nontrad to the top?

[LoLCareerGoals]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Could a non-trad end up in a top 5 or at least top 10 program?
Say aged 30 at matriculation with 7 years of high tech (electrical engineer).
3.9 UG (tier 2 state school), 3.5 G (top 15 US school). Some minor researchy stuff, US patent all in EE though.

Only had 1 semester of Chem in UG, so plenty of postbac to do.
Will obv have no research exp in medicine or life sciences or any sort of volunteering in hospitals or whatever premeds are supposed to do.

Based on my standardized track record though I am confident I would smoke MCAT into at least 90% if not 95%+-tile.

Summary: Think I could hit the #s, but not sure if HMS or similar like ppl who aren't 22 year old premeds from Ivys with "research" experience.

Is top 5 achievable or am I delusional?

Also how much does top 5 vs top 25 affect matching/etc. Does top 5 = insta match in neurosurgery/radiology when top 25 = family care?

Thanks guys, sorry if qs are too basic.

 

[Law2Doc]

Could a non-trad end up in a top 5 or at least top 10 program?
Say aged 30 at matriculation with 7 years of high tech (electrical engineer).
3.9 UG (tier 2 state school), 3.5 G (top 15 US school). Some minor researchy stuff, US patent all in EE though.

Only had 1 semester of Chem in UG, so plenty of postbac to do.
Will obv have no research exp in medicine or life sciences or any sort of volunteering in hospitals or whatever premeds are supposed to do.

Based on my standardized track record though I am confident I would smoke MCAT into at least 90% if not 95%+-tile.

Summary: Think I could hit the #s, but not sure if HMS or similar like ppl who aren't 22 year old premeds from Ivys with "research" experience.

Is top 5 achievable or am I delusional?

Also how much does top 5 vs top 25 affect matching/etc. Does top 5 = insta match in neurosurgery/radiology when top 25 = family care?

Thanks guys, sorry if qs are too basic.

First, many nontrads who did postbac with me ended up at top ranked schools. Second, ranking is largely based on research funding, not quality. So if you don't have research you are going to have a harder time getting looked at by a research oriented school. Third, it's pretty much a cardinal rule on SDN not to assume a top MCAT score. Most people who talk about smoking the MCAT score don't. Basically you cant count your chickens before they hatch, and nobody here can give you useful advice until they do. Fourth, without clinical exposure/volunteering/shadowing you won't get into med school. It's basically an unwritten prerequisite. Fifth, program directors indicate what factors they focus on for matching, and school pedigree is usually lower on the list. Your Step 1 score and clinical year evaluations are going to decide if you can do neurosurgery or radiology or other competitive paths, to a much greater extent than your school ranking. Also bear in mind that med school ranking isn't correlated very well with specialty residency rankings, so you can go to a top 5 med school which isn't even really on the map for top rads or NS, and so I'm not sure that helps you. Finally, for small fields like NS where each program may only have 1-3 spots, being at a top program where, say, 5 overachievers may want the same thing can be a huge disadvantage. For instance if there are only 2 spots at your program, and they historically only fill 1 internally, you are worse off being at that program than being the only one who wants NS at a 50th ranked program that also has 2 NS spots, but less internal interest. Basically premeds get carried away with the US News list, but it really is so heavily based on research dollars that it doesn't equate to "better". Certainly for you without a track record of research, it probably has less to offer than a "next 20" program known for cranking out solid residents. Since your Step 1 scores drive this train, and that's largely an individual endeavor, in most cases your chance of ending up in a competitive path is probably not hugely different whether your school is top 10 or top 40. It's all on your own shoulders. So pick a place where you can be happy and thrive and do well.

Don't get sucked into the premed insecurities of needing to be at a "top 5 " school to do a competitive field. Every top program in every specialty will have residents coming from schools outside if the top 20, period. And there were a record number of unmatched spots in radiology this year -- in SOAP, if you had a high Step 1 score coming from a US school, any US school, and not too many red flags, your odds of getting one were great this year.

 

[thlaxer]

Could a non-trad end up in a top 5 or at least top 10 program?
Say aged 30 at matriculation with 7 years of high tech (electrical engineer).
3.9 UG (tier 2 state school), 3.5 G (top 15 US school). Some minor researchy stuff, US patent all in EE though.

Only had 1 semester of Chem in UG, so plenty of postbac to do.
Will obv have no research exp in medicine or life sciences or any sort of volunteering in hospitals or whatever premeds are supposed to do.

Based on my standardized track record though I am confident I would smoke MCAT into at least 90% if not 95%+-tile.

Summary: Think I could hit the #s, but not sure if HMS or similar like ppl who aren't 22 year old premeds from Ivys with "research" experience.

Is top 5 achievable or am I delusional?

Also how much does top 5 vs top 25 affect matching/etc. Does top 5 = insta match in neurosurgery/radiology when top 25 = family care?

Thanks guys, sorry if qs are too basic.

The "top schools" you're aiming for do favor research experience. I was asked about my research, if I expected to get published within the next year (my answer was "no"), etc. at most of those schools. This isn't to say that publications (or even research) are required since there are probably some students who got in without any research experience.

Since you still have most of the pre-reqs to do, you will have time to do some volunteering and research (may be less feasible if you're trying to do all the pre-reqs in one year). I don't see why you won't have a shot at the "top schools" you're aiming for. And I doubt 30 y/o will be seen as too old for matriculation and also: coming in from a non-traditional background will more likely help rather than hurt you. Good luck

 

[Jamie561]

Seeing as how top 10 MD admissions aren't solely or even mostly about numbers, i'd say your chances at present are awful. No ECs = no US MD/DO

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[notbobtrustme]

For those top programs, you really need to be score in the 99th+ percentile. A 90th percentile score is "only" a 33, which is near the bottom for a lot of those top schools. I scored a 37 and I'm not even bothering to apply to these top schools because my ECs aren't where they need to be for those caliber schools, at least IMO (plus my uGPA is "only" a 3.66). ECs count a lot more at these schools because just about every applicant has a 3.8+/34+. Every EC becomes that much more magnified when you want to go these programs IMO. A lot of these kids have significant research experience in health related subjects, have authored papers, have opened clinics/foundations, etc etc. Just great numbers alone won't get you in to the top programs.

That said, any medical school will get you where you need to go for the most part. What matters far more than medical school prestige are your boards, grades and LORs.

 

[MT Headed]

Also, you definition of "smoking" the MCAT would put you at a 33 or 34, while the average MCAT at those top institutions is much higher, like in the 97.5% percentile. Obviously that's just an average and many people do get in with lower scores, but if you want to talk specifically about what are YOUR chances vs. what are the chances of a contrived person (it isn't clear from your post), we'll know a lot more once your MCAT scores are in.

 

[drizzt3117]

I got into a big chunk of the top 10 schools when I applied to med school. I ended up going to my current school (top 25 state school) on full scholarship/stipend. You certainly can go to top programs as a non-trad.

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

Thanks for your reply. Few qs.

1) Those nontrads that ended up in top schools. How did they do it without research that you say is so critical for research oriented top schools? I assume as nontrads they by definition don't have any such experience... Does research in another discipline count? Like engineering?
2) Thanks for your warnings about MCAT, I just wanted a rosy scenario evaluation to get a sense of how far I could get if I were to pursue this path. I am not interested in pursuing this path unless I can set myself up for most competitive of specialties. I have taken a practice test with 80%-tile type of results on PS, 90+% on VR and that's with missing 3 semesters of Chem. Haven't tried bio as I never had any bio coursework.
3) How many hours of shadowing/volunteering do you need? Which one is preferred?
4) Would you say students exposed to top 5 vs other 20 training perform better on step 1 as a result as thus have better matching? Surely there has to be some reason to pursue a higher ranked school. (outside research)
5) Why do you say "research oriented" schools screen for research experience? I mean if I were applying to MD/PhD I can see that. But by def pure MD is a future practitioner, not applying for a PhD along with MD is a statement that "I do not want to do research". Am I wrong about this?
6) What is SOAP? *embarrassed smiley*

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

I got into a big chunk of the top 10 schools when I applied to med school. I ended up going to my current school (top 25 state school) on full scholarship/stipend. You certainly can go to top programs as a non-trad.

MD/PhD or MD?
Can MDs get these scholarships/stipends?

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

For those top programs, you really need to be score in the 99th+ percentile. A 90th percentile score is "only" a 33, which is near the bottom for a lot of those top schools. I scored a 37 and I'm not even bothering to apply to these top schools because my ECs aren't where they need to be for those caliber schools, at least IMO (plus my uGPA is "only" a 3.66). ECs count a lot more at these schools because just about every applicant has a 3.8+/34+. Every EC becomes that much more magnified when you want to go these programs IMO. A lot of these kids have significant research experience in health related subjects, have authored papers, have opened clinics/foundations, etc etc. Just great numbers alone won't get you in to the top programs.

That said, any medical school will get you where you need to go for the most part. What matters far more than medical school prestige are your boards, grades and LORs.

This is higher than HMS average: VR=10.75, PS/BS=12.5ish -> 36.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Thanks for your reply. Few qs.

1) Those nontrads that ended up in top schools. How did they do it without research that you say is so critical for research oriented top schools? I assume as nontrads they by definition don't have any such experience... Does research in another discipline count? Like engineering?
2) Thanks for your warnings about MCAT, I just wanted a rosy scenario evaluation to get a sense of how far I could get if I were to pursue this path. I am not interested in pursuing this path unless I can set myself up for most competitive of specialties. I have taken a practice test with 80%-tile type of results on PS, 90+% on VR and that's with missing 3 semesters of Chem. Haven't tried bio as I never had any bio coursework.
3) How many hours of shadowing/volunteering do you need? Which one is preferred?
4) Would you say students exposed to top 5 vs other 20 training perform better on step 1 as a result as thus have better matching? Surely there has to be some reason to pursue a higher ranked school. (outside research)
5) Why do you say "research oriented" schools screen for research experience? I mean if I were applying to MD/PhD I can see that. But by def pure MD is a future practitioner, not applying for a PhD along with MD is a statement that "I do not want to do research". Am I wrong about this?
6) What is SOAP? *embarrassed smiley*

1. There's a large variety of non-trads. Some are like me, who have done extensive basic science research but decided on a career in medicine. Some have zero science exposure before taking the plunge. Some are like you, working in a scientificy field, but no research experience.

2. You can do just fine going to a state medical school because the biggest determinant of success is your med school grades, boards and LORs.

3. I've read anywhere from 10-40 hours of shadowing and 40-100+ on volunteering. At a minimum, you want to show a long term commitment (eg >6 months) rather than hours IMO. However, the whole volunteering/shadowing "prereq" is a black box.

4. There are plenty of reasons why to go to a top 20 school, but not for the reasons you are thinking. Those students who end up going to these schools will end up in leadership positions (eg surgeon general, head of the AMA, directors of major hospitals, etc). They will also be major leaders in research and policy. However, you don't need to go to a top 20 school if you want to be a radiologist or dermatologist. You do need good boards, grades, LORs, and research however.

5. Even a straight MD does a significant amount of research. It's often clinically orientated such as designing randomized clinical trials instead of bench/basic science. And MDs do have to keep up on the literature as practice continues to evolve. Even in 10 years, a huge number of advances have taken place and a physician needs to be kept current in his/her field. This requires a significant amount of reading and understanding of how research is conducted.

6. No idea what SOAP stands for.

This is higher than HMS average: VR=10.75, PS/BS=12.5ish -> 36.

As others have said, going to a top 20 school is beyond GPA+MCAT. My uGPA is only a 3.6 which is the near the 10th percentile of all accepted applicants at these schools. Plus, I don't have the ECs to get into one of these schools IMO.

 

[drizzt3117]

MD/PhD or MD?
Can MDs get these scholarships/stipends?

MD only, yes, if you're good enough.

Stats, GPA ~3.75c, 4.0s, MCAT 39S. Went to top 5 undergrad and top postbac.

 

[thlaxer]

Thanks for your reply. Few qs.

1) Those nontrads that ended up in top schools. How did they do it without research that you say is so critical for research oriented top schools? I assume as nontrads they by definition don't have any such experience... Does research in another discipline count? Like engineering?
2) Thanks for your warnings about MCAT, I just wanted a rosy scenario evaluation to get a sense of how far I could get if I were to pursue this path. I am not interested in pursuing this path unless I can set myself up for most competitive of specialties. I have taken a practice test with 80%-tile type of results on PS, 90+% on VR and that's with missing 3 semesters of Chem. Haven't tried bio as I never had any bio coursework.
3) How many hours of shadowing/volunteering do you need? Which one is preferred?
4) Would you say students exposed to top 5 vs other 20 training perform better on step 1 as a result as thus have better matching? Surely there has to be some reason to pursue a higher ranked school. (outside research)
5) Why do you say "research oriented" schools screen for research experience? I mean if I were applying to MD/PhD I can see that. But by def pure MD is a future practitioner, not applying for a PhD along with MD is a statement that "I do not want to do research". Am I wrong about this?
6) What is SOAP? *embarrassed smiley*

1) The people who get into research-heavy schools without research experience tend to have other very significant experiences that make up for their "research weakness." I pursued a post-bac program after graduating from college. Almost all of my classmates and I have pursued some sort of research.. I don't think that being non-trad is a good excuse for not having research and/or volunteering experiences, etc.

3) People on SDN say that you should shadow primary care physicians, etc. I only shadowed a few specialists and that wasn't brought up as an issue in any interviews. A few other people in the pre-Allo forum reportedly got into 'top 10' schools without any shadowing experience. Having said this, you should do some shadowing. Just because some other people can get in without it doesn't mean that you should bank on doing the same.

4) Others could probably answer this much better, but I've been told by mentors that school reputation does matter, this is especially true if you plan on teaching or doing research later on. Being able to build connections with your classmates and with top experts in your desired field is also another advantage.

5) Again from my mentor: research experience shows intellectual capacity. Even if you don't plan on pursuing research later on, it's helpful to understand how the knowledge you'll later rely on was obtained by scientists. And many MDs do do research, it's just that MD/PhDs tend to devote more of their time to research (90% research / 10% clinical).

6) Curious about this as well 😳. I've been hearing this term thrown around a lot recently.

MD/PhD or MD?
Can MDs get these scholarships/stipends?

Yup. I applied MD and got a few merit-based scholarships (up to full tuition) 🙂.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

Thanks for your reply. Few qs.

1) Those nontrads that ended up in top schools. How did they do it without research that you say is so critical for research oriented top schools? I assume as nontrads they by definition don't have any such experience... Does research in another discipline count? Like engineering?
2) Thanks for your warnings about MCAT, I just wanted a rosy scenario evaluation to get a sense of how far I could get if I were to pursue this path. I am not interested in pursuing this path unless I can set myself up for most competitive of specialties. I have taken a practice test with 80%-tile type of results on PS, 90+% on VR and that's with missing 3 semesters of Chem. Haven't tried bio as I never had any bio coursework.
3) How many hours of shadowing/volunteering do you need? Which one is preferred?
4) Would you say students exposed to top 5 vs other 20 training perform better on step 1 as a result as thus have better matching? Surely there has to be some reason to pursue a higher ranked school. (outside research)
5) Why do you say "research oriented" schools screen for research experience? I mean if I were applying to MD/PhD I can see that. But by def pure MD is a future practitioner, not applying for a PhD along with MD is a statement that "I do not want to do research". Am I wrong about this?
6) What is SOAP? *embarrassed smiley*

1) Some actually come from research. Research in another area helps.
2) You took the PS section and got 80% missing 3 chems? Only gen chem is on the PS section. Orgo is on the BS section. So really, you missed one semester of gen chem, so that isn't that impressive. Sorry. In addition, anyone from any school can get a competitive specialty. It is person dependent. Going to Harvard without the scores does not trump going to a top 100 with the scores.
3) About 50 hours of shadowing is great, plus 1-2 years of continuous volunteering averaging about 2 hours per week. Keep in mind that this is commonly considered the bare minimum to be safe, but you are shooting for top schools. So triple that.
4) Nope. Prestige and the desire for academic medicine are the reasons to go to top schools (generally). And being that you don't want research, cross academic medicine off your list.
5) Because a MD/PhD is mainly research, but an MD can still do research. And good research from good MDs can mean more money for the school. Even without the added PhD, these schools really want you to continue research. If you don't have it, don't waste your time.
6) Don't know in this context.

Any school can set you up for top residencies, but getting at the top of your class in med school is not like getting at the top in undergrad.

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

*in response to notbobtrustme's last post*

Like this forum already. Great info.
Could you expand on #4? Sounds like things you listed are mostly fall into either administrative leadership ability or research excellence. I can see how a top MBA (on top of MD) would help with the former and a top MD/PhD with the later, but a bit unclear on why a top MD leads to those roles. What other doors open to you that remain closed for the non top X school grads.

What do you mean you don't have the ECs? Extra carrics? You haven't hit the 10-40/100-400 quota? Or hit the quota at an insufficiently grand hospital with an insufficiently known doctor?

 

[Law2Doc]

Thanks for your reply. Few qs.

1) Those nontrads that ended up in top schools. How did they do it without research that you say is so critical for research oriented top schools? I assume as nontrads they by definition don't have any such experience... Does research in another discipline count? Like engineering?
2) Thanks for your warnings about MCAT, I just wanted a rosy scenario evaluation to get a sense of how far I could get if I were to pursue this path. I am not interested in pursuing this path unless I can set myself up for most competitive of specialties. I have taken a practice test with 80%-tile type of results on PS, 90+% on VR and that's with missing 3 semesters of Chem. Haven't tried bio as I never had any bio coursework.
3) How many hours of shadowing/volunteering do you need? Which one is preferred?
4) Would you say students exposed to top 5 vs other 20 training perform better on step 1 as a result as thus have better matching? Surely there has to be some reason to pursue a higher ranked school. (outside research)
5) Why do you say "research oriented" schools screen for research experience? I mean if I were applying to MD/PhD I can see that. But by def pure MD is a future practitioner, not applying for a PhD along with MD is a statement that "I do not want to do research". Am I wrong about this?
6) What is SOAP? *embarrassed smiley*

1. Yes they had research.
2. Rosy scenario evaluations are not a good use of our time. Most of us prefer to deal with real advice and not what ifs that are less than probable. I promise you that most people who take the MCAT go in planning to smoke it. Such plans often don't pan out.
3. It's not a minimum number of hours kind if thing. You need to really know what you are getting yourself into as a nontrad. You are expected to have thought this out. So ideally you FIRST spend time seeing what doctors do firsthand and later proceed to postbac. The expectation us different than from undergrad where you can be young and foolish -- as an older applicant adcoms expect you to have done more due diligence.
4. There is no data to support this. Schools have a tacit agreement not to release Step 1 scores because it would chill novel teaching (eg PBL, early clinical exposure) and might encourage "teaching to the boards". Anecdotally several of the top programs actually have very pedestrian Step 1 scores, while others are top notch. I know for a fact some of the top programs are regarded by PDs skeptically in certain specialties as not providing particularly great clinical training. Attendings telling certain top program grads which end of the stethoscope goes to the patient is a running joke at several places across the country. Attending a top school can be helpful, but don't get sucked into the premed hype. You are going to make or break your residency chances on your own through hard work, and pretty much any US allo school is going to be a decent launching pad for any specialty.
5. you are misguided here. Research schools like people who have shown an interest in research, plain and simple. The majority of medical research is not performed by PhDs, but MDs. If you have no interest in research, not only are you less attractive to a research oriented school, but one of the key things they have to offer that their competitors don't is something you aren't interested in anyhow. So maybe a place that's known for it's great research opportunities and abundant grant money is suddenly less interesting to you, or at least should be.
6. SOAP is this years version of the scramble. It's where the folks who didn't match get a second shot at whatever programs didn't fill.

 

[drizzt3117]

I had a year of basic science research and a year of clinical research that I'd done during my 2 year postbac when I applied.

 

[Slev]

x

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

I had a year of basic science research and a year of clinical research that I'd done during my 2 year postbac when I applied.

2 years? Please tell me this was part time. How did you manage to do research as a student in freshmen and sophomore level classes?
I mean what kind of serious research could you possibly do with such limited training? Or do these $30,000 costing postbac programs provide you with these "research" opportunities just to market themselves better?

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

Nontrads can and do get into top programs. Check out this years non-trad acceptance thread:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=854206

and this years non-trad interview thread
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=839892

You'll find most of the top 10 schools represented.

I was in a similar position to you a few years ago: EE major with only a quarter of gen chem taken for the pre-requisites. I was 27 when I went back to school and will be 30 when I matriculate this fall. Considering you are probably a minimum three years out from matriculating (2 years pre-reqs + 1 year applying) you have plenty of time to get working on the ECs that every one here is talking about. Start volunteering now, start shadowing now and if you want to go to a research heavy school, find a lab to get involved with now. Through your volunteering and shadowing you'll learn a lot about medicine and hopefully start to get an idea of where you want to take your career. Don't go into this with the goal of attending a top 5 program. Go into this wanting to explore medicine and along the way figure out what type of program is going to match up best with your interests and career goals.

For what it's worth, I ended up with about 450 volunteer hours, 100 shadowing hours, and a couple years of part-time research.

Thanks for your response and a link.
1) I am short: 2nd general chem + 2 orgs and 2 bios. Have the rest. I also haven't opened a chem or physics book in 11 years, so heavy review would be due even for the first chem as well. 2 years? If I go through with this, I was planning to do take it all over 2 semesters max. Am I shooting myself in the foot by rushing this? Is a postbac program critical?
2) How am I to "find a lab to get involved with"? You mean industry labs? University labs? At a school where I am completing requirements above? I am not planning on enrolling in any overpriced postbac program, I can knock out that coursework part time in 2 semesters time. Are you saying a person in freshman/sophomore level courses can just walk into prof's office and ask if he can do research for him? What research? Hold the test tube for a grad student? Is that what this "undergrad research" really means? Having been at junior stages (MS level) of research before I am very cringy about the light use of this word, sorry if I sound cynical.

 

[thlaxer]

2 years? Please tell me this was part time. How did you manage to do research as a student in freshmen and sophomore level classes?
I mean what kind of serious research could you possibly do with such limited training? Or do these $30,000 costing postbac programs provide you with these "research" opportunities just to market themselves better?

Most of my classmates did part-time research. I'll have two years of part-time experience by the time of matriculation, some of my more ambitious classmates (who started research at beginning of the program) will have three.

Some of my classmates were working full-time while taking classes part-time. So it's probably possible for someone to do research for 40 hours per week while doing the pre-reqs in the evenings. I wouldn't recommend this approach to anyone though.. Maximizing your chances of getting good grades and being well prepared for the MCAT are much more important than the extra research experience imo (20 hours per week for 2-3 years will still give you a good exposure).

Most of the post-bac programs I looked at didn't provide students with research opportunities in the sense that they didn't match students with PIs. Finding a lab or clinical project is still very much do-it-yourself. Occasionally a lab or project coordinator will send out a request looking for research assistants though, which gets forwarded to all post-bac students.

2) How am I to "find a lab to get involved with"? You mean industry labs? University labs? At a school where I am completing requirements above? I am not planning on enrolling in any overpriced postbac program, I can knock out that coursework part time in 2 semesters time. Are you saying a person in freshman/sophomore level courses can just walk into prof's office and ask if he can do research for him? What research? Hold the test tube for a grad student? Is that what this "undergrad research" really means? Having been at junior stages (MS level) of research before I am very cringy about the light use of this word, sorry if I sound cynical.

You want to find a lab where you can contribute intellectually to the project (e.g. propose and test a hypothesis). Cleaning beakers isn't going to impress anyone imo. So, I would try to find a lab where the PI is willing to give you actual responsibilities.

 

[Slev]

x

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

2) I honestly got a little lucky and kind of stumbled into a research position in a glaucoma lab at my local university. A friend of mine knew the doctor and he needed a little part time help and was willing to take me in and train me (at this point I had absolutely 0 life science background). Obviously I didn't do a whole lot at first, but if you're willing to learn and work hard you can do more than cleaning glassware. I dissected eyes, designed and ran immunohistochemistry experiments, did more microscopy than you can shake a stick at and got my name on several posters (including one first-author) at national conferences. So yes, it's possible with little experience to do meaningful things in a lab. It would be easiest to find a research position at wherever you do your pre-reqs because I think a lab is going to be more willing to take in a student than some random person off the street, but I think most labs are open to the idea of free labor, especially from an experienced engineer. I definitely used my engineering background in getting lab equipment set up for experiments. I researched, purchased and set up all the equipment for a real time pressure monitoring experiment we wanted to run. The physician had no idea how to get something like that set up, but to me it was just a matter of getting the right sensor and doing a little LabView 🙂

Interesting selling point. I can see that in your/our case. Otherwise I just cannot imagine what a FR/SO level post-bac could possibly research/contribute to the lab absent a technical/science background. Maybe my perception of the learning curve is off for this field, but to do even experimental research in EE you have to be a bright junior year student at least and even then you do monkey work that is hardly research. Real research does not start until you are well into grad school.

P.S. I assume you are JHU bound? Belated congrats.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

Thanks for your response and a link.
1) I am short: 2nd general chem + 2 orgs and 2 bios. Have the rest. I also haven't opened a chem or physics book in 11 years, so heavy review would be due even for the first chem as well. 2 years? If I go through with this, I was planning to do take it all over 2 semesters max. Am I shooting myself in the foot by rushing this? Is a postbac program critical?
2) How am I to "find a lab to get involved with"? You mean industry labs? University labs? At a school where I am completing requirements above? I am not planning on enrolling in any overpriced postbac program, I can knock out that coursework part time in 2 semesters time. Are you saying a person in freshman/sophomore level courses can just walk into prof's office and ask if he can do research for him? What research? Hold the test tube for a grad student? Is that what this "undergrad research" really means? Having been at junior stages (MS level) of research before I am very cringy about the light use of this word, sorry if I sound cynical.

you are jumping around too much. First off, you gotta take the second gen chem before you take ochem 1, and ochem 1 before ochem 2, so you are 3 semesters there anyway. But you keep saying you are going for top school or bust. The bare minimum for anything is never going to get you into a top school. The people you are competing with will have similar degrees, lots of research, lots of volunteering, lots of clinical, lots of leadership, etc.

the people that end up in top 5 schools started day one as a freshman with that intention and have 4 years (or more) of stellar ECs to back up their application. You are a career switcher that has a one year timeline. There is no possible way you can take the classes you need, get the ECs you need, study for and take the mcat, and prepare you app early in a year. Either you need to be smart and drop your requirements drastically, or you need to be smart and extend your timeline drastically. You aren't going to succeed with both.

And everyone enters med school wanting to a competitive specialty, yet the overwhelming majority never make it. So you can think of yourself however you want, but you need to have a backup plan. If you are going to be unhappy in anything other than the top specialties, and statistically you have no viable chance at top specialties, you should probably find something else.

 

[Slev]

x

 

[drizzt3117]

2 years? Please tell me this was part time. How did you manage to do research as a student in freshmen and sophomore level classes?
I mean what kind of serious research could you possibly do with such limited training? Or do these $30,000 costing postbac programs provide you with these "research" opportunities just to market themselves better?

I published two papers in Nature-level journals, one first author, is that serious enough for you?

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

you are jumping around too much. First off, you gotta take the second gen chem before you take ochem 1, and ochem 1 before ochem 2, so you are 3 semesters there anyway.

Surely I can take 2nd chem and first ochem simultaneously I've done that with physics 2 and 3, while take 21 credit hours of technical courses and having a 20 hour part-time job.

But you keep saying you are going for top school or bust. The bare minimum for anything is never going to get you into a top school. The people you are competing with will have similar degrees, lots of research, lots of volunteering, lots of clinical, lots of leadership, etc.

Ok. What other courses will it take? Biochem? Genetics?
Similar degrees to whom?
Ok research is a problem. Noted.
Volunteering/clinical is a problem even for non-tops. Noted.
Leadership? You mean student organizations? Got plenty of that.

the people that end up in top 5 schools started day one as a freshman with that intention and have 4 years (or more) of stellar ECs to back up their application. You are a career switcher that has a one year timeline. There is no possible way you can take the classes you need, get the ECs you need, study for and take the mcat, and prepare you app early in a year. Either you need to be smart and drop your requirements drastically, or you need to be smart and extend your timeline drastically. You aren't going to succeed with both.

I think i was planning on 1.5-2 years. But still want to finish coursework in 1 and get MCAT out of the way so I can see if top or good school is even numerically feasible, let alone worry about non-numerical factors. That way I can abort other efforts early if not so.

And everyone enters med school wanting to a competitive specialty, yet the overwhelming majority never make it. So you can think of yourself however you want, but you need to have a backup plan. If you are going to be unhappy in anything other than the top specialties, and statistically you have no viable chance at top specialties, you should probably find something else

Totally agreed. It is to get a feel for those statistical chances that I am posting here 🙂

 

[drizzt3117]

If you went to BM or Penn's postbox you can link to Penn med.

you are jumping around too much. First off, you gotta take the second gen chem before you take ochem 1, and ochem 1 before ochem 2, so you are 3 semesters there anyway. But you keep saying you are going for top school or bust. The bare minimum for anything is never going to get you into a top school. The people you are competing with will have similar degrees, lots of research, lots of volunteering, lots of clinical, lots of leadership, etc.

the people that end up in top 5 schools started day one as a freshman with that intention and have 4 years (or more) of stellar ECs to back up their application. You are a career switcher that has a one year timeline. There is no possible way you can take the classes you need, get the ECs you need, study for and take the mcat, and prepare you app early in a year. Either you need to be smart and drop your requirements drastically, or you need to be smart and extend your timeline drastically. You aren't going to succeed with both.

And everyone enters med school wanting to a competitive specialty, yet the overwhelming majority never make it. So you can think of yourself however you want, but you need to have a backup plan. If you are going to be unhappy in anything other than the top specialties, and statistically you have no viable chance at top specialties, you should probably find something else.

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

I published two papers in Nature-level journals, one first author, is that serious enough for you?

Of course! This while taking FR/SO courses in Bio and Chem? So you produced work on par with PhD level researchers while basically a first/second year UG. My head just exploded. (no sarcasm). To me this is unreal. How did you not notice such a talent before entering the other fields?
This is like discovering you could play in the NFL after being an accountant for 3 years.

 

[Law2Doc]

you are jumping around too much. First off, you gotta take the second gen chem before you take ochem 1, and ochem 1 before ochem 2, so you are 3 semesters there anyway. But you keep saying you are going for top school or bust. The bare minimum for anything is never going to get you into a top school. The people you are competing with will have similar degrees, lots of research, lots of volunteering, lots of clinical, lots of leadership, etc.

the people that end up in top 5 schools started day one as a freshman with that intention and have 4 years (or more) of stellar ECs to back up their application. You are a career switcher that has a one year timeline. There is no possible way you can take the classes you need, get the ECs you need, study for and take the mcat, and prepare you app early in a year. Either you need to be smart and drop your requirements drastically, or you need to be smart and extend your timeline drastically. You aren't going to succeed with both.

And everyone enters med school wanting to a competitive specialty, yet the overwhelming majority never make it. So you can think of yourself however you want, but you need to have a backup plan. If you are going to be unhappy in anything other than the top specialties, and statistically you have no viable chance at top specialties, you should probably find something else.

This. To some extent your (OP) posts sound like a wide eyed 17 year old, and for a nontrad that's a really bad thing. It shouldn't be top 5 school or bust. it shouldn't be uber competitive specialty or bust. It can't be assume a top MCAT score or bust. And it can't be a race. Yes the guys who populate the top ranked schools will generally have good numbers AND extensive ECs AND research. There are no shortcuts, no byes because you are a nontrad. In general you need to go to med school excited about the possibility of becoming a doctor, and reserve specialty selection for later down the road. Because just as you can't assume you will do well on the MCAT, you can't really assume you are going to do well on STEP 1, and that's a few years in. Let's assume you get into med school, get two years into it, and end up with a mediocre Step 1, pretty common. Suddenly things like NS and rads and derm and ortho and optho and ENT are pretty much longshots for you. Will you still be happy? Because odds are high for everyone that that could be them. And you won't know until too late. If your notion is that you have to go to a top school and then to a top competitive specialty (the vibe we get when you lump dissimilar fields like NS and rads) then you probably shouldn't bother -- odds are stacked against you. If those are just early leanings, but you are open to the idea that you might enjoy being, say, an internist then that's different.

Basically I think you probably need to cool it with the top 5 talk nd uber competitive specialty talk and walk the walk a bit first. Get in some shadowing, a lot of it. Try to find some research leads through your postbac profs. And actually take the MCAT before you talk about smoking it.

 

[drizzt3117]

Of course! This while taking FR/SO courses in Bio and Chem? So you produced work on par with PhD level researchers while basically a first/second year UG. My head just exploded. (no sarcasm). To me this is unreal. How did you not notice such a talent before entering the other fields?
This is like discovering you could play in the NFL after being an accountant for 3 years.

I think you need to lose the attitude before thinking about starting med school. I studied chemical engineering at MIT before a career in IB and strategy consulting. I'll be doing residency in rads at a top CA academic program.

You'll run into a lot of supremely qualified people in med school if you ever make it there.

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

Because just as you can't assume you will do well on the MCAT, you can't really assume you are going to do well on STEP 1, and that's a few years in. Let's assume you get into med school, get two years into it, and end up with a mediocre Step 1, pretty common.

Huh, thanks for the warning. I expected some strong correlation there.

 

[LoLCareerGoals]

I think you need to lose the attitude before thinking about starting med school. I studied chemical engineering at MIT before a career in IB and strategy consulting. I'll be doing residency in rads at a top CA academic program.

You'll run into a lot of supremely qualified people in med school if you ever make it there.

There was no attitude, not knowing your MIT ChemE background I was shocked to see someone I thought was a complete outsider to science kick such major but at research with so little training. Why even do a postbac program? ChemE had to have covered all the chem. Maybe only 2 bio courses.

 

[drizzt3117]

There was no attitude, not knowing your MIT ChemE background I was shocked to see someone I thought was a complete outsider to science kick such major but at research with so little training. Why even do a postbac program? ChemE had to have covered all the chem. Maybe only 2 bio courses.

I placed out of my entry level courses so I'd never taken most of the actual prereq courses. Futrthermore I'd been out of school for 6+ years by then so it was good to retake the coursework in a structured setting. I went to the Scripps postbac.

 

[drizzt3117]

Huh, thanks for the warning. I expected some strong correlation there.

There's not; one of my classmates got a 40+ MCAT and < 210 on the step while one of my fellow rads applicants got a 30 MCAT and 260 step.

 

[Law2Doc]

There's not; one of my classmates got a 40+ MCAT and < 210 on the step while one of my fellow rads applicants got a 30 MCAT and 260 step.

Agreed. Which is why the guy at the top school might not be better off than the guy with the school that offers an extra week off before Step 1. This is really an individualized accomplishment based on nothing you've had before med school. There will be a minute correlation with those who test well, but it's excessively small. Only on the preallo board do folks who did well on the MCAT presume to have accomplished something that translates to later life.

 

[Law2Doc]

There was no attitude, not knowing your MIT ChemE background I was shocked to see someone I thought was a complete outsider to science kick such major but at research with so little training. Why even do a postbac program? ....

Med school is going to be chocked full of overachievers who accomplished things that will mess with your head. Which is why I'm trying to tell you to gear it down a bit with all the "I belong at a top school and going to a top specialty" talk. In this crowd you'll often feel like the token "normal" person.

 

[hopeful22213]

I am once again reminded of the amazing patience and good humor the frequent non-trad posters bring to this forum.

OP- what uber-competitive specialty is it exactly that you want to match into? If you are supremely confident in your test-taking abilities- terrific: go to the cheapest med school you can get accepted to and then score 250+ on your step 1.

 

[vc7777]

Huh, thanks for the warning. I expected some strong correlation there.

I agree with everything others have said about MCAT and Step one scores. You cannot rest on your laurels when studying from either exam. And yes, we all have anecdotal evidence of people with dissimilar performance between the two exams. However, to put a finer point on it: We have been told by our faculty that while not very strong - your MCAT is the still strongest predictor of your Step 1 scores ahead of your studying. But this is because the fundamental tenets of success on both exams hold true: Take it seriously, plan accordingly, and prepare early.

 

[Law2Doc]

... We have been told by our faculty that while not very strong - your MCAT is the still strongest predictor of your Step 1 scores ahead of your studying. But this is because the fundamental tenets of success on both exams hold true: Take it seriously, plan accordingly, and prepare early.

actually most med schools tell students that how they fare in second year courses is the strongest predictor of Step 1. Getting a strong foundation before you delve into First Aid and World is huge. Everything else, including the MCAT, is pretty minimally correlated. Certainly not something to bank on.

 

[wholeheartedly]

I am once again reminded of the amazing patience and good humor the frequent non-trad posters bring to this forum.
.

This, and I guess I'm going to be the first person to ask.

OP, what exactly is it that makes you think you want to go to medical school?

 

[vc7777]

actually most med schools tell students that how they fare in second year courses is the strongest predictor of Step 1. Getting a strong foundation before you delve into First Aid and World is huge. Everything else, including the MCAT, is pretty minimally correlated. Certainly not something to bank on.

Well, that doesn't help people who don't have grades - or even exams like my school.

I cannot say for certain - however a quick Pubmed search shows that there are many publications correlating MCAT and Step 1 scores. These include at least one by AAMC - so take the source into consideration - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16186610. It claims MCAT has a corrected validity coefficient (similar to a correlation coefficient) of 0.70 in predicting USMLE Step 1 scores in the 1992/1993 cohort of students. Again - I stand by my assertion that whilst not perfect (1.0), it isn't random and does have predictive value at the individual level.

Edit: In fact, this paper even shows that MCAT is a better predictor of step TWO scores than faculty grading in medical school. Ignore the part about age being a negative predictor of Step 2 scores. 😏

 

[vc7777]

OK - Here's an interesting and more recent article:

Strategies for identifying students at risk for USMLE step 1 failure. This research involved a small cohort and is more geared towards identifying people who will fail Step 1 (therefore they are not trying to predict scores, per se).

However, they ID'd a normalized GPA for Year 2 of med school and MCAT BS as strong (negative) predictors of failure with MCAT PS approaching significance. Also, they admit that for at least their school(s) that MCAT is stronger than standardized exam scores in prediction of failure.

 

[notbobtrustme]

*in response to notbobtrustme's last post*

Like this forum already. Great info.
Could you expand on #4? Sounds like things you listed are mostly fall into either administrative leadership ability or research excellence. I can see how a top MBA (on top of MD) would help with the former and a top MD/PhD with the later, but a bit unclear on why a top MD leads to those roles. What other doors open to you that remain closed for the non top X school grads.

What do you mean you don't have the ECs? Extra carrics? You haven't hit the 10-40/100-400 quota? Or hit the quota at an insufficiently grand hospital with an insufficiently known doctor?

Hey, sorry for the late reply.

I think it's more about connections than anything else. When you go to these top schools, you schmooze around with the bigwigs so to speak. You have better access to them and are better groomed for these types of positions. Unfortunately, qualifications aren't as important (although they still matter) as much as who you know at this point in the game. At least thats my opinion.

yea ECs = extra-curricular. The thing is that those numbers/ECs are just the bare minimum to prove that you are committed to the medical field. Other students have much greater ECs such as founding foundations, publishing in high impact journals, building homes for the homeless, etc etc. ECs that stand out. Volunteering on weekends in the ER and shadowing a couple docs is cookie-cutter material. It works to get you into a medical school, but doesn't really set you apart from other pre-med students. I do have some "unique" ECs but I still don't feel confident in applying to those top programs even with my score. And, to be honest, it'd be difficult for me to pick up and resettle due to kids/wife. I'm more than happy with my offerings in Chicago and if I do get into Northwestern I won't turn it down. But I'm not gunning for Harvard/John Hopkins/Mayo/Duke.

 

[Law2Doc]

...
I cannot say for certain - however a quick Pubmed search shows that there are many publications correlating MCAT and Step 1 scores. These include at least one by AAMC - so take the source into consideration - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16186610. It claims MCAT has a corrected validity coefficient (similar to a correlation coefficient) of 0.70 in predicting USMLE Step 1 scores in the 1992/1993 cohort of students. Again - I stand by my assertion that whilst not perfect (1.0), it isn't random and does have predictive value at the individual level.

Edit: In fact, this paper even shows that MCAT is a better predictor of step TWO scores than faculty grading in medical school. Ignore the part about age being a negative predictor of Step 2 scores...:

I dont think anyone said there is no correlation, just that folks aren't weighting it appropriately. If you read those studies critically, you will realize that the "real" correlation is pretty minimal and the number of students and schools involved were small. Also both the MCAT and Step have undergone pretty significant changes since the 90s, as has the composition of med school student bodies. I wouldn't put much (any) stock in those studies. Truth of the matter is that good standardized test takers may still be good on later standardized tests, (which I think is all your nonrandom correlation shows) but having prepared well for the MCAT doesn't really mean your Step 1 score is preordained. Every year some of the highest scores end up obtained by folks who tanked on the MCAT, and some of the worst scorers are people who actually did decently on the MCAT. How much effort you put into it and how much time you are given to study are by far the strongest factors. Coming out of the second year of med school with a strong foundation also gives you a leg up. But basically the "benefit" you have by having proved yourself on the MCAT is so minimal that you need to treat it as nonexistent. If you don't put in the kind of time that Mr X does, cover as much high yield information in preparation over a similar period of time, you probably will do worse than Mr X statistically speaking, regardless of what your respective MCAT scores were. The test rewards effort and time of preparation. It is not an aptitude test. Sure there are minute differences in starting points, but if you bank on them to make the difference, you are hosed. Best to look at these studies very critically (different tests than today, very small number of med schools involved, very different composition of student body than today, different curricula than today) and dismiss them as "evidence" accordingly. Nuff said.

 

[phltz]

You seem to be really obsessed with prestige. You don't need to be at a top 5 school to get into an ultra-competitive specialty, and you should remain open to the idea that the right specialty for you may not be ultra-competitive. The list of places that can give you a great medical education is much longer than 5. Also, and I know it's a cliche to point this out, the rankings are not the be-all and end-all of quality. I'd say that Mayo is one of the very best medical schools out there, but US News ranks it at 27 this year.

Nontrads in their 30s can get into top programs, although some top programs are more friendly to them than others. Fellow students from my postbac program have been accepted to lots of top programs, including all of the current top 5 according to US News. Hopkins does have a reputation for being somewhat ageist though, and preferring students at the younger end of the spectrum. I'm not entirely sure how accurate that is, but being over 30 may make that particular school a much longer shot for you. Columbia, on the other hand, seems to really like people who've had great success in another field before coming to medicine, and is willing to take older applicants to get that.

I'm at University of Michigan, and I think there are 5 of us in my (M1) class over 30, and a fair number of younger non-trads as well. Lots of students in my class have little or no former research experience in science or medicine. We have career changers from finance, theater, dance, engineering, basic science, and more. For career changers, I think our admissions department is looking for evidence that you achieved some measure of excellence in your former field, and that you have an idea what you're getting into with medicine. You don't necessarily need a ton of hours shadowing, or research experience specific to medicine. Do some shadowing while you're doing your postbac, and you'll be fine.

MDs do a ton of research, ranging from clinical trials to translational medicine all the way to basic science lab work. An MD/PhD makes it easier to get more research autonomy, and is almost required if you want to run your own lab, but MD/PhDs do not have a monopoly on research. If they did, there wouldn't be nearly enough manpower to get done all the research that happens in the US.

You sound like a bright guy who tests well. If you work hard and do what you're supposed to, you'll probably do fine on the MCAT and your boards. Do what you need to do, but stop stressing about it.

 

[SunsFun]

I dont think anyone said there is no correlation, just that folks aren't weighting it appropriately. If you read those studies critically, you will realize that the "real" correlation is pretty minimal and the number of students and schools involved were small. Also both the MCAT and Step have undergone pretty significant changes since the 90s, as has the composition of med school student bodies. I wouldn't put much (any) stock in those studies. Truth of the matter is that good standardized test takers may still be good on later standardized tests, (which I think is all your nonrandom correlation shows) but having prepared well for the MCAT doesn't really mean your Step 1 score is preordained. Every year some of the highest scores end up obtained by folks who tanked on the MCAT, and some of the worst scorers are people who actually did decently on the MCAT. How much effort you put into it and how much time you are given to study are by far the strongest factors. Coming out of the second year of med school with a strong foundation also gives you a leg up. But basically the "benefit" you have by having proved yourself on the MCAT is so minimal that you need to treat it as nonexistent. If you don't put in the kind of time that Mr X does, cover as much high yield information in preparation over a similar period of time, you probably will do worse than Mr X statistically speaking, regardless of what your respective MCAT scores were. The test rewards effort and time of preparation. It is not an aptitude test. Sure there are minute differences in starting points, but if you bank on them to make the difference, you are hosed. Best to look at these studies very critically (different tests than today, very small number of med schools involved, very different composition of student body than today, different curricula than today) and dismiss them as "evidence" accordingly. Nuff said.

I was reading in the other thread that getting into a competitive specialty is correlated most with the amount of time you spend studying and how much of your social life you're willing to sacrifice. Is that accurate in your experiences?

 

[drizzt3117]

I was reading in the other thread that getting into a competitive specialty is correlated most with the amount of time you spend studying and how much of your social life you're willing to sacrifice. Is that accurate in your experiences?

No.

 

[Law2Doc]

I was reading in the other thread that getting into a competitive specialty is correlated most with the amount of time you spend studying and how much of your social life you're willing to sacrifice. Is that accurate in your experiences?

First you are loading the question by phrasing it as a sacrifice. Yes you are going to work hard in med school, and yes you will have to strike a Balance between medicine and other aspects of your life if you want to be successful in this field. There are multiple opportunities in medicine in virtually every specialty. If you want to dictate your circumstances, you need to excel. It doesn't matter if you want to go into a noncompetitive field or a competitive field, there are folks you are going to have to beat to have a choice of where you end up. I promise you the person who gets to select from the top places in FP or peds worked hard in med school. Second, you really don't know what field you are going to love until you get exposed to them. That happens in third year. Most people in med school at least waffle, if not change their mind at least once while doing clinical rotations. The things you thought you'd like you hate, you like, and vice versa. Additionally, ability comes into play. I've known people who had to put 80 hours a week into med school studying just to be below average, while I've known others for whom things came almost effortlessly. It's not a sliding scale between competitive people who work hard, and noncompetitive people who can coast. It's going to be everyone working hard because they want choices in life, want to keep doors open. So yeah, some time you probably spent chilling and considering "social life" is going to be impacted in med school, but not based on how competitive a field they do. If you are planning to coast through med school because you don't care about getting something competitive, I can promise you you won't get a lot of the choices you want, will close a lot of doors prematurely, and in the worst case scenario will end up working harder than most after a month or two once you have dug yourself a big hole that threatens passing courses and step exams. If you think it's going to be easy because you have low goals you are vastly underestimating this path.

 

[SunsFun]

Not at all. I am interested in doing my absolute best in medical school. I am undecided in terms of my exact path and so far after shadowing an FP physician, I can say that I will probably be content with going into family medicine. However, I do want to keep all my options open. It is just that the idea of med school performance appears to be a huge black box to me right now. It is kind of a scary thought that working harder and spending more time studying than your classmates may not translate into being on the top or even in the middle.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.