What is the most important factor in medical school admissions?

[yaspar]

Academics (GPA, MCAT), community service, research. There is no ONE most important factor.

...your MCAT score and GPA are the first factors used for screening - if those are acceptable then your application is taken into consideration

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[toff4l]

This is a worthwhile post.

Notice the difference in opinion between pre-meds and med students.

Personally, I believe the MCAT score is the most important factor because it clearly shows whether you are prepared or not. There are so many things you can do to a GPA to make it look good or make it look better over a period of time.

I had a friend who had a 3.8 and a sub-30 MCAT and did not get into a US allopathic program (he got into the Caribbean) but I had another friend who had a 3.2 and a 36 MCAT who got into an osteopathic program.

I do believe that you should have above a 3.5 but the MCAT will make or break you. You can always explain the GPA but you can't explain the MCAT.

Any more input would be appreciated.

 

[KING3]

I would say MCAT and GPA are pretty equal, a bad MCAT score can be remedied by taking it again, a bad GPA can beremedied by graduate work or a post-bac. its the combination of the two.

 

[apumic]

They are each "most" important at different times.

Data show the MCAT is most crucial early on (moreso than GPA, although the ratio depends upon your GPA & MCAT scores). Once you've interviewed, the interview becomes the most important element (and it's quality is largely dependent upon your ECs); however, without a good MCAT and GPA, you are very unlikely to ever get to the interview stage.

 

[n3xa]

Puts his feet on the interviewer's desk. (Yes, this really happened. 😱)

I lold.

Also, don't pretend you're hitting a golf ball when asked, "Where do you see yourself in ten years?"

 

[Dave Chester]

GPA is more important. To me, retaking the MCAT is easier than doing postbacc/SMP to remedy GPA.

 

[James Sacket]

acts like the interviewer might be an axe murderer.

4. Aggressive, sits forward in the seat, talks too loudly, bullies the interviewer with questions, chuckles in a menasing way to the interviewer's responses, acts like he might be an axe murderer.

😀
But then I wonder what questions are considered "bullying".

 

[eli20]

I voted for GPA as well, even with the understanding that its much more variable across schools with different standards and different majors. I think a 4year record says more about you than 1 test day, especially if your four year record is low and you are "making up for it" with a 1day test. Outside of exceptionally difficult school/major/circumstance seeing a ~3.4/35+ screams laziness to me. MCAT is obviously important as well, as are the other factors, and I really do think that >threshold scores it really is a "total picture" process.

 

[jsh52]

I voted for GPA as well, even with the understanding that its much more variable across schools with different standards and different majors. I think a 4year record says more about you than 1 test day, especially if your four year record is low and you are "making up for it" with a 1day test. Outside of exceptionally difficult school/major/circumstance seeing a ~3.4/35+ screams laziness to me. MCAT is obviously important as well, as are the other factors, and I really do think that >threshold scores it really is a "total picture" process.

Agree with this. 👍 I'll qualify it and say I have NOT taken the MCAT yet, but I did graduate with a 3.72 gpa.

 

[Mahliah]

I would imagine it to be MCAT, since there are so many grade inflating factories.

 

[AgentBlue]

I would imagine it to be MCAT, since there are so many grade inflating factories.

Exactly, gpas are going to differ with each college. A 4.0 from an obscure state college is NOT the same as a 4.0 from a public ivy.

Gpas also differ with different majors. It would be much harder if not impossible to get a 4.0 in engineering or physics than it is in sociology, english, or psychology. Biology falls in the middle.

With that being said, I think the MCAT is the most important factor in admissions. It is the "grand equalizer" and you either know the material or you don't.

If you have a mediocre gpa you could always do a postbach or an smdp to increase your chances of getting into med school. Now if you don't do good on the MCAT, I am afraid that there aren't any alternatives then.

 

[vivalavie]

You guys are all wrong. It's the prestige of your undergrad institution. Why do you think like half the kids on the interview trail are from Harvard? CORRELATION=CAUSATION, anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something, and selling it poorly.

 

[QU2]

MCAT 4ssuredly...all of this talk about personality/interviews is inconsequential if you haven't stepped through the door yet

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

Level of sexual magnetism of applicant (in male applicants' case).

 

[x1240tony]

MCAT is just 1 test...GPA is all 4 years

I'd have to say GPA

 

[eli20]

I think gpa comparison problems could be solved if schools just included the average gpa of people in your graduating class and people in your major on your transcript. Miracle problem solved - we now have something legitimate to compare instead of how a particular adcom feels about xyz school on said random Tuesday.

 

[flatearth22]

I think gpa comparison problems could be solved if schools just included the average gpa of people in your graduating class and people in your major on your transcript. Miracle problem solved - we now have something legitimate to compare instead of how a particular adcom feels about xyz school on said random Tuesday.

This solves one problem but opens up another.

Is student A with a 25th percentile GPA in his biology major at an Ivy less qualified than student B with a 75th percentile GPA in his biology major at StateU provided they are similar in all other regards?

The kids that are competing with student A have SAT scores 200-300 points higher than those competing with student B and are likely more academically motivated with better studying skills. How would student A fare at StateU and how would student B fare at the Ivy?

That's why I voted as the MCAT as being the most important factor.

 

[vivalavie]

This solves one problem but opens up another.

Is student A with a 25th percentile GPA in his biology major at an Ivy less qualified than student B with a 75th percentile GPA in his biology major at StateU provided they are similar in all other regards?

The kids that are competing with student A have SAT scores 200-300 points higher than those competing with student B and are likely more academically motivated with better studying skills. How would student A fare at StateU and how would student B fare at the Ivy?

That's why I voted as the MCAT as being the most important factor.

Totally, and a recent study shows that ivy league graduates are 63% better than everyone else.

 

[toff4l]

MCAT is just 1 test...GPA is all 4 years

I'd have to say GPA

MCAT shows what you learned those four years.

 

[eli20]

MCAT shows what you learned those four years.

Not at all. MCAT at best shows what you learned from about 4 two-semester classes.

 

[Perrotfish]

For what it's worth my school has a hard floor for the MCAT and no automatic cutoff for GPA, so for them MCAT is more important at least in the sense that they'll actually look at an application with a GPA that's way below average.

Why go to an interview if you have no intention of matriculating? It wastes your time and that of the interviewer. Going to screw around, just for giggles, shows a lack of maturity and frankly, in such a case a "reject" letter is fully deserved.

I think a lot of people go to interviews with the attitude 'let's see if they can wow me'. You know, you're holding an acceptance to a school that looks better on paper but you don't see why you wouldn't give this second school a chance to show that they're amazing in some intangible way. Then you get there, it takes 30 minutes to realize that this school is NOT better than your acceptance (or even close), and now all the pressure is off and you're a lot more relaxed, maybe even a little goofy.

I didn't have the option with medical school, but been in this situation in at least one job interview.

 

[ZeusonRoids]

Ahem...

As a medical student who interviews prospective students, this boils down to a couple things

Getting an interview -- Easy (with decent GPA/MCAT you are gonna get some interviews)...will get your app looked at. "Going fishing and attracting the fish"

ECs -- make you stand out "Hooking the fish"

Interviewing -- makes you "reel in the fish"

All 3 things are important, but I know a ton of people with Good MCAT/gpa that just are boring as hell to interview and have never done anything interesting. From the perspective of someone who interviews prospective students (and finding out who is accepted/rejected) I know that if I give a GREAT report to the admissions office, that person will nearly always be accepted. If I give a bad report or mediocre report...that person will have a tough time being accepted because there are literally THOUSANDS of people that have the GPA/MCAT and would kill for that spot.

 

[vivalavie]

For what it's worth my school has a hard floor for the MCAT and no automatic cutoff for GPA, so for them MCAT is more important at least in the sense that they'll actually look at an application with a GPA that's way below average.



I think a lot of people go to interviews with the attitude 'let's see if they can wow me'. You know, you're holding an acceptance to a school that looks better on paper but you don't see why you wouldn't give this second school a chance to show that they're amazing in some intangible way. Then you get there, it takes 30 minutes to realize that this school is NOT better than your acceptance (or even close), and now all the pressure is off and you're a lot more relaxed, maybe even a little goofy.

I didn't have the option with medical school, but been in this situation in at least one job interview.

I'm going to take a break from sarcasm for a moment to point out that this post is dead on. I started off the cycle with an acceptance to my (cheap) in-state school and attended the remainder of the interviews with the mindset that I was interviewing them, not the other way around. I still tried to interview well, though, even if I realized that this school was a much worse option, probably just cause there's an ego factor in having multiple acceptances.

 

[flatearth22]

Totally, and a recent study shows that ivy league graduates are 63% better than everyone else.

Nice sarcasm.

Also I wasn't referring to just Ivy league. Schools like Stanford, MIT, Duke, UChicago, etc. all attract extremely bright and motivated students. Being median or lower than median in such a class does not make you inferior to someone who is at a higher percentile at a State University that has lower admissions standards and consequently lower caliber students (on average).

 

[rockyrado]

This solves one problem but opens up another.

Is student A with a 25th percentile GPA in his biology major at an Ivy less qualified than student B with a 75th percentile GPA in his biology major at StateU provided they are similar in all other regards?

The kids that are competing with student A have SAT scores 200-300 points higher than those competing with student B and are likely more academically motivated with better studying skills. How would student A fare at StateU and how would student B fare at the Ivy?

That's why I voted as the MCAT as being the most important factor.

But this is making a number of assumptions. I got accepted into an Ivy League school as an undergrad, but for various reasons, including financial ones, chose to attend my state school. I therefore take offense to your contention that

The kids that are competing with student A have SAT scores 200-300 points higher than those competing with student B and are likely more academically motivated with better studying skills.

It's utter rubbish. I have to work my *** off at my state school just to get a 3.5. This assumption that Ivies are universally more difficult still really makes me angry.

 

[flatearth22]

But this is making a number of assumptions. I got accepted into an Ivy League school as an undergrad, but for various reasons, including financial ones, chose to attend my state school. I therefore take offense to your contention that

It's utter rubbish. I have to work my *** off at my state school just to get a 3.5. This assumption that Ivies are universally more difficult still really makes me angry.

My posts had nothing to do with grade inflation.

They were in response to the idea of sending in your percentile in your major as a way of gauging how your GPA compared to your peers.Basically, you could only compare students who took the same coursework at the same institution (and even then, had roughly the same profs). Comparing percentiles across programs of study and across institutions is comparing apples to oranges.

Which is why IMO the MCAT is the true measure of how qualified an applicant is.

 

[ReptarBar]

I think it should be grounds for the withdrawal of the acceptance(s) at the other school(s). Not sure if this could actually happen, though.

if you paid to apply and paid for your secondary, you have every right to go to an interview and mess around if you expect a rejection and don't care.

 

[redlight]

But this is making a number of assumptions. I got accepted into an Ivy League school as an undergrad, but for various reasons, including financial ones, chose to attend my state school. I therefore take offense to your contention that

It's utter rubbish. I have to work my *** off at my state school just to get a 3.5. This assumption that Ivies are universally more difficult still really makes me angry.

i mean there are kids at ivies that flunk out so just getting in doesn't inherently say much if we're being technical.

for the record stats are most important. you'll never get in if they think you'll flunk out.
problem is there are way more qualified applicants than spots. you don't need to be a genius to be intelligent enough to get into medical school, so thats where "soft" factors come into play.

i don't know if this "rule" / "formula" is still popular, but your LizzyM score should be a good indicator of how strong a candidate you are (aka, neither gpa or mcat is inherently more important- the deciding factor is specific to your application, but you should be ok if your composite gpa+mcat score is good.)

 

[Hoody]

it all depends...

As a non-trad, I think MCAT and EC's >>> GPA

for a traditional student, I think MCAT and GPA >> EC's

 

[Ignatius M.D.]

Nice sarcasm.

Also I wasn't referring to just Ivy league. Schools like Stanford, MIT, Duke, UChicago, etc. all attract extremely bright and motivated students. Being median or lower than median in such a class does not make you inferior to someone who is at a higher percentile at a State University that has lower admissions standards and consequently lower caliber students (on average).

I've tried suggesting this before, but you won't get many people to agree (as you've noticed). It's hard to come out top 10-15% (A/A-) when the average caliber of student is much higher. You'll always have people wanting their 3.7 at a relatively non-competitive uni to count more than the 3.4 at MIT. Thing is, that 3.7 is probably not a 3.7 at MIT (not that the same student isn't capable of achieving those same grades at the harder school, but it is likely to be more difficult).

Rocky: You never ended up taking a class at an Ivy though did you? How do you know it's not harder? I don't think Flatearth was intentionally trying to belittle the work you did for your GPA, but reality is that a school like U Chicago or an Ivy not known for inflation like Princeton will present more of a challenge with respect to finishing in the top percent corresponding to A/A-. I have friends much smarter than me at my local uni, and there certainly are excellent students there, but I never understand why people react adversely to the insinuation that ON AVERAGE students at a top school will be better and thus a top 10% grade harder to achieve. It's pretty logical. At somewhere like MIT, the ENTIRE class is composed of good students, as opposed to a fraction (still could be a large one) that varies between state schools.

 

[eli20]

My posts had nothing to do with grade inflation.

They were in response to the idea of sending in your percentile in your major as a way of gauging how your GPA compared to your peers.Basically, you could only compare students who took the same coursework at the same institution (and even then, had roughly the same profs). Comparing percentiles across programs of study and across institutions is comparing apples to oranges.

Which is why IMO the MCAT is the true measure of how qualified an applicant is.

The entire point of the percentiles would be in connecting gpa to mcat and examining inflation. To talk about Ivy gpas without a conversation about gpa inflation is near delusional. Anyways, I don't really feel like having the same ivy v everyone else argument that has already occurred on these boards 200 times before. There is far more to being a physician than what just the mcat can quantify, it certainly isn't the "true measure" of how qualified an applicant is, but rather a component.

 

[bookfreak89]

Ivy/top school vs. state school debate?

 

[toff4l]

it all depends...

As a non-trad, I think MCAT and EC's >>> GPA

for a traditional student, I think MCAT and GPA >> EC's

That's interesting and I hope it's true.

 

[skyhyp2009]

Discuss...

GPA

1st quote: "one score on a test does not trump or void three to four years of hard work"

2nd quote X (every single school I interviewed at except two): "yes we do go back and look at scores again when we make our final decisions. Would you really want us to judge you based on a couple 30-minute conversations as opposed to 3-4 years of hard work?"

In my experience this cycle and based on "3-4 years of hard work" statements that came up whenever I asked this question to adcoms, it seems that GPA's easily the most important factor. The MCAT is there merely to put your GPA into perspective.

To be honest, you need a good GPA AND a good MCAT to do get interviews and get accepted. And even after the interview, many schools will look back at scores and compare with other candidates. The whole "once you get an interview, everyone's on the same level" myth on SDN isn't quite true =/. With good extracurriculars, you have a shot at getting a better interview score, but...that's just part of the process.

- In rare cases, the single most important factor CAN be your recommendation letters if you have an extremely baller professor who has a connection with the specific school you are applying to write you a glowing letter of rec...or you can get 20 first author publications in nature...or solve world hunger

 

[skyhyp2009]

You guys are all wrong. It's the prestige of your undergrad institution. Why do you think like half the kids on the interview trail are from Harvard? CORRELATION=CAUSATION, anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something, and selling it poorly.

except at Harvard the MCAT average is like 34+...and I really think that's a low-ball estimate...my friend at Harvard told me that he doesn't know a single premed there with below a 36 (although I'm willing to bet that he doesn't know ALL the premeds there)

of course, the prestige helps...but I'm willing to be that any applicant (short of a URM status and/or nature publication or some crazy circumstances) with a sub 30 MCAT and less than 3.6 GPA will not be getting interviews at top schools no matter where he/she graduated from.

 

[ucsfstudents]

There is no one most important factor. They look at the whole picture. But, you will be weeded out very early in the process if your GPA and/or MCAT score is too low

 

[toff4l]

GPA

1st quote: "one score on a test does not trump or void three to four years of hard work"

2nd quote X (every single school I interviewed at except two): "yes we do go back and look at scores again when we make our final decisions. Would you really want us to judge you based on a couple 30-minute conversations as opposed to 3-4 years of hard work?"

In my experience this cycle and based on "3-4 years of hard work" statements that came up whenever I asked this question to adcoms, it seems that GPA's easily the most important factor. The MCAT is there merely to put your GPA into perspective.

To be honest, you need a good GPA AND a good MCAT to do get interviews and get accepted. And even after the interview, many schools will look back at scores and compare with other candidates. The whole "once you get an interview, everyone's on the same level" myth on SDN isn't quite true =/. With good extracurriculars, you have a shot at getting a better interview score, but...that's just part of the process.

- In rare cases, the single most important factor CAN be your recommendation letters if you have an extremely baller professor who has a connection with the specific school you are applying to write you a glowing letter of rec...or you can get 20 first author publications in nature...or solve world hunger

So an undergrad professor with a connection to the med school can really make that big of a difference in the admissions process? That is interesting.

 

[jsh52]

GPA

1st quote: "one score on a test does not trump or void three to four years of hard work"

2nd quote X (every single school I interviewed at except two): "yes we do go back and look at scores again when we make our final decisions. Would you really want us to judge you based on a couple 30-minute conversations as opposed to 3-4 years of hard work?"

In my experience this cycle and based on "3-4 years of hard work" statements that came up whenever I asked this question to adcoms, it seems that GPA's easily the most important factor. The MCAT is there merely to put your GPA into perspective.

To be honest, you need a good GPA AND a good MCAT to do get interviews and get accepted. And even after the interview, many schools will look back at scores and compare with other candidates. The whole "once you get an interview, everyone's on the same level" myth on SDN isn't quite true =/. With good extracurriculars, you have a shot at getting a better interview score, but...that's just part of the process.

- In rare cases, the single most important factor CAN be your recommendation letters if you have an extremely baller professor who has a connection with the specific school you are applying to write you a glowing letter of rec...or you can get 20 first author publications in nature...or solve world hunger

Sweeeet! I'm applying to Yale. The chairman of our department came from Yale (he was chair there, as well)! 🙂 You think I'm kidding lol. He always writes me rec letters for various things. I really am applying there now....depending how the MCAT goes. 😉 Damn-even if I get a 28, I will apply lol. J/K. I know what you are saying. But 20 first authors in Nature would be pretty amazing.

Can't we just all agree that it's the total package and not just one thing?

 

[toff4l]

Sweeeet! I'm applying to Yale. The chairman of our department came from Yale (he was chair there, as well)! 🙂 You think I'm kidding lol. He always writes me rec letters for various things. I really am applying there now....depending how the MCAT goes. 😉 Damn-even if I get a 28, I will apply lol. J/K. I know what you are saying. But 20 first authors in Nature would be pretty amazing.

Can't we just all agree that it's the total package and not just one thing?

We can't because it is not the whole package. I had a friend with a 3.8, stellar EC's and a 27 MCAT who didn't get into a US program. If it was the whole package, he would have gotten in. But it was either the MCAT or his statement or something that was the deal-breaker.

 

[BAMF]

Most important factor is your weakness. 😛

 

[jsh52]

Most important factor is your weakness. 😛

👍👍👍

To Toff: Did your friend interview?

 

[Propylene]

I always kind of had this picture in my mind:

Grades > MCAT >>> Everything else.

Everything is important, but I feel like having a stellar GPA shows that you can succeed in an academic setting. A great MCAT on top of that is just icing on the cake.

Of course, if you're one of thousands of cakes that adcoms are looking at, it probably helps to have all your "toppings".

 

[giantdoctor]

In my opinion, I would think that GPA is highest on the list, followed by MCAT, then EC's.

From what I've been told the MCAT is more about how much information you can cram into your head in a relatively short period of time, and your ability to recall that information, which seems to me like a valuable skill for a doctor to have.

Your GPA, however, shows your overall ability as a student, and isn't that what being a doctor is all about?
As someone who is going in to the profession of constantly learning I would think the ADCOM would want to see you have an academic ability that surpasses that of the average person.

And of course none of this would matter if you couldn't handle yourself clinically or you were just a terribly awkward human being, in which case your EC's really do matter as well.

I'd say until you're sitting in your chair in the office of admissions making your decision on whether or not to let some kid into medical school, you'll never know what exactly gets you in the door.