<p>
[quote]
1) I haven't found the difficulty of upper level courses to be less than those of lower level courses. Yes, the curves are more generous. But, the material is more difficult and the students are more dedicated and smarter for precisely the reason that you state: the lower level courses tend to weed out people. The kids pulling C+'s in intro bio aren't going to be found in upper level bio courses. I personally would rather go up against 100 premeds in Physics 101 than 25 physics majors in a 400-level physics course.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well then I suppose that's the difference between you and me. I have found upper-level courses to be easier, and significantly so. Speaking from personal experience, my grades in my upper division courses were substantially better than that in my lower-division courses. Now, was that because I became a better student? Perhaps partly. But a far more important explanation was that the curve became substantially easier. Essentially, I no longer needed to crush the exams to get a good grade. </p>
<p>I believe this is especially apparent as you get into graduate*level courses, particularly at certain schools where the undergrads are arguably actually *better than the grad students, and the grading is rough. Take my brother, who went to Caltech. He knows many Caltech grad students who actually feared taking undergrad courses and consequently never did because they felt that the grading was just too harsh, and hence chose to instead stick with grad level courses where the grading was easier, or was at least perceived to be so. The same thing occurs at MIT where the grad students generally feel that they are actually not as good as the undergrads (with the exception of course being those grad students who were former MIT undergrads themselves). As long as you do the work, it's practically impossible to get below a B in an MIT graduate course. But that is not true of undergrad, where you can do all the work and still easily get a C or worse. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I don't think that was the point that McCollough was making anyway. I believe his point was that a lot of lower-division science courses are boring and that upper-division or grad level courses are far more interesting. It is usually better to take a course that you actually find interesting. The example he gave was of a guy who substituted basic physics for a course on the physics of nuclear weapons, a subjected that presumably the guy was quite interested in. I have to admit that I would also be far more interested in taking a course on the physics of nuclear weapons than in taking basic physics again. What he specifically said is that you have scheduling flexibility. Just because med schools require courses on physics doesn't mean that they necessarily require that you take the basic physics course sequence. You should know what all your options are. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2) It's possible to not take physics, orgo, chem, or bio in your first 3 years and apply to med school. Is it smart? No. You still need a significant amount of science coursework (this is particularly an issue if you are a non-science major) by application time so that schools may judge your ability to handle science coursework. Not to mention, it is to your advantage to take the prereqs before you take the MCAT obviously since the MCAT covers those subjects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's quite the straw man. Nobody is recommending not taking any of the premed requirements within the first 3 years. What he (and I) are simply saying is that you perhaps don't have to complete all of those requirements in the first 3 years, and in particular, that you can delay the particular piece in which you will perform the worst, and in particular, the piece that has little to do with the MCAT, to your 4th year.</p>
<p>As a case in point, some schools break their science courses into separate lectures and labs. For example, I have heard of one school in which the intro physics labs are taught separately from the intro physics lectures. And the truth is, you don't really need to know very much about the actual physics labs to do well on the MCAT. In such a case, you may be well advised to delay the physics lab courses until after you have already applied to med schools, especially if you don't think you are going to do well in those lab courses (as they do tend to be inordinately time consuming). </p>
<p>
[quote]
3) Med school admissions is getting tougher and tougher by the year. Doing the bare minimum might have cut it in 2002 or in the 70's. It won't work today. Schools are getting 50-100 applications per spot. They can only afford to interview 2-3 out of those. They are looking for reasons to reject candidates and they are willing to split hairs to do it. This could mean rejecting you because you haven't taken orgo yet. With 49 other applicants with the same GPA and MCAT score AND having taken orgo, why not?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I thought somebody might respond with this. Like I have always said, if you can complete the 'normal' premed course sequence and do well in it, then, sure, you should just do that. </p>
<p>However, I believe that the entire premise of this thread is predicated on not being able to do well using 'normal' tactics. To extend your example, the relevant comparison would be what if you are actually presenting a better GPA and the same MCAT than those 49 other guys because you were able to avoid or hide a difficult course that would have pulled down your GPA? </p>
<p>I've said it before, I'll say it again, for the purposes of med school admissions, the sad truth is that it is better to not take a difficult course at all than to take it and get a bad grade. If you get bad grades, med school adcoms won't care why you got them. All they will care about is that you got bad grades. Hence, the 'game' of med-school admissions is really about avoiding bad grades. Adcoms, sadly, do not reward hard work and they do not reward knowledge. They reward grades. </p>
<p>Besides, since you also bring up the MCAT, my response is something I said before on another thread. The truth is, the MCAT is really not that deep of an exam, and there are many things in most premed courses at most schools that you just don't need to know for the MCAT. Those courses will force you to learn things that will not appear on the MCAT, such that if you don't learn them, you will get a bad grade. What that means is that those courses are often times not the best way to prepare for the MCAT. Somebody else here (I believe it may have been BigRedMed) who used to tutor MCAT test-takers and advised them to put aside whatever extra knowledge they may have because it won't help them on the MCAT and may actually hurt them. </p>
<p>But putting all that aside, the takehome point is that premed students have far more course scheduling flexibility than they might think. If you find certain specialized science courses that greatly interest you, you may be well advised to take them rather than the standard premed science course sequence. You are also not obligated to have completed the entire premed course sequence before you apply. All you need is to have enough knowledge to do well on the MCAT, and that knowledge can be obtained through a variety of means, including self-study. {Besides, think of it this way. If you can't teach yourself new topics, you're going to be a bad doctor because you are going to have to be constantly teaching yourself new techniques and new medical treatments via self study throughout your entire career. Hence, self-studying is a skill that you will need to learn anyway. }</p>