The Myth of Improving a GPA.

[scgroat]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can feel me brain shrinking as I read these terrible posts. Do you people simply like to argue moot points? Well, then keep it up I guess. This whole terrible thread can be summed up in a few sentences. GPA is important, but it's not everything. Having a life and learning humility from time to time is an important part of being a good doctor. You can learn this without messing up, but it's one of the few positive effects of messing up. Going into medicine for self-aggrandizement will make you old and bitter. Being combative and pompous will bite you in the asp when you realize that you're not the smartest person in the world. Gotta go, my head hurts from this nonsense!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LeafNinja]

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.

"everything else won't be the same..." - oo....rly? ORLY??

Yes, but assuming everything else WAS the same. That is how you determine effects of a component, in this case GPA. Keep other stuff the same, and alter 1 thing. I agree with you, this is a very subjective process.

 

[LeafNinja]

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.

Everyone read this.

 

[gujuDoc]

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.

Did you even read the post you quoted?? I'm not disputing a 3.85 will win out if all else is equal. I just said that someone with a 3.25 and a 35 can get in somewhere in the states not that they'd get as many acceptances as the 3.85. Maybe with an upward trend but more likely after doing a postbac and/or SMP program.

Secondly, I asked the question of whether you were looking at each case in context. A lot of people with lower GPAs are not people who are straight out of college people but people who are career changers and didn't care about school previously because they never saw medicine in their future but then came back after years out of school and decided on medicine.

 

[scgroat]

Sorry to start controversy, but I'd put my subpar GPA up against the typical 3.85 from a state school any day of the week. Does nobody seem to realize that certain schools weigh GPAs? I've taken courses at a topnotch school, an average state school, and community college. I learned more at CC because I taught myself, but it was certainly easier. As for the 3.85 at Podunk U, I can promise you the low 3 GPA at a number of schools kicks its ass. Hands down, no comparison! If, however, you go to an easier school, there's no need to fret. You can always rely on the almighty validator...the MCAT. As for stupid GPA comparisons, I'm sick of hearing them because they mean nothing. Sure, find your own way to weigh a GPA, but do it on your own time.

 

[rhsu84]

Sorry to start controversy, but I'd put my subpar GPA up against the typical 3.85 from a state school any day of the week. Does nobody seem to realize that certain schools weigh GPAs? I've taken courses at a topnotch school, an average state school, and community college. I learned more at CC because I taught myself, but it was certainly easier. As for the 3.85 at Podunk U, I can promise you the low 3 GPA at a number of schools kicks its ass. Hands down, no comparison! If, however, you go to an easier school, there's no need to fret. You can always rely on the almighty validator...the MCAT. As for stupid GPA comparisons, I'm sick of hearing them because they mean nothing. Sure, find your own way to weigh a GPA, but do it on your own time.

Haha, I know somebody who took 300 level Genetics the same time as me, at a public school in the middle of nowhere (not where I went to school), and her final project (no exam) was a presentation on the Liger... with the Napoleon Dynamite theme song in the background. She got an A. I woulda gotten an A, too, if that was my Genetics course.

 

[gujuDoc]

Sorry to start controversy, but I'd put my subpar GPA up against the typical 3.85 from a state school any day of the week. Does nobody seem to realize that certain schools weigh GPAs? I've taken courses at a topnotch school, an average state school, and community college. I learned more at CC because I taught myself, but it was certainly easier. As for the 3.85 at Podunk U, I can promise you the low 3 GPA at a number of schools kicks its ass. Hands down, no comparison! If, however, you go to an easier school, there's no need to fret. You can always rely on the almighty validator...the MCAT. As for stupid GPA comparisons, I'm sick of hearing them because they mean nothing. Sure, find your own way to weigh a GPA, but do it on your own time.

Someone sounds bitter. But fact of the matter is if all else is equal like MCAT scores and everything else, the 3.85 from no name school would still probably win out over the 3.25 from a top school.

But yeah the MCAT is there for a reason.. Its hard to predict what an admissions committee will want because the process is so subjective.

 

[Funky]

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

check out the title

 

[gujuDoc]

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.

Its like you read the first sentence of my post and then your brain stopped functioning. You'll find that if you read the rest of my post, you'll see that I'm not disagreeing with you at all. All I stated was that we don't have the whole story. In other words, are we talking about two applicants that are on the same playing field in the other aspects of their application??? Or are we talking about someone who's done years of postbac or SMP programs to get a 4.0 in a second degree or masters program with a strong MCAT score and other things good?? Also, did you factor into account that many people that get into med school with lower trends are people who've been career changers?? that's what the rest of my post said.. Meaning GPA is only one bit of information but without the rest of the story how can determine whether its the 3.25 or 3.8 that will be picked. A 3.85 with a 30 MCAT and zero extracurriculars is unlikely to be picked over a 3.25 with a 35 MCAT who may have had tons of clinical experience in a related medical field or been in a different field and then came back at a later age to do medicine.

In other words, I was not arguing the upward trend argument. I was arguing the we don't have all the facts of the full profile. But if the full profile were equal on other areas besides the GPA issue, then yes the 3.85 will win. I didn't argue that at all. its you who is finding argument wher there is none.

P.S. Don't take this as me being angry because I'm not. I'm just trying to get my point across.

 

[Kikaku21]

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.

What are you talking about? If you look at the data, it is plain to see that GPA and MCAT are the most important things. Yes there are 3.9, 41S that get rejected-- and yes there are 3.0 27N who get in. There are outliers. The process is not transparent and we CAN look at the data and EASILY determine the major drivers.

You look at this very same data and tell me that its a nebulous black box. For a single school I agree, there is a large random component. Overall, the best predictors are GPA and MCAT. End of story. So to beat a dead horse, my arguement is that you SHOULD NOT GIVE PEOPLE FALSE HOPE BY TELLING THEM TO TAKE A COUPLE OF CLASSES TO IMPROVE THEIR GPA FROM A 3.0 TO A 3.3. Please review Tired's post above for the essense of this. I am just looking at the numbers realistically. It does not a take an admissions specialist to do this anymore than you need a preist to interpret the bible.

 

[DoctorFunk]

check out the title

Oh, snap! I guess it's on then.

 

[SunshineNYC]

Yes, it would be naive to say that the numbers don't matter, but at least from my experience in talking with admissions committees, they really do look at more than just the one GPA number. In my case, I had screwed up my freshman and sophomore years and my overall undergrad GPA was a 2.98. I then did two years of post-bac work making mostly A's (I wasn't pre-med in undergrad though, so all of my post-bac work was my science courses, so my science GPA was way up there) and my overall GPA moved up only to a 3.1 about. It still is low, yes, but when they look at the trend of C's and B's to pretty much all A's it is something they notice. Especially since the A's were in the required courses. So, when filling out many of those secondaries where you have to list the pre-med requirements and there are A's in organic, physics, bio, anatomy, computer science, english or whatever they list for you to fill out, it looks pretty good on paper and they notice that.

Not ONE school that rejected me said it was based on any of my scores. And I have been accepted to one school (DO) and am on the waiting list at another (MD). So, even with my undergrad 2.98 GPA and overal 3.1 this was possible.

Write a really interesting, well thought out personal statement, talk about how you've improved and grown and really sell yourself in the way that you are ready for med school course work despite those early grades. They take a gamble on you and they need to be convinced that you will not fail or drop out. Find a way to prove it to them, and I think that doing well in difficult post-bac coursework is one way to do it. Good luck, and if your GPA is lower, cast a wide net and apply to many schools. I'm glad I did.

 

[MSCMD]

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.

I think you underestimate the power of ECs and LORs. Read my earlier post. Grandma definitely did not die in my case and like I mentioned earlier, I never had to explain my GPA. I never believed it before this cycle but it is definitely not a numbers game. 3.9 without my ECs will not have gotten me into hopkins. A 3.45 with my ECs did. A 3.9 is not unique, it is the average at JHU. my ECs were. I say if you are fairly competent, let your ECs speak.

 

[Nasrudin]

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.

Snap back to reality! Good discussion OP, interesting topic. I'm trying to pull a 2.7 up into the chuck-it-from-the-cheap-seats range for allopathic schools and am finishing up a 3-4 year stint of classes--around 10-12 units per semester...the mathematics of improvement have burnt to ashes and I'm looking for a reason to just move on to other aspects of my application. So for me your topic is right on. Its good to look at process of gpa damage control from a numerical standpoint in order to prioritize one's activities into things that can actually impact one's chances.

 

[undrcovrgunner]

You might think that, but in fact a 3.3 after a lengthy postbac of all A's tends to get you into med school more often than not. The average in allo med is a 3.5 precisely because a good chunk of the matriculants will have below that. FWIW, someone coming into med school with years of straight A's is perceived as consideration worthy even if they dug themselves a bit of a hole in earlier years. Many schools prefer a 3.3 with such a lengthy upward trend over someone with a 3.5 where their GPA has steadilly declined over their college years.

Exactly. Most med schools tend to assess trends instead of looking just at the average.

 

[Gospe1]

Back to the upward trend.
Its clear to me that a 3.85 all the way through college is better than a 3.5 by improvement. It shows that a 3.85 did better in school, period. The one thing the upward trend shows is that the person's got guts. There is no guarantee that the 3.85 guy, if faced with a challenge of proportional magnitude, can deal with it as well as the 3.5 dude.

However, i do frown upon the "bringing it up a little doesn't really matter" comments. Yes, you are right about medical schools probably not giving that much of a hoot from if you improve from 3.4 to 3.5. However, there is personal satisfaction in improvement and the knowledge that you didn't just give up because something bad happened. Even if this person does not get into medical school, he will be sure to conquer a lot of obstacles in the future.

 

[juleswinfield]

I'm 28 so I've had some time to hang out in the real world and work. Let me tell you this, if everything else was handled in the muddled information vacuum that is med school admissions, not a d@mn thing would get done. The med school admissions process is one of the worst things I've ever encountered. But....it's also one of the best.

I think the process is kept vague and secret is because everyone entering it just wants a formula for success. Med school requires good smarts. But it requires a lot of other things too...like maturity, life experience, diverse points of views. There are as many different types of docs as there are patients. Will the same cookie cutter 3.8/35 student fit in with all of them? Nope.

Here are my stats, of which I'm unashamed:

3.1 Overall/2.83 BCMP, 33M, Tulane C/O 2001

Why was my gpa low in undergrad? Well, there were a couple of things:
#1 - I was a chemical engineering major, not a psych major
#2 - I was a varsity level athlete for a year. I ate,slept, and breathed rowing. I slept through most of my classes and was too tired to study. The result - a 2.6 and a 2.4 for those semesters
#3 - I had mono for an entire semester, result was a generous 2.9 for that semester
#4 - I got drunk A LOT.

Why wasn't my MCAT higher?
#1 - I had to start up a portion of a chemical plant in Puerto Rico the sunday through thursday of the week leading up to the MCAT.
#2 - The proctors called time 8 minutes too early on one of the sections

Would I change any of it? Not one bit, even the mono had an upside as it drove me to rowing. And being a varsity-level athlete changed my life.

Others have mentioned maturity and focus as the reasons that people have done well in school. I say this is partially true. Yes you need to have focus and discipline to get a 4.0/45, but if you spend all of your time in the library, how are you going to relate to a patient who, at the end of the day, just needs some reassurance because they're scared that you're operating on them tomorrow?

Did my poor numbers hurt me in the application process. YOU BET THEY DID! I couldn't even get into my state school. But I did get in somewhere. The bottom line seems to be, if you want to get in, be the best possible candidate that you can....both with the tangible criteria like gpa and mcat and with the intangibles like personality, drive, and optimism.

You haven't failed until you quit.

 

[trustwomen]

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.

If anyone was looking for an example of a strawman argument, this is it.

I don't think anyone would advise or has advised people that "a couple of As" during your junior year can compensate for a bad GPA. In fact, the "encouraging" advice I have seen on these kinds of threads is very much like what you are describing in the bolded portion. Nor has anyone stated that they give "bonus points on your GPA" because of an upward trend, simply that your low GPA becomes less of a liability when there is a clear and sustained strong performance at the end (I'd say minimum two years' worth).

What I, at least, have been saying is this: with enough straight As, you can come back from anything. "Enough" will vary depending on your past history and how bad those grades were. I feel confident in stating that you would not need more than 4 years, full-time, of 3.7+, no matter what your academic history. (Now, this will be enough to compensate for a bad GPA, but not any other parts of your application that might be lacking). Most people will probably be able to "get away with" two full-time years at a 3.8+, with a strong MCAT, before applying (meaning a third good year in progress during your app year). And, of course, your prereqs must be taken or retaken during your "strong years".

Many, maybe even most people will not be willing (or able) to come back from a bad GPA by sacrificing that much time and effort, and by achieving those grades for so long. But some will. To dismiss anyone's chances out of hand, especially on an internet forum when the only information you really have is the fact that they GOT bad grades, is hasty and unhelpful.

 

[45408]

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.

You're forgetting that a lot of us aren't pre-med, and med students can be on the admissions committee.

 

[45408]

If anyone was looking for an example of a strawman argument, this is it.

Are you kidding? Tired is right on the money. I can't even count how many times people will just say "Well, rock the MCAT, and you'll be fine!" And if I win the lottery, I'll be a millionaire!

 

[45408]

So why are you disagreeing with me when you're basically saying the same thing, just with a nicer "positive" spin?


Oh, now I get it. You feel like I'm being negative and "dismissing [people's] chances out of hand". Well, if you want to be one of the many posters here who are willing to give positive input regardless of the reality of their situation, more power to you. You have a lot of company.

C'mon, how long have you been on SDN? This is the permanent modus operandi of this site.

 

[koercive]

i don't know if its been mentioned in this thread, but for increasing your gpa,

once it starts going up and up , the slower your gpa will go up . meaning an A when you're at a 3.2 will show , but once you bring it up to say a 3.4, it will increase at a slower rate

 

[evade]

You're forgetting that a lot of us aren't pre-med, and med students can be on the admissions committee.

That's a point that bears repeating!

 

[scgroat]

Sorry for the negativity the other night. The overall mood, however, certainly seems to have improved. Interesting discussions!

 

[BarrySanders]

yeah but it would be obvious to point out the medical students that are on admissoins committees by the lack of pessimism in their comments. More than likely, if a med student has those "premed" views, they won't make the admissions committee.

 

[Kalu123]

Just how much attention does a huge upward trend in GPA generate?

 

[Maxprime]

My thoughts:

1) Low GPA'ers have to be reasonable with themselves. A GPA is 4 years of work on multiple subjects and describes your maturity, ability to juggle your life's schedule, the list goes on and on. I have a very low GPA and still value it a great deal as an marker for what kind of student you are.

2) It is not a death sentence - but you have to give the ADCOMs a reason to believe you're worth their time. If you have a similar MCAT with a lower GPA, they can't penalize the person who did everything right.

3) The upward trend thing is not crap - but it should be put into context. Comparing someone with a 3.2 all through college with someone with a 1.8 for their freshman year, then a 3.9 for the next 3 years (IMO) shows a stronger student in the latter case.

My only controversial point:
GPA's should be compared by school only when they're close. A 3.8 from MIT deserves more credit than a 3.8 from middle of nowhere U. But a 3.2 or 3.0 from MIT is nowhere close to a high GPA at any well-known school. The pre-meds I know that go to Ivies usually say they get, at most, 0.1 GPA points of credit for being from their school.

 

[mindquick]

these days most med schools have become so competitive that you will need "good everything" to get in. there are so many applicants with >3.8GPA, >35MCAT, good LORs, volunteer, clinical, and research experience, that med schools can fill all their slots with these kind of people and not even consider someone with a 3.3GPA, no matter how good their other stuff is. i don't even know if they look at "upward trend" unless you do a post-bac, in which case they have separate post-bac and undergrad grades. a 4.0 in post-bac is going to give you a good shot even if your undergrad GPA is only 2.9 or something.

 

[surfstarj]

failure can be a great tool for personal growth.. not everyone is perfect all of the time.. learning from your mistakes is a good thing.

...and showing that you learned from your mistakes via a perfect or near-perfect post-bacc or graduate record is an even better thing.

true story: current Top 3 school med student I know. Graduated with a 3.0 uGPA. Took the pre-reqs combined last semester senior year + one extra year after graduating (not even enrolled in a formal post-bacc or grad program but as an "extramural student" or something). The GPA didn't improve too much, but getting a 4.0 for all of those classes including orgo and some advanced sciences definitely helped.

Beating the crap out of the MCAT also settles a lot of the "but are they capable?" doubts that adcoms experience with low GPA candidates.

 

[jon stewart]

well since we are talking gpa....

how screwed am i with a 3.4 bcpm and a 3.5 overall? no mcat yet, taking it mid next year. At least thats the plan.

what gpa should one have to consider doing a post-bac or masters?

 

[postbacker]

well since we are talking gpa....

how screwed am i with a 3.4 bcpm and a 3.5 overall? no mcat yet, taking it mid next year. At least thats the plan.

what gpa should one have to consider doing a post-bac or masters?

Take the MCAT...30+ apply broadly...if no luck, consider an SMP...

 

[Nasem]

these days most med schools have become so competitive that you will need "good everything" to get in. there are so many applicants with >3.8GPA, >35MCAT, good LORs, volunteer, clinical, and research experience, that med schools can fill all their slots with these kind of people and not even consider someone with a 3.3GPA, no matter how good their other stuff is. i don't even know if they look at "upward trend" unless you do a post-bac, in which case they have separate post-bac and undergrad grades. a 4.0 in post-bac is going to give you a good shot even if your undergrad GPA is only 2.9 or something.

I thought post-bacc and undergrad GPA are lump summed together under one category ???

 

[DocCallaway]

I think an example of an ideal upward trend would be like

Freshmen---->3.3
Sopho------->3.7
Junior------->4.0

For about a 3.7 overall

 

[mindquick]

I think an example of an ideal upward trend would be like

Freshmen---->3.3
Sopho------->3.7
Junior------->4.0

For about a 3.7 overall

is there any evidence that adcoms even look at this "upward trend" except in the rare case that you have 2 "all-else-equal" applicants?

 

[TheRealMD]

is there any evidence that adcoms even look at this "upward trend" except in the rare case that you have 2 "all-else-equal" applicants?

I would think applicants with lower GPAs that still get into med school tend to have "upward trends". It's not the same compared to someone who's had the same GPA all 3-4 years.

 

[Revenant]

Hit a 3.4-3.6+, do well on the MCAT.

Go below a 3.4 and your chances significantly decrease regardless of upward trend, EC's, excuses, etc. etc.

 

[Revenant]

I'm at a 3.06 after my freshman year (first year was full of programming and was a freaking gauntlet). This year is make or break. Either I raise it with consistently A grades or game over. I think people are being unrealistic giving people hope (destructive) for someone going "I have a 2.6 going into senior year can I get in if I try really hard?"

 

[pakbabydoll]

You guys put too much faith in numbers alone. Have not you been reading some other post here or checking out the MD applications site?
There are people there whose GPA's are High 3.7+ with MCAT score of 30+ still only one or two schools accepted them. On the other hand my friend Mike GPA 3.2, MCAT 30 got in to Nova Southeastern University. He volunteered like maybe 100 hours at an ER however he had excellent community service. 312+ hours at local shelters. He applied to both Medical Schools and Pharmacy Schools he did not get in to Pharmacy school (His PCAT was 22, 25 is average) but he got in to medical school.
GPA, and MCAT is not everything.

 

[jon stewart]

You guys put too much faith in numbers alone. Have not you been reading some other post here or checking out the MD applications site?
There are people there whose GPA's are High 3.7+ with MCAT score of 30+ still only one or two schools accepted them. On the other hand my friend Mike GPA 3.2, MCAT 30 got in to Nova Southeastern University. He volunteered like maybe 100 hours at an ER however he had excellent community service. 312+ hours at local shelters. He applied to both Medical Schools and Pharmacy Schools he did not get in to Pharmacy school (His PCAT was 22, 25 is average) but he got in to medical school.
GPA, and MCAT is not everything.

isnt that a DO schoool? if it is then its no surprise, but he did have a good mcat score. Arnt DO scools way more lenient on lower gpas and mcats in general?

 

[154465]

Hey guys, classes started last week...what did I miss?

A flame war you say?

DAMN IT ALL, I LOVE TAKING PART IN THOSE! Who wants to challenge me to fisticuffs?

 

[mindquick]

yeah it's a DO school. it's pretty common with those stats to get into DO schools, but MD schools often screen you by multiplying your GPA with your MCAT score. for the rest they will start looking at the other stuff on the app, but you will need to get past the screening part first. to me, it still seems like a numbers game, and for residency it will continue to be a numbers game.

 

[kronickm]

Just thought I would give you some real life stats to examine (from a non-trad keep in mind).

Undergrad:
Freshman Year: 2.178 (with an F in biology)
Sophomore Year: 2.538
Junior Year: 3.4 (A- in Forensic Chm...only other sci class)
Senior Year: 3.93
Overall Undergrad GPA: 3.04

two year break.

Post Bac Year 1: 4.0 (Chm 1 and 2 and Phys 1 and 2)
Post Bac Year 2: 4.0 (Bio 1 and O. Chm 1..2's are in progress)

Giving me a total undergrad GPA of 3.19

However, I now have a strong upward trend, I have shown that I can handle science classes. I can perhaps better explain away my first two years of undergrad with now four solid years of good grades.

On top of that I have a great deal of clinical and volunteer experience. I have an upcoming poster presentation at a fairly major medical conference as the primary author, with the abstract published in the supplement to a major journal. And a couple minor publications in a non-medical field.

With a solid MCAT I might have a shot. On top of that I will be applying first through some linkages with my post-bac giving me an even better shot at it.

Make of that what you will.

 

[mindquick]

kronickm, you're doing a post-bacc, so the same rules do not apply. you get two separate grades (really impressive btw) whereas others only get one grade. the "upward trend" thing applies to undergrads who start out bad and get 4.0 the year they apply, with a total GPA of say 3.3... well from what i've seen it won't be different from any other 3.3GPA no matter how they got it. the "upward trend" thing may not mean anything to the adcom except as a tiebreaker when all else is equal.

 

[postbacker]

kronickm, you're doing a post-bacc, so the same rules do not apply. you get two separate grades (really impressive btw) whereas others only get one grade. the "upward trend" thing applies to undergrads who start out bad and get 4.0 the year they apply, with a total GPA of say 3.3... well from what i've seen it won't be different from any other 3.3GPA no matter how they got it. the "upward trend" thing may not mean anything to the adcom except as a tiebreaker when all else is equal.

Actually, aren't post bacc grades rolled into the UG GPA and not treated separately in AMCAS? And any upward trends can be seen in the year by year GPA breakdown - and the post bacc grades get put into a 5th year - at least I think this is how AMCAS reports it (not yet an applicant myself).

I just wonder how many adcoms really look at the trends and give "brownie points" - I am sure some do - but it just doesn't seem that many do because ultimately a low 3.X is a low 3.X no matter how someone got there...

 

[pakbabydoll]

isnt that a DO schoool? if it is then its no surprise, but he did have a good mcat score. Arnt DO scools way more lenient on lower gpas and mcats in general?

if you say so, however DO students have to fight for it as well. Some times here on pre- allo you guys treat DO schools like baby schools but DO students can fight for the same residencies as MD students.
If many people here who wasted there time getting a post- bac and stuff just went to DO school there time would be much better served.
I have an another example too.
My dad's friends son got in to USF. He had an amazing GPA 3.75 but his MCAT scores were blah. He just started this fall.

 

[jon stewart]

yea i know that they can take usmle also. While its not impossible to get into md residences its not exactly a cake walk.

i actually know a ms3 at des moines (on rotations now), and when he came to one of my classes this summer all i can say was that he was brilliant, nice and talked to me about med school etc. He was bright and had a great personality. But i also know a couple of pre meds who......lets just say that they cant cope with school as it is. Not as in their classes are too hard, they are just too lazy and spoiled (their parents are loaded and all they do is drive around in their fancy cars going shopping from town to town and outlets.Their gpa's aren't too bad i think around 3.3ish overall, idk about bcpm. They figure that that they can continue their ways and still go to med school since they know that DO schools are less competitive and accept lower stats. They dont even care about grades, they will just do the bare minimum. Its these people that question when i hear DO. Just my experiences. But i guess in the end if they are doctor materials then they will be doctors. If its going to start a flame war then so be it. Nasa heat shield on! Anyone know any other students/friends who are like this?

 

[MWK]

I was a GPA "improver". I started out Mech E, switched to Chem E, and then finally settled on Chem/Bio double, so I've always had plenty of science on there:

1st Semester: 3.4
2nd Semester: 3.0
3rd Semester: 3.2
4th Semester: 3.38

1/2 through college, with ~90 credits in the bank, I was on about a 3.35 GPA, BCPM there too. All As and B's, no C's.

Junior year I got my butt in gear, started taking the 300+ level bio's and chem's and:
5th semester: 4.0
6th semester: 3.94
summer: 4.0

I added 39/40 A credits to my application. My GPA and BPCM GPA both shot up to 3.55. During my interview last week, I asked them if my GPA was a red flag at all and my interviewer started laughing and saying with that trend, not at all. They could tell I was serious from then on.


A NOTE TO GPA IMPROVERS:

Dont ever let it drop again....once you push the bar to the 3.9+ stratosphere, do not get any more 3.5s or 3.6s, you've got to keep it up. They can't see regression.

 

[TheRealMD]

Actually, aren't post bacc grades rolled into the UG GPA and not treated separately in AMCAS? And any upward trends can be seen in the year by year GPA breakdown - and the post bacc grades get put into a 5th year - at least I think this is how AMCAS reports it (not yet an applicant myself).

I just wonder how many adcoms really look at the trends and give "brownie points" - I am sure some do - but it just doesn't seem that many do because ultimately a low 3.X is a low 3.X no matter how someone got there...

They are broken apart if you take a look at the printout AMCAS generates for you.

 

[postbacker]

They are broken apart if you take a look at the printout AMCAS generates for you.

But aren't the post bacc grades themselves factored into the undergrad overall GPA? That is what i have always heard...

 

[Nasem]

They are broken apart if you take a look at the printout AMCAS generates for you.

Im confused as well....
So, my undergrad is like this
-2000-2004 (B.S im computer science)

-took 3 years off

-January2007 - may2009 (informal post-bacc at local university),

are you saying Im going to get 2 seperate columns one from 2000-2004 and the other 2007-2009 ???