post-bacc vs. masters question

[skooler003]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi! I'm new to SDN, so I thought I'd give this a try:

After reading up on many posts about post-bacc options, the majority of senior members say that doing a post-bac is better than doing a traditional masters. I graduated from a UC with an overall 2.98 (2.3 science GPA). I majored in a non-science major, and I've done all the science pre-reqs in undergrad. I'm now starting a master's in bio in fall 2010. DAT scores were below 20s in all categories (closest was 19 in reading comp). I've done tons of volunteering, shadowing, and research. I don't want to repeat doing the same things over again. I took the advice from one dent school admissions advisor to get a master's program, but was he right? I feel like I was led off a cliff if everyone is saying doing the post-bacc is better. What are some suggestions that I can do (especially from senior SDN members)? Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[ovi8]

Hi! I'm new to SDN, so I thought I'd give this a try:

After reading up on many posts about post-bacc options, the majority of senior members say that doing a post-bac is better than doing a traditional masters. I graduated from a UC with an overall 2.98 (2.3 science GPA). I majored in a non-science major, and I've done all the science pre-reqs in undergrad. I'm now starting a master's in bio in fall 2010. DAT scores were below 20s in all categories (closest was 19 in reading comp). I've done tons of volunteering, shadowing, and research. I don't want to repeat doing the same things over again. I took the advice from one dent school admissions advisor to get a master's program, but was he right? I feel like I was led off a cliff if everyone is saying doing the post-bacc is better. What are some suggestions that I can do (especially from senior SDN members)? Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

I had to make the same decision as you (post-bacc or masters) and I decided to do a post-bacc. Each program has its pros and cons for getting into dental school. A pro for doing a masters is that you have a degree that you can fall back on in case dentistry does not work out. In my case, I found the con of doing a masters out-weighing everything (the con being the minimum two year commitment). IMO, the masters is fine because I'm assuming that you will be taking upper level graduate courses which will show the adcomm that you can handle the heavy course load. This is one of the things they look for when they evaluate your application.

If all you want to do is get into dental school, do a post-bacc. post-bacc's are very science intensive and the course structure is designed to mimic med school and dental school type courses. It seems to me that it would reflect what dental school would be like. If you do well in a post-bacc, you are showing the adcomm that you are a serious student, despite your low undergrad GPA. However, if you don't mind doing the extra time, finish a masters. Picking up a masters degree along the way to becoming a dentist is definitely not the worst thing in the world. I know a dentist who got a masters before becoming a DDS and after 15 years of practicing, he was able to get a comfy hospital administrative job that he would not have been able to get if it were not for the masters. So as I said, each has their own advantages, you have to decide which is best for you. Hope this helps .

 

[MrBeans]

Does the post-bacc degree result in another bachelor's degree?

Or does it just entail taking science classes that you choose (graduate and non-graduate level)?

 

[minotaur9]

I would suggest a masters in your case. The reason is I have similar stats to yours. I have around a 3.0 for both GPA's and 20's for the DAT. The post-bacc grades will be averaged in with your undergrad GPA and you already have all the science pre-reqs done. The masters grades will show up separately so you have an opportunity to show a 4.0 GPA there. I have so many undergrad credits that the post-bacc grades would be a drop in the bucket and not really raise my GPA so I am starting a masters this fall (if I don't get in off a waitlist). I am currently re-applying as well, and if I get accepted in the meantime, I wouldn't need to finish the masters as a requirement for acceptance to a dental program. Just an idea for you.

Post-bacc would be more beneficial if you still needed to complete the pre-reqs and a record enhancer. That may end up being better for you in order to raise your science GPA. Keep in mind, you may have a tough time even getting accepted to a masters or pre-req program with that low science GPA, but then again, you'll never know until you ask. Call some schools and find out what they would accept in terms of GPA stats.

 

[DividedByZero]

In your case, I would actually suggest a post-bac but only because it would save a ton of money and b/c you're a non-science major you probably don't have as much science credits under your belt so it would be easier to raise it by taking more undergrad courses to bring up that sciGPA to at least a 3.0.

I would also have doubts of even getting into a masters program with a 2.3 sciGPA. BUT since you got in (congratz btw!), go ahead and do the masters program if you feel like you can pull off a high GPA. If you pull off anything less than a 3.5 in your masters, it will be very close to game over for you. I just completed my masters this year and I will say it's definitely a whole new ballgame compared to undergrad. Good luck!

 

[skooler003]

Thank you to all those who replied!

Another question I have: Do you suggest to re-take science pre-reqs that are B's or C's? I've got a couple, but I don't know if re-taking them at a community college or university will do anything in the end.

 

[LaughingGas]

Hi! I'm new to SDN, so I thought I'd give this a try:

After reading up on many posts about post-bacc options, the majority of senior members say that doing a post-bac is better than doing a traditional masters. I graduated from a UC with an overall 2.98 (2.3 science GPA). I majored in a non-science major, and I've done all the science pre-reqs in undergrad. I'm now starting a master's in bio in fall 2010. DAT scores were below 20s in all categories (closest was 19 in reading comp). I've done tons of volunteering, shadowing, and research. I don't want to repeat doing the same things over again. I took the advice from one dent school admissions advisor to get a master's program, but was he right? I feel like I was led off a cliff if everyone is saying doing the post-bacc is better. What are some suggestions that I can do (especially from senior SDN members)? Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

I'm same boat as you , non-science, finished prereqs, no upper division bio done, and I was deciding between masters and post-bac. I'm going to tell you according what I've searched through out forum and my personal option. As you got in to masters, congrats to you, but I would personally think that with only have taken the basic science and prereqs , doing masters of biodirectly with no upper division bio taken, I realistically doubt you would do well on the program. I say this not to discourage you, but because I've had many science major friends (bio, chem, etc) and the amount of information and the way they had to study is completely different level than basic prereqs science courses. Also if you do poorly in your masters in the worst case scenario, you can't go back doing postbac to raise your gpa, since masters is already a higher level than postbac, and even after your "poor performance" in your masters and you do excellent on postbac, I would say your pretty much done, unless somehow you get in to SMP and do well on it. If you do postbac somewhat poorly, around 3.3 lets say and because you did poorly in postbac, you apply to masters and end up >3.8 gpa , it shows a big upper trend.
Got long, anyways I prefer postbac then apply if no aceptance, then apply masters or SMP
but I don't think masters , do bad, and apply postbac is even an option. or apply SMP after (you would end up spending way more money)

if you didnt get anything below C, I wouldn't bother retaking courses, unless you are doing absolutely nothing. Doing well on the rest of upper division science courses, would be enough to prove your competitiveness.