it takes too simplistic a view of the how pre-meds or, indeed, people spend their time. At a top university, most of the time is spent studying and in order to maintain competitive/good grades, you have to put in a lot of work. Which means less time for other ECs or even research. I've had to slow down my research a lot these past few weeks because of the increased workload - exams, papers, presentations, etc.

I was referring to "grade inflating" undergrads, where more As and A-s are given. I think schools like Stanford and Brown effectively challenge their students without the gpa dip that's seen at other institutions.

Sadly, that's not how it works. I agree that if 90% of the class puts in A-quality work, then 90% of the class should get an A. But sometimes A-quality work is difficult to determine, especially in the sciences. Should the student know enough to perform a research-level synthesis? Should the student be expected only to remember the basic reaction mechanisms taught? The professor must weigh this when creating exams and it's hard to measure students on an absolute scale. That's why science classes are often curved by rank. Top 1/4 of the ranked class get As, 2/4 get Bs, and 1/4 get Cs, etc. In other words, people are being compared to other people in the class. Which creates the cross-university problem.

Not quite. Science is probably more quantifiable than other disciplines. Research level synthesis and basic mechanisms are at opposite ends of the spectrum. It's not difficult to find a reasonable compromise. Plenty of professors/departments pull it off, right?!

 

[efle]

That's why science classes are often curved by rank. Top 1/4 of the ranked class get As, 2/4 get Bs, and 1/4 get Cs, etc. In other words, people are being compared to other people in the class. Which creates the cross-university problem.

Science classes are curved by rank purposefully to produce the value in high marks I described, not because it's too difficult to assign grades on an absolute scale (if anything that's easier in science classes than any other type). The cross-university problem isn't an accidental byproduct of confused professors.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I should clarify, I meant the best of the best academically not as applicants. All sorts of things can make you stand out, but none of them measure the same thing as the GPA, especially the prereq GPA - and good grades being valuable but limited in number identify the individuals which can academically outperform the majority of a very smart, very motivated group. What gives an A value is its rarity and the stiff competition that's overcome in earning one. I think you'd lose a lot of information by replacing all grading with P/F or unlimited A's for competency and, like I said before, it would take away your ability to really test and push yourself to your max.

You're assigning way too much value to an A. For undergrads, it should simply measure a reasonably high level of competence, nothing more. If one chooses to distinguish themselves academically from the pack at a top uni, they can pursue graduate coursework and aim for a Nobel Prize.

 

[lifetothefullest]

Science classes are curved by rank purposefully to produce the value in high marks I described, not because it's too difficult to assign grades on an absolute scale (if anything that's easier in science classes than any other type).

You're missing the point. The fact that science classes are curving by rank naturally makes competition more difficult at competitive schools. That's all I'm saying.

Not quite. Science is probably more quantifiable than other disciplines. Research level synthesis and basic mechanisms are at opposite ends of the spectrum. It's not difficult to find a reasonable compromise. Plenty of professors/departments pull it off, right?!

Yeah, but the point is that professors/departments at different schools do it differently. The mere fact that you're curving by rank naturally makes it more difficult to stay on top of the curve at a top school.

I was referring to "grade inflating" undergrads, where more As and A-s are given. I think schools like Stanford and Brown effectively challenge their students without the gpa dip that's seen at other institutions.

I think that they do too. But a ****ty GPA from a grade deflating institution like MIT or Princeton does not mean that the student in question is less competent academically than somebody who got a 4.0 at an unknown state school. And to clarify, by "****ty" I mean low 3.0s.

 

[efle]

You're assigning way too much value to an A. For undergrads, it should simply measure a reasonably high level of competence, nothing more. If one chooses to distinguish themselves academically from the pack at a top uni, they can pursue graduate coursework and aim for a Nobel Prize.

It's not me that determines a grade's value, it's the grading system; if a course is curved such that the top 20% get an A then by definition it carries value = represents this student outperformed 80% of the class. What I find value in is challenging myself to be among those best and finding out what I'm really made of between my ears. It's similar to sports or competitive video games etc - the goal is always to be pushing oneself and struggling and improving, not hitting "good enough" and being reasonably competent.

Yes, I know I'm damn competitive

Reminds me of one of my favorite memes tho:

 

[lifetothefullest]

For undergrads, it should simply measure a reasonably high level of competence, nothing more.

Also, "reasonably high level of competence" is a hand-wavy standard and you know it. Is a student reasonably competent if he/she knows how to do an Aldol condensation? Is he/she competent if he/she knows what a SNIP is? The point I'm trying to get at here and have been trying to get at is that "reasonable competence" is measured differently in different institutions. Even within a department, definitions can vary. Generally speaking, "reasonable competence" is much more stringent at a top university than at an unknown state school. Otherwise state schools would fail 3/4 of their classes. This is not to say that all state schools do not hold their students to high standards, though.

 

[The Helpful Aye Aye]

Yes.

 

[efle]

Sadly, that's not how it works. I agree that if 90% of the class puts in A-quality work, then 90% of the class should get an A. But sometimes A-quality work is difficult to determine, especially in the sciences. Should the student know enough to perform a research-level synthesis? Should the student be expected only to remember the basic reaction mechanisms taught? The professor must weigh this when creating exams and it's hard to measure students on an absolute scale. That's why science classes are often curved by rank. Top 1/4 of the ranked class get As, 2/4 get Bs, and 1/4 get Cs, etc. In other words, people are being compared to other people in the class. Which creates the cross-university problem.

You're missing the point. The fact that science classes are curving by rank naturally makes competition more difficult at competitive schools. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, but the point is that professors/departments at different schools do it differently. The mere fact that you're curving by rank naturally makes it more difficult to stay on top of the curve at a top school.

I think that they do too. But a ****ty GPA from a grade deflating institution like MIT or Princeton does not mean that the student in question is less competent academically than somebody who got a 4.0 at an unknown state school. And to clarify, by "****ty" I mean low 3.0s.

I didn't miss anything, you very clearly stated you thought curves existed because it was hard for profs to make absolute scales - see bolded.

Edit: I missed a "not"

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

It's not me that determines a grade's value, it's the grading system; if a course is curved such that the top 20% get an A then by definition it carries value = represents this student outperformed 80% of the class. What I find value in is challenging myself to be among those best and finding out what I'm really made of between my ears. It's similar to sports or competitive video games etc - the goal is always to be pushing oneself and struggling and improving, not hitting "good enough" and being reasonably competent.

Yes, I know I'm damn competitive

Reminds me of one of my favorite memes tho:

Understandable if you're referring to the grading system at your school. However, my initial comment was a response to your remark about grade inflating schools, and how the very best are unable to distinguish themselves from others in such a system. I'm arguing that it's not necessary to make that distinction (at least with a college course) once students demonstrate a relatively high level of competence.

Even within a department, definitions can vary. Generally speaking, "reasonable competence" is much more stringent at a top university than at an unknown state school. Otherwise state schools would fail 3/4 of their classes. This is not to say that all state schools do not hold their students to high standards, though.

You missed my point. I was referring to top grade inflating schools vs top grade deflating schools.

 

[lifetothefullest]

I didn't miss anything, you very clearly stated you thought curves existed because it was hard for profs to make absolute scales - see bolded.

You're still missing the point. It does not matter why they're grading by rank, just that they are. That means that students at top universities have harder competition. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I don't really care why professors grade by rank, just that they do.

You missed my point. I was referring to top grade inflating schools vs top grade deflating schools.

Please clarify your point then. What is "reasonable competence" in both of those contexts?

 

[efle]

Understandable if you're referring to the grading system at your school. However, my initial comment was a response to your remark about grade inflating schools, and how the very best are unable to distinguish themselves from others in such a system. I'm arguing that it's not necessary to make that distinction (at least with a college course) once students demonstrate a relatively high level of competence.

You missed my point. I was referring to top grade inflating schools vs top grade deflating schools.

I do think it'd be hard to care about A's if that's what you got for being average, but you're probably right that it's not many who hit a 4.00/didn't get to find their limits.

You're still missing the point. It does not matter why they're grading by rank, just that they are. That means that students at top universities have harder competition. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I don't really care why professors grade by rank, just that they do.

Please clarify your point then. What is "reasonable competence" in both of those contexts?

Yes, they do, I agree there is a cross-university comparison problem. My only point was that your explanation about why this problem arises was bogus - it's totally intentional and unrelated to how well profs know what's reasonable to expect on an absolute scale.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Please clarify your point then. What is "reasonable competence" in both of those contexts?

Reasonable competence is achieving at least an A- at a top grade inflating school like Stanford or Brown. It's not an "easy A," but apparently more students get As and A-s at those schools than at @efle's school.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I do think it'd be hard to care about A's if that's what you got for being average, but you're probably right that it's not many who hit a 4.00/didn't get to find their limits.

"Average" among the best is pretty damn good and more than enough to find success in competitive fields. College shouldn't be the academic version of the Hunger Games. You're confining academic limits to undergraduate coursework and grades. Again, there are plenty of opportunities for these students to distinguish themselves outside of this sphere.

 

[lifetothefullest]

Yes, they do, I agree there is a cross-university comparison problem. My only point was that your explanation about why this problem arises was bogus - it's totally intentional and unrelated to how well profs know what's reasonable to expect on an absolute scale.

Good. We are not arguing about the fundamental point I'm trying to make here. We're just debating about the details. Professors have different expectations, driven largely perhaps by their own experiences. I direct you again to the question I asked earlier: what is reasonable competency? What level of knowledge is to be expected for the high mark? That is not an easily answerable question. Some professors think it's rote memorization of the course material. Others think it's applying it to completely novel problems. Still others take it to the next step and believe that competency is applying it at a research level. Does ranking create value for the higher marks? Yes. Do I think it's a byproduct of a bigger problem - that is, setting an absolute threshold for competency? Yes.

Reasonable competence is achieving at least an A- at a top grade inflating school like Stanford or Brown. It's not an "easy A," but apparently more students get As and A-s at those schools than at @efle's school.

Ah, I see. We have different interpretations of the meaning of reasonable competency. What I'm referring to goes much deeper. What level of knowledge do you consider reasonable competency? You said that an A should measure reasonable competency. What does that mean in context of a subject, of a student body? I know that you particularly referred top schools here, but getting back onto the topic of the thread, does reasonable competency mean you have complete mastery of the subject down to the details? I suspect that a person who is "reasonably competent" from an unknown school would still be behind a person who is "reasonably competent" by your standards at a top school.

 

[efle]

Reasonable competence is achieving at least an A- at a top grade inflating school like Stanford or Brown. It's not an "easy A," but apparently more students get As and A-s at those schools than at @efle's school.

What an excellent definition!
"A's should be based on reasonable competency"
"What is reasonable competency?"
"Reasonable competency is getting an A"

Checks out! 😛

"Average" among the best is pretty damn good and more than enough to find success in competitive fields. College shouldn't be the academic version of the Hunger Games. You're confining academic limits to undergraduate coursework and grades. Again, there are plenty of opportunities for these students to distinguish themselves outside of this sphere.

Good and enough aren't the point! I agree about the Hunger Games thing - the weedout component sucks. But the internal reward from reaching a bar depends on how high it was set; I like it better the more deflated grading is.

I don't mean to imply academics is only undergrad courses, just that's what I'm talking about. Of course spending 5000 hours in lab and writing a baller thesis is hella impressive, but it's in a very different way.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

What an excellent definition!
"A's should be based on reasonable competency"
"What is reasonable competency?"
"Reasonable competency is getting an A"

Checks out! 😛



Good and enough aren't the point! I agree about the Hunger Games thing - the weedout component sucks. But the internal reward from reaching a bar depends on how high it was set; I like it better the more deflated grading is.

I don't mean to imply academics is only undergrad courses, just that's what I'm talking about. Of course spending 5000 hours in lab and writing a baller thesis is hella impressive, but it's in a very different way.

Lol, so you're not at least reasonably competent if you're getting As at Stanford?! You conveniently left that part out-lol.

 

[efle]

Good. We are not arguing about the fundamental point I'm trying to make here. We're just debating about the details. Professors have different expectations, driven largely perhaps by their own experiences. I direct you again to the question I asked earlier: what is reasonable competency? What level of knowledge is to be expected for the high mark? That is not an easily answerable question. Some professors think it's rote memorization of the course material. Others think it's applying it to completely novel problems. Still others take it to the next step and believe that competency is applying it at a research level. Does ranking create value for the higher marks? Yes. Do I think it's a byproduct of a bigger problem - that is, setting an absolute threshold for competency? Yes.
Ah, I see. We have different interpretations of the meaning of reasonable competency. What I'm referring to goes much deeper. What level of knowledge do you consider reasonable competency? You said that an A should measure reasonable competency. What does that mean in context of a subject, of a student body? I know that you particularly referred top schools here, but getting back onto the topic of the thread, does reasonable competency mean you have complete mastery of the subject down to the details? I suspect that a person who is "reasonably competent" from an unknown school would still be behind a person who is "reasonably competent" by your standards at a top school.

I don't believe in "reasonable competency". I believe in using grades to demonstrate performance and mastery relative to one's peers, and let the quality of the student body speak to how competent that means you are.

We really just need to bring the whole AP/IB thing into the university level!

Lol, so you're not at least reaonably competent if you're getting As at Stanford?! You conveniently left that part out-lol.

You said this whole discussion was about top schools. Does this look better?

"A's at top schools should be based on reasonable competency"
"What is reasonable competency?"
"Reasonable competency is getting an A at a top school"

 

[lifetothefullest]

Lol, so you're not at least reaonably competent if you're getting As at Stanford?! You conveniently left that part out-lol.

Sure, but what's the lower limit of reasonable competency? I'm sure we all agree that someone getting As at MIT is reasonably competent. The real question is if someone getting B+'s at MIT is reasonably competent and if he/she is more competent than someone else getting A's at an unknown school.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Sure, but what's the lower limit of reasonable competency? I'm sure we all agree that someone getting As at MIT is reasonably competent. The real question is if someone getting B+'s at MIT is reasonably competent and if he/she is more competent than someone else getting A's at an unknown school.

Well an A at a top grade inflating school is a somewhat lower limit of reasonable competency than an A at Wash U. But the former may not necessarily be the lowest limit.

Sorry, I'm not really in the mood to delve into the "top uni vs state school" debate.

 

[WingedOx]

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?

I don't think anyone cared. I barely remember what my own GPA was. I got a white cord at graduation... I think that was below a gold cord and a black cord.

we did have a lot of people go the post-bacc route though if that tells you anything.

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.

@mimelim seems to have this part covered.

Probably why med schools love strong performance on it so damn much

What do you expect? Despite the test's imperfection, where else are you going to compare candidates under standardized conditions to prove your superior education to the low lives at Mizzou? Should we just give every student at top 15 undergrads the benefit of the doubt (which of course would be at the expense of others)? Please.

 

[efle]

I don't think anyone cared. I barely remember what my own GPA was. I got a white cord at graduation... I think that was below a gold cord and a black cord.

we did have a lot of people go the post-bacc route though.

@mimelim seems to have this part covered.

What do you expect? Where else are you going to compare candidates under standardized conditions? Should we just give every student at top 15 undergrads the benefit of the doubt (which of course would be at the expense of others)? Please.

A lot of people from your undergrad went postbacc you mean, or lots of people in your med school had gone postbacc?

Oh I think it's fine to have a standardized test for making comparisons, my issue is with med schools looking at undergrad GPAs is if they're the directly comparable too.

 

[efle]

Well an A at a top grade inflating school is a somewhat lower limit of reasonable competency than an A at Wash U. But the former may not necessarily be the lowest limit.

Sorry, I'm not really in the mood to delve into the "top uni vs state school" debate.

Noooooo I was so ready to ask you to attach my figures to your infuriating signature 🙁

 

[WingedOx]

A lot of people from your undergrad went postbacc you mean, or lots of people in your med school had gone postbacc?

Oh I think it's fine to have a standardized test for making comparisons, my issue is with med schools looking at undergrad GPAs is if they're the directly comparable too.

no, I was referring to Jefferson. Sorry, I didn't make that clear.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Noooooo I was so ready to ask you to attach my figures to your infuriating signature 🙁

So what happens when you attend a P/F med school? Lol, are you gonna beg for grades?

 

[WingedOx]

my issue is with med schools looking at undergrad GPAs is if they're the directly comparable too.

You keep making this assumption and I'm not sure why.

 

[efle]

So what happens when you attend a P/F med school? Lol, are you gonna beg for grades?

I'll just play lots more dota to keep the inner competitor satisfied 😉
But actually, I'll probably view it as prep for the step rather than the kind of courses taken in college where it ends with the grade as the assessment

You keep making this assumption and I'm not sure why.

Probably because adcoms on here keep saying they don't change how they view GPA by what undergrad you went to? Mimelim is the only one I've seen say it impacts his view at all, and even then it's extremely minor.

 

[lifetothefullest]

Probably because adcoms on here keep saying they don't change how they view GPA by what undergrad you went to? Mimelim is the only one I've seen say it impacts his view at all, and even then it's extremely minor.

I've been to several info sessions at my school where deans from top schools have explicitly said that they do take into account your school and the rigor when they're looking at your academic performance. Note that I'm only talking about top medical schools here and it seems that there is a consensus that mid- to low-tier medical schools don't take that into account.

 

[Ronaldihno517]

I've been to several info sessions at my school where deans from top schools have explicitly said that they do take into account your school and the rigor when they're looking at your academic performance. Note that I'm only talking about top medical schools here and it seems that there is a consensus that mid- to low-tier medical schools don't take that into account.

Coming from a selective school (though not to the same extent as WashU) my premed department has said that students from my university get into medical schools with lower GPA's than the national average. When I pressed them for the actual data, however, I have seen that the bump that graduates from my university gets is really just a measly ~.1 bump to the GPA which is probably just an artifact of people with lower GPA's at my school getting higher MCAT scores than low GPA's in other colleges (on average). I never found this fair since my school's prereq averages were set at B-/C+ and the average SAT of my school was in the 94th percentile. Compare that with my state school, where many of my high school classmates went with no limit on A's and an average SAT just north of 1500 and you can really see a big discrepancy in what it takes to excel in each institution.

 

[Ronaldihno517]

Probably because adcoms on here keep saying they don't change how they view GPA by what undergrad you went to? Mimelim is the only one I've seen say it impacts his view at all, and even then it's extremely minor.

Why do you think this is the case?

 

[WingedOx]

@efle, you're not looking at GPA the right way. Schools know that GPA isn't a standardized number. The academic quality between a 3.7 and a 3.9 is going to be negligible even within the same school in terms of a student's academic quality, and the difference between the two is going to be overwhelmed by other factors. As one adcom member I know told me back when I was applying "the most important thing to know about GPA is just don't have a bad one."

A low GPA is going to be a red flag regardless of institution. Red flags on their own aren't killers, but they are areas of concern and it's going to be variable regarding if the person reading your application buys your excuse/explanation for it. Schools have so many students to pick from that they may or may not go out of their way to look into the "why" of your stats. They have plenty of other students from your own "top" institutions to look at too who have higher grades as well, sadly.

GPA isn't about 1:1 comparisons between students. It's about meeting a certain minimum level of academic performance. It's not totally fair, but them's the breaks. (Took me a while to get over the bitterness that my dream college didn't care about the grading rigor of my private high school.)

 

[kaspersky]

Gahh everyone I'm going to miss my fabulous life in CA and will be satisfied by a degree from UC that can promise me better alternative future if I ever don't get into any med school. I read about the bumps and I came to agree that SLU wouldn't promise with good "bumps" for GPA, neither do I want to pay f**king $50000 tuition every year as an out-of-state for four years

Does anybody know how to close this thread as this one is being just a waste of time??? Help me Admin?

 

[Chansey]

Gahh everyone I'm going to miss my fabulous life in CA and will be satisfied by a degree from UC that can promise me better alternative future if I ever don't get into any med school. I read about the bumps and I came to agree that SLU wouldn't promise with good "bumps" for GPA, neither do I want to pay f**king $50000 tuition every year as an out-of-state for four years

Would you really take a 3.0 from Berkeley over a 4.0 at SLU? This is anecdotal, but one of my good friends at SLU transferred to Hopkins after his sophomore year. He was consistently getting A+'s in his classes at SLU. I imagine Hopkins was much more challenging.

If you really dislike SLU, do not go. I like SLU, but I agree that the UC's are better deal. I hope you get into the program you want!

 

[efle]

@WingedOx Looking at table 24 I'm quite skeptical that students GPAs are not evaluated against one another or that 0.2 differences are seen as negligible. If it was true that you just need to not get a bad one, you'd see way more evenness in admit % above whatever good enough threshold you pick (3.5?)