Avoiding pre-med flunkout classes while meeting pre-health sciences pre-reqs

Parents Forum
1

<p>My D is potentially interested in physical therapy or occupational therapy or another health sciences field. PT in particular requires a lot of science classes - bio, chem, physics. She is a good science student (particularly bio), but dislikes and doesn’t do as well in math. </p>

<p>She is only a HS sophomore now, so we’ve got lots of time, but I’m starting to think about what colleges she should start visiting. The health sciences programs are generally graduate programs, so for selecting an undergrad school we just have to think about meeting the pre-reqs. At this point, she has no preferences regarding urban/rural, big/small, although she has expressed a desire to avoid women’s colleges. Assume for this exercise that she would major in a social science (psychology, sociology, etc.), not a hard science, although she has no idea yet what she wants to major in. </p>

<p>What is the best way to meet the health science pre-reqs while avoiding the pre-med flunkout classes? Taking some of the classes at community college during the summer is an obvious possibility. But excluding that option for now, what type of undergrad school should she attend? </p>

<p>She doesn’t want to go into medicine, so there seems to be no point to taking super-tough pre-med weeder classes. She something of a perfectionist, and I can imagine that doing poorly in a killer early college science class could have an outsized impact on her.</p>

<p>Large public universities are notorious for having very tough, demoralizing intro bio and chem classes, to weed out the pre-meds early. But do they also typically have separate bio/chem tracks for the non-pre-med health science students? </p>

<p>Smaller private schools tend to be more supportive. But are their intro bio and chem classes also pre-med flunkouts? Smaller schools would be less likely to offer multiple bio and chem tracks.</p>

<p>Should she attend a less selective school than the best she could get into, so that she will be in the top range of students, and hence be able to do well at the flunkout classes?</p>

<p>Or will less selective schools have less of a support system and resources, and lower graduation rates?</p>

<p>Any CC wisdom from the other parents?</p>

2

<p>Perhaps apply to a combined BS/DPT program. This might take off some of the pressure.</p>

3

<p>My S is a freshman - Biochemistry major on a pre med track. VERY tough. </p>

<p>UMKC (University of Missouri - Kansas City) has a very interesting medical program. They are one of the few (maybe 2 or 3 in the nation) that have a 6 year medical school - you go directly to med school & see patients as a freshman ! </p>

<p>They also have good physical therapy, etc programs. My nephew’s girlfriend graduated from Iowa State then started at UMKC.</p>

<p>Taking some classes at community college over the summer is a wonderful idea - make sure they transfer though. S’ college gave him partial credit for his dual credit from community college.</p>

<p>I agree that a general science program might be a good idea.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>I know that the weed out intro type courses common in the science field also exist in many private colleges. One former roommate who majored in bio at Tufts said over 60% of his intro bio class flunked at the end of the year. Several pre-med friends at Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, Brandeis, BC, and many other private colleges confirmed this in their respective schools. Seems to be common in schools where the science departments have a pre-med focus. </p>

<p>However, there are a few colleges where the weed out type courses don’t seem to exist. </p>

<p>For instance, none of the natural science majors or the extreme handful of pre-meds at Oberlin, my undergrad felt this was an issue…and Oberlin’s science programs are well-respected from what I heard from science faculty at various prestigious universities including a few Ivies. </p>

<p>Only thing to note is that Oberlin’s science programs tend to be more oriented towards training future research scientists which is borne out by the high numbers of science majors who end up going to PhD programs in their respective fields…including one double-degree friend who ended up at Harvard doing a PhD in biology.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>At this point, she isn’t confident enough about PT to do that. And there are relatively few schools that offer BS/DPT programs, so that would be very limiting. For now, I would want to keep all of her options open.</p>

6

<p>sacchi, the weeder classes aren’t specific to pre-meds…they’re usually the same intro science classes that other students can take as gen eds (but usually won’t!) and they’re also used to guage the ability and intent of the pre-pharms, pre-PTs, and all the other health and science BS/MS/first professional programs. There is stiff competition for seats in many of these programs and the intro classes get rid of the kids who aren’t really serious about putting in the work required to get there! They’re also pretty good at teaching freshmen how to approach the sciences and how to study effectively. </p>

<p>Taking the courses at a CC might be seen as taking a shortcut by the future adcoms reviewing her application. It’s one thing to have been matriculated at a CC and another to be enrolled at a 4-year school and deliberately avoiding the pre-req courses! After all, if they can’t master the intro classes at their college, how will they handle taking multiple advanced science classes all at once?</p>

<p>Imo, the weeder courses are still just intro courses and are most challenging for the kids who don’t devote the time needed. They weed out those who sleep through class, don’t study the material between classes or just don’t study efficiently, won’t ask for help, etc. There’s often have a low average on exams but profs often apply a curve so that those who can stay above average on the exams can wind up with at least a B. </p>

<p>One of the things that seems to help prep kids for doing well in these classes is to take the AP version in high school…which might be a good strategy for your D. In any case, if she’s a science kid and has a decent amount of determination and drive, she’ll likely be just fine. But have her choose her school - and her profs - carefully!</p>

7

<p>suggest you look to public colleges, but avoid the major research-Unis. For example, the Cal State Uni system instead of a UC campus. Or, the less competitive of the UC campuses. Sure, they’ll still have weedout Chem, but the competition for a B is less.</p>

8

<p>Agree with advice above.</p>

<p>It would help to know where you are in-state and any other parameters to keep in mind for suggesting where to visit. In CA, for example, I’d suggest you visit Cal Poly SLO and Long Beach, with both offer kinesiology — enough science requirements to be the entry way to PT or OT. I’d also look at USC which has an excellent research-oriented K program. </p>

<p>You could look at both university-based kinesiology programs, which tend to be smaller and more nurturing in atmosphere than the big all-encompassing Arts and Letters, or Letters-Science-Arts colleges at large universities. </p>

<p>You could also look for LACs that offer kinesiology (or LAC-like unis such as Rice). Some other LACs that offer kinesiology as a major are Occidental College (LA), Skidmore in NY, Colorado College. Look for those programs that make a point of guiding a student and helping them obtain clinical internships. Some offer courses that are explicitly pre-PT/OT and some have combined degree programs (see University of the Pacific). </p>

<p>For a h.s. sophomore, I’d also suggest just going to local PT businesses and ask if you can “shadow” for a day…hang out and watch how they work, what it’s like day to day to work in the profession. Some may offer student internships of some kind. Same with OT; if you know someone who would provide some mentorship, that would be ideal. </p>

<p>One quick way to look for what programs are offered by specific colleges is to go to the “College navigator” website. [College</a> Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/]College”>College Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics) </p>

<p>Type in the college name, then go to “programs” and look for kinesiology or exercise science…look to see if there’s also a graduate level PT or OT program, which would indicate they have research and other experiences to help guide UGs. The LACs that offer this major, while they don’t have grad programs, usually have partnerships with medical centers to provide students with research opportunities. </p>

<p>Happy searching!</p>

9

<p>^^^My daughter is a freshman at Cal Poly SLO in the Kinesiology ICS major (Individualized Course of Study) with a concentration toward Occupational Therapy.</p>

<p>[Health</a> Care Professions - Kinesiology Department - Cal Poly](<a href=“http://www.kinesiology.calpoly.edu/students/jobs/Health_Care_Professions.html]Health”>http://www.kinesiology.calpoly.edu/students/jobs/Health_Care_Professions.html)</p>

<p>At some point she’ll meet with a health professions advisor to make sure she’s getting the right pre-reqs that most OT grad programs require. The advisor is also there to help her with grad school apps, essays, etc.</p>

<p>As you probably already know, your daughter doesn’t have to major in Kinesiology or Exercise Science in order to be accepted to an OT program (if she were to go that direction). She can major in anything, ie; English or Women’s Studies for instance, but she’ll still need to get those pre-reqs. in. Some of those are science classes, as well as psych and sociology. Sometimes statistics, if I remember. It can vary, depending on the grad schools. You might want to check out some of the grad programs such as OT just to see what classes they require as an undergraduate.</p>

<p>My daughter was also accepted to USC Pre-OT with intentions of applying to their 5 year Bachelors to Masters OT program. However, it would have meant her taking out student loans. We felt that she could get a fine undergrad education at Cal Poly SLO and apply to a 2 year OT grad program later. It will still be cheaper than USC’s pricetag. She’s actually thinking of Boston University or maybe Tufts, among others back East. Those aren’t cheap, either! There are plenty of public schools who have MSOT programs, though. If she had chosen to attend University of the Pacific, she would have been in Sport Sciences with a Concentration in Sport Medicine (which is good for several health science careers, including OT.)</p>

<p>Best wishes to your daughter!</p>

10

<p>We are in NJ.</p>

<p>It wouldn’t be my preference for her to major in something like kinesiology or exercise science, but something more general, in case she doesn’t decide to ultimately go down the PT/OT path. As 2Leashes says above, you can major in anything, just so long as you meet the pre-reqs. </p>

<p>I would prefer her to start down a path where as many options as possible remain open.</p>

11

<p>sacchi, I know someone who majored in history and after graduating he went to his local community college to take all of the prereq. sciences needed/required to study PT in grad school.</p>

12

<p>The D is only a sophomore - isn’t it better to prepare for the weed out courses rather than to try to avoid them?</p>

13

<p>^ My thoughts exactly. I’m not sure someone who tries to avoid the “hard” classes such as chemistry will be able to successfully complete a graduate PT program. Sort of reminds me of my cousin, who avoided math and science classes as much as possible in HS because they were “too hard”, then was shocked when she had trouble getting into a nursing program.</p>

14

<p>^ The goal is not to avoid taking science classes, but to avoid the killer flunkout classes. It’s the difference between taking a class with difficult material, and taking a class with difficult material intentionally made to fail as many people as possible. </p>

<p>Someone above mention that 60% of people at Tufts fail the intro bio class (although I don’t personally know if that number is accurate). And these are people who were able to get accepted to Tufts! I’ll bet most of them would have been able to get A’s in a bio class taught at a CC or less selective 4-yr school, and do well in a PT program.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>I can assure you it is nothing close to such a number. If it were even close to true, Tufts wouldn’t have too many folks lining up to pay $55k per year to attend. :)</p>

<p>But as you investigate, you’ll find that many highly selective top research Unis do not offer a full year of Intro Bio/Chem that would be lower than that offered to premeds. Sure, they may offer Bio for poets…</p>

16

<p>^^</p>

<p>The former roommate who recounted the 60% failure rate in his intro bio class at the end of the year graduated from Tufts in the mid-'90s. It was hard for him to miss considering final grades for the entire class were posted publicly so he could clearly see the class grade distribution. </p>

<p>Believe me, I was in disbelief myself until it was confirmed by other Tufts science majors…including a cousin who mentioned similar figures in his intro chem courses who graduated as a Chemistry major in the mid-80’s. </p>

<p>Their confirmation was further reinforced when I had a milder taste of this in the two CS courses for majors I took at my private SLAC where around 30-50% flunked the course. </p>

<p>Nearly everyone of them said the high flunkout rates were due to the following factors:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Too many people declaring science majors hoping to enter med school without the adequate preparation, motivation, and/or willingness to put their nose to the grindstone as expected.</p></li>
<li><p>Science Profs’ desire to weed out as many unprepared, unmotivated, and those unwilling to put their nose to the grindstone. </p></li>
<li><p>Cutthroat competition driven by pre-meds who dominated the science departments there. Something which greatly annoyed non-pre-med majors like my cousin and former roommate. Incidentally, both ended up getting grad degrees at Tufts or Harvard respectively. </p></li>
<li><p>Wide variability in the quality of high school preparation even among those admitted to well-respected schools like Tufts. Similar phenomenon was reported and confirmed by high school classmates, relatives, and friends who attended or even taught/TAed other elite universities, including the Ivies or their peer institutions.</p></li>
</ol>

17

<p>I attended UConn in the 70s on a pre-vet track.</p>

<p>At that time, at that school, there were three tracks for the basic science courses … there was Bio (or chem, or organic, or physics) for pre-meds and bio (or etc) majors, there was bio for nursing and general science majors, and there was bio for non-majors, or bio for poets. </p>

<p>My suggestion to the OPs d would be to look for a school with several tracks and then stay out of the killer pre-med track if possible.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Classes are not designed to fail as many people as possible. Classes are designed to teach the material that a student should know after completion of the course. Take, for instance, Organic Chemistry – commonly a “weed-out” course for pre-med students. There are not special sections for pre-med majors vs. Chemistry majors, and the course material is going to be pretty much the same whether you take organic at a big state university or a small LAC. Organic chem is Organic chem. If a student can’t get through organic chem, they have IMO little chance of making it through medical school.</p>

<p>Similarly, if an engineering student can’t get through the lower level engineering courses, they won’t make it through the upper level courses.</p>

<p>I think you’ve got the cause/effect wrong. Courses aren’t designed to weed out students, rather students weed themselves out when they realize that they are struggling with a class that represents the expectations for future classes.</p>

19

<p>^I would have agreed with that premise, mrsref, until about a year ago when I was TA for a General Physics course at a State U. The Fall/Spring sections were primarily pre-pharmacy types, and the Spring/Fall sections were primarily engineering majors. Both covered the same material with the same text. The F/S exams were much more difficult than the S/F exams. Whether it was just a difference in the professors, or whether it was by intent in order to weed out the pre-pharms (which they did) I don’t know.</p>

20

<p>How are you judging that the F/S exams were more difficult? Class average?</p>