- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
This is a tricky question. What most people don't know is that there are really 5 sets of peeps that need to be addressed when trying to get through the admissions process.
1. The admin person (aka computer cut-off to even consider your app).
2. The program director who decides to invite you for an interview.
3. Your first interviewer (usually a faculty member - PhD or MD)
4. Your second interviewer (almost all schools have 2+ interviewers) - usually a med student
5. The whole adcom (at our school it's 24 people in a room that look at your app on the overhead and for the most part take what 3 and 4 have to say as long as your numbers aren't too low)
We all see your app and if even one of us says no, the app is done with.
So in analyzing that "five-step" process, it seems likely that the appearance of "pumping" one's GPA would only become an issue beginning at stage two. The computer would likely only see the cumulative GPA. And then when decision-makers start looking at applications that survived that first cut, you would need to make a coherent, compelling case for exactly why you took those initial post-bac classes. Ideally you would take the time to hammer them into your biographical information and statements aggressively, rather than defensively. And if you're plausible, it's unlikely they'll see it as a negative.
Of course, being plausible may be tough, especially if you took geology 101 or something. Thoughts?