Admission Question

[counterrandom]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I plan to matriculate into a large state school for my college education. Right now I am planning to apply, when finished with undergrad, to a PhD/MD program. Will going to a large state school (because its cheap) hurt my chance with adcoms?

 

[Mr. Tee]

Probably not?

 

[dr.z]

I plan to matriculate into a large state school for my college education. Right now I am planning to apply, when finished with undergrad, to a PhD/MD program. Will going to a large state school (because its cheap) hurt my chance with adcoms?

You'll just have to get to know some faculty well so that they can write you letter of recommendation when you need it.

 

[solitude]

I plan to matriculate into a large state school for my college education. Right now I am planning to apply, when finished with undergrad, to a PhD/MD program. Will going to a large state school (because its cheap) hurt my chance with adcoms?

In a word, no. In more words, it will only hurt your application if you are unable to get to know the faculty or obtain quality research opportunities because of the school's size. Both potential hurdles can be overcome with initiative.

 

[fantasty]

On the flip side, a larger school means more potential investigators (aka research opportunities). Your important letters should be coming from your boss, not your lecturers.

 

[MrMunkily]

Even big schools become remarkably small when you start going to graduate seminars. Find a department that you're interested in and start going to lectures or seminars that they host. You learn a bit (though at first it can be hard to understand) and you network a lot.

 

[vector07]

Going to a state school can be great because of the number of opportunities for research. Definitely get involved with a research laboratory, and try and work in the same laboratory for a long time--longevity in one lab is usually better than a semester each in 3 or 4 labs. As you plan your college career, I would think about how to make yourself unique or unusual. Try to be unusual with your major.. so many people who are pre-med major in biology, psychology or biochemistry. There's nothing wrong with that. But you will turn heads if you're successful in the pre-med requirements, research AND majoring in ancient history, physics, or something else non-standard for applicants. Of course, if biology is your thing, go for it.

 

[solitude]

Going to a state school can be great because of the number of opportunities for research. Definitely get involved with a research laboratory, and try and work in the same laboratory for a long time--longevity in one lab is usually better than a semester each in 3 or 4 labs. As you plan your college career, I would think about how to make yourself unique or unusual. Try to be unusual with your major.. so many people who are pre-med major in biology, psychology or biochemistry. There's nothing wrong with that. But you will turn heads if you're successful in the pre-med requirements, research AND majoring in ancient history, physics, or something else non-standard for applicants. Of course, if biology is your thing, go for it.

I'm not sure that majoring in a non-science is the way to go if you are an MD/PhD applicant. I have heard from my advisor and some MSTP adcoms that they much prefer science majors (although a humanities major isn't the end of the world).

 

[counterrandom]

Is there a preference for BS vs BA? If i double major and get a BS in bio and a ba in chem, would that be a bad idea? Or is sticking to one thing the best idea to do.

 

[solitude]

Is there a preference for BS vs BA? If i double major and get a BS in bio and a ba in chem, would that be a bad idea? Or is sticking to one thing the best idea to do.

I'm not sure. I would imagine as long as you have a BS in one science major then you would be just fine. To my understanding, MSTP adcom's are looking for an in-depth science background, and you could attain that with just one BS, or a BS and a BA, or two BS's. Coincidentally, I'm doing a BS in bio and a BA in chem, but I'm also finding time to take a lot of grad-level bio classes above and beyond the BS. One thing is that you shouldn't do a double major just to get into an MSTP. I doubt that the second major helps any more than say, taking additional bio courses would help. Just do what you love and hope for the best!

 

[bubbachuck]

also consider engineering. engineering is regarded as a very challenging major and if you can do well in it, it is very impressive. even if you do not do sublime, i would be surprised if adcoms did not forgive you a little bit. personally, i believe that since engineering is basically applying science to solving problems, it is a great major for research-oriented students.

 

[RxnMan]

also consider engineering. engineering is regarded as a very challenging major and if you can do well in it, it is very impressive. even if you do not do sublime, i would be surprised if adcoms did not forgive you a little bit. personally, i believe that since engineering is basically applying science to solving problems, it is a great major for research-oriented students.

I disagree. The almost-certain GPA drop you'd experience by doing engineering (as opposed to any other major) would make it harder for you to get into a program. People talk about engineering GPA being respected, but it's not worth the risk for this rumor. Heck, the way AMCAS operates, ADCOMs will not see what you majored in until after the first application filtration, which is based solely on GPA and MCAT.

1) Go for the easy A/4.0 GPA
2) Go for the courses that apply to med school classes - biology, biochem.

Don't double-major because it'll interfere with getting a 4.0 and it's not impressive enough to make a 3.5 look like a 3.8.

 

[counterrandom]

Thank you very much, all of you have been very helpful. While the idea to double major is still something I am considering, I am giving it a second thought. I may just major Bio and either do a minor in chem or psychology.

 

[gbwillner]

I plan to matriculate into a large state school for my college education. Right now I am planning to apply, when finished with undergrad, to a PhD/MD program. Will going to a large state school (because its cheap) hurt my chance with adcoms?

Does going to a state school hurt your application? Depends where you apply. If you are applying to IVY league schools, then yes. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know the selection process. If you are applying to non-ivy league schools, then probably not. But coming from a great school does HELP your application. This is just a sad fact.

About a major- you're getting bad advice here. Major in anything you find interesting. If you major in Biochem because you think it will help you, but don't enjoy every minute of it, this will be reflected in your GPA. DO NOT take classes because you think they'll help in med school. This is a waste of your college education. If you love art, major in that. If you love underwater-basket-weaving, do that. Now is your time to learn about the world. You have 8+ years to learn anatomy and Biochem.

 

[solitude]

Does going to a state school hurt your application? Depends where you apply. If you are applying to IVY league schools, then yes. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know the selection process. If you are applying to non-ivy league schools, then probably not. But coming from a great school does HELP your application. This is just a sad fact.

About a major- you're getting bad advice here. Major in anything you find interesting. If you major in Biochem because you think it will help you, but don't enjoy every minute of it, this will be reflected in your GPA. DO NOT take classes because you think they'll help in med school. This is a waste of your college education. If you love art, major in that. If you love underwater-basket-weaving, do that. Now is your time to learn about the world. You have 8+ years to learn anatomy and Biochem.

First of all, there are some medical schools that are more highly regarded than those of the Ivies. E.g. UCSF is probably a better med school than, say, Dartmouth. So you can't simply delineate Ivy from non-Ivy and say that only Ivy med schools will care about your undergrad institution, because in my experience (admittedly anecdotal) nearly all of the "best" med schools do care, Ivy or otherwise. Whether this is a sad fact of the application process has been argued ad nauseum elsewhere and I don't want to go there.

Agree that you don't want to take classes because you think they'll help in med school, but taking courses to help in grad school is a different ballgame. MSTP's are a long road, and the better prepared you are, the quicker and less painless the double degree will be. For example, very few applicants are going to matriculate with just the med school pre-reqs--it'd be really tough to walk into a rotation knowing the bare minimum of science, plus what you gleaned from your research. Rather, most will have taken a number of upper-level biology, chemistry, or related science, and will be better prepared for the rigor of a PhD. I stand by my assertion that MSTP adcoms will be looking for at least a science major, perhaps with a number of other interesting non-science courses (e.g. art history). The argument goes that people should major in the area of their interest. It's easy to picture an adcom member saying: If you're not as interested in science as you are interested in your non-science major, should I really plunk down 500G's to train you for the next 8yrs? With so many other applicants with many more science courses to their name, it'd be easy to pass on the non-science major. The same argument applies for straight-PhD programs (but not for straight-MD), at least in my estimation.

 

[Neuronix]

Will going to a large state school (because its cheap) hurt my chance with adcoms?

I went to the University of Delaware for undergrad. I like to call it my no name state school, though once and awhile someone knows about our giant blue chicken for a mascot. I moved up I-95 to the next University of ... for my MSTP, though now it happens to be a big name private school

My take on this whole debate is that state schoolers are held to higher standard. You're not going to be crippled by it, but you better have as close to a 4.0 as possible. I've heard certain adcoms say "They have a 3.5? Where from? Oh, from [insert big name school here]? That's ok then." enough times that I believe it. Then again you have to ask yourself the question, is it easier to pull a 3.6 at say JHU than a 3.9 at UDel? I'd say no myself. The big name private schools, especially the ones known for their pre-med programs, are so extremely competitive for pre-meds that I can't imagine I'd ever be here had I been able to get into a place like WashU for undergrad. Maebea and I have disagreed on this topic in the past, so what I'm saying is probably truer for some schools than for others.

You have your mind in the right place if you're going for MD/PhD and it's good that you can get this advice early. Head to your state school, get involved in research early and often, keep your GPA as close to a 4.0 as possible, and destroy the MCAT. Ignore the ridiculous advice like "Oh, you're only taking 12 credits this semester, adcoms are going to notice!" or "Us engineers have a harder major, so they'll respect our GPAs more." That being said, you probably should major in a science if you're really MD/PhD bound for alot of reasons (agree with solitude on that part).

 

[gbwillner]

Agree that you don't want to take classes because you think they'll help in med school, but taking courses to help in grad school is a different ballgame. MSTP's are a long road, and the better prepared you are, the quicker and less painless the double degree will be. For example, very few applicants are going to matriculate with just the med school pre-reqs--it'd be really tough to walk into a rotation knowing the bare minimum of science, plus what you gleaned from your research. Rather, most will have taken a number of upper-level biology, chemistry, or related science, and will be better prepared for the rigor of a PhD. I stand by my assertion that MSTP adcoms will be looking for at least a science major, perhaps with a number of other interesting non-science courses (e.g. art history). The argument goes that people should major in the area of their interest. It's easy to picture an adcom member saying: If you're not as interested in science as you are interested in your non-science major, should I really plunk down 500G's to train you for the next 8yrs? With so many other applicants with many more science courses to their name, it'd be easy to pass on the non-science major. The same argument applies for straight-PhD programs (but not for straight-MD), at least in my estimation.

While it stands to reason that people seeking MSTP slots will have science degrees because they are interested in it, I don't believe it plays any role in admissions. I know many people who are MSTPs and have non-science undergrad degrees, and they did just fine in their PhDs. Let's face it- most of the admissions game is number crunching. That may get you an interview, and then it depends on the institution.
Its also silly to compare majors, and thinking one is somehow "harder" than another. Engineering may be difficult at one school, and relatively easy at another. Some majors only exist at certain institutions. Can you really tell me that an engineering degree is more difficult than one in English? Your grade there depends on how much someone "liked" your writing half the time. Pulling off a 4.0 there is probably impossible.
While it may be comforting for some to picture admissions people looking at your coursework and saying "This guy majored in Biochem, so he'll be a good physician-scientist", in reality it's more like "This guy has a 4.0, he'll make our statistics better and help make us more competitive, which will give us more NIH funding."

The bottom line is that if you enjoy your major, you will get better grades. Pushing yourself through a degree in Physiology because you think it will help you in med school usually results in getting burned out and getting bad grades. Then later on in med school, when you take the same subjects again, you will have wished you took world history or something.

 

[gbwillner]

My take on this whole debate is that state schoolers are held to higher standard. You're not going to be crippled by it, but you better have as close to a 4.0 as possible. I've heard certain adcoms say "They have a 3.5? Where from? Oh, from [insert big name school here]? That's ok then." enough times that I believe it. Then again you have to ask yourself the question, is it easier to pull a 3.6 at say JHU than a 3.9 at UDel? I'd say no myself. The big name private schools, especially the ones known for their pre-med programs, are so extremely competitive for pre-meds that I can't imagine I'd ever be here had I been able to get into a place like WashU for undergrad.

This is exactly right. Applicants like the idea that the world is fair, and that admissions people read through your application 10 times and consult the pope when reading their essays. In the most competitive MSTP programs- namely the Ivys and a few others, it's still a numbers game. Its GPA x MCAT x goodschool factor. If you went to Princeton undergrad, you will get into a competitive program with reasonable grades and MCATs. The weight of this "school factor" depends on the institution. Some schools don't have this particular weight. It is based on the notion that elite schools are more competitive, so you get a "bonus" for having good scores and coming from those institutions. So going to Penn State automatically hurts you if you could have gone to UPenn and done as well.

The system is not always fair, but it is what it is. If your interviewer had a fight with his/her spouse the night before, they may give you a hard time for no particular reason and screw your chances at that program. That's just life. The best you can do is prepare yourself as well as possible and apply to a lot of programs.

 

[KUNRD07]

So, are you saying that applicants from public universities with GPAs in the 3.7-3.9 range are at a disadvantage?

 

[Jorje286]

It's not about fair and unfair. We live in a competitive world, and MD/PHD's are ultra-competitive, so ofcourse where you went in school is very important, and it's fair. Taking a 3.9 at Harvard not only means that you are better prepared, but you also excelled in that preparation.

Nonetheless, I think the MCAT scores will go a large way in reducing the school factor. After all, isn't this the reason why standardized tests were made?

And I totally agree with solitude. The nature of the undergrad courses that you take is extremely important in regards to the application to grad schools, and I would say even more important to MSTP, because of time restrictions. If you already know an area research that you prefer, try to take courses related to that area, or even graduate level courses. The better you are prepared for graduate school, the more likely you'll be admitted.

 

[solitude]

Great post.

The system is not always fair, but it is what it is. If your interviewer had a fight with his/her spouse the night before, they may give you a hard time for no particular reason and screw your chances at that program. That's just life. The best you can do is prepare yourself as well as possible and apply to a lot of programs.

 

[solitude]

It's not about fair and unfair. We live in a competitive world, and MD/PHD's are ultra-competitive, so ofcourse where you went in school is very important, and it's fair. Taking a 3.9 at Harvard not only means that you are better prepared, but you also excelled in that preparation.

I don't necessarily agree with this. I think this can be true in some cases but not true in others. I think as an adcom, as gbwillner said, it is easier (and more common) to simply assume that the 3.9 from Harvard is better than the 3.9 from Podunk State. And nominally it is more impressive. However, there's no guarentee that the student that went to Podunk State and got the 3.9 would not have attained the same GPA at Harvard. In the end, though, adcoms are biased and, ceteris paribus, are usually inclined to take the applicants from top schools as gbwillner said, whether it's fair or not.

 

[Jorje286]

I'm not saying that every student that got a 3.9 at Harvard is DEFINITELY better and more prepared than every other student in another college that got the same GPA. Nonetheless, on the average and in most cases, those who were in the top schools were in a more rigorous program and thus had better preparation, and their results would look even more impressive. There's a reason why top schools are on the top.

So really, if you were in the shoes of someone on the admissions committee, it's only natural to take the school factor into important consideration, and I don't look at that as "unfair."

You can always though prove your worth in the standardized tests. It doesn't tell everything, but it certainly can bring down the school factor.

 

[gbwillner]

The nature of the undergrad courses that you take is extremely important in regards to the application to grad schools, and I would say even more important to MSTP, because of time restrictions. If you already know an area research that you prefer, try to take courses related to that area, or even graduate level courses. The better you are prepared for graduate school, the more likely you'll be admitted.

You know, I went on 12 MSTP interviews. Granted, it was 1999/2000, and
things may have changed, but I never once had anyone ask me about which courses I had taken.

I totally diagree that being "prepared" for grad school with coursework plays any role whatsoever in admissions, although it may be inportant fot your individual development as a grad student. The only thing that matters when getting into grad school is not being a complete idiot and having research experience. There is almost universally no competition for graduate school. GPA's under 3 are sometimes considered, because NO ONE WANTS TO DO IT. The medical school and MSTP administrators make 99% of all admission decisions when it comes to MD/PhDs. You really have to screw up to be rejected by the graduate school.

 

[gbwillner]

So really, if you were in the shoes of someone on the admissions committee, it's only natural to take the school factor into important consideration, and I don't look at that as "unfair."

You can always though prove your worth in the standardized tests. It doesn't tell everything, but it certainly can bring down the school factor.

I completely agree with this. As I mention earlier, in many programs the "formula" has multiple components. Getting a 35+ MCAT and a GPA of 3.85+ ANYWHERE pretty much guarantees that you'll at least get an interview anywhere.

I also agree that the schools are not wrong to value competitive undergraduate institutions. The unfairness comes from the fact that not everyone will have a chance to attend a $30K/year school. But again, that's life.

 

[gbwillner]

So, are you saying that applicants from public universities with GPAs in the 3.7-3.9 range are at a disadvantage?

Again, you'd be at a disadvantage ON NUMBERS ALONE when compared to others from private schools with the same scores. Well, not all private schools, only the good ones.

Let me say this, I went to a public school undergrad. That in itself will not prevent you from getting into a top 10 school (myself and others here are living proof). But you need something extra to compete on level with the guys from the better undergrad institution. I spent a year at the NIH to prove my interest in science. I'm not certain just how much this played in my acceptances to schools.

There is no doubt that even institutions without the "good school" factor will prefer the Princeton grad over the guy from U of Whatever. HOWEVER, not all PUBLIC schools are the same. Going to the Univerisity of Virginia will go a long way, probably just as much as Stanford or U. Chicago. U. of Texas (Austin) is far stronger than UTSA or UTanywhereelse.

 

[anka24]

Getting a 35+ MCAT and a GPA of 3.85+ ANYWHERE pretty much guarantees that you'll at least get an interview anywhere.

Oh, how I wish this were true. I have a 35 MCAT and 3.91 GPA and I certainly did not get an interview everywhere.

Anywaaays, I don't think your undergraduate school makes too much of a difference. Ever hear of grade inflation? Harvard is notorious for it and I think adcoms are aware of it. That being said, a 3.9 from Harvard is more impressive than a 3.9 from UMass (did I just offend people), but ceteris paribus, I'd say both applicants would get an interview and after that the UMass applicant could beat the pants off the Harvard applicant in personality, drive, or uniqueness. Not saying UMass Applicant will, but there is no reason why not.

Not everyone can afford an Ivy, so just go where you think you can simultaneously afford the school and get some good research experience. Work at the NIH over the summers. Just don't go to a school where you'll get lost in a sea of students without having any attention paid to you. That's really the only disadvantage to a big school. I can't even begin to tell you how many of my fellow students are applying to grad school now and are regretting not speaking to any of their professors. You NEED someone that will champion you and not simply write "X got an A in my class. He has shown aptitude in scholarly pursuits."

 

[gbwillner]

Oh, how I wish this were true. I have a 35 MCAT and 3.91 GPA and I certainly did not get an interview everywhere.

REALLY????? how many programs did you apply for? There must really be something going on here.... did you apply this year? It's still early.

 

[anka24]

REALLY????? how many programs did you apply for? There must really be something going on here.... did you apply this year? It's still early.

I'm counting on the fact that it's still early. I applied to 14 programs and got interviews for 6 and rejected pre-interview from 1 (Hopkins). I am thrilled about the 6 interviews, but just wanted to clarify that decent scores do not automatically get you an interview anywhere you want. Perhaps you meant to say that 35+ and 3.85+ will get you an interview somewhere, but not anywhere. Semantics...

 

[Neuronix]

REALLY????? how many programs did you apply for? There must really be something going on here.... did you apply this year? It's still early.

I had the same GPA with a slightly better MCAT and got pre-interview rejection from Hopkins, Harvard, and WashU. I know some people with very similar apps with regards to those numbers and research experience from bigger name schools who got those interviews. Coincidence? Dunno. I can say I was often told my LORs and essays were among the best the adcoms had ever seen (I'm from a very disadvantaged background).

 

[gbwillner]

I'm counting on the fact that it's still early. I applied to 14 programs and got interviews for 6 and rejected pre-interview from 1 (Hopkins). I am thrilled about the 6 interviews, but just wanted to clarify that decent scores do not automatically get you an interview anywhere you want. Perhaps you meant to say that 35+ and 3.85+ will get you an interview somewhere, but not anywhere. Semantics...

No, I mean anywhere, although in any perticular case this may not hold up. Like I said earlier, there are many factors beyond your control, such as the person reading your application having a bad day, etc.

Those scores are good enough to get an interview at ANY institution, but it doesn't mean that you will.

And it is still early- when I applied I only had 1 interview at this time and was very worried. Then I got 11 more between Dec and March. I only got turned down at 2 programs for the interview, and those schools were no better than any others. My scores were similar to yours.

 

[anka24]

No, I mean anywhere, although in any perticular case this may not hold up. Like I said earlier, there are many factors beyond your control, such as the person reading your application having a bad day, etc.

Those scores are good enough to get an interview at ANY institution, but it doesn't mean that you will.

And it is still early- when I applied I only had 1 interview at this time and was very worried. Then I got 11 more between Dec and March. I only got turned down at 2 programs for the interview, and those schools were no better than any others. My scores were similar to yours.

Thanks for your story. Things may have changed since you applied, but I sincerely hope not, because there a bunch of interviews I am still hoping to nab.

I went to George Washington undergrad FWIW. It's a private school, but with a middle of the road ranking comparable to University of Maryland and certainly below some other state universities like UMich and UVA or any of the UCals.

 

[Mr. Tee]

I had the same GPA with a slightly better MCAT and got pre-interview rejection from Hopkins, Harvard, and WashU. I know some people with very similar apps with regards to those numbers and research experience from bigger name schools who got those interviews. Coincidence? Dunno. I can say I was often told my LORs and essays were among the best the adcoms had ever seen (I'm from a very disadvantaged background).

Well I'm the same as you were and I'm quite the opposite (disregarding Harvard), FWIW.