View of Post-Baccs?

[KirsteenB]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi guys,

I'm hoping someone can shed some light on a topic that is a little alien to us Canadians who don't have Post-Bacc programs. How do the US meds admissions folks judge applicants who have both, undergrad and Post-Bacc academic records? Are Post-Bacc averages used more extensively in the review process or are both generally used? I realize that this may differ from school to school, but on average, what's the norm?

Cheers,
Kirsteen

 

[psyuk]

i thought post-baccs are for dummies. haha just kidding.

 

[Primate]

...... I can attest that the post-bacc record is weighted MUCH more heavily than the undergrad record (though a truly terrible undergrad record will still sink you). If it weren't, I wouldn't be a med student. 😉 Also, having been active in admissions over the years since starting med school (7 and counting), a good post-bacc goes a long way - espescially if combined with a top MCAT. It'll forgive alot of undergrad partying.

P

 

[noy]

always seemed to me there were two main reasons, one as ok, and one as not so ok

A) needed more courses because made the decision later in life - fine, shows some maturity in career choices

B) partied too hard - not as good as getting it right the first time

Either way, if you need to do it you need to do it, no one can go to med school without orgo, or with only a C in prereqs...

 

[KirsteenB]

Hi Primate,

Could you define "truly terrible"? 😱

Since you have extensive admissions committee experience how would this situation fare in the grand scheme: a grotesque freshman and sophmore performance (with extenuating circumstances); a straight-A Post-Bacc; two A-average Masters: (MBA and M.Sc. Epidemiology with a good bit of research productivity: 1 BMJ article, ~10 abstracts, 3 large scholarships, Teaching Assistant position, numerous committee activities); varsity athlete (just thought I'd chuck that one in for fun--I doubt it would do much in the MD/PhD process).

Cheers,
Kirsteen

 

[Primate]

..... terrible is what you make of it.

My undergrad was 3.0. Even. And that was with nearly straight A's senior year (you can do the math for my first two years - and the only extenuating circumstances were rugby and "social rounding"). I then went to B-school and rocked (valedictorian), though most adcoms didn't know how to evaluate this. Worked a couple years and decided on medicine. Did a post-bacc and aced it (this was viewed very favorably). Did a bench fellowship during my glide year and got a 1st author J.Neuroscience paper out of it (again, viewed very favorably). Also crushed my MCATs (again, viewed...... you get the idea).

Basically, what you need to do is show that EVERYTHING since your dalliance in undergrad is exemplary. Even a single hole in the rest of the application will make adcoms consider the possibility that undergrad wasn't an outlier, but rather the norm.

Worked for me (got several MSTP offers), but I admit that it was something of an uphill battle convincing them I was really interested in science (medicine was the easy part, oddly). Of course, applicants do seem so much smarter these days.........

I know this is prolly too much personal info, but I thought it might be helpful given your circumstance.

Best,
P

btw, when I posted that post-baccs were weighted heavily by adcoms, I wasn't considering those who went back (bacc?) to buff up their application - only those who needed courses. If you want to buff an application, take grad classes instead.

P

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Primate
(though a truly terrible undergrad record will still sink you).

I tend to think that a statement like this is very misleading. I had what I'm sure is the worst undergrad showing in history (much, much lower than a 3.0) but managed to get accepted MD/PhD a few years back. I also think whether or not undergrad sinks you depends on why you did poorly in the first place. In my mind, there's a HUGE difference between flunking out of schol due to partying versus the violent death of a best friend ( In my case, it was the deaths of 2 best friends).

I did do a post bacc ( to get into grad school in Chemistry) and I also did well on the MCAT and in grad school and yes, these things were/are looked at more than the work I did almost 20 years ago. BUT some schools (Hopkins) will look closely at undergrad no matter how old the grades are or how many post bacc/graduate courses you've taken.

 

[Primate]

... Truly terrible is what you (or an adcom) make of it. Clearly, extenuating circumstances (deaths, personal illness, etc.) change the way in which one evaluates an academic record. "Truly terrible," I think we will likely agree, is a poor performance without extenuating circumstances. This, I still maintain, will make it difficult to crack an MSTP.

One can salvage a poor performance with subsequent stellar work, but many failures in undergrad will take alot of explaining. I personally know of one person who did fairly well but had two bad semesters (deaths in the family) and did not even get an interview anywhere (even with tons of research post-undergrad). I think the problem was that he also had an average MCAT, which I hypothesize led adcoms to see the undergrad as not an outlier event.

I don't make the rules (yet), I'm just reporting on what I observe. So, I don't think my original statement was very misleading - perhaps only to the few with a solid explanantion of what happened and adequate subsequent data to back it up (which, really, is why I posted personal data - to show that it could happen).

P

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Primate
I don't make the rules (yet), I'm just reporting on what I observe. So, I don't think my original statement was very misleading - perhaps only to the few with a solid explanantion of what happened and adequate subsequent data to back it up (which, really, is why I posted personal data - to show that it could happen).

Point taken. I just like to make sure we don't discourage the person that may have a cure for cancer😉

 

[noy]

So how do adcoms view lifechanging event's in someone's record that did not translate to lower grades? Death, etc, but folks pushed through and were able to keep up the GPA...?

 

[Neuronix]

That's what happened to me noy. That's what got me into Penn. They've told me that without the challenging circumstances around my life, I would have never got in with my the rest of my application.

Challenging life experiences do still help increase the range of schools to which you can get into, even if they aren't an excuse for anything.

 

[surge]

Originally posted by Neuronix
That's what happened to me noy. That's what got me into Penn. They've told me that without the challenging circumstances around my life, I would have never got in with my the rest of my application.

Challenging life experiences do still help increase the range of schools to which you can get into, even if they aren't an excuse for anything.

I'll never know, but I think my experience was similar. It's more than just stellar numbers.

 

[Primate]

... it is about the numbers. In fact, I'd venture that it usually is, both because it's easier to evaluate a set of numbers and because there aren't that many people applying to MSTPs who have had the experiences you all reference (in some cases, thankfully). Again, I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it is.

Luckinly, it's not always about the #s. If it were, I'd still be marketing soap for P&G. 😉

P

 

[noy]

These events are very personal, and so I usually prefer not to mention it (almost none of my friends know), but its in my AMCAS essay, to 'get it out in the open' as the real reason I am going into medicine.

But its not something that defined everything in my life, so I dont want to mention it over and over again - once is enough. I think once its out in the open they will view the rest of my app through the appropriate lens.

And of course, I'd like to think I have the numbers anyway, but they don't paint me as anyone different - only my life story does.

Its kind of funny when people find out about circumstances that other folks have had - "you did that well in college, and had X... wow... oh, and Y too? damn... and you paid for school on top of that? crazy..."

So hopefully the adcoms will feel the same way.

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by noy
So how do adcoms view lifechanging event's in someone's record that did not translate to lower grades? Death, etc, but folks pushed through and were able to keep up the GPA...?

This is where I think folks need to be very careful when looking at academic records. Someone that was able to "push through" negative circumstances and maintain a solid GPA is no better a medical school applicant than a person that could not and vice versa.

I was called the "N" word and told I would NEVER be a scientist or a doctor by a chemistry professor at the University of Florida and went on to earn an MS in in Chemistry. Does that make me "better"? I don't think so but it does make me differentially determined!!! Ironically this guy was right I won't be either one, I'll end up being both