WHo has a better chance?

[UCImed]

What is more important? A higher science GPA or a higher overall GPA?

FOr example, two students have the same MCAT score, say 35 and have all the same ECs and such

Student 1:
Science GPA 3.9
Overall 3.5

Student 2:
Science GPA 3.4
Overall 3.6

Assuming both students come from the same school and apply to the same schools, which one is more likely to be accepted? The student with the higher science GPA? or the one with a higher overall GPA, assuming they both have the same MCAT score and ECs

THANKS!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[UVAbme2009]

Obviously the 3.9 sGPA. A 0.5 difference in sGPA >>>>> 0.1 difference in cGPA.

 

[redlight]

hard to tell without more specifics on course load and mcat breakdown. id say student 2 though.
at the end of the day 3.6/35 is better than 3.5/35. cgpa counts more.

 

[hewmanoid]

I really cannot say which one for sure. But, many non-science classes can vary greatly in terms of content, quality, and difficulty (although this is true for science classes to some extent). Therefore, an overall GPA (which includes non-science classes) can be somewhat misleading. So, if I were on an admissions committee, I would pay more attention to an applicant's science GPA. So, for me Student 1.

 

[BlueElmo]

Student 1. He has 3.9 sGPA, while Student 2's sGPA of 3.4 is too low.

 

[CoolWhipp]

I think this is a superficial comparison as there will never be two students having the same ECs. Also, if the adcoms were comparing these two students, the distribution of points on their MCAT will be taken under consideration. Then, their ECs will be taken under consideration such as publications, posters, presentations, and etc. Between these two hypothetical students, ECs will be the deciding factor upon my speculation.

 

[BlueElmo]

I think this is a superficial comparison as there will never be two students having the same ECs. Also, if the adcoms were comparing these two students, the distribution of points on their MCAT will be taken under consideration. Then, their ECs will be taken under consideration such as publications, posters, presentations, and etc. Between these two hypothetical students, ECs will be the deciding factor upon my speculation.

And LORs as well.

 

[CoolWhipp]

And LORs as well.

Agreed. Most definitely.

 

[redlight]

I think this is a superficial comparison as there will never be two students having the same ECs. Also, if the adcoms were comparing these two students, the distribution of points on their MCAT will be taken under consideration. Then, their ECs will be taken under consideration such as publications, posters, presentations, and etc. Between these two hypothetical students, ECs will be the deciding factor upon my speculation.

the heart of OP's question is figuring out how important science gpa is relative to cgpa. lors, essays, ecs, blah, don't matter. OP is trying to hold all those factors equal.

generally, cgpa is more important. by how much? i dont think we can quantify that.

 

[slick27]

what are the individual majors?

 

[0Complications]

I would say student 1 with the high science GPA.


But in reality it is the individual student that will make the difference. Personality can take you a long way when people have to vote for you.

 

[Lukkie]

3.9 + 3.5 = 7.4

3.6 + 3.4 = 7.0

the numbers speak for themselves

 

[Blesbok]

A better comparison would be a 3.8 science with a 3.6 overall and a 3.8 overall with a 3.6 science.

 

[BlueElmo]

A better comparison would be a 3.8 science with a 3.6 overall and a 3.8 overall with a 3.6 science.

Try to get 3.8 for both.

 

[0Complications]

A better comparison would be a 3.8 science with a 3.6 overall and a 3.8 overall with a 3.6 science.

I'm sure it would be a better comparison, but my guess is he had an argument with a friend about which one would be more competitive for med school and he's posting both of their stats to see if he can get an answer.

 

[slick27]

Odds are they both don't get in.

 

[0Complications]

Odds are they both don't get in.

 

[redlight]

Odds are they both don't get in.

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2008/mcatgpa-grid-3yrs-app-accpt.htm
84% chance for 3.6-3.79 and 33-35 mcat
73% chance for 3.4-3.59 and 33-35 mcat

they both have a decent shot. i still say the higher cgpa is in better shape, but the gpa difference isnt really much anyways.

 

[UCImed]

My objective here was to rate, what is more important a high science GPA or a high cumulative GPA.

I honestly am student 1, and my problem is that I am trying to decide who has a better chance.

Keeping everything else constant except for GPA, which is more important? cGPA? or sGPA?


BUt in considering sGPA 3.8 cGPA 3.5

sGPA 3.5 cGPA 3.8

I think most of us could decide that the one with the higher cGPA is better?

 

[BlueElmo]

My objective here was to rate, what is more important a high science GPA or a high cumulative GPA.

I honestly am student 1, and my problem is that I am trying to decide who has a better chance.

Keeping everything else constant except for GPA, which is more important? cGPA? or sGPA?

I don't think we know for sure, none of us are adcoms. I would just work hard to keep both of them as high as possible.

 

[0Complications]

I don't think we know for sure, none of us are adcoms. I would just work hard to keep both of them as high as possible.

I would agree with this.

If either GPA is suffering it can make the application process quite a bit more challenging.

 

[Slowpoke]

this is why the mcat was made.

just sayin'

 

[redlight]

I don't think we know for sure, none of us are adcoms. I would just work hard to keep both of them as high as possible.

LizzyM has commented on this a few times.

cgpa>sgpa>trends

they look at overall first, then science, then trends

 

[runrunrudolph1]

3.9 + 3.5 = 7.4

3.6 + 3.4 = 7.0

the numbers speak for themselves

also if everything is the same... they can't both interview the same. something has got to set them apart

 

[greatnt249]

Wow, this thread is certainly a good exhibition of the blind leading the blind. Truth be told, medical school adcoms are less superficial in how they choose applicants than many of you make them out to be. Granted, you still need the numbers to remain competitive in this game, but numbers alone hardly tell the story of the applicant.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Wow, this thread is certainly a good exhibition of the blind leading the blind. Truth be told, medical school adcoms are less superficial in how they choose applicants than many of you make them out to be. Granted, you still need the numbers to remain competitive in this game, but numbers alone hardly tell the story of the applicant.

I think it was mean to be a ceteris paribus sort of comparison, though yeah some of them had no basis for their guesses it seemed. I kind of doubt it's the same for each school.