GPAs at different schools

[cocks]

Is a GPA at an Ivy school considered better than the same GPA at a ****tier university, say like Princeton vs some SUNY school?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

Some may say yes, but for the most part no. A 3.8 at a mid-tier university looks better than a 3.2 at an Ivy League school regardless.

 

[aSagacious]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=369789

 

[cocks]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=369789

Unfair to poor people.

 

[CoolWhipp]

Something is always unfair for someone.

 

[EBTrailRunner]

Something is always unfair for someone.

Agreed.

 

[EnergyDrink]

Touchy topic. Many private schools inflate undergraduate GPA to boost their prestige.

 

[fudGez14]

Some may say yes, but for the most part no. A 3.8 at a mid-tier university looks better than a 3.2 at an Ivy League school regardless.

haha that wasn't the question the OP was asking. i personally think the same GPA at an ivy is worth more in the eyes of an adcom than the same GPA at some state school, because the competition at the schools are just at completely different levels.

and yes, thats quite a margin you put between the two comparative GPA's (3.8 and 3.2). considering that 3.8 essentially puts you at top 5-10% of princeton's class, where no one of the class of 2011 graduated with a 4.0, as opposed to a state school, where people have an easier time getting A's and 3.9+/4.0 GPA's.

 

[Johnny99]

I think your undergraduate institution definitely matters. I had a 3.3 from a top school (known for competitive atmosphere and grade deflation) and I still received plenty of interviews. I'm sure that if I received a 3.3 from some state school it would have been a completely different story

 

[xXIDaShizIXx]

haha that wasn't the question the OP was asking. i personally think the same GPA at an ivy is worth more in the eyes of an adcom than the same GPA at some state school, because the competition at the schools are just at completely different levels.

and yes, thats quite a margin you put between the two comparative GPA's (3.8 and 3.2). considering that 3.8 essentially puts you at top 5-10% of princeton's class, where no one of the class of 2011 graduated with a 4.0, as opposed to a state school, where people have an easier time getting A's and 3.9+/4.0 GPA's.

Someone is touchy.

 

[gettheleadout]

haha that wasn't the question the OP was asking. i personally think the same GPA at an ivy is worth more in the eyes of an adcom than the same GPA at some state school, because the competition at the schools are just at completely different levels.

and yes, thats quite a margin you put between the two comparative GPA's (3.8 and 3.2). considering that 3.8 essentially puts you at top 5-10% of princeton's class, where no one of the class of 2011 graduated with a 4.0, as opposed to a state school, where people have an easier time getting A's and 3.9+/4.0 GPA's.

Princeton is kind of an exception though...not all of the Ivies are known for grade deflation so much as grade inflation.

 

[Dbate]

Princeton is kind of an exception though...not all of the Ivies are known for grade deflation so much as grade inflation.

This concept of grade inflation is really irksome and stupid. The only people who say that grades at ivy league schools are inflated are people who have never completed a course at an ivy league school.

Many of my friends (myself included) have so much work that they don't get to sleep until about 3 am and still have to wake up early for classes. People here work damn hard for their grades and I don't appreciate it when random people who have no idea of the level of difficulty try to say that our grades are somehow undeserved because of "grade inflation".


Case in point: For my orgo 2 class, each test was open note, open book, and open internet.
Sounds easy? Average Test 1: 52 Average Test 2: 64.

Keep in mind that literally every person in this class was in the top 1-2% of their high school class. Even with the internet and all our notes the average never got above an F.


This is at Yale, not even the hardest of top schools. I saw an orgo test from MIT and I was d-a-m-n happy I didn't go there.

 

[LeoGer]

This concept of grade inflation is really irksome and stupid. The only people who say that grades at ivy league schools are inflated are people who have never completed a course at an ivy league school.

Many of my friends (myself included) have so much work that they don't get to sleep until about 3 am and still have to wake up early for classes. People here work damn hard for their grades and I don't appreciate it when random people who have no idea of the level of difficulty try to say that our grades are somehow undeserved because of "grade inflation".


Case in point: For my orgo 2 class, each test was open note, open book, and open internet.
Sounds easy? Average Test 1: 52 Average Test 2: 64.

Keep in mind that literally every person in this class was in the top 1-2% of their high school class. Even with the internet and all our notes the average never got above an F.


This is at Yale, not even the hardest of top schools. I saw an orgo test from MIT and I was d-a-m-n happy I didn't go there.

1) You're irksome.

2) What was the average grade earned in the class? Not percent on test = percentage grade of an 'F', but X% earned 'C' on transcript. I'm not accusing Ivies of grade inflation, but your argument doesn't address the issue.

 

[ranson]

Instead of arguing just take a look at LizzyM's "ask me thread". A couple of people asked a similar question and LizzyM said that undergrad institution does play a role.

She even gave an example stating that a 3.7/34 (mcat) from Yale and a 3.7/34 from UConn are not the same.

 

[gettheleadout]

This concept of grade inflation is really irksome and stupid. The only people who say that grades at ivy league schools are inflated are people who have never completed a course at an ivy league school.

Many of my friends (myself included) have so much work that they don't get to sleep until about 3 am and still have to wake up early for classes. People here work damn hard for their grades and I don't appreciate it when random people who have no idea of the level of difficulty try to say that our grades are somehow undeserved because of "grade inflation".


Case in point: For my orgo 2 class, each test was open note, open book, and open internet.
Sounds easy? Average Test 1: 52 Average Test 2: 64.

Keep in mind that literally every person in this class was in the top 1-2% of their high school class. Even with the internet and all our notes the average never got above an F.


This is at Yale, not even the hardest of top schools. I saw an orgo test from MIT and I was d-a-m-n happy I didn't go there.

The test averages were about the same in my school's Organic I class, yet we are not known for either inflation or deflation. One can easily make a test more difficult to match the level of resources available to the test takers. Like Leo said, what was the average grade percentage received in the course? What's the average GPA at Yale?

 

[Dbate]

The test averages were about the same in my school's Organic I class, yet we are not known for either inflation or deflation. One can easily make a test more difficult to match the level of resources available to the test takers. Like Leo said, what was the average grade percentage received in the course? What's the average GPA at Yale?

The test averages being the same speaks more about the difficult of our coursework. I highly doubt the students at your school are of the same caliber as Yalies. For us to get "about the same average" our tests have to be significantly more difficult.

I don't know if it makes you feel better about yourself to depreciate hard work of others. But I very rarely see students from top schools come on here and say that students at state schools didn't earn their grades.

Grade inflation is just a myth people have developed as a tool to make themselves feel better.

 

[fudGez14]

i don't know about for yale, but for princeton, especially the intro class (bio, physics, chem), as compounded with our grade deflation policy, they give roughly 25% A's (including A's and A-'s), 35-40% B's, and so forth. Of course, as the classes become upper div courses, the percentage of A's usually increases to about our cutoff of 35%, at most 40%, but I also echo what Dbate is saying. Our orgo exam averages hover around the mid 50's, low 60's with them being open notes, book, everything, which serves to show that our exams aren't based at all on just memorization, but assume the fact that we already have the basics covered front to back, and are testing us on the exceptions to the rules and reactions/mechanisms we haven't seen before.

and again, the percentages of grades given out may be similar to those of state schools, but the competition and pool of students are not. even though a majority of students excelled in high school, still a good 35-40% of the class will be getting C's and lower in orgo and other pre-med classes.

 

[Dbate]

wrong post

 

[sliceofbread136]

Percentage of A/Bs is what matters, not the average on the test. You have greater competition at high level Ivys(which makes an A harder), but you'll have greater recognition with adcoms come application time. There are advantages and disadvantages towards going to a high level private school versus a state school, and it is kind of pointless for premeds to argue which is "better" as we don't have all the needed information (like how much a school name is weighted).

EDIT: And I find it silly when people at high level ivies think they are so much above us poor state school kids. You underestimate how smart the top 10% of a huge state school can be.

 

[Dbate]

1) You're irksome.

2) What was the average grade earned in the class? Not percent on test = percentage grade of an 'F', but X% earned 'C' on transcript. I'm not accusing Ivies of grade inflation, but your argument doesn't address the issue.

1) Don't care

2) The class was curved to a B+/A- because it was a new professor and it was his first time teaching the course. Orgo 1 was curved to a B-.


Whenever people argue that grades are inflated, they are tacitly saying that people either didn't work to earn their grade or did not deserve that grade. The point of the averages was to demonstrate the difficulty of the material.

The chasm in intelligence of students at state schools versus Ivy schools is great. Averages mean nothing when the top 10% of students at an average state school would likely be in the bottom 10% of students at an Ivy.

To put it into perspective, at Yale about 70% of the students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their class. I was ranked 10 out of 495 in high school, which places me in the bottom 5% of the class in terms of class rank.

Can the same be said for state schools?

 

[LeoGer]

1) Don't care

2) The class was curved to a B+/A- because it was a new professor and it was his first time teaching the course. Orgo 1 was curved to a B-.


Whenever people argue that grades are inflated, they are tacitly saying that people either didn't work to earn their grade or did not deserve that grade. The point of the averages was to demonstrate the difficulty of the material.

The chasm in intelligence of students at state schools versus Ivy schools is great. Averages mean nothing when the top 10% of students at an average state school would likely be in the bottom 10% of students at an Ivy.

It was curved to a B+/A-...you're entire argument goes out the window.

 

[sliceofbread136]

1) Don't care

2) The class was curved to a B+/A- because it was a new professor and it was his first time teaching the course. Orgo 1 was curved to a B-.


Whenever people argue that grades are inflated, they are tacitly saying that people either didn't work to earn their grade or did not deserve that grade. The point of the averages was to demonstrate the difficulty of the material.

The chasm in intelligence of students at state schools versus Ivy schools is great. Averages mean nothing when the top 10% of students at an average state school would likely be in the bottom 10% of students at an Ivy.

To put it into perspective, at Yale about 70% of the students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their class. I was ranked 10 out of 495 in high school, which places me in the bottom 5% of the class in terms of class rank.

Can the same be said for state schools?

You underestimate state schools. I know quite a few people with 40+ mcats at my school. Personally, I got a 37. If the our top 10% were your bottom 10% we wouldn't be getting mcat scores in the top 1% of people who take the test.

 

[Dbate]

It was curved to a B+/A-...you're entire argument goes out the window.

Especially when people lack the reasoning capability to contextualize.

 

[Dbate]

You underestimate state schools. I know quite a few people with 40+ mcats at my school. Personally, I got a 37. If the our top 10% were your bottom 10% we wouldn't be getting mcat scores in the top 1% of people who take the test.

input=/=output

 

[candav]

To offer a different perspective, I come from a massive public school of ~14,000 students per class. I have heard that the average GPA at my school is in the 2's. Does that mean that our coursework is more difficult? Or does it mean that, given our size, we have students from a wider range of academic ability?

I would wager that average GPA isn't a very meaningful indicator of a school's difficulty.

 

[sliceofbread136]

input=/=output

Maybe it's my subpar intelligence/education but I don't really get what you're getting at.

 

[Dbate]

Maybe it's my subpar intelligence/education but I don't really get what you're getting at.

I was arguing that the average state school student would be in the bottom 10% based on incoming statistics. But that is not predictive of an outcome variable such as MCAT score.

So while one may be in the bottom 10%, he or she may vary well score in the top 1% on the MCAT.

 

[Narmerguy]

It's not that hard for me to believe that Ivy League classes are much harder. My friends that go to my state school do very little work, and many maintain high GPAs. Most of them aren't abnormally smart or something like that. At my school, our students aren't all geniuses but it seems that I have to work harder to achieve similar grades. I can imagine this gets even worse at the Ivy's.

However, in some ways, that's part of what it should mean to go to an Ivy. Just because students came from the top 1-2% of their highschools shouldn't mean that the students all walk away with A's because they're just "smarter" than everyone else. You choose to go to an institution that is filled with super smart students, there should be an expectation that it will be harder to get A's. it is unsettling for people on the outside to see these students going to these supposedly really challenging Ivy schools and walking away with better GPA's while complaining that no one understands their struggle. You'll get no sympathy, fair or not.

I think this whole problem can simply be boiled down to what we want an A, B, and C to represent. Do we want it to be a standardized quantity, that represents some standardized, finite amount of knowledge that is deemed A-level across the country at all levels? Or do we want it to be a quantity that is relative to one's peers at each institution?

 

[sliceofbread136]

I was arguing that the average state school student would be in the bottom 10% based on incoming statistics. But that is not predictive of an outcome variable such as MCAT score.

So while one may be in the bottom 10%, he or she may vary well score in the top 1% on the MCAT.

You stated that there is a present "chasm of intelligence" which isn't entirely true. State schools certainly have their fair share of idiots, but our top students are comparable to your top students and many of us get will get into great medical schools. I agree that it is easier to get 3.9+ at a state school, but I do not agree that being an Ivy kid makes you automatically smarted than a state school kid.

One last thing: I didn't do the best in highschool, but am a top student in college. High school success doesn't have as high a correlation with college success as many would believe.

 

[Dbate]

You stated that there is a present "chasm of intelligence" which isn't entirely true. State schools certainly have their fair share of idiots, but our top students are comparable to your top students and many of us get will get into great medical schools. I agree that it is easier to get 3.9+ at a state school, but I do not agree that being an Ivy kid makes you automatically smarted than a state school kid.

One last thing: I didn't do the best in highschool, but am a top student in college. High school success doesn't have as high a correlation with college success as many would believe.

On this point, I vehemently have to disagree. Your top students may be on par to the average student at an Ivy, but the very top students here are absolute geniuses.

They recently announced the first election to Phi Beta Kappa (the top 13 students in our class) and my roommate from freshman year was included. He is a mathematics and biology double major with a 3.97 or so.

He is an absolute genius and I find it very, very, very difficult to believe that any state student would be on that level. Yes, this is me being pretentious or whatever, but I just don't believe that any student at an average state school is on that level.

 

[sliceofbread136]

On this point, I vehemently have to disagree. Your top students may be on par to the average student at an Ivy, but the very top students here are absolute geniuses.

They recently announced the first election to Phi Beta Kappa (the top 13 students in our class) and my roommate from freshman year was included. He is a mathematics and biology double major with a 3.97 or so.

He is an absolute genius and I find it very, very, very difficult to believe that any state student would be on that level. Yes, this is me being pretentious or whatever, but I just don't believe that any student at an average state school is on that level.

Maybe I worded that wrong. I'm pretty sure the #1 premed at princeton is better than the #1 premed at UT. However, kids from UT get into top 5 medical schools all the time. We can't be as low level as you seem to think, or else the adcoms from these schools did a very poor job.

 

[percy]

On this point, I vehemently have to disagree. Your top students may be on par to the average student at an Ivy, but the very top students here are absolute geniuses.

They recently announced the first election to Phi Beta Kappa (the top 13 students in our class) and my roommate from freshman year was included. He is a mathematics and biology double major with a 3.97 or so.

He is an absolute genius and I find it very, very, very difficult to believe that any state student would be on that level. Yes, this is me being pretentious or whatever, but I just don't believe that any student at an average state school is on that level.

Ugh. I should stop there.

You're assuming that all top students apply and matriculate to Ivies. Which is not the case at all.

Also, I was in that election, and people were genuinely surprised and annoyed when my name was announced. So there.

 

[LeoGer]

Especially when people lack the reasoning capability to contextualize.

Your medical school disagrees.

Maybe I worded that wrong. I'm pretty sure the #1 premed at princeton is better than the #1 premed at UT. However, kids from UT get into top 5 medical schools all the time. We can't be as low level as you seem to think, or else the adcoms from these schools did a very poor job.

I disagree with this. The top few people from an average state school might be more geniusy than the top few people at a top school...I think it's the 50%ile of the class where there's the big difference.

Ugh. I should stop there.

You're assuming that all top students apply and matriculate to Ivies. Which is not the case at all.

Also, I was in that election, and people were genuinely surprised and annoyed when my name was announced. So there.

I love you for saying this.


This thread is lame.

 

[EBTrailRunner]

Your medical school disagrees.



I disagree with this. The top few people from an average state school might be more geniusy than the top few people at a top school...I think it's the 50%ile of the class where there's the big difference.



I love you for saying this.


This thread is lame.

Yes.

 

[Copernicium]

Yes.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I disagree with this. The top few people from an average state school might be more geniusy than the top few people at a top school...I think it's the 50%ile of the class where there's the big difference.

The top of the top is probably really variable and changes on a year by year basis. My big point was that there will be a ton of competition from state undergrads to get into the tip top medical schools, not just Ivy league kids.

 

[LeoGer]

The top of the top is probably really variable and changes on a year by year basis. My big point was that there will be a ton of competition from state undergrads to get into the tip top medical schools, not just Ivy league kids.

I agree -- you're proof.

 

[circulus vitios]

This concept of grade inflation is really irksome and stupid. The only people who say that grades at ivy league schools are inflated are people who have never completed a course at an ivy league school.

Many of my friends (myself included) have so much work that they don't get to sleep until about 3 am and still have to wake up early for classes. People here work damn hard for their grades and I don't appreciate it when random people who have no idea of the level of difficulty try to say that our grades are somehow undeserved because of "grade inflation".


Case in point: For my orgo 2 class, each test was open note, open book, and open internet.
Sounds easy? Average Test 1: 52 Average Test 2: 64.

Keep in mind that literally every person in this class was in the top 1-2% of their high school class. Even with the internet and all our notes the average never got above an F.


This is at Yale, not even the hardest of top schools. I saw an orgo test from MIT and I was d-a-m-n happy I didn't go there.

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~ese302/lab-content/Grade_Inflation.pdf

 

[fudGez14]

You stated that there is a present "chasm of intelligence" which isn't entirely true. State schools certainly have their fair share of idiots, but our top students are comparable to your top students and many of us get will get into great medical schools. I agree that it is easier to get 3.9+ at a state school, but I do not agree that being an Ivy kid makes you automatically smarted than a state school kid.

One last thing: I didn't do the best in highschool, but am a top student in college. High school success doesn't have as high a correlation with college success as many would believe.

i don't think that was what Dbate was trying to get at. We (or at least I am) are just trying to say that our overall competition and student body is of a more difficult quality and nature than that of a normal state school. And thus, when we get a B+ in a class, it should carry more weight than a B+ in the same class at the state school, because we are competing with students of a different level for the grades. I am positive that there are state school kids that are smarter than ivy kids, and im sure that the opposite is true as well. your statement of "it is easier to get a 3.9+ at a state school" pretty much makes our argument. as i said before, a 3.9+ would basically qualify you as a phi beta kappa at princeton, while you make it seem that a 3.9 is not "that hard" to come by.

And you seem to be making this entire debate specific to one student. I think what we are saying is that the average ivy kid overall is smarter and has tougher competition to achieve good grades than the average state school kid.

 

[sliceofbread136]

i don't think that was what Dbate was trying to get at. We (or at least I am) are just trying to say that our overall competition and student body is of a more difficult quality and nature than that of a normal state school. And thus, when we get a B+ in a class, it should carry more weight than a B+ in the same class at the state school, because we are competing with students of a different level for the grades. I am positive that there are state school kids that are smarter than ivy kids, and im sure that the opposite is true as well. your statement of "it is easier to get a 3.9+ at a state school" pretty much makes our argument. as i said before, a 3.9+ would basically qualify you as a phi beta kappa at princeton, while you make it seem that a 3.9 is not "that hard" to come by.

And you seem to be making this entire debate specific to one student. I think what we are saying is that the average ivy kid overall is smarter and has tougher competition to achieve good grades than the average state school kid.

I think this an over-generalization, and I hate when people think the school they go to makes them smarter than other people. I do agree with you that ivys have more competition, but an ivy gpa is given more weight/forgiveness than a state gpa. This brings me back to my original point that there are both pros and cons associated with ivy league schools, and it should be up to the individual (and don't judge people for there choices!).

 

[typicalindian]

@ OP, I think it only really matters when comparing two students with similar GPAs. like a 3.5 from a state school vs a 3.3 from an ivy.

 

[dartmed]

1) Don't care

2) The class was curved to a B+/A- because it was a new professor and it was his first time teaching the course. Orgo 1 was curved to a B-.


Whenever people argue that grades are inflated, they are tacitly saying that people either didn't work to earn their grade or did not deserve that grade. The point of the averages was to demonstrate the difficulty of the material.

The chasm in intelligence of students at state schools versus Ivy schools is great. Averages mean nothing when the top 10% of students at an average state school would likely be in the bottom 10% of students at an Ivy.

To put it into perspective, at Yale about 70% of the students were valedictorian or salutatorian of their class. I was ranked 10 out of 495 in high school, which places me in the bottom 5% of the class in terms of class rank.

Can the same be said for state schools?

Dbate, I agree with some of your points. Yes, it does matter where you go to school...but I think you are definitely underestimating the caliber of state school students. Personally, I have gotten into several nationally ranked schools (Columbia, Swarthmore, Upenn) for college. However, I opted out to go to a state school on a scholarship. The first thing that I realized when I got here was that the caliber of students is much higher than I had expected. I definitely had preconceived notions that I would be able to pull off a 4.0..yea, that's not possible (only two people have a 4.0 in my class of 350). A lot of students in my school opted out not going to Ivies so they don't have to have loans. They are extremely smart students. Yes, there are "dumb" students in some of my classes. But, the curve compensates for it. For instance, my organic class did not give out more than 10 A's for a class of 150. If you think you can be part of the 10 A's without as much work that you put forth at Yale, then you are definitely underestimating the school. I think getting an A at a top to decently ranked state school is just as hard.

So, a 3.8 from a decently ranked state school (Michigan, Washington, UCLA, UCSD, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas-Austin, Iowa, Virginia, North Carolina, etc.) definitely trumps a 3.5 from Yale. At least I hope it does.

That said, a 3.8 from a no-name school is probably going to be looked-down on unless you can compensate with the MCAT.

 

[Classof2013PreM]

This debate always raises people's emotions here on SDN...and it usually seems to be widely stated that the undergrad institution does not matter very much relative to the GPA/MCAT/EC's (and this is probably true).

However, given similar stats an applicant from a top undergrad will probably be favored over an applicant from a state school i go to a top undergrad, and it is published that approximately one third of our pre-med students matriculating attend a top 10 school (which I felt to be a pretty high number).

 

[gettheleadout]

It's not that hard for me to believe that Ivy League classes are much harder. My friends that go to my state school do very little work, and many maintain high GPAs. Most of them aren't abnormally smart or something like that. At my school, our students aren't all geniuses but it seems that I have to work harder to achieve similar grades. I can imagine this gets even worse at the Ivy's.

However, in some ways, that's part of what it should mean to go to an Ivy. Just because students came from the top 1-2% of their highschools shouldn't mean that the students all walk away with A's because they're just "smarter" than everyone else. You choose to go to an institution that is filled with super smart students, there should be an expectation that it will be harder to get A's. it is unsettling for people on the outside to see these students going to these supposedly really challenging Ivy schools and walking away with better GPA's while complaining that no one understands their struggle. You'll get no sympathy, fair or not.

I think this whole problem can simply be boiled down to what we want an A, B, and C to represent. Do we want it to be a standardized quantity, that represents some standardized, finite amount of knowledge that is deemed A-level across the country at all levels? Or do we want it to be a quantity that is relative to one's peers at each institution?

In principle I think grades (to the extent they will be used as a measure in post-grad admissions or selection or any sort) are utterly useless if they're not comparable between institutions. Tests like the MCAT are standardized to allow this comparison, but without any sort of disagreement I would concede that a test score doesn't tell the whole academic story, so the only feasible answer I can think of is to standardize all testing and grading. This would be the only case where I might agree with the philosophy of grading one's performance against that of one's peers. Without the absolute comparison to everyone else possible with universal grade and testing standardization, curving a course to give people grades relative to each other just sets up a meaningless measure that doesn't necessarily represent mastery of the material (which is the only valuable measure if you're not comparing everyone against everyone.)

On this point, I vehemently have to disagree. Your top students may be on par to the average student at an Ivy, but the very top students here are absolute geniuses.

They recently announced the first election to Phi Beta Kappa (the top 13 students in our class) and my roommate from freshman year was included. He is a mathematics and biology double major with a 3.97 or so.

He is an absolute genius and I find it very, very, very difficult to believe that any state student would be on that level. Yes, this is me being pretentious or whatever, but I just don't believe that any student at an average state school is on that level.

Do you really think that's true though? You may believe that's likely the case, but would you actually make the claim that there is absolutely not a single student at any of the thousands of colleges not included in the Ivy League as intelligent or more so than the top students in those select eight schools? It's a big claim.

 

[coyotelime]

This debate is never going to end. The State school kids are always going to say that they are just as capable as the students from top tier institutions, and Ivy Leaguers etc are always going to say that since their school is the best, their best of the best must be smarter...

 

[Nymphicus]

I like how the OP got banned.

However, I'm sure prestigious, rigorous universities and liberal arts colleges get some small leeway with GPA. For example Swarthmore (which I have no affiliation with, didn't even know about it until I met another interviewer from there, but apparently it is ranked top 3 liberal arts colleges) says right on their website that their average acceptance GPA is a 3.4 and that a solid B+ average is a good basis to apply for medical school from their institution.

 

[xgotxxricex]

idk why ppl are arguing about student quality using anecdotal evidence. just compare average MCAT for ivies and states. if ivy students are actually better than state students, then they should have higher mcat scores. i doubt anyone at yale or princeton is a genius if they cant even break 40 on the mcat.

 

[IMSingular]

idk why ppl are arguing about student quality using anecdotal evidence. just compare average MCAT for ivies and states. if ivy students are actually better than state students, then they should have higher mcat scores. i doubt anyone at yale or princeton is a genius if they cant even break 40 on the mcat.

Well.
There is lot of truth in what Dbate says.
TOP students at MIT, CALTECH, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley generally don't go to medical schools. They tend to go to science, engineering and math. Their dream is Nobel Prize or Field Medal or solve some unsolved problem which will etch their name in history of science and technolgy. Look at Putnam competition in mathematics, not MCAT, to really measure the level. Well I atteneded one of the top schools, and taught some courses at state level schools. If exams were set at the level of the school I went to anyone would have hardly scored more than 70. At these schools there may be one question only one person in the whole class may be able to do, and some times not even that. So just the average score is not meaningful.

 

[ranson]

People who say all the Ivies are more rigorous than top state schools are incorrect. Some of the Ivies (Brown and Dartmouth) do not have has many pre-meds or the cut throat environment as the others (Columbia, Cornell, Penn, HYP). Also, the top students at some of these state schools are just as good as the top students at the Ivies.

Also to the people saying grad inflation makes it easier or just as easy to earn the same grade at a state school, I believe, are incorrect as well. All of the students at these top schools are hard workers and are used to being almost straight A students since their high school years. This applies especially to pre-meds. The reason that the average GPA at some of these schools is higher than that of a state school is because the students at these top schools are just harder workers and are used to success. Sure, the top students at a state schools are comparable to the top students at an Ivy school, but the number of those students is much greater at the Ivy. Therefore, I believe it's harder to earn higher grades at an Ivy than it is at a state school and admissions officers do take this into account (look at my first post in this topic). Obviously, a 3.4 from an Ivy is not as good as a 3.9 from a top state school, but if GPA's are similar, the Ivy student has an advantage.

 

[Signifier]

Truth: I went to a state school where I majored in a program that was pretty high rigor. Still, I probably wouldn't have done as well gpa-wise if I had gone to an Ivy or top private. However, I graduated with $0 debt and have gotten interviews at many top medical schools, so I'm fairly content.