MCAT studying diary Exam 8/2/2013. Journey to a 45? ha?

[onedirection]

I have made public accountability stuff in the past in order to get things done and keep up with what I have to do

Anyway I'm going to graduate 2014 from College. I have taken nearly all of the pre-med requirements. I only became recently interested in medicine and basically crammed 7 pre-med classes into the past 3 semesters I had. That was not fun...needless to say I only did alright in my classes. I'm a social sciences major. I think talent/intelligence wise I might be a bit better than what's normal? Memory wise, I might be a bit worse than what's normal?

I'm going to post daily what I'm doing. Obviously the goal is to get to the 45

Took my first diagnostic, kind of took it spur of the moment on some Saturday morning, it was given by Examkrackers. I had gone out the previous night and it was early. Got something like a 20 on it. From that point forward I knew I had some work cut out for me. Honestly the exam frustrated me and I found myself walking out partway through biology


Overall Goal: Go big or go home. 45!! (15/15/15)

Tests taken so far
05/01/2013 Diagnostic Exam Krackers: 20: 6/9/5
Started Studying: 5/8/2013
6/07/2013 AAMC 3 Composite: 31: 10/11/10
6/17/2013 Princeton Review Hyperlearning Practice test: Composoite: 33 12/12/11

Other AAMC Scores: 37/39/36

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[inycepoo]

I do not understand the main point you are trying to make with all those other distracting examples and contentions mixed in there.

Is your point that we shouldn't have our grades "inflated" even though we are graded based against very very high caliber student?

You are also making the assumption that we don't work as hard in college as we did in high school and this are being rewarded for our academic prowess in high school only. This is absurd. It still scares me how much my peers study and the efficiency and efficacy at which they do it. We are not a bunch of slackers lazing around waiting to reap the benefits of things we did 3 years ago.

P.S. I also had a 92 average in a cell bio class. Ended up with a B+. Just because the scale is 40/40/20 (and that's just our students' best guess about curves in the sciences as no data is ever given outright), doesn't mean we are giving As to those scoring in the 70s.

 

[nOchemallday]

I do not understand the main point you are trying to make with all those other distracting examples and contentions mixed in there.

Is your point that we shouldn't have our grades "inflated" even though we are graded based against very very high caliber student?

You are also making the assumption that we don't work as hard in college as we did in high school and this are being rewarded for our academic prowess in high school only. This is absurd. It still scares me how much my peers study and the efficiency and efficacy at which they do it. We are not a bunch of slackers lazing around waiting to reap the benefits of things we did 3 years ago.

P.S. I also had a 92 average in a cell bio class. Ended up with a B+. Just because the scale is 40/40/20 (and that's just our students' best guess about curves in the sciences as no data is ever given outright), doesn't mean we are giving As to those scoring in the 70s.

Short and simple: yes.

Ill refine my previous argument:

The caliber of the student and prestige of the school is reflected by the name of the HYP. Your grades/GPA are (or should be) reflective of your mastery of the course material. It is understandable that you have a "very very high caliber" of student at HYP who are expected to have good grades and ultimately master all of the content (resulting in more As and Bs than at other institution). However this calls into question the difference or rather the "difficulty" of HYP versus any other institution:

Using intro bio as an example - compare intro bio at HYP to another institution. Either HYP is the exact same difficulty as another institution (in which case I would fully expect most HYP students to get >80 = B range) which justifies "inflated" grades when compared to a "lower" school. Or, HYP is more difficult than another institution which should differentiate high caliber students.

If the former is true, you imply that a 4.0 from HYP is exactly the same as a 4.0 from any other institution. Otherwise, if the latter is true, the highest caliber students will receive an A at a prestigious HYP school while the lower (but still high) caliber students will receive a GPA reflective of less mastery than the highest caliber student. And this is okay because the prestige of the school suggests that these classes are harder - there is more content to master - and it becomes a discussion of comparing highly prestigious apples to regular oranges.

My point is you can't have it both ways. You can't justify saying that HYP classes are more difficult and that more students should be curved into As and Bs because they are better than students at less prestigious schools (this is the case in classes where the curve improves grades). Either the students are smarter, or the classes are more difficult.

I know that the students are smarter, so I'll question the classes. If the classes are more difficult, why force a distribution that is skewed toward higher grades? The whole point of the skew is that you expect more smart, high caliber students to do well in equivalent classes when compared to another institution, so you can be more lenient to give higher grades than just a regular bell curve. But if these classes are harder, then why wouldn't you go back to assuming a normal distribution. If there isn't already a normal distribution then the classes aren't that much more difficult, otherwise the class would effectively weed out different levels of "high caliber" into a normal distribution.


Based on your 92 curved down to a B+, I assume the following: Given a 40/40/20 split a B+ implies that 40% of your classmates did better than a 92. This provides evidence that you would expect - high caliber students doing what you expect them to do, get good grades. But if over 40% of your class got A's, it would look like it was not a difficult class. a.k.a. equivalent in difficulty to the same course at every other institution.

So I question the difficulty. If the classes are the same, why is a 4.0 from HYP any better than a 4.0 from another university. If they are harder, why do you get preferential distribution to higher grades.

 

[inycepoo]

The caliber of the student and prestige of the school is reflected by the name of the HYP. Your grades/GPA are (or should be) reflective of your mastery of the course material. It is understandable that you have a "very very high caliber" of student at HYP who are expected to have good grades and ultimately master all of the content (resulting in more As and Bs than at other institution). However this calls into question the difference or rather the "difficulty" of HYP versus any other institution:

Using intro bio as an example - compare intro bio at HYP to another institution. Either HYP is the exact same difficulty as another institution (in which case I would fully expect most HYP students to get >80 = B range) which justifies "inflated" grades when compared to a "lower" school. Or, HYP is more difficult than another institution which should differentiate high caliber students.

If the former is true, you imply that a 4.0 from HYP is exactly the same as a 4.0 from any other institution. Otherwise, if the latter is true, the highest caliber students will receive an A at a prestigious HYP school while the lower (but still high) caliber students will receive a GPA reflective of less mastery than the highest caliber student. And this is okay because the prestige of the school suggests that these classes are harder - there is more content to master - and it becomes a discussion of comparing highly prestigious apples to regular oranges.

My point is you can't have it both ways. You can't justify saying that HYP classes are more difficult and that more students should be curved into As and Bs because they are better than students at less prestigious schools (this is the case in classes where the curve improves grades). Either the students are smarter, or the classes are more difficult.

I know that the students are smarter, so I'll question the classes. If the classes are more difficult, why force a distribution that is skewed toward higher grades? The whole point of the skew is that you expect more smart, high caliber students to do well in equivalent classes when compared to another institution, so you can be more lenient to give higher grades than just a regular bell curve. But if these classes are harder, then why wouldn't you go back to assuming a normal distribution. If there isn't already a normal distribution then the classes aren't that much more difficult, otherwise the class would effectively weed out different levels of "high caliber" into a normal distribution.

Based on your 92 curved down to a B+, I assume the following: Given a 40/40/20 split a B+ implies that 40% of your classmates did better than a 92. This provides evidence that you would expect - high caliber students doing what you expect them to do, get good grades. But if over 40% of your class got A's, it would look like it was not a difficult class. a.k.a. equivalent in difficulty to the same course at every other institution.

So I question the difficulty. If the classes are the same, why is a 4.0 from HYP any better than a 4.0 from another university. If they are harder, why do you get preferential distribution to higher grades.

Follow the bolded parts respectively:

1. Ever consider the possibility that these smart students can basically master most of the material thrown at them and thus make As? (Because this is what I observe.)
2. You're underestimating. Intro bio here has an average grade of 90 and is still rated as requiring "much greater" work over the typical Yale course from online student evals (we have a very robust internal evals system). Students (mostly freshmen) are required to read a scientific paper every week and write a critical response that is graded as 25% of the grade. I doubt most other schools hold such high expectations of their freshmen in intro bio.
3. This is indeed the case. My 3.7 sGPA is viewed very differently in our school than the gunner with the 3.9 sGPA. Getting straight As is still extremely difficult, and few ever do it.
4. Why force a normal distribution?
5. Colleges do not design their courses and grading policies to in comparison to other schools. Get real.
6. What is wrong with rewarding the students that are taking a rough beating due to rigorous requirements (see #2) and still succeeding? Professors with your line of thinking are exactly the reason why there are still classes where a 92 is curved to a B+. If the class average is a 95, people should get As because they have made the grade to deserve them. There is no reason to artificially impose a normal distribution upon those students.
7. "As" as I meant it originally include both As and A-s. Again, the designing of courses at HYP (and every other college) does not factor in what it "looks like" to the general public. We don't care what you think; the University and its professors are committed to challenging its students and rewarding them when they rise up to the challenge.
8. This is the biggest problem in your "logic." It is not that we get a preferential distribution. I realize that you may have gotten that impression from the way I described the 40/40/20 business, but that really is just our students' best educated guess at how most, not all, professors curve the difficult science courses. We have no data to really back this up, other than the fact that the average grade awarded in the sciences is a B+. Again, this is because people tend to perform really really really well (averages in mid-80s and 90s consistently), and thus professors don't see a reason to artificially curve everyone's grades to a normal distribution for the purposes of appeasing what others think our grades "look like." Professors are here to teach and educate, not conform to external expectations.

 

[mehc012]

Follow the bolded parts respectively:

1. Ever consider the possibility that these smart students can basically master most of the material thrown at them and thus make As? (Because this is what I observe.)
2. You're underestimating. Intro bio here has an average grade of 90 and is still rated as requiring "much greater" work over the typical Yale course from online student evals (we have a very robust internal evals system). Students (mostly freshmen) are required to read a scientific paper every week and write a critical response that is graded as 25% of the grade. I doubt most other schools hold such high expectations of their freshmen in intro bio.
3. This is indeed the case. My 3.7 sGPA is viewed very differently in our school than the gunner with the 3.9 sGPA. Getting straight As is still extremely difficult, and few ever do it.
4. Why force a normal distribution?
5. Colleges do not design their courses and grading policies to in comparison to other schools. Get real.
6. What is wrong with rewarding the students that are taking a rough beating due to rigorous requirements (see #2) and still succeeding? Professors with your line of thinking are exactly the reason why there are still classes where a 92 is curved to a B+. If the class average is a 95, people should get As because they have made the grade to deserve them. There is no reason to artificially impose a normal distribution upon those students.
7. "As" as I meant it originally include both As and A-s. Again, the designing of courses at HYP (and every other college) does not factor in what it "looks like" to the general public. We don't care what you think; the University and its professors are committed to challenging its students and rewarding them when they rise up to the challenge.
8. This is the biggest problem in your "logic." It is not that we get a preferential distribution. I realize that you may have gotten that impression from the way I described the 40/40/20 business, but that really is just our students' best educated guess at how most, not all, professors curve the difficult science courses. We have no data to really back this up, other than the fact that the average grade awarded in the sciences is a B+. Again, this is because people tend to perform really really really well (averages in mid-80s and 90s consistently), and thus professors don't see a reason to artificially curve everyone's grades to a normal distribution for the purposes of appeasing what others think our grades "look like." Professors are here to teach and educate, not conform to external expectations.

This post is so frustrating, because it simultaneously makes some solid points and completely fails to address the main thrust of nOchemallday's argument (which was not even particularly vague).

It's 330 am and I have work at 9, so I'll simply comment on this one point: it's not particularly strange or difficult for freshmen to be expected to read scientific papers and comment on them. It's not universal, and it's a really good policy, but it's not notably unique either. I'm not saying the classes aren't harder; I have no evidence for that either way (though I am interested in watching the whole "if they're not graded against a curve then the overall high caliber of the student body is irrelevant to difficulty" argument unfold). I just don't think that's a great example.

 

[QuiteAConundrum]

This post is so frustrating, because it simultaneously makes some solid points and completely fails to address the main thrust of nOchemallday's argument (which was not even particularly vague).

It's 330 am and I have work at 9, so I'll simply comment on this one point: it's not particularly strange or difficult for freshmen to be expected to read scientific papers and comment on them. It's not universal, and it's a really good policy, but it's not notably unique either. I'm not saying the classes aren't harder; I have no evidence for that either way (though I am interested in watching the whole "if they're not graded against a curve then the overall high caliber of the student body is irrelevant to difficulty" argument unfold). I just don't think that's a great example.

I'll second this point, not to attack incyepoo, but to provide support. I go to a very small, lowly ranked LAC and this is required of us in intro bio (5 over the semester). It helps contribute to the large number of students who drop the course. We're a small school with a tiny science program but many faculty also teach at top institutions in the area and treat us the same way as their other students. Combine that with a harsh grading scale (94+ is an A, 85 is a C, etc.) and I wouldn't say that we have an "easier" course, despite not being prestigious.

 

[inycepoo]

Valid point taken.

And I did address his point. Professors here aren't interested in constantly comparing us to our peers finding out who's first, second, third. That is why we don't force people into a curve to prove the difficulty of our courses even with a high caliber student body. That contributes to a competitive environment (that I'd hazard a guess OP comes from given his high distaste for our system) that will only become more cutthroat with a bunch of silent gunners and smart kids running around. The point is that we learn, and learn well and hard at that. Grading is not the primary concern at the University, and nor should it be. If you don't agree with this, that's a pity, but you are entitled. The University apparently sees no need to conform to society's expectations of what grades should mean, be calculated, and the like. They teach us very well, and that's all I'll ever care about.

However, this conversation is going to spiral downhill very soon. It will inevitably devolve into clamoring over whether classes at top tiers are harder than their counterparts at other colleges (since OP agrees that our students are higher caliber). Being that no one here has experience on both sides and can actually compare apples to apples, this is a moot point. It would be unfair and pointless for both sides to have someone else who has never been in their shoes making claims on the others' experiences.

Furthermore, even if it were established that courses are either harder/the same/easier, it doesn't matter what nOchemallday and I think how grading should be done. It is how it is and we take what we get.

Call us inflated, call us easy, your call. You gave your perspective, and I mine.

 

[Platonic]

I imagine it's harder to get top 40% in a class full of elite students than it is to get top 20% in a lesser school. The top 20% at a 'regular' school couldn't even get accepted to the elite schools.

 

[QuiteAConundrum]

I imagine it's harder to get top 40% in a class full of elite students than it is to get top 20% in a lesser school. The top 20% at a 'regular' school couldn't even get accepted to the elite schools.

Err....really not trying to get into a debate but there are many factors as to why people choose the schools that they do....for instance, I couldn't financially afford to go to an elite school, and had to rely on where I got athletic scholarships to cover costs.

Anyways, we're all going to be colleagues someday. If someone wants to be a doctor badly enough and has what it takes, regardless of UG, they will find a way.

 

[inycepoo]

Err....really not trying to get into a debate but there are many factors as to why people choose the schools that they do....for instance, I couldn't financially afford to go to an elite school, and had to rely on where I got athletic scholarships to cover costs.

Anyways, we're all going to be colleagues someday. If someone wants to be a doctor badly enough and has what it takes, regardless of UG, they will find a way.

Missing the bigger point of Platonic's post but still valid though irrelevant.

 

[inycepoo]

I imagine it's harder to get top 40% in a class full of elite students than it is to get top 20% in a lesser school. The top 20% at a 'regular' school couldn't even get accepted to the elite schools.

Watch out bro you don't wanna be called elitist or arrogant, now...

 

[Platonic]

Watch out bro you don't wanna be called elitist or arrogant, now...

That wasn't my intent at all. I actually go to a 'regular' school myself (national rankings around 30), and I transferred to this school from an even more "regular' school (average state school). The jump in the caliber of students was huge. I'd go so far as to say that anyone capable of a 3.3 at my current school would coast to a 3.8-3.9 at my first school.

 

[inycepoo]

That wasn't my intent at all. I actually go to a 'regular' school myself (national rankings around 30), and I transferred to this school from an even more "regular' school (average state school). The jump in the caliber of students was huge. I'd go so far as to say that anyone capable of a 3.3 at my current school would coast to a 3.8-3.9 at my first school.

It was just a sarcastic jab at how many people read and interpret things on these forums.

 

[Synapsis]

I imagine it's harder to get top 40% in a class full of elite students than it is to get top 20% in a lesser school. The top 20% at a 'regular' school couldn't even get accepted to the elite schools.

This post makes the fallacy of assuming top students entering a school will score the best in any given class. The top 20% of grades in a class, regardless of group caliber, don't have to be attributed to those who came in "at the top". This is so blurry that it's even hard to argue that it's more likely. I've seen multiple people at my school who came in with 3.9-4.0 high school GPAs and 35 ACTs that happen to fail or very closely fail intro gen chem.

Get's even more blurry at higher tier schools since most people are elite students. It's essentially who works harder in many cases.

 

[mehc012]

Valid point taken.

And I did address his point. Professors here aren't interested in constantly comparing us to our peers finding out who's first, second, third. That is why we don't force people into a curve to prove the difficulty of our courses even with a high caliber student body. That contributes to a competitive environment (that I'd hazard a guess OP comes from given his high distaste for our system) that will only become more cutthroat with a bunch of silent gunners and smart kids running around. The point is that we learn, and learn well and hard at that. Grading is not the primary concern at the University, and nor should it be. If you don't agree with this, that's a pity, but you are entitled. The University apparently sees no need to conform to society's expectations of what grades should mean, be calculated, and the like. They teach us very well, and that's all I'll ever care about.

However, this conversation is going to spiral downhill very soon. It will inevitably devolve into clamoring over whether classes at top tiers are harder than their counterparts at other colleges (since OP agrees that our students are higher caliber). Being that no one here has experience on both sides and can actually compare apples to apples, this is a moot point. It would be unfair and pointless for both sides to have someone else who has never been in their shoes making claims on the others' experiences.

Furthermore, even if it were established that courses are either harder/the same/easier, it doesn't matter what nOchemallday and I think how grading should be done. It is how it is and we take what we get.

Call us inflated, call us easy, your call. You gave your perspective, and I mine.

I was just highlighting that if the profs don't curve the students against each other, than the average caliber of the student is irrelevant to the difficulty of the class.

I tried very hard to avoid commenting on the actual difficulty of the class or the presence/lack thereof of grade inflation. I simply don't have enough information to assess those particular points.

 

[nOchemallday]

I should have included this note long ago, but I do not mean to intentionally attack any individual. Simply hoping to have a respectable discussion.

I was just highlighting that if the profs don't curve the students against each other, than the average caliber of the student is irrelevant to the difficulty of the class.

I tried very hard to avoid commenting on the actual difficulty of the class or the presence/lack thereof of grade inflation. I simply don't have enough information to assess those particular points.

However, this conversation is going to spiral downhill very soon. It will inevitably devolve into clamoring over whether classes at top tiers are harder than their counterparts at other colleges (since OP agrees that our students are higher caliber). Being that no one here has experience on both sides and can actually compare apples to apples, this is a moot point. It would be unfair and pointless for both sides to have someone else who has never been in their shoes making claims on the others' experiences.

Understandably, I can't attest to the difficulty of the classes at one institution compared to another. However I was thinking more on how might the curve be justified and Platonic and I simultaneous came to this conclusion:

I imagine it's harder to get top 40% in a class full of elite students than it is to get top 20% in a lesser school.

The “difficulty” of the class may/may not be in the content, but perhaps more pertinent in the standard against other classmates. i.e. harder to score in the top 40% at HYP versus top 20% elsewhere which makes a 4.0 at HYP “harder/more difficult” than a 4.0 elsewhere. In my mind, that makes a lot of sense and would entirely justify a curve up, even if such a theory can’t be proven.


A point I had not considered, but I think can be reconciled with the above theory, assuming profs do curve students against one another:

I was just highlighting that if the profs don't curve the students against each other, than the average caliber of the student is irrelevant to the difficulty of the class.

The University apparently sees no need to conform to society's expectations of what grades should mean, be calculated, and the like. They teach us very well, and that's all I'll ever care about.
...
It is how it is and we take what we get.

Agreed.

 

[inycepoo]

You're not completely wrong. It's not like we're not being curved against our smarter peers. We are, but it's just that that curve isn't as forcefully normally distributed as most are because professors don't see a reason to do that to us.

I believe that they up the difficulty (whether through harder material or more complicated ways to prove mastery) and then adjust the curve to be more lenient. These two effects probably cancel each other out a bit, but not as much as you'd think. Evidence is that only a handful of STEM majors ever graduate with a 4.0, few ever get 4.0 semesters, and PBK (top 10% of class at my school) is extremely extremely extremely prestigious if you're STEM (>3.88 cGPA required).

It's "inflated" in the sense that yes, a good number of classes are curved to a B+ average, but there are still uncurved classes (because the scores are too high) and harsh curving down classes. Like at any other college, the variation evens itself out so that a 3.7er (me) is indeed a couple rungs beneath the ladder of the 3.9er. 3.5s/3.6s are not unheard of (just check out med admissions stats for each Ivy undergrad), but they're not people who deserve 3.0s and were curved heavily upwards instead.

 

[mehc012]

You're not completely wrong. It's not like we're not being curved against our smarter peers. We are, but it's just that that curve isn't as forcefully normally distributed as most are because professors don't see a reason to do that to us.

I believe that they up the difficulty (whether through harder material or more complicated ways to prove mastery) and then adjust the curve to be more lenient. These two effects probably cancel each other out a bit, but not as much as you'd think. Evidence is that only a handful of STEM majors ever graduate with a 4.0, few ever get 4.0 semesters, and PBK (top 10% of class at my school) is extremely extremely extremely prestigious if you're STEM (>3.88 cGPA required).

It's "inflated" in the sense that yes, a good number of classes are curved to a B+ average, but there are still uncurved classes (because the scores are too high) and harsh curving down classes. Like at any other college, the variation evens itself out so that a 3.7er (me) is indeed a couple rungs beneath the ladder of the 3.9er. 3.5s/3.6s are not unheard of (just check out med admissions stats for each Ivy undergrad), but they're not people who deserve 3.0s and were curved heavily upwards instead.

Yup, we're on agreement from that point on outwards. As someone who attended a top -insert your favorite number- school myself I was certainly not trying to argue that the grades should be discounted or anything (that would just lower my already-abysmal chances of actually getting into med school, lol). I was just throwing mental 'Caution' signs at the outward inconsistencies! I think it's all been clarified rather nicely now, at least on the points I was taking issue with. Wait, hold on...did we just? I think we...we may have just...had a productive discussion? On SDN?

 

[inycepoo]

Lol those actually occur quite often. Just gotta weave through all the bull****, though. Which I am 100% responsible for creating sometimes HAHAHA

 

[inycepoo]

In any case...

onedirection big boy, what'd you score? A 43? So silent on score release day?

 

[gettheleadout]

In any case...

onedirection big boy, what'd you score? A 43? So silent on score release day?

Wanna see me rage quit SDN?

 

[bear2roo]

In any case...

onedirection big boy, what'd you score? A 43? So silent on score release day?

 

[inycepoo]

Wanna see me rage quit SDN?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA okay fine a 41 then so you can save face.

 

[Aerus]

You're not completely wrong. It's not like we're not being curved against our smarter peers. We are, but it's just that that curve isn't as forcefully normally distributed as most are because professors don't see a reason to do that to us.

I believe that they up the difficulty (whether through harder material or more complicated ways to prove mastery) and then adjust the curve to be more lenient. These two effects probably cancel each other out a bit, but not as much as you'd think. Evidence is that only a handful of STEM majors ever graduate with a 4.0, few ever get 4.0 semesters, and PBK (top 10% of class at my school) is extremely extremely extremely prestigious if you're STEM (>3.88 cGPA required).

It's "inflated" in the sense that yes, a good number of classes are curved to a B+ average, but there are still uncurved classes (because the scores are too high) and harsh curving down classes. Like at any other college, the variation evens itself out so that a 3.7er (me) is indeed a couple rungs beneath the ladder of the 3.9er. 3.5s/3.6s are not unheard of (just check out med admissions stats for each Ivy undergrad), but they're not people who deserve 3.0s and were curved heavily upwards instead.

I understand this logic, but this means that getting a 3.7+ at a "grade inflated" ivy is about equal in difficulty to getting a 3.7+ at a more "grade deflated" lower ranking school (top 50 maybe?).

Your peers are a lot smarter and harder working but a significantly greater amount of A's are handed out. You must literally be at the bottom of this exceptional pool to get a C. Your Ivy is by no means easier but does that mean it's harder? Is a 3.5 GPA at Yale really that much harder to get than a 3.5 at a high ranked UC or UMich or some other lower ranked but still decently ranked school? I won't even go on to talk about schools that are equally ranked as Yale but practice grade-deflation. :O

I found this thread really amusing. Just finished reading, lol.

 

[inycepoo]

I understand this logic, but this means that getting a 3.7+ at a "grade inflated" ivy is about equal in difficulty to getting a 3.7+ at a more "grade deflated" lower ranking school (top 50 maybe?).

Your peers are a lot smarter and harder working but a significantly greater amount of A's are handed out. You must literally be at the bottom of this exceptional pool to get a C. Your Ivy is by no means easier but does that mean it's harder? Is a 3.5 GPA at Yale really that much harder to get than a 3.5 at a high ranked UC or UMich or some other lower ranked but still decently ranked school? I won't even go on to talk about schools that are equally ranked as Yale but practice grade-deflation. :O

Loaded question. The usual data people use this point is average GPA (as the notorious gradeinflation.com does), but that doesn't speak to the caliber of the students. Add in the fact that the caliber of students differs a lot even within a single university, and it gets really complicated really quickly.

No one can really answer that question unless they spent an equal amount of time with the same background at both institutions, which is impossible unless a Time-Turner (running on crack to allow for time to travel across campuses) is involved.

I will say that all the transfer students (n=5?) I know coming from those similarly ranked colleges have all seen a GPA drop of ~.2 over the year they've been here. That's a rough estimation at best, but they've all definitely said that grades are harder to come by here in the sciences than they were elsewhere due to the increased difficulty. I know one RPI, one Berkeley, one Rochester, and the other ones I'm blocking out on right now.

Open and unabashed schools that practice grade inflation (i.e., the ones who have released statements saying so), are a completely different story. No one has much idea what a 3.5 from Princeton could be at another Ivy besides Tigers themselves, but even then, they can only guess the grading policies at the other school.

I think we have all reached the conclusion that this **** is really difficult to compare longitudinally.

 

[Aerus]

Loaded question. The usual data people use this point is average GPA (as the notorious gradeinflation.com does), but that doesn't speak to the caliber of the students. Add in the fact that the caliber of students differs a lot even within a single university, and it gets really complicated really quickly.

No one can really answer that question unless they spent an equal amount of time with the same background at both institutions, which is impossible unless a Time-Turner (running on crack to allow for time to travel across campuses) is involved.

I will say that all the transfer students (n=5?) I know coming from those similarly ranked colleges have all seen a GPA drop of ~.2 over the year they've been here. That's a rough estimation at best, but they've all definitely said that grades are harder to come by here in the sciences than they were elsewhere due to the increased difficulty. I know one RPI, one Berkeley, one Rochester, and the other ones I'm blocking out on right now.

Open and unabashed schools that practice grade inflation (i.e., the ones who have released statements saying so), are a completely different story. No one has much idea what a 3.5 from Princeton could be at another Ivy besides Tigers themselves, but even then, they can only guess the grading policies at the other school.

I think we have all reached the conclusion that this **** is really difficult to compare longitudinally.

Thanks for the insight.

The 0.2 GPA drop is interesting. It's difficult to ascertain whether this is actually due to the difference in rigor of the environment or the actual level of the classes. Normally, transfers come in during their junior year, correct? By that time, one would already be delving into upper division courses, which go far more into depth than regular general weeder courses.

I went to a high ranked high school with its own "stats/extracurricular/personal statement admissions game" (don't ask lol), so I definitely understand the impact a gifted student body can have on the difficulty of the class. Many people fail to comprehend how absurd it is when the dumbest person in your class still works like crazy to master the material and, if you fall behind (no matter how bright you are), you will be at the bottom of the class. There is little to no "buffer zone" for the bottom.

I'll admit I have previously considered transferring from my current school to Yale just to get a feel for the different environment (I regret not applying to any ivies as a high school senior). But to reject the amount of connections made in 2 years for the brand name institution that only marginally affects medical school admissions doesn't seem like a wise choice, in my circumstance.

This age old mystery lives on, I suppose.

 

[inycepoo]

Thanks for the insight.

The 0.2 GPA drop is interesting. It's difficult to ascertain whether this is actually due to the difference in rigor of the environment or the actual level of the classes. Normally, transfers come in during their junior year, correct? By that time, one would already be delving into upper division courses, which go far more into depth than regular general weeder courses.

I went to a high ranked high school with its own "stats/extracurricular/personal statement admissions game" (don't ask lol), so I definitely understand the impact a gifted student body can have on the difficulty of the class. Many people fail to comprehend how absurd it is when the dumbest person in your class still works like crazy to master the material and, if you fall behind (no matter how bright you are), you will be at the bottom of the class. There is little to no "buffer zone" for the bottom.

I'll admit I have previously considered transferring from my current school to Yale just to get a feel for the different environment (I regret not applying to any ivies as a high school senior). But to reject the amount of connections made in 2 years for the brand name institution that only marginally affects medical school admissions doesn't seem like a wise choice, in my circumstance.

This age old mystery lives on, I suppose.

Well, all the transfer students I know came starting sophomore year. My college doesn't like taking juniors, apparently. But idk about the courseload they were taking. I think both rigor and environment play a role, but they also cancel each other out; just not enough to say one overwhelms the other.

Bolded is the story of my life. If you aren't working, then the other 95% of the class is, and you will fall all the way down there when exam/assessment time comes around. I only slacked a little bit in cell bio, and look where that ended up lol.

Speaking of which I now need to go work. Peace

 

[QuiteAConundrum]

Every time this thread is bumped I get false hope that onedirection has posted haha

 

[inycepoo]

Every time this thread is bumped I get false hope that onedirection has posted haha

bump trolololololololol.

He either won't be back anymore (best case scenario), or it'll take one to two weeks to let his disappointing score sink in and his huge ego come back for him to come onto here and report a 40+. Or he'll make up an excuse like, "OH I didn't have Internet access/was too busy so sorry!!! Here's my ultra duper cool score ha bitches I go to Harvard but can't answer a single question about its residential college system because I'm hopeless and full of ****."

 

[bear2roo]

every time this thread is bumped i get false hope that onedirection has posted haha

+1

 

[texan2414]

I want to know what this boy made on the MCAT--

 

[MedOldAge]

Every time this thread is bumped I get false hope that onedirection has posted haha

I want to know what this boy made on the MCAT--

If I have to guess, I would say it is in the range of:

<28 ---- 35>

 

[inycepoo]

Big boy where you at huh

(lol false hope bump for everyone else curious at dis big boy right hurr)

 

[gettheleadout]

Big boy where you at huh

(lol false hope bump for everyone else curious at dis big boy right hurr)

You can say that again...

 

[inycepoo]

You can say that again...

TEEHEEHEEHEE

 

[fizzlin]

I just came back to MCAT Discussions to see if one direction ever posted his score.....

 

[inycepoo]

I just came back to MCAT Discussions to see if one direction ever posted his score.....

He won't. Nothing to brag about with a sub-30 score.

 

[Etyan]

He won't. Nothing to brag about with a sub-30 score.

why so srs?

 

[inycepoo]

why so srs?

Because OP was such a troll and lied through his teeth so much that I wouldn't be surprised if he got 9/9/9.

For most, a 30 is not a score to be ashamed of, but with this boy's arrogance and idiocy (i.e., check out the thread title), it's shameful and funny as hell.

 

[Etyan]

Because OP was such a troll and lied through his teeth so much that I wouldn't be surprised if he got 9/9/9.

For most, a 30 is not a score to be ashamed of, but with this boy's arrogance and idiocy (i.e., check out the thread title), it's shameful and funny as hell.

The poor guy (girl?) just seemed so desperate for support!

Lying certainly isn't to be condoned, but I wish OP well. Would've loved to see a true quest for the Great 45 that we could all root for.

 

[inycepoo]

The poor guy (girl?) just seemed so desperate for support!

Lying certainly isn't to be condoned, but I wish OP well. Would've loved to see a true quest for the Great 45 that we could all root for.

Tough tits, but these forums aren't for people to use it as a diary (AYFKM) to get a support group going. You give some and get some in return. It was the wrong approach and very annoying.

 

[Etyan]

Tough tits, but these forums aren't for people to use it as a diary (AYFKM) to get a support group going. You give some and get some in return. It was the wrong approach and very annoying.

Using these forums to illustrate personal experiences and learn from comparative advice feels like one of its greatest benefits. That is a form of community support.

At the very least, this thread may have dispelled some notions of seemingly "novel" but truly heinous study strategies

 

[inycepoo]

Using these forums to illustrate personal experiences and learn from comparative advice feels like one of its greatest benefits. That is a form of community support.

At the very least, this thread may have dispelled some notions of seemingly "novel" but truly heinous study strategies

Yeah sure, but that wasn't the intended effect. All he wanted to do was troll and brag ("I'M GIVING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY BUT NO ONE ASKED FOR IT"). Anything good that came out of this was completely unintentional and people can only learn from this because they're competent and functional.

Doesn't mean this sort of behavior should be condoned or supported.

 

[mehc012]

Yeah sure, but that wasn't the intended effect. All he wanted to do was troll and brag ("I'M GIVING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY BUT NO ONE ASKED FOR IT"). Anything good that came out of this was completely unintentional and people can only learn from this because they're competent and functional.

Doesn't mean this sort of behavior should be condoned or supported.

I still can't believe you get so worked up over this.

The kid wanted some public accountability because they clearly were not able to hold themselves accountable. Turns out that the internet can't really hold them accountable either because it's anonymous and easy to lie. The only one invested in this was OP, so it doesn't really matter that this little experiment was a failure. And if we're going to talk about useless threads, I'd say a full 40% of SDN qualifies (if you count dupes as useless, which I tend to).
The thread title is...well, the thread is, as you noted, a study diary, which is definitely annoying. But the 45 part is clearly a 'not going to be satisified as long as there is room to improve' type thing, which is probably the one admirable take-away message here, so I'm not sure why people got up in arms about that.
I dunno, it just seems like kind of a wash in the end.

 

[benjaminl1nus]

Doesn't mean this sort of behavior should be condoned or supported.

Should be "Doesn't mean this sort of behavior should be condoned or criticized.

I know I shouldn't judge, but the SDN community really failed here. Just browse the inappropriately angry/mean/distasteful comments here. OP never asked for that. Like our moms would say, if you got nothing nice to say, don't say it.

This is a great site for MCAT help/advice, but I'm really disappointed in this thread. I was glad to see the OP try. Can't we all be? Let him do what makes him happy.

 

[inycepoo]

I still can't believe you get so worked up over this.

The kid wanted some public accountability because they clearly were not able to hold themselves accountable. Turns out that the internet can't really hold them accountable either because it's anonymous and easy to lie. The only one invested in this was OP, so it doesn't really matter that this little experiment was a failure. And if we're going to talk about useless threads, I'd say a full 40% of SDN qualifies (if you count dupes as useless, which I tend to).
The thread title is...well, the thread is, as you noted, a study diary, which is definitely annoying. But the 45 part is clearly a 'not going to be satisified as long as there is room to improve' type thing, which is probably the one admirable take-away message here, so I'm not sure why people got up in arms about that.
I dunno, it just seems like kind of a wash in the end.

I still can't believe you find the energy to muster to respond in disbelief that we care SO MUCH about this when you "don't care at all."

 

[inycepoo]

Should be "Doesn't mean this sort of behavior should be condoned or criticized.

I know I shouldn't judge, but the SDN community really failed here. Just browse the inappropriately angry/mean/distasteful comments here. OP never asked for that. Like our moms would say, if you got nothing nice to say, don't say it.

This is a great site for MCAT help/advice, but I'm really disappointed in this thread. I was glad to see the OP try. Can't we all be? Let him do what makes him happy.

Oh boo hoo teedy woo an online community filled with disheartened, stressed, worried, and pressured premeds failed!!! WAHHHHH

So what. The community works almost 100% of the time when it's used properly. (FTR, posting a "diary" of your studying habits when no one asked for it is not an appropriate use.) It is a wonder that the word "community" can even qualified to be used for these forums (i.e., it is surprising enough that such a helpful site exists).

Don't browse the sections that disappoint you. Realize that the Internet (and the world, but hey let's not get philosophical now) is not perfect. Benefit from the sites that benefit you and thank us that you have such a resource. Move on.

P.S. Criticism is an absolutely necessary part of a "forum," because by definition, things posted on such a site are the opinions of their posters. Without criticism, the bumbling bozos (like I believe OP to be) would mislead masses of lurkers in the wrong direction and the latter would not even realize it. One cannot have meaningful discussion on forums without good input, bad input, and critique to separate out the two.

EDIT: wow, this is also the kid who said the following in response to onedirection's rant about ditching prep books completely and reading textbooks instead to study for the MCAT:

Why is everyone ripping on the OP? His advice is solid.

lol guess he doesn't exactly know how to utilize the useful parts of the site yet

Bro, let us know how the textbook studying method works for your MCAT studying (if you haven't taken it yet, that is).

 

[smiley27]

Someone needs to stop worrying so much about what others are doing and stop bumping this dead thread.

OP: Hope you did well.

 

[mehc012]

I still can't believe you find the energy to muster to respond in disbelief that we care SO MUCH about this when you "don't care at all."

I like how you put that last bit in quotes when I never actually said that.
However, here it is so you can quote it from now on if needed: I could give a **** less whether OP made a useless thread. I loathe troll hunters/those who feel the need to act as if they are some sort of authority about how internet forums should be used. For some reason it just irritates the crap out of me.

 

[smiley27]

I like how you put that last bit in quotes when I never actually said that.
However, here it is so you can quote it from now on if needed: I could give a **** less whether OP made a useless thread. I loathe troll hunters/those who feel the need to act as if they are some sort of authority about how internet forums should be used. For some reason it just irritates the crap out of me.

:troll:

 

[inycepoo]

I like how you put that last bit in quotes when I never actually said that.
However, here it is so you can quote it from now on if needed: I could give a **** less whether OP made a useless thread. I loathe troll hunters/those who feel the need to act as if they are some sort of authority about how internet forums should be used. For some reason it just irritates the crap out of me.

Says the one who once criticized all of us for posting so much ITT and caring so much about what goes on in the forums. You obviously also care about these troll hunters enough to consistently point us out and shame us. So stop being a ****ing hypocrite.

Do you get it now? (Or do you need one of us to go back and quote up the times when you cry out in disbelief why we care so much about what goes on on the Internet? Spoiler: ain't nobody got that kind of time.)