Would applying to your undergrad's med school generally give you a leg up than other pre-med students applying from other universities? Does it significantly raise your chances of getting in?
It varies greatly from school to school but generally yes.
@Goro, any idea why there is so much variation between top universities, such as WUSTL taking nearly 4x as many of its own as UChicago? I would have thought most places attached to top undergrads would want to take advantage of already feeling like home to scoop up all their best students, but some schools seem to really like fresh faces.
For example, 21% of WUSTL med students are from their undergrad, 19% for Northwestern, 16% for Vandy, 12% for UPenn and 8% for UChicago. There's a big range.
Does this account for accelerated BS/MD programs? Northwestern and Brown have large 7 year MD programs so many(/most?) of the matriculants from their respective UG institutions may not go through the regular admissions process.
@Goro, any idea why there is so much variation between top universities, such as WUSTL taking nearly 4x as many of its own as UChicago? I would have thought most places attached to top undergrads would want to take advantage of already feeling like home to scoop up all their best students, but some schools seem to really like fresh faces.
The schools that draw from their undergrad institutions have some of the best undergrad schools in the country. You're already selecting for some of the brightest people in undergrad and it's not too big of a stretch to say that they're competitive for the best med schools in the country if their trajectory continued.
University of Michigan LOVES its own undergrads (required as a state school to take around 50% instate): From 2014. My class of 177 has more than 1/4 from U of M undergrad that matriculated.
Process U of M % of U of M
Applications Rec'd 580 10.0%
Interview Offers 97 16.6%
Admissions Offers 64 16.9%
Matriculants 48 27.1%
Can't get to format, but you get the idea
I concur.
I believe that my alma mater has both a top 10 undergrad and a top 10 medical school. I believe that each year, >20% of the medical school class went to the same school for undergrad. Almost all of them share the following traits: 3.8+ GPA, 36+ MCAT, strong clinical ECs, leadership, and most importantly, strong research experiences with professors and medical school faculty affiliated with the university.
My undergrad is a major (possibly biggest) premed powerhouse in the country, and I am glad/thankful to be able to graduate from there and get into my top choice medical school.
I forgot about that. The state legislatures, as in TX and MI, mandate favoring IS applicants, so naturally, kids from a state school will get a leg up for their med school.
Right, and schools like UMich are incredibly great academic institutions for undergrad which makes it harder for smart students to go elsewhere since they get an great education for a fraction of the cost. And since they're so huge it makes sense that a good chunk of qualified students from that state end up there.
Right, and schools like UMich are incredibly great academic institutions for undergrad which makes it harder for smart students to go elsewhere since they get an great education for a fraction of the cost. And since they're so huge it makes sense that a good chunk of qualified students from that state end up there.
I honestly don't know if there's an IS bias for the CA schools because it's mandated, or just that the UG schools in CA are so good, and have so many grads, that they readily fill up the UCs, Stanford and USC. I get the sense that that case applies for Western and TUCOM-CA. As the very wise gyngyn has pointed out, UCLA grads alone could fill every medical school seat in the Golden State.
I always hear how tough it is to be a California premed, but doesn't that mean you get boosted chances at some really great med schools like UCSF, UCSD, UCLA? Sounds like a sweet deal to me
I didn't get an II from my alma mater at first. I wasn't exactly concerned about it since I am mostly wanting to get out and I already got offer at school around the same calibre. But my PI, who is an Med school faculty, found out that I didn't get an II, she felt rather strongly about it and said that was "unacceptable". She's the type of person who never fails to deliver. So I got an II. But be aware, a lot of time school will gave out II as courtesy to fellow faculties, but it doesn't help you with getting an offer.
Do you count as in state in cali after doing 4 years of UG there? PA has a rule that you have to work and have a domicile and being a full time student doesn't count.
Anecdotal evidence, but I go to one of the schools efle mentioned, and my classmate (3.8, 38, all the ECs) didn't even get a secondary from our own school. He is a super great person too :/
But I know Vandy is actually harder if you're a TN resident
No secondary with those stats?
There's something about him you don't know (IA etc.)
Isn't UCSF known for not giving secondaries to some people with super high stats? (because they are just really selective about giving secondaries in general)?
Only UCR has a strong regional (and thus, state) bias. Most of the CA schools even state on their websites that they have no preference for IS candidates. A few of the UC's would actually prefer OOS as long as they are better in some way than those that want to matriculate from here.I honestly don't know if there's an IS bias for the CA schools because it's mandated, or just that the UG schools in CA are so good, and have so many grads, that they readily fill up the UCs, Stanford and USC. I get the sense that that case applies for Western and TUCOM-CA. As the very wise gyngyn has pointed out, UCLA grads alone could fill every medical school seat in the Golden State.
But the % interviewed is much higher for in state according to MSAR (like double or triple for some of them) at all the UCs?
Because the feeder schools turn out so many highly competitive candidates. It's not a mandated thing, as the learned gyngyn has pointed out; it's just sheer numbers.
Maybe it's because the undergrads from top Cali school have higher MCATs relative to applicants from other states, since the kind of people who go to Stanford or Berkeley are more likely to kill the MCAT. Most states have 1 or 2 well-regarded schools at most - Cali has several prestigious ones + solid ones like Davis.That explains why there are more in state applicants. But it doesn't explain why in state applicants are offered interviews in greater proportion. UCLA interviews 12% of in state apps and 4% of out of state. That's a preference for out of state?! And top private schools like Stanford do not show this pattern, so it isn't as if California produces a greatly superior body of premeds to the rest of the nation.
Almost twice as many CA applicants are admitted to schools outside of CA. No other state produces a surplus this large. The ones we don't choose are more than good enough to be accepted all over the nation.That explains why there are more in state applicants. But it doesn't explain why in state applicants are offered interviews in greater proportion. UCLA interviews 12% of in state apps and 4% of out of state. That's a preference for out of state?! And top private schools like Stanford do not show this pattern, so it isn't as if California produces a greatly superior body of premeds to the rest of the nation.
Almost twice as many CA applicants are admitted to schools outside of CA. No other state produces a surplus this large. The ones we don't choose are more than good enough to be accepted all over the nation.
It is not only the quality of the IS pool but the quality of the OOS pool that most significantly influences interview offers.
Many of the OOS applicants are throwing Hail Marys,unfortunately.
You might be onto something there!Thanks for explaining that makes sense! Does this also mean that good private schools like USC and Stanford who maintain an even balance of instate and out of state are actually turning down more qualified Californians for the sake of state diversity?
They aren't weaker. They are just as strong, from another region and with a different life experience.Wow, that makes zero sense to me. I thought the diversity they were after involved different cultures and socioeconomic histories, not states of origin. Turning down a stronger applicant for a weaker one born beyond an imaginary line in the dirt does not compute.
I think this happens with top schools with top undergrads trying to preserve school diversity too. Seems like plenty of qualified applicants don't get into their own top 10 med school, but get into other top 10 programs. Private schools don't want to have like a third of their class from their own undergrad even if it's a very good undergrad, so I think this makes things more competitive in a sense.Thanks for explaining that makes sense! Does this also mean that good private schools like USC and Stanford who maintain an even balance of instate and out of state are actually turning down more qualified Californians for the sake of state diversity?
I think this happens with top schools with top undergrads trying to preserve school diversity too. Seems like plenty of qualified applicants don't get into their own top 10 med school, but get into other top 10 programs. Private schools don't want to have like a third of their class from their own undergrad even if it's a very good undergrad, so I think this makes things more competitive in a sense.
a quick search on my username solely reveals my imgur account.I don't think they actively prefer people from other top undergrads though. More like they only take the top 10% of their college because they're also accepting the top 10% at all the other Ivy etc.
The size of the class and the various programs at UCLA (Drew, Prime...) account for a very different type of diversity and mission compared to the class size and mission at Stanford. Both schools attract excellent candidates from IS and OOS.Ah, so it's only at UCLA and others which admit 2-3x as many Californians that there is a significant difference in the quality of in vs out of state applicant pools? Stanford's approx equal interview rates actually reflect equally competitive apps?
Right so even if they take the top set of applicants from each college, you probably have a lot more applicants from your own college, so the accepted proportion is a smaller number. Seems like if you go to a school with a top med school, demand to stay there is pretty high relative to demand to go to an equally ranked med school somewhere else. Still overall a bit of a bump applying to your own undergrad's school, but less than some people think, I think.I don't think they actively prefer people from other top undergrads though. More like they only take the top 10% of their college because they're also accepting the top 10% at all the other Ivy etc.
Not much.\
Do schools care enough about their acceptance percentages to offer a slightly weaker person they know would matriculate a spot rather than have to offer to 2 or 3 people who may be looking at other very good schools? I know that kind of BS happens a ton in undergrad with early decision and whatnot, but for med schools acceptance rate seems a less important metric
@Goro, any idea why there is so much variation between top universities, such as WUSTL taking nearly 4x as many of its own as UChicago? I would have thought most places attached to top undergrads would want to take advantage of already feeling like home to scoop up all their best students, but some schools seem to really like fresh faces.
90The size of the class and the various programs at UCLA (Drew, Prime...) account for a very different type of diversity and mission compared to the class size and mission at Stanford. Both schools attract excellent candidates from IS and OOS.
Stanford only has to fill 80 spots from among the nation's top applicants. It's not too tough.