I don’t think most, even at Vandy would get a 4.0 at Ohio State, especially if you are talking about the sciences. Sciences at places like OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota (basically Big 10 publics) are actually on par with or better (quality and rigor wise) than some elite privates, though I know what you’re trying to say. OSU just wasn’t the best one to throw shade at haha.
Also, Washington University and Johns Hopkins seem to be among exceptions among top privates…their thresholds for high % of success rate seems at least a little lower than many peer schools. Also, it’s the MCAT that makes quite a bit of a difference. Private schools make up for the GPA penalty by simply having students that test better overall (due to better incoming stats and better undergraduate training in many cases I guess). Like med. schools like seeing 30-31 MCAT, and a 4.0 may not save you if it is below that. Likewise, it appears that if below a 3.6, then ever increasing MCAT has diminished returns. Also, there are many med schools that consider rigor of UG institution to some extent…just not when the difference is between someone with a 3.7 and 4.0. In addition, those who are lucky enough to hit 3.85 have less to worry about as that isn’t seen much differently from a 4.0 (or the 3.9s)…the MCAT and EC’s will likely differentiate those people and if they are similar (and strong), all will probably be interviewed even by elite medical schools. At least this is what I observe among my friends.
Generally those who were 3.7 and 33+ got interviewed at most schools they applied to including some elite schools (such as Northwestern and Vanderbilt). I am unsure as to whether this was because I was at an top private school or because this is some magical threshold for consideration. Like I’m wondering if the 3.7, 33 from Gohung State that actually isn’t that well known would have been given as much attention. 3.75+, 35+ appeared to be some golden range almost, with those folks even receiving interviews from several places in the top 10-15 just as people w/4.0, 35+. Often it was the 3.75-3.85 person to get in and NOT the 4.0…at that point stats seem hardly used to separate…but this is just anecdotal, but seems real because at some point it is merely splitting hairs unnecessarily. Sometimes the difference between an A and A- in a difficult curve-graded course at an elite school is just luck or even favor with the instructor. Often the A was not exactly the curve setter they could be merely a couple of points ahead of the A- before the curve was applied.
And when you talk about doctoral programs, especially for sciences, they definitely strongly consider rigor of courseload and undergraduate pedigree. My old PI straight up told that to me. It is a common consideration in both the life and physical sciences. It is weighted much more heavily than professional school admissions. I guess they ultimately want students to just get the best training possible and want to see some level of perseverance in and endurance in research and coursework which can’t be demonstrated if a student always plays it safe. Many such programs typically also ask for the last two years of GPA to be recorded as well. They’re interested more in the development and less in perfection (which doesn’t really exist in science and certainly not in research where stuff will often go wrong…the question is…can you sail on through the rough times, fix the problems, and get results? Much less about frequent testing on very specific topics). They look for good GPA’s (like 3.5+, but can go as low as 3.3+ for some good programs…most which also ask for subject tests), but not really a bunch of perfect Patricks and Pattys. A 3.7 from CMU, a strong GRE (regular and subject) may very well compete with a 4.0 with less rigorous training and somewhat comparable scores from elsewhere.