<p>Red schools were considered too difficult and received a bonus. Blues were considered too easy and received a penalty. Italics were considered Goldilocks and received no adjustment.</p>
<p>Do the differences in rankings indicate the magnitude of the gpa adjustment?</p>
<p>In other words, if two schools are red, and 1 is ranked at 85 and another one is ranked at 80, will the one that is ranked at 85 get more of a “boost” than the one ranked at 80?</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>keep in mind that this was the LAW school that used this system…AND…they no longer use it. </p>
<p>Years ago Berkeley Law “adjusted” applicants’ GPAs based on their assessment of grading practice at different universities. A copy of the chart is here: <a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/200008290...e/gradeadj.htm[/url]”>http://web.archive.org/web/200008290...e/gradeadj.htm</a> They’ve since abandoned the practice (formally, at least.)</p>
<p>^^^ I know I was just curious…</p>
<p>So, do you think they discontinued using the system because their system was no longer accurate or it prevented them from putting together a more diverse class?</p>
<p>They were sued.</p>
<p>Wow…really? On what grounds?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Grading</a> the Grades: All A’s Are Not Created Equal - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/16/local/me-13288]Grading”>Grading the Grades: All A's Are Not Created Equal)</p>
<p>(Same as above link.)</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Boalt</a> Hall Law School Kills Its Grade-Weighting Policy - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/1997/nov/27/news/mn-58146]Boalt”>Boalt Hall Law School Kills Its Grade-Weighting Policy)</p>
<hr>
<p>A more comprehensive discussion is in Chapter 3 of the following (ridiculously bad) book:
[Silence</a> at Boalt Hall](<a href=“dynaXML Error: Invalid Document”>Silence at Boalt Hall)</p>
<p>(Search for “MALDEF” to read more about the legal complaint.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The (ridiculously bad) book reports that as of 2002, “The complaint is still pending.”</p>
<p>If getting published and research is that important for med school admissions, do your chances diminish if you do not have any publication?<br>
I know of two of my child’s classmates whose parents have had their physician friends co-write and publish papers on their child’s behalf. One of them a cardiologist even had his son present the paper that he, the dad had written. Where is the fairness in this? These kids do not step into a research lab yet have these spectacular papers in their names.
If you have won mention in say a Research Scholarship like Barry Goldwater, does it make up for lack of publication?</p>
<p>If you are not an URM and have a GPA of 3.1 with a 25 on the MCAT there is no publication, even one ghostewritten by the most emminent physician in his field, that is going to get you admitted to any U.S. allopathic medical school. On the other hand, with a GPA of at least 3.5 and a 30 or better on the MCAT you have a reasonable shot at getting in somewhere without any publications or research.</p>
<p>The phrase I usually use is this: publications, even very good ones, aren’t rare enough to result in an automatic admission. And even very poor ones aren’t common enough to be required for admissions. But within that framework (neither necessary nor sufficient), they can help a great deal.</p>
<p>That link is very interesting. I echo colleges’ q. though: do schools with s higher number get more of a boost?</p>
<p>Also, I wonder how they draw the line between the highest italicized (Texas, i think) and lowest red (Emory, I think).</p>
<p>Nevermind, it’s actually UCB and UCSD at 78.5 and Rochester, etc at 79. Still how would that fine line be determined? After all, I would think that most people would think that UCB is harder that Rochester.</p>
<p>its hard to sort through all the posts. But, would it be better to go to a school like UCSB and get a higher GPA there or go to Berkely even if it means getting a lower GPA. im just throwing out numbers here but lets say a 3.8 at UCSB vs 3.3 at CAL</p>
<p>Yes (10char)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you assume you are going to end up with a significantly lower gpa at CAL? You may get a 3.8 at CAL, you never know? You don’t even need to hit that 3.8. A 3.7 is considered very good for many medical schools. After a 3.7, an increase in gpa starts experiencing a rate of diminishing returns)</p>
<p>Do not assume you will see any significant GPA difference between Cal/UCLA & UCI/UCSB/UCSD. I have equally smart kids who went to both schools, I think it depends on the fit of the school and your ability to get out of the experience your best performance. Go to the place where you will be happy.</p>
<p>The short answer is that it is better to get a 3.8 anywhere than a 3.3 anywhere else!</p>
<p>I agree with bluebayou. I was talking to a dental school faculty member recently at a state school on east coast and I was told that the difference between going to Harvard and Bingampton is 1 point on a scale of over 100. The one point gained for going to an elite school can easily be lost for not dressing properly for an interview or not showing poise.</p>
<p>It does not look like anybody is debating having straight A’s. So, here is reasonable goal. Choose your UG for reasons other than Med. School adcom’s prospective. Choose the one that fits personality and wide range of interests and it will work just fine, Ivy or lowest ranked state. Have great 4 years, filled with adventures, new things to do, new places to visit, new friends to make. Happy person has higher chance of achieving his goals than depressed one.</p>