Razer Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 I'm asking a hypothetical question in order to get an idea of what you guys consider more valuable. These 2 choices are sort of "reasonable" extremes that may or may not apply to anyone. Anyways, if you had the choice, would you rather be: 1. A student going into 3rd year with a 4.0 GPA, 36 MCAT (Assume 12/12/12), and NOT A SINGLE EC. 2. A student going into 3rd year with a 3.3 GPA, No MCAT, and an above average list of ECs compared to matriculants. Who has the advantage? Please answer as seriously as possible, I'm genuinely curious. EDIT: Added hypothetical MCAT breakdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroPreMed Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 I'm not in med school, however I'm not sure if either of those would get you in to be honest. However, option A would probably be best, easy to go volunteer. Harder to bring the GPA up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookiemonster99 Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Choice 1 because GPA is more important ECs can always be done later. Trying to get a low GPA to high is very hard and since its already been done there's extra effort required to get it back up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thestar10 Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 Easily 1. GPA follows you for the rest of your life. ECs are the easiest part of the application. You can do things you like and enjoy and you can always do them later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 hands down the first. Not really a question of that really I think in my mind (I would have questions about the breakdown of that MCAT score). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin92 Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 option 1 unless "above average" means olympic medals and a nobel prize. Even then I would still consider option1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 of the very nature of the question assumes you can absolutely chose such things. The entire point of a lot of medical school admissions is to block you from completely focusing on one thing - from hyper specializing as it were. That is why you update to include 12/12/12 for the mcat is important - it is balanced. I more realistic question perhaps(?) - what would you answer be if you upped that GPA to 3.9 with full ECs (or some other much higher GPA) vs 4.0 with nothing else. Will a well rounded but solid applicant beat a solely GPA focused applicant? In Ontario at least quite possibly so - likely not even get interviews at 3 schools, and 2 of the others the advantage in GPA is would not really be that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razer Posted August 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 I agree that well-rounded applicants definitely have the edge. However, it's worth noting that both of the hypothetical students have 2 years of university ahead of them to round-out the rest of their application. Though they could both reach similar positions in another 2 years, the consensus so far seems to be that student 1 has a better shot at forming the a well-rounded application by that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonstop Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 TBH it depends on the GPA breakdown of the second candidate. But assuming that they got a 3.3 for all years, I'd pick applicant 1 hands down, even without the MCAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exocytosis Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 What about 4.0/35, VR 9. vs 3.6 (>3.7 last 2 years)/32, VR 12 (10s in other sections). Is having a super high GPA worth giving up Western/Queens for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soporific Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 What about 4.0/35, VR 9. vs 3.6 (>3.7 last 2 years)/32, VR 12 (10s in other sections). Is having a super high GPA worth giving up Western/Queens for? I think the first is better since you can retake the MCAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted August 21, 2013 Report Share Posted August 21, 2013 I think the first is better since you can retake the MCAT. True - although most people find raising their VR by 3 points extremely difficult. It is a somewhat more "sticky" score on the MCAT. I would say again it depends - how much more than 3.7 in the last two? If it is quite high then if you qualify for U of Ts policy then after one year of high GPA you may even be golden for all schools except maybe Mac and even there you have a high VR to balance things out. Ha so many rules, so many tricks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuxButtesChaumont Posted August 22, 2013 Report Share Posted August 22, 2013 What about 4.0/35, VR 9. vs 3.6 (>3.7 last 2 years)/32, VR 12 (10s in other sections). Is having a super high GPA worth giving up Western/Queens for? I'd probably want the 4.0 and then work on improving that VR if I can't get into Ottawa or UofT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.