|
With all due respect, I think I'm going to have to disagree with post #3 on a few levels.
(1) There is definitely some flexibility in how a GPA is viewed, but in no case is it ever large enough to reach 0.5 GPA points. Still, I can see where LWMD is coming from on this point.
(2) I know of some schools which employ cutoffs for premeds -- Johns Hopkins is the most famous of these -- but many more do so "under the table." Again, I can see where LWMD is coming from since most of these requirements are implicit, but unfortunately this isn't necessarily very reassuring.
(3) I'd be very wary of relying too heavily on an admissions percentage as a core metric. It's useful, no doubt, but it is definitely open to manipulation via screening, as your original post is rightly concerned about. For example, Christopher Newport brags about its 100% admissions rate -- that should be a cause for *concern,* not a cause for reassurance.
Still, it is useful, especially among peer schools. Stanford is at 70% compared to Duke's 80% and Harvard's 90%; I do think that's important information.
(4) LWMD is right on the money when he/she argues that MCAT is more useful. In fact, I would say that's a very good thing to look for: if you can obtain the data, find out what the average MCAT score of admitted students is. You want it low, not high -- since it means that "even low MCAT scores have a chance from X school." Sadly, very few schools give out this information.
(5) The bottom line? Most schools don't use hard cutoffs anyway, but they do have some standards in mind if they're screening schools.
|