Discussion on bad first years/ upward trends

[Doctor or bust]

There are endless threads on here about applicants who have poor performances during their first year of college and I'm a part of that crowd so my viewpoint may be biased, but I'd like to see what everyone thinks about this.

Obviously it looks better on paper to have gotten good grades throughout college and this will certainly open up more doors than having had poor performances and working your way up hill from them. However, couldn't the argument be made that it could be equally valued to have the latter experience as those who go through this often undergo some sort of reinvention which leads them to being more certain as to wanting what they go for. On occasion, experiencing adversity leads to growth and maturity.

Since adcoms look at the overall package, neither grades nor personality/maturity give a whole picture but rather the story and results seem to be the determining factor. Would anyone within the interviewing community or adcoms be interested in discussing this? It just seems that many people worry about their early shortcomings being a nail in the coffin against them but couldn't this be argued as a strength?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Hakuna Matata]

It absolutely should be argued as a strength during your interviews. I had a similar experience during undergrad and was asked about it on every med school interview. I talked about all the positives that came of it and my interviewers seemed to agree.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

There are endless threads on here about applicants who have poor performances during their first year of college and I'm a part of that crowd so my viewpoint may be biased, but I'd like to see what everyone thinks about this.

Obviously it looks better on paper to have gotten good grades throughout college and this will certainly open up more doors than having had poor performances and working your way up hill from them. However, couldn't the argument be made that it could be equally valued to have the latter experience as those who go through this often undergo some sort of reinvention which leads them to being more certain as to wanting what they go for. On occasion, experiencing adversity leads to growth and maturity.

Since adcoms look at the overall package, neither grades nor personality/maturity give a whole picture but rather the story and results seem to be the determining factor. Would anyone within the interviewing community or adcoms be interested in discussing this? It just seems that many people worry about their early shortcomings being a nail in the coffin against them but couldn't this be argued as a strength?

Many MD, and all DO schools reward reinvention. It's a pre-med delusion that Adcoms want to see consistent excellence through all four years. Even schools like UCSF, Duke, case and Columbia had accepted SDNers who reinvented themselves via aceing a post-bac or SMP. A number of MD school sstate on thier admissions webistes that they weight the last 2-3 years of academics more than the entire four.

Naturally, some Uber schools can afford to turn people away because they're drowning in "flawless" applicants.