Is GPA more important than MCAT

[MasterK]

---

Members don't see this ad.

It seems harder to compare GPAs across applicants due to differences in curriculum and other activities having a factor on GPA... The MCAT is standardized so should be easy to compare other applicants.

I worry because I have a low undergraduate cGPA (3.4). Seems most schools don't look at a graduate GPA too highly. Any thoughts?

 

[donaldpeters]

It seems harder to compare GPAs across applicants due to differences in curriculum and other activities having a factor on GPA... The MCAT is standardized so should be easy to compare other applicants.

I worry because I have a low undergraduate cGPA (3.4). Seems most schools don't look at a graduate GPA too highly. Any thoughts?

Unfortunately GPA is more important that MCAT, which is sad, because at some schools you get 4.0's for showing up to class while at other schools even the best get 3.5. In the British system, the top student usually gets 60% first class or sometimes even a 59%, high second class. LizzyM will be the best person to advice if GPA is more valued or MCAT is more valued.

 

[MedAdComMD]

It seems harder to compare GPAs across applicants due to differences in curriculum and other activities having a factor on GPA... The MCAT is standardized so should be easy to compare other applicants.

I worry because I have a low undergraduate cGPA (3.4). Seems most schools don't look at a graduate GPA too highly. Any thoughts?

Most school view MCAT and GPA as of equal importance. BUT, GPA is viewed more as a broader "range" - while 2-3 points on the MCAT makes a bigger difference.

 

[Charles Darwin]

A high GPA indicates consistent academic success. A high MCAT indicates proficient test-taking skills.

 

[Narmerguy]

Well, it's difficult to comment on how each individual Adcom might feel about this issue. To be honest, most of the premeds/med students here really aren't going to know the answer to this.

Luckily, Sector9 did some brilliant analysis on the WAMC forum that includes this graph here:

You can see here that when comparing equal LizzyM scores (i.e. two people both with a LizzyM score of 75), when the LizzyM score is weighted more towards GPA that they are more likely to be accepted. Not a perfect analysis but the trend is consistent enough to suggest that though they are both valued mostly equally, that having a high GPA vs high MCAT maximizes your chances of acceptance in most cases.

In this situation I think it's helpful to have some stats to support your decisions/evaluations.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

An excellent mcat score can really make up for the non-competitive gpa. On a related positive note, mcat is just one test, whereas raising the gpa would require a lot more work, especially since it a cumulative gpa which includes everything. So the mcat alone can really weigh a lot in your favor.

Regardless it is best to aim for your best in both.

Also do not forget that there is always post-bachelor work you can do if necessary.

 

[donaldpeters]

Most school view MCAT and GPA as of equal importance. BUT, GPA is viewed more as a broader range- while 2-3 points on the MCAT makes a bigger difference.

Could you please elaborate on this a little more?

 

[desi0chick]

Sadly gpa is more important which doesn't make sense considering pulling off a 4.0 in a top 20-30 is much more difficult than a lesser know college.

 

[Whatyousay]

Wow, there was a thread that literally asked this same question yesterday.

 

[Charles Darwin]

Sadly gpa is more important which doesn't make sense considering pulling off a 4.0 in a top 20-30 is much more difficult than a lesser know college.

Not necessarily. There are quite a few top universities that inflate grades.

 

[desi0chick]

Not necessarily. There are quite a few top universities that inflate grades.

True. If only I had known about grade inflation earlier..

 

[donaldpeters]

Not necessarily. There are quite a few top universities that inflate grades.

Hard to believe but could be possible. What universities are those?

 

[tn4596]

Hard to believe but could be possible. What universities are those?

Ivy league school are widely associated with grade inflation.
But considering most people who get into those school are smart anyway, I dont think it is a problem. In my state college, because the classes' sizes are so big and the school doesnt have high selectivity, getting an A is easy because you only need to get into around top 10% of the class and that is an guarantee A due to curve.

 

[ash914]

Well, it's difficult to comment on how each individual Adcom might feel about this issue. To be honest, most of the premeds/med students here really aren't going to know the answer to this.

Luckily, Sector9 did some brilliant analysis on the WAMC forum that includes this graph here:

You can see here that when comparing equal LizzyM scores (i.e. two people both with a LizzyM score of 75), when the LizzyM score is weighted more towards GPA that they are more likely to be accepted. Not a perfect analysis but the trend is consistent enough to suggest that though they are both valued mostly equally, that having a high GPA vs high MCAT maximizes your chances of acceptance in most cases.

In this situation I think it's helpful to have some stats to support your decisions/evaluations.

As far as that data goes, I don't think the student with the higher GPA with the student with the higher MCAT can be made while assuming that everything else is equal, even with a large sample size. For example, a higher GPA can mean better LOR's and may indicate extensive humanities coursework more often than a high MCAT, and both can offer an advantage in admissions.

 

[Narmerguy]

Wow, there was a thread that literally asked this same question yesterday.

👍 See sig.

As far as that data goes, I don't think the student with the higher GPA with the student with the higher MCAT can be made while assuming that everything else is equal, even with a large sample size. For example, a higher GPA can mean better LOR's and may indicate extensive humanities coursework more often than a high MCAT, and both can offer an advantage in admissions.

While plausible, this is probably a bit too much conjecture to be useful. Perhaps if we were required to produce 7-8 LOR that might have more strength because someone with a lot of good grades could plausibly accomplish. However, even someone with a "low" or mediocre GPA need only have impressed 2-3 professors to neutralize any differences in LOR strength because we can't submit any more than that.

I think your comment about humanities is way too much conjecture. Humanities courses can be harder to get A's in than science courses, and many people with high GPA's don't even take humanities courses. It's just too much shooting in the dark to explain away a pretty consistent and obvious trend.

 

[donaldpeters]

At my university, the Education major is a joke. There are never any finals or midterms, just some - what they call - projects. And the ENTIRE class gets an A. In Engineering and the Sciences on the other hand, hardly anyone ever gets an A. Our university athletes are always advised to major in education because they can play football or basketball or whatever all over the country year round and still get an A in the Education department! That entire department is a joke at our university. And to think medical schools consider GPA! (shudders)

 

[ash914]

👍 See sig.



While plausible, this is probably a bit too much conjecture to be useful. Perhaps if we were required to produce 7-8 LOR that might have more strength because someone with a lot of good grades could plausibly accomplish. However, even someone with a "low" or mediocre GPA need only have impressed 2-3 professors to neutralize any differences in LOR strength because we can't submit any more than that.

I think your comment about humanities is way too much conjecture. Humanities courses can be harder to get A's in than science courses, and many people with high GPA's don't even take humanities courses. It's just too much shooting in the dark to explain away a pretty consistent and obvious trend.

I agree about the humanities part (it was a bad example), but I still think the LOR argument makes a lot of sense, especially when considering that are on the lower end. Someone with a high gpa is more likely to have a good selection of potential letter-writers. It may not explain the whole trend, but it's something to consider.

 

[sector9]

As far as that data goes, I don't think the student with the higher GPA with the student with the higher MCAT can be made while assuming that everything else is equal, even with a large sample size. For example, a higher GPA can mean better LOR's and may indicate extensive humanities coursework more often than a high MCAT, and both can offer an advantage in admissions.

It is very difficult to figure out the rest of the application based on only GPA and MCAT. However, I think that the data points are generally well supported because of the large sample size for each point. When you look at the data for points with small sample sizes, then it gets a little shady to make conclusions (like the various ethnicity-specific data). You can easily tell that something weird is going on when you look at some of those graphs with small numbers of applicants. However, the "All applicants" data is very smooth

Overall, any argument saying that MCAT is more important is conjecture and is not supported by the stats. I'm sure you can find adcom's at a school that feel both ways about the issue. The graph was designed to tease apart the two variables and figure out which one was more important overall rather than opinions at a particular school.

If you have a better way to answer this question with real statistics rather than conjecture, I'm sure SDN would love to hear about it👍

 

[gettheleadout]

An excellent mcat score can really make up for the non-competitive gpa. On a related positive note, mcat is just one test, whereas raising the gpa would require a lot more work, especially since it a cumulative gpa which includes everything. So the mcat alone can really weigh a lot in your favor.

How do you know this?

The rest of your post seems to contradict this and get more behind the "it's just one test, why should it be of equal importance to years of work" argument.

 

[kpcrew]

Wow, there was a thread that literally asked this same question yesterday.

This happens often it seems. It's like people think that they're the first ones to think of something or have a certain question. They're either doing this or constantly opening the same kind of thread to whine about the same problem cause you know, everyone is a special little snowflake and they're all unique.

 

[vin5cent0]

They're both important. I'm sure GPA is more important than MCAT scores just because they are seemingly more representative of your academic proficiency, although I'm not sure I believe that myself.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

How do you know this?

The rest of your post seems to contradict this and get more behind the "it's just one test, why should it be of equal importance to years of work" argument.

Because that's what at least I got from this LizzyM's post.

I am assuming if, "MCAT correlates with the Step 1 and Step 2-CK exams[etc.]" then it appears like it is rather an important test.

 

[gettheleadout]

Because that's what at least I got from this LizzyM's post.

I am assuming if, "MCAT correlates with the Step 1 and Step 2-CK exams[etc.]" then it appears like it is rather an important test.

That has nothing to do with MCAT scores making up for lower GPA's.

I'm not even contesting that a high MCAT can somewhat mitigate the disadvantage conferred by a lower-than-average GPA, but you stated it so matter-of-factly that I questioned your certainty. It's not a clear-cut way out of a sub-par GPA.

 

[1TB4RKSB4CK]

I look at it like this.
2.9 gpa 39 mcat or 3.9 gpa 19 mcat.

 

[Stumpyman]

From what I hear, GPA is more important But by reasoning, it would seem the MCAT would be more important because of all other factors involved in gpa (what school you went to, your course load, etc.), whereas the mcat is universal.

 

[gettheleadout]

From what I hear, GPA is more important But by reasoning, it would seem the MCAT would be more important because of all other factors involved in gpa (what school you went to, your course load, etc.), whereas the mcat is universal.

It's not that simple. Yes, the MCAT is a standardized measure, but at the same time it's a single 5-hour test, whereas a GPA is a cumulative representation of years of work. Others will come in and argue both sides, but realize there are multiple sides that are equally logically supported.

 

[MedAdComMD]

A bad GPA can be redeemed by 2 years of straight As.

 

[ash914]

From what I hear, GPA is more important But by reasoning, it would seem the MCAT would be more important because of all other factors involved in gpa (what school you went to, your course load, etc.), whereas the mcat is universal.

They do take those other factors into account. I go to a school that has low averages, and it's been brought up at the adcom visits I've gone to. The initial screenings may not consider it, but when they're reviewing your application they are taking into account course load and difficulty of the curriculum. It's not just numbers, even on the academic aspects of admissions.

 

[studmuffin]

Mcat=1.1*gpa

 

[drdan83]

I had a friend with a 3.8 but a 24 MCAT who got rejected by all the allopathic schools he applied to. He did get into SGU and ended up transferring to Drexel for second year. He is now completing a residency in diagnostic radiology.

My cousin had a 3.2 but a 36 MCAT and he is at West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine. No allopathic interviews.

If you have nothing else to offer with your transcript except the bare minimum EC's, then both your GPA and MCAT have to be competitive.

But if you stand out in some way, I'm sure the adcom's will massage the #'s a little.

 

[Eric01]

It's not really a linear relationship.

Below a 3.5 gpa you start getting exponential decline in chance.

Below a 29 MCAT you start getting an exponential decline in chance.

However you start getting exponential increase after 30 and exponential increase after 3.5

So I guess if you can gain more of the exponential growth with a high MCAT, than your exponential decline in GPA, it might average it out. Like a 37 MCAT and a 3.3 GPA will probably be weighted in your favor. But a 32 MCAT and 3.3 GPA, and the decline from the GPA might win out.

I'm not looking at any graphs, that's just qualitative argument, I'd say they're roughly equal at certain levels though.

What I mean "certain levels" is that an increase from a 2.1 to a 2.5 gpa isn't going to make much of a difference in your chance.

An increase from a 3.0 to a 3.3 probably wouldn't have as much change as an increase from a 28 to a 31.

but an increase from a 3.6 to a 3.8 would probably have the same change as a 35 to a 37.

 

[donaldpeters]

He did get into SGU and ended up transferring to Drexel for second year. He is now completing a residency in diagnostic radiology.

How in the world does someone transfer from the Caribbean to a US allo school? Are such things possible at all? What do they look at - MCAT?

 

[Morzh]

According to a survey of 129 admissions officers representing 70 US public schools, 43 US private schools, and 7 Canadian schools, GPAs were evaluated to be very slightly more important than MCAT scores when determining both whether to interview and whether to accept applicants. See pages 10 and 11.

Far more interesting, I think, is later on in the powerpoint where Baylor and UTHSCSA tell us some of the inner workings of how they make interview/admissions decisions. I don't know if they meant for this document to ever be made public and searchable on Google, but I'm glad it is.

 

[SeminoleVesicle]

According to a survey of 129 admissions officers representing 70 US public schools, 43 US private schools, and 7 Canadian schools, GPAs were evaluated to be very slightly more important than MCAT scores when determining both whether to interview and whether to accept applicants. See pages 10 and 11.

Far more interesting, I think, is later on in the powerpoint where Baylor and UTHSCSA tell us some of the inner workings of how they make interview/admissions decisions. I don't know if they meant for this document to ever be made public and searchable on Google, but I'm glad it is.

Fantastic link.

 

[Neurosis]

God, I hope so, standardized testing sucks.

 

[Frazier]

I claim this analogy as brilliant:

Your GPA proves that you have the stamina/ability to win the race; the MCAT ensures that you weren't racing in the special olympics.

 

[Neurosis]

I claim this analogy as brilliant:

Your GPA proves that you have the stamina/ability to win the race; the MCAT ensures that you weren't racing in the special olympics.

Oh snap, I lol'd when i read this.😀

 

[donaldpeters]

Nice link. I am surprised Cum GPA is valued over Science GPA and Verbal scores as well as Personal Statement are valued more than MCAT Physical Science scores and MCAT Biological Science scores (while at the same time stating that the most important factor for medical student success is knowledge of biology). Sometimes such studies are not done by professors but by lower-level people who don't know much about survey design, so such data should probably be taken with a grain of salt. And again, in surveys people constantly say one thing but do something else.

 

[Frazier]

Nice link. I am surprised Cum GPA is valued over Science GPA and Verbal scores as well as Personal Statement are valued more than MCAT Physical Science scores. Sometimes such studies are not done by professors but by lower-level people who don't know much about survey design, so such data should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

I didn't look that close, but if the names of the people on the first slide performed the study -- I am going to bet that they know plenty about survey design. 😉

 

[donaldpeters]

Email response from a friend who worked as Sr Project Director at British Market Research Bureau (BMRB), probably the world's #1 marketing research agency and currently a PhD student in Marketing at a top-3 business school - - - - "This seems to be a rather badly-designed piece of work, despite the names of the people on the ppt slides. Why did you ask me about this? You wanting to go to medical school?"

 

[Morzh]

They just asked the responders to rate each of those factors on a 1-5 scale of importance and published the average rating. Without a formal statistical analysis it is hard to tell, but an average of 3.6 vs 3.7 vs 3.8 most likely has little to no significance (statistically or practically).

That was my point in posting the link. Don't make it more complicated than it is. I'd pay attention to things ranked in the "4's" vs things in the "2's", but other than that all I took away was that they are really looking for balance and there is no single "most important" factor.

Like I said, I thought the last half of the slideshow gives far more insight into the mindset of admission committees.