neutropenic said:
To be honest, they may see through it, but they may not. When I see applicants' packets (ad hoc admissions help at my school) I don't have time to go through the nuances of all the classes they took, I don't really know if they took the "hard" orgo class or the "easy" one, I just scan to see their science and nonscience GPA. There are too many schools people are applying from to go through all that detail. So there is no downside to taking ANY science class that raises your GPA, there is a big downside to taking hard science classes that lower your GPA.
This is why I said:
Remember adcoms will not only look at GPAs, but can also the classes you took, and what classes you took per quarter or semester.
With all due respect, ad hoc admissions help at your school does not = the methodology used to admit applicants. It might be the way to screen primary applications, but when they get to the final stages post-interview, it will be a whole lot different..and really what ultimately matters are the events that occur after interviews where they look at the WHOLE application in detail.
At our school, UC Davis (like other schools), they quickly identify such patterns. An upward GPA trend during the latter half of your undergrad career can be due to improved study habits, taking easier classes, or both. Otherwise it would be relatively easy to show upward trends by taking lower division classes. This is why adcom's tell reapplicants to do post-bacc where they take only upper division science, or grad school (like at UCLA). In regards to OChem, the easier class is usually a lower division course, while the harder one is upper division. Most schools have some sort of number system that differentiates upper (e.g.: 100-series) vs. lower division (e.g.:10-series). If not then the title of the class is usually a good indicator of what it is. (Intro to Bio vs. Biophysics) For those classes that are ambigious, they could call them up but more than likely, the MCAT should also provide a good standardized indicator of how they are with their fundamental sciences.
Anyway, yes getting lots of A's regardless of the type of class is always good, and getting bad grades in upper division classes is bad. BUT, which class will you work harder in? Most likely the upper division science class. Therefore doing poorly in upper division science, and getting A's in easier science (lower division or otherwise) does not help you do well in med school in terms of workload and knowledge. The adcoms know this very well. Again this is why they emphasize, time and time again, to take upper division courses. Why emphasize this when people can just take easier courses to get A's?
neutropenic said:
A 3.3 GPA of hard engineering classes and major level science classes = applying to med school forever.
A 3.9 GPA of community college prereqs and a great undergrad major in the huamnities = a very easy road to medical school admissions.
True, but just as you will have someone with a low GPA in engineering, you will have someone with a high GPA as well. What will you do when a person has a 3.9 GPA in biomedical engineering and also took their pre-reqs at a CC. What is more rigorous? The humanities major will look good because they are well-rounded, the biomedical engineer will look good because engineering is insanely hard. If the engineer is also well rounded through their EC's, you can guarantee that they will get some acceptances (assuming MCAT is good too).
You are comparing apples and oranges, we are talking about which class is more rigorous. Fluid Dynamics for Engineers vs. Physics for Poets. There will be days in med school when you don't have the choice of taking an easier class. Time to ante up, and learn to do well in hard courses that you have background in.
neutropenic said:
Another person I knew did CC classes for prereqs - interviewed all SoCal schools and many east coast Ivies. BCPM 4.0. MCAT 12s.
This is flawed reasoning, because CC pre-reqs as stated by many comments in other threads is not a problem at most medical schools. What matters is doing well in challenging classes post-prereqs. Unless their BCPM GPA consists ONLY of their pre-reqs...which is unlikely, it is clear they took a full 3-4 years worth of courses to graduate with a BA/BS. They got the interview because of all the classes they took and their MCAT score. The original topic was about taking less rigorous classes and/or lower division coursework to boost your GPA, as defined by your original comment:
neutropenic said:
]Yeah, I boosted my science average by taking nutrisci, stats, physics for poets, a women's health class under the bio dept, a class on fungi (picking morels) and a biochem class at the local community college.
Staying on topic, one can always take those classes. They are fun, and are easy A's. BUT, one should always challenge yourself with upper division courses. Upon consultation with our director of admissions at UC Davis, and UCSF, its clear that upper division science courses is a BIG factor. I cannot count how many times Ed Dagang (director of admissions, UCD) and/or Dr. Ralston (dean of admissions, UCSF) has said... "take upper division science courses" to pre-meds at numerous meetings, and conferences when asked about improving GPA. Do they assume we take these classes or do they actually check? I suggest you head over to the post-bacc or non-trad section of SDN. There is a common theme about taking challenging coursework such as upper division classes.
. Anyway, caveat is, UC's, along with other schools are starting to encorporate an upper division science requirement into their pre-reqs just to emphasize the importance of having this under your belt before going in (again UCD requires a upper div science). The HH equation although less important during clinical days plays a larger role when taking biochemistry. As a result, taking such classes better mimics (as close as possible) subjects that may be covered med school and thus reflect med school performance potential during years 1 and 2. 
