UD or gpa?

[drabberbadge]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Trying to decide my schedule
But if all other things constant (MCAT,ECs)
Who would be a better applicant or better chance of getting in someone who has a 3.4 GPA but took all UD hard sciences (genetics,physio,biochem,mobio,etc) or someone who has a 3.7 gpa but took more relaxed sciences (nutritional class,population genetics etc.)
Assuming of course both took all the pre reqs(bio sequence,gen chem,Ochem ,physics)

 

[bakedbeans18]

The person with the 3.7, everytime. The interpretation of the 3.7 despite the classes not being as difficult as hard sciences is that 'the applicant pursued their scholastic interests and succeeded in those pursuits, so we can only expect they would be succesful in any other academic pursuit they put themselves up to' - frankly I think it's a joke when someone with a 3.8 in Comparative Lit gets into medical school but the applicant with a 3.5 in biomedical engineering is not considered as competitive. Long story short: the person with the 3.7 in your example would win over the person with the 3.4.

 

[bearded frog]

​

 

[bakedbeans18]

Lots of people post their GPA and then specify that it was a top 20 institution or whatever, like that matters. It does not. They all had to do ok on the prereqs, so doing what you like and what you can excel at is a positive, and ADCOMs like having students from non pre-med backgrounds because they aren't cookie cutter.

It matters, lol.

 

[bearded frog]

​

 

[Goro]

I'd lean to the guy with a 3.7. A high GPA is a high GPA, whether on a psych major, or a Bio major. Keep in mind that it's not a zero sum game, and a 3.4 GPA, even though below avg, is still competitive at many schools. Drexel or Harvard, you'd still get a good medical education.

Trying to decide my schedule
But if all other things constant (MCAT,ECs)
Who would be a better applicant or better chance of getting in someone who has a 3.4 GPA but took all UD hard sciences (genetics,physio,biochem,mobio,etc) or someone who has a 3.7 gpa but took more relaxed sciences (nutritional class,population genetics etc.)
Assuming of course both took all the pre reqs(bio sequence,gen chem,Ochem ,physics)

 

[drabberbadge]

I'd lean to the guy with a 3.7. A high GPA is a high GPA, whether on a psych major, or a Bio major. Keep in mind that it's not a zero sum game, and a 3.4 GPA, even though below avg, is still competitive at many schools. Drexel or Harvard, you'd still get a good medical education.

Thanks Goro
Even though the one with the 3.7 took more bs science classes and the 3.4 guy took all the UD ones?

 

[Goro]

Yes. There are people who take the bare bones minimum of pre-reqs, and so the 3.7 shows the applicant can handle difficult coursework. The 3.4 candidate, having taken more difficult courses, has lagged somewhat behind.

Thanks Goro
Even though the one with the 3.7 took more bs science classes and the 3.4 guy took all the UD ones?

 

[EngineerPreMD]

Yes. There are people who take the bare bones minimum of pre-reqs, and so the 3.7 shows the applicant can handle difficult coursework. The 3.4 candidate, having taken more difficult courses, has lagged somewhat behind.

I definitely have a tough time swallowing some of the justifications thrown around for favoring those who took an easier route through undergrad, but I can understand it. I can say that as an engineering major, I worked very hard for my grades, much more so than my friends in "easier" majors such as psychology or environmental health (those were easier at MY undergrad, not necessarily everywhere). Our average GPA was even significantly lower (3.0 vs. 3.3-3.4).

Sometimes it just feels like ADCOMS are looking for something different just because they're tired of seeing the same type of student, without really considering who worked harder, or who wanted it more. I felt that I was pursuing something I was passionate about, but was penalized for liking something that is graded more harshly. On the same vein, why is someone who studied biology (arguably the mainstream major most related to medicine) penalized for being boring, when they are just truly passionate about that material, and will continue to be in medical school?

Don't get me wrong. I recognized this and worked my way to a great GPA despite the challenges. I also recognize that a 3.7 in any major indicates a drive to succeed above the average, regardless of the work required to do so, and I understand that it can be difficult to see the difference between a difficult and an easy major. Still, my constant commitment to my studies took away some time from ECs and other activities, and ultimately did hurt my application. I see the rationale. I understand the need for diversity in studies in a medical school class, and this isn't something that I let affect my chances of getting into medical school. It just clashes with that American ideal of a meritocracy, that those who work harder will be rewarded. Well, it's not necessarily true in med school admissions (or in life). I think I'll appreciate it more once I get into medical school and have a class with diverse academic backgrounds. For now, it's tough to swallow, but I understand.

Edit- For the record, the example above makes more sense. I'm talking about comparing something like a 3.8 in env. health vs. a 3.7 in engineering and calling it a wash.

 

[HopelessGirl]

Wow, apparently you shouldn't go to great undergrads and take hard classes. Wish I knew that before I chose a top 10 ugrad and instead went to the cheapest and worst of the worst. But, I'll definitely take all 100 level science classes from now.

 

[bakedbeans18]

I definitely have a tough time swallowing some of the justifications thrown around for favoring those who took an easier route through undergrad, but I can understand it. I can say that as an engineering major, I worked very hard for my grades, much more so than my friends in "easier" majors such as psychology or environmental health (those were easier at MY undergrad, not necessarily everywhere). Our average GPA was even significantly lower (3.0 vs. 3.3-3.4).

Sometimes it just feels like ADCOMS are looking for something different just because they're tired of seeing the same type of student, without really considering who worked harder, or who wanted it more. I felt that I was pursuing something I was passionate about, but was penalized for liking something that is graded more harshly. On the same vein, why is someone who studied biology (arguably the mainstream major most related to medicine) penalized for being boring, when they are just truly passionate about that material, and will continue to be in medical school?

Don't get me wrong. I recognized this and worked my way to a great GPA despite the challenges. I also recognize that a 3.7 in any major indicates a drive to succeed above the average, regardless of the work required to do so, and I understand that it can be difficult to see the difference between a difficult and an easy major. Still, my constant commitment to my studies took away some time from ECs and other activities, and ultimately did hurt my application. I see the rationale. I understand the need for diversity in studies in a medical school class, and this isn't something that I let affect my chances of getting into medical school. It just clashes with that American ideal of a meritocracy, that those who work harder will be rewarded. Well, it's not necessarily true in med school admissions (or in life). I think I'll appreciate it more once I get into medical school and have a class with diverse academic backgrounds. For now, it's tough to swallow, but I understand.

Dude honestly, I don't appreciate the 'diverse academic backgrounds' in my medical school class. If I'm supposed to learn from my classmates, and everyone is supposed to have 'something different to offer to the rest of the class' - in the context of medical school, my interpretation of that is someone who majored in neuroscience being able to take the lead in small group for neuro, or someone who majored in micro/immuno being able to tutor the people in our class for whom immuno isn't exactly in their wheelhouse, or the grad student that studied biophysics and physiology to be able to explain some of the more difficult concepts in first year when doing group study. Your Art History degree is more or less useless to your classmates in medical school. Your BA in history isn't adding constructively to the medical school class. Your M.A. in Architectural Design is cool, and we can talk about it when we're not busy studying, but it doesn't add much in the way of learning. The double-major in Economics/Sports Marketing, that's kind of cool too, and we can talk about it when we're not busy studying, but chances are your 8 pre-req classes are the limitation of your undergaduate science, and you're going to be relying heavily on your classmates for help with more advanced topics.

 

[Goro]

If it makes you kids feel any better, we all look at the entire packet. Doing the "is a 3.9 in X better than a ___ [insert GPA here] in Y?" game is a fool's errand, really. 4.0 automatons are a dime a dozen. I repeat, it's not a zero sum game. The only person you need to compete against is yourself.

I definitely have a tough time swallowing some of the justifications thrown around for favoring those who took an easier route through undergrad, but I can understand it. I can say that as an engineering major, I worked very hard for my grades, much more so than my friends in "easier" majors such as psychology or environmental health (those were easier at MY undergrad, not necessarily everywhere). Our average GPA was even significantly lower (3.0 vs. 3.3-3.4).

Sometimes it just feels like ADCOMS are looking for something different just because they're tired of seeing the same type of student, without really considering who worked harder, or who wanted it more. I felt that I was pursuing something I was passionate about, but was penalized for liking something that is graded more harshly. On the same vein, why is someone who studied biology (arguably the mainstream major most related to medicine) penalized for being boring, when they are just truly passionate about that material, and will continue to be in medical school?

Don't get me wrong. I recognized this and worked my way to a great GPA despite the challenges. I also recognize that a 3.7 in any major indicates a drive to succeed above the average, regardless of the work required to do so, and I understand that it can be difficult to see the difference between a difficult and an easy major. Still, my constant commitment to my studies took away some time from ECs and other activities, and ultimately did hurt my application. I see the rationale. I understand the need for diversity in studies in a medical school class, and this isn't something that I let affect my chances of getting into medical school. It just clashes with that American ideal of a meritocracy, that those who work harder will be rewarded. Well, it's not necessarily true in med school admissions (or in life). I think I'll appreciate it more once I get into medical school and have a class with diverse academic backgrounds. For now, it's tough to swallow, but I understand.

Edit- For the record, the example above makes more sense. I'm talking about comparing something like a 3.8 in env. health vs. a 3.7 in engineering and calling it a wash.

 

[ridethecliche]

Dude honestly, I don't appreciate the 'diverse academic backgrounds' in my medical school class. If I'm supposed to learn from my classmates, and everyone is supposed to have 'something different to offer to the rest of the class' - in the context of medical school, my interpretation of that is someone who majored in neuroscience being able to take the lead in small group for neuro, or someone who majored in micro/immuno being able to tutor the people in our class for whom immuno isn't exactly in their wheelhouse, or the grad student that studied biophysics and physiology to be able to explain some of the more difficult concepts in first year when doing group study. Your Art History degree is more or less useless to your classmates in medical school. Your BA in history isn't adding constructively to the medical school class. Your M.A. in Architectural Design is cool, and we can talk about it when we're not busy studying, but it doesn't add much in the way of learning. The double-major in Economics/Sports Marketing, that's kind of cool too, and we can talk about it when we're not busy studying, but chances are your 8 pre-req classes are the limitation of your undergaduate science, and you're going to be relying heavily on your classmates for help with more advanced topics.

So non-science majors do worse than science majors in med school? What data is this based on exactly?

If we're going by anecdotes, one of the ortho spine attendings majored in Art History. Dude must be dumb as a rock and much stupider than the science majors in his class to have ended up as one of the big guns at one of the best hospitals in the country.

I'd say econ is very relevant to medicine as it sits today. Physician leaders are going to be instrumental in reshaping the system.

I'd argue that major isn't a good predictor of intelligence or med school performance. But that's probably just me....

 

[EngineerPreMD]

If it makes you kids feel any better, we all look at the entire packet. Doing the "is a 3.9 in X better than a ___ [insert GPA here] in Y?" game is a fool's errand, really. 4.0 automatons are a dime a dozen. I repeat, it's not a zero sum game. The only person you need to compete against is yourself.

Of course. I never expect it to be a perfect system. In the end, the sum of my game is overall life happiness, and I don't need to be sure that I received credit for every hour of work I put in as long as I enjoyed what I was working on. I worked hard enough that I will make it into medical school, and probably a very good one that will allow me the opportunity to take my career in whatever direction I choose. I might be a bit more upset if I had ended up with a 3.5, but I never considered that an option for myself for that exact reason.

I appreciate the continuous feedback on these issues Goro.