What are the current "magic numbers" for medical schools these days?

[JJR22]

I know this may sound a bit ridiculous, but hear me out. A little over 5 years ago, my sister applied and told me all her fellow classmates aimed for the infamous 3.6/30 combo.

I know I can get this data online and from the MSAR, but I'm trying to look for a general number for the lower tier MD schools. In other words, there comes a point where your GPA and MCAT won't be the reason keeping you out. It will be your ECs, interviews, LOR, etc. What do you think those numbers are now?

The reason I ask this is because I have a 3.6 and was thinking about taking some extra classes to boost my GPA slightly, maybe by 0.05 or 0.1 (I have already graduated). An adcom member told me not to waste my time, which I found strange considering the median GPA for his school is a 3.75.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mavii]

350

 

[JJR22]

350

Thanks buddy. That really helped.

 

[Law2Doc]

I know this may sound a bit ridiculous, but hear me out. A little over 5 years ago, my sister applied and told me all her fellow classmates aimed for the infamous 3.6/30 combo.

I know I can get this data online and from the MSAR, but I'm trying to look for a general number for the lower tier MD schools. In other words, there comes a point where your GPA and MCAT won't be the reason keeping you out. It will be your ECs, interviews, LOR, etc. What do you think those numbers are now?

The reason I ask this is because I have a 3.6 and was thinking about taking some extra classes to boost my GPA slightly, maybe by 0.05 or 0.1 (I have already graduated). An adcom member told me not to waste my time, which I found strange considering the median GPA for his school is a 3.75.

A 3.6 won't keep you out of any med school. There are people with this GPA in every med school. Moving it to a 3.7 won't open any doors. A 3.6 and great ECs beats a 3.7 and pedestrian ECs every time, every school. You need a certain numerical threshold, but once you are in the "acceptable" range, you get much much better return on your time investment focusing on the nonnumeric aspects of your application.

 

[SOMBound13]

I know this may sound a bit ridiculous, but hear me out. A little over 5 years ago, my sister applied and told me all her fellow classmates aimed for the infamous 3.6/30 combo.

While there are no magic numbers, some premed advisors might argue that if you have a 3.7+ cum/science and a 30+ balanced MCAT....and you have a reasonable app list....you'll have about a 75% chance of at least one MD acceptance.

The above is assuming good LORs and ECs.

 

[MDhopeful23]

Based on the averages for the majority of schools, I would say the "magic" numbers most people aim for or should aim for would be 3.65/32. However, in your case going back for .05 is unnesscary you should instead focus on getting 32+ on the MCATS. If you get a 32+ and stick with your 3.6 you will still be in play for most medical schools and at that point the rest of your application (ECs,LORs,interviews,grade trends,difficulty of classes,etc) will decide your fate. That is the exact position you are speaking of.

 

[JJR22]

A 3.6 won't keep you out of any med school. There are people with this GPA in every med school. Moving it to a 3.7 won't open any doors. A 3.6 and great ECs beats a 3.7 and pedestrian ECs every time, every school. You need a certain numerical threshold, but once you are in the "acceptable" range, you get much much better return on your time investment focusing on the nonnumeric aspects of your application.

Very good points. Thank you

 

[MusicJunkie]

Even if you do have the magic combo, it will do you no good if you don't know the schools that you should be applying to. I think we've all heard the horror stories of 4.0/35 students that don't get in because they applied to one school or because they applied to too few schools. Some students have way too many reaches and too few "in range" schools, which can also be a killer. Building your school list is something that takes a bit of time and research. I know for me there were a couple of schools that I didn't do enough research on, and then later found out that I didn't meet some sort of requirement (It's a bummer when that happens because it's essentially a waste of time/money).

 

[notbobtrustme]

3.6/30 is competitive somewhere.

 

[BABSstudent]

I might get flamed for this, but I say 3.7 and a balanced 32 is the magic ticket to almost guarantee an acceptance. Yes, people get in with much lower, but that combination I mentioned is great. You are slightly above the average GPA and MCAT score of the national average of matriculating medical students.

People also get rejected with higher scores, but there tends to be reasons like a late app, poor secondaries, personal statement, applying too top heavy or red flags.

 

[alerk323]

I might get flamed for this, but I say 3.7 and a balanced 32 is the magic ticket to almost guarantee an acceptance. Yes, people get in with much lower, but that combination I mentioned is great. You are slightly above the average GPA and MCAT score of the national average of matriculating medical students.

People also get rejected with higher scores, but there tends to be reasons like a late app, poor secondaries, personal statement, applying too top heavy or red flags.

Just for random n=1 anecdotes sake, I applied to 22 schools last year with a 3.7 and 33 (10,12,11) and got into zero schools (two interviews). Top heavy list, still, there were some decent ones in there. This year I applied to a couple more and drastically improved my personal statement (medium improvement elsewhere) plus applied way more broadly plus applied as early as possible and I'm finally sitting on an acceptance (3 interviews, 2 pending decisions).

Moral: hitting these numbers doesn't guarantee anything but puts you in the arena, apply broadly and early.

 

[Geebeejay]

3.6/30 is pretty solid. 3.7/30 is even better (10% higher chance). But realize, the 30 assumes 10/10/10. If your MCAT isn't balanced, you might be in trouble even if you're getting a 30. 7/11/12 won't cut it. So aim for a balanced score, and you'll probably be fine with your GPA.

 

[Roxas]

When applying, how broad is too broad? Don't schools see how many you apply to, and so they can tell if you are just throwing apps all over the place? I have a 3.75 cgpa, mcat pending, and was thinking about applying to roughly 5 DO and 20-25 MD. Too broad?

 

[gyngyn]

When applying, how broad is too broad? Don't schools see how many you apply to, and so they can tell if you are just throwing apps all over the place? I have a 3.75 cgpa, mcat pending, and was thinking about applying to roughly 5 DO and 20-25 MD. Too broad?

No school sees where you have applied. The disadvantages to a longer list are the expense (fees, travel, opportunity cost) and tedious repetition of filling out secondaries.

 

[Goobs]

When applying, how broad is too broad? Don't schools see how many you apply to, and so they can tell if you are just throwing apps all over the place? I have a 3.75 cgpa, mcat pending, and was thinking about applying to roughly 5 DO and 20-25 MD. Too broad?

I have a 3.75 and 33 and applied to 25 md schools in Cali and the NE. You'll be good enough to not need to apply to do schools and be regionally selective pending a good mcat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BABSstudent]

When applying, how broad is too broad? Don't schools see how many you apply to, and so they can tell if you are just throwing apps all over the place? I have a 3.75 cgpa, mcat pending, and was thinking about applying to roughly 5 DO and 20-25 MD. Too broad?

Schools can't see how many places you applied unless you apply early decision (in which case you would apply to only one school and they know that).

And I think 25-30 schools is way too broad. Based on practice tests, what was your average? You could probably use that to narrow done the schools to about 15 broadly ranked schools.

 

[SOMBound13]

I might get flamed for this, but I say 3.7 and a balanced 32 is the magic ticket to almost guarantee an acceptance. Yes, people get in with much lower, but that combination I mentioned is great. You are slightly above the average GPA and MCAT score of the national average of matriculating medical students.

People also get rejected with higher scores, but there tends to be reasons like a late app, poor secondaries, personal statement, applying too top heavy or red flags.

I agree with this.

But, in many states, if you have a balanced 30, and a 3.7 GPA s&c, then you're likely going to get accepted to one of your state's SOMs.

 

[Goobs]

Schools can't see how many places you applied unless you apply early decision (in which case you would apply to only one school and they know that).

And I think 25-30 schools is way too broad. Based on practice tests, what was your average? You could probably use that to narrow done the schools to about 15 broadly ranked schools.

15 might be too narrow if you're trying to aim for a certain geographic region though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dsoz]

3.6 and 31 here. I applied to 12 DO and 8MD. Had many IIs, but canceled most after my 5th interview because I was accepted to two schools already. Canceled all the rest after my fifth interview came back as an acceptance.

The 3.6/30 may get a file looked at, but it is the PS and ECs that get the IIs. Then the interview is where the acceptance is won/lost.

I don't think that any combination of numbers is a "magic bullet" for most schools. You still need to have a PS and ECs and do well on the interview.

dsoz

 

[alerk323]

When applying, how broad is too broad? Don't schools see how many you apply to, and so they can tell if you are just throwing apps all over the place? I have a 3.75 cgpa, mcat pending, and was thinking about applying to roughly 5 DO and 20-25 MD. Too broad?

There's a date in april where schools get to see what other schools students they've already accepted got accepted at. There's a later date where I think they see the same info for all students that applied there. Regardless, it doesn't matter at all how many schools you apply too as schools don't get that information until it no longer really matters.

So in conclusion, throw apps all over the place but 5 DO and 20-25 MD schools should be fine for most. "Broad" is more about the types of schools you apply too rahter than the number. If 10 out of your 25 are top 20 schools and the rest are schools that get tons of apps (BU got 11 thousand this year) than your list isn't broad.

 

[CliveStaples]

Just for random n=1 anecdotes sake, I applied to 22 schools last year with a 3.7 and 33 (10,12,11) and got into zero schools (two interviews). Top heavy list, still, there were some decent ones in there. This year I applied to a couple more and drastically improved my personal statement (medium improvement elsewhere) plus applied way more broadly plus applied as early as possible and I'm finally sitting on an acceptance (3 interviews, 2 pending decisions).

Moral: hitting these numbers doesn't guarantee anything but puts you in the arena, apply broadly and early.

I want to reemphasize this post. At no point do you have a 'guaranteed acceptance' GPA and mcat, or even really a "I'm probably getting accepted" GPA and mcat for the simple reason that they are only two parts to a much larger algorithm that determines acceptance. Now, at a certain GPA and mcat you can certainly say with confidence that your GPA and mcat won't be what prevents you from being interviewed or accepted (the 3.7 and 32/33 range for 90% of schools) but even those numbers might be high.

It's the other stuff that's going to make somebody WANT to interview or accept you. You want an interviewer to vouch for you when it comes time to make a decision on acceptance or not, not just an interviewer who reports on you. You want LORs that declare that you are one of the most capable individuals to come out of your UG. You want to demonstrate leadership capabilities that could translate to you being a leader in your own field - having the skills of rapport, influence, and communication. You need to show an understanding of the medical profession and a concern for the common man (you're entering a service industry, not business). You need to show a commitment to reeducating yourself and to becoming a master in a field of knowledge though your UG research.

Lemme tell you, if you've got all that then you can have a very successful cycle even below the 'safe' threshold of stats. I had below a 3.5 sGPA and below a 30 mcat but I got 6 MD interviews and multiple acceptances because I must have been a stellar applicant. They know a majority of you guys are capable of the academics of medical school - it's the other stuff that can make you extraordinary enough to be accepted.

 

[Roxas]

I haven't taken a practice test yet, since my test day isn't until April. The bad thing is I only have 1 in state school, not many spots, and they have very different selection criteria....so I'm not really banking on getting in there. I was already only planning on applying to 1 or 2 reach schools, the rest being lower ranked MD unless I just dominate the mcat

 

[BABSstudent]

I agree with this.

But, in many states, if you have a balanced 30, and a 3.7 GPA s&c, then you're likely going to get accepted to one of your state's SOMs.

But that is for state schools and being a resident. Some of us are not lucky enough to have a state school or even a medical school in the state (e.g. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, etc.). Some schools, like University of Washington have a high rank and require high numbers from their IS population to get an acceptance.

I don't know if you can tell, but I am jealous of all the east coast applicants.

 

[sinombre]

But that is for state schools and being a resident. Some of us are not lucky enough to have a state school or even a medical school in the state (e.g. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, etc.). Some schools, like University of Washington have a high rank and require high numbers from their IS population to get an acceptance.

I don't know if you can tell, but I am jealous of all the east coast applicants.

Don't forget about states with ultra high applicant to medical school seat ratios, and the consequential elevated admissions standards. It's harder to get into a state school in CA than a private school out of state

 

[BABSstudent]

Don't forget about states with ultra high applicant to medical school seat ratios, and the consequential elevated admissions standards. It's harder to get into a state school in CA than a private school out of state

Agreed. West coast sucks from a premed applying to medical school perspective.

 

[darkjedi]

A 3.6 won't keep you out of any med school. There are people with this GPA in every med school. Moving it to a 3.7 won't open any doors. A 3.6 and great ECs beats a 3.7 and pedestrian ECs every time, every school. You need a certain numerical threshold, but once you are in the "acceptable" range, you get much much better return on your time investment focusing on the nonnumeric aspects of your application.

I agree very much with this notion. I had ~ a 3.6 cGPA and while it was an uphill battle, I ultimately wound up at a top tier institution. Once you have a decent GPA, your EC's is what will set you apart and your MCAT will determine what tier school you should aim for.

 

[Fivo]

Don't forget about states with ultra high applicant to medical school seat ratios, and the consequential elevated admissions standards. It's harder to get into a state school in CA than a private school out of state

Agreed. West coast sucks from a premed applying to medical school perspective.

That feel...when you get interviewed at ever CA school you applied to





Feels good to be black right about now....

















wait wut?

 

[sinombre]

Haha... good job Fivo. If you've done that well you deserve it. I still have three shots at staying in CA

Otherwise I'm moving across the country and preparing myself for the more than $300k of debt I'll have in 4 1/2 years.

 

[HughMyron]

I know a 3.2 sGPA (ORM) who got into a US MD. Anything is possible with the right MCAT and LORs.

 

[mcloaf]

I know a 3.2 sGPA (ORM) who got into a US MD. Anything is possible with the right MCAT and LORs.

Lol, this doesn't address OP at all.

 

[Shjanzey]

Prime numbers or you get the auto-reject

 

[HughMyron]

Lol, this doesn't address OP at all.

I'm challenging the idea that you need certain "magic numbers" to go to a US MD, or even if having those numbers will almost guarantee an in. 3.6/30 would probably put you on the lower end of matriculants, but it can get you in.

 

[circulus vitios]

3.68/31.2 is the average for MD matriculants. (2012 data)
3.48/26.5 is the average for DO matriculants. (2011 data)

 

[sliceofbread136]

I'd say 33/3.7 is the new 30/3.6 but that's just my guess.

 

[circulus vitios]

I like how GPAs have been creeping up over the past like 10 years. When is it going to end?

 

[BABSstudent]

I like how GPAs have been creeping up over the past like 10 years. When is it going to end?

Well the average MCAT score will be a 40 in a few years... Because the test will be out of 60 points and not 45.

 

[MedPR]

4.2/46, but URMs can squeak by with only a 43.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

 

[sinombre]

Well the average MCAT score will be a 40 in a few years... Because the test will be out of 60 points and not 45.

Woah... it really is out of 60. How strange. I guess the real question is: how high of a percentile will future applicants have to achieve? It's kind of hard to imagine admissions getting more competitive than it is now, but I'm sure it will.

Also, an MCAT out of 60 means that test-takers will have to worry about scoring >10 on four sections instead of three. That's 33% more subsection anxiety. Yikes.

 

[circulus vitios]

Woah... it really is out of 60. How strange. I guess the real question is: how high of a percentile will future applicants have to achieve? It's kind of hard to imagine admissions getting more competitive than it is now, but I'm sure it will.

Also, an MCAT out of 60 means that test-takers will have to worry about scoring >10 on four sections instead of three. That's 33% more subsection anxiety. Yikes.

If I had to take the 2015 MCAT I would literally give up medicine and look into other medical professionals, or just forgo medicine completely. Everyone involved in making the 2015 MCAT should be beaten.

 

[Sidereum]

If I had to take the 2015 MCAT I would literally give up medicine and look into other medical professionals, or just forgo medicine completely. Everyone involved in making the 2015 MCAT should be beaten.

Oh, pfft, it can't be THAT bad! I'll be taking it, and I honestly don't see why people think it'll be so much worse than the current one. Maybe it's the fact that my major (cognitive systems) will probably prepare me well for the new subsection, but it seems fine to me.

 

[SOMBound13]

I agree with this.

But, in many states, if you have a balanced 30, and a 3.7 GPA s&c, then you're likely going to get accepted to one of your state's SOMs.

But that is for state schools and being a resident. Some of us are not lucky enough to have a state school or even a medical school in the state (e.g. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, etc.). Some schools, like University of Washington have a high rank and require high numbers from their IS population to get an acceptance.

I don't know if you can tell, but I am jealous of all the east coast applicants.

True, which is why I wrote "in many states"...not all states. And I wrote "your state's SOM's, implying residency.

Obviously, those who live in Calif, Washington, and maybe a few other states have such intensive competition to get into their states' SOMs. Thankfully, Calif has opened UCR. It's not enough, but it creates more seats.

That said, for those who live in a state without a med school, there are some states that have agreements with other states' med schools to give a priority to these "SOM-less" students.

Applying broadly and early is key part of a successful strategy. I wasn't able to apply as early as I wanted to because of a very demanding summer research opportunity, but I did submit in July. I think if I had submitted a month or so later, I would only have had instate interviews (if that).

 

[circulus vitios]

Oh, pfft, it can't be THAT bad! I'll be taking it, and I honestly don't see why people think it'll be so much worse than the current one. Maybe it's the fact that my major (cognitive systems) will probably prepare me well for the new subsection, but it seems fine to me.

The inclusion of psychology and sociology, and the emphasis on biological systems and biochemistry is going to push out non-biology/biochemistry majors. Schools will require the typical gen chem/o-chem/physics/bio classes on top of sociology, psychology, biochemistry, and probably another upper-level elective. Good luck fitting those classes into a 4 year degree that isn't biology, biochemistry, or specifically pre-med oriented.

This new test will not make better doctors and there's no evidence showing that the current MCAT is doing a poor job of preparing doctors. If you want to criticize the lack of socioeconomic empathy among medical students then stop accepting students in a way that creates a $110,000/year median family income among matriculants. I know it's shocking that that predominately upper-middle class students don't understand poor people. Clearly the best solution is to include a 1 hour multiple-choice subsection on sociology and psychology -- a total of 6 hours and 20 minutes spent answering questions, not including breaks. This new section will surely make sheltered and snobbish applicants re-evaluate their views!

 

[Narmerguy]

I agree very much with this notion. I had ~ a 3.6 cGPA and while it was an uphill battle, I ultimately wound up at a top tier institution. Once you have a decent GPA, your EC's is what will set you apart and your MCAT will determine what tier school you should aim for.

I think it's worth noting that you had a 4.00 sGPA.

The inclusion of psychology and sociology, and the emphasis on biological systems and biochemistry is going to push out non-biology/biochemistry majors. Schools will require the typical gen chem/o-chem/physics/bio classes on top of sociology, psychology, biochemistry, and probably another upper-level elective. Good luck fitting those classes into a 4 year degree that isn't biology, biochemistry, or specifically pre-med oriented.

This new test will not make better doctors and there's no evidence showing that the current MCAT is doing a poor job of preparing doctors. If you want to criticize the lack of socioeconomic empathy among medical students then stop accepting students in a way that creates a $110,000/year median family income among matriculants. I know it's shocking that that predominately upper-middle class students don't understand poor people. Clearly the best solution is to include a 1 hour multiple-choice subsection on sociology and psychology -- a total of 6 hours and 20 minutes spent answering questions, not including breaks. This new section will surely make sheltered and snobbish applicants re-evaluate their views!

I disagree. I think the 2015 MCAT is the best decision they've made in a while, and in a survey of admissions staff an overwhelming majority agreed this will be beneficial for future doctors.

 

[sinombre]

I disagree. I think the 2015 MCAT is the best decision they've made in a while, and in a survey of admissions staff an overwhelming majority agreed this will be beneficial for future doctors.

Would you mind elaborating on why you support the changes? I'm curious to hear a counter-argument/rationalization for the revised MCAT.

 

[circulus vitios]

I think it's worth noting that you had a 4.00 sGPA.



I disagree. I think the 2015 MCAT is the best decision they've made in a while, and in a survey of admissions staff an overwhelming majority agreed this will be beneficial for future doctors.

Aren't the majority of admissions staff members non-physicians or non-practicing physicians?

 

[Narmerguy]

Would you mind elaborating on why you support the changes? I'm curious to hear a counter-argument/rationalization for the revised MCAT.

Sure. The easiest way to say this is to simply look at the topic list of what will be covered in the new section. You can read about it here: https://www.aamc.org/students/download/266006/data/2015previewguide.pdf. Some example topics: Peer pressure; Group Polarization; Power, Prestige, and Class; Expressing and Detecting Emotion; Government and Economy.

When I read the topics that are covered, I think those are absolutely important principles for someone to understand as a doctor. The direction medicine is moving is such that I think we will tend to rely less and less on simply our doctor's understanding of basic kinematics or complex organic synthesis pathways. While it is absolutely critical that our doctor's have a strong grounding in basic science, being a doctor is more than just being good at science.

Physicians are leaders of healthcare, and that's a tall order. I think it's important that applicants be able and prepared to demonstrate that they have the capacity not just to understand the science behind medicine, but the human/social side of medicine. What are their patients feeling/thinking? How can they use our understanding of emotion and stress to make the patient more likely to follow the treatment you're giving them? What kind of social structures are in place that continue to produce higher rates of diseases and mortality among certain populations even when given equal access to care? What kinds of things will determine how likely patients are to visit the clinic vs to respond to a family member?

These sorts of problems are distinct from the organic chemistry and the biochemistry but are important questions for our doctors to be equipped to answer. Given that the current MCAT has limited predictive power above a 27 anyway, the test could stand for some improvement. Instead of constantly asking ourselves, should we be seeking doctors who are great at science but perhaps don't understand the behavioral/human/social side of medicine, or should we be seeking someone who is great at the behavioral/human/social stuff but struggles with science--why not identify the students with the potential to be great at both?

Aren't the majority of admissions staff members non-physicians or non-practicing physicians?

Whether they are or are not, it's the same people who have always been making decisions about medical education / designing the old & new MCAT.

 

[darkjedi]

Sure. The easiest way to say this is to simply look at the topic list of what will be covered in the new section. You can read about it here: https://www.aamc.org/students/download/266006/data/2015previewguide.pdf. Some example topics: Peer pressure; Group Polarization; Power, Prestige, and Class; Expressing and Detecting Emotion; Government and Economy.

When I read the topics that are covered, I think those are absolutely important principles for someone to understand as a doctor. The direction medicine is moving is such that I think we will tend to rely less and less on simply our doctor's understanding of basic kinematics or complex organic synthesis pathways. While it is absolutely critical that our doctor's have a strong grounding in basic science, being a doctor is more than just being good at science.

Physicians are leaders of healthcare, and that's a tall order. I think it's important that applicants be able and prepared to demonstrate that they have the capacity not just to understand the science behind medicine, but the human/social side of medicine. What are their patients feeling/thinking? How can they use our understanding of emotion and stress to make the patient more likely to follow the treatment you're giving them? What kind of social structures are in place that continue to produce higher rates of diseases and mortality among certain populations even when given equal access to care? What kinds of things will determine how likely patients are to visit the clinic vs to respond to a family member?

These sorts of problems are distinct from the organic chemistry and the biochemistry but are important questions for our doctors to be equipped to answer. Given that the current MCAT has limited predictive power above a 27 anyway, the test could stand for some improvement. Instead of constantly asking ourselves, should we be seeking doctors who are great at science but perhaps don't understand the behavioral/human/social side of medicine, or should we be seeking someone who is great at the behavioral/human/social stuff but struggles with science--why not identify the students with the potential to be great at both?



Whether they are or are not, it's the same people who have always been making decisions about medical education / designing the old & new MCAT.

I definitely agree that the addition of the new section of the MCAT is a good thing. This is why interviews are such a critical part of the application process, as it teases out not the applicants talent with the sciences, but rather their interpersonal skills and general real world knowledge.

 

[circulus vitios]

Whether they are or are not, it's the same people who have always been making decisions about medical education / designing the old & new MCAT.

Do you really think a multiple choice section on sociology and psychology is really going to make a difference? The questions can't be gamed, just like the interviews can't be gamed?

 

[ComfortCreature]

What about

 

[sinombre]

Do you really think a multiple choice section on sociology and psychology is really going to make a difference? The questions can't be gamed, just like the interviews can't be gamed?

I'm kind of learning this way too. How can you satisfactorily quantify things like empathy and cultural understanding? I'm not saying it can't be done, but I'm somewhat skeptical that a standardized timed multiple choice test will do a good job at it. I guess we will see.

And luckily I'll never ever ever have to take the MCAT again