@Roentgen, while attending an interview and information session at a different university with bs/md program, the college staff stated that they have found ACT/SAT scores to be not a very good predictor of success in college. However, they stated that high school GPA was a much better predictor.
@docstudent, I’m not disagreeing with you. Like I said, UMKC has never released statistics on the correlation of high school GPA and ACT/SAT scores and graduating from their BA/MD program.
@docstudent It is very interesting isn’t it. I read an article about research done in the California University systems where they followed the success of students and compared it to SAT scores and GPA. Turned out in that study too that GPA was the best factor to determine student success in college. The SAT subject tests were also a good indicator but the SAT1. They did not look at ACT so don’t know. So it comes down to work ethics doesn’t it?
By the way, I don’t think @Roentgen is being negative at all, I agree with his/her view. At this point, we can only speak in generalities and provide realistic expectations. It is entertaining/baffling to see the overconfidence of some graduating high school seniors, but hey, that’s just the way it is before the rubber hits the road.
The problem with GPA is that it is a metric that can be inflated all around the country. ACT/SAT scores definitely do help indicate a certain tier of testing taking ability (which is kinda sorta important). Different people have different combinations of effort/learning curve/testing abilities.
Part of the problem is that high schoolers have a very narrow width of experience. As you go up in education the funnel narrows: high school –> college –> medical school, thus someone who may have been successful in high school may not be as successful in college, or might be succesful in college but not do so hot in medical school.
It’s hard to predict bc high schools are so different when it comes to challenging students. High GPA at a very low performing high school means nothing in the college world vs. a lower GPA at a more rigorous high school: <a href=“South L.A. student finds a different world at UC Berkeley”>South L.A. student finds a different world at UC Berkeley;
“High GPA at a very low performing high school means nothing in the college world vs. a lower GPA at a more rigorous high school:”
I’m not sure I agree with this statement 100%. Just a couple of days ago NPR had a college admissions counselor on who was comparing students who just had better opportunities in high school than others. He said that a student from one of those lower schools obtaining an A is more true merit than another A student at a better school whose parents paid for all the extra Kumon math lessons etc. Just imagine the potential of that boy in that article if he had had more resources provided to him over the years. Seems to me like even if it takes him a little longer he is going to be successful and possibly pass many others in the future.
The #'s are definitely indicators but I have seen students who were not so great in high school shine like crazy in college while others who only needed to hear something once to learn it go on and drop out of college. Determination and work ethics has been shown to count for a lot.
I am a proponent of standardized tests. GPA is highly dependent on the school you go to, the courses you take, and whether your school inflates or deflates grades (even in universities, Princeton and Harvard are known for grade inflation and BU and RPI grade deflation). Therefore a high GPA may not mean much about the student’s academic caliber except, maybe, being a hardworking student, but a low GPA will definitely hurt and reflects that the student most likely has been a slacker in school. I remember when my daughter applied to UK medical schools and when she presented her high school GPA, she was told there was not the need. Specifically, Oxford told her that GPA did not mean anything to them since it was not standardized and the university does not accept anything that is nonstandardized! Therefore, logically standardized test scores should be of better predictive value of the students ability. The fact that GPA more accurately predicts college success is not surprising since grades in universities are also not standardized. The student qualities needed for a good GPA in high school are not any different from that needed for a high GPA in colleges.
@IMGDAD if the studies show that standardized scores do not have good predictive value then why put so much emphasis on them. Did the high performing students receive exclusive coaching, review classes while the lower perfomesr didn’t? I completely agree with you that GPA mean very little but IMO, we may come to the day where the schools present tests that individuals can not prepare for to level the field. These exams might have good predictive value. Until then, it is an educated crap shoot.
I recently listened to a Podcast that discussed using employment video games to select the best applicants. Who knows how much penetration this idea will have in education.
@frugaldoctor, it depends on what the colleges are aiming for. Some colleges may define success as the % of students graduating, while others may define success as the % of students who eventually make it big in their careers. The probability for success, as defined by both, would be highest for students with high GPA and high standardized test scores. Those with higher GPA but lower standardized test scores (reflecting on their good work ethics) may be more likely to successfully complete the course and graduate, but those with higher standardized test scores but lower GPA (reflecting their tendency to be slackers), provided they pass and graduate, may be more likely to make it big in their future career. Just my interpretation and I hope I apologize if I offend anyone!
Check out these articles:
<a href=“http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/02/students-question-whether-sat-fairly-measures-academic-skills/”>http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/02/students-question-whether-sat-fairly-measures-academic-skills/</a>
The study has another clear result: High school grades matter — a lot. For both those students who submitted their test results to their colleges and those who did not, high school grades were the best predictor of a student’s success in college. And kids who had low or modest test scores, but good high school grades, did better in college than those with good scores but modest grades.
<a href=“http://college.usatoday.com/2014/02/26/new-study-says-high-school-gpa-matters-more-than-sat-scores/”>http://college.usatoday.com/2014/02/26/new-study-says-high-school-gpa-matters-more-than-sat-scores/</a>
This article seems like it is referring to the same study but with more dialogue about it.
Because of the grade inflation/deflation at the high schools, standardized tests are considered necessary by some schools. That is why ranking is also important. If you have a 3.99 GPA and are ranked 20th at your school it means a lot less than another student with 3.99 GPA ranked 1st at their school.
Bottom line I just did not want to discourage students going to UMKC who have high hopes. I think keeping up your enthusiasm and work ethic is going to be crucial to your success similar to these studies. I think the new students should take what they read here from the veteran students as advice and use it to their advantage in planning for their future at UMKC. Don’t waste time arguing it but use the information to put the odds in your favor. Congratulations and good luck to those admitted!
No one metric is a predictor of how one will do in college, or even in medical school. The three things you can use to are class rank, GPA, or ACT/SAT score, which are usually looked at TOGETHER. Any one of those metrics by itself can be gamed (i.e. test prep with standardized exams, going to an easy or low performing high school, etc.). UMKC has only certain things they can go by when evaluating applicants and unfortunately does not have one’s undergraduate GPA and MCAT score when evaluating HS applicants which is more predictive of medical school performance.
Part of the problem is that UMKC’s BA/MD program makes students skip a lot of introductory coursework and cut corners which lays a good foundation and can give a better clue as to how well prepared a student is for tougher coursework. On top of that, they have you take an overload of credit hours each semester. They make you jump right in, after which if you’re struggling and unable to do well, you’ve effectively destroyed your chance of doing the premed route and applying for MD school the normal way. Rather than correct this by making the program longer or more intro coursework so you can work your way up, they just end up recruiting more Asians and hope they’ll be able to deal with it (sometimes this works, and sometimes not).
There’s a reason that UMKC’s program is not as “prestigious” or as good in quality as other med schools. There are some serious deficiences in the program - although if you want to do primary care, then the school fits that goal. If you want to be a specialist, then things get more murky depending on what that specialty is.
Very good point. The UMKC program does cut corners and overload the credit hours. I don’t remember any student at Penn State or Miami’s then 6-year program taking 22-24 credit hours per semester. Any kid going to the program is better served knowing these type of risks.
The UMKC program is, therefore, extremely tough if the student does not have many college credit hours to transfer. However, if the student has 40-50 hours to transfer, the student should end up doing around 15-18 hours a semester and this should be manageable if the student is determined.
@IMGDAD, The UMKC program is STILL tough even if you have 30 testing credit hours (the max allowed). Even then you’re limited to very specific college majors that are low in total hours. The credit hours brought in only keeps one from being fully submerged underwater vs. flapping hurriedly on the waves to keep nose over water.
A good comparison is the UMKC 6 yr. program vs. OTHER 6 year programs as @Johhny H mentioned, the Penn State-Jefferson program. The UMKC program takes a lot of shortcuts in the curriculum with or without transferring testing credit. All the other 6 year programs have students taking the premed curriculum that all other med schools require of their students, and this is done for a reason.
@Roentgen, you are correct. Only 30 testing credit hours (i.e. by way of IB or AP) are allowed for transfer but unlimited for hours taken at college levels. I have looked at the UMKC major map and if my son gets in and chooses to do Bachelor of Liberal Arts with minor in Chemistry, because he already has, or will have by the time he gets in, around 50 credit hours (all earned from college attendance rather than dual credit courses of AP or IB), he will be able to transfer them all and he will end up taking 14 hours in first semester, 15 hours in second semester, and will be able to cut down a few hours each semester after that.
You have lost me when you compare the UMKC program to the PSU/Jefferson 6-year program, I think it is only by shortcuts that the students are able to do all the required UG hours on top of the hours for an MD degree within the 6 years. If the PSU/Jefferson program does not also take shortcut, the number of hours per semester that the students have to take will be enormous, far far more than 22 hours. For example, instead of having to take two semesters of organic chemistry (as like in most normally paced pre-med), UMKC students only take one semester of organic chemistry. Therefore, it is shortcut and can only be achieved if the course if simplified and truncated.
IMGDAD is right. UMKC is not anymore condensed than any other program if a student is coming in with a lot of transferrable credit. I will be coming in with exactly 100 transferrable credit hours (most of which have already been transferred) and this gives me freedom to do a lot of different things. I am doing the BA in biology but despite that, I COULD be taking as little as 12-15 hours my first two semesters. However, I’m choosing to pursue a minor such as entrepreneurship or take other courses that will help prepare me for the medical courses to come. For example, taking undergraduate physiology before diving right into the HSF series. If you actually look at UMKC’s curriculum, there is absolute nothing that they are skipping out on that could possibly help someone do better on the boards. Most of the stuff that people are forced to take in undergrad is a sheer waste of time and I am glad that UMKC avoids that. Like why should someone have to waste their time in Botany or Horticulture? I understand how UMKC’s curriculum could be sorta insane if someone isn’t coming in with any credits. Also, they do not require people to take General Bio 1 and 2 which is one deficiency that can be noted. General Biology presents a good introduction to many of the basic sciences such as Cell Bio, Biochemistry, Genetics, and Microbiology. However, if someone has already taken General Bio in high school at a university or through AP, then that deficiency is thrown out the window. My point is: TO ALL STUDENTS CONSIDERING UMKC. Do not continue taking advice from discontented alumni such as Roentgen who are clearly trying to convince the world that UMKC is an absolutely horrible program and stands below all others. It is important to evaluate these things on your own and what fits best in your circumstances. I think that UMKC is an amazing option for people like IMGDAD’s son who already have a good background in basic undergraduate courses. When considering UMKC, imagine that you are skipping your first two years of college and you have to hope that what you accomplished in high school (and the summer before the program) are enough to make up for those lost two years. In my case, I can certainly say that I have done that. I have completely finished my first two years of undergrad coursework in a wide variety of subjects and at a normal 4 year university, I would be only 20 credits away from graduation. Also, TRANSFERABLE CREDIT IS NOT LIMITED AT UMKC. They have a limit of 30 credits hours for AP and IB and 24 credit hours for current college students transferring in. But if you are currently in high school and have 60+ credits (and they were taken at a regionally accredited institution), then they will ALL transfer over.
Remember that early on in the KC program, you have about 15-16 regular undergrad course hours and then 7-8 hours of the ‘med school’ pass/fail stuff (which takes up its sweet time in the week). That’s why on the transcript, the total credit hours per semester was about 22-23.
The problem with the organic chem class that @IMGDAD mentioned is that it doesn’t transfer out to any other school. It’s a special, handicapping Orgo course (wonder if UMKC did that on purpose?). Biochem might be the same way. On the other hand, people who went to Miami’s 6-yr program were integrated as undergrads for their first 2 years and took the regular premed courses. It just made sense. Also, the course load wasn’t artificially inflated either.
I still remember sitting at orientation and asking my dad what a “BLA” stood for and he responded, “it means you’re unemployable.” Classic.
@Johnny H, actually, the UMKC organic chemistry course is an ELEMENTARY organic chemistry course rather than the traditional Orgo 1 and Orgo 2. It is taken in the spring of our first year and it is not very handicapping. As far as my undergraduate requirements, if I do the BA in biology, I only have 3 more classes of undergraduate requirements (excluding cell bio, orgo, micro, etc). In my first semester, the only medical courses are Anatomy, Med Term, and Fund of Medicine. Other than that, I can choose to do Discourse 3 and Anchor 3 now or in my 4th year. Honestly, in planning my schedule, I have had more difficulty finding ways to fill up my schedule, not the other way around… I might just decide to go easy on the courseload and spend a lot more time doing research and studying USMLE topics that I have already covered.
And yes, I agree with you. UMKC definitely inflates the whole credit hour thing. For example, they make the Fundamentals of Medicine course 5 credit hours and that is mostly just the hospital rotation course where you learn basic medical practices. Also, in the second year, the the Human Structure Function series (Anatomy, Embryology, Physiology, and Biochem) is worth 22 hours. I think some of these hours might be inflated to help people finish up their undergraduate hours requirement. For instance, with the bio major, we have to have a total of 38 hours in biological sciences. The DARS report shows that HSF counts in those hours. In actuality, the whole hours inflation thing is probably there to help students, not harm them.
As I have always maintained, students going into the UMKC program have to make sure that they succeed because if they do not, they will/may have difficulties transferring many of the courses that they take as their UG courses since those courses are not conventional courses and may not be comparable to those taken elsewhere. Therefore, the courses are neither here nor there to be considered as equivalent and be transferable. However, they are sufficient preparation for the challenges of medical schools.