<p>Does UNC-CH have a good reputation in pre-med education? How to rank it?</p>
<p>they dont really "rank" premed education</p>
<p>i guess the only way you can really "rank" it at all is by comparing medical school acceptance stats...which can be misleading anyway</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ive read it is very difficult to get into the medical school of your choice from an ivy, just because you have kids who are basically carbon copies of yourself from the same ivy. Its difficult to make yourself known.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That has to be put in perspective. The truth is, it's hard to get into the medical school of your choice coming out of ANY undergrad program. That's really a testament to the competitive nature of med-school admissions themselves, and nothing to do with Ivy League premed specifically. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, I would point out that the top-ranked med schools like Johns Hopkins, WU, Harvard, etc. tend to be highly over-represented with Ivy grads, compared to premeds from other elite (but not grade-inflated) schools like Berkeley, MIT, Chicago, etc. For example, I strongly suspect that there are more students from Harvard Med who did their undergrad at Yale or Princeton than at MIT. </p>
<p>So, yes, it is difficult to make yourself known coming out of an Ivy. But it is also difficult to make yourself known coming out of any school. Each no-name schools may send at best only a handful of students to the famous med-schools. </p>
<p>However, I would still emphasize the safety factor of the Ivies. By going to an Ivy (again, except for Cornell), your grades are probably never really going to be that bad. Provided that you put in the effort, you are certainly going to graduate, and probably with grades that will make you competitive for at least the no-name med-schools. Maybe you won't get in, but at least you'll be competitive. Other schools, particularly many public schools and tech-oriented schools, will not hesitate to flunk you out even if you put in the effort.</p>
<p>DARN! I got into Cornell ED. What do I need to sacrifice for med school admissions for the next 4 years? Just curious, where did you get this information sakky?</p>
<p>What about that fairly new chart you have about Cornell's grading? Doesn't Cornell's grading now essentially correspond with the rest of the Ivy league? Can one not cherry pick what would be the easiest classes and do well, even at Cornell? Why are you marking off cornell in particular within the Ivy League?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just curious, where did you get this information sakky?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can look at certain websites like <a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com%5B/url%5D">www.gradeinflation.com</a>. You can also read various college guides and figure out which colleges are considered to be 'rigorous' or 'difficult'. Sadly, it is precisely those schools that are rigorous or difficult that you want to avoid. The perfect combination is a school that is extremely highly respected and gives out lots of high grades. Sad but true.</p>
<p>AWWWWW that sucks. But I don't see Cornell in that website you provided. The difference between a 3.39 at Harvard from <a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com%5B/url%5D">www.gradeinflation.com</a> and a 3.35 at Cornell from <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/primarysources%5B/url%5D">http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/primarysources</a> (scroll down a little) seems negligible. I still don't understand.</p>
<p>i was wondering if any of you guys have had any experience with any BS/MD combined programs. I am interested in the interviews for these programs. I was invited to interview, but im not entirely sure what to expect. What kind of questions will be asked...how can one prepare for such an interview. Thanks!</p>
<p>
[quote]
AWWWWW that sucks. But I don't see Cornell in that website you provided. The difference between a 3.39 at Harvard from <a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com%5B/url%5D">www.gradeinflation.com</a> and a 3.35 at Cornell from <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/primarysources%5B/url%5D">http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/primarysources</a> (scroll down a little) seems negligible. I still don't understand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Personally, I don't think Cornell is a grade deflated school, on the aggregate. I think that it WAS a grade deflated school. And yes, there are still certain majors and classes, notably engineering and the pure sciences, in which the grading is quite difficult. </p>
<p>However, I think on the whole, because Cornell has published the median grades of its classes, it is now much easier to cherry-pick your way through Cornell to get top grades.</p>
<p>Sakky, about grade inflation, couldn't it be argued that the reason the median GPA is higher at private schools is simply because of the students and their dedication? I've noticed that the median GPA is higher at high-ranked colleges. This seems to hold true for public schools such as UNC or Wisconsin. Since the ones who attend Kent State are obviously not as concerned with grades, are probably lazier, party more, etc. than the ones at Harvard, does it not make sense that the GPA would relect that? Sure, courses at Harvard are rigorous, but one wouldn't have chosen Harvard if he or she did not have the drive to learn and excel. Also, private school students seem to get a higher GPA because private school kids are simply more concerned with academics than public school kids. After all, a party guy would probably choose public schools like Berkeley over Harvard or Yale.</p>
<p>sakky: I have a feeling Cornell knew that the students would pick easier courses, which would lead to grade inflation. This subject of grade inflation brings to mind the question why a school would choose not to inflate their grades. Obviously, places like Harvard do just fine with grade inflation because job recruiters and graduate schools don't seem to mind. It seems to me like the school that can inflate the grades before everyone else until they must lower grades is on top of the game (like in the stock market). But for now I guess it's time for me to pick some cherries :).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, about grade inflation, couldn't it be argued that the reason the median GPA is higher at private schools is simply because of the students and their dedication? I've noticed that the median GPA is higher at high-ranked colleges. This seems to hold true for public schools such as UNC or Wisconsin. Since the ones who attend Kent State are obviously not as concerned with grades, are probably lazier, party more, etc. than the ones at Harvard, does it not make sense that the GPA would relect that? Sure, courses at Harvard are rigorous, but one wouldn't have chosen Harvard if he or she did not have the drive to learn and excel. Also, private school students seem to get a higher GPA because private school kids are simply more concerned with academics than public school kids. After all, a party guy would probably choose public schools like Berkeley over Harvard or Yale
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So explain to me the tough grading at MIT and Caltech. These are 2 indisputably elite private schools with tremendously talented students. Yet these 2 schools grade extremely tough anyway. What's up with that? Surely nobody is saying that MIT and Caltech students deserve low grades because they are lazy and stupid, right? So why do so many of them get low grades?</p>
<p>Secondly, why is it that technical courses (i.e. engineering courses) invariably tend to be graded harder than non-technical courses at any school? Is that because the engineering students are unusually lazy and stupid? Name me a single school where the engineering students are conspicuously lazy and dumb, or where engineering is considered to be the 'gut' major full of frat boys and jocks who just don't want to study very much and want an easy major. Can't do it, can you? So why is it that engineering students always seem to get lower grades than other students do? </p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: I have a feeling Cornell knew that the students would pick easier courses, which would lead to grade inflation. This subject of grade inflation brings to mind the question why a school would choose not to inflate their grades. Obviously, places like Harvard do just fine with grade inflation because job recruiters and graduate schools don't seem to mind. It seems to me like the school that can inflate the grades before everyone else until they must lower grades is on top of the game (like in the stock market). But for now I guess it's time for me to pick some cherries
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I agree. Sadly, grade inflation works. It shouldn't work, but it does work. Which is why I think that those schools, like MIT or Caltech, who refuse to inflate their grades, are only hurting their own students. It's quite sad, because these two schools in particular pride themselves on rigor and toughness - such that you know that anybody who graduated from MIT and Caltech worked very hard and definitely proved themselves. Sadly, we live in a day and age where hard work and rigor are not rewarded the way they should be. Sadly, we live in a world where style is often times valued over substance. That it is often times better to get an 'A' for doing no work than getting a 'B' while working your tush off. Everybody says the world respects hard work and self-discipline and dedication, but the truth is, that's not entirely true. Sadly, hard work is often times not rewarded.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, courses at Harvard are rigorous, but one wouldn't have chosen Harvard if he or she did not have the drive to learn and excel.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How bout that common core? They're classes with big-time profs which are the required classes for all students, but considered a joke, a waste of time for students who could be seriously studying other things. Just because it's a big name school doesn't mean everything is rigorous, and just because it's a no-name school doesn't mean that it's a cake-walk..</p>
<p>Sakky, I have a thought n why MIT has lower med school acceptance rates than HYP</p>
<p>The average student at MIT is a little more "nerdier" than the average HYP type. </p>
<p>Med schools are looking for the best doctors, not the best students, so a med school adcom would rather have a good student with people skills than a great student with no people skills,</p>
<p>
[quote]
The average student at MIT is a little more "nerdier" than the average HYP type. </p>
<p>Med schools are looking for the best doctors, not the best students, so a med school adcom would rather have a good student with people skills than a great student with no people skills,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's just a simple redefinition of the terms. </p>
<p>Think of it this way. You say that MIT students have fewer people skills. I would argue that that's a consequence of a difficult school. If your schoolwork is difficult and grading is hard, you have to spend more time studying, which gives you less time to socialize and develop people skills. The reverse is also true. The easier that grading is, the less time you have to spend studying, and hence the more time you have to party and socialize, thereby developing social skills. </p>
<p>Hence, I would argue that the grade deflation robs people of the opportunity to develop social skills. But med-school don't care about that - they just want to see that you have social skills. If you don't have them, they don't care why, they just see that you don't have social skills. I would argue that if Harvard started grading extremely harshly, then the students there would probably turn into nerds and would therefore lose their social skills, which would therefore hurt them in the med-school admissions game. </p>
<p>So the analysis is still the same. To maximize your chances of getting into med-school, you want to avoid grade deflated schools. Sadly, hard work and rigor are not rewarded. Whether it's because of the low grades or because of the stunted social skills because the students have to study too much, the upshot is still the same. You don't want to go to a school that forces you to work too hard for top grades. Sad but true.</p>
<p>Well, say the previous poster was correct, is it so hard to assume that the type of kid who is attracted to MIT tends to be nerdier than the kid attracted to HYP?</p>
<p>Sure, you could say that. But again, I would assert that people's personalities are more malleable than you think. College tends to be the time when people really start shaping and modifying their personalities. This is when people truly grow up and take on the characteristics that will define them for adulthood.</p>
<p>But the point is, certain schools strongly emphasize the development of nerd characteristics. Like MIT. Like Caltech. Like Chicago. Sure you might say that these people were nerds to begin with, but certainly you can't deny that the nerd culture of the schools doesn't help. </p>
<p>And besides, the self-selection is probably overrated. Let's face it. Harvard wins the cross-admit battle with every school out there, including MIT and Caltech. So a lot of 'nerds' will apply to Harvard and will go if they get in. I have also noted in previous posts that the winners of the Intel Science Talent Search tend to prefer Harvard over every other school out there. You don't get any more nerdy than the Intel STS winners. </p>
<p>Hence, the point still stands that if med-schools don't want nerds, then the answer is to prefer not to go to a school that is going to encourage you to be a nerd. Those schools tend to be the ones that grade excessively harshly. Furthermore, it also means that you shouldn't choose a major that will encourage you to be excessively nerdy. Again, what matters are the results. You want to go to a school that will maximize your chances of getting into med-school.</p>
<p>Sakky, go to studentsreview.com or campusdirt.com</p>
<p>they both say the average MIT kid is more nerdy than the average harvard kid (not speciically, but the MIT kids mention nerdiness, harvard kids do not)</p>
<p>A school with majority engineering majors is going to have kids with poor social skills. More so than a school with majority Liberal arts majors, anyway</p>
<p>I'd be curious to know Chicago and Cornell's med school admissions rates, because they are less of nerd schools than MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>IT would be meaningless to compare med school acceptance rates across universities without accounting for difference in the distribution of majors. At MIT, a huge proportion of the students are engineers, while none of the applicants from Chicago are engineering majors. So you would be comparing med school admissions statistics for MIT engineers, with a tiny proportion of liberal arts majors, to the results for liberal arts only from Chicago.</p>
<p>Hi sakky,</p>
<p>You're missing something which will STRENGTHEN your conclusion (although it might disagree with your reasonaing a little bit).</p>
<p>Think about it: if grades are all that med schools care about, then why do grade-deflated schools have HIGHER average admissions GPAs?</p>
<p>The only conclusion to reach is that grade-deflated schools take a double whammy: it's harder to get the same GPA at MIT than at Stanford... but you need a HIGHER GPA from MIT. It's harder, then, on two counts, not just the grade-deflation count.</p>
<p>This might suggest that it's not grade-deflation which is creating the difference, or at least not solely.</p>
<p>Still, however, it proves your overall point that schools that give our higher grades, on average, are correlated with better chances of success. Doubly so, in fact.</p>