When people say "get a 3.5+ GPA, ~32-33+ MCAT and you'll be good for some M.D"

[Yorick]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've seen that phrase or variations frequently here, especially in change threads. Does that mean with those benchmarks, including good volunteering, research, shadowing, etc and you're not socially awkward, you have a very good shot of getting into at least one M.D school?

 

[NuttyEngDude]

I believe that is what they are saying, yes.

 

[Catalystik]

I've seen that phrase or variations frequently here, especially in chance threads. Does that mean with those benchmarks, including good volunteering, research, shadowing, etc and you're not socially awkward, you have a very good shot of getting into at least one M.D school?

If you define "a very good shot" as 58% chance of at least one acceptance among All Applicants with a 3.5/32, then yes: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...with-your-cgpa-and-mcat.888650/#post-12107997

You can fine tune those historical odds based on numbers' variation and race at the above link.

 

[Yorick]

If you define "a very good shot" as 58% chance of at least one acceptance among All Applicants with a 3.5/32, then yes: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...with-your-cgpa-and-mcat.888650/#post-12107997

You can fine tune those historical odds based on numbers' variation and race at the above link.

Thanks for sharing;

 

[Catalystik]

IMO, 70% and above is "a very good shot," keeping in mind that the chart I linked to doesn't go above about 92%. When the chart says 70%, it doesn't correct for early application, high or rising trend BCPM GPA, excellent interview skills, or substantive ECs and glowing LORs, which are something you have control over if you want to add a more positive predictor to the basic stat provided. That 70% includes folks with late applications, legal troubles, sparse ECs, lukewarm LORs, awkward interviews, etc.

 

[Pacna]

58% sucks. That's not much better than 50%. Have you ever flipped a coin 3 times and got 3 heads? That could be 3 years of rejections.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter if it's 1% if you get in. 🙂

 

[NuttyEngDude]

Yeah, the chart is everything including states with "low" stats and states with "high" stats.

 

[Jabbed]

With the upward trends in MCAT scores I think the general rule of thumb now is 3.7+ 32+ makes you a competitive applicant for most schools provided that you have the ECs to back it up. There are no guarantees, but you're pretty safe with that background for an MD acceptance.

A really important point that gets skirted over in these forums is that a lot of "low tier" schools are difficult to get into even with good numbers. Honestly, many of these schools have very specific types of applicants that they are looking for and you will get weeded out if your only reason for applying there is your LizzyM advantage. My 2 cents.

 

[Jennyfishy]

You'll be good in the sense that you have a statistically average chance of getting in, assuming you apply to schools within your range and the rest of your essays and stuff are strong. Based on numbers alone, you would be expected to get in somewhere (not necessarily top or mid tier schools though). If you're in this range, always have a back up plan! As a person who is in that range (higher GPA, much lower MCAT) I was preparing to re-take my MCAT and reapply based on my statistical odds alone 😛

There will always be people who don't, and the reasons they get rejected vary depending on what deficiencies their application have, just as there are people with far less stellar apps who gain multiple acceptances and are not URM.

 

[Catman21]

58% sucks. That's not much better than 50%. Have you ever flipped a coin 3 times and got 3 heads? That could be 3 years of rejections.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter if it's 1% if you get in. 🙂

Thats 58% of at least one acceptance, try flipping 4-7 quarters without getting a heads...

 

[Goro]

Yes.

I've seen that phrase or variations frequently here, especially in change threads. Does that mean with those benchmarks, including good volunteering, research, shadowing, etc and you're not socially awkward, you have a very good shot of getting into at least one M.D school?

 

[Pacna]

Thats 58% of at least one acceptance, try flipping 4-7 quarters without getting a heads...

That's 58% per cycle, not per school. 60% of applicants don't get in anywhere.

 

[deleted562324]

58% sucks. That's not much better than 50%. Have you ever flipped a coin 3 times and got 3 heads? That could be 3 years of rejections.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter if it's 1% if you get in. 🙂

True, but you can significantly influence your chances of being accepted to medical school. There is definitely a luck component, but it really can't be compared to flipping a coin.

 

[Pacna]

True, but you can significantly influence your chances of being accepted to medical school. There is definitely a luck component, but it really can't be compared to flipping a coin.

I agree that you can increase your chances, but so can everyone else. If everyone gets an increased chance, nobody gets an increased chance. (within # range. Clearly you can retake the MCAT for a better score, etc, but that just puts you in a different % range)

This is why people like to know their % chances with GPA/MCAT scores. You really do have a fair chance of being a stellar applicant and getting 0 acceptances.

 

[rudziutki]

Did not get accepted with 85% chance crew checking in :-(

 

[IlDestriero]

I've seen that phrase or variations frequently here, especially in change threads. Does that mean with those benchmarks, including good volunteering, research, shadowing, etc and you're not socially awkward, you have a very good shot of getting into at least one M.D school?

Back in the day, that would get you in a top 20.😉

 

[inycepoo]

Back in the day, that would get you in a top 20.😉

Also because back in the day, the MCAT was out of 36 and so 33 was the equivalent of 40+. This is why many mid-career physicians are astonished at a 32 MCAT not being accepted to places.

 

[IlDestriero]

Also because back in the day, the MCAT was out of 36 and so 33 was the equivalent of 40+. This is why many mid-career physicians are astonished at a 32 MCAT not being accepted to places.

I don't believe you are correct about the scoring. It went from 200-800 per section to the 15 that we know and love.
However, even with a max of 45 ~20 years ago, when competition was peaking, "11s" was the golden ticket.

 

[ulikedaggers]

Did not get accepted with 85% chance crew checking in :-(

Feels m8

 

[Catman21]

That's 58% per cycle, not per school. 60% of applicants don't get in anywhere.

oh my bad you're right lmfao idk what i was thinking, but the point i was trying to make was 58% of each cycle is good odds, i'd say being that medicine is one of the end all be all of competitive (and worthwhile) professional programs..

 

[karayaa]

I agree that you can increase your chances, but so can everyone else. If everyone gets an increased chance, nobody gets an increased chance. (within # range. Clearly you can retake the MCAT for a better score, etc, but that just puts you in a different % range)

Of course they could, but they often don't, so yes, there is a net benefit to focusing on these slightly-within-your control factors.

This is why people like to know their % chances with GPA/MCAT scores. You really do have a fair chance of being a stellar applicant and getting 0 acceptances.

Really? /skeptical. How do you know? Considering the high acceptance rates for 3.8/35s (which might be below your definition of stellar), when we don't know anything else about their application, it seems that the chances of an applicant who is truely stellar, in all areas, not just numbers, would actually be quite small.

 

[sourdoughllama]

.

 

[MrChance2]

If I had to guess I would think people overestimate the amount that get rejected based on being too neurotic or having not enough volunteer experience or whatever. Getting 200 hours volunteer work is nothing compared to the 10,000 hours applicants probably worked to get that 32MCAT and 3.5 GPA and they know that. I think even if you're f'ing nuts it is not THAT hard to write a 1 page personal statement and answer 5-10 questions during an interview. Don't believe me? Go to med school...Also I would guess the 52% for 32MCAT and 3.5 GPA has a lot to do with what state you live in, applying to enough/the right schools and getting your application in the hands of the people making decisions before their class is full/almost full. Having a sciency masters degree or upward trend seems like a nice help as well.

 

[Hemorrage]

One also has to take into account the state of residency. A 3.5/32 applicant from California will fare much worse than one from Texas

 

[Pacna]

Of course they could, but they often don't, so yes, there is a net benefit to focusing on these slightly-within-your control factors.

Really? /skeptical. How do you know? Considering the high acceptance rates for 3.8/35s (which might be below your definition of stellar), when we don't know anything else about their application, it seems that the chances of an applicant who is truely stellar, in all areas, not just numbers, would actually be quite small.

I got 0 acceptances last year. 3.9/36.

4 acceptances this year.

 

[BurberryDoc]

58% sucks. That's not much better than 50%. Have you ever flipped a coin 3 times and got 3 heads? That could be 3 years of rejections.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter if it's 1% if you get in. 🙂

I think according to the AAMC graphs, as a caucasian applicant with an mcat between 30-32 and a GPA between 3.19-3.39, my chances were ~40%. I got two interview invitations in August and accepted to both of those MD schools in october. Moral of this story? Statistics are meaningless to the individual.

 

[karayaa]

I got 0 acceptances last year. 3.9/36.

4 acceptances this year.

Congrats on your acceptances! I'm glad you made it in.
Why do you think you didn't get any last year? Did you contact the adcoms that turned you down last year? What was their feedback?
Like @sourdoughllama said, maybe you were too top-heavy? When I responded to your post, I was thinking generally - of course the top-x reject tons of stellar applicants, but those applicants have very good chances of being accepted at a school in general.
Did you reapply to any of the same schools as before?

 

[SunsFun]

I got 0 acceptances last year. 3.9/36.

4 acceptances this year.

Great point.

Sometimes I hate when people think you're pretty much already been accepted the second they find out your stats. It's not automatic and yes I do have somewhat better odds than an average applicant but that doesn't mean people can roll their eyes if I don't feel confident about next year.

 

[Pacna]

Congrats on your acceptances! I'm glad you made it in.
Why do you think you didn't get any last year? Did you contact the adcoms that turned you down last year? What was their feedback?
Like @sourdoughllama said, maybe you were too top-heavy? When I responded to your post, I was thinking generally - of course the top-x reject tons of stellar applicants, but those applicants have very good chances of being accepted at a school in general.
Did you reapply to any of the same schools as before?

Thanks. 🙂
I think my writing was generally poor last year. It wasn't poor per se, but it wasn't answering the questions that I didn't understand were being asked. I also applied somewhat late. They told me things that I didn't bother changing and I got in this year anyhow. I think they were BS reasons TBH. They told me I needed more clinical experience, but I had been working as an EMT and phlebotomist and had a lot of shadowing.
I applied to all the same schools (as well as some DO's that I didn't apply to last year; 2 of my acceptances are DOs). Both MD acceptances were from schools I applied to last year. I didn't even get an II from either of them last year.
My one II last year was to my state school, and I didn't get in there again this year after a second interview.

But I agree with @BurberryDoc as I indicated in my previous post. 99% acceptance rate for people with your stats is meaningless to you if you don't get in.

 

[Redpancreas]

I'm a 3.8, 34 right here with lots of shadowing, volunteering, clinical experience, some unique activities with my weaknesses being only a little research and perhaps one blown interview (that led to a post-interview rejection) and I'm only sitting on two in-state acceptances from schools that heavily from IS candidates! Before you guys jump on me, I know how entitled that sounds but I'm not saying it to display my misfortune...I feel that I am blessed to be given the opportunity to attend medical school next year. However, I do want to emphasize that if it was not for the state I am in, I might be sitting on 1 post-interview silence, 1 post-interview rejection, 4 pre-interview rejects, 15 silent holds, and 1 post-interview that lets me know on 1/15 (granted that's my top choice) with a 72 LizzyM and I applied very broadly. Surprisingly, the only school above my LizzyM that I applied to has extended me an II offer.

 

[Narmerguy]

IMO, 70% and above is "a very good shot," keeping in mind that the chart I linked to doesn't go above about 92%. When the chart says 70%, it doesn't correct for early application, high or rising trend BCPM GPA, excellent interview skills, or substantive ECs and glowing LORs, which are something you have control over if you want to add a more positive predictor to the basic stat provided. That 70% includes folks with late applications, legal troubles, sparse ECs, lukewarm LORs, awkward interviews, etc.

I think on SDN we tend to understate the importance of having a decent/good GPA. I think that is perhaps because there are a lot of people with poor GPAs that come on here, do a ton of stuff and study like crazy for the MCAT to make up for that (largely difficult to change) weakness, and then find some success. What's interesting is that SDN actually have the reputation of being ultra pessimistic about low GPAs (that we don't think someone has a chance without a 3.8+, blah blah blah you've heard it all). It's a bit of a disconnect really.

 

[Jennyfishy]

I think on SDN we tend to understate the importance of having a decent/good GPA. I think that is perhaps because there are a lot of people with poor GPAs that come on here, do a ton of stuff and study like crazy for the MCAT to make up for that (largely difficult to change) weakness, and then find some success. What's interesting is that SDN actually have the reputation of being ultra pessimistic about low GPAs (that we don't think someone has a chance without a 3.8+, blah blah blah you've heard it all). It's a bit of a disconnect really.

From anecdotal experience, I also agree with this, even with grade inflation concerns and university reputation. If you super simplified it, a great MCAT score is one quarter/semester of working very hard for a score, but it's a bit of luck and a lot of consistency if you can maintain a 3.8+ gpa over 4 years. No bumps in the road, bad quarters, etc, all while doing all thr ECs and work a lot of ppl may take a break from while studying for their mcat.

This is not saying I don't think a high MCAT is impressive though!

I just know a few 3.9s/27-30 mcats who got into CA schools (SD and LA), but a handful of the 3.3-3.5/35+s I know did not get into any schools