What is considered a low GPA in the US?

[jsydc]

In Canada, it seems the majority (but not all) of places use 3.7 as a hard cutoff and anything below a 3.8 is borderline. Although people on these forums tend to think 3.5-3.6 range is respectable in the US if everything else is in order.

For someone with a strong overall application package (you can check out my MDApps), at what point do you decide to leave the grades where they are and focus on other aspects.

Hopefully I'll stop wasting my time posting after McGill decisions come out tomorrow, but it never hurts to strengthen the backup plan (Okay, maybe it does when there's other work I really should be doing.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[flip26]

The median for med school matriculants in the US is around 3.67, closer to 3.7 than the 3.6 that gets bandied about on SDN.

IMO, below 3.5 is low (for med school). Read the MSAR and form your own opinions on what constitutes low...

 

[SStorm]

The median for med school matriculants in the US is around 3.67, closer to 3.7 than the 3.6 that gets bandied about on SDN.

IMO, below 3.5 is low (for med school). Read the MSAR and form your own opinions on what constitutes low...

I agree. For most allopathic schools, under 3.5 is lowish. Under 3.3 is really low. Osteopathic schools are lower than that though.

 

[Vihsadas]

Canada does have some pretty harsh cutoffs. I'm more or less ineligible to apply (even semi-competitively) at any out of province school except McGill. Unfortunately, McGill didn't believe in me this year. Good luck tomorrow! I hope you hear some good news!

As you've said, the median is around 3.67. I believe that this number stems from the vast number of applications that US medical schools get.

I think that at a limit of 3.5, you're still "competitive", i.e. I don't think that many admissions committees would doubt that you could survive medical school. The reason its harder to get in is simply because there are so many people who have done better.

Below 3.5 is where you start getting into trouble. At this point, admissions committees might start having doubts about whether you will actually be able to handle the workload. This is just my highly biased interpretation of the anecdotal evidence that I've been presented by some 'officials'. 😛

 

[jsydc]

So if one is in the 3.5-3.6 range, is it worth the time and effort to try and improve this post-degree? Or is it better just to run with it and focus on improving other things. In my case I also have a 39Q MCAT, so that might mitigate my undergrad GPA.
Let's keep it general to someone who is generally strong otherwise, but mediocre in GPA. Do I take more courses for a boost or spend more time improving other aspects of the application?

 

[flip26]

So if one is in the 3.5-3.6 range, is it worth the time and effort to try and improve this post-degree? Or is it better just to run with it and focus on improving other things. In my case I also have a 39Q MCAT, so that might mitigate my undergrad GPA.
Let's keep it general to someone who is generally strong otherwise, but mediocre in GPA. Do I take more courses for a boost or spend more time improving other aspects of the application?

A single anecdote from this thread, but look at SStorm's mdapps - a 3.55 and a 40 MCAT => lots of rejections, one acceptance at his state school...that is pretty stunning if you ask me (and a total indictment of the AI)

If I had a GPA below 3.4, I would apply to an SMP...from 3.4 to 3.6, I would apply broadly, but I would have that SMP app close at hand...

If you are in the 3.5 to 3.6 range with a high MCAT, clearly you should apply broadly, but it may take going through a cycle and testing the waters, and have that SMP application close at hand if nothing but rejections roll in...

During the app year, you should really keep all your irons in the fire - volunteer work, shadowing, research job if you have one - this is smart advice for all applicants, but I see lots of people who put their ECs on cruise control in the app year, and then when they have to apply the next year, they really have nothing to show in terms of improvement...

Edit - my advice is for Americans - it may also apply to Canadians, but I really don't know anything about that...

 

[Vihsadas]

Whats holding you back isn't going to be your GPA. It's going to be the fact that you aren't a US permanent resident or a US citizen.
Flip, for every anecdote there is an opposite anecdote. Besides SStorm received a large number of interviews. I'd say his MDapps is encouraging, not the discouraging.

 

[flip26]

Whats holding you back isn't going to be your GPA. It's going to be the fact that you aren't a US permanent resident or a US citizen.
Flip, for every anecdote there is an opposite anecdote. Besides SStorm received a large number of interviews. I'd say his MDapps is encouraging, not the discouraging.

My point is that if you ask the typical SDNer how well someone with SStorm's profile should do, very few would predict one admit out of 20+ schools - he applied broadly, and while it is hard to know why he only had one admit, I still find his overall results stunning - not necessarily discouraging - discouraging would be zero admits - but at least somewhat unexpected, no?

Like the AI proponents, lots of pre-meds and people here on SDN are obsessed with MCAT when what they should be obsessed with is keeping that GPA high and above a 3.7...MCAT is seen as the one shot antidote to mediocre grades, and it really isn't...

 

[BigEast55]

If SStorm got a bunch of interviews, it may be something in his interview that got him no acceptances, I feel like a lot schools, numbers get you an interview, and the interview gets you an acceptance.

 

[flip26]

If SStorm got a bunch of interviews, it may be something in his interview that got him no acceptances, I feel like a lot schools, numbers get you an interview, and the interview gets you an acceptance.

Plenty of evidence from MDApps and the few insights from adcoms who post here that your numbers still matter post interview, so I don't agree with your conclusion that the interview gets you an acceptance...but clearly an interview can cost you an acceptance...

 

[SStorm]

If I may interject, I actually contacted some of the schools that I got waitlisted at post-interview. Most of them told me that I interviewed well, but not exceptionally. And most of the AdComms had concerns regarding my GPA. True, I might have interviewed better, but at the same time I think the GPA really held me back at most of these schools.

 

[mikkey]

I am Canadian. Check my MdApps. 3.5 to 3.6 is not enough. Maybe with the MCAT that you have plus extraordianary ECs, but its really tough as an international student.
Keep in mind that this entire process has more to due with luck than anything. Results for McGill come out tomorrow. Keep breathing; you don't know that you didn't get in this year.

 

[jult24er]

If I may interject, I actually contacted some of the schools that I got waitlisted at post-interview. Most of them told me that I interviewed well, but not exceptionally. And most of the AdComms had concerns regarding my GPA. True, I might have interviewed better, but at the same time I think the GPA really held me back at most of these schools.

Your story is crazy. I'm glad you did get in somewhere, i would have thought more. Some comments ...

12 out of 27 interviews is not bad. Besides AE, GTown, GW and BU, it seems like the school you didn't get interviews at are all really top. Maybe some of the former 4 schools rejected you because you were too good, they knew you wouldn't come. Maybe the others (top 20) require high GPA and MCATS unless you've got everything else really really good (LORs, ECs, etc.)

Who knows what went on post-interview, maybe GPA, maybe something else, but I would tend to guess it involved the something else, interview, LOR, etc. because they've always known your GPA. Maybe they sensed a lack of interest in their school (you have withdrawn from 5 waitlists - maybe they were just waiting for a LOI)? Maybe, given your high MCAT and lower grades they developed an impression that you were smart but "lacked some motivation" and you did not do enough to dispel this in the interviews? That would explain why adcoms say you interviewed ok but could have been better and that they were concerned about your grades.

Thanks for posting your feedback from adcoms, interesting. Congrats on your accept! Between in-state tuition and that scholarship, maybe this is the best ending of all this for you after all.

 

[SamusLives]

For american graduates:
You should check the stats of the individual schools to which you're applying. There can be a significant difference in average GPA/MCAT that are accepted. Texas provides stats for its schools, broken down by GPA and MCAT.

http://www.utsystem.edu/TMDSAS/Final Statistics Report-EY 06-Medical.pdf

Obviously, Texas residents fare better in Texas schools (by law). Anyway, the average GPA is a 3.66 and average MCAT is a 28.9. If you're pretty close to these numbers (and a texas resident), you have a good shot. My numbers were good, I applied to 4 UT schools and was accepted (there are 3 more allopathic schools I didn't want to go to).

There's nothing wrong with applying to a "dream" school, but if your numbers are lower than they are looking for, then you shouldn't set your heart on only that school. Its always a good idea to look at a schools numbers from previous years.

I don't know about non-U.S. citizens applying. I imagine they need to have more impressive numbers than U.S. applicants.

 

[flip26]

For american graduates:
You should check the stats of the individual schools to which you're applying. There can be a significant difference in average GPA/MCAT that are accepted. Texas provides stats for its schools, broken down by GPA and MCAT.

http://www.utsystem.edu/TMDSAS/Final%20%20Statistics%20Report-EY%2006-Medical.pdf

Obviously, Texas residents fare better in Texas schools (by law). Anyway, the average GPA is a 3.66 and average MCAT is a 28.9. If you're pretty close to these numbers (and a texas resident), you have a good shot. My numbers were good, I applied to 4 UT schools and was accepted (there are 3 more allopathic schools I didn't want to go to).

There's nothing wrong with applying to a "dream" school, but if your numbers are lower than they are looking for, then you shouldn't set your heart on only that school. Its always a good idea to look at a schools numbers from previous years.

I don't know about non-U.S. citizens applying. I imagine they need to have more impressive numbers than U.S. applicants.

Your example is very telling - for instate Texas residents, avg GPA is virtually identical to the national average for matriculants, but the MCAT average is a couple points below the national matriculant number. Therefore, all else being equal, MCAT is less important than GPA, the antithesis of the AI formula being debated on a different thread...

 

[TheRealMD]

For american graduates:
You should check the stats of the individual schools to which you're applying. There can be a significant difference in average GPA/MCAT that are accepted. Texas provides stats for its schools, broken down by GPA and MCAT.

http://www.utsystem.edu/TMDSAS/Final Statistics Report-EY 06-Medical.pdf

Obviously, Texas residents fare better in Texas schools (by law). Anyway, the average GPA is a 3.66 and average MCAT is a 28.9. If you're pretty close to these numbers (and a texas resident), you have a good shot. My numbers were good, I applied to 4 UT schools and was accepted (there are 3 more allopathic schools I didn't want to go to).

There's nothing wrong with applying to a "dream" school, but if your numbers are lower than they are looking for, then you shouldn't set your heart on only that school. Its always a good idea to look at a schools numbers from previous years.

I don't know about non-U.S. citizens applying. I imagine they need to have more impressive numbers than U.S. applicants.

Hmm... what a difference 2 years makes.

A 3.6/28.9 would not give you a decent shot at a Texas school anymore. In fact, I'd argue it'd be hard to get an interview. Heck, I didn't even get one to UTSA of all places. If only they had released last year's stats and given a prelim release of this years', I'd wager that the new averages are probably about 30.5/3.7 or so.

Texas isn't the flowery place it once was for med school apps anymore.

 

[T12]

So...I guess letters of recommendation and interview performance stopped counting recently...

 

[flip26]

So...I guess letters of recommendation and interview performance stopped counting recently...

No, it all matters, but without a decent GPA and MCAT, they will never get around to reading your LORs or inviting you for an interview...

 

[RySerr21]

I agree. For most allopathic schools, under 3.5 is lowish. Under 3.3 is really low. Osteopathic schools are lower than that though.

poor attempt to belittle the osteopathic profession. you most likely took your limited knowledge of osteopathic schools, recalled one school that had a low GPA, and generalized that average GPA to all osteopathic schools.

that would be like looking at Howard and saying "MD schools have really low average GPA and MCAT." it just sounds stupid.

for ther record: i believe the average cum. GPA for all osteopathic schools is around a 3.45-3.5.

edit: http://www.aacom.org/resources/bookstore/cib/Documents/cib2008.pdf page 11 shows the average GPAs for all osteopathic schools. In 2005 it was reported as 3.44. it has undoubtedly gone up since then.

 

[BrainBuff]

A single anecdote from this thread, but look at SStorm's mdapps - a 3.55 and a 40 MCAT => lots of rejections, one acceptance at his state school...that is pretty stunning if you ask me (and a total indictment of the AI)

flip, why do you say that it is a total indictment of the AI? - SStorm's AI is 20, which is great and certainly SHOULD get you accepted somewhere (and he did get accepted somewhere) It has been said before that 16 and above is a comfortable margin. He got rejected at Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn and Harvard - all ivies where a 21 "should" be the cushion. Some of the other schools like Northwestern, University of Chicago and Stanford may be just as competitive....George Washington perhaps did not see too much interest from him... who knows?

I do not think that by any means this "indicts" the AI, then again, I am speculating as much as you are..

 

[SStorm]

Your story is crazy. I'm glad you did get in somewhere, i would have thought more. Some comments ...

12 out of 27 interviews is not bad. Besides AE, GTown, GW and BU, it seems like the school you didn't get interviews at are all really top. Maybe some of the former 4 schools rejected you because you were too good, they knew you wouldn't come. Maybe the others (top 20) require high GPA and MCATS unless you've got everything else really really good (LORs, ECs, etc.)

Who knows what went on post-interview, maybe GPA, maybe something else, but I would tend to guess it involved the something else, interview, LOR, etc. because they've always known your GPA. Maybe they sensed a lack of interest in their school (you have withdrawn from 5 waitlists - maybe they were just waiting for a LOI)? Maybe, given your high MCAT and lower grades they developed an impression that you were smart but "lacked some motivation" and you did not do enough to dispel this in the interviews? That would explain why adcoms say you interviewed ok but could have been better and that they were concerned about your grades.

Thanks for posting your feedback from adcoms, interesting. Congrats on your accept! Between in-state tuition and that scholarship, maybe this is the best ending of all this for you after all.

Ya, it's been crazy, I'm not going to lie. I'm just glad that I'm in somewhere at this point.

poor attempt to belittle the osteopathic profession. you most likely took your limited knowledge of osteopathic schools, recalled one school that had a low GPA, and generalized that average GPA to all osteopathic schools.

that would be like looking at Howard and saying "MD schools have really low average GPA and MCAT." it just sounds stupid.

for ther record: i believe the average cum. GPA for all osteopathic schools is around a 3.45-3.5.

edit: http://www.aacom.org/resources/bookstore/cib/Documents/cib2008.pdf page 11 shows the average GPAs for all osteopathic schools. In 2005 it was reported as 3.44. it has undoubtedly gone up since then.

I didn't mean that Osteopathic's all have low GPA's. What I meant was that the "cut-off" for a low-GPA is lower for Osteopathic than for Allopathic. Which is certainly supported by the stats. The average GPA for Allopathic is around a 3.65 or so. I would say a very low GPA for Allopathic is 3.3-3.4 or so. The average GPA for Osteopathic is 3.45 (+/- some). So I would estimate that a very low GPA for Osteopathic is around 3.1-3.2. That's all my statement implied. I'm not "indicting the Osteopathic profession". I'm just looking at the stats for admission to Osteopathic schools.

 

[tf2medic]

dude, you guy's are missing the breakdwon of SStorm's gpa tho. i don't think it was his total GPA that hurt him...i think it was the break down. his first two years he had like 3.0s both times. he improved immensely over the next year but still...especially his sophomore year is even lower than his freshman year. i can't talk dude cuz i'll be applying this year with a similar gpa to yours...maybe just slightly higher. my grades aren't very consistent either but they are at least increasing at a per year rate 😛 hehe at least you got in tho. congrats

 

[Vihsadas]

dude, you guy's are missing the breakdwon of SStorm's gpa tho. i don't think it was his total GPA that hurt him...i think it was the break down. his first two years he had like 3.0s both times. he improved immensely over the next year but still...especially his sophomore year is even lower than his freshman year. i can't talk dude cuz i'll be applying this year with a similar gpa to yours...maybe just slightly higher. my grades aren't very consistent either but they are at least increasing at a per year rate 😛 hehe at least you got in tho. congrats

I'm not sure that would have that much to do with it. His last two years are extremely solid. To me, that shows that something happened in his sophmore year that got him to get his act together. (Failed a class maybe? I can relate. ). His last two years are not just good, their great (Like frosted flakes).

 

[tf2medic]

I'm not sure that would have that much to do with it. His last two years are extremely solid. To me, that shows that something happened in his sophmore year that got him to get his act together. (Failed a class maybe? I can relate. ). His last two years are not just good, their great (Like frosted flakes).

it has to matter...every year matters. but you're right he owned his last 2 years haha and definitely shows he became more serious

 

[T12]

From what I've heard from the physicians I've known, letters of recommendation are way up there in terms of significance in ever getting an interview. And once you get the interview, the stats are effectively out the window for the majority of candidates.

So after the interview, I wouldn't put too much stock in a slightly less than average GPA being the reason one doesn't get in.

 

[flip26]

From what I've heard from the physicians I've known, letters of recommendation are way up there in terms of significance in ever getting an interview. And once you get the interview, the stats are effectively out the window for the majority of candidates.

So after the interview, I wouldn't put too much stock in a slightly less than average GPA being the reason one doesn't get in.

Simply not supported by the data or the adcoms who grace us with their wisdom on SDN...stats matter all the way through the final vote to admit or reject an applicant...

 

[deleted36260]

Simply not supported by the data or the adcoms who grace us with their wisdom on SDN...stats matter all the way through the final vote to admit or reject an applicant...

Depends on the school.
Some schools only use it as a qualifier in the beginning. Source? Dean of admissions at UTHSCSA.

 

[mikedc813]

And once you get the interview, the stats are effectively out the window for the majority of candidates. So after the interview, I wouldn't put too much stock in a slightly less than average GPA being the reason one doesn't get in.

I am on an ADCOM and we definitely look at the entire application when we sit down to review them. The interview is only 1 part and not everyone who makes it to an interview has a strong MCAT and/or GPA. Those who are interviewed are those who have numbers that are reasonably competitive in the context of their entire file.

So, to emphasize - most if not all schools will use your GPA/MCAT throughout the entire application process, not only until you get the interview.

 

[flip26]

Depends on the school.
Some schools only use it as a qualifier in the beginning. Source? Dean of admissions at UTHSCSA.

My comments were directed at a poster who claimed that for the "majority" of applicants stats are out the window once you get to the interview stage.

That is simply not true for the "majority" of applicants, your one example notwithstanding...

People with below average / mediocre grades and MCAT scores desperately want to believe that the playing field is leveled and chances of admission reset if you can only get to the interview stage, past the screens, etc. There is very little evidence that this is how it works at the vast majority of schools.

 

[Kaustikos]

I like how a 3.4 gpa is "low"

 

[SStorm]

I'm not sure that would have that much to do with it. His last two years are extremely solid. To me, that shows that something happened in his sophmore year that got him to get his act together. (Failed a class maybe? I can relate. ). His last two years are not just good, their great (Like frosted flakes).

First semester sophomore year was my motivation. Max credit load and I got owned for C's in two classes. And my other classes weren't great either, a B and 2 AB's. I think my GPA that semester was a 2.9 or so. I got my act together the second semester and then really went ahead and destroyed my last 2 years. I think those 2 years are what saved my application (I took my MCAT at the end of my junior year as well).

I like how a 3.4 gpa is "low"

That's med school apps for ya. That would be a good GPA for almost any other profession.

My comments were directed at a poster who claimed that for the "majority" of applicants stats are out the window once you get to the interview stage.

That is simply not true for the "majority" of applicants, your one example notwithstanding...

People with below average / mediocre grades and MCAT scores desperately want to believe that the playing field is leveled and chances of admission reset if you can only get to the interview stage, past the screens, etc. There is very little evidence that this is how it works at the vast majority of schools.

From my own experiences, I think this is true at a handful of schools. MCW is pretty upfront in telling you that all that matters after the interview is the interview. But most schools consider the interview as only one part of the application and take it along with your GPA/MCAT/ECs/LORs. I think your GPA/MCAT may be the most important factors in getting interviews at places, but they still matter after the interview at most schools.

 

[jsydc]

Seems like this has gotten a little off focus, my original question was at what range is it better to focus on other things rather than investing time and money on improving a gpa post bac (or post MSc in my case). Sort of like a what range should I retake the mcat thread, but for a gpa. Very few people have actually addressed this. What is the cost-benefit analysis for someone in the low range of acceptable. (3.5-3.6)

 

[flip26]

Seems like this has gotten a little off focus, my original question was at what range is it better to focus on other things rather than investing time and money on improving a gpa post bac (or post MSc in my case). Sort of like a what range should I retake the mcat thread, but for a gpa. Very few people have actually addressed this. What is the cost-benefit analysis for someone in the low range of acceptable. (3.5-3.6)

Well, I answered it above as follows:

If you are in the 3.5 to 3.6 range with a high MCAT, clearly you should apply broadly, but it may take going through a cycle and testing the waters, and have that SMP application close at hand if nothing but rejections roll in...

In other words - in your case, I would not take an additional year of upper level science before testing the waters - apply broadly - and during the app cycle year, keep up all of your EC activities, and research SMP programs with linkages, just in case...

 

[flip26]

flip, why do you say that it is a total indictment of the AI? - SStorm's AI is 20, which is great and certainly SHOULD get you accepted somewhere (and he did get accepted somewhere) It has been said before that 16 and above is a comfortable margin. He got rejected at Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn and Harvard - all ivies where a 21 "should" be the cushion. Some of the other schools like Northwestern, University of Chicago and Stanford may be just as competitive....George Washington perhaps did not see too much interest from him... who knows?

I do not think that by any means this "indicts" the AI, then again, I am speculating as much as you are..

The indictment of the AI is that, depending on the components that make up the AI, a higher AI does not always translate into "better chances." A higher AI comprised of a high MCAT and low GPA is less likely to result in success than a lower AI with a high GPA...

What good is a tool like the AI where the higher it goes, one's chances don't always increase? It is unreliable for people with low GPAs and high MCATS...

The biggest problem with trying to reduce chances to a single number (the AI or LizzyM score) is that each component has to "pass the test." A high MCAT does not bail out a low GPA, nor vice versa. The AI doesn't make this distinction and is thus misleading and unreliable. The AI compounds the problem by over weighting the MCAT when there is no support for this extra weighting in the MSAR data.

Personally, I believe that the GPA is more important, but I would not go so far as to create an index that actually gives it greater weight...I think a composite index for computing chances is flawed no matter how the components are weighted.

 

[SStorm]

Seems like this has gotten a little off focus, my original question was at what range is it better to focus on other things rather than investing time and money on improving a gpa post bac (or post MSc in my case). Sort of like a what range should I retake the mcat thread, but for a gpa. Very few people have actually addressed this. What is the cost-benefit analysis for someone in the low range of acceptable. (3.5-3.6)

I think one other factor that you have to think about in your analysis of your GPA is the trend that you have within your academic history. Is it upward trending? Is it downward? If it is upward, I would say that it is not necessary to do a post-bacc or SMP after the fact. If it is downward or if there is no real trend at all, a post-bacc or SMP may be a good idea. Alot of the rest of this thread does say that a 3.5-3.6 is a bit low. Also, alot of the US schools that look favorably on international candidates are in the "upper-tier" of private schools. Meaning that these schools that you would consider applying to have some of the highest statistics among incoming students.

Using my case as an example, and it sounds like your stats are very similar to my own, I wasn't even considered at alot of those "top-tier" schools. If you want a realistic shot at them, something else may be required to help you get into them. Whether that should be a GPA booster like a post-bacc or a SMP vs. research or clinical experience depends (IMO) on the trend of your GPA. If you have a strong upward trend within your GPA, you may want to consider research or clinical experience. Which one depends on which you think is weaker in your application. I see that you previously applied MD/PhD, which implies that you have significant research experience. So it might be a good idea to shore up your clinical experience, whether you do a Post-Bacc or not.

In the end, I think that the 3.5-3.6 range is a bit tricky, especially because you are an International applicant. Your GPA isn't weak, but it might not be strong enough for the schools that you're going to have to apply to.

 

[jsydc]

flip,
In my case, I'll be finished school already, if I took your advice then I would basically give it a test run and then after that think about improving things during the next app year, which really wouldn't help until a third app year. That sounds like a waste of a year. If it is necessary, I'm better off to try and fix things now, while applying this coming year if the concensus is that people think it is necessary. Also, if I'm going to take courses, smp is probably a lot worse than taking courses for a tenth of the cost here in Canada.
Also I said the thread was derailed, not that nobody had offered advice, thank you for yours.

 

[flip26]

flip,
In my case, I'll be finished school already, if I took your advice then I would basically give it a test run and then after that think about improving things during the next app year, which really wouldn't help until a third app year. That sounds like a waste of a year. If it is necessary, I'm better off to try and fix things now, while applying this coming year if the concensus is that people think it is necessary. Also, if I'm going to take courses, smp is probably a lot worse than taking courses for a tenth of the cost here in Canada.
Also I said the thread was derailed, not that nobody had offered advice, thank you for yours.

I keep forgetting you are a Canadian, and that is different.

SStorm made an excellent point about the US schools that are more receptive to international applicants also being the schools with higher incoming stats...

If you were an American citizen, with your stats, my advice would be golden. As a Canadian, not so sure...

As far as "improving" your GPA, you really should put a calculator to it - it is very hard to make significant improvements in what is already a pretty good cumulative GPA without making nothing but, and a lot of, As...and anything less than an A is a huge setback...even an A- is unhelpful, and a B is deadly to the goal...

 

[Heyeon]

What is a SMP?

 

[flip26]

What is a SMP?

A "special masters program" is usually a one year deal offered at or in conjunction with a medical school, designed for the applicant who has graduated from UG with a good MCAT but below average GPA to demonstrate the applicant's ability to take and perform well in medical school level science classes, and in some cases in the same classes as med students.

There is a thread that talks about these...do a search...if I were to do one of these, I would look for one with a direct linkage to a medical school...

The one caveat is that if you do an SMP and do badly, it can kill your chances at ever getting into medical school. Therefore, it is arguably riskier for someone in the 3.5 to 3.6 range who has a fair chance at admissions without the SMP than for the sub 3.3 applicant who doesn't have much chance to begin with...

 

[Kaustikos]

...

So you would tend to favor an applicants gpa over their mcat in an assessment of their ability to do well in school? I have always had a tough time figuring out how to put weight on one over the other. It seems ridiculous to assume that someone with a below average gpa should be labeled as below average when it's caused by 1 year of bad luck. Whatever, point is pretty simple; if you're from here, then set your sites on at least a 3.5 with 35 mcat (see what I did there?). But if you want to come from another country, make your gpa a 5.0; proclaiming the greatness of our 50 states. If you're canada, acceptance is guaranteed if you can get the rights to the country handed over to America.👍 Mexico; if you can solve our immigration problem.

 

[flip26]

So you would tend to favor an applicants gpa over their mcat in an assessment of their ability to do well in school? I have always had a tough time figuring out how to put weight on one over the other. It seems ridiculous to assume that someone with a below average gpa should be labeled as below average when it's caused by 1 year of bad luck. Whatever, point is pretty simple; if you're from here, then set your sites on at least a 3.5 with 35 mcat (see what I did there?). But if you want to come from another country, make your gpa a 5.0; proclaiming the greatness of our 50 states. If you're canada, acceptance is guaranteed if you can get the rights to the country handed over to America.👍 Mexico; if you can solve our immigration problem.

I would set my sites [sic] on the highest possible for both GPA and MCAT, but I still disagree with your weighting - if I have any choice in the matter, I would set my sights on a 32+ MCAT and 3.7+ GPA.

As for weighting the two components, it only becomes a problem when people want to have a single composite index like the AI or the LizzyM...GPA and MCAT have to stand on their own merits, because med schools look at them individually, and if both of them are up to snuff, then you may get to advance to the next round...

I am running out of ways to say this...

 

[Vihsadas]

I would set my sites [sic] on the highest possible for both GPA and MCAT, but I still disagree with your weighting - if I have any choice in the matter, I would set my sights on a 32+ MCAT and 3.7+ GPA.

As for weighting the two components, it only becomes a problem when people want to have a single composite index like the AI or the LizzyM...GPA and MCAT have to stand on their own merits, because med schools look at them individually, and if both of them are up to snuff, then you may get to advance to the next round...

I am running out of ways to say this...

Yeah I know what you mean...These indexes are only useful when we aren't considering the extremes. I've been told this in not so many words by a number of admissions officers and admissions committee members. Most students with a 3.3 and a 40 MCAT are exemplar of this (I know of one counter-example who was extremely successful last year).

Those stats are just simply not as competitive as someone with a more balanced GPA and MCAT but with a similar 'index' score whether it be LizzyM or AI. It's kind of like the MCAT itself, a 14 13 13 = 40 is technically a better score than say a 15 15 10 = 40 because the first is more balanced. The LizzyM score or the AI aren't useless markers, they just aren't the god of admissions that some people make them out to be.

For the OP, I think that a lot of the advice you are getting here isn't taking into account that you are canadian. It is much harder to get accepted to a US medical schools as a Canadian; your stats need to be above the medians in all categories.
Depending on how many credits you have under your belt, if you wanted a chance next year in the US a post-bacc might be the way to go. That stellar MCAT will definitely get you looked at...it just won't get you in. If you have the standard 120 credits, then a 30 credit post-bacc at 3.9 would raise your GPA to a 3.63 (Post-bacc @ 3.95 assuming 3.55GPA). This would be definitely be respectable for US schools as a Canadian. It's still going to take some luck but I know of two pieces of anecdotal evidence that were accepted to US medical schools with similar stats. At your institution, you can do an informal post-bacc by re-applying as a 'special student'. This is what I am doing this year currently.

Well hopefully none of this will matter at 12am tonight. 😉 Good luck when you check your Minerva. Wishing the best for you!

 

[jsydc]

Please keep in mind that I already have a MSc where the first year was course based. I got a 3.84 in this year that typically has a 50 percent failure rate. While it wont help me in the numbers game in most places, it at least provides some reassurance to adcoms that I can perform in an academic setting. How does this factor into anyone's advice?

 

[191159]

I realize that I'd rather have a high GPA than a high MCAT but a 3.6 is where I'll likely be at.

When schools look at your GPA do they look at just the number first or do they see the trend of your grades? How big of a factor is an upward trend (in my case it will be a extremely upward one) when it comes to GPA?

 

[Vihsadas]

Please keep in mind that I already have a MSc where the first year was course based. I got a 3.84 in this year that typically has a 50 percent failure rate. While it wont help me in the numbers game in most places, it at least provides some reassurance to adcoms that I can perform in an academic setting. How does this factor into anyone's advice?

Sorry I didn't realize that. That will factor in somewhat. Even though you are Canadian, you will get past most of the automatic cutoffs. Your application should be given a holistic look depending on the school, and this where your master's degree will hopefully have a marginal effect. If they realize that the first year of the masters was course based that may help you...but who knows how closely any school will look at the app. If that is the case, then I don't think that academically you could/should do much more.

(Aside: What this medical physics MSc by chance?)

 

[SStorm]

I realize that I'd rather have a high GPA than a high MCAT but a 3.6 is where I'll likely be at.

When schools look at your GPA do they look at just the number first or do they see the trend of your grades? How big of a factor is an upward trend (in my case it will be a extremely upward one) when it comes to GPA?

Could you specify what you meant by extremely upward?

 

[MeowMix]

I see that you are considering taking more courses to boost your GPA, if you don't get in this year. Bear in mind that some Canadian schools will not count in your GPA any course that was done on a non-full-time basis. It is a very difficult situation for non-trads.

 

[Long Dong]

I had a 3.48 GPA and most people considered that low. So I agree with others below 3.5 is considered low, but you can still get in.

 

[191159]

Could you specify what you meant by extremely upward?

Well my first 3 semesters did not go as planned and needless to say my third one I got 4 C's (and 2 A's). Next semester, 5 W's. Retook my C's got A+'s in all of them, and I will be getting a 4.0 again this semester. So my first two semesters back in school are 31 4.0 credits and I will have raised my gpa from 3.17 to a 3.52. If all goes as planned (which I'm assuming it won't, hard to be perfect) and allowing for a few B's I'll end up with ~ a 3.65ish GPA.

So for those like me, how much does an upward trend (a steep one for the sake of this thread) play into the GPA portion of the matter?

 

[JaggerPlate]

So I agree with others below 3.5 is considered low, but you can still get in.

And this is coming from a derm resident!!! 👍👍