Stats for Top Tier Schools

[stickgirl390]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've done some research, but I still want to ask SDN: What is considered a good GPA and MCAT score (new) for the "top tier" schools like Hopkins, Harvard, Cornell, etc? Thanks!

 

[PB&Jam]

Get the MSAR if you haven't (https://services.aamc.org/msar/home) and check out each school's 10-90th percentile for GPA and MCAT. You want to fall in that range, ideally. At Hopkins, for example, cGPA 10-90th percentile is 3.8-4.0, and MCAT 10-90th (old scale, they only have applicant, not matriculant, data for the new scale) is 33-40, or roughly 515-523. I imagine the other top schools would be very similar. Keep in mind, also, that top 20s are also looking for applicants who went above and beyond in other areas, too, and many are particularly keen on research experience.

 

[Lawpy]

I've done some research, but I still want to ask SDN: What is considered a good GPA and MCAT score (new) for the "top tier" schools like Hopkins, Harvard, Cornell, etc? Thanks!

Very roughly, GPA > 3.8 and MCAT > 518. But the MSAR is the best resource for this regarding specific schools.

 

[stickgirl390]

Get the MSAR if you haven't (https://services.aamc.org/msar/home) and check out each school's 10-90th percentile for GPA and MCAT. You want to fall in that range, ideally. At Hopkins, for example, cGPA 10-90th percentile is 3.8-4.0, and MCAT 10-90th (old scale, they only have applicant, not matriculant, data for the new scale) is 33-40, or roughly 515-523. I imagine the other top schools would be very similar. Keep in mind, also, that top 20s are also looking for applicants who went above and beyond in other areas, too, and many are particularly keen on research experience.

Ok, thank you! I have a 3.88 GPA and did not apply to top schools, yet I've only had one interview, so I was just curious.

 

[PB&Jam]

Ok, thank you! I have a 3.88 GPA and did not apply to top schools, yet I've only had one interview, so I was just curious.

One interview is better than none! And there's still time for more to come out 🙂 The whole process is pretty opaque, and beyond a certain point is a crapshoot anyway. You could get an II-->Acceptance at one top tier and get rejected pre-II at another (that's happened to me!) In your case, it's possible that you either chose low yield schools (schools with tons of applicants), you chose schools too far below your stats (some schools yield protect, meaning that if they think some high-stat kid is using them as a "safety" and likely won't go there, they'll reject them out of hand), you chose out of state schools with a heavy in-state bias, etc. Or, your lack of interviews could be just a product of the randomness and luck involved in the process. If you haven't attended that interview yet, kill it. If you have, sit and cross your fingers! It isn't over anywhere until you get rejected, so if you still have nothing but silence from some schools, you might still get an II or two!

 

[FeinMS]

You will probably need more than good numbers to get into top tier schools.

 

[ready2go2]

I've done some research, but I still want to ask SDN: What is considered a good GPA and MCAT score (new) for the "top tier" schools like Hopkins, Harvard, Cornell, etc? Thanks!

Stats are simply not enough. You need amazing ECs and life experiences to get in because everyone has the stats in those competition pools, you need something to set you apart.

 

[Lawpy]

Stats are simply not enough. You need amazing ECs and life experiences to get in because everyone has the stats in those competition pools, you need something to set you apart.

How do you think someone with a 3.9+/526+ with a cookie cutter application (so no amazing ECs/life experiences) will fare at top schools?

 

[663697]

Would somebody with high GPA/high MCAT/lots of clinical experience + at least 1 pub have a good chance? Or would you need to have done extra unique EC's

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[efle]

There are good numbers and then there are insane numbers. Someone with a 35/3.8 is going to need excellent ECs. Someone with a 43/4.0, I think will find love from several of the Top 20 even with an extremely cookie cutter app. My two cents.

 

[efle]

high GPA/high MCAT/lots of clinical experience + at least 1 pub have a good chance?

Yes, an extremely good chance (if high means above average even for these places with 97-99th percentile medians)

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

How do you think someone with a 3.9+/526+ with a cookie cutter application (so no amazing ECs/life experiences) will fare at top schools?

Know someone with a 523/4.0 and he hasn't had much luck in the top 10. Has multiple offers from the late top 20s though. I think getting into those tippy top places (outside WashU lol) requires more than just top numbers, you have to have something else to bring to the table.

 

[aldol16]

There are good numbers and then there are insane numbers. Someone with a 35/3.8 is going to need excellent ECs. Someone with a 43/4.0, I think will find love from several of the Top 20 even with an extremely cookie cutter app. My two cents.

Yeah, I mean several of the top 20 schools are known to love high stats. Coincidentally, two of them are in the Midwest. I think it depends in large part on the demographics of the student population that applies to the school. At many top schools, you get a lot of very interesting people applying - they're a self-selecting group. And at other top schools that are in perhaps not so great locations, you get a similar applicant pool, but the cream of the crop are more likely to matriculate elsewhere because of location. So perhaps more of their matriculated students are high stats but not as interesting as the ones that matriculate at the top schools that are in great locations. I mean, would you want to be in Chicago over NYC?

 

[aldol16]

Know someone with a 523/4.0 and he hasn't had much luck in the top 10. Has multiple offers from the late top 20s though. I think getting into those tippy top places (outside WashU lol) requires more than just top numbers, you have to have something else to bring to the table.

Are you talking about not even interviews or no acceptances? Because no acceptances in the top 10 at this point doesn't say much since most of the top 10 schools release decisions in the spring.

 

[a_borgia]

How do you think someone with a 3.9+/526+ with a cookie cutter application (so no amazing ECs/life experiences) will fare at top schools?

Look here. It doesn't matter what your numbers are if you're a boring person. That's the end all be all of admissions. PM if you want the gritty details about individual schools.

 

[aldol16]

Look here. It doesn't matter what your numbers are if you're a boring person. That's the end all be all of admissions. PM if you want the gritty details about individual schools.

Except WashU and to some extent, Chicago.

 

[efle]

I mean, would you want to be in Chicago over NYC?

I'd honestly much rather be in the nicer parts of Chicago (e.g. Northwestern) than say, Baltimore or Durham. Though I'd be lying if I pretended a San Fran school wasn't way more appealing than anywhere with snow...

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Are you talking about not even interviews or no acceptances? Because no acceptances in the top 10 at this point doesn't say much since most of the top 10 schools release decisions in the spring.

Interviews.

 

[aldol16]

I'd honestly much rather be in the nicer parts of Chicago (e.g. Northwestern) than say, Baltimore or Durham. Though I'd be lying if I pretended a San Fran school wasn't way more appealing than anywhere with snow...

Okay, but enough to turn down an offer from Hopkins for Chicago? Location is a factor, sure. But for some schools it's has more weight than others. I would rather be in Chicago than Baltimore. But I would rather go to Hopkins than UChicago if both admitted me.

 

[Goro]

GPA > 3.7, and MCAT > 516 (36 on the old scale.) The LizzyM scores for these schools are > 72.

You can also look in MSAR.

I've done some research, but I still want to ask SDN: What is considered a good GPA and MCAT score (new) for the "top tier" schools like Hopkins, Harvard, Cornell, etc? Thanks!

 

[efle]

Okay, but enough to turn down an offer from Hopkins for Chicago? Location is a factor, sure. But for some schools it's has more weight than others. I would rather be in Chicago than Baltimore. But I would rather go to Hopkins than UChicago if both admitted me.

That's a tough one, I feel like there are diminishing returns for fancy name and a limit to how much resources you really need once you're inside the upper echelon though, you know? Like is anyone ever going to be passed over for a residency interview or struggle to find excellent research because they were from the South and decided to live in Durham instead of going to Baltimore or Boston?

 

[sliceofbread136]

Okay, but enough to turn down an offer from Hopkins for Chicago? Location is a factor, sure. But for some schools it's has more weight than others. I would rather be in Chicago than Baltimore. But I would rather go to Hopkins than UChicago if both admitted me.

Different things more important to different people. I know some people who are vehemently against living in Baltimore.

Honestly I think anything you could do anything from Chicago that you could from Hopkins

 

[kb1900]

High stats l, even insane ones do not get you into the top schools. It'll def open up some interviews but you can't deal a deal by pointing to your 525 mcat.

 

[Thenewguy02]

I have above a 3.95 and 100th percentile MCAT from a middle of the road state school ( I was scored before the shift and then it was 523 and up for 100th percentile).

I've a one long experience that make me unique (can't say otherwise it would give away who I am), but the rest is pretty standard. So for I've been declined from UCSF (to be fair I applied MD PhD there for the lols even though I only have 2 years of research) Johns Hopkins, University of Michigan (Md PhD) and technically Mayo Clinic (they rejected me then unrejected and interviewed).


I pretty much applied to the top 25 schools and my state school plus a few safeties. I skipped a few for really arbitrary reasons (Cornell was one)


I got Interview Invites from:

University of Chicago
State School
Vanderbilt
NYU
Icahn School of Medicine
Case-Western
Cleveland Clinic
UCSD
Mayo Az
Columbia
WashU
Saint Louis University (withdrew)
Boston University (withdrew)
University of Colorado (withdrew)
Dartmouth (withdrew)
Albert Einstein (withdrew)


Silence from:
Stanford
Harvard (Md PhD)
Yale
UCLA
Tufts
Duke (Md PhD)

Again, n=1, but if you get the scores they can really help. Plus the scholarships offered have been nice.

 

[Chelsea FC]

I have above a 3.95 and 100th percentile MCAT from a middle of the road state school ( I was scored before the shift and then it was 523 and up for 100th percentile).

I've a one long experience that make me unique (can't say otherwise it would give away who I am), but the rest is pretty standard. So for I've been declined from UCSF (to be fair I applied MD PhD there for the lols even though I only have 2 years of research) Johns Hopkins, University of Michigan (Md PhD) and technically Mayo Clinic (they rejected me then unrejected and interviewed).


I pretty much applied to the top 25 schools and my state school plus a few safeties. I skipped a few for really arbitrary reasons (Cornell was one)


I got Interview Invites from:

University of Chicago
State School
Vanderbilt
NYU
Icahn School of Medicine
Case-Western
Cleveland Clinic
UCSD
Mayo Az
Columbia
WashU
Saint Louis University (withdrew)
Boston University (withdrew)
University of Colorado (withdrew)
Dartmouth (withdrew)
Albert Einstein (withdrew)


Silence from:
Stanford
Harvard (Md PhD)
Yale
UCLA
Tufts
Duke (Md PhD)

Again, n=1, but if you get the scores they can really help. Plus the scholarships offered have been nice.

It also depends on what you call top schools. Alot of pepole wouldn't consider, tufts,BU or Albert Einstein as top schools and more like mid tiers

 

[libertyyne]

Here is the thing, There are roughly 665 applicants per year with GPA greater than 3.7 and MCat greater than 517. That is barely enough to fill the class of top 20 schools. Those people are in short supply and the number ****** will accept them provided they arent complete douche's.

 

[aldol16]

That's a tough one, I feel like there are diminishing returns for fancy name and a limit to how much resources you really need once you're inside the upper echelon though, you know? Like is anyone ever going to be passed over for a residency interview or struggle to find excellent research because they were from the South and decided to live in Durham instead of going to Baltimore or Boston?

Different things more important to different people. I know some people who are vehemently against living in Baltimore.

Honestly I think anything you could do anything from Chicago that you could from Hopkins

Of course you could do the same things from Chicago as at Hopkins. That's not the point. The point is that for a lot of people who have acceptances to multiple top schools, location is a large factor. If you want to be in the northeast, you'll probably choose Penn over WashU or Stanford. If you want to be in the west and have warm weather and California babes, you'll choose Stanford or UCSF over Harvard or Penn. I think these two preferences are fairly common. The less common one is wanting to be in the Midwest. I've only encountered a minority of people at interviews who say they want to be in the Midwest. It could be that I just interviewed on days where many other applicants were from the Northeast or West. But I think it's a more general phenomenon.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Of course you could do the same things from Chicago as at Hopkins. That's not the point. The point is that for a lot of people who have acceptances to multiple top schools, location is a large factor. If you want to be in the northeast, you'll probably choose Penn over WashU or Stanford. If you want to be in the west and have warm weather and California babes, you'll choose Stanford or UCSF over Harvard or Penn. I think these two preferences are fairly common. The less common one is wanting to be in the Midwest. I've only encountered a minority of people at interviews who say they want to be in the Midwest. It could be that I just interviewed on days where many other applicants were from the Northeast or West. But I think it's a more general phenomenon.

I've met more people who want to be in the Midwest than in Baltimore. That place is kind of a dump

 

[aldol16]

I've met more people who want to be in the Midwest than in Baltimore. That place is kind of a dump

Okay, but stop fixating on Baltimore. If you take a poll of where people would want to live, between NYC, Boston, Philly, San Francisco, or Chicago, I think that you would be surprised by the results.

 

[efle]

I actually agree with that a lot, most people that came out to St. Louis for college from the coasts were not very excited about the location and almost everyone left immediately after graduation for NYC, west coast, or at least Chicago.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Here is the thing, There are roughly 665 applicants per year with GPA greater than 3.7 and MCat greater than 517. That is barely enough to fill the class of top 20 schools. Those people are in short supply and the number ****** will accept them provided they arent complete douche's.

I just looked at AMCAS's new Table 23 because I was surprised this number was so low, and I don't like it. The older table was more informative IMO. Hopefully they flesh it out as more data comes in

 

[libertyyne]

I just looked at AMCAS's new Table 23 because I was surprised this number was so low, and I don't like it. The older table was more informative IMO. Hopefully they flesh it out as more data comes in

I agree, they have changed it all up, I miss the state /race/mcat break down.I have always felt that a majority of those 665 are probably getting multiple acceptances from the high number acceptee median schools. I am too lazy to calculate it out, but that is the reason why there is almost a 2 LizzyM point difference between Accepteee medians and Matriculant medians for some of these schools.

I do wish they would provide further granular detail for 3.9+ and 520+ I suspect there are only 200 people in that category.

 

[Lucca]

Of course you could do the same things from Chicago as at Hopkins. That's not the point. The point is that for a lot of people who have acceptances to multiple top schools, location is a large factor. If you want to be in the northeast, you'll probably choose Penn over WashU or Stanford. If you want to be in the west and have warm weather and California babes, you'll choose Stanford or UCSF over Harvard or Penn. I think these two preferences are fairly common. The less common one is wanting to be in the Midwest. I've only encountered a minority of people at interviews who say they want to be in the Midwest. It could be that I just interviewed on days where many other applicants were from the Northeast or West. But I think it's a more general phenomenon.

I have yet to interview but I feel like every day is going to be a day where applicants are from the NE or West lol

 

[kb1900]

I agree, they have changed it all up, I miss the state /race/mcat break down.I have always felt that a majority of those 665 are probably getting multiple acceptances from the high number acceptee median schools. I am too lazy to calculate it out, but that is the reason why there is almost a 2 LizzyM point difference between Accepteee medians and Matriculant medians for some of these schools.

I do wish they would provide further granular detail for 3.9+ and 520+ I suspect there are only 200 people in that category.

idk why, i did these calculations before, probably while making pretty poor assumptions, but i had way different numbers in my head from when i did it.

it was like 1k ppl for 3.8+ and 518+

but i guess there isn't really arguing with the new table

 

[libertyyne]

idk why, i did these calculations before, probably while making pretty poor assumptions, but i had way different numbers in my head from when i did it.

it was like 1k ppl for 3.8+ and 518+

but i guess there isn't really arguing with the new table

It was tricky, i think the old tables also aggregated multiple years.

 

[doctorbob23]

The higher the better. The msar has those answers

 

[efle]

Guys, I think you might be missing the fact that the cycle this is built on was a big mix of old scores and new scores, and theyre only showing the data for the new scores. There were 21,000 matricluants for the cycle and that new MCAT table only shows 8,883 acceptees. There are a lot more than ~700 people applying with Top 20 competitive numbers.

Though yeah I'll echo that the AAMC is being ridiculous with their new data table. They have long had an agenda of trying to remove emphasis on extremely high stats, so it isn't that surprising that they will stop revealing that 100th percentile students (the old 39+ bin) is favored even further than 96-97th+ (the old 36-38 bin, now listed as above 517)

 

[libertyyne]

Guys, I think you might be missing the fact that the cycle this is built on was a big mix of old scores and new scores, and theyre only showing the data for the new scores. There were 21,000 matricluants for the cycle and that new MCAT table only shows 8,883 acceptees. There are a lot more than ~700 people applying with Top 20 competitive numbers.

Though yeah I'll echo that the AAMC is being ridiculous with their new data table. They have long had an agenda of trying to remove emphasis on extremely high stats, so it isn't that surprising that they will stop revealing that 100th percentile students (the old 39+ bin) is favored even further than 96-97th+ (the old 36-38 bin, now listed as above 517)

You are right, thanks for catching that, the real question is how likely are the people with older scores to be in the highest bin ? Maybe next year's data will bear this out.

 

[efle]

You are right, thanks for catching that, the real question is how likely are the people with older scores to be in the highest bin ? Maybe next year's data will bear this out.

Well, this 2016-2017 data reflects the very first cohort that took the new MCAT in Spring 2015. All the applicants going along the normal timeline that tested before Spring (eg over winter break or in the prior summer) would have been on the old exam. So I think this was probably a pretty fair mix of exam types without a big selective bias making one group higher performing. Also explains why only ~40% of people were on the new exam.

Next dataset for 2017-2018 will probably be more skewed, since people that took the old test, did well, but still chose not to apply yet will be an unusual minority and almost all applicants will be on the new exam.

It's going to be very interesting to see what the MSAR looks like in a few months.

 

[wizzed101]

The score table clearly stated that 52% of applicants used the new score, among which 20% applied with both old and new scores. So it is pretty safe to say that there were about ~1,200 applicants with those high stats. Top 10 took about the same number. About 40% of people who took the MCAT retook the test (which is kinda consistent with the fact that ~40% of those with the new MCAT must be categorized as retakers), I say that there were around 720 applicants with 3.8+ AND a virgin MCAT >517. If the ****** prefer virgins, there are simply not enough. They will take them all.

 

[efle]

You know what is weird?

8883 / 27772 = 32.0% admitted among applicants with a new MCAT (or new + old)

Overall, 22031 / 53029 = 41.5% admitted overall

This means the cohort applying with only old scores had an admit rate of 13148 / 25257 = 52%

What??? The group bearing new or new+old performed terribly

 

[libertyyne]

You know what is weird?

8883 / 27772 = 32.0% admitted among applicants with a new MCAT (or new + old)

Overall, 22031 / 53029 = 41.5% admitted overall

This means the cohort applying with only old scores had an admit rate of 13148 / 25257 = 52%

What??? The group bearing new or new+old performed terribly

I noticed that, but didnt say anything. Was it more likely that the older Scores were higher so people wanted to apply with them before it expired?

 

[libertyyne]

The score table clearly stated that 52% of applicants used the new score, among which 20% applied with both old and new scores. So it is pretty safe to say that there were about ~1,200 applicants with those high stats. Top 10 took about the same number. About 40% of people who took the MCAT retook the test (which is kinda consistent with the fact that ~40% of those with the new MCAT must be categorized as retakers), I say that there were around 720 applicants with 3.8+ AND a virgin MCAT >517. If the ****** prefer virgins, there are simply not enough. They will take them all.

 

[efle]

I noticed that, but didnt say anything. Was it more likely that the older Scores were higher so people wanted to apply with them before it expired?

I have two theories:

Many strong students on top of their app building wanted to reliably score well and rushed to take the old exam in Winter instead of waiting for the scary new edition in Spring.

The cohort is new or new+old, and new+old are retesters, maybe a group likely to be weaker overall. The other group of only old exam score is less likely to be a retaker (someone who tested in winter and did poorly would have to retake the new exam).

But the scores were assigned by percentile, so it can't even be explained in terms of stronger/weaker MCAT scores. The same fraction of both cohorts had top 1%/5%/10% etc. It must somehow be that everything else on the apps was weaker for those bearing new scores.

 

[efle]

8883 / 27772 = 32.0% admitted among applicants with a new MCAT (or new + old)

Overall, 22031 / 53029 = 41.5% admitted overall

This means the cohort applying with only old scores had an admit rate of 13148 / 25257 = 52%

^ @gyngyn any insights from what you saw throughout last cycle? Why does bearing a new score vs old one drop your odds 20%?

 

[gyngyn]

^ @gyngyn any insights from what you saw throughout last cycle? Why does bearing a new score vs old one drop your odds 20%?

I didn't see anything that would explain this difference.
I can say that most reviewers still seem to prefer the old MCAT.

 

[efle]

I didn't see anything that would explain this difference.
I can say that most reviewers still seem to prefer the old MCAT.

Yikes, I hope we didn't just have hundreds of people losing their medical seats to the mere-exposure effect

 

[Iz_FtB]

I can say that most reviewers still seem to prefer the old MCAT.

Is that a product of familiarity or something else?

 

[gyngyn]

Yikes, I hope we didn't just have hundreds of people losing their medical seats to the mere-exposure effect

Is that a product of familiarity or something else?

They are more comfortable interpreting the old scores.
This will pass by next year...

 

[ScreenName23]

You know what is weird?

8883 / 27772 = 32.0% admitted among applicants with a new MCAT (or new + old)

Overall, 22031 / 53029 = 41.5% admitted overall

This means the cohort applying with only old scores had an admit rate of 13148 / 25257 = 52%

What??? The group bearing new or new+old performed terribly

Okay so lets say that I have an old & expired 28 MCAT retook for next cycle and got a new 520 MCAT. Is there a way to factor this 'poor performance' data into my school list/ a way to protect against the decreased chances that my group has?
Also feel free to pm me and ignore this and go on with the discussion🙂