Premedicine at MIT

[cellardweller]

<p>I believe the issue is that some students feel that volunteering their hidden grades will help their admission, and that is probably true if they are high. In regards to Harvard, my D's premed advisor stated Harvard does not demand the hidden grades, although I am sure some students forward them anyway. </p>

<p>In the end, for the top med schools, they will look beyond GPAs and MCATs as long as they are within range, especially for MIT students. Once you get to the interview stage, leadership, research and volunteering experience play a much bigger role. Recommendations are also critical. That is why the students who plan their application with the premed office and get solid advising at MIT have a 90% admit rate. You don't want to decide junior year that med school may be an option.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>I don't know. That's not what the guy I talked to said. Of course, the policy could have changed. He got into Harvard Med in the mid-nineties.</p>

<p>In any case, you're right about just needing to be "in-the-range" stat-wise. It's the same old thing, again. You could have straight A+'s at MIT and get rejected at some of the top med schools--even with volunteering and research awards. The Dean of Harvard Medical School admissions told me that as long as you have 4.6/5.0, you are "in the range" and your gpa is not critical. Beyond that, they would prefer that you use your time elsewhere. He also said they only admit a couple of research stars a year. Actually, what he said was a big turn-off for me. </p>

<p>However, I do have some advice if you think you want to be an academic star at MIT and feel the time required could hurt you in the top medical school admissions (read: Harvard Med.) (Johns Hopkins Medical School admissions is still quite a bit straightforward.) I would not take on any significant EC's while as an undergrad--unless you are the sort of person that really enjoys it and it helps you study. Otherwise, I would just have school (and maybe research) be the main thing and just do some medical-related EC's in the summers and breaks. And if you want a bigger activity to write about, you can just do the Peace Corps for a year after graduation. Another way to get in is to do the master's program in medical engineering (I forget the exact name) at Harvard. It will give you a niche in medicine that you can be an expert in. One of my friends who was a software engineer used that program as a launching pad into Harvard Med. (He already had the grades + stats, but like I said these often are not enough.)</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
The Dean of Harvard Medical School admissions told me that as long as you have 4.6/5.0, you are "in the range" and your gpa is not critical.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ha! You say that as if getting grades like that at MIT is a walk in the park. Hardly so. Plenty of brilliant workaholics at MIT can't even dream of getting a 4.6/5. </p>

<p>Let me give you a case in point. Our esteemed poster, molliebatmit, who was a superstar at MIT - and who is ironically at Harvard Medical School right now, but in a PhD program and not the MD program - has freely admitted in past posts that she got only around a 4.3/5. Furthermore, she got those grades in what she has admitted are relatively easy majors at MIT (Biology and BCS, courses 7 and 9). That just shows you that even the superstars at MIT can often times end up with relatively unspectacular grades. In fact, she has freely admitted that with the grades she got, she would most likely have not gotten into any of the top MD programs (although interestingly, she got into *every single one * of the world's top bio PhD programs). </p>

<p>I say that not to put her on the spot, but simply to illustrate that getting a 4.6/5 at MIT is no picnic. Plenty of geniuses can't get that. Even mollie couldn't get that.</p>

[cellardweller]

<p>4.6/5 was not the threshold to get to a medical school. It was actually the average for MIT applicants. The range of ADMITTED students was from 3.4/5.0.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, Mollie has freely admitted that with the grades she got, she would most likely have not gotten into any of the top MD programs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is quite a twist on a success story. Mollie never was a premed. She did research in biology and got into ALLL the best grad programs in the country. It was not out of desperation after failing to get into med school. It is highly speculative to claim she would not have been able to get into med school, had she really intended to, when plenty of other MIT students with lower GPAs got in excellent med schools. The fact is Mollie NEVER was a premed who failed. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That just shows you that even the superstars at MIT can often times end up with relatively unspectacular grades.

[/quote]

Mollie never claimed on these boards or eleswhere that she was an academic superstar at MIT. She actually recognized she was poorly prepared in high school for the rigor of MIT. She had few AP credits and never taken physics in high school. She recognized she did not do well in organic chemistry. Still, she succeeded while surrounded by some of the most academically talented students in the country in getting in all the top PhD programs. She also admits that she probably would NOT have gotten in to these programs had she not attended MIT. Hardly the poster-girl for not going to MIT as you seem to portray her. </p>

<p>Claiming that Course 7 or 9 majors are relatively easy (compared to let's say Course 6) is one thing, DOUBLE MAJORING at MIT is never easy. Less than 20% do so. Premeds are strongly discouraged from double majoring, precisely because of the insane amount of work that requires and the inevitable hit on your GPA. Would Mollie's GPA have been higher had she focused on Course 7 or 9 only, which are plenty tough on their own? Very certainly!. Would she have increased her GPA had she taken all her UROP classes for credit as opposed to for pay. Duh! These two choices would easily have brought her GPA to the average 3.6 and could have gotten her into into HMS or another top medical school, had it been her desire.</p>

<p>Again the facts speak for themselves. 90% of premeds at MIT who avail themselves of the premed advising service get into a med school, and the vast majority into the top med schools in the country. That is over 75 students per year, not some statistically insignificant number.</p>

<p>Basic planning will virtually ensure your acceptance to med school from MIT. </p>

<ol>
<li>Don't double major or major in Course 6 or some other engineering program with no overlaps with the premed requirements. You are just setting yourself up for extra work and little time for anything else but work and your GPA WILL suffer. </li>
<li>Decide early on while at MIT to plan your medical school application so that you get the best advising. You may want to take the MCATs after sophomore year for instance just after completing the premed prerequisites. You will generally get a higher score than taking it later when you have forgotten half of the material. </li>
</ol>

<p>As some other posters have stated, MIT has vast resources and opportunities for life science majors, whether they want to go to grad school, med school or work directly after graduation. It is by far the fastest area of growth at MIT, both in research dollars, filed patents, licensing and departmental growth. Between the founding of the Broad Institute, the new BCS Center, which is the single largest neuroscience lab in the world, the brand new Cancer Center, the HST program with Harvard, the very unique BE program, opportunities in the life sciences at MIT are actually greater than for any other area of study bar none. </p>

<p>There is absolutely no hard evidence that going to MIT puts premed applicants at any disadvantage compared to any other school, including the Ivies. I would actually contend that the documented drop out rate of science majors from schools such as Harvard results in far greater numbers of disappointed premeds who never show up on the statistics because they were weeded out along the way. The data at MIT is pretty transparent.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
The range of ADMITTED students was from 3.4/5.0.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, surely you meant to say 4.4 out of 5. </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is quite a twist on a success story. Mollie never was a premed. She did research in biology and got into ALLL the best grad programs in the country. It was not out of desperation after failing to get into med school. It is highly speculative to claim she would not have been able to get into med school, had she really intended to, when plenty of other MIT students with lower GPAs got in excellent med schools. The fact is Mollie NEVER was a premed who failed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a distinction without a difference. The fact remains that it is unlikely that she would have gotten into any of the top MD programs with her kind of grades. Even she has agreed, on the premed forums, that this is probably the case. </p>

<p>Certainly, this is a speculative exercise. But it is hardly an uninformed speculative exercise. The fact remains that her grades are lower than the general range necessary to be competitive for admission to a top MD program. Might she have gotten in anyway? I suppose it's possible. But the fact is, she would have started the process already behind the eight-ball. Whether we like it or not, MD programs strongly prefer high grades. Or, as I have often times put it, for the purposes of MD admissions, it is better to not take difficult classes at all than to take them and get mediocre grades. Sad but true. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Mollie never claimed on these boards or eleswhere that she was an academic superstar at MIT

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am claiming that she is a superstar. I think the evidence is on my side. After all - you said it yourself - she got into every single top PhD program in her field. Plenty of other people at MIT aren't able to do that. Heck, not only are some people not able to get into any graduate school, some people aren't even able to graduate at all. </p>

<p>Look, the salient fact is that not every MIT undergrad is able to get into the grad program of their choice. Heck, some can't get into any grad program at all. Mollie was able to get into every grad program of her choice. I think that makes her a superstar. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Claiming that Course 7 or 9 majors are relatively easy (compared to let's say Course 6) is one thing, DOUBLE MAJORING at MIT is never easy. Less than 20% do so. Premeds are strongly discouraged from double majoring, precisely because of the insane amount of work that requires and the inevitable hit on your GPA. Would Mollie's GPA have been higher had she focused on Course 7 or 9 only, which are plenty tough on their own? Very certainly!. Would she have increased her GPA had she taken all her UROP classes for credit as opposed to for pay. Duh! These two choices would easily have brought her GPA to the average 3.6 and could have gotten her into into HMS or another top medical school, had it been her desire.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, duh, I think you just actually illustrated the point perfectly. MD adcoms don't really care about how hard you work. They don't really care about how difficult your course schedule is. They care about grades. </p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. Let's say that mollie had instead gone to some easy no-name school instead of MIT. Then she probably could have completed the double major and gotten the high grades that would have made her competitive for top MD programs. MIT, on the other hand, basically forced her to pick one or the other. That's where the problem lies.</p>

<p>To be sure, the problem is not so much with MIT specifically but rather with the myopic, numbers-oriented MD admissions process. In a perfect world, the MD adcom would look at the transcript of somebody like mollie and realize that it may indeed be difficult for somebody to pull off a double at MIT and then 'adjust' her relatively low GPA accordingly. But we don't live in a perfect world, and they certainly don't do that. Whether we like it or not, MD adcoms do not properly reward rigor. I wish they did, but they don't. </p>

<p>
[quote]
1. Don't double major or major in Course 6 or some other engineering program with no overlaps with the premed requirements. You are just setting yourself up for extra work and little time for anything else but work and your GPA WILL suffer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I completely agree, but I would explore why this is even necessary (although I agree that it IS necessary). The answer is that, again, MD adcoms don't reward rigor. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There is absolutely no hard evidence that going to MIT puts premed applicants at any disadvantage compared to any other school, including the Ivies.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, the reverse is also true - that there is absolutely no hard evidence that MIT puts you at an advantage, or even on a level playing field - as any other school when it comes to MD admissions. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I would actually contend that the documented drop out rate of science majors from schools such as Harvard results in far greater numbers of disappointed premeds who never show up on the statistics because they were weeded out along the way. The data at MIT is pretty transparent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know about that. There seem to be plenty of disappointed MIT premeds (and disappointed engineers, etc.) who end up in some of MIT's relatively less rigorous majors, i.e. management at the Sloan School. </p>

<p>Note, that's not a knock on MIT or on the Sloan School; in fact, I happen to think that's one of MIT's greatest features. Those students who can't or don't want to put up with the supremely high levels of rigor of an engineering or a science major can still pick up a degree from MIT through the Sloan School - and a highly marketable degree at that. In fact, a Sloan management bachelor's is arguably more marketable than most of the technical bachelor's degrees you can get from MIT. If anything, I think MIT should offer *more * programs like the Sloan program.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>My ears are burning.</p>

<p>I think it's relevant that medical school never was a goal of mine, so I didn't put in the effort required to get As in every class I took. I knew from the beginning of college that I was interested in going to graduate school, so I put a great deal of focus on my research work. Had I been interested in medical school, I could have turned that focus to my grades.</p>

<p>I did basically two things that caused me to have a lower GPA than I could have:
1. I chose to double-major. Since I came in with almost no AP credit, this required taking an average of five classes per semester. Had I been more interested in grades than research, I could have graduated with one major and focused more on my classes. (If you look only at my course 9 classes, I had a 4.7, actually.)
2. I took every single one of my elective units in science. If I had wanted to preserve my GPA, I could have taken some elective units in the humanities -- my HASS GPA was a 4.9.</p>

<p>And for the record, I graduated with a 4.5. :) I don't know if I could have graduated with a 4.7 or whatever, but I think my total lack of interest in doing so was a factor in the fact that I didn't.</p>

[cellardweller]

<p>Sakky:</p>

<p>You clearly do not have the facts. </p>

<p>The low end of the accepted range was 3.4/5 not 4.4/5. </p>

<p>You have consistently mischaracterized Mollie's situation to try to make a point. She has provided her own rebuttal. I don't need to expound on it further.</p>

<p>The one point we can agree on is that medical schools, because of their GPA driven admissions policies, do force students to make certain decisions that limit their flexibility in college. </p>

<p>I never claimed that MIT offered a magic bullet for med school admission. NO school, whether Harvard or Yale can make such a claim. I simply maintain that any argument that MIT premeds are any worse off that other highly selective colleges, because of a supposed grade deflation, is simply not backed up by the facts. </p>

<p>What is probably true, is that ANY engineering major, whether at MIT, Harvard or Princeton, will always be at a disadvantage, not because their coursework is more rigorous but simply because their GPAs tend be lower than average. That is simply not the smartest choice of major if you want to get admitted to a top med school. I just don't believe that picking a less selective college would enhance one's chances. The evidence on admission statistics to top med schools correlate fairly closely with selectivity. Furthermore, the top med schools are actually those most likely to consider elements beyond just GPA and MCAT scores and admit disproportionately students from highly selective colleges. If MCAT scores and GPAs were the only factors, you would not have such a strong feeder effect. Mollie recognized that access to Harvard and MIT faculty facilitated her acceptance to HMS and MIT for her PhD program. Similarly, MIT sends a lot of students to HMS and other top med schools for MD degrees in part because they are in constant contact from their research and EC projects with faculty also teaching at HMS or closely connected with peer faculty at other top med schools.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>Speaking as someone who has taken and/or taught at different universities, I can tell you that there is significant grade deflation at MIT with respect to its ivy league peer institutions and not just in engineering. Not only is the grade typically lower based on your position on the curve, the curve is harder because the people are better students at MIT. Some of the ivy league universities have publically said that they want to curb their grade inflation, so it is not just my imagination.</p>

<p>It is because of this known grade deflation that top medical schools sometimes make exceptions for MIT undergrads. Harvard Medical School would be less likely take a Yale undergrad than an MIT undergrad with a 3.8/5.0 GPA.</p>

<p>But I agree with cellardwellar's other advice. There are definitely ways to plan to facilitate getting a higher GPA. Limiting classload, doing UROP for credit and taking extra HASS's, and taking hard classes on pass/fail are options (of course you can only do this for your extra classes, not for major requirements.) Let's say you want to major in EECS but are leery of 6.001. You could take it first semester on pass/fail if you wanted. So there are ways to manage your undergrad career to boost your numbers. However, many people just don't care about their GPAs and don't have any real reason to care.</p>

[bballdude]

<p>Hmm thanks everyone for this! It seems a lot of what is being said here can probably be applied to any top school. At any top school, there are going to be people who cannot handle the workload or who cannot get into Med school. So there really is no reason to say MIT puts you at a disadvantage. And in regards to what to major in, I'm glad that is the case since I plan to major in Course 2A, the one with mechE, biomedE, and premed courses designed for 4 years.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
Sakky:</p>

<p>You clearly do not have the facts.</p>

<p>The low end of the accepted range was 3.4/5 not 4.4/5.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fine. I thought you were talking about the averages. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You have consistently mischaracterized Mollie's situation to try to make a point. She has provided her own rebuttal. I don't need to expound on it further.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Has she? I don't think she has, although I agree it's not fair to have put her on the spot.</p>

<p>I would just simply reference her past posts (which others can search for) in which she has stated that she probably couldn't have gotten into any of the top MD programs. Note, she probably could have gotten into an average MD program, just not a top one. </p>

<p>Now, if she wishes to disagree, then we can talk about that. But if not, then the point stands. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I never claimed that MIT offered a magic bullet for med school admission. NO school, whether Harvard or Yale can make such a claim. I simply maintain that any argument that MIT premeds are any worse off that other highly selective colleges, because of a supposed grade deflation, is simply not backed up by the facts.</p>

<p>What is probably true, is that ANY engineering major, whether at MIT, Harvard or Princeton, will always be at a disadvantage, not because their coursework is more rigorous but simply because their GPAs tend be lower than average. That is simply not the smartest choice of major if you want to get admitted to a top med school. I just don't believe that picking a less selective college would enhance one's chances. The evidence on admission statistics to top med schools correlate fairly closely with selectivity. Furthermore, the top med schools are actually those most likely to consider elements beyond just GPA and MCAT scores and admit disproportionately students from highly selective colleges. If MCAT scores and GPAs were the only factors, you would not have such a strong feeder effect. Mollie recognized that access to Harvard and MIT faculty facilitated her acceptance to HMS and MIT for her PhD program. Similarly, MIT sends a lot of students to HMS and other top med schools for MD degrees in part because they are in constant contact from their research and EC projects with faculty also teaching at HMS or closely connected with peer faculty at other top med schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.</p>

<p>You have basically just conceded my point. Engineering is grade deflated and you, me, and apparently now collegealum134 all agree that - for that very reason - engineering is probably not a smart play if you want to be a premed.</p>

<p>But MIT in general is grade deflated. Hence, if we all agree that it is true that engineering is not a smart play for premeds, then * by the very same logic*, MIT as a whole may not be a smart play for premeds. That's the point. </p>

<p>Otherwise, you are left explaining why engineering is not such a smart play for premeds because of its grade deflation, but MIT in general, which is also grade deflated, does not follow that same logic. I frankly don't see a way to circumvent that logic. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But I agree with cellardwellar's other advice. There are definitely ways to plan to facilitate getting a higher GPA. Limiting classload, doing UROP for credit and taking extra HASS's, and taking hard classes on pass/fail are options (of course you can only do this for your extra classes, not for major requirements.) Let's say you want to major in EECS but are leery of 6.001. You could take it first semester on pass/fail if you wanted. So there are ways to manage your undergrad career to boost your numbers. However, many people just don't care about their GPAs and don't have any real reason to care.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I completely agree - there are indeed ways to boost your GPA to boost your chances of MD admissions. </p>

<p>But, using that same logic, there is one other way to boost your GPA - going to an easier school. That's my point. If it makes sense to strategize your way through MIT by picking out easier classes in order to get higher grades, then it may also make sense to simply go to an easier school in first place, right? </p>

<p>
[quote]
So there really is no reason to say MIT puts you at a disadvantage.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes there is. As I have been saying, MIT seems to be *more * likely to hurt students in the premed process because of the grade deflation. </p>

<p>Consider this analogy. Putting on my seatbelt, having airbags in my car, respecting the speed limit, maintaining my car properly, being alert and well-rested - none of these precautions are fullproof. I could do all of these things, and still die in a car accident. But each of them improves my odds. Similarly, attending a grade-inflated school doesn't guarantee that I will get into med school. But it does improve my odds.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
I think it's relevant that medical school never was a goal of mine, so I didn't put in the effort required to get As in every class I took. I knew from the beginning of college that I was interested in going to graduate school, so I put a great deal of focus on my research work. Had I been interested in medical school, I could have turned that focus to my grades.</p>

<p>I did basically two things that caused me to have a lower GPA than I could have:
1. I chose to double-major. Since I came in with almost no AP credit, this required taking an average of five classes per semester. Had I been more interested in grades than research, I could have graduated with one major and focused more on my classes. (If you look only at my course 9 classes, I had a 4.7, actually.)
2. I took every single one of my elective units in science. If I had wanted to preserve my GPA, I could have taken some elective units in the humanities -- my HASS GPA was a 4.9.</p>

<p>And for the record, I graduated with a 4.5. I don't know if I could have graduated with a 4.7 or whatever, but I think my total lack of interest in doing so was a factor in the fact that I didn't

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And all of this simply serves to stylize my example. You say that you didn't put in the effort to get A's and that you were more focused on other things. But look, mollie, you're a genius. The fact is, if you had gone to an easier school, you could have similarly put in little effort into your grades, and yet still gotten A's anyway. I know premeds at easier schools who put in relatively little work, and certainly aren't worthy of holding your jacket from an academic standpoint, yet are sporting 3.8/4 GPA's or higher. Believe me, you could have easily smoked them. </p>

<p>What is sad is that those guys are going to get into top med-schools (and in fact, they already have). Meanwhile, some worthy MIT premeds won't get in. That's the problem.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>
[quote]
But look, mollie, you're a genius.

[/quote]

I am not making, nor would I make, that claim for myself.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
I am not making, nor would I make, that claim for myself.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's quite allright. I'm certainly not shy, so I'll happily make the claim for you.</p>

<p>Lest you think I'm biased, I highly doubt that I am the only one here who thinks you're a genius. In fact, I'm fairly certain that this is a consensus opinion.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]

Quote:
Sakky:</p>

<p>You clearly do not have the facts.</p>

<p>The low end of the accepted range was 3.4/5 not 4.4/5.
Fine. I thought you were talking about the averages.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Furthermore, we can look at the facts from a different viewpoint.</p>

<p>The high end of the rejected range was a 3.7/4 (or 4.7/5). In other words, somebody who apparently did extremely well at MIT nevertheless got rejected from *every single * med school he applied to. </p>

<p>Preprofessional</a> Stats - MIT Careers Office</p>

<p>Now, one might say that perhaps this guy bombed the MCAT. Perhaps. But the converse could easily be applied to that guy who got a 2.4/4 and got admitted - maybe he smoked the MCAT. Nevertheless, what is incontrovertible is that a significant portion of MIT premeds, including apparently at least one who got very high grades, won't get admitted into med school. </p>

<p>Like I said, I think the far more meaningful statistic is the fact that the average admitted GPA for MIT premeds is a 3.6/4, which is an extremely high GPA for an MIT student. That seems to strongly indicate that med-school adcoms provide no quarter to the fact that MIT is a difficult school. </p>

<p>Personally, what I think MIT should really do is to simply lighten up on the grading.* Frankly, grading doesn't need to be that harsh. You're not really helping your students; you're just making them look bad to potential employers and to certain grad schools (i.e. MD programs). As a case in point, there's a certain school in Palo Alto that has a notably relaxed grading culture, yet their graduates don't seem to be any worse for it. Far from it, in fact. </p>

<p>Note, such a policy isn't going to help me, as I left MIT a while ago. Heck, it would probably actually *hurt me, as later MIT grads would look better than me. But hey, that's cool. That's the price of progress, and I'm willing to pay that price.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>
[quote]
Like I said, I think the far more meaningful statistic is the fact that the average admitted GPA for MIT premeds is a 3.6/4, which is an extremely high GPA for an MIT student. That seems to strongly indicate that med-school adcoms provide no quarter to the fact that MIT is a difficult school.

[/quote]

The premed statistics page used to have the GPAs of applicants as well as the GPAs of admitted students (e.g. this</a> page from the Wayback Machine, 2006). The accepted student average that year was 3.7, while the applicant average was 3.6.</p>

<p>So 3.7 is a high GPA in terms of the total MIT population, but there wasn't a strong selective effect for GPA for students who were applying. On average, it seems that premeds at MIT are able to obtain very high GPAs relative to the general MIT population, where the average GPA of a senior is more like a 3.2(/4.0).</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
So 3.7 is a high GPA in terms of the total MIT population, but there wasn't a strong selective effect for GPA for students who were applying. On average, it seems that premeds at MIT are able to obtain very high GPAs relative to the general MIT population, where the average GPA of a senior is more like a 3.2(/4.0)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That all just serves to reinforce the general point that MD adcoms, for whatever reason, show no evidence that they provide 'grade forbearance' to MIT premeds. In other words, they don't know how difficult MIT is, or they don't care. </p>

<p>What it also means, sadly, is that some people who had gone to MIT, got relatively mediocre grades, and consequently didn't get into an MD program, probably could have gotten better grades and gotten into an MD program had they just gone to an easier school. That's precisely the point I've been making. </p>

<p>Look, like I've always said, the real problem is not so much with MIT per se, but rather with the MD admissions process. Personally, I think that adcoms shouldn't count grades at all, but rather should weight the MCAT far more (and if the MCAT has shortcomings, then the answer is to design a better and more comprehensive MCAT), the reason being that at least with the MCAT, the scale is fair in the sense that, if nothing else, at least everybody is judged on the same standard. Relying on grades inevitably means that those students who happen to go to easy schools and choose easy classes will have a distinct advantage over those who go to difficult schools and take difficult classes.</p>

<p>But what can I say? The system is what it is. If you want to become a physician, you want to go to an undergrad program that will maximize your chances of getting admitted to an MD program, and MIT is, sadly, probably not the best way to do that. Simply put, MIT is just too hard, and adcoms don't sufficiently reward difficulty. I wish it wasn't true, but it is true.</p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>
[quote]
That all just serves to reinforce the general point that MD adcoms, for whatever reason, show no evidence that they provide 'grade forbearance' to MIT premeds. In other words, they don't know how difficult MIT is, or they don't care.

[/quote]

But they don't need to, if the average applicant GPA is a 3.6. </p>

<p>To me, the average applicant GPA and average admit GPA being so similar says that MD admissions committees are basically selecting randomly with respect to GPA among MIT premeds. The GPA distribution of not-admitted students has a left tail, but the distributions of admitted and not-admitted students overlap almost entirely when it comes to GPA.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
But they don't need to, if the average applicant GPA is a 3.6.</p>

<p>To me, the average applicant GPA and average admit GPA being so similar says that MD admissions committees are basically selecting randomly with respect to GPA among MIT premeds. The GPA distribution of not-admitted students has a left tail, but the distributions of admitted and not-admitted students overlap almost entirely when it comes to GPA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, mollie, not they're not. Why? Because clearly what we're missing are all those students who don't even apply because their grades are so low that they know they won't get in. </p>

<p>For example, I knew a guy who entered college (not MIT) who from day one of his freshman year, was talking about how he was going to be a doctor. That talk ended pretty quickly when he ended up with something like a 2.5/4 GPA in his first year, for two reasons: not only was he highly unlikely to be able to dig himself out of his hole, but the premed courses were just going to get more and more difficult. </p>

<p>Nor is he an isolated exception. Every school has plenty of prospective premeds who never do apply to med school because their grades are poor. Hence, they get weeded out by the process. The act of applying to med school ain't no joke: you have to do a lot of work and pay a lot of fees in order to put an application packet together. You're going to do that only if you think you actually have a reasonable chance of getting in, and plenty of people know that they don't. For example, if you have a 3.1/5 GPA at MIT, come on, you know you're not going to get in, so why apply? </p>

<p>Hence, what about those prospective MIT premeds who did poorly in their MIT courses such that they don't even apply to med school? I would argue that they would have been better off if they had just gone to another school in the first place where they could have done better. </p>

<p>Nor is it only me saying it. Consider what Dr. Michael McCullough, former Rhodes Scholar, and graduate of the UCSF Medical School, had to say. His audience was to prospective premeds at Stanford, but I think his statements are universal to all premeds. </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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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>I say this with some hesitancy because I know
it may cause controversy and it is difficult to know who
would be statistically better off focusing their pre-med
energies at a less competitive institution.*</p>

<p><a href="http://questscholars.org/oldstuff/activities/professional/pre-med_letter/premed-letter-2001-2-pdf.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://questscholars.org/oldstuff/activities/professional/pre-med_letter/premed-letter-2001-2-pdf.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

[molliebatmit]

<p>But we don't have any data on those people, so it's a little futile to speculate about them. And we have no information that suggests that they would have done better if they had gone to another school.</p>

<p>The data we do have says that the undergraduate premedical applicants from MIT have an average GPA of ~3.6, and undergraduate premedical admits from MIT have an average GPA of ~3.7.</p>

<p>I don't mean to belabor the point. I don't think that MIT is the best place for every student who has aspirations of medical school, and I think the choice of MIT for someone who's interested in medicine should be made thoughtfully. But I don't think it's MIT that's standing in the way of most of MIT's unsuccessful premeds.</p>

[sakky]

<p>
[quote]
But we don't have any data on those people, so it's a little futile to speculate about them. And we have no information that suggests that they would have done better if they had gone to another school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that there is no hard information about these people. But I don't think it's futile to speculate, for the logic seems quite simple. Let's face it. MIT is a quite difficult and rigorous school - in fact, more difficult and rigorous than almost any other school out there. Hence, it stands to reason that some people who do poorly at MIT almost certainly would have done better if they had gone to an easier school. In fact, that follows * simply by definition*. If people would have gotten the same grades at most other schools than they did at MIT, then MIT would not really be a difficult school. The whole point regarding 'difficulty' is that you are likely to be getting worse grades at MIT than elsewhere. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The data we do have says that the undergraduate premedical applicants from MIT have an average GPA of ~3.6,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I believe this reinforces the point further. Clearly not everybody at MIT has a 3.6/4. In fact, plenty of students have nowhere near it. Again, from the logic presented above, it stands to reason that many of those students would have gotten higher grades at another, easier school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But I don't think it's MIT that's standing in the way of most of MIT's unsuccessful premeds.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And here, I suppose, is probably where we disagree. It's the same sort of argument that Dr. McCullough made regarding Stanford (which I find rather ironic because Stanford is a rather 'relaxed' school). Basically, some students will find that MIT is just too hard and will therefore be better off going to another school. This seems to be especially true for premeds, for which GPA (sadly) is a key factor for admission. Sadly, med school adcoms don't really reward learning. They don't really reward hard work. They reward grades. I wish they didn't. But they do.</p>