Grade Deflation - slight leeway?

[redferrari]

My school has a formula that they use to rank applicants in which GPA is 25% of your overall score, and there is no normalization, so what you have is what you get. For other schools, you can be assured that a glance at a good number is A LOT easier than seeing a low number and asking, "Well golly, did Little Johnny go to a school with grade deflation?"

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

The wise Goro has spoken. Therefore this topic is pointless to discuss further.

 

[aldol16]

If you do look at the MCAT like an equalizer, the drop is significant...like on the order of a half point, enough to move someone from perfect to borderline, or average to clearly needing postbacc work. When 3.3s from a school are performing on the MCAT like 3.9s nationwide, to me it is reasonable to be a little upset.

3.3s from one school are performing on the MCAT like 3.9s nationwide. You have one example. Now, conceding that the statistical power is low, in your experiences does WashU curve courses to somewhere between a B and B+?

 

[efle]

3.3s from one school are performing on the MCAT like 3.9s nationwide. You have one example. Now, conceding that the statistical power is low, in your experiences does WashU curve courses to somewhere between a B and B+?

True, though I certainly expect it to be as much or even more true of MIT/JHU/Chicago/Princeton/etc. All of my prereqs were curved to a B- or B, upper levels B or B+

And of course being the flawed human that I am, I was most convinced of this from personal anecdotes. Comparing my exams with my sister at a small unknown LAC, talking to people that had transferred in, seeing how visiting students from various places handled a summer prereq class...the prehealth handbook is just the only dataset I've ever been able to drum up that is sorted exactly like the AAMC data allowing comparison.

 

[efle]

The wise Goro has spoken. Therefore this topic is pointless to discuss further.

Sarcasm?

 

[aldol16]

True, though I certainly expect it to be as much or even more true of MIT/JHU/Chicago/Princeton/etc. All of my prereqs were curved to a B- or B, upper levels B or B+

If you look at the list compiled by another user about half a decade ago, it looks like WashU is similar to Harvard in terms of average GPA in the undergraduate body (https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/schools-with-biggest-grade-deflation.731720/). And remember this was before Harvard's scandalous grade inflation scheme was brought to light. Perhaps WashU severely inflates humanities classes and deflates science courses? At least at the time of that list, many other schools - some state schools - were much worse, including UCLA, Berkeley, etc.

 

[efle]

If you look at the list compiled by another user about half a decade ago, it looks like WashU is similar to Harvard in terms of average GPA in the undergraduate body (https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/schools-with-biggest-grade-deflation.731720/). And remember this was before Harvard's scandalous grade inflation scheme was brought to light. Perhaps WashU severely inflates humanities classes and deflates science courses? At least at the time of that list, many other schools - some state schools - were much worse, including UCLA, Berkeley, etc.

I would not be surprised at all to find that outside of the premed classes/BCPM majors, the grading wasn't as harsh. I had a good number of psych/phil classes and while distributions were more rarely posted, they did tend to be mid or higher 80s medians at least. I think that's a trend true generally everywhere.

But, how does that address my point? It may be that a ~3.3 GPA is above average, at average, or below average. That doesn't matter for addressing the question "would this 3.3 have been higher against a different student body?" Answering via MCAT comparison it is a yes.

And yeah I certainly do think some of the worst offenders would be state schools, since they tend to be even harsher than private. UCLA/Berkeley/Mich/UVa may be just a tad lower in academic metrics but I would guess fewer As. Whining welcome here too, it's not a private school club!

 

[gobears19]

It was OP's decision to go to Berkeley though. He made his choice, so he shouldn't complain about the consequences.

It was 100% my decision to go to Cal and I was always aware that it would be harder here.

Again, if you look at my other comments, I'm not asking that adcoms "correct" my GPA or anything arbitrary like that. I'll trust the MCAT to do that for me.

It just absolutely sickens me when some people (especially those obviously unfamiliar with California) tell me that grade deflation doesn't exist. It's so insulting and easy to dismiss when you've never had to fight through it yourself.

 

[NucleusO]

Really? Everyone and their mom goes to Berkeley, JHU, Princeton, etc.?

Don't be a condescending prick. It's harder to succeed at certain schools than others, and if employers and other grad schools are aware of that, I think MD adcoms should have a responsibility to as well.

No one's asking to be treated as a "special snowflake" (not to mention anti-PC culture is just as annoying as PC culture).

I'm just asking whether those who go to "prestigious," grade-deflating schools get even a 0.1 leeway on GPA (I'm not asking for adcoms to accept a 3.4 or something) compared to those who went to mid-level state schools.

If the MCAT is the great equalizer some say it is, then that's honestly fantastic. That's all I'm asking for, a chance to measure myself on a universal yardstick rather than the skewed one that grade deflation/inflation gives us.

My interviewer specifically told me that she understood the rigors of Cal when I tried to bring up why there were dips in my transcript. She just said "Oh who hasn't gotten in C in their life?!" It was pretty refreshing. She said that she took everything into account and that it was understandable since I had so much going on during that time. She also added that my MCAT score was incredible anyways (I think she was just being nice). I guess I'm just n=1 and it was for 1 school on the East Coast.

I have a friend who had a 3.4 from Cal and she ended up at Columbia for med school. I think that if you do well on your MCAT, maintain at least 3.3 and apply broadly, then you should be ok. Nothing is really guaranteed when it comes to applying for med school. There was this one famous guy at Cal who scored 44 on the MCAT and had a 4.0 while double majoring in two very difficult majors. He ended up with no acceptance. Most likely because he was a robot and had a poor attitude. Higher stats do increase your chances of being accepted, but it's not everything.

It's well known that Cal is pretty brutal when it comes to grading when you compare it to our rival Stanford. They can remove their two lowest grades from their transcripts and the majority of them get As and Bs. I couldn't believe it when I heard that from my friends who went to Stanford. At Cal you need at least one standard deviation above the median in order to score an A- or up, which would've been ok if everyone didn't work so hard in the hard sciences. Haha.

 

[gobears19]

That's a fair point. I just don't think it's worth whining about an external factor like this because it just sounds like an excuse. Plenty of people from Berkeley, Princeton, Cornell, WashU, etc manage to maintain high GPAs. If you did well enough in high school to go to one of those schools, you have the capacity to succeed there. Poor performance cannot be blamed on grade deflation.

Again, I'm not trying to whine, and I don't think my performance thus far is particularly "poor," just enough to make my neurotic ass worry.

Than being said, on behalf of my classmates at Cal who are getting ~3.4, I think it's insulting to tell them that grade deflation didn't do them any harm.

Sarcasm?

idk but Goro seems to be very adamant that his adcom doesn't care about undergrad school

I'm guessing he/she's just on that side of the argument, but I don't think every adcom is like that

 

[gobears19]

All I see is whining and trying to justify why you aren't doing as well as you hoped in school. Boo hoo. You're elite grade deflating school is going to marginally help your app and someone who majored in psych at a no name school with your same stats will have a similar chance of getting in, so I'd stop worrying about it.

Whining? Trying to justify?

Again, I don't see why you go out of your way to antagonize me.

I'm guessing you haven't had to deal with grade deflation, or were from one of those mid-level state schools (which is completely fine if you were, the MCAT exists to make sure standards are at least somewhat consistent).
+%
However, your lack of experience with this doesn't mean that I can't wonder whether adcoms care about this. If you think the answer is no, then just offer that advice politely and move on.

If you want the main reason I'm not doing well as I'd hoped in school, it would be my own fault. My own mismanagement of time, my own failure to attend chem lecture, etc. But it doesn't help that my school's O-Chem class gives 10% of the kids A's while Rice's gives 40+% A's for the same subject.

 

[gobears19]

My interviewer specifically told me that she understood the rigors of Cal when I tried to bring up why there were dips in my transcript. She just said "Oh who hasn't gotten in C in their life?!" It was pretty refreshing. She said that she took everything into account and that it was understandable since I had so much going on during that time. She also added that my MCAT score was incredible anyways (I think she was just being nice). I guess I'm just n=1 and it was for 1 school on the East Coast.

I have a friend who had a 3.4 from Cal and she ended up at Columbia for med school. I think that if you do well on your MCAT, maintain at least 3.3 and apply broadly, then you should be ok. Nothing is really guaranteed when it comes to applying for med school. There was this one famous guy at Cal who scored 44 on the MCAT and had a 4.0 while double majoring in two very difficult majors. He ended up with no acceptance. Most likely because he was a robot and had a poor attitude. Higher stats do increase your chances of being accepted, but it's not everything.

It's well known that Cal is pretty brutal when it comes to grading when you compare it to our rival Stanford. They can remove their two lowest grades from their transcripts and the majority of them get As and Bs. I couldn't believe it when I heard that from my friends who went to Stanford. At Cal you need at least one standard deviation above the median in order to score an A- or up, which would've been ok if everyone didn't work so hard in the hard sciences. Haha.

That really is refreshing to hear, considering the people on this thread who think I'm "whining" or being a "special snowflake" for even bringing this up.

I thought it was well known that Cal grades "harsher" than other schools do, but some of the very adamant (and some douchey) responses here have made me doubt that.

From what I hear, Cal pre meds who to survive to MCB 102 and what-not with a 3.6+ usually slaughter the MCAT, but that's no guarantee that I'll do well.

Stanford's grade inflation doesn't bother me too much, since their student body is admittedly a step up from ours.

idk pre-dead week just has me really nervous and pedersen's 3A is getting harder and harder

 

[freak7]

The real sandbaggers are the public schools without a reputation for grade deflation but still allow each department to assign their own grading policies which allow them to set the curve at 2.5 for the median and require a minimum of 2 standard deviations above the mean to get a 4. They get away with it by giving the top 5% a 4 if the class is over 200 people though.

 

[NucleusO]

That really is refreshing to hear, considering the people on this thread who think I'm "whining" or being a "special snowflake" for even bringing this up.

I thought it was well known that Cal grades "harsher" than other schools do, but some of the very adamant (and some douchey) responses here have made me doubt that.

From what I hear, Cal pre meds who to survive to MCB 102 and what-not with a 3.6+ usually slaughter the MCAT, but that's no guarantee that I'll do well.

Stanford's grade inflation doesn't bother me too much, since their student body is admittedly a step up from ours.

idk pre-dead week just has me really nervous and pedersen's 3A is getting harder and harder

Just focus on your finals and breathe. Practice as many mechanisms as you can.

I totally got a C+ on MCB 102 and I scored 99% tile on the biology section of the new mcat. I was 2 points away from a B- for MCB 102 but the professor wouldn't give it to me. There were so many times when I was a few points away from the next letter grade, but the profs are too busy to go through the trouble of changing the grade.

 

[gobears19]

First of all, this happens in MANY unknown schools, not just "top ones". And additionally, if OP is as smart as he/she claims to be, then OP can have a decent GPA regardless of where he/she goes.

It does happen at many unknown schools, especially at smaller liberal arts colleges. I'm not discounting them from this discussion, their grievances (which would sound almost identical to mine) are as justified as mine are. However, I am "lucky" enough to be at a school that seems to be almost synonymous with the term grade deflation, so I'm wondering if that would help my situation.

Where did I claim to be "smart?" The real "smart" kids are the ones in my classes who consistently score 1.5 standard deviations above the median and get straight A's in the same classes I pull A-'s in. I think my GPA isn't horrible (3.696), but it's borderline enough to make me worry like this.

That being said, I have no doubt I'd have a higher GPA if I'd went to a mid-tier UC. This comes from anecdotal information (my high school was very big , so we have at least 40-50 kids per graduating class at every UC campus except Riverside and Merced), and the basic logic that getting within the top 10% in a group of kids with an average SAT of 2100-2200 is a lot harder than getting within the top 10% in a group of kids with an average SAT of 1800-1900.

If I had to re-do my college decision, I'd still go to Berkeley. Aside from the grade deflation, this place is honestly great. Sure, it has a couple of flaws that come with being a public school, but the environment here is great. There's a niche for everyone here, and the big size of the student body means that it is very easy to meet friends, network, etc.

 

[gobears19]

Just focus on your finals and breathe. Practice as many mechanisms as you can.

I totally got a C+ on MCB 102 and I scored 99% tile on the biology section of the new mcat. I was 2 points away from a B- for MCB 102 but the professor wouldn't give it to me. There were so many times when I was a few points away from the next letter grade, but the profs are too busy to go through the trouble of changing the grade.

Yeah I get the sinking feeling that I'm starting to fall into the SDN time sink whenever I make/answer posts about grade deflation

idk it just pisses me off when people try to tell me that Cal is no harder than CSU, but I guess they're just not aware of just how different things are since they're not from California

 

[gobears19]

Yup!!!!!

I'm assuming you're an adcom, so I'll ask your opinion on something else:

If we forget all this grade inflation/deflation stuff, and you just look at an applicant's GPA,

(and assuming that MCAT and EC's are all up to par or better)

would a 3.65 or 3.68 be a low enough GPA to draw negative attention and/or detract from my chances?

Or, as some say, is GPA just a way of getting the foot in the door, and is there little difference above a certain "cutoff?"

 

[Goro]

Those GPAs are fine!!!!!! The median for acceptees at MD schools is 3.7.

Stats get you to the door; ECs get you through.

The "cutoff" you refer to should be the 10th %ile at schools, which you can find in MSAR.

I'm assuming you're an adcom, so I'll ask your opinion on something else:

If we forget all this grade inflation/deflation stuff, and you just look at an applicant's GPA,

(and assuming that MCAT and EC's are all up to par or better)

would a 3.65 or 3.68 be a low enough GPA to draw negative attention and/or detract from my chances?

Or, as some say, is GPA just a way of getting the foot in the door, and is there little difference above a certain "cutoff?"

 

[benjamin94559]

They don't have to care even if they do know. They can demand 1) high GPA 2) fancy name 3) good ECs and have plenty left over.

It's just one of the things that comes with the territory of attending a school like that. My (unpopular) opinion is that the biggest injustice is in the hundreds of premeds that get weeded out from places like JHU that would've been acing their way through less intense options. Then the survivors get to deal with deflation relative to the schools handing out more A grades than any other.

Yeah i had a friend turn down Miami's 8 year program to go to WUSTL only to get royally screwed and weeded out by the end of his freshman year.

 

[gobears19]

Those GPAs are fine!!!!!! The median for acceptees at MD schools is 3.7.

Stats get you to the door; ECs get you through.

The "cutoff" you refer to should be the 10th %ile at schools, which you can find in MSAR.

That makes me feel better about my own situation, I guess.

Does that mean in many cases, any differences beyond a certain point (say, 3.72 vs 3.78) are pretty much negligible when deciding on an applicant?

idk tbh there's just so much misinformation that gets thrown around, especially from my peers at college and from my hometown.

Some people in my hometown (super "techy," majority-Asian Silicon Valley suburb) are convinced that a 3.8 at minimum is needed because I'm a California resident, which I find ridiculous but still a little worrisome.

After all, those horror stories of 3.8, 34 applicants languishing for 2-3 years in gap year purgatory are true, but I'm guessing their numbers aren't the reason they're can't get in (and having a 3.9, 38 wouldn't help them too much in their current situation).

 

[efle]

Yeah i had a friend turn down Miami's 8 year program to go to WUSTL only to get royally screwed and weeded out by the end of his freshman year.

Not a rare story. Lots of people at that kind of school turn down full ride options to flagship state programs...in hindsight it really is an insanely risky move for a bright young student with a great academic record to choose some places to attend.

The places like Brown that are making their average GPA a 3.7x have the right idea in my opinion. Needs to spread. If almost all your graduates can hit top couple deciles on the MCAT it's fine to churn out a majority of high GPAs to match.

 

[gobears19]

Yeah i had a friend turn down Miami's 8 year program to go to WUSTL only to get royally screwed and weeded out by the end of his freshman year.

And then you have people try to say that "grade deflation doesn't exist" and that "if you're smart, you'll succeed anywhere"

kinda makes my blood boil tbh

Like, just take a look at UC Irvine's Orgo I Midterm 2 and then take a look at UC Berkeley's Orgo I Midterm 2. Then also take into account the average caliber of student that goes to each school.

It might be a California thing, but being aware of these huge differences just seems like common knowledge to me.

It's even worse at places like JHU or UChicago, since the average JHU BME kid is a lot smarter than the average MCB kid at Berkeley.

Anecdotally (I come from a very competitive, intense public high school), middling students at our high school absolutely flourish when they go to mid-level UC's, because the drop-off in "competition" is just so steep.

I love Berkeley for the most part, but cmon guys. 7% A's for a general bio class is not cool.

 

[efle]

After all, those horror stories of 3.8, 34 applicants languishing for 2-3 years in gap year purgatory are true, but I'm guessing their numbers aren't the reason they're can't get in (and having a 3.9, 38 wouldn't help them too much in their current situation).

A 3.9/38 would def help.

I wouldn't worry that much with a 3.7 GPA, seriously. The bigger hurdle for most is still the MCAT - the average accepted Californian carries a top 10% score (~33) but only a 3.66 GPA.

 

[gobears19]

A 3.9/38 would def help.

I wouldn't worry that much with a 3.7 GPA, seriously. The bigger hurdle for most is still the MCAT - the average accepted Californian carries a top 10% score (~33) but only a 3.66 GPA.

Interesting to see that chart

I guess it sucks to be from Washington, too. Or any other coastal "blue state" for that matter

 

[aldol16]

I would not be surprised at all to find that outside of the premed classes/BCPM majors, the grading wasn't as harsh. I had a good number of psych/phil classes and while distributions were more rarely posted, they did tend to be mid or higher 80s medians at least. I think that's a trend true generally everywhere.

But, how does that address my point? It may be that a ~3.3 GPA is above average, at average, or below average. That doesn't matter for addressing the question "would this 3.3 have been higher against a different student body?" Answering via MCAT comparison it is a yes.

And yeah I certainly do think some of the worst offenders would be state schools, since they tend to be even harsher than private. UCLA/Berkeley/Mich/UVa may be just a tad lower in academic metrics but I would guess fewer As. Whining welcome here too, it's not a private school club!

Answering it via MCAT comparison is not entirely fair because much more goes into GPA than what goes into MCAT. Without knowing individual GPA trends, using MCAT for comparison will only give a very rough estimate. For instance, if science majors tend to do well in science courses and not so well in humanities courses, then cumulative GPA could be deceiving. Presumably, those science majors would do well on the MCAT. Similarly, if a student had a rough first two years because he or she didn't really know what he or she wanted to do but then came back to average a 3.7-3.8 in the last two years, that student would have a lower cumulative average but would have a strong upward trend. Presumably, that student would do well on the MCAT since that would be taken in his or her last two years.

Even if the most obvious conclusion is correct, namely that WashU students go to a grade-deflating institution and therefore "average" there is "higher than average" at a generic state school, there's no easy way to correct for that except for adcoms' gut feelings and instincts. WashU isn't the only grade-deflating school. Various schools grade deflate - they differ only by how much they deflate. Students at many top schools suffer from the same dilemma you do. Yet the interviewee pools at top med schools are still filled with students from the top schools. The only cogent conclusion you can draw from this data is that if you're a high-achieving student, don't go to a grade-deflating school. You presumably knew that it was grade-deflating before you matriculated.

 

[Goro]

Major league negligible. A 3.7 can get you into Stanford or UCSF.

Do be aware that the competition in CA is indeed acute. UCLA alone can filled every med school seat in CA with its grads. Hence, CA is a net exporter of MD students. So yes, unless you're a rock star, it's wiser to write off the CA schools, except for UCD and UCI. You can help yourself with the former with service to the geographic area UCD serves. And if you're from the Riverside area, you have a leg up for UCR. Under no circumstances should you consider CN"U". if you have a desire to serve Christ, then there's always Loma Linda.

The west coast DO schools (and U AZ) benefit from this because they get applicants of UC caliber, who don't mind the limitations of DO, since they get to stay close to home. Indeed, even my school scoops up MD caliber candidates because we're on the right side of the Mississippi River, and they'd rather come here than go to Wake or Drexel.

That makes me feel better about my own situation, I guess.

Does that mean in many cases, any differences beyond a certain point (say, 3.72 vs 3.78) are pretty much negligible when deciding on an applicant?

idk tbh there's just so much misinformation that gets thrown around, especially from my peers at college and from my hometown.

Some people in my hometown (super "techy," majority-Asian Silicon Valley suburb) are convinced that a 3.8 at minimum is needed because I'm a California resident, which I find ridiculous but still a little worrisome.

After all, those horror stories of 3.8, 34 applicants languishing for 2-3 years in gap year purgatory are true, but I'm guessing their numbers aren't the reason they're can't get in (and having a 3.9, 38 wouldn't help them too much in their current situation).

 

[efle]

Answering it via MCAT comparison is not entirely fair because much more goes into GPA than what goes into MCAT. Without knowing individual GPA trends, using MCAT for comparison will only give a very rough estimate. For instance, if science majors tend to do well in science courses and not so well in humanities courses, then cumulative GPA could be deceiving. Presumably, those science majors would do well on the MCAT. Similarly, if a student had a rough first two years because he or she didn't really know what he or she wanted to do but then came back to average a 3.7-3.8 in the last two years, that student would have a lower cumulative average but would have a strong upward trend. Presumably, that student would do well on the MCAT since that would be taken in his or her last two years.

Thing is, you'd have to assume such variables were markedly different at WashU than elsewhere. People have areas of better ability or late bloomer trends anywhere. I agree there is more to a GPA, I'm much more impressed by straight A's at WashU than a top few percent MCAT, but the test is called the Great Equalizer for a reason...I think the comparison is pretty sound.

Even if the most obvious conclusion is correct, namely that WashU students go to a grade-deflating institution and therefore "average" there is "higher than average" at a generic state school, there's no easy way to correct for that except for adcoms' gut feelings and instincts. WashU isn't the only grade-deflating school. Various schools grade deflate - they differ only by how much they deflate. Students at many top schools suffer from the same dilemma you do. Yet the interviewee pools at top med schools are still filled with students from the top schools. The only cogent conclusion you can draw from this data is that if you're a high-achieving student, don't go to a grade-deflating school.

Oh I agree. There's no good way to correct on a per-school basis and there are hundreds of people with 3.8+ grades even at the most intense schools. It's not really a problem to be solved on the admissions side, IMO. I'm just lamenting the fate of the average kids that the schools are punishing. I think Brown/Harvard style distributions should become the norm for those level schools.

You presumably knew that it was grade-deflating before you matriculated.

My entire stance on this issue is predicated on the fact that most high schoolers do not know which schools are likely to kill their odds compared to others. I certainly didn't. The schools won't give you any heads up - they'll be downright deceitful and instead advertise to you how their applicants do incredibly well, not mentioning it's because they cut out the majority that try. A school like JHU might have a layperson reputation for being tough and full of tryhard nerds, but I doubt many 17 year olds could tell you how its deflation compares to Duke or what percentage starts premed vs makes it and few will know what its like to compete for top x% among a student body like that before experiencing it.

 

[gobears19]

Major league negligible. A 3.7 can get you into Stanford or UCSF.

Do be aware that the competition in CA is indeed acute. UCLA alone can filled every med school seat in CA with its grads. Hence, CA is a net exporter of MD students. So yes, unless you're a rock star, it's wiser to write off the CA schools, except for UCD and UCI. You can help yourself with the former with service to the geographic area UCD serves. And if you're from the Riverside area, you have a leg up for UCR. Under no circumstances should you consider CN"U". if you have a desire to serve Christ, then there's always Loma Linda.

The west coast DO schools (and U AZ) benefit from this because they get applicants of UC caliber, who don't mind the limitations of DO, since they get to stay close to home. Indeed, even my school scoops up MD caliber candidates because we're on the right side of the Mississippi River, and they'd rather come here than go to Wake or Drexel.

Yeah West Coast is best coast lol

My cousin goes to BU med, and he tells me there are a LOT of people in his class from California and especially Berkeley/UCLA.

I'm fine with going to med school in the Northeast or even certain states/cities (Texas, Atlanta, NC) in the South. If anything, the Midwest is probably a no-go for me. The place is too lily-white for someone whose high school was 80% Asian and whose undergrad was 45% Asian.

 

[efle]

Yeah West Coast is best coast lol

My cousin goes to BU med, and he tells me there are a LOT of people in his class from California and especially Berkeley/UCLA.

I'm fine with going to med school in the Northeast or even certain states/cities (Texas, Atlanta, NC) in the South. If anything, the Midwest is probably a no-go for me. The place is too lily-white for someone whose high school was 80% Asian and whose undergrad was 45% Asian.

Cal and UCLA churn out something like 1700 applicants per year between them. I'd be surprised if any private school in the country doesn't have a lot of representation

There will be plenty of Asians at midwestern MD schools, don't let that determine your list

 

[Goro]

Most med school classes are 1/3rd South and East Asian. Even the HBCs have 10% of their classes as Asian.

Yeah West Coast is best coast lol

My cousin goes to BU med, and he tells me there are a LOT of people in his class from California and especially Berkeley/UCLA.

I'm fine with going to med school in the Northeast or even certain states/cities (Texas, Atlanta, NC) in the South. If anything, the Midwest is probably a no-go for me. The place is too lily-white for someone whose high school was 80% Asian and whose undergrad was 45% Asian.

 

[aldol16]

Thing is, you'd have to assume such variables were markedly different at WashU than elsewhere. People have areas of better ability or late bloomer trends anywhere. I agree there is more to a GPA, I'm much more impressed by straight A's at WashU than a top few percent MCAT, but the test is called the Great Equalizer for a reason...I think the comparison is pretty sound.

Student ability to come back from rough starts, "culture shock" going into a top school, tough grading, etc. are more prevalent at WashU and peer institutions than at lower-tier schools. These factors are inherently tied to the kind of student who attends WashU. You're obviously biased towards straight A's at WashU because you are familiar with the school. I am impressed by straight A's at MIT. No doubt I believe MIT is harder than WashU and you likely believe the opposite. The problem is, all of this is subjective. There are plenty of hard, grade-deflating schools, like I said. Your problem at WashU is by no means unique. Students at UCLA, Berkeley, Hopkins, MIT, etc. all feel it.

Oh I agree. There's no good way to correct on a per-school basis and there are hundreds of people with 3.8+ grades even at the most intense schools. It's not really a problem to be solved on the admissions side, IMO. I'm just lamenting the fate of the average kids that the schools are punishing. I think Brown/Harvard style distributions should become the norm for those level schools.

Yeah, and there are science majors with those 3.8s at those top grade-deflating schools who get into med school. It is nice to whine about grade deflation but like I said, I think an 18-year old, who is old enough to make the decision to join the military, should be able to come to an informed decision about the next stage of his or her life. Otherwise, why would anyone trust them to make a decision to risk their lives?

My entire stance on this issue is predicated on the fact that most high schoolers do not know which schools are likely to kill their odds compared to others. I certainly didn't. The schools won't give you any heads up - they'll be downright deceitful and instead advertise to you how their applicants do incredibly well, not mentioning it's because they cut out the majority that try. A school like JHU might have a layperson reputation for being tough and full of tryhard nerds, but I doubt many 17 year olds could tell you how its deflation compares to Duke or what percentage starts premed vs makes it and few will know what its like to compete for top x% among a student body like that before experiencing it.

Most high schoolers who are applying to and accepted at those top schools are well in tune with grade deflation. I remember applying to WashU long ago. I remember applying to MIT. I remember when it came down to the wire of choosing where to go, grade deflation was a huge factor in my decision. There's no reason to not be informed now with the Internet and resources like College Confidential.

 

[gobears19]

Student ability to come back from rough starts, "culture shock" going into a top school, tough grading, etc. are more prevalent at WashU and peer institutions than at lower-tier schools. These factors are inherently tied to the kind of student who attends WashU. You're obviously biased towards straight A's at WashU because you are familiar with the school. I am impressed by straight A's at MIT. No doubt I believe MIT is harder than WashU and you likely believe the opposite. The problem is, all of this is subjective. There are plenty of hard, grade-deflating schools, like I said. Your problem at WashU is by no means unique. Students at UCLA, Berkeley, Hopkins, MIT, etc. all feel it.



Yeah, and there are science majors with those 3.8s at those top grade-deflating schools who get into med school. It is nice to whine about grade deflation but like I said, I think an 18-year old, who is old enough to make the decision to join the military, should be able to come to an informed decision about the next stage of his or her life. Otherwise, why would anyone trust them to make a decision to risk their lives?



Most high schoolers who are applying to and accepted at those top schools are well in tune with grade deflation. I remember applying to WashU long ago. I remember applying to MIT. I remember when it came down to the wire of choosing where to go, grade deflation was a huge factor in my decision. There's no reason to not be informed now with the Internet and resources like College Confidential.

I was very aware of grade deflation when I decided to go to Berkeley. Everyone and their mom knows it's harder to get A's here than at UCSB. However, I chose my school knowing that statistically, there was a significant chance I'd drop out of the medicine track as a career choice. Therefore, I wanted to have fallback options, and a Berkeley degree in CS or another STEM field would mean a helluva lot more than a UCSB degree in the same field.

Berkeley isn't THE hardest or most grade-deflating school. That's not the point we're trying to make here. For what it's worth, I'd consider JHU BME or UChicago to be much more difficult than premed here at Cal.

However, I think it's really rude of you to characterize us as "whining" about grade deflation. It is a legitimate concern, and it's not like we're asking adcoms to just add 0.4 to our GPA or something. We just ask that a slightly slipping (maybe 0.1 below median) GPA be excused due to our circumstances, and usually our MCAT scores back us up.

Though for what it's worth, after seeing all that happens at the UC's and what-not, I would much rather trust my life in the hands of a Berkeley/UCLA/JHU 3.5 student than in the hands of a 3.9 student from UC Riverside.

 

[gobears19]

Most med school classes are 1/3rd South and East Asian. Even the HBCs have 10% of their classes as Asian.

Yeah, any med school itself will have enough Asians for me not to feel "different," but the city/state the school is located in can't be discounted, either.

I'd rather not go to a HBC tho lol

 

[efle]

Student ability to come back from rough starts, "culture shock" going into a top school, tough grading, etc. are more prevalent at WashU and peer institutions than at lower-tier schools. These factors are inherently tied to the kind of student who attends WashU. You're obviously biased towards straight A's at WashU because you are familiar with the school. I am impressed by straight A's at MIT. No doubt I believe MIT is harder than WashU and you likely believe the opposite. The problem is, all of this is subjective. There are plenty of hard, grade-deflating schools, like I said. Your problem at WashU is by no means unique. Students at UCLA, Berkeley, Hopkins, MIT, etc. all feel it.

If MIT has even lower typical grades, I'd agree, since the student bodies are so similar in academic metrics. Same JHU. I hope I haven't sounded like I'm advancing my argument just for WashU. That's just the data I have. Everything I've been speaking about I absolutely think applies in general to similar places.

Yeah, and there are science majors with those 3.8s at those top grade-deflating schools who get into med school. It is nice to whine about grade deflation but like I said, I think an 18-year old, who is old enough to make the decision to join the military, should be able to come to an informed decision about the next stage of his or her life. Otherwise, why would anyone trust them to make a decision to risk their lives?

Bit of an odd line of reasoning. Are we not allowed to criticize predatory lending because there are much bigger decisions people can make as adults, and they just should've educated themselves better?

Most high schoolers who are applying to and accepted at those top schools are well in tune with grade deflation. I remember applying to WashU long ago. I remember applying to MIT. I remember when it came down to the wire of choosing where to go, grade deflation was a huge factor in my decision. There's no reason to not be informed now with the Internet and resources like College Confidential.

Maybe that was the key difference, I had no clue about College Confidential, particular schools, or the admissions game in general until way after apps. I did see my highschool counselors and used books giving info about hundreds of universities and such, and never found anything saying "watch out! School XYZ heavily deflates and cuts twice as many premeds as School ABC, and neither will tell you anything except that their applicants are wildly successful"

 

[aldol16]

If MIT has even lower typical grades, I'd agree, since the student bodies are so similar in academic metrics. Same JHU. I hope I haven't sounded like I'm advancing my argument just for WashU. That's just the data I have. Everything I've been speaking about I absolutely think applies in general to similar places.

My point is that there are many such places. The only limit is where you define the bounds of "deflation" to be. There are schools that deflate more than WashU and many that deflate less. There has to be a standard to compare to and there is no ready standard so it's hard to measure what "deflation" actually is.

Bit of an odd line of reasoning. Are we not allowed to criticize predatory lending because there are much bigger decisions people can make as adults, and they just should've educated themselves better?

My stance is that criticism without alternative solution is a waste of time. One can criticize a system all one wants, but unless one has a viable alternative to that system, the criticism is a waste of time. It's the easy way out - it's always easier to criticize than to criticize and present a viable solution (the operant word being "viable").

Maybe that was the key difference, I had no clue about College Confidential, particular schools, or the admissions game in general until way after apps. I did see my highschool counselors and used books giving info about hundreds of universities and such, and never found anything saying "watch out! School XYZ heavily deflates and cuts twice as many premeds as School ABC, and neither will tell you anything except that their applicants are wildly successful"

I would consider it very odd if a high schooler applied to a place like MIT or WashU, was accepted, and when deciding which schools to attend, didn't realize that MIT and WashU grade deflate. I can imagine if a high schooler wouldn't consider that when applying to a school, but when deciding where to spend the next four years of one's life, whether there's grade deflation and how that impacts student life should be an important factor. I'd be surprised if they matriculated without looking up all these important aspects of the school - I would say it's a bit reckless, actually.

 

[aldol16]

I was very aware of grade deflation when I decided to go to Berkeley. Everyone and their mom knows it's harder to get A's here than at UCSB. However, I chose my school knowing that statistically, there was a significant chance I'd drop out of the medicine track as a career choice. Therefore, I wanted to have fallback options, and a Berkeley degree in CS or another STEM field would mean a helluva lot more than a UCSB degree in the same field.

Berkeley isn't THE hardest or most grade-deflating school. That's not the point we're trying to make here. For what it's worth, I'd consider JHU BME or UChicago to be much more difficult than premed here at Cal.

However, I think it's really rude of you to characterize us as "whining" about grade deflation. It is a legitimate concern, and it's not like we're asking adcoms to just add 0.4 to our GPA or something. We just ask that a slightly slipping (maybe 0.1 below median) GPA be excused due to our circumstances, and usually our MCAT scores back us up.

Though for what it's worth, after seeing all that happens at the UC's and what-not, I would much rather trust my life in the hands of a Berkeley/UCLA/JHU 3.5 student than in the hands of a 3.9 student from UC Riverside.

Sounds like you were informed about grade deflation when you chose it and you chose it for good reasons. My point is not that any one school is the most grade-deflating. This isn't a pissing contest here. My point is that it is difficult to characterize what "deflation" is unless you can define something that is the standard to which you're comparing. Is a school with an average GPA of 3.4 deflating? How about 3.5? 3.7?

You are entitled to your opinion of me. I'm not saying it's not a legitimate concern. But what are you proposing should b done about it? I would be very inclined to agree with you if you have a viable solution to the problem. Otherwise, I think you are just whining about the problem. Nobody is denying that there is a trend of lower GPAs at certain schools.

I wouldn't trust my life to anybody from looking at just their GPA. That's a bit too adventurous for me.

 

[IlDestriero]

My elite grade deflating school was well known to AdComs and still takes pride in crushing dreams. But if you survive the pressure cooker and thrive, you tend to go far.
It definitely helped my ap and my MCAT took away any potential concerns.


--
Il Destriero

 

[gobears19]

What can be done about it?

Honestly, probably nothing aside from a fundamental shift in the way Berkeley (and other public flagships) operate. For now, I guess the best solution ahead for me is to use ratemyprofessor and Berkeleytime extensively to know which classes/instructors to take or avoid.

Nobody is denying that there is a trend of lower GPAs at certain schools.

The thing is, people WERE doing exactly that on this thread. It really boiled my blood to hear these douchebags say I was crying and being a "special snowflake" trying to "justify poor performance" just for mentioning this. It just seemed so unfair, so disgusting, that there were people who can say that while never having experienced it themselves.

No disrespect to med students who went to mid-level state schools for undergrad. Your MCAT and EC's show that you're qualified to be where you are today.

But to suggest that your 3.8 at Davis took nearly as much effort and talent as my 3.65-3.7 at Cal or something like a 3.5 from UChicago? COME ON.

 

[gobears19]

My elite grade deflating school was well known to AdComs and still takes pride in crushing dreams. But if you survive the pressure cooker and thrive, you tend to go far.
It definitely helped my ap and my MCAT took away any potential concerns.


--
Il Destriero

It still pisses me off when some people try to characterize this as "whining" and say "if you're smart enough, you'll do well anywhere!!!"

Yeah sure, but objectively and statistically speaking, it's harder to pull A's at a grade-deflating school. I just don't know what to say to people who sincerely believe that grade deflation isn't a thing, people who think that a 3.9 student at UCSC could achieve that same level of performance at Berkeley or UCLA.

I just hope going through all this will give me a big leg up from my peers in medical school.

(Anecdotally, one of my best friends transferred from Berkeley to UPenn this year, and tells me the academic rigor is a lot less over there.)

 

[ChymeofPassion]

It still pisses me off when some people try to characterize this as "whining" and say "if you're smart enough, you'll do well anywhere!!!"

Yeah sure, but objectively and statistically speaking, it's harder to pull A's at a grade-deflating school. I just don't know what to say to people who sincerely believe that grade deflation isn't a thing, people who think that a 3.9 student at UCSC could achieve that same level of performance at Berkeley or UCLA.

I just hope going through all this will give me a big leg up from my peers in medical school.

(Anecdotally, one of my best friends transferred from Berkeley to UPenn this year, and tells me the academic rigor is a lot less over there.)

No one (intelligent) is saying it isn't more difficult to do better at these schools based on the nature of the curve. What detracts sympathy from adcoms and fellow premeds is that you chose to go there. With the benefits of Berkeley, JHU, UChicago, BM, MIT, whether thats the prestige, research, peers, etc, there comes the fact that you are competing with the best and brightest in the country. You can't say oh I would have done better somewhere else so give me some leeway; that doesn't matter because you chose to go there, you did not go somewhere else; prove you are better on the MCAT. In the application you are competing for a score; a 4.0 being the highest score. Its like a 15 year old Olympic gymnast qualifying for the Olympics (Cal), not placing highly due to increased competition, and then saying oh well I could have done better at a junior tournament(UCx). its all relative to your peers, but it doesn't matter, because you competed in the Olympics; not in a junior tournament. Obviously the scale of selectivity and prestige differs between the Olympics and a junior tournament is different than UCx and Cal, but the fact of the matter is you are compared based on an unweighted score, not where you went. You chose to compete one place. I believe at the end of the day you will be given credence for having competed at Cal, which may help your application, but you will not be given any GPA leeway because of the fact. Again, the MCAT (all the people in the Olympics and all the people from the junior tournament competing in the same place) is the great equalizer, so prove yourself there.

 

[Sardinia]

@ChymeofPassion I heard that the California MCAT is the hardest and the most emotionally deflating.

 

[kb1900]

i dont believe that grade deflation impacts GPA significantly enough that it can't be normalized by the MCAT.

if you get a 3.3 or whatever and believe its a 4.0 elsewhere, prove it with a 520+ mcat. otherwise, yeah, you're just complaining

i really only have sympathy for Californians

 

[aldol16]

What can be done about it?

Honestly, probably nothing aside from a fundamental shift in the way Berkeley (and other public flagships) operate. For now, I guess the best solution ahead for me is to use ratemyprofessor and Berkeleytime extensively to know which classes/instructors to take or avoid.

So you have no practical solution and you're posting about it, what is the post about and why are you posting it? You can call it a rant but I call it whining. I think that's the dictionary definition of whining: "to complain in a peevish, self-pitying way." We are entitled to our own opinions.

The thing is, people WERE doing exactly that on this thread. It really boiled my blood to hear these douchebags say I was crying and being a "special snowflake" trying to "justify poor performance" just for mentioning this. It just seemed so unfair, so disgusting, that there were people who can say that while never having experienced it themselves.

No disrespect to med students who went to mid-level state schools for undergrad. Your MCAT and EC's show that you're qualified to be where you are today.

But to suggest that your 3.8 at Davis took nearly as much effort and talent as my 3.65-3.7 at Cal or something like a 3.5 from UChicago? COME ON.

Then take the high road. It's obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence that anybody who didn't go to a grade deflating school who claims to know about grade deflation enough to give "advice" on it is being pretentious.

The point is, you should not expect people to know that a 3.8 at Davis is not equivalent to your 3.65 at Berkeley. First of all, that difference is minute in terms of grade points and to be honest, not many people who didn't go to one of those schools knows about the relative deflation there. I know that Berkeley deflates but I don't know how that compares to a Davis GPA in absolute terms. Is a 3.7 at Davis equal to a 3.5 at Berkeley? I don't know. That's the point. There's no good numeric correction. That's why adcoms know about schools that deflate but don't necessarily apply a numeric correction to your metrics.

 

[gobears19]

i dont believe that grade deflation impacts GPA significantly enough that it can't be normalized by the MCAT.

if you get a 3.3 or whatever and believe its a 4.0 elsewhere, prove it with a 520+ mcat. otherwise, yeah, you're just complaining

i really only have sympathy for Californians

I am Californian :'(

But yeah, as I said before, I'm not expecting adcoms to view a Berkeley 3.3 as the same thing as an Irvine 4.0.

It's not THAT drastic of a difference, but I do believe that my 3.65-3.7 at Cal would probably be about a 3.8 at a mid-tier UC right now.

As you say, though, the MCAT is a universal yardstick. I just hope that a decent MCAT will be enough to excuse my borderline GPA.

 

[aldol16]

As you say, though, the MCAT is a universal yardstick. I just hope that a decent MCAT will be enough to excuse my borderline GPA.

Can you please stop? A 3.65-3.7 is not a borderline GPA. Now you're just sounding neurotic.

 

[gobears19]

Then take the high road. It's obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence that anybody who didn't go to a grade deflating school who claims to know about grade deflation enough to give "advice" on it is being pretentious.

Point taken. I guess I just kinda overreacted to those kind of people (though the upvotes on those comments did worry me a bit).

There's no concrete numeric connection, and that's why I have said in this thread that I think arbitrarily adding a couple points to a GPA from Cal or Hopkins is silly.

Just knowing the adcoms are at least vaguely aware that grade deflation does, indeed, exist (which some people here adamantly said was not true), makes me feel better, even if they choose not to factor it into their decisions.

 

[gobears19]

No one (intelligent) is saying it isn't more difficult to do better at these schools based on the nature of the curve.

I really do hope so, because some of the commenters here seemed VERY adamant (to the point of dismissiveness) that different undergrad schools having different difficulty was just me being "a special snowflake."

Point taken about everything else, though. I knew what I was getting into. I just hope the MCAT can make up for it.

 

[aldol16]

Point taken. I guess I just kinda overreacted to those kind of people (though the upvotes on those comments did worry me a bit).

You're going to a top school. Statistically speaking, that's rare even on SDN. It makes sense that most people don't go to a top school here.

Just knowing the adcoms are at least vaguely aware that grade deflation does, indeed, exist (which some people here adamantly said was not true), makes me feel better, even if they choose not to factor it into their decisions.

I'm not saying they don't factor it in. There's a reason why the top med schools like students from top schools. Like I've said, it's a holistic review. They don't correct for GPA numerically but they view your GPA in the context of your application. A GPA of 3.7 from Berkeley with a high MCAT says volumes more than a GPA of 4.0 from generic school with a low MCAT.

 

[gobears19]

Like I've said, it's a holistic review. They don't correct for GPA numerically but they view your GPA in the context of your application. A GPA of 3.7 from Berkeley with a high MCAT says volumes more than a GPA of 4.0 from generic school with a low MCAT.

That thought makes me feel better tbh lol

In any case, thanks for your civilized, thought-out input/responses

 

[AirplaneFruit]

OP, be happy you go to Berkeley. It's a large public school so there are a lot of subpar students there for you to easily ride the curve to a good GPA.