Efle's Most Premedical Universities, 2019-2020 Edition

[EdgeTrimmer]

Depends what ranking you're referring to. But I'd say most undergraduate rankings are not well alligned with networking and opportunities, they're usually well alligned with size of school endowments and financial expenditures. While there are some correlations there, I certainly don't think it's 1:1.

You say "you need to be conscious of your GPA", and I'd rephrase that to "you need to show you can excel". I see more students held back from being competitive because they are too GPA conscious than I see students held back because they are unaware of the importance.

I think we are debating semantics It's not easy to excel at JHU as BME major.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[efle]

I will say that the MCAT and SAT have a correlation of ~0.50 which is quite strong in the realm of psychometrics, similar to the correlation between MCAT and USMLE. So highly competitive schools with large premed groups (like Duke, WashU, Hopkins) would significantly drop their cohort performance on the MCAT every year if they stopped heavily selecting for top 1% SATs at admission.

And purely anecdotally, my prereq/weedout coursework at WashU felt extremely g-loaded. The people finishing exams early and crushing the curve were not the same people spending their life in the library. Just the opposite.

 

[eigen]

Also, could you elaborate on the correct usage of the MCAT? I do understand that if the MCAT effectively predicts Step scores, then it’s a valuable tool for medical schools to use. What would you say is the correct way of implementing and considering the MCAT in admissions decisions?

I'll let the adcom members weigh in here with their experience (I'm not at a medical school), but I think this article from AAMC is a good read: https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2...edical-student-selection-guide_07082020_0.pdf

One of the keys is looking at confidence bands rather than individual scores (as I'm sure you've seen adcom members mention here) and the other is realizing that there are diminishing returns in predicting, say, pass rates for step exams (even if the correlation to scores stays moderately strong).

A nice (if slightly older) presentation on assessing MCAT scores is here: https://www.aamc.org/system/files/c/1/493340-lsl2018validity.pdf

 

[eigen]

I will say that the MCAT and SAT have a correlation of ~0.50 which is quite strong in the realm of psychometrics, similar to the correlation between MCAT and USMLE. So highly competitive schools with large premed groups (like Duke, WashU, Hopkins) would significantly drop their cohort performance on the MCAT every year if they stopped heavily selecting for top 1% SATs at admission.

Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in reading over it. It makes sense, since SAT test scores generally, well, represent your ability to do well on standardized tests.

 

[brockhamptonfanacct]

I'll let the adcom members weigh in here with their experience (I'm not at a medical school), but I think this article from AAMC is a good read: https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2...edical-student-selection-guide_07082020_0.pdf

One of the keys is looking at confidence bands rather than individual scores (as I'm sure you've seen adcom members mention here) and the other is realizing that there are diminishing returns in predicting, say, pass rates for step exams (even if the correlation to scores stays moderately strong).

A nice (if slightly older) presentation on assessing MCAT scores is here: https://www.aamc.org/system/files/c/1/493340-lsl2018validity.pdf

I’ll take a look at all of this tonight. Thank you for this!

 

[OfMiceAndWomen]

Word of mouth among students is your best bet, pretty much anyone you ask about weed out at a place like Hopkins will clue you in. Off the top of my head, deflators include Hopkins, MIT, Chicago, WashU, Princeton, Cornell, Berkeley/UCLA. Inflators include most of the other ivies esp Harvard, Yale and Brown. Havent heard bad things about stanford, Duke, rice, vandy or northwestern.

And keep in mind even the relatively chill places are still full of brilliant students. Being above average is hard at them all. But at some places average is a 3.7 and others it's half a point lower.

It's worth noting that the top schools who are grade inflators (Harvard, Yale) still seem to get leniency in terms of GPA in med school admissions. The avg GPA of Harvard undergrad at most medical schools is around 3.7, which is well below the average of overall students. There may be other confounding factors that might make Harvard or Yale applicants more attractive (eg. better research, higher mcat). But I would say, if you manage to get into Harvard or Yale, and can afford it, you should hands down go.

 

[HopeP]

So much to understand and digest, a minor in 'Data Science - AMCAS application Specialization' should be a prerequisite by medical schools.

 

[eigen]

So much to understand and digest, a minor in 'Data Science - AMCAS application Specialization' should be a prerequisite by medical schools.

The truth is, while the analysis is cool and interesting to do, it has relatively little practical effect on most students in most situations. Strategizing using the data (other than to create a school list) rather than putting the time and energy into doing things that will make you, specifically, a more attractive candidate is both more anxiety inducing and probably ultimately less effective.

 

[HopeP]

The truth is, while the analysis is cool and interesting to do, it has relatively little practical effect on most students in most situations. Strategizing using the data (other than to create a school list) rather than putting the time and energy into doing things that will make you, specifically, a more attractive candidate is both more anxiety inducing and probably ultimately less effective.

At the same time, combine the strategy using data with time and energy into doing EC things can be a game changer.

 

[efle]

Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in reading over it. It makes sense, since SAT test scores generally, well, represent your ability to do well on standardized tests.

Predictors of success on the MCAT among post-baccalaureate pre-medicine students

Overall, SAT total to MCAT total = 0.45
Highest, SAT Verbal to CARS = 0.60
Lowest, SAT Verbal to Psych/Socio = 0.08

I will add that these schools rely heavily on the MCAT to get their surviving premeds into med schools. At WashU in my era for example, the median applicant GPA was ~3.4, but that same group had a median MCAT that was >90th percentile.

If they changed their admissions process to stop emphasizing g so much, they'd end up with hundreds of students with both a crummy GPA and mediocre MCAT, and completely tank their med school placement rates.

 

[eigen]

Predictors of success on the MCAT among post-baccalaureate pre-medicine students

Overall, SAT total to MCAT total = 0.45
Highest, SAT Verbal to CARS = 0.60
Lowest, SAT Verbal to Psych/Socio = 0.08

I will add that these schools rely heavily on the MCAT to get their surviving premeds into med schools. At WashU in my era for example, the median applicant GPA was ~3.4, but that same group had a median MCAT that was >90th percentile.

If they changed their admissions process to stop emphasizing g so much, they'd end up with hundreds of students with both a crummy GPA and mediocre MCAT, and completely tank their med school placement rates.

Thanks! Interesting paper to add to my collection on testing correlations.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

At the same time, combine the strategy using data with time and energy into doing EC things can be a game changer.

That's my recommendation to anyone who asks me. This comes from observing students in friends and family. I understand it's good to have a plan B, but very motivated premeds who doesn't want to take gap years, keeping an eye on GPA is very important.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I'll counter this with a prediction that the classes will end up being stronger without the SAT. It's not a great predictor of college success, especially (from my opinion) for students in the sciences. Removing it as a confound will also remove a financial barrier from students applying, and will focus admission on other factors that are better predictors of college success.

If I could push my school to get rid of the SAT, I absolutely would. But then, I'd also push for us to stop looking at AP/IB/Honors coursework and other things that are generally not good predictors of success of students in STEM fields.

U of California commissioned a committee of U of California professors to see whether SAT scores predicated performance by U of California students in U of California classes. The committee concluded that the SAT was a good predictor. I trust you're aware of this, @eigen but choose to repeat - without citation the opposing claim.

"The STTF found that standardized test scores aid in predicting important aspects of student success, including undergraduate grade point average (UGPA), retention, and completion. At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, UGPA, and graduation.3 For students within any given (HSGPA) band, higher standardized test scores correlate with a higher freshman UGPA, a higher graduation UGPA, and higher likelihood of graduating within either four years (for transfers) or seven years (for freshmen). Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007, while variance explained by high school grades has decreased, although altogether does not exceed 26%. Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines, even after controlling for HSGPA. In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups. One consequence of dropping test scores would be increased reliance on HSGPA in admissions. The STTF found that California high schools vary greatly in grading standards, and that grade inflation is part of why the predictive power of HSGPA has decreased since the last UC study."

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/sttf-report.pdf

I wanted to emphasize this from the report: "In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority students (URMs), who are first-generation, or whose families are low-income: that is, test scores explain more of the variance in UGPA and completion rates for students in these groups."

It's bizarre that the SAT, which has been repeatedly modified in material ways to account for concerns about disparity, has somehow become the whipping child of modern education.

Is there ANY standardized test that you would prefer that's been proven over the years to be a better predictor than the SAT?

Schools like the University of Texas that have lessened reliance on the SAT in general admissions have continued to firewall the more quantitative majors like business, engineering and the natural sciences, which require applicants to be separately evaluated. Why do you think that's the case?

 

[HopeP]

Predictors of success on the MCAT among post-baccalaureate pre-medicine students

Overall, SAT total to MCAT total = 0.45
Highest, SAT Verbal to CARS = 0.60
Lowest, SAT Verbal to Psych/Socio = 0.08

I will add that these schools rely heavily on the MCAT to get their surviving premeds into med schools. At WashU in my era for example, the median applicant GPA was ~3.4, but that same group had a median MCAT that was >90th percentile.

If they changed their admissions process to stop emphasizing g so much, they'd end up with hundreds of students with both a crummy GPA and mediocre MCAT, and completely tank their med school placement rates.

What about non-postbac?

 

[efle]

Thanks! Interesting paper to add to my collection on testing correlations.

Easy to find a bunch if you're curious!

Here is an example finding ACT Composite score vs MCAT Total = 0.64
Here is another example finding all the way back in the 1980s that the old versions of the SAT and MCAT back then were at 0.56

It's a beautiful system, really. Grab a cohort of people who all scored top 1-2% on a g-loaded college entrance exam. Weed them down to a minority by curving them against each other on an endless series of g-loaded science exams (chem, physics, orgo, biochem, calc etc).

That raggedy band of survivors will do fantastic on the next g-loaded standardized test (the MCAT) and enter medical school well-prepared to handle the academic demands. Boom, you've captured the recipe of reputable feeder colleges!

And, if you're a selective medical school? Rinse and repeat. Grab a cohort of people who all scored in the top few percent on the MCAT, watch as they flashcard their way to high board scores, and then watch them land great residency spots.

It's turtles all the way down. But, that just might be changing. USMLE is going Pass/Fail. Some selective colleges are beginning to make SAT/ACT optional. Even the AAMC tried to push for a new interpretation of the MCAT where anything 500+ should be viewed as adequate to enter med school.

If things keep going in this direction we could witness a complete paradigm shift in our lifetime

 

[MyOdyssey]

Easy to find a bunch if you're curious!

Here is an example finding ACT Composite score vs MCAT Total = 0.64
Here is another example finding all the way back in the 1980s that the old versions of the SAT and MCAT back then were at 0.56

It's a beautiful system, really. Grab a cohort of people who all scored top 1-2% on a g-loaded college entrance exam. Weed them down to a minority by curving them against each other on an endless series of g-loaded science exams (chem, physics, orgo, biochem, calc etc).

That raggedy band of survivors will do fantastic on the next g-loaded standardized test (the MCAT) and enter medical school well-prepared to handle the academic demands. Boom, you've captured the recipe of reputable feeder colleges!

And, if you're a selective medical school? Rinse and repeat. Grab a cohort of people who all scored in the top few percent on the MCAT, watch as they flashcard their way to high board scores, and then watch them land great residency spots.

It's turtles all the way down. But, that just might be changing. USMLE is going Pass/Fail. Some selective colleges are beginning to make SAT/ACT optional. Even the AAMC tried to push for a new interpretation of the MCAT where anything 500+ should be viewed as adequate to enter med school.

If things keep going in this direction we could witness a complete paradigm shift in our lifetime

Schools going test optional is a very different thing than the U of California system banning the SAT.

College applicants to any highly selective schools that have gone test optional who fall in demographics that have historically scored well on the ACT/SAT will be at a disadvantage to the many from those same demographics that score high and thereby are incentivized to submit scores. In a test optional system, admissions offices can still consider scores when submitted, which, in such a system, will be invariably high. Colleges will experience a rise in their average SAT/ACT because only the highest scorers have an incentive to submit their scores.

Other quasi-objective measures of merit have already arisen to take the place of the SAT being watered down over the years. Awards in various national/international science, mathematics and writing competitions now play a large role in college admissions.

 

[efle]

Schools going test optional is a very different thing than the U of California system banning the SAT.

College applicants to any highly selective schools that have gone test optional who fall in demographics that have historically scored well on the ACT/SAT will be at a disadvantage to the many from those same demographics that score high and thereby are incentivized to submit scores. In a test optional system, admissions offices can still consider scores when submitted, which, in such a system, will be invariably high. Colleges will experience a rise in their average SAT/ACT because only the highest scorers have an incentive to submit their scores.

Other quasi-objective measures of merit have already arisen to take the place of the SAT being watered down over the years. Awards in various national/international science, mathematics and writing competitions now play a large role in college admissions.

I can envision a pretty straightforward setup where applications are reviewed/scored with blinding to whether they submitted an SAT, and then admits are awarded proportionally (e.g. if 70% submitted a score, then 70% of the class is filled from that group). Frankly, I think being a standout in the no-score group of applicants would be the bigger challenge.

It does look like score-oriented private schools have already hit the effective ceiling; WashU is far from the most competitive and yet the ACT IQR was 33-35 this year. There's really no more blood to be squeezed from that particular stone among these kinds of colleges. These schools are going to have to devise a good way to admit based on other factors soon anyways.

 

[eigen]

U of California commissioned a committee of U of California professors to see whether SAT scores predicated performance by U of California students in U of California classes. The committee concluded that the SAT was a good predictor. I trust you're aware of this, @eigen but choose to repeat - without citation the opposing claim.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or implying here. I gave my personal opinion as a university professor based on watching trends in how students perform in classes. I'm not sure how to cite that, or why I would need to balance my personal opinion with citing people who had other opinions?

 

[MyOdyssey]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or implying here. I gave my personal opinion as a university professor based on watching trends in how students perform in classes. I'm not sure how to cite that, or why I would need to balance my personal opinion with citing people who had other opinions?

Your prior post was given as fact and not qualified as our personal opinion.

This committee of U Cal professors did a study, which you now hasten to dismiss as no more weighty than your self-described personal opinion.

 

[eigen]

Your prior post was given as fact and not qualified as our personal opinion.

This committee of U Cal professors did a study, which you now hasten to dismiss as no more weighty than your self-described personal opinion.

Literally, in the section of my post that you quoted in your reply, I say that it's my opinion. "Prediction" is also a word that has a connotation of opinion.

I'll counter this with a prediction that the classes will end up being stronger without the SAT. It's not a great predictor of college success, especially (from my opinion) for students in the sciences. Removing it as a confound will also remove a financial barrier from students applying, and will focus admission on other factors that are better predictors of college success.

If I could push my school to get rid of the SAT, I absolutely would. But then, I'd also push for us to stop looking at AP/IB/Honors coursework and other things that are generally not good predictors of success of students in STEM fields.

 

[MyOdyssey]

I can envision a pretty straightforward setup where applications are reviewed/scored with blinding to whether they submitted an SAT, and then admits are awarded proportionally (e.g. if 70% submitted a score, then 70% of the class is filled from that group). Frankly, I think being a standout in the no-score group of applicants would be the bigger challenge.

It does look like score-oriented private schools have already hit the effective ceiling; WashU is far from the most competitive and yet the ACT IQR was 33-35 this year. There's really no more blood to be squeezed from that particular stone among these kinds of colleges. These schools are going to have to devise a good way to admit based on other factors soon anyways.

Highly selective institutions that deploy the holistic admissions approach don't want to fill their class with the best students. Everyone knows about the legacy, athletic, donor admits and the so-called Z list of students who are well-connected or whose parents are well connected.

However, for that slice of their class that is to be admitted under meritocratic standards, these schools care about standardized test scores because they're just as capable of conducting internal studies of how those scores predict academic performance among their student body as UCal or any other educational institution.

I doubt U Chicago (already test optional), which has famously rigorous academics, would or does choose its class on the basis you've described. U Chicago has to give weight to test scores because they can't afford to ignore that meaningful signal of future academic performance.

Regarding other quasi-objective criteria for selection, consider the most recipients of the Davidson Institute scholarships:

Scholarships for Gifted Students | Davidson Fellows

The Davidson Fellows Scholarship awards $10k-$50k scholarships to gifted students who have completed a significant piece of work.

www.davidsongifted.org

Among them are high school students who carried out original, socially impactful science and engineering research that often required the application of math and/or coding skills that far exceed anything taught by any high school, published authors, participants in international science and math Olympiads, etc.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Literally, in the section of my post that you quoted in your reply, I say that it's my opinion. "Prediction" is also a word that has a connotation of opinion.

With respect, how did you match up student performance in the college STEM classes you taught/teach with their standardized test scores from high school? No college professor has occasion to inquire into student SAT/ACT scores.

 

[eigen]

With respect, how did you match up student performance in the college STEM classes you taught/teach with their standardized test scores from high school?

I have small classes and I talk to my students. It's far from a comprehensive review, hence why I said "opinion" and "prediction" rather than, again, stating things as facts.

I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive and antagonistic about this.

 

[KnightDoc]

Maybe the reason Harvard and Brown kids get mostly As is not because there's grade inflation, but because these are some of the best schools in the world that accept some of the best students in the world?

Maybe, but at many schools you are graded against the rest of the class, not the rest of the world. Even at Harvaaard, half the class is in the bottom half. Adcoms have no way to know who they are if, like in my Little League, everyone at Harvaard gets a trophy just for participating.

 

[efle]

Maybe the reason Harvard and Brown kids get mostly As is not because there's grade inflation, but because these are some of the best schools in the world that accept some of the best students in the world?

Idk, WashU and Hopkins have higher SAT averages than Harvard or Yale or Stanford. Where are the free A's for being average there?

 

[KnightDoc]

Idk, WashU and Hopkins have higher SAT averages than Harvard or Yale or Stanford. Where are the free A's for being average there?

Probably higher MCAT scores as well.

 

[EdgeTrimmer]

Idk, WashU and Hopkins have higher SAT averages than Harvard or Yale or Stanford. Where are the free A's for being average there?

Washu (and Vandy) give more importance to GPA and test scores than Harvard/Yale/Stanford and that shows in their MCAT scores. Same is true with their medical school admissions. I guess that's their game to stay in the rankings race.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Maybe the reason Harvard and Brown kids get mostly As is not because there's grade inflation, but because these are some of the best schools in the world that accept some of the best students in the world?

So, according to the Grade Inflation website, the average GPA at Harvard in 2005 (I think it means the average GPA of Harvard graduating seniors), was 3.45. Harvard I read elsewhere that it's now 3.7 so it's been creeping upward.

At my T20 undegrad, the average GPA for graduating seniors has been about 3.35 for a long time.

What that means is I received a B- in Orgo I for a final grade that was 5 points (across the board on all 4 exams) above the class median. At Harvard/Brown, that same performance might have netted me a B or B+.

You also have to account for the fact that Harvard has multiple tracks for introductory bio, chem, calculus and physics. There's a very basic physics course (with no calculus) that's designed for your basic liberal arts majoring premed and then several higher tiers for more advanced students. The notion that casual students in the sciences at Harvard who are checking off their premed course prerequisite list are pitted against the Regeneron Science Fair/Math Olympiad/Physics Olympiad/Biology Olympiad/Chemistry Olympiad winners is decidedly false.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Idk, WashU and Hopkins have higher SAT averages than Harvard or Yale or Stanford. Where are the free A's for being average there?

Were you aware of, and OK with this reputation, before choosing the undergrad that you attended?

 

[efle]

Were you aware of, and OK with this reputation, before choosing the undergrad that you attended?

Yeah I heard, but I was a very arrogant teenager and figured I'd make a 4.00 anywhere

 

[mdphdincoming]

Hopkins' average GPA is a 3.54 nowadays (source: https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/fsl/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2019/01/Fall-2018-Grades-Summary.pdf). Not really sure why everyone keeps saying Hopkins deflates.

 

[efle]

Hopkins' average GPA is a 3.54 nowadays (source: https://studentaffairs.jhu.edu/fsl/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2019/01/Fall-2018-Grades-Summary.pdf). Not really sure why everyone keeps saying Hopkins deflates.

I think when people talk about Hopkins rigor it's more about the prereq weedout series, rather than overall school-wide grading in upper level or non-science courses. But that is surprisingly high! Makes me wonder what the graduating average is like for notorious inflating peers like Brown. Probably why they don't publish such info.

 

[mdphdincoming]

I think when people talk about Hopkins rigor it's more about the prereq weedout series, rather than overall school-wide grading in upper level or non-science courses. But that is surprisingly high! Makes me wonder what the graduating average is like for notorious inflating peers like Brown. Probably why they don't publish such info.

As a Hopkins student, I've yet to meet a student who was truly weeded out due to subpar grades in pre-req classes, although this may be because I actively choose either to take classes with the most lenient professors or to take classes in the engineering department. I have, however, met at least a few students who realized pre-med wasn't for them and decided to pursue other career paths.

 

[Riceisyummy]

rice,

I go to Rice. Rice inflates a decent amount. Cum laude in the natural sciences requires a 3.86 and Magna and summa are practically 4.0.
To be frank I'd say rice is one of the best schools to be premed. There are tons of research opportunities in rice and the Texas medical center, small class sizes so getting a solid LOR is a lot easier, and premed classes that are well taught but not brutally graded like Johns Hopkins and WashU. Brutal grading doesn't lead to better, smarter pre-med students. In fact, the median MCAT for a rice applicant is 516 which is prob pretty similar to WashU and Johns Hopkins.

 

[Medicine-Man]

I think when people talk about Hopkins rigor it's more about the prereq weedout series, rather than overall school-wide grading in upper level or non-science courses. But that is surprisingly high! Makes me wonder what the graduating average is like for notorious inflating peers like Brown. Probably why they don't publish such info.

If you look at their medical school matriculant information, the average GPA of a Brown student admitted to medical school is actually lower than the average GPA at Brown!

Spoiler: Image

Average GPA at Brown is slightly above a 3.7.

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

Average GPA at Brown is slightly above a 3.7.

OMG, that's obscene.

 

[Medicine-Man]

OMG, that's obscene.

It helps that we don't have any + or -. Just flat letter grades. A is a 4, B is a 3.

 

[Isomerase]

I go to Rice. Rice inflates a decent amount. Cum laude in the natural sciences requires a 3.86 and Magna and summa are practically 4.0.
To be frank I'd say rice is one of the best schools to be premed. There are tons of research opportunities in rice and the Texas medical center, small class sizes so getting a solid LOR is a lot easier, and premed classes that are well taught but not brutally graded like Johns Hopkins and WashU. Brutal grading doesn't lead to better, smarter pre-med students. In fact, the median MCAT for a rice applicant is 516 which is prob pretty similar to WashU and Johns Hopkins.

This. What's better than grade inflation (from an applicant perspective)? Grade inflation without having a reputation for it. I don't think we publish exactly what our average GPA is but I think it's probably around 3.65, very negatively skewed of course. Plus, the committee letter for all applicants helps, and the social system is conducive to EC's. Insane number of applicants who matriculate to UTSW and Baylor. That being said, most Rice transfers I know from even well-regarded schools experience a major gpa drop when they start at Rice, and like other schools the number of pre-med freshman is at least 2X as much as the eventual applicants. It's plenty hard here, but the lesser-known grade inflation is one of the greatest things from a med-admissions standpoint here.

 

[Medicine-Man]

This. What's better than grade inflation (from an applicant perspective)? Grade inflation without having a reputation for it. I don't think we publish exactly what our average GPA is but I think it's probably around 3.65, very negatively skewed of course. Plus, the committee letter for all applicants helps, and the social system is conducive to EC's. Insane number of applicants who matriculate to UTSW and Baylor. That being said, most Rice transfers I know from even well-regarded schools experience a major gpa drop when they start at Rice, and like other schools the number of pre-med freshman is at least 2X as much as the eventual applicants. It's plenty hard here, but the lesser-known grade inflation is one of the greatest things from a med-admissions standpoint here.

considering the performance of Harvard, Yale, Brown in medical school admissions, I don't think being known for grade inflation affects much. Regardless, Rice seems like a great choice given reports on quality of life there.

 

[Rheopecty]

I go to Rice. Rice inflates a decent amount. Cum laude in the natural sciences requires a 3.86 and Magna and summa are practically 4.0.
To be frank I'd say rice is one of the best schools to be premed. There are tons of research opportunities in rice and the Texas medical center, small class sizes so getting a solid LOR is a lot easier, and premed classes that are well taught but not brutally graded like Johns Hopkins and WashU. Brutal grading doesn't lead to better, smarter pre-med students. In fact, the median MCAT for a rice applicant is 516 which is prob pretty similar to WashU and Johns Hopkins.

Wow. At CWRU, it was recently updated to this:

• Top 10 percent: summa cum laude = 3.934–4.000
• Next 10 percent: magna cum laude = 3.833–3.933
• Next 15 percent: cum laude = 3.686–3.832

 

[LaughingGas10]

Some of the GPA does come down from what is on the transcript, in schools which have an A+ grading, since the AAMC doesnt recognize and treats this as an A

 

[Riceisyummy]

Some of the GPA does come down from what is on the transcript, in schools which have an A+ grading, since the AAMC doesnt recognize and treats this as an A

True but Rice got rid of the A+ gpa boost a while ago

 

[efle]

True but Rice got rid of the A+ gpa boost a while ago

Never really mattered anyways AMCAS caps at a 4.0