Low GPA at a grueling school?

[pls respond bby]

Would adcoms look more preferably at a low-GPA applicant if s/he went to an incredibly rigorous school, i.e. uChicago, Reed, JHU, etc.? If the average GPA for the same type of student was .5 points lower than say an average flagship state school, would the adcoms make adjustments? I.e. If you graduated from uChicago with a 3.2, would an adcom place you on approximately equal footing with a University of Maryland grad with a 3.7, provided an equal MCAT?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Burla]

0.5 seems like a stretch.....

 

[Lucca]

Somewhere on this forum I heard an adcom say some schools weigh GPAs from known GPA-deflationary (is this a word?) schools a bit more generously then they do otherwise - but, ya, .5 definitely seems like a stretch.

Here's the thing about statements like this: You only have one undergraduate institution you go to so making any comments like "it would have been easier to get a better gpa at xx school" doesn't really make sense (even when it might be absolutely true). It's subjective. I think adcoms just want you to succeed in your environment, even if that environment is death.

lolCalTechlol.

But seriously.... look up their curriculum.

 

[nerdlete40]

Would adcoms look more preferably at a low-GPA applicant if s/he went to an incredibly rigorous school, i.e. uChicago, Reed, JHU, etc.? If the average GPA for the same type of student was .5 points lower than say an average flagship state school, would the adcoms make adjustments? I.e. If you graduated from uChicago with a 3.2, would an adcom place you on approximately equal footing with a University of Maryland grad with a 3.7, provided an equal MCAT?

I am in this situation (current applicant). Based on my personal experience this cycle, my answer would be a resounding "NO" - adcoms do not care where you went to school or what you studied. They care about numbers. If it were one applicant with a 3.7 vs another applicant with 3.7, the more difficult school may get a boost. However, if it is one applicant with a 3.4 from a difficult school vs another applicant with a 3.9 from an easy school, the 3.9 is going to win out every time. It sucks for those of us who go to highly competitive grade-deflating schools but that seems to be the reality of it. Or at least, it has been my reality as an applicant. For the record: UG at technical powerhouse, ~3.5GPA, 36 MCAT.

 

[masaraksh]

I went to a school known for grade deflation (McGill Univ in Canada) but I'm sure AdComs don't know this so I wouldn't benefit from them taking it into account. Adcoms surely don't know all the relative difficulties of all the US colleges (expect for the common ones) so I'm sure they look at the number in more of a vacuum.

I nerded really hard in ugrad and got a 4.0 but I am a little bitter that kids in grade inflating schools can get A's for a lot less work/easier classes. I get a bit angry when I read those articles that many Harvard courses have A-/A averages. My transcript posts class averages and they are nearly always a B (some classes even C averages). In the end, I think its pointless to get angry/bitter about this. It is a waste of time and effort. I am happy with my u-grad education even, I learned a lot, and I had to study hard.

Ultimately, the med school admissions thing is a game and the grade inflated grads just seems to have an advantage 🙁

 

[darklabel]

Would adcoms look more preferably at a low-GPA applicant if s/he went to an incredibly rigorous school, i.e. uChicago, Reed, JHU, etc.? If the average GPA for the same type of student was .5 points lower than say an average flagship state school, would the adcoms make adjustments? I.e. If you graduated from uChicago with a 3.2, would an adcom place you on approximately equal footing with a University of Maryland grad with a 3.7, provided an equal MCAT?

Thats too drastic, a GPA of 3.2 is not equivalent in work compared to 3.7 unless you are also in a GPA-deflating major like Engineering. But a Bio major won't be much more difficult than a state school in terms of grading. For all you know, University of Maryland tries to "weed" people out of the pre-med track since they have a lot of pre-med students while all their other majors are known to be grade inflationary (Business, English etc).

If you said 3.6ish vs 3.7 maybe you'll get equal footing, but I doubt ad comms will give both applications equal weight if all else is equal (MCAT, ECs, ETC). Plus, unless you went to the Ivies, most people outside the local state med school will not know which colleges are GPA deflating or not.

 

[mtbski]

If you go to MIT and get a 3.5 GPA and a 30 on the MCAT, don't be surprised if you are passed over for the U Maryland kid with the 3.7 and the 35 MCAT. As far as adcoms are concerned, the MCAT proves that the U Maryland student is objectively better.

This^^

 

[solitarius]

The funny thing about these type of SDN threads is that they are strawman arguments. Med schools have tons of high GPA candidates from Top 50 schools with 30+ MCATs.

 

[Jonathan Wilson]

It's subjective. I think adcoms just want you to succeed in your environment, even if that environment is death.

 

[Zelda840]

Ultimately, the med school admissions thing is a game and the grade inflated grads just seems to have an advantage 🙁

I think that while someone from a no-name undergrad with grade inflation may have an advantage in GPA, those who went to top schools have an advantage when it comes to other opportunities (I'm thinking research and possibly LORs from an expert in the field, etc). Just as a random example, have you ever had to not use a LOR because it wasn't grammatically correct? I have! 😆

 

[masaraksh]

I think that while someone from a no-name undergrad with grade inflation may have an advantage in GPA, those who went to top schools have an advantage when it comes to other opportunities (I'm thinking research and possibly LORs from an expert in the field, etc). Just as a random example, have you ever had to not use a LOR because it wasn't grammatically correct? I have! 😆

I bet there are horror stories of "form LORs" where the letter writer forgot to put your name in one paragraph but forgot to make the change in another:


Christine did very well in my class - an A..... blah blabh blabhah...
.... John is a very motivated student and came to all my office hours....blahd

 

[Zelda840]

Yeah, one of mine refers to me as "he" several times. 🙁 Not cool. I guess I should be grateful that I even got to read them. I had used them previously for scholarship applications, so I just contacted the professors who wrote the best ones and asked if they would be willing to send them again for the med school application.

 

[solitarius]

How is that a straw man argument? I'm not saying that going to a rigorous/prestigious school doesn't add some value to your application, I'm saying that it is less important than most other factors. I go to a top 20 school by the way, so I am hardly the one who is going to be making straw man arguments against the the prestige factor of going to a highly ranked or rigorous schools.

It's a strawman argument because you guys are realistically competing against lots of applicants with good GPAs, MCATs, who go to respectable schools. It's a strawman argument because it's unlikely an AdCom member will hold two applications in front of them - one from state school with high GPA and the other with a lower GPA from a more rigorous school - and decide who to interview.

 

[Goro]

Not at all. And we don't compare applicants vs applicants by schools vs schools, even when we're down to trying to pick among, say, ten candidates for two seats at the end of the app cycle when we've pretty much filled the class.

A 3.2 is not competitive for MD schools, whether it was earned at Harvard, or Kutztown State.

Would adcoms look more preferably at a low-GPA applicant if s/he went to an incredibly rigorous school, i.e. uChicago, Reed, JHU, etc.? If the average GPA for the same type of student was .5 points lower than say an average flagship state school, would the adcoms make adjustments? I.e. If you graduated from uChicago with a 3.2, would an adcom place you on approximately equal footing with a University of Maryland grad with a 3.7, provided an equal MCAT?

 

[silverturtle]

.

 

[Plue00]

Would adcoms look more preferably at a low-GPA applicant if s/he went to an incredibly rigorous school, i.e. uChicago, Reed, JHU, etc.? If the average GPA for the same type of student was .5 points lower than say an average flagship state school, would the adcoms make adjustments? I.e. If you graduated from uChicago with a 3.2, would an adcom place you on approximately equal footing with a University of Maryland grad with a 3.7, provided an equal MCAT?

UChicago is ridiculously difficult, but I don't think adcoms will give you a .5 increase.

I wish schools would take difficulty into account.

In before people complaining about Harvard's grade "inflation" but not talking about the level of students at Harvard.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

A 3.2 is a bad GPA regardless of where you went. Even CalTech.

 

[CyberMaxx]

Just to add a different perspective, one of my state schools very openly does take the 'difficulty' of your undergraduate institution into account. When they first get your application they run your raw numbers through a calculation to see if they are high enough for you to be considered for admission (this is a pretty low benchmark primarily used to determine if you are academically capable of passing medical school). Then they adjust your GPA based on Barrons ranking of college difficulty. This adjustment ranges from minor to very significant, with the largest adjustment being something like 0.55 if I remember correctly.

 

[PreMedRookie]

According to the study done on grade inflation, Purdue University has had no inflation in the past 50 years. Every other school has had some grade inflation.

 

[phunky]

There's way too much to take into account if you start trying to qualify grades. Major, school, etc. You're just expected to be the best wherever you are and whatever you're doing.

 

[lazywindmill]

I have heard different things from different interviews when they talk about their admissions process. Some schools definitely adjust for undergraduate institution at least to a certain degree. Some schools even mentioned having specific sub-groups in the admission committees to deal with well known schools from which they got a large number of applicants each year. So, to me it is very subjective and I think it would be silly to say that what undergrad you went to didn't have at least some bearing on the process. I don't think that the rationale behind adjusting for an undergrad has as much to do with the rigor per se of that undergrad, but more to do with the fact that a rigorous screening process (undergrad admissions) has already taken place at several of the top-tier schools.

I also wouldn't agree that a 3.2 is not competitive for MD schools as a blanket statement. I had a 3.22 this cycle and received 15 II's all at MD schools, and three acceptances so far. I think this process in general is much more subjective and holistic than most claim it is.

 

[NorthernMav]

Although only predicated upon my own experiences and perspective--just as all other answers given here--I have to say that the school you attended absolutely plays a part in some situations. I don't think that ADCOMs would 'adjust' your grades (i.e. 3.2 = 3.7); however, if one student has a 3.4 from Duke and the other from Kitten College, favor will lean towards the Duke student. These are humans reviewing your file, and we humans seem to revel in glimmering pedigrees.

However, to agree with a few individuals above, I think that at a certain point where the GPA is too low things may not matter; but of course this number is completely arbitrary and I don't think anyone can tell you for sure at what point is too low as there are too many other variables.

 

[487806]

I also wouldn't agree that a 3.2 is not competitive for MD schools as a blanket statement. I had a 3.22 this cycle and received 15 II's all at MD schools, and three acceptances so far. I think this process in general is much more subjective and holistic than most claim it is.

You probably had a high MCAT score with substantial ECs. You're the exception to the rule.

 

[histidine]

You probably had a high MCAT score with substantial ECs. You're the exception to the rule.

41, to be exact.

 

[Spades455]

Just to add a different perspective, one of my state schools very openly does take the 'difficulty' of your undergraduate institution into account. When they first get your application they run your raw numbers through a calculation to see if they are high enough for you to be considered for admission (this is a pretty low benchmark primarily used to determine if you are academically capable of passing medical school). Then they adjust your GPA based on Barrons ranking of college difficulty. This adjustment ranges from minor to very significant, with the largest adjustment being something like 0.55 if I remember correctly.

That's interesting, do you by any chance have a link to that Barron's ranking of college difficulty?

 

[CyberMaxx]

That's interesting, do you by any chance have a link to that Barron's ranking of college difficulty?

No, I tried to find it once but couldn't. I don't know where this data is.

 

[deleted762196]

No, I tried to find it once but couldn't. I don't know where this data is.

sorry ti bump but what school is this or state at least?

 

[Nerdeka]

I got a significantly lower GPA at a grade deflating school then a 4.0 doing a DIY postbacc with all science classes at a local university and yeah, I would say it’s that much of a difference. I learned more at my university but got worse grades. That being said, I don’t think med schools care.

 

[Cornfed101]

sorry ti bump but what school is this or state at least?

This is such an old bump that @CyberMaxx probably has grandkids at this point