<p>Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, Mike. Does anyone very familiar with the most selective medical schools' admissions processes have any insight about making the cut at a Harvard, JHU, or WashU coming from a big state school?</p>
<p>(Should I start a new thread for this question?)</p>
<p>The most important difference is that elite undergraduate schools get a little more flexibility in their GPA.</p>
<p>You need research, no matter where you came from. You need clinical service, no matter where you came from. You need high MCAT scores, good essays, good interviews, and to apply early, no matter what.</p>
<p>The one area of flexibility that going to a "good" private school affords you is that your GPA no longer needs to be stellar, it just needs to be excellent. </p>
<p>This is not a useful piece of information, on its own. Why? Because this might be because it's harder to earn a stellar GPA at Harvard. If that's the case, and if they balance exactly, then it means that where you go to school doesn't matter.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it might be despite the fact that it's easier to earn a stellar GPA at Yale. In that case, then, students from Yale are earning a double bonus: it's easier to achieve the same GPA and their GPA can even be a little lower.</p>
<p>It might even be that it's harder to earn a good GPA at Princeton and the bonus from admissions committees do adjust a little but not enough. In that case, then, it's better to go to the state school.</p>
<p>You see that I really have no answer for you on this one.</p>
<p>But my point is that in the final analysis, going to an elite private buys you some extra points on the GPA that going to a public does not. Aside from that, you really have to excel in every arena anyway.</p>
<p>If you're just going to say "yeah, I want all of that" to my questions, then I think you need to look at what's actually realistic. This is not to say that everything is mutually exclusive, just that you're looking to be the ultimate professional in every single aspect. Somethings are to some extent, mutually exclusive - like doing defining research and having a massive patient load. If you really are an identified "expert" in one area, that's going to cause you to be doing a lot more of that one area than anything else. </p>
<p>Do you want to have any sort of life outside medicine?</p>
<p>I'm not trying to quash your dreams her but if I were you, I'd step back and assess what's going to be the most important thing for you in your future. You don't need to share with the board, and I know it sounds lame, but where do you really see yourself in 20 years when you're 38 - and I'm not just talking medically/professionally. Take the whole picture - friends, family, kids, career, social involvement, philanthropic endeavors, vacations, etc. The whole deal. </p>
<p>The other option is to use an exercise that Stephen Covey (author of 7 Habits of Highly Effective People) encourages - write you're own obituary. What would it say if you died tomorrow? What about in 10, 20, or 50 years?</p>
<p>Like I said, not everything is mutually exclusive, but to be phenomenal in one area, usually necessitates sacrifices in others. What are you going to give up to be everything to everyone in the field of neurosurgery? Are you okay with those sacrifices? What is your benchmark as a neurosurgeon - does that impede other professional possibilities?</p>