Structured Post-bac vs masters for borderline candidate

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BAS04yall

Membership Revoked
Removed
7+ Year Member
Joined
May 17, 2014
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Are these essentially the same? Will they both fix your gpa and thus looked upon similarly? I need help picking one over the other. Thnx
 
They aren't essentially the same. It comes down to what your current credentials are and what you're looking to accomplish.

Let's say your GPA is problematic because you partied/drank/N64'd away your first two years, but then you aced all of your upper division courses and retook some prerequisites. What exactly is taking a few more science classes going to demonstrate?

Look. There are times that a post-bacc makes a lot of sense. Need prerequisites? There's a post-bacc for that. Need to demonstrate competency with some upper-level classes? There's a post-bacc for that. Just want a backdoor into a program because the med school has an agreement with the program? There's a post-bacc for that. So on and so forth. FYI, I'm not really bothering to note the subtleties that differentiate a PB from an SMP here.

But keep in mind that ADCOMs are staffed by people, not robots. You may need to get past a computer to get considered by a human but it's humans who will ultimately be the ones to choose whether or not you're worth accepting. Look at the classes a given program will offer you. Let's just assume you perform adequately (3.5+). Is your application such that this will tell an ADCOM something that it isn't telling them otherwise? Then go for it.

An MS is a different route that will communicate different things. Your coursework will be nearer to the clinical side of things, in most cases. If your goal is to show competency with basic science, then this probably won't help much. If you feel your application already demonstrates such and needs something to help differentiate it from the masses- make it more of a snowflake, per se- an MS is something that can do that. Of course, it needs to make sense given your narrative. If you don't seem to have any interest in research, you run the risk of looking like you're just trying to throw a credential on the pile rather than doing something to qualify yourself for admission.

Personally, I did an MS with an eye toward using it as a stepping stone to medical school. Granted I had no idea how successful it would be in getting me there but I didn't have a lot of options at the time. In my personal opinion, it's helpful if you have a good application that you want to make a great application. If your application has serious issues, you'll finish with an application that has serious issues and a Master's degree. Putting time and accomplishment between your undergraduate years and the present can be a successful strategy. Heck, it's what I'm doing. But I'll qualify that I'm going as far as to get a PhD in that plan, and I still plan to go back and retake some or all of my prerequisites.

Give some more information about where you are now and what you want your next academic program to do for you and you'll get more specific guidance.
 
Wow thank you so much for the thorough and structured response. I'm not seeking a post bacc/masters because I did horribly in undergrad. I did decent; had a crappy GPA (~3.4) but a decent MCAT (32). But I fluctuated a lot in undergrad. First year 3.0, second year 3.7, third year 2.9, fourth year 3.8.

My inkling is to go with a masters in some kind of hard science. For instance, Drexel has a program called Master of Science in Medical Sciences. I'm not looking to retake pre-requisites or anything because I never did that bad in them. I just want to improve my candidacy.
 
Wow thank you so much for the thorough and structured response. I'm not seeking a post bacc/masters because I did horribly in undergrad. I did decent; had a crappy GPA (~3.4) but a decent MCAT (32). But I fluctuated a lot in undergrad. First year 3.0, second year 3.7, third year 2.9, fourth year 3.8.

My inkling is to go with a masters in some kind of hard science. For instance, Drexel has a program called Master of Science in Medical Sciences. I'm not looking to retake pre-requisites or anything because I never did that bad in them. I just want to improve my candidacy.
1st, you need to differentiate between an SMP and a masters...programs which have you take med school courses will be referred to as 'SMPs' in my post, whereas a typical science graduate degree is just a masters. A 'Master of Science in Medical Science' is not a hard science masters...it's an SMP.

Honestly, I don't think a masters is a good choice, EVER, unless you would have gotten one in a world where med school did not exist.
It takes a surprising amount of commitment and self-motivation to complete a research graduate degree...and it doesn't help your GPA in any way, whatsoever. So you sink several years of hard work into something which is essentially a nice bow on top of your messy application package.
Taking uGrad courses (a postbacc) improves your GPA, gets you past auto-screens, and gives you a chance to show that you can indeed do well in courses which adcoms use to compare students.

An SMP, on the other hand, is a completely different case. It is 'do med school to show you can do med school'...it's a backdoor for low-stats applicants. If you do well, you have greatly improved your chances. If you do poorly, you're done. Also, expensive.

So, yeah...

SMP: Do med school to show you can do med school. Go big or go home.
Postbacc: Do uGrad courses to show that you can compete academically with other med school applicants
Masters: Do something which can't really be used to demonstrate med school competitiveness, for a longer time and more work than the other two options.

They are the same thing
This is so far from being true that there are no words.
 
Masters: Do something which can't really be used to demonstrate med school competitiveness, for a longer time and more work than the other two options.

I would disagree with this statement. Some programs won't do a lot, some will do a ton. I've had ADCOM members tell me that my PhD program is "the closest to an inside track to an admission that an applicant can get." As with everything in life, YMMV.
 
I would disagree with this statement. Some programs won't do a lot, some will do a ton. I've had ADCOM members tell me that my PhD program is "the closest to an inside track to an admission that an applicant can get." As with everything in life, YMMV.
Interesting. I have literally never heard that take before.
Regardless, I still believe that it is a terrible idea to sign up for a research degree unless you are, you know, actually interested in research.
 
Interesting. I have literally never heard that take before.
Regardless, I still believe that it is a terrible idea to sign up for a research degree unless you are, you know, actually interested in research.

This I entirely agree with. In my case, it's working out, but the fact that I want a PhD and really like this program regardless of what it may mean for my future career as a physician is incredibly important. Working for 40 hours a week in a lab on top of 20 class hours a semester isn't something you can do if you don't love it. I know people like to think they'll just suck it up for a few years because it's getting them where they want to go, but the reality is that few people if any can do so that intensely for that long. And frankly, the few people who can aren't going to be in a situation where they need a graduate program in the first place.

As to my program, I don't want to get masturbating over the matter, but I've heard a lot of good things. I recently talked to my mentor about it and he actually berated me a bit for worrying about my chances (my undergrad record sucks). His response was that I need to realize that when you apply with a PhD, the people reviewing your application and interviewing you are your peers. It's not discussed much because the number of people with PhDs who apply to medical school is minute, but it changes the game significantly.
 
This I entirely agree with. In my case, it's working out, but the fact that I want a PhD and really like this program regardless of what it may mean for my future career as a physician is incredibly important. Working for 40 hours a week in a lab on top of 20 class hours a semester isn't something you can do if you don't love it. I know people like to think they'll just suck it up for a few years because it's getting them where they want to go, but the reality is that few people if any can do so that intensely for that long. And frankly, the few people who can aren't going to be in a situation where they need a graduate program in the first place.

As to my program, I don't want to get masturbating over the matter, but I've heard a lot of good things. I recently talked to my mentor about it and he actually berated me a bit for worrying about my chances (my undergrad record sucks). His response was that I need to realize that when you apply with a PhD, the people reviewing your application and interviewing you are your peers. It's not discussed much because the number of people with PhDs who apply to medical school is minute, but it changes the game significantly.
I would also point out that the difference between a Masters and a PhD is a lot larger than some people realize, however.
Ph.d and MD are both terminal degrees, so the point about peership is accurate.
A Masters, while impressive, is not a terminal degree...and often requires less ownership, commitment, and initiative.
 
Yeah i am not interested in research, so a two year thesis driven masters program doesn't look like a good idea for me. I can't do a PhD because I don't have the money or time; I need to get into medical school sooner rather than later. A structured post-bac is probably ideal. I don't really want to waste time re taking classes I took in undergrad though, I would rather take new classes.
 
1st, you need to differentiate between an SMP and a masters...programs which have you take med school courses will be referred to as 'SMPs' in my post, whereas a typical science graduate degree is just a masters. A 'Master of Science in Medical Science' is not a hard science masters...it's an SMP.

Honestly, I don't think a masters is a good choice, EVER, unless you would have gotten one in a world where med school did not exist.
It takes a surprising amount of commitment and self-motivation to complete a research graduate degree...and it doesn't help your GPA in any way, whatsoever. So you sink several years of hard work into something which is essentially a nice bow on top of your messy application package.
Taking uGrad courses (a postbacc) improves your GPA, gets you past auto-screens, and gives you a chance to show that you can indeed do well in courses which adcoms use to compare students.

An SMP, on the other hand, is a completely different case. It is 'do med school to show you can do med school'...it's a backdoor for low-stats applicants. If you do well, you have greatly improved your chances. If you do poorly, you're done. Also, expensive.

So, yeah...

SMP: Do med school to show you can do med school. Go big or go home.
Postbacc: Do uGrad courses to show that you can compete academically with other med school applicants
Masters: Do something which can't really be used to demonstrate med school competitiveness, for a longer time and more work than the other two options.


This is so far from being true that there are no words.

A structured PB can be the same as a masters. OP quoted Drexel's Masters of Science in Medical Science, which is a masters program - but it serves the same purpose as a structured PB.
 
I can't do a PhD because I don't have the money or time

Not trying to talk you into it, but I'd like to point out that PhDs are typically funded. There are unfunded programs out there, but almost everyone stays clear of them because self-funding seriously hurts your CV. I was in a lab a while back where a post-doc mentioned that he paid his own tuition for his PhD (not everything, just tuition) and jaws in the room dropped over the revelation.
 
A structured PB can be the same as a masters. OP quoted Drexel's Masters of Science in Medical Science, which is a masters program - but it serves the same purpose as a structured PB.
Again, no.
Setting aside the 'conflating masters and SMPs' issue (btw, OP didn't bring up Drexel's SMP until later):
First of all, the courses and setup are drastically different.
Second, one affects your GPA, the other doesn't.
Third, you use them in different situations. Postbacc is a way to bring your GPA up so that you can be compared to other applicants in the usual way. SMP is used when your GPA is beyond saving so you need to directly demonstrate that you could succeed in med school. OPs gpa is not at that point...a 3.4 is recoverable.

So, yeah...both serve the same purpose in that they are routes to med school, but if you're going that general, you may as well not bother commenting on a post where OP is asking which is a better route.
 
Top