This is quite a bump, considering the original post was from nearly one year ago...
Here are the facts:
Getting into medical school is
absolutely hinged on GPA and MCAT -- one of the
only ways for admissions committees to make an objective comparison between applicants is to use these quantitative metrics. This is clearly reflected in the AAMC spread that is released every year, showing the acceptance rates of applicants with low vs. high scores:
https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstable24.pdf
So, we're playing an odds game, here. But, just like Vegas, sometimes the outcomes--that seem to be stacked for or against you--pan out in a contradictory fashion. Why? Why is it that about 25% of people with a 3.0 and 30 get accepted? BECAUSE OF EXTENUATING FACTORS.
I also have a 30, and I also have a cumulative GPA of a 3.3. And I have now been interviewed for allo school, 2 years in a row (the first year, I was high-priority waitlisted, and the movement of said list sat stagnant all cycle), despite people (rightly) telling me that I probably didn't have a snowflake's chance in hell. But, I also have 6 years of research, countless publications, and extensive leadership and volunteering. So, I counsel you, dear readers, to praise the accomplishments of your underdog peers, but to also understand that the reason they have obtained success is because t
here is more to their file than a simple number game, otherwise they would have not been considered.
Trust me: you are FAR better off earning A's and killing the MCAT than assuming that subpar stats are jjuuuuust enough to slip you under the radar. They're not. And it's daunting (and, oftentimes, discouraging) to have to plead your case to every adcom you meet.
Having said that, congrats to the OP (who is likely drowning in an MS-1 physio block right now).