<p>Sorry for two things. One is that I already posted this question in a previous thread, but i think this question might deserve a new one. Two for the poor grammar. </p>
<p>There's just something that I really don't get. The more and more I get acquainted with med school admissions and the more I listen to a lot of people in both CC and out, I get the impression that med schools are basically stifling intelligence and promoting mediocrity. True, the med school admissions process is still rigorous, and that its hard to judge whether (as bigred stated) chem 113 is harder than chem 109 for any random college. </p>
<p>But will med schools really pick someone with a high gpa say a 3.9 or so but took only intro level science courses as opposed to someone who tried to take several difficult science courses such as biochemistry, genetics, and even graduate level courses in cell biology but with a lower gpa say around a 3.5? Isn't this basically promoting mediocrity among physicians who should otherwise be some of the most brilliant minds in the world? I find it hard to believe that med schools would be so incredibly short-sighted.</p>
<p>Any other opinions or am I wrong about anything?</p>
<p>so, if i were to take high level courses, have a slightly lower gpa but still "destroy" the MCAT with a very high score (hypothetically of course :) ), would med schools still see the low gpa as a weakness?</p>
<p>really? how does that work? im sorry if im being annoying, but i rele don't understand a lot about how all this grading stuff and med school admission stuff works. i just want to have an idea of what im getting into</p>
<p>Curves in upper div courses tend to be more generous. Heck, in the graduate bio course I took, we didn't even have a curve because the means on the tests were in the 88% range.</p>
<p>Upper level English courses aren't necessarily easier than upper level bio courses. Being a science major is not necessarily more indicative of medical school success than a humanities major. A 3.5 GPA Bio major really can be more mediocre than a 3.9 GPA English major. That's why GPA still matters.</p>
<p>It's not about discouraging people from taking high-level science courses. It's about finding people who can academically succeed.</p>
<p>Depends on which courses you select that are higher level in Sciences.</p>
<p>Some Grad level Biochem, Pharmacology, and Physio courses are incredibly difficult for someone is not proficient in general Biochem and general Orgo. An upstate NY med school where I did some CME work, these courses were core requirements for grad students and med first years. Classes used to comprise of nearly 75 students. A's were about 7-8/ grad class. </p>
<p>However, I agree with NCG that there are some easier Grad courses in which you can get A's more easily. These tend to be courses where you get to write papers, present your research as a group activity. Summer grad courses tend to be easier too.</p>
<p>Med schools actually do look at the difficulty of the courses you take, the rigor of the institution you attend and they place more emphasis on the MCAT than GPA. Adcoms expect students from the University of Chicago and from Hopkins to have slightly lower GPAs than someone from other top schools, because they are known for their grade deflation.</p>
<p>You are ecouraged to take advanced courses like a Biochemistry course or Analytical Chemistry which are advanced courses. What is not clear is who has a greater chance....a 4.0 from a state university or a 3.5 from Chicago. They may be roughly at the same level with perhaps the Chicago brand waiting a little moe. At that point is up to the adcoms (subjectivity?) ECs, MCAT and so on..</p>
<p>--If schools know your school well, they will expect you to do rigorous things.</p>
<p>--They don't always look for "rigorous" things as long as they indicate high level skills that they like. For example, independent study is much easier than a normal class, and yet it's highly valued. This isn't (necessarily) because they're not very bright. It's because it demonstrates and builds useful skills, regardless of how difficult it is.</p>
<p>--How on earth can they measure how difficult a course is? They have difficulty enough measuring how advanced a course is, and many advanced courses are EASIER, not harder, than less advanced ones.</p>
<p>--Beyond introductory courses, many science courses (say, quantum mechanisms) are less useful than many non-science courses (econometrics) to medical schools. So even if a science course (physical chemistry) is more difficult than a non-science course (Intro to Spanish), which candidate should a school admit? Probably the one who's built useful skills -- even if the courses were easier.</p>
<p>--Medical schools are not looking ONLY for the most spectacular students. They're looking for the best, most complete doctors -- and sometimes that includes kids who understand sociology, economics, English, photography, or electrical engineering better than they understand advanced genetics or nuclear mechanics.</p>
<p>--With that said, of course they'd make rigor adjustments if they can. And within some schools, they definitely can. (Duke is one of them.) But it's not their only priority, and there are many cases where it's simply not possible.</p>
<p>^^^I think a lot of premeds fail to understand this point. It's not about the difficulty of your coursework but rather the skills and knowledge you acquire from your coursework. Certainly, certain courses teach skills more valuable to medicine than others.</p>
<p>Med schools often will compare students within the same school. Certainly the candidates are ranked if a reasonable number from a given school are applying. If the UC student has a 3.5 GPA that is at the top of the entire UC pool of say 20 students, the candidate is probablly going to be looked at very seriously. The 4.0 from state U is irrelevant in the consideration of whether to interview the candidate. On the other hand, if there are 5 other UC students with 3.5s. then that student is one of a number of top students, which the school can choose from. It is possible that not all of the 3.5s would get interviewed. Additionally, many medical schools have unofficial quotas of how many students (ususally a maximum) they will accept from a given school. If they traditionally take two or three or so students a year from a given school, they will look to take a look at the top 3-5 students applying unless the pool is exceptionally strong or weak in a given year. So again, students from different schools are not directly compared against each other as much as one might intially assume-at least in the pre-interview stage. </p>
<p>Medical school admissions committees realize that class selection is a subjective art in which apples are compared with oranges; however, if there are ways to compare apples to apples, they will be utilized as much as possible given the limitations and realities of the application system.</p>