yup, i read the "what are my chances" sticky, but...

[BarberofSeville]

hey guys,

i'm gonna be applying MD/PhD this cycle. I've got a 3.65 gpa, and my MCAT scores are coming out within the next few weeks, and I dont have a very accurate gauge of how I did, to be honest. i've got the standard clinical ECs (i did do some stuff in India) and random other ECs, like singing/working for my mom's investment company this summer in addition to research. my research letters are very solid, so those will help me out, and my essays should be good. my school list is below, what do you guys think? should i worry about adding more schools? I'm a cali resident too, btw

UCSF
UCLA
Stanford
USC
UCI
UCSD
Colorado
Harvard
Yale
WashU
UChicago
Northwestern
UPenn

my list is definitely top heavy, but my premed advisor at my school said (and i'm not sure how true this is), that GPA/MCAT don't matter that much at all (just to get me past the screening), and the biggest thing in MD/PhD admissions is my essays/interviews/lors, which i believe is going to be the only good parts about my application. is this a load of hocus pocus? I guess my concern is, will i get past the pre-secondary screening? any thoughts/advice would be greatly appreciated. I am an incoming senior, btw.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mdphd2010]

i've been out of the game a while but 3.65 seems kind of low to me for harvard or ucsf level schools. i believe your gpa also gets weighted by what undergraduate institution you went to. if i were you i'd include more lower-tier schools, especially if your mcat is below 35 ...

 

[computerdorkdan]

i've been out of the game a while but 3.65 seems kind of low to me for harvard or ucsf level schools. i believe your gpa also gets weighted by what undergraduate institution you went to. if i were you i'd include more lower-tier schools, especially if your mcat is below 35 ...

No offense, but this kind of reply really irks me. This isn't directed at you mdphd2010...

Here comes a rant.

I've all met plenty of people with a 4.0 GPA and a 38 on the MCAT who couldn't find their way out of a paper bag with a map and a flashlight. I've worked in labs with people who do great on tests but never take the extra 2 minutes when doing an experiment to really think about what it is they're doing and why or how it's working. They just work their way down the paper and only care that the outcome was blue, just like it should be. Not why it happened the way it did. They love black box experiments that give them a number they can write in their notebook and move on.

I've had classes with people who could tell you exactly how to answer a test question because they just memorized a bunch of crap the night before but never gave a second thought to any of the ancillary processes or other things that may or may not be related. They laugh at me when I say I went to the library and picked up a book that explains more about X just because I was interested. They wonder why I even care. They don't have a concept of what it is to really find something interesting enough to spend extra time trying to learn about it. If it's not in the lecture notes or on the review sheet, it's not worth their lost Facebook time.

Good researchers take the time to understand what it is they're doing and really think about it. They consider the alternatives and ask the really dumb questions about the process because they're really trying to get a feel for it. They're able to think crazy, off-the wall thoughts about something because they really care.

Good students notice the shortcomings in a class and take the time to investigate those shortcomings further. They gain a deeper knowledge and appreciation for the subject while knowing that there's a snowball's chance in hell that they'll actually be rewarded for it in the class. But they feel better nonetheless.

Personally, I don't give a flip that someone applying to a top-tier school has a GPA better than me or a MCAT score better than me. I care if they actually gave a damn about what they were learning. I know I did and I know that makes me a better applicant than the other person.

So, if you feel like you're someone who really cares about your research and your schooling and you really love doing this to the point where you'll pipet until a nail falls off or count flies till you're cross-eyed then apply to whatever school you want with confidence. Screw the numbers, it's passion and diligence and natural curiosity that makes a good researcher and if you have it it'll show and you'll get where you want to go.

End of rant.

I think studying for the MCAT puts me in a foul mood.

I feel much better now. Carry on.

 

[mdphd2010]

there are plenty of promising researchers out there, and if i were Harvard or UCSF, i would take the ones with higher GPAs and MCATs. i would skip the ones who think they're god's gift to science.

 

[computerdorkdan]

there are plenty of promising researchers out there, and if i were Harvard or UCSF, i would take the ones with higher GPAs and MCATs. i would skip the ones who think they're god's gift to science.

I think you missed my point.

 

[mdphd2010]

ah, but maybe now you see mine ...

i just base my advice on my experience of the system ... yes, definitely apply to ucsf and harvard, but apply to more (than 13) and lower as well ...

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

GPA/MCAT are the best correlates to promise we have. Everything else is much more subjective and unreliable. Recommendations depend on the recommender. Publications can depend on politics, dumb luck, etc.

I do agree that there are a lot of people who are very intelligent and talented who don't do wonderfully in either the GPA or the MCAT or both components.

Perhaps the best way to test candidates would be an interview with a completely novel problem (or a choice out of 3), where the candidate would have to propose hypotheses and mechanisms on the spot. The candidate could ask the interviewers (experts in the field) about facts, but would have to craft the hypotheses on his/her own and explain in theory how s/he would test them. And it shouldn't be too technical. In the end Science is about big ideas, not the technical details. I think that would be a LOT better predictor of thinking ability than GPA or MCAT, to be honest.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Re: OP

Your schools are way too top heavy. I had a GPA of 3.5 (admittedly substantially lower than yours) from an Ivy, and an MCAT of 40. I double majored in physics and biochemistry and had a masters in physical chemistry. I had several years of research but no publications yet. Strong recommendations from leaders in the field, i.e. literally the elderly gentleman who wrote me one of my research recommendations is probably THE most important person (currently alive) in the development of his field of medicine and was offered chairmanship of the Harvard pharmacology department years ago but refused. Also had ECs including, interestingly, a shadowing opportunity in the third world (close to India).

Of the schools you listed (I did not apply to USC or UCI), I got interviews at just four of them. You need additional mid-tier schools. This process is not always fair and you can't even be sure you'll interview well, so I'd err on the side of excess.

 

[computerdorkdan]

GPA/MCAT are the best correlates to promise we have. Everything else is much more subjective and unreliable. Recommendations depend on the recommender. Publications can depend on politics, dumb luck, etc.

Agreed. <gloat>And now I'll add that my publication was based upon me totally busting my ass for a year.</gloat>

I do agree that there are a lot of people who are very intelligent and talented who don't do wonderfully in either the GPA or the MCAT or both components.

Perhaps the best way to test candidates would be an interview with a completely novel problem (or a choice out of 3), where the candidate would have to propose hypotheses and mechanisms on the spot. The candidate could ask the interviewers (experts in the field) about facts, but would have to craft the hypotheses on his/her own and explain in theory how s/he would test them. And it shouldn't be too technical. In the end Science is about big ideas, not the technical details. I think that would be a LOT better predictor of thinking ability than GPA or MCAT, to be honest.

I hope this is what the MD/PhD interview process is like. I'm a post-bac and I had a terrible (2.7) original GPA. My post-bac is a 3.8, which I hope shows, but I'm not 100% sure it will. This also explains my rant. My MCAT won't be in the upper 30's, but it'll be respectable. With all that, I see no reason why someone like me can't excel at a top-tier school. Especially after interacting with students from top-tier schools.

Ok, I guess my rant all came down to me being insecure about getting my top choices of schools (which doesn't correlate to top schools, mind you).

I'm applying to lower-tier schools also, because that's the smart thing to do.

Sorry OP, I totally hijacked your thread.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Agreed. <gloat>And now I'll add that my publication was based upon me totally busting my ass for a year.</gloat>



I hope this is what the MD/PhD interview process is like. I'm a post-bac and I had a terrible (2.7) original GPA. My post-bac is a 3.8, which I hope shows, but I'm not 100% sure it will. This also explains my rant. My MCAT won't be in the upper 30's, but it'll be respectable. With all that, I see no reason why someone like me can't excel at a top-tier school. Especially after interacting with students from top-tier schools.

Ok, I guess my rant all came down to me being insecure about getting my top choices of schools (which doesn't correlate to top schools, mind you).

I'm applying to lower-tier schools also, because that's the smart thing to do.

Sorry OP, I totally hijacked your thread.

Don't worry. You made some mistakes. Read the resumes of big researchers at great schools. Maybe not Harvard, but a lot of other top schools. A lot of them did their B.S. at a random school and even their Ph.D. at a not-so-famous school. What you accomplish in your work is what really counts. If you can't get the stellar lab in your Ph.D. or a stellar med school, then just get a good Ph.D. and good medical training and secure a great residency/fellowship/postdoc.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Agreed. <gloat>And now I'll add that my publication was based upon me totally busting my ass for a year.</gloat>



I hope this is what the MD/PhD interview process is like. I'm a post-bac and I had a terrible (2.7) original GPA. My post-bac is a 3.8, which I hope shows, but I'm not 100% sure it will. This also explains my rant. My MCAT won't be in the upper 30's, but it'll be respectable. With all that, I see no reason why someone like me can't excel at a top-tier school. Especially after interacting with students from top-tier schools.

Ok, I guess my rant all came down to me being insecure about getting my top choices of schools (which doesn't correlate to top schools, mind you).

I'm applying to lower-tier schools also, because that's the smart thing to do.

Sorry OP, I totally hijacked your thread.

Unfortunately, the interview process is not very much like that. I think you just discuss your research, their research, and then move on. It is still predominantly GPA, MCAT, and recommendation driven. If you know your research through and through, there's not much more you can do. But I don't think the interviewers try to assess your overall "intelligence." It's more like - does he understand his work, what are his motivations, and (if he's good) can I entice him to rotate in my lab?

 

[Neuronix]

The question posed by the op is not about how things should be. It's about the way things are. Let's move should be to another thread. I talk about the ways things should be a lot, but not when I'm trying to give someone advice about what they need to do.

GPA, MCAT, and research experience are the three main factors in this process. LORs and interviews back up the research component and serve to prove that you're not a total psycho, or can fake not being a psycho. They are NOT just a screen for interview, and they continue to matter post-interview. At most schools (MD included), 90% of students score the same at interview. It is very hard to distinguish students based on interview, except for the ones that are truly awful.

A 3.65 GPA is not great, but it's not terrible. A upper-30s MCAT score will help. I'm not clear how much research you have. I'm in 100% agreement with mercapto and mdphd2010 in that your list is too top heavy and you're potentially setting yourself up for failure even if you came back with a 40 score. Just how diverse your list needs to be depends on your MCAT score. Unfortunately, a 35 is going to put you in a different bracket than a 40.

My MCAT won't be in the upper 30's, but it'll be respectable.

Why the heck won't it be in the upper 30's? Do you want to get in or not? You saying it shouldn't matter doesn't make this any less of a competition in the real world. Don't make excuses for yourself or blame the system, you just have to go do it. It's the same for me in my threads, except I'm not going to sit around and say my Step II CK score isn't going to be stellar. Aim high.

 

[BarberofSeville]

no worries computerdorkdan, your rant was fun to read

thanks for the replies guys. i'll go ahead and add some more schools to my list. my goal is to get the PhD in chemical biology; does anyone know any mid-tier schools with good chemical biology programs?

and as I'm an incoming senior, I do have the chance to raise my GPA up this year. in this case, should i go ahead and apply this cycle, see what turns up, or should i wait a year and work on my application a bit more? I guess my main concern is; will applying to a school 2x look bad?

 

[computerdorkdan]

and as I'm an incoming senior, I do have the chance to raise my GPA up this year. in this case, should i go ahead and apply this cycle, see what turns up, or should i wait a year and work on my application a bit more? I guess my main concern is; will applying to a school 2x look bad?

I don't know if applying twice looks bad or not. But, rumor has it that MD/PhD programs like folks who took a year after graduating and worked in a lab. I think it shows that you're ok with doing lab work. Might be worth waiting, might not...I dunno.

 

[computerdorkdan]

Why the heck won't it be in the upper 30's? Do you want to get in or not? You saying it shouldn't matter doesn't make this any less of a competition in the real world. Don't make excuses for yourself or blame the system, you just have to go do it. It's the same for me in my threads, except I'm not going to sit around and say my Step II CK score isn't going to be stellar. Aim high.

Damn you and your excellent point.

 

[ClarinetGeek]

my goal is to get the PhD in chemical biology; does anyone know any mid-tier schools with good chemical biology programs?

I am not sure if this is what you are looking for but I have heard good things about our Medicinal Chemistry program. http://www.pharmacy.uiowa.edu/mnpcphar/ I would be more than than happy to discuss Iowa with you. It could be a great mid-tier program for you to apply.

 

[GliaGirl]

Taking a year off to get more research XP is always a good choice if it is right for you, but don't think you won't get in with with a 3.65. It's not super, but its fine, especially if you have a lot of hard high level courses and great research xp.

I applied during senior year with a 3.65 and I got interviews at most of the schools I applied to (only went to a handful of them, but that's not the point). It's about the whole package.

Your GPA won't help you, but it also won't hurt you too much at most schools. That being said, if you are being realistic with yourself, you should completely revamp that list. Not only should you apply to more schools like everyone said, you should probably go ahead and not apply to some of the schools you have listed. "Top heavy" is a nice way of saying you're applying to some places that there is a ridiculously small chance of you even getting your application read, much less an interview.

I'm a hypocryte, because I applied to some of those schools, but if I had to go back and do it again (*shudder* heaven forbid) I wouldn't have wasted my time, even with the top ranked school I DID interview at, since I didn't want to go there in the first place. Go ahead and ask yourself why you are applying there. If it is because you actually want to go there, then go for it, but if it just the name brand, don't waste your time on the secondaries. Put that effort into writing better essays for the school you will actually end up at.

Hopefully you did well on the MCAT. Let us know!

P.S. I didn't get past UCSF's pre-secondary screening, even with my 37 MCAT and 3 years of research xp. I don't know how they screen, but they didn't like me and it was probably because of the GPA. But that was the only place that didn't send me a secondary. Everyone else had the courtesy to take my $$$ before making a decision. So my main point stands: your GPA won't limit you too much as long as you are above average in other ways to make up for it.

 

[BarberofSeville]

thanks for everyone's replies guys! much appreciated. i'm in a bit of a dilemma, to be honest. I definitely want to stay within California - I've spent my undergrad in the midwest, and being close to my family is definitely something I want if I'm spending the next 7-8 years doing MD/PhD.

My top choices at this point are UCLA,UCI, and UCSD. how much of a match am I at those schools? My hesitation in broadening my school list is that I'm not really sure, to be honest, what other schools I really want to go to (see: being near family). But, as many of you pointed out, this is kind of setting myself up for failure. I'd almost be willing to take the hit, and just work my tail off this senior year and get my GPA up in the 3.7range, and retake the MCAT, if need be. Like I said before, my research letters will be the strong point of my application, in all likelihood. Any thoughts?

 

[Neuronix]

thanks for everyone's replies guys! much appreciated. i'm in a bit of a dilemma, to be honest. I definitely want to stay within California - I've spent my undergrad in the midwest, and being close to my family is definitely something I want if I'm spending the next 7-8 years doing MD/PhD.

Your story is extremely common. The students who say: I'm from California and I want to be in California. We've all seen it over and over and over again. Over on the east coast we're very used to applicants who are only applying outside of California in case they don't get in within California. Many applicants would take a much lower tier acceptance within California than take a top school on the east coast. I'm not passing any judgement. I have seen students be stuck outside of California and become miserable in part because that's never the location they wanted. So I don't blame anyone for wanting to be there.

The reality is, California is just that much more competitive. The entire west coast is. What you need to do is simple. Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Apply broadly so that you get in, but apply to as many west coast or nearby schools as possible. How to balance these competing interests is up to you. I've seen numerous applicants take MD only even though they applied MD/PhD, just so they could stay in California. Do what you need to do.

 

[mdphd2010]

the most you can do to estimate your chances is look up the average mcat and gpa, and if you're (cauc)asian add a little bit. in the end there are no for-sure numbers, and it also depends on your essays and interview. every year there are always people with high numbers who don't get in anywhere and people with low numbers who get in everywhere. if you're going to spend time to work on your gpa and mcat, they'd better go up. it looks REALLY bad if they go down. md/phd programs in general have high attrition rates, and to me, if your lifestyle is more important to you than the md/phd, you're a higher drop-out risk, and in the future less likely to continue research. other than that, it's all a judgment call and we don't know much better than you ...

 

[Neuronix]

if your lifestyle is more important to you than the md/phd, you're a higher drop-out risk, and in the future less likely to continue research.

*beep* *boop* *blork* I am Neuronix-bot. My sole purpose is to research medical diseases and occasionally round on patients. I make residents do my bidding, tell them when they screw up, and call it teaching. I need no maintenance. I have no concept of fun. I am MD/PhD ideal. *beep* *boop*

ack

 

[GliaGirl]

Yeah, I'm with Neuronix on this one (I think). If lifestyle is NOT important to you, you'll just end up being unhappy and burning out faster (I say faster, because I'm starting to get the sense that EVERYONE burns out, its just to what degree). I specifically chose my school based on town size, location, and availability of my hobbies. Kudos to the OP for being mature enough to ID what is important for their comfort and take that into account before applying. That is the sort of decision that all too many people (including myself) don't come to until after paying hundreds of dollars in secondary fees to schools that would have made us miserable. The best researchers I know have serious hobbies, like community theatre and opera and cello and religion. And almost all of them have families that suck up large amounts of time that could be spent researching. If you don't do anything but research, then how can you have the creativity and perspective to do anything meaningful?

 

[solitude]

*beep* *boop* *blork* I am Neuronix-bot. My sole purpose is to research medical diseases and occasionally round on patients. I make residents do my bidding, tell them when they screw up, and call it teaching. I need no maintenance. I have no concept of fun. I am MD/PhD ideal. *beep* *boop*

ack

 

[mdphd2010]

just doing the math ... if applicant A says they only want to do an md/phd if it fits their lifestyle, and applicant B says that's their destiny if they have to go to siberia to do it, then applicant B seems a bit more serious than A ...

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

just doing the math ... if applicant A says they only want to do an md/phd if it fits their lifestyle, and applicant B says that's their destiny if they have to go to siberia to do it, then applicant B seems a bit more serious than A ...

Where are you in the training process? If the first year...you will see.

The real delusion our college profs sold us was this notion that science was all about high ideas, designing experiments, finding cures, blablabla.

In practice, it's troubleshooting, troubleshooting, troubleshooting, fitting the data to your mediocre ideas, BSing, revising papers over and over again, incessant applications for money to be denied over and over again, political frictions with lab members and other faculty, etc.

Anyone interested in science should be made aware that 1.) interpersonal issues and politics do matter; 2.) science is trendish and has a herd mentality; 3.) science is highly bureaucratic nowadays; 4.) the pace of science is a lot slower than we would wish.

 

[injunjoe]

just doing the math ... if applicant A says they only want to do an md/phd if it fits their lifestyle, and applicant B says that's their destiny if they have to go to siberia to do it, then applicant B seems a bit more serious than A ...

the point the OP is making, if im reading it correctly, is that his med school list is already selected for places that are convenient for him/close to his home. thus, when he's applying to these schools, he can focus on expressing his desire for wanting to do MD/PhD, etc etc.

And I agree with the other posters on this thread - it's unpractical to assume that factors such as family or location are insignificant when applying. when you're getting set to enter a very long and difficult part of your life, it is perfectly understandable and logical to want to be in an environment where you can get support when you hit those rough patches. That doesn't take away from the OP's commitment to wanting to do medicine - he's selecting his schools in a manner that if he gets accepted to any of those places, he knows that he'll be in a place that he's relatively happy in, and he can do better.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

the point the OP is making, if im reading it correctly, is that his med school list is already selected for places that are convenient for him/close to his home. thus, when he's applying to these schools, he can focus on expressing his desire for wanting to do MD/PhD, etc etc.

And I agree with the other posters on this thread - it's unpractical to assume that factors such as family or location are insignificant when applying. when you're getting set to enter a very long and difficult part of your life, it is perfectly understandable and logical to want to be in an environment where you can get support when you hit those rough patches. That doesn't take away from the OP's commitment to wanting to do medicine - he's selecting his schools in a manner that if he gets accepted to any of those places, he knows that he'll be in a place that he's relatively happy in, and he can do better.

They may be important to him. They are not important in the least to the schools. The schools will accept the best applicants/interviewees they can, regardless of an applicant's geographic preferences.

 

[injunjoe]

They may be important to him. They are not important in the least to the schools. The schools will accept the best applicants/interviewees they can, regardless of an applicant's geographic preferences.

which is exactly the point i'm making - the OP/other applicants dont need to bring up that issue when they apply , unless asked for it. Geographic preference and wanting to be an MD/PhD are not mutually exclusive.

 

[mdphd2010]

i'm 10 months from completing my program, which has nothing to do with the point that attrition is an important concern to these programs ... to them it doesn't matter if the applicant has a 4.0, 43+, and 10 papers if they know s/he's going to take the free money and then bail

 

[BarberofSeville]

hey guys, just thought I'd update...I got a 34S on my MCAT. How are things looking for me? Do I retake, or just pray for a miracle?

 

[Ariodant]

A 34 is not bad. I wouldn't say that your stats are not sufficient to keep you in California, as I know little about the rest of your application. But you need to apply broadly, consider some non-MSTP programs (like USC), dig deeper down on the USNews list, and ace your essays.

 

[dmblue]

According to a Director at one of the programs you listed, last year all of the top tier mdphds interviewed the same 200 people. (more or less) The quality of the candidates allowed them to make their bottom cut off for GPA/MCAT a 3.6/34.

Numbers at several of those programs are down this last year (WashU, NU, Penn and several others). I'm not sure what this means as far as next year. It's kind of confusing, because it implies that there is either a shortage of money or good students, which contradicts his first statement.

A 3.65/34 should get you into the interview pool, but it's borderline.

Definitely make your list less top heavy.

 

[BarberofSeville]

thanks dmargul and Ariodant! anybody else care to chime in? should i look at taking it in september at all for a better score?

 

[dmblue]

thanks dmargul and Ariodant! anybody else care to chime in? should i look at taking it in september at all for a better score?

I mean you could, but they wouldn't get the score until november or so, which is really late. Focus on finishing your secondaries ASAP. Getting everything done early will help you more than an extremely late MCAT that they may not even look at.

 

[mdphd2010]

without your lor / essay / interview skills / life experiences factored in, statistically it's probably good enough to get in somewhere (as long as you apply to many programs), though likely not your dream programs. to be safe i'd recommend digging deep into the list of medical schools. there's always a better score to get but that's really up to you. if you'd gotten <=28 i'd have advised retaking, but at 34 i don't know if applying and then updating your score later will give you significant advantages compared to just applying. depending on the difficulty at your undergraduate institution your gpa may be more of a limiting factor. other than risking that the score goes down, how much difference does it make if you update with a 35 or 36 after they've already screened you? i really couldn't say. pulling a number out of nowhere, maybe a 38 would really justify it. other than that you can really increase your chances by not half-assing the whole application process (like i did), i.e. writing a killer essay, sending back secondaries quickly, keeping track of them all, showing up on time, preparing for likely interview questions, sending individualized thank yous, yada yada yada ...

 

[BarberofSeville]

without your lor / essay / interview skills / life experiences factored in, statistically it's probably good enough to get in somewhere (as long as you apply to many programs), though likely not your dream programs. to be safe i'd recommend digging deep into the list of medical schools. there's always a better score to get but that's really up to you. if you'd gotten <=28 i'd have advised retaking, but at 34 i don't know if applying and then updating your score later will give you significant advantages compared to just applying. depending on the difficulty at your undergraduate institution your gpa may be more of a limiting factor. other than risking that the score goes down, how much difference does it make if you update with a 35 or 36 after they've already screened you? i really couldn't say. pulling a number out of nowhere, maybe a 38 would really justify it. other than that you can really increase your chances by not half-assing the whole application process (like i did), i.e. writing a killer essay, sending back secondaries quickly, keeping track of them all, showing up on time, preparing for likely interview questions, sending individualized thank yous, yada yada yada ...

in terms of the subjective parts of my application...my LORs will be pretty strong, my essays (from the people who read it) are supposed to be solid, my life story is pretty compelling, i'd like to think - in my PS, i talk about how I took care of my father after he suffered a serious illness, and how that pushed me towards medicine. I've worked in a relative's clinic in India, so I have some unique things to talk about in there. My ECs have the standard premed stuff (clinical experiences, obviously research, community service), along with being in an a capella group, and actually composing my own music (which I'm really looking forward to talk about at interviews).

as I kind of indicated earlier in the thread, I'm loathe to adding schools that are far away from my home, so I'm really hesitant to add more schools. This may seem like foolishness to many of you, but I'd rather take a year off than go to a school far away from home. If you check out my school list, the vast majority of the schools I applied to on the east coast/midwest are very competitive/top tiers, which can be crapshoots.

At this point, I would be really happy with UCI, UCSD, UCLA, or USC. I'll definitely take your advice and get those secondaries finished ASAP - my app is due to be verified any day now, so I'd like to send those out basically as soon as I'm verified. what do you guys think?

Edit: if it helps, I went to a undergrad that's known for its tough premed curriculum/high attrition rate in premed classes