SATs too low for Postbacs?

[WShepherd]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am a 28 year old in California with a 3.8 GPA from a Bay Area University from 2004 and 1230 SATs--700 verbal and 530 math from 2000. In the last year, I have volunteered weekly at a health clinic a few hours a week and also worked at a sleep lab, doing clerical work but picking up info from the RPSTs who scored reports and the medical director. In addition, I have taken 'intro to/non-major' (with lab) classes in physics, bio and chem at a CC and done well in all of them.
My concern is that my relatively low SAT score keeps me out of the running for the 'top' postbac programs--Goucher, Mills, Scripps, Bryn Mawr, etc.
I'm not sure what the better option is: Applying now to USC, say, where I think I have a shot at admission or waiting and taking the GRE and applying for the next admissions cycle at the other above-mentioned schools.
Thoughts?

 

[NewmansOwn]

It's pretty late in the cycle to be applying to the top formal programs with low SATs.

If you want to stay a CA resident, you should just go for USC now.

As a sidenote, are you certain you haven't taken too many science classes for the top formal programs? I know you say they were "non-major," but I'm not sure that matters -- I'd double-check with the programs you're interested in.

 

[WShepherd]

Messed up my reply... see below...

 

[WShepherd]

It's pretty late in the cycle to be applying to the top formal programs with low SATs.

If you want to stay a CA resident, you should just go for USC now.

As a sidenote, are you certain you haven't taken too many science classes for the top formal programs? I know you say they were "non-major," but I'm not sure that matters -- I'd double-check with the programs you're interested in.

Thanks for the advice. I don't think the CC courses I have taken would be counted against me, as they are specifically separate from the normal year-long science sequences, but I will double check.
I would like to stay a CA resident unless moving to wherever would enhance my future potential for med school acceptance--that being the ultimate goal.
Finally, I know it's very late in the admissions cycle for most of the the schools I mentioned--too late, I think give the GRE prep I would need. So, I am having trouble weighing the benefits of waiting for the next admissions cycle and applying with good GRE scores vs. applying to 'second-tier' schools now. It seems like a long time to wait unless I am sure it will be to my future benefit--is graduating from Goucher, say, really that much better than USC from an adcom perspective? But, as I said, I am just not sure.

 

[emtdan]

I have gotten into a couple places with low SAT scores. You have proven by your GPA that you can handle a strong course load. You just need to prove in your interview with the school why your SATs don't reflect equally with your GPA. If you wait til next year you can always take the GREs, but if you don't care about going to a highly-selective program like BM then don't bother. You can take the classes at any 4 year school, don't waste time trying to get into a formal program if you can have one year already out of the way with classes.

 

[epione]

I have gotten into a couple places with low SAT scores. You have proven by your GPA that you can handle a strong course load. You just need to prove in your interview with the school why your SATs don't reflect equally with your GPA. If you wait til next year you can always take the GREs, but if you don't care about going to a highly-selective program like BM then don't bother. You can take the classes at any 4 year school, don't waste time trying to get into a formal program if you can have one year already out of the way with classes.

i agree with everything you said, emtdan. plus, some people just aren't great at taking standardized tests. i think a strong GPA is better proof of handling tough academics than a good SAT score.

 

[WShepherd]

I have gotten into a couple places with low SAT scores. You have proven by your GPA that you can handle a strong course load. You just need to prove in your interview with the school why your SATs don't reflect equally with your GPA. If you wait til next year you can always take the GREs, but if you don't care about going to a highly-selective program like BM then don't bother. You can take the classes at any 4 year school, don't waste time trying to get into a formal program if you can have one year already out of the way with classes.

I hope this isn't too stupid a question, but what extra weight does a 4.0 from BM or Goucher signal to med school adcoms a 4.0 from USC wouldn't? I know about linkages and such, but assuming the same grades from each institution, what advantage does a 'top tier' school afford?

 

[emtdan]

A 4.0 science gpa from any school is equal to a 4.0 anywhere else. BM and Goucher are not "top tier" schools, they just happen to have formal programs that have excellent acceptance rates to medical school. Their programs are well known for having excellent advising and help towards improving ones resume and application. Feel free to argue this point though anyone, I did not attend either of these schools.

On a separate note, a line I used at a post bac interview - My SATs are lower than average but my gpa in high school and college are clearly above average. It is because of students like me that universities such as Georgetown and WPI, amongst many others, no longer require the submission of standardized tests as they do not always accurately portray the competence of an individual.

 

[drizzt3117]

For the purposes of postbac, bm, scripps, and voucher are top tier. They offer a lot more than simply advising, there's been a lot of posts on this, I'm not going to belabor it. Getting a 4.0 anywhere is good, keep in mind the USC program cannot usually be completed in one year. As far as outcomes? Getting a 4.0 at any reputable school will help you, doing so at one of the top programs can help you a whole lot. In the open pool I essentially got interviews everywhere in the top 25, although certainly ymmv.

As far as the sat goes, there are a lot of standardized tests that premeds, med students, and residents have to take. Debating whether this should be the case really serves no purpose, the mcat and step 1-3 are all standardized tests. As there's a great deal of variability in how undergrads (and med schools) evaluate students, the sat, mcat, and steps are the best way to evaluate students from diverse backgrounds, for better or for worse.

A 4.0 science gpa from any school is equal to a 4.0 anywhere else. BM and Goucher are not "top tier" schools, they just happen to have formal programs that have excellent acceptance rates to medical school. Their programs are well known for having excellent advising and help towards improving ones resume and application. Feel free to argue this point though anyone, I did not attend either of these schools.

On a separate note, a line I used at a post bac interview - My SATs are lower than average but my gpa in high school and college are clearly above average. It is because of students like me that universities such as Georgetown and WPI, amongst many others, no longer require the submission of standardized tests as they do not always accurately portray the competence of an individual.

 

[deleted248403]

I'm with drizzt - goucher, scripps, BM are top tier programs. After that, it gets pretty debatable about the pros and cons of each other program.

Further echoing drizzt, standardized tests will be a part of the rest of your life in medicine with all the USMLEs and then with the required recertification etc etc etc. Its something you will have to get used to and learn to maximize your score.

 

[WShepherd]

I'm with drizzt - goucher, scripps, BM are top tier programs. After that, it gets pretty debatable about the pros and cons of each other program.

Further echoing drizzt, standardized tests will be a part of the rest of your life in medicine with all the USMLEs and then with the required recertification etc etc etc. Its something you will have to get used to and learn to maximize your score.

It's not standardized tests in general that worry me, but more whether a Goucher/BM, etc is worth waiting for the next admission cycle or not (and to take the GRE and do well) regarding future medical school admission, as compared to USC or similar now.

 

[deleted248403]

WShepard - my comment was entirely directed at you, and i apologise if it came across as such.

If you've done some of the prereqs (albeight at a CC) you might be ineligible for BM/Goucher. I suspect you are.

Therefore, I think you should just do USC or a DIY program (assuming ineligibility)

 

[drizzt3117]

It's not standardized tests in general that worry me, but more whether a Goucher/BM, etc is worth waiting for the next admission cycle or not (and to take the GRE and do well) regarding future medical school admission, as compared to USC or similar now.

First as rf said, I'd find out if you're elgible to apply to bm/goucher. Scripps is usually a lil flexible abt ppl who've taken some prereqs, I was a chem e major in ug.

Second, as I mentioned before, bm/scripps/goucher are 1 year programs while USC is 2. You could def do diy postbac but I'm not sure how easy it'd be to schedule all the prereqs in one year.

 

[WShepherd]

WShepard - my comment was entirely directed at you, and i apologise if it came across as such.

If you've done some of the prereqs (albeight at a CC) you might be ineligible for BM/Goucher. I suspect you are.

Therefore, I think you should just do USC or a DIY program (assuming ineligibility)

No need for apology at all-- I apologize if my comment on your post came across as abrupt, I didn't mean it to.
That aside, I will check with BM/Goucher/ etc to see if my CC work has disqualified me, though I doubt it has given that the regular sequence of Bio/Chem/Physics are year long sequences (Chem 3A & B kinda classes) and the classes I have taken are semester long intros that don't go into the same amount of detail.
Assuming I am not disqualified, it sounds like you come down on the side of waiting and then applying to BM, etc the next cycle?

 

[NewmansOwn]

If you do really well at USC, it's comparable to doing a postbac at Bryn Mawr/Goucher/Scripps.

The advantage of going to one of the top 3 is you don't have to be at the top of your postbac class to get into med school. In fact, you can be at the bottom of your postbac class and still get into med school.

So, if you want to stay in CA and are confident, go to USC. If you want to maximize your chance of med school admission regardless of performance, go to one of the top 3.

 

[Flapjacks]

1230 is low SAT?

 

[deleted248403]

Flap - Eh, 1230 is on the low side if you are looking to get into a really competitive program. but it could be overcome with a really high GPA.

WShepard - Newmans comments are solid. Have a think about your timeline and how much of your app will need work. If you have a lot of good ECs, clinical experience, shadowing etc then the extra yr might be as useful unless you are set on BM/goucher. But if you don't have those, it gives you another year to really improve them (or 6months before you apply to BM/goucher).

 

[NewmansOwn]

1230 is low SAT?

For the top postbac programs, yep.

 

[WShepherd]

If you do really well at USC, it's comparable to doing a postbac at Bryn Mawr/Goucher/Scripps.

The advantage of going to one of the top 3 is you don't have to be at the top of your postbac class to get into med school. In fact, you can be at the bottom of your postbac class and still get into med school.

So, if you want to stay in CA and are confident, go to USC. If you want to maximize your chance of med school admission regardless of performance, go to one of the top 3.

I may just be hopelessly naive, but I think that regardless of where I go for postbac, if I were to be anywhere near the bottom of my class I would rethink my decision to want to go to med school in terms of being able to academically handle the workload.

And thanks again, everyone, for your input. I've been wrestling with this decisions for some time, and having extra opinions is really helpful.

 

[drizzt3117]

If you do really well at USC, it's comparable to doing a postbac at Bryn Mawr/Goucher/Scripps.

The advantage of going to one of the top 3 is you don't have to be at the top of your postbac class to get into med school. In fact, you can be at the bottom of your postbac class and still get into med school.

So, if you want to stay in CA and are confident, go to USC. If you want to maximize your chance of med school admission regardless of performance, go to one of the top 3.

I'd go to Scripps in this person's case if he wants to stay in CA. USC will take two years to finish and waiting a year and finishing the Scripps program would be the same amount of time, less expensive, and you'd go to a better program. The extra year would also give you time to do research and/or volunteering.

 

[Stixman28]

1230 is low SAT?

No, no it's not. you all are ridiculous

I got into top post bac's with a much lower sat score, goucher, bryn mawr, penn. only hopkins said that they wanted me to take the gre's, not a rejection, just a take the test request.

Let us recall though that SAT scoring system has changed. you are talking 1230 on a 1600 scale. hopefully that's what everyone else is talking about too.