Why is a 3.0 bad?

[Chimichica]

---

Members do not see this ad.

A 3.0 is a B average which in academics usually stands for above average. I know for getting into medical school that kind of gpa is dismissed. But I'm not sure I understand why? When did being above average (3.0-3.4) become a negative connotation? I'm not complaining, just curious. Maybe its linked to relative competitivness. Is this a similar trend in applying to residency? The reason I ask is somewhere between graduating undergrad and building up my med school app, the accomplishments I achieved in undergrad and how proud I was being and A/B student became something akin to a scarlet letter. My 3.2 gpa is an eye sore and an all out embarrassment. Any ideas? @gonnif @Goro @meded @Crayola

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[KnowledgeBot4000]

Because there are many more people who want to enter medical schools than seats, and all of the seats can be filled by students with much, much higher GPAs than 3.0.

 

[Blunt Dissection]

Because there are many more people who want to enter medical schools than seats, and all of the seats can be filled by students with much, much higher GPAs than 3.0.

This. Plus the fact that medical school is significantly more difficult than an undergrad curriculum. In undergrad, I found myself studying seriously maybe 2-3 days before an exam and I still did alright. If I began studying 2-3 days before any of my basic science exams now, you could count on a big ol' fail.

 

[Darth Doc]

A 3.0 is a B average which in academics usually stands for above average. I know for getting into medical school that kind of gpa is dismissed. But I'm not sure I understand why? When did being above average (3.0-3.4) become a negative connotation? I'm not complaining, just curious. Maybe its linked to relative competitivness. Is this a similar trend in applying to residency?

Tests are supposed to be an evaluation of our ability to learn material. The quantities of information that must be learned in medical school are far greater than anything you see in undergraduate courses. Schools want to choose students most likely to succeed, so when given many students to choose from and all else being equal, they will choose students with higher scores.

Residencies do the same thing - for example, ophthalmology boards have a high fail rate so since they won't even look at people below a certain Step score. Even looking at fourth year away rotations, some won't accept you if you aren't currently in the top half of your class.

If you want to go to medical school, get used to people using your test numbers as a way to judge you.

 

[Goro]

In the distant past my school used to accept some people with gpa's of 3.0 or 3.1.

Those people had a LOT of trouble with our program.

 

[shouldigomd]

Average depends on the population....

Being average at a state undergrad university isn't quite the same as being average at harvard med school. A different population. Just like an average soccer player from the MLS vs an average soccer player on barcelona are at quite different skill levels.

A 3.0 in college with that population isn't enough to pursue a highly competitive field just as 3.0 in med school isn't enough to pursue a highly competitive field (optho / derm).

 

[aformerstudent]

A 3.0 is a B average which in academics usually stands for above average. I know for getting into medical school that kind of gpa is dismissed. But I'm not sure I understand why? When did being above average (3.0-3.4) become a negative connotation? I'm not complaining, just curious. Maybe its linked to relative competitivness. Is this a similar trend in applying to residency? The reason I ask is somewhere between graduating undergrad and building up my med school app, the accomplishments I achieved in undergrad and how proud I was being and A/B student became something akin to a scarlet letter. My 3.2 gpa is an eye sore and an all out embarrassment. Any ideas? @gonnif @Goro @meded @Crayola

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

A 3.0 by itself is not bad. The problem is what it represents. When you take a test, passing with an 80 is fine by most any standard but for the purpose of applying to medical school, they will look at the 3.0 as "not working as hard or as efficient as you possibly can." Does a 4.0 mean you're smart? I don't think so but it most certainly shows that you know how to work hard in the academic sense. And that is what most of medical training involves. You will need that type of hard work through basic sciences, board exams, residency, and beyond. After experiencing basic sciences, trust me, you will wish you were that 4.0 student or as close to that as possible. Also, nobody cares about your accomplishments if you don't have the numbers as the foundation. Just my experience.

BTW, you don't need an adcom to give you this advice.

 

[Goro]

Ahh, I love the "splat" sound the Banhammer makes on the foreheads of loose cannons!!

 

[mwsapphire]

.

 

[Lawpy]

Ahh, I love the "splat" sound the Banhammer makes on the foreheads of loose cannons!!

He isn't banned. He's just on Account on Hold.

 

[Goro]

He isn't banned. He's just on Account on Hold.

I can dream.

 

[etp123]

In the distant past my school used to accept some people with gpa's of 3.0 or 3.1.

Those people had a LOT of trouble with our program.

What about students who have a 3.1-3.2 as a result of coming back from a previously dismal GPA? Were they also in that category or is that more for students who had maintained mostly a B avg?

 

[Goro]

What about students who have a 3.1-3.2 as a result of coming back from a previously dismal GPA? Were they also in that category or is that more for students who had maintained mostly a B avg?

There are schools that reward reinvention. Having the last two years at > 3.8 is >>>>than having a flat 3.1 all the way through UG.

 

[Blanky]

A 3.5 is 50/50 As and Bs......

 

[tryptamine]

It's interesting to look at this through the lens of the overall trend in grade inflation and years worth of schools' vying to produce more apparently "competitive" candidates. 4.0 GPAs, as I've been led to understand, were exceedingly rare until the last quarter of last century. Pushing a decade ago, when I graduated, I personally knew a handful of people with perfect grades, even not being premed myself. Additionally, the competitiveness of standardized tests and the culture of spending tens or hundreds of hours preparing for them is a more recent development.

After I committed to the nontrad route and took the MCAT, my dad dug up and sent me copies of his transcript and MCAT score report from 1970. His GPA was a 3.0/2.7, and his MCAT subsection scores ("Verbal Ability," "Quantitative Ability," "General Information," and "Science") ranged from 56th to 90th percentiles. Neither he nor any of his friends studied for the MCAT, and he yet he scored, by my posteriorly extracted arithmetic, somewhere in the equivalent of the 505-508 range as a lackluster student. Of the two Philly MD schools where he applied, he walked out of one interview for one and was accepted to the other. Things have definitely changed as pressure and salaries have increased in the field and as the focus to succeeding in a career has moved down the chain to younger and younger people. You have to wonder whether the end result has actually been better patient outcomes and at what point it will reach a meaningless limit.

 

[Goro]

It's interesting to look at this through the lens of the overall trend in grade inflation and years worth of schools' vying to produce more apparently "competitive" candidates. 4.0 GPAs, as I've been led to understand, were exceedingly rare until the last quarter of last century. Pushing a decade ago, when I graduated, I personally knew a handful of people with perfect grades, even not being premed myself. Additionally, the competitiveness of standardized tests and the culture of spending tens or hundreds of hours preparing for them is a more recent development.

After I committed to the nontrad route and took the MCAT, my dad dug up and sent me copies of his transcript and MCAT score report from 1970. His GPA was a 3.0/2.7, and his MCAT subsection scores ("Verbal Ability," "Quantitative Ability," "General Information," and "Science") ranged from 56th to 90th percentiles. Neither he nor any of his friends studied for the MCAT, and he yet he scored, by my posteriorly extracted arithmetic, somewhere in the equivalent of the 505-508 range as a lackluster student. Of the two Philly MD schools where he applied, he walked out of one interview for one and was accepted to the other. Things have definitely changed as pressure and salaries have increased in the field and as the focus to succeeding in a career has moved down the chain to younger and younger people. You have to wonder whether the end result has actually been better patient outcomes and at what point it will reach a meaningless limit.

The median MCAT scores at Duke and UCLA have decreased over the last year as both schools are apparently taking a more holistic look at applicants. In addition, the required competencies in what med schools ask for are mostly in the humanistic domains. 4.0 automatons are a dime a dozen. Yet because it's a seller's market, schools have their pick of high stat applicants.