Top student wants to know what the disadvantages are to applying without an MCAT score.

[sunflower18]

Honest poll of those reading this thread: How common is a strict curve in pre-reqs where you all come from? Most of the people I know at ACC/Big10 schools (so basically everyone I went to HS with) plus the LACs in those regions were graded on raw score... and that still resulted in a massive weed out.

Generally no curve. If the class average is less than a C-, sometimes it will get bumped up to a C, but that's all.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[efle]

Graded on raw score as in 93% correct needed for an A? Or like they set a cutoff of 80% = A regardless of exact number surpassing it? We had a lot of the latter which were built on prior years to function like a curve such that almost exactly 20% cleared the A etc. In that system you get the same effect where the demands on someone to get the A are set relative to the student body but it isn't a classical curve its more like the MCAT system

 

[WingedOx]

Generally no curve. If the class average is less than a C-, sometimes it will get bumped up to a C, but that's all.

and I guess I'll add an additional part to the survey (since I'm curious)... what type of school: LAC, high tier state school, directional state school, etc.

 

[WingedOx]

Graded on raw score as in 93% correct needed for an A? Or like they set a cutoff of 80% = A regardless of exact number surpassing it? We had a lot of the latter which were built on prior years to function like a curve such that almost exactly 20% cleared the A etc. In that system you get the same effect where the demands on someone to get the A are set relative to the student body but it isn't a classical curve its more like the MCAT system

I think 92 was an A, but yes based entirely on what percent you got correct on tests... almost no curving or adjusting at all.

 

[sunflower18]

and I guess I'll add an additional part to the survey (since I'm curious)... what type of school: LAC, high tier state school, directional state school, etc.

Small, non-prestigious LAC for me.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

Depends on the class. WUSTL intro bio = every exam was hard curved so that 50% had lower than B-. WUSTL gen chem = 75% was an A-, theoretically everyone could get an A lol. WUSTL orgo = every exam was hard curved and grading scale was developed after each exam. WUSTL biochem = same as orgo. WUSTL physics during the year I have no idea because I took summer WUSTL physics, which was straight scale (90 = A-, 90 = B-, etc.). Most nonscience courses and upper level courses are straight scale but significantly easier to actually get an A.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Conversely, the common phenomenon of state school students having high GPAs but low MCATs (i.e. 3.9/27) shows evidence that state school (and other "lower ranked" schools) probably don't prepare their students for the MCAT as well as WUSTL does. I see it as a difficult decision. Attend WUSTL/similar difficult school for potentially lower grades but better MCAT prep? Or attend lower ranked school for higher grades but potentially worse MCAT prep?

TL;DR: The system ain't fair, but we all have to live with it.

There should be a middle ground here. A lot of schools achieve it. And those at either extreme should adjust their rigor/grading appropriately.
Also, I feel it's very counterproductive to give immensely difficult material in the intro level courses. They shouldn't be easy (of course). But ideally, the coursework should encourage students to pursue further study in the field.

There obviously is grade inflation though. I'm sure a 4.0 is no easy feat anywhere, but setting your median to A- is massive inflation, pure and simple. I get their reasoning though, the school is populated by such strong students that it makes zero sense to weed two thirds of them, and this way many many more people survive with competitive GPAs. Problem is, it's incredibly unfair and devaluing to peer institutions who don't inflate. I can't imagine how much it must suck to be at, say, Hopkins and know that if you held the same percentile among your class at Dartmouth your GPA would be a third of a point higher and shift you into much more competitive territory.

It's not unfair to the peer institutions, especially since their students are well prepared for med school. It's the grade deflating schools who are being unreasonable (to say the least).

The prestige-to-rigor conversion only works well when coursework is curved, I agree schools where crazy profs decide nobody or only a couple are getting an A would qualify as harder because of insane raw score grading. But overall, using the MCAT for comparison, it would appear that the people saying "It sucks I get B's, I'd be getting A's at my state school!" are often right.
@Ace Khalifa it's all pulled from AMCAS aggregate table and the Wustl prehealth handbook table

If it's people who attend Chicago, Wash U, Hopkins, Princeton, then they're most likely correct. But those are the ones you often hear the loudest. And such conservations usually feature the "state schools are for the most part a cakewalk" fallacy.

Honest poll of those reading this thread: How common is a strict curve in pre-reqs where you all come from? Most of the people I know at ACC/Big10 schools (so basically everyone I went to HS with) plus the LACs in those regions were graded on raw score... and that still resulted in a massive weed out.

Public schools in NY (one for my 1st degree another for my post-bacc).
At the former, some courses were graded on a curve, while others had a raw score. Either way, the courses were quite challenging. Organic 2 was insane

At my current program, it's more often a raw score and the coursework is somewhat less challenging. But it's kinda deceiving. The courses have a lower attrition rate, but a lot of students end up with Bs and Cs. It's definitely not an easy A. I guess at my old school, things were a bit more polarizing. Many realized they didn't have a chance early on...

 

[Ace Khalifa]

There should be a middle ground here. A lot of schools achieve it. And those at either extreme should adjust their rigor/grading appropriately.
Also, I feel it's very counterproductive to give immensely difficult material in the intro level courses. They shouldn't be easy (of course). But ideally, the coursework should encourage students to pursue further study in the field.

LOL a lot of us don't care about "pursuing further study in the field." We just wanna get those damn prereqs out of the way. Of course, this way of thinking has its flaws too, but I think it's justified with all the extremely aggravating hoop-jumping we have to go thru as premeds.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

LOL a lot of us don't care about "pursuing further study in the field." We just wanna get those damn prereqs out of the way. Of course, this way of thinking has its flaws too, but I think it's justified with all the extremely aggravating hoop-jumping we have to go thru as premeds.

By further study, I was mostly referring to the prereqs. Obviously, you have to get through gen chem in order take organic and biochem. Also, some schools require (or recommend) bio courses above the intro level.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

By further study, I was mostly referring to the prereqs. Obviously, you have to get through gen chem in order take organic and biochem. Also, some schools require (or recommend) bio courses above the intro level.

Oh sorry, didn't know what you meant. Besides biochem, what other upper level bio courses are actually being required nowadays?

 

[efle]

There should be a middle ground here. A lot of schools achieve it. And those at either extreme should adjust their rigor/grading appropriately.
Also, I feel it's very counterproductive to give immensely difficult material in the intro level courses. They shouldn't be easy (of course). But ideally, the coursework should encourage students to pursue further study in the field.


It's not unfair to the peer institutions, especially since their students are well prepared for med school. It's the grade deflating schools who are being unreasonable (to say the least).


If it's people who attend Chicago, Wash U, Hopkins, Princeton, then they're most likely correct. But those are the ones you often hear the loudest. And such conservations usually feature the "state schools are for the most part a cakewalk" fallacy.


Public schools in NY (one for my 1st degree another for my post-bacc).
At the former, some courses were graded on a curve, while others had a raw score. Either way, the courses were quite challenging. Organic 2 was insane

At my current program, it's more often a raw score and the coursework is somewhat less challenging. But it's kinda deceiving. The courses have a lower attrition rate, but a lot of students end up with Bs and Cs. It's definitely not an easy A. I guess at my old school, things were a bit more polarizing. Many realized they didn't have a chance early on...

It isn't the material that makes courses difficult especially in Bio, it's giving tests which cover a lot of material+critical thinking under a time crunch and in which your grade depends on your performance compared to current/past students at that school.

What we refer to as "deflation" really means "maintaining the way grades were given in the past instead of gradually shifting upwards". A system in which the entire class ends up compressed into B+/A-/A isn't as informative as one ranging C- to A with a B-ish median. Having a 3.0 median is a great system, but you need everyone to play fair and also rely on adcoms to interpret GPA in context of the student body (eg. a 3.1 at WUSTL is not actually a sub par student) but it appears neither of those are realistic. At the moment it seems like the best thing for the students is to get a 3.7 median going ASAP, the validity of the system and context be damned, because that won't matter nearly as much as the number itself

 

[justadream]

I agree with a lot of your points, however, this isn't a "top schools vs lower ranked schools" discussion. The appropriate paradigm is "schools who punish pre-meds vs schools who do not." Wash U is clearly harming its students with insane coursework and other top schools (ie Stanford and Brown) are more student-friendly. Why doesn't Wash U follow their example?

I know nobody wants to revive the top 30 school vs. non-top-30 school debate but the reality is that even top schools that are "student friendly" (such at Brown or Stanford) are often not that friendly in the math/science classes. They are just known for "grade inflation" mostly because of the humanities classes in which everyone gets an A- or A.

However, the math/science classes are often curved to B and getting even a B+ or A- is no easy feat when you consider
1) Rigor of course material itself is often higher
2) Peer group is more intelligent and/or hard working

I'd definitely argue that getting an B+ at Stanford in a class like Differential Equations is harder than getting an A at the vast majority of other schools.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

It isn't the material that makes courses difficult especially in Bio, it's giving tests which cover a lot of material+critical thinking under a time crunch and in which your grade depends on your performance compared to current/past students at that school.

What we refer to as "deflation" really means "maintaining the way grades were given in the past instead of gradually shifting upwards". A system in which the entire class ends up compressed into B+/A-/A isn't as informative as one ranging C- to A with a B-ish median. Having a 3.0 median is a great system, but you need everyone to play fair and also rely on adcoms to interpret GPA in context of the student body (eg. a 3.1 at WUSTL is not actually a sub par student) but it appears neither of those are realistic. At the moment it seems like the best thing for the students is to get a 3.7 median going ASAP, the validity of the system and context be damned, because that won't matter nearly as much as the number itself

If it makes you feel better, UMiami takes "quality of academic institution" into account when scoring applicants. You get 3, 15, or 30 points.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Oh sorry, didn't know what you meant. Besides biochem, what other upper level bio courses are actually being required nowadays?

I think some schools ask for cell or molecular bio (with genetics also fulfilling the requirement). Keep in mind that a lot of students take a course or 2 above the intro level to raise their gpa. Also, why should science majors be discouraged?!

It isn't the material that makes courses difficult especially in Bio, it's giving tests which cover a lot of material+critical thinking under a time crunch and in which your grade depends on your performance compared to current/past students at that school.

Whether it's the material itself, or the way it's presented, the exams shouldn't be insane. I've taken organic at 2 schools (didn't take the labs the 1st time around) and at my old school, too much material was covered, and some questions were . It's actually far more reasonable at my current school and there's plenty of critical thinking involved.

At the moment it seems like the best thing for the students is to get a 3.7 median going ASAP, the validity of the system and context be damned, because that won't matter nearly as much as the number itself

I totally agree with this.

I know nobody wants to revive the top 30 school vs. non-top-30 school debate but the reality is that even top schools that are "student friendly" (such at Brown or Stanford) are often not that friendly in the math/science classes. They are just known for "grade inflation" mostly because of the humanities classes in which everyone gets an A- or A.

However, the math/science classes are often curved to B and getting even a B+ or A- is no easy feat when you consider
1) Rigor of course material itself is often higher
2) Peer group is more intelligent and/or hard working

I'd definitely argue that getting an B+ at Stanford in a class like Differential Equations is harder than getting an A at the vast majority of other schools.

Not insane =/= an easy feat. For the 6,000th time, it's all about achieving the appropriate balance.

If it makes you feel better, UMiami takes "quality of academic institution" into account when scoring applicants. You get 3, 15, or 30 points.

So that means they gave you 40 points

Edit: Sigh, I guess we've given @efle exactly what he wanted...

 

[justadream]

@Cyberdyne 101
It's hard to achieve an appropriate "balance" when classes cannot just give like 90% A's.

The standard for an "A" varies greatly.

If we define an "A" in Differential Equations as the ability to be the ability to get an A at a top 200 school, I'd say that the vast majority of people at people in a class at Stanford/Harvard would deserve A's.

However, because most classes are not run with absolute scales, the professor has to somehow spread the grades a bit more. Unless you are actually really smart, it's actually quite difficult to score even the average in a class like that.

Here's an example of a Calculus test at Harvard/Stanford vs. top 200 school
Harvard/Stanford tests likely have a combination of pure computation like "integrate this thing" (which most everyone gets right) but also some tricky theory questions like "use ____ theory to show why this obscure property exists".

At most other schools, the tests are likely to be more computation-focused ("take derivative of this. Or, integrate this").

A student at Harvard/Stanford might know how to do all the computation questions and would get an A at the top 200 school. But at Harvard/Stanford, the tricky questions expose their relatively weak true understanding . The result would be the Harvard/Stanford student getting a B or B+ when in reality, they would have likely gotten an A at 90% of other schools.

This might not be the best example but the general idea is that classes at top schools often have trickier questions that expose weaknesses that other schools' classes might not expose.

Now there is no great solution to the issue. One way is to weigh standardized measures (e.g., the MCAT) more heavily when gauging academic performance. Another is to determine a subjective "correction factor" when evaluating GPAs from different schools.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

@Cyberdyne 101
It's hard to achieve an appropriate "balance" when classes cannot just give like 90% A's.

The standard for an "A" varies greatly.

If we define an "A" in Differential Equations as the ability to be the ability to get an A at a top 200 school, I'd say that the vast majority of people at people in a class at Stanford/Harvard would deserve A's.

However, because most classes are not run with absolute scales, the professor has to somehow spread the grades a bit more. Unless you are actually really smart, it's actually quite difficult to score even the average in a class like that.

Here's an example of a Calculus test at Harvard/Stanford vs. top 200 school
Harvard/Stanford tests likely have a combination of pure computation like "integrate this thing" (which most everyone gets right) but also some tricky theory questions like "use ____ theory to show why this obscure property exists".

At most other schools, the tests are likely to be more computation-focused ("take derivative of this. Or, integrate this").

A student at Harvard/Stanford might know how to do all the computation questions and would get an A at the top 200 school. But at Harvard/Stanford, the tricky questions expose their relatively weak true understanding . The result would be the Harvard/Stanford student getting a B or B+ when in reality, they would have likely gotten an A at 90% of other schools.

This might not be the best example but the general idea is that classes at top schools often have trickier questions that expose weaknesses that other schools' classes might not expose.

Now there is no great solution to the issue. One way is to weigh standardized measures (e.g., the MCAT) more heavily when gauging academic performance. Another is to determine a subjective "correction factor" when evaluating GPAs from different schools.

The type of problem you described is also given at lowly state schools...

And I've already given schools like Stanford and Brown credit for achieving balance. I never said they were easy or anything of that sort.

 

[altblue]

I agree with a lot of your points, however, this isn't a "top schools vs lower ranked schools" discussion. The appropriate paradigm is "schools who punish pre-meds vs schools who do not." Wash U is clearly harming its students with insane coursework and other top schools (ie Stanford and Brown) are more student-friendly. Why doesn't Wash U follow their example?

Because departments want to protect their image. Do you think some scowling prof with a thick Russian accent and two decades of good research wants the teaching in his department to be known as a joke? Harvard and Brown are in the position they are by the virtue of keeping alumni families happy and the donations coming; people don't donate if their kid has to do a post-bacc because of the school's grade deflation. Harvard profs. aren't especially fond of the copious grade inflation there, and hell, I haven't heard any nat. scie professors complaining about how they can't give out too many As at my school either. Since, well, Ivy League schools in particular get much of their funding from big donors.

Going off on a bit of tangent, I'm not even at one of the top deflaters like Hopkins or MIT, but in an introductory physics course, somone from the physics department stepped in and ****ed up every test after the first because the average for the first test was an A- and brought down the course average to a B-. So yeah...

 

[Goro]

Yes, it's always the fault of the curve and the professors and never, ever the fault of the students who don't want to put the work in to be those top students who are driving the curve.


Had a few best friends make the difficult decision to drop premed because they had trouble scoring above-average while being curved against top percentile students. Combine that with the absolutely massive disparity in difficulty I saw (and have frequently heard from others) when taking coursework at a midlevel state school back home, the idea that GPAs should be viewed similarly regardless of undergrad seems ridiculous. It screws over a lot of hard working and brilliant students who end up with tons of B-'s and a non or borderline competitive sGPA because of the student body they're pitted against.

 

[altblue]

Yes, it's always the fault of the curve and the professors and never, ever the fault of the students who don't want to put the work in to be those top students who are driving the curve.


Had a few best friends make the difficult decision to drop premed because they had trouble scoring above-average while being curved against top percentile students. Combine that with the absolutely massive disparity in difficulty I saw (and have frequently heard from others) when taking coursework at a midlevel state school back home, the idea that GPAs should be viewed similarly regardless of undergrad seems ridiculous. It screws over a lot of hard working and brilliant students who end up with tons of B-'s and a non or borderline competitive sGPA because of the student body they're pitted against.

No, it's the fault of the department, and well, the relevant deans, that force these curves.

The fact is that top UG schools show off their nice pre-law/pre-med/pre-MBA w/e stats to lure in moderately intelligent students who have the ability and work ethic to be competent doctors. They only give the top 25% or so grades adequate enough for medical school. Sure, they get most of the exceptionally intelligent and hardworking students through, assuming we're talking about a regular B- to B curve, but the bottom 75%, still moderately intelligent and capable, will have difficulties applying to med school though they're more than capable of making it through.

I wouldn't blame the students for not being able to get a 3.8 at this level... especially when the competition is forced.

I'm certain some of them would be very competent doctors, too - particularly at a lower-ranked school. While it's just food for thought, the pool of future physicians may be weakened too.

 

[iBro]

Assuming you've been preparing for (or have already taken) the MCAT this isn't really an issue either. You can pick your school list based on your practice scores. If you end up doing way better than expected - add a few more reaches to your list. If you bomb it - add more low-end.

Just want to point out this won't apply for the next few cycles as we don't have many (if any) scored practice exams.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

So that means they gave you 40 points

Edit: Sigh, I guess we've given @efle exactly what he wanted...

No, you get only 3, 15, or 30 points. University of Florida was an example of a 15 point school. University of Miami was an example of a 30 point school. So Wash U is essentially on the same level as UMiami even tho Wash U is more academically rigorous.

 

[mehc012]

Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in my original post. I definitely didn't mean to sound like the student isn't taking it at all! The student is actually thinking that she has to take it before the summer after her junior year in order to avoid a gap year and to go directly to medical school out of college. If she does that, she will be at a disadvantage because she will be taking classes in the fall, winter, and spring. (Taking the MCAT while taking classes can be very busy.) By "top student" I mean that everything she's done so far has been top notch. She has a lot of potential and I don't want to see it blown by a scheduling mistake. That's her situation.

If she were to apply on June 1st after her junior year and take the MCAT in August after her junior year, would that put her at a disadvantage? How so and how much of a disadvantage?

OK, I feel badly for commenting so harshly on a complete misinterpretation of your original post (and for throwing my 2¢ in on the epic tangent which is brewing) so, while I'm hardly an expert, I'll try to answer the actual question at hand.

Here's the deal: whenever discussing any less-than-ideal application decision, nobody is ever going to be able to definitively state 'how' bad something is or who could absolutely get away with it. It's just not possible to predict exactly how things will shake out. What we can do is to go over the timeline and talk about why the ideal is ideal and how much each other possibility deviates from that ideal. At that point, it's the applicant's judgement call as to whether the disadvantages of that course of action outweigh the perceived benefits.

So here goes:

AMCAS opens for submission on June 3.
Once you submit, it takes an unspecified period of time (which typically gets longer the more you wait) for them to sort through and 'verify' your transcripts. No school sees the app until after verification.
NO school sees ANY app until the end of June (somewhere around the 27th), even if it was verified on June 04.
You can submit and verify an app without an MCAT score, but schools won't look at it until it is complete.

So, the ideal is to have the MCAT score in and to have your app verified by the end of June.
The next best scenario, given the often-lengthy verification process, is to submit the app in June with a pending MCAT. You can submit to only the schools you know you want to apply to, regardless of score, and then add in others once the score comes in, based on what you get. At this stage, the date of your MCAT score report essentially determines when your app will first be seen by schools. Sooner is still better.
If you have a solid app other than the unknown MCAT result, and end up scoring well, you may not be hurt much if schools see you a month or so late - which would be a late June/early Aug test date. However, even a great applicant will be poorly served by waiting until September or early November (which is when schools would see an August MCAT). At that point, most schools will have had several rounds of interviews and some will have started sending out acceptances - aka fewer seats are available. If that MCAT turns out to be lower than she would hope? Bad news bears.

So, it's doable, but nobody will tell you it's ideal, and nobody can say 'oh, but for a 4.0 student it will be fine.' A 4.0 student will fare better in that situation than a 3.4 student, but it's still a disadvantage. Either way, a lot rides on that one, un-retakeable MCAT score.

 

[Willy38]

Honest poll of those reading this thread: How common is a strict curve in pre-reqs where you all come from? Most of the people I know at ACC/Big10 schools (so basically everyone I went to HS with) plus the LACs in those regions were graded on raw score... and that still resulted in a massive weed out.

Pretty strong LAC here. Everything at my school is based on raw score, however that score differed based on class. There were no curves however I can remember some classes required 96+ for an A and one (P chem) required 87+ for A. Still very few A's given out in general though, but I'm sure this varies with the strength of the class that particular semester.

Overall, I think if you know the material well then you should do well. A student shouldn't be penalized because his/her classmates do well also. So, in a nutshell I agree with a raw score/competency based curriculum.

 

[efle]

Yes, it's always the fault of the curve and the professors and never, ever the fault of the students who don't want to put the work in to be those top students who are driving the curve.


Had a few best friends make the difficult decision to drop premed because they had trouble scoring above-average while being curved against top percentile students. Combine that with the absolutely massive disparity in difficulty I saw (and have frequently heard from others) when taking coursework at a midlevel state school back home, the idea that GPAs should be viewed similarly regardless of undergrad seems ridiculous. It screws over a lot of hard working and brilliant students who end up with tons of B-'s and a non or borderline competitive sGPA because of the student body they're pitted against.

Really, man, you don't think people below the top couple deciles are putting in enough work? The courses are full of valedictorians and the average test scores are in the top percentile, the work ethic of almost all the students is absolutely humbling as is their intelligence. The people earning median GPA's of ~3.0 are working their ass of day in and day out just to try to beat half the class, but so is everyone else, and what it takes to be top of the curve is a hell of a lot more than a strong work ethic. People cry at exam pick-ups, post constantly on the anonymous wash u boards about feelings of depression and failure etc because no matter how damn hard you work, there will always be hundreds of others doing the same and outsmarting you on exams.

Maybe it's something you have to experience to understand, but saying that the middle of the curve students at somewhere like U Chicago or Hopkins etc are there for lack of trying is completely out of touch and wrong. When you set up a system in which a body of hard working, brilliant people are competing for a limited number of A/A- marks, you guarantee that there will be a lot of excellent students receiving mediocre grades. So yes, in fact, it is because you are constantly curving top students against each other that 2/3rds have to drop despite being some of the hardest working and smartest young people in the country.

Just look at the MCAT to see it - a 3.0-3.2 at WUSTL predicts a competitive MCAT at the same rate as a 3.8-4.0 nation wide. There is a difference in what it takes to make an A there vs Kutztown. There may be people who were top of their high school with killer ECs who somehow lost the inhuman work ethic in college, but they are few and far between after first semester and certainly don't represent "everyone not driving the curve" throughout the prereqs.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

Really, man, you don't think people below the top couple deciles are putting in enough work? The courses are full of valedictorians and the average test scores are in the top percentile, the work ethic of almost all the students is absolutely humbling as is their intelligence. The people earning median GPA's of ~3.0 are working their ass of day in and day out just to try to beat half the class, but so is everyone else, and what it takes to be top of the curve is a hell of a lot more than a strong work ethic. People cry at exam pick-ups, post constantly on the anonymous wash u boards about feelings of depression and failure etc because no matter how damn hard you work, there will always be hundreds of others doing the same and outsmarting you on exams.

Maybe it's something you have to experience to understand, but saying that the middle of the curve students at somewhere like U Chicago or Hopkins etc are there for lack of trying is completely out of touch and wrong. When you set up a system in which a body of hard working, brilliant people are competing for a limited number of A/A- marks, you guarantee that there will be a lot of excellent students receiving mediocre grades. So yes, in fact, it is because you are constantly curving top students against each other that 2/3rds have to drop despite being some of the hardest working and smartest young people in the country.

Just look at the MCAT to see it - a 3.0-3.2 at WUSTL predicts a competitive MCAT at the same rate as a 3.8-4.0 nation wide. There is a difference in what it takes to make an A there vs Kutztown. There may be people who were top of their high school with killer ECs who somehow lost the inhuman work ethic in college, but they are few and far between after first semester and certainly don't represent "everyone not driving the curve" throughout the prereqs.

You're overestimating our fellow students' work ethic and ability. I know plenty of people who couldn't hack it in premed due to being slackers or procrastinators. Some of my best friends "survived" premed by pulling all-nighters before every single curved exam. Do they fall into your overarching category of top students who deserve to stay premed? That's a judgment call we individually have to make. Also, are you taking into account that most of us at WUSTL have or have had access to old exams from older students or friends who previously took those classes? Do they fall into your category as well? From your previous posts in this forum, you condemn all of them as cheaters when in fact, what they did was simply the norm and almost required to keep up with the rest of the class doing the exact same thing. Life isn't fair. You do what you have to do and fight for that A or fight to stay above the mean. Medicine isn't for everyone, and no one deserves nor is entitled to a spot in medical school. No one is perfect; hardly anyone at our school stays above the mean every time.

P.S. I'm not perfect either. I regret not having discovered SDN earlier and not doing any research, but I've done the best I can with what I have and will not be ashamed if I have to reapply next year while adding some research experience.

 

[efle]

You're overestimating our fellow students' work ethic and ability. I know plenty of people who couldn't hack it in premed due to being slackers or procrastinators. Some of my best friends "survived" premed by pulling all-nighters before every single curved exam. Do they fall into your overarching category of top students who deserve to stay premed? That's a judgment call we individually have to make. Also, are you taking into account that most of us at WUSTL have or have had access to old exams from older students or friends who previously took those classes? Do they fall into your category as well? From your previous posts in this forum, you condemn all of them as cheaters when in fact, what they did was simply the norm and almost required to keep up with the rest of the class doing the exact same thing. Life isn't fair. You do what you have to do and fight for that A or fight to stay above the mean. Medicine isn't for everyone, and no one deserves nor is entitled to a spot in medical school. No one is perfect; hardly anyone at our school stays above the mean every time.

P.S. I'm not perfect either. I regret not having discovered SDN earlier and not doing any research, but I've done the best I can with what I have and will not be ashamed if I have to reapply next year while adding some research experience.

Or they put on the appearance of doing little work, but actually study quite a bit, which I've known several of. There are a handful of true slackers but genchem knocks them right out in my experience at least. The previous exam access didn't matter much at Wustl because the profs already provided 5+ years of old exams and exams were all original content. But I absolutely disagree that half to two thirds of wustl students were slackers who earned grades reflecting less than their full abilities. Doing things like all nighters was pretty common among even the people who studied plenty beforehand. I knew many more people doing their absolute best and coming up with B's than slackers studying one night to make the same grade.

Edit: And, btw, being the norm and being cheating are not exclusive. Someone in my bio lab sophomore year discovered that the solutions manual to our lab notebook had accidentally been left on the nslc server in an unprotected index and proceeded to save it and distribute it to the people he knew in the class, who all used it. It's normal for people to take advantage of that sort of opportunity, but no less condemnable. One of the few arguments I had with my room mates was about what's acceptable to do if you stumble upon an answer key like that - they shared your "f**k them, this is my chance to survive, and I'll share it with my friends at least" view

 

[beachside]

I've heard of some people listing just one school on their primary, submitting it and getting it verified, and then adding the rest of their schools once they receive their scores. This way their app is all ready to go by the time their scores come in instead of being put at the back of the verification line. Still gutsy, though!

Doesn't take any guts, that's literally the best way to do things if you need the summer before to study for the MCAT.

 

[beachside]

Had a few best friends make the difficult decision to drop premed because they had trouble scoring above-average while being curved against top percentile students. Combine that with the absolutely massive disparity in difficulty I saw (and have frequently heard from others) when taking coursework at a midlevel state school back home, the idea that GPAs should be viewed similarly regardless of undergrad seems ridiculous. It screws over a lot of hard working and brilliant students who end up with tons of B-'s and a non or borderline competitive sGPA because of the student body they're pitted against.

Plus, there is so much data to point out how stupid that assumption is. If you believe the MCAT really is an equalizer, look at this:

Among people with GPA 3.8-4.0, AMCAS says 16% made a 36+ MCAT. At WUSTL it's just over half. AMCAS says 37% made 33+. At WUSTL 87% did.

Among people with 3.0-3.2 at WUSTL, 68% made a 30+;
Among all people with a 3.8-4.0, 64% made a 30+.

So that's my problem with it, a body of people who appear (via the Equalizer) to be at a 3.8-4.0 level nationally end up 3.0-3.2 where they are, and pretty generally there is a clear difference in what ability level the GPA represents (again assuming you use the MCAT to compare) between a population at a top school vs the national average. Of course there are lots of exceptions like extreme inflaters and deflaters different majors blah blah

Anyways I'm not personally defensive about it, I think my GPA+MCAT is probably the strongest part of my app. I just feel compelled to combat the idea that GPA parity makes any freaking sense

Agreed. GPA is an almost meaningless metric when comparing people from vastly different schools.

 

[sunflower18]

Doesn't take any guts, that's literally the best way to do things if you need the summer before to study for the MCAT.

I know someone who submitted his/her primary application, got his/her MCAT scores a month later to discover that he/she had scored a 22 (which was far less than his/her practice average). That would be disappointing and heartbreaking!! So to submit without knowing your score takes confidence that you will score something that can be competitive for MD schools.

But I agree -- if you don't have a choice, this is the best way to do it!

 

[beachside]

I know someone who submitted his/her primary application, got his/her MCAT scores a month later to discover that he/she had scored a 22 (which was far less than his/her practice average). That would be disappointing and heartbreaking!! So to submit without knowing your score takes confidence that you will score something that can be competitive for MD schools.

But I agree -- if you don't have a choice, this is the best way to do it!

It doesn't really cost you anything to submit that AMCAS, besides the trivial monetary cost, because you'll only count as a reapplicant at that one school. Unless you're poor, there's no risk at all.

 

[efle]

Isn't the risk more that you'd end up being a very late applicant?

 

[JVav]

Used to be fairly common for those of us who had to take the August MCAT

I did it. I was abroad in the spring and didn't want to miss out on opportunities while abroad because of studying. So I took the test in August after studying during the summer. I submitted my primary apps before I actually took the test to try to motivate myself. Everything worked out well for me as I got accepted. My school uses me as an example of how to not properly go through the application process :/ Haters gonna hate.

 

[efle]

My school uses me as an example of how to not properly go through the application process :/

Whatever you do, do NOT be successful like this guy was

 

[Lucca]

I agree with elfe that in specific cases (Princeton, CalTech, MIT, WUSTL) the context of the GPA speaks volumes about it's actual value. Even certain departments at certain Unis have vastly different rigor compared to other departments at the same university (Purdue engineering comes to mind, from reputation not experience; physics, math, and engineering at my university from experience. I was a physics major once and switched in spite of loving physics and the department because of the toxic grading environment, a decision that still fills me with regret). I often take the opposite position in these threads, however, for other reasons that I don't really want to get into. Mainly because that statement is not easily generalized, is accounted for in most cases (as evidenced by admissions statistics; that is, students from prestigious AND grade deflating schools still fare better than students from non prestigious schools, on average, in the admissions game).

Inasmuch, I would just like to say that it is not - nor should it be - the responsibility of the university to maintain a largely competitive pre-med population. It simply goes against what a university's core purpose should be since an education in itself should not serve an express purpose. I think one of the biggest shortcomings of the Medical School admissions 'game' is that it no longer seems to care about the purpose or form of an undergraduate education. What is so mystifying to me is that everyone involved in MS admissions seems to value the purpose and substance of an undergraduate education, especially in the formative qualities it has towards a potential physician in spite of the process actively working against this notion.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

Or they put on the appearance of doing little work, but actually study quite a bit, which I've known several of. There are a handful of true slackers but genchem knocks them right out in my experience at least. The previous exam access didn't matter much at Wustl because the profs already provided 5+ years of old exams and exams were all original content. But I absolutely disagree that half to two thirds of wustl students were slackers who earned grades reflecting less than their full abilities. Doing things like all nighters was pretty common among even the people who studied plenty beforehand. I knew many more people doing their absolute best and coming up with B's than slackers studying one night to make the same grade.

Edit: And, btw, being the norm and being cheating are not exclusive. Someone in my bio lab sophomore year discovered that the solutions manual to our lab notebook had accidentally been left on the nslc server in an unprotected index and proceeded to save it and distribute it to the people he knew in the class, who all used it. It's normal for people to take advantage of that sort of opportunity, but no less condemnable. One of the few arguments I had with my room mates was about what's acceptable to do if you stumble upon an answer key like that - they shared your "f**k them, this is my chance to survive, and I'll share it with my friends at least" view

This situation is certainly closer to cheating than not cheating because the solutions manual is the answers to the assignment you must turn in. It's unfortunate that someone left that solutions manual unprotected and a student got unauthorized access to it. I only condone the "f**k them...at least" statement when people share old exams or other practice material that is NOT the actual answers for the thing they're studying for. I never once tried to look for the actual answers for an exam thru any dubious methods. If I had personally known the guy/gal who saved that solutions manual, I would have reported him/her because that's clearly an academic integrity violation. And for freaking bio 2970 lab too, something fairly simple enough not to cheat for.

 

[beachside]

Isn't the risk more that you'd end up being a very late applicant?

Definitely. If you take a July test, though, you'd still be sitting pretty.

 

[JVav]

Whatever you do, do NOT be successful like this guy was

Yea. I know what she was saying, but if I got the job done, I got the job done. Like, there isn't one best path for everyone. Studying abroad was a great experience for me and I was asked a lot of questions about it in my interview because most med students who do go take a gap year--or so I am told. I had a great experience and it was totally worth the hassle this summer.

 

[efle]

I agree with elfe that in specific cases (Princeton, CalTech, MIT, WUSTL) the context of the GPA speaks volumes about it's actual value.

Keep in mind I'm only one opinion though. In my experience Wash U lived up to its reputation for having a culture of incessant studying and being so competitive that you needed an impressive work ethic just to be at the middle of the student body. Apparently plenty of people get by on one night of studying and insider access to old exams instead. If Ace's experience is a lot more representative of the school than my own, it really shouldn't be mentioned along with places like Chicago (where fun goes to die? or really where you just pull an all nighter before the exam?) or Hopkins etc

This situation is certainly closer to cheating than not cheating because the solutions manual is the answers to the assignment you must turn in. It's unfortunate that someone left that solutions manual unprotected and a student got unauthorized access to it. I only condone the "f**k them...at least" statement when people share old exams or other practice material that is NOT the actual answers for the thing they're studying for. I never once tried to look for the actual answers for an exam thru any dubious methods. If I had personally known the guy/gal who saved that solutions manual, I would have reported him/her because that's clearly an academic integrity violation. And for freaking bio 2970 lab too, something fairly simple enough not to cheat for.

Yeah it was more so they could be lazy and just copy the answers, not like anyone struggled to get an A on the lab reports, but still cheating. I think we just disagree on whether we define cheating as an access to the answers themselves vs any advantageous materials not equally available to everyone

 

[beachside]

I did it. I was abroad in the spring and didn't want to miss out on opportunities while abroad because of studying. So I took the test in August after studying during the summer. I submitted my primary apps before I actually took the test to try to motivate myself. Everything worked out well for me as I got accepted. My school uses me as an example of how to not properly go through the application process :/ Haters gonna hate.

August MCAT here as well. Hurt me a bit, but having the higher MCAT score definitely helped. I wouldn't have had time to prepare for an earlier test. If I could choose between applying early with a moderate MCAT and applying late with a higher MCAT, I'd take the higher MCAT every time.

 

[efle]

Inasmuch, I would just like to say that it is not - nor should it be - the responsibility of the university to maintain a largely competitive pre-med population. It simply goes against what a university's core purpose should be since an education in itself should not serve an express purpose. I think one of the biggest shortcomings of the Medical School admissions 'game' is that it no longer seems to care about the purpose or form of an undergraduate education. What is so mystifying to me is that everyone involved in MS admissions seems to value the purpose and substance of an undergraduate education, especially in the formative qualities it has towards a potential physician in spite of the process actively working against this notion.

Are adcoms aware that in the current system, many premeds care a hundred fold more about successfully gaming the system than receiving and education and enjoying it? And I don't know what they could do to fix things, they already say they don't care about what you major in, what school you come from, look at you holistically etc, so all the cookie-cutter bio majors strategically padding their sGPAs or avoiding toughly graded courses they'd otherwise take are doing it to themselves

 

[Ace Khalifa]

Keep in mind I'm only one opinion though. In my experience Wash U lived up to its reputation for having a culture of incessant studying and being so competitive that you needed an impressive work ethic just to be at the middle of the student body. Apparently plenty of people get by on one night of studying and insider access to old exams instead. If Ace's experience is a lot more representative of the school than my own, it really shouldn't be mentioned along with places like Chicago (where fun goes to die? or really where you just pull an all nighter before the exam?) or Hopkins etc

Keep in mind that your GPA and MCAT are way better than mine. Your experience has been different than mine, but that's to be expected because not every Wash U student has the same experience. Wash U is still an elite academic institution like UChicago and Hopkins, just with a vastly different student culture. Sure, it's hard to beat the curve here, but no one at Wash U is actively trying to sabotage anyone else (i.e. Hopkins culture), and most of us know how to find somewhat of an appropriate work-life balance instead of being all work or all play (i.e. UChicago and Duke culture).

Yeah it was more so they could be lazy and just copy the answers, not like anyone struggled to get an A on the lab reports, but still cheating. I think we just disagree on whether we define cheating as an access to the answers themselves vs any advantageous materials not equally available to everyone

We do disagree on this point, but it's understandable and not something to get upset over.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

Are adcoms aware that in the current system, many premeds care a hundred fold more about successfully gaming the system than receiving and education and enjoying it? And I don't know what they could do to fix things, they already say they don't care about what you major in, what school you come from, look at you holistically etc, so all the cookie-cutter bio majors strategically padding their sGPAs or avoiding toughly graded courses they'd otherwise take are doing it to themselves

In my opinion, you would have to be an idiot to major in biology if you hated it or weren't good at biology/science in general just for the sake of "gaming" the system. Adcoms want to see that you succeeded in whatever major you chose; that's why they "don't care" what major you pick. Holistic review is totally real; that's how I got rejected from my state schools. Stats really aren't everything. If there's one thing I learned this year, it's that your life experiences and EC's matter more than your numbers, especially during and after the interview stage. I was almost a cookie-cutter bio major, if not for the fact that I liked bio and knew I wouldn't stand any other major if I chose it, with the exception of maybe psych. It might not feel right to take only the easiest classes possible within and outside your major, but if it helps you survive premed and get a decently competitive GPA, then I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[efle]

Keep in mind that your GPA and MCAT are way better than mine. Your experience has been different than mine, but that's to be expected because not every Wash U student has the same experience. Wash U is still an elite academic institution like UChicago and Hopkins, just with a vastly different student culture. Sure, it's hard to beat the curve here, but no one at Wash U is actively trying to sabotage anyone else (i.e. Hopkins culture), and most of us know how to find somewhat of an appropriate work-life balance instead of being all work or all play (i.e. UChicago and Duke culture).



We do disagree on this point, but it's understandable and not something to get upset over.

I think it's more like we had different perceptions of those around us in class. On my freshman floor there were several people who had serious identity crises because they went all out on studying and struggled to break a B, especially in chem lab and bio, and the idea that someone could pass an orgo exam on a single all-nighter blows my mind. I've only talked extensively to two people from Hopkins but they tell me it isn't that gnarly, there's definitely an intense atmosphere but no throwing roommate's lab report away etc...but then again they weren't premed. I bet they'd have an awesome Confessions page

In my opinion, you would have to be an idiot to major in biology if you hated it or weren't good at biology/science in general just for the sake of "gaming" the system. Adcoms want to see that you succeeded in whatever major you chose; that's why they "don't care" what major you pick. Holistic review is totally real; that's how I got rejected from my state schools. Stats really aren't everything. If there's one thing I learned this year, it's that your life experiences and EC's matter more than your numbers, especially during and after the interview stage. I was almost a cookie-cutter bio major, if not for the fact that I liked bio and knew I wouldn't stand any other major if I chose it, with the exception of maybe psych. It might not feel right to take only the easiest classes possible within and outside your major, but if it helps you survive premed and get a decently competitive GPA, then I see nothing wrong with it.

Did they actually tell you your rejection was due to lack of strong ECs or is that a self diagnosed weak point?

 

[Ace Khalifa]

I think it's more like we had different perceptions of those around us in class. On my freshman floor there were several people who had serious identity crises because they went all out on studying and struggled to break a B, especially in chem lab and bio, and the idea that someone could pass an orgo exam on a single all-nighter blows my mind. I've only talked extensively to two people from Hopkins but they tell me it isn't that gnarly, there's definitely an intense atmosphere but no throwing roommate's lab report away etc...but then again they weren't premed. I bet they'd have an awesome Confessions page
Not one all-nighter, more like 2 or 3 in a row with scattered naps in and out of class throughout. And yeah, their Confessions page would be something alright. I like to think ours is great too. It shows us that we're all only human.


Did they actually tell you your rejection was due to lack of strong ECs or is that a self diagnosed weak point?

Self-diagnosed. I can't get an official consultation until the cycle is over.

 

[sunflower18]

I think an unfair mistake comes from assuming that, just because a school isn't well known, it's not rigorous. Who's to say that Kutztown State or whatever isn't very challenging?

I go to an LAC that nobody has heard of, and many of my classes are quite intense. It doesn't much matter, it's just frustrating that my hard work and GPA might be looked down upon because I didn't attend a nationally known university. Assuming that the classes are easy if there is no context stating otherwise just doesn't seem like an accurate way to make a judgment. You can't necessarily judge a school's rigour by its pedigree, I guess is my point.

Edit: Removed an anecdote since it wasn't really necessary to my point

 

[Aloft085]

Honest poll of those reading this thread: How common is a strict curve in pre-reqs where you all come from? Most of the people I know at ACC/Big10 schools (so basically everyone I went to HS with) plus the LACs in those regions were graded on raw score... and that still resulted in a massive weed out.

Unless a course was long established with tests of reliable difficulty, almost all of my courses were adjusted to fit a statistical normal distribution (bell curve). I was at a top 5 engineering school. Unless your tests are very easy (read: grade inflated), a raw score makes no sense. The professor could screw up and make the test far too difficult or easy and throw off the grade distribution.

At my school, grade inflation was actively combated in order to maintain rigor. This meant that professors had to be within a certain range of percent A's, B's, C's, etc for final grades. I don't know all the details, but I do recall professors mentioning something along those lines.

Students often associate a curve with "easy", but often my classes were curved to lower grades as well.

 

[Ace Khalifa]

I think an unfair mistake comes from assuming that, just because a school isn't well known, it's not rigorous. Who's to say that Kutztown State or whatever isn't very challenging?

I go to an LAC that nobody has heard of, and many of my classes are quite intense. It doesn't much matter, it's just frustrating that my hard work and GPA might be looked down upon because I didn't attend a nationally known university. Assuming that the classes are easy if there is no context stating otherwise just doesn't seem like an accurate way to make a judgment. You can't necessarily judge a school's rigour by its pedigree, I guess is my point.

Edit: Removed an anecdote since it wasn't really necessary to my point

I saw your anecdote before you removed it. I think it helped you explain your case.

 

[efle]

I think an unfair mistake comes from assuming that, just because a school isn't well known, it's not rigorous. Who's to say that Kutztown State or whatever isn't very challenging?

I go to an LAC that nobody has heard of, and many of my classes are quite intense. It doesn't much matter, it's just frustrating that my hard work and GPA might be looked down upon because I didn't attend a nationally known university. Assuming that the classes are easy if there is no context stating otherwise just doesn't seem like an accurate way to make a judgment. You can't necessarily judge a school's rigour by its pedigree, I guess is my point.

Edit: Removed an anecdote since it wasn't really necessary to my point

For me at least I didn't think there was a rigor gap until taking coursework at a midlevel state school, seeing all my sibling's coursework at a midlevel LAC, and hearing about all my friend's similar experiences with their coursework at other schools. The usual story from people who have experienced both is that there's a noticeable difference, and I don't think I've seen any anecdotes in the opposite direction. Added on to that is the huge gap in MCATs by GPA if you're into the whole Great Equalizer argument. But it's still a generalization which I'm sure is full of exceptions (like that poster who said two people in his 100+ person Ochem got an A), and on SDN it sounds like most med schools don't really care where you went.

 

[67552931811]

Generally no curve. If the class average is less than a C-, sometimes it will get bumped up to a C, but that's all.

Same, curves were very rare. A couple of my classes had low D averages and the professors didn't curve them. A few of my B's were when I was top 5% in the class or so. Sucks, but it's irrelevant now.

 

[efle]

Same, curves were very rare. A couple of my classes had low D averages and the professors didn't curve them. A few of my B's were when I was top 5% in the class or so. Sucks, but it's irrelevant now.

That's INSANE! Professors fail over half the class? What the hell is the reasoning behind this, I can understand wanting to make use of a large distribution of grades and maybe a C median if they're really old-school, but giving the majority of people F and D grades gives the class zero ability to judge their success and doesn't seem to benefit anybody