Hunter vs. Columbia Postbacc

Try searching the forums, I know that there have been several threads about Columbia. Not sure about Hunter.

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of either post-bacc, but the general impression I've gleaned from various posts over the past year is that Columbia is not a great place to be. People have implied that it's very 'malignant' as far as post-baccs go.

That being said, I am essentially an ignorant post-bacc hopeful like yourself, so if someone with more direct experience can add to or correct this impression I'd definitely go with their advice.

Hey, Columbia postbac alum here. Agreed, definitely search the forums and you'll find lots of Columbia info, and I believe Hunter info as well.

Things that might not have been addressed:

- MCAT Scores: That will be largely dependent upon how much you yourself put into preparation, so I wouldn't worry about program averages.

- Med School Acceptance Rates: You likely won't get a straight answer about that from either program. Rates will be highly inflated, at least in the Columbia case, because a large % of students don't finish the program. For those that do, I would say that most make it into medical school.

If you have other specific questions about the Columbia program after searching, definitely post here or PM.

Hi,
Another Columbia Postbac here. As premad mentioned, a lot of the information you're seeking is available elsewhere. However, I wanted to share some of my opinions on the topics you mention.

I haven't found Columbia to be a malignant place for a Postbac student. Just out of curiosity, what has led you to that impression from other postings?

I, unfortunately, don't know much about the Hunter program so can really only comment on Columbia. I do have friends at Hunter who are greatly enjoying their experience there. Like anything else, I'm sure both programs have their pros and cons. It's really about what matters most to you as a future Postbac.


- Quality of the prehealth advising

I love my advisor- she's fantastic. I meet with her frequently and she gives great advice on everything from classes to professors to volunteer positions. The advisors at Columbia don't do anything besides advise and are very knowledgeable on Postbac-related topics.

- Quality of committee letters

I am only finishing up my first year in the program so don't have any personal experience with the letters. From what I have heard from friends, the letters are long (eg. 6 pages) and discuss your various experiences and work to great depths.


- Quality of education in each of the science classes

I have been very pleased with the quality of education in each of my courses. I feel that professors really know their material and are accessible and organized. We are in the same classes as Columbia College undergrads so the faculty is top notch. Of course, as with any university, there is a wide range in professor teaching style. However, with a little research (by checking out classes and reading reviews, syllabi, etc. online), you can find a professor that you will work well with. One thing that impresses me about Columbia (WAY more than my undergrad school) is how willing the professors are to meet with students. My physics professor this semester held his own recitation every week for a 200 person lecture. It was really great to have him clarifying concepts as well as getting to know him personally.

- Rigor and difficulty of each of the science classes

The classes are difficult. After having been out of school for a few years, it can be quite an adjustment to step back in the classroom. However, the work is manageable. I think everyone stresses out at the beginning of the program but finds their groove and pulls it together. I found that my GPA is even higher than it was during my undergradYou will have LOTS of options for support, as well. Each department has help rooms, TAs have office hours, and Columbia offers Postbacs free tutoring in one subject each semester. That really saved my life in physics last fall- I met with an amazing tutor for an hour each week.

- Grading approach ( curved vs. non-covered, means of curves)

Science classes are curved with the mean around a B/B+. I think the rule at Columbia is that no more than 35% of students can receive an A-range grade in large lecture courses.

- Differences in the approach to lab courses

Columbia lab organization really depends on the department. In physics, it is a bit of a mess. Physics lab is only 3 hours a week and you write the report during class. Bio and chem are set up slightly differently. Everyone loves bio lab and the instructor is known as one of the sweetest and most approachable instructors around. Chem lab is well-organized but a fair amount of work.

- Culture and support of the student body

The Postbac students are great- really friendly and willing to work together. In my experience, there is no competitive cutthroat atmosphere that keeps people from helping their peers. I was really worried about this and was pleasantly surprised to find that the opposite is true. I have made a lot of wonderful Postbac friends and have study groups for each of our classes. Undergrads have always been friendly, too- I think the social circles tend to be a little different (from my experience, probably not true for all Postbacs) but I have been lab partners with and studied with undergrad students.

- Clinical and research opportunities

This is really one of the strengths for Columbia. They require 120 hours of clinical or research experience to receive committee support. However, they really go out of their way to help you find opportunities. Every week, a digest is sent out with a variety of positions (some paid!) in different medical fields. I've heard that some positions specifically seek out Columbia Postbacs. I don't know anyone that has had trouble finding a position- I've found it is more trouble deciding on just one! I really feel like volunteering is a vital part of the program that constantly reminds me why I am back in school.

- Student MCAT scores

As premad mentioned, this is something that you will control as a student. However, if you do well in the program and prepare for the test, it is likely that you will be successful.


- Medical school acceptance rates

The Columbia med school acceptance rate (for students with committee support- which means you have met their criteria for GPA, volunteer hours, classes, etc.) is in the 90s.


Feel free to PM me with any other questions! Hope this was helpful!

path2993 said:

I haven't found Columbia to be a malignant place for a Postbac student. Just out of curiosity, what has led you to that impression from other postings?

Click to expand...

Malignant was perhaps a poor word choice on my part. The posts I was thinking of when I said that talked a lot about very poor advising, huge class size with little professor interaction, and difficulties with the committee letter. However I obviously bow to your experience in the program, which sounds like it has been fantastic.

PetitAllegro said:

Malignant was perhaps a poor word choice on my part. The posts I was thinking of when I said that talked a lot about very poor advising, huge class size with little professor interaction, and difficulties with the committee letter. However I obviously bow to your experience in the program, which sounds like it has been fantastic.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think malignant is pretty apropos, based on many of the posts in this forum. I would say that the program is improving in this regard, but it is truly not of the same overall quality of many similar programs and the rate of attrition is rather astronomical. I think there is actually a thread where you can see a student's disillusionment in real-time as they transition from the first to the second year of the program.

Certainly, people make it through and get into medical schools (pats self on back), but many of the people I started with got lost along the way. And, not in a gentle, parting of ways sense, but in a, oh, I got a C in this and my advisor is not really supporting me and I have to sell a kidney to afford the cost and so I need to drop out. And even people who finished often didn't do as well in the application process as I might have expected. So much of the app is timing and letters, so I have a sneaking suspicion that the Columbia postbac might have blemished their apps a bit.

And, I think you have a very different sense of what a good program is in year two vs year one. Year two is Mowoshowitz Bio and Orgo and MCAT and you need to make lots of pretty important decisions about your application along the way. It's pretty high stress, and I would say that the best resources were usually not the program itself, but friends and other profs who knew about this behemoth of an app process.

Good luck with your decision, OP! And good luck with year numero Mowshowitz, fellow lion! 🙂

I'm really sorry to hear about the negative experiences of people you know in the program. I have to say I have seen a mix of both negative and positive posts regarding Columbia on SDN. As you noted, I am only finishing my first year in the program. However, I do know a lot of people finishing up their second year who are very happy with their experience. Coincidentally enough, I was talking to two finished postbaccs about Mowshowitz's biology class the other day. They both really liked her and were successful in her class. From CULPA reviews of her, reading threads here, and talking to other Postbacs, it seems that she is quite a polarizing character. There are those that think she is one of the greatest teachers around (albeit very difficult) and those who feel like her class is unmanageable. However, according to her website, roughly less than 1/3 of students in her F2401 class received a grade in the C range and roughly less than 1/3 received a grade in the A range. She does curve to a B, not the interface between a B/B+, so this is slightly fewer As than are in other lecture classes at Columbia. However, I would still say her grading appears in line with the grading in other Columbia courses as well as at other comparable institutions. We take the same courses as Columbia undergraduate premedical students and must remain competitive. I think that any top Postbac program is going to have difficult courses- medical schools are highly competitive and, frankly, we are being weeded out. This is meant by no means to belittle your experience and frustration; I am sure there will be many sleepless nights next year when I am cursing her name but I also hope that I will really be learning something in the process and come out as a Premed hopefully able to compete with the best of the best from other schools.

The Columbia program is well-structured (more so than the other Postbac programs I checked out and visited) and has extensive resources, but a student must choose to take advantage of them; we are all competent adults and you won't be forced to sign up for tutoring, make an appointment with your advisor, go to office hours, attend recitations, etc. Ultimately, there is only so much that a student can expect from any Postbac progam- at some point it comes down to the individual.

Also, regarding the rate of attrition, there is actually something on the Postbac website about this rumor. The actual attrition rate is less than 5% of Postbacs for any particular semester, which I wouldn't really call astronomical. Also, people leave for a variety of reasons and not just because they can't handle the program. You should check out the link regarding this topic: http://www.gs.columbia.edu/postbac/attrition

Just wanted to share my piece. The great thing about these forums is getting to see a variety of opinions. Best of luck with med school and thanks for the best wishes with Mowshowitz 🙂

path2993 said:

I'm really sorry to hear about the negative experiences of people you know in the program. I have to say I have seen a mix of both negative and positive posts regarding Columbia on SDN. As you noted, I am only finishing my first year in the program. However, I do know a lot of people finishing up their second year who are very happy with their experience. Coincidentally enough, I was talking to two finished postbaccs about Mowshowitz's biology class the other day. They both really liked her and were successful in her class. From CULPA reviews of her, reading threads here, and talking to other Postbacs, it seems that she is quite a polarizing character. There are those that think she is one of the greatest teachers around (albeit very difficult) and those who feel like her class is unmanageable. However, according to her website, roughly less than 1/3 of students in her F2401 class received a grade in the C range and roughly less than 1/3 received a grade in the A range. She does curve to a B, not the interface between a B/B+, so this is slightly fewer As than are in other lecture classes at Columbia. However, I would still say her grading appears in line with the grading in other Columbia courses as well as at other comparable institutions. We take the same courses as Columbia undergraduate premedical students and must remain competitive. I think that any top Postbac program is going to have difficult courses- medical schools are highly competitive and, frankly, we are being weeded out. This is meant by no means to belittle your experience and frustration; I am sure there will be many sleepless nights next year when I am cursing her name but I also hope that I will really be learning something in the process and come out as a Premed hopefully able to compete with the best of the best from other schools.

The Columbia program is well-structured (more so than the other Postbac programs I checked out and visited) and has extensive resources, but a student must choose to take advantage of them; we are all competent adults and you won't be forced to sign up for tutoring, make an appointment with your advisor, go to office hours, attend recitations, etc. Ultimately, there is only so much that a student can expect from any Postbac progam- at some point it comes down to the individual.

Also, regarding the rate of attrition, there is actually something on the Postbac website about this rumor. The actual attrition rate is less than 5% of Postbacs for any particular semester, which I wouldn't really call astronomical. Also, people leave for a variety of reasons and not just because they can't handle the program. You should check out the link regarding this topic: http://www.gs.columbia.edu/postbac/attrition

Just wanted to share my piece. The great thing about these forums is getting to see a variety of opinions. Best of luck with med school and thanks for the best wishes with Mowshowitz 🙂

Click to expand...

LOL, I loved Dr. M. It's a great class, did well, she wrote me a rec, and I tutor for it with her blessing, and we lived happily ever after. It's just not a gut and won't be a GPA padder like most Bio courses, and I think that's something folks really need to understand when choosing Columbia. Med school's won't care that your GPA is lower b/c you learned more. These are just the things that need to be considered before choosing a program.

Sorry, the rate of attrition is not less than 5%. Not sure how they calculate that for the official website, but high attrition is definitely not a rumor. I can go through my Spring entering class and the entering class of Fall before me and estimate that it must be at least 30%. And, of course, attrition results from a variety of factors. However, other well-structured, well-respected postbac programs (Goucher and Bryn Mawr come to mind) do not have this rate of attrition. Again, something to consider when picking a program.

Columbia is not a terrible program, and I don't think my previous posts (on this thread and others) imply that. However, it has good and bad aspects, and is MUCH more expensive than Hunter. A good friend of mine went to Hunter, and we will both be going to quite fab med schools. She also had several, if different, complaints about the program, but will certainly have gotten the requirements done at a lower price.

Would you mind sharing your friend's issues with Hunter? It's a program I haven't heard a lot about so I'm interested to learn a few more of the pros/cons.

I think Columbia is a program that has some issues, and in that context, I wouldn't recommend it over any other legitimate postbac program for a number of reasons. In a program like Scripps, for example, the average GPA in the program of graduating postbacs is ~3.8 or higher, meaning most people got As in almost every class with the occasional A- or rare B+. Getting a 3.5 in a postbac program isn't doing yourself too many favors, because for career changers, that represents your science GPA. Beyond that, there's the attrition, lack of advising, cost, etc.

PetitAllegro said:

Would you mind sharing your friend's issues with Hunter? It's a program I haven't heard a lot about so I'm interested to learn a few more of the pros/cons.

Click to expand...

Sure! The program isn't quite as 'dedicated' as Columbia's, and so she felt students could get a bit caught up in the CUNY system. For example, it could be difficult to get the schedule you wanted because of all the other students registering. Some complaints about advising, particularly that there wasn't always enough access to advisors. She did like the courses and the other students and the program overall.

I am also a Columbia Postbac student who is going into the second year (orgo/bio year). I've had a generally positive experience at Columbia, so I feel that I made the right decision in choosing Columbia for my postbac. There are definitely both pluses and minuses to being at Columbia. The pluses include: great advising, great access to premed resources like volunteer opportunities, good facilities (especially the libraries), good reputation, and smart classmates who provide a more stimulating intellectual environment. The minuses include: large lectures, mediocre teaching skills of the professors, expensive with very little aid, and smart classmates who make it more difficult to get good grades. I looked into Hunter's programs as well, but I found the pluses of Columbia's program to outweigh the minuses for me.

For anyone deciding between Columbia and Hunter (or between any top rated program versus a less competitive program), I think you need to consider a couple of factors. First, what sort of an environment do you learn the best in? Columbia has huge classes with little faculty interaction, so you should not come here if are looking for the small liberal arts college learning experience. I have degrees from Ivy League universities, so I was very accustomed to large classes in those programs (along with small seminars) and to learning the materials mostly on my own. I'm not sure about Hunter, but I believe their classes are pretty large as well. Second, do you have the confidence that you will do well in a competitive program like the one at Columbia? While the postbac experience can be a fascinating intellectual journey, your ultimate goal is to get into a medical school. The Columbia name alone will not get you into medical school if your GPA is not high enough. My understanding is that you should have at least a B+ average, even from Columbia, to get into medical school. In my view, a 3.8 average from Hunter will serve you better than a 3.4 from Columbia. There are many smart people in the Columbia postbac program (plus the Columbia College students we have to compete with), so you need to ask yourself whether you can be in the top 50% of the class. On the other hand, if you are relatively confident of your science aptitude (or general academic skills), I believe Columbia is the best postbac program in the country for you. An A or higher average from Columbia will give you a huge leg up on medical school admissions. I've been told that the Columbia medical school class has about 5 students from the Columbia postbac program. That's a pretty large number considering the size of Columbia medical school and the postbac program. Many are admitted to other top medical schools as well.

I hope this is helpful!

a little hyperbole there? Columbia's program isn't bad but it's nowhere near the best in the country under any circumstances. I'm not convinced it's even the best program in NYC.

NYCPreMedical said:

I am also a Columbia Postbac student who is going into the second year (orgo/bio year). I've had a generally positive experience at Columbia, so I feel that I made the right decision in choosing Columbia for my postbac. There are definitely both pluses and minuses to being at Columbia. The pluses include: great advising, great access to premed resources like volunteer opportunities, good facilities (especially the libraries), good reputation, and smart classmates who provide a more stimulating intellectual environment. The minuses include: large lectures, mediocre teaching skills of the professors, expensive with very little aid, and smart classmates who make it more difficult to get good grades. I looked into Hunter's programs as well, but I found the pluses of Columbia's program to outweigh the minuses for me.

For anyone deciding between Columbia and Hunter (or between any top rated program versus a less competitive program), I think you need to consider a couple of factors. First, what sort of an environment do you learn the best in? Columbia has huge classes with little faculty interaction, so you should not come here if are looking for the small liberal arts college learning experience. I have degrees from Ivy League universities, so I was very accustomed to large classes in those programs (along with small seminars) and to learning the materials mostly on my own. I'm not sure about Hunter, but I believe their classes are pretty large as well. Second, do you have the confidence that you will do well in a competitive program like the one at Columbia? While the postbac experience can be a fascinating intellectual journey, your ultimate goal is to get into a medical school. The Columbia name alone will not get you into medical school if your GPA is not high enough. My understanding is that you should have at least a B+ average, even from Columbia, to get into medical school. In my view, a 3.8 average from Hunter will serve you better than a 3.4 from Columbia. There are many smart people in the Columbia postbac program (plus the Columbia College students we have to compete with), so you need to ask yourself whether you can be in the top 50% of the class. On the other hand, if you are relatively confident of your science aptitude (or general academic skills), I believe Columbia is the best postbac program in the country for you. An A or higher average from Columbia will give you a huge leg up on medical school admissions. I've been told that the Columbia medical school class has about 5 students from the Columbia postbac program. That's a pretty large number considering the size of Columbia medical school and the postbac program. Many are admitted to other top medical schools as well.

I hope this is helpful!

Click to expand...

drizzt3117 said:

a little hyperbole there? Columbia's program isn't bad but it's nowhere near the best in the country under any circumstances. I'm not convinced it's even the best program in NYC.

Click to expand...

Well, it's just my opinion. 🙂 I'm basing my opinion primarily on how well the students do in med school admissions. My impression is that Columbia places more students in the top medical schools and more students in medical schools generally than any other postbac program. This could be because Columbia's program is large, but I think it has a lot to do with the university's reputation and the caliber of students the program attracts. I've heard physicians at NY Presbyterian (Columbia's teaching hospital) say that an A from Columbia means a lot (more so than from other schools). It may also have to do with the fact that Columbia's program is the only one in the Ivies where the postbac students take the same classes as the undergrads, so the med schools know that we've been tested alongside Columbia College undergrads.

As I said before, though, Columbia is not the best program for everyone.

it's just not true that Columbia places more people into top med schools. Percentagewise, in this past application season, that honor would probably go to JHU, but Goucher apparently had a good season too, IIRC they put 1/6 of their class into the Ivy league this year. That being said, that's more a metric of the incoming students than anything else. Mills has been putting 5-10 students a year into sf and nobody's accusing them of being the best program in the country.

That aside,Jhu, goucher, scripps, and bm put 100% of their classes into med school every year, Columbia isn't even close. There's just no comparison. Furthermore, Columbia's program is 2 year while all of the others I mentioned have that level of success in one.

NYCPreMedical said:

Well, it's just my opinion. 🙂 I'm basing my opinion primarily on how well the students do in med school admissions. My impression is that Columbia places more students in the top medical schools and more students in medical schools generally than any other postbac program. This could be because Columbia's program is large, but I think it has a lot to do with the university's reputation and the caliber of students the program attracts. I've heard physicians at NY Presbyterian (Columbia's teaching hospital) say that an A from Columbia means a lot (more so than from other schools). It may also have to do with the fact that Columbia's program is the only one in the Ivies where the postbac students take the same classes as the undergrads, so the med schools know that we've been tested alongside Columbia College undergrads.

As I said before, though, Columbia is not the best program for everyone.

Click to expand...

im a communications major but i already finished all of my pre-reqs, can i still be admitted into the columbia program?
i took the mcat but didnt do great.....im from the south, and i want to go to school somewhere in a big city, NYC would be great.

which school in NYC accepts students who have already done pre-reqs???
I just wanted to take some upper level courses really..

drizzt3117 said:

it's just not true that Columbia places more people into top med schools. Percentagewise, in this past application season, that honor would probably go to JHU, but Goucher apparently had a good season too, IIRC they put 1/6 of their class into the Ivy league this year. That being said, that's more a metric of the incoming students than anything else. Mills has been putting 5-10 students a year into sf and nobody's accusing them of being the best program in the country.

That aside,Jhu, goucher, scripps, and bm put 100% of their classes into med school every year, Columbia isn't even close. There's just no comparison. Furthermore, Columbia's program is 2 year while all of the others I mentioned have that level of success in one.

Click to expand...

It's actually a simple fact that Columbia places more students into medical schools and into top medical schools than any that I know of and certainly the ones you mentioned. Columbia places 100+ students into medical school in a year (probably closer to 150 now). Columbia also places 20+ students into the top 10 med schools (Harvard, Penn, Yale, Columbia, etc.) and many many more into other top tier med schools (Cornell, NYU, Mt. Sinai, Brown, etc.). You're citing percent of students that are admitted, which is completely different from what I was talking about (number of students that are admitted). Percent of students admitted has more to do with the quality of the students than the quality of the program.

The best metric for whether a school helps or hurts your med school application is to see how med schools would view the same GPA from different schools. In my conversations with teaching faculty at Columbia and other med schools, I've been repeatedly told that an A or A- average from Columbia means much more than the same GPA from schools of less reputation. This is born out in the admission stats, in that a Columbia postbac with a B+ average regularly gets into med school even though that's way below the average of admitted candidates nationwide. It's simply the reputation giving Columbia applicants an edge.

Speaking of admission rates, I don't know where you got the idea that Columbia postbacs' admission rates to med schools "isn't even close" to 100%. The actual number is 90% for Columbia for first time applicants (with many more admitted on later tries), which by any standard is rather close to 100%. The fact that such a high percentage gets admitted even though the average GPA of a Columbia postbac is only about 3.4 shows that the Columbia name and the work of the postbac committee gives Columbia students an edge. Any school can get a 100% admission rate to med school if they only accept the most qualified students. Columbia's model is different. It accepts a large number of students, gives them a chance to shine academically, and helps the top students to get into the top programs and helps the lower GPA students to still get into med school. Which model is "best" is certainly debatable, but there should be no doubt that for those who can make it through the program, the Columbia name will help you in your med school admissions.

As I said before, though, no school is right for everyone. If you think you can do very well in a competitive program like Columbia, you will find no better launching pad for med school. If you think you may struggle academically, I would be the first person to suggest that you look at several programs and go to the one where you will do best academically.

I don't have their newest lists but BM places all of it's ~80 or so students mostly into top programs a year and the rate you're talking about is based on the amount of people successfully finishing the program and applying to med school, not the people who initially matriculate into the program, which has a high degree of attrition and doesn't even sponsor every student who finishes the program.

You can easily evaluate the relative quality of programs by looking at how selective they are in admissions. Columbia is well known for taking anyone with a 3.0 and a heartbeat, the year I was helping with Scripps' admissions our incoming class averages were 3.65, 1340/1600 sat, and 750 gre. Hopkins this year was probably even more selective than that. The last I heard, the last 8 classes at Scripps had every person who matriculated enroll in med/dental school, I believe BM and Goucher are about the same.

There are definitely some good students who come thru Columbia, it's a reputable program in NYC where there aren't so many other options, but the issue is whether it's a good program for someone who is capable of getting in a top tier program. Those programs are pretty much a guaranteed acceptance into med school, because everyone admitted finishes the program and is accepted into med school. It's like comparing US med schools to the Caribbean, where the best students might have a good chance to get in but there's high attrition bc of low admission standards.

NYCPreMedical said:

It's actually a simple fact that Columbia places more students into medical schools and into top medical schools than any that I know of and certainly the ones you mentioned. Columbia places 100+ students into medical school in a year (probably closer to 150 now). Columbia also places 20+ students into the top 10 med schools (Harvard, Penn, Yale, Columbia, etc.) and many many more into other top tier med schools (Cornell, NYU, Mt. Sinai, Brown, etc.). You're citing percent of students that are admitted, which is completely different from what I was talking about (number of students that are admitted). Percent of students admitted has more to do with the quality of the students than the quality of the program.

The best metric for whether a school helps or hurts your med school application is to see how med schools would view the same GPA from different schools. In my conversations with teaching faculty at Columbia and other med schools, I've been repeatedly told that an A or A- average from Columbia means much more than the same GPA from schools of less reputation. This is born out in the admission stats, in that a Columbia postbac with a B+ average regularly gets into med school even though that's way below the average of admitted candidates nationwide. It's simply the reputation giving Columbia applicants an edge.

Speaking of admission rates, I don't know where you got the idea that Columbia postbacs' admission rates to med schools "isn't even close" to 100%. The actual number is 90% for Columbia for first time applicants (with many more admitted on later tries), which by any standard is rather close to 100%. The fact that such a high percentage gets admitted even though the average GPA of a Columbia postbac is only about 3.4 shows that the Columbia name and the work of the postbac committee gives Columbia students an edge. Any school can get a 100% admission rate to med school if they only accept the most qualified students. Columbia's model is different. It accepts a large number of students, gives them a chance to shine academically, and helps the top students to get into the top programs and helps the lower GPA students to still get into med school. Which model is "best" is certainly debatable, but there should be no doubt that for those who can make it through the program, the Columbia name will help you in your med school admissions.

As I said before, though, no school is right for everyone. If you think you can do very well in a competitive program like Columbia, you will find no better launching pad for med school. If you think you may struggle academically, I would be the first person to suggest that you look at several programs and go to the one where you will do best academically.

Click to expand...

I think all the points raised here have been really valid. As I mentioned in my first post, I completely agree that there are pros and cons to any program. It's a choice that all future Postbacs have to make for themselves. I do think it's important, however, that they are given accurate information to do so. Specifically regarding attrition, I trust the Columbia Postbac office, which has actual enrollment information, for information on this matter.

"The number of students who begin our program and choose to leave to pursue other ventures in life is minimal—fewer than 15 students a semester of the 480 currently enrolled, which translates to less than five percent in any given semester."
(source: http://www.gs.columbia.edu/postbac/attrition)

This is NOT a large percentage of students(in fact, it is very small), especially for a program that is so significantly larger than other programs, such as Scripps or Goucher. If you think the facts posted online are not correct, I suggest that you contact the Postbac office with your evidence. As a Columbia student, I know it matters to me that the website is accurate and would appreciate someone clarifying things for the Postbac office if you have better information than they do. Until then, I think it is important to get this fact straight in the discussion.

drizzt3117 said:

I don't have their newest lists but BM places all of it's ~80 or so students mostly into top programs a year and the rate you're talking about is based on the amount of people successfully finishing the program and applying to med school, not the people who initially matriculate into the program, which has a high degree of attrition and doesn't even sponsor every student who finishes the program.

You can easily evaluate the relative quality of programs by looking at how selective they are in admissions. Columbia is well known for taking anyone with a 3.0 and a heartbeat, the year I was helping with Scripps' admissions our incoming class averages were 3.65, 1340/1600 sat, and 750 gre. Hopkins this year was probably even more selective than that. The last I heard, the last 8 classes at Scripps had every person who matriculated enroll in med/dental school, I believe BM and Goucher are about the same.

There are definitely some good students who come thru Columbia, it's a reputable program in NYC where there aren't so many other options, but the issue is whether it's a good program for someone who is capable of getting in a top tier program. Those programs are pretty much a guaranteed acceptance into med school, because everyone admitted finishes the program and is accepted into med school. It's like comparing US med schools to the Caribbean, where the best students might have a good chance to get in but there's high attrition bc of low admission standards.

Click to expand...

Really apt comparison. 👍 Columbia is certainly right for some people, but it's definitely not the best option for someone who is already highly-competitive. In that case, it would make sense to go cheaper (e.g. Hunter) or go better (e.g. Goucher).

path2993 said:

I think all the points raised here have been really valid. As I mentioned in my first post, I completely agree that there are pros and cons to any program. It's a choice that all future Postbacs have to make for themselves. I do think it's important, however, that they are given accurate information to do so. Specifically regarding attrition, I trust the Columbia Postbac office, which has actual enrollment information, for information on this matter.

"The number of students who begin our program and choose to leave to pursue other ventures in life is minimal—fewer than 15 students a semester of the 480 currently enrolled, which translates to less than five percent in any given semester."
(source: http://www.gs.columbia.edu/postbac/attrition)

This is NOT a large percentage of students(in fact, it is very small), especially for a program that is so significantly larger than other programs, such as Scripps or Goucher. If you think the facts posted online are not correct, I suggest that you contact the Postbac office with your evidence. As a Columbia student, I know it matters to me that the website is accurate and would appreciate someone clarifying things for the Postbac office if you have better information than they do. Until then, I think it is important to get this fact straight in the discussion.

Click to expand...

Again, we have lies, darn lies, and statistics. I want to give the program the benefit of the doubt, and believe that the statistic presented is true in SOME context. For example, if you were to calculate the % of people who drop out of a particular cohort per semester. If it's 5% per semester, that would be 20% over all four semesters (which I still would argue is a bit low for Columbia). Or, it could be a creative definition of attrition or simply one that is pretty strict in it's purview. If attrition doesn't count everyone who doesn't formally leave the program by getting kicked out or making a formal withdrawal (for example, I haven't taken a class since spring 2009, but I am still considered a post-bac) and doesn't count all of the people who finish the program but can't get the office to sponsor their med school application, then maybe we have an attrition rate of 5%. Sorry, the attrition rate is just very high. If I did an analysis for you from everyone postbac in my cohort and posted the results on my blog, would that make you feel better? I'm not sure that contacting the program would be much good. I'm still very much in touch with them, but the site you reference is for advertising, and advertising that about 50% of your students won't make it into medical school is probably not going to happen.

I'm intrigued that you know so many students that have dropped out. If you went through your cohort, 50% of them dropped out?! That shocks me-that certainly hasn't been my experience and you said in an earlier post on this thread that you thought the attrition rate was only around 30%. I am sure that your blog is very trustworthy and it's easy to post your opinions on forums like these. However, you have no hard evidence about what Columbia does or does not include in their attrition statistics. You suggest all sorts of loopholes but I think the website is pretty clear: "The number of students who begin our program and choose to leave to pursue other ventures in life is minimal..." If 50% of Postbacs supposedly drop out, I find it hard to imagine that 30% or more of those students fit into other categories you've suggested of students "informally" being kicked out or withdrawing. As future scientists, we all appreciate data. You're making a pretty serious accusation of the Columbia program if you suggest their data is SO far off on the website and you are unwilling to contact them. Certainly, the website serves an advertising purpose. However, you are making these broad statements about drop-out rates without hard evidence upon which to base them. Again, I urge you to contact the office. I am sure that you have a wide breadth of knowledge about the program from your personal experience, but I still believe that actual enrollment data is more valuable than a student's opinion (yours or mine).

You said that you haven't taken a class since Spring 2009. Are you finishing up your glide year or did you formally withdraw from the program? If you did withdraw, in what ways are you still considered a Postbac? If you did formally withdraw, considering how well you said you have done, obviously you were not one of the students who had to leave for academic reasons. Therefore, you know that people leave for reasons besides grades. Referring back to the website, it says that: "On average, fewer than five students per term are dismissed for academic reasons." I assume that when you lament that high rate of attrition, these are the particular students leaving that you speak of (and not those who leave for other reasons). Aprroximately 5/480 is even less than 5% any given semester. Again, NOT a high rate of attrition- especially if you are looking at those students having to go for academic reasons.

The way that Columbia works, you're considered a post-bac on your glide year. Thus, I believe you would also still be considered a post-bac if you, say, 'dropped out' after a semester (or mid-semester) of your first or second year, with what may or may not be a serious intention to resume classes during a future semester. Also, I said 50% will not make it into med school, which combines my estimates of attrition and unsuccessful application.

Futher, not sure how serious this is as an 'accusation' it is, as you said, an opinion based upon my personal experience. And, many people on this forum have provided a similar point of view. For me, there's really no point in going back and forth on the matter of attrition with the admissions office. I'm fairly convinced that nothing would be gained. But, I do feel it worthwhile to express my opinion here (and emphasize my conviction about it's validity), where I have recieved so much thoughtful advice from others. Then, those students who have something to gain (e.g. getting a better understanding of the Columbia program) can parse these numbers with the post-bac office.

path2993 said:

I'm intrigued that you know so many students that have dropped out. If you went through your cohort, 50% of them dropped out?! That shocks me-that certainly hasn't been my experience and you said in an earlier post on this thread that you thought the attrition rate was only around 30%. I am sure that your blog is very trustworthy and it's easy to post your opinions on forums like these. However, you have no hard evidence about what Columbia does or does not include in their attrition statistics. You suggest all sorts of loopholes but I think the website is pretty clear: "The number of students who begin our program and choose to leave to pursue other ventures in life is minimal..." If 50% of Postbacs supposedly drop out, I find it hard to imagine that 30% or more of those students fit into other categories you've suggested of students "informally" being kicked out or withdrawing. As future scientists, we all appreciate data. You're making a pretty serious accusation of the Columbia program if you suggest their data is SO far off on the website and you are unwilling to contact them. Certainly, the website serves an advertising purpose. However, you are making these broad statements about drop-out rates without hard evidence upon which to base them. Again, I urge you to contact the office. I am sure that you have a wide breadth of knowledge about the program from your personal experience, but I still believe that actual enrollment data is more valuable than a student's opinion (yours or mine).

You said that you haven't taken a class since Spring 2009. Are you finishing up your glide year or did you formally withdraw from the program? If you did withdraw, in what ways are you still considered a Postbac? If you did formally withdraw, considering how well you said you have done, obviously you were not one of the students who had to leave for academic reasons. Therefore, you know that people leave for reasons besides grades. Referring back to the website, it says that: "On average, fewer than five students per term are dismissed for academic reasons." I assume that when you lament that high rate of attrition, these are the particular students leaving that you speak of (and not those who leave for other reasons). Aprroximately 5/480 is even less than 5% any given semester. Again, NOT a high rate of attrition- especially if you are looking at those students having to go for academic reasons.

Click to expand...

As I'm sure you are aware (but for anyone else reading...), Postbacs in their glide year are considered students with full privileges, including access to a variety of Columbia resources (advising, libraries, gym, health insurance, etc.) as they apply to medical school. This is not the case for students that drop out of the program. There is no way to “informally” drop out with the potential to resume classes after a semester. I know because I had a friend who left the program for personal reasons and she had to complete an exit interview and fill out a bunch of paperwork that she was officially leaving the program. There was no limbo option in between. Therefore, students either stay in the program (with or without committee support) or drop out. This appears to be what is described in the information on the rate of attrition.

You say 50% of students don't make it to medical school. Earlier you stated that 30% drop out and that would leave 20% not admitted to a medical school upon completion of the program. Since the program has a posted medical school admission rate of 90% (source: http://www.gs.columbia.edu/postbac/program-overview), this must be another statistic from the program that you do not believe. Seeing as you acknowledge that your posts are based on your personal opinions and that you are not interested in contacting the Postbac office to straighten things out (either for you or for them), I see little purpose in continuing to provide statistics from the program to counter your beliefs. We can all present our beliefs with as much conviction as we want, but at the end of the day, we are really just presenting those opinions based on our personal experiences in the program (which have clearly been very different). I think the responsible thing to do is to acknowledge that our opinions are just that: a personal perspective based on the limited views of one (or a few) student(s). The fact of the matter is that attrition is a topic on which actual facts are available from the Columbia program. I think a better use of these forums would be discussing more subjective topics so that future students can gain insight on topics that they can't just look up on the program website (such as quality of advising, courses, tutoring, etc.). I wholeheartedly agree with you in urging students who want to apply for the program to parse the numbers and get their real information from the program office. Hopefully, future Postbacs will not completely base their ideas of the Columbia (or any!) program on the unverified and anonymous opinions of a few students.

On that note, I have really enjoyed this lively debate with you. As a successful alumnus/alumna of the program, I am sure you will make a remarkable physician. Best of luck with med school and beyond! 🙂

The 90% is for ppl who are applying to med school even by their description. The stats I provides from other programs were for matriculants lNTO the program, there's a big difference.

A few questions:

I've applied to Hunter's PBSET program designed for students who have taken most of the pre-med requirements but hope to make up for bad grades. I also am applying to Columbia's general post-bacc program, but NOT their pre-med post-bacc program because I have taken too many of the pre-reqs to be admitted.

I was wondering:
- Since I would not be part of the actual pre-med program for Columbia, I would not be able to take advantage of benefits like the linkage program and a committee letter, correct?
- Considering that, would Hunter or Columbia be a better program for me?

Thanks!

stevenwithaV said:

A few questions:

I've applied to Hunter's PBSET program designed for students who have taken most of the pre-med requirements but hope to make up for bad grades. I also am applying to Columbia's general post-bacc program, but NOT their pre-med post-bacc program because I have taken too many of the pre-reqs to be admitted.

I was wondering:
- Since I would not be part of the actual pre-med program for Columbia, I would not be able to take advantage of benefits like the linkage program and a committee letter, correct?
- Considering that, would Hunter or Columbia be a better program for me?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

I say Hunter all the way. With PBSET you will still be eligible for the letter of recommendation and will have a few linkages to work from, though not all are open to PBSET students. Hunter also has a good rep for their sciences and are well recognized by East coast med schools. To top it, you will save a boat load of money. I'm a bit biased because I will be attending there as well. I'm sure Columbia is great, but great for the post-baccer who doesn't have their pre-reqs yet. For the rest of us, I say Hunter, all the way.