Columbia vs. Hunter

[KP222]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Okay, here's my deal. I got accepted into Columbia's postbacc program last fall and was planning on starting my studies this current Spring semester. However, during a miserable discussion with my advisor, I was told that my undergrad general chemistry classes (taken in 2000/2001) were obsolete even though I did very well in them. Essentially, they would let me use my credits, but I would have to sign an agreement stating that I did so against the advice of my advisor. After some thought, I decided not to enroll.

So now I'm facing a dilemma. By not using my chem credits, and having Columbia's program structured the way it is, I would have to take general chem all over again before taking either bio or orgo. Therefore, I'd be committed to a two year stint in postbacc and would finish a year later than expected, not to mention the heavy additional cost.

Although this isn't a disastrous situation, it has me re-thinking my decision to go to Columbia. Considering all the negative reviews, the exhorbitant cost, and its inhibitive structure, maybe the benefit of getting a Columbia education isn't worthwhile.

This brings me to my question: Does anyone think that going to Hunter over Columbia is a wise decision? Its obviously cheaper, but can anyone shed any light on the scheduling structure, or perhaps how med schools view Hunter when considering applicants? Is it a postbacc program, or does one simply take the courses they need? Basically, any advice anyone can provide regarding going to Hunter over Columbia would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in adviance and good luck to all.

-KP

 

[KrnFord920]

I have never heard of anyone's undergrad courses going "obsolete." the only thing that can go out of date is the MCAT. I think your advisor is a little ****oo and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Now, maybe your advisor meant that you should have some upper level science courses shown, but even so, I don't think any course goes obsolete so that you have to retake it.

 

[foofish]

Actually, there are a fair number of schools that will not consider premedical requisites taken more than six years before applying.

I was in a similar situation (I had taken bio already, but ages ago) and thought that having to retake it was bs....but I checked out the websites of med schools that I'm considering, and most of them had some policy to the effect that anything over 6-7 years had to be retaken. Not all of them do that, but many do--check the schools you're thinking about applying to.

 

[KrnFord920]

Actually, there are a fair number of schools that will not consider premedical requisites taken more than six years before applying.

I was in a similar situation (I had taken bio already, but ages ago) and thought that having to retake it was bs....but I checked out the websites of med schools that I'm considering, and most of them had some policy to the effect that anything over 6-7 years had to be retaken. Not all of them do that, but many do--check the schools you're thinking about applying to.

hmm. didn't know that... thanks for clearing that up.

 

[foofish]

Yeah, isn't this a lovely process? Of course, my state med school is one of those with the expiration policy...

But, it's one of those things that's worth researching in advance, because you might be lucky in that none of the schools you're interested in have that policy.

 

[KP222]

I have never heard of anyone's undergrad courses going "obsolete." the only thing that can go out of date is the MCAT. I think your advisor is a little ****oo and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Now, maybe your advisor meant that you should have some upper level science courses shown, but even so, I don't think any course goes obsolete so that you have to retake it.

Thanks for the responses everyone. I personally thought it was BS as well, especially since I did relative well at a respectable school. Learning that I had to take gen chem over was definitely an unpleasant surprise, especially since it completely destroyed by timeline.

I guess this situation just has me looking for a more flexible and perhaps cheaper alternative than Columbia. I'd really like to do my postbacc work in under 2 years, and now that seems impossible at Columbia. That's why I'm looking at other programs in the NY area, namely Hunter. People have said NYU is slightly more flexible (i.e., you can take summer courses there), but their program is just as expensive.

Decisions, decisions... Anyway, thanks again for your input. It is much appreciated.

-KP

 

[businessmd06]

So I am facing the same issue. I got in to NYU / Columbia, and Hunter for either summer 06 or fall 06. Originall I thought I wanted to do all my pre reqs in 1 yr.... (Gen Chem in summer) Orgo Bio in Fall / Spring and Phy 1+2 in the summer... I decided doing all that, plus volunteering, and plus MCAT and leaving my job was not worth savings one year...

Info on the schools

NYU - Allows you to schedule summer classes / labs. Very flexable.

Columbia - You already know about them

Hunter - They do not offer summer science classes that we need as pre reqs... THey do have some summer labs. You will need to consider this when thinking about going there. It will take you 2 yrs if you need all the classes with Hunter, as with Columbia. Hunter also will make you jump through some hurdles to get all the classes you need when you need them. Supposidly if you work the system you will get what you need.

Where to go?

I was set on NYU for flexability, and because of positive feedback from students. Columbia did not have great feedback. If you want to work part-time however than NYU is hard b/c they do not have night classes, so then I thought suck it up and go Columbia.... well in the end HUNTER!

Why Hunter

I did a smart thing my primary care doc suggested.... I called all the NY based medical school, and UMDNJ (Area I would probably end up) and asked them the "30,000 dollar question" Do they feel Columbia / NYU is a better place for Post Bac career changers to go?

Everyone in NY said go Hunter... Suny actually recommends Hunter to students, Cornell said Hunter has a strong post bac program... UMDNJ said Hunter was a good program. All of them said it is not so much where you go but how you do, (not including community colleges) and how your MCAT's are, and EC etc... I am still waiting to hear what Philly schools say, I will update tomorrow, however, the answer was an emphatic Hunter. If you want it in one year and want to pay 1000 per credit, go NYU. If 2 yrs is ok, and you want to pay 250 per credit go Hunter.

The only thing that may be tough is that schools accross the country may not know Hunter, but will know Columbia / NYU. I think schools in this region however know Hunter well. In the end all the Adcoms I spoke to said Columbia and NYU @45,000 for the pre reqs is just spending money, and that the benefit does not outweigh the cost.

My 2 cents - it has been a long hard decision




q

 

[richard01]

.

 

[eag]

I just put a post on the Hunter vs Rutgers thread..... Go Hunter! Especially since Lolita Wood-Hill is there now. I did mine at City College but she moved. She is phenomenal and all east coast med schools know her and the caliber of students that City College/Hunter produces. Let's not forget you get an excellent education for extremely cheap. Trust me... you want to go where you are known as "one of Lolita's kids" in the admission's office.