How do I choose an undergraduate college for pre-med required courses?

[Atherosclerotic]

I am not sure if I am posting this in the right forum because it is not technically a non-trad question but I am a non-trad so here goes.

I am looking to complete my undergrad. course requirements in math and science at this time. I visited Hunter college today in Manhattan (New York City). It is part of "CUNY."

I spoke with a biology advisor and he told me that it is top 3 in the nation for biology research. He also said Hunter is "known for its nursing and education programs." Education being teaching. Anyhow, he was touting Hunter as the be-all end-all to some degree.

This got me thinking one thing: HEY! Biology in College X is biology in College Y. NO DIFFERENCE. Science is science and math is math. They don't teach alien science at University X and human science at University Y. It is entirely up to the student how far he or she excels in the subject. Yes, professor quality helps (and that's really it - just helps) but ultimately a studious student who applies him or herself will beat the lackadaisical one graduating from a "name brand" college.

Am I right or am I wrong? Hunter isn't really a name brand college as it is not private (in other words, it's not a scam money maker for fatcat college Presidents touting useless degrees to basement kiddies), and, for me, it's "just another CUNY" building where course content is doled out.

Here is the basic breakdown:

Brooklyn College = $230 per credit + it's nearby my home + Brooklyn is my home

Hunter College = $245 per credit + known nationally (from what I have been told) for its medical sciences program + I can handle the commute (I am not lazy nor annoyed)

What is the smart choice here? Do I attend Brooklyn College which has incredible educational value for the dollar, or Hunter which is located 90 minutes each way by train from me? Brooklyn College is about 10 minutes away by bus. Note that I have already graduated from Brooklyn College in a liberal arts major (yes I was a stupid basement kiddie but was paying my own rent with a roommate) and the professors were excellent at their content knowledge in each of my courses. I hold my own self responsible for learning so I will not comment on their teaching style relative to myself learning. I do not know how Hunter is but I am sure it is just as good or even better quality. By the way, Brooklyn College is known to be the hardest college in the NYC area for its gross anatomy course(s). The professor there is very difficult and exacting regarding exact spellings and even identifying details on the microbiological level for skeletal and muscular structures. Brooklyn College isn't that bad nor generic but I suppose it is also not as great as Hunter.

I understand there is the classic grade deflation and inflation argument which varies by each educational institution but how can this apply in the sciences? You earn what you deserve based on an exact grading rubric. Besides, the truth will show up anyhow on the MCAT. Your prior knowledge, years of education, synthesizing skill-sets, and most importantly, your effort (which should have been ingrained during those undergrad. courses and years) will show your aptitude.

What would you do?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Cost being equal, go where you have the best chance of making A's. No one will care the relative "quality" of these programs. Just make A's.

 

[Atherosclerotic]

Cost being equal, go where you have the best chance of making A's. No one will care the relative "quality" of these programs. Just make A's.

I see.

 

[Juan Solo]

I agree with above. A higher/stronger GPA will usually matter more than the name of the university. Also, consider where you will likely best succeed as a student and will be able to get all the classes you need.

 

[Goro]

Biology is indeed biology whether it's taught at Harvard, or Kutztown State. Some schools do have better reputations than others but I'd say cost and fit can be more important than the quality of your education. Anything in the CUNY system is fine. It used to be known as the "Harvard for the Poor"...and that's NOT a perjorative!

I am not sure if I am posting this in the right forum because it is not technically a non-trad question but I am a non-trad so here goes.

I am looking to complete my undergrad. course requirements in math and science at this time. I visited Hunter college today in Manhattan (New York City). It is part of "CUNY."

I spoke with a biology advisor and he told me that it is top 3 in the nation for biology research. He also said Hunter is "known for its nursing and education programs." Education being teaching. Anyhow, he was touting Hunter as the be-all end-all to some degree.

This got me thinking one thing: HEY! Biology in College X is biology in College Y. NO DIFFERENCE. Science is science and math is math. They don't teach alien science at University X and human science at University Y. It is entirely up to the student how far he or she excels in the subject. Yes, professor quality helps (and that's really it - just helps) but ultimately a studious student who applies him or herself will beat the lackadaisical one graduating from a "name brand" college.

Am I right or am I wrong? Hunter isn't really a name brand college as it is not private (in other words, it's not a scam money maker for fatcat college Presidents touting useless degrees to basement kiddies), and, for me, it's "just another CUNY" building where course content is doled out.

Here is the basic breakdown:

Brooklyn College = $230 per credit + it's nearby my home + Brooklyn is my home

Hunter College = $245 per credit + known nationally (from what I have been told) for its medical sciences program + I can handle the commute (I am not lazy nor annoyed)

What is the smart choice here? Do I attend Brooklyn College which has incredible educational value for the dollar, or Hunter which is located 90 minutes each way by train from me? Brooklyn College is about 10 minutes away by bus. Note that I have already graduated from Brooklyn College in a liberal arts major (yes I was a stupid basement kiddie but was paying my own rent with a roommate) and the professors were excellent at their content knowledge in each of my courses. I hold my own self responsible for learning so I will not comment on their teaching style relative to myself learning. I do not know how Hunter is but I am sure it is just as good or even better quality. By the way, Brooklyn College is known to be the hardest college in the NYC area for its gross anatomy course(s). The professor there is very difficult and exacting regarding exact spellings and even identifying details on the microbiological level for skeletal and muscular structures. Brooklyn College isn't that bad nor generic but I suppose it is also not as great as Hunter.

I understand there is the classic grade deflation and inflation argument which varies by each educational institution but how can this apply in the sciences? You earn what you deserve based on an exact grading rubric. Besides, the truth will show up anyhow on the MCAT. Your prior knowledge, years of education, synthesizing skill-sets, and most importantly, your effort (which should have been ingrained during those undergrad. courses and years) will show your aptitude.

What would you do?

 

[darwinmed]

Goro, do adcoms really not take school name into consideration? Sure Biology is Biology, but course expectations are vastly different. A C in Bio 101 at Harvard (or substitute another "name" school here) can be equivalent to an A at a community college. I know, because I've done both. It seems to me incredibly counterproductive if adcoms would rather take a 3.9 from a cc over a 3.5 from a school known to be difficult, having experienced for myself the stark contrast in course difficulty.

I'm asking because I just moved to a new city and am in the process of switching post-bacc schools now. I have the option of attending a "Top-10" or the city's college, much like Hunter College. Considering that like many non-trads I'm trying to overcome a poor undergrad performance, I assumed that every single chance I had to take more classes, harder classes, and classes at a more difficult university would be beneficial to my application. Of course I would need to maintain my post-bacc 4.0, but I would have thought that the adcoms would see a 4.0 from Columbia, for example, and give that more weight than a 4.0 from Hunter College. This isn't true?

 

[dsoz]

That 90 minute each way commute will get old really quick. What happens if you forget a report on your printer? What happens if you slip in the mud and you get all wet and muddy, can you just go home and change?

The convenience and cost would tell me to go close to home.

You only need the "top pre-med program" if you want to go to a top tier school. If all you want to do is to be a physician then any degree will do it for you, as long as you do well in all those classes. Get your classes taken care of as easily as possible with as good of grades as possible. You will be fine.

I didn't see where your undergraduate GPA is listed. If you want to be competitive, it needs to be over a 3.2, and a 3.5 would be even better. Combine that with an MCAT over 30 and you should be good.

Dsoz

 

[Goro]

We do sometime have discussion that go like "a 3.0 at X is not that bad..." and we do ask of our Admissions Dean (who knows of these things) whether such and such a school is a good one. But overall, we look at each person individually, and we accept that good performance at a hallway decent school is better than a mediocre one from a name school.

We all get forms where we rank the quality of the applicant's academic performance but it's not merely the school, or the uGPA. It's MCAT, how the person did in science courses, and how they did in the last two years. Keep also in mind that when we interview people it's not a case of picking only the 3.9 guy from Cornell vs the 3.5 guy from Hunter. We accept both of them if we like them.

Hope this helps.
goro

Concur with the previous post that a long commute will get old. I did that as an undergrad, and in retrospect, it was a lot of lost study time.

Goro, do adcoms really not take school name into consideration? Sure Biology is Biology, but course expectations are vastly different. A C in Bio 101 at Harvard (or substitute another "name" school here) can be equivalent to an A at a community college. I know, because I've done both. It seems to me incredibly counterproductive if adcoms would rather take a 3.9 from a cc over a 3.5 from a school known to be difficult, having experienced for myself the stark contrast in course difficulty.

I'm asking because I just moved to a new city and am in the process of switching post-bacc schools now. I have the option of attending a "Top-10" or the city's college, much like Hunter College. Considering that like many non-trads I'm trying to overcome a poor undergrad performance, I assumed that every single chance I had to take more classes, harder classes, and classes at a more difficult university would be beneficial to my application. Of course I would need to maintain my post-bacc 4.0, but I would have thought that the adcoms would see a 4.0 from Columbia, for example, and give that more weight than a 4.0 from Hunter College. This isn't true?

 

[Atherosclerotic]

The discussion is favoring grading with a respectable college and CUNY is a respected campus of schools on the whole. Brooklyn College is the best choice here. Thank you for these tips and bits of advice.

I finished a B.A. in philosophy back in 2002 at Brooklyn College. In-major GPA was 4.0 and overall GPA was 3.79.

I also finished an M.S. in education in 2005. The GPA there was 3.81. This was at Fordham University at the NYC campus.

Regardless, I have been teaching for the past seven years so luckily I am used to academia and creating and completing assignments. Returning to school will not be very difficult especially with a supportive working wife (we have no kids). Not having a support network such as SDN *will* be very difficult : ) I visit here often to help keep myself focused on my responsibilities and listen to those who are in a similar situation or have succeeded through this transition.

I just want to share a few thoughts about returning to college:

As a young student, it was my emotional immaturity and impatience that led to me to put off pursuing hard math and sciences. For example, in high school, if I could not understand a concept immediately such as relative humidity, I thought I was just not cut out for science. I quit in a matter of seconds. This is ridiculous. I had to research the idea, speak to tutors, my teachers, and then watch some videos. Drawing a diagram showing the process would also have helped. At some point I would get the concept. Same goes for algebra or any math concepts. I now understand there is a particular way to study and that every field in life has a professional. Any professional in any industry simply doesn't just say I can or cannot do it. It's a multi-faceted approach to honing a skill and craft. The idea of being a professional student only came to me once I became a teacher and learned how to teach and learn for my own self. Many people are in a similar situation. They are emotionally immature or they were never taught how to be a professional student and take it very seriously. I am currently ending my teaching career of seven years, so to speak, in high school (math, english, science, social studies but mostly english and a mix of math and science) and I have noticed that not one single student in this school (out of 320) knows how to study. It's not that they are merely teens or emotionally immature. They simply don't know how to do it. The talented ones simply run off their talent. That will only take someone so far. A few have some idea such as opening a book and reading but reading is not studying. Textbooks are not magazines. Reading has to be augmented by learning strategies - the part where true learning actually occurs.

Why don't colleges or, better yet, grade schools teach students how to be an actual student? They just ask kids to show up with some supplies and that's it. No, I am not talking about teaching for behavior management so the kids can shut up. I am talking about specific strategies to ensure success. The child cannot differentiate his or her role as a child on a playground vs. a child with professional duties once inside of a classroom. The child just shows up and behaves in the same manner regardless. I am speaking overall of course. Every school is different but in general, at least in public education, such a thing is unheard of.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Why don't colleges or, better yet, grade schools teach students how to be an actual student? They just ask kids to show up with some supplies and that's it.

What is the pressure to do this? I should say, where has been the pressure for this type of instruction? Have students demanded it? Nope. Now, with the higher education bubble starting to hiss and deflate, things like this might start to have some relevance as the schools are having to fight harder for a more limited selection of students with less desire to take out a boat load of loans for education that might lead to a job in retail or no job at all. Teaching students to maximize their education, instead of it being a simple accreditation or social signaling regime, might to start to have the kind of ROI impact that it makes sense. Or maybe the more informed student funding their education with more "real" money might demand this as a basic expectation. We'll see. Hasn't been important though, agreed, and a disservice to students. I think that is why medical schools take the interest in nontrads that they do, because in my personal opinion we've had the time and experience to figure out that kind of self-awareness towards learning and bring it to the classroom as an example.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Goro, do adcoms really not take school name into consideration? Sure Biology is Biology, but course expectations are vastly different. A C in Bio 101 at Harvard (or substitute another "name" school here) can be equivalent to an A at a community college. I know, because I've done both.

The problem is that there isn't that kind of broad homogeneity at schools. I've had classes at "****ty" state school that were far more difficult and rigorous than similar classes at top-flight school, all due to differences in the individual instructor. There are lots of people who teach those pre-whatever classes in bio/chem/phys at all schools, everyone there knows who is "hard" and who is "easy." Adcomms know that is impossible to control grades for that kind of granularity, so they assume across the aggregate that an A is an A, with some small regional variation where they have longstanding relationships with getting and accepting lots of applicants from certain programs and they "know" it really well and can make grade inflation or deflation estimates based on matriculant student performance. I think that latter is rarer than you would like to see.

 

[darwinmed]

Thanks for your response, Goro. It's quite helpful, and it makes much more sense to me. I appreciate your presence and time on these forums.