GPA Rumor

[science_boy]

heres the issue with many of the "top-tier" schools (like Cornell, where I'm from)
The quality of the students is very high. So a test that would be a 50 mean at a local college might have a mean of 80 there, thus screwing over people's grades, since evrything is still graded on a curve. Also, by the time you hit soph and junior year, only the cream of the premed crop is left....the rest have dropped out to business majors, and are no longer there to lower the curve. But the means are still in the B's. Except now, everybody in the class is a very comptetive premed who probably broke 30 on the mcats, does research, and put time into clinical work. These are all tier-1 calibur students, but only about 30% will get tier-1 calibur grades in the class. Thats why we need our grades boosted; not because of low means, and not because our classes are tougher (which they probably are), but because the competition drives down our curved grade.

I thought Cornell didn't have the reputation for having high grade inflation. I was mainly talking about schools like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford (I heard you can even drop a class after taking the final in Stanford, if this is true, then it's a big advantage for those students). If adcoms give students a boost for being in a more prestigious school, then there shouldn't be any grade inflation so the same number of grades should be given out but you get the "bonus" of going to a tougher school. And yet another thing, is that other prestigious schools like MIT, CalTech, and Berkeley have grade deflation whereas some of the ivy league schools have grade inflation. I really don't think the student body level of those ivy league schools is much higher than that of a school like MIT. Yet students in MIT have a harder time achieving these higher GPAs than students of those ivy league schools. So I'm guessing that you're going to say that students at Harvard are more "qualified"" so they should benefit from a more generous curve whereas students at MIT shouldn't? That's why I think med schools should account for the difficulty level of school rather than just giving automatic bonus points to those who go to those prestigious schools.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lilmissfickle]

But don't you think coming out on top of an ocean (top-tier school) deserves some credit when compared to surviving a lake (lower-tier school).

Of course! That's exactly what I'm saying. The whole 'point' of a school having prestige is that everyone knows exactly how hard it is to compete with a bunch of incredible students and still come out on top! But if the school inflates grades, then you lose some of that prestige aspect -- your A just isn't all that special anymore.

That's why I have such huge respect for MIT, because I know from a close friend just how incredibly hard it is to pull off As there....to me, MIT is pretty much as prestigious as it gets.

 

[iceman77_7]

Stanford (I heard you can even drop a class after taking the final in Stanford, if this is true, then it's a big advantage for those students).

As a Stanford student, I can tell you that this is totally and utterly false. This was an option until 1995, but it has long since changed. The drop deadline is now around week 4 of the quarter, well before the second wave of midterms and finals.

 

[solitude]

The jealousy and ignorance that have been spewed forth on this thread is disgusting. I can't believe that some of the posters are making generalized comments about top schools simply because they have a friend of a friend that goes to XYZ and he says yadda yadda. There are others on this forum that attend top schools and their comments about the top schools should be regarded as more accurate. For example, I have discussed this issue with friends from high school at every single top-10 USNews school, as well as with friends at state schools. I also have taken a number of classes at a highly-regarded state school while I was in high school. From discussions with my parents and multiple friends' parents who are on the adcom of a top-25 medical school, I can tell you that more prestigious undergrads are more highly regarded in the application process, and this is reflected in the admissions process. The exact boost that students from these undergrads receive is not quantifiable, and varies considerably depending on the reviewer, the actual undergrad, and the medical school. This is the truth, and I don't want to hear another schmoe make some garbage claim with no first-hand knowledge. The bottom line is that for whatever reasons, some of us chose to obtain the best education possible, and some of us didn't. We can both whine about the effects of our decisions until we're blue in the face, or we can all shut up, apply to medical school, and see what happens.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

The jealousy and ignorance that have been spewed forth on this thread is disgusting. I can't believe that some of the posters are making generalized comments about top schools simply because they have a friend of a friend that goes to XYZ and he says yadda yadda. There are others on this forum that attend top schools and their comments about the top schools should be regarded as more accurate. For example, I have discussed this issue with friends from high school at every single top-10 USNews school, as well as with friends at state schools. I also have taken a number of classes at a highly-regarded state school while I was in high school. From discussions with my parents and multiple friends' parents who are on the adcom of a top-25 medical school, I can tell you that more prestigious undergrads are more highly regarded in the application process, and this is reflected in the admissions process. The exact boost that students from these undergrads receive is not quantifiable, and varies considerably depending on the reviewer, the actual undergrad, and the medical school. This is the truth, and I don't want to hear another schmoe make some garbage claim with no first-hand knowledge. The bottom line is that for whatever reasons, some of us chose to obtain the best education possible, and some of us didn't. We can both whine about the effects of our decisions until we're blue in the face, or we can all shut up, apply to medical school, and see what happens.

The kids from the top schools are more highly regarded by the ADCOMS because they are usually smarter, more motivated, and more of the "gunner" type to begin with (How do you think you get into Harvard as an undergrad?)

 

[zach1201]

Amen brother.

But back to my original question that started this post. Do some schools take going to a top-tier school into consideration and "reward" extra points or do they take it into consideration. I've heard from an admissions officer for one school that they add .1 to GPAs from top tier schools.

And Cornell doesn't have much grade inflation, especially in the prerequisite science course (e.g. Bio 101/103).

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Amen brother.

But back to my original question that started this post. Do some schools take going to a top-tier school into consideration and "reward" extra points or do they take it into consideration. I've heard from an admissions officer for one school that they add .1 to GPAs from top tier schools.

And Cornell doesn't have much grade inflation, especially in the prerequisite science course (e.g. Bio 101/103).

I have no idea, but I wonder if they will tell you if you call the school? I would have no doubt that some might do it.

 

[solitude]

The kids from the top schools are more highly regarded by the ADCOMS because they are usually smarter, more motivated, and more of the "gunner" type to begin with (How do you think you get into Harvard as an undergrad?)

Did you read my post? Never did I assert WHY kids from the top schools are more highly regarded by adcoms. In fact I do agree that kids from top schools are indeed usually smarter, more motivated, and more of the "gunner" type to begin with (yes, I know how to get into Harvard as an undergrad). I do not necessarily agree that this is the reason that they are more highly regarded. I think it is a combination of habit, prejudice, personal loyalty, and recognition that it is more difficult at top schools to attain good grades, thus reflecting intelligence, motivation, and the ineffable "gunner" quality that reflect on one's ability to become a successful physician.

Again, most people on this forum really have no idea what they are talking about with regards to adcoms, and their ignorant speculations about whether courses "really are more difficult" at top schools is futile. There is a boost given to students from top undergrads. Get over it.

 

[solitude]

Amen brother.

But back to my original question that started this post. Do some schools take going to a top-tier school into consideration and "reward" extra points or do they take it into consideration. I've heard from an admissions officer for one school that they add .1 to GPAs from top tier schools.

And Cornell doesn't have much grade inflation, especially in the prerequisite science course (e.g. Bio 101/103).

In actually awarding admission (it is often different in deciding to offer interviews), most schools make a much more holistic assessment of your application that renders such objective "GPA boosts" meaningless. Therefore, the answer to your question is "take it into consideration".

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Did you read my post? Never did I assert WHY kids from the top schools are more highly regarded by adcoms. In fact I do agree that kids from top schools are indeed usually smarter, more motivated, and more of the "gunner" type to begin with (yes, I know how to get into Harvard as an undergrad). I do not necessarily agree that this is the reason that they are more highly regarded. I think it is a combination of habit, prejudice, personal loyalty, and recognition that it is more difficult at top schools to attain good grades, thus reflecting intelligence, motivation, and the ineffable "gunner" quality that reflect on one's ability to become a successful physician.

Again, most people on this forum really have no idea what they are talking about with regards to adcoms, and their ignorant speculations about whether courses "really are more difficult" at top schools is futile. There is a boost given to students from top undergrads. Get over it.

But what if you have no idea what your talking about?

Unless your on an adcom or was the creator of all adcoms, you don't know any better than we do really

 

[ahumdinger]

(How do you think you get into Harvard as an undergrad?)

The MCAT should be treated like the GPA: if you make the mean (27) it should be like you got a C. It annoys me how schools give a clear go-ahead for students with a 3.7 but a <30 MCAT but shun the students with a 3.4 and 35+ MCAT scores ('cause THAT discrepancy certainly cannot be justified, but the former is, quite easily).

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

The MCAT should be treated like the GPA: if you make the mean (27) it should be like you got a C. It annoys me how schools give a clear go-ahead for students with a 3.7 but a <30 MCAT but shun the students with a 3.4 and 35+ MCAT scores ('cause THAT discrepancy certainly cannot be justified, but the former is, quite easily).

trust me, people with a 3.4 and a 35+ MCAT do not get shunned

people with a 3.4 and 27 MCAT dont even get shunned

 

[ahumdinger]

trust me, people with a 3.4 and a 35+ MCAT do not get shunned

people with a 3.4 and 27 MCAT dont even get shunned

if 3.4 was an overall GPA, fine, but if you have the deadly 3.0 or lower (which, I might remind you, 3.0 is a C average) forget about it! Those interviews will be few and far between.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

if 3.4 was an overall GPA, fine, but if you have the deadly 3.0 or lower (which, I might remind you, 3.0 is a C average) forget about it! Those interviews will be few and far between.

A 3.0 is actually a B average at most schools.

Most schools go

A=4.0
B=3.0
C=2.0
D=1.0
F=0.0

 

[ahumdinger]

A 3.0 is actually a B average at most schools.

Most schools go

A=4.0
B=3.0
C=2.0
D=1.0
F=0.0

thanks I was just going to correct myself. this makes it even worse. a B average GPA is the kiss of death and a 27 MCAT gets the red carpet.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

thanks I was just going to correct myself. this makes it even worse. a B average GPA is the kiss of death and a 27 MCAT gets the red carpet.

I wouldn't call it a kiss of death....you got in with a bcpm of 2.95! (congrats by the way ) Then again, you rocked the MCAT to make up for it.

 

[iceman77_7]

thanks I was just going to correct myself. this makes it even worse. a B average GPA is the kiss of death and a 27 MCAT gets the red carpet.

I've got numbers similar to yours and seeing you at a good med school like UW makes me think that I have a chance! Good luck next year!

 

[velo]

But back to my original question that started this post. Do some schools take going to a top-tier school into consideration and "reward" extra points or do they take it into consideration. I've heard from an admissions officer for one school that they add .1 to GPAs from top tier schools.

No, that would be stupid, you'd end up adding an extra 0.1 to the already inflated GPAs of all those Harvard grads (sorry to single them out. Many, if not most, schools suffer from grade inflation).

The equitable thing to do would be to research which schools are earnestly fighting grade inflation and add some factor to normalize their GPAs to the GPAs of the grade-inflating schools.

 

[ahumdinger]

I wouldn't call it a kiss of death....you got in with a bcpm of 2.95! (congrats by the way ) Then again, you rocked the MCAT to make up for it.

I was just posting this on the "Applicants applying with 3.3 or lower": I was INCREDIBLY lucky in my application cycle. With 17 (or was it 18?) applications out, I only netted 3 interviews, all of them at places where I had some special connection or being in-state. I didn't apply to any bottom of the rung schools or DOs because I thought my MCAT was strong enough to disprove any opinions about my GPA, but I found myself with a nice collection of 15 rejection letters (all pre-interview). I rocked the 3 interviews I did get, but I really felt that I wasn't given a chance to interview because of my GPA. For example, SLU didn't even give me the time of day, and I'm from st. louis! (i know that shouldn't matter for a private school, but it often helps for st. louis because no one wants to come here) Anyway, I'm ranting because I feel for the berkeleys and cornells out there who sometime wish they had just gone to WashU. (not to rag on the WashU undergrad, but it's the only other place where I've taken science classes, and frankly, it's a joke).

 

[STIG]

The way I see is that it doesnt really matter as long as the GPA agrees with your MCAT score. They know something is up when you have 4.0 but 22 on MCAT.

Just my 2% of a dollar.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

I was just posting this on the "Applicants applying with 3.3 or lower": I was INCREDIBLY lucky in my application cycle. With 17 (or was it 18?) applications out, I only netted 3 interviews, all of them at places where I had some special connection or being in-state. I didn't apply to any bottom of the rung schools or DOs because I thought my MCAT was strong enough to disprove any opinions about my GPA, but I found myself with a nice collection of 15 rejection letters (all pre-interview). I rocked the 3 interviews I did get, but I really felt that I wasn't given a chance to interview because of my GPA. For example, SLU didn't even give me the time of day, and I'm from st. louis! (i know that shouldn't matter for a private school, but it often helps for st. louis because no one wants to come here) Anyway, I'm ranting because I feel for the berkeleys and cornells out there who sometime wish they had just gone to WashU. (not to rag on the WashU undergrad, but it's the only other place where I've taken science classes, and frankly, it's a joke).

maybe a lot of schools simply "filtered out" your application because your science gpa was below 3.0. In that case, maybe you are right about the kiss of death thing. Obviously not all schools do this.

You would agree though, that the high MCAT lower gpa combo is generally better than the low MCAT high gpa combo, right?

 

[ahumdinger]

maybe a lot of schools simply "filtered out" your application because your science gpa was below 3.0. In that case, maybe you are right about the kiss of death thing. Obviously not all schools do this.

You would agree though, that the high MCAT lower gpa combo is generally better than the low MCAT high gpa combo, right?

Actually I wouldn't agree with that, precisely because of the filtering system. a high MCAT/low GPA combo is much more likely to be filtered out than the low MCAT/high GPA. It is true that many schools filter MCAT scores too. I don't know what the cut off is, but it certainly isn't equivalent to the GPA cut off (of, let's say, 3.0). And that's precisely the crux of my argument, that the average MCAT score of 27 is not considered a "lost cause" but a straight-B record is. If you look through these forums, no one is embarassed to say they got a 27, or even 30, MCAT. But we have threads dedicated to GPAs below 3.3 because they are considered the true underdogs.

 

[Rafa]

Actually I wouldn't agree with that, precisely because of the filtering system. a high MCAT/low GPA combo is much more likely to be filtered out than the low MCAT/high GPA. It is true that many schools filter MCAT scores too. I don't know what the cut off is, but it certainly isn't equivalent to the GPA cut off (of, let's say, 3.0). And that's precisely the crux of my argument, that the average MCAT score of 27 is not considered a "lost cause" but a straight-B record is. If you look through these forums, no one is embarassed to say they got a 27, or even 30, MCAT. But we have threads dedicated to GPAs below 3.3 because they are considered the true underdogs.

Bingo.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Actually I wouldn't agree with that, precisely because of the filtering system. a high MCAT/low GPA combo is much more likely to be filtered out than the low MCAT/high GPA. It is true that many schools filter MCAT scores too. I don't know what the cut off is, but it certainly isn't equivalent to the GPA cut off (of, let's say, 3.0). And that's precisely the crux of my argument, that the average MCAT score of 27 is not considered a "lost cause" but a straight-B record is. If you look through these forums, no one is embarassed to say they got a 27, or even 30, MCAT. But we have threads dedicated to GPAs below 3.3 because they are considered the true underdogs.

its an interesting view, only because i know the AAMC has published studies proving that MCAT is a much stronger indicator of med school success than GPA

 

[velo]

its an interesting view, only because i know the AAMC has published studies proving that MCAT is a much stronger indicator of med school success than GPA

Who said the adcom filters made sense? Your point is just proof that the GPA cut-offs are silly, especially considering the fact that comparing GPAs of applicants from two different schools can be a real apples v oranges affair.

The MCAT is at least standardized and tests skills needed in medical school.

 

[zach1201]

No, that would be stupid, you'd end up adding an extra 0.1 to the already inflated GPAs of all those Harvard grads (sorry to single them out. Many, if not most, schools suffer from grade inflation).

The equitable thing to do would be to research which schools are earnestly fighting grade inflation and add some factor to normalize their GPAs to the GPAs of the grade-inflating schools.

I'd think that ADCOMS would know which schools impliment grade inflation.


To make a point here are two tables compiled by two different universities of students accepted to medical schools.

Cornell

University of Michigan

Keeping all things the same between applicants (which isn't true) people from a higher tier school like Cornell with roughly the same GPA and MCAT scores (there is a range obviously) were accepted at a higher rate than UMich. There are mitigating factors such as research, EC, LOR, etc... but this may quantifiably show the point people are trying to make.

P.S. I do realize that sample sizes are different and there are a bunch of other mitigating factors. Don't be so damn picky!

 

[velo]

Keeping all things the same between applicants (which isn't true) people from a higher tier school like Cornell with roughly the same GPA and MCAT scores (there is a range obviously) were accepted at a higher rate than UMich. There are mitigating factors such as research, EC, LOR, etc... but this may quantifiably show the point people are trying to make.

I hardly think that proves that they literally add points to the GPA of the Cornell kids. Like you said, there are LORs/research/ECs to consider, not to mention the fact that post-interview the acceptance process can get very subjective and at that point the schools "reputation" might start to have an impact. The example you gave was Ivy League vs. Big Ten. No real contest about academic reputation there (and before I get flamed I'm a grad of a Big Ten ugrad).

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

I'd think that ADCOMS would know which schools impliment grade inflation.


To make a point here are two tables compiled by two different universities of students accepted to medical schools.

Cornell

University of Michigan

Keeping all things the same between applicants (which isn't true) people from a higher tier school like Cornell with roughly the same GPA and MCAT scores (there is a range obviously) were accepted at a higher rate than UMich. There are mitigating factors such as research, EC, LOR, etc... but this may quantifiably show the point people are trying to make.

P.S. I do realize that sample sizes are different and there are a bunch of other mitigating factors. Don't be so damn picky!

cornell and michigan are both good schools, i'm not sure you can call either one "better" than the other....they are def in the same tier (as much as I hate michigan )

 

[Rafa]

cornell and michigan are both good schools, i'm not sure you can call either one "better" than the other....they are def in the same tier (as much as I hate michigan )

Cornell is tougher.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Cornell is tougher.

I went to both, I thought Michigan was harder

 

[zach1201]

It's hard to find data, but if you look at the overall numbers, there is a rather large difference for people with 3.4+ GPA and 30+ MCAT between the two schools. I would assume that the gap is even larger for lower tier schools, but you know what they say about assuming...

I wasn't trying to prove that points are added. Merely the fact that kids that achieve the same GPA (or in the same range) from an upper-tier school like Cornell when compared to a lower-tier school holds more weight in the medical school process.


Again, it's not that good of a sample to draw conclusions from, but it's good for discussion!

 

[velo]

I wasn't trying to prove that points are added. Merely the fact that kids that achieve the same GPA (or in the same range) from an upper-tier school like Cornell when compared to a lower-tier school holds more weight in the medical school process.

I see, I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know what your position has been. My post was in response to someone who felt that points were added to the GPA of applicants from "top-tier" ugrads.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

It's hard to find data, but if you look at the overall numbers, there is a rather large difference for people with 3.4+ GPA and 30+ MCAT between the two schools. I would assume that the gap is even larger for lower tier schools, but you know what they say about assuming...

I wasn't trying to prove that points are added. Merely the fact that kids that achieve the same GPA (or in the same range) from an upper-tier school like Cornell when compared to a lower-tier school holds more weight in the medical school process.


Again, it's not that good of a sample to draw conclusions from, but it's good for discussion!

i see what your saying, but cornell vs michigan is a horrible comparison....they are virtually the same level of "prestige"

a better comparison would be something like, Cornell vs. SUNY Buffalo (or something similar)

 

[solitude]

But what if you have no idea what your talking about?

Unless your on an adcom or was the creator of all adcoms, you don't know any better than we do really

Dude are you a frickin *****? Did you actually read my posts, or do you just ignore the posts and then type the next idiotic thing that comes to mind? Maybe there is a reason that applicants like you don't get a boost in the admissions process: because they can't read, feign triumph, and continue to debate trivial issues ad nauseum.

P.S. nice grammar and syntax.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Dude are you a frickin *****? Did you actually read my posts, or do you just ignore the posts and then type the next idiotic thing that comes to mind? Maybe there is a reason that applicants like you don't get a boost in the admissions process: because they can't read, feign triumph, and continue to debate trivial issues ad nauseum.

P.S. nice grammar and syntax.

actually I didn't read any of your other posts and don't plan on reading them. They are long/ranting/whiny/and bitchy.

No, I hate reading posts like that.

 

[ahumdinger]

oh great, now you two will fight and people will stop reading and posting interesting things on this thread.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

What is that in your avatar?

 

[science_boy]

The jealousy and ignorance that have been spewed forth on this thread is disgusting. I can't believe that some of the posters are making generalized comments about top schools simply because they have a friend of a friend that goes to XYZ and he says yadda yadda. There are others on this forum that attend top schools and their comments about the top schools should be regarded as more accurate. For example, I have discussed this issue with friends from high school at every single top-10 USNews school, as well as with friends at state schools. I also have taken a number of classes at a highly-regarded state school while I was in high school. From discussions with my parents and multiple friends' parents who are on the adcom of a top-25 medical school, I can tell you that more prestigious undergrads are more highly regarded in the application process, and this is reflected in the admissions process. The exact boost that students from these undergrads receive is not quantifiable, and varies considerably depending on the reviewer, the actual undergrad, and the medical school. This is the truth, and I don't want to hear another schmoe make some garbage claim with no first-hand knowledge. The bottom line is that for whatever reasons, some of us chose to obtain the best education possible, and some of us didn't. We can both whine about the effects of our decisions until we're blue in the face, or we can all shut up, apply to medical school, and see what happens.

Except I attend a school that is considered "prestigious", just not Harvard, Stanford or Yale. I'm not trying to compare some random state school in the middle of nowhere to Harvard. The supposed grade inflation of ivy league schools get balanced out by a supposed "lower quality" of the general student body at a state school. But how about if you compare a school with prestige such as MIT, a school known to have grade deflation, with an ivy league school with grade inflation? The students in both schools are roughly the same level when it comes to "quality", but why is that students of one school have lower GPAs than students of the other school? Should med schools account this discrepancy, or should they just give the same "bonus" points to both schools?

This is the truth, and I don't want to hear another schmoe make some garbage claim with no first-hand knowledge. The bottom line is that for whatever reasons, some of us chose to obtain the best education possible, and some of us didn't. We can both whine about the effects of our decisions until we're blue in the face, or we can all shut up, apply to medical school, and see what happens.

You know, you don't HAVE to read this thread.

 

[Rafa]

But how about if you compare a school with prestige such as MIT, a school known to have grade deflation, with an ivy league school with grade inflation? The students in both schools are roughly the same level when it comes to "quality", but why is that students of one school have lower GPAs than students of the other school? Should med schools account this discrepancy, or should they just give the same "bonus" points to both schools?

From what I've heard, in these situations (a la MIT vs. its Ivy neighbor Harvard), "top" med schools do take into account precisely where students earn their grades, because they're more aware of the curiccula of said schools. In the example above, some pre-med students at MIT regularly take the occassional pre-req at Harvard simply because it's so much easier to get an A in the course there than at MIT. This doesn't necessarily mean that H is the "A" bank of Cambridge. But it does reflect on the striking difference in difficulties of the two schools. A student who scores a B in Orgo I at the Institute is usually a student who'd have scored an A if s/he'd had the time or foresight to take the class at the other school on Mass. Ave. That said, where you go to school is where you go to school. In the example above, I don't think the increased difficulty of MIT trumps the name and generally slightly higher GPA of a Harvard premed. In the end, we can't assume our alma maters' reputations for grade-deflation will give us the edge over students from "easier" schools. Your job is to make the best of wherever you land.

 

[lilmissfickle]

Except I attend a school that is considered "prestigious", just not Harvard, Stanford or Yale. I'm not trying to compare some random state school in the middle of nowhere to Harvard. The supposed grade inflation of ivy league schools get balanced out by a supposed "lower quality" of the general student body at a state school. But how about if you compare a school with prestige such as MIT, a school known to have grade deflation, with an ivy league school with grade inflation? The students in both schools are roughly the same level when it comes to "quality", but why is that students of one school have lower GPAs than students of the other school? Should med schools account this discrepancy, or should they just give the same "bonus" points to both schools?

Honestly, if you go to MIT, I wouldn't worry. Reputation-wise, MIT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harvard, for sciences. I'm guessing Adcom's will probably know this and take this into account. You should just concentrate on getting a decent (though not necessarily spectacular) GPA that will pass cut-offs and not look too out of place, even if it means taking some classes at other schools. As for quality of students, from my experience, the students who go to MIT (and survive it) are waaaay smarter than those I have seen go to Harvard.

 

[mynamewastaken]

Sounds like your whining pretty hard. But since your barely stayin above the water guess it will screw you in the long run. Guess daddy's money, that pays your outrageous tuition and bought you a seat at your ivy, won't make you any smarter will it? Sniffle, sniffle, my school could beat up your school.[/QUOTE]

Hahahaha. Exactly my point. Your response wreaks of stupidity. That was so off point, irrelevant, and false that I'm admittedly embarrassed to take the time to write back. "Guess" you are just better than me...and i'm absolutely sure your school could beat up my school...which is pretty cool. Good luck to you.

 

[BigKurz]

Let's forget about quantifying the influence and instead just think about common sense. To think that someone from a top-tier school WOULDN'T get some type of boost (in a general sense) is ridiculous. Why would we even be debating the prestige of X school if there was no influence? PLEASE.

 

[modelslashactor]

ok people, i'm going to end this debate right now. you ready?

last year during their online chat, the Michigan admissions folks said that they have data on every single school in the US, telling them the average GPA/MCAT of those applied/accepted, overall number of students applied/accepted, etc. Thus, they will have a damn good idea where you stand in your class and how people with that standing have historically done in admissions, and will have a reasonably objective way of comparing you to students at other schools. So, if you go to an easy school with a 3.5 they will know that your 3.5 is worth less than a 3.5 at a tough school.

Whether or not they decide to give you a boost is up to the school, but my guess would be that if they were comparing two similar applicants and one was from xyz mediocre school and the other was from an ivy, the ivy would get the spot. Or maybe the interview is actually worth something and would be the deciding factor?

 

[ahumdinger]

What is that in your avatar?

it's my dog.

 

[thesauce]

These ideas of school "A" vs. school "B" are so 1-dimensional. Your major should really be taken into account, not just the school that you attended.

In my case, I pulled a 4.0 at a "mid-tier" school, but I did it in Chemical Engineering. My graduating class was 8 people and every one of them (except me) had above a 1400 SAT and were top 10 in their graduating class in high school. With these statistics, they could have gone to "top-tier" schools, but chose to go to our school for free.

The students in our major have been screened out through rigorous coursework from 50+ down to 8. I doubt that admissions committees looked at my 4.0 and considered it the same as someone with a 3.7 IN A DIFFERENT MAJOR at an Ivy.

I think your major means more than the school you attended.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Is it true medical schools add on "extra" points to your GPA if you come from a top tier (e.g. Ivy League) school.

For example: If you have a 3.5 GPA but graduated from a top tier school, a medical school will add on .1 to your overall.

I've heard this is true and was wondering if anybody else has heard this.

No, this is not true.

However, bad grades at a community college or lower tier university will be more devastating than bad grades at a top tier school, for obvious reasons.

 

[geno2568]

But what about different majors/colleges within the same school?

In Cornell, a 3.3 bioengineering student would get a 3.5 in bio, a 3.8 in Human development of nutrition, and a 4.0 in psych. And I'v heard the argument, "they look at what classes you were taking", but there are 2 arguments against this:

1) Different majors might have similiar sounding class, but they are entirely different. For example, the Human development class on the brain and sensory perception are much different from those taught by the neuroscience and psych departments.

2) It's not only how difficult your class is, but how many difficult classes you are taking. I know a lot of people that would have had that A in orgo had they not had to take genetics or another difficult course along with it (something that bioengineering and bio have to do a lot of, but psych and HD dont).

Now i know that adcoms are not that stupid so as not to see these things. But with thousands of applicants, they just don't have time. No matter how much boosting is given to the bio major by the adcoms, the 3.8 in HD still looks better than their 3.5. There is simply no unbiased way to evaluate people.

And this is why i'm so puzzled by the fact that adcoms give more weight to gpa's than to mcats (especially if the gpa is low). On one hand you have a very inaccurate system that will always leave room for biases...on the other, you have a standadized exam that measures 1)knowledge of the sciences, 2) the ability to think quickly and logically, and 3) the ability to make decisions and not buckle under pressure. What more important qualities can you ask for in a doctor?

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

But what about different majors/colleges within the same school? And this is why i'm so puzzled by the fact that adcoms give more weight to gpa's than to mcats (especially if the gpa is low). On one hand you have a very inaccurate system that will always leave room for biases...on the other, you have a standadized exam that measures 1)knowledge of the sciences, 2) the ability to think quickly and logically, and 3) the ability to make decisions and not buckle under pressure. What more important qualities can you ask for in a doctor?

This is not true. If anything, they put more weight on the MCAT

 

[OSUdoc08]

This is not true. If anything, they put more weight on the MCAT

Ha. No.

 

[R.P. McMurphy]

Ha. No.

So, the AAMC publised data that says that MCAT is a MUCH strobger predictor of med school success (USMLE scores).....but yet they still put more weight on GPA??

This doesn't make sense to me

take a look at this

Medical College Admission Test (MCAT®) scores can be used to predict how well students will do during their clinical rotations in the third year of medical school, as well as during the basic science curricula of the first two years, according to a recent AAMC study. This result was somewhat unexpected to faculty and admissions personnel who formerly believed that the predictive validity of the MCAT was limited to the basic sciences.

In fact, MCAT scores were better predictors of the scores later achieved on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step tests than were undergraduate grade-point averages (GPAs). Grades in medical school, however, were best predicted by taking both MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs into consideration, according to the report.


http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/march06/mcat.htm