GPA matching MCATS

[Deepak_nc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

i have a 3.2 BPCM and a 3.2 overall gpa and i made a 30R on the mcats..... does that match?

 

[Alexander99]

Originally posted by Deepak_nc
i have a 3.2 BPCM and a 3.2 overall gpa and i made a 30R on the mcats..... does that match?

GPA: Well below average
MCAT: Average

Any legit reasons why your GPA is so low? If you can't give any specific reasons (personal hardships, etc), the AdComs will probably just conclude you're a slacker. Your numbers match in the sense that they are not completely lopsided (if you got a 33+ with your same GPA, that'd be lopsided."

Alexander

 

[ndi_amaka]

Since when was a 30 on the MCAT average??? 🙄

 

[Chronotropic]

I think a 30 is the averaye for those accepted.

 

[ndi_amaka]

Originally posted by danwsu
I think a 30 is the averaye for those accepted.

Depends on the schools you are talking about

 

[Selisa]

to whomever responds on this thread, thanks for putting up with these stat questions. i know they get kind of irritating (especially around this time) but your comments are a really big help to some of us who are a little bit freaked out right now, and i for one do appreciate them. 🙂

 

[Deepak_nc]

well ... junior year was a washout due to emotional...financial and ceratin well documented traumatic events... 3.6 science frshman year 3.5 soph 2.5 junior and 4.0 seniro year... how does that float? oh yeah im taking the mcats again in april

 

[Alexander99]

Originally posted by Deepak_nc
well ... junior year was a washout due to emotional...financial and ceratin well documented traumatic events... 3.6 science frshman year 3.5 soph 2.5 junior and 4.0 seniro year... how does that float? oh yeah im taking the mcats again in april

I guess it all depends on your story which you'll have to discuss with the AdComs. Of course, there's always the chance that they'll think you crack under pressure as well. Yeah, it's rough explaining anything short of perfection to these guys.

 

[ventricle]

Originally posted by danwsu
I think a 30 is the averaye for those accepted.

That seems pretty close. It looks like in for 2002 the mean MCAT among applicants was around 27.1 and mean GPA 3.46.

For matriculants, those numbers were 29.7 and 3.61.

(For MCAT test-takers as a whole, I think the mean is down around 25.)


http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/famg62002a.htm

 

[doc05]

these are typical matching gpa/mcat combinations. How to interpret a mismatch: If your MCAT is much lower, you are an overachiever/not too bright; if much higher, you will seen as lazy/unmotivated.

3.3/28

3.5/30

3.6/31-32

3.7/32-34

3.8/34+

3.9+/35+

best of luck.

 

[drlexygoat]

I'm not really a believer in the "matching" MCAT/GPA theory. I think it's nice when you see a 4.0 and a 35+ but there's a lot of factors to consider here....

GPA is 4 years of studying with hundreds of tests to make up that figure.
MCAT is 6+ months of studying with just ONE test.

You also have to take into account the fact that some schools have somewhat padded grades and that there are people who get so freaked out over standardized tests. Also, didn't you ever have that one practice MCAT where you scored a point or 2 or 3 lower than normal? Sometimes people just get an MCAT with the most difficult topics on it for them.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think adcoms really look too closely at this "correlation." There's no magical formula or table. People could have had a bad MCAT day or have had an awful college year (jk about that one).

 

[doc05]

Originally posted by drlexygoat
I'm not really a believer in the "matching" MCAT/GPA theory. I think it's nice when you see a 4.0 and a 35+ but there's a lot of factors to consider here....

GPA is 4 years of studying with hundreds of tests to make up that figure.
MCAT is 6+ months of studying with just ONE test.

You also have to take into account the fact that some schools have somewhat padded grades and that there are people who get so freaked out over standardized tests. Also, didn't you ever have that one practice MCAT where you scored a point or 2 or 3 lower than normal? Sometimes people just get an MCAT with the most difficult topics on it for them.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think adcoms really look too closely at this "correlation." There's no magical formula or table. People could have had a bad MCAT day or have had an awful college year (jk about that one).

nice try, but you're wrong. how could you possibly disagree with me?

MCAT is not 6+ months of studying. it's the culmination of what ought to be 3 or 4 years of successful study, with about 2 months for review.

And no, I never scored "a point or 2 or 3 lower than normal." It's been a while, but I always scored higher than normal.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

eh, i dont believe in the mcat gpa matching either. In the mid ranges it works fine (3.0 and 28 etc.) but up high, you see as many 3.4's as 4.0's with 40+'s on the mcat. I mean i had a 3.4 for a while; i have no friggin clue how i ended up with the GPA i have (3.75), but i feel that, especially in the high ranges, lower (within reason) GPA's are rewarded because they come with taking a large number of classes and taking extremely difficult and competitive classes. I have a friend with a 3.92 (essentially a 4.0 to everyone but the most anal premed) who has one major and takes all the easiest classes she can to maintain that number. It's just like HS, i just wish they'd reward taking honors and "calculus based" classes (instead of "for life science majors" ie physics, math, stats, etc.) in the numbers.

oh yeah, and GPA is ridiculously subjective- schools have vastly differing average GPA's. UCLA's is around 3.1 where other schools i've heard aroud 2.8 to 3.7, so GPA and MCAT really shouldnt correlate that strongly, but MCAT and maybe class %ile rank would

edit: UCLA's science majors have an average of 2.7. depressing compared to Ivy league

 

[meanderson]

Most of it depends on the undergrad school. Just based on a pretty large sample of scores I've seen, I'd guess that our average mcat is 22-23 or so. We occasionally have a 32-35, but not many. And the average person who actually makes it far enough to take the mcat usually has a pretty good gpa(3.5+). I knew plenty of 3.9+ students who scored less than 27 on the mcat.

There is a much stronger correlation between mcat and undegrad school. The average 3.0 Harvard student has a MUCH higher mcat than the average 3.8 Central Florida University student.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by doc05
these are typical matching gpa/mcat combinations. How to interpret a mismatch: If your MCAT is much lower, you are an overachiever/not too bright; if much higher, you will seen as lazy/unmotivated.

3.3/28

3.5/30

3.6/31-32

3.7/32-34

3.8/34+

3.9+/35+

best of luck.

By what criteria did you come up with these matchings? The only meaningful way to compare or match MCAT and GPA is by comparing the relative difficulty that premeds have in achieving various MCAT scores and GPAs.

If you analyze the 2001 applicant data, you would notice that ~22% of all applicants had a 4.0 GPA whereas only ~6% had a 35 on the MCAT. This shows you that the average premed finds it MUCH MORE difficult to score a 35 than to get a 4.0 GPA. Ofcourse this oversimplified analysis doesn't tell the whole story because there is great variability in the quality of GPAs. For instance, high GPAs at princeton would correlate more strongly to high MCATs than high GPAs at Florida State. At any rate, this analysis explains why most med schools have relatively high GPA averages (3.6-3.7) but seemingly unimpressive MCAT averages (~30). It seems that a 30 MCAT is as rare as a 3.7 GPA. It sounds crazy but it is true.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by meanderson

There is a much stronger correlation between mcat and undegrad school. The average 3.0 Harvard student has a MUCH higher mcat than the average 3.8 Central Florida University student.

Given the atrocious level of grade inflation at Harvard, the gap between a 3.0 Harvard premed and a 3.8 CFU premed is not that wide. However, the gap between a 3.5 Harvard and 3.8 CFU is VERY wide in terms of MCAT scores. This ofcourse only applies to averages and not individuals.

 

[MeowMix]

Originally posted by doc05
these are typical matching gpa/mcat combinations. How to interpret a mismatch: If your MCAT is much lower, you are an overachiever/not too bright; if much higher, you will seen as lazy/unmotivated.

You forgot to factor in the astrological sign and shoe size corrections and the relativistic factors. Once these are incorporated, perfect correlation is obtained, for example, on a 3.4/40 for a Cancer with size 5 shoes. Ridiculous qualititative conclusions (e.g. lazy/unmotivated) are unmerited.

 

[peterockduke]

Originally posted by Gbemi24
Given the atrocious level of grade inflation at Harvard, the gap between a 3.0 Harvard premed and a 3.8 CFU premed is not that wide. However, the gap between a 3.5 Harvard and 3.8 CFU is VERY wide in terms of MCAT scores. This ofcourse only applies to averages and not individuals.

Regardless of Harvard's grade inflation, I bet if we looked at the average MCAT score that went with a Harvard student's 3.0 gpa... it would be higher than the CFU student with the 3.8 gpa.

I am tired of people trying to knock harvard for grade inflating. If they didn't grade inflate you would then try to justify how they shouldn't have their school's rep help them in the process. Or how their 33-34 mcat ave. shouldn't help them either.....

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

are there any harvard premed undergrads with a 3.0 GPA? I find it hard to believe someone that well qualified for undergrad admissions would suddenly get a 3.0 at a school with such a high average gpa. I'm not at all saying it's unfair, if my school was all rhodes scholars and nobel laureates I'd say 3.9 average GPA was fair.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by peterockduke
Regardless of Harvard's grade inflation, I bet if we looked at the average MCAT score that went with a Harvard student's 3.0 gpa... it would be higher than the CFU student with the 3.8 gpa.

I am tired of people trying to knock harvard for grade inflating. If they didn't grade inflate you would then try to justify how they shouldn't have their school's rep help them in the process. Or how their 33-34 mcat ave. shouldn't help them either.....

Your rationale for grade inflation is silly. MIT and Caltech have as good if not better quality of students as Harvard but they do not grade inflate. Reasonable people realize that a physics student at MIT would most likely be taking more difficult courses than a physics student at Colorado State and would thus assess GPAs with perspective. This is precisely why standardized tests exist. They assess the aptitude and/or knowledge base of a student without regard for institution being attended. Grade inflation is a form of academic dishonesty. If Harvard feels that their students are not bright in enough to get competitive GPAs then they should admit brighter students.

In fact the new president of Harvard has publicly complained about the unreasonable level of grade inflation going on at Harvard. He realizes that grade inflation strikes at the heart of scholarship.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by R_C_Hutchinson
are there any harvard premed undergrads with a 3.0 GPA? I find it hard to believe someone that well qualified for undergrad admissions would suddenly get a 3.0 at a school with such a high average gpa. I'm not at all saying it's unfair, if my school was all rhodes scholars and nobel laureates I'd say 3.9 average GPA was fair.

How is a 3.9 average fair if it is unearned? Also, where did you hear that Harvard was full of Nobel laureates and Rhode's scholars? The days of Harvard monopolizing the young talent in this country are far gone. Schools like Caltech, MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech etc. are graduating better quality students in most areas of science and engineering than Harvard. The few areas where Harvard is still very respected are in Law School, Business School and some areas of medical science. Even in these areas, the gap between Harvard and the other top schools is very slim or non-existent. Also, these are graduate areas and the vast majority of the graduate students in the difficult areas of science and engineering at Harvard are either international students or students from other competitive schools like Princeton, UMich, UVA etc. It is these accomplished graduate students that give Harvard the prestige it enjoys in some academic circles. Not the cuddled undergrads with inflated grades. There is no grade inflation at the graduate level since GPA at the graduate level is not as important as research productivity.

Look through the list of Nobel laureates in the last ten years and tell me how many were Harvard undergrads.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

Originally posted by Gbemi24
How is a 3.9 average fair if it is unearned? Also, where did you hear that Harvard was full of Nobel laureates and Rhode's scholars? The days of Harvard monopolizing the young talent in this country are far gone. Schools like Caltech, MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech etc. are graduating better quality students in most areas of science and engineering than Harvard. The few areas where Harvard is still very respected are in Law School, Business School and some areas of medical science. Even in these areas, the gap between Harvard and the other top schools is very slim or non-existent. Also, these are graduate areas and the vast majority of the graduate students in the difficult areas of science and engineering at Harvard are either international students or students from other competitive schools like Princeton, UMich, UVA etc. It is these accomplished graduate students that give Harvard the prestige it enjoys in some academic circles. Not the cuddled undergrads with inflated grades. There is no grade inflation at the graduate level since GPA at the graduate level is not as important as research productivity.

Look through the list of Nobel laureates in the last ten years and tell me how many were Harvard undergrads.

woah there, no need to get angry over this. Think about what you would do if you were in Harvard's shoes. your entering class is full of geniuses and legacys; both who have never gotten a B in their lives. To suddenly start failing 2.5% because they want to maintain "academically honest" bell curve would be suicide- such students would just go to yale or another place where they could get that 3.9. I personally am not a proponent of grade inflation on the level of Harvard, (i attend UCLA, most of my classes have a B-/C+ mean, so we do have grade inflation, but not *too* much) but i think it is Harvard and its student's perogative whether to continue as is or institute more standardized grading. From what I gather you are not a Harvard student, and as you said, anyone with half a brain can see that a 3.9 from Harvard says less (not means less, is just less of an indicator) than a 3.9 from Columbia etc. I'm pretty damn proud of my 3.75 from UCLA, mostly because i'm taking two majors and a minor and getting out in 4 years- i'm sure that adcoms will take notice of such things and adjust accordingly, just as they will for you and everyone else. I guess i just fail to see the reason that another college's grading policy makes you so mad if you yourself said that it has little if any effect.

 

[PhatGtDmB]

I was wondering if anyone can help me with my dileema about my gpa not matching my mcat scores. I currently have a 3.88 gpa at Georgia Tech (AND NO THERE IS ABSOLUTLY NO GRADE INFLATION the average student here is around a 2.6-2.8 gpa) and i only scored a 29 (ps: 12 vr: 8 b:9) . I strongly believe my vr score will not get me into med school and planning on taking it again itn april. I was wondering if anyone on the board have any opinions about my mcat score not matching my gpa (wil the adcom look badly on this). Thanks.

 

[coachB]

Originally posted by Gbemi24
Given the atrocious level of grade inflation at Harvard, the gap between a 3.0 Harvard premed and a 3.8 CFU premed is not that wide. However, the gap between a 3.5 Harvard and 3.8 CFU is VERY wide in terms of MCAT scores. This ofcourse only applies to averages and not individuals.

what is your source for this "atrocious level." is there grade inflation at harvard? sure. but it is much more prevalent in the liberal arts types classes than the pre med sciences. no, you won't see many failing grades in any harvard course, but i don't think A's are passed out as easily as you think. you have to go to stanford for that....

 

[peterockduke]

Originally posted by Gbemi24
Your rationale for grade inflation is silly. MIT and Caltech have as good if not better quality of students as Harvard but they do not grade inflate. Reasonable people realize that a physics student at MIT would most likely be taking more difficult courses than a physics student at Colorado State and would thus assess GPAs with perspective. This is precisely why standardized tests exist. They assess the aptitude and/or knowledge base of a student without regard for institution being attended. Grade inflation is a form of academic dishonesty. If Harvard feels that their students are not bright in enough to get competitive GPAs then they should admit brighter students.

In fact the new president of Harvard has publicly complained about the unreasonable level of grade inflation going on at Harvard. He realizes that grade inflation strikes at the heart of scholarship.

I understand what you're saying and I do not like Harvard's grade inflation, BUT... they are still some of the best students in the country. I would agree about your comments concerning CalTech and MIT as well, but what I personally hate is that the average premed at these schools are far and away more qualified according to the only fair assesment tool:the MCAT (using averages of course).

Because some medical schools do not choose to properly weigh at students gpa from a school like MIT or Caltech, I am perfectly fine with Harvard inflating their students' gpa. A kid from no name U with a 3.8gpa and a 30 MCAT has a better shot than a guy with a 3.0gpa and a 30 MCAT from MIT... something is wrong with that. The MIT student is being punished for competing in a much tougher curriculum in a much more competitive environment. The MIT student was not rewarded by high grades and accolades... and may not be awarded w/ an acceptance to medical school. I find this absurd and unjust. I still think that the MIT studnet with a 3.0 gpa and a 34 MCAT would still be seen as a less competitive applicant at some schools and so I wonder... does Harvard lobby to change the med school admission process or do they inflate their gpa's (which do you think is easier)?

I'm not going to get into a massive debate about this. I think there is a huge difference between elite schools and average colleges. Students who attend top colleges could be top students anywhere... they shouldn't be punished for seeking a more competitive environment. If all colleges identically bell curve, the most competitive/elite schools will ruin their students in the middle.

Oh well, most harvard kids still suck.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by R_C_Hutchinson
woah there, no need to get angry over this. Think about what you would do if you were in Harvard's shoes. your entering class is full of geniuses and legacys; both who have never gotten a B in their lives.

I don't think you got my point. I don't care much about Harvard, what I do care about is the fact that some of the leading institutions in this country cheapen collegiate scholarship. It becomes very irritating when one of the major culprits (Harvard) is a school that enjoys much social prestige.

The idea that there should be grade inflation at Harvard to massage the egos of the undergrad student body is astonishing to me. By that logic, the average grade for Wash U medical students should be high honors because Wash U has the best academic talent amongst medical schools. Why should Wash U medical students study hard? According to you they shouldn't have to earn their grades the hard way because they are not used to getting B's. To be honest, this line of reasoning really baffles me.

People should not be admitted to competitive schools if they are not willing to compete. Competitive schools exist for the sole purpose of training the best academic talent and creating an environment in which the best can compete amongst themselves and bring out the best in each other. That is what make professional leagues and the Olympics fun to watch. The best compete against each other. It is also the reason why capitalist economies are far more productive than socialist ones. Competition leads to greater productivity.

The argument that Harvard would lose talent to Yale and other schools were it not for grade inflation is irrational. Why would a bright kid leave for another prestigious school if there is no grade inflation at any of the prestigious schools? I am disgusted by all schools that practice grade inflation. It dumbs down our academic system and makes our students less competitive around the world. You can already see the effects of this inimical academic philosophy at all levels of the educational system. Look at how ridiculously easy the SATs, GMATs, GREs, MCATs (in terms of raw scores) etc are? Yet people talk about the MCATs as if it were as difficult as differential geometry or quantum electrodynamics. Have you had a chance to look at Western European high school and college science tests? Why do you think Europeans were so dominant in the sciences and mathematics in much of the 20th century. For much of the 20th century, the great scientific and mathematical talent on US university faculties were foriegn born. If you look through the annals of modern scientific achievement in America, a disproportionate amount of the talent are either first or second generation Americans or recent immigrants. This is not an issue we should take lightly.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by peterockduke

I'm not going to get into a massive debate about this. I think there is a huge difference between elite schools and average colleges. Students who attend top colleges could be top students anywhere... they shouldn't be punished for seeking a more competitive environment. If all colleges identically bell curve, the most competitive/elite schools will ruin their students in the middle.

Oh well, most harvard kids still suck.

I simply do not understand this line of reasoning. If the student does not think he/she is bright enough to be competitive at Harvard then why attend Harvard? Also, there are injustices on the other side as well. Just as you think it is unfair to give a 3.8 GPA from FSU more credit than a 3.0 from Havard, it is equally unfair to value a 2.3 GPA degree from Harvard more than a 4.0 GPA degree from FSU. Yet this is what happens in the real world.

Lets take your argument to its logical limits. Since it is relatively more difficult to get a degree in mathematics from MIT than a degree in agriculture from MIT, would you suggest that MIT selectively inflate mathematics grades at the expense of agriculture grades? After all it is not fair to compare a 3.8 in agriculture with a 3.4 in mathematics at MIT right?

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by PhatGtDmB
I was wondering if anyone can help me with my dileema about my gpa not matching my mcat scores. I currently have a 3.88 gpa at Georgia Tech (AND NO THERE IS ABSOLUTLY NO GRADE INFLATION the average student here is around a 2.6-2.8 gpa) and i only scored a 29 (ps: 12 vr: 8 b:9) . I strongly believe my vr score will not get me into med school and planning on taking it again itn april. I was wondering if anyone on the board have any opinions about my mcat score not matching my gpa (wil the adcom look badly on this). Thanks.

Ofcourse the adcoms will not like it. I don't mean to be a jerk but a college student should not be asking questions like this.

You can still get into medical school with that score depending on where you apply. If you want to have a decent chance of getting into a competitive school then you have to retake the MCAT. It is that simple.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

Originally posted by PhatGtDmB
I was wondering if anyone can help me with my dileema about my gpa not matching my mcat scores. I currently have a 3.88 gpa at Georgia Tech (AND NO THERE IS ABSOLUTLY NO GRADE INFLATION the average student here is around a 2.6-2.8 gpa) and i only scored a 29 (ps: 12 vr: 8 b:9) . I strongly believe my vr score will not get me into med school and planning on taking it again itn april. I was wondering if anyone on the board have any opinions about my mcat score not matching my gpa (wil the adcom look badly on this). Thanks.

one word: retake.
from my estimation, that GPA would correspond to about the same GPA here at UCLA (we have a higher average but very low standard deviations on our grades, so you'll rarely if ever see a 4.0) that's certainly no small feat, unless you havent been pushing yourself. any one of us can come into college, take one easy major (phi sci, evolutionary bio etc.) and few classes each quarter and get a 4.0. If you've been taking hard classes and lots of them, then you just had a bad test day- just retake and you'll dominate. This is why i like the MCAT- it rewards those of us who push ourselves at the expense of GPA and is not the perogative of our school to set the curve.

oh yeah, don't listen to the guy above me, he's angry at just about everything and everyone

 

[rugirlie]

hmm in the spirit of the last poster and my questions on whether to retake.... i have a 3.92 at rutgers college.... and i got only 10 10 10 on the mcats.... i'm only a juinor.. should i retake in april.... ? what do u do if ur just not the best test taker... i mean i was 7th out of 420 in my hs class and i only got a 1350 sats.. all the people around me had 1400s and up... whats to be said bout that?

 

[Alexander99]

Originally posted by rugirlie
hmm in the spirit of the last poster and my questions on whether to retake.... i have a 3.92 at rutgers college.... and i got only 10 10 10 on the mcats.... i'm only a juinor.. should i retake in april.... ? what do u do if ur just not the best test taker... i mean i was 7th out of 420 in my hs class and i only got a 1350 sats.. all the people around me had 1400s and up... whats to be said bout that?

It depends on whether your intentions are to get into the top 15 med schools (which have 32+ MCAT averages) or just a decent one. If you just want to get into a decent one, I'm sure 3.9 and 10/10/10 should be fine.

 

[ndi_amaka]

Originally posted by rugirlie
hmm in the spirit of the last poster and my questions on whether to retake.... i have a 3.92 at rutgers college.... and i got only 10 10 10 on the mcats.... i'm only a juinor.. should i retake in april.... ? what do u do if ur just not the best test taker... i mean i was 7th out of 420 in my hs class and i only got a 1350 sats.. all the people around me had 1400s and up... whats to be said bout that?

ROFLMAO 🙂 this post is funny. The rest of the thread is idiotic, though.

The one thing I love about SDN is that everyone thinks they are an admissions dean or know more than the admissions committee.

 

[rugirlie]

Originally posted by ndi_amaka
ROFLMAO 🙂 this post is funny. The rest of the thread is idiotic, though.

The one thing I love about SDN is that everyone thinks they are an admissions dean or know more than the admissions committee.

not sure what was amusing bout my post... i kno to take everything at face value but its nice to hear opinions from other people who have gone through the process.... glad i entertained ya tho... lol

 

[ndi_amaka]

Originally posted by rugirlie
not sure what was amusing bout my post... i kno to take everything at face value but its nice to hear opinions from other people who have gone through the process.... glad i entertained ya tho... lol

I was holding out the hope that you were being sarcastic when posting your scores. It amazes me when i hear ppl with damn near 4.0 and 30 or above asking whether they are competitive or not. But hey, if it makes you sleep better at night knowing you hit the 45 jackpot than good for you.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by ndi_amaka
ROFLMAO 🙂 this post is funny. The rest of the thread is idiotic, though.

The one thing I love about SDN is that everyone thinks they are an admissions dean or know more than the admissions committee.

One thing I also like about SDN is how *****s like you pop into threads, post nonsense and walk away feeling superior.😀

 

[ndi_amaka]

Originally posted by Gbemi24
One thing I also like about SDN is how *****s like you pop into threads, post nonsense and walk away feeling superior.😀

Yup. Since I can't psuedo relate to the useless argument I might as well flex my SDN muscles. 🙂

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

Originally posted by rugirlie
hmm in the spirit of the last poster and my questions on whether to retake.... i have a 3.92 at rutgers college.... and i got only 10 10 10 on the mcats.... i'm only a juinor.. should i retake in april.... ? what do u do if ur just not the best test taker... i mean i was 7th out of 420 in my hs class and i only got a 1350 sats.. all the people around me had 1400s and up... whats to be said bout that?

well, i dont know what the extent of grade inflation is at rutgers, but the real question, as always, is "have you pushed yourself?" if you've got a 3.9 with a heavy courseload, competitive classes and feel you could do better, then retake by all means. Far too many premeds (in my humble opinion) concentrate on GPA too much. from more than one reliable source i've heard "if you're above 3.5 and got a lot accomplished in college, GPA really doesnt mean a whole lot. it only factors in when the student takes one easy major with no honors courses." Be honest with yourself- if you feel you did well on practice exams and felt you just did badly that day, then retake. if you dont, then take the motto of old SDN'ers "30 is a GOOD MCAT score" and be happy. As for HS and SAT being any indicator, i think HS rank/GPA/SAT's etc in the college environment mean about as much as tap dancing ability. most people i meet who "are bad test takers" are just really hard workers- this is a skill like any other- exploit it (do some killer EC's, do research, volunteer, and if the opportunities aren't there, found a program).
just my two "sense"
R_C_Hutchinson
adcom for school of overachieving premeds

 

[peterockduke]

Originally posted by R_C_Hutchinson
i think HS rank/GPA/SAT's etc in the college environment mean about as much as tap dancing ability. most people i meet who "are bad test takers" are just really hard workers- this is a skill like any other- exploit it (do some killer EC's, do research, volunteer, and if the opportunities aren't there, found a program).
just my two "sense"
R_C_Hutchinson
adcom for school of overachieving premeds

Ok, if rank/gpa/SAT's don't mean anything in high school, then why does Harvard have such a high MCAT average (33) while FSU has such a low one relatively speaking (24-25). Undergrad is mostly determined by those factors and looks like those factors are screening some robust MCAT averages. We don't have to use Harvard, we can use the MCAt averages from MIT, Princeton, etc... And don't say there is some evil premed committee that weeds out low scoring applicants, that just isn't true. Someone said MCAT scores and undergrad institution had much more correlation, I definitely agree with that. I know of 2 people out of maybe 30 who got a MCAT of <30. Their gpa's range all over the place 2.9-4.0.

I honestly believe a 30 MCAT at my school is like a B- in a science class, if not a little lower. Of course, we really cannot accurately say that gpa's lineup with MCATs...thats just my opinion


rugirlie - 3.92/30 (all 10's)... why are you possibly sweating? Now all you need to do is make sure you have clinical experience and you're in. You're done, go write your essays.

 

[PianoGirl04]

Originally posted by peterockduke

I honestly believe a 30 MCAT at my school is like a B- in a science class, if not a little lower. Of course, we really cannot accurately say that gpa's lineup with MCATs...thats just my opinion

Yeah...that sounds about right. For the most part, the people I know have GPAs and MCATs that match up like this. But it's certainly not a rule, as people have already said. For example, I have friends with near-4.0 GPAs and sub-30 MCATs. I think a lot of this variability is because the MCAT and GPA measure different abilities...for example, you don't necessarily have to be a good standardized test-taker to get a decent GPA, but you absolutely have to for the MCAT.

 

[bokermmk]

22% of applicants do not have a 4.0. Its not even close to that. That is an absolutely absurb comment.

 

[PianoGirl04]

Originally posted by bokermmk
22% of applicants do not have a 4.0. Its not even close to that. That is an absolutely absurb comment.

Yeah, I wonder where that stat came from...? That can't be right. I think it's much easier to score at 35+ on the MCAT than to get a 4.0, for what it's worth. For the MCAT, you have to avoid screwing up during one test (yeah, I know this is an oversimplification, but bear with me here). For GPA, you have to avoid screwing up for four years. There are so many more chances to mess up your GPA than to bring down the MCAT score simply because of the amount of time that each encompasses. Plus, there's no Kaplan/EK/TPR for GPA...there's no single proven strategy or formula for getting a 4.0. GPA is much more subjective and variable than the MCAT is.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

i'd disagree. at a (probably private) school where grade inflation is large, a 4.0 can be had relatively easily if you pick the right major. heck, if you're a music major here at UCLA you average GPA is 3.8, so 4.0 is no accomplishment. if when you say 4.0 you mean 4.000, as in never an A-, then yes, getting a 4.0 while double majoring in two majors with minimal grade inflation at a public school is harder than getting 35+; in the vast vast majority of cases i do not think this is true. I think that anyone willing to put their social life on the chopping block can get a rounded 4.0 if they have a single major and take light courseloads. that said, i take my hat off to anyone with such a high GPA, it does show an extreme degree of stoicism.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by bokermmk
22% of applicants do not have a 4.0. Its not even close to that. That is an absolutely absurb comment.

Before you spout off about something you do not know or understand, why don't you look on page 29 of the 2003-2004 MSAR book published by the AAMC.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by PianoGirl04
Yeah, I wonder where that stat came from...? That can't be right. I think it's much easier to score at 35+ on the MCAT than to get a 4.0, for what it's worth. For the MCAT, you have to avoid screwing up during one test (yeah, I know this is an oversimplification, but bear with me here). For GPA, you have to avoid screwing up for four years. There are so many more chances to mess up your GPA than to bring down the MCAT score simply because of the amount of time that each encompasses. Plus, there's no Kaplan/EK/TPR for GPA...there's no single proven strategy or formula for getting a 4.0. GPA is much more subjective and variable than the MCAT is.

You guys are making arguments based on anecdotal evidence rather than large population samples. Saying that it is easier to score very high on the MCAT just because it is a single test doesn't make any sense. It might be true for you, but it is NOT true for the general population. It is like saying that it is easier to score 200 on a Stanford-Binet IQ test than getting a 4.0 in college because the Stanford-Binet test is a single test. The data available contradicts that line of thinking. There is obviously great variability in college majors and it is more difficult to get 4.0s in certain majors at certain schools than getting a 35 on the MCAT. Also, different people might find one or the other more difficult due to a variation in character traits. However, those are special cases and the science of statistics DOES NOT deal with special cases. Statistics is mainly used to analyze CENTRAL TENDENCY in the distributions of data or populations.

In this particular case the AVERAGE medical school applicant finds it MUCH MUCH MORE difficult to get a 39 on the MCAT than to get a 4.0 GPA. Remember that in most natural populations, people tend to aggregate around the mean of any particular characteristic. Therefore, MOST medical school applicants would find it harder to score high on the MCAT than to get a perfect GPA.

Look on page 29 of the 2003-2004 MSAR book published by the AAMC to read the stats. It is not even close. As you get close to 40 on the MCAT scale, the gap between 4.0 GPAs and 35+ MCATs become ridiculously wide.

 

[dookbloo]

is it possible that we are discussing technicalities here?

 

[Deepak_nc]

NO NEVER...
WE WOUDL NEVER DISCUSS SPECIFIC SOT TECHNICALITIES ON THIS WEBSITE WOUDL WE.
ALSO WE ONLY DISCUSS RELEVANT TOPICS DO WE NOT?

 

[rugirlie]

Originally posted by Deepak_nc
NO NEVER...
WE WOUDL NEVER DISCUSS SPECIFIC SOT TECHNICALITIES ON THIS WEBSITE WOUDL WE.
ALSO WE ONLY DISCUSS RELEVANT TOPICS DO WE NOT?

 

[drlexygoat]

Originally posted by doc05
nice try, but you're wrong. how could you possibly disagree with me?

MCAT is not 6+ months of studying. it's the culmination of what ought to be 3 or 4 years of successful study, with about 2 months for review.

And no, I never scored "a point or 2 or 3 lower than normal." It's been a while, but I always scored higher than normal.

What ever happened to manners? Wow. I'm sorry but I'm not required to agree with you, nor are you the utmost authority on GPA/MCATs. I guess I'm just a little old fashioned in thinking people were still polite.

As for the studying comment, of course the MCAT is a culmination of a whole undergrad career. That's a given. No need to be rude.

 

[shawred]

I was a high school student who could never score all that high on the SAT (I did score well enough to get into and attend UChicago). I fully realize that my grades in high school were the result of working harder than most other students in my school. However, at the time, I thought it was just me and standardized exams. I still agree with that to some degree. The SAT and its related brother from hell, the GRE, are both exams that test vocabulary and how to do mathematical tricks. However, I did notice that the naturally brilliant students at my school didn't have to work as hard to get good grades or SAT scores. In other words, I understand both sides of the issue.
The MCAT, on the other hand, contrary to what AAMC will have you believe, is based upon what you have learned. True it isnt simple regurgitation similar to undergraduate exams at most schools. But lets face it people, if after 3-4 years of college you can't apply the knowledge of cellular membranes to questions of some difficulty, then you must accept that you studied your way to good grades. This is not a knock against those individuals. GPA is half the equation to getting in to med school. However, as a TPR instructor, I have seen MANY students with their precious 4.0s score a 23 on the MCAT. All that says, is that you learned the material well enough to get an A in the class, but you really didnt LEARN the information. However, i must reiterate that a 4.0 is truly impressive. Your hard work will pay off.
People with high grades and low MCATs are not the majority of applicants. They are only a small portion. However, I would much rather have a high MCAT and lower grades. I just get tired of hearing people rattle off that they hate standardized exams. I havent met many that like them!

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

the more i think about this the more i come to the conclusion that its really about motivation more than anything. a person can cram and get A's, but if they dont really give a damn about what they're learning (i.e. they've wanted to be a doctor since HS because they think it will earn them respect) then they'll forget it entirely. the MCAT can be reviewed for, but if you've forgotten the material because you just wanted the grade, then you'll certainly pay for it. More and more i see people like humanities majors who love to read and engineers who love to tinker with things ending up doing well on the test. all the "i'm just bio/MCDbio because it's the easiest major that looks good to med schools" people end up doing poorly.