- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,802
- Reaction score
- 3
After reading through some of the posts here on this forum, especially the post-bac vs SMP threads, I thought I would offer some of my own thoughts, especially in regards to my own situation..
There seems to be a general consensus here that if you're under a 3.0 with a good/decent MCAT, you're better off doing the SMP, as you have far too much to make up for in terms of undergraduate GPA. But then again, it does make sense that you do a post-bac to get above a 3.0 to make most cut-offs.. but it still means you are definitely recommended to go the SMP route at some point to cover as much ground as you can as opposed to spending 4 years to get the undergrad GPA up.
However, if you're sitting at a low 3.xx GPA, so for instance, 3.3 overall GPA, with a 3.0 sciences GPA, it is harder to make a blanket recommendation. While most of the posters I've seen so far seem to support going the SMP route, I tend to disagree. Does it make any more sense to take a full-time post-bac in one year to increase the overall GPA up to a 3.4-3.5 and the sciences GPA up to a 3.2-3.3 with a strong post-bac performance, continuing an upward trend from undergrad? Or, would you just be better off going straight to a SMP? This is the question here, and this is how I am choosing to answer it.
Personally, my situation is this: I have a 3.3 overall GPA, but I'm sure the AMCAS GPA is lower because I retook Organic Chem twice in consecutive terms (D+, then C+) back in my freshman year, a time I would rather forget, but am continually reminded of when I consider my application, despite my upward trend after that (external circumstances getting resolved, getting my act together, better study habits, better motivation, the usual). So I'm assuming it is more like 3.25-3.27, and the Sciences GPA is a tad bit under 3.2. I got a 31S (10P, 11V, 10B) on the August 2005 MCAT, and I am studying right now to decide if I should retake this September (meaning I would have to be confident about achieving 12's and 13's to significantly improve on my score). But I digress... my application is well-rounded according to my undergraduate premedical advisers as well as Ms. Hershman, the director of the post-bac program at UPenn; my weakness is in my GPA, there's no debate about that, and it's ultimately why we are all here considering our post-bac options.
Now, the question is whether I should do a post-bac or the SMP (in my case, Georgetown's). The problem is that I simply cannot afford Georgetown's program, with its insane cost over a year... UPenn's costs are about 1/2-1/3 of Georgetown's so it already has that advantage in my mind. I don't mind having or not having a M.S degree, as it seems there is a general understanding that a such M.S degree is not extremely useful in terms of real job opportunities outside of medical research. It's a tangible record of your achievement, this I agree with. But to me, the ultimate goal of all these external programs and coursework is to get into medical school and achieve my dream of becoming a doctor, not to grab extra degrees along the way. So you should do the program just because it will help you get into a medical school, not because you'll have something to show for your efforts in case you don't. That's the way I see it, anyway.
The question is, how do you think adcoms in general would look upon my application, if I were to apply next year with a strong performance in the post-bac program, possibly getting my GPA above 3.4 and sciences GPA not too far behind? I've made a spreadsheet and it's doable in my opinion.. if I were supremely optimistic, I'd be close to a 3.5, which could in theory happen with another semester of coursework. I have been trying to do a risk-reward analysis on my choices here, and I believe that I'm better off working within the undergrad GPA and continuing to display that upward trend from junior and senior year of undergrad with a full year's worth of post-bac work in the upper sciences. To me, it is a lower risk compared to doing a SMP, where people are not at all guaranteed to churn out a 4.0 given the high difficulty and competitiveness of the program... and the benefits are somewhat distorted by the fact that you will be applying to med schools during the year that you are doing the program (at least, that's what they strongly recommend at Georgetown). My reservations are especially heightened by the information in the thread about the dropout/failure rate for both types of programs. At least with the post-bac program, I am able to put my odds of success on a similar context with the relatively rigorous coursework I had at as an undergrad at Johns Hopkins, and I dealt with that much better after my freshman year. And as I mentioned earlier, this comes at half the cost. I'd also get to continue to pursue research and volunteer activities, especially during the glide year. I'm not in a hurry to get into medical school as long as it means I am maximizing the usage of my time to improve my application (and especially my readiness, both intellectual and emotional) significantly compared to where it stands now.
It also helps that my main in-state school, Wayne State University, has a policy of calculating only your post-bac work as your GPA if you do a minimum of 20 hours of hard sciences in a post-bac program. So an excellent performance in the post-bac program essentially rocket-boosts my chances to get least one acceptance at an US allopathic school. That's what ultimately pushed me to lean towards the post-bac program instead of the SMP. I really don't know how this would improve my standing with other medical schools, though... I would think the strong post-bac performance would weigh strongly with other medical schools, given that I will at least make the cut-off, though. If anyone knows or thinks something that might suggest differently, let me know. It's easy to be sanguine about it especially when your advisors tell you this, so I don't want to be misled here... but that's my thought process.
In conclusion, it is hard to make a blanket recommendation regarding those with border-line GPAs, and I think individuals have to go with what fits them the most. Not everyone can afford a SMP, and not everyone has a state school with a policy like Wayne State's. In this case, I chose to go with what I was more familiar with (coursework difficulty more similar to undergraduate work) and what I felt was less risky but offering similar benefits. Hope this sheds some light on the issue of post-bac versus masters'. Any comments or suggestions or responses welcomed.
There seems to be a general consensus here that if you're under a 3.0 with a good/decent MCAT, you're better off doing the SMP, as you have far too much to make up for in terms of undergraduate GPA. But then again, it does make sense that you do a post-bac to get above a 3.0 to make most cut-offs.. but it still means you are definitely recommended to go the SMP route at some point to cover as much ground as you can as opposed to spending 4 years to get the undergrad GPA up.
However, if you're sitting at a low 3.xx GPA, so for instance, 3.3 overall GPA, with a 3.0 sciences GPA, it is harder to make a blanket recommendation. While most of the posters I've seen so far seem to support going the SMP route, I tend to disagree. Does it make any more sense to take a full-time post-bac in one year to increase the overall GPA up to a 3.4-3.5 and the sciences GPA up to a 3.2-3.3 with a strong post-bac performance, continuing an upward trend from undergrad? Or, would you just be better off going straight to a SMP? This is the question here, and this is how I am choosing to answer it.
Personally, my situation is this: I have a 3.3 overall GPA, but I'm sure the AMCAS GPA is lower because I retook Organic Chem twice in consecutive terms (D+, then C+) back in my freshman year, a time I would rather forget, but am continually reminded of when I consider my application, despite my upward trend after that (external circumstances getting resolved, getting my act together, better study habits, better motivation, the usual). So I'm assuming it is more like 3.25-3.27, and the Sciences GPA is a tad bit under 3.2. I got a 31S (10P, 11V, 10B) on the August 2005 MCAT, and I am studying right now to decide if I should retake this September (meaning I would have to be confident about achieving 12's and 13's to significantly improve on my score). But I digress... my application is well-rounded according to my undergraduate premedical advisers as well as Ms. Hershman, the director of the post-bac program at UPenn; my weakness is in my GPA, there's no debate about that, and it's ultimately why we are all here considering our post-bac options.
Now, the question is whether I should do a post-bac or the SMP (in my case, Georgetown's). The problem is that I simply cannot afford Georgetown's program, with its insane cost over a year... UPenn's costs are about 1/2-1/3 of Georgetown's so it already has that advantage in my mind. I don't mind having or not having a M.S degree, as it seems there is a general understanding that a such M.S degree is not extremely useful in terms of real job opportunities outside of medical research. It's a tangible record of your achievement, this I agree with. But to me, the ultimate goal of all these external programs and coursework is to get into medical school and achieve my dream of becoming a doctor, not to grab extra degrees along the way. So you should do the program just because it will help you get into a medical school, not because you'll have something to show for your efforts in case you don't. That's the way I see it, anyway.
The question is, how do you think adcoms in general would look upon my application, if I were to apply next year with a strong performance in the post-bac program, possibly getting my GPA above 3.4 and sciences GPA not too far behind? I've made a spreadsheet and it's doable in my opinion.. if I were supremely optimistic, I'd be close to a 3.5, which could in theory happen with another semester of coursework. I have been trying to do a risk-reward analysis on my choices here, and I believe that I'm better off working within the undergrad GPA and continuing to display that upward trend from junior and senior year of undergrad with a full year's worth of post-bac work in the upper sciences. To me, it is a lower risk compared to doing a SMP, where people are not at all guaranteed to churn out a 4.0 given the high difficulty and competitiveness of the program... and the benefits are somewhat distorted by the fact that you will be applying to med schools during the year that you are doing the program (at least, that's what they strongly recommend at Georgetown). My reservations are especially heightened by the information in the thread about the dropout/failure rate for both types of programs. At least with the post-bac program, I am able to put my odds of success on a similar context with the relatively rigorous coursework I had at as an undergrad at Johns Hopkins, and I dealt with that much better after my freshman year. And as I mentioned earlier, this comes at half the cost. I'd also get to continue to pursue research and volunteer activities, especially during the glide year. I'm not in a hurry to get into medical school as long as it means I am maximizing the usage of my time to improve my application (and especially my readiness, both intellectual and emotional) significantly compared to where it stands now.
It also helps that my main in-state school, Wayne State University, has a policy of calculating only your post-bac work as your GPA if you do a minimum of 20 hours of hard sciences in a post-bac program. So an excellent performance in the post-bac program essentially rocket-boosts my chances to get least one acceptance at an US allopathic school. That's what ultimately pushed me to lean towards the post-bac program instead of the SMP. I really don't know how this would improve my standing with other medical schools, though... I would think the strong post-bac performance would weigh strongly with other medical schools, given that I will at least make the cut-off, though. If anyone knows or thinks something that might suggest differently, let me know. It's easy to be sanguine about it especially when your advisors tell you this, so I don't want to be misled here... but that's my thought process.
In conclusion, it is hard to make a blanket recommendation regarding those with border-line GPAs, and I think individuals have to go with what fits them the most. Not everyone can afford a SMP, and not everyone has a state school with a policy like Wayne State's. In this case, I chose to go with what I was more familiar with (coursework difficulty more similar to undergraduate work) and what I felt was less risky but offering similar benefits. Hope this sheds some light on the issue of post-bac versus masters'. Any comments or suggestions or responses welcomed.
