How do adcoms view the MCAT?

[premed67783]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Does anyone have an idea of what exactly medical school adcoms are thinking when they're looking at an applicant's MCAT scores?

The reason I ask is because I've been doing a lot of research on what kinds of applicants are likely to be accepted to various schools, and it seems like people with high MCAT/low GPA have a much harder time being accepted than people with mediocre MCATS/mediocre GPA or even people with high GPA/low MCAT. I know applicants who had impressive GPAs, but below average MCAT scores, but managed to get into top 20 schools. On the other hand, I know people who had astounding MCAT scores, but low GPAs and comparable ECs who are struggling to get accepted ANYWHERE.

It seems like the GPA is the real deciding factor, but if that is the case, then why bother with the MCATS at all? Thoughts?

 

[omgyou8myrice]

Does anyone have an idea of what exactly medical school adcoms are thinking when they're looking at an applicant's MCAT scores?

The reason I ask is because I've been doing a lot of research on what kinds of applicants are likely to be accepted to various schools, and it seems like people with high MCAT/low GPA have a much harder time being accepted than people with mediocre MCATS/mediocre GPA or even people with high GPA/low MCAT. I know applicants who had impressive GPAs, but below average MCAT scores, but managed to get into top 20 schools. On the other hand, I know people who had astounding MCAT scores, but low GPAs and comparable ECs who are struggling to get accepted ANYWHERE.

It seems like the GPA is the real deciding factor, but if that is the case, then why bother with the MCATS at all? Thoughts?

Define 'low gpa'. If you have a 2.0, that's going to be hard to overcome. I think most people will agree that a strong GPA is better than a strong MCAT score. I have several friends who scored relatively average at best (upper 20s), with strong strong (3.85+) GPAs and got into good schools.

 

[premed67783]

Define 'low gpa'. If you have a 2.0, that's going to be hard to overcome. I think most people will agree that a strong GPA is better than a strong MCAT score. I have several friends who scored relatively average at best (upper 20s), with strong strong (3.85+) GPAs and got into good schools.

by low GPA, I mean under 3.4, and by low MCAT, I mean like a 30/31. Yah, I know the GPA is more important, but I was curious about whether anyone has some insight (or educated guesses) as to what exactly the adcoms are thinking that makes them favor a high GPA over a high MCAT, and what purpose the MCAT really serves, if a good GPA tells them all they need to know.

 

[Laplace]

The logic is that a strong GPA is reflects a student's capacity to succeed in coursework over a 3 year time frame (for traditional applicants) whereas the MCAT is just a one day test so GPA would be a better measure of their ability to handle medical school coursework. The MCAT is just to even out the playing field ........a 4.0 and 35 will still be better than a 3.5 and 41 assuming they're from the same undergrad but I think it really varies depending on the particular school or maybe even down to the particular adcom looking at your application

 

[ReptarBar]

it's school-specific. just look at a school's median gpa/mcat for accepted applicants, be better than that, and relax.

 

[premed67783]

it's school-specific. just look at a school's median gpa/mcat for accepted applicants, be better than that, and relax.

haha i wish i could relax. my GPA is way below every school's median, but my MCAT is way above every school's median, so I am having trouble figuring out what schools I would have a shot at.

 

[HAV000]

The logic is that a strong GPA is reflects a student's capacity to succeed in coursework over a 3 year time frame (for traditional applicants) whereas the MCAT is just a one day test so GPA would be a better measure of their ability to handle medical school coursework. The MCAT is just to even out the playing field ........a 4.0 and 35 will still be better than a 3.5 and 41 assuming they're from the same undergrad but I think it really varies depending on the particular school or maybe even down to the particular adcom looking at your application

I would also add that, like any other standardized admissions test (i.e. SAT; Step 1,2,3), the score is very, very comparable for everybody. Grades are not easily comparable across majors, and definitely not institutions. While I agree that GPAs are probably more important in a head-to-head comparison, they hardly tell the whole story

 

[HAV000]

haha i wish i could relax. my GPA is way below every school's median, but my MCAT is way above every school's median, so I am having trouble figuring out what schools I would have a shot at.

If you want advice on specific schools, you will get better responses if you post your scores on mdAPP or a new thread (read: "What are my chances").

 

[premed67783]

If you want advice on specific schools, you will get better responses if you post your scores on mdAPP or a new thread (read: "What are my chances").

I wasnt looking for a "what are my chances" answer. I really just wanted to hear people's thoughts on the MCATS, and what exactly they indicate about a student that the GPA doesn't.

 

[LizzyM]

The MCAT is a very good predictor of success in the first 2 years of medical school and performance on the Step 1 exam (first board exam). That said, the curve of the line showing correlation between likelihood of completing the first 2 yrs (and likewise the curve showing graduation within 4 years) flattens out somewhere between 27 and 29 such that anything above 29 is gravy (although the curve continues an upward trajectory when one plots it agains Step 1 exam scores). Of course, a good Step 1 score means a student has more options for residency so selecting students with high MCAT scores is highly desirable for most schools.

GPA can be influenced by grade inflation, school, major, course selection, withdrawals and retakes and so it is more difficult to use to compare students. That said, it does measure a student's ability to do well year afer year rather than a snapshot of just one day (or three) as with the MCAT. There is also the consideration that test-prep for the MCAT can give an edge to some applicants over others (with a strong bias toward wealthy applicants).

So, adcoms look at both and like to see excellence in both. I do think that they may be more willing to forgive a low MCAT (but that is above 27 and evenly distributed and with a verbal of not less than 8) in an applicant with a gpa of 3.8 or more than a high MCAT (>35) in someone with a gpa of < 3.5.

 

[cgk]

The MCAT is a very good predictor of success in the first 2 years of medical school and performance on the Step 1 exam (first board exam). That said, the curve of the line showing correlation between likelihood of completing the first 2 yrs (and likewise the curve showing graduation within 4 years) flattens out somewhere between 27 and 29 such that anything above 29 is gravy (although the curve continues an upward trajectory when one plots it agains Step 1 exam scores). Of course, a good Step 1 score means a student has more options for residency so selecting students with high MCAT scores is highly desirable for most schools.

GPA can be influenced by grade inflation, school, major, course selection, withdrawals and retakes and so it is more difficult to use to compare students. That said, it does measure a student's ability to do well year afer year rather than a snapshot of just one day (or three) as with the MCAT. There is also the consideration that test-prep for the MCAT can give an edge to some applicants over others (with a strong bias toward wealthy applicants).

So, adcoms look at both and like to see excellence in both. I do think that they may be more willing to forgive a low MCAT (but that is above 27 and evenly distributed and with a verbal of not less than 8) in an applicant with a gpa of 3.8 or more than a high MCAT (>35) in someone with a gpa of < 3.5.

Based on your response, do you feel that a candidate who has an MCAT score of 28 or 29 with the verbal of 8, and a competitive GPA of> 3.5, would realistically still need amazing compensating factor's, VIA amazing off the chart EC's, to gain acceptance in an allopathic school?

 

[LizzyM]

Based on your response, do you feel that a candidate who has an MCAT score of 28 or 29 with the verbal of 8, and a competitive GPA of> 3.5, would realistically still need amazing compensating factor's, VIA amazing off the chart EC's, to gain acceptance in an allopathic school?

In a word, yes, some amazing life experience would compensate for a less than ideal gpa and less than idea but adequate MCAT.

 

[premed67783]

The MCAT is a very good predictor of success in the first 2 years of medical school and performance on the Step 1 exam (first board exam). That said, the curve of the line showing correlation between likelihood of completing the first 2 yrs (and likewise the curve showing graduation within 4 years) flattens out somewhere between 27 and 29 such that anything above 29 is gravy (although the curve continues an upward trajectory when one plots it agains Step 1 exam scores). Of course, a good Step 1 score means a student has more options for residency so selecting students with high MCAT scores is highly desirable for most schools.

GPA can be influenced by grade inflation, school, major, course selection, withdrawals and retakes and so it is more difficult to use to compare students. That said, it does measure a student's ability to do well year afer year rather than a snapshot of just one day (or three) as with the MCAT. There is also the consideration that test-prep for the MCAT can give an edge to some applicants over others (with a strong bias toward wealthy applicants).

So, adcoms look at both and like to see excellence in both. I do think that they may be more willing to forgive a low MCAT (but that is above 27 and evenly distributed and with a verbal of not less than 8) in an applicant with a gpa of 3.8 or more than a high MCAT (>35) in someone with a gpa of < 3.5.

As always, LizzyM, your input is both appreciated and enlightening! This pretty much sums up what I was asking.

 

[farrago]

I think things also depend on your grade trends. If you have a low GPA (like, say, 3.4) but a strong upward trend, that certainly looks better than having the same GPA but a smattering of Bs and Cs throughout all semesters. I think having your last 30-40 credits be all As would help a lot. So you could have a 3.4, big upward trend, and a really high MCAT and look pretty decent to schools. It would be great if the stats on the AAMC page actually gave you overall GPA, GPA over last 40 credits, MCAT, and admission chances - I'm assuming that most of the people who get in with lowish GPAs probably had a big upward trend with lots of As in upper lever courses.

 

[MayoorBust]

I think things also depend on your grade trends. If you have a low GPA (like, say, 3.4) but a strong upward trend, that certainly looks better than having the same GPA but a smattering of Bs and Cs throughout all semesters. I think having your last 30-40 credits be all As would help a lot. So you could have a 3.4, big upward trend, and a really high MCAT and look pretty decent to schools. It would be great if the stats on the AAMC page actually gave you overall GPA, GPA over last 40 credits, MCAT, and admission chances - I'm assuming that most of the people who get in with lowish GPAs probably had a big upward trend with lots of As in upper lever courses.

I thought the lower level classes were weedout not the upperlevels.

 

[LizzyM]

Sadly, an upward trend is often associated with poor grades in the pre-reqs. If that's the case, the upward trend doesn't help much. If the upward trend comes from having gotten out of the way graduation requirements in theology, philosophy, languages, fine arts, etc, then you are in better shape. A C in "St. Paul's Letters" is a different story than a C in o-chem.

 

[farrago]

Sadly, an upward trend is often associated with poor grades in the pre-reqs. If that's the case, the upward trend doesn't help much. If the upward trend comes from having gotten out of the way graduation requirements in theology, philosophy, languages, fine arts, etc, then you are in better shape. A C in "St. Paul's Letters" is a different story than a C in o-chem.

We're talking about upward trends here, so obviously there were some bad grades at some point - but you're saying that 40 credits of As in the humanities would look better than 40 credits of As in upper level science classes?

 

[premed67783]

We're talking about upward trends here, so obviously there were some bad grades at some point - but you're saying that 40 credits of As in the humanities would look better than 40 credits of As in upper level science classes?

I think she is saying the exact opposite. If you had a poor freshman/sophomore year, and you took all your humanities in those first 2 years, and then showed an upward trend in your last two years, where you took a good number of prereq classes, then it would be easier to forgive those first couple years.

 

[farrago]

I think she is saying the exact opposite. If you had a poor freshman/sophomore year, and you took all your humanities in those first 2 years, and then showed an upward trend in your last two years, where you took a good number of prereq classes, then it would be easier to forgive those first couple years.

No, LizzyM said, "If the upward trend comes from having gotten out of the way graduation requirements in theology, philosophy, languages, fine arts, etc, then you are in better shape".

I mean, "upward trend" means that you've gotten some bad grades prior to the upward trend - I'm assuming it helps to have an upward trend in upper level science courses. Unless, of course, all your bad grades were in humanities classes; then no one probably gives a bleep. But most people might have some bad grades in classes like O-chem or calculus or whatever.

 

[premed67783]

No, LizzyM said, "If the upward trend comes from having gotten out of the way graduation requirements in theology, philosophy, languages, fine arts, etc, then you are in better shape".

I mean, "upward trend" means that you've gotten some bad grades prior to the upward trend - I'm assuming it helps to have an upward trend in upper level science courses. Unless, of course, all your bad grades were in humanities classes; then no one probably gives a bleep. But most people might have some bad grades in classes like O-chem or calculus or whatever.

"gotten out of the way" means you got your humanities requirements out of the way in your earlier college years, which would imply that your weakest grades were in non-prereq/non-science courses. In which case, I agree that no one would give a "bleep".

 

[farrago]

"gotten out of the way" means you got your humanities requirements out of the way in your earlier college years, which would imply that your weakest grades were in non-prereq/non-science courses. In which case, I agree that no one would give a "bleep".

I see what you're saying. But most people don't take the pre-reqs in the last two years of college, so they're usually working with a different scenario. When people talk about offsetting a low GPA with the MCAT, they usually have in mind offsetting lower grades in some science classes - like, you got a C in o-chem but then get a 15 on the bio section, or something.

 

[LizzyM]

We're talking about upward trends here, so obviously there were some bad grades at some point - but you're saying that 40 credits of As in the humanities would look better than 40 credits of As in upper level science classes?

No, I'm saying that if the science grades have been good all along and the poor grades were gen ed courses taken in the first 2 yrs of college, you are better off than if the poor courses early on were pre-reqs, particularly if the upward trend is due to mushy classes in the last 2 yrs.

 

[UMICHPremed]

From my understanding, the MCAT is weighed heavier than the GPA in the final decision. I have four friends with MCAT around 38 and GPA below 3.8, who were all accepted into U of Michigan med school and one friend with 3.96 GPA (Biophysics major, biochem minor) with 34 MCAT who did not even receive an interview invite; I knew that all five of them had comparable ECs and they all attended UMICH for undergrad.

 

[premed67783]

From my understanding, the MCAT is weighed heavier than the GPA in the final decision. I have four friends with MCAT around 38 and GPA below 3.8, who were all accepted into U of Michigan med school and one friend with 3.96 GPA (Biophysics major, biochem minor) with 34 MCAT who did not even receive an interview invite; I knew that all five of them had comparable ECs and they all attended UMICH for undergrad.

I do have one friend who had ~3.95 GPA (engineering major, which makes it that much more impressive), but a 31 MCAT. He received about 6 interviews (at some really good schools too), but no acceptances =(. My guess is that he's a weak interviewer.

 

[adam17]

would an overall average of 3.0 but all A's in last 2 years of undergrad be considered similar to someone with an overall avg of 3.4 with lower grades in the last 2 years compared to first 2 years?

 

[DoctwoB]

From my understanding, the MCAT is weighed heavier than the GPA in the final decision. I have four friends with MCAT around 38 and GPA below 3.8, who were all accepted into U of Michigan med school and one friend with 3.96 GPA (Biophysics major, biochem minor) with 34 MCAT who did not even receive an interview invite; I knew that all five of them had comparable ECs and they all attended UMICH for undergrad.

1. Anecdotal stories are like a**holes.

2. Adcoms at different schools are different. UMich may have a philosphy of weighting MCAT over GPA. While interesting, that in no way allows you to generalize that MCAT>GPA. LizzyM's take comes from someone actually involved in the process, and echoes what I would have expected. FWIW I had a 39 and 3.6 w/ dec ECs and got no love from them OOS.

I would expect that whatever is on the low side of your application is more "important" to you. I'd bet a 3.4/36 >> 3.2/41. Likewise, I bet a 3.8/33 >> 3.9/30

 

[DoctwoB]

would an overall average of 3.0 but all A's in last 2 years of undergrad be considered similar to someone with an overall avg of 3.4 with lower grades in the last 2 years compared to first 2 years?

read the thread. It depends if the bad grades are in pre-reqs or in english courses.

 

[premed67783]

2. Adcoms at different schools are different. UMich may have a philosphy of weighting MCAT over GPA. While interesting, that in no way allows you to generalize that MCAT>GPA. LizzyM's take comes from someone actually involved in the process, and echoes what I would have expected. FWIW I had a 39 and 3.6 w/ dec ECs and got no love from them OOS.

I would expect that whatever is on the low side of your application is more "important" to you. I'd bet a 3.4/36 >> 3.2/41. Likewise, I bet a 3.8/33 >> 3.9/30

That IS interesting. It'd be nice to know what schools do place more emphasis on MCAT scores. I was browsing applicants on mdapplicants.com, and I noticed that almost all accepted applicants with low GPA/high MCATS were accepted to schools in Ohio (ie case western, ohio state, univ. of cincinnati). Consequently, I added every Ohio med school to my list =D.

 

[LizzyM]

would an overall average of 3.0 but all A's in last 2 years of undergrad be considered similar to someone with an overall avg of 3.4 with lower grades in the last 2 years compared to first 2 years?

The first example you give would be someone with a 2.0 gpa in the first 2 yrs who then pulled it up to a 4.0 in the last 2 yrs. If there were a crazy story to go along with it and all the pre-reqs taken in the last 2 yrs, there might be someone who is attracted to the story of reinvention and redemption.

A 3.4 with higher scores in the early years would work out so someone with a 3.67 in the first 2 yrs who then does a pitiful 3.0 in the last 2 yrs. That seems to suggest that someone couldn't handle upper levlel courses or who started slacking off after awhile.... or it could be a situation involving a catastrophic injury or illness and and a semester slide followed by a rebound. Again, someone might be curious about the story behind the situation and might decide that the applicant should have an interview.

In either case, a good MCAT and interesting and valuable experiences are necessary. There are odd little things that might catch someone's eye, and special circumstances, but for the most part, applicants with gpa <3.4 don't have great odds.

 

[theWUbear]

The first example you give would be someone with a 2.0 gpa in the first 2 yrs who then pulled it up to a 4.0 in the last 2 yrs. If there were a crazy story to go along with it and all the pre-reqs taken in the last 2 yrs, there might be someone who is attracted to the story of reinvention and redemption.

A 3.4 with higher scores in the early years would work out so someone with a 3.67 in the first 2 yrs who then does a pitiful 3.0 in the last 2 yrs. That seems to suggest that someone couldn't handle upper levlel courses or who started slacking off after awhile.... or it could be a situation involving a catastrophic injury or illness and and a semester slide followed by a rebound. Again, someone might be curious about the story behind the situation and might decide that the applicant should have an interview.

In either case, a good MCAT and interesting and valuable experiences are necessary. There are odd little things that might catch someone's eye, and special circumstances, but for the most part, applicants with gpa <3.4 don't have great odds.

LizzyM:

If I were to ask you "which schools might be more inclined to take a look at a 'story of reinvention and redemption' despite poor applicant stats (GPA)", would you say that the schools more likely to take a chance would simply be the schools with the lower-stat applicant pool, or the schools that don't have to go through 10k applicants, or something else? I am asking, because I wonder if a top-20-like school would consider a student who, say, had a 2.6 GPA, then 4 Straight semesters of 4.0 to bring up to a 3.0, a 4.0 SMP, a top MCAT, numerous publications, fantastic clinical experience.

I guess what I'm asking is, indeed "which schools are more inclined to take a look at a story of reinvention", as well as "do superstar schools ever select otherwise-superstar students with a mediocre stat due to an issue in the past?"

 

[LizzyM]

LizzyM:

If I were to ask you "which schools might be more inclined to take a look at a 'story of reinvention and redemption' despite poor applicant stats (GPA)", would you say that the schools more likely to take a chance would simply be the schools with the lower-stat applicant pool, or the schools that don't have to go through 10k applicants, or something else? I am asking, because I wonder if a top-20-like school would consider a student who, say, had a 2.6 GPA, then 4 Straight semesters of 4.0 to bring up to a 3.0, a 4.0 SMP, a top MCAT, numerous publications, fantastic clinical experience.

I guess what I'm asking is, indeed "which schools are more inclined to take a look at a story of reinvention", as well as "do superstar schools ever select otherwise-superstar students with a mediocre stat due to an issue in the past?"

I don't know if there are particular schools.... sometimes it is an admissions committee member or Dean who is moved by an essay, a LOR, etc.... and who champions an application. Sometimes all the enthusiasm in the world can't help though and the applicant will be considered too high risk despite the turn around. 🙁

 

[gatorade848]

what qualifies as high risk? Cs n Bs in pre requisite? I have Cs n Bs in physics and intro bio but that was before I had an epiphany about my own special reason for going into medicine and proceeded to get As in every other science classes I had taken since then; ex inorganic/organic chem, biochem, neurobiology, anatomy n physiology, but B+ in cell bio a B in genetics (hardest bio class at my college)...

 

[LizzyM]

what qualifies as high risk? ...

High risk means someone who is not likely to do well in medical school, likely to repeat a year,unlikely to pass Step 1 on the first try. Schools want to avoid admitting someone who is high risk. Some school administrators, based on performance of students in previous classes, will be apprehensive of some applicants based on a fear that they are "high risk".

At schools that grade on a curve, you need to be able to keep up with the rest of the class which can be difficult if you are not as academically prepared as the rest of the class.

 

[gatorade848]

it would depend a lot on what the upward curve consist of right? I would think a upward curve with all hard/upper level science classes would offset earlier bad grades more than a curve with easy science classes. slightly biased since I fit the 1st scenario really well lol

 

[garconfrancais]

.

 

[LizzyM]

Why is it that an upward trend matters less if low grades were in pre-reqs when GPA is used to evaluate a candidate's ability to succeed year after year? If a candidate has low grades in science classes, they have less of an ability to succeed year after year than if they didn't take science classes early on? I just don't understand why a student who struggled in humanities is any different than a student who took pre-reqs, especially if they both recovered and got good grades in the end. Especially if it was paired with a good MCAT score, presumably showing a solid foundation in the basic sciences. An upward trend is an upward trend.

omg -- this is why there is a verbal section of the MCAT.


Let's say a student takes the pre-reqs and general education courses in the first two years and does poorly in those gen ed courses for a gpa of 3.3 and then takes advanced science courses, does very well and ends four years with a gpa of 3.7.

Now take another student who takes the pre-reqs and general education courses in the first two years and does poorly in those pre-req courses for a gpa of 3.3 and then takes advanced science courses, does very well and ends four years with a gpa of 3.7.

Do I prefer the student whose upward trend includes excellence in every science course ever taken or the one who has a similar upward trend but who did poorly in the pre-reqs? Do you get it now??

 

[farrago]

omg -- this is why there is a verbal section of the MCAT.


Let's say a student takes the pre-reqs and general education courses in the first two years and does poorly in those gen ed courses for a gpa of 3.3 and then takes advanced science courses, does very well and ends four years with a gpa of 3.7.

Now take another student who takes the pre-reqs and general education courses in the first two years and does poorly in those pre-req courses for a gpa of 3.3 and then takes advanced science courses, does very well and ends four years with a gpa of 3.7.

Do I prefer the student whose upward trend includes excellence in every science course ever taken or the one who has a similar upward trend but who did poorly in the pre-reqs? Do you get it now??

Because it's not exactly clear there is any substantial difference between the two students in terms of intellectual ability? I mean, someone could screw up in three classes, but then take 15 more classes and do very well, and get a 35 on the MCAT... Obviously, if you have plenty of students to choose from, you can limit yourself to the best.

 

[garconfrancais]

.

 

[LizzyM]

lol was I just belittled for asking a perfectly reasonable question? I understood what you were saying, trust me, no reading comprehension issues here. I was asking why it is that an upward trend reflects differently depending on whether or not low grades were in science classes given that in both cases both ultimately proved themselves to be capable of success in the sciences. Either way, both struggled at one point with getting good grades and if grades are used to measure of long-term academic success, then to me it is reasonable to regard both applicants equally.

Seriously?
We've got the applicant who had B-/C in o-chem, B-/B in physics and then we have the student who had those grades in Christian Marriage, Letters of St. Paul, History of Jazz and Japanese I. All other grades are A and A-. One is going to have a significantly better science gpa and that is going to be noticed. The adcom will be more forgiving of a student with a AO (all other ) gpa that is lower than the total gpa more so than a student with a science gpa that is in the tank.

 

[gatorade848]

Seriously?
We've got the applicant who had B-/C in o-chem, B-/B in physics and then we have the student who had those grades in Christian Marriage, Letters of St. Paul, History of Jazz and Japanese I. All other grades are A and A-. One is going to have a significantly better science gpa and that is going to be noticed. The adcom will be more forgiving of a student with a AO (all other ) gpa that is lower than the total gpa more so than a student with a science gpa that is in the tank.

sooo am i screwed? lol i messed up in phy/intro bio

 

[farrago]

sooo am i screwed? lol i messed up in phy/intro bio

There are over 100 medical schools and hundreds, or even thousands, of people making admissions decisions. Schools certainly differ in how they view aspects of an application. Even if you read the posts by the few admissions committee members on this site (and there are only about four of them), you will see that they sometimes have contradictory opinions. That's why you should apply broadly, because we really don't know what individual schools are looking for.

 

[azide10]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=763242

You might find this helpful.

 

[Alpha Male]

lol was I just belittled for asking a perfectly reasonable question? I understood what you were saying, trust me, no reading comprehension issues here. I was asking why it is that an upward trend reflects differently depending on whether or not low grades were in science classes given that in both cases both ultimately proved themselves to be capable of success in the sciences. Either way, both struggled at one point with getting good grades and if grades are used to measure of long-term academic success, then to me it is reasonable to regard both applicants equally.

I anticipated this coming...and then laughed out loud upon confirmation.

Seriously?
We've got the applicant who had B-/C in o-chem, B-/B in physics and then we have the student who had those grades in Christian Marriage, Letters of St. Paul, History of Jazz and Japanese I. All other grades are A and A-. One is going to have a significantly better science gpa and that is going to be noticed. The adcom will be more forgiving of a student with a AO (all other ) gpa that is lower than the total gpa more so than a student with a science gpa that is in the tank.

Then this came...laughed so hard I almost cried

 

[BigRedBeta]

I disagree with the sentiment that it's better to have a good GPA then a good MCAT, and I'd argue that the DATA supports that:

https://www.aamc.org/download/157450/data/table24-mcatgpagridall2008-10.pdf.pdf

It's obviously not an apples to apples comparison but a superlative GPA (>3.8) only gets accepted 72.2% of the time, while a superlative MCAT score (>33) gets accepted at a 76.1% rate. There are roughly equal numbers of people with these scores in the applicant pool (28,530 with 3.8 GPA's over the last three applicant cycles vs 25,838 with MCAT's >33).


Whether 4 percentage points is statistically significant or not, I don't know, but I doubt there are very many pre-meds who would voluntarily reduce their chances by 4% if given the choice.