Matter where you go to UG?

[ranson]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I go to a state flagship University and I'm sure I scored higher on the MCAT than most of the students applying to med school that went to an Ivy for UG. A strong SAT score and high school GPA just means that someone started playing the game at a younger age, it is not the end all for determining someone's intelligence or future accomplishments.

230 students apply from Penn to medical school, and the average MCAT (not for accepted) was slightly over 34. It seems like you scored a 34, so you would be right around the 50 percentile in MCAT scores among Penn students. 😉

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

My state school is in the top 50 overall, but is in the top 25 in engineering. If medical schools don't really care about what major you have, I don't see why they should put a lot of significance on what UG school you go to.

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

I go to a state flagship University and I'm sure I scored higher on the MCAT than most of the students applying to med school that went to an Ivy for UG. A strong SAT score and high school GPA just means that someone started playing the game at a younger age, it is not the end all for determining someone's intelligence or future accomplishments.

^You're also probably an outlier. Even obscure schools have very intelligent students that could be successful at any undergrad, but the competition and grading rigor between schools is highly variable. This is one reason why we have the MCAT in the first place. You cannot apply a generalization to one individual at any school, but there are trends.

I find it strange that some people won't admit that some schools are harder than others. A B in an intro class at MIT, Hopkins, etc. would be way harder than at most places. This goes for almost all of the top 20 schools since the majority don't inflate (some even deflate). I'm confused why anyone finds this offensive. When I transferred, I assumed it'd be much harder simply due to competition.

To answer the OP, they should take it into account, and to some degree they do, but it's not as influential as it should be. An example being that the average accepted applicant from my undergrad has ~3.5 GPA compared to the national average of ~3.7. From personal experience I don't think this is enough, but it is what it is. You can't expect them to go too much lower, and some point it would start to be a bit unfair to students that worked hard at less competitive schools.

Edit: I also hate myself for posting on yet another one of these threads. Sigh...

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

Premed courses at Penn are curved to a C+/B- with a little over 20% receiving A/A- grades. Any person can go to any school and take an easy courses and get an "Easy A."

I have taken courses at a state university when I was 16, the same courses that I repeated at Penn. I barely studied and got a 4.00 GPA; finals week was like Christmas break. At Penn, I've studied much more and my GPA is not 4.00. Many people here claiming that it's not harder to do well at Ivy's have never taken courses at one; I've taken courses at both an Ivy and a state university, and there's a huge difference.

People who think top 20 schools are easy have never taken classes there, or have a biased sample. I work twice as hard here and my GPA is at least 0.5 lower than at my state uni. The only places where I'd say grades are easy to come by are Harvard, Yale, and Brown. The rest are a nightmare for pre-meds.

 

[Tots]

I find it strange that some people won't admit that some schools are harder than others. A B in an intro class at MIT, Hopkins, etc. would be way harder than at most places. This goes for almost all of the top 20 schools since the majority don't inflate (some even deflate). I'm confused why anyone finds this offensive. When I transferred, I assumed it'd be much harder simply due to competition.

I don't think people have a problem admitting that some schools are harder than others. From reading this thread I think the problem lies in the idea that higher rank automatically equals more difficult. You mentioned that the top 20 are hard but what about the next 5 schools? Are they comparably hard? What about the next 5? At what difference in ranking do you say that one school is significantly harder than another school? What about all those liberal arts colleges that are notoriously difficult but don't show up on these ranks?

I am not against considering the difficulty of peoples schools I just think this issue is not as black and white as some people make it out to be.

 

[chronicidal]

People who think top 20 schools are easy have never taken classes there, or have a biased sample. I work twice as hard here and my GPA is at least 0.5 lower than at my state uni. The only places where I'd say grades are easy to come by are Harvard, Yale, and Brown. The rest are a nightmare for pre-meds.

Show data.

The median graduating GPA at Harvard was 3.480. Top 20% was 3.750.

At Vandy, the top 5% of GPA was 3.898. Top 13% was 3.787. Top 25% was 3.669.

 

[circulus vitios]

I think the worst part about your statement is that you not only knew where your professor was pulling exam material from, but the class was still your lowest grade in your undergraduate career. I don't mean to judge you, but if he tells you where he's pulling the exams from, and you had access to all the materials he did in terms of exam questions, and this was your hardest class, your other classes were probably pretty easy.

Any class in which you have access to the test questions before the test is not a hard class. (assuming it's not a take home exam or something)

I'm guessing the questions were a mix of MIT OCW and his own questions. Either way, I didn't learn this until the second semester. By then the damage was already done. I sucked (and still do suck) at organic chemistry.

Some of my other classes were easy, some weren't. Some classes (physics) are so standardized that it's not really possible to have much leeway in terms of making a course easy/difficult.

 

[NickNaylor]

Show data.

The median graduating GPA at Harvard was 3.480. Top 20% was 3.750.

At Vandy, the top 5% of GPA was 3.898. Top 13% was 3.787. Top 25% was 3.669.

Implying that grades are indicative of a course's difficulty and that GPAs are universal across institutions.

 

[Hotshy]

230 students apply from Penn to medical school, and the average MCAT (not for accepted) was slightly over 34. It seems like you scored a 34, so you would be right around the 50 percentile in MCAT scores among Penn students. 😉

Thank you for proving my point. I attend a state's flagship school and yet I scored the median for students from Penn applying to medical school. I just think it is a bit rash to assume that all course work at non-ivy schools is significantly easier or that the students are always of lesser caliber. From my perspective it's all about when people started playing the game that determines where they go for UG. I think it's a bit silly to give applicants from Ivy's a large prestige advantage when applying to medical school.

 

[blizzah]

Show data.

The median graduating GPA at Harvard was 3.480. Top 20% was 3.750.

At Vandy, the top 5% of GPA was 3.898. Top 13% was 3.787. Top 25% was 3.669.

You are in the top 10% if you graduate with a GPA of 3.5 here.

 

[fudGez14]

adding in Princeton's

50th percentile: 3.28 GPA
3.7% is top 15%
a 3.80 will get you to the top 5%.

and now imagine people saying that UG doesn't matter when people going to state schools who get a 3.9 GPA say that their GPA are better than princeton students getting a 3.8 GPA.

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

Show data.

The median graduating GPA at Harvard was 3.480. Top 20% was 3.750.

At Vandy, the top 5% of GPA was 3.898. Top 13% was 3.787. Top 25% was 3.669.

Your data looks as if the grades are pretty similar overall between the two, which is interesting.

You aren't familiar with Vanderiblt I'm sure, but we have some schools within our university-and some majors within our schools-that inflate the overall GPA. I was only considering students in the hard sciences, where the GPA here is definitely not inflated. My familiarity with grading from those three Ivy schools comes from people that I know there, and their accounts of grading curves in pre-medical classes. Even with possible inflation I'd still consider them difficult since the competition is so high.
.

 

[Hotshy]

adding in Princeton's

50th percentile: 3.28 GPA
3.7% is top 15%
a 3.80 will get you to the top 5%.

and now imagine people saying that UG doesn't matter when people going to state schools who get a 3.9 GPA say that their GPA are better than princeton students getting a 3.8 GPA.

Aren't there diminished returns after 3.8 anyway..?

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

adding in Princeton's

50th percentile: 3.28 GPA
3.7% is top 15%
a 3.80 will get you to the top 5%.

and now imagine people saying that UG doesn't matter when people going to state schools who get a 3.9 GPA say that their GPA are better than princeton students getting a 3.8 GPA.

Everyone knows about Princeton's un-godly deflation policy though.

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

Aren't there diminished returns after 3.8 anyway..?

I'd definitely say so, but that's not where the problem occurs. The problem occurs when you have to compare a 3.3 in a science major at Princeton with a 3.9 at whatever average university. You simply cannot take them in the same context. It's a difficult task for sure, since it would be unfair to devalue someone's grades too much (especially when there are a large number of reasons why someone ends up at a particular university).

 

[Plue00]

Thank you for proving my point. I attend a state's flagship school and yet I scored the median for students from Penn applying to medical school. I just think it is a bit rash to assume that all course work at non-ivy schools is significantly easier or that the students are always of lesser caliber. From my perspective it's all about when people started playing the game that determines where they go for UG. I think it's a bit silly to give applicants from Ivy's a large prestige advantage when applying to medical school.

There are many factors that could account for your MCAT score. Maybe you're just really smart but went to an average state school. Or maybe your course work there was much easier which allowed you time to focus on studying for the MCAT. This doesn't just apply to you, it can apply to anyone.

 

[DrHouse579]

My uni isn't a top 25. We have a lot of smart kids, and the classes here are not easy by a longshot. So why should I be disadvantaged? I don't think its fair if admissions people make decisions based on generalizations 🙁

How smart are you? Because, from the bottom looking up, everyone's smart.

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

I don't think people have a problem admitting that some schools are harder than others. From reading this thread I think the problem lies in the idea that higher rank automatically equals more difficult. You mentioned that the top 20 are hard but what about the next 5 schools? Are they comparably hard? What about the next 5? At what difference in ranking do you say that one school is significantly harder than another school? What about all those liberal arts colleges that are notoriously difficult but don't show up on these ranks?

I am not against considering the difficulty of peoples schools I just think this issue is not as black and white as some people make it out to be.

I definitely agree with you. As far as I know, the only tool admissions folks have is to take the average GPA/MCAT from that particular institution's applicants to compare. An example from my own would be 3.4/30. This may help indicate grade deflation since the average for applicants nationwide is ~ 3.4/27. Tests aren't a perfect metric though, so it remains difficult.

 

[Hotshy]

There are many factors that could account for your MCAT score. Maybe you're just really smart but went to an average state school. Or maybe your course work there was much easier which allowed you time to focus on studying for the MCAT. This doesn't just apply to you, it can apply to anyone.

I studied for 9 weeks over the summer while doing research 40 hours per week, so we can't argue about the difficulty of the coursework. Yes there are many factors that can account for it I suppose. Like I said I didn't start playing the game until after high school, so my chances for an elite undergrad were slim to none. But I would keep in mind that many talented students are choosing their flagship state schools over private schools, in this economy everyone is a little more conscious of where their dollars are going. With that being said you may be surprised by how many bright students there are at certain public institutions. Food for thought. 🙂

 

[Hotshy]

I'd definitely say so, but that's not where the problem occurs. The problem occurs when you have to compare a 3.3 in a science major at Princeton with a 3.9 at whatever average university. You simply cannot take them in the same context. It's a difficult task for sure, since it would be unfair to devalue someone's grades too much (especially when there are a large number of reasons why someone ends up at a particular university).

Fair enough. I suppose what you said about GPA and MCAT comparisons might be indicative of grade deflation like. Like 3.4/32 at Vandy vs say a 3.8/28 at a state school. I think it's reasonable (although not entirely accurate or valid in every case) to assume given those stats that it is harder to earn a good GPA at vandy vs a state school.

 

[Chrome19]

I studied for 9 weeks over the summer while doing research 40 hours per week, so we can't argue about the difficulty of the coursework. Yes there are many factors that can account for it I suppose. Like I said I didn't start playing the game until after high school, so my chances for an elite undergrad were slim to none. But I would keep in mind that many talented students are choosing their flagship state schools over private schools, in this economy everyone is a little more conscious of where their dollars are going. With that being said you may be surprised by how many bright students there are at certain public institutions. Food for thought. 🙂

You don't have to explain yourself to anybody. The most important thing is to do the best you can with what you have.

http://www.physorg.com/news205560354.html

 

[Hotshy]

You don't have to explain yourself to anybody. The most important thing is to do the best you can with what you have.

http://www.physorg.com/news205560354.html

Thanks for this haha. But I'm at one of the best public schools in the nation, plenty to be happy about. 🙂

 

[Chrome19]

Fair enough. I suppose what you said about GPA and MCAT comparisons might be indicative of grade deflation like. Like 3.4/32 at Vandy vs say a 3.8/28 at a state school. I think it's reasonable (although not entirely accurate or valid in every case) to assume given those stats that it is harder to earn a good GPA at vandy vs a state school.

Students at elite undergrad schools have been taking tests their whole lives and are good at it. This will account for gains on the MCAT. In addition many many brilliant people are not in the top 20, yea, top 40 schools.

I keep telling people I doubt Einstein would score over 35 on the MCAT. He was a slow thinker, just as Charles Darwin, but Einstein had insights that have revolutionized science. He really knew how to understand problems and offer solutions. Our society places far too much emphasis on grades and test scores, although this may be useful for medicine and other fields where rote knowledge together with its execution is important, and for stratification of applicants. I did well on the MCAT, and I still think it's useless, especially the verbal, although it's the best worst measure we have.

To answer the OP's question. Go to a decent place, challenge yourself and work hard. The other aspects will take care of themselves.

 

[ranson]

Thank you for proving my point. I attend a state's flagship school and yet I scored the median for students from Penn applying to medical school. I just think it is a bit rash to assume that all course work at non-ivy schools is significantly easier or that the students are always of lesser caliber. From my perspective it's all about when people started playing the game that determines where they go for UG. I think it's a bit silly to give applicants from Ivy's a large prestige advantage when applying to medical school.

When you have people with high SAT/ACT scores and high GPA's who were atop their high school class all at one university, the competition is going to be tougher. Medical schools acknowledge that.

You must also think it's silly for residencies to give preference to applicants from top medical schools just because they "started playing the game" earlier than others.

 

[Hotshy]

When you have people with high SAT/ACT scores and high GPA's who were atop their high school class all at one university, the competition is going to be tougher. Medical schools acknowledge that.

You must also think it's silly for residencies to give preference to applicants from top medical schools just because they "started playing the game" earlier than others.

Well if someone from a public medical school scored the same or higher on STEP 1 as someone from a top medical school, then yes I would say it's a bit silly to automatically give preference to someone from a top medical school. This is the reason why there is a standardized metric to compare to applicants, not an intangible quality such as prestige.

You are basing everything on prior performance, not performance in the current program. High School GPA and SAT/ACT determine what kind of UG you can attend. Being a strong HS student does not necessarily mean you will be a good college student even if you were accepted to a top UG program, you may not end up being that great of a medical school applicant despite your "prestigious" UG. Now fast-forward, you did really well on the MCAT, made it into a top 20. You were a stellar undergrad student but aren't as strong in medical school, you score a 230 on Step 1 at your top 20 and someone from a lower ranked, state medical school scores a 250. Why should prestige weigh so much into the decision? Clearly the applicant from the middle tier program is showing that he is a stronger medical student than you despite the fact that he is attending a lower-ranked medical school. It's about performance in your current program, not what you did prior that helped you get into that program.

 

[Hipster]

How smart are you? Because, from the bottom looking up, everyone's smart.

Lol are you trying to call me stupid? Why would you assume that?

 

[catzzz88]

You go/went to Swarthmore? That's the only one I can think that fits your description...Bryn Mawr or Haverford maybe, but I doubt it. Anyways, assuming Swarthmore, every program knows they have ridiculous grade deflation there...not to mention the misery poker you guys play! In general, when these whole "does my school rank matter" threads pop up, I tend to not even consider top LACs. If name recognition matters at all, these top LACs (especially the perpetually top 3) will always have name recognition in addition to their known grade deflation.

Anyways, with that said, people I know at Penn say that you can generally get an A in most classes if you do the work. This statement excludes science classes, though.

I went to Bryn Mawr and many people took classes at Swat because there was a bus going to Haverford/Swat that left every 15-30 minutes. Fewer took classes at Penn because it was relatively far away. On average, Swarthmore classes were harder than BMC classes and Penn classes were easier than BMC classes. I am not saying that Penn is an easy school or that you can sleep through all the classes or something, I am merely talking in relativistic terms with a measurement of GPA. Swat is well known for its tougher classes (especially within specific majors) leading to grade deflation and Penn was well known to have relatively easier classes due to grade inflation. I don't have experience at any other schools except Harvard (where I took only science classes and they seemed to swing either way on the difficulty/GPA range).

Just my observations here... nothing more. I can't quantify this stuff.

Best,
C

 

[NickNaylor]

When you have people with high SAT/ACT scores and high GPA's who were atop their high school class all at one university, the competition is going to be tougher. Medical schools acknowledge that.

You must also think it's silly for residencies to give preference to applicants from top medical schools just because they "started playing the game" earlier than others.

I think the second thing ranson mentioned is especially important here: much like medical admissions is largely about being prepared and knowing where to focus your efforts to maximize success, elite college admissions is exactly the same. There are many, many perfectly capable people that, had they known about the college admissions game, likely could've gone to these schools but weren't able to. While students at Ivy-tier universities are all hyperintelligent, they aren't the only ones that are so. They just happen to be the ones that were the most prepared, most well-resourced, or most game-playing.

 

[ranson]

Well if someone from a public medical school scored the same or higher on STEP 1 as someone from a top medical school, then yes I would say it's a bit silly to automatically give preference to someone from a top medical school. This is the reason why there is a standardized metric to compare to applicants, not an intangible quality such as prestige.

You are basing everything on prior performance, not performance in the current program. High School GPA and SAT/ACT determine what kind of UG you can attend. Being a strong HS student does not necessarily mean you will be a good college student even if you were accepted to a top UG program, you may not end up being that great of a medical school applicant despite your "prestigious" UG. Now fast-forward, you did really well on the MCAT, made it into a top 20. You were a stellar undergrad student but aren't as strong in medical school, you score a 230 on Step 1 at your top 20 and someone from a lower ranked, state medical school scores a 250. Why should prestige weigh so much into the decision? Clearly the applicant from the middle tier program is showing that he is a stronger medical student than you despite the fact that he is attending a lower-ranked medical school. It's about performance in your current program, not what you did prior that helped you get into that program.

I understand what you're saying and that's why MCAT scores are important because it is a standardized test. But if a student at Harvard has 35 mcat and 3.6 gpa and a student a state university has the same stats, the student from Harvard will be favored because he/she is competing among harder working students and med schools know that.

 

[ChristianTroy1]

Umm... IS THIS EVEN STILL A QUESTION!?

Do you people honestly think that getting a 4.0 at a random ass school is just as hard as getting a 4.0 at a Top 25 ? Your insane if you do.

Competition. Very few people get 90%+ in pre-med courses, if it's properly taught. You are graded on a curve, based on how well you perform with respect to your PEERS. Long story short: you are either the big fish in the little pond or the little fish in the big pond.

That being said: Adcoms don't really care where you went ESPECIALLY if your MCAT isn't near the top. I know too many people who went to lower-ranked UC's who got in to multiple medical schools with 3.8+'s, and even more people who go to UCLA who can't get into 1 medical school with a 3.5. And yes, a 3.5 is pretty damn hard to get here.

 

[Narmerguy]

I think the second thing ranson mentioned is especially important here: much like medical admissions is largely about being prepared and knowing where to focus your efforts to maximize success, elite college admissions is exactly the same. There are many, many perfectly capable people that, had they known about the college admissions game, likely could've gone to these schools but weren't able to. While students at Ivy-tier universities are all hyperintelligent, they aren't the only ones that are so. They just happen to be the ones that were the most prepared, most well-resourced, or most game-playing.

Or ones for whom those schools was an appropriate choice. There are many people that turn down Ivy-tier acceptances for full rides or to be close to home.

This debate arises all the time and I feel that people over-complicate the issue. If the 3.7 student from Harvard is that much harder-working and intelligent than the 4.0 student from UNC, it will presumably be reflected in their MCAT scores.

 

[Tots]

That being said: Adcoms don't really care where you went ESPECIALLY if your MCAT isn't near the top. I know too many people who went to lower-ranked UC's who got in to multiple medical schools with 3.8+'s, and even more people who go to UCLA who can't get into 1 medical school with a 3.5. And yes, a 3.5 is pretty damn hard to get here.

Ah I'm sorry you went to UCLA and your GPA suffered. Do you want a cookie?

 

[Plue00]

Ah I'm sorry you went to UCLA and your GPA suffered. Do you want a cookie?

You just assumed he got a bad GPA?