Is there sufficient evidence to prove that high 3. GPA doctors are better?

[inmyimmddo]

I understand that if you go by what typically happens/what is true of the majority of cases, you could say that the majority of 3.8 GPA students are smarter in general and worked harder than a 3.0 GPA student. But at the same, there are a number of students who, for any number of factors (chose to go to a more difficult school, had some bad class choices, had a few bad assignments that were too big %wise for a class's final grade, focused more on extracurricular activities than they should have, etc.), end up with low GPAs that don't accurately represent their effort, knowledge, and maybe their ability to be physicians...?

Everyone knows that medical schools have a clear favoritism for the highest GPAs and highest MCATs, but is that really justified? Are applicants with high 3. GPAs really that much more likely to be better physicians than a 2.9/3.0 applicant? If there is legitimate data to sufficiently prove that, then fine. I just get the feeling that med schools/Medicine as a field ends up missing out on some real gems (or even certain specialties miss out for that matter/any case where selection is utilized misses out) by having very strict selection by the numbers.

I am not at all going against those highly numbered applicants who really deserve it and prove it as physicians, but rather I am considering those supposedly "under qualified" applicants who would have done well had they just been accepted. Yes, this is partially fueled by me being a weak candidate stats wise, but I am honestly leaving myself out of it (by fairly considering that I could be someone with low stats complemented by low abilities) and wondering how many good physicians get over looked/how many physicians that may be smart but aren't as great in other ways solely get picked because their numbers are great.

I won't make you read more by fleshing the examples out, but I am also partially interested in this because of some bad experiences with doctors and accepted med students who, during their application times, had high stats and therefore looked like great choices.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[todds]

I understand that if you go by what typically happens/what is true of the majority of cases, you could say that the majority of 3.8 GPA students are smarter in general and worked harder than a 3.0 GPA student. But at the same, there are a number of students who, for any number of factors (chose to go to a more difficult school, had some bad class choices, had a few bad assignments that were too big %wise for a class's final grade, focused more on extracurricular activities than they should have, etc.), end up with low GPAs that don't accurately represent their effort, knowledge, and maybe their ability to be physicians...?

Everyone knows that medical schools have a clear favoritism for the highest GPAs and highest MCATs, but is that really justified? Are applicants with high 3. GPAs really that much more likely to be better physicians than a 2.9/3.0 applicant? If there is legitimate data to sufficiently prove that, then fine. I just get the feeling that med schools/Medicine as a field ends up missing out on some real gems (or even certain specialties miss out for that matter/any case where selection is utilized misses out) by having very strict selection by the numbers.

I am not at all going against those highly numbered applicants who really deserve it and prove it as physicians, but rather I am considering those supposedly "under qualified" applicants who would have done well had they just been accepted. Yes, this is partially fueled by me being a weak candidate stats wise, but I am honestly leaving myself out of it (by fairly considering that I could be someone with low stats complemented by low abilities) and wondering how many good physicians get over looked/how many physicians that may be smart but aren't as great in other ways solely get picked because their numbers are great.

I won't make you read more by fleshing the examples out, but I am also partially interested in this because of some bad experiences with doctors and accepted med students who, during their application times, had high stats and therefore looked like great choices.

It would be impossible to measure. How would you measure how good a doctor is? There are so many variables which are impossible to objectively measure.

The point for high GPAs/academics is this - If you have a high GPA, high MCAT, volunteered/work throughout undergrad, then two things are certain

1. You have a pretty decent work ethic thats consistent across at least >2 years
2. You can balance your academics with outside commitments which reinforces point #1

Im pretty much done with med school, and I can tell you that what you need to survive this is just #1 and #2. You don't need smarts. You just need a consistent and dedicated work ethic, which is what GPA, MCAT and volunteering is supposed to show. Those are the only objective things that can quickly indicate that you can do #1 and #2, what else are people supposed to use?

There are applicants who get in with lower GPAs. They had to show that got their act together and developed a consistent work ethic by doing an SMP etc.. There are some that do get in though with low GPAs without SMP and those were the ones who directly had a difficult time in medical school keeping up with the pace, balancing life ..yea exactly what they were supposed to have figured out before coming in.

Im sure you are quite smart, but I'll reiterate, medical school and medicine in general is not about how smart you are. Perhaps this generalizes to every field, but its about consistent effort. If you dont know how to balance your life, then you will at some point stop putting in a consistent effort - which brings me back to my original points of #1 and #2 being needed.

You state some exceptions - the genius who went to a difficult school/major who "just" got a 3.0 and the slacker who took easy classes, was good a cramming and got a 3.9. Yes these exist, and yes the former gets screwed and the latter gets a pass - HOWEVER, these are the exceptions. You cannot change the whole system because of exceptions on either side, because the great majority who do get in through this filter do show they have the work ethic, drive etc.. to get through this thing and thats what counts. Thats what people look for and thats what will make them good doctors. No matter what other system you employ, there will always be exceptions that put holes in that system

 

[uNiq1]

There are also people who crammed every test, did really well in Ugrad then crammed all the way through first year and it somehow still worked out well. Now they realize they don't remember anything and realize boards are <2 mo away. This is me if you haven't caught on. Now I'm learning all those things that the supposed high GPA people were supposed to know i.e. how to work your ass off and manage some sleep. (evidence based on the fact that it is 5am and I'm trying to relearn micro while figuring out when I'll start study for GI which has supposedly been going on for 2 weeks!)

 

[phltz]

Put yourself in the shoes of a director of admissions for a few minutes. You've got a small staff, and work with a bunch of faculty member MDs who are incredibly busy and voluntarily sit on the admissions committee. You get 10,000 applications, and are probably planning on interviewing about 1,000 and accepting several hundred. How do you propose to decide who will or won't be a good doctor, and how feasible will it be to fairly apply that standard to everyone with the limited resources at your disposal?

I don't think anyone is thrilled with this importance of GPA and MCAT in the admissions process, so if you come up with a better plan, we'll all be thrilled.

 

[JP2740]

So what's the answer? Start accepting bad GPA and MCAT scores just in case? The thing is, there will be more than enough good candidates for fields from the high GPA and MCAT group. Why do you think you're somehow a real gem?

 

[Houmd]

It would be impossible to measure. How would you measure how good a doctor is? There are so many variables which are impossible to objectively measure.

The point for high GPAs/academics is this - If you have a high GPA, high MCAT, volunteered/work throughout undergrad, then two things are certain

1. You have a pretty decent work ethic thats consistent across at least >2 years
2. You can balance your academics with outside commitments which reinforces point #1

Im pretty much done with med school, and I can tell you that what you need to survive this is just #1 and #2. You don't need smarts. You just need a consistent and dedicated work ethic, which is what GPA, MCAT and volunteering is supposed to show. Those are the only objective things that can quickly indicate that you can do #1 and #2, what else are people supposed to use?

There are applicants who get in with lower GPAs. They had to show that got their act together and developed a consistent work ethic by doing an SMP etc.. There are some that do get in though with low GPAs without SMP and those were the ones who directly had a difficult time in medical school keeping up with the pace, balancing life ..yea exactly what they were supposed to have figured out before coming in.

Im sure you are quite smart, but I'll reiterate, medical school and medicine in general is not about how smart you are. Perhaps this generalizes to every field, but its about consistent effort. If you dont know how to balance your life, then you will at some point stop putting in a consistent effort - which brings me back to my original points of #1 and #2 being needed.

You state some exceptions - the genius who went to a difficult school/major who "just" got a 3.0 and the slacker who took easy classes, was good a cramming and got a 3.9. Yes these exist, and yes the former gets screwed and the latter gets a pass - HOWEVER, these are the exceptions. You cannot change the whole system because of exceptions on either side, because the great majority who do get in through this filter do show they have the work ethic, drive etc.. to get through this thing and thats what counts. Thats what people look for and thats what will make them good doctors. No matter what other system you employ, there will always be exceptions that put holes in that system

There is some very good advice in this post

 

[OveractiveBrain]

People have attempted to determine what the pretest probability of "awesome doctor" is at entrance to medical school. The problem is, no one has found any surrogate. This is difficult for a large number of reasons. Here are two:

1: There is no such thing as "Great Doctor." What makes a primary care provider awesome is different than what makes an awesome CT surgeon. What makes a great private hospitalist does not make a great academic hospitalist. Yes, humanism and communication skills cross paths, but there is a substantially different temperament required to sew valves for 6 hours in a single session vs seeing 30 patients in 3 hours. People's criteria for evaluating a great physician vary as well, so it is impossible to predict.

2: People change. Medical school is a great opportunity for people to mature. Usually in the mid to late 20s, medical students shift away from that teenage college party mode and start thinking about marriage, children, and responsibility. Its 4 years of intense training, then another minimum of 3 in residency. The end product of 7 years is certainly going to be different than what you started with. The problem essentially is that the person you are when you graduate college is likely not the person you will be when you graduate medical school, and it is hard to predict how you will change or if at all.

The other thing about this question is what medicine is all about. I personally believe that the Great Physicians are those who have team work, leadership, empathy, and a knack for clinical reasoning: both intuit and analytical. They know when to step back and say "this doesn't fit." But the fact is, to be a decent physician doing mostly well doing mostly good, you can operate on memory and algorithms. So can an APRN or a PA, but moderate to mediocre physicians fill a much needed role.

The thing is, if someone is hard working, remembers facts well, and can implement those facts appropariately, they are going to be a pretty decent physician. Not great. But good. Good grades are usually reflected by good test scores, multiple choice exams. You can perform well just by memorizing. Well, physicians under the curve can practice by just memorizing.

Every physician can't be great, amazing, and brilliant. We are losing those people to other fields. Thus, we select for people who can do the job well. Not great. Well. And grades are used as an RPR, a sensitive test, a screening tool. If you have BAD grades, chances are it means you dont work hard or cant memorize well. If you have GOOD grades, then AT LEAST you can work hard or memorize.

 

[CaptainSSO]

Every physician can't be great, amazing, and brilliant. We are losing those people to other fields. Thus, we select for people who can do the job well. Not great.

Do you think any individual physician can be great/brilliant?

It just seems with the vast amount of information we learn, any individual will forget a fair amount, and thus a "team" is required to be brilliant (though judging by some of the groups I've participated in I know a team isn't necessarily brilliant either, but they can be).

 

[Dapado33]

Are applicants with high 3. GPAs really that much more likely to be better physicians than a 2.9/3.0 applicant?

I see your overall point, but it's also important to ask if someone who couldn't maintain a B average in undergrad is capable of passing the first two years of medical school.

 

[AtheGre]

There is research out there that suggests that medical school grades correlates positively with residency performance better than step 1 scores. It's out there, but I'm just too lazy to look and I have to go back to neuro outpt clinic. PD are well aware of this. Keep your grades up!

AtG

 

[JackShephard MD]

There is research out there that suggests that medical school grades correlates positively with residency performance better than step 1 scores. It's out there, but I'm just too lazy to look and I have to go back to neuro outpt clinic. PD are well aware of this. Keep your grades up!

AtG

Clinical or preclinical? I would guess clinical grades.

I see your overall point, but it's also important to ask if someone who couldn't maintain a B average in undergrad is capable of passing the first two years of medical school.

Agreed.

...

Good response.

I personally believe that the Great Physicians are those who have team work, leadership, empathy, and a knack for clinical reasoning: both intuit and analytical. They know when to step back and say "this doesn't fit." But the fact is, to be a decent physician doing mostly well doing mostly good, you can operate on memory and algorithms. So can an APRN or a PA, but moderate to mediocre physicians fill a much needed role.

The thing is, if someone is hard working, remembers facts well, and can implement those facts appropariately, they are going to be a pretty decent physician. Not great. But good.

I would agree these skills will likely make a good physician, but these skills aren't really tested in preclinical sciences.

 

[docB]

I see your overall point, but it's also important to ask if someone who couldn't maintain a B average in undergrad is capable of passing the first two years of medical school.

This. Med schools have to sort through huge numbers of applications to choose who they want. Their most important consideration is not looking for who will be a "great doctor." It's finding people who will graduate with the least amount of turmoil. Those who have proven to be good memorizers and test takers fit that bill. While this isn't fair in the cosmic sense it's similar to how I can't get hired as an actor because of my looks.

It's also not just about surviving med school. You have to be a good test taker to pass the licensing and specialty boards.

 

[uNiq1]

Todds indeed has some awesome advice. His point about there being exceptions to every rule is just part the definition. There are some schools however, that look past your GPA/ MCAT and actually do read those letters of rec before filtering the applicant pool by GPA/MCAT (University of Buffalo)
This thorough process isn't always that easy to do as Philz stated there are limited resources available to admissions staff.
Personally, I think it all boils down to where you stand and where your goal is and all the hoops that you have to jump through to get there. If med schools want X GPA and X MCAT score then your going have to want to be a doctor that bad to get there. Goals like medical school take jumping through more hoops than others and those that eventually keep at the obstacles get what they want (no matter what school/residency/job/ field etc). For those that don't ... well that's why we have excuses.

On a side note I don't think tuition is a fair obstacle. I think there lies a true selection bias. We should start with an abundance of free tuition scholarships for primary care

 

[CaptainSSO]

On a side note I don't think tuition is a fair obstacle. I think there lies a true selection bias. We should start with an abundance of free tuition scholarships for primary care

What the hell are you talking about? How is that a "true selection bias?"

The vast majority of people take out loans.

 

[SpecterGT260]

What the hell are you talking about? How is that a "true selection bias?"

The vast majority of people take out loans.

A good many people in my class have very poor family backgrounds. Tuition is not an obstacle. Any school worth its salt will have the ability to lend to you directly and keep that whole thing from being a giant PITA

 

[uNiq1]

A good many people in my class have very poor family backgrounds. Tuition is not an obstacle. Any school worth its salt will have the ability to lend to you directly and keep that whole thing from being a giant PITA

I agree loans are an option. The cost of school however does serve as a deterrent to some people from even going in the first place. I guess you could say that it is just another hoop to jump through but this one IMO isn't one that is even across the board. If your argument to that is that some people are smarter than others I'd say that smarts only holds out so long. Consistent hard work wins out in the end.

 

[SpecterGT260]

im not sure y i would counter w smarts.....

 

[neusu]

Send a survey out to everyone on the US News (or local metro area magazine) Top Doctors list and ask their undergraduate GPA, med school GPA, MCAT, and Step scores.

 

[uNiq1]

Sorry this seems to be more of an argument now. If it is, I had no intention of making it that way. I'm simply saying that to me financial problems seem like a deterrent. The idea of loans of this magnitude can be rough. Especially when we compare to other countries where this is much less of an issue.
The "smarts" argument has been used as a response (to me) before but as Todd said early on, and I agree, it is hard work that wins the war.

 

[JackShephard MD]

Any goal of worth has obstacles along the path. Saying some have it easier than others? Well, yeah.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I'm going to go ahead and move this over to pre-allo. Allo is a forum for med students to discuss issues that are relevant to their current stage in training; med students frequently check the pre-allo forum and answer these kinds of questions there.

 

[kpcrew]

How do you know that they had high scores and what were those bad experiences?

 

[PhiPhenomenon]

Here's an example.

UBC school of medicine applicants: 1891
UBC number of spots: 288

When you have that many applicants applying for so few positions it's pretty hard not to rely on quantitative indicators for success in med school (although there is some controversy at UBC right now regarding admissions).

Do I think that 3.9 GPA is always greater than 3.0 GPA for competence? Nope, adcoms don't always either, but when all you have to judge whether or not someone should get a coveted med school seat is an application with a list of accomplishments and grades what else would you suggest people be judged upon?

You're talking to a guy with a 3.07 cGPA and 2.93 sGPA btw (this will change within a matter of weeks though) and I would LOVE nothing more than adcoms to overlook my past academic indifference and judge me based on my drive, commitment and character alone. But you, me and the tooth fairy know that is never going to happen when there are so many other people applying who didn't mess around and kept their **** together.

I know didn't get a bad GPA because I was stupid (I'm actually a member of Mensa) I got it because I didn't have any direction and a whole boat load of other rough edges I needed to smooth out.

 

[jf1987]

Here's an example.

UBC school of medicine applicants: 1891
UBC number of spots: 288

When you have that many applicants applying for so few positions it's pretty hard not to rely on quantitative indicators for success in med school (although there is some controversy at UBC right now regarding admissions).

Yeah, UBC is crazy right now. There has been a number of articles in the news recently about people attempting to bribe adcoms and contacting members of parliament to try and get their kids in.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Parents+turn+heat+acceptance/6274736/story.html

 

[inmyimmddo]

I completely understand having to simplify the admissions process when it is just work piled on top of already having too much work. It's like the SAT.... evidence shows that the SAT isn't fair to everyone, neither is it a perfect indication of how great a high school student is. But it is the simplest thing that colleges currently have to compare everyone. Same thing with MCAT/GPA and such for med schools. I get the concept, it is just disappointing. I guess to a certain extent I just wonder why someone hasn't come up with a better way of evaluating people on effort/hard work, personality, kindness, concern for others, etc. Yeah, someone shouldn't be a doctor SOLELY because you can rely on them to be kind, but I would definitely expect someone who can just complete the med school requirements (not drop out/get kicked out) and is heavy on some other characteristics (like compassion, consideration for patients, effort) to be significantly better than a pure genius who can drop in on a ton of patients everyday, tell them his knowledge and prove he is smart, but lacks a connection to a patient.

Yes, my argument gets in a difficult position when considering that a doctor has to be able to successfully treat their patients and not harm them, but that is why I added in the "complete med school" modifier (with the assumption that even if they were bottom of the barrel in med school, they were able to get it done and have now picked a specialty that they fit and do well with). Considering the obvious point that being a doctor isn't solely knowing how to deal with the medical issues, I tend to think the other important characteristics are getting overlooked way too much by med school admissions.

If it really is as simple as (which some people have posted) that no better idea is out there/a better system is too inconvenient, then I guess the only thing I can say or do is to hope that someone figures an improved admissions system out in the near future or that I (somehow) do it.

Also, on the issue of hard work. If you really think hard work wins out in the end, then that perfectly fits my situation. I have been all about hard work in the sense that school/extracurriculars is my life. I am working the strong majority of my time (lack the majority of applicants, I'm sure). To say that I have never spent more time than I should on a break/TV would be a lie, but is there really anyone who is not guilty of that? Despite my constant work, I have a GPA far below what med schools are looking for. The hard work is there and I am definitely willing to continue it even more as a physician, but my GPA is likely to keep me out of med school. So if hard work really does win out, where is the justification in a situation where there is hard work but the stats don't follow?

P.S. I was not at all trying to toot my own horn at the end, be arrogant, or suggest that I would be the best doctor; I make an effort to keep my ego (rather lack thereof) in check. Plus, like I mentioned before, this isn't just a personal question, it is more focused on medicine as a whole, how it could be improved/where it is potentially missing the aim in selection, and some of the disappointing end results of this current system (some med school students/actual physicians that leave much to be desired) .

 

[music2doc]

I completely understand having to simplify the admissions process when it is just work piled on top of already having too much work. It's like the SAT.... evidence shows that the SAT isn't fair to everyone, neither is it a perfect indication of how great a high school student is. But it is the simplest thing that colleges currently have to compare everyone. Same thing with MCAT/GPA and such for med schools. I get the concept, it is just disappointing. I guess to a certain extent I just wonder why someone hasn't come up with a better way of evaluating people on effort/hard work, personality, kindness, concern for others, etc. Yeah, someone shouldn't be a doctor SOLELY because you can rely on them to be kind, but I would definitely expect someone who can just complete the med school requirements (not drop out/get kicked out) and is heavy on some other characteristics (like compassion, consideration for patients, effort) to be significantly better than a pure genius who can drop in on a ton of patients everyday, tell them his knowledge and prove he is smart, but lacks a connection to a patient.

Yes, my argument gets in a difficult position when considering that a doctor has to be able to successfully treat their patients and not harm them, but that is why I added in the "complete med school" modifier (with the assumption that even if they were bottom of the barrel in med school, they were able to get it done and have now picked a specialty that they fit and do well with). Considering the obvious point that being a doctor isn't solely knowing how to deal with the medical issues, I tend to think the other important characteristics are getting overlooked way too much by med school admissions.

If it really is as simple as (which some people have posted) that no better idea is out there/a better system is too inconvenient, then I guess the only thing I can say or do is to hope that someone figures an improved admissions system out in the near future or that I (somehow) do it.

Also, on the issue of hard work. If you really think hard work wins out in the end, then that perfectly fits my situation. I have been all about hard work in the sense that school/extracurriculars is my life. I am working the strong majority of my time (lack the majority of applicants, I'm sure). To say that I have never spent more time than I should on a break/TV would be a lie, but is there really anyone who is not guilty of that? Despite my constant work, I have a GPA far below what med schools are looking for. The hard work is there and I am definitely willing to continue it even more as a physician, but my GPA is likely to keep me out of med school. So if hard work really does win out, where is the justification in a situation where there is hard work but the stats don't follow?

P.S. I was not at all trying to toot my own horn at the end, be arrogant, or suggest that I would be the best doctor; I make an effort to keep my ego (rather lack thereof) in check. Plus, like I mentioned before, this isn't just a personal question, it is more focused on medicine as a whole, how it could be improved/where it is potentially missing the aim in selection, and some of the disappointing end results of this current system (some med school students/actual physicians that leave much to be desired) .

What do you propose as a "better" solution?

The fact is that they have to quickly eliminate (i.e., quickly and objectively screen out) most of their applicants (say, 70-90%) or they'll never get through the pile of 5-15 THOUSAND applications. That's a crap load to read. Instead, you run it through a computer and select the top 1,000-2,000 (by objective/statistical data) to actually take a real look at. The fact is you're basically excluding the ones you wouldn't have really given serious consideration to anyway from having to have time wasted on them. It's a hard, simple reality. Even if that 3.0 were given "serious consideration" later on, s/he would almost certainly be excluded from the class despite other wonderful attributes simply because another person had similar attributes AND a 3.8/32. One school, CU (top 40 school), for instance, rarely looks below a 30 MCAT or 3.5 GPA to find the 750 applicants they will consider for an interview. They simply have so many 3.8+/32+ that even the 3.5/30 is pretty much bottom of the barrel for them and they end up with applicants that have 3.9/40s on their wait list. They require ECs galore and great interviews, etc. from their applicants to be given consideration with high numbers. It's not schools are selecting based primarily upon numbers so much as it is that they are screening out based on numbers because they have so many people with extraordinary credentials. It sucks for more modest applicants but it's just how things are.

 

[DennisdaMenace]

Yeah, UBC is crazy right now. There has been a number of articles in the news recently about people attempting to bribe adcoms and contacting members of parliament to try and get their kids in.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Parents+turn+heat+acceptance/6274736/story.html

I hate to derail this thread, but I simply couldn't resist Just know that things could always be worse from an admissions statistics standpoint. 1891 applicants for 288 spots at UBC = 15.2% admission rate, not accounting for those who were accepted but withdrew. Most U.S. allopathic medical schools admit around 4%, with more than a few admitting at roughly 2%. Not hating on Canadian applicants; just trying to help put things in perspective. Again, sorry for the thread-jack.

Now, I agree with pretty much everyone above regarding GPA and MCAT. Wile certainly not perfect predictors of subsequent performance, they are perhaps the best indicators we have at the moment. Like others have suggested, a low GPA can be compensated for with several years of consistently good grades and / or an excellent MCAT score.

 

[Rom1pd]

I'm sorry, which schools have 2%? Mayo and Stanford. Who admits around 4%? Maybe a dozen but not much more. How many medical schools are there in US? 100+? I believe a lot of them have 10(+)% admit rate... but i don't see how that matters..

And what is the point of this post? No, you can never 100% say anything but statistically, higher GPA-> better time management/work ethic. There are douchbags who get into medical school with good GPA but that's why there's the personal statement and the EC section.

 

[lunt]

I hate to derail this thread, but I simply couldn't resist Just know that things could always be worse from an admissions statistics standpoint. 1891 applicants for 288 spots at UBC = 15.2% admission rate, not accounting for those who were accepted but withdrew. Most U.S. allopathic medical schools admit around 4%, with more than a few admitting at roughly 2%. Not hating on Canadian applicants; just trying to help put things in perspective. Again, sorry for the thread-jack.

It's usually harder to get into a medical school in Canada than in the States. Pm me if you want details; I don't want to hijack this thread either.

 

[Narmerguy]

Just because a metric is quantitatively useful for cutting down on applications doesn't make it appropriate if we can't show that it actually correlates with performance. Using that logic, why don't we cut down on the thousands of applications by devising some height cutoff, regardless of whether we can show that taller physicians are actually more effective doctors. Or we could measure their sprint speeds and separate them that way.

Obviously those examples seem absurd because no one would fathom that your sprint speed impacts your ability to be a good physician. However, if we can't show that having a higher GPA (above some cutoff, be it 3.0 or 3.5) impacts ones ability to be a good physician, we should stop using it that way and look to additional means of separating applicants.

 

[jf1987]

I hate to derail this thread, but I simply couldn't resist Just know that things could always be worse from an admissions statistics standpoint. 1891 applicants for 288 spots at UBC = 15.2% admission rate, not accounting for those who were accepted but withdrew. Most U.S. allopathic medical schools admit around 4%, with more than a few admitting at roughly 2%. Not hating on Canadian applicants; just trying to help put things in perspective. Again, sorry for the thread-jack.

26,160 people applied to U.S Medical Schools between 2009 and 2011. Out of these 57,277 were accepted, giving an acceptance rate of 45.4%.

Trust me, its way harder in Canada right now. Also every province saves about 80% or more of their seats for students in that province. The average acceptance score for US schools is about 3.7 and a 31. In most provinces you need a 3.8+ and often still wont get in anywhere. This is why so many Canadians are going to the States and Ireland.

 

[PhiPhenomenon]

I hate to derail this thread, but I simply couldn't resist Just know that things could always be worse from an admissions statistics standpoint. 1891 applicants for 288 spots at UBC = 15.2% admission rate, not accounting for those who were accepted but withdrew. Most U.S. allopathic medical schools admit around 4%, with more than a few admitting at roughly 2%. Not hating on Canadian applicants; just trying to help put things in perspective. Again, sorry for the thread-jack.

Now, I agree with pretty much everyone above regarding GPA and MCAT. Wile certainly not perfect predictors of subsequent performance, they are perhaps the best indicators we have at the moment. Like others have suggested, a low GPA can be compensated for with several years of consistently good grades and / or an excellent MCAT score.

The ignance is stunning yet also adorable and understandable.

Canada does not have a single private medical school within its border and each med school (with the exception of U of T which is easily the most competitive school in the country) has preference to take in students from its own province. If you can't get into your province's school odds are you do not have the stats to get in anywhere else in the country where standards are much higher for out of province applicants. Eg. to get an interview at U of Saskatchewan for an in province candidate an 80% average (3.66 GPA in US terms) suffices for an out of province candidate the standard jumps to 90% (4.00 GPA in US terms).

Another fun little tidbit, the MCAT is used as a filter as opposed to compliment to your application. If you score 30, you'll get invited for an interview with a competitive GPA but even a 40 still won't make up for a sub 3.6 GPA. (Only exception that I know of is U Manitoba and even then if you're out of province having less than a 3.6 GPA means you have no realistic shot at admissions)

 

[PhiPhenomenon]

Yeah, UBC is crazy right now. There has been a number of articles in the news recently about people attempting to bribe adcoms and contacting members of parliament to try and get their kids in.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Parents+turn+heat+acceptance/6274736/story.html

lol

Yeah, I remember reading about that on my way to RCH. I also remember how upset a bunch of people were when last years admission had something like 70% of admits being 22 or younger.

 

[DennisdaMenace]

The ignance is stunning yet also adorable and understandable.

Canada does not have a single private medical school within its border and each med school (with the exception of U of T which is easily the most competitive school in the country) has preference to take in students from its own province. If you can't get into your province's school odds are you do not have the stats to get in anywhere else in the country where standards are much higher for out of province applicants. Eg. to get an interview at U of Saskatchewan for an in province candidate an 80% average (3.66 GPA in US terms) suffices for an out of province candidate the standard jumps to 90% (4.00 GPA in US terms).

Thanks for the information and civil discussion. Our system is roughly equivalent with regard to in-province / in-state preferences. Out of curiosity, what is the total applicant / accepted percentage, nationwide?

 

[SpecterGT260]

The ignance is stunning yet also adorable and understandable.

Canada does not have a single private medical school within its border and each med school (with the exception of U of T which is easily the most competitive school in the country) has preference to take in students from its own province. If you can't get into your province's school odds are you do not have the stats to get in anywhere else in the country where standards are much higher for out of province applicants. Eg. to get an interview at U of Saskatchewan for an in province candidate an 80% average (3.66 GPA in US terms) suffices for an out of province candidate the standard jumps to 90% (4.00 GPA in US terms).

Another fun little tidbit, the MCAT is used as a filter as opposed to compliment to your application. If you score 30, you'll get invited for an interview with a competitive GPA but even a 40 still won't make up for a sub 3.6 GPA. (Only exception that I know of is U Manitoba and even then if you're out of province having less than a 3.6 GPA means you have no realistic shot at admissions)

Are we talking about Canadia only here? In the US there are published relationships between GPA and MCAT and admission. Both effect chances as independent slider scales.

 

[PhiPhenomenon]

Thanks for the information and civil discussion. Our system is roughly equivalent with regard to in-province / in-state preferences. Out of curiosity, what is the total applicant / accepted percentage, nationwide?

lol np.

I'd have to do a bit of digging since there is no universal application here like the US. According to Wiki they put it at ~10% (this varies significantly from province to province). This was in 2006 mind you, and schools have added more spots.

 

[PhiPhenomenon]

Are we talking about Canadia only here? In the US there are published relationships between GPA and MCAT and admission. Both effect chances as independent slider scales.

Yes, that was only Canadia. There is that same slider at *some* schools but at most the MCAT is just used for screening (interestingly, one school only looks at your verbal score and disregards the others).

 

[jf1987]

Are we talking about Canadia only here? In the US there are published relationships between GPA and MCAT and admission. Both effect chances as independent slider scales.

At UBC, the MCAT is only looked at post-interview and has very little weight. Its pretty rough over here. Instead of applying again I am going to Ireland this fall. Yes, I know the risks but I can't stomach another year of undergrad and applying again to UBC.

Eg. to get an interview at U of Saskatchewan for an in province candidate an 80% average (3.66 GPA in US terms) suffices for an out of province candidate the standard jumps to 90% (4.00 GPA in US terms).

Also keep in mind that U of Saskatchewan is one of the easiest schools in the country to get in to for in-province applicants. At UBC the average for interview this year was about 87-88%. This is almost a 4.0 in US terms. Effectively, the one school a B.C. resident has a shot at is about as hard to get in to as top-tier US schools.

I'd have to do a bit of digging since there is no universal application here like the US. According to Wiki they put it at ~10% (this varies significantly from province to province). This was in 2006 mind you, and schools have added more spots.

But at the same time the number of applicants have increased.

 

[PhiPhenomenon]

At UBC, the MCAT is only looked at post-interview and has very little weight. Its pretty rough over here. Instead of applying again I am going to Ireland this fall. Yes, I know the risks but I can't stomach another year of undergrad and applying again to UBC.

Many, many broken dreams and sob stories to be found here. I was also consdiering Oz for the reasons you posited but for personal reasons I think I would sooner bite the bullet and (begrudgingly) become a PA before doing that.

Bonne chance at Ireland. At least the ministry of health is opening up several residencies reserved for the IMGs.

 

[jf1987]

Many, many broken dreams and sob stories to be found here. I was also consdiering Oz for the reasons you posited but for personal reasons I think I would sooner bite the bullet and (begrudgingly) become a PA before doing that.

Bonne chance at Ireland. At least the ministry of health is opening up several residencies reserved for the IMGs.

Yeah, they are opening 40 spots in BC for IMGs by 2015/2016 (just in time for me to graduate ). Although they are all for FM and I am not too hot on that. I am in the process of attempting to get an EU passport due to my ancestry and I think I have a good chance of getting it. If I get it I will probably just pursue a residency in UK and stay there. Good thing I don't have a huge family here or a S.O. at the moment. Good luck.

 

[candav]

Thanks for the information and civil discussion. Our system is roughly equivalent with regard to in-province / in-state preferences. Out of curiosity, what is the total applicant / accepted percentage, nationwide?

Not sure of the national stats, but in Ontario (which has six medical schools and is the California of the North in terms of med admissions) the annual acceptance rate is ~26%.

 

[jf1987]

Not sure of the national stats, but in Ontario (which has six medical schools and is the California of the North in terms of med admissions) the annual acceptance rate is ~26%.

That is awesome for you guys. The situation in BC could be the worst in Canada and probably all of North America.

 

[candav]

That is awesome for you guys. The situation in BC could be the worst in Canada and probably all of North America.

Well, yes and no. The acceptance rate at UBC for in-province students is ~20%, which is comparable to Ontario's, especially if you consider that some Ontario schools have no in-province preference (U of T and Queen's come to mind -- the OOP acceptance rate at Queen's exceeds the IP acceptance rate in some years) so the actual acceptance rate for Ontario residents will be lower than 26%.

Here's a handy PDF for you: http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/2011AdBk.pdf

In any case, let's agree that getting into medical school is difficult anywhere.

 

[jf1987]

Well, yes and no. The acceptance rate at UBC for in-province students is ~20%, which is comparable to Ontario's, especially if you consider that some Ontario schools have no in-province preference (U of T and Queen's come to mind -- the OOP acceptance rate at Queen's exceeds the IP acceptance rate in some years) so the actual acceptance rate for Ontario residents will be lower than 26%.

Here's a handy PDF for you: http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/2011AdBk.pdf

In any case, let's agree that getting into medical school is difficult anywhere.

True, but in BC you only have one place to apply to and only one interview, one adcom committee etc. But yeah, it is hard anywhere for sure. I wont lie that the whole process has made me a bit bitter.

 

[Tatiana3325]

I understand that if you go by what typically happens/what is true of the majority of cases, you could say that the majority of 3.8 GPA students are smarter in general and worked harder than a 3.0 GPA student. But at the same, there are a number of students who, for any number of factors (chose to go to a more difficult school, had some bad class choices, had a few bad assignments that were too big %wise for a class's final grade, focused more on extracurricular activities than they should have, etc.), end up with low GPAs that don't accurately represent their effort, knowledge, and maybe their ability to be physicians...?

Everyone knows that medical schools have a clear favoritism for the highest GPAs and highest MCATs, but is that really justified? Are applicants with high 3. GPAs really that much more likely to be better physicians than a 2.9/3.0 applicant? If there is legitimate data to sufficiently prove that, then fine. I just get the feeling that med schools/Medicine as a field ends up missing out on some real gems (or even certain specialties miss out for that matter/any case where selection is utilized misses out) by having very strict selection by the numbers.

I am not at all going against those highly numbered applicants who really deserve it and prove it as physicians, but rather I am considering those supposedly "under qualified" applicants who would have done well had they just been accepted. Yes, this is partially fueled by me being a weak candidate stats wise, but I am honestly leaving myself out of it (by fairly considering that I could be someone with low stats complemented by low abilities) and wondering how many good physicians get over looked/how many physicians that may be smart but aren't as great in other ways solely get picked because their numbers are great.

I won't make you read more by fleshing the examples out, but I am also partially interested in this because of some bad experiences with doctors and accepted med students who, during their application times, had high stats and therefore looked like great choices.

Shouldn't the question be "do medical students with lower undergraduate GPA's actually graduate from medical school and match into a residency?"

 

[gettheleadout]

Yeah, why are we expecting that GPA correlates at all with quality of care provided? GPA is used as a measure of likelihood of adequate academic performance in medical school.

 

[music2doc]

I doubt anyone really has a question as to whether or not past performance predicts future performance (e.g., academic to academic). Does anyone dispute that? As a result, the further from the pass/fail line a person has consistently been, the less likely it would be that he or she will fail give tougher work. So it would make sense to evaluate those with the best objective credentials first and then go down the line on them until you get enough "excellent" candidates (as measured by more difficult to measure attributes), at which point you stop assessing further candidates. It is, in essence, a heuristic for selecting highly-qualified candidates.

 

[PhiPhenomenon]

It is, in essence, a heuristic for selecting highly-qualified candidates.

Excellent word choice.

 

[SpecterGT260]

after a quick google, I would have to agree

 

[inmyimmddo]

So the end result is that it is an easier system to eliminate a portion of a ton of possible applications by using a heuristic involving the assumption that those individuals with higher academic success are likely to succeed more often than the alternative.

But at the same time that this is clearly in play, you still see

https://www.aamc.org/download/270906/data/table24-mcatgpagridall0911.pdf

from that chart that people below 3.0 gpa and w/ low 20s MCATs are getting into med school at about a 10 % rate. And that was for recent years... it is not even like that was a chart including a long time ago. So if all these automatic systems and cut offs are clearly in place and a major focus of schools how does that category still have 10 percent of applicants get in? However small or not you may consider 10 percent that is still something...

And I know applicants that are URMs might come up, so here is my supplement to show that it isn't solely about that.

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/app...mcat-gpa-grid-by-selected-race-ethnicity.html

specifically

https://www.aamc.org/download/157958/data/table25-mcatgpa-grid-white-0911.pdf

The percentage does drop on that chart to single digits for the area I was talking about, but once again they aren't being shut out, even if overall there are "good physicians" from that category are being overlooked