sakky

Answer to question 1, yes.

Answer to question 2 - by itself, the major means little. As long as you fulfill the pre-med requirements, then it doesn't really matter what you majored in per-se.

However, your major does matter in this sense. In general, certain majors are easier than others. They give out higher grades while demanding less work. And the fact is, humanities majors tend to be easier than science majors, and are obviously much easier than engineering majors, which are probably the worst majors of all for premed students simply because of the harsh grading and massive workload that encompasses engineering. Med-school adcoms want to see high grades, and don't seem to care very much about how you get those high grades, as long as you get them. A guy with straight A's in underwater basket-weaving is far far far more attractive to a med-school than a guy with straight B's in electrical engineering, even if the second guy worked a hundred times harder than the first guy. The point is that science majors tend to get a raw deal vs. humanities majors as far as med-school admission goes, because of the harder grading and greater workload. Obviously lots of those science majors get into med-school (because a huge number of them apply), but I would argue that the road was more difficult than it needed to be.

Brown, however, is a special case. At most schools, science majors require more classes, and those classes are graded harder, than the humanities majors are. At Brown, grading is deemphasized. Classes can be taken pass/not-pass, failing grades are not recorded, and there are no formal majors, only concentrations, so you are basically free to take whatever classes you want. So it may well be true that at Brown, the sciences and the humanities are of equivalent difficulty.

showwhite

Sakky

I was just reading your post, then I realized that you are extremely pessimistic about medical school admission. I don't think 3.6 something GPA is 'not that good' gpa. I agree with you on the fact that Berkeley didn't do really good job to send its undergrads to med schools. That doesn't mean other schools have same results. Even MIT (you mentioned)'s accepted students to med school has gpa range of 3.3 - 4.0. That means some people got into med school with 3.3 GPA. 3.7 is just an average.
You are right. A student who has gpa of 2.0 in Harvard has less chance than a student who has 4.0 in Penn State assuming all the other factors are same for both students. However, I am pretty sure that most of med schools count where you go to college somewhat. I met UVA, Duke, U Penn, U Mich, Harvard, and USC med school admission office representatives. That's what they said. Also you can check my school's stat(Duke). http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/success/
You can check most of med schools' admission stat. Then you will realize that most of med schools' average GPA for freshmen is somewhere in the range of 3.5 and 3.6. Also about the acceptance rate, most schools have acceptance rate of 5~15%. However, you can't assume that a student who apply for 10-20 med schools has a chance of 5 to 15%. National average is somewhere in 50%.
Mr. Patel has a good chance as most applicants do!!

sakky

Showwhite, I think what you meant to say in your last sentence is not that Mr. Patel has a good chance as most applicants do, but rather that he has (presuming he does all the things he says he's going to do) as good of a chance as most applicants do. If that's what you meant, then I would agree with you.

Perhaps the problem is that maybe we have different definitions of what is a 'good chance'. For me, a good chance is something that is quite likely to happen - read, 75% and up. A coin flip to me (i.e., something that has a 50% probably of happening) is not my idea of a 'good chance'. Perhaps it is to you. If so, then fine.

The point is that a 3.6 GPA, presuming he gets it (which is certainly not anywhere near to being in the bag), still does not really give him a good chance of getting into med-school, the way I define what a 'good chance' is. To really have a good chance, I would say that a person would have to have at least a 3.75.

I am well aware that the nationwide admissions rate of premeds who choose to apply is somewhere about 50%. However, the nationwide admissions rate of premeds who choose to apply is just that - it has to do with people who actually choose to apply. Lots of premeds end up not applying to med-school because they don't get competitive grades or bomb their MCAT or whatever, and so they never actually go through with the process of applying to any med-schools.

Let's also keep in mind that many undergrad programs allow only certain of their premeds to apply to med-school by providing that "dean's certification letter" (or whatever the school is calling it) only to their best premeds, thereby effectively barring their not-so-good premeds from applying anywhere. Schools do this to artificially boost their reported rate of premed admissions percentages. Basically, they are cherry-picking who gets to apply in the first place. They can report a boosted admissions percentage success rate by only sending out their all-star team. That obviously doesn't do any of the non-all-stars any favors.

Finally, I think you should take what those med-school adcom officers have told you with not just a grain of salt, or with a large shaker of salt. Adcom officers will always tell you that the rigor of the undergrad school matters. On the other hand, when you pin them down, they will also have no choice but to admit that most applications are never read by a human being. Rather, numerical screens were used to filter out which applications will actually be seriously considered, and those screens weed out those with low GPA's and low MCAT's. What happens is that AMCAS sends predigested data about only the GPA and MCAT scores of premeds to the med-schools, and these med-schools, in the so-called 'Round 1 Analysis' will then decide who among those premeds will be invited to submit a Round-2 application, which is the 'real' application, with all the information about the applicant (the EC's, the essays, etc. etc.) If you're not invited, you don't get to submit a round-2 application.

So all the MIT electrical engineers who have low GPA's tend to be weeded out in Round 1 even before their applications are ever read by a human being. Yet the guy who has a 4.0 in Underwater Basketweaving from a no-name school will survive the process. (I am ignoring the MCAT here, but you see my point). Sure, the basketweaving guy might ultimately end up being rejected, but maybe not. Maybe that guy has something catchy in his EC's or his essays. Who knows? The point is that the second guy has kept himself alive in the process, which is far far more than the first guy can say. By keeping yourself alive, you are giving yourself a chance to get admitted. Nobody ever got admitted who got weeded out in the Round-1 screens. It's like getting into the playoffs in sports. Even if you just snuck into the playoffs by the skin of your teeth, who cares? You are giving yourself a chance to win the championship. You have absolutely zero chance of winning the championship if you can't even qualify for the playoffs. If you want any chance to win, you gotta stay alive in the process.

Finally, I would again say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If med-school adcoms really cared about the difficulty of particular undergrad programs, then why is the admissions rate for MIT premeds (and also Caltech premeds) so conspicuously low? I think everybody knows that these are very difficult schools - far more difficult than the Ivies and Stanford to which they are often compared. If med-school adcoms really cared about difficulty, then you would think that they would be looking at MIT premeds with a benevolent eye and admitting far more of them (and with far lower average GPA's) than they are. They would be saying, yeah, this guy has a substandard GPA, but he's from MIT where we all know that the grading is quite difficult, so let's admit him and reject this other applicant who came from, say, Harvard with a highly inflated GPA. The data indicates that they aren't really doing that.

atreeyum

So, in your opinion, is it better to go somewhere like UCLA, UCSD, or UCI (with a slightly lower GPA at UCLA then slightly higher at UCSD then slightly higher at UCI)?

Go to the university where it's more likely to get higher numbers, right? In the big picture, are all three universities along the same line?

And are UCI and UCD good undergrad schools (well, decent, at least)?

Thanks. Looking forward to your input.

Cheers!

rds248

I have some perspective on some of the issues on this thread. I am a practicing Gastroenterologist. I am also one of those people that got rejected from every medical school the first time I applied. This was in the late 70's when admissions were probably slightly more difficult than they are now. I also had a few low grades in my freshman year of college, and that made it much more difficult to get in. I went to an extremely high powered premed program with no grade inflation (Cornell), and as noted elsewhere on these pages, you don't get any extra credit for that. However there are many things you can do to improve your chances if you are really committed to a medical career. In my case I attended graduate school, got a Masters in biochemistry, did some interesting research, published a paper, and reapplied. Obviously I did get in, graduated at the top of my class, and got an internal medicine residency at a prestigious academic Medical Center in NYC. Although I was not interested in attending a foreign medical school, I have some colleagues that did take this route, and have been successful in their careers. There are many options after college to improve your chances, and some medical schools are particularly interested in students that do other things after graduating. Some options would include.. graduate school with bench research, a job in a medically related field, or a job at a teaching academic center where you might have contact with academic physicians. Medical schools are particularly interested in students who are potentially interested in an academic career (i.e. research, teaching etc.) because the vast majority of physicians go into private practice. If you can show the admissions committee that you have something different or special, it can definitely help. If you have personal contact or work contact with a physician who is an attending or professor at a medical school, knows you, and can write a letter about you, this can be very helpful. Remember that the vast majority of applicants look very similar, and anything that gets your application out of the pile can make a difference.
I would also add that it is important to have a plan B, because it you get rejected a second time your chances of getting in become very slim. I know many people that dropped the premed track in college, or pursued another career after being rejected. Most of them are not sorry...one is very successful as an advertising executive working with Pharmaceutical companies. Another got a PhD in pharmacology and became a researcher and medical school professor. I can also tell you stories of physicians that decided after medical school that they would prefer to do something else... one a successful plastic surgeon who went to law school at age 48, and is very happy practicing law at a big NYC firm. Another was a surgeon who completed his residency, decided he really didn't want to deal with all this HMO stuff, and decided to attend business school. He went to work for a big investment bank and is very happy. Stay open minded, keep a positive attitude.. and things will work out. Good Luck!

sakky

That's a good post, rds248.

I would point out that the foreign-medical school option is no slamdunk. Anybody who's thinking of using that as a safety valve should understand the following. In US medical schools, once you've matriculated, then you are basically guaranteed to graduate as long as you do the work. Yes, the work is extensive, and it is very difficult to graduate at the top of your class, but as long as you do the work, you will graduate. The involuntary dropout rate (basically, the flunkout rate) is practically nil at almost all US medical schools. The hardest part really is getting in. That's not true for some (not all, but some) foreign medical schools, particularly those in the Caribbean and in Latin America, where flunking out is a serious possibility. Furthermore, by graduating from a foreign medical-school, you run the heightened risk of not 'matching' at any residency, and in particular, you will have a lower chance at matching at highly competitive residencies.

The point is, don't think that foreign med-schools are a cureall. I've heard some premeds say that they don't think it's a big deal if they don't get into any US medical schools, because then they'll just go to med-school in the Caribbean. I think that's a very dangerous mentality to have.

sakky

Now if I may digress, I would point out that I think that that med-school admissions is simply too difficult. Why exactly does it have to be as difficult as it is? Now, let me be clear, I'm certainly not advocating that med-schools run open admissions or anything similarly foolish. Clearly med-schools have to have standards to keep out those people who clearly don't have what it takes to become doctors. On the other hand, with the present-day situation as it is, med-schools as an aggregate are rejecting plenty of people who do have what it takes.

Case in point, take rds248. He got rejected from every med-school he applied to the first time he applied, and so he had to get a graduate degree in biochem and publish a paper, and then apply again, where this time he was accepted, and he became a respected doctor and so forth and so on. Yet that situation begs the question of whether it was really efficient for the system as a whole to have rejected him the first time around, such that he then had to spend time getting another degree that was only tangentially related to what he really wanted to do, just to be able to prove that he really 'belonged'? Think of it this way. Rds248 had to spend an extra year or two getting that graduate degree in biochemistry. That's an extra year or two that he could have instead spent as a practicing doctor, healing more people. The same thing happens with other candidates - they get rejected from every medical school they apply to, and they either give up (which means that the world loses a potential doctor) or they go through the rigamarole of strengthening their application and apply again and get admitted, but that means that the world loses the potential medical services of that person for a year or more. Now, again, to be clear, there are obviously some candidates that deserve to be rejected from every single medical school, because they are clearly poor candidates and would make for bad doctors. I'm talking about those candidates who would make for perfectly fine doctors, but that the system of today rejects anyway.

I'll put the situation to you another way. When was the last time any of us ever said "Man, this place just has too many doctors"? When was the last time any of us ever saw a bored doctor with too much time on his/her hands and nothing to do? And when was the last time we got sick/injured and had to wait an inordinate amount of time before we even got to see a doctor? The point is, it doesn't seem to me that the world is suffering from a surplus of doctors. Far from it, in fact. There are entire swaths of the world that are clearly suffering from a lack of doctors. Even within the US, there are vast populations of people, particularly in the rural areas, that suffer from a lack of doctors. And every doctor I've ever known endures a brutally long workweek. I don't know any doctors twiddling their thumbs - all of them work an insane schedule. So if anything, it seems to me that there is a serious shortage of doctors. Yet med-schools on the aggregate are still turning away people that they know could become perfectly serviceable doctors, or are forcing them to spend more time proving their candidacy (like they did to rds248), thereby depriving the world of their medical services for a period of time. Why is that?

PSedrishMD

Sakky, this is why the Mexican model may make sense. I too needed to go offshore, basically because I partied my way out of contention in the 70s. In Mexico, nothing is guaranteed except the correct curriculum and lots of exams. It's a sink or swim approach, and in my school, the original class of about 250 graduated 38.
However, it was basically open enrollment. For kids who had grown up and were ready and able to do the work and could pass the social muster (bedside stuff) as well as handle the cultural stress (actually, I loved it!), well, you had another shot at something you might have messed up as a teenager because you were just too immature. Anyway, it worked for me and I am eternally grateful to Mexico for the chance. However....it's is not for everyone.

binsbts

Hey PSedrishMD and Sakky,
if what you guys say about the importance of GPA and MCAT is true,
which of these schools is better to go for premed?:

Stanford (Biomedical Calculation)
Cornell (Health & Human Biology)
Harvard

Now i understand that it differs for everyone since every factor needs to be accounted in order to see which school will get you the best GPA. But just in general terms, which schools would be easier to get better GPA's in terms of difficulty of gettin an A in a class at these schools?
I understand Cornell has a grade deflation and the other two schools have an inflation, but still Cornell has generally less "bright" people in percentage...Stanford might have less competitive people than Cornell does but its required English class is gonna kill me...so can you guys gimme your own ideas about choosing the best premed school? What are some of the most important factors i need to look at b4 I choose to go n e where? And which of these schools would you go and why?
Thx a lot~! Oh and happy new year~!!!!

PSedrishMD

Well I don't know beans about Stanford. Harvard's grade inflation is in many ways a myth (sorry Sakky), as there has been a lot of downward pressure in the last 2 yrs and while nobody gets Cs, few people get true As (my kids are both there and I know what it takes to get a flat A...it's very very tough). The avg there now is about a B+ (3.4 actually), but being avg at harvard isn't as easy as it might sound.
Cornell on the other hand is really tough, with lots of gratuitous Cs and even some Ds. No fun is to be had there, especially in the tougher schools like Engineering & ILR. I think it may be in many ways similar to MIT.

rds248

I can't comment on Stanford or Harvard, but at Cornell it is definitely challenging and difficult. The most difficult are the Intro Chem, Bio, and Organic chem which are large lectures with labs. The tests are all curved and designed to be very difficult in order to get a decent distribution of scores from a group of extremely bright students that are studying like crazy. Don't fool yourself.. I would disagree with your statement that Stanford and Harvard students are brighter. There are a large contingent of NY state residents doing premed at Cornell in the Ag school (they get in-state tuition which is much cheaper) from NYC magnet public schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science. These are Westinghouse Science winners, kids with 1600 boards etc... They are brilliant and competitive. They will eat you for lunch if you don't watch out. The flip side of this is if you make it through you will be unbelievably well prepared for Med school.. I found med school a breeze compared to Cornell premed. I also think Cornell does very well with their percentage of applicants that get in. If you want to choose a school where you can get a 4.0 without breaking a sweat, I don't think any of those schools will fit the bill. As I said before, the adcoms at the Medical Schools don't seem to make much of an adjustment for the difficulty of the premed curriculum.. a 4.0 from a good second level college is going to trump a 3.3 at any Ivy when it comes to getting in.

PSedrishMD

Ag is now Human Ecology, I think.
Cornellians are brutal competitors.

sakky

People can talk about how Harvard grade inflation is not what it once was. But consider this data:

http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html

So maybe the grades have been dropping lately. But Harvard grading is still nothing like it was 20 years ago. And besides, let me put it to you this way. Harvard grading lately may not be as inflated as it was maybe 5 years ago, but it is still far far more inflated than the grading of other schools. So it's difficult for me to sympathize with Harvard people who are complaining about lowered grading. They're still far far better off than those students in that 'other' school in town. And they're far better off than most other Harvard students throughout history.

binsbts

oh man this is a lot of help thx guys. Happy new year~! I think ill choose stanford over cornell then

Dragon1817

I am a freshman at Cornell right now and this stuff is depressing me. I truly would love to become a doctor. I think its one of the most noble and exciting professions out there. After taking my first semester with intro bio and chem etc... i have a GPA of 3.22. I worked my ass off, more than i ever have in highschool. I love cornell, but its hard work. Im not not one of those genius kids, that got 1600 on SATs and now have 4.0 and are premed. I got 1460 on my SATs had great extracurriculars, and good grades.

From what ive been hearing, seems like you need a near perfect GPA to get in to any med school... Ive worked my ass off for a 3.22 and am sure that I would have gotten a better grade had I not been at Cornell, imfamous for being tough. Im competing with hundreds of other students that will have much better GPAs at schools that are easier? I refuse to beleive that a 4.0 GPA from leisure studies at a state school, has better chances than a 3.0 bio major at Cornell. It simply doesnt make sense, when HUMAN BEINGS are evaluating applications.

I also urge people to take these posts with a grain of salt. This site is full of overacheiving students that would pass out at the sight of a B on their report card.....