Ranking the formal Post Bacc progs (Pre-med)

[esafille]

Is there any semblance of a rank for these programs? Or are they really all in the same? I'm looking at the following programs, and would appreciate any advice as to which ones may be better or worse, if at all:


Miami
Penn
La Salle
Temple
Penn St
UConn
SUNY Stony Brook

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[esafille]

guess this was moved to another section of the forums...

Any ideas or suggestions?

 

[deleted248403]

I can only speak to Penn and UConn.

UConn - last year they had 250+ apps for 10 places. So if you arent a CT resident, essentially forget it. It seems a good program, and you take classes at the UG campus which is over an hr from the med school. Almost all of them then go into UConn med so in that sense its great.

UPenn - has its ups and downs. Claims awesome med/dent/vet acceptance percentages but i'm not so sure. Good linkage options if you are pre-health but not if you are SSP. Advising is the most pathetic thing on the face of the planet and they are wholely unorganized. But if you are willing to be proactive then you can ride the waves just fine.

I've seen very little (essentially nothing) written about Penn St or Miami

 

[esafille]

I can only speak to Penn and UConn.

UConn - last year they had 250+ apps for 10 places. So if you arent a CT resident, essentially forget it. It seems a good program, and you take classes at the UG campus which is over an hr from the med school. Almost all of them then go into UConn med so in that sense its great.

UPenn - has its ups and downs. Claims awesome med/dent/vet acceptance percentages but i'm not so sure. Good linkage options if you are pre-health but not if you are SSP. Advising is the most pathetic thing on the face of the planet and they are wholely unorganized. But if you are willing to be proactive then you can ride the waves just fine.

I've seen very little (essentially nothing) written about Penn St or Miami

Thank you... I appreciate the insights =)

 

[DrSmooth]

If u r asking strictly about ranking then Seems like upenn would be tops hands down. I am guessing it would be a very competitive environment academically but if u could come out of there w good grades and mcat it would look really good when u apply. Not sure about the other schools, I would just check us news undergrad rankings.

 

[deleted248403]

Undergrad rankings arent really indicative of post-bacs so im not sure i would do that.

Also IMO UConn's program is better than UPenn's...and you wouldnt have gotten that from US news (which is a pathetic report anyways) nor from the "name thing".

Not sure i'd base my opinion off that publication for my post bac decision

 

[DrSmooth]

I was thinking in terms of school reputation rather than quality of program. The impression I have received at all of my interviews is that they r looking at the quality of undergrad institution where I did my postbacc rather than the program itself, because the quality of student support services etc that make up a postbacc program are irrelevant to the medical school. They only care about the quality and competitiveness of your education in relation to your grades. So in that sense us news is quite helpful because like it or not that is a pretty decent reflection of undergrad reputation, and as the coordinator of one of the best known formal postbacc programs told me, "pedigree matters" when it comes time to apply.

 

[NewmansOwn]

DrSmooth, I would only agree with you if we're talking about do-it-yourself postbac programs. I think that someone who has taken the prereqs at Berkeley versus someone who took them at Kennesaw Valley State Tech will be able to successfully leverage the reputation of their institution.

But the top formal postbac programs have their own pedigree, irrespective of the reputation of the undergraduate institution. Take Goucher, for instance. A relatively unheard of undergraduate program, but one of the very best formal postbac programs. The majority of medical schools would prefer a Goucher postbac over a Columbia postbac, because Goucher's postbac program has a better reputation.

I completely disagree that support structure and services are irrelevant. The strong support at Bryn Mawr is the reason powerful linkages exist between the program and many medical schools and is, thus, the reason I'm writing to you now as a medical student rather than a pre-med. Furthermore, the tight-knit support and advising structure of the top programs are the reasons Dean's letters from these institutions are so well-respected. This yields the 100% acceptance rates you see boasted on the websites.

 

[deleted248403]

DrSmooth, I would only agree with you if we're talking about do-it-yourself postbac programs. I think that someone who has taken the prereqs at Berkeley versus someone who took them at Kennesaw Valley State Tech will be able to successfully leverage the reputation of their institution.

But the top formal postbac programs have their own pedigree, irrespective of the reputation of the undergraduate institution. Take Goucher, for instance. A relatively unheard of undergraduate program, but one of the very best formal postbac programs. The majority of medical schools would prefer a Goucher postbac over a Columbia postbac, because Goucher's postbac program has a better reputation.

I completely disagree that support structure and services are irrelevant. The strong support at Bryn Mawr is the reason powerful linkages exist between the program and many medical schools and is, thus, the reason I'm writing to you now as a medical student rather than a pre-med. Furthermore, the tight-knit support and advising structure of the top programs are the reasons Dean's letters from these institutions are so well-respected. This yields the 100% acceptance rates you see boasted on the websites.

+1

Drexel and Columbia would be two programs that spring to mind that would feature highly if you were doing a "us news" based approach. But if one reads around here they'll see a lot of negative press about both programs.

 

[DrSmooth]

I don't know that we totally disagree. I am not arguing that the postbacc program, support, community etc is irrelevant. If it were I would not have spent 40k completing a formal postbacc myself. I am arguing that from the perspective of an admissions committee evaluating a non-linkage applicant, the "program" is irrelevant. Why would a medical school with no linkage care about the advising, support, community and other value added features of the "best postbacc programs"? All things being equal (which they never are) they would prefer a straight A non-trad from Columbia than from Scripps or Goucher because it was earned in a more competetive academic environment.

The reason linkage post-baccs boast 90-100% acceptance rates is due primarily to linkage and careful screening of applicants, not school reputation. Again, I totally agree that quality of program is relevant, but relevant to the student. A non-trad student who doesn't need the support, can afford to take more time, and isn't happy with the linkage med schools would be best served by attending the best school they can.

 

[esafille]

DrSmooth, I would only agree with you if we're talking about do-it-yourself postbac programs. I think that someone who has taken the prereqs at Berkeley versus someone who took them at Kennesaw Valley State Tech will be able to successfully leverage the reputation of their institution.

But the top formal postbac programs have their own pedigree, irrespective of the reputation of the undergraduate institution. Take Goucher, for instance. A relatively unheard of undergraduate program, but one of the very best formal postbac programs. The majority of medical schools would prefer a Goucher postbac over a Columbia postbac, because Goucher's postbac program has a better reputation.

I completely disagree that support structure and services are irrelevant. The strong support at Bryn Mawr is the reason powerful linkages exist between the program and many medical schools and is, thus, the reason I'm writing to you now as a medical student rather than a pre-med. Furthermore, the tight-knit support and advising structure of the top programs are the reasons Dean's letters from these institutions are so well-respected. This yields the 100% acceptance rates you see boasted on the websites.

I'm really glad I asked now, b/c I hadn't even heard of Goucher beforehand!

 

[NewmansOwn]

I'm really glad I asked now, b/c I hadn't even heard of Goucher beforehand!

You've been researching postbac premed programs and haven't heard of Goucher? That's bizarre.

The three top programs are Scripps, Goucher and Bryn Mawr.

 

[NewmansOwn]

I don't know that we totally disagree. I am not arguing that the postbacc program, support, community etc is irrelevant. If it were I would not have spent 40k completing a formal postbacc myself. I am arguing that from the perspective of an admissions committee evaluating a non-linkage applicant, the "program" is irrelevant. Why would a medical school with no linkage care about the advising, support, community and other value added features of the "best postbacc programs"? All things being equal (which they never are) they would prefer a straight A non-trad from Columbia than from Scripps or Goucher because it was earned in a more competetive academic environment.

The reason linkage post-baccs boast 90-100% acceptance rates is due primarily to linkage and careful screening of applicants, not school reputation. Again, I totally agree that quality of program is relevant, but relevant to the student. A non-trad student who doesn't need the support, can afford to take more time, and isn't happy with the linkage med schools would be best served by attending the best school they can.

I suppose if all things were indeed "equal," I'd agree. And yes, I think linkages are the #1 reason to attend a top formal postbac.

But even if we take linkages out of the equation, let's consider the non-trad you mention in your last sentence. This individual can attend a postbac program at either Columbia or Goucher/Scripps/Bryn Mawr. Columbia is surely the superior undergraduate institution versus all three of the others. Its postbac program has some semblance of linkages, but as you say, this individual doesn't care. Some students cruise through Columbia's postbac and get into good medical schools. Some do not get accepted. Many drop out before they can even finish. The top three formal postbac programs boast 100% acceptance rates to medical schools. Thus, acceptance to one of these programs (as you say, they screen for top applicants) is as close as one can get to a "guarantee" of med school admission.

Which path should the individual choose? They can go to the bigger-name school and have a moderate chance of med school acceptance, or they can go to Bryn Mawr/Scripps/Goucher and have, essentially, a 100% chance of med school acceptance.

Point is, statistically speaking, medical schools clearly prefer the non-linking non-trad from BM/Scripps/Goucher to the one from Columbia. So, the smart student, having the option of going to both and there being no real difference in cost, should attend the latter.

 

[KMac]

The reason linkage post-baccs boast 90-100% acceptance rates is due primarily to linkage and careful screening of applicants, not school reputation. Again, I totally agree that quality of program is relevant, but relevant to the student. A non-trad student who doesn't need the support, can afford to take more time, and isn't happy with the linkage med schools would be best served by attending the best school they can.

Obviously the close to 100% acceptance rate for the top programs (BM, Goucher, Scripps) is well documented. Was wondering though what % of students get into the linkage program they apply to? i.e. of the 20-30 BM students who apply each year to link, how many get in and likewise for the other schools? Presumably those who don't get in just turn around and apply for admissions the following year to a much broader set of schools, which leads to the ~100% acceptance rate. Just curious how much of an impact the linkage programs truly have. Also, do the post-bacc programs steer certain students to specific schools (or away from "harder" schools to get into)?

 

[drizzt3117]

Obviously the close to 100% acceptance rate for the top programs (BM, Goucher, Scripps) is well documented. Was wondering though what % of students get into the linkage program they apply to? i.e. of the 20-30 BM students who apply each year to link, how many get in and likewise for the other schools? Presumably those who don't get in just turn around and apply for admissions the following year to a much broader set of schools, which leads to the ~100% acceptance rate. Just curious how much of an impact the linkage programs truly have. Also, do the post-bacc programs steer certain students to specific schools (or away from "harder" schools to get into)?

It depends on the linkage. At Scripps essentially everyone who wants to link to GW gets in. About 60% of the people trying to link to Pitt get in.

A lot of Scripps postbacs (and undergrads) tend to go to USC med, there are also a disproportionate amount at UCSF. I definitely didn't get steered away from any schools. My application was pretty much the top 25 (+ the CA schools) and I interviewed essentially everywhere.

 

[DrSmooth]

I suppose if all things were indeed "equal," I'd agree. And yes, I think linkages are the #1 reason to attend a top formal postbac.

But even if we take linkages out of the equation, let's consider the non-trad you mention in your last sentence. This individual can attend a postbac program at either Columbia or Goucher/Scripps/Bryn Mawr. Columbia is surely the superior undergraduate institution versus all three of the others. Its postbac program has some semblance of linkages, but as you say, this individual doesn't care. Some students cruise through Columbia's postbac and get into good medical schools. Some do not get accepted. Many drop out before they can even finish. The top three formal postbac programs boast 100% acceptance rates to medical schools. Thus, acceptance to one of these programs (as you say, they screen for top applicants) is as close as one can get to a "guarantee" of med school admission.

Which path should the individual choose? They can go to the bigger-name school and have a moderate chance of med school acceptance, or they can go to Bryn Mawr/Scripps/Goucher and have, essentially, a 100% chance of med school acceptance.

Point is, statistically speaking, medical schools clearly prefer the non-linking non-trad from BM/Scripps/Goucher to the one from Columbia. So, the smart student, having the option of going to both and there being no real difference in cost, should attend the latter.

I think we've dragged this one out enough, but for the sake of completeness...
1) The OP was not asking about any linkage postbaccs, hence my advice about using undergrad US News rankings as a guide in terms of school reputation.
2) I don't follow your logic regarding acceptance statistics. There is no way to know without all the numbers the full impact of linkage and screening on the acceptance rate for BM/Scripps/Goucher (BSG) students. It could very well be that you take the same applicants and they will also have an acceptance rate of 100% at Columbia.

But I agree, if you can go to BSG you would be silly not to due to linkage and that close to 100% success rate. However, it is probably too late for the OP to get into one of those programs for fall 2010, so they should attend the school with the best reputation as well as a solid postbacc program.

 

[deleted248403]

Smooth - your logic is still flawed. US News is not the way to rank formal post-bacs.

For example: Anyone who knows anything about UConn's program would go there over UPenn's program in a heart beat. But you wouldn't get that from US News. You also wouldn't appreciate how while HCP is a solid program, its not quite as good as US News would rank it with the name Harvard.

The only way your logic makes sense if you are doing a DIY post-bac, most likely at state universities. Thats the only time. Even then, most people know where the better universities are, and is there really THAT much difference between most DIY places that aren't CC....prob not...

 

[drizzt3117]

I think we've dragged this one out enough, but for the sake of completeness...
1) The OP was not asking about any linkage postbaccs, hence my advice about using undergrad US News rankings as a guide in terms of school reputation.
2) I don't follow your logic regarding acceptance statistics. There is no way to know without all the numbers the full impact of linkage and screening on the acceptance rate for BM/Scripps/Goucher (BSG) students. It could very well be that you take the same applicants and they will also have an acceptance rate of 100% at Columbia.

But I agree, if you can go to BSG you would be silly not to due to linkage and that close to 100% success rate. However, it is probably too late for the OP to get into one of those programs for fall 2010, so they should attend the school with the best reputation as well as a solid postbacc program.

US News is not a good way to evaluate postbac programs. BM and Scripps are both top 15 liberal arts colleges. How do you compare the rankings to top national universities?

When I was on the interview trail, interviewers seemed to give my postbac classes the same or more weight than my ug courses (us news top 5 school) fwiw.

 

[NewmansOwn]

I think we've dragged this one out enough, but for the sake of completeness...
1) The OP was not asking about any linkage postbaccs, hence my advice about using undergrad US News rankings as a guide in terms of school reputation.
2) I don't follow your logic regarding acceptance statistics. There is no way to know without all the numbers the full impact of linkage and screening on the acceptance rate for BM/Scripps/Goucher (BSG) students. It could very well be that you take the same applicants and they will also have an acceptance rate of 100% at Columbia.

But I agree, if you can go to BSG you would be silly not to due to linkage and that close to 100% success rate. However, it is probably too late for the OP to get into one of those programs for fall 2010, so they should attend the school with the best reputation as well as a solid postbacc program.

You're right. No sense in prattling on about it. But if we're completing our thoughts:

You do know that the 100% acceptance rate is overall, right? Not just linkage applicants. So sure, a good number of people get accepted via linkage. But 100% of the people who don't link get accepted, too -- unlike at any other school.

You said in your second post that a non-trad from Columbia would be preferred over a non-trad from Scripps/BM/Goucher because the As were earned in a more competitive environment.

Yet in your latest post, you said the 100% acceptance rates at the top three programs are due to screening for the best applicants. You said maybe Columbia would have higher med school acceptance rates if they had Scripps/BM/Goucher's students.

So the better students are at BM/Goucher/Scripps but Columbia is more academically competitive? That doesn't make any sense.

I guess we just don't understand each other. But that's OK. Good luck with your apps.

 

[DrSmooth]

You're right. No sense in prattling on about it. But if we're completing our thoughts:

You do know that the 100% acceptance rate is overall, right? Not just linkage applicants. So sure, a good number of people get accepted via linkage. But 100% of the people who don't link get accepted, too -- unlike at any other school.

You said in your second post that a non-trad from Columbia would be preferred over a non-trad from Scripps/BM/Goucher because the As were earned in a more competitive environment.

Yet in your latest post, you said the 100% acceptance rates at the top three programs are due to screening for the best applicants. You said maybe Columbia would have higher med school acceptance rates if they had Scripps/BM/Goucher's students.

So the better students are at BM/Goucher/Scripps but Columbia is more academically competitive? That doesn't make any sense.

I guess we just don't understand each other. But that's OK. Good luck with your apps.

Yeah, I understand the acceptance rate, which is why I think anyone with the option of doing one of the "cadillac" postbacc should do it.

I might be misunderstanding how classes work at Scripps/BM/Goucher. In my postbacc we were in class with undergrads. Were yours totally private? If so, I didn't realize that. And your point about competitiveness is true.

I understand where you are coming from, and I have the utmost respect for those programs. In my case I was a couple months too late to apply, so did the next best thing, a formal postbacc at a well-ranked school. This might be the situation for the OP as well, in which case I say take a peak at US News (more information is usually a good thing), research the programs, and pick which one seems like the best for you.

 

[drizzt3117]

I might be misunderstanding how classes work at Scripps/BM/Goucher. In my postbacc we were in class with undergrads. Were yours totally private? If so, I didn't realize that. And your point about competitiveness is true.

At Scripps you take classes with Scripps, Pitzer, and CMC undergrads. Most of the ugs are really qualified. The ugs I was friends with are now med students mostly at top 25 schools. At BM I believe that they take classes with ugs but aren't graded against em while goucher courses are private. At Scripps the student to faculty ratio was at or below 10:1 fwiw and every course was taught by a phd. You definitely don't get that at large national universities.

 

[NewmansOwn]

Yeah, I understand the acceptance rate, which is why I think anyone with the option of doing one of the "cadillac" postbacc should do it.

I might be misunderstanding how classes work at Scripps/BM/Goucher. In my postbacc we were in class with undergrads. Were yours totally private? If so, I didn't realize that. And your point about competitiveness is true.

I understand where you are coming from, and I have the utmost respect for those programs. In my case I was a couple months too late to apply, so did the next best thing, a formal postbacc at a well-ranked school. This might be the situation for the OP as well, in which case I say take a peak at US News (more information is usually a good thing), research the programs, and pick which one seems like the best for you.

In general, I agree with this.

And to answer your question, Gen Chem, Physics and Bio were postbac-only at Bryn Mawr. Orgo had a few undergraduates -- those that were unlucky enough to be lumped in with us. For grading purposes, postbacs were always on a separate curve from undergraduates.

 

[esafille]

You've been researching postbac premed programs and haven't heard of Goucher? That's bizarre.

The three top programs are Scripps, Goucher and Bryn Mawr.

Well, I had focused primarily in South Florida (home) and Pennsylvania (target).

 

[esafille]

Thank you to everyone that chimed in. Just sitting back and reading the back-and-forth has been very educational =)

 

[EJS1979]

Just wanted to say that if you are at all interested in looking at Goucher, you're welcome to PM me. I'm there now and love it.