Separate names with a comma.
Interview Feedback: Visit Interview Feedback to view and submit interview information.
Interviewing Masterclass: Free masterclass on interviewing from SDN and Medical College of Georgia
Discussion in 'Pre-Medical - MD' started by jkjkjk, Dec 29, 2008.
I hear its
2) BCPM GPA
4) Overall GPA
Can anyone confirm this?
I think it's
3.) BCPM GPA (all three are very close so make sure there isn't a big gap between your MCAT/GPA/BCPM GPA)
Everything all together matters.
Your 4.7, 63Z and cure for cancer don't make a bit of difference if you're an a sshole.
Unless your daddy's the dean.
I think it's:
1. MCAT - THE GREAT EQUALIZER!!! and gets you past initial screen
2. GPA - gets you past initial screen
3. ECs - shows what you did with your life besides studying for the MCAT and your courses
4. BCPM GPA - probably more important for the non-science majors, but as a science major my BCPM GPA is not far off from my overall GPA, so I put this last.
I disagree with this. Are you willing that throw away the cure for cancer because the guy who discovered it is a jerk? That's a pretty shallow move on your part and really short sighted.
Is there a way to confirm that?
It depends on the school, depends on you. I know of a school that gives equal points on gpa & mcat, and then most of your admission is determined by interview.
So worry about all of them.
A strong MCAT would not erase a poor GPA, but a high GPA can somewhat mask an average MCAT. For instance, I think a 4.0/29 has a better chance of admission than a 3.0/39.
1) Overall GPA
4) BCPM GPA
I'm guessing you think Panda really sent in that ps, too.
There's a reason that kids with high numbers and crazy ec's don't get in anywhere. And at least one adcommer (don't ask me who, it was a drive-by post) will tell you point-blank that they can fill classes with the 4.0-BME-PhD type (but they don't). Why? Because other things matter too.
Someone who comes across this poorly in med school interviews would never get in the door, let alone have the opportunity to discover the cure for cancer. Remember, no man is an island and med schools want smart people who are also team players and relatively normal.
The sound you're now hearing is the death of most of SDN's hopes.
Lol, that guy would probably be suited for bench research anyway. He would never need to treat an actual patient, just run gels or blots to his heart's content.
You don't need an MD for that one.
while that is certainly true, I think that closer to the median, the MCAT plays a bigger part. Everybody always points to the outliers, but they aren't the norm.
Overall GPA is more important than BCPM. GPA is the measure of your long term academic success and is more important than MCAT, a standardized test on a given day. GPA is viewed in tandem with MCAT, but a high MCAT will not make up for a low GPA.
Without a high enough GPA and MCAT, the rest of your app matters little if you get screened...
1. MCAT / BCPM GPA - Having a low MCAT / BCPM GPA is the easiest way to get screened out.
2. Overall GPA - Shows how well rounded you are as a student.
3. Extra Curriculars / Research - Important if you're applying to a research heavy school.
4. Interview Skills - No one wants a doctor that can't carry a conversation without staring at his shoes and mumbling for half an hour.
Of course, miracles do happen - there are plenty of sub 3.0 GPA / sub 30 MCAT / no research / anti-social physicians. Give it your best, and take everything you hear from pre-meds with a grain of salt...you'll be sure to get in somewhere.
I'm under the impression its more like this:
1) BCPM or pre-req GPA
2) overall GPA
.. but all that will only get you an interview, and that's the most substantial contributor in the end.
But in the end, all of these factors matter. Don't think that you can slack off at what generally becomes the 'least important' on the list we're all creating on this thread. Work hard in every aspect and you're good.
Now that I think about it, ranking things is just absurd. It ALL matters. How's that for a change?
Based on what you see on SDN, it's probably this:
1) The amount of time you spend worrying about having a B on your transcript.
2) How convincingly you can argue that you consistently scored > 40 on MCAT practiced tests, but were inconvenienced somehow on the actual test day. Thus, a mere 38.
3) The degree to which you exaggerate your EC's.
4) The amount of time you spend on SDN, especially in search of information that can easily be found on a particular med school's own website.
5) The percentage of your concept of "medicine as a career" that is shaped by TV shows such as Scrubs, Nip/Tuck, and House.
And what's better than being overly obsessed with your future career?
I already said that, you cheater.
this this this this.
I dont think you can just do a linear relationship like that.
Its plausible that: 34 + decent ECs > 39 + terrible ECs > 29 awsome ECs
So whats more important, MCAT or ECs?
Sorry, I'm delayed like that
I bet you can find more instances where a school accepts someone with a lower than average GPA but high MCAT vs. a higher than average GPA and lower than average MCAT. Its like that jerkoff cyclin*** said, the MCAT is the "great equalizer".... sounds like a famous play in sports history or the nickname for some sleezebag politician but it is true... schools can have grade inflation, classes can individually have grade inflation/deflation, difficulty level, etc. and on and on.. its not like the admissions people can look at the school you came from, take your GPA from that school and then hold that number up like it has some sort of predictive value.
Yeah sure.. a 4.0 vs. a 3.5 does suggest something about the commitment made by the former student but when it comes down to .10 to even .20 difference its really not fair for them to say person A with the slightly higher GPA is more qualified than person B with the slightly lower one because of all the factors I just listed. On the other hand, you can most certainly differentiate between small deviations in MCAT scores between two people.
Plus the correlation coefficient between MCAT Biology score and step I is something like .53, a little less for physics (I thought it was .49) and verbal but clearly there is definitely a relationship. You can find this somewhere on the stats page of the AAMC website. The point is, there is more objective difference between two applicants with slightly different scores whereas there is not so much an objective differenct between two applicants with the slightly different GPAs, unless of course they took every class together.
"But CBRONZ some ppl get nervous and hAvE a BAd dAy TaKiN da test!!!!!!!!"
I understand that but test anxiety is something you need to really work on ahead of the exam... something you have to prepare for just like you have to preprare for the content of the actual exam. If you get a terrible score on the test because you didn't study, are you going to use something like ADD (which I myself have) as an excuse that you couldn't sit still and study? I'm sure you could but no one would accept it as valid.
For instance if I wanna be a sleezebag politician because its my dream to get elected governor so I can sell senate seats, and I had stage fright talking in front of a lot of people, I'd have to prepare long before the campaign to get that under control. If I didn't get it under control, I couldn't get up on stage and eloquently lie for 10 minutes with a straight face. So... going back to the test, if you know you have this problem, you have to prepare for it in advance by getting it under wraps.
so thats why I think the MCAT is often given much more weight than GPA, or at least should be
*** just kidding bud, you know you're the man
I have gotten more interviews at better schools than I expected given my MCAT and GPA, and I think it's because of the quality of my essays, especially my AMCAS essay. But I would agree that once you are given an interview, they have essentially okayed your stats and the interview becomes most important.
Actually who says it has to be a physician that discovers the cure for cancer? I agree people need to be smart and possess interpersonal skills but let's not pretend like all (or even most) pre-meds are messed up and can't communicate effectively. This may be hard to accept, but you're not the only one with a normal personality and it will not give you as big a boost as you think. You will not be interviewing with blocks of wood.
The sound you're now hearing is the groaning of SDN at you self-declaring how you are so much better with your awwwweeeeesome personality. I think your personality is great too, especially the part where you like to look down on people.
I disagree here. IMO, MCAT > GPA. If you have an easy major and you take the bare minimum of pre-reqs you might have a 4.0 but the MCAT is the great equalizer. Nothing will change the fact that you scored better than 95% of the population when you took the exam, but the GPA is subject to inflation and what not. Of course I understand why you say MCAT is less important since your GPA is higher. That's cool and you may well be right, but I tend to place more value/emphasis on things that are standardized, i.e. the MCAT.
check out allyouneedisone. he has 39 MCAT, 3.9 GPA, and 0 acceptances so far ...
I disagree, there was even a guy on here who looked at the stats, and there were far more people rejected with high GPAs (3.7+) than there were with high MCATs (31+)
I could probably make an argument that your status as a post-doc implies more work and maturity than the generic fresh-out-of-undergrad-little-life-experience 3.7/35.
We say this all the time that there's a lot more to this process than numbers, yet here we are ranking numbers ahead of other numbers.
It ALL matters.
It ALL matters. QFT
this is why this guy cracks me up
Oops! I'm actually not doing a post-doc. I don't know how it got set to that!
At Univ of Washington several adcoms have all told us..
AKA: be afraid number whores :|
I even think MCAT and Overall GPA probably are looked as the same.
MCAT = GPA imo.
Which is why I get kind of puzzled when I see people around school only study a month for something that is worth the same as your entire cGPA
Coming from Wash U, I'm not sure I can believe that...
Edit: Washington State, not St. Louis, my bad.
You'd be surprised at how many blocks of wood I've seen at my interviews so far
The way I see it, someone who had a 4.0 and had some test day anxiety and got a 29 will be a better med student because he/she has proven that they can handle themselves academically over the long-term, rather than someone with a 3.0 and a 39 who is clearly smart enough to kick butt on the MCAT but not dedicated enough to his studies to pull a decent GPA.
For those of us applying through WWAMI it's been drilled into our heads by adcoms since freshman year. They also do a goofy recalculation of your GPA as you know, where junior year counts for 50%. Perhaps its different for Washington state residents?
I'm starting to wonder if its really..
and not the other way around. I've seen a lot of friends with over 3.9s and 33+ get in to only 1 of their 20 applied schools because they laked in ECs. What about the kids who have like 3.4's and 30's and get into multiple schools since they went to Africa? Sometimes I think NO ONE knows what the hell they pick on exactly
I agree with you BUT...
so they choked on MCAT...are you going to choke in surgery or on the job? Fighting through the anxiety is part of your challenge
Baisically, this is a completely hopeless exercise.
The interesting point is, we invest a tremendous amount of time and energy into the med school app process, and, as a result, a lot of people want some guidance, from the people who make the decisions, about where to focus all the work we do.
That this process, which is entirely supported by the public / tax-payers, isnt more transparent - is a huge cost to us, without any benifit i can see.
Seems so when you think about it, but in my experience, the 3.0/39ers actually make better med students. GPA is just so variable...
The application process isn't supported by the tax-payers, where'd you get that idea?
Well, the MCAT is just a test to get into med school, not to do surgery tomorrow. That stuff will be tested as well, but later as you progress through your medical career.
Interesting. Maybe I'm wrong then, but that's just how I've always thought about it.
But bro the point is that the person cracked under the pressure during MCAT...something that is not even life or death like surgery. Why should the adcoms be so forgiving? What if you are nervous on your biochem final and don't get the grade you want..should the prof give you an A just because you were nervous and messed up?
I'm just one person, of course
Everything I have to say in response to this cbrons has already posted, including the save at the end.