mimelim, let me begin by saying that I am absolutely in no way trying to start a boxing match with you. You have infinitely more medical school and medical school admissions than myself. All I have is what I've gathered through the process. I do, however, think context is hugely important in this case.
A good GPA + a real course load trumps a great GPA + fluff course load, any day of the week. My data sources are Wash U and HMS faculty adcoms who are old friends as well as my personal experience developing recruitment strategies for a medical school adcom.
"Good" versus "Great" is
enormously subjective. Harvard and WashU have a 3.72 and a 3.69 cGPA cutoff, respectively (based on MSAR 10th percentile). That's a bare minimum an A- average, and even above the average matriculant. Now, within this range, how far apart are you "Good" and "Great" GPAs? They're within three tenths of a GPA point! Obviously schedule is going to be really important, but to even get put through the 'test' here requires that you at least have a 3.7 GPA in the first place. Evidently, they're extremely skewed in their holistic approach, and not applicable to the vast majority of schools.
But to say that people who take real classes instead of fluff in undergrad are at a disadvantage is simply wrong. I would love to see any type of data to indicate otherwise.
Depends, do the 'real classes' inhibit their performance in school? If they do, I would argue that 'real classes' absolutely do work disadvantageously towards an applicant. However, if the performance is
not hindered (GPA does not fluctuate) then I would argue it does not. This is dependent on the
individual's ability. I would also argue that taking a more difficult schedule, as a general consensus,
does impact GPA negatively, but varies by individual. The amount of change is highly dependent on said person's intellect, time management, passion, and course load (credit-wise, lab-wise, and professor-wise).
All I know is that when I see an application with good grades, but all fluff, I lose interest in the applicant. 4.0 is meaningless without context.
I'm sure you do, but I argue that this applicant is still in better standing than the people that haven't even reached your screen. This applicant still has a shot. You may have lost interest, but who is to say another reviewer is intrigued by a certain number of extracurriculars? If the applicant has a competitive MCAT for the school, I highly doubt a 'fluffy' course load would remove them from contention for an interview, even at the top schools.
In short, you don't. It requires a basic (read: not extensive) knowledge of undergrad curriculum and a feel for what a 'normal' trajectory at a given school is. There just aren't that many paths that undergrads can take. It isn't about comparing two applicants side by side. It is about putting a GPA into context.
The problem with this, even beyond the course work, is that you have no idea what individual professors, circumstances, or even context of the classes themselves by just looking at an application. You get a course number, a course title, and a grade. Who or what is to say that this particular student didn't get a professor each semester in which only 5% of the class gets As in his course that is deemed extremely difficult (PChem, for example), whereas another student at the same institution took the same course with another professor that gives out As to 50% of the class? This difference absolutely happens even within institutions, even those deemed 'grade inflating' or 'grade deflating'. This murks up GPAs significantly. That would be why I argue a GPA is much more of a screen than anything.
Did you take your science requirements and take take light and easy loads the rest of your undergrad or did you do something productive with your time? It is just another small part of the application. It isn't the end all be all, but it is most definitely a part of the selection process.
Absolutely, and I do not think anyone logically argues that this is not the case. We all know that AdComs are very intelligible and try to do the right thing. The only suggestion is that having a higher GPA will not hurt you, but having a lower GPA absolutely will.
I want to emphasize, I am not diminishing doing as well as is physically possible in undergrad. Taking a killer schedule and not doing well is an app killer. But, every faculty adcom that I have asked, (never mind the logic behind it) has stated that overall set of courses that you take matters. I have met a lot of pre-meds who think that there is a lot of luck involved in the application process and that the system is "stupid". This is simply not true. Adcoms tend to be comprised of very intelligent people sorting a huge data set. Yes, there is some luck involved and yes, there is some raw number crunching. But you are seriously insulting the intelligence of medical school faculty if you don't think they can see through fluffy applications. The people that try to 'play the game' and don't get in are the ones that start claiming that they were unlucky.
I absolutely agree with this. The only thing that we're trying to weigh out in this thread is the thresholds and the significance of each scenario. I tried to quantify it earlier, but that quantification is still a complete ballpark and not reliable by any means, and I don't suggest it is. We all understand that the AdComs are absolutely within their means, intelligible, and trying to pick the best applicants to fill their medical school's seats. However, there are limitations within a process in which schools are receiving between 4,000 and 15,000 applications a cycle. For some schools, this may require thresholds as high as a 3.72 cGPA (Harvard) and a 34 MCAT (WashU). It is only at these points that things are likely to be viewed holistically to the point at where curriculum is critiqued at this point of logic. It's simply the capability to do so is only on a small scale. If you want to increase your chances of getting into school, you need to push yourself to be within these thresholds. If you can't reach them, then you have nearly zero chance, but if you can, you at least have a shot.
I wouldn't identify medical school admissions as 'luck of the draw' in any way. They absolutely identify your application in the best and most reasonable ways possible. But in order to be considered, you do have to 'play the game,' whether you do it consciously or not. This explains the majority of applicants having cookie cutter work and activities, they are simply expected.
Sometimes these 'cookie cutter' applicants are very motivated towards medicine and have done well, and they simply don't get past screens. At this point, yes, it can be a 'crap shoot,' though I wouldn't consider it random. This is where the statement 'There are more qualified medical school applicants than there are medical school seats' comes into play. It's a sad truth, and some people may get shorted. There is absolutely no shame in increasing your chances the best you can.
Edit: I apologize for the length of this post, I just wanted to be thorough. I think this topic is a concern of many students and is an important one to address in an appropriate manner.