Reputation in Medical Admissions

[dp44v]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know we normally "calculate" our chances of getting into medical school based on GPA and MCAT, but does the prestige of your undergraduate institution make a substantial difference? With smaller, less selective undergrads, there is more time to study for the MCAT, complete more volunteering, etc. While at more selective schools, the rigor of the course load makes these actions much more difficult to find time for. I'm specifically in Missouri; there are selective (and expensive) schools like Saint Louis University and then there are almost open admission (and dirt cheap) undergrads like SEMO, etc. When applying to medical school, does it make a difference in the reputation and the "name" of your undergraduate institution or do admissions committees not put too much regard to these details, putting more emphasis on GPA, MCAT, extracurriculars, health experience, etc.? 😕

 

[lcm2020]

As long as it is not a CC, it doesn't matter.

All they care about are GPA, MCAT, and ECs

 

[sinombre]

As long as it is not a CC, it doesn't matter.

All they care about are GPA, MCAT, and ECs

Wrong.

OP, try searching next time.

 

[Medidactic]

People on this forum say that the most affect it will have is very minimal in extent.

They say that just get a good GPA and MCAT and ECs and your good!


Note: I'm not an expert; just rehashing what you can find in other threads. 🙂

 

[Fivo]

As long as it is not a CC, it doesn't matter.

All they care about are GPA, MCAT, and ECs

I'd wager that many of the CC's in California are on par with some of the state schools across the country

OP, everything matters. Adcoms are human and everyone has opinions about everything. Focus on the things you can control. Get into the most prestigious school you can that costs you the least amount of money. No matter where you're at, you're going to need to do those ECs, whether it's volunteering, research, etc...

 

[Barcu]

It matters, but other factors matter much more. If you can afford to go to a better school and think you will be happy there, go ahead. However, it's not worth going into a ton of debt or going to a place you might not enjoy. It's more about taking advantage of the opportunities provided than going to the better school.

Also, going to a better school will not make up for a lower gpa.

 

[LizzyM]

I know we normally "calculate" our chances of getting into medical school based on GPA and MCAT, but does the prestige of your undergraduate institution make a substantial difference? With smaller, less selective undergrads, there is more time to study for the MCAT, complete more volunteering, etc. While at more selective schools, the rigor of the course load makes these actions much more difficult to find time for. I'm specifically in Missouri; there are selective (and expensive) schools like Saint Louis University and then there are almost open admission (and dirt cheap) undergrads like SEMO, etc. When applying to medical school, does it make a difference in the reputation and the "name" of your undergraduate institution or do admissions committees not put too much regard to these details, putting more emphasis on GPA, MCAT, extracurriculars, health experience, etc.? 😕

If you are an adcom and you are comparing three students with the same application stats:

gpa 3.7, MCAT 30. One graduated from Washington University in St. Louis, another from St. Louis University and the third from SEMO. Each did a summer of lab research, shadowed for 50 hours and did a year of volunteer work in a hospital. Each has a 2 or 3 outside interests in music, sports, etc.

Which is the strongest student? In all likelihood, all three would be judged about equal although with a LizzyM score of 67 some schools wouldn't bother taking a hard look at any of the three.

On the other hand, it might be more likely that they look like this:
WashU 3.7, 38
SLU 3.9, 34
SEMO 4.0, 31

based on the caliber of student each school matriculates. Clearly, the highest MCAT wins and the fact that the school is highly rated helps, too. Some other schools might interview them all.

The problem becomes this situation:
WashU 3.3, 38
SLU 3.7, 38
SEMO 4.0, 38

Did the WashU student do relatively poorly because it is a challenging school with a challenging curriculum or due to lots of smarts and a poor work ethic? Would the SEMO student have done as well at a more challenging school? In this case, the fact that WashU is the strongest school might not be enough whereas the other two might get interviews at quite a few places.

 

[darkjedi]

Also, going to a better school will not make up for a lower gpa.

This is exactly it. If two applicants had around the same GPA, the applicant from a significantly better school might be looked upon more favorably.

School reputation has some role in admissions, but you have to be a top quality candidate to begin with.

 

[Praefectus]

Quick: where did Larry Bird play college hoops? If you said anything other than Indiana State, you're wrong! Remember that cream always rises to the top.

 

[BlackSwan]

Quick: where did Larry Bird play college hoops? If you said anything other than Indiana State, you're wrong! Remember that cream always rises to the top.

And Jerry Rice went to Mississippi Valley State... What's your point? Athletics and academics are not related.

 

[Midifelder10]

Too much explaining to do abt low GPA, they do not take the rigor of UG into account. Prestige will not carry the day.

 

[Geebeejay]

Some schools I applied to mention they consider "prestige of undergraduate curriculum". I think this combines which school you went to, its reputation, and whether you were taking Neurobio versus Logic 101 during your senior year. However, Lizzy certainly sounds spot on (like she usually does) when she says maybe you'll get the edge if your stats are equal if you went to MIT, but a 3.4 at MIT will probably lose to a 3.9 at a State University. Also, MCAT is standardized, so this along with GPA matter more than which undergrad you attended.

Also, realize that there is A LOT more to your application than just stats. My friend has much better stats than I do (slightly better GPA, and 4 more points on MCAT), yet I got interviewed at schools he got quickly rejected from and vice versa. Focusing on prestige of school and stats too hard is going to take away from your focus on the bigger picture.

 

[mimelim]

Too much explaining to do abt low GPA, they do not take the rigor of UG into account. Prestige will not carry the day.

Rigor is taken into account. It is simply a small part of your application. If you have to ask if your curriculum/school will matter, then it won't. Things have to bee pretty extreme for it to make a big difference.

 

[phonyreal98]

And Jerry Rice went to Mississippi Valley State... What's your point? Athletics and academics are not related.

That even though Larry Bird didn't go to a school well known for basketball, he still nearly led them to a national title in 1979 and will always be remembered as one of the great ballers of all time, and basically the same thing happens with med school applicants; the great ones will be great no matter where they went to school...not that it doesn't help to be associated with big names. For example, in college basketball recruiting, the rankings of recruits who are being courted by UNC, Duke, Kentucky, UCLA, Michigan State and other top basketball programs can sometimes end up getting inflated because of this. It's not uncommon for someone to come into one of these programs as a 4 or 5 star recruit and then play more like a 2 or 3 recruit. BUT, if you look at lists of the greatest basketball players that went to college, you'll see that many of them went to one of these blue blood programs. Kareem Abdul Jabbar went to UCLA, Magic Johnson went to Michigan State, Michael Jordan went to North Carolina, etc.

 

[LovelyBRass]

I'm shocked at these responses. Yes of course reputation matters. The reputation of the places students are coming from builds up the reputation of the places they are going to. And the reputation of the medical schools students are coming from builds up the reputation of the residencies they go to.

You can't deny that you aren't impressed when you see Medical School faculty A filled with people from the Ivys (no I did not go Ivy in any part of my training) and not so impressed when faculty B is full of... idk not-Ivy-leaguers. Sure maybe faculty B puts out better research or something, but you're basically never looking at that (it would take hours to pour over this sort of thing, esp for fields you don't care about).

Reputation will always give you an edge... and when it comes to medical admissions and beyond, don't take for granted how much that edge can help.

(Cue the hypothetical situations, anecdotes, and overall vitriol.)

 

[HughMyron]

.

 

[mcloaf]

I'm shocked at these responses. Yes of course reputation matters. The reputation of the places students are coming from builds up the reputation of the places they are going to. And the reputation of the medical schools students are coming from builds up the reputation of the residencies they go to.

You can't deny that you aren't impressed when you see Medical School faculty A filled with people from the Ivys (no I did not go Ivy in any part of my training) and not so impressed when faculty B is full of... idk not-Ivy-leaguers. Sure maybe faculty B puts out better research or something, but you're basically never looking at that (it would take hours to pour over this sort of thing, esp for fields you don't care about).

Reputation will always give you an edge... and when it comes to medical admissions and beyond, don't take for granted how much that edge can help.

(Cue the hypothetical situations, anecdotes, and overall vitriol.)

Meh. As stated before, it can help, but is a very minor aspect of an application (going to trust the Adcoms weighing in on this).

As for your medical school hypothetical comparison, what you're saying is somewhat true, but I think you're simplifying things to a lay level. People within a field will judge their colleagues more on the quality of their work than who granted them their degree. This is what happens when you've worked with enough people to know that sometimes great schools produce crappy people while fantastic people come out of fine or even mediocre schools all the time.

 

[EmOlee]

How about the consideration that more reputable schools will have more resources and opportunities. For example, students at a better school may have an easier time getting involved in exciting research since the school has lots of funding and brilliant researchers, perhaps they are also more likely to get published because of advantages of a "better" school. These schools might also provide more access to talented faculty that will write stronger LOR, the school may provide good premedical support, and shools associated with medical schools in particular will have those resources available as well. The university could be affiliated with a teaching hospital, so the student at the better college could get access to volunteering more readily.... I think more than reputation alone, the opportunities and access to these experiences are what is most important and why I'd choose (and I chose) a more challenging school. Not saying less reputable schools don't have all these things, but I feel that some places that are considered more reputable might foster a pre-medical students opportunities more.

 

[Cuongoff]

What about being one of only like 5 schools that have a great undergrad neuroscience program? My school has multiple specific neuroscience courses for the major (and not just bio classes + pysch classes and one neuro course). Should I mention this to adcoms? Would it have any effect whatsoever? It's because many of these courses are taught at a graduate or very close to it level (neurobiology of memory, neuroanatomy, neuroendocrinology, etc).

and my school is a very small liberal arts school.

 

[mcloaf]

What about being one of only like 5 schools that have a great undergrad neuroscience program? My school has multiple specific neuroscience courses for the major (and not just bio classes + pysch classes and one neuro course). Should I mention this to adcoms? Would it have any effect whatsoever? It's because many of these courses are taught at a graduate or very close to it level (neurobiology of memory, neuroanatomy, neuroendocrinology, etc).

and my school is a very small liberal arts school.

You could mention it, but I can't imagine it'd make much of a difference either way.

 

[Wordead]

I would caution you to think about prestige in a national context, not just your area. I'm in the midwest, so I've heard of SLU (I assume you mean SLU and not WashU), but it's not nationally prestigious. So unless you're planning to only apply within a local region, it's not going to help you much.

What about being one of only like 5 schools that have a great undergrad neuroscience program? My school has multiple specific neuroscience courses for the major (and not just bio classes + pysch classes and one neuro course). Should I mention this to adcoms? Would it have any effect whatsoever? It's because many of these courses are taught at a graduate or very close to it level (neurobiology of memory, neuroanatomy, neuroendocrinology, etc).

and my school is a very small liberal arts school.

No, nobody cares. Sorry, that's the reality of the situation. There are a ton of schools with "top 5 in this x field". Doesn't mean anything in admissions, unfortunately.

 

[lcm2020]

Wrong.

OP, try searching next time.

It's only gonna be a factor if all of the main things are the same between applicants, so yes, it is basically irrelevant.

Being in a prestigious college will not make your 3.5 look better than the 4.0 from a generic State one

 

[LovelyBRass]

These schools might also provide more access to talented faculty that will write stronger LOR[...]

I don't know about for undergrad anymore but that is definitely true for medical schools when applying to residency. There are just more "world-famous" professors at better-named schools.

 

[RegisBioMedMS]

Schools get comfortable accepting graduates of certain programs, so it isn't always just public reputation that mattes; it is more about their history with previous students. So, yes reputation matters, but it is the internal reputation of the school with that particular ad com, not whatever US and World Reports says.

 

[LovelyBRass]

As for your medical school hypothetical comparison, what you're saying is somewhat true, but I think you're simplifying things to a lay level. People within a field will judge their colleagues more on the quality of their work than who granted them their degree. This is what happens when you've worked with enough people to know that sometimes great schools produce crappy people while fantastic people come out of fine or even mediocre schools all the time.

Sure, but you are complicating things. A quick, general perusal of the faculty will determine if you go on to do more research of the professors at other levels.

 

[LizzyM]

Keep in mind that you are not limited to research opportunities at your own school... some undergrads and med students and schools with limited opportunities go elsewhere during the summer for research opportunities.

 

[Praefectus]

That even though Larry Bird didn't go to a school well known for basketball, he still nearly led them to a national title in 1979 and will always be remembered as one of the great ballers of all time, and basically the same thing happens with med school applicants; the great ones will be great no matter where they went to school...not that it doesn't help to be associated with big names. For example, in college basketball recruiting, the rankings of recruits who are being courted by UNC, Duke, Kentucky, UCLA, Michigan State and other top basketball programs can sometimes end up getting inflated because of this. It's not uncommon for someone to come into one of these programs as a 4 or 5 star recruit and then play more like a 2 or 3 recruit. BUT, if you look at lists of the greatest basketball players that went to college, you'll see that many of them went to one of these blue blood programs. Kareem Abdul Jabbar went to UCLA, Magic Johnson went to Michigan State, Michael Jordan went to North Carolina, etc.

👍 BlackSwan, my point is that if you have the talent and work ethic you'll succeed wherever you go. Yeah, the big names can help, but at the end of the day you're the one who determines where you end up.

 

[SixStringPsych]

Schools get comfortable accepting graduates of certain programs, so it isn't always just public reputation that mattes; it is more about their history with previous students. So, yes reputation matters, but it is the internal reputation of the school with that particular ad com, not whatever US and World Reports says.

+1

I think this is the most logical assumption we can make and be safe with. Everyone has their own experiences and biases, and ultimately it's their decision. No one is putting a gun to their head and telling them to accept X ivy leaguer over Y State schooler.

 

[EmOlee]

Keep in mind that you are not limited to research opportunities at your own school... some undergrads and med students and schools with limited opportunities go elsewhere during the summer for research opportunities.

Yes I certainly agree, in fact in the lab I do research for we had a student from a smaller school come and do research for three months this summer with us. And she was awesome! But, since I attend the school with this opportunity I have been continuously involved for two years. I'm not saying i think that stdents from smaller/lesser known schools aren't as deserving or less likely to get accepted, they just have less access and a harder time getting the same opportunities someone at a more reputable school can have.

 

[by604]

1. Anyone from a highly ranked school will tell you reputation matters. Anyone from podunk state school will tell you it has no effect.
2. Of course reputation matters...
3. It's easier and looks better to stand out at a state school than to be average at prestigious school

 

[climbouthole]

n=1, but I know for a fact that one school I interviewed at had a "GPA modifier" for some schools that are known to be more rigorous (i.e. 3.--*1.XX). I have no idea how complex this system of theirs is, or how many/what schools qualify. But it's one example of a med school doing exactly what this question wonders.

 

[bollywoodlover]

It doesn't matter where you went. A good gpa, mcat, and Ecs is what gets you in. I've seen kids from my high school that went to ivies or higher ranked schools have a harder time than those who went to easier state schools getting into med school because their gpa wasn't as good because competition was significantly harder than at podunk uni. Meanwhile, those getting 3.8+s at the state school with average low 30 Mcats get in on their first try. I also think those at the state schools have more time to study for the mcat while in school though while the ivy / higher ranked school kids tend to take a yr off.

 

[5lippy]

1. Anyone from a highly ranked school will tell you reputation matters. Anyone from podunk state school will tell you it has no effect.
2. Of course reputation matters...
3. It's easier and looks better to stand out at a state school than to be average at prestigious school

This.

If you manage to stand out at a top tier private school, you'll likely have your choice in medical school. If you're in the middle of the pack at the top tier school, your chance is the same as a mid-tier anywhere else, IMO.

 

[911 Turbo]

Hell... stuff differs even inside of the university. Some professors are auto A others are almost always B.


And im sure a CC professor somewhere in the country is a lot harder than the same subject professor at Caltech...

 

[phunky]

A lot of top tier undergrads have serious grade inflation. I think that would be more of an advantage than the name of the school alone. Furthermore, top tier schools can offer more research and EC opportunities to their students.

 

[cest la vie]

It does matter. I can confidently say it does because of personal experience this cycle.

I have a sub 3.3 from undergrad though at a notoriously grade deflating state school. MCAT is 34 and I'm applying on MD and small handful of MD/PhD. So far I've had 9 MD II's - three from top 30 schools. At this point I also have multiple acceptances. And no, I'm not URM - I'm actually ORM. My EC's are quite decent and I'm pretty confident I had good letters of rec and essays. Even if your grades or mcat or w/e are not perfectly on par, a part of your application you have full control over is how well you sell yourself on your application. I put great detail working on my AMCAS activity descriptions, personal statement, and secondary essays and put a good deal of thought into selecting my schools and prepping for interviews. Numbers are not the whole story and in the end of the day it's just a number and there will be thousands of other applicants that share similar numbers with you. You can distinguish yourself from the rest by selling yourself.

If anything, this entire cycle is just a test of your persistence and how badly you wish to become a physician. I believe those who put in the most work and try to find ways to set themselves apart from the cookie-cutter applicant will be successful, regardless of your numbers. After all, they are only one line in your entire application packet. Though they are important, it's not everything.

Anyways, I'm rambling off topic right now. I just wanted to weigh in from personal experience that undergrad reputation does matter - I don't think I would have experienced anything close to the success I've had in the cycle if I had similar grades from a random institution.

 

[CoxMD]

Just a single example:

My undergrad's acceptance rate is 76% overall which is higher than the national average. Further our average gpa of accepted students is 0.1 lower than the national rate and our MCAT average is 2 points lower.

Just one example for what it's worth. Our premed committee cites the ranking categories used by Barron's college guides as how schools are compared to each other and gpa's are adjusted.

Sent from my Nexus 10

 

[bollywoodlover]

My numbers are quite subpar. 25-28 mcat and 3.4 - 3.6 gpa range. I got a couple md interviews and I think it was more the selling myself part that helped even though I came from a top 50 well known undergrad. Many people have the same numbers but its really how much effort and detail that you put into your essays and application and the little things that can push you into the interview invite category. Sending letters of interest also help you stand out. I also had other unique experiences/ hardship that I tried to use to my advantage.

 

[Kreena]

Hi,
I am as well looking for study group for MCAT 2016 or 2017. I am in IT Management. Very busy at work and with family afterwords. need some hard working team members who can keep me motivated for the goal. I am leaving in Boynton beach.

 

[Grace184]

Hi,
I am as well looking for study group for MCAT 2016 or 2017. I am in IT Management. Very busy at work and with family afterwords. need some hard working team members who can keep me motivated for the goal. I am leaving in Boynton beach.

There is an MCAT forum- try there