Which is better: Big Fish in Little Pond or Vice Versa

[Doggo]

Anyone have any thoughts for this with regards to med school? I'm just curious what the current consensus is and how you guys feel about this topic.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RunawayGrape]

.

 

[Goro]

It won't until you become Faculty.

Anyone have any thoughts for this with regards to med school? I'm just curious what the current consensus is and how you guys feel about this topic.

 

[akuko2]

Here's an interesting video in regards to this:

 

[NeuResurgens]

Are we talking about a top-20 med school caliber student at a 20+ med school? Or are we talking about this kind of situation as an undergrad, and its effect on applying to med school? My school's premed advisor says it's better to be top of your class at a lesser known school than bottom half at a very prestigious school when applying to residency, but most of us know things advisors say can be dubious. Not sure what adcoms/faculty think about this?

 

[aldol16]

Big fish in big pond.

 

[MoDiddy]

Big fish in big pond for med school

 

[CliveStaples]

Happy fish in an inexpensive pond.

 

[Pagan FutureDoc]

Ok here's the thing. No matter where you go most people will NEVER be the big fish. Med schools really do attract some of the best and brightest...most of these people have always been the best of the best their entire lives.
Those are the people you are competing against.
Go to the school you think you'd be happiest spending the next four years at out of any schools you at lucky enough to get into.

 

[efle]

The little fish danger is something to worry about for undergrad, imo, because of the importance of strong grades in traditionally curved/competitive college coursework.

At the MD level I think like aldol said, big fish in a big pond. Top 10 or Top 20 or whatever. The med students don't need to beat each other on tests any more - my understanding is that preclinical grading is pretty universally Pass/Fail at that level, and clinical grading doesn't involve direct comparison between people.

 

[Holmwood]

Big pond.

Little fish can grow and explore.

 

[aldol16]

The little fish danger is something to worry about for undergrad, imo, because of the importance of strong grades in traditionally curved/competitive college coursework.

Hence why big fish in big pond. Here's how I see it. Bigger risk = bigger reward. If you're a big fish in a big pond (high GPA/MCAT student at a top school), then your chance of getting into a top med program will be good. But if you're a little fish in a big pond (low GPA at a top school), then you're looking at lower-tier just like everyone else. Going to a top undergrad school is higher risk because there's a better chance that you're not going to be the best of the best there, as everybody else around you has also been used to being the best up until that point in their lives. If you're a big fish in a small pond (high GPA/MCAT student at a low-tier school), you can get into a top med program, but your chances likely aren't as good as the big fish in big pond case. Pedigree matters for top schools and on top of that, top undergrad schools usually give their undergrads more opportunities (research, volunteer work, etc.). And if you're a little fish in a small pond, then you're looking a low-tier MD school or no MD school at all.

At the MD level I think like aldol said, big fish in a big pond. Top 10 or Top 20 or whatever. The med students don't need to beat each other on tests any more - my understanding is that preclinical grading is pretty universally Pass/Fail at that level, and clinical grading doesn't involve direct comparison between people.

Most schools will have some sort of ranking system they use for residency purposes. The best is when they say they don't rank their students at all and then you ask if they have AOA and it turns out they do. And then when you ask further, nobody knows how they determine AOA.

 

[efle]

Hence why big fish in big pond. Here's how I see it. Bigger risk = bigger reward. If you're a big fish in a big pond (high GPA/MCAT student at a top school), then your chance of getting into a top med program will be good. But if you're a little fish in a big pond (low GPA at a top school), then you're looking at lower-tier just like everyone else.

I get the feeling you had no trouble being a big fish at your school! I saw too many people struggle to stay at the median and then give up because of a ~3.0-3.3 sGPA. When a school is full of top percentile test scores with strong ECs, the fact that 2/3rds drop off along the way means the "little" fish are looking at no school, instead of the schools everyone else tries for.

Most schools will have some sort of ranking system they use for residency purposes. The best is when they say they don't rank their students at all and then you ask if they have AOA and it turns out they do. And then when you ask further, nobody knows how they determine AOA.

Some schools use only clinical nowadays for AOA, I believe. That at least wouldn't foster any sense of competition the way a curve in prereqs does!

 

[aalamruad]

I feel like residency PD's are more likely to look at your pond size than your size relative to the other fish in your pond (i.e. percentile). Especially if your pond is true unranked P/F, obviously. Could be wrong though.

 

[BurghStudent]

Big pond. Hold the fish.

 

[efle]

I feel like residency PD's are more likely to look at your pond size than your size relative to the other fish in your pond (i.e. percentile). Especially if your pond is true unranked P/F, obviously. Could be wrong though.

Class Ranking/Quartile is more commonly listed as a considered factor by PDs than going to a highly regarded medical school (71% vs 56%)

Varies a lot between specialties though

 

[aalamruad]

Class Ranking/Quartile is more commonly listed as a considered factor by PDs than going to a highly regarded medical school (71% vs 56%)

Varies a lot between specialties though

Hm so I guess pond size is only more important than fish size at true unranked schools

Edit: aside from all the perks associated with big ponds, obvs

 

[aldol16]

I get the feeling you had no trouble being a big fish at your school! I saw too many people struggle to stay at the median and then give up because of a ~3.0-3.3 sGPA. When a school is full of top percentile test scores with strong ECs, the fact that 2/3rds drop off along the way means the "little" fish are looking at no school, instead of the schools everyone else tries for.

Hence why bigger risk. You run the risk of becoming the little fish in the big pond instead of the big fish in the little pond if you go to a top undergraduate school. It's a risk many people choose to take and a risk that many other people choose to avoid, only to find out four years down the line that it could have given them a leg up in the med school process if they had gone to those top schools and done well. And then they become bitter about med schools that care about pedigree.

Some schools use only clinical nowadays for AOA, I believe. That at least wouldn't foster any sense of competition the way a curve in prereqs does!

Yes, but then students are competing for AOA. That's the point. You're only moving competition in the pre-clinical material to competition in the clinical years. I am a huge fan of schools that have done away with even AOA and use as little ranking for residencies as possible.

 

[efle]

Hence why bigger risk. You run the risk of becoming the little fish in the big pond instead of the big fish in the little pond if you go to a top undergraduate school. It's a risk many people choose to take and a risk that many other people choose to avoid, only to find out four years down the line that it could have given them a leg up in the med school process if they had gone to those top schools and done well. And then they become bitter about med schools that care about pedigree.



Yes, but then students are competing for AOA. That's the point. You're only moving competition in the pre-clinical material to competition in the clinical years. I am a huge fan of schools that have done away with even AOA and use as little ranking for residencies as possible.

I personally think it's a crazy level of risk to take on. If you're that kid with straight As in highschool, top couple percent SAT/ACT, matriculating to Hopkins is so totally not worth the leg up. 2/3rds chance you get weeded, vs maybe going to your state program MD instead of a top 20?

I guess it's about whether people are competing against each other in my mind. A curved class is very different than trying to impress those above you. Like, in theory, everyone is in a competition to get the strongest letters of recommendation to medical schools, because we're all vying for limited spots. But it doesn't feel nearly the same to try and impress a PI vs trying to score high in Ochem, to me at least.

 

[aldol16]

I personally think it's a crazy level of risk to take on. If you're that kid with straight As in highschool, top couple percent SAT/ACT, matriculating to Hopkins is so totally not worth the leg up. 2/3rds chance you get weeded, vs maybe going to your state program MD instead of a top 20?

It depends on how confident you are in your abilities and your capacity to grow and meet the challenge. Most of the top students at the top universities didn't get to the top just because they had an unfair advantage. They simply outworked their peers. It's easy to give up in an organic chemistry class when everybody else around you is just as smart as you. It's easy to give up and blame the system for giving you a lower grade because of the "competition." It's more difficult to rise to the challenge and outwork everyone else. Your conclusion would be true only if the assignment of grades at the top undergrad institutions is random and not tied to hard work. If only 1/3 of the class gets As and the assignment of As is random because everybody has the same SAT scores, then don't go to a top school. But that obscures the fact that that 1/3 of the class outworked the rest. I see it in every class I teach. You get the grade you deserve. We teach you all the same material. The people who get As do show a strong grasp of the material. The vast majority of the people who get "weeded out" in your terms would get weeded out at a state school. That's the reality of it and that's something that pre-meds have a very difficult time grasping because, as I said, it's always easier to blame the system than to blame yourself.

If you're that kid with the 4.0/2400 SAT score in high school, then go to Hopkins and keep up the hard work. Outwork the people around you. And you will reap the rewards.

I guess it's about whether people are competing against each other in my mind. A curved class is very different than trying to impress those above you. Like, in theory, everyone is in a competition to get the strongest letters of recommendation to medical schools, because we're all vying for limited spots. But it doesn't feel nearly the same to try and impress a PI vs trying to score high in Ochem, to me at least.

You all do the same rotations and you all take shelf exams (except in a very few select schools). You're trying to impress those above you in order to get a higher standing than your classmates. In other words, how do you think they assign AOA? If you impress X faculty member? No. It's relative. You have to be better than your peers.

 

[gyngyn]

The Gold Humanism Award helps distinguish students who attend schools without grades (whether they have AOA or not).

 

[efle]

It depends on how confident you are in your abilities and your capacity to grow and meet the challenge. Most of the top students at the top universities didn't get to the top just because they had an unfair advantage. They simply outworked their peers. It's easy to give up in an organic chemistry class when everybody else around you is just as smart as you. It's easy to give up and blame the system for giving you a lower grade because of the "competition." It's more difficult to rise to the challenge and outwork everyone else. Your conclusion would be true only if the assignment of grades at the top undergrad institutions is random and not tied to hard work. If only 1/3 of the class gets As and the assignment of As is random because everybody has the same SAT scores, then don't go to a top school. But that obscures the fact that that 1/3 of the class outworked the rest. I see it in every class I teach. You get the grade you deserve. We teach you all the same material. The people who get As do show a strong grasp of the material. The vast majority of the people who get "weeded out" in your terms would get weeded out at a state school. That's the reality of it and that's something that pre-meds have a very difficult time grasping because, as I said, it's always easier to blame the system than to blame yourself.

If you're that kid with the 4.0/2400 SAT score in high school, then go to Hopkins and keep up the hard work. Outwork the people around you. And you will reap the rewards.



You all do the same rotations and you all take shelf exams (except in a very few select schools). You're trying to impress those above you in order to get a higher standing than your classmates. In other words, how do you think they assign AOA? If you impress X faculty member? No. It's relative. You have to be better than your peers.

Agree to disagree I suppose. There's a gradient of ability even at the top, I worked a lot less than people I saw get straight B's and switch out. The mental health centers are full of people that are still busting their ass like they did in highschool but are no longer placing top third or fourth for their efforts. The idea that only a small minority at places like this work hard enough to deserve a good grade is pretty suprising to hear from someone who, if I recall, went to a HYPSM. Talk to some transfers from state, look at the coursework at some tiny artsy LACs, look at the MCAT distributions, and then tell me with a straight face that 2/3 premeds at Hopkins would've still gotten weeded out elsewhere.

I thought the system was something like: I am assessed one day by Doctor XYZ and then the next day you go and are assessed by Doctor ABC. Whether or not I impress XYZ has no bearing on whether or not you impress ABC, so it's not like I'm making an effort to take a spot above you on a distribution.

 

[aldol16]

Agree to disagree I suppose. There's a gradient of ability even at the top, I worked a lot less than people I saw get straight B's and switch out. The mental health centers are full of people that are still busting their ass like they did in highschool but are no longer placing top third or fourth for their efforts. The idea that only a small minority at places like this work hard enough to deserve a good grade is pretty suprising to hear from someone who, if I recall, went to a HYPSM. Talk to some transfers from state, look at the coursework at some tiny artsy LACs, look at the MCAT distributions, and then tell me with a straight face that 2/3 premeds at Hopkins would've still gotten weeded out elsewhere.

My opinion that people get the grades they deserve at these top schools is not from my experience as an undergraduate at a top school which in all likelihood has changed a lot since I went there but rather from my experience as a graduate student and now post-doc at a top school who teaches undergraduates. So I see what you don't see - I see the exams from the class, the problem sets, the lab reports. Talk to some teaching faculty and then come back and tell me they think that they're not awarding students the grades they really deserve. Your stance is one that is self-serving to pre-meds and one that does not recognize the realities of undergraduate education.

I thought the system was something like: I am assessed one day by Doctor XYZ and then the next day you go and are assessed by Doctor ABC. Whether or not I impress XYZ has no bearing on whether or not you impress ABC, so it's not like I'm making an effort to take a spot above you on a distribution.

How do you think they determine who gets AOA from that? You don't have to be in direct competition to be competing for a limited commodity.

 

[efle]

My opinion that people get the grades they deserve at these top schools is not from my experience as an undergraduate at a top school which in all likelihood has changed a lot since I went there but rather from my experience as a graduate student and now post-doc at a top school who teaches undergraduates. So I see what you don't see - I see the exams from the class, the problem sets, the lab reports. Talk to some teaching faculty and then come back and tell me they think that they're not awarding students the grades they really deserve. Your stance is one that is self-serving to pre-meds and one that does not recognize the realities of undergraduate education.

And do you see a majority of people performing on their BCPM exams at a level you think should preclude them from med school? Because subsequent performance on the MCAT by the people who cling on with lower sGPAs certainly doesn't line up with them still being 2.7-3.3 type students if relocated to other schools.

Note I absolutely agree that some people know it better than others, and can work through it faster and with fewer errors. I think grades are assigned fairly as an assessment of performance relative to the rest. My gripe has always been that the evaluators at the next step (adcoms) don't care enough about the size of the pond the fish was ranked in. Not nearly enough to offset the choice to go somewhere you'll be relatively small.

 

[efle]

How do you think they determine who gets AOA from that? You don't have to be in direct competition to be competing for a limited commodity.

Sure, but like I said, that same logic applies to people "competing" to get good LoRs because of direct competition for limited seats. Did your efforts to get good letters feel anything like efforts to do well in prereqs or on the MCAT? Felt different to me, even knowing in theory it's a zero sum game and competitive in every aspect.

 

[Master_of_Savage]

Anyone have any thoughts for this with regards to med school? I'm just curious what the current consensus is and how you guys feel about this topic.

This talk is supper interesting and while it talks about econ programs, it relates to the big fish in a little pond vs. little fish in a big pond idea. Not going to totally transfer to medicine/med school, but I figure de I would share it anyway.

 

[mcloaf]

I thought the system was something like: I am assessed one day by Doctor XYZ and then the next day you go and are assessed by Doctor ABC. Whether or not I impress XYZ has no bearing on whether or not you impress ABC, so it's not like I'm making an effort to take a spot above you on a distribution.

Depends, if you're on an outpatient rotation at your own clinic then sure. Often you'll be on a ward based rotation with 1-3 other students on the same team who are all being evaluated by the same residents and attendings. While everyone's goal should be to be the best they can be and learn as much as possible while helping those around them, the incentive to out compete peers for honors drives some people to do unfortunate things. I never experienced anything truly toxic (i.e. other students rounding on my patients, etc.), but it's often not a noncompetitive friend making experience either. If you gauged students' opinions of their classmates before and after third year I have no doubt most would have a negative trend.

 

[efle]

Depends, if you're on an outpatient rotation at your own clinic then sure. Often you'll be on a ward based rotation with 1-3 other students on the same team who are all being evaluated by the same residents and attendings. While everyone's goal should be to be the best they can be and learn as much as possible while helping those around them, the incentive to out compete peers for honors drives some people to do unfortunate things. I never experienced anything truly toxic (i.e. other students rounding on my patients, etc.), but it's often not a noncompetitive friend making experience either. If you gauged students' opinions of their classmates before and after third year I have no doubt most would have a negative trend.

Huh interesting , is there some kind of hard limit on Honors per group? Like is it not possible for all 3 of you to get H and then another group none of the 3 get H? If the former I can see it making things feel competitive

 

[mcloaf]

Huh interesting , is there some kind of hard limit on Honors per group? Like is it not possible for all 3 of you to get H and then another group none of the 3 get H? If the former I can see it making things feel competitive

I can only speak to my school but I think most have similar policies whereby the distribution of H/HP/P is predetermined. For me only 15% of students on a given rotation were supposed to receive honors. There's no rule saying that my team of three couldn't all get honors while a different team of students down the hall could all pass, but nobody plans on that happening. There's also a significant element of luck related to whether you happen to be matched with a generous or stingy evaluator.

 

[aldol16]

And do you see a majority of people performing on their BCPM exams at a level you think should preclude them from med school? Because subsequent performance on the MCAT by the people who cling on with lower sGPAs certainly doesn't line up with them still being 2.7-3.3 type students if relocated to other schools.

Note I absolutely agree that some people know it better than others, and can work through it faster and with fewer errors. I think grades are assigned fairly as an assessment of performance relative to the rest. My gripe has always been that the evaluators at the next step (adcoms) don't care enough about the size of the pond the fish was ranked in. Not nearly enough to offset the choice to go somewhere you'll be relatively small.

Alright, here's our problem. You believe that GPA and MCAT should be correlated in some way. Here's the problem. I'm sorry, but I don't teach chemistry so that you can do well on the MCAT. I teach chemistry so that you can understand chemistry at the adequate level demanded by the course. For general chemistry, you need to know enough to progress onto upper-division courses because that's the only time you'll see things like thermodynamic cycles in an intro-level course. If I wanted to teach you enough chemistry for you to do well on the MCAT, then it would be a one-semester sequence. Same with organic chemistry. You don't need to be a good chemist to do well on MCAT chemistry. That's why somebody who gets a C in organic chemistry can score a 99th+ percentile score on the MCAT chemistry/physics section. I know, because I've seen it. Not once, but multiple times.

This is why MCAT does not always correlate with GPA. You can only say that somebody with a high MCAT score has mastery over MCAT-level BCPM. You can't say that they have mastery over those subjects - you can't even accurately gauge their mastery of those subjects. The definition of "mastery" in academia is not as different as you think. The difference between what kind of work deserves an "A" in a CC is certainly different from what deserves an "A" at a top school, but that difference is quite small when you're talking about top schools and even your average state school. I have colleagues who teach at state schools. You compensate by awarding fewer A's at those schools. We award almost 1/3 A's here and I think that does reflect the student population who produces A-quality work. Again, A-quality work does not equal mastery of MCAT-level material. That's why graduate schools don't accept MCAT score when admitting graduate students. It's a stupid measure of pure science ability.

Sure, but like I said, that same logic applies to people "competing" to get good LoRs because of direct competition for limited seats. Did your efforts to get good letters feel anything like efforts to do well in prereqs or on the MCAT? Felt different to me, even knowing in theory it's a zero sum game and competitive in every aspect.

No, because there's no ranking that results directly from LORs unless you have a committee. Your LORs also aren't numerically ranked on your application. But your marks from clinical rotations result directly in a ranking that determines whether you get AOA status.

 

[efle]

Alright, here's our problem. You believe that GPA and MCAT should be correlated in some way. Here's the problem. I'm sorry, but I don't teach chemistry so that you can do well on the MCAT. I teach chemistry so that you can understand chemistry at the adequate level demanded by the course. For general chemistry, you need to know enough to progress onto upper-division courses because that's the only time you'll see things like thermodynamic cycles in an intro-level course. If I wanted to teach you enough chemistry for you to do well on the MCAT, then it would be a one-semester sequence. Same with organic chemistry. You don't need to be a good chemist to do well on MCAT chemistry. That's why somebody who gets a C in organic chemistry can score a 99th+ percentile score on the MCAT chemistry/physics section. I know, because I've seen it. Not once, but multiple times.

This is why MCAT does not always correlate with GPA. You can only say that somebody with a high MCAT score has mastery over MCAT-level BCPM. You can't say that they have mastery over those subjects - you can't even accurately gauge their mastery of those subjects. The definition of "mastery" in academia is not as different as you think. The difference between what kind of work deserves an "A" in a CC is certainly different from what deserves an "A" at a top school, but that difference is quite small when you're talking about top schools and even your average state school. I have colleagues who teach at state schools. You compensate by awarding fewer A's at those schools. We award almost 1/3 A's here and I think that does reflect the student population who produces A-quality work. Again, A-quality work does not equal mastery of MCAT-level material. That's why graduate schools don't accept MCAT score when admitting graduate students. It's a stupid measure of pure science ability.



No, because there's no ranking that results directly from LORs unless you have a committee. Your LORs also aren't numerically ranked on your application. But your marks from clinical rotations result directly in a ranking that determines whether you get AOA status.

Thing is, this interpretation of grading has a complete disconnect from the role of grades in MD admissions. If MD admissions were looking at an A in biochem to mean "looks like they'll be a good biochemist" your idea of who should get good grades, and whether they'd get good grades at other schools, would make sense. In reality the MCAT is called the great equalizer in reference to its function next to GPAs, and does correlate very well with the type of academic ability MD admissions is interested in.

In other words, I do not think the majority of people at Hopkins would be wonderful grad students in biochemistry. I do think the majority are hardworking and intelligent enough to readily handle the biochem in a med school curriculum though. I also think it's this latter case that adcoms think about when they look at whether someone got an A vs B vs C in biochem. Whether grading is interpreted alternatively/better by graduate schools is a bit of a moot point.

Do you think the GRE measures scientific ability? If not, why do grad schools care about it? And, why do grad schools not really care as much about grades, if grades are an assessment of an extensive mastery over the subjects?

 

[aldol16]

Thing is, this interpretation of grading has a complete disconnect from the role of grades in MD admissions. If MD admissions were looking at an A in biochem to mean "looks like they'll be a good biochemist" your idea of who should get good grades, and whether they'd get good grades at other schools, would make sense. In reality the MCAT is called the great equalizer in reference to its function next to GPAs, and does correlate very well with the type of academic ability MD admissions is interested in.

In other words, I do not think the majority of people at Hopkins would be wonderful grad students in biochemistry. I do think the majority are hardworking and intelligent enough to readily handle the biochem in a med school curriculum though. I also think it's this latter case that adcoms think about when they look at whether someone got an A vs B vs C in biochem. Whether grading is interpreted alternatively/better by graduate schools is a bit of a moot point.

Do you think the GRE measures scientific ability? If not, why do grad schools care about it? And, why do grad schools not really care as much about grades, if grades are an assessment of an extensive mastery over the subjects?

I am not concerned with how admissions officers perceive grading. I don't grade an exam with the thought of, "Oh, would this student make a good doctor?" or "Would this student score 100th percentile on MCAT chemistry?" I assess a student's ability to master the subject, which is a higher bar than MCAT-level mastery. That's what a grade reflects. You're held to those standards at a top school or at your average state school. That's why I say students most often get the grades they deserve. Adapting a grading scale to what med school deans think is a waste of my time, not to mention against departmental policy. It's not my fault if MD admissions wants to use a grade in a course as a surrogate for mastery of the material. But that doesn't mean that students who get a C in organic chemistry aren't going to get a C-range grade wherever they go. The fact that they could do well on MCAT chemistry doesn't change that. The top students aren't those who master MCAT-level material. They're those who master the course material. Because that's what a grade represents unless you have a very skewed sense of what a grade is.

Being able to handle the med school curriculum is assessed not only by GPA but also MCAT. That's why MCAT is taken into context. That's why it's better to have a lower GPA and high MCAT than the opposite. High MCAT means that you've mastered the material at a level that med school admissions is concerned with. Your lower grade means that you may not have mastered the material in accordance with the academic expectation of the course, which could very well be higher than what med schools want. Again, that academic expectation is pretty similar whether you're going to top school or average state school - a fact I only realized when speaking with colleagues of mine who are now teaching faculty at state schools.

Nobody cares about GRE. The GRE measures whether you can read, write, and do math at a grade school level. Grad school cares about GRE subject tests. Chemistry GRE subject test is an important indicator for chemistry graduate school because it assesses mastery of chemistry at a level required for graduate school. Again, higher bar than MCAT. The bar for an "A" in a chemistry course falls somewhere between these two standards. Grad schools don't care about overall GPA or "science" GPA. They care about your grades in courses in the discipline you're applying for. So someone with an F in History could get into a top grad school in chemistry because unlike med school, we realize that an F in history says nothing about your ability as a chemist. Now, an F in a closely allied science might speak to your science abilities. You can't say the same about med school because med schools care about overall GPA.

 

[efle]

I assess a student's ability to master the subject, which is a higher bar than MCAT-level mastery. That's what a grade reflects. You're held to those standards at a top school or at your average state school. That's why I say students most often get the grades they deserve.

How then do you account for the majority of straight A students failing to score past 32 on the low, shallow bar of the MCAT? A big chunk even fall in the 20s. Or how about the fact that a given GPA predicts very different things for the MCAT at a top school vs the national pool?

My answer would be that the grades mean different things at different places, in many cases an "A" meaning less than an MCAT level mastery, in other cases meaning more. What is your alternative?

 

[aldol16]

How then do you account for the majority of straight A students failing to score past 32 on the low, shallow bar of the MCAT? A big chunk even fall in the 20s. Or how about the fact that a given GPA predicts very different things for the MCAT at a top school vs the national pool?

My answer would be that the grades mean different things at different places, in many cases an "A" meaning less than an MCAT level mastery, in other cases meaning more. What is your alternative?

Is there data showing a BCPM GPA vs. MCAT score grid? I can't find it - not saying it doesn't exist but rather only that I can't find it given my limited computer abilities.

I do know that at your particular school, the "vast majority" of straight A students score past the 88th percentile, which is about the 32 mark (https://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/2011-2016AS_BCPMvsGPAGrid FirstTimeApplicants.pdf). It could be that none of my colleagues teach at "bad" state schools so I don't know about the low standards they have. Most of my colleagues teach at good state schools (Berkeley, Michigan, etc.) and some at your average state school but none at unknown state schools.

 

[efle]

Is there data showing a BCPM GPA vs. MCAT score grid? I can't find it - not saying it doesn't exist but rather only that I can't find it given my limited computer abilities.

I do know that at your particular school, the "vast majority" of straight A students score past the 88th percentile, which is about the 32 mark (https://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/2011-2016AS_BCPMvsGPAGrid FirstTimeApplicants.pdf). It could be that none of my colleagues teach at "bad" state schools so I don't know about the low standards they have. Most of my colleagues teach at good state schools (Berkeley, Michigan, etc.) and some at your average state school but none at unknown state schools.

Well that clears it all up! Schools like Cal and Michigan have student bodies much closer to Ivy level than to the national average student. Add onto that the more deflated public grading and of course an A is an A is an A. This is a totally different comparison than I thought was going on. Skipping on Hopkins to go to Cal wouldn't make any sense, in my opinion, while skipping on both of those to go somewhere like my sibling did might make a ton of sense, seeing as the science classes are easier there than what we did in high school.

 

[aldol16]

Well that clears it all up! Schools like Cal and Michigan have student bodies much closer to Ivy level than to the national average student. Add onto that the more deflated public grading and of course an A is an A is an A. This is a totally different comparison than I thought was going on. Skipping on Hopkins to go to Cal wouldn't make any sense, in my opinion, while skipping on both of those to go somewhere like my sibling did might make a ton of sense, seeing as the science classes are easier there than what we did in high school.

Well, like I said, some of my colleagues aren't teaching at those "good" state schools but rather at your average state schools and they grade the same way I do. I think the kind of easy grading in the sciences you're talking about only happens at the low-tier state schools and CCs.

 

[kraskadva]

How then do you account for the majority of straight A students failing to score past 32 on the low, shallow bar of the MCAT? A big chunk even fall in the 20s. Or how about the fact that a given GPA predicts very different things for the MCAT at a top school vs the national pool?

My answer would be that the grades mean different things at different places, in many cases an "A" meaning less than an MCAT level mastery, in other cases meaning more. What is your alternative?

As someone who teaches bio & chem courses at a mid-level state school (and is a demanding, hard-assed, grad TA), I'll account for it.
A lot of those "straight-A students" are really good a following directions. I say "put xyz in your paper" or "do this question set" and they do it. They satisfactorily meet the requirements of the course, therefore they get an A. Along the way, they gain a satisfactory understanding of the material for the purposes of passing the exam or moving on to the next level. That doesn't mean that they would make wonderful biochemists, or whatever. They can still lack a deep, intuitive understanding, or even a global, comprehensive understanding. But they have done everything that I asked them to do, so they get an A.
Then they go take the MCAT.
They may or may not have studied for it properly. They may or may not have assumed that their A in the class would have completely prepared them for that section of the MCAT. They may or may not have ever taken a practice test. Because most of them are clueless kids and haven't ever done anything that that haven't been explicitly told to do. Their hands have not been held through the entire process, and they have not sought out any deeper understanding on their own initiative. So many of them do very poorly on the MCAT. Not because they're dumb or incapable, but because they're kids who don't have any concept of what they're getting into.

Is there data showing a BCPM GPA vs. MCAT score grid? I can't find it - not saying it doesn't exist but rather only that I can't find it given my limited computer abilities.

I do know that at your particular school, the "vast majority" of straight A students score past the 88th percentile, which is about the 32 mark (https://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/2011-2016AS_BCPMvsGPAGrid FirstTimeApplicants.pdf). It could be that none of my colleagues teach at "bad" state schools so I don't know about the low standards they have. Most of my colleagues teach at good state schools (Berkeley, Michigan, etc.) and some at your average state school but none at unknown state schools.

Well that clears it all up! Schools like Cal and Michigan have student bodies much closer to Ivy level than to the national average student. Add onto that the more deflated public grading and of course an A is an A is an A. This is a totally different comparison than I thought was going on. Skipping on Hopkins to go to Cal wouldn't make any sense, in my opinion, while skipping on both of those to go somewhere like my sibling did might make a ton of sense, seeing as the science classes are easier there than what we did in high school.

When the average entering student is above average nationally, then all of them have the raw ability to succeed. And it becomes a matter of work put in and the psychological effects of comparing oneself to one's cohort.
When the average entering student is at or below the national average, then raw ability can play a larger part.

So, for undergrad, big fish in a small pond is good for the purposes of getting a high GPA. Perhaps risky for overall life/professional preparation, in that they may not get enough to move upward when thrown into a larger pond.
Small fish in a big pond is only good for those who thrive on being ornery and hard-working enough to compete with those who are naturally better than they are. Most people can't do this.
But most people also don't have many, or any, choices about what pond they end up in. If they do have choices, then hopefully they are self-reflective and mature enough to know where they would do better.

 

[mw18]

I chose to go to a top med school versus a smaller state school because I had the ability to make the jump to the big pond at that level. Had I waited until residency to make that jump I may not be able to, even with the same scores that I could remain at the top level with from a top school. That may not necessarily be the case, but it was my rationale. Looking at the match lists, almost every person goes to a top program at my school (or doesn't due to personal preference). Each of those could have matched just as well from the state school, but I liked the high density of the match list year after year.