How are postbach grades counted? cc vs. non-cc

[lostnconfused]

How are postbach grades counted?

I am taking a combination of courses from both a community college and from a state university, and was wondering if my cc and state university grades will be all pooled together into the "postbach" GPA or if they will show up separately.

Will it make a significant difference if I took e.g. anatomy from a cc vs. a state university? I can do either, but one option is obviously cheaper than the other, and I'm debating if I want to spend all that money to take courses all at the state university instead of a cc.

Thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Catalystik]

How are postbach grades counted?

I am taking a combination of courses from both a community college and from a state university, and was wondering if my cc and state university grades will be all pooled together into the "postbach" GPA or if they will show up separately.

Will it make a significant difference if I took e.g. anatomy from a cc vs. a state university? I can do either, but one option is obviously cheaper than the other, and I'm debating if I want to spend all that money to take courses all at the state university instead of a cc.

If you already have a bachelors degree, CC and university grades will all be calculated together to create your postbac GPA. The transcript verified by the application service will show where the coursework was taken.

CC classes are widely assumed to have less rigor, whether true or not, but this will make no difference when your application GPAs are calculated. Your ability to generate good grades in med school will be better supported if you earn As in university-level classes, whether you also take CC coursework too, or not. But all schools don't frown on CC classes. And many doing wholly CC postbacs still get accepted to med schools regardless.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Yes to directly answer your question they basically are all averaged and pooled together unless I'm mistaken

The time when taking community college classes raises eyebrows and warrants all the constant ire it generates on this site is when people go to an undergrad school and during the summer decide to take important classes at a cc to avoid taking it at their school and to try and take the easy way out. Taking key classes at school significantly lower in ranking the one you currently go to undergrad for will draw red flags.

This does not sound like your situation clearly. Yes in an ideal world it might be somewhat preferable to take a class at a state school vs a cc but it is not worth the significant difference in price and financial drain it might put you in.

ADCOMs understand these things. You aren't the first person to realize how much cheaper cc classes are and how much more of a financial burden it will be to have to pony up money for university classes. Do well in the CC by and large you'll be fine. The only thing that could perhaps really be of concern is if there is significant variation in your grades from a CC and the university beyond just doing poorly in undergrad and then having a sharp upward trend

 

[EParker37]

I'll just say that as someone who did the traditional 4-year route, graduated, and needed to finish some pre-reqs at a CC, the CC classes were not far off in terms of difficulty. Maybe it is just my n=1, but I was almost a little disheartened that I was paying a fraction of the cost, getting smaller classes and good instruction, when compared to my bachelors classes. I've talked to some of the adcoms who also work at the hospital I am at, they have all told me that they don't necessarily look down on classes taken at a CC, as long as it doesn't appear like you are trying to game the system. If you graduated from a university and go back to finish your remaining pre-reqs due to budget, as long as you ace it, they do not look down on it, one viewed it as a positive, as it shows maturity and understanding of value.

 

[jl lin]

Given the great cost of undergrad education along with the anticipated graduate level education, I would hope that looking down on CC courses would not be the case.

The CC where I have taught is filled to max at night with students from universities that are killing themselves to save some money on some coursework.
Between books, materials, computer system fees, processing fees, and tuitions, it's getting so out of control for even many middle class folks.

 

[jl lin]

And to me, the issue of CC sciences having less rigor can be silly, since many of the professors that teach at university, pick up classes to teach at CC, and that MCAT, ideally, should reveal if you have a decent understanding of the material.

My undergrad university is WAY expensive. Good school. I loved it there; but just outlandishly expensive.

 

[jl lin]

We are talking about widely varying(mis)perceptions across hundreds of adcoms that have thousand of members. The actuality of rigor is not at question but the perceived rigor that has slowly been changing over many years to a slow general acceptance. This is now being accelerated by the changing demographics of applicants, who are more frequently not taking the direct college to medical school path or have chosen CC for the reduced cost, and by the shift from direct course prerequisites to core competencies. Even Johns Hopkins is accepting CC now, a radical shift from previous years

An example of how widely perceptions varied, in years past Stanford had something along the lines of not accepting or not recommending CC course yet direct or admissions said the California CC were fine and acceptable. At the same conference, staff from a UC medical school which had no listed prohibition on CC, said they really frowned upon the CA CCs. No logic, just perceptions

A different, yet other example as to how perceptions of "reality" can be given more weight than actual reality. This is the reason why I DETEST more subjective systems of evaluation. They are not really meaningful. Either someone meets the prognostic indicators or they do not--so let's put clarity and objectivity down for what those prognostic indicators mean.

 

[jl lin]

However the ultimate decision of whether this candidate will make a good physician is inherently subjective as a decision of multiple individuals of an adcom, each who may have differing views on what would make a good physician, evaluating thousands of students, from a wide array of educational background and disciplines, where only a small portion is fully objective and commonality is a small set a courses. Having the ability to deal with the academic rigor of medical school could easily be said of anyone holding a 3.5 GPA and a 28 MCAT. Even if we were to make 3.7 and 32 MCAT , it would still be hundreds of possible candidates. So the evaluation takes place primarily on factors other than these scores

Yes, I think I was rolling off another conversation, where I discussed that performance evaluations can and should be made to be A LOT more objective. I worked in one surgical ICU where this was standard. Their prognostic indicators were really on target, and not much room was left for much subjective nonsense.

Admission to MS is one thing. What I am concerned about is when a student is M3 or M4 for example and their evaluations can be so totally subjective. I think this is bad form. Those evaluating should be looking at solid prognostic indicators. I've seen people get unfairly screwed over by subjectivity in evals. Plus, I think people actually learn better when they have solid indicators to review as opposed to what someone feels is this or that.

 

[lostnconfused]

Thank you everyone for your inputs, it certainly puts me a lot more at ease. To clarify, I am not doing my pre-requisites at the CCs or state university; I am taking additional science courses I never got the chance to take as a non-science major during undergrad.

And I will add that coming from a top and very rigorous university, I certainly under-estimated the difficulty of the state university I attended. From my personal experience, my undergraduate university courses was a lot more difficult in the sense that it was a lot more material heavy and content dense. However, that did not necessarily mean the courses were more practical. It's hard to compare the two, and my feelings are very conflicted so I will leave it at that.

Thanks once again for the inputs!