Do you real have to be a superstar to get into a top-tier med school?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Let's say someone has a 4.0 gpa, 35+ MCAT, 100 hours of shadowing, 300 hours of clinical volunteering, 300 hours of various non-clinical volunteering, above average research, 2-3 leadership positions, 2-3 ways of being involved on campus, some sort of employment, good letters of recommendation, a few interesting hobbies, decent interview skills, above average essays/personal statement, applies early, etc. Will they usually get into several top 10 medical schools?

Or do they need to have some sort of "hook" like founding a Non-profit organization, being the captain of their school's varsity sports team, or winning some sort of competition? etc..

Originally Posted by jd989898

Let's say someone has a 4.0 gpa, 35+ MCAT, 100 hours of shadowing, 300 hours of clinical volunteering, 300 hours of various non-clinical volunteering, above average research, 2-3 leadership positions, 2-3 ways of being involved on campus, some sort of employment, good letters of recommendation, has a few interesting hobbies, decent interview skills, writes above average essays/personal statement, applies early, etc. Will they usually get into several top 10 medical schools?

Or do they need to have some sort of "hook" like founding a Non-profit organization, or being the captain of their school's varsity sports team, or winning some sort of competition? etc..

What you've listed is a superstar applicant everywhere but SDN. Multiple top 10 acceptances? That's probably a stretch though.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

Only 35 on the MCAT?

Sounds rather unremarkable to me.

You've just described the average CA matriculant (only a slight overstatement).

Originally Posted by jd989898

Let's say someone has a 4.0 gpa, 35+ MCAT, 100 hours of shadowing, 300 hours of clinical volunteering, 300 hours of various non-clinical volunteering, above average research, 2-3 leadership positions, 2-3 ways of being involved on campus, some sort of employment, good letters of recommendation, a few interesting hobbies, decent interview skills, above average essays/personal statement, applies early, etc. Will they usually get into several top 10 medical schools?

Or do they need to have some sort of "hook" like founding a Non-profit organization, being the captain of their school's varsity sports team, or winning some sort of competition? etc..

My answer is yes. I had none of those things you mentioned other than a 3.9 gpa/34 and interview skills.

I had a hook with sports though and extremely meaningful clinical volunteering, and it has worked very well during my cycle. Hooks are a big deal in my estimation

Eh, maybe. But why be a superstar when you can be a regular star?

State school > Private

You couldn't pay me to go to Harvardesque name...well maybe you could. But I definitely wouldn't pay you.

Originally Posted by Bluto385

Eh, maybe. But why be a superstar when you can be a regular star?

State school > Private

You couldn't pay me to go to Harvardesque name...well maybe you could. But I definitely wouldn't pay you.

If you're a superstar on your Boards, it doesn't matter where you go.

Honestly its difficult even to get into a "lower"-tier medical school.. in the end your boards decide what kind of doctor you will become

Originally Posted by Hemorrage

Honestly its difficult even to get into a "lower"-tier medical school.. in the end your boards decide what kind of doctor you will become

Not sure I entirely agree with this .. Obviously I'm not speaking from experience, but my understanding is that students from "top tier" research-driven schools will have a much smoother ride into academic medicine than other schools. If your goal is academic medicine, to become a physician-scientist, or to go into a very competitive specialty, I believe it can be a bit more straightforward when you're at a nationally-renowned institution.

Back to the OP's question though, you should at least get interviews at top schools based on an application like that.

Originally Posted by red7

Not sure I entirely agree with this .. Obviously I'm not speaking from experience, but my understanding is that students from "top tier" research-driven schools will have a much smoother ride into academic medicine than other schools. If your goal is academic medicine, to become a physician-scientist, or to go into a very competitive specialty, I believe it can be a bit more straightforward when you're at a nationally-renowned institution.

Back to the OP's question though, you should at least get interviews at top schools based on an application like that.

You're arguing something different completely. Even students at top schools need good board scores to get places. Sure the road is smoother, but as the previous posters have said, everything is board score dependant.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

what is considered a top tier school? sorry if this is a dumb question, I'm curious in terms of ranking what is "top tier"

Originally Posted by heliscomo

what is considered a top tier school? sorry if this is a dumb question, I'm curious in terms of ranking what is "top tier"

Top tier = high research dollars

The public equates receiving hundreds of millions of research dollars as that school must be the best in the nation.

Any US medical school is a good school and will yield a doctor title.

Originally Posted by BABSstudent

Top tier = high research dollars

The public equates receiving hundreds of millions of research dollars as that school must be the best in the nation.

Any US medical school is a good school and will yield a doctor title.

I'd say the public's perception of a top tier school is a lot different than USNEWS's research-based rankings.

Schools like WUSL, Mt Sinai, Northwestern, UWashington, etc. might be known locally, but will get a "Who?" when it comes to the general public.

...Better yet, what qualifies as a superstar?

Originally Posted by Hemorrage

Honestly its difficult even to get into a "lower"-tier medical school.. in the end your boards decide what kind of doctor you will become

Please elaborate...

The fact that you're measuring things in hours doesn't bode well for a top 10 acceptance without an MCAT substantially higher than 35.

Originally Posted by i5hina

Please elaborate...

High stats for a lower tier school doesn't necessarily sky-rocket your chances of acceptance. Many of these schools live and die by their mission statement, and they choose applicants closely resembling this. Beyond a certain GPA/MCAT benchmark it doesn't really matter, hence why the number of secondary essays tend to increase as you go down the tiers (at least from my experience).

Originally Posted by Bluto385

High stats for a lower tier school doesn't necessarily sky-rocket your chances of acceptance. Many of these schools live and die by their mission statement, and they choose applicants closely resembling this. Beyond a certain GPA/MCAT benchmark it doesn't really matter.

A lot of lower tier schools will give high stat acceptances anyway because the applicant to matriculant ratio is irrelevant to them at the ranking they operate at, but a higher MCAT/GPA average is always beneficial

Originally Posted by Bearstronaut

A lot of lower tier schools will give high stat acceptances anyway because the applicant to matriculant ratio is irrelevant to them at the ranking they operate at, but a higher MCAT/GPA average is always beneficial

But with so many applicants to choose from why waste an interview/acceptance slot on someone who may not matriculate?

Originally Posted by Fivo

I'd say the public's perception of a top tier school is a lot different than USNEWS's research-based rankings.

Schools like WUSL, Mt Sinai, Northwestern, UWashington, etc. might be known locally, but will get a "Who?" when it comes to the general public.

Maybe it's because I'm from Illinois but I'd say it's pretty well known that Northwestern and Wash U are crazy good schools. I'd agree with you on those other two schools though. It's interesting to think about how a lot of people outside of the pre-med culture wouldn't recognize Mt Sinai as a prestigious Med School

Originally Posted by Josh7

Maybe it's because I'm from Illinois but I'd say it's pretty well known that Northwestern and Wash U are crazy good schools. I'd agree with you on those other two schools though. It's interesting to think about how a lot of people outside of the pre-med culture wouldn't recognize Mt Sinai as a prestigious Med School

Being from the NW, I could say it's well known that UWash rules and nobody knows about Northwestern or WashU. You're just proving his point.

Originally Posted by Josh7

Maybe it's because I'm from Illinois but I'd say it's pretty well known that Northwestern and Wash U are crazy good schools. I'd agree with you on those other two schools though. It's interesting to think about how a lot of people outside of the pre-med culture wouldn't recognize Mt Sinai as a prestigious Med School

I think that Northwestern is super well known.

Originally Posted by MedPR

You're arguing something different completely. Even students at top schools need good board scores to get places. Sure the road is smoother, but as the previous posters have said, everything is board score dependant.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using SDN Mobile

My understanding is that the board score helps to get the interview, but won't get you into the program - that's where your research, LORs, phone calls on your behalf, etc. will really count and these might be much more heavy-hitting coming from a school with a lot of research money and famous faculty. That's what I meant when I said that it doesn't all come down to board scores.

In any case, I think we can agree it's in everyone's interest to do as well as possible on the boards, and generally work hard throughout med school.

Edit: This is also waaaay off topic from the OP's post - sorry!

Originally Posted by mcloaf

Being from the NW, I could say it's well known that UWash rules and nobody knows about Northwestern or WashU. You're just proving his point.

Actually I was agreeing with him...

i can only share what i've seen from my undergrad and my peers who got into top 10 medical schools. I know around 10 of them fairly well, and below is a rough ballpark of their ECs and stats.

3.6 - 3.8 GPA
36 ish MCAT

Biology/Chemistry Majors

2-4 years of extensive research (both in the forms of independent study/lab assistant/employment
-always something to show for the research - papers, posters, presentations, etc
-strong LORs from research mentors (my school is well known for research, so those letters carry substantial weigh, especially to fellow top tiers)

Standard hospital volunteering (around 150 hrs, a few have leadership roles in this manner)
Some international or domestic community service (usually around a single summer)
Some other miscellaneous things like club leadership, newspaper/journal editors, etc.

THAT. IS. IT.

Originally Posted by Josh7

Actually I was agreeing with him...

Lol, not really (I.e. "but I'd agree with you about the others...").

Originally Posted by Bluto385

High stats for a lower tier school doesn't necessarily sky-rocket your chances of acceptance. Many of these schools live and die by their mission statement, and they choose applicants closely resembling this. Beyond a certain GPA/MCAT benchmark it doesn't really matter, hence why the number of secondary essays tend to increase as you go down the tiers (at least from my experience).

I disagree based on my own experience. I was accepted into a ton of schools where I don't fit their missions statement. I think even alot of schools that cater to more rural places still would like some students interested in research and would love students with very high stats.

Originally Posted by aspiring20

i can only share what i've seen from my undergrad and my peers who got into top 10 medical schools. I know around 10 of them fairly well, and below is a rough ballpark of their ECs and stats.

3.6 - 3.8 GPA
36 ish MCAT

Biology/Chemistry Majors

2-4 years of extensive research (both in the forms of independent study/lab assistant/employment
-always something to show for the research - papers, posters, presentations, etc
-strong LORs from research mentors (my school is well known for research, so those letters carry substantial weigh, especially to fellow top tiers)

Standard hospital volunteering (around 150 hrs, a few have leadership roles in this manner)
Some international or domestic community service (usually around a single summer)
Some other miscellaneous things like club leadership, newspaper/journal editors, etc.

THAT. IS. IT.

I like this post a lot but how do you mean by "that is it"? There's not enough information here to know if you are implying something here. You should add some kind of smiley here for the cyber awkward like me.

With the addition of a few interesting hobbies and background, i think the list looks good.
We are still young. What more do they want?

Originally Posted by Ichiban88

I like this post a lot but how do you mean by "that is it"? There's not enough information here to know if you are implying something here. You should add some kind of smiley here for the cyber awkward like me.

With the addition of a few interesting hobbies and background, i think the list looks good.
We are still young. What more do they want?

other than stats, i really dont think what i've described counts as a "superstar". Honestly, I view this as fairly typical, solid, and pedestrian ECs. But maybe I spend too much time on SDN. I really hope it's the latter.

Originally Posted by aspiring20

other than stats, i really dont think what i've described counts as a "superstar". Honestly, I view this as fairly typical, solid, and pedestrian ECs. But maybe I spend too much time on SDN. I really hope it's the latter.

I think good stats, great research and some typical ECs mixed with alittle luck can get you into a top 10. The thing is in research it can be hard to get those solid accomplishments sometimes

Originally Posted by Ichiban88

But with so many applicants to choose from why waste an interview/acceptance slot on someone who may not matriculate?

You seem to forget 50+% of matriculants are accepted off the waitlist. Harvard has the highest ratio of acceptances to matriculants, and it's about 60%.

Originally Posted by Bearstronaut

You seem to forget 50+% of matriculants are accepted off the waitlist. Harvard has the highest ratio of acceptances to matriculants, and it's about 60%.

Hmm I didn't know that about the matriculant rate and waitlist. Ic your point now. I am sold.

Originally Posted by sliceofbread136

I disagree based on my own experience. I was accepted into a ton of schools where I don't fit their missions statement. I think even alot of schools that cater to more rural places still would like some students interested in research and would love students with very high stats.

There are exceptions everywhere you look, but that is not the general rule. Candidates that are neither URM nor have stellar stats are routinely chosen in accordance with the mission statement at these schools. And even those with the high stats can be turned away if they in no way fit what the school is looking for.

Originally Posted by Ichiban88

Hmm I didn't know that about the matriculant rate and waitlist. Ic your point now. I am sold.

That was the dean at a top 10 school that said that. I don't necessarily know how true it is, but they were making a big deal about retention rates and that.

It's a hard to see point on SDN because the top students are obsessively followed and discussed (Tots, wangers, etc) while other applicants are mostly in or not in, and their future school is irrelevant to most. Then there's a lot of people who don't post all their stuff online, because showing how a 4.0 and a 40 got you into Harvard doesn't really help future applicants all that much

Originally Posted by sliceofbread136

I think good stats, great research and some typical ECs mixed with alittle luck can get you into a top 10. The thing is in research it can be hard to get those solid accomplishments sometimes

yeah i guess this makes sense. i understand how difficult it can get with research. i was involved with it for two years, and it was an eye-opening experience.

the only thing that i have going against me is relatively low sGPA and a minor institutional action. but seeing how so many people have had great success with situations much worse, i think i am getting more and more confident.

Originally Posted by aspiring20

yeah i guess this makes sense. i understand how difficult it can get with research. i was involved with it for two years, and it was an eye-opening experience.

the only thing that i have going against me is relatively low sGPA and a minor institutional action. but seeing how so many people have had great success with situations much worse, i think i am getting more and more confident.

I don't know your sGPA but don't worry too much about the IA. From your posts above, it looks like you are on the right track and very highly aspiring which is great! Top schools tend to be research schools and they like applicants with research but there are those on admissions boards who will keep selection factors in check and will be eager to look at your humanity side. Volunteering and clinical experiences can be strong foundations for conveying your personality and character.

Bluto385,

Thanks for the elaboration. Makes sense though.

Bluto385,

Thanks for the elaboration. Makes sense though.

Originally Posted by Bluto385

There are exceptions everywhere you look, but that is not the general rule. Candidates that are neither URM nor have stellar stats are routinely chosen in accordance with the mission statement at these schools. And even those with the high stats can be turned away if they in no way fit what the school is looking for.

Well of course they COULD be turned away. But I'm still not convinced that many of those schools don't give a significant boost for people with high stats, even if they don't fit their mission.

Originally Posted by Ichiban88

I don't know your sGPA but don't worry too much about the IA. From your posts above, it looks like you are on the right track and very highly aspiring which is great! Top schools tend to be research schools and they like applicants with research but there are those on admissions boards who will keep selection factors in check and will be eager to look at your humanity side. Volunteering and clinical experiences can be strong foundations for conveying your personality and character.

yeah...what's done is done, and there's nothing i can do to change the past. fortunately the IA is about as minor as it can get, so i got that in my favor. it is also comforting seeing how many members on SDN have had great success even with IAs to report.

Originally Posted by Bearstronaut

You seem to forget 50+% of matriculants are accepted off the waitlist. Harvard has the highest ratio of acceptances to matriculants, and it's about 60%.

Originally Posted by Bearstronaut

That was the dean at a top 10 school that said that. I don't necessarily know how true it is, but they were making a big deal about retention rates and that.

Here is the US News data on the top 10 schools by yield

Harvard's yield in 2011-2012 was 74%, and it was #10 on that list. It was the highest yield amongst private schools, with only state schools having a higher yield (notably, the University of Washington at 76.8%). Oklahoma State University and the University of Kansas were tied for first at 85.7%.

I would guess 40-50% is probably average for most schools, though.

Originally Posted by sliceofbread136

Well of course they COULD be turned away. But I'm still not convinced that many of those schools don't give a significant boost for people with high stats, even if they don't fit their mission.

Wherein lies the boost, then? It certainly isn't used to compensate for something that is clearly lacking in the candidate's essays, letters, or interviews.

There is a reason why these schools have a median MCAT that is significantly lower than middle tier schools, and it is not because there is any shortage of applicants with stats 4+ points above their average. If this boost were as significant as you suggest, then there would be a homogenous stat average among schools across the middle and lower tiers. The fact that this isn't true shows that these schools place much more value on a candidate's character through their secondary materials, personal statement, etc. Having a great numbers is always looked upon with favor, but not at the cost of overlooking other competent candidates fitting the mission more closely.

Originally Posted by Bluto385

Wherein lies the boost, then? It certainly isn't used to compensate for something that is clearly lacking in the candidate's essays, letters, or interviews.

There is a reason why these schools have a median MCAT that is significantly lower than middle tier schools, and it is not because there is any shortage of applicants with stats 4+ points above their average. If this boost were as significant as you suggest, then there would be a homogenous stat average among schools across the middle and lower tiers. The fact that this isn't true shows that these schools place much more value on a candidate's character through their secondary materials, personal statement, etc. Having a great numbers is always looked upon with favor, but not at the cost of overlooking other competent candidates fitting the mission more closely.

I think you're wrong about there not being a shortage of people 4 points higher, but we're also not talking about people with 33s and 34s. Probably 36+ is where the real advantages start.

Originally Posted by Bluto385

Wherein lies the boost, then? It certainly isn't used to compensate for something that is clearly lacking in the candidate's essays, letters, or interviews.

There is a reason why these schools have a median MCAT that is significantly lower than middle tier schools, and it is not because there is any shortage of applicants with stats 4+ points above their average. If this boost were as significant as you suggest, then there would be a homogenous stat average among schools across the middle and lower tiers. The fact that this isn't true shows that these schools place much more value on a candidate's character through their secondary materials, personal statement, etc. Having a great numbers is always looked upon with favor, but not at the cost of overlooking other competent candidates fitting the mission more closely.

Adding on to this, that it's been demonstrated scientifically that there is little different in academic performance once applicants score above something like a 27. LizzyM posts this somewhat regularly so maybe (s)he can post the actual study. It pretty much shoots a hole in the idea that the MCAT actually measures proficiency in something. Either that or the MCAT tests skills that aren't relevant in medical school.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Adding on to this, that it's been demonstrated scientifically that there is little different in academic performance once applicants score above something like a 27. LizzyM posts this somewhat regularly so maybe (s)he can post the actual study. It pretty much shoots a hole in the idea that the MCAT actually measures proficiency in something. Either that or the MCAT tests skills that aren't relevant in medical school.

Very high MCATs being favored likely has more to do with the school's potential reputation/ranking than it does with actual future academic performance.

Originally Posted by Bearstronaut

Very high MCATs being favored likely has more to do with the school's potential reputation/ranking than it does with actual future academic performance.

Exactly, which is hilarious given that the MCAT is so relatively useless.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Exactly, which is hilarious given that the MCAT is so relatively useless.

Everyone's a unique and beautiful snowflake, and the admissions process is the flame we're all inexorably drawn to

It's probably a feedback loop. High ranked schools promote their high rankings, the ranking services differentiate schools (and they differentiate themselves on their website) for how high their MCAT scores are... ambitious top and mid tier schools thus focus on these easily modifiable factors, cascades a bit, and there you go. Extracurriculars fall to an easily categorical wayside, since most curriculums don't leave you with the time to nation build in Africa or whatever it takes to be exceptional these days

Originally Posted by Bearstronaut

I think you're wrong about there not being a shortage of people 4 points higher, but we're also not talking about people with 33s and 34s. Probably 36+ is where the real advantages start.

With lower tier schools, I am talking about 33s and 34s which are roughly 4 points or more higher than the averages. Given the thousands of applicants that are continually turned down each year, there are no shortages of these numbers in the applicant pool. Now if someone with a 36+ started having real advantages, then that would manifest in an acceptance despite the candidate's stark deviation from the school's mission. I don't know of any data supporting this, do you?

Originally Posted by Fivo

I'd say the public's perception of a top tier school is a lot different than USNEWS's research-based rankings.

Schools like WUSL, Mt Sinai, Northwestern, UWashington, etc. might be known locally, but will get a "Who?" when it comes to the general public.

To be honest, I was a bit surprised that every time I mention NU I have gotten a "what's that?" Especially considering it's often regarded top 10 or at the very least top 20.

Also, since this was just on Comedy Central...

Gwen is impressed that Van is taking the initiative to get his life together. She then learns of Richard's setting up of Van, as well as his infidelity, and decides to take retribution. On the morning of Richard's MCAT and interview with Northwestern Medical School, Gwen laces his ritualistic protein shake with a powerful laxative. Since there are no bathroom breaks allowed during the test, Richard rushes through the 2-hour exam in 20 minutes, "dialing down the middle" towards the end and disgusting the other test-takers with frequent farting. Afterwards, just as he reaches the bathroom, he unexpectedly runs into the medical school interview committee. They pull him aside into an office to begin the interview and Richard ends up defecating explosively into a trash can right in front of them. He is briefly seen again in the film, reading Gwen's article in the school paper in the bathroom (presumably, his medical school dreams are ruined, as he mentions to Van in a deleted scene). Meanwhile, Van does well on his finals and celebrates his graduation with Gwen.[Source]

Scene

And I just now realized how logically incorrect this entire movie is regarding the admissions process.

As for Top 10 acceptances... it's variable. I know of several 3.7-4.0s and 34-38s with one or more acceptances to these schools, but I also know of several 3.7-4.0s and 34-38s with no acceptances anywhere. And a lot of them have very similar activities/interests (ECs are pretty average). I hate to say this, but sometime it just comes down to who read your application.

Originally Posted by Bearstronaut

Very high MCATs being favored likely has more to do with the school's potential reputation/ranking than it does with actual future academic performance.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Exactly, which is hilarious given that the MCAT is so relatively useless.

Agreed