<p>drummerDude....as i have stated previously (if you read my other posts) that the reason i am so intrested in U of C is because I love to learn, I love the life of the mind, and I truly believe that everyone who goes there really does love to learn. I really wanted to get away from the cut throat/ competitive nature of a lot of other Universities (and my high school); however I don't want to go to a school where my chances of going on to med school are slim because I have to look at the rest of my life rather than just four years. Before I posetd my question my immpression of U of C was that it was nearly immpossible to get a decent GPA but from what I learned from this forum is that it is hard YET manageable which is fine with me, in fact it is exactly what i want. Thank you for your concerns.</p>
<p>Trustory13,
Here are statistics on GPA's and MCAT's of med school applicants and matriculants:</p>
<p>As you can see, the average GPA is respectable, but not impossible; a mix of A- and B+ grades will do it. Interesting that the science GPA was lower than the non-science!</p>
<p>Yes, you can pull a GPA in the mid-3s. Dont fret.</p>
<p>ohio_mom, why is it interesting that science GPA, which includes the pre-med requirements such as orgo, is lower? also, why is the average national MCAT and GPA important? that would be like giving this</a> link and concluding "see, getting in college is not impossible."</p>
<p>
[quote]
"UChicago is like unprotected sex: glad you got in, sorry you came"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lol wow..........</p>
<p>Premed students take harder classes in science- thus a lower GPA</p>
<p>I'd like to give my perspective on the AP issue.</p>
<p>I would full-heartedly disagree that UChicago classes are as easy as AP classes. At the high school I'm currently attending, all of the AP classes are taught by people with PhDs, and although pretty much everyone who takes the class gets a 5 on the exam, these courses are really quite simple when compared to the college level.</p>
<p>Especially pertaining to AP math and physics courses, the corresponding collegiate courses are much deeper, requiring a complete understanding of the subject. I know people who got 5s on the AP Calculus BC and AP Physics C exams who really knew nothing about physics except for many, many algorithms and formulas. In collegiate classes, the focus is more of understanding these algorithms and formulas and their derivations, not just their uses.</p>
<p>For example, in elementary calculus courses, you'll learn how to manipulate derivatives, integrals, and some series. In upper math courses at the collegiate level, you learn exactly WHY you can manipulate these things this way, which leads to many lemmas, proofs, theorems, etc. This is what separates the college world from the high school world. It's kind of like when you take your first calculus-based physics class and you figure out that all those kinematics equations you learned in physics 1 are all derived from calculus rather than being magic... except it's much more in depth than that.</p>
<p>However, humanities AP courses are probably closer to their collegiate equivalents. But then again, an understanding of (not just a knowledge of) the subject matter of humanities courses is required no matter what level it is. I would, however, say that collegiate material explores more difficult literature than the literature presented at the high school level.</p>
<p>What I've said applies to pretty much any college, but I assume it applies even more to UChicago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
collegiate material explores more difficult literature than the literature presented at the high school level
[/quote]
it's the depth and standard one is expected to achieve rather than the literature itself. i mean, i read the odyssey in 10th grade, and the odyssey is read in college. does that mean that they are equal difficulty?</p>
<p>sreis -
"ohio_mom, why is it interesting that science GPA, which includes the pre-med requirements such as orgo, is lower?"</p>
<p>I don't know, I supposed I sort of hoped that doctors might be better at science than that. Silly me.</p>
<p>I posted the national application/matriculation results because many on this forum are concerned that medical schools only look at GPA and not at the strength of the program. If you look at the SD figures, you will notice that most matriculates fall into the B+ / A- range; you don't need a 4.0 to be accepted into med school.</p>
<p>What you do need (and this is from discussions with a doctor friend of mine whose D was recently admitted to several name med schools which a great GPA but mediocre MCAT's) are items beyond the numbers: letters of recommendation, laboratory and/or volunteering experience, and interviews. Grades and MCAT's are very important - but they are not the end of the story. Being a premed is not easy - and its better if you are happy - and at a college that is a good fit. </p>
<p>The other thing to consider is your intended major (or track, in the case of premed) when you start is subject to change. I don't have the numbers for this, but I believe I have read that there are a lot less 4th year premeds than 1st.</p>
<p>I have no idea what the med school acceptance rate is. On the other hand, I live next door to the holder of an endowed chair at a well-respected medical school. This is what he said to my daughter when she was deciding where to go to college: "Don't you realize that the University of Chicago means something when you apply to graduate school? [Brand X University] doesn't."</p>
<p>sreis:</p>
<p>They read The Odyssey in college? Hopefully they don't read it at UChicago, or else I'll be very disappointed. That's not a very deep work to analyze.</p>
<p>Maybe I wasn't very clear... or just used wrong language. Humanities in college also uses different approaches to certain literature. For example, if you read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in high school, you'll most likely encounter tests that quiz you over the knowledge of the book's contents, the author's style, etc. In college, you'll examine Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the psychological sense -- what was Stephenson trying to say? What about the Jungian psychological elements present in the story?</p>
<p>Oftentimes, a book such as this would be entirely inappropriate at the high school level, so it's just taught in college, which is what I meant by saying that colleges examine more difficult literature. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde would be pointless if you just examine the story, so you'd need a better background to analyze the entire work, which wouldn't come from high school studies.</p>
<p>I often hear my teachers complaining about how they took 'a whole course on the book Paradise Lost' or 'a year-long course on Freudian criticism of literature'. Although these courses would more likely be graduate courses, it's very similar to the way that undergrad courses are set up. You don't read 5-10 books a semester, like high schools do. You read a few major works and do intense amounts of research on these works, including researching the author, the content of the story, psychological themes, etc.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that high school doesn't go deep, because it sometimes does. But it's like examining art. A high schooler would most likely greatly appreciate a piece of art for its structure, harmony, and balance, opposed to a collegiate opinion, which would include the above plus a criticism based on formal, sociocultural, and expressive theories. College just goes deeper.</p>
<p>Hold the phone. The odyssey? Not deep? Try not reading it in translation.</p>
<p>Here is a link to electronic resourses in ancient greek (and in translation) from the Chicago site. These scholars do not appear to be quite so dismissive of Homer. </p>
<p>i said "it's the depth ... rather than the literature itself" and you say "College just goes deeper." OK, we agree now but certainly didn't before.</p>