blinkoncetoagree
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 9
Anatomy of a Postbac: A Minority Report
From approximately June 2018 to May 2019, I was a student in the Post-Baccalaureate Premedical Program at Goucher College. After having successfully completed the program approx. 3 months ago, I have had some time to reflect on my experiences. Although I contemplated publishing my observations at many points throughout this year, I decided to wait until I had more clarity regarding the full experience. The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Goucher College or its Postbac Program (PBPM). It should be quite obvious that Goucher nor PBPM has not approved, endorsed, embraced, friended, liked, tweeted or authorized this post.
Applying: Aside from there being maybe 2 URM students, the interview day was unremarkable and perfunctory. Students were amicable and scripted; I’d done many of these things before so I knew the protocol: Smile. Nod. Shake Hands. Authenticate CV. Smile Again. Ask a thoughtful question. Furrow brow. Listen. Smile again. Don’t glance at mobile. Exeunt. Check mobile. Send thank you note.
Overall, I was convinced this was a prudent investment, so I proudly paid my $500 deposit to reserve my seat then began scouting for housing.
Note: Goucher has offered Skype interviews in past years like its peers. I was not offered one and travelled over 1,100 miles to interview.
The College: Beautiful and lush campus with liberal and socially progressive student body. Recently a number of majors have been discontinued or restructured. College has recently named its 12th president.
Facilities: With the exception of Julia Rogers, the facilities at Goucher are scheduled for renovation. It is unclear when the college anticipates the completion of this project. A persistent student concern is that many chairs are broken, and some classrooms simply cannot accommodate the growing number of students in Hoffberger. Only the Physics courses and labs take place in Julia Rogers.
Linkage Agreements: PBPM has agreements with 10 medical schools which in past years have matriculated approximately 50% of the class of 30-33 students. However, this past year there were a number of upsets resulting in closer to 33% of successful linkages. Now, I have considered a number of “conspiracy” theories from my disgruntled peers as to why this trend reversed and for whom. My objective here is simply to present the facts so that prospective students and perhaps others may freely draw their own conclusions. Respecting SDN policy that posts should be anonymous, I do not identify any persons or divulge protected information. The observations herein purely represent my personal opinions and observations of an alumnus, fwiw.
Website: So why am I recounting my personal experience? Isn’t this just a thinly-veiled smear? I’m publishing my experience principally due to the dearth of information on this program on SDN and elsewhere. For example, under the Current Class tab on the PBPM website, the information listed is almost 5 years old! The brochure accompanying my acceptance letter featured a handful of posed student profiles, some of which were substantially older than on the website. Furthermore, I believe that the URM perspective is a rare and valuable one among an already small and homogenous population, albeit intellectually diverse. Moreover, the full COA for this program is approximately $57K. Merit/Need-based support ranges from $1500-$4000/year (as a tuition credit applied to student account) according to the program website. Assuming one glide year and federal direct unsubsidized loans, the interest that would accrue is approximately $3000. These loans require repayment after a 6-month grace period. As indicated, this portion of the website is indeed “up-to-the-minute”. So, no this is not a thinly-veiled smear. Rather, it is a sincere attempt to hold this program accountable to its students, help prospective students make better-informed decisions, and hopefully start a dialogue about key issues on the path to medicine by sharing my own personal observations and experiences.
Demographics: There were 33 students in my class. 26 women/7 men. 2 or 3 identified as URM. 28 students under 30 years of age. 4 students were over 30 years of age or older. 1 student was over 40 years of age. 2 JDs. 4 Master’s.
6 professors teach PBPM courses (1 Professor is Lab Instructor and Bio II is co-taught). 3 administrative staff. 1 TA. No instructional or administrative staff is URM; 5/9 are female, presumptively. No PGP data. >6 students identify as LGBTQI.
Faculty: All instructional staff hold PhDs in relevant fields. As a teaching-centered institution, professors are genuinely focused on student instruction rather than their own research/publication as scholars.
Curriculum: Courses are more or less similar to any other university. This year, Organic II was worth 5 credits and served a combination organic II/biochem course. Exams are mostly “essay-style” where instructors or TAs award partial credit for answers. Based on a student database of past exams/quizzes, there is considerable variety in terms of how much partial credit is awarded to students. Note: the program does not have blind grading. Also, this year’s assessments were substantially different from the last several years’ exams. Many past years’ exams were virtually identical to a previous exam. Many students from my class noted this year’s departure from that trend. The program encourages students to sell their course materials to incoming students.
MCAT: In the Fall and Spring, students spend approx. 2 hours per week in a TA-led MCAT course answering sample questions and reviewing course content. Periodically, students take practice full-length exams on Saturday. Many of my peers found they needed to supplement their preparation as the exam approached. The program recommends students take the May 31/June 1 administration. According to one staff member, program GPA is not well-correlated with MCAT score. Students are responsible for purchasing their own prep materials, and this cost among others (e.g., linkage visits, application fees, etc) is not included in COA.
Volunteering: Students perform a wide variety of clinical and other volunteering activities, generally on Tuesday when there is no scheduled instruction.
Advising: The program director holds weekly meetings on Wednesdays in Fall and Spring to address issues related to the medical school admissions process (e.g., linkage, essay-writing, etc). On one notable occasion in early Fall, I raised my hand to ask a question or to contribute feedback which had been solicited and was conspicuously ignored by the program director. At first, I was reluctant to read into this incident just for my own sanity as the only black man in our class of 30 students and one of a handful of “older” students (i.e., >28yo); however, it was apparent to other students inside of the approx. 600sq. ft. classroom that I was the only person with a raised hand held high for at least a full minute that was not acknowledged. Eventually, I gave up and resigned to provide feedback through formal university channels. Although this specific incident was isolated, it would hardly be the first or most prominent incident that caused me to feel unwelcome and disrespected. I was puzzled by my treatment. I hadn’t quarreled with her or anyone else for that matter that would justify this.
Or perhaps I had? A few months ago, I met with the program director concerning a grade dispute. Having missed the grade by six-tenths of a point and after having been harangued by the TA for advocating for myself, I was naturally frustrated and disappointed. Consequently, I reported the incident to the director expecting mature and reassuring reiteration of program core values or an apology for the verbal abuse. Instead, I was stonewalled and treated with contempt and skepticism. Nevertheless, I tried to brush it off sensing that my sentiments perhaps weren’t the only ones that had changed.
Fortunately, verbal abuse of this nature subsided or rather transitioned into a cascade of not-so-subtle microaggressions despite sincere efforts to maintain my own decorum and professionalism inside this singular environment. Having been 1 of 2 black students in my graduating class at Princeton, this was hardly my first time navigating a challenging landscape. I assumed it would be like that. People were deep-down secure in their achievements and collaborative.
Then, as linkage application deadlines approached, the threats started rolling in. In one especially memorable email, the director threatened to include negative information in the committee letter because a number of students had incorrectly labeled an attachment. Many students were troubled by this message and even went so far as to notify the university Provost about what was hitherto only an unfounded fear or conspiracy theory. The director did not acknowledge verbally or in writing her gaffe, nor did students receive an apology.
Consequently, I decided to revoke my waiver to view the committee letter at this time. After a challenging first semester, I solicited feedback from the TA about improvement, expecting she might empathize with me on some level. I was told basically that if I thought this was too tough or “fast-paced”, I might consider withdrawing and completing credits elsewhere. The director echoed this sentiment in a telephone call to discuss my performance simultaneously admonishing me that withdrawal would invite questions from admissions committees about my departure from such a prestigious program. While on one hand this was sobering and perhaps sage advice, it hardly encouraged me to feel any optimism about continuing in the program or future prospects. Having already formally expressed concerns about grading policies, I resolved to pick up the pieces and show an upward trend.
In the spring, I tried to minimize my interactions with staff who seemed unable to encourage my success. Anticipating some kind of “issue”, I confirmed the final details concerning Goucher’s contribution to my application via email. In early May, I scheduled a final meeting with the director to confirm a number of items and solicit advice on compiling a school list. The director reiterated to me that she could not foresee any “issues” with submitting the committee letter on my behalf and agreed in writing to upload it by a specific date.
By the end of that date, no letter was uploaded. After gingerly reaching out to the Provost for assistance, the director uploaded the letter 4 days later without the accompanying supplementary letters which had been submitted in Fall. Students were told to expect to have the supplementary letters included if they arrived in time. Unexpectedly, the director was unable to include these letters due to my refusal to waive viewing rights since they were submitted on my behalf before I rescinded the waiver which also unexpectedly caused the delay in uploading. No one contacted me to notify me of this potential issue or delay. Although they are optional, this “issue” caused a huge inconvenience for me to request my recommenders resubmit the letters individually. Despite having a copy of one of these letters from one recommender, I am unable to upload the letter myself and have still been unable to complete this part of my application, approx. 1 month after the specified date. Furthermore, neither of my supplementary recommenders were even aware of my option to waive. Legally, their letters are only governed by this policy because the director required that the letter be submitted to the program which then became their official property subject to the waiver document. While it would be incredibly unfair of me to speculate on the series of decisions that led to this outcome, this is certainly a professional lapse entirely on the part of the director that I sought to avoid through repeated and specific inquiries. I received neither acknowledgement of fault nor apology, merely a completion notification.
Moreover, after completing final exams, the director sent another email attempting to coerce students. In the Fall, the program provided written instructions to students indicating that we must select “Yes” to release our MCAT scores to the program. Fact: it is the right of any student to choose which is why AAMC indicates this as an option. In the Spring, the director demanded students release the AMCAS application to the program-not recommend with rationale or request-require upon the condition that the she would be unable to upload a student’s committee letter otherwise. We fact-checked this point since many non-traditional students reveal sensitive, personal information that they do not wish to disclose to others. Fact: there are several ways in which one may upload a committee or any other letters of recommendation. According to some program alumni, this has been a long-standing policy.
I don’t mean to sound unreasonable or naïve on these technical points. Certainly, any reasonable student would want to share this information with the chief adviser so that they can receive the most tailored advice possible presumptively. I, among others, take exception with the condescending and manipulative manner in which students are advised. I maintain respect for the academic training and professional expertise that has allowed this program to produce consistently outstanding outcomes.
Conclusion: Overall, I am sincerely grateful to the highly-skilled educators who have worked tirelessly to impart a wealth of science to students who do not have a science background in eleven months. Cliché as it may be, it truly is an awesome responsibility. Even some of the less interesting or perhaps immediately relevant topics are tailored to this special pre-medical curriculum.
Accordingly, my experience was most certainly colored by several negative experiences that I genuinely believe were a consequence of my minority statuses. Specifically, the manner in which I was treated by classmates and staff stood out to me. I have been ignored here, consistently singled out for additional and harsher criticism vis à vis peers, and threatened in a manner not befitting of an independent adult. For example, during weekly labs of approx. 15 students, students routinely crowded into 3 out of 4 tables leaving the table at which I was seated with a population of never more than 3 students. On another occasion, a professor marked my response incorrect on an exam. The professor inadvertently made a typo and graciously corrected the error after I inquired. However, it was his remark that almost everyone else had no issue and that he was now confident in my ability that really left me feeling confused. On more than one occasion, I witnessed a professor make comments regarding age that could be considered offensive by some students. None of these experiences alone are a “smoking gun” of bias, but it is important to consider their cumulative effect or at least the optics, right?
Having developed some of my closest relationships inside environments that some would characterize as tokenist, I saw this program as yet another opportunity to build bridges across differences. I was indeed able to fulfill that goal again here. However, I do feel that characteristics related to my minority statuses punctuated my experience and that there was a culture here that enabled this treatment to continue despite being perhaps over-articulate in program surveys and correspondence. Due to a scheduling conflict I was unable to attend the program’s final ceremony in May 2019, I still have not received my completion certificate to this day.
Last edited:
