Screwing up weeders but slaughtering upper level

[Balantidiumcoli]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I just went over some of my grades and I'm wondering if anybody else has had the same experience.

I just finished my second year of post-bacc not too long ago and got a way better GPA in comparison to my first year. The biggest difference was that my first year was filled with a bunch of first year science courses and I barely scraped by with a 3.0 vs 3.5 this year. All of this is at the same brick and mortar 4 year institution but I find that the science courses get easier the higher up you go. Is anyone else finding this to be true as well? (300+ courses is mostly biochemistry, neurology and molecular bio such as histology btw)

In data form:

Grade Level | GPA
300+ | 3.9
200 | 3.3
100 | 2.8

-edited to only include post-bacc work-

 

[yossarian444]

I just went over some of my grades and I'm wondering if anybody else has had the same experience.

I just finished my second year of post-bacc not too long ago and got a way better GPA in comparison to my first year. The biggest difference was that my first year was filled with a bunch of first year science courses and I barely scraped by with a 3.0 vs 3.5 this year. All of this is at the same brick and mortar 4 year institution but I find that the science courses get easier the higher up you go. Is anyone else finding this to be true as well? (300+ courses is mostly biochemistry, neurology and molecular bio such as histology btw)

In data form:

Grade Level | GPA
300+ | 3.9
200 | 3.3
100 | 2.8

-edited to only include post-bacc work-

Where I did my post-bac premed stuff at (which had its own med school), they used the required pre-med courses as weed-outs and were very tough graders. It was very hard to get an A. The upper level courses the profs didn't seem to care as much regarding grades- I don't think they were under as much pressure to keep the grades down. In turn, the med school really looked hard at people's grades in the required pre-req's as they knew upper level grades could be somewhat inflated.

 

[Balantidiumcoli]

Where I did my post-bac premed stuff at (which had its own med school), they used the required pre-med courses as weed-outs and were very tough graders. It was very hard to get an A. The upper level courses the profs didn't seem to care as much regarding grades- I don't think they were under as much pressure to keep the grades down. In turn, the med school really looked hard at people's grades in the required pre-req's as they knew upper level grades could be somewhat inflated.

I was afraid of that and there were rumors here that it's the same song and dance at this school's med school. Classes are very seldom curved which seems to further suggest their utility in destroying uppity undergrads (e.g. my first first chemistry course had a full 30% failure rate for the class and an overall average of C-). Is this common where the lower level science courses are harder than the upper level ones? For that matter, is there a list of schools that place a high emphasis on pre-req gpa?

(for the record, my pre-req gpa comes in at a 'stunning' 3.2 with only one o-chem lab to go...)

 

[beBrave]

I just went over some of my grades and I'm wondering if anybody else has had the same experience.

I just finished my second year of post-bacc not too long ago and got a way better GPA in comparison to my first year. The biggest difference was that my first year was filled with a bunch of first year science courses and I barely scraped by with a 3.0 vs 3.5 this year. All of this is at the same brick and mortar 4 year institution but I find that the science courses get easier the higher up you go. Is anyone else finding this to be true as well? (300+ courses is mostly biochemistry, neurology and molecular bio such as histology btw)

In data form:

Grade Level | GPA
300+ | 3.9
200 | 3.3
100 | 2.8

-edited to only include post-bacc work-

I have been experiencing this. I've met countless people who have survived upper division but the coursework in lower division is so much more intense. Even my tutor (who was a teacher at another University) couldn't prepare me for all the material. They literally threw in everything plus the kitchen sink. Needless the say, the professor posted the final grades for everyone in General Bio 1; 4 A's and 3 B's in a class of 28 and she gave people the option to retake the mid-term.

 

[yossarian444]

I was afraid of that and there were rumors here that it's the same song and dance at this school's med school. Classes are very seldom curved which seems to further suggest their utility in destroying uppity undergrads (e.g. my first first chemistry course had a full 30% failure rate for the class and an overall average of C-). Is this common where the lower level science courses are harder than the upper level ones? For that matter, is there a list of schools that place a high emphasis on pre-req gpa?

(for the record, my pre-req gpa comes in at a 'stunning' 3.2 with only one o-chem lab to go...)

I don't know if any school looks only at the pre-req classes GPA while ignoring upper levels. Partically if the coursework was done at a different institution. How is Med School X supposed to know if the pre-req's are harshly graded at Undergrad Y while inflating upper levels? I'm sure adcoms might have some rough idea for major undergrads and schools in their area, but I doubt they are able to make hard formulas out of them. They will look at the whole picture and appreciate upward trend.

However, if you got all B's at Undergrad X in the pre-req's and are applying to Med School X, they will know exactly how to interpret your grades and might not be too impressed at that criteria alone.