How Much Weight Should Vet Schools Give GPA/GRE/Experience/Interview?

[fromthebox]

---

Members do not see this ad.

fromthebox: your IS school weights GRE and GPA equally. It absolutely helped me.

I said most schools, not that Davis gave me the time of day anyway. Probably because of my low experience hours last year. 3,200 hours average?

 

[LMMS]

LMMS- I would call the ocean cerulean. Especially if I were describing it to someone who was not there viewing it. These type of words give texture to communication. Some of the words are silly because they have fallen out of use, but a lot are still relevant.

I stand corrected! 😉

It appalled me to no end to encounter co-workers and others who had their BA and could not write a grammatically correct police report, even with use of spell check and MS Word. To heck with the GRE vocab, these guys get homonyms wrong!
Should that be forgiven because they took basic English in HS, so it isn't relevant anymore?

Totally with you on this one. Drives me up the wall! However, I don't think that the GRE would be able to find the faults of these people (well, with the exception of the writing sample). For instance, my direct supervisor has a DVM and a MS and doesn't know the difference between they're their and there nor its and it's. Also, they don't have a grasp of the proper use of punctuation, contractions or helping verbs. Emails read like a Tarzan script; and medical records, well, I'm not going to go there. Eeep!

I actually remember quite a few. A lot better % than remembering what IL-3 does vs IL-5 or whatever from immunology, or which genes do what from biochem etc etc.

But that's the stuff I CAN remember!!!

As far as the GRE goes, I think that something to keep in mind is that most of the people applying to vet school are not people who took tons of upper level English classes with a big vocab component...

Well said. I think that's why there's such a dichotomy between certain group's scores (and thus, perhaps, people's opinions). Granted, there are science majors who do/did take higher level English classes (kudos to you all!) but I would say that the majority of science majors don't. If one looks at the averages across majors for the GRE components you can really see the difference between the science and non-science folks.

 

[Minnerbelle]

I think it's one thing to gripe about something that you're lacking in (be it experience, LORs, GPA, GREs, etc...), but I think it's another to say that it shouldn't be counted as much just because you don't particularly do well in one category. I mean, the reason why there are so many categories is so that you can make up for a slight deficiency in one of the others. I feel like vet schools in general (minus a few that have pretty stringent preferences) are pretty forgiving of poor performance. There are tons of people who get in with GPAs in the low 3.0 range. And as much as we all gripe about the GREs, a competitive score for vet school is like 1200 out of 1600. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me in the least bit. I get that perhaps knowledge of the content of the test (geometry, vocab, etc...) may not necessarily reflect on how good a clinician you'll become, but I think there are definitely some merits to the test.

I personally like how vet school has seats for a very diverse set of students (those with great academic record but kinda green in life/professional experience, those with weak academic record, but proven very capable in the field, those who suck at test taking but full of passion, etc...). So I kinda like how admissions is now, where most schools in general seem to look at each application on an individual basis, taking into account the whole applicant and their set of circumstances.

I totally get that it sucks to be sidebarred because of one set of numbers, even though you know you would make a great vet regardless of it (or that it's not a true reflection of your potential), but that's the same with a ton of people applying. Whether the weights of different admissions criteria tip in your favor I think is really a crapshoot more than anything else. I guess this is where it becomes important to apply broadly if you're just looking for an acceptance from any school.

 

[sooprnova]

Well said, Minnerbelle.

As long as we're still discussing the GRE, I'll throw in my .02. While I agree that it doesn't test how great of a vet (or vet student) you'll be, I agree with SOV that it tests how well you test and, beyond that, how well you know/understand your own learning style and how you apply that to your test prep.

Not great at high school math? Get one of the study guides and memorize the tricks that are almost guaranteed to appear on the test. Can't comprehend passages from disciplines outside of those in which you're interested? Spend a lot of free time reading weird stuff. Take notes. Make sure you understand it and remember the process you used to get to that point of understanding. Don't have an excellent vocab? Memorize words, word roots, word classes, and do more reading.

Recognizing your deficiencies is, I think, the hardest part of preparing for the GRE. It's so easy to get caught up in "OMG I can't possibly memorize 500 words and understand these passages about the correlation between Choctaw Indian totems and women's suffrage and remember if a chord bisects a circle or touches it at one point!". Being able to prioritize your studying and focus on the areas in which the most immediate improvement is necessary is what it's all about.

I think that's a critical part of learning in general, and I'd imagine it's fairly important while in vet school, too. I can't speak as to whether the MCAT would be a better standardized test for vet hopefuls, but I think some standardized test is important if only to test your testing/test prep abilities because, from what I've seen on the Rant Here thread, tests definitely DO NOT go away. 🙁

 

[LMMS]

Minnerbelle and sooprnova - good points. In the end, we're stuck. Really, testing is a necessary component; and institutions need something like this. And, given the generalization of said GRE (everyone has to take English and math regardless), it would seem it to be the 'fairest' of the current options. So, unless a miracle occurs, there will always be standardized testing (and thus, a population that loathes it 😉).

 

[WelshCob]

I really think that everything should be weighted equally. Why? because I know some 4.0's that got in with little to no experience. Grades matter because they show your ability to learn and comprehend but jut having good grades will not make you a good vet.

 

[LetItSnow]

Grades matter because they show your ability to learn and comprehend but jut having good grades will not make you a good vet.

Personally, I'd argue that grades don't really show your ability to learn and comprehend, but..... it's not like there are other easily-accessible metrics to determine that.

They do show your willingness to put forth effort. Probably more that than anything.

 

[sunshinevet]

I really think that everything should be weighted equally. Why? because I know some 4.0's that got in with little to no experience. Grades matter because they show your ability to learn and comprehend but jut having good grades will not make you a good vet.

Fair enough, but didn't these people also still have to get LOR's, write their personal statement and go to an interview? (Unless they applied to schools that don't interview). 4.0 or not, they still had to make it through the other hoops that other people "excelled" at. They just excelled at a different hoop.

Obviously here in Aus, 1/3 of my class was taken in from marks alone - us lovely high school leavers. 😀 I strongly disagree with this system - other vet schools have recently opened in Australia which require questionairres and interviews etc, and I feel that is a MUCH better way to admit people to veterinary school. That being said, anyone who was in my class who "wasn't going to become a good vet" or whatever left fairly rapidly, and now we've got a pretty solid bunch.

I just wanted to say, for all those saying "it should be more about experience etc", we had several people admitted to our class with mediocre academics and exceptional veterinary experiences, letters, and personal statements (as the other 2/3's of my class get admitted in a similar process to the US). All these people have since failed and dropped down a year. In my experience, the people who were let in with mediocre grades were the people who geniunely struggled the whole way, until they failed something. Experience is great, passion is great but you DO NEED MORE THAN THAT. Wanting to be a vet alone is not enough to get you through vet school. I know that sometimes you want it so bad that you think "surely its enough". It's really not. And these people, and admissions, learned the hard way.

Also, I'm sure heaps and heaps and heaps of people every year apply with thousands of varied veterinary hours, glowing LOR's, and awesome personal statements. How do you seperate out those people? I would use their grades, personally.

 

[WelshCob]

I'm not say at all that they didn't deserve to get in by all means they deserved it. I was trying to get across that it is a lot harder to overcome GPA short comings verse ones in experience and such. If things were weighed equal then people with lower GPAs that have proved themselves in other ways would ultimately have the same chance as someone with a phenomenal GPA. Sorry I don't think I explained myself well enough.🙄

 

[sunshinevet]

I'm not say at all that they didn't deserve to get in by all means they deserved it. I was trying to get across that it is a lot harder to overcome GPA short comings verse ones in experience and such. If things were weighed equal then people with lower GPAs that have proved themselves in other ways would ultimately have the same chance as someone with a phenomenal GPA. Sorry I don't think I explained myself well enough.🙄

Oh I know what you're gettting at, sorry most of my post was in general so don't think it was all directed at you! However, I think most of the time, your not comparing someone with a low GPA and excellent experiences etc with someone with a high GPA and little experience - I think more often than not, its low GPA and excellent experience vs high GPA and excellent experience. So I'm not sure putting more weight on experience etc would produce the change in admissions some people think it would 🙂

 

[Trematode]

The only school I can apply to looks at pre-req average and GRE and they offer you an interview based on that. Then they look at your experience. There are no LORs or PS. I happen to be a resident of the most competitive area where the average of accepted students is like a 3.7. Grad courses do not count, so I cannot go do a Masters to show I can handle a heavy load. Upper level courses do not make a difference. Also, I have experiences that I know NONE of the other applicants do not have. They will not look at that unless they grant me an interview. And unlike y'all, I cannot apply to other schools in the country or internationally.

I have a feeling that if everything was weighted equally, that my experience and LORs (if they had any) would allow me to at least get to the interview stage and would make up for my GPA being at the lower range of acceptances. Also, if grad courses were considered, I would not be stuck in the "Masters or give up my dream of vet school" ultimatum. If I were allowed to repeat courses instead of taking different courses or upper level courses, I likely would not be stuck in this rutt where my marks in a certain subject are dragging my average down. Also, I would not hear horror stories about people with the highest averages getting accepted after 2 years of schooling and not really wanting to go to vet school.

I often wonder if I would not do well in vet school based on my lower grades and average GRE. Based on what some of you are saying, I am destined to do poorly on the NAVLE and struggle my butt off if I get in. Perhaps weighting everything equally is not the way to go?

 

[breenie]

I often wonder if I would not do well in vet school based on my lower grades and average GRE. Based on what some of you are saying, I am destined to do poorly on the NAVLE and struggle my butt off if I get in.

Not necessarily. I know of a few people "struggling" and they definitely weren't the worst performers in undergrad (or even mediocre).

Personally, I think it usually has to do with something ELSE going on, rather than academic preparedness. But my school weights grades very heavily, so who knows.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Not necessarily. I know of a few people "struggling" and they definitely weren't the worst performers in undergrad (or even mediocre).

Personally, I think it usually has to do with something ELSE going on, rather than academic preparedness. But my school weights grades very heavily, so who knows.

I would say I mostly agree with this...

The people who have failed classes have generally just struggled in one class, not across the board, and usually there is one exam that sunk them because something that affected their performance (oftentimes it is being sick near the exam impacting last minute studying). One person who failed 2 classes was basically lazy. There were family reasons in a couple of cases, health issues, but that is about it.

Mostly everyone who got in and tries and doesn't have some distraction gets through here.

 

[Trematode]

I may have went off on a little tangent there. 🙄.
The admissions process is the way it is and there is nothing I can do to change it except to overcome what is holding me back from getting an interview. I am not the only one in this boat. I know a lot of dedicated students who are forced to "upgrade" this year after earning their degree (and even a Masters with some people). We are working our butts off, praying that the rest of the applicant pool is sucky, working hard towards the GRE and hoping our pre-req hits that magic number so we can show the school what we got. 😎.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Sounds like a good attitude to me.