<p>I believe I’ve already had this “discussion” with you so I won’t go into it. I will leave with just one post stating my feelings:</p>
<p>1) Your first problem is that your argument essentially rests on a 4-5 schools: namely, MIT vs. Harvard/Yale/Stanford/Princeton. You make several broad generalizations based on marginal statistics from just those programs.</p>
<p>2) I agree with you that MIT is probably not as good as Stanford or Princeton for premed. What I do not agree with you on is that grade deflation has something to do with it. Don’t get me wrong, that could every well be the reason but I have yet to see you make a convincing argument for it. You assume that applicants from MIT, Stanford, and Princeton are all equal except their GPA which leads you to make the conclusion that medical schools do not account for grade deflation. Without thoroughly examining the quality of EC’s, essays, and interviews from students from those schools, how can you make such an assumption? Have you considered the fact that Princeton is a notoriously undergrad-oriented school that will do everything in its power to ensure the success of its undergrads? Again, that would only prove that Princeton is a better premed school than MIT (which it probably is) but shows that attention to undergrads rather than lower grades is the achille’s heel of MIT. That would lead to the conclusion that one should go to a school that is more undergrad oriented (perhaps a LAC) rather than simply one that passes out the highest grades. I don’t know if this is the right reason either but just showing that there could be a number of reasons explaining MIT’s statistics.</p>
<p>3) I do not know whether you are right or not Sakky. You could very well be right. But without analyzing more schools, deeper statistical trends, and applicant profiles more thoroughly, I don’t see how you can make the generalizations that you usually make. I never said you were wrong, I simply want you to make a more convincing argument.</p>