rant about current admissions process

[Anicetus]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Look let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that BME was super duper hard at your university. Where does this attitude of yours stop?

Omg its so not fair people who took anatomy in college are doing better than me in anatomy while I was off challenging myself.

Omg people who can only take tests but have no aptitude for people or research got better Step 1 scores than me because all they do is study to the exam instead of challenging themselves.

Omg people from top medical schools get into top residencies so easily but I couldnt get into a top medical school because I was off challenging myself.

Omg all of my classmates honored their surgery rotations while I was busting my ass off under my anal-AF attending and challenging myself but he never honors anyone.

Omg he got to be the attending's go-to resident because he got all the easy patients so his outcomes were better while all my patients were made up of the living dead.

Omg he got chief resident because he went to the same grade-inflating ivy as the attendings at this hospital while I was off challenging myself.

A better question would be, did you start acting this way before medical admissions was an issue?

Wait so we aren't created with equal opportunities and life is actually unfair??

 

[Lucca]

Adcom member-yes
Faculty member-yes
But PhD, not DO or MD.

My bad, I assumed <3.

 

[sithmoo]

i agree, i took philosophy of science and philosophy of mind classes for my gen-ed reqs. they were very challenging classes with very dense readings and papers but i enjoyed it and did decent.
my biggest problem is that this admissions "game" ,as some of you term, is that it seems to rewards those who actively seek out the easiest courses and do more or less the bare minimum to protect their GPA. im not accusing everybody of doing that that and i know there are plenty of art, music, whatever students that are very deserving of being doctors and accepted into med school, but from my experiences with other pre-meds from my school now, HS, hospital volunteering, etc. it seems to be the norm to duck out of as many hard classes as possible. that is what makes me a bit frustrated.

I just don't believe that very many people who 'game the system' are successful. No question, GPA is used as a cutoff to weed out bad applicants. But I realllly doubt the actual threshold is outrageously high. A 3.4 BME and a 4.0 'easy' major both deserve to get their feet in the door. Then the challenge is selling your story, showing you have passion. People who game the system but don't give a crap about their work can't pull that off.
OP, why did you pick BME, out of curiosity? Other than 'challenging yourself' (my major was ancient languages, and I certainly felt I challeneged myself).

 

[deleted380953]

Talk to an applicant in any major and I'm sure they'll have something "unfair" to complain about. BME? Harder classes. Philosophy? Giant papers due constantly with an ungodly number of books to read. Theater? Regularly up until 1am for rehearsals, even if they have 8am bio the next day.

Each major is different, but you chose your situation. The system works the same way it always has and raw GPA is important. If you aren't doing well, your options are to work harder, change majors, or just deal with things gracefully. Ranting may make you feel better, but it ultimately doesn't help.

This is the most meaningful post of this thread.

 

[efle]

This is the most meaningful post of this thread.

Really? I think it's BS to say phil and BME are even the same ballpark of difficulty and that a theater major's raw GPA cannot be directly compared to BME. The truth is that there are some majors which are more harshly graded and more intellectually demanding.

 

[altblue]

Really? I think it's BS to say phil and BME are even the same ballpark of difficulty and that a theater major's raw GPA cannot be directly compared to BME. The truth is that there are some majors which are more harshly graded and more intellectually demanding.

This is correct, but intellectual challenge isn't the only reason for major difficulty, which I'm wagering was the main point of his post.

From my perspective, I don't want to be self-effacing , but I do well in math and the physical sciences because these are reasoning-based and other skills like time management and planning are less in focus - skills that I am weaker in. Meanwhile, I have to work harder biology, or at least the biology classes my schools have taught, because the subject favors people who are beasts at cramming 😛, extremely aware of how they collect and recite information, and disciplined in their studies - reasoning doesn't come into play too much in this subject and the difficulty comes with developing these separate skills.

Likewise, I and many other pre-meds would probably struggle with theatre practice till 1AM because I would have difficulty focusing and staying on my feet for that long and balancing that with classes - not to mention how the average pre-med couldn't be a D1 athlete because of the skills and talents that athletics mandates.

These are just examples, but you know. 😉

 

[deleted380953]

Really? I think it's BS to say phil and BME are even the same ballpark of difficulty and that a theater major's raw GPA cannot be directly compared to BME. The truth is that there are some majors which are more harshly graded and more intellectually demanding.

Comparing the two doesn't really work since they're both completely different majors with their own aspects. BME is certainly difficult, but a subject like Philosophy can be too. If I had to read and analyze the amount of material that's assigned in those courses I'd find it difficult, mainly because I'm not interested in the subject and I don't like writing papers. Whether or not majors are harshly graded is entirely dependent on the faculty. You could just as easily have a math or engineering department that is more lenient on grades or writes easier exams.

This is something I think a lot of people have difficulty understanding. Comparing majors is not as black and white as it sounds when you have so many factors playing a role (type of school, type of grading scale, faculty, course rigor, personal interest)

Just a relevant anecdote; a guy in my program double majored in philosophy and he told me that he found it to be more demanding than our physics coursework.

 

[efle]

Comparing the two doesn't really work since they're both completely different majors with their own aspects. BME is certainly difficult, but a subject like Philosophy can be too. If I had to read and analyze the amount of material that's assigned in those courses I'd find it difficult, mainly because I'm not interested in the subject and I don't like writing papers. Whether or not majors are harshly graded is entirely dependent on the faculty. You could just as easily have a math or engineering department that is more lenient on grades or writes easier exams.

This is something I think a lot of people have difficulty understanding. Comparing majors is not as black and white as it sounds when you have so many factors playing a role (type of school, type of grading scale, faculty, course rigor, personal interest)

Just a relevant anecdote; a guy in my program double majored in philosophy and he told me that he found it to be more demanding than our physics coursework.

Sure every rule has its exceptions, especially on a class by class basis.

But BME being more harshly graded and >> difficulty than humanities or soft science is the norm

 

[altblue]

Sure every rule has its exceptions, especially on a class by class basis.

But BME being more harshly graded and >> difficulty than humanities or soft science is the norm

Maybe I'm nitpicking at your examples, but I'm not convinced that BME is graded significantly more harshly than philosophy. As someone who strongly considered engineering, I've read that BME is mostly regarded as one of the easier engineering majors, but philosophy is generally believed to be far more difficult than humanities and soft science like sociology and English literature (just because of the nature of the material!). Maybe, at least in this case, one's interest in the subject and talents are more important than grading.

 

[WillburCobb]

Sure every rule has its exceptions, especially on a class by class basis.

But BME being more harshly graded and >> difficulty than humanities or soft science is the norm

Because earning a C or even a D despite having an A point/percentage wise because you didn't show enough "growth" or "improvement" throughout the course isn't harsh grading.

 

[nOchemallday]

Really? Because physics majors and biomedical engineers have the highest mcat scores among undergraduate majors.

http://medschoolodyssey.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/composite.png

edit: added link to chart, also note that the top scores are all "soft science and humanities majors" all the way down to chemistry.

I know it was a few pages ago, but I just couldn't ignore it. This source is absolute bogus. Follow the trail:
The picture you've linked comes from here. Which claims to be citing data published by the American Institute of Physics (who obviously have a conflict of interest with the outcomes of physics majors performance, but that's an entirely different concern). The AIP link has been updated to the 2012 data since your blog reference cited it, but their current issue follows an almost identical trend as presented by the 2010 data. The new data according to AIP can be found here. Their supposed source is "Compiled... data collected by the [AAMC]." However, there are a few immediate discrepancies with their data:
1. The number of total applicants doesn't match that published by the AAMC: pg 2 of this. 45,266 applicants, not 44,464.
2. The true AAMC published data can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20130912...org/download/321496/data/2012factstable18.pdf which I would venture to claim as a more reliable source. However they don't specifically identify the GPA and MCAT scores of engineers as a discrete category.
3. Based on this presumably true AAMC data, the easiest discernable category is "physical sciences": the AIP document lists a total of 228 physics + 2113 chemistry majors vs 4825 physical sciences majors listed on AAMC. I highly doubt that geology and astronomy majors make up the other 2484 applicants unlisted in the AIP document. Then comes the debate of whether biochemistry majors count toward biological sciences or physical sciences.

Regardless, my point is that the data you linked is suspicious, and, frankly, looks blatantly wrong.

 

[efle]

I know it was a few pages ago, but I just couldn't ignore it. This source is absolute bogus. Follow the trail:
The picture you've linked comes from here. Which claims to be citing data published by the American Institute of Physics (who obviously have a conflict of interest with the outcomes of physics majors performance, but that's an entirely different concern). The AIP link has been updated to the 2012 data since your blog reference cited it, but their current issue follows an almost identical trend as presented by the 2010 data. The new data according to AIP can be found here. Their supposed source is "Compiled... data collected by the [AAMC]." However, there are a few immediate discrepancies with their data:
1. The number of total applicants doesn't match that published by the AAMC: pg 2 of this. 45,266 applicants, not 44,464.
2. The true AAMC published data can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20130912...org/download/321496/data/2012factstable18.pdf which I would venture to claim as a more reliable source. However they don't specifically identify the GPA and MCAT scores of engineers as a discrete category.
3. Based on this presumably true AAMC data, the easiest discernable category is "physical sciences": the AIP document lists a total of 228 physics + 2113 chemistry majors vs 4825 physical sciences majors listed on AAMC. I highly doubt that geology and astronomy majors make up the other 2484 applicants unlisted in the AIP document. Then comes the debate of whether biochemistry majors count toward biological sciences or physical sciences.

Regardless, my point is that the data you linked is suspicious, and, frankly, looks blatantly wrong.

It doesn't matter anyways, he was entirely misinterpreting it as demonstrating superior MCAT performance due to education in that subject, rather than realizing people with superior science/reasoning ability tend to choose those majors and are also the ones who tend to do well on the MCAT.

 

[efle]

Because earning a C or even a D despite having an A point/percentage wise because you didn't show enough "growth" or "improvement" throughout the course isn't harsh grading.

Wow this sounds like total BS, I've never even heard of this happening to anybody at my school

 

[WillburCobb]

I've never even heard of this happening to anybody at my school

Which is why you can't make blanket statements. There are too many variables between schools, departments, profs. etc.

 

[efle]

Maybe I'm nitpicking at your examples, but I'm not convinced that BME is graded significantly more harshly than philosophy. As someone who strongly considered engineering, I've read that BME is mostly regarded as one of the easier engineering majors, but philosophy is generally believed to be far more difficult than humanities and soft science like sociology and English literature (just because of the nature of the material!). Maybe, at least in this case, one's interest in the subject and talents are more important than grading.

Thats true my phil classes have handed out limited high marks, its more socio/psych upper levels where I've seen the massive difference in difficulty

 

[efle]

Which is why you can't make blanket statements. There are too many variables between schools, departments, profs. etc.

Let me qualify my statement then that its only at good universities where engineering is normally more demanding than humanities

 

[WillburCobb]

Let me qualify my statement then that its only at good universities where engineering is normally more demanding than humanities

And how do we objectively assess or define "good" as you've decided to use it

 

[altblue]

And how do we objectively assess or define "good" as you've decided to use it

My guess is anything at WUSTL's level or above.

 

[efle]

And how do we objectively assess or define "good" as you've decided to use it

My guess is anything at WUSTL's level or above.

Poor guess, I meant anywhere that failing grades are not arbitrarily assigned to 90+% scoring students for lack of growth
😉

 

[WillburCobb]

Poor guess, I meant anywhere that failing grades are not arbitrarily assigned to 90+% scoring students for lack of growth
😉

It's technically not failing, and I'm only aware of a few profs. who did this at my undergrad. Nonetheless my point still stands, you'll never know or fully appreciate all the pertinent details (school, department, prof., nuances of the area of study (e.g., time commitment), etc.) to reasonably say student A majored in X thus he took more difficult courses, is smarter, and more capable than student B who majored in Y.

 

[mcloaf]

It's technically not failing, and I'm only aware of a few profs. who did this at my undergrad. Nonetheless my point still stands, you'll never know or fully appreciate all the pertinent details (school, department, prof., nuances of the area of study (e.g., time commitment), etc.) to reasonably say student A majored in X thus he took more difficult courses, is smarter, and more capable than student B who majored in Y.

But then how can I lord over these intellectual peasants anonymously on the internet?

 

[WillburCobb]

.

 

[jamcat]

My view: No, the admissions process is not "fair." Nothing in life is. So it's something we roll with. And maybe someday, when we're in the position to change it, it's something we can work on.

Second view: Anybody with the mental chops to become a doctor can become a doctor. It may take a few more years for those with low GPAs, but if the goal is to be a doctor, that's eminently achievable because despite the inflated effect luck has on this process, the good people do eventually get in.

It may be a problem if your only acceptable med schools were Harvard or Hopkins, but man, you still get to be a doctor. Think of kids who grew up in houses where parents never read to them, or never told them to do homework when they were in elementary school. That's certainly not fair either, and they'll be at an even greater disadvantage than the person with a 3.4 GPA in a difficult major from a difficult school. This doesn't mitigate the imperfections of the med school admissions process, but in the scheme of things, having to do a bit of GPA repair before becoming a doctor is hardly too heavy a cross to bear.

And this is coming from somebody whose GPA is, let's just say, not a 4.0.

I feel your pain, and understand that rants can be cathartic, but I think it's best to just focus on what we can control right now, which is not how med school admissions are handled.

 

[deleted380953]

Sure every rule has its exceptions, especially on a class by class basis.

But BME being more harshly graded and >> difficulty than humanities or soft science is the norm

Again, whether or not a program is harshly graded is dependent mostly on the faculty and the program, not really the material. Some of my physics professors could have given us exams with straightforward problems lifted from the HW, but they chose to make it more harder and have stricter grading. An art history professor could do the exact same thing if he or she wanted.

It's technically not failing, and I'm only aware of a few profs. who did this at my undergrad. Nonetheless my point still stands, you'll never know or fully appreciate all the pertinent details (school, department, prof., nuances of the area of study (e.g., time commitment), etc.) to reasonably say student A majored in X thus he took more difficult courses, is smarter, and more capable than student B who majored in Y.

Exactly. Which is probably why it's easier for adcoms to assume that all majors are equal, rather than give preferential treatment to a subject where they don't know all the details of the program. It's not the ideal situation, but it's the only one that works.

 

[Lucca]

I know it was a few pages ago, but I just couldn't ignore it. This source is absolute bogus. Follow the trail:
The picture you've linked comes from here. Which claims to be citing data published by the American Institute of Physics (who obviously have a conflict of interest with the outcomes of physics majors performance, but that's an entirely different concern). The AIP link has been updated to the 2012 data since your blog reference cited it, but their current issue follows an almost identical trend as presented by the 2010 data. The new data according to AIP can be found here. Their supposed source is "Compiled... data collected by the [AAMC]." However, there are a few immediate discrepancies with their data:
1. The number of total applicants doesn't match that published by the AAMC: pg 2 of this. 45,266 applicants, not 44,464.
2. The true AAMC published data can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20130912...org/download/321496/data/2012factstable18.pdf which I would venture to claim as a more reliable source. However they don't specifically identify the GPA and MCAT scores of engineers as a discrete category.
3. Based on this presumably true AAMC data, the easiest discernable category is "physical sciences": the AIP document lists a total of 228 physics + 2113 chemistry majors vs 4825 physical sciences majors listed on AAMC. I highly doubt that geology and astronomy majors make up the other 2484 applicants unlisted in the AIP document. Then comes the debate of whether biochemistry majors count toward biological sciences or physical sciences.

Regardless, my point is that the data you linked is suspicious, and, frankly, looks blatantly wrong.

Thank you for the correction. You're right, upon further examination there are some big discrepencies between the AIP and AAMC data. I too would trust the AAMC over the AIP and the score gaps in AAMC are smaller than originally presented.

Anyways, I chose the photo because it was the first thing I found and it supported my argument - a mistake because I was in a hurry. It was lazy, I'll admit.

My main point wasn't what elfe was articulating, however.
My main point was that there is no reason non-science majors can't outperform science majors on the required science knowledge outside and inside of medical school.

The discussion began when @elfe agreed that people with more "demanding" majors get the short end of the stick in admissions. I think this attitude is toxic, bogus and elitist. I'd like that to be the main take away.

 

[efle]

I suppose I can only speak of myself and people I know who double majored a soft and hard science and found the latter to be, well, harder. Silly me thinking engineering is usually more demanding than socio/psych/anthro etc, I'm sure there are some schools where the high attrition rate and lower grades are in the poli sci department.

@Lucca

If Engineering has really challenged you in ways that no other undergrads have been challenged then that will show in your MCAT and in your performance in medical school.

This I strongly disagree with, extremely in depth and difficult coursework in the sciences matters jack squat for the MCAT, which tests only superficial stuff. You study the test and basic intro crap to do well, not 3-400 level BME material.

Really? Because physics majors and biomedical engineers have the highest mcat scores among undergraduate majors.

Because of the people taking those majors, not because the majors prepare them better. Those majors also have higher average test scores going into college.

I think my description was accurate, you think a challenging engi major --> higher MCAT, I think the people with the skillset to get a high MCAT are over-represented in engi

 

[Lucca]

I suppose I can only speak of myself and people I know who double majored a soft and hard science and found the latter to be, well, harder. Silly me thinking engineering is usually more demanding than socio/psych/anthro etc, I'm sure there are some schools where the high attrition rate and lower grades are in the poli sci department.

@Lucca








I think my description was accurate, you think a challenging engi major --> higher MCAT, I think the people with the skillset to get a high MCAT are over-represented in engi

I think a challenging engineering (or challenging anything) major provides people with the skillset to succeed on the MCAT. I don't think people come out of high school with this skillset. Anyways, it is uninportant - if you challenge yourself in whatever discipline then this is good, there is no need to give a leg up to one discipline or another because you think said disciplines are "harder" or more "intellectually demanding".

[redacted]

Here's the important question: What solution does your attitude provide? Give a leg up to engineering majors in admissions? A little more forgiveness for a low GPA? Perhaps this is already done, to an extent (I imagine you are perfectly aware that WUSTL grads are admitted more often in lower GpA ranges due to, i imagine, WUSTL's rep as being very demanding - as is true with Princeton, MIT and CalTech). Presume we were to say this publically. There would be 30,000 premeds accross the nation, every year, scrambling to destroy themselves with coursework/majors that seem "more demanding" just to impress the AdCom.

If the question that you actually want to ask is: "Is, or is not, engineering more demanding than softer disciplines?" Then the answer is a clear: "Sometimes". There is much more variance in the softer sciences given the immense variety of end goals in that student population (from Special Ed teachers to Rhodes scholars). However, Engineering seems to have more "work" - as in, homework, technical readings, technical applications, practicuums - than those disciplines, on average, while representing a very homogenous population (people who want to be engineers or simply want a job that pays well). The engineering curriuculum is so dense and standardized at most schools that engineers are all basically the same, this is what makes them attractive to corporate employers and ensures that a set of basic competencies are met for the job; often the tradeoff is more time in college or a tightly packed 4 years with little variety.

[redacted]

What's my point? A lot of disciplines can be hard or easy depending on you spin them and how you decide to pursue them. Making assumptions large enough to play a role in the admissions process is a disastrous perogative. Instead, evaluate individual resumes and courseloads and only then make a judgement (i.e the way it is done now).

Some people value their extracurriculars more than their coursework and they shouldn't be forced into 20 hour, science only semesters because some group of people thinks that is going to make for better doctors. I don't think there's a practicing physician on this earth that think's that is true.

 

[nOchemallday]

Thank you for the correction. You're right, upon further examination there are some big discrepencies between the AIP and AAMC data. I too would trust the AAMC over the AIP and the score gaps in AAMC are smaller than originally presented.

Anyways, I chose the photo because it was the first thing I found and it supported my argument - a mistake because I was in a hurry. It was lazy, I'll admit.

My main point wasn't what elfe was articulating, however.
My main point was that there is no reason non-science majors can't outperform science majors on the required science knowledge outside and inside of medical school.

The discussion began when @elfe agreed that people with more "demanding" majors get the short end of the stick in admissions. I think this attitude is toxic, bogus and elitist. I'd like that to be the main take away.

I'd have to say I agree with all of the bolded. The only D I've ever received on an assignment or test was in English 101. Philosophy wasn't a walk in the park either. I guess my n=1 experience is that I personally find sciences easier than humanities - otherwise I wouldn't be double majoring in sciences. Even if one could quantify the level of difficulty between science, engineering, soft science and humanities curricula how does that ever translate to an individual who has independent strengths and weaknesses? (My answer is it shouldn't translate)

 

[howbaddoyouwantit]

Dear OP your frustration is definitely warranted but you have to realize med school admissions, and healthcare as a whole, is a sham. Its a complex system setup to please everybody but fails to please the individual. In the end, the investors win, patients lose, and doctors stay content as the middleman. Welcome to life.

 

[keenemd]

Here's the important question: What solution does your attitude provide? Give a leg up to engineering majors in admissions? A little more forgiveness for a low GPA? Perhaps this is already done, to an extent (I imagine you are perfectly aware that WUSTL grads are admitted more often in lower GpA ranges due to, i imagine, WUSTL's rep as being very demanding - as is true with Princeton, MIT and CalTech). Presume we were to say this publically. There would be 30,000 premeds accross the nation, every year, scrambling to destroy themselves with coursework/majors that seem "more demanding" just to impress the AdCom.


What's my point? A lot of disciplines can be hard or easy depending on you spin them and how you decide to pursue them. Making assumptions large enough to play a role in the admissions process is a disastrous perogative. Instead, evaluate individual resumes and courseloads and only then make a judgement (i.e the way it is done now).

Some people value their extracurriculars more than their coursework and they shouldn't be forced into 20 hour, science only semesters because some group of people thinks that is going to make for better doctors. I don't think there's a practicing physician on this earth that think's that is true.

A pretty simple solution would be for medical schools to not weight GPA as equal or more important than the MCAT, given how unstandardized GPA is by school/major. That way student's will be able to study any major or spend time participating in extracurriculars without fear of making it harder to get into medical school.

Then again, if that solution was adopted, medical schools wouldn't be able to post as high GPA's on their admissions pamphlets or rely on inflated GPA's to get ahead in the rankings.

 

[efle]

I think a challenging engineering (or challenging anything) major provides people with the skillset to succeed on the MCAT. I don't think people come out of high school with this skillset. Anyways, it is uninportant - if you challenge yourself in whatever discipline then this is good, there is no need to give a leg up to one discipline or another because you think said disciplines are "harder" or more "intellectually denanding".

Btw I'm a Biochemistry and Philosophy major who was a physics major before so I'm well aware of what going through both "soft" and "hard" classes is like.

Here's the important question: What solution does your attitude provide? Give a leg up to engineering majors in admissions? A little more forgiveness for a low GPA? Perhaps this is already done, to an extent (I imagine you are perfectly aware that WUSTL grads are admitted more often in lower GpA ranges due to, i imagine, WUSTL's rep as being very demanding - as is true with Princeton, MIT and CalTech). Presume we were to say this publically. There would be 30,000 premeds accross the nation, every year, scrambling to destroy themselves with coursework/majors that seem "more demanding" just to impress the AdCom.

If the question that you actually want to ask is: "Is, or is not, engineering more demanding than softer disciplines?" Then the answer is a clear: "Sometimes". There is much more variance in the softer sciences given the immense variety of end goals in that student population (from Special Ed teachers to Rhodes scholars). However, Engineering seems to have more "work" - as in, homework, technical readings, technical applications, practicuums - than those disciplines, on average, while representing a very homogenous population (people who want to be engineers or simply want a job that pays well). The engineering curriuculum is so dense and standardized at most schools that engineers are all basically the same, this is what makes them attractive to corporate employers and ensures that a set of basic competencies are met for the job; often the tradeoff is more time in college or a tightly packed 4 years with little variety.

My college's school of Engineering is Top 10. I'm in one of the honor's programs here and many of my friends are engineering honors. You know which students work the hardest in the non-honors population, from what I've seen? Engineers. You know who works the least in that same population? Business majors (b-school is also highly ranked). In the honors programs you know who works the least? Engineers. You know who works the most? Science and Liberal Arts students. Why? All of the liberal arts students are working in internships alongside their coursework, working at the law school here, working for a non-profit or business startup. All of the science students are doing research (honors students in the sciences here are required to do research, beginning as freshman, for at least a full year), TAing, and if they are pre-med doing the associated pre-med things. You know what the engineers are doing? They are going to class and going through the interview and application cycles for Co-Ops, summer internships, post-grad jobs and the like. But that's it. Their curriculum really leaves little time for other things but amongst the top tier engineers (the honors students) this coursework just isn't that hard for them, there's just a lot of it and thus they have more time for other things.

What's my point? A lot of disciplines can be hard or easy depending on you spin them and how you decide to pursue them. Making assumptions large enough to play a role in the admissions process is a disastrous perogative. Instead, evaluate individual resumes and courseloads and only then make a judgement (i.e the way it is done now).

Some people value their extracurriculars more than their coursework and they shouldn't be forced into 20 hour, science only semesters because some group of people thinks that is going to make for better doctors. I don't think there's a practicing physician on this earth that think's that is true.

Good points. I am also a double major in a hard sci and humanity and I don't ever mean to sound elitist, I love me some phil and psych. I've just personally seen and heard from many others that there is a huge gap in difficulty - but that may just be my school where, for example, psych is notoriously easy with many 300+ level courses like abnormal, developmental, social psych being nowhere near the upper level bio and chem coursework. And even if it is pretty standard to see this across universities (which I think it is, don't things like education, socio/psych and business almost always have reputations for being easier?) I don't have any idea how it could be handled better aside from maybe using prereq GPA instead of all-science GPA when comparing.

 

[Lucca]

Good points. I am also a double major in a hard sci and humanity and I don't ever mean to sound elitist, I love me some phil and psych. I've just personally seen and heard from many others that there is a huge gap in difficulty - but that may just be my school where, for example, psych is notoriously easy with many 300+ level courses like abnormal, developmental, social psych being nowhere near the upper level bio and chem coursework. And even if it is pretty standard to see this across universities (which I think it is, don't things like education, socio/psych and business almost always have reputations for being easier?) I don't have any idea how it could be handled better aside from maybe using prereq GPA instead of all-science GPA when comparing.

That's one way to do it. I would propose we just set hard cutoffs for gpa (school dependant but I think the highest it should be is 3.4 at places like HMS, JHU, Stanford, etc.) and if you meet that cutoff you can apply. If you don't, tough ****. After the computer decides whether you can apply or not, not one living soul will see your GPA. It's all MCAT, LOR, Personal statement, resume, interview from then on out.

 

[ASD2019]

A pretty simple solution would be for medical schools to not weight GPA as equal or more important than the MCAT, given how unstandardized GPA is by school/major. That way student's will be able to study any major or spend time participating in extracurriculars without fear of making it harder to get into medical school.

Then again, if that solution was adopted, medical schools wouldn't be able to post as high GPA's on their admissions pamphlets or rely on inflated GPA's to get ahead in the rankings.

Wow. We have a rocket scientist here!

A big part of getting through med school (and pretty much most things in life) is having a solid work ethic. The "best" objective measure we have to quantify this work ethic is GPA. The way we try to correct for the unstandardized GPA is through the MCAT. If one truly has " superior science/reasoning ability" then they should be able to crush the mcat thus leading to no problems with admission to med school!

 

[efle]

That's one way to do it. I would propose we just set hard cutoffs for gpa (school dependant but I think the highest it should be is 3.4 at places like HMS, JHU, Stanford, etc.) and if you meet that cutoff you can apply. If you don't, tough ****. After the computer decides whether you can apply or not, not one living soul will see your GPA. It's all MCAT, LOR, Personal statement, resume, interview from then on out.

Oooooh I don't know about this, I feel like a 3.4 vs 4.0 from a tough undergrad speaks volumes more than a few point difference in MCAT between applicants. Honestly getting the 3.9 sGPA (which is what, one B allowed out of 8-10 prereq classes?) to be median is a million times harder than getting a 36 MCAT

 

[efle]

Wow. We have a rocket scientist here!

A big part of getting through med school (and pretty much most things in life) is having a solid work ethic. The "best" objective measure we have to quantify this work ethic is GPA. The way we try to correct for the unstandardized GPA is through the MCAT. If one truly has " superior science/reasoning ability" then they should be able to crush the mcat thus leading to no problems with admission to med school!

I also like the idea of standardizing the coursework in the GPA by looking at prereq GPA as its own category - this would allow a really direct comparison of any majors

 

[ASD2019]

I also like the idea of standardizing the coursework in the GPA by looking at prereq GPA as its own category - this would allow a really direct comparison of any majors

I think that is a great idea!

 

[Lucca]

Oooooh I don't know about this, I feel like a 3.4 vs 4.0 from a tough undergrad speaks volumes more than a few point difference in MCAT between applicants. Honestly getting the 3.9 sGPA (which is what, one B allowed out of 8-10 prereq classes?) to be median is a million times harder than getting a 36 MCAT

I think it speaks volumes as well as to that applicant's intellectual aptitude. I agree there's a big difference. I mentioned the big school's because they are recognizable but I think that at most school's the academic record serves mostly just to say "Yes they can handle it" and everything else is for "do we want them to join our club?"

 

[claduva94]

I also like the idea of standardizing the coursework in the GPA by looking at prereq GPA as its own category - this would allow a really direct comparison of any majors

You would still have people complaining that their OChem is harder than every other school's OChem. There is no perfect system but the current one works reasonably well.

 

[Goro]

We don't give a rat's ass about ranking. Do you really think anyone in medical education other than pre-meds, take USN&WR seriously?

We care about getting people who will be good students and good doctors. You have to be the former before you get to be the latter. And 4.0 automatons are a dime-a-dozen.

Then again, if that solution was adopted, medical schools wouldn't be able to post as high GPA's on their admissions pamphlets or rely on inflated GPA's to get ahead in the rankings.

 

[efle]

We care about getting people who will be good students

And this isn't more likely to happen if you draw out of elite undergrads? It certainly seems that the top med schools favor the big name undergrads at least. Do you feel the same way about the MCAT, that anything above high 20s (which I usually hear as the threshold for predicting successful completion of medical school) is a meaningless difference?

 

[Goro]

Not really. Because unless we know what the students are like, at, say, Dartmouth, the name is just a name. I've met Harvard UG students who forever tarnished the reputation of that school in my eyes. Ditto George W Bush for the value of a Harvard MBA. Now HMS grads, on the other hand, they're grand!

The grads of the state schools where I live are great. I'll take them over any "elite UG" that you're referring to. And yes, since we actually looked at the data, once you get to 28+, it makes no difference to success in our program. In our program, the best students have the best MCAT scores, but having a great MCAT score in and of itself is no predictor for success. LOW MCAT scores on the other hand, are definite flags for trouble in med school.

In any event, it's a seller's market.

And this isn't more likely to happen if you draw out of elite undergrads? It certainly seems that the top med schools favor the big name undergrads at least. Do you feel the same way about the MCAT, that anything above high 20s (which I usually hear as the threshold for predicting successful completion of medical school) is a meaningless difference?

 

[ridethecliche]

How is this thread still going?

Not really. Because unless we know what the students are like, at, say, Dartmouth, the name is just a name. I've met Harvard UG students who forever tarnished the reputation of that school in my eyes. Ditto George W Bush for the value of a Harvard MBA. Now HMS grads, on the other hand, they're grand!

The grads of the state schools where I live are great. I'll take them over any "elite UG" that you're referring to. And yes, since we actually looked at the data, once you get to 28+, it makes no difference to success in our program. In our program, the best students have the best MCAT scores, but having a great MCAT score in and of itself is no predictor for success. LOW MCAT scores on the other hand, are definite flags for trouble in med school.

In any event, it's a seller's market.

Depends. The fellows complain that the residents trained at HMS don't aren't really all that grand in practice as they spend too much structured time doing research when they should be operating and learning instead.

 

[Goro]

Ahh! That brings to mind that a number of my students have said that on rotations, they know how to talk to patients and take physicals, while MS3s from some top MD schools couldn't talk to a patient to save their own lives,. They could recite details of nearly every metabolic pathway known, though!

How is this thread still going?



Depends. The fellows complain that the residents trained at HMS don't aren't really all that grand in practice as they spend too much structured time doing research when they should be operating and learning instead.

 

[Narmerguy]

And this isn't more likely to happen if you draw out of elite undergrads? It certainly seems that the top med schools favor the big name undergrads at least. Do you feel the same way about the MCAT, that anything above high 20s (which I usually hear as the threshold for predicting successful completion of medical school) is a meaningless difference?

Big name undergrads pull students who played the high school game well. Medical schools pull students who played the college game well. Residencies pull students who play the medical school game well. No one cares what you did 4+ years ago because trajectories change. Plenty of my college peers were valedictorians and were middle of the pack in college while people who were bored in high school were finally wrecking the curve. My point is that using undergraduate "elitism" as some sort of proxy for quality is lousy because it's always based on things you did 8-10 years ago with a bunch of 13 and 14 year olds. Why bother when medical schools can directly assess your performance on college level material with college level peers without mommy and daddy rushing you from band camp to soccer practice.

You chose your college, you chose your major, now go handle your business like everyone else or choose something you can handle.

 

[deleted295697]

This is really dumb. ECs are not very informative. They aren't standardized and anyone who went to college in the past 15 years knows people who have terrible ECs but make them look great on paper. I know a girl who got funding to go to India and helping build an "electronic medical record." Sounds great, but in reality what she did was chill out and work on her med school essays while the NGO did all the work installing computers that will soon break down.

Of course, some med schools will see BS for what it is--but others won't. And since med schools don't share information on applicants you get the bizarre phenomenon of schools ranked 2 7 and 15 admitting someone while 3,4,5,6,8,9,17,19, 22 don't. If ECs were so informative wouldn't people, you know, draw the same inferences from them?

When I talk to people about this i wonder if they are rationalizing or really believe what they are saying.

Here's the deal.
It's a seller's market, and med schools have the pick of the litter.

Med school is a lot harder than UG, and excellence in your science courses is one of telling us that you can handle the rigors of medical school.

Whether somebody majors in art, or biology, they still have to take the pre-reqs. We expect them to do well.

Stats get you to the door, but ECs get you through the door. That's the "holistic" part, and we do look at things more than stats.

Basically, the answer is "tough".

 

[SympatricSpeciation]

OP, don't do this to yourself. This is all they know, all they've seen.

 

[claduva94]

This is really dumb. ECs are not very informative. They aren't standardized and anyone who went to college in the past 15 years knows people who have terrible ECs but make them look great on paper. I know a girl who got funding to go to India and helping build an "electronic medical record." Sounds great, but in reality what she did was chill out and work on her med school essays while the NGO did all the work installing computers that will soon break down.

Of course, some med schools will see BS for what it is--but others won't. And since med schools don't share information on applicants you get the bizarre phenomenon of schools ranked 2 7 and 15 admitting someone while 3,4,5,6,8,9,17,19, 22 don't. If ECs were so informative wouldn't people, you know, draw the same inferences from them?

When I talk to people about this i wonder if they are rationalizing or really believe what they are saying.

What alternative would you suggest? The whole point is that they are subjective. There needs to be something beyond scores to assess a person's ability to be a doctor and ECs at least somewhat are indicative of that.

 

[musicalfeet]

I didn't really bother reading all the responses to OP, but one thing that really rubbed me the wrong way OP, is that you assume artistic or "fluff" majors are easier. I can't speak for all humanities, but I feel I am definitely experienced enough to speak on behalf of the artistic majors. It's NOT easier..depending on how you look at it. If a student went into this major doing the bare minimum, while actively seeing it as a "GPA-padder", I suppose yes, it wouldn't be too hard. But let me tell you a personal anecdote, I was a music major with a pretty low avg gpa (3.4). I wasn't a slacker--in fact, I was the hardest working one in my class. In fact, my pre-req GPA is much higher than my undergrad major gpa (3.9 vs 3.4, you tell me)

You see, the problem with artistic majors is that the GPA is NO indicator as to how successful you actually were in that field. Sure you can show up to class, do your homework, ace your tests (which is why I can see why typical premeds view these majors as easy fluff), but to actually cut it in this field is arguably more difficult and variable than the sciences. You can brute force your way to a good grade by knowing your stuff in the sciences. TOO BAD it doesn't work that way in the arts. If you were snarky to a Professor one week and really pissed him off on your lessons, too bad, he probably feels like giving you a B+ on your transcript and there isn't anything you can do about it. They can give you whatever they feel like giving you, arbitrarily. Accomplishments be damned. Tell me that is easier than proving your worth through grades and work.

Oh, did I mention that art majors (real ones anyway, not the GPA fluffers) actually have to do EXTRA work that counts as no credit? It's not just "haha take these classes go home and done". It's more like " Wake up at 7am to practice. Have class from 9-2. Have orchestra/rehearsal/lessons/whatevers until 6pm, practice another 2-3 hours until 8-9pm and then go home and do your homework". That's not even taking into account the sheer physical exhaustion you get from physically playing all day. How many other majors out there have regular occurrences of physical injury due to the work that they have to do on a daily basis? I've had to go seek medical care twice in four years due to practicing so hard. I'm not trying to make excuses for myself, but usually by 9pm I didn't give a damn about my studying/homework/classes anymore because of the exhaustion. Oh, did I also mention oftentimes there are all day-rehearsals on certain weekends? They don't give a damn if you've got finals that coming week. You wanna skip? Okay, we'll give you a B in the class, regardless of how hard you worked before. When I read about how much work med school and beyond is going to be and all the hours it entails, I honestly don't think it's going to be much worse than what I've already been through. Art majors pull 14hr days already anyway. If you want to be materialistic about it, at least at the very end of it all, you're pretty much guaranteed a paycheck. People expect you to do that type of work for free in the arts.

I suppose if you didn't want to actually be good at your craft, you could just do the bare minimum and show up, be a nice person and stay out of everyone's way to get an A. But why waste your education on something you don't care about? My peers that did artsy majors and were premed at the same time genuinely cared about the subjects they studied, and cared to become at least proficient in their craft. They put in just as much time as the science majors, IMO, and their performances in the pre-reqs prove that they can hold their own in the sciences too.

 

[WillburCobb]

I didn't really bother reading all the responses to OP, but one thing that really rubbed me the wrong way OP, is that you assume artistic or "fluff" majors are easier. I can't speak for all humanities, but I feel I am definitely experienced enough to speak on behalf of the artistic majors. It's NOT easier..depending on how you look at it. If a student went into this major doing the bare minimum, while actively seeing it as a "GPA-padder", I suppose yes, it wouldn't be too hard. But let me tell you a personal anecdote, I was a music major with a pretty low avg gpa (3.4). I wasn't a slacker--in fact, I was the hardest working one in my class. In fact, my pre-req GPA is much higher than my undergrad major gpa (3.9 vs 3.4, you tell me)

You see, the problem with artistic majors is that the GPA is NO indicator as to how successful you actually were in that field. Sure you can show up to class, do your homework, ace your tests (which is why I can see why typical premeds view these majors as easy fluff), but to actually cut it in this field is arguably more difficult and variable than the sciences. You can brute force your way to a good grade by knowing your stuff in the sciences. TOO BAD it doesn't work that way in the arts. If you were snarky to a Professor one week and really pissed him off on your lessons, too bad, he probably feels like giving you a B+ on your transcript and there isn't anything you can do about it. They can give you whatever they feel like giving you, arbitrarily. Accomplishments be damned. Tell me that is easier than proving your worth through grades and work.

Oh, did I mention that art majors (real ones anyway, not the GPA fluffers) actually have to do EXTRA work that counts as no credit? It's not just "haha take these classes go home and done". It's more like " Wake up at 7am to practice. Have class from 9-2. Have orchestra/rehearsal/lessons/whatevers until 6pm, practice another 2-3 hours until 8-9pm and then go home and do your homework". That's not even taking into account the sheer physical exhaustion you get from physically playing all day. I'm not trying to make excuses for myself, but usually by 9pm I didn't give a damn about my studying/homework/classes anymore because of the exhaustion. Oh, did I also mention oftentimes there are all day-rehearsals on certain weekends? They don't give a damn if you've got finals that coming week. You wanna skip? Okay, we'll give you a B in the class, regardless of how hard you worked before.

I suppose if you didn't want to actually be good at your craft, you could just do the bare minimum and show up, be a nice person and stay out of everyone's way to get an A. But why waste your education on something you don't care about? My peers that did artsy majors and were premed at the same time genuinely cared about the subjects they studied, and cared to become at least proficient in their craft. They put in just as much time as the science majors, IMO, and their performances in the pre-reqs prove that they can hold their own in the sciences too.

Exact same experience as someone who went from music to pre-med as well, hence my previous comments. Also, many instructors expect you to put in AT LEAST 4 hours a day devoted solely to practicing outside of rehearsals, and the time devoted to gigs outside of school to try and network (and make a little extra money).

 

[musicalfeet]

Exact same experience as someone who went from music to pre-med as well, hence my previous comments. Also, don't forget that many instructors expect you to put in AT LEAST 4 hours a day devoted solely to practicing outside of rehearsals, and the time devoted to gigs outside of school to try and network (and make a little extra money).

I wish my instructor helped/expected us to gig and work outside of school. It was frowned upon for undergrads, and most of the networking/gig opportunities were given to the DMA/Master's students first. It was a rude, rude shock after graduation when I suddenly realized I had to find a way to make money LOL. Went on an intern/tour/mentorship thing for a few months instead..because even though I wouldn't make money, it didn't cost me either.