Grade Deflation - slight leeway?

[gobears19]

I know this subject has probably been beaten to death on SDN, but

Do adcoms care at all about grade deflation, especially from well-known schools? In fact, are they even aware that grade deflation exists? I'm not asking or expecting them to excuse say, a 3.4, just because the applicant went to Berkeley or JHU. I'm just wondering whether a slightly subpar/borderline GPA (~3.65-3.7) would be overlooked due to factoring in undergrad rigor.

I ask these questions because one poster told me that adcoms are not even aware of grade deflation and schools that practice it, which was absolutely shocking to me.

Almost every employer (CS, Business, other STEM, etc.) and most grad schools seem to be aware of grade deflation, and it just seemed absurd to me that MD adcoms wouldn't even know about it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[efle]

Depends on the school and reviewer. There is generally a favoritism of tough/famous undergrads at the top, though never to any degree that would mitigate a bad GPA (edit: bad does not mean 3.7). Between top schools (say Brown vs JHU) you're much better off at the inflating option, nobody cares enough to parse things out and give brownie points to the latter.

Your 3.7 from Cal is going to be fine. Do well on the MCAT and be productive with your research.

 

[piii]

Everyone and their mom goes to a "well known grade deflating school." You aren't a special snowflake and adcoms wont care. The mcat is the great equalizer.

 

[Frogger27]

Yeah adcoms do not have a list of "grade-deflaters" They have no idea. They see a number.

 

[aldol16]

For private medical schools, pedigree does matter but only in the sense that it could give you a boost if you have good GPA/MCAT/ECs, i.e. it doesn't make up for bad grades. If you're at a 3.7 or so from a top school, I wouldn't worry about GPA.

 

[gobears19]

Yeah adcoms do not have a list of "grade-deflaters" They have no idea. They see a number.

I honestly get frustrated when people try to constitute this as adcoms not having "a list" of grade deflating schools.

Of course they don't have "lists." And no one expects them to have.

But shouldn't they at least have the common knowledge (and really, responsibility, that employers and other grad schools have) to know that schools like Johns Hopkins or Berkeley don't give out A's as liberally as Duke or Stanford?

 

[efle]

But shouldn't they at least have the common knowledge (and really, responsibility, that employers and other grad schools have) to know that schools like Johns Hopkins or Berkeley don't give out A's as liberally as Duke or Stanford?

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.

 

[gobears19]

Everyone and their mom goes to a "well known grade deflating school." You aren't a special snowflake and adcoms wont care. The mcat is the great equalizer.

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.

 

[gobears19]

For private medical schools, pedigree does matter but only in the sense that it could give you a boost if you have good GPA/MCAT/ECs, i.e. it doesn't make up for bad grades. If you're at a 3.7 or so from a top school, I wouldn't worry about GPA.

What about like a 3.65 lol

 

[happypenguin28]

Just my $0.02, but I did have an interviewer explicitly tell me not to worry about a C on my transcript because my overall ~3.7ish from UChicago "is like a 10 anywhere else." But then again, UChicago might have an extra intense reputation for grade deflation with the "where fun goes to die" moniker? Our dean's list/general honors threshold is kind of ridiculously low at 3.25.

Also, I wonder if your school has pre-med statistics that may be more useful for you? Like our pre-med office told us that the average cumulative GPA for accepted students from UChicago is 3.6 and sGPA is 3.5, vs 3.7 and 3.6 nationally. I also heard from our advisors that, among students who took at least one gap year, the avg GPA for matriculants was a 3.4.

 

[Shirafune]

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.

Awareness is just that: awareness. Medical schools don't have any obligation or perhaps even a justified need to adjust GPAs based on undergrad institution.

 

[Goro]

Looking for the answer you want to hear? This was discussed in your other thread. A bunch of pre-meds aren't going to be able to help you on this one either.

BTW: some big name schools do grade inflation. Look up the "Gentleman's C".

I know this subject has probably been beaten to death on SDN, but

Do adcoms care at all about grade deflation, especially from well-known schools? In fact, are they even aware that grade deflation exists? I'm not asking or expecting them to excuse say, a 3.4, just because the applicant went to Berkeley or JHU. I'm just wondering whether a slightly subpar/borderline GPA (~3.65-3.7) would be overlooked due to factoring in undergrad rigor.

I ask these questions because one poster told me that adcoms are not even aware of grade deflation and schools that practice it, which was absolutely shocking to me.

Almost every employer (CS, Business, other STEM, etc.) and most grad schools seem to be aware of grade deflation, and it just seemed absurd to me that MD adcoms wouldn't even know about it.

 

[aldol16]

What about like a 3.65 lol

0.05 of a grade point isn't going to make or break you. Unless you fall below a hard cutoff for a medical school (I can't think of any medical school that institutes a GPA cutoff at 3.7 or any point above a 3.65).

 

[Frogger27]

I honestly get frustrated when people try to constitute this as adcoms not having "a list" of grade deflating schools.

Of course they don't have "lists." And no one expects them to have.

But shouldn't they at least have the common knowledge (and really, responsibility, that employers and other grad schools have) to know that schools like Johns Hopkins or Berkeley don't give out A's as liberally as Duke or Stanford?

I'm from the east coast.. I have no idea how "liberally" duke gives out A's compares to Berkely.. And I am guessing most adcoms are the same

 

[gobears19]

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.

This sounds weird, but I don't mind if they don't factor in grade deflation, as long as they know it exists.

Knowing that adcoms willfully ignore grade deflation to maintain their schools' stats makes me feel better than the idea that they're completely ignorant of the issue.

 

[gobears19]

I'm from the east coast.. I have no idea how "liberally" duke gives out A's compares to Berkely.. And I am guessing most adcoms are the same

The way the UC's (Berkeley, UCLA) hand out grades is similar to the way big flagships like UVA or UMich hand out grades back east (or midwest, w/e).

I'm mostly concerned with schools in California (though I'm very open to moving to a diff state for med school), so as long as the UC med schools know I feel better.

 

[Frogger27]

This sounds weird, but I don't mind if they don't factor in grade deflation, as long as they know it exists.

Knowing that adcoms willfully ignore grade deflation to maintain their schools' stats makes me feel better than the idea that they're completely ignorant of the issue.

You are way overthinking it.. Adcoms want kids who can do well in med school. Getting a 3.5+ from a great university and a solid mcat shows this.

 

[gobears19]

Looking for the answer you want to hear? This was discussed in your other thread. A bunch of pre-meds aren't going to be able to help you on this one either.

BTW: some big name schools do grade inflation. Look up the "Gentleman's C".

Well, I know. But your opinion is just one among many, and honestly your opinion (that adcoms didn't even know grade deflation exists) seemed like a big, big outlier compared to what adcoms have said either to me or on SDN.

I've heard many times that adcoms don't factor in grade deflation into decisions, and honestly I'm fine with that since the MCAT is a thing. But the thought that some adcoms don't even know it exists is something I found very shocking.

From what I can tell it seems to differ between each med school and each admission committee.

And the fact that big schools do grade inflation is another thing. If you know that Stanford and Yale give out A's like candy, shouldn't you know that Cal or Cornell are doing essentially the opposite?

(Of course, the average Stanford kid is much smarter than the average Cal kid, but you get what I'm trying to say)

 

[gobears19]

Awareness is just that: awareness. Medical schools don't have any obligation or perhaps even a justified need to adjust GPAs based on undergrad institution.

Honestly, I don't mind if they don't "adjust" my GPA since the MCAT is there to equalize things.

It just really bothers me that some adcoms don't even know that grade deflation exists. I mean, come ON. The average white-collar professional (and every employer in CS, Business, etc.) in California knows that Cal and UCLA grade deflate compared to Stanford. How can adcoms not even know of its existence? Isn't that a bit irresponsible?

 

[Frogger27]

Honestly, I don't mind if they don't "adjust" my GPA since the MCAT is there to equalize things.

It just really bothers me that some adcoms don't even know that grade deflation exists. I mean, come ON. The average white-collar professional (and every employer in CS, Business, etc.) in California knows that Cal and UCLA grade deflate compared to Stanford. How can adcoms not even know of its existence? Isn't that a bit irresponsible?

California is not representative of our whole country, as we saw a couple weeks ago

 

[aldol16]

Honestly, I don't mind if they don't "adjust" my GPA since the MCAT is there to equalize things.

It just really bothers me that some adcoms don't even know that grade deflation exists. I mean, come ON. The average white-collar professional (and every employer in CS, Business, etc.) in California knows that Cal and UCLA grade deflate compared to Stanford. How can adcoms not even know of its existence? Isn't that a bit irresponsible?

It would be very surprising to me if adcoms at the top schools didn't know of grade deflation. They could probably tell you that an A at MIT is not the same as an A at Brown, for instance. But one thing that people on here can't seem to distance themselves from is that there doesn't have to be a numeric correction for adcoms to take it into account. Your application is viewed holistically. They don't look at a kid with a 3.7 from MIT and a kid with a 4.0 from generic state school and plug those into an equation to equalize them. They look at your whole application. Those kids are never going to be equal in all other metrics, so the first kid may be accepted over the second kid.

 

[doctorleospaceman]

I don't see why it would matter if adcoms know about some arbitrary grade inflation/deflation. GPA has a fair margin of error even when comparing within the same university let alone between different schools. This is why after crossing the 3.6 threshold adcoms don't bother splitting hairs. Instead, they look at the MCAT as an equalizer and then the other aspects of the application.

 

[gobears19]

It would be very surprising to me if adcoms at the top schools didn't know of grade deflation. They could probably tell you that an A at MIT is not the same as an A at Brown, for instance. But one thing that people on here can't seem to distance themselves from is that there doesn't have to be a numeric correction for adcoms to take it into account. Your application is viewed holistically. They don't look at a kid with a 3.7 from MIT and a kid with a 4.0 from generic state school and plug those into an equation to equalize them. They look at your whole application. Those kids are never going to be equal in all other metrics, so the first kid may be accepted over the second kid.

Yeah, but some people on here (whom I suspect either came from those mid-level state schools, and are most likely not from California) just mock the idea of grade deflation by telling me that adcoms don't have "lists," as if the ridiculous idea of "grade-deflating lists" is what I'm trying to promote here.

It's really frustrating, because they make it sound like I'm the one making a silly demand, when all I ask is that adcoms know at least as much about undergrad schools as the PTA at Bay Area public high school does.

I mean, come on. If you need a "list" to tell you that Stanford is grade-inflated and Johns Hopkins is deflated, are you even qualified to be making these decisions? You can admit the 4.0 SJSU kid over the 3.7 UCLA kid, fine. But at least be AWARE that there's a huge difference between those two schools.

I don't expect them to arbitrarily add 0.2 to my GPA just because I went to Berkeley. That would be silly, and the MCAT (I think) is what exists to "add" to those deflated GPA's from more difficult schools. But the idea that they need a "list" to tell the difference between Cal and Fresno State is absolutely unacceptable, imo.

 

[gobears19]

I don't see why it would matter if adcoms know about some arbitrary grade inflation/deflation. GPA has a fair margin of error even when comparing within the same university let alone between different schools. This is why after crossing the 3.6 threshold adcoms don't bother splitting hairs. Instead, they look at the MCAT as an equalizer and then the other aspects of the application.

Agreed on your point about the differences within the same university. Majoring in Public Health here is a completely different beast from majoring Molecular & Cell Biology, and I think adcoms should really be making more distinctions between not only different schools, but also different majors.

But is the "threshold" really 3.6? If it is, that makes me feel a lot better lol

 

[gobears19]

California is not representative of our whole country, as we saw a couple weeks ago

Well, we're an eighth of the US's population and have a GDP bigger than France, so to completely discount us (or underrepresent us as the electoral college does) would be pretty inaccurate.

I'm trying to go to med school in California, but I'd be glad to move to another state (Texas, Virginia, New York, etc.), as long as it's a place where being Asian won't significantly hinder my life (looking at you Oklahoma, Arkansas, and many others).

 

[aldol16]

Yeah, but some people on here (whom I suspect either came from those mid-level state schools, and are most likely not from California) just mock the idea of grade deflation by telling me that adcoms don't have "lists," as if the ridiculous idea of "grade-deflating lists" is what I'm trying to promote here.

It's really frustrating, because they make it sound like I'm the one making a silly demand, when all I ask is that adcoms know at least as much about undergrad schools as the PTA at Bay Area public high school does.

I mean, come on. If you need a "list" to tell you that Stanford is grade-inflated and Johns Hopkins is deflated, are you even qualified to be making these decisions? You can admit the 4.0 SJSU kid over the 3.7 UCLA kid, fine. But at least be AWARE that there's a huge difference between those two schools.

I don't expect them to arbitrarily add 0.2 to my GPA just because I went to Berkeley. That would be silly, and the MCAT (I think) is what exists to "add" to those deflated GPA's from more difficult schools. But the idea that they need a "list" to tell the difference between Cal and Fresno State is absolutely unacceptable, imo.

Well, it depends on many factors, among them how long an adcom has been an adcom and where that adcom went to school. If that adcom is familiar with grading at MIT or CalTech, then he or she will bring that knowledge into the decision-making process. But if he/she does not, then it depends on how much experience he/she has. If that adcom has seen a lot of students from many top schools, then he/she likely has a gut instinct for which schools deflate and which schools don't.

The point is that except for the really well-known grade deflating schools, it may not be obvious to adcoms because they simply don't have that much experience with those schools. So MIT probably is known to have lower grades than a generic state school. But SJSU vs. UCLA? I wouldn't expect them to know that off the top of their head unless they went to school in California or something.

 

[gobears19]

0.05 of a grade point isn't going to make or break you. Unless you fall below a hard cutoff for a medical school (I can't think of any medical school that institutes a GPA cutoff at 3.7 or any point above a 3.65).

I'm not sure how different med schools set their "cutoff," but I just know that I don't really feel the need to go to a "top" med school. If I can get into Stanford, fantastic. That means I can go to a med school that's a 15-minute drive from home.

If not, fine. I can go to Davis, I can go to Waco, I can go to Cleveland, etc.

Basically pls just accept me anywhere lol

 

[gobears19]

Just my $0.02, but I did have an interviewer explicitly tell me not to worry about a C on my transcript because my overall ~3.7ish from UChicago "is like a 10 anywhere else." But then again, UChicago might have an extra intense reputation for grade deflation with the "where fun goes to die" moniker? Our dean's list/general honors threshold is kind of ridiculously low at 3.25.

Also, I wonder if your school has pre-med statistics that may be more useful for you? Like our pre-med office told us that the average cumulative GPA for accepted students from UChicago is 3.6 and sGPA is 3.5, vs 3.7 and 3.6 nationally. I also heard from our advisors that, among students who took at least one gap year, the avg GPA for matriculants was a 3.4.

Yeah, UChicago's grade deflation is pretty brutal, probably a lot worse than ours tbh

That's encouraging to hear, though. It completely contradicts the idea that some people post here that adcoms don't care/know about grade deflation (I mean come on, you need a "list" to know that UChicago is harder than UIC?).

Our school's career center has a very crappy data compilation. The data is woefully underreported, and in any case the matriculant stats are kinda skewed because Berkeley pre-med is almost entirely white/Asian (very few URM's thanks to Prop 209) and composed mostly of CA residents.

 

[gobears19]

Well, it depends on many factors, among them how long an adcom has been an adcom and where that adcom went to school. If that adcom is familiar with grading at MIT or CalTech, then he or she will bring that knowledge into the decision-making process. But if he/she does not, then it depends on how much experience he/she has. If that adcom has seen a lot of students from many top schools, then he/she likely has a gut instinct for which schools deflate and which schools don't.

The point is that except for the really well-known grade deflating schools, it may not be obvious to adcoms because they simply don't have that much experience with those schools. So MIT probably is known to have lower grades than a generic state school. But SJSU vs. UCLA? I wouldn't expect them to know that off the top of their head unless they went to school in California or something.

Yeah, the SJSU vs. UCLA thing pertains mostly to California, but since I want to go to school in this state it's relevant.

Maybe it's just me growing up in the very education-focused bubble of the Bay Area, but to me it's unimaginable that an admissions officer (or even anyone remotely associated with academia) would be unaware that UCLA or Berkeley are much harder than a CSU.

Upperclassmen here have told me to look for and apply to MD schools that have accepted a disproportionately high number of Berkeley grads over the past decade or so, and that those are the schools that seem to be aware of and account for our grade deflation.

 

[aldol16]

Yeah, the SJSU vs. UCLA thing pertains mostly to California, but since I want to go to school in this state it's relevant.

Then I would expect adcoms in the Cali schools to know about grading in Cali undergrad schools but not adcoms in other states (the East Coast, for example).

 

[aldol16]

Maybe it's just me growing up in the very education-focused bubble of the Bay Area, but to me it's unimaginable that an admissions officer (or even anyone remotely associated with academia) would be unaware that UCLA or Berkeley are much harder than a CSU.

I don't even know what a CSU is but the only UC I've heard of being difficult is Berkeley. That doesn't mean that it's not hard elsewhere - just that I haven't heard of it since I'm not from California.

Upperclassmen here have told me to look for and apply to MD schools that have accepted a disproportionately high number of Berkeley grads over the past decade or so, and that those are the schools that seem to be aware of and account for our grade deflation.

Applying to the schools your undergrad feeds into is generally a good idea.

 

[Toutie]

What about like a 3.65 lol

Yeah, the SJSU vs. UCLA thing pertains mostly to California, but since I want to go to school in this state it's relevant.

Maybe it's just me growing up in the very education-focused bubble of the Bay Area, but to me it's unimaginable that an admissions officer (or even anyone remotely associated with academia) would be unaware that UCLA or Berkeley are much harder than a CSU.

Upperclassmen here have told me to look for and apply to MD schools that have accepted a disproportionately high number of Berkeley grads over the past decade or so, and that those are the schools that seem to be aware of and account for our grade deflation.

All you can do is make sure you have the best application you can possibly have. Don't worry about not getting brownie points for going to Cal. Doesn't matter how good you app is, there is a good possibility you will NOT get into a CA medical school. California is a mass exporter of med students. Each year just UCLA alone has more med school applicants than all of the available med school seats in California. So there is a VERY good possibility you will have to go out of state.

Worry about the stuff you have control over and don't sweat the stuff you do not. You have no control over how adcoms view a GPA from Cal. Get a good GPA, a good MCAT score, make sure your EC's are good, your PS is good, your LOR's are good, choose your list of schools very wisely and you will very likely get into a medical school somewhere.

 

[gobears19]

All you can do is make sure you have the best application you can possibly have. Don't worry about not getting brownie points for going to Cal. Doesn't matter how good you app is, there is a good possibility you will NOT get into a CA medical school. California is a mass exporter of med students. Each year just UCLA alone has more med school applicants than all of the available med school seats in California. So there is a VERY good possibility you will have to go out of state.

Worry about the stuff you have control over and don't sweat the stuff you do not. You have no control over how adcoms view a GPA from Cal. Get a good GPA, a good MCAT score, make sure your EC's are good, your PS is good, your LOR's are good, choose your list of schools very wisely and you will very likely get into a medical school somewhere.

Yeah, I'm pretty open to going out-of-state for med school, it's just that California is a preference. I'd be very glad to go to school in someplace like Texas or the Northeast.

I guess I'm just going full-stressed-out neurotic right now because it's pre-finals week here. Everyone (CS kids, Business kids, pre med kids) are losing their minds right now lol

 

[gobears19]

I don't even know what a CSU is but the only UC I've heard of being difficult is Berkeley. That doesn't mean that it's not hard elsewhere - just that I haven't heard of it since I'm not from California.



Applying to the schools your undergrad feeds into is generally a good idea.

UCLA is pretty hard too, but not "as bad" as Cal. CSU's are California State Universities, basically the second tier of public schools here. Think UC vs. CSU as UMich vs. Michigan State, for a similar situation.

 

[Toutie]

Yeah, I'm pretty open to going out-of-state for med school, it's just that California is a preference. I'd be very glad to go to school in someplace like Texas or the Northeast.

I guess I'm just going full-stressed-out neurotic right now because it's pre-finals week here. Everyone (CS kids, Business kids, pre med kids) are losing their minds right now lol

There will be lots of stuff in your journey to be stressed about, there's no point in stressing about the stuff you have absolutely no control over. Relax and study for your finals.

 

[MareNostrummm]

UCLA is pretty hard too, but not "as bad" as Cal. CSU's are California State Universities, basically the second tier of public schools here. Think UC vs. CSU as UMich vs. Michigan State, for a similar situation.

I did my undergrad in a science major at a UC and I'm currently doing a post bacc at a CSU. From what I've noticed after taking biochemistry, genetics, cell molecular biology, etc... CSU is noticeably easier, but not substantially so. PhDs are still lecturing the same way they do at UCs, but the class sizes are noticeably smaller. I took biology with 1000+ people at a UC but the same lecture only has ~100 or so at the CSU.

In my opinion, a B+ at a UC would probably be an A- at a CSU... or an A- would be an A. You could easily make up for the supposed difference in rigor by just taking more classes at a CSU ex: 4 science classes at a CSU instead of 3 at a UC. Its really not a very significant difference though.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

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.

Thinking that you have it the hardest just because you go to a top school kind of makes you a condescending prick, doesn't it?

 

[efle]

at a UC

UCLA/Cal though? That's where the big difference would be, not like Riverside vs Long Beach

Thinking that you have it the hardest just because you go to a top school kind of makes you a condescending prick, doesn't it?

Does it? I didn't go to MIT but I'd imagine being top X% of the class there is a lot harder than a nearby state uni with a similar grading distribution. Am I a prick for thinking that

 

[piii]

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.

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.

 

[ChymeofPassion]

 

[MareNostrummm]

UCLA/Cal though? That's where the big difference would be, not like Riverside vs Long Beach


Does it? I didn't go to MIT but I'd imagine being top X% of the class there is a lot harder than a nearby state uni with a similar grading distribution. Am I a prick for thinking that

UCSB/Cal Poly Pomona... so a mid-high tier UC vs a cal state that emphasizes engineering

 

[efle]

Yeah see, I wouldn't expect a huge difference there. UCSB has an ACT range 24-30, Cal Poly Pomona 20-27. Decent overlap.

Compare Berkeley 29-34 and say, CSU Fresno 16-21. Suddenly very different, the below average students at one are still way up above the top end of the other. Add on top of that the fact that Poly = mostly sciencey students I'm surprised you felt it was that different at all!

 

[efle]

Love the people telling OP to stop whining about schools being hard. I'm sure if someone took your transcript and dropped your GPA significantly for that same effort you'd just shrug it off 🙄

 

[RunawayGrape]

.

 

[efle]

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

I'd feel that way if colleges were upfront with students on this issue whatsoever. When I toured what we heard was "[very high percent] of our premeds get into medical school! Our average MCAT is [very high number]! We have such great advising resources!" with zero mention of "you were all top of your highschool with SAT scores in the top few percent, but by pitting you against one another, we make sure only ~1/3rd of you earns solid GPAs" and so on.

 

[aldol16]

Love the people telling OP to stop whining about schools being hard. I'm sure if someone took your transcript and dropped your GPA significantly for that same effort you'd just shrug it off 🙄

There's no evidence that going to a grade-deflating school will deflate your GPA "significantly" compared to if you had gone somewhere else. The problem with this is mainly that you can't take both paths simultaneously so it's impossible to know what would have happened if you had gone to your state school versus somewhere like MIT. However, if it's that your GPA drops from 4.0 to 3.7, then that's not very significant even though it's 0.3 grade points. The idea is that even if you had a little lower GPA from going to a hard school, that hard school will prepare you for the MCAT so that the MCAT will be the equalizer there.

 

[RunawayGrape]

.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

I'd feel that way if colleges were upfront with students on this issue whatsoever. When I toured what we heard was "[very high percent] of our premeds get into medical school! Our average MCAT is [very high number]! We have such great advising resources!" with zero mention of "you were all top of your highschool with SAT scores in the top few percent, but by pitting you against one another, we make sure only ~1/3rd of you earns solid GPAs" and so on.

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.

 

[Goro]

Yup!!!!!

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.

 

[efle]

There's no evidence that going to a grade-deflating school will deflate your GPA "significantly" compared to if you had gone somewhere else. The problem with this is mainly that you can't take both paths simultaneously so it's impossible to know what would have happened if you had gone to your state school versus somewhere like MIT. However, if it's that your GPA drops from 4.0 to 3.7, then that's not very significant even though it's 0.3 grade points. The idea is that even if you had a little lower GPA from going to a hard school, that hard school will prepare you for the MCAT so that the MCAT will be the equalizer there.

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.

If you did well enough in high school to go to one of those schools, you have the capacity to succeed there.

I mean I went to one of those and did very well, but hugely disagree. There's a range of abilities even inside that kind of crowd. There are people who have always been great students that work hard, come up average against the peers there, are met with a non-competitive sGPA and give up. Like, hundreds of people fit that description every year. When a class is curved, by definition, not everyone can succeed. Only a minority gets to do really well.

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.

What are some unknown schools with student bodies like Berkeley? I'm aware there are smaller LACs that may not be as widely famous (eg Bowdoin, Swarthmore) but they are similarly selective and I'm ok hearing them whine a little too...