PostBacc LMU vs CSU San Marcos (Need advice)

[Fanc1]

I have a bit of a dilemma (a good dilemma - always good to have options) and would appreciate some advice. I've been accepted to both Loyola Marymount's Post bacc program and CSU San Marcos program.

I'm trying to figure out which is the best fit for my situation. I just don't have enough data to make a comfortable decision. I'm a nontraditional student, extensive medicine/science-related background (several pubs, years of volunteer work, I have direct patient interaction now) and will overall have very strong LORs. My sGPA is abysmal, but this is from taking classes almost a decade ago. I've accepted it will never be repaired and so I will need to minimize this defect and focus on doing extremely well during this postbacc and crushing the MCAT when that time comes.

LMU
Pros:
One year program (summer to summer)
Streamlined curriculum to complete reqs that I need
Linkages with following schools:

• Western University of Health Sciences (DO program)
• Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (DO program)

Cons:
Calculus based physics course (I would need to brush up)
Must live in LA, will likely need to sell my car
Won't be able to work during because of nature of program, expecting extreme poverty
No real buffer to study for MCAT (I'm assuming I would start material in fall to prepare for following spring / summer)

San Marcos
Pros:
Two year program (starts this fall) with an additional 24 credits of coursework LMU doesn't include
I can work a part time or full time job as classes are in evening
Better neighborhood, more affordable
I can focus on MCAT next year when I have some coursework under my belt
I have a few more months at my current position to make some additional income

Cons:
New program, no outcome data (I would be 3rd cohort)
No linkages
2nd year funding is a concern, as students have dropped because of this
Could be significantly more expensive, which feeds into concern above
The extra year puts an added temporal distance between me and my LORs

I have no financial support elsewhere and am single (so I'm doing this alone). Originally I was favoring the San Marcos program, as I think it would round out my education a little further, but since it's new and somewhat unproven, I'm weighing that as less critical.

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[plaidjacket]

do you mind sharing your stats? I am leaning towards to CSUSM program but i'm not sure if I would be a good applicant. If I were you I would say CSUSM because of the price and flexibility

 

[PNWisBest]

I have a bit of a dilemma (a good dilemma - always good to have options) and would appreciate some advice. I've been accepted to both Loyola Marymount's Post bacc program and CSU San Marcos program.

I'm trying to figure out which is the best fit for my situation. I just don't have enough data to make a comfortable decision. I'm a nontraditional student, extensive medicine/science-related background (several pubs, years of volunteer work, I have direct patient interaction now) and will overall have very strong LORs. My sGPA is abysmal, but this is from taking classes almost a decade ago. I've accepted it will never be repaired and so I will need to minimize this defect and focus on doing extremely well during this postbacc and crushing the MCAT when that time comes.

LMU
Pros:
One year program (summer to summer)
Streamlined curriculum to complete reqs that I need
Linkages with following schools:

• Western University of Health Sciences (DO program)
• Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (DO program)

Cons:
Calculus based physics course (I would need to brush up)
Must live in LA, will likely need to sell my car
Won't be able to work during because of nature of program, expecting extreme poverty
No real buffer to study for MCAT (I'm assuming I would start material in fall to prepare for following spring / summer)

San Marcos
Pros:
Two year program (starts this fall) with an additional 24 credits of coursework LMU doesn't include
I can work a part time or full time job as classes are in evening
Better neighborhood, more affordable
I can focus on MCAT next year when I have some coursework under my belt
I have a few more months at my current position to make some additional income

Cons:
New program, no outcome data (I would be 3rd cohort)
No linkages
2nd year funding is a concern, as students have dropped because of this
Could be significantly more expensive, which feeds into concern above
The extra year puts an added temporal distance between me and my LORs

I have no financial support elsewhere and am single (so I'm doing this alone). Originally I was favoring the San Marcos program, as I think it would round out my education a little further, but since it's new and somewhat unproven, I'm weighing that as less critical.

Thoughts?

Working FT is going to be hard, doable, but hard. Expect to have no life and there is no way you can study for the MCAT, take OChem 2, Biochemistry and Microbiology while working full-time. That will need to be reevaluated. Just a heads up!

If I had the option, I'd take LMU. Direct linkages are better then none.

 

[Dr2bChris]

Just saw this. hope its not too late. I'm from cohort#2 of CSUSM postbacc. Terrible experience. Loyola is better. if you're looking for flexibility, UCLA or Berkeley is better. I wrote about my experience in Fall 2016 cohort thread. search for it. It's a horrible program. Linkage is not always a good thing, if you've decent grades. Linkage means you're basically limited to the school you've linkage agreement with. If you're okay with DO schools then LMU is your option as well. Either way, I think you're better off at LMU. Half or more of cohort#2 left. Cohort#1 was worst, I think about 12 people remained in the program at the end of their cohort.
Goodluck!

I have a bit of a dilemma (a good dilemma - always good to have options) and would appreciate some advice. I've been accepted to both Loyola Marymount's Post bacc program and CSU San Marcos program.

I'm trying to figure out which is the best fit for my situation. I just don't have enough data to make a comfortable decision. I'm a nontraditional student, extensive medicine/science-related background (several pubs, years of volunteer work, I have direct patient interaction now) and will overall have very strong LORs. My sGPA is abysmal, but this is from taking classes almost a decade ago. I've accepted it will never be repaired and so I will need to minimize this defect and focus on doing extremely well during this postbacc and crushing the MCAT when that time comes.

LMU
Pros:
One year program (summer to summer)
Streamlined curriculum to complete reqs that I need
Linkages with following schools:

• Western University of Health Sciences (DO program)
• Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine (DO program)

Cons:
Calculus based physics course (I would need to brush up)
Must live in LA, will likely need to sell my car
Won't be able to work during because of nature of program, expecting extreme poverty
No real buffer to study for MCAT (I'm assuming I would start material in fall to prepare for following spring / summer)

San Marcos
Pros:
Two year program (starts this fall) with an additional 24 credits of coursework LMU doesn't include
I can work a part time or full time job as classes are in evening
Better neighborhood, more affordable
I can focus on MCAT next year when I have some coursework under my belt
I have a few more months at my current position to make some additional income

Cons:
New program, no outcome data (I would be 3rd cohort)
No linkages
2nd year funding is a concern, as students have dropped because of this
Could be significantly more expensive, which feeds into concern above
The extra year puts an added temporal distance between me and my LORs

I have no financial support elsewhere and am single (so I'm doing this alone). Originally I was favoring the San Marcos program, as I think it would round out my education a little further, but since it's new and somewhat unproven, I'm weighing that as less critical.

Thoughts?

 

[PNWisBest]

Just saw this. hope its not too late. I'm from cohort#2 of CSUSM postbacc. Terrible experience. Loyola is better. if you're looking for flexibility, UCLA or Berkeley is better. I wrote about my experience in Fall 2016 cohort thread. search for it. It's a horrible program. Linkage is not always a good thing, if you've decent grades. Linkage means you're basically limited to the school you've linkage agreement with. If you're okay with DO schools then LMU is your option as well. Either way, I think you're better off at LMU. Half or more of cohort#2 left. Cohort#1 was worst, I think about 12 people remained in the program at the end of their cohort.
Goodluck!

This is also not true. If your school has a linkage, you have the OPTION of linking to that school, if you decide to/meet the requirements. You are not forced to sit in their class and you are welcome to apply else where. If one had decent grades they wouldn't be attending a Post-Bacc with a linkage option, they would be applying broadly in hopes of having options at landing a seat in a location they desire. (Unless you're a career changer- that's a different story)

Yes. We had 11 people finish our program. Is that horrible stats? Totally. Did we still get the classes we were promised? Yes. And instead of having to compete for office hours and email responses, 11 students to 1 professor in higher level bio/chem classes is a pretty sweet deal. There is a bright side to it. Data is crap. This field is all about what you are willing to put into it.