@Data10 : That makes way more sense: Like any other company, your profile MUST fit the position whether it is by degrees or experience (in some cases experience trumping a degree). If there are not many positions that emphasize your skill-set then of course ones chances at a job at such a company will greatly diminish.
It seems that me and google have somewhat similar ideals when it comes to problem solving and learning: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-hires-people-2013-6
Pre-meds do not need a 3.7+ GPA to have a chance at med school. Many med schools have an average GPA across the full class that is less than 3.7. Pre-med students at selective colleges that have been the focus of this thread who get average or somewhat below average GPAs and MCAT scores compared to their undergrad college are usually accepted to med school. For example, WUSTL provides med school admission stats at http://prehealth.wustl.edu/Documents/HANDBOOK.pdf . The average GPA at WUSTL was 3.41 in 2007 and is probably notably higher today. The chart mentions WUSTL students with a 3.4 averaged a ~75% acceptance rate. 75% chance of admission is far from a sure thing, but it’s still an excellent chance of admission.
Note that some premed is generally not a major. One does not need “another major” in a humanities field. You can major in humanities, social sciences, or whatever and still take the pre-med intro math/science classes. In general, the pre-meds who choose a common biology major or other whose course requirements include most pre-med requirements get lower MCAT scores and have a lower chance of admission than humanities major applicants. For example, as a whole humanities majors average higher MCAT scores than biology majors on all sections of the MCAT, including the biology section.
@Data10 : 3.5-3.6 is usually a good range for med. school (and this is perhaps the STEM GPA as well)…let us not talk about the most competitive. WashU also has relatively high MCAT scores to accompany that “low” GPA. JHU has reputation on its side (their magical threshold is like 3.3, 30). It seems to vary from school to school.
As for humanities majors…I expect them to win over generic biology majors but then there is the sample size and self-selection bias that basically makes such stats useless as those majoring in humanities (especially if not double majoring in a science) are a special group. Biology is usually just “catchall” because most just choose it out of convenience or some idea that it is the most useful subject for studying medicine. If I were STEM and pre-med, I would go toward more interdisciplinary majors that have many courses that expose students to and require students to have a strong grasp of a range of science fields. It is why I think majors like neuroscience and BME are especially good training. Unfortunately the latter is more likely to result in STEM GPA below 3.4-3.5. I don’t think I could appreciate my biology degree if I got it without my chemistry background…only some courses and instructors trained me how to think for grad. school. And I think those same courses were also good MCAT training for pre-meds. But again, these classes are not run-of-the mill, lecture, receive, regurgitate courses so many pre-healths may avoid them despite their benefits. I also think a stronger humanities and social sciences background helps, however so many have bought into the “must have 3.7-3.8” that they often just seek easy non-STEM classes that don’t hone any skills or require much work (in things such as reading, writing, debate). This is at least what I have observed among many pre-meds. There were many who were indeed awesome who decided to take their non-STEM classes serious. And many of these students double majored in a STEM subject and a social science (I think some estimates put joint and double majors at Emory over the 50% mark). I saw neuroscience and music a lot along with chemistry and economics among pre-meds. Biology majors tended to get minors in things that sounded “health” related like global and predictive health. I sometimes wonder if some did that to appear as if they cared more about health care as opposed to being genuinely interested.
@bernie12 It is important to remember SAT is used as an initial screen only. A lot more in-depth testing comes later. That is where the case interviews come in. From what I understand, the third and final level of interviews is a whole day affair, involving ten or more interviews, though not all of them are “cases”.
In his own words, the goal of case interviews “is to understand how the candidate can reason analytically – translating an unrehearsed real world problem to a mathematical representation, doing the math, and then translating this back to a real world solution, with awareness of all the simplifications that were necessary – under pressure.”
I think you underestimate the power of standardized testing a little. Most people do. This TED talk is one of the best introductions to the topic I know. His comments about leadership, creativity etc. are real eye-openers for many:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4
Ever wonder why the power-that-be are so quick to tamper with the SAT? 
@Data10 I guess we just have to agree to disagree. If Bock wants to say what you think he said, he would have said so. Instead of “differentiated in the labor force”, he would have said “differentiated at Google”. Instead of “better qualified for other jobs because of the training”, he would have said “better qualified for other jobs at Google because of the training”. My second quote, which you neglected to mention, would be “I told that student they are much better off being a B student in computer science than an A+ student in English because it signals, at Google, a rigor in your thinking and a more challenging course load.” Bock said nothing about Google in any of those comments; not even once. He was simply telling students, indirectly, that they can not fool him with easy courses and soft grades.
I am not suggesting that Google formally uses major as a proxy. It is simply understood, in the same way that I need not test a theoretical physicist to see if he has a three digit IQ. As far as range restriction goes, Bock most certainly knows what it is. I can see him laughing to himself while making that statement. I can also see his colleagues at Google laughing with him too. They probably said to themselves- “Here he goes again, trying to pull a fast one over the public with another one of his half-truth. What a slick willie”.
You guys are slicing the bologna way too thin.
SOME jobs at Google require a high degree of mathematical rigor. No question. I can promise you that their government relations team (a very, very important and mission-critical function) does not need theoretical physics-level quant skills. I can promise you that their General Counsel and the entire legal team has extreme intelligence in many ways, but not in the way you guys are describing.
You are viewing the world as if every single high functioning professional needs to be a computer scientist to work in a computer science-based company. Bill Gates changed the world by hiring sociologists and linguists and anthropologists to develop the first “non-expert needed” computing environment. The secret sauce in many of these companies is the huge team of non-tech professionals who know how to interact with the rest of the universe.
Someone I knew was applying for a secretarial position at Google, she was asked to take an LSAT (or LSAT like test) before they would interview her. I thought it was interesting. I am happy if my assistant could keep my diary straight.
"You guys are slicing the bologna way too thin.
SOME jobs at Google require a high degree of mathematical rigor. No question. I can promise you that their government relations team (a very, very important and mission-critical function) does not need theoretical physics-level quant skills. I can promise you that their General Counsel and the entire legal team has extreme intelligence in many ways, but not in the way you guys are describing."
Thank you, blossom.
I think we’ve reached quantum-nerd level here - the assumption that because Google is a tech company, that everyone at Google must be quantitatively oriented. Absolutely no comprehension of the fact that Google has a marketing function, sales function, human resources function, govt relations function, legal function, etc. Those “look at me, I can do calculus and physics” skills aren’t taking some of these posters very far if that’s how they think.
Indeed, this is a perfect illustration of why, in most companies, engineers get paid more initially and then stagnate. They over focus on their function and show no broader management thinking.
Canuckguy, you’d fail miserably if you were asked to prepare a public relations communications plan for a crisis, or re-tool the competencies and compensation for a 10,000 strong workforce, or run a social media campaign, or create a strategic portfolio plan complete with an in-depth understanding of consumers, need states and brand equity. So stop with the tiresome “some things are easier than others” when there are things you couldn’t do at all.
It’s pathetic how instead of acknowledging that different people have different strengths and that all of those things are necessary to make a company run, you think that the things you’re good at are simultaneously “the hardest” and the most valuable. Get over yourself. Stop being a STEM nerd and open your mind for once.
"I told that student they are much better off being a B student in computer science than an A+ student in English because it signals, at Google, a rigor in your thinking and a more challenging course load.”
Unless of course you’re interviewing for their corporate communications department.
Of course, in nerd-land, there’s no comprehension that these are good, fulfilling, interesting and often lucrative jobs, too. No, only their little narrow worlds could possibly be interesting.
@Canuckguy : There are all types of conflicting studies about certain standardized exams. I just don’t buy that the SAT is a great one (it barely predicts first year GPA). It is kind of like saying: “It measures the creativity and drive of a person willing to take it multiple times with prep classes” which is also why it correlates so well with income. I am very fortunate to be a URM that was in a low income household that scored well (though not quite 1500), but I don’t remember that test doing much to test any of the higher orddered skills I had. The math was prepared for and I read A LOT, so verbal came naturally to me (and still does, my GRE was equivalent to a higher verbal score out of 800 in comparison with the SAT already being in the “perfect” area). I don’t think it predicted well how I would handle the exams that I described to you in many of my science courses because I was only average in those (being in STEM, at a school as selective as Emory would suggest maybe a 1420-1450 mean in many STEM classes), yet I ended up becoming TA for the most difficult organic chemistry instructor for example (after taking him for his freshman organic class where the exams and assignments are actually a bit more difficult than when he teaches upper classmen. Perhaps this makes sense because students who elect to take such a course so early are a) crazy or b) very motivated and have higher talent levels, but mainly the former because many people who have 4/5 on AP forfeit and retake gen. chem). It perhaps measures drive and/or access to resources, but I don’t think it was all that special (despite studies showing the success of those who score in certain percentiles). I would have developed the thinking skills I had even if I had a lower score simply because I took a range of courses that taught me to think at a higher level than required in HS, AP exams, or the SAT. I could have very well followed many other STEM students and memorized my way to a high GPA and probably come out much weaker and with a lower desire to learn just because…as many who had higher SAT’s than me did. I think there are quite a few people with raw talent for which can easily be measured by such exams, but I feel as if others should be rewarded for actually striving to make themselves competitive after HS or at least displaying a desire to learn at a high level and solve difficult problems, not something you gear up for on a weekend. Hell, I only took it but so serious back in HS because of the millions of other things I had going on. I, for example, went and took the SAT in the middle of my Overtime shift at my job and then returned afterwards because that is what I felt I needed to be doing at the time. I did the best I could and fortunately it turned out alright, but I don’t think it is too special or amazing that I did well. A lot of it was AP reinforcement because I was taking lots of AP’s (3 STEM, Lit, and Euro) that made me sharper.
“Pre-meds do not need a 3.7+ GPA to have a chance at med school. Many med schools have an average GPA across the full class that is less than 3.7”
-Which schools, please? I bet that they are super competitive as more people are applying there, that fact alone tells me that in fact, applicants will need at least 3.7. The acceptance rate is 40% out of application pool, meaning that only about 40% of applicants will get accepted to at least one Med. School. Somebody wants to risk of being part of 60% who will not get accepted to any Med. School? Be my guest, have lower GPA and remove some competition from the applicant’s pool. I have no objections to that at all!
From Xavier (though the date they cite is old)
If the average is a 3.62, I think Miami needs to brush up on statistics to claim that you need “at least” at 3.7. Who are all these “low lifes” pulling down the average? Could it be- as we all suspect but don’t dare say- kids from colleges known for “rigor”???
"Could it be- as we all suspect but don’t dare say- kids from colleges known for “rigor”??? "
-Forget “rigor” or whatever, name and ranking when applying to Med. School. Med. Schools do not care about your college name. They care about your college GPA, MCAT score, medical ECs and some degree of social personality. What one study in Med. School is quantum leap away from the college academics. In fact, at the end of Med. School many question why they spent all the family money attending at Harvard and other Elite places, when they could have attended for free at unknown state public with the same results for their ultimate goal.
Not sure if this is related, but DS had to take some tests when he was applying for some engineering jobs, had to answer math problems in phone interviews, and had to write some code on the spot for some job he didnt want but they insisted he come out there on their nickel, so he went.
Little point in debating medical school admission stats based on speculation. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) actually publishes the data. For 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, white applicants had a better-than-even chance of being admitted to at least one medical school if they had a GPA of 3.80-4.00 and a total MCAT score of at least 27-29 (61.2% admitted), or a GPA of 3.60-3.79 and a total MCAT score of at least 30-32 (64.7% admitted). Applicants with GPA in the 3.40-3.59 range needed a total MCAT score of at least 33-35 to have a better-than-even chance (62.6%), while applicants with GPA in the 3.20-3.39 range needed at least a 36-38 to have a better-than-even chance (56.4%); however, there were very few applicants with a combination of GPAs that low and MCAT scores that high. The figures vary for other races/ethnicities; generally, at any given level of GPA and MCAT, acceptance rates are somewhat lower for Asians and somewhat higher for blacks and Latinos. Not surprisingly, across all racial and ethnic categories, the higher the GPA and the higher the MCAT score, the higher the acceptance rate, but just eyeballing the grid, it looks to me like the MCAT score is somewhat more determinative than GPA. The median MCAT score for white applicants appears to be somewhere in the 27-29 range and the median GPA somewhere around 3.6; at those medians, the acceptance rate is just below 50%, but it falls off pretty dramatically with lower-than-median MCAT scores and somewhat more gradually with lower-than-median GPAs. Applicants with very high MCAT scores (36+) were accepted at greater-than-50% rates even with GPAs well below the median, e.g., MCAT 36-38 + GPA 3.20-3.39 = 56.4% acceptance rate, though again, these are very few in number. But applicants with GPAs above the median for the applicant pool (3.80-4.00) still needed MCAT scores at or above the median to have a greater-than-50% acceptance rate.
Data available here:
While that may be true, I have had friends that commented that they were much better prepared for med school and thought it was slightly easier than their undergraduate years due to the rigorous education they received from their undergraduate college. I’m not suggesting that you should go to rigorous college at the expense of other factors (ex:debt) I think going to a rigorous undergrad does have its uses
I’ve never been to medical school so please take this with a grain of salt, but I think MiamiDAP’s “3.7 rule of thumb” isn’t that far off.
There are acceptance rate statistics broken down by GPA and MCAT score from the Association of American Medical Colleges on https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/157998/mcat-gpa-grid-by-selected-race-ethnicity.html
The chart for white applicants (see the last column) shows that applicants with an overall GPA of 3.60-3.79 have a 51.9% chance of getting accepted to one medical school (at least I think it’s one acceptance). Roughly speaking, applicants who are in the higher half of the 3.60-3.79 GPA range will have a greater than 51.9% chance of getting in to one medical school and those in the lower half with probably have lower than a 51.9% chance. Those at the mid-point will have an acceptance rate of approximately 51.9%.
So, if you want to have a 50% chance of getting into a single medical school it seems like you should try to have an overall undergrad GPA at the middle of the range, or about 3.69. Of course, I’m sure there are other factors that matter too, but that’s what the overall averages say.
Again, it looks like a 3.69 overall GPA is the number to target. The one standard deviation lower number is 3.44, Roughly speaking, this means that only 16% of white med school attendees have GPA’s at or below 3.44. I’d say this means that 3.44 must be well within the danger zone for an applicant who doesn’t have something else going for them. (In college admissions terms, this is saying that a 3.44 GPA is like being considerably below the 25th percentile number for a college.)
For top med schools like JHU and Stanford the average undergrad GPA is 3.87 and 3.85 respectively.
But if the SD is 0.25, the overall GPA was 3.44 - 3.94