MD/PhD low gpa

[Doctor246853]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi, just curious to know if a decent track record in research (3-4 yrs,posters,ect) can "makeup" for a very low gpa( 3.0-3.2ish)? Everything else being good (38mcat, yrs of clinical, ect.) of course. Thanks!

 

[Nuel]

A friend of mine had a 35 MCAT, 3.4ish GPA, two years research, and is at a top 10. He is URM. Either way, I think it's doable.

Hi, just curious to know if a decent track record in research (3-4 yrs,posters,ect) can "makeup" for a very low gpa( 3.0-3.2ish)? Everything else being good (38mcat, yrs of clinical, ect.) of course. Thanks!

 

[Textbookversion]

A friend of mine had a 35 MCAT, 3.4ish GPA, two years research, and is at a top 10. He is URM. Either way, I think it's doable.

Picked out the important part.

 

[K31]

Picked out the important part.

Pretty much. Good MCAT and research + URM can go a long way to make up for a lowish GPA (and this isn't just me--I've had this exact discussion with the director of my program). Interestingly, it won't compensate as much for the opposite (good GPA and low MCAT).

 

[kryptonian]

Interestingly, it won't compensate as much for the opposite (good GPA and low MCAT).

Do you know if this applies to non-URM as well ? Why is a low GPA more tolerated than a low MCAT when GPA is easier to be fixed over the course of 4 years whereas MCAT is more like one-setting test and there may be unfortunate factors that uncontrollably affect the MCAT ?

 

[K31]

Probably because the MCAT is seen as the great equalizer, while so many things (school, course load and difficulty) can affect GPA.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Do you know if this applies to non-URM as well ? Why is a low GPA more tolerated than a low MCAT when GPA is easier to be fixed over the course of 4 years whereas MCAT is more like one-setting test and there may be unfortunate factors that uncontrollably affect the MCAT ?

MCAT is a little closer to overall aptitude than GPA. GPAs are not created equal. Getting an A at my local state university (when I was 14) was a heck of lot easier than getting an A when I went to my Ivy college. It's just that at top schools things are graded on a curve, the competition is fiercer, and sometimes professors expect more of the students.

 

[Doctor246853]

A friend of mine had a 35 MCAT, 3.4ish GPA, two years research, and is at a top 10. He is URM. Either way, I think it's doable.

A 3.4ish gpa is still pretty solid. Do you think this would apply for a gpa much closer to 3.0? My clinical is more impressive than my research;do they care about clinical at all? In other words, can a great clinical record make up for a "OK" (when compared to other MD/PhD applicants) research record?

 

[uniqenam]

A 3.4ish gpa is still pretty solid. Do you think this would apply for a gpa much closer to 3.0? My clinical is more impressive than my research;do they care about clinical at all? In other words, can a great clinical record make up for a "OK" (when compared to other MD/PhD applicants) research record?

In my (very limited) experience, a great clinical record won't make up for other deficiencies; I have very limited clinical experience, just some shadowing experience, and that has been sufficient for most every place that I've interviewed at; MD/PhD programs are interested in making sure you can be a successful scientist, the clinical side seems to be more just a box to check.

Have you considered taking a gap year to do research somewhere, or maybe doing something at NIH? I don't really know much about these options, but things definitely exist to bolster your app if you're willing to take some time off. Maybe even some time in a post-bacc to demonstrate that you can do well in graduate coursework. Maybe Fencer (or other Adcoms) can weigh in here on your options.

 

[Nuel]

Pretty much. Good MCAT and research + URM can go a long way to make up for a lowish GPA (and this isn't just me--I've had this exact discussion with the director of my program). Interestingly, it won't compensate as much for the opposite (good GPA and low MCAT).

I agree with the MCAT-GPA relationship. It's better to have a strong MCAT as opposed to a strong GPA if either parameter were to be lacking. However, a caucasian friend of mine got into a top 30 program with a 3.3ish (engineering) and a 34 MCAT. In any case, I agree URMs will get farther with this scenario. At the institution where I finished my PhD, the URMs in the MSTP program were pretty strong candidates.

 

[StilgarMD]

my understanding was always that URM was only capable of making up for a lower than average GPA or MCAT. if neither is deficient, does it still factor in?

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

Do you know if this applies to non-URM as well ? Why is a low GPA more tolerated than a low MCAT when GPA is easier to be fixed over the course of 4 years whereas MCAT is more like one-setting test and there may be unfortunate factors that uncontrollably affect the MCAT ?

Because when people see a combination of high GPA + low MCAT they think "he must have gone to an easy school/taken nothing but easy courses, so his 'real' GPA is actually lower than it appears". When they see a high MCAT and low GPA, it raises the possibility that the person just had an unusually hard undergrad career (or was lazy during undergrad but shaped up in time for the MCAT).

my understanding was always that URM was only capable of making up for a lower than average GPA or MCAT. if neither is deficient, does it still factor in?

Yes. URM is a massive boost to an application. If your whole application is strong, URM pretty much seals the deal.

 

[Doctor246853]

You guys are beautiful, thanks!

 

[K31]

Yes. URM is a massive boost to an application. If your whole application is strong, URM pretty much seals the deal.

Agreed. It isn't going to get someone in if they are unqualified for an MD/PhD program, but for a qualified applicant it makes them all the more desirable--ie they'll likely end up at a better program than a non-URM with the same application.

 

[K31]

My clinical is more impressive than my research;do they care about clinical at all? In other words, can a great clinical record make up for a "OK" (when compared to other MD/PhD applicants) research record?

I'd agree with the others that having "sufficient" clinical experience is just a box to check for most programs--the bar is honestly pretty low, and having significantly more doesn't help much (this is coming from someone who had clinical experience greater than 99% of all med school applicants when applying).

In fact, I could argue that too strong of clinical experience could hurt--programs may worry that you are too clinically-oriented and just in it for a "free MD" (a stupid move in my opinion, but we see some every year) and will never do any research after medical school. That's a worry that's up to you to dispell in the interview.

 

[ilikeargyle]

This has probably been raised before but, but what counts as a URM? African-American, Native American, Hispanic, etc. all count under official definitions, but does something like being female, first-generation college student, also count?

Thanks.

 

[Neuronix]

This has probably been raised before but, but what counts as a URM? African-American, Native American, Hispanic, etc. all count under official definitions, but does something like being female, first-generation college student, also count?

Thanks.

https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/urm/

It is up to the individual schools to decide, presumably for legal reasons (i.e. affirmative action can not officially be practiced). That said, typically being a female, first-generation college student does not count. If you were truly disadvantaged you can try that angle, though again what constitutes disadvantaged and how much that matters to the adcoms depends on the individual schools.