<p>It has the MCAT and BCPM undergrad GPA of all Mason grads who applied to med school and distinguishes the ones who got accepted on the graph.</p>
<p>Also, just out of curiosity do these numbers look odd? Because they seem odd to me because some kids with really low numbers got in while lots other kids who had way better numbers got rejected... Also, is this about an "average" acceptance rate to medical school for college? or below average? Because 43/133 does not seem particularly good...</p>
<p>A few outliers, but remember that GPA and MCAT aren't everything. Med school admission is a pretty holistic assessment of the applicant. That graph doesn't tell us much about things like URM status, leadership, research, community involvement, etc.</p>
<p>What is also appalling is the poor MCAT scores of their students. 2 out of 133 students getting 35 or above? Come on. When you have more students scoring below a 15 than above a 35, you know you have a problem.</p>
<p>I don't think its all that bad; when you look at those that are truly competitive: those with GPA above 3.25 and MCAT of 25 or higher, the acceptance rate is at the national average(by my count right around 47%); I applaud George Mason for actually listing "everyone who applied"-whether they should have or not. Many schools have people who might have a GPA of 2.5 and, if they took the MCAT, would score low-but they are advised to seek another career. At my school, the premed advisor would take such individuals aside and have a chat with them about their future(not that we have a lot of students of that caliber, but still). I think that the salient point is if you go to George Mason and perform well, you have an average shot at being accepted.</p>
<p>But... shouldn't their advisors have a chat with them? You know? As opposed as I am to any rigid screening process, surely the advising ought to be warning these kids to save their effort. I mean, the 1.9, 13 -- did nobody warn him?! Or the 2.5, 11. It's kids like those that make me wonder whether screening would be a favor.</p>
<p>I think people who apply with very low stats are not really seriously thinking that they will be accepted-they may do it as a lark, on a drunken bet by a fraternity brother, hoping to win the lottery-who knows-the graph does not tell you why they applied, it simply shows the data. It is intuitive that those with horrible stats don't fare well, and the graph shows that. There are, as always, some standouts, and other factors do come into play. I just like the fact that the stats are shown, warts and all.</p>
<p>1) As has already been mentioned, horrible advising. Way too many kids who have no business applying. This also implies that the premed courses are not rigorous enough since so many subpar applicants have slipped through the cracks.</p>
<p>2) The second thing that indicates GMU's premed courses may be subpar is the discrepancy b/w GPA and MCAT. I'm used to seeing the opposite trend here at Cornell (low GPA, high MCAT) so I may be a little biased. But it appears that roughly 3/4 of those with 3.5+ GPA's at GMU are scoring below a 30. That to me indicates grade inflation and inadequate preparation.</p>
<p>For some students they know they aren't going to get in, but it's important to them that they just apply. I had one good friend who knew she was beyond a long shot, but it was important to her just to apply. Her goal was just to get an interview at her home-state school (the only one she applied to). That would have been enough to satisfy her. For her it was a form of closure to actually have a rejection letter so that she'd never think, "well maybe lighting might have struck".</p>
<p>After having taught Kaplan and seeing the results my friends and I have generated, I'm a bit skeptical of drawing any conclusions of MCAT performance based on GPA. I don't think I've ever seen a graph of such correlation either.</p>
<p>"I'm a bit skeptical of drawing any conclusions of MCAT performance based on GPA."
Well, you don't have to convince a Cornell guy or a Davidson guy about that...</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) The second thing that indicates GMU's premed courses may be subpar is the discrepancy b/w GPA and MCAT. I'm used to seeing the opposite trend here at Cornell (low GPA, high MCAT) so I may be a little biased. But it appears that roughly 3/4 of those with 3.5+ GPA's at GMU are scoring below a 30. That to me indicates grade inflation and inadequate preparation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, evidently, it works. At least for some people. According to the graph, a significant percentage of people with 3.5+ GPA's and sub-30 MCAT scores still got admitted, and there were quite a few people (8 out of 17) with 3.5+ GPA's and sub-25 MCAT scores who still got admitted, including one guy who apparently got a 19 MCAT (but a 3.6 GPA), and still got in. </p>
<p>You can talk about subpar classes and grade inflation all you want, but it's hard to argue with success. For those admitted students in those numerical categories who got in, the fact that they got in is, at least for them, all that really matters. Like it or not, it worked for them. Let's be honest. If GMU had been grading harder, some of these people probably wouldn't have gotten in because of their subpar grades. So maybe GMU's grade inflation (if that is in fact what it is) shouldn't have worked. But it did work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
GMU's acceptance rate of its applicants with 3.5+ GPA's looks to be sub-50%. That to me is not the mark of "success."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's not what we're talking about. That's not the issue. The issue is not what constitutes a 'mark of success'. The issue is, would GMU premeds really be better off if GMU were to stop inflating grades in an effort to 'prepare' its students better (if that is in fact the problem)? The answer is, probably not. In fact, I suspect they would probably be worse off.</p>
<p>Look, the truth of the matter is that GMU apparently has a lot of premeds who are geting relatively low MCAT scores, and that's what's killing them. I don't know that giving out lower grades would make things any better. I suppose one could argue that lower grade curves might spur people to study harder and thus, indirectly, boost their MCAT score, but to me that's rather questionable. I suspect that, overall, a lower grade curve would actually make things worse. After all, right now, you have some people with quite low MCAT scores still getting into med-school (because their GPA's are good). You probably wouldn't even have that if you lowered the grading scheme.</p>
<p>umm... yea I know I'm gonna sound a bit noobish for asking this question, but what exactly is a good MCAT score? Like I'm guessing a 35+ is really high... what percentile does a 35 put you at? 30? 25? Thanks.</p>
<p>All test takers: 24
All who go on to apply: 27
Students admitted to medical school: 30</p>
<p>Remember, when you get a percentile table, only 1/4 of those kids will ever go into medical school. So at high percentiles, you have to alter it, such that the 95th percentile is really more like the 80th, etc.</p>