Top 30 Undergrad vs. State School: My Firsthand Experience

[ReggieNoble22]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

This is a little off topic but some of these posts got me thinking. I recently graduated from 'a top 40 us news school' and during graduation they announced the people in each respective college that had the highest GPA, to my surprise no one in my undergrad class of 16,000 received a 4.0, no one. Most of the college's even had their highest GPA in the low 3.92-3s, now I'm wondering (mainly to make myself feel a little better haha) does this school deflate or at the very least not inflate grades? Would medical school's be aware of this? I'm guessing probably not but I'd be interested what you guys think?

 

[NickNaylor]

Sure, it's not simple. Every applicant is unique, but if two students are identical

This never happens. That's why discussions like this are utterly pointless and always result in pissing matches. They're arguments about a situation that just simply never occurs.

 

[SympatricSpeciation]

Would you say that the responsibility, then, lies on the student to choose a school and major that they would do somewhat well in? I'm not saying everyone should go to the "easiest" school, but maybe the best school for a premed isn't necessarily the highest ranked school they get into.

Say two people of virtually equal academic ability attend the same school, one majors in just bio while the other in bio/physics/engineering. First student earns a 3.8 and second student earns a 3.3. Given equal MCATs, the first student still has the edge, even though the second student would have gotten the same GPA but decided to triple major in 3 time consuming majors. His GPA isn't really representative of his academic ability, but why did he triple major in the first place if he couldn't excel in it?

Same goes for some deciding between X school and a top school. Should a premed really go to their top school if they will only end up performing average there, where the average GPA is 3.1?

The responsibility is, of course, the student's. There is no debate about that. That's the reason why the student has to go on and prove themselves in a PB. But the question here is, should admissions be penalizing applicants for their thirst and hunger for knowledge and their decision challenge themselves, again keeping other aspects of the application constant? You may well say "Yes"; I say "No." I mentioned before that it comes down to schools being risk-averse, since it's a tough task to properly account for the variability among undergrads; it's a task that would require much more resources than the budgets can accommodate. I understand how this is a rational choice, but its rationality does not absolve it from being unjust to intellectuals who had to shed blood in order to achieve those seemingly mediocre GPAs. So yes, you could pick a suitably challenging yet not impossible undergrad as opposed to the hardest school you got into. But as someone mentioned here earlier, the majority of bright high school graduates do not set out to college knowing for certain that they will become physicians, and further they are eager to become leaders and make the most of the intellectual bastion that is college. It is known that interaction with bright peers maximizes intellectual yield, so why wouldn't they pick the college with the highest rank/talented students? College, they're taught, is a time of exploration, and I personally agree with the inculcation of such notion. College is a time to broaden horizons, reach out of the comfort zone, combat and put to the test deeply-held assumptions, deepen cognitive perspectives, and I won't continue with all the platitudes you'd find on collegiate brochures. And even if these students did know they wanted to be physicians and felt no need to explore and took a targeted premed approach to college, ought we to reward them for prioritizing expediency in favor of intellectual zeal and quest for challenge? I can count many fellow classmates who knew how to "pick their battles" with respect to courseload, so to speak. But I feel confident that I took more away from college than they did taking Gospel Choir courses, despite the GPAs telling different stories. So is medicine merely a vocational pursuit much like becoming a plumber, or is it something more? Isn't it ridiculous to reprimand a student for picking the wrong undergrad because it proved to be too hard? Better yet, is it not ridiculous to expect students to know exactly how well they can compete with an intellectually equal group? Is it all about adhering to a formula? Medicine, and I'm biased to say this, is perhaps the most complex of professions, and being to admitted to medical school should amount to more than "gaming the system", to borrow a phrase. Rising up to the challenge is synonymous with medicine, and I'm afraid that those "unimpressive" 3.3s of people who seriously pushed themselves to the limit are a bigger telling of a great doctor than the 3.7s of those who chose the easier but "smarter" way.

 

[Narmerguy]

This never happens. That's why discussions like this are utterly pointless and always result in pissing matches. They're arguments about a situation that just simply never occurs.

I think people really are not engaging with this reality enough. The application is far far more than two numbers. There is plenty of information to allow differences to be made between applicants such that they are not identical except for some single variable.

 

[GaiusOctavius]

This is a little off topic but some of these posts got me thinking. I recently graduated from 'a top 40 us news school' and during graduation they announced the people in each respective college that had the highest GPA, to my surprise no one in my undergrad class of 16,000 received a 4.0, no one. Most of the college's even had their highest GPA in the low 3.92-3s, now I'm wondering (mainly to make myself feel a little better haha) does this school deflate or at the very least not inflate grades? Would medical school's be aware of this? I'm guessing probably not but I'd be interested what you guys think?

This also happened at our graduation (not even "top 40;" roughly 40,000 students for total enrollment). Students were asked to stand that had a 3.5-3.7 then 3.7-3.8 then 3.8-3.9 then 4.0. There was one kid out of thousands that achieved a 4.0 (don't know his major), and only a handful with a 3.8-3.9. There were hundreds of students who started off as "premed" and I would guess that maybe 15-30 actually got a committee letter for this cycle. With over 400 universities in the U.S., I would guess that it's difficult for adcoms to correctly gauge the relative difficulty of obtaining an "A" in Biochem (taught by professor X) at University 1 vs. a "B" in Biochem (taught by professor Y) at University 2. I guess that adcoms try to take a "holistic view" and incorporate MCAT, LORs, Extracurriculars, Clinical experience, etc. to get a somewhat accurate picture of the candidate. Some adcoms are probably impressed by big names (Harvard, Princeton, etc) and give you the benefit of the doubt (I'm not sure that this is warranted).

IMO, more weight should be placed on the MCAT because it's standardized. Gauging the difference in rigor across Universities, Majors, workloads, etc. is going to be a HIGHLY subjective process that is HEAVILY influenced by adcom bias and perception.

This never happens. That's why discussions like this are utterly pointless and always result in pissing matches. They're arguments about a situation that just simply never occurs.

Sure. You're right. Just a hypothetical example to illustrate a point--US news weekly ranking alone isn't a good/reliable reason to favor an applicant, IMO. But I'm not an adcom, so I guess it doesn't matter. Different stroke for different folks.

 

[efle]

Percentile rank wouldn't really help because, as you note, the caliber of students is different. How can you compare percentile ranks between schools then? Sure you can have some type of weighting factor that takes into account your school "caliber" (maybe by average SAT?) but still...it's far less statistically sound than is a standardized test like the MCAT.

And doing it by major would also be problematic. Let's say you are a slightly below average MIT math major (like below average for a math major at MIT - not in general at MIT). Well your percentile in your major would suck (be like 40th percentile) but chances are that if you can do math at MIT, you are likely intelligent enough to be a medical student.

Use the student body 25-75 SAT interval would be a quick and easy way. "40th %ile math major at a 98-99th%ile university" is still clearly a stronger performance than "70th %ile math major at a 50-60th %ile university" that way because of how disparate the bell curves are. Top schools already roughly do this, demanding not only a top GPA but also highly favoring those top GPAs when earned from top undergrads. I agree different majors are a big problem though, so schools would probably focus on the BCPM core and 300 level sciences which are less variable than Biochem vs Philosophy etc.

So your school offers an MCAT prep course that has shown to be highly effective and is either of no cost or is included in tuition? If it costs extra then we instantly wander into the low SES argument consisting of students who chose state school over top schools (likely not Ivy since those schools have a ton of fin aid) for lower tuition. I don't know if it's been mentioned previously in the thread, but you also have to consider all the other perks of top schools. For instance: high quality LOR's, shadowing and/or clinical volunteering programs roled into the major (WashU), and summer research opportunities in highly reputable programs because of connections. Ivy students get perks in one realm, state students get perks in another (the curve); I'll reiterate my initial sentiments:

I think it's for a fee which can be waived if you are receiving lots of aid. I don't buy the "top schools give big perks" argument as much as some people - I found volunteering, shadowing and lab opportunities just as easily back home in summer at my local state school and hospital. And the prehealth advisers range from useless to detrimental, so I don't think that explains away anything either.

So basically, adcoms should place less weight on a standardized test that has been proven to be a good indicator for board scores and--for the biological sciences portion--a good indicator of med school performance? Instead, students at a few universities which you perceive to be more difficult (Columbia, Princeton, JHop, but NOT Harvard, Duke, and Dartmouth) are entitled to some sort of grade bump in the eyes of adcoms because they are of a "higher caliber..."

The MCAT should still be very important, I just don't think a five hour multiple choice test can provide as much information as excellent performance across years of rigorous coursework. You will always need both.

It's not that I perceive them more difficult, its that objectively the caliber of students there (by high school GPAs, SATs, % national merit and valedictorians, etc) is higher than other universities and so in any sort of competition for limited As will be tougher. You misread if you think I claim Duke is easier than Columbia; student still have to work very hard to achieve the best possible performance, and they are all very rigorous. But the GPA awarded for equal performance relative to peers is uneven. Yes, I do think going somewhere like Hopkins should and does communicate greater ability than an equal GPA earned at U of A. At least at top universities, there is a clear favoritism for those who excelled at top undergrads.

Sure, it's not simple. Every applicant is unique, but if two students are identical (MCAT, major, volunteer, clinical experience, research, etc.) except for GPA, and student A has a 3.5 from a state school and student B has a 3.3 from Princeton, I would go with student A. I don't think the difference in rigor is that profound and it's highly subjective.

P.s. I think that a 4.0 is quite the accomplishment at most U.S. schools.

You are in denial if you think the rigors of Princeton, where you compete against the top 1% for very limited number of good grades, is comparable to a typical state school, and clearly have not experienced a BCPM prereq at a school of each tier.

 

[GaiusOctavius]

Your argument rests on the assumption that schools and classes have the exact same method for grading--all schools administer X exams and a bell-curve, where the average grade becomes a C+. This isn't the case. My Calc II class, anatomy class, and Histology had no curve and didn't have an even distribution (many failed). My Cell Bio class had homework included in the grade and dropped the lowest exam. Different professors have different policies. Also, how do you account for the kid who took 12 credits vs the one with 17? Your argument is oversimplified.

Use the student body 25-75 SAT interval would be a quick and easy way. "40th %ile math major at a 98-99th%ile university" is still clearly a stronger performance than "70th %ile math major at a 50-60th %ile university" that way because of how disparate the bell curves are. Top schools already roughly do this, demanding not only a top GPA but also highly favoring those top GPAs when earned from top undergrads. I agree different majors are a big problem though, so schools would probably focus on the BCPM core and 300 level sciences which are less variable than Biochem vs Philosophy etc.




I think it's for a fee which can be waived if you are receiving lots of aid. I don't buy the "top schools give big perks" argument as much as some people - I found volunteering, shadowing and lab opportunities just as easily back home in summer at my local state school and hospital. And the prehealth advisers range from useless to detrimental, so I don't think that explains away anything either.




The MCAT should still be very important, I just don't think a five hour multiple choice test can provide as much information as excellent performance across years of rigorous coursework. You will always need both.

It's not that I perceive them more difficult, its that objectively the caliber of students there (by high school GPAs, SATs, % national merit and valedictorians, etc) is higher than other universities and so in any sort of competition for limited As will be tougher. You misread if you think I claim Duke is easier than Columbia; student still have to work very hard to achieve the best possible performance, and they are all very rigorous. But the GPA awarded for equal performance relative to peers is uneven. Yes, I do think going somewhere like Hopkins should and does communicate greater ability than an equal GPA earned at U of A. At least at top universities, there is a clear favoritism for those who excelled at top undergrads.



You are in denial if you think the rigors of Princeton, where you compete against the top 1% for very limited number of good grades, is comparable to a typical state school, and clearly have not experienced a BCPM prereq at a school of each tier.

 

[keenemd]

Seven pages and not a single adcom has commented on this thread. I really would like an adcom opinion on the topic of this thread (i.e. not the entitled nature of OP or the pissing match between state and private school posters).

I know the likely answer will probably be that they do, in fact, look at the rigor of the institution but that seems like a cop-out to me. The GPA almost always seems to come out slightly on top over the MCAT in the LizzyM formula despite being extremely variable by institution.

Sometimes I wonder if medical schools and adcoms might have incentive to inflate their average accepted student uGPA to increase their medical school ranking regardless of how variable GPA is as a predictor of medical school performance, or maybe it's as SympatricSpeciation says and they are simply being risk averse. I would sincerely hope it's not the former.

 

[NickNaylor]

Seven pages and not a single adcom has commented on this thread. I really would like an adcom opinion on the topic of this thread (i.e. not the entitled nature of OP or the pissing match between state and private school posters).

I know the likely answer will probably be that they do, in fact, look at the rigor of the institution but that seems like a cop-out to me. The GPA almost always seems to come out slightly on top over the MCAT in the lizzym formula despite being extremely variable by institution.

Sometimes I wonder if medical schools and adcoms might have incentive to inflate their average accepted student uGPA to increase their medical school ranking regardless of how variable GPA is as a predictor of medical school performance, or maybe it's as SympatricSpeciation says and they are simply being risk averse. I would sincerely hope it's not the former.

1) The LizzyM formula did not come down on a stone tablet and should not be considered as such. It's simply a tool to give you a sense of schools that you should apply to. It doesn't say anything about how those factors play into an overall admissions decision. It grossly oversimplifies things for the sake of ease of use.

2) Of course rigor matters, and it's not a cop-out. In fact, many committee letters provide average GPAs at their institution, particularly if their institution is known for grade deflation. This is intended to put an applicant's GPA - especially if it's lower than what might be expected - in context. Thinking that schools are equal in rigor is a farce, and the way in which the GPA is evaluated takes that into account.

3) I'm sure the former plays a very small role, but the latter is undoubtedly important. At the end of the day, medical schools want to know that the students they accept and might ultimately come to the institution can actually make it through the medical curriculum. If there's any doubt about that, then there's no point in accepting them.

 

[efle]

Your argument rests on the assumption that schools and classes have the exact same method for grading--all schools administer X exams and a bell-curve, where the average grade becomes a C+. This isn't the case. My Calc II class, anatomy class, and Histology had no curve and didn't have an even distribution (many failed). My Cell Bio class had homework included in the grade and dropped the lowest exam. Different professors have different policies. Also, how do you account for the kid who took 12 credits vs the one with 17? Your argument is oversimplified.

Most schools do keep a standard BCPM distribution with the average set to ~B- (look up a few public schools which publish grade distributions, the majority are like this). # failing doesn't really matter as much as # receiving A and B anyways, since someone getting a 1.3 vs a 2.7 are both not going to med school. Adcoms already consider overall workload (credits vs hours worked/extracurriculars) so if we are talking ceteris paribus the lower credit load doesn't = easier since they spent the extra time elsewhere than studying. It's not an unmanageable problem to give GPAs better context based on university. Won't ever be perfect, but certainly could be a lot more informative than it currently is.

Seven pages and not a single adcom has commented on this thread. I really would like an adcom opinion on the topic of this thread (i.e. not the entitled nature of OP or the pissing match between state and private school posters).

I know the likely answer will probably be that they do, in fact, look at the rigor of the institution but that seems like a cop-out to me. The GPA almost always seems to come out slightly on top over the MCAT in the lizzym formula despite being extremely variable by institution.

Sometimes I wonder if medical schools and adcoms might have incentive to inflate their average accepted student uGPA to increase their medical school ranking regardless of how variable GPA is as a predictor of medical school performance, or maybe it's as SympatricSpeciation says and they are simply being risk averse. I would sincerely hope it's not the former.

It's been debated elsewhere, and varies by adcom and school. I can tell you that at my uni's top med school (and at most top schools), where you earned your GPA matters a lot and at mine they compare your GPA to previous acceptee's performance from your undergrad to give it some context. They are also number ****** and will usually rule you out below a 3.7 or so regardless of where you went to protect their average acceptee stats. At mid and lower tier schools, I'm sure the elitism drops off and they care more about the number. I wonder how much of this comes from where the adcom members went to school? I know I will always perceive a high GPA at Hopkins as much more impressive than U Baltimore after my experience at diff tiers, I bet the favoritism for elite undergrads at top med schools comes a lot from the adcom members having gone to top undergrads themselves, whereas at big state schools this is less the case.

 

[keenemd]

1) The LizzyM formula did not come down on a stone tablet and should not be considered as such. It's simply a tool to give you a sense of schools that you should apply to. It doesn't say anything about how those factors play into an overall admissions decision. It grossly oversimplifies things for the sake of ease of use.

Likewise, I used the LizzyM formula for ease of use. I was merely questioning why MCAT and GPA are generally considered equal factors when the MCAT is the better predictor.

2) Of course rigor matters, and it's not a cop-out. In fact, many committee letters provide average GPAs at their institution, particularly if their institution is known for grade deflation. This is intended to put an applicant's GPA - especially if it's lower than what might be expected - in context. Thinking that schools are equal in rigor is a farce, and the way in which the GPA is evaluated takes that into account.

I think the cop-0ut is the degree to which it seems to matter. I went to a competitive school ranked in the top 40 with an average student SAT between 2050-2150 (not the most competitive, but still respectable entrance standards) where the BCPM courses required for medical school were all curved to the B-/C+ border. My school's premed department reports that our students get into medical school with a GPA about .1 less than the national accepted student average.

Compared to best state school in my home state with an average student SAT between 1550-1650, it would be much harder to achieve a competitive GPA at my undergraduate institution; certainly worth more than a .1 leeway.

3) I'm sure the former plays a very small role, but the latter is undoubtedly important. At the end of the day, medical schools want to know that the students they accept and might ultimately come to the institution can actually make it through the medical curriculum. If there's any doubt about that, then there's no point in accepting them.

If the former is the case, it is extremely unethical whether it's a small factor or not. It also seems to conflict with the goal of accepting students that fit the university best/ would make the best physicians.

I also understand the latter and don't necessarily disagree with it, I just wish the gold standard for remedying a GPA wasn't post-bac and SMP. This favors the wealthy and privileged and, to me, seems like a way to buy your way into medical school and artificially inflating your GPA. It also doesn't seem to produce more information that the MCAT does not provide as a predictor of medical school success.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

The more I read these threads, the more I'm convinced that some who attend these "top schools" are desperately searching for a golden certificate of validation.

And yet, med students, from some of the most selective schools in the country, continue to confirm the irrelevance of this topic.

If you excelled at Princeton, then good for you. And we can appreciate its rigor, but it doesn't necessarily put you in a different class.

 

[NickNaylor]

If the former is the case, it is extremely unethical whether it's a small factor or not. It also seems to conflict with the goal of accepting students that fit the university best/ would make the best physicians.

I also understand the latter and don't necessarily disagree with it, I just wish the gold standard for remedying a GPA wasn't post-bac and SMP. This favors the wealthy and privileged and, to me, seems like a way to buy your way into medical school and artificially inflating your GPA. It also doesn't seem to produce more information that the MCAT does not provide as a predictor of medical school success.

Why is it unethical? I would agree that it's an absolutely stupid reason, but it's hardly unethical. Medical schools want the "best" students (notice how I include best in quotes there). GPAs and MCAT scores are objective measures of success, and when the PR/marketing people want to put together a nice little brochure of their institution and/or fill out the paperwork for USNWR, that stuff matters.

Post-bacs do matter and are helpful if your GPA is otherwise inconsistent with a record that would predict success in medical school. For example, an applicant we reviewed on my committee had a pretty terrible GPA for admissions standards (something like low 3s cumulative with a semester or two in the upper 2s). She completed a post-bacc that included difficult, medical school-type courses and did well. For her specifically, the post-bacc was hugely helpful and assuaged the fears of many people on the committee regarding her ability to perform academically. It's not just about making a number larger for the sake of making a number larger. It's about showing people that you are likely to make it through an extremely rigorous academic curriculum. If you have a record that questions that, then a post-bacc experience is all that more important.

I'm not really sure where your complaint is coming from. Not everyone gets to go to medical school. Sometimes that requires sacrifice in terms of time and money. It's not unethical or unjust for people that didn't do as well as others but REALLY, REALLY want to be a doctor to not be accepted. That's just not how the world works.

 

[efle]

Except many people on this site are doing quite well at their top schools, and are not seeking validation but just observing the huge rigor gap.

And yet, most students at top med schools went to top undergrads. Go figure.

Nobody has claimed that being at Princeton makes you a better person/doctor. The claim is that a 3.low at a top deflating school like Princeton should be given more consideration than it is.

The more I read these threads, the more I'm convinced that some who attend these "top schools" are desperately searching for a golden certificate of validation.

And yet, med students, from some of the most selective schools in the country, continue to confirm the irrelevance of this topic.

If you excelled at Princeton, then good for you. And we can appreciate its rigor, but it doesn't necessarily put you in a different class.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Except many people on this site are doing quite well at their top schools, and are not seeking validation but just observing the huge rigor gap.

And yet, most students at top med schools went to top undergrads. Go figure.

Nobody has claimed that being at Princeton makes you a better person/doctor. The claim is that a 3.low at a top deflating school like Princeton should be given more consideration than it is.

Yeah, and we all know that a rigor gap exists between schools.

I guess the lesson is to not attend Princeton if you can't get the 3.6+

 

[GaiusOctavius]

Most schools do keep a standard BCPM distribution with the average set to ~B- (look up a few public schools which publish grade distributions, the majority are like this). # failing doesn't really matter as much as # receiving A and B anyways, since someone getting a 1.3 vs a 2.7 are both not going to med school. Adcoms already consider overall workload (credits vs hours worked/extracurriculars) so if we are talking ceteris paribus the lower credit load doesn't = easier since they spent the extra time elsewhere than studying. It's not an unmanageable problem to give GPAs better context based on university. Won't ever be perfect, but certainly could be a lot more informative than it currently is.




It's been debated elsewhere, and varies by adcom and school. I can tell you that at my uni's top med school (and at most top schools), where you earned your GPA matters a lot and at mine they compare your GPA to previous acceptee's performance from your undergrad to give it some context. They are also number ****** and will usually rule you out below a 3.7 or so regardless of where you went to protect their average acceptee stats. At mid and lower tier schools, I'm sure the elitism drops off and they care more about the number. I wonder how much of this comes from where the adcom members went to school? I know I will always perceive a high GPA at Hopkins as much more impressive than U Baltimore after my experience at diff tiers, I bet the favoritism for elite undergrads at top med schools comes a lot from the adcom members having gone to top undergrads themselves, whereas at big state schools this is less the case.

For schools that actually release grade distribution, BCPM was NOT simply set to B-. ~85% of students at Stanford and several other "top programs" had A/B average GPAs. That's not a simple bell-curve.

If you go to a school that actually has a university-wide policy that caps the number of As that can be given to 20%, you're right, you deserve a GPA bump in the eyes of adcoms. That would be a ridiculous policy. How many programs actually do this? Definitely not saying all programs are exactly the same. Do believe the differences in rigor between biomedical engineering or mathematics at different schools may be exaggerated. Should be considered along with course load, work responsibility, ECs, yada, yada, yada. OP may attend a ridiculously easy undergrad (although I believe he's overcompensating), but I don't think the difference in rigor between "top 15" and state is like that between elementary and high school (all things equal) should be accepted as a general reality.

 

[WillburCobb]

Except many people on this site at top schools, are seeking validation and just having an ol' fashioned size contest.

FTFY

 

[Kochanie]

For schools that actually release grade distribution, BCPM was NOT simply set to B-. Furthermore, several articles reported that ~85% of students at Stanford and several other "top programs" have A/B-average GPAs. That's not a simple bell-curve.

Yeah, all other classes tend to not be set on a bell curve. My "other than BCPM" GPA is like a 3.7, never had less than a B+. But then I have my Bio class where the average on the last test was a 17/20, how they even set that on a bell curve is beside me lol.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

This is a little off topic but some of these posts got me thinking. I recently graduated from 'a top 40 us news school' and during graduation they announced the people in each respective college that had the highest GPA, to my surprise no one in my undergrad class of 16,000 received a 4.0, no one. Most of the college's even had their highest GPA in the low 3.92-3s, now I'm wondering (mainly to make myself feel a little better haha) does this school deflate or at the very least not inflate grades? Would medical school's be aware of this? I'm guessing probably not but I'd be interested what you guys think?

Lol, I just caught your username. What's your favorite Redman album?
I actually have a Muddy Waters CD autographed by him.

 

[WillburCobb]

Lol, I just caught your username. What's your favorite Redman album?
I actually have a Muddy Waters CD autographed by him.

👍I like the change of topic.

 

[justadream]

For schools that actually release grade distribution, BCPM was NOT simply set to B-. ~85% of students at Stanford and several other "top programs" had A/B average GPAs. That's not a simple bell-curve.

If you go to a school that actually has a university-wide policy that caps the number of As that can be given to 20%, you're right, you deserve a GPA bump in the eyes of adcoms. That would be a ridiculous policy. How many programs actually do this? Definitely not saying all programs are exactly the same. Do believe the differences in rigor between biomedical engineering or mathematics at different schools may be exaggerated. Should be considered along with course load, work responsibility, ECs, yada, yada, yada. OP may attend a ridiculously easy undergrad (although I believe he's overcompensating), but I don't think the difference in rigor between "top 15" and state is like that between elementary and high school (all things equal) should be accepted as a general reality.

I disagree. Even if your top "grade-inflated" school (maybe Harvard/Stanford) curves to B+ in science classes, I think you should be given greater consideration. I'd argue that getting even the average grade at Harvard/Stanford in BCPM classes is a notable achievement.

While I agree that if you are comparing GPAs between Princeton and Stanford, that you should definitely give the Princeton student like a .3 (or something like that) boost, I would disagree that 3.6 or 3.7 at Stanford is unimpressive. Unless you have actually taken BCPM classes at those types of schools, you probably cannot realize how much of a difference the peer group can make. In my experience, understanding essentially everything in class/textbook is a mere prerequisite to scoring average on the exams. What separates students comes down to a few tricky questions and/or subtleties that are not easily "study--able" and that
1) Require you to kind of be lucky" in your guess of how to approach the problem (you won't find these details explicitly on textbook/notes)
or
2) Require you actually have to be really good at the subject

And yes, Harvard/Stanford do not grade on a strict bell curve (I guess you mean like average = C?) but what school does? I doubt even Princeton curves to C average.

You are still graded on a curve but the median is set to be like B+. 1 SD above the mean is roughly an A. .5 SD above the mean is roughly an A-.

 

[efle]

Many top schools do set BCPM averages to a 2.7/3.0 or B-/B. Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Dartmouth are notoriously inflated, the rest you will not find B+/A- averages in core prereq. As I said before, you don't think the rigor of a top 15 >> state uni because you have not experienced both. Everyone I have ever spoken to, and my own experience, mirrors the OP and what test scores would predict: taking a BCPM course at both state and top school reveals how massive the difference is. Being curved against the top 1% is an entirely different world of difficulty, period.

 

[Kochanie]

Many top schools do set BCPM averages to a 2.7/3.0 or B-/B. Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Dartmouth are notoriously inflated, the rest you will not find B+/A- averages in core prereq. As I said before, you don't think the rigor of a top 15 >> state uni because you have not experienced both. Everyone I have ever spoken to, and my own experience, mirrors the OP and what test scores would predict: taking a BCPM course at both state and top school reveals how massive the difference is. Being curved against the top 1% is an entirely different world of difficulty, period.

You would think people could understand this.
"Denial aint just a river in Egypt."

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

So this is now a Princeton/Chicago vs Stanford/Harvard thread?!

If that's the case, then I'm rolling with the Cardinal 😉

 

[Narmerguy]

So this is now a Princeton/Chicago vs Stanford/Harvard thread?!

If that's the case, then I'm rolling with the Cardinal 😉

Good choice.

 

[PantherPride]

The responsibility is, of course, the student's. There is no debate about that. That's the reason why the student has to go on and prove themselves in a PB. But the question here is, should admissions be penalizing applicants for their thirst and hunger for knowledge and their decision challenge themselves, again keeping other aspects of the application constant? You may well say "Yes"; I say "No." I mentioned before that it comes down to schools being risk-averse, since it's a tough task to properly account for the variability among undergrads; it's a task that would require much more resources than the budgets can accommodate. I understand how this is a rational choice, but its rationality does not absolve it from being unjust to intellectuals who had to shed blood in order to achieve those seemingly mediocre GPAs. So yes, you could pick a suitably challenging yet not impossible undergrad as opposed to the hardest school you got into. But as someone mentioned here earlier, the majority of bright high school graduates do not set out to college knowing for certain that they will become physicians, and further they are eager to become leaders and make the most of the intellectual bastion that is college. It is known that interaction with bright peers maximizes intellectual yield, so why wouldn't they pick the college with the highest rank/talented students? College, they're taught, is a time of exploration, and I personally agree with the inculcation of such notion. College is a time to broaden horizons, reach out of the comfort zone, combat and put to the test deeply-held assumptions, deepen cognitive perspectives, and I won't continue with all the platitudes you'd find on collegiate brochures. And even if these students did know they wanted to be physicians and felt no need to explore and took a targeted premed approach to college, ought we to reward them for prioritizing expediency in favor of intellectual zeal and quest for challenge? I can count many fellow classmates who knew how to "pick their battles" with respect to courseload, so to speak. But I feel confident that I took more away from college than they did taking Gospel Choir courses, despite the GPAs telling different stories. So is medicine merely a vocational pursuit much like becoming a plumber, or is it something more? Isn't it ridiculous to reprimand a student for picking the wrong undergrad because it proved to be too hard? Better yet, is it not ridiculous to expect students to know exactly how well they can compete with an intellectually equal group? Is it all about adhering to a formula? Medicine, and I'm biased to say this, is perhaps the most complex of professions, and being to admitted to medical school should amount to more than "gaming the system", to borrow a phrase. Rising up to the challenge is synonymous with medicine, and I'm afraid that those "unimpressive" 3.3s of people who seriously pushed themselves to the limit are a bigger telling of a great doctor than the 3.7s of those who chose the easier but "smarter" way.

But now you're comparing students by something even more intangible than GPA, which is itself already not standardized or easily comparable across schools/majors. How do you measure someones academic challenges objectively? How do you determine how far someone truly pushed themselves? Who is to say someone majoring in just bio and earned a 3.8 didn't work just as hard and pushed themselves just as far as someone majoring bio/physics/engineering and got a 3.3? Consequently, who is to say the 3.8 bio major isn't a genius with a photographic memory that decided to play it safe?

I agree, college is a time for one to reach out of their comfort zone, explore, and challenge themselves, and I'm not saying that those who do should be punished. Schools are well aware of the difference of rigor between universities- this is apparent, for example, in the data I gave earlier about WashU. I would hope that the people taking joke classes to artificially raise their GPA are obvious- I assume it would be apparent when comparing the cGPA to the sGPA and in their coursework portion of the AMCAS.

The reality is that med school admissions is a competition. Plenty of people push themselves to the limit academically only to get "unimpressive" GPA's, at state schools, private schools, and top schools alike (not to say students from each have the same competition or academic ability). Plenty of others do it scoring >3.5 GPA's. So when it comes down to selecting who is accepted to medical school, facing the reality that more than half the applicants won't get into any MD program, those in the lower GPA range are more likely to get cut. As I showed in my earlier post, it would seem that students from top schools are given leeway for lowered GPAs, as long as they have the MCAT to back it up. So yes, challenge yourself throughout undergrad, don't take the easy route, but at the same time make sure you can demonstrate to med schools you are able to handle the course load. There's more ways to challenge yourself without completely sacrificing your GPA- whether in research, service projects, clubs, work etc.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

If Princeton and Chicago are that cruel to their students, then perhaps mere mortals shouldn't enroll at these schools.
Why waste your energy if numbers play such a major role in med school admissions? You can be reasonably challenged elsewhere, achieve a competitive gpa, and avoid multiple years of regret.

If this is that much of a problem, then these threads should be addressed at the "insane" undergrad institutions themselves. I just don't ever see med schools giving a .5 gpa bump to students from these schools.

 

[justadream]

If Princeton and Chicago are that cruel to their students, then perhaps mere mortals shouldn't enroll there.
Why waste your energy if numbers play such a major role in med school admissions? You can be reasonably challenged elsewhere, achieve a competitive gpa, and avoid multiple years of regret.

If this is that much of a problem, then these threads should be addressed at the "insane" undergrad institutions themselves. I just don't ever see med schools giving a .5 gpa bump to students from these schools.

I personally believe all schools (including Harvard/Stanford) should curve to B- or something like that. If everyone did it, Princeton/Chicago would just be "normal". When you curve to B+, you limit how much you can differentiate people. If you curved to B-, you can separate people who are 2 SD's above from those who are 1 SD above.

But the argument that you shouldn't enroll at UChicago/Princeton just because of GPA concerns is, IMO, unfair to the student. Lots of people don't know that they want to go to med school in HS. Also, it would be unfortunate if many people don't enroll at Princeton only because of GPA concerns when the benefits (e.g., great Financial Aid, world class education, many opportunities, good networking experiences, top companies recruit there, etc.) can be so significant for many students.

On a practical level, however, I admit that if you get into Princeton and Stanford, then maybe go to Stanford because of GPA concerns. But what if the only top school you get into is Princeton?

I know adcoms aren't going to give a .5 GPA boost to people from Princeton but if they are going to put so much weight into GPA (yes, GPA is just a single variable but its usually the most important or at least top 2 with MCAT) you need to somehow adjust for school difficulty - including give GPA boosts to people at Harvard.

But this GPA boost thing would also be highly flawed since GPA boosts are arbitrary (Princeton psych major is probably easier than Princeton pure math major). Looking on the other side, it would also be unfair since top students at top state schools (who are arguably HYPMS level) would essentially be penalized because even if they achieve 4.0, their GPA is "capped" by not going to a top school.

Thus, in conclusion, I think GPA should be given less weight. It should be used more of a measure of how much you tried in school and very roughly how proficient you were in sciences (as in, you are generally fine if you get at least B's). MCAT should be given more weight because you can actually compare scores in a meaningful way.

 

[bluejay456]

I think ideally GPA should be most important, but with some sort of transparency and standardization, such as your GPA being reported together with your percentile rank (for the whole school or for BCPMs or for your major, whatever). Combine this with the already available information about caliber of students at a school and now you have a meaningful number. As it is now, yes MCAT tells you a lot more than GPA unless you are familiar with the university and program the GPA was earned at.

I was exaggerating about showing up = A-. Unlike most people so far in the thread, I think that being average at Harvard takes a lot more than what the typical state uni student is capable of. In that case the real injustice is against students at similar less inflating schools, with people at places like Columbia or Princeton or JHop getting rightfully pissed off to hear that Harvard and Dartmouth and Duke are giving much higher GPAs for equal percentile performance.

No one has ever had a 4.0 at Hopkins? Source? This is the problem with this thread; people tend to exaggerate differences in rigor.

No one has ever had a 4.0 at Hopkins? Source? This is the problem with this thread; people tend to exaggerate differences in rigor.

http://www.techyville.com/2013/04/n...univ-discusses-plight-with-african-americans/

plenty of articles on this, this is just the first one I found

 

[SympatricSpeciation]

But now you're comparing students by something even more intangible than GPA, which is itself already not standardized or easily comparable across schools/majors. How do you measure someones academic challenges objectively? How do you determine how far someone truly pushed themselves? Who is to say someone majoring in just bio and earned a 3.8 didn't work just as hard and pushed themselves just as far as someone majoring bio/physics/engineering and got a 3.3? Consequently, who is to say the 3.8 bio major isn't a genius with a photographic memory that decided to play it safe?

I agree, college is a time for one to reach out of their comfort zone, explore, and challenge themselves, and I'm not saying that those who do should be punished. Schools are well aware of the difference of rigor between universities- this is apparent, for example, in the data I gave earlier about WashU. I would hope that the people taking joke classes to artificially raise their GPA are obvious- I assume it would be apparent when comparing the cGPA to the sGPA and in their coursework portion of the AMCAS.

The reality is that med school admissions is a competition. Plenty of people push themselves to the limit academically only to get "unimpressive" GPA's, at state schools, private schools, and top schools alike (not to say students from each have the same competition or academic ability). Plenty of others do it scoring >3.5 GPA's. So when it comes down to selecting who is accepted to medical school, facing the reality that more than half the applicants won't get into any MD program, those in the lower GPA range are more likely to get cut. As I showed in my earlier post, it would seem that students from top schools are given leeway for lowered GPAs, as long as they have the MCAT to back it up. So yes, challenge yourself throughout undergrad, don't take the easy route, but at the same time make sure you can demonstrate to med schools you are able to handle the course load. There's more ways to challenge yourself without completely sacrificing your GPA- whether in research, service projects, clubs, work etc.

You are absolutely correct, and I have already stated that there are so many untangibles here that med schools have no other choice but to be rational and risk-averse and trust numbers. In the end, it is all about knowing how to strike the right balance, and use the first few semesters of undergrad as gauges of your performance so that you don't eventually shoot yourself in the foot. I suspected this thread would go on and on in circles, and I definitely complained about it being pointless before. But I think that many excellent points have been brought up on here, and perhaps they have helped enrich OP's perspective on this age-old question of rigor disparities.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I personally believe all schools (including Harvard/Stanford) should curve to B- or something like that. If everyone did it, Princeton/Chicago would just be "normal". When you curve to B+, you limit how much you can differentiate people. If you curved to B-, you can separate people who are 2 SD's above from those who are 1 SD above.

But the argument that you shouldn't enroll at UChicago/Princeton just because of GPA concerns is, IMO, unfair to the student. Lots of people don't know that they want to go to med school in HS. Also, it would be unfortunate if many people don't enroll at Princeton only because of GPA concerns when the benefits (e.g., great Financial Aid, world class education, many opportunities, good networking experiences, top companies recruit there, etc.) can be so significant for many students.

On a practical level, however, I admit that if you get into Princeton and Stanford, then maybe go to Stanford because of GPA concerns. But what if the only top school you get into is Princeton?

I know adcoms aren't going to give a .5 GPA boost to people from Princeton but if they are going to put so much weight into GPA (yes, GPA is just a single variable but its usually the most important or at least top 2 with MCAT) you need to somehow adjust for school difficulty - including give GPA boosts to people at Harvard.

But this GPA boost thing would also be highly flawed since GPA boosts are arbitrary (Princeton psych major is probably easier than Princeton pure math major). Looking on the other side, it would also be unfair since top students at top state schools (who are arguably HYPMS level) would essentially be penalized because even if they achieve 4.0, their GPA is "capped" by not going to a top school.

Thus, in conclusion, I think GPA should be given less weight. It should be used more of a measure of how much you tried in school and very roughly how proficient you were in sciences (as in, you are generally fine if you get at least B's). MCAT should be given more weight because you can actually compare scores in a meaningful way.

Sorry, I've never quite understood what curving to a B+ or B- means. In my undergrad experience some difficult courses were graded on a point system (i.e. you needed at least 925 pts out of 1000 for an A) or simply averaging around an 80 on your exams put you in the A range. And obviously, for the latter, it's not easy when the class averages are in the 40's...

I understand that the opportunities at Chicago and Princeton are abundant. I just don't think they're worth a .5 gpa dip, (if that's really the case). If someone gets into U Chicago, then it's pretty certain that they were also accepted to other great schools. But this is only my opinion. However, I've met a few Chicago grads over the years who confirmed that the "academic labor camp" was not worth it in the long run. They claimed that they could have easily achieved the same results elsewhere with far less stress. And of course you have the select few that can bust out esoteric chemistry and math as undergrads. But how is that skill level relevant to med school?

Your claim that a substantial gpa boost for Princeton students would be unfair to others is totally on point. Also, many State U students (outside of Berkeley, etc) are given very challenging material. I've been there-lol.

Again, I feel that some ppl are just seeking validation. They contend that Princeton students with a 3.2 should be given a major boost, yet they're quick to mention that they have a 3.8 with the same coursework. So essentially, they're calling themselves 4.3 students...

I really don't have an opinion about the GPA vs MCAT weight for admissions. Although, I can see both sides of the argument.

I just don't think it's practical to enroll at a school that will put you at a disadvantage. Pre-med coursework applies to a lot fields. An institution is doing a great disservice if it's weeding out students that would be successful elsewhere.

 

[GaiusOctavius]

After wasting 5 minutes of my life, that was the only article I found. And "techyville" is hardly a credible source. It is undoubtedly difficult to obtain a 4.0 at hopkins, but it's highly unlikely that NO ONE has ever done it. Think about kids majoring in english, sociology, spanish, romance languages, philosophy, film and media studies...

http://education.jhu.edu/aboutus/assessment/GPAAverages.html

http://www.techyville.com/2013/04/n...univ-discusses-plight-with-african-americans/

plenty of articles on this, this is just the first one I found

 

[justadream]

Sorry, I've never quite understood what curving to a B+ or B- means. In my undergrad experience some difficult courses were graded on a point system (i.e. you needed at least 925 pts out of 1000 for an A) or simply averaging around an 80 on your exams put you in the A range. And obviously, for the latter, it's not easy when the class averages are in the 40's...


I just don't think it's practical to enroll at a school that will put you at a disadvantage. Pre-med coursework applies to a lot fields. An institution is doing a great disservice if it's weeding out students that would be successful elsewhere.

Curving to B- means that if you are exactly average in your class, you will get a B-. Point systems allow everyone to get an A but curved classes do not.

Like if you took a group of people with math PhDs from MIT and had them take tests in Algebra I, the point system would allow them all to get easy A's. However, a curved system would ensure that some people get A's, B's, and C's.

For classes in which exams are "too easy" (which sometimes happens), a 95/100 can become a B+. That is why at top schools, tests in BCPM classes are often designed to be particularly hard/tricky to ensure that there are few scores in the 90s.

Yes, in the current landscape is it not practical to enroll at a school that will put you at a disadvantage. This is why I avoided schools like Hopkins/UChicago as well.

The same argument could be made for those who enroll in tough majors. Even at "easy" schools like Harvard/Stanford, I'd venture to guess that the average GPA for most engineering majors is likely around 3.4-3.5 or lower. This is from the simple fact that most BCPM classes grade on a B+ curve. So if you got average in every class, you'd get around a 3.3 GPA. Then add in a few general ed classes (in which you can pull off some A's if you choose the easiest classes) and your GPA will be in the 3.4-3.5 range.

So if you want to be practical, I agree that you should also avoid such majors (assuming you aren't like a genius in those subjects).

But my point is that med schools should not penalize students for choosing biomedical engineering or EE or Physics or whatever (not just at Harvard, but at all schools). By focusing so much on having 3.7+ GPAs, you inevitably leave out otherwise qualified students.

As such, you should focus less on GPA and more on MCAT.

After wasting 5 minutes of my life, that was the only article I found. And "techyville" is hardly a credible source. It is undoubtedly difficult to obtain a 4.0 at hopkins, but it's highly unlikely that NO ONE has ever done it. Think about kids majoring in english, sociology, spanish, romance languages, philosophy, film and media studies...

Just cause some people get a 4.0 at Hopkins doesn't mean its easy for the average student to get a 3.8.

Even at Harvard/Stanford, it is not easy to get a 4.0 while being premed. Even if you are really smart + hardworking, 4.0 at a top school while taking BCPM classes is a notable accomplishment.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

.

Like if you took a group of people with math PhDs from MIT and had them take tests in Algebra I, the point system would allow them all to get easy A's. However, a curved system would ensure that some people get A's, B's, and C's.

Fortunately, there aren't too many MIT PhDs crashing Algebra I exams 😉

 

[el_duderino]

I've been helping some high school students with pre-calc and algebra 2 lately. They're teaching some weird stuff in those classes. Part of many of the test problems I see include instructions to do a problem a specific way that I've never even heard of. The problems are easy, but I don't know what these "methods" or whatever are. I'm not entirely confident I could ace these exams lol

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

I've been helping some high school students with pre-calc and algebra 2 lately. They're teaching some weird stuff in those classes. Part of many of the test problems I see include instructions to do a problem a specific way that I've never even heard of. The problems are easy, but I don't know what these "methods" or whatever are. I'm not entirely confident I could ace these exams lol

lol I work a lot with underserved kids tutoring and I've experienced the same exact thing. easy problems, difficult concepts. it's the common core crap they're pushing in NY. between that and their home situations it's no wonder these poor kids can't keep up.

 

[BodyByChipotle]

I got a 4.0 at hopkins in BME obvi and I'm going to Harvard or Stanford havent decided yet bow to me peasants

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I got a 4.0 at hopkins in BME obvi and I'm going to Harvard or Stanford havent decided yet bow to me peasants

Lol, at least make it rhyme.

 

[WillburCobb]

Now I want Chipotle but I don't have any Chipotlaway 🙁.

 

[BodyByChipotle]

Now I want Chipotle but I don't have any Chipotlaway 🙁.

i keep the blood stains as a symbol of my hopkins superiority
you state school slime

 

[WillburCobb]

i keep the blood stains as a symbol of my hopkins superiority
you state school slime

Something good actually came out of this thread!

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I got u stuck off tha realness, we be the infamous, you heard of us, official state school murderers

 

[DoctorLacrosse]

I got u stuck off tha realness, we be the infamous, you heard of us, official state school murderers

lmao. killed it dude

 

[BodyByChipotle]

Q. Why do state school grads put a copy of their diploma in the window of their vehicles?

A. So they can park in handicap spaces.

 

[PreMed015]

As someone who did dual-enrollment at a state university (and currently attends a Top 20), I can tell you that there is 0% comparison between the difficulties of a "state school" and a "Top 20". Zero. I took ~60 credit hours and maintained a 4.0 GPA at 16 years old.

Nonetheless, I think we are overly pretentious. Attending a top program makes us no better or smarter than someone who attends X Community College. People mature at different rates, and if they can maintain the same GPA and rock the MCAT, then they are just as qualified for medical school as you are. Yes, it's a little unfair, but it was your choice to go to a Top 20.

 

[efle]

As someone who did dual-enrollment at a state university (and currently attends a Top 20), I can tell you that there is 0% comparison between the difficulties of a "state school" and a "Top 20". Zero. I took ~60 credit hours and maintained a 4.0 GPA at 16 years old.

Nonetheless, I think we are overly pretentious. Attending a top program makes us no better or smarter than someone who attends X Community College. People mature at different rates, and if they can maintain the same GPA and rock the MCAT, then they are just as qualified for medical school as you are. Yes, it's a little unfair, but it was your choice to go to a Top 20.

How can same GPA = equally qualified when there is a vast difference in difficulty?

 

[altblue]

.

 

[ChiDO]

7 pages later, and yet, this is still going. I gave the correct answer on the first page.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Telling a high-schooler to have the foresight to strategically choose their school is a bit unrealistic. I just graduated from UChicago (and it was the only school I applied to). I'm from a lower-class background, so I had no idea what the med school application process was like in terms of GPA and EC requirements going into undergrad (nor that I was definitely going to want to do medicine). Do you really expect that someone from a high school where 28% of people ever complete a bachelors to turn down the opportunity to go to a top school, especially when it is cheaper than going to a state school? Plus, having gone to a school with people whose backgrounds were so incredibly different than mine and the experiences that has afforded me allowed me mature in a way that I would not have at other schools. Should the lesson be to use grades as a shallow method to get to the next point or that education is way to grow as thinking human being?

And I don't think anyone is looking for validation. People are merely pointing out the fact that saying someone who is above average at a top school (above a 3.0 is technically above the average since classes are curved to a B) is not intellectually prepared for med school is a little far-fetched.

Right now I'm taking OChem at a different university and their tests are multiple choice and the questions are taken word for word from the practice exams.

Earlier, I was going to mention that this discussion is more appropriate for the HS-SDN forum. High schoolers are often given the worst information when it comes to choosing colleges. If anything, the high schools themselves benefit enormously by sending kids to highly ranked schools, especially if they charge tuition. I'm happy Chicago worked out for you. Although, I've had the experiences you described above at 2 state schools. And I'm certain that it's been no different for many other State U students here.

 

[Helse23]

Earlier, I was going to mention that this discussion is more appropriate for the HS-SDN forum. High schoolers are often given the worst information when it comes to choosing colleges. If anything, the high schools themselves benefit enormously by sending kids to highly ranked schools, especially if they charge tuition. I'm happy Chicago worked out for you. Although, I've had the experiences you described above at 2 state schools. And I'm certain that it's been no different for many other State U students here.

I'm sure you (and others) have, I'm just going based off the fact that my friends who went to state school say it was just like a larger version of high school for them, so I don't think I would have developed there. But it still doesn't resolve the issues with GPAs and I don't think the solution should be for people avoid great opportunities.