Poor performance at top university--> strong performance at average college

[anotherone1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello,
I wanted to get some other people's opinion on my situation. I had a 4.0 GPA at a CC, then transferred to a public ivy. My GPA at the university dropped to a 3.3, with 2 C's in a couple of my pre-reqs (took only 30 credits though). Honestly, I transferred out-of-state and wasn't adjusting well, and on top of that I had some illness in the family (grandmother close to death back in my home state) + some financial issues with the family. These are all things that are part of life and I think with my maturity now, I would've handled the transition and situation much better.

Anyways, I decided to come back home and attend my local university (home state-- not a very good or known public college). I graduated from here with a 3.95 GPA, I retook the two pre-reqs I had C's in (heck, I even TA'd for one of those classes at my new college), and have been doing a plethora of ECs I really enjoy.

I'm worried it will look awful that I couldn't handle the top public university. Will this significantly set me back? I don't know what else I can do to prove myself academically (studying for the MCAT now btw).

tl;dr- had a 4.0 at a CC, transferred out of state to public ivy uni and gpa down to 3.3, back to local college near home and gpa is 3.97.

 

[mbeus]

No, I don't think it will be a setback. Crush your mcat, and keep acing your classes. Even if it is a problem, there are some medical schools that reward reinvention and newfound maturity

 

[justadream]

The MCAT will be the real determinant of whether your 4.0s are representative of your abilities.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

You have a legitimate reason for moving back home, especially financial.
Like others noted, crush the MCAT, and it will just be a sentence in your Personal Statement explaining moving back instate for financial reasons.

 

[lifetothefullest]

What the hell is a "public ivy"? Oxymoron if I've ever seen one. Anyway, it might look bad that you transferred back if it was due to purely academic reasons but that's behind you, i.e. you can't do anything about it. If there's one thing you can do to make up for casting doubt on your academics is MCAT. That equalizes applicants across the scale.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

What the hell is a "public ivy"? Oxymoron if I've ever seen one. Anyway, it might look bad that you transferred back if it was due to purely academic reasons but that's behind you, i.e. you can't do anything about it. If there's one thing you can do to make up for casting doubt on your academics is MCAT. That equalizes applicants across the scale.

LizzyM refers to University of Michigan, University of Virginia as "public" ivies. I would also include Berkeley, University of Chicago. Highly ranked in USNWR. Duke and Stanford technically aren't IVY, but University of Penn is. Sort of a East Coast thing! Those of us in the midwest never heard the term Public Ivyies, as we always think of ourselves as Big Ten, which is also technically now 14 or so (stretching from Nebraska now to Maryland). The world just isn't making any sense in the 21st century.

 

[lifetothefullest]

LizzyM refers to University of Michigan, University of Virginia as "public" ivies. I would also include Berkeley, University of Chicago. Highly ranked in USNWR. Duke and Stanford technically aren't IVY, but University of Penn is. Sort of a East Coast thing! Those of us in the midwest never heard the term Public Ivyies, as we always think of ourselves as Big Ten, which is also technically now 14 or so (stretching from Nebraska now to Maryland). The world just isn't making any sense in the 21st century.

I guess that makes sense. I wouldn't include UChicago, Stanford, or Duke (or MIT) in the "public ivies" list since they're not "public" at all. I'd just say they're top tier.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

I guess that makes sense. I wouldn't include UChicago, Stanford, or Duke (or MIT) in the "public ivies" list since they're not "public" at all. I'd just say they're top tier.

The word Ivy is pretentious. I like top tier too. And Michigan State is going to win the NCAA Basketball title per Jimmy Fallon's Puppy Title Prediction. Go Green, Go White!! GO BIG TEN!! Let's kick Duke's top tier behind.

 

[lifetothefullest]

The word Ivy is pretentious. I like top tier too. And Michigan State is going to win the NCAA Basketball title per Jimmy Fallon's Puppy Title Prediction. Go Green, Go White!! GO BIG TEN!! Let's kick Duke's top tier behind.

Actually, the word "Ivy" refers only to an athletic conference. In that spirit, Kentucky will win! SEC all the way.

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Actually, the word "Ivy" refers only to an athletic conference. In that spirit, Kentucky will win! SEC all the way.

Stanford does routinely win some "cup" for the best performance in total athletics (not just the money makers football and basketball). Now that is an impressive performance, to be at the top of academics and athletics. Have no clue what conference they play in. Oh, to be a cardinal, with a tree mascot, out on the farm....

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Actually, the word "Ivy" refers only to an athletic conference. In that spirit, Kentucky will win! SEC all the way.

No no no Wisconsin is going to kick Kentucky Behind, MSU will kick Duke Blue Devils, then the BIG TEN WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!

 

[ERK123]

No no no Wisconsin is going to kick Kentucky Behind, MSU will kick Duke Blue Devils, then the BIG TEN WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!

This!

What the hell is a "public ivy"? Oxymoron if I've ever seen one. Anyway, it might look bad that you transferred back if it was due to purely academic reasons but that's behind you, i.e. you can't do anything about it. If there's one thing you can do to make up for casting doubt on your academics is MCAT. That equalizes applicants across the scale.

The term "public ivy is pretty well defined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy

 

[lifetothefullest]

No no no Wisconsin is going to kick Kentucky Behind, MSU will kick Duke Blue Devils, then the BIG TEN WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!

Lol that would be quite something to see. I would like to see MSU winning it all but even if they get past Duke, I don't think they'll get past Kentucky. Literally. Have you seen the size of those guys?

 

[Rainbow Zebra]

Lol that would be quite something to see. I would like to see MSU winning it all but even if they get past Duke, I don't think they'll get past Kentucky. Literally. Have you seen the size of those guys?

Sad day in the BIG TEN world.

 

[WingedOx]

What the hell is a "public ivy"?

God, Miami (OH) has a little spiel every morning as a sponsor on NPR about their "public ivy" status.

 

[justadream]

Stanford does routinely win some "cup" for the best performance in total athletics (not just the money makers football and basketball). Now that is an impressive performance, to be at the top of academics and athletics. Have no clue what conference they play in. Oh, to be a cardinal, with a tree mascot, out on the farm....

Director's Cup I believe. It's for having the overall most successful NCAA athletics program (in terms of # of wins, championships, etc.). Stanford has won it like literally every single year for like 20+ years. The only year it didn't win it was the first year (UNC won I think).

It plays in the PAC-12.

 

[efle]

Huh, dropped by just over 0.6 eh? I'll just leave this here 😉

But anyways as previously stated murdering the MCAT tends to help balance any GPA-based doubts about academic ability

 

[bloodandguts]

I had a 4.0 sGPA at a quiet, small private college. Transferred to a major state school, got wrecked. Now trying to pick up the pieces with my 3.4 sGPA

 

[Gauss44]

Personally I've found the opposite to be true. In my experience, top colleges have the top professors. A favorite physics professor of mine will always be Walter Lewin. I cannot imagine anyone on his level settling for a mediocre university unless they wanted to be close to family in a remote area or something.

These days, many top universities record their classes so anyone can take them online, homework, tests, and all. Take one for yourself and you be the judge!

 

[Gauss44]

Speaking to OP's situation:

Just explain the situation on your application and in the interview if asked. Hopefully CC won't hold you back too much and if it does, take some university classes and do well and reapply. Good luck!

 

[efle]

Personally I've found the opposite to be true. In my experience, top colleges have the top professors. A favorite physics professor of mine will always be Walter Lewin. I cannot imagine anyone on his level settling for a mediocre university unless they wanted to be close to family in a remote area or something.

These days, many top universities record their classes so anyone can take them online, homework, tests, and all. Take one for yourself and you be the judge!

Except the material isn't what's hard, the testing is. Unless you can simulate trying to beat a curve against a class of 99th percentile SAT scorers you can't judge jack ish

 

[bloodandguts]

^This. Everyone in all my classes are geniuses, and the class is curved. I look at the amount of material my friends at my old college have to study and it is so much smaller.

I regret transferring so much. I'd have so much better chances applying if I never tried to go to a better school. I could have easily had a 3.9-4.0 sGPA at my old school.

And from my understanding, med schools don't care how hard your undergrad was, they just want to see certain stats.

 

[efle]

^This. Everyone in all my classes are geniuses, and the class is curved. I look at the amount of material my friends at my old college have to study and it is so much smaller.

I regret transferring so much. I'd have so much better chances applying if I never tried to go to a better school. I could have easily had a 3.9-4.0 sGPA at my old school.

And from my understanding, med schools don't care how hard your undergrad was, they just want to see certain stats.

Private med schools rank selectivity of undergrad institution as "highest importance" along with GPA and MCAT (see page 7, AAMC survey of med schools), it's just SDN that is in denial that names mean something.

You of course still want a good GPA and people with near 4.0s at top schools are in an excellent position, but for many people going to places like Hopkins dooms them to drop out of premed or have a borderline GPA when they would've killed it, probably for free, at state schools

 

[The Helpful Aye Aye]

I think it really depends on if the schools you apply to care/acknowledge the rigor of the "Public Ivy." That level of recognition of highly region-dependent and plenty of schools will call themselves "___ Ivy" to pump themselves up. They'll even work their students as hard as they think Ivy league students work, without the benefit of global name recognition!

EDIT: In other words, it's very likely that schools won't even acknowledge the difference between the "top" university and the "average" one. They'll see the drop in grade and you only need to worry about framing it in a way that emphasizes your performance after you left.

 

[efle]

I think it really depends on if the schools you apply to care/acknowledge the rigor of the "Public Ivy." That level of recognition of highly region-dependent and plenty of schools will call themselves "___ Ivy" to pump themselves up. They'll even work their students as hard as they think Ivy league students work, without the benefit of global name recognition!

EDIT: In other words, it's very likely that schools won't even acknowledge the difference between the "top" university and the "average" one. They'll see the drop in grade and you only need to worry about framing it in a way that emphasizes your performance after you left.

If he was somewhere like Cal, UCLA or UNC I think they'd have heard the name once or twice. He has absolutely got to kill the MCAT for his story to appear non-academic-difficulty in nature

 

[The Helpful Aye Aye]

If he was somewhere like Cal, UCLA or UNC I think they'd have heard the name once or twice. He has absolutely got to kill the MCAT for his story to appear non-academic-difficulty in nature

It could be my elitism, but I think outside of the Ivy league, Standford, MIT, and Hopkins the effect of a name is minimal/region-dependent. I'd be interested to see how his overall GPA looks before we assume the worst. Finishing strong means a lot.

 

[efle]

It could be my elitism, but I think outside of the Ivy league, Standford, MIT, and Hopkins the effect of a name is minimal/region-dependent. I'd be interested to see how his overall GPA looks before we assume the worst. Finishing strong means a lot.

That is quite elite, since most would judge many other places like Duke, Caltech, U Chicago, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and several other schools with median test scores higher than Ivies to be respected far and wide
Yeah OP keep us posted!

 

[Neutropix]

Private med schools rank selectivity of undergrad institution as "highest importance" along with GPA and MCAT (see page 7, AAMC survey of med schools), it's just SDN that is in denial that names mean something.

You of course still want a good GPA and people with near 4.0s at top schools are in an excellent position, but for many people going to places like Hopkins dooms them to drop out of premed or have a borderline GPA when they would've killed it, probably for free, at state schools

much wisom

 

[The Helpful Aye Aye]

That is quite elite, since most would judge many other places like Duke, Caltech, U Chicago, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and several other schools with median test scores higher than Ivies to be respected far and wide
Yeah OP keep us posted!

Hehe, fair enough! I typecast medical school admissions people as being old fashioned in terms of the schools they believe are "top." Those are objectively rigorous schools, but I wouldn't count the opinion of most to carry over to admissions. Some schools even give (on transcripts) percentages of people who made your grade or below per course to show relative difficulty, but that kind of information probably makes it as far as AMCAS grade verification. The effect of names is minimal in most cases and think OPs is probably one of them. How he/she can justify the U-shaped grade trend is a bigger concern than where it happened, in my opinion.

 

[lifetothefullest]

Except the material isn't what's hard, the testing is. Unless you can simulate trying to beat a curve against a class of 99th percentile SAT scorers you can't judge jack ish

I think this is a key point that some people on here seem to miss. A 3.8 isn't the same as a 3.8 isn't the same as a 3.8. At a top school, you are competing against the top students. If you have a 3.8, that speaks to your ability - you earned every point of it. And if you accept that logic, you have to also accept that a 3.6 isn't the same as a 3.8 if the 3.6 is at a competitive university (can't have it both ways).

But the material is also taught at an extremely quick pace. You cover a lot more, a lot quicker, in greater depth. As a student who has taken courses at both types of institutions, I can say with firsthand experience that the courses at top universities will make you learn the material and understand it at a much greater depth than a corresponding course at a "state school."

 

[efle]

Hehe, fair enough! I typecast medical school admissions people as being old fashioned in terms of the schools they believe are "top." Those are objectively rigorous schools, but I wouldn't count the opinion of most to carry over to admissions. Some schools even give (on transcripts) percentages of people who made your grade or below per course to show relative difficulty, but that kind of information probably makes it as far as AMCAS grade verification. The effect of names is minimal in most cases and think OPs is probably one of them. How he/she can justify the U-shaped grade trend is a bigger concern than where it happened, in my opinion.

I do wonder what happens to people coming from places like Vanderbilt regarding reputation. Ten years ago they were just ok and totally unheard of, now they have an acceptance rate like Penn and test scores higher than Columbia/Stanford/Duke/Hopkins and many other big names. Which view of them is held by most random app readers?

I think this is a key point that some people on here seem to miss. A 3.8 isn't the same as a 3.8 isn't the same as a 3.8. At a top school, you are competing against the top students. If you have a 3.8, that speaks to your ability - you earned every point of it. And if you accept that logic, you have to also accept that a 3.6 isn't the same as a 3.8 if the 3.6 is at a competitive university (can't have it both ways).

But the material is also taught at an extremely quick pace. You cover a lot more, a lot quicker, in greater depth. As a student who has taken courses at both types of institutions, I can say with firsthand experience that the courses at top universities will make you learn the material and understand it at a much greater depth than a corresponding course at a "state school."

Out of curiosity I recently tried to estimate this effect using MCAT vs GPA data from my school (99th percentile average test scores higher than all non-HYP Ivies, stanford, duke, etc) vs national median and it looked to be just over 0.6

 

[Neutropix]

I do wonder what happens to people coming from places like Vanderbilt regarding reputation. Ten years ago they were just ok and totally unheard of, now they have an acceptance rate like Penn and test scores higher than Columbia/Stanford/Duke/Hopkins and many other big names. Which view of them is held by most random app readers?



Out of curiosity I recently tried to estimate this effect using MCAT vs GPA data from my school (99th percentile average test scores higher than all non-HYP Ivies, stanford, duke, etc) vs national median and it looked to be just over 0.6

A very curious individual you are.

 

[resiroth]

Despite what @efle would have you believe, medical schools generally don't care at all about undergrad. Which is why you have people from bottom tier (below 100) have clean sweeps of the top tier schools.

Also: the average layman has no idea on a national level other than HYPSM + their state flagship. In my experience outside of academia people don't even know that uPenn is an ivy, and isn't just penn state.


Note: the "selectivity of undergraduate instutition" being a "highest importance" rating is sort of meaningless because you aren't told what they consider to be selective. If I were to guess I'd say HYPSM get a small boost, which is what adcoms have confirmed. Vanderbilt et al. are left out in the cold.

In the end it's not fair, it's counterintuitive, it doesn't make sense! These are all thoughts that will run through a rational person's mind upon hearing that it doesn't matter, but unfortunately being mad about it doesn't change reality.


Also: https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf not pictured: anything about selectivity. It reaaaaally doesn't matter. He'll find out soon enough during his app cycle I suppose.

 

[efle]

Despite what @efle would have you believe, medical schools generally don't care at all about undergrad. Which is why you have people from bottom tier (below 100) have clean sweeps of the top tier schools.

Also: the average layman has no idea on a national level other than HYPSM + their state flagship. In my experience outside of academia people don't even know that uPenn is an ivy, and isn't just penn state.


Note: the "selectivity of undergraduate instutition" being a "highest importance" rating is sort of meaningless because you aren't told what they consider to be selective. If I were to guess I'd say HYPSM get a small boost, which is what adcoms have confirmed. Vanderbilt et al. are left out in the cold.

In the end it's not fair, it's counterintuitive, it doesn't make sense! These are all thoughts that will run through a rational person's mind upon hearing that it doesn't matter, but unfortunately being mad about it doesn't change reality.


Also: https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf not pictured: anything about selectivity. It reaaaaally doesn't matter. He'll find out soon enough during his app cycle I suppose.

Public schools have stated they don't care, private schools rate it highest importance along with GPA and MCAT, as in my link earlier to the AAMC survey. Btw, I don't think undergrad selectivity was a rankable option in your link. A several years newer AAMC "whats important" report which does feature it, showing it at high importance up there with GPA and MCAT, quite totally establishes that it matters.

Of course you can be a stellar applicant from anywhere, just like you can get past a lower GPA or middling MCAT. It is a significant part of the app to private schools though.

I suspect when it's part of your job you learn the names of the Ivies and most competitive non-HYPSM schools. Some medical schools go so far as to explicitly place schools on tiers than numerically weight applicants along with their GPAs and MCATs. You've got a very weak argument going against it mattering

 

[lifetothefullest]

Despite what @efle would have you believe, medical schools generally don't care at all about undergrad. Which is why you have people from bottom tier (below 100) have clean sweeps of the top tier schools.

From both admissions officers' polls and statements, top tier schools tend to place greater emphasis on undergrad institution. In fact, it's probably almost opposite to what you're saying - undergrad matters at top tier schools but not elsewhere.

Also: the average layman has no idea on a national level other than HYPSM + their state flagship. In my experience outside of academia people don't even know that uPenn is an ivy, and isn't just penn state.

UPenn gets a lot of fire from even within the Ivies. Poor UPenn 🙂

 

[WingedOx]

UPenn gets a lot of fire from even within the Ivies their own students. Poor UPenn 🙂

Seriously, that place is like a living breathing mass of inferiority complex.

 

[resiroth]

Public schools have stated they don't care, private schools rate it highest importance along with GPA and MCAT, as in my link earlier to the AAMC survey. Btw, I don't think undergrad selectivity was a rankable option in your link.

Of course you can be a stellar applicant from anywhere, just like you can get past a lower GPA or middling MCAT. It is a significant part of the app to private schools though.

I suspect when it's part of your job you learn the names of the Ivies and most competitive non-HYPSM schools. Some medical schools go so far as to explicitly place schools on tiers than numerically weight applicants along with their GPAs and MCATs. You've got a very weak argument going against it mattering

So just to be clear, you're going to go against what other adcoms have said? If selectivity does matter to any significant degree, it will only be for HYPSM, and not in response to actual difficulty. Princeton is known for being very hard with grades, but I doubt it's treated much differently than Yale for ex. because at some level adcoms have more important things to worry about.

This survey is pretty bad to be honest. Completing pre-medical coursework is "medium" importance? Interesting, so we can conclude that if you're from Vanderbilt, that matters more than if you're actually going to take orgo?

Look man, tell yourself what you need to tell yourself... but your GPA is your GPA and adcoms have repeatedly weighed in saying they're approximately equivalent. The good news is that by going to WUSTL you have amazing research opportunities so take advantage of them! If you end up applying with minimal research/EC and a dime a dozen GPA(~3.6) combo you won't be doing yourself any favors.

 

[resiroth]

From both admissions officers' polls and statements, top tier schools tend to place greater emphasis on undergrad institution. In fact, it's probably almost opposite to what you're saying - undergrad matters at top tier schools but not elsewhere.



UPenn gets a lot of fire from even within the Ivies. Poor UPenn 🙂

Eh, I don't doubt Harvard likes people from Harvard, but even then it's still Harvard and a crapshoot for anyone.

I think pedigree matters to JHU Harvard Penn etc. to an extent, but only at the very top, and that DOESN'T extend down to any schools other than HYPSM. That's more of Harvard recruiting from Harvard, Penn recruiting from Penn etc. Adcoms don't find themselves with tachycardia over the applicant that went to umichigan over say UC Davis. It just doesn't happen. The top schools (yes, even Harvard et al.) are looking for interesting things you can add to the class, not the average SAT score of your alma mater.

I think saying Harvard prefers people from HYPSM is different than saying Northwestern cares whether you go to a top 10 undergrad or a top 25 (or top 100).

 

[efle]

So just to be clear, you're going to go against what other adcoms have said? If selectivity does matter to any significant degree, it will only be for HYPSM, and not in response to actual difficulty. Princeton is known for being very hard with grades, but I doubt it's treated much differently than Yale for ex. because at some level adcoms have more important things to worry about.

This survey is pretty bad to be honest. Completing pre-medical coursework is "medium" importance? Interesting, so we can conclude that if you're from Vanderbilt, that matters more than if you're actually going to take orgo?

Look man, tell yourself what you need to tell yourself... but your GPA is your GPA and adcoms have repeatedly weighed in saying they're approximately equivalent. The good news is that by going to WUSTL you have amazing research opportunities so take advantage of them! If you end up applying with minimal research/EC and a dime a dozen GPA(~3.6) combo you won't be doing yourself any favors.

Adcom opinions differ between individuals and schools. There's what, five or so that comment on here regularly, including one we know is a DO adcom and another we know is in the UC system? I'd take the AAMC survey over their statements if they disagree, yes.

I believe the question was whether they were on track to have the requisite classes done, in which case it's a sensible rating - they need to be clearly on their way to having them all done but people are regularly admitted with several more things to take by matriculation.

I don't doubt you get no slack for a lower GPA anywhere, but again you're holding up the words of a couple adcoms at unspecified schools against the damn gold standard. You straight up cannot weaken the validity of the AAMC survey by saying "look! Goro says Kutztown and Harvard is no difference!".

Eh, I don't doubt Harvard likes people from Harvard, but even then it's still Harvard and a crapshoot for anyone.

I think pedigree matters to JHU Harvard Penn etc. to an extent, but only at the very top, and that DOESN'T extend down to any schools other than HYPSM. That's more of Harvard recruiting from Harvard, Penn recruiting from Penn etc. Adcoms don't find themselves with tachycardia over the applicant that went to umichigan over say UC Davis. It just doesn't happen. The top schools (yes, even Harvard et al.) are looking for interesting things you can add to the class, not the average SAT score of your alma mater.

I think saying Harvard prefers people from HYPSM is different than saying Northwestern cares whether you go to a top 10 undergrad or a top 25 (or top 100).

I agree there's no clear delineations or differences among solid schools, but I do think being from Duke or Johns Hopkins is different than from a nationally average university. But, to be fair, all I have to go on is the published AAMC statement on how private medical schools perceive these things. I'm sure you and the couple dissenting adcoms on here have a more accurate picture.

 

[resiroth]

Adcom opinions differ between individuals and schools. There's what, five or so that comment on here regularly, including one we know is a DO adcom and another we know is in the UC system? I'd take the AAMC survey over their statements if they disagree, yes.

I believe the question was whether they were on track to have the requisite classes done, in which case it's a sensible rating - they need to be clearly on their way to having them all done but people are regularly admitted with several more things to take by matriculation.

I don't doubt you get no slack for a lower GPA anywhere, but again you're holding up the words of a couple adcoms at unspecified schools against the damn gold standard. You straight up cannot weaken the validity of the AAMC survey by saying "look! Goro says Kutztown and Harvard is no difference!".




I agree there's no clear delineations or differences among solid schools, but I do think being from Duke or Johns Hopkins is different than from a nationally average university. But, to be fair, all I have to go on is the published AAMC statement on how private medical schools perceive these things. I'm sure you and the couple dissenting adcoms on here have a more accurate picture.

Lol gold standard. Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be having trouble parsing what this does, and doesn't mean.

Say hypothetically that there is a new chart. It says selectivity of undergraduate institution is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR. Highest importance. Now, what does that tell you? Well, it tells you that they think it's important....but "what is selectivity of undergraduate institution"?

At what level do you get a boost? What constitutes selectivity? Is it average SAT? Is it history (ivies)? Is it admission %? More importantly, at what level do schools consider an undergraduate selective enough to warrant a boost or not? Is it just harvard? Or is it also HYPSM? Or top 25? Or top 50? Do the top 10 private schools rank this metric more important than the bottom 10 private schools?

Until you can answer these questions you can safely regard this document as completely worthless. It's poorly designed and you can't really get anything interesting out of it as it stands.

 

[efle]

Lol gold standard. Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be having trouble parsing what this does, and doesn't mean.

Say hypothetically that there is a new chart. It says selectivity of undergraduate institution is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR. Highest importance. Now, what does that tell you? Well, it tells you that they think it's important....but "what is selectivity of undergraduate institution"?

At what level do you get a boost? What constitutes selectivity? Is it average SAT? Is it history (ivies)? Is it admission %? More importantly, at what level do schools consider an undergraduate selective enough to warrant a boost or not? Is it just harvard? Or is it also HYPSM? Or top 25? Or top 50? Do the top 10 private schools rank this metric more important than the bottom 10 private schools?

Until you can answer these questions you can safely regard this document as completely worthless. It's poorly designed and you can't really get anything interesting out of it as it stands.

Please. Seriously, the arguments you're making are terrifically bad.

You can take a pragmatic approach and assume the definitions for selectivity will vary by adcom and school, and that everything exists along a gradient. You could make a similar argument with GPA - what's a good GPA? Is it the matriculant average? Is it 3.6? 3.55? Does it matter what classes go into it or what major you take? Does it matter when there is a trend? How much does it matter? Do upper level high marks make up for borderline prereq marks? Blah, blah, blah. You can make the point that it's an imperfect system, a sloppy measure, hard to compare etc - but guess what, GPA still ****ing matters.

It's no different here. No, you can't clearly define a set of selective schools. No, you can't say how much impact a certain school name will give. But yes, there is a difference between a school with, say, average SATs in the top percentile vs the 50th percentile.

And, if individual adcom member's statements on here are supposed to carry a lot of weight, why the hell would a survey of orders of magnitude more sources across many schools be anything less than the best thing to look to for the truth?

 

[justadream]

Lol gold standard. Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to be having trouble parsing what this does, and doesn't mean.

Say hypothetically that there is a new chart. It says selectivity of undergraduate institution is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAR. Highest importance. Now, what does that tell you? Well, it tells you that they think it's important....but "what is selectivity of undergraduate institution"?

At what level do you get a boost? What constitutes selectivity? Is it average SAT? Is it history (ivies)? Is it admission %? More importantly, at what level do schools consider an undergraduate selective enough to warrant a boost or not? Is it just harvard? Or is it also HYPSM? Or top 25? Or top 50? Do the top 10 private schools rank this metric more important than the bottom 10 private schools?

Until you can answer these questions you can safely regard this document as completely worthless. It's poorly designed and you can't really get anything interesting out of it as it stands.

An inability to clearly define something does not mean that something does not matter.

Here's an analogy. Let's say someone is "charismatic". For elections, being charismatic is widely accepted to be an advantage.

It is fairly hard to define what is "charismatic". The definition likely varies from person to person. It may vary from one region to another. But in general, there are some traits that tend to be associated with "charismatic" people.

Now just because we might have a hard time defining what "charismatic" really means or just because we might not be sure at what "level" being charismatic matters for someone to cast a vote for this charismatic person, that does not mean being "charismatic" has no impact (or is "worthless").

 

[resiroth]

Please. Seriously, the arguments you're making are terrifically bad.

You can take a pragmatic approach and assume the definitions for selectivity will vary by adcom and school, and that everything exists along a gradient. You could make a similar argument with GPA - what's a good GPA? Is it the matriculant average? Is it 3.6? 3.55? Does it matter what classes go into it or what major you take? Does it matter when there is a trend? How much does it matter? Do upper level high marks make up for borderline prereq marks? Blah, blah, blah. You can make the point that it's an imperfect system, a sloppy measure, hard to compare etc - but guess what, GPA still ****ing matters.

It's no different here. No, you can't clearly define a set of selective schools. No, you can't say how much impact a certain school name will give. But yes, there is a difference between a school with, say, average SATs in the top percentile vs the 50th percentile.

And, if individual adcom member's statements on here are supposed to carry a lot of weight, why the hell would a survey of orders of magnitude more sources across many schools be anything less than the best thing to look to for the truth?

"You can take a pragmatic approach and assume the definitions for selectivity will vary by adcom and school, and that everything exists along a gradient."

Yeah, aka randomly make things up and draw faulty conclusions from data that isn't present.

"You could make a similar argument with GPA - what's a good GPA? Is it the matriculant average? Is it 3.6? 3.55? Does it matter what classes go into it or what major you take? Does it matter when there is a trend? How much does it matter? Do upper level high marks make up for borderline prereq marks? Blah, blah, blah. "

Lol, good point. All your questions are answered by "none of that matters, higher GPA is better, that's all we can say". In contrast for undergrad rep you don't know if higher rep really matters. Does a rank 75 carry more weight than unranked/regional? Does a rank 40 beat a 60? My point was that for the advice to be actionable, no specific recommendations can be made given the information we have. With GPA the answer is: higher is better, always.

You also don't think there is any reporter bias? You think legacy is super unimportant at top schools? You guys are a hoot.

Going to a "better" school also means it's harder to get stratospheric GPAs that are so in vogue these days.

In the end none of this matters, you'll get to experience this during your cycle efle, but FWIW my friends with 4.0s from UCR and UCSC did far better than my friends at cal/uva/harvard with 3.6s.

There's no point worrying about it and if you don't want to trust adcoms that's your prerogative. Let's just say there's a reason they say you want over a 3.6, and they don't have a caveat of "unless you're at a top 20 then a 3.0 is equivalent".

 

[lifetothefullest]

I think pedigree matters to JHU Harvard Penn etc. to an extent, but only at the very top, and that DOESN'T extend down to any schools other than HYPSM. That's more of Harvard recruiting from Harvard, Penn recruiting from Penn etc. Adcoms don't find themselves with tachycardia over the applicant that went to umichigan over say UC Davis. It just doesn't happen. The top schools (yes, even Harvard et al.) are looking for interesting things you can add to the class, not the average SAT score of your alma mater.

I think saying Harvard prefers people from HYPSM is different than saying Northwestern cares whether you go to a top 10 undergrad or a top 25 (or top 100).

Definitely agree with this in principle. But it extends beyond schools having a preference only for their own undergrads. To parse out that effect, take Sinai, for instance. Sinai accepts a very large proportion of students from the top schools - HYPSM, etc. So top medical schools do have some preference for HYPSM students and yes, it doesn't extend too far beyond that.

 

[resiroth]

Definitely agree with this in principle. But it extends beyond schools having a preference only for their own undergrads. To parse out that effect, take Sinai, for instance. Sinai accepts a very large proportion of students from the top schools - HYPSM, etc. So top medical schools do have some preference for HYPSM students and yes, it doesn't extend too far beyond that.

So we can conclude either they accept based on rep, or strong candidates also tend to be at these schools.

Other studies have found that students that get into top schools and choose to attend other schools have similar incomes/rates of attending graduate school etc. as people that end up matriculating at harvard et al. so it wouldn't surprise me if this were the case here too.

FWIW I go to a school that would get a "bump" but I know it's very minor and I think I would have been better off going to a lower tier school and using my spare time spent on studies to improve EC. That being said, there is more to life than crafting the perfect med school app 🙂.

 

[Goro]

No.

I'm worried it will look awful that I couldn't handle the top public university. Will this significantly set me back?

 

[efle]

"You can take a pragmatic approach and assume the definitions for selectivity will vary by adcom and school, and that everything exists along a gradient."

Yeah, aka randomly make things up and draw faulty conclusions from data that isn't present.

"You could make a similar argument with GPA - what's a good GPA? Is it the matriculant average? Is it 3.6? 3.55? Does it matter what classes go into it or what major you take? Does it matter when there is a trend? How much does it matter? Do upper level high marks make up for borderline prereq marks? Blah, blah, blah. "

Lol, good point. All your questions are answered by "none of that matters, higher GPA is better, that's all we can say". In contrast for undergrad rep you don't know if higher rep really matters. Does a rank 75 carry more weight than unranked/regional? Does a rank 40 beat a 60? My point was that for the advice to be actionable, no specific recommendations can be made given the information we have. With GPA the answer is: higher is better, always.

You also don't think there is any reporter bias? You think legacy is super unimportant at top schools? You guys are a hoot.

Going to a "better" school also means it's harder to get stratospheric GPAs that are so in vogue these days.

In the end none of this matters, you'll get to experience this during your cycle efle, but FWIW my friends with 4.0s from UCR and UCSC did far better than my friends at cal/uva/harvard with 3.6s.

There's no point worrying about it and if you don't want to trust adcoms that's your prerogative. Let's just say there's a reason they say you want over a 3.6, and they don't have a caveat of "unless you're at a top 20 then a 3.0 is equivalent".

Nothing is arbitrarily made up here - I think the statement that some adcoms will care more than others, and that some schools will be generally perceived as more selective than others, is in no way random or faulty.

You're not making a lot of sense here. GPA is sloppy, but higher is better. Well, selective undergrad is sloppy, but more selective is better. They are both very difficult and sloppy metrics. The "have a better one" blanket answer exists for both and argues towards nothing.

Legacy can be very important to top schools, doesn't make it less true that they value selectivity in undergrad. If Vandy Med likes Vandy undergrads, they then also like selective university undergrads. Plus the highest legacy rates you see are percentages in the high teens (see MSAR) - the vast majority of the class comes from elsewhere.

The argument here has never been that 3.0 selective = 3.6 average uni. I completely believe that nowhere near that adjustment is made despite it being about what falls out from the MCAT comparison numbers, and I agree that choosing a tough school is a net detriment if you can't pull a stellar GPA there.

How can you be sure I'll experience any of this you've seen? I may well have a 4.0 and no personal interest in whether an adjustment gets made. It certainly is my prerogative, and I'll continue to trust the publications of the AAMC based on huge survey rather than the one or two private MD adcoms on SDN (who, by the way, have actually stated it does matter, just not to the extent of repairing a low 3's GPA. Mimelim and LizzyM iirc have both said this).

 

[efle]

No.

I'm worried it will look awful that I couldn't handle the top public university. Will this significantly set me back?

Out of curiosity, any input on the "highest importance" rating given to undergrad selectivity by private med schools according to AAMC? Do you think the n=127 survey totally missed the mark somehow, or is your view of these things not commonly shared outside DO and/or public schools?

 

[Goro]

Ask @hushcom, @LizzyM, @mimelim and @gyngyn. All I can do is give my own prism and that of my colleagues. Although I do pick up on what my peers who post here day.

i also recall that those selection factors was a range of things, that didn't quite pin down stuff.

LizzyM has pointed out that well known schools tend to be feeders for med schools.

Out of curiosity, any input on the "highest importance" rating given to undergrad selectivity by private med schools according to AAMC? Do you think the n=127 survey totally missed the mark somehow, or is your view of these things not commonly shared outside DO and/or public schools?

 

[jl lin]

LizzyM refers to University of Michigan, University of Virginia as "public" ivies. I would also include Berkeley, University of Chicago. Highly ranked in USNWR. Duke and Stanford technically aren't IVY, but University of Penn is. Sort of a East Coast thing! Those of us in the midwest never heard the term Public Ivyies, as we always think of ourselves as Big Ten, which is also technically now 14 or so (stretching from Nebraska now to Maryland). The world just isn't making any sense in the 21st century.

University of Penn has always been considered a core Ivy League school, but, well, whatever. Rutgers and W&M are colonial but not included in the 8 "ivies." But yea, I think the term is becoming of much less value anymore, especially since all the schools are pretty much outrageously expensive, and that is what bites the hardest in the end--unless you get a full ride.

Here you go, as per Wikipedia, if you consider it worthy enough. 🙂

"The eight institutions are Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, and Yale University. The term Ivy League has connotations of academic excellence, selectivity in admissions, and social elitism.

The term became official after the formation of the NCAA Division I athletic conference in 1954.[3] Seven of the eight schools were founded during the United States colonial period; the exception is Cornell, which was founded in 1865. Ivy League institutions account for seven of the nine Colonial Colleges chartered before the American Revolution, the other two being Rutgers University and College of William & Mary."