GPA vs. everything else

[Guest Angelussum]

How much of a difference does it make to have a GPA of 3.70 versus a GPA of 3.90? For example, is it worth the extra time and effort to get the higher grade or should that time/effort be spent working on extra-curriculars and taking a class you enjoy rather than repeating to get a better grade?

[Guest thecod]

well, in my opinion, it is better to get a 3.9 rather than a 3.7. if that means dropping a club or an activity, then i think you should drop it. if you got a really bad grade in something, then i think you should repeat the class. gpa and mcat are the most important part of the application. ECs and other activities are also important, but they come second to gpa and mcat.

[Guest Koppertone]

Depends what schools you are applying to. My GPA dropped in the last two years of school, part of which was because I spent more time on ECs due to my lack thereof previously. I think that having a good balance of ECs played well in my favor. Remember that GPA and MCAT play a major role in determining who gets an interview, but past that it's mainly ECs and interview score. So try to balance things out.

[Guest avisee]

It's a tough balance, and I would say it depends on where you fall on the scale.

 

If your GPA is in the lower end (below 3.7), I would say focusing on GPA is your most important task. A small increase in GPA will contribute greatly toward gaining interviews.

 

However, if your GPA is on the higher end (above 3.7), you might want to focus on extracurriculars. There are tons of applicants in this section, and not much to differentiate them except extracurriculars, so if you have the chance to get involved in quality activities (eg, expending a large amount of time, working with people, in positions of leadership, or positions where you produce qualifiable results) it's probably worth doing so instead of aiming to bump up your GPA a tiny bit, which won't make a huge difference at this point.

 

Since you fall in between these categories, it's hard to say that one would be better than the other to focus on. If you are a resident of a province other than Ontario, you might be safer to focus more on ECs, but in Ontario, a 3.7 is pretty borderline - you can get an interview at Queen's with a high enough MCAT and you'd be borderline for an interview at UWO. You'd only meet the Ottawa cutoff if you're an Ottawa resident. For U of T and McMaster, you might be able to get an interview with a 3.7 (or a higher mark for that matter), but you'd really have to have strong ECs.

 

I'd say that if you can keep your GPA at a low to mid-3.7 with little extra effort, then getting involved in interesting ECs will bear more weight on your application than bumping your GPA up a bit. More importantly, you'll probably enjoy your undergrad years a lot more if you can have fun with them than if you spend all your time in the library. In the end, choose based on what sounds the most rewarding to you.

[Guest Lorae]

Some good advice, although I'd have to disagree with thecod... GPA and MCAT are not the "be-all" and "end-all" in the admissions process.

 

Obviously the higher the GPA the better, especially at the schools that place more emphasis on those factors.... and that's the key - every school has a different method of determining who they accept.

 

I believe the key is to maximize your numerical values (ie. get the highest GPA and MCAT scores you can achieve without giving up everything else) and to have high quality extra-curricular activities (ie. long term committments, good variety, working with people, clinical experience if possible).

 

Remember - we are more than our GPA's

[Guest thecod]

i never said gpa and mcat were the "be-all" of the admission process. but it will be more difficult to get an interview with a gpa of 3.7. even mcmaster is placing more emphasis on gpa. of course ECs are important, but they mean nothing without a high gpa. most of the time, ECs only come into play during the interview process. to get that interview, you have to have a high gpa. if you look at u of t, mcmaster, and ottawa, the majority of applicants have GPAs of 3.76 and upwards.

[Guest 2 plus 2 is 4]

GPA is like the key that gets you through the first door of the process. Working in Africa, being a member of 10 clubs, captain of the varsity team and student council president won't help you (nevertheless be noticed by the adcoms) if you don't have the GPA. Now that's not to say that EC's aren't important, a 4.0 student with barely a life outside of the classroom may get passed the first door, but won't go much further from there. But since we're talking about a 3.7 vs. a 3.9, which are both good GPA's, I would say it really depends on the school. For a GPA intensive school like U of T, where your grades count for 60% of your score post-interview, compromising some EC's may be worth it. On the other hand, at Queen's, getting the cut-off GPA (3.65 this year, I think?) gets you the interview that becomes the sole deciding factor as to whether you get in or not. So if you haven't been doing much besides studying you may not have a whole lot to share with the interviewers.

 

I'm not quite sure what your EC situation is, but I really don't know how much EC's you will be able to handle successfully while aiming for a 3.9, but then again, I don't know you, you may actually accomplish this quite easily. On the otherhand, it seems that the average GPA for the applicant pool seems to be increasing every year, a 3.7 IMHO seems to be cutting it close. A safe compromise may be to aim for 3.8.

[Guest noncestvrai]

Aim for 4.0 45T. Do your best and what best fits your interests. Chances are you will have no regrets.

 

noncestvrai

[Guest Lactic Folly]

I think it was Ian who said that it is considerably easier to add more ECs than to pull up a GPA.. personally I would start with the grades, then add on as much as you can handle (time management / study skills should improve over time.. people who are strong in both leadership activities and academics are highly regarded)

[Guest CTU24]

Good advice all around...

 

I want to echo Lactic's last post that was inspired by Ian. My strategy was to start out undergrad light on the ECs in order to get my footing in academics, build time management, and get accustomed to what it takes study-wise to get high grades. Once I got this straight, my improved study skills created more time for ECs and I was able to add 1-2 ECs each year of University. I also used my summers productively when I was out of school. This led to a balanced application, but most importantly, a balanced lifestyle so that I was able to stay sane (though some would dispute that). Hope that insight helps you make your decision...along with the other good advice.

 

CTU24

[Guest Agent999]

Unless you are Einstein, the tremendous amount of time and energy needed to raise your GPA from 3.7 to 3.9 is not worth it. It's better off spent on improving other aspects of your CV, such as EC, volunteer, research etc.

[Guest Ian Wong]

I'm getting pretty far away from the actual med school application process; that's why we recuit new moderators every year. Having said that, I think that if you have the option between maxing out on GPA/MCAT versus extra-curriculars, I think the better investment is going to be to spend time on your GPA and MCAT scores.

 

The major reasons being:

1) It seems like GPA and MCAT scores are being emphasized more and more to screen out applicants (witness the large jump in GPA's for accepted Mac applicants, leaving not many schools who will genuinely look at you if your GPA/MCAT's are low)

 

2) It's very hard, if not impossible to recover a low GPA. If your undergrad GPA is low and you are getting rejected from med schools, there's very little you can do to raise it. On the other hand, if you have high GPA/MCAT, and are still getting rejected from med schools, it's a lot easier to add in extra-currics at that point.

 

Still, extra-currics are not, and should not be viewed solely as a way of improving your admissions chances. They're a way of making you a more well-rounded person, teach you a little bit more about yourself and others, help you develop skills in new areas, and should be something that you intrinsically enjoy doing already. A very large part of university, maybe the largest part, is learning more about yourself and maturing as an individual.

 

Ian

[Guest peachy]

About repeating courses, you need to be careful about that. Usually, both the new and old grade will appear on your transcript and be calculated into your GPA. So it may be advantageous to take a new course (or a higher level course in the same area) rather than repeating a course, for the purposes of raising your GPA. It depends on your particular situation (the rules at your undergraduate school, which medical schools you plan to apply to) but it is something to be careful about.

[Guest aneliz]

I agree with what has been said already... GPA is definitely the 'ticket' to getting an interview... that said, once you have the gotten an interview, GPA becomes (much) less important in most cases and it is your EC's/life experiences that are going to determine whether you get offered a seat or not.

 

As Ian pointed out, it is very difficult to salvage a borderline/low GPA... and it gets harder the further you get in your studies... not only because the difficulty of your course work tends to increase, but because the more you have already done, the harder it is to alter a cGPA.

 

That said, I don't think that having a 3.90 GPA will necessarily get you that much further than a 3.70 GPA... especially if you have to make significant sacrifices in the EC/employment/volunteer part of your life. Remember, having a 4.0 GPA and no life is just as bad for the application as having a 1.9 GPA and a Nobel prize. Both people are equally unlikely to get offered admission... This does not mean that you need to have a 3.85 and 15 different EC's to get in... most successful people have a good GPA (not a 4.0) and a few quality EC's that they have shown commitment to (ie played a sport for >1 season, played an instrument, volunteered at something somewhat long-term, etc)

 

Also, be REALLY careful about repeating coures. I am not sure about other schools, but I know that UWO has quite strict rules about course repeats... they will NOT let you count any YEAR in which you repeat a course that you have already taken (even if you failed it the first time!) as a full time year for GPA purposes unless you take an overload of courses (ie 5.0 NEW credits + the repeat).

[Guest BlackNeon]

Hi,

 

Great advice given. Just wanted to give an example using my University (U of Manitoba). Currently the Application criteria are weighted: 10% Adjusted GPA, 50% MCAT, and 40% Personal Assessment.

 

Couple things to notice.. U of M is one of the only universities that weighs the MCAT so heavily. The Personal Assessment includes references, personal essay, ECs, interview, etc.

Finally, the AGPA only counts for 10%. To be eligible to apply you need a 3.6 minimum.

(As an important side note: U of M uses a 4.5 grade scale.. as reference 3.5 for us is a B+)

 

Whether or not you get an interview depends solely on your GPA and MCAT score.

That said, as an in province undergrad student, as long as you have that 3.6 minimum and an average MCAT score, you're essentially guaranteed an interview.

(228 total Manitoba Applicants to 190 Interviewed, 2003 Stats)

 

Of course, the Out of Province entry is extremely competitive and doesn't follow the same guidelines.. A higher GPA may help a lot here, considering whether or not you get an interview has nothing to do with the PAS.

(266 Out of Province Applicants to 49 Interviewed)

 

- As an in province student, after that 3.6 minimum, the GPA doesn't count for too too much, considering it's weight. The MCAT is much more heavily weighted.

 

----------------------------------

 

As everyone has said, in the end it is up to you in a sense of what your plans are in applying. Each university has its own application criteria and preferences (or not) for in province students. You have to make the decision as to whether or not you think you can raise your GPA or not.

 

After writing all of this I just realized that your GPA scale is most likely out of 4.0 ... So, for someone who is still on a silly system, what is the difference between 3.7 and 3.9?

[Guest thecod]

essentially, 3.7=A- and 3.9=A

 

so, there is a difference.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

If you get the GPA to meet the cutoffs for the school you are applying to, then anything above that is just gravy. It might help a bit, but won't do as much as anything you do that helps you in your interview.

 

If you're getting a 3.90 and keeping a decent set of activities and keeping a good personality that would be appealing in an interview, then yeah - of course you have an advantage over the guy with the 3.70 with the same background and interview.

 

It doesn't take a genius with a 4.0 to figure that one out.

 

But if in your pursuit for a 3.90 (or 3.95 or even 4.0) you do absolutely nothing other than study at the library every night, and/or become bitter at the world or arrogant about your GPA then you're at a pretty solid risk of flubbing the interviews, which are at most Canadian schools the bulk of getting in once you get on the interview shortlist.

[Guest bj]

Hi,

 

Call me naive but the question of adding more ECs vs. trying to increase GPA seems rather artificial. The idea is to enjoy what you are doing--regardless of whether it makes you a better candidate for medicine, being involved in new activities and learning more about the world make you a better (future) physician. And a better person.

 

I have a really hard time with the concept of playing the admissions game, especially since it doesn't seem to end once one gets accepted (then it's the residency match, then probably fellowships, etc.). We will always be competing but is it better to be very good at competition or to be comfortable in one's own skin?

 

I apologize if this comes off as preachy; it isn't intended to. I guess I come from the philosophy of "do what you feel is right" whether that means working harder on school or being more involved in other activities. Only you know what will make you a more competitive applicant because only you know the intricasies of your strengths and weaknesses. What has more value to YOU, having a higher GPA or being more involved? In the end, you are the only one who has to live with that choice.

 

bj

[Guest lothya]

Not that anyone on this forum is likely to be planning on becoming a non-traditional applicant... :b in any case, if you end up on another path before med school happens (maybe a couple of rejections?)... your marks are for life. You can never go back and change your undergrad GPA by very much. Whether you graduated last year or ten years ago, whether you now have a doctorate, a better work ethic or a lot more empathy and maturity... it is your undergraduate GPA that is going to be looked at by admissions. Your EC's only are really relevant for a couple of years. (except to the extent that they show you can handle the pressure of studying and doing something else) If you're not accepted the first time around, or even as a first career, but spend the intervening year(s) doing interesting, relevant and enriching things, it can certainly improve your application.

[Guest Angelussum]

Thanks for the great replies everyone! I guess when you come down to it, it makes sense that GPA is more important. Although balance is too.

 

CTU24, I liked the suggestion of adding activities each year as you get to know what you are capable of/what you want to do.

 

bj, I agree with the fact that one should do what one feels is right. But sometimes doing what you want to do right now and what you need to do to get where you want to go aren't the same thing. I just wanted to know which one is generally more important in the long run.

 

Btw, thanks for the tips on repeating, I'm going to look into maybe doing a higher level course instead.

[Guest Sandman AK]

For someone who has graduated from undergrad, is there no way to improve the GPA?

[Guest aneliz]

There are only a couple of options to increase your GPA having already graduated from undergrad...

 

1. Do a 'special' undergrad year... this will work at UWO. You can find more details in the UWO forum under FAQ's.

 

2. Do a second undergrad degree...

[Guest Sandman AK]

Will a minor be sufficient?

[Guest marbledust]

Will a minor be sufficient?

 

Sorry but I am not really sure what you mean. Sufficient enough to improve a GPA? Unfortunately not. A minor is just a number of related courses. It won't improve your GPA any more than taking a number of unrelated classes would.