Post-bacc vs. MPH

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
P

psriya

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Members don't see this ad.
:hello: Hi all, sorry to post this here if it isn't in the designated section, but I hadn't really found anything pertinent to my question. If this thread already exists, please pardon the redundancy.

I'm in my last year of undergrad, majoring in communication. I haven't yet applied to med schools primarily due to the fact that my science GPA hasn't been so stellar when I transferred to a larger university. Now, I'm debating the merits of completing a post-bacc or an MPH (or even an MHA, though, I'm not as interested in this). Post-bacc is an obvious choice to raise my science GPA, prove that I can handle med courses, and show my commitment to med school. However, I feel that an MPH will be much more useful in the long run, since I do think I would eventually like to enter into administration (and also would tie in nicely with my BA). In addition, I wouldn't have to come back to school after my MD to do this. My brother actually was in the process of completing an MPH and was accepted into med school before he recieved his degree, though this was in the 1990s and schools have undoubtedly become much more stringent in their guidelines of accepting students since then. Still, I'm very much on the fence with this one. On the one hand, my family is leaning towards the MPH, on the other, my pre-med advisor is ever-so-slightly leaning towards the post-bacc. Please note that I'm willing to spend 1-2 years working on this before med school. So, time really isn't an issue. Also, I'll be taking my MCATs this January.

I'd really appreciate your suggestions/opinions on this, I've seen your knowledge and experience in action on this site! :bow:

Thank you so much!
 
90% of admissions officers would tell you to do either a post bacc or a Masters with some hard science. So post bacc for sure.
 
Thanks for replying. How about an MPH along with taking hard sciences in the summers?
 
I believe most graduate programs go into the summer so summer doesn't equal more time as in undergrad. How about a masters or post back now and an MD/MPH program in the future?
 
Yes, I've heard that, too. I've been looking around, mainly at SPHHP at UB. They say for a full-time MPH student, it would take 4 semesters to finish. I checked their calendar and the last day of classes last semester was April 28 and fall classes resumed August 25. I know between that will be time allocated for thesis defense and presentations, but that isn't in their curriculum for the first year, is it? Not only that, my friend who is an MS2 and contemplating an MPH has found that some courses are offered online and has calculated it out to being able to complete the degree in 1.5 years. She'll be forwarding the information to me soon (sorry about not having those to back me up yet!). Also, UB offers intensive hard science courses in several summer sessions within the time span between semesters. Anyways, my point being that it's feasible.

You're suggestion of an MD/MPH after a post-bacc is definitely valid. I think it's just my personal preference to finish any degree before med school so I can commit to that material wholly. For some reason, I have an aversion to post-bacc. Probably because the one's I've explored give you only a certificate at the end of all the work that doesn't really do much. It feels like a stepping stone to med school more than a degree that can do both that as well as stand on its own. If I'm putting in that much work, I might as well have it work for me, even if it means an extra 0.5-1 year of material. Am I approaching this wrongly?
 
I agree with Mterp45. An MPH doesn't prove you can do the science courses required of you in med school. I was in the same predicament and decided on a post-bacc program. Although, I am really interested in doing an MPH/MD degree now. I would definitely stick with the post-bacc or masters in a difficult science program.
 
If your goal is to get into medical school the post-bac will help, the MPH will do very little to nothing. The application process has changed a lot since your brother was accepted in the 90, so he would not be a great example for today's admissions. It does suck that you only get a certificate at most programs, but the purpose of post-bacs are to improve your MD application, not grant a degree.

If you ask this question on the Post-bac forum here, http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=71 you will get better information. There are a couple people who follow that area closely who are experts on these matters. They can give some really great advice and explain the programs in detail.

Good luck 👍
 
It depends on how low your GPA is, and how much it could be improved by the post-bacc. Personally, I'd go for the MPH unless your science GPA is completely prohibitive (<3.0).
 
stixx said:
It depends on how low your GPA is, and how much it could be improved by the post-bacc. Personally, I'd go for the MPH unless your science GPA is completely prohibitive (<3.0).
Click to expand...

It is certainly true that it depends on how low your GPA is. However, I would set the bar higher than a 3.0. A 3.3 for instance is still standard deviations below most medical schools average GPA. I know this fact first hand, and had to do a lot to improve my application to be in the position I am in now. I was told by multiple Dean's of Admission that an MPH will not do anything to help me get into medical school.

If you are looking for a degree, and have over a 3.0 with a solid MCAT, some SMP programs grant Masters degrees. However, you have to do very well in these programs or else it could doom your application.
 
genswim24 said:
It is certainly true that it depends on how low your GPA is. However, I would set the bar higher than a 3.0. A 3.3 for instance is still standard deviations below most medical schools average GPA. I know this fact first hand, and had to do a lot to improve my application to be in the position I am in now. I was told by multiple Dean's of Admission that an MPH will not do anything to help me get into medical school.

If you are looking for a degree, and have over a 3.0 with a solid MCAT, some SMP programs grant Masters degrees. However, you have to do very well in these programs or else it could doom your application.
Click to expand...
Yea I'm probably being too optimistic. The MPH won't add much to your application if your GPA is too low, and even a 3.3 is low enough to need a boost. The only people I know who did the 1 year MPH as reapplicants didn't have problems with numbers. But it did work out for them.
 
I agree that raising your GPA, if it's low, should be your primary concern (hence a post-bacc program). However, while other posters have commented that a MPH may not increase your chances of admission to medical school, I have heard from several physicians that they can greatly add to your application for residency.
 
An MPH is great degree, and will help you later on down the road.

I had not heard about the residency factor though, but I can't say that I am surprised. It is definitely something for me to consider next year. Thanks for the info.
 
Are there many bost-bac programs that allow you to enroll to take more advanced science courses rather than just the prereqs? If things don't work out for me this application cycle I'm considering doing a MS in biomedical sciences or post-bac, but many of the post-bac programs I've looked at are geared towards those who still have to take prereqs.
 
If you spread the MPH out over two years (including 1 summer), I think that you can definitely squeeze in 2 or 3 hard science classes, maybe more.

Also, I agree that MPH grades will not make up for undergrad science grades. However, I do think that the MPH adds depth to your application, and gives you a lot more to talk about during interviews.

If you really want to focus on raising your GPA, I would do a one year postbacc then apply to MD/MPH programs, or just do the MPH after you finish your residency. There are plenty of practicing physicians working on their MPH part-time in my program.
 
I agree that a post-bac in the hard sciences is the best way to reassure an adcom that you have what it takes to do well in the med school curriculum. The MPH does not provide this assurance because the course material isn't classified as BCPM.

The skills acquired in an MPH will help with residency but you'll need to keep those skills fresh, or acquire them during med school, if you are to get any milage out of them later.

There are many schools offering MD/MPH. MPH degrees done during or after earning the MD are often shorter because you get academic credit toward the MPH for having taken some MD classes. Therefore, an MPH done after matriculating to med school is shorter (and usually cheaper) than doing it before attending med school.
 
glmny123 said:
Are there many bost-bac programs that allow you to enroll to take more advanced science courses rather than just the prereqs? If things don't work out for me this application cycle I'm considering doing a MS in biomedical sciences or post-bac, but many of the post-bac programs I've looked at are geared towards those who still have to take prereqs.
Click to expand...


I believe so. I just discussed post-baccs with my pre-med advisor today. If you go to the AAMC website, you can pick and choose the criteria you're looking for: http://services.aamc.org/postbac/ I think the prereqs in post-baccs tend to be named under the degree type. For example, the University of Rochester has a post-bacc pre-medical program, but the degree type is listed as "Non-degree, undergraduate, non-certificate-granting program". The "undergraduate" part indicates that it would be geared towards those premeds who haven't yet taken the science core classes. At least, that's my understanding...
 
Thank you all so much for responding, it gave me some great insight on the subject! I think it'll definitely help me in my decision. You all gave such thoughtful answers, too--I appreciate that to no end. :biglove:

Thanks again!
 
So would an MPH significantly boost a candidate with solid credentials...i.e.- someone with a 3.9+ GPA??
 
LizzyM said:
I agree that a post-bac in the hard sciences is the best way to reassure an adcom that you have what it takes to do well in the med school curriculum. The MPH does not provide this assurance because the course material isn't classified as BCPM.

The skills acquired in an MPH will help with residency but you'll need to keep those skills fresh, or acquire them during med school, if you are to get any milage out of them later.

There are many schools offering MD/MPH. MPH degrees done during or after earning the MD are often shorter because you get academic credit toward the MPH for having taken some MD classes. Therefore, an MPH done after matriculating to med school is shorter (and usually cheaper) than doing it before attending med school.
Click to expand...

Very brief question - does this statement apply to the areas of public health that are significantly more science/math-based, such as epidemiology and biostatistics? There are certainly areas that do not have significant science content (health behavior and health education, health management and policy), but in the program I'm enrolled in we have the chance (and are encouraged) to take genetics and some microbiology courses through the medical school.
 
Wiingy said:
Very brief question - does this statement apply to the areas of public health that are significantly more science/math-based, such as epidemiology and biostatistics? There are certainly areas that do not have significant science content (health behavior and health education, health management and policy), but in the program I'm enrolled in we have the chance (and are encouraged) to take genetics and some microbiology courses through the medical school.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen (10 yrs reading applications), very few, if any, courses offered in public health schools are counted as BCPM. So, in that regard, MPH classes do not improve one's BCPM and do not provide the assurance that adcoms seek that you can handle the science. Epidemiology and biostatistics offered in public health school do not appear to count toward BCPM. I haven't seen enough genetics & other biology courses taken in a med school while enrolled in public health to make a generalization.
 
So would an MPH significantly boost a candidate with solid credentials...i.e.- someone with a 3.9+ GPA??

Also, would it be more worthwhile to pursue a year of research at a top ranked academic department or pursue the MPH?
 
Transformers said:
So would an MPH significantly boost a candidate with solid credentials...i.e.- someone with a 3.9+ GPA??
Click to expand...


You mean someone who doesn't need a boost? I believe it wouldn neither help nor hurt.

Also, would it be more worthwhile to pursue a year of research at a top ranked academic department or pursue the MPH?
Click to expand...


Either could be a step on the path to medical school; it depends on your goals and interests. Most MPH degrees take 2 years so that's a longer path than a year of research.
 
well Lizzy, some of the criticism Ive faced that was at least the MPH is a tangible on-track and guaranteed degree while research, while VERY valuable and beneficial down the road for future summers + perhaps a potential letter of recommendation for residencies, could, but not certainly, lead up to no publication or poster...what are your thoughts on this?

Also, as an adcom, how would you evaluate someone who worked at a top ranked department (i will actually be working at upenns department of dermatology to continue with my previous summer stint working on skin cancer) so I was wondering how adcoms evaluate the student who takes a year off to pursue research...specifically, how important are the factors (by interview time)
that the students a.) received a publication notice and b.) is funded by a prestigious grant..i.e.- NIH, etc...

The critciism from my med school friends is that there are no guarantees with doing research short-term in the med school application process (since i will be applying during the summer of 2010) while an MPH is rather beneficial now and the concern that i may just end up a labrat at the bottom of the hierarchy. This is the dilemma im currently facing as to do next year. Academically, as an undergrad, things are going great with potentially on track to graduate summa cum laude at a top 20 + 3.5 years research w/2 presentations + a lot of healthcare and non-healthcare ecs...I just mentioned this because I dont think a post-bacc or SMP is an option that would be relevant for my 1 year goal.

Thanks.
 
Most MPH programs (if you aren't already in med school or holding a doctoral degree) are 2 years. So, if you are looking to fill a gap year (not years) then the MPH is not a good choice. If public health interests you and you are interested in the material, you might consider an MD/MPH or an MPH during residency or fellowship.... I think that makes more sense than a 2 year MPH followed by 4 year MD.

So, if your goal is something intersting during a gap year, and research intersts you, do research. No one will expect you to have a publication, etc, at the time (autumn) when most interivews are conducted. At most, you'll be asked about your research to date and why you are choosing medicine over a career in bench research.
 
Thanks LizzyM...well I was actually planning on applying for some 1 year MPH programs...for example, Dartmouth Medical School does have one thats open for predoctoral candidates including those who are not currently enrolled in medical school. Does that change your opinion with regard to my previous post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
DIY post bacc--p/f vs grade vs nfc?
Replies
1
Views
378
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
S
Post bacc question
Replies
4
Views
1K
coldspring
coldspring
fallmed
MPH vs DIY Post Bacc?
Replies
6
Views
1K
fallmed
fallmed
S
Post Bacc ?
Replies
3
Views
811
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
V
DIY Post Bacc
Replies
2
Views
839
DOCOC15
D
Top