got mcat scores: what do you guys think?

[ucla_Mdhopeful]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It's me again. got my mcat scores:
verbal : 9
phy: 12
Bio: 11

I was disappointed because i was aiming for over 36+.
Here are my stats:
undergrad gpa: 2.7 (biology)
graduate gpa: 3.96 (biology)
and the others are there.

now, i am doubtful whether i should even apply. people tell me my undergrad gpa will keep me out. should i spent next year doing one of the post bac then apply. i don't have much money so i want to be realistic.

 

[The Philosopher]

If you want to be realistic, then you should realistically apply, because you've got a great chance.

You can take all the courses you want next year, but they're still going to go to your graduate GPA. That 2.7 is there and it's not going to change, even with a postbac. You will probably need over 120 hours of A's to even bring that up to a 3.3 or something, so forget about it and move forward.

Your 3.96 is perfect. Taking more courses (while beneficial) are not going to raise that significantly. You're ready to go now, and you've got a great chance.

APPLY!!!

 

[ucla_Mdhopeful]

I am done with graduate school. I thought post bac classes will raise my undergrad gpa? I calculated that if i take 12 post bac science classes until next spring,
my undergrad will be 3.01 overall and
my science gpa will be 2.98.
BTW, my graduate gpa is all science gpa.

 

[Nuclearrabbit]

i wouldnt count yourself out.

 

[The Philosopher]

UCLA,

Any increase in GPA is great. But your stats are fine!!

A 3.96 in all science classes?? Don't even worry about whether grad courses go in grad GPA's and postbac in undergrad GPA's and this GPA and that GPA....bla bla bla..

Just worry about improvement. You've got a great application, and if anything, you will be applying DURING the postbac program (next year). You always keep em updated as you rake them A's.

If you ask me, it's a crap shoot with anyone, and we've always heard the success stories of those who've not done well in undergrad, but have kicked butt in grad school.

You MCAT totally proves to anyone that you can handle the sciences, so that 2.7 is basically nothing compared to your MCAT score and grad school GPA. It's just going to be used to screen you, but don't worry to much about it. Most schools won't do that.

As long as your rec's, EC's, personal statement are good, and you apply intelligently and to a wide range of schools, you have a great chance.

 

[ucla_Mdhopeful]

yes, i got a 3.96 in all sciences. i know my undergrad gpa will turn people away, but i will tell them that damn it, i am not stupid! 🙂

 

[jofrbr76]

Ucla,

All you can do is apply and wait, like everyone else. I'm sure you'll do fine.

By the way, we have the same MCat scores, so i hope you succeed, fellow V9-P12-B11!!

Good luck

 

[ucla_Mdhopeful]

you guys think i will get alot of interviews with such low undergraduate gpa? will they look past that?

 

[Lavndrrose]

Why can't you apply while taking post-bac classes at the same time? I think it's the best way to go. If you don't get in this cycle, you'll have the post-bac classes to show for next cycle. Good luck! 🙂

 

[SMW]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by ucla_Mdhopeful:
•you guys think i will get alot of interviews with such low undergraduate gpa? will they look past that?•••••It's impossible to even begin to answer that without knowing more about the rest of your application. For instance, was there an upward trend in that undergraduate GPA? What about your EC's and LOR's -- are they strong? Is your personal statement going to make you stand out from the crowd? Applications are a total package and not just stats. And then, once you get some interviews (yes, I think you will get some if you apply to lots of appropriate range schools), how do you interview? But your MCAT and graduate GPA are great, so, yes, I think you will get some interviews if the rest of your app is strong and you don't apply to just the top schools. Good luck!!

 

[strangeattractor]

like everyone else said, as long as you have strong extracurriculars you should be FINE. just make sure you apply to a wide range of schools, because no one really knows how schools will respond to your scores! and make SURE to use the personal statement to explain the discrepancy in gpa...not only to say, look i'm not stupid, but also to note WHY you didn't do so well in ugrad, to explain how you found the motivation to do so gd well in grad school, and moreover emphasize that this undying motivation will stay with you for the rest of your career now that you have found it (or whatever, you get the point). i know for a fact that my ps got me very far in terms of interviews as many schools really do take the time to pore through and see the person holistically. best of luck, and let us know what you decide.

 

[Bikini Princess]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by ucla_Mdhopeful:
[QB]It's me again. got my mcat scores:
verbal : 9
phy: 12
Bio: 11

I was disappointed because i was aiming for over 36+.
Here are my stats:
undergrad gpa: 2.7 (biology)
graduate gpa: 3.96 (biology)
and the others are there.
QB]••••I'll be honest..without post-bacc classes, your chances are low.

Remember med schools tend to look at disqualifying factors first; then they look at what makes you outstanding. This is the status quo; it doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

I just don't want all these people telling you "apply, apply!", who could care less about the time and money you might waste.

If you are a URM or have other special factors going for you, the situation might be different. Also, med schools care do not compare graduate gpa's to undergraduate gpa's, since a "C" usually denotes failing in a graduate program.

As far as your MCAT goes, the difference between a 33 and a 36 is nothing to med schools - once you get past 32ish, it doesn't mean much. :. don't worry about retaking.

Did you get a PhD? Medical schools add points for applicants who already have PhD's.

Hope this helps. Good luck if you decide to apply. 🙂

 

[Blitzkrieg]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Bikini Princess:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by ucla_Mdhopeful:
[QB]It's me again. got my mcat scores:
verbal : 9
phy: 12
Bio: 11

I was disappointed because i was aiming for over 36+.
Here are my stats:
undergrad gpa: 2.7 (biology)
graduate gpa: 3.96 (biology)
and the others are there.
QB]••••I'll be honest..without post-bacc classes, your chances are low.

Remember med schools tend to look at disqualifying factors first; then they look at what makes you outstanding. This is the status quo; it doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

I just don't want all these people telling you "apply, apply!", who could care less about the time and money you might waste.

If you are a URM or have other special factors going for you, the situation might be different. Also, med schools care do not compare graduate gpa's to undergraduate gpa's, since a "C" usually denotes failing in a graduate program.

As far as your MCAT goes, the difference between a 33 and a 36 is nothing to med schools - once you get past 32ish, it doesn't mean much. :. don't worry about retaking.

Did you get a PhD? Medical schools add points for applicants who already have PhD's.

Hope this helps. Good luck if you decide to apply. 🙂 •••••bikini mama,

how do you know about the MCAT diff? You just took it, and got a 32.

I've been told that there is a world of difference between 33 and 36.

 

[can't get no SDN love]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Bikini Princess:
[QB]I'll be honest..without post-bacc classes, your chances are low.

I just don't want all these people telling you "apply, apply!", who could care less about the time and money you might waste.

If you are a URM or have other special factors going for you, the situation might be different. Also, med schools care do not compare graduate gpa's to undergraduate gpa's, since a "C" usually denotes failing in a graduate program.

As far as your MCAT goes, the difference between a 33 and a 36 is nothing to med schools - once you get past 32ish, it doesn't mean much. :. don't worry about retaking.

[QB]••••Bikini Princess: I'm curious as to your authority on these matters. In fact, at the risk of being booted off of SDN all together, I'm amazed at your arrogance. As we've all learned (time and time again in this forum) although med school is based on science, the admissions process is not.

To the OP: if you believe you are a worthwhile candidate and believe that you can make a strong case to the med schools, then apply and prove these know-it-alls wrong. I'll be cheering for ya.

 

[The Philosopher]

Bikini,

Sure, medical schools do look at disqualifying factors, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY LOOK AT THE WHOLE APPLICANT. To you, what is a "disqualifying factor." Can you even quantify that?

The game of admissions is not 100% based on something which you can see, or grasp, like a GPA or test score, or only on some negative factor. It's also based on how you are as a person, and your experiences, and 15 other factors, including the actual evaluator's/interviewer's personal beliefs. So what does this say about disqualifying factors?
So everyone in medical school has a 3.6 and a 30 and has published and there's nothing wrong? Please. I bet many who have been accepted have red flags, including C's here or there, criminal records, horrible MCATs, and the rest of the lot.
UCLA, in my opinion, has corrected his red flag. And taking more post bac courses DURING his application, will correct it even more.

If I saw UCLA-Hopeful's application, I'd give probably give him an interview. But, Bikini probably wouldn't. So what does this say about what admissions people think? It's just chance.

An "A" is an "A" no matter what. Grad school might show inflation, but it's a different type because a GPA of 3.5 in grad school is composed of half A's and half B's. B's are easy to get in grad school, but A's aren't. Getting close to all A's is something else, no matter where you are. And he/she proved his/her science skills on the MCAT too.

Anyway, these are just my opinions, but I don't see any need at all for UCLA-hopeful to take that dreaded test again.

UCLA, you, along with probably 70% of the rest of the applicant pool, are in the same boat. Don't feel like you have a low chance, because quite honestly, I don't think you do. And if others disagree, well then maybe admissions is as just as random as that. Some schools will give you a chance and some won't, so apply to find out.

 

[analu]

Hey ucla_MDhopeful, YOU ARE MORE THAN YOUR GPA. And you are more than your MCAT...I agree with SMW, you need to look at your entire application, the whole package, so to speak. If medicine is truly what you love, apply. And do WHAT YOU CAN NOW to make your application stronger, i.e. personal statement, LOR's, EC's, and learning as much as you can about medicine and healthcare issues (for all the interviews you'll be attending 🙂 ). If you've just finished your grad degree, that will definitely demonstrate that you are not the same person getting a 2.7 in undergrad. Your MCAT reaffirms this.

Best of luck to you!