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

[music2doc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

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

Yes, you are still given some consideration with lower MCAT/GPA. It's NOT a cutoff. Even as a heuristic, they are still looking below that line for absolutely exceptional outliers. They exist and you don't want to miss them, so you might have a subcommittee that spends a small amount of time on each application on the way to the shredder. Those apps can be returned by said committee. Of course, the system may not look quite like that, but it's definitely one possibility.

Also, many (possibly most/all) low GPA students are either URM or non-trad (or, at minimum, strong upward trend). Those are treated differently. It's not the same as the weak 2.8 all the way through college student. Stop trying to rationalize low grades or work around it....

 

[SpecterGT260]

med asmissions is a highly subjective process. They will use objective qualifiers (GPA and MCAT), but every applicant that is considered is going to be looked at from a number of angles not only including scores and grades. They will, on common occasion, make a cut from their stack and lose anyone below certain lines, but by that time the diversity and other random committees or chairs have had a go through.

I think there are a few things to consider when looking at those lower scoring applicants as well... I don't think it can be interpreted that you have a 1/10 of getting into your pick of schools... of the grand total of 500 students admitted with a 18-20 MCAT I would suspect a large number of these are URM, a very large number of these are in special programs catering to underserved communnities (meharry, UM deluth, schools with significantly lower averages for social reasons), and a small minority of those are your average applicant demographically.

but if you want an example of how subjective the process is, people with a 39-45MCAT and 3.8+ GPA still only got in at a 91% rate 😉

Same chart for african american, native american, and hispanic applicants
https://www.aamc.org/download/157590/data/table25-hbn-mcatgpa-grid-3race.pdf

 

[SpecterGT260]

oops, the post above me had these links. my bad 👍

 

[druggeek]

I would say yes. If someone has a poor GPA, they have no demonstrated the ability of having a high brain capacity/memorization ability to be able to retain large volumes of information (which is crucial in medicine). How can you be a good doctor if you're the average person and cant even memorize enough to get a 75 on a high school science test?

 

[Dei gratia]

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)

I was looking at the UofA Medical School admissions the other day and similarly they only consider the VR and written section of the MCAT. To compliment this thread topic, they also have minimum cut-offs for considering an application: 3.3 GPA for in-province and 3.5 GPA for out-of-province applicants, and no MCAT section score that's less than 7. Last cycle their "average" was 3.87 & 10.92Q, with an acceptance rate around 12%, out-of-province acceptance was 1.8% with only 25 accepted applicants. I'm only familar with HMS & JHMS admissions in the USA. Therefore, I'm not sure how this compares with the majority of American Medical Schools.

 

[inmyimmddo]

med asmissions is a highly subjective process. They will use objective qualifiers (GPA and MCAT), but every applicant that is considered is going to be looked at from a number of angles not only including scores and grades. They will, on common occasion, make a cut from their stack and lose anyone below certain lines, but by that time the diversity and other random committees or chairs have had a go through.

I think there are a few things to consider when looking at those lower scoring applicants as well... I don't think it can be interpreted that you have a 1/10 of getting into your pick of schools... of the grand total of 500 students admitted with a 18-20 MCAT I would suspect a large number of these are URM, a very large number of these are in special programs catering to underserved communnities (meharry, UM deluth, schools with significantly lower averages for social reasons), and a small minority of those are your average applicant demographically.

but if you want an example of how subjective the process is, people with a 39-45MCAT and 3.8+ GPA still only got in at a 91% rate 😉

Same chart for african american, native american, and hispanic applicants
https://www.aamc.org/download/157590/data/table25-hbn-mcatgpa-grid-3race.pdf

Maybe I am misunderstanding URM then. One of the charts I linked up was "white" applicants only. I wasn't under the impression that any white applicant is URM. Is there some other factor other than race that gets considered URM?

Sorry if this is something obvious, but I saw charts for a number of other races, and then one for white, so I assumed it was only Caucasians and not anyone that is considered a minority.

 

[Kadava Reviva]

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.

Does it really matter? What matters is what each adcom wants and who you are competing against.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Maybe I am misunderstanding URM then. One of the charts I linked up was "white" applicants only. I wasn't under the impression that any white applicant is URM. Is there some other factor other than race that gets considered URM?

Sorry if this is something obvious, but I saw charts for a number of other races, and then one for white, so I assumed it was only Caucasians and not anyone that is considered a minority.

I quoted the chart of black, native american, and hispanic. I saw the same general source in the other post and figured they were the same. my double bad lol 👍 the URM chart has significantly elevated acceptance rates at all areas. Some very low sections still >10%

 

[JacktheRipper]

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.

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.

There is data to prove that having a high MCAT score is a better predictor than GPA on how well you do on USMLE Step 1/2 (Board exams during med school), and both are good predictors on how high of a score you will get on those exams. There are many studies that have shown that, here is one: http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...ormances_in_a_Predominantly_Asian_and.10.aspx.

So why is this important? Well because most medical schools are scrutinized on how many students pass the boards, how many graduate and how many students match. People who score low on MCAT/GPA, tend to struggle in standardized exams and they consequently will have harder time with exams in med school and beyond. But there is absolutely no evidence that how well you perform in USMLE correlates with how good of a doctor you are going to be (let alone MCAT/GPA). Actually evidence points to the fact that there is no correlation. But due to the extreme competition for not only med school but also residency, the schools and programs are judged by the scores their students get not with their ability. That is why over the past years, schools have been increasingly pushing for higher cut offs in terms of GPA/MCAT, for the students benefit, because
1) they dont want you to matriculate and fail out of med school or not get into residency because of low board scores and
2) the school doesnt seem like they are underperforming because of low pass rate or match rate.
This is frustrating as an applicant/student as well as for administrators in schools/residency because they fully know there is absolutely no correlation, but this is the measure most accrediting body uses in order to see if the schools/residency are on par with where the public wants doctors to be trained. So the best advice is DO THE BEST YOU CAN in school and on your MCAT. Remember MCAT IS NOT THE LAST EXAM YOU WILL TAKE IN YOUR LIFE. USMLE 1 and 2 are FAR MORE TOUGHER and MORE is one the LINE because of increasing competitiveness for residency. EVEN after residency you will have to take many licensing exams where they expect you to perform well. So if you are struggling academically it is better find ways to improve study patterns/exam taking skills before coming to med school rather than trying to figure it out later. Saying that if you get past a certain score/gpa where most people with those stats have been successful in terms of board exams, then your scores should not matter at all in terms of getting into med school or residency but rather how good of a doctor you are going to be and this is measured through interviews, essays, rec of letters, experiences etc.