Why are gender ratios equal at med schools when female applicants are more qualified?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
kesher

kesher

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Messages
32
Reaction score
4
Now that I have your attention, I'd like to clarify that I can only speak for my school. I understand that what is true for my school certainly isn't true at all other universities.

I attend a large state school which is 60% female and 40% male. It's common knowledge that it's harder for girls to get in, so we're on average more qualified than the boys. The average female GPA is a 3.4 and the average male GPA is a 3.2. I'm not sure if this is because of work ethic (girls work harder?), major choice (girls choose easier majors?), or both.

The vast majority of campus organizations are overrun by girls! Most of the members and almost all of the leaders are girls. This is also true for off campus volunteer positions. The female:male ratio is always higher than the expected 60:40. I have yet to find an exception. To demonstrate this insane ratio, I'm in a committee with about 100 people-- and there are only 3 boys. 3/100! And the organization's mission isn't even "feminine" in nature.

I've also noticed that girl pre-meds are usually much more involved than boy pre-meds here. The girls partake in more ECs, volunteer more, and are more likely to have multiple leadership positions as well as do lab research. I would say that the average female applicant from my school is significantly more qualified than the average male applicant, so the 50/50 gender ratio at most medical schools confuses me.

Of course, there are still boys that are extremely involved and girls who don't make use of their free time. I'm only speaking to the general trend.

Does this hold true for your university as well? Or is mine just an anomaly?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Females do tend to be slightly more conscientious and organized

But thats a heck of a statement to say females are more qualified.

Med schools choose 50/50 because males and females should have equal opportunity and future physicians should represent the human population of 50/50 male/female
 
Members don't see this ad :)
By more qualified I mean have a fuller resume, not better equipped to be doctors
 
https://www.aamc.org/download/321506/data/factstablea22.pdf

Applicant
Men: 503.4 MCAT, 3.47 sGPA, 3.55 cGPA
Women: 500.4 MCAT, 3.42 sGPA, 3.55 cGPA

Matriculant
Men: 509.5 MCAT, 3.65 sGPA, 3.69 cGPA
Women: 507.9 MCAT, 3.63 sGPA, 3.71 cGPA

While GPA's are similar, men score higher on the MCAT. My school deliberately balances the class to be exactly 50-50, but other schools have more males or more females.
 
Average applicants rarely get in (they have a ~26/3.4). The populations you need to compare are the above-average students. Genders are probably better balanced there.

Maybe look if your school publishes Phi Beta Kappa membership each year. You'll probably see that about 50-50 rather than skewed female.

Also should point out there is a similar phenomenon observed in undergrad admissions. Female high schoolers tend to be more organized/involved/put in more effort and are more likely to be bound for college in general. But, men are overrepresented at the far right end of the standardized exam bell curves. You will see many colleges with 60%+ female but at the most selective campuses it trends towards 50-50 (with exceptions for things like engineering heavy schools that trend large majority male).
 
@efle part of the reason why many elite private institutions have 50-50 ratios is that some aren't obligated to adhere to Title IX while others are less adherent. They know that a high female:male ratio is undesirable to female applicants for social reasons, so they shoot for 50-50. This makes it harder for girls to get in at several universities. When I visited Vanderbilt my junior year of high school they said, "If you're a white female, you're in our most competitive applicant pool." So they do take gender into account.
 
Last edited:
kesher said:
@efle part of the reason why many elite private institutions have 50-50 ratios is that some aren't obligated to adhere to Title IX while others are less adherent. They know that a high female:male ratio is undesirable to female applicants for social reasons, so they shoot for 50-50. This makes it harder for girls to get in at several universities.
Click to expand...
What elite universities do you know of that take zero federal funding for financial aid...? Some colleges have slightly lower admit rates for female because more females apply, but that does not indicate a higher bar for females, because there is no control for standardized exam performance.

Look at Berkeley's common data set, a selective school with a statewide ban on the consideration of sex or race in admissions. The admit rates by sex are extremely similar, 14% vs 16%, as is the enrolled gender balance, with 51% female. If it were true that selective universities normally have to hold girls to a tougher standard to keep things balanced, this selective school barred from maintaining such a balance would have skewed hugely female.
 
kesher said:
Now that I have your attention, I'd like to clarify that I can only speak for my school. I understand that what is true for my school certainly isn't true at all other universities.

I attend a large state school which is 60% female and 40% male. It's common knowledge that it's harder for girls to get in, so we're on average more qualified than the boys. The average female GPA is a 3.4 and the average male GPA is a 3.2. I'm not sure if this is because of work ethic (girls work harder?), major choice (girls choose easier majors?), or both.

The vast majority of campus organizations are overrun by girls! Most of the members and almost all of the leaders are girls. This is also true for off campus volunteer positions. The female:male ratio is always higher than the expected 60:40. I have yet to find an exception. To demonstrate this insane ratio, I'm in a committee with about 100 people-- and there are only 3 boys. 3/100! And the organization's mission isn't even "feminine" in nature.

I've also noticed that girl pre-meds are usually much more involved than boy pre-meds here. The girls partake in more ECs, volunteer more, and are more likely to have multiple leadership positions as well as do lab research. I would say that the average female applicant from my school is significantly more qualified than the average male applicant, so the 50/50 gender ratio at most medical schools confuses me.

Of course, there are still boys that are extremely involved and girls who don't make use of their free time. I'm only speaking to the general trend.

Does this hold true for your university as well? Or is mine just an anomaly?
Click to expand...
Complete opposite at my university.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
kesher said:
Now that I have your attention, I'd like to clarify that I can only speak for my school. I understand that what is true for my school certainly isn't true at all other universities.

I attend a large state school which is 60% female and 40% male. It's common knowledge that it's harder for girls to get in, so we're on average more qualified than the boys. The average female GPA is a 3.4 and the average male GPA is a 3.2. I'm not sure if this is because of work ethic (girls work harder?), major choice (girls choose easier majors?), or both.

The vast majority of campus organizations are overrun by girls! Most of the members and almost all of the leaders are girls. This is also true for off campus volunteer positions. The female:male ratio is always higher than the expected 60:40. I have yet to find an exception. To demonstrate this insane ratio, I'm in a committee with about 100 people-- and there are only 3 boys. 3/100! And the organization's mission isn't even "feminine" in nature.

I've also noticed that girl pre-meds are usually much more involved than boy pre-meds here. The girls partake in more ECs, volunteer more, and are more likely to have multiple leadership positions as well as do lab research. I would say that the average female applicant from my school is significantly more qualified than the average male applicant, so the 50/50 gender ratio at most medical schools confuses me.

Of course, there are still boys that are extremely involved and girls who don't make use of their free time. I'm only speaking to the general trend.

Does this hold true for your university as well? Or is mine just an anomaly?
Click to expand...

Go to interview day. You'll see for yourself.

As someone who attended an "elite" college I will say there is no gender skew as a whole in these types of undergrads. You do however see a skew the moment you inspect certain majors-- psychology is disproportionally female as opposed to physics which leans heavily male. So there's gender skews in many majors for whatever reasons.

This is just my observation(n=1) but in my interviews I would typically see more male applicants than females. Matriculated males tend to score higher on the MCAT and females tend to have a higher GPA(for whatever reasons).

In the end, schools want a balance of quality/traits and you tend to see a 50/50 distribution. Some years it leans heavily in X gender.
 
kesher said:
By more qualified I mean have a fuller resume, not better equipped to be doctors
Click to expand...

Actually I back tracked and read your post. LOL this thing is a steaming pile of garbage. I regret I read it. Is your GPA listed the distribution of med school applicants or everyone? If the latter, have you ever considered that not everyone applies to med school? Under that logic you're saying, "Oh look, all the girls make more A's and B's than all the boys, so if we take a subset of those girls and boys who want to be doctors, the girls should be favored".

2) You're basing your experiences based on your clubs at school? Let me tell you something. EVERY officer of the 3 pre-med clubs at my school, controlled for both men and women, in the last 2 years who has been eligible to get in med school has either gone to a very low tier school or not in med school. I did the math, it's like 24% got in.

3) How the hell do you know where people are volunteering off campus? I don't tell anyone where I volunteered and I'm a guy.

4) You didn't even list MCAT scores

5) No one gives a damn about your institution because you know what? I did research in a lab with 13 people and there were 0, I repeat, 0 women.

6) You did not mention ANYTHING about interview performances. What about LOR quality? Personal statement writing? All these intangibles all go to women magically somehow?

Get the hell out of here with this steaming garbage heap of a post. I'm not pro-man or pro-woman in terms of admissions. I'm pro-did you do the **** you need to get in.
 
efle said:
Average applicants rarely get in (they have a ~26/3.4). The populations you need to compare are the above-average students. Genders are probably better balanced there.

Maybe look if your school publishes Phi Beta Kappa membership each year. You'll probably see that about 50-50 rather than skewed female.

Also should point out there is a similar phenomenon observed in undergrad admissions. Female high schoolers tend to be more organized/involved/put in more effort and are more likely to be bound for college in general. But, men are overrepresented at the far right end of the standardized exam bell curves. You will see many colleges with 60%+ female but at the most selective campuses it trends towards 50-50 (with exceptions for things like engineering heavy schools that trend large majority male).
Click to expand...
Funny you say that! I just joined PBK. We had our initation ceremony and it was apparent that the membership skewed female. They listed majors in the program booklet, and there was no skew toward males in STEM. After seeing all of the national statistics, I've concluded that my school is an odd exception. It's comforting to know that while it isn't the case at my college, males are just as qualified/involved as (if not more than) females everywhere else.
 
LutGholein said:
That's a big leap in logic.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's also harder for people who have severe personal and psychological disabilities to get in. Who knew that hermits and people who stared at the floor the whole time in their interview were, on average, more qualified than amiable individuals willing to hold a conversation!
 
Wowmcwow said:
Actually I back tracked and read your post. LOL this thing is a steaming pile of garbage. I regret I read it. Is your GPA listed the distribution of med school applicants or everyone? If the latter, have you ever considered that not everyone applies to med school? Under that logic you're saying, "Oh look, all the girls make more A's and B's than all the boys, so if we take a subset of those girls and boys who want to be doctors, the girls should be favored".

2) You're basing your experiences based on your clubs at school? Let me tell you something. EVERY officer of the 3 pre-med clubs at my school, controlled for both men and women, in the last 2 years who has been eligible to get in med school has either gone to a very low tier school or not in med school. I did the math, it's like 24% got in.

3) How the hell do you know where people are volunteering off campus? I don't tell anyone where I volunteered and I'm a guy.

4) You didn't even list MCAT scores

5) No one gives a damn about your institution because you know what? I did research in a lab with 13 people and there were 0, I repeat, 0 women.

6) You did not mention ANYTHING about interview performances. What about LOR quality? Personal statement writing? All these intangibles all go to women magically somehow?

Get the hell out of here with this steaming garbage heap of a post. I'm not pro-man or pro-woman in terms of admissions. I'm pro-did you do the **** you need to get in.
Click to expand...
There's no need to be this hostile. If this is how you talk to people, then I highly advise against going into medicine. As I said in my "steaming garbage heap of a post," I can only speak to premed EC involvement and leadership positions at my school. People are open about what clubs they're in, their positions in clubs, where they volunteer, where they do research, but they don't advertise their GPAs or MCAT scores. I never said that pre-med girls have higher GPAs. I simply said that the female overall GPA at my school is slightly higher than the male GPA and this could be due to a variety of factors.

(2) I'm not exclusively talking about pre-med clubs. I'm talking about all organizations on campus. Pre-meds have varied interests, so there are some in almost every organization. The officers of all organizations on campus are predominantly female. Many of whom are pre-med because pre-meds tend to aim for leadership positions.
(3) My school is in a college town. There are only a handful of places that boast student volunteers. After working at several of them and talking to other students, I've learned that most of the volunteers are female. Especially the hospital/clinic volunteers, which are highly premed.
(4) My school doesn't publish our average MCAT scores.
(5) We have an annual research conference where all of the undergrads present their projects. At the conference, every undergrad who conducts wet lab research is there. It's heavily female.
(6) Considering that I'm not in the room during my peers' interviews nor do I read my peers' LORs, I can't speak to that. Never said I could.
 
Wowmcwow said:
Yeah. It's also harder for people who have severe personal and psychological disabilities to get in. Who knew that hermits and people who stared at the floor the whole time in their interview were, on average, more qualified than amiable individuals willing to hold a conversation!
Click to expand...
Almost everyone from my high school applied. My school only uses high school GPA, class rank, and test scores to admit the first wave of applicants. So it's purely numbers. During the frenzy of the admissions process when everyone was sharing whether or not they got in and we were all gossiping about each other's numbers, it was apparent that girls had to have higher GPAs/SAT scores to get in.
 
kesher said:
There's no need to be this hostile. If this is how you talk to people, then I highly advise against going into medicine. As I said in my "steaming garbage heap of a post," I can only speak to premed EC involvement and leadership positions at my school. People are open about what clubs they're in, their positions in clubs, where they volunteer, where they do research, but they don't advertise their GPAs or MCAT scores. I never said that pre-med girls have higher GPAs. I simply said that the female overall GPA at my school is slightly higher than the male GPA and this could be due to a variety of factors.

(2) I'm not exclusively talking about pre-med clubs. I'm talking about all organizations on campus. Pre-meds have varied interests, so there are some in almost every organization. The officers of all organizations on campus are predominantly female. Many of whom are pre-med because pre-meds tend to aim for leadership positions.
(3) My school is in a college town. There are only a handful of places that boast student volunteers. After working at several of them and talking to other students, I've learned that most of the volunteers are female. Especially the hospital/clinic volunteers, which are highly premed.
(4) My school doesn't publish our average MCAT scores.
(5) We have an annual research conference where all of the undergrads present their projects. At the conference, every undergrad who conducts wet lab research is there. It's heavily female.
(6) Considering that I'm not in the room during my peers' interviews nor do I read my peers' LORs, I can't speak to that. Never said I could.
Click to expand...

I actually got in, and this is how I talk to people in my personal life at times when I feel like it. Professionally, when I'm getting a salary or have duties to uphold with people's lives, I talk differently for the sole reason of being professional when I want and not using verbal shortcuts at other times outside of my profession.

2-5 all deal with institutional phenomena. But your post is about the gender ratios at med schools across the nation. Wouldn't it make more logical sense to look at the gender distributions of people who get in at your school? Also, you're heavily underrating the MCAT. Believe me, schools will take a guy with a 3.6 and a 520 MCAT with moderate ECs over a woman with a 3.8, a 508/509 MCAT and volunteering across the board and a poster presentation or two. The ability to write an essay or become eloquent about your desire in medicine can speak volumes more than being the treasurer of the medical club and inviting some doctor to speak on behalf of your club. Medical school admissions roughly follows this hierarchy:

1. MCAT
2. GPA
3. Intangibles like LORs, personal statements, interview performance
4. ECs

You need all 4 to some degree and you used a combination of a broad statistic and anecdotal evidence to talk about 2 and 4. A neutral voice would read your post and swear that your university is filled over achieving women who perform better on average, take initiative to lead, and do research while all the guys are wasting their time away not studying, sitting at home during the conference, and napping while the premed club hours are going on. You put so much stock in your argument by saying, "Why don't girls get in as much as guys in medical school across the US- I see a lot of girls do volunteering and research at my school! It doesn't make sense!"
 
BioTic said:
Their are so many confounding variables. Such as men might work more so less time to study. Women might have their education paid for hence more time to study. This is just one stupid factor that I made up, so you get the point. But you can't say their more qualified because each applicant in unique.

Duh.
Click to expand...
So you can have a stellar MCAT and an otherwise boring application and be admitted? Wow. Then why are med schools always emphasizing "well-rounded applicants" if ECs are on the backburner?
 
kesher said:
So you can have a stellar MCAT and an otherwise boring application and be admitted? Wow. Then why are med schools always emphasizing "well-rounded applicants" if ECs are on the backburner?
Click to expand...
You must live in a delusional world, if you think EC's mean more than the MCAT. I never said you can't have one or the other, but let's not kid ourselves because we all know how much weight the MCAT holds.

Also using your logic:
So you can have great EC's and a 480 MCAT and be admitted. WOW Then why is the MCAT so important?
 
kesher said:
So you can have a stellar MCAT and an otherwise boring application and be admitted? Wow. Then why are med schools always emphasizing "well-rounded applicants" if ECs are on the backburner?
Click to expand...

Yes, you can have a stellar MCAT and a boring application and get in. At a higher rate than a lackluster MCAT applicant who has a lot of time at the volunteering clinic. Those are a dime and a dozen. If schools put so much stock in the resume, then the median of all MCAT takers would just have to volunteer a lot and join a lot of clubs to be a doctor. That would lead to oversaturation and a lack of metrics to identify candidates. You know in HS that colleges want diverse student bodies. If that was the case, do you think volunteering and ECs would be less important than the SAT? Of course not. You saw the value of the SAT in college admissions. Not everyone who helps out at their church deserves to go to Berkeley or Harvard to study for a Bachelor's degree.

The ideal candidate is well rounded, though. The MCAT is important because it gives the school a metric to assess how quickly you assimilate new information and bridge it with known topics. Very important for medicine. More important than handing out cans of soup. That's where the preference comes in. In the future, if you for whatever reason start seeing your MCAT score slip during practice tests, I heavily advise you drop your extracurriculars to study more. You'll thank me later.
 
Wowmcwow said:
Yes, you can have a stellar MCAT and a boring application and get in. At a higher rate than a lackluster applicant who has a lot of time at the volunteering clinic. Those are a dime and a dozen. If schools put so much stock in the resume, then the median of all MCAT takers would just have to volunteer a lot and join a lot of clubs to be a doctor. That would lead to oversaturation and a lack of metrics to identify candidates. The ideal candidate is well rounded, though. The MCAT is important because it gives the school a metric to assess how quickly you assimilate new information and bridge it with known topics. Very important for medicine. More important than handing out cans of soup. That's where the preference comes in.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
BioTic said:
You must live in a delusional world, if you think EC's mean more than the MCAT. I never said you can't have one or the other, but let's not kid ourselves because we all know how much weight the MCAT holds.

Also using your logic:
So you can have great EC's and a 480 MCAT and be admitted. WOW Then why is the MCAT so important?
Click to expand...
Every time a medical school comes to talk to us, they're like "the MCAT isn't everything, we look at the whole person, we want a diverse class." They go on and on about how important community involvement and leadership positions are while they gloss over the MCAT. So I assumed that you need a high MCAT score to even be considered, and then the only people who get in also have good ECs. I never imagined that people with high MCAT scores and weak ECs would get in because of how much med schools stress their desire for well-rounded applicants.
 
kesher said:
Every time a medical school comes to talk to us, they're like "the MCAT isn't everything, we look at the whole person, we want a diverse class." They go on and on about how important community involvement and leadership positions are while they gloss over the MCAT. So I assumed that you need a high MCAT score to even be considered, and then the only people who get in also have good ECs. I never imagined that people with high MCAT scores and weak ECs would get in because of how much med schools stress their desire for well-rounded applicants.
Click to expand...
Explicit: We want well-rounded applicants
Implicit: They must also be academically qualified (high MCAT/GPA)

You can't have either or though, you have to have both.
 
I think it is pretty universally the case that what the admissions representative actually means is: "we want well-rounded applicants with unique experiences [and As and very high test scores]"

The MSAR makes this pretty apparent at the most selective schools now that you can see MCAT data for both admitted and applied. Some of the worst offenders give 90% of admits to the top 10-25% of applicants by MCAT alone.
 
Women join clubs, socialize, etc at a higher rate because they think primarily in language. Men do better on the MCAT prefer physics, etc because they employ visual-spatial thinking more. Pure visual thinking is rare and associated with autism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_thinking

You can try this visual thinking app. If it it completely blows your mind and makes no sense to you, you probably organize your thoughts semantically.

http://www.appstore.com/snapspintap
 
kesher said:
Every time a medical school comes to talk to us, they're like "the MCAT isn't everything, we look at the whole person, we want a diverse class." They go on and on about how important community involvement and leadership positions are while they gloss over the MCAT. So I assumed that you need a high MCAT score to even be considered, and then the only people who get in also have good ECs. I never imagined that people with high MCAT scores and weak ECs would get in because of how much med schools stress their desire for well-rounded applicants.
Click to expand...
First, I never said you can't have both. Second, all I'm saying is the MCAT is more important.
 
kesher said:
Every time a medical school comes to talk to us, they're like "the MCAT isn't everything, we look at the whole person, we want a diverse class." They go on and on about how important community involvement and leadership positions are while they gloss over the MCAT. So I assumed that you need a high MCAT score to even be considered, and then the only people who get in also have good ECs. I never imagined that people with high MCAT scores and weak ECs would get in because of how much med schools stress their desire for well-rounded applicants.
Click to expand...

What you're failing to understand is that people on the right side of the spectrum can be very involved too. With almost 60,000 applicants nation wide, and generally around 9,000 per school, the schools can find 200 people who are well rounded. Holistic doesnt mean you can make up for crap scores with great EC's, because guess what? there is someone who got great grades great scores and rounded out their app with the EC's and LOR.
 
I am all for having more women in medicine.

Actually if my medical school could be me, my 5 best guy friends, and 194 women I will be more than pleased.

OP is onto something good. Let's grab a drink OP and discuss it more.
 
GrumpyGus said:
I am all for having more women in medicine.

Actually if my medical school could be me, my 5 best guy friends, and 194 women I will be more than pleased.

OP is onto something good. Let's grab a drink OP and discuss it more.
Click to expand...

Its either gonna end up like that episode of rick and morty with the female planet or it will end up like the airplane scene on wolf of wallstreet
 
Because more men are applying these days than women.

kesher said:
Now that I have your attention, I'd like to clarify that I can only speak for my school. I understand that what is true for my school certainly isn't true at all other universities.

I attend a large state school which is 60% female and 40% male. It's common knowledge that it's harder for girls to get in, so we're on average more qualified than the boys. The average female GPA is a 3.4 and the average male GPA is a 3.2. I'm not sure if this is because of work ethic (girls work harder?), major choice (girls choose easier majors?), or both.

The vast majority of campus organizations are overrun by girls! Most of the members and almost all of the leaders are girls. This is also true for off campus volunteer positions. The female:male ratio is always higher than the expected 60:40. I have yet to find an exception. To demonstrate this insane ratio, I'm in a committee with about 100 people-- and there are only 3 boys. 3/100! And the organization's mission isn't even "feminine" in nature.

I've also noticed that girl pre-meds are usually much more involved than boy pre-meds here. The girls partake in more ECs, volunteer more, and are more likely to have multiple leadership positions as well as do lab research. I would say that the average female applicant from my school is significantly more qualified than the average male applicant, so the 50/50 gender ratio at most medical schools confuses me.

Of course, there are still boys that are extremely involved and girls who don't make use of their free time. I'm only speaking to the general trend.

Does this hold true for your university as well? Or is mine just an anomaly?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Hyper-specific Weakness is Dropping GPA. Are all 3.7x cGPAs equal?
Replies
2
Views
108
FrannyJ
F
P
Are your chances at a top med school severely hindered without research productivity?
Replies
5
Views
1K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
Z
Are secondary applications private?
Replies
5
Views
532
gyngyn
gyngyn
F
Are there any CSULB alumni who are currently a physician or in med school?
Replies
1
Views
603
scallionpancake
scallionpancake
magician7772222
How common are scholarships and need based grants from MD schools?
Replies
3
Views
1K
OfMiceAndWomen
O
Top