sGPA > cGPA ?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

FishyTheFish

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
What is the significance of having a science GPA that is greater than your overall GPA? For example my Science GPA is 4.0 but my cumulative GPA is 3.75. Does this help me or hurt me in med school admissions?
 
It can't hurt.

If you honestly think it would, get a D on your next bio or calc course, that will help bring that pesky 4.0 sGPA down.
 
What is the significance of having a science GPA that is greater than your overall GPA? For example my Science GPA is 4.0 but my cumulative GPA is 3.75. Does this help me or hurt me in med school admissions?
Both are important, but I think med schools value a higher sGPA more than a higher cGPA.
 
mines the opposite, cummulative is greater than science gpa, but I think once you get into the "Ok well take a look at this loser applicant" range and you get an interview I don't think it matters too much which one is higher or whatever, as long as they are in the ranges.

Then again this is coming from a dude who has YET to get into ANY medical school after a second application cycle!:scared:
 
gettheleadout's statement is backed up by this:
https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf

Both before and after your interview, the sGPA is regarded higher than your cGPA. They are both also more important than your MCAT or your experience, so it's important to keep them both high.

I believe it's more common that cGPA is higher than sGPA since science courses tend to be more difficult. My sGPA is also higher and I certainly can't imagine that hurts my application.
 
What is the significance of having a science GPA that is greater than your overall GPA? For example my Science GPA is 4.0 but my cumulative GPA is 3.75. Does this help me or hurt me in med school admissions?

You mean you ONLY have a 4.0 sGPA??? Start checking out podiatry school right now, bro.

Okay, that was rude. 😛 Sorry. I'm in the same boat, 3.71 cGPA and 3.98 sGPA. I've gotten six interview invites and one acceptance so far in this admissions cycle, and my ECs/MCAT are good but not outstanding. I'm guessing my sGPA helped out a lot. I think it looks much better than the other way around--after all, there's a reason AMCAS calculates a separate sGPA! It's important!
 
gettheleadout's statement is backed up by this:
https://www.aamc.org/download/261106/data/aibvol11_no6.pdf

Both before and after your interview, the sGPA is regarded higher than your cGPA. They are both also more important than your MCAT or your experience, so it's important to keep them both high.

I believe it's more common that cGPA is higher than sGPA since science courses tend to be more difficult. My sGPA is also higher and I certainly can't imagine that hurts my application.

Need we go over the statistical poo that is this research study another time? You can't draw many meaningful conclusions from it I'm afraid.
 
Please stop linking to that terrible "research" (actually it was a survey, and a badly designed one at that) and pretending like it is any kind of evidence whatsoever. I'm not sure how many times we need to debunk this piece of tripe

Also, this has to be a troll. You're worried that a 4.0/3.75 will somehow reflect negatively on you? Aren't you supposed to learn critical thinking and stuff in college?
 
Please stop linking to that terrible "research" (actually it was a survey, and a badly designed one at that) and pretending like it is any kind of evidence whatsoever. I'm not sure how many times we need to debunk this piece of tripe

Also, this has to be a troll. You're worried that a 4.0/3.75 will somehow reflect negatively on you? Aren't you supposed to learn critical thinking and stuff in college?

So true!

But honestly, my sGPA was a little lower than my cGPA and it worked out ok for me. I'm not sure it really matters unless there's a crazy discrepancy between the two (which 4.0/3.75 is not). Just get the highest grades you can in tough classes and classes you love and you'll be good! (I know, easier said than done)
 
Eh, that's why I qualified my initial statement with "slightly" and left it at that. The left leg vs right leg analogy comes to mind.

I actually thought there was another study that showed the same thing though but it was focused more on comparing GPA and MCAT...perhaps I remember incorrectly. I thought one of the conclusions it showed was that sGPA was slightly more important than cGPA.
 
Please stop linking to that terrible "research" (actually it was a survey, and a badly designed one at that) and pretending like it is any kind of evidence whatsoever. I'm not sure how many times we need to debunk this piece of tripe

Also, this has to be a troll. You're worried that a 4.0/3.75 will somehow reflect negatively on you? Aren't you supposed to learn critical thinking and stuff in college?

I don't understand why people get so sensitive about that document. As long as people view it for what it is - a survey - I think it provides plenty of useful insight into what is considered important when applying to medical school. Obviously, one should not read too deeply into the fact that sGPA is listed right above cGPA as being critical to focus on science and not on the rest of your curriculum. But to understand the importance of grades, mcats, various experiences etc. in the broad spectrum of the application process is helpful. In the end, the document says what we all know already.
 
I don't understand why people get so sensitive about that document. As long as people view it for what it is - a survey - I think it provides plenty of useful insight into what is considered important when applying to medical school. Obviously, one should not read too deeply into the fact that sGPA is listed right above cGPA as being critical to focus on science and not on the rest of your curriculum. But to understand the importance of grades, mcats, various experiences etc. in the broad spectrum of the application process is helpful. In the end, the document says what we all know already.

Unfortunately this survey is able to tell us nothing. The most important criteria preinterview (BCPM) is given a score of 3.7. The lowest (experience with the underserved) is 2.7. The difference between these two is 1.0. However, the standard deviation is between 0.9 and 1.7. The standard deviation is larger than the deviation between the two extremes. You can make no conclusions about the relative importance of any of these criteria from this data. Thus, it is completely worthless for helping applicants to understand the weight attributed to various components of their application.

Post interview is only marginally better. 4.5-3.0 is the range, with a difference of 1.5. That is terrible when we consider that the standard deviation may be as high as 1.7.

Unfortunately, this survey can tell us very little. Very very very little.
 
Top