fahimaz7 said:
I live in Georgia and after posting a 3.2+ GPA with a 30 MCAT I was turned down to all my schools. So, I had a post-rejection followup intereview with the Deans at each of the schools and asked them what I should do to be a more "competitive" canidate.
I said hey, would a one year SMP do the trick? He said "maybe"
What about a full on 2 year masters in science with classes that are relivant to the work in medical school (my particular program has a cell class, 2 biochem classes, and electives of my choice like immunology and embryology).
He said that would defiently do the job and that he would reccommend that program over the SMP.
"Do good in the masters program (3.5) and you'll defiently be highly competitive"
My package covers my tuition (15k out of state) and pays $1500/month for the two years that I'll be at the school.
Sweet.
Scott
It's not quite that simple, Scott. What you have posted is the response from the dean of one medical school. If this is the medical school you're hoping to get into, then it would be wise to take this dean's advice. But there will be great variability in responses if you ask many different deans from different medical schools. In my inquiries about medical school admissions, I know some medical schools look very favorably on SMPs such as the Georgetown SMP. You might also want to clarify whether the dean meant finishing the two-year traditional MS and then applying or whether he meant doing one year and applying while you're completing your second year. I think there's a big difference here (18-21 credits vs. 30-36 credits, working on thesis vs. finished laboratory peer-reviewed thesis, etc.).
Special masters programs are not necessarily the best option for those wishing to enhance their credentials, but there are major advantages of these programs that should not be overlooked.
The one vs. two year issue: In your case, your GPA is a little low, so it makes sense to have at least one year of additional coursework (from your traditional MS program) on your academic record. However, let's say a person has a 3.4 cume, 3.3 science, 32 MCAT and got on nothing but waitlists. If this person just needs a little extra bump to get into med school for the following year, then the SMP is the better choice. Why? Because if he gets in with the SMP, then he can start one year after graduating from his undergrad. If he did a two-year traditional MS program, it would be at least two years after graduating from his undergrad. The SMP is advantageous in this respect. And for many people, time is a major factor.
Rigor of curriculum: In traditional MS programs, coursework is more diffuse. Traditional MS programs spread 30-36 credits of coursework and research over two
years. Special masters programs typically include 30-48 credits in two
semesters. In the traditional MS programs in my state, you only do about 20 credits (some research, some coursework) in the first year.
Med school simulation vs. Research: Special masters programs are designed to simulate the rigorous pre-clinical years of medical school. Because these are accelerated, coursework-based programs with medical school courses (with possible labs in histology, anatomy, etc.), the programs provide a way to prove you can handle med school. In research-based, traditional MS programs you take less coursework and more research credits and the curriculum is much more spread out. There are advantages in having a more research-based program, but in comparison to a special masters program, the curriculum of a traditional MS is less similar to a year in medical school.
For those who are looking to gain research experience and prove they can succeed in med school, there are special masters programs at UMDNJ and BU that offer these opportunities. The Drexel IMS-MMS sequence also provides these opportunities. VCU's pre-health certificate also includes one year of rigorous coursework with the option of staying an additional year to do a lab thesis and earn a master's.
Graduate school vs. Medical school courses: This isn't true for all graduate schools, but many graduate schools give easy As for research credits. Essentially the traditional MS students are paid to help the professors with research (hence, the stipend). It's unlikely that you're gonna get a C in your lab rotations and thesis research credits unless you do a really crappy job. Also, many graduate schools are more lenient with grades than medical schools. Fair or not, members of adcoms may hold this bias.
Traditional MS student vs. SMP student after one-year: This is why I think it's important to clarify whether or not the dean was saying that you would be highly competitive after one year or after completing the program. If you applied after one year with a good GPA (3.6) in a traditional MS program, but with only 18-24 credits and without a completed laboratory thesis, do you think that's a more convincing applicant profile than a person who goes to an SMP like Georgetown's with 34 credits in one year, of which 23 are from medical school courses, and gets a 3.6 (all else being equal)? I don't see why the former would be more attractive as an applicant after just one year. After two years (finishing the MS program), I think you could make a strong argument that the traditional MS may be more attractive to med schools, but not after one.
Research-heavy vs. non-thesis: Many premeds do not have much laboratory research experience. For those without much experience, the thought of doing a research-heavy program could be intimidating and gaining admission to research-heavy programs could be difficult. I know some traditional MS programs don't require that you even have research experience, but many do. Other premeds have enough laboratory research experience, but don't find lab research enjoyable. These people may not be willing to do a traditional, research-based MS program
Linkage: Another major factor in opting for special masters/certificate programs is that some of these programs are feeders into medical schools. For example, Rosalind Franklin, Georgetown, and Boston University all accept many of their SMP students into their medical schools each year.
A good performance in a traditional MS program will not always earn an acceptance: there is a guy on SDN with a 38 MCAT, sub-3.0 undergrad GPA, 3.5 graduate GPA in a traditional MS program (Exercise Physiology/Immunology). He received no acceptances this year. At his particular state school, graduate GPA (SMP or traditional MS) doesn't play much of a role in admissions and he received no interviews from any other medical school. I won't post his SDN screen name, but it's not too hard to find his profile on MDapplicants. This doesn't necessarily mean that SMP > traditional MS, but it does illustrate that a 3.5 graduate GPA in a traditional MS program wasn't enough to make him highly competive at
his state school or any of the other med schools that he applied to.
Some programs offer a little bit of both: The only traditional MS program that I think offers similar opportunities to the special masters programs is the MS in Biomedical Sciences at Creighton. You can also get the benefits you mention (full tuition remission and a stipend if you do a good amount of research) and you can also take courses with Creighton's med students. The downside is that if you're doing that research to get full tuition remission and the stipend, then you can't take as many credits. I've been in contact with one person in this program and even with his 3.9+ graduate GPA, 33 MCAT (if I remember correctly), strong research experience (including extensive research as a biochem major when he was at his undergrad), diverse experiences (research in foreign countries), significant clinical experience, and a strong personal statement, he hasn't received any acceptances--at least not since I last got in contract with him. I'm not using this anecdote to argue that SMPs are better than traditional MS programs, but what is clear is that the traditional MS is not necessarily compelling enough to be a sure-shot for med school admissions at some medical schools.
Traditional MS programs do have some advantages over an SMP: Traditional MS programs have the advantages of tuition-remission, stipend, extensive research experience, health insurance and other benefits. If money is a major and immediate issue, the traditional MS is the route to take. However, as imrep points out, once you're a physician you shouldn't have too much trouble paying back the loans (this is why I say, "immediate issue.").
Take home message: For improving academic credentials, some adcoms will suggest improving your
undergraduate GPA by taking undergraduate courses after graduating (in which case special masters or traditional masters programs aren't very helpful), some adcoms will suggest an SMP, some adcoms will suggest a traditional MS. The point is that you cannot simply imply that the traditional MS is the best way to enhance one's academic credentials to get into med school. However, traditional MS programs should definitely be taken into consideration for those looking to enhance their credentials to gain admission to med school and these programs provide many benefits.
