you left space for my responses: quite considerate!
novacek88 said:
You are arguing one would be better off with a 3.0 undergrad GPA/4.0 Masters than a student with 3.7 undergrad GPA and no Masters?
i pointed out that mizzoudude and dealroy demonstrated that the situation is not as extreme as an adcom choosing a 3.7 undergrad over a 3.3 undergrad/4.0 masters simply because masters programs are "ambiguous." you know this process well enough to understand that different adcoms are turned on by different achievements/routes: remember the forum in which we are posting: i have suggested that a 3.3 undergrad/4.0 masters in hard science is, to many adcoms, as competitive as the 3.7 undergrad, first time applicant. don't read into it any further than that!
novacek88 said:
Adcoms have not forgotten that point either,which is why many are leary of graduate GPA's. I think you are forgetting these research credits are graded on subjective criteria. I know at my host institution, it's difficult to earn less than an A in these research classes. You would really have to not show up at all or pour sugar in your advisor's gas tank.
you have a good point here; however, when i used the word "didactic," i referred to graduate level classes which are not research-oriented. and you may say, "well aren't they all?," but indeed they are not. for instance, my master's program includes one year of 32 credits: mammalian physiology, histology, biochemistry, and anatomy. our theses nor our "research-skills" are not meant to be honed during this year: i used "didactic" because that is truly what it is: "involving lecture and textbook instruction rather than demonstration and laboratory study." you are, though, exactly right about many graduate gpas: at my host institution, where i was surrounded by grad students in the lab in which i worked, these fluff As abounded; but just as many programs had the didactic component prior to or in the midst of research. i do agree that many adcoms are leary about graduate gpas, but i think this is probably as frivolous an argument as grade inflation at school X vs. school Y. (ie, let the adcoms sort it out)
novacek88 said:
That depends on the applicant. An applicant with a 3.7 undergrad/4.0 masters who never applied to medical school will be perceived differently than a 3.0 undergrad/4.0 masters who applied and was rejected from medical school the year prior. It's obvious the first applicant was genuinely interested in graduate education while the latter applicant was using the graduate degree as a backdoor to medical school. If you think an adcom can't distinguish between the two, you are mistaken.
i am not mistaken, because i hope they can distinguish between the two. again, all else being equal, i suggest that there is nothing "wrong" with pursuing graduate level work (masters or otherwise) to demonstrate your ability and, very importantly, your hunger for a medical education. don't forget that most posters here are in this boat--having to "prove" their ability and desire after a not-so-convincing undergrad or mcat.
second, in your scenario, you use the "backdoor to medical school" rather slangily (and i hope not, disparagingly): what's to say this first-time applicant did not go straight to graduate school, knowing full well he wouldn't gain admission straight out of undergrad? maybe he'll write this in his personal statement? further, i think it is horrendous and extremely nearsighted to suggest that the only "non-backdoor" way into a medical education is through one application, either after undergraduate or graduate schooling. this is a journey: for many, whose abilities and desire are indeed what they should be, this path is full of holes. accepting this and demonstrating you are able to overcome them and "get back on the horse" is something i do hope the adcoms can glean from my application as well as each poster in this forum.
at any rate, ive tried to reillustrate my original point--it's possible we simply view this thing in different lights. if that's the case, our experiences probably have led us to these perspectives, and that's about all i can tell you.
