Sub 3.0 & Interview

[asyouwish]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

.

 

[sehnsucht]

So, I keep hearing about the dreaded 3.0 screen. Obviously, no school will fess up to this, but we've all heard about it and its probably fact. My question is, does anyone know of any schools that have interviewed someone with sub-3.0 and which schools were they?

i think it depends on the other aspects of your application. i've asked specific schools that screen apps and those that do not screen apps if they employ a cut off. I have not come across a school yet that says they will turn away an app based on a sub 3.0 GPA. I imagine that as long as you have strong LORs, significant ECs and a compelling essay, you should have a fighting chance. I suggest you toss your hat in the pile and see what happens. Good luck!

 

[postbacker]

Read the MSAR for the extremely sobering stats on sub 3.0 GPAs and med school matriculation - the percentage of successful applicants with this low of a GPA is, I think, around 1 percent (meaning 99 of 100 applicants do not get admitted anywhere).

Your question is about screening, and my guess is that the vast majority of schools do screen out these GPAs when it comes to offering interviews. My guess is also that people who are managing to get interviews and acceptances with a sub 3.0 GPA have done so because they have a strong MCAT (say mid 30s), a strong graduate program GPA, and compelling ECs and life experiences.

But what I really think is that most of these folks are getting in at some of the state schools that heavily favor in-staters (Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.) where the median stats are much lower than the national averages...of course this doesn't help the applicant who lives in an ultra competitive state like California...

Think about it in pragmatic terms - med schools are flooded with applications that don't have this GPA problem, and they have to pare down the pool somehow...same with sub 30 MCATs...nobody wants to hear it, but applicants with less than 3.6/30 are fighting an uphill battle, and the further away on the downside of the median one gets, the likelihood of a successful outcome rapidly dwindles...

 

[RxnMan]

I have called it a "screen" in the past, though it probably doesn't actually exist per se, so it isn't like anyone's hiding anything. Whatever algorithms are used to rank applicants, it has been my experience that one is vanishingly less likely to matriculate with a GPA below 3.0 as apposed to a few decimal points higher, just above 3.0.

As such, you'll hear about sub-3.0'ers being at every school, but they'll be a very small percent of any given class (i.e. 1-2 out of a 200 person class). Your best bet is to apply widely. Even schools that are considered "uncompetitive" will have highly competitive matriculants.

 

[Nasrudin]

Read the MSAR for the extremely sobering stats on sub 3.0 GPAs and med school matriculation - the percentage of successful applicants with this low of a GPA is, I think, around 1 percent (meaning 99 of 100 applicants do not get admitted anywhere).

Your question is about screening, and my guess is that the vast majority of schools do screen out these GPAs when it comes to offering interviews. My guess is also that people who are managing to get interviews and acceptances with a sub 3.0 GPA have done so because they have a strong MCAT (say mid 30s), a strong graduate program GPA, and compelling ECs and life experiences.

But what I really think is that most of these folks are getting in at some of the state schools that heavily favor in-staters (Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.) where the median stats are much lower than the national averages...of course this doesn't help the applicant who lives in an ultra competitive state like California...

Think about it in pragmatic terms - med schools are flooded with applications that don't have this GPA problem, and they have to pare down the pool somehow...same with sub 30 MCATs...nobody wants to hear it, but applicants with less than 3.6/30 are fighting an uphill battle, and the further away on the downside of the median one gets, the likelihood of a successful outcome rapidly dwindles...

Yep. We could use more sobering analysis and less citation of the dramatic exception that would seem to suggest, incorrectly in my opinion, that they lend themselves to a copiable pattern.

I too have spent inordinate amounts of time looking for patterns in the accepted low gpa candidates and agree with you completely. We are outliers as it is. Therefore I disregard completely low gpa data that contains any of the following: URM status, In sate applicant to state school, and sometimes even some truly exceptional characteristic like "a pulitzer prize for journalism" or "PI of NIH-funded project" and the like to lesser extents.

The hard-boiled facts for us are to simply show an awesome series of recent success, getting the numbers to the lower end of the statistical range, compensating GPA with excellent MCAT score, and or completing the "accepted back door" for our kind--the infamous SMP.

OP, you could get any combination of "you suck!" all the way to "Apply to Harvard....you never know..." in terms of advice. But The Postabacker and I represent the much thought over realities of your situation with which we share in the burdens of ourselves.

Good luck. Be careful what lens you use to view the facts and consider where the advice is coming from carefully before investing resources in a course of action.

 

[Nasrudin]

Additionally...Rxn man...perhaps you could enlighten me on the particular issue of disclosure of screening mechanisms on behalf of adcoms.


I'm putting my cards on the table next season and would actually like if medical schools screened out my 3.3 cum gpa before I send them the secondary fee. This is the part of the admissions process that I think is particularly corrupt--that a medical school would be disingenuous insofar as being too lazy to screen you out until they receive your fee upon which after pocketing it they will promplty screen you at that point.

Any thoughts on this aspect of the game?

 

[Green6936]

Are you guys talking about overall gpa or science gpa?

 

[Nasrudin]

Are you guys talking about overall gpa or science gpa?

For myself: 3.3 overall and 3.9 sci. Hence the dilemma over to SMP or not SMP.

For the op I was assuming they meant overall.

 

[asyouwish]

.

 

[Nasrudin]

Thanks for the advice so far. I know its an uphill battle. However, I've seen a few experienced SDN'ers have some success. I know that many people will make their assumptions: lazy, stupid, whatever else, but I already know to ignore that. I realize the odds are staggering. I know that I will likely be doing an SMP next year. The facts are the facts, no doubt. I can't go back and change my undergrad-GPA. But I also believe in focusing on the positive, and what I can do NOW. I'm shooting to be that 1 in 1000, or a million, or whatever.

I'm hopeful that schools will use the algorithm and look at the complete app, but I fear throwing my money away at a school where a computer will say <3.0, NEXT! Especially since so few schools screen for secondaries these days. Oh yeah, I'm a CA resident too 😡

yeah. Ca resident myself. Good luck. Somebody has to be the 1 in 1000. Might be you.

 

[relentless11]

I can't attest to how schools outside of CA screen applicants, and I have no idea how any school screens applicants for interviews, however its a well known fact that med school's under the University of CA system screens GPA/MCAT for secondary applications.

None of the UC med school's will ever say it flat out. Here at UCDSOM, they say that they look at your "complete application" (e.g., the primary app). There is much truth behind this, but given the statistics associated with UC med schools, it also fails to mention their pre-screening process. The closest any UC has officially come to implying an actual screening process would be UCSF. On their website (FAQ's), they state that anyone with less than a 3.2 GPA is not considered competative, BUT encourage non-trads to apply. Over the years, after talking to various adcoms, attended many pre-AMSA meetings, we've come to the conclusion that UC's tend to screen out people who have less than a 3.0-3.2 GPA, and an MCAT score of 24-26.

The statistics implies a skewed relationship. This is why MSAR uses medians for its national statistics, and the statistics for each individual school. Medians are NOT affected by extreme values. So its not statistically appropriate to imply that a low median GPA/MCAT at one school implies people with low GPA's getting in. For example, if the median GPA of matriculants was a 3.2, then it may not mean that people with <3.2 got in. It could've meant that half the people that got in had 3.2's! Who knows! Without the range, we may never know. As Nasrudin said though, the whole low GPA issue is moot for non-trads who have shown improvement. For instance, I will have a PhD. This doesn't guarantee me anything, but they can't treat me like an undergrad either. It will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. All we can do is to continue improving our stats, and hope for the best. Anyway, here's some more details about the application process....

Back in 2001, I was fortunate enough to talk to a student adcom from UCSF which ultimately made things a bit more clearer. Your primary application can fall into 1 of 3 piles. (1) Gets a secondary application, (2) rejected pre-secondary application, (3) maybe get a secondary (after a closer look). Piles 1 and 2 are easy to figure out. You either make the GPA/MCAT criteria or not. Pile 3 is the interesting one, and this is definitely a VERY small pile. You get into this pile if there is something that the adcoms feel was important to diserve additional consideration despite not meeting the GPA/MCAT criteria. Such as working to support your family, significant improvement, etc.

Now one should take this 3rd pile as a grain of salt. My PI who is a UCSF alumnus clarified the process even further. The whole process takes into account foure items: (1) GPA/MCAT, (2) Personal Statement, (3) Letters of Recommendations, and (4) Personal Interviews. They are weighted differently, and at the time of him attending UCSF, it was on a 6 point basis. GPA/MCAT = 1/6, PS = 1/6, LOR = 2/6 and Interviews = 2/6. Your GPA/MCAT lose most of its "weight" after interviews, and a lot is dependent on your LORs and interviews. The irony is that you'd never reach the LOR/Interview stage (secondary/post-secondary) without jumping through the GPA/MCAT cut-off.

For me, I'm just focused on surviving the screening process at the UC's which implies that I will have many years of significant GPA improvement since undergrad. I think it will be about 5 years worth of additional undergrad work post-bacc😉 while earning a PhD. Therefore in theory, it should show my PRESENT capacity to do well, dedication to the profession, and 5 years of additional EC's and what not. If you ask me, I still think I'll get denied at UC's though..haha.

 

[RxnMan]

I wish I could help you out and name names. I arrived at my opinion after submitting about 90 applications over three seasons. Every school has their own unique method of comparing applicants (I know mine does), and sometimes it is applied before the secondary, sometimes after. Each one will take different things into account, and no ADCOM will state exactly what their methods are. I've asked repeatedly.

I also felt like my money went to paying for a new anatomy lab or a new set of computers, and the least they could do in return was allow me the chance to spend more money and time by granting an interview. I feel your frustration. Applying is hard, but you will never find out if you never try.

 

[RxnMan]

After reading relentless's post, he's got it about dead-on. The reason why some low GPA applicants get in is that 3rd pile, and you get there by having an otherwise stellar application (though I will argue about when secondaries are issued).

 

[brewmeistervi]

So, I keep hearing about the dreaded 3.0 screen. Obviously, no school will fess up to this, but we've all heard about it and its probably fact. My question is, does anyone know of any schools that have interviewed someone with sub-3.0 and which schools were they?

I wanted to apply to U Miami Miller Med school and they TOTALLY screened me for having a undergrad GPA under 3.6 .... that really sucks because my graduate GPA is above that... they tossed out my organic chemistry MS and 35 MCAT...

 

[relentless11]

After reading relentless's post, he's got it about dead-on. The reason why some low GPA applicants get in is that 3rd pile, and you get there by having an otherwise stellar application (though I will argue about when secondaries are issued).

Yea the whole secondaries being issued is a lot more school dependent. UC's are an odd bunch anyway. I think in a nutshell is one should not be discouraged by GPA/MCAT cut-offs, however don't be disillusioned by them either. Someone coming from a 2.0 UGPA, spending 5 additional years doing rigorous 4.0 post-bacc work MAY not meet a cut-off due to their UGPA. However they may still get into med school (allopathic) since thats 5 years of relevant work, especially when coupled to a good MCAT score. Case in point, Tulane School of Medicine back in .....2000/2001, there website reported the GPA range of their matriculants as 2.5-4.0. Yes a 2.5! However, for all we know, the person could've had the 5 years of 4.0 post-bacc that I was talking about, and some doctorate degree. I told our advising committee about this and they agreed, this person would have had to show some kind of significant effort beyond the scale of doing 1-2 year post-bacc or an SMP.

I wanted to apply to U Miami Miller Med school and they TOTALLY screened me for having a undergrad GPA under 3.6 .... that really sucks because my graduate GPA is above that... they tossed out my organic chemistry MS and 35 MCAT...

Well you need to clarify this. U Miami clearly states even in the MSAR that they screen out students who have <3.6 GPA if you are a non-resident. The cut-off for residents is much lower (3.2). Since its a state run school, you're lucky that they at least told you the criteria😉. University of California pretty much doesn't take anyone outside CA. UCLA is an exception, but usually, you may see 0-4 people out of state in each UC med school class. Usually its 0-😉. I think the statement is that you have to perform better than the best admitted CA student, and of course beat out all the non-residents that apply too!

 

[medguy83]

Practically every school has cut-offs. However, med schools relish in the fact of their total hegemony. If they like you and want you in, you're in. For even state schools the gov. has no say as to who they accept and for what reasons. I know of a girl who was rejected because she came from an underprivileged family. Seriously. They actually told her this. She ranted and raved the entire semester; called lawyers, state board of education, and was left without a case. The school denied any such comments. I also know of a student whose mother is actually on an admissions committee for a med school. Needless to say, he got in even though he spent the first few semesters of college basically stoned out of his mind. That's life.

For the most part, you need a 3.5+ gpa and at least a 30 or so mcat. Some schools like GW will send secondaries to anyone who applied (and can cough up the $125.00 application fee of course); they must be raking it in. In the end, practically everyone interviewing has met these requirements. Those who are finally accepted have either made a fantastic impression on paper and in person, or have some grandious story of saving children's lives in a sudanese triage center.

 

[mustis99]

So, I keep hearing about the dreaded 3.0 screen. Obviously, no school will fess up to this, but we've all heard about it and its probably fact. My question is, does anyone know of any schools that have interviewed someone with sub-3.0 and which schools were they?

am suggesting to try caribbean medical schools. i heard there are very good competitive schools out there. make some research about it because they have clinical rotation in US teaching hospital...

 

[jae9970]

Additionally...Rxn man...perhaps you could enlighten me on the particular issue of disclosure of screening mechanisms on behalf of adcoms.


I'm putting my cards on the table next season and would actually like if medical schools screened out my 3.3 cum gpa before I send them the secondary fee. This is the part of the admissions process that I think is particularly corrupt--that a medical school would be disingenuous insofar as being too lazy to screen you out until they receive your fee upon which after pocketing it they will promplty screen you at that point.

Any thoughts on this aspect of the game?

i totally agree. nothing like paying 120 dollars for a secondary only to get a screened rejection e-mail within a few days.. but what can you do?

 

[prionsRbad]

am suggesting to try caribbean medical schools. i heard there are very good competitive schools out there. make some research about it because they have clinical rotation in US teaching hospital...

🙄🙄🙄👎