How is it that people with 3.0GPA could get into Mac?

[Guest BC guy]

My question though is how friend A came to her GPA of 3.0. Was it due to her how capability or the marking scheme of the program. I am not saying that Friend A has a probem with her GPA ie she is happy with it I assume, just the fact that it is 3.0 and wonder what that relates to as she is having to work so hard to obtain it.

[Guest BC guy]

"how capability" is "own capability".....sorry clinicalchief

[Guest browsing]

Without getting into a talk about dedication leading to good marks, I'd just like to point out that if you got a 3.0 GPA it means you probably got lots of marks in the 70's. If you extrapolate this further, this means your friend A wrote a bunch of exams and handed in some assignments and got an X next to 30% of them because they were the wrong answers. I don't know if this is a good analogy or not, but if I was a patient and I wanted to ask the doc some questions, the fewer wrong answers I get, the safer I feel.

 

I can think of a few reasons why a 3.0 might be more acceptable:

a) took a lot of english-type classes and try to stand out by challenging the prof/TA's ideas. You can be smart and eloquent yet get screwed by the marking.

personal tragedy. self-explanatory

c) had to keep a job, difficult socioeconomic situation, not enough time to study

[Guest Liana]

What a GPA really means depends on the individual.

 

Someone (Friend A) could work really hard to get a 3.0 GPA. Her inability might be due to her devotion to other extracurriculars (working, family, volunteering), ineffective study habits, or possibly her own academic limitations. I have a friend who stresses way too much about school, spends most of her free time studying, and still only manages to pull off a 65% average. Now on the one hand, she could make a good caretaker because she's devoted, compassionate, and is willing to give her all to any project at hand. However, there's still the matter of her inability to master the basic sciences. If she gives it her all and still can't master physiology, should she be expecting patients to leave their lives up to her ability to decide what drug to administer?

 

Some people, unfortunately, are better suited for other careers in the healthcare field. This doesn't bar them from being able to help people, or to act as a healer, it just means that it's in their future patients' best interests that they apply their determination and compassion to a field where understanding biological details and processes does not play a fundamental role in their success as a practitioner.

 

That said, if a 3.0 GPA was obtained in a non-biology discipline, you might have to question the valiidty of this mark. Quite often, low marks are indicative of a student's discipline and ability to perform as is required. For this reason, a student who receives a 4.0 in music or art or math can still be expected to devote the same energy and attain the same success when studying medicine. However, everyone has their academic strengths and weaknesses. What if someone ended up in a non-bio program they loathed, and as a result, pulled a 3.0 GPA? This does not necessarily mean that, if they enjoy study biology, they fare the same academically in a biology-related program.

[Guest BC guy]

makes sense browsing and Liana! And that is why there are the scorings of the prerequisite courses for med.

[Guest SIMETRA]

Liana, in a previous message you stated: "if a 3.0 GPA was obtained in a non-biology discipline, you might have to question the valiidty of this mark." Really? Why might one "have to question the validity" of a mark obtained in a non-biology discipline? A 3.0 in Engineering...? A 3.0 in English...? A 3.0 in Anthropology...? What exactly are you suggesting? It would be great if you could explain. Thanks.

[Guest clinicalchief]

I did not say that "friend A" would be a *great* doctor. That is possible, but not my point. My point was that somebody should not be excluded from a choice profession on the basis that his/her gpa was not high enough, and that dedication does not automatically lead to a high gpa. (I really do have a friend who is in this position) Also, "friend B" is an example of somebody else I know. 3.95 mammalion physiology and biology, 34T, stellar EC's and possible LOR's. What is he doing now? Coaching a swim club at a local pool. I respect that more than anyone will ever know, he just didn't want to be a doctor. It doesn't matter why people have problems, limitations, or success. I am saying that you don't judge a person by just their grade point average.

[Guest Beaver]

If this person does not want to be a doctor why did they write the MCAT (you mentioned they scored 34T I'm assuming thats for the MCAT)

 

Reason why I ask is I cant imagine writing the MCAT for fun or no reason at all, and the one time I wrote it was plenty for me!

 

Is he planning on coaching for the long term?

[Guest BC guy]

B is smart and he simply changed his mind re medicine?

A tries very hard to get that 3.0 GPA, but she does not necessarily make the best doctor with those grades. Perhaps another profession in the health field which would require just as much dedication and compassion will bring her satisfaction but does not require her to struggle too much to understand or remember. As a patient I do want the doctor looking after me to be more than just a nice compassion person, his job is to improve my health, not just hold my hands. A doctor needs to be both smart and compassionate, no?

[Guest Beaver]

The question is does a 4.0 performance in a Bsc translate into outstanding performance as a doctor?

 

Case in point. I had to supervise an individual's Phd Thesis last year. This individual was an Md/Phd student and I have to say they could not for the life of them function in a lab, conceptualize some of the more difficult concepts or develop any sort of independent thought etc. Yet this person had a 3.97 GPA going into the MD/ Phd program. They were great at reading texts but the actual "doing" and thinking on your own aspect of the research was a complete disaster.

 

Now on the other hand we had a Phd student who had completed a Bsc. with 3.2 and embarked on grad studies. He was excellent. He did not have to be told what to do every second, he was able to think of innovative approaches and was exceptionally sharp in writing grant proposals and presenting at meetings.

 

So I dont know how well school smarts translates into the real world. Sometimes people just have difficulty with the structure of school but when put into a "real world" situation they excel beyond anyones wildest expectations

[Guest BC guy]

The one with the 3.9+ GPA should not have gone into the research that he is in? or should not have been in research at all? The 3.2 person is a doer and has found his niche in that research he is in. Do not know what school the person with the 3.9 came from, but at UBC the exams I have taken with the exception of Biochemistry and Anatomy make you use your noodles to come up with the correct answers, not all about memorizing only. I agree that having good marks does not always translate into good doctors, but would "poor" marks make a good doctor at all? One would never know until their performance as a MD is evaluated. As a patient I would probably want to take my chances with the smarts first b/c after all, the knowlege and the thinking process has to be there for doing the best, not only just adequately. I guess that goes onto the topics of excellent doctors, good doctors, adequate doctors, and lesser ones.

[Guest browsing]

clinicalchief: Your smart swimming coach friend decided not to be a doctor, even though he had a good shot at it. However, that's not to say that if he became one he would have been bad at it.

 

beaver: I like to know the "why" of things.

Your first example of a high-GPA, low-competence guy is intriguing. I'd like to think that they would have taken quite a few lab-based courses and perhaps even a 4th year/grad research project to get into MD/PhD program... school isn't all about cramming facts ya know.

 

as for the 3.2 guy, I would like to know why he got such a low GPA. I am assuming it was due to less-than-stellar marks in exams. Some possible reasons:

 

a) not good at memorizing

tricked by multiple choice

c) can't handle pressure exam situation

d) personal reasons leading to poor concentration

 

I think only d) could be excusable. If he was not good at memorizing facts, then isn't there the risk of using the wrong information when dealing with patients? If he can be easily tricked by similar-looking choices, wouldn't he have trouble making a confident diagnosis? If he can't handle pressure, can he handle the fast-paced environment of the ER?

 

I'll admit that there are some "real world" smarts that can't be learned from books. People with this skill will invariably find success somewhere. I just don't know if medicine is a place where you can do well with just that single asset.

[Guest Beaver]

Hello Browsing

 

To answer some of your questions, the 3.97 person did have 4th year research based courses, and did very well in them. However as you may know from your lab experience, there is a lot of hand holding there without much opportunity to take the horse by the reins so to speak.

 

The 3.2 person was not intellectually inferior by any means but just did not perform well in a school stuctured learning environment ie. MC tests, memorizing and then regurgitating etc. I honestly think that someone who can think on their feet will be better equipped for medicine. The truth is if there is something really close you can look it up (after all thats what Merk manual is for ) The thing about the 3.2 person was that he was able to pick things up on his own and what we taught him. He was then also able to assimilate that info into concepts and innovative ideas that helped push the research forward. The 3.97 person would simply wait for us to spoon feed them more info without too much original thought. I think a doc that can think on their feet and learn by doing will be better equipped than one who can memorize the periodic table but freeze when put into a situation where they have to think on their own.

 

Just my take

[Guest browsing]

hi Beav,

 

Well it looks like you're quite confident in your 3.2 friend's abilities. I can't argue with you there since you do have first-hand experience ... As you suggested, a less structured learning environment might just be what he needs (whaddaya know, we're in the Mac forum!)

[Guest sos2002]

I think GPA of 3.2 with being good with ur mother would also help in such situation!

[Guest BC guy]

eh??.....what is that with your mother???

[Guest BC guy]

In the Vancouver hospitals the new buzz word is "evidence-based" medicine.......less emphasis on thinking on your feet. Knowing your facts is a must.

[Guest Aviatter]

What about the person who has been out of school for a little while pursuing something completely unrelated to medicine, and then has a change of heart and decides to pursue a medical career?

 

Maybe their GPA was a little lower than it could have been because they were doing many other things while at school. Would this be an acceptable excuse for a 3.0 to a 3.5 GPA? I know many people with perfect or almost perfect GPA's that would make horrible doctors, yet I can think of many people with <3.5 who would make excellent doctors but just didn't apply themselves to their full potential in school. Many people perform much better at university as they get older and realize what they really want in life.

 

I think maturity and life experience go a long way in determining if you make a great physician. Many universities use GPA's just to cut down on the number of applicants. If there weren't so many applicants for so few positions I can say with some certainty that GPA's would not be of such importance. As it is, many med schools rely heavily on the interviews and essays once the GPA requirement has been met.

 

That said, I do agree that anyone with a GPA below a certain point should never be a doctor. I think Mac has set a very reasonable lower limit for the GPA which allows for people with extraordinary non-academic qualities a chance to pursue a medical career.

 

Thanks for letting me rant,

 

Aviatter

[Guest Jess]

I think 3.2's lack in academic performance may have to do with his/her inability to learn within a structured learning environment that is typical of the undergrad years. Having said this, I do not believe his low GPA can be attributed in his ability to learn in general. Browsing has listed a few possible reasons why 3.2 may have not done so well GPA-wise, but the reasons he lists are just as important in being a successful grad student as they are in important in being a successful undergrad, hence 3.2 would have to master these traits even in grad school. Having worked alongside graduate students within a research-based environment, I would have to say from my own experiences and moreso from observations that a great deal of memorization is required in research. Graduates students, like undergrads, may not intentionally sit down and memorize a bunch of facts, but they do read a lot of papers and attend seminars and must be able to remember and most importantly understand the information in order to apply it to their own research and refer to it in critiqueing their peer's work. In terms of being "tricked by multiple choice", I think that's a bit weak, I think we've all have been tricked at one point or another by a multiple choice question, but to do really badly you would probably have to be tricked by almost every single question. This is quite unlikely, unless your professor went out of his/her way to make every single question on every single test a trick question and even then you would have to be completely clueless to mess up every single one. "Can't handle pressure", to be successful in research I think you would have to be very good at handling stressful situations i.e. during question periods after presenting your research at an international conference, at your defense or even at weekly lab meetings where your reasoning is constantly being challenged. Not only do you have to handle the pressure effectively, you also have to be quick on your feet, which, from what Beaver has mentioned, 3.2 is probably very good at. I think 3.2 would probably do better in medical school than in undergrad, primarily because medical school provides students with hands-on/problem-based learning opportunities that undergrad lacks for the most part. At the end of the day, I would probably be most comfortable being treated by a physician who can not only assimilate information, but also understand it so that he/she can apply it effectively, critically and efficiently.

[Guest Liana]

To SIMETRA:

 

Regarding my comment about questioning the validity of a mark in a non-biology discipline, what I meant was that a student's performance in one discipline is not necessarily indicative of his performance in another discipline.

 

In general, a student with a strong GPA can be assumed to have the talents necessary to make a good doctor, regardless of the field in which this GPA was obtained. That is, they have the discipline, the academic interest and potential to succeed.

 

However, this is not always true. Most students will perform relatively better in some fields rather than others. One student might be strong at math but poor at verbal reasoning. One might be able to dissect global political systems, but can't visualize the interactions of anatomy. Generally, this boils down to an intrinsic interest in the subject at hand, so hopefully if a (for example) Art History major is applying for medical school, he also has enough interest in the academic aspects of medicine to succeed in this area as well. This may not always be the case. Perhaps a student hates memorizing terms, and picked a UG field that required more theoretical skills rather than memorizing. If she likes medicine enough, she will work hard to combat this dislike for memorization, but just because she got a 4.0 GPA in Math, doesn't mean those marks will translate for her to Medical school.

 

That said, however, a student's success in UG biology again won't necessarily dictate his academic success in medicine, for the same reasons. Biology is such a broad field, that one can easily focus in on an area and do well academically, while still having an intrinsic dislike for major aspects of the medical school curriculum that may end up becoming difficult to succeed in in later years. For instance, a student might do UG study in molecular biology, but dream of becoming a surgeon. Her success at undergrad study is not necessarily indicative of how well she will understand anatomy, because these fields generally require different ways of thinking.

 

The point is, different people have different ways of thinking, and different strengths/weaknesses when it comes to academics. Just because a student pulled off a good GPA in UG, it does not mean that they can pull off a good GPA in all fields, especially in fields that require the use of their weaker or less preferred learning abilities. Usually, a strong GPA will accurately translate to a new field, because with that GPA a student probably needed to develop the ability to recognize where his weaknesses lie and work past his weaknesses, but this isn't always the case, and those weaknesses might be brought into the foreground when he enters medical school.

[Guest not an excuse]

The fact that someone does a lot of things outside of academics should not excuse them from obtaining good marks.

 

First, I have a 4.0 GPA and was the president of three large clubs (probably voluntering > 40hrs a week). I also had a very active social life. And was dealing with a huge personal burden. But, when it was time to study I studied - no excuses! My dream was to be a doctor - so I worked my butt off to get where I am today - I just recieved acceptance to an out of province school (waiting to hear from Mac).

 

Second, if you want to get into med school you know you need good marks. Therefore, one would assume that you would organize your time to best achieve the results you need to achieve your dreams.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Excellent point, Beaver. Getting 90% on a test means you were able to answer 90% of the questions on that test. It often correlates to greater ability, but doesn't always. Some people are just really good at taking academic tests. . . doesn't mean they'll be great doctors. I know of a few people with great GPAs who aren't 'doers' as you call them and when you put them in real world situations they run into problems. Of course, I also know people with great GPAs who are also excellent in real world situations. Using an applicant's GPA is of course better than comparing their bowling scores - but it's not perfect.

 

I think the reason GPA is used as a standard for getting into medical school is that it is a measure of work ethic and smarts. The only way to truly assess whether an applicant would make a great doctor would be to put them through the training and 'objectively' assess their performance on the wards - an unrealistic proposition. I think that is why most schools have come up with a balance of GPA and other attributes to assess candidates.

 

On an interesting side note, I've heard a number of rumours this year that there is almost a negative correlation between med students' performance in the preclinical (1st and 2nd year) and clinical (3rd and 4th) years. That is to say, often the people who get honours in clerkship often are the people who DIDN'T get honours in first and second year. Interesting in light of your point as 1st and 2nd year tends to be assessed in the traditional academic manner (tests and assignments) whereas clerkship is assessed based on your ability in a "quasi-real-world."

[Guest Carolyn]

"Evidence-based" doesn't refer to knowing facts vs. thinking on your feet. It refers to being able to read papers critically in w.r.t. choosing treatments, diagnostic tests...

 

There are thousands of published papers out there in very well known peer-reviewed papers that are examples of very poor research, yet because they are published, it is easy to believe that they are right. The practice of using "evidence-based" medicine lies in being able to sort through the information provided in the paper and making appropriate management decisions. There is a great handbook that pulls together the whole JAMA series on practicing evidence-based medicine - I would highly recommend it to every medical student.

 

That said, not sure what that had to do with the 3.0 vs. 3.9 student.

 

On that topic I think it is important to recognize that very very very few people with 3.0 get interviews at Mac. They are the people who have all sorts of life acheivements and have proven their intellect in so many other ways...

 

I do know that there are some fields/degrees where marks really aren't that important... I know marks in my business degree were definitely not that important. As long as you had >70-75% you definitely could get a great job (at least when I graduated in 96)... If you had a 75 and a lot of leadership experience, and a good personality, you usually got a much better job than the 85% person without all the extras... I know that there were a lot of people in my business class that really didn't care a whole lot about marks, there definitely wasn't a lot of visiting the prof to get a higher mark etc. I'm sure there are other degrees/fields where that holds true.

 

Finally and most importantly, medicine itself is not difficult... quite easy in fact compared to some undergrad courses! Some of the topics (like immunology and molecular genetics) can be difficult at first to get your head wrapped around but really it is not difficult. What many find difficult is the time management necessary, navigating the politics of a hospital and the layers of the hierarchy, staying up and being effective at 36hrs, relating to 89 year old women and then turning around and relating to a 5 year old boy, figuring out how to adapt from one doctor's style to the next, to navigating your way through an especially hostile nursing station This is why I would guess at places like Western, there is a reversal in who gets "honours" between pre-clerkship and clerkship...

 

Just my musing on the multitude of topics so far...

[Guest SIMETRA]

Thanks for clearing that up Liana!

[Guest UWOMED2005]

I'm not 100% positive on the reversal of honours thing for pre-clerkship and clerkship here at Western. It's just a rumour I've heard. But it is interesting

 

Overall, I'd say a 4.0 GPA or all Honours marks is better than not having all honours or having less than a 4.0 GPA. But I don't think getting a 4.0 GPA or all Honours is worth sacrificing development of other life skills (ie social skills, leadership, teamwork, self-confidence.) BTW - I definitely don't mean to say that people with 4.0 'GPA's lack these skills! I just know from personal experience that SOMETIMES people do make sacrifices in other areas just to keep a high GPA. . . and in the long run, I think that is a bad idea.