Weight of "AO" GPA

[begoood95]

Let's taco bout GPA for a second. We all know of the importance of sGPA, and cGPA is obviously a factor for admission -- but rarely have I seen people talk about the "AO" (all other) GPA, which is also included on the AAMCAS. Do ADCOMS look at this in any significant way?

I'm sure it's not going to be a deciding factor, but I'm interested to see whether or not it's given even the slightest attention because when we talk about GPA, it's never mentioned...even though it's clearly a metric listed on the application. (All the other threads were either old or conflicting.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[boogiecousins94]

see first column, they are in ranked order


View attachment 219205

Just for reference I saw an updated version of this table, I forget exactly where but it may have been the "2017 MCAT guide" I think, some AAMC 30pg document. I can't find the link but it changed some stuff- I specifically saw that the research is not separated by public vs private and is in the medium importance category

Edit: Here it is I found it

 

[begoood95]

Sweet find, @boogahead10! Nice to see that selectivity of undergraduate institution has moved from highest to lowest of importance (at least on their responses -- we'll see if that pans out).

Also, it's interesting that they now include "MCAT total score trend" is now included in their importance ratings... I mean it would obviously look bad if you had a downward trend, but it's interesting that enough applicants have had multiple MCAT scores such that a new category is warranted.

 

[Goro]

Let's taco bout GPA for a second. We all know of the importance of sGPA, and cGPA is obviously a factor for admission -- but rarely have I seen people talk about the "AO" (all other) GPA, which is also included on the AAMCAS. Do ADCOMS look at this in any significant way?

I'm sure it's not going to be a deciding factor, but I'm interested to see whether or not it's given even the slightest attention because when we talk about GPA, it's never mentioned...even though it's clearly a metric listed on the application. (All the other threads were either old or conflicting.)

I don't consider it.

 

[begoood95]

Dang, so much for holistic review, huh?

I don't consider it.

 

[Goro]

Dang, so much for holistic review, huh?

Holistic review means "we don't automatically trash your app just because you don't have high stats."

That said, too many pre-meds seem to imbue the term with some magic.

 

[begoood95]

It's only natural (...delusional, at times, but still) that some of us pre-meds grasp at straws when pondering our chances at med-school. We'd like to think that we're more than a batch of numbers -- but, of course, if those numbers are sub 3.0/500, I agree that holistic review will not magically allow for one's acceptance!

Holistic review means "we don't automatically trash your app just because you don't have high stats."

That said, too many pre-meds seem to imbue the term with some magic.

 

[Lawpy]

Just a heads up, AAMC surveys and priority rankings can all be found here for reference

 

[mwsapphire]

Holistic review means "we don't automatically trash your app just because you don't have high stats."

That said, too many pre-meds seem to imbue the term with some magic.

Hollistic review actually doesn't make me feel any better.
I mean, you can work hard to have a high MCAT, do the right EC's ( maybe even take a gap year or two), make good grades ( with an UW trend, even as classes get harder). But hollistic review makes it seem like something you aren't aware of ( seeming slightly neurotic during interviews, PS sounds a little cheesy, giving off a "gunner/overachiever" vibe) can be something that can prevent you from getting an acceptance?
Like, say two applicants have a good amount of non clinical volunteering. One volunteers with homeless people, the other volunteers with kids. Holistic review can mean the latter looks better than the former, even though they are both serving the community.
I mean, if your intentions are genuine and you really do want to a be doctor, you're altruistic , committed to service, in theory that should shine through, but still. For us neurotic pre meds I can't imagine holistic review being that much of a relief.

 

[Goro]

Hollistic review actually doesn't make me feel any better.
I mean, you can work hard to have a high MCAT, do the right EC's ( maybe even take a gap year or two), make good grades ( with an UW trend, even as classes get harder). But hollistic review makes it seem like something you aren't aware of ( seeming slightly neurotic during interviews, PS sounds a little cheesy, giving off a "gunner/overachiever" vibe) can be something that can prevent you from getting an acceptance?
Like, say two applicants have a good amount of non clinical volunteering. One volunteers with homeless people, the other volunteers with kids. Holistic review can mean the latter looks better than the former, even though they are both serving the community.
I mean, if your intentions are genuine and you really do want to a be doctor, you're altruistic , committed to service, in theory that should shine through, but still. For us neurotic pre meds I can't imagine holistic review being that much of a relief.

Holistic review means nothing of the sort. What it does mean is that the entire app is seriously looked at for non-numerical metrics of qualities med schools want in future students and doctors.

Bad essays will kill any applicant no matter how the apps are reviewed.

And it's not a zero sum game. Both of your candidates would get an II or acceptance.

 

[gyngyn]

Hollistic review actually doesn't make me feel any better.
I mean, you can work hard to have a high MCAT, do the right EC's ( maybe even take a gap year or two), make good grades ( with an UW trend, even as classes get harder). But hollistic review makes it seem like something you aren't aware of ( seeming slightly neurotic during interviews, PS sounds a little cheesy, giving off a "gunner/overachiever" vibe) can be something that can prevent you from getting an acceptance?
Like, say two applicants have a good amount of non clinical volunteering. One volunteers with homeless people, the other volunteers with kids. Holistic review can mean the latter looks better than the former, even though they are both serving the community.
I mean, if your intentions are genuine and you really do want to a be doctor, you're altruistic , committed to service, in theory that should shine through, but still. For us neurotic pre meds I can't imagine holistic review being that much of a relief.

I see plenty of applicants that we could never admit get accepted to very fine schools.
As long as you apply to enough schools where your stats and mission fit, you have at least a 46% chance for one acceptance. The better the stats and the better the fit, the higher the odds.

 

[mwsapphire]

I see plenty of applicants that we could never admit get accepted to very fine schools.
As long as you apply to enough schools where your stats and mission fit, you have at least a 46% chance for one acceptance. The better the stats and the better the fit, the higher the odds.

Isn't that 46 percent thing mainly b/c of a lot of folks who ....there's not really a gentle way to say it....aren't read to apply to medical school?
Like, people with sub 3.5 gpa's ( with no UW trend at all), no clinical experience, sub 500 MCAT scores.
If you look at the people who are 3.6< and 510< , with ample clinical experience ( in my mind, the bare bones EC), then isn't it higher?
That's been said on here once but I'm not sure if it was confirmed or denied.

 

[gyngyn]

Isn't that 46 percent thing mainly b/c of a lot of folks who ....there's not really a gentle way to say it....aren't read to apply to medical school?
Like, people with sub 3.5 gpa's ( with no UW trend at all), no clinical experience, sub 500 MCAT scores.
If you look at the people who are 3.6< and 510< , with ample clinical experience ( in my mind, the bare bones EC), then isn't it higher?
That's been said on here once but I'm not sure if it was confirmed or denied.

There are as many reasons as there are applicants: stats, EC's essays, interviews, unlucky states, weak strategy...

 

[sat0ri]

Sweet find, @boogahead10! Nice to see that selectivity of undergraduate institution has moved from highest to lowest of importance (at least on their responses -- we'll see if that pans out).

Also, it's interesting that they now include "MCAT total score trend" is now included in their importance ratings... I mean it would obviously look bad if you had a downward trend, but it's interesting that enough applicants have had multiple MCAT scores such that a new category is warranted.

The other big change I see is the research experiences dropped to lowest importance and the data is not parsed into private and public. I have to assume in the research-heavy schools, research is still an large part of distinguishing yourself, no?