<p>How hard is it to be a Pre-med student at a liberal arts college? Is it a good idea? Are there any specific liberal arts colleges that are good for pre-med?</p>
<p>A "liberal arts curriculum" includes all of the pre-med departments including Bio, Chem, and Math.</p>
<p>Many of the liberal arts colleges have historically been med school assembly lines, placing very high percentages of students in med school.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd for one is a LAC that I believe has 100 percent acceptance rate of students who apply to med school, those students go on to get into their 1st or 2nd choice.</p>
<p>Lots of LACs are well regarded for premed. As one example over 10% of Holy Cross' alumni are physicians. (The bulk of the rest are lawyers.)</p>
<p>Some that immediately come to mind in PA are: </p>
<p>Franklin and Marshall College
Muhlenberg College
Ursinus College</p>
<p>amherst and williams do very well, amherst is something like 98.9</p>
<p>Thanks so much for all your answers. I'm surely going to think about going to a liberal arts college now; I was just really worried that they didn't have premed! Does anyone else know of any other good liberal arts schools with a good premed program? Thanks!</p>
<p>Another PA school that has a good premed program is Allegheny College.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvey Mudd for one is a LAC that I believe has 100 percent acceptance rate of students who apply to med school, those students go on to get into their 1st or 2nd choice.
[/quote]
You do realize how many ways the "100% acceptance rate" statistic can be misleading, right?</p>
<p>Not that the article I'm about to link to is that much better but you may be interested in taking a look at <a href="http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf</a>, which comes from The</a> Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition. At least the measures they use are comparable between all schools listed. </p>
<p>Honestly, any LAC with a decent study body will be looked upon favorably by medical schools. Medical schools may be unfamiliar with the less selective ones though, which will lead them to question how hard your 4.0 GPA was to get.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as a "pre-med program." Being pre-med consists of taking 6 or so specified courses. All LACs have those courses. Some may have stronger pre-med advising programs than others; the more selective will surely have those advisors.</p>
<p>First find schools in areas that you might like, of a size that you might like, and then look at the pre-med advising and acceptance rate. Colleges don't hide those things.</p>
<p>lgellar
[quote]
Not that the article I'm about to link to is that much better but you may be interested in taking a look at <a href="http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/p...ege_092503.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/p...ege_092503.pdf</a>, which comes from The Wall Street Journal Classroom Edition. At least the measures they use are comparable between all schools listed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The article you linked ranks "feeder schools" to graduate programs, not just medicine. It is actually more tilted towards law school.</p>
<p>For instance, Duke is ranked above Brown, when for premeds it is actually the opposite. Harvard, Brown, Yale, Stanford and Dartmouth are the top five schools in the country in percentage acceptance rates of premed into med school (relative to their student population which is what makes it relevant). They are all in the mid 90s while Duke reports about 84% in their website.</p>
<p>The point about Harvey Mudd is good. If only three students apply and they all get accepted (100%) that is not very meaningful, is it?</p>
<p>Wesleyan has gret med school acceptence stats and gets the most federal funding for research out of all the LACs, like twice as the runner-up.</p>
<p>Amerst (a LAC, BTW) has a great writeup for premeds that is applicable no matter where you go. You should read thru it; it is at Amherst</a> College Premedical Guide</p>
<p>Pomona places extremely well, and a significant proportion of students (and nearly all pre-med students) take the opportunity to do fully funded and paid undergrad research during their time there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For instance, Duke is ranked above Brown, when for premeds it is actually the opposite. Harvard, Brown, Yale, Stanford and Dartmouth are the top five schools in the country in percentage acceptance rates of premed into med school (relative to their student population which is what makes it relevant). They are all in the mid 90s while Duke reports about 84% in their website.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not true. Stanford's placement rate into med school is nowhere near 90%. I wish people would stop throwing out random numbers. Someone mentioned Amherst's med school acceptance rate at 98.9 or something when it clearly says 79% in the link above for first-time applicants, which isn't bad but nowhere near 98.9. Med school acceptance rates themselves are flawed statistics that one should take with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>LAC's biggest advantage over research universities is their smaller class size (makes it easier to get better recs). Otherwise, go to the school you like best, whether it be a LAC, a large public, an elite private research institution, whatever. Getting into med school is an individual endeavor that is 90% you and 10% your school. How's that for statistics?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvey Mudd for one is a LAC that I believe has 100 percent acceptance rate of students who apply to med school, those students go on to get into their 1st or 2nd choice.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me preface this by saying I go to Harvey Mudd.</p>
<p>This is easily one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on here. I don't know where in the world you got this stat. People who applied to med school from Mudd got rejected to almost all of them. I definitely know one person who got rejected from every med school, so that proves your ridiculous stat wrong right there. </p>
<p>And even if by some miracle it is true, your conclusion from it couldn't be farther from the truth. Harvey Mudd is a completely awful choice for someone who wants to go to med school. The biology program isn't well-suited for pre-med and we don't have grade inflation. Any person who knows HMC well enough will tell you to stay away if you want to go to med school.</p>
<p>In addition to providing misleading information on acceptance rates into medical schools most liberal arts colleges (Amherst is one of the few exceptions), also fail to provide actual statistics on how many students actually apply at the end of their junior year and get admitted while still in college. The shocking reality is that in many cases HARDLY ANY students are ready to do so. This partially due to several myths being promoted by the colleges.</p>
<p>*1. Your major does not matter. *</p>
<p>If you read the fine print some colleges will add. (Amherst)
[quote]
Humanities or social science majors are not at a disadvantage when applying to medical school, if they have done well in the required premedical science courses.
[/quote]
Considering the premed science requirements include one year of calculus, one year of physics, two years of chemistry, one year of biology (and for many med schools one semester of biochemistry ) this adds up to between 10 and 11 semesters of science alone, not including required labs. No wonder the number of premeds drops precipitously after organic chemistry, a notorious weed-out class at most colleges. It is not surprising that the vast majority of premeds are either biology or chemistry majors. The premed requirements are generally part of the requirements for their major anyway so they can easily be programmed into their schedule. In addition, medical schools compute the science GPA separately, so not only do you need to take all the science classes, but you also have to do well. So, if math and science wasnt your thing in HS, dont expect to suddenly get top grades in college, especially as you are taking the intro science classes together with all the science majors with grades on a curve. The science majors will be able to further pad their science GPA with some advanced classes which are most often not curved. The MCATs are a further hurdle for the non-science majors. They are two thirds science, one third verbal (the reverse of the SATs), which also puts non-science majors at a disadvantage. </p>
<p>2. You can easily complete the requirements while in college</p>
<p>How likely is it that you will have completed the science prerequisites by the end of junior year? Not very! Ideally you really want to be done with them by the end of SOPHOMORE year so that you can take the MCATs that summer. That means anywhere from 2 to 3 science courses PER SEMESTER! Some technical majors such as engineering can actually be difficult to combine with a premed program as they have few electives. At many colleges engineering majors can barely get their major done in 4 years, let alone adding the premed requirements and MCAT prepping.
Another interesting quote from the Amherst manual.
[quote]
"Post-bac" programs allow students to complete premed requirements after graduation. They are offered by many institutions; here is the AAMC's list. You would enroll for one or two years, depending on prior science courses taken. These programs are intensive and often expensive, but our graduates who have gone to good quality programs have often been accepted into medical school. It is also possible to fulfill premed requirements after graduation by enrolling in accredited continuing education courses, of which there is a list in the Career Center resource library.
[/quote]
In short, forget about applying to med school while in college, let alone as a junior. If Amherst has a tough time getting its graduates ready for med school, guess how hard it is for the average liberal arts college. Swarthmore with even a stronger math & science reputation has less than a handful of applicants each year. </p>
<p>3. Preparation for med school can easily mesh with the educational mission of most liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>That is where actually, the biggest disconnect arises. Med school preparation is a rat race. Every stereotype you have ever heard about med school applicants is largely true. Grade grubbing, dropping out of classes where they cant get an A, always studying, having little time for exploration of new subjects. You cant take a risk taking a class outside of your comfort zone because it may sink your GPA. You have to spend time on ECs that appeal to med school such as volunteering at hospitals or work in a research lab. You have to spend time prepping for the MCATs. In all honesty, it is not the students fault, but the med school application system which forces such behavior. The college experience becomes very pre-professional, which is the opposite of what a good liberal arts education seeks to offer. There is therefore clearly a trade-off between being a premed and getting the most of a liberal arts education. You can do both but nearly always at the expense of preparation.<br>
The Amherst manual has some useful advice.
[quote]
"Is it OK to `take time off' after graduation before going to medical school, either because I started late, or because I want a break from academics at that point?"
It's more than just "OK"! It can be a very positive step on your way to becoming a physician. In fact, the median age for first-year medical students is now nearly 25! Of course, what you do should be science- or medicine-or service- related, like working in a research lab or a hospital, teaching, Peace Corps or other service work, or perhaps even travelling, with some medical care contact in the places you visit. The added experience can enhance your qualifications and show your commitment to a career in medicine. . (By the way, "taking time off" isn't how we would describe doing experiments until the wee hours of the morning in a research lab, teaching high school, or working in a hospital. Parents might be more supportive of "working before going to medical school.")
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cellardweller's post speaks to the harsh reality of med-school admissions. I might add that these caveats hold true no matter what type of undergraduate experience, whether university or LAC, that the student chooses. </p>
<p>As soon as you decide to be pre-med, you have to make decisions on what you do in college as an applicant rather than a student.</p>
<p>cellardweller:</p>
<p>Thank-you! I would strongly urge students to actually dig into the in-depth information that schools like Amherst and Swarthmore provide on their pre-med advising sites.</p>
<p>People should not try to distill all this down to a single percentage. For example, Swarthmore had a 100% admissions rate for graduating seniors in 2006, but they aren't crowing about that because that's 100% of seven truly outstanding applicants. The larger group of applicants each year is alums who have been out of college for a year or more:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In 2006, Swarthmore's acceptance rate for the 7 graduating seniors was 100% and the 28 alumni/ae applicants was 79% for an overall acceptance rate of 83%.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's really important to understand what the college is including in the percentage. For example, Amherst reports a percentage as being those who were accepted on their first or second try. That's a perfectly valid statistic, but it's not comparable to a statistic that includes just first tries. And, so on and so forth.</p>
<p>"That means anywhere from 2 to 3 science courses PER SEMESTER! "</p>
<p>Bingo. Swarthmore's Guide to Pre-Med points out that if you want to apply for admission directly from college, you have to take MORE THAN ONE LAB SCIENCE COURSE PER SEMESTER. That is brutal.</p>
<p>I always shake my head at students who plot out their whole medical career before they've taken their first college level science course to find out if they even have any aptitude for it. Stubbornly sticking with a science major or pre-med track without a science aptitude is recipe for misery.</p>
<p>I was about to point out Swarthmore's stats. That 7:28 ratio of senior/alumni applicants is definitely not normal. Most schools have a 1:1 ratio so it would concern me that so many of its students have to take time off. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In addition to providing misleading information on acceptance rates into medical schools most liberal arts colleges (Amherst is one of the few exceptions), also fail to provide actual statistics on how many students actually apply at the end of their junior year and get admitted while still in college. The shocking reality is that in many cases HARDLY ANY students are ready to do so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. In general, I find LAC's to be much less transparent about their premed applicant statistics. The only universities with 90%+ acceptance rates are Harvard, Princeton, and the like. But, ever notice how EVERY LAC seems to boast 90%+ acceptance rates? The ones that do provide statistics (Amherst, Swarthmore) show that their acceptance rate is about what you would expect given the quality of the student body. I find it hard to believe that all of these other LAC's are better than Amherst or Swarthmore when it comes to premed.</p>