What in your opinion is more important "MCAT" or "GPA"

[TheBatman]

So who is more deserving of an acceptance letter. Someone with a (3.2 37mcat) or someone with (3.8 25 mcat). All else being equal of course.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lamel]

While this isn't the complete picture, I feel like having a high MCAT definitely opens up more doors at least.

 

[claduva94]

It isn't that simple. There are circumstances where each person would have an advantage. That said, I would say the 3.2 37 has a better shot. I'd say a more accurate comparison would be a 3.9 30 and a 3.2 37 (Same LizzyM score). In that case I would think the higher GPA wins out in many scenarios.

 

[Doctor Strange]

This has been discussed ad nauseam on SDN.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

This has been discussed ad nauseam on SDN.

Lol

 

[boomshaketheroom]

I'd just want at least one to be high and the other not to suck.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

 

[Lawpy]

MCAT beats GPA, since a low GPA with a high MCAT will open doors to more schools (including top tiers apparently) than high GPA and low MCAT.

Of course, this is semi-anecdotal since a lot of people here (physics, engineering and humanities majors) tend to be in the low GPA/high MCAT side, given reasonable constraints.

I'm talking 3.4/40 beating a 4.0/30 by a mile

 

[juliuspepperwood]

Hmmm

 

[Goro]

Fool's errand time!

So who is more deserving of an acceptance letter. Someone with a (3.2 37mcat) or someone with (3.8 25 mcat). All else being equal of course.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Fool's errand time!

So Goro, are you barbecuing this weekend?

 

[G_Marker]

I think the idea of the MCAT is that it acts as an equalizer among different schools. As someone who went to college in a consortium (and had the opportunity to take classes at multiple colleges), I can say that there is a HUGE difference in the level of difficulty of science/math classes at different colleges. Some schools are much more difficult than others, and a high MCAT/lower GPA could go along with a higher level of difficulty of your major and/or your college.

 

[magicaldinosaur]

MCAT... So many easier/harder schools, classes, etc. Too many variables. MCAT is MCAT, if you can't do well on it, you probably didn't get too challenged in undergrad. Plain and simple.

 

[Narmerguy]

To inject some actual data into this discussion... @sector9 has actually probed this problem a little bit in his great thread over at WAMC.

Figure 1 (click on graph for higher resolution)

Find the colored line closest to your cumulative undergraduate GPA (cGPA) by using the legend on the right. Then find your MCAT score on the x-axis. Your historical acceptance percentage is on the y-axis.

The solid lines correspond with the actual AAMC data. The dotted lines are merely interpolated lines drawn halfway between the solid lines.

and...

The data in this post is from last year. I'll update it as soon as I can with a current graph.

Which is better: a LizzyM score composed of a high GPA/low MCAT or the same LizzyM score created from a low GPA/high MCAT?


The available data suggests that your chances are slightly higher if your GPA contributes more to your LizzyM score.


Figure 12 (click on graph for higher resolution)

Blue dots: MCAT contributes more to your LizzyM score than the average matriculant (more than 46.6%)
Red dots: GPA contributes more to your LizzyM score than the average matriculant (more than 53.4%)

 

[Ace-Co-A]

This guy is a troll. Why do people always get sucked in?

For the record, TheBatman is a known troll.

 

[Lawpy]

This guy is a troll. Why do people always get sucked in?

For the record, TheBatman is a known troll.

Then who's taking care of Gotham? @TheRobin signal!

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

This guy is a troll. Why do people always get sucked in?

For the record, TheBatman is a known troll.

You have a point, but substance can be found in this sort of thread (regardless of the origin). One of my Asian friends informed me that a lower gpa (~3.2) and an MCAT over 38 works against ppl in his demographic. Maybe that can work against an Asian "late bloomer." Although, I could be off with those numbers.

 

[Low Flow]

Your MCAT score definitely opens more doors. Although, IMO an MCAT score only speaks to your ability to prepare for one test (6-8 weeks of work), whereas a GPA speaks to your work ethic over a longer period of time. Obviously a medical school is looking for both--someone who is naturally competent and has the work ethic to back it up.

 

[Planes2Doc]

The MCAT is the great equalizer.

Someone who goes to a top university and pursues engineering might end up with a 3.1 or 3.2 GPA.

Someone who goes to a fourth tier university and pursues a liberal arts degree might end up with a 4.0 GPA.

The possibilities are endless. Schools all vary in difficulty. Some have grade inflation, and some have grade deflation. There are so many variables that can cause one's GPA to vary drastically. One thing stays constant though, and that's the MCAT! Hence I believe it's probably more important due to the great variability between schools and the many factors within them.

 

[magicaldinosaur]

To inject some actual data into this discussion... @sector9 has actually probed this problem a little bit in his great thread over at WAMC.



and...

OP asked what do we think is more important/deserving, not more important for admissions. It's obvious medical schools just want high numbers (and "diversity") for their stats, even if that means 100 level classes at schools where the average ACT was a 20.

 

[magicaldinosaur]

Also, student 1 is pretty common here. The low GPA due to deflation is made up by the higher MCAT. I think ours is 3.4 and 36 MCAT.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Your MCAT score definitely opens more doors. Although, IMO an MCAT score only speaks to your ability to prepare for one test (6-8 weeks of work), whereas a GPA speaks to your work ethic over a longer period of time. Obviously a medical school is looking for both--someone who is naturally competent and has the work ethic to back it up.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[magicaldinosaur]

Your MCAT score definitely opens more doors. Although, IMO an MCAT score only speaks to your ability to prepare for one test (6-8 weeks of work), whereas a GPA speaks to your work ethic over a longer period of time. Obviously a medical school is looking for both--someone who is naturally competent and has the work ethic to back it up.

Sorry, but that's why there are so many students with high GPAs that automatically quit/have a horrible time for the MCAT. One of my friends is killing herself studying for the MCAT, because she literally learned nothing at her school (3.4 science, 4.0 not science). Their work ethic (and/or smarts) is not up to par and their easier universities/classes gave them a false sense of hope.

 

[Narmerguy]

OP asked what do we think is more important/deserving, not more important for admissions. It's obvious medical schools just want high numbers (and "diversity") for their stats, even if that means 100 level classes at schools where the average ACT was a 20.

"Deserving"? Deserve's got nothing to do with it. No one is entitled to a spot regardless of their stats. To be technical, the one who will become the "better" doctor in the future is the one that deserves the spot, but that can hardly be determined from the stats alone or even with the whole application. People get too caught up with this belief that certain inputs deserve a certain output, or that there's an objective way to compare applications. If you feel compelled to compare applications, the only question that really matters is: Which applicant do schools want more? Best way to determine that is to simply look at who they've been accepting.

 

[Low Flow]

Sorry, but that's why there are so many students with high GPAs that automatically quit/have a horrible time for the MCAT. One of my friends is killing herself studying for the MCAT, because she literally learned nothing at her school (3.4 science, 4.0 not science). Their work ethic (and/or smarts) is not up to par and their easier universities/classes gave them a false sense of hope.

Agreed, that's how it happens a lot of the time. I know that sometimes it's also those people who are so naturally gifted that they don't work as hard, since understanding comes so easy. That can also contribute to someone who manages to score a 40 MCAT while only earning a 3.4 or something. If you have the ability to score a 40 on the MCAT, you should have no problems managing a 3.9+

 

[V5RED]

I wouldn't say that having a high GPA and/or a high MCAT mean you "deserve" to go to medical school.

With respect to who makes a better candidate, from what I have read GPA has little correlation to medical school performance, but MCAT has decent correlation. That is, however, based on statements from ADCOM members and articles I read, not studies I examined.

The difference between GPA and MCAT is that the MCAT is standardized. You can't hide from the difficult parts using "rate my professor" or "myedu". You can't beg for a higher score. You can't use a grade inflating school to boost your MCAT score. You can't use your club's test banks to give you an unfair advantage. People who actually worked hard at grade deflating schools or in tough majors get fairly compared to those trying to game their way into medical school.

Some people get very upset by this and claim that the MCAT is unfair, but it seems to me that they are just delusional.

edit:If anything is unfair, it is GPA. The MCAT forces everyone to take an exam that is designed to be equally difficult to attain a given score on across all administrations, so people can be fairly compared to each other. GPA cannot be reliably compared even between people at the same school.

 

[43092]

I wouldn't say that having a high GPA and/or a high MCAT mean you "deserve" to go to medical school.

With respect to who makes a better candidate, from what I have read GPA has little correlation to medical school performance, but MCAT has decent correlation. That is, however, based on statements from ADCOM members and articles I read, not studies I examined.

The difference between GPA and MCAT is that the MCAT is standardized. You can't hide from the difficult parts using "rate my professor" or "myedu". You can't beg for a higher score. You can't use a grade inflating school to boost your MCAT score. You can't use your club's test banks to give you an unfair advantage. People who actually worked hard at grade deflating schools or in tough majors get fairly compared to those trying to game their way into medical school.

Some people get very upset by this and claim that the MCAT is unfair, but it seems to me that they are just delusional.

edit:If anything is unfair, it is GPA. The MCAT forces everyone to take an exam that is designed to be equally difficult to attain a given score on across all administrations, so people can be fairly compared to each other. GPA cannot be reliably compared even between people at the same school.

Pretty much. I love this post. It's so easy for my classmates to see the differences, my professors, people in society that aren't even college grads, and even my low-tier school friends, but SDN..... for some reason is immune to reality.

 

[43092]

"Deserving"? Deserve's got nothing to do with it. No one is entitled to a spot regardless of their stats. To be technical, the one who will become the "better" doctor in the future is the one that deserves the spot, but that can hardly be determined from the stats alone or even with the whole application. People get too caught up with this belief that certain inputs deserve a certain output, or that there's an objective way to compare applications. The only question that really matters is: Which applicant do schools want more? Best way to determine that is to simply look at who they've been accepting.

Yeah, some person that couldn't break a 30 but went to a ****hole of a school deserves is more than someone who went to MIT and got a 40. Sure, yeah, whatever you say SDN.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Sorry, but that's why there are so many students with high GPAs that automatically quit/have a horrible time for the MCAT. One of my friends is killing herself studying for the MCAT, because she literally learned nothing at her school (3.4 science, 4.0 not science). Their work ethic (and/or smarts) is not up to par and their easier universities/classes gave them a false sense of hope.

I wouldn't call it a false sense of hope.
A person's work ethic/study habits/aptitude can improve with practice and material outside of their comfort zone. Virtually everyone I know with an unfavorable MCAT score was lacking in the verbal section. Reading stuff like the New Yorker, Harper's, certain books, can absolutely help improve the verbal score. But it's all about taking the initiative. For some, the MCAT might be a 2-3 month task, but for others, it might be a year. It's just a matter of accepting the challenges.

 

[xffan624]

Yeah, some person that couldn't break a 30 but went to a ****hole of a school deserves is more than someone who went to MIT and got a 40. Sure, yeah, whatever you say SDN.

Whether an applicant "deserves" to get in to medical school is irrelevant. What is relevant is who actually gets in. What will distinguish the two applicants you're referring to is all the other items on their application.

 

[43092]

Whether an applicant "deserves" to get in to medical school is irrelevant. What is relevant is who actually gets in. What will distinguish the two applicants you're referring to is all the other items on their application.

It's all relative. Someone on welfare is richer than a hobo, but neither of them IS rich. No one deserves it. But a high MCAT deserves it more.

 

[xffan624]

It's all relative. Someone on welfare is richer than a hobo, but neither of them IS rich. No one deserves it. But a high MCAT deserves it more.

"Deserve" is the wrong term to use. There is no ultimate medical school admissions judge who decides who belongs in medical school. Medical school admissions is not a straight meritocracy where the highest MCAT and gpa combos automatically get accepted. It's a collection of ADCOM's who all have different ideas about their ideal medical school matriculant and who they want in their class. A high MCAT might make you more likely to get into medical school, if you don't have anything else to offer, that's unlikely to appeal to most ADCOM's.

 

[magicaldinosaur]

I wouldn't call it a false sense of hope.
A person's work ethic/study habits/aptitude can improve with practice and material outside of their comfort zone. Virtually everyone I know with an unfavorable MCAT score was lacking in the verbal section. Reading stuff like the New Yorker, Harper's, certain books, can absolutely help improve the verbal score. But it's all about taking the initiative. For some, the MCAT might be a 2-3 month task, but for others, it might be a year. It's just a matter of accepting the challenges.

Someone who needed a year for the MCAT probably had their good grades due to inflation, easy competition, etc. Most classmates I know don't study for more than a few weeks if they've taken the pre-reqs. Yet I know many people with 3.8+ GPAs who got in the low 20s on the MCAT. If you supposedly studied that well for 4 years, one test should not be that big of a deal. High GPA + low MCAT raises major red flags imo. If you have a high GPA and high MCAT (without a year of effort...), you're probably golden even if your undergrad wasn't rigorous.

A hard university has exams that require critical thinking and reading comprehension, exactly why the MCAT is seen to be a hard test. If you lack those, your undergrad experience was probably all memorization.

 

[Frazier]

Which is preferable?

Someone with a (3.2 37mcat) or someone with (3.8 25 mcat). All else being equal of course.

The former, Batman.

 

[Frazier]

"Deserving"? Deserve's got nothing to do with it. No one is entitled to a spot regardless of their stats. To be technical, the one who will become the "better" doctor in the future is the one that deserves the spot, but that can hardly be determined from the stats alone or even with the whole application. People get too caught up with this belief that certain inputs deserve a certain output, or that there's an objective way to compare applications. If you feel compelled to compare applications, the only question that really matters is: Which applicant do schools want more? Best way to determine that is to simply look at who they've been accepting.

@Narmerguy

I see you made a final decision. Very nice. Your MD Apps is too humble.
Do you have a post where you talk about what went into your ultimate decision?

 

[Narmerguy]

@Narmerguy

I see you made a final decision. Very nice. Your MD Apps is too humble.
Do you have a post where you talk about what went into your ultimate decision?

Thanks bro. I mostly didn't want my MD Apps to be too self-indulgent but to get across the critical bits. I actually don't have a post talking about that, I'm thinking about making one as I chose to go into substantial debt to make this decision which is anathema to most on SDN (for understandable reasons). Closest I have at the moment is here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ity-application-thread.1074044/#post-15349202

 

[Frazier]

Thanks bro. I mostly didn't want my MD Apps to be too self-indulgent but to get across the critical bits. I actually don't have a post talking about that, I'm thinking about making one as I chose to go into substantial debt to make this decision which is anathema to most on SDN (for understandable reasons). Closest I have at the moment is here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...ity-application-thread.1074044/#post-15349202

Looks like a solid analysis. I took on extra debt for my choice of school too -- so def not mad at you about that.

It looks like you are perhaps a little interested in business? I had no idea. Very cool. I need not tell you how excellent Stanford's B-school is. Are your interests at the moment tied to technology sector? Medical start-ups?

You always have some insightful thoughts to offer, I'll keep my eyes open for that thread down the road.

 

[Narmerguy]

Looks like a solid analysis. I took on extra debt for my choice of school too -- so def not mad at you about that.

It looks like you are perhaps a little interested in business? I had no idea. Very cool. I need not tell you how excellent Stanford's B-school is. Are your interests at the moment tied to technology sector? Medical start-ups?

You always have some insightful thoughts to offer, I'll keep my eyes open for that thread down the road.

I appreciate that, and I certainly have always enjoyed our exchanges. The business interest was latent for a while but it is coming on strong now. It's absolutely tied to the technology sector and medical start-ups, and I imagine Palo Alto isn't a bad place to be for that scene. Because I've bounced around a lot, I'm figuring some of this out as I go so I think it's important to give back and share what I've learned along the way.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Someone who needed a year for the MCAT probably had their good grades due to inflation, easy competition, etc. Most classmates I know don't study for more than a few weeks if they've taken the pre-reqs. Yet I know many people with 3.8+ GPAs who got in the low 20s on the MCAT. If you supposedly studied that well for 4 years, one test should not be that big of a deal. High GPA + low MCAT raises major red flags imo. If you have a high GPA and high MCAT (without a year of effort...), you're probably golden even if your undergrad wasn't rigorous.

A hard university has exams that require critical thinking and reading comprehension, exactly why the MCAT is seen to be a hard test. If you lack those, your undergrad experience was probably all memorization.

I don't think you can easily group ppl based on how long they prepare for the MCAT. Someone with a language barrier and/or weakness in a specific subject (from a challenging school) may take more time to make those improvements. And as a result, their overall academic aptitude improves. And in this regard, the MCAT is functioning as an equalizer.

 

[gumdrops]

I think you could be hurt more by bad numbers than helped by great ones, if this empirical evidence on this board to be believed. I haaaave noticed though (once again from scanning this board) that the high GPA/low MCAT combo tends to end up at low-tier MD/DO schools whereas the low GPA/high MCAT combo tends to be accepted to a wide range of MD schools/DO schools depending on luck/geographic location.

There are some caveats, I think. As usual, context is everything.

1) The high MCAT/low GPA combo seems to serve non-trads much better than undergrads. They can spin the MCAT as evidence of redemption and/or true potential much better when there's years of distance between their high MCAT score and crappy grades. The low GPA/high MCAT combo is perceived more as "the smart slacker" if you apply as an undergraduate. A non-trad has the advantage of applying with a battery of evidence indicating that they've matured and are ready to do the work. The high MCAT fits into that narrative better.
2) With that said, you'd better not be applying with anything lower than a 31-32 as a non-trad. I think undergrads get much more leeway on the MCAT with a high GPA (3.8+) because a high GPA is usually evidence of the sort of maturity needed to do well in the first two years of medical school, at least. Medical schools want to see people who are diligent and hard-working from the onset. Grades and MCAT are their best proof.

 

[Person0715]

Por que no los dos?

This is a futile exercise. There are thousands of applicants not lacking in either department. Don't aim for one or the other. Aim for both.

 

[allantois]

It seems that if you are from Ca, then neither of the combinations will likely get you into an MD school. So it's all very relative and cannot be taken out of context such as state of residency, URM status, significant life history which contributed to low GPA, etc

Edit: I didn't realize how few people get 37 on MCAT until I looked it up; so I take back that 37 won't get you into med school.

 

[DermViser]

Sorry, but that's why there are so many students with high GPAs that automatically quit/have a horrible time for the MCAT. One of my friends is killing herself studying for the MCAT, because she literally learned nothing at her school (3.4 science, 4.0 not science). Their work ethic (and/or smarts) is not up to par and their easier universities/classes gave them a false sense of hope.

 

[magicaldinosaur]

Yes? I know someone who went a ****ty state school (in my state, there is 1 amazing one, 1 decent one, and the rest are terrible) and got a 19.

 

[DermViser]

Yes? I know someone who went a ****ty state school (in my state, there is 1 amazing one, 1 decent one, and the rest are terrible) and got a 19.

My point is that 3.4 is a low GPA, not high.

 

[Mad Jack]

Per Namerguy's data, it's pretty obvious that GPA is more important. A 3.11/40 has roughly the same chance of admission as a 3.89/27. Plenty of applicants have 3.89 GPAs, but far less than 1% have a 40+ MCAT. Since a high GPA is therefore easier (in a strictly numerical sense) to attain than an extremely high MCAT, for most students, GPA will prove to be the more critical factor in admission.

Data on GPAs of applicants:
https://www.aamc.org/download/321508/data/2013factstable24.pdf

The largest category is the 3.8+ GPA category, comprising roughly a quarter of all applicants. It is impossible to say how many have 3.89+ GPAs, but the answer is probably "plenty."

 

[magicaldinosaur]

My point is that 3.4 is a low GPA, not high.

That is only one person I am referring to, I'm just saying, someone at MIT/Princeton/U Chicago would not have as much trouble as she does with a 3.4 science.

 

[Mad Jack]

That is only one person I am referring to, I'm just saying, someone at MIT/Princeton/U Chicago would not have as much trouble as she does with a 3.4 science.

I've seen some kids with great grades from a wide range of schools bomb the MCAT. It is less to do with your grades and more to do with your ability to retain and work with large amounts of data. Grades can often be improved or kept high with hard work and cramming, but hard work alone cannot substantially change your level of fluid intelligence, nor can the great deal of data on the MCAT simply be crammed.

 

[00391917]

IF I had to answer the question, I personally think GPA is more important because it's representative of your whole college experience and MCAT is just one day. However, obviously many other things come into play like ECs. Plus, even with a 4.0 then you can't get like a 21 on the MCAT

 

[Low Flow]

I've seen some kids with great grades from a wide range of schools bomb the MCAT. It is less to do with your grades and more to do with your ability to retain and work with large amounts of data. Grades can often be improved out kept high with hard work and cramming, but hard work alone cannot substantially change your level of fluid intelligence, nor can the great deal of data on the MCAT simply be crammed.

Exactly. MCAT tests your natural ability (more or less) and your GPA demonstrates your application of that ability/work ethic.