<p>But the overall figure has risen in the past several years, as has the undergrad figure, indicating that students who will be alums in a few years are likely to experience more success in medical school admissions than students who are currently alums, probably because of the steadily increasing quality of the MIT student body.</p>
<p>I will go on the record predicting that the overall rate will continue to rise in the future.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the overall figure has risen in the past several years
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Has it? I believe last year's overall figure was 77% or so. </p>
<p>
[quote]
indicating that students who will be alums in a few years are likely to experience more success in medical school admissions than students who are currently alums, probably because of the steadily increasing quality of the MIT student body.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is denying that the student body at MIT is top-notch. But, like I've said, that's not the issue at hand. The question is whether MIT helps its students get into med-school at a rate above and beyond the rate commensurate with the fact that they are already top-notch students. That to me is rather debatable, similar to how Ben Golub and I - who agree on almost nothing else - both agree that Caltech is not really a good school for premeds because it's just too hard.</p>
<p>I just checked the archives of the preprofessional stats on the Wayback Machine, and it appears that I am not correct, although this year's figure is slightly better than previous years. The applicants in my class were just particularly unsuccessful, and that's of course the figure that sticks in my head. :)</p>
<p>From the Wayback Machine (here:">http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://web.mit.edu/career/www/infostats/preprof.html)):</a>
2007 undergraduate applicants: 83.6%
2006 undergraduate applicants: 71%
2005 undergraduate applicants: 75.7%
2004 undergraduate applicants: 82%
2003 undergraduate applicants: 82%
2002 undergraduate applicants: 82%</p>
<p>Please save the world from "premeds"</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just checked the archives of the preprofessional stats on the Wayback Machine, and it appears that I am not correct, although this year's figure is slightly better than previous years. The applicants in my class were just particularly unsuccessful, and that's of course the figure that sticks in my head.</p>
<p>From the Wayback Machine (here):
2007 undergraduate applicants: 83.6%
2006 undergraduate applicants: 71%
2005 undergraduate applicants: 75.7%
2004 undergraduate applicants: 82%
2003 undergraduate applicants: 82%
2002 undergraduate applicants: 82%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mollie, like I always said, the relevant figure is the overall admit rate, not the undergrad admit rate.</p>
<p>2006 - 72%
2005 - 73.5%
2004 - 74%
2003 - 74%
2002 - 73%</p>
<p>I disagree. There are too many counfounding variables that affect a student's chance of admission to med school after a student graduates for the data to be meaningful or even comparable: how many years he waited to apply, whether he worked or went to grad school, his age... Most of these students never met the premed requirements while in college. At that point the specific influence of the college, negative or positive is very hard to sort out.</p>
<p>The OP's question is whether a premed, WHO INTENDS TO APPLY TO MED SCHOOL, will be at disadvantage by going to MIT. It is not how some student who has no current intention of going to med school, will do five years down the road. At that point the metrics for admission are significantly different. </p>
<p>The data for undergraduate admission allows to compare admission rates for similarly situated students. The effet of GPA, which is at the core of the current discussion can better be analyzed in that group, since it is one of the primary factors for admission, in addition to MCAT scores. </p>
<p>I therefore maintain that the 90% admit rate for undergrads with premed advising IS the relevant rate when a committed premed student considers whether to matriculate at MIT or some other college. Since there is no weeding out process, it includes all the students who have an interest in med school. </p>
<p>The data published by MIT supports the proposition that grade deflation, if any, has no measurable impact on med school admission. </p>
<p>First, the assumed grade deflation, is probably exagerated. The high average GPA of MIT premeds compared to the overall MIT student population tends to indicates that a high GPA is achievable at MIT, with a reasonable selection of majors and courses. Course 7 and 9 where most of the premeds originate are not as grade deflated majors as some majors such as Course 6. </p>
<p>Second, the actual correlation between GPA and chance of admission is weak, at least for MIT students.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The difference in distribution of GPAs between admitted and non-admitted students from MIT is not statistically significant. This would suggest that med schools, when evaluating MIT students, look beyond the actual GPAs for other tip factors. MCAT scores, ECs, and interviews may play a bigger role. An MIT student with a more challenging curriculum is not necessarily at a disadvantage. </p></li>
<li><p>MIT students do not perform measurably worse than any other elite college, using median SAT scores as a proxy. MIT applicants generally have very high MCAT scores, in part because they are smart students (and MCAT scores do tend to track SAT scores) but also because two thirds of the MCAT score is science based (as opposed to one third for the SAT). This would often compensate for a relative difference in GPA. (If any).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
The question is whether MIT helps its students get into med-school at a rate above and beyond the rate commensurate with the fact that they are already top-notch students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't believe any school can make such a claim. Not even Harvard. The admission to HMS from Harvard College is only 12%, not significantly better than MIT's rate of 10%. The idea that some schools provide an easier path to med school admission is a MYTH. </p>
<p>The more interesting question for an MIT applicant is whether the choice of major influences the admission to med schools. </p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence and academic advisors suggest that engineering majors at MIT have a tougher time than science majors, not because of a lower GPA, per-se, but because they are less well prepared in biology and chemistry, receive less premed advising and have a lower MCAT score than science majors where the prereqs are part of the regular course of study. The average Course 5, 7 or 9 major will have taken a number of chemistry and biology classes while the engineering major have to juggle their schedule to fit in two semesters of organic chemistry as well as extra labs. A Course 5, 7 or 9 major can easily be ready to take the MCATs by the end of sophomore year. Engineers will be lucky if they can take the MCATs at the end of junior year and most likely have to wait until senior year. By that time what they learned in biology as freshmen is often a distant memory. </p>
<p>Because of the intensity of their own majors it is also likely the engineers have less time to devote to medicine oriented ECs and volunteering. More than likely, they are the ones who decide later on to apply to med school, after they decide to change career paths.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I therefore maintain that the 90% admit rate for undergrads with premed advising IS the relevant rate when a committed premed student considers whether to matriculate at MIT or some other college. Since there is no weeding out process, it includes all the students who have an interest in med school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No weeding out process? Really? </p>
<p>Woes</a> of a Premed - The Tech</p>
<p>Now to be fair, this isn't a true 'weeding-out' process the way we may traditionally envision one. Nevertheless, the point is that plenty of students at any school - MIT included - don't decide that they want to become doctors until a few years into the process, or sometimes even after graduating. Heck, one of my old friends from college was torn between MD vs. PhD until her junior year (she ultimately opted for the former). Yet one 'problem' (if you will) at MIT is that apparently not everybody who wants premed advising will get it. To me, that's quite ridiculous -how can a school with the vast resources of MIT not be able to provide sufficient advising to every student who wants it? But what can I say? I didn't make the rules. </p>
<p>But generally speaking, every school out there has students who don't decide that they want to be doctors until rather late in the process. MIT is certainly no exception. </p>
<p>
[quote]
First, the assumed grade deflation, is probably exagerated. The high average GPA of MIT premeds compared to the overall MIT student population tends to indicates that a high GPA is achievable at MIT, with a reasonable selection of majors and courses. Course 7 and 9 where most of the premeds originate are not as grade deflated majors as some majors such as Course 6.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, how does it prove that? I think it's fairly obvious that the average GPA's of premeds at any school are going to be higher than the average overall GPA at that school. That doesn't mean that high grades are 'easy' by any means, it just means that those student with relatively poor grades tend not to apply to med school in the first place. To think back to my old college days, I know a guy who was talking about going to med school from his very first day of his freshmen year, but when he ended up getting something like a 2.5/4 in his first year, he abandoned that notion. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, the actual correlation between GPA and chance of admission is weak, at least for MIT students.</p>
<ol>
<li>The difference in distribution of GPAs between admitted and non-admitted students from MIT is not statistically significant. This would suggest that med schools, when evaluating MIT students, look beyond the actual GPAs for other tip factors. MCAT scores, ECs, and interviews may play a bigger role. An MIT student with a more challenging curriculum is not necessarily at a disadvantage.
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>Don't take my word for it. Here's what Michael McCullough, former Rhodes Scholar and who got his MD at UCSF, has to say regarding undergrad grades and MD admissions. This document is written for premeds at Stanford, but the same general idea applies to everybody. </p>
<p>*It is true that it is more difficult to get
an A in a Stanford pre-med class than it is at most other
schools. This is easier to understand since you are
graded on a curve with some of America’s best students.
Consequently, an ‘A’ at Stanford can mean a lot,
particularly in science classes with a ‘C’ mean.
However, most of you won’t get A’s in every
class. And because of this, some of you certainly
would have had higher GPA’s elsewhere. It is also true
that medical school know this and will take it into account.
However, this ‘forgiveness factor’ is not infinite.
Getting a 4.0 in your pre-med requirements at a
junior college will certainly make you a stronger applicant
than a 3.5 in your pre-med requirements at Stanford.
One admissions officer I spoke with estimated
the bump factor of attending a school like Harvard or
Stanford to be between 0.3 and 0.5 of a grade point.
For some of you, an ‘A’ in high school could
be achieved through hard work and determination.
This is not necessarily true of the pre-med classes at
Stanford. Everyone is trying hard. They are all smart.
And the classes can be very difficult.
The upshot of all of this is that some of you
may be more successful applying to medical school by
taking most of your pre-med classes elsewhere. And I
have certainly known many applicants who would have
been more successful applying to medical school if they
had pursued their academic passions at Stanford and
took their pre-med classes elsewhere, either in summers
or in a year off. I have also known students at Stanford—
who would have been fantastic physicians—who
quit the pre-med process in frustration without exploring
this option. If you want to be a doctor and are
struggling at Stanford, this option is worth exploring. *</p>
<p>Now, to be clear, neither he nor I have ever stated that grades are the only criteria that matter. Obviously MCAT, essays, interview answers, rec's, and the rest of the package matter too. But that doesn't take away from the fact that grades do matter and, more specifically, that med school adcoms do not really reward course difficulty. Again, I think McCullough's most relevant quote is "The upshot of all of this is that some of you
may be more successful applying to medical school by taking most of your pre-med classes elsewhere." ** To be sure, if you can go to MIT and get excellent grades, then that is by far the best thing for you to do. **But what if you can't? </p>
<p>
[quote]
The difference in distribution of GPAs between admitted and non-admitted students from MIT is not statistically significant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The difference that you see is between those who apply to med school. Like I said, plenty of people don't even apply because they know they're not going to get in. Somebody with a 2.1/4 isn't even going to apply. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't believe any school can make such a claim. Not even Harvard. The admission to HMS from Harvard College is only 12%, not significantly better than MIT's rate of 10%. The idea that some schools provide an easier path to med school admission is a MYTH.</p>
<p>The more interesting question for an MIT applicant is whether the choice of major influences the admission to med schools.</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence and academic advisors suggest that engineering majors at MIT have a tougher time than science majors, not because of a lower GPA, per-se, but because they are less well prepared in biology and chemistry, receive less premed advising and have a lower MCAT score than science majors where the prereqs are part of the regular course of study. The average Course 5, 7 or 9 major will have taken a number of chemistry and biology classes while the engineering major have to juggle their schedule to fit in two semesters of organic chemistry as well as extra labs. A Course 5, 7 or 9 major can easily be ready to take the MCATs by the end of sophomore year. Engineers will be lucky if they can take the MCATs at the end of junior year and most likely have to wait until senior year. By that time what they learned in biology as freshmen is often a distant memory.</p>
<p>Because of the intensity of their own majors it is also likely the engineers have less time to devote to medicine oriented ECs and volunteering. More than likely, they are the ones who decide later on to apply to med school, after they decide to change career paths.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, I am rather stunned that you don't see the paradox in what you just said there. On the one hand, you agree that certain majors are more difficult for premeds than are others, and I agree.</p>
<p>On the other hand, that very same logic explains why premeds at MIT probably do worse than if they had just gone to another school. I'll give you a simple example. MIT requires every student to take multivariable calculus as part of the GIR's. But the truth is, most medical schools do not require calculus, and certainly not multivariable calculus (for example, I know that UCSF and the Stanford School of Medicine not only do not require calculus, they don't require any college math courses of any kind). </p>
<p>Furthermore, very few colleges will require that you take multivariable calculus, even as part of a major in chemistry, biology or psychology (which is the rough equivalent of MIT's course 9). For example, I know that Berkeley* requires its chemistry or biology majors to take only single variable calculus, not multivariable calculus, and Berkeley psychology majors don't have to take any calculus whatsoever (they can just take a basic statistics course). Trust me, the vast majority of Berkeley premeds have never even heard of, say, surface integrals or Stokes' Theorem. They don't know and they don't care, because they will never need to know it. </p>
<p>But you can't do that at MIT. Premeds at MIT - just like every other MIT student - have to take multivariable calculus whether they like it or not, whether they are good at it or not. Hence, what if you happen to be one of those students who just doesn't "get" multivariable calculus, and hence end up with a terrible grade in the class? In that case, I think it's quite plain to see that you probably would have been better off if you had just gone to another school where you wouldn't even have to take multivariable calculus at all. </p>
<p>Other examples abound. For example, the fact is, the MCAT material is not that deep, and the material in MIT's biology, chemistry, and physics classes go far beyond what is necessary to know for the MCAT. If you don't believe me, just take a look at one of those MCAT practice booklets and compare what you need to know vs. what is taught in the science courses at MIT - the latter is far far more extensive. The upshot, again, is that you are forced to learn things at MIT that you will never need to know for the exam. Physics is a clear example: the MCAT physics questions are, frankly, quite basic and certainly do not presume that you know any calculus. Frankly, somebody who knew the material from a basic high school physics course could probably do quite well on the MCAT physics questions. You're being taught physics at a much higher level in your required courses at MIT, but you don't need to know the material at that level for the MCAT. </p>
<p>So, again, sure, if you do well in your MIT coursework, especially your required coursework, more power to you. But my question is, what if you don't do well? What happens now? Frankly, you would have been better off if you had just gone to an easier school that didn't force you to take required courses about topics that you just don't need to know for the MCAT. </p>
<p>*To be clear, I am not recommending Berkeley over MIT. I am just using Berkeley as an example. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Because of the intensity of their own majors it is also likely the engineers have less time to devote to medicine oriented ECs and volunteering. More than likely, they are the ones who decide later on to apply to med school, after they decide to change career paths
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And this gets to another wrinkle in the MIT experience that I discussed in another thread: the social dynamics that encourage students to be more 'hardcore' and hence complete engineering majors just to prove how tough they are. The short story is that a status hierarchy exists within the MIT student community that values certain majors (i.e. course 6) over others. And as I think we are all well aware, human beings are constantly seeking status. {That's why people are willing to pay $100k for a Mercedes that is not significantly technically better, and probably less reliable, than a $25k Honda}. Hence, you have students who end up being encouraged to prove their 'hardcoreness' by majoring in engineering, and hence perhaps wasting valuable time that they could have been spending doing what they really want.</p>
<p>Reminds me of my time back in high school when I used to play ball with some guys who privately admitted to me that they don't really enjoy playing ball that much, but were basically just doing it as a way to be popular, or perhaps most accurately, to avoid being unpopular. Now, to be clear, playing ball was not the only way to be popular, but it was a relatively easy way to do it.</p>