I'm sorry but this pisses me off

[RubTue]

so someone in a thread was just excited because he/she got accepted to UCSF and only had a 3.1 GPA (3.0 science) and a 31M MCAT. Ok, now cool for him/her, but come on... does this piss anybody else off just a little. Maybe this person had a really interesting/challenging life, but I bet so did a lot of other more-qualified applicants. I don't want to get into an argument about affirmative action, because I know I'll sound like a jack-ass. Just wondering if it pisses anybody else off out there that people with low scores and grades are getting into schools because they are "unique," when some "boring" hard-working kids with a 3.1 GPA and 31 MCAT maybe won't get into a single med school.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

so someone in a thread was just excited because he/she got accepted to UCSF and only had a 3.1 GPA (3.0 science) and a 31M MCAT. Ok, now cool for him/her, but come on... does this piss anybody else off just a little. Maybe this person had a really interesting/challenging life, but I bet so did a lot of other more-qualified applicants. I don't want to get into an argument about affirmative action, because I know I'll sound like a jack-ass. Just wondering if it pisses anybody else off out there that people with low scores and grades are getting into schools because they are "unique," when some "boring" hard-working kids with a 3.1 GPA and 31 MCAT maybe won't get into a single med school.

GPA and MCAT are not the sole (or even the best) measurements of "hard-working" or accomplishments. They are used heavilly in this process because they are all most undergrads have and because MCATs are a common yardstick to use across schools. However, Adcoms are evaluating numerous factors, and trying to put together a diverse class of multi-dimensional students. Once you pass a certain threshold, the non-numerical factors kick in and become more important, and so someone with greate ECs and who interviews well may vault ahead. This makes sense because the skills that make someone do well at the MCAT are not always those skills that make someone a great doctor, or even a great med student. And FYI, for this reason, once you get into med school, the MCAT no longer matters, nor do college grades. Even the first two years of med school grades won't matter as much as other factors in terms of future residency options. The best thing you can do is not focus on other people and just focus on yourself and your own app, grades, prospects.

I guess what I'm saying is don't hate the player -- it's the game that's frustrating you.

 

[Rafa]

Everything Law2Doc said, but especially the last sentence.

 

[notdeadyet]

There are no rules that grades and MCATs are the absolute be-all, end-all. Nice yardsticks, but they're not everything. I know a PhD in Chemistry that had so-so undergraduate grades who is now a physician. His GPA was ho-hum and his MCAT wasn't too hot either. But is he a better bet for a possible physician-to-be than a 22 year old whose greatest accomplishment is honor role? You betcha.

Like the previous poster said, focus on getting yourself in to med schools. If GPA and MCATs are the only thing you have to use to position yourself, you might want to look at the whole package. You can improve your prospects dramatically...

Best of luck...

 

[MD2BN10]

GPA and MCAT are not the sole (or even the best) measurements of "hard-working" or accomplishments. They are used heavilly in this process because they are all most undergrads have and because MCATs are a common yardstick to use across schools. However, Adcoms are evaluating numerous factors, and trying to put together a diverse class of multi-dimensional students. Once you pass a certain threshold, the non-numerical factors kick in and become more important, and so someone with greate ECs and who interviews well may vault ahead. This makes sense because the skills that make someone do well at the MCAT are not always those skills that make someone a great doctor, or even a great med student. And FYI, for this reason, once you get into med school, the MCAT no longer matters, nor do college grades. Even the first two years of med school grades won't matter as much as other factors in terms of future residency options. The best thing you can do is not focus on other people and just focus on yourself and your own app, grades, prospects.

I agree 100%. Most Adcoms recognize a good test-taker does not equal a good physician. There are many other factors and obviously the person with a 3.1 was able to demonstrate their characteristics and strengths that would make them a good physician. Find your own strengths and highlight them to Adcoms.

 

[tkdusb]

so someone in a thread was just excited because he/she got accepted to UCSF and only had a 3.1 GPA (3.0 science) and a 31M MCAT. Ok, now cool for him/her, but come on... does this piss anybody else off just a little. Maybe this person had a really interesting/challenging life, but I bet so did a lot of other more-qualified applicants. I don't want to get into an argument about affirmative action, because I know I'll sound like a jack-ass. Just wondering if it pisses anybody else off out there that people with low scores and grades are getting into schools because they are "unique," when some "boring" hard-working kids with a 3.1 GPA and 31 MCAT maybe won't get into a single med school.

I don't think it's so wrong if between two equal candidates, the more interesting candidate is picked. I think it's frustrating and silly when people with 3.9/35+ are passed over in favor of people with sub-3.5/30.

 

[Law2Doc]

I don't think it's so wrong if between two equal candidates, the more interesting candidate is picked. I think it's frustrating and silly when people with 3.9/35+ are passed over in favor of people with sub-3.5/30.

Again, you are focusing in on two criteria and deciding they are the most important. They may not be, at least at most schools. A 3.9/35+ and lame boring ECs and lukewarm LORs and a mediocre interview does not necessarilly outweigh, or even equate to a sub 3.5/30 with awesome ECs, and great LORs and great interview skills.

 

[tkdusb]

I wasn't as detailed as I should have been. I was operating under the assumption that the other stuff was similar between the two applicants.

 

[Law2Doc]

I wasn't as detailed as I should have been. I was operating under the assumption that the other stuff was similar between the two applicants.

That is simply never the case. If it were, the higher stat applicant would get in.

 

[Saluki]

That is simply never the case. If it were, the higher stat applicant would get in.

Unless the lower stat applicant happened to be a minority...

 

[Law2Doc]

Unless the lower stat applicant happened to be a minority...

The background and experiences would still be different.

 

[tkdusb]

That is simply never the case. If it were, the higher stat applicant would get in.

Have you seen Messerschmitt's stats? He didn't get in anywhere in 2005. His stats are my stats only infinitely better. People who are far less qualified than him got into medical school and he didnt. So yes, I do feel that it does happen. This is just my opinion.

Unless the lower stat applicant happened to be a minority...

Mess is a minority. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm using him to convey my point.

 

[Saluki]

The background and experiences would still be different.

The things that you actually mentioned in the comparison were extracurricular activities and LORs. If those were the same, I don't see how the applicant's experience as a minority should overcome their lower stats.

 

[gostudy]

Whew! Just got back from the grocery store. Got my salt, butter, and Orville's. I am ready!

 

[Law2Doc]

The things that you actually mentioned in the comparison were extracurricular activities and LORs. If those were the same, I don't see how the applicant's experience as a minority should overcome their lower stats.

The examples I gave were illustrative, not all-inclusive. There is a value to med schools and the profession in diversity, and diverse experiences. You are entitled to disagree. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that minorities aren't bringing something to the table other than their skin color.

 

[troopa]

Have you seen Messerschmitt's stats? He didn't get in anywhere in 2005. His stats are my stats only infinitely better. People who are far less qualified than him got into medical school and he didnt. So yes, I do feel that it does happen. This is just my opinion.

Dude, you still don't get it. How many times do ppl have to spell it out for you...stats are not the only thing that makes ppl qualified to get into med school.

 

[studentstudent]

so someone in a thread was just excited because he/she got accepted to UCSF and only had a 3.1 GPA (3.0 science) and a 31M MCAT. Ok, now cool for him/her, but come on... does this piss anybody else off just a little. Maybe this person had a really interesting/challenging life, but I bet so did a lot of other more-qualified applicants. I don't want to get into an argument about affirmative action, because I know I'll sound like a jack-ass. Just wondering if it pisses anybody else off out there that people with low scores and grades are getting into schools because they are "unique," when some "boring" hard-working kids with a 3.1 GPA and 31 MCAT maybe won't get into a single med school.

There is NO affirmative action in California, which is why the UC undergrads are populated heavily by Asians now (I'm not being racist -- just look at the stats on their websites).
However, UCSF is well-known for choosing "interesting" candidates and especially non-traditional students. About 30% of their medical student population come straight from college, the rest, 70%, have taken time off (generally a CONSIDERABLE amount of time off), and probably done some things to supplement their scores. So, I think scores are much less of an issue at UCSF -- The asst dean of admissions gives the same story about how they want people who worked full time while in college to support their siblings (even if it affects their gpa), or if not under such hardships, then done something super-amazing. I'm summarizing/using my own vocab, but you guys get the idea. So low stats/incredible hardship or ec's and getting into ucsf is actually more likely than if a person with high stats/humdrum life got in straight from undergrad.

 

[RubTue]

Again, you are focusing in on two criteria and deciding they are the most important. They may not be, at least at most schools. A 3.9/35+ and lame boring ECs and lukewarm LORs and a mediocre interview does not necessarilly outweigh, or even equate to a sub 3.5/30 with awesome ECs, and great LORs and great interview skills.

I understand grades and scores are just a part of the entire package... but I believe there are plenty of amazing applicants out there with awesome LOR and ECs, who also have high GPAs and MCATs. This isn't about this person in particular (whom admittedly I know nothing about), but I think it's unfair that certain aspects (ie race, economic status) of an applicant make up for poor grades and scores. If two people are similar in academics, then of course, the more interesting/well-rounded/more diverse applicant should get the spot. But I don't think so if the difference in academics is huge.

 

[arkroyal]

basically it comes down to those who want to become doctors and those who want to go medical school.

 

[Saluki]

The examples I gave were illustrative, not all-inclusive. There is a value to med schools and the profession in diversity, and diverse experiences. You are entitled to disagree. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that minorities aren't bringing something to the table other than their skin color.

I think that minorities are bringing something more to the table than their skin color, and diversity is valuable. I think that by coming from a poor family, I'm bringing something unique. However, I doubt the bar will be lowered for me, and I don't think that it should be for minority applicants either.

 

[Will Ferrell]

Just wondering if it pisses anybody else off out there that people with low scores and grades are getting into schools because they are "unique,"

i really don't understand how adcoms label people as "unique." everyone is unique in their own way. Some people are unique in ways that can't be written down on AMCAS nor conveyed during an interview. This process is ridiculous and the only suggestion I have for you is to .... deal with it. try not to offend people like how your post is doing. that applicant may have had a harder situation than most premeds. the mcat score is on par with ucsf (avg = 32) and that's what i think is most important since it's the ONLY true objective measurement.

 

[TracksuitsRock]

so someone in a thread was just excited because he/she got accepted to UCSF and only had a 3.1 GPA (3.0 science) and a 31M MCAT. Ok, now cool for him/her, but come on... does this piss anybody else off just a little. Maybe this person had a really interesting/challenging life, but I bet so did a lot of other more-qualified applicants. I don't want to get into an argument about affirmative action, because I know I'll sound like a jack-ass. Just wondering if it pisses anybody else off out there that people with low scores and grades are getting into schools because they are "unique," when some "boring" hard-working kids with a 3.1 GPA and 31 MCAT maybe won't get into a single med school.

It doesn't piss me off at all. I think you need to grow up.

 

[Will Ferrell]

basically it comes down to those who want to become doctors and those who want to go medical school.

umkay? if you want to become a doctor, you'd have to go through medical school first. Thus, you should make it your goal.

 

[studentstudent]

I understand grades and scores are just a part of the entire package... but I believe there are plenty of amazing applicants out there with awesome LOR and ECs, who also have high GPAs and MCATs. This isn't about this person in particular (whom admittedly I know nothing about), but I think it's unfair that certain aspects (ie race, economic status) of an applicant make up for poor grades and scores. If two people are similar in academics, then of course, the more interesting/well-rounded/more diverse applicant should get the spot. But I don't think so if the difference in academics is huge.

I just said this above, but I'll say it again -- nobody in California can use race as a deciding factor in school admissions, jobs, contract awards, etc. That person got in because s/he did something way more incredible than us -- even if it is that they were born in a ditch, grew up in a hole, and yet somehow graduated college while working two jobs 40 hours/week.

 

[Law2Doc]

If two people are similar in academics, then of course, the more interesting/well-rounded/more diverse applicant should get the spot. But I don't think so if the difference in academics is huge.

The problem is you keep harkening back to academic stats, as if someplace written in stone this is the most important criterion. In fact, after a certain threshold, it isn't. In most cases you get more bang for your buck if you get a 3.5/30 and do amazing non-academic stuff than if you spend your time trying to get that 4.0/40. That's been the system for quite a while. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

 

[tkdusb]

Dude, you still don't get it. How many times do ppl have to spell it out for you...stats are not the only thing that makes ppl qualified to get into med school.

It's my fault - I should be less vague in my posts. I realize my post might make it seem like I'm arguing that stats are the only thing that matter (I am only listing stats in my posts), but that wasn't my intention. I feel that his overall package, including his extracurrics (I don't know how strong his letters of rec, personal statement were) were excellent and merited an acceptance. I apologize if I came across as being a strict numbers person.

 

[Rafa]

think that by coming from a poor family, I'm bringing something unique. However, I doubt the bar will be lowered for me, and I don't think that it should be for minority applicants either.

If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.

 

[Saluki]

The problem is you keep harkening back to academic stats, as if someplace written in stone this is the most important criterion. In fact, after a certain threshold, it isn't. In most cases you get more bang for your buck if you get a 3.5/30 and do amazing non-academic stuff than if you spend your time trying to get that 4.0/40. That's been the system for quite a while. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

You keep putting words in my mouth. I like the fact that it isn't based purely on numbers. The girl who worked her way through school; the guy who spent two years in Africa with the peace corps- that kind of AMAZING NON ACADEMIC stuff is a great thing to include in criteria. I just don't think that the color of your skin qualifies as an amazing non-academic trait; it's just something you're born with.

 

[Saluki]

If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.

I suppose I'm going to sound dumb, but I don't understand what you're saying...

 

[argonana]

OK, back to the OP--try to focus on yourself, and it will probably stop pissing you off.

 

[drmota]

"people who sit around sulking in the shadow of other people's successes are doomed to failure"
-me, a.k.a. mota

close this thread. stat.

-mota

 

[SailCrazy]

I don't think it's so wrong if between two equal candidates, the more interesting candidate is picked. I think it's frustrating and silly when people with 3.9/35+ are passed over in favor of people with sub-3.5/30.

That isn't how admissions works...The person with a 3.9/35+ wasn't passed over for the sub-3.5/30 applicant. They were passed over for another 3.9/35+ person who was pretty much the same, but just a little better in some area!

The sub-3.5/30 person got a spot that, if he/she hadn't been awarded it, would have gone to another "very unique" applicant.

To the OP: Not only do I not have a problem with this, I'm very happy that it is the case. I'm excited that there will be people in my med school class who have better numbers than I, and others who don't. I'm glad that there will be a lot of people who earned their acceptances (at least in part) because they are interesting people who I will really enjoy having as a classmate. I definitely do not want to join a class made up of only those students who have the best numeric qualifications.

As L2D said there are a lot of other factors that go into making a good medical student and physician than undergrad GPA & MCAT. Also, as the Supreme Court has affirmed, there is a great deal of educational value to a diverse class as well.

Just because you don't value it doesn't mean others shouldn't either.

 

[Law2Doc]

You keep putting words in my mouth. I like the fact that it isn't based purely on numbers. The girl who worked her way through school; the guy who spent two years in Africa with the peace corps- that kind of AMAZING NON ACADEMIC stuff is a great thing to include in criteria. I just don't think that the color of your skin qualifies as an amazing non-academic trait; it's just something you're born with.

I think you are assuming people are getting in because of skin color, and not because of the diversity of experiences they have (race related or not) atop certain threshold credentials. This is not usually the case. But you would need to see what adcoms see to actually know. You are operating based on a gross assumption. (actually we both might be).

 

[Rafa]

I suppose I'm going to sound dumb, but I don't understand what you're saying...

You seem to be making the same mistake as the original poster - assuming that some magical property you don't have is all that stands between you and an easy acceptance to medical school. But again (as Law2doc noted), you'll get a lot farther if you work on strengthening your *own* application instead of rubbernecking at other people's supposed advantages in the application process. If you don't think coming from a poor family offers you a unique perspective on what it means to apply (and succeed) in college, and strive to enter medicine, then you don't deserve to be recognized for it. I don't mean that in a harsh way, but if you refuse to use your background as an asset come application time (and furthermore, spend time complaining about other people's backgrounds), then why should you receive an advantage for being you to begin with? It all comes down to that adage (paraphrased): tend your own field before worrying about the state of your neighbor's.

 

[Saluki]

You seem to be making the same mistake as the original poster - assuming that some magical property you don't have is all that stands between you and an easy acceptance to medical school. But again (as Law2doc noted), you'll get a lot farther if you work on strengthening your *own* application instead of rubbernecking at other people's supposed advantages in the application process. If you don't think coming from a poor family offers you a unique perspective on what it means to apply (and succeed) in college, and strive to enter medicine, then you don't deserve to be recognized for it. I don't mean that in a harsh way, but if you refuse to use your background as an asset come application time (and furthermore, spend time complaining about other people's backgrounds), then why should you receive an advantage for being you to begin with? It all comes down to that adage (paraphrased): tend your own field before worrying about the state of your neighbor's.

I am tending my own field. I did my best to let my interviewers know what I thought that my unique background would bring to the medical school class. I'm not "rubbernecking"; I'm simply pointing out that a flaw in the application process is a tendency to allow minorities in who don't bring anywhere near as strong of an application in other areas. I've gotten interviews at several good schools and acceptances at a couple. Even if I end up at my top choice, that doesn't prevent me from realizing that the OP's complaint has some validity to it...

 

[Law2Doc]

Even if I end up at my top choice, that doesn't prevent me from realizing that the OP's complaint has some validity to it...

It's only "valid" if you believe that the candidate he is comparing to was not more than his/her numbers, rather than having something truly outstanding that the UCSF adcoms felt was a better value/fit for their school.

 

[QuikClot]

I agree with the conventional wisdom, and I wanted to add that it is very difficult to second-guess adcoms based on anecdotal evidence (this one person was rejected, this one accepted). If you look at the graphs helpfully printed in the front of the MSAR, you'll find that more high GPA than low GPA students are accepted, and more high MCATs than low MCATs are accepted -- just as one would expect. Perhaps that seems obvious, but highlighting the exceptional cases obscures the fact that AdComs do value high stats.

On a personal note, I had a 3.7 GPA and a 39S MCAT, and I was rejected by fourteen out of seventeen schools. I was accepted at two and pending at another, so I'm feeling no pain. But my experience underscores the fact that stats aren't the skeleton key to med schools, as some like to think. I think that 90% of pre-meds underestimate the importance of selling their story. Everyone has a story. But many 22-year-old overachievers just want to be patted on the back for how smart they are and promoted to medical school. They think they're unexceptional, causing adcoms to agree. And no adcom, competition being what it is, wants unexceptional people in its med schools. So they fall by the wayside, stats or no stats.

 

[Saluki]

It's only "valid" if you believe that the candidate he is comparing to was not more than his/her numbers, rather than having something truly outstanding that the UCSF adcoms felt was a better value/fit for their school.

I agree. If the applicant was admitted based on extraordinary extracurricular activities rather than a check in the URM box, then I think the OP's complaint is invalid.

 

[gostudy]

I have a question for everyone. I figure most on SDN are pretty smart so I don't think this will be that difficult.

Why does every single thread that mentions race catch fire?

 

[Will Ferrell]

I think that 90% of pre-meds underestimate the importance of selling their story. Everyone has a story. But many 22-year-old overachievers just want to be patted on the back for how smart they are and promoted to medical school. They think they're unexceptional, causing adcoms to agree. And no adcom, competition being what it is, wants unexceptional people in its med schools. So they fall by the wayside, stats or no stats.

A story? What do they expect from a 21-year-old traditional applicant? How could someone develop a story over three years college? Not only do they want a high MCAT, GPA, clinical experiences, research, volunteering, but now... we need a story. Sometimes I feel like i'm applying to art school.

 

[Law2Doc]

I have a question for everyone. I figure most on SDN are pretty smart so I don't think this will be that difficult.

Why does every single thread that mentions race catch fire?

I think this was pretty tame. MD-DO related threads are far more flame intensive.

 

[Saluki]

A story? What do they expect from a 21-year-old traditional applicant? How could someone develop a story over three years college? Not only do they want a high MCAT, GPA, clinical experiences, research, volunteering, but now... we need a story. Sometimes I feel like i'm applying to art school.

Everyone has a story, just like "everyone has a dream"- ever seen pretty woman? Now, let's all sing kumbaya together...

 

[Rafa]

I have a question for everyone. I figure most on SDN are pretty smart so I don't think this will be that difficult.

Why does every single thread that mentions race catch fire?

Because SDN is full of poor white kids who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks blah blah blah...

(paraphrasing...NewtonBohr? Someone from another thread, at any rate)

 

[MNsocsci]

You keep putting words in my mouth. I like the fact that it isn't based purely on numbers. The girl who worked her way through school; the guy who spent two years in Africa with the peace corps- that kind of AMAZING NON ACADEMIC stuff is a great thing to include in criteria. I just don't think that the color of your skin qualifies as an amazing non-academic trait; it's just something you're born with.

I think it's good that schools try to accept more underrepresented minorities because some patients like to see physicians of their own race. Also, minority physicians might be able to better understand the cultural values of patients with the same heritage. The U of MN has a program to recruit Native Americans, in part because the reservations in Minnesota are among the most underserved areas in the state. How many 4.0GPA/40 MCAT caucasians are going to want to go into primary care in a tiny reservation in northern Minnesota? Just my opinion...

 

[kirexhana]

i'm not completely in support of the op's views, but as one of the 4.00/35+ mcat applicants that was passed over the first time around for UCSF, i honestly do feel a little hurt when people who are not as strong academically get in. it's not that i don't think they deserve the acceptance, because i'm sure they have had amazing life experiences to supplement their education. however, it hurts to know that what i have been working so hard on for the last 4 years, my education, is worth less than the life experiences of others. I am a very serious student and am extremely passionate about learning, which is supported by my grades. unfortunately, i think that adcoms believe that a good grade is simply a number or letter, and it shows nothing of a person's character.

it doesn't piss me off that other applicants get into schools like UCSF, but i am a little saddened because i feel that my own qualities are underappreciated.

 

[deuist]

I think it's frustrating and silly when people with 3.9/35+ are passed over in favor of people with sub-3.5/30.

And I get frustrated when I see medical schools accept people with high marks and no social skills or previous medical experience.

 

[deuist]

I think this was pretty tame. MD-DO related threads are far more flame intensive.

Those threads are usually soaked in gasoline.

 

[tkdusb]

And I get frustrated when I see medical schools accept people with high marks and no social skills or previous medical experience.

I apologize. I thought I had clarified what I was trying to say in my subsequent posts. I agree that social skills and extracurrics matter. I don't believe I explicity stated that I felt numbers were the only thing that matter. I'm sorry if that's how my posts came across.

 

[Rafa]

deuist, did you write that manual?

 

[Law2Doc]

i'm not completely in support of the op's views, but as one of the 4.00/35+ mcat applicants that was passed over the first time around for UCSF, i honestly do feel a little hurt when people who are not as strong academically get in. it's not that i don't think they deserve the acceptance, because i'm sure they have had amazing life experiences to supplement their education. however, it hurts to know that what i have been working so hard on for the last 4 years, my education, is worth less than the life experiences of others. I am a very serious student and am extremely passionate about learning, which is supported by my grades. unfortunately, i think that adcoms believe that a good grade is simply a number or letter, and it shows nothing of a person's character.

it doesn't piss me off that other applicants get into schools like UCSF, but i am a little saddened because i feel that my own qualities are underappreciated.

Well, given that you appear to be a youngish applicant, which already limits your likelihood of substantial life experiences, such an intense focus on academics might have actually been a bit of a detriment. Folks in academics (eg. adcoms) know what is involved in getting good grades, and, although an important skillset for med school, I don't think it's accepted that that is any measure of "character". A huge number of applicants are able to demonstrate that same kind of "character" (i.e studiousness) --If UCSF wanted to fill its class with 4.0/40 applicants, it certainly could. But it chooses not to (as do all the top schools). Because after the first couple of years of med school, other characteristics tend to be equally, if not more important. You probably have these, but if you spent too much time in the books, may not have created a good enough track record to proove it. Being a very serious student is fine, but the more competitive schools want to see other dimensions too. Thus after you passed a certain grade threshold, any increment higher in GPA and MCAT probably offered diminishing returns in terms of benefit, and the time would have been better allocated to other things.