Variation in difficulty at undergrad. schools

[Pharmwannab]

---

Members do not see this ad.

This is actually a really interesting topic to me and I've had several discussions about it with friends at school. I've attended 2 universities now and have had quite contrasting experiences at both. I first attended UC Berkeley and to put it mildly, got reamed. After that experience I had it in my head that college, in general, was just insanely difficult and I was a complete idiot with no hope whatsoever (even though I was a 4.0 student in high school.). I'll skip following chapter in my life, but basically I decided I wasn't happy working and wanted to go back to school to try again, so that I could go on to professional school. I started up at a Cal State university and based on my Berkeley experience, I was scared shi*less that I was going to fail again (or at least, just suck), but I was motivated now and went hardcore with the studying. Needless to say, it's now 1 year later and I have a 4.0 in my post-bac work and there's literally only been 2 midterms that I have not scored the high on, even after this quarter where I took o. chem, biochem, physics and animal bio simultaneously.

It's definitely been a combination of 2 factors - one, that I actually care now about my schooling and I'm motivated to do well, but I believe that that biggest factor is that the difficulty is just far less than it was at Berkeley. If you studied and you know your material, you should do well. We don't have exams where 30 to 40% of the questions are omfg-its -like-solving-5-rubix-cubes-in-50-minutes style questions, the likes of which were constantly on Berkeley midterms.

So basically the point is, there seems to be this large discrepancy in difficulty at various colleges, and I've always wondered how say someone from Cal State fairs in med. school as compared to a Berkeley, Stanford, etc. grad. Curious what people's schools are like. Are the exams straight-forward or insanely difficult with lots of crazy problems? I imagine medical school is immensely challenging (probably even moreso than Berkeley) and it just seems to me that people who managed to do well in one of the easier colleges, but struggled, would probably not fare very well. Even people who did well but didn't struggle as much, because of their lack of rigorous training, might struggle as well.

You would think there would be some kind of standard of education at schools where people can potentially get into med. school. I'm actually a bit bitter that people who get 3.8's, 3.9's, 4.0's from a way easier school can get into med. school and because of my 2.5 from Berkeley, I have to do all this post bac work to make up for it to even stand a small chance (granted, it is largely my fault, but still I don't know that even if I really busted tail I would've done a whole lot better).

Heh ok I've said a ton. What are your all thoughts on this if any?

 

[es19]

GPA depends on the school, and your major
what was ur major at Cal? if it was MCB, then i guess it's hard b/c u were sitting in a lecture hall with very competitive pre-meds. if u were engineering, that's hard too, cuz it's top 10 in the nation.
i really believe that the adcoms take into consideration of your institution's ranking, grade inflation etc... so, while u see an above national average acceptance rate of berkeley students, u don't see that from Cal State.

 

[Pharmwannab]

Yeah, that's definitely true I've noticed. Still gotta wonder though how all those Cal State students are performing in professional schools.

I was MCB, genetics. Originally I was chemical engineering for the first 2 years, so that's another reason my GPA was so low, heh.

Oh another reason for my posting is actually when I was initially calling around various pharmacy and medical schools last year, they all pretty much said to me that the school you go to for undergrad. really had very little bearing (some, but not much) which is why I chose to do my post-bac work at a Cal State and not Berkeley.. That just seems crazy to me though, after I've seen how much easier it is.

 

[NapeSpikes]

It's an unfair process, plain and simple. Regardless of extra consideration an adcom may give, a 2.5 from Berkeley will not hold up against a 4.0 from a Cal State, even though a comparable level of hard work and/or intelligence may have been involved in both cases.

That said, I doubt someone from a CSU with a 4.0 and a solid mcat would flunk out of med school because of lack of ability.

 

[S@xplayer]

Surely it does have a "little" bearing on where you went to undergrad at. But, it can only have a bearing if the adcom members know which schools are hard and which are not.

For example, I have just shy of a 4.0 (graduated already) with a biology major at my tiny school of Southwest Baptist Univ. What adcom board knows my school or difficulty of the curricula? None I would wager. Nonetheless, my classes were extremely hard, and I was one of two science majors in my entire school that had almost 4.0's upon graduation (science majors = bio,chem,physics etc). Three had summa cum laude. We have 4,000 enrolled at our campus; I know that is small.

But how does an adcom board compare my school to Berkeley? Unless they are familiar with my school, they can't. Therefore, it would be unfair to compare me to a Berkeley grad and say the Berkeley grad was better because they had the same GPA as me, but were from a harder school. I would wager I could finish with the same grades at Berkeley that I had at my school, but then again, who knows.

Summary of my thoughts before I digress: imo, adcom boards probably take into consideration which undergraduate school you come from, but with a grain of salt. And, I doubt GPA from one school versus another (similar GPAs btw) would keep one person out of medical school and grant another acceptance. If there would be a cut, I would think both would get interviews to see the whole applicant, based on GPA, then a decision could be made. We will never know how the infamous adcom members talk amongst themselves though, will we?

 

[Fermata]

A lot of this process is a game and you didn't play by the rules while a lot of others did. Hope isn't lost but you're probably gonna have to post-bacc now.

 

[{:(]

They probably check your GPA with your MCAT to see if they match. At my school a 3.3 in Chemistry 142 (first year chemistry) is generally considered "good enough," for medical school according to our medical school. I would assume if they see a 4.0 GPA and a 28 Q on the MCAT , then something has to be wrong. On the other hand, if they see a 41 R MCAT and a 3.51 GPA, then they must assume you are smart and know your information.

 

[Fermata]

They probably check your GPA with your MCAT to see if they match. At my school a 3.3 in Chemistry 142 (first year chemistry) is generally considered "good enough," for medical school according to our medical school. I would assume if they see a 4.0 GPA and a 28 Q on the MCAT , then something has to be wrong. On the other hand, if they see a 41 R MCAT and a 3.51 GPA, then they must assume you are smart and know your information.

I don't think a person with a 4.0 and 28 is completely out of the norm.

 

[S@xplayer]

Well, I don't know if {:{ 's post was using my score, and if so, that's fine!

I have just shy of a 4.0 and a 28Q MCAT, and although I could wish my MCAT was always higher, I feel comfortable with my score. I don't think the MCAT is all it's cracked up to be, at least as much as some schools emphasize it through their selection process.

Not to mention the 2 times a year opportunity.... lol

 

[Law2Doc]

They probably check your GPA with your MCAT to see if they match. At my school a 3.3 in Chemistry 142 (first year chemistry) is generally considered "good enough," for medical school according to our medical school. I would assume if they see a 4.0 GPA and a 28 Q on the MCAT , then something has to be wrong. On the other hand, if they see a 41 R MCAT and a 3.51 GPA, then they must assume you are smart and know your information.

Yes, the MCAT tends to be more heavilly weighted than GPA as it is the only numerical score that is objectively standard across schools and majors, and correlations or lack thereof between GPA and MCAT will be noticed. If the A students at XYZ tech tended to all score around 25 while the B students at PDQ tended to score 30+, adcoms are likely smart enough to take the GPA at XYZ tech with a grain of salt.

 

[S@xplayer]

Yes, the MCAT tends to be more heavilly weighted than GPA as it is the only numerical score that is objectively standard across schools and majors, and correlations or lack thereof between GPA and MCAT will be noticed. If the A students at XYZ tech tended to all score around 25 while the B students at PDQ tended to score 30+, adcoms are likely smart enough to take the GPA at XYZ tech with a grain of salt.

Although in theory this is mostly true.. I feel the MCAT fails miserably in trying to produce an objectively standard comparison. Explain why on practice tests I would get 30-33 scores, on seven tests... provided these are a combo of both old MCAT and also KAPLAN tests (which I think aren't great compared to older MCATs) and then my real MCAT was a 26 first time, and 28 the second?

My explanation: the MCAT is too random. There is so much material you may get some material you are familiar with while other material you may not understand as well. Plus, you have two chances a year or you are royally up a creek without a paddle. I don't offer a better suggestion for sorting through thousands of applicants, but I don't put much credence to the MCAT; either in predicting my ability to do well in medical school, my ability to reason or think, my scores on the future USMLEs or boards, or my future success as a physician.

 

[Dookter]

To attempt to answer the question about whether students at easier schools have a harder time in medical school: I think it is obvious that they will. However, everyone I have talked to has told me that medical school coursework is actually less complex than undergrad work [upper level of course]. It is just the extreme volume of information you have to learn. That said, anyone who can handle a lot of information should be fine.

 

[Law2Doc]

Although in theory this is mostly true.. I feel the MCAT fails miserably in trying to produce an objectively standard comparison. Explain why on practice tests I would get 30-33 scores, on seven tests... provided these are a combo of both old MCAT and also KAPLAN tests (which I think aren't great compared to older MCATs) and then my real MCAT was a 26 first time, and 28 the second?

My explanation: the MCAT is too random. There is so much material you may get some material you are familiar with while other material you may not understand as well. Plus, you have two chances a year or you are royally up a creek without a paddle. I don't offer a better suggestion for sorting through thousands of applicants, but I don't put much credence to the MCAT; either in predicting my ability to do well in medical school, my ability to reason or think, my scores on the future USMLEs or boards, or my future success as a physician.

Well, I've heard that most people on average tend to score within 3 points of their most recent practice tests, and there does, in fact, appear to be very good correllation between your two actual real MCAT scores. But statistically there is a pretty good correlation between high GPA students and high MCAT scores (and an equally good correlation in the reverse direction), which allows schools to use this as a yardstick to combat grade inflation and harder or easier schools/majors.

 

[S@xplayer]

My orgo prof at my school showed me a publication that showed there was no correlation between MCATs and board scores (ie.. success in medical school).

I will try and get a copy or link of it for you..

Secondly, for me... I know there is no correlatation. I plan to do well on my boards, and I could care less about the stupid MCAT. It is half materials that I have no interest in whatsoever. Having a 33 and then a 26 is not a 3 point spread; I call the MCAT random.

 

[Slide]

The MCAT is probably one of the few ways a medical school can estimate how well your GPA reflects the school and curriculum. A 4.0GPA and a low MCAT score would lead to suspicion of either grade inflation, or a relatively easy curriculim. Is it too objective of a way to determine worthy students? Maybe. But it's one of the only few ways to create a standard of all applicants that can weed out those who can perform and those who cannot, regardless of school.

 

[Law2Doc]

My orgo prof at my school showed me a publication that showed there was no correlation between MCATs and board scores (ie.. success in medical school).

I will try and get a copy or link of it for you..

Secondly, for me... I know there is no correlatation. I plan to do well on my boards, and I could care less about the stupid MCAT. It is half materials that I have no interest in whatsoever. Having a 33 and then a 26 is not a 3 point spread; I call the MCAT random.

We were not speaking of correlation to the boards -- we were speaking of correlation to college GPAs, and more specifically I was speaking of correlation between your two MCAT scores to each other. Boards are a totally different topic and not relevant to med school admission, since neither you nor anyone else applying will have taken the boards. Not sure how you got there from here.
But with respect to the boards, I believe there were articles cited in the past on the allo board which suggest at least a low level correlation of MCAT to boards, with more correlation to the verbal section than the others. Not sure I buy into those though.

 

[Telemachus]

One thing to consider in evaluating your personal experience is your maturity (intellectual/social/professional) during your two episodes of college. That may have contributed a little.

That being said, I've lived in California my whole life and I've never heard anyone say that their courses at a Cal State school were difficult. I have heard many people say that the Cal State school they went to was easier than high school or community college (4-5 different CSU's, same story). But that's all second-hand anecdotal data........ My suspicion is that there is a degree to which you get out what you put in.

I don't know if one can find out what acceptance rates are like for UC vs. Cal State grads..... That info may not be made public in any sort of cumulative or summative way. However, the UC med schools contain many, many, MANY UC grads and not that many Cal State grads; interpret that however you will.....

 

[ahumdinger]

A lot of this process is a game and you didn't play by the rules while a lot of others did. Hope isn't lost but you're probably gonna have to post-bacc now.

I now realize it was all a game. And I didn't play like everyone else. but I don't know if I would have done anything differently if I had the chance. I mean, it just sickens me to see people who take fewer classes each quarter just to get A's. What happened to the Life of the Mind, learning for learning's sake? There are so few truly academic institutions left these days.

To the OP. I totally understand how you feel. I graduated from University of Chicago, where we're notorious for grade deflation-- the Dean's list is set at 3.25, and a relatively small group of people make that cut. Tee-shirts declare our self deprecating pride: "The University of Chicago: The level of hell Dante forgot." or "the university of Chicago: if it were easy, it'd be your mom."

Anyway, I knew that going into uChicago would be difficult, but it was not until I graduated that I found out what it was like at other schools. My boyfriend went to U of Illinois, and he was even a chemistry minor. He told me that the synthesis questions on organic chemistry exams were closer to "fill in the blank" where some of the steps are given and you have to complete the rest. I was shocked because when I took O-chem, it was "Here are the beginning materials, now synthesize this!" All or nothing credit, if you got off on the wrong track, no points for you! And another thing that hurt Uchicago students was that our labs were part of the class, credit-wise.We don't have separate lab sections to bring up the GPA. We were on quarters, and 1 class=1unit of credit, and we could take 3 or 4 classes each quarter. From AMCAS's unit conversions (1 quarter=3.3 semester hours), if a U of Chicago student took 4 classes each quarter (which most did), in an academic year of 3 quarters, he/she would be taking 40 credits total. So the courseload was intense. I also realized that what my boyfriend learned in his 3rd semester of o-chem (req for the chem minor), we were learning in the second quarter.
This year, I am working at WashU, and even here, where the students work their asses off, the courses are immensely easier. I took a few masters level science classes in the evening, and got A's in them, easily, and this is while working full time. And on top of that, a pre-med I talked to mentioned something about multiple choice test, and I was floored. I had NEVER ever taken a multiple choice test in college.

I realize that uchicago students tend to have a chip on their shoulder, but our academic intensity is not the last of its kind. Cornell, Berkeley, and a few other liberal arts colleges like Swarthmore, all have students who can sympathize. We can't play by the rules because our undergrads don't play the game. I think that many med schools don't even try to take the undergrad into consideration. An extreme example: Pritzker interviews students with EXTREMELY high stats, and don't even extend an invite to most uchicago undergrad applicants. Now who would know the uchicago curriculum better than Pritzker? Yet they blatantly ignore it.

 

[nimotsu]

Schools know what they are dealing with.. there are studies about institutions:

http://gradeinflation.com/

The above website is an interesting read about how GPAs continue to climb and shows what schools are the worst offenders of grade inflation.

Also, certain departments at specific schools have reputations. So at my school, my degree from Dept. X is respected because Dept. X is well-recognized. But someone else's degree from The Department of Underwater Basket Weaving is not.

(X = undefined for confidentiality).

 

[Law2Doc]

Schools know what they are dealing with.. there are studies about institutions:

http://gradeinflation.com/

The above website is an interesting read about how GPAs continue to climb and shows what schools are the worst offenders of grade inflation.

Also, certain departments at specific schools have reputations. So at my school, my degree from Dept. X is respected because Dept. X is well-recognized. But someone else's degree from The Department of Underwater Basket Weaving is not.

(X = undefined for confidentiality).

Some of us found underwater basket weaving quite challenging and not grade inflated at all.

 

[p00psicleSTICK]

Well I can tell you that Medical College of Georgia, a public medical school that picks in-state people, will give an edge to undergrads from Georgia Tech over UGA (University of Georgia) if they have the same GPA. I think they told me they add extra points to Georgia Tech undergrads because Georgia Tech academic program is wayyyy more challenging than UGA's which is true.

Georgia Tech has one of the hardest programs in the nation and even though it's an engineering school, we have a VERY good science program (most of my fellow students do extremely well in MCAT, and I noticed that engineers here do better on MCAT than science majors - probably has to do with being analytical).

 

[Indryd]

MCAT = equalizer of ugrad difficulty. If what OP says is true, then the guy with a 2.5 at Berkeley will score the same as the guy with a 4.0 at CSU Marysville.

Whiney whiney.

 

[PhotoMD]

Just an FYI that most of the good or better institutions have tough classes that normalize their grades. I went to a state school that had a similar O-chem class to what you are describing, and my response to people who think they had a rough ride is, "get over it."

If you had such a rough ride, the MCAT should be that much easier. Yes, adcoms take school into account. It's not a huge game. Just do well on the MCAT, do well in classes, be personable, be active, and you'll get in.

 

[MarzMD]

Just an FYI that most of the good or better institutions have tough classes that normalize their grades. I went to a state school that had a similar O-chem class to what you are describing, and my response to people who think they had a rough ride is, "get over it."

If you had such a rough ride, the MCAT should be that much easier. Yes, adcoms take school into account. It's not a huge game. Just do well on the MCAT, do well in classes, be personable, be active, and you'll get in.

I wonder in what sense you are using the word "normalize". At my top tier institution, normalize meant you are getting screwed probably. I think you are referring to making a curve????

 

[deleted77919]

My orgo prof at my school showed me a publication that showed there was no correlation between MCATs and board scores (ie.. success in medical school).

I will try and get a copy or link of it for you..

Secondly, for me... I know there is no correlatation. I plan to do well on my boards, and I could care less about the stupid MCAT. It is half materials that I have no interest in whatsoever. Having a 33 and then a 26 is not a 3 point spread; I call the MCAT random.

Here's an abstract.

http://www.academicmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/10/910

And yes, I DO realize the research was conducted by someone involved with the AAMC.

 

[ShyRem]

I go to a very small state school, and my biochem was a biatch... Pchem was easier! On the other hand, I know a girl who failed second semester of ochem at my school, but took biochem at a bigger state school over the summer and said it was the easiest class she EVER took... all her exams were multiple choice and didn't take longer than 20 minutes. Our biochem exams were essay (ok, more like puke out every single fact you've ever read or heard on every topic known to mankind about biochem and make it sound GOOD), and so long you took them outside of class - some people took 6 hours on the exams and STILL barely managed a C.

Fair that the 'big bad state school' folks have easier classes? Nope. Fair that they have better GPAs? Nope. Fair that they have MCAT prep classes and we don't? Nope. Life isn't fair. The best revenge is to absolutely SMOKE these folks in medical school 'cuz I'm goin' to med school - somewhere. This fall.

 

[riceman04]

Well I can tell you that Medical College of Georgia, a public medical school that picks in-state people, will give an edge to undergrads from Georgia Tech over UGA (University of Georgia) if they have the same GPA. I think they told me they add extra points to Georgia Tech undergrads because Georgia Tech academic program is wayyyy more challenging than UGA's which is true.

Georgia Tech has one of the hardest programs in the nation and even though it's an engineering school, we have a VERY good science program (most of my fellow students do extremely well in MCAT, and I noticed that engineers here do better on MCAT than science majors - probably has to do with being analytical).

engineers at most schools score higher on that test

 

[Will Ferrell]

I think coming from a top school does mean a lot if you do well. Adcoms aren't dumb. They know that you're competing against some of the brightest and hardest working student if you attend a top 20 university or LAC. If you're at the top of the class, you'll be set for the MCATs and the admissions process. It's the average people at these schools who get screwed.

It seems at though grades, no matter how great, aren't considered to be an asset if you're coming from a less selective institution. Smashing ants with a sledgehammer isn't going to impress anyone. You're given the opportunity at schools like Berkeley to prove yourself. Sorry OP, but you blew your chance.

 

[solitude]

I think coming from a top school does mean a lot if you do well. Adcoms aren't dumb. They know that you're competing against some of the brightest and hardest working student if you attend a top 20 university or LAC. If you're at the top of the class, you'll be set for the MCATs and the admissions process. It's the average people at these schools who get screwed.

It seems at though grades, no matter how great, aren't considered to be an asset if you're coming from a less selective institution. Smashing ants with a sledgehammer isn't going to impress anyone. You're given the opportunity at schools like Berkeley to prove yourself. Sorry OP, but you blew your chance.

This is absolutely right on. Those from the top schools who excel are greatly rewarded in the admissions "game". Those who are mediocre or below-average get rewarded accordingly by adcoms. Which is to say, they don't.

 

[{:(]

Well, I don't know if {:{ 's post was using my score, and if so, that's fine!

I have just shy of a 4.0 and a 28Q MCAT, and although I could wish my MCAT was always higher, I feel comfortable with my score. I don't think the MCAT is all it's cracked up to be, at least as much as some schools emphasize it through their selection process.

Not to mention the 2 times a year opportunity.... lol

Oops, that was coincidental. No offense or anything. Sorry!

I wouldn't necessarily say that only the top 20 schools are challenging. The Univ. of Washington (my school) is ranked 45 (16 out of the publics) and it is more than challenging enough. I would like to think any school ranked in the top 100 should be given respect even though that is probably not true. Plus I know quite a few people who gave up more prestigious schools to come here. Personally I got into the University of British Columbia (number 3 school in Canada) and I know a girl down the hall who got into UCLA and Berkeley.

 

[Pharmwannab]

It seems at though grades, no matter how great, aren't considered to be an asset if you're coming from a less selective institution. Smashing ants with a sledgehammer isn't going to impress anyone. You're given the opportunity at schools like Berkeley to prove yourself. Sorry OP, but you blew your chance.

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. I'm not really planning on going to medical school, it's a thought, but not really a serious one. But I started the topic to here in order to generate more discussion (the pharmacy forum is way too slow. I am actually pre-pharm, if you couldn't tell by the name). And though it's not common, yes people have been able to redeem themselves from poor grades and get into medical schools/pharmacy schools/etc. I know a couple personally that have done it, and I know others who weren't accepted anywhere even after getting a better GPA, better overall stats, etc. Plenty of post-bacs from my current school have gotten in, who were in very similiar situations to mine. So I don't honestly know what's going to happen, but I'm working hard and hoping for the best. (And now for the flame. Don't read on if you're easily offended 🙂) As for you and others like you to come here with your pretentious, hard ass attitude that you know exactly what the adcom's are looking for, all I can say is I'm very surprised that someone like you would *ever* get into any medical, let alone survive. You certainly don't display any of the characteristics of a good doctor (compassion, open mindedness, etc.). Good doctors don't try to get a rise out of people with asinine comments - I am sure you *will* fail. Your comments aren't wanted nor needed and you can pretty much go play in freeway traffic for all I care.

As for everyone else, I appreciate the comments and the insight into what your schools are like. Lots of good information here.

 

[Will Ferrell]

As for you and others like you to come here with your pretentious, hard ass attitude that you know exactly what the adcom's are looking for, all I can say is I'm very surprised that someone like you would *ever* get into any medical, let alone survive. . Good doctors don't try to get a rise out of people with asinine comments - I am sure you *will* fail. Your comments aren't wanted nor needed and you can pretty much go play in freeway traffic for all I care.

Whoa, man. Sorry - I most have worded my post wrong. I suck at writing and I didn’t mean to come off as a schmuck. I was actually trying to make you feel less bitter. My point was that no one wins in this process and attending Berkeley wasn’t such a terrible decision. Just from studying there, you had an advantage over the students from the “easier” schools you were ranting about. If you were to earn the same grades you’re getting now, there would be no limit in terms of admissions success. If you were to attend a less competitive institution, adcoms may ignore you despite how hard you worked.

I have a hard time believing you have the same work ethic as a 4.0 CSU student that you had during your time at Cal. If you're still considering medicine, don't give up. Like you said, there are many people that were able to pull themselves out of a hole. Coming from Berkeley, adcoms may forgive your past grades if you pull them up now and ace the MCATs... another reason not to feel bad about coming from Cal.

 

[eric23]

I now realize it was all a game. And I didn't play like everyone else. but I don't know if I would have done anything differently if I had the chance. I mean, it just sickens me to see people who take fewer classes each quarter just to get A's. What happened to the Life of the Mind, learning for learning's sake? There are so few truly academic institutions left these days.

To the OP. I totally understand how you feel. I graduated from University of Chicago, where we're notorious for grade deflation-- the Dean's list is set at 3.25, and a relatively small group of people make that cut. Tee-shirts declare our self deprecating pride: "The University of Chicago: The level of hell Dante forgot." or "the university of Chicago: if it were easy, it'd be your mom."

Anyway, I knew that going into uChicago would be difficult, but it was not until I graduated that I found out what it was like at other schools. My boyfriend went to U of Illinois, and he was even a chemistry minor. He told me that the synthesis questions on organic chemistry exams were closer to "fill in the blank" where some of the steps are given and you have to complete the rest. I was shocked because when I took O-chem, it was "Here are the beginning materials, now synthesize this!" All or nothing credit, if you got off on the wrong track, no points for you! And another thing that hurt Uchicago students was that our labs were part of the class, credit-wise.We don't have separate lab sections to bring up the GPA. We were on quarters, and 1 class=1unit of credit, and we could take 3 or 4 classes each quarter. From AMCAS's unit conversions (1 quarter=3.3 semester hours), if a U of Chicago student took 4 classes each quarter (which most did), in an academic year of 3 quarters, he/she would be taking 40 credits total. So the courseload was intense. I also realized that what my boyfriend learned in his 3rd semester of o-chem (req for the chem minor), we were learning in the second quarter.
This year, I am working at WashU, and even here, where the students work their asses off, the courses are immensely easier. I took a few masters level science classes in the evening, and got A's in them, easily, and this is while working full time. And on top of that, a pre-med I talked to mentioned something about multiple choice test, and I was floored. I had NEVER ever taken a multiple choice test in college.

I realize that uchicago students tend to have a chip on their shoulder, but our academic intensity is not the last of its kind. Cornell, Berkeley, and a few other liberal arts colleges like Swarthmore, all have students who can sympathize. We can't play by the rules because our undergrads don't play the game. I think that many med schools don't even try to take the undergrad into consideration. An extreme example: Pritzker interviews students with EXTREMELY high stats, and don't even extend an invite to most uchicago undergrad applicants. Now who would know the uchicago curriculum better than Pritzker? Yet they blatantly ignore it.

do NOT underestimate the chemistry department at the University of Illinois - Urbana/Champaign

 

[Faust]

DO realize the research was conducted by someone involved with the AAMC.

exactly!

 

[Pharmwannab]

Whoa, man. Sorry - I most have worded my post wrong. I suck at writing and I didn’t mean to come off as a schmuck. I was actually trying to make you feel less bitter. My point was that no one wins in this process and attending Berkeley wasn’t such a terrible decision. Just from studying there, you had an advantage over the students from the “easier” schools you were ranting about. If you were to earn the same grades you’re getting now, there would be no limit in terms of admissions success. If you were to attend a less competitive institution, adcoms may ignore you despite how hard you worked.

I have a hard time believing you have the same work ethic as a 4.0 CSU student that you had during your time at Cal. If you're still considering medicine, don't give up. Like you said, there are many people that were able to pull themselves out of a hole. Coming from Berkeley, adcoms may forgive your past grades if you pull them up now and ace the MCATs... another reason not to feel bad about coming from Cal.

Heh ok, my apologies then. It's just that I get pretty upset when people tell me I'm screwed and there's no way to make up for it. If you had told me that when I was in Berkeley 4 years ago right before graduation, I wouldn't have cared because I had no motivation then (was also dealing with a lot of depression) and just wanted to be done. Things are completely different now. My pupils are practically in the shape of flames 😛

My work ethic is most assuredly much stronger now than it was then. But, my main point was that Cal State is (or at least seems to be) way easier than Berkeley. However, I am also working like a dog now. I just got done with a quarter of biochem, o. chem, physics and animal bio and again managed a 4.0. I am sure that a 4.0 from Berkeley is much more favorable to a 4.0 from Cal State, but as you said, I had my chance and I blew it, and now it's time to try to make up for it. I've pretty much determined that I will get in somewhere, pharmacy or medical school, and that I'll just keep working harder and harder until I reach that goal. Right now there are no other options for me, even if it means a Caribbean school heh.

 

[Faust]

This is actually a really interesting topic to me and I've had several discussions about it with friends at school. I've attended 2 universities now and have had quite contrasting experiences at both. I first attended UC Berkeley and to put it mildly, got reamed. After that experience I had it in my head that college, in general, was just insanely difficult and I was a complete idiot with no hope whatsoever (even though I was a 4.0 student in high school.). I'll skip following chapter in my life, but basically I decided I wasn't happy working and wanted to go back to school to try again, so that I could go on to professional school. I started up at a Cal State university and based on my Berkeley experience, I was scared shi*less that I was going to fail again (or at least, just suck), but I was motivated now and went hardcore with the studying. Needless to say, it's now 1 year later and I have a 4.0 in my post-bac work and there's literally only been 2 midterms that I have not scored the high on, even after this quarter where I took o. chem, biochem, physics and animal bio simultaneously.

It's definitely been a combination of 2 factors - one, that I actually care now about my schooling and I'm motivated to do well, but I believe that that biggest factor is that the difficulty is just far less than it was at Berkeley. If you studied and you know your material, you should do well. We don't have exams where 30 to 40% of the questions are omfg-its -like-solving-5-rubix-cubes-in-50-minutes style questions, the likes of which were constantly on Berkeley midterms.

So basically the point is, there seems to be this large discrepancy in difficulty at various colleges, and I've always wondered how say someone from Cal State fairs in med. school as compared to a Berkeley, Stanford, etc. grad. Curious what people's schools are like. Are the exams straight-forward or insanely difficult with lots of crazy problems? I imagine medical school is immensely challenging (probably even moreso than Berkeley) and it just seems to me that people who managed to do well in one of the easier colleges, but struggled, would probably not fare very well. Even people who did well but didn't struggle as much, because of their lack of rigorous training, might struggle as well.

You would think there would be some kind of standard of education at schools where people can potentially get into med. school. I'm actually a bit bitter that people who get 3.8's, 3.9's, 4.0's from a way easier school can get into med. school and because of my 2.5 from Berkeley, I have to do all this post bac work to make up for it to even stand a small chance (granted, it is largely my fault, but still I don't know that even if I really busted tail I would've done a whole lot better).

Heh ok I've said a ton. What are your all thoughts on this if any?

Bro, nothing compares to Berkeley, not UofChicago, Cornell, Harvard, not Cal State LA. Berkeley is on a whole different class all by itself. An A in one of the Berkeley Sciences is beyond comparison and, schools do pay attention. People that think and say otherwise are experiencing some difficulty in recognition.

 

[Will Ferrell]

oops. i see the mix up. when i wrote "you blew your chance," I didn't mean you blew your chance at med school. I meant that you blew your chance at having the "berkeley advantage" that many people couldn't have (exceling at top school). I would have been pissed too if i read it the other way. my bad.

 

[Pharmwannab]

Bro, nothing compares to Berkeley, not UofChicago, Cornell, Harvard, not Cal State LA. Berkeley is on a whole different class all by itself. An A in one of the Berkeley Sciences is beyond comparison and, schools do pay attention. People that think and say otherwise are experiencing some difficulty in recognition.

Sarcasm? 😛 Yes Berkeley is pretty freakin difficult, but I'm sure the other top schools are more or less the same. I wasn't trying to say that Berkeley is by far the hardest and nothing else compares, if that's what you're getting at. But there certainly are a lot of way easier schools out there. That's all.

 

[Pharmwannab]

oops. i see the mix up. when i wrote "you blew your chance," I didn't mean you blew your chance at med school. I meant that you blew your chance at having the "berkeley advantage" that many people couldn't have (exceling at top school). I would have been pissed too if i read it the other way. my bad.

No worries man. I misread it. Often hard to convey what you really mean on a message board. It's all good.

 

[MEG@COOL]

This is actually a really interesting topic to me and I've had several discussions about it with friends at school. I've attended 2 universities now and have had quite contrasting experiences at both. I first attended UC Berkeley and to put it mildly, got reamed. After that experience I had it in my head that college, in general, was just insanely difficult and I was a complete idiot with no hope whatsoever (even though I was a 4.0 student in high school.). I'll skip following chapter in my life, but basically I decided I wasn't happy working and wanted to go back to school to try again, so that I could go on to professional school. I started up at a Cal State university and based on my Berkeley experience, I was scared shi*less that I was going to fail again (or at least, just suck), but I was motivated now and went hardcore with the studying. Needless to say, it's now 1 year later and I have a 4.0 in my post-bac work and there's literally only been 2 midterms that I have not scored the high on, even after this quarter where I took o. chem, biochem, physics and animal bio simultaneously.

It's definitely been a combination of 2 factors - one, that I actually care now about my schooling and I'm motivated to do well, but I believe that that biggest factor is that the difficulty is just far less than it was at Berkeley. If you studied and you know your material, you should do well. We don't have exams where 30 to 40% of the questions are omfg-its -like-solving-5-rubix-cubes-in-50-minutes style questions, the likes of which were constantly on Berkeley midterms.

So basically the point is, there seems to be this large discrepancy in difficulty at various colleges, and I've always wondered how say someone from Cal State fairs in med. school as compared to a Berkeley, Stanford, etc. grad. Curious what people's schools are like. Are the exams straight-forward or insanely difficult with lots of crazy problems? I imagine medical school is immensely challenging (probably even moreso than Berkeley) and it just seems to me that people who managed to do well in one of the easier colleges, but struggled, would probably not fare very well. Even people who did well but didn't struggle as much, because of their lack of rigorous training, might struggle as well.

You would think there would be some kind of standard of education at schools where people can potentially get into med. school. I'm actually a bit bitter that people who get 3.8's, 3.9's, 4.0's from a way easier school can get into med. school and because of my 2.5 from Berkeley, I have to do all this post bac work to make up for it to even stand a small chance (granted, it is largely my fault, but still I don't know that even if I really busted tail I would've done a whole lot better).

Heh ok I've said a ton. What are your all thoughts on this if any?

What is the MCAT? Why is the MCAT used as a criterion for admissions? 18r12389582352395u2-35235=2352305235232

 

[Faust]

Sarcasm? 😛 Yes Berkeley is pretty freakin difficult, but I'm sure the other top schools are more or less the same. I wasn't trying to say that Berkeley is by far the hardest and nothing else compares, if that's what you're getting at. But there certainly are a lot of way easier schools out there. That's all.

I know you are not saying it. I am.
I am saying that nothing compares to Cal, maybe, maybe MIT is on the same wavelength in the sciences, but other than that, education is a bunch of garbage or overly priced nonsense (i.e Harvard, columbia, yale, et cetera).

 

[Pharmwannab]

What is the MCAT? Why is the MCAT used as a criterion for admissions? 18r12389582352395u2-35235=235230523523

Heh yeah, I know.

Ok, this was perhaps a bad place to post this because I had a specific situation in mind, which doesn't really apply to this particular forum - but at least it did generate some good discussion.

I'm a California resident, planning on going to pharmacy school in California. Considering med school, but would prefer pharmacy. Anyhow, California pharmacy schools do not require the PCAT, yet actually accept a fairly high percentage of Cal State students. So I've been wondering how say Cal State students would do in comparison to UC students, Stanford students, etc. since there isn't that standardized test used as admissions criteria. But like I said, people here wouldn't know too much about that and the pharmacy forum is practically dead so I wouldn't really get any good answers.

I thought it was a good topic to discuss here nonetheless.

 

[Pharmwannab]

I know you are not saying it. I am.
I am saying that nothing compares to Cal, maybe, maybe MIT is on the same wavelength in the sciences, but other than that, education is a bunch of garbage or overly priced nonsense (i.e Harvard, columbia, yale, et cetera).

Ah ok, once again I misread someone. Go go reading comprehension! Haha.

Yeah maybe so, I can't really say. I have seen midterms from other top tier private institutions, and they really weren't much harder than Cal State midterms I've seen, but thought maybe they were just a fluke. But maybe not.

Maybe I'll dedicate my life to finding a way to normalize education criteria. Hehe.

 

[drmota]

science at berkeley is TOUUUUUUGH. the one piece of knowledge i offer people at berkeley over and over and OVER again is to NOT major in a science and nobody EVER listens to me. i run into them 2 years later and they went on to major in MCB or BIO and NOT because they like it, but because they think thats what they're SUPPOSED to do. i think THAT is the biggest problem with berkeley undergrads. they are f-ing STUPID when it comes to working the system. i majored in political science and have a 3.9 in all my non-premed classes and a 3.2 in all my science classes. and i'm getting interviews. go figure. if i had majored in f-ing MCB i would have a 3.2 total. if ANYBODY reads this who goes to berkeley or will and has not declared a major TAKE MY ADVICE. if you do not, you will ONLY have yourselves to blame. i promise. now run along children.

-mota

 

[Pharmwannab]

science at berkeley is TOUUUUUUGH. the one piece of knowledge i offer people at berkeley over and over and OVER again is to NOT major in a science and nobody EVER listens to me. i run into them 2 years later and they went on to major in MCB or BIO and NOT because they like it, but because they think thats what they're SUPPOSED to do. i think THAT is the biggest problem with berkeley undergrads. they are f-ing STUPID when it comes to working the system. i majored in political science and have a 3.9 in all my non-premed classes and a 3.2 in all my science classes. and i'm getting interviews. go figure. if i had majored in f-ing MCB i would have a 3.2 total. if ANYBODY reads this who goes to berkeley or will and has not declared a major TAKE MY ADVICE. if you do not, you will ONLY have yourselves to blame. i promise. now run along children.

-mota

Sage advice. I wish I had cared enough to take it back then. 🙂

 

[Centinel]

My orgo prof at my school showed me a publication that showed there was no correlation between MCATs and board scores (ie.. success in medical school).

I will try and get a copy or link of it for you..

Secondly, for me... I know there is no correlatation. I plan to do well on my boards, and I could care less about the stupid MCAT. It is half materials that I have no interest in whatsoever. Having a 33 and then a 26 is not a 3 point spread; I call the MCAT random.

A different document linked from the same AMCAS website says that MCAT Verbal and Board Scores are correlated in a statistically significant way.

 

[gostudy]

A simple googling of the health professions offices of top schools (in this case princeton) puts this entire debate to rest.

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/2005Statistics.pdf

Compare page 2 to 4. Coincidence that princeton students on average have lower GPAs than other accepted students yet greater than 90 percent of princeton students get into med school while the nat. average is 50? I think not. Case closed.

 

[MarzMD]

A simple googling of the health professions offices of top schools (in this case princeton) puts this entire debate to rest.

http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/2005Statistics.pdf

Compare page 2 to 4. Coincidence that princeton students on average have lower GPAs than other accepted students yet greater than 90 percent of princeton students get into med school while the nat. average is 50? I think not. Case closed.

Same with Duke. We have about an 84 % acceptance rate, lower GPA than the national average...but still a higher average mcat score for students accepted.

 

[hatter]

From what I have heard in this thread, I wonder if when you say that individuals from top undergrads get into medical school you really mean these people will get into top medical schools. It is my impression what most people who attend Ivys and top tier undergrads would not condescend to attend the bottom 30 medical schools or DO schools. So basically spots in these schools would generally go to less ambitious students from lower tier/less competitive schools.
This could be potentially corroborated by looking at the md applicants profiles of students who go the top schools. The medical schools they apply to will be significantly different than the medical schools that a student who goes to a non competitive school applies to. If I am wrong in this, please feel point out the error in my poor excuse for logic. 🙂

 

[S@xplayer]

A different document linked from the same AMCAS website says that MCAT Verbal and Board Scores are correlated in a statistically significant way.

Doesn't change what research I saw, or what I personally believe. I don't think that honestly, either way, a correlation can be drawn from MCAT to success in medical school for anyone, ever.