Post-bac program vs traditional science graduate program

[UGAChemDawg]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm currently contemplating weather I should do a premedical post-bac program or a masters degree in one of the hard sciences.

I find the idea of a post-bac program utterly unattractive for several reasons:

1.) My GPA is so low that even if I maintained a 4.0 over the next 60 hours of college credit, it would still be sub-3.0. There is a point of diminishing returns and I don't think going from a 2.7gpa to a 2.9gpa (2.7 x 160 credit hours + 4.0 x 60 credit hours = 672/220 hours = 3.05, so actually it does come out to be about 3.0 even, but that assumes a perfect performance which is a huge assumption) is worth 2 years and 50+ thousand dollars. It would not do enough to raise my chances of getting into med school to justify me spending that much time and money.

2.) A traditional masters degree in something like biochemistry or neuroscience gives you the opportunity to do advanced course work, do research and get publications, prepares you for an alternative career incase you don't get into medical school you, and they pay you (research and teaching assistantships, stipends, etc) instead of you having to shell out money for a program that doesn't guarantee anything and, in the greater scheme of things, won't do much to increase your chances.

The only down side to graduate school is that the grades don't factor into your undergrad gpa, but isn't there a separate section of the report that states your graduate gpa? Plus, it would count as part of my undergrad gpa if I decided to apply to DO schools.

In short, the post-bac option doesn't give me a sizeable enough comparative advantage to justify spending the time and money on it. The odds are overwhelming that, in my case, it would all be for nothing. My best bet is to go to grad school, do well, not be thousands of dollars in the hole when I come out and, if I don't get into a US school, go to the Caribbean, which I could probably get into now anyway.

 

[relentless11]

Yea you pretty much hit the main points there. Don't put too much effort into trying to find a "hard graduate science program" since all of them are quite challenging. You are correct that AMCAS will have a seperate section for graduate GPA. Just as there are sections for undergrad and post-bacc.

Sadly, to some extent grad GPA may not carry the same weight as undergrad. Majority of applicants only have undergrad GPA's therefore for the sake of comparison, they will favor undergrad coursework (including post-bacc) and the MCAT. Conversely, those that take med school courses, and/or course work deemed (depends on who's looking at your app) comparable to med coursework may prove that you can do well. This is why Special Masters Programs work so well. The students take med school courses under rigorous conditions. It will be difficult to do this in a standard masters program (SMP) because 1) you may not have med courses available, 2) might have to do research, 3) reputation of SMP's (the Georgetown program is quite popular).

I do agree that the grad route provides you with other options, and the tuition problem is relatively nullified. But thats assuming that your major professor has funding, and are in a school that requires grad students to be funded. There are a few masters students in my program who are paying out of their pocket because their PI's don't have $$.

For post-bacc programs, you can at least show an upward trend in undergrad courses. At this stage, that is probably the best you can hope for without staying in post-bacc for too long. Show a 1-2 year upward trend as a full-time student taking upper division courses. You may not have the option of taking undergrad courses as a grad student. I am currently in a PhD program, and they allow me to take undergrad courses as electives, so its certainly not impossible.

You should also ask yourself why you have a sub-3.0 GPA. Grad school courses are a lot harder than undergrad, the competition a lot higher, and the room for error is a lot less. Programs tend to kick you out if you get one B- (80%). Your sub-3.0 GPA would indicate B- work or less, additionally, it was in undergrad coursework. So just be careful with that.

I believe you are correct that DO schools count both undergrad and grad. So that might be a good option, as well as retaking undergrad courses since they replace the bad grade with the better one. I wouldn't be too overly confident about Carribean schools. Although easier than domestic schools here in the US, it is still selective, and you will need to destroy the MCAT. Most schools weight GPA and MCAT equally. Therefore doing well in one, may not make up for the other.

As for me, I had a sub-3.0 GPA. I could get it up to 3.0 if i did post-bacc for 1-2 years. I did post-bacc for about 1.5 years, but due to cost reasons (like yourself), I switched to a PhD program. Like I said, they allow me to take upper div undergrad courses as electives, and these will count towards your post-bacc GPA. My program also requires me to take med school classes. So I am attacking them in two fronts, grad/med school coursework, and more post-bacc. In my opinion, they can now look at my upward trend for post-bacc work, and my performance in grad/med school courses. If they have any other questions, they can look at my MCAT.

 

[UGAChemDawg]

Yea you pretty much hit the main points there. Don't put too much effort into trying to find a "hard graduate science program" since all of them are quite challenging. You are correct that AMCAS will have a seperate section for graduate GPA. Just as there are sections for undergrad and post-bacc.

Sadly, to some extent grad GPA may not carry the same weight as undergrad. Majority of applicants only have undergrad GPA's therefore for the sake of comparison, they will favor undergrad coursework (including post-bacc) and the MCAT. Conversely, those that take med school courses, and/or course work deemed (depends on who's looking at your app) comparable to med coursework may prove that you can do well. This is why Special Masters Programs work so well. The students take med school courses under rigorous conditions. It will be difficult to do this in a standard masters program (SMP) because 1) you may not have med courses available, 2) might have to do research, 3) reputation of SMP's (the Georgetown program is quite popular).

I do agree that the grad route provides you with other options, and the tuition problem is relatively nullified. But thats assuming that your major professor has funding, and are in a school that requires grad students to be funded. There are a few masters students in my program who are paying out of their pocket because their PI's don't have $$.

For post-bacc programs, you can at least show an upward trend in undergrad courses. At this stage, that is probably the best you can hope for without staying in post-bacc for too long. Show a 1-2 year upward trend as a full-time student taking upper division courses. You may not have the option of taking undergrad courses as a grad student. I am currently in a PhD program, and they allow me to take undergrad courses as electives, so its certainly not impossible.

You should also ask yourself why you have a sub-3.0 GPA. Grad school courses are a lot harder than undergrad, the competition a lot higher, and the room for error is a lot less. Programs tend to kick you out if you get one B- (80%). Your sub-3.0 GPA would indicate B- work or less, additionally, it was in undergrad coursework. So just be careful with that.

I believe you are correct that DO schools count both undergrad and grad. So that might be a good option, as well as retaking undergrad courses since they replace the bad grade with the better one. I wouldn't be too overly confident about Carribean schools. Although easier than domestic schools here in the US, it is still selective, and you will need to destroy the MCAT. Most schools weight GPA and MCAT equally. Therefore doing well in one, may not make up for the other.

As for me, I had a sub-3.0 GPA. I could get it up to 3.0 if i did post-bacc for 1-2 years. I did post-bacc for about 1.5 years, but due to cost reasons (like yourself), I switched to a PhD program. Like I said, they allow me to take upper div undergrad courses as electives, and these will count towards your post-bacc GPA. My program also requires me to take med school classes. So I am attacking them in two fronts, grad/med school coursework, and more post-bacc. In my opinion, they can now look at my upward trend for post-bacc work, and my performance in grad/med school courses. If they have any other questions, they can look at my MCAT.

One very important factor to consider is that some medical schools value research experience more than others. So if you can get publications (especially if you are fortunate enough to be first author on one) in an area related to medicine or the basic sciences, that may be considered just as good as a strong performance in a post bac program, in the eyes of some adcoms.

As for showing an upward trend, I have that going for me. Dude, I made an A in physical chemistry, meaning I can make an A in just about anything. (sarcasm alert). The reason my GPA is so low is because of...I don't want to mention it publicly but it was basically a problem that I didn't know that I had until recently and now that it has been dealt with I don't have such problem anymore.

Although the better foreign schools (there are only a handful worth considering, in my opinion) are generally selective, I think they are more forgiving of splitters (those of us with a low gpa and a high MCAT) than US schools are. I agree that US medical schools consider MCAT and gpa equal and that a superb performance in one area can help overcome a deficiency in another area...to an extent. However, I also believe there is such a thing as being below the reach of the safety net, and I think the line of demarcation is clearly at around 3.0. I doubt even a 40+ MCAT could save someone with a 2.5gpa and a sprinkling of Fs in science courses on their transcript, for example.

At this stage in the game, it's going to be a crapshoot no matter what road I take, so I think it's only logical for me to take the path that costs me the least and leaves me with the most options open.

 

[relentless11]

One very important factor to consider is that some medical schools value research experience more than others. So if you can get publications (especially if you are fortunate enough to be first author on one) in an area related to medicine or the basic sciences, that may be considered just as good as a strong performance in a post bac program, in the eyes of some adcoms.

As for showing an upward trend, I have that going for me. Dude, I made an A in physical chemistry, meaning I can make an A in just about anything. (sarcasm alert). The reason my GPA is so low is because of...I don't want to mention it publicly but it was basically a problem that I didn't know that I had until recently and now that it has been dealt with I don't have such problem anymore.

Actually I wouldn't put too much stake into publications as something that can just be as good as performance as a post-bacc program, I'm sure many of the others in here can agree with that. Academics and research are two different things. Although being a first author or being a co-author in any publication is commendable, getting publish is in no way comparable to getting 4.0's. I should know, I have over 25 publications, 5 as first author in book chapters and peer-reviewed journals. I spoke to UCSF and UCLA, both of which have been regarded as very research oriented, and even then advised me to do post-bacc and/or grad school to show overall academic improvement. The med school at my current school, UC Davis, also echoed this recommendation. Not trying to discourage you, but the reality is, grades and MCAT are the only indicators of academic performance, while research is an extracurricular. Extracurriculars are icing on the cake as they say.

In regards to the reasons why your GPA has been low, that is perfectly fine. Address it in a positive way in the personal statement, but provide proof that you can do it. An A in PChem is great, just keep that up during a fulltime courseload and you should be fine.

Take home message is, dont' put too much emphasis in publications/research getting you into med school. Although you have reasons for your low GPA, you need to prove that you can cut it, which if trends hold you will. Research only shows you can do research, while GPA shows you can do well in coursework. Besides, research plays a bigger role if you are doing an MSTP, in fact its required for MSTP's.