Screwed myself by going to Berkeley, but others tell me I didn't?

[Caltoxin]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I'm a premed at Cal, but my GPA is not super hot (3.3ish) because I'm really terrible when it comes to physics and some of the classes are just crazy (Bio 1A...ugh). Well either way I'm a URM and come from a poor family. I was never the type to lower my standards because I am a URM since I applied to Cal with a 4.3 and 2100+ SAT (which is avergae), but many said I could easily get into HYSP school because of being URM, but I never thought admissions cared that much about URM/poor until I came to Berkeley and realized that many of the other URMs were...uh well not as up to par as average students academically. One of my friends was 1/8th black (put on her app that she was full) and got in with a 3.6 and called me stupid because "with a 4.3 you could have gone to Harvard." Well cutting to the chase now I realized that med schools REALLY want URMs and if you have a good GPA than they want you. I could have gone to an okay school (low UC, high CSU) got a 4.0 and be a shoe in for very good med schools, but me being dumb went to Cal where I am pitted against 500+ competitive kids from all over the world (about 80% of my ochem class are asian).
Other side of the coin are my other friends who tell me that I made the right choice and are telling me that admissions for med schools like URMs that challenged themselves and went to competitive schools and came out with a decent GPA (I can probably get it up to 3.4-.5 by graduation). I know one URM from Cal getting into John Hopkins, Harvard, UCSF with a 3.4 who had ok LOR and EC.

So was it bad going to a competitive school as a URM when I could have achieved a much higher (3.8+) at an easier school? I know for ORM to get adcoms attention you get a high GPA AND go to a competitive undergrad, but for URM is just getting an good GPA anywhere better than a decent-below average GPA at a school like Cal. I heard that Med school's concern with admitting URMs with lower GPAs is if they can handle the work of med school, but coming from Cal they know I can handle the hard work and that GPA doesn't matter as much as EC, LOR and research (which I have plenty of).

 

[MilkmanAl]

It's just bad to go to a harder school, period. It does factor positively into your application a little bit, but a 3.8 from State U beats the hell out of a 3.3 from Cal any day, regardless of which one was more difficult to attain.

If you can pull off a 33+ MCAT, assuming the usual extracurriculars and whatnot, you're probably in pretty good shape for admission spomewhere, so all is not lost. You just didn't take the path of least resistance.

 

[FlowRate]

"I went to a big name school and therefore its perceived increased difficulty has lead to the 0.7 difference in what my GPA would be at an easy school for stupid kids."

Does that REALLY make sense?

 

[Caltoxin]

UC Berkeley's difficulty is known and not a "theory" I made up. And Yes curves are relative. I take a test in a class of kids with 4.0s+ in high school and competitive as hell and the average is a B-. Tell me it's gonna not be harder to get that A in that case as opposed to I took a ochem finals at CSU fresno where the kids barely made a 3.5 in high school and probably don't want to go to med school and the average is a B-. Uhm that doesn't makes sense?

 

[brado]

"I went to a big name school and therefore its perceived increased difficulty has lead to the 0.7 difference in what my GPA would be at an easy school for stupid kids."

Does that REALLY make sense?

Unfortunately it does. My architecture friend took physics at "an easy school for stupid kids". He took the labs here. He said the lab quizes were more difficult than any exams he took at the other school. I'm not saying this example is always true, but I'm 100% confident if I went to any other state school, my GPA would be at least .2 higher with far less effort.

 

[FlowRate]

UC Berkeley's difficulty is known and not a "theory" I made up. And Yes curves are relative. I take a test in a class of kids with 4.0s+ in high school and competitive as hell and the average is a B-. Tell me it's gonna not be harder to get that A in that case as opposed to I took a ochem finals at CSU fresno where the kids barely made a 3.5 in high school and probably don't want to go to med school and the average is a B-. Uhm that doesn't makes sense?

You know what, I rescind my earlier statement. If there's any school that I consistently hear of being difficult, it's Cal. However, I'm not sure if it would really translate to a 4.0 at an easier school. That's just pure arrogance.

I am tired of the myriad threads complaining about school choice tho. Especially from students who go to schools that are actually known for grade inflation (not cal). I believe the consensus in each thread is that professor and TA change difficulty a lot more than the school itself and that there is too much overall variability to really know how difficult a program really was.

 

[mspeedwagon]

I don't know where to start. I'm going to keep this brief. If you had gone to Cal and gotten a 3.8 you would have done yourself well. A 3.8 from Cal is better than a 3.8 from a state. But, a 3.3 is low (even for Cal). That said, it just means that there is going to be greater focus on your MCAT.

So no, it wasn't a bad thing to go to a competitive school as an URM (you would have been first in-line for admissions with a good GPA from a competitive school) as you imply below. We don't know how different your GPA would have been at a different school (HYSP).

Don't worry about decisions in the past; I would have gone to UC Berkeley over the other UCs and CSUs. Now worry about the MCAT.

So was it bad going to a competitive school as a URM when I could have achieved a much higher (3.8+) at an easier school? I know for ORM to get adcoms attention you get a high GPA AND go to a competitive undergrad, but for URM is just getting an good GPA anywhere better than a decent-below average GPA at a school like Cal. I heard that Med school's concern with admitting URMs with lower GPAs is if they can handle the work of med school, but coming from Cal they know I can handle the hard work and that GPA doesn't matter as much as EC, LOR and research (which I have plenty of).

 

[unleash500]

I tutored ochem kids from CAL , and looking at the tests/ curves that they show/report back to me, it is not very much different from the UC I go to.

Granted, perhaps it is a bit more competitive, I still don't think you would get that much higher in a another school.

A 3.3 from cal does not translate to a 3.8 from a state U. Cal students aren't that special.

 

[shiftingmirage]

If you really feel that you 'screwed yourself' a simple out would be to transfer to one of the easier schools.

 

[sourgrapes]

I have to disagree. I went to a top 20 school for most of my undergrad and had a 3.4. When i went to my local state U for a semester I got a 4.0 without even trying. The thing about easy state U's is that the non-science courses are a complete joke. However, the science classes were more comparable (but still much easier than the top 20 school)

I tutored ochem kids from CAL , and looking at the tests/ curves that they show/report back to me, it is not very much different from the UC I go to.

Granted, perhaps it is a bit more competitive, I still don't think you would get that much higher in a another school.

A 3.3 from cal does not translate to a 3.8 from a state U. Cal students aren't that special.

 

[iceman55]

So I'm a premed at Cal, but my GPA is not super hot (3.3ish) because I'm really terrible when it comes to physics and some of the classes are just crazy (Bio 1A...ugh). Well either way I'm a URM and come from a poor family. I was never the type to lower my standards because I am a URM since I applied to Cal with a 4.3 and 2100+ SAT (which is avergae), but many said I could easily get into HYSP school because of being URM, but I never thought admissions cared that much about URM/poor until I came to Berkeley and realized that many of the other URMs were...uh well not as up to par as average students academically. One of my friends was 1/8th black (put on her app that she was full) and got in with a 3.6 and called me stupid because "with a 4.3 you could have gone to Harvard." Well cutting to the chase now I realized that med schools REALLY want URMs and if you have a good GPA than they want you. I could have gone to an okay school (low UC, high CSU) got a 4.0 and be a shoe in for very good med schools, but me being dumb went to Cal where I am pitted against 500+ competitive kids from all over the world (about 80% of my ochem class are asian).
Other side of the coin are my other friends who tell me that I made the right choice and are telling me that admissions for med schools like URMs that challenged themselves and went to competitive schools and came out with a decent GPA (I can probably get it up to 3.4-.5 by graduation). I know one URM from Cal getting into John Hopkins, Harvard, UCSF with a 3.4 who had ok LOR and EC.

So was it bad going to a competitive school as a URM when I could have achieved a much higher (3.8+) at an easier school? I know for ORM to get adcoms attention you get a high GPA AND go to a competitive undergrad, but for URM is just getting an good GPA anywhere better than a decent-below average GPA at a school like Cal. I heard that Med school's concern with admitting URMs with lower GPAs is if they can handle the work of med school, but coming from Cal they know I can handle the hard work and that GPA doesn't matter as much as EC, LOR and research (which I have plenty of).

-The fact that you are URM may help you in having a lower GPA (Not trying to start anything, simply relating to the facts.)

-As for Berkeley being though, I agree with you, but a 3.3 to a 3.8....I don't know about that. As the competition of your school rises, you must also raise your level of studying to another level, you should not be studying at the same level as does in so called "state schools." You should be able to maintain a 3.5 if your studying efficiently. This is WHY you attend Berkeley.

-If your studying efficiently and hard enough, there is no reason why you should not be getting similar grades to the "Asians" in your o-chem class. You might need to put in more hours of studying then your peers, but hey if you want to do great then that is what it will take.

-I think med schools will look at your grades and conclude that you could not handle the work, unless you can back it up with a great MCAT score, but with a sub 30 score, you will be lumped in with all the others with low GPAs regardless of where you went to school.\

-Overall, the school you go to DOES NOT EXCUSE YOUR LOW GPA, it may be a factor just as many other things, but is not an excuse. Just try harder, that is all you can do.

Example- my cousin an African-Ame. male who goes to Carnegie Mellon (biochem major) is not the brightest person, but he knows how much effort he must put into achieving the grades that he wants. He works extremely hard to maintain a 3.52 gpa

Just the remember the hard work will pay off

 

[652316541]

quit bitching about your sh*tty GPA when you earned it

 

[JJMrK]

It's just bad to go to a harder school, period. It does factor positively into your application a little bit, but a 3.8 from State U beats the hell out of a 3.3 from Cal any day, regardless of which one was more difficult to attain.

If you can pull off a 33+ MCAT, assuming the usual extracurriculars and whatnot, you're probably in pretty good shape for admission spomewhere, so all is not lost. You just didn't take the path of least resistance.

I agree. Study hard for the MCAT and you'll be fine. Your GPA won't do you any favors but I don't think it will bury you either.

 

[Squeal]

quit bitching about your sh*tty GPA when you earned it

+1

To the OP: The only person I know personally who went to Berkley (not asian, btw) managed a 3.9 in three years doubling up on MCB and Physics minoring in music playing in the band and doing navy ROTC. He's the hardest working person I've ever met. Do you know the difference is between the two of you? He put in the work.

I understand he's probably not the best example, but honestly, it's not like Cal is impossible. It's just difficult. You get out of it what you put into it, just like everything else.

(the guy above is also in a MD/PhD program at a top 20 now)

 

[Slowpoke]

Am I the only person who finds it a tad bit annoying/distasteful when people have to be so arrogant and full of themselves as to have to bring down students who go to a Cal state as opposed to a UC?

Maybe I'm reading too much into this thread, but you need to understand that there ain't nobody gonna care about how much you whine "if this", "if that" - you were in control of how you would do the entire time.

 

[MilkmanAl]

quit bitching about your sh*tty GPA when you earned it

To the OP: The only person I know personally who went to Berkley (not asian, btw) managed a 3.9 in three years doubling up on MCB and Physics minoring in music playing in the band and doing navy ROTC. He's the hardest working person I've ever met. Do you know the difference is between the two of you? He put in the work.

Some courses/majors aren't just a matter of putting in hard work. You can read a biology text over and over and over to beat it into your brain, but if you stare at an advanced math problem for 10 hours and can't come up with a solution, staring at it for another 30 hours probably isn't going to help you very much. Both are hard work. Both yield very different results. I did the bio/physics double whammy, myself, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no comparison in difficulty.

In short, the "Work harder!" outcry is very presumptuous. You'll see what I mean in med school when plenty of people are busting their asses just to pass. If you told them, "You aren't getting A's because you aren't working hard enough," they'd dismember you and rightfully so.

 

[christina30]

Some courses/majors aren't just a matter of putting in hard work. You can read a biology text over and over and over to beat it into your brain, but if you stare at an advanced math problem for 10 hours and can't come up with a solution, staring at it for another 30 hours probably isn't going to help you very much. Both are hard work. Both yield very different results. I did the bio/physics double whammy, myself, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no comparison in difficulty.

In short, the "Work harder!" outcry is very presumptuous. You'll see what I mean in med school when plenty of people are busting their asses just to pass. If you told them, "You aren't getting A's because you aren't working hard enough," they'd dismember you and rightfully so.

Med school material, advanced math, is one thing, but Bio 1A? C'mon now.

 

[MilkmanAl]

Yeah, true. I'm just speaking in general terms. To be fair, med school material is also a memorization marathon, but there's too much stuff to just increase studying hours as necessary to get everything down. You either learn it in the allotted time, or you don't. Some people, despite their best efforts, lean precariously towards the "don't" side of things.

 

[Iapyx]

I have to disagree. I went to a top 20 school for most of my undergrad and had a 3.4. When i went to my local state U for a semester I got a 4.0 without even trying. The thing about easy state U's is that the non-science courses are a complete joke. However, the science classes were more comparable (but still much easier than the top 20 school)

You shouldn't make definitive statements on subjective issues. Some humanities professors at state universities are very difficult and rarely give out A's. Others are easier. However, I have yet discover any course that is a "complete joke".

 

[christina30]

You shouldn't make definitive statements on subjective issues. Some humanities professors at state universities are very difficult and rarely give out A's. Others are easier. However, I have yet discover any course that is a "complete joke".

Plus, plenty of those "Top 20 schools" are notoriously known for grade inflation. So that 3.4 could very easily have been an inflated score, since we're going to make generalizations here!

 

[Squeal]

Some courses/majors aren't just a matter of putting in hard work. You can read a biology text over and over and over to beat it into your brain, but if you stare at an advanced math problem for 10 hours and can't come up with a solution, staring at it for another 30 hours probably isn't going to help you very much. Both are hard work. Both yield very different results. I did the bio/physics double whammy, myself, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no comparison in difficulty.

In short, the "Work harder!" outcry is very presumptuous. You'll see what I mean in med school when plenty of people are busting their asses just to pass. If you told them, "You aren't getting A's because you aren't working hard enough," they'd dismember you and rightfully so.

This is very true. It just bothers me when people say that they made bad grades because they went to a really hard school.

 

[naijaboi]

quit bitching about your sh*tty GPA when you earned it

+1. Your grades may not hold you back (I got into HMS with similar GPA) but your attitude surely would. This whole post is a whine. You're basically saying that you cannot handle your premed course load (and the school is to blame). How do you expect to cut it in medical school?

 

[crasiman]

Was it bad? Will that influence what you do from here on out at all?

The fact of the matter is that your GPA is on the low end and you need to work on either rectifying that or whatever you can to make up for it (MCAT).

Don't think you weren't cut out for Berkeley. If you don't think you're good enough for Berkeley undergrad then I don't know how you'll convince yourself that you can handle medical school.

Identify what your weaknesses were (maybe you didn't work as hard as you could have, maybe you stretched yourself a bit thin during critical semesters, perhaps you need to learn how to study more effectively) and figure out how to move on. "What if" type questions or line of thinking is detrimental if taken too far.

 

[mspeedwagon]

As someone that has taken classes at several universities (two Ivies (one of which is where my degree is from), two state schools (UC-B (both regular and extension)) being one, two private schools and a community college) I do NOT agree with the bolded.

It is very dependent on professor and TA and other factors. There are some hard humanities classes at easy state schools, and there are some easy humanities classes at Ivies.

Overall, though, I don't think a 3.3 from UC-B translates to a 3.8 from most other state schools (maybe the CSUs in CA, but their students have a hard time getting into medical school even a very high GPA unless it is supported by a good MCAT score as well).


QUOTE=sourgrapes;9690808]I have to disagree. I went to a top 20 school for most of my undergrad and had a 3.4. When i went to my local state U for a semester I got a 4.0 without even trying. The thing about easy state U's is that the non-science courses are a complete joke. However, the science classes were more comparable (but still much easier than the top 20 school)[/QUOTE]

 

[docelh]

Observations:

- original post uses "URM" 12 times. Way too many imo.

- college should be a step-up from high school. If your GPA was say 3.4 at U Washington or 3.5 at UC Davis, would you feel much better? Why?

- do you realize students from long beach state have to crush their GPA among many other things to get consideration for UCI or UCDavis med?

- the only reason to go to Cal is for the low cost, unless you like fraternizing with leftists in the student population. Good school for the cost if you ask me. If you wanted tough & personal, Cal isn't that school b/c that school costs a lot more $ to hire that much more people. If you wanted easier, see comments on long beach state above.

- if it were me, I would never consider going to Cal. The competition is one thing, but being a number even for its low cost, would be aggravating. overall, Cal is a great metaphor for California itself: famous, overcrowded, & competitive.

 

[priss bliss]

My friend who's currently a Chemical Biology major at Berkeley told me about all her pre-med friends who would study day and night/weeks before a midterm/final and still score below the median =( she said the lower division weeder classes are harder than the upper divisions.

CSU pre-meds definitely are at a disadvantage against the UC applicants but that just means we have to differentiate ourselves even more and hope the cards fall in our favor with the random process. One of my fellow classmates here at SJSU actually got an interview invite from Duke and is matriculating to Brown this fall, non URM.

 

[652316541]

Some courses/majors aren't just a matter of putting in hard work. You can read a biology text over and over and over to beat it into your brain, but if you stare at an advanced math problem for 10 hours and can't come up with a solution, staring at it for another 30 hours probably isn't going to help you very much. Both are hard work. Both yield very different results. I did the bio/physics double whammy, myself, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no comparison in difficulty.

In short, the "Work harder!" outcry is very presumptuous. You'll see what I mean in med school when plenty of people are busting their asses just to pass. If you told them, "You aren't getting A's because you aren't working hard enough," they'd dismember you and rightfully so.

i go to Berkeley and it is a matter of trying harder or not trying harder. It's not as hard as the OP makes it out to be and I'm sure that if they put in more effort and managed his/her time more effectively...they would not be so miserable about their grades.

 

[amygdaloideum]

So I'm a premed at Cal, but my GPA is not super hot (3.3ish) because I'm really terrible when it comes to physics and some of the classes are just crazy (Bio 1A...ugh). Well either way I'm a URM and come from a poor family. I was never the type to lower my standards because I am a URM since I applied to Cal with a 4.3 and 2100+ SAT (which is avergae), but many said I could easily get into HYSP school because of being URM, but I never thought admissions cared that much about URM/poor until I came to Berkeley and realized that many of the other URMs were...uh well not as up to par as average students academically. One of my friends was 1/8th black (put on her app that she was full) and got in with a 3.6 and called me stupid because "with a 4.3 you could have gone to Harvard." Well cutting to the chase now I realized that med schools REALLY want URMs and if you have a good GPA than they want you. I could have gone to an okay school (low UC, high CSU) got a 4.0 and be a shoe in for very good med schools, but me being dumb went to Cal where I am pitted against 500+ competitive kids from all over the world (about 80% of my ochem class are asian).
Other side of the coin are my other friends who tell me that I made the right choice and are telling me that admissions for med schools like URMs that challenged themselves and went to competitive schools and came out with a decent GPA (I can probably get it up to 3.4-.5 by graduation). I know one URM from Cal getting into John Hopkins, Harvard, UCSF with a 3.4 who had ok LOR and EC.

So was it bad going to a competitive school as a URM when I could have achieved a much higher (3.8+) at an easier school? I know for ORM to get adcoms attention you get a high GPA AND go to a competitive undergrad, but for URM is just getting an good GPA anywhere better than a decent-below average GPA at a school like Cal. I heard that Med school's concern with admitting URMs with lower GPAs is if they can handle the work of med school, but coming from Cal they know I can handle the hard work and that GPA doesn't matter as much as EC, LOR and research (which I have plenty of).

OP- Keep your head up. It is what it is, there is no sense worrying about what GPA you have right now. Try a post-bacc or MS and if you feel that you're doing bad and it's your institutions fault (which I can't imagine it is), do it at another institution. Then you have that rationalization out of your mind and you can focus on your study. It might be more likely you're just didn't pick a major you enjoy.

I love physics, calc anything math related.... I mean absolutely love it as weird as that sounds, so studying it was kind of fun for me. On the other, once I took a course in genetics and taxonomy and absolutely hated it, so studying became a chore and I got a B in the course.... just find something you enjoy and work from there. That might be the difference between the A's and the B's for you. Good luck 👍

 

[crasiman]

i go to Berkeley and it is a matter of trying harder or not trying harder. It's not as hard as the OP makes it out to be and I'm sure that if they put in more effort and managed his/her time more effectively...they would not be so miserable about their grades.

Some courses/majors aren't just a matter of putting in hard work. You can read a biology text over and over and over to beat it into your brain, but if you stare at an advanced math problem for 10 hours and can't come up with a solution, staring at it for another 30 hours probably isn't going to help you very much. Both are hard work. Both yield very different results. I did the bio/physics double whammy, myself, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no comparison in difficulty.

In short, the "Work harder!" outcry is very presumptuous. You'll see what I mean in med school when plenty of people are busting their asses just to pass. If you told them, "You aren't getting A's because you aren't working hard enough," they'd dismember you and rightfully so.

I think an important thing to mention is that you can spend all your time studying, busting your ass, and still not get good results. But that doesn't mean you're incapable of getting good results. It's crucial, especially if you're not getting the results you think you deserve, to spend some quality time evaluating your learning process.

 

[652316541]

I think an important thing to mention is that you can spend all your time studying, busting your ass, and still not get good results. But that doesn't mean you're incapable of getting good results. It's crucial, especially if you're not getting the results you think you deserve, to spend some quality time evaluating your learning process.

That's of course, an important point. And that is in part what the "work harder" issue is about. If there's a problem, do everything in your power to fix it... but don't blame it on the school.

 

[richse]

I have to disagree. I went to a top 20 school for most of my undergrad and had a 3.4. When i went to my local state U for a semester I got a 4.0 without even trying. The thing about easy state U's is that the non-science courses are a complete joke. However, the science classes were more comparable (but still much easier than the top 20 school)

I think your reasoning is flawed. The classes you took at State U were not the same classes you took at the top 20 so comparing semester gpa is troublesome. Also, your mindset and any number of other factors could play a role in how you performed in the two settings. For example, I am getting much better grades in medical school than I got in undergrad. By your reasoning, medical school classes are easier than my undergrad classes. I will tell you, and I think any med student can confirm, that this is not the case.

 

[jturkel]

I don't know where to start. I'm going to keep this brief. If you had gone to Cal and gotten a 3.8 you would have done yourself well. A 3.8 from Cal is better than a 3.8 from a state. But, a 3.3 is low (even for Cal). That said, it just means that there is going to be greater focus on your MCAT.
.

Cal is a state school....unless i misinterpreted your intent and you were comparing Cal/UCs to a cal state

 

[crasiman]

Cal is a state school....unless i misinterpreted your intent and you were comparing Cal/UCs to a cal state

Yeah I think he meant to compare a Cal/UC to a Cal State gpa.

 

[nabeel76]

+1. Your grades may not hold you back (I got into HMS with similar GPA) but your attitude surely would. This whole post is a whine. You're basically saying that you cannot handle your premed course load (and the school is to blame). How do you expect to cut it in medical school?

You got into HMS with a 3.3? Did you have something extraordinarily unique? I am just trying to get a feel for what they are looking for or what they consider unique - It's good to know that they are not only about 3.8-4.0 students with 37+ MCATs.


EDIT: I read your md apps - good job!! I have a similiar story in terms of grades and background but am not sure how to include some of it in my PS. If you have any time let me know and I will forward you my PS - would love some feedback on it.

 

[DrArete]

.

 

[Dbate]

Do people who go to Cal actually think that they can look down on other people's schools? Cal IS a state school. When people complain about their GPAs being higher at state schools, they typically are referring to Cal.

Also, I don't see how your ethnicity has anything to do with your situation. There are probably minorities pulling 4.0s at Cal. Stop denigrating members of your own ethnic group--while simultaneously glorifying Asians, who, to be perfectly honest, are not bright. And I highly doubt the veracity of your statements given that Cal, and other California schools, no longer practice affirmative action. If you want a higher GPA, then work harder and quit complaining like a little girl.

 

[CoolWhipp]

Do people who go to Cal actually think that they can look down on other people's schools? Cal IS a state school. When people complain about their GPAs being higher at state schools, they typically are referring to Cal.

Also, I don't see how your ethnicity has anything to do with your situation. There are probably minorities pulling 4.0s at Cal. Stop denigrating members of your own ethnic group--while simultaneously glorifying Asians, who, to be perfectly honest, are not bright. And I highly doubt the veracity of your statements given that Cal, and other California schools, no longer practice affirmative action. If you want a higher GPA, then work harder and quit complaining like a little girl.

Cute.

 

[sourgrapes]

You shouldn't make definitive statements on subjective issues. Some humanities professors at state universities are very difficult and rarely give out A's. Others are easier. However, I have yet discover any course that is a "complete joke".

Rereading my post I didn't mean to make a blanket statement that ALL state school non-science classes are a joke. However, in my experience they were a joke.

As someone that has taken classes at several universities (two Ivies (one of which is where my degree is from), two state schools (UC-B (both regular and extension)) being one, two private schools and a community college) I do NOT agree with the bolded.

It is very dependent on professor and TA and other factors. There are some hard humanities classes at easy state schools, and there are some easy humanities classes at Ivies.

Overall, though, I don't think a 3.3 from UC-B translates to a 3.8 from most other state schools (maybe the CSUs in CA, but their students have a hard time getting into medical school even a very high GPA unless it is supported by a good MCAT score as well).

Everyone who goes to a top 20 school is "smart" and 95% were in the top 10% of their HS Classes. This competition is what makes even non-science classes challenging. However, at podunk U 10% of the students were in the top 10% of hs. Therefore you have less fierce competition at podunk U. competitng for the top grades versus the top 20. Therefore, the kid who was average at the Ivy would be at the top of podunk U. For the most part, I agree with your 3.3 to 3.8 statement.

I think your reasoning is flawed. The classes you took at State U were not the same classes you took at the top 20 so comparing semester gpa is troublesome. Also, your mindset and any number of other factors could play a role in how you performed in the two settings. For example, I am getting much better grades in medical school than I got in undergrad. By your reasoning, medical school classes are easier than my undergrad classes. I will tell you, and I think any med student can confirm, that this is not the case.

I experienced what I experienced. It is not just the numbers. Meeting the students at the top school vs podunk is like night and day - the kids at the top school are cut from a different cloth than local state U kids. Those state U kids were so unmotivated. You are right, i didn't take the same classes at both schools. However, I did take science pre-reqs at both schools and there is a big difference. The problem with your analogy is that you are comparing undergrad/grad gpa while my comparison is undergrad/undergrad gpa. Even if you are doing better in medical school, your experience would let you know that you worked much harder in med school for that higher gpa. My experience is that i worked less hard for a higher GPA at state U. This is not just my experience, but the experience of many of my colleagues from the top 20 U who took classes at various podunk state Us.

 

[Elpenor]

Pretty good troll thread but you forgot MD vs DO.

Otherwise, a quality post. 👍

 

[jturkel]

Do people who go to Cal actually think that they can look down on other people's schools? Cal IS a state school. When people complain about their GPAs being higher at state schools, they typically are referring to Cal.

Also, I don't see how your ethnicity has anything to do with your situation. There are probably minorities pulling 4.0s at Cal. Stop denigrating members of your own ethnic group--while simultaneously glorifying Asians, who, to be perfectly honest, are not bright. And I highly doubt the veracity of your statements given that Cal, and other California schools, no longer practice affirmative action. If you want a higher GPA, then work harder and quit complaining like a little girl.

not sure if you noticed, but according to the tables with the mcat/gpa statistics and acceptance rates, asians have the most difficulty getting in at any respective mcat/gpa compared to all other ethnicities.....me thinks there is a reason for it....regardless of it being that they are smart and/or have an extremely good work ethic.

 

[Dbate]

not sure if you noticed, but according to the tables with the mcat/gpa statistics and acceptance rates, asians have the most difficulty getting in at any respective mcat/gpa compared to all other ethnicities.....me thinks there is a reason for it....regardless of it being that they are smart and/or have an extremely good work ethic.

Not sure if you noticed, but UC Berkeley does not have a medical school.

 

[jturkel]

Not sure if you noticed, but UC Berkeley does not have a medical school.

i was referring to your comments towards asians in general not being smart, not about undergrad or medical school specifically. i am simply citing the only statistical evidence available to me to quantitatively prove you otherwise from the mcat/gpa perspective.

fwiw, i know tons of smart asians...and it generally is a combination of both work ethic and natural smarts.

 

[Dbate]

i was referring to your comments towards asians in general not being smart, not about undergrad or medical school specifically. i am simply citing the only statistical evidence available to me to quantitatively prove you otherwise from the mcat/gpa perspective.

fwiw, i know tons of smart asians...and it generally is a combination of both work ethic and natural smarts.

I highly doubt you know more smart Asians than I do. I would argue that it is--by and large--mostly a result of work ethic garnered from familial or social pressure.

 

[jturkel]

I highly doubt you know more smart Asians than I do. I would argue that it is--by and large--mostly a result of work ethic garnered from familial or social pressure.

well i'm not trying to make a debate as to who knows more or less of anything or anyone. you just brought that up....however, while you feel you are likely correct in that you may know more smart asians if you indeed go to a UC, you are contradicting your previous post, where you indicated that most asians (at least that you know) are NOT smart......i said most of the ones i know ARE smart. most > not most ....so by that logic, i know more....again, still not the point....perhaps you meant you simply know more asians

additionally, regardless of whether it is work ethic or familial/social pressure, either (if those are indeed ONLY the case) have clearly led to their having higher statistics on average, and per the means of current evaluation of students in this country (GPA, standardized tests such as the MCAT, SATs, ACT), that makes them smarter..... which therefore again supports my point i made regarding their numbers/statistics. however, i remain steadfast that it is a combination of smarts and work ethic (which may or may not be a result of familial/social pressure)

 

[lorenzomicron]

Way to discriminate against Asians.

 

[lorenzomicron]

I highly doubt you know more smart Asians than I do. I would argue that it is--by and large--mostly a result of work ethic garnered from familial or social pressure.

So, if the Asians are smart, just because of their work ethic, why cant you just work as hard as them and be just as smart?

 

[Dbate]

well i'm not trying to make a debate as to who knows more or less of anything or anyone. you just brought that up....however, while you feel you are likely correct in that you may know more smart asians if you indeed go to a UC, you are contradicting your previous post, where you indicated that most asians (at least that you know) are NOT smart......i said most of the ones i know ARE smart. most > not most ....so by that logic, i know more....again, still not the point....perhaps you meant you simply know more asians

additionally, regardless of whether it is work ethic or familial/social pressure, either (if those are indeed ONLY the case) have clearly led to their having higher statistics on average, and per the means of current evaluation of students in this country (GPA, standardized tests such as the MCAT, SATs, ACT), that makes them smarter..... which therefore again supports my point i made regarding their numbers/statistics. however, i remain steadfast that it is a combination of smarts and work ethic (which may or may not be a result of familial/social pressure)

That does not make them smarter. People often forget that the Asians who take those tests are often very unrepresentative of the average American as many of them come from wealthy backgrounds. There is a definitive correlation between wealth and academic achievement that people like to carefully forget when referencing Asian academic prowess. Couple this fact with the large degree of self-selection associated with the Asians who are able to legally immigrate to America and it is not surprising that Asians outperform most ethnic groups that do not benefit from this double effect of confounding variables. Oh wait there is another group, the Jews--who are typically wealthy and also hail from immigrants who possessed values of hard work.

I don't go to an UC, I go to Yale and approximately 70% of my friends are either Jewish or asian. This could be because they are smart or it could be the result of environmental factors that contribute to their academic achievement, but no one likes to acknowledge these simple facts.

Moreover, these two variables are highly indicative of those who would be typically described as black on campus. The majority of the African-Americans are either recent immigrants or wealthy or--as is so often the case--both.

 

[Dbate]

"Way to discriminate against Asians."

It is not discrimination. I live in an area that is heavily Asian with a mix of indians and east asians and, consequently, the vast majority of my friends are asian. What I tire of, is hearing people constantly wax about how "smart" asians are without acknowledging the structural factors that contribute to their so-called intelligence.

 

[jturkel]

That does not make them smarter. People often forget that the Asians who take those tests are often very unrepresentative of the average American as many of them come from wealthy backgrounds. There is a definitive correlation between wealth and academic achievement that people like to carefully forget when referencing Asian academic prowess. Couple this fact with the large degree of self-selection associated with the Asians who are able to legally immigrate to America and it is not surprising that Asians outperform most ethnic groups that do not benefit from this double effect of confounding variables. Oh wait there is another group, the Jews--who are typically wealthy and also hail from immigrants who possessed values of hard work.

I don't go to an UC, I go to Yale and approximately 70% of my friends are either Jewish or asian. This could be because they are smart or it could be the result of environmental factors that contribute to their academic achievement, but no one likes to acknowledge these simple facts.

Moreover, these two variables are highly indicative of those who would be typically described as black on campus. The majority of the African-Americans are either recent immigrants or wealthy or--as is so often the case--both.

lol....well i'm going to disagree with the economic status of asians. most of the ones i know are not that financially off at all.

regarding the statement i bolded, i fall under that category. and i am surely not a product of mere social/familial pressure, high work ethic, or a high economic status. i consider myself quite intelligent and happen to be motivated as well.....as is with the rest of my immediate and extended family. there are times when your work ethic/study skills make you "smart" and then are other times when you can simply be innately smart. i think you are just having a difficult time grasping that there are others that may be more intelligent, regardless of work ethic/pressures/whatever reason you want to throw out there/etc........and it could be at times ethnically/religiously/heritage dependent.

and you still can't rule out that a work ethic can result in your being more intelligent......making more connections in the brain etc.....learned this stuff in my grad level neurobiology course.

and FWIW, i know plenty of both smart and dumb jews, and plenty that have a good and poor work ethic. sounds like you have a lot of jewish friends (though, to go refer back to your asian friends comment), not nearly as many as i do....but i do know that yale's last incoming class was 30% jewish (i have the statistics for this).

 

[Dbate]

i think you are just having a difficult time grasping that there are others that may be more intelligent, regardless of work ethic/pressures/whatever reason you want to throw out there/etc........and it could be at times ethnically/religiously/heritage dependent.

Two out of the three things you listed refer to social traits which are not genetically inherited and therefore do nothing to validate the dubious Asian=intelligent view.

"and you still can't rule out that a work ethic can result in your being more intelligent......making more connections in the brain etc.....learned this stuff in my grad level neurobiology course.

You are looking at only part of a circuit. If you are working hard because of social pressure and the result of that hard work is an increase in your intelligence, then you are not smart because of your genetics. You would be smart because of social factors, which are the primary one's I identify.

"and FWIW, i know plenty of both smart and dumb jews, and plenty that have a good and poor work ethic. sounds like you have a lot of jewish friends (though, to go refer back to your asian friends comment), not nearly as many as i do....but i do know that yale's last incoming class was 30% jewish (i have the statistics for this).

Yale's class is currently 22.6% jewish, but I am involved in political things on campus, within which jews are heavily overrepresented, and therefore my friendships are skewed towards being more jew-y than the norm.