Will 'fresh' start with new degree make a difference?

[southpawcannon]

I've strongly considered a second undergraduate degree, focusing all on the sciences to show a change in aptitude by boosting the GPA up.

I've been looking over my undergrad GPA from a college I started at in 1998-2000 and then the one I transferred to from 2000-2004. The first ended up being a 2.32 and the latter 3.43 where I went through a different degree program. Overall, giving me a 3.11. Now, what I question is will a new degree, Biology with a concentration in the pre-med courses and Physiology one I'm interested in, and having the discipline to make a 4.0 throughout, make a difference? My BCPM for the few courses I took early on is only in the 2.1 range(yeah, I know). The degree program I would be going with would give me 85-100 hrs of BCPM courses, pushing that GPA to the 3.4 range(again, busting ass to get the 4.0 all the way through). Unfortunately, because of the numerous non-BCPM courses, I may not be able to get that GPA up to no higher than a 3.3.

I did read where there is a formula med schools use Competitive Score = (GPA * 10) + (MCAT Composite) that determines what tier school you'd be competitive at, with tier 1 70-85, #2 65-70, #3 60-65, and #4 55-60. Based on that and assuming the overall ends up in a 3.3 range *10= 33, I would need a good 30 on the MCAT just to be competitive and also to get into a school of relative preference. Knowing how hard the MCAT is, is a 35-37 unreachable or a score that some people do get?


Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrMidlife]

Will 'fresh' start with new degree make a difference?

No. Upward trend in GPA and demonstrated success in recent science coursework, yes.

I've strongly considered a second undergraduate degree, focusing all on the sciences to show a change in aptitude by boosting the GPA up.

Some people on SDN say a 2nd bachelors looks fishy, is a waste of time, etc. I say it depends on what you're studying and why. Getting financial aid is one reason to do it. There was just a thread on this in nontrad.

I've been looking over my undergrad GPA from a college I started at in 1998-2000 and then the one I transferred to from 2000-2004. The first ended up being a 2.32 and the latter 3.43 where I went through a different degree program. Overall, giving me a 3.11. Now, what I question is will a new degree, Biology with a concentration in the pre-med courses and Physiology one I'm interested in, and having the discipline to make a 4.0 throughout, make a difference?

A 3.11 isn't instant death. A killer MCAT and an early app would probably get you some interviews. You have to take the premed prereqs and preferably get better than a 3.5. Do a bio degree if that's what you want to do.

I personally think it's a mistake to plan on getting a 4.0. Plan on getting more A's than B's, and if you don't, plan on reconsidering medicine.

I am unsure of my science GPA from the first couple of years because I don't know if only your true sciences are counted or if English/Literature classes and Psychology are counted as well? If all of those are counted, then the science GPA is just in the 2.4-2.5 range and my end science GPA at most(again, busting ass to get the 4.0 through) would be in the 3.4-3.5 range. If not, then there are less hours counted in, meaning a better chance with a new degree to boost my science GPA up further to the high 3.5-3.6 range.

Here's AMCAS' definition of science GPA, aka BCMP, around page 40: http://www.aamc.org/students/amcas/amcasinstmanual2007.pdf

Don't forget to shadow, volunteer, do research, and go to Africa and work with orphans.

Best of luck to you.

 

[relentless11]

I've strongly considered a second undergraduate degree, focusing all on the sciences to show a change in aptitude by boosting the GPA up.

I agree with the above poster that a second degree makes no difference but GPA trends and doing well in ALL of your classes will. No offense to anyone but bachelors degrees are given out like candy. Heck, a masters or PhD degree(s) may not help if you had a low undergrad GPA.

Now, what I question is will a new degree, Biology with a concentration in the pre-med courses and Physiology one I'm interested in, and having the discipline to make a 4.0 throughout, make a difference? My BCPM for the few courses I took early on is only in the 2.1 range(yeah, I know). The degree program I would be going with would give me 85-100 hrs of BCPM courses, pushing that GPA to the 3.4 range(again, busting ass to get the 4.0 all the way through). Unfortunately, because of the numerous non-BCPM courses, I may not be able to get that GPA up to no higher than a 3.3.

Nobody can say if that can make a difference, but its certainly better than not doing anything about it. However, remember, med schools see BCPM and non-science GPAs, AND overall GPAs. What counts now are upper division science classes, not neccessarily science classes in general. I do not know your background so I'm guess you may have to take a few lower division classes in this program. Getting A's in lower division classes may boost GPA, but it doesn't impress adcoms especially when you are doing a second bachelors degree. This is why adcoms have stated that one should take ONLY upper division classes when doing post-bacc.

I did read where there is a formula med schools use Competitive Score = (GPA * 10) + (MCAT Composite) that determines what tier school you'd be competitive at, with tier 1 70-85, #2 65-70, #3 60-65, and #4 55-60.

I have read about many rumors and legends about doing this and that to get into or at least be competative when applying to med schools. At the end of the day, the equation is moot because:

(1) Regardless of your "competative score" you still have to compete with the ever increasing competitiveness of the application pool.

(2) Many schools actually treat MCAT and GPA EQUALLY. Therefore the 10x multiplier for GPA may be inaccurate. The reason being that the GPA and MCAT are APPLES AND ORANGES. One shows ones ability to handle rigorous academic loads over a large time frame, while the other shows ones knowledge of fundamental concepts in a standardized format over a time period of 5hrs. There are arguments that MCAT may be more important since there is correlation with doing well on the board exams, but again, MCAT only tells one part of the story. This is why GPA is so important too.

(3) On the extreme end, your equation would actually be worthless if applying to a UC school. I don't know if you're from California or not, but the UC's and some schools in the US also SCREEN GPA and MCAT scores. For the most part, if you have a GPA of 3.0-3.2 and an MCAT score of 24-26, then you get a secondary application. The real kicker is that the average GPA and MCAT score for those admitted to the UC schools are 3.5-3.6 and 32-33 respectively. Ultimately, the key is getting an interview....

On a side note, the closest thing to "multiplier" that i've run into would be at my school, UC Davis. According to our director of admissions, students who have an undergrad GPA or graduate GPA of 3.8+ or 3.7+ respectively are given an "bonus point" for their application. But how far that goes is beyond me.

Based on that and assuming the overall ends up in a 3.3 range *10= 33, I would need a good 30 on the MCAT just to be competitive and also to get into a school of relative preference. Knowing how hard the MCAT is, is a 35-37 unreachable or a score that some people do get?

Thanks.

Knowing how hard the MCAT is, i can't say if a 35-37 is unreachable for you or for anyone. I got a 36S and there are people on these forums who broke 40. In California, 30+ isn't all that common. Nationally, it may be different. I do know this though...getting up to a 36 (PS: 13, VR: 10, BS: 13) was like pulling teeth. I attribute my 36 on the fact that I took so many science classes as a post-bacc student that I was "over-prepared" for the science sections. Of course it was day and night studying and practicing too.

Statistically speaking, since I have the AAMC 6R exam here...using their little chart for scoring the MCAT I can say that only 1% of everyone who takes the exam (on that day) gets a score above 12 on the science sections, while 8-25% of these people may get a 10-11 on the verbal section. The real kicker here is you want to do well on all sections. I have known people to get 13's on both science sections and then get a 6-7 on the verbal. Thats still a 32-33 but the verbal, which is the most important section, has torpedoed your entire MCAT score.

In summary:

(1) I wouldn't assume anything in this game. I've known many people who plan to do this and that, but without proper actions, they end up the same as before and being dissappointed. Do your best, and be open minded to your strengths and weaknesses.

(2) Nobody can say if you can get XX MCAT score. The only person who can figure that out is you, and thats after doing practice exams.

(3) Admissions to med school is both a quantifiable and qualifiable process. Ultimately, there's no equation. There are too many subjective and objective variables used in determining competativeness and admission to med school. So I wouldn't put too much thought into such a scoring system, but rather, focus on getting 4.0's and the highest MCAT score possible.

 

[southpawcannon]

I'm both impressed with and very appreciative of your detailed responses to my original post. I've tended to overanalyze the situation at times, concerning myself over how this might be calculated in, how this may come across in an interview, etc. when all I've got to take care of my courses, take the MCAT and apply. I have a few years ahead of me before even applying to med school. I'm going to try my best to focus on a step at a time and then when it comes time, worry about how I will address issues with past grades, how I'm more mature and suitable, etc.

Thanks again for both of your posts.

 

[LifetimeDoc]

(3) Admissions to med school is both a quantifiable and qualifiable process. Ultimately, there's no equation. There are too many subjective and objective variables used in determining competativeness and admission to med school. So I wouldn't put too much thought into such a scoring system, but rather, focus on getting 4.0's and the highest MCAT score possible.

I can attest to the fact that my post bacc 4.0 GPA (cumulative 3.1 when I started, 3.3 now) and 33 MCAT (V10/P10/B13) has resulted in 0 interview invites so far. Numbers are not everything.

 

[Beau Geste]

No offense, but you finished your secondaries kinda late..... or they sent them to you late!

 

[kouhiiko]

I got a second degree instead of going the post-bac route (I hadn't taken any science classes for my first degree). There are pros and cons for each path. I did it for access to federal loans. That said, I ended up spending a heck of a lot more money that way. I enjoyed the upper level science classes much more than the pre-med pre reqs, so I am glad for the experience. However, if I could have gotten the funding, I probably would have done the post bac, because in the long run, it is much cheaper...and would have saved me years in this process.

Anyway, a couple of my interviewers asked about my decision to do a full second degree. When I explained that being enrolled in a degree-granting program was the only way for me to get federal and private loans (without a co-signer...I didn't have anyone to co-sign for me), they did not probe further. Some of my interviewers were very understanding of the obstacles of returning to school as a financially independent (That is, not supported by parents) individual. Other interviewers do not bring it up, and may or may not have cared. Luck of the draw, I guess.

I guess the short answer is: whatever you decide to do, if you perform well, then it will show an upward trend, and I think that counts for something. However, a second degree may not boost your chances any more than a post-bac program, at least to an extent to justify the additional time and expense....unless you have compelling reasons for doing a second degree over a post-bac program.

Best to you, whatever you decide.

 

[southpawcannon]

I got a second degree instead of going the post-bac route (I hadn't taken any science classes for my first degree). There are pros and cons for each path. I did it for access to federal loans. That said, I ended up spending a heck of a lot more money that way. I enjoyed the upper level science classes much more than the pre-med pre reqs, so I am glad for the experience. However, if I could have gotten the funding, I probably would have done the post bac, because in the long run, it is much cheaper...and would have saved me years in this process.

Anyway, a couple of my interviewers asked about my decision to do a full second degree. When I explained that being enrolled in a degree-granting program was the only way for me to get federal and private loans (without a co-signer...I didn't have anyone to co-sign for me), they did not probe further. Some of my interviewers were very understanding of the obstacles of returning to school as a financially independent (That is, not supported by parents) individual. Other interviewers do not bring it up, and may or may not have cared. Luck of the draw, I guess.

I guess the short answer is: whatever you decide to do, if you perform well, then it will show an upward trend, and I think that counts for something. However, a second degree may not boost your chances any more than a post-bac program, at least to an extent to justify the additional time and expense....unless you have compelling reasons for doing a second degree over a post-bac program.

Best to you, whatever you decide.

Thanks, kouhiiko. A large part of the reason is financially-related. I'm planning to go from a couple of classes a semester and a full-time job for a good 1-1.5 yr, so I can rid of a car payment and pay off a couple of credit cards I dicked around with awhile back. Don't want to be using student loans to pay off other debt. I'll work part-time hours with the help of some financial aid once I commit to school full-time.

Also, other than a Biology course I took last summer(aced), I haven't had a science course of any kind since summer 02, when I also took first inorg. Chem and did well. Basically, I've been far removed from the sciences for quite awhile. A few of the intro sciences were back in 98-99 with only two others between 01 and 02. So, there would be no learning curve of any kind and recent success with upper level sciences leading to a biology degree would be attributed more to maturity and dedication. The upper levels to me would also give me a chance to get into some really good research(something I need to begin doing) opportunities with a broader, yet deeper understanding than intro biologies a human a&p might provide.