in retrospect, is a B really all that different from an A-/A

[ronaldo23]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Obviously for admissions purposes, a 3.66-4.0 (A-/A) is huge compared with a 3.0 (B), and could be the difference between acceptance and rejection.

But how much different is having a 3.0 GPA than having a 3.66 GPA in terms of knowledge? Does it really show that you know the material that much more if you have a A- vs a B? Does a 3.66 really demonstrate that you can handle med school, while someone with a 3.0 cannot? Especially at grade deflated schools (top 20 schools and other tough places), I'm feeling like an A- really is not all that different from a B in terms of what I have learned in the class.

 

[doctorhopeful11]

I believe so. I know I could have completely coasted and gotten a 3.0 average, without having any really strong grasp of the material. However, getting near a 4.0 requires working your tail off at my school.

 

[Orbo]

In physics (my degree), the difference between A and B is the difference between not knowing a lick on the subject and being able to BSingly convince that I do, and not knowing a lick on the subject and showing that's really the case.

In biology, the difference between A and B is the difference between knowing the subject matter including the billion useless details by studying excessively then forgetting all the details after test day, and knowing the subject matter without the details by not studying and showing that during test day.

In joke majors (you know what they are) the difference between A and B is the difference between showing up to class and not showing up to class

 

[Abilene85]

At my undergrad, it seemed like you could get a B by understanding basic concepts, but the As went to those who put in the work to get down to the details and memorize some of the random facts. If you get the 3.0 despite studying your guts out, it might suggest that your intelligence (or at least your ability to remember lots of information) is below the norm for med school. If you get the 3.0 because you coasted, it's just a question of whether or not you have the discipline to keep a steady study pace in med school. I worked pretty hard (back in the day I thought so, but my definition of working hard has changed since starting med school) to get nearly a 4.0 in undergrad. I used to be upset with anything less than a 96% after a day or two of studying, but there were certainly some test days this past year when I was happy with my 86% after a week of cramming.

So I guess in short: I think that people who graduate with a 3.0 can handle med school, but likely not to the level that those with a 3.6 or higher can, whether it is due to a slightly lower level of intelligence or lack of practiced self-discipline. If you happen to be a coaster and can kick it up a few gears when school starts (and keep it there for months without much of a break), then you should do just fine.

 

[bcat85]

In physics (my degree), the difference between A and B is the difference between not knowing a lick on the subject and being able to BSingly convince that I do, and not knowing a lick on the subject and showing that's really the case.

In biology, the difference between A and B is the difference between knowing the subject matter including the billion useless details by studying excessively then forgetting all the details after test day, and knowing the subject matter without the details by not studying and showing that during test day.

In joke majors (you know what they are) the difference between A and B is the difference between showing up to class and not showing up to class

That pretty much sums it up. I think in the long run, it makes a difference, though probably not a huge one. There's nothing wrong with a B, but I would think that consistently getting A's shows either (a) good mastery of the material and/or (b) awesome BS skills (probably more often the case)

 

[ChubbyChaser]

In physics (my degree), the difference between A and B is the difference between not knowing a lick on the subject and being able to BSingly convince that I do, and not knowing a lick on the subject and showing that's really the case.

In biology, the difference between A and B is the difference between knowing the subject matter including the billion useless details by studying excessively then forgetting all the details after test day, and knowing the subject matter without the details by not studying and showing that during test day.

In joke majors (you know what they are) the difference between A and B is the difference between showing up to class and not showing up to class

wait!!!! I thought physics was a joke Major?

 

[Orbo]

wait!!!! I thought physics was a joke Major?

It's a joke major except we get HOMEWORK

 

[ChubbyChaser]

It's a joke major except we get HOMEWORK

damn....talk about highschool

 

[1 Up]

Obviously for admissions purposes, a 3.66-4.0 (A-/A) is huge compared with a 3.0 (B), and could be the difference between acceptance and rejection.

But how much different is having a 3.0 GPA than having a 3.66 GPA in terms of knowledge? Does it really show that you know the material that much more if you have a A- vs a B? Does a 3.66 really demonstrate that you can handle med school, while someone with a 3.0 cannot? Especially at grade deflated schools (top 20 schools and other tough places), I'm feeling like an A- really is not all that different from a B in terms of what I have learned in the class.

I don't think that a 3.0 to 3.66 GPA gap represents a very big gap in knowledge, but that's not exactly what's imporantant at this point. To get into medical school, you don't just have to be great, you have to be better than everyone else who is applying. And when you've got 25,000 other applicants with similar applications, but with a 0.66GPU gain on you, you're going to have to make up for that in other ways.

Additionally, getting B's in all of my courses would have required very little work beyond retaining what I learned in class. Doing straight B's pretty much just shows medical schools that you either lack the stamina to succeed, or that you did not care enough to stress yourself in undergrad, and develop your workload tolerance levels. But again, remember that you can make up for that in other ways.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

a 3.0= average college student
3.66=probably 1 std or more above the mean.

 

[Livingapparatus]

I think an A is the mastery (even if it is for one day) of the subject. This being 93%>

But this largley depends on the class

 

[goldenstandard2]

wait, i thought an A- is 3.7, a B+ 3.3, and B 3.0. Is an A- really 3.66 on the AMCAS? and if so, what is a B+?

 

[barto123]

you're not gonna remember enough of the subject a year from now for it to make a difference.

 

[mterp45]

In joke majors (you know what they are) the difference between A and B is the difference between showing up to class and not showing up to class

I don't know, those "joke major" courses have been the elements of imperfection in my overall G.P.A, and I guarrantee you I showed up. 🙁

 

[MaryLennox]

i know it MAKES a difference, but i dont think it is really different.

i feel like i worked ten times harder and learned way more in my chem 2 class than my physics 1 class. but i got a higher grade in physics. just due to differences in the way the tests were, how they were graded, curved, etc. And some professors even give out different grades for the same numerical score (i.e. a 90 was a B+ in my physics class, but an 88 was an A- in my stats class.)

my GPA is not amazing, but I never got a C in any BCPM classes and i've gotten some A's in hard classes. so i hope that, regardless of the A-to-B ratio they can infer that i'm not a total idiot. 🙁 but i shouldnt complain because i know i could probably study harder, i just dont.

 

[PowerButton]

There definitely is a difference, at least at my school. B students just don't put in the work needed to excel, and they don't really need to study the material.

That being said, it often comes down to the professor and the way the class is structured. The majority of the B's I got in undergrad were due to 1) Professors that wrote impossible tests on purpose, so was not reflective at all of the work you put in for it, or 2) The way professors/TA's graded stuff. It comes down to picking the "easy" professor for a class, which is sad.

In most classes though, A students definitely have a much greater understanding of material.

 

[jult24er]

In my experience, there were classes where you could get an A with only mediocre understanding while having the best understanding in the class might only get you a B. In other classes, the majority I took, an A takes excellent understanding whereas a B can be gotten with a mediocre grasp.

But the best correlation is, the more you want to go to med school, the better your grades will be.

 

[gplex86]

Depends on your school. At Michigan, the average in science classes is almost always set at a B-. So getting a B meant you did better than a majority of the class. To get a B+ meant you did really well compared to everyone, and it's worth noting that only a few % separates a B+ (88) from an A- (90).

A mix of B+'s and A-'s gets you a very reasonable GPA (about a 3.5) and I think a good knowledge of the subjects. But your millage may vary depending on your school.

As for the people who got A's? I taught them everything they know. 😀

 

[Quix]

a 3.0= average college student
3.66=probably 1 std or more above the mean.

Actually, a "C" is normal progress in the class, so 2.0 is average college student, assuming no grade inflation or uniform grading policies between universities. But since grade inflation occurs and there is no uniform grading policy between universities... 😉

Let's put it this way, I graduated from college my first time through with a 3.05 (B) and ended up with a PhD. I did the post-bacc thing, earned a 3.29 (B+), and have written chapters for two reference/textbooks in critical care medicine. In the grand scheme of things, a B isn't really all that different from an A-/A, and probably only matters to an adcom because matriculant stats are tracked for "competitiveness" reasons.

 

[aamna0601]

I think it makes a difference. You could ask what the difference between a B- and a C/C+ student was too because of the same GPA point diff but I think it shows that you're willing to obsess to push your grade that one extra step. Whether it means pulling an all nighter, begging the prof or losing your social life completely. It shows a degree of well, lets say perfectionism as a personality trait especially when you've taken 120 units and theres a trend.

Either way, whether you think it is useful or not, there are a handful of specialties where your board scores in med school will be evaluated the same way. If getting an A is just a matter of being born a genius or being an awesome test taker, well then that is the kind of people that get through med school too with flying colors and get the best residencies. For instance Neurosurgery residencies usually have 230 + USMLE step 1 cutoffs. If you had a 227 did it mean you were bad? No, but a 230 is a sign of distinction. We have to get the scores and show the numbers for the rest of our medical careers plain and simple.