<p>Would it be better for me to go to a slightly easier school or a public school like Ohio State with good grades or is it better to go to a prestigious school like Duke or UPenn and work harder to get the same grades or get slightly worse grades as a potential premed student? </p>
<p>However, I am unsure whether I want to pursue Biomedical Engineering, or Pre medicinal studies as an undergraduate. If I pursue Biomedical engineering, I might not even apply to medical schools, but rather get a PhD in it. In addition, I want to pursue a research oriented career, but whether that research is in BME or Medicine, I have not yet decided. Any feedback will be helpful :)</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter what you major in as long as you also do well in the med school pre-reqs. Med schools won’t give much credit to a near-ivy degree over a state flagship. High GPA and MCAT scores, strong letters of rec, and research experience are what med schools want to see. Start out in BME and explore your interests in it. Enjoy your education. Don’t take on too much debt. Do as well as you can, and if that gets you into a med school or phd program, bully for you.</p>
<p>Pick your school based upon the depth of learning you want. I’ve seen students (from the high school where I work) go to “easier” schools, do well, and get into med school and I’ve seen students from our school go to “harder” schools, do well, and get into med school. (Yes, there is a difference in depth, but it’s not always private vs public, it’s more aligned with the caliber of student they attract.) The only disappointed students I’ve seen are those who go to a school that is too easy (or limited in scope) and they are bored and those who choose one that is too difficult (or competitive) and get too stressed.</p>
<p>Different schools work best for different students. All can work. Sit in on classes at each and see which type appeals to you. See if you can look at old tests and compare if you’re concerned about the academics. Talk with other students. You ought to find yourself leaning one way or another. Don’t try to go off of stats. Stats never apply to the individual. What YOU do matters, not any stats suggesting what you ought to do.</p>
<p>@Creekland: Agreed. Learning orientation does matter. And I honestly feel that if one is really considering a PhD, they may be more intrinsically motivated and thus actually like learning out of curiousity, which is actually convenient for doctoral programs which certainly like strong GPAs, but aren’t obsessed with super high ones like professional programs are, and take into account intellectual achievement (research and patents) and development a lot more. I am ultimately pre-doctoral and honestly preferred (and did better in) most of my more difficult courses to ones that were “easier”. And as a pre-grad, I am defining difficulty by the level of problem solving, critical thinking, and creativity needed to be successful in a course (which of course is the case for research) and easier (as defined by most) as those courses that mostly require lower cognitive skills (which many pre-medical students majoring in biology seem to enjoy or perform better in, but at least if you’re BME, you are surrounded by different types of students). I feel as if more selective schools are indeed more stressful for some, but if you’re in a challenging major with courses that require higher cognitive skills, it could serve as excellent training for your mind and it is indeed possible to do well (and doctoral programs are more aware of the difficulty of certain schools, courses, and majors). </p>
<p>@thenarwhalking :I would not recommend going to the selective school and majoring in something like that if your motivation for learning is primarily extrinsic and driven by grades or some desire to look awesome to med. schools or grad. schools. Usually those attitudes correlate with a tendency to veer toward a surface level of learning (memorization, recall, recognition, plug and chug problem solving, and other behaviors associated with a a “prepare for the assessment and only what’s on it” approach to learning) which isn’t going to work in more difficult courses (as you will find in BME) at selective schools (or non-selective ones, but definitely not at selective ones). But ultimately, if you have that learning orientation and are aware of it, then pursuing a doctoral program may not be ideal either. Really assess your learning orientation. If you like to be challenged at higher than normal levels, can see yourself becoming an independent learner, do not over-emphasize perfect grades/superficial representations of learning, then you could end up loving and being quite successful at the selective schools, but if you just want to make the pathway as smooth as possible and constantly fear the challenge (and maybe coming up short sometimes) and what it will do to your chances for whatever, don’t go to those sort of places for goodness sake. If being around other great students is intimidating, also don’t go. </p>
<p>I knew some like that at Emory and they would be the students who do indeed get amazing grades, but only by avoiding courses and instructors with an abundance of students at their level They would scope out each class pretty well to make sure they were better than most of the peers or that the content was easy enough such that they never foresaw themselves being challenged by it. They knew/heard who top people were and did not want to take a class full of them, maybe with only some. For example, even if they would have a calc. 2 credit and thus should sign up for calc. based physics, they refused to because of the competition level being significantly higher with a significant chunk of students having taken higher level maths already. However, they would know that they could take their chances with taking a difficult ochem instructor because the playing field is more level and randomly distributed there (no pre-requisite class can really give you an advantage there other than maybe like multivariable or maths involving spacial orientation. They knew their chances were stronger than normal for an A because they had made an A in a difficult general chemistry instructor’s course and saw others in the ochem course who had made much lower. It was all very calculated and manipulative with these students lol). These were the more stereotypical pure pre-med types though. Don’t go to a selective school and expect to get the most out of it (unless you only view most as “elite medical school admission” which they didn’t really even get) if you are that type of person. </p>
<p>Thanks soooo much for the advice! But just one more question.</p>
<p>I have heard from many people that BME majors is very difficult to get a good GPA in, no matter the school. </p>
<p>SO say, just as an example, I major in BME and get a low GPA compared to the average GPA for admitted med students at top med schools, will that hurt my chances greatly to get into a good med school? If my goal is to translate my success at my undergraduate studies into a good med school, should I just go with a Biology, Biochem or chem major, no matter the school i attend?</p>
<p>(And I am completely prepared to work harder at a top school. I have even heard that some med schools account for difficulty of the college’s classes when looking at a student’s GPA.)</p>
<p>Only some (very top ones that have redesigned their curriculum to emphasize more self-directed learning. Harvard is an example) med. schools do, but a significant amount just want high numbers and EC’s. Yes, getting a lower GPA in BME will hurt. However, you have to keep in mind that pre-healths are more conscious when it comes to GPA so will usually have much higher GPA’s than everyone else in the major (either through working harder ,tailoring their learning toward optimizing the grade, or choosing the “right” classes/instructors). However, if you are primarily keeping that end goal in mind, I would really honestly entertain not going to the more selective schools. I don’t see how you could really benefit when that is constantly in your mind. I feel you should just work hard with learning in mind (maybe choose courses with more room for error/bigger curves) and hopefully reap the benefit, but that’s hard to do with that idea of needing the GPA for a top med. school in mind. You will likely resort to the tactics the folks I described did. You already kind of are if you’re asking if you should go with a more stereotypical pre-med major to protect your GPA. Also, if you’re serious about being a doctor, you need not go to a “top” medical school, just a reputed one which there are crap tons. Saying things like you did makes me think you should lean toward medicine and not pursue the Ph.D. Just go wherever and work toward achieving the best grades possible if that is the case. Be honest with yourself, seriously. It shouldn’t come down to narrow options like: “top med. school” or “top PhD program”. </p>
<p>Go with your niche. A lower GPA will hurt med school, but you also don’t need a 4.0 to get in.</p>
<p>My middle son chose a more difficult school and is truly enjoying himself there - enjoying the more in depth classes. His GPA has not been hurt but he definitely studies to keep it high. He also stays active with other ECs, so it’s not “all” studying in any shape or fashion. He’s enjoying himself.</p>
<p>His high school academic peer chose a lesser school and has a 4.0, but was regretting his choice at Christmas when the two got together as he doesn’t have nearly the opportunities where he is going. I suspect both have good chances for med school upon graduation.</p>
<p>Some are just not into the in-depth academic learning. Some are. Some don’t care so much for research ops. Some do. It’s not a right/wrong deal. It’s a fit deal. You want to enjoy your undergrad years while still doing well, so pick a place that fits. Pick a major that fits too. You’ll do better in something you enjoy.</p>
<p>Any type can make good doctors. Med school teaches them what they need to know for that, not undergrad. Many doctor profiles don’t even list where they did their undergrad. ;)</p>
<p>Thanks so much for the help. I definitely agree that a top college will be better in terms of opportunities. I’m just trying to get an idea of the types of colleges and programs i should apply to. </p>
<p>I believe the difference is that if you did well in a top university (i.e. GPA 3.7) you have a much better chance to get into TOP med schools. A student in a top university with 3.3 GPA is still very possible to get in to a med school with a good MCAT. And if you are in a flagship you’ll need to prove you are good enough by showing a high GPA to get in a med school; it may be harder to get in to top med schools.</p>
<p>If everybody knew you have to ‘protect your GPA’ by going to an easier school, why wouldn’t med school admissions know about the same thing? </p>
<p>Wouldn’t this student be viewed as less a risk-taker? Why do we want our doctors to be that way if we are diagnosed with an unknown new disease?</p>
<p>Apparently even many in medicine recognize a problem and agree with folks like you and me. They are into high numbers because they are associated/correlated with success in pre-clinical courses (which are mostly surface learning and multiple choice. Not a surprise because most 1st and 2nd year medical schools are used to it as biology or other non-chemistry natural science majors), board scores (step 1 particularlywhich people claim is applied but is actually contextualized memorization of scenarios. However, step 1 scores affect the prestige and pull of a school), and school rank. They don’t usually predict anything (and may sometimes negatively correlate) about clinical years and adaptation. They know there needs to be some sort of change in admissions and the med. school curricula, but as we know, change is super hard. </p>
<p>Also, for the person who cited WashU, their GPA’s are “deflated” . Okay, not really, but like Emory, Chicago, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA, a significant amount of classes are still curved (or made to yield) to C+/B- or B- and in the case of WashU the content and assessment types are pretty difficult across the board of the pre-med core courses. It’s ideal for the MCAT prep/learning how to think critically about science (I will admit that they are more consistent with this than other schools I mention except maybe Chicago. Emory had many amazing pre-med core instructors who were rigorous and about deep learning, but there are also plenty who aren’t. WashU appears to have managed to essentially standardize rigor, which is more than can be said by most places), but not necessarily for super high grades. They and maybe places like Princeton are such extreme cases that there is some room for error in GPA. The advising there is pretty excellent so you don’t have everyone applying to the wrong or too narrow a list of schools) and students tend to have high MCAT averages. It’s pre-med core is viewed as one of the more rigorous among the non-HYPSChMCt top 20-25 schools. And I’ve seen the content of many of those courses and would have to agree with that perception. As for going to a top school (especially medium sized and smaller ones), I believe the OP will enjoy if they approach it with the right attitude (one going beyond needing good grades). The resources are amazing and extremely accessible and there are so many amazing courses and instructors willing to take students who love learning far. I just feel as if there is really no point in going if you plan to avoid those instructors. I suppose you could just go to milk the resources that enhance the EC list/depth as many students do. But I feel that such a situation is often paying a lot while only taking in half of the experience that the school has to offer.</p>
<p><<<
I have heard from many people that BME majors is very difficult to get a good GPA in, no matter the school.
<<<<</p>
<p>engineering is hard no matter which discipline.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>@Findmoreinfo
The devil is in the details. Those stats are aggregate since 2007…admissions have gotten tougher. also, we dont know if those lower gpa students were URMs. If you are a male AA with a 3.2 and a 30 MCAT, there are a number of med schools that would grab you…NO MATTER what undergrad you went to…the bump didnt come from being a top 20 grad. many/most med schools are dying to get more male AAs. </p>
<p>and, those stats are for bcmp gpa only…not cum.</p>
<p>^ Those stats are for up to 2011, not so far back. They do statistics by maybe 5 years all the time because of the number of applicants.</p>
<p>bcmp or cum GPA, the link is to point out the contrary that many keep saying an applicant need a high GPA for med school admission, or even said 3.8 GPA is average for med school admission… GPA doesn’t dominate med school admission as many said. it depends on schools as well and the application package of the applicants. </p>
<p>“the bump didnt come from being a top 20 grad”</p>
<p>I think the bump came from being a top 20 grad, there isn’t that high of percentage of URM’s in pre-med.</p>
Other selective colleges show a similar pattern, even when filtering for non-URMs and cum GPA. For example, among Caucasian MD Applicant members who attended Stanford for their undergrad and scored a 33-36 on the MCAT (lower MCAT scores have a small sample size among Stanford grads), the acceptance rates by cumulative GPA are below. MD Applicants obviously has some sample issues, such as being self-reported, biased, and often older. Nevertheless, the results do not suggest that Stanford pre-meds must have a GPA at the top of their class, especially when you consider the average GPA at Stanford is well above 3.5.</p>
<p>3.75-4.0 – 100%
3.5-3.75 - 86%
3.25-3.5 - 67%
3.0-3.25 - 100% (small sample size, all were varsity athletes with leadership positions on team)
Under 3.0 - 100% (2 out of 2, both pursued graduate degrees prior to applying where they achieved much higher GPAs)</p>
<p>@Findmoreinfo : I don’t think it did. I’m sure it depends on the top 20 and the reputation. WashU, JHU, and Princeton are “lucky” so to speak (JHU. Someone broke down some stats a while ago over here at CC which showed that the average admit at Duke had a 3.7something and even those at MIT had a 3.7something. I would look at the mean, especially if one is talking about “good” medical schools, a term/description so vague I can’t even begin to describe it. However, a 3.5 is what is needed to be competitive for most medical schools I suppose and that is attainable even if you take harder than normal science classes (but the science GPA may suffer I guess, which is bad, though in general, I think many medical schools get that science courses grade more harshly and generally expect some sort of B+ science GPA and maybe a higher cumulative GPA because of non-science courses. There is room for error, but if you have a high inclination to only want a “top” medical school, there is much less room for error (especially near end of UG career, maybe 3rd year, as upward trend is very valued which may incentivize finding easy advanced courses/instructors with difficult sounding titles if you are trying to impress certain places with “rigor”. I’ve heard of some pre-healths planning that as well). While it isn’t “all” they care about, many still care a bit too much about it and love high numbers no doubt. It leads to some strange, but understandable behavior. However, one would have to wonder if you’re partially correct and it is the perception that one must be “perfect” (or near) academically to gain admission that is driving the behavior and perhaps even driving the upward trend in admissions selectivity. Another issue may just flat out be grade inflation at many schools.</p>
<p>Right, but they include 2007-2011…that was my point. And, yes, admissions has gotten more competitive…more applicants, etc. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>When people say that they are giving advice for an unhooked applicant to have the best shot…a higher percentage chance of admittance. Anyone who has been thru the process as an applicant (or the parent of an applicant) knows how grueling and EXPENSIVE it is, and NO ONE wants to go thru the process twice (or more…yuck!). </p>
<p>Also, not only does being a hooked applicant make a difference, but also the home-state of the applicant. A WashU Texas or Mich applicant is far more likely going to have success with lower stats than a WashU Calif applicant. (I dont know who is saying the avg gpa is 3.8…the avg is probably lower…maybe 3.6…but I havent looked that up.)</p>
<p>Also, again, the devil is in the details. Since MD schools do not allow grade replacement, we dont know if any of those low gpa applicants retook any low grade BCMP courses.</p>
<p>And what about those WashU applicants that did a SMP? are their stats included? </p>
<p>GPA doesn’t dominate med school admission as many said. it depends on schools as well and the application package of the applicants.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think the bump came from being a top 20 grad,
<<<</p>
<p>I dont think so. There are similar situations at many schools. You get vet-medics returning to college to finish degrees who have sorrowful gpa from past years who are now pre-med. They come on the GI-bill, finish their degrees, and are successful applicants even if their gpas have taken a hit from years ago.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>true…and if you notice, the number of those low-gpa students is not large…and those low numbers are from an aggregate 5 years.</p>
<p>“we dont know if those lower gpa students were URMs. If you are a male AA with a 3.2 and a 30 MCAT, there are a number of med schools that would grab you…”</p>
<p>I can assure you the majority of those who were admited with GPA 3.0-3.39 in the WSUTL med school admission link are not URMs. </p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>There were 82+137= 219 of them and there were 853 total med school admitted students. 219/853 = ~26%. URMs would not be 26% of all admits. That simple.</p>
<p>“Right, but they include 2007-2011”</p>
<p>Wait a little bit when 2012-2016 is out. 2011 is pretty recent for now.</p>
<p>So what if 2011 is recent now? 2007-2009 isnt. And the stats include those who went thru multiple app cycles.</p>
<p>my point was that those who were admitted with lowish gpa’s probably have some story. Are some SMP? are some non-trads? A number have strong/high MCAT scores, which probably helped. And as mentioned, much can depend on the home state. </p>
<p>These are not WashU SOM acceptances…these are acceptances to any med school…(are they only including MD? or are there any DO?) A Texas resident applying to TX SOMs is going to find a far more forgiving situation than a Calif resident applying to Calif SOMs.</p>
<p>of that 219 with acceptances, 356 applied. That’s a 61% acceptance rate. Again, anyone who has been thru the pricey and time-consuming med school app process will want to avoid a do-over by bettering his chances by having a better gpa in the first place.</p>
<p>Since you continue to complain about data too old (even though that doesn’t matter too much), I am giving you Cornell’s 2011-2013 data now. At the same GPA level, top school still have much higher acceptance rate. No matter what factors are involved, this is a fact.</p>
<p>P.S. And so now you are not arguing the ‘URM’ factor?!</p>
<p>"of that 219 with acceptances, 356 applied. That’s a 61% acceptance rate. Again, anyone who has been thru the pricey and time-consuming med school app process will want to avoid a do-over by bettering his chances by having a better gpa in the first place. "</p>
<p>Do you think they don’t want to get better GPA’s? You just proved my point: it is harder to get high GPA in top schools and the admissions know it. (61% is very high acceptance rate, I know you wouldn’t think med school admission is a piece of cake to get 100% acceptance rate.)</p>