ADCOMS: Demystifying the admissions process.

[johnnytest]

I'm curious about the following and I don't think I can find the answer to them anywhere else on the internet but SDN. So it would be great to hear the opinions of the great adcoms on here. Forgive me if I sound super naive in asking these questions but I think I speak for others that we would appreciate any answers to the following. Thanks!

@Goro, @gyngyn, @LizzyM

- How many apps do you review at a given time and for how long?

-Who is the person that determines IIs? Does the Dean get the final word or any adcom member can deem an applicant II worthy? I assume it would be counterproductive to distribute apps only to have the Dean look over it again.

- Do you ever receive a pile full of superstar apps that you are compelled to offer IIs to almost all of them? Or does it work out to be a ratio such as 1/10 receives an II? How does this compare early on to later on in the cycle? Considering IIs left, seats left, competitiveness of applicants, etc. Concrete examples would be great.

-How objective is this process and when and how can subjectivity play a beneficial role in an applicant's outcome?

-Do you ever rescind an II (in your mind)? For example, you read one app and you think they are II-worthy but then you read 2-3 more which blow the first out of the water? Do you rescind the first II or do all receive IIs? I think it would be difficult for me to read apps in succession and then have one application give me doubts on whether a previous applicant should receive II or not? Maybe because I'm not trained for this and my rationale for this process is way off.

-At the interview level, I can imagine at this point in the game all the applicants are amazing and have prepared for their interview. Barring outliers, how do most interviewees perform? How do adcoms choose who to accept when the race is so close between apps? What is most important to adcoms? Is it school fit or something much more subtle?

-With the exception of MMI, how is an applicant scored at your institution? If the score is quantitative then is there a cut-off? How stringent is that cut-off? Can the Dean overturn anything?

-How are applicants reviewed at adcom meetings post-II? How's the dialogue? For some reason, I picture a conference room with a projector show-casing the basic info, stats, etc of each applicant and the interviewer(s) comment on their II performance and then a decision is made.

-At any point does the Dean say? "Okay everyone, almost all our seats have been given out so from here on out only consider the best and brightest?" I'm asking this because every one says as the cycle winds down adcoms are more picky and competition for the last few seats are extremely fierce. Where does that "pickyness" come from? I imagine someone has to at least convey the status of seats left.

-Are you allowed to miss an adcom meeting? How do absences affect, if at all, the final decision-making process? Are there tie-breakers?

-Do you have any regrets while going through this process? Whether it be IIs, acceptances, rejections, waitlists, etc.

-Does the admissions process change every year? Do adcoms fill out surveys and suggest how to improve the admissions process or anything like that?

-Has an applicant ever interviewed for a spot solely on the waitlist?

Crazy list I know... and I'm just getting started.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Osteoth]

Will really depend on the school for almost all of this.

 

[godawg300]

Depends on the school. I've interviewed at many schools and can tell you that it varies by school. Getting an answer from any Adcom will only apply to their school most likely.

 

[partypantss]

unfortunately, it seems the only way to really "demystify" the process would be to learn the inner workings of the admissions committee of every school that you apply to.. which is never going to happen.

 

[LizzyM]

- How many apps do you review at a given time and for how long?

My school has a first reviewer and second reviewer system. As a first reviewer, I received 20-30 applications every 2 weeks. I pretty much had to review 2 per day every day and sometimes extra on weekends. Each review took 20-30 minutes and was in addition to my regular workload.

As a second reviewer, applications flowed to me from multiple first reviewers. when they arrived was unpredictable but amounted to ~800 over the course of 18 weeks so you do the math... Again, I had about 2 wks to turn around an application.

-Who is the person that determines IIs? Does the Dean get the final word or any adcom member can deem an applicant II worthy? I assume it would be counterproductive to distribute apps only to have the Dean look over it again.

At my school, one person holds all the interview invitations and sends them out based on the recommendations of the reviewers with some applicants recommended by the reviewers not getting invitations because there are not enough for all the worthy applicants. Having one person holding the invitations also provides a way to adjust for biases within the reviewer pairs, some reviewers are more lenient, or more strict, than others.

- Do you ever receive a pile full of superstar apps that you are compelled to offer IIs to almost all of them? Or does it work out to be a ratio such as 1/10 receives an II? How does this compare early on to later on in the cycle? Considering IIs left, seats left, competitiveness of applicants, etc. Concrete examples would be great.

Every applicant is judged using a rubric. Most of us find we can't do more than two or three in a sitting as we begin to make comparisions where we should only be judging the applicant against the rubric. Long ago we didn't have a running tally of the proportion recommended, highly recommended, etc but later we did have this information. I know I'm judging more to be worthy of interview than we have room for but I leave it to the Big Boss to decide how to make the final cuts.

-How objective is this process and when and how can subjectivity play a beneficial role in an applicant's outcome?

Subjectivity tends to be attenuated by the multiple layers of review. I may have a soft spot for one type of applicant and someone else has a different bias but at the end of the day, my subjective assessment may be balanced out by someone else's subjective assessment that suffers from a different set of biases.

-Do you ever rescind an II (in your mind)? For example, you read one app and you think they are II-worthy but then you read 2-3 more which blow the first out of the water? Do you rescind the first II or do all receive IIs? I think it would be difficult for me to read apps in succession and then have one application give me doubts on whether a previous applicant should receive II or not? Maybe because I'm not trained for this and my rationale for this process is way off.

You make a decision on one and move on. The decision made cannot be revoked. It is the only way to make this work.

-At the interview level, I can imagine at this point in the game all the applicants are amazing and have prepared for their interview. Barring outliers, how do most interviewees perform? How do adcoms choose who to accept when the race is so close between apps? What is most important to adcoms? Is it school fit or something much more subtle?

About 10% of the applicants are really terrible at interview time and it is not difficult to decide that they should not be admitted. About 10% are exceptionally good on paper and exceptionally good in person and we (and many other schools) admit them and hope that a small proportion will choose our school over all the other options. That leaves 80% of the applicants who we slice and dice based on the paper application (mostly grades and scores with some consideration for experiences and LORs) and the interview performance to come up with the list of those we can admit (given constraints of maximum class size) and the remainder who will be waitlisted.

I'm worn out at this point so that's all I can do today.

 

[deleted158872]

About 10% of the applicants are really terrible at interview time and it is not difficult to decide that they should not be admitted.

How do you define "terrible"?
how about applicants who are good on papers but mediocre at interviews? and those who look "just okay" (made it to the interview) on paper but great at interview?

 

[breakintheroof]

@johnnytest I love your curiosity. It's too tempting to wonder about all of this.

On another thread just now, @NickNaylor happened to offer a window into his school's committee room:

Everyone scores the applicants before the meeting, and the scores are displayed on a big screen in the meeting room. It is expected that scores might change depending on the discussion. Most of the discussion is holistic but each committee member "presents" a few applicants. That presentation acts as a very quick overview of the applicant and their strengths and weaknesses. Then, if necessary, discussion occurs. In some cases the scores are either so high or low that a consensus is evident and little discussion occurs. In other cases there is significantly more discussion - usually if there's a wide range of scores or if the person is very close to our "cutoff" score.

Also, I sometimes wonder if med school admissions look a little like top undergrad admissions, like at the beginning of this essay:

With so many accomplished applicants to choose from, we were looking for kids with something special, “PQs”—personal qualities—that were often revealed by the letters or essays. Kids who only had the numbers and the résumé were usually rejected: “no spark,” “not a team-builder,” “this is pretty much in the middle of the fairway for us.” One young person, who had piled up a truly insane quantity of extracurriculars and who submitted nine letters of recommendation, was felt to be “too intense.” On the other hand, the numbers and the résumé were clearly indispensable. I’d been told that successful applicants could either be “well-rounded” or “pointy”—outstanding in one particular way—but if they were pointy, they had to be really pointy: a musician whose audition tape had impressed the music department, a scientist who had won a national award.

 

[Goro]

I see anywhere from 2-5, depending upon how many people are interviewing that week. I read each one thoroughly, so I estimate I can spend at least 30 mins on each one.

- How many apps do you review at a given time and for how long?

Our wily old Admissions Dean!
-Who is the person that determines IIs?

The Dean sets the bar for the stats we want. He also reads every app and has the final say as to what the AdCom decides. We have been overruled, and we also, when we feel strongly for a candidate, will make him take someone who he normally would wait list.
Does the Dean get the final word or any adcom member can deem an applicant II worthy? I assume it would be counterproductive to distribute apps only to have the Dean look over it again.

One of the most common and annoying urban legends among pre-meds is that for some reason schools ration seats among candidates, or that for every two invited, only one gets a seat. This is how Yale handles tenure, but not how med schools handle admissions. We invite people who we think will make it here and if we think they're good, they all get acceptances.

The only time we start rationing seats is at the end of the cycle, because we can be more picky. In the early part of the cycle, it's more likely to offer acceptances, because those people will likely get in somewhere else if we don't take them. And yes, I've interviewed a panel of superstars, and accepted them all.

- Do you ever receive a pile full of superstar apps that you are compelled to offer IIs to almost all of them? Or does it work out to be a ratio such as 1/10 receives an II? How does this compare early on to later on in the cycle? Considering IIs left, seats left, competitiveness of applicants, etc. Concrete examples would be great.

You can't quantify "would I let this person touch my child? My mom?" or "Do I want his person as a student? A colleague?" It can be subjective because one interviewer may hate a candidate, and the other interviewer might love him/her.
-How objective is this process and when and how can subjectivity play a beneficial role in an applicant's outcome?

Only once in 10+ years have I ever made an acceptance that I then went to the committee and said "I'm changing my vote on this. I think it's happened 1-2 other times with other candidates, mostly because we find out something that we didn't know (something negative). No, I can't give examples.

-Do you ever rescind an II (in your mind)? For example, you read one app and you think they are II-worthy but then you read 2-3 more which blow the first out of the water? Do you rescind the first II or do all receive IIs? I think it would be difficult for me to read apps in succession and then have one application give me doubts on whether a previous applicant should receive II or not? Maybe because I'm not trained for this and my rationale for this process is way off.

It varies. I can have a panel full of duds, or one of studs. I'm a hard-ass and so I typically accept 4 and wait list one.
-At the interview level, I can imagine at this point in the game all the applicants are amazing and have prepared for their interview. Barring outliers, how do most interviewees perform?

We accept them if they're good.
How do adcoms choose who to accept when the race is so close between apps?

We look for people who will make good students and good doctors.
What is most important to adcoms? Is it school fit or something much more subtle?

I can't get into this without compromising myself. Let's just say votes are taken.
-With the exception of MMI, how is an applicant scored at your institution? If the score is quantitative then is there a cut-off? How stringent is that cut-off?

Yup! It's his school. The Dean at CCOM, for example, LIKES high MCAT scores.
Can the Dean overturn anything?

We have their files, our comments and discuss discordant votes.
-How are applicants reviewed at adcom meetings post-II? How's the dialogue? For some reason, I picture a conference room with a projector show-casing the basic info, stats, etc of each applicant and the interviewer(s) comment on their II performance and then a decision is made.

Late in the cycle this happens...starting around Mar/Apr. I predict that it will happen by end of Feb this cycle, because apps are up and the quality of candidates have gotten better. Pickiness means we look at stats and osteopathic interest more closely. So, for my school, having a DO LOR and shadowing a DO is a plus, especially late in the game.

-At any point does the Dean say? "Okay everyone, almost all our seats have been given out so from here on out only consider the best and brightest?" I'm asking this because every one says as the cycle winds down adcoms are more picky and competition for the last few seats are extremely fierce. Where does that "pickyness" come from? I imagine someone has to at least convey the status of seats left.

Yes.
-Are you allowed to miss an adcom meeting?

If I really, really like someone, but my fellow interviewer doesn't, and I don't come to the meeting, what do you think will happen?
How do absences affect, if at all, the final decision-making process?

No
Are there tie-breakers?

Because we're human, it's an imperfect process. Poor students do get through our force fields.
-Do you have any regrets while going through this process? Whether it be IIs, acceptances, rejections, waitlists, etc.

We're getting more and more data driven. We actually tons of data, but mining it is a really a full time job!
-Does the admissions process change every year? Do adcoms fill out surveys and suggest how to improve the admissions process or anything like that?

Not at my school, but it does happen at others.
-Has an applicant ever interviewed for a spot solely on the waitlist?

 

[Goro]

If I may poach upon your question to my learned colleague, I posted elsewhere at length about bombing interviews. Basically, don't be a babbling idiot, a poor listener, fail to make eye contact, and don't act like you'd rather be someplace else, for starters.

How do you define "terrible"?

These tend to get wait listed. Sometimes something spectacular in their app may save them to an acceptance, or keep them at wait list status.
how about applicants who are good on papers but mediocre at interviews? and those who look "just okay" (made it to the interview) on paper but great at interview?

 

[LizzyM]

How do you define "terrible"?
how about applicants who are good on papers but mediocre at interviews? and those who look "just okay" (made it to the interview) on paper but great at interview?

Terrible: creepy, scary, condescending and rude to the staff, aggressive to the point of unpleasantness, poor verbal and non-verbal communication (monosyllabic answers, no eye contact).

We don't interview anyone who isn't good on paper. We sometimes have someone who is not great on paper (but good enough) but who impresses everyone at the interview. I just saw one of our alumni who fit that profile as an applicant. Some of these applicants are admitted and do well and make us proud.

 

[ftp902]

Terrible: creepy, scary, condescending and rude to the staff, aggressive to the point of unpleasantness, poor verbal and non-verbal communication (monosyllabic answers, no eye contact).

We don't interview anyone who isn't good on paper. We sometimes have someone who is not great on paper (but good enough) but who impresses everyone at the interview. I just saw one of our alumni who fit that profile as an applicant. Some of these applicants are admitted and do well and make us proud.

I personally haven't seen anyone like that through my interview trails though.. Everyone seemed perfectly normal and friendly haha.

 

[LizzyM]

I personally haven't seen anyone like that through my interview trails though.. Everyone seemed perfectly normal and friendly haha.

You are lucky! They are rare birds and you may not spot them in the waiting area. Or they do not display there weird behavior in the presence of other applicants but act weird in someone's office such as pushing their chair very close to the interviewer's desk, putting both arms on the desk and staring at the interviewer in an unblinking manner. Or asking the Dean, "Have you been saved? Unless you've been saved by the blood of Jesus, you really can't understand what I'm talking about." Those guys might have looked completely normal to you on the interview trail but not to us.

 

[partypantss]

I personally haven't seen anyone like that through my interview trails though.. Everyone seemed perfectly normal and friendly haha.

I imagine some people may get really weird in an interview setting, but seem perfectly normal in a casual conversation.

 

[ridethecliche]

Subjectivity tends to be attenuated by the multiple layers of review. I may have a soft spot for one type of applicant and someone else has a different bias but at the end of the day, my subjective assessment may be balanced out by someone else's subjective assessment that suffers from a different set of biases.

This is an incredible post and should be recalled by others in the future for when they work with others. We all have our biases and it's great to recognize this and work with people with different sets of experiences and thus biases to function well in a team.

Thanks for the insight!

 

[Goro]

I'd LOVE to see someone try that at Einstein or the Touros!

Or asking the Dean, "Have you been saved? Unless you've been saved by the blood of Jesus, you really can't understand what I'm talking about."

 

[pharmolu]

@Goro and @LizzyM, what are questions that are considered red flags when the applicant are unable to answer? I know the "why medicine" is a classic, but what are some others?

 

[johnnytest]

@Goro and @LizzyM

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer the questions. Truly appreciate it!!

 

[Goro]

Unable to answer as in staring at the interviewer like a deer in the headlights? Or unable to answer as in "Can you name for me all the hexoses?"

Sometime a hard question deserves a "I don't know", but you should be able to even BS something for a question as inane as "how does your hobby of ___ relate to medicine?"

You're expected to be able to articulate.

@Goro and @LizzyM, what are questions that are considered red flags when the applicant are unable to answer? I know the "why medicine" is a classic, but what are some others?

 

[LizzyM]

what are questions that are considered red flags when the applicant are unable to answer?

"Can you tell me about yourself?"

 

[Spirit of the Student Doc]

You are lucky! They are rare birds and you may not spot them in the waiting area. Or they do not display their weird behavior in the presence of other applicants but act weird in someone's office such as pushing their chair very close to the interviewer's desk, putting both arms on the desk and staring at the interviewer in an unblinking manner. Or asking the Dean, "Have you been saved? Unless you've been saved by the blood of Jesus, you really can't understand what I'm talking about." Those guys might have looked completely normal to you on the interview trail but not to us.

This sounds frightening. I don't know how I would handle that situation.

As for the underlined, it sounds more annoying and weird than anything. I think I would start off annoyed. Then upset. Finally I would probably ask them to leave. I'm sorry, you can't tell people to just get out.
-Also, I just finished up a Bio course with a classmate like that and I have to say we all pretty much hated her. Let's just say her opinion on evolution..............

 

[ridethecliche]

I'd LOVE to see someone try that at Einstein or the Touros!

Or asking the Dean, "Have you been saved? Unless you've been saved by the blood of Jesus, you really can't understand what I'm talking about."

What about at liberty?

 

[3108]

I wholly expected this thread to go unanswered because of the sheer amount of questions asked by the OP, but you all have proved me wrong in the best way possible! Thanks @LizzyM @Goro

 

[deleted158872]

What about at liberty?

LUCOM

 

[jb94mg]

Unable to answer as in staring at the interviewer like a deer in the headlights? Or unable to answer as in "Can you name for me all the hexoses?"

Sometime a hard question deserves a "I don't know", but you should be able to even BS something for a question as inane as "how does your hobby of ___ relate to medicine?"

You're expected to be able to articulate.

Is that a common interview question?

 

[Goro]

Not at all, but I was referring to pharmalou's question...s/he didn't specify what was they were getting at.

Is that a common interview question?

 

[pharmolu]

Unable to answer as in staring at the interviewer like a deer in the headlights? Or unable to answer as in "Can you name for me all the hexoses?"

Sometime a hard question deserves a "I don't know", but you should be able to even BS something for a question as inane as "how does your hobby of ___ relate to medicine?"

You're expected to be able to articulate.

"Can you tell me about yourself?"

thanks guys! And to goro, I was more so referring to a 'deer in headlights' situation, in that the question was similar to LizzyM's example and 'I don't know' would not be a valid answer. But I think get the gist of the situation, and I guess I should put my faith into other schools then. :/

 

[jsquared91]

What about at liberty?

automatic acceptance.

 

[RedPhys]

Is that a common interview question?

I wouldn't be surprised if stress interviewers like to ask something along those lines, just to see who freaks out and who keeps their calm, replying that they honestly don't know off the top of their head.

 

[Spirit of the Student Doc]

I wouldn't be surprised if stress interviewers like to ask something along those lines, just to see who freaks out and who keeps their calm, replying that they honestly don't know off the top of their head.

I've heard the key is to admit you don't know, but then say something along the lines that you'll/can? get back to them on that (with I assume actual follow up or your offer is laughed off) something like that though.

 

[584376]

I've heard the key is to admit you don't know, but then say something along the lines that you'll/can? get back to them on that (with I assume actual follow up or your offer is laughed off) something like that though.

I have a friend who applied to the 2013 cycle. He was asked a general question about glycolysis during his interview at a state medical school. From what he told me, he had no idea how to answer and was annoyed to even be asked something like that during an interview. He was waitlisted. Luckily, he did matriculate somewhere else, but I think his interview may have been more of a success if he had just relaxed and given it a shot or admitted he did not know the answer without seeming perturbed (I'm just guessing, but I bet how off-put he was by that question was obvious to his interviewer).

 

[RedPhys]

I've heard the key is to admit you don't know, but then say something along the lines that you'll/can? get back to them on that (with I assume actual follow up or your offer is laughed off) something like that though.

Indeed. My own experience in interviewing had me with an interviewer asking for more information on a brief application I mentioned about my research. I replied with what I knew, but made to preface and end it with something along the lines of that not being what I specifically studied (merely that it was an interesting and noteworthy point I read about in a paper) and/or that it what was I recalled to the best of my abilities.

The bottom line being, that you should not feel pressed about not knowing some random fact. It shows maturity that you can admit that you don't know or remember some random fact.