which is better 2.8/40 or 4.0/27

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
So I'm in the 2.8/40 camp. I'll admit I was very lazy and unmotivated in my first few years of undergrad. I was not far from getting kicked out. By the time I turned it around and started getting 4.0's it was too late to make much of a dent in my cumulative GPA.

I think it's a little unrealistic to expect a lazy student who hadn't studied for anything in their life to really crack down on studying for the MCAT while still slacking off in their classes. I'm inclined to believe that most people in "my category" either turned things around late in their undergrad careers or else are just blessed with supreme natural intelligence and could get a 40 without much prep and just failed to do assignments at school because they didn't feel like it. And those people are very rare.
 
hey! no one attempted to answer my question!
 
sequoia said:
I'd think that the 2.8 GPA and 40 on the MCAT says, " bad in classroom learning, good at testing"

It is simply b.s. that the MCAT is all content. So much of the test is about knowing how to take the test, knowing when to guess, how to eliminate answers, etc. Someone who gets a 40 busted out a great score somehow and chances are it wasn't from learning for three years as an undergrad (some of it, but not all) more likely this person was hard core at prepping for the MCAT. You can start six months early and learn everything you need to know for the MCAT with little pre-existing knowledge if you didn't get the materialt the first time around.

Back to my point. The 2.8 GPA suggests that you were probably lazy or didn't have your priorities in order. The fact that you earned the 40 is great as long as it it the beginning of a positive trend. What if you just aren't good at pacing yourself and you are used to being able to study hard at the last minute. That won't work in medical school. If I were making the decision, I'd lean towards the individual with a 4.0 and 27 because it shows stability, long-term commitment and consistency. A 27 isn't great but it isn't bad. The 27 person with the 4.0 probably didn't take MCAT prep seriously until it was too late. If s/he had the 4.0, the MCAT content is in there, that person just needed to work on the testing skills to bring it out under the given circumstances.

Anyone agree?

Yes, very well said! However, there's nothing inherently wrong with starting out on the wrong foot as long as you can make an honest attempt to correct and explain your mistake. Obviously, neither case is ideal, and everyone would prefer the 4.0 AND the 40!!!! :laugh:
 
firebody said:
been a big fan of you for awhile. make sure when you get that first acceptance, that you make a thread so that a lot of us closet fans can come out and congratulate you. 👍

yup.
 
A GPA is a higly tainted number which can be factored by many things irelevent to ones i.q and actual proformence in an actual class. i have many firends who (a) chose the easiest courses (b) did no work in the class and orignialy got bad grades but due to their debating skills/ great legs managed to have their grades bumped up (c) many schools are imfamous their grade inflation.

YOu can not b.s your MCAT score. Every single pre-med student takes the same test under the same conditions. So if you get a super great score on your MCAt score it realy means something.

Dont get me wrong, i dont think either situation is great. But a super mcat score really exhibits a pre-med who is "smater" than the rest. A 40 means you scored better than 00.1% of all pre-med students.
 
GPA is without question the most inconsistent predictor of success. There is no way to compare GPA across the board, and even within an institution you cannot compare a science vs humanities grade.

Assume you have one kid at a Top 3 Ivy League school and he get's all B's as an organic chemistry major. Due to the typical gausian distribution of grades and the competition he is against, he just couldn't muster the A.

Now assume you have a kid at Joe Schmoe State, where while are lots of competitive students, there are also a lot of slackers. Just by the same distribution of grades he will get an A, even if the scores are EQUAL on the same test. If you add more slackers to a grade pool, the Bs get bumped to As. So just by going to a bigger school that may be less selective, you are bumping youself up a grade. There is not an equal increase in student body, there are more slackers than smart people added to a big class.

So in those 2 cases, we are talking the difference between a 4.0 and a 3.0. This is just one example of why a person could have a low GPA. Other examples about failing out as a freshman and then coming back hard core are good too. Not every 2.8 is a slacker who just rolled through college. A 2.8 is a lot of Bs, which I dont think is all that bad! It just sounds bad because everybody and their brother applying to med school has a 4.0.

Also, every kid who had that 2.8 GPA at my med school has some cool story. They either did a few years of cool research, or they travelled the world for 2 years and backpacked through China, then went to post bach classes, or played pro football, or something. I mean these kids really lived life, and decided that medicine is what they wanted.

Again, hands down I would take the 2.8/40. And I bet that kid has a much cooler life story than the 4.0/27, which would only add to it.

And to answer a question from above, my opinion is that you can study however long you want for the MCAT and it wont matter. You get burned out after a while.
 
Check out this page:

http://www.mdapplicants.com/

You can search for people accepted with 2.8/40 vs kids accepted with 4.0/27. There are a boatload of people accepted with 3.5-4.0/ <27, and only one kid accepted to offshore school with <3.0/40. So apparently the admission people don't agree with me.

But I stand by my opinion. I think there just arent very many people with 40+ MCAT and low GPA
 
lets have a realistic comparison
how about a non-trad with 3.3/35, with different experiences and lota ecs
( 2.8 is low which makes the 4.0/27 stronger, thats why maybe so many people voted for that)
compared to a trad 4.0/30, the usual stuff added on.
most unis have 3.5-3.7 avges, how does a 3.1-3.3 compare in there?
 
quick thought

your gpa is a (record/measurement/statistic) of your performance over a 3-4yr period

your mcat score is your performance one one day

i'd be willing to forgive an average performance one day for an excellent performance over many years.
 
I disagree. I went to a state school and worked my butt off to get a 4.0, never had to show my legs or beg for it, I earned it without a curve.
Now I'm in a PhD program at Yale, taking coures with undergrads and am a TA, if you want to see grade inflation come here!!! I'm sorry but the content and testing is completely consistent with my large state school.
GPA along with the difficulty of your course schedule indicates a hard and intelligent worker.
I'm not dimissing the difficulty of the MCAT, if you score in the top 30's you did great and are very smart. However, I don't think if you score in the upper 20's with great grades that just means you slipped through an easy college and will perform poorly in medica school.

monkeyman said:
GPA is without question the most inconsistent predictor of success. There is no way to compare GPA across the board, and even within an institution you cannot compare a science vs humanities grade.

Assume you have one kid at a Top 3 Ivy League school and he get's all B's as an organic chemistry major. Due to the typical gausian distribution of grades and the competition he is against, he just couldn't muster the A.

Now assume you have a kid at Joe Schmoe State, where while are lots of competitive students, there are also a lot of slackers. Just by the same distribution of grades he will get an A, even if the scores are EQUAL on the same test. If you add more slackers to a grade pool, the Bs get bumped to As. So just by going to a bigger school that may be less selective, you are bumping youself up a grade. There is not an equal increase in student body, there are more slackers than smart people added to a big class.

So in those 2 cases, we are talking the difference between a 4.0 and a 3.0. This is just one example of why a person could have a low GPA. Other examples about failing out as a freshman and then coming back hard core are good too. Not every 2.8 is a slacker who just rolled through college. A 2.8 is a lot of Bs, which I dont think is all that bad! It just sounds bad because everybody and their brother applying to med school has a 4.0.

Also, every kid who had that 2.8 GPA at my med school has some cool story. They either did a few years of cool research, or they travelled the world for 2 years and backpacked through China, then went to post bach classes, or played pro football, or something. I mean these kids really lived life, and decided that medicine is what they wanted.

Again, hands down I would take the 2.8/40. And I bet that kid has a much cooler life story than the 4.0/27, which would only add to it.

And to answer a question from above, my opinion is that you can study however long you want for the MCAT and it wont matter. You get burned out after a while.
 
aprince80 said:
I disagree. I went to a state school and worked my butt off to get a 4.0, never had to show my legs or beg for it, I earned it without a curve.
Now I'm in a PhD program at Yale, taking coures with undergrads and am a TA, if you want to see grade inflation come here!!! I'm sorry but the content and testing is completely consistent with my large state school.
GPA along with the difficulty of your course schedule indicates a hard and intelligent worker.
I'm not dimissing the difficulty of the MCAT, if you score in the top 30's you did great and are very smart. However, I don't think if you score in the upper 20's with great grades that just means you slipped through an easy college and will perform poorly in medica school.

Amen to this post!
 
vikaskoth said:
quick thought

your gpa is a (record/measurement/statistic) of your performance over a 3-4yr period

your mcat score is your performance one one day

i'd be willing to forgive an average performance one day for an excellent performance over many years.


not really...

the mcat is, in theory, demonstrating your abiility to apply the many critical thinking skills you were supposed to develop in college.

so a poor performance on the mcat MIGHT mean a bad day, but it also might mean an inability to think analytically under some degree of pressure. if it does indicate a bad day, shouldn't a person be retaking anyway?
 
The Remix said:
Personally, I'd rather have the amazing MCAT. Though it's true that a low GPA is bad it can be low for understandable reasons. PLUS, it is arbitrary. How would you know to compare a 2.8 at UC Davis to a 3.5 at UNC? Premed programs differ in intensity and grading policies (inflation, etc). But the jewel about the MCAT is you can compare across the board because it's standardized. Nobody who gets a 40 on it got that score based on luck. You obvioulsy know your stuff when you can compare directly to your peers and blow them out of the water with your MCAT score. This is similar to my situation and most of my interviewers have told me that my MCAT wipes out any doubts from my sub-par GPA
Sub-par GPA is like a 3.2, not a 2.8. A 2.8 will definitely rule you out of a lot of secondaries.
 
Im so discouraged now...*Sigh*

What am i gonna do with this gpa?
*cries*
 
Your post is written in such a way that it is difficult to understand what you are saying; it's very contradictory.

aprince80 said:
I disagree. I went to a state school and worked my butt off to get a 4.0,
OK, so it was hard to get a 4.0 at your school.
aprince80 said:
never had to show my legs or beg for it,
This suggests it could have been harder though.
aprince80 said:
I earned it without a curve.
I assume you mean it's easier to get a 4.0 with a curve, so this argues that your school was hard.
aprince80 said:
Now I'm in a PhD program at Yale, taking coures with undergrads and am a TA, if you want to see grade inflation come here!!!
Here you seem to be saying that Yale's grades are inflated, which is probably true (see, for example, http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=7136).
aprince80 said:
I'm sorry but the content and testing is completely consistent with my large state school.
So Yale's inflated grades are consistent with those at your school? I.e., your grades were inflated too? Or did you mean inconsistent, which would argue that comparing GPAs is not such a good method of evaluation?
 
This is an interesting thread, and I think at least we can see that everyone (including the adcoms) can take this debate on which is better; a 2.8/40 vs. 4.0/27. I personally don't see what the hubbub is about. For the information give, which are these two hypothetical GPA/MCAT scores, then the end result would point to the 4.0/27 being a better choice ALL AROUND based on national averages.

HOWEVER, this isn't realistic. Only a few people mentioned this, but there are way too many other things considered to accurately say which combination is better. Most of us here come from a science background and I hope we all can appreciate the issue of cofounding variables here. Things like:

1) Other circumstances causing GPA to be low.
2) Extracurriculars
3) Letters of Recommendation
4) Personal Statement

The list can go on and on.

YES, a 2.8/40 MAY seem that a person slacked off and just did well on their MCAT, but no adcom will just look at these two scores and decide the fate of an applicant right there. As far as I know, AMCAS applications are ultimately looked at as a whole. Therefore they will include the personal statement, and EC's. Some schools automatically give out secondaries so the letters of rec are looked at as well. If i recall, UCSF will distribute different components of the AMCAS application to 3 people. Each section for example...the GPA/MCAT, Personal Statement, Extracurriculars are scored between 1-5. They then add the numbers together to determine if you get a secondary. (someone at UCSF, please confirm this....I got this info about a year or two ago).

Anyway, i find it somewhat interesting to see that so many immediately suggest that a 2.8/40 is a person who is lazy. I personally have around a 2.8 cumulative GPA but a 37 on my MCAT. I am on my second year of post-bacc, and have been averaging a 3.65. Personally, I don't think getting a 2.8 while working full time to support ones schooling and family is being "lazy". Throughout my undergrad career, i balanced 2 jobs (one paying for school, the other for the family), and attended a community college and eventually UC Davis where i maintained a full time course load. While at UC Davis, the jobs i held to pay for my whole life consisted of being a research assistant (4 years and counting), middle school teacher, and QA Lead for the US Army. Really, i wouldn't be balancing 3 jobs, and a post-bacc curriculum if i were lazy. Will i get into med school, I'll find out when i apply June 2005. All i know is that it'll be difficult. But at least the adcoms won't think i'm lazy. Really, all i'm asking for is to get to secondaries, so my letters or recomendation can kick in.
 
This thread hits close to home . . . my GPA sucks (2.95) and my MCAT rocks (38.) I've spent far too much time thinking about what this says about me.

As much as I would like to disagree, I think my low GPA does say that I'm lazy. I say this because I am, as well as unfocused and unorganized. I also had a drug problem my first three semesters of college and failed two classes. I also got an A in Orgo during this same period . . . so extremes seem to be in my nature.

I don't think my high MCAT score says that I'm a genius. Mostly because I think the concept of a genius is a silly one. It says that I'm really good at taking the MCAT, which I am. My natural intellectual gifts are exactly what is tested in the MCAT. I am very aware that their are some really smart cookies out there, whose intellectual talents go unnoticed by the MCAT or any standarized test for that matter. Yet our culture seems downright obsessed with them.

What can we do? I think this is an important question. Going through this whole admissions process, I've started to (A) feel bad about myself and (B) become less interested in practicing medicine. I think the application process (and the MCAT in particular) actually discourage people who would make great doctors from considering this field. Isn't this a problem? Has it always been this competitive? Has it always been about these 2 numbers?
 
bth7 said:
This thread hits close to home . . . my GPA sucks (2.95) and my MCAT rocks (38.) I've spent far too much time thinking about what this says about me.

As much as I would like to disagree, I think my low GPA does say that I'm lazy. I say this because I am, as well as unfocused and unorganized. I also had a drug problem my first three semesters of college and failed two classes. I also got an A in Orgo during this same period . . . so extremes seem to be in my nature.

I don't think my high MCAT score says that I'm a genius. Mostly because I think the concept of a genius is a silly one. It says that I'm really good at taking the MCAT, which I am. My natural intellectual gifts are exactly what is tested in the MCAT. I am very aware that their are some really smart cookies out there, whose intellectual talents go unnoticed by the MCAT or any standarized test for that matter. Yet our culture seems downright obsessed with them.

What can we do? I think this is an important question. Going through this whole admissions process, I've started to (A) feel bad about myself and (B) become less interested in practicing medicine. I think the application process (and the MCAT in particular) actually discourage people who would make great doctors from considering this field. Isn't this a problem? Has it always been this competitive? Has it always been about these 2 numbers?

Your points are very valid. But, there's a reason why there are a large number of people who apply non-traditionally. In my opinion, as stated previously, GPA/MCAT scores can be explained. If you can prove why one had a crappy GPA yet a good MCAT score, then it should at least bump you up to secondaries at schools that screen during the AMCAS application. They want to know what other people say about you. It is helpful if these letters somehow tie into your GPA/MCAT situation, as well as other qualities. Its proof of why your GPA is low, yet provides proof of what you have done to improve yourself over a time period.

Does the MCAT discourage perfectly good people from applying. I don't know. But this whole road in becoming a physician is as much of a physical/academic challenge as it is a psychological challenge. What does it say if a person gave up if they got a low MCAT score? Yes the person might just be a bad test taker, and completely awesome, smart, kind, etc. But they have to realize that they shouldn't take this set back as a sign to give up. If they truly want to become a physician, they should rethink what went wrong, what to improve, how to improve, and do it. Same applies to a low GPA.

Often times the solution is retaking the MCAT, doing post-bacc, grad school. All of which cost money and yes not everyone has money to do these things. But at the same time, money exists out there, you have to find it. I wouldn't be here right now, doing post-bacc if I didn't have 3 jobs. Personally, if I can become a physician by enlisting in the Army, i'd do it in a heartbeat, but that would be relatively too easy 🙂 . But of course thats not the case so i'm intent on slugging it out with post-bacc, and applying in 2005.

For my application, my goal is to say, ok this is what happened, here's my proof, this is what i'm doing to show you what i can really do when not held back by more important matters, and here's my proof. The time it took me to apply will tell them, hey i want to be a physician, i've waited 2 years to apply, and i'll apply again if i have to, but at the very least, i'm a hardworker, not someone being lazy.

Now hopefully that'll work 😎 😀
 
I'd go with the 40 mcat, but I think adcoms make decisions based on the alignment of the planets.
 
He said you had to choose, which means no retaking or anything else, it is just one or the other. I think the 40 MCAT applicant is superior, since the MCAT better simulates the timed, high-pressure situations that doctors face so often. A high GPA can be achieved by hitting the books day and night and kissing up to professors enough, but these can't be done on the MCAT. Also, the MCAT accounts for differences among schools and teachers--everybody takes the same test and is graded on the same curve. You cannot really compare a Harvard 2.8 to a Podunk U 4.0 considering those differences.

True, a GPA takes years to build up while taking the MCAT requires a matter of a day, but that doesn't mean you can fluke your way to a 40. As stated before, I believe, a score of this caliber means you must really know your material and are very capable of handling that given in med school.
 
I'd take the higher GPA and re-take the MCAT.
 
I really hate these types of questions because nothing useful is gained from discussion. Every applicant is different, every circumstance is different, and everyone is evaluated differently. I know everyone is anxious about getting in to medical school and this breeds a bunch of threads like "what are my chances threads" and this one. Nonetheless, this is a forum where neurotic premeds like myself come to relax and reassure ourselves. So I will play into this thread.

In the event that i am in some warped universe and have a gun to my head while being forced to choose between a 2.8/40 or a 4.0/27 :

2.8/40 = GPA is significantly lower than avg applicant/MCAT is perfect
4.0/27 = GPA perfect/Mcat is avg of applicants.

So, I would go with the 4.0/27. In my arguement, I have made the assumption that the MCAT is as important as GPA. This may or may not be true depending on which school ~ but in my mind, they are equal. GPA is a measure of long term hard work. MCAT is a measure of how well one can apply difficult science material and think critically in relation to other applicants.

Best of Luck to all who are applying 🙂
 
They're both bad. I'd rather have the average GPA and MCAT score than either of those choices.

2.8, 40 says: I'm a slacker, but I'm very very smart. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that med schools are not very itnerested in slackers, no matter how brilliant. These number, however, are OK for BMEs and such.

4.0, 27 is better, because at least you're not a slacker and the MCAT score isn't too shabby. However, this could also mean that your coursework was not very rigorous, especially if you have a major that's known to be easy. But say you're a BME or some other harcore maor and have taken difficult classes at a good isntiutions, the adcoms will be much more likely to write off the MCAT score to a bad day or something
 
I think the variety of answers on this thread should answer your question. It depends on who is reading your application. Most of the people posting on this site will probably be on an admissions committee at some point in their career. Their opinions will likely not change much by that time, and I believe that it is safe to assume that most of the current committee members were pre-meds like us having the same exact conversation ten years ago without any conclusion. Otherwise one of the two would have been eliminated by now. Hence, there are ususally committees, not individuals, reviewing your application. Additionally, most schools have an algorithm that combines the two and then they look at that number. Regardless, if you have an asymmetrical mcat/gpa it comes down to whether or not the school likes you and thinks that you will add something to their class. Personally, I don't think either score says much about a person's intelligence. Some of the most intelligent people I know can barely read or write.
 
Just as a reply to a comment earlier, I think it's pretty much impossible to "get lucky" and score a 40. If by lucky, you mean the person taking the test might have an MCAT practice test average of 37, okay. But you can't fudge a good MCAT score. There's no way to guess a 40.

I personally put more weight on the MCAT. There are so many reasons why someone could screw up their GPA. Maybe they responded poorly to the death of a relative. Maybe they overcame a drug problem. Maybe they took a little longer adjust to college. Maybe they had problems with a boyfriend/girlfriend. Maybe they just weren't committed to medicine when they began college.

Again, you can't fudge on the MCAT. I guess you can underperform, but you always have the option of taking it again.

So if I'm an adcom, if the 2.7 40 has a good story, I'd give him a good look. I guess I'd still take 4.0 27 (as a 4.0 is really impressive and quite an accomplishment), but these numbers are skewed. A 27 is really a much better score than a 2.7 is a gpa.
 
The Remix said:
Personally, I'd rather have the amazing MCAT. Though it's true that a low GPA is bad it can be low for understandable reasons. PLUS, it is arbitrary. How would you know to compare a 2.8 at UC Davis to a 3.5 at UNC? Premed programs differ in intensity and grading policies (inflation, etc). But the jewel about the MCAT is you can compare across the board because it's standardized. Nobody who gets a 40 on it got that score based on luck. You obvioulsy know your stuff when you can compare directly to your peers and blow them out of the water with your MCAT score. This is similar to my situation and most of my interviewers have told me that my MCAT wipes out any doubts from my sub-par GPA

I agree with most of this post, however ive heard rumors the mcat only tests how well you do on an mcat.

but i feel that i have a more interesting question
lets forget all about the application process, for just one second. Lets think about:

Who would make the better doctor? the person with a sub 3.0 gpa and a 40+ mcat or the person 4.0 gpa and low mcat scores.

and/or

Will the person with either of these profiles become a bad doctor? (or medstudent)
 
A score of 27 on the MCAT can get you in with a 4.0 ..... a lower gpa and that MCAT score can get you in.
 
People usually list their previous education when they post their profile on a residents website or doctor homepage

To be able to list graduated summa cum laude, magna, or cum looks good... You can never list your MCAT score though lol :laugh:
 
Top