<p>i was told to take some of my really hard courses at community college so that my gpa will be better. i know at the univ. i will be attending they will take the credit but not add it to my gpa for the univ. however, i was told that when i apply for med school i will be using my overall gpa not just my gpa from my the univ.... true? false? or what?!?</p>
<p>Med schools will be looking at your overall GPA (including your grades from the CC). However, it is not a good idea to take your prereqs at a community college. Outside of the obvious fact that, theoretically, your uni will provide you with a better education, med schools strongly advise you to take your bio, chem, physics, and orgo classes at your 4-year institution or, if you must take them at another school, that you take them at a comparable university. Otherwise, we'd all be taking orgo at a CC to get an A.</p>
<p>I'm writing for the sole purpose of affirming NCG's statements.</p>
<p>Just to give a slightly different opinion, I've also heard from admission reps that a few classes at CC are ok (like maybe your first year of chemistry) but the vast majority should be at your 4 year college/university. And you should never specifically take them science requirements at a CC when you are already enrolled at a 4 year college/university (in other words, your taking all your courses at University A, but you enroll at a local CC just to take the science - that looks bad, like you are just trying to get the easy grade).</p>
<p>Right - being a student at a CC and taking classes there is different from being a university student and taking classes at a CC anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i was told to take some of my really hard courses at community college so that my gpa will be better. i know at the univ. i will be attending they will take the credit but not add it to my gpa for the univ. however, i was told that when i apply for med school i will be using my overall gpa not just my gpa from my the univ.... true? false? or what?!?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Consider what the Stanford Quest premed Scholars program had to say about it. </p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Myth #10.
I SHOULD TAKE ALL OF MY PRE-MED
CLASSES AT STANFORD BECAUSE IT WILL
LOOK BETTER TO THE MEDICAL SCHOOLS.
This is not true either. Many successful medical
school applicants at the nations best medical
schools took many of their pre-med requirements at
community college in the summer or other local
schools. By taking some of the basics elsewhere, you
can create more academic freedom to take some of the
truly amazing courses that Stanford offers both in the
sciences and non-sciences. The introductory classes
are taught very well here, but they can also be learned
elsewhere. Many upper division classes in all departments
are uniquely taught well at Stanford.
The only caveat to this is that it might look
strange if you did poorly in all of your science classes
at Stanford and then did well in an easier school.
However, if you do fairly well at Stanford, it will not
appear strange that you took some basic coursework
elsewhere to save academic time and/or money.
Take home point: You will not be penalized
for taking some of your introductory pre-med classes
elsewhere and this can free you up to take classes
which are uniquely taught well at Stanford.
Myth #11.
I AM ALWAYS BEST OFF TAKING ALL MY
INTRODUCTORY PRE-MED CLASSES AT
STANFORD.
False. It is true that it is more difficult to get
an A in a Stanford pre-med class than it is at most other
schools. This is easier to understand since you are
graded on a curve with some of Americas best students.
Consequently, an A at Stanford can mean a lot,
particularly in science classes with a C mean.
However, most of you wont get As in every
class. And because of this, some of you certainly
would have had higher GPAs elsewhere. It is also true
that medical school know this and will take it into account.
However, this forgiveness factor is not infinite.
Getting a 4.0 in your pre-med requirements at a
junior college will certainly make you a stronger applicant
than a 3.5 in your pre-med requirements at Stanford.
One admissions officer I spoke with estimated
the bump factor of attending a school like Harvard or
Stanford to be between 0.3 and 0.5 of a grade point.
For some of you, an A in high school could
be achieved through hard work and determination.
This is not necessarily true of the pre-med classes at
Stanford. Everyone is trying hard. They are all smart.
And the classes can be very difficult.
The upshot of all of this is that some of you
may be more successful applying to medical school by
taking most of your pre-med classes elsewhere. And I
have certainly known many applicants who would have
been more successful applying to medical school if they
had pursued their academic passions at Stanford and
took their pre-med classes elsewhere, either in summers
or in a year off. I have also known students at Stanford
who would have been fantastic physicianswho
quit the pre-med process in frustration without exploring
this option. If you want to be a doctor and are
struggling at Stanford, this option is worth exploring.
I say this with some hesitancy because I know
it may cause controversy and it is difficult to know who
would be statistically better off focusing their pre-med
energies at a less competitive institution. I should also
add, however, that all such core classes cover the material
required both for the MCAT and to be a good
doctor.
This in no way is meant to imply you made the
wrong choice by coming to Stanford if you are a premed.
Quite the contrary, Stanford may be the best
place in the country for pre-meds to attend college.
You can attain a first-rate education in any field and
5
simultaneously approach your pre-med curriculum with
more flexibility and more creativity than at nearly any
other university.
Take home point: Consider taking some of
your pre-med classes elsewhere if you are hitting a wall
here. Many successful medical school applicants have
done this. *</p>
<p>Without being completely objective, I must confess that I am disinclined to take his word as gospel. His advice as a practicing physician runs contrary to much that I have always been told. Furthermore, reading the rest of the document makes clear to me that his track into medical school was not quite normal ("ended [my first] year with a 3.1... was still eventually admitted to every medical school I applied to"). Even very strong candidates are not admitted to every single medical school unless something else about their application stands out; I think he makes a mistake trying to extrapolate his experiences to what "generally" works.</p>
<p>The basic idea is this: a C at Stanford (e.g.) is worse than an A at a CC; an A at a CC is worse than an A at Stanford; things in between are questionable and probably vary depending on what mood the admissions advisor is in. If you are reasonably certain you will be a C student at your university, then by all means move your courses into CC. But I think it's most advisable for you to challenge yourself, to learn as much as you can, and work towards being the best doctor you can be.</p>
<p>Medical schools will attempt to learn not just what your numbers are but what kind of person you are - how you respond to challenge, failure, and obstacles. Taking your harder courses at a CC is hardly the end of the world, but neither - frankly - is a C or two. The question is what kind of message you want to send them. Medical schools aren't looking for 100% perfect people, and they certainly are not looking for people who take the easy way out.</p>
<p>Their process is imperfect; they seem not to adjust correctly for grade inflation, and they do not (even assuming they should) reward high-level graduate, say, physics courses. But to go from that to suggest that we should all enroll ourselves at community colleges to run away from challenges is, I think, a dramatically inappropriate extrapolation.</p>
<p>Even assuming the author above is 100% correct, however, it is still crucial to notice some caveats: first, he says it's hard to know who will be better off avoiding Stanford. Second, he says that you must demonstrate competency in your Stanford classes to avoid looking "strange" to adcoms, and third, he never once endorses CC's - only "elsewhere".</p>
<p>That is one guy's opinion, obviously influenced by his own (and rather unique) experiences. I agree with some of his advice but not all.</p>
<p>Here is his personal statement:
<a href="http://questscholars.stanford.edu/profiles/executive/emergency.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://questscholars.stanford.edu/profiles/executive/emergency.shtml</a></p>
<p>He is to be admired for all he has accomplished, that is certain; I do think, however, that his experiences as a premed cannot and should not be extrapolated to the general population. By "General Population", I mean those of us in the world who are not Rhodes Scholars.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Without being completely objective, I must confess that I am disinclined to take his word as gospel. His advice as a practicing physician runs contrary to much that I have always been told. Furthermore, reading the rest of the document makes clear to me that his track into medical school was not quite normal ("ended [my first] year with a 3.1... was still eventually admitted to every medical school I applied to"). Even very strong candidates are not admitted to every single medical school unless something else about their application stands out; I think he makes a mistake trying to extrapolate his experiences to what "generally" works.</p>
<p>The basic idea is this: a C at Stanford (e.g.) is worse than an A at a CC; an A at a CC is worse than an A at Stanford; things in between are questionable and probably vary depending on what mood the admissions advisor is in. If you are reasonably certain you will be a C student at your university, then by all means move your courses into CC. But I think it's most advisable for you to challenge yourself, to learn as much as you can, and work towards being the best doctor you can be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Their process is imperfect; they seem not to adjust correctly for grade inflation, and they do not (even assuming they should) reward high-level graduate, say, physics courses. But to go from that to suggest that we should all enroll ourselves at community colleges to run away from challenges is, I think, a dramatically inappropriate extrapolation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, it seems to me that you have misinterpreted what he has said. Nowhere does he say that everybody should enroll themselves at community colleges to run away from challenges. I think his advice is quite clear - ** IF ** you are hitting a wall at Stanford or whatever school you are at, then you should consider taking your premed classes elsewhere. Now, of course if you're not hitting that wall, then everything is peachy. </p>
<p>What I interpret him saying is this. You can try to take the standard premed sequence at your university. But, fairly quickly, you should know if you are overmatched, and certainly by the time of the first midterm exam, you should know. For example, if your midterm exam score is far below the mean, then you know you have a problem. </p>
<p>It also depends on what you did to prepare yourself for that exam. If you just lolly-gagged around and wound up with a low midterm score, then a simple change in attitude may suffice to pull your grade up. But if you studied like a dog and STILL got far below the mean, then you know something is up. In such a case, you may be better off simply dropping the class completely and taking it at a community college instead. That's far better than getting a C (or worse) by sticking with it.</p>
<p>The sad truth is that the way that med-school adcoms measure you is such that you are often times not taking a difficult class at all than taking it and getting a bad grade. In other words, the adcoms reward academic cowardice. They shouldn't, but they do. </p>
<p>But the bottom line that that guy is trying to say is that, for the purposes of med-school admission, it's better to get top grades in easy classes than to get terrible grades in difficult classes. Obviously the ideal is to get top grades in difficult classes. But the truth is, most people can't do that. Hence, if you can clearly see that you are overmatched, then you are probably better taking your premed classes elsewhere. However, if you are not overmatched, then you might want to go for the brass ring.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can try to take the standard premed sequence at your university. But, fairly quickly, you should know if you are overmatched, and certainly by the time of the first midterm exam, you should know.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, this I agree with, but the OP's question has to do with anticipatory CC enrollment. I perhaps should have restricted my answer to address only the OP's concern rather than implying that this was what McCullough was actually saying.</p>
<p>And besides all this, the author never endorses CC's. He endorses "elsewhere", by which he simply means "not-Stanford". Whether he includes CC's or not is open to interpretation, but suffice to say there's a very large group of schools which are less well-regarded than Stanford but more well-regarded than CC's.</p>
<p>Beyond that, however, I still insist that his own brilliant track record may have altered his experience some - that is, that winning a Rhodes and founding all these incredible organizations while working and overcoming a very serious health obstacle means that, if his advice is based on his own personal experience (and at least some of it is, although not necessarily this particular point), then premeds should be very careful about applying his principles to their own lives.</p>
<p>If his advice is to try the premed sequence at your university first, then I would concur with it.</p>
<p>don't be a pansy. just take your prereqs at ur university. how will u handle med school if u cant even challenge urself to take orgo at ur local university. The whole point of that req is probably to see if you can cut it out for med school or not. taking the easy road will not look good on your app and even if u make it to med school, you may not be able to handle it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Beyond that, however, I still insist that his own brilliant track record may have altered his experience some - that is, that winning a Rhodes and founding all these incredible organizations while working and overcoming a very serious health obstacle means that, if his advice is based on his own personal experience (and at least some of it is, although not necessarily this particular point), then premeds should be very careful about applying his principles to their own lives.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, it seems to me that he has been phenomenally successful, so if anything, he has excellent credibility, and certainly far more credibility than the average med-school adcom officer. He can actually talk about what actually DOES work, not what the adcoms want you to think will work. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And besides all this, the author never endorses CC's. He endorses "elsewhere", by which he simply means "not-Stanford". Whether he includes CC's or not is open to interpretation, but suffice to say there's a very large group of schools which are less well-regarded than Stanford but more well-regarded than CC's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, he never endorses CC's explicitly. But he doesn't rule them out either. And I am not saying that I necessarily endorse them either. I simply treat CC's as another tool you can use, if you need it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If his advice is to try the premed sequence at your university first, then I would concur with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't even think he is saying that. Look at what he recommends on page 11.</p>
<p>*
POSTPONE SEVERAL PRE-MED REQUIREMENTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE NOT ON THE MCAT, THAT
YOU DONT WANT TO TAKE UNTIL YOUR SENIOR YEAR. Every application has room for classes you can
take later. In my case it was the organic and inorganic chemistry labs and biology 44x and 44y. Instead, take upper
division classes which interest you or other Stanford classes you find enriching.
From the standpoint of a student, you will learn more. From the standpoint of an medical school applicant you
will be stronger. The worst that can happen in this scenario is that you take the class as a senior after you have already
been accepted to medical school. If you did well enough on the MCAT, you may not have to take these postponed
classes at all (medical schools have the option to waive classes and will sometimes do so). Many medical
students I knew at UCSF did not take all the pre-med requirements, but instead invested their energy in more interesting
equivalents. The point is to use these extra class slots meaningfully.</p>
<p> CONSIDER TAKING SOME UPPER DIVISION SCIENCE CLASSES INSTEAD OF CORE PRE-MED
CLASSES. For instance, I took The physics of nuclear weapons instead of physics 23, which was a paper oriented
class, a pre-med free zone, and a wonderful experience. Some lab classes can be substituted for chemistry
130 or 36. Upper division classes are often more educational, more flexible, less intense, bring you into better contact
with the professor, and are not graded on a strict curve. *</p>
<p>
[quote]
how will u handle med school if u cant even challenge urself to take orgo at ur local university. The whole point of that req is probably to see if you can cut it out for med school or not. taking the easy road will not look good on your app and even if u make it to med school, you may not be able to handle it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I wish this was true, but sadly it is now. That's because it's practically impossible to actually flunk out of med-school. Far and away the hardest part of med-school is simply getting in. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the 'test' of getting admitted into med-school (that is, getting the grades, the MCAT scores, etc.) in many ways actually functions as an 'anti-test', in the sense that the process actually serves to exclude many people who would have become perfectly fine doctors, but can't get into med-school. The med-school admissions procedure is not a perfect process. Far from it, in fact.</p>
<p>I would argue that his phenomenal success on "soft" factors (EC's, including the Rhodes) means that his own personal experiences on "hard" factors (coursework, in particular) cannot be extrapolated to other students.</p>
<p>His winning a Rhodes would be enough to cover up substantial flaws in the rest of his application - and it's possible that he's interpreting these flaws as "acceptable" when in truth they would not be for others. McCullough is such an exceptional applicant that I do not believe we can draw rules from his experiences.</p>
<p>Now, this isn't necessarily a counter-argument, because on this particular issue, it's unclear whether he's discussing his personal experience or not. But I think the point remains valid: his own experience is so dramatically successful that specific aspects of his experience should not be extrapolated to be useful to others.</p>
<p>The problem with his arguments is that he seems to think all of the flaws with his application are "ok" just because he got into medical school. He ignores the fact that he probably got in IN SPITE of those flaws.</p>
<p>He is correct in saying that there are no absolutes. You will not automatically be rejected for having a bad freshman year. You will not automatically be rejected for taking classes at community colleges. You will not automatically be rejected for dropping a class. You will not automatically be rejected for postponing your basic premed reqs (physics, orgo, intro bio, gen chem) until senior year. You will not automatically be rejected for taking premed classes pass/fail (actually, you will probably be rejected if you take any of those classes p/f). But those things certainly are not good, people! I realize his intention is to ease the concerns of potential premeds by letting them know that their application does not have to be perfect but, frankly, I think he makes light of his own mistakes. Instead of helping premeds understand that it's important to get off to a great start in college, his message, instead, is that "oh, it's fine to have a 3.0 freshman year. I did and look where I am now!"</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would argue that his phenomenal success on "soft" factors (EC's, including the Rhodes) means that his own personal experiences on "hard" factors (coursework, in particular) cannot be extrapolated to other students.</p>
<p>His winning a Rhodes would be enough to cover up substantial flaws in the rest of his application - and it's possible that he's interpreting these flaws as "acceptable" when in truth they would not be for others. McCullough is such an exceptional applicant that I do not believe we can draw rules from his experiences.</p>
<p>Now, this isn't necessarily a counter-argument, because on this particular issue, it's unclear whether he's discussing his personal experience or not. But I think the point remains valid: his own experience is so dramatically successful that specific aspects of his experience should not be extrapolated to be useful to others.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem with his arguments is that he seems to think all of the flaws with his application are "ok" just because he got into medical school. He ignores the fact that he probably got in IN SPITE of those flaws.</p>
<p>He is correct in saying that there are no absolutes. You will not automatically be rejected for having a bad freshman year. You will not automatically be rejected for taking classes at community colleges. You will not automatically be rejected for dropping a class. You will not automatically be rejected for postponing your basic premed reqs (physics, orgo, intro bio, gen chem) until senior year. You will not automatically be rejected for taking premed classes pass/fail (actually, you will probably be rejected if you take any of those classes p/f). But those things certainly are not good, people! I realize his intention is to ease the concerns of potential premeds by letting them know that their application does not have to be perfect but, frankly, I think he makes light of his own mistakes. Instead of helping premeds understand that it's important to get off to a great start in college, his message, instead, is that "oh, it's fine to have a 3.0 freshman year. I did and look where I am now!"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you guys are fundamentally misinterpreting what he is saying. You guys keep talking about how he is such an exceptional person, so far from the mainstream, and so forth that you cannot extrapolate from his experience, that he won the Rhodes Scholarship and had great EC's and that made him special, and so forth.</p>
<p>But I think THAT IS THE POINT - that he is far from the mainstream. That he went out to accomplish a whole bunch of EC's, and didn't obsess about having to do things the "standard premed" way. In fact, from what I can see, it is PRECISELY because he refused to follow the standard premed track that made him so successful. He didn't feel shoehorned into taking the standard weeder premed course track. He didn't feel compelled to do clinical research that he didn't like, just because he though the med-school adcoms wanted him to. </p>
<p>That's not to say that anything goes. Nobody, not even he, is saying that it's good to get bad grades. Nobody is saying that his 3.1 in his freshman year was a good thing. In fact, I think that's the core of his argument - that getting bad grades is a bad thing, and if it looks like you will get bad grades, especially in your premed classes, then you should drop them and either take them elsewhere, or substitute higher level science courses that are more interesting to you, or simply not take them at all (i.e. get them waived if and when you get admitted to med-school). Like I've said, and what seems to be confirmed empirically, for the purposes of med-school admissions, it's far better to not take a class at all than to take it and get a bad grade. Sad but true. </p>
<p>Instead, he worked on things that interested him. He took classes that interested him. And he obviously did very well doing so. I think that's the key in his message - follow a path that interests you and do well in it. You don't have to walk the premed gauntlet bullsh** if you don't want to. You can take premed classes elsewhere to ease the presure. You can step out of school to recharge yourself. In fact, I think one of his suggestions to consider withdrawing from school for a semester to study for the MCAT full-time can be a very useful one to some students. </p>
<p>But the point is this. You guys simply seem to be engaged in a high-tech form of an ad-hominem attack, instead of actually engaging him on the issues at hand. You seem to be more interesting in trying to discredit him as a person rather than his arguments. Think about it - this is one of the most exceptional people in the world, and you are, in effect, attempting to discredit him. Here's a guy who has accomplished great things, yet apparently his message is not to be believed BECAUSE he has accomplished great things? Come on, guys. </p>
<p>If you want to discredit him, you should point out which of his arguments you disagree with, and then present empirical evidence that shows why his argument is wrong. It can't be a simple matter of (well, an adcom officer said it was wrong), because the fact is, much of McCollough's arguments rests on the fact that much of what the adcoms say is wrong. </p>
<p>I think that's more than fair. Here is a guy who is obviously a highly successful doctor and person, and who founded the Quest Scholars program to help underprivileged students. Hence, he is not just talking blindly. It's not like us, who are all hiding behind anonymous Internet handles. He has placed much of his professional and personal reputation on the line. If he said something that turned out to be bunk, that would turn out be quite a public embarrassment that would haunt him for the rest of his life. He is therefore far more committed than any of us, and even more so than any adcom officer.</p>
<p><a href="http://questscholars.stanford.edu/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://questscholars.stanford.edu/index.html</a>
<a href="http://questscholars.stanford.edu/who.html%5B/url%5D">http://questscholars.stanford.edu/who.html</a>
<a href="http://questscholars.stanford.edu/profiles/executive/staff_mccullough.htm%5B/url%5D">http://questscholars.stanford.edu/profiles/executive/staff_mccullough.htm</a></p>
<p>I see him as a brave soul who is willing to put his reputation on the line to speak truth to power. That is why I would really like to see some hard evidence to demonstrate that what he is saying is bunk.</p>
<p>Well, at this point it's simply a matter of our assertions and expectations against his own assertions, since no party here actually publishes any data regarding summer courses, if any exists.</p>
<p>I maintain that if he is drawing from his own experiences - not by any means a given - then the ad homimen argument is in fact logically valid: you can follow his path on coursework only if you can also follow his path in extracurriculars.</p>
<p>Branching off of this, I am at a public school's honors program and just started pre-med. I am on a full scholarship and am doing well, but is it acceptable to take one or two pre-med requirements at a CC during the summer for monetary reasons? I just switched to pre-med as a sophomore and am also carrying a Poli Sci/Econ double major. (Brought full year of AP credits in though)</p>
<p>This is what we're trying to discuss here. You can see that opinions are very split.</p>
<p>Notice Karl's post #6 here: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=215103%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=215103</a></p>