The Effect of Undergrad and Rigor of Courses

[Excelsius]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Did you read this SDN article: Community College and Professional School Admissions?

It confirms, yet again, some of the common misconceptions on SDN:

1) The rank of you undergrad DOES matter
2) Taking courses at CC DOES put you at a disadvantage
3) Taking rigorous courses IS important. Implications are:

1. a) If you are not a science major, you better take enough science courses
2. b) If you took prereqs at a CC, you pretty much have to take a lot of science courses at a four year university to make for these
3. c) If you are taking only a few courses per quarter, that is going to be viewed negatively
4. d) Taking honors courses IS helpful and perhaps important
5. e) Non-bio science majors might have an advantage

4) Your coursework from your upper division (or last two years) is more important than your older coursework, especially if you took those earlier courses some time ago (post-bacc) or at a CC.
5) This one applies to CA applicants: CalState is a disadvantage, though less so if you are disadvantaged.

 

[flip26]

You have read far more into what is written in the article than is there.

In an "all else being equal" world, not too many people would argue against the idea that a 4 year > CC for pre-reqs, or that a high ranked college > a low ranked college for med school admission purposes.

Your conclusions are more "black and white" than the article suggests, contrasted with this summary from the closing paragraph:

"It is clear that among the advising sources noted above there is no clear agreement on the assessment of community college science prerequisites in medical school admissions."

 

[NiCad089]

It's definitely true that the rigor of your courses matter. At all but two of my interviews, they always commented on my coursework.

 

[enjoydrywax]

It's definitely true that the rigor of your courses matter. At all but two of my interviews, they always commented on my coursework.

From the opposite spectrum, I'd argue that my engineering curriculum was just as "rigorous" as yours (if not more) and nobody said a single thing about my classes in any of my interviews.

 

[NiCad089]

From the opposite spectrum, I'd argue that my engineering curriculum was just as "rigorous" as yours (if not more) and nobody said a single thing about my classes in any of my interviews.

I took a few engineering courses and believe I know that they're rigorous. It probably depends on the school or maybe they already took that into consideration and just didn't tell you.

 

[Dannyw]

I took a few engineering courses and believe I know that they're rigorous. It probably depends on the school or maybe they already took that into consideration and just didn't tell you.

As far as engineering goes the courses are the same everywhere, save maybe M.I.T and other similar schools.

 

[shindotp]

There's no way engineering courses at my school are the same at state schools. The intro classes usually assume familiarity with multivar calculus.

 

[Jfasten]

As far as I am concerned, I think schools should place MUCH heavier weight on the rigor of the undergrad that an applicant went to. I went to a top 10-university and took a few classes (including both orgos) at a still very good, prestigious college as well as genetics at a state school. let me tell you, the level of difficulty and competition does not compare. Orgo was an absolute breeze for me, and i doubt it was because I was just good with the material, and the school i took it at was top-30. As for genetics, the difficulty wasn't even comparable.

Frankly, it is hard for me to understand how a school could look at an applicant with 3.5 at a top-10 school for example, and consider his stats "inferior" to another applicant's 3.8 at a significantly worse, less-competetive university. I understand that there are very intelligent people who go to lower-ranked universities, many of whom are actually than smarter than those at the higher ranked schools, but still...those top schools are such a significantly more difficult environment to do well.

I do not mean to say this arrogantly or as "sour grapes." I doubt that this scenario had a significant effect on my application's consideration. However, as someone who has taken classes at a number of different places, i have some perspective into the matter.

Undergrad should be a HUGE difference-maker.

 

[flip26]

As far as I am concerned, I think schools should place MUCH heavier weight on the rigor of the undergrad that an applicant went to. I went to a top 10-university and took a few classes (including both orgos) at a still very good, prestigious college as well as genetics at a state school. let me tell you, the level of difficulty and competition does not compare. Orgo was an absolute breeze for me, and i doubt it was because I was just good with the material, and the school i took it at was top-30. As for genetics, the difficulty wasn't even comparable.

Frankly, it is hard for me to understand how a school could look at an applicant with 3.5 at a top-10 school for example, and consider his stats "inferior" to another applicant's 3.8 at a significantly worse, less-competetive university. I understand that there are very intelligent people who go to lower-ranked universities, many of whom are actually than smarter than those at the higher ranked schools, but still...those top schools are such a significantly more difficult environment to do well.

I do not mean to say this arrogantly or as "sour grapes." I doubt that this scenario had a significant effect on my application's consideration. However, as someone who has taken classes at a number of different places, i have some perspective into the matter.

Undergrad should be a HUGE difference-maker.

Have you gone through a cycle? Why so bitter? Are the grapes that sour?

Guess what? Med schools are free to decide if it is a HUGE difference maker or not. Some surely do (Ivy affiliated med schools seem to have a distinct preference for their own), and some probably don't, including one of the top schools, WashU.

No matter where you went to college, or where you got your pre-reqs done, and the "rigor" of your courses or lack thereof, the take home message is: APPLY BROADLY.

 

[WaterBird]

Frankly, it is hard for me to understand how a school could look at an applicant with 3.5 at a top-10 school for example, and consider his stats "inferior" to another applicant's 3.8 at a significantly worse, less-competetive university. I understand that there are very intelligent people who go to lower-ranked universities, many of whom are actually than smarter than those at the higher ranked schools, but still...those top schools are such a significantly more difficult environment to do well.

Just because a school is harder or higher ranked does NOT mean this will be reflected in the grades. Many top schools are notorious for grade inflation. So your example doesn't hold up in all cases. This is why the MCAT is the great equalizer.

 

[Jfasten]

Yes, I've got through the cycle. I am fortunate to have an acceptance and a number of waitlists. To be honest, I don't know if this situation has affected me at all. I realize that perhaps some schools do put a big weight on it while others don't. I am simply saying that, based on my experiences, there is a considerable disparity in terms of difficulty and how competitive courses are between a top school and a more mid-tier school. And I completely agree regarding grade inflation and the significance of the MCAT as an "equalizer" of sorts.

Would I have benefitted if the weight was in fact greater in the application process? Sure, so I am not completely objective here by any means. I am simply sharing my opinion, hence my remark that this isn't out of me being bitter but more about what I have experienced.

 

[45408]

As far as I am concerned, I think schools should place MUCH heavier weight on the rigor of the undergrad that an applicant went to. I went to a top 10-university and took a few classes (including both orgos) at a still very good, prestigious college as well as genetics at a state school. let me tell you, the level of difficulty and competition does not compare. Orgo was an absolute breeze for me, and i doubt it was because I was just good with the material, and the school i took it at was top-30. As for genetics, the difficulty wasn't even comparable.

Then your MCAT score will clearly show the difference, right? If you've learned much more, your MCAT should be significantly above average.


Furthermore, the summer genetics class I took at my own undergrad was far easier than most other classes I took, and several students for a local private university were whining about how their classes were so much harder, life wasn't fair, blah blah blah. They would not have been singing the same tune if they had taken gen chem, physics, or organic chem with me at the "easy" state school, because I had very rigorous professors for all three of those (which was reflected on my MCAT in my PS score). Some of my bio courses WERE easy. There's very wide variability in a huge school, so it's better not to make too many assumptions based on limited experiences.

 

[zpiff]

As far as engineering goes the courses are the same everywhere, save maybe M.I.T and other similar schools.

As an engineer that has transferred undergrads, I can assure you that this is incorrect. There are more than two tiers of engineering schools.

 

[redlight]

Then your MCAT score will clearly show the difference, right? If you've learned much more, your MCAT should be significantly above average.


Furthermore, the summer genetics class I took at my own undergrad was far easier than most other classes I took, and several students for a local private university were whining about how their classes were so much harder, life wasn't fair, blah blah blah. They would not have been singing the same tune if they had taken gen chem, physics, or organic chem with me at the "easy" state school, because I had very rigorous professors for all three of those (which was reflected on my MCAT in my PS score). Some of my bio courses WERE easy. There's very wide variability in a huge school, so it's better not to make too many assumptions based on limited experiences.

exactly.

 

[streetlight]

i know my undergrad institution and coursework rigor helped me out be reasonably successful in this past cycle even with a low-for-sdn gpa (and even C's on my transcript! *gasp*). a lot of my interviewers were pleased with my answers to the *whys* i had for going to my undergrad and taking the courses/major/minor combination i did.

 

[PremedIowa]

Did you read this SDN article: Community College and Professional School Admissions?

It confirms, yet again, some of the common misconceptions on SDN:

1) The rank of you undergrad DOES matter
2) Taking courses at CC DOES put you at a disadvantage
3) Taking rigorous courses IS important. Implications are:

1. a) If you are not a science major, you better take enough science courses
2. b) If you took prereqs at a CC, you pretty much have to take a lot of science courses at a four year university to make for these
3. c) If you are taking only a few courses per quarter, that is going to be viewed negatively
4. d) Taking honors courses IS helpful and perhaps important
5. e) Non-bio science majors might have an advantage

4) Your coursework from your upper division (or last two years) is more important than your older coursework, especially if you took those earlier courses some time ago (post-bacc) or at a CC.
5) This one applies to CA applicants: CalState is a disadvantage, though less so if you are disadvantaged.

First of all, you have cited an SDN article as proof. The SDN article only cited a single scientific source, which made the conclusion that CC < university when MCAT scores and GPA was controlled. Uncontrolled variables include SES of the students, age, marital status, and number of dependents. I probably could have used the same data set to prove that traditional students do better on the STEPS (they are less likely to have gone to a CC), but that is not cause for rejecting non-trads.

Acceptance rates by major (http://aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgpabymaj08.htm):
Bio: 42.3%
Phys Sci: 46.9%

However, physical science majors score better on the MCAT on the average, and once we control for that the correlation could easily disappear. I suspect physical science majors simply attract people who score better on the MCAT rather the other way around.

The Cal State system is a great college system that provides a great education at a low cost. Something makes me think that ambitious pre-medical students are going to the UC system rather than the CS system, making it appear that students coming from a fine Cal State college are somehow crippled. To assume otherwise is just stupid.

This article reads like complete garbage and the SDN staff should be embarrassed of it. I have talked to dozens of successful students who were restricted to CC for their pre-requisites for financial issues and punishing them for growing up poor is absurd. SDN should consider adding mods that come from non-trad backgrounds to ensure that stuff like this is never published again.

 

[Jfasten]

Then your MCAT score will clearly show the difference, right? If you've learned much more, your MCAT should be significantly above average.


Furthermore, the summer genetics class I took at my own undergrad was far easier than most other classes I took, and several students for a local private university were whining about how their classes were so much harder, life wasn't fair, blah blah blah. They would not have been singing the same tune if they had taken gen chem, physics, or organic chem with me at the "easy" state school, because I had very rigorous professors for all three of those (which was reflected on my MCAT in my PS score). Some of my bio courses WERE easy. There's very wide variability in a huge school, so it's better not to make too many assumptions based on limited experiences.

I would say I think my MCAT score "backed up" my grades. It might have even been a little higher than my grades would have maybe indicated or predicted.

I never once said that because you go to a better school, you should do better on the MCATs. If you wanted to use my argument, I think you could say that someone who does well at a "good" school should theoretically do better than someone who does similarly well at a "lesser" school. This, of course, doesn't necessarily hold because there are a ton of confounding factors such as the prep course you use to study for the mcats, time you take to study, etc.

I think that grades should carry far more weight than the MCATs and I think they do (I would probably benefit if the opposite was the reality). But there is no sense in arguing whether the MCAT has too much weight in this process. Standardized tests are a reality from high school all the way to medical school and the weight they carry is just a part or result of the system. Cheers.

 

[Zona Pellucida]

What about 2 random online courses at a CC per summer that just filled a core requirement (Intro to Lit and Children's Lit). Just wanted to get my core done faster since those classes don't interest me anyways.

 

[zidrem]

Isn't this obvious? Of course medical schools know how to distinguish a BS school from a rigorous school, and they will consider that in evaluating a person. A person who took orgo and bio at a notoriously difficult/rigorous institution is going to look a heck of a lot better than some loser who took them at freak-show community college.

I'm not entirely sure why this is new news.

 

[45408]

I would say I think my MCAT score "backed up" my grades. It might have even been a little higher than my grades would have maybe indicated or predicted.

Then your difficult classes have been accounted for, and the issue should be put to rest. If someone has a 4.0 and a 25L, their GPA will definitely be called into question.

I think that grades should carry far more weight than the MCATs and I think they do (I would probably benefit if the opposite was the reality). But there is no sense in arguing whether the MCAT has too much weight in this process. Standardized tests are a reality from high school all the way to medical school and the weight they carry is just a part or result of the system. Cheers.

Too many confounders, like you already pointed out. Grade inflation, grade deflation, lazy professors, merciless professors, professors who explain difficult concepts well, etc. Be glad for the MCAT.

Isn't this obvious? Of course medical schools know how to distinguish a BS school from a rigorous school, and they will consider that in evaluating a person. A person who took orgo and bio at a notoriously difficult/rigorous institution is going to look a heck of a lot better than some loser who took them at freak-show community college.

I'm not entirely sure why this is new news.

Because the adcoms/interviewers in North Carolina doesn't have any idea what the freak-show community colleges in Oregon are.

 

[Spiker]

As far as I am concerned, I think schools should place MUCH heavier weight on the rigor of the undergrad that an applicant went to. I went to a top 10-university and took a few classes (including both orgos) at a still very good, prestigious college as well as genetics at a state school. let me tell you, the level of difficulty and competition does not compare. Orgo was an absolute breeze for me, and i doubt it was because I was just good with the material, and the school i took it at was top-30. As for genetics, the difficulty wasn't even comparable.

Frankly, it is hard for me to understand how a school could look at an applicant with 3.5 at a top-10 school for example, and consider his stats "inferior" to another applicant's 3.8 at a significantly worse, less-competetive university. I understand that there are very intelligent people who go to lower-ranked universities, many of whom are actually than smarter than those at the higher ranked schools, but still...those top schools are such a significantly more difficult environment to do well.

I do not mean to say this arrogantly or as "sour grapes." I doubt that this scenario had a significant effect on my application's consideration. However, as someone who has taken classes at a number of different places, i have some perspective into the matter.

Undergrad should be a HUGE difference-maker.

Many prestigious schools that also have alot of grade inflation because professors are too busy researching, and this is the way they appease students.

 

[lrkoehle]

Many prestigious schools that also have alot of grade inflation because professors are too busy researching, and this is the way they appease students.

I agree. I really don't believe that just because a "prestigious school" is harder to get into than a state school that the classes at the prestigious school are also harder. I would actually expect the opposite, since the most prestigious schools tend to have smaller class sizes making it easier to get help from professors/smart peers. Also, if you show you were smart enough to get into a prestigious school, but aren't successful once you are actually there I think that your motivation/dedication must be called into question. Realistically, I think most undergraduate educations are essentially equal. The material can't really change that much from school to school, gen chem here is the same as gen chem there. Sure, some professors are going to make it harder, but I don't think that depends on what school you attend. Every subject at every school seems to at least have that one professor who is harder than the others.

 

[Spiker]

Quality of education has mostly to do with teachers, some class I didnt even buy the book and got a A (3 hours). This semester I have a 1 hour lab that takes me 10 hours a week of study time to get a A....

And as i said earlier, the more research a professor do the less time they have for students. Many prestigious schools pretty much only have TA's teaching the classes. So you are saying TA at a prestigious school is better teacher have less grade inflation than a PROFESSOR at a State College? That is just ******ed.

Oh yea just how many of those that cry foul actually went to a few state schools later and found out that they did significantly better? If you cant make 3.8 in top 30 school you wont be able to make an 4.0 at any major states colleges either.

 

[ButImLETired]

i have also taken science classes at three different universities, two of which were top 10's, and those had by far the easiest classes. They also had way more support, were more likely to curve tests, and had professors who didn't care enough to write smart exams- they were just "memorize and you'll do well" exams. Obviously this is a generalization, but things are just nott as simple as people make them out to be. Grade inflation is a very real phenomenon, and more than that, some professors care enough to write challeniging, tough exams, and some just ask the obvious questions. This in my opinion makes even more of a difference than rank.

 

[lrkoehle]

Many prestigious schools pretty much only have TA's teaching the classes. So you are saying TA at a prestigious school is better teacher have less grade inflation than a PROFESSOR at a State College? That is just ******ed.

If you were talking to me, then no, that is not what I was trying to say. I agree with this statement as well. I should have been more clear perhaps and said with smaller classes students have more one-on-one time with their INSTRUCTORS (not necessarily a professor). I go to a very very large public university (I think it is in the top three for enrollment), and very often I go to professors office hours and get to only ask one question because there are so many other students there with questions. Thus, my success is the result of my motivation to learn a lot from books and search online (wikipedia) for answers to my questions.

 

[Spiker]

You know what else matters even more?

ABCD grade system vs +/- system

This matters for people who are aiming for 3.8 or better

It is much easier for me to get 9 *A at 90% each and 1 B at 80% =3.9
than

7*A+ at 93% and 3*A- at 87%

Right now I have 4.0 but if my school were graded on +/- I would have ~3.85

Of course if you are not shooting for 3.8 or better and get C and D then +/- system maybe alot better for you

 

[lrkoehle]

You know what else matters even more?

ABCD grade system vs +/- system

This matters for people who are aiming for 3.8 or better

It is much easier for me to get 9 *A at 90% each and 1 B at 80% =3.9
than

7*A+ at 93% and 3*A- at 87%

Right now I have 4.0 but if my school were graded on +/- I would have ~3.85

Of course if you are not shooting for 3.8 or better and get C and D then +/- system maybe alot better for you

I hate the +/- system, but apparently my school likes it. I was not happy to find out all the A+'s I put extra effort in to get were worth no more than an A to AMCAS. I can think of at least two semesters when I chose to focus on getting an A+ in a class I enjoyed and an A- in a class I didn't like as much, because the A+ and A- would offset. Now I find out that for AMCAS that A+ is the same as an A, but no one at my school told me this. My GPA is still strong, but without the plus minus, it would be stronger.

 

[shindotp]

As far as I am concerned, I think schools should place MUCH heavier weight on the rigor of the undergrad that an applicant went to. I went to a top 10-university and took a few classes (including both orgos) at a still very good, prestigious college as well as genetics at a state school. let me tell you, the level of difficulty and competition does not compare. Orgo was an absolute breeze for me, and i doubt it was because I was just good with the material, and the school i took it at was top-30. As for genetics, the difficulty wasn't even comparable.

Frankly, it is hard for me to understand how a school could look at an applicant with 3.5 at a top-10 school for example, and consider his stats "inferior" to another applicant's 3.8 at a significantly worse, less-competetive university. I understand that there are very intelligent people who go to lower-ranked universities, many of whom are actually than smarter than those at the higher ranked schools, but still...those top schools are such a significantly more difficult environment to do well.

I do not mean to say this arrogantly or as "sour grapes." I doubt that this scenario had a significant effect on my application's consideration. However, as someone who has taken classes at a number of different places, i have some perspective into the matter.

Undergrad should be a HUGE difference-maker.

👍👍👍👍 Completely agree with you.

The sad truth is, people from easier schools refuse to admit something that might be a blow to their egos (like their 3.8 means nothing compared to a 3.4 from a rigorous top 10 school). It's simple human nature.

No matter how much grade inflation exists (like at Yale), a course at a top 10 school will be harder to get an A in than a school with a lower caliber student body. Sure, 50% of the kids at Yale will get an A in class ____, but those 50% sure as hell deserved the A more than the 10% of the kids at state school _____. Top 50% at Yale >>>>>>>>>>>> top 10% (even top 1%) at a state school.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

OMG my school is soo much harder then your school. You are stupid for having a 3.9 from that school, I could sleep through the classes and still 4.0. What you scored 5 pts higher then me on the MCAT? That doesnt matter because i went to a better school and got a 3.4 which is top 50% at my school and your 3.9 is only top 5% at your school..but we all know top 50% at yale is greater then top 1% at any state school.

O and mine is atleast 3 inches longer then yours.

 

[ButImLETired]

👍👍👍👍 Completely agree with you.

The sad truth is, people from easier schools refuse to admit something that might be a blow to their egos (like their 3.8 means nothing compared to a 3.4 from a rigorous top 10 school). It's simple human nature.

No matter how much grade inflation exists (like at Yale), a course at a top 10 school will be harder to get an A in than a school with a lower caliber student body. Sure, 50% of the kids at Yale will get an A in class ____, but those 50% sure as hell deserved the A more than the 10% of the kids at state school _____. Top 50% at Yale >>>>>>>>>>>> top 10% (even top 1%) at a state school.

Again, I disagree. Having taken classes at 2 schools with grade inflation and 1 without, I can tell you that it's not just about how many people get the A. It's about why there are so many A's. I'm sorry, but it's not because there are that many more uber-brilliant people in the class. That's total crap. I've met some brilliant people at top 10s, and some utter idiots. Some of the smartest people I know are from state schools. There are many A's, because often the professors don't consider their teaching duties to be their first priority. This doesn't necessarily lead to less learning (most of learning is individual anyway, and it's true that everyone has to learn the same stuff) or even less support (more money also usually means more TA's, tutors, and handholding), but it does often lead to exams that are less about comprehension and more about memorization. It leads to multiple choice exams in which questions are "what is a G-protein-coupled receptor?" instead of short answer questions such as "a toxin breaks down this part of the g-protein-coupled receptor in this cell. What does it do to a cell of a different system? Why? How?". Questions like the latter are harder and take longer to grade.
Having taken classes at 2 top 10's and 1 none, that was the biggest reason I found for the disparity. There were brilliant and dumb people at all 3, there were slackers and gunners and crammers at all 3. The stuff was essentially the same. However, the testing was entirely different.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

Personally, I think getting into medical school is 99% on the individual. Meaning if I would have gone to Harvard, I probably would had roughly the same success this cycle as I have at my current school. Maybe Harvards classes are harder, but I would have studied harder and thus done better on the MCAT....While at my current school I would have a slightly higher GPA, but maybe a slightly lower MCAT?...I dont necessarily think this is true, but if your argument is that Classes at Yale are harder then UNC, ECU, or whatever school...then chances are you will study harder at Yale and thus be better prepared and the "lower" gpa you will get at Yale will more then be made up for by the MCAT.

 

[Anthony Hartsoc]

Did you read this SDN article: Community College and Professional School Admissions?

It confirms, yet again, some of the common misconceptions on SDN:

1) The rank of you undergrad DOES matter
2) Taking courses at CC DOES put you at a disadvantage
3) Taking rigorous courses IS important. Implications are:

1. a) If you are not a science major, you better take enough science courses
2. b) If you took prereqs at a CC, you pretty much have to take a lot of science courses at a four year university to make for these
3. c) If you are taking only a few courses per quarter, that is going to be viewed negatively
4. d) Taking honors courses IS helpful and perhaps important
5. e) Non-bio science majors might have an advantage

4) Your coursework from your upper division (or last two years) is more important than your older coursework, especially if you took those earlier courses some time ago (post-bacc) or at a CC.
5) This one applies to CA applicants: CalState is a disadvantage, though less so if you are disadvantaged.

"It is clear that among the advising sources noted above there is no clear agreement on the assessment of community college science prerequisites in medical school admissions. Having preparation in the basic sciences that leads to an applicant’s best possible performance on the MCAT is essential to gaining admission to medical school. At this point premedical students have to analyze their own situations and make their own choices. Much as we might wish it otherwise, even the experts are divided in their advice."

This was a pretty simple read. I watch out when it comes MCAT time and you are truly judged for your comprehension. I guess you didn't take your English courses at a top-tier school, or maybe you went to a horrible high school because. Your verbal/reading skills could definitely use some tightening-up.

j/k

but stop spreading propaganda...

 

[JokerMD]

that article was an utter piece of crap. I personally know two of my friends who are business majors who took ALL of their prereqs at a CC. Both have made it to a US MD program...


honestly nothing really matters but the numbers (for the academic part of the app). Ive seen this time and time again and all my upperclassmen (who have gone through the process) agree. They tell me (unfortunately) that this is much more of a numbers game than people commonly believe.

 

[lrkoehle]

The sad truth is, people from easier schools refuse to admit something that might be a blow to their egos (like their 3.8 means nothing compared to a 3.4 from a rigorous top 10 school). It's simple human nature.

No matter how much grade inflation exists (like at Yale), a course at a top 10 school will be harder to get an A in than a school with a lower caliber student body. Sure, 50% of the kids at Yale will get an A in class ____, but those 50% sure as hell deserved the A more than the 10% of the kids at state school _____. Top 50% at Yale >>>>>>>>>>>> top 10% (even top 1%) at a state school.

What ever you have to tell yourself to justify spending huge amounts of money going to a prestigious private school. As others have said, your education (not necessarily your grades, but what you actually learn) is what you make of it. I must say, I do like your general attitude of superiority. That will be great if you actually become a doctor. You can be the stereotypical arrogant doctor.

 

[slick27]

I don't really think it matters. The odds are against everyone. I believe if you actually get into medical school you're one of the lucky ones. You could do well on the MCAT, gpa, etc...

I've seen many premeds with great work eithc....too bad that only takes you so far. It comes down to ability and with ability it doesn't matter where you went to college. The great ones will come from every college in the country.

 

[TMP-SMX]

MCAT is the great equalizer just like Step 1 in medical school.

You also have to keep in mind that the rigor of your undergrad isn't going to get you into medical school but poor grades will definitely keep you out.

 

[murdoc9]

ugh these threads will forever be on sdn.

i happen to know adcoms from the med school for my undergrad (the ultimate numbers school) - med schools know about the relative competitiveness/difficulty of many schools, and they don't completely ignore it. as others have said, it's part of your application.

one of the adcoms outright said to me that she'll mentally figure in a +.1 with top schools with competitive student bodies with tough weed-out premed classes (my own included), regardless of the mcat. yes, the mcat is an equalizer, but that doesn't change the fact that one could've done better at a school where the body of students that make up the curve is simply different.

on a side note, sometimes i wish id gone to a less competitive undergrad so my confidence wouldn't have been shot after 1st semester genchem haha. think i coulda done better on the mcat just having more As under my belt, but that's just my own psychological bs. woe is me.

 

[45408]

👍👍👍👍 Completely agree with you.

The sad truth is, people from easier schools refuse to admit something that might be a blow to their egos (like their 3.8 means nothing compared to a 3.4 from a rigorous top 10 school). It's simple human nature.

No matter how much grade inflation exists (like at Yale), a course at a top 10 school will be harder to get an A in than a school with a lower caliber student body. Sure, 50% of the kids at Yale will get an A in class ____, but those 50% sure as hell deserved the A more than the 10% of the kids at state school _____. Top 50% at Yale >>>>>>>>>>>> top 10% (even top 1%) at a state school.

As long as we're painting with a big generalization brush, on the other side of the coin, people who went to a very selective school and/or people who paid a ton of money for college are hoping that it made some sort of difference. It would be a blow to THEIR egos to find out that someone from an "inferior" school was doing just as well as they were.

 

[Dookter]

The problem with these arguments, as always, is that you're assuming that you can use the "averages" in life to help you make decisions. The average student at Harvard is waaaaaay smarter than the average student from my state school. But what does that have to do with me/my classmates who also went to medical school? Absolutely nothing. We weren't the "average" students at my state school. If you spend your life worrying about the averages, you'll only be misguided. You're going to be judged on individual performance.

I also don't agree with the sentiment that courses are much less rigorous at state schools. I think ALL schools have a wide range of course difficulties as well as a wide range of professors with their own quirks. I will say, though, that all of my core premed classes and almost all of my biochem classes in college were very rigorous. And grade inflation wasn't an option. In my physics classes people had course averages in the teens...lots of people. You know what happened to those people? They failed.

Can't we all just agree to stop bringing up these topics? It's annoying because there are constantly new people on SDN, and these new people are going to get totally stressed over topics like this that don't really even deserve discussion.

Also, some of you are in for a real surprise when you get to medical school. You're going to be in a class with people from all types of schools and from all types of backgrounds. Your stereotypes aren't going to work anymore, and you're going to be really disappointed that your ivy education doesn't automatically make the medical school professors give you bonus points on exams or something like that. All of these conversations about undergrad prestige/rigor have really been going on since elementary school. And they'll continue after undergrad. But when you're in medical school you're going to experience the ultimate equalizers--they're called intelligence and hard work. If you continue to assume that your prestigious academic pedigree automatically makes you better than everyone else, you're going to get burned unless you're one of the lucky few who can rise to the top of your medical school class.

 

[flip26]

ugh these threads will forever be on sdn.

i happen to know adcoms from the med school for my undergrad (the ultimate numbers school) - med schools know about the relative competitiveness/difficulty of many schools, and they don't completely ignore it. as others have said, it's part of your application.

one of the adcoms outright said to me that she'll mentally figure in a +.1 with top schools with competitive student bodies with tough weed-out premed classes (my own included), regardless of the mcat. yes, the mcat is an equalizer, but that doesn't change the fact that one could've done better at a school where the body of students that make up the curve is simply different.

on a side note, sometimes i wish id gone to a less competitive undergrad so my confidence wouldn't have been shot after 1st semester genchem haha. think i coulda done better on the mcat just having more As under my belt, but that's just my own psychological bs. woe is me.

This is insightful for 2 reasons.

First, whatever GPA adjustment is made for the "superior" school, it is minimal. Most of the superior school proponents on this thread and others like it believe they deserve a + 0.5 for their Ivy GPA.

Second, it is a "mental" adjustment - not some rigid, computerized rubric that adds points and spits out adjusted GPAs.

If we only knew the truth, some med schools may very well assign more bonus GPA points, but most probably don't make any adjustments, instead letting the GPA and the equalizer MCAT serve as an academic index of sorts, a cut off to help them deal with the avalanche of apps they receive each year, so that they can cut down the pile to something more manageable.

Med schools also have the benefit of knowing what to expect from the applicants of different schools (as well as different majors), and they have a feel for what constitutes a good GPA from Podunk as well as from the top ranked schools...

 

[shindotp]

What ever you have to tell yourself to justify spending huge amounts of money going to a prestigious private school. As others have said, your education (not necessarily your grades, but what you actually learn) is what you make of it. I must say, I do like your general attitude of superiority. That will be great if you actually become a doctor. You can be the stereotypical arrogant doctor.

My school actually offered me the most financial aid. Money tends to correlate with rank.

Attitude of superiority? Is it wrong to believe that top school kids are academically better than state school kids?

That's like attributing an attitude of superiority to a person who believes the NBA teams are better at basketball than high school varsity teams.

Go ahead and say what you must to protect your self-esteem though.

 

[shindotp]

As long as we're painting with a big generalization brush, on the other side of the coin, people who went to a very selective school and/or people who paid a ton of money for college are hoping that it made some sort of difference. It would be a blow to THEIR egos to find out that someone from an "inferior" school was doing just as well as they were.

It's really funny how people assume private school kids pay more money when over half the class receives financial aid and the average financial aid is somewhere around $30k in grants.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better though! 😉

I chose my school because I decided it was worth it to be challenged and forced to learn rather than just chilling at like USC and getting a really high GPA.

 

[shindotp]

Again, I disagree. Having taken classes at 2 schools with grade inflation and 1 without, I can tell you that it's not just about how many people get the A. It's about why there are so many A's. I'm sorry, but it's not because there are that many more uber-brilliant people in the class. That's total crap. I've met some brilliant people at top 10s, and some utter idiots. Some of the smartest people I know are from state schools. There are many A's, because often the professors don't consider their teaching duties to be their first priority. This doesn't necessarily lead to less learning (most of learning is individual anyway, and it's true that everyone has to learn the same stuff) or even less support (more money also usually means more TA's, tutors, and handholding), but it does often lead to exams that are less about comprehension and more about memorization. It leads to multiple choice exams in which questions are "what is a G-protein-coupled receptor?" instead of short answer questions such as "a toxin breaks down this part of the g-protein-coupled receptor in this cell. What does it do to a cell of a different system? Why? How?". Questions like the latter are harder and take longer to grade.
Having taken classes at 2 top 10's and 1 none, that was the biggest reason I found for the disparity. There were brilliant and dumb people at all 3, there were slackers and gunners and crammers at all 3. The stuff was essentially the same. However, the testing was entirely different.

Your professors grade the tests? Ours always got TAs to grade them (any our tests are NEVER multiple choice... Critical thinking was necessary on every single test I've taken so far).

Of course there will be smart people and dumb people at both schools. Otherwise, I would have said 100% of Yale > 100% of state schools instead of top 50% of Yale > top 1% of state school.

 

[shindotp]

OMG my school is soo much harder then your school. You are stupid for having a 3.9 from that school, I could sleep through the classes and still 4.0. What you scored 5 pts higher then me on the MCAT? That doesnt matter because i went to a better school and got a 3.4 which is top 50% at my school and your 3.9 is only top 5% at your school..but we all know top 50% at yale is greater then top 1% at any state school.

O and mine is atleast 3 inches longer then yours.

Where in my original post did I downplay the MCAT? I would agree that the MCAT is a better indicator of academic capabilities than the school someone attends. The average MCAT score at my school is a 32, what's the average MCAT at a state school? 24? 25?

 

[Spiker]

It's really funny how people assume private school kids pay more money when over half the class receives financial aid and the average financial aid is somewhere around $30k in grants.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better though! 😉

I chose my school because I decided it was worth it to be challenged and forced to learn rather than just chilling at like USC and getting a really high GPA.

Lol many people go in state school because they get full ride. I am literally getting paid to go.

here is the answer:

After you go into medical school see if those who are not from top 10 do worse than those who are. In the end all people in your class are what medical school deem sufficient in intellect and knowledge, so see if they are right or wrong.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

Where in my original post did I downplay the MCAT? I would agree that the MCAT is a better indicator of academic capabilities than the school someone attends. The average MCAT score at my school is a 32, what's the average MCAT at a state school? 24? 25?

Where in my post did i say I was referring to you? However, if the average at Yale is a 32 (which is what 85%ile?) and the average at said state school is a 25..then thats about a difference of 1 std deviation, which draws into question your belief that 50% of yale kids would be in the top 1% at a certain State school.
Perhaps if yales average was 38.

Sorry, you fail again.

 

[RapplixGmed]

Where in my original post did I downplay the MCAT? I would agree that the MCAT is a better indicator of academic capabilities than the school someone attends. The average MCAT score at my school is a 32, what's the average MCAT at a state school? 24? 25?

Lol

I go to a completely unknown state school and the mcats of myself and my close premed friends are 40, 40, 37, 38, 35, 27. Some people will mess it up at any school but not assume that people who go to lower ranked undergrads do not do well on the mcats.

That being said, there are probably some differences between schools if you are not at the top. If you are the top 25% at either a top school or no name state, you will do about equally well. Superstars from my no name undergrad have gone to basically every top 20 med school out there. I'm going to NW on a MSTP fellowship so I will not have paid a cent for all of my undergrad and med school education and will have made a net profit of 250k from undergrad and med school stipends by the time i'm done. I've saved enough to afford a condo when I go to Chicago =D.

If you are in the middle 50%, then going to the top school will start to matter more. Kids in this position at top schools are more likely to get into med schools than kids at lower tier schools either because they have better connections, better counseling, more money, more extracurricular opportunities and of course a better pedigree for whatever that is worth. They are also more likely to try again if they dont' succeed the first time while kids from the state school will much more likely find a job or switch to doing something else. A large proportion of the post-bacs in my school have "fallen down" from higher ranked schools.

If you are in the bottom 25% at either school, there is really no comparison. This is the difference between George W. Bush and the guy who flips burgers at McDonalds.

 

[Greonis]

My school actually offered me the most financial aid. Money tends to correlate with rank.

Attitude of superiority? Is it wrong to believe that top school kids are academically better than state school kids?

That's like attributing an attitude of superiority to a person who believes the NBA teams are better at basketball than high school varsity teams.

Go ahead and say what you must to protect your self-esteem though.

Yes, it is wrong. You cannot generalize two groups that came to be through a wide gamut of different, often subjective factors. Declaring one group to be absolutely "academically better" than another is sheer ignorance; you are failing to take into account the diversity of the individuals to be found within said group, not to mention the multitude of factors that led each individual to choose one group over others. In summary, one cannot treat this as a black and white scenario, since there are many different shades of gray as well.

Not to mention, your comparison is flawed in terms of magnitude. It seems to me that there are far more differences to be found between NBA teams and high school varsity basketball teams than there are between undergraduate institutions.

 

[PremedIowa]

Your professors grade the tests? Ours always got TAs to grade them (any our tests are NEVER multiple choice... Critical thinking was necessary on every single test I've taken so far).

Of course there will be smart people and dumb people at both schools. Otherwise, I would have said 100% of Yale > 100% of state schools instead of top 50% of Yale > top 1% of state school.

This comment=stupid. Do you have any idea what the top few percent of any reasonable undergraduate institution looks like? It is 40+ MCAT scores, multiple research experiences, publications, and so on. I would even go as far as to say that the top 1% at my state school would probably look very similar to the top 1% at any Ivy. It is the individuals who matter, not the averages.

 

[deleted202457]

Personally, I think getting into medical school is 99% on the individual. Meaning if I would have gone to Harvard, I probably would had roughly the same success this cycle as I have at my current school. Maybe Harvards classes are harder, but I would have studied harder and thus done better on the MCAT....While at my current school I would have a slightly higher GPA, but maybe a slightly lower MCAT?...I dont necessarily think this is true, but if your argument is that Classes at Yale are harder then UNC, ECU, or whatever school...then chances are you will study harder at Yale and thus be better prepared and the "lower" gpa you will get at Yale will more then be made up for by the MCAT.

I agree with Chubs. Plus like an earlier poster said, not all smart ppl go to top schools. I got into Harvard, but I chose to go to a local, small, private college. Why? because I got a full scholarship and didn't want the financial strain. Plus I'm not just a face in the crowd. I'm allowed to lead my research and the small classes give me individual attention that allows me to further advance my studies if I want. Yes I admit that doing well at top-tier schools is an accomplishment, but it should not make or break you. There are too many other factors to consider. Many ppl will say that my small school is a breeze but I disagree. Your education will be as good as you make it. If you push yourself you will be better prepared. If you just try and squeak by, you will have a harder time when the MCAT comes or you get to upper level classes.