How AMCAS medical school applications are evaluated

The AMCAS system is used by a majority of medical admissions committees to streamline the admissions process for both the applicant and the school. AMCAS is the system that forwards your verified GPA and MCAT information to each potential medical school. This means that instead of having to send an individual application, transcript, MCAT score to each school, AMCAS does it all for you.

There are three essential criteria that are presented to committees via AMCAS: overall GPA, science GPA, and MCAT score. In this article, I will discuss the importance of a high GPA and the strategies that will ensure your position as an ideal candidate for medical school.

Overall GPA vs. Science GPA

A high science GPA is a critical factor in medical school admissions.

The course requirements for most medical schools involves a year of the following: general biology+lab, general chemistry+lab, general physics+lab, organic chemistry+lab. Variable requirements include statistics and/or calculus. All these classes get factored into the science GPA, a “number” that indicates to the admissions committee of your personal ability to grasp material taught in medical school. Even though it may seem unfair, it is the most effective way that admissions office can handle the high volume of applicants in an orderly and timely manner.

The overall GPA plays a role, albeit a minor one, in the medical admissions game. If your overall GPA varies from the science GPA significantly, it indicates to committees of your lack of interest in certain subjects and this may be a red flag for some. This is because medicine is an interdisciplinary field and even though most of it is science, being a successful physician may require effective public speaking and English skills. If you have anything less than a B in these courses in college, it may have some bearing on your chances at getting admission. However, maintaining a high science GPA should be a bigger priority. So if you have to chose between acing your Microbiology exam or writing a winning Poetics paper one late night, I would say go for the Microbiology.

Choosing a School and Major the Maximizes Your Science GPA

As long as you have the above required coursework completed, there is no need to pursue upper division coursework (unless you are a science major). If I had known this earlier, I would have majored in economics or political science and truly enjoyed my lab-free undergraduate days. Instead, I chose to major in biology and spend my evenings writing lab reports and memorizing esoteric concepts.

Do NOT feel obligated to pursue a science major if your future plans include medical school. Instead, pursue a major that you genuinely are interested in- may it be art, dance, quantum physics. This will not only guarantee that you will maintain a high overall GPA in college, but also that you will enjoy your college experience. Also, this is refreshing to a medical school since non-science majors provide diversity and interesting insight to the community. As long as you find a way to incorporate a way to take all the required science classes, you will be okay.

Do NOT major in science unless you know 100% that you will get at least a B+ on all upper division coursework. Every science class you take gets factored into the science GPA, not just the prerequisite classes. So if you decided to take an advanced organic chemistry course out of sheer interest and end up getting a D, this will be factored into your science GPA and will look very poor, even though it was an esoteric course. As a science major, you will have to take more science courses in upper division that can be graded more harshly. There is no need to jeopardize your undergraduate science GPA unless you know you will do extremely well in these classes. I’m not here to discourage you if you really want to major in biochemistry or physics, but I do want to warn you of the possible consequences in the growing stiff competition in the world of medical school admissions.

How the College You Attend Gets Factored In

The college you ultimately end up choosing to attend weighs heavily, but indirectly, on medical school applications. For the most part, your capabilities as a medical school student are represented by the three magic numbers: overall GPA, science GPA, and MCAT.

I chose to attend Reed College because of its research-based curriculum and thesis year. Reed College had the facilities that taught me how to think critically and to do self-directed laboratory research that I thought would be a rigorous introduction to medical research and medical school. In fact Reed College churns out the most undergraduates that end up getting a PhD in biology in the nation.

What ends up hurting me in the end is a triple threat: Reed’s anti-grade inflation policy, being a biology major, and being a biology major at Reed. There have only been a handful of 4.0 graduates during Reed’s existence. I don’t think any of them were in any of the science departments (I’d have to double check on this). Imagine how this has affected my overall GPA and science GPA. Considering how hard I work here, I think that I would’ve maintained something close to a 4.0 GPA that I had if I had attended transferred to a university. This is especially because Reed’s upper division courses also have a graded lab portion, unlike other schools. But this is not just the case at Reed.

Most liberal arts colleges have a tougher grading system than other universities. The combination of smaller class sizes and emphasis on academics rather than grades is what drives the GPA down in liberal arts schools. In smaller classes, professors are more careful in evaluating their students and can have more tougher exams because they don’t need to grade a huge volume of exams in a short period of time. I attempted to take organic chemistry at Reed for a semester and dropped it after a couple weeks. The tests were very intensive, involving writing complete mechanisms of reactions and predicting entire chemical structures from scratch. The lab portion was independent. We were asked to try to make a certain chemical with a limited amount of reagents on our own.

I spent my following summer at University of California, Riverside taking the organic chemistry course again. The exams at certain points were multiple choice (!) and the lab portion involved following a simple protocol every meeting rather than using critical thinking to adapt what was learned in lecture into lab. And since the class was well over 200 students, the entire course was streamlined this way so that grades could be put up on time and TAs could minimize the amount of time it took to grade.

Conclusion?

Most liberal arts school have a very strong philosophy on learning rather than being taught. The curriculum is almost always tougher and the average GPA of a graduate almost always significantly lower. Not to put down larger universities, but Reed students could blow UCR students out of the water in organic chemistry. But who is more likely going to get into medical school: the B- student that learned how to synthesize a ester alcohol on his own or the A student that mastered the art of multiple choice and rote memorization? I would say the A student because that is what AMCAS sees and the system is blind to any fine detail.

Because special education certifications no longer carry the same weight as other teaching licenses, said educators no longer have the right to teach their own classes. This has lead to most special education students being taught in regular education classrooms.

This type of inclusion does not always work.

In theory, this form of mainstreaming may seem ideal for special education students, since they are now in an environment with their peers and have the support of another teacher in the room that will adhere to all IEP requirements, including test modification and extended testing time. In practice, however, this only furthers the euphemism of the dreaded No Child Left Behind Act, which seeks to dismantle the public education system through unattainable goals of proficiency for all students by 2014. This can also further isolation of the aforementioned students and distractions to regular education peers, resulting in stagnated social development and more frustration.

Money and Education

Some mainstreamed students do very well in a regular education classroom, provided they have assistance in implementing their IEPs, but not all special education students work well in this type of environment.

Most districts hope to save money by placing disabled children out of the small, specialized classes that many of them need to succeed, and instead educate them in a classroom where they will compete with non-disabled peers. About 5 1/2 million children — 11 to 12 percent of the average public school’s population — are categorized as having special needs. The U.S. Department of Education estimates the cost of educating the students is at about $30 billion annually, up from about $1 billion 20 years ago. This 22 percent of total education spending is then educating less than 13 percent of the children, with about three times as much spent on each full-time special-education student as on each regular-education child.

On the other hand, some parents and teachers see this as beneficial, because it allows the special child to interact with other “normal” children and therefore learn at the same pace; however, this mentality about special needs students implies that disabilities are due to a lack of motivation rather than caused by biological imbalances or mental disturbances.

Mainstreaming is being justified by the notion that segregation is damaging, since it promotes isolation and stereotypes, and that diversity is an undeniable social good. However, if this is the rhetoric we are forced to adhere to as teachers, we and the other special education teachers we work with can offer all the support and help we have access to, but some students who are developmentally delayed will not be proficient, no matter how much support is laid at their feet.

Why does everyone get it but me?

Mainstreaming does not always produce efficient results. Parents who have seen their special student flourish in a special environment, one that is small, equipped, and lead by a certified instructor, are now seeing their students in a classroom where they feel they are competing rather than learning. For example, some mainstreamed students will speak with me personally about how they “just aren’t getting it” but cannot ask questions during class for fear of being branded an “outcast” by peers who are moving at their normal pace. Other special needs students, especially ones with violent tendencies, also put other students as obvious risk, even with two support teachers in the classroom.

While mainstreaming may seem appropriate as per the parents, mainly because this means the state and federal governments are giving their child a free education, this act is taking away from “normal” students, even gifted ones. In my old high school, for example, we had an ADHD student in our classroom mainstreamed over from the special education department. This student exhibited all the signs of ADHD, including constant fidgeting, inability to concentrate on the main lecture of the class for too long, and made constant interruptions throughout the class, making it nearly impossible for the educator to teach other distracted regular education students. We, as teachers, cannot slow down a classroom’s pace if 89% of the students are comprehending the material while another 11% is struggling and distracting others.

Tricks of the Trade

Some students who are mainstreamed can learn in a regular education environment and then seek external assistance through learning support teachers; other students, however, with more immediate needs, cannot or will not be their own self-advocates and therefore, help will be given too little too late.

In media, the kid in the wheelchair has become a kind of mascot, beloved by all in his gang, but this is only a fragile and idealized image. In a real-life classroom where all of the children are non-disabled except the one who drools uncontrollably, who hears voices, blurts inappropriate statements out, or who can’t read a simple sentence when everyone else can, further isolates himself, becomes secluded, will not ask for aid, and eventually close up to any other assistance offered since he/she is already branded “stupid.”

If these students feel the world is against them, and that if they open their mouth they will be ridiculed, it is easier for them to escape by pretending to be invisible and only look as if they understand. Regular and special education teachers can only do so much for a disabled student who will not open up, or who are smart enough to fake comprehension.

Options and Conflicts

By placing said type of student into a regular education classroom, an environment that may seem threatening at times, the student may feel the content of the class is too overwhelming. If there is no other place for the student to go except an alternate setting, which might not be the most suitable environment, but also since the education facility lacks any other transitional curriculum, which used to be the special education department, the student is faced with two less-than-perfect options: a regular education class that “goes too fast” or an alternate setting that “goes too slow.”

Another concern that was recently been brought to the attention of administrations across the States is the issue of diplomas. Is a special education student, one who receives extra testing time, testing modification, and learning support entitled to the same diploma as a student who went through the process without such aides? For example, students who needs tests read to them because they lack the reading level required for that class will graduate high school with the same honor as regular education students, only to have that support pulled from them as they lead a life post-graduation. This is an injustice to both types of learners since one is being “pushed through” while the other earns the right to proceed to the next grade or graduate.

Conclusion and Analogy

To remove the special education department from public schools does not give all students the ability to reach their potential. Placing idealized goals on teachers and students will not only hinder student development, it will also foster more frustration and anxiety for teachers. All students can learn, but every student learns differently. Placing students with a similar peer group in a classroom that fits the students’ differing learning styles will promote more comprehension and learning, which leads to a sense of accomplishment, rather than lumping all together into one big pot and hoping the teacher can handle it all.

As an analogy: no one would ever expect a dentist to cure all patients of cavities, regardless of what they ate, and yet all teachers are expected to have their students testing proficient or higher by 2014, regardless of external factors, including disabilities and parental influence. There are other factors that help or hinder a student’s education, just as there are other factors that cause cavities, and just as dentists cannot cure everything, a regular teacher cannot teach all special education students, especially since said teacher does not have control over external factors. There needs to be a learning environment for all students that will take their needs into consideration and offering the latest equipment to do so. Not all special education students will flourish in a regular education classroom, so we need to place them in environments that meet their needs just as we do with all students.