The Myth of Improving a GPA.

[LeafNinja]

I actually had 43 credits at that time. But, yes when a person gets over that 100 credit range it is very hard to raise the overall gpa. This is why graduate programs look at your last 60 credits and your gpa trend. I am more impressed with a person who had a 2.25 gpa their first two years of college and then improved their gpa up to about a 3.25 three years later more so then a person who got a 3.85 gpa their whole undergraduate life.

WRONG! Why should better performing people be penalized? Is this another "affirmative action" idea to penalize smarter, harder working people, who matured earlier and faster than others?

Truth is, you don't have that 3.85 GPA do you? Wishful thinking my friend. The truth is, perfection is preferred, but no one is perfect so you try to get as close as you can in your personal situations. If you have a low GPA, the closest to perfect from them on is getting all As and improving your GPA.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[brianmartin]

Why should better performing people be penalized? Is this another "affirmative action" idea to penalize smarter, harder working people, who matured earlier and faster than others?

Getting a high GPA earlier in life does not mean you are "smarter" or "harder-working", at least inherently.

I got cumulative 2.8 in my first year of college. Then I went to community college for 2 years and got all A's and B's and brought it up to a 3.1. Then I transferred to a university and got straight A's ever since then.

So I have a D- in poetry and a C+ in Biology 101 from 5 years ago, so what? I have all A's in gen chem, gen. bio, o-chem, physics, physiology, evolution, genetics....

That's a pretty strong upward trend I would say. And in the end, I'm still going to do just as well or better on the MCAT as the person who got a cumulative 4.0.

That's right, I busted my ass to bring a 2.8 up to a 3.6. And I did it by getting A's in the hardest classes. That means I performed better in the harder classes than someone with a 3.6 spread out over all their college courses!

 

[gary5]

Well yes, it takes 3 entire years of straight As to change a 3-year history of 3.0 to 3.5. It's basic math.

 

[diggitybop]

Then what do you think it does mean?! Why do you think med schools even look at GPA? Or are med school admissions really just one big lottery in your mind?

sometimes it feels that way

 

[gujuDoc]

I think everyone is thinking in terms of black and white.

We can't compare who's more impressive: (The 3.85 vs. 3.25 with a strong trend of 4.0 for last 3 years or so) without more information.

The person who had a 3.25 with an original GPA of 2.5 could be someone who's 35+ years old, had a previous career in business or some other non related field and then decided to come back and pursue medicine after years of life experience which changed their focus and study habits because they are older and not there to party anymore. Or it could be someone who f***ed up earlier but realized the errors of their ways and worked hard to improve themselves. Also, the MCAT score will also be a big equalizer as the saying goes. If both have an equal MCAT score the next thing to look at will be their essays and letters and extracurriculars.

If all is equal the 3.85 will most likely win out esp. at top tier schools. However, that does not mean the 3.25 cant get in somewhere in the states.

You need to put things into context as a whole profile not just one small part of it.

 

[rhsu84]

To the people with lower gpas, the only thing you can do is work your butt off for the remainder of your college years. It is possible to get into an allopathic school with a <3.2 It will be much, much, harder to get noticed than if you had say a 3.6+, but you just have to step up the other parts of your app, like guju just said.

I, for one, only had a 3.19 cum gpa (3.09 amcas) but with a huge upward trend and up to a 3.8 my senior year last spring. But my pretty decent mcat, letters, and my ECs made for a complete application. I've had 4 interview invites, 2 of which I declined, one acceptance, and one waitlist. It IS possible and while it may not hurt to apply to DO programs, like others have said, the worst thing you can do is give up.

 

[Saabdriver]

I actually had 43 credits at that time. But, yes when a person gets over that 100 credit range it is very hard to raise the overall gpa. This is why graduate programs look at your last 60 credits and your gpa trend. I am more impressed with a person who had a 2.25 gpa their first two years of college and then improved their gpa up to about a 3.25 three years later more so then a person who got a 3.85 gpa their whole undergraduate life.

This is frank and total BS. Obviously people with lower early GPAs can boost their GPAs faster than people who always started out high, but its a double edged sword, and I can tell you that bouncing that GPA also serves to put some subtle emphasis on why it was low in the first place. Medical school is a marathon, not a sprint, and medical schools really have in mind one over-arching priority when choosing people: who will be able to make it through without consuming extra-resources or remedial work? I'm sorry but any way you cut it someone that blew their freshman year has a greater risk to have an 'off' semester and require re-taking classes. This isn't undergrad when you can pick up a class the next semester either, one failure=one year repeated. Also I can understand that people can have personal trauma that holds them back. But unfortunately medical school does not happen in a bubble, and the fact is if you can't adjust to a new city or pace of classes (as demonstrated by a poor early college GPA) chances are you will continue to have problems. I'm sorry I just can't think of a scenario in which someone with a 2.25->3.25 beats out someone with a continuous high GPA.

 

[Kikaku21]

I think everyone is thinking in terms of black and white.

We can't compare who's more impressive: (The 3.85 vs. 3.25 with a strong trend of 4.0 for last 3 years or so) without more information.

The person who had a 3.25 with an original GPA of 2.5 could be someone who's 35+ years old, had a previous career in business or some other non related field and then decided to come back and pursue medicine after years of life experience which changed their focus and study habits because they are older and not there to party anymore. Or it could be someone who f***ed up earlier but realized the errors of their ways and worked hard to improve themselves. Also, the MCAT score will also be a big equalizer as the saying goes. If both have an equal MCAT score the next thing to look at will be their essays and letters and extracurriculars.

If all is equal the 3.85 will most likely win out esp. at top tier schools. However, that does not mean the 3.25 cant get in somewhere in the states.

You need to put things into context as a whole profile not just one small part of it.

You can't compare a 3.85 to a 3.25 with a strong upward trend? Maybe not directly. But how many times do we have to see the post with the guy who has the 3.25 w/ trend getting rejected to tell him something other than "just take more classes." My point was 1. higher GPA is better and 2. Stop ignoring basic mathmatics when we give advice on these forums.

People talk about raising GPA. This is a myth, unless you are talking about the end of your freshman year. If trends help, which they may, then by all means, we should talk about gettting a good trend. Most of what I see is people talking about actually bring up a GPA that is in the toilet, however.

As for trends, all evidence is anecdotal, but certainly having a 3.25 w/ trend is better than 3.25 without.

 

[Saabdriver]

Getting a high GPA earlier in life does not mean you are "smarter" or "harder-working", at least inherently.

Once again, while medical school obviously wants people that are intelligent, they mostly just want people who will succeed, and intelligence and hard work are only part of what's necessary for that. Focus, priorities, ambition all those other less obvious qualities probably played a role in why someone had a low GPA to begin with in 'easier' classes.

 

[rhsu84]

How about maturity? College is about growing up, and if you can show that, then you're ok. It takes time to adjust to college. Take an 18 year old who's never been away from home, and put him/her in a new city with tons of other things going on (read: college parties, boys/girls). Now this doesn't mean he's any less of a hard-worker or less intelligent than anybody else, at this point in time while applying to medical school. College is about maturation. Most 18 year olds can't balance a checkbook, let alone decide what the hell they want to do with their lives. How are they supposed to know that they need a 3.7 to have a good chance at medical school when they haven't even decided if they want to go yet? A low freshman year gpa will not keep you from getting into medical school.

 

[Kikaku21]

How about maturity? College is about growing up, and if you can show that, then you're ok. It takes time to adjust to college. Take an 18 year old who's never been away from home, put him/her in a new city with tons of other things going on (read: college parties, boys/girls), doesn't mean he's any less of a hard-worker or less intelligent than anybody else, at this point in time while applying to medical school. 4 years of college is a long maturation process. Most 18 year olds can't balance a checkbook, let alone decide what the hell they want to do with their lives. A low freshman year gpa will not keep you from getting into medical school.

Yep. College is about maturity. Someone with a 3.9 was able to get all of the items you listed under control and better manage his time than someone with a 3.25 and an upward trend. So GPA could also be a measure of maturity-- given the right underlying potential. Higher GPA = more maturity = more preferred by medical school. Unless you want immature doctors treating you.

 

[rhsu84]

Yeah but just because one person had a higher gpa when they were 18 doesn't mean that at the age of 22, both people aren't equally mature, motivated, and qualified.

 

[Funky]

A low freshman year gpa will not keep you from getting into medical school.

I will chime in here and disagree with this. Are you saying that a freshman who fails all his classes will pull it up to a good enough gpa to get into med school through maturity in 3 years? Sometimes the damage is too great. I know a couple who have not so stellar GPAs who ended up in a foreign md school but i know far far more people who didn't do too well freshman year, got their act together and started taking pre reqs, went another direction because their GPA was too low.

 

[rhsu84]

I will chime in here and disagree with this. Are you saying that a freshman who fails all his classes will pull it up to a good enough gpa to get into med school through maturity in 3 years? Sometimes the damage is too great. I know a couple who have not so stellar GPAs who ended up in a foreign md school but i know far far more people who didn't do too well freshman year, got their act together and started taking pre reqs, went another direction because their GPA was too low.

I'm not saying that it's not going to be hard, and I do think that there is a limit to a "poor" first year (failing all of your classes probably will hurt you greatly), but I don't think people should just throw their arms in the air and give up. I know somebody with a 2.2 freshman gpa who got in. It's obviously much harder to get in to school with a lower gpa, but it is not the end-all of your application. Just keep your head up, that's all I'm saying.

 

[trustwomen]

I recently had a friend that is more or less in this boat. People suggested she "improve her GPA by taking additional classes." Seems reasonable right? But why? Do people ever stop and think about how LONG it would take to bring up a GPA?? With the exception of screwing up a semester freshman year, a GPA is based on 6 to 8 semesters of coursework. Adding one or two more semesters, under the generous assumtion of getting straight A's will only boost your GPA a tiny bit. (For example, my entire post-bacc program boosted me from 3.65 to 3.7, making all A's) If you have a 3.0 Science GPA, you will, at best, improve it around 0.1 per quarter... And that is only at the beginning--- then the law of diminishing returns kicks in. And a science GPA is based on way less credit hours than the overall GPA. Bringing up an overall GPA by .5 would be damn near impossible! So you might improve your Science GPA from 3.0 to 3.3? The average is still in the neighborhood of 3.5+. This doesn't even address the fact that a person's study habits, test taking skills, raw ability, etc are what designated a 3.0 to begin with!! Why doesn't anyone ever talk about these things?? "Hey dude, you need to study differently." The answer seems to always be: "Take more classes and work really hard." Perhaps there are other underlying issues here?

MCAT? Maybe. But thats another blog.

Don't discourage people too much, now. I had 117 credits at about a 2.5, spent four years in the workforce, figured out I wanted to be a doctor and went back to school, then finished another 102 credits with over 3.7 (science this time) in my new degree - while working full-time to boot. Did well on the MCAT and got into my first choice allo school.

Was it harder for me than for someone who simply never had an old degree? Sure. Should it have been? I don't think so. Why is it that if I had been able to simply not include my old studies, I would have breezed in with my new degree? Why should the extra education, which led to valuable work experience, be considered a negative - no matter how bad the grades were? After all, I got a new degree that was well within range and included all the prereqs.

I take umbrage to the bolded part above. Sure, I was not a serious student the first time around - I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life! I had skipped two years in school, started university quite young, and had yet to find myself, cheesy as that sounds. Raw ability/test-taking skills was never in question, believe me (evidence = crammed three days for MCAT, while missing half the prereqs: did well). In fact, if my raw ability had been less, I would have simply flunked out in my first semester (like all my fellow partying/class-shunning friends) rather than finishing the program at all. Ironically, had I flunked out and therefore finished with far fewer credits, I would have had an easier time getting into med school later on.

Just because someone doesn't do well doesn't mean they can't do well. Many smart people are slackers who can change.

 

[notdeadyet]

I am more impressed with a person who had a 2.25 gpa their first two years of college and then improved their gpa up to about a 3.25 three years later more so then a person who got a 3.85 gpa their whole undergraduate life.

Would you recommend this as a strategy to young premeds? Advise them to get lower grades their first two years in college than knock it out of the park the second two years because it's more "impressive"?

Just curious. I think grades are over-rated in general (ex-teacher), but since it's the yardstick of choice for performance in class, I think it's always hard to argue that a B is ever better than an A, either individually or collectively.

 

[radiologydoctor]

Don't discourage people too much, now. I had 117 credits at about a 2.5, spent four years in the workforce, figured out I wanted to be a doctor and went back to school, then finished another 102 credits with over 3.7 (science this time) in my new degree - while working full-time to boot. Did well on the MCAT and got into my first choice allo school.

Was it harder for me than for someone who simply never had an old degree? Sure. Should it have been? I don't think so. Why is it that if I had been able to simply not include my old studies, I would have breezed in with my new degree? Why should the extra education, which led to valuable work experience, be considered a negative - no matter how bad the grades were? After all, I got a new degree that was well within range and included all the prereqs.

I take umbrage to the bolded part above. Sure, I was not a serious student the first time around - I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life! Raw ability/test-taking skills was never in question, believe me (crammed three days for MCAT, while missing half the prereqs: did well).

Just because someone doesn't do well doesn't mean they can't do well. Many smart people are slackers who can change.

I agree with everything you said in this post. I basically just read the first few words in most posts and ignored them since their argument is basicaly all about numbers and not life expereinces and how a person can change over time.

So what if a person did bad for their first year, or two years, or three years of college. Maybe this type of person needed that time to mature mentally. Not all college students go to college with the mental ability to get all A's in their classes. This is why people look at TRENDS (I need to say it again- TRENDS and TRENDS) and how a person has changed in their life. Anyone who says your GPA is everything can shut their trap!

I have a founding respect for underachievers!

 

[eekonomics]

I actually had 43 credits at that time. But, yes when a person gets over that 100 credit range it is very hard to raise the overall gpa. This is why graduate programs look at your last 60 credits and your gpa trend. I am more impressed with a person who had a 2.25 gpa their first two years of college and then improved their gpa up to about a 3.25 three years later more so then a person who got a 3.85 gpa their whole undergraduate life.

I think consistently hard work, evidenced by GPA as one measure, is hard to ignore. While improvement can speak volumes to an applicant's portfolio, consistent work is probably going to get you a lot farther.

Sometimes, if your GPA is too low, I think it's tough to pursue a competitive program like medicine. Even if you think the grading system is flawed or inaccurately measures your potential, med schools still use it as a pretty large yardstick for getting past that initial screening phase (and sometimes up until the final decision). So if you can't raise your GPA to whatever minimum threshold the school you'd like to go to uses (perhaps you could extrapoloate this number using prior acceptances) then perhaps another career path in health care would better suit your portfolio.

 

[dpmd]

It seems like people think that there is a GPA above which you are guaranteed a spot. This is absolutely false. GPA is not the most important factor, and neither is MCAT score. It is the entire application that schools look at to see what kind of person you are (the interview also factors in). GPA is not equivalent to maturity. Yes, if you have a bad GPA because you are spending all your time out drinking that is not a good reflection of your maturity, but what about the people that are out drinking and partying but manage to keep their grades up. Are they more mature than the person working a full time job while going to school full time (and maybe supporting a family)? Numbers are a very poor indicator of who a person really is. That is why so many schools look beyond those numbers. That is why some people with 3.9's fail to get in while some with 3.0's do. There is no magic recipe that will ensure admission. You simply have to decide it is worth fighting for, and do what you can to make your application interesting to the school. For those of you who do get in, remember this principle because it also applies to residency applications (and probably to most things in life you have to apply for). Maybe you don't get it the first time,so you work on whatever the weak part of your application is and try again. Or maybe it never works out, and you figure out something else that will make you as happy. But at least you try, otherwise you get to regret it later.

 

[radiologydoctor]

Would you recommend this as a strategy to young premeds? Advise them to get lower grades their first two years in college than knock it out of the park the second two years because it's more "impressive"?

Just curious. I think grades are over-rated in general (ex-teacher), but since it's the yardstick of choice for performance in class, I think it's always hard to argue that a B is ever better than an A, either individually or collectively.

I never said I would advise a student to get bad grades and then get all A's. That is the words you put in your own mouth!

Yes grades are overrated. This is why work expereince means more then your grades as a student. All companies who hire workers want a smart employee, but you won't be hired for any big job right out of school because you basically no very little and still have to do develop the SKILLS RELATED TO THE JOB! A person who finished undergraduate school with a 3.2 and is a good communicator will far much better in the job world then a person who has a perfect 4.0 and is a bad communicator (i.e., not being able to relate scientific information into laymans terms).

The best professor I have ever had (and this is with over 160 total credits taken) was a retired physican who worked as a physican for 32 years. He was able to explain the clinical and social relationship between the material being tought and how it relates to the real world. Most professors just go by the book-give out exams that make sure you understand the vocab for words and give you crap ass multiple choice questions that often can be argued to having more then once correct answer (I argued 15 points back on an embryology exam once because I was able to argue with a professor that the answers I chose that were different then the test bank answers could also be correct).

As a person gets older they become wiser. I would seek advice from an adult student (25 or older) about life in general and how to go about preparing for the real world over some 4.0 student who is only 19-21 years old.

 

[Kikaku21]

Don't discourage people too much, now. I had 117 credits at about a 2.5, spent four years in the workforce, figured out I wanted to be a doctor and went back to school, then finished another 102 credits with over 3.7 (science this time) in my new degree - while working full-time to boot. Did well on the MCAT and got into my first choice allo school.

Was it harder for me than for someone who simply never had an old degree? Sure. Should it have been? I don't think so. Why is it that if I had been able to simply not include my old studies, I would have breezed in with my new degree? Why should the extra education, which led to valuable work experience, be considered a negative - no matter how bad the grades were? After all, I got a new degree that was well within range and included all the prereqs.

I take umbrage to the bolded part above. Sure, I was not a serious student the first time around - I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life! I had skipped two years in school, started university quite young, and had yet to find myself, cheesy as that sounds. Raw ability/test-taking skills was never in question, believe me (evidence = crammed three days for MCAT, while missing half the prereqs: did well). In fact, if my raw ability had been less, I would have simply flunked out in my first semester (like all my fellow partying/class-shunning friends) rather than finishing the program at all. Ironically, had I flunked out and therefore finished with far fewer credits, I would have had an easier time getting into med school later on.

Just because someone doesn't do well doesn't mean they can't do well. Many smart people are slackers who can change.

I never said that it is impossible to improve a GPA. I said it can be unrealistic advice to give people who show up on SDN complaining about not getting in with a 3.0 and a 26. Now you are an exception. You essentially got another undergraduate degree to make up for bad grades. I would not tell someone who had shown a poor academic record that trying again, from scratch, is a good idea without some damn impressive indicators that things would be different the 2nd time around. You went out into the real world and had some realizations and probably will be a better doctor for it. THIS IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'm talking about the senior in college who applied to medical school with bad numbers--- on average, telling this person that they should tack on a few more years of classes is not a good idea. It takes time, money, and chances are the underlying study habits have not changed.

 

[IckeyShuffle]

How many science classes did you take in undergrad? 2?

i had taken 4 or 5 in undergrad but unlike other people i realized when i was doing poorly (Bs or Cs) it was not going to get me into medical school so I stopped. Only when i felt ready to put in the work did I start up my science work again. I think it is a problem when people are continually getting Cs and Bs and then keep going through the pre med work. It just isnt going to work out for you.

 

[Law2Doc]

I never said that it is impossible to improve a GPA. I said it can be unrealistic advice to give people who show up on SDN complaining about not getting in with a 3.0 and a 26.

I think it is you who are missing the point a bit. I agree you cannot always mathematically bring up a low GPA to a solid one. But you can create a track record of A's that will get you into med school notwithstanding that fact. I agree it depends on the student fixing whatever issues he or she had that caused them to get lower grades -- perhaps by taking fewer classes at a time and hiring a tutor etc. But a string of straight A's does make a difference. Might take a while, depending on how deep a hole you are in. But it works for more than a few, and a lot of the postbac programs and SMPs are predicated on this fact. So taking more classes when your GPA is too low absolutely does help, even if you cannot mathematically move it much.

 

[Law2Doc]

You're arguing with people who desperately want to keep their hope, and they're not physically able to hear you because of it.

You don't need a laundry list of anecdotes to know that people turn things around. The SMP/upper level postbac programs exist precisely because this kind of thing is possible. So I actually think people are legitimately hearing that poster and still reasonably disagreeing. Hope/desperation has nothing to do with it - a lot of these posters are not still awaiting acceptances.

 

[SurgeonUFO]

What about the fact that GPA is entirely dependent on the school which you come from...

 

[Instatewaiter]

a string of straight A's does make a difference. Might take a while, depending on how deep a hole you are in. But it works for more than a few, and a lot of the postbac programs and SMPs are predicated on this fact. So taking more classes when your GPA is too low absolutely does help, even if you cannot mathematically move it much.

The idea that a person with a 3.2 is more impressive than one with a 3.8 a little far fetched. Sure the string of As through 3rd and 4th year help but in no way is that more impressive than the person who has done it all along.

I have to agree that it is not all about the total GPA. A good string of grades can overcome poor past performance. If that was not the case I would have never gotten into medical school.

 

[Law2Doc]

The idea that a person with a 3.2 is more impressive than one with a 3.8 a little far fetched.

People keep moving the numbers to prove their point. If you look at the original post I was responding to on the prior page of this thread, the comparison was actually a 3.3 to a 3.5, not a 3.2 to a 3.8. So sure, you can keep moving the numbers until it gets more less likely. That doesn't disprove my point.

 

[Law2Doc]

Yeah, and it's great when people do turn things around. But there is something to be said for (what I thought) was the original point of this thread: there are certain mathematical realities involved in a GPA that cannot be overcome by an "upward trend". I read the OP as saying that after a certain point, even straight A's are not going to suddenly bump your GPA up a significant amount. This is, despite some of the more strident posts here, a reality.

But to some extent you don't need to mathematically move the GPA. A couple of years of straight A's in a postbac/SMP have been known to get people into med school even if they never approach that competitive 3.5. They generally have to have at least a 3.0 and other things in the app, but it happens more than in the rare case. This is why schools like G-town SMP, etc have their 3.0 requirement -- precisely because people at that level are folks they can often get into med school.

 

[trustwomen]

Yeah, and it's great when people do turn things around. But there is something to be said for (what I thought) was the original point of this thread: there are certain mathematical realities involved in a GPA that cannot be overcome by an "upward trend". I read the OP as saying that after a certain point, even straight A's are not going to suddenly bump your GPA up a significant amount. This is, despite some of the more strident posts here, a reality.

Every so often a thread pops up here that is some variant of, "I got a 2.0 my freshman year, and Bs and Cs my sophomore year, do I have a chance?" Invariably there are 2-3 responses that say, "Just show an upward trend and you can do it!" People can and do come back from setbacks, but most don't, and the optimism that pervades this forum is, in my mind, unwarranted and misleading. That's what I was responding to, and I think my point there is valid.

However, even when your overall GPA still sucks (mine does, it's around 3.0, considering the total of 219 credits), you can still get into medical school after a few years of stellar performance and a good MCAT. Now, you do need to be able to get that stellar performance, and not everyone will be able to do that, but if you CAN do it, then you can get into med school. It will be harder for you than for others, but it is possible. No one can guarantee you an acceptance, but they can't do that no matter what your numbers and your history.

If someone wants it badly enough, and is able to get stellar grades now that they've smartened up, they can get there. It might take another degree, but it is possible. And hey, if they only have two years' worth of bad grades, it'll be easier - I had four full years' worth.

I would never advise your hypothetical student to apply with a record of only Bs and Cs. You do need straight As and lots of them. But until someone really gives it their best shot, who are we to crush their dreams? Now, if your best shot results in Bs and Cs, you need to change your path, no question. But you can come back from anything if you get enough As in a row.

Edit: Law2Doc beat me to it!!!!

 

[MSCMD]

But to some extent you don't need to mathematically move the GPA. A couple of years of straight A's in a postbac/SMP have been known to get people into med school even if they never approach that competitive 3.5. They generally have to have at least a 3.0 and other things in the app, but it happens more than in the rare case. This is why schools like G-town SMP, etc have their 3.0 requirement -- precisely because people at that level are folks they can often get into med school.

From personal expereince, I will say do other things that make you stand out if you GPA is above a certain point. I applied with 3.45 overall and 3.3 BCMP. got into a top 5 school and two top 20 schools among others. Never took any time off school, never explained my GPA anywhere in my application and I was never asked about it. If you GPA shows you are fairly competent, worry more about distinguishing yourself with your experiences, a 3.8 GPA is not that unique.

 

[rhsu84]

Every so often a thread pops up here that is some variant of, "I got a 2.0 my freshman year, and Bs and Cs my sophomore year, do I have a chance?" Invariably there are 2-3 responses that say, "Just show an upward trend and you can do it!" People can and do come back from setbacks, but most don't, and the optimism that pervades this forum is, in my mind, unwarranted and misleading. That's what I was responding to, and I think my point there is valid.

Who are we to tell them they should change their career path? Let them try their best, and if they and don't get in, then at least they tried. I'm not saying we shouldn't tell them to be realistic - obviously there will be a tremendous hurdle to overcome in those poor grades. Of course it would have been better to have good grades from the start (duh), but I don't think the optimism is unwarranted. People have done it. Yes, chances are slim, but it's possible, and you shouldn't take that away from them.

If people listened to the critics from the beginning, Michael Jordan would've never made his HS basketball team, Rocky would've never beaten Drago, and the Little Engine that Could, wouldn't have.

 

[trustwomen]

I never said that it is impossible to improve a GPA. I said it can be unrealistic advice to give people who show up on SDN complaining about not getting in with a 3.0 and a 26. Now you are an exception. You essentially got another undergraduate degree to make up for bad grades. I would not tell someone who had shown a poor academic record that trying again, from scratch, is a good idea without some damn impressive indicators that things would be different the 2nd time around. You went out into the real world and had some realizations and probably will be a better doctor for it. THIS IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'm talking about the senior in college who applied to medical school with bad numbers--- on average, telling this person that they should tack on a few more years of classes is not a good idea. It takes time, money, and chances are the underlying study habits have not changed.

I take your point - but nor should we assume that the study habits (or whatever) have not changed. Sometimes an epiphany can happen quickly. (And honestly I would worry more about the 26 MCAT than the poor GPA, since the former is more linked to innate ability and the latter to maturity/slacking). I agree, however, that it is important not to minimize the challenge ahead.

It is better that they give it their best shot for a year or two, and only give up when it is clear that they cannot get the grades no matter what. Otherwise, you live out your whole life thinking "if only", which is a living hell. So, if it doesn't work out, you get a little more debt out of the equation - better that than giving up on a dream prematurely. (Besides, the world needs biology grads to staff the labs, no?)

Though I do bemoan the act of calling oneself a "premed". I certainly never did - it seems quite arrogant, when you can never know for sure that you'll get in.

 

[gujuDoc]

Yeah, and it's great when people do turn things around. But there is something to be said for (what I thought) was the original point of this thread: there are certain mathematical realities involved in a GPA that cannot be overcome by an "upward trend". I read the OP as saying that after a certain point, even straight A's are not going to suddenly bump your GPA up a significant amount. This is, despite some of the more strident posts here, a reality.

Every so often a thread pops up here that is some variant of, "I got a 2.0 my freshman year, and Bs and Cs my sophomore year, do I have a chance?" Invariably there are 2-3 responses that say, "Just show an upward trend and you can do it!" People can and do come back from setbacks, but most don't, and the optimism that pervades this forum is, in my mind, unwarranted and misleading. That's what I was responding to, and I think my point there is valid.

But at that rate, yeah it may not get you into HMS or a top school, but if you turn things around there is still a chance that a state school especially one that isn't highly ranked will still give you a chance if you've done a postbac and other things to show that you've matured and changed. I am not going to give anecdotes because that's pointless. What I will say is that like L2D I believe that there is a reason that SMP programs are becoming more popular at many universities. Just as far back as 10 years ago, I am willing to bet that SMP programs were not really all that well known. Hell SDN wasn't even around 10 years ago. But in the past several years several schools have picked up on starting SMP and postbac programs to help people who may have the potential to be good doctors but who've may have had trouble in school or with their numbers. It's not longer as cut and dry as it used to be in the past. Schools are no longer looking solely at GPA/MCAT as black and white numbers without shades of gray.

One only needs to look at MDapps (granted that's a small population size) to see what I'm talking about. Granted the statistical chances of them getting in a lot of places is less, it doesn't mean its completely out altogether.

 

[gujuDoc]

The idea that a person with a 3.2 is more impressive than one with a 3.8 a little far fetched. Sure the string of As through 3rd and 4th year help but in no way is that more impressive than the person who has done it all along.

I have to agree that it is not all about the total GPA. A good string of grades can overcome poor past performance. If that was not the case I would have never gotten into medical school.

There is no doubt that someone with a 3.8 will have more options if all else is equal with the 3.2 and 3.8. But the point is not which one will have more options so much as whether the one with a 3.2 is shot dead in the water for not having that 3.8 as well. The fact is they will still have a shot at lower tier schools and state schools if they show an improvement and all else is equal. That's all. The process is subjective and no longer a numbers only game as it probably was 20 years ago when our parents and the older generation was in med school.

 

[notdeadyet]

If you GPA shows you are fairly competent, worry more about distinguishing yourself with your experiences, a 3.8 GPA is not that unique.

Amen to that. Premeds tend to be very GPA/MCAT focused. They ignore the fact that there are lots of students out there with strong grades and strong MCAT. There's something to be said for standing out from the crowd.

Given the option of pushing a button and getting an extra 0.2 GPA points but losing the aspects of my app that make me stand out, I wouldn't do it.

 

[LeafNinja]

Getting a high GPA earlier in life does not mean you are "smarter" or "harder-working", at least inherently.

I got cumulative 2.8 in my first year of college. Then I went to community college for 2 years and got all A's and B's and brought it up to a 3.1. Then I transferred to a university and got straight A's ever since then.

So I have a D- in poetry and a C+ in Biology 101 from 5 years ago, so what? I have all A's in gen chem, gen. bio, o-chem, physics, physiology, evolution, genetics....

That's a pretty strong upward trend I would say. And in the end, I'm still going to do just as well or better on the MCAT as the person who got a cumulative 4.0.

That's right, I busted my ass to bring a 2.8 up to a 3.6. And I did it by getting A's in the hardest classes. That means I performed better in the harder classes than someone with a 3.6 spread out over all their college courses!

Alright good for you brian. I will send you an e-cookie when I have time to bake some.

Anyways, your comparison deserves commendation because you improved so well.

However, your comparison to MY RESPONSE is poor, because notice I said an 1 GPA increase to 3.25 compared to a 3.85. If everything else is the same, the 3.85 will get in. Once again, why wouldn't they take the 3.85? Because he hasn't "shown as big improvement?" That's just because he wasn't as big of a failure in the beginning. the end

 

[emgirl]

I had a 3.3 sci, 3.5 overall from undergrad and boosted it to 3.65 (for both) after 4 quarters of fulltime postbac (a little over a year in realtime). It didn't do wonders for my overall gpa but I feel way more confident applying with a 3.65 sci compared to a 3.3. I don't think it takes too much time to improve your grades (though it obviously depends on what kind of hole you are digging yourself out of)- for some people like me when you are borderline/low, every .1 increase helps. I feel better going in with an "average accepted gpa" than one that is .2-.3 points below it. I've known people that got in with 3.3s so who knows if my post-bac was worth it. I just didn't mind spending an extra 1.5 years on a postbac to make myself more competitive. If you are trying to bring up a 2.0 that may take a whole extra degree though so that is definitely a time investment either way. I don't regret doing my postbac though.

 

[emgirl]

I won't disagree with you that it's unimpressive, I just don't see it as a "why bother?" situation, or one that people have no ability to recover from.

and my overall GPA did go from 3.1 to 3.3. so you're right, it doesn't go up much, but a little is better than none.

EXACTLY!

 

[dpmd]

If everything else is the same, the 3.85 will get in.

But everything else may not be the same. The one with the 3.85 might come across as a d-bag in his/her PS. The 3.25 might have some excellent letters. Maybe they both get an interview and the 3.85 has zero communications skills, or maybe they just like the 3.25 guy/gal better. Once again, there are no guarantees. Subjective things play a big role in this process.

 

[Kikaku21]

But everything else may not be the same. The one with the 3.85 might come across as a d-bag in his/her PS. The 3.25 might have some excellent letters. Maybe they both get an interview and the 3.85 has zero communications skills, or maybe they just like the 3.25 guy/gal better. Once again, there are no guarantees. Subjective things play a big role in this process.

Maybe this, maybe that. You don't really think that these are the primary drivers do you? The NUMBERS are the primary drivers... Honestly, I think in the vary majority of situations, the ECs don't have a huge effect. LORs probably don't either, unless someone slams you.

 

[Law2Doc]

Maybe this, maybe that. You don't really think that these are the primary drivers do you? The NUMBERS are the primary drivers... Honestly, I think in the vary majority of situations, the ECs don't have a huge effect. LORs probably don't either, unless someone slams you.

Numbers are important, but non-numbers are also important. When you get to med school you will see that there is a pretty good range of numerical stats, and that there will be quite a few people who are there with the help of nonnumerical things. For the not insignificant number of people who get into med school with stats below the school's average, things like ECs had a huge effect. If a school wanted to fill its ranks with simply the highest numerical stats it could get, the average GPA for matriculants would be a whole lot higher than the ones listed in the MSAR.

 

[dpmd]

The only valid comparison you can make is between the application you have currently versus the one that you can achieve by making changes. You with a better application has a better chance of getting in than you with a worse application (be it GPA, MCAT, EC's, whatever). If you want to improve your chances, you work on whatever part of your application you can (even if you can't change the numbers by much). I don't know why there are pre-meds arguing with this concept, when you haven't come out the other side of the process. You can't compare two different applicants because they are different. Law2Doc is correct about the variability of the numbers people in your med school will have. Perhaps you would prefer we advise people with lower numbers to just give up, so that your own chances would improve?

 

[Kikaku21]

Numbers are important, but non-numbers are also important. When you get to med school you will see that there is a pretty good range of numerical stats, and that there will be quite a few people who are there with the help of nonnumerical things. For the not insignificant number of people who get into med school with stats below the school's average, things like ECs had a huge effect. If a school wanted to fill its ranks with simply the highest numerical stats it could get, the average GPA for matriculants would be a whole lot higher than the ones listed in the MSAR.

Are you sure about that? Lets consider the 2005 admissions. 37,373 people applied to medical school and 17,003 were admitted, which is about 45.5%. Now we have 2 distributions here-- ACCEPTED and NOTACCEPTED. We know the mean and standard deviation of each. NOTACCEPTED ~ (3.48, 0.26) and ACCEPTED ~ (3.63, 0.28) We have been talking about pulling a 3.0 up to a 3.3, so lets consider where a 3.3 gets you.

Assuming a Normal distribution: A 3.3 places you at the 30.85 percentile of the NOTACCEPTED distribution and the 11.92 percentile of the ACCEPTED distribution (Using the normal CDF function). Given our N values above we know that in 2005, about 11530 people applied with < 3.30 and about 2028 got in. So about 17.6% is the closest estimate I have offhand for your probablility of getting in with 3.30 or less. Now this estimate is actually GENEROUS, because I assume that the distributions are normal. In the case of NOTACCEPTED this may be true, but in the case of ACCEPTED, the distribution is surely skewed right, because a school accepts more 4.0s than 2.9s. So the real answer is less than 17.6%-- You're right, it happens, but its not THAT likely... Certainly not an all encompassing phenomena. At the very least, if I were one of these people, I'd apply DO.

 

[Law2Doc]

Are you sure about that? Lets consider the 2005 admissions. 37,373 people applied to medical school and 17,003 were admitted, which is about 45.5%. Now we have 2 distributions here-- ACCEPTED and NOTACCEPTED. We know the mean and standard deviation of each. NOTACCEPTED ~ (3.48, 0.26) and ACCEPTED ~ (3.63, 0.28) We have been talking about pulling a 3.0 up to a 3.3, so lets consider where a 3.3 gets you.

Assuming a Normal distribution: A 3.3 places you at the 30.85 percentile of the NOTACCEPTED distribution and the 11.92 percentile of the ACCEPTED distribution (Using the normal CDF function). Given our N values above we know that in 2005, about 11530 people applied with < 3.30 and about 2028 got in. So about 17.6% is the closest estimate I have offhand for your probablility of getting in with 3.30 or less. Now this estimate is actually GENEROUS, because I assume that the distributions are normal. In the case of NOTACCEPTED this may be true, but in the case of ACCEPTED, the distribution is surely skewed right, because a school accepts more 4.0s than 2.9s. So the real answer is less than 17.6%-- You're right, it happens, but its not THAT likely... Certainly not an all encompassing phenomena. At the very least, if I were one of these people, I'd apply DO.

I think you are spending too much time focusing in on but one factor of the application. It goes without saying that if Harvard wanted a class full of 4.0/40 students it could. It clearly doesn't. Why is that? Because there are other factors that also matter to med schools. And so too down the ranks. Assuming arguendo that you are correct that the mean of those people not accepted is a 3.48, it should be obvious that even the worst med school could fill its class with folks that have at least a 3.5. The fact that this is the average, and not the minimum, at a lot of schools indicates that clearly something besides numbers are at play. Feel free to apply DO with such stats, but in fact a lot of your MD classmates (perhaps close to half) will have GPAs below the school's average. Personally, if I was in the low 3 range, I would post a string of good grades to demonstrate ability (even if it didn't really move by GPA), do a postbac or SMP, and shoot for allo. But to each his own.

 

[Kikaku21]

No, I would prefer that you didn't immediately break out the "upward trend" argument the moment someone waves their mediocre numbers on SDN. Advise them to look at post-bacc programs or SMP clones. Trot out the usual nonsense about strong EC's and shadowing. Give the typical "A strong MCAT will help a lot". But don't pretend that a low GPA can be compensated for by getting a couple A's during your Junior year. It's better than getting C's (duh), but they don't give bonus points on your GPA just because you did better later in your college career. And there are sure as hell a lot of applicants out there who didn't tank their entire freshman year because Grandma died.

Yes.

 

[BarrySanders]

Thank God Admissions Committees are making decisions on applicants instead of the All-Knowing Pre-Meds.

 

[Kikaku21]

Thank God Admissions Committees are making decisions on applicants instead of the All-Knowing Pre-Meds.

Thank you for this extremely unhelpful comment.

 

[Funky]

No, I would prefer that you didn't immediately break out the "upward trend" argument the moment someone waves their mediocre numbers on SDN. Advise them to look at post-bacc programs or SMP clones. Trot out the usual nonsense about strong EC's and shadowing. Give the typical "A strong MCAT will help a lot". But don't pretend that a low GPA can be compensated for by getting a couple A's during your Junior year. It's better than getting C's (duh), but they don't give bonus points on your GPA just because you did better later in your college career. And there are sure as hell a lot of applicants out there who didn't tank their entire freshman year because Grandma died.

and the SDNy goes to,

Tired, in the category of best post of the thread.

 

[DoctorFunk]

and the SDNy goes to,

Tired, in the category of best post of the thread.

I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaaaatching you...........

 

[BarrySanders]

Thank you for this extremely unhelpful comment.

It's way more helpful than anything you or any other nay-sayers have said. My comments were not directed at people like Law2doc just to name someone off the top of my head. Who are we to tell someone whether or not they should apply to medical school? Who are we to say the importance of certain factors in the admissions process. No premed knows how much weight is given to aspects of an application. The process is much more individualistic and case by case basis than people would like to think. Like Law2doc said, there are plenty of people with 3.8 - 4.0 gpas and 32+ MCAT scores to make up entire med school classes, but that is not the makeup of med school classes. Premeds are not sitting in a position to predict who will get in and who will not. The process is not transparent. And to think that things like LOR's and EC's don't matter is the antithesis of what most people that know what they are talking about would say. So, I think my comment was much more helpful than any of your comments because if people really need to know if they have a real chance in a given application cycle, then they are much better off asking someone involved in medical school admissions than someone who doesnt have the slightest idea what they are talking about.