Medical schools Not friendly to non-traditional students

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

lawyer_doc

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
11
.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to call a school "unfriendly to nontrads" because admissions is such a multi-factorial process and we're relying on what people are self-reporting. Assuming a nontrad has similar stats and ECs to a traditional applicant, which are in line with the school's averages, and the applicants are in line with the school's mission, I believe you'd be hard pressed to find a school that wouldn't be interested in both applicants, or more specifically, unfriendly to the nontrad applicant, who most likely has more work experience & life experience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Just wanted to start a list of medical schools that don't like non-traditional students for any of the following reasons: (1) not enough science courses (i.e. only have minimum prereqs from postbac); (2) lack of research/clinical experience; (3) fear of career changers; (4) fear of students who performed poorly in the past; and (5) fear of older people and/or parents.

I'll start based on lurking on the board and seeing how non-traditionals fared on this board:

UC Davis
UC Irvine

what are you basing this on? I have non-trad acquaintances at both of these programs and think labeling them as non-trad unfriendly probably goes too far.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I know a guy who says every woman who won't date him is a lesbian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 18 users
Just wanted to start a list of medical schools that don't like non-traditional students for any of the following reasons: (1) not enough science courses (i.e. only have minimum prereqs from postbac); (2) lack of research/clinical experience; (3) fear of career changers; (4) fear of students who performed poorly in the past; and (5) fear of older people and/or parents.
This is all nonsense.

Reasons #1 and #2 are completely legitimate academic qualifications that a research-oriented school might judge you by, and they don't even apply to all nontrads. I'm a nontrad alum of a med school that wants applicants with strong research and science backgrounds. Yes, someone who applied to my med school with the bare minimum prereqs and no research experience would almost certainly be rejected. But I applied there with an MS and a PhD in chemistry along with research work experience. So I had much more research experience and science coursework than most applicants do, and I was accepted with a full scholarship. Anyway, avoiding this problem of being screened out for inadequate science/research background is easy enough. Don't apply to MD/PhD programs; don't apply to MD/MS programs, and be aware that you will be at a disadvantage at many research-oriented MD programs if you don't have the research credentials they're looking for, regardless of whether you're a trad or a nontrad.

Reason #4 also doesn't apply to all nontrads. But again, GPA is a totally legitimate academic credential for a med school to judge applicants by, whether they are trads or nontrads. And again, the group of nontrads who do have stellar stats will find that many med schools are very interested in recruiting them.

Reasons #3 and #5 do apply to all nontrads since they get to the heart of the definition of what it means to be a nontrad. But they're also things you have zero control over and that are simply prejudices that some individual people may have. Well, ain't no pleasing everyone in this world. Unpredictable factors like differences in philosophy between you and individual adcom members is part of the reason why you apply to more than one school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
anecdote time!

applied to 12 MD schools: had no problems with my academic past, cGPA & sGPA > 3.6, MCAT > 35, was just a career changer > 30 yrs old w/family.

ii: 6
acceptances: 6 (1 to a top 10 school)

i can never know why i was 50/50 for ii: but when i look back on the process i could see that the schools that accepted me really were the better matches for me. one person can't be everything for every school.

so the only thing i can really say from my experience is that i know that i was judged fairly by 12 medical schools and i never for one second felt that i was at a disadvantage because of a my "non-trad" status. i suppose i could recommend all the schools to which i applied not be included on your list but as Q said best earlier "this is all nonsense"

if anything, it was my impression that my "non-trad" status gave me an slight advantage at most schools.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
UC irvine rejected me almost instantly after turning in my secondary and I have lots of research & science coursework
 
UC irvine rejected me almost instantly after turning in my secondary and I have lots of research & science coursework

uhhhhhm, but your MDapps shows you were rejected from many school? so one insta-reject from UC irvine is not really setting off any non-trad hater alarm bells imo...
 
uhhhhhm, but your MDapps shows you were rejected from many school? so one insta-reject from UC irvine is not really setting off any non-trad hater alarm bells imo...

My response was concerning OP's points 1 and 2 and MY experience with UC Irvine. I don't see anything in my post about them hating all non-trads.
 
Which schools are not friendly to non-traditionals due to being research-oriented and/or placing a high value on stats (all medical schools do, but some are more open to consider other factors such as life experience than others)?
Every year on SDN somebody tries to start an "anti-nontrad" list, and it goes nowhere, because "anti-nontrad" isn't a thing.

Hopefully you used the MSAR to choose your schools. The MSAR shows you the percentage of each school's students that came with a research background or grad degree, it shows you a histogram of their stats, and it lists the recommended coursework.

I fail to see how it's a nontrad issue to only take the prereqs, or to choose to not do research. Plenty of trads are in that situation. Where's the nontrad in this?
 
Your reasons aren't very persuasive as it merely re-characterizes my points.

Which schools are not friendly to non-traditionals due to being research-oriented and/or placing a high value on stats (all medical schools do, but some are more open to consider other factors such as life experience than others)?

Can I ask what background the non-traditionals had? I imagine most of us non-traditionals are not science PhDs....
Ah, well, now we get to the actual issue here. What you really want to know is, what schools would not be interested in a nontrad *like you.* That's a different question than asking what schools aren't interested in nontrads in general. Your points are not valid if speaking of all nontrads, because all nontrads aren't like you.

All schools care about life experience just like all schools care about stats. Again, what you're really wanting to know is, what schools are not willing to overlook an applicant's subpar stats even if their life experience is amazing?

Answering those questions is as easy as getting a hold of the MSAR and looking at the schools' average stats. A school with nearly all science majors and sky high average stats likely isn't going to be interested in a nontrad who lacks those things....or a trad who lacks those things either, for that matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top