UCLA implements new sGPA and MCAT Cutoffs; 3.4 and 512

[Chromium Surfer]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Personally I think "holistic as long as you're top 10% test scores" isn't holistic by any stretch. Anything past ~30 (now 508 I guess) and you will be able to handle the learning/testing style of med school, in my opinion (and also in the data). The idea that an otherwise incredible applicant with a 30 will not even be considered is the system operating poorly


I agree nobody else among their peers is any better. UCLA is just noteworthy for being the last holdout, especially since a couple years back they REALLY walked the walk by having a 508 enrolled median. A decade ago, the medians for all the top programs were in the low 30s (~ same as low five-teens) and now here we are a short while later watching the last legit h o l i s t i c school join the standardized score bandwagon

Why do you think 508 is the benchmark for being able to handle med school when AAMC touts 500 as the competency mark? ( this isn’t meant to be an attack, I’m just genuinely curious about your interpretation)

 

[efle]

Why do you think 508 is the benchmark for being able to handle med school when AAMC touts 500 as the competency mark? ( this isn’t meant to be an attack, I’m just genuinely curious about your interpretation)

Like someone else was mentioning earlier, I think eventually and/or barely passing the licensing exams and getting the degree is not an ideal target. That's all that they say a 25 / 500 / 50th percentile of premed applicants makes pretty certain.

A few deciles above that around 75-80th percentile though? Now you're talking about the typical med student who will probably do just fine in the curriculum, maybe a couple retaken exams, and will probably score pretty average on the steps. If your school is shutting these people out no matter how incredible their service, research, experiences etc then you've made academic metrics your primary concern by a wide margin. None of the most competitive schools will say it, but it's become pretty apparent that an accurate mission statement would read "to enroll students who first and foremost will easily handle the academics, do lots of resume-building activities concurrently especially research, and match to impressive academic centers for competitive specialty training"

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Personally I think "holistic as long as you're top 10% test scores" isn't holistic by any stretch. Anything past ~30 (now 508 I guess) and you will be able to handle the learning/testing style of med school, in my opinion (and also in the data). The idea that an otherwise incredible applicant with a 30 will not even be considered is the system operating poorly

I completely agree with you, and I think that schools place an undue focus on stats when the AAMC has said that anything over a 500 predicts success in medical school. However, as far as I understand it, holistic just means they look at the whole application, no? They want people with great stories, great experiences, great examples of altruism, etc. So why when it comes to scores, can't they want people with great scores? That's just another part of the application.

 

[FindMeOnTheLinks]

Again, they can absolutely be “holistic” while also having a high score cut off.

There are PLENTY of applicants out there with 3.9+/512+ who checked all the boxes in addition to doing exceptional, unique things outside of school/medicine

I guarantee you UCLA is not thinking they now want to just fill their class with academic robots. They are thinking that they can still fill their class with exceptional applicants in every regard, while also providing the transparency to let applicants know they are wasting their time if they fall below the requirements. UCLA should be APPLAUDED for providing this information

And again, I don’t know where this idea of holistic review stuff being exclusive of stats comes from

1. Given that the definition of holistic is to consider EVERYTHING, grades and test scores fall into the category of EVERYTHING last I checked
2. Again, just because someone is high stats, doesn’t mean they aren’t an exceptional person with unique experiences, a good story, overcoming hardship etc - there are a lot of these people out there
3. Go look at the school mission, admission criteria, class profiles of most of the top 20 schools. They are NOT just stat whoring (except maybe WashU and NYU). They are selecting exceptional classes who have BOTH high stats AND unique, rich life experiences because they are the best of the best applicants
4. The top schools don’t just want students who meet the bare minimum test scores that predict they will pass step 1. They want to fill their class with the smartest people who will go on to smash boards, excel clinically, land top residencies, and eventually produce research that will carry medicine forward and become leaders in the field. Selecting for the bare minimum mcat that predicts for a PASSING score on boards is setting the bar awfully low

 

[Chromium Surfer]

Like someone else was mentioning earlier, I think eventually and/or barely passing the licensing exams and getting the degree is not an ideal target. That's all that they say a 25 / 500 / 50th percentile of premed applicants makes pretty certain.

A few deciles above that around 75-80th percentile though? Now you're talking about the typical med student who will probably do just fine in the curriculum, maybe a couple retaken exams, and will probably score pretty average on the steps. If your school is shutting these people out no matter how incredible their service, research, experiences etc then you've made academic metrics your primary concern by a wide margin. None of the most competitive schools will say it, but it's become pretty apparent that an accurate mission statement would read "to enroll students who first and foremost will easily handle the academics, do lots of resume-building activities concurrently especially research, and match to impressive academic centers for competitive specialty training"

Ah I see your point and definitely agree with that, thanks for clarifying.

I feel like people should always put their best foot forward when it comes to standardized testing, though external and internal factors also are inadvertently at play that sometimes prevent that from happening.

 

[efle]

I completely agree with you, and I think that schools place an undue focus on stats when the AAMC has said that anything over a 500 predicts success in medical school. However, as far as I understand it, holistic just means they look at the whole application, no? They want people with great stories, great experiences, great examples of altruism, etc. So why when it comes to scores, can't they want people with great scores? That's just another part of the application.

Again, they can absolutely be “holistic” while also having a high score cut off.

There are PLENTY of applicants out there with 3.9+/512+ who checked all the boxes in addition to doing exceptional, unique things outside of school/medicine

I guarantee you UCLA is not thinking they now want to just fill their class with academic robots. They are thinking that they can still fill their class with exceptional applicants in every regard, while also providing the transparency to let applicants know they are wasting their time if they fall below the requirements. UCLA should be APPLAUDED for providing this information

And again, I don’t know where this idea of holistic review stuff being exclusive of stats comes from

1. Given that the definition of holistic is to consider EVERYTHING, grades and test scores fall into the category of EVERYTHING last I checked
2. Again, just because someone is high stats, doesn’t mean they aren’t an exceptional person with unique experiences, a good story, overcoming hardship etc - there are a lot of these people out there
3. Go look at the school mission, admission criteria, class profiles of most of the top 20 schools. They are NOT just stat whoring (except maybe WashU and NYU). They are selecting exceptional classes who have BOTH high stats AND unique, rich life experiences because they are the best of the best applicants
4. The top schools don’t just want students who meet the bare minimum test scores that predict they will pass step 1. They want to fill their class with the smartest people who will go on to smash boards, excel clinically, land top residencies, and eventually produce research that will carry medicine forward and become leaders in the field. Selecting for the bare minimum mcat that predicts for a PASSING score on boards is setting the bar awfully low

Where do you guys think is fair to draw the line? Vandy for example is "holistic" in this sense about your app...as long as your MCAT is in the top couple percent. Is that a legitimate claim to holistic admissions? I just think of a top 10% minimum as excessive, I guess.

 

[puahate]

I feel like any HARD cutoff is not really holistic it's just a way to save time. I don't think it's bad I just dont think a school should say anywhere in their admissions page that their selection process is "holistic" and UCLA does not do that so it's all good.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Where do you guys think is fair to draw the line? Vandy for example is "holistic" in this sense about your app...as long as your MCAT is in the top couple percent. Is that a legitimate claim to holistic admissions? I just think of a top 10% minimum as excessive, I guess.

I think a top 10% cut off is excessive too. I just think that when you get 14,000 apps, you can make the cutoff whatever you want and still look at the entire application. Again, I think it's just a misapplication of the term. There's holistic, where they simply look at the entire application and take it all into account, and then there's h o l i s t i c where they are going to be looking less at stats and more at experiences and diversity. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to do either, but we just have to define what we're talking about.

And what are we really saying? Are people with really high stats not capable of being as diverse and experienced as those who don't? I'm sure there are enough top 10% applicants with excellent, well-rounded applications to fill a diverse class. To me, the argument that it isn't holistic really just is another way of saying, "I'm mad that I will be screened out now because my stats aren't good enough, even though the rest of my app is solid." That's totally a valid feeling to have, but it isn't a valid criticism of their admissions policy. And that comes from someone who would JUST BARELY sneak by the GPA cutoff and then likely get immediately rejected for not being a CA resident (not to mention the mediocre GPA).

 

[Lucca]

Like someone else was mentioning earlier, I think eventually and/or barely passing the licensing exams and getting the degree is not an ideal target. That's all that they say a 25 / 500 / 50th percentile of premed applicants makes pretty certain.

A few deciles above that around 75-80th percentile though? Now you're talking about the typical med student who will probably do just fine in the curriculum, maybe a couple retaken exams, and will probably score pretty average on the steps. If your school is shutting these people out no matter how incredible their service, research, experiences etc then you've made academic metrics your primary concern by a wide margin. None of the most competitive schools will say it, but it's become pretty apparent that an accurate mission statement would read "to enroll students who first and foremost will easily handle the academics, do lots of resume-building activities concurrently especially research, and match to impressive academic centers for competitive specialty training"

That’s definitely the mission at the top USNWR schools. But, thankfully, there are many other medical schools. I think it’s more holistic and fair to the applicant to have stats only considered in the first pass cut. However, we know from the old surveys that stats are still 3rd, 4th most important things considered for admission post-interview behind interview feedback and LORs.

UCLA will lose out on a margin of exceptional applicants with stats just below average (matriculant) stats, but if those applicants are truly exceptional they will still get into great medical schools. If every other top school copied UCLAs admission policy, they would all become much more holistic overnight.

 

[f4reignbeauty]

There’s much more to this story than simply a cohort of students doing poorly on Step 1 (which btw has more to do with UCLA’s Step 1 policy)

We as students are disappointed because the disadvantaged committee was disbanded, and members were separated into various admissions committees, thus diluting their input by shear numbers.

We as students are disappointed because it has already affected racial/ethnic diversity in our current first year class. Many of you all are using coded language, and saying diversity... but you’re speaking of diverse experience... and not the former. We also have to understand that most of UCLA’s diversity comes from their Drew and PRIME cohorts. Diversity has always been a problem here.

There’s so much more to this story...

 

[Lucca]

There’s much more to this story than simply a cohort of students doing poorly on Step 1 (which btw has more to do with UCLA’s Step 1 policy)

We as students are disappointed because the disadvantaged committee was disbanded, and members were separated into various admissions committees, thus diluting their input by shear numbers.

We as students are disappointed because it has already affected racial/ethnic diversity in our current first year class. Many of you all are using coded language, and saying diversity... but you’re speaking of diverse experience... and not the former. We also have to understand that most of UCLA’s diversity comes from their Drew and PRIME cohorts. Diversity has always been a problem here.

There’s so much more to this story...

Could you expand on the admins motivations and it’s effects from ur perspective?

 

[RNthenDoc]

We as students are disappointed because it has already affected racial/ethnic diversity in our current first year class.

I’ve been wondering about this. If hard baselines like this are implemented, it’s going to filter out a ton of URM.

It seems trying to control for things like that only imparts more bias into the system and ends up hurting in the end.

 

[efle]

There’s much more to this story than simply a cohort of students doing poorly on Step 1 (which btw has more to do with UCLA’s Step 1 policy)

We as students are disappointed because the disadvantaged committee was disbanded, and members were separated into various admissions committees, thus diluting their input by shear numbers.

We as students are disappointed because it has already affected racial/ethnic diversity in our current first year class. Many of you all are using coded language, and saying diversity... but you’re speaking of diverse experience... and not the former. We also have to understand that most of UCLA’s diversity comes from their Drew and PRIME cohorts. Diversity has always been a problem here.

There’s so much more to this story...

What would motivate a school to suddenly raise its MCAT floor by so much, if not its usefulness as an academic predictor? US News rank??

 

[MyOdyssey]

There’s much more to this story than simply a cohort of students doing poorly on Step 1 (which btw has more to do with UCLA’s Step 1 policy)

We as students are disappointed because the disadvantaged committee was disbanded, and members were separated into various admissions committees, thus diluting their input by shear numbers.

We as students are disappointed because it has already affected racial/ethnic diversity in our current first year class. Many of you all are using coded language, and saying diversity... but you’re speaking of diverse experience... and not the former. We also have to understand that most of UCLA’s diversity comes from their Drew and PRIME cohorts. Diversity has always been a problem here.

There’s so much more to this story...

Regarding your bolded statement, how so?

 

[puahate]

There’s much more to this story than simply a cohort of students doing poorly on Step 1 (which btw has more to do with UCLA’s Step 1 policy)

We as students are disappointed because the disadvantaged committee was disbanded, and members were separated into various admissions committees, thus diluting their input by shear numbers.

We as students are disappointed because it has already affected racial/ethnic diversity in our current first year class. Many of you all are using coded language, and saying diversity... but you’re speaking of diverse experience... and not the former. We also have to understand that most of UCLA’s diversity comes from their Drew and PRIME cohorts. Diversity has always been a problem here.

There’s so much more to this story...

Your opinion is valued. Can you please expand on this. Im really curious what UCLA students think. Is there a divide?

 

[Rachapkis]

UCLA is at the very pointy end of the spear. I would not be surprised if they routinely find a group of candidates above their existing cutoffs that have an amazing story too. If they routinely find this to be true, they are helping applicants and their staff by making clear that an applicant doesn’t have a chance unless their GPA is above 3.4 and MCAT above 512.

 

[lalalallala]

A Harvard Med Admissions Committee member came to my UG and said their cut off is 514 unless they really need some diversity. UCLA is a top school that is very desirable for many applicants so it makes sense that they will expect around the same stats. For ORM/high SES I don't think these cut offs are a problem at all - most ORM/high SES need much higher stats than that to be considered. Earlier posters pointed out that Drew/prime is where most of UCLA's diversity lies and how it is unlikely that these programs would adopt these cutoffs. I wish UCLA would be more transparent. Like give an URM/disadvantaged group cut off and then another group cut off.

 

[efle]

A Harvard Med Admissions Committee member came to my UG and said their cut off is 514 unless they really need some diversity. UCLA is a top school that is very desirable for many applicants so it makes sense that they will expect around the same stats. For ORM/high SES I don't think these cut offs are a problem at all - most ORM/high SES need much higher stats than that to be considered. Earlier posters pointed out that Drew/prime is where most of UCLA's diversity lies and how it is unlikely that these programs would adopt these cutoffs. I wish UCLA would be more transparent. Like give an URM/disadvantaged group cut off and then another group cut off.

The system gets enough criticism as it is with just the Gestalt sense that factors outside your control, like your race/ethnicity, can be a major determinant in your outcomes. If internal policies were made public that essentially read as: "Mexican? 512 is extremely competitive here. Jewish? Asian? 512 will be hard screened out even if you are low SES."

It would be a nightmare. It's no surprise to me at all that most schools publish zero information about cutoffs, let alone give hard numbers on a subject as sensitive as URM.

 

[RNthenDoc]

The system gets enough criticism as it is with just the Gestalt sense that factors outside your control, like your race/ethnicity, can be a major determinant in your outcomes. If internal policies were made public that essentially read as: "Mexican? 512 is extremely competitive here. Jewish? Asian? 512 will be hard screened out even if you are low SES."

It would be a nightmare. It's no surprise to me at all that most schools publish zero information about cutoffs, let alone give hard numbers on a subject as sensitive as URM.

I’ve just always felt like transparency is good unless you have something to be ashamed of

 

[OchemOficionado]

I’ve just always felt like transparency is good unless you have something to be ashamed of

It’s likely not about being ashamed and more about not inviting drama. Especially in this sue happy country, lol.

 

[efle]

I’ve just always felt like transparency is good unless you have something to be ashamed of

Isn't Harvard fighting a massive lawsuit right now because they got lazy enough to put race-based cutoffs in writing? If anything I think schools are proud of their diversity, not ashamed, but man do they have to be careful about revealing the cutoff differences they need to use to achieve it

 

[deleted938090]

The system gets enough criticism as it is with just the Gestalt sense that factors outside your control, like your race/ethnicity, can be a major determinant in your outcomes. If internal policies were made public that essentially read as: "Mexican? 512 is extremely competitive here. Jewish? Asian? 512 will be hard screened out even if you are low SES."

It would be a nightmare. It's no surprise to me at all that most schools publish zero information about cutoffs, let alone give hard numbers on a subject as sensitive as URM.

These institutions are facing the challenge of creating a diverse class and being fair towards its applicants. There are not as many applicants from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds, so picking the most qualified among them will necessarily cause imbalances between different groups. Other countries don't face this problem because their population is much more homogeneous.

The issue is that this system can be abused - wealthy or middle-class URMs who did not face the same struggles end up taking the spots reserved for the truly under-represented, or poor or middle-class ORMs being placed in the same bracket as the very wealthy cohort who could "afford tutoring, resources, etc." As a result we risk stereotyping both groups when reality is much more heterogeneous. Hence this is why we see so much "oppression Olympics" going on - showcasing a larger problem that we are trying to pigeonhole multiple kinds of life experience into a few categories.

 

[OchemOficionado]

The issue is that this system can be abused - wealthy or middle-class URMs who did not face the same struggles end up taking the spots reserved for the truly under-represented, or poor or middle-class ORMs being placed in the same bracket as the very wealthy cohort who could "afford tutoring, resources, etc." As a result we risk stereotyping both groups when reality is much more heterogeneous. Hence this is why we see so much "oppression Olympics" going on - showcasing a larger problem that we are trying to pigeonhole multiple kinds of life experience into a few categories.

A URM applicant is underrepresented regardless of how much money they/their parents make, this response seems to ignore that. When it comes to race, there are struggles regardless of tax bracket as well as benefits to patient outcomes.

 

[efle]

These institutions are facing the challenge of creating a diverse class and being fair towards its applicants. There are not as many applicants from disadvantaged and underrepresented backgrounds, so picking the most qualified among them will necessarily cause imbalances between different groups. Other countries don't face this problem because their population is much more homogeneous.

The issue is that this system can be abused - wealthy or middle-class URMs who did not face the same struggles end up taking the spots reserved for the truly under-represented, or poor or middle-class ORMs being placed in the same bracket as the very wealthy cohort who could "afford tutoring, resources, etc." As a result we risk stereotyping both groups when reality is much more heterogeneous. Hence this is why we see so much "oppression Olympics" going on - showcasing a larger problem that we are trying to pigeonhole multiple kinds of life experience into a few categories.

I honestly think the reason it's so absuable is that schools decided to try and use race/ethnicity as the measure of diversity, instead of directly looking at SES. This results in stuff like the Ivy League admitting the children of wealthy African immigrant families to check the box for racial diversity. That is clearly not what was intended.

Although I guess if they instead used SES they could open themselves up to lawsuits just the same, if it turned out the cream-of-the-crop among poor applicants was still disproportionately Asian, white and Jewish.

 

[RNthenDoc]

Sorry, I just don’t follow the logic of using obfuscated, subjective measurements to ensure fairness.

Fairness tends to grow in the garden of transparent, objective standards.

But what would I know

 

[OchemOficionado]

Sorry, I just don’t follow the logic of using obfuscated, subjective measurements to ensure fairness.

Fairness tends to grow in the garden of transparent, objective standards.

But what would I know

Not sure the goal is to be fair to the applicants. Either way, it’s cool that UCLA decided to throw a cut off out there as it may help a lot of applicants decide whether to even apply or not.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

That is clearly not what was intended.

says you, though

 

[chlorocruorin]

In other words: If your a URM and meet the cutoff your a** is in!!

 

[deleted938090]

A URM applicant is underrepresented regardless of how much money they/their parents make, this response seems to ignore that. When it comes to race, there are struggles regardless of tax bracket as well as benefits to patient outcomes.

I am pointing out that treating URM by race alone is unnecessarily narrow. Oppression can come by not only race, but by privilege, religion, sexuality, gender, and SES. If we were to look at race alone, then within the same race of applicants, the system preferentially selects those who are more well off. It would be discounting their experience if we were to believe that the struggles are independent of income.

 

[OchemOficionado]

I am pointing out that treating URM by race alone is unnecessarily narrow. Oppression can come by not only race, but by privilege, religion, sexuality, gender, and SES. If we were to look at race alone, then within the same race of applicants, the system preferentially selects those who are more well off. It would be discounting their experience if we were to believe that the struggles are independent of income.

You stated that the system can be abused by financially well-off URMs and that simply isn’t true. That would be discounting their experience as a racial or ethnic minority in this country.

The AAMC decided to base URM on race and disadvantaged status based on circumstances. Seems to cover most everything when both are taken into account.

 

[deleted804295]

I am pointing out that treating URM by race alone is unnecessarily narrow. Oppression can come by not only race, but by privilege, religion, sexuality, gender, and SES. If we were to look at race alone, then within the same race of applicants, the system preferentially selects those who are more well off. It would be discounting their experience if we were to believe that the struggles are independent of income.

A rich black person can be treated with racism no matter how rich they are. Not the case for a poor white person.

 

[PreMedMissteps]

In other words: If your a URM and meet the cutoff your a** is in!!

Well if that’s the case, then just make things easy and tell URMs not to bother with the primary or secondary apps... Hey, just send us your transcripts and scores and we’ll tell you when White Coat will be. 😀

 

[puahate]

A rich black person can be treated with racism no matter how rich they are. Not the case for a poor white person.

This is something people have a hard time grasping and do not want to admit.

Intrinsically, there is differential treatment based just on race that is not correlated on SES.

 

[chlorocruorin]

Cmon...LeBron James has been and is a victim of racism. Money has nothing to do with it. Or fame for that matter

 

[787593]

*reads first post* - Oh cool! a discussion about MCAT/GPA cutoffs.

*skips to page three* - Racism!

 

[cantankerous]

A URM applicant is underrepresented regardless of how much money they/their parents make, this response seems to ignore that. When it comes to race, there are struggles regardless of tax bracket as well as benefits to patient outcomes.

Californian medical schools can't consider an applicant's race and possible URM status. They can only use SES as a metric for diversity in admissions. While I'm sure that the admissions committee will internally consider race, they cannot use an applicant's URM status to rank one candidate over another officially in their decisions.

 

[Goro]

*reads first post* - Oh cool! a discussion about MCAT/GPA cutoffs.

*skips to page three* - Racism!

Well, this is SDN.

Californian medical schools can't consider an applicant's race and possible URM status. They can only use SES as a metric for diversity in admissions. While I'm sure that the admissions committee will internally consider race, they cannot use an applicant's URM status to rank one candidate over another officially in their decisions.

Are you sure? I thought the restrictions on considerations were only at the UG level.

 

[OchemOficionado]

Californian medical schools can't consider an applicant's race and possible URM status. They can only use SES as a metric for diversity in admissions. While I'm sure that the admissions committee will internally consider race, they cannot use an applicant's URM status to rank one candidate over another officially in their decisions.

Respectfully, that is not what my comment was addressing, but that is good info. If true, I'm sure there are people that truly appreciate that CA does so.

 

[cantankerous]

Well, this is SDN.



Are you sure? I thought the restrictions on considerations were only at the UG level.

Well a dean of a Californian medical school said it right to our faces at interview day. The Supreme Court case was over someone who wanted a spot in UC Davis' medical school, so I'm sure that they implemented it at all levels of postsecondary education.

 

[Goro]

Well a dean of a Californian medical school said it right to our faces at interview day. The Supreme Court case was over someone who wanted a spot in UC Davis' medical school, so I'm sure that they implemented it at all levels of postsecondary education.

Interesting to know!

 

[965978]

Californian medical schools can't consider an applicant's race and possible URM status. They can only use SES as a metric for diversity in admissions. While I'm sure that the admissions committee will internally consider race, they cannot use an applicant's URM status to rank one candidate over another officially in their decisions.

Well, this is SDN.



Are you sure? I thought the restrictions on considerations were only at the UG level.

Respectfully, that is not what my comment was addressing, but that is good info. If true, I'm sure there are people that truly appreciate that CA does so.

Well a dean of a Californian medical school said it right to our faces at interview day. The Supreme Court case was over someone who wanted a spot in UC Davis' medical school, so I'm sure that they implemented it at all levels of postsecondary education.

Interesting to know!

I remember reading about this Supreme Court case in one of my political science courses. If I remember correctly, instituations CAN make race and ethnicity a factor but CANNOT have quantified quotas.

This case was actually directly involved with Davis’s med school.


Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke - Wikipedia

 

[Goro]

I remember reading about this Supreme Court case in one of my political science courses. If I remember correctly, instituations CAN make race and ethnicity a factor but CANNOT have quantified quotas.

This case was actually directly involved with Davis’s med school.


Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke - Wikipedia

Wasn't there a more recent SC decision involving a law school in TX that said that for graduate level education, race could be used as a factor in admissions?

 

[965978]

Wasn't there a more recent SC decision involving a law school in TX that said that for graduate level education, race could be used as a factor in admissions?

This was the Hopwood v. Texas case

1994: U.S. Federal Court of Western District of Texas rules that affirmative action for the Law School was allowed

1996: Fifth Circut overturns the the 1994 ruling

1996: U.S. Supreme Court declines hearing the case

2003: U.S. Supreme Court issues verdict on Grutter v. Bollinger, stating that although minorities may not be given direct points in a point-based admissions system, race may be used in order to contribute to diversity (thereby automatically overturning the 1996 Fifth Circut ruling)

So if I understand correctly, then between 1996 and 2003, the Fifth Circut states were not allowed to use race and ethnicity as admission factors in any capacity

 

[LukaDoncicLuk]

I wish more schools followed UCLAs lead and were more transparent. I suppose there are pros and cons for cut-offs. It is hard to imagine that UCLA will have trouble filling up a diverse class given their location and reputation. I imagine my app was thrown in the proverbial dust bin by a lot of schools as soon as it was registered that I had a ~3.3 GPA (even with a 100th percentile MCAT). It would have been nice to know about this before wasting the application fee for UCLA.

 

[TG4M]

I know I probably won't have a shot whatsoever, but I do think the 3.4 math and science GPA is a bit rough, they should only do that for science. I do think it is okay to have doctors who weren't that hot with Taylor Series or if they took other math courses like probability theory, matrices, discrete, any proof based math course.

And yup as a public school this is kinda setting a precedent for other schools to follow (and not only T20) to only select students with the "best numbers" which in return will dramatically dilute the quality of medical students (and doctors), I know people who can score perfect scores on any topic of their liking but it do not mean they will be the best doctor. Granted, to be a doctor you have to have some level of competency of certain topics, but I am still against making a test and narrow GPA a factor of that.

 

[Rachapkis]

I know I probably won't have a shot whatsoever, but I do think the 3.4 math and science GPA is a bit rough, they should only do that for science. I do think it is okay to have doctors who weren't that hot with Taylor Series or if they took other math courses like probability theory, matrices, discrete, any proof based math course.

And yup as a public school this is kinda setting a precedent for other schools to follow (and not only T20) to only select students with the "best numbers" which in return will dramatically dilute the quality of medical students (and doctors), I know people who can score perfect scores on any topic of their liking but it do not mean they will be the best doctor. Granted, to be a doctor you have to have some level of competency of certain topics, but I am still against making a test and narrow GPA a factor of that.

UCLA received something like 14,000 applications for 175 spots. Their class--to an attendee--will have good stats, a good story, and good ECs. Rather than wasting everyone's time and money, they are doing everyone a service by letting people know what the floor is in such a competitive environment.

 

[LukaDoncicLuk]

Kind of funny to assume that people with great stats can't also be good doctors.

 

[TG4M]

Kind of funny to assume that people with great stats can't also be good doctors.

I'm not assuming that. I'm just stating filtering people based on an standardized test score is just a bad idea. Especially when the score is extremely high, we all know having a high score doesn't automatically mean you'll be a great doctor and having a low score (to UCLA let's say 513) doesn't automatically mean you'll be a bad doctor.

I'm aware schools get a lot of applicants (like 15,000), but it is naive to think all of the top 10% of test takers applied to these schools so a school can have a holistic approach to an app when in reality the top 10% will be given priority despite whatever deficits they have in their app.

Also I say "schools" because we all know UCLA is just the first one to explicitly state a cutoff. I'm sure many school will follow suit to state their cutoffs.

UCLA and schools can be picky, I'm just saying it's not fair but it's the game we all chose to play.

 

[LukaDoncicLuk]

I'm not assuming that. I'm just stating filtering people based on an standardized test score is just a bad idea. Especially when the score is extremely high, we all know having a high score doesn't automatically mean you'll be a great doctor and having a low score (to UCLA let's say 513) doesn't automatically mean you'll be a bad doctor.

I'm aware schools get a lot of applicants (like 15,000), but it is naive to think all of the top 10% of test takers applied to these schools so a school can have a holistic approach to an app when in reality the top 10% will be given priority despite whatever deficits they have in their app.

Also I say "schools" because we all know UCLA is just the first one to explicitly state a cutoff. I'm sure many school will follow suit to state their cutoffs.

UCLA and schools can be picky, I'm just saying it's not fair but it's the game we all chose to play.

UCLA and other top med schools aren't going to have any problems filling up 100-150 seats with exceptional people with exceptional scores. All this does is HELP applicants by explicitly telling them not to waste their money applying to schools where they aren't qualified.

 

[OchemOficionado]

It would have been nice to know about this before wasting the application fee for UCLA.

The cut offs begin next cycle.