I had to retake some classes

[Homo sapien]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Well there it is. In my sophomore year, I took Cal. 2, Organic, and Physics all during the same semester. It did not turn out well, unfortunately. So I retook them. I retook the Cal. and the Organic for the B and the physics for the A. Right now my sGPA is 2.9 and that only has 1 upper level biology (Mycology for the A). I start the rest of my upper level biologies this spring and the summer, and apply next August. What I want to know is how badly the retakes will hurt me,even though I retook them for good grades.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

Well there it is. In my sophomore year, I took Cal. 2, Organic, and Physics all during the same semester. It did not turn out well, unfortunately. So I retook them. I retook the Cal. and the Organic for the B and the physics for the A. Right now my sGPA is 2.9 and that only has 1 upper level biology (Mycology for the A). I start the rest of my upper level biologies this spring and the summer, and apply next August. What I want to know is how badly the retakes will hurt me,even though I retook them for good grades.

Did you get passing grades on the first time around? Or we're they F's? Secondly, is the sGPA you provided include both grades? Or grade replacement? Pod schools don't do grade replacement, FYI. If you got 3 F's, and you didn't use grade replacement, 2.9 is actually really good.... But anyways.

You retaking the classes won't hurt you, per we, IF you did fail them/lower than C-. Honestly though, two B's in retake classes are not considered "good grades." If this were MD/DDS admissions, they would probably stop you at the door for that at a lot of schools. If you retake a class, you are expected to get A's because you have ready seen the material once. Basically what you are saying to the adcoms is that even after taking the class twice, you are still unable fully master the material. This is pod school though, so you'll probably be okay, but you NEED to not fail or even get lower than a B in any of your science courses from here on out if you want to have a chance at picking your school.

 

[Homo sapien]

I made D in the cal. 2 and physics and C- in the organic.

It includes retakes and original.

I know, MD/DDS school would stop me for that, if I was trying to do that, I would go on to a Masters or an SMP or something.

I fully intend to not get lower than Bs, I lust for As, especially since all I have left are upper level biologies. That would look like crap if I did worse.

I haven't taken the MCAT either

 

[ManUnderFire]

Did you get passing grades on the first time around? Or we're they F's? Secondly, is the sGPA you provided include both grades? Or grade replacement? Pod schools don't do grade replacement, FYI. If you got 3 F's, and you didn't use grade replacement, 2.9 is actually really good.... But anyways.

You retaking the classes won't hurt you, per we, IF you did fail them/lower than C-. Honestly though, two B's in retake classes are not considered "good grades." If this were MD/DDS admissions, they would probably stop you at the door for that at a lot of schools. If you retake a class, you are expected to get A's because you have ready seen the material once. Basically what you are saying to the adcoms is that even after taking the class twice, you are still unable fully master the material. This is pod school though, so you'll probably be okay, but you NEED to not fail or even get lower than a B in any of your science courses from here on out if you want to have a chance at picking your school.

I think a 'B' is a 'B'...not mind-blowing...but not mediocre either. It's a solid grade whether a course is repeated or not. Obviously, in the MD track, a repeat with a B wouldn't cut it...not because it's a weak grade, but because the competition is so stiff. But this forum isn't pre-MD

That you should 'ace' your remaining courses is solid advice. It's all about upward trend. The material in any given pod school class isn't as in depth as many upper-level science classes, but the expectations in terms of mastery of a large volume of material at an accelerated rate is comparable...based on what some of my friends have told me about their experiences in MD, Pharm, and PT. That's why doing well in your upper levels carries much more weight than acing freshmen/junior level stuff and then tanking come senior year. For the basic/clinical sciences, professional school is professional school anyway you slice it...this is especially true at DO integrated pod schools.

I also second that if you have a 2.9 on your transcript (there is no grade replacement in pod as Max mentioned) and you have a year's worth of courses left to complete, I think you're in pretty good condition if you produce a solid MCAT and apply early. Listen, the admissions process is a crap-shoot, even if pod schools tend to accept ppl with lower stats. Not considering my upward trend/post-bacc, my overall stats are lower than most on SDN, and I still managed to get accepted. But if you can help it, leave nothing to chance.

 

[Homo sapien]

Precisely. I intend to do as well as I can, whether I had a 2.9 or a 3.9. I do have an upward grade trend, however, I just started upper level classes this year and has an A in one, getting ready to take 4 others

 

[hughesn2]

First off, the comment of "MD schools would stop you at the door" we kinda know that, OBVIOUSLY!!! Even a 3.4 science GPA will stop you at the door for most MD schools.

Next off, with no grade replacement I do believe the 2.9 is still decent for a chance at DPM. Well I hope so b/c currently I am at only a 3.10 sGPA, but I have also taken about 4 upper level biology classes in addition to the regular requirements

But I do personally disagree with the comment that you should get an A (for me it'd be called a 4.0 in a class) after the second time. Maybe that is how some schools are, but there are some in which I know ppl applying for DO school who can get a 4.0 in microbio, orgo, physio, but somehow just couldn't get above a 3.0 in Gen Chem their freshmen year

The comment of "all I have left are upper level bio classes" is kinda confusing to me. In my mind, I would expect that if you struggled in Orgo you will probably struggle in BioChem, and Orgo was based solely on memorization. Upper level bio classes are no joke!

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

First off, the comment of "MD schools would stop you at the door" we kinda know that, OBVIOUSLY!!! Even a 3.4 science GPA will stop you at the door for most MD schools.

But I do personally disagree with the comment that you should get an A (for me it'd be called a 4.0 in a class) after the second time. Maybe that is how some schools are, but there are some in which I know ppl applying for DO school who can get a 4.0 in microbio, orgo, physio, but somehow just couldn't get above a 3.0 in Gen Chem their freshmen year

The reason I made the MD school comment was not to suggest that be needed to be on par with their admission policies, but rather to suggest that what he had done was not "good" as he claimed. If it were "good," he would have gotten A's and been on par with MD admissions. That is the definition of "good." Instead, he got something that I will call "barely passable" and labelled it as "good." The sGPA of someone who (in essence) fails three classes, then gets a 4.0 and two 3.0's for replacement, would not have a high enough GPA for pod school... If they were "true" fails, that would give us a sGPA of around 1.5. So yeah, not "good."

In regards to the second paragraph: I have tried to teach my dog how to roll over at least twenty times. He still can't do it. Does that mean I should give my dog a "pass" and let him into medical school so he feels good and because he tried real hard?? No, of course not - he's not intelligent enough to handle it! The reason you are taught the material in pod/med school is not to make grades - it is for your knowledge and the well-being if your patients. You should not be satisfied with only mastering 70% of the material and calling it good enough. They would not be teaching it if it were it vital to your practice of medicine. The reason I'm saying all this is because in pod school, you NEED to have the ability to master the material the first time around because there are no second chances. If you cannot get an A in gen chem the second time taking it, then perhaps medicine isn't the field for you. People's lives depend on your knowledge, and if you are intrinsically not intelligent enough to get an A in gen chem or learn to roll over, you have no business being in the OR or prescribing medication.

 

[ManUnderFire]

The reason I made the MD school comment was not to suggest that be needed to be on par with their admission policies, but rather to suggest that what he had done was not "good" as he claimed. If it were "good," he would have gotten A's and been on par with MD admissions. That is the definition of "good." Instead, he got something that I will call "barely passable" and labelled it as "good." The sGPA of someone who (in essence) fails three classes, then gets a 4.0 and two 3.0's for replacement, would not have a high enough GPA for pod school... If they were "true" fails, that would give us a sGPA of around 1.5. So yeah, not "good."

In regards to the second paragraph: I have tried to teach my dog how to roll over at least twenty times. He still can't do it. Does that mean I should give my dog a "pass" and let him into medical school so he feels good and because he tried real hard?? No, of course not - he's not intelligent enough to handle it! The reason you are taught the material in pod/med school is not to make grades - it is for your knowledge and the well-being if your patients. You should not be satisfied with only mastering 70% of the material and calling it good enough. They would not be teaching it if it were it vital to your practice of medicine. The reason I'm saying all this is because in pod school, you NEED to have the ability to master the material the first time around because there are no second chances. If you cannot get an A in gen chem the second time taking it, then perhaps medicine isn't the field for you. People's lives depend on your knowledge, and if you are intrinsically not intelligent enough to get an A in gen chem or learn to roll over, you have no business being in the OR or prescribing medication.

definitely don't have to be superbly intelligent to enter/complete any professional program...be it pod or med school. In fact, you'll notice that at many schools, only a meager minimum GPA is required to apply (3.0 to 3.3). That is the level of intelligence required to complete a program, if we can even exrapolate intelligence from a cGPA in the first place. It's the competition that drives up the GPA requirements to the heights we see today needed to enter these schools. The rest is hard-work, plain and simple.

Gen chem decide you're capacity to practice medicine? Come now. Your knowledge of GIbbs free energy won't save an ant, let alone a human being.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

definitely don't have to be superbly intelligent to enter/complete any professional program...be it pod or med school. In fact, you'll notice that at many schools, only a meager minimum GPA is required to apply (3.0 to 3.3). That is the level of intelligence required to complete a program, if we can even exrapolate intelligence from a cGPA in the first place. It's the competition that drives up the GPA requirements to the heights we see today needed to enter these schools. The rest is hard-work, plain and simple.

Gen chem decide you're capacity to practice medicine? Come now. Your knowledge of GIbbs free energy won't save an ant, let alone a human being.

I don't think getting an A in gen chem the second time taking the class requires "superb intelligence." And that's fine if we want to exchange intelligence for hard work when it comes to grades (as I think you were saying?). Retaking a class and getting a B just means that even the second time around, you're still lazy/bad work ethic. I'm not saying you need to be superbly intelligent to enter/complete professional school. I am saying, however, that if you can not master the material after seeing it twice, how will you be able to master it at a faster rate, more in depth, and only once?

While general chemistry may not directly influence your ability as a podiatrist, it does indicate how well you can learn scientific material which is what the majority of the first two years of pod school is.

I don't understand why everyone is so against the idea that you should be able to get an A after RETAKING a class....

 

[EK18]

Retaking a class and getting a B just means that even the second time around, you're still lazy/bad work ethic.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. People have varying strengths and weaknesses. If someone took a class and got an F and then retook it and got a B, I would still contend that that person put in significantly more effort than before. Plus, there may be extraneous factors like maybe this person just had a really really hard time wrapping his/her head around the kinematics equations for Physics and hadn't developed the proper study habits for that specific class the first time around.

I think it's awesome if someone retakes a class that they did poorly in and then received an A but if someone retook a class they got a D/F and then got a B/B+ I don't think it's fair to immediately write them off as lazy because they should have worked even harder for that A.

 

[Homo sapien]

No, getting a B doesn't mean I have horrible work ethic. It doesn't make me lazy, or lousy, or anything else. Some classes are harder to certain people than others, even if they do work all day for that class. Yes, it would have of course been even better if I had made an A, but neither is it horrible that I made a B, and those are not the only science classes I have taken.

Last time I checked, a B was not 'barely passing', and good did not mean only 'MD admissions'. So, in effect, are you saying that everyone who doesn't score high enough for MD admissions are dumb/not good enough/lousy?

 

[Homo sapien]

People's lives depend on your knowledge, and if you are intrinsically not intelligent enough to get an A in gen chem or learn to roll over,

So only people who make all As should be doctors? What about those who don't get all As, get into some medical profession, work hard, learn, graduate, and get a training slot, and become fully functional doctors. Is something wrong with that because they didn't have all As.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

Last time I checked, a B was not 'barely passing', and good did not mean only 'MD admissions'. So, in effect, are you saying that everyone who doesn't score high enough for MD admissions are dumb/not good enough/lousy?

No, i didn't say that nor do I think that. I'm merely stating that a B on a retake should not be considered "good." Good doesn't mean average, good doesn't mean okay, good means better, above average, etc etc. I would say that if you did not get an "A" on a retake AND you highly value your grades (that part is important to this consideration, I think), you are either 1) lazy or 2) not incredibly bright. I'm not saying you are either of those things, you might be a genius with a great work ethic, but if you don't value your grades above other things, it won't matter - you could still fail the class. That's irrelevant in this conversation because we are discussing what is "good" and even a genius with a great work would would agree that failing a class -regardless or their mental capacity - should not be considered "good."

So no, I'm not saying people who don't score at MD standards (which are contrived, I'd rather focus on the A on a retake idea, rather than this idea of "MD standards," but whatever gets the point across I suppose) are dumb/not good enough/lousy. I can't determine if they are dumb because I don't know if they value their grades/what their work ethic is. I can't determine if they are not good enough because I don't have the authority (nor do I pretend to know) what "good enough" means. Even if I did, there would probably be a discrepancy between "good enough" and "good." So I think there is little relevance discussing "good enough" regardless. Thirdly, I again don't know what defines "lousy" especially in this sense. Tiger Woods was a fantastic golfer (not lousy at all!) but he would be, by most standards, a lousy husband.

So no I'm not calling anyone who doesn't compete at the MD level dumb/not good enough/lousy, but I am saying that I personally do not think a B on a retake qualified as "good." Perhaps acceptable, but not good in my standards. This is a really pointless debate because the only person you have to answer to about your grades is yourself. I am not judging you as a person, but rather pointing out that I don't think you've won the right to say a "B" on a retake is good. My opinion shouldn't matter to you on this subject, because if you think it's good (and once you start pod school), those retake classes wont even matter at all.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

So only people who make all As should be doctors? What about those who don't get all As, get into some medical profession, work hard, learn, graduate, and get a training slot, and become fully functional doctors. Is something wrong with that because they didn't have all As.

Not what I said. I used the words "intrinsically not intelligent enough." Or something like that. If someone does not have the mental capacity to earn an A in general chemistry (not that they necessarily DID earn an A, but at least contain the mental capacity to), they probably shouldn't be a doctor. Hell I don't even know if I got an A in gen chem. I think I got an A-, but whatever, the point isn't whether or not you did or not, it's whether you are capable of doing it. This goes back to the idea of "good." Is a "C" good? Probably not. If the smartest man in the world got a "C" is it automatically "good"? Probably not. What if the stupidest man in the world got a "C"? Is it good then? I would contend no, still not good. Grades don't necessarily determine your intelligence and mental capacity. They do, however, warrant a judgement on the person receiving the grades. A bright person may not get good grades, and vice versa. I will say though, that I would not be comfortable getting brain surgery from someone who was mentally not capable of getting an A in gen chem. regardless if he/she did or not. If she considered a "B" was worthy of immense praise after failing it the first time, I might shop around a bit.. Just food for thought.

 

[Homo sapien]

Not any kind of praise, regardless of whether you got A or B, but it's not horrible.

I've never met anyone who asked their doctors what grades they have gotten, I would think they would be more concerned about whether or not that doctor can do whatever procedure they are supposed to, success rates in that procedure, things like that. Take podiatry, for example, you got people getting in with 2.75s and 2.8s and 2.9s and 3.0s and everything else, no, some of their grades may not have been stellar but they got in, and if they get through and get a residency spot, and then do well in the residency, they must have done something right.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

Not any kind of praise, regardless of whether you got A or B, but it's not horrible.

I've never met anyone who asked their doctors what grades they have gotten, I would think they would be more concerned about whether or not that doctor can do whatever procedure they are supposed to, success rates in that procedure, things like that. Take podiatry, for example, you got people getting in with 2.75s and 2.8s and 2.9s and 3.0s and everything else, no, some of their grades may not have been stellar but they got in, and if they get through and get a residency spot, and then do well in the residency, they must have done something right.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. I didn't call your retake B's horrible. They are acceptable. I personally would not call it "good" though. Also, I never suggested asking the surgeon what grades they got, but rather their attitude toward their grades as an indication of their mental capacity. If the surgeon was the type of person who thought a "B" on a retake was outstanding, then I might question their intelligence/ambition. That is not to say I would ask them that. It's more of a personal characteristic hypothetical. It's not about a real life example, but rather a behavioral hypothetical that speaks to their intelligence.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

Take podiatry, for example, you got people getting in with 2.75s and 2.8s and 2.9s and 3.0s and everything else, no, some of their grades may not have been stellar but they got in, and if they get through and get a residency spot, and then do well in the residency, they must have done something right.

I guess my response to this would be: if someone gets into pod school with a 2.7 GPA, I hope to god they don't think they did a "good" job.

Before I offend more people than necessary, I'll clarify a bit. I got a "C" in physical chemistry this semester. It was not a good grade. I didn't think it was a good grade, and I can guarantee you it was by far not my best work. It was the last class for my major, I was about to graduate, I found the topics irrelevant and inconsequential for my life. So instead of studying, I enjoyed the last semester of my collegiate career and studied about a third of what I should have for the class. I don't consider this a "good" grade, but I recognize this, and I allowed this "C" to happen. Which I think is the important part. If I were proud of this "C" and thought it was really good because I studied 20+ hours a week for it, I would be concerned for myself.

This discussion isn't about "something right" or "good enough" it's about "good." All I am suggesting is that a B on a retake isn't good. That's all. If you think it is, more power to you. I however, disagree

 

[hughesn2]

If you cannot get an A in gen chem the second time taking it, then perhaps medicine isn't the field for you. People's lives depend on your knowledge, and if you are intrinsically not intelligent enough to get an A in gen chem or learn to roll over, you have no business being in the OR or prescribing medication.

Congrats on the dumbest comment of 2013 on this site!!!!!!!!!!!!
You sound like a snobby prick with that comment. Maybe at your school gen chem is easier than others. So according to you messing up a problem like: (Calculate the for the following acids using the given information. (a) 0.220 M solution of H3AsO4, pH = 1.50) should determine your ability to diagnose a patient. The way I look at it is that I can 4.0 Orgo 1&2 and get a 3.5 in Bio 1&2, but a 2.5 in Chem2 from Freshmen year shows that I have no future in a medicine profession because I couldn't figure out problems about pH, redox reactions, atomic orbitals, and other chemistry stuff.

You are entirely correct on this that chemistry is the class that most determines our future as medical professionals. I'll tell that to my multiple friends who have been accepted to or already in an MD or DO program that got a 2.5 in the chem class I took.

Every class is different as well dude. If I retook my chem class from freshmen year four yrs later I probably would recognize some stuff but I probably wouldn't get a 92% in the class to get me a 4.0.

MaxillofacialMN is probably just use to easier classes than some other people or he is just an over achiever. Those are the only things I can think of for him assuming that you MUST need to get an 85% or better in any class.

We are just taking the words you said and putting it into context and reality. Now you are going back and saying that is not what you meant.

 

[Homo sapien]

Yes, I don't think Cs are good either, NOR did I say I thought getting in with a 2.7 is good, what I was saying by that is that you have people who work hard in all the professions, and still don't get all As, some on retakes, and it doesn't mean they are lazy, their work ethic is crap, nor does it mean they do not deserve to be anywhere near a patient. That's all.

 

[MaxillofacialMN]

1.You are entirely correct on this that chemistry is the class that most determines our future as medical professionals. I'll tell that to my multiple friends who have been accepted to or already in an MD or DO program that got a 2.5 in the chem class I took.

2.Every class is different as well dude. If I retook my chem class from freshmen year four yrs later I probably would recognize some stuff but I probably wouldn't get a 92% in the class to get me a 4.0.

3.[...] him assuming that you MUST need to get an 85% or better in any class.

4.We are just taking the words you said and putting it into context and reality. Now you are going back and saying that is not what you meant.

1. I never said chemistry is the most indicative pre-req class.
2. Is it because you intrinsically "can't," or because you wouldn't value the "A" enough to make it happen? Those are fundamentally different statements, I am only concerned with the former.
3. I never said you needed over an 85%. I don't even think i ever used that percentage anywhere in this thread? This thread was evoked because of the word "good." Not acceptable. I agree that 85% is acceptable, but I would contend that a "B" is not necessarily "good" (especially on a retake...).
4. I don't think so.... Also, please keep your comments in this thread civil. I have not personally attacked you or anyone else in this thread. I would expect the same civility.

Yes, I don't think Cs are good either, NOR did I say I thought getting in with a 2.7 is good, what I was saying by that is that you have people who work hard in all the professions, and still don't get all As, some on retakes, and it doesn't mean they are lazy, their work ethic is crap, nor does it mean they do not deserve to be anywhere near a patient. That's all.

Yeah, I think we agree on this statement. The key, for me however, is that they cannot be satisfied with their performance (IF and only IF) they gave it their "all." I don't mind admitting 2.7s into pod or medical school or dental school or pilot school or w/e school. I just don't want these people to be "proud" of their 2.7. I would hope people would label something above that as "good." From my personal perspective, I am not "proud" of my work unless I accomplish a great task or one that people doubted I could accomplish. I would certainly hope people would not doubt that I could achieve a 2.7 cGPA.

I think the huge misunderstanding here is that people are taking what I say, and jumping to the conclusion that I said, "If you get a "B" you are not worthy of being a Dr." Not what I said, and I wish you would reread my posts. What I did say, however, "If you are proud of earning a "B" on a retake, I would question your academic capability."

 

[owlegrad]

While it is fine to disagree and go back and forth (what fun would SDN be without that? 😉) it is not OK to use personal insults/name calling/etc. Please remember to keep it civil and follow the TOS.

Thanks! 🙂