DIY Post Bacc risks

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

foreverlearner02

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
May 7, 2015
Messages
128
Reaction score
31
I've been weighing the pros and cons between doing a DIY post bacc vs a masters in physiology (not a SMP) .

Main pro of a DIY post bacc is that the classes will raise my gpa from undergrad where as a masters is seen as a graduate gpa. Also Ive been told I'd only need to take 4-5 classes and then I should be good to apply (can someone confirm this?)

However, my concern is that if you don't do well enough in the DIY post bacc, you have a bunch of upper levels that you've taken with no degree to show. Makes for virtually no fall back plan and wasted money. With the masters in physio, I could pursue research if for some reason I didn't get into med school and had to give that up.

Looking for input as to which is the better decision and what would you do if a DIY post bacc didn't work out as planned?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Also Ive been told I'd only need to take 4-5 classes and then I should be good to apply (can someone confirm this?)
Alot you're not telling us. It really depends on what your current GPA and MCAT is, where you take the 4-5 classes (CC vs Uni), how much of an upward GPA trend you have. Seeing as you were Pre PT switching to Pre Med youll also need to shadow a DO if you havent already.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I've been weighing the pros and cons between doing a DIY post bacc vs a masters in physiology (not a SMP) .

Main pro of a DIY post bacc is that the classes will raise my gpa from undergrad where as a masters is seen as a graduate gpa. Also Ive been told I'd only need to take 4-5 classes and then I should be good to apply (can someone confirm this?)

However, my concern is that if you don't do well enough in the DIY post bacc, you have a bunch of upper levels that you've taken with no degree to show. Makes for virtually no fall back plan and wasted money. With the masters in physio, I could pursue research if for some reason I didn't get into med school and had to give that up.

Looking for input as to which is the better decision and what would you do if a DIY post bacc didn't work out as planned?
need more info
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Pro: Looks good if you did good.
Con: Looks bad if you did bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
A non-SMP master will yield little to no benefit as most master programs will give you an A if you pass and B if you do poorly. You always get everyone on SDN with a masters claiming it's different and their masters was real tough work, but most people in medical schools don't take that claim seriously.
 
A non-SMP master will yield little to no benefit as most master programs will give you an A if you pass and B if you do poorly. You always get everyone on SDN with a masters claiming it's different and their masters was real tough work, but most people in medical schools don't take that claim seriously.

Depends on what your masters is.

The physiology department sure didn't have trouble handing half their students a 4.0 at my place.

Physics, bioengineering, chemistry, etc. have a different story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Like @Quavo said more info is needed... But unlike others on SDN I do believe the right MS can yield good results. I’m not totally sold on SMPs myself. I don’t trust academic institutions that much so throwing +30k for a “special” masters makes me nauseous! I have looked at many programs over the last year just in case I have to do some extra work. I keep coming back to U of M masters in physiology (course work-track). Their program is of high caliber and the course work track resembles an SMP but isn’t devalued by the SMP name if things don’t work out. With all of this said though so many factors come into play. I do agree with the general consensus though, in the fact that a MS in physiology from **** State Univeristy will do little for your app.

Course Listing | Molecular & Integrative Physiology | Michigan Medicine | University of Michigan
(this program is a low key SMP... The small class size gives me the warm feels knowing it’s not a huge cash grab)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I've been weighing the pros and cons between doing a DIY post bacc vs a masters in physiology (not a SMP) .

Main pro of a DIY post bacc is that the classes will raise my gpa from undergrad where as a masters is seen as a graduate gpa. Also Ive been told I'd only need to take 4-5 classes and then I should be good to apply (can someone confirm this?)

However, my concern is that if you don't do well enough in the DIY post bacc, you have a bunch of upper levels that you've taken with no degree to show. Makes for virtually no fall back plan and wasted money. With the masters in physio, I could pursue research if for some reason I didn't get into med school and had to give that up.

Looking for input as to which is the better decision and what would you do if a DIY post bacc didn't work out as planned?

I did a semi DIY post bacc after graduating and I can relate to how stressful it can be.. you're really taking a gamble on yourself to do well. But ultimately your gambling when pursuing this path anyway given how long and arduous it can be. As someone who did a DIY post bacc, I always recommend it if you're sure medicine is what your ultimately want. If you maybe could be happy in a healthcare related field that you get into with an MS, then do that.
 
My masters program core classes are graded on a curve so only 20 percent get As. And it was legit hard work to pull out a 4.0. If the adcom s know how difficult your program is it can work in your favor. I'm pretty sure the caliber of my masters program got me into my state MD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My masters program core classes are graded on a curve so only 20 percent get As. And it was legit hard work to pull out a 4.0. If the adcom s know how difficult your program is it can work in your favor. I'm pretty sure the caliber of my masters program got me into my state MD.

I get the feeling that people here constantly say "research masters degrees are easy" (vast majority without ever taking one).

If I had to guess, I'd say the people that actually have gone through the rigorous master degree experience generally keep their mouths shut on SDN due to fear of being told "its super duper easy" by people that have never taken it.

I can say with great confidence that my undergraduate experience was leagues easier than my chemistry masters degree.

I scored roughly 97% in my orgo II undergrad. class.
Life was much harder in my "core" graduate courses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
If you wish to be a doctor, then you need to demonstrate that you can handle med school.

I've been weighing the pros and cons between doing a DIY post bacc vs a masters in physiology (not a SMP) .

Main pro of a DIY post bacc is that the classes will raise my gpa from undergrad where as a masters is seen as a graduate gpa. Also Ive been told I'd only need to take 4-5 classes and then I should be good to apply (can someone confirm this?)

However, my concern is that if you don't do well enough in the DIY post bacc, you have a bunch of upper levels that you've taken with no degree to show. Makes for virtually no fall back plan and wasted money. With the masters in physio, I could pursue research if for some reason I didn't get into med school and had to give that up.

Looking for input as to which is the better decision and what would you do if a DIY post bacc didn't work out as planned?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I get the feeling that people here constantly say "research masters degrees are easy" (vast majority without ever taking one).

If I had to guess, I'd say the people that actually have gone through the rigorous master degree experience generally keep their mouths shut on SDN due to fear of being told "its super duper easy" by people that have never taken it.

I can say with great confidence that my undergraduate experience was leagues easier than my chemistry masters degree.

I scored roughly 97% in my orgo II undergrad. class.
Life was much harder in my "core" graduate courses.

Agreed. Also have friends in my program who thought they would be able to improve their gpa and the exact opppsite is happening
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Agreed. Also have friends in my program who thought they would be able to improve their gpa and the exact opppsite is happening

Ya, that's definitely disheartening. Hopefully its not too much lower than their undergrad. GPA.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I know people that have landed decent paying research gigs ($30/hr is good money where I live) with a bachelor's, if they set up the right connections before graduating.

Considering med schools tend to weigh undergrad GPAs so heavily, I'd just do a post bacc... but that really depends on how redeemable your GPA is. If you can pull your GPA up to a decent level with only a few classes, a post bacc would work. If your GPA is totally irredeemable and you'd need 60+ credit hours of 4.0 to even crack a 3.5, I'd do a SMP.

I don't think I'd do a non-SMP master's regardless if the goal is getting into med school. Won't help your undergrad GPA and if the program is not well known by the schools you're applying to, they wouldn't know if the classes are along the lines of med school difficulty.
 
I know people that have landed decent paying research gigs ($30/hr is good money where I live) with a bachelor's, if they set up the right connections before graduating.

Considering med schools tend to weigh undergrad GPAs so heavily, I'd just do a post bacc... but that really depends on how redeemable your GPA is. If you can pull your GPA up to a decent level with only a few classes, a post bacc would work. If your GPA is totally irredeemable and you'd need 60+ credit hours of 4.0 to even crack a 3.5, I'd do a SMP.

I don't think I'd do a non-SMP master's regardless if the goal is getting into med school. Won't help your undergrad GPA and if the program is not well known by the schools you're applying to, they wouldn't know if the classes are along the lines of med school difficulty.

That works out to anyone with less than a 3.25 should do a SMP. I feel like if anyone has a ~3.0, acing post bacc even if it doesn't bring you above 3.5 would bet better/less risky than a SMP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I have very mixed feelings about this thread topic. TBH, I don't think I would have gotten in without completing a masters in physiology. I came from a completely different industry and had very little science credits before I applied. I actually did a post bacc (just the prereqs) and then completed the masters. For me, it wasn't about "improving my stats" when I did the masters. I had a 3.8cGPA and sGPA before starting. However, I felt like undergrad science classes were not exposing me to a lot. At several of my interviews, my interviewers asked me about what I learned in my program etc. From what I could infer, they saw a lot of value in already being exposed to that information before starting med school.

HOWEVER, I did have several friends who completed the Masters and didn't get in. They felt like it was a waste of money. But they were more traditional students. Maybe only consider doing the Masters if you are a non trad.
 
A non-SMP master will yield little to no benefit as most master programs will give you an A if you pass and B if you do poorly. You always get everyone on SDN with a masters claiming it's different and their masters was real tough work, but most people in medical schools don't take that claim seriously.

My masters program core classes are graded on a curve so only 20 percent get As. And it was legit hard work to pull out a 4.0. If the adcom s know how difficult your program is it can work in your favor. I'm pretty sure the caliber of my masters program got me into my state MD.

@AlbinoHawk DO , I respect how much you know about undergraduate school and osteopathic schools, but telling people that are earning a science masters that an "A" is pass and "B" is doing poorly is blatantly wrong.

Have you ever went to graduate school? If the answer is "no", then start doing a better job on reading the posts about people who actually have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@AlbinoHawk DO , I respect how much you know about undergraduate school and osteopathic schools, but telling people that are earning a science masters that an "A" is pass and "B" is doing poorly is blatantly wrong.

Have you ever went to graduate school? If the answer is "no", then start doing a better job on reading the posts about people who actually have.
I have not. However, I did work at 2 major academic centers as a research associate where I had interactions with many PhD students. I also networked in a few conferences where I asked people in the admissions process what the value of a masters degree is. I have never had a stroke, meningitis, vertigo, etc. but you bet I can diagnose it and treat it. Don't act like grad school is some emotional experience where you have to live it to know.
 
I have not. However, I did work at 2 major academic centers as a research associate where I had interactions with many PhD students. I also networked in a few conferences where I asked people in the admissions process what the value of a masters degree is. I have never had a stroke, meningitis, vertigo, etc. but you bet I can diagnose it and treat it. Don't act like grad school is some emotional experience where you have to live it to know.

1.) So you've never went grad. school.

2.) Even if you had the experience to "talk" to people in graduate school, doesn't allocate you the ability to be blatantly wrong(this isn't debatable, what I bolded earlier in your quoted post is 100% wrong). I had a class where no student was even allocated the grade of "A".

Stop thinking that courses in grad. school like "advanced quantum chemistry 600" hand out A's like candy.

As the above poster mentioned, only 20% of her class were given A's, even in her physiology masters.

Am I saying masters degrees are hard? Its dependent on a few factors.
Am I saying you're wrong with your generalizations? Absolutely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
1.) So you've never went grad. school.

2.) Even if you had the experience to "talk" to people in graduate school, doesn't allocate you the ability to be blatantly wrong(this isn't debatable, what I bolded earlier in your quoted post is 100% wrong). I had a class where no student was even allocated the grade of "A".

Stop thinking that courses in grad. school like "advanced quantum chemistry 600" hand out A's like candy.

As the above poster mentioned, only 20% of her class were given A's, even in her physiology masters.

Am I saying masters degrees are hard? Its dependent on a few factors.
Am I saying you're wrong with your generalizations? Absolutely.
I'm not saying that the classes are easy. I'm saying that the grading system is flawed, so even though you put in a lot of work, it'll result in an A because most programs are not handing out B or C.

I know you've repeatedly said that your program or someone else's is the motherload of difficulty and 90% get F with best student getting C- or whatever. I don't care. You can try to convince admissions if you want. At the end, convincing me does nothing.
 
I'm not saying that the classes are easy. I'm saying that the grading system is flawed, so even though you put in a lot of work, it'll result in an A because most programs are not handing out B or C.

I know you've repeatedly said that your program or someone else's is the motherload of difficulty and 90% get F with best student getting C- or whatever. I don't care. You can try to convince admissions if you want. At the end, convincing me does nothing.

1.) Most programs absolutely hand out B's and C's. This just shows how distant from the reality of these degrees you are.

2.) I'm not correcting you to "convince" you per se, just so you'll stop giving blatantly false information to people. Telling people on SDN who are thinking of pursuing a masters degree that they should be able to earn all A's (with great ease) is inaccurate in many cases, if not most cases.

It's like you have selective reading. You ignore Phygal's physiology experience of only 20% of her core classes earning A's. That seems like the typical Master degree experience(even though even I'm surprised a physiology masters would be this harsh).
 
Last edited:
how is this even a debate? Of course ADcoms are going to take consideration that you spent 2 years of your life in grad school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
1.) Most programs absolutely hand out B's and C's. This just shows how distant from the reality of these degrees you are.

2.) I'm not correcting you to "convince" you per se, just so you'll stop giving blatantly false information to people. Telling people on SDN who are thinking of pursuing a masters degree that they should be able to earn all A's (with great ease) is inaccurate in many cases, if not most cases.

It's like you have selective reading. You ignore Phygal's physiology experience of only 20% of her core classes earning A's. That seems like the typical Master degree experience(even though even I'm surprised a physiology masters would be this harsh).
I'm not telling anyone to get a masters of science. I'm telling everyone not to bother getting one because ADCOM only care about SMP or Postbacc

how is this even a debate? Of course ADcoms are going to take consideration that you spent 2 years of your life in grad school.
It's considered a nice extracurricular. You don't need to believe me. You can ask the ADCOM in this forum.
 
I'm not telling anyone to get a masters of science. I'm telling everyone not to bother getting one because ADCOM only care about SMP or Postbacc


It's considered a nice extracurricular. You don't need to believe me. You can ask the ADCOM in this forum.

I never said you were telling people to go after a masters of science. I also think a SMP is more valuable.

However, you are telling people who are thinking of pursuing one blatant lies, probably out of ignorance. I can't tell you how many people I knew who's first "B" grade was not undergraduate school, but rather the chemistry masters program.

ADCOMS have their opinions. The one I've met and several others do not think a chemistry masters is an EC. However, I have seen one ADCOM on here say its more of an EC, but its an ADCOM of a top 10 MD school.

If we are talking about DO, then from my experience talking to then, I doubt it.

If you look back at a thread in the nontrad. forum about what ADCOMs really think, you will see that some people there have also E-mailed and spoke to ADCOMs who thought it was crazy to say that it is an EC. However, I do acknowledge there are probably more ADCOMs who think its an EC that I would like.

I was often someone who would speak to chemistry graduate students who were at my university for "recruitment'". One of the things they often asked were how easy it was to obtain all "A"s in chemistry graduate school.

The truth and what I would tell them: "Its a lot more work than undergraduate school, and you will most likely not have a 4.0 going out, no one I ever met has. One professor in the program doesn't even hand out "A"'s. However, if you're a good student, you should be able to earn an overall GPA of 3.5+".

The fact you never had advanced quantum chemistry but somehow think its an "easy A" is also ridiculous. I don't think if you experienced grad. school you'd be so fast on calling it "easy".

All I'm asking you is that you stop telling students false information. Stop telling students "A''s are good, and "B"'s are poor in master degree programs. This notion is harmful because its giving people the impression who are thinking about attending said master degree programs that they should expect a 4.0, which is utterly incorrect. Keep your unfounded sweeping generalizations to yourself.
 
Last edited:
All I'm asking you is that you stop telling students false information. Stop telling students "A''s are good, and "B"'s are poor in master degree programs. This notion is harmful because its giving people who are thinking about attending said master degree programs that they should expect a 4.0, which is utterly incorrect. keep your unfounded sweeping generalizations to yourself.

For better or for worse, graduate school grade inflation is probably the norm. At many graduate programs, a 3.0 GPA average is required to stay in the program, while a 2.0 GPA average is generally the requirement for staying in an undergraduate program.

Hence, a "B" from a typical graduate school is perhaps comparable to a "C" from a typical undergrad; both are the bare-minimum standards.
 
For better or for worse, graduate school grade inflation is probably the norm. At many graduate programs, a 3.0 GPA average is required to stay in the program, while a 2.0 GPA average is generally the requirement for staying in an undergraduate program.

Hence, a "B" from a typical graduate school is perhaps comparable to a "C" from a typical undergrad; both are the bare-minimum standards.

Yes, but overall grade inflation (research, seminar credits) is different than saying someone should earn an "A"-only in the core courses (advanced biochem 600, advanced inorganic 600, etc.).

Here's a good example. If you ask me whats easier to obtain a 3.0 GPA in, I'd probably say:

Grad. school > Undergrad. school

If you asked me whats easier to earn a 4.0 GPA, I'd probably say:

Undergrad. > Grad. School

However, if you ask me whats easier to obtain a 3.8 GPA, I'd probably say:

Grad. School = Undergrad.

*Assuming this is my/similar masters program.

A "B" in chemistry graduate school is not similar to a "C" in undergraduate school. That's goofy.

I can tell you that I earned a 97% in undergrad. in orgo II. Not even close to that in chemistry graduate school.
 
Last edited:
Literally this thread is the reason I avoided sdn for so long. Grad school is much more difficult than undergrad. That's why there is some grade inflation. And it's apart of your academic section on AMCAS and AACOMAS for a reason. If you had a 3.8 in undergrad and bombed a grad program this would be taken into consideration and vice versa. I am 100 percent sure I would not have gotten into an MD program with just my post bac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Literally this thread is the reason I avoided sdn for so long. Grad school is much more difficult than undergrad. That's why there is some grade inflation. And it's apart of your academic section on AMCAS and AACOMAS for a reason. If you had a 3.8 in undergrad and bombed a grad program this would be taken into consideration and vice versa. I am 100 percent sure I would not have gotten into an MD program with just my post bac.

SDN is generally horrendously inaccurate when it comes to graduate school discussions.

A bunch of pre-med/med. students commenting on graduate school difficultly, something they have not even remotely experienced, makes me face palm :smack:.
 
The fact you never had advanced quantum chemistry but somehow think its an "easy A" is also ridiculous. I don't think if you experienced grad. school you'd be so fast on calling it "easy".
How many times do I have to answer to this? Read my previous comment.

I'm not saying that the classes are easy. I'm saying that the grading system is flawed, so even though you put in a lot of work, it'll result in an A because most programs are not handing out B or C.
 
The generalization that most programs are "not" handing out "B"s or "C"s is false.

Most students in grad school get Bs. This is seen as normal/doing well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Most students in grad school get Bs. This is seen as normal/doing well.

I 100% agree with this.

It's not like Oprah is sitting there saying to grad. students:

"You get an "A", and you get an "A", everybody gets an "A". Yay."
 
You really cannot generalize “grad school.”

Everyone is applying anecdotal evidence about specific programs they’ve been exposed to.

That’s called bad science. It’s ironic that half of these graduate degrees are in science-related fields.
 
You really cannot generalize “grad school.”

Agree.

Everyone is applying anecdotal evidence about specific programs they’ve been exposed to.

Yes, because as you said, "you cannot generalize "grad. school.""

That’s called bad science. It’s ironic that half of these graduate degrees are in science-related fields.

What's worse than people sharing their graduate school experiences and having their opinions on graduate school difficulty?

People that have zero anecdotal evidence talking about the difficulty of graduate school, without even the experience...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top