everyone else...your input is needed!

[FredAstaire]

Hi, I have

3.63 sGPA, 3.69 cGPA, 35 MCAT and I have the following question.


1) Catalystik - extrapolating from the AAMC data, what is my precise chance of getting accepted, considering all the usual ECs?

2) I heard from some people, like LizzyM, that some schools put the 3.6X and 3.7X in different "bins" when considering for admissions. Does your school do this? and, do you suggest I take a course (about 1000$) to boost it up to 3.70?

Thanks

I am from Nebraska.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FredAstaire]

Bump

Catalystik, you answered 10 posts today, but ignored mine when I specficially asked for your advice?

 

[sector9]

Bump

Catalystik, you answered 10 posts today, but ignored mine when I specficially asked for your advice?

She'll get to it eventually, I'm sure.
I would say definitely don't pay that much to bump up your GPA by .01

 

[glasshalfMD]

80% chance according to 2008-2010 data. Don't hassle the Cat!

https://www.aamc.org/download/157450/data/table24-mcatgpagridall2008-10.pdf.pdf

 

[HAV000]

80% chance according to 2008-2010 data. Don't hassle the Cat!

https://www.aamc.org/download/157450/data/table24-mcatgpagridall2008-10.pdf.pdf

Lol props for trying I guess. Maybe you should pm her (?) OP!

 

[TriagePreMed]

As a cat, I can tell you our feline species is very independent. Don't lose patience because we don't come around every time you want to. We will when we want to

Example of how cat typically sees itself: http://d3uwin5q170wpc.cloudfront.net/photo/100710_700b.jpg

Also, calling out people is against the rules.

 

[Catalystik]

3.63 sGPA, 3.69 cGPA, 35 MCAT and I have the following question.

1) Catalystik - extrapolating from the AAMC data, what is my precise chance of getting accepted, considering all the usual ECs?

2) a) I heard from some people, like LizzyM, that some schools put the 3.6X and 3.7X in different "bins" when considering for admissions. Does your school do this? and,
b) do you suggest I take a course (about 1000$) to boost it up to 3.70?

80% chance according to 2008-2010 data. https://www.aamc.org/download/157450/data/table24-mcatgpagridall2008-10.pdf.pdf

1) Even though you're in the 80% bin, when corrected for actual cGPA, your chances come to 68% (per my colored-pencil graph of the data).

2) a) A lot of schools use a formulaic approach to assessing an applicant that incorporates cGPA and MCAT so that strength in one compensates for the other. These formulas vary widely and are generaly not made known (though some are).
b) No.

 

[Catalystik]

As a cat, I can tell you our feline species is very independent. Don't lose patience because we don't come around every time you want to. We will when we want to

Example of how cat typically sees itself: http://d3uwin5q170wpc.cloudfront.net/photo/100710_700b.jpg

Great pic.

 

[FredAstaire]

1) Even though you're in the 80% bin, when corrected for actual cGPA, your chances come to 68% (per my colored-pencil graph of the data).

2) a) A lot of schools use a formulaic approach to assessing an applicant that incorporates cGPA and MCAT so that strength in one compensates for the other. These formaulas vary widely and are generaly not made4 known (though some are).
b) No.

Where did you get this graph from?

From the AAMC's chart, I am among the 33-35 3.6-3.8 GPA group - in which I have the max MCAT of 35 and median GPA of about 3.7 - so shouldn't I be ABOVE an 80% chance? I am assuming the 80% means for an average member of that group, with MCAT 34 and GPA 3.7.

 

[Catalystik]

I graphed out the data from the grid cited above. You can do the same.

I believe that the 80% was the highest chance for everyone in that bin, rather than the average chance, that it logically refers to the 3.79/35 people, and that people within the bin with lower stats would have a lower chance.

AMCAS doesn't explain their grid. You are free to interpret it in your own way.

 

[GreenRabbit]

I graphed out the data from the grid cited above. You can do the same.

I believe that the 80% was the highest chance for everyone in that bin, rather than the average chance, that it logically refers to the 3.79/35 people, and that people within the bin with lower stats would have a lower chance.

AMCAS doesn't explain their grid. You are free to interpret it in your own way.

The chances are accepted / applicants. So if you're at the bottom of the bin your chances are lower, and if you're at the top your chances are higher.

 

[TheRunner]

Bump

Catalystik, you answered 10 posts today, but ignored mine when I specficially asked for your advice?

Stop whining!

 

[FredAstaire]

1) Even though you're in the 80% bin, when corrected for actual cGPA, your chances come to 68% (per my colored-pencil graph of the data).

2) a) A lot of schools use a formulaic approach to assessing an applicant that incorporates cGPA and MCAT so that strength in one compensates for the other. These formaulas vary widely and are generaly not made4 known (though some are).
b) No.

Can you give me some examples of the formulas used by some schools, such as yours?

I thought ALL schools used the LizzyM score, GPAx10 + MCAT

 

[LizzyM]

I don't know of any school that uses the LizzyM score. I made it up to help applicants find a group of schools where they would maximize their chances of getting an interview after hanging around here awhile and seeing people moaning about not getting any interviews despite applying to 30 schools. Turned out to be people with 28/3.2 who applied to 30 schools way out of their league.

 

[Catalystik]

Where did you get this graph from?

From the AAMC's chart, I am among the 33-35 3.6-3.8 GPA group - in which I have the max MCAT of 35 and median GPA of about 3.7 - so shouldn't I be ABOVE an 80% chance? I am assuming the 80% means for an average member of that group, with MCAT 34 and GPA 3.7.

I think you're right. I used an old model for representing the data posted two years ago. When one evaluates the data using your way, it comes out that you do have > 80% chance. Credit to sector9 for convincing me this is the way to go in a way that my nonmath brain could grasp.

 

[MedAdComMD]

I also agree with Fredastaire's interpretation.

The overall acceptance rate of a group of candidates is what the AAMC chart indicates. So if his stat is above average for that group, his chance is above the overall 80% chance.

 

[sector9]

I think you're right. I used an old model for representing the data posted two years ago. When one evaluates the data using your way, it comes out that you do have > 80% chance. Credit to sector9 for convincing me this is the way to go in a way that my nonmath brain could grasp.

I also agree with Fredastaire's interpretation.

The overall acceptance rate of a group of candidates is what the AAMC chart indicates. So if his stat is above average for that group, his chance is above the overall 80% chance.

The graphs I made indicate that fredastaire's chances are about 82%