Undergraduate studies.

[TheCommonCold]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Ok, this may be an ignorant question, but here it goes.
I was wondering does it matter where your undergraduate was done?


Like lets say someone went to a community college to finish up their basics and then went to a four year university for example University of North Texas and got their Bachelors in BioChem and had at decent GPA for applying to medical school and another student went to a school considered better academically like Texas Tech all 4 years and achieved the same GPA. (Sorry, I don't know how the schools are ranked so correct me if I'm wrong) I just want to know if the cheaper option is better or is it worth it for the more expensive college?
Would the Pharmacy school take someone from Tech over the person who did their basics at the CC and then went to UNT or am I wrong?😕

 

[LV16]

If at all, it matters very little. But what does matter is how well you did. So go to the best school you can comfortably attend and do your best there.

 

[Praefectus]

As long as you have a good application, it shouldn't matter.

 

[Narmerguy]

It matters. But that's not really a good question. The question is how much it matters.

For example, being hot/ugly matters for your application. Having a balanced vs lopsided MCAT matters for your application. Having an upward trend vs a flat trend matters. All kinds of things matter. But there are some things that will really have a large impact (your MCAT score) and others that won't. People argue where your undergraduate institution fits in that spectrum. But it's hard to really argue that it doesn't matter at all.

I tend to think that it's not important enough to warrant the attention that it gets on SDN. For example, there's basically an identical thread that was created around the same time here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=969032

A great quote from LizzyM in that thread:

If you are an adcom and you are comparing three students with the same application stats:

gpa 3.7, MCAT 30. One graduated from Washington University in St. Louis, another from St. Louis University and the third from SEMO. Each did a summer of lab research, shadowed for 50 hours and did a year of volunteer work in a hospital. Each has a 2 or 3 outside interests in music, sports, etc.

Which is the strongest student? In all likelihood, all three would be judged about equal although with a LizzyM score of 67 some schools wouldn't bother taking a hard look at any of the three.

On the other hand, it might be more likely that they look like this:
WashU 3.7, 38
SLU 3.9, 34
SEMO 4.0, 31

based on the caliber of student each school matriculates. Clearly, the highest MCAT wins and the fact that the school is highly rated helps, too. Some other schools might interview them all.

The problem becomes this situation:
WashU 3.3, 38
SLU 3.7, 38
SEMO 4.0, 38

Did the WashU student do relatively poorly because it is a challenging school with a challenging curriculum or due to lots of smarts and a poor work ethic? Would the SEMO student have done as well at a more challenging school? In this case, the fact that WashU is the strongest school might not be enough whereas the other two might get interviews at quite a few places.

 

[cwrig14]

I don't claim to know how admissions committees work... But I'd expect it matters to a degree.
A 3.6 from an Ivy might trump a 3.7 from a less rigorous public school. A 3.3 or 3.4 from the Ivy school won't beat the 3.7.
Just my .02$

 

[TheMasterChief]

It certainly does matter for several reasons:

1) Prestige: As much as people will tell you it doesn't matter, it does. As someone mentioned a 3.9 from a top school means more than a 3.9 from a lower school. People also tend to be impressed simply by the "names" of top schools

2) Quality of education: better professors, better internship/work connections and opportunities, better facilities, more stimulating/competitive environments, and so on

3) Despite all of this, it is still possible to get into a top medical school while attending an average undergrad institution. At the end of the day it depends on how hard you work and how much you learn. It depends on what sorts of opportunities you get involved in, what sorts of numbers you put up like GPA, MCAT, etc, and what sort of person you present yourself as to admissions committees

 

[eefen]

It would be false to say that it doesn't matter, but as other posters have mentioned, it doesn't matter as much in the grand scheme of things. As long as you do well in your classes, have good extracurriculars, and a good MCAT score, you will be fine--regardless of your institution of origin.

Now, if your goal is to get into some top-whatever medical school, it might be more important. Who knows. Just focus on doing well.

The other consideration is this: if going through a CC to a uni, or even doing four years at an "average" institution means that you are debt-free or at least not terribly in the whole, and going to a more "prestigious" school means lots of debt...then I would chose the first route, every time.

 

[Warren W]

Yes, it does matter.

 

[bigdogrob4284]

I don't claim to know how admissions committees work... But I'd expect it matters to a degree.
A 3.6 from an Ivy might trump a 3.7 from a less rigorous public school. A 3.3 or 3.4 from the Ivy school won't beat the 3.7.
Just my .02$

+1

Overall, its not a major factor IMO.

 

[487806]

It matters. But that's not really a good question. The question is how much it matters.

For example, being hot/ugly matters for your application. Having a balanced vs lopsided MCAT matters for your application. Having an upward trend vs a flat trend matters. All kinds of things matter. But there are some things that will really have a large impact (your MCAT score) and others that won't. People argue where your undergraduate institution fits in that spectrum. But it's hard to really argue that it doesn't matter at all.

I tend to think that it's not important enough to warrant the attention that it gets on SDN. For example, there's basically an identical thread that was created around the same time here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=969032

A great quote from LizzyM in that thread:

I agree with Narmerguy's point here. However, I feel that undergrad role has a minor role. In residency positions, it may change. Interestingly, Harvard and Yale form a solid compact with each other.

 

[Geebeejay]

It certainly does matter for several reasons:

1) Prestige: As much as people will tell you it doesn't matter, it does. As someone mentioned a 3.9 from a top school means more than a 3.9 from a lower school. People also tend to be impressed simply by the "names" of top schools

2) Quality of education: better professors, better internship/work connections and opportunities, better facilities, more stimulating/competitive environments, and so on

3) Despite all of this, it is still possible to get into a top medical school while attending an average undergrad institution. At the end of the day it depends on how hard you work and how much you learn. It depends on what sorts of opportunities you get involved in, what sorts of numbers you put up like GPA, MCAT, etc, and what sort of person you present yourself as to admissions committees

I agree with above posters saying that while it matters, it matters slightly compared to the overall application.

If a school is "ranked" higher (by US/world news or whatever), it only means one thing - that US news/world report thinks that this specific school is ranked higher based on their observations on factors that they consider important, such as: professor/student ratio, "diversity" of students, amt of funding, Majors and grad/phD programs offered, guaranteed housing etc. (As an aside, none of these factors I've mentioned have anything to do with being a better doctor...weird, huh?). It does NOT mean that there are better professors, better work connections, more "academic stimulation" or whatever, etc. It also doesn't mean that the students are necessarily "smarter". Maybe, as a consequence of their ranking, these schools will be capable of broader types of opportunities, but these umbrella statements are certainly not verifiable or true.

The same goes for medical schools. A higher ranked school is not ranked higher because all of their professors and opportunities are arbitrarily "better". A lot of it just has to do with funding. Different schools aim to seek and produce different types of physicians, and that's really the nuts and bolts of it. It would be absolutely silly if students chose medical schools to attend based on the highest "ranked" school they were accepted to. Schools are far more complicated and intricate than that.