Its me again!

[Guest flora]

I was thinking, looking at Mac stats only 12 people got in with Gpa's greater than 3.9. And in Ottawa and everywhere else, I've heard of people getting 3.9-4.0 and being rejecting...

 

Do you think that having a high GPA breeds this mode of thinking for the medical admissions committee :" This person has such a high GPA - there is no way that this could have been accomplished unless he/she did'nt do any extracirrics" So in effect, people with high GPA's are scrutinzed even more on their autobiographical sketch?

 

I realize that yes, it is often true that the ones who get the highest marks (and it is the case in my unversity) study every spare second they get without doing anything else......but is my mode of thinking above correct?

 

Or, perhaps the stats that mac only has 12 students w/ gpa >3.9 is due to the fact that not many applicants have such a high GPA to begin with?

 

It would be interesting to see statistically who got an interview and got accepted based on GPA only....

 

Any thoughts on this?

[Guest applicant06]

I'd love to hear thoughts on this from current students - as you can seem from my name, I'm just an applicant. But I find that attitude quite worrying.

 

A representative from McMaster (somebody working in admissions, but I don't remember his exact name or role) came to York to give a talk about McMaster admissions, organized by the York Pre-Med Society.

 

The talk was incredibly interesting (before, I wouldn't have even considered going to Mac, now, it is perhaps where I would most like to go). Nevertheless, he made a statement at some point to the effect of "People with 4.0 GPA's are incredibly boring." It was **extremely disturbing** to see this attitude perpetuated by somebody at the heart of the admissions process. I seriously hope that the actual admissions decisions are not coloured by this attitude.

 

I would hope, that all things being equal, good marks increases your chances of admission. **NOT** that good marks should be worth more than other parts of the process, or even that they should be worth as much as other parts of the process - simply that ***if everything else is equal, good marks should be an advantage***

[Guest UWOMED2005]

I'd almost absolutely 100% positive admissions committee have absolutely ZERO bias against people with 4.0 gpas. At Western, we have a few/number of students with GPAs in that range. Rather, I think some people do themselves in by sacrificing everything else in pursuit of a 4.0 GPA.

 

I know this because I used to be a student who strived constantly for perfect scores. At one point in my academic career (last year few years of High School, first year of University) I wasn't happy with ANY wrong answers on a test. My experience has been that to get a 80-85% average (ie A-, 3.7) you need to understand the material and know most of the stuff well. To get > 90% consistently in courses (no matter who the prof is and how hard they mark) you have to pay a ridiculous amount of attention. . . memorize every fact associated with the course, and be extremely anal when applying those facts on tests and assignments.

 

Thing is, that perfectionist approach had a bad habit of carrying over to my personal life as well. . . and that had a tendency to cause problems. I found my personality suffering as a result. I also found myself too stressed out from academics to devote myself to a multitude of other activities. . . which is another key to applying to medicine.

 

So in my 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of University I still worked hard, but I also sought more of a balance in my life. I also made sure to make time to hang out with friends, enjoy University life (when else are you going to have such a chance to party it up with so many people your own age?,) be active in extracurriculars (university societies - good chance to get involved, do something different from classes, and it doesn't hurt that it looks good on the resume, varsity sports, intramural sports, jobs, volunteer work) while still working hard at the academics.

 

That kind of an approach should also continue over into your med school years, btw. I've found the most important thing in to do in first year is to find a BALANCE which your happy with.

 

I'm not saying people with 4.0 gpas are all anal-retentive perfectionists with no personalities. To the contrary, I have many friends at UWO who attained marks like those while maintaining a healthy balance of extra-curriculars and a great personality. But not everyone can do that, and it seems to me that some people sacrifice other parts of their life for marks. Some people with 4.0 gpas really are 'boring' (I think that's the wrong word, btw.) Those are the majority of people, I believe, who are the ones with the 4.0 gpas who end up getting rejected from schools. And need I say that there are also 'boring' (once again, wrong word) people rejected with lesser gpas.

 

Also, there is a great deal of "variability" associated with applying to medicine. We all choose strategies/approaches to interviews, autobiographical sketches, and application essays. Sometimes the reviewer reading your specific essay don't agree with that approach. . . and the result is a poor evaluation, and potential rejection/waitlist. You can't take these things personally when applying to medicine. A rejection/waitlist is NOT a statement about who you are as a person or whether you'd make a good doctor (though somtimes they are worded that way.) It's also almost a necessity to apply to >1 school - to reduce the chances you (the worthy candidate) doesn't end up a victim of this variability. That is just the nature of the process.

 

Also, as 'flora' pointed out, not that many applicants have a gpa that is greater than 3.9. That really is an outstanding GPA (congrats if that is the case for you). . . in my whole graduating class of biochemistry (roughly 40 students) there might have been one or two students at most with a GPA in that range.

 

So if you do have a 4.0 gpa. . . don't worry about that working against you. It won't, and it should give you an advantage (of varying degrees) at some of the schools you apply to. But also don't think the fact your gpa might be higher than other candidates means you are guaranteed a spot. . . med schools do look at more than just your GPA.

[Guest MayFlower]

Flora,

 

Here is an old thread which shows some of the admissions stats from Ottawa:

 

Ottawa Admissions Stats

 

I think you will find it interesting...I'm not sure it answers your question...although I think it's clear from the data that GPA is definitely not the only thing they are looking for...seems GPAs and backgrounds of candidates are quite varied.

 

MayFlower

[Guest JSS02]

I don't think any school has an intentional bias against people with 3.9-4.0 GPAs. The people who read your essay or interview you usually don't know your GPA at all.

 

If you search through the Mac forum, you'll find a discussion on why so many people with high GPAs get rejected. Some (including myself) think it's because of the way they calculate your composite score. There is much more variability in the autobiographical submission scores (0 - 4.0, though of course I doubt anyone actually gets a 0) than in the GPA (3.0-4.0). So even though each is "supposed" to be worth 50%, your autobiographical score is really what counts in getting an interview. Hence getting a 95th percentile on the sketch is MUCH more important than a 95th percentile GPA.

 

As for Ottawa, they only use the GPA as a tiebreaker once you reach the interview stage. This is a pretty good idea, given that they have already require quite a high GPA before they even look at your sketch. And as I mentioned in an earlier thread, most of the people who reach the GPA cutoff will make it to the interview stage too. After the interview, the final rankings are based on your interview score first, and GPA is used as a tie breaker. They start with all the people who got a 4.0 on the interview, then all the 3.75 people, and go down from there. So if you think about it, your GPA only matters if you have the minimum interview score that's good enough to make it in, and you actually need it as a tie-breaker. Thus it makes sense that lots of people with the 3.9+ don't end up making it in, because a) there are a huge number of interviewees with that GPA anyway, and GPA is a relatively unimportant criterion used in the final decisions. If most of the people getting an interview have a 3.85+, who really cares about the difference between someone with a 3.87 and a 3.92 anyway?

 

It's about the same for most schools. Many of them don't care about the GPA much once you reach the interview stage. In fact, Queen's bases their final decisions ONLY on your essay, references, sketch, and interview, and don't count GPA or MCAT at all after you make it to the interview. Or even if the school says it does care, most people who get an interview will have a high GPA anyway, so the variation in GPAs will be low and it doesn't end up being a huge factor.

 

Anyway, most people with a 3.9+ GPA that I know of (including myself, some of my friends, and a lot of people who posted on this message board... check out the Accepted/Waitlisted/Rejected threads) got in somewhere. Statistically speaking, it's mostly because having a good GPA helps you get more interviews. Once you get there you still have to prove yourself just like anyone else. But they don't expect MORE from you relative to someone else with a lower GPA. Just because we didn't get into every school we applied to doesn't mean they have a bias against us, or that we have no personality, etc., etc.

[Guest flora]

I guess its comforting to know that a high GPA doesnt put you at a disadvantage perse..it just that for me, I think that if you have a high GPA, perhaps med admin comms expect more in terms of extra cirrics since you are capable of getting a high GPA

 

Conversley, if one had a lower gpA like 3.8.-3.85 (these GPA's are still excellent btw), perhaps they wouldnt have such a high expectation?

[Guest JSS02]

I believe the schools when they say that sketch/essay evaluators and interviewers have NO idea about what your GPA is. Some of the moderators on this message board (dunno about the Ottawa board, but definitely some from the U of T, Queen's, and Mac forums) have marked essays or interviewed applicants, so you can ask them if you're still in doubt. Western's interviewers know absolutely nothing about you apart from your name and OMSAS reference number - not your marks, MCAT, activities, awards, or anything else.

 

So your scores on the non-academic sections of your application should not be biased by your GPA at all, whether you have a 3.65, 3.85, or 4.0.

[Guest flora]

thats nice to know, thanks

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Yeah, I don't think they demand any less of a person with a 3.8 gpa then a 3.9 or 4.0 gpa. If anything, at many schools you are at a slight advantage with the 3.9 or 4.0 based on GPA being factored into the equation.

 

I wouldn't think in terms of # of extracurricular activities, btw. People evaluating applications are more interesting in the sense they get of the candidate "as a whole." I know that is frustratingly vague, but it's basically the way things work.

[Guest flora]

Why would one be at a slight disadvantage with a 3.9-4 gpa?

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Whoops, that's a typo. Should have said 'advantage.' Full apologies.

[Guest JSS02]

With emphasis on the "slight."

This is important to keep in mind both for people who just reach the cutoffs and think they have no chance, and also for those with 4.0 who think the interview is nothing more than a formality.

[Guest flora]

thanks guys!

[Guest UWOMED2005]

We should be using MSN messenger, shouldn't we?

 

Good point JSS02, btw.

[Guest JSS02]

My apologies to the Ottawa moderators for intruding on their board. It's just that the UWO forum has been a little quiet lately.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Ditto. I'm thinking the other moderators should just start making up random questions for the UWO board to keep us occupied.