Is It Worth It?

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
41

<p>Okay, so what’s been posted above is flagrantly false, though they’re common assumptions among the CC crowd. I won’t venture into a discussion on why their common, but I have my theories.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you’ve spent more than 2 semesters in college, you know that the difficulty of a particular course is wholly dependent on the professor. There may be institutional pressures, but ultimately, the prof is the one controlling the content/exams/grading. And Ivy League and other top schools do not have a monopoly on profs who are *******s when it comes to grading. </p>

<p>The idea that top schools force competition for grades is largely imagined. Unless your syllabi explicitly state that grades will be based on a standard distributive curve (and a curve is entirely different than a scale), up to including microdissection based on numbers (ie a 87.8% equals an A, but a 87.5% equals a B due to numbers of recipients of each grade), then the whole notion that there’s more “competition” is false. Even in classes where a scale is employed either to move the class average to a C+ or to place the top grade as a perfect score, the greatest influence on your grade is still your competition with the exam. Compare this to a true curve where, even if you score a 95% on the exam, if you’re last in the class, you receive a failing mark. This sort of grading does occur at some medical schools, but I’d be shocked to see it in undergrad - although if it does happen, I’d love to see the syllabus. Even in classes where the prof scales, adjusting everyone’s scores by a fixed amount, this is merely done to make the math easier for the professor at the end of the term, and it’s not a matter of getting an A being a zero sum game (if you get an A, then that’s one less that is available to me). The bottom line remains that it is your responsibility to know the material - something that doesn’t change based on every grading policy other than a true curve.</p>

<p>Now you may argue that your profs have higher expectations of you than your state school counterparts, but again, this is not a monopolizable quality, and I’m sure that if there are more than 2 sections of a particular course at your school, you’re probably aware of the differences in grading policies between the respective professors. There are hard professors and easy professors at every school. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is the other, in fact larger, misconception - that you need to know the science backwards and forwards in order to do well on the MCAT. The MCAT does not care about mastery. Plainly put, the MCAT is not a test of knowledge. Sure an understanding of the science is helpful, if only from a comfort level with the terms in terms and discussion, but the MCAT is a test of critical thinking and critical thinking only. The science merely serves as a framework by which to assess this. However, as shown by the Verbal Reasoning section, you can use all sorts of content to test this. The VR section uses passages from all sorts of social sciences and the humanities, and yet you never hear pre-meds saying “Oh man, I’ve only taken Sociology 101, I’m going to do awful on the MCAT”. It’s only because you’re guaranteed to have certain topics show up on test day that you believe mastery of organic chemistry will make your MCAT score better. Meanwhile the truth of the matter is that the detail and breadth of any particular topic on the MCAT is well below that found in standard college course curricula. </p>

<p>Even more importantly, the MCAT frequently employs the introduction of new, unfamiliar concepts and ideas, explicitly to remove the advantage of outside knowledge and to test your ability to think about what the new information means. In fact, there are plenty of instances in which too much outside knowledge could be detrimental…a sociology major being introduced to two new theories of paleontology doesn’t have the baggage that a bio major who has taken a paleobiology course on a whim brings with them after having previously heard theories be dismissed in class as wrong in the face of new evidence. Or as another example, the college student reading a passage on failure of oxygen delivery to tissues isn’t bogged down when the pathophysiology is broken down to 4 simple concepts - oxygen can’t get across the lung/blood barrier, the patient lacks the hemoglobin to carry the oxygen, the heart can’t pump effectively, or the tissues can’t extract the oxygen off the blood…whereas I, as a resident, and future intensivist can go through a lengthy discussion of further factors and situations in which tissues may not receive O2 that exist outside that simplified framework. You start asking me MCAT level questions on anemia and heart failure, and I’ll probably be able to cite examples that disprove all the answer choices. Hell, even compared to an internal medicine resident, I (a pediatrics resident) can provide a different subset of congenital anomalies and metabolic conditions that the IM residents would never consider. Outside knowledge or mastery of material beyond the level being tested can be dangerous.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>^^^ Some of my pre-req classes have been graded by a standard distributive curve. This was not explicity mentioned in the sllybus but the prof. came out right and said it. He also emailed us the grading distribution in the class for each test. The top 10 percent got As, the next 10 percent made A-s. This distribution of grades however, was no different than how grades were broken down in other classes where there was no standard distribution curve. In most of my pre-req classes only the top 15-20 percent of the kids score As and A-s. Most of these classes weren’t graded on a standard distributive curve, it just happened to be that the top 15-20 percent made As and A-s. In this situations you can argue that the profs are so experienced at creating tests that the top 20 percent of the class ends up making As and A-s. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No one said that one needs to know science backwards and forewards to do well on the MCATs. Most of my tests in my pre-req classes were more critcal thinking than just straight up memorization. In fact in my bio classes on the tests I specially remember the professor giving us a paragraph to read on some weird disease and then after that paragraph we had 6-8 multiple choice questions. This format is similar to the MCATs. On my Organic Chemistry tests, my prof would give us a 1 page information on some new drug created at princeton and then ask us various questions relating to that new drug and its chemical structure. These types of questions required us to use the information we learned from our textbook/class and try to apply it to more practical real world examples. After taking tests like that for 2 years, you should be kind of used to the format for the MCATs. The same can be said for my physics and intro chem classes. </p>

<p>I have only seen 2 tests from a state school, so I am not going to make some generalized statement about how state schools tests are formatted.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>^^^ Which is exactly how I feel most of my pre-req classes were structured. </p>

<p>HERE IS AN EXAMPLE FROM ONE OF MY OCHEM TESTS: (We were given a page with the following information and asked to do a couple of problems).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We were given the structure of PLP and asked to do the following (I can’t post the images we were given because they are in pdf picture mode):

</p>

<p>^^ This is just one question out of a long exam. We never learned about the arrow formalism binding of PLP in class or in the textbook. We just learned a couple of reaction mechanisms that were similar to these reactions and asked to put those to practical use on the exam. I think this is similar to what the mcats ask us to do, based on your post. Again I have only seen 2 of my friends tests from Texas A&M so I have no idea if the tests at most state schools are like this.</p>

43

<p>^^^ Sorry I meant to say that the only reaction we had learned in class about this, was an imine reaction with a carbonyl group. I am sure that this mechanism is found in all orgo textbooks and is taught in all organic classes. I seriously doubt a lot of schools have ochem classes that ask questions, which are long scenarios like the one above.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually it occurs frequently (on quizzes, for example), but not on final grades. And here is where we will have to agree to disagree. </p>

<p>The final grade is based on total semester points. Thus, a quiz where 90% score 100, and you/I score an 80% is a de facto fail. (But, yes quiz is only worth xx points.) However, the big kahunas are the mid-terms and finals. No prof is gonna make them easy enough such that the masses can score 90+. Ain’t…gonnna…happen. </p>

<p>Instead, the prof establishes the rigor such that the mean is a 75-80 (high C/low B), which, based on experience, and 1,000 kids in a class, many of whom never even heard of AP Chem, is rather easy to do. </p>

<p>With perhaps the exception of Brown, where an A- is the mean score in some/many Sciences, please show any school where the mean for Intro Sciences is other than a high high C/low B. Been that way for decades, (except back in the dark ages the mean was a C/C+). Call it what you will, but it is a defacto curve. Regardless of what the syllabus says it possible, no Science prof who is a member of academe is gonna award 80% As – it is not in their genetic make-up. :slight_smile: </p>

<p>A perfect example of which I’m aware is Cal Berkeley. In the dark ages, a Frosh Chem final might total 250 points; the mean was 155 (62%), and SD was 25. Thus, a 180+ (72%) was an A. (Of course, the total quarter points is what counted.) At the end of the quarter (again, dark ages), the Prof would post final grades, and quarter scores, with full statistics (mean, SD, etc.) and clearly delineate the break points for A, B, C…(with the latter being the mean for the course). Out of a total of 1,000 points, the mean might be 550 (55%). Back when C’s really were average, this resulted in 15-20% A’s, 20-25% B’s…depending on the Prof.</p>

<p>But, because of all of the complaints about the ‘competition’ this created – it was a real curve – UCB changed its syllabus such that 90 = A, 80 = B, etc. And what do we have today at Cal? Instead of a rigorous mindterm/final (62% mean), the rigor now comes in at a mean of 75-80%. The end result is no real change in grade distribution, with the exception of normal grade inflation, i.e., the mean is now a low B where in the dark ages it was a C). The %'s of A’s and B’s are pretty much unchanged.</p>

<p>Looked at another way, there is no way a test mean of 62% would be tolerated. It would be impossible to not award A’s.</p>

45

<p>I have have to put it out that that Vandy grade deflation destroys this argument. </p>

<p>My math course had a 73% average on the first exam and our professor said that was way too high and made the second exam MUCH more difficult</p>

<p>Second semester of calculus had a final average of 75%. This was AFTER a third of the class had dropped the course or withdrew from it. Actual average was probably around 60%.</p>

<p>Professors have a hard time changing grades with curves, but have the power to make the next exam make up for giving out an easy first test. </p>

<p>Also, you absolutely have to compete at Vanderbilt for your grade. The neuroscience test curves all exams in which the highest grade becomes a 100% and the rest of the tests move up the same amount. Keep in mind this is a 200+ person class. Tests usually go up only 4 or 5 percent at most.</p>

46

<p>spitty:</p>

<p>if you are referring to my argument, I agree with you. My last sentence was meant to refer to a grading scale where they syllabus says a 90=A, 80=B, and so on (which Berkeley uses today to claim that competition does not exist). The point I was trying to make is that, under such a syllabus directive, the mean score for the class would not be <70. Obviously, a Prof will not gonna report mean grades of a D to the Registrar.</p>

<p>I was arguing against bigred’s post #41, i.e., the ‘curve’ does not matter. I think it does matter. I think it has to. No matter what the grading scheme, most Profs will end up with a good distribution of A’s, B’s…With the possible exception of Brown, no college with which I’m aware scales premed science courses to an A-. In contrast, with students of exactly the same caliber as Brown, the premed courses at Dartmouth start at a low B. To me, that is the perfect example of how attending a more grade-inflated college results in higher gpa’'s, on average.</p>

47

<p>See the thing is here, there’s a difference between a curve and a scale. A scale is adjustment of the grades after the fact. In such a situation, grades still aren’t a zero sum competition - A’s are not a finite resource. Yes, many profs are talented enough to create tests that seperate students out - that’s their job and what they should be attempting. But it’s a very different sentiment and process if they say “I will only give out 10% A’s, 20% B’s, 40% C’s, 20% D’s and 10% F’s, regardless of the amount of knowledge you actually demonstrate”. De facto fails on quizzes are the student’s fault, not a systematic method of distributing grades.</p>

<p>As for the Organic question posted - your professor didn’t require you to consider new information - it only seemed that way because of the back story. Your prof, (correctly I might add), obviously wants you to understand the principles of reactions - knowing how to “push arrows” and how the acid/base environment affects reactions is exceedingly more important than memorizing chemical reactions. You weren’t explicitly taught how PLP was bound to an enzyme (why would you be?), but you should have picked up the generalized principles of chemical reactions through the prototype reactions your prof covered in class. Any Ochem professor who truly wants their students (like my Ochem prof many years ago - of course he absolutely detested pre-med/dent/pharm students to no end) to understand Organic Chemistry will construct their exams in the same way. Your prof could have presented the exact same set of reactions through 3 or 4 different examples (biologic enzymes, chemical manufacturing, industrial process, etc) and probably only had a handful of students recognize that the reactions were identicle because the back story changed.</p>

48

<p>Spitty12,
"I have have to put it out that that Vandy grade deflation destroys this argument. </p>

<p>My math course had a 73% average on the first exam and our "</p>

<p>-This is higher than some of my D’s classes at her state school. Orgo and some other classes had average in low 60’s. This does NOT make it impossible to get an A in a class. Just work harder in harder classes.</p>

<p>Again, assumption that some schools have harder grading than others is incorrect. It varies from class to class at every school.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>We can go back and forth on which school is harder, blah, blah, blah but i just wanted to point out that:</p>

<p>Its stupid to use class averages on exams to prove your point. Vanderbilt students on average score higher than 98 percent of the country on standardized tests. When you see kids who can score higher than 98 percent of the country on standardized tests, having a class average of 72, you know that test is probably harder than a school where the average student has a 1500-1700 sat score (which is average in this country) and those schools have class averages of 60s-70s. </p>

<p>Maybe kids at top schools (ivy league +top 10) have classes where class averages are high simply because those kids are smarter and worker harder as a whole than kids at a lower-ranked school.</p>

50

<p>

</p>

<p>This is exactly the argument I’ve been trying to make about why their MCAT scores are better. It really has so little to do with the undergraduate institution. I can’t say it enough, but the qualities that get you into top UG schools are the exact same ones that will get you into medical school. But don’t get it twisted - there are plenty, plenty, plenty of students at any state school you care to name who could have easily gotten into a top school but purposefully chose not to. They have the exact same characteristics as any student at a top UG.</p>

51

<p>I did not realize we are discussing MCAT score. I was responding in regard to average test scores. 73% is not that low.<br>
I did not mention about MCAT at this point. MCAT score depends on how well one prepares for MCAT and also on filtering of pre-med committee at each school. If pre-med committee indicates that rec. letter is not going to be very nice, I imagine the person is not going to apply at all. I am not sure about it though, no personal experience, just heard that something linke this is going on. However, committee indicates what kind of recommendation they will write without going into details, at least at D’s school this was mentioned during her interview with them.</p>

52

<p>^^^ My point was that when you see kids that represent the top 2% (Vandy kids have a 2150+ on average) of America scoring on average a 71 on an exam, you know that class is much harder than a class at a no-name school (where the average sat score is 1500-1700) and where the average on the exam is in the 60s.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>^^^ I agree, I don’t think anyone ever said that. Thats true for some of my friends who chose in-state schools when they could have gone to top 10 schools. </p>

<p>However, I do want to point out that even though my friends were superstars in high schools (got into Princeton and Stanford), they are not doing as well as they could at Texas A&M because they stopped working really hard. I think they are not achieving their full potential because of the academic atmosphere at A&M. Had they gone to a the top 10 school that they had been accepted to, they would have been surrounded by peers who are extremely talented and hard-working. Even though there are extremely intelligent kids at A&M, the student body as a whole is not as talented/hard-working as Princeton, or Stanford. This shouldn’t be a problem for students who have a lot of self-discipline (like Miami’s kid) but the academic atmosphere at A&M really affected my friends.</p>

53

<p>

Just an anecdotal example: I did hear from an acquaintance of mine (who is a parent) speculating about the possibility that their child at another comparable state university might not challenge himself enough because of the environment. He was in the business major though. This parent said: if he had got into a school like Wharton (Penn), he might be challenged more.</p>

<p>There are definitely some (I would even say “many”) top students who stay at their state school because: 1) Their parents can not afford it or they think it is not worth the price tag. 2) They got a lot of $$ by going to a state university (honor programs) 3) They are allergic to the environment where there are too many kids from weathy families. These are all legitimate reasons. However, this is what I have observed (over the span of about 3-4 years only): It is often the case that if the family is of a certain ethnic group and their child happens to get into one of these schools even without much “free” money (e.g., the “top” ivies, S and M), they will likely go there for whatever reason it may be. As such, (I would speculate here), since the yield is higher for the students of this group, the school does not have to give out too many admission slots to these students of this group and still maintain the target percentage of students in the class they try to construct.</p>

54

<p>“But don’t get it twisted - there are plenty, plenty, plenty of students at any state school you care to name who could have easily gotten into a top school but purposefully chose not to.”</p>

<p>-How true. Looking back while D. is starting Med. school in 2 months, what a wise decision it was to be on full tuition Merit scholarships at state school with tons of great opportunities, some of which were turned down by D. simply becasue of time limitations (she is on her last trip abroad with group from her UG). It gave D. many more choices for Med. School, especially choosing one of the most expensive of them, while knowing that UG was tuition free. Her choices for Med. School would have been limited if we had to pay UG tuition. However, I understand that some families have unlimited resources so this is not applicable to them.</p>

55

<p>Cost is not the only consideration when signing up for one of those merit packages. At many schools, the named-scholars get first dibs on research opportunities and other great perqs such as lunch with top profs, in addition to priority registration/housing. While HYP et al may have enough $$ to throw research at every student who wants it, no other college has that kinda cash and can offer that many opportunities. Thus, merit scholars have a leg up in the competition for scarce resources, particularly at the publics. A big plus, IMO.</p>

56

<p>Plenty of students decline ivyleague/top schools due to one fact, tuition. It is a recurring trend that students are electing to go to lower ranked schools with full scholarships and VIP-like treatment. Also, there is considerable research showing that top schools often use grade-inflation and their overall grades are much higher than state schools and lower ranked private universities. All of these factors should be taken into account, therefore there is no general trend on gpa/mcat scores. Each applicant must be taken on a holistic basis and each applicant is very different as well.</p>

57

<p>Please use old threads for information only. When they are posted on and revived, other members often don’t notice the date and respond to the OP.</p>

<p>Instead please use the New Thread button to post your question/discussion.</p>