A 3.4 or a 3.5 is not a 3.7. As a practical matter, it can be the difference between a kid taking hard courses, knowing that he/she doesn’t need to get an A taking gut courses. And we think med school admissions reps don’t know about “rigor”?
The quote obviously mentions what it “signals at Google”, not just in the general labor force. I am not claiming that Google is the only company that offers positions where the training a computer science major receives during college would be more useful for that position than training received as a psychologist or english major. However, Bock is involved in hiring at Google, which is a tech company that has far more positions that require a focus on CS related skills than most other majors. If you instead interviewed someone who works at a company that primarily hires counselors, teachers, or similar non-tech field ( I realize there are many teachers in tech subjects); it’s likely you’ll get a very different position.
You claim I am interpreting Bock’s wording to fit my position, while assuming he is telling the public a half-truth and meant something different than what he said to fit your position? Google is certainly going a long way to sell that half-truth to the public, given that they changed they went so far as to change their hiring practices in a way that fits with Bock’s statements.
Some examples form average GPAs of entering students from one list (may not be up to date) are below. There are many other schools I did not list.
Arizona - 3.54
Brown - 3.6
Central Michigan - 3.25
Cooper – 3.0
Drexel - 3.45
Eastern Virgina - 3.44
Hebert - 3.54
Howard - 3.5
Kansas - 3.5
Marshal - 3.5
Meharry – 3.3
Morehouse - 3.4
Northeast Ohio - 3.5
Oakland - 3.2
Pittsburgh - 3.55
Quinnipiac - 3.55
SUNYB - 3.5
Tulane – 3.51
Washington - 3.5
Western Michigan - 3.25
UCLA - 3.5
UMDNJ - 3.5
I realize there are not many HYPSM type schools on this list, which often do require a higher GPA for a decent chance of acceptance. The WUSTL handbook I linked to earlier states the following guideline, suggesting 3.5 is a strong GPA with an excellent chance of med school acceptance (for WUSTL students), but a GPA below 3.0 reduces chances of admission “quite a bit.”
If you want to be really precise the GPA required for a decent chance of acceptance varies on many additional factors such as which schools you are applying to, upward/downward trend, science GPA vs overall GPA, MCAT score, out of classroom activities, and ethnicity. This partially relates to why WUSTL pre-meds as a whole have a higher acceptance rate that the general population. Being a selective college, most WUSTL students are good test takers with higher MCAT scores than the overall average.
MiamiDAP’s quote was,
***“they have to maintain college GAP of about 3.7+ to have any chance at Med. School.” ***
Note that the 3.7+ rule was not a threshold for most applicants to be accepted. Instead it was a threshold to have a any chance of acceptance.
That was 2004, it is 2015 now. With grade inflation and increasing apps to med. school, the median and mean is probably closer to 3.7 (at least 3.65, probably higher)…Also, Often medians are actually higher than means. Like a few lower end scores can pull the mean of an overall uniform incoming class without necessarily affecting the median. Law schools seem to have mastered this well. They have a range of scores but ensure that the median is a certain number. Median is literally just the middle student, so if a law or whatever school had a class of 9 people and the LSAT scores were…154,158. 158,158, 165, 165, 167, 167, 172 the median is still a 165 despite the mean being 162. I’d honestly rather be at the median of higher than rely on the average which gives absolutely no information about the distribution (no saying that the median gives a lot, but at leats knowing the score where 1/2 are above and 1/2 are below is a hint).
Miami: Is that neccessarily true about medical school? The work is certainly heavier, but I have friends who admit that in their pre-clinical years (I know a first year in his MDPhD at Emory), while the amount of content was overwhelming, the level (cognitive level) at which they had to demonstrate their knowledge of it is lower than some of their more difficult science courses. Many medical schools still do only multiple choice exams for example. I came across some medical biochemistry exams of schools like Brown for example, and certainly found both the content and level of assessment lower than say, my cell biology class and certainly biochemistry courses more advanced than general biochemistry (such as chemical biology). Their exam was mostly recall and pattern recognition. The only cute thing they did was spin the questions into the context of disease which is something that even occurred among even medium level undergraduate biochemistry instructors (who in many cases asked better questions). It is no surprise that my MDPhD friend would tell me about how the means on many of his exams were sky high in the 90’s. They were testing for proficiency and surface level knowledge (recall and basic understanding), not much higher. He would attest to the fact that exams with lower averages had short answer components, essays, and case study type questions (I also remember him complaining about how most students reacted to the renal system which called on their knowledge of math, physics, and chemistry which is strange because I know of undergrad. classes that did the same. Whether or not students chose to take them or take them seriously is their own problem). This pattern mimics what I saw in undergrad despite the med. schools selecting for the absolute best students. People’s methods of learning and learning preferences often take a while to change, especially if it worked for so long. I mean med. school is WAY harder, but that can probably be said for most reputable professional schools of any kind. The question is what exactly is making it harder, the level of thinking required, or the amount of content. I think it is often the latter which much research suggests. And many schools are trying to change that aspect of the pre-clinical years. The clinical years are apparently a different story.
Note, I’m not bashing on medical school because graduate programs have their own problems such as not having standardized curriculum (one doctoral program can be a joke in terms of coursework and non-research demands, but others can be brutal). In addition, despite our orientation toward research, we also often struggle with exams that call on higher ordered thinking (I pray for those in chemistry PhD programs with rigorous cumulative exams…especially those who had easy instruction in undergrad), especially if we are in the biological sciences and came from a fairly traditional undergraduate curriculum. The only thing that helped me get along was taking the better biol. classes that emphasized thinking at a high level and along with using my chemistry knowledge to reframe concepts. It certainly doesn’t hurt that I try to teach myself new mathematical techniques when I can (saved my behind in an enzymology class which was actually harder than most of my more difficult courses at Emory. Very intensive/not easy to grasp material AND intensive workload. Another issue many may have with graduate courses and graduate school in general (including the all important research element) is the lack of structure and the self-pacing and independence needed to stay current (yeah, learning for the sake of learning always helps…we don’t have classes to teach specific elements of our projects so it is just books, the internet, and trial and error) and troubleshoot issues on one’s own. Though lately, I have been finding this aspect fun (though not now, because the darned supercomputing won’t work the way I need it to…and the other options for running my simulations are going to be occuppied by others for a couple of days which is why I’ve been on here so frequently lol I need not mention how things like grading screw up my schedule 
. Just graded some sad exams)!
Well good that I was proven wrong with the numbers. If only it would lead to more students taking a risk on an instructor that trains better than normal but perhaps is more willing to give out lower grades. Also, I thought MCAT’s were generally higher, like 29-31. Although, I just thought about the following: If I was a med. school adcom and I saw a non-URM student attend a so called “top” institution known for more rigorous than normal STEM and pre-health track classes (like most elite privates and publics), what would I do when I see an MCAT score that isn’t much beyond average? Is there any correlation with SAT/ACT because I would expect there to be despite the MCAT being much more focused and difficult in the skill types it requires. I mean there must be a reason the auto-admit programs even at schools not as selective as the more selective privates and publics have very high SAT/ACT thresholds. If there is, I would be very wary about students coming from top 30-40 schools, or any school w/an SAT average beyond say, 1350 having an MCAT below a certain threshold. Especially assuming they were somewhere near that high SAT average and also had a competitive GPA. I know a few friends who felt they needed to retake when they scored 31 or lower. I wonder if their concern is valid. In 2 of the cases, the students had 3.85 or higher (one had 3.9+). One didn’t really study and the other just messed up. One got 31(3.9+), the other 28. One caucasian and one “asian”(he was “brown”, whatever), so I think the latter had reason to be concerned, but I don’t know about the former (doesn’t matter now because the former decided in favor of going for a PhD in neuroscience…the other took the new MCAT and did well 
). I’m just wondering how “high GPA, low/mediocre MCAT” looks in the context of coming from an elite private or public school. I doubt it has any effect, but I am wondering if it would do things like change student course and instructor selection patterns if it did (as in adcoms just expect more out of them) in order to ensure that they have a very solid foundation before using the books or taking prep classes (thus of course becoming doubly advantaged and making the studying easier). My guess it would lead to a higher number of lower/medium GPA’s and higher/solid MCAT’s as opposed to only high, high and high, medium combos. You may even get more low, highs (this seems more typical among engineering and physical science majors who are pre-med). Could also create a better intellectual culture…
@Data10 - Of course, you’re right that 3.7 isn’t a cutoff for someone to have any chance of acceptance. But I still think MiamiDAP makes a really good point even if it isn’t technically completely correct. I thought of it this way - suppose I have a 3.7 GPA, plus the corresponding MCAT, Science GPA, and EC’s. Then I only have a 50/50 shot of getting into any medical school. This means I have a 50% chance of seeing my dream to be a doctor, all my career plans, and a good chunk of 4 years of work completely thrown into the garbage pail. After seeing these numbers, if it were me, I’d be on pins and needles until admit day.
If I wanted to be a doctor, I’d work my butt off to make sure my undergrad GPA was 3.85 or higher, and I’d be really nervous if it dropped below a 3.7. I’d also probably motivate myself by pretending that 3.7 was the minimum even if it wasn’t a hard cutoff.
My cousin is a medical Physician and his undergrad GPA was a 3.5.
Where is your list in post #262 from, data10?
The med school GPA list I referenced was from http://www.mcattestscores.com/usmedicalschoolsmcatscoresGPA.html . You can find several other similar lists with a Google search.
If we want to talk about what GPA is good to have rather than what GPA has no chance, that is a different issue. Regarding what GPA is good to have, it depends on many factors. Sure higher is better, but one can have a GPA substantially below 3.7 and still have a very good chance of attending med school, depending on the rest of the application. Similarly one could have a GPA above 3.7 and have a poor chance of attending med school, depending on the rest of the application.
If you do have a very low GPA and/or get rejected because of it, it’s not as simple as your dream being over and 4 years of work wasted. There are many other options in medical fields or fields related to your degree that don’t require medical school, and ways to pursue medical school at a later time in spite of the lower undergrad GPA. For example, I’ve listed the history and outcome of the 5 lowest GPA members of MDApplicants who did their undergrad at Stanford. All eventually attended med school, but some had a more unique path.
2.94 GPA / 2.84 Science GPA – Worked as a U.S. Army Medical Service Corps Officer for 7+ years, which led to deciding that he was interested in becoming a doctor, so did a masters post bacc with a 3.86 GPA. Accepted at 4 med schools, even though he withdrew most of his applications.
2.95 GPA / 2.91 Science GPA – Worked in biotech sales for several years, then did a masters and a post bacc, receiving a 3.96 GPA. Accepted at Albany.
3.0 GPA / 2.8 Science GPA – Accepted at Mayo (no details given)
3.0 GPA / 3.1 Science GPA – Did post bacc, so likely rejected first time, Accepted at South Carolina (few details given)
3.17 GPA / 2.76 Science GPA – Accepted first time, Mentions AMAC stats suggest she has a 54% chance of acceptance, which I expect relates to being African American
I’m always struck by how some people that are not tech oriented (I was not myself) feel free to stereotype STEM people . Talking about “nerds” , implying that engineers or scientists can’t talk to people, or are not nuanced, or just don’t get things. Talking about schools of engineering being dominated by Asian kids. Not saying that was not true if that is what Pizzagirl observed but that is not the case in all schools and was not in the schools my kids attended. Plenty of kids from all backgrounds , many more white kids than anything else with Asian kids somewhat above their percentage of the population represented … It is in PhD engineering degrees that you definitely see a disproportionate number of Asian students, particularly foreign born ones.
Post # 201- in regard to STEM students “the refuge of those who would have bombed out in these other fields, who don’t have any sensitivity or depth or nuance,” etc.
Post # 245 “non -tech professionals who know how to interact with the rest of the universe.”
Sorry, no real nerds in my house, although we have 3 working engineers in the family (H and sons) All into sports, socializing, actually know how to talk to people . Our home is full of books and not just STEM type books. My kids did tons of reading growing up, went to lots of museums (art, science , historical), played tons of sports. They were exposed to lots of things, My nephew just graduated from an HYP school, was a varsity athlete there, son of two humanities professors, but his degree is in computer science None of these guys are classic " nerds", but even if they were , why do some people think it’s okay to stereotype and denigrate other people?
@al2simon : Well…again, define work hard to get 3.85. Usually this means “work hard to ensure you choose the correct instructors and a balanced courseload and generally avoiding classes that may make one feel mentally tired”. Do I blame them…nope! But is this the type of fear the process injects, you bet. Of course the strongest will indeed do that while also getting the best training in the pre-med core courses available (I am happy to know many such people), but many (if not most) will choose a path that provides less training. In many of those cases, the MCAT will ultimately suffer. There seemed to be more in the first group with sub 3.7 GPA’s that had 36+ (or even 32 for that matter) than the latter group. It seems like an all too delicate balancing act that pre-grads and other pre-profs seem not to have to worry about as much. It’s basically saying that unless one is super duper talented, it may not be worth receiving more rigorous instruction in the pre-med core even if it has some benefit. To me, this basically says that many people should not attend elite schools with the idea of pre-med in mind, especially if they are going to dodge the more rigorous instruction that supposedly provides an advantage. They should probably just save the money and go somewhere else where they can more easily finish near the top even if they do choose rigorous instruction. The problem with elite publics/privates is that the rigorous instructors mostly end up curving grades. It is in one’s favor (as in a D average will turn into a B -), but since it is relative to an already strong student body that is then further sliced into a crowd that is choosing to learn and be tested at a higher level than normal, it just becomes a big risk. I guess many of the less “perfect” students at such schools choose their battles. As in, they may risk taking a rigorous organic instructor if they proved to be decent at chemistry (or if the instructor has a good enough reputation), but that will be it…all other pre-med cores will be with more standard level or even easier instructors if possible. Many of the stronger ones will basically choose the strongest possible for each pre-med core but then of course balance those with easy gen. ed or science instructors. Beyond the major pre-med classes, they were not really trying to be challenged at the same level (especially in the same semester as the core classes). They do, after all need to complete certain types of EC’s, do research, etc. It does become a risk at that point.
@bernie12 One of the main reasons I recommend that TED talk is that he answered just about every myth there is about standardized testing. The empirical evidence is stronger in psychometric than any other field I know (in the social sciences). As he puts it, the results are so consistent that it is becoming “boring” to study. Whether we like the result is an entirely different story.
You brought up two points that he did not mention. Besides candle power, persistency is also important. In fact, because of range restriction, persistency is a better predictor of executives making that corner office than standardized test scores. The other one is “non shared environment”. Your genetic makeup almost forces you to create your own environment. Short of extreme deprivation, this represents the largest environmental influence on cognitive ability by far. The other influences such as SES are not that consistent.
In your case, you read a lot because your genes make you do it. Your genes make you take those courses that force you to use higher thinking skills. The fact that you did not take the SAT as seriously as others would have depressed your scores, but that is not really the fault of the test.
You may like this interview with a famous behavioral geneticist. A different discipline, but same results. You may also find the interviewer’s reactions interesting, as I do:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/
@Data10 I really don’t understand why you have to be stubborn about it. Maybe this is what is required to succeed in engineering, but you can not argue against a statement of fact. In the very first paragraph, Friedman said:
“With graduations approaching, I went back to Google to ask Bock to share his best advice for job-seekers anywhere, not just at Google. Here is …”
So, unless he specified Google, it is general advice for “job-seekers anywhere”. Why is this so hard to believe?
That link has some schools saying their average MCAT score was 9 or 10. How can that be?
Everybody believe in what THEY want to believe, Others do not need to share their beliefs. This approach worked for me for my entire life in all aspects of it. I do not care much what others are saying at all, they have their own background that makes them believe in certain things. No reason to argue here. People learn best my making mistakes anyway. And if somebody do not want to be in the place that I feel the best for whatever (college education, work,…etc.), it works very well for me as it reduces competition. Arguments are not effective, just let it be and use situation to your advantage…
A belief is quite different from reading and understanding factual data. Enjoyed reading this recent article in the Houston Press http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-7611752
Last 2 paragraphs from the Houston Press article:
http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/no-it-s-not-your-opinion-you-re-just-wrong-7611752
@jym626, MCAT section average?
purtpletitan,
From that MCAT table, some scores give the average as 29, 30, 31 etc which makes perfect sense. Others said 9 or 10, which does not. Maybe I am misreading it? Take a look at the first few schools in the table here http://www.mcattestscores.com/usmedicalschoolsmcatscoresGPA.html