Which is better: GPA vs. MCAT

[StephBee]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know there are other threads floating around like this but I figured I'd start a new one.

A fellow pre-med friend and I were having this dicussion this morning and I wanted to just get more people's opinions.

We were arguing about whether a high gpa (say, 3.9) would make up for a lower but still competative MCAT (like, a 30 lets say). Specificaly, we were talking about top 20 schools.
Conversely, would a steller mcat (35+) make up for a mediocre GPA (3.3 we'll say).

The argument started because I'm the former and she's the latter and we both applied to seveal top schools. Neither of us have gotten any feedback yet so it was all purely hypothetical.

So, if you were an ADCOM, and were asked to choose between the two, all other things being equal, which would you choose and why?

This doesn't have to become a huge discussion about MCAT/GPA. Just a silly, for fun, what if!

Me, personally, probably because I'm this, I'd choose a High GPA and an ok MCAT.

 

[CoolWhipp]

40 MCAT is more impressive than a 4.0 GPA because I believe everyone can get a 4.0 if they tried.

However, I would factor in admissions the 4.0 greater than a 40 MCAT, because it is more representative of the kind of person that would succeed in medical school.

 

[Tappinfool66]

I think it depends on the specific school and what they value more. Your GPA is supposed to show how 'hardworking' you are. The MCAT is supposed to show your 'critical thinking ability'. I personally think a higher GPA is more important. The MCAT is a five to six hour test that you (hopefully) take once, but your GPA reflects the work you've done for your entire undergraduate career.

 

[jm192]

I think this has been discussed alot. Search, and you should find lots of previous thoughts on this.

I'm pretty sure MCAT carries more weight. An average GPA can be brought up by a strong MCAT. Whereas a strong GPA doesn't always fix an average MCAT.

A 4.0 is very doable if you decide you want to do it above all else. A 35 MCAT isn't.

Apply wit a 3.3 and a 33, and I'd say you'll get a few bites.
Apply with a 3.8 and a 24, and the cycle just got alot more stressful.

 

[StephBee]

😛 I know this has been discussed a fair amount. Supposed to be more of a "what would I do" rather than "what are THEY thinking"...if that makes sense?


I'd be a horrible ADCOM member. I'd look at like each individual class, how many "filler" classes they took, things like that.
MCAT seems less important to me because lets face it, **** happens. The week before I took my MCAT, a friend of mine was taking his and the computers crashed. They were out for over an hour and of course, they don't give you any extra time. Since it was the late july test, rescheduling to make it intime for applications was rough.

I'm sure the kids in my class hate me (I'm a TA for an immulogy class) cause I'm uber critical. 😛

 

[Elpenor]

~68.3 % of applicants with 27-29 mcat and 3.8 - 4.0 gpa are accepted

~60.4 % of applicants with 36-38 mcat and 3.2 - 3.39 gpa are accepted


~73.2 % of applicants with 30-32 mcat and 3.6 - 3.79 gpa are accepted

~40.9 % of applicants with 39-45 mcat and 3.0-3.19 gpa are accepted

 

[WeAreNotRobots]

i would give more weight to the GPA because it represents YEARS of work, whereas the mcat is more short term, you can prepare as much as you want, and you can take it several times. on the other hand, the mcat is a standardized measure, and there is plenty of variation in the difficulty of coursework/colleges; tons of people get 3.9+ GPA's, but only about 1% of test takers get a 38 or better.

don't know if this data exists, but i would like to see the percentile ranking of GPA's for applied/accepted applicants...

what do ADCOMs think? you'd have to ask one.

 

[BBender716]

~68.3 % of applicants with 27-29 mcat and 3.8 - 4.0 gpa are accepted

~60.4 % of applicants with 36-38 mcat and 3.2 - 3.39 gpa are accepted


~73.2 % of applicants with 30-32 mcat and 3.6 - 3.79 gpa are accepted

~40.9 % of applicants with 39-45 mcat and 3.0-3.19 gpa are accepted

I like the attempt at actually using empirical data to answer this question (kudos!).

Any n values here? (I suspect the last category has a very low number...)

 

[Elpenor]

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table24-mcatgpagridall2007-09.pdf


It's mainly about reaching certain thresholds.

Seems that it gets harder to get accepted once your gpa dips below 3.2, or if your mcat dips below 30

 

[Iso4ane]

On its own a good MCAT, GPA, Rec Lett6er, EC, etc will not get you into medical school.


But, a weakness in any of these can keep you out.

 

[cfx]

Well I think that a high [insert whichever I did better on] is waaay better than a high [insert whichever I did worse on]. Clearly a higher [insert whichever I did better on] demonstrates innate, raw intelligence, whereas a lower [insert whichever I did worse on] just means I couldn't give it my all because I had so many other more important things going on.

 

[gravitywave]

However, I would factor in admissions the 4.0 greater than a 40 MCAT, because it is more representative of the kind of person that would succeed in medical school.

nah.

"MCAT scores almost double the proportion of variance in medical school grades explained by uGPAs, and essentially replace the need for uGPAs in their impressive prediction of Step scores. The MCAT performs well as an indicator of academic preparation for medical school, independent of the school-specific handicaps of uGPAs."

http://journals.lww.com/academicmed...=2005&issue=10000&article=00010&type=fulltext

 

[tomh98]

these two exist for a reason. MCAT puts everyone on an even playing field, and tests capacity to learn (at least that's what they hope). I think GPA represents character and motivation. They are both important, but I think GPA is more forgivable if you have a good story or have improved. This is especially important for people who have been out of school for a few years, in my opinion.

 

[StephBee]

Well I think that a high [insert whichever I did better on] is waaay better than a high [insert whichever I did worse on]. Clearly a higher [insert whichever I did better on] demonstrates innate, raw intelligence, whereas a lower [insert whichever I did worse on] just means I couldn't give it my all because I had so many other more important things going on.

*Like* 👍

😛 I can't say I'm not guilty of this.

In all seriousness though, my Yale secondary MSTP has an essay asking you to explain the weaknesses in your application. Kinda wish all schools did this so if person A has a lower X, he/she has a chance to explain it rather than being rejected based on cutoffs. Given, 9/10 people are just going to be making excuses and it would require adcoms to have a built in bullsh*t detector (which I feel most of them do anyway).

 

[KatMan]

40 MCAT is more impressive than a 4.0 GPA because I believe everyone can get a 4.0 if they tried.

However, I would factor in admissions the 4.0 greater than a 40 MCAT, because it is more representative of the kind of person that would succeed in medical school.

Just like GPA, though, MCAT scores can be beefed up dramatically just by putting the time in. When I first started taking practice MCATs, I scored in the teens. By the time I was done, I was scoring well into the 30s. From what I've seen, there are countless examples on this board alone of people who did poorly, went back and studied some more, then did exceptionally well when they retook it. Some people are naturally very gifted in standardized test-taking. Others might work their butts off to get to the same level. Some people excel academically with relative ease. Others may require thousands of hours worth of tutoring to get that grade.

I at least see a high GPA as reflecting someone's ability to master the material across a very wide variety of topics. This is somebody who excelled in literature, math, science, economics, philosophy, etc., and was able to perform exceptionally well in a variety of different capacities (presentations, research papers, writing, problem solving, etc.). I higher MCAT with a low GPA tells me that they were able to master one thing...the MCAT. They were able to become experts on a single test by learning the question types, the common answer "sounds", the necessary timing, and how to answer a bunch of multiple choice questions successfully.

 

[Long Dong]

Mcat>gpa

 

[RogueUnicorn]

~73.2 % of applicants with 30-32 mcat and 3.6 - 3.79 gpa are accepted

~40.9 % of applicants with 39-45 mcat and 3.0-3.19 gpa are accepted

you're pairing in the first instance a ~85th percentile MCAT with a ~70th percentile GPA while in the second case you're pairing a 99th percentile MCAT with a ~10th percentile GPA.

To make a similar percentile comparison, you would have to compare a 4.0/17, to a 3.1/39... the success rate of course, is much higher with the latter.

**GPA percentiles roughly guesstimated by peeking at MSAR, i'm sure someone will make a more detailed analysis..

 

[Dr Mario]

Well I think that a high [insert whichever I did better on] is waaay better than a high [insert whichever I did worse on]. Clearly a higher [insert whichever I did better on] demonstrates innate, raw intelligence, whereas a lower [insert whichever I did worse on] just means I couldn't give it my all because I had so many other more important things going on.

tru dat 👍

 

[Raziela]

Well I think that a high [insert whichever I did better on] is waaay better than a high [insert whichever I did worse on]. Clearly a higher [insert whichever I did better on] demonstrates innate, raw intelligence, whereas a lower [insert whichever I did worse on] just means I couldn't give it my all because I had so many other more important things going on.

This. Which of course, means, that the MCAT is way more predictive of my innate ability.

Also, Bleargh makes a fabulous point. I'm half tempted now to do a more thorough analysis, instead of prepping my qPCR plate.

 

[slowbutsteady]

Well I think that a high [insert whichever I did better on] is waaay better than a high [insert whichever I did worse on]. Clearly a higher [insert whichever I did better on] demonstrates innate, raw intelligence, whereas a lower [insert whichever I did worse on] just means I couldn't give it my all because I had so many other more important things going on.

perfection!!!

 

[Tapepsi]

I'd personally say a higher GPA and lower MCAT score is better but it depends on the school. I have a 3.93 cGPA/sGPA and a 27P MCAT score and have 2 MD interviews so far this cycle (and I applied late). While I obviously can't make excuses for my low MCAT score I think I can attribute it to only studying a month before my test (bad I know).

But anyways the point I was trying to make is that each school if you take a look at the matriculant GPA and MCAT averages, you will get a good idea as to which one they hold more important (that is of course "if" they weigh one more than the other). Ex: University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences has an average MCAT score of 28 but the GPA is 3.8. The Albany Medical College has an average MCAT score of 33 with a GPA of 3.6. So regardless of which one of your stats is low and which one is high, it would be a good idea to look at the stats of the school to see which one fits your numbers better. I will point out though that good EC's and PS can make a big difference.

 

[VikingLegacy]

baleeted

 

[jvesco22]

Well I think that a high [insert whichever I did better on] is waaay better than a high [insert whichever I did worse on]. Clearly a higher [insert whichever I did better on] demonstrates innate, raw intelligence, whereas a lower [insert whichever I did worse on] just means I couldn't give it my all because I had so many other more important things going on.

brilliant!

 

[Tapepsi]

Here's some statistics for 2007-2009 MCAT and undergrad GPA.

3.00-3.19; 39-45 --> 41% (18/44)
3.20-3.39; 39-45 --> 67% (62/93)
3.40-3.59; 36-38 --> 74% (840/1,142)
Average à 3.40-3.59; 30-32 --> 57% (2,106/3,083)
3.8-4.0; 24-26 --> 43% (1,374/3,230)
3.8-4.0; 27-29 --> 68% (3,830/5,606)
3.8-4.0; 30-32 --> 83% (5,640/6,825)
Just for Fun à 1.47-1.99; 15-17 à 4% (1/25)
So theoretically, someone with a 3.2 could be equally as competitive as someone with a 3.9 if they had a 39 and the other person had a 29. In addition, someone who got an MCAT score of 25 with a 3.8 GPA would have the same chance as someone with a 3.00 who got a 40.

So the answer? It doesn’t matter which one is higher. As for that last statistic…I want to know how even one person could get in with such low stats (they must either have amazing EC’s or a really really really good excuse for those numbers)

 

[Grom]

Just for Fun à 1.47-1.99; 15-17 à 4% (1/25)

As for that last statistic…I want to know how even one person could get in with such low stats (they must either have amazing EC’s or a really really really good excuse for those numbers)

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. No matter what their EC's were like, I would almost never take someone with such low stats. Despite what they have on their CV, what's the point of accepting someone if they can't even pass the boards?

I'd really like to know what that person's circumstances were.

 

[theboshos]

The dean of admissions at OHSU said that gpa is 25% of the total application and MCAT score is 25% of total application. She also said that a 3.5 and 3.7 are basically the same. Not a big difference between .2 gpa points. This is for OHSU, but still good info to know. My good friend had a meeting with her this summer and was told this information.

 

[nisarg2010]

Well I think that a high [insert whichever I did better on] is waaay better than a high [insert whichever I did worse on]. Clearly a higher [insert whichever I did better on] demonstrates innate, raw intelligence, whereas a lower [insert whichever I did worse on] just means I couldn't give it my all because I had so many other more important things going on.

+1

Took the words right out of my mouth..

 

[NYYk9005]

I have spoken to someone with admissions to a medical school and they said it entirely depends.

They think a a low GPA may be bad since they would think 'hmm, did this person goof off in school?'. They think a low MCAT may be bad since they would think 'hmmm, I don't know if this student will handle the USMLE very well.'

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Comparatively, I have a higher GPA than MCAT (not saying my MCAT is low, but 12 BS is low for many schools on my list), but I feel MCAT is a much more important metric. I know kids who take certain majors at certain schools who have it much harder than I, and I think it's patently unfair that I received an advantage over them just because of where I went to school and what classes I took. It also works the other way.

MCAT puts everyone on an even playing field. Even if it means my GPA is ignored, I'd be in favor of eliminating that aspect and ranking students by their MCAT (perhaps after some relatively low GPA threshold is met, like a 3.3 or something).

In an ideal world if I could start a medical school, that's the way I would do it. Put everyone on a list, filter out those whose sGPA and cGPA is under 3.3 and then sort by MCAT. GPA, major, school only come into play in case of equal MCAT scores. And then start reviewing the whole application (e.g, ECs) from top to bottom, becoming increasingly critical in terms of ECs, PS, etc as I reach lower and lower on the list.

Of course, that's just me. MCAT gives community college students to show mastery of the subject the same way as an ivy league grad. Plus, USMLE has such a huge importance in your medical school career that it makes sense that MCAT be weighed heavily in admissions.

Just my 2 cents.