do med schools weed out

[yowhatup]

like undergrad schools? what i mean to ask is whether med schools are tryin to fail students or a certain percentage of students every year?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[UVAbme2009]

No, and neither do undergraduate institutions. Ask yourself why schools would want a low retention rate.

 

[StIGMA]

For US schools, the weed out process is the application process. If you are accepted, they think you can pass.

Why would you care if they do weed out? Planning to do the minimum to pass?

 

[yowhatup]

i am surprised uva as an undergrad is not a weed out school......

i had a friend who went there as an out of state and he tells me that students purposely mess up other premed students lab to get a higher grade... and uva has a high acceptance rate to med school after the committee weeds out those students who the committee feels cannot make it the first time

 

[Calf]

No, and neither do undergraduate institutions. Ask yourself why schools would want a low retention rate.

Lol that's a sweeping generalization that is most definitely false!

LOTS of schools have weed-out classes that try to fail pre-meds. It's just how it works. If you can't cut it in a competitive pre-med class, then they don't want you going to med school.

 

[Bacchus]

That's fine for those classes, because its just showing you have the academic ability to possibly succeed in med school. However, no university weeds out on purpose, especially private institutions where tuition makes up a majority of the incoming cash flow.

 

[beachblonde]

Medical schools spend enough time/money on the students they accept that once they show up, they'll do everything they can to make sure the students succeed. They really don't like having a high attrition rate.

Undergrads are a different story. They prefer to have a high acceptance rate for their pre-meds, so they'll often do what they can to discourage students from filling all of the pre-reqs and making it to the app process. Only the strong survive, right?

 

[MilkmanAl]

LOTS of schools have weed-out classes that try to fail pre-meds. It's just how it works. If you can't cut it in a competitive pre-med class, then they don't want you going to med school.

I think what you mean is this:

LOTS of schools have weed-out classes that are extremely difficult and premeds fail often. It's just how it works. If you can't cut it in a competitive pre-med class, then they don't want you going to med school.

Schools aren't actually trying to fail you, but they don't want you pursuing an unrealistic career path. Incidentally, I got C's in all my intermediate-level bio pre-reqs (molecular bio, ecology - don't ask, and genetics), a C+ in organic, and a B- in organic 2.

 

[Keona]

I think the op is referring to weeding out of specific programs. Not necessarily a school trying to get rid of people in attendance. Undergraduate weed out classes get rid of those trying to succeed in programs they aren't capable of completing. Medical schools don't have weed out classes, they want everyone to pass, it looks bad if they accept someone who can't make it through their program.

 

[Haemulon]

Medical Schools want their students to succeed, and therefore reflect positively on the school during years of matriculation and beyond. Of course, there are standards that need to be met, after all the goal is to produce competant physicians. If it becomes clear that a student is struggling to a degree that will make it very difficult or impossible to succeed, then there just isn't but so much the school can do to help. It is what it is. They do not set out to flunk people though.

 

[deleted74029]

i am surprised uva as an undergrad is not a weed out school......

i had a friend who went there as an out of state and he tells me that students purposely mess up other premed students lab to get a higher grade... and uva has a high acceptance rate to med school after the committee weeds out those students who the committee feels cannot make it the first time

How can your premed committee keep you from applying to med school?

 

[Wordead]

By not writing you a committee recommendation letter. Obviously, if everyone else from your school has the letter and you don't, there's something wrong with you. It's not a good idea to bypass your school committee.

 

[student1799]

By not writing you a committee recommendation letter. Obviously, if everyone else from your school has the letter and you don't, there's something wrong with you. It's not a good idea to bypass your school committee.

I did postbacc at a well-known program which is just brutal in this respect. I was not affected by it, but they have a rule that you can't get a committee letter if your postbacc GPA is not 3.0 or better. I know a student who ended up with a 2.99 because of a bad grade her last semester, and they would not budge on this. No letter for her.

 

[bodonid]

Whatever the reasons, the answers are in the numbers. Somewhere between 97 and 99 percent of medical school matriculants graduate. The same statistic is much lower for law programs and undergrad premed programs (and most other professional programs).

 

[mrx2]

They've already invested so much in you that it would be stupid of them to try and fail you out. Unlike other types of schools, I hear med schools will do anything for you to finish.

 

[JoltOfFuel]

I did postbacc at a well-known program which is just brutal in this respect. I was not affected by it, but they have a rule that you can't get a committee letter if your postbacc GPA is not 3.0 or better. I know a student who ended up with a 2.99 because of a bad grade her last semester, and they would not budge on this. No letter for her.

That's unfortunate. I was under the impression that postbaccs were supposed to help raise your gpa. If the student has a 3.0 anyway, he/she is probably not too competitive at any US schools anyway. The committee letter is usually only written for those that will make it into a school so the school can say we have a 99% admittance to med school yadda yadda. Just another hoop we have to jump through.

 

[Depakote]

As stated above, undergrad tracks will weed people out (tough classes/declining to provide recommendations/etc) in a way that will prevent them from proceeding along that track, but they rarely fail those students out of the school.

In Medical School, if you're accepted, it is generally assumed you're smart enough to finish... if you have trouble, they'll help you out. You can remediate a block or retake a year if need be. It tends to be a very supportive environment, they want you to succeed.

Graduation rates tend to be somewhere around 95% for US allo schools, many of those that leave do so for personal reasons, very few are asked to leave for academic reasons.

 

[student1799]

That's unfortunate. I was under the impression that postbaccs were supposed to help raise your gpa. If the student has a 3.0 anyway, he/she is probably not too competitive at any US schools anyway. The committee letter is usually only written for those that will make it into a school so the school can say we have a 99% admittance to med school yadda yadda. Just another hoop we have to jump through.

I agree--it's all about boosting their success rate. (BTW, if a drug company tried to do a trial like that, computing the success rate without including patients who dropped out during the study, the FDA would ream them out.)

But I find that to be really egregrious in the case I cited. I agree the student's chances of success were low, but is there really such a difference between a 3.0 (which would have gotten a letter) and a 2.99 (which didn't)? I say give her the letter and let her do the best she can with it. But if you refuse the letter, you're pretty much guaranteeing that she won't get in anywhere. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Depakote]

I agree--it's all about boosting their success rate. (BTW, if a drug company tried to do a trial like that, computing the success rate without including patients who dropped out during the study, the FDA would ream them out.)

But I find that to be really egregrious in the case I cited. I agree the student's chances of success were low, but is there really such a difference between a 3.0 (which would have gotten a letter) and a 2.99 (which didn't)? I say give her the letter and let her do the best she can with it. But if you refuse the letter, you're pretty much guaranteeing that she won't get in anywhere. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Honestly, though... if a student got less than a 3.0 in a post-bac program, she's not going to get in. (undergrad, with a stellar post-bac performance... different story)

In this case, not giving her the letter is doing her a favor. Hopefully she won't waste a few thousand on application fees until she gets her stats up to a more competitive level.