<p>As far as pre-med for athletes goes, it is probably doable, but all my D’s friends (who have been heavily in competitive sport with out of town and state / national competitions) have dropped their sport at college, because of time commitment, and they are not even pre-meds. D. is pre-med and has try to participate in intramural, but has dropped even that and has very rare opportunities to simply work out in gym, forget using her sport to work out, I mean she barely has any time just to go to regular gym. Keep in mind, besides very high GPA, you will need to volunteer, work, intern in Med. Research lab, shadow doc…etc. D’s sport in any Div. would require roughly 6 hours / day and many out of town meets, not possible.</p>
<p>agh, that sucks. I wanted to play uni baseball so badly. I hope maybe I can get into one of 3 combined programs that I plan to apply to so that I can play baseball and not worry about grades.</p>
<p>You don’t need to be in a combined program to play baseball… you just need good time management.</p>
<p>ViggyRam,
In regard to my post #541 and your answer, my D. is in combined medical program. You need to worry about your grades even in combined medical program although D’s program is is at state school with less stringent reguirements than a lot of others. Yes, it is very beneficial to be in combined program, it gives them much better chance at Medical school. You still have to work very hard, if your goal is Medical School, it will not be easy academically, no matter where you are. D. has seen a lot of valedictorians from private schools changing their professional goals after very first Bio class.</p>
<p>ic, that sucks. I wish it wasn’t such an onerous process to get into med school. I mean, yea, obviously Joe Bloggs shouldn’t get into med school, but the amount of focus on grades, if less, would be nice. </p>
<p>Do you know if your an athlete, if med schools allow you to essentially have a lower GPA and forgive you? And if so, usually how much is it by? (0.2? 0.1? 0.3?)</p>
<p>
Short answer: no.</p>
<p>Long answer: Probably not, but it varies from place to place so it’s really impossible to answer your question.</p>
<p>I have heard from both my family members (who are in the medical community/ doctors/ healthcare professions) and posters on CC here that Washington Universty in St. Louis has a phenomenal premedical program, very good, if not the best. can someone elaborate for me on this?</p>
<p>I’m a junior at WUSTL, and I really like it here. Classes are hard, sometimes stupidly so, but I think in the long run it really helps you. Pre-meds who make it out of the weedout stage tend to do very well, most of my friends have gotten over 33 on the MCAT. I think this is important to take into account, because I know a few people who have transfered or are thinking about transfering due to the workload and difficulty. </p>
<p>Med schools also recognize the rigor of our curriculum. Pre-meds who have a 3.0 and a 30 on the MCAT at WUSTL have a 66 percent of gaining admissions into medical school- if you had those stats at a state school, your chances are very slim. These statistics have to be taken with a grain of salt, I am unclear as to whether that 66 percent includes people applying after graduating, but I think it’s pretty impressive nevertheless. </p>
<p>Also, advising and resources for research and shadowing are top-notch. Many of my friends do research, and I know quite a few people who end up publishing. Shadowing is also easy to do, there’s a program called MEDPREP that combines a weekly 2 hour lecture on the culture of medicine with shadowing at Barnes Jewish Hospital.</p>
<p>Tl;dr: WUSTL is a great school for pre-med, but make sure you are up to the challenge.</p>
<p>I don’t understand. Why does one school prepare you better for the MCAT than another? I read that the MCATs actual content, in terms of material covered, is not that exhaustive. Why would one school prepare you better than another?</p>
<p>I am talking based solely on my personal experience, but most of the classes I have taken, especially my science courses, develop critical thinking skills very well. The problems are difficult, and most classes do not deploy multiple choice exams, so you really have to know the material. In addition, exams will often have new/unfamiliar material so you have to apply concepts you know, so you cannot rely on memorization alone. For my organic chemistry exams, it was common for professors to have entirely new reactions and/or substrates. This is similar to the MCAT, where the exam will throw unfamiliar/overly detailed/boring passages at you, and you would have to whittle the problem down to its foundation. I feel the style of teaching and testing at universities which adopt this style is very good for performing well on the MCAT.</p>
<p>lollybo, I agree with the general idea of your post.</p>
<p>However, the style of teaching you described does not vary by university so much as it varies by teacher/professor. I’ve had both types of teachers at my school, and everything in between. I wouldn’t ‘classify’ my school as being one way or the other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The short answer is that is doesn’t. YOU prepare yourself for the MCAT (or LSAT). The college has only a passing interest in your success AND only a passing interest on whether you are premed. (Most chem profs would prefer you to be a PhD-wannabe instead of a premed wannabe, for example.) </p>
<p>There are two confounding statistical factors at play, neither of which can be ignored: 1) highly selective schools purposely admit high testers; 2) to earn good enough grades to apply to med school (3.5+) you MUST learn the material better than your other high-achieving classmates. </p>
<p>For example, Harvard has the highest mean SAT scores, and also has the highest mean LSAT scores. Do you really think Harvard prepares students for the LSAT? (Do you even think that H cares?) The point is that extremely bright 18 year olds are still extremely bright when they are 22/23. They will test well regardless of what college they attend. Schools like Harvard and WashU just have lotsa high testers.</p>
<p>Second, earning A’s at Podunk State is relatively easy in comparison to WashU. Thus, a high achieving student could cruise through class a PU, earn a 4.0, but learn little of the material necessary to ace the mcat. In contrast, earning science A’s at highly selective school requires hours upon hours of study, each and every week. Thus, prep for the mcat is a lot more review than it is new.</p>
<p>Try that on for critical thinking. :)</p>
<p>That’s definitely true GoldShadow, there is variation among professors, but at Wash U there seems to be heavy departmental regulation. In my physio class last year, the professor had to make the class harder because he was told he gave out too many A’s. </p>
<p>In the Chemistry department for the intro level classes, there is strong coordination among professors. There are systems set up that do not change from year to year (PLTL- our version of a study group has been around for years, quizzes every thursday, exam format, etc). I have a feeling that they want to pretty much standardize the intro level classes so they offer some sort of quality baseline, which makes sense because they are the most popular science classes. Upper level classes seem to get more freedom.</p>
<p>bluebayou, I totally agree with your point there- good students in the first place will do well on the MCAT. Now that I think of it, my argument that some schools are better for the MCAT is unfounded, it’s really just based on my impression. But based on just how many people do so well on the MCAT, it was easy for me to jump to conclusions. For example, I got a 29 (12 V, 10 P, 7 B) on my first proctored AMCAS exam without studying, as a part of our school’s prep course’s diagnostic exam. Someone else I know got a 31, and I heard of someone who got a 34.</p>
<p>ah,ok I see what you mean. You basically push yourself more to the point where you end up learning/retaining more information. </p>
<p>Is there some kinds of balance? Schools where you need to push yourself to an extend, but not overexert, but push to the point that you know what you should know, while not competing with really top students (ie. dropping you GPA). Are there schools that are in such an equilibrium?</p>
<p>I think at that point, it really depends on the individual, more than anything that has been said so far.</p>
<p>I’m a potential Undergrad student. I want to either go to Stanford Medical School or Harvard Medical School. Do you guys think that I should go to UCLA or UCSD for Undergrad school? Concerning UCSD, they invited me to apply for their Medical Program, which I hear is very prestigious. Should I consider going there? What if I get into an Ivy? I read some of the debate concerning the Ivies. I just want to know which Undergrad school, mostly between UCLA and UCSD Medical Program, would let me get into my Medical School of choice (granted that I keep up good grades and do well on my MCATs)? Thanks in advance 
Sorry if my questions are repetitive.</p>
<p>No med school would care if you attend UCLA or UCSD, as long as you earn a bunch of A’s. If you are accepted into SD’s guaranteed med program, you would be foolish to pass it up. Sure UCLA will be a lot more fun for many folks, but the guarantee is worth it for four years in LaJolla.</p>
<p>My son, a senior in HS, is planning on majoring in Biochemistry and would love to do research as an undergrad. He plans to go onto medical school after his undergraduate work.
The following schools are being considered:</p>
<p>1) Univ. of Washington (in Honors College w/ a direct admit into the BioChemistry Dept.)
2) SUNY - Stony Brook (in the University Scholars plus scholarship))
3) Santa Clara University (huge scholarship from them)
4) USC</p>
<p>He’s been accepted to UC Davis, UCSB, UCLA, UCSD, USD and Cal Poly SLO too but currently is not considering these schools.</p>
<p>He is having difficulty choosing. He believes that at UW and Stony Brook (SB) he will have more opportunity for research work but I read that at Santa Clara U. research is also available. It sounds like there is more counseling at Santa Clara U. I have heard that it is best to be a big fish in a small pond (ie. Santa Clara U.) vs. a medium fish in a large pond (ie. UW and SB and probably USC) when applying to medical school. Is this true?</p>
<p>Maybe we should be considering Cal Poly SLO too ??</p>
<p>Are you a CA resident? If so, is it worth 37k OOS for UDub over a top UC?</p>
<p>What’s “best” for the student is where he can maximize A’s and learn enough to ace the MCAT. While I love Seattle, it’s hard for me to recommend OOS costs, when the mid-tier UCs are just as good, as is Santa Clara at your price. Plus, with the Santa Clara scholarship, he’ll come in being a star. USC has a lot of gunners, so premed is competitive.</p>
<p>Not even sure why SUNY is in the mix, unless the intent is to transfer to Cornell.</p>