<p>@bernie12, If a high school student attended a relatively competitive high school and has taken the most competitive science classes offered, I would argue that more likely than not, he or she would know generally how good she or he is on these subjects. Of course, even at a competitive high school (esp. a public one), not all teachers teach the classes properly; for example, they may set the bar too low. But at least for SOME science classes, they may teach them right. The student can then get a “feeling” about how well he is prepared for these subjects.</p>
<p>Using a particular student that I know of as an example, when she was in high school’s AP chemistry class that was taught right (i.e., the bar is set reasonably high), she consistently was the “curve breaker” of this class. When she walked out of the AP test, she was quite confident that she would get 5 on the test. The score on her chemistry SAT subject test was also 800. For such a student, she would likely know that chemistry is not her weak point, compared to her peers.</p>
<p>IMHO, if it is financially feasible for the parents, they should send their child to a relatively competitive high school if the child may likely end up on a competitive track like the premed or engineering in college. The “race” (i.e., being a academically competitive student) actually started before college.</p>
<p>@mcat2 : Excellent bringing up the case of chemistry (gen. and ochem tend to weed pre-healths and STEM majors out at high rates) and I agree about the “race” thing and what you say about the calibration to some extent. However, I know that it becomes slippery when you look at how intense it is at some of the selective schools. Like many students who receive 5’s on AP who indeed believe they are good and come from competitive high schools can get showed up by a rigorous general chemistry instructor at a selective college, so “good” at a subject is relative. Unless they entered olympiads and did very well in those areas, I feel like a rigorous college course in the subject does not have a predictable outcome for the student. The only thing that we do know for sure is that students with AP credit have an advantage over those with no experience. However, how much of an advantage is questionable. I would say it’s significant (literature studying that stuff also says so). But what happens when you go to the instructor/school where gen. chem sections have between a 2.5-2.8 class mean. At Emory, for example, when the 5’s take either of the 2 better instructors (who are also more rigorous), most score in the B range (typically B/B+, sometimes lower), and hardly none get A/A-. They can’t tell that they are good at organic chemistry, but would likely have scored the same or higher if they took that course instead.</p>
<p>Also, schools tend to grade certain courses on curves, which means it’s possible that the introductory classes can have less competitive students than the people who say got B+/A- in the high school (as in, the college class certainly has bright students, but it may be much more variable than a competitive HS) course and maybe even scored 3/4 on the exam. In this case, just the exposure is enough for some advantage. They just have to make sure they work hard to ensure the advantage translates into an A grade (or B+ or higher). I feel as if they’d have to do pretty bad in AP/honors HS course to write themselves off before taking the analogous college class. Even selective schools have variable preparation in intro. and intermediate courses, so even while you may not have been absolutely amazing when you took the course in HS, you can still have an advantage. The problem comes if a significant amount of the students are “aiming low” and forfeiting their AP credits to take the course (like if 1/2 of gen. chem 1 had students w/4-5 and you had a 3 or didn’t take it, you better work hard!), so in that context I see how the scenario you propose becomes relevant, especially for pre-healths where it truly is a competition/quest for very high grades. Not much reward for risks or taking a class with students who have “better” preparation than you unless you are really motivated to learn (but again, I feel like many instructors at selective schools make it hard enough to even challenge well prepped students and perhaps level the playing field by emphasizing content less stressed in AP, namely the more qualitative and theoretical concepts).</p>
<p>@scout59, Not all students at any college could pull out a Goldwater Award. I would argue that is an exceptional case rather than a norm, if a student wants to “shoot for the star.” Some student (at least not my child) can shine in any environment.</p>
<p>^^ Agreed. Curmudgeon’s daughter’s example forgoing Yale undergrad in favor for a full ride at Rhodes is not applicable to everyone. Conversely I have a niece who attended an Ivy for undergraduate (full pay) and received tuition-free offers from THREE medical schools.</p>
Different medical schools have different admissions policies, but many are not hung up on slight differences in GPA and consider things like whether the student was willing to take risks by taking more advanced classes and following passions instead of always choosing the easiest path. The Stanford link I listed earlier goes into more detail about their related policies. The relatively small difference in acceptance rates for different GPAs among MDApplicant members who did their undergraduate at Stanford is consistent with this, which I posted earlier. Members who did their undergrad at Emory shows a similar pattern, without tremendous differences in rate of applicants who were accepted to at least one med school for all GPAs (all but 1 member had at least a 3.0 GPA). I realize that over all colleges, there is a notable relationship with GPA, with the acceptance rate for a median MCAT roughly dropping in half when GPA drops from 3.9 to 3.3. In addition to the GPA itself, some of this difference in acceptance no doubt relates to the 3.3 student being less likely to have glowing LORs, less likely to have impressive out of classroom experiences, etc.</p>
<p><<<<
Conversely I have a niece who attended an Ivy for undergraduate (full pay) and received tuition-free offers from THREE medical schools.
<<<<</p>
<p>Those merit offers were likely because of her mcat scores…not because of her ivy undergrad. The talent she had for scoring well on the mcat had little/nothing to do with her undergrad.</p>
<p>My son went to a state flagship for nearly free as an undergrad on large merit and he received large merit offers from three med schools as well. </p>
<p>Merit from med schools is nearly always stats based.</p>
<p>^^^You completely missed my point. I am just stating that a lot of people want to pay as little as possible for undergrad to save money for med school, but there are those who paid the full fare, went to a strenuous program and didn’t have to pay for med school.</p>
<p>However, what if someone went to expensive undergraduate, and then got into only expensive medical schools with no scholarships? Would s/he be “forced” to seek the highest paying specialties because the lower paying ones will be unaffordable with the amount of debt s/he will finish medical school with?</p>
<p>On the other hand, if someone went to cheap undergraduate, and then got into medical schools made cheap with scholarships, s/he may have the option of going into a lower paid specialty like the primary care ones, due to having a relatively low amount of debt at medical school graduation.</p>
<p>^^^ With ObamaCare, in the future, the earnings of physicians will only go down. They are cutting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates for physicians. Most primary care physicians I know have different personalities than those who are specialists. The high earners go into their specialties because they want to make a lot of money regardless of their debts.</p>
<p>There is a large difference in honor between a full-tuition scholarship (one from an Ivy) and some merit money, not to take away your son’s achievements. My niece received her scholarships based on her achievements, academic and non-academic, all of them opportunities afforded her by her undergrad. It’s based on the total package, and not just some numbers as you suggested. She was also a Rhodes Scholar.</p>
@Forestlight:
To be honest, it probably won’t matter much which school your son/daughter selects…as long as all 3 are “good” schools.</p>
<p>That being said, I would advise your kid to matriculate at the school that’s the best “fit” for him/her, i.e., the college that offers rigorous training in the handful of fields in which he/she might major. Hopefully, y’all understand that the successful med school applicant need not major in a health sciences-related field (or even a science, for that matter).</p>
<p>In my opinion, it’s silly to choose an undergrad institution based on a perception of “less competition.” Students tend to rise to the level of the “competition,” so why wouldn’t they want to be around the smartest, hardest-working bunch of students that brings out the best in them? A strong student will find a way to stand out at any school regardless of the institution’s reputation or USNAWR ranking. Moreover, highly selective colleges tend to have a very good track record when it comes to helping their students get into professional schools. My alma mater had multiple levels of pre-professional advising starting the second semester of freshman year. A world of opportunities (lab jobs, hospital volunteering, physician shadowing, talking to physician-scientists, science conferences, etc.) opened up to me when I articulated an interest in medicine and the biomedical sciences.</p>
<p>@Data10 Emory’s pre-health advising other than the holistic review and committee letter process sucks though…for example, the other top schools (ones much better at placing students into medical school, including Hopkins which has the same amount as Emory applying) typically recommend that students “move on” if they have the background and take like an accelerated gen. chem course, inorganic, analytical, whatever (either as a first year or 2nd year depending if they use AP credit to start w/ochem). Our pre-health office seems not to understand that “inorganic w/lab” includes other options (especially for students w/good science entering credentials). And medical schools usually want to see “2 semesters of inorganic w/lab” (or if you use AP credit, to take an advanced inorganic such as the ones I mention). Do you think most would only allow students to start with general chemistry if they can do better. I looked at several other top private schools and the advising did not suggest what Emory pre-health was suggesting. They specifically suggested against “back tracking”. Again, Emory’s pre-health advising for course work is largely incompetent and really is just serving a bunch of fearful, perhaps soft students who would never question the advice. I hate to say it, but that’s true. </p>
<p>I think Emory has too many of it’s stronger incoming students playing it safe (such that our performance in terms of getting students into med. school, especially “great ones” other than Emory is just “meh” now. I think we actually did a bit better with top schools before the advising office was created), so by time it comes to apply, the ones who ignored the phmo and got a very high GPA and solid MCAT end up having an advantage whether it be because the med. school notices that they challenged themselves or if because instructors in more difficult, smaller courses, write better rec. letters, or because the student was intense enough to win awards because of their track record. The “tough” students who end up performing well often do the best in admissions at Emory whereas I feel many of the “softer” students who perform well do “okay” because they hardly stand out. A part of it just has to do with Emory’s culture for UG which is interesting. While many students (especially pre-healths) are soft regardless of incoming credentials, the faculty tend to support the students who take the risks and then do well (like people like Dr. Soria or Dr. Weinschenk will respect you if you take their courses as a freshman and even make a B. They will support you throughout your whole time at Emory if they get to know you which is likely. The student who forgoes AP and takes general chemistry doesn’t generally set up this faculty support that early on. The general chemistry instructors can care less if you even made an A and likely won’t know you. They’ll write a reasonably standard rec. letter unless you are involved in the chemistry dept. activities from then on, which most pre-healths won’t). I don’t know, the environment just rewards risk and resilience of students who do indeed challenge themselves and do well. However, phmo is basically removing several strong incoming students out of the pool of students that could benefit from that environment. If I was a pre-health coming to Emory, I would learn how to think/investigate for myself before taking phmo course advising blindly. For example, when Soria was teaching freshman orgo, many of the students who received an invite to take it but declined expressed regret after like a year or two because they had witnessed how far ahead most of those students were and how much they had developed (the fact that they were highly involved, respected, and could perform well in very challenging coursework). The course tends to harbor (or even slightly produce) lots of “prize winners” as well.</p>
<p>BTW: It was a truly unique course w/a hell of a track record, yet phmo advised against it for pre-meds because students would have to “take gen. chem later” . False: most got into or interviews from top schools by just taking analytical (easy conceptually. A person who does decently in Soria or Weinschenk’s class can easily do well in this one if they just do the work and care a little), inorganic, pchem, or even organometallic w/lab (this course is fairly easy, even though Soria teaches it). Most never set foot in a general chemistry course! I feel like Emory’s phmo and many of the students are only thinking about grades or “the perfect/standard pre-med transcript full of A’s” that all med. schools will recognize (as if they won’t recognize a more rigorous transcript full of A’s). GPA and MCAT need be good, but I feel as if things like professional and intellectual development should also be considered. It’s well known that some instructors (especially the more rigorous ones) are great mentors and assist students in professional development (people like Soria and Eisen will try to get you scholarships, send you abroad, get you a grant to attend conferences…etc. But phmo: “no, don’t take them…they’re challenging”. Advising students not to take award winning instructors is unbelievable. What a toxic culture that contributes to among students), but this is never considered. Yeah, you have no idea about the whole story of Emory’s pre-health advising in terms of coursework. Just stay away from it, because it’s not just limited to intro. course work (that’s the only thing on their website).</p>