Is it really a magic number: MCAT 30, GPA 3.5 :D

[kaikai]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Okok, before you flame this thread. I know each applicant is a total package, you are supposed to look at LOR, post-sec activities, interview, undergrad reputation..etc.

BUT, let's get back to the number:

is anyone or do you know anyone that got a 30 or 30+ in MCAT and 3.5+ GPA that didn't get into any MD school?


😎

 

[Chronotropic]

I know someone with a 4.00, 30 MCAT (all 10's), and a ton of research. He didn't get in.

 

[kaikai]

Originally posted by danwsu
I know someone with a 4.00, 30 MCAT (all 10's), and a ton of research. He didn't get in.

wow, did he/she apply to all top-tier school? did that person apply to "relatively easier" school like Drexel, Finch and many others?

 

[Chronotropic]

The person applied to a range of schools including our state school.

 

[manicmaven]

I know a 3.7 and a 32 from a good liberal arts school. Did not get in. Applied to a range.

It's a crapshoot. Ask anyone. Those accepted this year feel damn lucky, no matter what their scores/gpa.

 

[surfdevl02]

Manicmaven is right...it is a total crapshoot...but i guess to answer your question, 30 and 3.5 is a good place to start if you're looking at pure numbers although I think the 30 MCAT is a little too over-hyped in regards to admissions. I know PLENTY of people that got in with sub-30 MCATs. There are also lots of people who are still waiting for acceptances with MCATs in the low to mid 30s. It really is the total package and maybe more importantly, your interviewing and inter-personal skills.

 

[thewebthsp]

The avg. matriculant had a 3.5/30 in 2001.

In 2003 the avg. rose to 3.6/31.5 .... so a 3.5/30 doesn't do you in, but it's now below the average.

The best 50 schools pretty much have an average gpa of 3.7 -- except jefferson which is still 3.5.

 

[thewebthsp]

The avg. matriculant had a 3.5/30 in 2001.

In 2003 the avg. rose to 3.6/31.5 .... so a 3.5/30 doesn't do you in, but it's now below the average.

The best 50 schools pretty much have an average gpa of 3.7 -- except jefferson which is still 3.5. Hopkins had an average gpa of 3.9 in 2002.

 

[bigdan]

Hi folks-
The school I'm attending to get my prerequisites filled - SUNY Binghamton - just released the list of scores of applicants who were accepted to medical schools, and the list of those that didn't.
There were a couple of students with MCATs below 24 accepted to allopathic schools. I think 40 or so students were accepted, I'd guess 40-50% had scores under 32. AND there was a biochem major with a 3.85/34 with applications at 15-20 schools WITH NO acceptances. I am getting more and more into believing that the "other things" are of major significance in the accpetance route.
Clearly, you do have to have a "number package" that will qualify you, but I'm not sure you can truly attain scores that would allow you to feel safe.

dc

 

[ready]

#s will only get you past the first couple of steps....

 

[deltamed]

in response to the 30 MCAT 4.0 GPA, lots of research, that person is bound to get into a medical school....

IF they don't make a bad mistake in their application or interview. In my opinion, it isn't "just" a crapshoot. Do you think they are picking names out of a hat?

If you have decent qualifications like that, then just make sure you are not arrogant or fake or pursuing medicine for the wrong reasons. As long as you are likable and able to carry on a conversation, with those stats you'll get in somewhere.

 

[Chronotropic]

Depending on where you live med school admissions can be a total crap shoot. For last year's class my state school only took 13 applicants who graduated from college that year. So if you are in my state and coming right out of college then it is very much a crap shoot.
If however you've had that extra year then it becomes much less of a crap shoot, as long as you do something worth while in that year.

 

[scuba]

I know someone with a 3.95 in chemistry with a 39 who did not get in his first attempt. He did get in the following year. I have thought about this and all I could come up with is that he applied to schools that normally take people with lower stats, so possibly the schools just decided that he would get in at a "better" school and so why offer him an acceptance. When I was deciding where to apply to, I included one school that I thought I had no chance to get into, five or six schools that would be difficult, but possible, a few schools that I felt that I would be very competitive at, and two schools that statistically, I thought would be no problem to get into. Well, as it turned out, I got into the most competitive school, and didn't even get interviews from the bottom two. Go figure. I guess the bottom line is, WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!😕

 

[deltamed]

Originally posted by danwsu
Depending on where you live med school admissions can be a total crap shoot. For last year's class my state school only took 13 applicants who graduated from college that year. So if you are in my state and coming right out of college then it is very much a crap shoot.
If however you've had that extra year then it becomes much less of a crap shoot, as long as you do something worth while in that year.

I'm not saying that it isn't a crapshoot at any single school. Hell, your state school might have decided they were only going to take people with MCATs of exactly 25 that year and no one else. But overall, if you play your cards right, apply to at least 15 schools, and vary the type of school you apply to, it isn't a crapshoot.

 

[UCLAMAN]

Originally posted by deltamed
I'm not saying that it isn't a crapshoot at any single school. Hell, your state school might have decided they were only going to take people with MCATs of exactly 25 that year and no one else. But overall, if you play your cards right, apply to at least 15 schools, and vary the type of school you apply to, it isn't a crapshoot.

I agree, getting into a medical school(one of them somewhere in the US) ISN'T a crapshoot.

Its about putting together a TOTAL package that sells yourself to the schools. The randomness comes from the fact that one can never really be sure which school they ultimately end up at if they are qualified applicants. But if one makes themselves qualified(not just numerically but in every other area as well) then they have much greater odds of gaining admission to medical school. Are there exceptions(ie do some UN-qualified people get in)? Most likely. Do some "qualified" people get screwed? Probably. The system isn't perfect. However, I refuse to accept the fact that the process is a "crapshoot." More likely than not...if you make yourself qualified and sell yourself to the schools well then you will most likely get in somewhere.

Applying to medical school isn't about rolling the dice and hoping you get snake eyes or something. Its not a blind leap of faith IMO. I say this because the first tiem I applied people told me just to give it a try and that the whole process was "random." However, after applying to 30 schools I got 2 interviews and no accepts. The second year I applied to 30 schools I got 11 interviews and 4 accepts and waitlisted at the rest of the places. Whats the difference? ..... I improved my TOTAL PACKAGE and made myself a more qualified applicant. The first time I applied I wasn't a qualified applicant so of course I wouldn't get in. But I was dumb and was jaded by the idea that "hey, after all...its a crapshoot...if i apply to enough schools i should get in." WRONG!!!!!

THE PROCESS IS NOT A CRAPSHOOT!!!!!!

If you want to get into medical school make yourself a qualified applicant and make your total package appealing. Its kinda like the NBA draft(well...somewhat). You workout for all these teams before draft day and play really well in college or high school and make it so that most teams will want to select you in the first round. Granted, its not guaranteed that you will be drafted by the Lakers, but if you can hoop, you will play in the NBA. Medical school is the same way...if you are qualified then you will get in(maybe not necessarily into your first choice, but you will get in). Its not a crapshoot plain and simple.

If you want to play in the NBA then get yourself some NBA skills and qualifications. Make no mistake though, if you can hoop, whether you come from overseas, the CBA, or from the NBDL, if you can ball at the NBA level you will eventually end up there.

Ok...sorry...just had to vent...

just my 2 pennies of course...i'm sure some people disagree.

 

[All-Star14]

UCLAMAN, I love your NBA analogy! I agree with your stance regarding the med school application process--it isn't a crap shot. I used to believe that once I saw people being rejected with really high numbers and people being admitted with really low numbers; however, I feel now that an applicant must (as you said earlier) possess the "total package": scores, statement, and motivation. It's easy for an individual with a 3.9/40 to pass an initial screening for a secondary. If, however, they feel that their only calling to medicine hinges on the fact that they did well in prereq classes and scored high on the MCAT, then they've only achieved 1/3 of their premed potential. Compare that to the following analogy:

The Chicago Bulls are looking for a new point guard; they're looking at four possible candidates. Their selection criteria is as follows: need a point guard who can pass, penetrate (dribble) and ballhandling, and score. The first PG can score very well (20+ ppg) but isn't a very good passer or penetrator. The second PG can pass very well (9+ assists per game) but can't score to save his live; plus, he isn't a very good ballhandler. The third PG is an excellent ballhandler/penetrator (can dribble two balls simultaneously through his legs), but he can't pass or score. Finally, the fourth PG can do all three (12 ppg, 6 apg, can do several figure 8's in a row). Who's going to be drafted (hopefully...if the Bulls don't blow the draft pick)? PG number 4 because he has achieved a wider range of potential than the other three and is also multi-dimensional.

I feel that med schools want individuals who have (1) good (not necessarily great) scores, (2) well-written personal statements/essays, and (3) proof that medicine is their calling (through shadowing, research, volunteering...and not just doing these activities to fill out their application). The reason why some individuals with lower scores are still granted interviews is because they've probably achieved 2/3 of what med schools are looking for. If you've only bothered to focus on grades/MCAT scores, then you've achieved only 1/3 of what med schools are seeking in prospective matriculants. As we all know from elementary school, 1/3 < 2/3, so this shows that an individual needs to focus on more than just one criteria for med school (of course, it doesn't hurt to have all three 😀 criteria mastered). So though it might take longer for an applicant without stellar numbers to get the interview (compared to one who has perfect scores yet nothing beyond that), the one who has proof beyond scores will most likely be the matriculant.

 

[Chronotropic]

I actually liken med school admissions to the NFL draft. As in every team will select the obvious players in the first round then select players that intruige them for the remainder of the draft
(ie the crapshoot) A player drafted in the 4th round by the Raiders may not have been drafted by other teams at all. I see med schools doing the same thing. After the all stars have been selected they then look for applicants who have something that grabs their attention. A Tom Brady of premeds if you will.

Then when it's all said and done there are players left who were overlooked by the NFL who would of been good players and eventually do get into the league after a year or two of playing in other leagues. Jeff Garcia and Kurt Warner are good examples.

The Chicago Bulls are looking for a new point guard; they're looking at four possible candidates. Their selection criteria is as follows: need a point guard who can pass, penetrate (dribble) and ballhandling, and score. The first PG can score very well (20+ ppg) but isn't a very good passer or penetrator. The second PG can pass very well (9+ assists per game) but can't score to save his live; plus, he isn't a very good ballhandler. The third PG is an excellent ballhandler/penetrator (can dribble two balls simultaneously through his legs), but he can't pass or score. Finally, the fourth PG can do all three (12 ppg, 6 apg, can do several figure 8's in a row). Who's going to be drafted (hopefully...if the Bulls don't blow the draft pick)? PG number 4 because he has achieved a wider range of potential than the other three and is also multi-dimensional.

Thats a bad example because a PG has to be multi dimensional. If we were talking about the Western conference and PFs then a superb defender would be selected over a balanced player. Plus
those who already have a solid PG may want to draft one with excellent shooting or one that could be a clutch defender.

I agree with you that it is in your best interest to be well rounded. But I just feel that with the number of people applying with similar stats, that getting an interview or acceptance hinges on having some random thing on your app that resonates with the adcom.

 

[Street Philosopher]

except that nba/nfl doesn't care about your gpa or experiences outside of the sport. they don't have affirmative action either. plus they are segregated by gender.

 

[manicmaven]

Originally posted by UCLAMAN
Its about putting together a TOTAL package that sells yourself to the schools. The randomness comes from the fact that one can never really be sure which school they ultimately end up at if they are qualified applicants. But if one makes themselves qualified(not just numerically but in every other area as well) then they have much greater odds of gaining admission to medical school. Are there exceptions(ie do some UN-qualified people get in)? Most likely. Do some "qualified" people get screwed? Probably. The system isn't perfect. However, I refuse to accept the fact that the process is a "crapshoot." More likely than not...if you make yourself qualified and sell yourself to the schools well then you will most likely get in somewhere.

Applying to medical school isn't about rolling the dice and hoping you get snake eyes or something. Its not a blind leap of faith IMO. I say this because the first tiem I applied people told me just to give it a try and that the whole process was "random." However, after applying to 30 schools I got 2 interviews and no accepts. The second year I applied to 30 schools I got 11 interviews and 4 accepts and waitlisted at the rest of the places. Whats the difference? ..... I improved my TOTAL PACKAGE and made myself a more qualified applicant. The first time I applied I wasn't a qualified applicant so of course I wouldn't get in. But I was dumb and was jaded by the idea that "hey, after all...its a crapshoot...if i apply to enough schools i should get in." WRONG!!!!!

THE PROCESS IS NOT A CRAPSHOOT!!!!!!
just my 2 pennies of course...i'm sure some people disagree.

Hello future classmate. Allow me to discuss...

I agree. The total package is crucial to your application. You have to sell yourself well, from the short essays to the PS, and ensure that your recommendations are outstanding. You need to produce the best manicmaven or uclaman you can in order to get an interview and an acceptance.

The crapshoot part of it for me, was after the interview process. I knew so many people who came out with a huge number of interviews and found themselves waitlisted everywhere. This is what I meant by solid scores, solid app and still no acceptance-crapshoot. I had quite a few interviews at a range of schools, and I believe that this was because my application was well-written and unique (because if you just look at my numbers and my undergrad, they are nothing special). However, I didn't for a minute believe that I couldn't have been waitlisted to ALL of my schools, and been sitting here, in July unsure of whether or not I'd be reapplying. The interview process is extremely subjective. Many very well-qualified applicants who took painstaking efforts to present themselves immaculately on paper and in the interview were still waitlisted everywhere.

That's all I meant. You have a very good point about this year's pool doing everything they can to apply early and make themselves shine.

🙂 your friendly manicmaven.

 

[missmod]

Originally posted by scuba
I know someone with a 3.95 in chemistry with a 39 who did not get in his first attempt. He did get in the following year. I have thought about this and all I could come up with is that he applied to schools that normally take people with lower stats, so possibly the schools just decided that he would get in at a "better" school and so why offer him an acceptance. When I was deciding where to apply to, I included one school that I thought I had no chance to get into, five or six schools that would be difficult, but possible, a few schools that I felt that I would be very competitive at, and two schools that statistically, I thought would be no problem to get into. Well, as it turned out, I got into the most competitive school, and didn't even get interviews from the bottom two. Go figure. I guess the bottom line is, WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN!!!😕

I have been thinking about scuba's theory a little... do you guys think med schools actually do this during the admissions process? will they see someone with high stats and assume that he/she will get in somewhere higher ranked and not really give this person a chance? it may not be blatant on the initial screening process, but I can see where high stats might actually put you at a disadvantage post-secondaries. what do you guys think?

 

[UCLAMAN]

Originally posted by missmod
I have been thinking about scuba's theory a little... do you guys think med schools actually do this during the admissions process? will they see someone with high stats and assume that he/she will get in somewhere higher ranked and not really give this person a chance? it may not be blatant on the initial screening process, but I can see where high stats might actually put you at a disadvantage post-secondaries. what do you guys think?

Yes, schools do this...they may not admit to it but I think they do. There are quite a few people who have high stats and awesome ECs that don't get interviews at lower stat/tiered schools but get interviews at top 10's.

 

[ShaylaFinn]

I definitely agree with scuba's theory. Part of it has to do with "fit" - schools want new students that mesh with their faculty and current students (think of a 4.0 ivy, 45T gunner at a laid back SOM like Tulane). And part of it has to do with rankings. It's in the school's best interest to offer only as many acceptances as needed to fill the class.

I'm guessing that most adcoms keep stats from year-to-year and have a pretty good idea of who'll matriculate if offered a position. (Maybe not down to the exact person, but along the lines of "if we send out x acceptances in this range of candidates, y% will accept our offer and matriculate").