General premed advice.

martel_pride · July 14, 2005, 5:35pm

on grade inflation and gpas and stuff. i'm not really sure. Rice recently invited a member of Harvard's adcom, and to her, the place you went for undergrad plays a role.

she said something about once putting a 3.4 from School A vs. a 3.8 from School B and a 4.0 from School C on the table and actually accepting the 3.4 from School A in the end because School C was notorious for grade inflation and School B was close. furthermore, the applicant from School A beat out the competition with an awesome interview.

i myself have like a 3.5 but premed advisors tell me not to worry at all. i'd say that for all of you who have like 3.0-3.5 range gpa, might as well beat out the others with your personality. i don't mean this as an offensive remark to those who are getting really good grades, but people with the highest grades can sometimes be too into their academics to do well enough on interviews. at least, that's what the Harvard adcom person said.

sakky · July 14, 2005, 10:53pm

Yet look at the kinds of GPA's that are admitted from a place like Berkeley that is not known for grade inflation, and from a place like Princeton that is known for grade inflation.

Look carefully at the top-ranked medical schools, and notice how they generally require that Berkeley premeds are required to have a HIGHER average gpa than Princeton premeds in order to get admitted. Yes, that's right, HIGHER. That is the exact opposite of what you would expect if the adcoms were compensating for grade inflation - you would expect the school with grade deflation to be placing students with lower GPA's, not higher GPA's. But that is precisely what is happening.

<a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/data98-03.htm%5B/url%5D">http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/data98-03.htm</a>

<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm</a>

Or, consider this. Consider the average Princeton premed who got admitted to some medical school (any medical school) compared to premeds at, say, MIT. According to page 2 of the following Princeton pdf, the average Princeton premed who actually gets admitted somewhere has a GPA of somewhere around 3.4-3.5. However, according to MIT's data, the average admitted MIT premed has a 3.77. Yes, that's right, anywhere from a 0.27 to 0.37 HIGHER gpa. This despite the fact that I think we can all agree that MIT is, on average, a more difficult and more grade deflated school than is Princeton. Nevertheless, MIT premeds are still required to have HIGHER grades than Princeton premeds are in order to gain admission.

<a href="http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/2004.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.princeton.edu/sites/hpa/2004.pdf</a>

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/preprof.html%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/preprof.html</a>

martel_pride · July 15, 2005, 2:12am

you develop a very good point there, which basically makes me think of another thing. do yall think it could be a balance between the inflation/deflation thing and reputation/prestige ?

i mean, most of yall would probably agree with me that a princeton tag carries with it more prestige than a UC-Berkeley tag. of course, no offense to UCB ppl.

sakky · July 15, 2005, 10:14am

But how about Princeton vs. MIT? I would argue that the prestige factor is the about the same. Yet the fact remains that Princeton premeds get into med-school at a significantly higher rate (~90% vs. 77%) , and with significantly lower average grades, than do MIT premeds. I'm also aware of the Harvard, Yale, and Stanford premed data (unfortunately, I can't post it here as it's only available in hardcopy), and again, those premeds are getting in at a higher rate and with lower grades than are MIT premeds. I don't think that MIT takes a backseat to HYPS when it comes to prestige, so I don't think that prestige has anything to do with it.

martel_pride · July 15, 2005, 11:35am

hmm. ok i rest my case
thanks for the clarification.

norcalguy · July 15, 2005, 12:25pm

MIT's prestige derives from its engineering program not because it is known for having a strong premed program. Two schools having similar prestige doesn't mean they have to be equally great in all subjects. That's like saying Princeton engineers are as good as MIT engineers just because the two schools have the same OVERALL prestige. MIT has never been known to have a strong bio or premed program. Just the fact that its acceptance rate is the same as a school with grade deflation but lower prestige, Cornell, shows that it's simply not a great school to go to for premed, grade deflation or not.

sakky · July 15, 2005, 12:57pm

[quote]
MIT has never been known to have a strong bio...program.

[/quote]

Really? Is that a fact?

NRC graduate department rankings

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
1. UCSF
*2. MIT *
2. Stanford
4. Berkeley
5. Harvard

Biomedical
Engineering
*1. MIT *
2. UC San Diego
3. Washington
4. Duke
5. Penn
6. Johns Hopkins

Cell and
Developmental Biology
*1. MIT *
2. Rockefeller
3. UCSF
4. Caltech
5. Harvard

Molecular/
General Genetics
1. *MIT *
2. UCSF
3. Harvard

Ranking of Biology Faculty.

Biological Sciences
1. UCSF
2. *MIT *
2. UCSD
4. Stanford

<a href="http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/publications/pdf/nrc_rankings_1995.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/publications/pdf/nrc_rankings_1995.pdf</a>

USNews and World Report Best Graduate Schools, 2005

Biological Sciences
1. Stanford University (CA) 4.9
2. Harvard University (MA) 4.8
** Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.8 **
University of CaliforniaBerkeley 4.8

<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/bio_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/bio_brief.php</a>

So, Norcalguy, perhaps you'd like to explain to us again how MIT has never been known to have a strong bio program? If this is true, then somebody obviously forgot to tell the NRC and USNews about that. More tellingly, consider the fact that both the NRC and USNEws based their ranking methodologies on the opinions of biology department heads and prominent biology academics. So if the rankings are incorrect, then that means that the opinions of these people are incorrect. I would think that those prominent biologists and bio department heads would be extremely interested in hearing an explanation about how their high regard for MIT is unjustified and how MIT has never been known for having a strong bio program. Perhaps you'd like to take the lead on this?

norcalguy · July 15, 2005, 3:01pm

I still fail to see how graduate school rankings from 10 years ago gives insight to the strength of MIT's premed program.

As we have seen with Berkeley, the strength of graduate programs does not necessarily correlate with the strength of undergraduate programs. I'm not necessarily saying that MIT has poor undergraduate education but statistics of graduate programs from 1995 have no relevance to undergraduate education in 2004 or 2005.

If you look at acceptance rates to med schools, the schools with the highest acceptance rates are mostly LAC's. Even mid-tier LAC's can muster up 80-90% acceptance rates while world-renowned schools like Cornell or Duke or Northwestern are only sitting in that 80-85% range. I'm sure you would agree that not every LAC (esp. schools like Swathmore) has grade inflation and yet just about every single top LAC has a 90%+ acceptance rate. What that indicates is that personal attention, good premed advising, high student/faculty ratios, etc. have a lot more to do with getting into med schools than grade inflation. I think you would agree that Princeton with its relatively diminuitive graduate programs resembles a LAC a lot more than MIT. Not surprisingly, it has an acceptance rate characteristic of LAC's.

While med school admissions is numbers-driven, its dependence on numbers is grossly exagerrated by people like yourself. Clearly other factors must be taken into account considering the average GPA and MCAT scores at top schools like Harvard med or Johns Hopkins is only 3.7 and around 33. What this means is that the reason LAC students get into med schools at a high rate is not because of their GPA, but because their professors can write great recs because they get to know each student every well, because they have great advisors that provide personal attention to each student, because they encourage their students to do EC's. This is all more likely to take place at LAC-like schools like Princeton or Dartmouth than schools like MIT, Cornell, or Berkeley.

Without examining the quality of recs, EC's, personal statements, etc. of MIT applicants, how can you say for certain it is their lower GPA's and not other deficiencies that is preventing them from getting into med schools?

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that MIT is not a good school to go to for premed but to make broad generalizations on the basis of statistics of two schools (Princeton and MIT) is a fallacy.

sakky · July 15, 2005, 3:55pm

[quote]
I still fail to see how graduate school rankings from 10 years ago gives insight to the strength of MIT's premed program

[/quote]

First off, because you said that "MIT has never been known for a strong bio...program". That is a statement about conditions of the past. You didn't say "MIT is ** not known for having a strong bio... program", you said "MIT **has never been known for having a strong bio...program". Those are your words, not mine. Hence, a ranking from 10 years ago is highly appropriate, because it has to do with the past. So at the very least, we can say that MIT has indeed been known to have had one of the very best biology departments for at least 10 years. I believe you need to withdraw your previous assertion.

Secondly, the NRC rankings are put out once a decade, and it is later this year that they are going to publish another one. How much would you like to bet in the new ranking that, once again, MIT will be ranked as being among the very best for bio?

I think we can both agree that the NRC will almost certainly once again rank MIT amongst the very best. After all, the NRC ranked MIT extremely highly 10 years ago, and it is during the last 10 years that MIT has greatly emphasized bio.

Thirdly, the USNews rankings are from 3 years ago. Hence, they are quite recent. So how do you account for that? I have a 10 year old ranking that rates MIT highly. I have a 3 year old ranking that rates MIT highly. And I think you are probably not going to take the bet that the NRC won't, later this year, once again rank MIT highly. The point is, the rankings are consistent.

[quote]
As we have seen with Berkeley, the strength of graduate programs does not necessarily correlate with the strength of undergraduate programs. I'm not necessarily saying that MIT has poor undergraduate education but statistics of graduate programs from 1995 have no relevance to undergraduate education in 2004 or 2005.

If you look at acceptance rates to med schools, the schools with the highest acceptance rates are mostly LAC's. Even mid-tier LAC's can muster up 80-90% acceptance rates while world-renowned schools like Cornell or Duke or Northwestern are only sitting in that 80-85% range. I'm sure you would agree that not every LAC (esp. schools like Swathmore) has grade inflation and yet just about every single top LAC has a 90%+ acceptance rate. What that indicates is that personal attention, good premed advising, high student/faculty ratios, etc. have a lot more to do with getting into med schools than grade inflation. I think you would agree that Princeton with its relatively diminuitive graduate programs resembles a LAC a lot more than MIT. Not surprisingly, it has an acceptance rate characteristic of LAC's.

[/quote]

I have never disputed the fact that graduate education does not correlate with undergraduate education, or that LAC's provide top-notch undergrad educations. But we're not talking about that. I'm not comparing MIT to LAC's. We're talking about MIT relative to places like HYPS. You might say that Princeton's undergrad offerings are quite "LACish", and I would agree, but how does that explain Yale, Harvard, or Stanford? Whatever else you might say about them, "LACish" is not a word I would use. MIT has a significantly smaller undergraduate student body than any of those 3. I would argue that the emphasis on graduate education, to the possible detriment of undergraduate education, is no worse at MIT than it is at HYS (especially at H). HYS have very little in common with the LAC's - yet they still manage to beat the pants of MIT when it comes to med-school placement. Why?

Again, I apologize for not being able to publish the HYS premed data online, but they refuse to publish it online. But trust me, it's pretty much the same as Princeton's. You can go and check it yourself if you want, or get one of your friends at HYS to check the data for you if you don't believe me. I'm telling you the truth.

[quote]
While med school admissions is numbers-driven, its dependence on numbers is grossly exagerrated by people like yourself. Clearly other factors must be taken into account considering the average GPA and MCAT scores at top schools like Harvard med or Johns Hopkins is only 3.7 and around 33. What this means is that the reason LAC students get into med schools at a high rate is not because of their GPA, but because their professors can write great recs because they get to know each student every well, because they have great advisors that provide personal attention to each student, because they encourage their students to do EC's. This is all more likely to take place at LAC-like schools like Princeton or Dartmouth than schools like MIT, Cornell, or Berkeley.

[/quote]

And again, why is it that premeds at HYS never seem to have problems in getting strong prof rec's? After all, the prof interaction at HYS with undergrads, especially at Harvard, isn't exactly the best. And why is it that HYS premeds never seem to have a problem with getting good advising or in doing EC's, but it's apparently always a problem with MIT premeds?

[quote]
Without examining the quality of recs, EC's, personal statements, etc. of MIT applicants, how can you say for certain it is their lower GPA's and not other deficiencies that is preventing them from getting into med schools?

[/quote]

Because then you have to ask the question of why is it that MIT premeds seem to predominantly suffer from these supposed deficiencies, whereas premeds at peer schools don't? And isn't it interesting that these deficiencies always seem to crop out "coincidentally" at those schools that also seem to have grade deflation?

In fact, I would argue that even if what you are saying is true, that it is not coincidental. I would argue that the schools that practice grade deflation force their students to spend all more time studying for fear of getting bad grades, thereby detracting from the ability of their students to do EC's or get good rec's, or all that other stuff. Hence, the grade deflation and those missing attributes are intimately linked.

[quote]
The only reasonable conclusion we can draw is that MIT is not a good school to go to for premed but to make broad generalizations on the basis of statistics of two schools (Princeton and MIT) is a fallacy

[/quote]

And why do you say that it's just 2 schools. I have presented data from plenty of schools. In fact, the one I talk about most of all is Berkeley.

<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/19992003seniors.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/19992003seniors.stm</a>

Here is the Duke data.

<a href="http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/mssumdata.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/mssumdata.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/%5B/url%5D">http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/</a>

From Case Western:

<a href="http://www.case.edu/artsci/chem/undergrad/med4.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.case.edu/artsci/chem/undergrad/med4.html</a>

From Virginia

<a href="http://www.career.virginia.edu/students/preprof/prehealth/PreMedReport2004.doc%5B/url%5D">http://www.career.virginia.edu/students/preprof/prehealth/PreMedReport2004.doc</a>

And of course, Cornell.

<a href="http://www.career.cornell.edu/HealthCareers/acceptedApplied.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.career.cornell.edu/HealthCareers/acceptedApplied.html</a>

Notice how the data is consistent - schools that are known for grade deflation tend to have lower premed placement rates than schools known for grade inflation.

In fact, I would look closely at the Duke data. Duke is a good school, but we can agree it's easier to get into Duke than MIT. Duke is not LACish, in fact, Duke has significantly more undergrads than does MIT. Yet, Duke premeds are getting in at a rate of 85% compared to MIT"s rate of 77%. Duke premeds get in with an average GPA of 3.51/4, compared to 3.77/4 at MIT, and average MCAT of 32, compared to 33.6 at MIT. Why?

<a href="http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/New2004HPAC%20Annual%20Report.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/New2004HPAC%20Annual%20Report.pdf</a>

sakky · July 15, 2005, 5:54pm

So this whole thread has got me thinking about some issues, and made me go back and do a little more analysis.

First, it has been asserted that perhaps my analysis regarding grade inflation is a bit too narrow. Specifically, I've been looking at Princeton vs. MIT. Maybe there is something pecular about MIT which skews the data. Fine. So let's take 2 other schools. Let's look at Duke and Berkeley.

<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/top20.stm</a>
<a href="http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/mssumdata.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/mssumdata.pdf</a>

Let's take a few popular med-schools and look at the kinds of stats that Berkeley premeds and Duke premeds need to get that medical school. According to USNews, Berkeley and Duke are roughly equivalent in selectivity and in prestige, and Berkeley may actually have an advantage in prestige. But in any case, let's take Berkeley and Duke and look at how their premeds fare in getting into certain medical schools. In particular, let's keep in mind that Duke is significantly more grade inflated than is Berkeley. Duke gives out higher average grades than Berkeley does.

<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html</a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/duke.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/duke.html</a>

Let's first look at the UC medical schools. Here, I am stacking the deck in favor of Berkeley, because the UC medical schools by law must favor California state residents, and Berkeley will obviously have a greater proportion of California residents than will Duke. I list the average GPA and MCAT score of admitted Berkeley premeds to that medical school, followed by the average GPA and MCAT of admitted Duke premeds.

UCSF Med - 3.85/34, 3.73/33
UCLA Med - 3.85/33, 3.74/34
UCSD Med - 3.85/34, 3.63/34
UCD Med - 3.74/35, 3.56/34.5
UCI Med - 3.87/34, 3.71/34.5

Hence the data is consistent. Duke premeds actually get in with a LOWER average GPA than do Berkeley premeds. This despite the fact that Duke is a more grade inflated school. Yep, that's right, Duke is more grade inflated, and yet the UC medical schools are admitting Duke premeds with LOWER grades than Berkeley premeds. Not higher but LOWER. That's exactly the opposite of what you would expect.

That might be caused by Duke premeds presenting higher MCAT scores, but as you can see, admitted Duke premeds have roughly equivalent MCAT scores to admitted Berkeley premeds. Hence, MCAT's are not an explanatory factor.

So maybe you're thinking that perhaps there is something peculiar about the UC medical schools. OK, so let's take a gander at some of the bigtime private med-schools.

Harvard Med - 3.96/36, 3.79/33
Johns Hopkins Med - 3.91/37, 3.83/34
Washington U Med - 3.88/39, 3.77/35.4
Yale Med - 3.78/35, 3.77/35
Columbia Med - 3.93/37, 3.7/34.5
Stanford Med - 3.91/31,3.72/33.8

Once again, the data is consistent. Berkeley premeds require HIGHER grades to get in than do Duke premeds. MCAT scores between the two population are roughly the same. The Berkeley MCAT score for Stanford Medical is probably anonymously low (in the previous year, the average Berkeley MCAT score to get into Stanford med was a 36), but the Berkeley MCAT score for Washington U Medical is probably anomolously high.

Finally, let's look at the overall numbers. Overall, about 60% of Berkeley premeds who apply to med-school get in. About 85% of Duke premeds who apply to med-school get in. While you can't calculate an exact value of the average GPA for admitted Berkeley premeds, you can see from the data that is unlikely to be anything lower than a 3.6. The average admitted Duke gpa was a 3.51

<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/19992003seniors.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/MedStats/19992003seniors.stm</a>
<a href="http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/%5B/url%5D">http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/</a>
<a href="http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/New2004HPAC%20Annual%20Report.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/New2004HPAC%20Annual%20Report.pdf</a>

The point is, Duke premeds are getting in with lower grades than are Berkeley premeds to most med-schools, despite the fact that Duke has more grade inflation than Berkeley does, and also despite the fact that the two schools are roughly similar in terms of selectivity.

Now, med-school admissions are not just a numbers game, and so now obviously that begs the question that perhaps the Berkeley premeds just don't do the volunteering and the EC's and all the other stuff that you need to do to get into med-school. It is of course possible that Berkeley premeds are just doing less than Duke premeds when it comes to that extra stuff. But that begs the question, if that's the case, why not? Why aren't they doing it? Are Berkeley premeds just being lazy? I have a hard time believing that. Do Berkeley premeds simply lack resources? This is Berkeley we're talking about here - the resources are there if you can find them.

And even if that is the case, the simple conclusion you can reach is that if you want to go to med-school, it is better to go to Duke than go to Berkeley. And I showed previously that for premed placement it is better to go to Princeton, Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, than to go to MIT. Yet notice how a general theme -that it is always better to go to the more grade inflated school than the less grade inflated school.

It has also been surmised that maybe Duke is simply more "LAC-ish" compared to Berkeley, and LAC's are highly successful in premed placement. So maybe it isn't the grade inflation, but rather the LACishness of a particular school. OK, so let's take a look at a real LAC.

Let's look at Swarthmore. That's undeniably an elite LAC. It's a member of the AWS LAC triumvurate. Yet Swarthmore also has a reputation for being a tough grader, relative to other LAC's. Swarthmore is a tougher grader than is Duke.

<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/swarthmore.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/swarthmore.html</a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/duke.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/duke.html</a>

So here we have Duke, a research university with LAC features, and Swarthmore, a honest-to-God LAC. Furthemore, Duke and Swarthmore are of roughly equivalent selectivity, so it is fair to compare them. So which one has a better premed placement rate? It's Duke. Duke's rate is 85%. Swarthmore's is 78%

<a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/health_sciences/first_year_guide.html#What%20are%20Medical%20Schools%20Lookin%5B/url%5D">http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/health_sciences/first_year_guide.html#What%20are%20Medical%20Schools%20Lookin</a>
<a href="http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/%5B/url%5D">http://www.aas.duke.edu/trinity/prehealth/appendix/</a>

So once again, take 2 schools of roughly equal selectivity, and the one with the higher grade inflation tends to be the one with a better premed success rate. It doesn't have to do with LACishness. It's about the grading philosophy of the school.

DRab · July 16, 2005, 7:33pm

Sakky, how do you think recommendations, self selection, and advising play a roll in medical school admissions and percentage accepted? For instance, perhaps profs can only write x number of recs, have to write x number of recs, ect, at a certain school. What about a school that heavily advises students with certain stats and profiles not to apply to med schools, possibly boosting percentage accepted?

jmstnfrd08 · July 17, 2005, 12:13am

sakky, i may be wrong, but i believe the average acceptance rate for stanford premeds is only around 76%. (recalling from a packet i got from the premed center at stanford)....

sakky · July 17, 2005, 12:32am

Drab, are you perhaps referring to what happens at Johns Hopkins, in effectively discouraging poorer applicants from applying?

<a href="http://www.jhunewsletter.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/21/3e7a3fbeb5814?in_archive=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.jhunewsletter.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/21/3e7a3fbeb5814?in_archive=1</a>

I have it on good authority that none of HYPS engages in this practice, nor do Duke, Berkeley, or Swarthmore. If anybody has any data that says that they do, please post it.

Now, to jmnstnfrd08, what you are saying contradicts what I have been told. I will ask my Stanford contacts to go look at the Stanford premed data again. However, if you have information that can be posted, could you post it?

DRab · July 17, 2005, 3:41am

Sakky, that was one of the things that i mentioned. I'm sorry, i just lumped them together. I'll repost, omitting what you have already spoken about.

Sakky, how do you think recommendations play a roll in medical school admissions and percentage accepted? For instance, perhaps profs can only write x number of recs, have to write x number of recs, ect, at a certain school. Perhaps this is why LAC like schools do better than Uni's in med school admissions- i heard pomona even had an office that bothers profs about recs. Maybe certain universities have followed this trend?

How do you think self selection plays a roll in medical school admissions and percentage accepted at these schools?

How do you think advising plays a roll in medical school admissions and percentage accepted?

sakky · July 17, 2005, 2:11pm

First off, I'm not sure that you can really say that LAC-like schools do better than Uni's. For example, why is it that Duke (which is not a LAC) has a higher placement rate than Swarthmore (which is a LAC)?

I also am not aware of any schools implementing policies regarding a limit to the number of recs written by profs. Rec's from the premed committees, perhaps. But rec's from profs? I don't know about that. For example, if you can find a prof who's willing to write 100 rec letters for you, why would the school want to prevent that from happening? I think this mostly has to do with professor-student interaction and how well you can get to know your profs and convince them to write the recs you want them to write.

And besides, I would point to the example of Caltech. Caltech actually has fewer undergrads and arguably more faculty-student interaction than many LAC's do. Yet Caltech is probably not a good place to do premed. Numerous Caltech students and alumni on the Caltech section of CC have conceded this point. Why? Because while Caltech is an extremely small school that can give a student intimate contact with the faculty, Caltech is also an extremely difficult school that gives out lots of low grades, and that's exactly what you want to avoid when you're looking for a good premed program.

I don't think self-selection plays much of a role in assessing the DIFFERENCES in premed placement rates amongst the various schools. Applying to med-school is a painful endeavor. Only those people who are highly motivated would choose to undergo the entire process, no matter what undergraduate program they are from. It's not like a lot of MIT students are just applying to med-school 'for the hell of it'.

Advising obviously plays some role, but at the end of the day, it's still up to the student. It's not like the path to get into med-school is some sort of secret. Anybody who is serious about getting into med-school can find out what they need to do. Furthermore, the low admissions percentages are also no secret. The data is published and is easily found. I don't know what more that advisors can tell you.

smomb · July 19, 2005, 1:56am

I just started reading this post, so this may have been already reported, but it may be of interest. I spoke to the premed club at MIT this spring when my son was considering attending MIT and asked about the low acceptance rate at MIT. The students in the club said that the rate was misleading because there were many MIT students who were interested in research and applied to only a few MD/PhD stellar programs because their interest was not "I want to be a doctor" but rather, "I want to do (medical or bio) research" and they were not content to get into any med school, but rather just as few prestigious Md/PhD programs and that these students thereforeskewed the statistics to make it look like med schools don't like MIT students when it really was a matter of the uberselectivity of the students in their choice of programs and schools that they were interested in applying for. Of course, this was during the accepted students weekend soi there was definitely salesmanship going on. 
But I thought it was interesting.

sakky · July 19, 2005, 2:38pm

Yeah, I find that doubtful for several reasons.

First off, it's not clear to me why MIT premeds would be applying to super-selective programs any more than, say, Harvard premeds or Yale premeds or Princeton premeds. For example, it would seem to me that a good number of HYP premeds (especially Harvard premeds) would also only be interested in research and would also only want to do only MD/PhD programs. So again, the question is why, do MIT premeds have so many problems, relative to premeds at peer schools?

Secondly,and I think most importantly, this new tack nullifies a previous argument. It was asserted previously that perhaps MIT premeds have problems because they're just nerdy bookworms who care more about science than about proper bedside manners, and that's why they have problems in getting into MD programs. However, this is far less of a handicap when you're talking about MD/PhD programs. Let's face it. A great fraction of MD/PhD students, arguably the majority, never become practicing doctors. Instead, they become scientists and academics. Hence, it doesn't really matter what their bedside manner is. Consequently, the supposed weakness of MIT premeds in getting into MD programs is far less of a weakness in getting into an MD/PhD program.

And again, I would point out that it's not just an MIT thing. In general, any school that is known for grade deflation and extremely difficult coursework tends to have a lower premed placement rate, relative to peer schools. I maintain that that's not a coincidence. The data seems to indicate that med-schools don't care that certain schools are grade deflated and have difficult coursework. They indicate that med-schools just want to see high grades, and don't really care how you get them, as long as you get them. In other words, a do-nothing, lazy A is better than a hard-fought B. Fair or not fair, that seems to be the attitude of the adcoms.

smomb · July 19, 2005, 3:00pm

I hear what you're saying. Just thought I would give you the line from MIT. I agree with what you are saying. It is disappointing. My middle child is applying to med school from Yale as a molecular biochem and biophysics major. This has required him to take the more difficult chem and physics track of intro courses and his grades have reflected the degree of difficulty. He now says that if he were a "pre-med" from the start, he would have been much better off as a non-science or biology major. We keep assuring him that schools will recognize the difference, but from whart you say, apparently not. He feels that the sciences, at least at yale, are not so grade-inflated as you and others think.

sakky · July 19, 2005, 5:31pm

Hey, don't get me wrong, I am well aware that the sciences, even at grade-inflated schools, tend to be less grade inflated than the non-sciences are.

However, we still have to look at things from a relative standpoint. It is clearly true that Yale (and Harvard and Stanford) science classes are no walk in the park. However, I would suspect that even the Yale science students would concede that, as hard as the grading is and as difficult as the workload is in a particular science class, it's STILL probably easier than the equivalent class at MIT. Or Caltech.

videogamerx2 · July 19, 2005, 6:38pm

MIT does not grade for the first two semesters - that might be the peculiarity you describe.

Thread		Replies	Views
A dilemma. Pre-Med Topics	2	44	April 17, 2021
I know where/if you will get into med school is never a sure thing, but... Pre-Med Topics	40	153	April 18, 2021
Pre-med status advice needed, please! Pre-Med Topics	22	82	April 17, 2021
Getting Into Med School Pre-Med Topics	5	44	April 18, 2021
I'm in high school, but I have a general question. Pre-Med Topics	14	87	April 18, 2021

General premed advice.

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

General premed advice.

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US