What makes Ivy Leagues more sought after then State schools for undergrad?

[Future_Bone_Docta]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I just had a question for curiosities' sake. I am not quite sure how big of a controversy this is, but if it creates hostility I apologize haha. I was just curious why Ivy league schools and more selective schools (princeton, harvard, cornell, stanford, upenn) are seen as "higher caliber" schools in medical school commissions eyes? I have read lots of articles, and have had conversations with people, where they state that at schools like that it is much easier to get a higher gpa because "since they are paying so much, they are going to get the grades". And I have read an article (Granted I did not look into the validity of the site) stating the average gpa of stanford students is a 3.57, and the average gpa of Harvard students are a 3.65, meanwhile a school like rutgers has an average gpa of 3.1. So I guess I wanted to spark a discussion on this hoping someone may be able to shed some light on the subject?

Thanks all!

 

[AaqDasaq721]

Potentially due to what it takes to get into high-ranked UG schools, and the competition you face there.

This isn't to take anything away from state school students, as I'm sure plenty of them are smart & hard working, but I would argue getting into HYPS/UCB/UCLA takes a lot more than getting into a "mid-tier" state school (of course there are legacy/donation exceptions). And, once you're in, you're taking classes with other students of that caliber as well, which means greater competition (to a degree; I know grade inflation is a problem).

For example, when I was an undergrad at UCB, Chem 1A/1B (general chemistry) and 3A (Orgo) were notoriously competitive, as the department set quotas for each grade bins, and often the exam wasn't curved (there were A LOT of angry reddit/Piazza posts when the Chem 1A final had a mean of 60%, and it wasn't curved lol). This meant that getting an A in Chem 1A-3A looks very good on med school applications.

Taking all this into account, I can understand why applicants from high-ranked schools get more "points" than those from less prestigious universities.

All of this is of course just my speculations.

 

[Future_Bone_Docta]

Potentially due to what it takes to get into high-ranked UG schools, and the competition you face there.

This isn't to take anything away from state school students, as I'm sure plenty of them are smart & hard working, but I would argue getting into HYPS/UCB/UCLA takes a lot more than getting into a "mid-tier" state school (of course there are legacy/donation exceptions). And, once you're in, you're taking classes with other students of that caliber as well, which means greater competition (to a degree; I know grade inflation is a problem).

For example, when I was an undergrad at UCB, Chem 1A/1B (general chemistry) and 3A (Orgo) were notoriously competitive, as the department set quotas for each grade bins, and often the exam wasn't curved (there were A LOT of angry reddit/Piazza posts when the Chem 1A final had a mean of 60%, and it wasn't curved lol). This meant that getting an A in Chem 1A-3A looks very good on med school applications.

Taking all this into account, I can understand why applicants from high-ranked schools get more "points" than those from less prestigious universities.

All of this is of course just my speculations.

UCB pre- med program is notoriously known for its heavy grade deflation to make it more of a medical school "feeder" isn't it? To the best of my knowledge, I have not been able to find anything in regards to schools like Harvard or Cornell having heavy grade deflation like that in their programs.

 

[Goro]

So I just had a question for curiosities' sake. I am not quite sure how big of a controversy this is, but if it creates hostility I apologize haha. I was just curious why Ivy league schools and more selective schools (princeton, harvard, cornell, stanford, upenn) are seen as "higher caliber" schools in medical school commissions eyes? I have read lots of articles, and have had conversations with people, where they state that at schools like that it is much easier to get a higher gpa because "since they are paying so much, they are going to get the grades". And I have read an article (Granted I did not look into the validity of the site) stating the average gpa of stanford students is a 3.57, and the average gpa of Harvard students are a 3.65, meanwhile a school like rutgers has an average gpa of 3.1. So I guess I wanted to spark a discussion on this hoping someone may be able to shed some light on the subject?

Thanks all!

The mania of status-obsessed parents.

 

[LizzyM]

Frankly, the bar for undergrad admission to some state schools is pretty low and you'll have people there who have no business being in college. Those folks will be earning Cs and Ds and there is likely to be a larger proportion of students in that boat than you'd find at a school with very selective enrollment.

If you have matriculated at a very selective enrollment undergrad institution, the med school adcom knows that you had the HS record, etc to be admitted to such a school which they equate with strong academic horsepower. It shows that you had the potential to do well at a highly competitive school. Whether or not you did well will show in your GPA and how you compare to people who attended lower tier schools will show in your MCAT. If you ended up matriculating at Podunk State College because you had a 100% scholarship, the adcom might pick up on that fact when reviewing your application or might ask "why did you choose Podunk State?" when you are interviewed.

 

[966212]

John Hopkins had a program where the first semester of school is grade blind (meaning everyone earns 4.0) yet Hopkins in known for pumping pre-meds into medical school.

The same goes for Cornell's urban semester program (Students are given of A's during their freshman semester of college).

 

[758437]

John Hopkins has programs where the first year of school is grade blind (meaning everyone earns 4.0) yet Hopkins in known for pumping pre-meds into medical school.

The same goes for Cornell's urban year program (Students are guaranteed a year of A's during their freshman year of college).

Lol this is not true. Hopkins used to have a policy called covered grades for the first semester. Meaning that the first semester grades were all P/F on the transcript. They've since my graduation done away with that policy. Source: Recent Hopkins graduate here.

 

[LizzyM]

John Hopkins has programs where the first year of school is grade blind (meaning everyone earns 4.0) yet Hopkins in known for pumping pre-meds into medical school.

The same goes for Cornell's urban year program (Students are guaranteed a year of A's during their freshman year of college).

Really? I know that MIT has a system where the first year is Pass/Fail but that just ends up with no GPA at all, not a 4.0. I've never heard of a program where one is guaranteed a 4.0.

 

[966212]

Lol this is not true. Hopkins used to have a policy called covered grades for the first semester. Meaning that the first semester grades were all P/F on the transcript. They've since my graduation done away with that policy. Source: Recent Hopkins graduate here.

Isn’t covered grades the same thing as making everything A for example. Let’s say I get a D in Biology 100 and chemistry 100, the typical weed out classes that’s get placed as a “P”. While your state school, that D would be a D. Seems like an advantage to me.

Sorry for not being accurate but the point is that these programs existed.

 

[758437]

Isn’t covered grades the same thing as making everything A for example. Let’s say I get a D in Biology 100 and chemistry 100, the typical weed out classes that’s get placed as a “P”. While your state school, that D would be a D. Seems like an advantage to me.

Sorry for not being accurate but the point is that these programs existed.

Nope It's if you get C and above you get a pass and C below a fail. That's what goes into your transcript. The grades are not included in your gpa whatsoever. It's the same thing as taking any pre-req pass fail. As I said before, covered grades has been phased out for at least a year now.

 

[BostonGeorge]

John Hopkins had a program where the first semester of school is grade blind (meaning everyone earns 4.0) yet Hopkins in known for pumping pre-meds into medical school.

Do people really believe this? You don't get a 4.0 it simply doesn't factor into your gpa, but if you fail the classes you don't get credit for them. They do this because Hopkins is extremely difficult and they want the students to adjust well, although I heard they recently stopped doing this. Most people probably haven't taken science classes at Hopkins and at a state school. I have and I can assure you it's like playing in the MLB vs triple A ball.

 

[966212]

Nope It's if you get C and above you get a pass and C below a fail. That's what goes into your transcript. The grades are not included in your gpa whatsoever. It's the same thing as taking any pre-req pass fail. As I said before, covered grades has been phased out for at least a year now.

Still it can’t be hard to get a C and get through intro Biology and Chemistry unscathed.

 

[966212]

Do people really believe this? You don't get a 4.0 it simply doesn't factor into your gpa, but if you fail the classes you don't get credit for them. They do this because Hopkins is extremely difficult and they want the students to adjust well, although I heard they recently stopped doing this. Most people probably haven't taken science classes at Hopkins and at a state school. I have and I can assure you it's like playing in the MLB vs triple A ball.

That’s part of the point. They want you to adjust without punishing you. Some state schools will punish you with the lousy grade and could care less about adjusting you.

 

[UnChevalBlanc]

John Hopkins had a program where the first semester of school is grade blind (meaning everyone earns 4.0) yet Hopkins in known for pumping pre-meds into medical school.

The same goes for Cornell's urban year program (Students are guaranteed a year of A's during their freshman year of college).

If you are talking about Cornell University and not Cornell College, there are no covered grades nor any guaranteed As freshman year (at least at the main Ithaca campus). If you receive an F, you have an F on your transcript. I have never heard of the "Urban Year" program you are referencing. The only program that sounds similar (in name only) is our "Urban Semester" program, which consists of one semester or summer off-campus in NYC doing rotations and taking classes in lieu of studying abroad. As far as I know, this program also does not have covered grades, and certainly does not offer a guaranteed 4.0. Source: Soon-to-be Cornell graduate.

 

[UnChevalBlanc]

Really? I know that MIT has a system where the first year is Pass/Fail but that just ends up with no GPA at all, not a 4.0. I've never heard of a program where one is guaranteed a 4.0.

Not true of Cornell, and does not seem to be true of Hopkins based on the above posts as well.

 

[BostonGeorge]

That’s part of the point. They want you to adjust without punishing you. Some state schools will punish you with the lousy grade and could care less about adjusting you.

Except that if you get A's, the A's don't count in your favor either so it's basically like a semester that doesn't count. I don't really know what to tell you if you think state schools are more punishing to your gpa than Hopkins.

 

[Future_Bone_Docta]

Frankly, the bar for undergrad admission to some state schools is pretty low and you'll have people there who have no business being in college. Those folks will be earning Cs and Ds and there is likely to be a larger proportion of students in that boat than you'd find at a school with very selective enrollment.

If you have matriculated at a very selective enrollment undergrad institution, the med school adcom knows that you had the HS record, etc to be admitted to such a school which they equate with strong academic horsepower. It shows that you had the potential to do well at a highly competitive school. Whether or not you did well will show in your GPA and how you compare to people who attended lower tier schools will show in your MCAT. If you ended up matriculating at Podunk State College because you had a 100% scholarship, the adcom might pick up on that fact when reviewing your application or might ask "why did you choose Podunk State?" when you are interviewed.

So the discrepancies in GPA between state schools, and lets say Harvard, could be attributed to the fact that Students at Harvard are more equipped with the tools to excel at initial matriculation into college due to them having a higher academic background (work ethic, study habits, ect.) rather then a intentional grade inflation?

 

[LizzyM]

So the discrepancies in GPA between state schools, and lets say Harvard, could be attributed to the fact that Students at Harvard are more equipped with the tools to excel at initial matriculation into college due to them having a higher academic background (work ethic, study habits, ect.) rather then a intentional grade inflation?

Imagine that both schools give the same final exam (American Chemical Society exam, perhaps) in intro chemistry and o-chem. How would you expect a student at Harvard who was admitted with a perfect SAT score to do on that exam compared with a student at a state school who was admitted to that school with an SAT at the 50th percentile? If, based on that exam counting for 40% of the overall grade, one student earned an A and the other earned a B, would you believe that Harvard had grade inflation?

 

[Lucca]

Stepping back from the premed game, you will learn in Uni or perhaps right after it that the opportunities and resources at diff UGs can be vastly different. There are some professions where not going to the right school is all it takes to sink your chances (not medicine, thankfully); I’m thinking of banking and MBB consulting where recruiters specifically visit “target” schools multiple times a year to fill their internships. In CS going to a t10 UG program can be immensely helpful and you only need to see the kind of offers these kids are starting off with to see why so many Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, etc kids are majoring in CS, EECS, or EE.

When competing for national scholarships, conference presentations, or anything else really your UG name and who you know will factor in either directly or indirectly. Although there is fantastic research being done all over the country, there is no doubt high impact research and especially basic science is highly concentrated at Tier 1 research institutions (many of which are state schools, I might add).

Overall, there’s just a different level of opportunities available and in addition to the brand-name recognition on your resumé, those opportunities will allow you to stand out in unique ways. You can do that outside HYPSM too but it’ll take a little more effort and hustle.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Imagine that both schools give the same final exam (American Chemical Society exam, perhaps) in intro chemistry and o-chem. How would you expect a student at Harvard who was admitted with a perfect SAT score to do on that exam compared with a student at a state school who was admitted to that school with an SAT at the 50th percentile? If, based on that exam counting for 40% of the overall grade, one student earned an A and the other earned a B, would you believe that Harvard had grade inflation?

If the median grade on the ACS final at Harvard is assigned a letter grade of B+/A- and the median grade at the state school on the same ACS final is assigned a grade of C/C+, then one could still argue that Harvard has grade inflation. This might actually happen if you compared Harvard to a place like U Cal-Berkeley, which grades much more harshly than Harvard.

Harvard
UC-Berkeley

And it's not clear that the top 15% of science students at Berkeley have markedly lower SATs than the top 15% of science students at Harvard. That's really the relevant comparison here because that's the strata most likely to make it through 4 years of premed grind.

 

[LizzyM]

If the median grade on the ACS final at Harvard is assigned a letter grade of B+/A- and the median grade at the state school on the same ACS final is assigned a grade of C/C+, then one could still argue that Harvard has grade inflation. This might actually happen if you compared Harvard to a place like U Cal-Berkeley, which grades much more harshly than Harvard.

Harvard
UC-Berkeley

And it's not clear that the top 15% of science students at Berkeley have markedly lower SATs than the top 15% of science students at Harvard. That's really the relevant comparison here because that's the strat most likely to make it through 4 years of premed grind.

I guess it depends on whether you use a curve or if you use a pre-defined metric. If scoring 95 or higher on the test is an A and 90-94 is a A- and 30% of the Harvard class scores in that range while 3% of the Podunk class scores 90% or higher and is awarded a grade of A or A-, is there grade inflation at Harvard?

Without knowing how assessments are made at each school, we really can't determine whether one school is harsher in grading than the other or if one school has students who are more grade conscious and working harder (or grubbing) for grades.

 

[Future_Bone_Docta]

I guess it depends on whether you use a curve or if you use a pre-defined metric. If scoring 95 or higher on the test is an A and 90-94 is a A- and 30% of the Harvard class scores in that range while 3% of the Podunk class scores 90% or higher and is awarded a grade of A or A-, is there grade inflation at Harvard.

Without knowing how assessments are made at each school, we really can't determine whether one school is harsher in grading than the other or if one school has students who are more grade conscious and working harder (or grubbing) for grades.

Does the ACS release data in regards to percentages scored on their exams for specific schools? That would actually be really interested data to look at.

 

[LizzyM]

Does the ACS release data in regards to percentages scored on their exams for specific schools? That would actually be really interested data to look at.

It would be interesting. I have no idea about whether or not it does.

 

[deleted938090]

In my opinion, GPA is a pretty bad metric. Students attending state school could take hard classes, and students at top schools can take easy classes. No matter where you are, there are always "easy" and "hard" classes that you could be taking.

This isn't to take anything away from state school students, as I'm sure plenty of them are smart & hard working, but I would argue getting into HYPS/UCB/UCLA takes a lot more than getting into a "mid-tier" state school (of course there are legacy/donation exceptions). And, once you're in, you're taking classes with other students of that caliber as well, which means greater competition (to a degree; I know grade inflation is a problem).

Speaking from experience, I know individuals who applied to college with the following mindset: Apply to top 10/20 schools; if no acceptance with good financial package, attend state school with good package. They actually did technically "get into" top schools, but chose not to attend for many reasons.

Greater competition *may* make GPA look lower than it would have been at another school, but this only makes one at a disadvantage. The only benefits from attending such a school is access to research opportunities and having a strong peer group.

For example, when I was an undergrad at UCB, Chem 1A/1B (general chemistry) and 3A (Orgo) were notoriously competitive, as the department set quotas for each grade bins, and often the exam wasn't curved (there were A LOT of angry reddit/Piazza posts when the Chem 1A final had a mean of 60%, and it wasn't curved lol). This meant that getting an A in Chem 1A-3A looks very good on med school applications.

There's no reason it should look good though. Many schools have similar situations - there are some classes where the test distribution is bimodal such that there is a group of students who have learned the material long time ago and participated in some HS competitions wreck the curve while the rest of the class is a full 20-30 points lower (*cough* math classes *cough* cs classes).

Really? I know that MIT has a system where the first year is Pass/Fail but that just ends up with no GPA at all, not a 4.0.

Following this idea, I wonder how adcoms see it when you've tested out of requirements and obtained credit for introductory classes... It's a shame because the classes tested out were during Pass/Fail and did not count for GPA, and based on performance on the test + higher tier classes, they would've been A anyway.

 

[Amherst21]

To respond to the OP's original question, medical schools tend to look for applicants who attended "higher caliber" colleges because of the type of teaching and learning that occur at those colleges. Typically, at state universities, you complete all your homework assignments and study for an average amount then get an A on the exam. Though, in more elite colleges, you will complete all your homework assignments and study very diligently but get asked questions on the exam that make you really think outside of the box and most of the exams taken would include questions that look nothing like the homework. This is speaking primarily for science. In terms of humanities courses, there are more reading and writing assignments given to students and prompts in essays are very detailed instead of broad like state universities. State universities may be compared to an average public high school experience while private, "higher caliber" universities take academics a few steps further to ensure that you don't only know the material at hand but understand where equations derived from and how to apply the equations to different situations and even other equations.

Therefore, medical schools find the students who were consistently forced to think creatively and critically about course material over those who understand the material on a more surface level. This isn't saying that state university students are any less than elite college students either! My valedictorian went to our state school's honors college and could definitely excel at a Harvard-like school. The way the classes are set up at state universities just make it difficult for the professor to really delve deeper into the material since there are usually 500+ students in the science classes versus the 100-200 students at the smaller, elite colleges.

 

[OchemOficionado]

Still it can’t be hard to get a C and get through intro Biology and Chemistry unscathed.

Regardless, a lot of schools offer P/F grading options. My Uni allowed students to choose whatever courses they wanted to apply this to. I believe the max was 12-16 units total for degree applicable courses.

 

[Jaigantic]

Frankly, the bar for undergrad admission to some state schools is pretty low and you'll have people there who have no business being in college. Those folks will be earning Cs and Ds and there is likely to be a larger proportion of students in that boat than you'd find at a school with very selective enrollment.

If you have matriculated at a very selective enrollment undergrad institution, the med school adcom knows that you had the HS record, etc to be admitted to such a school which they equate with strong academic horsepower. It shows that you had the potential to do well at a highly competitive school. Whether or not you did well will show in your GPA and how you compare to people who attended lower tier schools will show in your MCAT. If you ended up matriculating at Podunk State College because you had a 100% scholarship, the adcom might pick up on that fact when reviewing your application or might ask "why did you choose Podunk State?" when you are interviewed.

But surely going to a less competitive/state school for undergrad because it was the more financially sensible option does not reflect poorly on the applicant, right?

 

[theKingLT]

To respond to the OP's original question, medical schools tend to look for applicants who attended "higher caliber" colleges because of the type of teaching and learning that occur at those colleges. Typically, at state universities, you complete all your homework assignments and study for an average amount then get an A on the exam. Though, in more elite colleges, you will complete all your homework assignments and study very diligently but get asked questions on the exam that make you really think outside of the box and most of the exams taken would include questions that look nothing like the homework. This is speaking primarily for science. In terms of humanities courses, there are more reading and writing assignments given to students and prompts in essays are very detailed instead of broad like state universities. State universities may be compared to an average public high school experience while private, "higher caliber" universities take academics a few steps further to ensure that you don't only know the material at hand but understand where equations derived from and how to apply the equations to different situations and even other equations.

Therefore, medical schools find the students who were consistently forced to think creatively and critically about course material over those who understand the material on a more surface level. This isn't saying that state university students are any less than elite college students either! My valedictorian went to our state school's honors college and could definitely excel at a Harvard-like school. The way the classes are set up at state universities just make it difficult for the professor to really delve deeper into the material since there are usually 500+ students in the science classes versus the 100-200 students at the smaller, elite colleges.

I'm curious where you got this info. I compared ochem tests with some high school buddies a few years back between top privates and no rank state schools and they were all frighteningly similar.

 

[crepes]

I doubt there is much of a difference in the learning that happens inside the classroom between Ivy Leagues and top Public schools. I think there real difference is in the opportunities available outside the classroom, including world class faculty and classmates. Taking students from Ivy Leagues is also a safer bet, these students know how the system works and will most likely will continue to do well to get into good residency programs.

 

[theKingLT]

But surely going to a less competitive/state school for undergrad because it was the more financially sensible option does not reflect poorly on the applicant, right?

I went to a state school for athletics and money. Interviewed at many top 20s this cycle and every interview day was always me and maybe one other state school applicant among 10-15 ivy leaguers. (Or similar high-ranked undergrads that aren't technically ivy league). With that said, I don't think it held me back at all, at least at the interview stage. A few of my interviewers asked "what brought you to X undergrad" but it was never in a condescending/probing tone or as if I had done something wrong . Finances is a perfectly good reason to go to a state school and they understand that. If you just do well on the mcat and do ECs that make you stand out you will be very successful. Personally I think it's actually easier to be a successful pre-med at a state school as opposed to Hopkins or Berkeley or any other pre-med farm due to the lack of EC competition.

 

[Disciple of Sattar]

I went to a state school for athletics and money. Interviewed at many top 20s this cycle and every interview day was always me and maybe one other state school applicant among 10-15 ivy leaguers. (Or similar high-ranked undergrads that aren't technically ivy league). With that said, I don't think it held me back at all, at least at the interview stage. A few of my interviewers asked "what brought you to X undergrad" but it was never in a condescending/probing tone or as if I had done something wrong . Finances is a perfectly good reason to go to a state school and they understand that. If you just do well on the mcat and do ECs that make you stand out you will be very successful. Personally I think it's actually easier to be a successful pre-med at a state school as opposed to Hopkins or Berkeley or any other pre-med farm due to the lack of EC competition.

Same experience

 

[deleted938090]

I'm curious where you got this info. I compared ochem tests with some high school buddies a few years back between top privates and no rank state schools and they were all frighteningly similar.

That's because classes like Ochem are freshman level and are all the same. Upper division is where there are significant differences. Since premed requirements are lower levels, they're the same in all institutions, so they have no difference in terms of premed requirements being met.

 

[ginsengreset]

I'm curious where you got this info. I compared ochem tests with some high school buddies a few years back between top privates and no rank state schools and they were all frighteningly similar.

That's because classes like Ochem are freshman level and are all the same. Upper division is where there are significant differences. Since premed requirements are lower levels, they're the same in all institutions, so they have no difference in terms of premed requirements being met.

I don't think this is necessarily true everywhere - for instance, I found that organic chemistry exams tended to be highly variable in difficulty between different professors. Also, this is question #1 of exam #1 of the 1st semester of introductory biology at Columbia:

 

[Walter Raleigh]

Agreed; I wound up attending Podunk State due to financial considerations and adcoms asked about it at about half of my interviews.

 

[Future_Bone_Docta]

To respond to the OP's original question, medical schools tend to look for applicants who attended "higher caliber" colleges because of the type of teaching and learning that occur at those colleges. Typically, at state universities, you complete all your homework assignments and study for an average amount then get an A on the exam. Though, in more elite colleges, you will complete all your homework assignments and study very diligently but get asked questions on the exam that make you really think outside of the box and most of the exams taken would include questions that look nothing like the homework. This is speaking primarily for science. In terms of humanities courses, there are more reading and writing assignments given to students and prompts in essays are very detailed instead of broad like state universities. State universities may be compared to an average public high school experience while private, "higher caliber" universities take academics a few steps further to ensure that you don't only know the material at hand but understand where equations derived from and how to apply the equations to different situations and even other equations.

Therefore, medical schools find the students who were consistently forced to think creatively and critically about course material over those who understand the material on a more surface level. This isn't saying that state university students are any less than elite college students either! My valedictorian went to our state school's honors college and could definitely excel at a Harvard-like school. The way the classes are set up at state universities just make it difficult for the professor to really delve deeper into the material since there are usually 500+ students in the science classes versus the 100-200 students at the smaller, elite colleges.

It is funny you say that cause I attend a State University and I often get very frustrated with exactly what you are explaining. I show up to physics class and my prof. philosophy is "memorize this equation and apply it to this scenario" and does not explain how it is derived or conceptually where it comes from. Same for Biology, it is "memorize this enzyme and its function" instead of applying that function to a specific DNA strand. I actually get really annoyed about that so I am a real life example of what you just explained. Thanks!

 

[ChymeofPassion]

I don't think this is necessarily true everywhere - for instance, I found that organic chemistry exams tended to be highly variable in difficulty between different professors. Also, this is question #1 of exam #1 of the 1st semester of introductory biology at Columbia:

I knew they made a mistake in rejecting me.

 

[deleted804295]

I don't think this is necessarily true everywhere - for instance, I found that organic chemistry exams tended to be highly variable in difficulty between different professors. Also, this is question #1 of exam #1 of the 1st semester of introductory biology at Columbia:

This looks like biochem not bio.

 

[capriccio]

To respond to the OP's original question, medical schools tend to look for applicants who attended "higher caliber" colleges because of the type of teaching and learning that occur at those colleges. Typically, at state universities, you complete all your homework assignments and study for an average amount then get an A on the exam. Though, in more elite colleges, you will complete all your homework assignments and study very diligently but get asked questions on the exam that make you really think outside of the box and most of the exams taken would include questions that look nothing like the homework. This is speaking primarily for science. In terms of humanities courses, there are more reading and writing assignments given to students and prompts in essays are very detailed instead of broad like state universities. State universities may be compared to an average public high school experience while private, "higher caliber" universities take academics a few steps further to ensure that you don't only know the material at hand but understand where equations derived from and how to apply the equations to different situations and even other equations.

Therefore, medical schools find the students who were consistently forced to think creatively and critically about course material over those who understand the material on a more surface level. This isn't saying that state university students are any less than elite college students either! My valedictorian went to our state school's honors college and could definitely excel at a Harvard-like school. The way the classes are set up at state universities just make it difficult for the professor to really delve deeper into the material since there are usually 500+ students in the science classes versus the 100-200 students at the smaller, elite colleges.

I think this varies very greatly from state school to state school and from person to person. My experience taking science classes at my state school has been very intellectually challenging with similar approaches of asking students to "think outside the box," and I certainly studied a great deal to get A's on my exams. Granted, I made the effort to take honors classes whenever possible, but my point remains that the opportunities to go above and beyond absolutely exist at state schools for students who are willing to take on the challenge. Yes, the academic and instructor support is less apparent in large schools than perhaps a small elite college, but it is present and available if students actively seek it out. It's not for everyone and I know several people who had to transfer to smaller schools after their first years because they felt like they were getting lost in the massive population (which is totally valid), but I've had a fantastic educational experience at my state school and I wouldn't trade it in for any other school if I had to redo it.

If medical schools greatly care about your undergrad's prestige during admissions (which I don't believe is true considering I've received multiple T20 interviews, and I highly doubt they play that kind of an assumption game in such a high-stakes process), then that's a criteria that needs to change. And ultimately, your MCAT score and extracurriculars will reflect your motivation, the quality of your education and/or your intrinsic ability to learn and study.

 

[Amherst21]

I think this varies very greatly from state school to state school and from person to person. My experience taking science classes at my state school has been very intellectually challenging with similar approaches of asking students to "think outside the box," and I certainly studied a great deal to get A's on my exams. Granted, I made the effort to take honors classes whenever possible, but my point remains that the opportunities to go above and beyond absolutely exist at state schools for students who are willing to take on the challenge. Yes, the academic and instructor support is less apparent in large schools than perhaps a small elite college, but it is present and available if students actively seek it out. It's not for everyone and I know several people who had to transfer to smaller schools after their first years because they felt like they were getting lost in the massive population (which is totally valid), but I've had a fantastic educational experience at my state school and I wouldn't trade it in for any other school if I had to redo it.

If medical schools greatly care about your undergrad's prestige during admissions (which I don't believe is true considering I've received multiple T20 interviews, and I highly doubt they play that kind of an assumption game in such a high-stakes process), then that's a criteria that needs to change. And ultimately, your MCAT score and extracurriculars will reflect your motivation, the quality of your education and/or your intrinsic ability to learn and study.

It definitely depends on the instructors, but more elite colleges have an even greater amount of students who are in your position. Congratulations for receiving multiple interviews by the way! That's awesome. Though, at a state university it is seen as "atypical" to receive multiple interviews to elite medical schools and many people look up to you, but at a more elite undergraduate it is very typical and nobody would blink twice. So you are few and far between at your university and should definitely feel proud of that. This concept may also be applied to summer internships... It is very common for students at elite undergraduate institutions to intern or conduct research at Stanford, Duke, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, etc., but at state universities, a lot of students who participate in programs at those types of institutions are interviewed and displayed in the school newspaper or website. This is coming from personal experience. Also, the name of the college you go to definitely plays a role in future employers' or internship coordinators' decision to admit you to their programs which is part of the reason why there are "more opportunities" at big name schools.

I definitely agree with you that medical schools need to change this mindset, but it's how the world works, so I just learned that we need to adapt and figure out how to play the game. Your work ethic and determination to succeed in medicine is definitely a huge part that is reflected in the MCAT, ECs, and letters of recommendation, but unfortunately, those who went to elite undergraduate institutions have all of that on top of more difficult academics.

Good luck with your interviews, and in the end, we're all just trying to become physicians and will succeed at levels that reflect the effort we put into our career! Now here's to another 8 years before we actually have a job! Haha

 

[deleted938090]

Medical schools are becoming increasingly P/F for preclinical which reflects the diminishing importance of grades. I'm curious to why this isn't being done for medical school admissions, too. I'm in the opinion that LOR, ECs, and MCAT should be used more than GPA/undergraduate institution because those two are more informative; GPA is only comparable when the rigor of classes are comparable, which is never the case. UG institution isn't a good metric for the aforementioned reasons.

I know some people who have to make the "premed compromise" in which they wouldn't take difficult classes to save their GPA, and I think this actually hinders learning in undergrad. This is also probably responsible for so many "suck ups" and toxic premed culture.

 

[ginsengreset]

This looks like biochem not bio.

That is the intro bio class, BIOL UN2005. It seems like there are no 1000-level biology classes at Columbia, other than nontechnical classes for non-majors.

If medical schools greatly care about your undergrad's prestige during admissions (which I don't believe is true considering I've received multiple T20 interviews, and I highly doubt they play that kind of an assumption game in such a high-stakes process), then that's a criteria that needs to change. And ultimately, your MCAT score and extracurriculars will reflect your motivation, the quality of your education and/or your intrinsic ability to learn and study.

Plenty of high-achieving students from "non-top" UG schools get interviews and acceptances at "top" medical schools. But it seems like academic performance for interviewees/matriculants from "top" UGs ranges from "excellent" to "really good", but those from "non-top" UGs are "excellent" at worst.

Medical schools are becoming increasingly P/F for preclinical which reflects the diminishing importance of grades. I'm curious to why this isn't being done for medical school admissions, too. I'm in the opinion that LOR, ECs, and MCAT should be used more than GPA/undergraduate institution because those two are more informative; GPA is only comparable when the rigor of classes are comparable, which is never the case. UG institution isn't a good metric for the aforementioned reasons.

The AAMC has been doing some interesting MCAT validity research with the new exam format. They don't have Step 1 exam correlation data, which they're going to study this year, but it seems like both GPA/MCAT have a medium correlation with performance in the 1st year:

 

[Walter Raleigh]

This looks like biochem not bio.

Who knows? Maybe at Columbia they expect that students have already taken college-level biology and chemistry before they start freshman biology.

 

[Dwight Snoot]

My state school has a fine reputation and was able to get me into medical school. However, I felt the education I received there was sub-par except for a few classes. I had to put in very little effort to get A's because the classes were usually curved drastically because there we people in my classes who shouldn't have been there. It ended up working out perfectly for me though because I could put more effort into extracurriculars.

 

[Future_Bone_Docta]

My state school has a fine reputation and was able to get me into medical school. However, I felt the education I received there was sub-par except for a few classes. I had to put in very little effort to get A's because the classes were usually curved drastically because there we people in my classes who shouldn't have been there. It ended up working out perfectly for me though because I could put more effort into extracurriculars.

Even in upper level biology classes? How big was your state school if you do not mind me asking? I am from a 1500-2000 students per class total in the college (so in my year) state school, and the heavy curves existed for the general biologies and chemistries with about 300 kids in a lecture, but then about junior year everyone started transferring into much "easier" majors and my upper level biology classes were classes of 20-30 students so the curve was non existent.

 

[907914]

Even in upper level biology classes? How big was your state school if you do not mind me asking? I am from a 1500-2000 students per class total in the college (so in my year) state school, and the heavy curves existed for the general biologies and chemistries with about 300 kids in a lecture, but then about junior year everyone started transferring into much "easier" majors and my upper level biology classes were classes of 20-30 students so the curve was non existent.

Same here - the only classes at my college larger than 100 students are the general education classes (Psych 101, English 101 type classes). My gen bio was maybe 100 students, upper division OChem was <30 and biochem was <20 students

That's because classes like Ochem are freshman level and are all the same. Upper division is where there are significant differences. Since premed requirements are lower levels, they're the same in all institutions, so they have no difference in terms of premed requirements being met.

Where are you that Ochem is a freshman level class? My university only has Upper division Ochem (gen chem series as a prereq) and "Chemistry for the health sciences" is a year long series for the nursing students.
....

 

[Dwight Snoot]

Even in upper level biology classes? How big was your state school if you do not mind me asking? I am from a 1500-2000 students per class total in the college (so in my year) state school, and the heavy curves existed for the general biologies and chemistries with about 300 kids in a lecture, but then about junior year everyone started transferring into much "easier" majors and my upper level biology classes were classes of 20-30 students so the curve was non existent.

A few of my upper level classes were challenging for sure. But when only 3-4 of the ~32 classes I took were difficult I felt that undergrad was too much of a breeze. My school was about 13k undergrad so medium sized. At the same time though, I do believe that I was well prepared for my medical school classes so maybe I just lucked out.

 

[Schadret]

Where are you that Ochem is a freshman level class? My university only has Upper division Ochem (gen chem series as a prereq) and "Chemistry for the health sciences" is a year long series for the nursing students.
....

At my daughter's school, Organic Chemistry is the 2nd in her sequence, so she's in it now (Spring semester, Freshman year). They do GenChem1/Ochem1/Ochem2/GenChem "theory and application" (not called Gen Chem 2 but I assume it fits the bill)

 

[lalalallala]

The smartest kids at state schools are likely the same as the smartest kids at ivy league schools. However, at state schools (or less selective schools) you are likely to have more of a range of students. Therefore if you have a class and the average is a B or B- then you likely have students who are struggling in college or aren't as smart who get those lower grades. Now imagine you are at an ivy league school and the average is still a B or B- but instead of having a wide range of students you have a narrow range of some of the top students in the country (not all of the top students but many top students). The averages for the chemistry classes at my ivy league school are an 80 (a B-). We often feel like this is ridiculous because all of the students in the class are smart and 90% at least are trying very hard. In organic chemistry for example only the top 10 people in the class of 150 get an A. The competition is thus very steep because those other 140 people in the class are all very smart and capable. If you are in a class where there is a wider range of people, then being in the top 10 is easier than when you are surrounded by a really tough group.

I have seen the exams that the top school in my home state (one of the top state schools in the country) uses for gen chem and o chem and it is nothing at all like the exams we have to take. And it makes perfect sense - because when the average student at an ivy league school is more academically prepared than the average student at a less competitive school then the test is going to be designed at a much higher level at the ivy league school. Many students took organic chemistry in high school because they went to private schools. The classes start out at a higher level. My organic chemistry tests never had anything that we had seen in class on them because the point was to make you apply and expand your knowledge to something you are completely unfamiliar with. There are no ACS tests where I go.

Some classes (sociology or communications or something) may be curved to a B+ or may not be curved so if everyone does quality work and tries hard then everyone does fairly well. These sorts of classes may help students balance out the difficulty of those chemistry curves that I mentioned earlier. You also have to remember that people who apply to medical school are not the average at an ivy league school. These are the people who have done well enough that they believe they can get in.

I do not know what the grading is like at the other 7 ivy league schools but the constant talk of grade inflation and how it is so easy once you are in an ivy league school etc has not been accurate at all in my experience because the competition is very different than at other schools. The standards are extremely high and it takes a certain kind of person to put in that level of effort and go somewhere where they know they are going to be really challenged. There are all kinds of reasons that people go to their state school and they should not be knocked for that at all. I think that people who went to ivy league schools remember their experience and then are likely to remember it and give people a bit of a second look if they are familiar with a school's grading system and general competitiveness.

 

[theKingLT]

The smartest kids at state schools are likely the same as the smartest kids at ivy league schools. However, at state schools (or less selective schools) you are likely to have more of a range of students. Therefore if you have a class and the average is a B or B- then you likely have students who are struggling in college or aren't as smart who get those lower grades. Now imagine you are at an ivy league school and the average is still a B or B- but instead of having a wide range of students you have a narrow range of some of the top students in the country (not all of the top students but many top students). The averages for the chemistry classes at my ivy league school are an 80 (a B-). We often feel like this is ridiculous because all of the students in the class are smart and 90% at least are trying very hard. In organic chemistry for example only the top 10 people in the class of 150 get an A. The competition is thus very steep because those other 140 people in the class are all very smart and capable. If you are in a class where there is a wider range of people, then being in the top 10 is easier than when you are surrounded by a really tough group.

I have seen the exams that the top school in my home state (one of the top state schools in the country) uses for gen chem and o chem and it is nothing at all like the exams we have to take. And it makes perfect sense - because when the average student at an ivy league school is more academically prepared than the average student at a less competitive school then the test is going to be designed at a much higher level at the ivy league school. Many students took organic chemistry in high school because they went to private schools. The classes start out at a higher level. My organic chemistry tests never had anything that we had seen in class on them because the point was to make you apply and expand your knowledge to something you are completely unfamiliar with. There are no ACS tests where I go.

Some classes (sociology or communications or something) may be curved to a B+ or may not be curved so if everyone does quality work and tries hard then everyone does fairly well. These sorts of classes may help students balance out the difficulty of those chemistry curves that I mentioned earlier. You also have to remember that people who apply to medical school are not the average at an ivy league school. These are the people who have done well enough that they believe they can get in.

I do not know what the grading is like at the other 7 ivy league schools but the constant talk of grade inflation and how it is so easy once you are in an ivy league school etc has not been accurate at all in my experience because the competition is very different than at other schools. The standards are extremely high and it takes a certain kind of person to put in that level of effort and go somewhere where they know they are going to be really challenged. There are all kinds of reasons that people go to their state school and they should not be knocked for that at all. I think that people who went to ivy league schools remember their experience and then are likely to remember it and give people a bit of a second look if they are familiar with a school's grading system and general competitiveness.

This really depends on the specific school as opposed to type or "ranking group" of schools. Some inflate a ton, some deflate a ton, others are meh. Some schools are more lax with university or college wide grading policies so you get huge differences between courses or even between professors of the same course. At my school over the course of an entire STEM degree you can easily put in 20-40% less or more work for the same grades depending on if you schedule your classes in accordance with good rate my professor reviews and grade distributions. This was never something I was able to take full advantage of due to scheduling constraints but most of the other more successful pre-meds absolutely did

 

[stayathomemom]

Frankly, the bar for undergrad admission to some state schools is pretty low and you'll have people there who have no business being in college. Those folks will be earning Cs and Ds and there is likely to be a larger proportion of students in that boat than you'd find at a school with very selective enrollment.

If you have matriculated at a very selective enrollment undergrad institution, the med school adcom knows that you had the HS record, etc to be admitted to such a school which they equate with strong academic horsepower. It shows that you had the potential to do well at a highly competitive school. Whether or not you did well will show in your GPA and how you compare to people who attended lower tier schools will show in your MCAT. If you ended up matriculating at Podunk State College because you had a 100% scholarship, the adcom might pick up on that fact when reviewing your application or might ask "why did you choose Podunk State?" when you are interviewed.

Oh good, because I did actually go to Podunk State at a 100% scholarship.