MD 36/3.75 Chances

[HawksWin]

I'm a long time lurker on this website but never posted anything. I'm applying the upcoming cycle to med school and I'm starting to get worried about my app.

MCAT: 36 (14ps 11vr 11bs)
GPA: 3.75 (maybe 3.8 when I apply)
Science GPA:3.6 (hoping to raise it to 3.7 by the time I apply)
Majoring in EE at a top 10 school.
IL resident

Thinking of applying to all the top private schools + all the schools in IL, so about 25 schools total. Is that a reasonable set of schools? Is it irrational for me to reach for the stars if I haven't done anything really impressive? I feel like I've done a lot of things well but nothing that will make anyone's jaw drop.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MrMe123]

Thinking of applying to all the top private schools + all the schools in IL, so about 25 schools total. Is that a reasonable set of schools? Is it irrational for me to reach for the stars if I haven't done anything really impressive? I feel like I've done a lot of things well but nothing that will make anyone's jaw drop.

This is a bad idea. You should apply broadly. Your stats are strong but they aren't so out there that it justifies applying to schools ranked 1-2o. This is how qualified applicants end up with no acceptances.

Do you have any clinical research? Teaching experience?

 

[HawksWin]

Yes I forgot to add I have ~200 hours teaching experience. I will apply to some other schools too with lower MCAT ranges to have a better chance of getting in somewhere.

 

[MrMe123]

Some non-20, non in-state schools that give OOS applicants good chances and would give you a more fair range stats wise:
Emory
Case Western
UVA
Boston U
Rochester
Brown (with your art and teaching exp)
Tufts
Mayo
Cleveland Clinic
Ohio State Uni

 

[HawksWin]

I was already intending to apply to a bunch of those. My tentative list right now is:

Illinois
Tufts
Case
Albert Einstein
Columbia
Harvard
BU
Pitt
NYU
Loyola
Northwestern
Mt Sinai
Rush
Brown
Cornell
Vandy
UChicago
Emory
Rosalind Franklin

Mostly reach schools but some I think I have a decent shot at.

 

[WedgeDawg]

I was already intending to apply to a bunch of those. My tentative list right now is:

Illinois
Tufts
Case
Albert Einstein
Columbia
Harvard
BU
Pitt
NYU
Loyola
Northwestern
Mt Sinai
Rush
Brown
Cornell
Vandy
UChicago
Emory
Rosalind Franklin

Mostly reach schools but some I think I have a decent shot at.

Let's parse out your list (n=19):

Reach (11):
Columbia
Harvard
Pitt
NYU
Northwestern
Sinai
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Chicago
Emory
Case Western

Target (4):
Einstein
BU
Brown
Illinois

"Safety" (4):
Tufts
Loyola
Rush
RFU

Now, because one definition of a Reach school is that it's so unpredictable to tell who will be interviewed and who will not, let's assume that you won't get interviews from any of them for a second (bear with me). Of your targets, you're likely to get an interview at Illinois and you have the potential for an interview at Einstein. You do not have a great shot at interviews at BU (high volume) or Brown (3% interview rate). Of your safeties, you'll probably get 2 interviews at Chicago schools. Let's assume between your matches and safeties, you'll get 3 interviews with a standard deviation of 1. If your reaches don't work out for you, you're not sitting in a very strong position.

Now, if we go to your reaches, let's look at your applicant profile.

You have an average MCAT for your reaches. You have a below-average GPA, but not by much. You have average research and shadowing experiences (though really all shadowing experience is "average"). You have below average volunteering and clinical volunteering. You have average teaching and work experiences. You have interesting but not standout other activities (athletics and arts). This basically makes you a slightly below-average applicant to top schools.

Now, there is a fair-to-good chance you'll get a couple (or more) interviews from your reaches, but given your current position, it's not something that you can count on.

Because of this, I would highly recommend applying to more schools in the target category. Consider schools like Rochester, USC-Keck, UVA, Wake Forest, Dartmouth, and Ohio State. You want to first maximize your chances of being interviewed and then maximize your chances of acceptances. Revising your list so that it's not so skewed will help.

 

[breakintheroof]

Let's parse out your list (n=19):

Reach (11):
Columbia
Harvard
Pitt
NYU
Northwestern
Sinai
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Chicago
Emory
Case Western

Target (4):
Einstein
BU
Brown
Illinois

"Safety" (4):
Tufts
Loyola
Rush
RFU

Now, because one definition of a Reach school is that it's so unpredictable to tell who will be interviewed and who will not, let's assume that you won't get interviews from any of them for a second (bear with me). Of your targets, you're likely to get an interview at Illinois and you have the potential for an interview at Einstein. You do not have a great shot at interviews at BU (high volume) or Brown (3% interview rate). Of your safeties, you'll probably get 2 interviews at Chicago schools. Let's assume between your matches and safeties, you'll get 3 interviews with a standard deviation of 1. If your reaches don't work out for you, you're not sitting in a very strong position.

Now, if we go to your reaches, let's look at your applicant profile.

You have an average MCAT for your reaches. You have a below-average GPA, but not by much. You have average research and shadowing experiences (though really all shadowing experience is "average"). You have below average volunteering and clinical volunteering. You have average teaching and work experiences. You have interesting but not standout other activities (athletics and arts). This basically makes you a slightly below-average applicant to top schools.

Now, there is a fair-to-good chance you'll get a couple (or more) interviews from your reaches, but given your current position, it's not something that you can count on.

Because of this, I would highly recommend applying to more schools in the target category. Consider schools like Rochester, USC-Keck, UVA, Wake Forest, Dartmouth, and Ohio State. You want to first maximize your chances of being interviewed and then maximize your chances of acceptances. Revising your list so that it's not so skewed will help.

Wedge, can you write a template for this, like an EMR flowsheet? It's just so clearly put.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Wedge, can you write a template for this, like an EMR flowsheet? It's just so clearly put.

Thanks!

I kind of use a mental template when I respond to these threads, but I think that a physical structured template would encourage the box-checking mindset that so many people have. Yes, there is a minimum level of engagement and aptitude you have to reach to be a competitive medical school applicant, but a "template for success" may discourage personal exploration beyond what are generally seen as the requirements to get into medical school. Rather then start from a template and say "have you done this, this this this this this and this?" I prefer to look at an applicant's profile, distill it to an "at a glance" collection of strengths and weaknesses, and than make a judgment about their competitiveness from that.

I would hypothesize that if you reviewed the results from a template-based approach compared to this approach, there wouldn't be a huge difference in terms of success, but if you forgo a template, you let the applicant (assuming they've reached a minimum level of competency) play to their own strengths without forcing them into a box that they might not want to be in.

 

[breakintheroof]

Thanks!

I kind of use a mental template when I respond to these threads, but I think that a physical structured template would encourage the box-checking mindset that so many people have. Yes, there is a minimum level of engagement and aptitude you have to reach to be a competitive medical school applicant, but a "template for success" may discourage personal exploration beyond what are generally seen as the requirements to get into medical school. Rather then start from a template and say "have you done this, this this this this this and this?" I prefer to look at an applicant's profile, distill it to an "at a glance" collection of strengths and weaknesses, and than make a judgment about their competitiveness from that.

I would hypothesize that if you reviewed the results from a template-based approach compared to this approach, there wouldn't be a huge difference in terms of success, but if you forgo a template, you let the applicant (assuming they've reached a minimum level of competency) play to their own strengths without forcing them into a box that they might not want to be in.

Oh yeah, I agree. I abhor the checklist mentality in what is ultimately a holistic process. We all do things just because they need to be done to be competitive (the MCAT for instance) but I would encourage many premeds to focus more on what they want to do.

Anyway, while I wasn't looking for an actual flowsheet for evaluating applications of course, I do think that there could be room for something resembling an algorithm when it comes to school lists. We sort of do this already with Table 25 and the MSAR. But a good analysis of projected interviews like you did can go a long way toward clarifying how to create a good list. In this part of the process, pragmatism should trump creativity.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Oh yeah, I agree. I abhor the checklist mentality in what is ultimately a holistic process. We all do things just because they need to be done to be competitive (the MCAT for instance) but I would encourage many premeds to focus more on what they want to do.

Anyway, while I wasn't looking for an actual flowsheet for evaluating applications of course, I do think that there could be room for something resembling an algorithm when it comes to school lists. We sort of do this already with Table 25 and the MSAR. But a good analysis of projected interviews like you did can go a long way toward clarifying how to create a good list. In this part of the process, pragmatism should trump creativity.

If you are be interested in actually trying to create this algorithm, I would be game.

 

[breakintheroof]

If you are be interested in actually trying to create this algorithm, I would be game.

Ha ha, as usual I've bitten off more than I could chew. I'd just love to try to get the point across somehow that one should create a school list with interview and acceptance rates in mind. Ultimately the recommendations we make have to be holistic, just as adcom decisions are.

People like OP should carefully evaluate, "What are my chances of being one of the few people whom this school admits? And if I am one of them, under what circumstances (i.e., other acceptances) would I attend?"