Will having extra "difficult" classes help in application?

[TheBiologist]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So I realized for I have spots in my schedule to take "electives"

Now, I could take basket weaving and get an A, but would it be to my benefit to take something like Calculus 2 or PChem, even if I get a B? And if I did pull a high grade in those classes would that be of benefit to my application?

thanks and I'll be a junior

 

[CopaceticOne]

So I realized for I have spots in my schedule to take "electives"

Now, I could take basket weaving and get an A, but would it be to my benefit to take something like Calculus 2 or PChem, even if I get a B? And if I did pull a high grade in those classes would that be of benefit to my application?

thanks and I'll be a junior

Nope, based on the courses you listed

 

[TheBiologist]

Nope, based on the courses you listed

what do you mean based off the courses? most med schools say they want your ugrad to be as broad as possible - yes they aren't biologies but that shouldn't matter in what I'm asking.

are you saying that getting an A in Pchem wont' make me a more competative applicant?

 

[tskbdmnd]

Dude calc 2 is like 4 things. Why assume you'll get a B?

 

[CopaceticOne]

what do you mean based off the courses? most med schools say they want your ugrad to be as broad as possible - yes they aren't biologies but that shouldn't matter in what I'm asking.

are you saying that getting an A in Pchem wont' make me a more competative applicant?

Getting a B in a hard class does not trump getting an A in an easy class.

Also, neither of those will help with med school, so if you're only taking them for that purpose they I'd suggest you think again. One could argue that basket weaving is encouraging your exposure to academic diversity by exploring the arts.

Now, if you're interested in those subjects, by all means take those courses.

 

[tskbdmnd]

I've noticed that nobody will answer this question. Anytime it's asked. Just vaguely, and suggesting to take the humanities class.

 

[CopaceticOne]

I've noticed that nobody will answer this question. Anytime it's asked. Just vaguely, and suggesting to take the humanities class.

Wtf? I answered the question.

 

[ConfusedChemist]

I've noticed that nobody will answer this question. Anytime it's asked. Just vaguely, and suggesting to take the humanities class.

That's because it's been asked about 100,000,000 times before, and is explicitly stated on basically every medical school's website

 

[Cotterpin]

What will help the most is having a higher gpa.

 

[tskbdmnd]

Wtf? I answered the question.

You answered it for his scenario. Do actual difficult classes do anything for it though? 'Cause of course calc 2 and pchem wouldn't.

 

[TheBiologist]

You answered it for his scenario. Do actual difficult classes do anything for it though? 'Cause of course calc 2 and pchem wouldn't.

I might be misreading what you're saying, but are you suggesting that pchem isn't a hard class?

 

[CopaceticOne]

You answered it for his scenario. Do actual difficult classes do anything for it though? 'Cause of course calc 2 and pchem wouldn't.

That would depend on how individual admissions committees view course work. My statement was specifically pointed to the OP asking if (to paraphrase) "is B in hard class better than A in easy class". When it comes to GPA calculation the answer is an automatic no.

That said, and this is my opinion, if there is concern about an applicant's ability to handle the academic rigor of medical school then looking at their past performance with challenging coursework could tilt the scale in one direction.

 

[Cotterpin]

You answered it for his scenario. Do actual difficult classes do anything for it though? 'Cause of course calc 2 and pchem wouldn't.

???? Are calc 2 and pchem not actual difficult classes?

I don't know what your definition of an "actual difficult class" is, but the answer to the question is that any class you take and do well in will help. Taking a hard class and not getting a good grade is not going to help you.

 

[tskbdmnd]

???? Are calc 2 and pchem not actual difficult classes?

I don't know what your definition of an "actual difficult class" is, but the answer to the question is that any class you take and do well in will help. Taking a hard class and not getting a good grade is not going to help you.

Calc 2 at least, is high school stuff.

That would depend on how individual admissions committees view course work. My statement was specifically pointed to the OP asking if (to paraphrase) "is B in hard class better than A in easy class". When it comes to GPA calculation the answer is an automatic no.

That said, and this is my opinion, if there is concern about an applicant's ability to handle the academic rigor of medical school then looking at their past performance with challenging coursework could tilt the scale in one direction.

You think it could? I'm taking a pretty rigorous course load. I hope it helps. Either way, I'm taking it.

 

[confidentandgood]

.

 

[TheBiologist]

remember also that I'm talking about EXTRA classes - I actually shouldn't have even said electives because these do not count toward anything, they are just room in my schedule. So I COULD take nothing, but my thoughts were that med schools would look at my curiosity for hard subjects favorably, but I'm not sure by how much

 

[TheBiologist]

So I guess another good question is - which is better, taking nothing, or getting a B in physical chemistry or quantum physics or something crazy

 

[tskbdmnd]

remember also that I'm talking about EXTRA classes - I actually shouldn't have even said electives because these do not count toward anything, they are just room in my schedule. So I COULD take nothing, but my thoughts were that med schools would look at my curiosity for hard subjects favorably, but I'm not sure by how much

If you do, maybe take a pre req one semester, and build on that.
Also don't get a B. The answer is always don't get a B. Get As.

 

[confidentandgood]

remember also that I'm talking about EXTRA classes - I actually shouldn't have even said electives because these do not count toward anything, they are just room in my schedule. So I COULD take nothing, but my thoughts were that med schools would look at my curiosity for hard subjects favorably, but I'm not sure by how much

They want to see that you've done well in the science pre-reqs and have a strong overall GPA. The rigor of your coursework will not always make or break you as an applicant. The application as a whole is important. And a humanities major with a 3.8 GPA is not going to be frowned upon by committees because his peer, a biochemistry major, has a 3.5 GPA.

So I guess another good question is - which is better, taking nothing, or getting a B in physical chemistry or quantum physics or something crazy

Why take nothing? Why not take a class that you'll enjoy (and thus probably excel in)? Many students would kill for those free spots.

 

[Goro]

Take whatever interests you the most, and do well.

So I realized for I have spots in my schedule to take "electives"

Now, I could take basket weaving and get an A, but would it be to my benefit to take something like Calculus 2 or PChem, even if I get a B? And if I did pull a high grade in those classes would that be of benefit to my application?

thanks and I'll be a junior

 

[QuizzicalApe]

They aren't going to take the difficulty of individual classes into account because they aren't able to vet the rigor of every individual school's courses. They will care about the overall science GPA, and that the remainder of the numbers also make you look smart.

Well-rounded means "required sciences + others if you want, and a good selection of non-sciences don't be a total nerd ugh"

 

[eteshoe]

So I guess another good question is - which is better, taking nothing, or getting a B in physical chemistry or quantum physics or something crazy

Depends on how your GPA is looking and how much of a hit you can afford to take. For me, I lost my 4.0 my second yr and that opened up the possibility for me to take some tougher classes since I knew I could do well enough (GPA-wise) since I wasn't stressing over protecting my GPA. If you are on the border of being med school competitive, it may be more prudent to take nothing extra or something easy to boost that GPA.

 

[kamakazi5]

So I guess another good question is - which is better, taking nothing, or getting a B in physical chemistry or quantum physics or something crazy

What would be best is to take the opportunity to learn something that you won't get the opportunity to learn later for an elective. Getting a B (or even an A) in a couple of more challenging classes isn't going to do much of anything for your app.

To specifically answer your question, it would be best to take nothing in the scenario you posted because betting a B is going to drop you GPA regardless.

 

[doctorleospaceman]

So I guess another good question is - which is better, taking nothing, or getting a B in physical chemistry or quantum physics or something crazy

It depends. If you already have a solid GPA then only take the course if you're genuinely interested and are confident that your GPA won't nosedive. If your science prereq grades weren't great, then it might be a good option to shown that you're capable of handling difficult material.

I took higher level science courses because my prereqs were a mix of mostly Bs and some As, since I took many my first few semesters. To show that I later got my **** together, I opted to take genetics, anatomy and phys and, actually, quantum physics, getting As in all of those. I myself think, and my advisor agrees, that doing so will help adcoms overlook my below average sGPA since I have shown that I can succeed in rigorous science courses. Obviously I also wanted to take all those courses out of personal interest which I think helped me do well. Definitely dont take something like quantum unless you're genuinely interested in it. It won't end well.

A B in those courses, I think, wouldn't have strengthened my application at all, but As I believe do.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

Calc 2 at least, is high school stuff.

Watch out, we got a cool dude here.

Don't take pchem unless you feel very comfortable with Calc2 and possibly infinite series. If it is combined with the grad student section, it will be very difficult. If you have good TAs or a book, it is doable.

Also, MIT has great classes to cover pchem topics.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

So I guess another good question is - which is better, taking nothing, or getting a B in physical chemistry or quantum physics or something crazy

What if you do worse and get a C? These classes won't help you in med school. Take then if it interests you and you think you can do it, but not because you are trying to impress someone. Frankly, they won't care and if your GPA gets too low they may not even see it...

 

[aldol16]

Don't take pchem unless you feel very comfortable with Calc2 and possibly infinite series. If it is combined with the grad student section, it will be very difficult. If you have good TAs or a book, it is doable.

I've never had to TA a PChem course at the undergrad level that requires knowledge of infinite series. Of integration, yes. But not of infinite series. The chemistry version of quantum mechanics you can get through with knowledge of basic differentials equations (literally like three concepts from differential equations that you could self-teach) - again, at the undergrad level. I'd be surprised if the only quantum mechanics course offered at your school at the undergrad level required explicit knowledge of LaGuerre polynomials or something like that.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

I've never had to TA a PChem course at the undergrad level that requires knowledge of infinite series. Of integration, yes. But not of infinite series. The chemistry version of quantum mechanics you can get through with knowledge of basic differentials equations (literally like three concepts from differential equations that you could self-teach) - again, at the undergrad level. I'd be surprised if the only quantum mechanics course offered at your school at the undergrad level required explicit knowledge of LaGuerre polynomials or something like that.

When I TAed pchem, I spent a good few weeks teaching people basic series (which honestly was just the simple taylor series stuff and geo expansion etc for van der waals expansions).

Our undergrad course expected us to do well in the math portion (and we needed a pretty solid backgroundin math) to be able to just pass, because it was also the grad school section.

I think my school's was really hard though haha. Unusually so for some reason.

 

[aldol16]

When I TAed pchem, I spent a good few weeks teaching people basic series (which honestly was just the simple taylor series stuff and geo expansion etc for van der waals expansions).

Our undergrad course expected us to do well in the math portion (and we needed a pretty solid backgroundin math) to be able to just pass, because it was also the grad school section.

I think my school's was really hard though haha. Unusually so for some reason.

I TA at an Ivy League school (although grad school ranking rarely correlates with undergrad prestige, it did in this case) so I wouldn't say the PChem was easy. I think the difference is that your class had a combined undergrad/grad section and they necessarily needed to make it more difficult for grad students because if they didn't, it would just hurt the grad students' background knowledge required for research. So everybody was held to a higher standard. I never really saw the point in long, complicated equations like the Virial equation in any undergraduate PChem course and if we teach it, it's usually just so everyone is familiar with what's out there. The van der Waals equation of state works for most PChem and PChem lab purposes.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

I TA at an Ivy League school (although grad school ranking rarely correlates with undergrad prestige, it did in this case) so I wouldn't say the PChem was easy. I think the difference is that your class had a combined undergrad/grad section and they necessarily needed to make it more difficult for grad students because if they didn't, it would just hurt the grad students' background knowledge required for research. So everybody was held to a higher standard. I never really saw the point in long, complicated equations like the Virial equation in any undergraduate PChem course and if we teach it, it's usually just so everyone is familiar with what's out there. The van der Waals equation of state works for most PChem and PChem lab purposes.

My school focused a lot on chemistry and most were experimentalists (two nobels cane out of it...good state school).

We were expected to be able to derive things like the virial expansion, etc...because the department was full of experimentalists.

 

[aldol16]

We were expected to be able to derive things like the virial expansion, etc...because the department was full of experimentalists.

But rarely do people work with real and ideal gases anymore. The current hot fields are in catalysis and electrochemistry. I guess different people have different teaching styles. I just feel bad for the undergrads in the class.

 

[Stagg737]

You answered it for his scenario. Do actual difficult classes do anything for it though? 'Cause of course calc 2 and pchem wouldn't.

Not really. If your entire transcript is just 100 and 200 level classes it's not going to look good because you haven't demonstrated any ability to do higher level coursework. However, you really just need to do some upper level courses in an area that demonstrates you're capable of succeeding in med school level classes. I say this as someone who has essentially 3 years worth of 300/400 level classes on my UG transcript, and the harder course load did NOT seem to help my application in the least bit.

 

[aldol16]

Not really. If your entire transcript is just 100 and 200 level classes it's not going to look good because you haven't demonstrated any ability to do higher level coursework. However, you really just need to do some upper level courses in an area that demonstrates you're capable of succeeding in med school level classes. I say this as someone who has essentially 3 years worth of 300/400 level classes on my UG transcript, and the harder course load did NOT seem to help my application in the least bit.

I would think that people with mostly 100 and 200 level courses on their transcripts would look highly suspect. I mean, I would expect majority 100 and 200 classes in the first two years but in the later years, I would expect most people to have 300 and 400 level classes. I would be surprised to see a major that one could complete taking mostly 100 and 200 classes.

 

[Stagg737]

I would think that people with mostly 100 and 200 level courses on their transcripts would look highly suspect. I mean, I would expect majority 100 and 200 classes in the first two years but in the later years, I would expect most people to have 300 and 400 level classes. I would be surprised to see a major that one could complete taking mostly 100 and 200 classes.

Idk, depends on the school and major. At my UG the bio major required 31 credits in bio at the 200 level or higher and had 5 required courses, only 1 of which was a 300/400 level course. So a student could graduate with a bio major having only taken 2 or 3 300/400 level courses. I've seen similar requirements at plenty of other schools and in other majors. I think most people find a fair amount of 300 and 400 level courses interesting and easy enough that they go for them. However, if a student really wanted to just take the easiest, and lowest level courses to get the bare-minimum and keep their GPA as high as possible, they could certainly do it many places. It's cases like that where I think taking a few more upper level courses becomes necessary, at least in the student's chosen major.

 

[aldol16]

Idk, depends on the school and major. At my UG the bio major required 31 credits in bio at the 200 level or higher and had 5 required courses, only 1 of which was a 300/400 level course. So a student could graduate with a bio major having only taken 2 or 3 300/400 level courses. I've seen similar requirements at plenty of other schools and in other majors. I think most people find a fair amount of 300 and 400 level courses interesting and easy enough that they go for them. However, if a student really wanted to just take the easiest, and lowest level courses to get the bare-minimum and keep their GPA as high as possible, they could certainly do it many places. It's cases like that where I think taking a few more upper level courses becomes necessary, at least in the student's chosen major.

Hmm I think students who try to game the system like that will have a tough time performing well on the MCAT. A lot of upper level bio courses are literature-based seminars and those go a long way in teaching you how to interpret data in a context that is very useful for the MCAT. It all evens out in the end. High GPA/low MCAT is where a lot of SDNers lie actually, if you head over to the WAMC forum. It's not that surprising to me.

 

[Stagg737]

Hmm I think students who try to game the system like that will have a tough time performing well on the MCAT. A lot of upper level bio courses are literature-based seminars and those go a long way in teaching you how to interpret data in a context that is very useful for the MCAT. It all evens out in the end. High GPA/low MCAT is where a lot of SDNers lie actually, if you head over to the WAMC forum. It's not that surprising to me.

True, I ended up being the opposite, do okay in classes and usually do really well on standardized tests. Fortunately in med school the boards count for a lot more than pre-clinical GPA, so (hopefully) I'll have a little edge there. I never really understood how people could do so well in classes and then do so mediocre on the MCAT though. Other than the verbal section it was always really standardized, so unless they either have serious test anxiety or just go to a terrible school I really don't get how some people with 3.8+ GPAs end up doing so poorly.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

But rarely do people work with real and ideal gases anymore. The current hot fields are in catalysis and electrochemistry. I guess different people have different teaching styles. I just feel bad for the undergrads in the class.

It don't matta really what the current fields are- obviously deriving engine work isn't super important anymore.

The exercise was morein learning how to derive, which is an impprtant skill.

 

[Law2Doc]

Med schools aren't going to audit every elective to see if applicants took harder stuff. At the end the GPA will matter more. So yes, taking basket weaving for an A is wiser than taking Pchem for a B, if the goal is med school. And yes if you have a good GPA taking no extra electives is wiser than taking extra stuff that will pull the GPA down. Med schools need you to take the prereqs and want you to have the highest GPA and sGPA possible. Everything else you take after that is on you -- and your own interests. A med school is far far more likely to take the dance major with the 4.0 who took just the prereqs than they are to take the science major with the 3.5 who took objectively "harder" science classes. For med school that's just foolish. If your goal is to be a chemist, maybe not.

 

[Catalystik]

It depends. If you already have a solid GPA then only take the course if you're genuinely interested and are confident that your GPA won't nosedive. If your science prereq grades weren't great, then it might be a good option to shown that you're capable of handling difficult material.

I took higher level science courses because my prereqs were a mix of mostly Bs and some As, since I took many my first few semesters. To show that I later got my **** together, I opted to take genetics, anatomy and phys and, actually, quantum physics, getting As in all of those. I myself think, and my advisor agrees, that doing so will help adcoms overlook my below average sGPA since I have shown that I can succeed in rigorous science courses. Obviously I also wanted to take all those courses out of personal interest which I think helped me do well. Definitely dont take something like quantum unless you're genuinely interested in it. It won't end well.

A B in those courses, I think, wouldn't have strengthened my application at all, but As I believe do.

Good answer to the OP's question.

 

[aldol16]

Med schools aren't going to audit every elective to see if applicants took harder stuff. At the end the GPA will matter more. So yes, taking basket weaving for an A is wiser than taking Pchem for a B, if the goal is med school. And yes if you have a good GPA taking no extra electives is wiser than taking extra stuff that will pull the GPA down. Med schools need you to take the prereqs and want you to have the highest GPA and sGPA possible. Everything else you take after that is on you -- and your own interests. A med school is far far more likely to take the dance major with the 4.0 who took just the prereqs than they are to take the science major with the 3.5 who took objectively "harder" science classes. For med school that's just foolish. If your goal is to be a chemist, maybe not.

But I would argue that a 3.7 science major with hard courses is more impressive than a 3.7 dance major with easy classes, which might go into the overall evaluation (small factor).

 

[aldol16]

True, I ended up being the opposite, do okay in classes and usually do really well on standardized tests. Fortunately in med school the boards count for a lot more than pre-clinical GPA, so (hopefully) I'll have a little edge there. I never really understood how people could do so well in classes and then do so mediocre on the MCAT though. Other than the verbal section it was always really standardized, so unless they either have serious test anxiety or just go to a terrible school I really don't get how some people with 3.8+ GPAs end up doing so poorly.

I think it has more to do with rampant grade inflation across the country than any personal test-taking issue. Even at the graduate level, we're graduating too many unqualified students. On paper, they look great, but they lack analytical skills and instead overuse rote memorization.

 

[tskbdmnd]

I think it has more to do with rampant grade inflation across the country than any personal test-taking issue. Even at the graduate level, we're graduating too many unqualified students. On paper, they look great, but they lack analytical skills and instead overuse rote memorization.

I'm thinking this grade inflation stuff has to do with so many teachers curving tests. I've only had a couple teachers that did, but it kind of doesn't make any sense. It's dishonest if anything.

 

[aldol16]

I'm thinking this grade inflation stuff has to do with so many teachers curving tests. I've only had a couple teachers that did, but it kind of doesn't make any sense. It's dishonest if anything.

Curving actually helps fix the problem. When we administer tests, we aim for the average to be around 60-70% (a top school known for rigorous curriculum). If we were to simply grade using absolute values, the highest grade would often be a B, with the average being a C or C-. This is a problem when it's not the students not mastering the material but the exam just being designed to be very difficult. We do this because if you were to, say, pull questions from the question banks included in the instructor's version of textbooks, the exam averages would be 90% with very little spread. So instead, we write the questions to be difficult with the understanding that if one year's exam is very difficult, it'll still be fit to a curve and students will be ranked on their relative performances, assuming the abilities of the student pool from year to year do not change significantly. So in fact, fitting a class to a curve actually prevents inflation because you can usually fit a pretty good normal curve and choose how many A's you want to assign. You can give the top 10% of the class A's, the next 30-40% some form of B and the rest C's or something like that. If you grade on a curve and still have grade inflation, then what you're doing is setting the percentage of A's given too high.

 

[Stagg737]

I think it has more to do with rampant grade inflation across the country than any personal test-taking issue. Even at the graduate level, we're graduating too many unqualified students. On paper, they look great, but they lack analytical skills and instead overuse rote memorization.

That's fair I guess. I just didn't realize inflation was that much of an issue, as my school used a straight scale for 90% of classes and did not show much mercy in terms of grading. Our only class in the science department that was graded on a curve was orgo, so having a 3.75+ sGPA was extremely difficult at my school.

 

[Law2Doc]

But I would argue that a 3.7 science major with hard courses is more impressive than a 3.7 dance major with easy classes, which might go into the overall evaluation (small factor).

You can argue anything you want. Having seen first hand how this plays out I'd still put money on the dance major.

 

[aldol16]

You can argue anything you want. Having seen first hand how this plays out I'd still put money on the dance major.

Why is that?

 

[Law2Doc]

Why is that?

(A) Schools value diversity, (B) schools don't have time to audit what classes are actually more difficult, (c) the dance major will have something more interesting to talk about or showcase in the interview. Premeds are fooling themselves if they think a transcript of really hard courses means much. At the end of the day it's "did you get mostly A's" and if so they move on to ECs and other things that make you interesting.

 

[aldol16]

(A) Schools value diversity, (B) schools don't have time to audit what classes are actually more difficult, (c) the dance major will have something more interesting to talk about or showcase in the interview. Premeds are fooling themselves if they think a transcript of really hard courses means much. At the end of the day it's "did you get mostly A's" and if so they move on to ECs and other things that make you interesting.

Interesting perspective. I heard differing perspectives on here from adcoms saying they view classes holistically such that engineering majors are viewed in the context of their classes - not that it necessarily gives them any measurable boost. I would say that somebody's major doesn't define their ECs and what makes them interesting (I'm biased since I was a hard science major and a D1 athlete) but thank you for your response.

 

[Law2Doc]

Interesting perspective. I heard differing perspectives on here from adcoms saying they view classes holistically such that engineering majors are viewed in the context of their classes - not that it necessarily gives them any measurable boost. I would say that somebody's major doesn't define their ECs and what makes them interesting but thank you for your response.

You can take harder classes and still have good ECs, sure, but odds are the person that chooses harder classes will log more hours doing things that don't make for a good interview. While Adcoms do sometimes say they give the nod to certain hard majors like engineering, most of the time it's pretty minimal and those who are being really honest with you will tell you that a good GPA trumps -- they'd rather not get into parsing who took what level courses.

In the example above I'd still put $ on the dance major.

 

[tskbdmnd]

You can take harder classes and still have good ECs, sure, but odds are the person that chooses harder classes will log more hours doing things that don't make for a good interview. While Adcoms do sometimes say they give the nod to certain hard majors like engineering, most of the time it's pretty minimal and those who are being really honest with you will tell you that a good GPA trumps -- they'd rather not get into parsing who took what level courses.

In the example above I'd still put $ on the dance major.

Would you put any $ on the engineering major over a biology major? Assuming both have stellar GPAs.