Weeder Classes at PBs

[jl lin]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've been asked about research on various PB programs.

I would like some feedback on Temple.

I have heard that the students take the sciences with the undergrads and that leads to some serious weeding and skewing. With the provisional acceptance to Temple, is this honestly an issue, or is it just talk?

 

[drizzt3117]

if you can't handle an undergrad science class, how will you handle med school?

 

[jl lin]

if you can't handle an undergrad science class, how will you handle med school?

That's a point drizzt, but not exactly what I was researching.


Here is the information this "research" was based on:

(Well, I am going to re-state in an effort to protect identities.)

If a student is concerned about grades and he/she/they take a tough physics course where the prof or TA uses a true bell curve with say 10 % with F grades, 40% with average grades, and 10% with A's, would taking the course with the undergrad class potentially be a problem, especially if the specifics of the course rubrics were super challenging? Now, in med school, it is great to score well in courses and on Steps for residency placement, but at the end of the day, if you don't score tops you could still be a physician.

There can be a very capricious nature to scoring well in certain courses with certain profs or TAs. If this is going to work against a post-bacc pre-med in terms of MS entry, wouldn't it be better to go to a program where there is less of this sort of thing and less student-to-student competition? I mean if there is a provisional promise of a med school seat, could this get really cut-throat under these kinds of circumstances? And indeed, is it so in anyone's experience there?

Here's the difference I think. People are saying that programs like Bryn Mawr are challenging but are still way more supportive, where staff is truly rooting for students (as opposed to weeding students) and their success in the program. Other programs may not be so much. And if that is the case at one and not the other, and they are both pretty close to the same dollar figure, wouldn't it be wise to go to the supportive program?

I guess that's what we were getting at, but I have a feeling that people don't exactly want to talk, even with anonymous names on a discussion board.

 

[aSagacious]

Simply based on the structure of Temple's program I'd say that they're not going after you with insurmountable curves.

They only accept a few dozen applicants and allocate med school seats in advance. This is a clear demonstration that they want all of their applicants to succeed.

Also, a 3.5 is not the most demanding request that I could imagine. In all likelihood a 4.0 would be unrealistic, but a 3.5 would be realistic for almost all of us if we cleared out plates of ECs (since we have a conditional acceptance with the grades).

 

[jl lin]

Simply based on the structure of Temple's program I'd say that they're not going after you with insurmountable curves.

They only accept a few dozen applicants and allocate med school seats in advance. This is a clear demonstration that they want all of their applicants to succeed.

Also, a 3.5 is not the most demanding request that I could imagine. In all likelihood a 4.0 would be unrealistic, but a 3.5 would be realistic for almost all of us if we cleared out plates of ECs (since we have a conditional acceptance with the grades).

Thank you for your response.

So, if they allocate the med school seats in advance, what do they do? Do they slip someone waitlisted in the seat should one of the PBs not meet the terms of the provision?

 

[aSagacious]

So, if they allocate the med school seats in advance, what do they do? Do they slip someone waitlisted in the seat should one of the PBs not meet the terms of the provision?

Good question, I'm not sure.

 

[drizzt3117]

My point is that, temple isn't exactly harvard, getting in the top 10% with undergrads should be a walk in the park, if it's not, maybe med school isn't the right career path, because in general, the entire population of med students is drawn from the top 10% of undergrads. As far as going to a more supportive program, I agree that BM > temple but mostly bc of the structure of the program. In a program like Scripps (my I guess Alma mater?) they don't use curves, so your grade is your grade. That said, the classes are hard and you need to do well, just like you would if there were a curve.

That's a point drizzt, but not exactly what I was researching.


Here is the information this "research" was based on:

(Well, I am going to re-state in an effort to protect identities.)

If a student is concerned about grades and he/she/they take a tough physics course where the prof or TA uses a true bell curve with say 10 % with F grades, 40% with average grades, and 10% with A's, would taking the course with the undergrad class potentially be a problem, especially if the specifics of the course rubrics were super challenging? Now, in med school, it is great to score well in courses and on Steps for residency placement, but at the end of the day, if you don't score tops you could still be a physician.

There can be a very capricious nature to scoring well in certain courses with certain profs or TAs. If this is going to work against a post-bacc pre-med in terms of MS entry, wouldn't it be better to go to a program where there is less of this sort of thing and less student-to-student competition? I mean if there is a provisional promise of a med school seat, could this get really cut-throat under these kinds of circumstances? And indeed, is it so in anyone's experience there?

Here's the difference I think. People are saying that programs like Bryn Mawr are challenging but are still way more supportive, where staff is truly rooting for students (as opposed to weeding students) and their success in the program. Other programs may not be so much. And if that is the case at one and not the other, and they are both pretty close to the same dollar figure, wouldn't it be wise to go to the supportive program?

I guess that's what we were getting at, but I have a feeling that people don't exactly want to talk, even with anonymous names on a discussion board.

 

[jl lin]

My point is that, temple isn't exactly harvard, getting in the top 10% with undergrads should be a walk in the park, if it's not, maybe med school isn't the right career path, because in general, the entire population of med students is drawn from the top 10% of undergrads. As far as going to a more supportive program, I agree that BM > temple but mostly bc of the structure of the program. In a program like Scripps (my I guess Alma mater?) they don't use curves, so your grade is your grade. That said, the classes are hard and you need to do well, just like you would if there were a curve.

Yes, I think I saw where Temple admitted along the lines of 10% of those that applied. But I saw where a number of other schools accepted more, so it wasn't as tough getting into those schools. Temple may not be Harvard, but it isn't as easy getting in there as a number of other schools.

Truth is, people probably don't have a clue what it's all about until they go through a particular program. It's kind of like a job. It may seem like a good "fit," but it isn't until you have been there for a while that you can really make an honest determination on that. Sometimes a lot of it can fall to the profs/TAs too--not in terms of what you will learn, b/c mostly that it up to you (or the student). But it matters in terms of how one is evaluated and what that will ultimately mean. For people to pay all that money that these pb's charge, well it seems that indeed there should be a supportive environment and not a cut-throat one.

Now I have no idea if Temple or any of the many others are like this or not. All you have to go by really are the insights from those that have gone through them.

Personally, Bryn Mawr's program looks pretty good, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Temple's or Penn's aren't good also. Depends.

Yes, we do hear good things about Scripps.
I also think you should get what you get in terms of your work, and I'm not a fan of curves.