Minute GPA differences

[mstpgrind]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I know this might seem neurotic, and I'm sorry. I just need to confirm what I'm 99% sure of.

There is a negligible difference between a GPA of 3.796 and a 3.801, right?
In other words, there's no magic barrier of 3.8+ GPAs, and GPAs are evaluated on a continuum, not discretely, right?

I'm asking because I can either put in ~50 hours into a .005 GPA bump or chill.
Also, I'm just nervous because table 23 (https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2021-11/2021_FACTS_Table_A-23.pdf) shows a significant difference in acceptance rate between 3.6-3.79 and 3.8+ GPAs. I just want to confirm that GPAs are not evaluated in such discrete buckets, and are instead evaluated continuously.

 

[cander67]

Yeah it’s negligible the reason the difference is significant on that table is because one group is including 4.0 while the other is including 3.6 which are hugely different. 3.79 and 3.80 are exactly the same just chill and live your life what will determine if you get in are other factors at this point your gpa is good enough.

 

[mstpgrind]

Yeah it’s negligible the reason the difference is significant on that table is because one group is including 4.0 while the other is including 3.6 which are hugely different. 3.79 and 3.80 are exactly the same just chill and live your life what will determine if you get in are other factors at this point your gpa is good enough.

right yeah that's what I figured. Thanks!

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Stop obsessing over an arbitrary boundary and the precision of measurement. Remember if you are asked to measure to 2 significant decimal places, that's how you should measure. A ruler is only as accurate as the marks on the stick. (I think we teach everyone this in science labs.)

Alternatively: Data are generally presented to favor the thesis of the research clearly. There is probably more noise if the data were broken down into 0.10 GPA increments (vs. 0.20 increments) and every 2 MCAT points that it would make it more confusing. So be honest when you scale your axes for graphs.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

The only reasons that it could hypothetically matter are

1. Heuristics. Adcoms are human and might perceive a 3.8 as much better than a 3.79. Ie the difference between those two is much higher than the difference between 3.81 and 3.8

2. Filtering. It’s unclear how some schools review apps (order). I imagine a gpa/MCAT filter could make sense

 

[LindaAccepted]

I know this might seem neurotic, and I'm sorry. I just need to confirm what I'm 99% sure of.

There is a negligible difference between a GPA of 3.796 and a 3.801, right?
In other words, there's no magic barrier of 3.8+ GPAs, and GPAs are evaluated on a continuum, not discretely, right?

I'm asking because I can either put in ~50 hours into a .005 GPA bump or chill.
Also, I'm just nervous because table 23 (https://www.aamc.org/system/files/2021-11/2021_FACTS_Table_A-23.pdf) shows a significant difference in acceptance rate between 3.6-3.79 and 3.8+ GPAs. I just want to confirm that GPAs are not evaluated in such discrete buckets, and are instead evaluated continuously.

Chill.

 

[allseasons]

Some schools group certain gpas into categories and assign rank. A 3.81 might give a greater number of points than a 3.79 because it is lumped into a the 3.8-3.9 category while a 3.79 is lumped into a 3.7-3.8 category.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Some schools group certain gpas into categories and assign rank. A 3.81 might give a greater number of points than a 3.79 because it is lumped into a the 3.8-3.9 category while a 3.79 is lumped into a 3.7-3.8 category.

If this happens at all (and I would be surprised as this would be completely asinine since there is a reasonable difference between 3.71 and 3.79), it is at a minority of schools.

Regardless, there is nothing to be done about it. Either way, your GPA is very good. I am not sure that this would be the best way to spend 50 hours.

 

[mstpgrind]

Some schools group certain gpas into categories and assign rank. A 3.81 might give a greater number of points than a 3.79 because it is lumped into a the 3.8-3.9 category while a 3.79 is lumped into a 3.7-3.8 category.

This is exactly my concern (though I imagine it's not the case at the majority of places). Do you have a source for this or just word of mouth?

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I believe It’s quite common for residencies to have step screens (ie you will be filtered if you have a 214 and the cutoff is 215. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think the same software exists for gpa MCAT etc. but like others said, there’s no use in worrying about it now. What’s done is done.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I believe It’s quite common for residencies to have step screens (ie you will be filtered if you have a 214 and the cutoff is 215. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think the same software exists for gpa MCAT etc. but like others said, there’s no use in worrying about it now. What’s done is done.

That is true, but I can't imagine the cutoff would be as high as 3.8.

 

[mstpgrind]

I believe It’s quite common for residencies to have step screens (ie you will be filtered if you have a 214 and the cutoff is 215. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think the same software exists for gpa MCAT etc. but like others said, there’s no use in worrying about it now. What’s done is done.

Welll, I could theoretically take a 4 week community college class this summer and update my transcript with my new GPA (would be 3.80x) by around 6/1.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Welll, I could theoretically take a 4 week community college class this summer and update my transcript with my new GPA (would be 3.80x) by around 6/1.

Don’t think it would be worth it because you could be late if submitting transcript on 6/1. Goal is to have it sent first day

 

[mstpgrind]

Don’t think it would be worth it because you could be late if submitting transcript on 6/1. Goal is to have it sent first day

Of course I am sending my transcript as soon as it opens. But I thought you can update the transcript, no?

Regardless, this is moot, I’ve decided I’m not going to end up taking an extra class for this minute bump anyways.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Of course I am sending my transcript as soon as it opens. But I thought you can update the transcript, no?

Regardless, this is moot, I’ve decided I’m not going to end up taking an extra class for this minute bump anyways.

You can update it but this will not change the AMCAS gpa iirc. That would be the metric that they would filter (if they actually do filter)

 

[KnightDoc]

Of course I am sending my transcript as soon as it opens. But I thought you can update the transcript, no?

Regardless, this is moot, I’ve decided I’m not going to end up taking an extra class for this minute bump anyways.

No. You cannot update the transcript. Once you are verified, you are done.

If you tell them to include that transcript, nothing will happen until they receive it. And if you don't, you will be verified without it. You can send updated grades to schools, but that transcript and those grades will NOT be part of your AMCAS primary application.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I don't think that AMCAS allows for "academic updates" unlike many other applications.

 

[mstpgrind]

I'm confused. Why do you need to? As @Mr. Macrophage said, your GPA is a flat 3.8 either way, no ifs ands or buts. GPAs only go to 3 significant figures.

You're right, I'm not sure why I'm still thinking about this lol

 

[Browns99]

19 Posts on this, now 20...relax and chill, you're ok at the 3.8.

 

[KnightDoc]

All premeds should stop focusing on a single GPA number. Adcoms will see your GPA as a year by year grid.

If the single cumulative GPA number (actually, two, along with sGPA 🙂) is not the one to focus on, why is it the one reported in MSAR and in every single AAMC data set?

Sure, schools get a year by year breakdown, which is interesting to show trends for the schools that care about them, but are you really trying to tell us that schools that filter or stratify by GPA really do so by anything other than the two cumulative averages reported in MSAR?

I respectfully disagree, insofar as the single cumulative GPA number, while certainly not the be all and end all of med school admissions, is absolutely, by far, the one to focus on, and is far more important than any GPA number in the year by year grid.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

If the single cumulative GPA number (actually, two, along with sGPA 🙂) is not the one to focus on, why is it the one reported in MSAR and in every single AAMC data set?

Sure, schools get a year by year breakdown, which is interesting to show trends for the schools that care about them, but are you really trying to tell us that schools that filter or stratify by GPA really do so by anything other than the two cumulative averages reported in MSAR?

I respectfully disagree, insofar as the single cumulative GPA number, while certainly not the be all and end all of med school admissions, is absolutely, by far, the one to focus on, and is far more important than any GPA number in the year by year grid.

Our brains can't really handle more than one number that presumptively represents all data in analysis. The people who set the reporting rules picked those numbers to focus on. Also it's the number we've used historically for decades, so it's even harder to move away from it to something else. These numbers were chosen in the era before postbacs and grad GPA's.... quite frankly IMO, it's a remnant of historic selection in higher education and is the only bottom line numbers those outside of medical education care about. People still care about USNWR rankings and not the nuance of the calculations.

Please note, many of us on the advising and admissions side of things have pointed out this issue for a darn long time.

 

[KnightDoc]

Our brains can't really handle more than one number that presumptively represents all data in analysis. The people who set the reporting rules picked those numbers to focus on. Also it's the number we've used historically for decades, so it's even harder to move away from it to something else. These numbers were chosen in the era before postbacs and grad GPA's.... quite frankly IMO, it's a remnant of historic selection in higher education and is the only bottom line numbers those outside of medical education care about. People still care about USNWR rankings and not the nuance of the calculations.

Please note, many of us on the advising and admissions side of things have pointed out this issue for a darn long time.

Yes, of course. I totally get it. So why advise us not to focus on the one number everyone on the other side of the wall focuses on? After all, it IS the distillation of all the other numbers, which are useful to spot trends, but not nearly as important as the cumulative total. We all know that, so why pretend otherwise? 😎

Are you REALLY saying anyone's job would be easier if AMCAS just transmitted the table and eliminated the cumulative calculation, since it's not nearly as important as the year by year numbers, and the trend, and just causes confusion for ignorant premeds who foolishly focus on it, to the exclusion of the really important annual GPAs?

 

[KnightDoc]

Because despite the fact that’s what’s reported in the MSAR It is not repeat not how admissions officers look at people while evaluating their applications. Even more importantly it has questions like what presented in this thread by the OP who is worried about such a minute amount and premeds get their head wrapped around this nonsense to the point that makes them neurotic, obsessive compulsive, stressed, and otherwise ridiculously lasered on a single number.

Excellent point!!! 🙂 But, come on. All schools don't value positive trends with weak cumulative GPAs. All schools don't reward reinvention.

And, while you guys all see the table, the initial screen is by the bottom line number, not by any single year, or the trend.

There is no controlling for people freaking out over the difference between 3.79 and 3.81, but pretending that the bottom line is not the most important metric is pretending that an adcom will prefer a candidate with a 3.0, 3.25, 3.50 and 3.75 over someone with a 3.75, 3.75, 3.75 and 3.50. Because, trend, not one single number (3.38 vs. 3.69).

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Yes, of course. I totally get it. So why advise us not to focus on the one number everyone on the other side of the wall focuses on? After all, it IS the distillation of all the other numbers, which are useful to spot trends, but not nearly as important as the cumulative total. We all know that, so why pretend otherwise? 😎

This assumes everyone focuses on the same number. 🙂

 

[KnightDoc]

This assumes everyone focuses on the same number. 🙂

And which number do you focus on? Junior year?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

And which number do you focus on? Junior year?

I can't disclose processes, but suffice to say more than one.

 

[KnightDoc]

I can't disclose processes, but suffice to say more than one.

I was kidding! 🙂

My point was simply that @gonnif is 1,000,000% correct that anyone worrying about hundredths of a point around an arbitrary break point is focused on the wrong thing.

But, in my experience as an interested observer for 3 years, and now as an active participant, there is no substitute for a solid cumulative GPA. Certainly not a sub par one with a nice trend.

It's great that you get a dashboard with grades broken out by year so you can do whatever you want with trends, but no single number is as important as the bottom line number. So, no, all pre-meds should not stop focusing on the single most important number in that table. Instead, they should ignore meaningless differences around arbitrary break points. JMHO, but it worked for me! 🙂

 

[KnightDoc]

isn't sGPA more important than cGPA?

That I honestly do not know. I consider them both important, and personally did not prioritize one over the other.

Science is important because it demonstrates competency in core skills needed for success in med school. But it is limited because, unless you are a BCPM major, you are not going to have a ton of classes going into the average, so not getting As in everything can do serious damage to that GPA when you have so few classes to average any Bs across. And I seriously don't think anyone needs a 4.0 or a 3.9 sGPA to be successful in med school. Especially a non-science major who is generally brilliant.

I actually think the cGPA is more important, because it includes everything, including BCPM. It includes all credits, so allows for slight misses here and there, but still gives an overall picture to an adcom. I think that it's important that there not be a huge deviation between the two, but I am not in the camp that thinks that a high sGPA will mitigate a sub par cGPA, and is therefore not "more important." I also don't think a slightly lower sGPA for a non-secience major is necessarily fatal. Maybe an actual adcom can confirm or deny?

 

[mstpgrind]

All premeds should stop focusing on a single GPA number. Adcoms will see your GPA as a year by year grid.

Wow ok, I didn't realize it shows up like this, thanks for the info!
So how does this look (it's only until sophomore year because I'm applying after 2 years of undergrad)?
Also, I have 20 community college credits I took after my senior year of high school, in the summer before freshman year-not sure where that would slot in... I put it as high school in the below table.