Importance of Undergraduate School?

[DMO]

---

Members do not see this ad.

After reading some threads concerning reputations of undergraduate schools, I became a bit concerned and raised some questions. Is the reputation and ranking of an undergraduate school an influence in medical admissions? If so, how much of of it is weighted in admissions?

I maybe going to a 3rd tier college (think Portland State, Boise State, and I'm-Not-Even-Considered-A-Legit-School-By-Med-Schools State University)

🙂Any quick redirect to previous threads or advice will result in good karma.

 

[TTSD]

Depends on your GPA and MCAT really. High GPA, MCAT and good overall application will alleviate their fears.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

After reading some threads concerning reputations of undergraduate schools, I became a bit concerned and raised some questions. Is the reputation and ranking of an undergraduate school an influence in medical admissions? If so, how much of of it is weighted in admissions?

I maybe going to a 3rd tier college (think Portland State, Boise State, and I'm-Not-Even-Considered-A-Legit-School-By-Med-Schools State University)

🙂Any quick redirect to previous threads or advice will result in good karma.

Going to a top-ranked undergrad school gets you a little bit of slack on the gpa front (maybe .2-.3 gpa points) just due to the more competitive atmosphere, but, a good MCAT performance is still required. If you look at Stanford's list of where their recent classes have come from (it shows just list of schools, not number of students from each school):

http://med.stanford.edu/md/admissions/class_profiles.html

you can see that even at a top-10 med school, there are still students who come in from low-prestige undergrad backgrounds.

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

🙂Any quick redirect to previous threads or advice will result in good karma.

You dont need a redirect, just look through the last several postings. The same thread was started yesterday afternoon.

And no, you dont need to go to a top tier school to go to medschool, but you do need a higher GPA than you would have had you gone to a top school (should be easier to achieve anyways)

 

[docmemi]

honestly i think numbers are the most important regardless of what school you went to. dont make excuses. numbers are important to schools for two reasons mostly, in my opinion: us news ranking and they want to know that you can do well in med school.

 

[efex101]

It makes NO difference hardly at all IF you have the numbers to back it up.

 

[ad infinitum]

I did my undergrad at a top 25 private school and did my post-bac at probably a tier 2-3 state school. In my personal opinion, there should be an "allowance" of a few fractions of a GPA point when comparing the schools. There are good students at both places, however the competition for numbers is much greater at the top 25. If the classes are small, and grade distribution is based on a normal curve (imposed even if not present in reality), you have to perform in the top 2-3 in each class regardless of subject in order to get an A. That includes taking English with English majors even though you are a Biology major. The "norm" for acceptable performance is a C, and only those who perform at an extraordinary level are awarded A's. In some of these cases, you can receive a 95 on a paper and be told very good job, but be awarded a B/B+ as your grade because a couple of other people may have done better. At larger, possibly lower tier schools, there is a diluted talent pool. That's not to say that there are no good students, just that from top to bottom there is a larger disparity in "good" students. Plus, the top 25 NEVER gave curves on assignments. If the class average was a 50, so be it. Almost every class at the state school was curved.

 

[ms2209]

I did my undergrad at a top 25 private school and did my post-bac at probably a tier 2-3 state school. In my personal opinion, there should be an "allowance" of a few fractions of a GPA point when comparing the schools. There are good students at both places, however the competition for numbers is much greater at the top 25. If the classes are small, and grade distribution is based on a normal curve (imposed even if not present in reality), you have to perform in the top 2-3 in each class regardless of subject in order to get an A. That includes taking English with English majors even though you are a Biology major. The "norm" for acceptable performance is a C, and only those who perform at an extraordinary level are awarded A's. In some of these cases, you can receive a 95 on a paper and be told very good job, but be awarded a B/B+ as your grade because a couple of other people may have done better. At larger, possibly lower tier schools, there is a diluted talent pool. That's not to say that there are no good students, just that from top to bottom there is a larger disparity in "good" students. Plus, the top 25 NEVER gave curves on assignments. If the class average was a 50, so be it. Almost every class at the state school was curved.

I agree with your assessment on the top tier schools versus lower tier schools. While I am of the philosophy that a promising student will be successful anywhere, after attending a top tier school for three years, I realize how much more difficult it is to earn an outstanding GPA. As ad infinitum stated, the smaller class sizes make it difficult to distinguish oneself, and I would agree that there's a larger disparity of excellent students who are willing to duke it out for the top grades (not to imply that there aren't any top students at other schools, just that the proportions are most likely smaller). However, I also agree with other posters on this thread who emphasize the stats portion of the application. If you're going to a top tier school and you wind up with an extremely low GPA, it's not going to matter how great the reputation of the school is. On the other hand, if you go to a lower ranked school and excel, you will be able to succeed and possibly gain an acceptance at top med schools.

 

[TTSD]

huh, I thought Ivy leagues padded their grades?

But boy, you know a class is hard when you have like one of the highest grades in the class and you get a B.

 

[ad infinitum]

I agree with your assessment on the top tier schools versus lower tier schools. While I am of the philosophy that a promising student will be successful anywhere, after attending a top tier school for three years, I realize how much more difficult it is to earn an outstanding GPA. As ad infinitum stated, the smaller class sizes make it difficult to distinguish oneself, and I would agree that there's a larger disparity of excellent students who are willing to duke it out for the top grades (not to imply that there aren't any top students at other schools, just that the proportions are most likely smaller). However, I also agree with other posters on this thread who emphasize the stats portion of the application. If you're going to a top tier school and you wind up with an extremely low GPA, it's not going to matter how great the reputation of the school is. On the other hand, if you go to a lower ranked school and excel, you will be able to succeed and possibly gain an acceptance at top med schools.

I don't think it's an issue of EXTREMELY low GPA versus EXTREMELY high GPA. I also don't think someone should be penalized for not going to a top tier school (i.e. dropping their 3.8 to a 3.5 because that is in theory what they would have earned at a harder school). My point is that maybe comparing a 3.3 at one school to a 3.6 at another may be a fair assessment. The more annoying part is when you have +/- at some schools and not at others. Sometimes it's hard enough to earn that 90, just to have it thrown back at you as an A- and a 3.67 on the old GPA. Just think how much it would suck if you had the highest grade in most of your classes and made ALL A-'s. Instead of a 4.0, you graduate with a 3.67. 😡

 

[marr]

After reading some threads concerning reputations of undergraduate schools, I became a bit concerned and raised some questions. Is the reputation and ranking of an undergraduate school an influence in medical admissions? If so, how much of of it is weighted in admissions?

I maybe going to a 3rd tier college (think Portland State, Boise State, and I'm-Not-Even-Considered-A-Legit-School-By-Med-Schools State University)

🙂Any quick redirect to previous threads or advice will result in good karma.

Look, there is no need to put yourself down because you went to a 3rd teir school. What will put you down is your low gpa, mcat score, and ec , but not because of the school that you attended. Cheer up and enjoy.

 

[Rinispark]

None

 

[W222]

The Ivy leagues for the most part do padd their grades. Look at the numerous Boston Globe articles that talk about grade inflation at Harvard. If the class avg was a 50, then was a 50 a C? That is padding.

 

[Peterock]

I just love the fact that third tier colleges are filled with students who had trouble making a 3.0 in high school. I don't know how your high schools worked, but it wasn't like the guy with a 2.5 vs. the guy with a 3.8 were on the same plane. Usually the person with the higher overall gpa was taking more AP's and was 1-2 years ahead academically then their buddy with a 2.5gpa.

People can fuss about this all they want, but there are colleges that basically have to (re)teach remedial work for all their students. Why should a good student benefit from this instead of being forced to go post bacc in a more competitive environment? Because they proved themselves against students who are woefully prepared for college? Come on.

Why don't we all just go to community college and then finish the rest of our courses at Phoenix Online University? 🙄

 

[Peter Griffin]

I know two facts about my "3rd tier" school and the pre-med students that go here:

1. We have less debt
2. My Organic class average on the national standardized exam was actually higher than the class of a good friend of mine that attends a "1st tier" school.

College is college. I was accepted to a lot of "1st tier" schools coming out of HS. I chose Boise State because it's cheaper, closer to home, and I knew that if I challenged myself, I would be just as prepared for a career as any other student at any other school. Plus, I don't have to worry about ostentatious dinguses messing with my flow. Word.

 

[ms2209]

I don't think it's an issue of EXTREMELY low GPA versus EXTREMELY high GPA. I also don't think someone should be penalized for not going to a top tier school (i.e. dropping their 3.8 to a 3.5 because that is in theory what they would have earned at a harder school). My point is that maybe comparing a 3.3 at one school to a 3.6 at another may be a fair assessment.

I never stated that "extremely low or extremely high GPA" is the "issue". If you had read what I wrote, I brought up the fact that if one's GPA is low at a top tier school, the reputation of the school will not make up for your stats. On the other hand, if you do well at a lower ranked school, you have a great chance at getting into top schools. The reason I made this point is that I wanted to emphasize that the reputation of the school is secondary to one's PERFORMANCE at the school. Furthermore, I agree with your statement that students should not be penalized for choosing not to attend a top tier school; and I never stated that their GPAs should be "dropped" in order to compensate for the possible inequity in grading systems that exists. My point was that a given GPA may have taken more work to obtain at one school than another school, and that I hope medical schools take this fact into consideration when they review our applications. This is not to imply that ALL lower ranked schools have easier grading systems; I know that some ivy leagues have serious grade inflation problems.

The more annoying part is when you have +/- at some schools and not at others.

Tell me about it. My friend goes to a lower ranked school and was telling me about how she was getting 4.0's every semester. Come to find out, she was actually getting A- grades, but her school counts both A and A- grades as 4.0's!

 

[ad infinitum]

The Ivy leagues for the most part do padd their grades. Look at the numerous Boston Globe articles that talk about grade inflation at Harvard. If the class avg was a 50, then was a 50 a C? That is padding.

I did not personally go to an Ivy League, but to another top 25. I cannot speak for the Ivy's, just from my own personal experience. My grades, and those of my classmates, were certainly not padded. I apologize for mixing my analogies as I meant to refer to 50 as an F (assuming one in the same). Saying that a 50 was a C is equivalent to curving (i.e. adding 20 points to everyone's grade to move the average to a 70).

 

[thewzdoc]

Getting past the bristling pretentiousness that some here are showing?..as long as your school is accredited and you?ve taken all the prerequisite classes and you?ve done well on the MCAT (say 30 or greater) then you?ve got a fair shake at Medical School. 👍

 

[samurai_lincoln]

Tell me about it. My friend goes to a lower ranked school and was telling me about how she was getting 4.0's every semester. Come to find out, she was actually getting A- grades, but her school counts both A and A- grades as 4.0's!

Um, hello, law of averages? For every 90.1% that counts as a straight A (assuming no curve here), there is a corresponding 89.9% that drops to a straight B. +/- or lack thereof doesn't really help or hinder anyone overall.

 

[ad infinitum]

I never stated that "extremely low or extremely high GPA" is the "issue". If you had read what I wrote, I brought up the fact that if one's GPA is low at a top tier school, the reputation of the school will not make up for your stats. On the other hand, if you do well at a lower ranked school, you have a great chance at getting into top schools. The reason I made this point is that I wanted to emphasize that the reputation of the school is secondary to one's PERFORMANCE at the school. Furthermore, I agree with your statement that students should not be penalized for choosing not to attend a top tier school; and I never stated that their GPAs should be "dropped" in order to compensate for the possible inequity in grading systems that exists. My point was that a given GPA may have taken more work to obtain at one school than another school, and that I hope medical schools take this fact into consideration when they review our applications. This is not to imply that ALL lower ranked schools have easier grading systems; I know that some ivy leagues have serious grade inflation problems.

My response wasn't entirely directed at what you were saying. I was just trying to clarify my point. I think you and I pretty much agree down the line on this. I agree that performance is paramount, regardless. However, when there is not a large disparity between GPA from two different schools, the one from the higher tier could get the benefit of the doubt (i.e. not extremely low vs. extremely high).

 

[ad infinitum]

Um, hello, law of averages? For every 90.1% that counts as a straight A (assuming no curve here), there is a corresponding 89.9% that drops to a straight B. +/- or lack thereof doesn't really help or hinder anyone overall.

That is true to some degree, BUT if you are the one that is constanly getting the 90.1 versus the 89.9 and you are the one that is constantly getting A-'s, then you don't really see it as the law of averages. I am also not talking necessasarily about 90.1 vs. 89.9, there are also 92.9 or 93.9 depending on where the prof. arbitrarily drew the line.

 

[ms2209]

Um, hello, law of averages? For every 90.1% that counts as a straight A (assuming no curve here), there is a corresponding 89.9% that drops to a straight B. +/- or lack thereof doesn't really help or hinder anyone overall.

That's true, but based on your post (correct me if I'm wrong), you're failing to take into account a situation in which an individual has the tendency to get more A-'s than B+'s, in which case the system works in his/her favor. Personally speaking, I end up with A-'s very often, whereas I only rarely end up with B+'s; therefore, my GPA would benefit from such a system.

 

[thewzdoc]

Tell me about it. My friend goes to a lower ranked school and was telling me about how she was getting 4.0's every semester. Come to find out, she was actually getting A- grades, but her school counts both A and A- grades as 4.0's!

Oh dear gawd the horror.... How dare she claim this....it's an outrage! 🙄

Who really cares!? The question is how did she do on the MCAT?

 

[ms2209]

Oh dear gawd the horror.... How dare she claim this....it's an outrage! 🙄

Who really cares!? The question is how did she do on the MCAT?

She did fairly well, and I'm sure that she'll get accepted to an excellent medical school.

 

[amnesia]

That's a tight avatar ms2209. The colors annoy me. 😛

 

[ad infinitum]

Getting past the bristling pretentiousness that some here are showing?..as long as your school is accredited and you?ve taken all the prerequisite classes and you?ve done well on the MCAT (say 30 or greater) then you?ve got a fair shake at Medical School. 👍

I don't think anyone here is saying a top tier applicant deserves a fairer shake at med school, my point is just that all 3.5's are not equal. I have attended both kinds of institutions, and can say this from personal experience. It is not bashing anyone or their school. I would not personally dis you for going to X University in tier 3 when you were pulling really good grades and a good MCAT. People make decisions about the college they attend for different reasons. You can learn alot about alot of things at alot of different places. However, I don't think college is college. That would imply that you learn/ experience the exact same things at every school.

 

[liverotcod]

I did my undergrad at a top 25 private school and did my post-bac at probably a tier 2-3 state school. In my personal opinion, there should be an "allowance" of a few fractions of a GPA point when comparing the schools. There are good students at both places, however the competition for numbers is much greater at the top 25. If the classes are small, and grade distribution is based on a normal curve (imposed even if not present in reality), you have to perform in the top 2-3 in each class regardless of subject in order to get an A. That includes taking English with English majors even though you are a Biology major. The "norm" for acceptable performance is a C, and only those who perform at an extraordinary level are awarded A's. In some of these cases, you can receive a 95 on a paper and be told very good job, but be awarded a B/B+ as your grade because a couple of other people may have done better. At larger, possibly lower tier schools, there is a diluted talent pool. That's not to say that there are no good students, just that from top to bottom there is a larger disparity in "good" students. Plus, the top 25 NEVER gave curves on assignments. If the class average was a 50, so be it. Almost every class at the state school was curved.

I don't normally quote entire long posts like this, but from my own similar experience with an Ivy League school versus a middle-tier public school, I agree 100%. That's not to denigrate the public school, I actually feel like I've had a much better learning experience there in my post-bacc. And to be sure since the early 90's Harvard has experienced additional grade inflation. But the "talent pool" ad infinitum mentions is, without any shadow of a doubt, much bigger at a selective institution than a non-selective one.

 

[ms2209]

That's a tight avatar ms2209. The colors annoy me. 😛

Thanks, LOL! I've gotten mixed opinions about it, but I hear you about the colors - can't stare at it too long!

 

[samurai_lincoln]

That's true, but based on your post (correct me if I'm wrong), you're failing to take into account a situation in which an individual has the tendency to get more A-'s than B+'s, in which case the system works in his/her favor. Personally speaking, I end up with A-'s very often, whereas I only rarely end up with B+'s; therefore, my GPA would benefit from such a system.

Sorry, should have qualified my post a bit more... typed it too quickly and didn't read the one to which I was responding closely enough. I agree that the law of averages doesn't always work out ideally for any single individual. Silly me. Though it is difficult for one to "consistently" receive a borderline A- that rounds up to an A, it of course can occur.

 

[whattodowithmys]

The Ivy leagues for the most part do padd their grades. Look at the numerous Boston Globe articles that talk about grade inflation at Harvard. If the class avg was a 50, then was a 50 a C? That is padding.

While this may be true, be careful not to equate Harvard with the rest of the Ivies. This is like comparing Florida State and Duke for both being in the same grouping (ACC). It is well known that Harvard pads grades, and Brown doesn't even give grades out if you dont want them (you can take everything pass/fail), other Ivies like Princeton and Cornell deal out grueling standards to receive A's. In fact, Cornell's sciences and engineering programs have often been said to be on the toughness level of MIT, CalTech and Stanford (no creampuff schools in my mind).

In regard to the overall topic... I certainly dont think students from lesser know or lower tier schools should be "penalized" if they have the grades and MCATs that demonstrated thier abilities. On the other hand I beleive students with non-spectacular grades from top notch schools deserve a good look, simply becasue they are competeting with the cream of the cream of the crop.

It would be hard for me to sit on an admissions committee and say that a students from North Sandusky State Univeristy Campus B with a 4.0 is better than a chemical engineer from MIT with a 3.3.

 

[samurai_lincoln]

Plus, the top 25 NEVER gave curves on assignments. If the class average was a 50, so be it. Almost every class at the state school was curved.

I am confused by your statement here... are you just referring to no curving for individual assignments (in which case, who cares, if the overall course is curved?) Or are you claiming that the course overall is not curved, which I find very hard to believe.

I am just thinking back to my second quarter intro physics, where a new prof made the first exam just a LITTLE too difficult - average score was around 25, and no one cracked 50%. For many science exams, I would think it extremely difficult to predict class averages ahead of time, unless you give essentially the same exam year after year.

 

[ad infinitum]

I mean neither assignments nor courses were curved. If you did not do well on the first test, then you found a way to do better on the rest. The best we could hope for is that the prof. changed the weight of individual tests where the one that had the lowest average had the least weight towards the final grade.

 

[chickenpotpie]

In the "for what it is worth" department...

I worked for a doctor who was on a admissions committee and asked her a similar question. She told me of a friend of hers whose son had applied with a 3.2 from Yale. She was personally questioned by her friend as to why the son was not admitted. (The parent had reasoned, "After all, he is from Yale... a 3.2 should be worth more.") The doctor repsponded, "Unfortunately, his MCAT score validated his GPA."

 

[W222]

Just some food for thought: I attended a very competitive high school, I graduated exactly 100th out of 170 with an 87% avg. I was considered an avg student at my high school and because of this I was only allowed to take one AP course even though I signed up for four. So teachers basically brushed me aside and decided to focus more effort on others and this haunted me throughout high school. I went to a small no-name undergrad because the classes were small and there was good individual attention. I did well during undergrad and excelled in research/ECs. I scored a decent MCAT and now I am heading to med school. When I mentioned this to teachers/administration from my high school, they were amazed and shocked that I was able to get as far as I had. WTF? These people passed me by years before and are "surprised" by my progress. If I had been an @ss-kisser in high school I could have gone to a really good undergrad, although I probably would have been miserable and it wouldnt have been the right fit. I chose the one that was right for me and worked with it. That is all it takes to do well, forget the name-game crap.

 

[IndyZX]

im the perfect example of high gpa solely because my undergrad was pretty easy. i dont work very hard at all, and my classes have all been fairly easy. there was only one science class where i had to hold on to my ass teh whole semester... i still made an A but that was after a 10pt curve.

 

[thewzdoc]

She did fairly well, and I'm sure that she'll get accepted to an excellent medical school.

Awsome! Glad to hear that! 👍

 

[thewzdoc]

I don't think anyone here is saying a top tier applicant deserves a fairer shake at med school, my point is just that all 3.5's are not equal. I have attended both kinds of institutions, and can say this from personal experience. It is not bashing anyone or their school. I would not personally dis you for going to X University in tier 3 when you were pulling really good grades and a good MCAT. People make decisions about the college they attend for different reasons. You can learn alot about alot of things at alot of different places. However, I don't think college is college. That would imply that you learn/ experience the exact same things at every school.

College is college in that you get out of it what you put into it. In a lower tier school you may be able to skate through with little effort and get a 3.3 or 3.4 but if you didn't actually learn anything your MCAT will show it.

Of course the resources available to you at armpit CC will be much less than at highbrow U. You can compensate for this by applying yourself and taking on additional challenges.

 

[stinkycheese]

im the perfect example of high gpa solely because my undergrad was pretty easy. i dont work very hard at all, and my classes have all been fairly easy. there was only one science class where i had to hold on to my ass teh whole semester... i still made an A but that was after a 10pt curve.

Good of you to be honest about it.

I went to a top liberal arts college in the Northeast. I worked pretty hard (could've worked a lot harder), and got about a 3.5. I think I could've maximally gotten a 3.8 if I was a total grind, but not higher than that because the science courses are next to impossible...

Meanwhile, I attended a local four-year college in my hometown for physics one summer. I farted and got two A's. It's ridiculous.

I think people from elite colleges definitely deserve more consideration for similar gpa's than people from podunk schools, and I also believe the MCAT can be a great equalizer in that regard. It is virtually unheard of for someone from my undergrad to get a sub-30 on the MCAT, but it's not so unheard of for pre-meds to have 3.2's and ****...

 

[W222]

No way GPA should be given more preference from little-Ivy X to state school Y to small liberal Arts Z. The MCAT should be the equalizer. If you score well on the MCAT then fine, it acurately reflects your grades, if not then obviously something is wrong with the grading system.

 

[stinkycheese]

No way GPA should be given more preference from little-Ivy X to state school Y to small liberal Arts Z. The MCAT should be the equalizer. If you score well on the MCAT then fine, it acurately reflects your grades, if not then obviously something is wrong with the grading system.

Of course the MCAT should be the equalizer, and IMO, should be important when comparing disparate grades from two different institutions... for example, I think that someone with a 35 MCAT and a 3.5 GPA from a little Ivy should be given preference over someone with a 27 MCAT and a 3.8 from a lower-tier school. It's easy to get a 3.8 at a non-competitive school. It's hard to get a 35 on the MCAT no matter who you are.

 

[IndyZX]

i should add that i thought it was easy to get a 3.8+ at a school like Texas (not top tier, but definitely not lower tier either... i think its right at 50th nationally undergrad, but whatever) but i do think i am smart. what i mean is that its not like anyone can just go to a non-ivy and fart out As, it doesnt work that way.

as i was saying, i do believe in my own intelligence and work ethic, and i therefore think that i would do fine anywhere, but a 3.9? no, probably not.

there is something to be said about percentile fitting. if you always skate by with mediocre grades, then youll probably do so whereever you are. thats the one argument that always gets left out of this debate. thats why, while i do think some benefit should be given to those at elite schools, you shouldnt go overboard.

standardizing gpas via average mcat scores from the undergrad is probably a good way to go.

 

[principessa]

Random thoughts -

I'm starting to wonder whether GPA really matters in med school admissions. There's a point at which it's too low no matter where you came from, but since it's so difficult to compare GPA's from different schools and even different programs at the same school, I really think the MCAT is more important.

People coming from lower tier schools do have to meet a higher bar (read, MCAT) in order to be considered for top med schools. For example, if someone at Harvard gets a 33 MCAT, they're golden, because they're at the average for most top 10 schools. When someone from my school (University of Kentucky) applies to top 10's with a 33 MCAT, they usually get shot down. I've heard that when you get a 35 or over, your undergrad becomes less important and you're competing on the same level as everyone else.

No matter where someone goes for school, I think med schools should consider grade inflation when comparing GPA's. However, if someone has a 4.0 at a grade-inflating school, it's hard to tell how they would do somewhere else. It's possible that they're barely pulling A-'s, but it's also possible that they're getting mostly A+'s and they could manage a similar GPA at a tougher school. At this point, it's up to the recommenders to come in and say, "Yes, this person could compete with students at any school." or not say anything at all, because hardly anyone writes negative things in a rec letter.

 

[thewzdoc]

Of course the MCAT should be the equalizer, and IMO, should be important when comparing disparate grades from two different institutions... for example, I think that someone with a 35 MCAT and a 3.5 GPA from a little Ivy should be given preference over someone with a 27 MCAT and a 3.8 from a lower-tier school. It's easy to get a 3.8 at a non-competitive school. It's hard to get a 35 on the MCAT no matter who you are.

Right a 35 MCAT is a 35 MCAT no matter what. I would venture to say that an Ivy League graduate with a 3.8 and 27 MCAT would be hard-pressed to knock of a guy from generic school X with a 3.5 and a 35 MCAT.

 

[rtmcad2319]

In the "for what it is worth" department...

I worked for a doctor who was on a admissions committee and asked her a similar question. She told me of a friend of hers whose son had applied with a 3.2 from Yale. She was personally questioned by her friend as to why the son was not admitted. (The parent had reasoned, "After all, he is from Yale... a 3.2 should be worth more.") The doctor repsponded, "Unfortunately, his MCAT score validated his GPA."

CHECKMATE!

 

[45408]

It can vary. Nearly all of Harvard grads graduate with honors. Hmmmmm.....

 

[liverotcod]

It can vary. Nearly all of Harvard grads graduate with honors. Hmmmmm.....

I didn't.

 

[synapse lapse]

Just thought I'd add my $.02. I go to a top 15 school now, but originally transfered from a low tier state school. I can say that academic reputation should definitely warrent a .2-.3 curve in GPA. My school uses that dreaded +/- system, and yes it sucks. If you can make a B+ here in all your classes then you surely could make an A- in all the classes at state. The state school I went to had no +/- system, so guess what, thats a 3.33 vs a 4.0. And guess what else, that's exactly what I have here vs. there almost. I made straight A's there with no effort at all, and here I make mostly B to A-'s. State schools are so much easier than most top private institutions (Harvard is the exception I hear). I think it is only fitting that some consideration be given to undergrad institution. That said, I also don't think that anyone with a 4.0 should get curved down,as we would not know how they would compare to others at a harder school. Point is, college isn't just college, those schools are ranked higher for a reason, and are definitely harder, especially in terms of competition and motivcated students. A few dean's of med schools and admissions people I've talked to , including Dr. Michael (Sr. Assoc. Dean Baylor) said they don't factor in the undergard institution, but I am hard pressed to believe this.

 

[velo]

I'm not going to read this whole thread because I'm sure it's summed up on the 1st page (my school/grading system is harder than YOUR school grading system...ergo, you suck).

Just to respond to the OP's question, the thing you want to be concerned with is having a GPA and MCAT score that compliment one another. If you go to a "3rd tier" school, get a 3.8-4.0 GPA and then score below a 30 on the MCAT...well, to adcoms its going to appear as though you had a stellar GPA because you benifited from the "easy" 3rd tier academic environment. Then the standardized test revealed your true colors...

The way to avoid this adcom label? Earn that stellar GPA, do lots of great ECs/research, and back up your GPA with a great MCAT score. That should just about do it.

 

[45408]

I didn't.

 

[TRUE]

It can vary. Nearly all of Harvard grads graduate with honors. Hmmmmm.....

It also varies greatly by ivy league school, and more importantly, by majors. It is much easier to get your fair share of A's by taking a bunch of humanities classes than it is by taking a bunch of science classes (at least where I went to school). Ivy league schools certainly pad grades in the humanities, but I just don't think it happens very much in the sciences.

As for the whole OP's original question: you can certainly do well in the process. The MCAT is the great equalizer.