Situation I could use your advice on

[Miykael]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey all, I'm a non-science major, and my current plan has been to just finish the basic prereqs and not take extra science courses. However, credit-wise, I have room to take genetics and biochem, which some of the schools I'm very interested in "recommend". I have been running the numbers and found that if I continue my trend in grades, I'll end up with a 3.65-3.69 GPA. However, it occurred to me that maybe I should forget about these science courses and pack on some easier credits (not necessarily joke credits) and more total credits to try and get a 3.7 GPA. There is no way for me to have my cake and eat it in this situation. So which would you recommend: 3.7~ and just the prereqs or 3.65~ with the prereqs and biochem & genetics?

I'd be very appreciative of any frank advice you could give me.

 

[URHere]

I have room to take genetics and biochem, which some of the schools I'm very interested in "recommend".

Just make sure that none of the schools you are applying to require those classes. My school requires students to take both of them before matriculation, and I know we aren't the only ones out there.

Other than that - the difference between a 3.65 and a 3.7 isn't huge. Just take what you are most interested in.

 

[Gotaro]

Who cares about the 3.7 vs. 3.69. There both slightly higher than the average matriculant. What gets you into med school after the numbers is YOU. If you are following a check list to get into med school, where does that leave you? Behind a check list, checking things off. People don't like list-checkers. People like people who rock out with their block out. If you want to be the David Lee Roth of Science, then pick up that text book and air guitar to some biochem. ROCKON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


[YOUTUBE]tcRkWmFK2ic[/YOUTUBE]

Hahahahahahaahahaha!! Oooooomg. You are too ridiculous to be a troll! Only someone with a pure heart could combine a reply and video like that! Genius!

 

[CoolWhipp]

...David Lee Roth of Science...

I get what the adcom is trying to say but David Lee Roth? I mean, come on it's 2009.