<p>
[quote]
Comparisons to HYPS aside, MIT's med school admit rate is still far higher than the national average.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I would hope so! After all, MIT's students are among the very best in the country. They better have an admit rate that is higher than the national average.</p>
<p>But the real question is, does MIT stack up not just to the average premed in the nation, but to the premeds at peer schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most elite schools have a fairly strict premed advising system. I don't believe believe Harvard for instance even lets you apply to medical schools as an undergrad unless you use their House-based premed advising system.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but the House advising system is open to everybody in the respective House. They're not going to refuse recommendations to anybody except in truly extreme cases (i.e. the guy had been caught cheating on exams or whatnot). It's hardly a prescreening process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As long as you work hard and stay focused you should be able to get into medical school and most likely a good one at that. Check out this pdf file of where MIT premeds got accepted: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/preprof/2007top25.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://web.mit.edu/career/www/preprof/2007top25.pdf</a>. Harvard took a 3.2 from MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And according to that very same pdf, an MIT premed with a 3.7/4 got rejected from every med school he/she applied to. I don't know about you, but getting a 3.7/4 at MIT probably means that the person worked pretty hard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And of course, the junior/senior pass/fail option helps keep more uncomfortable classes from having an effect on your GPA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am very pleased with this policy. In fact, MIT should do more things like that.</p>
<p>But the point is simply this. Something is going on. Something has to explain why about 1/4 of MIT premeds who apply to med school don't get in anywhere. I don't claim to know exactly what it is. I suspect it's the grade deflation. But maybe it's something else. Maybe it's a cultural prejudice among the faculty against premeds. Maybe it's that MIT doesn't provide sufficient advising to the premeds (for example, I have heard much talk here about how MIT rations its advisors amongst the premeds, yet I've always wondered why MIT can't simply get more advisors?) I don't know what's going on, but clearly something is happening. </p>
<p>Look, don't get me wrong. I love MIT for many things and I think MIT is great for many things. But premed is, unfortunately, not one of them. I wish it was.</p>
<p>Are HYPS really MIT's peer schools? Really? Personally, I see HYPS all as variations on the same theme: an elite liberal arts college. Those schools also excel in the sciences and (to varying degrees) even in engineering. But the focus is different, the school is different, the culture is different.</p>
<p>That being said, yes, I understand in the common terminology HYPS are MIT's peer schools; all the above was an aside.</p>
<p>Anyway. I'm just a rising sophomore who hasn't looked much into med school, but I do have three points. One, yes, MIT has grade deflation relative to its peer schools. I don't think that's a bad thing and I don't think it should be changed. Two, I agree that premed advising could probably use work, just as MIT's overall advising structure could.</p>
<p>And three, I am simply not sure MIT needs or wants to become a college full of premeds. I believe in medicine, I believe in doctors, I believe in their power to change the world and make some good. For people who match MIT's culture, who love the geekiness and the science-driven nature of the school and who want to do medicine (or medicine and research), that's fantastic. And I think those people will do well here, premed or not. Can MIT do more to help its premed students get into med school? Probably. And hopefully it will.</p>
<p>But I stand by my earlier assertion that you shouldn't compare MIT to HYPS. The school is different, and so are its premeds.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, don't get me wrong. I love MIT for many things and I think MIT is great for many things. But premed is, unfortunately, not one of them. I wish it was.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't have a problem with what you were saying until the last bit. I don't really see why MIT should have to restructure the rigor of its curriculum so that premeds are more successful here. I don't see why that's even being suggested, or wished for. Just like you said yourself, MIT has peer schools which are much better suited for most premed students. These same students would not miss out on much by going to, say, Stanford, instead of MIT. As a student, some soul searching and a bit of research should allow you to make that choice for yourself. And that's the beauty of it, having a choice.</p>
<p>
Uh, no, your logic is backwards. First off, MIT does not have the prescreening process that you have stated.</p>
<p>But if it did, then MIT's admit rate should be higher than the Ivies (who do not have prescreens). Not lower. After all, to prescreen means to simply not allow the mediocre students from even applying in the first place, which means that your ultimate admit rate should be higher than at comparable schools. Yet MIT's admit rate is lower.
[/quote]
Uh, no, my logic isn't backwards. You just completely misunderstood what I said.</p>
<p>I said MIT doesn't have "prescreens."
I didn't say MIT does "prescreen."</p>
<p>I suggested HYPS could perhaps have "prescreens," which could be false.
I didn't suggest HYPS to be absent of "prescreens," which could be true.</p>
<p>I said MIT therefore allows about anyone who wants to apply to med school do exactly that, which would logically explain the lower med school admit rate compared to those at schools that do "prescreen" (which I suspect to include HYPS), given those are the institutions that "simply not allow the mediocre students from even applying in the first place," not MIT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The question is whether you could do better at an entirely different school, and the answer is almost certainly 'yes'.
[/quote]
Sakky, I wish you could back up that assertion with some facts. You have never provided any evidence to support your claim that everything else being equal, MIT admits would be better off enrolling elsewhere if they want to go to medical school. </p>
<p>Let's look at the MIT data in detail.</p>
<p>The 74% admit rate you suggest is representative of the chances of admission of MIT students is not the rate of admission for MIT premeds. **It is actually the composite rate for MIT undergraduate students, graduate students who did their undergraduate studies elsewhere and alumni who applied after leaving MIT, some many years after graduation. It also includes first time applicants and applicants who reapplied after an initial rejection. Of the total MIT applicants only 38% were current students and 62% were either former students or never attended MIT as undergrads at all. Considering the 40/60 ratio between undergrads and grad students at MIT, it is reasonable to infer that the majority of the remaining group never went to MIT as undergrads. The MIT chemistry, biology, neuroscience graduate departments all report substantial number of students applying to medical school each year, either after a Masters degree or simply because they have dropped out of the PhD program. **The first conclusion is therefore that the 74% number bears no relevance to the actual chances of admission to medical school of MIT undergrads. </p>
<p>Let us look at the data for MIT undergrads and compare it to other schools. </p>
<p>The admit rate for undergrad students at MIT with or without advising is 83.6%. For those with advising (93% of all undergrad applicants) the admit rate was 89.7%. For those without advising (5 students), the admit rate was zero. For most elite colleges (Harvard, Yale..), enrolling in the premed advising service is a prerequisite for any medical school applicant. No advising, no application, period! For MIT, the process is optional, although in practice the data shows that it is largely a necessity for admission. </p>
<p>As far as your contention MIT students not getting enough premed advisors, that is largely a red herring. According to the Career Office, every undergrad who registers for an advisor during sophomore year will be matched with an advisor. The 5 MIT premed students from the 2007 report who didn’t get an advisor never registered with the Career Office. Actually, most of those who requested an advisor after the sophomore year still got an advisor. I only know of one reported case of a student complaining of not getting an advisor and it was the case of a student deciding late in the process to apply to medical school. The least likely to get an advisor are the alumni. </p>
<p>Is the MIT medical school admission rate actually lower than other elite schools as you suggest?</p>
<p>It is well reported and discussed on the premed boards on CC and elsewhere that the reported rates of admission by colleges to medicals schools are fanciful at best and outright deceptive at worst. The AMCAS data for each school is hardly ever reported by colleges on their web site. Most schools consider this information highly proprietary and only disclose it to their own applicants. Here is for instance the Yale policy on past admission statistics.
[quote]
The medical school statistics binders contain a collection of admission statistics from previous Yale applicants to medical school. The report lists individual medical schools and includes grade point averages, MCAT scores, major, and state of residence. It is also noted if the applicant was accepted by the medical school. The data is confidential and cannot be replicated. These binders are available in the UCS library.
[/quote]
MIT is one of the very few schools that actually reports the summary AMCAS data on their web site. If the rates for other schools were as high as sometimes reported (95%+), why hide it?</p>
<p>A few elite schools take an open approach and report the admission rate for their current students and recent graduates. A good example is Amherst.
Amherst</a> College Premedical Guide</p>
<p>Amherst has no known grade deflation, or anything that would make its applicants less successful at applying to medical school. If anything the open curriculum, small class sizes, extensive handholding, strong advising should give it an advantage. The median SAT score is not significantly different from MIT’s so student quality is not a factor either. Amherst reports an admit rate for its current students and recent graduates of 79%. All the Amherst applicants receive advising. This is to be compared to either the 89.7% of MIT (undergrads only) or 86.9% (all MIT applicants with advising). </p>
<p>So, if MIT premed admission statistics compare favorably with those of a school like Amherst, where is the supposed MIT disadvantage? I just don’t see it.</p>
<p>The above data also exposes another fallacy of your analysis, i.e. that a substantial number of MIT premeds fail to enroll into at least one medical school. This is simply hogwash. The unlucky 10.3% MIT premeds would have at least a 74% chance of admission in a second go around and more likely the 86% chance of applicants with advising. However you cut it, this would leave only between 1% and 3% of MIT premeds failing to enroll in any medical school after two attempts. This is perfectly consistent with the Amherst analysis and again, MIT students would not fare any worse. One to three percent who fail to get admitted is quite a difference from the 1/4 of premeds that you throw around! </p>
<p>*How significant is the effect of GPA on admission? *</p>
<p>Again, I believe the data supports a much more nuanced correlation between admission rate and GPA for MIT students that you blithely state.</p>
<p>The Amherst data shows a much worse outcome for less-qualified applicants than MIT does. Amherst shows a a 90% admit for the well-qualified applicants (GPA greater than 3.1) and a 40% rate for less qualified applicants (GPA less than 3.1). This would tend to show a strong correlation at least until the 3.1 threshold. </p>
<p>While MIT does not offer admission statistics based on GPA/MCAT scores, it is quite obvious that the rate of admission of well qualified MIT applicants is well above the 90% Amherst rate (since the overall rate is 89.7% for all MIT undergrads). </p>
<p>MIT reports of GPA ranges of admitted undergraduate students would also tend to support the assertion that GPA plays a lesser role for MIT applicants than applicants from other schools. The GPA range of admitted MIT undergrads is very broad (2.4 to 4.0), much more so than virtually any other school. At Amherst, low GPA students (3.1 or below) are admitted at the rate of only 40%. If you were to divide the MIT applicants in a similar way, you can immediately infer from the MIT data that it would mathematically impossible for the low GPA candidates at MIT (3.1 or below) to have an admission rates much below 80% if the overall average is 90%. Above a GPA of 3.2 any correlation between chances of admission and GPA essentially vanishes. </p>
<p>This relative disconnection between GPA and admission ranges extends all the way to the most competitive med schools, where MIT applicants are admitted to schools such as Harvard, Columbia or Stanford with GPAs as low as 3.2. At my D’s sorority which sends a substantial number of students to top medical schools every year (75% of MIT premeds are female), the relationship between admission and GPA is tenuous at best. </p>
<p>So, while GPA does matter for medical school admission, the data strongly suggests it matters much less for MIT applicants than applicants from other schools. </p>
<p>Why is that plausible? The purpose of filtering applications by GPA is essentially to ensure that applicants can handle the intense medical school curriculum. Few schools question the ability of MIT students to do the work once admitted. Factors such as prior volunteering or physician shadowing experience, state residency, research experience, and other non-academic factors have much greater effect in the admissions process. </p>
<p>Again, Sakky, bring some evidence to support your contention that MIT is particularly hard for premeds. You have been making the same exact statements as far back as 2004 and repetition does not make it more true. The data shows that 90% of MIT premeds get in on their first try and between 97% and 99% after two attempts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have never provided any evidence to support your claim that everything else being equal, MIT admits would be better off enrolling elsewhere if they want to go to medical school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, come on. I don't see you asking anybody for "evidence" to support the claim that one's chances would be equal. </p>
<p>But if you would like evidence, see below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's look at the MIT data in detail.</p>
<p>The 74% admit rate you suggest is representative of the chances of admission of MIT students is not the rate of admission for MIT premeds. It is actually the composite rate for MIT undergraduate students, graduate students who did their undergraduate studies elsewhere and alumni who applied after leaving MIT, some many years after graduation. It also includes first time applicants and applicants who reapplied after an initial rejection. Of the total MIT applicants only 38% were current students and 62% were either former students or never attended MIT as undergrads at all. Considering the 40/60 ratio between undergrads and grad students at MIT, it is reasonable to infer that the majority of the remaining group never went to MIT as undergrads. The MIT chemistry, biology, neuroscience graduate departments all report substantial number of students applying to medical school each year, either after a Masters degree or simply because they have dropped out of the PhD program. The first conclusion is therefore that the 74% number bears no relevance to the actual chances of admission to medical school of MIT undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Trust me, I know exactly what the MIT data is about, and I am comparing that data to that of other schools. For example, over 90% of Princeton premed applicants, undergraduate + alumni will get into a med school. Oh yes, even the alumni alone get into med school at over a 90% rate. See below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For those without advising (5 students), the admit rate was zero. For most elite colleges (Harvard, Yale..), enrolling in the premed advising service is a prerequisite for any medical school applicant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Completely irrelevant because nobody at Harvard or Yale (or Princeton or Stanford) is actually being refused an advisor, barring those highly unusual circumstances I mentioned before (i.e. the student was caught cheating or whatnot). Hence, the act of obtaining an advisor is merely a formality. </p>
<p>The difference is that at MIT, some students do indeed wind up without an advisor. Now, I can agree with you that maybe these students were probably unprepared or late in the process. But so what? At those other schools, you can also be unprepared or late and still be assured of having an advisor. Which begs the question that nobody has yet answered: why can't MIT just get more advisors? Why is that so hard? </p>
<p>Woes</a> of a Premed - The Tech</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is the MIT medical school admission rate actually lower than other elite schools as you suggest?</p>
<p>It is well reported and discussed on the premed boards on CC and elsewhere that the reported rates of admission by colleges to medicals schools are fanciful at best and outright deceptive at worst. The AMCAS data for each school is hardly ever reported by colleges on their web site. Most schools consider this information highly proprietary and only disclose it to their own applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's why the Internet Archive Wayback Machine is your friend! Sure, I agree that it's weird that some schools choose to hide their numbers for inexplicable reasons. But, no matter, because you can't hide from the Machine.</p>
<p>So you want data, here's archived data from Princeton:</p>
<p>What do I see here, but an overall premed admit rate that is indeed over 90%, as can be seen on page 4 of the pdf? Not only that, but we're also talking about an over 90% rate even for alumni! That's quite interesting, don't you think? </p>
<p>But not only that! There's more. Premeds admitted from Princeton actually have a lower MCAT score than do premeds admitted from MIT. That's right - lower. Hence, the MIT students have to do better on the MCAT than do the Princeton students, as can be seen on page 3 of the pdf, compared to the following link. Interesting indeed, wouldn't you agree? </p>
<p>Preprofessional</a> Stats - MIT Careers Office</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, while GPA does matter for medical school admission, the data strongly suggests it matters much less for MIT applicants than applicants from other schools.</p>
<p>Why is that plausible? The purpose of filtering applications by GPA is essentially to ensure that applicants can handle the intense medical school curriculum. Few schools question the ability of MIT students to do the work once admitted. Factors such as prior volunteering or physician shadowing experience, state residency, research experience, and other non-academic factors have much greater effect in the admissions process.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yet, again, page 3 of the above pdf clearly shows that Princeton premeds are getting into med school with the same GPA that MIT premeds are. Yet I think there is little dispute that MIT is a more difficult school than is Princeton. Yet the med schools don't seem to care about that, otherwise, the evidence would have shown that MIT premeds would be getting in with lower GPA's. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, Sakky, bring some evidence to support your contention that MIT is particularly hard for premeds. You have been making the same exact statements as far back as 2004 and repetition does not make it more true. The data shows that 90% of MIT premeds get in on their first try and between 97% and 99% after two attempts.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I call and raise you, as I have now brought the evidence. Now I think the ball is clearly in your court to justify why you think MIT is the equal to schools like Princeton (and by extension, HYS), when the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. You have been making the same exact statements for quite a long time regarding how you believe MIT is a comparably strong place for premeds as its peer schools with apparently no data to back up your assertions, and your repetition certainly did not make it true. The data shows that MIT lags, relative to its peers, when it comes to getting students into med school. I wish it wasn't true, but it is true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are HYPS really MIT's peer schools? Really? Personally, I see HYPS all as variations on the same theme: an elite liberal arts college. Those schools also excel in the sciences and (to varying degrees) even in engineering. But the focus is different, the school is different, the culture is different.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fine, fair enough. But I think we can all agree that MIT is at least seen as a peer school to HYPS, especially by high school seniors who are deciding where to apply. I believe that the Fiske's Guide states that MIT's "overlap" schools, in terms of applicants, are indeed HYPS. Now, perhaps those applicants are misguided, but that doesn't take away from the fact that those high school seniors who are thinking of becoming premeds and are also thinking of applying to MIT are also likely to be applying to HYPS. </p>
<p>
[quote]
One, yes, MIT has grade deflation relative to its peer schools. I don't think that's a bad thing and I don't think it should be changed. Two, I agree that premed advising could probably use work, just as MIT's overall advising structure could.</p>
<p>And three, I am simply not sure MIT needs or wants to become a college full of premeds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I didn't have a problem with what you were saying until the last bit. I don't really see why MIT should have to restructure the rigor of its curriculum so that premeds are more successful here. I don't see why that's even being suggested, or wished for. Just like you said yourself, MIT has peer schools which are much better suited for most premed students. These same students would not miss out on much by going to, say, Stanford, instead of MIT. As a student, some soul searching and a bit of research should allow you to make that choice for yourself. And that's the beauty of it, having a choice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ask-Paul, pebbles, what you have just said is perfectly fine. If MIT doesn't want to cater as much to premeds as much as HYPS do, fine. </p>
<p>But if that's the case, then we should at least admit that this is the case and then we have to admit that prospective premeds are probably better off at those other schools. </p>
<p>But we can't have it both ways. We can't say, on the one hand, that MIT shouldn't try to adjust itself to make its premeds more successful, and on the other hand still try to maintain the position that MIT carries no disadvantage (relative to HYPS) for prospective premeds. We have to choose one position and stick with it. </p>
<p>As things stand now, I take the position that somebody who is seriously considering being a premed is probably not the best fit for MIT and hence should probably consider another school. I don't think that's a controversial position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As things stand now, I take the position that somebody who is seriously considering being a premed is probably not the best fit for MIT and hence should probably consider another school. I don't think that's a controversial position.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I will concede that if you want to to take the "easier" way into med school, HYPS is probably the route you'd prefer to take- the system is designed to suit you. However, if you're totally set on going to med school, MIT can still help you make sure that happens. You may have to work harder, but come on, it's MIT- that's why you're going there in the first place. If you want to cruise through college (relatively) as a premed, don't come to MIT. If you want to work your a** off and learn valuable analytical skills that will serve you well later in your medical career at the cost of a few percentage points probability of getting into med school, MIT could be the place for you. Premed may not be easy at MIT, but it is by no means impossible.</p>
<p>I think everyone here agrees on this point.</p>
<p>If there are means to gauge the "success rate" of pre-med students at MIT and its "peer institutions" POST-medical school acceptance (i.e. successful performance in medical school), I daresay those should be far more influential in determining how "good" a school is for potential pre-meds than simple medical school acceptance rate.</p>
<p>No one denies a lot more effort is required on your part as a pre-med if you choose to go to MIT as opposed to elsewhere, but that doesn't make it a disadvantageous choice for pre-meds to attend MIT, especially if it better prepares them (sans the advising problem, if it actually exists) for their career path ahead.</p>
<p>Sakky, interestingly the data you referred to does not show that Princeton is a better place than MIT for premeds. If anything, it shows exactly the opposite. </p>
<p>First, the Princeton admission rate of 90+% you show is not significantly higher than the 89.7% rate for MIT undergrads. The listed alumni rate is irrelevant to the discussion of premed admission as an undergrad. </p>
<p>Second you refer to the supposed lower average GPA of Princeton admits.<br>
The 3.5 average GPA of Princeton admits you refer is the overall GPA for Princeton undergrads and alumni. The 3.6 rate quoted on the MIT site is the one for undergrads only. The average rate for alumni is significantly lower at around 3.4. The average rate for admitted MIT students is actually 3.47 slightly lower than the 3.5 overall Princeton rate. </p>
<p>As you well know, admission rates and average GPA of admits are largely meaningless measures because of strong referral bias. Some schools can easily show 100% acceptance rates but send virtually no students to medical school every year. Swarthmore is such an example, where only a handful of undergrads matriculate every year. Some schools actively discourage undergrads from applying or weed out their premed applicants through a gauntlet of rigorous science classes. Others have lower admission rates such as Cornell, Duke or Johns Hopkins but send boatloads of students to medical school. </p>
<p>A much better measure is the MD productivity rate. On that measure MIT far outshines Princeton. On average the MIT productivity rate is around 50% greater than the Princeton productivity rate. </p>
<p>MIT sent 143 undergrads and alumni to medicals school for an undergrad population of 4,217 for a 3.46% MD productivity rate. The MIT rate is on par with the Yale rate and only slightly lower than the Harvard and Stanford rates. </p>
<p>Princeton sent 114 undergrads and alumni to medical school for an undergraduate population of 4,923 or a 2.32% MD productivity rate. The Princeton rate is actually one of the lowest in the Ivy league with only Columbia faring worse. </p>
<p>Another measure would be to look at the rate of acceptances at top medical schools as well as total number of students admitted to the top medical schools.</p>
<p>There again, MIT far outshines Princeton, based on the data you referenced.
Of the top 12 medical schools ranked by USNWR, MIT leads Princeton at 8 and Princeton leads MIT at 4. In most cases, MIT admits at top schools vastly outnumber Princeton admits:
-Harvard: MIT 12, Princeton 5
-Johns Hopkins: MIT 8, Princeton 0
-Stanford: MIT 13, Princeton 2
-Wash U: MIT 13, Princeton 0
-UCSF: MIT 7, Princeton 1
-NYU; MIT 10, Princeton 5
-Duke: MIT 6, Princeton 0</p>
<p>The only top 10 schools where Princeton does better than MIT are Yale and UPenn.</p>
<p>So, both in quantity and quality, MIT students fare much better at medical admission than Princeton admits. </p>
<p>So, seriously Sakky, you have to do a lot better than that to show that MIT is not a good place for premeds. Premeds will have it tough, wherever they go as undergrads. It is not demonstrably easy to get a high science GPA at any Ivy league school, certainly not Princeton. Under the new grading policies at Princeton with only 35% of students getting A’s, getting a good GPA is becoming tougher not easier. The Princeton career advising office reports that over two thirds of premeds now take a gap year before matriculating in order to be more competitive, twice the rate of premeds at MIT.</p>
<p>MIT is just as good as any ivy league to do premed. If we are talking about difficulty, yes then MIT will be harder than a place such as Harvard where grade inflation is common and allows for high GPAs. That just shows though that people at MIT want to work hard and to learn and don't just want an easy way out. We are willing to sacrifice an easy path to medical school in exchange for all the opportunities MIT will afford us. I, for one, know I am getting a remarkable engineering education amongst outstanding students in an environment I really could not find at most places. MIT's research options in science pretty much trump that of most other schools, allowing for us students to pursue research involving nanoparticles detecting cancer or to learn under the wing of research powerhouse Robert Langer. It's a well known fact that MIT brings in the largest amount of research money, way more than places like Harvard. Just this allows MIT students to gain in an edge in terms of research and be more attractive towards medical school in that regard. </p>
<p>Showing that princeton and MIT students are admitted with the same GPAs just acknowledges that yes medical schools do admit lower GPAs at schools that grade harder. Princeton is known to have grade deflation and so is on par with MIT in terms of grading. </p>
<p>In the end though, one should not necessarily concentrate on the school that will give him or her the best chance of being admitted to medical school. Forget percentages as they are all in the same ballpark. Focus on which school you like. Focus on a place where you will enjoy four years and then work hard. These pages of statistics only show that you can do well wherever you go in the HPYMS etc spectrum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, the Princeton admission rate of 90+% you show is not significantly higher than the 89.7% rate for MIT undergrads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wrong again, on several levels. First off, the relevant rate for MIT undergrads overall is 83.6%. The 89.7% figure you cite is for MIT undergrads who receive undergraduate advising. But this is not a stipulation that is relevant to Princeton premeds, as the overall Princeton undergrad premed admit rate is something like 93%. In other words, Princeton has no such separation between undergrads who receive advising and those who don't - either they all receive advising (which I suspect is the case), or the ones who do receive advising probably have a rate that is even higher than 93%..</p>
<p>Secondly, why exactly aren't alumni relevant to the discussion? After all, at any school, whether it's MIT or Princeton or anywhere else, there are always going to be some people who don't decide that they want to apply to med school until after they have already graduated. Maybe they didn't complete all of the proper coursework while they were undergrads. Maybe they decided they wanted to try out another career first or get a master's degree in another subject first. For example, one of my old friends from undergrad worked for IBM for a couple of years before she decided that she didn't really like working in industry and so decided to apply to med school (and got into places like WU and Columbia Med). Another girl that I knew from undergrad worked for Guidant as an engineer for a few years before getting into Stanford Med. I know a few others who decided to pursue PhD's for a few years before deciding that they didn't like it and hence dropped out and then entered med school (one might wonder why they didn't just go for MD/PhD programs, and while I can't speak for them, I think it was because they probably thought they wanted to be pure researchers/scholars until they found out what it really meant to be one and then decided that they didn't really want that lifestyle). </p>
<p>Look, the average age of entering med school students is around 25-26, which therefore implies that numerous people won't even apply to med school until they are already alumni.</p>
<p>And, with a nationwide average age of 26 for students entering their first year of medical school,</p>
<p>The bottom line is that the data clearly shows a significant and strong difference between Princeton and MIT premeds, whether we are talking about undergrads only or alumni only or both in combination. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The 3.6 rate quoted on the MIT site is the one for undergrads only. The average rate for alumni is significantly lower at around 3.4. The average rate for admitted MIT students is actually 3.47[ /quote]</p>
<p>Oh? Where are these 3.4 and 3.47 data points of which you speak? I am not aware of data that shows that MIT breaks down the accepted GPA's by way of alumni vs. undergrad. </p>
<p>
[quote]
As you well know, admission rates and average GPA of admits are largely meaningless measures because of strong referral bias. Some schools can easily show 100% acceptance rates but send virtually no students to medical school every year. Swarthmore is such an example, where only a handful of undergrads matriculate every year. Some schools actively discourage undergrads from applying .
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which does not happen in the case of Princeton vs. MIT, which is what we're talking about here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
or weed out their premed applicants through a gauntlet of rigorous science classes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now that is indeed an important topic, and is fact, is part of my point. I would contend that MIT actually weeds "harder" than does Princeton by virtue of MIT's well-deserved reputation of rigor. Nevertheless, the point stands that MIT's premed admit rate is actually lower than Princeton's admit rate, not higher, which is what should happen if the weeding theory is to hold water. </p>
<p>
[quote]
A much better measure is the MD productivity rate. On that measure MIT far outshines Princeton. On average the MIT productivity rate is around 50% greater than the Princeton productivity rate. MIT sent 143 undergrads and alumni to medicals school for an undergrad population of 4,217 for a 3.46% MD productivity rate. </p>
<p>Princeton sent 114 undergrads and alumni to medical school for an undergraduate population of 4,923 or a 2.32% MD productivity rate. The Princeton rate is actually one of the lowest in the Ivy league with only Columbia faring worse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, really? Are you sure you want to invoke this logic?</p>
<p>Then by that argument, Johns Hopkins is really a terrific place to go for premed, as, according to the AAMC, JHU produces about 320 total applicants a year out of a total undergrad population of about 4500. Conservatively, I will estimate that 75% of JHU applicants will get in somewhere. I think that rate is almost certainly higher, but since I don't have the exact figure, let's say that it is 75%. Hence, about 190 JHU people will get into med school, for a total "productivity" of 4.22% - * which clearly blows away MIT *. </p>
<p>Yet I have a very hard time recommending JHU over MIT for premed for reasons that I have enumerated on other threads. Yet if you believe in this "productivity metric", then JHU is clearly a far more "productive" school than is MIT in terms of churning out future med students. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The MIT rate is on par with the Yale rate and only slightly lower than the Harvard and Stanford rates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you sure about that? Let's take the Harvard claim in particular. Again, according to the AAMC, 320 applicants were from Harvard, and I believe something like 90% of them will get in (akin to the 90% Princeton rate. Hence 288 of them will get in. Harvard has about 6700 undergrads. Hence, its "productivity" rate is about 4.3%. Is MIT really only "slightly" behind? In fact, the "productivity gap" between Harvard and MIT is almost as large as the "gap" between MIT and Princeton, yet you say that MIT is only "slightly" behind Harvard. </p>
<p>I think this shows quite clearly that this productivity measure that you are invoking is not meaningful, and I can think of a simple story for why. Most (probably all) MIT undergrads are science/tech oriented, and medicine is a scientifically-oriented profession. However, at schools like Princeton, you will find numerous students who are far more interested in the arts and humanities and consequently have no interest in pursuing a science-oriented profession like medicine. Or think of it in terms of what extra coursework you would need to be a premed. The MIT GIR's cover most of the premed requirements anyway, which means that MIT students don't really need to do additional work to be eligible for med school, whereas those Princeton students who have been camping out in the arts/humanities and avoiding science classes like the plague would actually have to do quite a bit of extra work in order to complete all of the premed requirements. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Another measure would be to look at the rate of acceptances at top medical schools as well as total number of students admitted to the top medical schools.</p>
<p>There again, MIT far outshines Princeton, based on the data you referenced.
Of the top 12 medical schools ranked by USNWR, MIT leads Princeton at 8 and Princeton leads MIT at 4. In most cases, MIT admits at top schools vastly outnumber Princeton admits:
-Harvard: MIT 12, Princeton 5
-Johns Hopkins: MIT 8, Princeton 0
-Stanford: MIT 13, Princeton 2
-Wash U: MIT 13, Princeton 0
-UCSF: MIT 7, Princeton 1
-NYU; MIT 10, Princeton 5
-Duke: MIT 6, Princeton 0</p>
<p>The only top 10 schools where Princeton does better than MIT are Yale and UPenn.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of the top 12 medical schools ranked by USNWR, MIT leads Princeton at 8 and Princeton leads MIT at 4. In most cases, MIT admits at top schools vastly outnumber Princeton admits:
-Harvard: MIT 12, Princeton 5
-Johns Hopkins: MIT 8, Princeton 0
-Stanford: MIT 13, Princeton 2
-Wash U: MIT 13, Princeton 0
-UCSF: MIT 7, Princeton 1
-NYU; MIT 10, Princeton 5
-Duke: MIT 6, Princeton 0</p>
<p>The only top 10 schools where Princeton does better than MIT are Yale and UPenn.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your figures are wrong. Please do your analysis more carefully next time. Your mistake is that you continue to assume that just because Princeton didn't list a particular med-school in its top 12 most "popular" for its applicants, then that means that nobody got in. In fact, that's clearly false. For example, just because JHU Med wasn't in the top 12 list, that doesn't mean that zero people from Princeton got into JHU. </p>
<p>So how about some better data? You just keep daring me to use the Internet Archive! And so I shall.</p>
<p>Untitled</a> Document</p>
<p>This particular data set is compiled over 6 years, hence the total figures must be divided by 6. The revised figures for Princeton, on a per-year basis, are:</p>
<p>Duke: 8.5
Harvard: 12
JHU: 8
Stanford:7.8
WU:10
NYU: 17.3
UCSF: 6.7
Yale:8.3
Penn:14.5</p>
<p>So, actually, even using YOUR method of analysis, it's a tie. Of the schools that you mentioned, MIT actually beats Princeton in only 4schools (NYU, Stanford, WU, Duke). But Princeton actually beats MIT in 4 (Yale, Penn, Duke, NYU). Harvard and JHU are a tie. What makes this analysis even more striking is that Princeton has fewer premeds than MIT does, yet it is still able to tie MIT even in terms of getting people into the top med schools.</p>
<p>Now, if you wish to expand the analysis even further ot include a bunch of other top 12 USNews med schools, then the data also shows that MIT beats Princeton when it comes to getting people into the University of Michigan Med School. On the other hand, Princeton sends clearly more people to Columbia Med School. {There is insufficient evidence to say anything about the University of Washington Med School). So, once again, you have a tie. </p>
<p>But regardless, I completely disagree with the entire premise of this logic for one very simple reason: med school rankings/prestige matter very little. This is not just me saying it, this is the general consensus within the premed forum here on CC and in most other med-student forums. Apart from certain consumer-oriented specialties such as plastic surgery, or if you are planning to enter academic medicine, it doesn't really matter where you go to med school (as long as it is accredited, of course). The big drop-off is obviously between getting into a med school and not even getting in anywhere at all. But as long as you get in somewhere, the benefits to getting into a "top" med school are marginal. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So, seriously Sakky, you have to do a lot better than that to show that MIT is not a good place for premeds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So seriously, cellardwellard, I think you need to do a far better job in showing why you think MIT is really a good place to go for premed, relative to its peer schools. I mean, really, come on, cellardwellard. You gotta bring your A-game here. You can't be doing your analysis in such a sloppy manner. "Productivity" is not only a poor measure of a particular school's premed program, but interestingly, also reinforces the superiority of Harvard and would even lead people to believe that JHU is better (which I do not believe). Your other measure - that of getting students into "top" med schools" - actually results in a tie, which if anything, goes to highlight Princeton's advantage given Princeton's smaller overall premed applicant base. </p>
<p>The bottom line is this: *by practically any measure, Princeton premeds are doing at least as well, and usually better, than are MIT premeds whether you want to talk about alumni or undergrads or whatever. * </p>
<p>
[quote]
It is not demonstrably easy to get a high science GPA at any Ivy league school, certainly not Princeton. Under the new grading policies at Princeton with only 35% of students getting A’s, getting a good GPA is becoming tougher not easier.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh really? The extension of that argument is that MIT no longer holds an edge in rigor and in tersm of grading difficulty, relative to Princeton or other Ivy schools? Are you really sure you want to stand by that statement? </p>
<p>Just think about what that would mean. MIT has a highly prominent reputation for toughness with regards to its grading that has been built over decades. I myself have heard numerous people talk about how grades at MIT are "real" grades compared to the 'Mickey Mouse' grading that is sometimes used at that 'school up the River', and that MIT students have to truly earn the grades that they get. For example, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I believe that molliebatmit's relatively low grades (for such a top student) are not a reflection of her (for I know she is a genius), but really a reflection of MIT's tough standards, and in particular, that she would have probably have gotten higher grades if she had gone to another school.</p>
<p>But what you're arguing here is that that is not true: that the grading scheme at MIT is not more difficult than the ones used at other schools, and that therefore MIT's grades are just as "Mickey Mouse" as are the ones up the River. Or, more specifically, that molliebatmit didn't get top grades because she's really not that good (a notion which I simply can't believe). </p>
<p>
[quote]
The Princeton career advising office reports that over two thirds of premeds now take a gap year before matriculating in order to be more competitive, twice the rate of premeds at MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oops: false. Oops. Please be more careful next time. The MIT career office also clearly shows that 62% of MIT's premeds are alumni, which is basically the same rate as that of Princeton. Seems to me that quite a lot of MIT premeds are taking gap years in order to be more competitive too. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I will concede that if you want to to take the "easier" way into med school, HYPS is probably the route you'd prefer to take- the system is designed to suit you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. That is my point. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think everyone here agrees on this point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know about that. If the point is that HYPS are probably easier paths, then it seems to me that at least one person here does not seem to agree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No one denies a lot more effort is required on your part as a pre-med if you choose to go to MIT as opposed to elsewhere,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly</p>
<p>
[quote]
Showing that princeton and MIT students are admitted with the same GPAs just acknowledges that yes medical schools do admit lower GPAs at schools that grade harder. Princeton is known to have grade deflation and so is on par with MIT in terms of grading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I'm afraid that that is not what the data shows. The Princeton data is from the past, and specifically before the new (deflated) grading policies were put into effect. Think of it this way - why would Princeton need to deflate its grading standards if it had already been known for grade deflation? </p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT is just as good as any ivy league to do premed. If we are talking about difficulty, yes then MIT will be harder than a place such as Harvard where grade inflation is common and allows for high GPAs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And here I'm afraid you've just contradicted yourself. Either MIT is more difficult for premeds than are its peer schools, or it isn't. If it is more difficult, then, purely by definition, it must mean that MIT is not as good of a school for premeds than are the other schools.</p>
<p>Now, where I might agree with you is that MIT is probably just as good of a school for premeds for some students, and in particular, for those students who do well. Sure, I've always agreed that MIT is a fantastic place for those who do very well. </p>
<p>But the real question is, what about those students who don't do very well? Since we're talking about premeds, we have to talk about those 25% of MIT premeds who don't get in anywhere. What about them? Other peer schools have less than 10% of premeds who don't get in anywhere. That's a big difference.</p>
<p>"Showing that princeton and MIT students are admitted with the same GPAs just acknowledges that yes medical schools do admit lower GPAs at schools that grade harder. Princeton is known to have grade deflation and so is on par with MIT in terms of grading. </p>
<p>No, I'm afraid that that is not what the data shows. The Princeton data is from the past, and specifically before the new (deflated) grading policies were put into effect. Think of it this way - why would Princeton need to deflate its grading standards if it had already been known for grade deflation? "</p>
<p>I worked with a guy who majored in chemistry at Princeton 10 years ago. He said that chemistry had grade deflation (sounded like it was similar to MIT) but that the other majors had significant grade inflation, most notably molecular biology. He said that the premeds stayed away from the chemistry major there. By-and-large, I'd say Princeton has (or at least had grade inflation in comparison to MIT across the spectrum of technical majors. Speaking as someone who went to MIT and took undergrad classes at peer schools, there is no doubt that MIT (along with Caltech) represents a harder path to medical school. That doesn't mean that it can't be more rewarding. Also, if you stick to what you're good at (like bio or chemistry for premeds,) your chances are better. I see a lot of people with bad strategies. Like, they'll major in engineering because they think they'll impress the medical school admission committees with a harder major, and then they do significantly worse. That doesn't mean you can't major in engineering, but I would put your toe in the water first--like take a class in your major while on pass/fail and see if you do well.</p>
<p>Based on anecdotal experiences (as well as talking to some admission deans,) it seems that the higher tier medical schools are more apt to make exceptions for MIT students with lower GPA's. It may take you longer to get into medical school, though. I know someone who got into a top 10 medical school who I think had slightly below a 4.0/5.0 GPA in biology. However, this person spent years doing medical-related activities, probably did well on the MCAT, and also got a masters in something related to biology. So it's possible to recover.</p>
<p>Admissions committees do recognize MIT's unusual rigor, but if you have a 3.3 chemistry major from MIT competing against a 3.7 chemistry major from Harvard, they will most probably take the Harvard student even though they may be at a similar intellectual level.</p>
<p>wait sakky just wondering about something you said.. jhu is a BAD place for premed?? I thought it was one of (if not the) best place to go for premed in the country?</p>
<p>I think it is possible to attribute too much weight to minor differences in outcomes. </p>
<p>I would make a few observations. Many people take time off between college and medical school. At many elite colleges this is the norm, rather than the exception. Although they do this for a number of reasons, one very common reason is that their records are not strong enough to present a good application right from college. So excluding those who apply as alumni eliminates many of the less strong applicants, and would distort comparisons.</p>
<p>If I were counselling someone who knew they wanted medical school, I would encourage them to look elsewhere than MIT. First of all, premed is not what MIT is about. It is almost a wasted opportunity if one goes to this place that provides such a superb education in math, science, and engineering, then takes that education and goes to medical school. One could get a perfectly fine premed education, well perhaps not anywhere, but certainly at any of several hundred colleges. There are only a handful that could begin to match what MIT offers to students who plan to use it.</p>
<p>It can be a detriment to go to college somewhere that requires so much work to stay afloat that extracurriculars are neglected. Medical schools want more rounded people. They really want people who have been able to devote substantial time and energy to these activities They want people who have worked on teams, not necessarily athletic, but some sorts of coordinated group activities.</p>
<p>It surprises people on this board, but medical schools realize that one need not know much science to make it successfully through med school. In fact, I doubt anyone could graduate MIT without a far stronger science background than medicine requires. So all that science knowledge, particularly the math and hard science, just does not matter.</p>
<p>So... one should go to MIT, in spite of planning for medical school, if you really want the MIT education and experience. However, you probably are hurting your chances at medical school by doing so. If you mainly want to go to medical school, go to some decent college and do well there. Get good grades (way easier said than done), do well on the MCAT (ditto), and engage in activities that say 1. It makes sense for you to be headed to medicine and 2. you work well with people. </p>
<p>Not only do you not have to be a genius to be a doctor, but most of the extremely intelligent doctors I know find regular clinical practice pretty boring. So they make up for the low stimulation of their work by being famous superspecialists who are constantly seeing the new and the strange, by doing research, or by having highly intellectual hobbies. I suspect most MIT grads would find themselves in the same position if they made the mistake of going into medicine.</p>
<p>I can understand the disdain for pre-meds. If I ever met BRM or BDM in person I'd probably dislike them too.</p>
<p>I was facebook-stalking a high school acquaintance who went to MIT the other day. Her facebook network now says Harvard Medical School. It's not entirely impossible: :-)</p>