Is Pre-Med Harder in Top Schools?

[james1988]

For those of you who have spent time in both a state/average school and an ivy/top school, or for some other reason may know the answer to this question - is pre-med harder at the top schools, or is the level of difficulty comparable? Are teachers and programs at ivies more brazen and out to weed out students? How do would a school that is ranked in the top 50 compare to an average state uni?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[186321]

I would say there is certainly a difference, but not much. Don't get me wrong, you just can't compare an education attained at an Ivy compared to a 1000 SAT and 3.0 GPA college. However, when you're talking about comparing Ivy schools to big state schools (Ohio State, Florida, Penn State, etc.), I don't think there is much of a difference.

 

[james1988]

I would say there is certainly a difference, but not much. Don't get me wrong, you just can't compare an education attained at an Ivy compared to a 1000 SAT and 3.0 GPA college. However, when you're talking about comparing Ivy schools to big state schools (Ohio State, Florida, Penn State, etc.), I don't think there is much of a difference.

lets say you are comparing it to a 1000sat 3.0 college; obviously the competition will be a lot easier, hence you will get much better grades you would get than if you were pitted against ivy competition. am i mistaken in this assumption?

 

[-Goose-]

Yes. I know that during the admissions process at least 2 schools that I was accepted to multiplied my GPA by 1.X b/c of the difficulty of my undergrad.

 

[bcat85]

lets say you are comparing it to a 1000sat 3.0 college; obviously the competition will be a lot easier, hence you will get much better grades you would get than if you were pitted against ivy competition. am i mistaken in this assumption?

This isn't a mistaken assumption at all. I go to a small liberal arts school with only about ~5 people applying a year.. So generally we score better as compared to the rest of the class, which results in us being at the top of the curve. Conversely, if I went to an Ivy where everyone was as smart as I am, I would probably still have a good GPA, but not as good as it is now.

 

[riceman04]

I took Orgo over the summer at home in Los Angeles at LMU...and it was much easier than any science class I ever took at Rice.

But the science classes I took here at Penn (the day classes) were easier than the science classes at Rice as well

Took the biochem series at UCLA 153A-C and thought that was easier too

 

[Handy388]

premed advisor's quality also matters. For example, UC Berkeley's premed advisor SUCKS.

 

[iA-MD2013]

premed advisor's quality also matters. For example, UC Berkeley's premed advisor SUCKS.

tell me about it!!! it doesn't seem like they know anything about the process!

 

[berkeleyvala]

That and the classes at Cal are hella competitive.

 

[iA-MD2013]

That and the classes at Cal are hella competitive.

haha yeah...but its the lack of advisors that really annoys me.

 

[crazy4clana]

I would say that although you eventually learn all of the same material, at Ivy's they might go more indepth or have a harder grading scale. Big universities are also difficult because they like to weed out students whom they know aren't cut out for medicine. That's why there's the MCAT, to see if that student from Harvard is the same as a student from an average state school.

Pre-med advisors and their LOR are also important, they can make you or break you!

 

[cofcemt]

lets say you are comparing it to a 1000sat 3.0 college; obviously the competition will be a lot easier, hence you will get much better grades you would get than if you were pitted against ivy competition. am i mistaken in this assumption?

I am going to stick my neck out there, but only for my small, liberal-arts college. Things are different here and due to the location (beach, warm, great atomosphere) we have some of the greatest professors, most hold PhDs from ivy universities. Also, our school of math and science (in which all of the chem, bio, physics,...) should not curve grades, so other people in your class do not determine your grade and to date, I have never taken an exam that has been curved. I have also talked to many friends that are in ivy and they say because of curves and the way classes are taught, it is almost easier sometimes. Just a little different opinion than others on the forum.

 

[thRob]

I. Does SAT/High School GPA correlate strongly with Undergraduate Performance (between students at the same University)?
II. Do Top Tier Universities have more strict cut-offs for A's, B's, C's, etc. than Vanilla Universities? (as opposed to having the same cut-offs)


If I. = true and II = false, then a student will have a higher GPA at a Vanilla University as opposed to a top tier.

If I. = true and II = true, then the student will have a higher GPA at the Vanilla University

If I. = false and II = false, then the student will have the same GPA at each University

If I. = false and II = true, then the student will have a higher GPA at the Vanilla University

Assumptions:
Top Tier = Higher SAT/GPA average
All the variation in (AVERAGE) undergraduate performance can be explained by SAT/GPA

Thats how I see it. Whether you believe I. and II. to be true or false is up to you. It would also be interesting to add logic statements about the cut-offs at a Top Tier being more relaxed than a Low Tier

 

[james1988]

I. Does SAT/High School GPA correlate strongly with Undergraduate Performance (between students at the same University)?
II. Do Top Tier Universities have more strict cut-offs for A's, B's, C's, etc. than Vanilla Universities? (as opposed to having the same cut-offs)


If I. = true and II = false, then a student will have a higher GPA at a Vanilla University as opposed to a top tier.

If I. = true and II = true, then the student will have a higher GPA at the Vanilla University

If I. = false and II = false, then the student will have the same GPA at each University

If I. = false and II = true, then the student will have a higher GPA at the Vanilla University

Assumptions:
Top Tier = Higher SAT/GPA average
All the variation in (AVERAGE) undergraduate performance can be explained by SAT/GPA

Thats how I see it. Whether you believe I. and II. to be true or false is up to you. It would also be interesting to add logic statements about the cut-offs at a Top Tier being more relaxed than a Low Tier

very methodic breakdown; are you a philosophy major? I'm trying to figure out the truth value of II. Both propositions seem to be intuitively true, especially I, however I'm trying to get a more objective insight into the matter, hence my question.

 

[james1988]

very methodic breakdown; are you a philosophy major? I'm trying to figure out the truth value of II. Both propositions seem to be intuitively true, especially I, however I'm trying to get a more objective insight into the matter, hence my question.

IE what is your opinion about I and II

 

[BigRedPremed]

I think it's slightly harder at top schools. Obviously, top schools have better students (which will matter when it comes down to curving grades). But, they are also more grade inflated. In the end, it more or less balances out.

If you look at the data below, you can see that the median MCAT score of a top school's (Cornell) worst applicants is still above 30. 70+ students scored a 35+ on the MCAT but only 12 had a 3.9+ GPA. So, in the end, the grade inflation doesn't quite balance out the tougher competition. But, you should go to the school that you like; that's where your GPA is likely to be the highest.

http://www.career.cornell.edu/downloads/AaChart2007ForWeb.pdf

 

[thRob]

IE what is your opinion about I and II

IMHO, I think that I. is globally true. As for II., I go to undergrad at WashU and consider it to be very very difficult as far as curves go, so in my case, I would consider II to be true as well (with my only comparison being to Southern Illinois University). That said, I have no idea what the curves are like at Harvard, Cornell, etc or any other "low tier" schools.

I also want to throw out that I'll be attending SIU med. school, so don't label me a "low tier" hater

 

[Handy388]

tell me about it!!! it doesn't seem like they know anything about the process!

you have a 3.8? gee. Also, I was sitting in some medical research related IB class as I read the thread, the thought that you may be in my class and applying at the same cycle freak me out.

 

[iA-MD2013]

you have a 3.8? gee. Also, I was sitting in some medical research related IB class as I read the thread, the thought that you may be in my class and applying at the same cycle freak me out.

It took me a while to get a hang of the premed courses at berkeley...my first year grades sucked. after that, it got much easier.
no...im not in that IB class. we may know each other though, who knows?

 

[Danbo1957]

Education value is so relative. A Biology degree from Johns Hopkins or Cornell is more valuble than a Biology degree from Florida State or Illinois. But an Engineering degree from Texas A&M is more valuble than one from Cornell (in the real world). A Philosophy degree from Oberlin, or Amherst is more valuble than from any Ivy League school...

So for a strong pre-med, go to an undergraduate university that has a strong medical school.

 

[kami333]

Yes, definitely.

I went a small liberal arts school known for it's pre-med program and am now doing a postbacc at a state university that is pretty well ranked and there is pretty big difference.

At my old school, there were no curves, no old tests (even if there were, the profs usually took the time to significantly change it), lectures were mandatory, and the average GPA of graduating bio majors was .2~.3 lower than the university I am at now.

At the state university I am at now (which isn't bad, gets ranked around the top 50 with a medical school in the top 50 as well), lectures are optional, notes for most classes are posted online, and so are old tests. Also there are a lot of classes that are easy A's, making it easier to balance out tougher upper level classes.

 

[nu2004]

Is Pre-Med Harder in Top Schools?

yes.

 

[al112987]

I can't say anything about other schools but here at UNC:

pre-med is not hard
a BS in chemistry, however, is.

 

[flaahless]

I am going to stick my neck out there, but only for my small, liberal-arts college. Things are different here and due to the location (beach, warm, great atomosphere) we have some of the greatest professors, most hold PhDs from ivy universities. Also, our school of math and science (in which all of the chem, bio, physics,...) should not curve grades, so other people in your class do not determine your grade and to date, I have never taken an exam that has been curved. I have also talked to many friends that are in ivy and they say because of curves and the way classes are taught, it is almost easier sometimes. Just a little different opinion than others on the forum.

Word. At my school, if the class average was 50%, then the class got Fs.

 

[james1988]

Word. At my school, if the class average was 50%, then the class got Fs.

that is SICK

 

[CubaLibre]

Word. At my school, if the class average was 50%, then the class got Fs.

i doubt half a class fails. no university would put up with a prof like that. better schools, for the most part, have better students (definitely not saying that everyone at lesser schools suck, but more students do suck at them), so the competition is tighter. And everywhere u go people need to get A's B's C's and D's. you get my point

 

[flaahless]

i doubt half a class fails. no university would put up with a prof like that. better schools, for the most part, have better students (definitely not saying that everyone at lesser schools suck, but more students do suck at them), so the competition is tighter. And everywhere u go people need to get A's B's C's and D's. you get my point

Yeah I feel you. The class average was rarely that low. But ochem always yielded a disproportional number of Ds and Fs. For one class, out of 35 students there were 25 Ds and Fs (14 and 11 respectively). Which also brings up a good point, it not only depends on the school, but on the professors. Some students have the hook up on who the easiest professors are, and some of us get stuck with that evil professor from hell.

 

[flaahless]

that is SICK

Yeah, the motto was... "If you don't know the material, we're not going to pass you."

 

[suwaifo]

i doubt half a class fails. no university would put up with a prof like that. better schools, for the most part, have better students (definitely not saying that everyone at lesser schools suck, but more students do suck at them), so the competition is tighter. And everywhere u go people need to get A's B's C's and D's. you get my point

You're assuming that people fail because of the professor teaching the course. I guess some people with lives don't fit in with the college atmosphere.

 

[CubaLibre]

You're assuming that people fail because of the professor teaching the course. I guess some people with lives don't fit in with the college atmosphere.

huh

 

[lex]

For those of you who have spent time in both a state/average school and an ivy/top school, or for some other reason may know the answer to this question - is pre-med harder at the top schools, or is the level of difficulty comparable? Are teachers and programs at ivies more brazen and out to weed out students? How do would a school that is ranked in the top 50 compare to an average state uni?

Top schools, in general, are harder in any major. You will be writing more, you'll have more essay than multiple choice exams, for example. You will feel you have to work very hard for your A. You can ask any Uchicago graduates, they'll probably say the same thing.
For this reason, your As and high GPA will be valued more than those from lower schools.

But some state schools are very good: Ohio State, Penn State, etc.. definitely not the average state school.

To save money, I went to a state school for two years and then transferred to a better school. It was easier for me to get As in a state school.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I dont have any experience with Ivies, but I have gone to UNCCH and my small school now. Honestly, my classes at my current institution are signifcantly harder than they were at UNC. I am sure Ivies are a different story, though

 

[redlight]

For those of you who have spent time in both a state/average school and an ivy/top school, or for some other reason may know the answer to this question - is pre-med harder at the top schools, or is the level of difficulty comparable? Are teachers and programs at ivies more brazen and out to weed out students? How do would a school that is ranked in the top 50 compare to an average state uni?

top schools are harder in classes where your grade is based on everyone else's (i.e. classes where tests are curved like gen chem and orgo for some schools). the tests are practically made to fail people so professors can single out the top top students and control the amount of As and Bs etc, imo. most students at top schools had high gpa's in high school (3.8-3.9 and up is the avg at most top schools for incoming freshmen), high sat scores (sat range is usually from 1360-1500s, which is between 92nd and 97th percentile nationally), and were generally "smart" individuals.

my point is that the competition is pretty rough and it is harder to get a good grade, especially when class averages are set to a Cs or lower.

 

[161468]

I don't know, but at Vanderbilt (my undergrad), they like to brag that they don't inflate GPAs like other premiere liberal arts institutions. I once saw some students crying when they got their tests back in the premed physics course. Of course, our professor had transferred from MIT and said he gave us the same test he gave his students there.

However, in the grand scheme of things, premed is what? Orgo, Gen Chem, Bio, Physics, English, and some humanities? For me, the English/humanities were always the biggest concern because some of those courses are entirely subjective, so whether it's harder or not, who knows. Your major's difficulty at any institution can vary from school to school. It's really hard to say for sure because the standard premed curriculum covers a standard set of material. Some Ivies may allow for most students to have higher marks while non-Ivies may have stricter standards on what percentage of students can fall in certain ranges of GPAs. At Vanderbilt, 99% of the time, the class was curved and determined by the class average. That is a lot gentler to me than classes that have fixed grade scales. I don't know how public schools grade in general, but I think curving is common in top private schools.

 

[172858]

in a word, yes

 

[littlealex]

I don't know, but at Vanderbilt (my undergrad), they like to brag that they don't inflate GPAs like other premiere liberal arts institutions. I once saw some students crying when they got their tests back in the premed physics course. Of course, our professor had transferred from MIT and said he gave us the same test he gave his students there.

Same test, different curve.

From experience, there is a definite difference. The difference is between knowing you're one of the smartest in the class at Podunk U versus being just average (or below average) at a top school.
Of course, much if it depends on the professor as well.

 

[MossPoh]

I think it changes by school rather than by level, and by professor at that school. There has been a fair amount of grade inflation across the board relative to the past, by past I mean 50 years+. College is really hard to fail out of now. They give you chances. In the 50s it actually happened. Part of the problem with relation to premed stuff is that if they mess up your grades TOO much then less people get accepted to medical school from there, which in turn would kind of go through the grape vine and less top students would want to go to those schools. Why go to a place that gives you less of a chance? I can honestly say that my classes at PSU were MUCH tougher to get an A in than the ones where I am now at FSU. FSU is full of people that can brute force study and you get an A, which has been my experience with many of the schools down here, so I don't want to single at FSU. Where I was before, you could study 45 or 50 hours for a basic gen chem exam and easily get a B on it. No curve involved. I averaged a 75% in my gen chem II here at FSU and wound up with a 110% with grade adjustments, however that happened. If the test average is a 50% or lower then something is wrong with the test and it needs to be scaled accordingly. The schools that don't adjust grades could have easier tests in relation to those..who knows. This is all so subjective. I've met *******es from Harvard, Princeton and MIT and I met complete geniuses from broward community college and Ivy Tech.

 

[deleted97016]

For someone who attended a state school (Penn State) and then tranferred to an Ivy Leage school (Penn), I can give an opinion on this question.

I was initially not accepted to Penn, which was my first choice school out of high school so I decided to go to Penn State for a year, which was cheap and relatively good.

I took a number of honors classes at PSU and was able to get a 4.0GPA my first semester without too much difficulty. I did almost as well second semester. I then applied for transfer admission, and was accepted to Penn.

My sophomore year at Penn was truly a kick in the face. I was also taking hard classes such as calculus, orgo, and physics, but my GPA took a huge cut and found myself accustomed to getting B- or Bs in clases I thought I would get As in.

It took me a few months to re-learn how to study and eventually bring my GPA up Junior and Senior year, but it required paying a lot more attention to detail and being able to critically think about problems.

I was always a good student including HS (valedictorian and SAT 1500+), but at a top school everyone has similar qualifications, and makes it extremely difficult to obtain in A in science classes because you are being compared to everyone else on a curve.

The people that I know that aced their science classes are now at top med schools like Harvard, Penn, Duke, Columbia etc.

 

[BMBPSU2008]

For someone who attended a state school (Penn State) and then tranferred to an Ivy Leage school (Penn), I can give an opinion on this question.

I was initially not accepted to Penn, which was my first choice school out of high school so I decided to go to Penn State for a year, which was cheap and relatively good.

I took a number of honors classes at PSU and was able to get a 4.0GPA my first semester without too much difficulty. I did almost as well second semester. I then applied for transfer admission, and was accepted to Penn.

My sophomore year at Penn was truly a kick in the face. I was also taking hard classes such as calculus, orgo, and physics, but my GPA took a huge cut and found myself accustomed to getting B- or Bs in clases I thought I would get As in.

It took me a few months to re-learn how to study and eventually bring my GPA up Junior and Senior year, but it required paying a lot more attention to detail and being able to critically think about problems.

I was always a good student including HS (valedictorian and SAT 1500+), but at a top school everyone has similar qualifications, and makes it extremely difficult to obtain in A in science classes because you are being compared to everyone else on a curve.

The people that I know that aced their science classes are now at top med schools like Harvard, Penn, Duke, Columbia etc.

Apples and oranges. Many people get 4.0s their first semester (not that difficult to ace Chemistry I and Introduction to Biology). Although I do not have the experience at both schools as you do, your generalizations are a bit insulting.

 

[BigRedPremed]

Same test, different curve.

From experience, there is a definite difference. The difference is between knowing you're one of the smartest in the class at Podunk U versus being just average (or below average) at a top school.
Of course, much if it depends on the professor as well.

That's the critical difference. You learn the same material and may even do the same problems at different schools. However, the quality of the student body can vary a lot and in classes where the grades are curved (ie science courses), that can have a huge effect on your GPA.

The other day a friend from UC Davis showed me one of their orgo midterms. It looked similar in difficulty to the midterms I took at Cornell. The difference was that the class mean on the test was a 39 at UC Davis while the means on orgo exams were usually around 60-65 at Cornell. That's why it always brings a smile to my face when people talk about the means being a 25% on a test or having 50% of the class fail. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen at top schools because no matter how hard you make the tests, the students are always smart enough to adapt to at least make the means reasonable.

 

[Vihsadas]

Yeah, the motto was... "If you don't know the material, we're not going to pass you."

Sounds like McGill. No curving here either...

 

[redlight]

That's the critical difference. You learn the same material and may even do the same problems at different schools. However, the quality of the student body can vary a lot and in classes where the grades are curved (ie science courses), that can have a huge effect on your GPA.

The other day a friend from UC Davis showed me one of their orgo midterms. It looked similar in difficulty to the midterms I took at Cornell. The difference was that the class mean on the test was a 39 at UC Davis while the means on orgo exams were usually around 60-65 at Cornell. That's why it always brings a smile to my face when people talk about the means being a 25% on a test or having 50% of the class fail. That kind of stuff just doesn't happen at top schools because no matter how hard you make the tests, the students are always smart enough to adapt to at least make the means reasonable.

lol, actually, if the means on your orgo tests were 60-65%, then it's likely that more than half of the class failed (unless you were saying 60-65% failed the course, and not tests, never happens at top schools).
i go to a "top school" (ranking are kinda arbitrary, but it's top 20) and the mean and median on my last gen chem test was in the 50s. maybe that's understandable in our case though because the test was on the quantum mechanics of atoms and molecules and the professor said that he did not have to know the level of detail the exam covered until graduate school (but, to be fair, he's pretty old).

 

[loljkttyl]

i went to a top ivy which distributed grades based on a bell curve for all the major science classes. this made it really difficult to obtain high gpa's b/c you were constantly being compared to your other classmates, who were all valedictorians, geniuses, etc. anyways, that's just my perspective.

 

[mynamewastaken]

I transferred from an "upper tier" competitive school to an IVY....Ivy was infinitely harder. I also agree with the same test-different curve comment somewhere above. I took physics at my Ivy undergrad only to drop after the first midterm because I got a 74% and the class mean (about 60 students) was 82% which was set as the B-/C+ cut-off. Ironically, I picked up the same class that summer at my old "upper tier" school WITH THE SAME PROFESSOR (he was teaching part time during the summer at the other school)....first test was IDENTICAL. Mean for summer test 1 was 63% vs. 82% at the Ivy. All of a sudden a 74% was a B+/A- instead of a C or below....interesting i thought. I also think this helps explain the "grade inflation" myth....more kids at the IVY were simply doing better so more high grades were earned.

 

[350011]

I've been to programs in different tiers and I think the numbers speak to this question (though obviously this is completely irrelevant to any general conclusion)...

Ripon College: 4 Classes + 1 Lab /semester for two semesters while in high school: 3.93

University of Chicago: BS Chem BS Biochem: 3.10 overall (32/42 classes in sciences; 4 PhD courses (3.64 avg). Hovered around 3.4 when my jaw wasn't broken and I didn't have mono. There are students in the sciences with above 3.7's, but not many. Std Dev curves (often to a C+, but B- later on) were the norm. That said, after the intro majors sequences they were reluctant to give lower than a C-. For example, the lower stddev for my Biochem class (intro majors sequence) was the C- cutoff; that meant D's and F's (and thus no credit) for the unfortunate 16% below the first standard deviation. On the other hand, I had a Gen Chem prof who dropped outliers such that my ~58 average was 3 points beyond the standard deviation and an A-.

Loyola University (IL): MA Medical Sciences: 3.96 overall. Did it because of UG grades; a complete and utter joke compared to Chicago--multiple choice exams, no curves. It was a cake walk, plus I was healthy. I will say that it is nice when a 92 is an A and not a B/B- because the average was an 89/90.

I don't think the idea that the MCAT is more important at top schools is as simplistic as people often describe it, often intimating that a 3.0/3.3 at a top school and top MCAT's will get attention at top 20 med schools (Often phrased as "All they care about are your MCAT's cause you went to _______"). It's not the case in my experience nor is it so for many of my friends from Chicago. Some of them with <3.5 and 35+ have gotten into great schools, but mainly state schools like Michigan, UCLA, and Washington in state or our alma mater. My friend and I are both rocking scores that match up competitively everywhere but I'm in at 2 most of you would scoff at (like I care) and waitlisted at 4. He's closer to that 3.5 with MCAT's in the mid rather than high 30's: in at Temple and waitlisted at 7 others (though he's WL at one top school: Pitt). And, most of those that make it into prestigious programs sweat it out on waitlists until being scavenged during the summer shuffle.

I think +3.8 demonstrates sustained, conspicuous performance relative to your immediate peer group. Back it up with MCAT's and the rest of your app and you will probably fair better than us bottom feeders from top schools. However, those--by relative percentage--few matriculants with GPA's below a 3.3 that are accepted to MD programs tend to come from top tier programs, have MCAT's that stand out and silence some of those GPA apprehensions, and great CV's. In the even smaller sample of cases that don't fit that description, they usually have a great backstory or fit a niche schools are really looking to fill.

 

[BigRedPremed]

I transferred from an "upper tier" competitive school to an IVY....Ivy was infinitely harder. I also agree with the same test-different curve comment somewhere above. I took physics at my Ivy undergrad only to drop after the first midterm because I got a 74% and the class mean (about 60 students) was 82% which was set as the B-/C+ cut-off. Ironically, I picked up the same class that summer at my old "upper tier" school WITH THE SAME PROFESSOR (he was teaching part time during the summer at the other school)....first test was IDENTICAL. Mean for summer test 1 was 63% vs. 82% at the Ivy. All of a sudden a 74% was a B+/A- instead of a C or below....interesting i thought. I also think this helps explain the "grade inflation" myth....more kids at the IVY were simply doing better so more high grades were earned.

If the tests were identical, let's hope you did better than 74% the second time around

I think I've already said this before, but on MdApps, do a search for high GPA (>3.9)/low MCAT (<30), you'll find almost no applicants from top schools (in fact, only 1 out of the 88 profiles that comes up is of a Top 20 school). On the other hand, do a search for low GPA (<3.3) and high MCAT (>35), almost half of the profiles that come up are from a Top 25 school. That said, I wouldn't trade the experiences I had at Cornell for anything.

 

[1956Goldtop]

All schools are different and it would be hard to generalize the difficulty of their pre-med program. Thankfully, the MCAT will equalize your GPA when it comes time to applying no matter how hard or easy it was.

 

[BrainBuff]

I do not think "premed" would be harder at one school or another. After all, most schools do not have a "pre med" major anyway. You get your BA or BS in whatever you want and you just have to make sure that the premed requirements are there.

The question is whether the whole undergrad program is tough and whether there is significant grade deflation. If you are a premed in a school with those characteristics, then, that will definitely not help you. On a personal note, my beloved U of Chicago comes to mind. Great place for med school or grad school, not for undergrad if you are thinking GPA wise. My opinion.

 

[ScutWork]

I go to the small liberal arts college. I am a physics major. I consider myself to be fairly smart and do pay close attention to the amount of time I spend stuying. I understand the material, not just for test time but for internalizing the important aspects of a pre-medical education.

My school is not easy. Granted, my instructors are more approachable and class sizes are smaller (no more than 40 or so) but, still we have competition with one another every day. Oh-yeah... and whats a curve? The only curving going on at my school is at the roundabout at the library were we drop off our books. No bull, straight grading at my school all day long.

Many don't have the means to pick up and move to an Ivy league school. Even though many of us could get into one. Maybe its money, maybe family or children keeping us here but, the calibur of students is certainly well established and most would make good doc's. Although, ... not everyone will get in. Look left, look right, who's it gunna be???

 

[Innokus]

I don't think it depends on the school, but it depends on the professor. I took Chem 1 and it was easy. Just study and it's not too hard to pull a B. With Chem 2 the test was completely written and 10 questions of multiple choice. If you can't pull off the written, there is no way in hell that you could pass. Class is graded on a curve against the rest of your classmates. I think the TA said that the curve is set so that 30% will fail.

It's not the school, but the professor that makes the class easy or hard.