<p>Great, Thanks</p>
<p>maybe we should not compare UG prestige. Instead, we should talk about getting a 3.6 at a grade deflated school vs. 3.6 at a grade inflated/non-inflated school in terms of med school admissions. I think this is a better question because i suspect med school adcoms are aware of which schools are inflated/deflated/non-inflated and will take that into consideration. IMO, people think that the top UGs are somehow grade deflated whereas state schools/mediocre schools are grade inflated, thus believing that top UG > state school for med school admissions. How about we look at it from a different perspective and compare a grade deflated vs grade inflated/non-inflated UG in terms of med school admissions. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>^^For the most part, grade deflation is a myth. Sure Stanford may have a mean ~3.5, but Cal Berkeley is not far below at at 3.3. Ditto UCLA. And given the fact that Cal’s bottom quartile includes many who don’t even belong there… And sure, there are the outliers like Brown (3.6) and Yale (3.55), but most top schools have a B+ average (3.2-3.4). There are less than a handful of colleges that truly have harsh grading scales. And yeah, adcoms do know who they are.</p>
<p>bluebayou, do you happen to know the handful of colleges that truly have harsh grading scales?</p>
<p>As a rule, your gpa and your premed courses gpa are what are examined along with your MCAT score. There is such a direct relationship between those numbers and acceptance that the exceptions are few. It’s a shame because some majors like engineering, computer sciences, chem, have harsher grading scales than others and a quarter is not given for that.</p>
<p>Osprey, many of the tech type schools like CMU have harsh grading scales. But just looking at the Pitt forum, it was shown that engineering majors have an average 2.9 gpa after freshman year there when they are incoming with a high school gpa of 4.1 which shows you how difficult the curriculum itself is, more than the school. Also schools like JHU and Cornell with so many entering with med school aspirations often serve as a gauntlet with many very high achieving freshmen dropping those plans after getting low gradesperp in key premed courses.</p>
<p>Yeah I know a couple of what are considered “top” schools that have lower averages. Reed, for example (3.14). But such colleges are just not the norm. Swathmore used to be lean on A’s, but they’ve gotten with the program and now exceed 3.5.</p>
<p>Another factor which hasn’t been addressed is the prevalence of “weeder” courses. Smaller colleges (and private ones) are less likely to have courses which are actually designed to generate low grades for a large number of students, whereas in public universities it seems to be the norm. A student who might get a B+ or A- in a non-weeder course might get a C or C- in a weeder with the same performance. And a number of required pre-med courses are common weeders.</p>
<p>Overall, it seems to me that the variables are so numerous that it makes sense that the adcoms just take the numbers as they find them. It’s not like they don’t have enough candidates to choose from as is. Just a thought.</p>
<p>I used to believe that too, kluge, but my thinking has changed. In practice, ALL colleges cap the number of A’s and B’s in the sciences. </p>
<p>Brown may curve to a low A while the other Ivies curve to a high B, but they still curve. Even Cal Berkeley awards plenty of A’s and B’s in the so-called weeder courses. Sure, not as many as that Junior University across the Bay, but more than the other UCs. UC Statfinder has some interesting numbers for Frosh grades at all UCs: they track by selectivity in what are primarily weeder courses. Essentially, Cal has the highest mean Frosh grades, UCLA is second…and Merced is a distant last. (Merced offers a lot fewer A’s as a % of the class.)</p>
<p>Well I wouldn’t expect that to be different, actually. All of the UC campuses (except Merced at this point) are large public universities. I’d expect them all to have weeder classes. And the fact that grades tend to skew lower at less selective public universities is well established. I think a more interesting comparison (if it could be undertaken) would be to compare a UC to one of the Claremont colleges, for example. I’d be curious to know the grade distribution in a basic physics, calculus or Organic Chemistry course at a small private college by comparison to those at the large public ones. The only information I have is purely anecdotal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that may be because there is more variance in the quality of the student body at large state schools than at small private schools.</p>
<p>Small private schools tend to have a very homogenous student body in terms of both academic ability and socioeconomic class. The same cannot be said for very large state schools with 50k students.</p>
<p>kluge:</p>
<p>the only college on the smaller side of which I’m aware that actually publishes course grades is Dartmouth (4,000 students). Each prof is different, but the grades in the premed prereqs generally average B/B+. After four years, Dartmouth has a mean graduating gpa of 3.4, which is significantly lower than Brown’s (3.6) with essentially the same quality student body. But notice, that Dartmouth’s grade distribution is not much higher than Cal’s with its so-called “weeder” courses.</p>
<p>Pomona’s mean gpa (3.5+) is up there with Yale. Thus, one could assume that its premed grading is probably higher than Dartmouth’s, and definitely higher than Cal’s. But colleges makes a great point above: nearly every private college has a homogenous student body.</p>
<p>Of course, once a student is “weeded” they tend to change majors, so I wouldn’t expect that the overall GPA of the school would be significantly affected by weeder courses. But since this is a pre-med thread I was assuming we were talking about the GPA’s of pre-med students - which would be specifically affected by the impact of weeder classes, which are prevalent in required pre-med courses in large public universities. I’m pretty sure that at most UC’s the median grade in basic calculus, physics and organic chemistry is pretty close to a C, with a pretty steep curve down to A territory. I’m less sure that the median grade in those courses at Pomona or Dartmouth is a C.</p>
<p>[Actually - I just re-read Bluebayou’s post. If the premed prereqs at Dartmouth average B/B+ that is definitely a higher grade curve in those courses than is prevalent in the UC weeder courses I’m familiar with.]</p>
<p>Okay, how about some concrete research (this will give biased results and leave some questions, but it will put pictorial reps. to some questions at hand) because I am indeed bored and have too much time on my hands at the moment. </p>
<p>Here goes:</p>
<p>I honestly don’t care if Berkeley has a lower curve in organic chemistry than an elite school. Just as they should rejoice if our relatively easy intro/gen. physics courses are curved less harsh. </p>
<p>Seriously, this is organic chemistry at Berkeley (where are the application problems? Basically, standard level mechanisms done over and over again, predict the product. Any questions involving large molecules ask you to do something trivia like “circle X” :</p>
<p><a href=“https://tbp.berkeley.edu/students/exams/chem/112B/[/url]”>https://tbp.berkeley.edu/students/exams/chem/112B/</a></p>
<p>None of these, at their hardest, are as tough as these:<br>
<a href=“https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BMTVjYzBjODctYTM1Ny00ZDM2LWJhNmQtNmFiMGNlNTYyN2Y1&authkey=CKbs980C&hl=en_US[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BMTVjYzBjODctYTM1Ny00ZDM2LWJhNmQtNmFiMGNlNTYyN2Y1&authkey=CKbs980C&hl=en_US</a></p>
<p><a href=“https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BYWFlMTExZWMtZGQ3ZC00MzI4LTlmMDgtMDA4ZDRmZDgyZWIw&authkey=CIuS-tcH&hl=en_US[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BYWFlMTExZWMtZGQ3ZC00MzI4LTlmMDgtMDA4ZDRmZDgyZWIw&authkey=CIuS-tcH&hl=en_US</a></p>
<p>So I can identify at least 2 professors that give significantly harder tests than the majority (if not all) of Berkeley students will receive just as they can identify 1 million math and physics professors that kill ours (which is only natural as they have engineering). However, even then, our physics series only yields may a B-(2.7-2.9) average (Berkeley probably curves to a C+/B- and we just let our physics course be difficult enough to yield B-). Orgo. only ends up at 2.6-2.8 (even profs. w/easier exams get this average) after curving. My guess is that us, Vanderbilt, JHU, and perhaps NU (and the big engineering, MIT and Caltech) all grade like this. Biology is also roughly a B-/B. Gen. chem is B-/B as well. I’m betting gen. chem is similar between the two and biology on par or harder here. No curve is applied to either (in most cases. Eisen’s average is lower than other sections, so he does), they just naturally yield B-/B. </p>
<p>This is one way to compare coursework. I could show you physics comparison between us, but I’ve seen it, and we are blown away by Berkeley as expected. It would honestly be much more of a fair comparison to compare it w/an elite private w/an engineering school. That would yield a more meaningful comparison. If the elite school looks about the same, but grades were very high (does Berkeley give engineering separate admissions? That may make the quality between students comparable if they do) comparatively, then “X elite institution” inflates more. </p>
<p>Anyway, given that Emory and Berkeley students have similar stats., the gap in the organic chem. courses shouldn’t be that wide (may have to do w/class size. Some professors can be harder because a smaller class is easier to support and exams are easier to grade). However, as said before, this doesn’t take into account variations at the instructor level. If I showed you the easiest professor, he would be as easy as Berkeley’s easiest and easier than most. If I show you a moderate, it would be the same as Berkeley moderate to rigorous. </p>
<p>Berkeley:
<a href=“https://tbp.berkeley.edu/students/exams/bio/1A/[/url]”>https://tbp.berkeley.edu/students/exams/bio/1A/</a></p>
<p>Not good sample size, but looks as easy as our easiest professors, Escobar and Corces. Other professors ask much longer, more involved, and trickier questions. These type of multiple choice questions would actually please me (very straight forward) as I hate multiple choice. Also, one prof. each semester opts not to use MC and only does written exams. Colleges thought he was easy (you took him right) but the majority didn’t and the exams were certainly tougher than that. I will not compare Bio 1B to bio 142 here because it is plant biology at Berkeley and at Emory, it’s molecular and developmental genetics.<br>
Berkeley gen. chem: </p>
<p><a href=“https://tbp.berkeley.edu/students/exams/chem/1B/[/url]”>https://tbp.berkeley.edu/students/exams/chem/1B/</a>
I only looked at 09’ and later to be fair.<br>
Emory gen. chem:
Dr. Morkin: <a href=“https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BMzc4Yjc3NDAtNGIzMS00MWMwLTk5Y2MtOTYwYTUyMzMwNTQy&hl=en_US[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BMzc4Yjc3NDAtNGIzMS00MWMwLTk5Y2MtOTYwYTUyMzMwNTQy&hl=en_US</a>
Dr. Mulford: <a href=“https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BNGYyNzk0OGUtYjdlMS00YjliLThlZWYtZWQwZDc5MTI0NmQ2&hl=en_US[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BNGYyNzk0OGUtYjdlMS00YjliLThlZWYtZWQwZDc5MTI0NmQ2&hl=en_US</a>
Dr. Kindt: <a href=“https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BYjE2Nzc3MWUtNDJhMi00Y2E2LTkyZTEtODllOWIyZDJiYjQy&hl=en_US[/url]”>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B456FmeCw42BYjE2Nzc3MWUtNDJhMi00Y2E2LTkyZTEtODllOWIyZDJiYjQy&hl=en_US</a></p>
<p>These are 3/4 profs. that taught last fall (the 4th’s class conference is private). Needless to say it compares well to Berkeley and, if anything, some questions are more involved whereas Berkeley is pretty short and sweet (there are some questions that challenge though. I honestly think both are easy. Gen. chem is easy at most institutions, but I suppose it’s harder at elites than elsewhere). Now, our gen. chem is on the same level as what may be described as one of Berkeley’s weeders, but I bet we got higher exam averages, and thus didn’t need a curve to yield a higher average than what Berkeley students get when grades are curved up. We can apply a normal scale and achieve the same results b/c performance is higher for a myriad of reasons (primarily class size). </p>
<p>I have no bio stuff on hand (except problem sets) so you’ll just have to take my word for it on what I said. </p>
<p>I think my point is that while we may have similar rigor pre-med programs (as much of it is similar rigor. Our orgo. is Berkeley’s physics and math. And gen. bio is a bit harder content wise as well do to almost two straight semesters on genetics and cell bio as opposed to 1 that and another plant bio), better grades at “X elite” institution aren’t higher necessarily because it’s “curved higher”. That assumes it needs a curve. In which case, I need to take back some of the crap I said before about Emory pre-meds and grade inflation vs. certain top publics because there are many cases in which the courses are similar or even tougher and we are simply doing better even in context of a raw score. This can indicate more competitive students or better profs. and class size, or a mixture of all of these influencing performance. I am still convinced that grade inflation definitely exists, but I wouldn’t say that most public schools have less of it. Emory pre-med science courses reveal themselves to be nowhere as bad off as I really thought. In fact, except physics and math, they seem comparatively on par or well off in rigor compared to most/many elite institutions. I don’t know why we score lower on MCATs than other elites. It could do w/intra-institutional variation (a student who consistently takes the easier profs./bad professor may score lower), but it doesn’t explain it all. Perhaps the physics and math may itself account for it. They could definitely use more rigor. Our peers are way ahead. </p>
<p>I would be curious to come across a legit course website for Berkeley pre-med courses like orgo., bio, gen. chem (the two that can be fairly compared across both) and look at exam averages. For example, those organic exams I posted yield 65-75 averages. Gen. chem exams generally yield 65-85 (they yo yo throughout the semester for almost every prof. Mulford has downward trend until final, Morkin and Kindt are bell shaped, starting off hard, 65-73 then easy exam 82-85, then moderate 75-79. It looks like those activation energy diagrams lol) I’m wondering if the same could be said for Berkeley courses, which appear on par or at least slightly less intense to me, or would they be even lower.</p>
<p>I meant, that UCB students should rejoice if we were curved harshly in math and physics courses as opposed to less. </p>
<p>The post is long, feel free (actually, we’re all free to do what we want) to simply compare the exams. That was really the only point I was trying to make. The level of work at Berkeley is comparable and that we outperform them on similar or higher level exams in comparable courses. So in reality, if a weak/average student in a Berkeley course came to Emory and performed the same as they did at Berkeley (say a low/moderate scorer) in an Emory course, they would receive no boost and would be screwed. They would get whatever the grading scale says. A person here, on the other hand, performing at say a certain level (let’s say C+), may get a B-/B in a Berkeley course of the same level b/c they curved up grades from a low average. Again, though this “swap” is unrealistic. Increase in class size, more distant prof., etc. +similar rigor exam for Emory student may=lower grade and mercy of curve whereas Berkeley student may do better in Emory course. Basically, if anything, exams should be swapped (of course that’ll never happen) to see if it’s the environment. I’m betting it is. More nurture/support at private school probably yields better results in challenging environment. Unfortunately, some schools have an additional inflation on top of this advantage (grades are already reasonable, say C+/B, and they still curve to make a solid B/B+).</p>
<p>You should post some of Dr. W’s orgo tests. I took him first semester and all of his tests mind-****ed me lol.</p>
<p>I once posted a couple of questions from his test on this forum, but I didn’t do the whole google docs thing. I don’t have his tests on my comp anywhere, deleted those tests because they were too depressing to keep on my comp lol.</p>
<p>I did. One is his and the other is Dr. Soria’s. Can’t you tell? I know you only took W. for 221, but his exams were the same format for 222. Honestly, I should have compared 112A vs. 221. The difference is much easier to see in that case as most find orgo. II hard w/o really looking at the nature of the questions. In orgo. 1, it’s clear who is asking more high caliber questions. What’s weird about Berkeley, is that the exams indicate that many profs. seem to emphasize rote learning. There probably was nothing on the exams that shocked those students (they maybe were annoyed at some points but never had a moment where they thought, “what the heck is this, never even seen it before” and if they did, it didn’t happen from 1 question to the next unless they were completely unprepared like in this: <a href=“Finals....wow...how embarrassing! - YouTube”>Finals....wow...how embarrassing! - YouTube; . Ironically, they go to Berkeley. However, I’m sure some people feel like this after a W or S test even if they prepared and thought they knew what they were doing going into it). If anything, a particular mechanism just took longer than normal, provided you understood the basic concept. With W and S, you have to put a lot of stuff together for one problem (and it isn’t obvious), as opposed to simply repeating the same steps over and over again (there are at least two problems on Soria’s exam, where you must show H-bonding as part of your mechanism or else you lose points). Again Berkeley=draw something simple that you probably learned in the book, circle this, predict the product, do this mechanism that you’ve seen before, but on a larger, still non-complex, molecule. The hardest questions they get are synthesis questions. What happened to asking them to show why something complex happens? Didn’t see much of that. Plenty of “explain this” and “prove that” on W and S’s exams (in fact, even easier profs. have legit proof questions).</p>
<p>I should have also shown blank exams, as exams with answers inevitably makes us say: “Well, I can do that” instead of simulating the test situation w/nothing but giant questions and molecules lol. Seriously, only Weinschenk puts giant biological molecules and makes you do things like decarboxylation on your first exam. And only Soria says: “After you draw the lowest energy Newman of acetylcholine, place it in the active site of acetylcholinesterase in the appropriate orientation, and describe the damned forces governing the orientation”(how the hell freshmen anticipate this or any of his other tricks, I don’t know).</p>
<p>By the way, the girl’s reaction reminds me of the reaction of EVERYONE to a Soria final. Even for the prepared (who may barely hang on to an A/A- at the end), they are nightmares. Just awful. At least your final allowed you to redeem yourself (it was easier than W’s midterms). From page 1, Soria’s final sucks.</p>
<p>A pre-med/reserach program I did this summer had med school admissions people come talk to us. Some of them told us they give a .3 gpa boost to HYP students and various other schools known to be very academically rigorous. </p>
<p>I hope this is true for most med schools.</p>
<p>Many medical schools consider the institution in which you have attended.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Proof please?</p>
<p>Can we get this thread closed down? The undergrad institution obviously plays SOME role in the admissions decision. To think the adcom is completely blind to that info is naive. Go to the best school you can go to/afford. If you can’t afford the better schools you get into, go to the lesser one and do well. Students who go to “lesser” schools and do well still go to medical school while students who go to “better” schools and don’t do well don’t get in. It’s pretty simple.</p>