Taking Class to Challenge yourself vs. Easy Class for the A

[GrapesofRath]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Engineering majors bring much more practical value to medicine than art history majors even despite the GPA significance. I doubt adcoms would be quick to dismiss the engineering major for having a low GPA.

I guess just as a counter to provide some perspective and not to start any debate I know gonnif has said in his experience he's seen ADCOMS question engineering majors "commitment to medicine". I think the established point be it gonnif who says it or someone else is that this idea of your GPA getting some sort of adjustment for being an engineer is largely just a fantasy. Engineers have tons of advantages. But in some sense, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to take a major that gives you a great back up if medicine doesn't work out fantastic. But there is a cost that comes with it and that can be a lower GPA.

The problem as always and what will always be an ADCOMs counter point as to "why do you care so much about GPA and don't value major" will be there are enough pre-meds with top GPAs who don't take short cuts and who major in very difficult majors that they can have the luxury of not having to make adjustments and considerations for those who couldn't quite perform at that level.

 

[Lawpy]

I guess just as a counter to provide some perspective and not to start any debate I know gonnif has said in his experience he's seen ADCOMS question engineering majors "commitment to medicine". I think the established point be it gonnif who says it or someone else is that this idea of your GPA getting some sort of adjustment for being an engineer is largely just a fantasy. Engineers have tons of advantages. But in some sense, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to take a major that gives you a great back up if medicine doesn't work out fantastic. But there is a cost that comes with it and that can be a lower GPA.

It would seem strange for the engineer-adjusted GPA to be a fantasy when it is well accepted that the engineering curriculum is very rigorous in essentially all universities. Like you had mentioned, engineering majors have perks and serve as a great backup plan, but it isn't like a 3.8 in engineering is a 3.8 in biology (or insert an easy major). That's essentially taking the GPA without context.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

They value the science gpa above the cumulative anyways, so I dont think the engineering vs art history matters much

 

[Lawpy]

They value the science gpa above the cumulative anyways, so I dont think the engineering vs art history matters much

Engineering courses are considered to be nonscience under many to all circumstances.

 

[GrapesofRath]

It would seem strange for the engineer-adjusted GPA to be a fantasy when it is well accepted that the engineering curriculum is very rigorous in essentially all universities. Like you had mentioned, engineering majors have perks and serve as a great backup plan, but it isn't like a 3.8 in engineering is a 3.8 in biology (or insert an easy major). That's essentially taking the GPA without context.

I mean it's been pretty well established be it through gonnif or someone else that your GPA is your GPA. I think gonnif actually addressed this directly a couple weeks ago to someone specifically asking this saying "no you won't be given any kind of extra boost for your GPA as a ChemE". That's just the nature of the game. Like I said above, ADCOMs have so many good applicants to sort through who ace brutal majors that they can be picky and not have to make adjustments and considerations for those who couldn't hack it at the same level at brutal majors.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean it's been pretty well established be it through gonnif or someone else that your GPA is your GPA. I think gonnif actually addressed this directly a couple weeks ago to someone specifically asking this saying "no you won't be given any kind of extra boost for your GPA as a ChemE". That's just the nature of the game. Like I said above, ADCOMs have so many good applicants to sort through who ace brutal majors that they can be picky and not have to make adjustments and considerations for those who couldn't hack it at the same level at brutal majors.

I think you are overstating the applicant pool a bit. If in fact, adcoms in every school have so many good applicants to sort through, it would be virtually impossible for mediocre or subpar applicants to get interviews and acceptances. Semantics aside, the GPA by itself doesn't say much about the applicant. Trends, known rigor, upward trends etc. in conjunction with a strong MCAT are all necessary to provide a complete picture of the applicant. And yes, it is the adcom's responsibility to take all these factors into consideration if their objective is to provide the best possible class.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I think you are overstating the applicant pool a bit. If in fact, adcoms in every school have so many good applicants to sort through, it would be virtually impossible for mediocre or subpar applicants to get interviews and acceptances. Semantics aside, the GPA by itself doesn't say much about the applicant. Trends, known rigor, upward trends etc. in conjunction with a strong MCAT are all necessary to provide a complete picture of the applicant. And yes, it is the adcom's responsibility to take all these factors into consideration if their objective is to provide the best possible class.

I mean there are countless 3.8+ students rejected every year. Almost 4,000 a year actually. It's simply a fact that ADCOMs could fill every medical school slot with applicants with above a 3.6 GPA if they wanted to. 60% of those spots could go to people with above 3.8's if ADCOMs wanted to make it that way. I've even linked the data for you if you want to take a look

https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstable24.pdf

What your saying is nice and all in theory and you can disagree with how the process works, but the way ADCOMs "take these factors into consideration" and the way you sound like you want them to are probably rather different things. While in your opinion it might seem "strange that an engineer adjusted GPA is a fantasy" and that opinion might have validity to it, when you have people involved in admission openly telling you on this site that such is not the case and there are millions of other reasons why to think such isn't the case, that's a pretty strong reason to believe engineering GPA's aren't looked in some different light than alot of engineers might hope.

 

[625233]

Lol I actually got a B one semester in research so not such a great gpa booster always

+1

 

[Goro]

It seems to be an urban legend amongst pre-meds that somehow one can skate through 120 credits of an undergraduate degree. Remember that 8 hrs Bio + 16 hrs of Chem + 8 hrs of Physics plus/minus math and or biochem and or sociology and or Psych (~40 hrs doesn't mean "easy")

Do you think that being a history major is easy? How about Sociology? Philosophy? Drama? English Lit? Art major is easy? Having minored in the subject, you try writing every two weeks, an essay on, say, "influences of the Hudson River School" or "commentary on the Mark Rothko show at the Met" or "Picasso's Blue Period."


We look at the entire app.

What's the verdict for someone who did excellent on the MCAT and took easy classes along the way purely for the sake of GPA padding?



I honestly don't care what others do. I just take whatever classes I feel like it, be it easy or hard. If people want to take easy classes along the way, good for them.

 

[efle]

But if you take that path and dont get the most out of the only period in your life when your only responsibility is to be a student then is it really worth it? Is it not better to sacrifice the sleep, fun, time etc and challenge yourself and try your best to succeed?

Well there is worth in challenging yourself, just not as much worth as a strong shot at med school. I'm willing to sacrifice a lot of sleep and Dota matches to study what I want to, but if I had come out of the prereqs with a 3.1 GPA I think I'd be prioritizing very differently.

It seems to be an urban legend amongst pre-meds that somehow one can skate through 120 credits of an undergraduate degree. Remember that 8 hrs Bio + 16 hrs of Chem + 8 hrs of Physics plus/minus math and or biochem and or sociology and or Psych (~40 hrs doesn't mean "easy")

Do you think that being a history major is easy? How about Sociology? Philosophy? Drama? English Lit? Art major is easy? Having minored in the subject, you try writing every two weeks, an essay on, say, "influences of the Hudson River School" or "commentary on the Mark Rothko show at the Met" or "Picasso's Blue Period."


We look at the entire app.

I've had a good amount of psych and phil and a grab bag of other humanities...it's much easier imo. N=1 of course
But if you consider a 3.7 at Kutztown vs Ivy to be no different then I'd expect you to assume Sociology and Engineering were similarly challenging too 😉

 

[Glazedonutlove]

It seems to be an urban legend amongst pre-meds that somehow one can skate through 120 credits of an undergraduate degree. Remember that 8 hrs Bio + 16 hrs of Chem + 8 hrs of Physics plus/minus math and or biochem and or sociology and or Psych (~40 hrs doesn't mean "easy")

Do you think that being a history major is easy? How about Sociology? Philosophy? Drama? English Lit? Art major is easy? Having minored in the subject, you try writing every two weeks, an essay on, say, "influences of the Hudson River School" or "commentary on the Mark Rothko show at the Met" or "Picasso's Blue Period."


We look at the entire app.

I've always felt at ease with humanities classes. Sure, there are essays and there is critical thinking involved, but they are still a lot less stressful then say, upper level biochemistry classes

 

[ZedsDed]

It seems to be an urban legend amongst pre-meds that somehow one can skate through 120 credits of an undergraduate degree. Remember that 8 hrs Bio + 16 hrs of Chem + 8 hrs of Physics plus/minus math and or biochem and or sociology and or Psych (~40 hrs doesn't mean "easy")

Do you think that being a history major is easy? How about Sociology? Philosophy? Drama? English Lit? Art major is easy? Having minored in the subject, you try writing every two weeks, an essay on, say, "influences of the Hudson River School" or "commentary on the Mark Rothko show at the Met" or "Picasso's Blue Period."


We look at the entire app.

It's not that it's "easy," just "easier." And more importantly, easier to get an A.

Philosophy and English Lit are exceptionally rigorous imo though.

 

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

With regards to your question it is crucial to highlight that it depends on the med school. Johns Hopkins openly stated on their website that the rigor of your courses as well as your institution will be taken into account. UCSF, on the other hand, will straight out tell you "a 4.0 is a 4.0 no matter what" (yes, my friend emailed them and that was their exact response).

 

[ZedsDed]

With regards to your question it is crucial to highlight that it depends on the med school. Johns Hopkins openly stated on their website that the rigor of your courses as well as your institution will be taken into account. UCSF, on the other hand, will straight out tell you "a 4.0 is a 4.0 no matter what" (yes, my friend emailed them and that was their exact response).

To substantiate your claims I know a guy who transferred from a community college to a middle tier-UC as a biochem major. Even though he completed most of his prereqs at the community college he managed to pile on like 20 units/quarter of upper-division bio classes at the UC. He maintained a 4.0 at both institutions and is now at Hopkins.

Conversely, I know a 4.0 art history major from Stanford who was rejected pre-interview from Hopkins.

n=2, but yeah.

 

[efle]

To substantiate your claims I know a guy who transferred from a community college to a middle tier-UC as a biochem major. Even though he completed most of his prereqs at the community college he managed to pile on like 20 units/quarter of upper-division bio classes at the UC. He maintained a 4.0 at both institutions and is now at Hopkins.

Conversely, I know a 4.0 art history major from Stanford who was rejected pre-interview from Hopkins.

n=2, but yeah.

Gotta know their MCATs and research xp tho

 

[Cotterpin]

It's so hard to say what a person's gpa really represents. Every school is different. My cgpa is being dragged down by mediocre grades in fine arts classes from 15 years ago that are based on purely subjective things like my painting instructor who didn't like the way I painted that one model's eye. It's not necessarily easy to do well in "easy" classes.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean there are countless 3.8+ students rejected every year. Almost 4,000 a year actually. It's simply a fact that ADCOMs could fill every medical school slot with applicants with above a 3.6 GPA if they wanted to. 60% of those spots could go to people with above 3.8's if ADCOMs wanted to make it that way. I've even linked the data for you if you want to take a look

https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/factstable24.pdf

What your saying is nice and all in theory and you can disagree with how the process works, but the way ADCOMs "take these factors into consideration" and the way you sound like you want them to are probably rather different things. While in your opinion it might seem "strange that an engineer adjusted GPA is a fantasy" and that opinion might have validity to it, when you have people involved in admission openly telling you on this site that such is not the case and there are millions of other reasons why to think such isn't the case, that's a pretty strong reason to believe engineering GPA's aren't looked in some different light than alot of engineers might hope.

The adcoms are actually split on this issue. Some like mimelim and others assert that GPA is one variable out of many that shouldn't be taken out of context. Others, like gonnif and Goro, assert that the GPA is the same regardless of the major and university. Many (especially with the recent adcom AMA threads) stick with the former or tried to go in the middle ground approach.

And the data tables are good but they show nothing of the major/trends/rigor/deflation etc. involved in acquiring that (and all of this can be seen in the transcript provided to schools). The tables do show that a strong MCAT is necessary to validate the GPA.

It seems to be an urban legend amongst pre-meds that somehow one can skate through 120 credits of an undergraduate degree. Remember that 8 hrs Bio + 16 hrs of Chem + 8 hrs of Physics plus/minus math and or biochem and or sociology and or Psych (~40 hrs doesn't mean "easy")

Do you think that being a history major is easy? How about Sociology? Philosophy? Drama? English Lit? Art major is easy? Having minored in the subject, you try writing every two weeks, an essay on, say, "influences of the Hudson River School" or "commentary on the Mark Rothko show at the Met" or "Picasso's Blue Period."


We look at the entire app.

The trick is to choose the easiest professors for the prereqs and bribe them with love, passion, attention, and interest to get the best grades possible, and then skate by with the easiest electives possible to complete the degree. This happens quite frequently, which is why the GPA shouldn't be taken out of context.

Humanities courses, personally, are more difficult than biology courses, but they are still easier than engineering and physics courses. Really, the only difficulty involved in humanities courses are subjective analyses/critiques from professors, so it's really up to your luck to get them to like you.

 

[ZedsDed]

Gotta know their MCATs and research xp tho

Fair enough

First guy:
33 on first try and 38/39 on second.
2-3 pubs I believe.
Cool and interesting ECs, don't want to get too specific.

Second guy:
34/35
A few poster presentations.
Relatively bland ECs.

 

[efle]

It's not necessarily easy to do well in "easy" classes

With fine art the parentheses go around "classes"

 

[Cotterpin]

With fine art the parentheses go around "classes"

I don't agree with that.

(And these are parentheses.) "These things are quotation marks."

 

[efle]

Fair enough

First guy:
33 on first try and 38/39 on second.
2-3 pubs I believe.
Cool and interesting ECs, don't want to get too specific.

Second guy:
34/35
A few poster presentations.
Relatively bland ECs.

methinks there may be much more likely causes here than majors

 

[Lawpy]

Fair enough

First guy:
33 on first try and 38/39 on second.
2-3 pubs I believe.
Cool and interesting ECs, don't want to get too specific.

Second guy:
34/35
A few poster presentations.
Relatively bland ECs.

methinks there may be much more likely causes here than majors

Stronger ECs and stronger MCAT (yes despite the retake) helped the first guy win.

 

[ZedsDed]

methinks there may be much more likely causes here than majors

Right, but the dude took his prereqs at a community college. Hopkins is notorious for hating on applicants who do that. I'm skeptical that a couple of 2nd/third author pubs (which really aren't that hard to get at research power-houses like the UCs) would overcome this. I agree that the MCAT and ECs were probably the determining factor. He did share that they mentioned how impressed they were with his course load though.

Stronger ECs and stronger MCAT (yes despite the retake) helped the first guy win.

If he had listened to SDN, he never would have retaken it. I don't necessarily disagree with discouraging applicants with 30+ scores to retake, but it's an interesting observation.

 

[Lawpy]

If he had listened to SDN, he never would have retaken it. I don't necessarily disagree with discouraging applicants with 30+ scores to retake, but it's an interesting observation.

I've been noticing some interesting trends going on irl and on SSD Forums that sharply contradict many SDN mottos and doctrines. I'd use SDN strictly as a guide to help your app and not an absolute truth.

 

[efle]

I don't agree with that.

(And these are parentheses.) "These things are quotation marks."

to each their own

woops *hic*

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I've been noticing some interesting trends going on irl and on SSD Forums that sharply contradict many SDN mottos and doctrines. I'd use SDN strictly as a guide to help your app and not an absolute truth.

I would hope no one uses sdn as an absolute truth... we all know our own capabilities better than random people on the internet. If that person felt he didn't reach his full potential and got a 33, then a retake isn't surprising

 

[Cotterpin]

to each their own

woops *hic*

Have you taken many fine arts classes?

 

[ZedsDed]

SSD

 

[Lawpy]

School-specific discussion forums

 

[efle]

Have you taken many fine arts classes?

Nope, only dated an art school student for the last four years. Some projects she puts thrice the effort into only to get a lower grade than the one before, and then the prof that teaches the other section for that class will say it's her best work all year. It's very arbitrary and subjective, and grades are an afterthought, used completely differently than what you see in Arts&Sciences. Redoing projects to get an improved grade, no real way to fail so long as you show up and turn something in, etc. We can agree to disagree but I would never view someone's A- in Typography or Communication Design II as conveying anything like the same in science or humanities courses

 

[Cotterpin]

Nope, only dated an art school student for the last four years. Some projects she puts thrice the effort into only to get a lower grade than the one before, and then the prof that teaches the other section for that class will say it's her best work all year. It's very arbitrary and subjective, and grades are an afterthought, used completely differently than what you see in Arts&Sciences. Redoing projects to get an improved grade, no real way to fail so long as you show up and turn something in, etc. We can agree to disagree but I would never view someone's A- in Typography or Communication Design II as conveying anything like the same in science or humanities courses

I agree that the grading is arbitrary and subjective and an afterthought. That's what I was saying before. But still, I think they're real classes. If they challenge you and you learn/grow from them, then how are they not classes? Isn't that what we'd all ideally want school to be like anyway? Where all the focus is on trying things, practicing, and growing while the grades ultimately don't matter?

 

[efle]

I agree that the grading is arbitrary and subjective and an afterthought. That's what I was saying before. But still, I think they're real classes. If they challenge you and you learn/grow from them, then how are they not classes? Isn't that what we'd all ideally want school to be like anyway? Where all the focus is on trying things, practicing, and growing while the grades ultimately don't matter?

And I think they fall more under acquiring and practicing a skill than teaching you information and concepts+their application. I don't consider research or jobs or athletics to be classes either, though you may be challenged by them and grow from them. Different types of learning

 

[BluMist]

solid state drive

 

[jjmusicman29]

It seems to be an urban legend amongst pre-meds that somehow one can skate through 120 credits of an undergraduate degree. Remember that 8 hrs Bio + 16 hrs of Chem + 8 hrs of Physics plus/minus math and or biochem and or sociology and or Psych (~40 hrs doesn't mean "easy")

Do you think that being a history major is easy? How about Sociology? Philosophy? Drama? English Lit? Art major is easy? Having minored in the subject, you try writing every two weeks, an essay on, say, "influences of the Hudson River School" or "commentary on the Mark Rothko show at the Met" or "Picasso's Blue Period."


We look at the entire app.

I mean, personally, I do, actually. Maybe because I've always been as good at writing and arts as I've been at science.

I took several humanities courses in undergrad, including art history, human geography, ethics and philosophy, etc and I aced all of them even as other students squirmed at the thought of writing an essay longer than 2 pages. None of the assignments or topics even remotely stressed me as much as, say, studying the differential equations and correlations of multi-phase chemical thermodynamics.

Writing an essay on Impressionism or Italian Renaissance Art just didn't compare to spending days with a team building a thermodynamic model of a multi-component chemical system by hand using UNIQUAC and empirically determined fugacity parameters for weekly homework.

I loved my humanities and liberal arts classes because they were like bathing in a cool oasis compared to the hot, dry desert of pain that was my engineering coursework, and I went to a well-respected program.

Even the premed prerequisites were my easiest classes compared to whatever else I was taking. The only reason I settled for a B in Biochemistry was because my senior design class alone was literally taking at least 40 hours per week of my time (this was not unique; our program is notorious for this and my team worked as hard as me - our final design document was 400+ pages). I only slept 4 nights a week during the whole month of March. Biochemistry was my beautiful, relaxed respite from the torture dungeon that was my last semester of chemical engineering. But I just couldn't devote enough time to it to keep the A.

Experiences may vary, of course.

 

[Cotterpin]

And I think they fall more under acquiring and practicing a skill than teaching you information and concepts+their application. I don't consider research or jobs or athletics to be classes either, though you may be challenged by them and grow from them. Different types of learning

Okay. I guess if you ignore the instruction given by the professors and the concepts and applications they teach you, then I suppose fine arts classes are not "classes" by your narrow definition. Lol.

 

[flapjack3d]

Easy A's forever

 

[catie_jane]

Wait, I totally glossed over that. Your schools gives you A/B/C/D grades for credited research??? WTFFFFF

Our school does credited research (1, 2, 3, or 4 credits) and you can get anywhere between an A-F grade.

 

[Lucca]

As I get farther and farther along my humanities and science degrees the level of difficulty in both has risen significantly. It's not 3 essays a semester like it used to be but an essay a week and a longitudinally written final paper that is 20 pages long. At the same time my science classes have progressed from multiple choice exams over two hours to some classes with take home exams with open book/internet policies that we have a week to complete. I have to say that obtaining the A in humanities courses is easier in the sense that humanities professors (and Philosophy professors especially, I've found the opposite to be true in English) think grades are pointless. One of mine (a distinguished Phil prof who used to teach at the Oxford department) called it "a useless letter that is only good for fooling parents and undergraduates into thinking they are receiving their money's worth with no guarantee of actually measuring anything worthwhile". The average in the class still ends up at around a C+ but putting in a lot of effort into a paper that is clearly well thought out will net you at least an A-. The same is not true in science courses where putting in 100 hours into crafting the perfect take home exam response is worth as much as the response that took 5 minutes provided the information you put down is correct and thorough.


Both faculties have very different styles of doing things. They are inherently different too. Writing is time intensive. It doesn't matter how excellent of a writer you are naturally, chances are a draft written quickly and recklessly will be garbage compared to what you could churn out of you spent an hour or two agonizing over structure and language. However a math proof is a proof if it is complete and correct, there are no finer points to argue about.

 

[efle]

Okay. I guess if you ignore the instruction given by the professors and the concepts and applications they teach you, then I suppose fine arts classes are not "classes" by your narrow definition. Lol.

You're mentored in research similarly, doesn't qualify imo. Learning how to perform a task or skill is not the same as conceptual education. There are certainly art related classes (things like art theory / phil of art, art histories) but something like typography where the course is a series of projects to create fonts is a totally different animal that counts more as training. Like I said, agree to disagree

 

[Cotterpin]

You're mentored in research similarly, doesn't qualify imo. Learning how to perform a task or skill is not the same as conceptual education. There are certainly art related classes (things like art theory / phil of art, art histories) but something like typography where the course is a series of projects to create fonts is a totally different animal that counts more as training. Like I said, agree to disagree

Yeah, okay. I definitely agree that I disagree with you. Look up the definition of the word "class." (Typography isn't really a fine art, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.)

 

[GrapesofRath]

[QUOTE="Lawper, post: 17054708, member: 622365"]The adcoms are actually split on this issue. Some like mimelim and others assert that GPA is one variable out of many that shouldn't be taken out of context. Others, like gonnif and Goro, assert that the GPA is the same regardless of the major and university. Many (especially with the recent adcom AMA threads) stick with the former or tried to go in the middle ground approach.

And the data tables are good but they show nothing of the major/trends/rigor/deflation etc. involved in acquiring that (and all of this can be seen in the transcript provided to schools). The tables do show that a strong MCAT is necessary to validate the GPA.



The trick is to choose the easiest professors for the prereqs and bribe them with love, passion, attention, and interest to get the best grades possible, and then skate by with the easiest electives possible to complete the degree. This happens quite frequently, which is why the GPA shouldn't be taken out of context.

Humanities courses, personally, are more difficult than biology courses, but they are still easier than engineering and physics courses. Really, the only difficulty involved in humanities courses are subjective analyses/critiques from professors, so it's really up to your luck to get them to like you.[/QUOTE]

I mean I really don't think there's nearly the split you think there is on this. I think your idea of what "assigning context to a GPA is" and what ADCOMs does varies significantly. But like I said above, I didn't want to start a debate here merely I was just trying to offer some food for thought with what gonnif was talking about how there are ADCOMS he knows of who have questioned engineers desire for medicine as a counter point. We all have our own opinions and that's fine and good, I just personally don't see any "split" on this issue.

 

[GrapesofRath]

If he had listened to SDN, he never would have retaken it. I don't necessarily disagree with discouraging applicants with 30+ scores to retake, but it's an interesting observation.

Well I think that the discouraging re-taking good MCAT scores is a pretty valid thing. There is alot of nonsense SDN gospel. There are certain things that pre-meds have stuck in their mind that aren't necessarily reality. Things like "oh you definitely need shadowing or you'll automatically get rejected" or "research is a must" or "taking a course at a community college looks really bad" or "your GPA will get boosted and you can just add 0.3 or 0.4 or whatever if you go to a top school" I think are the types of things that qualify and are examples of bad SDN gospel. I don't think re-taking good scores is an example of this. We have ADCOMs, many ADCOMs from gyngyn, to Law2Doc, to goro to LizzyM express the idea they've seen ADCOMs not look favorably upon re-taking strong MCAT scores, even in situations where there is real improvement. I know gyngyn has basically said and Goro as well talking about gyngyn's school that you will not get an interview at gyngyn's school if you choose to re-take some 35 type MCAT score. Like that's the level of stigma we are talking about with MCAT re-takes of good scores in some situations. So that I think that type of example can provide example to substantiate the idea that in many cases, re-taking good scores simply just isn't a good idea.

Having said all that I would expect your Friend who retook the 33 to do just fine. Retaking and getting a 38 pits him in a different spot. I'm just not entirely sure it's a much better spot like so many presume

 

[efle]

Yeah, okay. I definitely agree that I disagree with you. Look up the definition of the word "class." (Typography isn't really a fine art, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.)

There are things which would qualify as class by strict definition but aren't really considered to be such (like a group of athletes training under an experienced coach). Obviously I realize they're widely called art classes my original point was just that they are a different type of learning that focuses on practicing and honing skills as opposed to assessing concept mastery. Typo is one of her recent classes hence the example, of you just want to talk about fine arts I think the type division becomes even more clear.

 

[Goro]

In > 15 years of being on the Adcom, never once has someone said "but he has a 3.3 engineering degree...that's harder than being a X major".

Maybe Admissions deans take this into account, but the rank and file Adcom members don't.

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of candidates have will be Biology majors. Engineers are as common as English or Music majors.

I've had a good amount of psych and phil and a grab bag of other humanities...it's much easier imo. N=1 of course
But if you consider a 3.7 at Kutztown vs Ivy to be no different then I'd expect you to assume Sociology and Engineering were similarly challenging too 😉

 

[Cotterpin]

There are things which would qualify as class by strict definition but aren't really considered to be such (like a group of athletes training under an experienced coach). Obviously I realize they're widely called art classes my original point was just that they are a different type of learning that focuses on practicing and honing skills as opposed to assessing concept mastery. Typo is one of her recent classes hence the example, of you just want to talk about fine arts I think the type division becomes even more clear.

I think you're being arbitrary. If you don't want to believe that fine arts classes (which are taught by instructors at accredited universities, are graded, and count on AMCAS) are really, truly "classes" according to your own personal standards, then that's up to you.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

There are things which would qualify as class by strict definition but aren't really considered to be such (like a group of athletes training under an experienced coach). Obviously I realize they're widely called art classes my original point was just that they are a different type of learning that focuses on practicing and honing skills as opposed to assessing concept mastery. Typo is one of her recent classes hence the example, of you just want to talk about fine arts I think the type division becomes even more clear.

So you wouldn't consider labs (bio/chem/phys) as classes either? I think what you're saying is art is more application less content which is true, but i don't get why that wouldn't be a class

 

[ZedsDed]

Well I think that the discouraging re-taking good MCAT scores is a pretty valid thing. There is alot of nonsense SDN gospel. There are certain things that pre-meds have stuck in their mind that aren't necessarily reality. Things like "oh you definitely need shadowing or you'll automatically get rejected" or "research is a must" or "taking a course at a community college looks really bad" or "your GPA will get boosted and you can just add 0.3 or 0.4 or whatever if you go to a top school" I think are the types of things that qualify and are examples of bad SDN gospel. I don't think re-taking good scores is an example of this. We have ADCOMs, many ADCOMs from gyngyn, to Law2Doc, to goro to LizzyM express the idea they've seen ADCOMs not look favorably upon re-taking strong MCAT scores, even in situations where there is real improvement. I know gyngyn has basically said and Goro as well talking about gyngyn's school that you will not get an interview at gyngyn's school if you choose to re-take some 35 type MCAT score. Like that's the level of stigma we are talking about with MCAT re-takes of good scores in some situations. So that I think that type of example can provide example to substantiate the idea that in many cases, re-taking good scores simply just isn't a good idea.

Having said all that I would expect your Friend who retook the 33 to do just fine. Retaking and getting a 38 pits him in a different spot. I'm just not entirely sure it's a much better spot like so many presume

I agree with everything except the last part. I absolutely think having a 38/39 vs a 33 was the difference between getting into Hopkins and not getting into Hopkins.

 

[Glazedonutlove]

38 does put you in a much better spot compared to 33

 

[Glazedonutlove]

I agree with everything except the last part. I absolutely think having a 38/39 vs a 33 was the difference between getting into Hopkins and not getting into Hopkins.

You heard back from Hopkins already?

 

[GrapesofRath]

I agree with everything except the last part. I absolutely think having a 38/39 vs a 33 was the difference between getting into Hopkins and not getting into Hopkins.

I see what you are saying and the general idea of a 38 vs 33, obviously we all know a 38 is better. But it's often somewhat more complicated than this.

The problem you run into with re-taking a 33 and getting a 38-39 on the re-take is this
a) lower tier type schools you might apply to with a 33 and be a good candidate for are going to look at a 38-39 in a number of cases low yield. Furthermore, there are absolutely some(if not a fair number) of schools that will question the decision making of someone who re-takes a 33 to some extent.
b) For those bigger name schools, a 38-39 just doesn't look as impressive when it took two attempts and there was a 33 the first time around. These types of schools often can afford to take a pass on someone like this. And for those that average multiple attempts, a 33 and 38 comes out to 35.5. Good, but still about 2 points below the median of many top 20's.

So for many people what ends up happening is you hurt yourself with that big of an improvement for lower tiers, and for the top tiers you really still have some disadvantage from that prior 33 attempt. Now obviously there are many exceptions and it isn't that simple, I definitely know of people at top 20 schools who took the MCAT more than once. But you can also easily see how it's not always just simply say your in much better shape with that 38 on the re-attempt than you were with the 33 the first time around. And this doesn't even account for the vast vast majority of people who re-take 33's and don't hit near 38. This is all simplifying things to a fair extent, just as people get in with multiple MCAT attempts to top 20 schools people with 38's get into lower tier schools. But the general idea I'm trying to get across should show there are negatives that come with that re-take and the positives of that 38 can be a little overstated, particularly when so many people who get 38's on teh first attempt still get shut out from top 20's.