<p>I know some medical schools do not ask for the pass/fail records (the exact letter grades) during our first semester and IAP; and some do? Would you tell me which one do? Harvard? Johns Hopkins?</p>
<p>If you think you can get a good GPA, go for it. If you have half a brain, pick a different school.</p>
<p>As far as I know, Hopkins is the only one that requires first semester grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you have half a brain, pick a different school
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
Not true.
MIT offers something many schools do not offer and that is challenge. Unlike the ivies and other top schools, MIT challenges its students in unbelievable ways, breeding kids who can problem solve and handle a lot of work and stress. I think these skills will serve us well in whatever discipline we choose to go into, including medicine.
However, I do often hope that medical schools can realize that MIT is hard and that its students are hardworking and highly capable, despite a low gpa.</p>
<p>there's clearly something terribly wrong with med school admissions. I don't think that's in any way the fault of MIT.</p>
<p>nobody answers my question yet: which school DO require to look at your firster semester letter grades?</p>
<p>You will have to ask each school to which you plan to apply. Johns Hopkins is the only one I know, but there are a lot of medical schools in the United States.</p>
<p>Thanks! If you do a pass/fail/no record in one of your future classes (you know, like a HASS class that is not your concentration), does John Hopkins still ask for a letter grade for those pass/fail classes?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know some medical schools do not ask for the pass/fail records (the exact letter grades) during our first semester and IAP; and some do? Would you tell me which one do? Harvard? Johns Hopkins?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins is the most notable one. I don't think Harvard does.</p>
<p>But this leads to another issue. I really don't understand why MIT plays ball with Hopkins here. Why is MIT giving up the internal transcript to Hopkins, just because they ask? The whole point of the internal transcript system is to shield certain grades from outside parties. If certain schools like Hopkins can ask you to break the veil, then why even have an internal transcript system at all? In other words, your internal grades are secret, but not "really" secret because that means that any outside party can just insist on seeing your internal grades. </p>
<p>Consider this scenario:
"I want to see your internal grades."
"Our rules do not permit that."
"No, I really really want to see your internal grades."
"Ok, fine, here they are".</p>
<p>Seriously, what's up with that? So basically third parties don't get to see those internal grades unless they "really really" insist? That's ridiculous. Either they get to see those grades, or they don't. When you say 'no', you should mean it. No means no. </p>
<p>What I think MIT should do is issue a proclomation that they will no longer issue internal official transcripts to third parties for any reason. If Hopkins asks for it, then MIT should issue a form letter to Hopkins saying that they have changed their policy and will no longer issue these transcripts, and the only transcript that will be issued are the external transcripts, and if they have questions about it, they can contact the MIT Registrar, who will then explain the policy that they have decided to no longer issue these internal transcripts to outsiders for any reason. This will restore the integrity of the entire system of internal/external transcripts. Right now, the internal transcripts are only "quasi-confidential". They should either be completely confidential, or completely non-confidential. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I do often hope that medical schools can realize that MIT is hard and that its students are hardworking and highly capable, despite a low gpa
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
there's clearly something terribly wrong with med school admissions. I don't think that's in any way the fault of MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, sadly, I think it is partly the fault of MIT. I agree that the real culprits are the med-school adcoms who often times simply don't WANT to know what MIT students can offer. Like I said, even molliebatmit, who is one of the best graduates MIT has ever produced, has herself admitted that she probably would not have gottten into a top med-school. But come on, can anybody who knows mollie seriously conclude that she would not be a good med-student if she wanted to be one? Frankly, I am far more impressed with her than with many of the other people I know who attend or graduated from top med-schools. So I agree that the real problem lies with the med-school adcoms. They don't know, and they don't WANT to know what MIT students can offer. They deliberately CHOOSE to not know. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, some fault does lie with MIT. Specifically, I believe that schools should be trying to help their students achieve their goals, and for some students, that goal is to become a doctor, which means that they have to get into med-school. I think MIT should be actively helping its students achieve this goal. But it seems to me that MIT is not doing this. It is the MIT philosophy that the grading is going to be rough, the workload is going to be rough, and med-school adcoms will then appreciate how difficult the work is and adjust accordingly. Yeah, that's what SHOULD be happening. But it's not actually happening. When your plan is clearly not working the way that you expect, then it's time for you to adjust your plan. </p>
<p>You have to adjust for realities on the ground. Maybe it's wrong for those realities to exist. But they do exist, and you need to adjust accordingly. Otherwise, you're not really helping your students to succeed. </p>
<p>I can think of several things that MIT could do. For example, MIT might offer the possibility of a retroactive drop or a retroactive pass/not-pass. In fact, MIT already offers this through the policy of shadow-junior grades. But why offer it only during junior year. Why not offer it in all years, and also allow it to be used at any time, including after graduation? For example, perhaps students and alumni can just state that ANY X number of classes can, in the future, either be deleted from the external transcript entirely, or converted to P/NP on the external transcript. Note, the internal transcript would still be the same (which is why it's important for MIT to NEVER release this internal transcript for ANY reason). But the external transcript would be shaped to according to what the student wants to present. Hence, MIT students would be able to shield a bunch of bad grades from outside parties, improving their competitiveness.</p>
<p>A related option would be for MIT to simply not even give out course grades below a C. Instead, the course shouldn't give such a student a grade at all, and just act as if the student had dropped the class - hence, the course would appear nowhere on the external transcript (it might appear on the internal transcript as a late drop). I think there's no point in giving students a failing course grade. Just don't give them a grade at all. </p>
<p>But look, we don't have to get hung up on details. The point is, the current system is hurting students who want to get into med-school (and law school). I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. If the reality is that MIT students are getting hurt in the med-school admissions process because of harsh grading, then something ought to be done about that. Yes, it is the med-school's fault for being foolish. But MIT also bears responsibility for not adjusting accordingly.</p>
<p>I heard that MIT had indicated that it did not give out first semester grades, but Hopkins in effect said "then tell your students not to bother to apply if they cannot present a transcript with grades for all their courses"</p>
<p>At that point, so I have been told, MIT capitualted. Warning- I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this story.</p>
<p>Following Sakky, MIT could do something much simpler- make the first semester really mandatory pass fail, and not issue any shadow grades at all. If they ask for the grade the answer would then be "'pass' that is the only passing grade we issue first semester."</p>
<p>But I don't think MIT exists to turn out doctors. Lots of colleges can do that just fine. If that is your primary goal, as I said, there are places that are more interested and whose cultures are more compatible. MIT turns out many of the best scientists in the world, and I am not about to tell them how to do it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I heard that MIT had indicated that it did not give out first semester grades, but Hopkins in effect said "then tell your students not to bother to apply if they cannot present a transcript with grades for all their courses"</p>
<p>At that point, so I have been told, MIT capitualted. Warning- I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this story.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MIT should have stood its ground. Sealed records are supposed to be sealed records. There's no point in having "quasi-sealed records, that are sealed except if you really insist on seeing them". They are either sealed, or they're not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But I don't think MIT exists to turn out doctors. Lots of colleges can do that just fine. If that is your primary goal, as I said, there are places that are more interested and whose cultures are more compatible. MIT turns out many of the best scientists in the world, and I am not about to tell them how to do it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you mean to say that MIT produces many of the best scientists AND ENGINEERS in the world. In fact, MIT is more of an engineering school than a science school, as engineers comprise the majority of the students. </p>
<p>But that's really neither here nor there. The real question is what does MIT want to do in the future? Keep in mind that MIT started life mostly as an industrial trade school, emphasizing engineering and the natural sciences. Only later in its life did it begin to add other disciplines, like the Sloan School (est. 1914), the Department of Economics (est. in the early 1900's, PhD program established in 1941), the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (est. 1950), the Department of Political Science (est. 1955), and the MIT Media Lab (est. 1985). I think all of these developments strongly point to the notion that MIT wants to educate far more than just engineers and scientists, and that it in fact wants to become a broader school. After all, why waste resources on these programs if all you want to do is train good engineers and scientists? Is MIT being dumb? </p>
<p>I don't think MIT is being dumb. I think MIT has done all of these things in order to attract a more diverse set of students. But I think that if MIT has no problem in educating some people who are extremely non-quantitative (i.e. I know of some MIT grad students in political science, at the Sloan School, and at the Media Lab who are extremely un-quantitative), then I don't see what's so difficult about MIT recognizing the fact that some students just want to become doctors, and then training them accordingly. Heck, just the other day, I heard some Sloan MBA students lamenting how bad they were at basic math. Yet MIT seems to have no problem in taking their tuition money and granting them an MIT degree. So what's so bad about taking a bunch of premeds and giving them what they want?</p>
<p>anyways, how many ppl got into johns hopkins from mit last year?</p>
<p>7 got admitted, according to the disclosed data.</p>
<p>Note, that obviously doesn't mean that all 7 actually matriculated there.</p>
<p>Just curious? Do you have to have a PhD in medicine/biology to be a medical school professor? Can you earn your MD in four years, after that, be a part-time doctor and a full-time professor in an university?</p>
<p>You can go into academic medicine with an MD only, but many med school professors are MD/PhDs. I'm not sure what the relative proportions of the two groups are.</p>
<p>Thanks, but would you please explain what is "academic medicine"?</p>
<p>MIT's medical school acceptance rate is not where it should be. However, the acceptance rate of Stanford premeds is not 90%. The thread below shows it is on par with MIT (75-80%) </p>
<p>This is supported by the Wall Street Journal top law/business/medicine feeder school study which specifically comments that Stanford does not do as well at getting their students into the top medical schools.</p>
<p>The rest of the info on that chart is of course a discussion topic of its own!</p>