The REAL Matriculant GPA and MCAT Averages

[chad5871]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I have seen quite a few posts recently talking about how the average GPA and MCAT for matriculants are somewhere like 3.8 and 33, and I thought to myself that this couldn't be true. I did a quick search and found the averages of students who MATRICULATED to medical school in 2007.

Average Overall GPA: 3.65
Average Science GPA: 3.59
Overall Average MCAT: 30.8/P (PS: 10.3/VR: 9.9/BS: 10.6)
(Source)

Don't forget that applicants with extremely high MCAT scores and GPAs will drive these numbers up slightly (i.e. there are some people with 40+ MCATs and 4.0 GPAs that will skew the numbers upwards). Also, if you're looking at the MSAR, they report the median numbers for all students accepted at a school, not just matriculants. This also leads to a higher reported number.

 

[UVAbme2009]

The MSAR median numbers are around 0.05 to 0.08 higher than the mean reported by the schools. The median number is a better way to guage where you stand.

 

[chad5871]

The MSAR median numbers are around 0.05 to 0.08 higher than the mean reported by the schools. The median number is a better way to guage where you stand.

That is true. But 9 times out of 10 on the forum, I hear people say "average" even if they mean median.

 

[LikeClockWork]

Well that makes me feel a lot better actually. Thanks for posting this!

 

[DrBowtie]

So I have seen quite a few posts recently talking about how the average GPA and MCAT for matriculants are somewhere like 3.8 and 33, and I thought to myself that this couldn't be true. I did a quick search and found the averages of students who MATRICULATED to medical school in 2007.

Average Overall GPA: 3.65
Average Science GPA: 3.59
Overall Average MCAT: 30.8/P (PS: 10.3/VR: 9.9/BS: 10.6)
(Source)

Don't forget that applicants with extremely high MCAT scores and GPAs will drive these numbers up slightly (i.e. there are some people with 40+ MCATs and 4.0 GPAs that will skew the numbers upwards). Also, if you're looking at the MSAR, they report the median numbers for all students accepted at a school, not just matriculants. This also leads to a higher reported number.

I'd contend that the mean GPA is probably lower than the median since the likely hood for an outlier is higher on the lower end of the scale. 3.65-4.0 is a .35 gap and there are people who get in below 3.2 (assuming a bell curve at the mean).

 

[TheRealMD]

One important thing to remember is that most people will not like waiting until after May 15th to get in somewhere. Having someone get in right before orientation is different from getting in around March/April or October/November.

 

[flaahless]

One important thing to remember is that most people will not like waiting until after May 15th to get in somewhere. Having someone get in right before orientation is different from getting in around March/April or October/November.

Word. If you apply early, then those numbers "drop" a bit due to less competition and an energized adcom.

 

[flip26]

So I have seen quite a few posts recently talking about how the average GPA and MCAT for matriculants are somewhere like 3.8 and 33, and I thought to myself that this couldn't be true. I did a quick search and found the averages of students who MATRICULATED to medical school in 2007.

Average Overall GPA: 3.65
Average Science GPA: 3.59
Overall Average MCAT: 30.8/P (PS: 10.3/VR: 9.9/BS: 10.6)
(Source)

Also, if you're looking at the MSAR, they report the Don't forget that applicants with extremely high MCAT scores and GPAs will drive these numbers up slightly (i.e. there are some people with 40+ MCATs and 4.0 GPAs that will skew the numbers upwards).median numbers for all students accepted at a school, not just matriculants. This also leads to a higher reported number.

At the other end of the scale, there are people with low numbers going to less competitive state schools (say in Louisiana and MS) where the competition is instate, only, and the numbers for their matriculants are lower than the national avg/median...unless this residency / competition situation applies to you, it probably is not too smart to take comfort in being below the national median numbers...especially if you are applying to "national" schools...

 

[redlight]

So I have seen quite a few posts recently talking about how the average GPA and MCAT for matriculants are somewhere like 3.8 and 33, and I thought to myself that this couldn't be true. I did a quick search and found the averages of students who MATRICULATED to medical school in 2007.

Average Overall GPA: 3.65
Average Science GPA: 3.59
Overall Average MCAT: 30.8/P (PS: 10.3/VR: 9.9/BS: 10.6)
(Source)

Don't forget that applicants with extremely high MCAT scores and GPAs will drive these numbers up slightly (i.e. there are some people with 40+ MCATs and 4.0 GPAs that will skew the numbers upwards). Also, if you're looking at the MSAR, they report the median numbers for all students accepted at a school, not just matriculants. This also leads to a higher reported number.

i wonder which threads you're talking about??
only individual schools have gpa and mcat means that high (3.8X gpa and 3X mcat)

 

[BigRedPremed]

The median for ORM matriculants is around 3.7/31. That's the most accurate figure.

 

[WellWornLad]

ORM?

Anyway, I'd be impressed if someone could find some SDs, or better yet, confidence intervals...

 

[RoadRunner17]

ORM?

Anyway, I'd be impressed if someone could find some SDs, or better yet, confidence intervals...

Over-Represented Minorities.

Standard deviations are listed in the Source link that the OP provided.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

So I have seen quite a few posts recently talking about how the average GPA and MCAT for matriculants are somewhere like 3.8 and 33, and I thought to myself that this couldn't be true. I did a quick search and found the averages of students who MATRICULATED to medical school in 2007.

Average Overall GPA: 3.65
Average Science GPA: 3.59
Overall Average MCAT: 30.8/P (PS: 10.3/VR: 9.9/BS: 10.6)
(Source)

Don't forget that applicants with extremely high MCAT scores and GPAs will drive these numbers up slightly (i.e. there are some people with 40+ MCATs and 4.0 GPAs that will skew the numbers upwards). Also, if you're looking at the MSAR, they report the median numbers for all students accepted at a school, not just matriculants. This also leads to a higher reported number.

Theres probably just as many 3.2 and <27 as there are 40+ and 4.0...so it probably doesnt skew it too much

 

[flaahless]

The median for ORM matriculants is around 3.7/31. That's the most accurate figure.

Obviously.

 

[scarletgirl777]

The median for ORM matriculants is around 3.7/31. That's the most accurate figure.

ORM? What does that even mean? White people are not minorities, and I somehow doubt that you specifically combined data for East and South Asians to get this number.

 

[bozz]

Median for everyone, whites blacks browns yellows etc.. is a 32 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA. Straight from MSAR 2009.

 

[TheRealMD]

Median for everyone, whites blacks browns yellows etc.. is a 32 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA. Straight from MSAR 2009.

Where do hispanics fit into that color spectrum? 😛

 

[bozz]

Where do hispanics fit into that color spectrum? 😛

brown.. maybe 😀

 

[scarletgirl777]

Median for everyone, whites blacks browns yellows etc.. is a 32 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA. Straight from MSAR 2009.

That's an applicant, not matriculant median...but yeah. I wish there were matriculant medians.

 

[flip26]

That's an applicant, not matriculant median...but yeah. I wish there were matriculant medians.

I think those ARE matriculant medians...3.7/32

Medians for all applicants would have to be much lower.

 

[copperfrog09]

I think that number is accepted applicants, which presumably is the same as matriculants

 

[nu2004]

Also, if you're looking at the MSAR, they report the median numbers for all students accepted at a school, not just matriculants. This also leads to a higher reported number.

Correct. I also made this point in this thread, though some people didn't believe me 🙄

 

[nu2004]

I think that number is accepted applicants, which presumably is the same as matriculants

not all people who are accepted matriculate. schools generally accept between 2x and 3x the number of students they intend to matriculate.

edit: wait, are you talking about nationwide? yeah, i guess accepted applicants would be pretty close to matriculants in terms of numbers... but i still think that applicants are counted multiple times across different schools, hence skewing individual schools' numbers

 

[chad5871]

I think that number is accepted applicants, which presumably is the same as matriculants

Well schools generally accept the people with high MCAT/GPA, but these applicants are accepted at various top schools and can only matriculate at one. Presumably people with lower stats won't be accepted at as many, so the applicants with higher numbers are essentially counted more than once (i.e. at more than one school) since they were accepted at more schools. The data for accepted applicants does include people who ended up denying the acceptance but the data for matriculated applicants does not.

 

[nu2004]

Well schools generally accept the people with high MCAT/GPA, but these applicants are accepted at various top schools and can only matriculate at one. Presumably people with lower stats won't be accepted at as many, so the applicants with higher numbers are essentially counted more than once (i.e. at more than one school) since they were accepted at more schools. The data for accepted applicants does include people who ended up denying the acceptance but the data for matriculated applicants does not.

There's also the possibility that people with very high numbers apply to more selective schools, and people with "average" numbers apply to various "average" schools, and thus it is impossible to know which group garners more acceptances.

I agree with the rest of your analysis, however.

 

[Excelsius]

not all people who are accepted matriculate. schools generally accept between 2x and 3x the number of students they intend to matriculate.

edit: wait, are you talking about nationwide? yeah, i guess accepted applicants would be pretty close to matriculants in terms of numbers... but i still think that applicants are counted multiple times across different schools, hence skewing individual schools' numbers

I read your thread. You are absolutely correct. What surprises me is that we have so many people that just don't get what you are trying to say. If these same people have high MCAT scores and GPAs, then we have something terribly wrong with the educational system since the lack is in two areas - critical reading and mathematical comprehension.

They say no one turns down an Ivy. Well, just think, what if someone gets accepted into TWO Ivies? He can only go to ONE..............

 

[nu2004]

I read your thread. You are absolutely correct. What surprises me is that we have so many people that just don't get what you are trying to say. If these same people have high MCAT scores and GPAs, then we have something terribly wrong with the educational system since the lack is in two areas - critical reading and mathematical comprehension.

They say no one turns down an Ivy. Well, just think, what if someone gets accepted into TWO Ivies? He can only go to ONE..............

Finally... vindication! Thanks, bud 😉

 

[scarletgirl777]

I think those ARE matriculant medians...3.7/32

Medians for all applicants would have to be much lower.

Sorry, I meant ACCEPTED not applicant. And that's always inflated because of people with high numbers with multiple acceptances.

 

[bozz]

When you apply, you're going for acceptances... so it'd be best to compare your numbers with those of accepted students unless you're banking on the waitlist no?

 

[nevercold]

Sorry, I meant ACCEPTED not applicant. And that's always inflated because of people with high numbers with multiple acceptances.

Unless the people collecting statistics are not completely new to the world of statistics and match acceptances and MCAT/GPA to another identifier (like AMCAS #) in order to only count a student with multiple acceptances once. The AMCAS # can then be expunged from the data group to protect the student's confidentiality.

 

[nu2004]

Unless the people collecting statistics are not completely new to the world of statistics and match acceptances and MCAT/GPA to another identifier (like AMCAS #) in order to only count a student with multiple acceptances once. The AMCAS # can then be expunged from the data group to protect the student's confidentiality.

Absolutely, but probably true only for the aggregate statistics; not for individual schools.

For individual schools, it is likely the case that students who are accepted (and subsequently withdraw) skew the median and mean toward the higher end.

 

[RoadRunner17]

Absolutely, but probably true only for the aggregate statistics; not for individual schools.

For individual schools, it is likely the case that students who are accepted (and subsequently withdraw) skew the median and mean toward the higher end.

I do not see why people disagree with you. It makes 100% sense to me..

 

[scarletgirl777]

I do not see why people disagree with you. It makes 100% sense to me..

Agreed. And it's been discussed umpteen times.

 

[flip26]

Maybe what I am about to say here is obvious and redundant, but here is my opinion:

The stats being discussed here (3.65/30.8) shown on the chart cited in the OP's post are for MATRICULANTS and are not some aggregated and inflated number reflecting all acceptances.

The chart says MATRICULANT and the total number of matriculants is shown in the last row - the 17k+ number - I assume therefore that the median MCAT and GPA numbers in the chart are tied to the unique applicant total and not to the aggregate of all the acceptances the pool of matriculants had received.

OTOH when individual schools report stats for ACCEPTED applicants, these stats are very likely to be higher (or inflated) more than the actual MATRICULANT stats for that school for the reasoning given in some of your posts, namely that high stats people have more acceptances but ultimately can only matriculate at one school.

Furthermore, I think that this is why the LizzyM score adds +1 to an individual's numbers, to account for this inflation in the ACCEPTED stats for an individual school...now there are other obvious limitations to the applicability of the LizzyM score, particularly for out of balance stats, but it is better than no tool at all for judging an individual's chances at making it to the interview round at a range of schools, all else being equal...

Maybe this distinction is obvious to all, but from some of these posts, there seems to be a lot of confusion over a pretty straightforward set of stats. How one applies these stats to their own situation is worthy of debate, but it is pretty hard to argue that these aggregate median numbers are somehow inflated.

If this is helpful, great. If not, please ignore...

 

[LizzyM]

While average matriculant data will give you a good idea of where you would be an "average" or above average student in comparison to your classmates, do keep in mind that when handing out interviews, the average accepted applicant is a better measure of your chances. We all invited the 4.0/40 applicants to interview, why wouldn't we? Some will turn down the offer of an interview and we work our way down the list but as you sit wondering why you aren't getting any interview invitations, keep in mind that in some cases the merely average for that school will be invited toward the end of the season. (This is what some call, depressingly, interviewing for the waitlist but when all those 4.0/40s choose to go elsewhere, where do you think that the school goes to populate the class?)

With those lists of average* gpa and MCAT by race and ethnicity, I'd strongly urge you to compare yourself to others like you. Keep in mind, too that at some schools almost every student falls at or above the national mean and at others many of the students are at or below the national mean.



*average is a lay term for central tendency and it can refer to mean or median or mode.

 

[notdeadyet]

One important thing to remember is that most people will not like waiting until after May 15th to get in somewhere. Having someone get in right before orientation is different from getting in around March/April or October/November.

It only matters from the pre-med side of the river. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter where you get accepted or when you get accepted, only where you start medical school. You may have a few extra weeks of nervous waiting, but it's just an extension of a long, nervous process. Once classes start, you're in the same boat with everyone else.

Don't sweat late admissions. They taste just as sweet.

 

[marianne12]

To LizzyM:

If MCAT scores are all well above a school's average matriculant data, cumulative GPA in the range, and science GPA well below, how do you know where to place yourself?

(and thanks for all the time you spend giving advice)

 

[marianne12]

Oops, in response to LizzyM's post I meant average accepted data, not average matriculant data.

 

[flip26]

Oops, in response to LizzyM's post I meant average accepted data, not average matriculant data.

Your question is still not clear - clean it up, start over, and ask it again.

 

[marianne12]

LizzyM:

If an applicant is looking through the MSAR average accepted data in order to decide where to apply, and finds that her mcat scores are above all school accepted averages, her cumulative gpa is in the range of many of the school averages, and her science gpa is below many of the averages, to what schools does she apply?

Hope that is clearer -

 

[flip26]

to marianne:

Your MCAT and overall GPA are more important, relatively, in terms of getting your foot in the door, unless your science GPA is significantly out of whack and raises a red flag. For example: you have a 31 / 3.7 overall / <3.4 bcpm. It is perfectly normal for your bcpm to be a little less than your overall, but the usual spread when looking at the averages of successful matriculants seems to be within 0.1...

It is hard to advise without knowing your numbers otherwise without saying the standard: apply to your state schools, then apply broadly, and don't overdo the USNWR Top 30...

 

[LizzyM]

LizzyM:

If an applicant is looking through the MSAR average accepted data in order to decide where to apply, and finds that her mcat scores are above all school accepted averages, her cumulative gpa is in the range of many of the school averages, and her science gpa is below many of the averages, to what schools does she apply?

Hope that is clearer -

I'm going to suggest calculating your LizzyM BCPM score: BCPM gpa * 10 + MCAT. Now use the schools BCPM scores to figure the school's Lizzy BCPM scores: avg BCPM gpa *10 + MCAT -1. Figure on schools where your score is close to the score for the school. Where your performance in the natural sciences was below par, you may find yourself having a hard time, particularly if your overall gpa has been boosted my multiple courses in music, language, etc.

 

[M3dhop3ful]

LizzyM, why did you give the school a "-1", shouldn't it be +1?

 

[Raryn]

LizzyM, why did you give the school a "-1", shouldn't it be +1?

no, because you're safe to apply to schools at which you are slightly below average. remember, about half the people who get in are below average...

 

[bozz]

So what do schools look at when sending out interview invites and in which order do you think?

MCAT + GPA ... then PS ... then activity list on AMCAS?

Tons of people with high numbers seem to be denied interviews at many places (both top and mid tier school)

 

[TheRealMD]

So what do schools look at when sending out interview invites and in which order do you think?

MCAT + GPA ... then PS ... then activity list on AMCAS?

Tons of people with high numbers seem to be denied interviews at many places (both top and mid tier school)

MCAT + GPA, PS, research, then activity list on AMCAS.

 

[M3dhop3ful]

Is it true that it is difficult to predict your performance in the US application cycle? It seems that certain schools will reject you pre-interview even if you have a good application and blow their average stats out of the water. It just seems so random and almost without rhyme or reason.

 

[M3dhop3ful]

----------

 

[chad5871]

Is it true that it is difficult to predict your performance in the US application cycle? It seems that certain schools will reject you pre-interview even if you have a good application and blow their average stats out of the water. It just seems so random and almost without rhyme or reason.

This is true to a certain extent. Usually if you have everything together and no red flags in your file (i.e. lower GPA, lower MCAT, bad PS, bad secondary responses, bad ECs, bad interview, etc. etc.) and apply broadly, you will get in somewhere. Exactly where you get in does seem to be a bit random, but I don't think it's as random as some people think.