Application Feedback School List

[jult24er]

School, result, year, feedback willingness

Case Western,,,yes
Drexel, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Georgetown, interviewed - rejected, 2007/2008, no
SLU, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Stony Brook,,,yes
Temple, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
UCI,,,yes
University of Kansas,,,yes
University of Maryland, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RySerr21]

most schools are willing to give feedback AFTER the application cycle. Are you sure thats not what they said?

 

[jult24er]

most schools are willing to give feedback AFTER the application cycle. Are you sure thats not what they said?

I asked all those schools after I applied in the 2007 / 2008 cycle, and they said no.

But I do hear a lot of talk on SDN about getting feedback, so im hoping some people who have gotten feedback will post ...

 

[batman1983]

Most the schools I asked for feedback refused to give it and the ones that said they would, usually sent me a generic letter that did not even apply to my app and essentially said do everything(research, volunteer w/underserved and abroad, take extra classes, etc), even though I had already done most of those things. The schools that I got meaningful advice from were UCI, Stony Brook, and Case. If you applied to those schools, I would recommend following up with them about your app. I would also recommend seeking feedback from other doctors and especially current med students.

The advice I got from each school varied. At UCI, they said that I did not have enough volunteer experience(even though I probably had >800hrs) since their avg matriculate had >1800hrs. I dont even know how that is possible for applicants straight out of college unless all they do in college is volunteer and study for classes, or take a yr off to do the Peace Corp or something. At Stony Brook, they said my app was weak because of a lack of research, timing of my application(I submitted my app in late Nov and interviewed in late Feb), and being an OOS. As for Case, they said that it was my lack of research since they have an "optional essay" in regards to research. However, they told me that their definition of research is not limited to academic based science research, and can include experiences from professional or academic based non science activities.

As for your app, when did you interview at those schools and what were your stats(GPA, MCAT, State of residency, ECs)? In my opinion, if you are not a URM and have GPA>3.5 and MCAT>32, I think the ECs are what will come into play, and AdComs apparently want lots of research and volunteering.

 

[jult24er]

Most the schools I asked for feedback refused to give it and the ones that said they would, usually sent me a generic letter that did not even apply to my app and essentially said do everything(research, volunteer w/underserved and abroad, take extra classes, etc), even though I had already done most of those things. The schools that I got meaningful advice from were UCI, Stony Brook, and Case. If you applied to those schools, I would recommend following up with them about your app. I would also recommend seeking feedback from other doctors and especially current med students.

The advice I got from each school varied. At UCI, they said that I did not have enough volunteer experience(even though I probably had >800hrs) since their avg matriculate had >1800hrs. I dont even know how that is possible for applicants straight out of college unless all they do in college is volunteer and study for classes, or take a yr off to do the Peace Corp or something. At Stony Brook, they said my app was weak because of a lack of research, timing of my application(I submitted my app in late Nov and interviewed in late Feb), and being an OOS. As for Case, they said that it was my lack of research since they have an "optional essay" in regards to research. However, they told me that their definition of research is not limited to academic based science research, and can include experiences from professional or academic based non science activities.

As for your app, when did you interview at those schools and what were your stats(GPA, MCAT, State of residency, ECs)? In my opinion, if you are not a URM and have GPA>3.5 and MCAT>32, I think the ECs are what will come into play, and AdComs apparently want lots of research and volunteering.

That is really interesting, thanks for the feedback. Props to those schools for being helpful. You were in-state for UCI? That is amazing that 800 hrs was considered weak.

Yeah, i'm not a URM and have >3.5, >32, i'm a Maryland resident. Volunteered with nurses at a Russian-speaking adult day care center, im teaching piano now at a health care / residential facility for the homeless. I probably dont have more than 500 total volunteer hours, and around 200 health-related.

Yeah, ive been following your app, congrats on all these acceptances this year!! thats awsome, must feel great. that new mcat score is stellar, must have helped you, congrats on the hard-work paying off.

 

[batman1983]

Thx for the congrats, and I hope you all the best too. I declared CA residency for all 3 attempts, and hence, probably have it the worst in terms of admissions (I still find it weird that Im getting invites as OOS to other state schools, but only 1 CA school).

For my app, I think the MCAT is what made a difference, along with applying slightly earlier. However, I feel that as a reapplicant, some AdComs are comparing my new app to my previous app from last yr, rather than consider it on its own merit against other applicants. Thus, within a yr timespan, it is hard to add much to your app. So, if you decide to reapply, I would recommend taking more than a yr off so that you add extensively to your ECs since it appears that the ECs are the only thing that might be considered “weak” on your app(I think they are good, but it seems like AdComs want certain activities and amounts of hours).

Personally, unless your GPA or MCAT is extraordinarily high, I would really recommend doing research if you havent. I know it sucks to do something that doesn’t necessarily appeal to you and you will probably end up doing grunt work that adds no real value, but that’s what AdComs want. I believe that if I had done research, when coupled with my current stats, I would have probably received more invites from top tier schools.

 

[Lukkie]

]The advice I got from each school varied. At UCI, they said that I did not have enough volunteer experience(even though I probably had >800hrs) since their avg matriculate had >1800hrs.

an AVERAGE of EIGHTEEN HUNDRED HOURS for volunteer experience?


i

 

[chemnerd89]

an AVERAGE of EIGHTEEN HUNDRED HOURS?

1800 hours = 75 days

Sounds fishy.

 

[Lukkie]

1800 hours = 75 days

Sounds fishy.

if you were to volunteer 10 hours a week, every week of the year, for 4 years before you applied, that puts you at 2080 hours, just about the average matriculant apparently

 

[RoyBasch]

University of Kansas provides a phone-interview with feedback before end of application cycle, just schedule an appointment. Truly a terrific service.
-Roy

 

[batman1983]

Yeh, I thought that number was absurded too. Either the person I talked to at UCI was just trying to find an excuse for rejecting me by giving me that number or ppl are really BSing their ECs. I was trying to figure out how ppl straight out of college could do that many hours unless they did nothing else but classwork and volunteer.

 

[Lukkie]

Yeh, I thought that number was absurded too. Either the person I talked to at UCI was just trying to find an excuse for rejecting me by giving me that number or ppl are really BSing their ECs. I was trying to figure out how ppl straight out of college could do that many hours unless they did nothing else but classwork and volunteer.

a lot of room for error also. maybe they included things like salaried clinical experience in that hour total too. someone who worked full time in hospice after finishing college, a rad tech, etc. SDN poster Quix for example applied with 7000+ hours of exp so just a few of these people can really skew the average.

 

[batman1983]

Case Western,,,yes
Drexel, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Georgetown, interviewed - rejected, 2007/2008, no
SLU, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Stony Brook,,,yes
Temple, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
UCI,,,yes
University of Kansas,,,yes
University of Maryland, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no

Btw, here is a list of schools that I tried to get feedback from, but that refused to assist me:

-Albert Einstein
-Georgetown
-Medical College Wisconsin
-New York Medical College
-Rosalind Franklin
-Tufts
-Tulane
-Uni of Southern California
-Uni of Wisconsin

I also got what I believe to be generic feedback letters from Penn State and SUNY Downstate that essentially said to do everything(take additional classes, volunteer more in clinical and non-clinical setting, and do research).

 

[jult24er]

Albert Einstein,,,no
Case Western,,,yes
Drexel, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Medical College Wisconsin,,,no
New York Medical College,,,no
Georgetown, interviewed - rejected, 2007/2008, no
Rosalind Franklin,,,no
SLU, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Stony Brook,,,yes
Temple, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Tufts,,,no
Tulane,,,no
UCI,,,yes
University of Kansas,,,yes
University of Maryland, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
University of Southern California,,,no
University of Wisconsin,,,no

 

[squrlgrl007]

duke 2008-2009 - No

 

[jult24er]

duke 2008-2009 - No

Thanks. sorry about this year. You got an interview at Duke, you must have something good going for you, hope you can figure out what you need to change, good luck next year!

Albert Einstein,,,no
Case Western,,,yes
Drexel, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Duke, interviewed - rejected, 2008/2009, no
Medical College Wisconsin,,,no
New York Medical College,,,no
Georgetown, interviewed - rejected, 2007/2008, no
Rosalind Franklin,,,no
SLU, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Stony Brook,,,yes
Temple, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Tufts,,,no
Tulane,,,no
UCI,,,yes
University of Kansas,,,yes
University of Maryland, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
University of Southern California,,,no
University of Wisconsin,,,no

 

[student1799]

I'm pretty surprised that schools where an applicant has actually interviewed would refuse to give feedback. You'd think if they cared enough to grant the interview, they'd talk to you.

 

[Myuu]

I propose the following rearrangement:

Yes:
Case Western Reserve University
SUNY Upstate
Stony Brook University
University of California, Irvine
University of Kansas


No:
Albert Einstein
Drexel University
Duke University
Georgetown University
Medical College of Wisconsin
New York Medical College
Rosalind Franklin University
St. Louis University
Temple University
Tufts University
Tulane University
University of Maryland
University of Southern California
University of Wisconsin

 

[jult24er]

I'm pretty surprised that schools where an applicant has actually interviewed would refuse to give feedback. You'd think if they cared enough to grant the interview, they'd talk to you.

Yeah, me too.

 

[jult24er]

I propose the following rearrangement:

Yes:
Case Western Reserve University
SUNY Upstate
Stony Brook University
University of California, Irvine
University of Kansas


No:
Albert Einstein
Drexel University
Duke University
Georgetown University
Medical College of Wisconsin
New York Medical College
Rosalind Franklin University
St. Louis University
Temple University
Tufts University
Tulane University
University of Maryland
University of Southern California
University of Wisconsin

I like it. But ... i think the year and the stage your application got to are relevant, if available ...

 

[Bahadur]

Hey everyone,

When you guys say "schools" are you referring to the admissions office/committee, interviewers or the entire school as a whole?

 

[batman1983]

Boston Uni, Vermont, and UCSF= no

 

[jult24er]

I think Albany is also a NO! I recall their rejection saying something about how you need to go to a premed advisor in your school and how they didn't do any advising.

I imagine that the answer to the earlier question about why a school says no to advising is as follows:

I believe that these schools get 1000s upon 1000s of applications and only take such a small percentage of their applicants. so they don't have time to be able to offer advice to everyone who is an applicant and therefore don't offer such.

I noticed the more applicants at a school, the less they offer advising. In other words, a lot of private schools get more then 10k applicants vs. less then half of that at state schools in many places. Therefore, those sorta schools would have too many people to talk to if they offered this service.

But that is my opinion.

That makes sense, but they could at least talk to applicants they interviewed and rejected ...

 

[student1799]

I think Albany is also a NO! I recall their rejection saying something about how you need to go to a premed advisor in your school and how they didn't do any advising.

I imagine that the answer to the earlier question about why a school says no to advising is as follows:

I believe that these schools get 1000s upon 1000s of applications and only take such a small percentage of their applicants. so they don't have time to be able to offer advice to everyone who is an applicant and therefore don't offer such.

I noticed the more applicants at a school, the less they offer advising. In other words, a lot of private schools get more then 10k applicants vs. less then half of that at state schools in many places. Therefore, those sorta schools would have too many people to talk to if they offered this service.

But that is my opinion.

I think your idea is logical. However, there is the added angle of state schools vs. private schools. It seems that most of the schools that do offer post-app counseling are state schools, and although no one has mentioned it so far, this service is generally offered only to IS applicants. (Although that's not to say that all state schools do this even for their own residents; Downstate, for one, is pretty explicit in their rejection letter that they don't, other than the generic letter another poster said they got.)

 

[jult24er]

Albert Einstein,,,no
Boston University,,,no
Case Western,,,yes
Drexel, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Duke, interviewed - rejected, 2008/2009, no
Medical College Wisconsin,,,no
New York Medical College,,,no
Georgetown, interviewed - rejected, 2007/2008, no
Rosalind Franklin,,,no
SLU, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Stony Brook,,,yes
Temple, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
Tufts,,,no
Tulane,,,no
UCI,,,yes
University of California San Fransisco,,,no
University of Kansas,,,yes
University of Maryland, interviewed - waitlist, 2007/2008, no
University of Southern California,,,no
University of Vermont,,,no
University of Wisconsin,,,no