Gpa question for top 25 medical schools

[final1clutch]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tiedyeddog]

The reason that I want to go to a top 25 medical school is because I really want to do academic medicine afterwards and they say that for academic medicine that your academic pedigree can help.

I don't want to touch the first part of your post, but I would agree in general to the part above. Not always, but in general.

 

[Nymphicus]

A quick glance through the MSAR says that your science GPA and MCAT
are below the average for accepted students at your aforementioned top 20 schools. Even with a 34 MCAT, your EC and essays are going to be where it's at.

Think of it like this. There are far more "perfect GPA and MCAT" applicants to top 20 schools than there are seats. What separates them are the Letters of Rec, extracurricular accomplishments, essays, and finally the interview.

Good luck!

 

[final1clutch]

A quick glance through the MSAR says that your science GPA and MCAT
are below the average for accepted students at your aforementioned top 20 schools. Even with a 34 MCAT, your EC and essays are going to be where it's at.

Think of it like this. There are far more "perfect GPA and MCAT" applicants to top 20 schools than there are seats. What separates them are the Letters of Rec, extracurricular accomplishments, essays, and finally the interview.

Good luck!

so higher numbers won't compensate for lackluster Ecs? Is so then I shouldn't worry too much about my gpa and just focus on my PS/LORs/MCAT right?


I came into college with the mentality that if I worked hard (I did study really hard). and got around a 3.7 overall gpa as a double major and a top 20 college, then after 4 years I would be attending a top 25 medical school, and after that I can enter academic medicine with a strong academic pedigree. Unfor. now my dream is dying and I don't know where I went wrong. Maybe I am just not smart enough for top 25 medical schools, which is the worst epiphany to have. Like I mentioned above Catalysik and some other posters on WAMC forum have said that my ECs are above average for most schools, so I doubt that should hold me back.

 

[tiedyeddog]

so higher numbers won't compensate for lackluster Ecs? Is so then I shouldn't worry too much about my gpa and just focus on my PS/LORs/MCAT right?

Unfor. now my dream is dying and I don't know where I went wrong. Maybe I am just not smart enough for top 25 medical schools, which is the worst epiphany to have.

Whoa, whoa. Calm down... People from many, many schools outside of the top 25 end up in academic medicine. Many people have told me where you go to residency is a bigger factor in getting an academic job. Plus, you still have a shot at getting into a top 25. Even if you don't, not the end of the world.

The fact is this whole application thing is a crap shoot. Who knows? You did your best, just let it play out and hope for the best.

 

[gettheleadout]

MCAT > GPA

just look at mdapps, plenty of people getting into awesome schools with mediocre GPA's -- the kicker is they have an awesome MCAT score...The inverse is not nearly as frequently occurring (i.e. successful with high GPA/mediocre mcat combo).

With that said, a 34 isn't awesome anymore - that ship sailed years ago. Nevertheless, lightning can strike; just do your best and hope for the best.

Eh... I'd be careful about unequivocally putting MCAT above GPA in importance.

 

[deleted380953]

MCAT > GPA

just look at mdapps, plenty of people getting into awesome schools with mediocre GPA's -- the kicker is they have an awesome MCAT score...The inverse is not nearly as frequently occurring (i.e. successful with high GPA/mediocre mcat combo).

With that said, a 34 isn't awesome anymore - that ship sailed years ago. Nevertheless, lightning can strike; just do your best and hope for the best.

I've heard people advocate both sides.

the ambiguity kills me, since i'm in a very similar position gpa wise, and I have yet to take an mcat that's actually scored

 

[bucks2010]

you never know what will happen until you apply. I am not a "stellar" applicant yet I've been very pleased with how the cycle is gone. you can't change your past performance, but you can work very hard from now until your app season is over. best of luck.

also -- do not neglect your PS and secondary essays. pre-write using the school-specific threads. worth every minute of your time when you start getting acceptances.

 

[Nymphicus]

I dunno, man... I mean I know what the study floating around SDN says -- but the mdapps just seem to sing a different tune when it comes to "mcat vs. gpa".

I don't wanna put anyone on the spot, so I will leave everyone to their own devices of searching for such instances. But an example of what I'm taking about: I have seen a lot [per our SDN population] of ~3.7's getting into great schools when they have 35+ MCAT. Not so much for the guys/gals rocking 4.0's with 30's.

I would count myself in this group.

 

[final1clutch]

Thanks for trying to give me hope guys, but lately it seems like my dream is dying.

you never know what will happen until you apply. I am not a "stellar" applicant yet I've been very pleased with how the cycle is gone. you can't change your past performance, but you can work very hard from now until your app season is over. best of luck.

also -- do not neglect your PS and secondary essays. pre-write using the school-specific threads. worth every minute of your time when you start getting acceptances.

Holy ****, you managed to get into Case. What was so unique about your application? Looking at your md apps, because it was so vague, I couldn't see what made you stand out so much to get into Case. Congrats bro.

I would count myself in this group.

^^ Your situation is understandable, look at your ECs dude.

 

[Nymphicus]

so higher numbers won't compensate for lackluster Ecs? Is so then I shouldn't worry too much about my gpa and just focus on my PS/LORs/MCAT right?


I came into college with the mentality that if I worked hard (I did study really hard). and got around a 3.7 overall gpa as a double major and a top 20 college, then after 4 years I would be attending a top 25 medical school, and after that I can enter academic medicine with a strong academic pedigree. Unfor. now my dream is dying and I don't know where I went wrong. Maybe I am just not smart enough for top 25 medical schools, which is the worst epiphany to have. Like I mentioned above Catalysik and some other posters on WAMC forum have said that my ECs are above average for most schools, so I doubt that should hold me back.

I wasn't trying to say that you can neglect parts of your application. What I was trying to say is that for pretty much the most part, people at the top schools have the whole package: grades, MCAT, EC's, interview well....for these top 20 schools have strong stats is the norm.

To the OP: Maybe I am just not smart enough for top 25 medical schools
Don't be thinking like this. It's pretty probably not true. Keep an upward grade trend. Get good letters. Make sure to spend time proofreading and revising your essays to make them extremely good. The essays are the only part of your application which you have total control over. Also keep in mind that no matter what your stats, nobody is guaranteed a top 20 med school. Also, it is very possible to go into academics from a non-top 20.

 

[gettheleadout]

I dunno, man... I mean I know what the study floating around SDN says -- but the mdapps just seem to sing a different tune when it comes to "mcat vs. gpa".

I don't wanna put anyone on the spot, so I will leave everyone to their own devices of searching for such instances. But an example of what I'm taking about: I have seen a lot [per our SDN population] of ~3.7's getting into great schools when they have 35+ MCAT. Not so much for the guys/gals rocking 4.0's with 30's.

I almost think you're being sarcastic about the MDApps thing just because there's no way to know if it's a representative sample. But about the comparison at the end there, that's not what I mean, and I don't think that's a fair comparison either. I would argue you need both a high GPA and a high MCAT to be totally competitive because I see it like this: high GPA shows you have a good work ethic and aptitude for learning, high MCAT shows you have mastery of material and critical thinking skills. Lacking in either is undesirable, but between a 3.7 (not a bad GPA by any means) with a 35+ (a great score) and a 4.0 (perfect, but not necessarily an ordinal measure compared to the 3.7 because of school-school variation) and a 30 (average) I would choose the 3.7/35+. However, were the MCAT's more similar I don't think it's too straightforward. I think based on the disparity between your stats you may be equally likely to get rejected due to a low GPA as a low MCAT.

 

[bluetwosky]

I've heard people advocate both sides.

the ambiguity kills me, since i'm in a very similar position gpa wise, and I have yet to take an mcat that's actually scored

Through my experience last year, I found that the most important part of your application is the weakest part of your application.

If your GPA is low, you're going to have to explain that in some way. If your MCAT is low, you're going to have to explain that in some way. I would assume the same goes for ECs and recommendations.

I personally think GPA >> MCAT when the two are roughly close (say 35 and a 3.75 - that 3.75 will hurt you much more than that 35 will help you), but MCAT >> GPA when the discrepancy between GPA and MCAT are huge (say like 40 and 3.5 or 30 and 4.0 - the 40 MCAT will help you more than the GPA will hurt you and the 30 MCAT will hurt you a lot more than the 4.0 will help you).

IMO, the MCAT score more or less shows your ability to understand the material in med school and GPA shows your relative discipline and dedication. I might be opening a can of worms here, but in my limited experience (from interviewing last year and some of my peers on campus), I noticed that most of the "lower GPA" students come from higher ranked undergraduate institutions.

That might explain why the 3.7s with 36+ MCATs are getting in but not the 4.0 GPA and 30s MCATs. Granted, they may be lying about their scores and it's not too big of a sample size anyway. Just thought it was interesting.

 

[gettheleadout]

Through my experience last year, I found that the most important part of your application is the weakest part of your application.

If your GPA is low, you're going to have to explain that in some way. If your MCAT is low, you're going to have to explain that in some way. I would assume the same goes for ECs and recommendations.

I personally think GPA >> MCAT when the two are roughly close (say 35 and a 3.75 - that 3.75 will hurt you much more than that 35 will help you), but MCAT >> GPA when the discrepancy between GPA and MCAT are huge (say like 40 and 3.5 or 30 and 4.0 - the 40 MCAT will help you more than the GPA will hurt you and the 30 MCAT will hurt you a lot more than the 4.0 will help you).

IMO, the MCAT score more or less shows your ability to understand the material in med school and GPA shows your relative discipline and dedication. I might be opening a can of worms here, but in my limited experience (from interviewing last year and some of my peers on campus), I noticed that most of the "lower GPA" students come from higher ranked undergraduate institutions.

That might explain why the 3.7s with 36+ MCATs are getting in but not the 4.0 GPA and 30s MCATs. Granted, they may be lying about their scores and it's not too big of a sample size anyway. Just thought it was interesting.

Holy MDApps success! Very interesting perspective though.

 

[notbobtrustme]

MCAT has more weight because everyone has to take it. GPA can be fudged, obscured and generally be misleading. How many people here know of peers who took easy professors, easy classes and 14 hours of classes to get the bare minimum done?

Secondly, how can you compare a person who pulls down 21 credits a semester, graduates with two degrees and has a 3.5 vs a person who does 14 hours a semester, one degree and guns for the easy classes to get that 3.8. That's why the MCAT is a much better measure. You can't game the MCAT as much as you can game GPAs.

 

[final1clutch]

^ med. schools don't care about the double major. I just decided to go for it because I am actually interested in it.

The student with the 3.5, 21 hours a semester, double major is MORE likely to burn out while studying for the MCAT and end up with a score in the low 30s than the student with a 3.8, easy classes, one degree, and as a result may do better on the MCAT. Burnout is a bitch. I tried doing research this summer full time and study for the MCAT which is why I ended up with a score in the low 30s. Now with a full course load (20 hours), and doing research at a national/international research institution, studying for the MCAT is really difficult and I am constantly getting burned out.

Regardless of my burnout I am going through every single chapter in TBR. Doing 7 passages per chapter, and I am going to take 14 practice tests (AAMC and Kaplan) before my retake in January. Any chapter where I do not get more than 70% of the questions right on the passages, I am going to reread it and seek out other practice material for it (EK practice problems). Hopefully it works out for the best. Time will tell.

 

[gettheleadout]

MCAT has more weight because everyone has to take it. GPA can be fudged, obscured and generally be misleading. How many people here know of peers who took easy professors, easy classes and 14 hours of classes to get the bare minimum done?

Secondly, how can you compare a person who pulls down 21 credits a semester, graduates with two degrees and has a 3.5 vs a person who does 14 hours a semester, one degree and guns for the easy classes to get that 3.8. That's why the MCAT is a much better measure. You can't game the MCAT as much as you can game GPAs.

So a score from a single 5-hour exam should necessarily outrank a cumulative measure of 3+ years of work?

 

[Nymphicus]

So a score from a single 5-hour exam should necessarily outrank a cumulative measure of 3+ years of work?

who knows but that's how it is....

board scores vs 2 years pre-clinical grades?

 

[anbuitachi]

top 25 med school is difficult even with a 4.0 gpa. I agree MCAT is more important. there are too many with 4.0s. a mcat of 38 or higher would greatly help you get an interview.

 

[gettheleadout]

who knows but that's how it is....

board scores vs 2 years pre-clinical grades?

Ah, but that's not a valid analogy either, because you're not spending your time as a doctor reading from biochem books and taking tests but actually interacting with patients as you do in your third year (and third year evals are very heavily considered in residency selection.)

 

[MilkmanAl]

So a score from a single 5-hour exam should necessarily outrank a cumulative measure of 3+ years of work?

As things are set up now, yes, it should. GPA is just not anywhere near standardized enough to be a useful predictor of anything. The only time you could get any useful information from GPA is if you had a bunch of applicants from the same school who took similar courses. In fairness, that probably happens fairly frequently at state schools (biology major from Major State U), but then how do you compare the rest of the applicants to those people?

 

[IMSingular]

So a score from a single 5-hour exam should necessarily outrank a cumulative measure of 3+ years of work?

May be they should make MCAT four three hour exams, and do away with GPAs altogether. GPA of 3. from schools such as MIT, Caltech may be higher accomplishemnt than 4 from some other schools.

 

[raltima07]

I would say focus on your EC's. I had a solid GPA but a (on SDN) average MCAT, and I would consider myself pretty succcesful this cycle (including that top 25 acceptance). I am not from a top 20 undergrad, or top 50, or top100, but its possible.

Schools have great numbers, but they want interesting people with diverse activities and backgrounds - for me, that is the clincher. I was able to interest them with my activities even with my mediocore grades for their school, and bam, success. Work on your EC's and PS

 

[bluetwosky]

So a score from a single 5-hour exam should necessarily outrank a cumulative measure of 3+ years of work?

3+ years of "work" may consist of basketweaving classes + the basic prereqs for medical school. I'll personally take a 3.7 engineering major with a 38 at a notoriously difficult institution over a 4.0 [insert favorite basketweaving major] with a 33 any day.

If I'm an adcom, I could care less about the "work" an applicant puts in. I care about how he/she will do in medical school, how competitive he/she will be for residency, and how he/she will benefit my school and society at large.

Thus, the 3+ years of work that an applicant puts in to get that 4.0 don't matter at all, if the applicant can't prove that he/she is on the same level as a 3.7 who gets a much high MCAT score. The MCAT compares the applicant to the rest of the nation and thus is a better reflector than GPA of where an applicant stands compared to applicants from other schools. That being said, a person with a high MCAT but low GPA is going to get grief (and a lot of it) because of his/her lack of discipline and inability to consistently perform at a high level.

As I mentioned above, I think that the most important aspect of your application is the weakest portion of your application.

An applicant with perfect ECs, recs, and MCAT will feel that his/her lower GPA prevented him/her from getting into the top schools. An applicant without any ECs will decry the process for overemphasizing non-academic and hard-to-quantify ECs. And obviously, a person with lower MCAT but perfect everything else will curse the fact that a standardized test is used for the admission process.

It's pointless to try to figure out which one aspect is the "most" important. Remember, the adcoms making these decisions are human and thus subjective. Two adcoms might look at the same applicant in completely different ways.

 

[mishaS]

Your MCAT and the fact that you aren't published will hold you back far more than a 3.7.

 

[gettheleadout]

3+ years of "work" may consist of basketweaving classes + the basic prereqs for medical school. I'll personally take a 3.7 engineering major with a 38 at a notoriously difficult institution over a 4.0 [insert favorite basketweaving major] with a 33 any day.

If I'm an adcom, I could care less about the "work" an applicant puts in. I care about how he/she will do in medical school, how competitive he/she will be for residency, and how he/she will benefit my school and society at large.

Thus, the 3+ years of work that an applicant puts in to get that 4.0 don't matter at all, if the applicant can't prove that he/she is on the same level as a 3.7 who gets a much high MCAT score. The MCAT compares the applicant to the rest of the nation and thus is a better reflector than GPA of where an applicant stands compared to applicants from other schools. That being said, a person with a high MCAT but low GPA is going to get grief (and a lot of it) because of his/her lack of discipline and inability to consistently perform at a high level.

As I mentioned above, I think that the most important aspect of your application is the weakest portion of your application.

An applicant with perfect ECs, recs, and MCAT will feel that his/her lower GPA prevented him/her from getting into the top schools. An applicant without any ECs will decry the process for overemphasizing non-academic and hard-to-quantify ECs. And obviously, a person with lower MCAT but perfect everything else will curse the fact that a standardized test is used for the admission process.

It's pointless to try to figure out which one aspect is the "most" important. Remember, the adcoms making these decisions are human and thus subjective. Two adcoms might look at the same applicant in completely different ways.

But that's such an unfair comparison! A 3.7 (at a notoriously difficult institution no less) and a 38 vs a 4.0 and a 33? The jump from 3.7 (which likely to be perceived as deflated) to 4.0 is far less than 33 to 38. What if it was a 3.4 (at a non-inflationary/deflationary school) and a 38 vs a 4.0 and a 33? Also, how are you going to predict an applicants performance in medical school (where you undoubtedly do a lot of work) without taking a measure of their work ethic into account at least somewhat? Note that I never claimed that GPA should outweigh MCAT, I just don't buy that the MCAT is always more important. In this I agree with your point about the most important part of your app being the weakest.

 

[bluetwosky]

But that's such an unfair comparison! A 3.7 (at a notoriously difficult institution no less) and a 33 vs a 4.0 and a 38? The jump from 3.7 (which likely to be perceived as deflated) to 4.0 is far less than 33 to 38. What if it was a 3.4 (at a non-inflationary/deflationary school) and a 38 vs a 4.0 and a 33? Also, how are you going to predict an applicants performance in medical school (where you undoubtedly do a lot of work) without taking a measure of their work ethic into account at least somewhat? Note that I never claimed that GPA should outweigh MCAT, I just don't buy that the MCAT is always more important. In this I agree with your point about the most important part of your app being the weakest.

33 vs 38 is not THAT much of a difference...33 is still a very high score...

4.0 = perfect GPA and thus way way above average
38 = perfect MCAT for all practical purposes

3.7 is slightly above average for GPA (~3.65 = average for accepted students)
33 is above average for MCAT (average is 28 for applicants, and 30-31 for accepted students)

Numbers-wise, a 4.0/33 applicant should have a small edge over the 3.7/38. But I think most people would intuitively agree that the 3.7/38 is more likely to get an acceptance at a "top" school, whatever that means.

Obviously, a 3.4/38 applicant won't get much success at top schools, because that 3.4 "shows" a serious lack of "discipline," "focus," "drive," or whatever that can't be made up by the "potential" that the applicant's MCAT "shows." The 4.0/33 would probably have a better shot all else being equal. Personally, I would still take the 3.4/38 over the 4.0/33 because I think a good GPA should be worth less than the trash I just threw out, but I'm not an adcom and I admit I'm really biased against GPA.

Yes, GPA matters a lot. If you asked me this time of the year last year, then I would have told you without any hesitation that GPA mattered more than MCAT. Honestly, I STILL feel that GPA mattered more in the process despite everything I wrote up in my posts. Last year, a couple of my interviewers at schools that shall remained unmentioned gave me grief about having a "low" sGPA. But again, that was probably a product of sGPA being the weakest part of my application.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Ah, but that's not a valid analogy either, because you're not spending your time as a doctor reading from biochem books and taking tests but actually interacting with patients as you do in your third year (and third year evals are very heavily considered in residency selection.)

boards are more important

 

[MilkmanAl]

Also, the evals aren't really that important, in and of themselves. Your third year grades, however, are.

 

[gettheleadout]

boards are more important

Right, but I mentioned 3rd year evals because the initial comparison was between board scores and preclinical grades.

Also, the evals aren't really that important, in and of themselves. Your third year grades, however, are.

Sorry, that's what I meant. I was thinking of the Honors/High Pass/Pass/Fail designations, which I guess are indeed grades lol.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Right, but I mentioned 3rd year evals because the initial comparison was between board scores and preclinical grades. Both are important.

Sorry, that's what I meant.

right, but my point is that the boards are more important, at least from what i've learned.

 

[gettheleadout]

right, but my point is that the boards are more important, at least from what i've learned.

I don't disagree! When I mentioned third year evals (intending to mean grades) I was simply responding to the comparison of board scores vs preclinicals, which is obviously one-sided toward boards. I'm simply saying there is a better comparison in boards vs third year grades.

 

[gettheleadout]

33 vs 38 is not THAT much of a difference...33 is still a very high score...

4.0 = perfect GPA and thus way way above average
38 = perfect MCAT for all practical purposes

3.7 is slightly above average for GPA (~3.65 = average for accepted students)
33 is above average for MCAT (average is 28 for applicants, and 30-31 for accepted students)

Numbers-wise, a 4.0/33 applicant should have a small edge over the 3.7/38. But I think most people would intuitively agree that the 3.7/38 is more likely to get an acceptance at a "top" school, whatever that means.

Obviously, a 3.4/38 applicant won't get much success at top schools, because that 3.4 "shows" a serious lack of "discipline," "focus," "drive," or whatever that can't be made up by the "potential" that the applicant's MCAT "shows." The 4.0/33 would probably have a better shot all else being equal. Personally, I would still take the 3.4/38 over the 4.0/33 because I think a good GPA should be worth less than the trash I just threw out, but I'm not an adcom and I admit I'm really biased against GPA.

I disagree that a 33 and a 38 are that close. A 33 is ~2 points above the matriculant average, while a 38 is ~7 points above. Likewise, for many top schools a 33 is a ways below 50th percentile, while a 38 is near or above 75th.

I don't think there's necessarily a clear-cut answer between the 4.0/33 and 3.7/38, though I would definitely argue the 4.0/33 would have a better shot than the 3.4/38 for the reason you said. I'd be interested to know where the line is in reviewers' minds for a GPA that is too low to be made up for by a "strong" MCAT. Again though, I'm not arguing for a specific guideline in determining this, I'm just arguing against a steadfast one in general.

 

[candav]

Coming from a Canadian undergrad, I've always seen the MCAT as something that "legitimizes" my GPA. Although there certainly are people from my institution who apply to American medical schools, their numbers aren't huge, and I'm guessing most adcoms have only a vague understanding of what a 4.0 means at my school. Having a high MCAT in this situation proves that, no, I didn't just breeze through college with a high GPA because my school was easy.

 

[gettheleadout]

Coming from a Canadian undergrad, I've always seen the MCAT as something that "legitimizes" my GPA. Although there certainly are people from my institution who apply to American medical schools, their numbers aren't huge, and I'm guessing most adcoms have only a vague understanding of what a 4.0 means at my school. Having a high MCAT in this situation proves that, no, I didn't just breeze through college with a high GPA because my school was easy.

No it doesn't, it just proves you're intelligent in addition to performing well academically. Your school could still have been easy.

 

[Danlee07]

So a score from a single 5-hour exam should necessarily outrank a cumulative measure of 3+ years of work?

you mean a score from a single 5 hour exam that covered your 3+ years of work? It's not like it's not logical... and the material is standardized for whatever school you're from. So a way to test it is to have a standardized test. Same thing as asking "Why does a single exam, Step 1, have such a large factor into residency?"

aside from that, there's a reason GPA doesn't matter as much. For my school, there are predominantly biology majors who memorize old exams and powerpoint slides to regurgitate on the exam and completely forget everything afterwards; some have 3.9/4.0. Others actually learn the material and are able to explain questions and think logically about why things happen and have a 3.7 or lower. They just really don't care to answer, "What is the deltaG for the reaction of pyruvate to oxaloacetate?" They'd definitely know why it was high or low and its implications... ask the same 4.0 person that. Thats what these standardized exams are supposed to do.

 

[gettheleadout]

you mean a score from a single 5 hour exam that covered your 3+ years of work? It's not like it's not logical... and the material is standardized for whatever school you're from. So a way to test it is to have a standardized test. Same thing as asking "Why does a single exam, Step 1, have such a large factor into residency?"

aside from that, there's a reason GPA doesn't matter as much. For my school, there are predominantly biology majors who memorize old exams and powerpoint slides to regurgitate on the exam and completely forget everything afterwards; some have 3.9/4.0. Others actually learn the material and are able to explain questions and think logically about why things happen and have a 3.7 or lower. They just really don't care to answer, "What is the deltaG for the reaction of pyruvate to oxaloacetate?" They'd definitely know why it was high or low and its implications... ask the same 4.0 person that. Thats what these standardized exams are supposed to do.

There's no reason why someone who truly understands material should have a lower grade when tested on it than someone who memorizes without really learning. If they "don't care to answer" something on a test they will face the consequences of limiting their thinking as such. The idea that there is some trend where GPA is biased towards less intelligent people in totally unfounded, IMO. If the person with the better understanding has the lower GPA in the same courses as someone with poorer understanding and they have the attitude you've described, that's their own fault.

 

[Danlee07]

There's every reason for someone who understands to have a lower grade; and what I meant by the quote you used is that memorization of that value will not be as highly regarded as the meaning of it,so the value will eventually be forgotten but the meaning will not. I'm not sure you realize the logic you're saying... of course, it's their own fault. That's why there's an exam for that very reason. It's more about properly and efficiently learning and not just cramming and memorizing everything for an exam. Just think about that, and you'll see the reason behind why you have to comprehend and read so much on the MCAT.

 

[gettheleadout]

There's every reason for someone who understands to have a lower grade; and what I meant by the quote you used is that memorization of that value will not be as highly regarded as the meaning of it,so the value will eventually be forgotten but the meaning will not. I'm not sure you realize the logic you're saying... of course, it's their own fault. That's why there's an exam for that very reason. It's more about properly and efficiently learning and not just cramming and memorizing everything for an exam. Just think about that, and you'll see the reason behind why you have to comprehend and read so much on the MCAT.

I don't understand how that's relevant though; medical school requires a combination of memorization (names of anatomical structures, terms, etc...) and understanding (pathophysiology, clinical diagnosis, etc...) so why should undergrads not be expected to do both? You're defending someone who chooses to understand the material but not memorize things he/she is going to be responsible for knowing, and the truth is they're just as bad as the person who only memorizes and doesn't understand. Yeah, maybe the person who only memorizes will do worse on the MCAT, but the person who understands and half-asses the memorization will get a worse grade in the course. Neither is commendable, because neither is taking full responsibility for mastering the material they are expected to.

I understand that the MCAT is a critical thinking exam because critical thinking is a necessary skill for a physician, but you can't get through it on critical thinking alone. I disagree with your premise that part of the supposed reasoning behind GPA carrying less weight is that students who eschew memorization in favor of understanding get a chance to redeem themselves on the MCAT. Yes, a 3.9-4.0 student who gets a 26 on the MCAT has a weakness revealed, and though a 3.7/40 would likely have a better shot, it's not due to some implication that they didn't memorize what they needed to for their course exams. The idea is that, by everyone's admission, schools and courses are not created equal, and some people may have more difficult instructors and testing/grading schemes. As you know, the MCAT is used as an equalizer because of this, but not because the system is somehow unfair toward people who aim for understanding and eschew memorization. If you don't do both when you need to in order to get A's, you're not owed some chance to make up for that on the MCAT, you're just as irresponsible as the memorizer for not doing what you needed to succeed.

 

[Danlee07]

It's relevant because I'm going by the premise that the MCAT requires basic concept mastery, not details to get at least 10s on the science sections; am I right on this premise? So, a student who can still make the same grade, an A in a higher level course which the 65-70% average is set to a B- on the curve, as the one with details. And it comes down to the fact that MCAT tests thinking ability in context, which is why it's regarded as the most difficult graduate school exam. Why do you think someone is supposedly a "more difficult teacher"? The answer refers back to my point...the MCAT is a chance for anyone to show ability.

 

[gettheleadout]

It's relevant because I'm going by the premise that the MCAT requires basic concept mastery, not details to get at least 10s on the science sections; am I right on this premise? So, a student who can still make the same grade, an A in a higher level course which the 65-70% average is set to a B- on the curve, as the one with details. And it comes down to the fact that MCAT tests thinking ability in context, which is why it's regarded as the most difficult graduate school exam. Why do you think someone is supposedly a "more difficult teacher"? The answer refers back to my point...the MCAT is a chance for anyone to show ability.

Right but you were defending the use of the MCAT as an equalizer for GPA unreliability because students that go for understanding as opposed to memorization are at a disadvantage and thus are owed a chance to demonstrate ability. I disagree that the "understanding" learners are any better students in the scenario you presented and would emphasize what you said yourself, that the MCAT is a chance for anyone to show ability. You appeared to be biasing this premise toward people who didn't do as well in courses because they didn't make themselves detail-oriented students in the course. I don't think these students are any more deserving of an equalizer than those that just memorized all the details and got A's without understanding the concepts.

 

[notbobtrustme]

^ med. schools don't care about the double major. I just decided to go for it because I am actually interested in it.

The student with the 3.5, 21 hours a semester, double major is MORE likely to burn out while studying for the MCAT and end up with a score in the low 30s than the student with a 3.8, easy classes, one degree, and as a result may do better on the MCAT. Burnout is a bitch. I tried doing research this summer full time and study for the MCAT which is why I ended up with a score in the low 30s. Now with a full course load (20 hours), and doing research at a national/international research institution, studying for the MCAT is really difficult and I am constantly getting burned out.

Regardless of my burnout I am going through every single chapter in TBR. Doing 7 passages per chapter, and I am going to take 14 practice tests (AAMC and Kaplan) before my retake in January. Any chapter where I do not get more than 70% of the questions right on the passages, I am going to reread it and seek out other practice material for it (EK practice problems). Hopefully it works out for the best. Time will tell.

You didn't understand what I was typing. Your comments about burnout don't apply to what I was saying because I never addressed that.

What I was trying to convey was that you can't really quantify GPA as well as you can the MCAT. You can ask anyone at any university how to game the system (eg this professor, this class, etc etc). You can't really do that with the MCAT especially because of the passage based assessment. You can memorize the kinematic equations all you want but if you can't dissect a passage to actually use the equations, then your knowledge won't help too much.

 

[Danlee07]

Not because students are at a disadvantage, but that they should be considered similar so a chance to demonstrate ability in the MCAT is necessary. There isn't a huge difference in grades. It's not like I'm talking about A and B- (average) but more like As, A-s, B+s; that's around a 3.7 or 3.75 that mastered material. Learning by rote or concept, knowing more details will only help for the MCAT but the exam gives anyone a chance to show mastery; the material on there is an accumulation of everything you learned, so really, you've been preparing for multiple years so it's not just a single exam that trumps years of work.