Large animal advantage?

[biogirl215]

Hi,
I was talking to a good friend of mine who's a sophomore pre-vet at UC Davis (Animal Sci. major), aiming at CSU for vet school as a non-resident. Her GPA is currently slightly below a 3.0 thanks to a few C+'s. Though she's going to aim for as high of grades as possible (of course), she's said she not particularly worried about getting into vet school as she's intending to be a large animal vet and that the extreme shortage of people interested in large animal practice leads to numerous advantages like set aside slots andscholarships for people with an interest in large animal practice and the internships and such to back it up. Is this true in your experience?

Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[philomycus]

I think she's ASSUMING it'll be easier for her. If she's not compeptitive it won't matter what she wants to go into.

 

[julieDVM]

Hi,
I was talking to a good friend of mine who's a sophomore pre-vet at UC Davis (Animal Sci. major), aiming at CSU for vet school as a non-resident. Her GPA is currently slightly below a 3.0 thanks to a few C+'s. Though she's going to aim for as high as grades as possible (of course), she's said she not particularly worried about getting into vet school as she's intending to be a large animal vet and that the extreme shortage of people interested in large animal practice leads to numerous advantages like set aside slots andscholarships for people with an interest in large animal practice and internships and such to back it up. Is this true in your experience?

Thanks.

she wont be practicing veterinary medicine on any size of animals with a 3.0 undergrad GPA, as that isn't going to get you into vet school.

 

[thereservoirdog]

she wont be practicing veterinary medicine on any size of animals with a 3.0 undergrad GPA, as that isn't going to get you into vet school.

I don't think that's necessarily true, I've heard lots of people on this forum getting into vet school with low GPAs. But I do agree it's a little unwise to assume you'll get into vet school just because you want to do large animal.

 

[banditalfi]

I don't think that's necessarily true, I've heard lots of people on this forum getting into vet school with low GPAs. But I do agree it's a little unwise to assume you'll get into vet school just because you want to do large animal.

Sure, people get in with "low" GPAs, but sub-3.0 GPAs aren't low for vet school - they're low in general.

 

[VAgirl]

Sure, people get in with "low" GPAs, but sub-3.0 GPAs aren't low for vet school - they're low in general.

Still, I've heard of it being done. Is it a good plan? No. Should one be complacent with a GPA of this level? No. But that's different from saying it's not possible.

 

[julieDVM]

Although i cannot speak for all schools, students with GPAs below 3.3 at my school will not even get offered an interview this year.... I tell students with 3.0 GPAs (or lower) to ensure they have a good back up plan because vet school admissions is unrealistic for these students. I realize that there are a bunch of people on SDN that will say if you wish it hard enough your dreams will come true (and keep applying until they do...) Unfortunately, that's bull****. The simple fact is: your GPA needs to be up in the 3.5 range to ensure you're competitive for vet school.

 

[CanadianDVM]

I agree that a 3.0 GPA is just too low to get into vet school. There may be the odd candidate that gets away with it - but that is definitely the exception, not the rule.

Further (and I apologize for offending anybody) - if you've got a 3.0 GPA in undergrad, there's a serious risk that you're not equipped to handle the academic demands of vet school. It's way tougher then undergrad, and applicants are screened for academic success for a reason.

 

[david594]

Good to know julie. I am setting out to prove you wrong. I graduated with a 3.0 GPA in Computer Science from a Tier 1 school. So glad to hear I have no chance. Which school are you at because I will gladly save my $200 in application fees?

So would any of the following actually matter?

I'm currently finishing up a second bachelors in animal science to help my GPA and finish my prereqs. My pre-req/science GPA is a 3.6 and rising and when I apply next application my last 45 hours GPA will be at a 3.5. Overall will be pulled up to a 3.2 when I factor in all my transcripts. Will be around 1500 hours SA experience, 200 LA, still working on finding research. GRE's will be later this spring.

I mean, I could give up now and go back to all the computer jobs. They pay better and I wouldn't have to sink myself a quarter million in debt while I am at it. But I guess I am just wasting my time.

 

[biogirl215]

Thanks for replying... Certainly, my friend plans to increase her GPA as much as possible (she's aiming for a 3.5 cumulative by application time); she's smart, too. Looking at some of stats it doesn't seem that impossible... Western seems to have an avg. GPA of 3.22, for example. Is there something behind the stats that I'm missing?

Thanks.

(PS. Good luck, david!)

 

[destiny1325]

If she's applying as a nonresident, then it might be a little harder to get in with lower grades. At OSU for example, I believe that the required GPA for in state is 3.0 and 3.4 for out of state. But if she gets her GPA up to 3.5 she would be pretty competitive.

 

[thereservoirdog]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=359074&page=2

I counted 4 people in that thread who got into vet schools with GPAs around 3.0, one person could have even been below that. GPA isn't the only predictor of success in vet school, that's why they look at the GRE, letters of recommendation, personal statement, experience, etc. So while it's true that it's harder for people with low GPAs to get in, it's insulting to call it bull**** or impossible.

 

[ri23]

It is not impossible, but VERY improbable that someone will get in with a sub-3.0 GPA. That is the minimum required at most schools to be considered let alone to get an interview. It can be done if you are EXCELLENT in other areas but that is definitely not the norm.

As for the large animals interest. Yes, vet schools are looking for students interested in going into LA, but that will not get someone in with subpar scores. It is not a deciding factor as probably will not play a large role at all. Also, if you say that you are going into LA you better have done a great deal of work in LA or it will hurt your application.

 

[ri23]

Although i cannot speak for all schools, students with GPAs below 3.3 at my school will not even get offered an interview this year.... I tell students with 3.0 GPAs (or lower) to ensure they have a good back up plan because vet school admissions is unrealistic for these students. I realize that there are a bunch of people on SDN that will say if you wish it hard enough your dreams will come true (and keep applying until they do...) Unfortunately, that's bull****. The simple fact is: your GPA needs to be up in the 3.5 range to ensure you're competitive for vet school.

While I agree that you need a 3.5-3.6 to be competitive, those in the 3-3.5 area have a decent chance as long as the rest of their application is competitive/above-average.

 

[julieDVM]

Good to know julie. I am setting out to prove you wrong. I graduated with a 3.0 GPA in Computer Science from a Tier 1 school. So glad to hear I have no chance. Which school are you at because I will gladly save my $200 in application fees?

So would any of the following actually matter?

I'm currently finishing up a second bachelors in animal science to help my GPA and finish my prereqs. My pre-req/science GPA is a 3.6 and rising and when I apply next application my last 45 hours GPA will be at a 3.5. Overall will be pulled up to a 3.2 when I factor in all my transcripts. Will be around 1500 hours SA experience, 200 LA, still working on finding research. GRE's will be later this spring.

I mean, I could give up now and go back to all the computer jobs. They pay better and I wouldn't have to sink myself a quarter million in debt while I am at it. But I guess I am just wasting my time.

God forbid someone tell you something you dont want to hear... Your prereq GPA is 3.6. I wasn't that great in math, but back when i went to school, 3.0 didn't equal 3.6... but, David, maybe you could correct me.

If you had said that your pre-req GPA was 3.0, and your overall was 3.2 - then guess what... its unlikely i'd be seeing you in vet school any time soon. But with a 3.6 pre req, and a 3.5 in your last 45 hours, your application is likely competative.

Great response though. thanks.

 

[julieDVM]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=359074&page=2

I counted 4 people in that thread who got into vet schools with GPAs around 3.0, one person could have even been below that. GPA isn't the only predictor of success in vet school, that's why they look at the GRE, letters of recommendation, personal statement, experience, etc. So while it's true that it's harder for people with low GPAs to get in, it's insulting to call it bull**** or impossible.

You have seen testiments from 4 people on SDN, which may, or may not be the truth. I have evaluated thousands of applications and sat on the admissions board at my school for a couple years now, and i assure you that people with low grades (read: 3.0, or below) do not gain admissions at my school. And for the record - i stipulated that i could not speak for admissions at other universities.

Additionally, I agree that GPA is not the only predictive value for success in vet school - but it is hugely important for gaining admissions.

So, insulting or not, it is what i have witnessed first hand. Sorry.

 

[david594]

My only problem was with this part of your statement:

I tell students with 3.0 GPAs (or lower) to ensure they have a good back up plan because vet school admissions is unrealistic for these students.

You tell them to go find something else to do? Not ways they could improve and be a better applicant?

God forbid someone tell you something you dont want to hear... Your prereq GPA is 3.6. I wasn't that great in math, but back when i went to school, 3.0 didn't equal 3.6... but, David, maybe you could correct me.

If you had said that your pre-req GPA was 3.0, and your overall was 3.2 - then guess what... its unlikely i'd be seeing you in vet school any time soon. But with a 3.6 pre req, and a 3.5 in your last 45 hours, your application is likely competative.

A 3.0 does not equal a 3.6. During my undergrad I took many courses other than vet school pre-reqs. I had all A's and B's in my core science and math courses. It was the upper level computer science courses required for my major that I got the C's in that killed my GPA. So my GPA for all the courses explicitly required by vet schools is in fact around a 3.6.

 

[julieDVM]

My only problem was with this part of your statement:



You tell them to go find something else to do? Not ways they could improve and be a better applicant?

Part of giving advice to people is being realistic. Unfortunately, there are candidates that are unsuitable for a career as a veterinarian. People that have spent an entire degree getting B's and C's are simply not going to have the GPA to get in. It would be ridiculous to tell these people that they should try and pull up their GPAs - because as many people know, the more credits you accumulate, the more difficult it is for you to pull up your average.

At some point you have to level with people and give them honest opinions. For those students that have areas where they can improve, of course I dispense advice that addresses these concerns. But vet school is highly competitive, and unfortunately, many people do not get in.

 

[david594]

Part of giving advice to people is being realistic. Unfortunately, there are candidates that are unsuitable for a career as a veterinarian. People that have spent an entire degree getting B's and C's are simply not going to have the GPA to get in. It would be ridiculous to tell these people that they should try and pull up their GPAs - because as many people know, the more credits you accumulate, the more difficult it is for you to pull up your average.

Now that is something I can agree with. I agree it wouldn't be right to give people unrealistic expectations.

Maybe I am just being the optimist in thinking that graduating with a 3.0 isn't a complete death sentence for eventually getting into vet school. I know when I started volunteering at a clinic, the vet who owned it sat down with me and told me that my 3.0 was uncompetitive. After applying this year, I plan to continue improving on my application through the next year, because I realize the odds of me getting in my first attempt are quite slim.

 

[BostonLvr]

Well, it is possible to get in without a stellar GPA. I know a few people that are not on SDN who have been admitted to my school with about a 3.0 GPA. I know of one girl who got in with a 2.7 GPA (supposedly because she personally knows the dean...but nevertheless she got in) I was admitted with a 3.4 Cum. GPA and 3.0 Science GPA. I had great research experience, shadowing experience, and experience in a study abroad Animal Science program. I don't think it's fair to crush someone's dreams to be a veterinarian based solely on what goes on at one school.

 

[lailanni]

Well, it is possible to get in without a stellar GPA. I know a few people that are not on SDN who have been admitted to my school with about a 3.0 GPA. I know of one girl who got in with a 2.7 GPA (supposedly because she personally knows the dean...but nevertheless she got in) I was admitted with a 3.4 Cum. GPA and 3.0 Science GPA. I had great research experience, shadowing experience, and experience in a study abroad Animal Science program. I don't think it's fair to crush someone's dreams to be a veterinarian based solely on what goes on at one school.

That's right! Sure, having a low GPA isn't going to help you out - but it's no reason to stomp on someone's dreams Simon Cowell style.

(PS - Way to go BostonLvr!!! Congrats!!)

And besides, there's always the Caribbean schools. Their average undergrad GPA is about 3.0.

Having a higher GPA is better, of course. But you could still get into a school having a lower GPA. As long as you're working as hard as you can, doing all that you can, there's no reason to lose hope.

It's nice to have a healthy dose of reality and a backup plan, but it's also nice to have hope and support.

-- Ah, I forgot to add -- I also agree with above posters, it's very unwise to think you'll get special admissions consideration just because you say you're going into large animal med. If the OP's friend is NOT at all worried about vet school admissions, then she has NOT done her research. Even people with a 3.6+ GPA worry. Nobody is guarenteed a spot.

Especially if she's thinking to get into CSU as an OOS. Just go see the 2007 entering stats. How many OOS people apply? (1168 non sponsored OOS, and CA is not sponsored) How many got in? (only 19 people) What was the average GPA? (3.7) CSU is especially tough for OOS.

Is it impossible? No. But if she's expecting a cakewalk to CSU just because she's large animal, she should think again.

 

[bclover]

I think the "take home message" is that there are different situations with GPA's, GRE scores, etc., that occur all of the time for vet school applicants and acceptees - of course the better the combined numbers are, the more likely one would gain acceptance. Initially it is the review of these numbers, early in the application process, that either move the applicant forward or not in the process. What the applicant is interested in doing, like LA, likely only becomes a tie-breaker later in the process, if at all.

 

[zpinkpanther]

Lailanni is right; the Caribbean schools are always a good option. They're more willing to look past GPA's and I've worked with quite a few vets who went to Ross, and they're great. In fact, I just called Ross today to check up on my application and the guy pretty much told me, unofficially, that I'm accepted, and they're just waiting for my fall transcripts. He said they were especially impressed by my GRE scores (don't remember them off the top of my head, though). My GPA is 3.07, not counting whatever I ended up with for fall semester, so there is hope if your GPA isn't so hot!

Basically, I think it's really wrong to tell someone that they shouldn't be a vet just because their GPA is under 3.5. There are other qualities that make one a good candidate to become a veterinarian and sometimes there are circumstances beyond one's control that are the reason for their low GPA (although this isn't the case for me). Crushing someone's lifelong dreams just to make yourself feel superior is vindictive, mean, and unnecessary.

Oh, and about the large animal thing: I pretty much agree with what everyone has already said. She should get the best grades she can- she probably won't get special consideration for going into large animal, especially since CSU is difficult to get into.

 

[clawsbeatskin]

Crushing someone's lifelong dreams just to make yourself feel superior is vindictive, mean, and unnecessary.

I agree. I know several people currently in a vet med program who may have had the grades, but about a tenth of the experience I have.

 

[ri23]

Lailanni is right; the Caribbean schools are always a good option. They're more willing to look past GPA's and I've worked with quite a few vets who went to Ross, and they're great. In fact, I just called Ross today to check up on my application and the guy pretty much told me, unofficially, that I'm accepted, and they're just waiting for my fall transcripts. He said they were especially impressed by my GRE scores (don't remember them off the top of my head, though). My GPA is 3.07, not counting whatever I ended up with for fall semester, so there is hope if your GPA isn't so hot!

Basically, I think it's really wrong to tell someone that they shouldn't be a vet just because their GPA is under 3.5. There are other qualities that make one a good candidate to become a veterinarian and sometimes there are circumstances beyond one's control that are the reason for their low GPA (although this isn't the case for me). Crushing someone's lifelong dreams just to make yourself feel superior is vindictive, mean, and unnecessary.

Oh, and about the large animal thing: I pretty much agree with what everyone has already said. She should get the best grades she can- she probably won't get special consideration for going into large animal, especially since CSU is difficult to get into.

On JulieDVM's behalf she said a 3.0, not a 3.5. A 3.5 is an average score for vet school, but a 3.0 is usually the minimum that will be looked at. Also, though I don't want to put words in her mouth, her comment wasn't to feel superior it was to give people a dose of reality. She is on an adcomm and therefore probably knows a bit more than the average person.

 

[zpinkpanther]

I'm aware that I was exaggerating when I said "below 3.5," but Julie did say in one of her previous posts that she thinks one's GPA needs to be "in the 3.5 range" for their application to be competitive. I realize that her comments may not have been intended to sound snobby or self-righteous, but that's how they came out. It also seems redundant to tell anyone who is serious about vet school that they should have a back-up plan; it seems that if one is serious about applying or getting in, they should know that it's not easy. Telling them that they need a back-up plan is just throwing salt in the wound, so to speak.

I'm just saying that a little sensitivity is in order. You never know, if you discourage someone from applying to vet school, you may be losing someone who could be great for the profession.

 

[VAgirl]

Telling them that they need a back-up plan is just throwing salt in the wound, so to speak.

While I am completely on the side of the debate that thinks people are way to harsh about GPAs on this site (for example, non-traditional candidates rarely ever get mentioned as perhaps having factors that could balance out a lower GPA)...

I think the position that having a back-up plan is somehow insulting is extremely misguided. Not everyone gets in. Some people need back-up plans. Maybe it's unpleasant to think that you or I might be one of them, but that's just a fact. So yes, any sane person needs a back-up plan. Even if it's just a back up plan of what to do for the next year to a few years as you try to become a better candidate and re-apply. If that isn't incentive enough, word on the street is that this is a popular interview question. ("What will you do if you don't get in?") And simply replying that you'll keep applying until you're accepted probably isn't the best answer since if you weren't accepted the first time, you at least need to do something to make yourself a better candidate. Your back-up plan can be that something.

 

[zpinkpanther]

While I am completely on the side of the debate that thinks people are way to harsh about GPAs on this site (for example, non-traditional candidates rarely ever get mentioned as perhaps having factors that could balance out a lower GPA)...

I think the position that having a back-up plan is somehow insulting is extremely misguided. Not everyone gets in. Some people need back-up plans. Maybe it's unpleasant to think that you or I might be one of them, but that's just a fact. So yes, any sane person needs a back-up plan. Even if it's just a back up plan of what to do for the next year to a few years as you try to become a better candidate and re-apply. If that isn't incentive enough, word on the street is that this is a popular interview question. ("What will you do if you don't get in?") And simply replying that you'll keep applying until you're accepted probably isn't the best answer since if you weren't accepted the first time, you at least need to do something to make yourself a better candidate. Your back-up plan can be that something.

Oh, I'm not saying that everyone shouldn't have a back-up plan; I have a few different ones myself. I don't think that the idea of having a back-up plan is insulting; I think that telling someone who is applying to vet school that they need a back up plan is redundant and slightly condescending. If you're serious about getting into vet school, you should already know from the insane amounts of research that you've done on the subject that not everyone gets in and it's good to have a back-up plan. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're at that stage of the game, it should go without saying that everyone applying to vet school (kick-ass GPA or no) should have a back-up plan.

 

[VAgirl]

Oh, I'm not saying that everyone shouldn't have a back-up plan; I have a few different ones myself. I don't think that the idea of having a back-up plan is insulting; I think that telling someone who is applying to vet school that they need a back up plan is redundant and slightly condescending. If you're serious about getting into vet school, you should already know from the insane amounts of research that you've done on the subject that not everyone gets in and it's good to have a back-up plan. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're at that stage of the game, it should go without saying that everyone applying to vet school (kick-ass GPA or no) should have a back-up plan.

Oops. I understand you now. My mistake.

 

[ri23]

I'm aware that I was exaggerating when I said "below 3.5," but Julie did say in one of her previous posts that she thinks one's GPA needs to be "in the 3.5 range" for their application to be competitive. I realize that her comments may not have been intended to sound snobby or self-righteous, but that's how they came out. It also seems redundant to tell anyone who is serious about vet school that they should have a back-up plan; it seems that if one is serious about applying or getting in, they should know that it's not easy. Telling them that they need a back-up plan is just throwing salt in the wound, so to speak.

I'm just saying that a little sensitivity is in order. You never know, if you discourage someone from applying to vet school, you may be losing someone who could be great for the profession.

Yes, but the comment that you need a 3.5 to be competitive is true. Any person in an admissions sense will tell you that. Also, most interviewers ask the question "If you don't get in what do you plan on doing next year?" They expect that you have a plan B, and you definitely should. If telling someone what is typically required to get into vet school discourages them from applying (and assuming they would have gotten accepted) then they don't seem to be invested enough in the profession anyway.

All in all, I think that this forum is typically very encouraging, even to those whose stats are not competitive. I think you would be hard pressed to the heads of adcomms telling you that you shouldn't be thinking of another profession if you don't have the grades/GRE/experience to get in. Yes, some people get in with below average GPA/GRE/experience, but that is the EXCEPTION. Yes, I believe that people should try if this is what they really want to do, but they also need to be aware of the realities.

 

[zpinkpanther]

Oops. I understand you now. My mistake.

No worries.

 

[zpinkpanther]

Yes, but the comment that you need a 3.5 to be competitive is true. Any person in an admissions sense will tell you that. Also, most interviewers ask the question "If you don't get in what do you plan on doing next year?" They expect that you have a plan B, and you definitely should. If telling someone what is typically required to get into vet school discourages them from applying (and assuming they would have gotten accepted) then they don't seem to be invested enough in the profession anyway.

All in all, I think that this forum is typically very encouraging, even to those whose stats are not competitive. I think you would be hard pressed to the heads of adcomms telling you that you shouldn't be thinking of another profession if you don't have the grades/GRE/experience to get in. Yes, some people get in with below average GPA/GRE/experience, but that is the EXCEPTION. Yes, I believe that people should try if this is what they really want to do, but they also need to be aware of the realities.

I agree that honesty is good in giving students advice when they want to apply, but what I'm saying is that some sensitivity with that honestly is also good. I also agree that if you're applying to vet school, you should be dedicated enough not to get discouraged from applying by a low GPA, and that everyone should have a back-up plan. Since there are only about 28 vet schools in the country, this is a harsh reality.

I do, however, think it's completely erroneous to say that everyone who doesn't fit into a tidy little box of GPA/GRE/experience numbers cooked up by an admissions committee won't get in. If the average is around 3.5 or 3.6, and some applicants have closer to 3.8 or 3.9, it's logical that there are some GPA's on the lower end to balance those out. Of course, thinking that that means you'll get in if your GPA is 3.0 is unwise, but if you play up your strengths, get lots of experience, and do your best to impress them with other aspects of your application, you might have a shot somewhere.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

she's said she not particularly worried about getting into vet school as she's intending to be a large animal vet

That's crazy.

That's the equivalent, in my mind, of saying "Oh, my Daddy is on the admissions board, I will get in even with a low GPA!"

A goal of large animal medicine, despite shortages, will simply NOT balance out a 3.0 GPA. Can you get in with a 3.0 or sub 3.0? Maybe. And I mean maybe as in long-shot, if everything else on your record is absolutely stellar. Possible, but absolutely the exception.

But TBH I agree with JulieDVM. It's just reality, and it does no good to try and pat people on the head and tell them "Well, so-and-so got in with a low GPA" when 99% of people with a low GPA did not.

But again, the answer the original question, no - field choice will NOT make an admissions committee let a low incoming GPA slide, no way.

 

[pomchi1]

I am pretty sure that at MSU, if you don't have over a 3.0 something (maybe 3.3) , they will automatically reject you and not bother looking at the rest of application. I think they even value grades over experience in lots of ways. This was my first time applying, and I had under 200 hours of experience but a 3.75 GPA, and got in. Before I applied, I was wondering if that would be a problem, but the advisor said that someone even got in last year with 30 hours of experience. I think sometimes we forget on here that shadowing isn't being a vet (and doesn't make us more qualified to get in). It's just observing, and doesn't even give us real medical knowledge. It's more about seeing how vets deal with problems that arise in the profession, not really the medicine behind it (though you might learn some on a verrrry basic level). I don't think any of us pre-vets could pass the boards (or even pass it 50%) with our experience of shadowing other vets (even if the hours are in the thousands). So basically, I think it's a bad idea to think your experience shadowing vets will make up for bad grades. Grades are the best indicator of how you will perform in the future with the demands of vet school.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Grades are the best indicator of how you will perform in the future with the demands of vet school.

People don't like to hear this, but it is true. You know what your first three years are all about? Classes and grades. No one cares about your other abilities, as important as they may be, until clinical rotations. You can be great to work with, be a whiz in the clinic etc...but if you can't pass your classes....well...

Now, (before people start chomping at the bit to tell me grades aren't everything) that being said, grades are not the best indicator of how "good" of a vet you will be in real life I'm not making that jump.

BUT, they ARE the best indicator of how well you will do academically in vet school (i.e. the important classwork which makes up 75% of your time there)

 

[ri23]

I am pretty sure that at MSU, if you don't have over a 3.0 something (maybe 3.3) , they will automatically reject you and not bother looking at the rest of application. I think they even value grades over experience in lots of ways. This was my first time applying, and I had under 200 hours of experience but a 3.75 GPA, and got in. Before I applied, I was wondering if that would be a problem, but the advisor said that someone even got in last year with 30 hours of experience. I think sometimes we forget on here that shadowing isn't being a vet (and doesn't make us more qualified to get in). It's just observing, and doesn't even give us real medical knowledge. It's more about seeing how vets deal with problems that arise in the profession, not really the medicine behind it (though you might learn some on a verrrry basic level). I don't think any of us pre-vets could pass the boards (or even pass it 50%) with our experience of shadowing other vets (even if the hours are in the thousands). So basically, I think it's a bad idea to think your experience shadowing vets will make up for bad grades. Grades are the best indicator of how you will perform in the future with the demands of vet school.

I think you are really de-valuing the experience aspect. I am shocked that anyone with only 30 hours of experience got into vet school. Ohio State requires that you have at least 80 hours with one vet for your application, and most of the time interviewers are looking for more than one type of vet experience and a good deal of depth in those experiences.

Also, as someone stated earlier, at most schools, your application won't even be considered if you don't have the minimum GPA.

 

[VAgirl]

I think sometimes we forget on here that shadowing isn't being a vet (and doesn't make us more qualified to get in). It's just observing, and doesn't even give us real medical knowledge.

Forgive me if I sound...whatever I may sound. But some of us have actually done more than shadowing. Some folks (I would guess the overwhelming majority) have held jobs in veterinary fields. Obviously not as veterinarians, but having a job in one of these fields (be it as a vet tech, a technician doing necropsies or lab animal work) is a vastly different thing than just having shadowed.

 

[david594]

Forgive me if I sound...whatever I may sound. But some of us have actually done more than shadowing. Some folks (I would guess the overwhelming majority) have held jobs in veterinary fields. Obviously not as veterinarians, but having a job in one of these fields (be it as a vet tech, a technician doing necropsies or lab animal work) is a vastly different thing than just having shadowed.

Spot on with that. My clinic doesn't pay me for 30 hours a week to shadow. Read what a lot of the pre-meds do for "experience" and those of us pursuing pre-vet tend to be very lucky in what we are allowed to do.

Just received my grades for fall semester... cumulative GPA is up to a 3.09 now... Winter break course started yesterday. Once that is done will hopefully have me up to a 3.11. Then spring semester which should get me into the 3.17-3.19. Its a slow uphill battle....

 

[pomchi1]

Forgive me if I sound...whatever I may sound. But some of us have actually done more than shadowing. Some folks (I would guess the overwhelming majority) have held jobs in veterinary fields. Obviously not as veterinarians, but having a job in one of these fields (be it as a vet tech, a technician doing necropsies or lab animal work) is a vastly different thing than just having shadowed.

I too have more than shadowing. I work in my vet school's histo-pathology lab, and have helped in necropsies with the faculty at my school. However, I don't think this will make me do better in pathology classes than candidates who did not do this, or a "more qualified applicant." What I meant was, we will all be in the same boat next fall when we start vet school. The experience I gained while shadowing, or "working", will be minimal compared to the experience I will get in vet school. So my point was that studying hard in undergrad will provide most useful (though obviously it's a good idea to get experience in a few different areas of vet med), because it gives you a disciplined work ethic that can be evaluated and enforced through grades, where shadowing or "working" is more abstract. Shadowing, or student jobs that college students can get in vet med, will only amount to what you make of it and how you can connect it to a larger picture on your application. Good grades on the other hand will speak for themselves.

 

[lailanni]

I think you are really de-valuing the experience aspect. I am shocked that anyone with only 30 hours of experience got into vet school. Ohio State requires that you have at least 80 hours with one vet for your application, and most of the time interviewers are looking for more than one type of vet experience and a good deal of depth in those experiences.

Also, as someone stated earlier, at most schools, your application won't even be considered if you don't have the minimum GPA.

I am also shocked (and somewhat appalled) that someone with only 30 hours of experience got in.

How much thought did they put into becoming a vet?

30 hours? That's like window shopping. They basically have little to no idea of what working in veterinary medicine is like.

Do they know that they will sometimes have 12+ hour work days?
Do they know they'll get kicked, bitten, scratched, soiled, and yelled at by clients?
Do they know... oh heck, I could go on....

In my opinion, the experience isn't supposed to give you vast vet knowledge to pass the boards or anything like that.

Having a lot of experience will give you the knowledge: yes, I understand the demands of working in this field and becoming a vet is what I want.

30 hours isn't going to tell you jack about how you want to spend your future. 30 hours is barely enough to shake someone out of the "I'm going to play with puppies and kitties for the rest of my life" vet delusion.

But that said, I don't know the details of that person admitted with only 30 hours experience. Maybe they have 4,000 hours of research experience and want to go into vet med for research. Then that'd make more sense.

Can extensive experience make up for bad grades? I can't say. But I'm sure having extensive experience will not hurt you in any way, and I personally would view it as a good thing.

 

[zpinkpanther]

I am pretty sure that at MSU, if you don't have over a 3.0 something (maybe 3.3) , they will automatically reject you and not bother looking at the rest of application. I think they even value grades over experience in lots of ways. This was my first time applying, and I had under 200 hours of experience but a 3.75 GPA, and got in. Before I applied, I was wondering if that would be a problem, but the advisor said that someone even got in last year with 30 hours of experience. I think sometimes we forget on here that shadowing isn't being a vet (and doesn't make us more qualified to get in). It's just observing, and doesn't even give us real medical knowledge. It's more about seeing how vets deal with problems that arise in the profession, not really the medicine behind it (though you might learn some on a verrrry basic level). I don't think any of us pre-vets could pass the boards (or even pass it 50%) with our experience of shadowing other vets (even if the hours are in the thousands). So basically, I think it's a bad idea to think your experience shadowing vets will make up for bad grades. Grades are the best indicator of how you will perform in the future with the demands of vet school.

I've been working as a vet tech since I was 16 (about 6 years). No, I don't believe that I could pass the boards, but I definitely think I know more about basic clinical procedures than the average person. Something garden variety, like an ear infection, I could diagnose, with the help of an ear smear and a microscope of course, and guess with fairly good accuracy what the vet will diagnose/what medication he'll prescribe. Of course, I can't legally prescribe drugs yet, but the vets I've worked with have taught me a lot already and I like to think that gives me an advantage.

I also agree that the hours of experience have something to do with deciding that even though you know you'll get bitten, scratched, and stressed out to within an inch of your sanity, you want to be a vet anyway.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I am also shocked (and somewhat appalled) that someone with only 30 hours of experience got in.

How much thought did they put into becoming a vet?

30 hours? That's like window shopping. They basically have little to no idea of what working in veterinary medicine is like.

Hello? NOT EVERYONE is going to become a clinician. Some of us are interested in research, lab diagnostics, etc. I myself came in with basically NO clinical experience - a few weeks at a small clinic only to fulfill the silly requirement.

Just because you don't have the clinical hours does NOT mean you cannot be dedicated to the veterinary field. It is outrageously elitist and incorrect to think so, and it bugs the hell out of me every time someone implies that because us "research folk" or "non-clinical folk" , who aren't interested in/have no experience in the clinic, that we shoudn't have been allowed into vet school - which is basically what you just said.

Now that being said, having a good GPA is a requisite because everyone will be taking classes and working for grades - therefore, having a high GPA is mandatory for acceptance.

However, not everyone wants to be a clinician - therefore, having a high number of clinical hours pre-acceptance should NOT be mandatory, considering the extreme breadth of the current field of veterinary medicine. There are SO many other experience types and levels which are just as "good" as working in an actual vet clinic.

So, in closing.....

 

[lailanni]

I am also shocked (and somewhat appalled) that someone with only 30 hours of experience got in.

How much thought did they put into becoming a vet?

30 hours? That's like window shopping. They basically have little to no idea of what working in veterinary medicine is like.

Hello? NOT EVERYONE is going to become a clinician. Some of us are interested in research, lab diagnostics, etc. I came in with basically NO clinical experience. But trust me...I put a LOT of thought into what I was going to do with my life. I have worked in research for over 4 years and have quite a good idea of what the particular area of veterinary medicine I wish to go into is like.

Just because you don't have the clinical hours does NOT mean you cannot be dedicated to the veterinary field. It is outrageously elitist and incorrect to think so, and it bugs the hell out of me every time someone implies that because us "research folk" or "non-clinical folk" , who aren't interested in/have no experience in the clinic, that we shoudn't have been allowed into vet school - which is basically what you just said.

And if you had bothered to read the rest of my post, you would have noticed that I did say:

"But that said, I don't know the details of that person admitted with only 30 hours experience. Maybe they have 4,000 hours of research experience and want to go into vet med for research. Then that'd make more sense."

Which is what you said - the person could be going into research and have an extensive research background.

So read everything before getting all offended.

Also, the poster said that someone was admitted with only 30 hours of experience. Now, if you only had 30 total hours of experience (of any kind, either clinical or research, or whatever) and based your desire to go into vet med off only the 30 hours, I think you could agree that would be pretty foolish. And that's hardly an elitist statement.

Bottom line: You need experience in whatever field you're headed into so you know you're headed in the right direction.

 

[freyamaxine]

Also, the poster said that someone was admitted with only 30 hours of experience. Now, if you only had 30 total hours of experience (of any kind, either clinical or research, or whatever) and based your desire to go into vet med off only the 30 hours, I think you could agree that would be pretty foolish. And that's hardly an elitist statement.

Bottom line: You need experience in whatever field you're headed into so you know you're headed in the right direction.

I think that you are forgetting about the Australian vet schools. Are Australian vet students less dedicated?

It is possible here to get into Vet Science with NO VET EXPERIENCE.

You don't have to know which area of vet med you want to pursue before you start on your degree. If people are smart enough and willing enough to do vet science (a long degree) than that should be enough. I think you need to give people more credit, they will do their research if it truly is what they want to do.

We are still kids (I am 20). Should we really be spending our precious years working instead of enjoying ourselves?

Maybe I am wrong. Just my opinion

 

[clawsbeatskin]

Should we really be spending our precious years working instead of enjoying ourselves?

Ummm, YES!!!! Do you think the years you'll be in vet school will be less "precious"? Let me tell you, the jump from 20 to 21-25 isn't that major. The "youth" isn't gone yet. You are planning to work in vet school, right?

When were you finally planning to get going? In your 50's? Well, while you're enjoying your precious years not working, I'll be working my a$$ off so I can retire and spend my precious years with my grandkids.

 

[freyamaxine]

Ummm, YES!!!! Do you think the years you'll be in vet school will be less "precious"? Let me tell you, the jump from 20 to 21-25 isn't that major. The "youth" isn't gone yet. You are planning to work in vet school, right?

When were you finally planning to get going? In your 50's? Well, while you're enjoying your precious years not working, I'll be working my a$$ off so I can retire and spend my precious years with my grandkids.

I never said that the youth would be gone. I just meant that we only really get one go at uni (or maybe two if you want to go back as a mature age student). I would rather be a little bit poorer, and have a few more hours each week to go running etc. rather than working. I want to spend my time learning and not be totally stressed out of my head.

I think its a bit mean implying that I am not a hard worker. I would just rather study now and work when I finish school.

I don't think that retirement has anything to do with having fun now. Its not like you are going to be making great money while you are still at school, I don't see how it will benefit your superannuation.

And by fun I mean spending time at home, sport etc. I am a non-drinker, vegetarian and I don't go for the retail therapy. My lifestyle does not require me to work.

 

[banditalfi]

We are still kids (I am 20). Should we really be spending our precious years working instead of enjoying ourselves?

"They're adults. They're allowed to have fun whenever they want. We're kids, we're supposed to work."

Please tell me someone watches arrested development!

 

[pomchi1]

the drama llama!!!!! i love the pic!!!!!

 

[ri23]

In order to be successful in a vet school setting it's important to learn time management, that means being able to be successful in school, volunteer/work, as well as have fun. It can definitely be done. I worked part time getting vet experience during school and I was extremely involved in undergrad life. Getting yourself used to a busy schedule (and being able to schedule in times to have fun) will make the transition from undergrad to vet school much easier.

As for this comment:

Hello? NOT EVERYONE is going to become a clinician. Some of us are interested in research, lab diagnostics, etc. I myself came in with basically NO clinical experience - a few weeks at a small clinic only to fulfill the silly requirement.

Just because you don't have the clinical hours does NOT mean you cannot be dedicated to the veterinary field. It is outrageously elitist and incorrect to think so, and it bugs the hell out of me every time someone implies that because us "research folk" or "non-clinical folk" , who aren't interested in/have no experience in the clinic, that we shoudn't have been allowed into vet school - which is basically what you just said.

Did you read the post. It said 30 hours of experience, not clinical experience. That means both the animal and veterinary section, and that would include research (unless the original poster misrepresented the data). If someone is planning on going into research or another facet of vet med, they better have investigated it by doing more than 30 hours.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I read the post.


but the advisor said that someone even got in last year with 30 hours of experience. I think sometimes we forget on here that shadowing isn't being a vet (and doesn't make us more qualified to get in). It's just observing, and doesn't even give us real medical knowledge. It's more about seeing how vets deal with problems that arise in the profession, not really the medicine behind it (though you might learn some on a verrrry basic level). I don't think any of us pre-vets could pass the boards (or even pass it 50%) with our experience of shadowing other vets (even if the hours are in the thousands). So basically, I think it's a bad idea to think your experience shadowing vets will make up for bad grades. Grades are the best indicator of how you will perform in the future with the demands of vet school.

Every time the word experience here is mentioned it is followed up by describing "experience" as "shadowing" or "working at a vet's office". So I assumed the 30 hours referred to 30 hours of clinics, since that is what the poster seemed to equate with this mysterious "30 hours". Perhaps I was wrong, but that's getting into semantics and interpretation

And considering that such experience is actually required by admissions committees (i.e. research work, lab work not required but clinical work is, which I find extremely biased)...well....there you go.